Return to “Suggestions”

Post

Re: Sensor knowledge and suggestions

#31
Flatfingers wrote:I could get behind a chance of being lost in a star system... as long as there's reasonable warning it might be about to happen.
The first time with an obstructing tutorial message and every other time with an annoying beeep "navigation hazard" or something similar :think:
Flatfingers wrote: Would it be OK to be able to map such places manually? That is, you have to actually fly within a certain (relatively close) distance from a stationary object to cause it to be added to your internal map -- you can't just "see" everything from a great distance with your ship's scanner -- but it is possible to build a map of a star system in this way.
Yeah, thats the idea, you "feel" yourself from stationary object to stationary object, like a blind person hanging to a known fixpoint.
As long as something stationary with known coordinates is in sensor range you know where you are.

In a big asteroid field you may put drones every so far on the rocks to have fixpoints, in a nebula you drop buoys.
You need to bring some kind of breadcrumbs with you, or make something stationary your breadcrumb.
Last edited by Cornflakes_91 on Sun Apr 24, 2016 4:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Post

Re: Sensor knowledge and suggestions

#32
.....hmmmm.... :think:

Would it be overkill for sensors to have a temporal resolution too? :think:

A sensor which gives good data can only do so ..say.. once a second, giving data with high fidelity but also high "ping", so weapons guided by that sensor wont be able to hit maneuvering targets, as there wont be precise data about the current position/vector of the ship.

So a targetting sensor would have high repetition rate, to provide always the most up to date data, while a long range sensor would have lower repetition rate and thus not be as suited as a targetting system.
Or only as targetting sensor against slow or stationary targets.

So a low repetition rate sensor would provide less precise data about the movements of a target.
Post

Re: Sensor knowledge and suggestions

#33
You could, in case of radar-like sensors, explain (and implement?) this via a finite signal speed - you give out a pulse, which has to travel towards the target, reflect and come back to the sensor, which in close combat can happen pretty fast but in long range can take a while (minutes to hours in our solar system, but I think that's a bit long from a gameplay persepective). :think:
Warning: do not ask about physics unless you really want to know about physics.
The LT IRC / Alternate link || The REKT Wiki || PUDDING
Image
Post

Re: Sensor knowledge and suggestions

#34
i actually didnt think of finite propagation speed, but the pulse repetition speed of the radar itself (or the effective data analysis frame frequency in case of passive scanners).
so your sender can only produce a single pulse per second because of energy requirements, or your passive scanner can only process one "frame" per second etc.

finite propagaion speed would generate so many other headaches, also in terms of performance, that it would not be worth the effort imo.
Post

Re: Sensor knowledge and suggestions

#36
Dinosawer wrote:Fair point. Other than that, I don't think it's super realistic - the best sensors are usually the ones with better time resolution, not worse.
Which of course isn't a problem if the opposite would add to the gameplay, but does it? :think:
well, "best" is relative.

a long range sensor has to sacrifice its "speed" for better data, and a speedy sensor has to trade in some data quality.

modern image sensors would be a good analogy, a hyperspectral camera doesnt have high frequency resolution, as they are scanned line sensors.

and billion FPS cameras arent hyperspectral or QuadHD ones.
Post

Re: Sensor knowledge and suggestions

#38
Dinosawer wrote:Yes, true. I mean, the trade-off of speed vs quality only starts happening when you start pushing 1 of them to the most extreme, not in normal day-to-day sensors, and I expect that to be even less so far in the future.
well, if we apply the progression we are seeing right now and extrapolate it a thousand years to the future we can throw out all sensor gameplay already.
:lol:
Post

Re: Sensor knowledge and suggestions

#39
Dinosawer wrote:Yes, true. I mean, the trade-off of speed vs quality only starts happening when you start pushing 1 of them to the most extreme, not in normal day-to-day sensors, and I expect that to be even less so far in the future.
Also: maybe it gets increasingly inefficient to push one stat :think:

So a sqrt(1²+1²+1²+1²)=2 average sensor would have the highest overall utility, and a "pushed" sqrt(0.5²+0.5²+0.5²+1.5²)=1.73 sensor would have one stat really good, but the others drop overproportionally.

That would reflect the relation of "others have to suffer if you push one really far" better :think:
Post

Re: Sensor knowledge and suggestions

#40
Cornflakes_91 wrote:from cloaking
Spoiler:      SHOW
blacktea wrote:Bringing back the cloaking discussion. Maybe if we could have "zones" wich will hide everything insid,e up until some distance, they could be used to cloak entire systems or stations. If we could build a "cloaking" device, wich produce this kind of zone in given radius, then we could have moveable zones, bound to an object, to cloak ships. Or with modification of this technology, we could have other kinds of zones around the ship, like nanobots shield or emp. I hope Josh will consider bringing this kind of functionality into the game.
Spoiler:      SHOW
Cornflakes_91 wrote:i'd prefer to include it in the general framework around sensors and what we already know for sure about them (look here for a write up)

so that cloaks are no
Gazz wrote:I pressed invisubul button so you can't see me! Hurr durr!
feature.

so that you actually have to do something for your stealth-ness.

like reducing your emissions by turning down your reactors and stuff.


BUT i'd enjoy a "damper field" mechanic.

not a stealth per se but a device that reduces your signature to lower levels.

this could also be frequency-dependent.

so the dampener field produces an "anti-signature" reducing your signature along a signature graph.

this amounts to pulsar9's different sensor areas (IR/X-Ray etc) without making them artificial borders but natural continua

so you have to match your equipment and dampener field that nothing "sticks out" of the dampening effect.

this also introduces more reconnisance into strategic gameplay.

so you may tune your sensors to listen in the areas where your enemies dampeners are bad....


some additional thoughts on "passive" sensor dampeners.

Diffusers
Diffusers dont reduce your emissions, they "smear" your signal over a bigger space, reducing the effective angular resolution of sensors that try to target you.
doesnt make it harder to see that you are there, but makes it harder to pinpoint you.

Scramblers
Scramblers disrupt the spectrum of the ship its mounted on, making it harder to analyse its contents.
position and sum signal strenght stay the same, so it doesnt get harder to see or pinpoint exactly, but makes it harder to tell what you are.
Post

Re: Sensor knowledge and suggestions

#41
based on that "getting lost" idea from the last page/first post on this page.

could "disorienting" anomalies make intereting gameplay?

in the extreme variation it could be something akin to antichamber, maybe something less extreme would be interesting for explorers.

maybe with some [insert classic "precursor" nonsense] in the "center" of those anomalies? :think:
Post

Re: Sensor knowledge and suggestions

#42
I guess that it would be simple to code the equivalent of the Gateway in the Heechee novels by Fred Pohl.

The Gateway could send you to one of many thousands of destinations, apparently at random. Most who risked the trip didn't return, but many still tried because every now and then someone came back with something extraordinary.

Would something like that be interesting?
Post

Re: Sensor knowledge and suggestions

#43
How would the gateways actually work?

Like "you got teleported to a random position in the universe", with a bit luck with a return portal?

Or more deterministic coupled with player skill/knowledge?

Because i'd personally prefer it to be perception/thinking/skill based, at least for the return trip.

Or maybe as a completely deterministic "puzzle wormhole". With many possible endpoints connected by repeatable "passcodes".

skill based systems are more fun than purely random systems ;)

Online Now

Users browsing this forum: BFett and 2 guests

cron