Why Are Weapons And Sensors Badly Unrealistic?

And that's an easy one.

<science>

- The accuracy required would be utterly impossible to achieve and the chance of it hitting anything so immeasurably small that it's not even worth calculating.
- If it really is 'plasma' it would degrade into harmless gas and disperse into unmeasurable quantities before it had travelled even thousands of miles, let alone to another star.
- If it's actually a beam weapon of some kind, it would diverge beyond any ability to cause harm. For example, a laser fired at the moon today and reflected back has a diameter of almost a metre, and that's over a mere 550k miles. You'd be hard pushed to even detect it at 8 lightyears, let alone be worried by it.

Not an issue. ;)

</science>

Cheers,

Drew.
Railguns then, FTW.
-
Why do you have to rain on my parade...
:cool::cool::cool::cool:
 
I beg to differ. Certainly gameplay comes first, but there is plenty of lore behind the way things work in Elite. I know from firsthand experience how much 'lore' work was done to ensure there was context around the gameplay. That's one of the things that differentiates Elite from <insert generic space game>.

For example.

- No anti-grav, thus centipetal force providing pseudo gravity in spinning space stations and some ships
- All ship instrumentation is holographic
- Many ships are named after snakes
- Those adverts you see have stories behind them, company histories etc.
- The Federation, Empire and Alliance all exist because of a complex intertwined history

Specifically to combat

- The FSD has a specific justification in lore
- Weapon heat, power and convergence are genuine 'real' issues in space
- The weapons themselves are based on established lore from the original game and manuals

In short, there is a rich tapestry behind the game and the way it works. You don't have to notice it, or even acknowledge it. But it's there.

Cheers,

Drew.

I'm aware of the lore and the game history, and not a single thing you mentioned touches on why the gameplay is the way it is. FSD, lore reasons aren't even needed, that's a viable current theory for potential FTL travel, that's been discussed many times on these forums. Doesn't explain why combat is what it is however, not even remotely. Heat for the weapons, yes, mostly realistic, but again, what's that got to do with how combat works ingame?

I fire a bullet in space, which you can do right now btw, that bullet will continue to travel in a straight line at the same speed it left the muzzle at, no slow down, no drop due to gravity, no lateral drift due to windage or planetary spin, it'll just keep on moving at full speed until it hits something. There is no practical limit on range for a ballistic weapon in space, nor on a rail gun for that matter. Lasers, well there are limits on range, but they tend to be thousands of kilometers, not a few kilometers. Missiles, well, depending on how you do the propulsion system and guidance systems, ranges of thousands of kilometers are the start, they can easily go millions of kilometers. And there's nothing the lore explaining WHY we can't hit a target beyond a few kilometers in the game. I've been able to tag targets 3km out, close to 4km sometimes, but the damage done definitely seems to be less than it should.

I can pick up ships on my sensors in supercruise from billions of kilometers away, despite the fact that both myself AND the other ships are all moving at superluminal speeds in what is essentially another dimension thanks to the bubble of warped spacetime we travel via. And yet, in normal space, I'm lucky to get a target beyond a few kilometers, the upper limit I've seen is 7km with A grade sensors on an Anaconda, which currently(1.4) has the largest sensor module in the game. That difference is a bit off, to put it mildly. We evidently have FTL communications, and our sensors definitely are FTL, so there's something very off about this difference. And I'm not seeing a lore reason for it, but I do freely admit I'm not an expert on the lore of the Elite universe, so there may be something I've missed. You definitely didn't list anything that covers it, so if you have lore reasons, I would love to hear them. I always enjoy being able to understand the reasons behind gameplay mechanics that are lore based, as in the BattleTech universe, where 1km is generally beyond the range of any weapon, when I'm sitting in a 100 ton walking tank with enough weapons to literally devastate a country, but I need to get really close to do that. In BTech, it's simple, a futuristic Dark Age setting, end times originally, and nothing works like it used to, no one knows how to make them work properly anymore, so you simply can't aim for jack and that makes ranges very very short. 90m for high powered machine guns, not even a kilometer for a gauss rifle and less 500m for guided missiles...silly but at least they gave some lore for the gameplay mechanics.

So what's the lore behind the gameplay mechanics in Elite? Previous Elite games didn't have the same ranges and sure didn't have the same mechanics, it's not consistent at all, so...what gives?
 
Realism in a scifi game? So we should be able to see all ships in the system from one place then take them all out with a couple of amraams?
 
With the complete Galaxy banning of WMDs, that came into being in the year 2516; which was agreed just after the publication of the Chilcot report. No weapons can have a range of more than can be seen, without visual aids.

So the Chilcot report came out early then? Good Show! I thought it was going to be delayed again.

EK.
 
I'm aware of the lore and the game history, and not a single thing you mentioned touches on why the gameplay is the way it is. FSD, lore reasons aren't even needed, that's a viable current theory for potential FTL travel, that's been discussed many times on these forums. Doesn't explain why combat is what it is however, not even remotely. Heat for the weapons, yes, mostly realistic, but again, what's that got to do with how combat works ingame?

They do, but since you don't recognise it. Little point in further debate.

I fire a bullet in space, which you can do right now btw, that bullet will continue to travel in a straight line at the same speed it left the muzzle at, no slow down, no drop due to gravity, no lateral drift due to windage or planetary spin, it'll just keep on moving at full speed until it hits something. There is no practical limit on range for a ballistic weapon in space, nor on a rail gun for that matter.

No drop due to gravity? I think you need to research your Newton a little, there are always forces acting on objects in space. Factor in solar wind anywhere near a star and the trajectory of your munition will be unpredictable after a relatively short period of time. I agree that it will likely be travelling around for quite some time, perhaps even millions of years, but nothing moves in a straight line in space in any frame of reference.

Lasers, well there are limits on range, but they tend to be thousands of kilometers, not a few kilometers. Missiles, well, depending on how you do the propulsion system and guidance systems, ranges of thousands of kilometers are the start, they can easily go millions of kilometers. And there's nothing the lore explaining WHY we can't hit a target beyond a few kilometers in the game. I've been able to tag targets 3km out, close to 4km sometimes, but the damage done definitely seems to be less than it should.

We understand Laser to be Light Amplification by stimulated emission of radition. Perhaps the word has been appropriated by a completely different technology by the year 3300? Clearly they are not lasers as we understand them, as we can see them in the absence of a medium.

I can pick up ships on my sensors in supercruise from billions of kilometers away, despite the fact that both myself AND the other ships are all moving at superluminal speeds in what is essentially another dimension thanks to the bubble of warped spacetime we travel via. And yet, in normal space, I'm lucky to get a target beyond a few kilometers, the upper limit I've seen is 7km with A grade sensors on an Anaconda, which currently(1.4) has the largest sensor module in the game. That difference is a bit off, to put it mildly. We evidently have FTL communications, and our sensors definitely are FTL, so there's something very off about this difference. And I'm not seeing a lore reason for it, but I do freely admit I'm not an expert on the lore of the Elite universe, so there may be something I've missed. You definitely didn't list anything that covers it, so if you have lore reasons, I would love to hear them. I always enjoy being able to understand the reasons behind gameplay mechanics that are lore based, as in the BattleTech universe, where 1km is generally beyond the range of any weapon, when I'm sitting in a 100 ton walking tank with enough weapons to literally devastate a country, but I need to get really close to do that. In BTech, it's simple, a futuristic Dark Age setting, end times originally, and nothing works like it used to, no one knows how to make them work properly anymore, so you simply can't aim for jack and that makes ranges very very short. 90m for high powered machine guns, not even a kilometer for a gauss rifle and less 500m for guided missiles...silly but at least they gave some lore for the gameplay mechanics.

Sensors in 'normal' newtonian/einsteinian space are passive, and rely on heat dynamics. Precisely how sensors work in FSD is not so clear. I would agree this needs further work.

So what's the lore behind the gameplay mechanics in Elite? Previous Elite games didn't have the same ranges and sure didn't have the same mechanics, it's not consistent at all, so...what gives?

Technology has changed dramatically over the time frame of the games. The original was set 175 years before the 'present'. Whilst ship hulls are recognisable in some cases, virtually nothing else has carried over. Huge and dominant organisations have collapsed (E.g. Galcop) to be replaced by newer organisations with different agenda and legislation. Each game is set in a very different era.

Cheers,

Drew.
 
Last edited:
An answer, not THE answer and certainly not a SATISFACTORY answer. ;)

Some of us are a little more cerebral than others, indulge us.

Sheesh. I made a tongue-in-cheek comment. I even PUT a tongue-in-cheek smiley! WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT?! :(
 
No drop due to gravity? I think you need to research your Newton a little, there are always forces acting on objects in space. Factor in solar wind anywhere near a star and the trajectory of your munition will be unpredictable after a relatively short period of time. I agree that it will likely be travelling around for quite some time, perhaps even millions of years, but nothing moves in a straight line in space in any frame of reference.
Though there may be no "drop" in trajectory due to gravity per se - as "up" is relative in space - you could certainly use gravity wells to "bend" your shots to imitate incoming fire from a different direction to misdirect your opponent. Solar wind, on the other hand, having an average pressure of 1 - 6 nPa (that's nano-Pascals) at 1 (one) AU is going to have an effect approaching ZERO on any fired munitions. For reference, assuming that half of an ammunition-based weapon's mass is the ammo for said weapon (not unreasonable, yet I absolutely despise FD for such lazy game design. Not having ammo bins be separated from weapons. How amateur. On an unrelated note, this is partly why multiroles are better at combat than combat ships, but I digress), the lightest shell weighs in at .47kg, fired from the class 1 multicannon. Under literally any circumstances other than the ED universe, kinetic rounds would be fired well in excess of mach 5, or in the case of railguns, .1something% of lightspeed. You have to put some serious force on those kinds of mass and velocity to make a dent in trajectory.

