Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Axiege]

I'm sure many ships seen throughout the Corvus System and beyond use advanced technologies like multi-direction engine drives or torque-inducing wheels or some other third thing to maneuver through space, but I think the addition of small maneuvering jets (unlike the ships system, would be required to be in use constantly to turn instead of a boost to turning speed) on the less advanced ships could be a really nice graphical effect and add some more variety to the gameplay.

Graphically, maneuvering jets could make ship hulls look more active and 'alive.' Their presence could help further distinguish low-tech ships from the rest, adding in more unique graphical characteristics while also being a step towards animated hulls. From a modding perspective, this adds more potential variety to what the modding community can make. I remember seeing a thread about a modder who was trying to make a ship with 4 engines in the 4 cardinal directions, and he wanted a way to only activate 1 engine at a time depending on which way the ship was flying.

From a gameplay perspective, regular maneuvering jets could even more greatly distinguish low-tech ships and other ships that may have them. Currently, if you disable a ship's engine it has no control over its movement. However, on a ship with maneuvering jets, the main engine is possibly only a main source of forward thrust. As long as the maneuvering jets are still operational, it could rotate and strafe just as well, and possibly even still fly forward at greatly reduced speeds. It's not entirely advantageous though, as one disabled jet would set the whole maneuvering system off-balance, and make it harder and harder to control as more jets are disabled.

So, any thoughts?

[Silver Silence]

I think maneuvering jets are already in the game to some degree. I get the impression that ships use some form of vectored thrust. Or am I the only one who's noticed how warped the exhaust flames get during sharp turns? It can be very noticeable on a Hound at times, or on modded ships with those very long and completely needle thin exhausts.

That said, I still like the idea of seeing smaller engines dotted along the hull that flare up when you turn left or right.

[Axiege]

Gimbaling (vectoring) engines are different than maneuvering jets. The jets are their own little rockets separate from the main source of forward thrust. Also, gimbaling engines cannot explain how ships can rotate the way they do, even if they can gimbal 90 degrees you need to balance it on the opposite side of the ship with more thrust in the opposite direction to create a useful amount of torque. Of course this can all be hand-waved by saying TECHNOLOGY and I'm not at all against that. I just think, like I explained, it would add a nice amount of diversity if some ships still relied on more current methods in rocket science. Also, I still can't decide whether or not I would want the advantages of using a ship with maneuvering jets with the trade-offs I outlined, and I think adding meaningful decisions like that is definitely a good thing.

[PCCL]

I'm gonna vote against it just for stylistic reasons...

maneuvering jets are great sometimes, but I feel they would be distracting when the ships are already so small as is

I see your points though

[FlashFrozen]

Imo it'll make for a need respriting of ships to include the mentioned thrusters, ( I'd wouldn't mind, I love the extra layer of immersivity)

For an example of what I think was a good implementation of multi directional thrusters, look at game plays of nexus: jupiter incident, almost every ship has reverse thrusters/ engines mounted opposite to the main one to facilitate slowing down and rotations etc.

I'd love to have have thrusters tied to which key you press ( like how main engines flare with w , can have thrusters that light up specifically when you hit q,e,a,d, and reverse engines with s)

[Silver Silence]

Another example of thrusters is in X. It took me the longest time in X3 to figure out that the little spurts of white when I turned my ship around were actually maneuvering thrusters. And they follow realism to a degree, in that if you start turning, it's only a spurt of power. Not *insert awesome thruster sound effects with mouth here* until you stop spinning. It's just a spurt to start you spinning and another spurt to stop you spinning. It's pretty cool to watch.

[PCCL]

btw I'm all for modding this in, that's the reason I made the post about engines in API request

[Axiege]

@Silver
It would be like that, with small controlled bursts turning it in 1 direction and then a shorter one to stop the turn. I'm taking most of what I 'know' about modern rocket science from Kerbal Space Program, and that's just how RCS (I think it stands for rocket control system?) works there when you've got computer assistance running.

@gunnyfreak
Would love to see that mod, although you said it would require new API functions? A mod based on what we could accomplish now given enough resources with our modern understanding of rocket science might be really cool as well.

[billi999]

Axiege - it's reaction control system.

I think it would be a great thing to see visually and would make your interaction with the movement of your ship feel more organic, which I would imagine is exactly what one would like to feel with the implied level of technology in low-tech ships.

Although implementation could be difficult to do while maintaining compatibility with the modding API and .SHIP files, I do have a theory of how it could be done.
-I do not believe respriting would need to be done. The jets could be comparatively small, say 2x8 in size, such that a reaction thruster would not generally be visible.
-The .SHIP files could use existing engines with new types that modify their behaviour (e.g.; LOW_TECH_REACTION). These new engine types would as previously mentioned respond to WASDQE buttons, and would behave like nodes, in that they would fire omnidirectional jets for the thrust. To ensure the thrusters do not fire into the ship, a check could be made to determine if the transparency level of the neighbouring pixel of the ships' sprite is above a certain amount, where it will otherwise not fire. These new constants for the thrusters would admittedly be inconsistent with how engines are currently used, but would solve compatibility issues. Besides, maneovering jets already use the unused contrail value of engines as a bit of a "cheat", so is that really breaking inconsistency much more?

