Was wondering if this is still on the Art Department's short list and if so, whats the hold up?

Do the ships that use missiles need to be updated before Missile launcher turrets can be added?

\would like an answer on this. I'll keep bumping until i do as I'm sure the Caldari pilots would like to know.

Zen

They've responded to this in the past.

The main technical holdup is the difficulties in adding proper mount points for missile launchers/turrets that wouldn't look completely dumb on existing missile ships. When you go over some 250+ ships with some amount of remodeling needed to be done on many of them, it's an incredibly difficult and time-consuming task. That, and they have to make models and animations for the launchers as well, no mean feat.

For instance, how would you do the Naglfar?

Edit: I'm sure in the meantime the Caldari PVP pilots are quite content in the enemy's complete inability to see what kind of launchers they have fitted.

Was wondering if this is still on the Art Department's short list and if so, whats the hold up?

Do the ships that use missiles need to be updated before Missile launcher turrets can be added?

\would like an answer on this. I'll keep bumping until i do as I'm sure the Caldari pilots would like to know.

Zen

Would be awesome to see multiple missiles when you have multiple launchers. Don't really care about the missile bay animation.

They've responded to this in the past.

The main technical holdup is the difficulties in adding proper mount points for missile launchers/turrets that wouldn't look completely dumb on existing missile ships. When you go over some 250+ ships with some amount of remodeling needed to be done on many of them, it's an incredibly difficult and time-consuming task. That, and they have to make models and animations for the launchers as well, no mean feat.

For instance, how would you do the Naglfar?

Edit: I'm sure in the meantime the Caldari PVP pilots are quite content in the enemy's complete inability to see what kind of launchers they have fitted.

Not a missle man myself... but would like to hear any comments on this...

the salvager and tractor beam recently got models... is it the same kinda process with missle turrets?

or do drakes with missle bays scare the hell out of the hamsters in big fleet fights?

BTW.... I, too, am interested in seeing how they handle stealth bombers. Flying siege launchers anyone! ROFL

They've responded to this in the past.

The main technical holdup is the difficulties in adding proper mount points for missile launchers/turrets that wouldn't look completely dumb on existing missile ships. When you go over some 250+ ships with some amount of remodeling needed to be done on many of them, it's an incredibly difficult and time-consuming task. That, and they have to make models and animations for the launchers as well, no mean feat.

For instance, how would you do the Naglfar?

Edit: I'm sure in the meantime the Caldari PVP pilots are quite content in the enemy's complete inability to see what kind of launchers they have fitted.

Not only Caldari uses missiles you know.

True but, then again, they usually Only use missiles.

Yeah because we all know the Merlin, Harpy, Raptor, Cormorant, Moa, Eagle, Falcon, Tengu, Ferox, Vulture and Rokh are all missile ships.

also physics engine issues, since you would also need to make the missiles not spawing in the front of the ship anymore.

Why do people keep mention "physics" as a problem with missile launching? That's ridiculous. All that is changing is the visual effects. Missile mechanics don't need to change at all just because they added cool things for the little blob of light to come out of on the player's screen.

Please get better immediately

Why do people keep mention "physics" as a problem with missile launching?

Would like to have a blue box confirm this or have a link to the source you found this answer from.

Because missiles are objects that have to be handled by the physics simulation. Altering how they are fired (which would be required to ensure they don't phase out through your ship's hull any more) requires changing those physics.
Here.

Because missiles are objects that have to be handled by the physics simulation. Altering how they are fired (which would be required to ensure they don't phase out through your ship's hull any more) requires changing those physics.
Here.

Ok, fair enough, the physics engine in the client has to be changed a little bit to make the missiles look like they are actually coming out. But nothing would change on the server side:

Meh, think outside the box launch tube.

Instead of having the missiles fly from a launching tube, just have the darn things warp out of the ship and suddenly appear in space around the ship before taking off.

In other words, missile "launchers" create a small warp tunnel to "teleport" the missile through the hull and into space.

That would eliminate the tedious work to add launch points on each ship model.

I don't mind having the missile coming from one point each time. Have all missiles, whether they are grouped or not, come from the missile turret/launcher that is closest to the target.

Or even easier would be just keep the firing of missiles the same and have all the missile launchers animate.

Not the best solution but it'd be the easiest/quickest.

That way, the only work you'd have to do to start off with is the turret/launcher and the ship remodelling. They could work out the server/client changes later, when they want to have the missiles coming from the right place.

From what I understand (of ancient dev blogs that I admittedly hardly remember any more), they want to keep those two simulations as close and as similar as possible and that mismatches are the root causes of desynch.

Of course, the question then becomes: is the sourcing of missiles important enough that it requires the two simulations to be the same? It does seem like a bit of a stretch, but you never knowGǪ

I think people would pitch a fit if that were done. With all the work done on turret animations and making them look fantastic firing at a target, missile users would feel short changed if they didn't demonstrate the same level of detail for missile launchers.

I'm ashamed to admit, I would probably be one of the ones complaining.

What can I say, I'm an eye candy addict.

Once again

The actual underlying mechanics of where missiles are coming from would obviously be the same. They start at point A and travel to point B, where A is the center of your ship and B is the target. This would be obviously be the same on the server and the client, regardless of where the effects engine draws the points of light on your screen.

GǪas if I have done it before.You got it wrong the last time and don't try to lay that one at my feet.
GǪand the part you are misunderstanding is that, according to CCP, changing this requires changing the physics of the whole thing for whatever reason. It's not just about the effect GÇö it's about how the missiles will move. They want to keep the two simulations as similar as possible, so changing it on the client to make the effect work could very well mean that they need to change it on the server as well.