klauss wrote:Except for the last part, which I don't fully follow, what you suggest basically turns gravity into a fuel sucker, and that's it. If the ship compensates for gravity by firing thrusters (it can, they're powerful enough), its only effect is to use up fuel.
Without air resistance - mostly, yes, as long as you can avoid collision, which reasonable approach velocity and a decent autopilot could do. With air resistance - it helps to set more interesting limitations, like the Reentry Corridor of Vulnerability, for one.
klauss wrote: Coding gravity support just for that is a waste of effort.
May be anyway, if a ready physics engine will make this trivial later.
klauss wrote: I agree gravity is a big missing concept, but I don't agree that its sole effect should be effect it has on fuel consumption, nor that full orbital maneuvering would be desirable.
Full orbital maneuvering takes so much time that it can't have much visible impact in relatively fast action settings of VS, Elite, etc. Basic orbital mechanics, though, is cool.
Stations not being stationary unless they're on a proper orbit is a neat little element, but the player is going to see only the net result: the thing changing its place on an elliptical orbit. Unless PC owns a station, in which case there are propelant (for correction) and radiator (shadow-light-shadow-light) considerations (predictable), and that's about it.
I don't think that gravity calculations are really necessary each tick as far as most of the big stuff (planets and most comets/big asteroids) is concerned, however. We know the next few millenia it will roll on along the same orbit, parameters of which we already know.
The convenient approach being "why waste CPU cycles on re-calculating a known near-unshakeable equilibrium? Black-box it."
Hicks wrote:I thought you would need to implement gravity anyways with the ogre engine and planetary flight? Same as air resistance/pressure.
No need to stop at constrains before there are any.
"
Ogre is a graphics engine, and only a graphics engine." - so there are various
addons binding physics engines to OGRE (as well as 3 different GUI listed, BTW).
The engines not having a
very specific purpose, as a matter of convenience, tend to allow the choice of what exactly the physical model does beyond the basic functionality, to save CPU cycles on unnecessary precision / features.
The Gangsta Wrapper (already working, but frozen), for example, allows to
choose your physics engine without changing the code.
That is, even after choosing the engine (needs good collision detection, doesn't need good joint dynamics and friction) supporting all necessary functions, it's possible to choose specifics of the physics model components in config - i.e.
per mod.
If we don't need a complex aerodynamics model, just basic air resistance F(V) or F(V, [tensor]) - so be it. If we also want basic lift function (using ready parameters, not messing with wing models) for aerospace/suborbital vehicles - again, fine. I already mentioned two options for gravity, ODE, for example,
leaves it up to user functions. As long as the physics engine covers these variants itself or via its own plugins.
pheonixstorm wrote:I think one real problem for planetary gravity would be trying to keep a stable orbit. The controls for using multiple thrusters just isn't there.
It's unnecessary. The pilot should think, navigation computer work.
I think about indication of a ship's current orbit, maybe eventual addition of choosing an orbit by setting these. But again, normal maneuvers are unreasonably slow if you got SPEC. It's more like lift-off, buzz away, reentry.
pheonixstorm wrote:Current spaecraft/stations have to keep firing thrusters to maintain orbital velocity and position while also having to keep
In what time? With an orbital station, we can roughly estimate orbital decay from height, calculate how much propellant it needs - let's say, per month (or year) - if they can spend it, they hold their place. Calculation of Pluto's influence on each comsat every tick is something we could live without even if while having basic orbital mechanics.
pheonixstorm wrote: If we added planetary gravity into the mix it would require a few extras. First being adding some type of pressure rating for various ships. Think about a small cargo ship not designed for atmospheric flight getting sucked into the gravity well of Jupiter.
Well, this too. Why not? I thought more about ship construction being limited to so much g, and inertial compensator or whatever keeping it within the limit of lifesupport (i.e. pilot, so
different per species). Got it broken? Accelerations are limited to a few g that won't splash you on a wall. IIRC, there was such a component in WC.
pheonixstorm wrote: Another aspect could be the affects of both gravity and atmosphere during combat. It would be a constant struggle between gravity pulling you down and the atmosphere slowing you down and burning you up. Not a good combo if your trying to dog fight on the fringe of atmo and space, but I would love to try it
Well, yeah - air combat is a challenge even for vehicles designed for it. So for most part spacecraft is better off leaving it to special aerial/suborbital forces. Which it can deploy, of course.
And that's not counting what atmosphere and magnetic field can do with most weapons intended for use in deep space.
Conversely, surface-based defence can use things unusable in vacuum, such as electron guns (fireworks are
bonus).