- Joined
- Dec 4, 2019
- Messages
- 23
I wanted to open a discussion about “Practicality” vs. “Cool Factor” of ship Shape, in relation to the mechanics/physics that we’ve seen. Obviously, take everything below with a grain of salt; as none of us have actually Played the game… on top of that it’s early enough that these details are still likely subject to change, if deemed necessary by the Devs. Most of the questions/points could be resolved by in-game experimentation… but since we cant do that, lets daydream a little!
I’ve read/seen that the physics of ‘thrust’ are much more detailed than comparable games, like Space Engineers; in that, the engine cares very much where your center of mass and center of thrust are located. I believe I’ve seen discussions stating that if you were to have unbalanced or ‘one-sided’ thrust on a ship, its likely to not fly very Straight, and may Yaw slightly, when the only input your giving is forward thrust. Space Engineers, doesn’t really care (*unless you Mod it). You can make an shape of ship with all your thrust all on one side, and it will still fly Straight. Your CoT will automatically mirror your CoM, and the only thing that matters is if you have enough power/torque to overcome your weight/mass.
At this point, I’m not sure how I feel about this. Part of me is excited that ship building won’t be idiot-proof, and will take some quasi engineering to balance your ship… However, part of me is worried that this will make Asymmetrical ships a nightmare of frustration to balance and pilot, and there will be nothing but symmetrical in-line ships. I may be worried for nothing, and maybe it won’t be all that hard to balance an odd shaped ship.. After all, I’m not too sure I understand exactly how the FCU/MFC relationship works… I understand that they essentially control all thrusters; but is it as simple as cable them ALL together and the MFC figures it out? I’m doubting it. Maybe you need an FCU for each direction, and each one needs to be networked to the thrust pointing in said direction? Not sure…
To add, akin to most ‘build stuff’ games, there is a community concern over a PVP Meta forming; and something like Borg Cubes dominating all space. I personally feel that things like the lack of third person camera, and lack of a camera ‘item’ will help combat this, to a degree… But, it’s a double edged sword; because those same points also cut the practical usage of an Asymmetrical ship…
And then, theirs the “Cool” factor. IMO, everyone, whether consciously or not, cares about their ships Coolness. If they didn’t, they’d commit to the rectangle/cube, and be content; which I’m betting (hoping?) that few and far between will settle for a box shaped ship. Im assuming that a healthy chunk of people (like me) will be willing to sacrifice some efficiency/viability for things like obscure shape, decorative topography, rotating gizmo, telescoping whatsit, pop-out thingies, famous replica, etc., in hopes of getting people to “Ooo, Ahhh” at my ship; and vice versa. I wont care to stop and inspect the latest cube; but dude over there with the unfolding landing gear Must be friended.
Take for example, the Millennium Falcon. Its famous, and iconic.. Because of this, its highly likely we’ll see several replicas, and tons of ships that used it as inspiration. But, if we put the notoriety aside, and pretend we’ve never heard/seen it before, is it Practical? Is it Cool? IMO, its somewhat practical, except for the cockpit. The asymmetrical cockpit is somewhat exposed, and would make flight take some getting used to, since your view is not from the center of the ship. Otherwise, the pancake shape might actually be effective when you’re being pursued, since you have less surface space to hit. 360° by 180° turrets on either side give quite effective coverage. Wide placement of maneuvering thrusters (in theory) would allow for very fast pitch/yaw/roll. Now, if I had never seen it before; I’m not too certain I would call it Cool; unless we are able to manipulate hull parts to get a similar ‘industrial’ looking texture; and not be very bare/flat on any given surface.
Now, what about something like Boba Fett’s ship, Slave 1? IMO, very impractical design… maybe decent if you are doing the chasing; but the minute someone gets behind it, they have a HUGE surface area to hit. The landing-on-the-back gimmick is pretty cool; but in order to function in starbase would likely require YOLOL to level you out, and then Pray you are in the right position before descending. However if I had never seen/heard of it before; I’d probably consider it quite stylish.
How about the ship Serenity, from the movie of the same name, and Firefly series. More of a dedicated cargo/smuggler ship given the lack of weapons; but IMO, has some ying-yang synergy between style and practical use. Cool shape, easy access cargo area that could have a cool hinge hangar door, but if the nacelles/rear engine might be easy pickings in a dog fight. Maybe with some tactical weapon mounts and a rear facing turret; this sucker might be pretty kick arse.
Regardless of the answer to every concern or point ive made above; I’m still very excited for the release of Starbase… this thread is more in hopes of having some constructive discussion about the ships/shapes you hope to achieve, and why.. a healthy starship debate while we wait for EA.
Are you hyper critical of efficiency like a Borg? Are you more concerned with making Battlestar Galactica replica’s? Somewhere in between? What’s your inspiration?
Thoughts? Concerns? Maybe suggestions of other famous-ish ships that we can collectively google and speculate upon?
I’ve read/seen that the physics of ‘thrust’ are much more detailed than comparable games, like Space Engineers; in that, the engine cares very much where your center of mass and center of thrust are located. I believe I’ve seen discussions stating that if you were to have unbalanced or ‘one-sided’ thrust on a ship, its likely to not fly very Straight, and may Yaw slightly, when the only input your giving is forward thrust. Space Engineers, doesn’t really care (*unless you Mod it). You can make an shape of ship with all your thrust all on one side, and it will still fly Straight. Your CoT will automatically mirror your CoM, and the only thing that matters is if you have enough power/torque to overcome your weight/mass.
At this point, I’m not sure how I feel about this. Part of me is excited that ship building won’t be idiot-proof, and will take some quasi engineering to balance your ship… However, part of me is worried that this will make Asymmetrical ships a nightmare of frustration to balance and pilot, and there will be nothing but symmetrical in-line ships. I may be worried for nothing, and maybe it won’t be all that hard to balance an odd shaped ship.. After all, I’m not too sure I understand exactly how the FCU/MFC relationship works… I understand that they essentially control all thrusters; but is it as simple as cable them ALL together and the MFC figures it out? I’m doubting it. Maybe you need an FCU for each direction, and each one needs to be networked to the thrust pointing in said direction? Not sure…
To add, akin to most ‘build stuff’ games, there is a community concern over a PVP Meta forming; and something like Borg Cubes dominating all space. I personally feel that things like the lack of third person camera, and lack of a camera ‘item’ will help combat this, to a degree… But, it’s a double edged sword; because those same points also cut the practical usage of an Asymmetrical ship…
And then, theirs the “Cool” factor. IMO, everyone, whether consciously or not, cares about their ships Coolness. If they didn’t, they’d commit to the rectangle/cube, and be content; which I’m betting (hoping?) that few and far between will settle for a box shaped ship. Im assuming that a healthy chunk of people (like me) will be willing to sacrifice some efficiency/viability for things like obscure shape, decorative topography, rotating gizmo, telescoping whatsit, pop-out thingies, famous replica, etc., in hopes of getting people to “Ooo, Ahhh” at my ship; and vice versa. I wont care to stop and inspect the latest cube; but dude over there with the unfolding landing gear Must be friended.
Take for example, the Millennium Falcon. Its famous, and iconic.. Because of this, its highly likely we’ll see several replicas, and tons of ships that used it as inspiration. But, if we put the notoriety aside, and pretend we’ve never heard/seen it before, is it Practical? Is it Cool? IMO, its somewhat practical, except for the cockpit. The asymmetrical cockpit is somewhat exposed, and would make flight take some getting used to, since your view is not from the center of the ship. Otherwise, the pancake shape might actually be effective when you’re being pursued, since you have less surface space to hit. 360° by 180° turrets on either side give quite effective coverage. Wide placement of maneuvering thrusters (in theory) would allow for very fast pitch/yaw/roll. Now, if I had never seen it before; I’m not too certain I would call it Cool; unless we are able to manipulate hull parts to get a similar ‘industrial’ looking texture; and not be very bare/flat on any given surface.
Now, what about something like Boba Fett’s ship, Slave 1? IMO, very impractical design… maybe decent if you are doing the chasing; but the minute someone gets behind it, they have a HUGE surface area to hit. The landing-on-the-back gimmick is pretty cool; but in order to function in starbase would likely require YOLOL to level you out, and then Pray you are in the right position before descending. However if I had never seen/heard of it before; I’d probably consider it quite stylish.
How about the ship Serenity, from the movie of the same name, and Firefly series. More of a dedicated cargo/smuggler ship given the lack of weapons; but IMO, has some ying-yang synergy between style and practical use. Cool shape, easy access cargo area that could have a cool hinge hangar door, but if the nacelles/rear engine might be easy pickings in a dog fight. Maybe with some tactical weapon mounts and a rear facing turret; this sucker might be pretty kick arse.
Regardless of the answer to every concern or point ive made above; I’m still very excited for the release of Starbase… this thread is more in hopes of having some constructive discussion about the ships/shapes you hope to achieve, and why.. a healthy starship debate while we wait for EA.
Are you hyper critical of efficiency like a Borg? Are you more concerned with making Battlestar Galactica replica’s? Somewhere in between? What’s your inspiration?
Thoughts? Concerns? Maybe suggestions of other famous-ish ships that we can collectively google and speculate upon?
