Your browser does not seem to support JavaScript. As a result, your viewing experience will be diminished, and you have been placed in read-only mode.
Please download a browser that supports JavaScript, or enable it if it's disabled (i.e. NoScript).
This goes out to both graphics developers and coders alike; anyone who has an interest in vessel construction.
Its an issue that Ive been fighting with for a while, and I still cant work out weather Im being unreasonable, or weather I have a valid argument. So I thought Id air it here to work out weather Im being anal or not ;). Anyway
How important to you, is the mechanical realism of the ships that you build / work with? It just seams to me that theres a lot of ships knocking about - on the image boards in particular that just wouldnt work in practice.
One that springs to mind is a vessel that was labelled as a fighter. Its main features were a pair of twin engines that were each, twice the size of the main body of the ship its self (Im not having a go about the modelling; the construction of the model was excellent ). The problem was, these engines were fixed facing backward. There were no reverse thrusters, no lateral rockets, no orientation thrusters. In fact it had all the apparent stopping power of a terminally depressed lemming on a day trip to Dover.
My point is in this case the nature of a fighter is not to go as fast as possible, but to be as manoeuvrable as possible, without sacrificing too much speed in the process. The vessel in question couldnt have turned around to see an on coming attacker, let alone engage one.
Am I being unreasonable? Thats an honest question BTW, and if the general consensus is that it doesnt really matter, Ill sit on it. It just seams that with the on-slaught of EVN, and the levels of realism and detail that it appears to be bringing to the graphics; how far down that road are we going to go? How functionally realistic are graphics developers going to need to be?
------------------ Plumb Lunatic Development (url="http://"http://www.ped.org.uk/espialhome.html") Alpha Espial , see through the visible.(/url)
Answer: not at all, since we can always just claim inertialess drive (which, due to the speed limit, they have to be anyway), and justify any apparent wigginess by that. But no, you're not being unreasonable either - if you think about these sorts of things and come up with general rules for your universe, you're likely to come up with a much more consistant and believable setting.
------------------ (Insert Signature Here)
Quote
Originally posted by Wyvern: **Answer: not at all, since we can always just claim inertialess drive (which, due to the speed limit, they have to be anyway), and justify any apparent wigginess by that. But no, you're not being unreasonable either - if you think about these sorts of things and come up with general rules for your universe, you're likely to come up with a much more consistant and believable setting.
**
Thanks, but you know me, I always "think about these sorts of things". That's how I work ;).
I really don't care much about realism. I say; have fun with the game, and don't take it too seriously. Because really, a lot of stuff in EV, EVO, EVN, Star Trek, Star Wars, and tons of other things are simply impossible. However, who cares? I don't care much. I just want to enjoy myself.
Of course, you always want to have enough realism in there or else then you'd have a cheesy plug/game. You need to get just the right amount of realism. Not too much which would cause the game to be not fun, and too little would also make the game no fun.
------------------ If at first you don't succeed...Hit it harder! - Me -------------- Millennium. Its coming, prepare for it. Coming to the (url="http://"http://www.ambrosiaSW.com/games/ev/chronicles.html")EV Chronicles(/url).
When it comes to graphics/ship design (physical, for games) first, it has to look cool. Second, it has to look (only appear) realistic. Third, if you can, make it realistic. Realistic, of course, can be defined by the setting. If I want to make a plugin where all the laws of physics are revoked and I rule the workings as an autocrat (mwahaha) I can make anything "realistic". I mean, in EV/O, ships have a max. speed limit. No existing type of drive I can think of would have a speed limit anywhere near EV/O's limits. And, of course, if you want to make some kind of energy weapon, you HAVE to make it up. Energy weapons in the sense of stereotypical sci-fi types don't exist today, and if you could make a description of it to explain how it's "realistic", why hasn't it been built already?
Realism as you talk of it here would be more a graphical style than anything else. It would give the ships a very "old" and technical, functional feeling rather than sleek and futuristic. It would also make the ships feel very "human", like if Earth was attacked and we all had to hurry up and leave, making do with what we could invent and hack together in a year or something...
My opinon is coolness first, and if for the purpose "realism" would be cool, use it.
------------------
I often strugle with the realistic in purpose problem myself. I have alwayse loved the BORG ships in star trec. They are the most logical ship design ever, maximum volume, minimum surface area. Personaly i like functional ships, I dont really focus on the propulsion area, but more on the general shape and function of a ship. Now this doesnt mean that all my ships are big spheres or squares. This does mean that they are not all aerodynamic. It also means that they have a size and loadout that you would expect. So my models, for some races especially tend to be logically designed. For one, i leave many a metal colour, with little or no painting. I do this because painting a space ship is very impractical, for one, it would be burned off in reentry anyway, as well as from micromeeor impacts. Now some of the races ships i make with beauty in mind, but these only when it seems that they would (a race that emphasizes art) This is not to say that the ship designs are simple or basic, just that they often look like what they should look like. I often wish ev were 3d so one could apriciate the size diference in ships, but it dont matter really. Anyway, I personally like ships that look like what they are intended to do. If i were to design a personal space fighter, the thing would be all weapons and shields, with an armor shell sorroundin it, no fancy wings or anything, just guns shields and engines (and mabey a cockpit) It would be ugly, but then again its performance would rock. Anyway, those be my views. Joe
Realism is very important for me and all my models are carefully planned out during the modelling stage. Why does this nernie go here? What does it do? Etc.... Although I add small stuff to increase detail, most of these do have a function in theory; like exhaust vents, intake valves, a little geometric shape that extrudes from the hull could be a row of escape pods. Before I design any ship, I first take into account of what kind of ships they are and so can expect this ship to have certain outfits.
Take for example the present thip I'm modelling a lil every day. It's the largest capital ship in the plug that serves a number of purposes. It's a capital ship, it's a carrier, troop transport and most importantly it also houses facilities for repairing other capital ships like cruisers and destroyers that are docked to it. Basically it's a mobile starbase. So in a word it's huge. I could simply design a Borg like sphere or cube but then the design would be totally different from the rest of the ships from this government. Instead I wanted a design that was unique, nice to look at and yet menecing at the same time. I wanted the ship to have complicated superstructures like WW2 battle ships. I also wanted it to have large turrets, secondary turrets and smaller weapons just like the old battle ships. I had to decide where the large main guns should be located and where the smaller one should go. I had to make sure that the placement of the guns would give the ship protection all round. Where should the hanger for the fighters. bombers and troop transports be located? Where would be the entry point and exit point for these small ships? Also where would the other capital ships dock to this large ships. I had to make sure that if another capital ship is dockedto this ship, it would not block or impare the use of it's hangers. That would be pretty stupid.
This brings me to another point about realism. I have for some time wondered about abilities of ships and weapons. Many people have said you need to be careful as to NOT make weapons or ships that unbalance the game. This in my opinion in not good. For one, the universe is unbalanced. If I were to have such a balance in my game, it means that the smallest of fighters could have the ability to destroy the largest capital warships. Pooh!! That must not be!! (not counting StarWars) So I will make my game unbalanced. There will be 3 classes of ships each with their own unique class of weapons:
Small (fighters, shuttles, scouts, small cargo ships and patrol ships) Medium (corvettes, frigates, tankers, medium freighters and destroyers being the largest) Large (Cruisers, Battles Cruisers, Dreadnoughts, monitors, Supertankers and Freighters)
So... as a player you can choose what you want to fly. But you will never (usless you real lucky) end up flying the baddest, meanest ship around that can mow through other ships. All the 3 ship types will have their advantages and disadvantages. The smaller one will always be faster and more manouverable. The larger one more powerful but always slower and less manouverable. It all depends on the flying style of the player. They will eventually find their preferred equalibrium and ship.
