Return to “Suggestions”

Re: Missiles in the games

#196
BFett wrote: So a collection of objects which behave in a similar manner? Hmm, sounds familiar. :monkey:
Yes, of course it sounds familiar.
Since i proposed that over two years ago its bound to be familiar.
B) having a spam ton of objects in a battle would have reliable hit detection
And by what magic mechanism should the amount of objects reduce reliability? :P
reliability only suffers when you drop checks to gain speed.
And speed is directly proportional to the amount of checks aka how many objects there are.

And now guess why i want to collect as many missiles as possible into as few objects as possible without reducing fexibility of usage :P
C) a spam ton of objects would be fun for the player and not game breaking.
So you dont want glorious giant fleet fights?
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.
Random tangent is random.

I have no idea where that infinite flight time comes from.

Re: Missiles in the games

#197
Cornflakes_91 wrote:
BFett wrote: So a collection of objects which behave in a similar manner? Hmm, sounds familiar. :monkey:
Yes, of course it sounds familiar.
Since i proposed that over two years ago its bound to be familiar.
B) having a spam ton of objects in a battle would have reliable hit detection
And by what magic mechanism should the amount of objects reduce reliability? :P
reliability only suffers when you drop checks to gain speed.
And speed is directly proportional to the amount of checks aka how many objects there are.

And now guess why i want to collect as many missiles as possible into as few objects as possible without reducing fexibility of usage :P
C) a spam ton of objects would be fun for the player and not game breaking.
So you dont want glorious giant fleet fights?
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.
Random tangent is random.

I have no idea where that infinite flight time comes from.

I guess the question is: How does grouping all the missiles fired by multiple ships maintain separate flight trajectories of the missiles while also allowing anti-missile systems to shoot down the missiles?

I seem to think you are trying to abstract the physical missiles into a cloud where position of the missiles at any given time is uncertain and that shooting the cloud volume destroys missiles. I also seem to think that since this is a missile swarm of 10,000 missiles that it can move and destroy one ship after another simply by consuming them in it's cloud. Please tell me I'm wrong with these assumptions.

I don't mind glorious ship battles, but they are more like those seen in film than those you would appear to be describing. Granted that Ender's Game and Star Trek Beyond push that limit a bit too far in my opinion. I'd like to see battles which are more along the lines of Revenge of the Sith.
Image

Re: Missiles in the games

#198
BFett wrote: I guess the question is: How does grouping all the missiles fired by multiple ships maintain separate flight trajectories of the missiles
they dont move on independent trajectories as long as they dont have to.
missles being in the same area and are targetting the same ship -> grouped

BFett wrote: allowing anti-missile systems to shoot down the missiles?
I seem to think you are trying to abstract the physical missiles into a cloud where position of the missiles at any given time is uncertain and that shooting the cloud volume destroys missiles.
depends on the exact implementation.
would be cool if we could preserve the individual hitability of missiles without having to handle them as independent objects
for example by merging them all into one object consisting out of all the missiles in the group and removing missiles as the common mesh is being hit.
BFett wrote: I also seem to think that since this is a missile swarm of 10,000 missiles that it can move and destroy one ship after another simply by consuming them in it's cloud. Please tell me I'm wrong with these assumptions.
numerical balancing is numerial.
if missile swarms do too much damage then change their damage values.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯


BFett wrote:Granted that Ender's Game [...] I'd like to see battles which are more along the lines of Revenge of the Sith.
>takes a relatively small fight and says is too much.
>takes the biggest shown fight in star wars canon as example of not too big.

lets sum up the numbers for the battle of coruscant.

stupid image doesnt want to get large
click on the image under the point "jedi rescue"
Image


in the image are about 40-50 significant ships visible, so i guess theres about 100 ships in total because the image is from pretty far inside the battle.
with almost all of them being able to carry some fighter complement.
in that fray are at least two lucrehulk class ships, with a fighter capacity of 1500 vulture fighters each, summing up to more than 3000 fighters on the separatist side, more like 5000 if we sum up all the other capacities.
every one of those fighters can hold at least 4 missiles on external pylons.
and now they all fire their missiles at once.
20000 missiles.

would you have considered it believable if the vulture fiighters alone, with a single common missile salvo, would have completely wiped the republican fleet from the sky?
now why should the same situation in limit theory behave differently?
(no, i dont expect fleets which have 5000 fighters in carry to appear in LT, it would be awesome if it were possible, though)



large missiles which could literally mop up whole fleets if there were a swarm of 10000 roaming through them.
but those are way harder to get to ludicrous numbers.
the ones that get spammed in high masses are the smaller ones, the ones every single ship can carry at leas a few of and fire in quick succession.
those wont mop up whole fleets, but they'll mop up your computer if we allow missile awesomeness and not find a way to reduce the missile awesomeness to manageable levels.

Re: Missiles in the games

#199
Cornflakes_91 wrote:
BFett wrote:Granted that Ender's Game [...] I'd like to see battles which are more along the lines of Revenge of the Sith.
>takes a relatively small fight and says is too much.
>takes the biggest shown fight in star wars canon as example of not too big.

lets sum up the numbers for the battle of coruscant.

stupid image doesnt want to get large
click on the image under the point "jedi rescue"
Image


in the image are about 40-50 significant ships visible, so i guess theres about 100 ships in total because the image is from pretty far inside the battle.
with almost all of them being able to carry some fighter complement.
in that fray are at least two lucrehulk class ships, with a fighter capacity of 1500 vulture fighters each, summing up to more than 3000 fighters on the separatist side, more like 5000 if we sum up all the other capacities.
every one of those fighters can hold at least 4 missiles on external pylons.
and now they all fire their missiles at once.
20000 missiles.

would you have considered it believable if the vulture fiighters alone, with a single common missile salvo, would have completely wiped the republican fleet from the sky?
now why should the same situation in limit theory behave differently?
(no, i dont expect fleets which have 5000 fighters in carry to appear in LT, it would be awesome if it were possible, though)



large missiles which could literally mop up whole fleets if there were a swarm of 10000 roaming through them.
but those are way harder to get to ludicrous numbers.
the ones that get spammed in high masses are the smaller ones, the ones every single ship can carry at leas a few of and fire in quick succession.
those wont mop up whole fleets, but they'll mop up your computer if we allow missile awesomeness and not find a way to reduce the missile awesomeness to manageable levels.
This was one of the nerdiest explanations I ever read. And I LOVED it! :mrgreen:
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"

Re: Missiles in the games

#200
If the main concern is lag then just limit the number of targets a ship can fire at (grouping fired missiles) and limit the number of launchers per ship.

This way shooting 120 missiles at a target is treated the same way if 10 missiles were. Group the logic not the object. The objects only need to be grouped if their lifespan is longer than the reload time for the next missile to be fired.
Image

Re: Missiles in the games

#204
BFett wrote:
Dinosawer wrote:How do you group the logic but not the objects?
By linking the launchers together so that missiles are fired together in one volly.
That doesnt do anything from a performance point compared to the same amount of missiles fired at random targets.

Unless you bundle them into aggregate objects you still have n missiles flying around.
Instead of n/k k-missile-groups

Except you now have a game mechanics limit.

Re: Missiles in the games

#205
Missiles have a few components.

Model, Texture, Shaders
Thruster trail
Physics Position, movement, collisions
Target Tracking
Object Avoidance

The first three lines are simple, these are in all other objects, so they wont be problematic, and even at 1000 objects shouldn't pose an issue.

The fourth, Target Tracking is fairly simple also, but requires the missile to keep turning towards it's target, so it eventually hits. (and isn't just a rocket)

The last one is the pain point, figuring out if turning or going forward will prevent it from hitting it's target by hitting a Collidable instead. This is extra collision detection, and a small amount of AI, to pick the clearest simplest path.


Now, if we limit the missiles that avoid collidables to just larger missiles, give them a special case, and make these expensive, larger, harder hitting. That might work. But it also means we just created three categories of missile (rocket, missile, good missile)

If we just remove that feature entirely we can put out hundreds of missiles, but firing them around friends, or allies becomes dangerous. Hitting an ally and making them hostile could be deadly!

This is the crux of this argument, and it comes down ENTIRELY to if the engine can support this kind of missile at large quantities in large fights or not.
If it can, then we get them on every missile, and missile swarm options become seriously viable.

If it can't, then we have to limit or eliminate them altogether.


I think we would all like to see massive swarms of macross missiles.
Image Image

Re: Missiles in the games

#207
BFett wrote:Can you explain to me why my logic is flawed?
does it matter to the performance drain of a hundred fighters if you give them all the same order or if they do their own thing?

Eg: all fighters attack one ship vs all fighters against a similar group of fighters.

it makes no difference if you just fire them in a group without actually handling them as a dedicatedly grouped object in engine

Online Now

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest

cron