Return to “Suggestions”

Post

Space Station layout

#1
Hi! I quite like the procedurally generated space stations you've demoed - the modules and connectors give a good sense of growing sprawl, but there's a couple of aspects of them that IMHO seem less convincing than they could be.

a) The circular parts are reminiscent of artificial gravity wheels, but aren't used as such. I'd suggest there might be more of a "realism" factor if a bit of wheel spinning was happening. Docking players can supply their own Strauss, though.

b) The layout seems a tad more "higglety pigglty" than I'd expect a sentient space station designer to come up with, which I'd reckon would be more along x - y - z axes. More cartesian and less polar, maybe. Of course, that's my human aesthetic bias showing.

Another touch which might be nice is that stations could slowly grow, so that players revisiting the same stations would see new modules added from time to time.

Edit===

I've no idea if these issues have come up already, but just try doing a search for "space station" on the forum ;)
Last edited by JabbleWok on Wed Dec 26, 2012 8:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
Post

Re: Space Station layout

#2
JabbleWok wrote:Another touch which might be nice is that stations could slowly grow, so that players revisiting the same stations would see new modules added from time to time.
That would, indeed, require a reason for the NPC's to want to expand their space-stations...do the parts play a specific part that would require more to be added? E.g. population growth on the space station therefore more residential quarters required, raised demand of a product means increased demand on manufacturing, additional warehousing, perhaps McDonalds have deemed it appropriate to open a store...etc. In that regard I can see station growth occurring.

Yes the stations are procedurally generated initially, but do they serve a purpose?
“The impact of space activities is nothing less than the galvanizing of hope and imagination for human life continuum into a future of infinite possibility.”
Post

Re: Space Station layout

#3
From what I understand, the station generation algorithm is still new and hasn't been refined. I believe Josh mentioned somewhere that it will get refined because of how some of the designs just don't make sense.

I'm sure this will be smoothed out.
Image
Early Spring - 1055: Well, I made it to Boatmurdered, and my initial impressions can be set forth in three words: What. The. F*ck.
Post

Re: Space Station layout

#4
jawdan wrote:
JabbleWok wrote:Another touch which might be nice is that stations could slowly grow, so that players revisiting the same stations would see new modules added from time to time.
That would, indeed, require a reason for the NPC's to want to expand their space-stations...do the parts play a specific part that would require more to be added? E.g. population growth on the space station therefore more residential quarters required, raised demand of a product means increased demand on manufacturing, additional warehousing, perhaps McDonalds have deemed it appropriate to open a store...etc. In that regard I can see station growth occurring.

Yes the stations are procedurally generated initially, but do they serve a purpose?
Yes, the goal is for each module to serve a purpose. I'm still working on this idea conceptually and trying to flesh it out in my mind before implementing it, but it makes a lot of sense and would have a lot of cool ramifications in-game. For example, locating and taking out the power generator module to deactivate the station defenses when attacking one. As another example, if a station loses a trade module in a battle, you will actually not be able to visit the "trade area" inside the station until it gets reconstructed, so that station would actually lose some functionality for a while.

All of these things are no doubt possible, and probably not that hard. Giving the modules purpose will also automatically lead to better station design, because the algorithm will need to be sensitive to these purposes, so no more designs that flat-out don't make sense (well, at least, functionality-wise...spatially, I will have to work on the rules to make things more sensible in terms of placement).

And yes, it's very new, only a few hours of work in that generator so far, most of it was fumbling around with the math. Hopefully will be able to do much better in the future :)
“Whether you think you can, or you think you can't--you're right.” ~ Henry Ford
Post

Re: Space Station layout

#5
Your concept of sentient design working along fixed axis isn't really a neccesity, especially if a species were more used to 3 dimensional objects (as no doubt we all would become given enough time in a space enviroment). It also depends if a station is singularily owned or if it's a community thing, which would no doubt lead to different uses of space and as such construction structures. Which ties in nicely with the next bit.
Beyond that however it also comes down in part to what you mentioned with expansion. If you look at a great many of the cities the world over you can see where the initial planned section all slots together very nicely. and then often as more bits are added due to neccessity and demand they get a bit more fractured and hellish to travel around. I see no reason the same wouldn't apply to stations in space, the longer one exists the more bits are slotted in seemingly at random just because 'well it fits there so we'll put it there'.

