SE2 gatlings turrets ...
Not Enough Votes
Yo, KEEN, I just saw your new turret for SE2 and what is that ?
I love the design and the sound design of the turret, but the fire rate ? It is ridiculously slow for a big, chunky, gatling gun. Maybe could you give it better fire rate, like C-ram or things like that, and make a smaller, more modest, non-gatling gun looking turret ?
Just proposing if it can help, I know a lot of people have the same opinion...
(Source : the youtube comments of the presentation video for the gatling turret)
I like this feedback You can't vote. Please authorize!
The lack of accuracy and damage concerns me. Even if they'd just copied and pasted across the SE1 gatling, it would already be less effective due to the 300m/s movement speed.
But this version can't hit the broad side of a barn, and even when it did hit, appeared to be just tickling a small grid ship.
Even the interior turrets from SE1 are more deadly than that.
The lack of accuracy and damage concerns me. Even if they'd just copied and pasted across the SE1 gatling, it would already be less effective due to the 300m/s movement speed.
But this version can't hit the broad side of a barn, and even when it did hit, appeared to be just tickling a small grid ship.
Even the interior turrets from SE1 are more deadly than that.
You beat me to it :-P But just wondering, when you said "I love the... sound design of the turret"?, did you mean the sound of the turret moving (I think I heard a movement sound) or do you actually mean the firing?
For me, the firing sounds is inaccurate and kind of immersion breaking. I would like to see a proper BRRRRRT gattling sound and significantly more tracers.
Can you update your post to clarify your position on the sound otherwise people could like it when they actually don't like the sound - there was a lot of comments saying the sound does not fit, so I just want to make sure we don't confuse our feedback.
From my perspective, the sound needs to be changed.
You beat me to it :-P But just wondering, when you said "I love the... sound design of the turret"?, did you mean the sound of the turret moving (I think I heard a movement sound) or do you actually mean the firing?
For me, the firing sounds is inaccurate and kind of immersion breaking. I would like to see a proper BRRRRRT gattling sound and significantly more tracers.
Can you update your post to clarify your position on the sound otherwise people could like it when they actually don't like the sound - there was a lot of comments saying the sound does not fit, so I just want to make sure we don't confuse our feedback.
From my perspective, the sound needs to be changed.
*Copy from YT post*
Hmmm...
-Rate of fire doesn't look too bad, lower RoF is good for optimization,
-Audio isn't bad, but it could use a bit more base,
-Projectile spread is hard to eyeball from the video without knowing the target ship, but paired with the lower RoF it looks a bit wide if you're expecting it to chase off small targets (such as missiles or grinder-monkeys) unless the damage is up a fair bit from where it was in SE1. I saw a comment suggesting a "flak" weapon, this would be extremely cool and do a much better job handling small targets trying to ram or otherwise get in to "melee".
@Frumpkin
Agreed, if a big anti-ship pdc does so little to a "small grid" then there are concerns about the damage.
*Copy from YT post*
Hmmm...
-Rate of fire doesn't look too bad, lower RoF is good for optimization,
-Audio isn't bad, but it could use a bit more base,
-Projectile spread is hard to eyeball from the video without knowing the target ship, but paired with the lower RoF it looks a bit wide if you're expecting it to chase off small targets (such as missiles or grinder-monkeys) unless the damage is up a fair bit from where it was in SE1. I saw a comment suggesting a "flak" weapon, this would be extremely cool and do a much better job handling small targets trying to ram or otherwise get in to "melee".
@Frumpkin
Agreed, if a big anti-ship pdc does so little to a "small grid" then there are concerns about the damage.
In the video the fire rate feels slower than common assault rifle (700 shots per minute). Gatling turret fire rate should be closer to realistic like thousands shots per minute. Like this :) https://youtu.be/tLcwZ4p2pIU?t=20
In the video the fire rate feels slower than common assault rifle (700 shots per minute). Gatling turret fire rate should be closer to realistic like thousands shots per minute. Like this :) https://youtu.be/tLcwZ4p2pIU?t=20
It seems to me that you're focusing on the "wrong things."
You're preoccupied with superficial aspects—the visual or even acoustic aspects of the problem—and completely ignoring the essentials.
The first question should be: how to properly simulate a weapon with a rate of fire of 6,000 rounds per minute in a computer game so that it doesn’t have a catastrophic impact on the performance of the game engine and the system.
It is clear that simulating 100 shots per second—and thus calculating the trajectories of 100 projectiles—for each weapon separately under "gun spam" conditions is impossible, or rather, unnecessarily complex and computationally intensive.
A possible solution could be that the "projectile" used by the subsystem evaluating the bullet’s flight and impact on obstacles has a completely different appearance than the "projectile" processed by the visualization subsystem.
Simply put: the weapon "fires" a collision model in the form of a "rod" several meters long (5–15 meters), which visually represents 5–10 projectiles (it has 5–10 glowing tracer objects on it).
Ammunition consumption corresponds to the visual model; 5–10 “rounds” are consumed to create a single collision model. This would also be the “smallest possible burst” from weapon.
Ideally, the collision model could expand during flight in directions perpendicular to the trajectory to simulate the dispersion of projectiles.
Advantage of the design: significant computational simplification of the process. Instead of 100 objects per second, only 5–10–20 objects per second would be calculated and evaluated, while maintaining sufficient visual realism.
It seems to me that you're focusing on the "wrong things."
You're preoccupied with superficial aspects—the visual or even acoustic aspects of the problem—and completely ignoring the essentials.
The first question should be: how to properly simulate a weapon with a rate of fire of 6,000 rounds per minute in a computer game so that it doesn’t have a catastrophic impact on the performance of the game engine and the system.
It is clear that simulating 100 shots per second—and thus calculating the trajectories of 100 projectiles—for each weapon separately under "gun spam" conditions is impossible, or rather, unnecessarily complex and computationally intensive.
A possible solution could be that the "projectile" used by the subsystem evaluating the bullet’s flight and impact on obstacles has a completely different appearance than the "projectile" processed by the visualization subsystem.
Simply put: the weapon "fires" a collision model in the form of a "rod" several meters long (5–15 meters), which visually represents 5–10 projectiles (it has 5–10 glowing tracer objects on it).
Ammunition consumption corresponds to the visual model; 5–10 “rounds” are consumed to create a single collision model. This would also be the “smallest possible burst” from weapon.
Ideally, the collision model could expand during flight in directions perpendicular to the trajectory to simulate the dispersion of projectiles.
Advantage of the design: significant computational simplification of the process. Instead of 100 objects per second, only 5–10–20 objects per second would be calculated and evaluated, while maintaining sufficient visual realism.
yea agreed. I saw it and was like well the turret is nice and all but please make it shoot like 3 times as fast, it needs the right feeling. (and maybe a bit less spread)
yea agreed. I saw it and was like well the turret is nice and all but please make it shoot like 3 times as fast, it needs the right feeling. (and maybe a bit less spread)
Replies have been locked on this page!