A simple "IF THEN ELSE" that makes sense

This forum is the ideal place for all discussion relating to X4. You will also find additional information from developers here.

Moderator: Moderators for English X Forum

dtpsprt
Posts: 322
Joined: Wed, 6. Nov 02, 21:31
x4

A simple "IF THEN ELSE" that makes sense

Post by dtpsprt » Sat, 1. Aug 20, 18:05

Dear Egosoft Developers,

Take this as a "humble request" from one of your players/customers. I believe that it will be a relief for the majority of us.

If possible in the (sure to come) Hotfix, OK maybe in the Hotfix 2, can you PLEASE insert an IF THEN ELSE string in the pilots behaviour (NPC's)?

IF Target < 10 Km
THEN Exit traveldrive continue at max speed x 0.75
ELSE Continue traveldrive

Right now, once the NPC reaches the borders of the scanner range (sometimes not even that) it will come out of traveldrive and continue at half speed!!!

We have to endure with incorrect pathing since some (the most important actually) ships cannot use Highways that Egosoft is determined to use.

We have to become Industrial magnates because Egosoft is determined that pilot progression must be based on a "lottery" on "successful" trades (whether we like it or not).

We have to, also endure, qualified pilots (3* plus, up to 5*) unable to find their way into Warfs or S/M Equipment bays, because (that's when the problem started) ships should be able to land both ways on the landing pad (who thought of that btw? they burn the NPCs that are "giving them landing instructions", not to mention that for the NPC giving the instructions to land (why always Argon btw?) it means that the pilot should be able to see said instructions and comply (no rear view mirrors in the cockpits of v3.30).

Do we have to also wait till eternity for our ship to cross 40-50 Km to land on a station or reach the point that it will release or retrieve a satellite or anything else, or reach the point where it will be delivered to somebody?

So, please either fix this or equip all ships either with Split MK4 engines as standard or a SETA that works when the player is not in the pilot seat from the beginning of the game.

P.S. The fact that some people will (they do anyway) exploit SETA is null, since this is not a "community" game where they will be cheating on the other players, each one of us plays in his own computer for him/her self

Rei Ayanami
Posts: 2803
Joined: Wed, 6. Nov 02, 21:31
x4

Re: A simple "IF THEN ELSE" that makes sense

Post by Rei Ayanami » Sat, 1. Aug 20, 21:33

dtpsprt wrote:
Sat, 1. Aug 20, 18:05
IF Target < 10 Km
THEN Exit traveldrive continue at max speed x 0.75
ELSE Continue traveldrive
Why max speed * 0.75? Why not max speed? Is there any benefit from a ship moving slower to its target destination?

Imperial Good
Moderator (English)
Moderator (English)
Posts: 1840
Joined: Fri, 21. Dec 18, 19:23
x4

Re: A simple "IF THEN ELSE" that makes sense

Post by Imperial Good » Sat, 1. Aug 20, 21:56

Problem is "10km" is a magic number which might not always be suitable. For example slower ships might want to wait until they are closer to exit travel mode. Like wise ships with a lot of mass might require more than 10 km to exit travel mode.

GCU Grey Area
Posts: 5074
Joined: Sun, 15. Feb 04, 00:07
x4

Re: A simple "IF THEN ELSE" that makes sense

Post by GCU Grey Area » Sat, 1. Aug 20, 23:36

Imperial Good wrote:
Sat, 1. Aug 20, 21:56
Problem is "10km" is a magic number which might not always be suitable. For example slower ships might want to wait until they are closer to exit travel mode. Like wise ships with a lot of mass might require more than 10 km to exit travel mode.
10km would be absolutely awful for many my bigger ships. Just tried one of my destroyers & shortest possible stopping distance I could manage when shutting down travel mode at 10km from target (i.e. throwing the ship into full reverse at the 10km mark) still meant overshooting the target by about 5km. That would be terrible, not remotely what I want them to do. I want them to be stationary & shooting at about 10km, not flying straight past the target & then stopping on the far side of it (at a convenient range for enemy turrets) with their main guns pointing in entirely the wrong direction. That's also assuming they don't just slam straight into it at several km/s & wreck their own shields. Really not keen on this idea at all, would be considerably worse than the present situation.

