Alpha 9 released

[Potsmoke66]

why can't we just stay to how it is, i mean, why all the high tech stuff, to me it kills the spirit.to remember, conquering space in small vessels that carry a overpowered engine and a hyperdrive IS DANGEROUS, or had to be.it's not that safe like with a big destroyer like ST of BSG, carrying computer controlled weapon systems, one would say that's to expect 1000 years from now.who said that that must be true?can't you imagine a future not so bright? technology exist but it's a secret to most tribes how it works? maintanance is left to more or less educated/experienced service personnel?allready we have the situation that the old rocket engineers are dead and some seriously assume that we arn't able to launch a Saturn V with a capsule and a landing pod to land on moon.the reason is they got teached in school, but have no idea how it works, it's true and i can see that everywhere where high tech comes to a role.i'm working in a NPP for a month year by year since 20 years, but i can tell you (and they granted me it's so) technicians that came with the reactor which is still owned by GE, have no idea about what exactly it needs to keep the "big boiler" running, they leave it up to us, because we have the experience even when we are no nuclear technicians.so you see one part is theory, but it's worth nothing without experienced craftsmen!to repeat what i posted once somewhere and to explain a bit more.the alternator was burned by a slowly build up plasma, that field was so strong that it had burned a 20cm diameter hole into 20cm of solid steel like it would be butter.engineers was standing helpless around the up damaged alternator, having NO IDEA how that could be, they had to call up leftover 80 year old engineers who designed this unique (>1GW alernators exist 5 in the world, each is a different prototype) altenator, because no one else understands the machine like they did*.tell what happens when they are dead to?we are allready in a situation where technology is less controlable by humans, not because we are to stupid, no!it's imo a failure in education, they are NO CRAFTSMEN no more, educated in schools and guess they know it all, but havn't hold a piece of steel in their hands ever!how could somone like this know what was going on? you need the experience with the matter else....technicians like the old ones was craftsmen befor they got deeper into it, not only educated theoretically.they are able to listen to the sound of a machine and can tell you where the devil rests.i love the idea of "scotty" in ST, because he's a typical example of such a versatile technician, but i guess they get rare in future, if we didn't change a lot in our system.another problem is that they "forgot" priciples older engineers set up, i.e. pressure containers was designed for a certain pressure let's say one has a working pressure of 50 bar's.tested it was up to 100 perhaps, but they kept it running only up to 50.now some "clever" business technicians (i have no other word for that), came up and say, hey we have a far to big reserve, we can run this up to 80 bar.then problems start, they simply have no idea about the matter, looking only at the theoretical side and forgot WHY they designed that thing so oversized, that was not because of fun or because they havn't known better, they had the experience and knew that it's needed for a certain safty of the container (well they have hold many pieces of steel in their hands).and please don't get angry, but it's a reason why swiss no longer buy fuel rods from the states, they have been proofed by us as insecure, there was times when certain facilities cheated to get them through quality control, swiss couldn't accept this no more and bought from then on only from sweden.man nuclear power is no TOY (i guess the past month has shown that very well)! there's no room for cheating and making money on cost of our all safety and lifes!money again is a killer and easy to imagine that this problem will be bigger in future, believe me!*for those who like to know what has been assumed and i have to say assumed because even themselfes wasn't very shure about.the assumed reason for the plasma was that every alternator runs best at it's own frquency, that means output frequency would be varying depending on power the alternator emerges.now such we can't use we need a matching frequency in the powergrid (which ever, just the same) and it has to be the same modulation, to reach that, any alternator gets backfeeded with power from the grid. such harms the alternator, he didn't likes it, he would like to run his own frequency.resume, there is some left power which has build under this special circumstances such a plasma field. the reason that stood behind was...guess what!money, they decided to run the whole reactor with a 30% higher output (hey we have reserves, you remember?), result; a burned alternator.btw, that's not the only problem the have to mess with now, free hydrogene which usually gets produced when boiling water with a "immersion coil", has been getting to much, so they have to find a way to get rid of that.you see only because they looked only at the theoretical side of the problem and forgot the experience needed.30% more power and a rats tail of problems that came after...but i know, old craftsmen are stupid, hm? :lol:if you wonder now why this "construction worker" knows all this... usually you have a lot time left off when working in a NPP, time to talk with technicians and ask them what's going on. if your'e interested they usually willing to answer, it's their beloved work they can talk about then.---homer simpson isn't very far from reality, unfortunatly!---now let's mess up the evil fighter from debug point.

[s2odan]

Gudadantza wrote:
....I had a suggestion some time ago and it involved some kind of buyable superthrusters with high level fuel wasting rate for use during short times, turning the ship more "Independence war 2" or "evochron" like at the pressing of a key. useful for short combats or near docking maneuvres......
We discussed this on IRC a little while ago, the main problem with superthrusters is of course how much harder it makes combat, as every thing will suddenly become magnitudes faster, the ship may even outrun projectiles by a sizable amount. Combat can basically be measured in difficulty by the enemy ships size and its thrust/max acceleration. The AI could most likely handle all this with no problem, but we couldn't and I dont care how good anyone is they wouldnt beat an eagle that has 10 times the acceleration it has now ;)Unfortunately I don't have a more feasable idea, other than the obvious 'high tech equipment' thing.Its 1200 years ahead, surely they have some nifty high tech gadgets.So that would be Radar and its derivitives, giving a range of several hundread thoussand KM... the range would of course be higher but by that time you would be getting some lag in updating distant targets, so it would become less accurate at those higher ranges.A combat computer, I strongly believe we should add a combat computer, it would have an accuracy comparable to teh standar AI. Perhaps we can underpower it by requiring the player to at least aim in the general direction, perhaps within a couple of degrees or one degree of the enemy.Electronic Warfare. Random chances to shut down random equipment on the enemy ship, but its only temporary.
Quote:
why can't we just stay to how it is, i mean, why all the high tech stuff, to me it kills the spirit.
The funny thing about your story is that its based around a Nuclear Plant... Something innately high-tech. Without that you would have been out of a job ;)Of course humanity progresses, just because some random twat forgets how a pressure regulator or whatever it was fits into the whole process of a NPP it does not mean humanity has stopped progressing.It could even be less than a decade until we have viable fusion solutions : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Ignition_FacilityEven today we have more high-tech gadgetry to help a pilot than is in Pioneer.Back to your question of why we need high-tech stuff... we need it because we need people to be able to play the game. Not everyone has raised themselves on FFE like we have, many people cannot attempt to play the game due to the difficulty in getting to grips with the system.One thing you must remember P66; all upgrades will be optional! There will be nothing stopping you taking your empty eagle and 1MW cannon and having some fun without cumputer assistance. Who knows we may even reward a player for being hard-core and not using any equipment

[Potsmoke66]

ok, ok, ok,allready i start to fall in love with the debug fighter... that girl? gives you really some work to do, guess i have to find a new tactic.btw, she's a bit unrealistic, or i would like to get a split screen to (at least i guess it would be more annoying then really helpful), i mean i can't fly backwards and fire forwards, what a beast...but for shure i will find a way to outsmart her.but why not get trained by the game, i guess i like such, like i said once, get killed a hundred times makes me only more addicted.i guess usually when you start the game you will try relatively safe routes, yes i guess we all did that once.i remember how i felt when i was shot in FE2, soon as i left the trading routes..."that's unfair" i have disclaimed but tried and tried until...(a little help in the beginning i had i have to say, since i played FE2 first on the CD32, i used a pad with autofire function on every button even the pause button, so you could play it in somekind of slowmotion manner which has helped me much in the beginning).pilots licence, still a good idea no? fight perhaps "virtually" and of course should be free to choose, i mean, if one thinks he can do without, okbut for all the rest of rookies it could be handy.somekind of a afterburner, why not? but on the other hand your enemy will have that perhaps to...yes it's true the lag of radar info when distance is let's say over a few lightseconds, i thought about to.but not all has to be to realistic i guess,i don't know if i would like computer assistance in a battle and how should that look like? autolock on target? with a fixed mounted laser? would mean the computer has to takeover a part of your maneuvres, you're not longer free.something i can imagine well is a tracking info, some bleep or flashing when the fighter is in crosshair positioned to shoot at (but not necessary).and please give me distance and velocity info back in outside view, i like to fight this way. usually you lay before or point to high due to that a bit, but that's not bad at all.---i really like it and i like that this ship really hits you, that "girl"* can point and hit! great!if you once match the speed more or less, sometimes bam,bam,bam, and you're gone...guess i have to match speed and get her from behind, not a easy job, especially because she used to turn the ship very quick around and fire at you while flying backwards (can't turn mine that quick or have really to use l-shift).at least i damaged her sometimes before i got blown to pieces.*if it's a girl at all, depends on reg no.

[s2odan]

:DIt's pretty tough eh? I had the most success using a low set-speed and the mouse, just try not to get too close.... A few times it seemed like I was winning using that tactic, but an unrelated mouse problem would kick in and my mouse would end up on the other side of the screen (Old crappy mouse) Just using the keyboard I couldn't even land a hit

[Shingen]

Well you guys could take a page from IWar 2 and cap the max speed of AI ships in combat around the player ship. I still think a decent lead indicator would help a lot.

[Brianetta]

potsmoke66 wrote:
btw, she's a bit unrealistic, or i would like to get a split screen to (at least i guess it would be more annoying then really helpful), i mean i can't fly backwards and fire forwards, what a beast...
Gernot, you can fly backwards and fire forwards if you like. You have the same ship, after all. Just remember, you are not in an aeroplane. You do not have to be pointing in the direction that you are moving.Having said that, I'll happily admit that I have trouble pointing my ship at anything in particular. Luckily, I have manual control over all six thrusters. That's great for docking, but lousy for fighting.

[SeanN]

robn wrote:
This could be made of anything. New equipment/weapons, targetting systems, remote firing drones, who knows what. Something that always bothered me about Frontier (and by extension Pioneer) was how un-futuristic the technology seems given that its set some 1200 years in the future. Maybe this is our change to rectify that a little by dreaming up some really crazy combat technologies that still make sense given the physics model.I'm not the creative type, so it probably won't come from me. What ideas do you all have?
I think robn has good idea about adding technology to help the player that might want or need it. I always enjoyed FFE and FE2 as exploration sims. When pirates attacked it seemed more a hindrance than fun because it kept me from seeing the planets in the system. A good set of preventive or defensive equipment and a way to escape/avoid a fight would be welcome. Stuff like:em damper: makes ship more difficult to detect from a distance.stealth device: makes ship difficult to see visually and in scanners but thruster use increases visibility and possible detection.thruster suppressors: reduce visual signature even more.em absorbing hull plating: reduces chance of ranged detection.enhanced shielding: stronger defence.hull/system repair droids: smaller and lighter but slower than Hull auto repair unit.different scanners with varied abilities/range of detection for AI.And when all else fails: Missile Pods.

[Pyros]

Brianetta wrote:


Pyros wrote:
But in a game, fun should take clear precedence over realism.
We have realism (well, an approximation of it). We either turn it off, and make fighting a fun and rewarding game in itself, or we leave it on, and cope somehow. Seriously: the only way to make the realism/fun trade-off is to either get rid of the current realistic physics, or to temporarily switch off realistic physics for an artificial "fun mode" when the scrapping starts.I'm happy to neglect fighting. In Frontier, my strategy was always to trade heavily in the safest systems, until I could afford a ship where I didn't need to worry about survival. I'd carry missiles, but I didn't bother buying a laser. I never went looking for a fight, because it was difficult and uninteresting, principally because the Newtonian physics model really gets in the way of close-in ship-to-ship combat.
My 2cI really doubt that you a "common" user case :)IMHO realistic physics strongly contribute to the feeling of "big wide space and freedom" - something that is missing in many games. Anyway, the typical dogfighting is not a realistic space fighting case - but it is the one that players are more used to and the one that traditionally is seen as "more fun" - with the advantage of having dozens of games (including non space games, like airplanes) which have more or less tested "what works" and "what doesn't".That said, as the physic model is "set in stone", nothing says one cannot innovate and besides a more or less "not working" classical combat (seriously, it is not a question of being really easy or difficult, but how exasperating the combat becomes with "jousting") to also have a more tactical approach to space combat. MIRV missiles, large space detonators, exotic weapons (gravity weapons, electronics, software warfare, proximity mines, tractor beams, shield weapons, ...). Easier said than done though .

[Brianetta]

Pyros wrote:
My 2cI really doubt that you a "common" user case
It's irrelevant. Newtonian physics in space, and the fun of "staying on his six," can't coexist. Anything wildly different from the airborne dogfighting style causes inevitable complaints. People are going to have to get used to being a little disappointed, and (as John-who-writes-the-combat-AI put it) learning something new.

[Pyros]

Brianetta wrote:


Pyros wrote:
My 2cI really doubt that you a "common" user case
It's irrelevant. Newtonian physics in space, and the fun of "staying on his six," can't coexist. Anything wildly different from the airborne dogfighting style causes inevitable complaints. People are going to have to get used to being a little disappointed, and (as John-who-writes-the-combat-AI put it) learning something new.
Just for clarification, I was referring not the the enjoying of newtonian physics and "realistic" flight model, but to the avoidance of combat to the point of not having a laser

[Grimm]

Brianetta wrote:
It's irrelevant. Newtonian physics in space, and the fun of "staying on his six," can't coexist. Anything wildly different from the airborne dogfighting style causes inevitable complaints. People are going to have to get used to being a little disappointed, and (as John-who-writes-the-combat-AI put it) learning something new.
I don't think so. I-War and Jumpgate had both newtonian based combat systems. Sure there where not 100% realistic and accurate but they both took the influence of inertia and physics into account. Personally i had fun with this combat systems. You still can make a adrenalin driven combat system within the newtonian physics but you need a technological background for that and some limitations for the vessels.In theory you can run away from any attacker you encounter, if you have enough power to fly in a random direction till your enemies sensors can't find you anymore. This could be a possibility for peacefull players to avoid combat, just running away. To make chasing an enemy possible you can invent emp missles or guns to prevent your target from using too much energy for the escape. I-War used this system. Of course this does not solve any AI problems or the issues with the combat system itself but it gives a possibility to avoid most fights for peacefull traders unless they not encounter a well equiped pirate with emp missles. There are some games with newtonian physic system which have combat. Maybe looking at the source code, values etc..., if available, could help. A few games i can actually think of: I-War, Allegiance, Vegastrike, Jumpgate, Starshatter. And of course the original Final Frontier and FFE and their remakes. The source from Final Frontier isn't a help at all? I'mean basically it uses the same system like Pioneer or am i wrong?

[Brianetta]

I'm going to cherry-pick your post a little, please don't be angry.
Grimm wrote:
I don't think so. I-War and Jumpgate had both newtonian based combat systems. Sure there where not 100% realistic and accurate but they both took the influence of inertia and physics into account.
They were less accurate than Pioneer, and remained less accurate at all times. They were fun, you're quite right, but you need that physics model to do that sort of fighting that way.
Quote:
In theory you can run away from any attacker you encounter, if you have enough power to fly in a random direction till your enemies sensors can't find you anymore.
Tip: You don't have enough power. Why? Because less massive ships with the same engines accelerate more given the same thrust force. In the debug start of Pioneer, there are only two ways to run away. The first is to jettison something first. The enemy has the same ship and equipment as you, but isn't carrying a tonne of fuel, so he can run you down. The second is to hyperspace. He can't follow, without any fuel.
Quote:
The source from Final Frontier isn't a help at all? I'mean basically it uses the same system like Pioneer or am i wrong?
The source from Frontier (there was nothing Final about it) isn't a help at all. It's not GPL software. Also, its fighting system was every bit as rubbish as Pioneer's. Luckily, though, you could aim turrets while paused, which finished fights early.

[highlander]

You could, in theory, have a dogfight with someone (involving getting on their six), even if you are hurtling through a solar system at 15,000 km/secYour ship's frame of reference would be to its own pre-fight speed - you would then accelerate and move around in free flight (maybe even using the Elite flight control system for "combat mode"?), all the while you and the pirate (who has had to match your speed and direction in order to attack your ship) keep moving towards your autopilot destination.Damn, I hate it when I feel I'm not explaining myself properly! OK, try this - you and your opponent are in an imaginary box, which is hurtling towards *your* destination at the speed and direction *you* were going at before the StarDreamer was interrupted by your opponent's arrival. You both start off at the same speed as the box. But in "combat mode", you are both moving around inside that box, dogfighting. Your ships control thrusters work as normal, adjusting your attitude, and affecting your ship's speed relative to that box.This is entirely compatible with Newtonian flight because the small changes you are making to your ship's pre-fight speed/direction are enough to move around a lot relative to each other, but not enough to make a perceptible difference to your speed/direction overall.Does this make sense to anyone?

[Brianetta]

highlander wrote:
You could, in theory, have a dogfight with someone (involving getting on their six), even if you are hurtling through a solar system at 15,000 km/sec
Getting on the six of an opponent means staying behind them, relative to their weapons and cockpit, so that they can't see or shoot at you. This tactic isn't possible in a vacuum based Newtonian physics model.When you get behind an aeroplane, you can stay behind them because when they turn they also change direction. You just need to turn with them. A spacecraft in a vacuum does not move that way. If you get behind it, it can turn to face you, bringing weapons and targeting to bear. You can't get behind it again without flying around it, and it will turn and shoot you as you do that, if you're daft enough to try.Newtonian space allows ships to strafe each other, and other tricks that just can't happen in an atmosphere. It's like a first person shooter, on ice, in 3D, without any cover. Good luck trying to hammer dogfighting into that, regardless of your frame of reference.

[Guest]

Brianetta wrote:
It's like a first person shooter, on ice, in 3D, without any cover.
That has to be one of the best descriptions I've read in a while!

[Subzeroplainzero]

I'm glad people are questioning the combat model now. I proposed a new long range tactical approach a while back but it wasn't too well recieved. I just think that dog fighting at extreme speeds would be cool but is ultimately impossible. This could be the big thing that makes this space sim stand out from the croud if it's possibly to implement a long range combat model that is both fun and deep enought to allow players to experiment with all kinds of tactics. It's a tall order though, to be honest I really wouldn't know where to start.

[Brianetta]

Subzeroplainzero wrote:
I'm glad people are questioning the combat model now. I proposed a new long range tactical approach a while back but it wasn't too well recieved. I just think that dog fighting at extreme speeds would be cool but is ultimately impossible. This could be the big thing that makes this space sim stand out from the croud if it's possibly to implement a long range combat model that is both fun and deep enought to allow players to experiment with all kinds of tactics. It's a tall order though, to be honest I really wouldn't know where to start.
Start by thinking about what the player's experience would be like. The interfaces the player would use, and the sort of timescales that would be involved. Then think about what sort of ranges, weapons and countermeasures might have to exist in order to achieve this. Remember, it's a game, and gameplay is always a valid place to start. If it's fun, and it works, it's a win.Once you have a firmer idea, you can create an issue for it on the issues tracker (see my sig, below) where it will get classed as a feature request. Conversations on there can be long and in-depth, with full markdown support, including images where they're helpful. With that, and IRC, ideas can be thrashed out until everybody's happy that they understand you, and that the idea is a sound one. What happens after that will be known... after that, of course.

[GAlex]

as for a "combat mode" that mixes newtonian flight and interesting combat session i second highlander's idea...it's surely possible to mix the "set speed" mode (having the targeted ship's movement vectors as the point of reference so that the nav computer compensate automatically and you are in the "box" highlander pointed out) AND the manual control (for full control over the relative movement respect to the target).obvioulsy the pilot should take into account not to accelerate too fast thus exiting the frame of referencedogfighting isn't interesting in space. in space a ship have quasi* 6dof and there are so many manouvres available to get fighting funny while realistic.*: quasi means "almost" because the manouvring thrusters have less power than main (retro) thrusters.so you basically have many choices given a specific opponent:are you flying a small fighter and fighting a large "brick"? simply mix main and manouvring thrusters to "spin" like an electron around it's nucleus continously avoiding frontal approach (and turret fire.. will turret be implemented?) and firing ... phew ... phew ... short laser pulses... for loong time until target (or your patience) is destroyed, or flee in a orthogonal route respectively to opponent vector relative to the planetary system of reference...are you involved in a "fair" fight between similar ships? give proof of all your ability to predict AI tactic, or begin spiraling in front of your opponent while flying backward and firing continously to fool the poor PC logic...are you the "brick" under attack? send a distress call and ask the developers to implement turrets or escort squadrons!... OR ... if you are a fan of jousting ... let the joust begin ... taratatatataaaaaaaaaa!(again ... too much words)