Stormnet
-
Posts
236 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
15
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Stormnet
-
-
On 3/31/2021 at 2:08 PM, Cpt.Hissy said:
Am sorry, meme was aimed not at you, but on someone who edited it out and put me in uncomfortable situation now.
Double shame on them.I mean, you said it was low quality, thats why I removed it.
-
1 minute ago, Skeksis said:
Is historical ships clouding your judgment? While there's a desire to build historically, including me, the game is not historical exclusive, far from it actually.
No. I didnt mean to offend you. I didnt want to argue with your opinion and look like a fool if you were joking. Its not about being historical (trust me, I literally build the most unhistoricall ships, like a multicalliber monitor-like 1940 super BB).
Its just that a closer look reveals quite a few unecessary design choices that do nothing more than increase tonnage, like the aforementioned big rear barbette. But it also has a very tall barbette in the front (those are only used to fire over superfiring turrets) and there are a few secs whose positioning noticebly limit the firing arc of the main gun.
Its not in the WTF type of ships, maybe something a new player would build if they were told to build a BB, but any relatively experient player would not commit these mistakes.
-
2
-
-
17 minutes ago, Skeksis said:
I don't see anything wrong with this design. It's very much something that a player would produce, including using the smallest possible diameter barbette for B turret.Actually I thing the auto-design has done a pretty good job in laying out the main turrets.
Are you joking or talking serious? I cant see that through text.
-
2 hours ago, Cpt.Hissy said:
@Cptbarney we have a misunderstanding here it seems.
Issue i'm referring to is that, for example, the main belt (which would be part of the hull) typically is designed to cover the magazines (which in case of this game would be part of turrets) and engines (which would be their own part), with it's position on the hull and size determined by those, currently completely independent components. Same goes for all the other elements of both armour scheme and internal layout. I don't see a system that might properly adjust those elements for each possible combination as simple.
Also, armour scheme of a capital warship is so much different from " just scale down a model" i don't know what even to say.
What you described is basically how hitboxes in games normally are made, and how UAD currently handles hits by the looks of it. Do you want a visualisation of those simple hitboxes in-game to see which part is considered what in terms of "belt-deck-extended" system? If so, i agree, may be helpful. But don't call it "proper internal armour" as it's not.12 hours ago, Cptbarney said:It's just a bunch of objects and models joined together, having internal wouldn't impact performance since you can just use that line of sight render trick to not make them render in the first place. Also it's an alpha it makes far more sense to start of simple then work your way up to something more complex as they will need to see if the system even at a primitive level is worth doing. All the game does is sort each of the models in to various groups and arrays for the AI to pick and for the player to choose using a GUI.
We are still using a somewhat primitive gunnery system atm, so doing it properly atm would take ages and could end up costing them far time and money if it doesn't work.
In short, to model any of the internal geometry at a basic level all they have to do is take a turret body for example, duplicate it. Scale it down to a smaller size, remove extra lines and faces that aren't needed, then simply code it to be invisible or set it invisible in whatever 3d modelling software so when it appears in the game, the game will calculate the extra geometry, but won't actual render it (so no additional faces, verts and tris, meaning no performance loss)
It's not, although its annoying seeing people blame SBB's and 20inch guns as if they are the reason the devs haven't done anything else for other parts of the game, gunnery and penetration mechanics are pretty much the coders/programmers job, not the designers or modellers so it makes sense why we would see things from the design early, since from my experience unless you go mental with details it doesn't take long to actually make these models in the first place (unless you want them to be 1:1 ratio in terms of realism, but i don't mind as long as it's close enough to the real thing im good).
Well the designers can still make the animations and linking them up to the ships, wouldn't take the programmers that long at all. The problem with unity is that it is a generic-dynamic game engine, and also a learning game engine. Meaning that compared to a dynamic engine or a full static engine, it's going to do things half baked really so full on physics wouldn't be possible, best they can do is fake it really. Otherwise the amount of calculations and power needed to render that in real-time will turn your pc into a mini Nuclear explosion.
Nah, from an aesthetic point of view, there should be a multitude of effects ranging from, more spectacular to realistic, none of these muzzle flashes would take long to do, smoke simulation is another thing, although they seem to know what they are doing in regards to that.
Also its not a 'gamey purpose' its an art decision, this is a game after all not a full on simulation, so it makes sense to have some flashy stuff once in awhile otherwise it gets boring visually.
Im getting way too bored of waiting for the saving ability soo...
FIGHT!
FIGHT!
FIGHT!
FIGHT!
FIGHT!
KILL EACHOTHER!!
KILL EACHOTHER!!
-
16 hours ago, SonicB said:
*straightens tie* okay welcome one and all to the New Serious Constructive Warship Design Critique Thread.
Today we will discuss the relative merits of 21-inch and 22-inch torpedoes, the important stylistic choice of two funnels or three on this season's fashion-forward predreadnoughts, and...
oh dear god what in the name of St Nick is that
"Give me a super Yamato, but... nine inch. I want twenty-four nine-inch guns. There was a special at the store and I bought the entire discount bin. Oh, and it has to do 39 knots."
In this parallel universe, the US Navy's famously competent Bureau of Ordnance takes one look at the truly awful Ise-class carrier battleship and decides "I want one of those! But we're constitutionally obliged to add MORE GUNS."
This was since justified by the ship being so front-heavy that the aft deck can be used as a ski jump in heavy waves.
We round out this month's clown ship appreciation post with What In The Cinnamon Toast Shrimp F--k Is That, a conceptual sculpture by an anonymous 1940s American artist. This collector's piece has the distinction of killing more US sailors than the attack on Pearl Harbor when it was broken in half by a light wave.Im sure the AI is actively trying to give the middle finger to the devs and bypass their restrictions.
"Can't have funnel in front of tower? Fine, I'll put tall turret instead."
The next thing the AI will do is fill a casemate with cannon assets straight from UA:AS, and pick a Peel P50 engine as propeller.
-
2
-
-
Its back up again bois. Go get some screenshots ASAP.
(Just make sure they are from new versions)
-
On 4/2/2021 at 9:33 PM, WiselessOwl said:
Looks like there were supposed to be submarines for April 1st...or Space Battleship Yamato, lol
Hum... Rather interesting to see. If there was just a capable dataminer to investigate that specific submenu and see what other options were...
But if it is a oxygen or something for subs... Why was it left in the armaments tab?
-
This is one long thread I see...
-
11 hours ago, Skeksis said:
Not just the one I've highlighted but many of your suggestions could be optional. I think it would have been great if Dev's did allow us to set 'AI Behaviors' for example, gave us the options.
e.g. setting how ships response if damaged:
On damaged ships rejoining:- Never Rejoin.
- Rejoin at 30%.
- Rejoin at 60%.
- Rejoin at 90%.
On damaged ships retreating:
- Never Retreat.
- Retreat at 30%.
- Retreat at 60%.
- Retreat at 90%.
This game is very suited for such setting, 'Novice/Normal/Realistic' modes and/or 'General Preferences' setting would settle many playing styles including accommodating above lists. There are many others optional aspects that could be set aswell, like rudder display options and with special mention of visibility ranges.
Could even be setup with 'admirals/captains' to have such traits, so some ships retreat while others hang in longer, this would be very realistic from a command point of view, mimicking humans etc.
The fact is many games are successful with such modes, so it must be a GameLabs thing, since it's quite programmable. But in the end I don't think they're going to change because IMO GameLabs is very much about delivering us the challenge, like there can be no easy mode or options or settings of behaviors etc. since with such modes they cannot provide us the challenge. The game seems destine for a single audience challenge.
I mean, the disengage and retreat options can ease or dificult your missions depending on the situation.
If you have the upper hand and have sunk half of the enemy fleet while keeping your ships in good condition, then it would be harder in the long run for you to have the enemy run away, as their ships would live to fight another day. While if they stand and fight, they just go to the bottom of the ocean. And vice-versa if you are the one losing it, as if they run off, you just won the day despite being outnumbered. Otherwise, you are the one that needs to run away if they stay, because, you dont want your ships down at the sea right?
There isn't really a dificulty constant in the retreat stuff that dificults or eases the game always. Maybe a variable acoording to the situation?
-
5 minutes ago, Cpt.Hissy said:
@Cptbarney "Simple, you just do the internals for each model or for some of them"
well it's a way. Though for me personally this will be half-measure. A ship is solid structure, not just pile of parts, and game's current approach to design doesn't represent that. Part based armour model won't represent it either. Maybe i'm picky, but i'd say either do this properly, or if you can't, don't do this and do something else that you can do properly.
But well, for those less picky it may be fine.
I'm not against it, but i just don't believe this team will do it."Also it wouldn't even take that long to make it either, all they would have to do is simply duplicate the model in question, scale it down so that it fits inside the model enough, hide it, remove extra geometry (lots of automation can be used here) and there we go. "
err can you please explain this part more in detail? I think i'm not getting it properly, as what i read from it sounds weird. Forgive a non english speaker for some confusion."But hey you can't really complain about super BB's when you won't even entertain the idea of a simple internal armour scheme to increase realism. "
how is it connected?Also yeah, more "death" effects would be nice, though this can wait till later.
if there was some simple floatation simulation and boats did just sink driven by physics...@Stormnet i'll be a bore but huge pathetic fireballs exist only in hollywood. Real 'splosions are fast and boring looking.
Cloud around Barham is mostly her own guts x)That said, for a gamey purpose why not.
I mean, at least have smoke, or some small blast wave. 38 cm HE should do SOMETHING on the outside of a ship.
-
Welcome to UAD. Shit like that happens all the time.
Make a fleet formation and time how long the loopy ships take to organize. Spoiler alert, not quick enought before the enemy arrives.
Its gotten better thought, and I doubt devs are gonna leave it this way.
My go to solution is quality over quantity. Make one big ship. It partially solves this problem until the devs patch this.
-
5 hours ago, Cptbarney said:
New death animations to reflect, different types of deaths as well.
I agree with this one. Lots of inspiration can be taken from the large quatity of pics, reports, and Wikipedia articles on specific ships. They could also vary depending on what sunk them. (Their speeds should vary too. A flooded ship doesnt sink as fast as an exploded one.)
1- Tip Sink
Caused by flooding. The forward or rear ends of the ship are the last to go down (stock sink) Most comon in small ships.
2- Fat Boi Sink
Caused by flooding. Comon in large ships. Ammo storage may explode (yamato style)
Also, HMS Barham has the best smoke screen tactic ever.
3- Hoody Sink
Rather self-explanatory really. Hit in ammo storage can trigger massive explosion on ammo storage launches ships up a little, splits it, and quickly sinks.
(At 1:23)
4- Split and Sink
A variant of the Hood sink. Happens on small ships. Torpedos or large shells split light cruisers/large destroyers in half.
Also, can we get propper explosions? Like, fireballs? Right now there isnt a cool fireball moment in the game. Torpedos are water splashes, shells either detonate inside or just "plonk" outside, and flashfires look more like igniting gas leaks than actual ammo explosions.
-
2
-
-
I, unaware of this post, made one only related to calliber and scaling. Compared to yours, its criminal that yours only got 50% more likes than mine.
-
2
-
-
50 minutes ago, Cptbarney said:
The idea is fine, too be fair shiki did a pretty good take on his gun designer thread posted here:
And i agree with pretty much most things if not all the things there.
Pretty awesome take imo. Its criminal for him to have only 50% more likes than me.
Forget my post. Shiki's post is much better in this regard.
-
1
-
-
10 hours ago, Cpt.Hissy said:
Eh, i know i shouldn't argue, there's no point. Sorry if i'm being too annoying here. Just being somewhat upset by observing how the game steers towards weird paths while completely avoiding problems that are ought to be fixed for years now, and then people coming and talking about realism and stuff... in tiny nearly meaningless details, but like not seeing the real problems.
Like here, i see your point about recreating real ships, but... Slightly different number is "caliber" field can't help those designs to perform any closer to real counterparts, when they still unable to perform like ships at all due to massive fundamental flaws (or i should say game-isation, as that's what it most likely is) in nearly all core mechanics.Now something useful.
When a gun of one nation is bigger or smaller than in another, this actually could be that same "variety" that you seek. Same caliber doesn't mean exactly identical gun. It may be shorter or longer, it can have thicker or thinner walls depending on construction method and metallurgy. Or it may be mounted deeper on the turret or closer to the front face, and said face can be moved back and forth as well. We could have such variations tied to technologies and nations (or some kind of researchable engineering strategies) and in that way available for adoption on player's choice.
Also what they definitely should do, is untie the turret size from the gun size. Currently it's one single turret for a given gun caliber, with varying number of barrels, but same size, which is... not realistic?
I'd suggest having turrets and guns as separate things in terms of research, design, and sizes. Ring diameter should be dependent not on gun caliber alone, but (caliber)*(number of barrels)/(gun spacing tech/stat/whatever), that could give the ability to build something like American triple guns, that had 3 barrels in a ring maybe even smaller than classical 2-gun mount, or to recreate Sharnhorst trick with possible refit.
That's another kind of "variety" that actually matters.Maybe i'm boring old utility geek, but i always prefer my things to work properly first, and look good only as side effect, because properly working thing does look proper.
I think I have to concede this to you. Im running out of arguments to support my idea.
The reason I thought this was a good idea, was that one of my main anoyances with the game was with how ships look so similar. Many factions have the same style, design, and look no diferent besides the flag from others. Also proportions are frequently weird and cannons have completely diferent widths and thickness despite being same calliber. I had thought the barrel lenght could be solved with a slider that would change tonnage, accuracy, and other stats. I thought that adding and fixing and rescaling all this stuff manually would take a long time for the devs to do and thus cut back on needed content, so having the computer generate this stuff while being accurate on dimentions would be a great idea that would cut down time.
Im starting to think I was just too stuborn to admit my idea is flawed.
-
4 hours ago, Cpt.Hissy said:
And this is why i was asking for a reason earlier.
Generally, adding more unnecessary stuff for the sake of it isn't beneficial for games. In best case it just creates bloat in menus.
Straight up destructive if it gets added instead of crucial stuff, and we do have it happening here for a while with all those fantasy yamatos and anime guns. (but to be fair, more hulls is more of modeller's work than programmers and they might do it just to keep modellers busy)The reason Im suggesting this system isnt for the custom callibers alone. Also, as I said, this isnt urgent, and could perfectly come down the line with the designer overhaul.
1 Having the game correctly generating and scalling current models could ease a lot the team work, (as they now would only have to program the base models/features allowing them) and allow them to redirect human resources to other crutial fixes. Once achieved, coming up with new callibers becomes rather easy.
2 This would help fix/reduce the disproportion issues plaging the turrets and cannons, where a 500 mm cannon of one faction only apears 2/3 the size of a cannon belonging to another faction. The computer could be teached to generate correct or at least aproximate models.
3 As said above historical callibers could be.more easly introduced. While the majority of people want this game to simply role play naval designer, there are quite some players that want to build ships historically accurate that perform very similar to those that existed and whose specs are exacly as those on paper. As you can see in this list, there are plenty of historical callibers, especially french and german, that are unachievable with the current inch increases. Now, imagine how much work of the devs it would take to implement these callibers by hand, making sure their dimensions are right, and how much cloged the menu would become with the current turrets plus the new ones.
4 A small effect of this system is that it could give an idea of variety to ships. Even if in paper, these guns would perform very similar, the idea of something like a 36,6cm cannon on a ship and a 37,0 cm cannon on another, could make the players feel their ships are more unique. Almost like a very small yet personal touch.
I know its yout opinion, and thats fine. But I still think something like this could contribute to the game in the long run.
-
15 minutes ago, Cpt.Hissy said:
To code it into a game, it's actually relatively easy, i believe you can find ready code solutions for the basics. Hardest part would be figuring out correct scaling ratios for all stats.
Yeah, I also thought about how gun stats in real life dont scale up proportinally. But then I remenbered, since these exotic calliber guns will never be half inch bigger/smaller than current cannons, I dont think they will perform drastically diferent from the origimals, at least not enought for the diferences to be unproportional enought to make a noticeable diference.
To really think about a scaling system, a few graphics with the current callibers and some of their basic stats and how they scale up like range, reload, shell size, weight (single barrel) side armor pen (3 diferent ranges), per each "common" calliber would be nice Im not going to be on my computer for the next week, so I cant really search that properly.
-
30 minutes ago, Intrepid_Arty said:
True, but there's also plenty of historical precedent for calibers that don't fit neatly into the 1" caliber increments that this game currently has. So a fleet could have some of these odd calibers as their guns, such as, for example, some 88mm or 274mm guns. Or even something like the British 7.5" gun, for example. And this concept would make setting such a fleet up quite a bit easier.
I will also add, though, that there's some amount of complexity in there as well, for 2 main reasons. First one is of course that guns got lighter and more powerful as time went by caliber-for-caliber. And of course, in terms of weight, the other thing to bear in mind is that it won't be directly proportional to caliber. Because the square-cube law is a massive bitch. It should still be eminently possible to calculate things, though, especially given how much data there is of historical guns.
Thanks for your arguments. I didnt think about that. So its not as easy, but still possible.
-
42 minutes ago, Cpt.Hissy said:
You are absolutely right with model scaling, i'm on the same side.
I'm asking about caliber slider specifically.Yeah the calliber slider aint urgent at all. But it could create sorta of an ilusion of variety. While a 120mm and a 126mm can be pretty much identical spec wise, having a ship with diferent guns, even if by the milimiters, can create an idea of variety and make each ship more unique. Besides, some people just want unusual historical callibers, even if identical spec wise, just so they can recreate historical ships.
While it isnt urgent, this can fix a lot of problems and (virtually) add some extra content to the game.
-
2 minutes ago, Cpt.Hissy said:
Welp "procedural" approach is the only viable way for visualization of something freely adjustable.
But other question is, what is this for? All other current issues considered, how having random numbers in "caliber" will improve game's functioning?
I'd still say things like this are of very low priority.I mean, its not top priority. Buthaving the compute generate and scale some models would reduce the work the devs need to create new models, could fix manny of the proportion problems, and add veriety to the game.
Just my opinion thought, and i apreciate your opinion on this.
-
4 hours ago, Cptbarney said:
If this helps streamlines the process then im all for it really. Then the 3D artists don't have to waste too much time making loads of different models and also allows them to focus on certain models that take a lot of time to do properly as gun barrels don't take much time to make and also should make the game run smoother as apposed to loads of different models.coupled with mods of course
This armor like slider (can be slided up or down or the values typed) is to fix the proportion issues found in current turrets, ease the devs work, and diversify ship designing. Also, this also lays the foundations for a turret designing feature.
If the game gains the ability to independantly scale up turrets and cannons models without having them look unproportional, then swapping cannons and turret models is no longer that far away. Even thought I said having low calliber turrets acting as supporters for high calliber in the atandard parts was weird, having them in customized designs isnt. What if i get a double Hood like turret, add the 1940s british cannon and scale it up to 20inch? It might look funny, but this woulf massively increase the variety of ships, without the devs having to make every single model.
Sure, this will require quite some coding and testing to make sure designs are proportional and there arent any bugs, but killing 3-4 birds with one system seems like a bargain to me.
Also, dont blindly give all credit to me. While I came up with the details, it was the idea of
@Aphelionmarauder -
So, to go short, there are, besides many others, 2 problems with the current gun system:
1 Barrel and turret proportions are frequently inconsistent and unrealistic
2 It only allows for most common callibers. Uncommon callibers like 12,6 inch are not available.
But as I chatted with @Aphelionmarauder
on his UAD server LEND he suggested an idea. What about a slider (or armor options like thing) that allows for custom gun calliber? The system would work like this (also the foundations for a gun designer)Instead of using preset models, the game would automatically generate same design but diferently sized (yet visually proportional in lenght, inner width, and others) cannon barrels (just properly and proportinally scaling, widening and stretching a preset model will do, as long as the result is proportionally the same [if cannon has 150mm, then it should look 1,5x wider than a 100 mm, and 2xthinner than a 300mm]). The measuring scale would be consistent for ALL factions. No more brittish quad 508 mm cannon being smaller than german tripple 508. When the cannons got too big for a specific design, eg you cant just scale up a 20 cm barrel to get a 50 cm, use other presets for scaling.
Turrets would work a little diferent, but also on thresholds. Guns bettwen a certain threshold (half inch bigger and half inch smaller than current callibers) would just slightly scale the barrel as said above and the turret would remain the exact same size and design. However, overshooting or undershooting that scale would slightly scale up or down that same turret. Guns with 123 mm and 122mm dont need a full new turret for them.
Now, spec wise, im no naval expert (there are people here that know naval combat better than i know 1+1 = 2), but for tonnage and range requirements you could maybe use averages of pre-established models to have create the specs of these ships. Egg If 12inch has 1000 mm pen at 3 km, and 13 inch 1500, then 12,5 inch should have a pen of 1250 mm. Same could apply to tonnage, range, and other parameters.
The devs dont need to craft every single cannon size and calliber known to man. All they need to do is the presets and overall tables and give the right tools to the computer to create the finicky details in visual and technical aspects.
Also, here is a interesting table of parameters (unknown how accurate it is) that compares diferent guns and armors. Check it out.
http://www.navweaps.com/index_nathan/Penetration_index.php
This post was written in a phone, so I might have not been very clear about this. If you have doubts or constructive criticism feel free to tell me in the comments.
-
5
-
1
-
-
24 minutes ago, Tousansons said:
The game should first let us build Dreadnoughts before fantasy floating fortresses with guns.
We need some form of limitations.
Yeah... But this is an actual dreadnought that we cant build due to said limitations. This isnt just for the fantasy ships, its for actual designs.
Anyways, we already have tonnage constraights. Several big gun turrets on small hulls would result in a poorly armored, slow vessel, besides being less advanced.
Hull size and shape also limits where and how many turrets we can place.
Also, we already have monster BBs (that are still limited by tonnage requirements). What if i want to make a normal BB with lots and lots of small 9 inch guns?
What determines how powerfull our ships can be are the hulls. While balancing tonnage on components is important, you cant stick a 20" on a heavy cruiser.
So we already have constraights, no need to limit our freedom of choice with simple numbers.
-
Many of the comon limitations of the designer could have been solved with a simple value edit. Is it that hard to allow us to place as many turrets as we want?
Small but important UI suggestion(s?).
in General Discussions
Posted
A small, more explicit warning/alarm signal.
Right now, if Im zooming to see another section of my fleet, I might miss the enemy ship/torpedo alarm and you know what that may cause. And the sign (a slightly transparent yellow warning triangle) also isnt that constrasting compared to the scenery and blends in a little.
So, make it a much brighter and flashier yellow, and have sorta of an objective arrow (like many top view games do for markers outside the screen) so I can quickly react, especially to torpedo attacks.