Return to “Suggestions”

Post

Re: Missiles in the games

#187
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.
Image
Post

Re: Missiles in the games

#188
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.
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. :D
Automation engineer, lateral thinker, soldier, addicted to music, books and gaming.
Nothing to see here
Flatfingers wrote: 23.01.2017: "Show me the smoldering corpse of Perfectionist Josh"
Post

Re: Missiles in the games

#189
JanB1 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. :D
i have no idea how you got from "group many missiles into single objects" to swarm missile AI :ghost:
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?
why would missile swarms be limited to 10-20 missiles?

say the ship with the 200 missile salvo.
group them into one and handle all of them as a single blob.
Post

Re: Missiles in the games

#190
Cornflakes_91 wrote:
JanB1 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. :D
i have no idea how you got from "group many missiles into single objects" to swarm missile AI :ghost:
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".
Automation engineer, lateral thinker, soldier, addicted to music, books and gaming.
Nothing to see here
Flatfingers wrote: 23.01.2017: "Show me the smoldering corpse of Perfectionist Josh"
Post

Re: Missiles in the games

#192
Cornflakes_91 wrote:in light of the missile swarm performance considerations, could we abstract big missile swarms as field functions?
That's actually a pretty creative idea.

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 :shock: 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. :P
Post

Re: Missiles in the games

#193
Flatfingers wrote:
Cornflakes_91 wrote:in light of the missile swarm performance considerations, could we abstract big missile swarms as field functions?
That's actually a pretty creative idea.

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 :shock: 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. :P
yeah, field function is maybe not the right term.

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 :D :monkey:
Post

Re: Missiles in the games

#194
Cornflakes_91 wrote:
Flatfingers wrote:
Cornflakes_91 wrote:in light of the missile swarm performance considerations, could we abstract big missile swarms as field functions?
That's actually a pretty creative idea.

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 :shock: 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. :P
yeah, field function is maybe not the right term.

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 :D :monkey:

So a collection of objects which behave in a similar manner? Hmm, sounds familiar. :monkey:

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.
Image

Online Now

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests