There are limits on all axis in SC. If there weren't I'd be able to apply constant thrust to pitch and should end up spinning so fast my view is just a grey blur. The core difference, in this regard between ED and SC, is that the yaw acceleration and maximum yaw velocity(for ships I've flown) in SC is near to or identical to pitch and roll. Whereas ED has a significant downgrade in yaw acceleration.
The Star Citizen Thread v5
- Thread starter Brett C
- Start date
- Status
There are limits on all axis in SC. If there weren't I'd be able to apply constant thrust to pitch and should end up spinning so fast my view is just a grey blur. The core difference, in this regard between ED and SC, is that the yaw acceleration and maximum yaw velocity(for ships I've flown) in SC is near to or identical to pitch and roll. Whereas ED has a significant downgrade in yaw acceleration.
Yup. Which means that SC has an arbitrarily limited yaw rate, same as ED, contrary to gordo's claims here.
Yup. And since we're on this wonderful linear scale of what is more 'space simmy', ED's arbitrary limits on yaw begin sooner than SC's showing that SC is attempting to simulate flight physics more than ED.Yup. Which means that SC has an arbitrarily limited yaw rate, same as ED, contrary to gordo's claims here.
Let's make a visual shall we?
ED Yaw Rate In Space
SHOOTER---------------SIMULATOR
---------------->
CS Yaw Rate In Space
SHOOTER---------------SIMULATOR
---------------------->
Last edited:
I have followed the game since it's original crowdfunding campaign and it was never labeled as a hardcore space sim. It was always compared to wing commander and freespace which if you want to get pedantic, isn't a true space sim but neither is Elite: Dangerous. Elite does do a better job at simulating space and the physics but it's certainly not a true space simulation.
QD limitiations...lore. Thrust modeling is modeled for authenticity; I hardly think that the numbers attributed to the crafts weight are final.
This is more of an open question to everyone instead of just you: when did SC's alpha start; was it after the initial crowd funding campaign, was it the hangars, arena commander, 2.x?
Does anyone here have any pitch/yaw/roll statistics for SC ships? It would be interesting to check if wider ships had better roll and yaw characteristics than the narrow ones.
Lets make a scale!
Space Shooter* 1<------5------>10 Space Simulator
IMO...
No Man's Sky: 4
Freelancer: 3
Starpoint Gemini: 3
Rebel Galaxy: 2
TIE Fighter: 3
Elite Dangerous: 6
KSP: 9
Rogue System: 10
Star Citizen: 4
Descent: 1
*I want a more inclusive terms for this...to include any games that are primarily trade focused or exploration based (NMS).
** Totally subjective and just my quick ratings...I only generally stand by this
I'd say this is matches up with how I would categorize "space simminess" to space games
Yup. And since we're on this wonderful linear scale of what is more 'space simmy', ED's arbitrary limits on yaw begin sooner than SC's showing that SC is attempting to simulate flight physics more than ED.
Let's make a visual shall we?
ED Yaw Rate In Space
SHOOTER---------------SIMULATOR
---------------->
CS Yaw Rate In Space
SHOOTER---------------SIMULATOR
---------------------->
lol, and SC is further in development because 2.4 > 2.1, flawless logic there, the fact SC team borked (or just didn't think through) their flight model is not important, look they put the limit on yaw rate higher, therefore better
So the supposed 'fidelity' of SC ships physics is based on modelling a world where 'antigravity' etc permits them to behave exactly like the ship in Asteroids (http://www.freeasteroids.org/)? Because rotational inertia is modelled, but quantum-handwavium thrusters cancel it out, making the rate of rotation directly proportional to the control input? That seems to be what is being argued here. Not that it matters, because whether it is intentional or not, it looks terrible.
So we're at a state where there is equality on the arbitrariness — both games are arbitrarily limited in how the ships are allowed to move — and where ED's design decision to make throttle control matter is about on par with SC's decision to not have mass and inertia matter.
Consequently, if you're going to make a sweeping general claim such as “SC attempts to simulate space flight physics more than ED” you're going to need more than the nothing you currently have.
