Macross Plane-form 3d renderings-- I need yours for a mod for HAWX

[Chronocidal]

Sheesh.. I'm glad to see someone actually try and compile all the modding info in one place. The ubisoft boards for Hawx are an utter mess.. you'd need a dedicated modding community board before anything useful would be easily accessible. Browsing through a single gigantic topic to find info was useless, so I gave up looking, and went back to other games.

Freespace 2 became the basic standard for home-brewn games when it went open source, so it's sad to see someone claimed it again. Although, for $6 I can hardly complain, it's WELL worth that price. And actually, having someone take an economic interest in the game after all these years might not be all bad.. it proves that someone out there realizes there's still money to be made on good space/flight combat games.

The biggest problem I have with the FS2 engine is that is just lacks so many more modern standards for flight combat games.. After years of playing newer sims, I don't know how I ever played without a 3d cockpit and a target padlock feature (pseudo 3d games like Wing Commander 1 and 2 were fun, but I always hated the restrictive cockpits). FS2's interface is not bad, but it could really use some more modern features. Hopefully the modding community has fixed a few of these things, since it's been a while since I looked around, but the BTRL demo I played still used the standard cockpit interface.

Edited June 14, 2009 by Chronocidal

[SchizophrenicMC]

Does it have a semi-accurate 0G Physics engine? I'd buy it if it did.

I like my physics. That's my qualm with YSFlight. (Check the dedicated thread for more on that)

[Chronocidal]

Actually, the original FS2 was pretty close to Star Wars space physics (ie, ship flies like a plane in space). BTRL tried to change that as much as they could, but lets face it, no one makes a computer control system that would be adequate for 6 degree-of-freedom flight. When you can thrust and rotate on any axis, controls get very hard to manage.

The only set of controls I ever saw that might work for that actually CAME from Star Wars Those twin handled controls you see in some ships (maybe with a set of pedals as well) could probably produce every directional control you'd need, sort of like the dual joysticks in Virtual On could produce so many motion directions for the mechs.

[Sakura Shinguji]

So basically, even if someone were to mod FreeSpace2, the effort required is almost similar to making a game engine due to controls and physics. Out of curiosity, what is 0g physics and target padlock feature? Lastly, how can one even make a control scheme that is suitable for a valkyrie? Thanks~!!!

[edit] Mmm.. Target padlock seems to be the same as target lock but the target does not need to be visible from your cockpit. It seems to be an indicator that tells where your opponent is.

I always thought that the amount of G's you receive on an airplane determines whether or not you black out or see red. So is 0g physics where the player does not receive blackouts?

Edited June 15, 2009 by Sakura Shinguji

[Chronocidal]

No, 0g physics (TRUE 0g physics) just means that all the craft move according to Newtons laws of motion. Since you don't have any atmosphere for drag in space, you don't need the engine running non-stop. It's the way the space shuttle works. Firing a thruster gives you acceleration, not velocity, so you keep moving once the thruster is turned off.

Even in a 0g environment though, you will accelerate from manevuers, so you can still blackout or redout.

Say you were floating freely inside a large box equipped with thrusters. If a thruster on one side of the box fired with 1g worth of force, you would accelerate toward that wall at the same rate you fall on earth. If the thruster continued to fire non-stop, you'd be able to walk around on that surface the same as you would the ground on earth. Once the thruster stops firing though, you both maintain constant velocity, and you'll float off the wall.

If the thruster fired with enough force, you could accelerate fast enough to black out, or red out, depending on your body's orientation.

Target padlock view is actually just a term used to describe your head following a target in combat. Most games I've had that use it let you choose how to follow your target. Either you have a target indicator that tells you which way to steer toward it (such as a HUD indicator), or they let you lock your viewpoint on the target, and your head pivots to follow it. Most games have a limit to how far you can turn your head to follow, but some will let you look around behind you.

The trick to a padlock view is you have to be careful about situational awareness. Since you're focused on a target, you're not actually looking where your nose is pointing, which can be bad. Traditionally you look through your gun reticle, and steer so that your target enters it. Padlock view is kind of the reverse, in that you look straight at the target, and steer the reticle to line up with it.

It's a bit tricky to get used to, but keeping your eyes on your target lets you see exactly what its doing at all times, letting you respond to its maneuvers very quickly.

As for a control scheme, I've been trying to figure out a good one for years I'll post my thoughts on that later, just beware the description will not be short.

[AncientAngel]

Well guys, StarShatter game engine does allow for real physics. But there is no programing code to handle any sort of transformation process.

Otherwise you can model about anything into the game. Carriers, Battleships, Frigates, Fighters etc... You can create new weapons and their profiles otherwise called "DEF"'s. I took a shot at it awhile ago and got side tracked by a 3D animation studio.

Here is a in-game shot of the game engine.

YouTube Video of a VF-1 Super in-game

Around 24 seconds you will see the reaction control thrusters in the wings key up.

