SyberSmoke wrote:
Blindpatriot: I was heading out the door when I linked, so I did not get to read the entirety of the document. BUT (always a but) your nitpicking on the term laser is moot any way due to the statement of the effect I was after and not the content its self. The idea being the effect of having a (Insert Generic Beam Weapon Term) cutting a path along the ship and showing that as a decal that could fade away. Plus as a method to have further effect of breaking the ship apart from the attack.



Notice that you glombed onto the laser and not the effect since the post was about cinematic content? Just as I am sure some one could have also mentally attached them selves to the idea of the HEAP rounds or the thought that a ship of this nature would not just break apart like that. Spirit of the post man...spirit of the post.



But you did get back on track to a degree...I admit that...so please get back on the rails of discussion about the cinematic effect that has nothing to do with physical reality.







I know, the idea of blowing through or over penetrating a dying target is just excellent. But...not really done sadly.

With respect I never got off track. You brought lasers and their visual effects into the original topic. I agreed with your camera angles and suggestions on that, so there wasnt anything more to talk about in that area. You put an emphasis on lasers and how they looked in combat, and so thats what I touched upon, because I too believe that there should be more work put into Beams, considering I still have trouble differentiating them from kinetics in the late game.

Truga wrote:
Actually, it wouldn't look like anything other than surrounding space. You can't see a laser, because it's a directed beam of light. As such, photons do not deviate much at all from the beam path, and you cannot see them, since they never get to you. Or whatever else you might be shooting rather than photons.



Just like with those handheld pointer lasers you used in school, or to annoy your dog, only the point of impact is visible, because light then reflects from the surface into all directions. The beam, itself, is "invisible". So, can we now drop this whole "should look like laser beam" issue? :P

Not to sure what direction this was supposed to be. But as was said, this is about the cinematic effect not reality. For the effect, beam weapons are beams. Lasers are visible to the camera. Cars explode when you shoot them in the gas tanks...or any where for that matter. AND one man can stand in the open and have 100 other men shooting at him...but never take a bullet cause no one knows how to aim! AHHHH...movie magic!



So please suspend your sense of reality and lets deal with the magical prettiness of cinematic context. Thank you.

SyberSmoke wrote:
NOW...even a pulsed laser would fit into the definition of a laser above. As such it would travel at the speed of light and would look, even if only for a moment, like a beam. And NOT as a slow moving energy projectile.

Actually, it wouldn't look like anything other than surrounding space. You can't see a laser, because it's a directed beam of light. As such, photons do not deviate much at all from the beam path, and you cannot see them, since they never get to you. Or whatever else you might be shooting rather than photons.



Just like with those handheld pointer lasers you used in school, or to annoy your dog, only the point of impact is visible, because light then reflects from the surface into all directions. The beam, itself, is "invisible". So, can we now drop this whole "should look like laser beam" issue? :P

I agree with the OP about the camera angles needing work and think that the analysis is dead on. Maybe the dev's could change the name from laser to energy weapon or bolt weapon?

All right there is no problem. It was just that for me, before wanting to create the design of a laser it was necessary to know about which type of laser it was question, because every type have a different design. In brief, let's talk about visuals!

To clarify: I meant that physics and realism are unrelated to this particular thread. In this case, it's all about the visuals. The topic is about the cinematic feel of combat, and arguments should center around that.



(Also, I mean it as a general nudge to everybody discussing physics. Not you personally, Naka.)

Xehlwan wrote:
Could we please lay of with the physics of lasers for this thread? This game plays loose with physics everywhere, and that is fine. Most weapons would actually be invisible to the naked eye with correct physics. This thread is about the look and feel of combat as an experience, and I wholeheartedly agree with the OP.

Beam Weapons should actually look like beams; if for no other reason than to be distinct from kinetic weapons. Missiles have their distinct trails that sets them apart. Beams and kinetics are both glowing projectiles, which makes them too similar.

There is a misunderstanding. I do not aspire that the game has to be realistic 100 % in agreement with the physics. Otherwise we lose the racine of the word "game". I just wanted to mean that it is necessary keep a minimum of coherence. We are not going to say all the same that a load of black powder is more powerful than a load of phosphor or TNT ! For I just thought of classifying the laser in two stages on the technological tree: - the first stage "laser beam" then in the technological advances would become a " pulsed laser ". Knowing that with very fast frequencies, the only visual difference is that a pulsed laser sparkles... Otherwise I am everything made all right that the current shape of lasers must be changed. They are only details but I think that it is details and wealth of the backgrounds which make all the interest of a game. I accept every criticism, and if find you that useless, let us say and let us pass in the other thing!

