Topic: Opinion for Gaming

[[UFP]Exeter]

I would like to know others opinions regarding development of a game, should it me C++ or C# and why.  To avoid an open ended discussion here are some constraints:

1)  This would be a Star Trek based game, 3D graphics etc, like a merger of Bridge Commander with some of the gaming aspects of SFC3
2)  Current technology, performance difference between C++ and C# is less than 5%
3)  Both have the capability to utilize muti core processing
4)  PC based only, so no concern about other OS, yet.
5)  Conversion for C# to c++ is straight forward if the game needed to be ported, but reverse is not so easy.
6)  The development time difference between them is significant, C# is at least twice as fast to develop and deploy code.


Given these items, it would seem to me the decision come down to, 5% better performance or half the time to get the game deployed.  And this is based upon my own experience as I code in both.

Your opinions?

[Javora]

Portability is key and speed of coding is key here.  Because of points 5 and 6, coding in C# should be a no brainer.

[d4v1ks]

In my opinion you stumble in the most fundamental aspect. Since i learned to program i've made some games at basic, pascal, assembler, c++, visual basic, etc etc. The language is a means to an end, not an end in itself.

C# 

[[UFP]Exeter]

A few years back when SFC 4 was being discussed the posts were adamant on c++, with no reason other than faster, and at that time it was.  But improvements in managed languages, C# in particular and the NET framework have reduced this difference significantly.  This is the theory.  To validate I ran my own benchmarks, I build an identical game structure in C++ and C#, which included 3D rendering, the background also 3D and audio.

As for missing the basic tenant, I think one is being missed, the right tool for the job.  Given what I imagine in a 3D game, it is possible to have as many as 60 3D models on the screen.  (Main ships, fighters, torpedoes, planets, asteroids etc) the tool chosen needs to be able to move (physics), detect collisions, and render the scene.  So the choice of a language would also dictate what libraries are available to handle this kind of performance requirement.

I would also add, that if there was some desire to ever port this to any console game, C++ may be required along with the license and sdk neither of which are free or cheap.

But with Mono, and it keeps getting better, there is the possibility to deploy to other platforms like UNIX that can run MONO, provided we use C#.

Of course all of this is mute if I do not have the background to accomplish or lead the effort. 

I am currently an IT Project Manager, but I achieved this goal working my way up as a developer.  My background includes developing programs in the scientific community and business.  I maintain fluency in C++ and C#, although I have developed code in many other languages including assembler, Java, FORTRAN and Ada.

I am currently communicating with Frey, and we are working on finalizing a design to be used in the creation of AFC 4.  A new effort.  Depending on the design I have two different game structures I have been working on over the last year.  One in C# and one in C++ (as mentioned previously).   This has not started before as I was assisting Strat with the EAW conversion that I hope to see released very shortly as we finished the coding.

Which leads to the bottom line of this post.  What do the customers want, customers being those that will play the game.  And the options are simple:

C++ for slightly faster performance.

C# for significantly less development time.

I have posted this poll on a few different sties, without the specifics as to why, and it is interesting.

83% prefer the faster development
32% of those responding have some background in development.

[Starfox1701]

I haven't done any thing like this out side of ODF (A1/A2/ Legacy) moding some python code tinkering (BC) since dos basic. I feel I need more info to give a good answer.  The important questions are as follows.

1. which code is going to allow for the longest lifespan of the game allowing it to make best use of improved hardware, not just today but 5 years from now ect...?

2. which code is going to be the most moder friendly?

3. which code will allow for the best future expansion of the game, new systems and abilities should the developers or moders chose to do so?

[[UFP]Exeter]

Starfox, answer varies but i will try to answer

1.  Greatest lifespan is hard to answer.  Both languages will be around for a long time.  The key is graphics.  The intent is to use a third party graphics library that is much easier than Directx itself.  Currently know good, low cost (free) has fully operational Direct x 11 support.  And for me I will NOT code a game in XAML.  The main library I would use Irrlicht.  For C# we would use the IrrlichtLime wrapper around the Irrlicht library.  I have tested both ways, and works well.  And DX 11 drivers are under development.  Overall the game will REQUIRE at least dual core, but will utilize 4, and I am looking into utilizing the GPU on a DirectX GPU also.  From that aspect this will be probably require Win 7 to play but that is not decided yet.

2.  Modder friendly is independent of the code base.  Some for of scripted and other capabilities to be built in.  I would like to make this very modder friendly.  That if you desired to make this a Star Ward game (god forbid) you could, including models, graphics and sounds.   Also missions I hope to have via external mission files that are scripted and will not required a compiler (or at least a fee one) to build or change missions.  Right now under consideration is XML, LUA and C# itself (the free compiler can be used).

3. Future expansion is independent of the code base.  The game itself will be coded in a modular design, to allow changes, upgrades to be done.    In this aspect c# is superior and it uses the main exe and DLL's, allowing for updates to a DLL as required.  C++ can use DLL's also but the versioning to prevent a mix-up of dll's that can prevent the game from running is an issue.

For both many of the key gaming elements such as the combat mechanics etc, will be stored in an encrypted external database to be read outside of combat.  This will allow updates to the combat system without patching the game.

I should mention all third party libraries we use will have source also available to avoid issues we ran into trying to update EAW.

[Captain Adam]

.

[[UFP]Exeter]

Adding new weapons would be difficult as we need to maintain a balanced game.  And avoid god weapons or vessels.  But the combat system such as damage, range etc, is stored in encrypted data, but by a class level, such as a MK VII beam.  You can add your own weapon, the name, the graphics etc, and utilize the MK VII combat specifications. 

This also goes for ships, a Heavy cruiser would have a range of specification.  A limit of total weapons and types.  You can configure exactly what weapons go where.  Ship specification would be the same for each race as far as the class goes, but how you configure it is up to you.   We handle the differences by races with a racial and a relationship bonus.  For example a Romulan system may only be available to those on friendly terms with the Romulans.

But, changing graphics, names, ship designs, all customizable.

[Captain Adam]

.

[Starfox1701]

Sounds like C# is the best option, which would you chose? On the note of things like super weapons and god ships, and for give me if this sounds harsh, but isn't it a bit condescending for the programer to limit a moder's options for tinkering with his personal install just to preserve your own idea of balance? The need for identical instals for multiplayer will prevent these thing from getting in there unless that what all the players want. Balance the game however you want but please don't stop us from being able to re-balance it is we want to try something different or for example the new ships or races require something different. It is not a necessity to hard code the balance.

[Captain Adam]

.

[[UFP]Exeter]

Interesting points.   If I can figure out a way to ensure in a multiplayer game that one person did  not create a "God Ship" the others do not know about I thin that ability to create and modify at will can be arranged.  And the limits will be in a database so it would be possible to easily allow these "set" values to change.   What I am thinking is to allow greater flexibility in the script for missions.  So a "God" ship could be part of the missions.

Oh, I have a model for 2 god ships for multiplayer missions so there will be some God ships in  the game.

C# does appear to be the best option.  But there is a cost.  It cannot use pure C#, so wrappers are required or we learn DirectX 11 and go for it.

The C++ route has a couple hidden advantages.  The network library has multi thread already.  The graphics library is being updated to include DX 11.  And the physics library is being upgraded to use the GPU (Requires DX 11 capable GPU).  So if we make the system requirements higher (dual core minimum and Direct X compatible GPU), we will have as much as 20% performance improvement. 

To get hos improvements in C# would require some extra coding so the advantage of faster coding decreases.

My choice?  As much as I want this done sooner,  I want cutting edge.  I want dual core minimum.  I want DX 11 GPU required (not the drivers).  I want this so fast that we can do better graphics and not worry about slowing things down.  Can we make a good game in C#, yes.  But I want a kick-ass game that players will want a way to slow it down.  And we can make this game that if you have them, it will use the GPU and 4 cores. 

The reason for the opin ion, is the tradeoff.  I mentioned the 3% performance but today I got a hold of a copy of the newer physics coming out and tested.  The physics alone was 22% faster as it ran on my DX 11 compatible GPU.  And this CANNOT be done in C# unless you code in DX 11.

[Captain Adam]

.

[[UFP]Exeter]

we are in the design phase.  So we can make changes.  And I expect once release there will be updates.  We are using third party libraries (why reinvent what works) but we have the source for all.  This means we can change this as we choose going forward.  And as it is a community (literally) and the code (all of it) on Dynaverse SVN, we can change it forever.

Modding is not an afterthought, it is built into the design.   Key data is stored in an encrypted database, and some other is also due to copyright.  But, a modder can build their own databases and literally change anything related to game play.  And details will be released to assist.

To fully mod a knowledge of SQL, XML and possibly LUA may be required.  Not there yet.

To build your own missions, probably LUA

[[UFP]Exeter]

Except this will be a community effort.  I could handle all the programming (15+ years programming in C++) but I do not have the skills to create the models or the graphics we need.

So I ask others opinions. 

There is alot of work.  And something we need 100's of is storylines to build missions from.

[Captain Adam]

.

[Starfox1701]

Is it possible that a file system similar to Armada's ODF/Classlable system could be used to simplify the process? I am uncertain how difficult that is to code from the ground up but from experience know it within it's constraints it is very flexible and functions very much as a plug and play system. Lines of code can be left in a single file and later files can reference back to it. Whole strings of files can be used to define variants of ships with the individual ships only requiring the new or altered information. Also Classlables can be stacked to provide some interesting effects or vary abilities. If you are unfamiliar with this setup I can add that ODF stand for Object data file. Classlables are tags that refer to specific hard coded AI behaviors or effects. Examples include Starbase, constructionrig, cannon, launcher, and phaser. An example of stacking would be cannon in the base weapon odf and phaser in the ordinance odf. Between the to files you could code anything from various to hit modifiers, sound effects, the sprite used, damage ect.. The weapon was very customizable.

On the not of model format it might be worth while to upgrade that. But if that is done we will need new importers and exporters for our various modeling software. Also with the processing power you plan to rig into this game the models might endup being of a quality that is to high for milkshape to handle. anything with more then 60,000 polies, 30 mesh groups or more then 1 2048X2048 texture or 230 joints is beyond the program's design limits. It will not render anything beyond the poly limit, those parts are lost, and tends to crash when dealing with to many joints.

[Javora]

the creation of AFC 4.  A new effort.

AFC 4 ???  Was that a typo or a new name?

Which leads to the bottom line of this post.  What do the customers want, customers being those that will play the game.  And the options are simple:

C++ for slightly faster performance.

C# for significantly less development time.

I have posted this poll on a few different sties, without the specifics as to why, and it is interesting.

83% prefer the faster development
32% of those responding have some background in development.

While it's been 20 years or more since I took Assemblers, let alone Fortran, Pascal, Basic etc.  I do understand the idea of speed, portability and performance...  I also understand the idea of maintenance as well.  How much time are you willing to spend on maintenance after the game is released and are you willing to spend more of that maintenance time with C++ ?  Ok let me ask this, how long would it take to convert a full game from C# into C++ ?  What's stopping you from coding the game in C# and then making a conversion copy in C++ as soon as your are finished?

I also think you might want to consider other platforms as well.  These other platforms, Android based tablets for example might not have the horsepower of a PC but might bring in more of a fan base.  I'm throwing this in only because of how many people are moving away from PC's toward other platforms.  But if you do consider other platforms, what language will you need then?

Oh and one more thing, of the 32% that had some background in development, how many preferred faster development?

[[UFP]Exeter]

Adan,
The currenly supported Model formats are:
    3D Studio meshes (.3ds, r)
    Alias Wavefront Maya (.obj, r/w)
    Lightwave Objects (.lwo, r)
    COLLADA 1.4 (.xml, .dae, r/w)
    OGRE meshes (.mesh, r)
    My3DTools 3 (.my3D, r)
    Pulsar LMTools (.lmts, r)
    Quake 3 levels (.bsp, r)
    DeleD (.dmf, r)
    FSRad oct (.oct, r)
    Cartography shop 4 (.csm, r)
    STL 3D files (.stl, r/w)
    PLY 3D files (.ply, r/w)
    B3D files (.b3d, r, skeleton)
    Microsoft DirectX (.x, r) (binary & text, skeleton)
    Milkshape (.ms3d, r, skeleton)
    Quake 3 models (.md3, r, morph)
    Quake 2 models (.md2, r, morph)

Because we are not using any of the original codebase from previous games, it is unlikely we will be able to use mods from those games.

[[UFP]Exeter]

StarFox

I am unfamiliar with Armada's ODF/Classlable file system.  Is this a Mod method used?  Although how SFC4 will be modded is uncertain I am leaning toward LUA for scripting for mods and missions.  XML is also under consideration, and that is used for base configuration data.

From reading your post it seems it is very similar to the capability of LUA.  LUA adds the capability to actually run code from the script.

As for the models, I am not planning on designing our own custom format.  I will use standard formats.  I currently have tested using .3DS, .ms3d and .OBJ formats.  Blender formats are not supported but it can export into supported formats.

[Captain Adam]

.

[[UFP]Exeter]

Javora

First apologies, a typo, it should be SFC4.

While it's been 20 years or more since I took Assemblers, let alone Fortran, Pascal, Basic etc.  I do understand the idea of speed, portability and performance...  I also understand the idea of maintenance as well.  How much time are you willing to spend on maintenance after the game is released and are you willing to spend more of that maintenance time with C++ ?  Ok let me ask this, how long would it take to convert a full game from C# into C++ ?  What's stopping you from coding the game in C# and then making a conversion copy in C++ as soon as your are finished?

I do this for fun as I enjoy programming more than gaming itself.  I will spend time after it is finished, probably looking at enhancements etc.  However, by ensuring we have a design document, the code is documented, full source for everything, others should be able to come along and maintain this.  The intent is store the full source, build projects on Dyna's Repository.  As for conversion, right now I have no plans to write this in one language and convert.  Libraries used will be different, so some rewrite will be needed.  As I have a job, I will not have te time to maintain and do rewrite.  My desire after the game is built is to ply it, make improvements and enhancements as suggested by the players.

I also think you might want to consider other platforms as well.  These other platforms, Android based tablets for example might not have the horsepower of a PC but might bring in more of a fan base.  I'm throwing this in only because of how many people are moving away from PC's toward other platforms.  But if you do consider other platforms, what language will you need then?

Using my current c++ design, there will be some port issues, but generally ready to port to OS X and Linux.  Additional work would be required for consoles, included licenses and the SDKs.  A little more work and it can be ported to mobile devices including android, iPhone and windows devices.  C# on the other hand, is only Windows, Xbox and some work to port to Windows mobile devices.  The entire code-base would have to port to work in Mono, then we add additional platforms.  However Mono is still no there yet as far as performance, so I would not count on a good port to there.  Bottom line, if we want to port this to other platforms, the best option is C++.

Oh and one more thing, of the 32% that had some background in development, how many preferred faster development?

Of the developers I have talked to, only 1 preferred c#, and he is a c# developer.  But of the last year and a half he has contributed maybe a few hours.  That wold be less that 20% of the developers.  The nice thing about c# is if somebody wanted to contribute, the language is easy enough for the to learn and assist fairly quickly, but with boxing and garbage collection etc, there are many areas that can drag performance down quickly.  And s they are features of the language they are hard to track down.   The big issues with C++ is memory leaks and ghost pointers but these are not features so there are easy ways to track them down.

[Starfox1701]

So what you are saying is that from the programers point of view C++ turns out the best product.

StarFox

I am unfamiliar with Armada's ODF/Classlable file system.  Is this a Mod method used?  Although how SFC4 will be modded is uncertain I am leaning toward LUA for scripting for mods and missions.  XML is also under consideration, and that is used for base configuration data.

From reading your post it seems it is very similar to the capability of LUA.  LUA adds the capability to actually run code from the script.

As for the models, I am not planning on designing our own custom format.  I will use standard formats.  I currently have tested using .3DS, .ms3d and .OBJ formats.  Blender formats are not supported but it can export into supported formats.

I don't know what language was used; the basic moding in A1 and A2 involved adding or altering the ODF files. Other modable files included the .CFG files, .TT which represented the tech tree and build able ships and structures, .sprite files for sprites and other billboard animations, and .AIP files which where the AI personalities and build priority lists. I am including 2 dropbox links; 1 is a highend (for A2) ship pack mod for the game for the Constitution Class and the second is a PDF of Westworld's Big Book of Modding which is the A2 moders 101 book.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/3697428/Constitution%20Pack.zip
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/3697428/Westworldsbig_book_of_modding.pdf

Look it over and see if any of this helps explain what I am talking about. .ODF files should open in word pad or notepad

[[UFP]Exeter]

So what you are saying is that from the programers point of view C++ turns out the best product.

Alot has to do with microsoft, regretfully.  Over the lat number of years since C# came out the party line was use C#, you can do anything with it you can do in C++.  In the last 2 years has been, "OOPS, we were wrong."  For performance use C++, for productivity use C#.  In some cases use C++ with a wrapper and pull together in C#.  They also indicate good performing games in Win 8 should be C++ with direct x.  This includes 3D games.  For lowe end games C# and XAML.

And I finshed my evaluiton of what I consider the only viable options.  Pure C# for everything is not an option, XNA is already not supported so I will not consider pure C#.


C#, using wrappers for graphics and physics.   Base performance

C++, usiing same libraries without wrappers.  3.1 % faster

C#, multithread libraries for physics and graphics.   4.2 % faster

C++ myltithread physics and graphics 5.6 % faster

C++ multithread graphics and AMP (GPU) physics, 12.7 % faster

Graphics does not run on AMP yet, but based on evaluation C++ AMP(GPU) physics and 3D rendering, about 15-17% faster.  To put in perspective this means more detailed models in the game with no loss in performance.

In theory, the new physics could have a wrapper and we gain its performance.  However, that has  not been done and will probably be months away.  So we lose the the development advantage.  Also to do our own wrapper, will add 6 months to the development time

Personally, I think the choice is obvious, C++, with multithread and utilizing the GPU via AMP.   But this means the game will NOT fun on XP.  But this will allow for a great high performing game as we do not have to add compatibility for slower systems.  And if the new drivers for the Graphics finish soon, we may not support DirectX 9 and require DirectX 11.

[Starfox1701]

I vote for what is going to produce the best game.

[Captain Adam]

.

[Starfox1701]

do we at least know what era the game will be set in?

[[UFP]Exeter]

Not really.  The constraint is the models.  If we get the appropriate models it would be easy to pick an era, and have a long term campaign that developed the tech through the eras.  Right now I am thinking of 7 classes of ships for each of the races:  Federation, Klingon, Romulan, Cardassian and Pirates (privateers) though the pirates would not have the larger capitol ships.  A wide variety of the smaller classes and other races would have them, but only the major "empires" would have capitol ships.

[Starfox1701]

We will need to pick a time frame before ship selection and construction can move forward. There are literally hundreds of classes to chose from over 300 years of history. That far to many to just start building blind.

[Javora]

Using my current c++ design, there will be some port issues, but generally ready to port to OS X and Linux.

For that reason alone I would stick with C++.  WinXP is going to die out so I wouldn't worry about that.  I think writing this program with tablets in mind would be the best way to go forward.  As tablets is where you're going to see the most people playing this game.

Good luck!

[[UFP]Exeter]

God, I hope not.  I do not like the idea of Microsoft trying to direct the industry.  Win 8 is great for the amateur, but for development, or business it sucks.  Granted you can get an add to bring back the start menu, but the idea you need to put an add on  a new OS to make it usable is ridiculous.  I really hope Win 8 bombs and maybe this time Microsoft will listen.  The big money comes from those that use computers for business, not random users.  I also tool a well performing laptop, wiped it and installed Won 8 then wiped and installed Win 7.  Win 7 is faster.

It is difficult enough to deal with keyboard and muse, but to add touch screen would be a mess.

[Captain Adam]

.

[[UFP]Exeter]

I hope to only prvide general guidelines for the modelers.  There are different series but if we set it tow 3, TOS, TNG and future, and 6 models each, then that would be 18 for each race.   But this is key,  And  a reason to start this discussion.  And I hope to display some screenshots with the used models.

The same for the 2D graphics.  There is even more here.

Once I can get a forum for SFC4 I will start posting what is needed etc.  Right now the forums are focused on SFC2 CE.

[Starfox1701]

I think TNG time frame is best. It will allow for the inclusion of the greatest number of ships from the start. I think too that not all the races will follow the traditional SFC rout of using the same hull for multiple variants. Starfleet certainly shouldn't. Between cannon, semicannon, good fanon like the master com ships and some of the Jackill's classes and SFC classes there's what 60 to 80 different classes that should still be in service in 2380 that we know. If we can't fill out the Fed list without reusing a hull we're doing something wrong. There are a large number of Cardassinan ship and station designs in A2 that could be reworked to fit a new game as well as several fan made new classes. There is also the 2 classes from the Dominion war game, on of which is a D'deridex size dreadnought. Klingon and Romulan fleets are a bit more sparse but between Klingon Academy, all 3 SFC games, A1 and A2 and Dominion Wars we actually have a huge number of designs to chose from. Of course all these guys will need new models and textures so their are no IP problems.   

[[UFP]Exeter]

A good synopsis of the model situation.  I have quite a few but many need textures.  I have some non trek models to use for other races and the additions I made for bad guys.  The races and the classes of ships is arbitrary, and based on the number of models I could get my hands on.  If we get more models then we can expand the list.

If we had the models I would like to see Federation, Romulan, Klingon, Cardassian, Jem'Hadar, and Pirates as playable races.

And for ships classes:  Fighters, Corvettes, Frigates, Destroyers, Light Cruiser, Cruisers, Heavy Cruisers, Battle Cruisers, Dreadnoughts, Battleships and Carriers.

The games design does not care how many of each, depends on the models and graphics.

[Starfox1701]

So with that in mind we can tentatively narrow the focus down to the late 2370s post war at least.

[[UFP]Exeter]

I would like it to be when there were some open hostilities.  After the Dominion wars it was too peaceful.  Why I would like some Jem'Hadar models, but not part of the Cardassian race.

[EschelonOfJudgemnt]

OK, just going to throw this out here.  Are you guys ready for the headaches in getting a Star Trek license for your endeavor?  I hear those aren't cheap...


On another note, while I fully understand abandoning ADB (because SVC isn't interested or whatever), the balance that he struck with SFB is rather hard to recreate.  If I had to boil it down, the things that really make SFB work are how the DAC works, how well energy is balanced (attack versus defense, and the imposed energy limits), the shield mechanic, and most importantly, the weapons ranges and that overload thing.

Not to mention tractors, shuttles/fighters/pf's, missile/drone defenses, T-Bombs, and marines.  These 'extras' really flesh out SFB/SFC quite nicely.

How overloads work is the one thing that makes SFB and SFC unique, in that you have that 'Range 8' decision to make.  Do you dare float into overload range?  Do you overload yourself?  Do you try dancing outside that range, frustrating your opponent's attempts to use his overloads?

Yes, a lot of other games have range brackets, and damage curves and such, but SFC is the ONLY game where I find myself really trying to hit the optimal range for whatever direct/seeking weapon system I am using, instead of just closing to point blank and beating the enemy senseless most of the time (Hydrans being the exception) and adjusting things on the fly when the opponent tries to foil that by closing/opening range or whatever.  In some other designs, it's pretty much load, fire, reload, fire, etc., and while I still try to hit optimal ranges, it isn't nearly as important as it is in SFB/SFC

Finding that tactical balance with a new game, in such an immersive fashion, is going to be tough, and I would highly encourage that everything gets playtested EXTENSIVELY, and is not rushed.  Otherwise, we will end up with a less interesting game, and a lot of people will still be longing for the SFC II sequel we always wanted (with Andros and Tholians)...

[[UFP]Exeter]

Using SFB is something Frey has to worry about.  When I contacted them about 18 months ago it was no.  So we will see.

For the moment I have worked out some math for the initial combat dynamics.  And yes it will require testing.  If we can get the people to work on this, I was thinking a test version, 2 ships to test the copmbat dynamics and fix them while the rest of the game is being worked on.

Frey also has a plan for CBS as far as contacting them.

There are also other options.

[Starfox1701]

So you want to do a game set during the Dominion War? That's doable but it is also possible to do another conflict as an original story. BC, A1, A2, and SFC3 are all set after the Dominion war, and cannon trek pretty much stops after the war. All you have are 2 or 3 years of Voyager and Nemesis for cannon stories.

[Captain Adam]

.

[[UFP]Exeter]

I know I want conflict.  Does not have to be Dominion wars.  Actually I obtained two massive "godship" models so so a new antagonist would also work.

I also know with all this talking, there is the question when do we start.  I send some PM's and I am waiting for the SVN to be set up and so forums to host the messages.  The SFC4 SFC2:CE is to cluttered, I would like something clean to post.  Discussions, periodic updates, ideas etc.

As for starting, already have.  Right now the issue is what script language to use.  I am debating LUA and angescript.  The script language are easy but getting a working parser to avoid writing one.

This is a sample, my current test models and background.

[[UFP]Exeter]

We have discussed getting license.  And there are various options but we want a well developed entity before proceeding.

[Javora]

I would like it to be when there were some open hostilities.  After the Dominion wars it was too peaceful.  Why I would like some Jem'Hadar models, but not part of the Cardassian race.

IMHO I wouldn't limit myself to one specific time frame.  I would include TOS all the way to the end.  It's a lot of work but the payoff would be huge.

One question I do have is if you include SFC CE in with this new game you are thinking about, do you still need a new licence?  Or does this become the mega patch from h*|| that bypasses a new licence?

[[UFP]Exeter]

If we can get the models then we can go for broke as far as the era we include.  Game is designed to handle this.

This will not include any of SFC CE in the code base.  The technology used is ancient, and will not fully support modern hardware.  It works but not at full potential.

Licenses has not been decided.  But this will be our own product. 

This is not a patch on EAW OP CE or anything else. 

[EschelonOfJudgemnt]

"OK, just going to throw this out here.  Are you guys ready for the headaches in getting a Star Trek license for your endeavor?  I hear those aren't cheap..."


Dude, Debbie downer times infinity... 

Yeah, I know.  We want a fun new game.  I've just seen several licensing issues with Paramount over the years, specifically relating to the Star Trek setting.  No one in gaming seems to be able to hang on to a ST license for any great length of time...

I do wish the design team guys the best of luck, I just want them going into this endeavor sober, with both eyes open.  Myself, it wouldn't hurt my feelings if they made their own universe and saved some bucks on licensing, but I know how alluring the Star Trek universe is.

In other news, Electronic Arts just snagged a whole bunch of exclusive Star Wars licensing options...
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/05/the-future-of-star-wars-games-belongs-to-ea/

[[UFP]Exeter]

If it does not work out, redo the graphics, new models, change a few files and we have a new game.

Interesting about EA and Star Wars, but it is all about money.

My humble opinion, if we approach CBS with a 90% working, flushed out, quality gamed that utilizes the power of modern computers I think we will get their attention.

[Starfox1701]

Correct me if I'm wrong but we only need a license if we are selling the game right?

[[UFP]Exeter]

In theory if w are making money on it.  There were court cases in California to support this. 

So, in theory, if we do not make a profit, we can sell the game to pay for servers etc.  But that is something Frey will look closer into.  We would rather get CBS approval for the game, if possible.

If I understand correctly it is if the game itself makes money.  So a possibility is a free game but sell the multiplayer time like many MMORPG's do or sell credits etc.  There are ways of covering expense and delivering a free game.

None of these decisions need to be made now, as we need a product to demonstrate to CBS.

[[UFP]Exeter]

Are there any thoughts or opinions on a scripting language to use for missions?  The idea is to use this method to allow players to create their own missions.  I may also use this method to store game data. 

The game would have a parser imbedded withing its code to read the script and this parser would create "code" that can then be run to setup the mission and all the needed information.  As the script would be in text, the missions can be changed or coped into new ones. 

I am open to any suggestions as the users will be using it more that I. Although I have a preference "AngelScript" as its syntax is c++ like, and therefore many many references to be able to learn it.   Another popular one is "LUA" used in other MMORPG's such as World or Warcraft.  There are others. 

[d4v1ks]

I think that it's always a good ideia to walk on known roads. I've writen a few things in LUA before, when i was playing warcraft and minecraft (computercraft). People tend to use things that they are used to.

[[UFP]Exeter]

LUA and Angelscript are both well know and in use on other games.  I have no real preference other that I have toyed around with LUA a little, relating to World of Warcraft.  And lets not forget Python.

LUA's claim to fame is its use in World of Warcraft.  And WOW, has problems with adds crashing, and if embrace Google you see crashing or erratic behavior is a symptom of LUA.

Angelscript has thumbs up from some developers as a modding language.

Python just is.

[Starfox1701]

Where you able to determine what language .ODFs used?

[[UFP]Exeter]

An ODF is a text file, and they are similar to both LUA and AngelScript and even Python.  I believe they were written in MaxScript, as this is how "animation" could be done, building a model and scripting it.  MaxScript was (is) a product of AutoDeslk that produce MaxScript.

What little I know:
The game engine was Storm3D which used its own format for models.
However thee was an exporter written for 3DS to export the models.  I believe there was one for Blender also.

When you do a search for Storm3D engine you get one by FrozenBytes and I do not know if it is the same engine or not.

If somebody wanted to tackle writing an importer for Armada ships, I would work with them.  But I would strongly suggest using the armada ship as a model an redoing it as the detail we support is far greater than what Armada did.

[[UFP]Exeter]

My goal is to have the game engine itself finished by mid May.

As for scripting language, I think AngelScript may work best, had it integrated within 15 minute.   Takes less code and very straightforward.  But this can be changed.  If we get somebody willing to write missions I will change to whatever scripting language the want to use.

[Starfox1701]

An ODF is a text file, and they are similar to both LUA and AngelScript and even Python.  I believe they were written in MaxScript, as this is how "animation" could be done, building a model and scripting it.  MaxScript was (is) a product of AutoDeslk that produce MaxScript.

What little I know:
The game engine was Storm3D which used its own format for models.
However thee was an exporter written for 3DS to export the models.  I believe there was one for Blender also.

When you do a search for Storm3D engine you get one by FrozenBytes and I do not know if it is the same engine or not.

If somebody wanted to tackle writing an importer for Armada ships, I would work with them.  But I would strongly suggest using the armada ship as a model an redoing it as the detail we support is far greater than what Armada did.

We won't be able to use any of the original models or mods themselves they are all either property of Activision or only licensed by their makers for nonprofit use. However the designs themselves can be replicated without problem as long as the creators are credited.

[[UFP]Exeter]

We will give credit for everything we use, so that is not an issue.  I have many Star Trek models that need textures that we have permission to use as long as we give credit.    I also have some non Trek models that need no credit as I purchased them.

[Age]

I would like to see a 3d version of SFC similar to legacey with SFC3 refit.

[[UFP]Exeter]

In a way it will be.  but similar only as we do plan on full 3D movement for combat.  But the use of grids on the main starmap.  But we do not have the code.  Also SFC3 is based on SFB, and unless permission is given to use the game mechanics we have to do our own.

[Starfox1701]

Remember the game SFC3 is the property of Activion too and after their split with Paramount they pretty much just ignore people like us when comes to help or giving any kind of permission. The new game will have to be ground up new code. there no way we will get permission to actually incorporate any part from the old games. We can recreate some feature but we will have to find our own way with the coding. I think 3d is the way to go in the game because it is both more realistic and it will make the game more challenging. It will also make pathing of the units ingame simper because they can exploit any direction to move around obstacles. What we need to do is find a compromise in the physics that lets the ships feel like ships and be more ponderous in their movement and things like drones and fighters feel faster with out resorting to artificial speed limits on the different units. Once a warship gets up too speed there are things it can out run; missiles and fighter or other ships; and things it can't; phasers, disruptors, photon torpedoes. the price is turning. One thing that would be cool is a Newtonian maneuver option.

[[UFP]Exeter]

The physics is straightforward.  We will consider mass and inertia and more vessel characteristics. 

It is interesting as in another thread individuals want a SFB type game, including 2D.

[Starfox1701]

Yes but between ADB and Activision that is an IP fight I personally don't want to pick. I personally have not seen another game that matches SFC for style. It may just be to unique a game mechanic and that means a copyright fight or license deal; neither of which look like they would go our way right now.

[[UFP]Exeter]

it becomes a mess with copyrights.  CBS currently owns Star Trek.   ADB has SFB and is licensed by CBS.   Activision owns some SFC and must have license from ADB and CBS, not sure.

A quote from US copyright law:

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

        the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
        the nature of the copyrighted work;
        the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
        the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.[2]

So it seems if the game is non commercial we are ok.   And there have been court cases to validate this.  But if we can get permission to use, especially if we can increasse the revenue stream of the copyright owner.

All remains to be seen.

[TAnimaL]

And this permission is the real sticking point. Historically, in regards to Trek, CBS/Viacom/Paramount etc has been very lenient in letting fans get away with making & selling things that violate "fair usage" (critique, teaching, criticism, commentary, research). From t-shirts, blueprints and fanzines to fan-made episodes and movies, the owners of "Star Trek" have turned a blind eye to the money made by individuals, since it doesn't amount to much money.

Historically, ADB has not. Adamantly so. If ADB is not paid for use of their copyrighted material, they will block it.

That's why the SFC:CE model can work; no real money exchanging hands, and done by fans in support of a defunct game. Once a new game is made, it might take more that just saying "it's non-commercial."

As a caveat, I'm not against a new "SFC" game - I'm really hoping it happens, but copyright law is more complex that just that quote above and it depends on how the copyright owned reacts. We here in Trek have it sooo much easier than, say, those fans of Star Wars and how Lucas acted (when in control of SW). Steve Cole is like Lucas - if a game goes up for sale based on material copyrighted by ADB without compensation, expect a cease-and-desist order ar warp speed.

[[UFP]Exeter]

Which is why nothing from ADB will be even looked at without permission to use.  Cannot copy something you have not seen in over 20 years

[Captain Adam]

.

[[UFP]Exeter]

Yes and personally I do not think it is worth it.  A few reasons:
   1.  The network system is out of date and has serious issues, it really needs to be ripped out and replaced with stabler one.  Raknet is basically free.
   2.  Th graphics would need to be updated to at least DirectX 9.  But enough has changed that this is not an easy task,.  And for the future it should be DX 11, which is a big changed.
   3.  The current CE code base does many things that are considered bad practice and creates memory leaks.

This is only my opinion.  But not to be arrogant, I have been a professional developer and a lead.  So I do know what I am talking about.   

Can it be fixed, yes, and I even suggested how.  but the CE code is owned by XenoCorp so they would have to give the direction.

But to be blunt, the new game we are calling SFC 4, is something I want to do.  I will do it either as SFC4 or a different name.  But that is what my intent is.  I am not going to make the old code base relevant for now and the future.  Like taking a rusty VW and trying to make a new Cadillac

[Strat]

As far as I know, the only thing you gain from the original series is the SFB rule set. It falls under a 'gandfather clause' of legal inheritance.. so it does not suffer any issues from SFB, or Paramount (Star Trek), etc and patenting..

[Captain Adam]

.

[knightstorm]

Personally, I'd prefer a 2d game.  I think 3D would limit the level of micromanagement that could be put into the game simply because it forces the player to maintain situational awareness from another axis.  I also feel that 3d starship combat games are pretty much a dime a dozen, and the 2d style of SFC is part of what makes it unique.  That said, the real deciding factor should be whichever you can get released the fastest.

[Captain Adam]

.

[[UFP]Exeter]

Strat does have a point, a refit of the CE game would be legal as it was already a legal license to base on the SFB code.

A new game would not.

And true there are a dime a dozen 3D games, but look at them?  They are arcade style, no real physics.  Ships move the same except maybe in speed.  I really believe if we put in proper Newtonian physics, it will make a big difference.  A fighter would run circles around a battleship.  Does less damage when a fighter hits the shields of a battleship.  And the fighter is harder to hit.  A battleship would slow to turn.  SFC3, the physics was close enough that there appeared to be some realism.   Id the 3D does not work, then we have to change it. 

One other point, my research indicates in most games, programmers either but a physics engine and learn to use it or they lean enough physics to do a reasonable level.  One advantage for us,  I am a physicist turned programming.  A real rocket scientist if you will.

I honesly believe proper physics will make a big difference. 

[[UFP]Exeter]

Let me add, I read every post and I have gotten some ideas and changes to put into the design.  So this is profitable.  And this is what I think we need.  At some point very soon the design will be frozen.  That means ideas, changes and improvements will be documented for a patch or future release.   

So I like the discussions, and it does make me think.  I see how many like the SFB concepts and the 2D approach so i will keep that in mind.

[Captain Adam]

.

[d4v1ks]

the 3D environment is done, the 2D will take a huge undertaking...

That's not true.
You can see examples of that everyday.
We live in a 3D world.
Playing SFC4 in 2D would be like driving a car in a road. The only thing that not changes is the height.

Either way i like the ideia of a game in pure 3D. But it can turn out to be more complex that we think.
Imagine for example how the IA will be. It will have to take in account the same laws of physic when it moves, turns, or changes speed. Also, it will have to take in account the movement of other objects, to avoid collisions. Path finding in 3D is more time comsuming and will have to be updated every moment.

You will see ships flying around, turned upsidedown or on its side also. Doesnt look so pretty.




Also, don't forget that in the Star Trek universe exists something called «Inertial dampeners» (they have in that time a more advanced knowledge of laws of physics that we have today).
That technology is used on Star Trek to prevent starship occupants from experiencing inertial effects of the ship.

A second set of forcefield generators is used to create a field which absorbs the inertial stress created when the ship accelerates to high impulse or warp drive. (Otherwise the high gee-forces would instantly crush our crew beyond recognition.)

So i supose ships have a mean of control that mass, inertia problem when they are ok. But, of course, we can imagine that a damaged ship will not have control on that. Just something i remembered.

I'm not trying to point anything. I'm just imagining and thinking about how the game will look and trying to remember some possible issues.

[FPF-Tobin Dax]

Perfect SFC:CE and get people playing again what they loved or wait how long for this SFC4, which may be too different to recapture their interest? 
 
The longer this takes the more I see the old and potentially new fans splitting their interest. Is sfc 4 going to be TOS-TMP based? TNG? Or will it be the JJ-verse? SFC-3 which was TNG did not appeal well to the original crowd and the new crowd only lasted a few years in any notable size. Your newest potential SFC4 players, if this takes a few years will likely want a JJ-verse.

The longer it takes with either CE or 4, the more you will fracture the interest of the player base.  Wake me up when you folks have decided and have something and hopefully I will not be in a wheelchair yet like many of the dynasaurs who embraced this game for the better part of a decade.

[Starfox1701]

I honestly think you guys need to step back and give 3d a chance. This is not going to be the SFC of days gone by but lets be honest that might not be a bad thing. We have the opportunity to oversee the development of this game. That is not something most fans get a chance to do. We have a person of skill willing to do the heavy code lifting. We need to take our time and be open minded so that we can find the best solutions to the problems that will rise in the future. In my memory a true 3d tactical strategy game has never been done so this would be as ground braking as SFC was 20 years ago.

[[UFP]Exeter]

I agree with StarFox.  And if we make a wrong choice we will step back, and fix it. 

[Age]

I like the phaser fire in a 3D eviroment as well as disruptor.

Star Trek Legacy - Firestorm (Part One)

Star Trek Legacy - Omega (Part One)

I just miss the dyna map for a campaign.

[[UFP]Exeter]

The dyna map may be something we use, but I do not have the knowledge nor the code to be able to look at any changes.   We will have to investigate this later

[Lieutenant_Q]

I love the idea of a 3D Environment.  If I were to put together a wishlist of what I wanted to see, the biggest thing is that I would like to get rid of as many menus as possible.  I'd like to run the entire campaign in the 3D Tactical screen.  There could still be a "Dyna Map" for a strategic overlay, but to move from "hex to hex" you would point your ship in the direction you needed to go, and accelerate to Warp Seven.  It may be an issue server side, and that may stop it from being implemented, but I'd love the ability to launch an ambush, or be ambushed while traveling to a destination.  (And this might just be a problem with a 3D environment despite space being 3D, every battle scene in Star Trek might as well have been 2D, the z-axis only was a couple hundred Kilometers long)  I'd love to see resupply needing to park in orbit of (or dock with) a Star Base.  If you need repairs you need to fly to a Fleet Repair Dock.  If you're looking to purchase a new ship, you can pull up the Base and see all the "Captain-less" ships waiting for you to pick them.

[[UFP]Exeter]

Well Q, you would be surprised.   The galactic map will have a hex overlay but not the click from hex to hex.  The hex overlay is for recording of locations.  The ships move and you can direct by mouse click to direction.  The menu system is different, and the plan is to use shipyards etc.  I think you will be pleased.

[FPF-Tobin Dax]

Pardon me folks.  The focus for the last couple of years has been getting SFC playable for vista/win 7 so we can get the community back to playing. We're pretty much there now so what's happening? Oh were just letting that slide and moving on to SFC 4? Focus please!  Or just say you're chasing dreams at your own leisure and cut the remaining hopeful loose, because you're just spit-balling here and enough time has gone by. Be realistic with us and yourselves. I'm tired of hoping and making what likely appears to be miniscule contributions to the cause.

[[UFP]Exeter]

The CE edition project was finished and waiting for the powers that be to get the iso etc.  I aided on that effort.   SFC4, well I am not the lead developer and it is not a pipe dream.  Coding has already started.

These discussions, specifically this thread, allows me to get ideas and preferences.  At this time I am soliciting new ideas to put in the design.  Then the design will be frozen and other ideas will be considered for a future update.

This is a dream that I have been actively working on for over a year by myself.  I have done proof of concept, testing 3rd pary libraries, do a design etc.   I also ran some tests between C++ and C#, using wrappers to verify performance.  And researched in tons of books.  All to be able to code this.   The entire time I was working with Strat on CE I was also doing this.  Talking to Fray about this over the last year, we agreed to use what I have done as the basis for SFC4.

[Javora]

Strat does have a point, a refit of the CE game would be legal as it was already a legal license to base on the SFB code.

A new game would not.

I could have sworn I suggested that in another thread...

Anyway, part of me wonders how close you can make a non CE refit SFC 4 look like SFC OP in look and feel without violating previous work?  Or put another way, someone claiming that you violated previous work.  Realistically it's not just ADB you have to worry about, I think even Erik Bethke might even have a claim here.  Don't get me wrong I think this is a wonderful idea, I just don't want anyone being punished for doing such a great deed.

3D battlefield?  So would that mean I would actually have a use for my old joystick sitting in the corner of the room for the last ten years??!?  lol.

[[UFP]Exeter]

I did evaluate a refit of CE and I do not think it would be worth it.  In my opinion I would replace the graphics, I would replace the network, I would replace the missions with a scripting language and of course replace the physics and add real collision detection.

Maybe see what strat has to say. 

[Strat]

Any major changes/additions to CE would be double the effort. It takes too much time to learn their code, undo mistakes, insert new code, and change fundamental existing aspects of the game, both technical and gameplay. This includes fixing the NAT/firewall issues, and updating the graphics abilities.

The most you can expect from CE be SFC:EAW/OP with no bugs. Perhaps a few minor additions or improvements such as various race balancing. In its essence, it would not stop being SFC EAW/OP. Kinda like when Khoromag took over bug fixing for Taldren...

