Acceleration, physics, and other ship enhancements/rebalance

Development directions, tasks, and features being actively implemented or pursued by the development team.

Re: New Chris Roberts game in the works??

Postby klauss » Sun Nov 25, 2012 8:52 pm

Deus Siddis wrote:
pheonixstorm wrote:The actual sizes of some ships really need to be redone which goes back into revamping all of units.csv I think it was Dues who sent a potential patch on this.


I did; in addition to making reductions to accelerations similar to what we've talked about in this thread, it reduced the size of the larger ships and stations from immense to just huge. For example the largest structure in the game, the starfortress is 10+ kilometers in diameter and so my patch brought it down to a more reasonable 2+ kilometers. The largest ship in the game was 7.5 kilometers long and the patch brought it down to 1.3 kilometers, which is still bigger I think than that carrier in the Star Citizen videos (which is visibly quite enormous in their on-foot gameplay).


I remember. I just don't think changing scales is a solution worth pursuing. First, as you said, if you reduce both scale and acceleration, nothing changes. Second, really, huge scales are wanted. The fact that our models lack the visual detail is just an accident that is fixable by proper art.

So I'd keep the scales.

Deus Siddis wrote:As I tried to explain back then this was entirely a problem with SPEC and how SPEC is affected by gravity wells. I couldn't change this from units.csv because there was no column for it, nor could I fix this from any other text data file I could find. That is where you, the coder, would have come in because changes were needed that would require recompiling. The SPEC velocity multiplier needed to be raised by like 10 fold and the distance that the gravity well of a station or planet affects the SPEC drive needed to be reduced and maybe also the docking distance for planets increased.

So after I made everything a reasonable, smaller size and speed, changes had to be made to SPEC to keep travel times the same. The SPEC-gravity formula was compiled to work with the old balance and it must be adjusted to work with the new balance.


There's a practical consideration here not to be forgotten: when you're approaching a station or planet at full SPEC speeds, the "dampening" effect of the station/planet's gravitational well actually makes you able to stop short of colliding with it. Without it, people and autopilots frequently overshot or crashed into stations.

I think we could increase docking distance on planets, though. Unless until we have atmospheric flight to warrant the extra flying time (and ubiquitous space stations around most habitable planets to make it avoidable).
Oíd mortales, el grito sagrado...
Call me "Menes, lord of Cats"
Wing Commander Universe
User avatar
klauss
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 7251
Topics: 55
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 7:40 am
Location: LS87, Buenos Aires, República Argentina

Share On:

Share on Facebook Facebook Share on Twitter Twitter Share on Digg Digg

Re: New Chris Roberts game in the works??

Postby pheonixstorm » Sun Nov 25, 2012 10:43 pm

We should have stations around planets anyway since most ships (Ox, Gleaner, etc) are too large to land or not designed to land on a planet anyway.
Because of YOU Arbiter, MY kids? can't get enough gas. OR NIPPLE! How does that mkae you feeeel? ~ Halo
User avatar
pheonixstorm
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 1563
Topics: 113
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2010 7:03 pm

Re: New Chris Roberts game in the works??

Postby Deus Siddis » Sun Nov 25, 2012 11:34 pm

klauss wrote:I remember. I just don't think changing scales is a solution worth pursuing. First, as you said, if you reduce both scale and acceleration, nothing changes.


Actually I made no scale changes to the shuttle and fighter sized craft. And the smaller the craft in general, the less I changed it. The Mule for example I only scaled down from 180 meters to 140 meters. The main point was to make the things you typically dock with smaller; make the destinations smaller and keep the playable craft the same.

Second, really, huge scales are wanted. The fact that our models lack the visual detail is just an accident that is fixable by proper art.


Proper art isn't possible for huge scales. The detail level will have to be so crude, both for performance reasons and because of the amount of human labor it takes to create just one fully detailed multi-kilometer man-made object. Is it better to have a 300 meter long warship with its finest details centimeters wide, or a 3000 meter long warship with its finest details meters wide? It's either quality or quantity here.

