Lightning Test Drive - Page 3

CutterJohn · 2012-06-02, 01:26 PM

Originally Posted by 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.

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

DrifterBG · 2012-06-02, 02:02 PM

because I'll shoot it down

Blackwolf · 2012-06-02, 02:08 PM

Originally Posted by Erendil

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.

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

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 · 2012-06-02, 02:11 PM

Originally Posted by Blackwolf

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 · 2012-06-02, 02:11 PM

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

Mechzz · 2012-06-02, 02:13 PM

Originally Posted by GreatMazinkaise

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 · 2012-06-02, 02:21 PM

Originally Posted by elfailo

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".

Originally Posted by Mechzz

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 · 2012-06-02, 02:50 PM

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 · 2012-06-02, 03:04 PM

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 · 2012-06-02, 03:09 PM

Originally Posted by Blackwolf

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 · 2012-06-02, 03:26 PM

Originally Posted by 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?

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

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

Blackwolf · 2012-06-02, 03:29 PM

Originally Posted by 2coolforu

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.

Originally Posted by SGTalon

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 · 2012-06-02, 03:43 PM

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 · 2012-06-02, 03:49 PM

Originally Posted by Blackwolf

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 · 2012-06-02, 03:59 PM

Originally Posted by elfailo

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.