The Guns

[bengreenwood]

Hi,

I started playing Vega Strike a couple of months back, then stopped due to lots of uni work. But I'm getting back into it. now. I recently downloaded the 0.5 release, and it's awesome- it seems a lot more stable than the last version I played, with more awe-inspiring graphics. I'm enjoying just flying around, trading shit.

One thing that I think could be improved though- the weapons are a bit of a letdown compared to other stuff in the game. Your lasers seem kind of flickery when they fire. The sound effects aren't so great either. I think Elite on the Amiga had more satisfying graphics/ sound effects on the weapons. I dunno if anyone's played Homeworld but the weapons in that are spectacular. It'd be cool to have stuff a bit more impressive like those are.

So is there any chance they'll be improved? Also, how's about making it so that you can have an option to see your guns on your screen? That would look fearsome if you had one pointing forward from each of the four corners.

[Moe479]

well in PU (vegastrikemod) they r visible, in vs i think they lack a full set of weapon-models atm, and even then its likewise that it will destroy the look of some vessels cause some r not realy designed around a hardpoint-system

[Deus Siddis]

I whole-heartedly agree, besides ship/weapon balance/variety, this is the biggest gap in VS 0.5, the lack of any feeling of power or realism in the weapons, they just have no real aesthetic bite.

I think the problem is a limited expectation of how impressive these should look and sound as well as a total lack of understanding of just how much POWER is being delivered by these weapon systems. Cutting through the armor and reactive defenses of flying tanks and battleships requires more than just a 'phew-phew' laser thingy.

It requires something at least as LOUD, BRILLIANT, INSTANT and DESTRUCTIVE as lightning, modern cannons or experimental rail guns or multi-hundred pound bombs and nuclear weapons (think of VS torpedos as at least nuclear).

Here is what is needed:

1) Constant or strobe muzzle flash realtime lights should be used for all weapons. Heavy glowing or missile projectiles need realtime lights to illuminate anything within a close proximity. Beams should light up both user and at least the target as well.

2) Energy and Particle Weapons as well as Missile Thrust Trails should themselves be very bright, with an especially 'hot' core of almost pure white. Missiles especially need these trails for gameplay reasons, as they are already almost impossible to evade (try them against a friend in multiplayer).

3) More obvious Hit Effects. The shields lighting up is good, but weapons still don't have an obvious enough effect on their own when they hit a target, especially projectile guns. Small explosions, sparks and debri flying off, collision-precise scorch or damage marks added in realtime time to the diffuse, specular and/or normal textures (and then you can drop support for damage maps, imo).

4) White-out effect for weapons with damage measured in hundreds of thousands of MJs, like capship main guns and torpedoes. Depending on damage output, proximity and orientation, viewing one of these weapons in action should render most or all of the viewer's screen white, think modern nuclear weapons. Without this, these weapons look ridiculous given what they do, and it seriously screws with the sense of scale (makes capships and stations seem more like toys).

5) Burst or Pulsed beams. Beams look more like flashlights or searchlights with their long, lingering glow. Alot or even most should instead look like a lightning strike- brief and brilliant and deliver damage in the same fashion.

6) More High-Calibur Burst Guns. In the form of massive sphere's of ball lightning or large railguns shooting large nuclear or anti-matter projectiles, there needs to be more of these impressive weapons versus the plethora of mini-gun type rapid fire guns that are normally available. Think the green ball-lightning weapon the pirate corvettes shoot at you right now in 0.5.

[mortaneous]

I certainly agree that the obviousness of punch and variety are lacking, though I have some issues with certain parts of your suggestions:

1) A small muzzle flash is probably ok for projectile/particle weapons, not pure beams. Missiles, the flash should come at the tail of the weapon as it exits and would probably be just fine if you left it as a side effect of (2).

2) Visible beam brightness implies scattering... with no atmosphere and (hopefully) minimal debris, this just shouldn't happen in space unless it's a particle/projectile weapon where it's actual matter which can radiate. The beam dissipates at it's stated rate by getting wider as distance increases, not by losing energy out the sides as light so everyone can see it. Generally, you should just get glow from the barrel firing it and glow from targets it hits. Missile thrust trails would be great.