On the other hand maybe I'm wrong on this and someday new techniques and waves of highly skilled content creators will come and build 10 kilometer space megastructures with detail down to the hatch keypads and fine print warning labels on the RCS housings. In that case the best course of action is still the same-- scale everything down to a reasonable size until you have the extremely detailed content for a kilometers-big ship in your content repository and ready for integration. Just don't reach so far, far, far beyond your current content limitations, it only cheapens the game's aesthetic.

There's a practical consideration here not to be forgotten: when you're approaching a station or planet at full SPEC speeds, the "dampening" effect of the station/planet's gravitational well actually makes you able to stop short of colliding with it. Without it, people and autopilots frequently overshot or crashed into stations.


If you decrease SPEC damping while proportionally making stations smaller and ships slower, collisions can't be any more of a problem than they are now. And so my patch lowered speed governors as well, to keep them in line with reduced acceleration.

I think we could increase docking distance on planets, though. Unless until we have atmospheric flight to warrant the extra flying time (and ubiquitous space stations around most habitable planets to make it avoidable).


Yeah just decrease it for now and you can always change it back again when new features make it more interesting.
Deus Siddis
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 1361
Topics: 13
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2007 8:42 am

Re: New Chris Roberts game in the works??

Postby klauss » Sun Nov 25, 2012 11:38 pm

Deus Siddis wrote:Proper art isn't possible for huge scales. The detail level will have to be so crude, both for performance reasons and because of the amount of human labor it takes to create just one fully detailed multi-kilometer man-made object. Is it better to have a 300 meter long warship with its finest details centimeters wide, or a 3000 meter long warship with its finest details meters wide? It's either quality or quantity here.

On the other hand maybe I'm wrong on this and someday new techniques and waves of highly skilled content creators will come and build 10 kilometer space megastructures with detail down to the hatch keypads and fine print warning labels on the RCS housings.

You don't need waves of content creators, or even new techniques. Take a look at earth, and you'll see a planet in pretty high detail. Especially on the night side (which has gotten quite some attention lately).

There are creative ways of making the best out of limited content. VS has failed horribly in that department lately, but that doesn't mean we have to give up.
Oíd mortales, el grito sagrado...
Call me "Menes, lord of Cats"
Wing Commander Universe
User avatar
klauss
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 7251
Topics: 55
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 7:40 am
Location: LS87, Buenos Aires, República Argentina

Re: New Chris Roberts game in the works??

Postby Deus Siddis » Mon Nov 26, 2012 12:43 am

I'm not suggesting to give up, just to make things a reasonable (but still quite impressive) size on the big end of the scale, for right now. (And that's exactly what my patch did.)

Because right now all the giant capital ships look ridiculously smaller than they are because their models' detail level in no way gives you a sense of how big they are. Which can make flying by them at high speeds feel like slow speeds and thereby risks making reasonable accelerations feel undeservedly slow (and thus undeservedly unpopular).

Apply the patch and then wait until you have the content for a 3km warship before adding it to the game in units.csv.
Deus Siddis
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 1361
Topics: 13
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2007 8:42 am

Re: New Chris Roberts game in the works??

Postby IansterGuy » Mon Nov 26, 2012 5:43 am

Deus Siddis's patch sounds good, but I still think that we should also limit walkable ships without passenger inertial mitigation upgrades to 4.5 G's. Fighters to 9 G's without further inertial mitigation upgrades in addition to the included flight suits.
IansterGuy wrote:
Deus Siddis wrote:Also would you add an issue for decreasing the linear and angular acceleration rates (at least for "fighter" type craft) to the tracker as well?
I think we may have forgot the angular acceleration rates. I'm not sure how one would determine how how fast a ship could turn. Human factors may depend on how center of ship mass the pilot is, but people can turn their head pretty fast. I imagine in this case maneuvering or lateral thrusters would almost always be the limiting factor of angular acceleration. I assume that every ship could be made to feel unique at maximum turning since layout and strength of thrusters varies. Assuming the strongest thrusters are the rear followed by the hovering thrusters, maximum turn speed would be better in some directions based on the ships shape.
maze wrote:
IansterGuy wrote:As I said before, I think it is best to limit both acceleration with the governor, and to a lesser degree thrust due to structural limits. Vehicle specifications have all kinds of specific limits, but most are possible to disregard. So I say just make the ship not fly, or allow landing fuel shortages during reentry to end with a crash. These are the kind of realism details that proper thrust levels would allow.
I think that's a good point, there's some aspects worth discussing regarding rotation. ...
Actually, and this is where it gets interesting, rotational acceleration is not only limited by the resistance of the metal and flesh structures, but also by the max push of thrusters and the distance between them. Max rotational speed is only subject to structural limits, and nothing else.

I'm speaking purely from a physics angle here, disregarding both game balance and limits that the craft's computer might implement in order to prevent the ship from becoming uncontrollable. But note that if my ship's computerized control do implement such a limitation on my rotational speed, then as the player of some crazy space pilot I WANT to be able to disable them! Which as of today I can't, obviously.
I'm glad someone acknowledged my comment on angular acceleration even though conversation moved on to important things. Your comments complete the thought, but maybe some angular rates would help. Space stations and luxury ships with loose furniture should not rotate fast enough to tip over the captains coffee. For capital ships the max rotation speed should not be so fast to pin everyone to the walls or crack them at the front and back of the ship. Cargo vessels should not rotate faster than either thrusters, structures, or unsuited passengers could handle. Likely 4.5 G's rotational G-force or angular acceleration. Fighters would be so small that unless lateral thruster are comparatively small, ease of steering may be the issue. Maybe mouse steering could be more logarithmic to get both fine control and fast turning.

maze wrote:The more I think about this, the more I think that if you decide that the pilot's resistance to Gs is the limiting factor to thrust, then all ships end up with the same stats... Not fun.

If there's a need to provide a believable explanation to pilots surviving very high G values, simply make up one based on SPEC technology.
All of the fighters should not end up all the same speed. Here are the numbers I was thinking. Cheap fighters could be around 4.5-6 G's, slow but faster than cheap cargo vessels moving 2-4.5 G's unloaded, .5-4.5 G's loaded. Medium quality fighters would then go 6-9 G's, medium cargo vessels 4.5 G's unloaded, 3-4.5 G's loaded. High quality fighters would then go all 9 G's, and all high quality cargo vessels would go 4.5-9 G's unloaded, 4.5 G's loaded .

All ships could temporary have higher acceleration using many pulses from an overdrive. And high end ships could get various inertial mitigation upgrades as have been previously mentioned, to go faster than the 9 G's.

If SPEC drive is space warping device it would involve manipulating gravity into a impossibly thin warp bubble. Using that technology to create super localized gravity for each individual would then seem possible to do efficiently. Creating a real gravity field to protect the hole body from inertia not just the surface would cost more energy, hence not commonly used. This would all have to do with rear thrusters, lateral thrust would be a fair bit lower depending on relative thruster sizes.

klauss wrote:I think we could increase docking distance on planets, though. Unless until we have atmospheric flight to warrant the extra flying time (and ubiquitous space stations around most habitable planets to make it avoidable).
pheonixstorm wrote:We should have stations around planets anyway since most ships (Ox, Gleaner, etc) are too large to land or not designed to land on a planet anyway.
Space elevators! Careful not to crash into the tether. The thing is that they are supposed to be far away in geosynchronous orbit, not low orbit.
If you were interested I would have told you, but if I told you, you would not be interested. I can tell you are not interested because you don't already know and even if you did, it would be pointless to tell you again. Therefore in no situation will I ever tell you anything.
User avatar
IansterGuy
Bounty Hunter
Bounty Hunter
 
Posts: 178
Topics: 10
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 1:49 am
Location: Milky Way, Orion arm, Earth, Canada Saskatchewan, Saskatoon

Re: New Chris Roberts game in the works??

Postby Deus Siddis » Mon Nov 26, 2012 12:00 pm

The patch I submitted also reduced angular acceleration and speed governors to more reasonable and believable levels.

This also created some actual (combat) flight simulator flavored gameplay with regards to aiming and maneuvering. Because you couldn't just point your 40 meter llama precisely and instantly in any direction you wanted, but had to take into account angular momentum and craft specific handling characteristics. And for the the first time it actually looked and felt like you were flying the aerospace vehicle you'd imagine it to be.
Deus Siddis
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 1361
Topics: 13
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2007 8:42 am

Re: New Chris Roberts game in the works??

Postby klauss » Mon Nov 26, 2012 5:47 pm

Deus Siddis wrote:The patch I submitted also reduced angular acceleration and speed governors to more reasonable and believable levels.

This also created some actual (combat) flight simulator flavored gameplay with regards to aiming and maneuvering. Because you couldn't just point your 40 meter llama precisely and instantly in any direction you wanted, but had to take into account angular momentum and craft specific handling characteristics. And for the the first time it actually looked and felt like you were flying the aerospace vehicle you'd imagine it to be.


That I like :)

IansterGuy wrote:All of the fighters should not end up all the same speed. Here are the numbers I was thinking. Cheap fighters could be around 4.5-6 G's, slow but faster than cheap cargo vessels moving 2-4.5 G's unloaded, .5-4.5 G's loaded. Medium quality fighters would then go 6-9 G's, medium cargo vessels 4.5 G's unloaded, 3-4.5 G's loaded. High quality fighters would then go all 9 G's, and all high quality cargo vessels would go 4.5-9 G's unloaded, 4.5 G's loaded .


All this is assuming the AI will use acceleration rather than max speed... which doesn't seem to be the case.

IansterGuy wrote:If SPEC drive is space warping device it would involve manipulating gravity into a impossibly thin warp bubble. Using that technology to create super localized gravity for each individual would then seem possible to do efficiently. Creating a real gravity field to protect the hole body from inertia not just the surface would cost more energy, hence not commonly used. This would all have to do with rear thrusters, lateral thrust would be a fair bit lower depending on relative thruster sizes.

You're forgetting that SPEC fields react badly with shields. So SPEC-based technology isn't good for combat situations.
Oíd mortales, el grito sagrado...
Call me "Menes, lord of Cats"
Wing Commander Universe
User avatar
klauss
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 7251
Topics: 55
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 7:40 am
Location: LS87, Buenos Aires, República Argentina

Re: New Chris Roberts game in the works??

Postby IansterGuy » Tue Nov 27, 2012 2:54 am

klauss wrote:
Deus Siddis wrote:The patch I submitted also reduced angular acceleration and speed governors to more reasonable and believable levels ... This also created some actual (combat) flight simulator flavored gameplay with regards to aiming and maneuvering. ... had to take into account angular momentum and craft specific handling characteristics.

That I like :)
The more I hear about this patch the more I want to try it, but I can't find it.

klauss wrote:
IansterGuy wrote:All of the fighters should not end up all the same speed. Here are the numbers I was thinking...

All this is assuming the AI will use acceleration rather than max speed... which doesn't seem to be the case.
I don't understand, is AI programing based on max speed? Aare you saying that the AI is programed to just keep on accelerating to maximum speed in combat every chance it gets? That would make sense for ships trying to escape, and for ships reversing thrust for another jousting pass. AI in attack mode should really slow down normally as target nears so that it can stay in attack range and not overshoot.

