Rocket Pods as weapon banks?

klauss
Elite
Elite
Posts: 7243
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 2:40 pm
Location: LS87, Buenos Aires, República Argentina

Re: Rocket Pods as weapon banks?

Post by klauss »

Deus Siddis wrote: Before making missiles more effective or complex though, it would make a lot of sense to make them more... interactive. Right now, their in-flight status is nebulous because you can't see them past the first kilometer if they are outgoing and you never see them if they are incoming. And you can't do anything to actively evade or destroy them, either your ECM or PD gets them or you suddenly die. There is no skill involved in surviving a missile attack.
Indeed
Deus Siddis wrote:They need to have bigger more brilliant exhaust plumes and/or the HUD needs to highlight them (not on the radar, but on the main view) with some kind of bracket or symbol with a distance to target counter beside it. Additionally, incoming missiles should be marked red and have an intercept marker at all times so you can try to shoot them down with your guns. And missiles should have a very small fuel limit, so while your ship can't out sprint them, it can wear them out by maneuvering aggressively over time.
Exhaust wouldn't be visible in space, air missiles have visible exhausts due to the smoke they generate, but there'd be no smoke in space. I've always considered HUD flightpath markers (with green or colored lines) to be the only, yet good, option.

I like the small fuel limit. That's a good choice, and perfectly doable with units.csv (missiles are in unis.csv)
Deus Siddis wrote:As a side benefit, missiles can then also function as a diversionary tactic. You fire one missile at each of the half dozen craft approaching you, not with the intent of killing them (or else you would have fired more at each target) but to force them to evade the missiles while you get out of there or get into a better tactical position.
AI should then be aware of missiles. We can probably do that without much effort, but someome would have to figure out the AI scripts (which are really cumbersome IMNSHO)
Oíd mortales, el grito sagrado...
Call me "Menes, lord of Cats"
Wing Commander Universe
Azereiah
Star Pilot
Star Pilot
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2013 12:13 am

Re: Rocket Pods as weapon banks?

Post by Azereiah »

If the AI were more aware of missiles, then high ROF weapons with some level of spread should be introduced and made relatively common in the universe. If you're busy dodging a missile, you're not focused on dodging machinegun fire, and vice-versa. Missiles are game changers no matter what, and should be treated as such, with the AI also being aware of this danger.
TBeholder
Elite Venturer
Elite Venturer
Posts: 753
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 2:40 am
Location: chthonic safety

Re: Rocket Pods as weapon banks?

Post by TBeholder »

klauss wrote:AI should then be aware of missiles. We can probably do that without much effort, but someome would have to figure out the AI scripts (which are really cumbersome IMNSHO)
Missiles are "High" threat level and automatically (i.e. hack) ask PD turrets for targetting.
"Two Eyes Good, Eleven Eyes Better." -Michele Carter
Deus Siddis
Elite
Elite
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2007 3:42 pm

Re: Rocket Pods as weapon banks?

Post by Deus Siddis »

klauss wrote: Exhaust wouldn't be visible in space, air missiles have visible exhausts due to the smoke they generate, but there'd be no smoke in space. I've always considered HUD flightpath markers (with green or colored lines) to be the only, yet good, option.
That assumes missiles use purely chemical rockets for propulsion, in contrast to the brilliant ion plume engines of ships. If we give them ship thrusters it is a quick, content side fix that should look good, feel intuitive and not be unrealistic.

Later, once an engine side HUD solution materializes, we can revisit the idea of missiles using only invisible chemical thrust.

What do you say?
I like the small fuel limit. That's a good choice, and perfectly doable with units.csv (missiles are in unis.csv)
Okay, I will begin testing this and roll it into the balance changes.
TBeholder wrote:
klauss wrote:AI should then be aware of missiles. We can probably do that without much effort, but someome would have to figure out the AI scripts (which are really cumbersome IMNSHO)
Missiles are "High" threat level and automatically (i.e. hack) ask PD turrets for targetting.
And apparently here is the someone who has already figured out the AI scripts; Turbo Beholder is volunteered for the job! :wink:
TBeholder
Elite Venturer
Elite Venturer
Posts: 753
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 2:40 am
Location: chthonic safety

Re: Rocket Pods as weapon banks?

Post by TBeholder »

No idea about AI scripts. Not even sure they can do it at all.
It's all in hardcoded parts (radar methods and Missile::UpdatePhysics2). Threat levels seem to be used in AI (at least, target selection), but GetThreat just selects the nearest hostile targetting units (to this, or to one asking for help) and Sensor:IdentifyThreat (which actually recognizes missiles) is used for radar display only. Then again, if a ship's combat role prioritizes missiles, it probably will try to kill some.
It's all messed up like this...
Deus Siddis wrote:Before making missiles more effective or complex though, it would make a lot of sense to make them more... interactive. Right now, their in-flight status is nebulous because you can't see them past the first kilometer if they are outgoing and you never see them if they are incoming. And you can't do anything to actively evade or destroy them, either your ECM or PD gets them or you suddenly die. There is no skill involved in surviving a missile attack.
Really? I don't see incoming missiles as "can't do anything to actively evade or destroy them". Dodging is rather futile, because even if you succeed, it will just circle for another pass, but... One, a good shield and/or armor can handle the typical blast damage - if it's not in shreds already. Two, they are rather hard to hit, but very fragile. And autotracking beams completely eliminate "hard to hit" part - if you have lock and the target is in the cone when you fired, it's cooked. Of course, you need to target the missile quickly - there's a key for this, though not bound by default - and select beams or fast bolts if not already there.
klauss wrote:
Deus Siddis wrote:They need to have bigger more brilliant exhaust plumes and/or the HUD needs to highlight them (not on the radar, but on the main view) with some kind of bracket or symbol with a distance to target counter beside it. Additionally, incoming missiles should be marked red and have an intercept marker at all times so you can try to shoot them down with your guns. And missiles should have a very small fuel limit, so while your ship can't out sprint them, it can wear them out by maneuvering aggressively over time.
Exhaust wouldn't be visible in space, air missiles have visible exhausts due to the smoke they generate, but there'd be no smoke in space. I've always considered HUD flightpath markers (with green or colored lines) to be the only, yet good, option.
Exhaust mass cools down via radiation, but not contact or mixing. So there got to be a sparse, but very, very hot vaportrail. So in IR, yes, it got to have a tail like a flying can of spraypaint.
As to showing things by way other than mesh - well, yeah. All we need is some sort of a check painting one more ITTS marker - then simply call Unit::PositionITTS with (weapon) speed=0 and it gives prediction for hit with the unit itself instead of a weapon. Having in GameCockpit::DrawTargetBox one more branch like "drawLineToTargetsTarget", but with plain velocity vector (whether projected or inverted) is trivial. And we need some collision prediction mechanism anyway.
"Two Eyes Good, Eleven Eyes Better." -Michele Carter
Deus Siddis
Elite
Elite
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2007 3:42 pm

Re: Rocket Pods as weapon banks?

Post by Deus Siddis »

TBeholder wrote: Really? I don't see incoming missiles as "can't do anything to actively evade or destroy them". Dodging is rather futile, because even if you succeed, it will just circle for another pass, but...
Not once its fuel supply is greatly more limited though. Missiles should be able to beat you in a sprint but not a marathon.
Two, they are rather hard to hit, but very fragile. And autotracking beams completely eliminate "hard to hit" part - if you have lock and the target is in the cone when you fired, it's cooked.
That is still perhaps too passive a countermeasure though. You want to engage the player's skill and challenge him a bit. In fact that is why auto-trackers in general need to become very rare and ship specific, not available as an upgrade package you can slap on to any ship unless there are steep consequences, like it downsizes the mount from heavy to medium or from medium to light.
Of course, you need to target the missile quickly - there's a key for this, though not bound by default - and select beams or fast bolts if not already there.
What you really want is targeting exclusive to missiles intercepting your own ship, starting with the closest one. In many battles, there are a number of missiles in transit at once, but only one or two has your name on it.
Exhaust mass cools down via radiation, but not contact or mixing. So there got to be a sparse, but very, very hot vaportrail. So in IR, yes, it got to have a tail like a flying can of spraypaint.
True for a chemical rocket but what if missiles used the same electromagnetic thrusters used by ships?

Then you have a nice plume of ions flying out the back, creating a visual cue much bigger and brighter than the missile itself. And it is an easy content side fix that could be done before the next release...
klauss
Elite
Elite
Posts: 7243
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 2:40 pm
Location: LS87, Buenos Aires, República Argentina

Re: Rocket Pods as weapon banks?

Post by klauss »

Ion trails aren't bright at all. They're just a handful atoms per square meter, travelling at relativistic speeds. They get out of sight rather fast.

IMHO, the winning combination is:
  • Autotrackers must be slow to track. Speed depends on the weapon size, and accuracy on the sensor pack. But certainly not infinitely accurate and infinitely fast. That's ridiculous.
  • Missiles should get a computer-generated trail. Somehow the sensor pack detects them, and maps their movements, showing them to you on your HUD.
  • If you have IFF, even simple kinds, missiles targetting you would have a different-colored or somehow more noticeable trail.
  • A key to target them. Maybe cycle, maybe closest.
  • AI that reacts to them, beyond "PD attacks missiles first". More like "AI evades incoming missiles".
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: Rocket Pods as weapon banks?

Post by Deus Siddis »

klauss wrote:Ion trails aren't bright at all. They're just a handful atoms per square meter, travelling at relativistic speeds. They get out of sight rather fast.
What about VASIMR? Doesn't that put out more reaction mass at lower speeds?
Autotrackers must be slow to track. Speed depends on the weapon size, and accuracy on the sensor pack. But certainly not infinitely accurate and infinitely fast. That's ridiculous.
That heavily overlaps the functionality of turrets. Maybe turrets and auto-tracking should be handled by this same new approach?
Missiles should get a computer-generated trail. Somehow the sensor pack detects them, and maps their movements, showing them to you on your HUD.
Seems we have a consensus, I guess it is time to ticket this...
A key to target them. Maybe cycle, maybe closest.
Cycle might be best since, if you are a large vessel, the closest two heat seekers heading your way won't matter nearly as much as the torpedo that is a bit behind them. The HUD missile highlighting feature should also have a weapon specific icon option, so capital killers like torpedoes can be made to stand out from light missiles.
klauss
Elite
Elite
Posts: 7243
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 2:40 pm
Location: LS87, Buenos Aires, República Argentina

Re: Rocket Pods as weapon banks?

Post by klauss »

Deus Siddis wrote:The HUD missile highlighting feature should also have a weapon specific icon option, so capital killers like torpedoes can be made to stand out from light missiles.
How do you see that working? I mean from a data perspective. How do you specify which missiles have which icon?
Oíd mortales, el grito sagrado...
Call me "Menes, lord of Cats"
Wing Commander Universe
TBeholder
Elite Venturer
Elite Venturer
Posts: 753
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 2:40 am
Location: chthonic safety

Re: Rocket Pods as weapon banks?

Post by TBeholder »

Deus Siddis wrote:
TBeholder wrote:Really? I don't see incoming missiles as "can't do anything to actively evade or destroy them". Dodging is rather futile, because even if you succeed, it will just circle for another pass, but...
Not once its fuel supply is greatly more limited though. Missiles should be able to beat you in a sprint but not a marathon.
Also true. Currently they are on self-destruct (time = range / velocity).
Deus Siddis wrote: auto-trackers in general need to become very rare and ship specific, not available as an upgrade package you can slap on to any ship unless there are steep consequences, like it downsizes the mount from heavy to medium or from medium to light.
Why? Less volume for ammo for internal mounts when they get a truckload of servo gear installed, perhaps, but such cases should be properly handled as subunits in the first place, with "instant" autotracking allowed only for specific weapons and accessible in properly set up mounts (it needs to allow shooting at a significant angle from its direction at all, for one).
Deus Siddis wrote:
Of course, you need to target the missile quickly - there's a key for this, though not bound by default - and select beams or fast bolts if not already there.
What you really want is targeting exclusive to missiles intercepting your own ship, starting with the closest one. In many battles, there are a number of missiles in transit at once, but only one or two has your name on it.
Uh, actually follow the link? There are two pairs - [Reverse]MissileTargetKey and [Reverse]IncomingMissileTargetKey. It even says that the former is mostly useful for quickly finding salvage. :lol:
Deus Siddis wrote:Then you have a nice plume of ions flying out the back, creating a visual cue much bigger and brighter than the missile itself. And it is an easy content side fix that could be done before the next release...
Bigger torch, yes, but support for things like an unbound particle cloud to show maneuvers isn't implemented yet.
klauss wrote:Autotrackers must be slow to track. Speed depends on the weapon size, and accuracy on the sensor pack. But certainly not infinitely accurate and infinitely fast. That's ridiculous.
Practically instant if it's beam optics, or last-moment gas dynamic adjustment, etc. Of course, such instant aiming should be supported only by specific weapons and in a cone limited by the weapon itself.
Actually aiming the weapon is another matter entirely, it's just that right now subunits are too buggy to use when there's other choice.
The "infinitely accurate" part is more about guns in general rather than specifically tracking. Sure, low-wavelength beam weapons now already could hit a barn at 1 Mm away... if there's something to aim them this well, yes... most guns can't. Which also would make sense to use in battle computer for finding the effective range (compare scattering cone to the target's radial size and see whether you're trying to snipe or spray and pray).
klauss wrote: Missiles should get a computer-generated trail. Somehow the sensor pack detects them, and maps their movements, showing them to you on your HUD.
If you have IFF, even simple kinds, missiles targetting you would have a different-colored or somehow more noticeable trail.
Anything that can color-code a missile as a radar track should also highlight (and color-code) it on HUD too, yes.
Mostly, we need to add "show thrust" and "show relative velocity vector" to the target box functionality - and apply parts of it to objects other than the current target.
I don't see a big problem here, only slight improvement we had to do long ago. Heh. I'll even make it so that the current target's flightgroup automatically gets basic target boxes painted (just more transparent).
"Two Eyes Good, Eleven Eyes Better." -Michele Carter
Deus Siddis
Elite
Elite
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2007 3:42 pm

Re: Rocket Pods as weapon banks?

Post by Deus Siddis »

klauss wrote:
Deus Siddis wrote:The HUD missile highlighting feature should also have a weapon specific icon option, so capital killers like torpedoes can be made to stand out from light missiles.
How do you see that working? I mean from a data perspective. How do you specify which missiles have which icon?
Maybe use the same base icon and scale it up by the damage output of the missile. So the icon for a torpedo would be significantly larger than most any other kind of rocket, and no new data would be needed.
TBeholder wrote: Why? Less volume for ammo for internal mounts when they get a truckload of servo gear installed, perhaps, but such cases should be properly handled as subunits in the first place, with "instant" autotracking allowed only for specific weapons and accessible in properly set up mounts (it needs to allow shooting at a significant angle from its direction at all, for one).
Well the simplest and safest way is to eliminate (the existing instant-only) auto-tracking as an upgrade and have it only occur as a property of a ship. Then you can, for example, design competing attack ships where one has two fixed heavy mounts and the other has two tracking medium mounts.
Uh, actually follow the link? There are two pairs - [Reverse]MissileTargetKey and [Reverse]IncomingMissileTargetKey.
I can think of no excuse for myself... :oops:

We would only need to map the incoming missile key then, in my opinion.
Bigger torch, yes, but support for things like an unbound particle cloud to show maneuvers isn't implemented yet.
We would only need to use the same visual feature used for ship thrusters. Missiles are just smaller ships.
TBeholder
Elite Venturer
Elite Venturer
Posts: 753
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 2:40 am
Location: chthonic safety

Re: Rocket Pods as weapon banks?

Post by TBeholder »

klauss wrote:
Deus Siddis wrote:The HUD missile highlighting feature should also have a weapon specific icon option, so capital killers like torpedoes can be made to stand out from light missiles.
How do you see that working? I mean from a data perspective. How do you specify which missiles have which icon?
From data perspective? Combat Role! :lol:
Deus Siddis wrote:
TBeholder wrote:Why? Less volume for ammo for internal mounts when they get a truckload of servo gear installed, perhaps, but such cases should be properly handled as subunits in the first place, with "instant" autotracking allowed only for specific weapons and accessible in properly set up mounts (it needs to allow shooting at a significant angle from its direction at all, for one).
Well the simplest and safest way is to eliminate (the existing instant-only) auto-tracking as an upgrade and have it only occur as a property of a ship. Then you can, for example, design competing attack ships where one has two fixed heavy mounts and the other has two tracking medium mounts.
This does not solves the issue of "instant and infallible for all guns". It's just "instant and infallible for all guns... on some ships".
Adjustment of mount statistics won't be hard to do even as is (with an option for backward compatibility :roll: ), however.
"Two Eyes Good, Eleven Eyes Better." -Michele Carter
Deus Siddis
Elite
Elite
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2007 3:42 pm

Re: Rocket Pods as weapon banks?

Post by Deus Siddis »

TBeholder wrote: This does not solves the issue of "instant and infallible for all guns". It's just "instant and infallible for all guns... on some ships".
I think that is more than okay; it can become an interesting aspect of the balance. Similar to how it is now, the Aera might be the near exclusive users of auto tracking mounts. On the downside this might contribute to their fighters being less maneuverable due to the added mass and having less room for ammunition due to the extra space occupied by the mechanism. Of the Human fighters there may only be one experimental model that uses an auto tracked mount with limited firepower.
klauss
Elite
Elite
Posts: 7243
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 2:40 pm
Location: LS87, Buenos Aires, República Argentina

Re: Rocket Pods as weapon banks?

Post by klauss »

No, no wait. Not even optical or electronic steering beams should be instant or perfect. There's sensor tracking to account for as well as optic mechanics.

So no, autotrackers souldn't be neither perfect nor instantaneous.
Oíd mortales, el grito sagrado...
Call me "Menes, lord of Cats"
Wing Commander Universe
TBeholder
Elite Venturer
Elite Venturer
Posts: 753
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 2:40 am
Location: chthonic safety

Autotracking

Post by TBeholder »

klauss wrote:No, no wait. Not even optical or electronic steering beams should be instant or perfect. There's sensor tracking to account for as well as optic mechanics.
So no, autotrackers souldn't be neither perfect nor instantaneous.
Sensor precision applies whether there is auto-aiming or not.
Both timing and accuracy also are subsumed by the gun's, or it won't be there. I.e. whether a beam weapon keeps it within 1 mradian from "forward" as pre-calibrated, or within 1 microradian from "10 microradian to the left", it's the same. It just wider limits and radar told it where to point. With gas dynamic system, it can be ready for correction between shots. So it's back to "guns shouldn't be perfect".
Of course, it applies to an integral subsystem of a weapon, which have to be supported both by the mount and by targetting computer to act like this. Also, internal shot correction systems should have cones very narrow and specific for each weapon - e.g. artillery well below 1 degree, charged beams a few degrees, while a short ranged repulsor bumper may well have 15 or so (it's not even supposed to aim precisely, just sweep things point-blank with a wide beam).
Conversely, "aim there, in wide range of angles" servos should be treated as part of less-autonomous variant of subunits - without AI proper, slaved to main firing control and radar and plugged into main power rather than having a separate reactor. You install servos, subunit loses some equipment space for other goodies (like extra ammo, beter cooling, a little extra armor, etc), but have non-zero angular velocity and acceleration limits (turning limits are pre-set by its placement), as simple as this.
So, leave them as is for now, but keep an eye on this while overhauling subunit/part handling, IMO.
"Two Eyes Good, Eleven Eyes Better." -Michele Carter
klauss
Elite
Elite
Posts: 7243
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 2:40 pm
Location: LS87, Buenos Aires, República Argentina

Re: Autotracking

Post by klauss »

TBeholder wrote: Conversely, "aim there, in wide range of angles" servos should be treated as part of less-autonomous variant of subunits - without AI proper, slaved to main firing control and radar and plugged into main power rather than having a separate reactor.
Again, while the sentiment is correctly placed, the way to implement that is not with subunits. Subunits, by definition, have AI, reactors, and everything. What you want, is a parameterized auto-tracker, with the ability to show such servos as meshes on the weapon mount. Again, not a sub-unit, but a property of the mount point.
TBeholder wrote:You install servos, subunit loses some equipment space for other goodies (like extra ammo, beter cooling, a little extra armor, etc), but have non-zero angular velocity and acceleration limits (turning limits are pre-set by its placement), as simple as this.
It's a convoluted way of implementing mount upgrades. While I agree there'd be tons of freedom, it feels like overkill.
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: Autotracking

Post by Deus Siddis »

klauss wrote: What you want, is a parameterized auto-tracker, with the ability to show such servos as meshes on the weapon mount. Again, not a sub-unit, but a property of the mount point.
If I am understanding you correctly, that is also exactly how turrets should be implemented.
klauss
Elite
Elite
Posts: 7243
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 2:40 pm
Location: LS87, Buenos Aires, República Argentina

Re: Rocket Pods as weapon banks?

Post by klauss »

Probably yeah.
Oíd mortales, el grito sagrado...
Call me "Menes, lord of Cats"
Wing Commander Universe
TBeholder
Elite Venturer
Elite Venturer
Posts: 753
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 2:40 am
Location: chthonic safety

Re: Autotracking

Post by TBeholder »

klauss wrote:
TBeholder wrote: Conversely, "aim there, in wide range of angles" servos should be treated as part of less-autonomous variant of subunits - without AI proper, slaved to main firing control and radar and plugged into main power rather than having a separate reactor.
Again, while the sentiment is correctly placed, the way to implement that is not with subunits. Subunits, by definition, have AI, reactors, and everything.
That's why "less-autonomous variant of" is there. I.e. we're back to ship parts. Once they are implemented, a subunit proper would be a ship part given AI and some autonomy, correct? But then, we already have a ship part with moving limits and some basic functions.
As in, everything necessary for supporting WC-style ship parts and "physical" upgrades, and no elements giving subunits extra overhead. Mounts as we know them now can be implemented as a "ship part" plus attached weapon-related properties. Add one more trivial function controlled by a property (possibly the same), and you have aim-capable mounts.
Maybe even make "functionality" (which for a mount is guns/missiles "control channel") unified with other components to make physical parts work both ways (scan the list, choose radars from it...)?
klauss wrote: What you want, is a parameterized auto-tracker, with the ability to show such servos as meshes on the weapon mount. Again, not a sub-unit, but a property of the mount point.
Throwing in yet another Very Particular Special Case Thing in this cluster-fluffle? Eww. Especially when we're already discussing improvements that would make doing the same via common tools rather trivial.
klauss wrote:
TBeholder wrote:You install servos, subunit loses some equipment space for other goodies (like extra ammo, beter cooling, a little extra armor, etc), but have non-zero angular velocity and acceleration limits (turning limits are pre-set by its placement), as simple as this.
It's a convoluted way of implementing mount upgrades. While I agree there'd be tons of freedom, it feels like overkill.
I think it's less convoluted. Just use the common upgrade methods, common stats calculation methods, common movement-within-constraints methods, etc.
"Two Eyes Good, Eleven Eyes Better." -Michele Carter
klauss
Elite
Elite
Posts: 7243
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 2:40 pm
Location: LS87, Buenos Aires, República Argentina

Re: Autotracking

Post by klauss »

TBeholder wrote:I think it's less convoluted. Just use the common upgrade methods, common stats calculation methods, common movement-within-constraints methods, etc.
No, the overhead that comes with units is way too high for ship parts. Sometimes, efficiency must dictate form.
Oíd mortales, el grito sagrado...
Call me "Menes, lord of Cats"
Wing Commander Universe
TBeholder
Elite Venturer
Elite Venturer
Posts: 753
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 2:40 am
Location: chthonic safety

Re: Rocket Pods as weapon banks?

Post by TBeholder »

Then, uh, don't have this overhead for parts that aren't ship hulls and full-on subunits?
A generic ship part (upgrade) would need position, hull points, visual/collision meshes, pictogram sprite, mass for MoI, and not much more, but also attachment points, one way or another. Most of the rest can be done via this - leaving non-unified functionality to specific actual "upgrades" (radars, mounts...) associated with such physical parts. It's not like common upgrade would need to have much of what Mount doesn't have already (P/Q/R, Functionality, Maxfunctionality, mesh(es), slot type(s), internal volume, etc) - this all would merely end up shuffled into associated object of the generic class.
At this point we may have "movable part" as a special type inheriting generic "ship part" or just specify that "this one is attached via such-and-such joint", but it's still not a lot of extra overhead either way, and one limited joint is all overhead we need for it.
The ship will have to tell such mounts "aim at that point" every tick, and mounts would have to keep track of a few extra vectors for limits and there should be "rotate and check" functions no matter how it's implemented, it's "what you want it to do". Doing it via physical ship parts and a special joint have an advantage of handling things in a more unified way, mop up some existing untidy elements on the way, that's all.
Of course, making subunits by attaching some autonomous unit elements to such unified hull parts rather than attaching units to each other would make utterly impossible almost all bugs we currently have with them, but that's another matter...
"Two Eyes Good, Eleven Eyes Better." -Michele Carter
klauss
Elite
Elite
Posts: 7243
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 2:40 pm
Location: LS87, Buenos Aires, República Argentina

Re: Rocket Pods as weapon banks?

Post by klauss »

You're talking about a refactoring that didn't take place yet.

I thought the idea was to have this fixed now (as opposed to whenever that refactoring happens).
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: Rocket Pods as weapon banks?

Post by Deus Siddis »

klauss wrote:
Deus Siddis wrote:
klauss wrote: What you want, is a parameterized auto-tracker, with the ability to show such servos as meshes on the weapon mount. Again, not a sub-unit, but a property of the mount point.
If I am understanding you correctly, that is also exactly how turrets should be implemented.
Probably yeah.
What about manual turret control, where the you "pilot" the turret from its own cockpit; would that be difficult to replicate with a non-subunit approach?
klauss
Elite
Elite
Posts: 7243
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 2:40 pm
Location: LS87, Buenos Aires, República Argentina

Re: Rocket Pods as weapon banks?

Post by klauss »

Units would require multiple cockpits for that, but I can see how that could be useful.

In essence, and here's the gist: subunits own definition is that they must have their own behavior. Since subunits inherit AI and lots of other unit traits, it only makes sense to instance them when all that behavior matters.

For turrets, it's not so clear whether it does. Turrets need a cockpit, mount points, freedom of movement (up to some degree)... the only thing they maybe shouldn't be is autonomous. Ie: they should suck up energy from their parent unit. Even AI they need: turrets are manned, they shoot at will, per your orders but at will.

So, subunits map rather well to turrets. It's only when you try to control them as you would mountpoints, overriding their AI, is that things become a bit cumbersome. Perhaps this is just a matter of user interface, because it's just a matter of easily giving order to those AIs.

Auto-tracking mountpoints, on the other hand...

Think about it. You don't want AI on those. You don't want cockpits on those. You don't want any of the things that make turrets map well to subunits.

IF (and I stress the if) animatable mountpoints were to grow to the functionality level required by turrets... then maybe (maybe) turrets could be implemented as such. I'm not sure though... I thought so earlier, but after thinking it through, turrets really use all the power of subunits.
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: Rocket Pods as weapon banks?

Post by Deus Siddis »

klauss wrote: In essence, and here's the gist: subunits own definition is that they must have their own behavior. Since subunits inherit AI and lots of other unit traits, it only makes sense to instance them when all that behavior matters.
Here's the thing though-- you only really want AI for point defense turrets. Your main guns, the ones you are going to use against craft of similar size to your own, you want full direct fire control over, it doesn't matter if they are in fixed mounts, tracking mounts or turrets.

And you want the main guns to draw from your main capacitor and reactor, tap into your main ships sensors, rely on the ship wide shields for protection not their own, etc. You want them to be as integrated a part of the ship as any other, that just aims your guns for you, like tracker mounts do.

And while cockpits are a nice-to-have for manually operating one of the main gun turrets at a time, it is much more important to have more direct control over all of them at once, from your main cockpit where you can also fly your ship.
Post Reply