Return to “Dev Logs”

Post

Re: [Josh] Monday, October 23, 2017

#31
Wasn't the deathstar built to be a planet killer? So without destructible planets, you would an expensive ball of metal. Actually, don't get me started on the inefficiency of Star Wars planetary weapons and their inevitable single points of failure.

Would love orbital mechanics for stations. And orbital mechnics for certain metalic objects meant as weapons. Would love to destroy stations from affar by accelerating hunks of metal into their orbit at speeds too quick to target
Post

Re: [Josh] Monday, October 23, 2017

#34
Axiomatic wrote:
Tue Oct 24, 2017 8:17 am
So... Can I equip my home planet with booster rockets?

Oh, also, from the announcements page:
"Josh has no plans to implement the following, although players may be able to mod them in:
Basic gameplay elements:
Ramming mechanic"

This no longer seems to be correct. :)
Still correct. Ramming mechanics imply that you can build ships specifically designed to ram other ships, dealing maximum damage while taking minimum damage themselves. Damage in LT will almost certainly be based purely on mass, with ships in collisions taking damage proportional to the size of the ship they're colliding with relative to their own. Basically, if a small ship hits a big ship: small ship squish, big ship minor ouch. If ship hits equal-sized ship, both are probably going to explode unless they aren't going very fast. I would expect a ship to deal more than its HP in maximum ramming damage - on both ends. Essentially, you would have no hope of winning unless you were much larger than your opponent.
Have a question? Send me a PM! || People talking in IRC over the past two hours: Image
Image
Image
Post

Re: [Josh] Monday, October 23, 2017

#36
Having the option to have really large Objects and Structures that the physics support would meant that the game could add some kind of topology to space.
Where normal sized ships could fly in and around large stations and asteroids, that have a sufficient size to behave like small "moons".
Maybe even battles on their surface or even inside - eg: canyons, large craters, tunnels. (as a replacement for planetary surface flight mechanics)

But then the problem would extend to require pretty fancy dynamic path finding for the AI and probably the need for a LOD system for different parts of the station.
Post

Re: [Josh] Monday, October 23, 2017

#37
Damocles wrote:
Tue Oct 24, 2017 9:55 am
Having the option to have really large Objects and Structures that the physics support would meant that the game could add some kind of topology to space.
Where normal sized ships could fly in and around large stations and asteroids, that have a sufficient size to behave like small "moons".
Maybe even battles on their surface or even inside - eg: canyons, large craters, tunnels. (as a replacement for planetary surface flight mechanics)

But then the problem would extend to require pretty fancy dynamic path finding for the AI and probably the need for a LOD system for different parts of the station.
you dont need the big objects to be movable to have them as obstacles.

asteroids and planets were supported before as well, but now asteroids are mobile when bumped.
Post

Re: [Josh] Monday, October 23, 2017

#38
Correct, they can be static at this size. What I was referring to is that the physics system seems to be able to scale up to really large sizes now in general, and how that can add new options.
(Planets dont really need any physics interaction, anything getting to close can be assumed to be destroyed / gone)
Last edited by Damocles on Tue Oct 24, 2017 10:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
Post

Re: [Josh] Monday, October 23, 2017

#40
Thank you to everybody who said "welcome"/ "can't wait to see cool ships"/ etc!! :D :D
Damocles wrote:
Tue Oct 24, 2017 2:37 am
Good, a module/joint based approach for ships and structures is fitting for LT.

It can combine manual art and procedural structuring.
And best of all: it makes it easy to MOD the components, and create a unique visual style. While still giving it a large range of variation using a procedure to combine the modules.

Is the ship generation procedure going to account in the technical relation between elements?
For example: FuelDepot -> FuelLine -> Thrusters ANDPower Generator -> Battery AND Cooling Module / All placed along Hull Structure.

Battery -> Main Power Line -> Central Mainframe / Cockpit / Weapon Hardpoints / Com Array

Each module could have various implementations / repetitions, and the generation algorithm is plugging them together in the right order (at the joints), plus stretching/bending selected parts of it to fit the shape of the hull/rig.
Just to be clear - we're still not planning on having any manual art in LT. While most of the ship's visual elements will be based off of showing off functionality, like the modules you listed, those modules will still be 100% procedural. That being said, those algorithms, and therefore the appearance of generated structures, will almost certainly be moddable :D I'll go more into detail about how they work (or will work) in my devlogs. Hopefully the first will be up this Friday?
Blog | Twitter | Pinterest

"You’ve got to work on something dangerous. You have to work on something that makes you uncertain. Something that makes you doubt yourself... because it stimulates you to do things you haven’t done before. The whole thing is if you know where you’re going, you’ve gone, as the poet says. And that’s death."
- Stephen Sondheim
Post

Re: [Josh] Monday, October 23, 2017

#43
Cornflakes_91 wrote:
Tue Oct 24, 2017 10:14 am
LindseyReid wrote:
Tue Oct 24, 2017 10:12 am
Hopefully the first will be up this Friday?
uuuuuh, shiny ship devlogs
uhhhhhhhhhhhh, more like shiny shapes connecting together on arbitrary points to show the joint system working :V it's gonna take a hot minute to get to shiny ships. Also, I'm starting with stations. :twisted:
Blog | Twitter | Pinterest

"You’ve got to work on something dangerous. You have to work on something that makes you uncertain. Something that makes you doubt yourself... because it stimulates you to do things you haven’t done before. The whole thing is if you know where you’re going, you’ve gone, as the poet says. And that’s death."
- Stephen Sondheim
Post

Re: [Josh] Monday, October 23, 2017

#45
LindseyReid wrote:
Tue Oct 24, 2017 10:21 am
Also, I'm starting with stations. :twisted:
My Grading System:

F
Spoiler:      SHOW
Image

D
Spoiler:      SHOW
Image

C
Spoiler:      SHOW
Image

B
Spoiler:      SHOW
Image

A
Spoiler:      SHOW
Image

A+
Spoiler:      SHOW
Image
May the algorithms be ever in your favor :geek:
Image
When you're trying to fill an infinite multiverse, if you're not willing to consider the entire creative output of humanity as a starting point, you're wasting your time.
User: JoshParnell is accountable for this user's actions.

Online Now

Users browsing this forum: Hyperion and 4 guests

cron