This brings up maximum speed in general again. Currently ships have a maximum speed biased on factors that I don't understand, probably because any physical speed limit isn't based on any reality. The only speed limiter I would suggest is that relative motion inhibition field I had suggested earlier. It would be placed anywhere SPEC inhibition fields are currently used. It would reduce the damage of Kamakzi ships and inbound objects from a potentially unlimited sized nuclear explosion, down to a high speed car crash, all depending on size not initial speed.

klauss wrote:You're forgetting that SPEC fields react badly with shields. So SPEC-based technology isn't good for combat situations.
Ha ha I think you may know what I'm going to say Klauss. I would not call it SPEC based my self, but based on similar gravity technology. Shields interfere with the SPEC field outside the ship, and my reasoning for various intentions was that the shield plasma or magnetic bits would get attracted to the SPEC field emitters, and block their function temporarily. So shield particles would need to be retracted some time before activating SPEC or any normal gravity technology used outside the ship. With this explanation there would be no catastrophic failure of the fields themselves, but rather interference with the particles the shield is suspending outside. The gravity fields inside would then be fine as long as there are no shield particles near the strong gravity emitters of the inertial dampeners. Artificial gravity emitters would be less affected by shields inside the ship, because they are much weaker due to efficiently pulling on thin planes of an object, unlike inertial dampeners, which effect the hole object and surrounding area.

This may all not really be important now, but there it is regardless.
If you were interested I would have told you, but if I told you, you would not be interested. I can tell you are not interested because you don't already know and even if you did, it would be pointless to tell you again. Therefore in no situation will I ever tell you anything.
User avatar
IansterGuy
Bounty Hunter
Bounty Hunter
 
Posts: 178
Topics: 10
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 1:49 am
Location: Milky Way, Orion arm, Earth, Canada Saskatchewan, Saskatoon

Re: New Chris Roberts game in the works??

Postby pheonixstorm » Tue Nov 27, 2012 11:03 am

I think the patch was listed last year. I will try to dig it up and post it.
Because of YOU Arbiter, MY kids? can't get enough gas. OR NIPPLE! How does that mkae you feeeel? ~ Halo
User avatar
pheonixstorm
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 1563
Topics: 113
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2010 7:03 pm

Re: New Chris Roberts game in the works??

Postby Deus Siddis » Wed Nov 28, 2012 11:04 pm

pheonixstorm wrote:I think the patch was listed last year. I will try to dig it up and post it.


Looks like I no longer have a backup of it so that'd be the only chance of recovering it.
Deus Siddis
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 1361
Topics: 13
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2007 8:42 am

Re: New Chris Roberts game in the works??

Postby pheonixstorm » Thu Nov 29, 2012 1:09 am

Actually I think the balance can be found HERE
Because of YOU Arbiter, MY kids? can't get enough gas. OR NIPPLE! How does that mkae you feeeel? ~ Halo
User avatar
pheonixstorm
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 1563
Topics: 113
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2010 7:03 pm

Re: New Chris Roberts game in the works??

Postby Deus Siddis » Thu Nov 29, 2012 12:18 pm

Good find, I thought all the forum data was lost a while back but there it is.
Deus Siddis
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 1361
Topics: 13
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2007 8:42 am

Re: New Chris Roberts game in the works??

Postby pheonixstorm » Thu Nov 29, 2012 2:22 pm

All data between April 10th I think until the crash was lost.
Because of YOU Arbiter, MY kids? can't get enough gas. OR NIPPLE! How does that mkae you feeeel? ~ Halo
User avatar
pheonixstorm
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 1563
Topics: 113
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2010 7:03 pm

Re: New Chris Roberts game in the works??

Postby IansterGuy » Fri Nov 30, 2012 7:42 pm

Thanks for the file find. I took the file and just replaced units.csv, for a quick test. I launched the ship and attacked Oswald the instructor as I like to do. I thought the effect was as it should be, Oswald's maneuvers were gradual and visible almost the entire time. With careful enough aiming he was always in range. When all of his buddies came of course some them could not move since they had no data but the battle with the ones that could move was interesting until Oswald kicked my butt.

I don't know what it is like fighting with larger ships yet, but just with this test I would say that it is much better. I liked the weight that the ships felt like they had when turning, and I liked being able to see my enemy while fighting. If the only reason that ship accelerations are so fast now is that loaded cargo vessels need enough thrust when loaded, then I think that definitely ships need need to be adjusted. I propose to go forward with creating new governor restriction specific to various ship types for acceleration which is not dependent on thrust and weight. More importantly I propose to make changes similar to what this units.csv file does for the game.

