Page 5 of 11

Re: [Lindsey] Friday, December 15, 2017

Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2017 9:01 am
by N810
What about in galaxies that contain an unusual amount of nebula (Cough Josh)
The genral idea of forward facing wings is to increase maneuverability, in such relatively dense areas
of space at sublight speed might these things be usefull ?

Re: [Lindsey] Friday, December 15, 2017

Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2017 12:52 pm
by Cornflakes_91
N810 wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 9:01 am
What about in galaxies that contain an unusual amount of nebula (Cough Josh)
The genral idea of forward facing wings is to increase maneuverability, in such relatively dense areas
of space at sublight speed might these things be usefull ?
"relatively dense"
when you are inside you dont notice that its there.

Re: [Lindsey] Friday, December 15, 2017

Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2017 1:09 pm
by Talvieno
Personally I ignore any "realism" aspect, and I just like aerodynamic-looking space fighters because I think they look cool.

Re: [Lindsey] Friday, December 15, 2017

Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2017 1:19 pm
by Flatfingers
Cornflakes_91 wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 12:52 pm
N810 wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 9:01 am
What about in galaxies that contain an unusual amount of nebula (Cough Josh)
The genral idea of forward facing wings is to increase maneuverability, in such relatively dense areas
of space at sublight speed might these things be usefull ?
"relatively dense"
when you are inside you dont notice that its there.
Just as Cornflakes said.

When we look at Hubble pictures of nebulae, there's a lot of magic going on. For one thing, those aren't the "real" colors. What Hubble actually does is capture photons for a while using different filters that are keyed to normal components of nebulae, such as hydrogen and ionized oxygen. Then a person maps the strengths of the photons collected to particular colors, and combines those separate images into one. The resulting colors might be close to the real visual frequency of the light that's reflected or emitted by the nebula at particular wavelengths, but they don't have to be... and that's the origin of the "Hubble palette."

Another piece of magic is that we're looking at these nebulae from a great distance -- these clouds can actually span light-years. At that size, and from our distance, even our best telescopes and software tricks can't resolve the gaps between particles. So we "see" them as nearly-solid objects, when really they're extremely tenuous. As Cornflakes said, although nebulae appear dense from a long distance, when you're actually in them they're not what we'd consider dense (like fog) at all. Visually, you might not even see anything but space.

So what Josh is doing with his wonderful nebulae (like other space games) is indulging in a bit of artistic license. If we can see the "stuff" of nebulae as we fly through them in LT, that's a game effect, not an accurate (we think) simulation of reality.

That said, because LT's nebulae are mostly a nice visual touch (with sometimes maybe some gameplay-mechanical effects?), the idea that wings might be of some value isn't crazy. If there's enough stuff in a nebulae to see it as we fly through it, there's maybe enough stuff to make an "atmospheric" shape worth having. The idea of wings is still not entirely useful because those are meant to deliver lift in a fluid (such as air) versus gravity... and there's no gravity in regular space, so there's nothing to "lift" against. But a planar body for a spacecraft might still be useful in terms of reducing drag.

Apologies to anyone already familiar with this stuff. It's just fun to think about. :)

Re: [Lindsey] Friday, December 15, 2017

Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2017 2:51 pm
by LindseyReid
Talvieno wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 1:09 pm
Personally I ignore any "realism" aspect, and I just like aerodynamic-looking space fighters because I think they look cool.
This x1000000000

Playability > realism

Re: [Lindsey] Friday, December 15, 2017

Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2017 2:55 pm
by Silverware
LindseyReid wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 2:51 pm
Playability > realism
Gameplay > Pretties > Realism > Nazis > Microtransactions > Ubisoft

Re: [Lindsey] Friday, December 15, 2017

Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2017 2:58 pm
by Talvieno
It amuses me how Nazis are preferable, in your scale, to microtransactions. :lol:

Re: [Lindsey] Friday, December 15, 2017

Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2017 3:01 pm
by Silverware
Talvieno wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 2:58 pm
It amuses me how Nazis are preferable, in your scale, to microtransactions. :lol:
It really shouldn't it's an unfortunate truth.

Re: [Lindsey] Friday, December 15, 2017

Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2017 10:24 pm
by S46
In fleets, there should be fighters and such of particular styles - if every ship in a fleet is unique, it suggests that it was formed from a rabble of pirates with handmade ships, but, if looking to achieve a more military look, those kinds of fleets would have specific types/styles of ships.

Re: [Lindsey] Friday, December 15, 2017

Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2017 12:28 am
by Prack
There is another possible justification for having wings on a space fighter.
An issue with hull mounted weaponry is the firing arcs. Since they can only pivot inwards as far as the hull design allow, you will sometimes be unable to use all your forward facing weaponry.
Mounting the weapons on wings should solve a bit of this issue by providing some clearance.

Re: [Lindsey] Friday, December 15, 2017

Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2017 12:39 am
by Flatfingers
Silverware wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 2:55 pm
Gameplay > Pretties > Realism > Nazis > Microtransactions > Ubisoft > EA
FTFY.

(No matter how awful Ubi is, at least they never consumed and obliterated Origin and Bullfrog and Maxis.)

Aaaaaaaaaaand we are way off-topic at this point. Course correction, Mr. Sulu!
S46 wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 10:24 pm
In fleets, there should be fighters and such of particular styles - if every ship in a fleet is unique, it suggests that it was formed from a rabble of pirates with handmade ships, but, if looking to achieve a more military look, those kinds of fleets would have specific types/styles of ships.
Want.
Prack wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 12:28 am
There is another possible justification for having wings on a space fighter.
An issue with hull mounted weaponry is the firing arcs. Since they can only pivot inwards as far as the hull design allow, you will sometimes be unable to use all your forward facing weaponry. Mounting the weapons on wings should solve a bit of this issue by providing some clearance.
That's an interesting point -- are firing arcs a thing in LT? Or are weapon firing/launch points just sort of abstract, and weapons can fire "through" a ship?

Also, at what point do wings become Spikes-O-Doom?

I mean, symmetry can be preserved (as Talvieno pointed out is obligatory) even if there are more than two wings... so how many can a ship have?

<waiting for first "Death Blossom" ship design>

Re: [Lindsey] Friday, December 15, 2017

Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2017 8:36 am
by Souttia
I just can't wait anymore... I want this game in my life.

Re: [Lindsey] Friday, December 15, 2017

Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2017 9:12 am
by kostuek
LindseyReid wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 2:51 pm
Talvieno wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 1:09 pm
Personally I ignore any "realism" aspect, and I just like aerodynamic-looking space fighters because I think they look cool.
This x1000000000

Playability > realism
Well, personally, I can't take a space-ship with wings seriously, but it does not make the game unplayable either. So, I guess, "get rid of wings" would be just another task for a modder.

Re: [Lindsey] Friday, December 15, 2017

Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2017 9:31 am
by Talvieno
Wings make sense, honestly, though perhaps not in a typical two-winged aircraft-like manner. They're good places to mount things on a ship that
  1. need to stay moving as part of their defense (don't have the shields and HP to tank attacks from larger ships)
  2. flies at its target to attack (small ships such as fighters/bombers)
  3. Doesn't have much surface area (small ships, typically, such as fighters or perhaps bombers)
  4. Doesn't want to greatly enlarge its profile relative to its target (smaller profile = harder to hit)

The main points of contention seem to be:
  • Floaty bits/Everything attached
  • Aerodynamic shape/Bulky shape
  • Wings/Everything mounted on the main body
  • Symmetrical/Asymmetrical
So, essentially, everything. :D I don't think it's possible to make a single algorithm that pleases everyone all the time, but it should be possible to make a single algorithm that pleases everyone some of the time. I think the important thing is just to make sure it all looks like it "looks as intended" - i.e. make sure we won't be getting bug reports because of the generation algorithms.

Re: [Lindsey] Friday, December 15, 2017

Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2017 9:42 am
by Hyperion
Talvieno wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 9:31 am
I don't think it's possible to make a single algorithm that pleases everyone all the time, but it should be possible to make a single algorithm that pleases everyone some of the time. I think the important thing is just to make sure it all looks like it "looks as intended" - i.e. make sure we won't be getting bug reports because of the generation algorithms.
This is why I said that the generation algorithms should be saved at every version, so that way someone can go back later from any point and create a whole new branch to tweak things which one person thought had lots of potential, but lindsey overlooked, not to say lindsey isnt paying attention, just that different people have different tastes.


However something just occurred to me, Making These should be much easier now, and they could even be in 3D! :D :geek: