You don't need n-body physics to have satellites in realistic orbits. Nobody is suggesting that the mass of the satellites would have any effect on another object. Each satellite has a simple orbit calculated using 2-body physics, or even a circular orbit (with even simpler calculations)
Which is what I suggested before, in a 2D plane. But I was under the impression that nano was suggesting that we need n-body orbital, correct me if I'm wrong. Secondly, why don't Uber just scrap n-body altogether, what is the function of having n-body for the planets orbits as well. To me that is pointless and adds needless complexity and time to the dev process for what will have the same net effect as what you just suggested for orbital.
ah, ok I stand corrected. Also why hasn't their been any dev feedback in an 11 page thread with a lot of irate people (me included) wanting answers..... not very transparent
Shotty, Garat has popped up in this thread, to his credit... https://forums.uberent.com/threads/...-workings-of-the-current-orbital-units.50947/
Ah, fair play to the guy. Can't say I get a weekend very often, when my companies clients have an issue with our product I will be in the office 50-60 hours a week very often without a day off! But then again our clients aren't a load of passionate and outspoken lunatic gamers that spent a lot of personal $$$ on an unreleased product and then jump down our throats when we make a little mistake
Besides: We had to use the weekend to cause some waves, so people actually feel the need to think about the topic instead of just accepting any word from a developer as given. Although I don't have that much trust in neutrino this time, there is still a risk that he already has a plan he believes in, and that he is going to push it with force, despite possible flaws.
Indeed and I would have to say I would respect that to be honest. This team have years of game dev experience and succesful titles, so I would rather have them take an executive decision on something than spend a lot of time trying to please everyone and ultimately not having a coherent and single focussed end product.
Exactly at the end of the day your've got a group of game developers who've made good games that many of us love and who depend on making good games for there living, on the other side you've got a raving bunch of semi-fanatics who spent some money (for some it may have been a lot, for others nothing they'll notice) who are all convinced that the only way the game could be fun or they can justify there $90+ is by having some game mechanics come out exactly how they want and many have differing opinions while others don't even care!
Well, the last time he worked on a RTS which implemented satellites, it kind of failed, rendering the satellite one of the most useless units in the entire arsenal. Just kidding. But it really is easy to make wrong decisions on this topic. There are at least 3 different approaches which differ in a fundamental way and all have distinct advantages and disadvantages, and a lot of implementation details which also could go wrong.
You know what would be great, if Neutrino created a thread which detailed 3 options in significant detail and then the community voted on it. That way we get 3 informed options developed by actual game developers and we as the community get an input because we get to pick which option is implemented. Bang bang, problem solved, you can thank me later guys.
Uh, bad idea^^ Experience shows that most of the users will vote for the option which sound most spectacular. Only a few are going to think about the possibilities created by each option and wage them against each other. And only a tiny minority will ever even consider evaluating the features in the context of the REST of the game.
UH, maybe you didn't quite read my post. To reiterate: "You know what would be great, if Neutrino created a thread which detailed 3 options in significant detail and then the community voted on it. That way we get 3 informed options developed by actual game developers and we as the community get an input because we get to pick which option is implemented." So there would be 3 ideas, ideas generated by professional games designers, ideas that could definitely be implemented in a reasonable timescale because you know, competent professional games designers can do those things. So regardless which of the 3 ideas the community chose we could all sleep peacefully knowing it will be implemented and it will work and be balanced because, you know, the ideas where proposed by competent professional game designers... So in conclusion you don't need to think about the possibilities, you as the community member just vote for the one that sounds coolest to you and put your mind at rest because all the balancing and confusing game design stuff has been taken care of on the developers end.
Leave the n-body physics to the celestial bodies where it counts and clever planning is with fewer objects. Let the orbital play in a semi-locked to path state on deploy. It's a game, not a simulation. Perhaps allow a gimble that just rotates the path around so you can fire your space laser or align your spy sattelite over a pole. Float in one spot, or orbit on the gimble, passing over the selected "move-to" point in intervals. This could vary per unit, where some float in one spot in a pseudo geo-sync, while others have to move in passes. Not a fan of fighters scurrying around like airplanes but whatever, I think these units should be expensive and few and far between. If somebody wastes time spamming them to what appears as rediculous well then thats what they did. The same can be done with 100+ destroyers in a bathtub lake. They gave us a pretty strong waver that its sitting on existing mechanics, reminiscient to serving somebody burnt toast and cringing as the client eats it, hoping they say nothing until the main course is ready. I will sit patiently.
So I often agree with many of your points Nanolathe, but you really need to stop talking so matter of factually about your views. So many people attempt to have a conversation or discussion just for you to work so hard to shut them down just because they don't agree with you. Uber employee's really are the people who get to decide what is and isn't a waste of time.
And Games should be 'gamey' and second should not be pastimes that you can 'spend time on'. Am i doing this right?
