Thrust, A different idea

[BlackEyez]

I just read the post about thrust mechanics and while I see what they are trying to do I happen to disagree.

In space there is no friction therefore once your ship is at speed it shouldn't slow down unless your run into something.

I think that the current decision of having to split % of thrust in different directions will limit choices in ship building. I would like the option of building dedicated thrust pods allowing me to choose how much thrust goes where without having to take thrust away from forward movement.

It also sounds like it will take more power to go longer distances when actually it should take less. Once a body is in motion it tends to stay in motion.


And of course this line of thinking will not be popular but here it is

 

[rece ktore leczo]

And of course this line of thinking will not be popular but here it is

Well, this ideas aren't popular here for some reasons.

1. You can already turn off dumping in server config file. it's Your personal preference whether You prefer playing with or without it.
   IMO dumping should be turned on but on low level, just in case player accidentally exits flying ship or to prevent trolls from crashing at ships and sending them to the borders of universe.
2. Dividing thrust by splitting % or building different orientated thrusters/dedicated thrust pods have the same results, i don't understand how the first way is supposed to limit building.
   Maybe if directional/rotating thrust would be calculated basing on locations of thruster blocks and center of mass of the whole ship, it would require to think more before building in order to have most efficient ship, but i think it isn't likely to happen, because of much resources it would require to calculate thrust, especially during battles.

 

[Lenier]

Hmmm.

1. if ships automatically stabilize/slow themselves when there is no pilot, this issue would be solved. You would have the realistic mechanic without any of the downsides.
2. If the thrust of the ship was defined by thruster-computers connected to thruster-block groups, and the locations and directions of the emitting blocks of these groups would define how the movement works, it would definitely make ship building interesting. It actually might add an entirely new dimension to the game. You would need thrusters in all directions or else you would not be able to use certain keys, and the placement of these thrusters would also cause rotational movement with certain block/mass placements.
3. You are right, this may be cpu intensive -- unless the entire system is calculated when you exit build mode and the key values for that ship are saved in the ships data, which I assume is already pretty large and would not be significantly slowed by adding a few bytes of data.

 

[NeonSturm]

I think all ships should have 5% in all directions and additionally 95% dividable.

With a bobby onboard you should be able to enable and config automatic breaking with or without other AI features.

3. What happens if blocks get shot off?


@BlackEyez I like thruster-pods as long as they share shields and require own power regeneration (power would only be usable by thrusters, in exchange you get more directions).

 

[FunnyBunny14]

I think that there should be a second calculation. This calculation would use the amount of thrust per direction and use that to determine a top speed. That way you can build ships with loads of thrusters which has a huge speed in every direction.

 

[Lenier]

@NeonSturm I see the issue
Maybe it would be less of an issue if the system was altered to be more realistic:

Instead of thruster blocks and thrust computers, you have thruster blocks and fuel tanks.

1. Thruster blocks would work as the "output spot" of your thrusters, they would be in much smaller numbers then the fuel blocks. Would this make the calculations easier?
2. Fuel would simply be a multiplier. If you lose fuel, the multipler goes down.

is this better?
I think the system should work, but it would need to be optimized.

 

[Fiddlejam]

I think the system proposed by the devs, where you divide thrust in the different directions would be fine if it simply limited max-speed for all directions but forward. So essentially you can still reach 100% server-speed forward, but not in the other directions. (I would also add the 5% thrust in each direction as others have proposed; simply to avoid idiots building ships that can only go forward)

And well, yes, friction should go but ships should automatically slow down. I think if they just moved on forever that would also bring a fair bit of performance issues on servers.

 

[Valiant70]

It has always bugged me both that ships are slowed by friction IN FREAKIN SPACE, and that ships have no "mooring" function to slow them automatically when there is no pilot. The thing is, I'd like to be able to toggle that function off so the ship will keep going while I walk around on the bridge.

As far as dividing thrust, that actually sounds like a really neat idea. Something else I'd like to see is an indicator to show how far off a ship's direction of travel is from its nose.

