Forums » Suggestions
Grappler Beam
With a grappler beam, players could move cargo without taking up cargo space. They could move ships or cargo pods.
Drain: 20/s-15/s
Range: 50m
It is fired like a mining beam. Once on it can rotate freely to always be looking at the cargo. When off, it turns forward again. What ever your carring would of be added to your mass (of course). There would be a small screen in the corner of your screem so you can see you cargo. That way you don't run it into an astriod or another player(unless you want to). There should also be buttons to push the cargo away from you or pull is closer.
Drain: 20/s-15/s
Range: 50m
It is fired like a mining beam. Once on it can rotate freely to always be looking at the cargo. When off, it turns forward again. What ever your carring would of be added to your mass (of course). There would be a small screen in the corner of your screem so you can see you cargo. That way you don't run it into an astriod or another player(unless you want to). There should also be buttons to push the cargo away from you or pull is closer.
Is the beam 'elastic'?
Is there a reason why is should be elastic and not rigid?
Realism. Other than that... none I can think of. Except maybe to make things interesting and difficult.
realism? when did you last use a grapling beam in space? lol
Of course, elasticity would probably require an IK system, which we don't have. Even rigidity would require IK to work properly (although FK could be used, I suppose, as a bit of a hack).
IK??? FK??? explain yourself!! we all know you are really smart roguelazer, but i would be more impressed if i knew that you were actually saying things rather than just making up acronyms and fancy sounding BS.
In 3D animation you use skeletons to deform a mesh.
IK is Inverse Kinematics. It is when you take a point on a skeleton, move it, and that point's parents change. Like if you grab some one's hand and forcefully move it, the rest of the arm moves too.
FK is Forward Kinematics. It's when you move a point and all of its children move too. Like when your elbow and your hand moves.
IK is Inverse Kinematics. It is when you take a point on a skeleton, move it, and that point's parents change. Like if you grab some one's hand and forcefully move it, the rest of the arm moves too.
FK is Forward Kinematics. It's when you move a point and all of its children move too. Like when your elbow and your hand moves.
Easier way: make shps that can transport a ball of cargo by grabbing it, or securing it otherwise to the hull. That way, you won't have to worry about two dependent bodies and their movements. This has been suggested before, and the Marauder was even supposed to fill that role, I think.
cargo beam that looks like a mining beam: http://vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/13674#172222
Before I offer my ideas on tractor beams, I must say that before such a beam is really a meaningful feature, the game should allow the boarding and capturing of ships. I know this would be a major change and a long way off, but it would be my favorite feature and would make pirating worthwhile (which in turn would encourage escorts and fleets and more cooperation, etc.). A tractor beam would then be not only a pirate’s best friend, but helpful for mining, salvaging, rescue missions, etc.
First off, why would a beam be elastic? I’m no physicist, but I don’t understand how a beam can be elastic. Also, I have a solution to the graphics problem: Make the beam invisible. It probably would be anyway, in reality, and I think it would be cool. Put something in the HUD if you are using the beam that confirms a lock, and if you’re the victim of a tractor beam, you’ll probably know it.
As for how it works, it would have to be decided whether the beam uses Newtonian physics or not. For example: Star Trek tractor beams are non-Newtonian; the target is drawn toward the source of the beam, but the source itself doesn’t move. I think it would be cooler and more realistic to use a Newtonian version: both the source and the target are moved toward their common center of gravity. So a small tractoring a large object would be moved more toward the target than the target itself. This would also serve to make the beam more difficult to use, thus reducing it’s power as a weapon. A non-Newtonian tractor beam that traps and moves anything would be too powerful and no fun for anyone but the pirate. Also, to encourage teamwork (and realism) multiple beams could be used in tandem to move a large object, so that the beam isn’t useless to small ships. For example, two small ships could team up to tow a large disabled ship for salvage at a station, or to move a small asteroid.
There should obviously be different levels of tractor beam, maybe two or three weaker to midrange ones for regular ships, and one or two high-power versions too big for anything but a capital ship. Obviously, any tractor beam would best be used by a capital ship anyway, due to their mass. The power of the beam would exert a certain force on the target, so that if you’re going say 200m/s and someone tractors you from behind with a weak beam, you would decelerate somewhat because you are being pulled toward a common center of gravity. The source, in turn, would accelerate the same amount toward that common center. An interesting side effect of this is that it would make maneuvering interesting, because you could use your tractor beam as a slingshot or to hitch a ride. I think something like that would be a lot of fun, and many people would find innovative uses, both weapon and not, for such a device.
(Again, sorry about the long post, most of mine are long, I'm afraid.)
First off, why would a beam be elastic? I’m no physicist, but I don’t understand how a beam can be elastic. Also, I have a solution to the graphics problem: Make the beam invisible. It probably would be anyway, in reality, and I think it would be cool. Put something in the HUD if you are using the beam that confirms a lock, and if you’re the victim of a tractor beam, you’ll probably know it.
As for how it works, it would have to be decided whether the beam uses Newtonian physics or not. For example: Star Trek tractor beams are non-Newtonian; the target is drawn toward the source of the beam, but the source itself doesn’t move. I think it would be cooler and more realistic to use a Newtonian version: both the source and the target are moved toward their common center of gravity. So a small tractoring a large object would be moved more toward the target than the target itself. This would also serve to make the beam more difficult to use, thus reducing it’s power as a weapon. A non-Newtonian tractor beam that traps and moves anything would be too powerful and no fun for anyone but the pirate. Also, to encourage teamwork (and realism) multiple beams could be used in tandem to move a large object, so that the beam isn’t useless to small ships. For example, two small ships could team up to tow a large disabled ship for salvage at a station, or to move a small asteroid.
There should obviously be different levels of tractor beam, maybe two or three weaker to midrange ones for regular ships, and one or two high-power versions too big for anything but a capital ship. Obviously, any tractor beam would best be used by a capital ship anyway, due to their mass. The power of the beam would exert a certain force on the target, so that if you’re going say 200m/s and someone tractors you from behind with a weak beam, you would decelerate somewhat because you are being pulled toward a common center of gravity. The source, in turn, would accelerate the same amount toward that common center. An interesting side effect of this is that it would make maneuvering interesting, because you could use your tractor beam as a slingshot or to hitch a ride. I think something like that would be a lot of fun, and many people would find innovative uses, both weapon and not, for such a device.
(Again, sorry about the long post, most of mine are long, I'm afraid.)
Sorry, Professor Chaos, but that would require a new physics engine - and that just ain't happenin'.
LostCommander, remember I already said "I know this would be a major change and a long way off." I can't program beyond making BASIC ask your name and tell it back to you with an insult, but I think this would work with the current engine. A new engine would be nice, but I think (devs correct me on this one) a new subroutine or whatever (sorry, Star Trek lingo) could calculate the change in vector and speed and apply it. If a new engine is needed, then probably it would be necessary for any form of tractor beam.
In general, however, I like to suggest my ideas for what my vision is for the game in its best possible form. I would rather wait for a feature to be complete than have a hastily put-together form of the feature that isn't very good, because I'm not much a fan of compromise. Basically, my idea of the ultimate space MMORPG would have a tractor beam like this. I played this game before and got bored quickly, but I think this game has a LOT of potential (especially because the devs obviously listen to suggestions and care about their product) and I really want it to succeed and I really want it to get to the point where it's worth the investment of my time and money (of which I have neither). Instead, I've been paying attention to the forums, and have recently started posting. There have been major projects before, I don't think it farfetched to have a new physics engine sometime in the distant future. Maybe Vendetta 3.0?
In general, however, I like to suggest my ideas for what my vision is for the game in its best possible form. I would rather wait for a feature to be complete than have a hastily put-together form of the feature that isn't very good, because I'm not much a fan of compromise. Basically, my idea of the ultimate space MMORPG would have a tractor beam like this. I played this game before and got bored quickly, but I think this game has a LOT of potential (especially because the devs obviously listen to suggestions and care about their product) and I really want it to succeed and I really want it to get to the point where it's worth the investment of my time and money (of which I have neither). Instead, I've been paying attention to the forums, and have recently started posting. There have been major projects before, I don't think it farfetched to have a new physics engine sometime in the distant future. Maybe Vendetta 3.0?
My opinion on why a grappler/tractor beam would have to be elastic:
You do not exert force upon the object via an (ideally) inelastic medium, unless you define the beam as such a medium. If you built some grappling arm, it would more inelastic than if you use a beam that has no rigid attachment to the obect that is supposed to be towed.
You do not exert force upon the object via an (ideally) inelastic medium, unless you define the beam as such a medium. If you built some grappling arm, it would more inelastic than if you use a beam that has no rigid attachment to the obect that is supposed to be towed.
I think I just don't understand what you mean by an elastic medium. Help me understand but it sounds like what you mean is that the effect of the beam is similar to a bungie cord. My best understanding of the idea of a tractor beam is that it exerts a force on a focused area, usually gravity or anti-gravity (there's an interesting idea, a toggle on the beam so it either pulls or pushes). Basically, any object in the path of the beam would be pulled (or pushed) toward (or from) the source, while at the same time the source would be pulled or pushed to or from the target.
I thought that elasicity applied to graphics only, but I think the beam should be invisible (lasers, too, which we should also have). If this is not the case, please explain this elasicity idea to me.
I thought that elasicity applied to graphics only, but I think the beam should be invisible (lasers, too, which we should also have). If this is not the case, please explain this elasicity idea to me.
Well...
given the fact that inertia is present in this game's universe, it would not make sense to have the objects have ideal 'step' responses to ideal 'step' inputs. For example, if your ship turns on its grappler beam and starts to pull an object toward itself (or being pulled toward the object), the change in velocity to match the desired distance from your ship and its velocity should be gradual, not immediate. For the sake of realism, I propose that if you change the direction of your accelerative force and subsequently your velocity and its direction, the object should not immediately follow your path, but 'lag behind' a bit, as if it were attached to a bungee cord, as you so adequately put it (no sarcasm).
That means that if you boost towards a dock, and abruptly brake, the towed goods would crash into your ship, causing collision damage and propelling your ship into the station walls, causing more collision damage.
In short, I want people to have to think about how to use it and not just create a 'newb moth'.
given the fact that inertia is present in this game's universe, it would not make sense to have the objects have ideal 'step' responses to ideal 'step' inputs. For example, if your ship turns on its grappler beam and starts to pull an object toward itself (or being pulled toward the object), the change in velocity to match the desired distance from your ship and its velocity should be gradual, not immediate. For the sake of realism, I propose that if you change the direction of your accelerative force and subsequently your velocity and its direction, the object should not immediately follow your path, but 'lag behind' a bit, as if it were attached to a bungee cord, as you so adequately put it (no sarcasm).
That means that if you boost towards a dock, and abruptly brake, the towed goods would crash into your ship, causing collision damage and propelling your ship into the station walls, causing more collision damage.
In short, I want people to have to think about how to use it and not just create a 'newb moth'.