Project Orbiter Battle Simulation Project Needs Developers!

[Brycesv1]

just thought it might be something to look into though in retrospect it isnt good for a realistic physics simulator

 

[StevoPistolero]

Here is an idea:

Could someone make a quick and dirty statistics based combat MFD? No missiles, no collisions, just hit points. If I could, I would implement Attack Vector: Tactical as an MFD.

So you get in range of an enemy, you fire your missiles. There is no missile icon, no sound, no anything, just a probability of kill. Same with lasers: you fire the lasers, and it does damage based on how far you are.

From there you can build up. You can incorporate target tracking in the HUD, changing the probability of kill. You could create a damage MFD, so instead of a percent damage it shows exact weapons systems (just for information purposes).

This is the opposite strategy of what you are doing. You guys are starting with the hard stuff (bombs, colission), while I am proposing you start at the opposite end, working on the user interface and the combat engine. Then one day you can meet in the middle.

But right now, I don't need an AK-47, or the ability to drop a bomb without any HUD graphics. I need to simulate all the weapon systems of space combat, quick and dirty, with a probability-based system.

 

[RisingFury]

Here is an idea:

Could someone make a quick and dirty statistics based combat MFD? No missiles, no collisions, just hit points. If I could, I would implement Attack Vector: Tactical as an MFD.

So you get in range of an enemy, you fire your missiles. There is no missile icon, no sound, no anything, just a probability of kill. Same with lasers: you fire the lasers, and it does damage based on how far you are.

From there you can build up. You can incorporate target tracking in the HUD, changing the probability of kill. You could create a damage MFD, so instead of a percent damage it shows exact weapons systems (just for information purposes).

This is the opposite strategy of what you are doing. You guys are starting with the hard stuff (bombs, colission), while I am proposing you start at the opposite end, working on the user interface and the combat engine. Then one day you can meet in the middle.

But right now, I don't need an AK-47, or the ability to drop a bomb without any HUD graphics. I need to simulate all the weapon systems of space combat, quick and dirty, with a probability-based system.

You can't build a house by starting with the roof.

Going from statistics based MFD to missiles, lasers and bombs would mean re-writing everything from scratch for every release.

We're not as stuck on *how* to implement everything as we are short on time. Trust me, I would love to make OBSP an 8 hour a day job and bring you wonderful new features every month, but my future is as uncertain as everyone's until I finish school.

 

[Urwumpe]

Could someone make a quick and dirty statistics based combat MFD? No missiles, no collisions, just hit points. If I could, I would implement Attack Vector: Tactical as an MFD.

Didn't you want to program it yourself, because it can't be that hard (and it is not to make just a MFD, the rest is the trouble)

 

[StevoPistolero]

If the rest is the trouble, just start with the MFD. Simulate combat without the disappearing meshes, collisions, ballistics. Just random number generators and probability lookups.

It would be easy, and I would do it myself, but I would have to teach myself C++, and I haven't found any good tutorials on how it would integrate with Orbiter.

 

[Brycesv1]

it would be kind of cool to be in a really low orbit (100-150km) and then drop out of the sky to assist a ground force that is expecting attack... as for my train of mind, i can totally see this leading to dropships coming to a planet and dropping off ground forces. needing cover the entire way

 

[Wishbone]

Global Conflict Blue, Armored Brigade (and possibly the Red Pill whatever its true name is) kinda already do that. On Earth. Orbiter, OTOH, doesn't know about logistics, sonars, jamming, troops' morale or APFS-DS rounds. It does model missiles and satellites, though.

---------- Post added at 08:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:31 PM ----------

it would be kind of cool to be in a really low orbit (100-150km) and then drop out of the sky to assist a ground force that is expecting attack... as for my train of mind, i can totally see this leading to dropships coming to a planet and dropping off ground forces. needing cover the entire way

Why should you drop troops and not bombs? Bombs can withstand more acceleration than humans, and won't complain if they are dropped 300 miles away from designated DZ in unmerciful thunderstorm. There exists only one valid reason to design dropships - to strap on politicos and show them what it's like.

 

[RisingFury]

it would be kind of cool to be in a really low orbit (100-150km) and then drop out of the sky to assist a ground force that is expecting attack... as for my train of mind, i can totally see this leading to dropships coming to a planet and dropping off ground forces. needing cover the entire way

Actually yea. I would consider a fast response tactic by placing unmanned air support units into various orbits and then have them reenter. The need for forward bases in a standard non-insurgency conflict would be decreased, because you would quickly be able to bring men, support and material from orbit.

 

[Brycesv1]

never heard of those 2 games. checking them out now. thanks

 

[Coolhand]

Well i don't have anything to do with this project, and they have the right to do whatever they want with it... But for Orbiter all i really want is to keep those little grey bastards off my pasture.

 

[ghostrunner01]

Well i don't have anything to do with this project, and they have the right to do whatever they want with it... But for Orbiter all i really want is to keep those little grey bastards off my pasture.

Whoa! :blink: You have to have that as a feature!

 

[RisingFury]

Well i don't have anything to do with this project, and they have the right to do whatever they want with it... But for Orbiter all i really want is to keep those little grey bastards off my pasture.

... only a matter of time :thumbup::lol:

 

[T.Neo]

why is OBSP attempting to simulate infantry combat?

No clue. I'm just meshing the infantry combat.

Probably cause it's 'cool'.

 

[earthorbit]

So, when this is not a space shooter, why is risingfury talking about a technology leap between space fighters and tanks? This is very confusing...
So then is it maybe allowed to make a simple UCGO CTF flag pack?

 

[Izack]

So then is it maybe allowed to make a simple UCGO CTF flag pack?

I think you're missing the point...

 

[T.Neo]

So, when this is not a space shooter, why is risingfury talking about a technology leap between space fighters and tanks? This is very confusing...

I think it is less a case of this being confusing, than you being confused.

This is not a space shooter, in that it is not a point-and-fly-and-shoot videogame, like Star Wars Starfighter, or something. It is combat simulation for Orbiter.

There is a technology leap between the tanks of the 1960s-1970s, and space combat. But we will not be doing space fighters.

 

[earthorbit]

You're right, i am very confused. I think i'll wait until the first version comes out, so i can understand what it is about. Sorry for all the trouble i made here.

 

[RisingFury]

I agree entirely, which then returns us to the original question--why is OBSP attempting to simulate infantry combat?

Obviously we won't have infantry battles in space. Infantry battles will be for the ground.

The reason is that we can. It's not much of a leap in the way the code is set up to go from planes to tanks to infantry.

 

[Wishbone]

Will respectfully disagree. With infantry, you first and foremost need terrain (for masking and digging in), morale, and logistics. With space combat, morale is not a big issue, terrain is not significant, and logistics are well handled by spacecraft DLLs.

 

[RisingFury]

It was the Sheridan tank in Vietnam, not the Sherman. I don't know, but with some laser cannons, guided missiles and force fields it would be cool.
And how about converting some models from quake 3 arena? These are open source. And having a railgun in orbiter would be very cool.

In general I'd agree with you, because converting meshes would save a lot of time and would ensure we actually had *any* meshes, other then missiles and bombs...

Unfortunately we're having to keep it as low poly as possible - 5000 polys per model. Keep in mind that you might have dozens of meshes in sigh at any given time.

---------- Post added at 16:06 ---------- Previous post was at 16:05 ----------

Will respectfully disagree. With infantry, you first and foremost need terrain (for masking and digging in), morale, and logistics. With space combat, morale is not a big issue, terrain is not significant, and logistics are well handled by spacecraft DLLs.

Oh for the love of God you can disagree all you want.

We're putting infantry in cos it's not costing us much work at this stage.