Print

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

[Firgof Umbra]

Wow, that's a lot of questions lol!  Here goes.  (I'll try and organize this somehow so people can read it easier)

The IRC

are you sure you have the IRC server address right in your first post? I can't use it in either mIRC or the browser.

Yes.  It is [ thyreaper.game-host.org (port 6667) ]. It may have been offline some part of last night as my boss was installing an SSD to the server so we can do faster compiles and whatnot.  I'm typically in #SRPublic

Do we need modelers?

As to what I needed it for - do you need modellers? I'm using Lightwave, so can provide models in just about any format except Maya's.

PM me a link to your portfolio and we'll see.  We use primarily .obj but the engine supports .x, .3ds, and a few others as well.

About Alien Tech.

Can I salvage/cannibalize/resurrect the disabled ships of other civilizations?  Can we learn alien tech from alien ships?

Yes; but you have to use the 'force attack' to do it in the current build of the game.  Yes; both with a weapon called the Analyzer and by capturing it into with one of your ships if it has some sort of subsystem (that last one hasn't been put in yet so I'm not precisely sure how that will work).  Also, if you capture an enemy planet while keeping at least a few of its structures intact if it was building an alien ship design you are given the option to continue building it; this will likely in the future add that design to your list explicitly.

Remember Tomorrow allowed you to collect disabled enemy fighters and repair them. Since we have subsytem damage here, maybe a different approach would work? For example, you study the disabled ship (well, more like just haul it in and wait for crews to repair what's left of it). Then you receive a design of the ship in your ship design screen, which would be incomplete, its destroyed subsystems missing. You could then retrofit the design with your technology, and subsequently use the ship yourself.

You can repair enemy vessels up to full health and crew them and so forth in the current build; a ship just doesn't understand how to 'reactivate' (we haven't taught them how to do that yet).  I like the idea of that; we may do something along those lines.  It would encourage people to use the Repair tool subsystem as that would allow you to get a better picture of the ship.  Of course, the Analyzer should probably have the same behaviour -- whatever ship components were intact when you started pinging the ship will be recorded into the design.

How the 3D component of the game works

So ships can't be ordered to move in three dimensions then?

Currently, it is a bit messy.  You alter a variable through the console and then give a move order; their order is then offset by the amount stored in the variable you altered.  We may work on a more elegant way to perform this order in the future.

Are the different objects in space placed in three dimensions or are they on a flat plane?

At the moment in-system objects are all on the same plane but systems themselves have different 'height's.  This is how we keep the 3D-ness of the galaxy intact while also promoting visibility and "shifting battlefields".  Though we could put the planets on non-standardized orbits as they were back when we began development we're not sure how much more that benefits gameplay over aesthetics.

Awesome things

You said that weapons have arc based on where you place them on the hull, will they have cool little animated turrets?  Not really a big thing, but they're always fun.

We'd like to do that but we're not sure at this time; that is on our list of "things that would be cool to do" and we have put a lot of stuff that was on that list into the game already.

Can ships break apart and if so will the individual parts still retain some function until they are destroyed / degrade?

lol!  Well, that'd be a lot easier for us to support/code if we had individual model components for ships.  I'd certainly like to do this in particular for larger ships and planets but currently we lack a full-time modeler.

How does our targetting system work?

How do you target individual parts of a ship, and how are hits determined?  Do you use a number generator?  Hit detection?  I've been thinking about this because I've been playing Sword of the Stars lately and the targetting system in that is pretty cool and intuitive.  You just click on the exact location on the enemy hull that you want your ships to center their weapons' cones of fire on.  And you can give them standing combat orders to face front towards the target, broadside, or just order them to face a specific direction.

We're still thinking that one out.  We use raycasting hit detection modified by the stats on your ship supplemented with a mersenne twister random number generator at the moment (if you have to go through stealth, then shields, then armor, then bulkhead reinforcements, then the hull, the chance of internal damage can get reasonably low).  We certainly would like individually-targeting behaviors and that would improve a lot of the combat in the base game but we need to figure out a way to tie that to the impact points system and then get user feedback on which ones are which and so forth.  In short:  We'd like that sort of thing but we're still working out the mechanics of user interaction with the system and tying it together with already existing systems in the game to make it a smooth transition.

About newtonian physics and how ships move about

If you're using Newtonian physics, does that mean ships have to spin around to change direction or that we have to design them with equal sized engines on all sides?  Graphically, is this represented realistically?  I mean, do ships constantly have their engines firing while moving or do they stop once they get up to speed?  While we're on that subject, do ship then only need to use fuel while changing speed and direction?  Also, is there FTL travel that negates allot of this over long distances?

Ships do have to spin around to change direction at this time.  Engines are not yet tied to the model but I could foresee ships becoming intelligent about their thruster usage; we have to be difficult with this system however as the ship would need to start performing evaluations on which thruster they had best use.  Just as long as we can find an efficient calculation/formula procedure that can run on thousands of ships simultaneously then we might be able to add that in without restraint.  Engines are shown on the model but the flare does not change size as the ship does not vary the amount of fuel it uses right now and as ships currently always pick the fastest path to their destination they accelerate the full length of their travel path (both to gain and lose momentum toward their destination). We may do FTL drives; for that matter we may also do system gates which would allow you to instantly travel to other systems.  There is nothing in the game that is currently restricting a model from going infinite speed -- we're just not sure what happens when it does right now.

The scale of the game

What's the scale like for this game?  I mean, ships versus planets versus stars versus Dyson Spheres etc.    Are they represented in a realistic scale?

They're presented for maximum visibility.  Unfortunately, as we can have really small ships and really huge ships we are at the limits of what math our engine can perform right now.  We can present exactly one system at realistic scales at this time or present an entire galaxy.  Ships have a lot of different scales and models for those scales and planets and stars vary greatly in size.  But I wouldn't dare call what we have realistically scaled; especially since the default game is 150 systems (though I have tested the game and it can currently run beyond 7000 active systems though it is incredibly laggy).  This is one of those 'we'd like to do it right, but current generation hardware just can't support this'.  In a few years if we get the chance to make another Star Ruler we'll try to put in more accurate scaling but for now we're pretty much forced to stay where we are.

Will there be bizarre non-aligned entities (again like Sword of the Stars)?

Non-aligned?  I suppose you mean neutral factions?  If so, then yes.  There will be Corporations, Splinter Factions of your Empire (these are gained dynamically; often not generated at start), Pirates, and perhaps Minor races.

What kinds of weapons will there be in Star Ruler?

What sorts of weapons are you considering having?  Are they all turret based or will it be possible to create things like spinal mounted gigantic beam weapons?

You can check out our wiki for information on what weapons are in the current build (I update the wiki as we add new ones in the dev build; so feel free to bookmark that page if you'd like to see what we add over time; sorry about the mess over there, it's not really 'fit for public release' yet ).  In the current build they are all turrets but we have talked about spinal mounting and rack mounting for a long while now so I feel comfortable saying that those will very likely be in the game once we get around to them.

Is all of the galaxy one space?

Is the galaxy contiguous or is it segregated into sections such as certain areas around stellar objects, or stellar systems?

It is contiguous to the user but it is also divided into sectors and regions so that Sensors perform as they ought to.

I think it's not one galaxy. If the trailer is anything to go by, the universe is likely continuous, with no separation apart from arbitrary "jumping off-system" since there's nothing to see in the interstellar space.

The game does take place in one galaxy but the galaxy is procedurally generated every time you start a new game.  There will be things in interstellar space but we haven't quite got those in the game yet.  Pulsars, black holes which can be moved around with certain subsystems, nebulas which make sensors perform badly when nearby, etc. are all planned.

About massive weapons

As for creating massive weapons - well, since you already kinda do use scaling... just put up a Very Large Conventional Cannon. Maybe even with black powder. Gigantic spinal mounts aren't different from turrets, they're just very large turrets that can't rotate.

Yep!  Though, of course, we also have unlockable Superweapons for those of you who won't be satisfied with "just a large laser". (Not that an extremely large plasma beam with a coolant system attached to it isn't a formidable adversary)

Sorry for bombarding you from orbit with all these questions, but I'm just really interested.

Not at all.  I enjoy answering people's questions about the game. 

[Firgof Umbra]

As promised (sorry that I'm late!) screenshots from the current build:

[Sean Mirrsen]

What's a portfolio and how do I eat it? Seriously, I don't have one, and don't have an idea how to make one. I'm not a professional modeler by any stretch, I can just make any sort of model you might be needing. I can't just make things randomly, I need a goal of some sort.

In regards to the newtonian physics, I've had a few ideas, since I was considering making a 4X of my own, or at least the framework for one. I've happened upon Captain Forever, which gave me the idea to have the ship activate thrusters based on what it wants to do, relative to its center of mass and the thrusters' facing. So if you want to accelerate in any direction, you activate all thrusters that are aligned with that direction, and if you want to turn around an axis, you activate those that would push the ship in the required way. So if your design has two engines facing back and two facing forward, both wide apart, then:
To move forward, fire the two rear thursters.
To move back, fire the two fore thrusters.
To turn left, fire the left fore and right aft thruster.
To turn right, fire the right fore and left aft thruster.

Once you have the thrusters mapped for anything the ship may be doing, you can set about to calculating its capabilities. There're only 12 ways any ship can change its position/orientation in space. Accelerate forward/back/left/right/up/down, and pitch/roll/yaw either way. Having the ship's mass, and the power and positions of all thrusters relative to the ship's center of mass, you can rather easily deduce the ship's capabilities on all those 12 parameters. Well, 24 parameters, actually, since acceleration would also be included.
When you've done that, you don't need fancy calculations to simulate the ship's motions, you can just reference those 24 parameters. If you're feeling like adding even more detail, you can take things a step further. I don't expect the calculation of the 24 params to take long, so you can, conceivably, determine each subsystem's impact on them. Take the system out and see how the 24 params change, then store the delta values in the system's properties. Then, when the system is destroyed in combat, you can apply realistic changes to the ship's manueverability. So, if the theoretical 4-engine ship from earlier had suffered the loss of its two starboard engines, it would be unable to do anything but spin around unless it had some manuever thrusters that could compensate.

Further ideas, also from Remember Tomorrow. I don't know how it's currently done in SR, but in RT different parts scaled up differently (it had different variants of the same parts for different hull sizes). So, if you have a fusion reactor and put it in a fighter, it produced 100 power, but in a dreadnought, it produced 10000. The thing is, 10000 is pathetic for a dreadnought. You couldn't even power up enough engines to move the hull efficiently if you filled its entirety with fusion reactors. On the other hand, neutron reactors are rather useless in cruisers - they are slightly too large for their performance, and the much bulkier proton reactor (useless just about everywhere else due to its size) outmatches them in power-to-volume ratio.
In SR, you could similarly have the performance of generators, weapons, and other things increase nonlinearly as size increased. This could, for example, make low-tech powerplants preferable in large ships or stations, since they would be cheap and their performance at that size could be comparable to high-tech variants of similar size.

[Firgof Umbra]

Do you have shots of some of your work somewhere?  Just the things you think you've done 'the best' on; that's enough of a portfolio for us, really.

We do need a lot of optimization work and LOD work on our models, that's for sure. 

suggested Newtonian physics improvements

Perhaps.  It might make designing ships a little bit odd unless we specifically snap thrusters to points or somesuch and it might require a few deep changes; I believe the ship gains acceleration at the moment, not points on the hull.  EDIT:  If we do that, we'll need to figure out a way to make sure the user knows the thrust capabilities of the ship design.

suggested scale improvements

We currently have subsystems scale with mostly just size and the amount of research you have in technologies  (research decreases their mass slowly over time while providing boosts in power generation and, in some power generators, fuel consumption as well as lessening control requirements).  Perhaps we could make more distinctions like that in our subsystems and make parts more catered toward smaller ships and parts more catered towards larger ships but it will require a bit of thought due to the versatility the ship building system has at this time to make parts that provide benefit beyond that which could be achieved through other means (linked subsystems, optimizing the scale/weight ratio, etc.)

[Sean Mirrsen]

Well, the physics improvements aren't going to require snapping to a grid or anything. The basic idea is: since the number of things a ship may do in space is rather limited, you could carry out the complex force calculations when the ship is designed, leaving only reference numbers for actual combat/simulation. For example, you build a massive ship and determine its capabilities, ending up with an array of numbers: 50/40m/s² lateral, 20/20m/s² sideward, 30/10m/s² vertical, 5/5^o/s² yaw, 3/3^o/s² roll, 2/4^o/s² pitch. Once you do that, you can forget that the ship consists of parts, and can just feed acceleration data into the physics model. If you acquired the per-part data, you can for example see that losing the fourth right lateral thruster makes the ship lose 0.5/0m/s² lateral, and 0.05/0^o/s² yaw capability, so if the ship loses it, you can just alter the ship's own capability with this data, and the ship will have impaired mobility in accordance with physics, and at no cost to sim time in combat.

[Firgof Umbra]

Hm.  I'll bring those suggestions up with Reaper tonight and see if that's something we want to pursue.

[Sean Mirrsen]

As for something I consider a model I made well, it'd likely be this guy:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Never got around to texturing him. I'm not too good at texturing either way, even with Deep Paint 3D...

edit: on the off chance that you're more interested in space-themed models, this one has been sitting on my HD for... about 6 years. I was in the process of adding details when I suddenly lost interest in modding Homeworld 2.

Spoiler: Huge image (click to show/hide)

Now that you've made me dig through my old model files, I found this guy:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Hammerfell was a unit idea I've had long before I was introduced to Dwarf Fortress.

[Ioric Kittencuddler]

A K-Bot with a hammer?  Kawaii!!!

[Ioric Kittencuddler]

For great justice/awesomeness!  Bump!

[Firgof Umbra]

Move Zig!

Work progresses on Star Ruler.  We're nearly finished with the diplomacy system and I'm going to see if we can't get our teaser out soon.  It took us a while to find a free recorder that actually could output decent quality.  All that remains is shooting the footage and putting it all together with music and whatnot (haha 'all that remains').

[Ioric Kittencuddler]

Make your time! 


Somehow that seemed like an appropriate response...

[Journier]

bump, for an incredibly ambitious looking space strategy game!

woooo.

[Ioric Kittencuddler]

You know what you doing!

[Sean Mirrsen]

.

[Ioric Kittencuddler]

After hanging out on IRC and exchanging some info with the devs, I've cooled off a little. I won't go into details, but to me it seems they're trying to focus on the wrong things. I may be entirely wrong though. The beta would allow me to see it clearer, but I'm not part of it yet.

If you aren't going to tell us what you're talking about then saying something like that is just kinda rude.