Space combat sim
by Stephen Kenny · in Game Design and Creative Issues · 06/25/2004 (2:53 am) · 37 replies
I have been working on this idea for a while now, and just wanted to throw it out there cos if it stays in here, I might just go crazy. Ok on to the idea. What about a 128 player space combat sim, where there is any number of sides, you build up your bases and reseach tech and so on so forth, much like the Allegiance game by Microsoft, with just more players and more fancy stuff.
Lets say there were 4 sides, that would be 32 players a team, imagine 32 fighter craft flying and attacking together, that would be awesome. It has a simple economy, you just mine the ore, which brings it to the refinery to get the money, but the miners are target for attack. I also plan to have it so that more than one person can be in the spacecraft, one gunner, one pilot kinda thing. So to use the really big ships you need to work together and have about 5 people. I plan to have it set in a solar system, so you fight around the moons, and you can have a huge carrier on the far side of the planet.
Now to the fancy stuff, I want to get physics into play in it, maybe not full ragdoll, but I want it to have some sort of physics, so things float about after a battle.
This is my idea anyway, I've been spending what little time I have working on the models and trying to get them into torque, and trying to get torque to be space. I am probably missing something simple, but it just isn't working. Anyone got any ideas, on how to fix it, or anything to do with this idea, is it feasible in the torque engine?
Lets say there were 4 sides, that would be 32 players a team, imagine 32 fighter craft flying and attacking together, that would be awesome. It has a simple economy, you just mine the ore, which brings it to the refinery to get the money, but the miners are target for attack. I also plan to have it so that more than one person can be in the spacecraft, one gunner, one pilot kinda thing. So to use the really big ships you need to work together and have about 5 people. I plan to have it set in a solar system, so you fight around the moons, and you can have a huge carrier on the far side of the planet.
Now to the fancy stuff, I want to get physics into play in it, maybe not full ragdoll, but I want it to have some sort of physics, so things float about after a battle.
This is my idea anyway, I've been spending what little time I have working on the models and trying to get them into torque, and trying to get torque to be space. I am probably missing something simple, but it just isn't working. Anyone got any ideas, on how to fix it, or anything to do with this idea, is it feasible in the torque engine?
#2
06/25/2004 (4:29 am)
Cool, thanx for that, I'll head to the resources now. We have allegiance here at the LAN centre where I work, its a good game, I just think it needs a few changes and abit of an overhaul, so might aswell do it myself! 
#3
06/25/2004 (6:58 am)
Phil was mumbling something about space sim resource pack...
#4
06/25/2004 (7:50 am)
Thats should help, at the moment we are just trying to get one spaceship into space, and getting it to float and move and that.
#5
06/25/2004 (8:38 am)
Yes, space sim game pack, its coming.. documentation in progress. Then testing.
#6
Back to the game idea, I was thinking of implmenting a way so the fighters could dock in a carrier or bigger ship with a bigger engine for faster travel, or would you think people would just find that idea boring? This is my major problem, I start work on a new project and start thinking about the little details instead of the major issues, ah well.
06/25/2004 (8:55 am)
Great that should help alot. I surpose it will be a news item when its done, I don't want it to slip by.Back to the game idea, I was thinking of implmenting a way so the fighters could dock in a carrier or bigger ship with a bigger engine for faster travel, or would you think people would just find that idea boring? This is my major problem, I start work on a new project and start thinking about the little details instead of the major issues, ah well.
#7
06/25/2004 (10:42 am)
Note that Microsoft has released the source code to Allegiance. It's strictly a non-commercial license to use it (likewise for the Freespace source code), so it might not work for you... but if you weren't thinking of making it a commercial venture, that might be a good place to start.
#8
06/25/2004 (10:49 am)
Cool, I'll take a look, but we plan to do most if not all the work in or around the torque engine, just so if/when we decide to make something else we don't have to find something else. I will be taking a look at those source codes tho, to get around a few issues and that. Thanks for the tip Jay
#9
07/15/2004 (12:20 pm)
Torgue might not be the engine though cause everything has to have friction
#10
Visit some of the development forums at www.freeallegiance.org/ if you need some ideas.
10/23/2004 (6:44 am)
Even in Microsoft Allegiance and FreeAllegiance, there is 'friction', though it's explained away by being 'control thrusters'. Stop applying thrust/boosters to your interceptors, and listen for the thrusters firing until you slow to a stop.Visit some of the development forums at www.freeallegiance.org/ if you need some ideas.
#11
10/27/2004 (8:45 am)
I've started space combat sim, anyway, how would you get physics like astriods?
#12
10/27/2004 (10:25 am)
Well, I could mention something kinda along those lines, but it doesn't use Torque... :)
#13
12/01/2004 (9:22 am)
I will try that?.? Maybe
#14
In Void War, the basic physics were very very easy. The trick is making the gameplay fun. What I did in the 1.01 version, due to popular demand, was to retard lateral and up-and-down inertia more than the forward / rear inertia.
What I do, after applying the 'space drag' to the ship's global motion vector (a piece of cake), I then calculate the ship's velocity relative to it's own orientation. I subtract the local 'z' component of movement ('y' component in Torque), so I'm left with a vector that represents only movement along the plane that is perpendicular to the ship's orientation. I multiply THAT vector by the 'extra space drag' factor (I calculate this using the ship's normal drag factor - a number I pulled out of the air and tweaked during the balance stage - and the framerate). Then I add the Z-component back in unchanged, run the total vector back through the ship's orientation matrix to get a global velocity, and replace the old velocity with this new value.
The end result is that the ships 'feel' more controllable, because they don't slide around so much - but they still have plenty of responsiveness forward and backwards. So I guess the ships are streamlined and space is kinda soupy, but I think it makes for a game people find more accessible.
12/01/2004 (6:51 pm)
Within torque, you'll probably want to create a new class (classes?) derived from ShapeBase which have their own physical parameters. You'll have to do a lot of it yourself, unfortunately.In Void War, the basic physics were very very easy. The trick is making the gameplay fun. What I did in the 1.01 version, due to popular demand, was to retard lateral and up-and-down inertia more than the forward / rear inertia.
What I do, after applying the 'space drag' to the ship's global motion vector (a piece of cake), I then calculate the ship's velocity relative to it's own orientation. I subtract the local 'z' component of movement ('y' component in Torque), so I'm left with a vector that represents only movement along the plane that is perpendicular to the ship's orientation. I multiply THAT vector by the 'extra space drag' factor (I calculate this using the ship's normal drag factor - a number I pulled out of the air and tweaked during the balance stage - and the framerate). Then I add the Z-component back in unchanged, run the total vector back through the ship's orientation matrix to get a global velocity, and replace the old velocity with this new value.
The end result is that the ships 'feel' more controllable, because they don't slide around so much - but they still have plenty of responsiveness forward and backwards. So I guess the ships are streamlined and space is kinda soupy, but I think it makes for a game people find more accessible.
#15
12/03/2004 (1:59 pm)
I want to go more realistic and not have drag. I will try 2d but have statistics. so thier is more stratigy.
#16
The thing is - people don't like a complete lack of inertia. It's not fun. We've tried to strike a happy medium, but ultimately you have to please your intended audience.
Good luck!
12/03/2004 (8:34 pm)
You may also want to check out the free Babylon 5 "space sim" entitled "Babylon 5: I've Found Her" (yeah, lame name).The thing is - people don't like a complete lack of inertia. It's not fun. We've tried to strike a happy medium, but ultimately you have to please your intended audience.
Good luck!
#17
12/05/2004 (10:14 am)
Thank//s
#18
Now that doesn't mean people would like it if they tried it (anyone played Orbiter?), but it is what they're asking for :)
12/06/2004 (2:27 am)
I'm active on the Egosoft forums and often see calls for Newtonion flight models on 3d space combat.Now that doesn't mean people would like it if they tried it (anyone played Orbiter?), but it is what they're asking for :)
#19
falleg.kuattech.com/
That is a game that several people and I are working on. It was inspired by Allegiance.
BTW, I have used orbiter, and this is what I tell people:
"Sure, you can put completely realistic physics into a game. But is it still a game?"
12/06/2004 (3:11 am)
I think you might want to look at this:falleg.kuattech.com/
That is a game that several people and I are working on. It was inspired by Allegiance.
BTW, I have used orbiter, and this is what I tell people:
"Sure, you can put completely realistic physics into a game. But is it still a game?"
#20
1) 128 simultaneous players sounds like a lot. There probably isn't enough bandwidth to manage that many ships and all of their weapons fire. If you want to go with a big crowd like that, you will need to do something more like EVE does, where the player does not aim or pull the trigger or manage countermeasures.
2) Space physics are really quite simple to implement in general, but may be difficult to do in Torque. I don't use the Torque engine myself; I decided to create my entire game from scratch.
3) Realistic orbital mechanics will result in very long travel times and visually dull combat. I think this would make for an interesting strategy game with a very limited market. But it doesn't really work in an action game.
You could get by with very unrealistic orbital mechanics in an action game, but then you will have to decide how they should work. You will be rewriting the laws of nature to improve gameplay, but that means that traditional astrophysics tests won't be much help to you.
General comments for Grant Lucas:
1) What do you mean by "2d but have statistics. so thier is more stratigy"? What kind of stats and strategy did you have in mind? Are you talking about a grand strategy game, a tactics game, a twitchy action-oriented game, or something else?
2) Why 2D? Is it because you think it will be easier to program, or easier to play?
--milo
Starshatter
12/06/2004 (9:36 am)
General comments for Stephen Kenny:1) 128 simultaneous players sounds like a lot. There probably isn't enough bandwidth to manage that many ships and all of their weapons fire. If you want to go with a big crowd like that, you will need to do something more like EVE does, where the player does not aim or pull the trigger or manage countermeasures.
2) Space physics are really quite simple to implement in general, but may be difficult to do in Torque. I don't use the Torque engine myself; I decided to create my entire game from scratch.
3) Realistic orbital mechanics will result in very long travel times and visually dull combat. I think this would make for an interesting strategy game with a very limited market. But it doesn't really work in an action game.
You could get by with very unrealistic orbital mechanics in an action game, but then you will have to decide how they should work. You will be rewriting the laws of nature to improve gameplay, but that means that traditional astrophysics tests won't be much help to you.
General comments for Grant Lucas:
1) What do you mean by "2d but have statistics. so thier is more stratigy"? What kind of stats and strategy did you have in mind? Are you talking about a grand strategy game, a tactics game, a twitchy action-oriented game, or something else?
2) Why 2D? Is it because you think it will be easier to program, or easier to play?
--milo
Starshatter
Torque Owner Daniel Newman
Does sound like a cool idea.. I did like the idea of Allegiance, but i didn't play it that much (killed my 56k modem)