Big Problem: intra-system trade needs to be fixed!
-
- Elite Hunter
- Posts: 1149
- Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 3:56 pm
- Location: Black Forest, Germany
I fear I must admit, those 3-minutes-accelerations are definetively too much - imagine doing an escort mission.
Freighters would really gain a disadvantage and that would make trading much more unprofitable. Since we're talking about cars: Let's say the Stiletto is a Dodge Viper, then the Tarsus is a Pick Up, the Galaxy a Ford Transit, the Orion a Jeep and the Drayman a Truck.
Freighters would really gain a disadvantage and that would make trading much more unprofitable. Since we're talking about cars: Let's say the Stiletto is a Dodge Viper, then the Tarsus is a Pick Up, the Galaxy a Ford Transit, the Orion a Jeep and the Drayman a Truck.
-
- ISO Party Member
- Posts: 433
- Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 9:27 pm
This is the sort of reaction that I expected.Dilloh wrote:I fear I must admit, those 3-minutes-accelerations are definetively too much
So, let me suggest a base line -- Take a Drayman (empty) & run it up to full speed. If we then fill it completely with undiluted Uranium or Plutonium (whatever is the heaviest item in the final tally), then it should take 5x longer. Then, this gives us a global scale factor to "lighten" everything.
[Edit: I think a better analogue for a Stiletto might be a Ducati -- there is enough room in a Dodge Viper to take your groceries home.]
Last edited by Shissui on Thu May 03, 2007 10:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I want to live in Theory. Everything works in Theory.
-
- Elite Hunter
- Posts: 1149
- Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 3:56 pm
- Location: Black Forest, Germany
I think, any full acceleration of a ship, should not take longer than 30 seconds or it'd ruin the gameplay... In a Drayman longer acceleration it is okay to me for you can earn millions of credits, but using a Tarsus?
Also, if we'd introduce larger flyable ships (carriers) some day, wouldn't that mean that we'd have acceleration times of 15 minutes or so if they carry a full fighter accomplishment?
I leave the decisions to Melonhead. Whatever my personal feelings are, I think we can afford implementing any experimental stuff and let the community do the playtesting. Objections can be set up in feedbacks or a poll afterwards. No change or feature needs to be permanent, everything is revisable (like the devs did with the cloak).
Also, if we'd introduce larger flyable ships (carriers) some day, wouldn't that mean that we'd have acceleration times of 15 minutes or so if they carry a full fighter accomplishment?
I leave the decisions to Melonhead. Whatever my personal feelings are, I think we can afford implementing any experimental stuff and let the community do the playtesting. Objections can be set up in feedbacks or a poll afterwards. No change or feature needs to be permanent, everything is revisable (like the devs did with the cloak).
-
- Bounty Hunter
- Posts: 230
- Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2006 12:29 am
- Location: Roaming the Gemini Sector looking for profit!!
I fully agree here, the gameplay is very important, otherwise poeple just won't play. Realism can only be pushed so far in these tye of games. I think any baseline test should be done in a Tarsus as that's what everyone gets at the start. You couldn't pay enough real money to fly a Drayman. They're already so slow that I go and get a cup of tea whilst they build up speed. Add another 10-15 minutes to that with a cargo of 1000 iron units...Forget it.Dilloh wrote: fear I must admit, those 3-minutes-accelerations are definetively too much - imagine doing an escort mission.........I think, any full acceleration of a ship, should not take longer than 30 seconds or it'd ruin the gameplay... In a Drayman longer acceleration it is okay to me for you can earn millions of credits, but using a Tarsus?
If Melonhead has no objections I might try tweaking his values a bit.
Time is an Illusion..............Lunchtime doubly so!! -Ford Prefect-
Check out Privateer themed goodies!
http://www.cafepress.com/soulfulngifted/2889859
Check out Privateer themed goodies!
http://www.cafepress.com/soulfulngifted/2889859
-
- Bounty Hunter
- Posts: 131
- Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 1:33 am
- Location: Hampton, VA USA
No objections at all, but the more important question is why we're getting such different values.
I would suggest first just moving the decimal point left one position for all cargo and seeing how that works. Also, what other software are you running? I'm using my old system for playtesting, and am not getting anywhere near the slower performance described, so there must be something different. It may be something not obvious--for example, my backup system currently has no antivirus software, since Norton 2006 was causing problems, and I had to remove it. Haven't had a chance to do more detailed testing, yet.
I ran a test recently to see how long it really takes to go from a jump point to a base using afterburner, instead of autopilot. It was a REALLY long time, excrutiatingly long, not fun long--about 2 minutes! Yikes. I definitely agree with the concept of believable versus realistic. I like to see a "noticable" sluggishness when fully loaded--NOT a couple of minutes to accelerate to max speed.
I would suggest first just moving the decimal point left one position for all cargo and seeing how that works. Also, what other software are you running? I'm using my old system for playtesting, and am not getting anywhere near the slower performance described, so there must be something different. It may be something not obvious--for example, my backup system currently has no antivirus software, since Norton 2006 was causing problems, and I had to remove it. Haven't had a chance to do more detailed testing, yet.
I ran a test recently to see how long it really takes to go from a jump point to a base using afterburner, instead of autopilot. It was a REALLY long time, excrutiatingly long, not fun long--about 2 minutes! Yikes. I definitely agree with the concept of believable versus realistic. I like to see a "noticable" sluggishness when fully loaded--NOT a couple of minutes to accelerate to max speed.
-
- Bounty Hunter
- Posts: 230
- Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2006 12:29 am
- Location: Roaming the Gemini Sector looking for profit!!
@Melonhead
My system is:
Pentium 4 2.8 Ghz
512 Mb Ram
128Mb gforce FX graphics card
Win XP
This allows me to play,(with no problems at all) 1280x1024 resolution with reflective per pixel lighting, 16 bit colour full screen, very high detail. It runs very, very sweet.
The only thing I can think of that might have any effect on the problem is I have incorporated the masses changes you sent me into ZR2.0 for testing before I send it to Dilloh. In ZR2.0 I have decreased most of the ship masses, so they are lighter now. I did not change the inertia settings so as not to alter ship performance and handling. An unloaded Tarsus (with a mass of 55 instead of 250(the old value)) still behaves normally, as we are all used to, so no problem there.
Just looking at the value for Iron you have used (78.0 per m^3), if you load up with 100 units (of Iron), you are adding 7800 mass to the ship mass. This now far exceeds the mass of a Drayman, let alone a poor Tarsus, and so behaves appropriately. A Tarsus with the original mass of 250 is now 31.3 times heavier with 100 units of Iron anboard. That is a hell of a lot of an increase.
There is no problem with your calculations for the "realistic" values for masses, but I think for gameplay we need to reconsider the values when you have a large number of "heavy units" of cargo onboard. The idea of shifting the decimal point is a very good one, in fact I think it will have the necessary and desired effect without too much mucking about changing and testing values over and over again.
My system is:
Pentium 4 2.8 Ghz
512 Mb Ram
128Mb gforce FX graphics card
Win XP
This allows me to play,(with no problems at all) 1280x1024 resolution with reflective per pixel lighting, 16 bit colour full screen, very high detail. It runs very, very sweet.
The only thing I can think of that might have any effect on the problem is I have incorporated the masses changes you sent me into ZR2.0 for testing before I send it to Dilloh. In ZR2.0 I have decreased most of the ship masses, so they are lighter now. I did not change the inertia settings so as not to alter ship performance and handling. An unloaded Tarsus (with a mass of 55 instead of 250(the old value)) still behaves normally, as we are all used to, so no problem there.
Just looking at the value for Iron you have used (78.0 per m^3), if you load up with 100 units (of Iron), you are adding 7800 mass to the ship mass. This now far exceeds the mass of a Drayman, let alone a poor Tarsus, and so behaves appropriately. A Tarsus with the original mass of 250 is now 31.3 times heavier with 100 units of Iron anboard. That is a hell of a lot of an increase.
There is no problem with your calculations for the "realistic" values for masses, but I think for gameplay we need to reconsider the values when you have a large number of "heavy units" of cargo onboard. The idea of shifting the decimal point is a very good one, in fact I think it will have the necessary and desired effect without too much mucking about changing and testing values over and over again.
Time is an Illusion..............Lunchtime doubly so!! -Ford Prefect-
Check out Privateer themed goodies!
http://www.cafepress.com/soulfulngifted/2889859
Check out Privateer themed goodies!
http://www.cafepress.com/soulfulngifted/2889859
-
- Bounty Hunter
- Posts: 131
- Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 1:33 am
- Location: Hampton, VA USA
Yes, please! I need to figure out whether I'm the only one getting reasonable performance with the new cargo masses, or whether it might be the lighter ships in ZR 2.0 that's causing the problem. The master_parts_list.csv is already posted earlier in the thread.Just ask when you need some information or playtesting help.
Regarding the virus scanner comment, it was just an example of software unexpectedly, but dramatically, slowing down my computer. Something about the 2006 Norton AV brought my new system to a crawl.
