Ship design woes

[zgrssd]

There is ALWAYS going to be a balance between thrust and manoeuvrability on any flying object... in addition to anything else you want it to be able to do.

Just go ask any aviation engineer and they will explain it to you...

I studied Avionic Systems Engineering. As well as the avionics, that included all of the core Aeronautical Engineering modules too.

As ONE "aviation engineer" I disagree with you.

Increasing thrust (more appropriately, the consequential increase in speed) or mass without increasing control authority does lead to a reduction in maneuverability.

Increasing thrust, however, does NOT require the removal of control authority systems. Even proceeding from a single engined vehicle to a twin engined vehicle does not require removal of control authority systems.

If it is that easy, show us your example of a fighter with unlimited speed and maneuverability.

If you can not, I am asuming you are either making up your profession or realy just want to win this discussion.
Also it means that clearly there are limits in reality.

[MatBailie]

If it is that easy, show us your example of a fighter with unlimited speed and maneuverability.

If you can not, I am asuming you are either making up your profession or realy just want to win this discussion.
Also it means that clearly there are limits in reality.

1). I never mentioned anything about unlimited speed and maneuverability

2). DW:U doesn't allow that either

3). The point repeatedly raised is not about the maximum thrust/speed/maneuverability/components, it is about the fact that in DW:2 to have the maximum number of engines (for any given hull) you need to have no vector engines. That's the disconnect.

4). Descending to personalised comments in beneath everyone here, kindly refrain.

5). You have my name, speak to the University of Bristol (United Kingdom), Faculty of Engineering, I started in 1995 and finished in 2000. BEng Avionic Systems.

[zgrssd]

If it is that easy, show us your example of a fighter with unlimited speed and maneuverability.

If you can not, I am asuming you are either making up your profession or realy just want to win this discussion.
Also it means that clearly there are limits in reality.

1). I never mentioned anything about unlimited speed and maneuverability

2). DW:U doesn't allow that either

3). The point repeatedly raised is not about the maximum thrust/speed/maneuverability/components, it is about the fact that in DW:2 to have the maximum number of engines (for any given hull) you need to have no vector engines. That's the disconnect.

4). Descending to personalised comments in beneath everyone here, kindly refrain.

5). You have my name, speak to the University of Bristol (United Kingdom), Faculty of Engineering, I started in 1995 and finished in 2000. BEng Avionic Systems.

1. So then how much limit is realistic?
Clearly you are saying "current is too much".
How much less then current?
How much more then DW1?

2. In DWU you could make a fighter the size of a Heli Carrier.
It is not a good basis for any disscussion about a good design mechanic.

3. I never had any need to use Vectoring engines. Never.
70 turning thrust is kinda...utterly pointless.
My Frigattes using 2 Engine get 10 deg/second. Never needed any more.
One Vector Engine gives some Countermeasures. That might atually something to use it for.

So the whole argument is made up bullshit, based on a component that propably nobody uses.

[MatBailie]

So the whole argument is made up bullshit, based on a component that propably nobody uses.

I won't be replying to users that use combative language. Have a good day.

[Spidey]

If it is that easy, show us your example of a fighter with unlimited speed and maneuverability.

If you can not, I am asuming you are either making up your profession or realy just want to win this discussion.
Also it means that clearly there are limits in reality.

1). I never mentioned anything about unlimited speed and maneuverability

2). DW:U doesn't allow that either

3). The point repeatedly raised is not about the maximum thrust/speed/maneuverability/components, it is about the fact that in DW:2 to have the maximum number of engines (for any given hull) you need to have no vector engines. That's the disconnect.

4). Descending to personalised comments in beneath everyone here, kindly refrain.

5). You have my name, speak to the University of Bristol (United Kingdom), Faculty of Engineering, I started in 1995 and finished in 2000. BEng Avionic Systems.

1. So then how much limit is realistic?
Clearly you are saying "current is too much".
How much less then current?
How much more then DW1?

2. In DWU you could make a fighter the size of a Heli Carrier.
It is not a good basis for any disscussion about a good design mechanic.

3. I never had any need to use Vectoring engines. Never.
70 turning thrust is kinda...utterly pointless.
My Frigattes using 2 Engine get 10 deg/second. Never needed any more.
One Vector Engine gives some Countermeasures. That might atually something to use it for.

So the whole argument is made up bullshit, based on a component that propably nobody uses.

Your argument is that you do x, therefore x must be great. That's not really a strong argument.

