Models - Chris Kuhn

Thinking about improving the Artwork in Vega Strike, or making your own Mod? Submit your question and ideas in this forum.

Moderator: pyramid

Post Reply
Deus Siddis
Elite
Elite
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2007 3:42 pm

Re: Models - Chris Kuhn

Post by Deus Siddis »

charlieg wrote: Here's another set of ship building modules:
http://www.blendswap.com/blends/view/17601
Those appear to lack UVs. Which means only the first 15-30% of work is done on them.

They also lack well designed attach points. So to get the look you want you would probably have to just slam parts together as exampled by the assembled ships on layer 20. That leaves you with a lot of interpenetrating geometry and ugly, random looking intersection areas.
This idea is not new btw. I guess reality [of lack of artist power] has sunk in more by now though.
Actually I think this is the first time modularity has been suggested for the sake of efficiency of content creation.

Folks asking about it in the past seemed to be coming from the angle of wanting all external upgrades to have their own visual and collision meshes and be independently damageable and destroyable. Or further, to have craft entirely built out of small parts by the player, like in Galactic Civilizations or Chromehounds.
Deus Siddis
Elite
Elite
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2007 3:42 pm

Re: Models - Chris Kuhn

Post by Deus Siddis »

Alright, so after giving it some thought, here's my proposal for streamlining and modernizing VS' content set.

First, we divide all content between two larger groups, space and aerospace. Space is used for anything too low a thrust to weight ratio to safely and economically land on a planet and takeoff again, basically large space craft and all space stations. As such, they have little need for aerodynamics and so can have an extremely modular design with lots of externally exposed fine geometry detail, like EVA railings, robotic arms, hoses, etc. For these we heavily reuse the module parts within a faction, to save effort, with most modules even being shared between ships and stations. Aerospace craft on the other hand, are built as integrated designs with smooth streamlined hulls based on fully engineered (beyond plausible) examples from real life:

DC-X / New Shepard
Skylon
Kankoh-Maru
VentureStar
Aerospace Plane
X-30
X-51

Second, we ditch the cliche warplane and warship classifications VS uses, such as "interceptor", "bomber", "frigate" and "battleship". For a setting where space travel has been around and steadily advancing for a millennium, such are insultingly anachronistic terms. But more importantly they lock us into needing a large number of ships for each faction while making no special difference to game play. So instead we should get creative and come up with a smaller set of original role types that are derived from and supported by actual game play. Like "striker" for craft with powerful main thrusters and fixed forward heavy weapons, "raider" for highly agile close quarters attack ships with limited fuel reserves, "thunderhead" for relatively fast large warships that maneuver poorly but are armed with considerable turret based weaponry, or "hulk" for any transport too immense for its engines to land on even a large moon. Altogether there should be 6-8 roles with major factions (Aera, Human and Rlaan) fielding one unique ship for each. Minor factions reuse ships designs for the major factions, but in select cases field 1-2 specially designed craft of their own.

Before being committed, the models and textures for an aerospace craft or space module must be 100% complete and consistent with the above style rules. No misfit designs, no missing or poor quality features, no excuses. Even fresh or near future features like 3D cockpits and PRT should be required. As soon as we have enough of the new aerospace craft models, we throw out all other light craft in the game. As soon as we have the space modules done and assembled into various large space craft and stations, we ditch all the old big ships and stations. No more having all the old and lame shit detract from the sense of immersion and authenticity created by the next generation art set.
klauss
Elite
Elite
Posts: 7243
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 2:40 pm
Location: LS87, Buenos Aires, República Argentina

Re: Models - Chris Kuhn

Post by klauss »

Deus Siddis wrote: Second, we ditch the cliche warplane and warship classifications VS uses, such as "interceptor", "bomber", "frigate" and "battleship". For a setting where space travel has been around and steadily advancing for a millennium, such are insultingly anachronistic terms. But more importantly they lock us into needing a large number of ships for each faction while making no special difference to game play. So instead we should get creative and come up with a smaller set of original role types that are derived from and supported by actual game play. Like "striker" for craft with powerful main thrusters and fixed forward heavy weapons, "raider" for highly agile close quarters attack ships with limited fuel reserves, "thunderhead" for relatively fast large warships that maneuver poorly but are armed with considerable turret based weaponry, or "hulk" for any transport too immense for its engines to land on even a large moon. Altogether there should be 6-8 roles with major factions (Aera, Human and Rlaan) fielding one unique ship for each. Minor factions reuse ships designs for the major factions, but in select cases field 1-2 specially designed craft of their own.
I think it's the other way around. "interceptor" is still a valid role, they're escorts that can intercept attacking craft before they reach the main fleet. As such, they must be fast and deadly, but they have no need of endurance (large fuel reserves).

A "striker" would need no powerful thrusters, just powerful weapons. A striker needs the support of interceptors to protect them from being intercepted, but once in range of its target is capable to deal a good pounding worthy and fearsome.

The "raider" needs to be agile and stealthy, and it does need lots of endurance, since it must first reach and pass enemy lines. Its function is to wreak havoc deep in enemy space, so it needs to be agile, stealthy, and carry a lot of fuel. It can't deal devastating blows, but it can perform surgical strikes on weak but important targets, or it can fulfill the role of scout, relaying enemy positions back to a fleet. Or it can smuggle stuff.

The biggest categories would have to be repurposable. You don't build a half-km-long ship for a single purpose. As such they should all be very modular, and task-dependent.
Oíd mortales, el grito sagrado...
Call me "Menes, lord of Cats"
Wing Commander Universe
Deus Siddis
Elite
Elite
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2007 3:42 pm

Re: Models - Chris Kuhn

Post by Deus Siddis »

Yeah those were just poor examples off the top of my head. The idea is that we could come up with vehicles that are a lot more interesting, original and less numerous if we think outside the box of 20th century air and sea warfare. Because this game is about 30th century space warfare with the distances closed at superluminal speeds, which is not the same at all.

The development of each role should consider every potentially game changing unit variable. The craft in units.csv presently often take no advantage of supported features or take advantage of them identically. All human and aera ships have powerful main and retro but weak lateral thrusters without exception. No ships have one side of armor stronger than another. All ships turn in every direction with equal angular acceleration. Et cetera. These are all opportunities for variation when creating the new roles and ships that fill them.

Also I want to amend what I said earlier about each major faction having a craft that fills a particular role. What would be tremendously better is to have many roles that only one or two of the three factions have covered. For example, perhaps only the Rlaan would use your Raider concept and only the Aera use your Interceptor. This simultaneously makes the game deeper, makes the different species more distinguishable and memorable and it lightens the load on content development even further. Each species should have a unique approach or a set of unique approaches to warfare (with some overlap as well). Right now they mainly just look different.
klauss wrote: The biggest categories would have to be repurposable. You don't build a half-km-long ship for a single purpose. As such they should all be very modular, and task-dependent.
Indeed.

And ditto for stations, to the extent that there's no module that you'd find on one of the large space craft that you would not find on one of the space stations and vice versa. So you naturally reap massive content re-usage this way.
klauss
Elite
Elite
Posts: 7243
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 2:40 pm
Location: LS87, Buenos Aires, República Argentina

Re: Models - Chris Kuhn

Post by klauss »

Deus Siddis wrote:Also I want to amend what I said earlier about each major faction having a craft that fills a particular role. What would be tremendously better is to have many roles that only one or two of the three factions have covered. For example, perhaps only the Rlaan would use your Raider concept and only the Aera use your Interceptor. This simultaneously makes the game deeper, makes the different species more distinguishable and memorable and it lightens the load on content development even further. Each species should have a unique approach or a set of unique approaches to warfare (with some overlap as well). Right now they mainly just look different.
While I agree about differentiating races based on role importances, I don't think you can outright remove a role from a race's fleet.

Generally, things work best in games if you follow RPS rules (Rock-Paper-Scissors, where no role beats all others). In such a context, removing a role exposes a big hole in your strategy. You just can't do that. What you can do, is put emphasis on one role you prefer, as a species and tactician.
Oíd mortales, el grito sagrado...
Call me "Menes, lord of Cats"
Wing Commander Universe
Deus Siddis
Elite
Elite
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2007 3:42 pm

Re: Models - Chris Kuhn

Post by Deus Siddis »

klauss wrote: Generally, things work best in games if you follow RPS rules (Rock-Paper-Scissors, where no role beats all others). In such a context, removing a role exposes a big hole in your strategy. You just can't do that. What you can do, is put emphasis on one role you prefer, as a species and tactician.
Maybe "role" was a poor choice of words; sounds too broad. What I mean is the approach each species takes to accomplish the same goal should be radically different more often than not.

So for example, all three species need the ability to set up colonies, but the commonality could end there. Aera move a single massive transport into orbit that rapidly deploys infrastructure to the surface via a fleet of shuttles, and after a few months of this, leaves behind a fully established colony. Humans deploy a series of small long range aerospace transports over a year or so, that gradually build up a settlement. Rlaan deploy a fleet of pods that permanently deploy to the planet's surface and transform themselves into colony infrastructure and continue slowly developing themselves over many years without any serious investment required from off world. So every species can accomplish an essential goal like establishing new colonies, but go about it very differently.

For a more radical (hypothetical) example take interception. The Aera might use high speed, short duration attack craft deployed a soon as a threat is detected. Humans might use a screen of low speed, long duration picket craft deployed ahead of time. Rlaan might use no interception craft at all, relying instead on considerable point defense batteries.
klauss
Elite
Elite
Posts: 7243
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 2:40 pm
Location: LS87, Buenos Aires, República Argentina

Re: Models - Chris Kuhn

Post by klauss »

Deus Siddis wrote:
klauss wrote: Generally, things work best in games if you follow RPS rules (Rock-Paper-Scissors, where no role beats all others). In such a context, removing a role exposes a big hole in your strategy. You just can't do that. What you can do, is put emphasis on one role you prefer, as a species and tactician.
Maybe "role" was a poor choice of words; sounds too broad. What I mean is the approach each species takes to accomplish the same goal should be radically different more often than not.

So for example, all three species need the ability to set up colonies, but the commonality could end there. Aera move a single massive transport into orbit that rapidly deploys infrastructure to the surface via a fleet of shuttles, and after a few months of this, leaves behind a fully established colony. Humans deploy a series of small long range aerospace transports over a year or so, that gradually build up a settlement. Rlaan deploy a fleet of pods that permanently deploy to the planet's surface and transform themselves into colony infrastructure and continue slowly developing themselves over many years without any serious investment required from off world. So every species can accomplish an essential goal like establishing new colonies, but go about it very differently.
Ah, yeah, that makes total sense.
Oíd mortales, el grito sagrado...
Call me "Menes, lord of Cats"
Wing Commander Universe
Deus Siddis
Elite
Elite
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2007 3:42 pm

Re: Models - Chris Kuhn

Post by Deus Siddis »

I think combat roles can be boiled down into just four:
  • Interception
  • Hunting
  • Flanking
  • Siege
Interception is filled by ships that trade in maneuverability, armor, endurance and overall firepower for extreme forward linear acceleration and dangerous but generally short lived firepower from forward fixed weapons. They are for nearly immediate defensive response as well as hit and run strikes against enemies relatively close to a base or vessel capable of refueling and rearming them. As such they are usually found standing guard near wormholes, hidden inside asteroid fields, sitting on planetary launchpads or docked en masse with stations and large ships.

Hunting is filled by ships that favor stealth, detection, endurance, moderate armor and considerable but not long lasting firepower. While interceptors quickly deal with close in threats, hunters take their time tracking down long term threats over great distances and are deployed in smaller numbers. They are usually found deployed inside enemy territory near the cover of asteroid fields, debris fields, stars or uninhabited planets as well a good distance from friendly forces serving as a first line of defense.

Flanking ships combine maneuverability, armor and long lasting but close ranged firepower often mounted in turrets or swiveling casemates. They are used to protect friendly forces in tight formations and attack opponents at the closest possible range, where their maneuverability, survivability and flexible firepower allow them to get around or behind the enemy's defenses. Flankers are usually seen deployed en masse in close defensive positions around assets or in small groups near enemy territory forming a second line of defense and standing ready to support friendly hunters caught by patrols in enemy territory.

Siege craft trade in all forms of agility for long ranged, long lasting, fearsome forward firepower as well as detection and possessing good frontal armor but weak flanks and rear. They are used to demolish entire fleets, hardened targets and swathes of infrastructure from a safe distance. Siege craft are usually found near friendly bases for mutual protection or at the center of a flight group.

I have also boiled down the logistical roles into four:
  • Aerospace Shuttling
  • Space Transportation
  • Asteroid Mining
  • Gas Mining
Aerospace Shuttling is the movement of cargo between the surface of a planet and orbital altitude. It is especially critical for fringe systems where young colonies require high end necessities they can't yet produce for themselves at full capacity and which don't have space elevators, stations or even enough of their own shuttles to transport goods themselves.

Space Transportation is the movement of cargo between the orbital altitudes of different planets, often located in different solar systems. It is especially critical for mining operations and planets with extreme environments, since these places usually have enormous quantities of a few types of goods and never enough of most everything else they need.

Asteroid Mining is the break down and collection of asteroids for the metal ores they contain. It is dangerous due to the ambient collision threats and the cover against detection they provide to hostile craft.

Gas Mining is the collection of elements from gas giants for use as reaction mass, fuel, coolant and artificial atmospheres. It is dangerous due to super storm turbulence and the inability to quickly escape the gravity well in case of attack.


Note that while many ships fill only one role or two, there is nothing stopping other ships from taking on a number of them.
klauss
Elite
Elite
Posts: 7243
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 2:40 pm
Location: LS87, Buenos Aires, República Argentina

Re: Models - Chris Kuhn

Post by klauss »

Interesting. I'm mostly sold on combat roles. We'll see if there's any gaps once we start fleshing the roles out, but a-priori they look OK.

Logistical roles seem incomplete, though. There's no place for couriers, and in fact there's no mention of volume/time tradeoffs.

A critical distinction lies between trunk and endpoint distribution. Not only do the volumes vary, also the criticality of such roles. An endpoint distributor might be a loner, while a trunk distributor will probably travel within a massive support fleet. Disruption of trunk distribution chains would be highly damaging.

As such, ships would be tailored for one or the other. Trunk distributors would most likely resemble space trains, and endpoint distributors fattened shuttles. Given UTCS's dangerous universe, you'd expect these space trains to be heavily armed with PD, and perhaps also quite decently escorted, depending on the area of the universe they're in, and how dangerous its route is.

I'm also not convinced about mining roles. While I see where you're headed, your description really doesn't mention any significant difference between gas and asteroid miners, other than their purpose. What operational difference is there among those? (I'm thinking many, but they're not fleshed out)
Oíd mortales, el grito sagrado...
Call me "Menes, lord of Cats"
Wing Commander Universe
Deus Siddis
Elite
Elite
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2007 3:42 pm

Re: Models - Chris Kuhn

Post by Deus Siddis »

klauss wrote: There's no place for couriers, and in fact there's no mention of volume/time tradeoffs.
Since couriers don't require any real cargo space, there are no specific craft for that duty. Instead, a fast ship is chosen based on the environment the message needs to go through. If the missions goes to a planet, a shuttle will be used, if it goes to a distant system, a transport, if it goes through hostile territory, a hunter.

But basically travel time consideration is not a part of the fundamental design of VS, because there is no (longer) time dilation, so everything is balanced to happen at a rate that will hold player attention, in real time. As a result, even the slowest ship in the game could reach any destination in a matter of hours. And it is difficult to imagine how any sizable interstellar shipment arriving in a matter of minutes rather than hours could make any economic difference worth the much greater cost.
A critical distinction lies between trunk and endpoint distribution. Not only do the volumes vary, also the criticality of such roles. An endpoint distributor might be a loner, while a trunk distributor will probably travel within a massive support fleet. Disruption of trunk distribution chains would be highly damaging.

As such, ships would be tailored for one or the other. Trunk distributors would most likely resemble space trains, and endpoint distributors fattened shuttles. Given UTCS's dangerous universe, you'd expect these space trains to be heavily armed with PD, and perhaps also quite decently escorted, depending on the area of the universe they're in, and how dangerous its route is.
Yeah, basically aerospace shuttles are the endpoint delivery and space transports are the trunk.
I'm also not convinced about mining roles. While I see where you're headed, your description really doesn't mention any significant difference between gas and asteroid miners, other than their purpose. What operational difference is there among those? (I'm thinking many, but they're not fleshed out)
Well maybe we should combine them into a unified 'Mining' role.

The basic requirement is a huge scoop(s) to funnel the gas or asteroid fragments and deliver them to a cargo area where they get compressed. Also, the hulls might be more reinforced than a shuttle or transport, to survive the extra abuse of heavy atmospheric pressure or asteroid collisions.
klauss
Elite
Elite
Posts: 7243
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 2:40 pm
Location: LS87, Buenos Aires, República Argentina

Re: Models - Chris Kuhn

Post by klauss »

Deus Siddis wrote:
klauss wrote: There's no place for couriers, and in fact there's no mention of volume/time tradeoffs.
Since couriers don't require any real cargo space, there are no specific craft for that duty. Instead, a fast ship is chosen based on the environment the message needs to go through. If the missions goes to a planet, a shuttle will be used, if it goes to a distant system, a transport, if it goes through hostile territory, a hunter.
...
A critical distinction lies between trunk and endpoint distribution...
Yeah, basically aerospace shuttles are the endpoint delivery and space transports are the trunk.
I hear that, but the fact that you'd pick some existing hull or ship design doesn't detract from the possibility of customization the different role might infer. It would be worth considering, that hunters may also be used as couriers, and so while you'll have hunters doing the hunting, you might have hunters doing high-risk high-profit trading routes (I'd imagine the commodity most commonly being information which, remember, in VS can't travel through wormholes without ships).

Not to mention, although secondary in this art-centric thread, the difference in AI behavior these roles entail.
I'm also not convinced about mining roles. While I see where you're headed, your description really doesn't mention any significant difference between gas and asteroid miners, other than their purpose. What operational difference is there among those? (I'm thinking many, but they're not fleshed out)
Deus Siddis wrote:Well maybe we should combine them into a unified 'Mining' role.

The basic requirement is a huge scoop(s) to funnel the gas or asteroid fragments and deliver them to a cargo area where they get compressed. Also, the hulls might be more reinforced than a shuttle or transport, to survive the extra abuse of heavy atmospheric pressure or asteroid collisions.
I think there are some subtle or not so subtle differences. Like, you mentioned gas mines are deep within gravity wells. This is both a weakness and a defensive asset. You could, for instance, easily rely on point defenses since you wouldn't expect bigger ships would risk getting stuck in them, whereas asteroid miners need interceptors, because PDs would have a hard time detecting distant ships among all the debris, and bigger ships could attack from beyond PD range.

My mind is more on gameplay today, but this reflects on the artwork too... interceptors means hangar bays, bays designed to quickly scramble them into action, not just cargo bays.
Oíd mortales, el grito sagrado...
Call me "Menes, lord of Cats"
Wing Commander Universe
Deus Siddis
Elite
Elite
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2007 3:42 pm

Re: Models - Chris Kuhn

Post by Deus Siddis »

klauss wrote: I hear that, but the fact that you'd pick some existing hull or ship design doesn't detract from the possibility of customization the different role might infer.
I guess I am not clear on what that customization means as far as physical features? What features or combination of features are unique to a courier vessel?
Not to mention, although secondary in this art-centric thread, the difference in AI behavior these roles entail.
I am pretty sure the Shuttle AI would automatically cover that- "Get to destination X using the shortest route, make no unnecessary stops."
I think there are some subtle or not so subtle differences. Like, you mentioned gas mines are deep within gravity wells. This is both a weakness and a defensive asset. You could, for instance, easily rely on point defenses since you wouldn't expect bigger ships would risk getting stuck in them, whereas asteroid miners need interceptors, because PDs would have a hard time detecting distant ships among all the debris, and bigger ships could attack from beyond PD range.
I am not sure it would be that simple. The clouds in gas giants also provide cover. And cover goes both ways, so if a ship is attacking you from a distance, you can put an asteroid between you and him. And if he is bigger, he should be easier to see and have a harder time of hiding himself from you.
My mind is more on gameplay today, but this reflects on the artwork too... interceptors means hangar bays, bays designed to quickly scramble them into action, not just cargo bays.
Indeed. Form follows function, the graphics need to illustrate the mechanics in every department.

I would even like to see an end to model and texture "greebles" in the sense of random detail. The artist should be able to explain the useful function of every detail on his model. And as the engine becomes more advanced these details should be exploited by graphical and game features. Like refueling and docking rigs meeting the appropriate ports on a model, thrust plumes for RCS thrusters, weapons being fired from visible openings or guns, etc.
klauss
Elite
Elite
Posts: 7243
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 2:40 pm
Location: LS87, Buenos Aires, República Argentina

Re: Models - Chris Kuhn

Post by klauss »

Deus Siddis wrote:
klauss wrote: I hear that, but the fact that you'd pick some existing hull or ship design doesn't detract from the possibility of customization the different role might infer.
I guess I am not clear on what that customization means as far as physical features? What features or combination of features are unique to a courier vessel?
Well, information dealing will make the difference between 2h and 30' meaningful, so perhaps they'd have smaller cargo bays and bigger engines. Just an example.

Deus Siddis wrote:
Not to mention, although secondary in this art-centric thread, the difference in AI behavior these roles entail.
I am pretty sure the Shuttle AI would automatically cover that- "Get to destination X using the shortest route, make no unnecessary stops."
Only if we mention it. It doesn't happen magically.
Deus Siddis wrote:
I think there are some subtle or not so subtle differences. Like, you mentioned gas mines are deep within gravity wells. This is both a weakness and a defensive asset. You could, for instance, easily rely on point defenses since you wouldn't expect bigger ships would risk getting stuck in them, whereas asteroid miners need interceptors, because PDs would have a hard time detecting distant ships among all the debris, and bigger ships could attack from beyond PD range.
I am not sure it would be that simple. The clouds in gas giants also provide cover. And cover goes both ways, so if a ship is attacking you from a distance, you can put an asteroid between you and him. And if he is bigger, he should be easier to see and have a harder time of hiding himself from you.
Sure, but point of fact is, there are likely strategic differences in both situations worth considering. While clouds provide cover, only aerospace ships can take cover in them. That's a big difference.
Deus Siddis wrote:I would even like to see an end to model and texture "greebles" in the sense of random detail. The artist should be able to explain the useful function of every detail on his model. And as the engine becomes more advanced these details should be exploited by graphical and game features. Like refueling and docking rigs meeting the appropriate ports on a model, thrust plumes for RCS thrusters, weapons being fired from visible openings or guns, etc.
Amen to that.
Oíd mortales, el grito sagrado...
Call me "Menes, lord of Cats"
Wing Commander Universe
Deus Siddis
Elite
Elite
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2007 3:42 pm

Re: Models - Chris Kuhn

Post by Deus Siddis »

klauss wrote:
Deus Siddis wrote: I guess I am not clear on what that customization means as far as physical features? What features or combination of features are unique to a courier vessel?
Well, information dealing will make the difference between 2h and 30' meaningful, so perhaps they'd have smaller cargo bays and bigger engines. Just an example.
That is basically what aerospace shuttles are, big engines and small cargo bays. So I suppose the question is, are they still slow enough as to leave room for another category of ships, with almost no space and even bigger engine (proportionally).

My guess is no, since shuttles need to both be able to carry cargo into orbit, and keep the player entertained when he is hauling nickel-iron across space, which both require tremendous thrust. Tremendous thrust which becomes tremendous speed when they ship is laden only with information. The empty cargo space could also be used to carry extra fuel for longer distance communication.
klauss wrote:
Deus Siddis wrote: I am pretty sure the Shuttle AI would automatically cover that- "Get to destination X using the shortest route, make no unnecessary stops."
Only if we mention it. It doesn't happen magically.
I would suggest that becomes the default behavior for aerospace shuttles (maybe even space transports as well). I think that is how most logistics works in reality- you fully load up with the intent to get to a single destination as soon as possible. No traveling salesman crap or making bus stops.
klauss wrote:Sure, but point of fact is, there are likely strategic differences in both situations worth considering. While clouds provide cover, only aerospace ships can take cover in them. That's a big difference.
I think that for civilian roles though, defensive strategies should be a small consideration. If you are mining in a war zone, let's say, you need to include combat roles into your mining operation. Either via escorts with combat focused roles or by using a multi-role ship that combines mining with a combat role.

But I suppose there are enough operational differences in general to warrant the two separate mining roles. Maybe gas miners could be very light weight by storing their haul in flexible (possibly external) bladders instead of heavy compression tanks. And asteroid miners would carry miniaturized but heavy refining equipment to separate the rock from the metal so it can be discarded immediately. And gas miners might focus on stronger hulls to withstand pressure while asteroid miners focus on armor to protect against meteorite impacts.
klauss wrote:
Deus Siddis wrote:I would even like to see an end to model and texture "greebles" in the sense of random detail. The artist should be able to explain the useful function of every detail on his model. And as the engine becomes more advanced these details should be exploited by graphical and game features. Like refueling and docking rigs meeting the appropriate ports on a model, thrust plumes for RCS thrusters, weapons being fired from visible openings or guns, etc.
Amen to that.
Come to think of it, we should create a long list of "functional details" and make this a requirement for new models. And there could even be role-specific detail requirements.
klauss
Elite
Elite
Posts: 7243
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 2:40 pm
Location: LS87, Buenos Aires, República Argentina

Re: Models - Chris Kuhn

Post by klauss »

You know what I'd like to see? (although this is largely my task and my fault we don't have yet)....

...gas mining bases...

...inside gas giants.

Only the upper atmosphere. Not enough to be troublesome, but enough to be amazing (and daunting, getting there isn't for all ships).
Oíd mortales, el grito sagrado...
Call me "Menes, lord of Cats"
Wing Commander Universe
Deus Siddis
Elite
Elite
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2007 3:42 pm

Re: Models - Chris Kuhn

Post by Deus Siddis »

You mean a floating base like a giant dirigible? There's got to be dozens of interesting things you could do there...

Like underneath it are large wind electric generators lowered via winches hundreds of kilometers down into the storm layer of the atmosphere.

And there's similar floating structures at the same altitude a few kilometers away connected by cables with cable cars running between them (and inside the base you see numerous plaques commemorating workers lost in transit during cable breakages).

And the Rlaan gas mine uses giant ornithopter wings to reposition itself.

Naturally, native lifeforms fly up from the lower atmosphere to attack gas mines on a regular basis.

During your descent to a gas mine, pirates may come to shoot out your engines and then demand a hefty fee in exchange for towing you back up into orbit, or if you refuse, leave you to free fall to crush depth.
klauss
Elite
Elite
Posts: 7243
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 2:40 pm
Location: LS87, Buenos Aires, República Argentina

Re: Models - Chris Kuhn

Post by klauss »

You get the idea.

Tough, but within the realm of possibility.
Oíd mortales, el grito sagrado...
Call me "Menes, lord of Cats"
Wing Commander Universe
Deus Siddis
Elite
Elite
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2007 3:42 pm

Re: Models - Chris Kuhn

Post by Deus Siddis »

So getting back to ships... We have eight roles which cover every known fun-to-play role you can do in a space simulation setting (with the exceptions of huge undertakings like colonization and planetary exploration).

Of those eight, six seem to be relatively low hanging fruit with game play that should work out of the box with the VS engine the way it is now. But two I am less sure about-- Hunting and Gas Mining. If we don't have clear design details or near term support for these two roles then it is probably best to table them for the foreseeable future.

Hunting. Every combat role has an inherent defensive strategy and Hunters depend on their stealth and counter measures for defense. But how well does VS actually handle stealth and counter measures? I see there's "cloaking devices" and ECM but are these mature gameplay features that offer a mix of strategies and counter-strategies intricate and dynamic enough to be fun and balanced? Or are they half implemented experimental features?