Exeter's illustration with remodeling the car was accurate. If you want really a racear, it would have have to be SFC 4. As for CE, all it would ever be is a restored classic.

[RazalYllib]

SFC4 should be a ground up project - if you are going to take the time to do something of this magnitude, do it bigger and badder than anything else.

With the current state of tech, things can be done that was not possible back in the day; Improved, responsive AI - possibly one that learns (?), retro-grade maneuvering, "cruise control" speed options on hotkeys, player scripted power distribution schemes on hotkeys, larger number of weapon groups, customizable interface elements...the list is HUGE of what is possible in these times.  That does not include the eye candy options possible now- larger poly models, bump maps, volumetric lighting/fog (nebula battles in thick fog), ability to randomly generate more varied terrain to skirmish around...etc....this list is also huge.

Bandwidth is also more plentiful and that should permit more players per encounter.
More players per encounter is a must have.
If more players can participate in a single encounter (within the limits of Command Rating), this will incentivize them to play more and word of mouth of the incredible times they are having in these large fleet encounters, this will naturally increase the player base.

I can only hope that the SFB roots are not abandoned...I feel very strongly that any dev would be remiss in their duty if they should forget the lesson of Craptavision SFC3.

I do understand there is legal issues with the mechanics of SFB as an IP....Deals can be made and the "setting" of the SFU as expressed in SFB can be transparently ported to a different nomenclature without loss of playability so there would be zero issue with any potential Star Trek IP claim down the road.  There is already precident, Mirak=Kzin. 

All things considered it really does not matter what the background of the race that built the ship you happen to be piloting, all that matters is the loadout of its systems and the skill of the pilot. 

[knightstorm]

And true there are a dime a dozen 3D games, but look at them?  They are arcade style, no real physics.  Ships move the same except maybe in speed.  I really believe if we put in proper Newtonian physics, it will make a big difference.  A fighter would run circles around a battleship.  Does less damage when a fighter hits the shields of a battleship.  And the fighter is harder to hit.  A battleship would slow to turn.  SFC3, the physics was close enough that there appeared to be some realism.   Id the 3D does not work, then we have to change it. 

A 3D game, even one with realistic physics just doesn't have the same appeal to me that a 2D game does.  I always liked the 2D perspective of the SFC games as I felt it was a reminder of their board game roots.  Also, you have to remember that the ships aren't flying through each other.  They're flying over each other.  I do think that Star bases should be hittable due to their size.

One area where I do think the game needs major improvement is determining how to have territory change hands.  The current dv hex flipping method is stupid, tedious, and rewards whichever side has the most nutcases.  I think certain missions should have more value based on difficulty, and that a successful base assault should automatically flip the hex to neutral since you're essentially destroying the enemy presence in that hex.  I might also call for greater dv shifts for pvp missions except for the fact that some players who suck as badly as I do might object to giving that type of advantage to the killing machines.

[[UFP]Exeter]

Good to see so much activity and input.

The issue with SFB:  SFC4 is a new came.  Licenses that were approved for EAW/OP etc do not apply.  Therefore we cannot use it.  So, unless Fry or somebody from Dyna or XenoCorp gets an agreement we cannot use it under any circumstance.  Now, I played SFB when it first came out many many years ago.  have not touched it since.  So anything I design is based on my own experience and not copying them.  If it looks the same, too bad, that is not copyright infringement.  And to maintain this I will be the only one to design and see the code for the necessary game mechanics.  This protects us from even coincidentally infringing on copyright.  Given how they acted toward me in the past when I inquired, I my specifically mention we do not use any SFB material, the game is not based on it and we do not endorse them.

I am not abandoning SFB but we cannot use their material directly without permission.  However we own the code for EAW so if we use anything from the actual codebase, that is legal.

2D vs 3D:  This may be under discussion forever.  Unless something occurs to prove 3D does not work, it will be 3D.   The structure to do this 3D is already built and tested.

As far as tech, I am planning on requiring at least 2 cores and a DX11 compatible GPU.   I hope to require DX11 also, but for now DX9x with a DX11 compatible GPU will do.  This is because we will use the GPU for collision calculations.

I agree with a better method to change territory.

We are utilizing a modern network engine and planning on improved bandwidth.

Every third party library we re sing is open license and supplies the source code, so we will always be able to modify and upgrade.

[Javora]

Also, you have to remember that the ships aren't flying through each other.  They're flying over each other.  I do think that Star bases should be hittable due to their size.

I agree, it's something I liked in SFC as it assumes that the helm is competent enough to avoid hitting the other ship.  Now maybe if there was a button option where you try to crash into the other ship, but then the other ship should have a chance to avoid if they want to.  Star Bases on the other hand doesn't move as easy and should be hittable just like a planet.  I just hope this doesn't become an issue when people try to dock with their own Star Base.  lol

[Lieutenant_Q]

I like 3D, but from a Strategic Standpoint, there has to be a limit on the Z-Axis.  Otherwise you just have ships traveling up (or down) out of sensor range to deep strike and there is no semblance of battle lines or strategy.  Also one thing that is sorely lacking in SFC that needs to be put in is Long Range Sensors.  Unless you've got a cloak, ships need be able to be detected at much further out than 100.  Taking something from Star Trek V (I know, I know) the sensors from the Enterprise as the Bird Of Prey closed with them over Nimbus III.  At extreme range all it indicated was that the ship was Klingon, by having the symbol of the Klingon Empire, as it got closer it finally switched over to a more detailed image of the ship.

[Javora]

IIRC that is why probes were in SFC because long range sensors were too hard for them to program into the game.  But Lt. Q makes a good point with the Z-Axis, however using the SFC damage chart I can't think of too many weapons that can do damage beyond 100 range.  It's one of the things that people are going to have to figure out is how far are long range sensors are going to be able to detect something.  What sensors are going to be able to detect, type of ship, weapons systems, etc.

The other thing you have to figure is how the shields are going to wrap around the ship.

[[UFP]Exeter]

I agree on teh Z axis, and something will be done.  The limit may be determined by sensor range.  But remember space is 3D, if you re limited to the 2 dimensional thinking Khan they you will die also.

as for range SFB has an arbitrary ranges, something easy for players to handle manually.  In a computer we can be realistic.  And do some research the ranges are in 10s or thousand of km.

As for collisions, the game will not compensate for a terrible helmsman or an incompetent captain.  This will be tested in playability, and it can be changed.

Many things will be tested and if they do not work they can be changed.

[[UFP]Exeter]

An earlier post brought up inertia and inertial dampers.  Inertial dampers are to prevent the crew from flying all over.  And based on episodes that only works in controlled situations.  Something hits the ship and caused to to roll or jitter, the crew goes flying.  So the inertial dampers do no affect the ship.   Remember the early episodes of TOS, the crew holing on in fast acceleration?   No, there is inertia, be technology minimized the impact to the crew.

The effect of intertia is if the ship loses it drive 9impulse engines) the ship does not suddenly stop unless an external force is applied.  We also have momentum.   

[knightstorm]

This just occurred to me, but how are you going to prevent inertia from being abused?  Theoretically, you could take a ship with a poor power curve, turn off the weapons and accelerate to full speed, then cut power to the engines, and charge weapons while coasting.  I can also see a ship that's being chased doing a b5 style flip to deliver an alpha strike to the pursuing vessel without giving ground.

[[UFP]Exeter]

The other forces.  We assume there is no friction, but space is not an absolute vacuum.  Also there is gravity and with no thrust from the engines the ship more susceptible.  Also, without some type of thrust you will not be able to turn.  And firing weapons, esp torpedoes, there is some affect, the equal and opposite reaction.  Also this tctic would be effective against a small vessel but given the mass of a larger one.

And if this does not work we fix it.

[d4v1ks]

The other thing you have to figure is how the shields are going to wrap around the ship.

You could use a ellipsoid. As Exeter is already using the Irrlicht engine, and he can use ellipsoids in the collision detections, that could help. Also its a good approach to retrieve the id of the shield we are facing (simplifies the math needed).
That remembers me of this video...

Star Trek vs BSG HD

Just look how sweet the ellipsoid shields look, when they are hit, in the middle of the video animation.
Don't mind if SFC4 would look that way in the future, with respect to the graphics. =D

[Starfox1701]

Ellipsoids do have the advantage of requiring less memory to render and there fore creating a smaller work load in large battles.

[[UFP]Exeter]

Have not seen that video in a while, but still good.

Elipsoids are cool,  much better than sphere.  And some vector math would indicate what shield is hit.

That is the level of graphics I am shooting for, if not better.  But my skills are not in the modelling or graphics.  Even my 14 yo daughter is wy better than I am   But I can do the math, physics and coding.

[d4v1ks]

Even more... its a good way of abstract the ship's object when development a IA agent, for example. It only require a vector3 to store its size.

[[UFP]Exeter]

actually a couple of them, one for the shields as we are discussing and another for the bounding shape for collision.

[EschelonOfJudgemnt]

Just thought I'd throw this out here, seeing someone mentioned Andorians...

The TNG/DS9/Post universe has been explored a lot with Star Trek games.  But the Enterprise setting/pre TOS has been pretty much left alone as far as I know.  I for one think it would be cool to see an Enterprise-era game for a change of pace.  Especially since the Gorns and Tholians, and of course the Klingons all made appearances in that series.

I'm sure this era has been given lip service in some of the latest Star Trek games, but I'd love to see it given a fair shake in SFC terms!

[[UFP]Exeter]

I actually like that idea, we would be able to do what we wanted, and freedom for the modelers.

[Lepton]

Said it before and I will say it again.  There is already a 3D Star Trek ship combat game well under development.  That is Star Trek:Excalibur.  Rather than reinventing the wheel, it would make more sense to extend that project to meet the demands of SFB-styled systems and rule sets.  At the rate these kind of projects progress it will be 10 years before there is a final product which is more than likely never to come.

SFC:CE is a great achievement.  The game we love can be played for many more years to come, but I simply don't see the sense in creating yet another independent fan-created project that may never see the light of day.  The best chance for something to be released is for people who love the franchise to be pulling in one direction on the same weight, not to create another Sisyphean boulder to push up a hill all on your own.

Everyone hates when I say it, but I have said it.

Fire away.

[[UFP]Exeter]

My goal in starting this was a 3D version of the SFC series.  I tried to get the SFB ruleset and was denied.  I am not making a 3D arcade style game such as excalibur, sto etc.  I want the graphics to look realistic.  It will use the "hex" style galactic map.  So much of it is improvements. 

It is from scratch to utilize the better technology or today.  For performance.

the speed of combat in SFC II will be maintained so we do not get into the arcade, joystick.

[knightstorm]

Well, if you ever do decide to change your mind on the 3D thing, I'll dance like this guy.

YOU ARE NOT THE FATHER!!!!

[[UFP]Exeter]

LOL  That just might be worth it.

[Lepton]

Yeah, graphics are not realistic in the slightest.

Launching the Enterprise

NanoFX Graphics Renderer 1.7 Preview

Excalibur | Deferred Lighting

Why you so arcadey??!!!

Excalibur | Systems Overview Previs

No physics!!!!

Excalibur | UI, Physics & Camera Demonstration

Whatever.

[[UFP]Exeter]

Interesting videos.

But, I never did say Excalibur does not have something, as I have not seen anything but demos.

Arcade style.  Check out the combat demo. When any combat gets to the point of fast action, rapid movement it is becoming arcade style.

And I am not tring to push my point of view.  Rather solicit others, including ones I disagree with.

The Dyna community is free to do as it wishes.  If it prefers something else, then do it.

What I cam with was my concept, proof concept completed, verification of library performance and a game ending itself maybe 75% complete. 

It is not my intent to belittle or insult any idea, and I will discuss, and based upong presented facts I will change my mind.

As I said, if the community (Dyna) does not want my concept, I will be glad to go my own way.

[EschelonOfJudgemnt]

The Star Trek Universe isn't very Newtonian, but a particular Newtonian sim I've seen is the B5 one the Russian guys did (Babylon 5: I've found her, Danger & Opportunity)... Alas, doing the Google thing, it looks like they've lost their website; ifhgame.ru is now down/for sale.

I did find some 'transitional' forums:
http://ivefoundher.forum-free.org/

I took a spin with the Star Furies, and I have to tell you, getting a handle on the whole matching course and speed thing to get a 'tail/rear' shot, in three dimensions when Newton in the driver's seat, and you are on an intercept trajectory, well THAT was a challenge.  Especially when you separate facing from direction of travel.  They had a couple of conventions where the thrusters would attempt to kill velocity and then increase to a set velocity in the direction you were pointing, but this is WAAAAAY different than most space sims I've played.

My point is that 3 dimensions shouldn't automatically mean atmospheric style dogfighting... which is something that a lot of space sims ignore in the quest of simplicity/keeping it comfortable for players.  Unfortunately, Star Trek uses 'Cinematic' space combat, not Newtonian...

[Captain Adam]

.

[[UFP]Exeter]

It can get frustrating, but I have gotten some great suggestions from others. 

I also understand the desire for something similar to SFC2 EAW etc, but unless we get the ok from ADB not going to happen.

2D vs 3D, well the idea of ships automatically avoiding each other cause the helmsman is good, to me does not fit with the rest of the game.

And I dislike BS and Legacy so even thought 3D the game will not play like them.   So combat will be similar to SFC2, with some of the good ideas from SFC3 and BC.

[Captain Adam]

.

[[UFP]Exeter]

I have collected loads of information.  As soon as some discussion regarding models and moding are resolved I will consolidate the changes into the design doc and freeze it for the first release.   No real changes to what I have done except possibly remove one library and that will make it easier.

[Czar Mohab]

Seriously just make it functional. This is all the graphics I need:

Fed: O-Ξ
Kling: o-{
Rom: this thing since all their ships are bird related anyway. And they can be quite mad.
Gorn: Ɑ+Đ-
Thol: ˂¤
Mir/Kzin: ˂ж Ξ
Lyran:
«ȹ--
«ȸ--
Card: (backwards from the others) ><D
Borg: 
Andromedan: Œ
Starbase: *
Listening Post: .
Plasma Torp: ●≈

Had more but forum ate them. Bad translation from Word. Seriously. Had hydran, alternate Tholians and Roms, base and battle stations, dominion, better cardies, etc. etc.... oh well.

Kidding aside, 2D or 3D i can go either way. Era does not matter to me (Between the Ent-B and TNG would be awesome, there's at least 6 decades of mostly untouched stuff there) as long as it is not in JJ's timeline. The #1 thing I have as an "I wish it gets in" is the ability to be played on the laptop I use for work. Because sometimes... well... you get the idea. Which is one of the reasons I posted some alternate "models" above  . If it isn't lappy happy, I'll still play it, though.

The Czar.

[TheStressPuppy]

When you say SFC 4 the first thing you think of is.. SFC. Specifically SFC EaW, and OP.

If you create something totally different from SFC then it shouldn't be called SFC. You don't have to use any of the ADB rulesets, IP, Ship classes, etc. etc. You can make up your own rules, and IP specifically for this game, and still have the game play similar to SFC. Especially if you plan on using 3D movement which ADB has absolutely no license on. It will be our own IP (Except for the Paramount owned canon material) Any similarity to what ADB put out will be purely coincidental, and the burden of proof would be on them.

Excalibur has been in development for far too long, and IMO it is becoming Vaporware. Excalibur is pretty much a spiritual successor to Bridge Commander, and i don't see the people with the IP on Bridge Commander breathing down their necks with cease, and desist letters. Just as Supreme Commander is a spiritual successor to Total Annihilation. Remember, Similar to, but NOT the Same. If we keep that in mind ADB can not touch SFC 4.

[Starfox1701]

To me the core of SFC 3rd person perspective, having to do all the system management and having little ship squadrons and a moderately paced combat system. These are in my mind the central components that a new game must accomplish to earn the title SFC. Some things like the free form short campaign need to be changed but I could see a Galactic conquest type mode as part of the single player game and could serve as the basis of the online game.

[[UFP]Exeter]

I do not care for BC or STO, nor Legacy.  My vision is based on SFC  (Not SFB) even though based on it, SFC3 even less so.  I also would like a galactic arm map that as different races are played and win or lose battles the state of the galaxy changes.  Multiplayer would be awesome with each combat affecting the control of space.   Starbases and planets assaulted with armadas of player reams. 

As for running on laptops,, I am developing on a laptop.  The game will run its best with a modern GPU, dual (or greater) core and DX11.  But will run on DX9, single core, but slower.

[Starfox1701]

I think we will still good ram and a passable video card

[[UFP]Exeter]

My intent is to design the game to run on a DX11 GPU that supports the use of the GPU for number cruching, such as collision.  And dual core for the rest.  An DX11 for the graphics.

Anything less should run but not the best

[TheStressPuppy]

The only issue with 32 bit mode is the 2 gig ram limit. Sins of a Solar Empire found this out the hard way. If you can scale down the textures, and meshes for 32 bit. I don't see any issue. We have done decent work in 32 bit for years.

[Starfox1701]

32b it should'nt limit the ram to 2 gig. Fleet ops got Armada 2 to run on 3 gig at 32 bit

[[UFP]Exeter]

The issue will be paging and virtual memory, death to a game.  We need to use effective memory management.  And I am not adverse to saying 64 bit if that is what it takes.

The limit is for 32 bit 4 gig of total addressable memory, including graphics etc. But in reality PAE extends the addressable range on 32 bit os to 64G, if enabled.

For our purposes, we want the combat portion of the game to run in the RAM.  Smaller the better.

[Starfox1701]

dumb question when you say smaller is better do you mean the memory used or the memory available?

[[UFP]Exeter]

for combat we do not want any paging or virtual memory swaps AT ALL.  So the less memory used he better.   But this is the most memory intesive portion of the game.  My estimates are 4G RAM.  This should leave about 2G for the game on Windows 7.  But as we get closer we will run some tests.

[TheStressPuppy]

This is where optimization will be very important. Try not to cram too much into the game just "because you can". Just because you can run a 100,000 triangle mesh doesn't mean you should. When a 10k mesh with good textures can do the very same job using much less resources. There are ways to optimize code too, but i don't know much about that. I just know it can be done.

[Starfox1701]

for combat we do not want any paging or virtual memory swaps AT ALL.  So the less memory used he better.   But this is the most memory intesive portion of the game.  My estimates are 4G RAM.  This should leave about 2G for the game on Windows 7.  But as we get closer we will run some tests.

What causes paging or virtual memory swaps?

[[UFP]Exeter]

Memory is used in chunks, so if a chunk is not being used and another program or process needs it, that page is saved to the hard drive and the memory is free.  This is the pagefile.  An example if you have multiple programs running and the current one needs more, it will take the least used and save it to a pagefile. 

Virtual takes some of the hard drive and treats it as an extension to memory.  So you can make the system appear to have 16G or more when it only has 2G.  Typically stack or heap data is stored here, but if you run over then the virtual is used.

If a player has multiple things at one running, then a pagefile could be used.  Nothing we can do about this, except have accurate memory requirements.

Virtual, if we use dll's where we can, and create our own heap and control the memory we can minimize the use of virtual, or even use it to our advantage.  Also, offloading the physics to the GPU will help.  However, an integrated graphics that uses the system RAM will not be the best.

For development I am running a 64 bit system with 8G ram, so my tools load and I can run the game and  observe memory usage.  But I am developing the game as a 32 bit program.

[EschelonOfJudgemnt]

A thought...

These days, we are seeing the PC computer industry's sales numbers plummeting, as more and more people are jumping on the tablet bandwagon.

I'm sure that there are users out there that would love an SFC-ish experience on their tablets, or possibly even smartphones although I would think everything would end up being so tiny that trying to do energy allocation, etc. on a smartphone might be a little frustrating.

My point is, this is the wave of the future, and I can see some good sales opportunities for tablet based games.  With this being the case, any such design would need to be 'scaled' performance wise to perform well on a tablet.  This is a relatively untapped market that should be considered.

That being said, the IPad that my job provided me I only use for business, but I see a LOT of people jumping on the tablet bandwagon these days.

Also, desktops are becoming relative dinosaurs, as laptops have become much more versatile, with better/more port options as well as better CPU & Graphics performance.  I know I'm stating the obvious here, but my point is that high poly counts and higher memory requirements won't fly on ultraportable systems very well, and that is where a good share of the market is these days.

Personally, I haven't relied, or really used much,  a desktop computer in almost a decade now, ever since AMD raised the bar r.e. mobile graphics performance and made decently performing graphics solutions on a laptop affordable, forcing Intel and NVidia to follow suit.  Do keep in mind that I do some sound mixing on my laptops, which can be rather CPU intensive, and the laptops have done fine.  I'm sure I could find slightly better performance on a desktop system, but my laptops provide more than adequate performance for my needs.

Food for thought.

[Captain Adam]

.

[[UFP]Exeter]

I have noticed that business are turning away for pads as production slows down.  The Windows 8 touch pad is terrible for real work.  I have tried them and hate them.  It is a revolution the computer industry is driving and I do not see it as the wave of the future.

I agree with laptops ovr desktops.  In fact I use only laptops now, and major companies are going the route of laptops.  The game is being coded on a laptop, by the way.

As for Windows 8, not a chance.  The game should run on Windows 8, but the OS is garbage.

[Captain Adam]

.

[TheStressPuppy]

Desktops may have lost their utility over the years, but there is still no better platform to use for PC gaming. Mainly because the most powerful laptop still doesn't come close in performance to a desktop with equal specs. Though to give laptops credit they did come a long way. Plus if something breaks on a PC like the video card you can always get a new card. A laptop if something breaks you trash the entire laptop.

[[UFP]Exeter]

With laptops if you spend the money for a very high end one, hey do well for years.  Also the utility, I use mine at home and work.

[Captain Adam]

.

[[UFP]Exeter]

I did the same thing yeas ago, and I like it.  Nice 18" screen and DX11.  Only problem with most laptops is they share memory between CPU and GPU rather than dedicated GPU memory.  That does affect performance some.

[Starfox1701]

Well if the game as great graphic and can preform on a good laptop the imagine what it will do unchained on a high en d desktop.

[Captain Adam]

.

[TheStressPuppy]

My rig is an i5 2.5 gig laptop with 6 gigs ram, and an intel graphics 3000 chip. Though it is kind of dated. It still serves its purpose until i can build a new gaming rig. I can play Skyrim, Dead Space 1, 2, 3, Supreme Commander, and Mass effect 1, 2, 3 on it with very little trouble. Older games are a cakewalk.

I would rather play games on a good desktop rig with a big ass monitor ( or a 32 inch+ 1080p LCD tv), surround sound. Sitting in a nice comfy chair in my "man cave".

[[UFP]Exeter]

The base system I am developing on is an older laptop.  Intel Dual core 2.66Ghz, 8G Ram, NVidea GEForce 9600M GT running Win 7 64 bit, with DirectX 11.

As with most GPU's on laptops they use the system ram.

This 4 year old system will be my minimum benchmark, to get the game performing well on this system.  It will be the minimum system requirements except for the RAM, as I need the extra to debug code.

[Czar Mohab]

How does that Nvidia compare to an AMD Mobility Radeon 4200? Or Intel HD Graphics integrated on an Intel Pentium P6100 (honestly I hate Intel graphics... can't do much with it...)? Either of these would be the laptop that I would use for this game. Both are DX11.

The CPUs and RAM are comparable, more or less, to your baseline (AMD Turion II Ultra Dual-Core Mobile M640 @ 2.6GHz, 8GB RAM; and Intel Pentium P6100 @ 2.0GHz 4GB RAM; both dual core) so I am not concerned here.

Then again, like I said, I don't need super pretty. I just need to be able to tell things apart.

Fun fact: the AMD has 256MB dedicated VRAM with the rest shared with the system. Makes things interesting.

The Czar

[TheStressPuppy]

Intel graphics did kinda suck on older laptops i had, but so far i have not had any issues with this one. Which is a pleasant surprise.

If the game looks anything like the Nanofx evolved engine i dont think ill have any issue.

[[UFP]Exeter]

I wish I knew more about the evolved engine.  I found a post saying they used Bullet physics and another one saying they used Newton.  Not te mention NanoFX was DirectX 9.  But all third party, nothing on teir site and too lazy to search the forums.

[[UFP]Exeter]

I have taken assl the suggestions and redoing the game design.  I was going to post it in the Development forum but do not have access to give anyone access

[Starfox1701]

I know the version they are using is more advanced then the last version of the viewer that is up for download. I also have a pdf I found detailing how they want models prepared. I haven't finished reading it yet.

[TheStressPuppy]

We really don't need the "newtonian physics" unless you plan on doing ginsu damage effects. The ships themselves should move like hulking big ships that don't turn on a dime, and not like fighters. That is the one thing that bugged me about late TNG, and Dominion War era. The way the ships zipped around like they had no mass at all.

 I am sure if you contacted Nanobyte he would be more than happy to explain his engine to you.

[[UFP]Exeter]

Not true, the lack of "proper" physics is why ships move like they have no mass.  Some of the things we need the physics for, Thrust, impulse, velocity, acceleration, mass, other forces and very important is collision detection.

[Czar Mohab]

I see these giant ships as having a foot deep into the door of subspace. It allows them to bend Newton's physics, but not necessarily break them. SFB & SFC 1-3 show this perfectly - big ships accelerate and turn slower than small ones. Speed 0 is stopped. Etc., etc., etc. Even KA had this (with the added bonus of collisions being Newtonian until you regained control, that whole equal and opposite thing...).

One game I played long ago used similar non-Newtonian physics, except when you "cut the engines" - then our old buddy Newton took over and you could coast. Granted, you did eventually slow down (never tried it long enough to see if it would eventually stop or if gravity had any effect, such as crashing into a planet instead of coasting by it). The game was (and I suppose is still) Freelancer.

Just my 2cp.

The Czar

[[UFP]Exeter]

SFB & SFC 1-3 show this perfectly - big ships accelerate and turn slower than small ones. Speed 0 is stopped. Etc., etc., etc. Even KA had this (with the added bonus of collisions being Newtonian until you regained control, that whole equal and opposite thing...).

One game I played long ago used similar non-Newtonian physics, except when you "cut the engines" - then our old buddy Newton took over and you could coast. Granted, you did eventually slow down (never tried it long enough to see if it would eventually stop or if gravity had any effect, such as crashing into a planet instead of coasting by it). The game was (and I suppose is still) Freelancer.

All Newtonian physics.  But some exceptions, for example the series demonstrate a "limited" inertial damping system.   Normal deceleration, the crew is not affected.  But torpedoes hitting, collisions and the dampers do not work.  So there is some bending of physics, but not that much

[Captain Adam]

.

[d4v1ks]

I have taken all the suggestions and redoing the game design.  I was going to post it in the Development forum

That's great news. I'm curious about the game design you want to implement.

[d4v1ks]

Just remembered.
About those missions scripts. How people could give ideias, or talk about, the kind of missions they would like to have, if we have no ideia about the current ships designs or systems? 
Please, are you hable to give us some insight about your current ships designs?

[[UFP]Exeter]

I hope to have the design completed and posted this weekend.  That will provide more information.  The public version will be missing the implementation details.  You can see what it will do , now how it does it. 

Sorry no videos, need to get the in game physics working.  And I really need modes in .x with dds textures to test that out also.

[Captain Adam]

.

[[UFP]Exeter]

Starfox has stepped in to corrdinate the effort.   I have test models for building the game, but I do need models we will use soon to start designing the loading of textures and the hot point data from the models.

[TheStressPuppy]

The stuff i made, and converted to the nanofx viewer is yours if you want to test it. All .X format with dds textures. Fair warning. I made this stuff years ago, and the poly counts are not very high. Where do i send it? PM me with an email.

[[UFP]Exeter]

I appreciate it. 

[[UFP]Exeter]

A thought on strategic overlays, long range sensor, the works.

How about, from the main gaming screen, a tactical view, is the ability to view the quadrant map, tha twill only show your position in the quadrant.  Then a long range sensor display that shows a hex map out to the distance of long range sensors and shows contacts.  And with probes, they can modify the range of long and short range sensors.

Comments of suggestions?

[Captain Adam]

.

[[UFP]Exeter]

Interesting concept.  We almost achieve that as you do not use them both at once.  Do go to long range you view a long range map area (sectors).  But worth some thought

[Captain Adam]

.

[[UFP]Exeter]

all this discussion is giving me ideas, exactly what we need.

[Captain Adam]

.

[Starfox1701]

Ithink a combo of the BC system where we have warp, impulse and reserve power but use the SFC where you can preset what major systems get priority in order too. Well come up with our own list of major systems and be able to set them.

[Lieutenant_Q]

I'm OK with having Warp in the game, I want Warp in the game.  But there needs to be a ramp up period.  Most of the ships systems are powered from the Warp Core, shifting all that power from defensive and offensive systems to the Nacelles to start traveling Faster Than Light would take time and hamstring the ship until it actually hit Warp Speed.

So... hypothetically speaking.  I'm in an Intrepid Class Starship for the moment, and I see that D'Deridex class Warbird decloak.  It out guns me, it probably even got the jump on me.  I can do one of two things, I can engage Warp immediately, and pray that the gunners on the Warbird are lousy, or I can take a defensive posture, and try to flee at impulse until I can get to a point where I feel safe enough to Warp Away.  I'm not going to trust the blind luck of "Luck-less" Romulans, I raise my shields and hit full impulse.  Fortunately, I do have Aft Torpedoes, so I can keep them at bay.  Now, when the time comes to Warp, I hit the button, and starts the following sequence.  Each step should take anywhere from 10 to 15 seconds. (and it can be adjusted based on playtesting)

1. Warp Drive Engaged
2. Power to Weapons cut off (Phasers can still fire from Capacitors, but Capacitors will no longer recharge) (And yes Capacitors were on screen in ST:II.  When Kirk called for Yellow alert, Sulu powered up the Phaser Capacitor)
3. Power to Shield Reinforcement cut off.  (Shields still operate at normal levels)
4. Power shunted to Nacelles.
5. Ship Accelerates to Full Impulse at base Acceleration Speed.  (If already at Full Impulse, skip this step and move to Step 6)
6. Accelerate to Warp 1. (At this point in time the Warp Field is forming, so Acceleration speed should increase exponentially)
7. Ship reaches Warp 1.

Something similar should occur whenever you wanted to do a Warp Turn.  (Use the Warp Drive to lower the Mass of your ship to make the turn faster.)  But once you get to step four, since you aren't trying to warp away, the field forms and immediately allows you to reduce your turn mode.  (You still can't turn on a dime, but you can turn much faster for as long as you want to be defenseless)

Anyways... that's how I'd do it.  I suppose you could even have a "Hot Rod Mode"  Where you try to halfway it between the two, at the expense of damaging your Nacelles.

[Javora]

The Warp debate is going on in two different threads.  IMHO I would try to find a way to merge the two threads.  Until then I'm going to re-post here what I wrote in the other thread to try and keep on the same page.


"
My suggestion is to use the "Warp Button" as a forfeit mission option while in a mission.  Sort of like leaving the map in SFC 2/OP.  That way we can have plasma, missiles, etc and bring the fighting style back to SFC 2/OP which IMHO worked best.  This also removes some of the issues programming and while playing as you don't have to deal with what someone stated "jumping bean" players.

This way keeps the warp terminology in the Star Trek game while keeping used for what we repeatedly saw on screen...  as a way to retreat.
"

[Captain Adam]

.

[Starfox1701]

I see only on problem Q, Going to warp won't cut power to weapons unless the ship is way over gunned or is underpowered. This is because of the way canon power systems work. Both the impulse and warp drive have EPS power taps that collect the free electrons from the respective drive plasma streams. Since neither drive uses the electrons low end warp speed would still leave plenty of electrons for the "main energizers" to recover. It is only the high warp where the Matter/Antimatter ratio is 1:1 that main power is only used for propulsion.

[[UFP]Exeter]

Consider, TMP, phasers were re routed through the warp engines for more power.

Therefore warp engine power is online, but no engaged.

But to accommodate the Picard Manuever, there needs to be a quick jump ahead warp.  The Hot Rod mode.  Limitation, short distance, short burst.  Can damage warp engines

Then the regular warp and I like Q's suggestion.

[Czar Mohab]

I see only on problem Q, Going to warp won't cut power to weapons unless the ship is way over gunned or is underpowered. This is because of the way canon power systems work. Both the impulse and warp drive have EPS power taps that collect the free electrons from the respective drive plasma streams. Since neither drive uses the electrons low end warp speed would still leave plenty of electrons for the "main energizers" to recover. It is only the high warp where the Matter/Antimatter ratio is 1:1 that main power is only used for propulsion.