[shiroikaze]

As for a control scheme, I've been trying to figure out a good one for years I'll post my thoughts on that later, just beware the description will not be short.

For Battroid and Gerwalk mode, wouldn't a 3rd or First Person Shooter type of control scheme work very well? And Fighter mode, the mouse can be used to look around (and or target, with or without looking around) while still using the W, A, S, D keys for piloting or the mouse can be used for piloting...

Edited June 16, 2009 by shiroikaze

[SchizophrenicMC]

For Battroid and Gerwalk mode, wouldn't a 3rd or First Person Shooter type of control scheme work very well? And Fighter mode, the mouse can be used to look around (and or target, with or without looking around) while still using the W, A, S, D keys for piloting or the mouse can be used for movement...

Aw, but I want an in-the-cockpit sim!

Chronocidal, the 0G engine in Ace Combat 3 was actually pretty good. I mean, no game has a perfect 0G sim, but they do exist.

So, I guess the next thing to do is hack apart the AC3 engine!

[shiroikaze]

Aw, but I want an in-the-cockpit sim!

Why not?

The way I'm looking at it, is that you can have a cockpit view, a 3rd person view, and a first person/"HUD only" view and you can set any of the modes in any view you want or switch on the fly.

Edited June 16, 2009 by shiroikaze

[Sakura Shinguji]

So far, I like YSFlight's idea for control schemes.

-Nozzle Up/Down which can make the legs(only) of the fighter move

-Bomb Door Open which makes the arms(only) change from fixed to free move

-Two sticks are used; one for movement while the other for gun controls

-Rudder for moving side to side on any mode

-Flaps, Brake, Spoiler, and Landing Gears work for Fighter mode only

-Throttle Up/Down is self explanatory on fighter mode, but if the legs are pointed down, the throttle also determines altitude; 25% thrust with no after burners is hover

Unfortunately, there is no real good reason to change to any of the modes other than difference of speed and free/fixed gun.

Oh yeah, someone asked me for permission to use my YF-19 for Starshatter. After sending him the texture and mesh, he gave me back a video. Sadly, after emailing him like four times requesting any more details of the mod, the person never talked to me again...

Lastly, shameless showoff~ The YF-21 is so beautiful~!! Texture is surprisingly not done but the UV map is much friendly than the YF-19's when it comes to crazy paint schemes. I may want to rework on the YF-19 later on.

Edited June 16, 2009 by Sakura Shinguji

[SchizophrenicMC]

Instead of another stick, I use a hat switch on the stick I do have. Just throwin' that out there.

I will say I love YSFlight for a lot of reasons, but I hate the graphics and the physics.

[shiroikaze]

Instead of another stick, I use a hat switch on the stick I do have. Just throwin' that out there.

I was actually thinking the same thing . I bet it can double for multi-targeting eye tracking too if possible.

Not to mention if the throttle stick has a hat too, that can be used for Gerwalk movement too I suppose?

Is there an official name or something for the hat switch/analog stick by the way? I always hear called different names...

Edited June 16, 2009 by shiroikaze

[Chronocidal]

Ok, just to clarify.. when I say control scheme, it's coming from a full-on flight-sim junkie, and if I were to ever work on a Valk sim, I would design in an option to fully control as much as you actually wanted. I figure, there's a reason Hikaru crashed on his first time out, so piloting the thing should not be that simple (if you actually want the hardcore sim experience anyway, there'd have to be simpler options of course ).

Ok, so the controls.. From the start, I'm working on the assumption that this'll be controlled by a full blown HOTAS system with pedals. It's not what everyone has, but if you try and build a control scheme backwards (starting from basic to realistic) you're going to run into problems when you get to the realistic end of things, and have to redesign everything to make it possible. Also, just for the sake of absolute crazyness, let's throw in a head tracking system as well. You'll see why it's useful later on.

So, how does a Valk fly?

Aircraft mode is simple, you just use a stick, throttle and pedals as you would in any other sim. Given a head tracking system (or someone very good with a hat switch/target padlock view), you could even link the targeting and head turret to it, but most of the weapons would be forward firing.

Gerwalk mode is essentially a cross between an AT-ST and a helicopter, and I can see a helicopter control scheme would have great merits here. In this case, the stick would act more like your classic WASD setup, and you'd need to control yaw with the rudder pedals (or you could always swap yaw and drift functions between the stick and pedals, since many people would probably like that option). That leaves the throttle for downward thrust, working like a helicopter collective control. Once you happen to actually touch down on the ground, you could still use the stick to walk, just at a reduced speed compared with hovering.

Now the fun part.. you have arms now. This is where things could get tricky, but if enough functions are automated, it'll be simple enough to do. The right arm traditionally holds the gunpod, so it's functionality as an arm is actually very limited. I'd say for that, you could probably just use a selector to slave the arm to either boresight aiming (directly forward) or have it auto-aim toward your current target. Head-tracking would be IDEAL here, since you'd be essentially flying the Macross equivalent of an Apache attack chopper, complete with the head-tracking main gun. Slave the gun to your head-tracking cursor, and you can just place the aiming reticle where you want to. You could also try doing this with a hat switch (the round ones with ridges are generally called that actually, while the ones with tabs sticking up around the edges are called castle switches), but those rarely have the ability to track targets well.

You'd probably have to almost entirely automate functions for the left arm, things such as "pick up," "grip," "punch," etc could be controlled by a combination of the aiming reticle, and action keys.

Battroid, in most respects would work pretty much like Gerwalk mode, but you'd have more hand-to-hand combat options. Here's where the head-tracking almost becomes a must, because you're essentially playing a first-person shooter, but with a joystick and throttle. Joystick should still control forward/back and side-to-side motion, WASD style, and throttle could control thrust/jumping. What becomes an interesting option here is the possibility of using the rudder pedals, especially if they have integrated toe brakes. I don't quite know how you'd use them, but it would be interesting to be able to individually control each foot in space combat.

Now, note, this is a setup that aims for realism (if that word can even be applied to transforming fighter planes). In actuality, it would be much easier to just go to a keyboard and mouse combo (or gamepad) when moving to Battroid or Gerwalk, but then you deal with the issue of thruster control. Granted you could hold the jump button down, but setting a level of thrust to keep you hovering could get complicated. You'd need individual functions that would increase, hold, and decrease altitude. Aside from that, fps controls would probably work fine. You're just going to probably have to deal with a lot of automated functions based around mouse inputs, but it wouldn't be all bad. You could hover over an item, press a button, and drag with the mouse to move it, or pick it up, etc.

But then, you wouldn't have an excuse to get THIS:

I do find it a bit ironic that with the flight sim market nearly dead, Logitech decides to release this beast now... but that won't stop me from buying it. It basically combines the best features from every HOTAS system that's ever been produced... dual throttle design like the Suncom F-15 one.. lots of extra trim knobs like the Saitek X45/X52.. military styled stick like the CH Products version.. they even added force feedback, which I've never seen in a serious sim setup before. It's gonna be a little pricey at $300, but most of the other comparable systems cost more, or roughly the same.. they just don't come in one box.

Combine this sucker with head tracking, and I'll be dying for a serious Macross sim. Heck, I'd settle for a re-release of Tie Fighter.

[shiroikaze]

I say it's a wonderful scheme.

Granted you could hold the jump button down, but setting a level of thrust to keep you hovering could get complicated. You'd need individual functions that would increase, hold, and decrease altitude.

If you have pressure-sensitive buttons like on the PS2 (does the PS3 have em too?) you could do just that, but then not many controllers have that function. You can do it the old fashion way like what Ace Frontier, Armored Core, and the Gundam games did: Hold the button to go up and tap to hover, once you let go, you drop. Lastly, there's the Z.O.E. route, relegate two buttons to ascend and descend. If it's on a control pad, it does have to be simplified in some way.

I actually wanted to ask this question to anyone who knows, but I wanted to gather my thoughts and figure some of the details out first before I ask half-assedly, but I guess I should ask anyway. What I really want to know is how do you change modes and how Gerwalk and Battroid are really piloted? Particularly, the VF-1 and the VF-25 I guess. Is there any official information on this and where from?

Edited June 17, 2009 by shiroikaze

[Chronocidal]

Officially, I dunno if the controls have ever been worked out. We see bits and pieces throughout the different series, such as the buttons that control hand motion, and how the foot pedals control thrust and leg movement.. but Gerwalk? If you delegate the hand controls entirely to arm motion (which you pretty much have to), you're left with the foot pedals to control ALL movement.. which could get messy.

The foot pedals in Valks are nothing like regular rudder pedals, since they pivot, control yaw like traditional pedals, AND can be pushed at the same time.

To be honest, that's one thing that has always seemed flat out wrong to me about Mac+. The shot they show of Isamu's aerobatics shows him using the foot pedals to control how the feet vector the thrust.. well, in Gerwalk or Battroid that's fine, but shouldn't that control be integrated into the stick for roll control in fighter mode?

I seem to remember the foot pedals actually being used to walk in some scenes, which to me sounds overly complicated, but when you consider the sticks have to control the arms, that's all you're left with. The same is true for Gerwalk mode.

Now, given enough control flexibility in the foot pedals (they seem to be attached to the pilot's feet, rather than just something he steps on), you can get a large range of motion control from them. In Gerwalk and Battroid, they'd need to control the engine thrust (seen in I think Mac0 to be controlled by pushing the pedals down, kind of like a jumping motion), walking motion (which, if the pedals are actually attached to the pilots feet in some way, could actually mimic real walking), as well as thrust vectoring with the feet while airborne.

If we assume that the pedals in Valks have MUCH more motion in them than just a simple set of rudder pedals, it's likely they could act more like the leg controls seen in Noriko's Buster Machine in Gunbuster, where the pedals move in multiple directions, and the pilot can move them in any direction he can move his legs. This would be really imporant for thrust vector control, since you'd need to be able to tilt your feet side-to-side and front-to-back.

