As it suggests, players using gimbals and turrets need to fly less aggressively to get accurate fire. Eg, a Python not moving with turrets has an accuracy of 100%. The more it manoevers the less accurate the weapons are. It would be a good tradeoff as fixed wep fighters can gain positional advantage, while slow moving turrets/ gimbal ships need to dampen movements to be a stable gun platform.
base turret and gimbal accuracy on movement
- Thread starter Rubbernuke
- Start date
There are standard issue tanks today that don't need to deal with this, I see no reason we would have to deal with this in ED. We don't have to fight much pressure in space so really the only physical forces we have to deal with that could affect aim would be g-forces. At 300m/s I think we've learned to deal with that quite well.
True, most weapon systems like Phalanx ( on ships) have stabilisation, but there is no real reason why ED ships can't have the same either. Its just finding the best game mechanic to excuse not having 100% hit rates. With this one it would require flying in a certain way to avoid abrupt direction changes that would introduce innacuracies, a flight style very different to flying fix wep ships.
My thought is that a good approach to this might be to simply model the underlying mechanics and see what behavior emerges:
1. The accuracy and resolution of target position information depends on sensor capacity, range, and presence of chaff and ECM (both from the target and in the general vicinity)
2. There is a delay between obtaining target information and communicating that to the weapon (albeit usually very short)
3. There is then a mechanical lag for the the weapon to start tracking the target. This motion is actually quite complex, involving an acceleration from stationary (or whatever rate the weapon is currently tracking at) to the maximum slew speed the weapon is capable off, and then deceleration back to stationary (or whatever tracking rate is necessary to keep the target aligned). Every time the target *or* the weapon platforms maneuvers, this motion has to be repeated!
4. There is a limited mechanical accuracy for the whole tracking / positioning of the weapon.
5. Vibration and mechanical wear will also affect the tracking accuracy.
So, even if they just modeled (1) Sensor resolution, (2) Tracking rates and (3) positioning accuracy of the weapon, most of the desirable (and interesting) behavior - such as difficulty tracking small/fast moving/close targets with big weapons, and benefits of holding the firing platform steady - would just come out automatically.
For all I know, they already do this, and the behavior we see is a consequence of it.
1. The accuracy and resolution of target position information depends on sensor capacity, range, and presence of chaff and ECM (both from the target and in the general vicinity)
2. There is a delay between obtaining target information and communicating that to the weapon (albeit usually very short)
3. There is then a mechanical lag for the the weapon to start tracking the target. This motion is actually quite complex, involving an acceleration from stationary (or whatever rate the weapon is currently tracking at) to the maximum slew speed the weapon is capable off, and then deceleration back to stationary (or whatever tracking rate is necessary to keep the target aligned). Every time the target *or* the weapon platforms maneuvers, this motion has to be repeated!
4. There is a limited mechanical accuracy for the whole tracking / positioning of the weapon.
5. Vibration and mechanical wear will also affect the tracking accuracy.
So, even if they just modeled (1) Sensor resolution, (2) Tracking rates and (3) positioning accuracy of the weapon, most of the desirable (and interesting) behavior - such as difficulty tracking small/fast moving/close targets with big weapons, and benefits of holding the firing platform steady - would just come out automatically.
For all I know, they already do this, and the behavior we see is a consequence of it.