Topic: Delta AV is what you are really talking about.

[Cleaven]

Since the other thread was locked:

Angular Velocity would not be relevant AFTER the point of firing, but at the point of firing, it is relevant, because it will determine how difficult it is to make that prediction.

If you can correctly predict where a ship is going to be, you will always hit the target, simple logic tells us that!!

Neither SFC2 or SFC3 gets it right, though SFC3's angular velocity is much closer than EW.

I don't see how AV can be important because it is too easily calculated. The modern day radar can determine approach vectors and angles for a target, but it's the changes at the moment of launch which will most affect the changes of hitting.

I'm not going to refer to anything from SFC2. There is no point in trying to compare the two because they are so different. I'm not going to say that the good bits from SFC2 should be put into SFC:TNG, just that the bad bits of SFC:TNG should be taken out.

Erratic Maneovres would be used to make it difficult to predict the speed & direction a ship is heading in by constantly changing direction & speed, even if it's only minor changes. 1 degree in space would make you miss by miles. Though SFC3 only changes the direction, and even then it's not a real direction change, just a visual effect.

I'm pretty sure that because of what you say the factor should certainly be delta AV as well.

All that would really matter is the evasive maneouvre you took after the Torpedo was fired, and the range that it was fired from (gives you longer to move). That's why a smaller, faster more maneouvrable ship could avoid the torpedo far more easily than a larger ship. Example, a Defiant is the most maneouvrable ship in the Federation fleet (that's canon by the way). It can change direction quickly, and is a small ship, so the distance is must travel in it's "evasive" direction is much smaller than what say a Galaxy Class would have to do.

I doubt very much that something like a Galaxy Class or Sovereign could avoid a Torpedo easily, they're just too big.

Frankly the canon argument is a dead loss for a game like this, it just leads in circles and is pretty pointless when it comes to play balance. Best not to bring it up because somebody else with put up a piece of contradictory canon to argue it.

Anyway the point you make about the changes after firing is exactly the point I'm making too. Delta AV is what matters not simple AV.

Like I said before, Bridge Commander gets it spot on, it simplifies it for the player, by using vertical and horizontal crosshairs to line up your target. But if you fire when you have a perfect lock, the only way a ship can avoid the Torpedo is if it CHANGES direction & Speed. You can still fire torpedoes "blind" - i.e. by not locking on to your target, but unless they have uber tracking capabilities, they miss everytime, unless a ship is stupid enough to fly into one of them!!

What you're describing here is delta AV not pure AV. Change SFC to use delta AV and things will be a lot better for me. No more Snoopy Vs the Red Baron dog fights with starships.

[KBF-WillWeasel]

I think you may need to define what Delta AV is, I think those you are debating with may not understand that term.....

[The Pelican]

Never heard of Delta AV - if that's it's name, then that's it's name.

There are a few things in SFC2 I'd like to see in SFC3, as long as missiles stay a 100 miles away from the game!!  Self-propelled weapons? Imagine the fuel they must need to travel 10,000km, never mind a few 100,000!!

[hobbesmaster]

I don't see how AV can be important because it is too easily calculated. The modern day radar can determine approach vectors and angles for a target, but it's the changes at the moment of launch which will most affect the changes of hitting.

I'm not going to refer to anything from SFC2. There is no point in trying to compare the two because they are so different. I'm not going to say that the good bits from SFC2 should be put into SFC:TNG, just that the bad bits of SFC:TNG should be taken out.

I'm not familiar with the previous thread, but if we believe that SFC2 is fully using SFB scales and just scaling stuff up via sensors for situation awareness, teh following analogy would be apt:
Try to hit a seawolf on silent running at depth from the surface of the moon with a 64 megaton nuclear warhead on a delivery mechanism that travels at the speed of light.  That would be similar to a Federation proximity photon or Disruptor spray from max range (moon to earth is range 39).  Its amazing that the ships in SFB hit anything at all as you can hit a 100 meter target at 400,000,000 meters 33% of the time with heavy weapons.

[Cleaven]

A delta is a Greek letter used in mathematics to represent rate of change. Lower case delta is drawn as a small triangle. Delta AV means the rate of change of the AV. AV is very simple to determine at any point in time (such as the moment of launch) but when the rate of change is high the predictions get worse.

[The Pelican]

I think I remember it now, I understand what you're talking about now anyway. Been about 4 years since I was studying for my Maths degree, not that it mattered, I failed the damn thing(I'm terrible at doing Proofs, and 90% of the first 2 years was doing proofs). Though "Delta" is used way too many times in maths.