Walking on the ground could be more automated, but if the pedals have a built in feedback system, they might actually exert a slight pressure upwards on the pilot's feet based on the current terrain. That way, the pilot would know when the Valk's feet were firmly on the ground, and he could actually get some sense of the motion of walking, rather than just automated motion controlled entirely by computer. Considering some of the fancy footwork some Valks have been seen to be capable of, either they have a tremendous system for executing pre-programmed close combat maneuvers, or the pilot really IS in full control of the motion (I'm thinking of the tuck and roll Hikaru's VF-1J performs in the opening credits of SDFM, but I'm sure there are other examples as well).

And now that I think of it, yeah, the pilot DOES have to be in full control of the motions.. otherwise, how would Alto have pulled off his custom victory pose? In this case, the arm controls confuse me much more than the legs... I mean, they're control sticks.. granted I think they slide, but there has to be some tremendous precision freedom of movement to manage an over the shoulder pose for the rifle.

Btw, yes, in case you're wondering, I've spent FAR too much time thinking about this. Figuring out control interfaces for fancy stuff like this is just fun for me.. I've flown so many flight sims, I've had a lot of experience with what types of control schemes work, and what types don't (I'm looking at you Hawx ). I just love figuring out ways to make supposedly impossible stuff work. It'd be even better if I got to apply this knowledge to an actual Macross game at some point (or better yet, given my career field with aeronautics, an ACTUAL Valk someday ).

Edited June 17, 2009 by Chronocidal

[AncientAngel]

I believe Hawx can do more than what is currently known about. Seems the DEV's put some fore thought into the game but never opened up its true hidden potential. I have seen this process done in the past and it only means they are planning/marketing for a Hawx 2 and or expansion packs. Where they can make a base line profit off of the code that is already in the game just by simply turning different possible features on and calling it new content.

What they haven't thought of yet, is this mod'ing community will eventually find away to create that content and or turn those features on. Its the 500lb genie in the bottle that will eventually break them if they do not treat it with enough respect and care.

[SchizophrenicMC]

I love my X-52...

My biggest problem in Macross simming is that I consider the DYRL? controls to be canon, so there are no options, really, when it comes to a HOTAS setup. I mean, there's no throttle that flips up.

I'll give the control scheme some more thought and post what I think would be the most effective canon way of doing things (Even if it means going TV on the controls)

[Chronocidal]

I would love my X52 more if they hadn't ditched several of the better features of the X45 when making it.. the extra features of the new version just don't make up for the lack of engineering quality. It just feels flimsy, where the X45 felt extremely sturdy and beefy.. especially for the throttle knobs.. the ones on the X45 were nice, smooth, metal bearings.. by sticking the extra button in the middle of the ones on the X52, they killed the feel of those knobs entirely, and now they're plastic-on-plastic components that tend to fall off a lot.

But anyway, enough about my control stick rants

The problem with setting up a set of canon DYRL controls wouldn't be just the flip-up throttle.. what you'd really need would be two extremely fancy sticks, with interlocks that kept certain motions from working depending on the mode.

The way I see it, each of those sticks needs to have 4-5 axes of control each, not the usual 2-3 (the third being a twist function).

Five separate axes might be a bit much, but four would be doable. What you'd need is for each side stick to have the standard twist stick setup, and then put each stick on a sliding track that could move forward and back for the fourth axis.

What you'd have then are automatic lockouts that would prevent the sticks from moving in certain ways during certain modes. In aircraft mode, the left stick would freeze all axes but the slide function for throttle, and the right stick would remain stationary, and probably lock the twist function. Moving into Gerwalk/Battroid would free up all those axes, and the throttle would flip up into a full function stick.

That would all seem to work really great, except for one thing... you now have sticks that can move forward and back on two separate axes simultaneously. You can tilt each stick forward or back, and still slide them either forward or back. Managing that much freedom of motion could be very tricky indeed; probably not impossible though, depending on how the controls were weighted. But just imagine trying to slide your joystick across a desk without tilting the handle, and you'll see the problem. Granted, your joystick is designed to produce friction with the desk, and a control would be much easier to move.. but it's still an awkward combination of controls. Imagine throttle control was integrated into an aircraft's stick that way.. you could very easily cut your engine while trying to pull out of a dive, since the motions would be so similar.

Now just to throw a King Kong sized monkey wrench in the works here... I dare anyone to explain how Basara controlled his Valk.

Edited June 18, 2009 by Chronocidal

[chillyche]

Now just to throw a King Kong sized monkey wrench in the works here... I dare anyone to explain how Basara controlled his Valk.

Modded wireless Guitar Hero controller. And macros. A lot of macros.

[shiroikaze]

Dynamite says otherwise. It's okay, he's Basara, he can get away with it.

But just imagine trying to slide your joystick across a desk without tilting the handle, and you'll see the problem. Granted, your joystick is designed to produce friction with the desk, and a control would be much easier to move.. but it's still an awkward combination of controls. Imagine throttle control was integrated into an aircraft's stick that way.. you could very easily cut your engine while trying to pull out of a dive, since the motions would be so similar.

I be floored if someone designed a flightstick, throttlestick, and rudders like what you described.

I went back to watch Isamu and Guld duking it out... I noticed Isamu's flightstick was not on runners and he was using the stick itself to control the arm... =\

Hmm, how does 3D thrusting working on jets like F-22?

Edited June 18, 2009 by shiroikaze

[Sakura Shinguji]

To Chronocidal: You need to spend more time thinking about the controls!! Some day, some valkyrie simulator will be modded or created and will be in need of this. I love overly complicated control schemes anyway. Virtual On just feels so natural once you get used to the twin sticks. I just feel that if the player has full control over the machine, the player will feel more connected to the game because it adds to the realism.

I do not want this to be like Tekken where any five year old kid can just jump on and win by button mashing. I do not like how most animes nowadays feature some kid with no prior experience becomes a hot shot than those with dedication, passion and experience. Mastering the controls should require all of the three- dedication, passion and experience. ^_~ I think so anyway.

[SchizophrenicMC]

Dynamite says otherwise. It's okay, he's Basara, he can get away with it.

I be floored if someone designed a flightstick, throttlestick, and rudders like what you described.

I went back to watch Isamu and Guld duking it out... I noticed Isamu's flightstick was not on runners and he was using the stick itself to control the arm... =\

Hmm, how does 3D thrusting working on jets like F-22?

One, F-22 doesn't have 3D. Only 2D. It can't affect the Yaw axis.

3D is in 3-paddle TVC or in a Direct-Nozzle-Control TVC system.

Moving on, here's how I see it:

Fighter

Controls operate normally, turret controlled by hat switch on stick

GERWALK

Throttle controls downward thrust

Foot pedals control forward thrust (Ties in with later dynamic in Battroid)

Left Stick(Throttle with stick axes unlocked) controls the left arm

Right Stick controls the right arm

Turret controlled by hat switch on right stick

Battroid

Throttle controls downward thrust

Foot pedals control walking (Works on dual-motor control theory; pressing the left pedal moves the valk around the right leg as a pivot, vice versa, and both moves forward)

Left Stick controls left arm(Throttle with stick axes unlocked)

Right Stick controls right arm

HMD controls the turret

Really, the controls are simpler than they're made out to be.

The hard part is a throttle assembly that opens to 45 and 90 degree angles, both of which unlock a set of stick axes in the joint, the whole thing mounted to the sliding throttle mechanism. It would not work on a rotary throtttle.

[shiroikaze]

One, F-22 doesn't have 3D. Only 2D. It can't affect the Yaw axis.

3D is in 3-paddle TVC or in a Direct-Nozzle-Control TVC system.

I fail.... hard. I actually forgot that.

But anyway, what is controlling those nozzles? The flightstick?

Also, I watched ep 2 of Macross Zero and interestingly, the flighstick doesn't control the RIGHT arm, doesn't seem it be head-tracking either. Throttle stick itself doesn't control the arm and it doesn't look like it's in 45 degrees either but I think that's just perspective... =\

I think it's safe to say it's the hat sticks that are controlling the arms.

[edit]apparently I don't know right from left.

Edited June 18, 2009 by shiroikaze

[SchizophrenicMC]

I fail.... hard. I actually forgot that.

But anyway, what is controlling those nozzles? The flightstick?

Also, I watched ep 2 of Macross Zero and interestingly, the flighstick doesn't control the left arm, doesn't seem it be head-tracking either. Throttle stick itself doesn't control the arm and it doesn't look like it's in 45 degrees either but I think that's just perspective... =\

I think it's safe to say it's the hat sticks that are controlling the arms.

The Flight computer moves the deflector paddles (Nozzles are behind them) in conjunction with control surfaces, adjusted for speed and maximum g-limit, at the command of the flightstick.

I'd agree with you on that, but hat sticks don't allow the reaction times we see in the various series.

[Chronocidal]

Interesting thought about the arm/hand operation... anyone ever see one of those incredibly fancy/expensive CAD controllers? Think like a trackball, except you can hold the ball, twist it, turn it, tilt it, push in 4 directions like a joystick, and even lift or press on it. It's basically... wow, yeah, I think it is a full 6 axis control.

Now, imagine if the joysticks worked like that for arm control. Given the fingers are pressure sensitive buttons on the stick, the hand itself could be controlled by the traditional joystick motion (as far as orientation of the hand and wrist), while the 3 axes left could act as a simple directional control for the hand.

Essentially, it'd be what computer animators call inverse kinematics. It's used in rigging computer animation models, and greatly simplifies motion animations. For things like walking, you would only keyframe animate the position of the foot. From that, the computer interpolates where the rest of the leg should be, given it's limits of motion.

If you had 3 axes to control the spatial position of the hand, and 3 more to control how it behaves, that'd probably work nicely.

Now the only problem with that is that you have lots of axes with very similar motions.. it would take a VERY careful design to make sure you could activate the axes you wanted to for the hand, without accidentally moving the entire arm.

[SchizophrenicMC]

Interesting thought about the arm/hand operation... anyone ever see one of those incredibly fancy/expensive CAD controllers? Think like a trackball, except you can hold the ball, twist it, turn it, tilt it, push in 4 directions like a joystick, and even lift or press on it. It's basically... wow, yeah, I think it is a full 6 axis control.

Now, imagine if the joysticks worked like that for arm control. Given the fingers are pressure sensitive buttons on the stick, the hand itself could be controlled by the traditional joystick motion (as far as orientation of the hand and wrist), while the 3 axes left could act as a simple directional control for the hand.

Essentially, it'd be what computer animators call inverse kinematics. It's used in rigging computer animation models, and greatly simplifies motion animations. For things like walking, you would only keyframe animate the position of the foot. From that, the computer interpolates where the rest of the leg should be, given it's limits of motion.

If you had 3 axes to control the spatial position of the hand, and 3 more to control how it behaves, that'd probably work nicely.

Now the only problem with that is that you have lots of axes with very similar motions.. it would take a VERY careful design to make sure you could activate the axes you wanted to for the hand, without accidentally moving the entire arm.

Or, you could add another axis and achieve the wrist effect, using the joystick's other 2 axes to control the arm movement.

Poorly drawn paint explains:

Basically, it's the way a joystick works. You have 3 axes, up-down, right-left, and rotate. Rotate controls the wrist, whilst the other two control the arm. Fingers are controlled through the 5 triggers on the stick. It's the same on the left stick, except the throttle slide remains for throttle control.

They have pilot training for it for a reason.

The only care would be at the hand of the pilot, remembering what axis does what; not too hard, really.

So, as follows:

Foot pedals control the legs

Right stick controls right arm (Up-Down, Left-Right used for arm, rotate used for wrist, triggers for hand movement)

Left stick controls left arm and downward thrust (Up-Down, Left-Right used for arm, rotate for wrist, triggers for hand movement, slide for throttle)

All-total, that's 19 axes, including 10 fingers and throttle slide. So, really, only 8 separate axes, and even further only 7, because the pedals can be simplified into a single axis.

Not too bad, really, especially if the flightcom is helping the whole way...

[Chronocidal]

Or, you could add another axis and achieve the wrist effect, using the joystick's other 2 axes to control the arm movement.

Poorly drawn paint explains:

Basically, it's the way a joystick works. You have 3 axes, up-down, right-left, and rotate. Rotate controls the wrist, whilst the other two control the arm. Fingers are controlled through the 5 triggers on the stick. It's the same on the left stick, except the throttle slide remains for throttle control.

They have pilot training for it for a reason.

The only care would be at the hand of the pilot, remembering what axis does what; not too hard, really.

So, as follows:

Foot pedals control the legs

Right stick controls right arm (Up-Down, Left-Right used for arm, rotate used for wrist, triggers for hand movement)

Left stick controls left arm and downward thrust (Up-Down, Left-Right used for arm, rotate for wrist, triggers for hand movement, slide for throttle)

All-total, that's 19 axes, including 10 fingers and throttle slide. So, really, only 8 separate axes, and even further only 7, because the pedals can be simplified into a single axis.

Not too bad, really, especially if the flightcom is helping the whole way...

The big issue I see with the arm scheme you have is that even with wrist control, a 2 axis stick is not nearly enough to control an entire arm. At the very minimum you need 3 axes, to control the hand's position in 3 dimensions. Up/down and left/right is fine, but what if you need to punch something? You need another axis to control how far out you extend the arm.

You need one axis for every direction of motion you intend to be possible with the arm/hand. Assuming we go with the stick controlling the position of the hand in 3D space, that means 3 axes just for that.

Now, maybe the hand itself could be controlled with a hat switch, since hand motions would be relatively precise, and not need to be too fast (unless you plan on communicating with sign language). It'd be simple enough to make a pressure sensitive thumbstick to control the hand and thumb, I think, since 2 axes would be plenty to control wrist rotation in two dimensions.

So, for the complete axis count, you'd have for each arm.. 5 finger axes (limiting them to simple gripping), 2 wrist axes, and 3 hand position axes, so 10 for each arm, 20 total. Throw in throttle (two, actually), and things might get a bit messy.

Course.. this is assuming this is all for real life. A game would be much simpler, I'm sure.

And oooh.. on the real life side of things, just had an idea... all those finger buttons? Yep, they're axes, but are they spring loaded? That could make holding things (like the gunpod) get tiring. You'd need a finger version of cruise control. Or, another option.. I know we didn't see this in the anime, but what if each of the fingers had a ring on it, and were actually not spring loaded at all, but simply allowed the pilot's hand to push and pull the fingers open as if they were his own? *shrugs* Again, I need to get a life.

Edited June 20, 2009 by Chronocidal

[shiroikaze]

To be honest, that's one thing that has always seemed flat out wrong to me about Mac+. The shot they show of Isamu's aerobatics shows him using the foot pedals to control how the feet vector the thrust.. well, in Gerwalk or Battroid that's fine, but shouldn't that control be integrated into the stick for roll control in fighter mode?

I just watched Macross Zero (again~) and believe it or not, it's present in Zero too. When Shin decides to do an aerial dance with Nora in the final episode.

[Star Dragon]

To be fair, cockpit making has been a fairly restricted effort by people. (Scooby Doo for WC and the SW team for FOTG offhand).

A generic Terran Cockpit had been made by Venom/Nico and refined by others for community use. Several of the HTL Terrans now use it or variants.

There is more interest in making more, but not much as the peopel who can are basically busy doing other things as a priority. Usually every 1-2 months someoen comes by and bumps a thread about them and gets the run down.

What do you mean by a number pad interface? That can be redone via key bindings in every incarnation of the game.

I prefer my hat-switch and 8-Stick buttons. (logitech Wingman 3D)

I intend to use the Bothec DYRL cockpit model for the VF-1's for all Macross-era aircraft.

I'm keeping Destroids as NPC's so none is needed for those.

[Chronocidal]

I just watched Macross Zero (again~) and believe it or not, it's present in Zero too. When Shin decides to do an aerial dance with Nora in the final episode.

Well, to be fair, Macross Plus was written before we really knew anything about the F-22, so they couldn't really copy it. Linking those vector controls to the feet does make sense in geralk and battroid, so maybe the pedals just function as a manual override in fighter mode, specifically to pull off maneuvers like that. But they have to be linked to the normal flight controls as well, since otherwise pulling back on the stick wouldn't do jack, because several of these planes have no traditional elevators.

The YF-19, VF-11, and VF-4 are exceptions, since they have canards, and the YF-21 could probably do without since it's got the same control surface arrangement as the YF-23. And come to think of it, even the later VF-19 variants had more of a delta wing arrangement than anything else. But planes like the VF-1, VF-0, and VF-25 just don't have any control surface to function as an elevator, so they have to rely on vectored thrust.

Edited June 20, 2009 by Chronocidal

[SchizophrenicMC]

My thought on the Foot-Pedal TVC is this: When the plane surpasses a set speed, the foot pedals stop connecting yaw, as it's not needed as much at higher speeds. At this point, they move over to the TVC where more experienced pilots can extract more of the plane's capabilities from it.

You're still overcomplicating this, Chrono.

There is one throttle axis that ranges from -10 to 210. That is, reverse to Overboost. It's actually quite similar to how a modern gaming controller handles things. On the Xbox 360 controller, there are 5 axes: the right stick up-down and left-right, the left stick up-down and left-right, and the trigger axis which is 0 at rest, 100 at full depression of right and -100 at full depression of left. In situations where both are necessary, the computer splits them up accordingly.

The hands, if we want to keep this canon, are controlled by finger triggers in the stick. You see this in MacF and even SDFM. I'm assuming they're spring-loaded, but have a thumb-operated button that activates a lock, so the hand will keep its position.

Next, you bring up forward motion. I say you could probably fudge this a bit, since the left arm doesn't ever seem to do much, and give the right stick the same throttle slide axis that controls arm movement foward and rearward. It would be a very intuitive axis, as well, since the pilot would only have to think of extending his own arm to extend the battroid's and the opposite action.

You're trying to take my interpretation of the canon and throw it out the window for a completely non-canon control scheme, it seems. Hell, from what I can recall, there is no hat switch even on the fighters until the YF-19. And even then, it was a thumb-tracking device based on infrared.

Here's a pic of the DYRL? Cockpit with labels:

Note that the grey knobs are the finger controls, and that the only realy movements a hand has is through the fingers, anyway. So, you're limted to gripping as it were. Combinations of grip give the finer movements, such as pointing.

Again:

Rotate: Wrist

Up-Down: Arm Up-Down

Left-Right: Arm Left-Right

Throttle Slide: Downward Thrust (LEFT) Forward-Rearward Arm (RIGHT)

Finger Triggers: Fingers

[Chronocidal]

Lol.. sorry, probably didn't ever actually say that I was working on how you'd do it in real life, not how the anime shows it. I know what you mean btw, I do love to overcomplicate things. What I'm trying to figure out is more something you could make work with a computer sim, or if we ever built these things in real life, not so much how the anime shows it. I'm fairly certain that no multi-engined aircraft has a single lever for both throttles, so that's one complication right there, and there's a whole other list.