Now, ther are other flaws with this idea though. Namely, even today we have technology capable of attitude control of spacecraft without thrust-powered systems, such as reaction wheels. Admittedly these have limitations of their own, but with more technological hand-waving you could again say similar systems are built into all vessels. If that were the case, however, why would rotational control be disabled at the same time as engines?
Another issue is with high-tech and possibly midline ships. If you lose the reaction jets on those type of ships, that's some of the feedback gone, and that may be a small detail that puts people off buying high-tech ships as much, even if the difference is only cosmetic.
Yet another issue is determining how to allow reaction systems to be disabled. With the way engines can sometimes be disabled, it seems like it would be problematic to implement the same system for a number of reaction thrusters. This issue further compounds when you consider the previous problem, as low-tech could concievably have the advantage of being able to maneouver while engines but not reaction systems are disabled, while high-tech would not have such an advantage. On the other hand, this could be considered just another quirk which sets apart high-tech from low-tech.

[Silver Silence]

I think that high-tech ships should be without maneuvering thrusters. I'unno, it just seems more natural for the high-tech ships to be able to just use their main engines. Because technology. Perhaps if some engines on high-tech ships could be noted as maneuvering engines instead, so it looks as though those engines are the ones that rotate the ship by turning to the sides. How to stop the ship turning? I haven't thought that far ahead.  Then have larger, more emphasized drive engines and smaller maneuvering engines all at the back, instead of everywhere. So really, maybe not without maneuvering thrusters, just in less conspicuous places.

It just seems to be like low-tech ships would have a large reliance on maneuvering thrusters at points on the ship, the midlines starting to phase them out, and the high-techs somehow making it work with their drive engines instead. Most of the midline ships are the ones that use maneuvering jets anyway. The Conquest has those two small jets that fire at the front of the ship while jets are active. Eagle and Falcon have them on their wings.


P.S
Hey. Every time you read the word "maneuvering", "jets" or "thrusters" anywhere in this thread, have a drink. Any drink. But have a drink.

[billi999]

I do agree maneo-...eng-...jets...(Oh damn, I said it didn't I!) would indeed look out of place on the otherwise sleek designs of the high-tech ships. Perhaps gimballed engines (Damnit.)(which tilt engines in the opposite direction which you wish to rotate, producing a degree of torque in that direction) as Axiege mentioned could be used in combination with a small number of, er, jets...To provide a decent torque. But as I feel like I remember him pointing out, gimballed engines only make a difference if they are producing some thrust, which would result in forward thrust with anything less than a 90 degree gimbal range.

[Silver Silence]

Sounds like we need another dose of technology. 

[Axiege]

@billi999
You're right, if ships were using reaction wheels (which I only sort of mentioned because I wasn't quite sure they were a real thing) then disabling the engines wouldn't stop them from turning (although I can't see how a reaction wheel allows strafing anyway). So it must be some sci-fi technological advancement on the main engines that allows them to turn and strafe. Maybe that could be a thing though, having ships that still use reaction wheels as well. Since the wheels are within the ship, you couldn't ever disable that ship's ability to turn, but at the same time it can't strafe (unless I'm wrong about reaction wheels not allowing strafing).

@Silver
The greater distinguishment of the low-tech ships and any other ships that may maneuver in this way I think is the best part about this suggestion, it gives them more differences that are meaningful gameplay-wise.

Maybe respriting wouldn't have to be done, and the maneuvering jets could be a defining characteristic of a new tech-level of super 'archaic' ships that through diligent maintenance have been operational for centuries. That I guess would make them super rare, and they wouldn't even need to be necessarily worse. They could focus on having massive amounts of armor and firepower while lacking shields and other advancements modern to Starsector's time.

[Silver Silence]

Is this the point where we go take an Onslaught and go one better and make some sort of dreadnaught like these monsters from Fight For Universe?

[billi999]

Is this the point where we go take an Onslaught and go one better and make some sort of dreadnaught like these monsters from Fight For Universe?

Someone please do this! Considering it there's so much possibility to make such ancient ships diverse. You could have a significant number of built-in ballistic and/or missile weapons which use weapon mounts and fitted weapons with technology so old, they aren't even compatible with newer ballistic technology. I'm thinking ballistics that look even closer to the look of the turrets you got on WWII era naval ships, and maybe heavier use of torpedo weapons. I would say don't do this for all the weapon mounts though, as that would take out the fun of ship customisation. As an excuse for that, you could say the newer weapon slots were jury rigged onto the hull over the years.

Perhaps to represent the vulnerability of using reaction wheels to impacts, you could find a way to have these ancient ships suffer significantly more from weapons with impact effects to show the behaviour of the reaction wheels being disturbed. Maybe a x100 multiplier to the effect of weapons ith impact values.