Where's Euler when you need him eh?

[Byzantine]

In simpler words:
AV is the old 'lead your target' issue from fighter, tank, and naval big gun sims.  It has no meaning for a computerized fire control system where 'target lock' is everything.   The SFB designers understood this nifty bit of technology and wrapped it all up in EW.

The delta AV that Cleaven referred to is any maneuver that changes the parameters of speed/course that were in existence at the moment of firing.  That would be erratic maneuvers.

High AV does increase the difficulty for the automated tracking/targeting systems but not to the degree that EM should. AV as implemented in SFC3 is questionable.  The games current values place much more emphasis on AV than on EM.

[Cleaven]

Yep.

[The Pelican]

In simpler words:
AV is the old 'lead your target' issue from fighter, tank, and naval big gun sims.  It has no meaning for a computerized fire control system where 'target lock' is everything.   The SFB designers understood this nifty bit of technology and wrapped it all up in EW.

The delta AV that Cleaven referred to is any maneuver that changes the parameters of speed/course that were in existence at the moment of firing.  That would be erratic maneuvers.

High AV does increase the difficulty for the automated tracking/targeting systems but not to the degree that EM should. AV as implemented in SFC3 is questionable.  The games current values place much more emphasis on AV than on EM.

Again, not really true. As I have said many times, AV is really a minor factor in SFC3, Range & both Evasive & Erratic Maneouvres matter far more. You fly with Erratic Maneouvres on in SFC3, then the opponents accuracy rate drops by a good 40%, even higher with Faster Ships. AV doesn't exactly change much anyway, until you reach point blank range, the AV is usually below 30, not enough to have any major effect on the weapons.

The difference in SizeClass, the most overlooked value in SFC3, is one of the largest factors on the game when it comes to accuracy. If you give a ship a Size Class of 100, you CANNOT miss it, AV, Evasive Maneouvres, even Erratic Maneouvres won't make a darn bit of difference. In fact, it's probably THE most important factor. You have a ship which is considered "smaller" than your opponent, by Size Class, then you are going to evade more heavy weapons.

A skilled pilot can make ANYONE miss, even at Range 10-20 with an AV of zero.

Weapon Accuracy at Range is what is the major issue, it's a "luck" factor, and it's too high. At long range heavy weapons have accuracy ratings of 20-30%. That's just too low to be even remotely realistic. Because of this, it's impossible tell how much AV is really affecting the weapon. I'd hope that if the AV's of two ships at the point of fire stayed exactly the same throughout the torpedoes movement, then the Torpedo would hit no matter how high the AV was.

----------

I still don't like EW, I just can't see how it makes sense at all. We've seen many times that if you can pick up even the tiniest trace of a ship location, you can hit it. I also doubt that any Computer that advanced could be jammed so easily. AV may not make sense, but EW just makes even less sense.

[FPF-DieHard]

You know what makes no sense to me in SFB/SCF:OP?  How does ECCM negate the affects of Erratic Maneuvers?

[hobbesmaster]

You know what makes no sense to me in SFB/SCF:OP?  How does ECCM negate the affects of Erratic Maneuvers?

Applying additional power to secondary and tertiary sensor arrays on different parts of the vessel so you can triangulate the vessel's current position better and apply power to computers that predict the liklihood of the ship's next probable move.

I can try different technobabble if you like...

[Cleaven]

I don't think anybody is really applying extra power to computers, they will always be turned on. It is the sensor arrays, and active scanning which is being powered up and down.

[Byzantine]

You know what makes no sense to me in SFB/SCF:OP?  How does ECCM negate the affects of Erratic Maneuvers?

Simple - game design flaw.  No, I take that back.  Its a game so they can do whatever they want for playability.  Reality design flaw.

[Cleaven]

You know what makes no sense to me in SFB/SCF:OP?  How does ECCM negate the affects of Erratic Maneuvers?

Simple - game design flaw.  No, I take that back.  Its a game so they can do whatever they want for playability.  Reality design flaw.

I don't want to say this is definitely the case, but if the ECCM is a genereric "power to the targetting array" like active sonar, then the more pings then the more information you have about the targets positioning. Just a guess on the part of the designers.

Note that in SFB, EM is an optional rule.

[hobbesmaster]

You know what makes no sense to me in SFB/SCF:OP?  How does ECCM negate the affects of Erratic Maneuvers?