What you've got listed sounds just about right for the anime. I'm pretty sure there's a lot of anime magic going on though, since there just aren't enough controls in the cockpit for everything you see the VF-1 do. The cockpit obviously doesn't show a sliding axis for the right stick, so that idea doesn't quite work, and the amount of arm control you see in various scenes wouldn't be possible to control directly, unless there are a LOT of controls for functions we're not even seeing. Now, they could rely heavily on preprogrammed motions, or they might have contextual controls that perform different functions in different situations. Only way to really know would be to ask Kawamori. Being an engineering type himself, I'd bet he probably has it all worked out.

Edited June 21, 2009 by Chronocidal

[SchizophrenicMC]

Lol.. sorry, probably didn't ever actually say that I was working on how you'd do it in real life, not how the anime shows it. I know what you mean btw, I do love to overcomplicate things. What I'm trying to figure out is more something you could make work with a computer sim, or if we ever built these things in real life, not so much how the anime shows it. I'm fairly certain that no multi-engined aircraft has a single lever for both throttles, so that's one complication right there, and there's a whole other list.

Multi-engine note: the Dassault Rafale, I know for fact, has 2 engines and one throttle lever.

What you've got listed sounds just about right for the anime. I'm pretty sure there's a lot of anime magic going on though, since there just aren't enough controls in the cockpit for everything you see the VF-1 do. The cockpit obviously doesn't show a sliding axis for the right stick, so that idea doesn't quite work, and the amount of arm control you see in various scenes wouldn't be possible to control directly, unless there are a LOT of controls for functions we're not even seeing. Now, they could rely heavily on preprogrammed motions, or they might have contextual controls that perform different functions in different situations. Only way to really know would be to ask Kawamori. Being an engineering type himself, I'd bet he probably has it all worked out.

Actually, the way I see it, the VF-1 uses BOTH contextual control and pre-programmed motion. For example, walking is controlled through the foot pedals in battroid. In Fighter, they control yaw, so it's a contextual control, and it uses pre-programmed motion because the pilot doesn't control each leg motion individually. Just pressing them makes both legs move as long as it's pressed, and then finish the movement when they're depressed.

I really don't see how anime magic plays in. The way it works in the anime would work in real life. It's all about control configuration. A stick can have all those axes, and simulators can and do have contextual control.

The only anime magic is forward movement of the right arm, since neither canon control scheme has that axis. Though, it's very minor; I don't recall seeing forward arm movement, aside from a battroid pushing itself up or aiming the gunpod, both of which could easily be pre-programmed motions; and in a simulator, the axis could simply be added and remove from canon.

[chillyche]

Actually, the way I see it, the VF-1 uses BOTH contextual control and pre-programmed motion. For example, walking is controlled through the foot pedals in battroid. In Fighter, they control yaw, so it's a contextual control, and it uses pre-programmed motion because the pilot doesn't control each leg motion individually. Just pressing them makes both legs move as long as it's pressed, and then finish the movement when they're depressed.

I really don't see how anime magic plays in. The way it works in the anime would work in real life. It's all about control configuration. A stick can have all those axes, and simulators can and do have contextual control.

The only anime magic is forward movement of the right arm, since neither canon control scheme has that axis. Though, it's very minor; I don't recall seeing forward arm movement, aside from a battroid pushing itself up or aiming the gunpod, both of which could easily be pre-programmed motions; and in a simulator, the axis could simply be added and remove from canon.

I have seen Battroids do cartwheels, reload clips in rifles, get in knife fights, tuck the nose cone section of a fallen companion onto their arms, catch falling girls, scoop up screaming girls, dive roll, throw rocks, throw punches, and do all sorts of very complex, very human motions, that would suggest that it's not as simple as pushing the pedal down and then releasing. I think that's where anime magic occurs. I maintain that it's impossible to make those things do what they do with the extant control scheme without casting a little majikum animeum.

[SchizophrenicMC]

I have seen Battroids do cartwheels, reload clips in rifles, get in knife fights, tuck the nose cone section of a fallen companion onto their arms, catch falling girls, scoop up screaming girls, dive roll, throw rocks, throw punches, and do all sorts of very complex, very human motions, that would suggest that it's not as simple as pushing the pedal down and then releasing. I think that's where anime magic occurs. I maintain that it's impossible to make those things do what they do with the extant control scheme without casting a little majikum animeum.

Um...

Reload

Knife Fight

Nosecone

Punch

Throw

all can be pre-programmed actions. The GBP-1S has 6 grenades. You throw them. A certain input, maybe axial value over a certain time, would activate the throw maneuver. Reloading is as simple as pressing a button. Nosecone's likely a trainer recovery system. Punch and kinfe fight are both combat maneuvers and I wouldn't be surprised if it was all controllable through a combined control system. Think Mortal Kombat and its buttom combos.

Given, some things are stupid. Cartwheels and dive rolls aren't likely in real mecha combat.

Also, picking girls up is the best show of control use we see. That's where my idea for the control of a valk came from, actually. (That, and Robotech: Battlecry...) I mean, look at Alto in Frontier 1 when he's picking up Ranka. So much input on the fingers.

Anime magic must be applied in everything. I just don't think a lot of it has to go into this.