Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[dreadmullet]

I don't think you understand how physics works.

[Kilroy the Grand]

aerodynamics are pointless without anything to work wish, so rudders and flaps couldn't be Incorporated in the design at all. They would instead have thrusters located all over the craft to change directions.

Of course, I don't know anything about this game, other than it sounds silly.

[Urist McScoopbeard]

Well, deadmullet its quite possible to manipulate a small ship to emulate the movement of jet aircraft, while it may not be feasible at all.

[h3lblad3]

we play games because they aren't reality, I don't want to have to commute every day in a game.

And sadly, I would be okay with that.

[DrPoo]

@dreadmullet: Im under the impression that this will be a physics basef game meaning that, ships will fly, well, like things in a near gravityless void, meaning that in theory, using thrusters you can fly like an airplane or once accelerated can maintain your speed almost indefinitely. Also i should mention that fighters will most certainly be able to fly like airplanes.

Go somewhere else with your Starwars physics, i hope this will be Orbiter, but with lazors and that awesome computer system thingie.

[alway]

Based on the gameplay and concept for the game being heavily centered around the DCPU, I would expect we will have Newtonian-based ship movement. Why I say that may not be initially obvious so I will explain.

The reason 'WW2 fighter planes, but in space!' is any fun at all is because it is relatively intuitive. 3 axes of rotation, and a forward velocity. Easy for a human to figure out and fly without anything more than simple intuition. It goes where you point it; with control surfaces modifying where you point it and throttle modifying forward velocity. Resistance to rotational velocity and velocity in any direction other than forward essentially nullifies them as a major  concern of the pilot. This ease of use makes them very amenable to having player hop right in and fly around w/o the need for any mathematical calculations on their part, thus making it 'fun' for them.

The problem with this is: we can be fairly certain flight control will be done in part or in whole by a DCPU. A player may be able to control it "manually," but probably still through some form of interaction with the DCPU as a controlling device. As soon as autopilot flight control software is introduced, the fun from the unrealistic 'WW2 fighter planes in space' model goes out the window.

[DJ]

Secondly, people's choice in programs in a game where programming is a bit part of gameplay will be incredibly diverse, with a large chunk being written by the person who is actually in the ship.

You really expect programmers to reinvent the wheel over and over again? I bet that pretty soon there'll be a modest number of standard solutions that will be reused in virtually every ship.

[Girlinhat]

A number of standard programming tools, yes, but at core everyone who designs their own ship is designing their own ship.  No two custom-built ships will be the same.  They may use a few of the same tools, but not the exact same code.  It would be rather like trying to destroy a building, except you don't know what the walls are made of, you don't know how deep the foundation is, and you can only bring one tool with you.  All you know is that it's a building (a piece of code) and how tall it is (how big the ship is, and by extension how deep the code is).  Or, more specifically, it would be like trying to get to the top of the building without any eyes or ears and you can only feel the walls half the time you touch them.

Of course plenty of people will be using pre-built ships and code, because not everyone is a programmer and there's nothing wrong with using someone else's freely shared project.  It's just that again, for as many people distributing free ship types, there will be as many ship types flying around.  Same tricks aren't going to work on different designs.  Easier to hack than custom ships, but still not easy.

[DJ]

At the building block level, all ships are the same. Thrusters control, for example, can use the same functions regardless of the ship, it's just that the parameters are different. Unless you intentionally hardcode everything for very specific configurations rather than make a generalist solution, which is just bad programming practice.

[Vattic]

I wonder if fighters will even be a viable ship design. I suppose it depends how hard he likes his sci-fi. I think it's been said before but I hope missiles will have to be designed and programmed like the ships.

[Girlinhat]

Just gonna point out that the next Aurora release will feature custom engine designs, instead of just "space dedicated to engine" it will instead have an actual engine.  But the release will be a bit delayed as Steve is moving houses.  (Just moving himself to a different house, I don't think he's moving an actual house.)

[dreadmullet]

I foresee drones. Drones everywhere, as far as the eye can see (and then a lot more, since space is pretty big). Imagine: make a really small and fast ship with lots of firepower, place a few DCPUs in it with a drone AI program, then send it on its way. Or, instead of mining a moon for 6 hours a day, all you have to do is send a few drones onto the surface, then exit the game and go play Minecraft or something.

Drones will dominate space. Ironically, this is probably how it would be in real life, too. In fact, that is how it is in real life; none of the current space agencies have much of a need to put humans in space, they just send probes.

Go somewhere else with your Starwars physics, i hope this will be Orbiter, but with lazors and that awesome computer system thingie.

Totally agree, I like your thinking. Orbiter is the best space game. In fact, it's one of the few space games, the rest are aircraft simulators with space scenery.


@alway: you explained it better than I ever could.

[Urist McScoopbeard]

OFF-TOPIC: Girlinhat, next release is just aurora right? it's not aurora 2 or some pre-alpha newtonian right?

BACK ON-TOPIC: Drones MIGHT be everywhere, but it's alot to get DCPUs for all of them plus, they'll have to be big to do anything otherwise they're not really worth their weight. The other thing that could make them a dominating factor I guess is if we can control them from a remote DCPU (and multiple drones at that) without having to install a DCPU on them

ALSO: @DrPoo & @dreadmullet: fuck you guys it's not 'starwars physics' a fighter in space can emulate a jet in our atmosphere

[DrPoo]

ALSO: @DrPoo & @dreadmullet: fuck you guys it's not 'starwars physics' a fighter in space can emulate a jet in our atmosphere

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvdf5n-zI14

If youtube aint working:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[TempAcc]

Its probably possible to make a jet plane-eske space fighter type ship that behaves like one, but the mechanics involved into making it feel like that would already make it veeeeery different from an aircraft made to fly in the earth's atmosphere. For one, manouvering a ship in space is very different then turning a jet plane, plus the engines would very different as well, since there's no atmosphere gases to burn and generate propulsion with.
It'd take way too much work to make a space ship that feels like an airplane. There's just no reason for doing that.