I only fully disagree with your last sentence (the rest makes sense), and I see your point of view and where you are coming from on the whole. From a non-Trek but science-y point of view, matter and antimatter should only ever mix at 1:1. Its simply because one antimatter would react with one matter. For use in a MAM engine, the only usable (for energy production) ratio would remain 1:1 even if the input ratio was set to something else, such as 4:3. The remaining, unused portion of the ratio would go on, effectively wasted and potentially disastrous should the unused portion be antimatter.

See Antimatter

Now, in Trek canon:

Hyperspace physics test - among others, it featured a trick question: "If the matter and antimatter tanks on a Galaxy-class starship are nine-tenths depleted, calculate the intermix ratio necessary to reach a starbase one hundred light years away at warp factor 8." It was a trick question because there is only one matter/antimatter intermix ratio, that being one to one

See Starfleet Academy entrance exam and TNG: Coming of Age

And back on topic:

Q: at 10 seconds for each step that puts you at one minute and ten seconds to reach warp one. Honestly I would think that the first 5 steps would be simultaneous, and the entire process taking 10-15 seconds to get to step 6 (while the field is forming the ship can use the field to accelerate to and beyond full impulse - which kind of makes 5 become "using either impulse or warp", hastening the process). The entire event should take no longer than 20 seconds - a minute to get to warp 1 seems excessive. A lot can happen in a minute...

I agree with the warp turn (it should do something energy-wise) however the ship could still make quick turns using exhaust vectoring from the impulse manifolds, including setting 1/2 of the impulse engines to "go backwards" (ex.: port ahead full, starboard back full), thus mitigating the "bad" effects of using a warp turn.

Others: Klingon Academy did warping correctly, imho. In-system warps were performed at warp 1 (energy, if available, was automatically allocated for this) allowing the ship to get where it needed to go quickly, including "out of trouble". Out-system warps were performed at whatever your ship could do based on damage, energy, etc. and that was that. In either event, since power to do the warp had to come from somewhere, systems would require being shut down to free up the power. Unless you had a vessel with enough to spare for in-system warps.

Heck, KA did a lot right. Except make a sequel.

The Czar

[[UFP]Exeter]

I only fully disagree with your last sentence (the rest makes sense), and I see your point of view and where you are coming from on the whole. From a non-Trek but science-y point of view, matter and antimatter should only ever mix at 1:1. Its simply because one antimatter would react with one matter. For use in a MAM engine, the only usable (for energy production) ratio would remain 1:1 even if the input ratio was set to something else, such as 4:3. The remaining, unused portion of the ratio would go on, effectively wasted and potentially disastrous should the unused portion be antimatter.

One of the laws of physics I do not intend to break.

Q: at 10 seconds for each step that puts you at one minute and ten seconds to reach warp one. Honestly I would think that the first 5 steps would be simultaneous, and the entire process taking 10-15 seconds to get to step 6 (while the field is forming the ship can use the field to accelerate to and beyond full impulse - which kind of makes 5 become "using either impulse or warp", hastening the process). The entire event should take no longer than 20 seconds - a minute to get to warp 1 seems excessive. A lot can happen in a minute...

For the in system warp, a few seconds.  For the system warp, 10 seconds, maybe

[Captain Adam]

.

[Captain Adam]

.

[[UFP]Exeter]

I am trying to determine the time based on the actual occurrence.  I will check the picard maneuver today.  And hunt for a full scene of warp engagement also.

[Lieutenant_Q]

That's just it, though, it NEEDS to be longer.  Otherwise we have the SFC3 warp in/warp out maneuvers that made the game pretty much an arcade game.  I'd also like a cool-down period for the Nacelles, where they have to be inactive, maybe for up to 5 minutes, before they can be used again safely. (You can risk it, at the expense of Nacelle Damage, just like an HET failure, although I wouldn't make it a ship wide system failure)  While maybe a minute-ten is too long, I think even 30 seconds is too short.  That is something will have to be play-tested to death.  Another thing that I wanted to see in SFC3, I even had asked Mr. Ferrel at the time, was to make Nacelles hittable, and if they take even a little bit of damage, it greatly affects your ability to Warp.  If the damage is moderate, you can't use the Nacelle at all.  A big problem for 1 or 2 Nacelle Ships, 3 or 4 Nacelle Ships could try to re-balance to make up for the damaged Nacelle, but you weren't going anywhere very fast down a Nacelle.

The reasoning behind taking power from the systems is that there has to be some downside to going to Warp, most of the time you're using it to disengage, its rare that you're actually using it to maneuver around the battle zone.  One other item regarding Torpedoes though.  Canon has Torpedoes as physical objects that need to be reloaded, although almost every Star Trek game has them as something that simply requires power.  (A Final Unity, The Rebel Universe and Bridge Commander are the only ones that comes to mind that actually kept track of how many Torpedoes the Enterprise (or the ship in general) had left.)  If they are handled as physical objects here, then of course they can be available for use at Warp, since there's no power requirements outside of the power used to launch the Torpedo to begin with, which could be pulled from various sources, Aux Power, Batteries, etc.

[Age]

It is to bad you can't beam to other ships or planets.It would also be nice if the Klinks BoP wings folded.

Phasers don't work at warp speeds only torpedos do.

[Lieutenant_Q]

Phasers don't work at warp speeds only torpedos do.

That's never been canon.  There's plenty of instances where ships fire Phasers while at Warp.  TOS was full of it.  But even TNG, DS9, VOY, and ENT have scenes where it did happen. 

[[UFP]Exeter]

That's never been canon.  There's plenty of instances where ships fire Phasers while at Warp.  TOS was full of it.  But even TNG, DS9, VOY, and ENT have scenes where it did happen.

True, however, warp engines do impact phasers.  TMP

[Starfox1701]

Phaser range is severely degrade at warp speed because the warp field causes accelerated nadion annihilation in the beam rendering it ineffective over a much shorter distance than at sublight.

[[UFP]Exeter]

Is this a SFU thing as can find no reference to it on google or Trek Wikis

[Starfox1701]

I can't remember where I saw that however this is probably one of the best technical articles on the web.

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/inconsistencies/treknology-weapons.htm

[Czar Mohab]

Is this a SFU thing as can find no reference to it on google or Trek Wikis

See this Memory Alpha page, way down in the "Establishing Technology" section.

The 1991 reference book Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual (pp. 123-125) explain the inner mechanisms of a phaser in more elaborate detail. Phaser is, according to the book, the acronym for phased energy rectification – named for the process of turning stored energy into an energy beam without an intermediate transformation. Energetic plasma is pumped to a prefire chamber made out of a superconducting lithium-copper. There, it undergoes a rapid nadion effect in which strong nuclear forces are liberated. A protonic charge forms and is released in pulses to the emitter made out of the same superconductive crystal. A beam of elecromagnetic energy is released from it, at the speed of light. On starships, energy for phasers originates from the EPS, while on hand units, the charge of energetic plasma is stored into sarium-krellide. This material is used because it can't accidentally release the charge of plasma.

Dialogue in the 1991 episode TNG: "The Mind's Eye" concerning the internal mechanics of a type 3 phaser rifle confirm, canonically, all the elements as they were established in the Manual. However, in Star Trek, phasers have been regularly used while starships travel at warp speeds, so the beam must also be traveling at faster-than-light velocities. Beginning with the 1993 episode TNG: "Inheritance", instead of being labeled as EM weapons, as the reference works have stated, phasers have been consistently referred to as particle beam weapons on screen. This information was also included in the 1994 Star Trek: Voyager Technical Manual - Writer's Guide, and has been corroborated in such episodes as "Time and Again", "Memorial" and "Endgame".

Even though the phaser beam was canonically established as not a beam of pure EM energy but a particle beam of nadions, the 1998 reference book Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Technical Manual still goes on to describe the phaser beam as an EM energy beam. According to page 84 of the Manual, a phaser beam can be delivered at warp speeds due to an annular confinement beam jacket and other advances in subspace technology. These are stated to be new inventions in the late-24th century. However, considering that first on-screen uses of phasers at warp occurred as early as the first season of The Original Series, this timeline for the invention would be inconsistent with canon. Furthermore, according to page 92 of the Manual, when phasers are fired by a ship with deflector shields active, the beam is frequency locked to the second-order harmonics of the shield emissions. This prevents the beam impacting on the shields and overloading them, or rebounding back at the firing ship.

See also this nerdy and this very nerdy thread.

Realistically, since "what is on screen is canon", and they show, with no obvious degradation effects, phasers firing at warp (See TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY; ENT used similar but different weapons but should be included; not sure if it was seen in TAS or not, that'll be my project for the weekend),  firing phasers at warp, therefore, is canon.

The only reason why it would not be possible is if the phaser's ability to fire was removed (e.g. damage, loss of power, etc.). See ST:TMP (the deal in TMP wasn't that they could not fire at warp, but was because there was no power to fire them).

Now that it has been established that it can happen, we need to establish the range - the common theory being that once the beam is no longer within a warp field it would return to "normal" speed. This theory, therefore, would suggest that the range is limited to the warp field size of the firing vessel, and if the target's warp field is touching or within the firing ship's field, the range is extended to include that field (or fields - under this theory it is possible to "daisy chain" a phaser shot through multiple fields to reach its target) until the phaser's own "natural" range is met. This theory I like; however, may be difficult to implement and confusing/frustrating to those that don't understand.

I personally recommend that all weapons be unavailable (or extremely limited in range and accuracy) during warp flight for the firing vessel, and extremely inaccurate when firing at a vessel at warp (whether the firing vessel is at warp or not). Further, the effects imposed during warp should last for a short duration following the warp event. This will make the playing field more level in MP match ups, and reduce the instances of Warp in and Alpha (Picard Maneuvering) or Warp-Alpha-Warp (SFC3 warp-hopping). To make it believable, just say that the firing control gets wonky when at warp or dealing with vessels at warp, and while it is (or is not, whichever way SFC4 goes) possible, the effects are so reduced it isn't worth the effort, until fire control un-wonks itself.

The Czar

[[UFP]Exeter]

My thought is no weps at warp.  The implications to the game code and the game states are complicated.  The Picard maneuver will work as it will be an application of warp 1 velocity for a short duration.  In the Picard maneuver the Ferengi fired at the wrong ship and that gave the Stargazer a chance.  This also indicates the weapons do not fire instantly when coming out of warp.

But in game, as we know what this is, would it be useful as you see two ships, one in the original location and a new location.  We would know which to select.

[Captain Adam]

.

[[UFP]Exeter]

I like the warp effect on the last clip, the rapid acceleration, modeate sound and the bright flash at the end.

Warp Speed!

[Starfox1701]

I would like the game to be able to do all of them. We don't have to add them all in ourselves but a setup so the effect is moddable is goo.

[[UFP]Exeter]

Agreed.  No reason not to do that, just like any other effect or graphic.  .