Mynt, while your diagrams do show why it would work in 2d, you fail to notice that in 3d it would not help at all. The only way you would have 2 points of intersection is if your target and your projectile are moving in the same plane. And odds are they won't be.

Thus giving you 1 point of intersection and a wierd firing trajectory.

Part of 3d space is 2d. So, assuming the pilot is intelligent, or that the gun would automatically choose the path that would line up as diagrammed, it could still be a *little* bit helpful. But yes, it could be either an advantage or disadvantage depending on the circumstances. That's what I like about the idea.

I like the idea Mynt. It could even have random curves. Like some kind of lightning weapon, kind of like lightning mines.

As for the set curves, I like them too, and rockets should already abide by these rules.

Ex. when rockets are released they are not pointed at their target, so they have a setting that adjusts the thrust to where it should go. It would be a subtle change, no doubt, but a cool looking one for sure.

Lightning mines do not hit randomly. They are constant-lock-on beam weapons.

Just give it up already. Please?

far too much for a gun. one of the biggest flaws i havent seen mentioned yet is radius of curvature. that's just a whole lot going into a gun.
In trying to think of modern day similarities, I thought of the sidewinder missle. Now THAT is a decently implementable weapon. Harder to judge how to dodge, but higher risk of missing. but implementing it to a gun seems pointless. all you're doing is raising the area which it could possibly hit, i.e. spreading the probability curve. what else does that? oh yeah, gats.

ENERGY WEAPONS CAN NOT CURVE LIKE THAT. PERIOD.

Nor can any other kind of non self-propelled munition. It is physically impossible, and therefore stupid. A Lorenz force could bend the flight paths of charged particles, but it would do it in one direction only with relation to strong magnetic fields (such as nearby planet poles). Give it up already.

In the case of guided missiles, such a firing pattern may be feasible, but only because they're guided. I think Geminis and Swarms in particular may benefit from a spread firing pattern.

Flechette is an "energy" weapon that obviously shoots something "physical". Considering that, is it such a leap of faith to imagine miniature energy based rockets (like screamers) that fire rapidly, in a curved pattern? Try spending your time coming up with ways that things would work. Anyone can say "THAT WON'T WORK CUZ YER STUPID!1111 LEOloleol".

It's not because we think you're stupid, or because you provided bad material. Most of us (judging from the general murmur of this thread) just do not want it. You really have to accept this, and move on. Unless, of course, you're doing this for fun.

I really like this idea for missiles and even rockets possibly (with a toggle). As I said before, tend to chase and catch up (not very possible in VO given that afterburners are infinite on some ships) or hit them head on, meaning a curve to give the best solution.

For energy though, it just seems out there. Sort of like curved bullets in today's world, I guess. I understand the science behind it but it just seems very odd.

Well then for a rocket. Let it assume that the target will continue in a straight line, and judging from it's angle, find the point where it'll intercept given it's current distance, speed, and the time it'll take to get there on it's currently undefined flight path. Then using that point, and your ships trajectory to form a plane, it'll calculate some sort of 2-dimensional curve to intercept said point. The end result is the perfect weapon for catching people who turbo away in straight lines, as it'd line up right at 'em every time. Great for pirates and pirate hunters alike! Or, for Cap-ships to fend off incoming bombers.

Just an idea anyways.

It wouldn't help that much. Even with Turbo on, ships tend to move in a curve. To see what I mean, fly at an asteroid with turbo on, when your about 100 away, turn 90 degrees and then hit turbo again. You will not travel in a strait line soon enough to avoid the asteroid, and your momentum towards the asteroid will carry you into it before your flight path becomes mostly strait.

Avoiding these things would be as simple as insuring that you are heading in a different direction at high speed prior to turning towards your intended destination and hitting turbo.

This is true. Most likely it'd be good for catching people who turbo away in straight lines, as it'd line up right at 'em every time. Great for pirates and pirate hunters alike! Or, for Cap-ships to fend off incoming bombers.

"You will not travel in a strait line soon enough to avoid the asteroid, and your momentum towards the asteroid will carry you into it before your flight path becomes mostly strait."

That's almost like saying that the reason you hit the asteroid is because you travel in too much of a straight line in the first place. Obviously there's a lag time between a ship's input, and its reaction or else all weapons (even ones with strange firing paths) would hardly ever hit at all.

Woot! So now that I'm more literate in mathematics, I can explain why this idea is crazy. You see, assuming your target is moving in a curve, a linear firing pattern will have two points where they intersect. All well and fine. But a curved firing trail, will have two points where they intersect! All well and fine. However if your target is traveling in a linear fashion, than a linear firing pattern will only have one intersection, while a curved one will still have two intersections. Alright?

Now, what determines a hit is not necessarily intersection, since ships are larger than the additive identity. It is of course proximity, the value of the difference between the firing curve, and the target's movement. A 2nd degree polynomial can be closer to a 2nd degree polynomial than a 1st degree polynomial can, over all points. However, a 1st degree polynomial can be closer to a 1st degree polynomial than a 2nd degree polynomial can, over all points. In English, use linear dodging to avoid curvy guns, and curvy dodging to avoid linear guns. Now here's the trick; even though the target can freely move over 3 dimensions, it's still planar math since there are only 3 points in question for the firing solution: the shooter, the first intersection, and the second intersection. There will exist a plane that intersects the target's movement such that the time it takes for the bullet to travel from the first intersection to the second intersection is equal to the time it takes for the target to travel from the first intersection to the second intersection, and I don't even need to specify the bullet's flight path. If we assume the target's path is linear, calculating a solution is even easier, but will intersect at a smaller range.

This is the next generation of weaponry! It is between a bullet that never updates its trajectory, and a missile that consistently updates its trajectory based on the target's movements at that time; a projectile that consistently updates its trajectory based on the target's movement at the time of fire.

Here's what I have in mind; a weapon that follows the path of a 2nd degree polynomial over a plane such that the two intersections coincide with the target's predicted path. I don't know how the aim bot works, but even if it assumed a linear flight path, it could be useful in certain situations. If nothing else, this could be tested on rail guns (within limits to its turning of course), that have trouble as snipers due to quantizing. As I recall, they have a slight degree of homing, but from experience and listening to others claim it has better accuracy without auto-aim on, this solution is less than ideal.

It could be the atom bomb or the self detonating hand grenade. Who knows...

Great attempt at spurious logic !

However, please allow me to offer you two practical problems.

1) The VO universe is not curved -- ie: the *shortest* path from here-to-there is always straight. Thus, for any given speed, a deviation from this straight path will increase the time to target for your projectile. In this game, projectiles are already very slow. If they were to take a longer path to target then they would be even easier to dodge.

2) You will also have aiming problems. Your ship is clearly one point on the curve. [If we set your ship at the origin, then this will be (0,0,0)]. Now you need to specify, in sperical coordinates, your other two points [(Theta-1, Phi-1, Radius-1) & (Theta-2, Phi-2, Radius-2)] before the path can be computed. Currently, the aimsight will only give you a single Theta & Phi. How do you propose to enter the 4 missing coordinates?

archery.

1) Precisely! Why, it balances itself. Don't you understand how brilliant the idea is? By simply throwing in extra variables for the players to use, a natural sense of 'too strong' or 'too weak' will come into the picture, and given play testing, a balance achieved. I guarantee it. Weapons are introduced in the form of equations. We can irresponsibly suggest different forms of equations, knowing that the values can be manipulated to bring all things into balance. If these guns are too fast, slow them down! If they are too slow, speed them up! Is it so hard to understand?

2) "There will exist a plane that intersects the target's movement such that the time it takes for the bullet to travel from the first intersection to the second intersection is equal to the time it takes for the target to travel from the first intersection to the second intersection, and I don't even need to specify the bullet's flight path." I don't know what the aim bot is, and I don't think the Devs are keen on releasing that information, so I can't be very specific.

Let x be time. Let us call the flight path the aim bot suspects f(x). Let x(1) be the time of the first intersection between the bullet's flight path and f(x), and let x(2) mark the time of the second such intersection. Let a be the horizontal distance of the plane determined by the two points f(x(1)) and f(x(2)). Let i(a) be the guiding parabola of our little friend, that intersects at one point with the ship which lies at the origin, (0,0,0). Let h(x) be the intersection between f(x) and i(a). h(x) will be a polynomial of some degree, and will zeroes in regards to a. Pick two. Call them A, and B. Let g(x(1),x(2)) be the horizontal distance traveled over x(1)-x(2) amount of time for the parabola, i(x). Let A-B=g(x(1),(x(2)). Solve for x(1) and x(2) in terms of A,B, and i(x). Let f((x(1))-i(A)=0. Let f((x(2))-i(B)=0. Unknown degree of polynomial with three variables. Solve away. Find i(a). That's your parabola's flight path. i(A), i(B), and 0,0,0 will all have 3 coordinates. I don't care how, but use those to get your crappy spherical coords.

why not add this to some, but not all weapons.....as I understand the usefulness of the idea and think this would be pretty cool

Nobody here contests that a qubic polynomial can pass through any arbitrary set of 3 points. Further, the math remains fundamentally unaltered regardless of your choice of coordinates or selected origin. I used spherical coordinates solely because they are easy to use when you set the pilot's viewpoint at the origin.

My principal question was with user interface. Suppose that you implemented this --> how would you get sufficient data from the pilot (in any coordinate system) to specify the 3 points through which your path will pass.

Conservation of Momentum is a wonderful idea and is of a great deal of use for describing our physical world. But if it were implemented faithfully, VO would be an unplayable game. In the same way, if you cannot implement your idea, then it matters not at all if it is good or bad -- it is of no use to the game.