Gas Mining. How difficult would it be to have some upper atmosphere simulation in VS? Shifting winds and gravity and such?
klauss
Elite
Elite
Posts: 7243
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 2:40 pm
Location: LS87, Buenos Aires, República Argentina

Re: Models - Chris Kuhn

Post by klauss »

Deus Siddis wrote: Hunting. Every combat role has an inherent defensive strategy and Hunters depend on their stealth and counter measures for defense. But how well does VS actually handle stealth and counter measures? I see there's "cloaking devices" and ECM but are these mature gameplay features that offer a mix of strategies and counter-strategies intricate and dynamic enough to be fun and balanced? Or are they half implemented experimental features?
I think we should strive to make them part of gameplay (stealth and countermeasures). They'd be one of the best ways to enhance gameplay I can think of, even if not so low hanging.
Deus Siddis wrote:Gas Mining. How difficult would it be to have some upper atmosphere simulation in VS? Shifting winds and gravity and such?
Mildly, given the time to implement them, and a clear objective. Right now, I'm short on time in this regard. I think it's a cronical ailment, time lackitis, but in any case, not that difficult to implement.
Oíd mortales, el grito sagrado...
Call me "Menes, lord of Cats"
Wing Commander Universe
Deus Siddis
Elite
Elite
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2007 3:42 pm

Re: Models - Chris Kuhn

Post by Deus Siddis »

klauss wrote: I think we should strive to make them part of gameplay (stealth and countermeasures). They'd be one of the best ways to enhance gameplay I can think of, even if not so low hanging.
Alright then. I guess we should start with how the current implementations of cloak and ecm work. What do these stats do--

Cloak_Min
Cloak_Rate
Cloak_Glass
ECM_Rating
ECM_Resist

And how do they interact with radar stats?
log0

Re: Models - Chris Kuhn

Post by log0 »

ECM_Resist is unused
ECM_Rating affects missiles

Code: Select all

Missile::UpdatePhysics2
    static size_t max_ecm = (size_t)XMLSupport::parse_int( vs_config->getVariable( "physics", "max_ecm", "4" ) );
    size_t missile_hash = ( (size_t) this ) / 16383;
    if ( (int)(missile_hash%max_ecm) < UnitUtil::getECM(targ)) {
        Target( NULL );

GameMissile::UpdatePhysics2
    Unit *targ;
    if ( ( targ = ( Unit::Target() ) ) )
        if (rand()/( (float) RAND_MAX ) < ( (float) UnitUtil::getECM(targ) )*SIMULATION_ATOM/32768)
            Target( NULL );
 
log0

Re: Models - Chris Kuhn

Post by log0 »

Code: Select all

    ///How much energy cloaking takes per frame
    float cloakenergy;
    ///how fast this starship decloaks/close...if negative, decloaking
    int   cloakrate;   //short fix
    ///If this unit cloaks like glass or like fading
    bool  cloakglass;
TBeholder
Elite Venturer
Elite Venturer
Posts: 753
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 2:40 am
Location: chthonic safety

Re: Models - Chris Kuhn

Post by TBeholder »

Ugh.
There are different UpdatePhysics2 methods in missile_generic.cpp and missile.h - but either way, each frame a missile have a chance to lose its target proportional to the target ship's ECM_Rating. Got to update wiki.
ECM_Resist does nothing - it's not even read. Probably either atavism or more likely reserved for improved ECM model.

Cloaking is implemented in a bit hacky and inside out way with faked out fixed-point variables and without proper constants/macros, though.
"Two Eyes Good, Eleven Eyes Better." -Michele Carter
Deus Siddis
Elite
Elite
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2007 3:42 pm

Re: Models - Chris Kuhn

Post by Deus Siddis »

So there is nothing on what Cloak_Min does? It isn't used anyplace?

And there is no way to detect a cloaked ship then? Proximity and radar power aren't factored into a detection algorithm?
log0 wrote:

Code: Select all

    ///how fast this starship decloaks/close...if negative, decloaking
Whoever can translate the second half of that comment gets a cloaking device of their own. :?
TBeholder wrote: ECM_Resist does nothing - it's not even read. Probably either atavism or more likely reserved for improved ECM model.
It maybe was going to be ECCM. So the ECM rating of a target would be reduced by the ECCM "resist" rating of the missile.
log0

Re: Models - Chris Kuhn

Post by log0 »

Cloak min is used at quite a few places, making it difficult to follow.

Code: Select all

//-1 is not available... ranges between 0 32767 for "how invisible" unit currently is (32768... -32768) being visible)
    int   cloaking;                              //short fix
//the minimum cloaking value...
    int   cloakmin;                              //short fix
Post Reply