I agree that ships cargo space should be shrunk for cheap cargo ships and that high end cargo ships should be instead limited by what the governor allows. Something like 4.5G's plus the amount allowed by purchased inertial mitigation technologies. The weakest of these 4 factors should be the governor acceleration limit on cargo vessels: passengers gravity tolerance; Cargo
Last edited by IansterGuy on Sat Dec 01, 2012 3:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
If you were interested I would have told you, but if I told you, you would not be interested. I can tell you are not interested because you don't already know and even if you did, it would be pointless to tell you again. Therefore in no situation will I ever tell you anything.
User avatar
IansterGuy
Bounty Hunter
Bounty Hunter
 
Posts: 178
Topics: 10
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 1:49 am
Location: Milky Way, Orion arm, Earth, Canada Saskatchewan, Saskatoon

Re: New Chris Roberts game in the works??

Postby klauss » Fri Nov 30, 2012 8:52 pm

Alright then. Put this on the feature request tracker (I don't have the time right now).

Not sure about the separate limits, I think we need support for crew stats before we do that (to have stats about the pilot), but as much as easily doable I too think should be done.
Oíd mortales, el grito sagrado...
Call me "Menes, lord of Cats"
Wing Commander Universe
User avatar
klauss
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 7251
Topics: 55
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 7:40 am
Location: LS87, Buenos Aires, República Argentina

Re: New Chris Roberts game in the works??

Postby maze » Sat Dec 01, 2012 4:38 am

And in the end, realism will be achieved when space combat really looks like a WWI dogfight.
User avatar
maze
Hunter
Hunter
 
Posts: 94
Topics: 11
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2012 3:39 pm

Re: Acceleration, physics, and other ship enhancements/rebal

Postby pheonixstorm » Sun Dec 02, 2012 12:20 am

Because of YOU Arbiter, MY kids? can't get enough gas. OR NIPPLE! How does that mkae you feeeel? ~ Halo
User avatar
pheonixstorm
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 1563
Topics: 113
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2010 7:03 pm

Re: Acceleration, physics, and other ship enhancements/rebal

Postby pheonixstorm » Sun Dec 02, 2012 12:48 am

Ok, check the video at about 30 minutes and listen well. Would be nice to have our system more like the one described as its all mass based rather than some oddly captured guess value for thrust. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vhRQPhL ... re=related
Because of YOU Arbiter, MY kids? can't get enough gas. OR NIPPLE! How does that mkae you feeeel? ~ Halo
User avatar
pheonixstorm
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 1563
Topics: 113
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2010 7:03 pm

Re: Acceleration, physics, and other ship enhancements/rebal

Postby Hicks » Sun Dec 02, 2012 1:30 am

Here is a spreadsheet from a while ago where i was looking at the stats for the ships https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc ... 3WGc#gid=0 The acceleration is over 30g for some without afterburner, and most of them are classed as medium or heavy ships. Another thing i found that bugged me is that some ships had a larger cargohold and upgrade space then the volume of the ship itself.

Personally i would like to see all the ships gone through 1 by 1, rebalanced and retextured (for most). The one thing i find common about this game across all aspects is that there is alot of content, but just outdated or not well done
Hicks
Bounty Hunter
Bounty Hunter
 
Posts: 153
Topics: 10
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2011 2:17 am

Re: Acceleration, physics, and other ship enhancements/rebal

Postby pheonixstorm » Sun Dec 02, 2012 1:40 am

Yep. the Aera ships seem to be really dated.

