Results 1 to 5 of 5

Hey Carl. You seen this? Newtonian movement in HW2 engine

  1. #1
    Member ratamaq's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    NOLA

    Hey Carl. You seen this? Newtonian movement in HW2 engine

    Apparently this has been there the whole time, just never implemented? Watch the video in this thread. The fighter movement looks way better than what HW1 or HW2 had.

    http://forums.gearboxsoftware.com/t/...ehavior/222027

  2. #2
    Member Carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    The Crossroads of Inertia
    Yes i've seen that and as i said way back that's not Newtonian or HW1 or anything close.

    What happens in HW1:

    Target comes into range and the fighter starts firing. As they cross paths the fighter turns whilst continuing to move in it's old direction firing as it turn acting like a turret in space almost. Eventually it gets far enough past it's out of range and it flicks back around to it's travel direction before eventually manoeuvring to get another pass.

    What is Happening there:

    Target comes into range with the attacker heading straight at it. Attacker fires and blazes past. Once far enough past the AI commands a turn is executed to bring the ship back around. Due however to the turn rate radically outstripping the acceleration it end up facing in a different direction to it's travelling direction for the few seconds it takes for the the ships velocity on it's old vector to go away and the velocity on the new vector to accumulate, it's never actually continuing to travel in it's old vector.

    Certainly the way ships turns looks more like HW1, and that's no great surprise. But it is in no way truly Newtonian with direction of facing and direction of motion totally decoupled and it never comes close to emulating the key behaviour f HW1 where fighters could fire in directions they weren't accelerating in whilst maintaining a steady velocity in another direction. Also the OP of that post needs a smack on the head. Evasive tactics in HW1 produced plenty of very visible random movement of individual ships, they moved roughly their width side to side and back/forth and up/down constantly. But then i've noticed he posts more bad info than most over at the gearbox forums. he was the one claiming double missile corvette damage when it was only, (varying a little depending on target ship), 20% for example and his posts on HW1 assault frigs where so full of fail.
    I don't know what i'm talking about, ignore me.

    Thousands of years ago, Egyptians worshipped what would become our ordinary housecat. The cats have never forgotten this.

  3. #3
    Account Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    RelicNews vegetable patch
    lol, fuck the PM system right? ;D

  4. #4
    Member Carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    The Crossroads of Inertia
    heh that too but i didn't think of it a the time.

  5. #5
    Member ratamaq's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    NOLA
    I agree about the poster needing a smack. And yeah! Fuck the pm system. I wanted others to see this also:P.

    K so not true Newtonian but would you think better use of the rail system then what is currently in place? In the absence of a physics engine, dose this compensate any?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

     

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •