95 replies to this topic

[CeeKay Boques]

verybad, on 07 December 2011 - 02:00 PM, said:

No, a sub-386 level computer automatically calculating the level the barrel has to be raised based on highschool level physics., it's a simple a concept to understand.

So, sighting a weapon has improved. We haven't overcome physics.

Quote

The HVAC is HIGHER velocity. I'm pretty certain regular ACs aren't powered by rubber bands however. A flight time longer than a second would be unusual, and would also be very subject to lag, making the weapon very unreliable in actual game play rather than concpetual discussion

So, its too hard for computers to calculate. Unlike the "sub-386 level computer automatically calculating the level the barrel has to be raised based on highschool level physics".

[verybad]

Technoviking, on 07 December 2011 - 03:35 PM, said:

So, sighting a weapon has improved. We haven't overcome physics.

Nobody said we have "overcome" physics. However Tank gunners don't have to take out a calcualtor to figure out the angle the barrel has to be at, nor do they need to guess it. This level of UNDERSTANDING of physics is not a high level of technology.

Quote

So, its too hard for computers to calculate. Unlike the "sub-386 level computer automatically calculating the level the barrel has to be raised based on highschool level physics".

?
I appologise, but that's not what I said. It's guess it's too easy for me to expectr that when I say "The HVAC is HIGHER velocity. I'm pretty certain regular ACs aren't powered by rubber bands however." That normal reading comprehension suggests that I'm comparing the HVAC to the regular AC. Not the speed of the computer being used to solve the issue.

In ant case, it doesn't matter, the only think that needs to be determined is how far will the round drop over the course

The speed of the HVAV is irrelevant inin any case. All you need to know to determine the angle of weapon is the speed of the round, the distance between the weapon and the target, relative altitudes and movements, and possibly the air density. These are all inputs that can be handled without the pilot's input. It's obvious that this information is already gathered as a target will almost invariably have distance from you when it is selected.That information isn't gathered just so you can know, 'guess' the angle you need to shoot at.

Edited by verybad, 07 December 2011 - 11:29 PM.

[BlueDog]

I think it depends a lot on the scale of the battle. If we have several hundred mechs on each side, calculating the ballistics for each bullet and missile being fired could cause server load issues. If we just have a few lances fighting each other, then it might be fine. The problem is, we don't know yet how big the battles will be. Case in point, EVE has been struggling for a long time to address issues caused by really big fleet fights where you might have upwards of 500 ships on each side.

I'm concerned with playability, if we can have realistic physics without crashing the server, I'm all for it.

[EgoPrime]

Prosperity Park, on 04 December 2011 - 10:10 PM, said:

A question about slug-throwers: Should they be subject to gravity? I know a flechette would not be affected exactly the same as a slug, but, in general, should basic auto cannon, gauss, rail, and machine gun projectiles follow any kind of ballistic arc?

in my opinion yea they should. Only laser and gauss not. Cos gauss is based on em acceleration and it should have mah 5-9 speed. Enough to defy gravity.

[TheRulesLawyer]

Ghost, on 05 December 2011 - 08:22 AM, said:

I'm against bullet drop for several reasons. The most prominent reason I'm against ballistics being involved is the fact that the deck is already stacked against projectiles. I'm all for anything that keeps the laser boats at bay.

If you stick to straight TT conversion, yes. However if you take lasers as DOT type weapons where you have to keep on target awhile to get your damage and then make AC's high rate of fire, but ultimately ammo limited you give them a reason to exist. Gun would do much more damage over a short period of time, but laser would allow you to take low probability shots. Making Ac's a little hard to hit with in that context makes more sense.

[Felicitatem Parco]

It seems like the poll is skewed heavily in favor of Ballistic Drop... is that because only the more adamantly opinionated people are voting, or because only people interested in Ballistic Drop are reading this thread and voting, or is it because the gamers here really do favor Ballistic Drop that much?

Edited by Prosperity Park, 09 December 2011 - 10:46 AM.

[Tierloc]

I think that if they have regular pvp play (I justified this as playing out open contracts for the house) and implemented galactic conquest play (where the merc units duke it out), then in the galactic play the different planets would absolutely have restrictions like 8x gravity where JJ's and ballistics can't be used. If that goes a step farther to actually changing the ballistic arc so you could have 2x gravity still shoot but you'd have to adjust how you aim.. well I think that's going a step to far into the mechanics of fun.

I do think the farther you shoot, the more you lead the projectile (whether that's left/right or up), and some projectiles should be faster than others (weight and velocity) but could you argue that the targeting computer aligning convergence is already compensating for the distance you're recticle is aiming at? Yep.

Edited by Tierloc, 10 December 2011 - 08:32 AM.

[Mchawkeye]

Prosperity Park, on 09 December 2011 - 10:46 AM, said:

It seems like the poll is skewed heavily in favor of Ballistic Drop... is that because only the more adamantly opinionated people are voting, or because only people interested in Ballistic Drop are reading this thread and voting, or is it because the gamers here really do favor Ballistic Drop that much?

So are you suggesting the basically, all voting is pointless?

I would think, from the amount of discussion, that people, in general, want ballistic drop from the vote.

[Orzorn]

VYCanis, on 05 December 2011 - 09:31 AM, said:

having drop would not necessarily make ballistics impractical

This

I've used the drop of projectiles to destroy tanks hiding behind small terrain features in Mechwarrior: Living Legends. Instead of thinking of the drop like a problem, I used it like a tool.

However, I do agree in that the projectile trajectory should remain very consistent INSIDE the canon ranges for these weapons. Outside that range the drop should take place.

[Cepeza]

First choice.

+ arc bends depending on planet actual gravity.

[Felicitatem Parco]

I think this topic might deserve a revival... as we get closer to launch we begin to lose opportunities to have changes implemented in the game mechanics, including how the engine treats ballistic projectiles.

Does any else have an opinion on this issue?

I promise to not bump it again.

[Aegis Kleais]

For me, one of the skills of long range ballistics is a pilot who knows how to account for bullet drop.

Now, I don't want to go so far as to have to accommodate for wind, but drag-induced drop, sure.

[CeeKay Boques]

Aegis Kleais™, on 02 February 2012 - 02:21 PM, said:

Now, I don't want to go so far as to have to accommodate for wind, but drag-induced drop, sure.

I do!

[Aegis Kleais]

Technoviking, on 02 February 2012 - 03:05 PM, said:

I do!

More power to ya. But as for me, having to lead a shot and deal with bullet drop are more than enough for me.

[Sirisian]

All projectile weapons should have an arc. It's cool watching machine guns drop off at a range. I don't really care much for realism so unrealistic arcs are fine for cannons. Burst firing for instance to control a COF (if it's in) and watch rounds land around an enemy at 200 m is cool.

I also feel lasers should be changed to plasma or something so they drop off too. Not a fan of raycasted guns, but I could go either way.

[Aegis Kleais]

Sirisian, on 02 February 2012 - 03:25 PM, said:

All projectile weapons should have an arc. It's cool watching machine guns drop off at a range. I don't really care much for realism so unrealistic arcs are fine for cannons. Burst firing for instance to control a COF (if it's in) and watch rounds land around an enemy at 200 m is cool.

I also feel lasers should be changed to plasma or something so they drop off too. Not a fan of raycasted guns, but I could go either way.

For clarification...

When you say "All projectile weapons should have an arc...."

Projectile weapons are missiles, such as SRMs, MRMs, LRMs, Tbolts, etc.

Do you mean "All ballistic weapons should have an arc..."?

[Gremlich Johns]

VYCanis, on 05 December 2011 - 04:40 AM, said:

cough cough living legends cough cough

cough cough ditto cough cough

[FACEman Peck]

I like a sense of realism in all games that I play, windage, elevation, humidity, time of day, all of that affects how a bullet travels from point A to landing at point B, wherever that might be. Missiles, not so much, but bullets and artillery all suffer accuracy loss at any distance. If the game Dev's want to know realism and bullet stuffs, they need to study up on what's called the science of exterior ballistics.

Just a suggestion.

[Sirisian]

Aegis Kleais™, on 02 February 2012 - 03:35 PM, said:

For clarification...

Since this thread is about ballistic projectiles I should just say ballistic projectiles.

(However, I like games that focus on skill and fast paced decisions. Not sure if you've played Tribes Ascend yet, but their aiming system is very skill based with arcs. Depends on the type of rockets. If dumb-fire rockets drop they might feel too much like cannons. It's important for the devs to make sure weapons feel unique and interesting).

[Felicitatem Parco]

Aegis Kleais™, on 02 February 2012 - 03:35 PM, said:

For clarification...

When you say "All projectile weapons should have an arc...."

Projectile weapons are missiles, such as SRMs, MRMs, LRMs, Tbolts, etc.

Do you mean "All ballistic weapons should have an arc..."?

Yes. Most missiles have the appropriate systems to manage a flat trajectory (even unguided missiles).