Lightning Test Drive

[NCLynx]

lightning night time test drive - YouTube

[Bags]

Shiny, and good quality too!

[NCLynx]

It looks pretty good, also looks like it could turn on a freakin dime lol

[Mastachief]

nice headlights

[Kaw]

Looks pretty awesome. The headlights are actually lighting up the body of the tank too while in the Prowler video from last week the lights only affected the ground.

[capiqu]

I notice here and on the prowler footage that the headlights on these tanks are high up yet they light up the ground directly in front of the tanks.

[CutterJohn]

Looks nice. That third person view could stand to be moved up a tad, and pointed down. Bit too behind the vehicle atm.

[Gonefshn]

looking slick i can't believe how awesome this game looks its like real life in these videos

[capiqu]

This game looks incredibly good and if I had to subscribe to it for another 9 years I would. My only disapoinment is that the old planetside maps wont make it to PS2 :cry:

[Rbstr]

That thing really gets moving, doesn't it?

[Zekeen]

Looks like it isn't suffering from the Prowler magic firing bug. Beta will be right around the corner.

[Gonefshn]

i wish this video showed the cannons rapid fire rate more. maybe the cannon showed in this is a side-grade because in the TB/Higby footage from the other day they showed a lightning firing multiple rounds at an incredibly rapid rate, as in probably more than one a second.

[Shade Millith]

Looks nice. That third person view could stand to be moved up a tad, and pointed down. Bit too behind the vehicle atm.

That's actually deliberate. They're making it impossible to use the thing in combat in 3rd person view. 3rd person is for driving.

At least that's what I've heard.

[Envenom]

I'm in love with the head and tail lighting effects. Looks really slick.

[KALU]

The new engine really has amazing lighting doesn't it.

[SixShooter]

The flash from the barrell looks amazing how it lights up the surronding area. This will look amazing when there are a bunch of these coming at you at night.

[Hamma]

The lights now actually look like real lights when they shine at you now. Awesome!

And yea the Lightning is fast as heck!

[Erendil]

Looks nice. That third person view could stand to be moved up a tad, and pointed down. Bit too behind the vehicle atm.

Yeah I noticed that in the Prowler vid too. It's too close to the back of the vehicle, and it's directly behind the turret instead of up above like in PS1. Makes it hard to get a view of your immediate surroundings.

However, I noticed that the 3rdPV moves vertically as well as horizontally in response to mouse movements, so when you tilt the cannon up your 3rdPV camera tilts up as well. That might be why they have it set directly behind the turret.


That's actually deliberate. They're making it impossible to use the thing in combat in 3rd person view. 3rd person is for driving.

At least that's what I've heard.

Yeah I thought they wanted to avoid that too. But actually to me it looks like you can aim pretty well with the current PS2 version since the camera moves vertically and it appears to always aim down the barrel.

Maybe I'm just too used it but I like PS1 version better. Since it's tilted up ~30 degrees and doesn't move vertically it makes it more useful for observation and less useful for aiming.


http://i540.photobucket.com/albums/gg331/Erendil69/Planetside%202/PSScreenShot0388.jpg

See, PS1's version gives you a much better view, but good luck aiming w/ it. :D

[Toppopia]

I'm going to keep on thinking that they are not having 3rd person view because they havn't told us otherwise and i believe its just for testing vehicles that they use 3rd person, so i wouldn't give our hopes up just yet.

[Erendil]

I'm going to keep on thinking that they are not having 3rd person view because they havn't told us otherwise and i believe its just for testing vehicles that they use 3rd person, so i wouldn't give our hopes up just yet.

Gods I certainly hope not. Since they've been releasing vids that implement 3rdPV that'd be a sure fire way of pissing a lot of us off who want it included. I can't imagine they'd mislead us like that.

[Toppopia]

Gods I certainly hope not. Since they've been releasing vids that implement 3rdPV that'd be a sure fire way of pissing a lot of us off who want it included. I can't imagine they'd mislead us like that.

But if the camera does follow exactly behind the barrel, then that means to drive we need to aim at the ground, so that stops us from firing i guess, so we will have to change to 1st person view anyway to fight, so that balances out maybe.

[Erendil]

But if the camera does follow exactly behind the barrel, then that means to drive we need to aim at the ground, so that stops us from firing i guess, so we will have to change to 1st person view anyway to fight, so that balances out maybe.

That would only be an issue if you wish to fire while moving, which I'm told is a difficult chore for many people. It looks like you'd be able to aim pretty effectively in 3rdPV if you were sitting still, although I'm not sure why you'd want to with the current implementation. You FOV isn't much different/better than the view in 1stPV, and you'd have no crosshair.


The Lightning sure looks fun to drive tho. It's turning rate and acceleration are both faster than PS1's Lightning. I can't wait to take it out for a spin! :D

However, its top speed seems a little too slow for my liking (in fact all PS2 tanks seem a little slower than their PS1 counterparts FWIW).

And the cannon's firing arc is almost the same as it was in PS1, but its muzzle velocity is almost twice that of the old 75mm. So it shouldn't take long at all to adjust to the new one, and will no doubt make long distance MBT-harassment fun as hell! :D

[ringring]

Simply beautiful

[DirtyBird]

The tail lights looked to be working better than the Prowler.
Perhaps it was just a different angle but they look sweet!

[JHendy]

All the tracked vehicles in PS2 seem to turn on the spot way too quickly. Their handling seems extremely twitchy to me, and that undermines their bulk, given that they're enormous lumbering vehicles. It looks slightly odd, imo. Anyone else feel the same way?

[DrifterBG]

While I won't disagree that the vehicles seem faster and turn on a dime, you have to look at the scope of the battlefield they're engaging in. The place is HUGE and if they were slow/cumbersome, I don't think they'd be as effective as they're supposed to be.

We used to think Planetside 2 was big, but it's pretty small compared to what we have now. Plus, they could also use some scifi excuse like a new auraxian metal makes them lighter/faster etc..

[JHendy]

It's just the side to side movement when not moving forward or backwards that looks odd to me. There needs to be more of a gradual increase in speed and momentum while turning on the spot. The tracks aren't going to be moving at full speed the second you engage the accelerator.

[JHendy]

Nope. Their engines are just way more powerful than you're used to, because they're not based on fossil fuel combustion. They also have more traction caused by locational gravity manipulators built into the tracks, and they're made out of elements that don't exist on Earth. One of these is naturally much stronger as well as lighter than titanium.

Very good. Bravo.

Excuse it however you like. Point is, it doesn't look good.

[Eyeklops]

I can't wait to sit up on a hill with my head lamps off and shoot at all the lights moving in the distance. Stealth tank 4TW

[LegioX]

I say no to third person view. Want a better view of the surrounding area and your blind spots? Have teammates follow you/work together and cover each other!!!

Taking 3rd person out be the best thing.

[CutterJohn]

I say no to third person view. Want a better view of the surrounding area and your blind spots? Have teammates follow you/work together and cover each other!!!

Taking 3rd person out be the best thing.

Why would you take it out when you can just build a drone to hover behind your tank? Science ftw!

[DrifterBG]

because I'll shoot it down :D

[Blackwolf]

Gods I certainly hope not. Since they've been releasing vids that implement 3rdPV that'd be a sure fire way of pissing a lot of us off who want it included. I can't imagine they'd mislead us like that.

They wouldn't be misleading you. It would be your fault for miss interpretation. They said 3rdPV will not be in ground vehicles, period. The fact that the game is in Alpha should be reasoning enough that things can and will change on a daily basis.

Chances are that the 3rdPV you see on vehicles and infantry is for display purposes only, to show the community what they are looking at from the outside.

Why would you take it out when you can just build a drone to hover behind your tank? Science ftw!

How practical would that be really? A small fragile piece of hardware that would probably be as expensive as the tank following a tank around in a battlefield situation with explosions and shrapnel everywhere... Oh yeah, that's super practical.

[Mechzz]

They wouldn't be misleading you. It would be your fault for miss interpretation. They said 3rdPV will not be in ground vehicles, period. The fact that the game is in Alpha should be reasoning enough that things can and will change on a daily basis.

Chances are that the 3rdPV you see on vehicles and infantry is for display purposes only, to show the community what they are looking at from the outside.

My own hope is that we will see a strategic retreat by the devs on this one. I still haven't seen a convincing reason to not have 3pv despite following several threads on the subject.

[GreatMazinkaise]

Agreed... and there's been nothing super offensive about the 3PVs they've been using either.

[Mechzz]

Agreed... and there's been nothing super offensive about the 3PVs they've been using either.

yeah, there was a good discussion today about how the way it's been implemented doesn't support 3pv gunning while moving, something that was already difficult anyway.

[Blackwolf]

Nope. Their engines are just way more powerful than you're used to, because they're not based on fossil fuel combustion. They also have more traction caused by locational gravity manipulators built into the tracks, and they're made out of elements that don't exist on Earth. One of these is naturally much stronger as well as lighter than titanium.

There is only room for 3 or 4 more elements on the periodic table of elements. And that is based on theory. It's possible that such elements might exist on Auraxis, but chances are they exist on worlds with atmospheres that are unlike Earth's. More volcanic, acidic, or even toxic or radioactive. The odds of finding elements not of earth on a gaia like planet are probably very very slim.

And titanium is actually a pretty weak element, the alloy is strong because of the bonding properties that come into effect when the element is combined with iron I think it is.

And "locational gravity manipulators" would probably slow the whole thing down, not speed it up. As weight increases, so does mass. And mass tends to resist changes in movement. About the only thing you listed that made plausible sense is the engine. But again, defying physics is not so easy as "it's got a hemi 6 in it".

My own hope is that we will see a strategic retreat by the devs on this one. I still haven't seen a convincing reason to not have 3pv despite following several threads on the subject.

Hard to convince the unconvincable. I hope the DEVs stick with their statements because I really don't want to see a game designed by the players.

[MpS]

The lighting from the headlights is looking amazing! I just hope there is a way to turn them off, kind of seems like a giant "HEY I'M OVER HERE, SHOOT ME!!" kind of signal.
Brakelights are add a nice little touch to the whole thing.

[Virulence]

Third person view for all vehicles or no vehicles imo.

That said, I'm really excited to roll one of these. I loved the lightning in Planetside, but it was just so impotent.

[2coolforu]

There is only room for 3 or 4 more elements on the periodic table of elements. And that is based on theory. It's possible that such elements might exist on Auraxis, but chances are they exist on worlds with atmospheres that are unlike Earth's. More volcanic, acidic, or even toxic or radioactive. The odds of finding elements not of earth on a gaia like planet are probably very very slim.

And titanium is actually a pretty weak element, the alloy is strong because of the bonding properties that come into effect when the element is combined with iron I think it is.

And "locational gravity manipulators" would probably slow the whole thing down, not speed it up. As weight increases, so does mass. And mass tends to resist changes in movement. About the only thing you listed that made plausible sense is the engine. But again, defying physics is not so easy as "it's got a hemi 6 in it".



Hard to convince the unconvincable. I hope the DEVs stick with their statements because I really don't want to see a game designed by the players.

Why would gravity effect mass or inertia O.o

[SGTalon]

All the tracked vehicles in PS2 seem to turn on the spot way too quickly. Their handling seems extremely twitchy to me, and that undermines their bulk, given that they're enormous lumbering vehicles. It looks slightly odd, imo. Anyone else feel the same way?

Ever see an Abrams or Challenger tank maneuver? They are shockingly agile too.

I don't see it as out of the ordinary.

M1 Tank Road Test - YouTube

[Blackwolf]

Why would gravity effect mass or inertia O.o

Like I said before, heavy objects resist movement more then light objects. If you blow on a feather, you drive it further then if you blow on a bowling ball, despite the fact that the bowling ball has less friction on the ground. It goes back to the simple law "an object in motion stays in motion", the opposite is also true.

Making the treads heavier makes it harder to move them despite "better traction". You would end up with a slow moving vehicle that could climb 60 degree slopes, but not turn on a dime in a split second.

Making the treads lighter wouldn't do much better, in fact it would have virtually no effect at all since the rest of the tank is still heavy (meaning the treads would still have significant traction). Making the entire tank lighter per Mass Effect Ezo Magic Rock stuff means impact from explosions could have a much larger effect on the tank, including blowing it away like a feather.

Trust people when they say "it looks wrong". Humans absorb information like a sponge whether or not we realize it. It looks wrong because our brains can't grasp the concept of a massive bulky and heavy object moving like a remote controlled RC fast trax car.

Ever see an Abrams or Challenger tank maneuver? They are shockingly agile too.

I don't see it as out of the ordinary.


I see it moving significantly slower then the lightning. I don't remember PS1's speeds but I think the lightning in PS1 moved much faster then 40mph, and the MBTs I think were around 50-55?

Besides I think the discussion was about the turn in place and acceleration, and that tank didn't floor me with that demonstration. In fact the movement looked natural.

If you applied enough power behind the vehicle to try and turn it faster, you would tear the pavement to shreds and cause the whole thing to lift upwards rather then apply that power directly to turning. Easier for the treads to dig through the pavement then for them to turn the tank. Hence why there is a turret which is a fraction of the weight and can turn 360 degrees.

[CrystalViolet]

guess they call it the lightning for a reason. I have a feeling that these things are going to be major pests on the battlefield.

[2coolforu]

Like I said before, heavy objects resist movement more then light objects. If you blow on a feather, you drive it further then if you blow on a bowling ball, despite the fact that the bowling ball has less friction on the ground. It goes back to the simple law "an object in motion stays in motion", the opposite is also true.
.

Yeah, of course a bowling ball will move less than a feather. Force = dp/dt, there is no element of gravity or weight in that equation, weight has no effect on motion only mass which is a constant.

If you took a tank from the planet earth and moved it to mars and tried to take a corner they would have the same centrifugal force, that fictituous force you identify as an object 'resisting' changes in motion a = v^2/r f = ma so f = mv^2/r. There is no component of gravity or weight in any of the equations of motion because gravity is force per unit mass it generally cancels out as a factor.

The only thing gravity would affect is friction, which is getting overly complex.

The most logical argument is that in the future in 2600 or whatever materials science has advanced to the point where we have extremely strong composite armor made up of plastics/carbon/nanomaterials that are extremely light and extremely tough.

[Blackwolf]

Alright mr. science, then they're Higgs-field manipulators that allow you to control the mass on the fly.

The point is that it doesn't all have to be 100% scientifically justifiable. It just needs to feel good, which isn't restricted by objective laws as far as I'm concerned. If people really objected to 'impossible looking' things, then Star Trek with its colossal space ships that jump to 12x lightspeed in a microsecond would have never become popular either.

You're just limiting your own creativity if you cut everything that seems impossible down.

Jeebus. Mass and weight have virtually no meaning in microgravity. Take into account the warp engines which created a bubble of timespace around the enterprise and propelled it through normal space like food you swallow and yeah it makes sense that it can go 12x light speed. Believe it or not Star Trek has sparked scientific theories on how FTL is possible.

Changing mass isn't your solution, the simple fact is you don't have a viable solution. It changes mass on the fly which means it flies through the air when someone shoots it with a pistol while it's turning in place. Easier to just say "well crap that does look kinda stupid doesn't it?" and make it not look stupid.

Why argue anyway? Even you have to admit it kinda looks dumb.

[2coolforu]

Jeebus. Mass and weight have virtually no meaning in microgravity. Take into account the warp engines which created a bubble of timespace around the enterprise and propelled it through normal space like food you swallow and yeah it makes sense that it can go 12x light speed. Believe it or not Star Trek has sparked scientific theories on how FTL is possible.

Changing mass isn't your solution, the simple fact is you don't have a viable solution. It changes mass on the fly which means it flies through the air when someone shoots it with a pistol while it's turning in place. Easier to just say "well crap that does look kinda stupid doesn't it?" and make it not look stupid.

Why argue anyway? Even you have to admit it kinda looks dumb.

FTL is not possible, unfortunately. Or at the very, very least we won't see even the groundwork theory for thousands of years. And weight has no meaning outside of gravity, however mass almost certainly does, E = mc^2 for example.

[Haro]

This thread seems to be coming off the rails pretty quickly.

Honestly, I love the new direction of the lightning. Loved the rapid fire we saw in TB's video, really hoping this balances out well. I never really saw a whole lot of uses for the PS1 lightning, didn't really seem to have a purpose when you had a heavier, more powerful tank that was even more common. At least now it has a really cool multi-role capability. I wonder if we can see an artillery version.

[Blackwolf]

FTL is not possible, unfortunately. Or at the very, very least we won't see even the groundwork theory for thousands of years. And weight has no meaning outside of gravity, however mass almost certainly does, E = mc^2 for example.

What you might as well have said is "It's not known how it can be possible, because we don't have the technology to do it".

Mass determines the amount of effect thrust has on the object. The Enterprise is massive, it requires a lot of thrust to propel it at certain speeds. But you could potentially move it with the energy stored in a bottle rocket in microgravity, albeit less then a noticeable amount from a human perspective. Virtually no meaning I believe are the exact words I used.

[2coolforu]

What you might as well have said is "It's not known how it can be possible, because we don't have the technology to do it".

Mass determines the amount of effect thrust has on the object. The Enterprise is massive, it requires a lot of thrust to propel it at certain speeds. But you could potentially move it with the energy stored in a bottle rocket in microgravity, albeit less then a noticeable amount from a human perspective. Virtually no meaning I believe are the exact words I used.

That's due to air resistance, not gravity. Every rocket and satelleite in orbit around the earth is still in its gravitational well under a moderately reduced gravitational pull. perhaps 4.9 ms-2 rather than 9.8 yet they can all be moved with the tiniest of forces due to the lack of air to resist motion. It has nothing to do with gravity, it has everything to do with weight because force is related to acceleration via mass. Not gravity or weight, via mass, this is why a MASSIVE object like the Earth barely budges when a rocket is launched from it whereas the rocket which is NON-MASSIVE moves a great amount from the force.

As for FTL if you go faster than the speed of light you create all sorts of problems. You can disprove it with minor thought-experiments, it doesn't even require a complex knowledge of the theory, the theory behind it is explained via Pythagoras which has remained true for thousands of years and has a buttload of proof so it's unlikely that it's wrong.

[KTNApollo]

I agree. Plus I don't see how 3rdPV wont be in, its pretty standard.

Because Higby stated that there would be no 3rd person for anything other than Aircraft. I'm sure someone can find a source.

[JHendy]

Subjective mostly. Not my fault that you lack imagination.

Don't do that...

A heavy vehicle should not appear to handle like a light one. It looks bad, and players shouldn't have to concoct a multi-tiered theoretical back story to give reason to an animation looking like crap.

I'm arguing because I think it would be a lot more fun to drive a lightning that behaves that way

You're blowing this so far out of proportion. No one said that the Lightning's handing needs to be redone. The turning speed appears too abrupt and responds too quickly to acceleration, it just needs to be made to look slightly more gradual. It'd be a minor tweak and it wouldn't drastically affect the way tracked vehicles handle.

[KTNApollo]

Don't be an idiot.

A heavy vehicle should not appear to handle like a light one. It looks bad, and players shouldn't have to concoct a multi-tiered scientific back story to give reason to an animation being poorly done.

It has 4 independent treads, allowing it to turn on a dime. It looks fine.

[Blackwolf]

I'm arguing because I think it would be a lot more fun to drive a lightning that behaves that way, and because I think you underestimate how much unrealism people would be willing to swallow.

Sadly I'm well aware how much unrealism people are willing to swallow, and treat as if it were true. Bullets knocking people backwards (and people believe they actually do that) is an example of what people are willing to swallow. It's just plain ignorance.


Enterprise warping to 12x in a microsecond did spawn theories, but the point is that regardless of how correct it is, it is something that looks unnatural, unintuitive, because people aren't used to seeing large objects with a lot of mass accelerate that fast. Lightnings behaving like they do in this video is something you're not used to, but all you have to do is let go of what you think is possible and it might turn out the be really enjoyable, even in a semi-realistic future setting.


Seems pretty natural looking to me given the circumstances. I imagine that an object traveling outside of normal reality in a field of timespace that it generates would look exactly like that as it exited normal space. Watch the Enterprise in a space battle though, and you see entirely different forces at play on it. Every time it took a hit from lasers or torpedoes or whatever the hell that series had in it, it shifted and rolled. It didn't utilize warp drives to teleport through subspace and out flank enemies, or demonstrate un-natural maneuvering capabilities. It functioned exactly as you would expect a large space ship to function.


All that's really needed is some hypothetical force that gets discovered in the future, a force that governs all other forces and can be manipulated with some technology.

The point your missing is that such things don't exist. If they do it is magic. If it's magic then it doesn't really belong in a non-magical sci-fi technological environment.

Even Mass Effect had limitations on Ezo which was an element that, depending on the electrical charge you sent through it, could increase or decrease the density of matter. It eliminated hundreds of issues, including the need for ammunition (shaving off a sliver from a block of steel and projecting it down a barrel while increasing it's density to match that of a bullet makes for virtually unlimited ammunition). But it in turn created problems, such as weapons overheating. End result was that by ME2, weapons needed heat sinks which were ejected from the gun to immediately cool it while a new one was placed in to allow the gun to fire again.

Using imagination is all well and good, but a bit of logical thought and practical sense goes a lot further to creating a world where immersion is high because it is so damn plausible.

[JHendy]

Alright, in an extreme example you would have a point, it would look stupid. If they would move as if they're 5kg instead of 35,000. That's because of the game's overall setting. But what I've seen so far honestly doesn't look that improbable in this game's setting. We've already got magnetically lifted hovertanks with plasma cannons, jetpacks the size of hairdryers and magic beams that heal 3rd degree burns in half a second, so a tank that has exaggerated handling characteristics really doesn't look that stupid here to me.

Dude, it's not about it looking inexplicable or out of place in the game world, it's about it just looking bad.

I'm absolutely not saying that it needs to be scientifically justifiable, I just want it to look good and feel satisfyingly weighty.

Edited my last post after you replied to me:

You're blowing this out of proportion. No one said that the Lightning's handing needs to be redone. The turning speed appears too abrupt and responds too quickly to acceleration, it just needs to be made to look slightly more gradual. It'd be a minor tweak and it wouldn't drastically affect the way tracked vehicles handle.

[Blackwolf]

The point you're missing is that you're not bound by what demonstrably exists when you're developing a game. In Space Invaders your spaceship instantly accelerates to its maximum speed. There are only 2 speeds: 0, and fast. That is entirely illogical if you take current understanding of physics into account as well, but it worked fine in that game.

I agree that in a game with a setting like PS2 it shouldn't be completely absurd, but that's not what I'm seeing in this video.

So your point of argument is based on a 2d arcade game. K. I think we've both said about all we can on the subject...

Simple fact is you have to try and explain it with magic. It's easier, more sensible, and probably more balanced to just ask the DEVs to tweak it a bit so it's more realistic. Whether they do or not, is up to them. I kinda hope so because believe it or not a small matter like this could make or break the vehicle.

I guess my mistake was trying to explain why it looks bad/wrong/dumb. It's not even that bad though, reduce acceleration a touch and it would be perfect.

[JHendy]

I genuinely think it looks awesome. Do you understand why I said it's subjective now?

I understood before. I totally appreciate that you and others may like it. I'm not trying to convince you otherwise to be honest mate, just putting across my opinion.

[Blackwolf]

Well you also have to take certs into account dudes. This is perhaps a fully specced out Lightning, and if you've watched the TB/Higby broadcast of yesterday, you know that acceleration is a tweakable feature. It may be that it behaves very much like you both would expect it to behave based on the mass you think it has with that size in its default settings. If you were then to restrict acceleration tweaking because it would make it look less realistic, you'd be throwing away a lot of these customizations. I really like the fact that we will be able to make these trade-offs. Do I go for speed and maneuvering, or do I go for armor? etc

Oh for the love of... Just drop it already. You won't be able to tweak it by more then 20% and I really doubt vehicle tweaking is even in the game right now beyond weapon selection. I know I haven't seen anything on it. Chances are you are looking at the base model in Alpha stages that, with a 20% boost to acceleration, might as well be a heavily armored buggy.

It's a pointless argument brought about by a weak "lets just pretend it's magic" comment in response to "it looks bad" in regards to a "test drive" of a vehicle in a game that's currently in alpha.

[Rbstr]

Blackwolf, I think you need to relearn what mass a weight are, because you've been miss-characterizing both of them for the last couple pages...as someone else pointed out...but it needs reiteration.

Mass and weight have virtually no meaning in microgravity.
This is absolutely wrong.
As weight increases, so does mass. A
Oh god, lol no.

Mass is independent of the force acting upon it. Something with a mass of 2kg will always have a mass of 2kg.

