Sins Forums
So first off l love Sins but there is just one thing that kind of bothers me: Why do fighters and bombers just turn like there a large ship why not make them bank when they turn like a real fighter. seems a little nitpicky but it bothers me a bit. I just think that would look a lot cooler, but maybe im just weird. Any thoughts on this?
How odd, I was lamenting the same thing while watching a replay last night. I would guess it's just not worth the man hours to make that look right-- Most of the times fighters are just represented by a little rotating icon-- by the time you're zoomed close enough to see them-- you've lost the tactical picture and the ability to effectively manage units-- you're just watching for aesthetics sake-- which I do a lot of as well. :3
Lots of things need their attention-- this should probably one of the last things they look at... nevertheless, I agree with you that the strikecraft turning 'method' needing a bit of attention.
DrGonzo
Ya your probobly right it would take more man power then it might be worth but, just that little detail would make watching a battle playout so much more interesting.
yeah, if IC ever decides to either expand or outsource, it would be good.
on the same page, if the larger ships could also turn and bank and do something other than just line up and fire from the hip
i know there may be performance issues, but if its at all possible, id love for that to happen...
but i can definitly imagine IC/SD being too occupied with updates/x-pack/Demigod to have time to fiddle with visuals
I know it's bad form to state realism when defending a computer game but I'm only stating it because it was the first thing that popped in my head.
In space ships wouldn't bank, it's pointless, unless their thrusters were under their wings.
well, strictly speaking unless the fighters are designed to enter and operate in an atmosphere... they shouldnt even need wings
then again, by placing the thrusters on the wings the rotational force is increased compared to putting the thrusters on the fuselage. so, when combined with the massive, continual forward force of the engines, the added surface area given by the wings would give much more control for high-G manouvers
...on the other hand, it also makes you a bigger target, so a bit of a trade off =P
wait, i just re-read that and you meant all ships huh? anyway, i actually mean fly around like star trek or stargate ships... maybe with capital ships acting more like in starwars... more juggernaught-like.
why would they bank? function of G forces. turning and going fast at the same time. its like why, when u spin a bucket of water, the bucket and handle etc stay in the same position (relatively) to your arm.
True... Realism? True... In fact all ships would bank (even caps) as they are in a 3-D environment when moving...
The problem here is priority level and computation usage... And it would require a lot given that many fleets have 10-20 squads... I think that if there was nothing else to work on, it would be a nice bonus, but there are more important things to do like fix mitigation and balance guardians than add in a little graphic...
...as in squadrons of strikecraft?
do you play small fleet sizes? most of my fleets have about 30 squadrons of bombers/fighters each! =P
I was talking about most fleets... Most fleets don't get that many until later in the game, so I went with an average...
There's no air in space.
That's the only reason planes do bank in order to turn. In space, there's no reason to bank, and to do so would be worse than pointless. Ships in space would alter directions via altitude adjustment rockets, much like the Space Shuttle. Many TV shows and movies seem to be caught up in the idea that space is just like atmosphere, only dark and cold. Not true. The common perception of banking starships is incorrect, and Sins actually has it right when the strikecraft just simply spin, and continue moving. Same thing with the capital ships.
Also, most scif-fi shows have their ships move like that out of the coolness factor, not the tactically advantageous factor. Keeping your fleet far distant from your enemy would be more beneficial, because it would mean that aiming would be more difficult and hitting a small target like a one kilometer ship from five hundred kilometers away would be impossible. That's why it's better to just sit klicks away and hammer off missiles at each other. Not as cool, maybe, but far more tactically minded.
SSAF, who's sick of the fact
that his username is not unique.
It depends though, on the weapons the starfleet is using. Autocannons and missiles, for example, might be better off being fired at a closer range to maintain velocity. After all, shooting a cannon from several-hundred kilometers in space may result in bullets floating harmlessly instead of striking the enemy vessel.
Rezonator got it right with the leverage and the G's. If you put thrusters on the wingtips, there's more leverage and the ship can rotate quickly. Then you fire a thruster under the nose and you're headed toward the destination. This way, the G's are pulling the pilto's whole body down, instead of plastering him against the side of his cockpit via centrifugal force (whick im sure would screw with his flying and shooting). With bigger ships, I'm sure they either have artificial gravity and can therefore balance the G's inside, or it's just impractical to have 2 thruster burns instead of 1.
Of course, like Haree said, it's pointless to defend a sci-fi computer game with realism. I also agree that it's not worthy of IC's attention. If someone really wants it changed, I'm sure they could work something out. There's already a z-axis there, so it shouldn't be too hard (excuse me if I'm wrong, I know very little about modding).
while we are at it, how about we complain about fighters and bombers... being very non-solid? but then again... its soo fun to watch them fly straight into the sun/planet/capitalship they are trying to shoot.
and that the turrets dont rotate... zooming in on a flack frig drives me crazy sometimes.
Ya... there are alot of things that are really neat and nice for show... but 1. iron clan is a small company, and 2. all these things take up cpu power... and on a single threaded game... that hurtz.
No friction in space, the greatest bane of sci-fi! 
Wait, there still is? I know I found the hotkey for it and assigned a key, but it doesn't do anything...does it?
Well.. there is a tiny bit of friction, but you won't notice it unless you are going 99.999% of the speed of light though... (two hydrogen atoms per cubic meter)
There is one... Get a lot of cobalts, Kodiaks, and Kols and have them form up in a tight formation... They will fly on top of each other...
very true, however there would be gravimetric shearing (basically, gravity from large objects in space like capital ships or starbases, asteroids/moonsm planets, anomalies (the last one meh but we dont know right?) causes inertial weapons to go off course... depending on the size of the slug and a few other things) as well as other things like a nearby explosion could throw slugs off their trajectory.
also, at longer ranges (but im talking like between planets, so this doesnt really count) you encounter space matter that slows you down, so like micro-meteorites, gases, debris etc, when you run into it you it acts like an atmosphere and slows you down. And, to a smaller extent the Sun's gravity also does this. thats why a nuclear pulse engine has to keep firing every once in a while after you reach top speed
but yeah, at the ranges we are talking about, slugs wont have slowed down enough to 'bounce harmlessly off the shields'
i believe you have to hold the Z-axis hotkey (once you map it) and then click where in the GW you want to go
okay, lets get things straight first. when i spoke about banking, i meant the visual effect (i actually meant diving and weaving, as though the ships were actually trying NOT to get hit, but i had a mind blank so just said whatever). I doubt the space shuttle can do what Sins strikecraft can do, in terms of speed and manouverability. While the fighter isnt actually banking in terms of using airflow to stay aloft and turn yada yada, the fact it is turning creates the effect as though it were banking. like i explained before, the G forces created by the turn vs the inertia of the craft means it wants to go in 2 different directions at once; one is to turn, and the other is to keep going on its original course (inertia). this causes the fighter naturally pick a halfway point... which happens to be a constant whether you are in atmo or not. You have to remember the Space Shuttle would rarely do high G manouvers, and prefers to do as little as possible at a time movement wise so as not to waste fuel.
except capital ships and in fact most other large ships in Sins actually do bank? given, not as much as a fighter, but they do rotate on their X-axis, for the same reason as i outlined above. and SC, while having less mass, are still affected by this principal so they fact they dont bank is odd.
I do agree with you, to a point. First, yeah, sci-fi likes the coolness factor, no doubt. on the other hand, for the same reason they cant hit a 1 kilometer long ship at 500 kilometers, you cant either. you have to do whatever you can. For instance, Star Trek withstanding, particle weapons would have a certain range before, like a laser (but with light), the particles disperse and do no damage. at the same time, missile could run out of fuel or be shot down/disabled.
But you see, the thing we all forget, is that in space people will be much less inhibited against using nuclear weapons and worse. if you sit 500 kilometers away and fire a salvo of very fast (i mean like even a quarter of light-speed) nuclear missile, you dont have to hit the 1 kilometer long ship between the eyes, as long as its within the blast radius.
and thats the one thing most sci-fi shows dont do (except Stargate, but thats why i love it =P) because humans have a phobia against nuclear weapons, so we go in with lasers and particle cannons and missiles and torpedos 
another thing is if, in a game, everyone used nukes... it would be very hard to keep a fleet alive for any period of time... but maybe thats more realistic
You mean something like this?
/end shameless plug 
On the physics side of things, nukes in space are not nearly as devastating as when they have a nice atmosphere where they can do all the nifty stuff like shockwaves and such.
If you want hardcore space battle realism, read "Night's Dawn" trilogy by Peter E. Hamilton. Battles last for ten seconds max and ships melt like icecream cones in a blast furnace.
Needless to say, that would make for a very boring game.
Manshooter's got a point. The real damage nukes do is via shockwaves and superheated air. While granted, they are still dangeroud in space, they wouldn't pack nearly as much of a punch when simply striking a ship. For them to be truly effective, you'd need to use nukes in conjunction with something like a sabot round. Get the missile to burn and punch through into the ship before the nuke detonates, thus giving it that atmospheric advantage.
@ Rezonator: I just used the Space shuttle as an example of real world adjustment rockets. It would be cool to stick some rail guns in the Space Shuttle bay though....but that leads back to the Space Shuttle Door Gunner patch, if anyone's ever heard of that.
I guess banking and rolling might serve tactical purposes in ordanance avoidance, but there are also all sort of non-atmospheric based maneuvers that would be far more applicable. For example, Battlestar Galactica (RDS) does an admirable job of putting realistic physics with strikecraft. Granted, even though BSG's physics aren't perfect, they are close. One manuever often used involves spinning the fighter while still flying forward, in order to face your pursuer, and shoot them down. Such a move could also be used to rapidly change direction, thus skewing any pursuer's aim. Also, another move more useful than banking is orbiting, in which a strikcraft would keep it's nose oriented to it's target, thus keeping the target in it's sights, and then use thrusters and attitude adjustments to swing around wildly. Banking is useful, but there are a myriad of other more tactical movements that could be utilized in space.
Also, about the whole problem with hitting a ship hundreds of kilcks away, I do remember one instance in sci-fi in which this was done very well, with lasers.
Edt: Oops, forgot to mention that this is Star Wars. The star destroyers ought to have clued you in...
During the Siege of Dac, the Harbinger along with one or two Executor Class Star Destroyers shelled an advancing Yuuzhan Vong armada from their orbit around Dac. This is made more amazing by the fact that the Yuuzhan Vong entered the systm in the comet shell, and were working their way in system. That means that the Harbinger and the Executor Class Star Destroyers were shooting the armada from distance on the order of millions of kilometers, not just hundreds.
And to mansh00ter, can you post a link to your volumetric mod and damage effects one? I can't seem to find it
THATS WHAT I WAS THINKING OF! and the Commonwealth Saga and Dreaming Void Trilogy...wow, fun stuff, i didnt want to go that far though, i mean hyperspace missiles and relativistic weaponry is not only mindblowing to the casual gamer, but i tink waaay to incredibly powerful for a game =P
(i know nukes arent that powerful in space, but they are commonly known and still do more damage than just about anything ship based atm (barring maybe missile barrage =P)
for instance a super-charged thermo-plasmic blast. it is much more powerful, picture a bright green gas-like cloud in space that vaporises anything it comes in contact with, and can even be moulded to hit certain things and not others. also, due to the lack of gravity, the blast could be many kilometers in diameter. very cool.
As for nukes though, sure, superheated air and whatnot... but lets look at a few things:
1. what is a shockwave and superheated air going to do to a shielded starship? not alot. The main power of them is that, if you take a few hundreds of them, the EMP, the radiation (not so much but it may interfere with systems), and, of course, the blast itself. Take the ships in Sins, how closely they pack together in formation. especially since as of now there is no way to intercept missiles, just a handful of nukes would decimate even the largest fleets.
2. a starship is a complex thing. aside from any explosive ammunition or weapons systems on board, the reactors of these ships themselves are the largest weapons in the game. if a singe LF's reactor went critical and detonated in the middle o a fleet, the entire fleet would go up in smoke. Why? the reactors use a matter-antimatter reaction to power the ships and abilities etc. basically, the matter comes into contact with the anti-matter, and they cancel each other out and cause a massive amount of energy. thats basic anti-matter physics. thing is though, when anti-matter comes into contact with matter in an uncontrolled environment, the reaction propagates, the more matter, the larger the explosion. a reckon a nuke could do that.
@SSAF
i didnt say banking was the only thing available. i agree with and like all your ideas. unfortunate fact is SC are a rather small part of Sins. For a game like Freelancer (space-flight simulator with RPG elements) where you actually fly a ship much like a fighter, all those tactics would be good. For Sins, its kinda superfluous, after all, its just a graphic. Regardless, you are still very correct.
and yeah, i dont actually know which Sci-Fi you are talking about with the Harbinger etc, but yeah, there is nothing wrong with firing from long distances. thats the (one of the) point(s) of modern day artillery; fire at them without them being able to return fire. But if you want to be accurate, (like i you wanted to capture a ship or teleport weapons/boarding parties across) then range is an issue. But, on that issue, the novels i was talking about at the top of this post talk about a weapon that generates its own 'warp' or 'phase' field so it can be fired from phase space, get to its destination not only quickly, but invisibly also. Early versions of the weapon had it come out of phase space a few kilometers from the target and detonate, later models had it create an opening in phase space and detonate within phase space, causing much more damage. that could be fired from lightyears away. so its not only a thing of looking far away, but looking in time =P
YES!! absolutely!! is that your mod? does it work with Entrenchment 1.03? LINKY PLEASE!!!
If you look at it all from a realistic stand point then yes most of what people have said is true but i was just thinking how just that added astetic would spice up battles/replayes. and going back to what someone else said yes watching flak frigate turrets shoot but not move kind of bothers me but i think that is because i was a huge Homeworld 2 fan.
i was reading an interview from Blair Fraiser and the interviewer asked him about the really involved communities, and asked about some of the weirder requests, and one that blair himself brought up was individually moving turrets and he said that yes, while aesthetically pleasing, the extra CPU load was huge so they cut it
yeah, graphics are nice, but if they mess with the game, cut it
Very, very true.
There was another book series I've read, maybe you all have herad of it. Last Legion by Chris Bunch? His space battles are oddly vulnerable. There are no shields or lasers, only autocannons and missiles, including some missiles that can juimp into N-space (read as hyperspace) to follow a target and kill it. Those were interesting books, with a new lok at space combat. For instance, fightercraft had no purpose in space other than to kill frigates or any other large ships. There were no dogfights, and the fighters only carried antiship missiles. I remember at one point three fighters destroyed a klick and a half long ship because they managed to sneak in behind it and salvo all their missiles into it.
And people complain about Focus Firing in Sins...
Just like in Freelancer (a spaceflight simulator with RPG elements, a REALLY good game, you should try it)
Sure, there are Battleships (which double as carriers) and Cruisers but most of the game is made up of small one man fighters and, to a lesser extend, gunboats, which you cant even fly yourself. So the battleships and cruisers simply sit on the sidelines and fire in, while the fighters are doing all the work. given, though, fighters could carry anti-fighter weaponry plus missiles, as well as torpedos for larger ships or for when overkill is just the right amount of kill =P
Honestly, i can only see SC being useful in a space battle if the SC carry weapons capable of damaging the shields and hull of the enemy ship. it would be good assuming the SC move faster than the enemy ship can shoot. but if the enemy can fire one missile and get a 100% hit ratio (1 missile per fighter and destroy said fighter) then SC would be useless.
Then again, im sure they could find a neiche... attacking lightly protected points like engine exhausts or weapons ports, civilian targets, sneaking into a system unnoticed, we'll never know.
I just hope when we get into space our ships look really cool, and none of the hodgepodge you sometimes see in Sci-Fi looking to portray the 'reality' of space flight etc
(Federation Soverign Class FTW!!)
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
Stardock Forums