Surely, it is hard to see the camera angle under battle.

If it can do, Mohd seen all the time also from the viewpoint fixed from a distant view also wants.

An angle changes too much round and round, and when there is no telling what is performed, it is.

I want the powerful device which can see the situation of an overall battle by a fixed angle.

Could we please lay of with the physics of lasers for this thread? This game plays loose with physics everywhere, and that is fine. Most weapons would actually be invisible to the naked eye with correct physics. This thread is about the look and feel of combat as an experience, and I wholeheartedly agree with the OP.

Beam Weapons should actually look like beams; if for no other reason than to be distinct from kinetic weapons. Missiles have their distinct trails that sets them apart. Beams and kinetics are both glowing projectiles, which makes them too similar.



As for camera angles, I sincerely hope they will get looked at. I love the cinematic feel of combat, but the random, nonsensical shots of the fleets disrupt the experience. A good camera shot would actually follow the action, not cut away half-way through. When a fleet fires a volley of kinetics, let me see the whole instance - from firing to impact - as a continuous camera shot. Or, let me see a short close-up of each fleet launching their volley, followed by an over-head view of the following carnage. Also, I want to see how many of the ships die on screen. It's bad camera work when you can't even keep track of who is winning or losing a combat.



To sum it up: I want more consistent camera angles, with more distinct effects.

Greats ideas for camera angles..

For lasers, I think that the pulsed lasers are more realistic ...because in reality to produce a hi-powered laser beam consumes a lot of energy and produces an enormous quantity of heat. Over and above the fact that according to the unchanging laws of the physics, more an object warms, more the energy passes with difficulty, one thus needs that more energy what produces more heat, etc. Of the blow the limits of this technologie are fast reached. On the other hand for a pulsed laser it is different seen that the maximum load of laser is distributed in long period (the nanosecond (ns) to microsecond (µs)), the produced heat is minimized and the energy saved... We can thus increase the contribution in energy to make enough damage, drill some steel and cross shields! Of more a laser beam is more easily stopped by a shield or a thoughtful surface than a pulsed laser... Given that with a laser beam with a frequency and a power fix while a pulsed laser has a power and a flexible frequency much more easily and there that becomes terribly complicated for a shield to arrest something who can change shape!

Then that can be terribly funny to see a twinkling laser which cuts another vessel in two!

I do not see to much of an issue with having both "beam" and "pulse" style weapons. that could be a technical difference...may be the pulse weapons have lower power, but are more like the mass weapons...kind of a middle ground. While beams are more all or nothing type of damage, a higher single raking hit across the hull. Plenty of room for cool effect in space.



And yeah watching a ship get cut in two is classic ship to ship sci-fi. Kind of why I loved Babylon 5, the shadow ships just sliced enemy ships up like a late night Ginsu Commercial. It is something I always wanted to see in a game.

I totally agree with the camera angles and ship deaths but with the whole laser argument why don't they just have 2 separate categories for the 2 types of energy emission systems so you could have both pulse and beam weapons.

They could have identical stats but a different animation for the weapon firing.



I personally like pules weapons more in an all out battle between two fleets but if I saw an awesome beam cutting through here and there or through a ship that would also be epic.

It's a good discussion, but whatever you call them ... Pulse Cannons, Energy Beams, "lasers" ... it seems as though (most) everyone agrees that the presentation of the battle cinematics need some work. Even if the weapons themselves don't change before release, I do think that making some of the suggested camera tweaks even with the existing arsenals would make the viewing experience better. I have noticed some changes with the latest release (as previously mentioned), so it seems that the Devs are listening, but the cuts between cameras are jarring and I still find myself looking into space when all the action is to the left. Pan left! BY VECTRON'S KINDLY CLAW, TO THE LEFT! (or right, take your pick).



And has anybody else noticed that the ships bob around more as a group, as though they are in water? Or sometimes seem pinned to the planet below? Or that the halo around the smaller planet in the background is cut-off?



For me, I would be happy just to see a bit more variety. "Oh look... that big ship is about to blow up. I bet it will roll to the side around 30 degrees as its nose pitches down before exploding." It's cool and all, but variety is the spice of life. How about an end-over-end? Or a death roll? How about an explosion that starts in the front of the ship and works its way back, ripping the ship apart as it goes? How about one ship colliding with another? And yeah SyberSmoke... love the idea of keeping some wreckage around!



And lastly, after everything is fixed and looking great, I really would like a "skip cinematic" button I could press after playing my cards. Because even if the battle scenes are terrific, there are times when I don't want to take the time to watch them but I DO want to play my cards.

I can see the point to a degree. I see the deflectors and I see the bouncing of the rounds from them. So some shell hits a deflector, the round gets a drastic bounced angle. So that accounts for the rounds that look like they hit, but bounce off the ship and go up, down, and sideways.



What I am talking about is the rounds that arc in a ballistic trajectory. So when they fire, in relation to the camera, they shoot out towards the ship, but slowly arc down as if you were firing a bullet, you have to account for gravity and so shoot higher at longer ranges. But there is no gravity so...there should be no arc. And the deflectors only act on rounds that are a certain distance from the ship and those deflection are VERY obvious.



This is why I suggested using deflection but off of the ship or as a close almost hit. So instead of a curve downward, you have a cone that circles the ship them the rounds are sprayed inside that cone. That way misses will be on the outer edge of the cone while hits and deflections will be on the inside.



As for armor deflecting shots...Shells that hit the flat broadside...yes they would penetrate easily. But a round that hits at a very sharp angle will most likely bounce. We assume there is no armor...but there is, it is the ships HP. Angling the armor has the effect of making it thicker. at 60 degrees from vertical you have doubled the armors thickness. So a round hitting a curved surface on the ship could also reasonably be a miss as the angle of the ships armor could be enough to bounce a projectile. This could mean misses may not be misses...but could be deflections off of the ships hull it's self also. Certainly that would add some effect and look cool as rounds tink off the ship. Sadly some races...like the Earthers do not have ship designs that would work as they are just floating bricks.

SyberSmoke wrote:
Additionally...it annoys me to no end when I see kinetic kill weapons arcing in space with out any reason. If the ships were in orbit of the planet where the gravity had good effect, then sure the shells could start to arc down as a miss. But for most of the battle we are far enough out that there is minimal gravitational effect...SO WHY ARE THE ARCING!!! If they miss, let them shoot off...not have a ballistic trajectory. Heck let them be accurate and be some of the shells that bounce off the deflectors. Or graze the top and bottom of the ship bouncing off a bad angle. Just anything but a curve in open space.

The projectiles arc in this game because of defenses. If you are fighting a kinetic AI system and you build defenses to combat them, you'll notice that a significant amount of them are being displaced around the ship. The effect is similar to the sun's radiation and the earth's magnetosphere. The deflectors don't actually "bounce" the round off the hull, but rather push the round off course. With the Kinetic Energy that would be created, I doubt a direct armor would be created to combat them, instead creating various fields around the ship that could push the rounds off course enough to have them miss would be a lot easier.



The other part is accuracy. Now at first I was thinking "how do you miss in space?" As you said there is very little outside factors that should cause this issue, especially if you are facing a "defenseless" ship. I will assume that these weapons aren't being manually fired by a gunnery crew, but instead are automated by a ship. If another ship were to use some form of basic countermeasures it could mess with the data collection for the gunnery system causing errors to build.



Just my two cents, and I'll add my third. I like the discussion of camera angles. I was sad that the camera man was still forced to rails when the beta came out because of how the camera AI is handled. It does take a lot of the drama out when you're stuck looking inside of a clipped ship animation or staring at some random point in space where a ship may of been.

Blindpatriot wrote:
With respect I never got off track. You brought lasers and their visual effects into the original topic. I agreed with your camera angles and suggestions on that, so there wasnt anything more to talk about in that area. You put an emphasis on lasers and how they looked in combat, and so thats what I touched upon, because I too believe that there should be more work put into Beams, considering I still have trouble differentiating them from kinetics in the late game.

Technically, I did not put emphasis on Lasers...I put emphasis on a technology in the game.







And since the definition of a laser is:

la·ser

noun /ˈlāzər/ 

lasers, plural

A device that generates an intense beam of coherent monochromatic light (or other electromagnetic radiation) by stimulated emission of photons from excited atoms or molecules. Lasers are used in drilling and cutting, alignment and guidance, and in surgery; the optical properties are exploited in holography, reading bar codes, and in recording and playing compact discs.