-
- Elite Hunter
- Posts: 1149
- Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 3:56 pm
- Location: Black Forest, Germany
Well, I tried the mpl you posted in the mod playground, I think that one was w/o ZR. It was too annoying to me to get me 5000 loads of iron into my drayman, so I got myself a Paradigm and loaded it with fighters. I didn't feel any difference, but I must admit, I didn't quite look at values concerning acceleration, rather at maneuverability... I'll look that up.
-
- Bounty Hunter
- Posts: 230
- Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2006 12:29 am
- Location: Roaming the Gemini Sector looking for profit!!
Do you think we/I should post a "preview" of ZR2.0 with Melonheads first changes for other players to test so we can get some extra feedback?
Time is an Illusion..............Lunchtime doubly so!! -Ford Prefect-
Check out Privateer themed goodies!
http://www.cafepress.com/soulfulngifted/2889859
Check out Privateer themed goodies!
http://www.cafepress.com/soulfulngifted/2889859
-
- Bounty Hunter
- Posts: 131
- Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 1:33 am
- Location: Hampton, VA USA
Initial play testing with a Tarsus. Started with clean install of PR, ran just enough cargo missions to afford: afterburner, reactor 1, plasteel armor, plasteel and tungsten hull. I wanted enough reactor that I could keep the AB going; the armor was just because that's what I usually do. Earned cash with cargo missions to avoid any possibility of error due to hacking the savegame.
1) Ran the test cases with 1.1.6b DSE full and empty. 2) Added my density mod to DSE, reran test cases full and empty. 3) Added ZR 2.0 beta with my density mod, reran test cases full and empty.
Results, using specular per pixel lighting (because I have an older video card), 1024x768, no joystick (used keyboard for better consistency), very high detail. "Full" is 100 iron. All "flip 180" are vertical ONLY to minimize variation due to control inputs. All used Helen as the visual reference point.
PR 1.2 with 1.1.6b DSE stock (no density mod):
3.5 seconds from 0 to 300 in AB; 8 seconds to decelerate back to 0.
From 600, flipping 180 degrees, accelerating back to 600 in opposite direction with afterburner going from the beginning of the maneuver: 11 seconds.
From 0, setting 300. 1 second to achieve set; 4.5 seconds to reach desired speed. Same to decelerate: 1 sec to "set" 0, 4.5 sec to decelerate to 0.
From 300, flipping 180, decelerating and accelerating back to 300 without AB, 10 sec.
From 300, flipping 180, decelerating and accelerating back to 300 with AB initiated as soon as flip complete, 6 sec.
ALL of these with PR 1.2 plain, same times full and empty.
With 1.1.6b DSE and modified densities:
NO CHANGE with empty hold (as expected, but you gotta check).
With 100 iron--
4.5 seconds from 0 to 300 using AB, 11 seconds from 300 to 0.
From 600 flipping 180, decelerating to 0 and reaccelerating to 600 with AB, 13 seconds (versus 11 sec w/o modified density).
From 0, setting 300, 1 sec to "set," 5.5 sec to reach 300. From 300, setting 0, 1 sec to "set," 5.5 sec to reach 0 (versus 4.5 w/o modified density).
From 300, flipping 180, decelerating and accelerating back to 300 without AB, 12 sec (versus 10 w/o mod)
From 300, flipping 180, decelerating and accelerating back to 300 with AB as soon as flip complete, 6 sec (same as w/o density mod--probably within experimental error).
With ZR 2.0 beta, using modified density--
NO CHANGE empty. NO CHANGE full from 1.1.6b DSE with modified density.
My system is an Athlon XP 2500 (1.83 GHz) with WinXP SP 2, 1 GB RAM, ATI Radeon 9200 video card.
The only thing I can think of to start that might explain the huge difference in timing between Zool's test and mine is the video card setting--specular per pixel is "2 down" from max. I recommend we get at least 2 more inputs using a Tarsus, and note the video card detail, just in case that's the key variable.
1) Ran the test cases with 1.1.6b DSE full and empty. 2) Added my density mod to DSE, reran test cases full and empty. 3) Added ZR 2.0 beta with my density mod, reran test cases full and empty.
Results, using specular per pixel lighting (because I have an older video card), 1024x768, no joystick (used keyboard for better consistency), very high detail. "Full" is 100 iron. All "flip 180" are vertical ONLY to minimize variation due to control inputs. All used Helen as the visual reference point.
PR 1.2 with 1.1.6b DSE stock (no density mod):
3.5 seconds from 0 to 300 in AB; 8 seconds to decelerate back to 0.
From 600, flipping 180 degrees, accelerating back to 600 in opposite direction with afterburner going from the beginning of the maneuver: 11 seconds.
From 0, setting 300. 1 second to achieve set; 4.5 seconds to reach desired speed. Same to decelerate: 1 sec to "set" 0, 4.5 sec to decelerate to 0.