Now onto weapons. No two weapons are alike in the hands of different people. Consider this; a laser cannon on a small one man fighter. On the other end of the spectrum, a laser cannon that is used for planatary defense with a barrell diameter of 40m and length of 160m with it's own vast powersupply and 25 man operating crew. Both are laser cannons that use the same basic principles. Now in reality, that large planatary cannon cannot be mounted on a fighter. However the fighter's laser can be mounted on the base of the planatery laser; but why would they? So a weapon made for a Large class of ship cannot be mounted on a small class vessel. But it can be done the other way round, but why would they? However, with some modifications, a ship from one class mount the weapons in small numbers from the ships of the class above it. Now consider the destructive power of these two lasers. The little fighter can continue to fire at a dreadnought that mounts the space borne version of the planatery laser cannon. It's not going to do very much; maybe piss off the captain of the dreadnought. Like a fly buzzing a buffelo. Now imagine if that fighter is hit or even receives a glancing blow from a shot of that large planatary laser. You're space dust pal!!!! No more loving tonight!!
So with a plug that is specificially made to be somewhat unbalanced, I believe it keeps the player on edge and constantly looking over their shoulders. Which is good! How many times have you played EV and EVO after you get to the point where your ship gets so powerful that you become complacent and almost bored at the enemies you encounter. "Oh great here comes another Raider Turncoat, wonder what I should do with my UE Cruiser? Shall I blast it from the side, or from the rear or shall I just play around with him?" I think it's much better knowing that there are always ships out there that are more powerful and deadly then the players; no matter what level they might be at. There are ships out there that you should not engage but turn tail and run; unless you think going out with full glory is really cool. If you do that, the little merchant ship that has been watching the fight would say "What an idiot! Hope he doesn't have a chance to breed and litter the universe with more idiots!". So in retrospect, a fight between similer class vessels will be somewhat balanced; fights between different classes will be unbalanced unless throught he use of sheer numbers.
Realism = less balanced game structure = more exciting = good
I'm not too concerned about realism, in the views you see in EV you cant see much detail. I will, however, be putting some thrusters and so forth on some of my new models when I move What If (which is in suspension waiting for me to get more RAM or a new machine) to EV:N, due to the 600x400 detail shots...
------------------ --sitharus (url="http://"http://www.oxy-web.com/sitharus/")Carracho Help - New and Updated!(/url) (url="http://"mailto:sitharus@ureach.com")mailto:sitharus@ureach.com(/url)sitharus@ureach.com
I've never been bothered too much about wether a thing would work or not-It just has to look cool. Of course,space fighters should not have wings-a fighter with both the firepower and maneuverability of some of the EV ones would weigh a lot of tons more than they do,and oughtn't to be able to fly.
Hey, if it looks good, its cool with me! I dont care about engine placement, or such. I only care what it looks like, how its designed, and if it is original. If its realistic, kudos to you! If it aint, Kudos again. It all comes down to the amount of effort. Someone could throw a bunch of spheres together, and call it an orgganic fighter, while another person could spend the time to model it out in say, metaNURBS, and forget to include engines!
I guess what I am saying,(I am saying something...kinda fuzzy tho) is that I dont care if it has all the right thrusters, as long is it is original, it looks cool (or unique) and a bit of effort was put into it.
------------------ o jsyr upi s;;. o vsmy dysmf upit moy(ovlomh esud pg frhtsfomh ,u eptl gpt ejsy oy od./ o eodj upi s;; epi;f kidy ;rsbr ,u s;pmr/ tssssssssssss
I suppose it's a question of who defines realism.
A twelve year old once emailed me to say that my ships weren't realistic. (Actually, I think he posted it on the board rather than emailing me). My question in reply would have to be: realistic compared to what?
I think it's good to have a rationale behind a ship. For example, ships that have to enter an atmosphere should either be streamlined or have some rationale about anti-grav or force-shielding or something to say why they aren't. A ship with engines on the extreme edges of its wings might have a very good turning circle by way of differential thrust, while a ship with a single engine at the back would have to have some other means of turning. I think this is often more for explanation in the text than in the look of the ship. I'm quite keen on realistic logos and decals specifying who the ship belongs to.
------------------ M A R T I N T U R N E R
When I'm making plug-ins ship design always gives me the most trouble... I always want to make my ships have a perfect balance of "Wow! Cool Looking!" and "Hey, that might actually work!" However, I often find that it's all about how fictitious the rest of the universe is in your plug-in. The ships are really an extension of the plot and storyline and it's necessary they fit into the universe. For example, when I was making a Star Trek EV plug-in, as long as I made a saucer and two warp engines, the ship looked good and made sence in the Star Trek universe. When I was making a different plug-in however, I really had to think about how human technology would have evolved in space, and what the ships would look like. One more thing, I've noticed that when I'm playing their are two types of plugins. One that has some really weird technology to justify their even weirder ships. The other kind however, makes a set of rules for it's fictitious technology and gives it limitations, because if it's not perfect and can't do everything it becomes a bit more believable (in a sci-fi kindove way).
You see - I think that this is a fascinating issue; on one hand you've got die-hard thechies who believe so strongly, that ships should be able to work , and on the other you've got the opposite group, who really don't care about the other side and just go for coolness.
Everyone sits on that line somewhere, I think I'm leaning towards the techy end of the spectrum. But having said that, is it not possible for a ship to have that WOW factor, and a good set of functional principles. I'd say it is. I'd like to think that the stuff I'm turning out, goes some way to fulfil both aspects of the problem.
Okay so lets tweak the subject a little then is it possible / practical / sensible to set your sights when building vessels on a point where a ship is both cool, and functional. If so, and this can be achieved, is there, in fact, an excuse for ships not to be functionally realistic?
I find this kind of topic quite fascinating anyway, so people - don't stop posting!
This is one of those relative things. Though realism will certainly add to the game (purely on the premise that it could be 'real' cause that's exactly what these games are about: taking you away from the 'real' world and drawing you into the 'ev' world) it's not always necessary. I would say that consistancy is what counts, and actually adds to the realism. And about coolness, well it's important. I'm actually inclined to be more on the 'techie' side, since I think that 'realness' is 'coolness'. I can appreciate those details. But we've all played out that awesome adventure that just wasn't real but it was fun as hell. The ideal thing though is to combine the 'real' with the 'unreal'. If you can do that, then you are a true artist. To bring the explanation to the 'unreal'.
Beyond Exodus
My advice: realism makes the plug-in developer look smart and realistic. However, keep two things in mind:
Don't assume that certian advanced technologies would be unrealistic. A man from 500 years ago couldn't even begin to explain a computer. So "impossible" proable often means "we don't know how yet"
Never sacrifice fun for realism. That's untimatly what games like EVO are for.
I didn't come up with either of those, but I'm not quoting the people because I don't remember who they were.
------------------ Cuz I'm a 21st Century Digital Boy I don't know the Monty Python but I've got a lotta toys My daddy is a Renegade, his name is Hellcat Helian Wait a second...
Originally posted by Hudson: But having said that, is it not possible for a ship to have that WOW factor, and a good set of functional principles. I'd say it is. I'd like to think that the stuff I'm turning out, goes some way to fulfil both aspects of the problem. Okay so lets tweak the subject a little then is it possible / practical / sensible to set your sights when building vessels on a point where a ship is both cool, and functional. If so, and this can be achieved, is there, in fact, an excuse for ships not to be functionally realistic?
of course it's possible to have something be both cool and functional. what do you think of when you see a viper (the car, i mean)? i, personally, think cool, sexy, and incredibly good at what it's meant to do. for a better example, the b2 was designed to function. it was, in fact, designed not to be seen, so when would aesthetics come into its design? but it's an extremely good looking aircraft. granted, perfect functionality doesn't imply perfect form, but the two often come together. on the other hand, a poor attempt at displaying functionality can be worse than no attempt at all. a lot of potentially good sci-fi is ruined when the author gives up his/her right to say "just because" and tries (and fails miserably) to explain some principle far beyond their knowledge. of course, if it's just in ship design, then everyone can draw their own conclusions as to what a little bump on the side of the hull is meant to do, but i'd advise to stay away from bs explanations in fields of which one knows little
------------------ if tin whistles are made of tin, what's a fog horn made of?
Mmmmmm.... The planetary laser idea sounds good but you also have to factor in the size of the ships (i.e. a voinian heavy fighter is aproxxiametly a quarter the size of a dreadnought !?!?!?!??!). If someone is thinking of doing some new big ship graphics yoou could make EVR (real) for people who like HUGE downloads with intricately designes ships to scale and like slow games, they'd better since not even a G4 could handle a large scale batttle with ships made to scal with lots of reverse thrusters etc.....
------------------ -------------------------- Wham!Man - The original and still the best
Originally posted by nighthawk: **of course it's possible to have something be both cool and functional. what do you think of when you see a viper (the car, i mean)? i, personally, think cool, sexy, and incredibly good at what it's meant to do. for a better example, the b2 was designed to function. it was, in fact, designed not to be seen, so when would aesthetics come into its design? but it's an extremely good looking aircraft. granted, perfect functionality doesn't imply perfect form, but the two often come together. on the other hand, a poor attempt at displaying functionality can be worse than no attempt at all. a lot of potentially good sci-fi is ruined when the author gives up his/her right to say "just because" and tries (and fails miserably) to explain some principle far beyond their knowledge. of course, if it's just in ship design, then everyone can draw their own conclusions as to what a little bump on the side of the hull is meant to do, but i'd advise to stay away from bs explanations in fields of which one knows little
I've got to say that when the author of a real SF novel doesn't try to explain, and says 'just because' it really is moving away from SF and becoming space-adventure-fiction. The very essence of SF is the desire to explain scientifically, either in terms of real hard-science, or plausible invented science, given what we already know and may possibly discover.
It's, say, the difference between Final Fantasy: the Spirits Within, and Arthur C Clarke's Islands in the Sky. Islands in the Sky introduced a whole load of ideas into space exploration, some of which were then exploited in the space programme, and others of which almost certainly will be if we ever build a station big enough. Spirits Within borrowed quite a lot of Clarke's concepts for their Zeus station, but, ultimately, as the title suggests, the film is a future fantasy film with some science baggage.
This is one reason why great SF has never really made it into films. Films show, SF explains. Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep had to be heavily cut and changed to fit into Blade Runner (and even then they put on loads of explanation), 2001 A Space Odyssey was great SF but boring cinema, Johnny Mnemonic was a flop, even after substantial rewriting, and 'The Thing' made nonsense of Campbell's vision. We can dream it for you wholesale was changed so drastically to form the basis of Total Recall that the film had a further novelisation based on it. On the other hand, the Alien trilogy plus one was great cinema, as, of course, was Star Wars. Neither really stand up as SF in the novel form though.
you can't scale the ships properly in ev or evo, and i doubt you'll be able to in evn. this is due to the fact that there are maximum and minimum sprite sizes (all 36 frames of any given sprite have to fit inside a 640x480 virtual screen)- everything has to have a size between 1x1 and 102x80 (106.666..., but it has to be a multiple of 8). if you go over the max size, ev won't load (at least, that's what happened when i tried to run the plug i made before i learned about the max size). you can kinda scale them, but you can't do it completely (if you do 1 pixel=10m, you can have fighters as single pixels, which you often can't see, and your big ships can't be more than 800m long or they won't fit). that's why i gave up and decided to go with independent scale factors for small craft (fighters, etc.) and larger craft (warships, freighters, etc.), so that a 20 pixel fighter is a fourth as big as a 12 pixel warship
------------------ if you find yourself in bed with a raving lunatic, don't worry: looks can be deceiving, it's probably not me
Originally posted by Wham!Man: **a voinian heavy fighter is aproxxiametly a quarter the size of a dreadnought !?!?!?!??! **
He he... I don't think it's quite a quarter the size, but it's still way off scale. Maybe 1/6-1/8. What really gets to me is how they can physically fit six Adzaras into that skinny Agdzari Warship...