I was well with in the realm of the game and definition concerning the topic being cinematic visual effects. NOW...even a pulsed laser would fit into the definition of a laser above. As such it would travel at the speed of light and would look, even if only for a moment, like a beam. And NOT as a slow moving energy projectile.



Also note that the energy weapons are classed as Beam weapons and not pulse weapons. I am now done with the semantics and this is over.

So there are people grousing about how the battles are not exciting. How there is a lack of control...and blah blah blah blah. Plenty of threads with the blah blah blah, instead I will address an issue I noticed...BAD CAMERA ANGLES!



Simply put, the cinematic combat is fine for what it is. But it suffers greatly from bad camera angles, bad timing, and a horrible interpretation of events. There is some more...but I will save that for the end of this post...like actual exciting ship deaths. Below is a basic image of the camera angles used. It features the BLUE team, the ORANGE team, some black letters, and the yellow area with a green stripe! The ships are set up in the typical opening positions we all know by now.







The Yellow Area: Between the blue and orange fleets is a yellow area...simply put this is the action area. This is the middle ground where all projectiles need to travel. The green line represents something of a magic wall...an angle that the camera should NEVER intersect...instead the camera should usually be looking along the line.



Camera Position A: This camera position is the biggest offender I see each battle. The reason is it is the opening scene of the ships warping in. The reason that this camera is just bad is because it breaks perspective. The angle of the shot does not show the opposing fleet, in fact it looks at the incoming fleet in such a way that when the camera shifts angles to the perspective of the orange fleet looking at the blue fleet...the viewer gets disoriented. Naughty camera disorienting the player...tisk tisk.



To help with this, camera A could be relocated so that you can not only see Blue Fleet coming into scene, but also have a ship or two from orange fleet in view as the camera pans it's view to follow blue fleet. This maintains perspective along the green line and would not disorient the viewer. The other option for a starting view would be an over the shoulder shot from position E of the blue fleet warping in. This would also set the tone of the defender seeing the attacker and would help set how the battle is oriented.



Camera Position F: This camera is the high angle view of the battle from above and to the front. I have no huge issue with this camera, except that it could be used to better effect. Placed a little closer it could be an excellent position for tracking shots for missiles from just after launch, and is a good position to see all the pretty attacks to and from. It just needs a little tuning...may be to be brought in a little.



Camera Positions C & D: These positions are the ones that are lack luster and could have allot done. And idea that comes to mind is a traverse and pan following a ship firing. From position C this would be the camera traversing from front to back covering the ship shooting. Halfway down the ship, the camera pans out towards the orange fleet tracking the shells that have been followed. This could then be followed by position D maintaining continuity of the shot as the round impact Orange fleet. The same could be done from D to C with a little tweaking.





One of the big issues with the current system is that the camera man is a spaz. It randomly changes position and does not even try to follow the action. It would not be hand bad if we were not looking at the side of a ship so much...one that was doing NOTHING!!! Ahem...sorry. But it does strike me as odd that with a system were many of the events are timed for certain intervals...the camera can not pick up on these timings and get a good shot.



Say a shot from either position C or D from below the fleet or at the top deck of missiles launching. Heck could even put in little launch doors for added effect...a nice shot of the doors slamming open and missiles launching out, ejected from the ship using simple air compression then as they exit, the engines starting and the missiles fly off as the camera follows. That would look COOL...wouldn't it? Little excellent shots of this type can really help the feel of the battle. To convey a sense of power and continuity. and if none of the ships in the fleet have missiles...leave the shot out.





There are three things that bug me right now. First...LASERS ARE NOT BEAMS!!! Second, shell impacts go boom...(cringe). Third, Star Trek style ship destruction. So by the numbers...



Lasers...yeah...I really do not in any way need to define the concept of a laser. I mean it is really really well defined. So when I started building ships that had lasers on them...I was like "COOL!"...then I saw them in action. Those are not lasers...at best they are some form of plasma or energy bolts. Please make the lasers beams, they should be beams. There is so much potential there to have thin beams of light and energy cut across the void. You can even make them strafe a little cutting glowing grooves in the opposing ships hull. Tell me that would not be excellent.



Second...the cannons as I will call them. Little projectiles fired in mass and impact a hull...and what do they do...they go boom. NO NO NO NO...95 percent of the damage of the round would be wasted. AND WHY would a kinetic impact weapon explode any way?? OK it could be HEAP or High Explosive Armor Piercing...but in that case you would get a small hole and then a jet of flame as the round explodes INSIDE the hull. And really you want the round to go boom in the ship...not on the ship.



Additionally...it annoys me to no end when I see kinetic kill weapons arcing in space with out any reason. If the ships were in orbit of the planet where the gravity had good effect, then sure the shells could start to arc down as a miss. But for most of the battle we are far enough out that there is minimal gravitational effect...SO WHY ARE THE ARCING!!! If they miss, let them shoot off...not have a ballistic trajectory. Heck let them be accurate and be some of the shells that bounce off the deflectors. Or graze the top and bottom of the ship bouncing off a bad angle. Just anything but a curve in open space.



Third...Hey look captain we destroyed them...and now they are nothing but vapor. Yeah I can see it for Star Trek...but in this case there is room for better. Keep the ships in scene, let them break apart (good opportunity for a laser hit to slice a ship in half may be?) and drift away from the scene. Allow chunks of the model to be blown off by missiles or may be a concentrated number of hits from cannons break the ships back and it cracks in two pushed away from the battle from the impacts. SO MANY OPTIONS!!! Please use them to spice things up. Vanishing ships are just...blah.





OK, well I am tired of typing this stuff out and I have covered all that I wanted to cover. The suggestions and any constructive comments after this would help to improve the quality of the games cinematic combat. And while I do not expect all of these changes to occur I would like one (cough)lasers(cough) or two to happen so that things look better. After all the nature of the combat is such that it had better scream awesome or go home in a crying heap of shame.

Blindpatriot: I was heading out the door when I linked, so I did not get to read the entirety of the document. BUT (always a but) your nitpicking on the term laser is moot any way due to the statement of the effect I was after and not the content its self. The idea being the effect of having a (Insert Generic Beam Weapon Term) cutting a path along the ship and showing that as a decal that could fade away. Plus as a method to have further effect of breaking the ship apart from the attack.



Notice that you glombed onto the laser and not the effect since the post was about cinematic content? Just as I am sure some one could have also mentally attached them selves to the idea of the HEAP rounds or the thought that a ship of this nature would not just break apart like that. Spirit of the post man...spirit of the post.



But you did get back on track to a degree...I admit that...so please get back on the rails of discussion about the cinematic effect that has nothing to do with physical reality.

DeathSarge wrote:
-snip- Also punching holes through ships... I've wanted this since Free Space 2...

I know, the idea of blowing through or over penetrating a dying target is just excellent. But...not really done sadly.

Blindpatriot wrote:
Top is random lightning hitting a rod. Bottom is guided lightning being controlled by a laser.

Energy weapons must be absorbed, or misdirected or forced to dissipate...they cant "Miss". Im just saying the animations in the game should represent this, because that would better differentiate beam from kinetics. Beam weapons that do Miss by misdirection should all follow the same path, not miss wildly like kinetic bullets. Or shields should absorb them. It would be great if shields had a power capacity that needed to recharge every phase..thatd be cool. Like a shield can only take so many beam salvos before shutting down allowing the beam weapons to damage the ship, then on the next phase the shields recharge. More shields you have the longer they last.

The wording of the Deflectors actually supports this, since it would be better for the damage to be absorbed than reflected. If it is a straight beam/string of pulses, then it would make sense for that to happen. Also punching holes through ships... I've wanted this since Free Space 2...

All energy weapons are direct energy weapons. Gauss, Pinch, Plasma, laser all must follow a very strict and determined path in order to remain stable. Lightning is Plasma that is not directed, that's why it arcs wildly all over the sky. Heres what lightning looks like when it is being controlled.







Top is random lightning hitting a rod. Bottom is guided lightning being controlled by a laser.

Energy weapons must be absorbed, or misdirected or forced to dissipate...they cant "Miss". Im just saying the animations in the game should represent this, because that would better differentiate beam from kinetics. Beam weapons that do Miss by misdirection should all follow the same path, not miss wildly like kinetic bullets. Or shields should absorb them. It would be great if shields had a power capacity that needed to recharge every phase..thatd be cool. Like a shield can only take so many beam salvos before shutting down allowing the beam weapons to damage the ship, then on the next phase the shields recharge. More shields you have the longer they last.