Recognized Turrets system with Pictures - [ Poll]

[FunnyBunny14]

@Lecic
Then there should be at least two different types of connection points: 1 for vertical rotation and one for no rotation. There also could be one that only moves in a sort of cone, and not all the way to the top/bottom and not all the way to the left/right.

 

[Hanspeter Schnitzel]

Well, the original idea says that there is one rotation block that only allows to rotate left and right (for the body), and the other allows up and down (for the barrel). So it certainly shouldn't be forbidden to put weapon outputs in the body, since it would actually hinder the turrets ability considering it could not aim up or down and thus would have a very very narrow aiming cone, or rather, aiming line, since it can't shoot up or down at all.

 

[Lecic]

@Lecic
Then there should be at least two different types of connection points: 1 for vertical rotation and one for no rotation. There also could be one that only moves in a sort of cone, and not all the way to the top/bottom and not all the way to the left/right.

one for no rotation? you mean DOCKING POINTS? Which we already have?

 

[FunnyBunny14]

Docking points don't save it as one entity, and won't allow us to link things between the barrel and the body.

 

[Valiant70]

So just make it so the body can't clip? The body is only moving along a single plane, not three dimensionally. The barrels and body both can't clip the mothership. Why shouldn't people be able to make turrets that only rotate along a single axis, if they wanted that for some reason?

I'd say implement the two-segment turrets now and worry about clipping or no clipping later once the bugs are worked out of the basics. Just let them clip for the time being.

In the long run, this would probably be the least laggy solution:

• Body may clip
• Barrel may clip into body
• Barrel may not clip into anything else.

This prevents the turret from firing through walls, but cuts the collision calculations in half compared to a full-on "no clipping" solution. Turret bodies clipping might still look dumb, but that's up to the starship engineer to prevent or exploit. ("exploit" intended in a positive light in this case)

 

[Lecic]

Yeah, I think I agree with the original post instead of this. How about bullets from turrets just can't pass through what they're docked to?

Docking points don't save it as one entity, and won't allow us to link things between the barrel and the body.

Sorry you didn't make yourself clear. I thought you were referring to the attachment point to the main ship, not the turret barrel blocks, which aren't even docked.

 

[ltmauve]

I believe the idea is that one block defines the hinge for the barrels, and then you select from your turrets blocks that belong to the turrets.

Also like the idea of upward-facing barrels. Gonna use those for PD.

 

[TheOmega]

I like the part about docking port wedges. Maybe a docking penta and tetra that do it the other direction?
This is amazing. This guy, this guy.

 

[NeonSturm]

I agree it would take quite a bit to code this in.

I don't think so.


clipping = [code to check collision/clipping] -> yes|no

turn band = [check clipping for yaw ([check clipping for pitch] -> angle ay) ] -> min/max angle ay for angle step ax

The band is a circle with measure points every x° around yaw (horizontal turn)
It has a min and max pitch (vertical rotation).

Each part tries to aim first to the correct yaw, then to the correct pitch - or vice versa for vertically mounted parts.


If you understand the whole 3D matrix thing it is not an issue if you can code it, but when it starts to lag.
For each rotateable part you need a 4x4 matrix multiplication. Maybe you can forget about scale if everything is normalized, thus reduce the amount of multiplications, but it will still have some impact.

I think that it will lag less than a current planet tough :p

 

[willvette]

Can the turrets be used for cameras? Best combined with lock-on missiles: LRM and AA.

 

[schema]

I will do something in that direction definitely. I wanted to change it for a longer time already, but there were always other things coming up. As this system needs a lot of redoing it's also not a small change.

 

[Lecic]

I will do something in that direction definitely. I wanted to change it for a longer time already, but there were always other things coming up. As this system needs a lot of redoing it's also not a small change.

This may be the greatest thing I've read all week.

So much wonderful news for this game as of late. Steam release, great updates, and now this?

 

[lupoCani]

I will do something in that direction definitely. I wanted to change it for a longer time already, but there were always other things coming up. As this system needs a lot of redoing it's also not a small change.

Dear god... A reply! A genuine, top-level partially approving reply! This is a great day indeed.

 

[WaffulMann]

I've just come back from a month-long break from anything computer related and this is the first thing I see when I get back on. Well wackidy doo, I am the happiest man in the country.

 

[Blakpik]

This gets my vote, +1 Cookie to OP.

 

[Valiant70]

I guess something similar to this is supposed to happen after the GUI update. Man am I looking forward to both!

 

[SapioiT]

Well, my question is:
Can't you just place a turret (cannon) on a turret (rotation)?
Answer: maybe?

 

[ltmauve]

Answer: No, the current system doesn't allow that.
Also, they would share shields.

 

[Blakpik]

Well, my question is:
Can't you just place a turret (cannon) on a turret (rotation)?
Answer: maybe?

No because you can't put turrets on turrets.

 

[Hanspeter Schnitzel]

I'm guessing they mean coding wise? As in, the coding might not be thaaaat hard since both are kind of like turrets, but they share shields and can only turn along one axis?