Jump to content


Alpha Tester
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Veld

  1. discordauth:rxxpxjsleEZNRH5vL_gf2WiCCyr3gZzopkZePVFQ_NY=

  2. Who's your dealer mate? Whatever you're smoking I need some.
  3. If JC is the lord and saviour of mmos then CD projekt red is the lord and saviour of rpgs.
  4. Veld


    I'm not real. You're actually having a psychotic breakdown and I'm a figment of your imagination. Or maybe that's just what I want you to think W O K E
  5. Ye we need this for realistic reentries. Like an 'impact seat' or something. You know the ones that look like roller coaster seats.
  6. Veld

    Bike seats

    If this isn't in game already: Small, compact bike seats that are placed in line with the cross section of a construct; a block that covers the form of a person seated as they would on a motorcycle. I wouldn't just add a cushion and call it a job well done, as then the players legs could potentially clip through any other parts. The outline in red is what chunk the part encompasses Mostly just for looks. But it could open up avenues to make lighter and more streamlined vehicles. I see some potential form issues due to the shape of the legs. It may be hard to sculpt the form of the vehicle around it.
  7. This should clear up most things. From this devblog: "It’s important to note that some engines are capable of generating force, while others are capable of generating torque, but not necessarily both at the same time. This is done to make your life simpler, as it’s much more difficult to control a ship that has thrusters generating force and torque at the same time (in most of our early testing, this was considered as too problematic by most people). We might introduce a way for players to reactivate the force+torque capability of all engines for added complexity, if you so choose. Let us know what you think about this! The bottom line is that if you have engines that are capable of generating only force (like atmo or space engines) and you tag them with a “torque” tag, this will do nothing."
  8. It's the internet. I have nothing to lose.
  9. It's true that firing at the red cross is a rather extreme example of scumbaggery. But acts of aggression to pretty much any organisation or nation that openly declares themselves as neutral is still technically scumbaggery. The question is can you get away with it or not: risk or reward. Pretty much everyone (apart from themselves) thought the communist Chinese were dodgy af. Thing is they had enough power to get away with annexing Tibet and they knew everyone hated them already. But still as a powerful nation they had to have the justification of Tibet being 'muh territory'. America couldn't get away with something like that because they're too 'muh freedom'. They need subtle justifications to attack people like pearl harbor, those damn commies, 911 or those damn middle eastern dictators. Same can be said for DU. Your org has its own 'muh <insert reason to screw each other over here>'. Or maybe it doesn't. Who knows.
  10. They have RCS thrusters for that. Very interesting. Can I get a source?
  11. To be honest the only reason people don't just fire on red cross ships is it's 'not cool'. It just makes your country look bad. If someone did make a red cross type org then the same would apply. Anyone who has an inkling of consideration for their reputation wouldn't shoot it or pretend to be it. It's a war crime. Only the scummiest of scum would try something like that. And if scummy scum want to impersonate neutral fleets then so be it. It's a good strategy, albeit dirty. Plus it's a challenge for players to use their reasoning skills. I don't think anything needs to be added here. Just get everyone together and say: "hey guys I'm making neutral org X don't shoot me plox we have voxels as shown in image Y on our hull "
  12. Alas it was all in vain. As his surroundings melt to ash, all that can be heard on the wind is a but whisper of his final cry... it's free real estate
  13. I think that the main engines don't actually apply a torqueing force to the ship- they just push in the direction they point. Not much can be said at this stage about rotational mechanics. Mostly just speculation.
  14. Veld

    Cloaking Tech

    Light and microwaves (radar) are essentially the same thing. Just different wavelengths. They travel at the same speed. Considering alioth is a lot smaller than the real earth I think NQ are scaling stuff down a lot which indicates sub light speed will be viable for solar systems. But perhaps not interstellar space. Who knows. The one system is big enough as it is. The general consensus in scifi is that FTL travel entails the ship going through some weird warpy stuff where no one can touch it. Which makes sense realistically. The conventional laws of physics as we know them can't apply in that situation.
  15. If you've ever used solidworks you'll know what I'm talking about. I honestly spent my first few hours stumbling through the UI and restarting the program over and over. Same with blender. What you're thinking of is if the CAD system were separate from the basic voxel system - which is how I think it should be done. What I don't want is some god awful UI and counter intuitive system being thrown in people's faces. And with LUA scripts you're given default scripts already. It's pretty different.
  16. Was gonna post synthwave but you guys beat me to it
  17. You can always do what @Megaddd suggested if you really need voxels But I think it would be easier to just make them in blender or any CAD software freely and then adapt them once you get to building them in game. Edit: once alpha drops hopefully someone will make models of the parts in game.
  18. Watched it fullscreen and I still don't see the anything. If it rotated at the gyro the only test to see if it was rotating there would be to observe that part staying still. Given how much it's jiggling about and how little it actually rotates there isn't much to say. I'm honestly 50/50 on this.
  19. @NanoDot I see you're point It does indeed make sense for the gyroscope to define the orientation of the ship. But I am going to tell you with a perfectly straight face it is uncertain whether the gyroscope is the centre of rotation or not. Not saying it is. Not saying it isn't. It's not even right at the tail end as the thrusters hang over the edge. Not about to make a poll on this or complain about NDA either. However, I am inclined to side with you on this judgement as he does not mention the gyroscope is the centre of rotation which would be a crucial point to make. I have updated the post with what has been said.
  20. Could you elaborate on 'reference plane'? Don't know what you mean by clear as there is no clear reference point apart from the clouds on the horizon. But, yes, if you see exactly at this time just after he says "it flies pretty well..." the tail end raises a little relative to the cloud behind it as it pitches down. But even that is a bold estimation though as it disregards the drift of the vessel towards the horizon. I am puzzled as to how you came about this conclusion without using NDA prior knowledge. He just says you can place it anywhere you want. I don't see how that implies it does not define a centre of rotation. If you are right I honestly don't know what the point of the point of the gyro is then. To define direction? Why not use the direction of the seat? It just doesn't make sense to me. Edit: actually thinking about it what you say makes sense. The gyro could just be used to define the orientation of the ship for the engineer report. If a ship has multiple seats, then which one decides the orientation? If it did define the centre of rotation, he would have probably said so as it is pretty crucial information. But going by the way the ship is moving in the video is still pretty unclear evidence as to the gyroscope not being the centre of rotation. I will update the post with this info regardless.
  21. 3: Investigating torque and moment of inertia What we know from pre-alpha footage Much of what is said on torque can be found in this video You can use RCS-like parts to torque your ship Another part that is needed is a ‘gyroscope’ The angular acceleration in rpm/s is shown in the engineering report Deducing the nature of torque It is implied RCS parts are separate in what mechanics apply to them. The guy in the video states: “they do not generate thrust; they generate torque”. In real life an RCS thruster is essentially just a thruster that uses alternate propellant. The only torqueing capability stems from its placement. However, in-game, what he says implies that the main thrusters only push the ship forwards and do not generate a torqueing force if the centre of thrust does not act through the centre of mass. The RCS is what does the torqueing. This is probably because if you’re ship was slightly asymmetrical your RCS would have to compensate a lot - especially for larger ships. This would be very punishing and constraining for designers; although this is just speculation. A lot can be speculated about the gyroscope but not much said. It is implied the gyroscope acts as an orientation reference for the engineer report. This makes sense as the guy in the video states: “it tells the game where the front of the ship is” and “you don’t want to place it on the side”. You need to have a designated part to define the orientation of the ship as parts can be angled or there can be more than one of them. It makes sense to have a designated centre of rotation as in an asymmetrical ship the centre of rotation would be way out and punishing for designers. It also makes sense because if fuel has mass then the pivot would change over time. If transferred, it can be exploited. But it's still unclear going by the footage and it is not actually stated that it is - which would be a pretty crucial point if it was. Deducing the nature of moment of inertia I’m not going to explain moment of inertia too in depth. But, in the real world, when you apply torque to an object each individual particle of mass has its own angular acceleration. The moment of inertia is a constant that describes the mass distribution of the object. It can be mathematically deduced for simple shapes and groups of simple shapes but it is very hard – if not impossible - to do so for anything more complex. So to predict the angular acceleration (which DU does) a calculation must be made. The question is: how. Games like kerbal space program calculate the moment of inertia using a point mass system: all the parts of the ship are simply modelled as one infinitely small particle with a specific mass. This is a very simple way of dealing with things. Here is a model roughly describing what is going on in the video if this is the case: The model is simplified to 5 separate shapes: The hull, cockpit, fuel canister and thrusters. The pitch, yaw and roll axes are in green, blue and red respectively. The cockpit is used for demonstrating how a point mass system for parts works to give the angular acceleration in the 3 axes. The orange dot is the location of the point mass, m. Each torqueing force, F, is coloured corresponding to the axes. The white line represents the perpendicular distance to the pivot, r (dependent on which axes. The angular acceleration in each plane for the cockpit only is: (where α=angular acceleration and mr^2=moment of inertia for a point mass system) To find the net angular acceleration for the whole ship you simply do: for every part. Alternatively, you can model the parts as simple shapes for a more realistic system. But this is rather unnecessary as custom built voxel structures, which make up a most of the ship, cannot be modelled as predefined shapes and have to be point masses. About fuel depletion Not much to deduce here. Only discuss. We simply do not know if it exists. If the fuel depletion and distribution on a vessel affects its mass then there are a 2 ways that can work: The point mass stays in place and it’s magnitude decreases The point mass shifts up and down the container according to a scripted formula to simulate drainage Conclusion A point mass system is the most likely method of calculating the moment of inertia If you know the force generated by the RCS, you can design your own torqueing system. To convert angular acceleration from rpm/s to rad/s multiply by 2pi/60 Main engines probably do not generate torqueing forces. Just push where they point.
  22. Same as any other ship but bigger. The Devs have made a flying aircraft carrier. To be honest. Naval combat only really exists in the real world because you can only make planes so tough. Thinking about it that way, I don't think it will be added.
  23. That's that then. That leaves ID and prosecution. However I am starting to realise that prosecution is unnecessary as a mechanic. If someone disobeys the rules. You can offer them the opportunity to pay compensation or be ostracised. Essentially ostracisation is incarceration from the arbiters perspective. Just in the latter the suffering of the individual is guaranteed. So just ID. Clocking in to the job, passing a checkpoint, making a contract. Basic stuff like that.
  • Create New...