Autotracking

spiritplumber · Post by **spiritplumber** » Fri Jun 10, 2005 6:22 pm

At this point, as far as player buyability is concerned, I would allow autotrackers only on capships (drayman for example). Reason being, fighter-sized autotrackers were somethign shiny new in wing commander 3, they only exist on the excalibur...

How about tractor beams though? Even in WC2 they did have a limited ability to snap to a target. Should we make an exsception?

Post by **klauss** » Fri Jun 10, 2005 6:58 pm

Perhaps a per-ship/per-weapon limitation would come in handy. But the data files would be a mess.

Ah... yes...

Ships would have mounts, and there could be a hidden property for the mounts:
NOAUTOTRACKING

Which would prevent autotracking in that mount.

Also, all SPECIAL hardpoints would not have the NOAUTOTRACKING property.

The, weapons could have the NOAUTOTRACKING property stored somewhere. So most weapons would be NOAUTOTRACKING, except capship weapons (which could be more expensive), and tractor beams.

Finally, autotracking capability is decided if 1) the mount has AUTOTRACKING (which may not be installed if there is NOAUTOTRACKING), and the weapon does not have NOAUTOTRACKING.

That would be easily handled, and I think it would be easily coded as well.

smbarbour · Post by **smbarbour** » Fri Jun 10, 2005 7:09 pm

Simplify it.

We can already specify what a ship is and isn't allowed to have equipped. It would stand to reason that autotracking not be specified in the generic "What is allowed" upgrade import and specified for specific ships that should be allowed to have it. Or if the number that should is greater than the number that shouldn't specify it as a disallowed upgrade on those ships.

spiritplumber · Post by **spiritplumber** » Fri Jun 10, 2005 7:13 pm

For me it's more of a worldline issue, if we are pre-wc3, either no ship has autotracking, or autotracking servos/computers/linkages etc. are very big and won't fit on fighters. which one is it though? and yes, disallowing autotracking is trivial.

Post by **klauss** » Fri Jun 10, 2005 7:21 pm

The thing was that disallowing autotracking would disallow it for the entire ship... right?
But tractor beams always had some sort of autotracking. So tractor beams would have implicit autotracking - or at least, would be autotrack-capable.
So, unless the shipwide disablement of autotracking can be overriden by the tractor beam (perhaps it can), something else is needed.

PS: I think capship autotracking is modelled through turrets. If you want a forward gun, it's because it's big, hence not autotrackable. So, basically, no pre-wc3 ship would have autotracking (except for the tractor beam issue).

spiritplumber · Post by **spiritplumber** » Fri Jun 10, 2005 7:23 pm

It probably can. And you're right -- the exception is that AMG's and the PTC have an autotracking cone of 3 degrees because otherwise, for some reason, the AI doesn't shoot them. it doesn't show though

Post by **chuck_starchaser** » Fri Jun 10, 2005 7:37 pm

From a technological realism POV, autotracking should be available in turrets only. Autotracking requires mechanical aiming of the weapon, which is something that is built into turrets, but very hard to implement on wing mounts, not to speak of weapon bays inside the body of the ship.

From a necessity POV, autotracking, again, should be available in turrets because it's just not realistic to expect the player can switch between cockpit and turrets at the speed of light and aim and fire from all these places.

From a playability POV, without leading autotracking I'll be sucking void in 2 sec's..

smbarbour · Post by **smbarbour** » Fri Jun 10, 2005 8:06 pm

At the same time, having autotracking set on weapons mounted to turrets is redundant. Autotracking specifically refers to additional mounting hardware to the mount that allows the weapon to move independent of the hardpoint.

A turret can rotate and point it's weapons at the target while the ship maintains course. Non-turret weapons require the ship to change course in order to fire at the enemy if autotracking is not installed.

spiritplumber · Post by **spiritplumber** » Fri Jun 10, 2005 8:23 pm

Ingame most turrets have a small but nonzero autotracking cone (2 or 5 degrees) as it makes the turret AI slightly more trigger happy. Then again, I guess that an autotracked mount is like a mini turret in a sense.... a gun mounted on a tilting platform.

Post by **klauss** » Fri Jun 10, 2005 8:24 pm

Autotracking in turrets is meaningful when human players use them. It makes aiming easier. Perhaps less useful than with forward-mounted guns, but still, they're of considerable help.

Post by **chuck_starchaser** » Fri Jun 10, 2005 9:41 pm

I think we're all speaking different languages, suddenly.

Weapons in turrets are mobile, aimable.

They are "auto-tracking" if they aim by themselves.

They have "leading-auto-tracking" when the computer controlling the auto-tracking motors also aims ahead of the bogie by multiplying its speed vector by the expected time of arrival of the bolts.

There are two auto-tracking cones: The radar's and the weapon's. Usually the radar can track a target in a wide angle, but the weapon's range of motion is more limited.

In the case of the small auto-tracking angle mentioned, my guess is that it refers to the weapon's aiming range, and that it refers to a non-turret-mount weapon, which of course can only be aimed slightly and make small corrections. IOW, you still have to aim your ship pretty good.

And perhaps the best solution is to allow autotracking for *small* weapons mounted on wings, but to reduce the autotracking correction they are capable of to, say 2 or 3 degrees cone radius. That way, they will help within a small range.

By the way, auto-tracking without target-leading perhaps should not be an option, since it's a completely non-functional combo. You try to lead your target when you shoot, but then the auto-aiming tries to compensate away your leading of the target, which is self-defeating.

smbarbour · Post by **smbarbour** » Fri Jun 10, 2005 10:26 pm

Here's an interesting point: If the weapon is light-based (i.e focused using lenses) it is feasible that a system that moves the lens could redirect the beam. The main part of the weapon would not move at all but moving the lens could produce a rather large autotracking cone.

Granted, I'm not fully versed on all of the weapons, and I don't know if any of the weapons are actually light-based. So if I'm way off base, let me know.

Post by **chuck_starchaser** » Fri Jun 10, 2005 11:24 pm

Very good point. Unfortunately even the "lasers" are not light-based. Officially I think they shoot plasma, but I can't remember where I read this.
Actually, even if the lasers were lasers, a lens, no matter how good, would cause the beam to loose its narrow focus, and would probably get fried anyhow. Fortunately, some of the weapons I suppose shoot charged particles, and these could be deflected by magnetic lensing, conceivably, though it should take a *very* strong current. But all we're looking for, anyhow, is a slight correction of one's aiming. That's all it takes usually to go from 20% to 60% hit rate.

spiritplumber · Post by **spiritplumber** » Fri Jun 10, 2005 11:57 pm

Well, I get the idea that a lot of weapons fire out ionized particles (minus the neutron gun, of course), in which case an electromagnetic field could redirect the beam. This may also be how shields work, at least in part. Interestingly, this is how a CRT display works, too.

smbarbour · Post by **smbarbour** » Sat Jun 11, 2005 12:00 am

Don't forget that this is also how particle accelerators work (albeit only to keep the particles within the torus until such time that the particles are sufficiently accelerated).

Post by **chuck_starchaser** » Sat Jun 11, 2005 4:12 am

@spiritplumber: If that's the case, I guess we can have magnetic autotracking for forward guns except neutron and laser. I say not for "lasers" because plasma, IIRC, contains multiple ionization levels so magnetic deflection would break it apart. The amount of deflection should be very small though, maybe a couple of degrees. This is good, because people would complain about autotracking making the game too easy, but if we limit the autotracking angle to a very narrow range, then you still have to aim damn well.

@smbarbour: Yeah, and those magnets are huge, at every slight bend of the ring. That's why I'm saying the deflection angle should be very slight. I still don't know how to answer the issue someone raised in a VS forum as to how particles are accelerated to near speed of light in such a short run, both for guns and for engines... I guess we can only answer good questions up to a point...

@all concerned: We should make really sure that autotracking without target leading is not available, as it doesn't make sense at all. Sorry if I'm repeating myself but I think this is very important to keep in mind.

Post by **klauss** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:07 pm

Non-leading autotracking is useful for head-to-head encounters, or what I call "kick-in-the-butt" chases, where you chase someone from the rear, hitting him hard with all your weapons. Those situations don't need an ITTS vector, and are the situations where even an ITTS performs best. So non-leading autotracking is useful. You just have to disable it most of the time. But that's easily done: press 'k' and leave it disabled until you need it. A gauge for its enabling state would be welcome, though.

spiritplumber · Post by **spiritplumber** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 7:08 pm

I would honestly leave autotracking off for fighter-sized ships... the reason being, the only fighter that has autotracking in 2669 is the Excalibur (and maybe the Bloodfang I guess). What I will try to do is implement it as you say, and then not use it in standard ships, that way if we want to put it in later, it's not going to be broken