SE2 Suggestion: Optimized Structural Integrity via Macro-Chunks & Stiffness Coefficients

Marcus Parriott ●

how would a system like this handle a situation where a large base is being attacked from multiple angles by multiple targets, each macro block would have a seperate physics chunk, connected to the main, then the calculations when chunks get seperated and blown off the main, with more physics stacking as more and more seperate and deform.

where does the proposed system just become the current system as macro chunks become individual blocks, or do the chunks just keep getting reduced to smaller and smaller chunks?

Reply URL

2

Artur Saifetdinov ●

Great question, Marcus! You’ve pointed out the classic worst-case scenario. However, the system avoids degrading into a per-block nightmare through a few architectural constraints:

Debris vs. Structure: The moment a chunk is blown off, it converts into a standard rigid body (debris). It completely stops calculating internal Structural Integrity (SI) because it's no longer part of the load-bearing grid graph. Standard multi-body physics handles this efficiently.

Adaptive Degradation (Octree/Hierarchical approach): Dynamic sub-division only happens at the exact zones of impact. If a base is hit from three angles, only those three local macro-chunks dynamically split into smaller sub-nodes. The remaining 90% of the massive base stays optimized as huge macro-nodes.

Asynchronous Time-Slicing: SI graph recalculations don't need to happen on the immediate physics tick. They can be queued asynchronously across multiple frames.

So the system doesn't collapse back into individual blocks; it just dynamically adapts where needed, keeping CPU overhead bounded even during heavy rakes.

URL

1

Marcus Parriott ●

i think i get it... thanks for the breakdown.

URL

2

Tael ●

...Structural physics would be cool, but I do have questions...

-If a ship is divided in to macro-chunks" as described, how might the system figure how things behave if a chunk contains both a structurally solid portion and a structurally frail portion either partially or entirely within the chunk?

-Perhaps my experience with people flying bricks is different than yours, but most of the gun-bricks I've encountered are effectively huge slabs of heavy armor several layers thick with the important bits mounted in pockets within the interior, while their "disadvantaged opponents" fly ships with much lighter construction (often only a single-layer "skin"). Subsequently I must question how connecting a ship's durability to its structural capacity wouldn't just result in bricks being even more durable relative to their non-brick opponents than they already are.

-"Debris vs Structure" seems... abuseable? How would the game differentiate between debris and something I intentionally broke off to throw at someone? (keeping in mind that pre-merge-blocks in SE1 people used to come up with ways to intentionally break off pieces of their own ship to throw them at or drop them on a target)

Reply URL

2

Artur Saifetdinov ●

Those are incredibly sharp questions, Tael! You’ve pointed out the exact edge-cases that make structural physics hard to implement. Here is how a modern engine architecture (like VRAGE3) can solve them within this concept:

1. Mixed Strength in a Macro-Chunk (Heterogeneity)

Macro-chunks aren't completely uniform blocks; they act as a Hierarchical Bounding Volume (like an octree). The internal connections of a chunk are cached as a simplified 3D stress-map. If localized external force (or internal torque) exceeds the threshold of the weakest link inside that chunk, the system dynamically "subdivides" (splits) that specific macro-chunk into smaller nodes to calculate the exact fracture line. If the load is low, it remains compressed as a single node.

2. The "Gun-Brick" Penalty (Exponential Stiffness Limits)

Structural physics is indeed the ultimate "anti-brick" mechanic. Heavy armor blocks have massive mass, and pulling high-G maneuvers with a giant brick applies immense torque.

To prevent players from bypassing this by simply stacking massive layers of heavy armor to get infinite rigidity, the engine can implement a maximum effective stiffness limit based on an exponential decay curve. Beyond a certain structural thickness, the added stiffness yields diminishing returns. This means massive solid bricks will still suffer from internal stress and flexibility limits under extreme inertia, forcing players to build realistic, engineered skeletal frames rather than solid slabs of metal.

3. Debris vs. Kinetic Projectiles (Dynamic Scale-Based Chunking)

To clarify, structural integrity physics must still be calculated for every grid, including projectiles. However, the use of macro-chunks is dynamic and scales based on the grid's size.

For small structures (like small debris, missiles, or light torpedoes), macro-chunking is bypassed entirely—they are computed as a single physical node, which is incredibly cheap for the CPU. For larger, complex grids, the engine dynamically enables macro-chunking. This ensures a player-made kinetic weapon still obeys physical limits and transfers kinetic energy realistically on impact, but doesn't waste overhead on high-fidelity structural stress calculations during its flight.

P.S. Please excuse any slightly unusual or robotic phrasing! I'm using AI assistance to write this, as it helps me structure and express my complex technical ideas in English much more clearly. :)

Those are incredibly sharp questions, Tael! You’ve pointed out the exact edge-cases that make structural physics hard to implement. Here is how a modern engine architecture (like VRAGE3) can solve them within this concept:

1. Mixed Strength in a Macro-Chunk (Heterogeneity)

Macro-chunks aren't completely uniform blocks; they act as a Hierarchical Bounding Volume (like an octree). The internal connections of a chunk are cached as a simplified 3D stress-map. If localized external force (or internal torque) exceeds the threshold of the weakest link inside that chunk, the system dynamically "subdivides" (splits) that specific macro-chunk into smaller nodes to calculate the exact fracture line. If the load is low, it remains compressed as a single node.

