Summery of gravity discussions that where lost
Posted: Sun Nov 18, 2012 3:38 am
This is a summery of gravity discussions that where lost in web-server wipe of 2012, from around March to Aug 12th. Though this is a summery of past discussions involving many community members, for simplicity sake I will just talk as if I came up with many of the ideas and refinements of ideas, which in reality was proposed by someone else.
There previously had been discussions in the forum about adding gravity to VegaStrike. Currently there is a small movement and work being done on a branch of VegaStrike called Vega-Ogre. This Branch seems to aim to add a different graphics layer to the game, so to benefit from the collective development of the OGER project. “Log0” who is openly working on the project, has stated that it is his intention to implement gravity into the OGER Branch of the game. To me this is quite exciting because it means the graphics part of the engine will benefit from a larger collective of programers, even ones not part of the VegaStrike Project. To me externalizing development work in multiple areas sounds like a good idea, maintenance wise.
VegaStrike by name is a space simulator, but unlike most space simulators it implements Semi-Newtonian Physics along with a small handful of other Space games. I say Semi-Newtonian because none of the fast action simulation games actually implement gravity, either because there are no planets, or planet gravity is simply ignored like currently in VegaStrike. The reason for this is many fold. Pure space simulation games like Orbiter do implement gravity, and atmosphere, but it is slow pace and not an action game.
There is an important fun factor that must be maintained in a game that intends to attract action game fans, and not just hardcore simulator fans. Traditionally there has been a conflict of interest between fast pace action and creating physical realism, because realism normally means slowing down the game to a time frame that matches reality; and we all know that reality is kinda too slow sometimes.
Fortunately there is a reprieve from this in a game that takes place in the future, technology can be almost anything that you desire it to be without sacrificing any set in stone realism. A great example is the SPEC Drive or a Warp Drive, which supposedly bends space-time in order bypass the light barrier. The effect is speeding up in game travel insanely, and good thing to because I doubt that many would play for days just to travel to planets in the solar system at accelerations that would not kill the occupants.
Other examples of tech that has been used to speed up action in various video games and movies are inertial dampeners, Warp gates, Stargates, Gateways (StarShip beaming teleporter), space elevators, personal Teleporters, Slipstream, Hyperspace, Starburst, Wormholes. Some of the listed are duplicates under a different name and some have scant sudo-scientific explanations like Stargates, Starburst and wormholes; but others could be plausible under current scientific theories such as string theory, or other grand unified theories of everything. If one submits to 8 higher dimensions, suddenly there is much more room for hyperspace, slipstream, teleporter beams, warp field generators, inertial dampeners, and even artificial gravity.
I propose that Vegastrike can be both a fast pace action game and a hard core simulator. The condition being the game accept as cannon Grand Unified Theories of Everything that suggest higher unrecognizable dimensions not directly accessible, except temporarily through energized technology.
You may ask why this is necessary, and I will answer this by describing the problems that arise with implementing gravity as they have been discussed previously. Gravity is simple, every bit of mass simply pulls on every other bit of mass depending on the distance away. Though there are issues with programing Logo has said it is completely doable. The real issues that arises is that every little dam thing is constantly moving and it makes for a navigation nightmare. There are also a maximum thrust issues because the ship occupants can only handle so much acceleration and the ship hull and thrusters could only provide so much force given realistic materials.
First I'll tackle navigation. When everything is moving every way at the same time it takes a lot of math to calculate a perfect intercept vector, let alone not crashing into the target. Planets are orbiting the sun moons are orbiting planets, satellites are orbiting moons, and your in a ship trying to track that satellite starting from the orbit of another satellite orbiting a moon. How would all those orbits stay perfectly reliable? How would one calculate that for autopilot? How would one display the orbit information to the player on screen, without creating endless lines all over the screen, or way to far away to see? What would the controls need to be? It has been said that we don't have The AI expertise on hand to program an autopiolot that can navigate and make decisions in combat while navigating gravity, how will the humans even manage to handle gravity may be the first question? I will too simply answer each of these.
Some orbits will have to be made on a permanent path like the planets and probably the stations or not move at all, and ships maybe the only objects that are naturally orbiting. Even they may ignore everything but the most significant objects. Autopilot would be calculated or rather estimated dynamically with the AI's priority given to avoiding crashes. Orbit information would be displayed on navigation viewer or overlay, where size of distant objects can be exaggerated so orbits can be seen and orbit paths would be viewable one object at a time. A new set of controls would be necessary to deal with navigation issues like reference points, orbits, itineraries, and object tracking. I have previously posted and got assistance on a proposal for these new controls for gravity and I will sometime post a revised version. Obviously navigation solutions would require much more detailed answers than this.
Thrust constraints pose another slew of issues that goes deeper than it seems. Obviously SPEC (warp) is needed when travelling in between planets, but to avoid crashing SPEC powers down when approaching gravity wells created by planets and stations. Supposedly the strong gravity of planets interferes with the warp envelope, and oddly enough the stations effect SPEC too, but not other ships. I suspect this fail safe would be some SPEC drive jamming device, and if it was, spec jamming devices could fix the problem with ships too easily escaping into spec. This is a core game play issue, and changing it will alter the game combat dramatically. Combat dynamics is it's own subject so I will only focus on how gravity ties in to this.
Gravity from massive objects leaves a ship with only thrusters to manoeuvre the way things are in game right now. This is good for playability until one tries to make all the variables realistic. If planets are made the correct size, if distances are real, if gravity is correct, and if ships and occupants can only handle so much acceleration before expiring, then previous debates on the issue dictate that something must be adjusted. The maximum amount of thrust was debated between setting it around 10G which is around the maximum a human can withstand constantly; or something lower that modern materials could withstand like the 4G of NASA ships; or setting it much higher under the assumption that some new materials and technology like inertial dampening would protect the occupants from the forces of gravity and inertia >10G. The problem with a too low acceleration rating of thrusters is that when large ships travel too nearby a planet without a proper orbit, the acceleration of gravity will too quickly exceed the acceleration of the thrusters which would make the ship unable to hover above a planet within any margin of control or safety out of proper orbit. It would also mean that some larger ships could never land on some planets. To me this sounds like an excellent game play opportunity. Imagine being chased by a capital ship which cannot safely manoeuvre in lower orbit. Yet what should maximum thrust be set at exactly? Personally, I propose that it should be set high enough that capital ships can land on small habitable worlds; but low enough that small ships pursued by larger ships can play a game of chicken near gas giants. The hope of the small ships would be that the larger ships can't manoeuvre well enough to chase without risk of getting pulled into the planet and crushed.
More thrust issues has to do with how long it takes to escape the gravity inhibiting the SPEC drive. Currently landing is relatively quick because the ship can dock with the planet once it is within 1000km. Take offs drop the player off partially out of the spec inhibiting gravity field. I think skipping takeoff and landing sequences is great to save time, I also think that sometimes landing should have to be done manually the long way, like when propulsion is significantly damaged, or when under attack. This way planet gravity will need to be respected, even on dockable planets. There is no atmosphere in the game currently, and there is no soil to land on, but there would be a possibility to create them later if the new OGRE branch is made to support them.
Thrust would need to be enough so that landing and takeoff is as fast as can be future realistic. If thrusters cannot be realistically adjusted, then I propose that Mono-magnetic lifts be made cannon for in atmosphere flight. Mono-magnetic lifts would be like anti-gravity, but with a plausible explanation of how they work, using monopole magnets repulsing insulating particles of the atmosphere. Mono-magnetic lifts would reduce fuel consumption and travel time in the atmosphear. It would increase manoeuvrability and even allow under thrusted capital ships to land on some smaller planets. In general I support using futuristic technology like this to ramp up the fun factor while keeping true to unbending, science and physics.
From my point of view this pretty much sums up my version of gravity discussions without the detailed debate. I intend to make other summaries for other subjects like flight governors (gravity compensation, speed matching, collision avoidance), Propulsion (emergency stops, point and fly), Technology (shields, deflectors, tractor beams, nanotechnology), and proposed navigation controls for gravity.
Please feel free to discuss any mistakes I have made or important things about gravity discussions I missed.
There previously had been discussions in the forum about adding gravity to VegaStrike. Currently there is a small movement and work being done on a branch of VegaStrike called Vega-Ogre. This Branch seems to aim to add a different graphics layer to the game, so to benefit from the collective development of the OGER project. “Log0” who is openly working on the project, has stated that it is his intention to implement gravity into the OGER Branch of the game. To me this is quite exciting because it means the graphics part of the engine will benefit from a larger collective of programers, even ones not part of the VegaStrike Project. To me externalizing development work in multiple areas sounds like a good idea, maintenance wise.
VegaStrike by name is a space simulator, but unlike most space simulators it implements Semi-Newtonian Physics along with a small handful of other Space games. I say Semi-Newtonian because none of the fast action simulation games actually implement gravity, either because there are no planets, or planet gravity is simply ignored like currently in VegaStrike. The reason for this is many fold. Pure space simulation games like Orbiter do implement gravity, and atmosphere, but it is slow pace and not an action game.
There is an important fun factor that must be maintained in a game that intends to attract action game fans, and not just hardcore simulator fans. Traditionally there has been a conflict of interest between fast pace action and creating physical realism, because realism normally means slowing down the game to a time frame that matches reality; and we all know that reality is kinda too slow sometimes.
Fortunately there is a reprieve from this in a game that takes place in the future, technology can be almost anything that you desire it to be without sacrificing any set in stone realism. A great example is the SPEC Drive or a Warp Drive, which supposedly bends space-time in order bypass the light barrier. The effect is speeding up in game travel insanely, and good thing to because I doubt that many would play for days just to travel to planets in the solar system at accelerations that would not kill the occupants.
Other examples of tech that has been used to speed up action in various video games and movies are inertial dampeners, Warp gates, Stargates, Gateways (StarShip beaming teleporter), space elevators, personal Teleporters, Slipstream, Hyperspace, Starburst, Wormholes. Some of the listed are duplicates under a different name and some have scant sudo-scientific explanations like Stargates, Starburst and wormholes; but others could be plausible under current scientific theories such as string theory, or other grand unified theories of everything. If one submits to 8 higher dimensions, suddenly there is much more room for hyperspace, slipstream, teleporter beams, warp field generators, inertial dampeners, and even artificial gravity.
I propose that Vegastrike can be both a fast pace action game and a hard core simulator. The condition being the game accept as cannon Grand Unified Theories of Everything that suggest higher unrecognizable dimensions not directly accessible, except temporarily through energized technology.
You may ask why this is necessary, and I will answer this by describing the problems that arise with implementing gravity as they have been discussed previously. Gravity is simple, every bit of mass simply pulls on every other bit of mass depending on the distance away. Though there are issues with programing Logo has said it is completely doable. The real issues that arises is that every little dam thing is constantly moving and it makes for a navigation nightmare. There are also a maximum thrust issues because the ship occupants can only handle so much acceleration and the ship hull and thrusters could only provide so much force given realistic materials.
First I'll tackle navigation. When everything is moving every way at the same time it takes a lot of math to calculate a perfect intercept vector, let alone not crashing into the target. Planets are orbiting the sun moons are orbiting planets, satellites are orbiting moons, and your in a ship trying to track that satellite starting from the orbit of another satellite orbiting a moon. How would all those orbits stay perfectly reliable? How would one calculate that for autopilot? How would one display the orbit information to the player on screen, without creating endless lines all over the screen, or way to far away to see? What would the controls need to be? It has been said that we don't have The AI expertise on hand to program an autopiolot that can navigate and make decisions in combat while navigating gravity, how will the humans even manage to handle gravity may be the first question? I will too simply answer each of these.
Some orbits will have to be made on a permanent path like the planets and probably the stations or not move at all, and ships maybe the only objects that are naturally orbiting. Even they may ignore everything but the most significant objects. Autopilot would be calculated or rather estimated dynamically with the AI's priority given to avoiding crashes. Orbit information would be displayed on navigation viewer or overlay, where size of distant objects can be exaggerated so orbits can be seen and orbit paths would be viewable one object at a time. A new set of controls would be necessary to deal with navigation issues like reference points, orbits, itineraries, and object tracking. I have previously posted and got assistance on a proposal for these new controls for gravity and I will sometime post a revised version. Obviously navigation solutions would require much more detailed answers than this.
Thrust constraints pose another slew of issues that goes deeper than it seems. Obviously SPEC (warp) is needed when travelling in between planets, but to avoid crashing SPEC powers down when approaching gravity wells created by planets and stations. Supposedly the strong gravity of planets interferes with the warp envelope, and oddly enough the stations effect SPEC too, but not other ships. I suspect this fail safe would be some SPEC drive jamming device, and if it was, spec jamming devices could fix the problem with ships too easily escaping into spec. This is a core game play issue, and changing it will alter the game combat dramatically. Combat dynamics is it's own subject so I will only focus on how gravity ties in to this.
Gravity from massive objects leaves a ship with only thrusters to manoeuvre the way things are in game right now. This is good for playability until one tries to make all the variables realistic. If planets are made the correct size, if distances are real, if gravity is correct, and if ships and occupants can only handle so much acceleration before expiring, then previous debates on the issue dictate that something must be adjusted. The maximum amount of thrust was debated between setting it around 10G which is around the maximum a human can withstand constantly; or something lower that modern materials could withstand like the 4G of NASA ships; or setting it much higher under the assumption that some new materials and technology like inertial dampening would protect the occupants from the forces of gravity and inertia >10G. The problem with a too low acceleration rating of thrusters is that when large ships travel too nearby a planet without a proper orbit, the acceleration of gravity will too quickly exceed the acceleration of the thrusters which would make the ship unable to hover above a planet within any margin of control or safety out of proper orbit. It would also mean that some larger ships could never land on some planets. To me this sounds like an excellent game play opportunity. Imagine being chased by a capital ship which cannot safely manoeuvre in lower orbit. Yet what should maximum thrust be set at exactly? Personally, I propose that it should be set high enough that capital ships can land on small habitable worlds; but low enough that small ships pursued by larger ships can play a game of chicken near gas giants. The hope of the small ships would be that the larger ships can't manoeuvre well enough to chase without risk of getting pulled into the planet and crushed.
More thrust issues has to do with how long it takes to escape the gravity inhibiting the SPEC drive. Currently landing is relatively quick because the ship can dock with the planet once it is within 1000km. Take offs drop the player off partially out of the spec inhibiting gravity field. I think skipping takeoff and landing sequences is great to save time, I also think that sometimes landing should have to be done manually the long way, like when propulsion is significantly damaged, or when under attack. This way planet gravity will need to be respected, even on dockable planets. There is no atmosphere in the game currently, and there is no soil to land on, but there would be a possibility to create them later if the new OGRE branch is made to support them.
Thrust would need to be enough so that landing and takeoff is as fast as can be future realistic. If thrusters cannot be realistically adjusted, then I propose that Mono-magnetic lifts be made cannon for in atmosphere flight. Mono-magnetic lifts would be like anti-gravity, but with a plausible explanation of how they work, using monopole magnets repulsing insulating particles of the atmosphere. Mono-magnetic lifts would reduce fuel consumption and travel time in the atmosphear. It would increase manoeuvrability and even allow under thrusted capital ships to land on some smaller planets. In general I support using futuristic technology like this to ramp up the fun factor while keeping true to unbending, science and physics.
From my point of view this pretty much sums up my version of gravity discussions without the detailed debate. I intend to make other summaries for other subjects like flight governors (gravity compensation, speed matching, collision avoidance), Propulsion (emergency stops, point and fly), Technology (shields, deflectors, tractor beams, nanotechnology), and proposed navigation controls for gravity.
Please feel free to discuss any mistakes I have made or important things about gravity discussions I missed.