Yup. And since we're on this wonderful linear scale of what is more 'space simmy', ED's arbitrary limits on yaw begin sooner than SC's showing that SC is attempting to simulate flight physics more than ED.
Let's make a visual shall we?
ED Yaw Rate In Space
SHOOTER---------------SIMULATOR
---------------->
CS Yaw Rate In Space
SHOOTER---------------SIMULATOR
---------------------->
Eh, its a wash in my eyes. Both games put arbitrary limits on Yaw. Whether it is faster or slower is then a matter of game play. Both games fail the climb to simulator in this regard by simply placing any max velocity on yaw. Again, whether something is more of a serious simulator does not make it good or bad. I probably would hate the crap out of Rogue System...just from watching the videos, but that is because of preference not a real judgement.
If I had my way, I'd make SC less of serious simulator and focus more on exciting combat because, in reality, space combat would be incredibly precise and dull.
What's the point of authenticity in one aspect if it isn't conserved in any other system in the game? Besides, it's thrown out when four small thrusters can produce up to 10g of acceleration, while the significantly larger main engine is has a comparable power. There was a guy tasked wih improving the flight model (I don't remember when, perhaps in 2014), and he talked about making thrusters output different thrust depending on whether tey're used for translation or rotation. Another one for throwing out authenticity out of the window, which might be required to achieve an intended effect.
The truth is, there were a lots of suggestions about SC being a hardcore sim, with the multitude of controller configurations (dual joysticks, HOTAS, delta throttle or whatever it's called). There are quotes from the Kickstarter page as well:
Sorry, but that's a fair bit more complicated than Freespace's flight model.
Last edited:
I seem to recall that there was some game that actually did realistic space combat, with all the horrors that would entail — no stealth, no lasers, everyone constantly dying from being cooked as their radiators got shredded, first to detect was first to kill (but they'd probably still die themselves), and having to fight against gravity wells screwing up all your sensors and weapons. I can't for the life of me remember what it was called though…
But colloquially speaking, the genre of space sims is pretty much a label for any space game that has some aspects of space simulation. All of these games can still be called space sims but if you want to delve into the minutia, one would refine it down to space COMBAT sim or HARDCORE space sim...,etc (capitalization was only for emphasis and not yelling).
I have a very subjective comparison of SC and ED ships in my head. I have ED (obviously) and I tried SC with a friend who backs it. He has an Aurora I think (with the circular hatch on its side) but he stole a constellation from someone upon my request and I managed to fly two SC ships this way.
My very personal observation is this, and I don't know if something like this can ever be objective...
In ED, ships fly and feel as you'd expect from their size, and you absolutely feel their momentum. Both with flight assist on and off, it's a lot easier to stop a small and light ship compared to a large and heavy ship. The flight model is designed to make sure you feel that you are in a spaceship equipped with thrusters pointing to major directions and it's the thrust applied by those thrusters which makes you move. You even feel which side thrusters are stronger than other because they are obviously not equal in strength. For example, Asp's top side thrusters are a lot weaker than its downside thrusters, therefore if you accelerate to top speed forward, then pitch so either your top or bottom is pointing to your movement vector and apply thrust in the opposite direction, downside (bottom of the ship) thrusters will slow down and stop the ship a lot faster than the topside thrusters. Try it if you like.
In SC, there wasn't much of a difference between the feeling of the ships as they accelerated almost exactly the same, in any of the movement axes. I think I felt the bigger one was a little slower on the top speed (and maybe the acceleration too) but it was definitely not drastic a difference as you would get in ED. Other than that, the ships stop almost immediately where you zero throttle, taking away most of the feeling of momentum. You don't get the drift you get if you zero throttle or even reverse when going fast and the ship (I'm looking at you conda) just refuses to stop (and you bump harmlessly into the control tower of the landing pad). I would describe the feeling of the flight as a manned turret glued to the top of a giant hockey puck with a glued bottom on a grass lawn. Yes, I thought really hard to think up this imagery. Also, you somehow don't feel like thrusters are pushing you but as if some invisible tractor beam is pulling you in the direction you want to go. I don't know why I got that feeling, probably the acceleration curves.