2. The "Gun-Brick" Penalty (Exponential Stiffness Limits)

Structural physics is indeed the ultimate "anti-brick" mechanic. Heavy armor blocks have massive mass, and pulling high-G maneuvers with a giant brick applies immense torque.

To prevent players from bypassing this by simply stacking massive layers of heavy armor to get infinite rigidity, the engine can implement a maximum effective stiffness limit based on an exponential decay curve. Beyond a certain structural thickness, the added stiffness yields diminishing returns. This means massive solid bricks will still suffer from internal stress and flexibility limits under extreme inertia, forcing players to build realistic, engineered skeletal frames rather than solid slabs of metal.

3. Debris vs. Kinetic Projectiles (Dynamic Scale-Based Chunking)

To clarify, structural integrity physics must still be calculated for every grid, including projectiles. However, the use of macro-chunks is dynamic and scales based on the grid's size.

For small structures (like small debris, missiles, or light torpedoes), macro-chunking is bypassed entirely—they are computed as a single physical node, which is incredibly cheap for the CPU. For larger, complex grids, the engine dynamically enables macro-chunking. This ensures a player-made kinetic weapon still obeys physical limits and transfers kinetic energy realistically on impact, but doesn't waste overhead on high-fidelity structural stress calculations during its flight.

P.S. Please excuse any slightly unusual or robotic phrasing! I'm using AI assistance to write this, as it helps me structure and express my complex technical ideas in English much more clearly. :)

URL

1

Marcus Parriott ●

i use AI to structure my complex english ideas more clearly in english too. *thumbs up*

URL

1

Artur Saifetdinov ●

If I got any of the technical details wrong, feel free to correct me

URL

1

Semtex ●

Guys, this might sound like heresy—but this ugly "gunbricks" is the correct engineering solution to the distorted physics of the game world. The problem isn't with the builders of "gunbricks", but with the game mechanics that allow and encourage the existence of such creations.

For this idea—which I generally support—to work, changes to the structural elements are necessary. I believe that long beams and flat panels are required for it to function.

Structures assembled from individual identical cubes will not allow this idea to be implemented.

URL

1

Artur Saifetdinov ●

That's a good point, but in SE2, beams can be built using small blocks because the developers have already made it possible to combine small and large blocks.

URL

1

Tael ●

Well that solves two of the issues, but I think we're still going to have problems with trying to use it to counter gun-bricks... (Sorry, this one's going to be long)

The "Large Ship High-G-Maneuvers" problem isn't a gun-brick problem, its a gravity-drive problem.

-In SE1 a ship using regular thrusters requires surface area to mount those thrusters on, meaning the square-cube law will generally make them slower to accelerate. Double(x2) a ship's dimensions and you increase the amount of space available for thrusters by four times(4x), but increase the mass those thrusters must move by eight(8x). This creates a natural diminishing returns curve, and while you could use internal thrusters to try and compensate it would take up a huge amount of resources and internal volume in a way that would absolutely find itself hamstrung by your structural mechanic idea.

-Most large ships pulling high-g maneuvers in SE1 are using gravity drives, granting them an exponential increase in propulsive-power as the ship gets larger. Double(x2) a ship's dimensions here and its mass increases by eight times(8x), but the gravity-drive output increases by sixty-four(64x) times.

So, if we remove grav-drives from the game to solve that part of the problem (perhaps by turning it in to a server-setting the host can toggle), we return to the issue of the proposed structural mechanics nerfing the non-gunbricks more than they nerf the actual gunbrics. With the proposed mechanic (including what you've said in your responses), we end up with effectively three classes of ship:

-The Lightweight: This classification includes most of what most people complaining about gunbricks are currently flying. Most such ships are very lightly built, often with a relatively thin armor-skin and possibly an interior made mostly of low durability greebling. If we apply the proposed structural mechanic to them then their relatively light-weight would help reduce the stresses they inflict upon themselves during maneuvers, but it would also severely reduce their effective hp when faced with hostile weapons-fire. The proposed mechanic would result in a significant penalty to these ships' durability.

-The Middle-Meta: This classification will result from min-maxers still intending to properly maneuver while also possessed of the heaviest armor they can have. It may take some time to parse out for the average player, but it will eventually boil down to someone creating graphs and working out a math-problem on a spread-sheet. Once they've got it worked out they build a "meta-ship" that will behave like a mini-gunbrick for firepower and durability while still possessing a reasonable capacity for maneuvers. This design won't be "unbeatable", but by the standard the proposed mechanic would create these ships would be abnormally durable for their apparent size and agility, and will possess a statistically above average chance of winning a fight when measured against ships with similar resource requirements.

-The Heavyweight: This classification includes a significant portion of current non-grav-propelled gunbricks, festooned with turrets and effectively being solid slabs of armor with the important bits tucked in to internal pockets. Ships like this will fight more like a base than like a ship, not trying to evade so much as just trying to keep an opponent in turret range so they can win on raw mass. The proposed structural mechanics might make them even worse at maneuvers than they already are, but will only augment their already substantial durability.

So, I can certainly appreciate the desire to nerf bricks and make smaller stuff more viable, but this mechanic looks like it will do the exact opposite by giving them even more durability than they already have while nerfing the lighter builds. Am I missing something here?