The Star Citizen Thread v 3.0

[Zelos1983]

One of the things I have always liked about E.D. is that it never seemed easy and you control your ship. Seeing Star Citizen's people proudly go on about their positions on the leaderboards but not support the idea of a skill area of Arena Commander raises a flag for me. If the majority of the people are afraid of manning up and proving their skill in more difficult combat it tells me that the combat side is going to be watered down to cater to the masses.

The issue for E being hard to control is it's arcady flight model. The ships don't fly at all like a ship would, therefore controlling it is counter-intuitive for people not accustomed to the flight model.

In SC, the flight model is clearly more realistic, however, the IFCS does a lot of the work, and the "strafe" thrusters are vastly overpowered. In addition, it also has an artificial speed limit. Therefore: Nerfing the strafe thrusters while removing the speed limit would be the way to go to make the flight model more challenging for pilots.
Further, the control scheme is not optimal. Rather than having a throttle (the throttle just indicates to the IFCS how it should handle the thrusters, it has no direct control) and a stick, it would be far better to have two 3-axis sticks for operating rotation and orientation of the craft by direct influence.

 

[Auditore]

So here is a funny for you. It has become no surprise that the majority of people signing up for Star Citizen are players and not pilots. Someone suggested that they create an area for Arena Commander that caters to pilots looking to prove themselves in combat. The third response to the post hammers the idea. Here is the thread. ---> https://forums.robertsspaceindustri...eal-steel-combat-challenge-for-area-commander

What kills me about the whole thing is the guy is asking for a section of Arena Commander where the pilots run with no shields and non-gimbal size 1 guns to prove their skill in combat. So far support for the idea has fallen on deaf ears and as stated someone has already displayed their lack of courage and capability. That is just sad. One of the things I have always liked about E.D. is that it never seemed easy and you control your ship. Seeing Star Citizen's people proudly go on about their positions on the leaderboards but not support the idea of a skill area of Arena Commander raises a flag for me. If the majority of the people are afraid of manning up and proving their skill in more difficult combat it tells me that the combat side is going to be watered down to cater to the masses.

Sounds like a good idea for the PU. Since Arena Commander will be the in-game simulator in which tournaments or challenges will be held (as per CIG's intentions), it stands to reason we could see more of that when the game releases. I don't see why not implementing something like this right now is sad, when there are so many other priorities. Though to be clear, I have no interest in the current implemented leaderboards either.

 

[Nick 'Paradox' Parker]

Sounds like a good idea for the PU. Since Arena Commander will be the in-game simulator in which tournaments or challenges will be held (as per CIG's intentions), it stands to reason we could see more of that when the game releases. I don't see why not implementing something like this right now is sad, when there are so many other priorities. Though to be clear, I have no interest in the current implemented leaderboards either.

Honestly the reason is that it won't take any real time to put into place. The guy who came up with the idea states using maps and objects that are already in place. He states that the only thing that has to be done is to disable shields, convert all mounts to Class/Size 1s, and reduce the damage on missiles. See too many people are given the idea that something added or modified takes too much time. For a few it is a genuine concern. But for most the real reason is that they don't want to see it happen. Perfect example was a months ago I suggested that the Constellation, Freelancer, and Cutlass needed a major facelift. They were just being outclassed by the Wave 2 ships and the Wave 3 & 4 concept art. So many made claims that it would take too much time and that they were fine. But recently after hearing that those three are being reworked not one person has stepped up to claim that it is unneeded or that they are fine the way they are. Views on what features or items are not needed due to time are always subjective. Worse is that a lot of people believe that things take too much time because they have heard such things in previous games they followed being developed. But not once do you ever hear the developers making the same claim. They just let the Knights in the forums put down those uprisings and demands

 

[Auditore]

Regardless of how much time something takes to create (and unless we are the devs we couldn't possibly know exactly how much that would be but it's never as simple as flipping a couple of 'code switches'), my point was that it's most likely not very high on the priority list for both players and devs. When most of the major features are done, if there's enough demand I can see it happening. I doubt a few nay-sayers would prevent it, since they are not the majority. All this single page thread you linked proves in my eyes is that there's just not enough demand for it right now and/or there are far more interesting/important topics to discuss. If more people took part the story would probably be much different.

Anyway, for what it's worth, I support the idea . I just don't really care if it happens before the final game's release.

 

[Stormprooter]

The issue for E being hard to control is it's arcady flight model. The ships don't fly at all like a ship would, therefore controlling it is counter-intuitive for people not accustomed to the flight model.

In SC, the flight model is clearly more realistic, however, the IFCS does a lot of the work, and the "strafe" thrusters are vastly overpowered. In addition, it also has an artificial speed limit. Therefore: Nerfing the strafe thrusters while removing the speed limit would be the way to go to make the flight model more challenging for pilots.
Further, the control scheme is not optimal. Rather than having a throttle (the throttle just indicates to the IFCS how it should handle the thrusters, it has no direct control) and a stick, it would be far better to have two 3-axis sticks for operating rotation and orientation of the craft by direct influence.

Hmmm, both flight models are realistic. There does seem to be a a bit of a perception that either the ED flight model or the SC flight model is somehow wrong, and one is more realistic than the other (depending on who you talk to ).
The difference is in how each game models the flight computer (Flight Assist in ED and IFCS in SC). In both games, the laws of physics are modeled (as accurately as required), with the caveat of speed and accelleration limits (throttle/strafe) and rate of turn limits for pitch/yaw/roll. The flight computers in each game 'manage' thrust based on user input differently, with Star Citizen being more 'twitchy',quick and 'slip-slidey' compared to Elite Dangerous. The flight assist in Elite Dangerous is deliberately designed to give the 'feel' of atmospheric flight in space, you can of course, elect to switch it off.

 

[Zelos1983]

Hmmm, both flight models are realistic. There does seem to be a a bit of a perception that either the ED flight model or the SC flight model is somehow wrong, and one is more realistic than the other (depending on who you talk to ).

Actually, they are not. For example, translation is completely decoupled from rotation - there is no way a "blue zone" can exist. Orientation is far easier to achieve than translation, as inducing spin on a frictionless spacecraft doesn't require much energy. Changing the movement vector however, does, so it takes rather "long" to get it into another flight path.

Yet with E, it feels like I'm flying "on rails". It takes forever to turn, and for some reason, rolling is done rather fast, pitching medium and yawing slow, which is completely counterintuitive.

Even in fully decoupled mode, the game does some odd things. For example, go "full speed" in one direction, then turn the ship 90 degrees. It will continue in the original direction at first. Then "throttle" forward. Even though you never activated one of the strafe thrusters, after a few seconds, the ship will end up going in the direction it is pointed to, even though that's "impossible".

So to fly successfully in E, one has to let go the realistic model of spaceflight and just go along with the arbitrary "rules" set up by the game. For example, when you want to "brake" fast, you would usually yaw the ship 180 degrees (start yawing, hold, at 90 degrees fire yaw thrusters in the other direction, hold until 180 degrees are reached) then fire main thrusters.
But here in E, you just move the throttle back, which then instructs the flight computer to fire the (usually less powerfull) retrothrusters. In the end, this is still faster than turning the ship around.
So if you go into combat, flying as if you would fly a proper simulator, you would fail miserably.

in SC, it's afaik modeled properly (e.g. no "blue zone"), however the IFCS takes a lot of the fun away - there is a rather low, artificial "speed limit" as well, and the overpowered thrusters make flying less of a challenge.

In the end, as someone hinted, both games (currently) do not cater to pilots, but rather to players. Superior 3D piloting skills are not the main aspect of the game, and you won't find much combat scenes from B5 or BSG.

 

[kilvenny]

@Zelos
For me, as an old grey head who spent most of his life in the previous century its very intuitive - ED reminds me of my days flying Spitfires. Pitch and roll onto target. Maybe not spaceflight, but the same techniques for attacking bf 109's seem to work well.

 

[Tinman]

Even in fully decoupled mode, the game does some odd things. For example, go "full speed" in one direction, then turn the ship 90 degrees. It will continue in the original direction at first. Then "throttle" forward. Even though you never activated one of the strafe thrusters, after a few seconds, the ship will end up going in the direction it is pointed to, even though that's "impossible".

If you turn off flight assist in ED and still find that your ship is changing course in the direction you are pointing then you are still firing the main thrusters. Otherwise you will keep on going in the original direction. Check your bindings.

 

[Nick 'Paradox' Parker]

Regardless of how much time something takes to create (and unless we are the devs we couldn't possibly know exactly how much that would be but it's never as simple as flipping a couple of 'code switches'), my point was that it's most likely not very high on the priority list for both players and devs. When most of the major features are done, if there's enough demand I can see it happening. I doubt a few nay-sayers would prevent it, since they are not the majority. All this single page thread you linked proves in my eyes is that there's just not enough demand for it right now and/or there are far more interesting/important topics to discuss. If more people took part the story would probably be much different.

Anyway, for what it's worth, I support the idea . I just don't really care if it happens before the final game's release.

The ship overhauls weren't very high on their list as well, and yet sure enough it is being done. Are you familiar with how the CIG forums operate? You don't have to be the majority just really loud and have your demand fit somewhere in their plans. I don't think it will get support given the climate. Back in 2013 when the numbers were under 250,000 it would have been something the majority were looking for as a good majority of pledges were combat sim types. But you stack on 500,000 more and things change. Remember the 3PV fisaco? Early on players made it clear it was a no. CIG just waited till the climate started to even out and then flipped the script. It is becoming the norm there. From point go they were looking to target the masses market event though to get it all started they targeted people from the Wing Commander and Flight Combat Sim genre.

 

[Zelos1983]

@Zelos
For me, as an old grey head who spent most of his life in the previous century its very intuitive - ED reminds me of my days flying Spitfires. Pitch and roll onto target. Maybe not spaceflight, but the same techniques for attacking bf 109's seem to work well.

But flying an atmospheric craft is a totally different undertaking. Being able to fly a spitfire does not enable you to fly the space shuttle outside of earth's atmosphere.
As in E we are in space, we of course would assume that it behaves like that. Only for atmospheric flight, which isn't even implemented, we would assume an airplane-like flight model. Provided the craft is aerodynamic enough and has appropriate air control surfaces.

It's a bit like a hovercraft simulator behaving like a motorboat.

If you turn off flight assist in ED and still find that your ship is changing course in the direction you are pointing then you are still firing the main thrusters. Otherwise you will keep on going in the original direction. Check your bindings.

Exactly that. But I would assume that the "throttle" position would only tell the flight computer to fire main/retro thrusters (depending on current and set relative speeds), however, it does much more than that and fires the "strafe" thrusters as well. Again, it's not intuitive.

 

[Tinman]

But flying an atmospheric craft is a totally different undertaking. Being able to fly a spitfire does not enable you to fly the space shuttle outside of earth's atmosphere.
As in E we are in space, we of course would assume that it behaves like that. Only for atmospheric flight, which isn't even implemented, we would assume an airplane-like flight model. Provided the craft is aerodynamic enough and has appropriate air control surfaces.

Well...in ED you can strafe left/right/up/down, fly backwards and disable flight assist to keep on going in whatever direction you where travelling at no matter where you are pointing without further thrust output.

Good luck doing that with a Spitfire...

 

[Stormprooter]

Actually, they are not. For example, translation is completely decoupled from rotation - there is no way a "blue zone" can exist. Orientation is far easier to achieve than translation, as inducing spin on a frictionless spacecraft doesn't require much energy. Changing the movement vector however, does, so it takes rather "long" to get it into another flight path.

Yet with E, it feels like I'm flying "on rails". It takes forever to turn, and for some reason, rolling is done rather fast, pitching medium and yawing slow, which is completely counterintuitive.

Even in fully decoupled mode, the game does some odd things. For example, go "full speed" in one direction, then turn the ship 90 degrees. It will continue in the original direction at first. Then "throttle" forward. Even though you never activated one of the strafe thrusters, after a few seconds, the ship will end up going in the direction it is pointed to, even though that's "impossible".

So to fly successfully in E, one has to let go the realistic model of spaceflight and just go along with the arbitrary "rules" set up by the game. For example, when you want to "brake" fast, you would usually yaw the ship 180 degrees (start yawing, hold, at 90 degrees fire yaw thrusters in the other direction, hold until 180 degrees are reached) then fire main thrusters.
But here in E, you just move the throttle back, which then instructs the flight computer to fire the (usually less powerfull) retrothrusters. In the end, this is still faster than turning the ship around.
So if you go into combat, flying as if you would fly a proper simulator, you would fail miserably.

in SC, it's afaik modeled properly (e.g. no "blue zone"), however the IFCS takes a lot of the fun away - there is a rather low, artificial "speed limit" as well, and the overpowered thrusters make flying less of a challenge.

In the end, as someone hinted, both games (currently) do not cater to pilots, but rather to players. Superior 3D piloting skills are not the main aspect of the game, and you won't find much combat scenes from B5 or BSG.

Aww, you cut out the bit where I said there were caveats on speed and accelleration limits - no fair!
I'm getting the impression you're not keen on the ED flight mechanics - which is fair enough, not everyone would like them. Personally, I do like them as they feel similar to the original 1984 game, and like kilvenny, I personally find them intuitive.
Now, would I want the same mechanics in another game that was not Elite? Probably not, and here we come to Star Citizen - a different take on things, and I do like the flight mechanics in Star Citizen as well - a very different feeling to ED.
Looking at other space games I've played (Like X series, Evochron Mercenary, B5 IFH, FreeSpace2/Diaspora) - these have a more pure 'newtonian' fell to them, but again with one caveat - when you roll, pitch or yaw (esp when using the mouse) your turning is still 'managed', because when you stop moving your controller to turn, you stay pointed exactly where you are, you don't continue turning until you apply counter-thrust - this is not 'realistic', unless you have a flight computer managing thrusters - which is exactly what ED and SC do as well.

 

[MPC]

One of CIG's new shows on youtube, made by fans:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95vztNABS0g

 

[Thorvald]

Holy crap! Was the opening "Pieces of Eight" movie made in game? That would be AWESOME.

 

[MPC]

Holy crap! Was the opening "Pieces of Eight" movie made in game? That would be AWESOME.

I think they used ingame assets in the cryengine sandbox.

 

[ted]

just downloaded SC again, after a half-year break of being caught up in ED ( I backed SC before I found out about ED ), and just spent a couple of hours in. after that i'd say the only thing I can 'imagine' is i'll just be sticking to ED now.

how did they manage to make it worse? I had so much hope for SC and now it's my greatest kickstarter disappointment. I think Chris and the SC team are just taking the amber fluid out of everybody now. the software is so inefficient i can hardly believe how badly it runs on my 290X now, amongst so many other blatant problems. 3 words come to mind when I watch any of the update vids on the SC site now, pompous, untalented and lazy.

i'm currently trying to find a loophole to get the 1000 US back I put into this game. in hindsight it would have been much better spent on ED

 

[amigacooke]

Unless it is the most superb game ever, can you imagine the forum storm when it actually gets released?

One of the 'joys' of any KickStarter is that at the beginning, it can portray itself as all things to all people. However, as development proceeds and design decisions are made, increasing numbers of people have elements that they are not happy with. As we have seen, this unhappiness presents itself forcibly on the forums. Given the number of backers and given the amount of cash backing the RSI forum stands a chance of going supernova at some or even several points.

 

[Vicis]

I can't wait till SC becomes the most influential game of our time, just so that I can laugh at all the people who've been so negative. I'm sure they'll be playing it too, but hey, I'll still get a kick out of it.

I'll get the biggest kick out of comparing it to whatever ED was/is on launch, and all the people on here who believe it'll be so much worse. I'll probably be able to do that at the beginning of 2016 though, as the beta will more than likely be ahead of ED by leaps and bounds by then anyways.

Sad, that the community which I expected to be most excited for SC, is filled with so much negativity that I find myself excited by the prospect of saying "I told you so" to it. Is it really that hard to accept that a game with 30x more funding will be fundamentally better? Is it really something to be so scorned about? I can't help but look at the majority of negativity on these forums as anything but hate driven by jealousy.

 

[amigacooke]

Sad, that the community which I expected to be most excited for SC, is filled with so much negativity that I find myself excited by the prospect of saying "I told you so" to it. Is it really that hard to accept that a game with 30x more funding will be fundamentally better? Is it really something to be so scorned about? I can't help but look at the majority of negativity on these forums as anything but hate driven by jealousy.

I don't know what Star Citizen will be like, but it has an awful lot of hype to live up to. It is, as yet, a largely unknown quantity.

 

[Vicis]

I don't know what Star Citizen will be like, but it has an awful lot of hype to live up to. It is, as yet, an unknown quantity.

Fair enough. Doesn't really excuse name calling, and unfounded speculation.