3) I agree with everything here. The shield-bubble lighting up is pretty obvious, but once you've knocked that down, it's tough to tell if you hit anything.

4)I'll agree with that for torpedoes and the impacts of those high multi-gigajoule weapons... just firing the capship beams into empty space falls under the realm of my issue with (2).

5) I would love to see some pulsed beam weapons... it actually wouldn't be too hard to hack those in currently by altering the refire delay and beam stability time for beam weapons. Additionally, except for the tractor beam, sub-capital vessels aside from special milspec variants shouldn't be able to mount beam arrays that are coherent for long times anyway. Keep them on pulsed weapons unless they manage to mount massive reactors for their size.

6) Sure, more variety is good, especially of decently powered guns... this will likely be easier with some of the proposed changes to how damage types are handled... without that, you can call it an anti-matter cannon or an ion gun, or a Hellbore for that matter, the damage would be applied all the same with the only difference being how much of it and what the projectile looks like.

[bengreenwood]

Yeah I don't think it would be that technically demanding to do something cool. Like I said even Homeworld 1 had some awesome-looking weapons, and that's 9 years old. The ion frigate's guns looked amazing.

Also when you fire a missile it'd be nice to see it up-close as it goes flying off, like you did in Elite on the Amiga. That looked pretty impressive.

[klauss]

That missile thing should be pretty easy, only editing the units.csv I believe (to change the initial exit velocity).

[bgaskey]

Generally, you should just get glow from the barrel firing it and glow from targets it hits.

Although realism demands invisible beams, the fact is they look sweet, and they need to stay in the game and look even sweeter, imo. Whats the point of firing your cool new gun if you can't see anything except a little dot where it strikes the target? Call it a projection on your HUD or whatever, of the sake of realism, but we can't remove visible beam weapons. Of course, that's just my opinion, but in this matter, I think cool-lookingness matters more to more people than realism.[/quote]

[bengreenwood]

Completely agree.

[Deus Siddis]

Only half or so of the beams are actually directed energy weapons, so sure, you can make them invisible, the ion particle weapons will still look brilliant.

But this only looks okay when you see real obvious fireworks when you manage to hit someone, as well as maybe some scattering light coming from the weapon itself (something like a muzzle flash) to indicate that the weapon is actually in use.

[TBeholder]

1) A small muzzle flash is probably ok for projectile/particle weapons, not pure beams.

Beam weapons may produce flash on aperture as a part of energy loss.

2) Visible beam brightness implies scattering... with no atmosphere and (hopefully) minimal debris, this just shouldn't happen in space unless it's a particle/projectile weapon where it's actual matter which can radiate. The beam dissipates at it's stated rate by getting wider as distance increases

...which means power density is proportional to 1/L^2, while in VS damage drops as 1/L.

not by losing energy out the sides as light so everyone can see it.

Generally speaking, yes. But beam itself can be "visible" either in absorbing/scattering medium or if it contains radiating matter (plasma, unstable particles like muons or neutrons, excited atoms in beam of atom cannon).
Otherwise visible beams could be theologized into existence as visualizations ship's computer shows based on flashes of weapon's aperture and hit spot, and detected flashes (though few and weak) on dust and suchlike when source or target is not visible. But then computer can plot "muzzle flash" as well, just to mark source.
Naturally, the same applies to all and any external sounds in vacuum.

Generally, you should just get glow from the barrel firing it and glow from targets it hits.

...and hot, IR-blazing bullet in case of projectile weapons (even for coilgun: it induces heating currents in bullet).

and DESTRUCTIVE as lightning, modern cannons or experimental rail guns or multi-hundred pound bombs and nuclear weapons (think of VS torpedos as at least nuclear). [...] viewing one of these weapons in action should render most or all of the viewer's screen white, think modern nuclear weapons.