There is only room for 3 or 4 more elements on the periodic table of elements. And that is based on theory. It's possible that such elements might exist on Auraxis, but chances are they exist on worlds with atmospheres that are unlike Earth's.
And titanium is actually a pretty weak element, the alloy is strong because of the bonding properties that come into effect when the element is combined with iron I think it is.
And these are also silly/wrong for good measure. At least go to wiki before you post science you don't know.

[Toppopia]

Weight, is how heavy something is after gravity has taken effect, mass, is your heavyness if gravity is 1. So earth. The english language has butchered the meaning of these 2 words by using weight incorrectly, we should be saying "Lets go mass my self" But instead we say "Lets go weigh our selves." And since we don't know what the gravity of Auraxix is, it could be 0.5 times of earths gravity, it could be 2 times stronger. So maybe vehicles behave properly since the gravity is lower. Unless we already know what that value is.

[Blackwolf]

Weight, is how heavy something is after gravity has taken effect, mass, is your heavyness if gravity is 1. So earth. The english language has butchered the meaning of these 2 words by using weight incorrectly, we should be saying "Lets go mass my self" But instead we say "Lets go weigh our selves." And since we don't know what the gravity of Auraxix is, it could be 0.5 times of earths gravity, it could be 2 times stronger. So maybe vehicles behave properly since the gravity is lower. Unless we already know what that value is.

I'm under the assumption that Auraxis is at 1g. Given the way everything else in the game appears to behave, I'd consider that a fair assumption.

And fine, I used bad science. So sue me. Does that change the argument? No. Heavier treads wouldn't allow for faster turn radius, and would be harder to move/accelerate. I stopped arguing about it because the principle of the argument was the same on both sides, the terminology was different and I am more then willing to agree I was using the wrong terminology.

[Toppopia]

I'm under the assumption that Auraxis is at 1g. Given the way everything else in the game appears to behave, I'd consider that a fair assumption.

Have we seen characters jump? Because that would give us a good indication, like in Red Faction Guerilla, because its on Mars i decided to look up its gravity, it was 0.8G or something, so then i thought, ahh. It is realistic that my character can jump just above his body height, and thats why he can run through buildings with a sledgehammer, because he came from Earth, so he will be stronger compared to people born on Mars. And buildings will be weaker on Mars because less gravity means less dense building materials, so i now dub that game is almost realistic :D

[2coolforu]

Blackwolf, I think you need to relearn what mass a weight are, because you've been miss-characterizing both of them for the last couple pages...as someone else pointed out...but it needs reiteration.


This is absolutely wrong.

Oh god, lol no.

Mass is independent of the force acting upon it. Something with a mass of 2kg will always have a mass of 2kg.



And these are also silly/wrong for good measure. At least go to wiki before you post science you don't know.

Thank you! I've been trying to show that momentum, force and acceleration have no component of gravity in them for the past two hours and I've been completely blanked. At least someone gets it!

75kg is 75kg, be it on earth, mars, space, a singularity, it is always 75kg, the gravitational field is measured in force per unit mass which gives a weight in Newtons.

[Blackwolf]

Have we seen characters jump? Because that would give us a good indication, like in Red Faction Guerilla, because its on Mars i decided to look up its gravity, it was 0.8G or something, so then i thought, ahh. It is realistic that my character can jump just above his body height, and thats why he can run through buildings with a sledgehammer, because he came from Earth, so he will be stronger compared to people born on Mars. And buildings will be weaker on Mars because less gravity means less dense building materials, so i now dub that game is almost realistic :D

PS1 you couldn't jump much higher then about knee height.

[JHendy]

For the love of god. How is any of this remotely relevant? And why does anyone give a flying fuck?

It just. Doesn't. Look. Good.

[JHendy]

It looks awesome bro.

Hah. You rascal.

[Erendil]

PS1 you couldn't jump much higher then about knee height.

Actually FWIW you could jump over someone's head if you were in Agile. Although you'd clip their nose with your toes when doing so... :p

For the love of god. How is any of this remotely relevant? And why does anyone give a flying fuck?

It just. Doesn't. Look. Good.


It looks fine to me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5XUQ2beGfM

If you skip to 1:50 you'll see the Abrams perform the same spinning maneuver the Lightning did, and it was about the same speed. In addition, at 2:15 the Abrams accelerates in reverse at almost the same speed as the Lightning did going forward.

Now, if you put a similarly-powered 1500HP engine from the 68-ton Abrams (a medium tank) into a Lightning chassis which I'm guessing weighs about half that much, I have no doubts that it would be able to perform the feats shown in the Lightning footage. It'd probably be faster, actually.

Here's another good vid:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MT4eM7wwETE

I believe the Leopard 2 at the beginning of the vid has the same 1500HP engine as the Abrams, and at 62 tons it still comes pretty close to the acceleration of the Lightning (which again, as a light tank would probably be in the 30-ton range) and its top speed is quite a bit higher.

In fact, after watching the above vid's I'm more convinced than ever that the top speed of all PS2 tanks needs to be increased. :cool:

EDIT: Interesting fact: That Lep2 topped out at 70KPH. The Lightning's top speed in PS1 was 75KPH. C'mon Devs, make it happen for PS2! :D:D:D

EDIT2: Heh, FWIW the Lep2 and abrams both weigh the same - 68 tons (62 metric tons). :doh:

[cellinaire]

The new engine really has amazing lighting doesn't it.

There's a reason why the name of the engine is 'ForgeLight'

:lol:

[Greeniegriz]

Man that M1 is a thing of beauty...

Oh, and the Lightning looked good too I guess. ;)

Cheers,

GG

[JHendy]

If you skip to 1:50 you'll see the Abrams perform the same spinning maneuver the Lightning did, and it was about the same speed.

It was nowhere near the same speed, not even close, it was a gradual acceleration :eek:

Bear in mind, I'm not talking about the raw turning speed, I'm talking about the fact that the tracked vehicles in PS2 turn at their maximum turn speed the very moment they're given acceleration. Instead of being gradual, as in the video you posted, the movement is instantaneous. That's why it looks off.

[Erendil]

It was nowhere near the same speed, not even close, it was a gradual acceleration :eek:

Bear in mind, I'm not talking about the raw turning speed, I'm talking about the fact that the tracked vehicles in PS2 turn at their maximum turn speed the very moment they're given acceleration. Instead of being gradual, as in the video you posted, the movement is instantaneous. That's why it looks off.

If you watch the Abrams spin in place closely you'll see that it actually hits its max rotation speed almost instantly, and then after maybe 1/4-1/2 second it slows down, then speeds up again over the next 2-3 seconds. To my eye its turning response is quite fast, and almost comparable to the Lightning in the OP's footage.

I'll have to watch TotalBiscuit's Livestream and Commentary with Higby since there's a lot of tank footage in it. I think you might very well have a point when it comes to MBTs.

However, I think that level of responsiveness works for the Lightning, from both a "realistic" performance and a gameplay perspective. It's going to need every ounce of agility it can get if it's going to be able to out-maneuver a Magrider or pull away from a Prowler on the straightaway, and thus be a viable alternative to a solo MBT.

[JHendy]

If you watch the Abrams spin in place closely you'll see that it actually hits its max rotation speed almost instantly, and then after maybe 1/4-1/2 second it slows down, then speeds up again over the next 2-3 seconds. To my eye its turning response is quite fast, and almost comparable to the Lightning in the OP's footage.

I'll have to watch TotalBiscuit's Livestream and Commentary with Higby since there's a lot of tank footage in it. I think you might very well have a point when it comes to MBTs.

However, I think that level of responsiveness works for the Lightning, from both a "realistic" performance and a gameplay perspective. It's going to need every ounce of agility it can get if it's going to be able to out-maneuver a Magrider or pull away from a Prowler on the straightaway, and thus be a viable alternative to a solo MBT.

I've watched the Abrams clip twice now and I'm sticking to my guns here, acceleration when turning on the spot is very much a gradual thing, as it would be with any remotely heavy skid-steering vehicle.

In the context of the lightning I do agree with you, it is forgiveable as it's supposed to be an extremely agile vehicle, but the Prowler appears just as twitchy from what I've seen of it so far.

I keep yammering on but it's really as simple as making that first split second of turning slightly less rapid.

[Minor]

I really hope an off switch for the vehicle headlights will be added in.

Its just plain stupid to drive a tank at night with your lights on.

[Sledgecrushr]

I really hope an off switch for the vehicle headlights will be added in.

Its just plain stupid to drive a tank at night with your lights on.


I would think it would be hilarious to watch a whole convoy of blacked out tanks drive over the edge of a ravine.