From 300, flipping 180, decelerating and accelerating back to 300 without AB, 10 sec.
From 300, flipping 180, decelerating and accelerating back to 300 with AB initiated as soon as flip complete, 6 sec.
ALL of these with PR 1.2 plain, same times full and empty.
With 1.1.6b DSE and modified densities:
NO CHANGE with empty hold (as expected, but you gotta check).
With 100 iron--
4.5 seconds from 0 to 300 using AB, 11 seconds from 300 to 0.
From 600 flipping 180, decelerating to 0 and reaccelerating to 600 with AB, 13 seconds (versus 11 sec w/o modified density).
From 0, setting 300, 1 sec to "set," 5.5 sec to reach 300. From 300, setting 0, 1 sec to "set," 5.5 sec to reach 0 (versus 4.5 w/o modified density).
From 300, flipping 180, decelerating and accelerating back to 300 without AB, 12 sec (versus 10 w/o mod)
From 300, flipping 180, decelerating and accelerating back to 300 with AB as soon as flip complete, 6 sec (same as w/o density mod--probably within experimental error).
With ZR 2.0 beta, using modified density--
NO CHANGE empty. NO CHANGE full from 1.1.6b DSE with modified density.
My system is an Athlon XP 2500 (1.83 GHz) with WinXP SP 2, 1 GB RAM, ATI Radeon 9200 video card.
The only thing I can think of to start that might explain the huge difference in timing between Zool's test and mine is the video card setting--specular per pixel is "2 down" from max. I recommend we get at least 2 more inputs using a Tarsus, and note the video card detail, just in case that's the key variable.
-
- Elite Hunter
- Posts: 1149
- Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 3:56 pm
- Location: Black Forest, Germany
I think we should come up with a feelable change - though I think we have much more players than play testers... just to motivate you guys, we have over 90 downloads for canonHUDs1.4fixed and PU1.1b6-DSE. With 1.4 I deleted recently, I think we have about 120 users who use the latest version. I think coming up with a significant is worth a try. Since all users came here by reading the posts to find out about the download links, the "worst" thing which could happen would be that they sign up and complain. And really, I'd appreciate that.Zool wrote:Do you think we/I should post a "preview" of ZR2.0 with Melonheads first changes for other players to test so we can get some extra feedback?
I now got the point. The density outcomes are looking ok. I'll try to make similar tests with my box (P4/2GHz, 768MB RAM, 128MB NVIDIA @ 1600x1200 extreme detail), but I cannot promise when I will be able to do that... I also need to look out for a new jobMelonhead wrote:I recommend we get at least 2 more inputs using a Tarsus, and note the video card detail, just in case that's the key variable.
-
- Expert Mercenary
- Posts: 808
- Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 4:42 am
The original PR Galaxy handled much more sluggishly than the one in the original Privateer - that's why the PU version handles like it does, I wanted it to feel more like the one I remember.Melonhead wrote:
EDIT: I do like how a Galaxy, Tarsus, and Centurion handles with a full load of iron. Since I don't normally fly a lot of the other fighters, I'm not the right person to judge whether their handling is "okay."
Once I figure out how to make price variability work, this should be more interesting--if you haul a load of iron to a pirate base, and discover it isn't selling for very much, do you haul it back out through that asteroid field, or sell it at a loss (or low profit) and take out a low-mass load of Brilliance?
Just to clarify--did you make any changes to the ship specs?
Once fully loaded the PU Galaxy should feel more like the PR Galaxy, just my take.
-
- Elite Hunter
- Posts: 1149
- Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 3:56 pm
- Location: Black Forest, Germany
Okay guys, let me introduce: z30 is back, he is the (god- )father of Parallel Universe.
Sorry for having taken over the project fully in your absence z30, but the ideas were brewing in our heads. Feel free to comment anything honestly, and to ask for having "control" back (like file hosting, etc.).
I pmed you about my plans what to implement, and how.
Sorry for having taken over the project fully in your absence z30, but the ideas were brewing in our heads. Feel free to comment anything honestly, and to ask for having "control" back (like file hosting, etc.).
I pmed you about my plans what to implement, and how.
-
- Expert Mercenary
- Posts: 808
- Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 4:42 am
As far as I'm concerned Dilloh, you're doing great Just run with the ball I'll help out in whichever way I can.Dilloh wrote:Okay guys, let me introduce: z30 is back, he is the (god- )father of Parallel Universe.
Sorry for having taken over the project fully in your absence z30, but the ideas were brewing in our heads. Feel free to comment anything honestly, and to ask for having "control" back (like file hosting, etc.).
I pmed you about my plans what to implement, and how.