Nuclear explosion in vacuum is less spectacular. It would make area of vaporized/molten material about the same size as a glass crater it makes on land and severely irradiate everything around, but cannot damage via air shockwave (wave in partially vaporized object is another matter). EMP effect is caused by lots of charged particles moving in geomagnetic field, which in vacuum and outside radiation belt does not likely to happen either.
Considering this and nuclear tests with ships involved... should nuke go off near one end of big space capship or battle station, it would vaporize small portion, heat red-hot adjacent parts and make heat-impact from damaged parts affecting hull structure, but there can be unscathed crew and even working equipment at the other end of the same ship.

viewing one of these weapons in action should render most or all of the viewer's screen white, think modern nuclear weapons.

...and nukes make impressive flashes only because it happens in air, large mass of which (1.3 tons per 10m cube) glows, overheated via absorption and shockwave. To create glowing non-transparent plasma cloud in vacuum nuke have only material of missile itself and whatever was vaporized in hit area (if any). And it just dissipates in void, not propagates glowing shockwave further.

4) White-out effect for weapons with damage measured in hundreds of thousands of MJs, like capship main guns and torpedoes. Depending on damage output, proximity and orientation, viewing one of these weapons in action should render most or all of the viewer's screen white

Big flashing clouds of vaporized material and/or overheated debris tends to be visible from all unobstructed sides equally, so victim will see the same hit effect (with LODs, naturally).

Alot or even most should instead look like a lightning strike- brief and brilliant and deliver damage in the same fashion.

...after all, power is energy per time rate. And what is needed to harm something is good density of power. As simple as this.

5) I would love to see some pulsed beam weapons [...] sub-capital vessels aside from special milspec variants shouldn't be able to mount beam arrays that are coherent for long times anyway. Keep them on pulsed weapons unless they manage to mount massive reactors for their size.

Coherence as such is almost unrelated to working time or tactical performance. Anyway, it's mostly pointless to make laser gun working in continuous mode when pulse hit causes damage just as well (surface impact, not only heating). More compressed energy just strikes harder. Of course, pulse rate is mostly question of power/heatsink.

6) Sure, more variety is good, especially of decently powered guns... this will likely be easier with some of the proposed changes to how damage types are handled...

Yes, but IMO it's more along "combinations of few" line. Even nuke just causes several basic types of basic damage types.
There's few variants already known. Kinetic impact (surface or penetrating), surface heat impact, generic heating, penetrating radiation. Equipment-crippling currents and radiations inducing them. Induced radioactivity as another lingering problem. What else ?
Plausible "SF" extensions don't go very far from here. If there's shields, there's also different types of interaction with them, but not too much either.

[loki1950]

They just want the eye candy and don't care about the physics good explanation Turbo Beholder.

Enjoy the Choice

[Deus Siddis]

Nuclear explosion in vacuum is less spectacular. It would make area of vaporized/molten material about the same size as a glass crater it makes on land and severely irradiate everything around, but cannot damage via air shockwave (wave in partially vaporized object is another matter). EMP effect is caused by lots of charged particles moving in geomagnetic field, which in vacuum and outside radiation belt does not likely to happen either.
Considering this and nuclear tests with ships involved... should nuke go off near one end of big space capship or battle station, it would vaporize small portion, heat red-hot adjacent parts and make heat-impact from damaged parts affecting hull structure, but there can be unscathed crew and even working equipment at the other end of the same ship.

I never said things like torpedos should produce the destructive effect of a modern nuclear weapon in an atmospheric environment, in space. I just said they should and already do have about the destructive power of modern nuclear weapons, so they should also have the visual effects that go along with that level of power. Currently they don't illustrate that, even if you account for the vacuum environment in which you usually fight.

...and nukes make impressive flashes only because it happens in air, large mass of which (1.3 tons per 10m cube) glows, overheated via absorption and shockwave. To create glowing non-transparent plasma cloud in vacuum nuke have only material of missile itself and whatever was vaporized in hit area (if any). And it just dissipates in void, not propagates glowing shockwave further.

Hmm, not so sure you're right on that one. I'm sure the super-heated air contributes to the visible light radiation, but I don't see why it wouldn't be very bright in a vacuum without this contribution. I don't see why the radiation would be exclussively at high frequencies.

Big flashing clouds of vaporized material and/or overheated debris tends to be visible from all unobstructed sides equally, so victim will see the same hit effect (with LODs, naturally).

Torpedos are not that massive, so the plume would be very limited unless there was more matter involved from other objects.

...after all, power is energy per time rate. And what is needed to harm something is good density of power. As simple as this.

So then you agree with beams needing to be more of the pulsed or burst variety, right?

[TBeholder]

They just want the eye candy and don't care about the physics

...and point is: there can be "legitimate" eye candy, but it's just another eye candy.

I just said they should and already do have about the destructive power of modern nuclear weapons,

...which task is lightened because in space nukes' destructive power is diminished.

so they should also have the visual effects that go along with that level of power.

It's question of both power density and damaging factor. E.g. atom gun capable to turn nuclear charge into half-molten slush with one pulse after passing through warhead's armor (assumed to be equal of Jupiter-landing probe) ~1 Mm away was possible even 20 years ago (i saw sample calculations in "Weaponry in. Space: The Dilemma of Security"), and is much more feasible now... Say, we're in SF and raised gun's power, both current and energy (more penetrating, because ship's armor is thicker) up to 20 A x 500 MeV (H) = 10 GW output power, still in ~1 m^2 spot (total energy is defined by capacitor and durability). But penetrating radiation (like particle beam or XFEL ray) of devastating level is not going to produce lots of visible effects other than "suddenly large very hot spot appears on object's surface, and object ceases to transmit anything". On the other hand, if beam with the same stats would be made of heavier atoms, affected part of target's surface would explode, looking just like impact of powerful laser pulse (and visualizing computer must consider more factors to figure out difference). Plasma wave will look the same even if it's 10x thicker: it's composed of the same material, about as hot and not transparent.

Currently they don't illustrate that, even if you account for the vacuum environment in which you usually fight.

I agree, but (shrugging eyestalks) hey, this beta doesn't even have even celestial mechanics yet, and it's a question on which graphics engine it will end up.

I'm sure the super-heated air contributes to the visible light radiation, but I don't see why it wouldn't be very bright in a vacuum without this contribution. I don't see why the radiation would be exclussively at high frequencies.

Not exclusively, but light comes from hot plasma or gas, not fission itself. Less glowing matter, less light. Air stops part of harder rays, stops plasma, heats up — and glows. Without air this energy is not captured in fireball and dissipates freely instead. Very bright, but very short. It would give more radiation (more hard and particles) in first few milliseconds, but while after 2 sec in air there will be big bright fireball, in vacuum there would be only very large (its dispersion speed determined by great initial temperature) plasma cloud of the same mass as missile was, i.e. very thin spread. Still slighly glowing (mostly IR), still cooling that way, but already transparent in visible light.

So then you agree with beams needing to be more of the pulsed or burst variety, right?

Mostly, yes, but not universally. Though i consider pulse (energy) compression to be important for most power-using systems, weapons first of all. Appliable as long as nature of effect does not interfere with this, and usually it does not.
Note than "pulse" can mean "quasi-continuous". It can emit 1 msec each 1 sec, or 1 mcsec of each msec — power compression will be the same 1000:1, but you can't see flashes of 1 kHz strobe if it does not makes broad sweeps!
Still, sometimes compression can be limited (e.g. for some ray emitter may be prohibitively hard to raise instant power, but easy to achieve continuous operation). This mostly applies for effects more specific than simple power-delivery. E.g.: if we want to sweep incoming missiles with microwaves in hope screening fails and some internals will be roasted, there's no reasons to turn generator off while it still can help, other than power/heat considerations. After all, if it won't break on next maneuver, it still can melt.
There can also be another factors. E.g.: laser pulse should be short enough to effectively transfer energy to target material — late part hits plasma/vapor wave created by impact and mostly wasted. Likewise, pulse period should be long enough to let said cloud dissipate and hit surface clean again. Therefore, ray is likely to be more strobe than quasi-continuous. But if we try to make impact by heavy-atom beam, pulse can be longer: atoms have some inertia and not going to be absorbed like light. Maybe prolonger impact will have better mechanical effect on target material, maybe not, but it still delivered more energy.
The same consideration is not applied to penetrating radiations.

good explanation Turbo Beholder.

