test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Please create a "Loop" (Space Combat)

SystemSystem Member, NoReporting Posts: 178,019 Arc User
1) Use the ship class and engine turn-rate as cool-off factors and/or factor the size of the half-loop be a function of the speed & turn-rate

2) Allow a button-mash (say, the "Z" key) for an Immelmann

-OR EVEN BETTER -

3) Allow a loop directional

Shift-W = Immelmann turn
Shift-S = Split-S / Reverse Immelmann
Shift-D = Chandelle Right
Shift-S = Chandelle Left

Each directional would have an "exposed" shield facing for the turn, if that is a programmatic concern.

Chandelle maneuver -> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/96/Chandelle.gif
Immelmann -> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9a/Immelman.gif
Split-S/Rev.Immelmann -> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e6/Splits.gif

I'm adding this to the OP because the below poster summarized the concept succinctly ->
Over all though this might be the only way we ever get 3d-ish movement.

Like the roll when in ground combat.
============================================
Deron93 wrote: »
But... We're in Star Cruisers... Not fighters.
These are Captial ships, not fighters.....every seen a B-52 do a loop ti loop ???? There ya go :)

Not all of them are...and all of them should be capable of executing these maneuvers...the only difference being the size of the loop as a function of their speed and turn rate.

As I point out, and you (starwalker) unconsciously recognize via your own analogy...this *is* an air flight model we are operating within, yet the reality is that in actual space flight the "tall ships" paradigm is non-sense. In short we might be in "star cruisers" but our "star cruisers" are not cruising through space but are clearly following POWERED FLIGHT.

However, since the design choice has been some *******ized "tall ships" + powered flight model...we could at least have *some* concession to alleviate the nonsense cork-TRIBBLE and falling-leaf maneuvers currently required to perform what amounts to ACM.
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    erm what does immelmann turn and chandelle right mean?
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    malize wrote: »
    1) Use the ship class and engine turn-rate as cool-off factors.

    2) Allow a button-mash (say, the "Z" key) for an Immelmann

    -OR EVEN BETTER -

    3) Allow a loop directional

    Shift-W = Immelmann turn
    Shift-S = Split-S / Reverse Immelmann
    Shift-D = Chandelle Right
    Shift-S = Chandelle Left

    Each directional would have an "exposed" shield facing for the turn, if that is a programmatic concern.

    But... We're in Star Cruisers... Not fighters.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Koffeeuk wrote:
    erm what does immelmann turn and chandelle right mean?

    Immelmann is a half looping, followed by rolling the craft by 180 degrees.

    It's the fastest way for a vessel to turn by 180 degrees.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Immelmann is a half looping, followed by rolling the craft by 180 degrees.

    It's the fastest way for a vessel to turn by 180 degrees.

    sounds like a good add... if they cant give us the pitch/roll dynamically... they sure in hellz could add it in statically.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    sounds like you want a space fighter game.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    I could be wrong it’s been a while since I saw any documentaries on world war 1 but the thing about the immelmann turn is its relying on gravity to pull you back. It’s basically a controlled stall. The plane would go into a steep climb cut its engines and roll sideway. When the plane was point the right direction the pilot would throttle back up.

    As for the other turns I’m not that familiar with.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Over all though this might be the only way we ever get 3d-ish movement. I still think the reason we don’t have true 3d is being tied to a ground plane. Doesn’t matter really either way we can’t be upside down. At least not while under our own control. Having the ship produce a particular maneuver while our own perspective doesn’t change may work. Like how your toon in champions can do a back flip with acrobatics.

    Maybe having it so that under evasive action your ship can roll or pitch though a full 360 but you only see it on screen and it’s not something you can really stop once it starts it just happens if you push the right buttons. Like the roll when in ground combat. You double tap while evasive is on and you ship will both roll and pitch to rotate the ship. So double tap back and your ship will pitch up though a full 360 while also rolling to right itself but now you’re presenting the opposite side of your ship to your enemy.

    Oh it is a different now.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immelmann_turn
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    How about we split the difference,

    Make a BO ability. Have it rely heavily on Turn rate, which will keep everyone but the Escorts (The small maneuverable ships) from pulling it off well.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    These are Captial ships, not fighters.....every seen a B-52 do a loop ti loop ???? There ya go :)
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Over all though this might be the only way we ever get 3d-ish movement.

    Like the roll when in ground combat.


    These two sentences summarize the goal.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    sounds like you want a space fighter game.

    No.

    I am using terminology which would communicate the action.

    However, if you havn't noticed your "space ship" is already obeying a flight model that has more to do with powered air flight than any form of realistic space flight model.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Koffeeuk wrote:
    erm what does immelmann turn and chandelle right mean?

    Updated OP with links to gifs illustrating maneuvers.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Deron93 wrote: »
    But... We're in Star Cruisers... Not fighters.
    These are Captial ships, not fighters.....every seen a B-52 do a loop ti loop ???? There ya go :)

    Not all of them are...and all of them should be capable of executing these maneuvers...the only difference being the size of the loop as a function of their speed and turn rate.

    As I point out, and you (starwalker) unconsciously recognize via your own analogy...this *is* an air flight model we are operating within, yet the reality is that in actual space flight the "tall ships" paradigm is non-sense. In short we might be in "star cruisers" but our "star cruisers" are not cruising through space but are clearly following POWERED FLIGHT.

    However, since the design choice has been some *******ized "tall ships" + powered flight model...we could at least have *some* concession to alleviate the nonsense cork-TRIBBLE and falling-leaf maneuvers currently required to perform what amounts to ACM.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    alls i got to say is LOL
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    I don't want a loop so much as I want to be able to go straight up and down. It's a huge pain when the next waypoint is straight up.

    This is not a 6DoM (6 degree of movement ie. descent 3) game. The closer they move to that the less it will feel like Star Trek. But that is just my opinion... which doesn't mean TRIBBLE.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    This is not a 6DoM (6 degree of movement ie. descent 3) game. The closer they move to that the less it will feel like Star Trek. But that is just my opinion... which doesn't mean TRIBBLE.

    Approaching a planets rings and then navigating by corkscrewing up and down to go around the planet isn't very 'Star Trek'. The limitations on movement are because of the game engine not because they want to make Khan more comfortable playing the game. They really need to fix it.
Sign In or Register to comment.