Sure - suggestions...

[Eric Walch]

I was considering something very similar, having read this thread earlier.

I already experimented with it when I wrote the Missile Analyser. Just let the missiles explode on 200 meters from the target instead of 25 meters. So far away they only scratch the paint of normal ships, but for putting a missile out of fight this distance is enough. And intercepting the target within just 200 meters is much easier. I was in doubt to add it to the analyser but at the end I decided against it. A separate oxp would be better.

I used the name "interception missile". I think "AB missile" or "Anti Ballistic Missile" is a better name.

For the distance I only tested it against the "ECM hardened missile". The required distance is very depending on frame rate. Every frame the position of ships is recalculated resulting in larger distances per frame at a low frame rate. The lowest possible frame rate is 4. At even slower situations, Oolite start to slow time itself.

Lets assume two standard missiles at 25 meter from each other at a speed of 750 meter/sec. (just outside the normal explosion trigger).
At a frame rate of 4 the missiles each travel 750/4 = 187.5 meters and will have past each other and are now 350 meters from each other. They missed the trigger moment.

With a triggering distance of 200 meters and 200 meters from each other at one frame they have past each other 175 meters at the next frame. That is just inside the 200 meter range.

This means that 200 meter trigering is even enough for the lowest frame rate.

With a frame rate of 40 each missile ravels 19 meters per frame. At such good frame rates even normal missiles will always work as AB missiles. A special AB missile does make sense at slow computers like mine.

[Thargoid]

I threw a quick OXP together on the plane back yesterday, and it seems to more or less work (other than getting missionVariables to work yet again to keep count).

It's set up as an equipment piece (rather than a pylon-based one) which fires an anti-missile dart targetted on an incoming missile. It's set up as higher speed than a missile, but much lower yield (only about 150 iirc). Seems to work reasonably well, with the equipment having a total of 10 darts before it needs replacing.

I was using a range of 150m for the test, but that will probably need upping as you say due to the higher speed of the dart.

It needs a little more work before release, but should be available by the end of the week or so.

[Eric Walch]

It's set up as an equipment piece (rather than a pylon-based one) which fires an anti-missile dart targetted on an incoming missile.

I don't like that. Making it equipment implies that is auto reacts on an incoming missile. I think you always should need a player reaction on an incoming missile otherwise you remove the thrill out of the game.

[Thargoid]

I must admit there I disagree, at least from a realism viewpoint if not a gameplay one. The next small logical step from having something detected is to automatically do something about it. And if it's something like destroying incoming missiles, then it would be a no-brainer to do it.

For example I know both Navy and Air Force craft have such systems where the threat detection and action for hostile incoming missiles is entirely automated. Ideally I would have it as something that needs to be turned on/off to function, but that's beyond the scope of what's possible currently (such keys can't be assigned).

Auto-ECM would also be the next logical step from ECM, with the negative that it zaps every missile in range, including the players own. In this case the system is limited to 10 darts (or possibly less, once I finish it and play test it and see how it sits gameplay-wise). Also don't forget that the dart actually has to intercept the incoming missile, so there is no guarantee that it will do so (given the high speeds involved and the frame rates etc. as have already been mentioned).

Plus some other fudgings could also be used if needed, like missile accuracy or adding a risk of jams and such.

[Sarin]

hm..I tested that modified missile interception pack, and...they just detonate too far away from targeted missile. I dunno why, but it just happens. Tried several times, it never hits.

[Eric Walch]

hm..I tested that modified missile interception pack, and...they just detonate too far away from targeted missile. I dunno why, but it just happens. Tried several times, it never hits.

I just tested it against the default missiles. When it detonates far from the missile it does little damage. It could be that there exist missiles with a higher energy. It is just a matter of figuring out whit settings are optimal against missies in contrast to against much slower ships.
However with two missiles head-on, their speed difference is 1500 m/s. At this speed frame rate makes a large difference.

EDIT:
You could try to open the oxp, look into the AI folder for the file: missileRack_iRackAI.plist. Open that file and change the two occurrences of "setDesiredRangeTo: 200.0" into "setDesiredRangeTo: 100.0" (original value of a plain missile is 25). Now it detonates closer to the target and does more damage. Only at the lowest frame rates you run the risk it passes its target between two frames.

Oolite internal missiles have a strength of 5 (max_energy = 5). Those of missiles & bombs mostly have a strength of 10. (And some much higher). And need a closer explosion to damage them.

[Gunney_Plym]

I don't so much like the doomsday-machine idea. For the most part this is because it is so utterly unrealistic. Have you any idea how much it takes to get rid of a planet?

Sure it would take a lot to destroy a planet, however it's biosphere would usually be a delicate system. Dump a 'relatively' low amount of energy, or contaminate, into the atmosphere and it would rapidly become an unpleasant place to be

[Commander McLane]

I don't so much like the doomsday-machine idea. For the most part this is because it is so utterly unrealistic. Have you any idea how much it takes to get rid of a planet?

Sure it would take a lot to destroy a planet, however it's biosphere would usually be a delicate system. Dump a 'relatively' low amount of energy, or contaminate, into the atmosphere and it would rapidly become an unpleasant place to be

Agreed, but this would have little to no visible effect, as far as a game like Oolite is concerned. The planet would still exist, there would be no explosion, even no change in texture, if we are talking about the built-in textures. Everything would be exactly the same before and after. Okay, you could modify the F7-screen short description, but that's about it.

And I think that would be a little anti-climactic, as far as at least my personal expectations for something called a doomsday-machine would be concerned.

[drew]

I don't so much like the doomsday-machine idea. For the most part this is because it is so utterly unrealistic. Have you any idea how much it takes to get rid of a planet?

Sure it would take a lot to destroy a planet, however it's biosphere would usually be a delicate system. Dump a 'relatively' low amount of energy, or contaminate, into the atmosphere and it would rapidly become an unpleasant place to be

Or, get an asteroid to float past on the right trajectory and you can move the planet to a closer or further orbit - boil or freeze it, no need for any 'materials' per se (assuming you can move asteroids about)

Cheers,

Drew.

[Gunney_Plym]

Agreed, but this would have little to no visible effect, as far as a game like Oolite is concerned. The planet would still exist, there would be no explosion, even no change in texture, if we are talking about the built-in textures. Everything would be exactly the same before and after. Okay, you could modify the F7-screen short description, but that's about it.

And I think that would be a little anti-climactic, as far as at least my personal expectations for something called a doomsday-machine would be concerned.

Yes, the planet would still be there. But the texture and description could be changed, maybe also it's tech level etc.

It could be useful as motivation for mission scenario.

[Micha]

I must admit there I disagree, at least from a realism viewpoint if not a gameplay one. The next small logical step from having something detected is to automatically do something about it. And if it's something like destroying incoming missiles, then it would be a no-brainer to do it.

Where do you stop automating then? It's also a no-brainer to have laser turrets mounted to your ship with computer-guided targetting which automatically lock onto any hostiles in the vicinity...

[Thargoid]

Defense against something that's going to induce a "space bar" moment for me, so no your turret example wouldn't be one. But here arguably the docking computer may be, given (for new players at least) how often they end up getting scrapped off the station frontage...