Drainage of liquid vacuum out of peoples' heads is kind of my public work. Learned abbit how to explain such things in process.

[TBeholder]

They just want the eye candy and don't care about the physics

...and point is: there can be "legitimate" eye candy, but it's just another eye candy.

I just said they should and already do have about the destructive power of modern nuclear weapons,

...which task is lightened because in space nukes' destructive power is diminished.

so they should also have the visual effects that go along with that level of power.

It's question of both power density and damaging factor. E.g. atom gun capable to turn nuclear charge into half-molten slush with one pulse after passing through warhead's armor (assumed to be equal of Jupiter-landing probe) ~1 Mm away was possible even 20 years ago (i saw sample calculations in "Weaponry in. Space: The Dilemma of Security"), and is much more feasible now... Say, we're in SF and raised gun's power, both current and energy (more penetrating, because ship's armor is thicker) up to 20 A x 500 MeV (H) = 10 GW output power, still in ~1 m^2 spot (total energy is defined by capacitor and durability). But penetrating radiation (like particle beam or XFEL ray) of devastating level is not going to produce lots of visible effects other than "suddenly large very hot spot appears on object's surface, and object ceases to transmit anything". On the other hand, if beam with the same stats would be made of heavier atoms, affected part of target's surface would explode, looking just like impact of powerful laser pulse (and visualizing computer must consider more factors to figure out difference). Plasma wave will look the same even if it's 10x thicker: it's composed of the same material, about as hot and not transparent.

Currently they don't illustrate that, even if you account for the vacuum environment in which you usually fight.

I agree, but (shrugging eyestalks) hey, this beta doesn't even have even celestial mechanics yet, and it's a question on which graphics engine it will end up.

I'm sure the super-heated air contributes to the visible light radiation, but I don't see why it wouldn't be very bright in a vacuum without this contribution. I don't see why the radiation would be exclussively at high frequencies.

Not exclusively, but light comes from hot plasma or gas, not fission itself. Less glowing matter, less light. Air stops part of harder rays, stops plasma, heats up — and glows. Without air this energy is not captured in fireball and dissipates freely instead. Very bright, but very short. It would give more radiation (more hard and particles) in first few milliseconds, but while after 2 sec in air there will be big bright fireball, in vacuum there would be only very large (its dispersion speed determined by great initial temperature) plasma cloud of the same mass as missile was, i.e. very thin spread. Still slighly glowing (mostly IR), still cooling that way, but already transparent in visible light.

So then you agree with beams needing to be more of the pulsed or burst variety, right?

Mostly, yes, but not universally. Though i consider pulse (energy) compression to be important for most power-using systems, weapons first of all. Appliable as long as nature of effect does not interfere with this, and usually it does not.
Note than "pulse" can mean "quasi-continuous". It can emit 1 msec each 1 sec, or 1 mcsec of each msec — power compression will be the same 1000:1, but you can't see flashes of 1 kHz strobe if it does not makes broad sweeps!
Still, sometimes compression can be limited (e.g. for some ray emitter may be prohibitively hard to raise instant power, but easy to achieve continuous operation). This mostly applies for effects more specific than simple power-delivery. E.g.: if we want to sweep incoming missiles with microwaves in hope screening fails and some internals will be roasted, there's no reasons to turn generator off while it still can help, other than power/heat considerations. After all, if it won't break on next maneuver, it still can melt.
There can also be another factors. E.g.: laser pulse should be short enough to effectively transfer energy to target material — late part hits plasma/vapor wave created by impact and mostly wasted. Likewise, pulse period should be long enough to let said cloud dissipate and hit surface clean again. Therefore, ray is likely to be more strobe than quasi-continuous. But if we try to make impact by heavy-atom beam, pulse can be longer: atoms have some inertia and not going to be absorbed like light. Maybe prolonger impact will have better mechanical effect on target material, maybe not, but it still delivered more energy.
The same consideration is not applied to penetrating radiations.

good explanation Turbo Beholder.

Drainage of liquid vacuum out of peoples' heads is kind of my public work. Learned a bit how to explain such things in process.