Not a member yet? Why not Sign up today
Create an account  

  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
 
V2.13 [dev test and development only]

#21
(2018-01-16, 11:00 AM)draba Wrote: Just bad wording on my part.
Now you have a mechanic where blocks do not take any damage if the explosion does less than X% of their current HP.
And alternative to that would be reducing the power of the explosions against the given block based the material's armor, starting above a lowish armor threshold.
No stacking and the reduction happens before the normal armor damage multiplier applies.

That way:
- do not have to care about multiblocks and stacking, lots of weak explosions(<200 spam) are less of a performance hog
- small explosions are still useful against wood and stone, IMO soft materials over HA tanking them indefinitely feels wrong
- detection/LAMS can be adjusted easily, with the other method they'd need a significant HP boost to have any durability
- if needed the wear&tear aspect can be added by reducing the effective AC of a block based on its current HP

So, you mean having the 'no damage threshold' based on the block AC instead of its health?
That is probably possible, I'm thinking about it.
It needs to find a way to translate the damage taken into something compatible with AC so they can be compared.

About armor stacking, I'm thinking about removing it from the explosion algorithm.
A large part of the CPU cost now is dealing damage to blocks, and it may be partly because of the AC stacking.
I'm not sure about that, I'll have to profile it a bit and it may be hard as it's never very precise to profile very small items. I'll probably have to remove it and see if the result is better.
Reply

#22
Something is wrong. Maybe bouyancy is from origin of the blocks?
[Image: b6a5561e52.jpg]


Attached Files
.blueprint   1.blueprint (Size: 40.37 KB / Downloads: 10)
.blueprint   2.blueprint (Size: 40.14 KB / Downloads: 13)
Reply

#23
So, since explosion radius is capped to 50m tops,
can we have a special shell cap module that, when impacting terrain or detonating due to fuses, scans from its detonation point for vehicles within the theoretical explosion range and applies a proportionally weaker explosion to the vehicles in range? I want tank artillery to be at least somewhat effective.

You could balance this out with slower shell velocity (like 60-70%),
practically no penetration,
long shell existence time,
and maybe a higher explosion radius to increase the usefulness.

Also, a question: Is it possible to make shells "heavier", so that they have a more pronounced shell drop? would be cool to have some sort of high arcing, but still moderately fast shell
Once in a while I decide to do something stupid and try to perfect it. That is how some of my strongest designs were created.
Reply

#24
(2018-01-16, 10:58 AM)tecosaur Wrote: @Gladyon, with the new explosion algorithm- I only see two different material types considered - air and blocks. I was wondering whether that would mean that when say, a torpedo explodes underneath a hull, that the water will be treated as air and the explosion will propagate far easier than it should, and far less explosive force will be directed into the hull that should be. Is this correct?
Water is processed as air.
The missiles have a boost if they detonate underwater.
I know that's not a good simulation, but doing it better would result in having to get the height of each cell, which would add a ton of additional calculations.

And I'm not sure that it would really be more interesting than the boost given to the underwater explosion.
That said, maybe the boost should be added to shells as well... 2000mm CRAM depths charge would become really interesting...


(2018-01-16, 02:19 PM)CubeMaster_1 Wrote: So, since explosion radius is capped to 50m tops,
can we have a special shell cap module that, when impacting terrain or detonating due to fuses, scans from its detonation point for vehicles within the theoretical explosion range and applies a proportionally weaker explosion to the vehicles in range? I want tank artillery to be at least somewhat effective.

You could balance this out with slower shell velocity (like 60-70%),
practically no penetration,
long shell existence time,
and maybe a higher explosion radius to increase the usefulness.
If the explosion origin is out of the 50m but inside the range of the explosion (in case of flak or heavy CRAM for example), then the origin of the explosion is 'teleported' very close to the vehicle and its range decreased accordingly (which will increase the 'air bleed', so it will incidentally decrease its power).
So, if I understand well what you ask, it's already done.


(2018-01-16, 02:19 PM)CubeMaster_1 Wrote: Also, a question: Is it possible to make shells "heavier", so that they have a more pronounced shell drop? would be cool to have some sort of high arcing, but still moderately fast shell
You have CRAM for that.
Changing that would have a huge impact on all guns in FtD, I don't see it happening anytime soon.
Reply

#25
(2018-01-16, 02:19 PM)CubeMaster_1 Wrote: Also, a question: Is it possible to make shells "heavier", so that they have a more pronounced shell drop? would be cool to have some sort of high arcing, but still moderately fast shell

Im not sure thats how physics work, both a feather and a mountain both get pushed towards the earth at 9.8m/s. a heavier shell would stay in the air longer because air resistance will slow it down less.
[Image: eeeeeeeeeee.PNG]
Reply

#26
nice this may be enough to tip off the shield meta
gets high on math
Reply

#27
(2018-01-16, 02:50 PM)Gladyon Wrote: If the explosion origin is out of the 50m but inside the range of the explosion (in case of flak or heavy CRAM for example), then the origin of the explosion is 'teleported' very close to the vehicle and its range decreased accordingly (which will increase the 'air bleed', so it will incidentally decrease its power).
So, if I understand well what you ask, it's already done.

What? I thought this has been disproven... guess you are a step ahead of me lol

(2018-01-16, 02:50 PM)Willie Fiddler Wrote: Im not sure thats how physics work, both a feather and a mountain both get pushed towards the earth at 9.8m/s. a heavier shell would stay in the air longer because air resistance will slow it down less.

well we have graviton rams and those IDontCareAboutGravity shell thingies, so making fins have a downwards pushing angle could work. I'm not saying rework physics, I thought about artificially creating a higher arc
Once in a while I decide to do something stupid and try to perfect it. That is how some of my strongest designs were created.
Reply

#28
(2018-01-16, 11:09 AM)Gladyon Wrote: So, you mean having the 'no damage threshold' based on the block AC instead of its health?
That is probably possible, I'm thinking about it.
It needs to find a way to translate the damage taken into something compatible with AC so they can be compared.

About armor stacking, I'm thinking about removing it from the explosion algorithm.
A large part of the CPU cost now is dealing damage to blocks, and it may be partly because of the AC stacking.
I'm not sure about that, I'll have to profile it a bit and it may be hard as it's never very precise to profile very small items. I'll probably have to remove it and see if the result is better.

Yep, my guess for a starting formula is 50 x MAX(0, MATERIAL_ARMOR - 5).
No reduction for wood, metal ignores 500 from every explosion so needs heavy APS, HA ignores 2000 so needs CRAM/torpedos/PAC.
10 AP detection won't take damage from APS HE further than ~5m.

In case the stacking check is a noticeable slowdown in the explosion algorithm IMO it's worth canning.
Right now there is not that much practical difference between 40 armor and 100 against HE,
with some number tweaks in the new algorithm only the flavor loss is worth worrying about IMO.

(2018-01-16, 03:35 PM)CubeMaster_1 Wrote: What? I thought this has been disproven... guess you are a step ahead of me lol

The test was bad, explosions always teleported.
Problem is that they move to the edge of the target's AABB, and that was IIRC 5m further out than the actual bounds.
That way it was pretty common for the explosion's origin to still be out of range of any blocks after the teleport.
Reply

#29
(2018-01-16, 03:35 PM)CubeMaster_1 Wrote:
(2018-01-16, 02:50 PM)Gladyon Wrote: If the explosion origin is out of the 50m but inside the range of the explosion (in case of flak or heavy CRAM for example), then the origin of the explosion is 'teleported' very close to the vehicle and its range decreased accordingly (which will increase the 'air bleed', so it will incidentally decrease its power).
So, if I understand well what you ask, it's already done.

What? I thought this has been disproven... guess you are a step ahead of me lol

It's always been in FtD, at least as long as I can remember.
The thing is, before it was bringing the explosion near the vehicle, but still too far (about 10m...).
Now it's bringing it nearer, and the cap is a lot larger than 25m, so both of these makes it work a lot better for near-hits.
Reply

#30
(2018-01-16, 02:50 PM)Gladyon Wrote: That said, maybe the boost should be added to shells as well... 2000mm CRAM depths charge would become really interesting...
Please do consider this. It would add a lot more utility to shells equipped with supercavitation bases; imagine firing a broadside of supercavitating HE shells and having them detonate below the target's waterline for extra effect, it would make for a nice tradeoff to the warhead penalty such shells currently have to give them a situational bonus as well.

Potentially could help APHE designs too, if the target's below-waterline armour stops the round the detonation underwater could cause significant damage regardless.
Reply



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)