Simple - game design flaw.  No, I take that back.  Its a game so they can do whatever they want for playability.  Reality design flaw.

I don't want to say this is definitely the case, but if the ECCM is a genereric "power to the targetting array" like active sonar, then the more pings then the more information you have about the targets positioning. Just a guess on the part of the designers.

Note that in SFB, EM is an optional rule.

Technically, all of EW is an optional rule.

[FPF-DieHard]

You know what makes no sense to me in SFB/SCF:OP?  How does ECCM negate the affects of Erratic Maneuvers?

Simple - game design flaw.  No, I take that back.  Its a game so they can do whatever they want for playability.  Reality design flaw.

I don't want to say this is definitely the case, but if the ECCM is a genereric "power to the targetting array" like active sonar, then the more pings then the more information you have about the targets positioning. Just a guess on the part of the designers.

Note that in SFB, EM is an optional rule.

Technically, all of EW is an optional rule.

I can accept Cleaven's line of Tehcnobabble as making sense as much as any other aspect of SFB physics.   Thanks.

[Byzantine]

You know what makes no sense to me in SFB/SCF:OP?  How does ECCM negate the affects of Erratic Maneuvers?

Simple - game design flaw.  No, I take that back.  Its a game so they can do whatever they want for playability.  Reality design flaw.

I don't want to say this is definitely the case, but if the ECCM is a generic "power to the targetting array" like active sonar, then the more pings then the more information you have about the targets positioning. Just a guess on the part of the designers.

Note that in SFB, EM is an optional rule.

Have you ever been just started to take an action and then your eyes saw this would be bad but the signal to stop does not reach your hand in time?  Perfect lock, eyes on target, and just as you squeeze the trigger the target turns.  Dang!  Missed.  That is EM to me and no amount of pinging, even continuous, will change that outcome.

But I am not throwing stones here.  The intent of the designers was a fun game and I think they succeeded admirably.  I can not say it is a bad simulation in any way shape or form, because it is 'simulating' something that does not exist.  If it were a true naval sim I might carp on the point more but it is not.  ECM, EM, and rockets or whatever, it is a d@mn fun game!  All versions!

[hobbesmaster]

Have you ever been just started to take an action and then your eyes saw this would be bad but the signal to stop does not reach your hand in time?  Perfect lock, eyes on target, and just as you squeeze the trigger the target turns.  Dang!  Missed.  That is EM to me and no amount of pinging, even continuous, will change that outcome.

At least with SFB it can't possibly be like that.  If your computer is targetting a 600 meter vessel at a range of say, 150,000km travelling at 15c its not going to matter what little jinks the target is making, you've already got one hell of a computer system just to get any sort of resolution on that target.  EM in SFB is basically playing with the warp fields to confuse sensors.  At least thats the impression I've gotten.

[Death_Merchant]

"Erratic maneuvers" never made any sense to me from a physics standpoint.
Little jinks for some thing moving at great velocities? That's a HUGE impulse to impart.
and that's one heckofa acceleration! 0 to c in 0.1 sec?!?! Whoa nelly!
Think of it as a rifle bullet "jinking" in flight. Tumbling, sure. Jinking at 0.25c?!?

The electronic jamming "ghost sensor images, etc" of ECM in SFB and the corresponding increase in sensor power (ECCM) to "burn through" the jamming makes more sense (to me). Sure would be MUCH cheaper and effective power-wise.

Reality Check Disclaimer: This is only a game. For example, if incorporating AV makes the game fun to play-> so be it!

[The Pelican]

Have you ever been just started to take an action and then your eyes saw this would be bad but the signal to stop does not reach your hand in time?  Perfect lock, eyes on target, and just as you squeeze the trigger the target turns.  Dang!  Missed.  That is EM to me and no amount of pinging, even continuous, will change that outcome.

At least with SFB it can't possibly be like that.  If your computer is targetting a 600 meter vessel at a range of say, 150,000km travelling at 15c its not going to matter what little jinks the target is making, you've already got one hell of a computer system just to get any sort of resolution on that target.  EM in SFB is basically playing with the warp fields to confuse sensors.  At least thats the impression I've gotten.

If you think about it, "little jinks" would make an absolutely HUGE difference. Remember, the computer has to pick the exact course the target is going to be travelling on, and then fire the Torpedo so that when the Torpedo travels the required distance, it hits the target. At that distance, even 0.01 degrees will make you miss by miles. And that's without the ship attempting an Evasive Maneouvre, which would make another huge difference.