## PCG Boundary Conditions

Return to “Technical”

Post

### PCG Boundary Conditions

#1
i just wondered while thinking about modular ships/stations:
is the PCG is able to process boundary conditions?

things like
• the model isnt allowed to cross those (arbitarily defined) borders
(to define design outer boundaries)
• the model has to fill out this area / these points
(to define connection points)
the outline limitations could also serve for hangar standardisation (size 1-whatever) that for example hangar bays dont devolve into "do i need this 0.1 more size" fiddling

the mandatory areas could be used to generate outer hardpoints "there is a hardpoint, adapt the rest of the ship that it fits"

Post

### Re: PCG Boundary Conditions

#2
Yes, one of the guiding definitions of PCG is obviously total volume, and mass distribution.
Without these you will end up with battleships that are smaller than fighters, or cubes with a density higher than a black hole.

Also, if it can be thought of mathematically, it can be expressed in PCG. And bro, the entire universe is mathematics!
°˖◝(ಠ‸ಠ)◜˖°
Toba - A Development Dump
Post

### Re: PCG Boundary Conditions

#3
Silverware wrote:Yes, one of the guiding definitions of PCG is obviously total volume, and mass distribution.
Without these you will end up with battleships that are smaller than fighters, or cubes with a density higher than a black hole.

Also, if it can be thought of mathematically, it can be expressed in PCG. And bro, the entire universe is mathematics!

Well, duh.

But i was thinking in it confining it to a certain shape.
"In this area you have to fit inside a cyliner of radius R, in this other area to a cuboid with sides ABC"
etc.
That i can specify where it can stretch its legs and where not.
Post

### Re: PCG Boundary Conditions

#5
Just sort of thinking out loud, I can imagine a couple of ways to go with this:

Option 1: Define which ship hull classes have the "dockable" property and just ignore actual ship sizes and station opening sizes when those ships request docking.

It might not look pretty (or maybe the visuals can be finessed somehow), but it's a solution for the gameplay requirement of dockability.

Option 2: In the default game, impose upper limits on sizes for particular types of objects. As long as the maximum size of dockable ships is defined to be always less (within some reasonable tolerance) than the minimum size of places inside of which ships can dock, problem solved.

a. Some ships might be defined as classes whose hull is always too big to dock inside a space station.

b. I assume that players will be able to modify any preset slider maxima and minima. If someone mods their game to allow enormous fighters, then then gameplay effect of those fighters not being able to go inside a docking station is on them.

As I said, these are just a couple of quick thoughts. I expect there are other possibilities.
Post

### Re: PCG Boundary Conditions

#6
Why so binary flat?

We could introduce a system of size classes (with no upper limit) and sort ships into the boxes as they fit.

For example a class A ship fits into a box of 20x20x20 metres, a blass B into a box of 40³ metres, class C into 80³ metres and so forth. (With whatever growth factor that fits)

Docking bays, hangar entrances etc would then be required to accomodate the different sizes.

So if you have a class B hangar and want to dock your A ship you are fine, your C wont fit though.

You can extend the size classes into infinity.
And as stations arent size limited engine wise but ships are you can always build a station where you can dock your ship.

Practicality is another question though.
Post

### Re: PCG Boundary Conditions

#7
That makes sense. The only question is whether it would add complexity for not enough value, versus a one-size-fits-all hangar.

I wouldn't at all mind seeing ship class-sized hangars in vanilla LT, though.
Post

### Re: PCG Boundary Conditions

#8
Hangers could simply be hidden boxes on the actual ship model, that the docking craft ACTUALLY has to fit inside.
Why be complicated about giving category names or anything :V
°˖◝(ಠ‸ಠ)◜˖°
Toba - A Development Dump
Post

### Re: PCG Boundary Conditions

#9
Silverware wrote:Hangers could simply be hidden boxes on the actual ship model, that the docking craft ACTUALLY has to fit inside.
Why be complicated about giving category names or anything :V
Flatfingers wrote:The only question is whether it would add complexity for not enough value

:V

Without standardised hangar space you'll run into problems permanentely.
"Hey sorry your ship is 2mm too high to fit in here" doesnt make anything interesting for a game.

A class based system does the same without losing the characteristic of being easy to use.

if the single-digit-size matches, it fits, if not, then not.

or if you want it on a different spin: i already do the "craft has to actually fit inside", but i dont allow continous hangar sizes

Flatfingers wrote:That makes sense. The only question is whether it would add complexity for not enough value, versus a one-size-fits-all hangar.

I wouldn't at all mind seeing ship class-sized hangars in vanilla LT, though.
with the size class spread it would become annoying or kinda unbelievable.
we have a size spread of at least 200³ (according to some of the oldest devvideos, and the tech only got better).
and nimtz class aircraft carriers have a size difference to their carried fighters of far less than 15³ (330 metres long vs ~20 metres of fighters, and the 330 metres is the long axis, others are far shorter)
so we could build a carrier capable of carrying carriers and still be within the bounds of what the game will give us.
so there would be ship classes cabable of carrying ships while concievably being carried themself, and this wouldnt be possible with a binary dockable/nondockable flag
Post

### Re: PCG Boundary Conditions

#10
Just wanted to clarify my stance on this

First -- keep in mind that carriers are technically a post-release update (although I doubt that'll actually be the case), so hangar bays are somewhat more likely to change in mechanic than other guaranteed-1.0 mechanics.

However, I am fairly set on simple, mass-based hangars, not too different from cargo bays. One can imagine a hangar as being a cargo bay with a special technology that allows for life support in what is essentially a volume-compression space (i.e., volume & dimensions don't matter in cargo or hangars, hence, you can imagine that some sort of spatial distortion akin to holographic scattering is at work to ensure that mass is the only limiting factor).

I come from this angle as Player Josh -- I would rather have maximal flexibility in my trade-offs when it comes to what I want to load up with if I've got a hangar. Mass-based hangars means you always have the choice between more small ships or fewer bigger ships, regardless of actual dimension. Personally I don't care to worry about hangar slots, the dimensions of those, etc. In practice, since mass is calculated using a dimensional approximation and hangar bay capacities will always be significantly smaller than the mass of the carrying ship, we should never see situations that look absurdly unrealistic (like a bigger ship coming out of a smaller one). I can imagine that, if one pushes very hard for lightweight ship technology and tries to design ships that are very much non-box-shaped (i.e., stretched very thin along one axis), we might see some slightly weird situations, but I will make sure that the effects of docking and undocking convey that the docking process is not simply 'moving into the bay', but rather a matter of having the ship compressed / decompressed to/from the bay (insert cool energy phasing effects here).

And there you have it
“Whether you think you can, or you think you can't--you're right.” ~ Henry Ford
Post

### Re: PCG Boundary Conditions

#11
Additional thoughts -- even if we were to encounter absurd situations such as a larger ship coming out of a smaller one, keep in mind that the 'larger' ship (volume-wise) is still smaller than the carrier in mass. This means, for one, it is almost certainly less sturdy than the carrier ship.

Even in the event that the player manages to research to the point of making a sort of inverse-Matroshka ship, wherein the first ship unloads a larger carrier, which unloads a larger one, etc., the mass is always decreasing, meaning the final ship in the chain is paper-thin compared to the primary carrier. Furthermore, since mass of hangar is always a percentage of carrier ship's mass, this means that the series of bigger and bigger carriers would diminish exponentially in mass. Again, neat idea, but essentially you'd just be unloading a massive, paper-thin carrier from a smaller one that was actually much more powerful.
“Whether you think you can, or you think you can't--you're right.” ~ Henry Ford
Post

### Re: PCG Boundary Conditions

#12
Thanks Josh, it's always good to read some solid information from you concerning any aspect of the game.
Post

### Re: PCG Boundary Conditions

#13
Victor Tombs wrote:Thanks Josh, it's always good to read some solid information from you concerning any aspect of the game.
well, i managed to annoy one answer out of him, maybe i'll manage it a second time.

ETA 1+ months :V
Post

### Re: PCG Boundary Conditions

#14
I like the mass based hangars rather than volume based hangars, just on the grounds that it feels easier and more gamey. I look forward to the sweet energy shrinking/compressing graphics. I'm just imagining that snippet from ant man where the clever bad guy pulls out his shrinking gun and melts one of the hydra guys into a little puddle.
A life well lived only happens once.
Seems deep until you think about it.
Post

### Re: PCG Boundary Conditions

#15
Cornflakes_91 wrote:well, i managed to annoy one answer out of him, maybe i'll manage it a second time.

ETA 1+ months :V
Have I told you before how much I value your contribution here, Cornflakes.

### Online Now

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests