21948 Posts in 3768 Topics - by 7901 Members - Latest Member: Balindrum

Author Topic: On Thruster Mechanics  (Read 12836 times)

BlackWyvern

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
Re: On Thruster Mechanics
« Reply #15 on: February 12, 2017, 11:02:28 PM »
It's me again. This time with math and empirical data.

So I made a 20x20x20 cube of titanium generator on the stable branch.
Spoiler: show


I slapped 20 10x10x0.05 thrusters on each side. We can see a brake thrust of 55m/s. We SHOULD be able to assume that this same power and velocity will apply to all the faces of this cube.
Spoiler: show

We can already see an issue here though. If thrusters are supposed to give equal thrust across their vectors.. Why is pitch abysmal?

I then merged the thrusters into 10x10x1 blocks.
Spoiler: show

You can see our rotations are down from 2 to 0.14 and brake force down to 3.3. Again, pitch is boned.

So then I took the same approach on the Beta.
I made a cube, and slapped a thruster array on each side.
Spoiler: show

Our thrust is down to 15ms, and our rotation is sitting on 0.48. I guess at this point, pitch can be called a wash.

I then merged the thrusters together as per last time.
Spoiler: show

Our thrust is down to 12, which is a significant increase from merged stable, and rotation to 0.52



Lets look at the numbers empirically.

THRUST ARRAY
STABLE -> BETA || % CHANGE
Brake 55.3 -> 15 || -72.87%
Yaw 2 -> 0.48 || -76%
Pitch 0.02 -> 0.01 || -50%
Roll 2 -> 0.48 || -76%

SOLID THRUSTER
STABLE -> BETA || % CHANGE
Brake 3.3 -> 12.2 || +369%
Yaw 0.14 -> 0.52 || +371%
Pitch 0.02 -> 0.08 || +400% (But still broken)
Roll 0.14 -> 0.52 || +371%

ARRAY TO SOLID MERGING - STABLE
ARRAY -> MERGED || % CHANGE
Brake 55.3 -> 3.3 || -94.03%
Yaw 2 -> 0.14 || -93%
Pitch 0.02 -> 0.02 || No Change
Roll 2 -> 0.14 || -93%

ARRAY TO SOLID MERGING - BETA
ARRAY -> MERGED || % CHANGE
Brake 15 -> 12.2 || -18.6%
Yaw 0.48 -> 0.52 || +7.69%
Pitch 0.01 -> 0.08 || +800% (But still again broken)
Roll 0.48 -> 0.52 || +7.69%



So what do we have here..
1. The changes from Stable to Beta hits thrust arrays with a baseball bat, shot from an air cannon at five feet.
2. Merging thrust arrays on Stable hits them with a locomotive going full tilt on a straight piece of track.
3. The changes from Stable to Beta give what appears to be a 400% BUFF to solid thrusters.
4. Merging thrust arrays on Beta doesn't seem to do a whole lot, either way.
5. Pitch is completely FUBAR.

What should we take from this:
1. STABLE - Thrust arrays give disproportionate amounts of rotational force when they shouldn't.
2. STABLE - Merging thrusters is absolutely not recommended for any reason.
3. BETA - Fixes the disproportionate rotational force, which is nice.
4. BETA - Gives a HUGE buff to solid thrusters, far beyond that which was initially suggested.
5. BETA - Even with this huge buff, thruster arrays lose 77.9% of their vectoring power on all faces when merged and compared to Stable.
6. BOTH - Pitch is broken. It needs help. Maybe a snickers bar.

In closing:
Anyone using thrust arrays is completely hosed, with the 77% loss in power coming PERFECTLY in line with all other reports.
« Last Edit: February 13, 2017, 09:37:17 AM by BlackWyvern »

cy414

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
    • View Profile
Re: On Thruster Mechanics
« Reply #16 on: February 13, 2017, 04:58:39 AM »
i know some say its  rude to post ideas like this, but from what i am reading here things seem to be going pear shaped.
please check these ideas i had about thrusters and engines.
http://www.avorion.net/forum/index.php/topic,1826.0.html
http://www.avorion.net/forum/index.php/topic,1828.0.html
i just hope they help.

DerPavlov

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Re: On Thruster Mechanics
« Reply #17 on: February 13, 2017, 07:19:22 PM »
I think thrusters are for maneuvering only and should not be used for deceleration at all.

I believe the main problem at the moment are the engines, because they are just dumb one direction fuel burners. Is there a way to make engines smarter with "thrust vectoring" and "thrust reversal"? The engine should be enough to steer your spaceship, while thrusters are only needed for rolling and moving sideways during docking maneuvers. This would lower the amount of needed thrusters on a ship. When modern aircraft can do something like this, why not a spaceship with a hyperspace jumpdrive?

References:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrust_vectoring
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrust_reversal

koonschi

  • Developer
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1414
    • View Profile
    • Avorion
Re: On Thruster Mechanics
« Reply #18 on: February 13, 2017, 09:46:00 PM »
Copy-Pasta from the other thread:

Most of all, I'd like you to know that I won't be doing the new thrusters without proper compensation. To give you some numbers: With the latest changes I'm getting brake thrust of ~60 m/s² without too much effort and without making the ship an ugly mess. But if you relied on thruster pancakes then you'll have to rebuild your ship. This is not debatable, since thruster pancake stacks make no sense. Same goes for solar panels, but I'm looking into a different solution on these.

I've been looking over the code and have found some old code that was meant to ease controls of ships which is now getting in the way. I've removed/reworked all that stuff and overall I think I've found a pretty good solution. I'll give you some more details on all this soon.
#define TRUE FALSE // happy debugging suckers

If you need help, please post in the forum, don't PM me. If there's something that only I can help you with, contact me via mail.

Dinkelsen

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Re: On Thruster Mechanics
« Reply #19 on: February 13, 2017, 10:32:35 PM »
First of all, it IS possible to stop the ship by turning around and boost thrusting, I do it all the time. The velocity bar gets smaller until it disappears. The catch is that you have to have your ship pointing EXACTLY in the opposite direction of where you are going or you will get a sidewards motion, thats the way physics work.

Thrusters are one of the systems that cannopt be enhanced with a module, which is very sad. It might help if we had a chance to enhance them.

Just cleaned my battleship (10 module slots) it can go 1500 m/s but has brake thrust of 6 m/s²... This will take some serious tweaking until its right.

Edit: Was on wrong brnach... On beta branch it has 15 m/s² brake thrust, I can live with that.
« Last Edit: February 13, 2017, 10:51:17 PM by Dinkelsen »

Tsunamik

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 217
    • View Profile
Re: On Thruster Mechanics
« Reply #20 on: February 13, 2017, 11:12:58 PM »
To be honest, I kinda like new thrusters... the way it was previously, it was just cheap cheat, when even most heavy ships would turn like made from paper...

I currently have over half a million ton heavy ship, and I made its spine by 5 huge thruster blocks going along main axis. And guess what, they can´t be seen, ship is beautiful, brakes with 90m/s and roll/pitch are about 0.8... just great :)
Executor Class Imperial Super Star Destroyer https://www.avorion.net/forum/index.php/topic,2019.0.html

gblnk

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 18
    • View Profile
Re: On Thruster Mechanics
« Reply #21 on: February 13, 2017, 11:50:57 PM »
I also don't mind thrusters being weaker. I think it adds an element of strategy in ship construction that's generally lacking at this point.

But I really dislike the surface area biased thrust distribution formula in the Beta. It forces people to build them in certain shapes and sizes to achieve specific results for no particularly good reason.

Purely volume based monodirectional thrusters would be far less confusing and would give people a lot more aesthetic freedom.

Falkenherz

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 75
    • View Profile
Re: On Thruster Mechanics
« Reply #22 on: February 14, 2017, 01:48:27 PM »
Braking thrusters with 60m/s??? That´s huge! Usually, my nimble ships have thrust around 25m/s and half of it as braking thrust. I never needed more to dance around NPC ships and gleefully dissect them with my lasers...

thedamnatus

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 42
    • View Profile
Re: On Thruster Mechanics
« Reply #23 on: February 14, 2017, 06:05:41 PM »
Here's something I've always wanted to talk about. It's hard to stop a large ship, that's true. But there's something else that's weird.
Have you ever noticed how fast do any ships brake from boost to regular forward speed?
It's pretty much instant. But then, braking from regular forward speed to 0 takes ages. I think there's something to be done about this.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2017, 06:08:07 PM by thedamnatus »

Kane Hart

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 271
  • The Talk Too Much Guy!
    • View Profile
    • My Youtube
Re: On Thruster Mechanics
« Reply #24 on: February 15, 2017, 05:46:25 AM »
I sometimes feel half the gameplay is breaking :P

Lynsis

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Re: On Thruster Mechanics
« Reply #25 on: February 15, 2017, 08:14:37 PM »
love the new thruster mechanics, they feel better but i do have to say that they feel slightly to powerful, i dont even have to put thrusters on the front of my ship to get a maximum of 2 for the movements. one thing would be nice to see is you having to actually balance the thrusters or your ship could flip. i.e if you have one thruster on the back of your ship but none on the front, it should cause you ship to flip.

BlackWyvern

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
Re: On Thruster Mechanics
« Reply #26 on: February 16, 2017, 01:00:21 AM »
one thing would be nice to see is you having to actually balance the thrusters or your ship could flip. i.e if you have one thruster on the back of your ship but none on the front, it should cause you ship to flip.

No. Would create no end of headaches for build design and control and likely kill the game. This isn't KSP where you're literally doing rocket science. Go play that if you want that level of engineering realism. Koonschi has already stated that this game is about playing it, not sitting around for hours trying to build a ship that wont spontaneously combust the first time you turn on the coffee maker.

Doesn't work like that anyway. If your thruster's vector is relatively close to, in line with, or intersecting your center of mass, it will only provide thrust along that vector and not flip your s- (IRL). So if you could build a thruster that worked from both ends like the ones we have on here, you could make a boat with only three thrusters (One forwards/back, one side/side, one up/down all pointing at the COM) that functions perfectly well, assuming you then used gyroscopic rotation and stabilization.

The only way you could cause an imbalance enough to flip/spin a ship is if you were to have a single thruster out at an extreme edge of a ship with a vector pointing in some arbitrary direction away from the COM without a counterbalancing force. Which, hilariously, I should inform you would be a problem in almost quite literally every ship that could ever be designed by the ship procedural engine and would either necessitate the entire rebuilding of the engine with an infinitely more complex generation algorithm, or removal of the procedural system entirely.

gimmic

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 21
    • View Profile
Re: On Thruster Mechanics
« Reply #27 on: February 16, 2017, 02:08:37 AM »
one thing would be nice to see is you having to actually balance the thrusters or your ship could flip. i.e if you have one thruster on the back of your ship but none on the front, it should cause you ship to flip.

No. Would create no end of headaches for build design and control and likely kill the game. This isn't KSP where you're literally doing rocket science. Go play that if you want that level of engineering realism. Koonschi has already stated that this game is about playing it, not sitting around for hours trying to build a ship that wont spontaneously combust the first time you turn on the coffee maker.

Agreed completely. There should be some level of assumed computer-assisted-thrust compensation anyway. We just need a single keypress "orient and burn to cancel inertia" hold-able button. While the key is held the ship rotates negative to the ship's motion and burns appropriately to nullify the motion. If at any point the key is let go, the ship re-orients to the camera view as normal. While the key is held, you can free look with the mouse (and aim turrets appropriately).    /soapbox

Oxighum

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Re: On Thruster Mechanics
« Reply #28 on: February 16, 2017, 03:58:09 PM »
another thing people seems to forget about this fliping nonsense, if it's a solution to stop a ship on a thousands km trajectory with a clear path, in Avorion we have 15km to 40 km from the gate to a destination with 1000 asteroids in the way.
Fliping a 500k tons battleship in the middle of an asteroid field at 4 km of a station to dock is just absurd, not fun at all and a guarantee fail.
I'm at 245 hours of gameplay mostly in Hard/insane difficulty, i admit a couple of iron/titanium lost ships due to npc and literally all my ships are lost to asteroid/station docking.
There will always be a moment where you're not cautious enough, or you don't see the asteroid in the sun, or you miscalculate your trajectory and crash your ship.
I'm at the point where i don't realy want to play anymore because i already know what's going to happens. i'm going to have fun until i loose another ship on a station or an asteroid exactly like the other 20 ones.

Tsunamik

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 217
    • View Profile
Re: On Thruster Mechanics
« Reply #29 on: February 16, 2017, 04:27:27 PM »
Just set collision damage to 0 and you are good to go :)
Executor Class Imperial Super Star Destroyer https://www.avorion.net/forum/index.php/topic,2019.0.html