Tri-Chording rehashed ... again...

[Duper]

Sorry to bring this up again. It seems that this can of worms is open on the Interplay Descent Forums

Does anyone remember where we put that discussion? Did a google and couldn't find it.

thx.

[Lothar]

I recall a specific discussion as to whether it should be in Into Cerberon. I argued that, if you want to build a mod to play like Descent 1, 2, or 3, you need trichording, and if you go away from that, don't expect old Descent players to embrace it.

That said, if someone really builds a brand-new 6dof game that doesn't have trichording, that's fine. They can even call it Descent if they have the naming rights. It wouldn't be the first time a \"sequel\" took out or modified key features of a previous game. I'm still sore about D3 having a mass driver and sissifying non-tank fusion. I don't think removing trichording would be any more of an insult to the game than those were.

[Duper]

I looked there but coudln't find it. It looks like it was lost somewhere.. .. or it could have been in a thread before the separate mods had their own forums.
I'll look again.

btw. I agree 110% Lothar.

incidently, what's the physics formual for 3 combined vector forces in this situation? (given all 3 forces being equal for agrument and simplities sake)

[d3jake]

It's all Pythagorean therom. (((1^2 + 1^2)^(1/2))^2 + 1^2 )^1/2

[SuperSheep]

I don't know what all the hub bub is regarding tri-chording. A ship has the ability to thrust in the forward direction and slide up/down, left/right. This thrust could easily be accounted for by having separate engines for these vectors. If that is the case then...

Thrust forwards = 1.0
Thrust horizontally = 1.0
Thrust vertically = 1.0

Total thrust = sqrt(1^2 + 1^2 + 1^2) ~= 1.732

This is vector math and would do exactly this in the real or imaginary world.

Now if the main engines thrust were split off to power sliding, then we would have an unfortunate situation...

Thrust vertically = 1.0
Thrust forwards = 0.0???!!!

The question is not is trichording fair or correct, but how does the descent craft thrust in the sideways and vertical direction?

I for one like the idea of separate engines as that makes more sense. The idea of sliding thrust taking away from main thrust seems ludicrous.

Otherwise power for sliding has to be diverted from thrusting in the forwards direction so the only good way to handle that would be to reduce the maximum thrust available for sliding, or use fake physics.

[Dakatsu]

You want some equations?
Descent = Awesome
Awesome = Tri-chording

therefore...
Descent = Tri-Chording

[Duper]

You want some equations?
Descent = Awesome
Awesome = Tri-chording

therefore...
Descent = Tri-Chording

ROLMAO

wonderful! ;D

Thanks Sheep.

[EngDrewman]

You want some equations?
Descent = Awesome
Awesome = Tri-chording

therefore...
Descent = Tri-Chording

lol- good point.

If you want an accurate simulator, get MS Flight Sim, otherwise have fun with what the game does, not what it ought to do.

LOTS of si-fi vehicles don't make sense. The Pyro's Tri-chording issue pales in comparison with other si-fi stuff, such as a pod-racer from Star Wars. Here's a few of the things super unrealistic about a pod racer:

1. How does it hover with the engines off?
2. How can you store enough fuel to run those massive engines for any substantial amount of time in such a tiny cockpit? (Jet engines are HORRIBLY inefficient)
3. Unless the engines are idling the whole time, those engines would accelerate the pod to at least mach 2-3, not a whimpy 400 mph.
4. The acceleration provided by the engines would crush the pilot.
5. If a part breaks in a fashion that causes an engine flameout, you can't just shut it off, restart it, and have it work fine again.

[Gekko71]

I remember the thread well (I chose not to contribute, but to lurk).

It was definitely IC related, and ended up being closed by admin due to the general nasty name-calling it rapidly descended ( ) into.

[fliptw]

I remember when people bitched about bunny-hopping being removed from the Q3A. IIRC Carmack took it out because it was a bug in that, as Sheep pointed out, no rational way it would work in reality. It was put back of course.

[Foil]

That's different from tri-chording, which (as seen above, just simple vector addition) actually makes sense for a vehicle with six discrete thrust directions.

-----

Lothar, I understand your point about the disappointments in the way they muddled with the weapons in D3. But I can't agree with you that losing tri-chording would be the same level of disappointment. Personally, losing tri-chording would be a loss akin to restricting the ship to a single up/down orientation - it would no longer be Descent to me.

[Neo]

Actually, the purpose of that equation related to tri-chording is to calculate how many times faster it is to tri-chord than it is to move along one axis.

The total velocity is thought of as being comprised of three vector components where each component is then normalized and then the magnitude of the total, normalized velocity is calculated (in short, it's the square root of 3).

The problem with no tri-chording is that the magnitude of the total, normalized velocity is equal to 1 and not the square root of three, and thus the three vector components have a magnitude that is less than 1.

The reason people say this scenario is more logical is that we assume that the engine only has a certain amount of energy which only decreases during use. If you wanted the engine to push the ship in three directions instead of one, it wouldn't tri-chord unless it used more power and therefore ran out of energy faster.

What worries me about no tri-chording is that it might make the game boring and take some getting used to... I agree that the game should have a different name if there's no tri-chording. Besides, it's not like we're worried about running out of energy in anti-gravity ships when we're blowing stuff up in multiplayer. ^_~

[Foil]

Actually, the purpose of that equation related to tri-chording is to calculate how many times faster it is to tri-chord than it is to move along one axis.

I thought that was understood.

In any case, just for reference:

Relative speeds, assuming forward speed "V", and afterburner roughly doubles it:

Tri-chording: = sqrt(V^2+V^2+V^2) ~ 1.73V

Afterburner + forward = V+V = 2V

...And the one people don't seem to mention much:

Afterburner + tri-chording = sqrt((2V)^2+V^2+V^2) ~ 2.45V

If you wanted the engine to push the ship in three directions instead of one, it wouldn't tri-chord unless it used more power...

That's only if you assume the thrusters all pull power from the same engine, and can't all be at full thrust at once.

[Sirius]

I do recall that discussion. The guys from Into Cerberon looked at it, but after they tested it decided that it didn't feel right without the \"tri-chording\" effect and put it back in.

Personally I think the game can be good whether or not it has it, but I'd be more inclined to support its inclusion than its exclusion given that experiment.

[Duper]

quite correct Sirius. It's in their FAQ, that very statement.

As for the thread that recluded that .. some 4 or 5 pages is gone. I think it was lost in the creation of the 360 degree effort forum and its various sub-forums.

[Lothar]

That's different from tri-chording, which (as seen above, just simple vector addition) actually makes sense for a vehicle with six discrete thrust directions.

Key point: in order for simple vector addition to be valid, we need discrete thrust directions with independent sources.

That's why "dual-chording" in groundpounders never made sense -- sure, I can walk at speed X forwards and speed Y sideways, but when I walk at an angle I don't get the vector sum of the two, because I use the same legs to do both so I have to compromise one for the other.

So the question in Descent or any other 6dof game is, are the engines independent of each other? I can imagine them being so, as 6 separate engines, and that seems to be what the existing Descent games model. I can also imagine ways they might not be -- they might all be vectoring thrust from a single engine, or separate engines might be drawing power from a single reactor. In either of those cases, it would make sense to eliminate trichording.

Of course, ultimately, it comes down to how the game feels and how they intend for it to feel. (Personally, I think D3 doesn't feel like real Descent, but that doesn't stop me from playing it!)

[Grendel]

Both models make sense. Having a single engine (ie. no trichording) would make the game boring for me tho.

[Foil]

Key point: in order for simple vector addition to be valid, we need discrete thrust directions with independent sources.

No, not quite. They don't actually have to be independent.

You simply need the ability for the source(s) to power multiple thrust vectors at more than it can power a single thrust vector. [Edit: A better way to say this: the thruster outputs simply need to be independent of each other, they can still work from a single source.]

------------

For a quick example:

A single engine generates 1000 units of thrust, each thruster can use up to 300 units. The maximum thrust from one thrust vector is 300; the maximum thrust from multiple thrust vectors could be much more. Vector addition / tri-chording works fine in this case.

[Duper]

There hasn't been anything that says the amount of output by the engine is constant either. There are scenarios where the output can be increased. So why not Descent?

We're talking about a ship that can absorb people, absorb an insane amount of mass in arsenal i.e guns, missiles, prox bombs and countermeasures in D3.. can \"jump\" across the freekin GALAXY in the blink of an eye with a warp core device smaller than a VW bug ... and yet Trichording with invisible thrusters in an ISSUE??!!!??

/me runs away screaming and pulling hair.



just to put things in perspective.

[Grendel]

You know, with a single engine the dang after burner would work in any direction..

[Neo]

hehe

Actually, the purpose of that equation related to tri-chording is to calculate how many times faster it is to tri-chord than it is to move along one axis.

I thought that was understood.

Yeah it is understood by most people who play Descent. I wrote that just in case someone goes around thinking that the magnitude of the velocity in a single direction is equal to 1 meter per second or whatever units the velocity is measured in. I think it's clear to people who are familiar with tri-chording that the velocity has been normalized; I just want the proper explanation to be here for future reference.

If you wanted the engine to push the ship in three directions instead of one, it wouldn't tri-chord unless it used more power...

That's only if you assume the thrusters all pull power from the same engine, and can't all be at full thrust at once.

That's what I'm saying, that most people assume that. Also, another important thing to add is that the ideal engine or set of engines in Descent should produce the same amount of thrust so that trichording will be the square root of three times faster than single-chording.

[flip]

Trichording is so cool it was an accident. No trichording and its no longer Descent to me.

[Dakatsu]

Tri-chording was an accident in D1, in D3 it became a feature

What would be cool is if tiny little \"engines\" were on every axis of the plane. Just like a very small exhaust port, and when you went in that (rather, the opposite direction), the ports would boost nsht...

[Hostile]

Descent is about pushing the \"I believe\" button and enjoying it!!

[Bet51987]

Descent is about pushing the "I believe" button and enjoying it!!

Exactly how I play it...

Bee

[Foil]

<--- Suddenly has \"I Believe I Can Fly\" running through his head.

[Pumo]

Descent is about pushing the "I believe" button and enjoying it!!

Could not be better said.