In Developement Cockpits: Simple solution (remote core access)

[Bench]

It all matters how the data structure for ships is set up at the moment, as blocks on the ship are stored relative to the position of the ship core. Additionally linking to the core is still how all the systems be accessible to the weapons menu, thinks like weapons, defence and support effects etc.

It'll really be up to Schema, what he wants to do as he knows the structure of entities and how he handles the data. It might be that ship cores still play a big part like in supporting chain docking or in some other way we can't see.

 

[Valiant70]

So I'd like your thoughts on a suitably impressive block to replace the core.

I don't think it necessarily needs to be replaced. It just needs to be optional and movable, and it should be possible to place more than one on a ship. This fills all functionality for new ships and does not disrupt old ones. This is one new feature that doesn't NEED to mess with older ships. Ships *could* start with a core, but there's no reason to require it.

 

[jayman38]

It all matters how the data structure for ships is set up at the moment, as blocks on the ship are stored relative to the position of the ship core. Additionally linking to the core is still how all the systems be accessible to the weapons menu, thinks like weapons, defence and support effects etc.

It'll really be up to Schema, what he wants to do as he knows the structure of entities and how he handles the data. It might be that ship cores still play a big part like in supporting chain docking or in some other way we can't see.

Excellent, thank you.

I can see the core block being renamed as something like control interface and still being used as the first block of a ship. I'd also like to see it become the first block of a station, so that station administrators can use it to run on-board logic from a hotbar, even though they can't fly anywhere.

I don't think it necessarily needs to be replaced. It just needs to be optional and movable, and it should be possible to place more than one on a ship. This fills all functionality for new ships and does not disrupt old ones. This is one new feature that doesn't NEED to mess with older ships. Ships *could* start with a core, but there's no reason to require it.

This might release the game to be able to place more than one core/controller on a structure.
Ideas for the change:
The first core/controller is the first block placed, whether building a ship or station, and is the central link to which everything else is linked. Other cores/controllers can be placed and are automatically linked to the central core.

Now here's the fun stuff:
The secondary controllers can be linked from specific weapons and support effects, so that if you use that secondary interface, you can only access those linked systems. Meanwhile, if you use the core controller, you still have access to everything, including all that stuff linked to that secondary core/controller. This would support multi-player crews in a natural way.

Another fun thing that could be introduced: Being able to remove the central core. When digging out the central core, the game prompts you to select an alternate controller block to become the new central core. ("Please select new controller block.") If there are no secondary cores, the game gives the player a prompt, saying it cannot remove the core without an alternate core to take over as the primary. All central-core links are moved to the new primary core block when the original core is removed. Easy core-moving.

The center of the ship's coordinate system doesn't change when the first core is removed and replaced with a secondary core. It's still that spot where the old core used to be. The block itself simply becomes something else, typically a void space except for direct block replacement. (Edit: ...Just like the station structure.)

 

[Valiant70]

It all matters how the data structure for ships is set up at the moment, as blocks on the ship are stored relative to the position of the ship core.

If that's the way it works, it seems very strange. How do stations and other entities like asteroids store their blocks? All entities should probably use the same system (except for planets maybe... they are too large for the same solution to work well and be truly scalable).

Additionally linking to the core is still how all the systems be accessible to the weapons menu, thinks like weapons, defence and support effects etc.

That's OK. That can stay. I'd do it like this:

• Rename "core" to "control computer." It could either keep its current appearance or get a new one. It doesn't really matter.
• Optionally, everything may link automatically to the first control computer placed on the ship.
• Allow multiple control computers to be placed and linked.
  • When a control computer is "slaved" to another one, the master can access everything linked to the slave.
• To decide which control computers have helm control (turning and thrusters), add a "flight computer" block.
  • If this block is destroyed the ship will not be able to control the helm. This makes sense because weapons, jump, and everything else can be lost if a computer is destroyed.
  • A control computer has helm control if a flight computer is linked to it.
  • There may be multiple flight computers, but if one is in use the other will not activate. Upon attempting to activate a second flight computer, a message appears warning that the attempt to take the helm failed.
• For an AI module to control a ship function, a control computer with said function must be slaved to it.
• Turrets do not need a flight computer. Control computers get control of the turret axes by default. If multiple cores are present, the first one activated gets control of the axes. Placing multiple control computers on a turret would be kind of pointless, though.
• Moving parts like doors do not need a control computer at all. A ship built manually outside of a shipyard would require one to dock the parts initially, but it could be removed after docking.

On a ship, it would typically be a good idea to have one "master" computer accessible to the captain and several "slave" computers that crew members may use. You could put the master computer in CIC, the helm on the bridge, weapons in the weapon room, etc. You could even have a "navigation computer" with a jump drive slaved to it. The navigator could set a waypoint and jump to it while the pilot dodges enemy fire, shoots asteroids, or chats with the captain.

It'll really be up to Schema, what he wants to do as he knows the structure of entities and how he handles the data.

Right. You could run this idea by him and see what he thinks of it, though.

It might be that ship cores still play a big part like in supporting chain docking or in some other way we can't see.

That would be... weird. That sort of thing should really be handled by metadata rather than a block. If Schema did it that way, I suspect he would be planning to change it. I have no idea.
[DOUBLEPOST=1435188426,1435188218][/DOUBLEPOST]

Excellent, thank you.

I can see the core block being renamed as something like control interface and still being used as the first block of a ship. I'd also like to see it become the first block of a station, so that station administrators can use it to run on-board logic from a hotbar, even though they can't fly anywhere.



This might release the game to be able to place more than one core/controller on a structure.
Ideas for the change:
The first core/controller is the first block placed, whether building a ship or station, and is the central link to which everything else is linked. Other cores/controllers can be placed and are automatically linked to the central core.

Now here's the fun stuff:
The secondary controllers can be linked from specific weapons and support effects, so that if you use that secondary interface, you can only access those linked systems. Meanwhile, if you use the core controller, you still have access to everything, including all that stuff linked to that secondary core/controller. This would support multi-player crews in a natural way.

Another fun thing that could be introduced: Being able to remove the central core. When digging out the central core, the game prompts you to select an alternate controller block to become the new central core. ("Please select new controller block.") If there are no secondary cores, the game gives the player a prompt, saying it cannot remove the core without an alternate core to take over as the primary. All central-core links are moved to the new primary core block when the original core is removed. Easy core-moving.

The center of the ship's coordinate system doesn't change when the first core is removed and replaced with a secondary core. It's still that spot where the old core used to be. The block itself simply becomes something else, typically a void space except for direct block replacement. (Edit: ...Just like the station structure.)

Oh, looks like we had very similar ideas.

 

[Megacrafter127]

If that's the way it works, it seems very strange. How do stations and other entities like asteroids store their blocks?

Asteroids and stations do it the same way, around the first block, that is placed. Unlike on ships however, direct control over systems is not required on either, so the 1st block only serves the function as the fix-point, for which only its location is used, meaning its ID and other stats don't matter, which is why its ID can also be 0 (empty block)

 

[iceman6491]

Asteroids and stations do it the same way, around the first block, that is placed. Unlike on ships however, direct control over systems is not required on either, so the 1st block only serves the function as the fix-point, for which only its location is used, meaning its ID and other stats don't matter, which is why its ID can also be 0 (empty block)

That being the case, could we not make the core a placeable item on ship entities that allows things to be controllable? Maintain the relative block positions around the first placed block

At the very least perhaps a tool that applies a matrix transformation to all blocks, essentially moving all blocks around a core would be gurt lush.

 

[Valiant70]

I think it's time to bump this thread. This topic remains very relevant today, and lack of a movable helm has been irritating me lately.

 

[RavenWT]

you're right... I can't wait for helm's solution... Being able to pilot ships from captain's chair is amazing... Maybe a temporary solution could be a third person view? not like shift + mouse scroll, but like in other 3rd person games ! Could really help to handle this amazing game

 

[Rixxan]

+1 I want to be able to fly my starfighter and see my consoles and do stuff with logic without using build mode switches and cameras everyfrackingwhere or even be able to fly from the cockpit and just be able to have enemy players see me flying at them not just a ship with an empty cockpit, which in my opinion looks stupid.

 

[Edymnion]

Hell, I'd be perfectly happy if I could jump into a camera and steer from there.

Really not a fan of having to either bury your cockpit in the middle of your ship for protection, or put it out where it looks good and risk being cored.

 

[jayman38]

Hell, I'd be perfectly happy if I could jump into a camera and steer from there.

Really not a fan of having to either bury your cockpit in the middle of your ship for protection, or put it out where it looks good and risk being cored.

You no longer have to worry about being cored. You can now place the core anywhere convenient. The only problem is being killed as soon as you are kicked out of the core, but with the scale of regular space battles, and how much ship has to be destroyed to overheat, you really can't bury yourself deeply enough to effectively avoid that death.

It would be an interesting idea to be able to reduce/eliminate your astronaut's radar signature by throwing away inventory items, to keep from being discovered in the wreckage....

 

[iceman6491]

Love the cockpit idea, cant wait till it gets here.

anyway, my eye twitched because:

Spoiler: Sorry, I cant keep the Engineer at bay

It would be an interesting idea to be able to reduce/eliminate your astronaut's radar signature by throwing away inventory items, to keep from being discovered in the wreckage....

Sorry for this... I cant help it, its the Aerospace Engineer in me

Removing things from your person would not reduce a RADAR signature, further a radar signature is not something that is 'emitted'. RADAR works by the reflection of Radio waves from a target. The resulting signature is thus dependant on how well the radio waves are reflected and the direction in which the reflection happens. A flat plate facing a RADAR transmitter would have a large signature, however the same plate angled at an obtuse angle relative to the transmitter would have a low signature due to the magnitude of the radio waves that are reflected away from the RADAR receiver. Therefore reducing the quantity of items on your person or in a vehicle will not reduce your signature. It will however introduce many more individual signatures which can over saturate the RADAR receiver making tracking of the primary target harder. You wouldn't suddenly go invisible to a RADAR system though...

Again sorry, I couldn't help it, but now you know a little bit more about RADAR

 

[Ithirahad]

Hell, I'd be perfectly happy if I could jump into a camera and steer from there.

Really not a fan of having to either bury your cockpit in the middle of your ship for protection, or put it out where it looks good and risk being cored.

But there's no more coring... Regardless, though, I really like having a proper "core room" for my core, but I'd like to be able to pilot from the bridge too...

 

[RavenWT]

was thinking about boarding a ship... With the actual core system... we can't kill pilot to stop the ship...

 

[Valiant70]

Ideally, I'd like to put the core in my ship's main engineering section along with weapon computers and bury the whole kit and caboodle deep inside the ship, then have computers on the bridge (helm, control computer, whatever) to control everything remotely. Someone in main engineering could change weapon combos around manually with C and V if desired.

 

[Rixxan]

If the pilot didn't disappear when the player was interacting with a weapon or computer, that could be made to work for boarders, as they could both overheat the core to take the ship and destroy it or kill the pilot. Killing the pilot model would be in effect to killing the player, so players would have to have internal security on ships.

 

[Valiant70]

If the pilot didn't disappear when the player was interacting with a weapon or computer, that could be made to work for boarders, as they could both overheat the core to take the ship and destroy it or kill the pilot. Killing the pilot model would be in effect to killing the player, so players would have to have internal security on ships.

That makes so much more sense than what we have now. LOL The only problem would be re-introducing something akin to coring, in which everyone tries to kill the bridge crew rather than destroy the ship outright. Some players won't like that. Of course, that's perfectly reasonable and legitimate so it might not be as much of a problem as it would be a realistic mechanic.

I suppose you could make ship weapons unable to hit astronauts, but that would just be weird and awkward.

 

[Rixxan]

That makes so much more sense than what we have now. LOL The only problem would be re-introducing something akin to coring, in which everyone tries to kill the bridge crew rather than destroy the ship outright. Some players won't like that. Of course, that's perfectly reasonable and legitimate so it might not be as much of a problem as it would be a realistic mechanic.

I suppose you could make ship weapons unable to hit astronauts, but that would just be weird and awkward.

Well, we could make it that coring still works, where you can overheat the core and shutdown all the bridge stations, weapons, ect. and disable the ship until it 'overheats' and destroys and it's vulnerable in the way it is now, or we could make it so that if there are no members of the 'faction' or original crew on the ship alive the boarders could either overwrite the faction block or take command of the ship. That would mean less damage to the target ship and as the boarders needed a way on, it could work in reverse too where the boarders are killed off by the defenders and the defenders get a new ship.

 

[Valiant70]

Well, we could make it that coring still works, where you can overheat the core and shutdown all the bridge stations, weapons, ect. and disable the ship until it 'overheats' and destroys and it's vulnerable in the way it is now, or we could make it so that if there are no members of the 'faction' or original crew on the ship alive the boarders could either overwrite the faction block or take command of the ship. That would mean less damage to the target ship and as the boarders needed a way on, it could work in reverse too where the boarders are killed off by the defenders and the defenders get a new ship.

If players at the controls could be hit by weapons, there wouldn't be any need for a coring mechanic to achieve a disabled ship. If you hit the pilot, the ship is dead in the water until someone else takes control. Still, disabling the ship if the core is hit is an interesting idea. However, to do any of that we would need to figure out how to prevent the balance problems that were caused by coring previous to the HP update.

 

[Rixxan]

If players at the controls could be hit by weapons, there wouldn't be any need for a coring mechanic to achieve a disabled ship. If you hit the pilot, the ship is dead in the water until someone else takes control. Still, disabling the ship if the core is hit is an interesting idea. However, to do any of that we would need to figure out how to prevent the balance problems that were caused by coring previous to the HP update.

Well, the bridge would be a prime target either way, so that's OK. Put the crew on the bridge and maybe that's where you put your reenforced hull, sure. maybe make a block that when destroyed by shipborne weapons the whole ship self destructs, so in order to take out the bridge crew you have to have a certain level of planning, so you would have to board to take out the crew. That block could possibly be placed everywhere, but maybe make it a limit of one block per ship so you have to use your head on where to place it, like the core or the bridge. Coreing could be made to take every system except AI Offline, maybe leave a few others online, and prevent FTL jumps, Main Engines, and nonAI weapons from firing. Maybe have the core begin to auto-reset so that either A) The attackers gain control of the core (maybe so they have to use a tool for a certain amount of time while taking no damage to 'hack' the core to their side), EDIT:

B) The core resets itself and the process has to start all over again

END EDIT:
or C) the crew on the ship fights back and takes back the core room. Anti-Personnel turrets would be in their element here. To balance, the ship/core the attackers are attacking can't take any damage either, so once the attackers gain access to the core room the attacking fleet must break off their attack until either their boarding party is taken out or takes the core. This would bring a new level of depth to the game and force both sides to be skilled at ground-to-ground and ship-to-ship combat, as both would be required to pirate and steal an enemy ship.


AAAH so many ideas so little time. I can't even put some of them to words right now...