Jump to content
Xplosiv

Inertia Dampeners?

Recommended Posts

When it comes to stopping a ship there are a few things I would like to see.  Note that I'm assuming Newtonian mechanics similar to Space Engineers but hopefully with a somewhat higher speed limit.  (Orbital mechanics would be nice too but that would be... difficult, to put it mildly)

 

Prograde/retrograde flight indicators.  I want to be able to quickly tell at a glance which direction my ship is traveling relative to my current orientation.  Sometimes it's hard to tell in SE, this makes flying without dampeners difficult.

 

Automatic flip and burn function.  This would allow me to stack all of my main engines on the back of my craft rather than having to place fairly powerful engines in all directions.  When I want to stop I just hit this function, the ship automatically aligns to retrograde and my main engines fire until I come to a complete stop.  This design is difficult in SE even with dampeners.  Alternately if Lua can reference these vectors then it probably wouldn't be difficult to script it ourselves.

 

Speed matching aids.  Docking with a moving ship is really difficult in SE and tends to result in disaster.  Sometimes it seems easier to dock in Kerbal Space Program (where nothing is stationary) than to dock with a moving ship in Space Engineers.  It would help if I could either see some kind of on-screen indication of my prograde vector compared with the target's prograde vector or just an automatic speed matching function, similar to SE's dampeners but matching a target's speed instead of dropping my speed to zero.

 

Inertial gravity.  I mentioned this one once or twice before, it goes along with what Twerkmotor was saying where the crew experiences G forces when you push your engines: Use that inertia to simulate gravity.  Build a ship like a tower with a rocket motor on the bottom, dial the rocket motor to 9.81 m/s^2 and fire it up.  Everyone on board experiences the same effects as Earth sea level gravity with "up" being the direction of acceleration and "down" being towards the engines.  If DU uses the Star Citizen approach where each ship grid becomes a sort of mini-map with player coordinates defined relative to it instead of the world then this shouldn't be too difficult, just track the ship's acceleration and use that to place a corresponding gravity vector.  If you do have an artificial gravity generator aligned to the thrust axis then it could be configured to automatically adjust its output accordingly; if the ship burns at half a G then AG supplies the other half G, if your ship burns at 2 Gs the AG supplies 1 G in the opposite direction and if your ship burns at 12 Gs the AG redlines at 3 or 4 Gs reverse in a desperate attempt to keep everyone from blacking out.  Naturally a bigger generator or multiple generators could be used to compensate for greater accelerations but that grav gen mass and power could have been used for more weapons.  Of course if you have three axis translation capability without the artificial gravity then things can get... interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Flip and Burn" and "Speed Matching" will need to be scripted for each ship. Since ship mass and thruster placement are important, there's no way for anyone to know how the ship will fly, but the ship builder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Inertial gravity.  I mentioned this one once or twice before, it goes along with what Twerkmotor was saying where the crew experiences G forces when you push your engines: Use that inertia to simulate gravity.  Build a ship like a tower with a rocket motor on the bottom, dial the rocket motor to 9.81 m/s^2 and fire it up.  Everyone on board experiences the same effects as Earth sea level gravity with "up" being the direction of acceleration and "down" being towards the engines.  If DU uses the Star Citizen approach where each ship grid becomes a sort of mini-map with player coordinates defined relative to it instead of the world then this shouldn't be too difficult, just track the ship's acceleration and use that to place a corresponding gravity vector.  If you do have an artificial gravity generator aligned to the thrust axis then it could be configured to automatically adjust its output accordingly; if the ship burns at half a G then AG supplies the other half G, if your ship burns at 2 Gs the AG supplies 1 G in the opposite direction and if your ship burns at 12 Gs the AG redlines at 3 or 4 Gs reverse in a desperate attempt to keep everyone from blacking out.  Naturally a bigger generator or multiple generators could be used to compensate for greater accelerations but that grav gen mass and power could have been used for more weapons.  Of course if you have three axis translation capability without the artificial gravity then things can get... interesting.

