Optics: rifle scopes, binoculars, telescopes, etc.

[Saul Retav]

 

I want binoculars, scopes, observation satellites, and space telescopes; is "zoom-able" optics a planned mechanic?

Would it be an issue with the reduced-fps-at-further-distances mechanic (as featured in the server tech video), or would that be easy enough to get around?

[BliitzTheFox]

Well, the distance of such optics would be limited, but assuming they existed and at extreme range they would likely be looking at where something was rather than its actually position due to the delayed updates; however, at extreme range light does this anyway in the real world as it takes time to travel to us. Though this effect would be amplified and in sections so that if you were looking at a construct very far away, it jumps a bit to the left as it updates and now you've lost it. It could have a use to some degree, but I would not want to see some-kind of "if you're looking at this through a telescope it should update this more often" as that could allow exploits and be server intensive. 

[Anaximander]

Well, the distance of such optics would be limited, but assuming they existed and at extreme range they would likely be looking at where something was rather than its actually position due to the delayed updates; however, at extreme range light does this anyway in the real world as it takes time to travel to us. Though this effect would be amplified and in sections so that if you were looking at a construct very far away, it jumps a bit to the left as it updates and now you've lost it. It could have a use to some degree, but I would not want to see some-kind of "if you're looking at this through a telescope it should update this more often" as that could allow exploits and be server intensive. 

This does not change anything though. The system can be applied.

 

 

Example. Let's say the LOD range in which you load-in 3D Mesh model is 50000 km (just go with it, oit's a placeholder number). You will be seeing a pixel at best of an object, with a 1x1 LOD texture on it. Now, zooming in, would only "project" your POV away from your avata nd towards where you look at, thus "icreasing" you LOD range (or reducing the distance between you and the object) thus icnreasing its resolution.

 

Notice, the delayed updates happen between your playfield and the playfield in the distance. It means that anythign past your "real-time grid" is streamd to you at a slower rate. That is for VAST distances, not something that's within the horizon of a planet. NQ made this tech so they can have asynchronous co-existence, of playfields (plaents, moons, etcetera). Scoping is still possible.

 

 

So, in other words, for space, you can still ZOOM-in on a construct incrementally, to takea better look at it, if you can't pick it up on IFF or RADAR or you are hiding from it via any mean possible. Zoomign in will only focus on a part of your FOV, then enhance the selected section by project ing your POV forward thus increasing resolution. You'd still be watching a delayed screnshot on the streaming of information on your "Skybox" but you could tell details now.

 

 

 

I want binoculars, scopes, observation satellites, and space telescopes; is "zoom-able" optics a planned mechanic?

Would it be an issue with the reduced-fps-at-further-distances mechanic (as featured in the server tech video), or would that be easy enough to get around?

 

This is an interesting idea, but again, we have an issue. Planets are instances mreo r oless, the atmoshpere is he portal to them and ywhat yo usee below is a technical trick, coding witchcraft. So, for observation satellites, like I explaine d above, it depens if upper orbit is part of a planet's palyfield, minus the gravity "bubble" of a planet.

 

Mind you though, if you mean like "radar" towers in space, they would follow the same udpate rules as with plaeers. You are streamd information regarding distanct objects. IF you wewre to scan an area with a radar and lightsppeed took 15 minutes to reach that area (in other words, how long  it would take for informatino to update from your locatino to that loiacation in the system) then you'd take half an hour to ping the location and get a ping as aresponse on rdar. Unless NQ introduces cheat mechanics like "RADARs" that work with FTL, thus making the server tech obsolete, if detectino mechines can see faster than the server updates, but given they said that "if you see a ship i nfar space, it may not be there when you get to it", I 'm only assuming it's not how it works - plus, their server tech doesn't work well with "real-time updates between distant (and I mean 15 light mnutes distant) objects.

 

 

As for scopes, you mean like Sniper Rifle Scopes? Cause at 200 meters sniping ( a modest range for snipers) you'll need a mark II Visual Reckon, aka scope, cause Mark I model Eyeball, is not that good at zooming in, so yeah, I want to see scopes as well, I also want to see thermal sights and night vision scopes, that have certain armors as coutner , as I suggested in a topic I made in the past.

 

I could also see NQ including "aim down sights" as a way for having "better hit-chance" with weapons, at the cost of speed (which makes you easier to hit). 

 

And before anyone loses their mind and starts spewing "but diz gamez not FPS Twerk, u dond sud say diz", long-range, high dmg, low rate of ffire and inefective at short range = sniper rifle. You don't need Pro MLG No scope 360 Halo Jump to have sniper gameplay. A probablilistic model like EVE's makes the system even more rewarding for shooting people from a distance, especially if yo uhave people like "spotters" to give you range and better tracking on your hits. Just... just don't expect to move like a balelerina while murdering people from 500 meters away, you need to remain still to do dmage in a probablistic model like this.

[Godrath]

IMO...I don't see them making optics a thing. With the way their server works i think they are going to promote close range, in your face fights. Long range shots may be possible, but the targeting mechanic they want to use will make firing at a distant target very hard. Which come to think of it, denys targeting subsystems of a ship. Looks like you would be targeting the pilot and your shots will drift, and in that way may hit subsystems.

[Anaximander]

IMO...I don't see them making optics a thing. With the way their server works i think they are going to promote close range, in your face fights. Long range shots may be possible, but the targeting mechanic they want to use will make firing at a distant target very hard. Which come to think of it, denys targeting subsystems of a ship. Looks like you would be targeting the pilot and your shots will drift, and in that way may hit subsystems.

That's not the case. They do want long-range.

 

They system for combat they use, is based on statistics, and not like in "I gotz epix I winz". It's a dynamic systme of "how fast you can keep a target in yoru crosshairs" vs "how fast the target moves". If you can track an epponent faster than the acan mvoe, you got a sure hit, if oyu track twice as much as they move, you get a "better dmg" shot. The further they are, the less dmg you deal (depedning on weaponry).

 

If your target is past your or at the end of your weapon's "effective range" and your tracking exceeds their movement speed by a lot, that means yo ucan deal what's called a "perfect" shot. In other games.  That's more or less the game's cobmat model. It's simple to get into, you don't need pro MLG reflexes, like twitch-monkeys, but you need to be very thoughtful of your actions.

 

In games like EVE Online, where the same mathematical model for hit-chance is being used, playing sniper (long-range combat or VERY VERY VERY Long range combat if you use railguns ) is something that takes abit of thought to pull off. You need people next to you (like IRL spotters) that provide you with targeting range bonuses and tracking bonuses, while their job is to keep your fragile butt safe from peopel gettign to you. You are a sniepr, yo uaren ot meant for tnaking damage, you are meant to deal it. And hopefully this will be the same in DU.

 

When a game like EVE Online can employe spotters as a role ina fleet, and Arma can't, you knowsomething went wrong

[Lord_Void]

I'm not sure if long range optics would be very feasible or practical. Short range optics, yes. Perhaps, instead, they could make portable scanners that would let you track items at long range without actually "seeing" them.

[Anaximander]

I'm not sure if long range optics would be very feasible or practical. Short range optics, yes. Perhaps, instead, they could make portable scanners that would let you track items at long range without actually "seeing" them.

Well, I don't find it "fun" my enemies being able to see my base because a scanner has magical powers.

 

I don't think it's any sort of fun, stealth being reduced to "I have harry potter magic cloak thtat makes me invisible every full moon and only on mondays".

 

 

NQ has the means to make stealth about both using your eyes, brains and tech. Otpics are stil usable. To detect something, you need scan resolution, to have scan resolution, you need optical enhacements. Suire they may not be giant ass telescopes, but they can be as simple as a screen being zoomed in o na ship, forthe purpose of eye-balling what kind of modules they have on them without having to rely on scans.

 

Optics have thier uses, and they are feasible. EVE does first person cscopes (yes, yes EVE has first person mode, nobody uses it ). WoW has   asimilar "remote viewing" function, with Far Sight and Setnry Totem, allowing you to proejct you POV elsewhere. And pretty much any sniper mecdhanics in recent game history, does the "fade to black" and then zooomed in POV / narrowed FOV to "enhane" your image to look as if it's scoped in with an acuta; magnification glass.

[0something0]

Well, I don't find it "fun" my enemies being able to see my base because a scanner has magical powers.

 

I don't think it's any sort of fun, stealth being reduced to "I have harry potter magic cloak thtat makes me invisible every full moon and only on mondays".

Well, in real life, in space, everyone can see everyone else! 

 

Also, as for large optical telescopes, you gotta find the objects first, and consider the narrow FOV, its going to take a while to find any given object. And the telescopes would have a max useful range of interplanetary.

[Anaximander]

Well, in real life, in space, everyone can see everyone else! 

 

Also, as for large optical telescopes, you gotta find the objects first, and consider the narrow FOV, its going to take a while to find any given object. And the telescopes would have a max useful range of interplanetary.

Hi, welcome to reality.

 

The further an object is, the more resolution you need to detect it. Our telescopes can tecet galaxies cause galaxies are not people. Ouir telescopes can detect comets cauase comets are larger than people - usually the size of Kansas give or take.

 

In the background of 3 Kelvin only if you generate heat you are being seen - and even then, it scales, you won't be detected from 50 AUs away with a LDAR i you fly a starifghter, that's not how anything works. Ther'es a thing called "diffusion" , it's the same principle behind why the sun's heat has lemted Earth over the past couple billions of years. Your starfighter, unless at a very VERY close distance, would not generate enough heat to stand out fro mthe backgroudn 3 Kevlin o na LDAR, but a battleship? Not so much, it would stand oit like a cndle.

 

EM detection, works the same way we detect metals on the ground - by magnetometry. IF you built yourship out of iron ( a very lightweight hull mateial, albeit very weak )  Again, the larger the object ,the easier to see it in EM Scan (cause that's why any form of detectino works, you need to narrwo down the scan ). If I was to park my starfighter o nan asteroid belt and had my engiens off and a miner scanned the asteroid belt, they would see " 98% iron" they would notsee "97% iron, 0.0000001% scruffy pirate ". That's called stealtth. Of course my starfighter is made out of paper, but yo ulose some, you win some. You cant' be a heavily armored rogue.

 

Mass is easily detectable by Gravitometers, and again, the smaller you rmass the easier to hide. And as for RADARS... Rdars are like a LADAR (the heat detectino) only they can be easily fooled and work via a ping system, which means light need to get sto a place and boucne back to a detector, and RADAR only can detect volume.

 

So, if I was to make a starfighter that has :

 

1) very lightweight frame.- to be not picked by Gravitometry scans

2) is made of carbon-fibers to not be detected by EM-scans

3) has sleek frame to deflect RADAR scans

4) and glided its way to a target by keeping its engines close.

 

That starfighter is, by definition, a stealth fighter.

 

Please, consult your nearest physicist or mathematician, to explain how Inverse Square Laws work. It's how everything in physics work when distancee are involved.

 

This system means that "stealth battleships" are a no-no, but then again, plate armor ninja is not a thing either. But a stealth bobmer squadron is now a thing. And the best part, no need for stupid invisibility cloaks.

[Lethys]

The further an object is, the more resolution you need to detect it. Our telescopes can tecet galaxies cause galaxies are not people. Ouir telescopes can detect comets cauase comets are larger than people - usually the size of Kansas give or take.

 

Slightly off topic here but for clarification:

The reason we can make pretty pictures of distant objects is not because of a higher resolution camera, but because of the instrument itself which is used. Deepsky photography doesn't need gigapixels or even several megapixel cameras (I in fact use a cooled 4 Megapixel CCD!) Depending on your instrument (=telescope) you want big pixel size, combined with the highest possible quantum efficiency in the spectrum for h-alpha/beta, S-II and O-III (the major ones) and a decent cooling (to decrease background noise from the CCD chip itself). Even the Hubble telescope only uses (iirc) a 1-6 megapixel camera. 

Hubbles field of View of 0,05" lets it split apart objects in the sky which have that distance to each other (1° = 60 arcminutes' = 3600 arcseconds" so that means for hubble: 1/72.000th ° in one pixel).

It completely depends on the instrument you use not on the camera resolution. Those things up there are so faint because of the distance so that you need to do 60 shots of let's say a galaxy with an exposure lenght of 10-60 minutes. Hubble's extreme deep field was a picture consisting of 23 days worth of exposures.

That's why it is so hard to detect asteroids too....

 

to be somewhat on topic:

It's a game so you have to make balancing moves. I would love to have different sensors with different ranges to detect ships/people

[Anaximander]

Slightly off topic here but for clarification:

The reason we can make pretty pictures of distant objects is not because of a higher resolution camera, but because of the instrument itself which is used. Deepsky photography doesn't need gigapixels or even several megapixel cameras (I in fact use a cooled 4 Megapixel CCD!) Depending on your instrument (=telescope) you want big pixel size, combined with the highest possible quantum efficiency in the spectrum for h-alpha/beta, S-II and O-III (the major ones) and a decent cooling (to decrease background noise from the CCD chip itself). Even the Hubble telescope only uses (iirc) a 1-6 megapixel camera. 

Hubbles field of View of 0,05' lets it split apart objects in the sky which have that distance to each other (1° = 60 arcminutes' = 3600 arcseconds" so that means for hubble: 1/72.000th ° in one pixel).

It completely depends on the instrument you use not on the camera resolution. Those things up there are so faint because of the distance so that you need to do 60 shots of let's say a galaxy with an exposure lenght of 10-60 minutes. Hubble's extreme deep field was a picture consisting of 23 days worth of exposures.

That's why it is so hard to detect asteroids too....

 

to be somewhat on topic:

It's a game so you have to make balancing moves. I would love to have different sensors with different ranges to detect ships/people

Well, yeah resolution would not be the best choice of words, but hubble telescope also uses very VERY polished and refelctive mirrors and it tkaes quite a while to probe a part of the area it looks at. If I was to parallelise what I mean ,would be with the Androemda Galaxy. Up until the 50s, it was cosnidered a nebula inside the Milky Way, but then came the advent of high-ower telescopes and it proved to be not the case.

 

Or in another example,electronic microscopes, they can probe down to a cell's strucutre or DNA, but you can't see atosm ,mwtih it, you need other methods.

 

And thats' what I mean by "resoultion" in my exmaple. How hard somethign is to detect depends on how "big" is is or how well yo ucan "see" things.

 

Thing is, NQ has ways of making all 4 major detectionmethods work with different sensors and having each tech tier provide better "readings" out of a scan, with player-training providing better results as well.

 

 

In exmaple, the  way NQ determines aerodynamic profiles can be retrofied for radars. I mean mass already exists in their physics' engine, so gravitomtery is still a possible scenario. in the GDC stream they showcased magnetomtery for finding imienrals - whiich could easily work for ships as well.. Only thing remaing is LADAR which is the heat part of the detection. The only real quesstion is if NQ wants in-depth stealth mechanics.

[0something0]

Hi, welcome to reality.

 

The further an object is, the more resolution you need to detect it. Our telescopes can tecet galaxies cause galaxies are not people. Ouir telescopes can detect comets cauase comets are larger than people - usually the size of Kansas give or take.

 

In the background of 3 Kelvin only if you generate heat you are being seen - and even then, it scales, you won't be detected from 50 AUs away with a LDAR i you fly a starifghter, that's not how anything works. Ther'es a thing called "diffusion" , it's the same principle behind why the sun's heat has lemted Earth over the past couple billions of years. Your starfighter, unless at a very VERY close distance, would not generate enough heat to stand out fro mthe backgroudn 3 Kevlin o na LDAR, but a battleship? Not so much, it would stand oit like a cndle.

 

EM detection, works the same way we detect metals on the ground - by magnetometry. IF you built yourship out of iron ( a very lightweight hull mateial, albeit very weak )  Again, the larger the object ,the easier to see it in EM Scan (cause that's why any form of detectino works, you need to narrwo down the scan ). If I was to park my starfighter o nan asteroid belt and had my engiens off and a miner scanned the asteroid belt, they would see " 98% iron" they would notsee "97% iron, 0.0000001% scruffy pirate ". That's called stealtth. Of course my starfighter is made out of paper, but yo ulose some, you win some. You cant' be a heavily armored rogue.

 

Mass is easily detectable by Gravitometers, and again, the smaller you rmass the easier to hide. And as for RADARS... Rdars are like a LADAR (the heat detectino) only they can be easily fooled and work via a ping system, which means light need to get sto a place and boucne back to a detector, and RADAR only can detect volume.

 

So, if I was to make a starfighter that has :

 

1) very lightweight frame.- to be not picked by Gravitometry scans

2) is made of carbon-fibers to not be detected by EM-scans

3) has sleek frame to deflect RADAR scans

4) and glided its way to a target by keeping its engines close.

 

That starfighter is, by definition, a stealth fighter.

 

Please, consult your nearest physicist or mathematician, to explain how Inverse Square Laws work. It's how everything in physics work when distancee are involved.

 

This system means that "stealth battleships" are a no-no, but then again, plate armor ninja is not a thing either. But a stealth bobmer squadron is now a thing. And the best part, no need for stupid invisibility cloaks.

You got the whole thing about 3kelvin background right. Except that you see, you generate heat, and quite lots of it. There is also the problem that space is a vaccum, so, the only way to get rid of your heat is with a rather large radiator that can be seen across the solar system! And that doesn't consider any other systems including the reactor/engine!

 

Read more at http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacewardetect.php

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StealthInSpace(go down and lclick on the Real Life section)

 

but back on topic, what about the optical technology for spying?

[Anaximander]

You got the whole thing about 3kelvin background right. Except that you see, you generate heat, and quite lots of it. There is also the problem that space is a vaccum, so, the only way to get rid of your heat is with a rather large radiator that can be seen across the solar system! And that doesn't consider any other systems including the reactor/engine!

 

Read more at http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacewardetect.php

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StealthInSpace(go down and lclick on the Real Life section)

 

but back on topic, what about the optical technology for spying?

Unless you can see a 2 meters (at best) heat signature from 20 AUs, I guess it doesn't matter.

 

Inverse Square Law says a detection range depends on the distance between you and the object. Also, heat-sinks can work, sure the ship may get a bit hot on the inside (as heat can't escape, hence it builds up) but then again, it's a hazard real life stealth bomber pilots have to go through with radars waves when trapping them inside the craft's hull. Wear a suit meant to shield you from heat, plaents in DU hav temeepratures and atmoshperic densities, so a suit meant for a hot planet, si a suit meant for a stealth fighter.

 

I never said you will be "invisible", I only said depending on your size your detection range is reduced. Your 309 Kevlin average body temperature, means notihng, when it's concentrated at a 1,7 meters height (on average). Diffraction will make your Infrared signature impossible to detect, and like IRL stealth craft, your detection hinges on how much oa distance you keep from detectio nmethods.  Also, ventiblack materials CAN work this way. Large bodies or minor asteroids can be seen, cause they are metallic and reflect a lot of light that way. A graphine based starifghter hull, paitned with ventiblack, would be nigh impossible to be detected. 

 

A person would have to be very near you to see you, and I mean like 300 meters near, if you are in a starfighter (size of a modern day stealth fighter) that is engaged, let alone being able to even see you if you have turned off all your systems, they would have to be like 50 meters from you to detect you. 

 

Also, your body heat doesn't mean much if you are wearing an insolated suit. Those astronauts on EVA? Yeah, if they leaked heat they would pop that suit easily, believe it or not, if you reduce the pressure inside a suit, a human can easily operate in lower body temperatures - which is also what Extravehicular Mobility Units do for astronauts on EVA. It's also one of the reasons deep-sea divers have to go into decrompression after beign under the sea for long periods.

 

Again, this kind of "deep stealth" only works by keeping your distance, it's a mitigation, not elimination of detection and it only works for fighters or small troop transports. A battleship has NO REAL MEANS of stealth, aside from staying behind an asteroid and hopefully not being picekd up.

[Lethys]

but back on topic, what about the optical technology for spying?

 

You certainly can't argue with science here because you'd be limited by many factors (like Nyquist criteria, FWHM/HFD in the atmosphere, among others).

So I'm all in for sensors (different types) to detect different aspects of a construct like heat, mass, energy, silhouette,...stuff like that.

[0something0]

You certainly can't argue with science here because you'd be limited by many factors (like Nyquist criteria, FWHM/HFD in the atmosphere, among others).

So I'm all in for sensors (different types) to detect different aspects of a construct like heat, mass, energy, silhouette,...stuff like that.

Well, duh, that is why there are space-based telescopes. Also, what about planetwide radar? Modern radio telescopes can link together to increase the "lens" size up to planet-side scales. I think it would be a good idea to use it to aid guarding an entire planet.

[Anaximander]

Well, duh, that is why there are space-based telescopes. Also, what about planetwide radar? Modern radio telescopes can link together to increase the "lens" size up to planet-side scales. I think it would be a good idea to use it to aid guarding an entire planet.

Yeah, that is acceptable. Having a greater "sensor strength" via net-working them to probe a certain area of the sky (like the area people could be coming out of warp if they were crazy enough to travel without taking a stargate to attack a system) that's totally fair and acceptalb.e

 

The idea is not make stealth for SHIPS a thing.

 

Rdars? Radars can work easily, NQ has aerodynamic profiles coded, theyo nly need to adapt Aerodynamic Profile Values + material type and paint job (yes, paintjobs matter for stealth, but it's not the core feature), which could bring upa factor of "how close you need to be to a radar to be detected".

 

It's the same inverse square law, the paint + ship shape only affects your "size" on the radar, wihch in turn decreases the range in which the radar would pick you up.

[Lethys]

Well, duh, that is why there are space-based telescopes. Also, what about planetwide radar? Modern radio telescopes can link together to increase the "lens" size up to planet-side scales. I think it would be a good idea to use it to aid guarding an entire planet.

Space based telescopes have their own issues...nyquist still applies, angular resolution, optical issues, cooling, shutter issues, CCD issues... optical sensors aren't the way to go. For close distance, sure why not. But for longer ranges you'd need other ways to determine if somebody's there. Linking radar would be nice, they already have the basics as we seen in the last devdiary

[0something0]

Space based telescopes have their own issues...nyquist still applies, angular resolution, optical issues, cooling, shutter issues, CCD issues... optical sensors aren't the way to go. For close distance, sure why not. But for longer ranges you'd need other ways to determine if somebody's there. Linking radar would be nice, they already have the basics as we seen in the last devdiary

Hold on, umm, I don't know much about optics but I hear about possibly building a HUGE telescope on the moon.  I think that sort of things, if done right, would have useful military applications in interplanetary distances. But then again, what do I know?

[Anaximander]

Hold on, umm, I don't know much about optics but I hear about possibly building a HUGE telescope on the moon.  I think that sort of things, if done right, would have useful military applications in interplanetary distances. But then again, what do I know?

The FAST (that's the acronym ) radiotelescope in China is able to course-correct its apparatus, it's the main reason it's favoured along with RATAN in Russia for pulsar measurements, as the nyquist effect can REALLY throw off calculations when it comes to a pulsar - which the apparatus can course-correct i nreal -time due to being hooked up to a comptuer that acts as an anti-aliasing medium - yes, anti-aliasing is not something GPU companies invented.

 

Howver, FAST is just a huge ass RADIO-dish, able to absorb radiowaves emited from distant ENORMOUS objects, like nebulas (which is hydrgoen undergoing slow fusion) or pulsars. A 50 meters long frigate is not a pulsar, nor a nebula in space. It would be drowned in the cosmic background if FAST or RATAN was to look at them. And Hubble just won't see a small thing like a 50 meters frigate - periood. They nyquist effect, even when cours-e-corrected, would not help the FAST Radiotelescope into picking up a frigate, not before it was close to Earth and I mean as close as the Moon.

 

If FASt, a 500 meters diameter radiotelescope can't see something, you can bet Hubble can't either. Nor a moon-based telescope..Building a telescope on the moon, has the same reasoning as building a laser cannon on the moon. I mean cool, but, why?

[Lethys]

Hold on, umm, I don't know much about optics but I hear about possibly building a HUGE telescope on the moon. I think that sort of things, if done right, would have useful military applications in interplanetary distances. But then again, what do I know?

Well, you can't just simply send some polished mirrors there. Each mirror needs to be manufactured with accuracy and precision and due to the weight, your limited because of bending. On the moon it would be far better than on earth but again: the OTA (optical tube assembly) of a telescope is only one part. Ccds have issues on their own (noise currents, mechanical shutters and so on).

And the resolution isn't that good. Hubble would be able to see 30cm objects on earth, if there was no atmosphere. With atmosphere it's bloated to about 1,5m. When looking at the moon (which is dangerous - too bright) it could see objects of about 100m - not even the spacecrafts which landed there. And the moon is only 400k km away....

 

So optics are pretty bad IRL to spot someone and to me in DU it should be too. So linking radar, ladar and gravimetric would be nice - to get bonuses on range, resolution, accuracy and time needed. Or something

[Sunrider44]

Optics have not the same purpose than radars u_u. Intel use it to survey ground locations or estimate enemy motorized forces number... 1m focus is sufficient, and military stuff is more precise.

 

Hubble is only famous, it's not cut edge technology anymore. Even if it remains useful of course.

 

In DU the point is the 3D optimization: the game make the background "blurry", as the 3D shapes becoming more simple along the distance.

 

Optics don't really make sense...

 

I suppose it's possible to find out a trick and make it functional, so the question is: could it be useful?

 

Maybe, considering that it could push people to get wide range strategy system to prevent orbital spies...It could be a piece of a detecor array?

 

Or, an optical detector could be used to scan a planet or moon to find a good landing zone, or a new settlement location.

[Anaximander]

Optics have not the same purpose than radars u_u. Intel use it to survey ground locations or estimate enemy motorized forces number... 1m focus is sufficient, and military stuff is more precise.

 

Hubble is only famous, it's not cut edge technology anymore. Even if it remains useful of course.

 

In DU the point is the 3D optimization: the game make the background "blurry", as the 3D shapes becoming more simple along the distance.

 

Optics don't really make sense...

 

I suppose it's possible to find out a trick and make it functional, so the question is: could it be useful?

 

Maybe, considering that it could push people to get wide range strategy system to prevent orbital spies...It could be a piece of a detecor array?

 

Or, an optical detector could be used to scan a planet or moon to find a good landing zone, or a new settlement location.

An infra-red scope is still an optical method of observation, despite it only seeing a small spectrum of light - which you are eyes, AKA, Optic Mark-1, can't see. So yeah, radiotelescopes are telescopes that receive radio-waves, which are a spectrum of light emitted by certain ojects , although of a denser wavelegth, which makes them great at bouncing off of any surface, without sipping in (depending on their frequency).

 

A radar is nothing but a spinning radio-telescope - which it doesn't even have to look really far, oompared to ACTUAL radiotelescopes.

 

DU's LOD tech (the "blurry" thing you speak of? That's called LOD as a technical feature), can be sidestepped by the same way sniper scopes work in game. There's a reason sniper rifles fade to black when you zoom in. It's to hide the transition of your POV being projected ahead and your FOV being changed to very small degrees, so the LOD (the blurriness) increases, as your distance to the object as of POV decreases.

 

So, if you see soemthing in the sky that looks oddly suspicious, you CAN zoom in annd the game will enhance the resolution to meet your new Distance and FOV off of it, which would help you recongise an object with a really powerful telescope (but only in space), which would only last as long as you "zoom-in" a certain part of the sky.

 

So yeah, telescopes - of any kind - can work just fine in DU, especially radio-telescopes. Thing is, only radio-telescopes cna be workd for defense purposes, cause they are FOCUSED RADARS if they need do. YOu could detect a person and then "zoom-in" on that person's part of the image on the sky, with the game amplifying their resolution to fit your new FOV.

 

Gravitometers outside microgravity, don't really work - like a radar won't work if you flash a dense radio-wave onto it - which is what JAMMING A RADAR is. LADAR (a wide-spectrum light receiver) can only work in vacuum as well, as it's VERY impossible to make sense of the Doppler effect through an atmosphere - which radiotelescopes have no issue with, since they are not full light spectrum telescopes.

 

And all of these, can be coded into DU to work with the Inverse Square Law, which more or less dictates that the size of an object determiens how fvisible it can be at a certain distance. Now reduce the objects observational potential with special materials and / or by celver design and skill on the operator's hand and yo ugot stealth. NQ has already coded in Aerodynamic Profiles, which can be retrofitted for radar detection. Add in paints that add more "radar detection factor" and or materials that can absorb radar waves (like actual stealth craft of this day) and you got yourself a neat mechanism.

 

Heat? That's easy, have objects like machinery contribute to a ship's heat "attribute" when online.

 

 Magnetometery? A ship's materials determine that. If you got a plastic ship, you don't got to fear of being detected, although you shou;dn't pic ka fight either.

 

Gravitometry? It detects masses, so as long as you are under a certain mass or move below a certain speed depending on your weight and distance from the gravitometer. And NQ has already coded in momentum and inertia, so... yeah, theyh can totally implement this, especially when Warp, by default, is a thing that can generate a lot of Gs upon collapsing a warp bubble.

 

 If you find the mechnaincs of this challenging, it's okay, everything takes time to learn. As JC said many times "DU is about being beatutifully complex."

 

So yeah, Radiotelescopes or "focusd Radar dishes" are the best way for a planet to set up defenses. Anything else = orbital station that acts as a watchtower - or a space lighthouse for that matter.

 

Anything other than those, are impossible to work on a planet, which is why Hubble is still used for LADAR purposes, but doesn't excel whne it coems to what the FAST radiotelescope can probe into due to its 500 meters diameter of a dish.

[0something0]

So optics are pretty bad IRL to spot someone and to me in DU it should be too. So linking radar, ladar and gravimetric would be nice - to get bonuses on range, resolution, accuracy and time needed. Or something

But what about infrared and other electromagnectic spectrum? Because most ships will glow in infrared like crazy(not everyone has a stealth fighter), and have radio chatter, etc, which technically are still "optical".  Also, then what about short-range optics for planetary surface usage, like for stalking other people.

[Anaximander]

But what about infrared and other electromagnectic spectrum? Because most ships will glow in infrared like crazy(not everyone has a stealth fighter), and have radio chatter, etc, which technically are still "optical".  Also, then what about short-range optics for planetary surface usage, like for stalking other people.

I thnk I explaiend all your concerns in my response to Sunrider.

 

Sceience dictates that an atmosphere interferres with Infrared scans (from planet to space) except ifenormous obejcts are involved.

 

Having a planet-based LADAR (heat detection) instrument on a planet would make sas much sense as having nightvision goggles on at the beach. Those thigns are for out oside the atmoshpere.

 

But even then, proximity matters. You COULD set a LADAR detection satellite in orbit which you could control remotely to "check" for udpates (or even have it automatically update a screen in-game every so often). So, let's say you DO notice an obejct i nthe sky, right? Doppler effect dicates that if it's getting "bluer", the object gets closer to you, the "reder" it gets, the further it gets. So ,yyour sateliite (provided it has power going, wwhich means space maintenance workers resupplying batteries or fixing solar panels) let's you know "hey, we detected a ship. You then click o nthe ship and the LADAR sensor lets you know how far the ship is (which could mean how OLD the picture you detected is, remember the game has delayed udpates depedning on distance, so lightspeed delay of information emulation is a thing)  You then enhance the iamge of the detected obejct and then probe it further to see what kind of ship it is. If yo ugot skills traiend, you'll be able to do this faser - or at all.

 

You COULD set up a magnetometer on the same satellite (essentially a very VERY powerful metal detector) to pick up objects, but then you have the issue that people may "confuse" your scannings by havign ships made of iron or steelm so your readouts on an iron-rich asteroid (which they are) would be, for a part of the space you probe, something like "74% iron, 21% carbon, 5% Miscelaneous" The Magnetoemters cannot detect the rum in the pirate me, to let you know "yo, this asteroid here? Yeah, it has a pirate and he been sipping space-rum". But if you had mineed ALL asteroid in a system, and you saw "0.5% iron" you'd be like "...wait a minute, there should not be iron there... at ALL". 

 

You COULD also equip a gravitometer on the satellite (wich at this point is quite big I'd say), which can detect things tht move fast, or thigns that are massive. No seriosuly, it's that simple. Take a gyroscope, load it on a LADAR, boom, you got a thing that can detect Black Holes.

 

And RADAR is fundamentally slow. It works with a ping and pong system, you sent a ping, you receive a ping, and you triangulate a shape or location of an object if you can't tell the shape. 

 

It's an all around balanced system and most importantly, it's realistic and gives a lot of ways to be stealthy without being forced into "here's a magical cloak Harry, now go fly a spaceship with that cloak".

 

Ass for planet optics, that's the same as in any game with LOD. The game projects forward your POV, narrows your FOV and you get a "better quality" image of an area. It's a neat-trick. And it can be used in DU. In fact ,the same idea is whatI explaiend to Sunrider, increasing LOD quality i na smaller part of the screen and zooming into it, is NOT an alien concept, if you used any sniper rifle in any shooter game, you know how this works. 

 

Of course, if people are out of your rendering range you may not even see them until you "zoom-in", but hey, that's a compromise I guess. You couldn't see a person with a naked eye at 1 klik distance, so, why would you be able to do so in-game, without the use of binoculars.

 

 

However, this may actually lead to things like "thermal sights" or "IR Goggles" that players can equiip, for night-time warfare on planets... or dark space,. Lte's just say, the Inverse Square Law in Dark Space, REALLY puts a lot of emphasis on DARK space. And in ground combat, active-camoufalge ( "invisibility" cloak ) could actually work... unless the enemy uses Thermal Sights or IR Goggles. Then you are toast,  cloak or not.

 

[0something0]

The FAST (that's the acronym ) radiotelescope in China is able to course-correct its apparatus, it's the main reason it's favoured along with RATAN in Russia for pulsar measurements, as the nyquist effect can REALLY throw off calculations when it comes to a pulsar - which the apparatus can course-correct i nreal -time due to being hooked up to a comptuer that acts as an anti-aliasing medium - yes, anti-aliasing is not something GPU companies invented.

 

Howver, FAST is just a huge ass RADIO-dish, able to absorb radiowaves emited from distant ENORMOUS objects, like nebulas (which is hydrgoen undergoing slow fusion) or pulsars. A 50 meters long frigate is not a pulsar, nor a nebula in space. It would be drowned in the cosmic background if FAST or RATAN was to look at them. And Hubble just won't see a small thing like a 50 meters frigate - periood. They nyquist effect, even when cours-e-corrected, would not help the FAST Radiotelescope into picking up a frigate, not before it was close to Earth and I mean as close as the Moon.

 

If FASt, a 500 meters diameter radiotelescope can't see something, you can bet Hubble can't either. Nor a moon-based telescope..Building a telescope on the moon, has the same reasoning as building a laser cannon on the moon. I mean cool, but, why?

Well, a frigate will be emitting quite a lot of radio waves if it has active radar or comms on. Basically a fleshlight. In fact, Radar is basically waving a flashlight and hoping the sensor will catch something. Also, a 50 meter frigate will be a lot closer, Hubble sees in the infarred/visible light spectrum, and lower-grav vaccum bodies will allow(like the Moon)will allow telescopes of MASSIVE size to be built. 

 

Also, I thought I posted something about short-range telescopes for use in the kilometers range?