Welcome to another episode of DevChat, this time covering September 18th to 23rd!
First, a brief explainer. DevChat combs through the RSI chat logs, and picks out any interesting comments made by Devs. It amalgamates them, and puts them here, with quotes. While I try to provide context to the comments made by Devs here, these comments sometimes have a very off-the-cuff nature, and everything here should be taken, maybe not with a grain of salt, but for what it is. Interesting, helpful, though not always 100% official, information.
Remember. Unless it comes in an official CIG Dev Post, or comes straight from Chris Roberts’ mouth, it’s not ‘official’.
That said, here comes DevChat!
Performance right now is a bit dependant on a few things, especially the number of different ships in the game.
(5:21:59 PM) CIG Matt Sherman: Something to consider with the performance, aside from being alpha-build, is that 16p matches have a higher chance of completely varied ships being loaded.
(5:22:29 PM) CIG Matt Sherman: Co-op has 4 player ships, and fixed waves of specific vanduul, where 16p could have one of each of the current flyable ships which would really change load.
Component system should be getting some live testing soon!
(7:01:01 PM) CIG Matt Sherman: Woo, enough of the backend setup for the component changes are set so it can actually goto the live-implementation setup.
(8:16:26 PM) CIG Matt Sherman: New components are going well, going to be starting more into the core implementation soon, so definitely getting there.
Mining will not be a day-1 addition to the PU. It’ll come later. [Note from Nehkara: Just to clarify, I’m certain Matt is referring to day-1 PU alpha, not release.]
(8:17:46 PM) CIG Matt Sherman: Mining would be something layered into the PU as the mechanics come online, it won’t be a day-1 gameplay system.
(8:18:37 PM) CIG Matt Sherman: There’s going to be mining ships overall, just not day-1.
The ‘landing through the atmosphere’ sequence that we’ll be getting will likely hide loading screens.
(8:21:03 PM) AceOfSpadez: ok Matt, maybe you can answer this. There have been 2 diff things said by devs about going planet side. 1. would be you fly through the atmosphere into the planet, and 2 was a loading screen like freelancer / destiny. Do you know which of these is more correct?
(8:21:51 PM) CIG Matt Sherman: In part it’s both. Compared to when Freelancer first came out, there’s better use of interstitial load squences.
(8:22:19 PM) CIG Matt Sherman: The ‘landing through atmosphere’ sequence would effectively be a hidden load screen without having to dump you out to a hard load-screen.
(8:22:42 PM) CIG Matt Sherman: It’s not a dynamic/self-landing through the planet, so the automated routes would be masking the loads.
(8:24:27 PM) CIG Matt Sherman: manually-controlled landings are something that would be more explored later on once things have built out a bit more.
(8:24:50 PM) CIG Matt Sherman: It’s not off the table forever, but for now, it’s going to be the assisted landings.
September 19th to 21st
Nothing of note.
EWAR and Radar / Scanning are separate systems. They can affect each other, but they’re separate.
(2:34:04 PM) CIG Calix Reneau: I think that e-war and radar/scanning are distinct systems
(2:34:23 PM) CIG Calix Reneau: when we talk about e-war, we mean electronically affecting the state of another ship in some manner
(2:34:45 PM) CIG Calix Reneau: discoverability would be on the radar/scanner operator
(2:35:55 PM) CIG Calix Reneau: ewar affects radar insofar as you attempt to manipulate the data another ships radar sees
(2:37:55 PM) CIG Calix Reneau: ok, projecting false radar information does fall under e-war, and is planned.
(2:38:47 PM) CIG Calix Reneau: target sharing is also planned
(2:40:08 PM) CIG Calix Reneau: all of this ewar stuff is only at the very beginning of concept, and is also not a priority
New flight modes have been announced! They, and some other upcoming changes, should allow a lot more granular control over our ships.
(3:23:44 PM) CIG Calix Reneau: so glad to have the new flight modes announced
(3:24:17 PM) CIG Calix Reneau: It’s in the RTV recap post
(3:25:09 PM) CIG Calix Reneau: SCM will be relatively similar, although not completely the same, as what is in AC right now
(3:25:40 PM) CIG Calix Reneau: space combat maneuver speed
(3:30:16 PM) CIG Calix Reneau: You do not currently have access to any of the performance parameters of your ship
(3:30:23 PM) CIG Calix Reneau: but eventually you should
(3:31:00 PM) CIG Matt Sherman: Ya, long-term, and more so once we’ve got the new component and weapon reworks setup, the active component tuning/adjustment will be able to start getting built out more in terms of what you guys can mess with in-game.
(3:31:04 PM) CIG Calix Reneau: yeah, that’s just the overclock system though
(3:31:53 PM) CIG Calix Reneau: I would want your manipulation of engine performance to be the same as the rest of the components
(3:32:16 PM) CIG Calix Reneau: so you could push your shields, power plant, engines, coolers, et al too far and have the same tradeoff going on
(3:32:45 PM) CIG Calix Reneau: and I would want that sort of manipulation to be fairly fine grain, the kind of thing encouraging dedicated management
Here’s an interesting bit about coolers, and power.
(3:36:16 PM) CIG Matt Sherman: Coolers would push more heat when ‘overclocked’ but there will still be ways to constrict them aside from just heat. Especially since they’d be chewing up even more power from your power plant to provide that cooling.
(3:37:12 PM) CIG Matt Sherman: Ya, Components generate heat, Coolers pull that heat out from the components at the more direct cost of power from the power plant.
(3:47:25 PM) CIG Calix Reneau: the coolers freak out a little when they stop receiving power
Apparently the long-term plans will make shields much more interesting over the coming months.
(6:13:55 PM) CIG Matt Sherman: For what’s being planned out long-term, Shields are definitely becoming more interesting, some good changes over the coming months to make their gameplay more interesting.
(6:15:40 PM) CIG Matt Sherman: The shield changes would be something that we’d need the groundwork for both the Physically Based Damage along with the Component Resize in place to start setting up, but still should be good once its in.
Today, thanks to an INN reader named Krel, we have another little batch. Krel sent us in a conversation that he had with Calix Reneaux, about the new Flight system mechanics. Check it out! For an image of the conversation, click here!
(14:52:51) Krel: hey, I have another question. Are you planning, as part of the flight model stuff, to make the ships feel less “flittery” and more like a 30 ton spaceship? I know you’ve mentioned wanting to make the ships more main-centric.
(14:59:06) CIG Calix Reneau: to a degree
(14:59:37) Krel: so somewhere between where we are now and the videos we’ve seen of ED lately?
(14:59:47) CIG Calix Reneau: I haven’t seen the videos of ED lately
(15:00:13) Krel: they’re more “planes in space” – get on their six, flight maneuvers, etc
(15:00:21) Krel: i’ll find one for you, just a sec
(15:00:24) CIG Calix Reneau: I’m not particularly interested in that, no.
(15:00:54) Krel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLhnJ-08ZYM
(15:01:14) CIG Calix Reneau: Ships need to be responsive – currently, that favors ‘erratic’ too strongly, and this is something I would like to fix.
(15:02:14) Krel: Moving towards having inertia be more of a factor? Less of the quick strafing around, fps feeling?
(15:04:02) CIG Calix Reneau: I would not agree that ships feel anything like any FPS.
(15:04:48) CIG Calix Reneau: Cruise mode introduces much more rope for players to hang themselves with
(15:05:13) Krel: it’s the quick strafing, I think, that gives it that feeling for many people.
(15:05:39) CIG Calix Reneau: Jerk should allow inertia to be a more controlled factor – without it, inertia has a tendency to overpower all other factors
(15:05:56) Krel: lower jerk, perhaps? Not necessarily lower accel but… heh yeah that’s where I was going
(15:06:31) CIG Calix Reneau: as for strafing, I’d like to have strafe weaker than vector arrest, I’m just trying to find the proper physical justification for such a thing
(15:06:41) Krel: right I agree with you 100%
(15:06:43) CIG Calix Reneau: I think jerk will help with this too, though
(15:06:59) CIG Calix Reneau: since it won’t hamper a single action as much as it will hamper consecutive opposing actions
(15:07:27) CIG Calix Reneau: so doing a single action, like vector arrest, will be more potent than erratic strafing
(15:07:28) Krel: the vector thrust is an idea there – if your mains are what are producing all the thrust, and you’re not moving forward much (mains low) you get less thrust for strafe?
(15:07:42) Krel: yes that would help a LOT
(15:07:54) CIG Calix Reneau: the erratic strafing will thus need much more deliberation to have any real delta in your ship
(15:08:12) Krel: that would move us more towards the cinematic feeling you get from star wars/battlestar/etc
(15:09:08) CIG Calix Reneau: I’m not interested in the flight from that elite video, though
(15:09:09) Krel: is there an abrupt difference between landing/normal/cruise modes, or is it gradual?
(15:09:36) Krel: as you move to cruise do you slowly lose the ability to turn faster, etc. or is it a toggle type change?
(15:09:49) Krel: fair enough (elite video)
(15:10:06) CIG Calix Reneau: the turn locking is based on velocity
(15:10:19) CIG Calix Reneau: to keep you from committing to vector changes you cannot possible accomplish
(15:10:39) CIG Calix Reneau: it’s an IFCS feature and should be optionally available for SCM as well
(15:10:52) Krel: ok. SCM being what I called “normal”?
(15:11:00) Krel: not-landing, not-cruise mode?
(15:11:15) CIG Calix Reneau: yes
(15:11:20) Krel: gotcha
(15:12:23) Krel: I’m really looking forward to your document. It’s sounding like a good compromise – doesn’t have everything anybody wants, but has what most people should be willing to live with.
(15:12:53) Krel: Are you thinking this week, or probably going to slip at this point? I know it has to go through the review process.
(15:14:01) CIG Calix Reneau: I think it’s probably going to slip past this week – I haven’t seen any movement on it yet. >.<
(15:14:38) CIG Calix Reneau: There’s a lot of interests coming together on this one, making it a bit more difficult than usual to confirm what is ok to say
(15:14:53) Krel: yeah, that may be the understatement of the year. :)
(15:15:09) CIG Calix Reneau: aside from the man himself, but he’s got every pot in every fire, so his time comes at a premium
(15:16:08) Krel: I believe it. I think this is probably the biggest core issue that’s still really in flux – at least it seems to be the most concerning
(15:16:44) Krel: Once what you guys plan to do is better explained, I hope a lot of the controversy will abate somewhat
(15:17:22) Krel: Some will always be there of course, nature of an internet forum, but hopefully the noise to signal will drop some
(15:17:44) CIG Calix Reneau: not that it amounts to anything, but I really believe in the flight model changes
(15:18:05) Krel: Considering you’re in charge of the design, it amounts to quite a bit. :)
(15:18:58) CIG Calix Reneau: lol, watch it turn out to be the worlds biggest collection of bad ideas. lol
(15:18:58) Krel: How much of the changes do you expect to see when PU alpha /AC 2.0 is released? Just the beginning of it, or is it farther along?
(15:19:33) CIG Calix Reneau: early to middling
(15:19:35) Krel: hey, you guys went back and revamped the connie three times – I figure if it’s not what we all want to see, there’s always another revamp :)
(15:19:54) CIG Calix Reneau: lol, my heart will not survive
(15:21:10) Krel: it’s all good… in the end, it’s just a game. Of course, some of us have been waiting for this game since the middle 90’s… but no pressure. ;)
(15:21:56) Krel: playing wing commander III, and warbirds online, and wishing it were in space instead. :)
(15:22:50) Krel: anyway, thanks for the info, it’s very appreciated. You mind if I share any of this? I won’t if you don’t want me to.
(15:29:13) CIG Calix Reneau: It’ll all be included in the write up. I should have moved this conversation to general chat >.<
(15:29:37) Krel: heh
(15:30:13) Krel: well, in all fairness, I was trying to ask leading questions. :) I can share this with INN if you want, that would do it. :)
(15:31:01) CIG Calix Reneau: that seems a fair compromise
(15:31:21) Krel: ok, good deal. I’ll do that. Thanks again for the chat.
(15:31:33) CIG Calix Reneau: I at least don’t foresee the specific ways I will come to regret that. lol
(15:34:01) Krel: :)