User avatar
chew-ie
Posts: 1498
Joined: Mon, 5. May 08, 00:05
x4

Re: A simple "IF THEN ELSE" that makes sense

Post by chew-ie » Sat, 1. Aug 20, 23:46

If there'd be a simple solution like the OP demands it, it would already be in place. I doubt if-then-else would solve anything here.

Image


BurnIt: Boron and leaks don't go well together...
---
X4.exe != X4 Echse

dtpsprt
Posts: 322
Joined: Wed, 6. Nov 02, 21:31
x4

Re: A simple "IF THEN ELSE" that makes sense

Post by dtpsprt » Sun, 2. Aug 20, 07:43

Simple, the 10 Km mark is the position that the ship, according to it's properties, will be travelling with 75% of it's max speed. Maybe I didn't phrase it clearly, unfortunately my Greek Language entangles my English speach at times.

As for the heavy warships, or even any ship going to battle, the command we usually give is "Attack Target" or "Defend Position/Station/whatever", we don't give a "Go To" in such cases do we? And I'd absolutely LOVE to see a Destroyer picking up satellites/probes/loot... (not sure if it even has the "collect deployables" or "collect drops" command in it's set). I thought that from the problem I explained it was easy to understand that I was speaking mainly for S/M ships.

EDIT: Why 75% percent of max? Because, unless there is some seriously unbalanced factor (MK1 Thrusters with a Split MK4 Engine for example) it is the "sweet spot" where it can accelerate easily back to travel drive if need be, the boosters will take in instantly, it has optimum maneuverabillity and can stop faster than you can give the command to.
Last edited by dtpsprt on Sun, 2. Aug 20, 07:49, edited 1 time in total.

dtpsprt
Posts: 322
Joined: Wed, 6. Nov 02, 21:31
x4

Re: A simple "IF THEN ELSE" that makes sense

Post by dtpsprt » Sun, 2. Aug 20, 07:44

chew-ie wrote:
Sat, 1. Aug 20, 23:46
If there'd be a simple solution like the OP demands it, it would already be in place. I doubt if-then-else would solve anything here.
They were dropping out of traveldrive in a range of 15-12 Km until the change to make them land in reverse like cars in a Super Market parking.

User avatar
MegaJohnny
Posts: 2119
Joined: Wed, 4. Jun 08, 22:30
x4

Re: A simple "IF THEN ELSE" that makes sense

Post by MegaJohnny » Sun, 2. Aug 20, 14:01

Is this the thing where ships sometimes exit travel drive very far from the target?

I think this is caused by a directive in move.generic that interrupts the move_to when the ship enters the target zone (i.e. the zone where the target object is). The target is often many kilometres away from the zone border, so you get the excruciatingly long slow-boat at the end of the trip.

This also explains why you can "kick" it by re-issuing the order - it's still doing the same move_to, but it's already in the target zone, so the travel drive doesn't get interrupted.

I made a mini-mod to cut out that behaviour and it looked good, but I didn't check long to see if there were any side-effects.

dtpsprt
Posts: 322
Joined: Wed, 6. Nov 02, 21:31
x4

Re: A simple "IF THEN ELSE" that makes sense

Post by dtpsprt » Sun, 2. Aug 20, 18:46

MegaJohnny wrote:
Sun, 2. Aug 20, 14:01
Is this the thing where ships sometimes exit travel drive very far from the target?

I think this is caused by a directive in move.generic that interrupts the move_to when the ship enters the target zone (i.e. the zone where the target object is). The target is often many kilometres away from the zone border, so you get the excruciatingly long slow-boat at the end of the trip.

This also explains why you can "kick" it by re-issuing the order - it's still doing the same move_to, but it's already in the target zone, so the travel drive doesn't get interrupted.

I made a mini-mod to cut out that behaviour and it looked good, but I didn't check long to see if there were any side-effects.
That's exactly the thing and the problem. Further more its is now the norm not just sometimes, since the introduction of both ways docking. Ships get out of traveldrive some good 10-15 km BEFORE they reach scanner range!!! I just "dogleg" the go to order if it ends in an object (create a fly to point near the final destination) and when the ships "stalls" I just nudge the "fake" waypoint to "force" the traveldrive on again. Then, when the ship is actually close I delete the fake point and it happily flies where it should. But that is a workaround not a solution...

leoriq
Posts: 236
Joined: Wed, 20. Mar 13, 07:42
x3ap

Re: A simple "IF THEN ELSE" that makes sense

Post by leoriq » Mon, 3. Aug 20, 12:05

Neither of your numbers is based on anything, so it's pointless to implement them.
Sure, they can be actually calculated from ship parameters, for stationary destination.

But point is - as soon as you start actually thinking it through, it's not as simple as you thought anymore.
Signature yes signature a GIGANTIC SIGNATURE!!

dtpsprt
Posts: 322
Joined: Wed, 6. Nov 02, 21:31
x4

Re: A simple "IF THEN ELSE" that makes sense

Post by dtpsprt » Mon, 3. Aug 20, 14:17

leoriq wrote:
Mon, 3. Aug 20, 12:05
Neither of your numbers is based on anything, so it's pointless to implement them.
Sure, they can be actually calculated from ship parameters, for stationary destination.

But point is - as soon as you start actually thinking it through, it's not as simple as you thought anymore.
Not really... have you noticed how the Autopilot and the NPC's react when they are in traveldrive and away from their destination (the NPCs) they practically come to halt in front of an obstacle swerve around it and engage traveldrive again.
This means that the routines are there for the "unexpected" as for the numbers? Radar Range is 40 Km, add 10-15 before reaching there isn't it a "bit" much? Even the Split with MK4 engines and no thrusters at all would have braked (disable flight assist. rotate 180 and engage engines in 50 Km there is time to do all that and you'll get there faster than stopping and starting again from 0 use inertia don't fight it. OK, an XL might not be able to do it in 50 Km but I am not talking about them as I stated - Rattlesnake collecting satellites etc).

numerialized
Posts: 46
Joined: Fri, 27. Oct 17, 20:29
x4

Re: A simple "IF THEN ELSE" that makes sense

Post by numerialized » Mon, 3. Aug 20, 14:29

dtpsprt wrote:
Sat, 1. Aug 20, 18:05
P.S. The fact that some people will (they do anyway) exploit SETA is null, since this is not a "community" game where they will be cheating on the other players, each one of us plays in his own computer for him/her self
Amen
Bye

Buzz2005
Posts: 1380
Joined: Sat, 26. Feb 05, 02:47
x4

Re: A simple "IF THEN ELSE" that makes sense

Post by Buzz2005 » Mon, 3. Aug 20, 14:55

MegaJohnny wrote:
Sun, 2. Aug 20, 14:01
Is this the thing where ships sometimes exit travel drive very far from the target?

I think this is caused by a directive in move.generic that interrupts the move_to when the ship enters the target zone (i.e. the zone where the target object is). The target is often many kilometres away from the zone border, so you get the excruciatingly long slow-boat at the end of the trip.

This also explains why you can "kick" it by re-issuing the order - it's still doing the same move_to, but it's already in the target zone, so the travel drive doesn't get interrupted.

I made a mini-mod to cut out that behaviour and it looked good, but I didn't check long to see if there were any side-effects.
I willing to test that mod long term :D
Fixed credits not being able to claim abandoned ships sometimes getting stuck when boarding operation sometimes getting some owner other than the player builds a station module or surface element.

leoriq
Posts: 236
Joined: Wed, 20. Mar 13, 07:42
x3ap

Re: A simple "IF THEN ELSE" that makes sense

Post by leoriq » Mon, 3. Aug 20, 16:10

dtpsprt wrote:
Mon, 3. Aug 20, 14:17
Even the Split with MK4 engines and no thrusters at all would have braked (disable flight assist. rotate 180 and engage engines in 50 Km there is time to do all that and you'll get there faster than stopping and starting again from 0 use inertia don't fight it. OK, an XL might not be able to do it in 50 Km but I am not talking about them as I stated - Rattlesnake collecting satellites etc).
You have actually proved my point. By the way, do you know, how many variables define each ship's speed up and speed down to/from Travel mode?
Signature yes signature a GIGANTIC SIGNATURE!!

dtpsprt
Posts: 322
Joined: Wed, 6. Nov 02, 21:31
x4

Re: A simple "IF THEN ELSE" that makes sense

Post by dtpsprt » Mon, 3. Aug 20, 23:00

leoriq wrote:
Mon, 3. Aug 20, 16:10

You have actually proved my point. By the way, do you know, how many variables define each ship's speed up and speed down to/from Travel mode?
Actually I don't think that your point was that the ships can stop safely and continue with normal speeds at half the distance they do now...

Post Reply

Return to “X4: Foundations”