Thundercraft Posted February 12, 2017 Share Posted February 12, 2017 Your brake thrust before combining them is is 1.7 m/s², afterwards it's 2.3 m/s², so you gained 0.6 m/s². Your yaw before combining them is 0.06, afterwards it's 0.07, so you gained 0.01. Please consider buffing the Thrusters more to compensate for the new way in which they are being calculated. :( My ships now have Pitch, Yaw, and Roll of about 80% less than before. They move like turtles now, whereas before they were super responsive and fun to fly. Right now, it seems like we have to have a total volume of Thrusters much bigger than the Engines in order to have decent (not even good) maneuverability. A "buff" of just 5 or 10% or so isn't going to cut it. (An increase of something like 50% more Pitch/Yaw/Roll than what it is currently would be more like it.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WARGAMES Posted February 12, 2017 Share Posted February 12, 2017 I don't play on the beta branch currently but it does look like thrusters should be at least 50% of their thin variety stacked together as a whole thruster in it's volume/mass. though personally I'd say 75% but I'm mostly saying by numbers here the current ones look really steep like you're driving a barge. and I see the dev stopped the wormholes into the ring(yes I know it was needed). lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TsunamiFM Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 Or maybe the mechanics on beta could be changed to allow directional volume-based thrusters? Because on stable branch surface-based thrusters stacked in thin layers along X, Y or Z axis are exactly that - they have increased efficiency along the axis we've stacked them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boxelware Team koonschi Posted February 13, 2017 Author Boxelware Team Share Posted February 13, 2017 Most of all, I'd like you to know that I won't be doing the new thrusters without proper compensation. To give you some numbers: With the latest changes I'm getting brake thrust of ~60 m/s² without too much effort and without making the ship an ugly mess. But if you relied on thruster pancakes then you'll have to rebuild your ship. This is not debatable, since thruster pancake stacks make no sense. Same goes for solar panels, but I'm looking into a different solution on these. I've been looking over the code and have found some old code that was meant to ease controls of ships which is now getting in the way. I've removed/reworked all that stuff and overall I think I've found a pretty good solution. I'll give you some more details on all this soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kane Hart Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 Thanks Mate! I'm looking forward to it :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordHavoc Posted February 14, 2017 Share Posted February 14, 2017 Lets not forget that thrusters are suggested to have a greater effect the further they are from centre of mass. Perhaps that could factor into the balancing question And...for breaking, if the thrusters were further forward? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tsunamik Posted February 14, 2017 Share Posted February 14, 2017 It doesn´t seem to matter for breaking from my tests, it breaks still the same. The same applies for strafing I guess. But turning movements work easily - further from rotation axis=greater effect Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devious Posted February 14, 2017 Share Posted February 14, 2017 My main application of thrusters is to apply directional thrust, perhaps it would be viable to add thrusters that give a greater thrust but only in one direction, so they could be applied where needed instead of covering the whole ship to get good directional thrust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gimmic Posted February 14, 2017 Share Posted February 14, 2017 Providing a semi-automated way or at least more controllable for us to do a deceleration burn (180 degree flip and mainsail burn) would eliminate a lot of problems people have with braking thrusters. Thrusters in general should only be for ship orientation(and docking), not braking or lateral movement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordMaddog Posted February 15, 2017 Share Posted February 15, 2017 Thrusters in general should only be for ship orientation(and docking), not braking or lateral movement. I completely agree. Its just not working. As for retrograde movements as a whole they just don't make sense in a game this scientifically advance. A few players from KSP think its a cool ideal the rest are like wth is this crap. And to be honest it is crap. If the game had real orbit gravity like effects and limited fuel/energy then sure I can see it's use but it don't and its not that type of game. Not only that but the physics are all wrong for it in this game. Right now inertia is shiftable, witch means if you get your deceleration burn even slightly wrong your entire direction instantly shifts.This intern makes crashing while trying to slow down a far more prominent problem then it would be in real physics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arthmael Posted February 15, 2017 Share Posted February 15, 2017 this is why you make scale step .05 then make the the width and height needed, and just stack them on top of each other lol problem solved, though it is quite blinding at times :D also what is the time frame that we may see the beta branch going to live? cant wait for the repair window additions and well just about all the other things Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gimmic Posted February 16, 2017 Share Posted February 16, 2017 Not only that but the physics are all wrong for it in this game. Right now inertia is shiftable, witch means if you get your deceleration burn even slightly wrong your entire direction instantly shifts.This intern makes crashing while trying to slow down a far more prominent problem then it would be in real physics. I think it's actually an artifact of how much more powerful the main engines are than thrusters. When your negative orientation is only slightly off, it would cause the lateral motion when you engaged.. unless the thrusters were powerful enough to counter it. I don't think a physics hack(or thruster buff) is needed, we just need to let AI determine the optimal deceleration angle relative to current motion. this is why you make scale step .05 then make the the width and height needed, and just stack them on top of each other lol problem solved This is being patched out which is one of the reasons it is up for discussion. There seems to be a design decision to utilize retrograde engine usage, but no viable control mechanism to do so at the moment. I really agree with retrograde burning to decelerate, as it adds a lot of gameplay and more realistic effects. It scales with ship design properly, and makes sense with the other drive/power elements we have. What I really feel like needs to be done is someone show a KSP mechjeb "burn retrograde" button which allows you to fly normally but when engaged automatically turns the ship retrograde and burns the main sail until inertia is dead. Thrusters already behave this way in Avorion as a default control element. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tchey Posted February 16, 2017 Share Posted February 16, 2017 Or maybe the better option is combine thrusters and engines into one block allowing the player complete freedom over how his ship flys. I agree with this. Make engine one direction only, scale push power with volume, let the player rotate the block at will, and done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordHavoc Posted February 16, 2017 Share Posted February 16, 2017 Lets analyse the problem Thrusters & Surface Area: People are forced to make lots of small blocks, increasing the block count and lagging slower computers Thrusters & Volume: Tricky to scale and balance Engine/Thruster combining: Some significant work will need to go into getting the graphics right(thrust animation). I propose an alternative solution which means introducing new block Keep the thrusters on surface area Introduce a thruster power block* using volume, that acts as a multiplier to thruster blocks *(Can anyone suggest a better name?) How I envisage this working is that players can continue to place flat thrusters around their ship...but only single blocks instead of arrays, and then when they need greater turning/braking, they then add the thruster power block in the centre of the ship somewhere. The bigger they make it, the more effective installed thrusters are. With a bit of math juggling, this should solve the mass/thrust scaling AND keep the block count down at the same time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoSboccacc Posted February 16, 2017 Share Posted February 16, 2017 or just make them strength on each direction proportional to surface area and volume. so volume * frontFace area is the force in front/back direction etc. and their shape still matters, without promoting the creation of hundred thin slices (that would have the same effects because, integrals) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedAlex24 Posted February 16, 2017 Share Posted February 16, 2017 I have another point for you with the Thruster. He continu to work if he have no side without armor on. Thruster can't not work like the hangar? Cover side not work on a thruster. This can be interesting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ceeagedee Posted February 16, 2017 Share Posted February 16, 2017 I have another point for you with the Thruster. He continu to work if he have no side without armor on. Thruster can't not work like the hangar? Cover side not work on a thruster. This can be interesting Think this is a good idea! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arthmael Posted February 16, 2017 Share Posted February 16, 2017 how in the hell did you even understand that ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordMaddog Posted February 16, 2017 Share Posted February 16, 2017 or just make them strength on each direction proportional to surface area and volume. so volume * frontFace area is the force in front/back direction etc. and their shape still matters, without promoting the creation of hundred thin slices (that would have the same effects because, integrals) No because this will force every one into making Block shaped ships! Witch is one of my biggest gripes against the whole thruster thing to begin with. Over 90% of the ppl on my server have block ships and its just lame! I really agree with retrograde burning to decelerate, as it adds a lot of gameplay and more realistic effects. It scales with ship design properly, and makes sense with the other drive/power elements we have. What I really feel like needs to be done is someone show a KSP mechjeb "burn retrograde" button which allows you to fly normally but when engaged automatically turns the ship retrograde and burns the main sail until inertia is dead. Thrusters already behave this way in Avorion as a default control element. If you try to make players have to retrograde THEY WONT! If you insist on it they will just make even bigger block shaped ships to counter it. This will lead to players who like having athletically pleasing looking ships being at a severe disadvantage which is already the case. One of the massive drawls to this game is its ability to make nice awesome looking ships! If having ugly looking block shaped ships is the best way to go which it currently is and from this change is becoming even more so you will lose these players. To be honest it's like stabbing your infant baby game in the heart. Devs please realize this. Having fun game mechanics and a visually stunning environment is far more important than some pre-contrived notion that results in players who try to follow it having a massive disadvantage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gimmic Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 Not having retrograde mechanics is a short-sighted mistake. We will still have awesome looking ships.. they just will have to flip and burn to slow down rapidly! Nobody wants thruster block beasts. Assuming multiplayer continues to advance and we start seeing more stable public servers, there will be a need for more depth than just gunboats with a bunch of weapons stacked on the front flying face-to-face and slugging it out. Part of the beauty of 3-dimensional space combat is in navigation-It's a lot like a submarine, or air blimp- You make compromises in navigation for weapons engagements, you can outmaneuver someone! Part of an engagement (or piloting a ship for that matter) would be planning ahead enough to understand if you want to make a fast pass and 'come back around' on the target, or if you want to match velocity and stay in range to fight. As the attacking ship you would have to decide if you want to face away from the enemy or not, and it determines how your ship is designed(rear mounted weaponry, anyone?). From the other ship's perspective, matching velocity would be a lot easier to see when the opposing ship turns around to decelerate. This way it's a lot easier to tell if someone is just flying by, or if they've taken an active interest in you. People mention that as ships get larger and more massive, it would be harder to navigate if you have to do a decel burn.. *this should be the case*. Part of flying a larger more powerful ship is that it has weight and takes more time to navigate with. Large ships don't turn on a dime, and don't decelerate rapidly.. and that should be part of the tradeoff. Otherwise there's never an advantage to having a smaller more nimble ship. Weapon design comes into play here too once we have chassis-mounted weapons. A railgun might only fire in a fixed direction which makes navigation and heading very important. If everyone is always facing eachother all the time, there's never a reason to *not* have a railgun involved. Indirect fire is worth much less in the balance scheme of things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrVorgra Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 I for one have a very attractive ship, that performs as a large lumbering ship should, This is an arcade space shooter perse, its a light weight space sim/adventure game which is great. The Wafer thrusters were simply illogical, and they took the challenge out of the game. Keep it up koonschi, eager for more depth, with out it being complicated Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordMaddog Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 Not having retrograde mechanics is a short-sighted mistake. We will still have awesome looking ships.. they just will have to flip and burn to slow down rapidly! Nobody wants thruster block beasts. Assuming multiplayer continues to advance and we start seeing more stable public servers, there will be a need for more depth than just gunboats with a bunch of weapons stacked on the front flying face-to-face and slugging it out. Part of the beauty of 3-dimensional space combat is in navigation-It's a lot like a submarine, or air blimp- You make compromises in navigation for weapons engagements, you can outmaneuver someone! Part of an engagement (or piloting a ship for that matter) would be planning ahead enough to understand if you want to make a fast pass and 'come back around' on the target, or if you want to match velocity and stay in range to fight. As the attacking ship you would have to decide if you want to face away from the enemy or not, and it determines how your ship is designed(rear mounted weaponry, anyone?). From the other ship's perspective, matching velocity would be a lot easier to see when the opposing ship turns around to decelerate. This way it's a lot easier to tell if someone is just flying by, or if they've taken an active interest in you. People mention that as ships get larger and more massive, it would be harder to navigate if you have to do a decel burn.. *this should be the case*. Part of flying a larger more powerful ship is that it has weight and takes more time to navigate with. Large ships don't turn on a dime, and don't decelerate rapidly.. and that should be part of the tradeoff. Otherwise there's never an advantage to having a smaller more nimble ship. Weapon design comes into play here too once we have chassis-mounted weapons. A railgun might only fire in a fixed direction which makes navigation and heading very important. If everyone is always facing eachother all the time, there's never a reason to *not* have a railgun involved. Indirect fire is worth much less in the balance scheme of things. This is all a wonderful beautiful ideal the only problem is it WILL NOT HAPPEN!! Competitive players will always do exactly like what they've done on my server; build massive flying bricks of thrusters giving them instant gratification of on the dime turning. It won't matter if you were to nerf thrusters into the absolute ground. They will just build even bigger bricks of thrusters. The end result will be the only one's you hurt is those who actually want to build nice-looking ships. There is no way to stop this because it's realistic. It's what will happen in space if we ever obtained to this level of technology. There will be giant ships with engines pointed in all directions. GeForce will be our only limitation which is another thing altogether. However if you wanted to add a mechanic where crew members start blacking out or dying if you turn too fast or slow down too fast you could indeed achieve the effect you are talking about. I can very well see a player holding Control+s or Control+a To override safety mechanisms as they turn or stop, killing crew members from GeForce so they can achieve the desired movement. This whole thruster thing on the other hand is just lame and unrealistic and has the possibility of actually destroying the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kane Hart Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 I hope the developer highly considers ignoring PvP Balance anything. This game was suppose to be a Co-Op Game not eve online. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoSboccacc Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 I hope the developer highly considers ignoring PvP Balance anything. This game was suppose to be a Co-Op Game not eve online. +100000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tchey Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 I hope the developer highly considers ignoring PvP Balance anything. This game was suppose to be a Co-Op Game not eve online. Fully agreed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts