Kinetic push and gravitational drag?

What if slowly moving asteroid through the belt could push other asteroids and attract smaller ones to increase its mass.

erm chain reaction and exponential growth in number of to be calculated objects...

I like the dragging little asteroids about with big ones but I don't like the "increase its mass" part. also I don't know if little asteroids would even exist as they seem mostly unnecessary, and added computation for little benefit.

I think you have far too much faith in Uber, or far too little understanding, of the N-Body Problem.

Not really, because game has very simplified physics model. It is like tanks with gravity on the orbit. Tanks on the planet don't pass through each other. There is sort of collision detection. Similar stuff should apply to asteroids + some proximal (non realistic) gravity that should apply only astoroids that go into collision or close to each other. That wouldn't slow the simulation at all if asteroid collisions are there already.

I think those are two very differnet problems mathematically.

I think mass part is way easier to do than drag part. CPU can do at least hundreds of millions of additions/s and you add mass once (if asteroids get connected into bigger one). Adding mass is unnecesary as long as dragged asteroids are separate entities (that is more intensive computationally).

Watch the trailer. You can see big asteroid split into smaller ones around 1:32. That's way more computationally intense than addition of few numbers.

I hope not (except for attraction of small objexts to tanks that should not be there). If asteroids did not collide then they could pass throug other asteroids like ghost thru walls. That would be disguisting.

I've seen a few posts to this effect across the forums and it puzzles me a bit. Asteroids in relation to something like a planet would have negligable gravity. The gameplay visualisation showed that too with the moon lander style engineers used to fly to different asteroids vs the rocket used to get off planet.

In addition to this "to increase its mass" seems to imply that the asteroid is pacman or something. Any impacts of smaller asteroids would bounce off, or do damage to any existing infrastructure you had there. Certainly any gravitational attraction would be small and over a long time scale - Unlike the formation of the solar system, most matter is in a solid state now and no longer in a plastic state where protoplanets collided and mashed together.

Like sacrificiallamb said it would add little benefit and in addition, to my way of thinking, implimenting this would be getting away from what Uber is aiming for which is focusing on the conflict, rather than playing katamari in the asteroid belt.

Who?

Yeah but tanks do not transfer momentum and change the direction of each other when colliding. It is something different.

Theavatarofwar is refering to Uber entertainment. The people who are making the game.

I totally disagree!!! Having no collision between asteroids could result in having them pass through each other like ghost. If tank is on one of them and other asteroid passes thru that asteroid with tank on it, then on which one tank should stay (because both have some sort of gravity like force field)? And such ghost asteroid would ghost pass through all asteroids and gravity mess up all asteroid basses and units on its path??? No way!!! We must have collisions between asteroids, otherwise orbital warfare would be complete mess. No doubt about it. The question is not "Should we have collisions between asteroids?" because we should for the sake of decent gameplay!!! The question is only "how realistic and accurate the model is going to be?", and my answer is "not too accurate and not too realistic" for the sake of CPU performance and especially gameplay. I don't want to go into details how realistic the model should be and where sci-fi simulation should start, because answer depends of the test results of game mechanics and performance, however I know that asteroids should collide according to some simplified model (making it as realistic as possible does not make any sense because planets have unaccurate (unrealistic) gravity model so realistic asteroid gravity wouldn't work realistically in proximity of planets anyway, additionally realism would destroy fun and make for example distances huge, and planet, asteroid, and moon orbits open and unpredictable inside multiple planet star systems).

nope

I'm sorry to break this to you sokolek, but having read most of your topics, it seems you do not have any idea what your are talking about. I would suggest you try developing a game yourself, it doesn't have to be large, but to get an idea of how much work it actually is.

You cannot suggest things simply for the sake of having them in the game. The devs already have their hands full. Features like this cost a lot of time as it would require the entire planet generation to be changed to support the growing of bodies.

Sure I would like to have it, but it seems a lot more work than what you are getting for it, unless you are trying to create something like solar2.

I simply do not see the need of asteroids naturally hitting each other. It requires CPU for something you don't see most of the time anyways, apart from that it would be totally annoying when you have a base on that asteroid.

If you just want to smash an asteroid into another asteroid manually, I think the engine is going to support that already anyways.

The whole thing about asteroids coming together and combining mass... lets just say the asteroid belt in our solar system hasnt become a planet for a reason. I think it is fair to say that any asteroid belt in the game would be the same...

I'm sorry if I am misinterpreting anything you are saying, I'm having a bit of difficulty understanding what you are trying to get across.

I never suggested that we should have ghost asteroids passing through one another or gravity like forcefields and I never said there should not be collision mechanics – I am not sure what you are getting at there.
Perhaps I misinterpreted your intention but you talked about having little asteroids adding to the mass of a player moved asteroid. What I am saying is that wouldn’t work – and I am not referring to the complexity or realism of the simulation. I am talking about what asteroids are. They are lumps of rock metal ice and a host of other substances. Having two collide does not result in one gaining mass in any reasonable sense.

Ok this bugs me a bit; there is a difference between 100% realism, 100% unrealistic and what PA seems to be aiming for which is a stylistic and poetic interpretation in order to maintain ‘Awesome”. Realism is not the anathema of fun. In fact maintaining realism in the right places is what makes something awesome, the kinetics of an asteroid colliding with a planet for instance. This isn’t a slippery slope where we have to pick 100% realistic or 100% the other way. In addition breaking the games own interpretation of physics like you suggest is not fun, it is just jarring

Just, no.
Using asteroids to drag other asteroids or colliding with smaller asteroids in order to increase mass makes no sense, from a physical and gameplay perspective.

Exactly – you put it very succinctly Mortiferusrosa.

Why would we be bothering colliding our asteroid with smaller asteroids (either damaging our structures on it or adding to our mass as you have suggested). It takes away from the game in terms of its proposed focus which is clashing armies together, and adds nothing.

Consili, you've just earned 'Bro Status'.
For more about Realism VS Awesome you should read this; PSA - Realism VS Awesome

Mike

From a position of fun and awesome instead of realism I think that while this idea has merit it would take too much time away from other areas of the game for something that even if it was used in game often would not have a this is fun moment that the original asteroid would not have had by itself. Not to mention that it could be hard to calculate and cause lag, and realistically it takes forever for asteroids to congeal into a larger mass, we still have an asteroid belt in our solar system and that thing has been around for a loooong time.

Woo! Bro status!

Thanks for the link OrangeKnight -I missed that thread, Ill have a read through it!