Jump to content

NQ can you provide background for the brake changes?


LordVlad
 Share

Recommended Posts

1. If your goal is to reduce element lag by reducing the number of brakes on a construct I can understand that. Just increase the braking power of brakes and we will remove them.

2. If your goal is to reduce the amount of ore and packages hauled by ships to extend end game progression, all this will do is cause square ships to be made reducing the aesthetic of the game. This will also impact the payout of PVP. Big haulers with lots of ore or packages make worthwhile PVP targets. Making the targets less worth while will just reduce PVP payout and hurt a much needed dynamic and resource cycle in the game.  Also some NQ sold ships have stacked brakes.

I would love to know which of these cases you are moving towards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In addition to the excellent points made by LordVlad, this change as it's currently on PTS will not only render a vast majority of ships useless, but it unfairly punishes those that created their ships with the proper obstruction placement as currently on the live server. Please see the image below that demonstrates the radical change in the airflow from front-to-back to sides-top.

 

brakecomparision.thumb.jpg.2c9bea953fa9dfa6cc6d2f784dec7d9e.jpg

 

 

brakecomparision2.thumb.jpg.41a71cf94cb1d4166e149767add81f85.jpg

 

Even the DU shipbuilders are confused about the intended airflow obstruction changes. Several of the MK2 editions have the top of the atmospheric brake blocked. Please see the four examples below.

 

1547951399_UEFBrankeExample1.thumb.jpg.8db00335877afcda43f7d3a479842060.jpg

 

619391534_UEFBrankeExample2.thumb.jpg.addb6b32cc895b08376af16fbfe9cf54.jpg

 

2123925367_UEFBrankeExample3.thumb.jpg.73952a435a8cfd81c373b16fa4edd7b7.jpg

 

1928707159_UEFBrankeExample4.thumb.jpg.ea9a9f3bca88d4245671f9cbd7583c57.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brakes having obstruction makes sense.  All the other functional elements have it.  What doesn't make sense is atmo brakes not having obstruction all this time and then deciding to change it without telling us anything.

 

I'm hoping NQ takes their time with this change and makes sure it works before they implement it.

 

And I would really like to see some improvements to how obstruction works before they mess with the brakes.

 

Right now it's pretty frustrating trying to figure out if an element is obstructed, and if it is, why.

 

When it says an element is obstructed 10%, does that mean it's obstructed 10%, 100% of the time?  Or that it's obstructed 100%, 10% of the time? Seriously though if an element is obstructed it should show as obstructed all the time.  

 

Why does the little fan icon turn on and off constantly??? it's driving me nuts.

 

We need a system that shows you exactly what the size and shape of the obstruction cone is, so we know what is causing the obstruction, and we need a clear indicator whether an element is obstructed or not.  I shouldn't have to wait 20mins for the little fan icon to blink once for exactly 2 seconds, to know an element is still obstructed at 5%.   That's insane. 

 

NQ please consider fixing obstruction first, and then do the brakes.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Atmosph3rik said:

Right now it's pretty frustrating trying to figure out if an element is obstructed, and if it is, why.

I don't know how to predict what will be obstructed (and by what), and how much obstruction will be seen (and perhaps when).  A Devblog that describes what can generate obstruction, under what conditions, and what will alleviate the problem in somewhat quantitative terms would be appreciated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, LordVlad said:

1. If your goal is to reduce element lag by reducing the number of brakes on a construct I can understand that. Just increase the braking power of brakes and we will remove them.

2. If your goal is to reduce the amount of ore and packages hauled by ships to extend end game progression, all this will do is cause square ships to be made reducing the aesthetic of the game. This will also impact the payout of PVP. Big haulers with lots of ore or packages make worthwhile PVP targets. Making the targets less worth while will just reduce PVP payout and hurt a much needed dynamic and resource cycle in the game.  Also some NQ sold ships have stacked brakes.

I would love to know which of these cases you are moving towards.

If they just increase the power of brakes, people will keep using the same amount of brakes and just build even bigger ships. The same thing happened with rare military engines; it didn't stop engine walls, it just made them stronger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Nayropux said:

If they just increase the power of brakes, people will keep using the same amount of brakes and just build even bigger ships. The same thing happened with rare military engines; it didn't stop engine walls, it just made them stronger.

 

Ditch Atmo brakes. Make an AGG Brake Generator. Then set it so that you can use a max of 1 per XS Core, 4 for S Core, 8 for M Core and 16 for L Core.
This way, you cannot keep slapping more and more Brake Generators for heavier ships. There is a limit, so for the L-Core ships you can have a max of 16 Brake Generators which you also don't have to stick on the outside, but anywhere inside (since they work as an AGG, so they create a "brake bubble" around the ship).
So, if 1 Brake Generator generates say 10MN, then 16 of them, which is a max you can have on an L Core, will generate a max of 160MN - and that's it - this way you cannot keep making the ship heavier and heavier because at one point it will simply not be able to brake in the atmosphere. 
The same goes for Engines, Wings, Ailerons, etc - get rid of the 19th Century technology - and use some Electromagnetic Engines or the like which make it possible (like the AGG) for the ship to float and fly based on the power of the ELMAG Engines. The same here with the limitation per Core.
So, again, you cannot just keep slapping engine walls to the ship - but you have a max of ELMAG Engines you can have on a particular core size - and that's it.

As I pointed out in several posts already - this would make it possible to build actual, era-appropriate, beautiful sci-fi ships with real sci-fi looks and not have to plaster them with engines, wings and brakes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Nayropux said:

If they just increase the power of brakes, people will keep using the same amount of brakes and just build even bigger ships. The same thing happened with rare military engines; it didn't stop engine walls, it just made them stronger.

 

They're not going to stop players from adding the elements. It will only drive people to make even more ridiculous looking ships. If this goes live, the next meta will be a giant box with atmo brakes on three sides. If they find a happy medium, then people will continue to make visually appealing ships. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my mind, this is the way the thrust vector obstruction should be, assuming that there will be an animation for brakes. I used two brakes to show how one brake might be in the activated state. They just need to have the brakes activated in build mode to check for collision.

 

 

LAB.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brakes should obstruct like any other element.
Brakes do not add to the active element number bug, only engines (and ground engines when close to ground) and aerofoils do.
The current arrows on the live server are pointing the wrong direction, for the M brake it even points sideways.

IF they used the obstruction direction indicated by the current live server arrows, people could just stack them on top of each other in some room in the ship, like now, but pointing the arrows outwards through the wall, sideways or upwards. Which is bullshit. So the new direction makes sense, and also means it is futureproof for when they add the animation.

So the changes, imho, make sense, I do agree though they could have announced it earlier, or when putting it on the testserver already told us "we plan to give you at least X weeks time before this hits live server, if at all".

Regarding ship size, the amount needed to land a ship of any size and mass is the same as before, 0. You just need your silly amounts if you want to be able to almost stop in midair while freefalling. The moment you realize that your hybrid ship is a space-ship in space, and an air-craft in atmo, you can sail like an aircraft and land like one, brakes just reduce the roll out needed.

How does obstruction work? Likely as follows:
From the middle of the yellow circle you see, the game decides on a random direction within a ~40° cone. If there is an obstacle in that direction it counts as one obstructed direction, if not, not. Repeat every few seconds. Remember last 20 results. 
Obstruction percentage = (amount of obstructed directions X 5) %
This explains why obstruction depends on collision detection, why it fluctuates, and why you often see elements either deep red or not red at all the moment you enter build mode, and it becomes a bit more "nuance" after a while.

This is NOT something that was officially said somewhere, it is just my guess. My model if you will, which works better than any other model I head of so far though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

46 minutes ago, Gottchar said:

Brakes should obstruct like any other element.
Brakes do not add to the active element number bug, only engines (and ground engines when close to ground) and aerofoils do.
The current arrows on the live server are pointing the wrong direction, for the M brake it even points sideways.

IF they used the obstruction direction indicated by the current live server arrows, people could just stack them on top of each other in some room in the ship, like now, but pointing the arrows outwards through the wall, sideways or upwards. Which is bullshit. So the new direction makes sense, and also means it is futureproof for when they add the animation.

So the changes, imho, make sense, I do agree though they could have announced it earlier, or when putting it on the testserver already told us "we plan to give you at least X weeks time before this hits live server, if at all".

Regarding ship size, the amount needed to land a ship of any size and mass is the same as before, 0. You just need your silly amounts if you want to be able to almost stop in midair while freefalling. The moment you realize that your hybrid ship is a space-ship in space, and an air-craft in atmo, you can sail like an aircraft and land like one, brakes just reduce the roll out needed.

How does obstruction work? Likely as follows:
From the middle of the yellow circle you see, the game decides on a random direction within a ~40° cone. If there is an obstacle in that direction it counts as one obstructed direction, if not, not. Repeat every few seconds. Remember last 20 results. 
Obstruction percentage = (amount of obstructed directions X 5) %
This explains why obstruction depends on collision detection, why it fluctuates, and why you often see elements either deep red or not red at all the moment you enter build mode, and it becomes a bit more "nuance" after a while.

This is NOT something that was officially said somewhere, it is just my guess. My model if you will, which works better than any other model I head of so far though.

 

Why SHOULD brakes be obstructed?

Just tell me WHY it SHOULD. Because there is no reason that it SHOULD. 

The are not obstructed now are they, so why is it so important that they must be obstructed?

Tell me why you so deeply want this feature. I cant think of anyone who wanted to quit this game because the brakes were not visible.

 

And some people going for that 'more realistic' dont know what they are saying... Going into space after 3400m up in the air? Being 10000 yrs into the future? Having a nanocrafter in your pocket? Ditch that realistic thing please!

 

There is no should, the devs can decide for themselves if its obstructed, how powerful they are, or how big etc. This is their world where they decide the rules. There is absolutely no reason that it SHOULD be this or that. Its just something that they decided to implement now of a sudden and Im wondering what they hope to achieve with this change?

Its not like, more people will come to this game because the brakes are outside of your ship like it SHOULD be...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sabretooth said:

And some people going for that 'more realistic' dont know what they are saying... Going into space after 3400m up in the air? Being 10000 yrs into the future? Having a nanocrafter in your pocket? Ditch that realistic thing please!

While I do agree that we should have something more "futuristic" than modern airplane mechanics, if you want to use that logic, why have ships at all, we have teleporters.

 

Quote

There is no should, the devs can decide for themselves if its obstructed, how powerful they are, or how big etc. This is their world where they decide the rules.

They can, and have decided.

 

 

For me, I play the game for the challenge of achieving a goal within a set of limitations. As long as the limitations are reasonable to me, and the current ones are, I'm ok with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This problem is kinda complex.

 

From one side the so called "air" brakes are a joke, with unrealistic performance that totally disregard any known aerodynamics.

 

But.. On the other side we need such brakes to be able to land on markets etc.

It does not matter how good you are at performing a realistic gliding approach, when your landing spot on the pad that looks totally clear one minute. Now suddenly renders in some construct out of nowhere, and all you can do is hope and pray for the best.

 

So with the game LOD performing the way it does, we need the ability to slowly drop down from the sky. Regardless of how much of a cheat it may or may not be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Rahzig said:

While I do agree that we should have something more "futuristic" than modern airplane mechanics, if you want to use that logic, why have ships at all, we have teleporters.

 

I do not understand your reply, this is a fantasy world. There are teleporters in this game.

The logic is that the cry for realistic builds is absurd

25 minutes ago, Rahzig said:

They can, and have decided.

 

Yes, they did, and so it makes my point. There is nothing that SHOULD be done. They just do it or dont.

 

 

If you want to play the game like this, go ahead. Its normal that people have different opinions.

The brake change is just not my cup of tea. NQ can decide whatever they want, but people stating that it SHOULD happen is something I do not agree with.

 

I am no fan of all these element that must be placed on the outside of your ship. Even in Space Engineers the engines could be placed inside your builds to make them look "better".

Im more of a fan of the 'Avorion' approach: thrusters, engines and brakes (inertia dampeners) cannot be blocked by voxels at all!

 

But, to be honest, when I go to DU Creators and I see all them ugly engine walls on L and M cores, entire sides covered up with retro brakes and the ship still get 15 thumbs up.. I just shake my head. So I have a very different view on what is to be considered a beautiful build. But hey, we are all different peoples.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They need to do the obstruction pass to everything at the same time. Not this willy nilly one at a time when we see an issue mess. If we follow this as a guide wings will be coming and look how many of those are stuck inside ships as of now with no way for air to pass over them. among other issues. 

 

This issue for me should all be addressed in a future pass where all flight mechanics are looked at as a whole. This whole thing could be solved with power management. Which needs to be done before release. So we can scrap all the ships we've made so far because they ALL will need reworks.

 

The element lag issue could be solved at the same time by adding XL atmo engines (which are close, I saw the schematics when you messed up and dropped them on the live server the first day of .23, and they have dispensers in the tower already.  And adding L wings, which cant be that hard if you are creating whole minigames for mining.

 

We were asked about this in a devblog 6 months ago about balance. I made this assessment then and it still stands. What's taking so long? 6 months to create 2 elements that would help server stress and help builders eliminate the walls of engines and super high airfoil counts. Guess I just can't get my head around this whole thing.

 

Seems like someone is a little too happy with their box of band-aids.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/6/2021 at 2:08 PM, CMDRTaco said:

In addition to the excellent points made by LordVlad, this change as it's currently on PTS will not only render a vast majority of ships useless,

"Vast majority", where is your proof of this?

This isnt going to effect any of our ships (as long as they sort the direction of resistance out, that MUST be a mistake lol), nor is the stacking fix?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Gottchar said:

Regarding ship size, the amount needed to land a ship of any size and mass is the same as before, 0. You just need your silly amounts if you want to be able to almost stop in midair while freefalling. The moment you realize that your hybrid ship is a space-ship in space, and an air-craft in atmo, you can sail like an aircraft and land like one, brakes just reduce the roll out needed.

And use all those handy, long runways next to the markets rather than landing on or next to the small pads which only work for vertical landings?  It's lucky the land around all the markets is flat and not littered with random constructs which don't render until you get really close to them or sail-landing would be frustrating and completely impractical most of the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sabretooth said:

 

Yes, they did, and so it makes my point. There is nothing that SHOULD be done. They just do it or dont.

I believe that the pts obstruction on brakes is for clearance for an upcoming animation.  The reason I said the way the brakes "should" work is because when they add the animation, I don't want them to change the obstruction direction again. But I am just guessing what they are planning.  I don't want them to change brakes now, only to change them again later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/6/2021 at 9:45 PM, sHuRuLuNi said:

 

Ditch Atmo brakes. Make an AGG Brake Generator. Then set it so that you can use a max of 1 per XS Core, 4 for S Core, 8 for M Core and 16 for L Core.
This way, you cannot keep slapping more and more Brake Generators for heavier ships. There is a limit, so for the L-Core ships you can have a max of 16 Brake Generators which you also don't have to stick on the outside, but anywhere inside (since they work as an AGG, so they create a "brake bubble" around the ship).
So, if 1 Brake Generator generates say 10MN, then 16 of them, which is a max you can have on an L Core, will generate a max of 160MN - and that's it - this way you cannot keep making the ship heavier and heavier because at one point it will simply not be able to brake in the atmosphere. 
The same goes for Engines, Wings, Ailerons, etc - get rid of the 19th Century technology - and use some Electromagnetic Engines or the like which make it possible (like the AGG) for the ship to float and fly based on the power of the ELMAG Engines. The same here with the limitation per Core.
So, again, you cannot just keep slapping engine walls to the ship - but you have a max of ELMAG Engines you can have on a particular core size - and that's it.

As I pointed out in several posts already - this would make it possible to build actual, era-appropriate, beautiful sci-fi ships with real sci-fi looks and not have to plaster them with engines, wings and brakes.

 

This has my vote..

I would love to have this sort of elements.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/6/2021 at 4:45 PM, sHuRuLuNi said:

 

Ditch Atmo brakes. Make an AGG Brake Generator. Then set it so that you can use a max of 1 per XS Core, 4 for S Core, 8 for M Core and 16 for L Core.
This way, you cannot keep slapping more and more Brake Generators for heavier ships. There is a limit, so for the L-Core ships you can have a max of 16 Brake Generators which you also don't have to stick on the outside, but anywhere inside (since they work as an AGG, so they create a "brake bubble" around the ship).
So, if 1 Brake Generator generates say 10MN, then 16 of them, which is a max you can have on an L Core, will generate a max of 160MN - and that's it - this way you cannot keep making the ship heavier and heavier because at one point it will simply not be able to brake in the atmosphere. 
The same goes for Engines, Wings, Ailerons, etc - get rid of the 19th Century technology - and use some Electromagnetic Engines or the like which make it possible (like the AGG) for the ship to float and fly based on the power of the ELMAG Engines. The same here with the limitation per Core.
So, again, you cannot just keep slapping engine walls to the ship - but you have a max of ELMAG Engines you can have on a particular core size - and that's it.

As I pointed out in several posts already - this would make it possible to build actual, era-appropriate, beautiful sci-fi ships with real sci-fi looks and not have to plaster them with engines, wings and brakes.

 

 

I agree an element like this is needed, but I don't think it should completely replace wings, engines, and Ailerons. Those elements should stay in for smaller ships and an AGG brake generator can be a more expensive option for larger ships. NQ will need to address the element lag at some point in the near future, so one element like this replacing hundreds of wings and brakes could drastically reduce element lag.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hydraulic jacks are already installed in the brakes.
So sooner or later there will be an animation for this.
If I go by the hydraulic bearings in the Airbrake L, the flap will open as in the following picture.

 

It becomes interesting when the airbrakes have to be aligned in the direction of movement to be effective.

inside_airbrake.png

 

open_airbrake.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Maxim Kammerer said:

 

You mean no entry level ships anymore? That sounds like the most effective way to discriminate agains new players.

 

Nah, they could have the very small ones for the very small hovercrafts etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, sHuRuLuNi said:

 

Nah, they could have the very small ones for the very small hovercrafts etc.

And than stuck with XS ships? Either it is to long ago for you to remember how to start this game and to work your way up to the first AGG ship or you just want to defend your endgame position from newcomers. You should keep in mind that there will be no endgame without a game and that there will be no game without new players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/6/2021 at 2:45 PM, sHuRuLuNi said:

 

Ditch Atmo brakes. Make an AGG Brake Generator. Then set it so that you can use a max of 1 per XS Core, 4 for S Core, 8 for M Core and 16 for L Core.
This way, you cannot keep slapping more and more Brake Generators for heavier ships. There is a limit, so for the L-Core ships you can have a max of 16 Brake Generators which you also don't have to stick on the outside, but anywhere inside (since they work as an AGG, so they create a "brake bubble" around the ship).
So, if 1 Brake Generator generates say 10MN, then 16 of them, which is a max you can have on an L Core, will generate a max of 160MN - and that's it - this way you cannot keep making the ship heavier and heavier because at one point it will simply not be able to brake in the atmosphere. 
The same goes for Engines, Wings, Ailerons, etc - get rid of the 19th Century technology - and use some Electromagnetic Engines or the like which make it possible (like the AGG) for the ship to float and fly based on the power of the ELMAG Engines. The same here with the limitation per Core.
So, again, you cannot just keep slapping engine walls to the ship - but you have a max of ELMAG Engines you can have on a particular core size - and that's it.

As I pointed out in several posts already - this would make it possible to build actual, era-appropriate, beautiful sci-fi ships with real sci-fi looks and not have to plaster them with engines, wings and brakes.

I strongly disagree that elements with per element limits like this should exist. The building in this game is already incredibly shallow, and this will just make it worse. I would like to see more interesting limitations a issues to design around. As it stands, there is very little that goes into engineering a ship, and a change like this will only make that worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We should keep in mind that it's a game.

A game is by definition not realistic, but it's goal is to provide some joy to the player that play it.

Does the brake obfuscation will provide some joy to some engineer that like to have more limitation when building a ship? Yes
Does the brake will make 80-90% of the current fleet unusable and bother many players? Yes 
Does the new brake obfuscation will add more computation (more lag)? Yes

My point of view is that DU has never been a physical engineering simulation. Yes the physics in the game is interesting but is far far far away from a simulation.
They can add limitation on brake, add more and more limitation it will not change anything.

"most of the flying element have obfuscation, then brake need obfuscation." argument is acceptable, but what is the gain behind.
What at the end it will provide to the game? What the final player will gain by having this change?

I am always taking the view of the players and currently most of the player will have trouble with that. They will have to change their ship, a lot of design will be f...

I don't care if they change the brake or not, I am not a ship builder. I can fly a box I don't care.
But if I take the place of a ship designer and 100% of my creations that was using the legit game mechanism have to be redesign, I am not sure I would continue to play.

So at the end, I can understand the reason they would do this change. But I don't think the impact on the player base worth the change.
 

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...