On the talk of ship sizes.. I found something on the RSI site that may be of interest

RSI wrote:Level of Detail

Being on a PC allows us to create the world in a greater level of detail and fidelity than we could on a console platform. We want it to be open and not be bound to legacy technology of consoles or their revenue models. For example, most AAA games use about 10,000 polygons for their lead characters. We are using over 100,000 polygons for ours, allowing you to see such details wires, the equipment, even creases in their clothing which all contributes to the immersion of the player. It also allows you to find the same level of detail carry over from a character (1.8meters in size) to a fighter (27 meters) even up to a carrier (1 kilometer in size.) All without a load screen or loss of visual fidelity.
So, we aren't the only ones wanting big big ships.
Because of YOU Arbiter, MY kids? can't get enough gas. OR NIPPLE! How does that mkae you feeeel? ~ Halo
User avatar
pheonixstorm
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 1563
Topics: 113
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2010 7:03 pm

Re: Acceleration, physics, and other ship enhancements/rebal

Postby maze » Sun Dec 02, 2012 5:28 am

pheonixstorm wrote:Ok, check the video at about 30 minutes and listen well. Would be nice to have our system more like the one described as its all mass based rather than some oddly captured guess value for thrust. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vhRQPhL ... re=related


You know what, I'm all for this, provided we do it through to the very end. All energy is based on mass after all.
That is to say, we don't just decide how much mass of material is ejected in the direction opposite to acceleration and then decide arbitrarily how much speed that mass has relative to the ship, because that would not fullly be mass-based.

At first, we go with two input values, and we'll add a third one later:
  • fuel-burn rate
  • kinetic Efficiency
Then, and this is where it gets really mass-based, we go looking for the variation of mass of the nuclear transformation that the ship uses to propel itself, and we calculate the associated energy
Code: Select all
E = m.c^2
where m is the variation of mass, and c is the speed of light.

Multiplying the above by the efficiency we have defined, we have the kinetic energy of the particles emitted by the thruster in the ship's referential.From which we deduce their impulsion, which is the opposite of the impulsion gained by the ship.

Of course we don't do those calculations live at run-time, in the end I think we have the following if we neglect relativistic effects other than rest mass variation (please check my calculation):
Code: Select all
0.5 . dm/dt . v^2 = dm1/dt . c^2 . alpha
Code: Select all
A = 1/M . dm/dt . v
Where alpha is kinetic efficiency, c is the speed of light, M is the mass of the ship, dm/dt is the rate of mass ejection by the thrusters, and dm1/dt is the rate of mass conversion to energy by the nuclear reaction. In the end we get:
Code: Select all
A = 1/M . sqrt(dm/dt . dm1/dt) . c . sqrt(2 . alpha)


At this stage we should define a second efficiency value beta, which is the ratio of the efected propellant which has actually gone through the nuclear reaction.
Code: Select all
dm1/dt = beta . Lambda . dm/dt
where lambda is a material constant, i.e. depending only on the type of fuel used, namely the ratio of fuel mass reduction over fuel total mass and beta is controllable by the pilot within some bounds (BETA < beta < 1). Interestingly, at a given rate of the nuclear reaction, fuel consumption is proportional to 1/beta, but acceleration is proportional to the square root of 1/beta. Our overdrive will be based on this effect. We have:
Code: Select all
dm/dt = 1/(beta . lambda) . dm1/dt
A = 1/M . dm1/dt . c . sqrt (2 . alpha . 1/beta)

And we're done I think. c is physical constant, Lambda is a material constant of the nuclear fuel, beta and dm1/dt are subject to performance limits depending only on the ship (and not its reactor, at least if we keep things like they are now, you don't get a better acceleration when you upgrade your reactor in VS... about the real world I'm not sure, but it could be the same because the heat taken by the ship is proportional to dm1/dt.(1 - alpha), and the stress applied to the thrusters is proportional to dm1/dt . aplha).

Let's give realistic values to those constants, and see if accelerations end up being reduced, shall we?

  • There should be one column for lambda in units.csv, and lines added corresponding to the various types of fuels. We'll have to go into textbooks and either fetch or calculate the value of lambda for each fuel entry.
  • There should be one column for max fuel mass for each ship in units.csv.
    There should be one column for the kinetic efficiency alpha in units.csv, or maybe one column per per direction of space, and alpha should be set on a per-ship basis (unless we start to define upgradeable thruster types, which would be kind of cool).
  • There should be one column per direction of space for dm1/dt in units.csv, this is what actually describes max thrust; alternatively, we could use 1/lambda . dm1/dt without changing the picture in terms of the underlying physics. This should also be set on a per-ship basis (same remark as above)
  • There should be one column for the min value of beta in units.csv. Since it makes no sense to start reducing beta when you're not at max thrust, the min possible value of beta would actually describe the overdrive of the ship, all based on a ratio of mass in the propellant! Ain't that cool?! This should also be set on a per-ship basis (same remark as above).
  • Typically, only the back thruster (big one, able to eject a lot of mass) would be able to vary beta below its max value. Other thrusters would always stay at the max value. There could be a column in units.csv to set the max value of beta, or we could decide that it's always 1. This would be set per-ship (same remark as above).
  • Lastly, we should have one entry for the speed of light c in vegastrike.config, just in case folks would want to reduce thrust artificially.
User avatar
maze
Hunter
Hunter
 
Posts: 94
Topics: 11
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2012 3:39 pm

Re: New Chris Roberts game in the works??

Postby Deus Siddis » Mon Dec 03, 2012 6:29 pm

maze wrote:And in the end, realism will be achieved when space combat really looks like a WWI dogfight.


You could be more right than you realize. The way VS 'fighter' type ships are configured, their most powerful engines are in back, slightly less powerful ones are in front as retros, and all lateral thrusters are fairly weak. But that isn't a realistic balance and it leads to more drifting that is difficult to counter in a turn while training your forward guns on someone.

What is more realistic and would make space fighters fly more precisely and coincidentally more like air fighters, is to move the secondary power thrusters from the front to the bottom (or bottom and top). Now three things happen:

1) you can make tighter turns without overcompensating or drifting so much
2) you have to bank in the direction of the turn to make said tighter turns
3) when near the surface of a planet, level flight, landing and takeoff are easier because your bottom thrusters resist gravity while the main thrusters keep you flying forward

pheonixstorm wrote:On the talk of ship sizes.. I found something on the RSI site that may be of interest

RSI wrote:Level of Detail
It also allows you to find the same level of detail carry over from a character (1.8meters in size) to a fighter (27 meters) even up to a carrier (1 kilometer in size.)


So, we aren't the only ones wanting big big ships.


I'm fine having one or a few ships a kilometer in size. But VS has a great many multi-kilometer craft and that's more than you need and more than can be done well. My patch rescaled the bigger craft so that the largest were in that 1 kilometer range, like the Star Citizen carrier. And that patch was out two years before SC was even announced, so Chris Roberts is a fan of mine apparently. :mrgreen:
Deus Siddis
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 1361
Topics: 13
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2007 8:42 am

Re: Acceleration, physics, and other ship enhancements/rebal

Postby klauss » Mon Dec 03, 2012 6:42 pm

Lets go to concrete points...

Do we have a plan?
Oíd mortales, el grito sagrado...
Call me "Menes, lord of Cats"
Wing Commander Universe
User avatar
klauss
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 7251
Topics: 55
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 7:40 am
Location: LS87, Buenos Aires, República Argentina

Re: Acceleration, physics, and other ship enhancements/rebal

Postby Hicks » Mon Dec 03, 2012 7:12 pm

There is a column in the speadsheet i link for the g's for top acceleration, most the ships have it greater then 1 so would be able to takeoff/land on earth.

Lets go to concrete points...

Do we have a plan?



Personally i would like to see all the ships gone through 1 by 1, rebalanced and retextured (for most). Start with the Llama, use it as a baseline and extrapolate to all the other ships based on their role/size/race
Hicks
Bounty Hunter
Bounty Hunter
 
Posts: 153
Topics: 10
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2011 2:17 am


PreviousNext

Return to Engine Development

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests