[Suggestion] Hovercraft System Rework

[SageThe13th]

Hovercraft are very hard to work with still. Part of the problem is rooted in some very odd behaviors that should be addressed. Currently, a hovercraft requires thrusters for turning. However, the hover parts themselves still apply force sideways so that an imbalanced setup causes the craft to spin in place or turn oddly during movement. Yet a hovercraft can't make controlled turns without maneuvering thrusters.

Either repulsors should keep the sideways force mechanic, but also be the only part needed for for basic movement with thrusters as an add on not a requirement. Or, the sideways force should be removed with repuslors only pushing away from things directly under them as the name implies and also acting more like wheels as they are described in the menu. It needs to be one or the other. This halfway behavior doesn't follow an sort of logic and it's time consuming to deal with.

[ZachZent]

I honestly believe that now or later hovercraft are going to have to get a rework to a more simple form. Right now there are only two types of vehicles, ships and hovercraft. The former simple and the latter complicated. But eventually when you add in the rest: cars (wheels,) tanks (treads,) trains (rails,) and mechs, most will probably be a simple system be design. Wheels, just place a set on each side. Treads, just need one on each side. Trains, just need a rail. Mechs is the only one that would understandably get complicated. Unless the plan is to artificially make all of them complicated, hovercraft is going to seem really out of place in the grand scheme of things when compared to the simpler systems of ships and cars etc. Though some options should stay, for example hover height, the way to build them needs to become a more simple task. Every try building and balancing an asymmetric hovercraft? It isn't fun.

[tsunamayo]

This seems like a bug, you shouldnt need any thruster to turn in an hovercraft. @ZachZent if you could be precise, why is it so complicated? I added a preview of the center of mass and center of thruster in player HUD (not the in the UI). You can adjust the force in each repulsor, while check live the impact. Have you tried it recently? (last week or two)

[tsunamayo]

also @SageThe13th , again can you please send me some blueprint where you had an issue?

[SageThe13th]

That's kind of the problem though. Even the most exotic ships designs work right away. And simple hovercraft designs take a day or more of making adjustments. Either, changing what repulsors you have placed where, how big they are, or messing with sliders. Clearly, hovercraft need to have more going on. They need to tip over. They need to follow the terrain. But, the current system is way more complicated than it has to be.

At some point these parts are going to have a cost. Right now hovercraft using pretty much the same parts as ships have lower acceleration and lower top speeds even with the exact same thrusters. Now, you can't have them going too fast. The ground is still something that needs to be accounted for. But, current hovercraft are a lot fuss, a lot of cost, for a vehicle that handles poorly.

As Zach pointed out. Once wheels are in are they going to need the same odd combinations of thrusters and wheels to move? Hovercraft repulsors provide some level of sideways movement. Logically speaking what's requiring them to have thrusters to move forward? And visually, they still have the same bloom thrusters do. This confuses how they work.

Again it would make more sense if they either worked fine just with the repulsors. Or if the repulsors only provide a lifting force with thrusters needed for horizontal movement. The current system is definitionally incontinence. Which makes them hard to approach, because repulsors either lack capabilities they should have or they behave under additional physics that's seeming only there to make them harder to use.

And just checked. Hovercraft turn on their own again without the side thrusters.

[tsunamayo]

Have you tried with the new UI @SageThe13th ? It should be a lot easier to align... => " Or if the repulsors only provide a lifting force with thrusters needed for horizontal movement. " but this is what we have! I must have missed something.

For the vfx it is time consuming, I am doing my best. Also they should follow the terrain, what are you referring to? Maybe your anti-pitch setting is too high.

[SageThe13th]

Okay. I do seem to be working off of outdated information.

This design wouldn't have worked earlier in the week. But, it is "flyable" now.

[tsunamayo]

Yeah there was a bug for the no side thruster required, and I greatly improved the center of mass / thrust debug. And I will add a bit of forward thrust, so it hopefully it will make a bit more sense. For tipping over, I think the best way would be to implement the gravity gun of garry-s mod as suggested.

[tsunamayo]

Stays the follow terrain issue, I just want to confirm what you are referring to. I think it might be an issue of anti-pitch setting, I might need to cap it below 1...

[SageThe13th]

Now there's a bit of problem in that I don't see any changes to hovercraft in the change log. Which is why thought they worked in a way they no longer do.

[SageThe13th]

Test Platform 2.zip

This design has a hovercraft and a ship core. What I want you to see is how much worse the acceleration when controlling it with the hovercraft core. I'm not as much bothered by the different top speeds.

[tsunamayo]

I think they always were supposed to work this way, there was a bug that was not reported and that I fixed myself.

