Popete posted:

Every space video game has had short range space missiles because it makes sense from a game play perspective. Actual space combat would make for an incredibly boring game, you'd never see your enemy and you'd in all likelihood just randomly die without ever having a clue someone was trying to shoot at you when they poke a hole in your ship from 1000 miles away.

Gort posted:

Someone should just do straight-up World War 2 in space, with pressurised Spitfires and BF109s going at it

Jack-Off Lantern posted:

Why even build warships. Just drop an asteroid or tungsten rods.

The Titanic posted:

Just make your assets 4K and the game will basically build itself. If people start talking about the missiles, tell them about the new tiles they can buy; but only if they are discerning "investors". Remember the key is to pick out the big spenders and cater to them and screw everybody else wanting those dumb "results" and nonsense that slow down the whole flavor of game development. They just don't get it.

Virtual Captain posted:

For anyone ITT who may need it:

https://twitter.com/unity3d/status/1356286839905112067

Thoatse posted:

https://i.imgur.com/t3SqfIq.mp4

Sarsapariller posted:

It does not and will never have this. You would have to perform collision checks for every bullet fired, forever.

Start Citizen has basic-bitch CryEngine FPS combat except on a very large map and broken. Guns have CE range, damage, and properties.

Gort posted:

Someone should just do straight-up World War 2 in space, with pressurised Spitfires and BF109s going at it

Virtual Captain posted:

For anyone ITT who may need it:

https://twitter.com/unity3d/status/1356286839905112067

quote:

If we are talking realism, we must first understand how RL missiles work.

In the real world, a missile does not have a lot of fuel. What happens when you fire an air-to-air missile is it fires upwards to the highest possible altitude (unless the target is in dogfight range), quickly burning out its fuel (which lasts for a very short distance), and the rest of the way “glides” in air using its rudders.

In space, there is no atmosphere and the rudders are useless, which is why the missile must always utilize fuel to maneuver. This dramatically reduces the missile’s range.

Then again, if we look at it from sci-fi perspective, 900 years into the future they may have found some type of high-intensity fuel that would make the missiles travel for much longer distances.

Flannelette posted:

FishMcCool posted:

I'm lost for words.

I'd pay good money to the author for them to go explain missile physics on a DCS reddit/forum.

quote:

In space, there is no atmosphere and the rudders are useless, which is why the missile must always utilize fuel to maneuver. This dramatically reduces the missile’s range.

quote:

In the real world, a missile does not have a lot of fuel. What happens when you fire an air-to-air missile is it fires upwards to the highest possible altitude (unless the target is in dogfight range), quickly burning out its fuel (which lasts for a very short distance), and the rest of the way “glides” in air using its rudders.

Strategic Tea posted:

The missile knows where it is by knowing where it isn't, and by subtracting the places it isn't from the places where it wasn't...

Dark Off posted:

to be fair missiles do go farther in space. But only if rocket nozzles are optimized for it. That is if the missile isnt using ramjet or something

but this is just wrong the reason missiles go for thrust vectoring/venting is that it allows tighter turns for the missile. so something like 180 turn after launch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YMSfg26YSQ

and missile doesnt fly highest possible altitude because that would be incredibly dumb. like imagine missile doing 90 degree turn up burning forever then trying to glide in to target,. By time missile has completed the maneuvers the jet would have flown way past the intended target.
It is however true that missile does usually loft to target. since less air resistance the less drag there is for missile, making maintaining speed easier, basically missile will climb to optimize for maintaining speed instead of altitude.
unless highest possible altitude is because of lift missile would generate going forward instead of up, then sure altitude part would be true
and another option for highest possible altitude optimization is if the warhead has second terminal boost phase like aim120 has for regaining speed.

Dwesa posted:

thanks for this informative post, I knew that backer is wrong (not just because it is SC backer), but I only had some intuitive notions like "missiles flying to highest possible altitude sounds dumb and I don't think I ever saw it happen on some video of missiles"

Dwesa posted:

thanks for this informative post, I knew that backer is wrong (not just because it is SC backer), but I only had some intuitive notions like "missiles flying to highest possible altitude sounds dumb and I don't think I ever saw it happen on some video of missiles"

Sanya Juutilainen posted:

I think the only reasonable period where he might've been right are ground-ground missiles in roughly WW2 era or slightly before it. And even there the missiles didn't go for highest altitude (that'd be obviously straight up), but roughly copied ballistic curve (roughly because the engine allows them to have even better flying profile).

Dwesa posted:

thanks for this informative post, I knew that backer is wrong (not just because it is SC backer), but I only had some intuitive notions like "missiles flying to highest possible altitude sounds dumb and I don't think I ever saw it happen on some video of missiles"

Dark Off posted:

im no expert on subject. and it seems to be more complex the more i google about reality. For example meteors being ramjets really makes the flight profile different from something like aim120
Also anyone enjoying realism should try out dcs world even if it is horribly expensive game riddle with ridiculously expensive dlc's.
Its like what if CIG actually made a game in addition of fleecing nerds and was bit less greedy. (dcs is slowly getting greedier for example super carrier dlc. only brings carrier with mocapped crew into the game)

FishMcCool posted:

And for missiles-in-space with trajectory and delta-v considerations, I can't recommend enough Children of a Dead Earth. It sells for almost nothing and is criminally underknown. In the realm of "what would space warfare look like?", I don't think anything else even remotely touches it.

Dwesa posted:

Welcome to Star Citizen
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkrdnz2idBw

Curious lack of bugs and server crashes, but otherwise I guess it's not that misleading - except for some mining, there is no gameplay shown, only visuals and chariots.

Zazz Razzamatazz posted:

You know, sometimes I think CIG hasn’t really thought all this through...

Fidelitious posted:

I'm glad we covered the missile situation. I don't know much about missiles but I was like 99% sure that didn't sound correct at all.

I know that missiles have lift surfaces (of course) but I was pretty sure that they don't really have active flaps or anything and use thrust vectoring or separate maneuvering thrusters.

Fidelitious posted:

I'm glad we covered the missile situation. I don't know much about missiles but I was like 99% sure that didn't sound correct at all.

I know that missiles have lift surfaces (of course) but I was pretty sure that they don't really have active flaps or anything and use thrust vectoring or separate maneuvering thrusters.

Bootcha posted:

As an attempt at an honest answer...

1) You missed the Kickstarter gravy train, because 2010 to 2014 was the sweet spot of anti-publisher sentiment and pro-indie support.

2) You aren't an old time rockstar dev from an old beloved dead devhouse that existed juuuuuuust before the internet could start remembering everything dumb you did and said.

3) You don't have a "captive lunatic customer base", as in you don't have a potential customer base that is utterly under-served, but lunatic enough to latch onto every little glimmer of hope that their long awaited game could potentially be "right around the corner" with wallets a-waiting.

4) You are in the game development industry, not the marketing industry, meaning your reputation (and primary source of income) is based upon what you produce, not what you promise.

5) You are (hopefully) not surrounded by family and cronies from past failed endevours looking to leech off your success and influence you to make unmoral and unethical decisions for the sake of fattening their wallets and padding their portfolios.

6) You are not attempting to be something you are not, nor attempting to do something you are incapable of.

7) In summary, you are not Chris Roberts. Be thankful for that.

Dark Off posted:

im no expert on subject. and it seems to be more complex the more i google about reality. For example meteors being ramjets really makes the flight profile different from something like aim120
Also anyone enjoying realism should try out dcs world even if it is horribly expensive game riddle with ridiculously expensive dlc's.
Its like what if CIG actually made a game in addition of fleecing nerds and was bit less greedy. (dcs is slowly getting greedier for example super carrier dlc. only brings carrier with mocapped crew into the game)

Fidelitious posted:

I'm glad we covered the missile situation. I don't know much about missiles but I was like 99% sure that didn't sound correct at all.

I know that missiles have lift surfaces (of course) but I was pretty sure that they don't really have active flaps or anything and use thrust vectoring or separate maneuvering thrusters.

Trillhouse posted:

guided missiles are cool until you look up how much they cost and think about what else that money could go towards. (modern long-range AA missiles cost roughly $550,000. each.)