N810 wrote:Don't forget chaff...
Post
Thu Apr 20, 2017 1:00 pm
#182
Re: Missiles in the games
.... Not sure about those frenchies ???
"A sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
- Arthur C. Clarke
- Arthur C. Clarke
Post
Thu Apr 20, 2017 2:20 pm
#183
Re: Missiles in the games
"Crap you throw out the back of your ship to distract missiles"N810 wrote:Don't forget chaff...
Which doesnt quite work in fighter vs fighter combat when theres a big clump of death on your tailN810 wrote: Also you could probably bjust shoot it with another missile or your gun.
Post
Thu Apr 20, 2017 4:22 pm
#184
Re: Missiles in the games
I was referring to the big slow long range torpedoes.
"A sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
- Arthur C. Clarke
- Arthur C. Clarke
Post
Fri Apr 21, 2017 2:00 am
#185
But things that are suszeptible to torpedoes can mount a bunch of turrets dedicated to fly swatting
Re: Missiles in the games
Yeah, for those hardkill systems will likely work better.N810 wrote:I was referring to the big slow long range torpedoes.
But things that are suszeptible to torpedoes can mount a bunch of turrets dedicated to fly swatting
Post
Sun Apr 23, 2017 4:17 am
#186
Re: Missiles in the games
in light of the missile swarm performance considerations, could we abstract big missile swarms as field functions?
linky
other linky
with missile swarms being just a "bubble" of entities with commonly handled calculations.
would remove most of the performance problems of missile spam.
linky
other linky
with missile swarms being just a "bubble" of entities with commonly handled calculations.
would remove most of the performance problems of missile spam.
Post
Sun Apr 23, 2017 9:50 am
#187
Re: Missiles in the games
Wouldn't most missile swarms only consist of at most 10-20 missiles where the group of missiles is handled as an individual object with destroy-able parts? This is how most games handle it in the MW franchise and I bet it works in a very similar way in RTS games.
So, in game a ship with 10 missile launchers which fire groups of 20 missiles a piece could be possible. The ship could fire all 200 missiles at the same time and all of the missiles could be tracked accurately and without sacrificing performance. This same technology could be applies to space mines as well with the only difference being the spacing between the objects.
So, in game a ship with 10 missile launchers which fire groups of 20 missiles a piece could be possible. The ship could fire all 200 missiles at the same time and all of the missiles could be tracked accurately and without sacrificing performance. This same technology could be applies to space mines as well with the only difference being the spacing between the objects.
Post
Sun Apr 23, 2017 12:20 pm
#188
Re: Missiles in the games
Well, we could (once again) ask the guys from Egosoft. They had swarm homing missiles. If a few were enough to kill the target, the others searched for a new one.BFett wrote:Wouldn't most missile swarms only consist of at most 10-20 missiles where the group of missiles is handled as an individual object with destroy-able parts? This is how most games handle it in the MW franchise and I bet it works in a very similar way in RTS games.
So, in game a ship with 10 missile launchers which fire groups of 20 missiles a piece could be possible. The ship could fire all 200 missiles at the same time and all of the missiles could be tracked accurately and without sacrificing performance. This same technology could be applies to space mines as well with the only difference being the spacing between the objects.
Automation engineer, lateral thinker, soldier, addicted to music, books and gaming.
Nothing to see here
Nothing to see here
Flatfingers wrote: 23.01.2017: "Show me the smoldering corpse of Perfectionist Josh"
Post
Sun Apr 23, 2017 1:34 pm
#189
say the ship with the 200 missile salvo.
group them into one and handle all of them as a single blob.
Re: Missiles in the games
i have no idea how you got from "group many missiles into single objects" to swarm missile AIJanB1 wrote: Well, we could (once again) ask the guys from Egosoft. They had swarm homing missiles. If a few were enough to kill the target, the others searched for a new one.
why would missile swarms be limited to 10-20 missiles?BFett wrote:Wouldn't most missile swarms only consist of at most 10-20 missiles where the group of missiles is handled as an individual object with destroy-able parts?
say the ship with the 200 missile salvo.
group them into one and handle all of them as a single blob.
Post
Sun Apr 23, 2017 2:21 pm
#190
Re: Missiles in the games
Because that "bubble" technique wouldn't really work with that. Or it would just be really hard because you would have to group missiles with the same target to one group, and whenever they search a new target you have to make a new group to make this "bubble".Cornflakes_91 wrote:i have no idea how you got from "group many missiles into single objects" to swarm missile AIJanB1 wrote: Well, we could (once again) ask the guys from Egosoft. They had swarm homing missiles. If a few were enough to kill the target, the others searched for a new one.
Automation engineer, lateral thinker, soldier, addicted to music, books and gaming.
Nothing to see here
Nothing to see here
Flatfingers wrote: 23.01.2017: "Show me the smoldering corpse of Perfectionist Josh"
Post
Sun Apr 23, 2017 2:31 pm
#191
Re: Missiles in the games
And this is hard how?
I mean, I could write that in five minutes and I'm no Josh
I mean, I could write that in five minutes and I'm no Josh
Warning: do not ask about physics unless you really want to know about physics.
The LT IRC / Alternate link || The REKT Wiki || PUDDING
The LT IRC / Alternate link || The REKT Wiki || PUDDING
Post
Sun Apr 23, 2017 2:33 pm
#192
My immediate guess is that fields will make more sense either for A) overlapping continuous areas/volumes consisting of numeric "strengths" radiating from central points, with falloff governed by some simple mathematical function (such as an exponential), or B) an area/volume containing many thousands, or tens or hundreds of thousands, of invisible point effects.
If that guess is near accurate, then the field notion might not be the best solution for 200-500 visible objects. If it got closer to 10,000 missiles at a time then a field starts to look better, but I still don't know how it handles the fact that missiles generally ? need to be rendered on-screen.
Just thinking out loud; contradict at will.
Re: Missiles in the games
That's actually a pretty creative idea.Cornflakes_91 wrote:in light of the missile swarm performance considerations, could we abstract big missile swarms as field functions?
My immediate guess is that fields will make more sense either for A) overlapping continuous areas/volumes consisting of numeric "strengths" radiating from central points, with falloff governed by some simple mathematical function (such as an exponential), or B) an area/volume containing many thousands, or tens or hundreds of thousands, of invisible point effects.
If that guess is near accurate, then the field notion might not be the best solution for 200-500 visible objects. If it got closer to 10,000 missiles at a time then a field starts to look better, but I still don't know how it handles the fact that missiles generally ? need to be rendered on-screen.
Just thinking out loud; contradict at will.
Post
Sun Apr 23, 2017 2:54 pm
#193
aggregate object may be a better word.
but the basic idea of "dont handle them individually" stays the same.
if that is workable we can get all the shiny things
Re: Missiles in the games
yeah, field function is maybe not the right term.Flatfingers wrote:That's actually a pretty creative idea.Cornflakes_91 wrote:in light of the missile swarm performance considerations, could we abstract big missile swarms as field functions?
My immediate guess is that fields will make more sense either for A) overlapping continuous areas/volumes consisting of numeric "strengths" radiating from central points, with falloff governed by some simple mathematical function (such as an exponential), or B) an area/volume containing many thousands, or tens or hundreds of thousands, of invisible point effects.
If that guess is near accurate, then the field notion might not be the best solution for 200-500 visible objects. If it got closer to 10,000 missiles at a time then a field starts to look better, but I still don't know how it handles the fact that missiles generally ? need to be rendered on-screen.
Just thinking out loud; contradict at will.
aggregate object may be a better word.
but the basic idea of "dont handle them individually" stays the same.
if that is workable we can get all the shiny things
Post
Sun Apr 23, 2017 6:36 pm
#194
So a collection of objects which behave in a similar manner? Hmm, sounds familiar.
I'm not convinced that A) we should have a spam ton of any entities in a confined volume in LT, B) having a spam ton of objects in a battle would have reliable hit detection C) a spam ton of objects would be fun for the player and not game breaking.
When I think of a large battle I usually think of no more than 400 ships shooting weapons at each other with a variety of weapons. Josh has promised roughly a quarter of that. But none of this matters since we shouldn't have missiles with infinite flight times which just float around and wait for an enemy to enter the system.
Re: Missiles in the games
Cornflakes_91 wrote:yeah, field function is maybe not the right term.Flatfingers wrote:That's actually a pretty creative idea.Cornflakes_91 wrote:in light of the missile swarm performance considerations, could we abstract big missile swarms as field functions?
My immediate guess is that fields will make more sense either for A) overlapping continuous areas/volumes consisting of numeric "strengths" radiating from central points, with falloff governed by some simple mathematical function (such as an exponential), or B) an area/volume containing many thousands, or tens or hundreds of thousands, of invisible point effects.
If that guess is near accurate, then the field notion might not be the best solution for 200-500 visible objects. If it got closer to 10,000 missiles at a time then a field starts to look better, but I still don't know how it handles the fact that missiles generally ? need to be rendered on-screen.
Just thinking out loud; contradict at will.
aggregate object may be a better word.
but the basic idea of "dont handle them individually" stays the same.
if that is workable we can get all the shiny things
So a collection of objects which behave in a similar manner? Hmm, sounds familiar.
I'm not convinced that A) we should have a spam ton of any entities in a confined volume in LT, B) having a spam ton of objects in a battle would have reliable hit detection C) a spam ton of objects would be fun for the player and not game breaking.
When I think of a large battle I usually think of no more than 400 ships shooting weapons at each other with a variety of weapons. Josh has promised roughly a quarter of that. But none of this matters since we shouldn't have missiles with infinite flight times which just float around and wait for an enemy to enter the system.