[SageThe13th]

It just feels really sluggish. If the hovercraft in question were really heavy it would be fine. But, that one's light. If I add more thrusters the acceleration improves, but so does the top speed and I end up ramping of every hill at like 60m/s.

[SageThe13th]

Now something that could with that is a throttle. That way I could just throttle up to 30m/s and leave it there while the top speed is much higher.

[ZachZent]

Ok after testing it out again my option they are complicated is unchanged. The goal when balancing a hovercraft is to get the center of mass directly in the central total thrust arrow. Not centered will have your hovercraft leaning one way or another causing the hovercraft to move even if the player isn't deliberately moving it. Getting this exact value means constantly going back and forth from computer to pod to computer. Most of the time once on both sides, in my hovercraft twice on both sides. Getting the sweet spot is also very difficult when all you have is a visual interface which is rather hard to see when the two arrows are so close. And if you add or remove a block, you are back at square 1 adjusting each pod. Even with the center of mass only slightly forward, this hovercraft will lean forward and move on its own. It will also change as I have to break a block to access my computer changing the center of mass. It would be even worse with trial and error if you have an asymmetric hovercraft.

The other options though easier to configure compared to pod strength is also complicated. Ride height is obvious, though personally I don't think it is necessary, but the rest are confusing and even repetitive. It would require lots of testing to understand how each works and their relation to the other settings. Repulser strength change the ride height? Does it change the individual pods? Anti and auto roll? You could add an explanation for each, but so many options rather contrasts with the absolute simplicity of ships and the assumed simplicity of wheels, treads, and rails

[SageThe13th]

I have some ideas how to make that whole thing simpler. But, it will take some time to make the images that explain what I think it should look like.

[tsunamayo]

@ZachZent there is HUD display, equip the link tool and click on the Hovercraft computer, or click on any of the pod. So 0 back and forth to the UI. Go check out the hover video on the Steam page: https://store.steampowered.com/app/711980/Starship_EVO/ This way of doing, using the link tool to select and debug your stuff is new, but I will enforce it to all system.

[ZachZent]

That part is new and good, but it still doesn't change my point. You have to go into the hover pod and continuously change the values, then go to the other side and do the same. For this hover you have to do it twice to get all the pods on the back or front. Constant trial and error to get the center of mass over the center of thrust to get a completely stable hovercraft. Add one block and you have to start over. Make an asymmetrical ship and you have to perfectly balance it on two axis or else you will drift.

The option to change things such as turn rate reminds me of the old mech system where you can choose the stride length and speed of the mech. Visually it is fine, but what about for gameplay? What stops people from using the super agile bike configuration for every one of their builds such as a hover tank? A simple system that allows anyone to build a hovercraft without needing to take a load of time balancing everything so it won't drift that works for gameplay.

As an aside, here is how I see the vehicle system

Hovercraft: Agile, fast, and can move laterally, but can't hold as much weight. More weight, the slower the hovercraft, lower turn rates, etc. Cars (wheels): Middle of the road for agility, speed, and strength Tanks (Treads): Slower, but sturdier. Can hold a lot more weight before stopping, perfect for heavy armored tanks or larger cargo carriers.

[tsunamayo]

@ZachZent yeah no I am not trashing completely the hovercraft design at the moment. I just need to work on gameplay mate. Plus what you are proposing ? how does the hovercraft works? perfectly balanced, no need to place hoverpod at each right position?

[ZachZent]

Oh you should absolutely not redo the hovercraft system at this time. That would at the present be very much a waste of time.

Sage is better equipped to answer this as he has been messing with the hovercraft much more than I have, but here is what I have to say.

Perfectly balanced, no need to place hoverpod at each right position?

This exactly. The problem isn't people placing in the wrong place, just that not every hovercraft is symmetrical on both the X and Y axis. Your video had you placing the pods on the corners of a nearly perfectly symmetrical few blocks, but few hovercraft has that luxury. Trust me, I recently did a large race which involved over 15 hovercraft of various designs (video is being edited.) The core could have an option which will automatically set the values that balances the hovercraft. This will allow players to build any sort of hovercraft, long, short, wide, thin, or even asymmetrical without needing to go back and forth to set values. If you want I can send you one of the hovercraft with all pods set at 100. Try to get the center of mass exactly in the center of thrust and you will see the annoyance. Especially when you are building it and constantly changing the craft.

As for the other options such as pod strength, that really depends on your plans for hovercraft compared to the other vehicles. With the exception of ride height, I would try to minimize the number of options players have so that they aren't able to make a tank have the maneuverability of a bike. More mass = less speed/turning rate or something like that, but at the cost of stability and risk for tipping. As said, Sage would have a better answer but none of this is an immediate problem.

[tsunamayo]

I will descriptions to each params. I will give it a shot, making an unbalanced hovercraft and see how painful it is to balance. It is quite hard to switch from that system, it is the fact that force are applied at each point that make the hovercraft align to the ground for example. Also I thought about making an auto-balance function before, but thats really a big pain, I dont see a smart way of doing that.

[ZachZent]

RACER C3 Scooter Example.zip

Here is a smaller hovercraft that I set all the pods to 100

[SageThe13th]

So how about if repulsors didn't work like thruster with added physics that the ship thrusters don't have. And worked like "energy wheels" instead?

The idea I have is for the repulsors create a sphere collider under them. An energy wheel basically.

Repulsors would still have the height setting in the core, but would only have the dampening setting to control springiness. Other than that repulsors would act more or less as a physical objects without having to deal with the complication of thruster balancing. Which I'll point out again, is a mechanic ship thrusters don't have. This is something that confuses people.

The white rings I've added are just a simple renditions of the dust kick up effect from the repulsors touching the ground.

The glowing orb would be on by default to communicate visually how the repulsors work. And it could be disabled from the hover core. This leave only the dust kicking up effect.

[tsunamayo]

@SageThe13th thanks for the 3d picture. It could works, but it would means a whole lot of different issue to solve (ie you craft would get stuck on ridge for example), and I am not sure it would feel more natural for the player. It sounds more like an invisible ball wheel rather than thruster. I dont really plan to trash my current implementation to start a new one from stratch, at one point I have to move forward... Thanks

[SageThe13th]

I have some pretty serious issues with the current system. At first I'd only speculated certain concerns would be a problem. Now I know for sure based on trying to guide new players through how hovercraft work.

Repuslors still look and act like thrusters. In fact they behave more like a realistic thrust system than actual thruster blocks. This causes confusion because you have to contend with center of mass and thrust balancing on hovercraft. Yet ships don't work like that.

So what you get is people who built a ship first. Try to make a hovercraft. Realize it's very complicated and basically give up. Or, you have people go the other way. They make hovercraft. Learn a bunch of thrust balancing mechanics. Then they are very confused when ships lack these mechanics. And they correctly point out how inconsistent the two systems are.

The current system feels very unnatural and that's because it's inconstant with the other mechanics in the game. What we have aren't really hovercraft. They're spacecraft that can't leave the ground. People who are looking for simple don't like the system because it's too complicated. People who come over from other engineering focused games such as Kerbal Space Program, Space Engineers, and Form the Depths don't like it because it doesn't make real world sense. They are also quick to point this out and make suggestions to "fix" hovercraft with even more complex physics.

What you have is mechanics that doesn't work for anyone. They are neither simple enough for people who want building to be easy. Nor are they accurate enough for people who want them to work realistically. I could make suggestions that will patch up certain exotic designs. But, that would be thru adding more physics blocks and more forms of manual control on top of a system that's already too complicated.

[LiquidzBot]

also @SageThe13th , again can you please send me some blueprint where you had an issue?

I have the same issue with both my HC as well. I uploaded one into the starship datatbase already . If you open up the codex w the HC loaded up you can see the center of thrust is way down on the bottom left for some reason and my build is perfectly symmetrical. I can confirm that so far all my HC have that thrust offset for some reason.

https://www.skywa.re/blueprint/hybrid-cycle-smuggler-class-mark-1

[ZachZent]

Ok, let me reiterate that for now redoing the entire hovercraft system would be a waste of time when gameplay is the priority. As I said, I expect that this issue will come back when wheels, treads, and rails are added into the game. From then you have the choice of your priorities for this game.

• Are you making a simple pickup and play or a more complicated build and configure?

Like it or not, ship building is the former and hovercraft is the latter. We have those on the Discord who are refugees from Spaceship Engineers and From The Depths who prefer the more simple pick up and play system. We also have others who are are more interested in build and configure. When you add wheels, treads, and rails, you will have to choose if it is pickup and play or build and configure. Regardless of which you pick, either ship building or hovercraft will feel very much out of place from the rest of the game.

[SageThe13th]

I'll agree this isn't a change it now request. However, sticking to a system that will continue to cause problems long term and even if it were working perfectly would still feel out of place isn't really advisable.

[SageThe13th]

So here you can see there are three thrusts arrows floating off in space. No rhyme or reason to it.

Regardless I got the design is question working just because my experience let me balance out these design without center of mass and center of thrust indication. Catoblepas 5.zip

You can keep patch up these errors. you can keep adding more feedback, more controls, even more blocks like gyros to help with balance. But, the only way forward with the current system is to make it more complicated.