Return to “General”

Post

Build rules (Mass vs. size vs. material etc.)

#1
I'm also interested in exploring whether the "material" of an object can automatically be computed from the "ingredients" of the blueprint or vice-versa. That'd be pretty cool - then there would actually be a logical correspondence between the raw material requirements of an item and the properties! You might come to recognize that equipment made from Derpium Ore is generally lighter than the rest (and that would carry over to weapons, armor, etc...anything made of Derpium :thumbup: ) The type system is looking cleaner and cleaner...I just need to keep removing degrees of freedom so that in the end we'll see more patterns and coherence! :D
Definitely yes. But may I suggest starting from the properties of the finished object?

Start with the design, either what a player made up in the ship designer or what the procedural generation algorithm cooked up for some NPC faction. That gives you a volume and a surface (I'm assuming for the moment that you can approximate those with some fill algorithm :) ).

Make up some rules to go from item size to amount of needed material. Something like "5% of the volume of a ship is metal". And then there is the density of the material. Something like "Derpium (the refined metal) has a density of 5.2 g/cm³".

Now lets assume we have a small cargo shuttle roughly the size of the real life Space Shuttle Orbiter. As a very rough estimate, it might have a volume of 600 m³. 5% of that is 30 m³. 30 m³ of Derpium have a weight of 156 tons.

Then we have established one ingredient for the blueprint: 156 tons of Derpium. Assuming we go straight from metal to hull. If you want complex manufacturing chains like in X3, it might be something like
  • Ore to hull plates with a volume of 0.1 m³, Derpium hull plates weigh 520kg each based on their volume and the density of Derpium.
  • A shuttle is built from 300 hull plates plus several other ingredients
This way the ingredients of the blueprint follow logically from the properties of the item. Zero degrees of freedom if the type of material is fixed. Of course you may add degrees of freedom by allowing the player to use Titanium instead of Derpium. Titanium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titanium) has a density of 4.506 g/cm³ and may be preferable to keep the weight down (if lightweight hulls have an advantage in LT).

If you feel ambitious, you could allow the player to add armor. Which has a volume based on ship surface multiplied by armor thickness. And a density based on material. And it will add weight to the ship based on volume multiplied by density.
The possibilities are endless, and at some point you will be developing an engineering simulator rather than a space sim ;)
Post

Re: Build rules (Mass vs. size vs. material etc.)

#2
The aspect I like the most with the "designing my own spaceship" parts of games is those few and far in-between that actually bother to require some logical engineering balancing.

If you balance through realism things tend to get well balanced automatically, and as a free bonus it all "feels" right and makes sense from a logical perspective.

Do I want a ship with 10% extra added mass as armor?
Then the logical penalty is 1/1.1 = 0.91 efficiency on maneuvering and acceleration as well as 10% extra buildtime and build/material cost (assuming armor is roughly similar material and cost as rest of ship).



As a related note for a recent Dev Log:

"The biggest problem I face right now is missile launchers. I always said that I wanted to have launchers where you could swap out the loaded missile type. Since I love missiles so much, it's pretty much a requirement for me! I want to be able to carry swarms of tiny missiles to pepper smaller enemies with, but always pack a few ultra-high-quality sluggers in case I run into trouble"

There is a simple solution to this problem, preserve DPS of the same size launcher.
You can still have a choice between swarms of fast firing short range missiles or a single long range torpedo with 50 times as long reload but 50 times more damage!
Post

Re: Build rules (Mass vs. size vs. material etc.)

#3
Rabiator wrote:
I'm also interested in exploring whether the "material" of an object can automatically be computed from the "ingredients" of the blueprint or vice-versa. That'd be pretty cool - then there would actually be a logical correspondence between the raw material requirements of an item and the properties! You might come to recognize that equipment made from Derpium Ore is generally lighter than the rest (and that would carry over to weapons, armor, etc...anything made of Derpium :thumbup: ) The type system is looking cleaner and cleaner...I just need to keep removing degrees of freedom so that in the end we'll see more patterns and coherence! :D
Definitely yes. But may I suggest starting from the properties of the finished object?

Start with the design, either what a player made up in the ship designer or what the procedural generation algorithm cooked up for some NPC faction. That gives you a volume and a surface (I'm assuming for the moment that you can approximate those with some fill algorithm :) ).

Make up some rules to go from item size to amount of needed material. Something like "5% of the volume of a ship is metal". And then there is the density of the material. Something like "Derpium (the refined metal) has a density of 5.2 g/cm³".

Now lets assume we have a small cargo shuttle roughly the size of the real life Space Shuttle Orbiter. As a very rough estimate, it might have a volume of 600 m³. 5% of that is 30 m³. 30 m³ of Derpium have a weight of 156 tons.

Then we have established one ingredient for the blueprint: 156 tons of Derpium. Assuming we go straight from metal to hull. If you want complex manufacturing chains like in X3, it might be something like
  • Ore to hull plates with a volume of 0.1 m³, Derpium hull plates weigh 520kg each based on their volume and the density of Derpium.
  • A shuttle is built from 300 hull plates plus several other ingredients
This way the ingredients of the blueprint follow logically from the properties of the item. Zero degrees of freedom if the type of material is fixed. Of course you may add degrees of freedom by allowing the player to use Titanium instead of Derpium. Titanium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titanium) has a density of 4.506 g/cm³ and may be preferable to keep the weight down (if lightweight hulls have an advantage in LT).

If you feel ambitious, you could allow the player to add armor. Which has a volume based on ship surface multiplied by armor thickness. And a density based on material. And it will add weight to the ship based on volume multiplied by density.
The possibilities are endless, and at some point you will be developing an engineering simulator rather than a space sim ;)
There is one caveat to all of this... I love the idea in general, but there is a tingling at the back of my mind.

If there is an 'optimum' composite, or material composition, then it is pointless to have everything derived, and you might as well have the numbers static.

I.E. Why would I want 30% titanium and 70% steel if the optimal composition is 100% titanium? Okay, so the obvious counter argument is "Because what if you don't have the supply?"

The answer to that, is that in early game, you won't have the supply. But as soon as you get past the early parts, supply isn't a problem (I'm assuming you [the player] has a positive influx of either cash or resources and this becomes achievable at some point). Thus, you're creating all these equations and capabilities for a small portion of the playtime of the game. How much time will you actually put in that makes something like an alloy worth it?

I think if we take it too specific and allow too much customization, it will be lost once a 'perfect' combination is found. Sure you could go and make all these other combinations with the same stuff, but why would you want to?
Image
Early Spring - 1055: Well, I made it to Boatmurdered, and my initial impressions can be set forth in three words: What. The. F*ck.
Post

Re: Build rules (Mass vs. size vs. material etc.)

#4
I think the procedural generation approach for assets actually makes some logical engineering balancing not just desirable, but mandatory.

The makers of "traditional" games can manually tweak the stats of their items to get a reasonable balancing. In LT, the items are generated at runtime. Too late for manual tweaks. So the balancing must already be in the build rules.

In that sense, Josh has a more difficult job than the guys at Egosoft or Roberts Space Industries. But also the advantage of automating one of the most work-intensive parts of game design :) .
Last edited by Rabiator on Wed Aug 07, 2013 4:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Post

Re: Build rules (Mass vs. size vs. material etc.)

#5
DWMagus wrote: If there is an 'optimum' composite, or material composition, then it is pointless to have everything derived, and you might as well have the numbers static.

I.E. Why would I want 30% titanium and 70% steel if the optimal composition is 100% titanium? Okay, so the obvious counter argument is "Because what if you don't have the supply?"

The answer to that, is that in early game, you won't have the supply. But as soon as you get past the early parts, supply isn't a problem (I'm assuming you [the player] has a positive influx of either cash or resources and this becomes achievable at some point). Thus, you're creating all these equations and capabilities for a small portion of the playtime of the game. How much time will you actually put in that makes something like an alloy worth it?

I think if we take it too specific and allow too much customization, it will be lost once a 'perfect' combination is found. Sure you could go and make all these other combinations with the same stuff, but why would you want to?
If we can own whole fleets, many ships built from a suboptimal but cheap material may be better than a few from the best possible material.

Real life example:
Most ships are still built from steel, although one could argue titanium is superior (lighter and does not corrode in seawater). But it is also awfully expensive to extract from its ores.
Post

Re: Build rules (Mass vs. size vs. material etc.)

#6
Rabiator wrote: If we can own whole fleets, many ships built from a suboptimal but cheap material may be better than a few from the best possible material.

Real life example:
Most ships are still built from steel, although one could argue titanium is superior (lighter and does not corrode in seawater). But it is also awfully expensive to extract from its ores.
True.

However, I'm talking about mixing components. I didn't mean that you wouldn't use suboptimal components.

For example, I'd probably prefer to create my fleet out of steel if I didn't have enough titanium. Once I get enough titanium, I'll use that.

What I won't do, is create a mixture so that I use both resources. That would just be busywork in my opinion.
Image
Early Spring - 1055: Well, I made it to Boatmurdered, and my initial impressions can be set forth in three words: What. The. F*ck.
Post

Re: Build rules (Mass vs. size vs. material etc.)

#7
Rabiator wrote:Definitely yes. But may I suggest starting from the properties of the finished object?
Well sure, I mean it goes both ways. If you build a ship, it would work like you said ~ the physical ship will determine volume, which, in conjunction with material, would come back to derive other properties of the ship (mass, health, etc). But I wouldn't really call that "starting from the properties of the finished object," it's really starting from a "shape" (which you design in the editor) + a material, then deriving the properties of the finished object.

But I think we all understand the point :)
DWMagus wrote:There is one caveat to all of this... I love the idea in general, but there is a tingling at the back of my mind.

If there is an 'optimum' composite, or material composition, then it is pointless to have everything derived, and you might as well have the numbers static.

I.E. Why would I want 30% titanium and 70% steel if the optimal composition is 100% titanium? Okay, so the obvious counter argument is "Because what if you don't have the supply?"

The answer to that, is that in early game, you won't have the supply. But as soon as you get past the early parts, supply isn't a problem (I'm assuming you [the player] has a positive influx of either cash or resources and this becomes achievable at some point). Thus, you're creating all these equations and capabilities for a small portion of the playtime of the game. How much time will you actually put in that makes something like an alloy worth it?

I think if we take it too specific and allow too much customization, it will be lost once a 'perfect' combination is found. Sure you could go and make all these other combinations with the same stuff, but why would you want to?
Hmm I see no problem here though, going off "real life" as a model - sure, sometimes there is a "best" material for the job. In in that case, we use it or try to use it as cost permits (carbon fiber for car bodies, for example (I think?? I'm not a car person so don't hold me to that one)). But there are also plenty of cases where there's not one clear winner ~ just a bunch of trade-offs to be made.

But anyway, that's beside the point - I did not intend this system for "more flexibility" or really anything gameplay-related. The key is that setting up more logical patterns behind items will allow them to be generated more easily (with less arbitrary choices / "magic constants"). So the fact that a player can come to a good understanding of "material sciences" in the game is really just a side-effect. The real point is to create more logical structure to minimize code :D

Also, I don't necessarily think it would be possible to create your own custom materials / composites...I haven't totally thought it through yet, but I see these kinds of things being derived procedurally from research, just like blueprints. I.e., in the same way that you can't "create" your own uberweapon, I imagine you also won't be able to create your own uberalloy :thumbup:

So yeah, this isn't a huge gameplay impact I don't think, just some more structure to the chaos of building a universe :D
“Whether you think you can, or you think you can't--you're right.” ~ Henry Ford
Post

Re: Build rules (Mass vs. size vs. material etc.)

#8
DWMagus wrote:What I won't do, is create a mixture so that I use both resources. That would just be busywork in my opinion.
Well good, as per my post above I don't think you'll have that option :P

Unless the material that you research is a mixture of resources (which is entirely possible). But you won't be spending hours trying to concoct the perfect alloy ;)
“Whether you think you can, or you think you can't--you're right.” ~ Henry Ford
Post

Re: Build rules (Mass vs. size vs. material etc.)

#11
DWMagus wrote:
Rabiator wrote: If we can own whole fleets, many ships built from a suboptimal but cheap material may be better than a few from the best possible material.

Real life example:
Most ships are still built from steel, although one could argue titanium is superior (lighter and does not corrode in seawater). But it is also awfully expensive to extract from its ores.
True.

However, I'm talking about mixing components. I didn't mean that you wouldn't use suboptimal components.

For example, I'd probably prefer to create my fleet out of steel if I didn't have enough titanium. Once I get enough titanium, I'll use that.

What I won't do, is create a mixture so that I use both resources. That would just be busywork in my opinion.
I'm not sure what you mean with "mixing", but I could imagine having two blueprints of otherwise the same ship model:

Using steel for the normal fleet model (of which I might build dozens), but splurging on titanium for my personal yacht. For that one ship the extra costs might be tolerable.
Post

Re: Build rules (Mass vs. size vs. material etc.)

#12
I like the idea of being able to construct ships using different materials and alloys. I think construction could become very interesting if alloys affected different ship stats such as armor and maneuverability. This could allow for ship variants with different goals much like Star Citizen's Super Hornet and Ghost Hornet.

Hopefully we see something similar to this in the final game.
Image
Post

Re: Build rules (Mass vs. size vs. material etc.)

#13
I don't think you should be able to say "Make ship out of x." It would be silly to have a single-material ship, and not all materials are suited for this. Perhaps the better solution is "Make substructure out of x, clad with y." More hardpoints or engines would require more mass and substructure strength.
Modules would be added separately. Some modules would have to be installed during the hull-building process, since they're integral to the ship. Things like fuel tanks or crew accomodations fit in this category. Others would require a refit. Things like engines can't be hotswapped in any old hangar, but they aren't built deep into the hull either. Finally, certain modules are designed to be easily swapped. Turrets, certain interior parts, and hull plating are among these.
These modules are made of a specific material. You can't really build an engine nozzle out of materials not suited for it. However, many modules have variants in several materials. In particular, armor plates can be built out of lots of things. We might see poor AIs clad their mining ships in rock, since they can't afford proper plating, while the warlord next door sports gleaming layered-composite monolithic hulls.
Ammunition for kinetics would be another opportunity for diversity, but that's something entirely different.
Image

Online Now

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests

cron