 

Flip and Burn can be automated via Lua. Add a predefined thrust fire sequence to get a 180 flip, fire thrusters at the end of it, click one more button to face forward again. Or, do the wiggling shuffle with the ship and throw off speed that way I guess, then use the rest of your momentum to set an orbit around a planet. For fighters, they could even have a fancy maneuver that ends with them facing backwards as they are tailed and be able to return fire as momentum carries them backwards (in their perspective). That's some Space Top Gun stuff right there :P

 

Matching speeds won't be needed as far as of what the Devs say, since they want to make the game fun and not ultra realistic (sadly). Unless a station is rigged to spin, it won't be an issue and even if it is, Autopilot function strikes again. Scan for Landing Pad Element, Zero you ship on its X, Y, Z positions, it may take a while to land, but it beats bumping around awkwardly :P As for planets, they indicate of going for a localised physics grid, meaning once you enter a planet, you are adjusted to its spin as of default, so you can land on the ground without doing the Kerbal shuffle of exploding into tiny pieces, which as we all know, is good for funny compilations on Youtube, but could suck for the average Joe :P

 

 

The way I see it, if the they add inertia in the game accordoance to the ship's speed, the Devs can put a bar of "inertial tolerance" when it comes to the dumper Elements so a navigator / pilot can monitor how much leeway they have before it gets to uncomfortable levels, not to mention, the same interface would have vectors indicating the ships orientation and trajectory, so a pilot can tell head from tails when it comes to that.

 

Luckily, the Devs utilise HTML5 and JAvascript for their User Interfaces (if its editable is up on the air), which means Widgets specialised for that specific task. Heck, you could even have 3 screens around your pilot's seat and monitor each thing with a turn of your head if your main screen has a limit on widgets. :P

 

The Towership idea is the only known way as far as I we knowl of emulating gravity on a ship in real life, but there are many catches when it comes to programming to do that, let alone explaining to the laymen why they have to build a ship like a tower. While I would like the Towership idea as well, it's too overly complicated for those who think of Star Wars or Star Trek when it comes to spaceflight and gravity.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Flip and Burn can be automated via Lua. Add a predefined thrust fire sequence to get a 180 flip, fire thrusters at the end of it, click one more button to face forward again. Or, do the wiggling shuffle with the ship and throw off speed that way I guess, then use the rest of your momentum to set an orbit around a planet. For fighters, they could even have a fancy maneuver that ends with them facing backwards as they are tailed and be able to return fire as momentum carries them backwards (in their perspective). That's some Space Top Gun stuff right there :P

 

 

The idea isn't to flip the ship exactly 180 degrees, the idea is to align the ship retrograde so the main engines can be used to slow down.  Suppose you build up speed in some direction, cut thrust and turn to get a better look at an asteroid as you drift past it.  Now your prograde vector is misaligned with your thrust axis.  If you try to perform a 180 degree flip now you won't stop, you'll just change course.  In this instance you might need to rotate a total of 94 degrees to stop.  Coding this would require some way to reference the ship's velocity vector relative to its current orientation.  Otherwise the script will have no way of knowing which way to turn your ship.

 

As for relative velocity indicators these would still be necessary if the target is moving.  Maybe you want to dock with a friendly ship without asking them to come to a complete stop first, maybe you want to board a derelict ship that lost power while it was moving, maybe you want to breach a hostile ship.  Either way having some indication of the relative velocity would be pretty helpful.

 

 

"Flip and Burn" and "Speed Matching" will need to be scripted for each ship. Since ship mass and thruster placement are important, there's no way for anyone to know how the ship will fly, but the ship builder.

 

That might not be the case.  Remember that scripting is not strictly necessary to make a ship flyable; once you assemble the parts and designate a forward direction the game automatically figures out which engines it has to fire to move or turn in a given direction.  If Lua can access this same control system then it shouldn't be all that difficult; just have the script be something to the effect of "Turn towards retrograde vector."  With the appropriate thrusters and gyros already mapped to manual controls the script can just trigger that same turn command.  Stopping at the right time might be more difficult but it is certainly possible; again bringing out Kerbal Space Program note the stability assist which can keep a craft pointed in a certain direction* without having to be redesigned for every vehicle.

 

*Unless of course your craft is either off balance, aerodynamically unstable or trying to turn too far from prograde in the atmosphere but that's either poor design or challenge mode.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea isn't to flip the ship exactly 180 degrees, the idea is to align the ship retrograde so the main engines can be used to slow down.  Suppose you build up speed in some direction, cut thrust and turn to get a better look at an asteroid as you drift past it.  Now your prograde vector is misaligned with your thrust axis.  If you try to perform a 180 degree flip now you won't stop, you'll just change course.  In this instance you might need to rotate a total of 94 degrees to stop.  Coding this would require some way to reference the ship's velocity vector relative to its current orientation.  Otherwise the script will have no way of knowing which way to turn your ship.

 

As for relative velocity indicators these would still be necessary if the target is moving.  Maybe you want to dock with a friendly ship without asking them to come to a complete stop first, maybe you want to board a derelict ship that lost power while it was moving, maybe you want to breach a hostile ship.  Either way having some indication of the relative velocity would be pretty helpful.

 

 

The Devs have the Directional Unit Element to tell the auto-configurator where the front of the ship is. If I was to make an educated guess, they also have a frame of referrence for directional velocity in their physics grid. And Lua can do be used to revert a command. You simply take the original input of the direction the flip initiated and realling the ship, or simply tell the flip to balance at 180 degrees of where the ship's momentum is taking it, which Ibet will be cropped down to a simple self.rotateAtMomentum(0.180.0) command, given how those adjustor Elements seem to function (on a pre-Alpha stage ).

 

As for "looking around"... well, sensors tied to your screen is a good way of doing that. As JC explains it, planets and ships, don't really register as seperate entities in the engine. You simply click on an asteroid and you get a shape of it on your Control Unit (Screen Element). Same can be done for the planets or ships or asteroids.

 

I believe the boarding part is tied to the planets rotating. If you can land on a planet without doing the casual Kerbal landing, then they could incorporate the localised physics grid for ships, by having a function of, again, using sensors to get a speed readout, then matching speeds with the press of a button or via Lua scripting the whole process. In the case of moving space stations, then you would get a readout on the LLanding Pad Element and start an automated landing towards it. The real question is, if the outer part of the space station will be able to hold you or if you would be slowly sliding away until you were to enter the station, a problem that I believe could be solved by building a hangar WITHIN the station's grid.

 

The thing is, inertia as an aspect, provides architecture for another thing, like atmosphere emulation, since they would have to find a way to map out a cubic area given on enclosed Voxel space, which incidentally, would also require a set of two hatches before exiting and boarding a ship, which I'm fine with. The real issue with inertia, is laying not on its gameyfication, but on its implementation, since they would have to implement the physics associated with it for the aforementioned enclosed Voxel space in a ship or a space station, with the extended gameplay feature of killing a ship by blowing a whole through its hull and killing anyone not in a survival suit, not to mention giving a whole new dimension to building a ship with citadels and bulkhead seals in mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm all in for Intertia Dumpers, but not for Inertial Dampeners. One is a mechanical achievement, linked to certain Elements that can be introduced in the game to make a ship more maneuverable, the other is a Star Trek non-sense, despite the fact Star Trek bridges shake on an impact regardless.

 

G-Forces thread dwelled into this as well and I stated my suggestion there. Mass of a ship + relative acceleration = Slow down effects on people due to G Forces being applied. G Forces get to much, player's avatar gets stunned for a few seconds, so it seperates good pilots from bad when it comes to skill.

 

 

If a good builder can build very pretty vitros with voxels and can be recognised by their expertise with the voxel engine, I believe a pilot should be recognised via their understanding of their ship's mass and how much they can push it before they get stunned.

 

 

Otherwise, we may have Titan class ships doing barrels rolls like they are jet fighters.

 

Inertial dampers are also used in the Jack Campbell books.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Flip and Burn" and "Speed Matching" will need to be scripted for each ship. Since ship mass and thruster placement are important, there's no way for anyone to know how the ship will fly, but the ship builder.

A docking script would be some serious coding... You'd pick a docking target and identify the docking point... basically impossible if the target is maneuvering because he could just roll.  But speed and course matching, variable geometries... You could have an Ai script match course and speed, then burn to catch up or fall back to the target, roughly line up your docking rings with your ship in the correct attitude, then let the AI do the final approach with micro burns.  So two scripts, one where you identify a ship as a target and one where you identify the actual docking ring as the target.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I prefer gyros and retrothrusters being used for dampeners.its nice because you can disable dampening and do fun stuff like strafe sideways and fly backwards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A docking script would be some serious coding... You'd pick a docking target and identify the docking point... basically impossible if the target is maneuvering because he could just roll.  But speed and course matching, variable geometries... You could have an Ai script match course and speed, then burn to catch up or fall back to the target, roughly line up your docking rings with your ship in the correct attitude, then let the AI do the final approach with micro burns.  So two scripts, one where you identify a ship as a target and one where you identify the actual docking ring as the target.

Not really, the Devs have compacted the language for their in-game interpreter. One may even think of Lua as C++ macro code in a way. So they can have a command for detecting a Landing Pad element, then going to a function that finds range and speed given the Directional Unit of the Station as a whole as a referrence for simplicity of computing server-side, then you order yourship on a predefined loop of adjustments until it lands. The real minutiae to this is not the code itself, but tweking the code for a smooth landing.

 

Inertial dampers are also used in the Jack Campbell books.

Yup, Campbell does use them in his books quite accurately. You got leeway on the turn, but you got limits. Go  real fast and your ship pops like a baloon, which makes sense. Also, if two ships collide, they evaporate, which can be used by the Devs by implementing a Power Unit Overload, given how abruptly the ship stopped. A ship on its own thrust, can't actually come to a complete halt, but if let's say, a Battleship was to collide with a starfighter, the starfighter would explode under the impact, while if two Battleships were to collide in certain trajectories, they would be evaporated upon impact. Comparing angular motion and / or lateral velocties between two ships, then having a mass comparison to dictate a Power Unit Overload can also be used as a proxy for collision physics. Collision physics would take a lot of computational power, while the Power Unit overload would only take into account data like :

 

1) The Constructs connecting have Dynamic Core Units

2) The Constructs' combined velocities and if they exceed a certain limit the Power Unit suffers a X% overload that dissipates over time, OR you can have engineers manually repair it - which means fun as well and makes engineers a real vital part of a warship.

3) The Constructs' combined mass and each ship's overall inertia tolerance, which adds a higher tolerance on the Power Unit for overloading fast on the hit.

 

This, would take very little computational power, it's an emulation of physics, not a simulation, the server can even pick up the possible collision and be on standby when it detects two Constructs coming into close proximity, which by the way is how their Dynamic Space Splitting technology seems to work.

 

Thing is, Inertia opens the doors to many gameplay mechanics that can make or break an industrial in the game and set apart clever builders from people who threw together ten thousand voxels, added Thrusters in the right pattern and make a few simple scripts.

 

 

 

 

 

I hear people saying "but Twerkie, Space Engineers has Collision Physics and people ram each other!"

 

 

To which I say, script a flipping auto maneuverer for your ship and learn how intercept trajectories work guys, so you can plan not colliding with the enemy, tactics is a thing in DUAL, JC said it time and time again, PvP with ships will be all about tactics, formations for maximum cones of fire overlapping and focus fire. Flying a spaceship is not like driving a car, the distances involved are insane not to mention, trajectories WILL be a part of the PvP, as the devs did say lateral movement will affect Weapon Element accuracies in Construct Vs Construct and Newtonian physics will keep your ship on a steady track until you decelerate to 0, so people will have to scan you, figure out your directional velocity as momentum carries you and plan an intercept course via Lua scripts to arch to your location for a good ol' firing pass.

 

 

I hear people saying "But Twerkie, Collision Physics are taxing on the server".

 

If you have collision in the traditional way, you have Mass + Acceleration + Angle of Contact + Contacting Surface Area + How much MAss in Compressed on Contacting Surface Area + Voxel HP + Momentum Brake  and all of that on the double and multplied on how many voxels get affected during the collision, calculations between two ships and commnicating with each other and the server to determine how much they got banged up in the collision, which is, incidentally, taxing. What I'm proposing with the Inertia mechanism is to simply compare things the server is already is aware of and there is no individual Voxel damage calculation, as your ship's Collisional HP comes down to factors of Power Unit Overload * Inertia Dumper Power, with the Inertia Dumper Overload being linked the ship's lateral speed when it came in contact with the enemy. Faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar less calculations involved.

 

 

So yeah, Jack Campbel's view of collisions also apply if there were to be inertia and Inertia Dumpers (or Dampers from them being a Damp mechanism) in the game. You got two spaceships collide in a bad strike of chance as two fleets charge at each other? Welp... instant death via super explosion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"

A good day to everyone. 

 

Inertia dampening might not be that big of an issue. While the developers did say that the flight physics will be realistic, they did not say that they would be a hundred percent accurate. Inertia dampening is a wonderful feature to add--it gives immersion a significant boost. But, to have vehicles moving in space forever, without the aid of flipping mechanics, retrograde thrusters or black magic might be a little extreme for some. I'm not against realistic physics--rocket science should be implemented in a space game for the sake of the "space" in the name--but everything should be done in moderation. 

 

To allow Newton's first law to happen, we do have to consider that gravity exists in space, while the friction and gravity in an atmosphere are present as well. Yes, there is friction in space but it is so small it is negligible: space is a vacuum. Remove your space helmet the next time you are there and you will understand for a few seconds before you put your helmet back on (no, your head won't explode and neither will your eyeballs pop out). 

 

Novaquark did say that gravity exists on planets, but we are yet to see if the gravity influences objects around the planet. Do remember that for now, it is the suns that rotate, not the planets. Orbital mechanics will have to wait. 

 

For the time being, however, it is best to let constructs stop moving due to the forces of deceleration. When the engines turn off, the object begins to slow down till it stops. In the future, we can explore the possibilities of putting Newton's first law in total effect. 

 

A wonderful day to you all.

"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"

A good day to everyone. 

 

Inertia dampening might not be that big of an issue. While the developers did say that the flight physics will be realistic, they did not say that they would be a hundred percent accurate. Inertia dampening is a wonderful feature to add--it gives immersion a significant boost. But, to have vehicles moving in space forever, without the aid of flipping mechanics, retrograde thrusters or black magic might be a little extreme for some. I'm not against realistic physics--rocket science should be implemented in a space game for the sake of the "space" in the name--but everything should be done in moderation. 

 

To allow Newton's first law to happen, we do have to consider that gravity exists in space, while the friction and gravity in an atmosphere are present as well. Yes, there is friction in space but it is so small it is negligible: space is a vacuum. Remove your space helmet the next time you are there and you will understand for a few seconds before you put your helmet back on (no, your head won't explode and neither will your eyeballs pop out). 

 

Novaquark did say that gravity exists on planets, but we are yet to see if the gravity influences objects around the planet. Do remember that for now, it is the suns that rotate, not the planets. Orbital mechanics will have to wait. 

 

For the time being, however, it is best to let constructs stop moving due to the forces of deceleration. When the engines turn off, the object begins to slow down till it stops. In the future, we can explore the possibilities of putting Newton's first law in total effect. 

 

A wonderful day to you all.

"

That would be some Empyrion silly physics. It would make Thrust-to-Mass obsolete and it would make Piloting a boring thing to do, let alone be something you can be distinguished at for being good. No inertia or smart use of deceleration ? I can see the Youtube Reviews from people :

 

 

Builders? "Oh sure, you get fancy tools to make amazing things like sculptures."

 

Traders? "Supply and demand, be the savvy businessman and make all the connections in the game to get best prices and avoid taxation."

 

Leadership? "Taxation plans, political systems, all the Politician Simulation you want."

 

Ground Forces? "Feel the thrilling sensation of calling down tactical strikes from your fleet to aid you on overtaking a building."

 

Pilots? " AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, Shut up, you get nothing. Be the taxi driver you were meant to be, lel scrub, investing into piloting skills to get better turns and have access to trajectory calculations? LEL, you can do balley pirouettes with Dreadnaughts. Lil' Timmy can pilot a Dreadnaught class battleship just fine, inertia does not exist."

 

See the issue right there? Being a spacetrucker and being a combat pilot or navigator, is not the same thing. Flip and Burn is like, the MAIN REASON the Lua scripts to exist for ships automated maneuvers. 

 

Why would the Devs add Lua scripts, instead of a default auto-pilot feature? Why would they bother with calculating the mass and center of mass of an object if it was for nothing? Inertia applications open up the door to many gameplay aspects, from building and economy, tto people being recognised as the best pilots for X, Y, Z types of cruisers and it dictates a need for ACTUAL training by ACTUALLY good pilots to newer pilots in the game. Emergent Gameplay that even EVE had going for it with in-game academies ran by players.

 

Also, Newtonian physics that have magic friction in space, plain simply kill any form of attempt to conserve fuel on space flight. That's some No Man's Sky level of silly right there. Single-seater crafts become quite obsolete for travelling in any capacity between planets, let alone systems.

 

Also, the Devs did say they work on making the planets rotate, it's in the Development cycle already. And before you say "think of the children", the game is not geared towards children who can't grasp the nature of inertia. Most people in this community are sci-fi fans and in one way or another, do understand the concept of G-Forces, no matter how NQ may decide to implement it in the game. I personally would like it to be something like a slowing effect for people on board the ship, as G-Forces double or triple their weight when Inertia Dumpers start bleeding forces throguh them, burning a player's stamina bar rapidly when the player tries to move

 

And also, if the Devs decide to add more Alien Biomes, like heavy gravity worlds, they would ALREADY have inertial mechanics to emulate the effects of heavy gravity worlds, perhaps even utilising the same dumpers on buildings for people to have a better quality of life as they mine for heavy metal minerals on those worlds. You know, Survival may not be what brought you to the game, but for me it did sold me out on it, even if it's something to come later down the pipeline with an expansion. Inertia and piloting would be the only real things giving me some form of enjoyment.

 

Unless you want dull, repetitive, "same planet, different grass color", No Man's Sky worlds every other stsr system Aetherios. I personally, don't like boredom. I also don't like flying at 0.1 Lightspeed without having something to keep my eye at and I want my gameplay to involve something else other than "oh boy, I have to refuel again in 3 hours".

 

 

Not to mention tactical approaches on a fleet engagement. Knock the thrusters off of a battleship and watch them drift in space helplessly, then bargain with them for ransom to repair their main thursters so they can get back home. You know, Emergent Gameplay and stuff. Your "no inertia, asphalt logic in space" idea, plain simply KILLS the gameplay on piloting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would be some Empyrion silly physics. It would make Thrust-to-Mass obsolete and it would make Piloting a boring thing to do, let alone be something you can be distinguished at for being good. No inertia or smart use of deceleration ? I can see the Youtube Reviews from people :

 

 

Builders? "Oh sure, you get fancy tools to make amazing things like sculptures."

 

Traders? "Supply and demand, be the savvy businessman and make all the connections in the game to get best prices and avoid taxation."

 

Leadership? "Taxation plans, political systems, all the Politician Simulation you want."

 

Ground Forces? "Feel the thrilling sensation of calling down tactical strikes from your fleet to aid you on overtaking a building."

 

Pilots? " AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, Shut up, you get nothing. Be the taxi driver you were meant to be, lel scrub, investing into piloting skills to get better turns and have access to trajectory calculations? LEL, you can do balley pirouettes with Dreadnaughts. Lil' Timmy can pilot a Dreadnaught class battleship just fine, inertia does not exist."

 

See the issue right there? Being a spacetrucker and being a combat pilot or navigator, is not the same thing. Flip and Burn is like, the MAIN REASON the Lua scripts to exist for ships automated maneuvers. 

 

Why would the Devs add Lua scripts, instead of a default auto-pilot feature? Why would they bother with calculating the mass and center of mass of an object if it was for nothing? Inertia applications open up the door to many gameplay aspects, from building and economy, tto people being recognised as the best pilots for X, Y, Z types of cruisers and it dictates a need for ACTUAL training by ACTUALLY good pilots to newer pilots in the game. Emergent Gameplay that even EVE had going for it with in-game academies ran by players.

 

Also, Newtonian physics that have magic friction in space, plain simply kill any form of attempt to conserve fuel on space flight. That's some No Man's Sky level of silly right there. Single-seater crafts become quite obsolete for travelling in any capacity between planets, let alone systems.

 

Also, the Devs did say they work on making the planets rotate, it's in the Development cycle already. And before you say "think of the children", the game is not geared towards children who can't grasp the nature of inertia. Most people in this community are sci-fi fans and in one way or another, do understand the concept of G-Forces, no matter how NQ may decide to implement it in the game. I personally would like it to be something like a slowing effect for people on board the ship, as G-Forces double or triple their weight when Inertia Dumpers start bleeding forces throguh them, burning a player's stamina bar rapidly when the player tries to move

 

And also, if the Devs decide to add more Alien Biomes, like heavy gravity worlds, they would ALREADY have inertial mechanics to emulate the effects of heavy gravity worlds, perhaps even utilising the same dumpers on buildings for people to have a better quality of life as they mine for heavy metal minerals on those worlds. You know, Survival may not be what brought you to the game, but for me it did sold me out on it, even if it's something to come later down the pipeline with an expansion. Inertia and piloting would be the only real things giving me some form of enjoyment.

 

Unless you want dull, repetitive, "same planet, different grass color", No Man's Sky worlds every other stsr system Aetherios. I personally, don't like boredom. I also don't like flying at 0.1 Lightspeed without having something to keep my eye at and I want my gameplay to involve something else other than "oh boy, I have to refuel again in 3 hours".

 

 

Not to mention tactical approaches on a fleet engagement. Knock the thrusters off of a battleship and watch them drift in space helplessly, then bargain with them for ransom to repair their main thursters so they can get back home. You know, Emergent Gameplay and stuff. Your "no inertia, asphalt logic in space" idea, plain simply KILLS the gameplay on piloting.

"

A good day to you, Captain. 

 

I am not trying to stop it from happening. I simply suggested that it be put on hold for now. 

 

Emergent game play is a great thing to have and immersion should be present for the sake of perfection. Inertia dampeners might be present and again, they might not be. 

 

Personally, I am for physics to be realistic, but do recall that the developers have made some compromises for the sake of the early age of the game. We're still in pre-alpha, dear friend, not in the Beta, talk less of the full game release. There are priorities in this kind of thing and I believe, that while relatively simple to implement, inertia dampening can wait till Beta. 

 

I wish you a splendid day.

"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"

A good day to you, Captain. 

 

I am not trying to stop it from happening. I simply suggested that it be put on hold for now. 

 

Emergent game play is a great thing to have and immersion should be present for the sake of perfection. Inertia dampeners might be present and again, they might not be. 

 

Personally, I am for physics to be realistic, but do recall that the developers have made some compromises for the sake of the early age of the game. We're still in pre-alpha, dear friend, not in the Beta, talk less of the full game release. There are priorities in this kind of thing and I believe, that while relatively simple to implement, inertia dampening can wait till Beta. 

 

I wish you a splendid day.

"

I don't doubt it should not be Maximum Priority, I say it needs to be in one form or another in the game developed in late Alpha good sir.

 

The thing is, if they make planets rotate, it means they can implement localised physics' grids on ships as well beyond a gravitational orientation to the bottom side of the Core Unit on its Y axis. And they plan on planets rotating and they did say that the asteroid on the video had gravity as well, but much less than the actual planets had. This also means Miners do have some nice gameplay mechanics that make their jobs a thing that is SERIOUS business, as it should be, isntead of them feeling like stupid for doing something so menial. So yeah, localised physics grid is sort of confirmed by that fact. :P

 

They can even make inertia work via referrence of thrust to G forces translation and add a sci-fi device or, heck, Kyrium voxels that allow for a ship's crew to withstand more Gs, after all, that's what Kyrium does in the Lore. It doesn't even have to be Kyrium, just a polymer alloy that goes around a ship and it absorbs G-Forces within its confined space, with Door Elements being made out of the same voxel material when being manufactured for the sake of consistency.

 

 

 

P.S. : Also, removing your helmet in space would be a race between flash freeze and decompressino before you die. :P

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't doubt it should not be Maximum Priority, I say it needs to be in one form or another in the game developed in late Alpha good sir.

 

The thing is, if they make planets rotate, it means they can implement localised physics' grids on ships as well beyond a gravitational orientation to the bottom side of the Core Unit on its Y axis. And they plan on planets rotating and they did say that the asteroid on the video had gravity as well, but much less than the actual planets had. This also means Miners do have some nice gameplay mechanics that make their jobs a thing that is SERIOUS business, as it should be, isntead of them feeling like stupid for doing something so menial. So yeah, localised physics grid is sort of confirmed by that fact. :P

 

They can even make inertia work via referrence of thrust to G forces translation and add a sci-fi device or, heck, Kyrium voxels that allow for a ship's crew to withstand more Gs, after all, that's what Kyrium does in the Lore. It doesn't even have to be Kyrium, just a polymer alloy that goes around a ship and it absorbs G-Forces within its confined space, with Door Elements being made out of the same voxel material when being manufactured for the sake of consistency.

 

 

 

P.S. : Also, removing your helmet in space would be a race between flash freeze and decompressino before you die. :P

 

"

A wonderful day to you Captain. 

 

I have to agree with your points there. 

 

As for flash freezing and decompression, it depends to an extent on how close to a star you are and the pressure, don't you say? You have a few seconds, though before permanent damage occurs. Remember to breathe out.

"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"

A wonderful day to you Captain.

 

I have to agree with your points there.

 

As for flash freezing and decompression, it depends to an extent on how close to a star you are and the pressure, don't you say? You have a few seconds, though before permanent damage occurs. Remember to breathe out.

"

Well not always... You could be in the corona of a star and freeze to death because there are so few particles that hit you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"

A wonderful day to you Captain. 

 

I have to agree with your points there. 

 

As for flash freezing and decompression, it depends to an extent on how close to a star you are and the pressure, don't you say? You have a few seconds, though before permanent damage occurs. Remember to breathe out.

"

Well, if we are to take into account for the star, we got to remember the reason Earth's atmosphere is hot has to do with its Atmospheric Pressure and cloud formations.

 

If you are near a star, chances are you'll be crisped the moment you remove your helmt by the sheer volume of radiation, if you are further away, you would be still turned into a crisp, it's jsut you would be brain dead before Flash freeze would kill you. The sun emits heat, and human bodies are built to withstand a certain heat before they start malfunctioning and that's with 1 Atmosphere worth of pressure. In vacuum, that temperature tolerance drops dramatically for humans not in a spacesuit, as radiation would be cooking you faster, while your blood and liquids would begin to boil. You can survive up to 30 seconds in space if you are curled up and naked, if you had to take your helmet off, then your eyes WOULD probably pop out from the sheer boiling of the head while the body's suit's pressure would leave, forming G forces up your head, possibly leading to some very grim results.

 

But in any case. Inertia, good for the gameplay, bad for the players and a reason for non pilots to cuss pilots, like we mostly do IRL if a pilot does a bad landing on an airport (we've all been there).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well not always... You could be in the corona of a star and freeze to death because there are so few particles that hit you

"

A wonderful day to you, Lethys. 

 

I wouldn't be so sure...It's just the helmet that went off, not the entire space suit. Besides, it's irrelevant whether the helmet is on or not. 

 

Kindly view this article: http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/corona.shtml 

 

I wish you a wonderful day.

"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And also, if the Devs decide to add more Alien Biomes, like heavy gravity worlds, they would ALREADY have inertial mechanics to emulate the effects of heavy gravity worlds, perhaps even utilising the same dumpers on buildings for people to have a better quality of life as they mine for heavy metal minerals on those worlds.

I know this is a little off-topic, but what if a player who lives on a high-gravity planet starts to adjust to the gravity? In real life, they would eventually get stronger, and have denser bones as their bodies deal with the increased stress of the planet. This could mean that the best pilots come from high-gravity worlds because their bodies can handle the G-forces more easily!

When a player first lands on one of these planets, they would experience the effects of the increased gravity; less stamina, unable to lift certain objects, etc.

But after they have been there a while, they become basically immune to the difference, and life becomes normal. As soon as they leave the planet, the "adjustments" their bodies have made become above-average skills like player run speed, jump height, stamina, strength, and G-force toleration. They might also be a little harder to kill due to the increased density of their bodies!

 

Just something to think about. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know this is a little off-topic, but what if a player who lives on a high-gravity planet starts to adjust to the gravity? In real life, they would eventually get stronger, and have denser bones as their bodies deal with the increased stress of the planet. This could mean that the best pilots come from high-gravity worlds because their bodies can handle the G-forces more easily!

When a player first lands on one of these planets, they would experience the effects of the increased gravity; less stamina, unable to lift certain objects, etc.

But after they have been there a while, they become basically immune to the difference, and life becomes normal. As soon as they leave the planet, the "adjustments" their bodies have made become above-average skills like player run speed, jump height, stamina, strength, and G-force toleration. They might also be a little harder to kill due to the increased density of their bodies!

 

Just something to think about. :)

The Devs could add a "High G Training" skill and the player can get more strength permanently, and on Heavy G worlds, they suffer no penalty on their movement speed or their stamina consumption. That's a good way of emulating the effects.

 

As for "live X amount there to gain X bonus strength"... well, don't know, it sounds like grinding, which the skill system the Devs want is ideologically against it, so, who knows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well this is a bit off topic but i was just thinking, if they manage to have planets rotate.  Will a floating Construct built within a planets gravity rotate with the planet or stand still?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the devs stated somewhere that they were working on making constructs rotate with the planet, instead of attempting to damp their velocities to 0 on the solar plane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the devs stated somewhere that they were working on making constructs rotate with the planet, instead of attempting to damp their velocities to 0 on the solar plane.

 

Well this is a bit off topic but i was just thinking, if they manage to have planets rotate.  Will a floating Construct built within a planets gravity rotate with the planet or stand still?

According to what JC said to the DM21 interview on youtube (I think it was THAT Interview), if a construct is indeed within a planet's grid, it will rorate with the planet itself, but that will be later on, when they can "anchor" constructs in mid-air, s the object floating in the sky would be falling own to the planet as well. So until they add Anchoring, we're stuck with building stations outside the planet's physics grid :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...