newtonian motion

Puke · #1 July 9th, 2001, 08:20 AM

not a bad idea. it would be nice if newtonian motion was implemented, where your ship would maintain its velocity until counter thrust was applied. the big obsticle to this probably is not in coding it for se4 (i could see sneaking it into a patch) but in ballancing it. what happens when a ship hits a mapedge? it stops? then it can reverse on a dime again? maybe it goes off the map and exits combat? you hit that whole 'runnig away' problem again. I cant think of how to do this without infinite map size. you get a whole new set of problems with the system map than on the combat map too.

I think that basically, turning should be free in space. you might not be able to stop on a dime, but you sure as heck should be able to turn on one, even 180degs. if you did institute turning MPs, then it would require things like weapons facings, or different armor values on different ship facings.

------------------
"...the green, sticky spawn of the stars"
(with apologies to H.P.L.)

#2 July 9th, 2001, 12:11 PM

The map could wrap east to west and north to south. That would make some interesting combat scenarios. But I doubt the AI would be smart enough to exploit them unless its pathing was changed to know about the wrap.....

Puke · #3 July 9th, 2001, 12:46 PM

quote:
Originally posted by LCC:
The map could wrap east to west and north to south. That would make some interesting combat scenarios. But I doubt the AI would be smart enough to exploit them unless its pathing was changed to know about the wrap.....

wow, remember playing asteroids and you would try to see how fast you could go if you just kept pushing the throttle and wrapping around the screen? pretty soon you would just be a blur. what do you mean im the only one that did that?

and what happened to the first post on this thread? I didnt start this thing, are people to embarassed to be associated with me now?

edit: or maybe i clicked on 'new topic' instead of 'reply.' come to think of it, i was wondering why it prompted me for a subject on that post.

[This message has been edited by Puke (edited 09 July 2001).]

Taqwus · #4 July 9th, 2001, 04:22 PM

quote:
Originally posted by LCC:
The map could wrap east to west and north to south. That would make some interesting combat scenarios. But I doubt the AI would be smart enough to exploit them unless its pathing was changed to know about the wrap.....

Mmm, Spacewar.

Wouldn't need a whole lot of techs to do it, either. Couldn't simulate the shuffling of constantly-recharging energy between shields and power, 'tho. Pity.

LeTharg · #5 July 9th, 2001, 04:57 PM

Ooooh, donut shaped universes. Stars like sugar candy.

Throw in a twist and play on a projected plane, or maybe a Klein bottle.

The Mobius strip game with shorcuts "through" the strip.

Why stop with Euclidian geometry--hyperbolic galaxies. What fun!

Suicide Junkie · #6 July 9th, 2001, 06:37 PM

Check out Pirates&Nomads v2.0 (in sig), its one step closer to newtonian physics than original SE4.

Classic: Thrust = Speed
P&N v2: Thrust/mass = Speed

Its probably the closest thing you'll see for a while.

------------------
The latest Pirates & Nomads.
-<Download V1.6>-
-<Download compatible EMPs for P&N v1.6>-
-<Easy to Use AI Patcher for any of SJ's mods>-
Visit My Homepage

Quikngruvn · #7 July 10th, 2001, 06:57 AM

A possible solution to the 'map-edge' problem: floating map! If a ship goes off the edge of the map, the map moves (that is, ships keep their relative position but not necessarily absolute position), or it just gets bigger (this is apce after all? Is there a space limit on space?).

So long as there is a turn limit on tactical combat, there is no need for an 'infinite' map. Figure two ships start combat on opposite sides of the current tactical map. Each ship is fast as possible (six quantum engine + solar sail + propulsion experts). Now assume that from the start of combat, they run away from each other at full velocity. THAT is as wide as the map must be: (30 x speed) + starting distance apart. Same for map height.

('Course, for maps that get that big, you'll need scrolling and zoom features in tactical combat. But I digress. Again.)

(What I'd really like to see is 3-D tactical combat, but I'm not just about to hold my breath!)

Puke, when you say 'free space', so you mean space in the system map or space in general? Turning costs wouldn't figure in system movement, since it's not nearly as time- and reflex-critical as tactical combat.

But, even in space, everything has momentum, based on its mass and velocity. A ship wanting to turn 180 degrees would have to (a) engage manuevering thrusters to turn the ship; (b) engage additional maneuvering thrusters to keep the ship from veering to the side while turning; and (c) engage main thrusters when finally turned around to overcome the original forward velocity. Thus, an escort with relatively little mass expends much less energy to turn around (much less mass to rotate) and can do it more quickly than a dreadnought going the same speed (and the escort's not five parsecs away when it's finally going forward in its new direction).

And I thought the universe was shaped like a banana....

Quikngruvn

------------------
"That which does not kill you will make you stronger." -- Nietzsche

dumbluck · #8 July 11th, 2001, 11:48 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Puke:
wow, remember playing asteroids and you would try to see how fast you could go if you just kept pushing the throttle and wrapping around the screen? pretty soon you would just be a blur. what do you mean im the only one that did that?
[This message has been edited by Puke (edited 09 July 2001).]

I can assure you, you were _NOT_ the only one that did that!

Puke · #9 July 11th, 2001, 12:36 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Quikngruvn:
Puke, when you say 'free space', so you mean space in the system map or space in general? Turning costs wouldn't figure in system movement, since it's not nearly as time- and reflex-critical as tactical combat.

But, even in space, everything has momentum, based on its mass and velocity. A ship wanting to turn 180 degrees would have to (a) engage manuevering thrusters to turn the ship; (b) engage additional maneuvering thrusters to keep the ship from veering to the side while turning; and (c) engage main thrusters when finally turned around to overcome the original forward velocity.

beats the hell out of me, when did i say 'free space?'

I think i was talking about both tac and strategic movement though, and I think my general idea was that you can turn on a dime by using principals (a) and (b) you describe. immagine a ship fires a thruster on the starboard side of the bow, and simultaniously fires one on the port side of the stern in 180degree opposition. it will spin in place, regardless of linear momentum. it should be able to do it fairly quickly, too (especially if it has enough overall thrust to cross a solar system in the space of a month). to stop turning, its the same process in reverse. principal (c) need not be applied unless you want to do something more than just turn. which is why i started talking about facings and such sillyness.

this would of course work on strategic map scale too, if you could build up velocity, would you have to slow down before hitting a planet? stands to reason that half your trip would be acceleration and the other half deceleration. what would happen if you hit a wormhole at some velocity? come out at the same velocity? what happens if you hit a map edge on the strategic map?

capnq · #10 July 11th, 2001, 02:50 PM

quote:
when did i say 'free space?'

You didn't; what you said was:

quote:
turning should be free in space

------------------
Cap'n Q

The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the
human mind to correlate all of its contents. We live on a placid
island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was
not meant that we should go far. -- HP Lovecraft, "The Call of Cthulhu"