Stealing the constellation was really enjoyable though, I'll give them that. We basically talked to someone who has a constellation and he (I assume) invited my friend on board. We took off and I asked, pretty innocently too, what happens if we kill the pilot. I didn't think he would up and shoot the guy in the face.
Went something like this:
Hey <friend>, what happens if we kill him, do we explode with the ship?
-I dunno, let's see!
***gun noises***
-I guess we have a connie now.
My very personal observation is this, and I don't know if something like this can ever be objective...
In ED, ships fly and feel as you'd expect from their size, and you absolutely feel their momentum. Both with flight assist on and off, it's a lot easier to stop a small and light ship compared to a large and heavy ship. The flight model is designed to make sure you feel that you are in a spaceship equipped with thrusters pointing to major directions and it's the thrust applied by those thrusters which makes you move. You even feel which side thrusters are stronger than other because they are obviously not equal in strength. For example, Asp's top side thrusters are a lot weaker than its downside thrusters, therefore if you accelerate to top speed forward, then pitch so either your top or bottom is pointing to your movement vector and apply thrust in the opposite direction, downside (bottom of the ship) thrusters will slow down and stop the ship a lot faster than the topside thrusters. Try it if you like.
In SC, there wasn't much of a difference between the feeling of the ships as they accelerated almost exactly the same, in any of the movement axes. I think I felt the bigger one was a little slower on the top speed (and maybe the acceleration too) but it was definitely not drastic a difference as you would get in ED. Other than that, the ships stop almost immediately where you zero throttle, taking away most of the feeling of momentum. You don't get the drift you get if you zero throttle or even reverse when going fast and the ship (I'm looking at you conda) just refuses to stop (and you bump harmlessly into the control tower of the landing pad). I would describe the feeling of the flight as a manned turret glued to the top of a giant hockey puck with a glued bottom on a grass lawn. Yes, I thought really hard to think up this imagery. Also, you somehow don't feel like thrusters are pushing you but as if some invisible tractor beam is pulling you in the direction you want to go. I don't know why I got that feeling, probably the acceleration curves.
Stealing the constellation was really enjoyable though, I'll give them that. We basically talked to someone who has a constellation and he (I assume) invited my friend on board. We took off and I asked, pretty innocently too, what happens if we kill the pilot. I didn't think he would up and shoot the guy in the face.
Went something like this:
Hey <friend>, what happens if we kill him, do we explode with the ship?
-I dunno, let's see!
***gun noises***
-I guess we have a connie now.
Last edited:
This has not been my experience…
Apologies, should have put authenticity in quotes. Well really the only logical thing I can come up with is that when/if those numbers are tweaked later, the simulation can be a bit more accurate. I think I posted this a page or two back but I don't think those thrust or weight numbers are final, but I truly don't know if that's the case or not.
Those look more like space combat than anything a real space simulator would have. Those systems are in there but, afaik, not final.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
I like it with yelling.
Just tried it...only a couple looks from my co-workers
Luckily I don't have anyone around me so I can make sounds
Last edited:
Quick go have a cup of tea and sit down before you get overexcited on here again.
So let me get this clear - we're no longer claiming this is going to be super-fideliatious with every thruster modelled, full newtonian physics, full economic background and job sims with all that mcjazzle?
Well there go most of it's claims to be different, oh well.
OH MY GOD!!!!!!! someone call trading standards and maybe even the CIG. FD have stolen the current character model for SC. Just look at em they are exactly the same.
It depends on what you call a space simulator, but unless you mean the Space Engine, the features I've quoted describe not space combat itself, but space flight mechanics, and those are a core of a space sim. I'm quite sure the potential changes to the flight model will make it even less realistic. The problem is, SC seems to aim for the kind of a WW2 in space, and it's incompatible with full thruster simulation. Which isn't a bad thing in itself, I'm just a bit miffed by CIG's lofty promises (BDSSE and a multitude of others), enough to call them out on it.
Edit: Now that I think about it, the discussion loses a lot when we don't see a difference between 'realism' and 'verisimilitude' (which as far as I understand is a "feeling of being real or believable").
Last edited:
- Status