Flight model?

[Anaximander]

I'm not sure about cockpits. My understanding is the current cockpit has a built in control module. I would hope there will be alternative cockpits that allow the player to use a custom control module.

 

Bridges are completely customizable. NovaQuark has said there will be display modules that can be linked to custom control modules. The custom control modules would have a user programmed DPU.

 

For those that don't write code, NQ will be providing some basic scripts to get you off the ground.

Cockpits are Control Units, that's how they classify terminals and the such. DPUs help attaching functions to a control unit.

[Anaximander]

I only hope you can upload and override ship controls with your own LUA scrips

 

Because as we know your two engines script will work like a charm on a five engine ship, right?

 

 

Also, If I steal a Porsche, I need it to drive like one.

 

If NQ stores scripts in the Core Unit of a construct, only by destroying the Core Unit you'll be able to remove them from constructs. And I mean ''store'', not ''hosting'' of scripts - which is a DPU function,

[Ripper]

Control units are technically "an element that accepts input from the players peripherals." It can be a cockpit, like the current cockpit element, or it can be a control unit element that would be used on a larger ship with a bridge.

[Atmosph3rik]

I really like the idea that if you were to steal or borrow someone else's ship you literally might not be able to fly it because of unfamiliar controls or systems.

 

That's immersion.

[Ripper]

From my knowledge, Novaquark never said the user programmable DPU was the "core unit."

 

They DID say there would be a user programmable DPU element. They also said that all elements had a DPU, but most were hard coded.

 

If the control unit can spit out forward/reverse, left/right, up/down, roll, pitch, and yaw, then a builder can take that output and apply it to whatever thruster/thrusters he chooses with the programmable DPU.

 

So far, in the building videos we have yet to see a user programmable DPU. We ALSO havent seen how we can link elements together programmatically. All we've seen is attach the elements to the core and everything just works.

[Anaximander]

From my knowledge, Novaquark never said the user programmable DPU was the "core unit."

They DID say there would be a user programmable DPU element. They also said that all elements had a DPU, but most were hard coded.

If the control unit can spit out forward/reverse, left/right, up/down, roll, pitch, and yaw, then a builder can take that output and apply it to whatever thruster/thrusters he chooses with the programmable DPU.

So far, in the building videos we have yet to see a user programmable DPU. We ALSO havent seen how we can link elements together programmatically. All we've seen is attach the elements to the core and everything just works.

I mean ''store''. Core Units store information, like ownership. Scripts are ran client-side, but the server has to stream them to your pc regardless. That's what I mean. Blueprinting a construct stores uta scripts on the server, but RUNNING them is client's problem. DPUs are a gameplay part, for guiding scripts to their element from the control units. Think of DPUs as Wattage for the ship's computers - or kore like Flopage, processing prowess.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FLOPS#Distributed_computing_records

 

This is probably how the DPU was inspired as a concept. Distributed Computing is Cloud-tech, a way to amp the FLOPS in a networked enviroment. Same deal with DPUs. You got more, they sure as heck cost energy, but increase how many modules you can attach on a ship and control them.

 

In EVE, we have to juggle Wattage (Powergird) and Flopage (TeraFlops) on a ship. Same deal for DU. Power Cores / Generators = Wattage or Powergrid.

 

DPUs = How many TeraFLOPS your construct has, meaning how many modules it can handle.

 

Control Units host scritps, it's what JC said on the "Building a Spaceship" video.

 

It could be the other way around, i.e. the Control Unit being the FLOPS defining element on a ship, but one way or another, there wil lbe a computing limitation on constructs.

 

Why this kind of thing though? Because balance. You can't have a star-fighter equiped with a cruise missile launcher. 

[Kurosawa]

Except if I get a say in the keybinds with Lua.

 

Then prepare for the revolutionary method of :

 

W, E = Forward thrust, W left main propulsion, E right main propulsion. Let go for W, you yaw left, likewise for E..

 

A, F = A is for left side maneuvering thrusters, F for the right side.

 

S, D = S is rolling left, D is rolling right.

 

C = Dive.

 

Spacebar = Pivot. 

 

Talk about some precision cruise controls. And this doesn't even cover the ACTUAL clutch idea I have for tuning the rate of the controls.

 

Seems a bit over complicated

 

Newtonian physics

 

W,S : Forward/Reverse Thrust

A,D: Strafe

Q,E: Role

 

Mouse to control heading/direction.

 

?? key to turn autoadjust on/off. on ship will correct it self, off you can spin like mad

[Anaximander]

Seems a bit over complicated

 

Newtonian physics

 

W,S : Forward/Reverse Thrust

A,D: Strafe

Q,E: Role

 

Mouse to control heading/direction.

 

?? key to turn autoadjust on/off. on ship will correct it self, off you can spin like mad

It's a spaceship, not a car.  It doesn't got "Reverse". You wanna pull back? Turn off the main propulsion, pitch up the nose and fire vertical thrust to deccelerate or move backwards. Wanna strafe? Roll left or right, and fire vertical thrust.

 

It's a spaceship, it has 6 degrees of freedom ."strafe" is not an option for spaceships. Yaw (veering left and right) roll (turning your ship on the side on its X axis) and pitch (moving the nose of the ship up and down) is the only way to fly.

 

The aforementioned system is for PRECISION flight. You get precision out of it, as I said, that's the rough draft of the keymap. Theere are math involved in the script to make the cruise controls have a "hydraulic" feel to them.

[mrjacobean]

It's a spaceship, not a car.  It doesn't got "Reverse". You wanna pull back? Turn off the main propulsion, pitch up the nose and fire vertical thrust to deccelerate or move backwards. Wanna strafe? Roll left or right, and fire vertical thrust.

 

It's a spaceship, it has 6 degrees of freedom ."strafe" is not an option for spaceships. Yaw (veering left and right) roll (turning your ship on the side on its X axis) and pitch (moving the nose of the ship up and down) is the only way to fly.

Not everything is a sports car. Some ships may be impossible to pull a 90 degree turn quick enough and would therefore have retrograde thrusters. In addition, when docking/landing, I believe strafe would be very useful (try landing in elite dangerous without using reverse thrust or strafe controls)

[Anaximander]

Not everything is a sports car. Some ships may be impossible to pull a 90 degree turn quick enough and would therefore have retrograde thrusters. In addition, when docking/landing, I believe strafe would be very useful (try landing in elite dangerous without using reverse thrust or strafe controls)

Too bad combat is not like docking. DU's combat model is all about speed and agility in smaller crafts create a hit chance loss on your attackers. Strafe, just doesn't work. You need to stay still to strafe. Yaw != strafe.

 

The flight control I mentioned is for combat, possibly, with a log system that detects time of keypress to amp thrust, with Shift + Key to reverse the ratio. That's for ships that have to orbit a target to keep them from hitting them - as assigning automatic orbits is one straight way to Respawn Town, if EVE taught anyone anything when it comes to PvP.

 

Every other pedestrian can fly in space-coffins. I'm building my ship for precision controls.

 

And also, since DU has no centrifugal stations, I don't see you need Strafing to land.

 

As for the retrograde thrusters... I mean, it's your wallet and your grave, who am I to stop you from building a ship that has a main propulsion facing forward, while you could have vertical thrust for rotation on the Y axis and firing your thrust away from the target. Or... you know, knowing when to turn off acceleration and starting rotating the ship as momentum caries it forward to where you want to go and firing the thrusters towards it..

[mrjacobean]

Too bad combat is not like docking. DU's combat model is all about speed and agility in smaller crafts create a hit chance loss on your attackers. Strafe, just doesn't work. You need to stay still to strafe. Yaw != strafe.

 

The flight control I mentioned is for combat, possibly, with a log system that detects time of keypress to amp thrust, with Shift + Key to reverse the ratio. That's for ships that have to orbit a target to keep them from hitting them - as assigning automatic orbits is one straight way to Respawn Town, if EVE taught anyone anything when it comes to PvP.

 

Every other pedestrian can fly in space-coffins. I'm building my ship for precision controls.

 

And also, since DU has no centrifugal stations, I don't see you need Strafing to land.

 

As for the retrograde thrusters... I mean, it's your wallet and your grave, who am I to stop you from building a ship that has a main propulsion facing forward, while you could have vertical thrust for rotation on the Y axis and firing your thrust away from the target. Or... you know, knowing when to turn off acceleration and starting rotating the ship as momentum caries it forward to where you want to go and firing the thrusters towards it..

You have now entered the image of a dreadnought pulling off the space version of a hand brake turn into my mind. I was also more thinking that the retro thrusters be two thirds of what the main thrusters can do (sort of like the Stiletto from Nexus: The Jupiter Incidentv or any ship from Fractured Space)

[Anaximander]

You have now entered the image of a dreadnought pulling off the space version of a hand brake turn into my mind. I was also more thinking that the retro thrusters be two thirds of what the main thrusters can do (sort of like the Stiletto from Nexus: The Jupiter Incidentv or any ship from Fractured Space)

Yeah, well, no worries, a dreadnaught can't really accelerate to begin with. Armor and agility do not go hand to hand.

 

It's a dreadnaught, its tanking abilitiy is tied to its armor plates / insane ampage going into shields. It's not a star-fighter to have to do pirouettes while dealing damage. Inertia takes care of its manuevering, aka, there's not one. Sure, a dreadnaught could rotaete around to face a target so its turrets don't have to turn all the way around while tracking a target, but that's just a dreadnaught remaining still, pumping out damage like ammo is on fire-sale.

 

Also, since this is not EVE, I don't expect Dreadnaughts to "dock", at least, not INSIDE a station. Pretty surely, not inside a public station, lol.

 

But corvettes or frigates, could work with a pivot and "ascend" breaking style, especially if the corvette or frigate is built with coombat in-mind, it SHOULD have powerful thrust in all directions, so, why not use said thrust as a brake? I honestly, don't see retrograde thrusters working as a main-stay, but that's the beauty of this game, there's no "one-way" of building a ship.

 

My school of thought and engineering approach, doesn't match yours, and it's totally acceptable. Some will like the Twerk-Cruiser for its precision controls that help a crew to align turrets faster on a moving target, thus making my cruiser more suited for long-range sharpshoting, while yours guys could be pretty ships for the less skilled pilots.

 

#bragging_pointlessly #may _the_best_Twerk_win 

 

[mrjacobean]

My school of thought and engineering approach, doesn't much yours, and it's totally acceptable. Some will like the Twerk-Cruiser for its precision controls that help a crew to align turrets faster on a moving target, thus making my cruiser more suited for long-range sharpshoting, while yours guys could be pretty ships for the less skilled pilots.

 

#bragging_pointlessly #may _the_best_Twerk_win 

 

 

P.S. mrJacobean is the best twerk

Why thank you Twerk 

[Anaximander]

Why thank you Twerk 

EVIL :<

[Kurosawa]

It's a spaceship, not a car.  It doesn't got "Reverse". You wanna pull back? Turn off the main propulsion, pitch up the nose and fire vertical thrust to deccelerate or move backwards. Wanna strafe? Roll left or right, and fire vertical thrust.

 

Retrograde thrusts and maneuvering thrusts, RCS, TVC, directional thrusts and so one. Nothing to do with cars.

 

 

It's a spaceship, it has 6 degrees of freedom ."strafe" is not an option for spaceships. Yaw (veering left and right) roll (turning your ship on the side on its X axis) and pitch (moving the nose of the ship up and down) is the only way to fly.

 

hmm so going side ways is aka strafe is not an option, if you where going to comment on lack of direction you should have mentioned i left out up/down

 

 

 

The aforementioned system is for PRECISION flight. You get precision out of it, as I said, that's the rough draft of the keymap. Theere are math involved in the script to make the cruise controls have a "hydraulic" feel to them.

 

precision not really, seem to over complicated.

[Anaximander]

Retrograde thrusts and maneuvering thrusts, RCS, TVC, directional thrusts and so one. Nothing to do with cars.

 

 

 

hmm so going side ways is aka strafe is not an option, if you where going to comment on lack of direction you should have mentioned i left out up/down

 

 

 

 

precision not really, seem to over complicated.

Well, I don't plan on building racing ships. :|

 

If turrets behave like alignments of ships in EVE when tracking, tehn turning the ship at a proper rate, will actually INCREASE your hit chance or "smashing hit" chance on a target - AKA a Critical Strike - when it comes to tranversal speed versus radian comparison in a lock-on system where speed plays a role.

 

Sure, if you gonna be a star-fighter that's all about having the jukes, good, an RCS may suffice, but for people who want to build tactically viable long-range ships, that even the slightest transversal speed offset may end in the ship missing a shot, precision controls like the one I mentioned will be required.

 

As I told to Jake earlier, there's no one way of making a ship. If I can make it as precise on flying a ship as it orbits a target,by fine-tuning its controls over yaw, to match the main cannon's tracking speed, then I will do it

[Kurosawa]

These controls are from X3 where you actually can fly everything from small fighters to large capital ships unlike EVE and where ship facing matter for turret firing arcs. So they do work for both small and large crafts.

 

http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/1101418703146894642/2929D9162DACFBA4E58C39112A45FB53FB98E932/

 

For precision mouse beats keyboard any day

[Lethys]

These controls are from X3 where you actually can fly everything from small fighters to large capital ships unlike EVE and where ship facing matter for turret firing arcs. So they do work for both small and large crafts.

 

http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/1101418703146894642/2929D9162DACFBA4E58C39112A45FB53FB98E932/

 

For precision mouse beats keyboard any day

 

only because some game did it, YOU don't have to do it that way. With lua and so many more options you'd probably be better off and design YOUR personal, perfect control system. 

 

just saying

[Anaximander]

These controls are from X3 where you actually can fly everything from small fighters to large capital ships unlike EVE and where ship facing matter for turret firing arcs. So they do work for both small and large crafts.

 

http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/1101418703146894642/2929D9162DACFBA4E58C39112A45FB53FB98E932/

 

For precision mouse beats keyboard any day

Yeah, DU is about multiplayer. You don't need 90% of that layout. Also, you need to start thinking with math. In EVE, if you can do math fast i nyour head, you can hit someone beyond your optimal (or even falloff) range. If you reach and turn your ship fast and place it at rest on an approaching enemy, you can achieve being at rest, thus the "Tracking speed" becomes raw cirtical strike chance.

 

That's called "emulation", and EVE has spot-on mathematical model for hit chance, that tkes into account a shi[p's relative signature (the surface area / print of a ship on a Cone of Fire, depending on distance). That means that large guns, can't really shoot well - or at all, at close ranges, but if the pilot is a mathematical savvant, they can align their ship, using the ship's inertia to "Track" faster. If you know what you're doing, you can hit a very fast and tiny ship with an XL Railgun and one-shot it, if you fire at the correct moment. Why? Because the hit-chance is probabilistic, and if the math say "your shot intercepts the target mid-flight, due to their transversal being at 0 on the moment of the ship", you will hit the enemy.

 

And in EVE, you can fly from frigates to Titans (which are 22km ships). You seem to confuse "realistic flight control" with "skill at compensating for multiple variables". No amount of keybinds on your keyboard will help with being better at figuring out math faster.

 

Same deal for DU, only the gunner and pilot have to communicate, or the pilot, has to know EXACTLY, at what range his gunner needs what degree of veering or at what X range of orbit they can achieve Y speed to keep the turret tracking at 100% on the target. Is your gunnter getting "glacning" blows on the target? Increase your yaw by 1 degree, chheck for hits, are they accurate? Keep it there.

 

As I said, there's no real "right" flight model. As they say, "whatever floats your boat". If it works for me, it can probably work for others. But having different cruise controls, only guarantees a level of immersion, where a faction's Navy has to train people into flying REAL complex cruise controls, that can make a destroyer class ship be impossible hit while it's dishing out damage at a spot on precisino rate - missile boats exluded, cause they only flight skill, not actuall coordination between gunner and pilot.

[Kurosawa]

only because some game did it, YOU don't have to do it that way. With lua and so many more options you'd probably be better off and design YOUR personal, perfect control system. 

 

just saying

 

The ability to design your own is of cause always welcome, options ads flavor and depth

[Kurosawa]

Yeah, DU is about multiplayer. You don't need 90% of that layout.

 

As I said, there's no real "right" flight model. As they say, "whatever floats your boat". If it works for me, it can probably work for others. But having different cruise controls, only guarantees a level of immersion, where a faction's Navy has to train people into flying REAL complex cruise controls, that can make a destroyer class ship be impossible hit while it's dishing out damage at a spot on precisino rate - missile boats exluded, cause they only flight skill, not actuall coordination between gunner and pilot.

 

X3 was just one example, there are plenty other games using the same model for 3d movement, both single and multiplayer. It is the same layout used in countless games and will allow players to quickly pick it up, if you want to alter it down the road is something else.

The OP asked what the flight model and controls would be, my guess is it will be as close to the other games as possible by default and hopefully include rebindings and other control change methods.

 

Math: you want 90% of the keys gone from the example. which 6 keys would you keep ?

 

 

As I said, there's no real "right" flight model. As they say, "whatever floats your boat". If it works for me, it can probably work for others. But having different cruise controls, only guarantees a level of immersion,

 

options options options, that is the key.

[Anaximander]

X3 was just one example, there are plenty other games using the same model for 3d movement, both single and multiplayer. It is the same layout used in countless games and will allow players to quickly pick it up, if you want to alter it down the road is something else.

The OP asked what the flight model and controls would be, my guess is it will be as close to the other games as possible by default and hopefully include rebindings and other control change methods.

 

Math: you want 90% of the keys gone from the example. which 6 keys would you keep ?

 

 

 

 

options options options, that is the key.

 

 

Point, if you rig the controls the right way, you won't need to do mwth, the ship will have precise orbit fontrols to maintain 100% hit chance.

 

 

As for the OP, the answer, as we proven it, ''do your own controls''. Variety drives ship doctrines and different controls, bring an actual skill for piloting in-game.

[Kurosawa]

What will the flight model be in space?

 

Airplanes and/or submarines in space (the most common way games do it)? Six degrees of freedom with no friction (the way space really works)? Something in between (like Star Citizen)?

 

I'm thinking about this from a design point of view. It drastically changes what will work for a spaceship.

 

Also, will ships have artificial gravity on board? Will we need an element to implement that?

 

I am not sure we really know, i cannot remember reading any official posts about flight model.

 

I am hoping for newtonian physics with full 3d motion and collisions, for fun and explosive deaths. But i think, by default, we probably will get something like in star-made where you control heading with the mouse and speed/trust vectors on the keyboard in some kind of fluidicspace.

[Anaximander]

I am not sure we really know, i cannot remember reading any official posts about flight model.

 

I am hoping for newtonian physics with full 3d motion and collisions, for fun and explosive deaths. But i think, by default, we probably will get something like in star-made where you control heading with the mouse and speed/trust vectors on the keyboard in some kind of fluidicspace.

Well, that's the idea, although a minor drag force for space may be added - so ships won't go forever, even when players ain't online to control them, which means the server whould have to keep track of a perpetually going object.

 

Collisions won't be voxel-to-voxel deforming, as that would put a strain on the servers, but more likely some less form of collision calculations - hopefully that is.

 

As for default Lua configuration of keymap, sure, th Devs will go for some sort of that. But rmember, mouse and keyboard don't really work form everything.  A smaller craft, like a star-fighter, yeah, probably a good idea to fly it  with a mouse. But a ship that has to maintain a relative angle and position to a target and the navigator having to turn the ship in a precise way to assist with the gunners' tracking? That's gonna need some precision thrust controls.

 

And that's what my model is, where you control Left Engine with W (+L_Shift for reduction of thrust) and Right Engine with E (+L_Shift for reduction of thrust). The "WASD + Mouse" scheme does work, for a starfighter with a nose-gun that needs to reposition and acquire targets on the spot, where your tracking IS your level of response, thus the mouse DOES help. So I guess it comes down to "Mass PvP in Capital Ships will requirea certain complexity about it". And it should. Being a Capital Ship Driver (yeah, a ship has a driver, go figure) is not something that should be easy nor should it be simplistic, not at least on a scale of efort being put into making such ships and crewing them.

[Kurosawa]

Being a Capital Ship Driver (yeah, a ship has a driver, go figure) is not something that should be easy nor should it be simplistic, not at least on a scale of effort being put into making such ships and crewing them.

 

simple and easy are not bad things, it's what you get if something is well build and though out, complicating thing for the sake of complications is the reverse of all that is good. Maybe i misunderstand but would you prefer to press shift w+e over just pressing s.

 

I think, we in general agree. But differ on the solution we consider the best. basically we are moving around in circles.