Jump to content

Thrusters physics?


Xtreme
 Share

Recommended Posts

Heya

 

Was wondering how physics will work in this game...especially on ships

Assuming I have a 500m long and 100 wide and high ship...and i want it to be as agile as possible,

does it matter where I place the thrusters on the ship? (are maneuvering thrusters a thing?) 

I mean, is the system like kerbal where a thruster at the front firing to the right turns the front to the left

or more like SE where a thruster placed anywhere on the side provides the same movement?

 

 

Greetings


Btw...are there gravity anchors or some other system to hold the ship in position?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the moment I think they are just using a lateral thruster configuration much like how they work in Space Engineers the only difference being that the maneuvering thrusters are very small elements like a 1x1  and the main thrusters being larger elements. 

 

I don't think the game will be complex enough to allow for the kind of physics seen in KSP. That being said though, using the LUA scripting you could configure your thrusters to have a more KSP feel. 

 

As said by JC the maneuvering thrusters don't really serve much purpose other than to tell the LUA script how your ship is orientated and not much else has been said regarding how maneuvering will work on larger ships obviously they will try to balance the game between large ship vs small ships.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as i know & remember, from the gameplay that i already watch on Dual Universe Youtube cannel, the game doesn't have the movement thruster system yet ... They only implemented the main engine so far.

 

My personal opinion, due to we can have a custom control via Lua, i think we will have a thruster movement system like Kerbal. So we can have more control on each thruster for more various movement. But i'm not sure it will make your ship agile because it's a huge thing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As Lethys pointed out in the rudimentary building video the devs have released,  adjustors will be needed in order for your ship to be agile.

So, depending on your ship's design and (possibly) center of mass, the placement of said adjustors will dictate how your ship behaves. Mind you, these adjustors can be destroyed, therefore hamstringing your ship. Which means building ships that are actually amazing, will be something people will have to work sometime to pull off, while we casuals will just build spiffy houses :P .

As for mass-to-thrust, yes, they have confirmed that a ship has to have properly placed engines for it to fly straight, so symmetrical placement of engines will be needed in adjustor / thruster placement.

A thing to notice, is that those adjustors have been pointed out as providing "very little thrust", and that they are going to be used for thigns like single-seater crafts, who can't afford power to multiple thrusters. Frigates and beyond, will probably need actual multiple thrusters and a lot of scripting in Lua to get them to fire properly.

Kerbal, not so much, but definitely not herp-derp Space Engineers :P 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[...]

 

 Which means building ships that are actually amazing, will be something people will have to work sometime to pull off, while we casuals will just build spiffy houses :P .

 

[...]

 

Kerbal, not so much, but definitely not herp-derp Space Engineers :P 

 

 

Never understood why people choose visual over functionality...my creations always look like abominations...symmetrical but not much like a ship or with flashy lights and nice colors or some plants in the cockpit...more Borg-like... :D

 

As long as it's not like SE :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Never understood why people choose visual over functionality...my creations always look like abominations...symmetrical but not much like a ship or with flashy lights and nice colors or some plants in the cockpit...more Borg-like... :D

 

As long as it's not like SE :D

Function over form, that's the way to go. And hey, if you can make something asymmetrical and functional, bonus points to you, you made something unique :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Function over form, that's the way to go. And hey, if you can make something asymmetrical and functional, bonus points to you, you made something unique :P

Whenever I try this, my mild OCD kicks in and that bugs me way to much xD

 

That's different if asymmetrical is superior to symmetrical...but that happens pretty much never. Except you have 1 on 1 fights, maybe it would make sense to have a bulwark reinforced bulwark on one side with all the weapons and the other side is just hull...xD but that looks gross ^^

 

(btw...my symmetrical is left+right...back and front do not look the same^^)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whenever I try this, my mild OCD kicks in and that bugs me way to much xD

 

That's different if asymmetrical is superior to symmetrical...but that happens pretty much never. Except you have 1 on 1 fights, maybe it would make sense to have a bulwark reinforced bulwark on one side with all the weapons and the other side is just hull...xD but that looks gross ^^

 

(btw...my symmetrical is left+right...back and front do not look the same^^)

Depends. If the Devs utilise a form of scan to determine hit-chances on attacks on Construct V. Construct, then some asymmetrical designs may end up favoring in tricking the enemy's trigger finger.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depends. If the Devs utilise a form of scan to determine hit-chances on attacks on Construct V. Construct, then some asymmetrical designs may end up favoring in tricking the enemy's trigger finger.

 

I really hope they don't...well scanning for weapons/armor/hull/shield is okay...but I hope there is no scanning for weak points or to show where this main cube is

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really hope they don't...well scanning for weapons/armor/hull/shield is okay...but I hope there is no scanning for weak points or to show where this main cube is

Not that kind of scanning. It's a terminology, a way to calculate hit-chances by taking into account distance,to the target, then their print on your "cone of fire" and so on. So yeah, an asymmetrical ship in such an enviroment could prove very tricky to deal with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't stress

 

Depends. If the Devs utilise a form of scan to determine hit-chances on attacks on Construct V. Construct, then some asymmetrical designs may end up favoring in tricking the enemy's trigger finger.
 

 

I wouldn't stress. Nothing is ever symmetrical unless it is a pure sphere/cube. A ship being fired upon in profile is instantly asymmetrical (front is different to back), and any shot from any angle other than straight on for a traditional "symmetrical ship" is also asymmetrical for the purposes of calculating which hit box is concerned.

 

Plenty of games out there (Mechwarrior, War Thunder etc) cope with asymmetrical designs such as side mounts and curved surfaces.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the hit bubble is somewhat complex then asymmetry could have advantages economically. Design a ship with armor on one side then roll it toward the enemy in combat. Cheaper construction and so long as you can maintain range and angle it could prove effective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...