Just my thoughts on the matter.
Post

Re: Space Station layout

#6
While it's no functional difference, there could be extra connection tubes between certain types of modules.

For instance, the weapon parts production module can have a direct connection to the foundry module, increasing it's production speed by 15% over it's nominal speed.
Each such extra connection costs energy to maintain - and resources to build.

In the reverse case:
if the foundry and production modules are only connected through 5 other modules, the production speed suffers by 5% for each intermediate step.
There is no "I" in Tea. That would be gross.
Post

Re: Space Station layout

#7
Early days - makes sense. Good time to throw a few ideas into the mix!

I reckon there will be a limited set of components that would make up space stations, providing the required functions. Stuff like accommodation, supplies & fuel, recreation, trading, bulk commodity processing & storage, power, defence.

The shapes would likely vary from culture to culture, maybe reflect passing architectural styles, and would vary from small basic stations to large extensive ones.

Most species would want artificial gravity and atmosphere for going about their business, so wheels, cylinders and 'barbells' would be common components for the inhabited parts. Bulk fuel and commodity storage would not need gravity, nor would power generation. Fabrication and processing/refining would likely be zero-g too, as anything needing gravity would be made on planet surfaces and shipped up. Power generation would likely be solar (for goldilocks worlds), so have large collection panels. Outer system stations may have radiothermal or fusion generation, or exotics like matter-antimatter annihilation. Spheres, toruses, etc.

For example, a basic station would not bother with artificial gravity and would have little traffic. A giant station would likely have many wheels and connecting axes, as well as extensive zero-g modules. However, they would all need a certain amount of rigidity to cope with gravity differentials across their span, as well as being resistant to careless pilots bumping into things! Extensive lattice frameworks would likely feature, though the poly count may not suit the game engine. Hollowed out asteroids may feature in places, as would large defensive shells enclosing everything but docking ports and solar panels, useful in hostile zones. As @Gazz says, it makes sense to directly connect certain components as part of a production sequence, though lack of gravity, atmosphere and friction may mean distance is not an issue.

It means any one station would likely have components based on a) cultures present, b) size, c) function and d) architectural style. So one culture in one system may have 1) a small station for refuelling and replenishing, 2) a larger station for servicing the asteroid mining industry, and 3) a giant goldilocks one for trading and planetary access. Different architects would have their influence visible, and other out-system species may have their own wheels with different atmospheres and gravity, forming diverse trading colonies.

Ah, should be a doddle to implement, but what to do after lunch? ;)
Post

Re: Space Station layout

#9
Memnoch wrote:With each section of a station having a function it would be cool if stations could take localised damage so that if that section were destroyed the feature that component offered would stop working.
JoshParnell wrote: As another example, if a station loses a trade module in a battle, you will actually not be able to visit the "trade area" inside the station until it gets reconstructed, so that station would actually lose some functionality for a while.
If I've rambled and gone off topic im sorry but i tend to be long winded as you might notice if you stumble across my other post XD. thanks for reading.
Post

Re: Space Station layout

#10
Most species would want artificial gravity and atmosphere for going about their business, so wheels, cylinders and 'barbells' would be common components for the inhabited parts. Bulk fuel and commodity storage would not need gravity, nor would power generation. Fabrication and processing/refining would likely be zero-g too, as anything needing gravity would be made on planet surfaces and shipped up. Power generation would likely be solar (for goldilocks worlds), so have large collection panels. Outer system stations may have radiothermal or fusion generation, or exotics like matter-antimatter annihilation. Spheres, toruses, etc.
Keep in mind that most SF-Universes feature artificial gravity, as well as cheap and abundant power. The first allows ships to use what is actual a naval layout, as opposed to how they would actually have to be designed (with floors perpendicular to the direction of thrust, and lots of acceleration couches...), the latter eliminates the need for solar panels, unless you want to make an artistic statement.
With that in mind, a station could pretty much look like it wanted to; of course, you still need a place to dock ships and stash the machinery, but you don't necessarily need the spinning habitats, the solar panels and the painfully thin connector struts.
Besides, if I shove anything large and prestigious into orbit to represent my planet, I'd make damn sure it impresses the travelers. Of course, a cheap-ass mining installation running on hope and duct tape would still use whatever is cheapest, and probably look like the miserable collection of second-hand modules that it is, but that's not the standard by which stations are measured or designed. Just like with ships, there needs to be variety in the shape of the modules and the layout as well. One-type-fits-all makes for an awfully dull universe.
Hardenberg was my name
And Terra was my nation
Deep space is my dwelling place
The stars my destination
Post

Re: Space Station layout

#11
I think that for spinning/rotating wheels the whole space station layout has to be totally different. In the example video, the wheel-like sections are just tossed randomly into the mix together with straight sections, and they are connected to other sections via their outer hulls. Also, there is usually more than just one wheel-like section. This means that they cannot possibly spin or rotate. (The only way something could spin would be if the visible wheel was only an outer hull, and there was an inner structure inside that would spin. But then we wouldn't see the movement from the outside, and the whole spinning/rotating would be as moot as with the structures we have seen so far.)

If a wheel-like section was supposed to spin/rotate, it could only be connected to the rest of the structure by an axle, not by its outer hull. There are a few examples of this type of connection in the video, but only those wheels which have nothing else attached to them could spin.
Post

Re: Space Station layout

#12
Hardenberg wrote: Keep in mind that most SF-Universes feature artificial gravity, as well as cheap and abundant power...

Besides, if I shove anything large and prestigious into orbit to represent my planet, I'd make damn sure it impresses the travelers. Of course, a cheap-ass mining installation running on hope and duct tape would still use whatever is cheapest, and probably look like the miserable collection of second-hand modules that it is, but that's not the standard by which stations are measured or designed.
Agreed. For up-market stations which have had a lot of money thrown at them, the player will see form over function as there is a deliberate attempt to promote the aesthetics allowed by a generous budget. Station architects going for the "Wow!" factor. Conversely cheap-side stations would have a more 'bare bones' feel to them, where whatever basic functions exist would be obvious for all to see.

Prestigious commercial centres vs. grimy industrial complexes.
Commander McLane wrote: If a wheel-like section was supposed to spin/rotate, it could only be connected to the rest of the structure by an axle, not by its outer hull. There are a few examples of this type of connection in the video, but only those wheels which have nothing else attached to them could spin.
Yep, though as is mentioned the current examples are only temporary place-holders. Visible wheels and cylinders would be connected to the rest of the station by their axes. Some structures may even use tethers for artificial gravity (e.g. two hulls), though these would be hard to dock with so would really only feature as unusable 'background immersion', e.g. surrounding a dockable mining station would be the cheap habs where off-shift workers live.
Post

Re: Space Station layout

#13
JabbleWok wrote:
Commander McLane wrote: If a wheel-like section was supposed to spin/rotate, it could only be connected to the rest of the structure by an axle, not by its outer hull. There are a few examples of this type of connection in the video, but only those wheels which have nothing else attached to them could spin.
Yep, though as is mentioned the current examples are only temporary place-holders. Visible wheels and cylinders would be connected to the rest of the station by their axes. Some structures may even use tethers for artificial gravity (e.g. two hulls), though these would be hard to dock with so would really only feature as unusable 'background immersion', e.g. surrounding a dockable mining station would be the cheap habs where off-shift workers live.
It's entirely possible that a wheel designed exterior can be used for aesthetic purposes while the interior is a "floating ring" setup. This floating ring would be suspended inside the outer section of the wheel by an electromagnetic field, and would spin via the same field. Another method would be some kind of motor assembly propelling the ring as is rolls across heavily lubricated ball bearings. Either system could spin fast enough to produce the AG effect desired. The only issue would be resource transfer becomes slightly more difficult in both of theses methods. As such they are probably impractical. Also, AG systems exist in game that make spinning the station moot anyway.

Online Now

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron