Brycesv1
Crash Test Expert
just thought it might be something to look into though in retrospect it isnt good for a realistic physics simulator
Here is an idea:
Could someone make a quick and dirty statistics based combat MFD? No missiles, no collisions, just hit points. If I could, I would implement Attack Vector: Tactical as an MFD.
So you get in range of an enemy, you fire your missiles. There is no missile icon, no sound, no anything, just a probability of kill. Same with lasers: you fire the lasers, and it does damage based on how far you are.
From there you can build up. You can incorporate target tracking in the HUD, changing the probability of kill. You could create a damage MFD, so instead of a percent damage it shows exact weapons systems (just for information purposes).
This is the opposite strategy of what you are doing. You guys are starting with the hard stuff (bombs, colission), while I am proposing you start at the opposite end, working on the user interface and the combat engine. Then one day you can meet in the middle.
But right now, I don't need an AK-47, or the ability to drop a bomb without any HUD graphics. I need to simulate all the weapon systems of space combat, quick and dirty, with a probability-based system.
Could someone make a quick and dirty statistics based combat MFD? No missiles, no collisions, just hit points. If I could, I would implement Attack Vector: Tactical as an MFD.
it would be kind of cool to be in a really low orbit (100-150km) and then drop out of the sky to assist a ground force that is expecting attack... as for my train of mind, i can totally see this leading to dropships coming to a planet and dropping off ground forces. needing cover the entire way
it would be kind of cool to be in a really low orbit (100-150km) and then drop out of the sky to assist a ground force that is expecting attack... as for my train of mind, i can totally see this leading to dropships coming to a planet and dropping off ground forces. needing cover the entire way
Well i don't have anything to do with this project, and they have the right to do whatever they want with it... But for Orbiter all i really want is to keep those little grey bastards off my pasture.
Well i don't have anything to do with this project, and they have the right to do whatever they want with it... But for Orbiter all i really want is to keep those little grey bastards off my pasture.
why is OBSP attempting to simulate infantry combat?
I think you're missing the point...So then is it maybe allowed to make a simple UCGO CTF flag pack?
So, when this is not a space shooter, why is risingfury talking about a technology leap between space fighters and tanks? This is very confusing...
I agree entirely, which then returns us to the original question--why is OBSP attempting to simulate infantry combat?
It was the Sheridan tank in Vietnam, not the Sherman. I don't know, but with some laser cannons, guided missiles and force fields it would be cool.
And how about converting some models from quake 3 arena? These are open source. And having a railgun in orbiter would be very cool.
Will respectfully disagree. With infantry, you first and foremost need terrain (for masking and digging in), morale, and logistics. With space combat, morale is not a big issue, terrain is not significant, and logistics are well handled by spacecraft DLLs.