This week we were hoping to release a patch with the new interceptor for our Developer Access backers however it got held up by unfinished work on a new input mapper that has taken longer than expected. For those of you who have access to the prototype you probably have noticed that you’ve only been able to play with a mouse and keyboard. The new input mapper will allow you to use game controllers and simple joysticks (we haven’t tested it yet with HOTAS so your mileage may vary). This work should be wrapped up shortly and we expect to release the new patch soon.
The focus of the week has been a combination of iterating on our ship designs and discussing missile mechanics. In a modern fighter jet missiles are actually quite large relative to the size of the plane. For example a Dassault Rafale can carry up to 14 missiles which is quite a lot compared to most other aircraft. While we don’t want to be fully constrained by realism we do want our weapons to be balanced around concepts that are at least somewhat plausible. Availability of missiles will be limited and we’re currently debating whether or not an interceptor should have internal or external launchers. In the case of bombers and larger spacecraft they will be internal but interceptors pose a unique challenge due to a much smaller, heavily angled hull.
(A visualization of a blue external launcher and a violet missile.)
External launchers can potentially take one of two forms. The first is as a magazine fed rectangular box that attaches to the hull on a hardpoint as shown above. The second, which you commonly see today, is one or more missiles attached to the hull individually or as a member of a pod composed of tubes containing 1 missile each:
This is something we’re likely going to play around with over the next few months as it has a significant impact on how the design of the interceptor will be finalized. As mentioned above bombers will use magazine fed internal launchers as visualized below:
(A visualization of a bomber with magazine fed internal launchers.)
A significant amount of rework is going into the corvette. Based on feedback and our own experiences playing around with the current mock-up we’re redoing large portions of both the hull and the cockpit which you can see below:
We don’t have a specific timeline for when we’re going to integrate the mock-up for the next version of the corvette but it’ll likely be within a few weeks. After the next patch with the interceptor we want to focus on improving our net code a bit before we move onto weapons. We’ve also started on the 3D mesh work for the next version of the bomber so that should be ready within a few weeks as well.
You could embellish those bays with rotating missile holder thingies that “slide around the insides of the ship” or however you might want to explain it. It could give the excuse for holding higher than average missile amounts in an internal bay if that’s what you’re after.
Note: I didn’t add the arrow I just ripped it off google images…
My gut reaction is that external missiles make more sense for a smaller, lighter interceptor. This also provides good reason for it to act like and interceptor and not a bomber, which should be able to carry heavier payloads. Just my first thoughts! I’ll wait until I see the model in the prototype before going any further.
I think missile is useless！
1.These ships are flying very fast,many kilometers per sec! So I think general chemical missile cant catch up.
2.Not science fiction
The only reason for internal Bays nowadays is Aerodynamics and Stealth.
Bombers and more commonly attack craft with ultra heavy payloads carry payloads in external as well as internal bays (at the same time). This allows to loadout the craft to suit the mission Profile. Depending on the situation on the Battlefield (Air Superiority, AA, distance).
Both work. So I think letting the visual style decide would be ok in that case. Both habe their cool sided.
Is a fix for the atmospheric flight planned for the next patch?
I think this is the first time you confirm internal missile stores for Bomber / Corvette? I just want to say that i love that. Interceptor can work either way, but having it outside / hardpoint based would force the pilot to make some tradeoffs in his loadout in order to take missiles - this is a good thing imho.
While today, the reason for internal carryage is airodynamics / stealth, with the guns / shields / armour in the Scifi setting, it might also very much be protection. One thought that crossed my mind is that we had talk about point defense “lasers” - accurate lightspeed low damage turrets too weak to hurt ships but capable of exploding guided projectiles ( missiles, torpedos, bombs, mines, drones, whatever ). Now imagine if they could also shoot at externally mounted missiles before they get launched, causing a sudden explosion next to your interceptor’s hull that you did not expect… I think that has some potential.
Good to see ongoing work on the Corvette, not gonna comment on it here cause we now have a dedicated thread for that.
What i am looking forward to the most in the short term is the keybinding stuff - with that implemented, i think all i am missing for mirroring the kind of setup i use in other games is a toggle to directly switch between first and third person on a single key. Hooray for multi-key mice support! Netcode also sounds good, there are still incidents of seeing explosions on the ship you shoot at but the ship not dying. ( Might want to introduce health bars on a locked target not too far in the future so we can see what damage we are actually doing. )
However, as I was thinking, nowadays fighter combat is almost 100% missiles. The nose gun is there basically just for backup. In IB, however, there will be a lot of ‘close’ combat. Internal compartments will provide better protection for the missiles.
I would suggest using internal compartments for standard equipment. And external for add-ons. For luxury of having more missiles you become more vulnerable, cause if hit your external missiles would blow up, damaging your own hull.
My feeling is that I-Novae don’t have the resources to spend time looking for solutions to largely cosmetic issues such as this. Use the simplest solution, have internal bays and missiles that spawn at their launch point without needing any animation of bay doors or the need to track and render externally mounted missiles.
Get them working in a basic format. Give more attention to the problem of how they behave, which has real gameplay effects. Then if the game is ready to release and you have time for polishing, only then think about the cosmetics of how missiles will be stored and deployed. You can design your ships with this in mind, but that’s just a case of leaving a bare area of hull where either an external or internal hardpoint could be placed.
[quote=edzieba]There are two other launching methods that could be considered:
Perpendicular launch. This is similar to the ‘VLS’ cells of wet Navy ships. The missile is ejected perpendicular to the flightpath and uses its own power to rotate to the correct vector (which may not always be straight ahead) before/while accelerating
Rearward launch. The missile is ‘dropped’ out the back of the craft, then uses it’s own power to rotate to vector, or to translate sideways sufficiently to ‘go around’ the launching craft if required.[/quote]
As others said, internal missiles would help making them look more secure.
If there are external missiles, they may either be damaged by enemy fire (which may not be good gameplay) or they may be invulnerable to enemy fire (the interceptor itself takes fire), which would look weird.
Also, another advantage of bays is that you can have as many missiles as you want. If you want only two missiles, then your two bays won’t look bad, where half-empty hardpoints may. If you want twenty missiles, it won’t look bad (the odd question about where they are all fitted in the craft can be harmlessly handwaved), while it may be a struggle to put them all on the craft with external hardpoints and still have it look good.
Now, for what kind of bay, I’d go with bays like in bombers or the F-22/F-35 displayed above (either opening or rotative). Essentially, the interceptor ‘drops’ the missile as it fires away, giving no forward acceleration at launch (it doesn’t have to be ventral bays, though, it could equally be side bays).
This is because it looks closer to the jet fighters we are familiar with (an analogue to the interceptor in role), it looks cool and the kind of missiles it carry would be light, fast-accelerating ones similar to modern AA missiles (again with familiarity). Interceptors aren’t supposed to carry torpedoes - or if they do, they aren’t supposed to be optimal at it, that would be a Bomber or even maybe Corvette job.
The new Corvette looks pretty nice, I’m curious to see how it works in he prototype.
I only wonder if its silhouette isn’t a bit too much like the Bomber, though.
And I’ll keep calling it the Cyrano, because why wouldn’t I.
External launch points on the Interceptor is the way to go. And really happy the corvette is being reworked. And super happy that we will shortly be able to fly with other controllers other than mouse and keyboard. Really moving along nicely I have to say - definitely a 10 out of 10 - great work DEVs!
Looks so much better without the front pike. But I thought the bomber was also going to be reworked? If not then it should be fine as far as silhouette is concerned…they are pretty unique. But if the corvette is a capital ship then perhaps it should be bigger? Increased size would also greatly enhance the differences between the two.
Thank you so much guys for working on this already, looking forward for that :>