We understand Laser to be Light Amplification by stimulated emission of radition. Perhaps the word has been appropriated by a completely different technology by the year 3300? Clearly they are not lasers as we understand them, as we can see them in the absence of a medium.
It's the ship's on-board software "painting" the lasers on to your HUD. So you can see what you're shooting. And don't fly into them.
 
Last edited:
<snip>
No drop due to gravity? I think you need to research your Newton a little, there are always forces acting on objects in space. Factor in solar wind anywhere near a star and the trajectory of your munition will be unpredictable after a relatively short period of time. I agree that it will likely be travelling around for quite some time, perhaps even millions of years, but nothing moves in a straight line in space in any frame of reference.
<snip>

Sorry I have to pick up something. It just bugs me. So, sorry, in advance. Just Sorry, right.

The highlighted statement. When it comes to gravity, everything moves in a straight line, it's just space that is contorted by gravity, giving the impression that things are not moving in a straight line, but it really is. I know that's Einstein, not Newton, and I know that even Einstein is not perfect, but I just had to point that out.

As I said. Sorry. ;)

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

Oh, and as I mentioned before, but was ignored: It's because shooting at targets you cannot see is boring. Watching them blow up and enjoying the stunning art that went in to the creation (and destruction) of ship is awesome.
 
Last edited:

Jex =TE=

Banned
I wouldn't say it's because of gameplay otherwise how is it that combat flight sims like Falcon 4.0 and Enemy Engaged work?

In the very over simplistic combat that we got, they had to put in these to balance the game but instead of that, they could have put more thought into the way it works and made systems that fit in it's time frame. So yes, it is there for gameplay purposes but instead they could have just made a better system.
 
I wouldn't say it's because of gameplay otherwise how is it that combat flight sims like Falcon 4.0 and Enemy Engaged work?

In the very over simplistic combat that we got, they had to put in these to balance the game but instead of that, they could have put more thought into the way it works and made systems that fit in it's time frame. So yes, it is there for gameplay purposes but instead they could have just made a better system.

That's because those two games are simulators of things that really do exist, so they can't get away with changing it *for aesthetic reasons*...

Just imaging the cries of "Ganking" and "Griefing" if they allowed 'over the horizon' kills.
 

Jex =TE=

Banned
What modern combat aircraft have lasers and plasma weapons?

What futuristic spacecraft have radars and weapons with less range than modern aircraft do today? Oh and as for laser weapons, we already have them on boats apparently and by 2020 on planes.

http://arstechnica.co.uk/informatio...ll-carry-laser-cannons-cyber-weapons-by-2020/

Once planetary landings exist in an atmosphere, you think your cobra is going to out perform this?

[video=youtube;f27nSnMI8FE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f27nSnMI8FE[/video]

It would literally fly circles around it not that it ever would need to since it's missiles can hit you from 30 miles out and it's radar can track you from over 100.
 
Last edited:
Planetary Landings in Atmospheres is going to be interesting. There's very little aerodynamics on any of the ships, so an F-16 designed for atmospheric combat will out-fly any ship we have.

Actually, you can usually see the ships before the scanners, but then, these scanners do actually see *inside* those ships, detect their systems, and even read what cargo they have. How many radar systems around today can do that?
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
Planetary Landings in Atmospheres is going to be interesting. There's very little aerodynamics on any of the ships, so an F-16 designed for atmospheric combat will out-fly any ship we have.

An F-16 requires to move forwards above a minimum speed to maintain lift - I don't think our ships will suffer that limitation.
 

Jex =TE=

Banned
Planetary Landings in Atmospheres is going to be interesting. There's very little aerodynamics on any of the ships, so an F-16 designed for atmospheric combat will out-fly any ship we have.

Actually, you can usually see the ships before the scanners, but then, these scanners do actually see *inside* those ships, detect their systems, and even read what cargo they have. How many radar systems around today can do that?

The point was to show the vastly superior system over what we have in "the future" which you both missed.
 
Back
Top Bottom