And personally, 10 degrees per second sounds very slow. I'm guessing you're not using your frigates as long range rocket-spitters? Or are you throwing something else into a frontal assault to offer distraction? Alternatively, I suppose escorts for long range shooty-shoot while the frigates shield up and brawl would also work?

[Emperor0Akim]

I only use a lot of engines on ships with a focus on shorter ranged weapons. So I can quickly engage the enemy.
If they have any decent mid-long range, they never use much more then token engines. Because they got range and can propably fire 360° because they use missiles.

here is the design manifesto

[Menzoberranzan]

It's a consequence of moving to 3D graphics. You can't really have the old design system and still have space battles look good with the increased graphical fidelity. The weapon effects have to originate somewhere on the model, so the game has to know where it is mounted. That leads, fairly inevitably, to hardpoints. In DW1, all weapons just came out of the center of the sprite.

This is a complete cop out with a few nice buzzwords.

Hard points are bad, lazy design that only frustrates players.

[Emperor0Akim]

Trolling aside, it's actually a fair and important question, and the issue of fleet formation came up during the Beta. There have been significant improvements in that area, but, yeah, we're not there yet, although I am certain this will get better in later builds.

Until then, I'm afraid there is mostly just micro-management left, and the obvious - harmonizing speed across designs.

Found this in another thread, just putting it here to let the consequences sink in.

[Almora]

1. So then how much limit is realistic?
Clearly you are saying "current is too much".
How much less then current?
How much more then DW1?

2. In DWU you could make a fighter the size of a Heli Carrier.
It is not a good basis for any disscussion about a good design mechanic.

3. I never had any need to use Vectoring engines. Never.
70 turning thrust is kinda...utterly pointless.
My Frigattes using 2 Engine get 10 deg/second. Never needed any more.
One Vector Engine gives some Countermeasures. That might atually something to use it for.

So the whole argument is made up bullshit, based on a component that propably nobody uses.

I don't understand why you're so insistent on defending the system when:

1. Clearly people want to use those components
2. It's perfectly reasonable to want to use such things, even if they aren't THE most optimal setup
3. Changing the system won't change your experience at all, as you can still do what you want
4. It doesn't make anything obsolete, as the game is still balanced to make designs that follow the hardpoint limit optimal

There's no reason you've brought up as to why module restriction is GOOD for the game, thats what I want to know. Why is it worth keeping? Because I don't see any downside to removing it, at least once the developers have time.

[Jorgen_CAB]

There is ALWAYS going to be a balance between thrust and manoeuvrability on any flying object... in addition to anything else you want it to be able to do.

Just go ask any aviation engineer and they will explain it to you...

I studied Avionic Systems Engineering. As well as the avionics, that included all of the core Aeronautical Engineering modules too.

As ONE "aviation engineer" I disagree with you.

Increasing thrust (more appropriately, the consequential increase in speed) or mass without increasing control authority does lead to a reduction in maneuverability.

Increasing thrust, however, does NOT require the removal of control authority systems. Even proceeding from a single engined vehicle to a twin engined vehicle does not require removal of control authority systems.

In DW terms, when compared to reality, adding engines shouldn't require the removal of vector engines.

Rather, if you have a design with two engines and a design with three engines, the three engined design would require more vector engines.

More pertinently, DW isn't a realism simulator. If it were, vessels wouldn't be infinitely upgradeable with new reactors, engines, weapons, etc. DW is a game, with abstractions and mechanics. I've played DW2 since the beta, and while I've come to Accept the new ship design mechanics, I don't Enjoy those new mechanics. But even that doesn't matter. The two most important factors are what the majority of the target audience enjoy, and Elliot's vision. As far as That goes, DW2 still has a long way to go, but is off to a far superior start than DW's first release. I enjoy DW2 and expect I'll enjoy it even more with each passing update and expansion.

In DW all engines have vectoring built into them... there even is a hybrid engine type that have both good thrust and a decent vectoring built in.

The only thing I said is that you always need to make sacrifices when you do one thing it usually lead to some drawback in another. There is a reason why we have both one and dual engine fighter jets as they have different pros and cons for the entire airframe. You have to consider the whole chain of maintenance to performance for any weapon platform or vehicle. It is all fine to have the best and most powerful plane but if it can't fly due to needing too much maintenance it is of limited use. That is also why we often see both cheaper less complex platforms working with more powerful platforms as they complement each other so well.

Anyhow... no matter what you build there will always be an need to make sacrifices in performance one way or another.

[Emperor0Akim]

@Jorgen_Cab.

While everything you said is true,
you missed the point.

The only value I gained from you was why ships cost maintenance.

The argument at the moment is that we are only allowed to choose between 1Jet with Flaps, 2Jet without flaps, and VTOL

While what we actually want is a Space Shuttle which has the remarkable number of 3 Main Thrust Engines and load of independent Vectoring Engines.

Because there is something else every Aviation Engineer knows.

Planes don‘t work in space.

[shockk]

The different ships, with different hardpoints/fire arcs give each race a different feel. A valid improvement/tradeoff that seems to be disregarded. If you want more role/design options needing to research more ship hulls seems like a fair mechanic. It also opens up the possibility of some races having really strange hulls, for different gameplay.

However, the ship design is very limiting per hull. Once you throw on every thing a ship needs, you just need to pick weapons/hangers. Then there a little trade off between speed/sensors/defense/firepower, but its nothing major. The design choice comes more from what hull you want to use.

One conflict i find is, i never bother researching the optional hulls. When your option is to unlock the next hull size, or add a bit of flexibility, going up a tier always seems better.

Overall i think the ship design system is fine

[rxnnxs]

I have played DW since the first game came out, buying every new add-on. I think DW1 is my all time #1 or #2 space 4x. After playing DW2 , DW1 is, sadly, still the king. You guys screwed the pooch on ship design, one of DW1s best features, even if imperfect. I'll keep trying to give 2 a chance, but geeze, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

I fear because you are totally right, GOG changed the price from 2.79€ (when DW2 came out) back to 24,99€ just some days back.
Because it still filles the niche and it is not totally useless..

[Jorgen_CAB]

@Jorgen_Cab.

While everything you said is true,
you missed the point.

The only value I gained from you was why ships cost maintenance.

The argument at the moment is that we are only allowed to choose between 1Jet with Flaps, 2Jet without flaps, and VTOL

While what we actually want is a Space Shuttle which has the remarkable number of 3 Main Thrust Engines and load of independent Vectoring Engines.

Because there is something else every Aviation Engineer knows.

Planes don‘t work in space.

While that is something you want that is not how it work... but they might do some changes in the future.

In general I don't agree that we need such a thing... each hull have a certain amount of place for thrust and vectoring engines... this is based on the hull type... I see nothing wrong with this. Every hull has a limit to the space and mass you can dedicate to the engine part in order to make it work as a whole, that is why we now have specific hull types.

I never liked the way it worked in DWU... actually one of the things i really did not like was the total freedom as that I felt limited my choices of ships and all of them felt very similar... all basically were the same size just slightly different balance of weapons, defenses and engines. It also was too easy to build way too efficient designs versus the AI that did not do this.

The current ship design makes AI designs a bit more competitive as well as each hull are always good in a specific role in some sense.

[zgrssd]

@Jorgen_Cab.

While everything you said is true,
you missed the point.

The only value I gained from you was why ships cost maintenance.

The argument at the moment is that we are only allowed to choose between 1Jet with Flaps, 2Jet without flaps, and VTOL

While what we actually want is a Space Shuttle which has the remarkable number of 3 Main Thrust Engines and load of independent Vectoring Engines.

Because there is something else every Aviation Engineer knows.

Planes don‘t work in space.

The only reason to use maneuvering thrusters is to get the Countermeasures bonus.
I never had a situation where I tought "golly, if I had 2 degrees more rotation I the entire combat outcome would have changed".
So your entire argument is based on asumptions that are not even true.

If you want to max out the engines, you max out the engines for that design. End of story.

[rxnnxs]

@Jorgen_Cab.
..
The argument at the moment is that we are only allowed to choose between 1Jet with Flaps, 2Jet without flaps, and VTOL
..

..
The only reason to use maneuvering thrusters is to get the Countermeasures bonus.
I never had a situation where I tought "golly, if I had 2 degrees more rotation I the entire combat outcome would have changed".
..

I had exactly that wish from the start.
My ship flew close to a gravilex and instanly was starting to turn. If it has turned to the direction where to flee and then go into hyperjump, it is safe.
If it takes too much time to turn, and in this time the gravilex or whatever, manages to come close enough to shoot and hit instantly i.e. a engine, you are lost.
I would like to increase the turn rate, but.. three slots.. hmm.. how do I get a fast ship?
I thought I strip it from many things that make it heavy. and add one or two vector engines. well. you know what I miss then. but right now, while typing this, I will design a ship with three vector engines. the rest is doing the hyperdrive.
that is worth a try.
I know, maybe then the ship waits for the hyperdrive that is not ready at that time.
one step at another.
That is why I enjoy such decisions.
Looking what happens with such a design.

In other games, take DW1, also Avorion for instance,
I would say all depends on the weight built in components have.
In such games, you can also get a feeling for physics. Thats what I like.

[Gilmer]

Perfect example of my somewhat distaste for the new design method:

And maybe there's a way to get around this, I'm unsure.

I made 20 frigates to attack a pirate base. A fairly long way away, but doable with frigates with two fuel cells. I attacked and almost took it out. So....


I have ship design on auto and then I click the upgrade and save it. It SEEMED like that was going well, until I realized the ship design automatic method decided to upgrade my ships with something other than that 2nd fuel cell, so I noticed my 2nd fleet to finish the job off can't get there anymore. That was when I realized it had taken off my 2nd fuel cell.

Is there a way to not have this happen? Other than doing it manually, I mean. If I have to do it manually, then I'll do it, but that is a big pain in the rear, if you ask me.

[Almora]

Perfect example of my somewhat distaste for the new design method:

And maybe there's a way to get around this, I'm unsure.

I made 20 frigates to attack a pirate base. A fairly long way away, but doable with frigates with two fuel cells. I attacked and almost took it out. So....


I have ship design on auto and then I click the upgrade and save it. It SEEMED like that was going well, until I realized the ship design automatic method decided to upgrade my ships with something other than that 2nd fuel cell, so I noticed my 2nd fleet to finish the job off can't get there anymore. That was when I realized it had taken off my 2nd fuel cell.

Is there a way to not have this happen? Other than doing it manually, I mean. If I have to do it manually, then I'll do it, but that is a big pain in the rear, if you ask me.

I think this is more a problem with the lackluster automation tuning than the ship designer itself. Having better control over what the AI is and isn't allowed to do would help

[Almora]

@Jorgen_Cab.

While everything you said is true,
you missed the point.

The only value I gained from you was why ships cost maintenance.

The argument at the moment is that we are only allowed to choose between 1Jet with Flaps, 2Jet without flaps, and VTOL

While what we actually want is a Space Shuttle which has the remarkable number of 3 Main Thrust Engines and load of independent Vectoring Engines.

Because there is something else every Aviation Engineer knows.

Planes don‘t work in space.

While that is something you want that is not how it work... but they might do some changes in the future.

In general I don't agree that we need such a thing... each hull have a certain amount of place for thrust and vectoring engines... this is based on the hull type... I see nothing wrong with this. Every hull has a limit to the space and mass you can dedicate to the engine part in order to make it work as a whole, that is why we now have specific hull types.

I never liked the way it worked in DWU... actually one of the things i really did not like was the total freedom as that I felt limited my choices of ships and all of them felt very similar... all basically were the same size just slightly different balance of weapons, defenses and engines. It also was too easy to build way too efficient designs versus the AI that did not do this.

The current ship design makes AI designs a bit more competitive as well as each hull are always good in a specific role in some sense.

I sort of agree, but from a more story focused perspective, I want to be able to remove an extra fuel cell and armor in order to squeeze one more component into the ship. I don't like the limitation of certain types of parts because it feels unnecessary, does removing internal components not give space for another engine? does getting rid of shield generators not give space for an extra weapon? We already have better limitations in place than in DWU, but this extra system feels arbitrary and wholly unnecessary to preserving actual balance. Ship hull types already have bonuses and different size limits, which could be expanded upon a bit admittedly. but limited hardpoints doesn't make sense when I'm the one building the ships, making tradeoffs is something I want to do to a greater degree

[Almora]

@Jorgen_Cab.

While everything you said is true,
you missed the point.

The only value I gained from you was why ships cost maintenance.

The argument at the moment is that we are only allowed to choose between 1Jet with Flaps, 2Jet without flaps, and VTOL

While what we actually want is a Space Shuttle which has the remarkable number of 3 Main Thrust Engines and load of independent Vectoring Engines.

Because there is something else every Aviation Engineer knows.

Planes don‘t work in space.

The only reason to use maneuvering thrusters is to get the Countermeasures bonus.
I never had a situation where I tought "golly, if I had 2 degrees more rotation I the entire combat outcome would have changed".
So your entire argument is based on asumptions that are not even true.

If you want to max out the engines, you max out the engines for that design. End of story.

I do wonder, the fact that maneuverability has such little impact on ships could be a problem in and of itself. I suppose it's more of a balancing issue, but you would think maneuverability would be a bigger deal in space, and the fact that engines have so little importance seems like a problem