Welcome to Keen Software House Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the KSH community.
  1. You are currently browsing our forum as a guest. Create your own forum account to access all forum functionality.

Sensor range

Discussion in 'Balancing' started by DigitalStone, Mar 2, 2018.

Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.
  1. DigitalStone Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    264
    I think this one is relatively easy, and i think everyone would like to have sensors which's reach would be further than they are currently.

    Let's take a sensor's max distance of 1 direction: 50 meters
    Given all directions: 6 directions
    Total sensor distance: 50 meters * 6 directions = 300 meters
    So 300 meters within all directions consuming 25.99kW on small grid --- 30kW on large grid.

    What about having those 300 meters as a sort of "pool" from which you can take as much as you like in order to favor certain direction(s)?
    This way you can scout further across the rear of your ship for example to look out for enemies while consuming the same amount of power.
    The sensor would literally be balanced.

    ===================
    Example
    Back extent = 300 meters
    All other directions = 0 meters
    (This setting would literally not be practical of course)
    EDIT: This setting could perhaps work as a laser. No width, no height, only length

    OR

    Left extent = 100 meters
    Right extent = 100 meters
    Back extent = 50 meters
    Front extent = 50 meters

    ===================

    I mean, the sensor device is already capable of distinguishing all 6 directions separately while boosting range relative to the consumption of power.
    It's only reasonable to boost more power to favor the directions you like more versus the direction you don't need at all.

    On top of this:
    Maybe, just maybe, we can have more power consumption overall to gain even more distance than the total of 300 meters?
     
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2018
    • Like Like x 2
  2. Sinbad Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,788
    adding a bit more math to your madness here:
    think of it as an allowed scan volume. max all the range sliders and its a 100x100x100m cube, that's 1,000,000 cubic meters of scan volume. SE checks each cubic meter in this volume every game tick.
    i agree that as long as the total scanned volume doesn't exceed this number (which keen must have set based on performance testing and balancing, not at all just saying "50m will do, leave it at that and see what happens")
    it shouldn't matter what shape that volume takes.
    lets talk min/maxed shapes...
    if all sliders were set to the minimum of 0.5m except one, that would make a 1x1x1,000,000m scanning area (or a beam 1000km long). useful. such a sensor on a gimbal could track a target 1000km away.
    if the field was shaped into a square plane 1 meter thick, it would be 1km on each side. also useful. such a sensor on a rotor could scan a 1km tall cylinder of space with a radius of 1km.
    if the field was a rectangular plane 100m tall and 1 meter thick, it would be 10km long.
    if the field was 200m tall, 1 meter thick and 5km long. (
    all of these shapes are 1,000,000 cubic meters of scan volume, the same as the maximum scan volume of the vanilla sensor.
    if the vanilla sensor volume is indeed already balanced for performance, this rule should also be balanced for performance.
    if the vanilla sensor volume is just an arbitrary number plucked from thin air in the hopes it doesn't hurt performance too badly by virtue of making the max field size too limited to be universally used as a volumetric scanning array by every ship and base in the game, then we will have some issues with it.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. DigitalStone Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    264
    So you're +1ing this?
     
  4. Sinbad Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,788
    yeah sure, why not :)
     
Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.