 

[NeonSturm]

maybe breaking speed should be 3x or 5x as strong, or you would have to distribute 30% of your forward thrust backward most of the time... not to mention the sides as a fighter

 

[Valiant70]

maybe breaking speed should be 3x or 5x as strong, or you would have to distribute 30% of your forward thrust backward most of the time... not to mention the sides as a fighter

I don't really like that particular idea. If I want imbalance toward my forward thrust, I'll do that. If I want braking speed to be the same, I'll put the same thrust on the front. Braking being stronger makes no sense. There is absolutely no realistic and no significant gameplay reason for it. In some circumstances, I think it would be advantageous to have more forward thrust than braking. It's another design decision/tradeoff to make, and I like that.

Another possibility would be to make thrusters per-axis instead of per-side. In other words, forward thrust would be one in the same with backward thrust, the same with port-starboard and for top-bottom. This would simplify designs (which would be mostly symmetrical anyway) and also solve your concern.

 

[Fiddlejam]

It has always bugged me both that ships are slowed by friction IN FREAKIN SPACE, and that ships have no "mooring" function to slow them automatically when there is no pilot. The thing is, I'd like to be able to toggle that function off so the ship will keep going while I walk around on the bridge.

Well, not completely turn off, because, as I said, ships moving into the endlessness can't be good idea for server stability. So think of the worst case where you might lock yourself out of the ship while having deactivated slow down.
I would have said "a remote control for stopping the ship", but that wouldn't stop trolls catapulting probes into the depths of space.
Does the current system register when the player leaves the entire entity of the ship? (it has to, for gravity, doesn't it) So if that happens, it should ignore the "don't slow down"-option.

On the other hand, sending probes into the depths of space, traveling forever... we do have Stargates now. We could recreate the Destiny from Stargate Universe.

Another possibility would be to make thrusters per-axis instead of per-side. In other words, forward thrust would be one in the same with backward thrust, the same with port-starboard and for top-bottom. This would simplify designs (which would be mostly symmetrical anyway) and also solve your concern.

That wouldn't solve the obvious problems of Titans moving backwards at full speed and similar idiotic and simple maneuvers during fights though, which the new system tried to address in the first place.

 

[Valiant70]

Does the current system register when the player leaves the entire entity of the ship? (it has to, for gravity, doesn't it) So if that happens, it should ignore the "don't slow down"-option.

That should be possible. In fact, it goes hand in hand with this (which I consider an entirely necessary game mechanic): http://starmadedock.net/threads/save-player-relative-to-ship-upon-logout.1804/#post-25488

That wouldn't solve the obvious problems of Titans moving backwards at full speed and similar idiotic and simple maneuvers during fights though, which the new system tried to address in the first place.

What's wrong with a titan going in full reverse speed? Starships have nothing to prevent that, unlike sailing ships that are designed to go one direction.

 

[Fiddlejam]

What's wrong with a titan going in full reverse speed? Starships have nothing to prevent that, unlike sailing ships that are designed to go one direction.

From the point of realism, it would assume that you build a starship with equally powerful forward and backward thrusters which, well... why should you.

From a point of gameplay, it makes combat really one-dimensional and just doesn't feel as ship combat should feel like.
I mean, imagine sitting in your spaceship while there's this giant ship rapidly moving backwards while another one pursues it, rapidly shooting at one another. It looks like a bad comedy film, not an epic space battle.

 

[Lenier]

In light of recent conversation:

1. It has always annoyed me that you can hide your thrusters inside your hull. I want them to NEED a clear line of sight. Thus the difference between thrusters and warp-drive.
2. I think that the best way to do it would be on a per-side basis.
3. Thrust-force per-side would be determined by the EXPOSED SURFACE AREA of the thruster groups.
4. Thrust top-speed would be determined by the number of extra thrust blocks behind that surface area.
5. The result of this system would be that damage to the thrusters would first just expose thrusters behind, ultimately hurting the max-speed of your ship. Once they are severely damaged, however, the ship would begin to accelerate slower.
6. Another result would be that agile ships with low mass simply need a few exposed thrusters in different directions. Larger ships with high mass would need to balance accel with max speed. It would take a lot of exposed thrusters to have a very agile titan, and the stupid ones with massive engines would necessarily be easy to destroy with enough firepower. No more hiding massive systems inside the hull.

My starmade has been broken and/or laggy for a while, so if some of this is already implemented, thats awesome!

a few other matters:

• I think that breaking should be the users concern and it is an interesting one. Maybe the easiest way for massive spaceships to slow down would be to turn completely around and fire main thrusters again.
• I also think that the "breaking" issue might make gameplay much more interesting anyway. It would make battle strategy a much more per-ship and per-player problem. You could specialize in slower more agile ships, but if your opponent can go faster forward, he might be able to get away.
• I see no clear reason why titans should not be able to move backward at full speed, but this system still solves that issue. It would be very hard to make it go full speed even forward.

 

[NuclearFun]

In light of recent conversation:

1. It has always annoyed me that you can hide your thrusters inside your hull. I want them to NEED a clear line of sight. Thus the difference between thrusters and warp-drive.
2. I think that the best way to do it would be on a per-side basis.
3. Thrust-force per-side would be determined by the EXPOSED SURFACE AREA of the thruster groups.
4. Thrust top-speed would be determined by the number of extra thrust blocks behind that surface area.
5. The result of this system would be that damage to the thrusters would first just expose thrusters behind, ultimately hurting the max-speed of your ship. Once they are severely damaged, however, the ship would begin to accelerate slower.
6. Another result would be that agile ships with low mass simply need a few exposed thrusters in different directions. Larger ships with high mass would need to balance accel with max speed. It would take a lot of exposed thrusters to have a very agile titan, and the stupid ones with massive engines would necessarily be easy to destroy with enough firepower. No more hiding massive systems inside the hull.

My starmade has been broken and/or laggy for a while, so if some of this is already implemented, thats awesome!

a few other matters:

• I think that breaking should be the users concern and it is an interesting one. Maybe the easiest way for massive spaceships to slow down would be to turn completely around and fire main thrusters again.
• I also think that the "breaking" issue might make gameplay much more interesting anyway. It would make battle strategy a much more per-ship and per-player problem. You could specialize in slower more agile ships, but if your opponent can go faster forward, he might be able to get away.
• I see no clear reason why titans should not be able to move backward at full speed, but this system still solves that issue. It would be very hard to make it go full speed even forward.

I have to disagree... this would completely destroy aesthetic and RP builds. Maybe someone likes to have their ships propelled by a solar sail or a magnetogravitydrive <insert more technobabble here>. I don't want to be limited by something like that... Space Engineers has a similar system though.

 

[Fiddlejam]

I think discouraging "ugly" builds is a whole shoe for itself, but forcing us to always have thrusters on the outside might definitely hurt the game. I personally like the look of expose thrusters, but I can definitely see NuclearFuns point, so I have to agree.

Preventing ugliness in general can be hard, because quantifiying it is hard. For example, some ship designs that excessively use cubes can look really nice, while the stereotypical giant death cube evidently does not. So simply giving bonuses to less cube-y designs might not be the way to go.

At the end, I think its up to Admins of RP-servers to discourage building those things.

 

[Lenier]

Maybe there should be different types of thrusters. Include a new type: solar sails. You could have small thrusters to change direction, and "solar sail" blocks to move. Include a warp-drive engine block that does not need surface area but is more expensive.

I am not against aesthetic builds. I am an artist myself. However, the coolest builds are the ones that are the most realistic and look the coolest at the same time. I want to propose a game-mechanic which allows for creative and interesting ship designs while ruling out bad/uncreative/ridiculous troll builds. As long as the game is designed to give people the most unrealistic artistic license, the game will never be able to take away unrealistic uncreative license. I want to make realism work and unrealism not work because realism looks kinda cool even when its done badly. Maybe I have the wrong idea!

 

[Lecic]

I just read the post about thrust mechanics and while I see what they are trying to do I happen to disagree.

In space there is no friction therefore once your ship is at speed it shouldn't slow down unless your run into something.

This game isn't built around realism, it's built around fun. I'd prefer that space friction stay as the default. If you want, you can turn it off. Right now. It's a thing you can do in the config file.

I think that the current decision of having to split % of thrust in different directions will limit choices in ship building. I would like the option of building dedicated thrust pods allowing me to choose how much thrust goes where without having to take thrust away from forward movement.

It also sounds like it will take more power to go longer distances when actually it should take less. Once a body is in motion it tends to stay in motion.


And of course this line of thinking will not be popular but here it is

These thrust pods would accomplish the same thing that just adding more thrusters would do, and doesn't make people need to incorporate docked thruster pods into their builds if they want this sort of bonus.

I would like to see a sort of "hard point docking" that makes a docked ship work as part of the main ship, for modular ships. That would be cool.

And FTL is being implemented. Large ships will use that to cover long distances as opposed to pure thrust as it is now.

 

[Lenier]

I am not arguing against space fiction, but we seem to be talking about different types of space fiction. I only want good gameplay. Are my ideas really not worth even considering? Please.
EDIT: ha. I really did misinterpret here. sorry!

 

[NeonSturm]

I don't really like that particular idea. If I want imbalance toward my forward thrust, I'll do that. If I want braking speed to be the same, I'll put the same thrust on the front. Braking being stronger makes no sense. There is absolutely no realistic and no significant gameplay reason for it. In some circumstances, I think it would be advantageous to have more forward thrust than braking. It's another design decision/tradeoff to make, and I like that.

Another possibility would be to make thrusters per-axis instead of per-side. In other words, forward thrust would be one in the same with backward thrust, the same with port-starboard and for top-bottom. This would simplify designs (which would be mostly symmetrical anyway) and also solve your concern.

What's wrong with a titan going in full reverse speed? Starships have nothing to prevent that, unlike sailing ships that are designed to go one direction.

Yes, but what if you want space-ships to be like cars... Forward you have 5 speed levels, but backward only a first because it is never meant to drive backward on a high-way.

Maybe break rate should be 70% forward + backward while your speed is positive and 70% backward + forward) while your speed is positive.
Between breaking and acceleration you should be required to release the key once (or double-tap in short time to avoid this restriction). That would avoid you accidentally accelerating in oposite direction after an intended break.

I know it makes no sense with regular thinking, but some peoples may want that and I see no reason to not enable it with an option (called RolePlay-thrust or car-thrust-mechanics :D)

Just think about engines having a variable breaking torque relative to the universe motion or something alike.

EDIT: Oh more posts were added...

On the other hand, sending probes into the depths of space, traveling forever... we do have Stargates now. We could recreate the Destiny from Stargate Universe.

Yes, like +1
But remember that they had to make a whole planet explode to get enough energy reaching that ship which travelled (be)for(e) 10'000 years.

From a point of gameplay, it makes combat really one-dimensional and just doesn't feel as ship combat should feel like.
I mean, imagine sitting in your spaceship while there's this giant ship rapidly moving backwards while another one pursues it, rapidly shooting at one another. It looks like a bad comedy film, not an epic space battle.

IRL the ship which can accelerate faster (without exhausting it's fuel capacities) will escape or catch up.

StarMade's best equivalent to this situation is a long-range stop rapid gun mixed with long range weapons to do damage.

In light of recent conversation:

1. It has always annoyed me that you can hide your thrusters inside your hull. I want them to NEED a clear line of sight. Thus the difference between thrusters and warp-drive.
2. I think that the best way to do it would be on a per-side basis.
3. Thrust-force per-side would be determined by the EXPOSED SURFACE AREA of the thruster groups.
4. Thrust top-speed would be determined by the number of extra thrust blocks behind that surface area.
5. The result of this system would be that damage to the thrusters would first just expose thrusters behind, ultimately hurting the max-speed of your ship. Once they are severely damaged, however, the ship would begin to accelerate slower.
6. Another result would be that agile ships with low mass simply need a few exposed thrusters in different directions. Larger ships with high mass would need to balance accel with max speed. It would take a lot of exposed thrusters to have a very agile titan, and the stupid ones with massive engines would necessarily be easy to destroy with enough firepower. No more hiding massive systems inside the hull.

Maybe just make an array out of any block type spreading from the point where this block type is connected to a single thruster (which acts as a controller)
Thrust per block will then be dependent on resources required to build this block.

The same could apply for power... if it has only 1 block type nearby, an array of these become your reactor and energy produced depends on block number and cost. Some block types like hulls could be excluded because they already have another function.

That would allow really beautiful AND balanced RP ships.

I think that breaking should be the users concern and it is an interesting one. Maybe the easiest way for massive spaceships to slow down would be to turn completely around and fire main thrusters again.

The new ship design would be a very wide or tall ship built around the X or Y axis, allowing for a fast 180°-pitch or 180°-yaw.

Good? too restrictive? I think I gave you a reason to see the flaw in your idea.