How Hard Is It To Simulate Kinetic DPS In Space Sims?

[Spacescifi]

 

IRL we know that in general, the greater the speed of an object on collision, the mote DPS it does.

 

Not so in many space sims. It does not matter that the missile you fired accelerated at long range and hit it's target, it will still do a set amount of DPS.

 

What if Elite dangerous implemented kinetic energy into DPS?

Would it be too hard to implement for computer power?

 

How would it change tactics?

 

Long range missile spamming in volleys everywhere probably.

 

Maybe even fleet volleys.

[Guest]

Yes, very difficult in practice and next to impossible on the Kardashian scale of computing power, we will not be seeing this happening within the near future even if quantum computing succeeds due to the immense technological requirements of such a thing

[Nuke]

computing the energy of a collision is not really that hard compared to actually running the collision detection algorithm. problem is its not hard to come up with absurdly large energy numbers from conventional ground based weaponry. doing the same for weapons in space where the differences in velocity alone are pretty large, you might end up breaking the floating point unit.

also the term dps doesnt really make sense in the real world. what you really want is a single high yield impact with as much energy as possible to effectively one hit the target. rapid fire is usually either used in area denial, say a kill zone with machine guns. in psychological warfare, suppressing fire. or to ensure a single solid hit, which is the idea behind the gau-8. any one round can kill a tank, but you fire 300 of them because it ensures you hit something critical like tha magazine. dps is strictly a video game thing that is used for rating a weapons performance, a grossly simplified mechanic that does not take into account the physics of the projectile. most games use a hitpoint system so rating a weapon by the rate of hitpoint depletion makes sense, but in the real world its significantly more complicated.

Edited December 12, 2019 by Nuke

[DDE]

Velocities involved in air combat are such that the impact power of the projectile is materially influenced by the relative speed of two aircraft. In some situations, you really can't shoot at a target within nominal range because it outruns bullets.

[Spacescifi]

1 hour ago, Nuke said:

computing the energy of a collision is not really that hard compared to actually running the collision detection algorithm. problem is its not hard to come up with absurdly large energy numbers from conventional ground based weaponry. doing the same for weapons in space where the differences in velocity alone are pretty large, you might end up breaking the floating point unit.

also the term dps doesnt really make sense in the real world. what you really want is a single high yield impact with as much energy as possible to effectively one hit the target. rapid fire is usually either used in area denial, say a kill zone with machine guns. in psychological warfare, suppressing fire. or to ensure a single solid hit, which is the idea behind the gau-8. any one round can kill a tank, but you fire 300 of them because it ensures you hit something critical like tha magazine. dps is strictly a video game thing that is used for rating a weapons performance, a grossly simplified mechanic that does not take into account the physics of the projectile. most games use a hitpoint system so rating a weapon by the rate of hitpoint depletion makes sense, but in the real world its significantly more complicated.

 

 

Well... most space sims ignore the differing orbital velocities anyway.

You can fly to some distant star in Elite dangerous and not have to spend time accelerating to match a 100 km per sec orbital speed difference.

 

For all intents and purposes, spacecraft and planets in elite dangerous are standing still relative to the player until a spaceship moves I think.

 

Thus the speed difference does not have to be real high, since it's a newtonian slug fest at best.

 

Wanna do more damage? Come at a distance.

 

Know what the funny thing is? If engine heat was not an issue, we have materials that can survive a 1000 g acceleration.

1000g missiles would make all projectile and even laser weapons obsolete in Elite dangerous since battles happen at relative close range (can't hit beyond range of eyesight for player).

With the sheer yield of those missiles'  kinetic energy, it would probably near one shot Anacondas!

Edited December 12, 2019 by Spacescifi

[kerbiloid]

Spoiler

While the Elite fans were waiting for twenty years since the previous Elite version, it took just a year of its author's relativistic board time.

 

Edited December 12, 2019 by kerbiloid

[KSK]

On 12/12/2019 at 1:55 PM, Spacescifi said:

Well... most space sims ignore the differing orbital velocities anyway.

You can fly to some distant star in Elite dangerous and not have to spend time accelerating to match a 100 km per sec orbital speed difference.

For all intents and purposes, spacecraft and planets in elite dangerous are standing still relative to the player until a spaceship moves I think.

Thus the speed difference does not have to be real high, since it's a newtonian slug fest at best.

Wanna do more damage? Come at a distance.

Know what the funny thing is? If engine heat was not an issue, we have materials that can survive a 1000 g acceleration.

1000g missiles would make all projectile and even laser weapons obsolete in Elite dangerous since battles happen at relative close range (can't hit beyond range of eyesight for player).

With the sheer yield of those missiles'  kinetic energy, it would probably near one shot Anacondas!

To answer the original question, I don't think it would be hard to use kinetic energy to calculate damage in Elite: Dangerous. Missile velocity is presumably being tracked at some level, because they needs to home in on and follow its target. The models in Elite Dangerous are fairly accurately scaled relative to one another, so one presumes that the distances between them are equally accurately scaled. Given all that, calculating and tracking missile velocities in real-world units, doesn't seem impossible.

However, in a setting where dogfighting occurs at a few hundred metres per second and where ships come equipped with shields of unspecified (and probably unphysical) properties, it's a waste of time. Elite Dangerous spacecraft technology is so far into the pure fiction end of science fiction, that trying to retrofit it with 'realistic' weaponry is pointless realism-for-realism's sake. In the same way that worrying about relative orbital velocities of 100km/s is pointless in a setting where spacecraft drives idle at 30km/s and can cruise at several hundred times the speed of light.

Plus, getting  one-shotted, or nearly so, at extreme range by a projectile that's moving too fast to respond to, does not make for engaging gameplay.

[Spacescifi]

1 hour ago, KSK said:

To answer the original question, I don't think it would be hard to use kinetic energy to calculate damage in Elite: Dangerous. Missile velocity is presumably being tracked at some level, because they needs to home in on and follow its target. The models in Elite Dangerous are fairly accurately scaled relative to one another, so one presumes that the distances between them are equally accurately scaled. Given all that, calculating and tracking missile velocities in real-world units, doesn't seem impossible.

However, in a setting where dogfighting occurs at a few hundred metres per second and where ships come equipped with shields of unspecified (and probably unphysical) properties, it's a waste of time. Elite Dangerous spacecraft technology is so far into the pure fiction end of science fiction, that trying to retrofit it with 'realistic' weaponry is pointless realism-for-realism's sake. In the same way that worrying about relative orbital velocities of 100km/s is pointless in a setting where spacecraft drives idle at 30km/s and can cruise at several hundred times the speed of light.

Plus, getting  one-shotted, or nearly so, at extreme range by a projectile that's moving too fast to respond to, does not make for engaging gameplay.

 

It would make the game more interesting and demonstrate those players who have newtonian knowledge vs those that do not.

 

Shields could even be more varied. For example:

 

Rate of fire shields: Laughs at DPS. Every hit is a hitpoint no matter the kinetic energy or blast. So weaker but rapid fire weaponry would work great on this, but slow firing high damage weapons would be far from optimal. Even stock lasers work great on it.

Kinetic energy matters shields: Less damage for less kinetic energy, lasers need high energy to do any DPS.

Timed Invulnerable shields; Like old arcade game shields. Raise shields but they drain with use and only last seconds (expensive one last the most seconds). So you would alternate betwern raising shields a letting them recharge while dodging a lot. Fighters would love it, but in-game it would be terribly expensive to buy.

[KSK]

47 minutes ago, Spacescifi said:

It would make the game more interesting and demonstrate those players who have newtonian knowledge vs those that do not.

Shields could even be more varied. For example:

Rate of fire shields: Laughs at DPS. Every hit is a hitpoint no matter the kinetic energy or blast. So weaker but rapid fire weaponry would work great on this, but slow firing high damage weapons would be far from optimal. Even stock lasers work great on it.

Kinetic energy matters shields: Less damage for less kinetic energy, lasers need high energy to do any DPS.

Timed Invulnerable shields; Like old arcade game shields. Raise shields but they drain with use and only last seconds (expensive one last the most seconds). So you would alternate betwern raising shields a letting them recharge while dodging a lot. Fighters would love it, but in-game it would be terribly expensive to buy.

None of which is remotely relevant to your first question of whether kinetic energy effects could be taken into account in Elite Dangerous. But leaving that aside:

1.  It certainly used to be the case (no idea what current thinking is) that any serious combateer would be flying with Flight Assist off. That's only pseudo Newtonian because your speed is still capped (so scratch that 2nd Law) but the 1st and 3rd laws are very much in effect. So players can already demonstrate their Newtonian knowledge if they so wish. 

2.   I suppose that would be different to the current system but I'm not sure it would be any better. If I recall rightly, the basic setup for E:D has lasers being good against shields but relatively weak against hull, with projectile weapons being good against hull but relatively weaker against shields. I forget how missiles and plasma accelerators work. On top of that you have various tweaks you can apply to armour, you can fit extra hull reinforcements into equipment slots, you've got various countermeasures, ammo types, shield boosters, shield banks - plenty of permutations to make things interesting if that's what you like doing.

3.  When combined with your kinetic missile concept, your shield types actually sound quite dull. Standard procedure for any griefer would be to kit out their ship with missiles plus as many multicannons as they can cram on. Find an unsuspecting target, fire missiles at extreme range. If target is carrying kinetic energy shields, they go boom. If they don't go boom you can be fairly certain that they're carrying standard shields or rate-of-fire shields. In either case, closing to range and throwing as much ammo as you can at them will finish them off.

Rinse, wash, repeat.

Edited December 13, 2019 by KSK

[Spacescifi]

48 minutes ago, KSK said:

None of which is remotely relevant to your first question of whether kinetic energy effects could be taken into account in Elite Dangerous. But leaving that aside:

1.  It certainly used to be the case (no idea what current thinking is) that any serious combateer would be flying with Flight Assist off. That's only pseudo Newtonian because your speed is still capped (so scratch that 2nd Law) but the 1st and 3rd laws are very much in effect. So players can already demonstrate their Newtonian knowledge if they so wish. 

2.   I suppose that would be different to the current system but I'm not sure it would be any better. If I recall rightly, the basic setup for E:D has lasers being good against shields but relatively weak against hull, with projectile weapons being good against hull but relatively weaker against shields. I forget how missiles and plasma accelerators work. On top of that you have various tweaks you can apply to armour, you can fit extra hull reinforcements into equipment slots, you've got various countermeasures, ammo types, shield boosters, shield banks - plenty of permutations to make things interesting if that's what you like doing.

3.  When combined with your kinetic missile concept, your shield types actually sound quite dull. Standard procedure for any griefer would be to kit out their ship with missiles plus as many multicannons as they can cram on. Find an unsuspecting target, fire missiles at extreme range. If target is carrying kinetic energy shields, they go boom. If they don't go boom you can be fairly certain that they're carrying standard shields or rate-of-fire shields. In either case, closing to range and throwing as much ammo as you can at them will finish them off.

Rinse, wash, repeat.

 

I could add tech buffs you buy that increase shield recharge rate for rate of fire shields, and tech buffs that increase the amount of kinetic energy shields can take too at the expense of cargo space.

 

Plus hull armor would matter, but kinetic projectiles would tend to make armour a mute point at some speeds.

A speed cap is necessary but I would do it based on propellant carried.

 

It would be like delta v. You can reach a max speed and burn all your fuel newtonian style. That would be your speed cap.

 

You would also have an flight mode that allows for airplane pitch, yaw, and roll, but no change in speed, so you could only raise or lower your speed using newtonian maneuvers while burning limited propellant.

 

Airplane flight mode is fueless so you would just bank turns based on speed.

 

 

Even if not incorporated into all ships, these would challenge the status quo for PVP.

[KSK]

Okay, I think we might be talking past each other here. From what I remember of Elite Dangerous, each ship has thrusters for controlling pitch, roll and yaw, and thrusters for translating along x, y and z axes. 

With flight control on, all control inputs are automatically cancelled (ie the computer applies the opposite thruster) when you let go of the relevant control. If I start a clockwise roll, then let go of my joystick, I stop rolling. Likewise if I set my throttle to neutral I stop dead in space.

So in this mode, the ship flies more-or-less like an airplane. To keep moving forward I need to leave my main thrusters on, otherwise my retrothrusters automatically fire to bring me to a halt.

With flight control off, that automatic damping is switched off. If I start a roll and want to stop rolling, I need to apply the opposite thruster myself. Likewise for pitch, yaw and translation along any axis.

In other words - I’m flying using Newtonian maneuvers, to use your terminology.

The only difference between this control scheme and proper Newtonian flight is that your velocity along each translation axis (and rotation about each rotational axis I think) is capped. In other words, no matter how much I fire my anti-clockwise roll thruster, I’m not going to spin myself into a blur. More importantly, no matter how long I leave my main thrusters on, my forward velocity will reach a maximum and not get any higher.

Under a full Newtonian flight model of course, you would continue to accelerate until you ran out of propellant.

The main difference that I’m seeing between your suggestion and what you actually get in-game is that you would enforce a speed cap (and limit other maneuvers too) by limiting the amount of propellant available? You’re going full Newtonian, whereas Elite Dangerous gives you functionally unlimited thruster propellant but also puts an arbitrary cap on velocity about any given axis. 

Having played Elite 2 (which is also full Newtonian), I prefer the Elite Dangerous control scheme. Your mileage may vary.

 I think it would be extremely difficult to balance your scheme and give players enough fuel to make combat maneuvers feasible, whilst at the same time not giving them so much that a velocity cap becomes meaninglessly high.

I can see a lot of players making an emergency burn to shake off an enemy only to find that they’re out of fuel and unable to maneuver. I have some sympathy for the ‘git gud’ school of gameplay thought but I would still regard your scheme as being unnecessarily frustrating.

 

 

Edited December 13, 2019 by KSK

[Spacescifi]

47 minutes ago, KSK said:

Okay, I think we might be talking past each other here. From what I remember of Elite Dangerous, each ship has thrusters for controlling pitch, roll and yaw, and thrusters for translating along x, y and z axes. 

With flight control on, all control inputs are automatically cancelled (ie the computer applies the opposite thruster) when you let go of the relevant control. If I start a clockwise roll, then let go of my joystick, I stop rolling. Likewise if I set my throttle to neutral I stop dead in space.

So in this mode, the ship flies more-or-less like an airplane. To keep moving forward I need to leave my main thrusters on, otherwise my retrothrusters automatically fire to bring me to a halt.

With flight control off, that automatic damping is switched off. If I start a roll and want to stop rolling, I need to apply the opposite thruster myself. Likewise for pitch, yaw and translation along any axis.

In other words - I’m flying using Newtonian maneuvers, to use your terminology.

The only difference between this control scheme and proper Newtonian flight is that your velocity along each translation axis (and rotation about each rotational axis I think) is capped. In other words, no matter how much I fire my anti-clockwise roll thruster, I’m not going to spin myself into a blur. More importantly, no matter how long I leave my main thrusters on, my forward velocity will reach a maximum and not get any higher.

Under a full Newtonian flight model of course, you would continue to accelerate until you ran out of propellant.

The main difference that I’m seeing between your suggestion and what you actually get in-game is that you would enforce a speed cap (and limit other maneuvers too) by limiting the amount of propellant available? You’re going full Newtonian, whereas Elite Dangerous gives you functionally unlimited thruster propellant but also puts an arbitrary cap on velocity about any given axis. 

Having played Elite 2 (which is also full Newtonian), I prefer the Elite Dangerous control scheme. Your mileage may vary.

 I think it would be extremely difficult to balance your scheme and give players enough fuel to make combat maneuvers feasible, whilst at the same time not giving them so much that a velocity cap becomes meaninglessly high.

I can see a lot of players making an emergency burn to shake off an enemy only to find that they’re out of fuel and unable to maneuver. I have some sympathy for the ‘git gud’ school of gameplay thought but I would still regard your scheme as being unnecessarily frustrating.

 

 

 

Actually.. here is a slight fix.

 

No need for an airplane flight mode.

 

Just have propellantless momentum shift mode in addition to normal newtonian.

 

Example: So you ran out of propellant... no problem, you're CMG's allow ship to flip (albeit slower than with thrusters if you exhausted that too) and point the direction you want to fly to.

So it is point and fly, with all momentum shifted, although you cannot accelerate in this mode.

This momentum shift mode would only last seconds anyway, so it would be hard to abuse it tp extremes, although it woukd make combat interesting.

 

Since with momentum shifting you could pull off some really fast escapes and fly bys. 

Edited December 14, 2019 by Spacescifi

[KSK]

I don't even understand what you're talking about here:

6 hours ago, Spacescifi said:

So it is point and fly, with all momentum shifted, although you cannot accelerate in this mode.

 

6 hours ago, Spacescifi said:

Since with momentum shifting you could pull off some really fast escapes and fly bys. 

Apart from anything else, these two statements are contradictory. If you need to escape from something then that implies that you either need to outrun it or maneuver to avoid it. In either case that requires acceleration in one direction or another, which you've just told me that your emergency momentum shift drive can't do.

You clearly have a vision of how you want this to work. I'm not getting it and/or you're not explaining it very well. Arguing in epicycles (where me pointing out the flaws in one system is countered by you layering another flawed system on top) is also getting a bit tedious.

I'm done here. Nice talking to you.

[Guest]

46 minutes ago, KSK said:

I don't even understand what you're talking about here:

 

Apart from anything else, these two statements are contradictory. If you need to escape from something then that implies that you either need to outrun it or maneuver to avoid it. In either case that requires acceleration in one direction or another, which you've just told me that your emergency momentum shift drive can't do.

You clearly have a vision of how you want this to work. I'm not getting it and/or you're not explaining it very well. Arguing in epicycles (where me pointing out the flaws in one system is countered by you layering another flawed system on top) is also getting a bit tedious.

I'm done here. Nice talking to you.

The Spacescifi Experience