Return to “Suggestions”

Post

Re: Small things that would be nice to have

#182
Would be nice if equipment which is based on a breakthrew/new tech would have fancier effects than the "usual" representative.

Say railguns are a common occurence around the area and their effects look baseline/meh. Not from being the common weapon around but per graphics design.

And then someone develops gauss cannons/plasma cannons/mcguffin throwers with the first few generations having awesome stats (because new tech with untapped potential) and also with especially fancy effects before slowly "degenerating" to normal/meh effect levels.

Purely audiovisual, no mechanical differencrs
Post

Re: Small things that would be nice to have

#183
in space flight games theres usually some form of aimpoint with the predicted position of the target.

but its always a point, regardless of target size and form.

what if the aimpoint wasnt a point but an area corresponding to the respective projective area of the target?
(Assuming thats doable cheaply)

so a big, rectangular ship would also have a big, rectangular aimarea.
Post

Re: Small things that would be nice to have

#184
Could be useful or at least interesting: Area of possible positions [time to hit] later. For craft with low agility, this is roughly equivalent to the aimpoint. But for high-agility vessels (like fighters), it could be a significantly different shape representing the possible position given convolutions of trajectory. It'll also make it quite clear that you need faster muzzle velocities for hitting faster targets, since they could be anywhere by the time your round would hit.
Post

Re: Small things that would be nice to have

#185
Cornflakes_91 wrote:in space flight games theres usually some form of aimpoint with the predicted position of the target.

but its always a point, regardless of target size and form.

what if the aimpoint wasnt a point but an area corresponding to the respective projective area of the target?
(Assuming thats doable cheaply)

so a big, rectangular ship would also have a big, rectangular aimarea.
Rendering the same model twice. Once to screen, once in predicted location to another rendertarget, which you then apply shaders to, and re-render back to the main screen.

Should be fairly cheap.
°˖◝(ಠ‸ಠ)◜˖°
Toba - A Development Dump
Post

Re: Small things that would be nice to have

#186
Silverware wrote: Rendering the same model twice. Once to screen, once in predicted location to another rendertarget, which you then apply shaders to, and re-render back to the main screen.

Should be fairly cheap.
except the actual area to hit isnt just the model again :V
at least, not in the same orientation

as i can hit the front or the side areas by just varying my targetting a little bit.
with the other ship just flying tangential to my view
Post

Re: Small things that would be nice to have

#187
Cornflakes_91 wrote:
Silverware wrote: Rendering the same model twice. Once to screen, once in predicted location to another rendertarget, which you then apply shaders to, and re-render back to the main screen.

Should be fairly cheap.
except the actual area to hit isnt just the model again :V
at least, not in the same orientation

as i can hit the front or the side areas by just varying my targetting a little bit.
with the other ship just flying tangential to my view
I didn't quite get that...
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: Small things that would be nice to have

#189
Cornflakes_91 wrote:
Silverware wrote: Rendering the same model twice. Once to screen, once in predicted location to another rendertarget, which you then apply shaders to, and re-render back to the main screen.

Should be fairly cheap.
except the actual area to hit isnt just the model again :V
at least, not in the same orientation

as i can hit the front or the side areas by just varying my targetting a little bit.
with the other ship just flying tangential to my view
No the hit area is the size and shape of the ship in its final location/rotation when your round arrives.
Firing outside of that is unlikely to actually hit.

This is relative to your own movement too. Especially with slow rounds. (Like star wars lasers)
°˖◝(ಠ‸ಠ)◜˖°
Toba - A Development Dump
Post

Re: Small things that would be nice to have

#190
Silverware wrote: No the hit area is the size and shape of the ship in its final location/rotation when your round arrives.
when my round arrives where?

a ships dimensions arent 0, and flight time isnt 0.
Silverware wrote:Firing outside of that is unlikely to actually hit.
its not representative of the actual effective cross section.
Silverware wrote:Especially with slow rounds. (Like star wars lasers)
that a target ship could "overtake" and take to the front side.



i dont disagree that it would be good as a first order approximation, but it wouldnt cover all the cases.
Post

Re: Small things that would be nice to have

#192
Cornflakes_91 wrote:
Silverware wrote: No the hit area is the size and shape of the ship in its final location/rotation when your round arrives.
when my round arrives where?

a ships dimensions arent 0, and flight time isnt 0.
Silverware wrote:Firing outside of that is unlikely to actually hit.
its not representative of the actual effective cross section.
Silverware wrote:Especially with slow rounds. (Like star wars lasers)
that a target ship could "overtake" and take to the front side.



i dont disagree that it would be good as a first order approximation, but it wouldnt cover all the cases.

From what I am reading, all of your arguments here are based on a bad estimation of the target's location...
Unless you have some fancy ass-concept you are currently failing to explain?
°˖◝(ಠ‸ಠ)◜˖°
Toba - A Development Dump
Post

Re: Small things that would be nice to have

#193
Silverware wrote: From what I am reading, all of your arguments here are based on a bad estimation of the target's location...
Unless you have some fancy ass-concept you are currently failing to explain?
no, not from the lack of precision.
all im saying that depending on the bullet speed and target speed and geometry the effective cross section would be larger than just placing a copy of the object as target marker.
because you can hit the front (the area that is in movement direction) area of the target even if you are to the side of the target.
making the projection incomplete.

a complete target area would be a transform that projects all the potentially hittable area onto the sphere of the targettable area.
front, sides, all
Post

Re: Small things that would be nice to have

#194
Cornflakes_91 wrote:
Silverware wrote: From what I am reading, all of your arguments here are based on a bad estimation of the target's location...
Unless you have some fancy ass-concept you are currently failing to explain?
no, not from the lack of precision.
all im saying that depending on the bullet speed and target speed and geometry the effective cross section would be larger than just placing a copy of the object as target marker.
because you can hit the front (the area that is in movement direction) area of the target even if you are to the side of the target.
making the projection incomplete.

a complete target area would be a transform that projects all the potentially hittable area onto the sphere of the targettable area.
front, sides, all
Oh I see what you are saying now.
Including volume into the equation. Not something that is easily achieved.

Will depend upon the speed of the shots if that is an issue or not.
°˖◝(ಠ‸ಠ)◜˖°
Toba - A Development Dump
Post

Re: Small things that would be nice to have

#195
Silverware wrote: Including volume into the equation. Not something that is easily achieved.

Will depend upon the speed of the shots if that is an issue or not.
well, one could map the lead points for all (very highly LOD'd) vertices and then render their connecting polygons as the total targetting area.
would provide the "full" set of targettable area, although overdefined.


as an addition we could also mark subsystems on the aimmap and trivialise aiming at subsystems with that.
you dont have to select the turret, you just aim at it on the mapping.

Online Now

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron