Forums » Suggestions
I suppose, but still, if you are at that wh and you see that trader are you *not* going to go after him?
It'd not be awesomely accurate anyway (guessing you'd get a semi-reliable result no sooner then few seconds, before that it'd be waaay off),
which means you'd never be able to be entirely sure.
So you'd likely pursue anyway, which makes it pretty useless in my opinion.
Still, if i have some free time i could try to make something up.
It'd not be awesomely accurate anyway (guessing you'd get a semi-reliable result no sooner then few seconds, before that it'd be waaay off),
which means you'd never be able to be entirely sure.
So you'd likely pursue anyway, which makes it pretty useless in my opinion.
Still, if i have some free time i could try to make something up.
Sure. A very simple implementation should give highly relevant results.
Assume that the target is at full turbo directly away from pursuer. Assume that pursuer is at full turbo directly towards target.
This is the simplest calculation that applies to the relevant need. The calculation may need a manual reset button, or the ability to detect when to automatically reset and recalculate.
Manual correction for perpendicular motion: Perpendicular motion will result in an artificially high value for mass. It will also cause your weapon's targeting reticle to shift in the direction of the perpendicular motion. By adjusting your intercept course in the direction of the targeting reticle, you will cause the calculation to produce a more correct value.
Assume that the target is at full turbo directly away from pursuer. Assume that pursuer is at full turbo directly towards target.
This is the simplest calculation that applies to the relevant need. The calculation may need a manual reset button, or the ability to detect when to automatically reset and recalculate.
Manual correction for perpendicular motion: Perpendicular motion will result in an artificially high value for mass. It will also cause your weapon's targeting reticle to shift in the direction of the perpendicular motion. By adjusting your intercept course in the direction of the targeting reticle, you will cause the calculation to produce a more correct value.
I expect you'd get at most order of magnitude, nothing much more precise either way, there's lots of measurement errors/inaccuracies compounding here.
...And that's all you'd need.
PaKettle: you seem to be missing something, it's irrelevant how fast you are going.
Radar is perfectly capable of determining an object's speed, relative to your own, (Light can be used to measure position AND momentum, with a neglect-able heisenberg uncertainty if you measure both in this case)
so now you have a relative velocity vector, and if you have the vector of your own velocity, you can extract it to get their exact velocity. You can then track this over some short period of time to get an acceleration, which in turn, gives you a mass.
but suppose you didn't know your own speed?
Then you wouldn't be able to determine the other player's speed absolutely, but you only need to track a relative speed in order to determine their acceleration.
Radar is perfectly capable of determining an object's speed, relative to your own, (Light can be used to measure position AND momentum, with a neglect-able heisenberg uncertainty if you measure both in this case)
so now you have a relative velocity vector, and if you have the vector of your own velocity, you can extract it to get their exact velocity. You can then track this over some short period of time to get an acceleration, which in turn, gives you a mass.
but suppose you didn't know your own speed?
Then you wouldn't be able to determine the other player's speed absolutely, but you only need to track a relative speed in order to determine their acceleration.
Please pardon me maq. I thought that you indicated that you knew how to program, in LUA. I guess I also took it for granted that you knew the appropriate math (I would have to look it up myself), and that you had a reasonable idea of the results that could be produced. You on one hand admit that the fundamental requirements are available, and then on the other hand challenge the ability of math to produce results based on those fundamental requirements. I detect a hidden agenda.
Is there anyone else that knows LUA?
Is there anyone else that knows LUA?
Roda, the only issue with doing it directly through lua is that you have to rely on your relative distance. While this can give you what you're after, it will require the angle of the other ship relative to yourself.
If you don't have that angle, then you can only give a range for the velocity.
Theoretically, if you could do image processing to determine the path of their ship on your screen, then you could extract the angle. But otherwise, with relative distance only you can't.
Unless you have a second person, if you have 2 people with this plugin, then the 3rd reference point makes it possible to extract the angle, which should allow you to get the exact mass
If you don't have that angle, then you can only give a range for the velocity.
Theoretically, if you could do image processing to determine the path of their ship on your screen, then you could extract the angle. But otherwise, with relative distance only you can't.
Unless you have a second person, if you have 2 people with this plugin, then the 3rd reference point makes it possible to extract the angle, which should allow you to get the exact mass
All I am asking for is angle of zero. Exactly parallel, aligned paths.
I suspect that if you make it work in this simple usage case, all other usage cases are either still very accurate, or readily (or even inherently) corrected by pursuit behavior.
I suspect that if you make it work in this simple usage case, all other usage cases are either still very accurate, or readily (or even inherently) corrected by pursuit behavior.
What they are trying to tell you is the best a plugin could do would be to tell you if a ship was heavy,average or light for its type. It may seem simple but it is far from it in reality. Best case result would be a minimally usefull plugin no better then eyesight and worse case result would be a complete waste of time.
Hidden agenda?!
I do know Lua, i also get the math, and as i said i could make something up.
I simply mean that there's some factors that'll affect accuracy.
Things that'll throw stuff off are for example, nonlinear acceleration, the fact that someone might not be actually turboing all the time, as you yourself pointed out misalignment of your heading and target's...
I may be overestimating errors a bit (or a lot) but i won't know unless i try.
And i prolly will try when i have some time, since i'm a bit interested what the result would be.
[edit]
ok so i did overestimate a lot(started thinking about needlessly complex stuff really), at least for the simplest scenario of
you being still target moving at constant acceleration
For that i'm getting result with 10% accuracy for a vulture, so prolly better for heavier ships.
[edit2]
works for heavier ships too, with similar results
tho every now and then it gives stupid value, i'm using very simplistic stuff tho so prolly to be expected.
not sure how having to account for your own movement will affect things but maybe not too badly
either way don't have time to make this more then proof of concept right now
I do know Lua, i also get the math, and as i said i could make something up.
I simply mean that there's some factors that'll affect accuracy.
Things that'll throw stuff off are for example, nonlinear acceleration, the fact that someone might not be actually turboing all the time, as you yourself pointed out misalignment of your heading and target's...
I may be overestimating errors a bit (or a lot) but i won't know unless i try.
And i prolly will try when i have some time, since i'm a bit interested what the result would be.
[edit]
ok so i did overestimate a lot(started thinking about needlessly complex stuff really), at least for the simplest scenario of
you being still target moving at constant acceleration
For that i'm getting result with 10% accuracy for a vulture, so prolly better for heavier ships.
[edit2]
works for heavier ships too, with similar results
tho every now and then it gives stupid value, i'm using very simplistic stuff tho so prolly to be expected.
not sure how having to account for your own movement will affect things but maybe not too badly
either way don't have time to make this more then proof of concept right now
I was asking the devs to just add mass to the target display.
I wasn't really trying to get anyone to make a plugin to do this. I was using the argument that it can be done with a plugin as defense against any argument that the devs should not do it, or that it can't be done, or that it isn't realistic. It is realistic. It can be done. It will be done, by someone, just not nessesarially shared with everyone. I believe that "proof of concept" should be sufficient to support that position, and it sounds like maq has accomplished that.
If we can now move past the (now disproven) argument that it is not realistic or possible, can we all agree that we want the devs to add this?
I wasn't really trying to get anyone to make a plugin to do this. I was using the argument that it can be done with a plugin as defense against any argument that the devs should not do it, or that it can't be done, or that it isn't realistic. It is realistic. It can be done. It will be done, by someone, just not nessesarially shared with everyone. I believe that "proof of concept" should be sufficient to support that position, and it sounds like maq has accomplished that.
If we can now move past the (now disproven) argument that it is not realistic or possible, can we all agree that we want the devs to add this?
Right, more like 'stated' then 'proved' tho, since i didn't show any proof.
It's also good to remember that what can be done with a plugin is limited to a rather specific scenario.
Still, I think a mass display on HUD would be good,
tho maybe it shouldn't be absolutely precise, say to within 5000kg?
Some surprise isn't so bad :)
Btw of realistic, it's no worse than a % damage indicator for enemies...
It's also good to remember that what can be done with a plugin is limited to a rather specific scenario.
Still, I think a mass display on HUD would be good,
tho maybe it shouldn't be absolutely precise, say to within 5000kg?
Some surprise isn't so bad :)
Btw of realistic, it's no worse than a % damage indicator for enemies...
I don't think that you managed to make a point in favour of the mass indicator, Roda. For all intents and purposes, you seemed to propagate a plugin that serves the same purpose.
By the way, that plugin could be used to display the acceleration and velocity vectors of my target in my HUD. I wonder if LUA would allow that.
By the way, that plugin could be used to display the acceleration and velocity vectors of my target in my HUD. I wonder if LUA would allow that.
As best as I can determine, maq has indirectly implied that LUA does not inherently know the vector of a target.
However: If a plug in was calibrated to the velocity of your weapon, it could calculate a logarithmic scale, which could be displayed on your screen. By manually aligning your target and your targeting reticle on the scale, you would know absolute speed, and thus: relative vector.
However: If a plug in was calibrated to the velocity of your weapon, it could calculate a logarithmic scale, which could be displayed on your screen. By manually aligning your target and your targeting reticle on the scale, you would know absolute speed, and thus: relative vector.
if you are chasing someone, and your angle is parallel, this is something that can be determined exactly (and easily) via lua.
If you're talking about something at some range where you're not sure of their relative angle, then it becomes more difficult unless you can track their velocity independently.
But seeing as I happen to believe that you should be able to track their velocity, I don't see how this is a bad thing.
PaKettle, I'm confused, what is your objection to this, it seems like a perfectly reasonable feature to implement.
Tracking your opponent's velocity seems like a perfectly reasonable feature too. (And would allow some nifty formation flight lua plugins)
If you're talking about something at some range where you're not sure of their relative angle, then it becomes more difficult unless you can track their velocity independently.
But seeing as I happen to believe that you should be able to track their velocity, I don't see how this is a bad thing.
PaKettle, I'm confused, what is your objection to this, it seems like a perfectly reasonable feature to implement.
Tracking your opponent's velocity seems like a perfectly reasonable feature too. (And would allow some nifty formation flight lua plugins)
Only thing you can get is distance.
um... but the change in distance gives you their velocity if you're parallel. And the change in the velocity gives you their mass.
Yea... i messed around with that already and got mass with some reliability.
Was just replying to: "LUA does not inherently know the vector of a target."
Was just replying to: "LUA does not inherently know the vector of a target."
Well, in that case, seeing as radar today does just fine with establishing the vector of a target, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that lua track this.
My bad, if you can only get distance (and thus radial velocity relative to your own ship). I guess the angular velocities (or positions...) of your own ship would not be available either, making a calculation based on your own tracking impossible.