Small-detail physics that bother me. (Just a rant).

[Snarfbuckle]

3)Top speed: Why do I have a top speed? The reason all vehicles (flying or otherwise) have a top speed on Earth is because of two things: wind resistance, and friction. Neither of these are acting on a ship flying through the vacuum of space yet even with flight assist off, my ship slows after boosting. What kind of nonsense is this?

I might not AGREE with it but I can find plausible excuses for it.

- The ships are designed around a certain performance envelope so the speed is limited as to not harm the ship OR the pilot. There are still room for performance improvements but they have it capped at a certain level.
- Ship slow down after boosting: Let's say that they do not want to put excessive strain on the ships hull.

Personally I would like far more freedom in speed and maneuverability options AND see our ships get crushed under their own weight at planets with too much gravity.

 

[Genar-Hofoen]

I think a Drinking Game should be made out of all these 'realism' threads which have been started in the last week or so, and also will most likely be started in this next week.

 

[Snarfbuckle]

I think a Drinking Game should be made out of all these 'realism' threads which have been started in the last week or so, and also will most likely be started in this next week.

I do not think my liver could handle that.

 

[Genar-Hofoen]

I do not think my liver could handle that.

The liver is evil, and must be punished.

 

[Athan]

Top speeds/maneuvering limits were placed to both reign in turret gameplay and because the server/p2p connection, at the time, couldn't handle speeds in excess of a 500-600m/s figure (I don't know the exact number). Obviously that's changed given that we have min-max builds surpassing 800m/s.

It's more to do with how far a ship can travel between physics frames (as in per second). If a ship can move more than the typical smallest cross-sectional dimension of another's hitbox then they can skip right through them between frames, rather than colliding.

Of course a possible solution to that is to do inter-frame checking for collisions, i.e. extrude a shape between all objects' positions between last frame and new, then see if any of those extrusions collide, if so check in more detail. There's probably a more optimal way to code it, but you get the idea.

 

[X-Terminator]

No Dude it does not bother me. Switch off your speakers for total immersion. What kind of game would it be if it takes us minutes to change direction? These Ships have a far greater mass than a Space Walk with thrusters. Oh, toggle your Flight Assist OFF always from now on.

 

[furrycat]

The "speed cap" is a cap on the magnitude of your velocity vector. Supposing for simplicity your top speed were 100m/s and you accelerated towards that speed, when you approach it the flight computer will automatically cut the throttle and/or apply retro thrust to prevent you from going overspeed.

Now suppose you turn off flight assist and pitch 90° "up" so you are effectively moving 100m/s "down" relative to your nose direction. You then apply throttle.

Intuitively you would expect to reach 100m/s "forward" to add to your 100m/s "down" and thus attain a total speed of 141m/s. In fact what happens is as soon as you throttle up the flight computer will counteract your vector and although you will start to move "forward" you will not see the acceleration you expect. You can boost, to raise your speed cap temporarily and thus give the thrusters some wiggle room, or you can apply vertical thrust to bleed off that "downward" speed and allow more of the "forward" vector to contribute to your final magnitude.

I suspect that is why Mike Evans et al recommend aiming to keep your speed in the "blue zone" when flying FA off rather than your throttle position. It isn't so much that it's a designed in optimal speed but the point at which you are most able to take liberties in adjusting your velocity vector.

Fully Newtonian mechanics have been debated to death here. I too would like to see them. It won't happen. At least the game mechanics that have been implemented to enforce the design we see have been given a plausible explanation that actually behaves the way it's described, ie you can go to an external camera and see the thrusters firing to keep you on vector.

 

[IndigoWyrd]

Didn't they just air a live stream with that David Braben fellow talking about ships flying like planes in space because they wanted them to fly like planes in space?
I'm pretty sure I remember hearing him say something to that effect.

And what the boss wants, the boss gets.

As for real Newtonian physics... just think about things like Rail Guns or Cannons as you watch this.

[video=youtube;hLpgxry542M]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLpgxry542M[/video]

 

[Kellan Fell]

Okay, so I've been playing Elite: Dangerous for a while now and there are a couple immersion-breaking things for me. I'm posting to see if there is some explanation that will make me feel better or if these things bother other people too.

1) Fake sounds: I know the 'wooshing' sounds that you hear are supposed to be made by the ship because they stop when the canopy gets broken, but why can't I turn them off. I'm not a big fan of the fake sounds, but there doesn't seem to be a way to turn them off. As a pretend space pilot, I want space to sound like space.

2) Maneuvering speed: Why is there a maneuvering speed, how does this make sense? The turning force (I'm thinking about pitch in this instance) comes from separate thrusters in the front so why are they underpowered when I'm moving at a different speed? Additionally, if I'm moving forward at a constant speed, my thrusters must be off, because my acceleration is 0. It shouldn't matter whether I'm floating at 4 m/s or 500 m/s, the turning force from the front thrusters should be the same and, therefore, my pitch rate should be the same. I also looked up maneuvering speed in aircraft (I have a feeling that this is what the game designers were trying to mimic), however this is to do with managing wind resistance on the plane. If a fighter jet corners above maneuvering speed, there is a chance of damage to the aircraft because of the force of the air on the wings. That doesn't apply here, there is no air in space, why can't I turn hard at full speed?

3)Top speed: Why do I have a top speed? The reason all vehicles (flying or otherwise) have a top speed on Earth is because of two things: wind resistance, and friction. Neither of these are acting on a ship flying through the vacuum of space yet even with flight assist off, my ship slows after boosting. What kind of nonsense is this?

Finally, the only acceptable explanation that I have been able to come up with is that these are non-optional, automated ship features. That sucks; if I can get engineers to modify my weapons and ship modules outside of factory specs, why can't I get them to turn off sounds and speed limiting settings. Anyway, rant over.

Are these things that bother anyone else? Have there been better explanations out there for these things?

Point 1 has been covered several times, but the key thing is "situational awareness". The lore explanation is that the ship "creates" the sounds of weapons fire, close maneuvers, shield hits etc. as human beings are sensory animals and require sensory input to function efficiently. So your ship's sensors are processed by the onboard computers and used to create a soundscape.
If you play the game in headphones (or better still VR) it actually enables you to turn and see an attacking ship based off the direction of the sound of their weapons fire. If the ship did not create this, then there would be little point in giving us cockpits, as your only situational awareness would come from staring at the scanner.

Point 2, is a good point, with little that can be said to defend the situation. The whole idea of the "sweet spot" is crazy, especially if you fly FA-Off. As things currently stand I tend to flick between the 2 modes either to increase agility in a dog fight or to make docking more fun.

Point 3, there has never been a good reason for this limit really. Back in the Prmium Beta days if you hit boost, then flicked FA-Off you could zero the throttle and cruise along at your max boosted velocity (just watch some of the old "speed docking" videos to see how much fun this was). When they altered this it made no real sense to limit the already limited Newtonian flight model with this functionality. Ironically the change happened around the same time as the XBox release, but whether it had any direct relation to the console market no-one will ever know.

 

[SeaFireliv]

Didn't they just air a live stream with that David Braben fellow talking about ships flying like planes in space because they wanted them to fly like planes in space?
I'm pretty sure I remember hearing him say something to that effect.

I`m going back thousands of years ago, but when the original Elite was being advertised I`m sure one of its biggest selling points was being able to fly in space using real Newtonian physics.

Guess Braben`s changed his mind since then- Or just sucking up to the biggest crowd of the 21st century.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I`m going back thousands of years ago, but when the original Elite was being advertised I`m sure one of its biggest selling points was being able to fly in space using real Newtonian physics.

Guess Braben`s changed his mind since then- Or just sucking up to the biggest crowd of the 21st century.

Maybe the two sequels - not the original.

.... and the Newtonian flight model in the sequels relied on time compression.

 

[IndigoWyrd]

I`m going back thousands of years ago, but when the original Elite was being advertised I`m sure one of its biggest selling points was being able to fly in space using real Newtonian physics.

Guess Braben`s changed his mind since then- Or just sucking up to the biggest crowd of the 21st century.

But we're not playing the original, are we?

I know I never did. Never heard of it, or the sequel. Dangerous is my first venture into the Elite universe, so I have no baggage to cling to, no basis to compare, and no issue with how this version plays.

 

[Stavro Mueller]

But we're not playing the original, are we?

I know I never did. Never heard of it, or the sequel. Dangerous is my first venture into the Elite universe, so I have no baggage to cling to, no basis to compare, and no issue with how this version plays.

Absolutely fair enough, but when people talk about Frontier as the original, they're plain wrong, and E : D is a sequel to the actual original, in terms of the flight model. Maybe you should have a crack at the original. I'm not trying to say that a person ought to need that context to judge the game, but when you have people clamouring about the original which is not the original, it might be useful to know what the original is.

For my money, the original is still more fun than E : D. But E : D can't access the imaginespace that the original did, and can't hope to, so I'm ok with that.

 

[OfftheRails]

2) Maneuvering speed:
3)Top speed:

Two Elite games have had a fully Newtonian flight model. Neither of them was as deep, tactical or frankly as enjoyable as what we've got.

 

[nanite2000]

In ED FA-off disables angular damping, which is stupid and lame In FE2/FFE FA-off only disables linear damping, which is logical and great fun.

Anything good about ED is even better in FFED3D.

I think you need to understand that your definition of 'good' is somewhat different most other people's definition, and therefore highly subjective.

I played FE2 originally, and again 20 years later in FFED3D - the spaceflight model may have been more accurate to real life physics, but it was by no means anywhere near as 'fun' as what ED has now.

The intuitive way to dogfight in FE2 was jousting, and long distance sniping. Sure, there were better ways to dogfight, but it all felt unintuitive compared to what we have now.

ED's current spaceflight model is closer to Elite's original model. It is not accurate as far as Newtonian physics is concerned, but it is more 'fun' and more intuitive.

FA-off is definitely a compromise, but I find it hard to get worked up over it.

 

[Bounder]

Maybe the two sequels - not the original.

.... and the Newtonian flight model in the sequels relied on time compression.

Errant nonsense! By "Newtonain flight model" i presume you mean "no speed limit" - other than that the flight model's identical to ED, except you can roll, pitch and yaw equally well.

This "NFM" has become some kind of euphemism amongst ED fanbois for "not speed limited", which really just boils down to "being free to move". As "pilot" of the ship, through space.. a la "spaceflight". So the "NFM" phrase is intended to make basic motion seem like some kind of arcane and esoteric extravagance - it's "like spacey games, hate spaceflight". Convinced as you are that it's all hopelessly dull and implausible.

But you're just so wrong on so many levels... the lack of speed restriction in the previous games was totally independent of the time acceleration function. Your thrusters always work when you fire them, regardless of velocity, in real-time. They also work when time acceleration's used. But you don't have to use both at the same time! Or else how would combat work? Switching time acceleration on every time you needed to move? Did you check out any of my playthru vids? See anything to compare to those scenes in ED?



Real-time moonshot in FE2/FFE, 20-odd years ago ~ 1 hr.

Same trip in ED today ~ 15 hrs.

And you think that's an improvement. Nuff said.

 

[nanite2000]

Errant nonsense!

This "NFM" has become some kind of euphemism amongst ED fanbois for "not speed limited"

So the "NFM" phrase is intended to make basic motion seem like some kind of arcane and esoteric extravagance - it's "like spacey games, hate spaceflight". Convinced as you are that it's all hopelessly dull and implausible.

But you're just so wrong on so many levels...

And you think that's an improvement. Nuff said.

Being obnoxious is not a good way to present a rational argument.

Did you check out any of my playthru vids?

Why would we want to with your attitude?

 

[space voyager]

What about the in-station physics, does the fact that you enter an enclosed physical system in which the station rotation disappeared the moment you got in bother anyone? Nobody mentions this simplification when spitting over ED physics... Though I like it, realism would make landing quite a problem unless we'd have some sort of a central axis lock and robotic deliverance to the outer cylinder.

 

[Bounder]

I think you need to understand that your definition of 'good' is somewhat different most other people's definition, and therefore highly subjective.

I played FE2 originally, and again 20 years later in FFED3D - the spaceflight model may have been more accurate to real life physics, but it was by no means anywhere near as 'fun' as what ED has now.

The intuitive way to dogfight in FE2 was jousting, and long distance sniping. Sure, there were better ways to dogfight, but it all felt unintuitive compared to what we have now.

ED's current spaceflight model is closer to Elite's original model. It is not accurate as far as Newtonian physics is concerned, but it is more 'fun' and more intuitive.

FA-off is definitely a compromise, but I find it hard to get worked up over it.

LOL "Elite's original model".

Another great fanbois canard.

You mean the monochrome wireframe 5 fps model? The world's first 3D spaceflight game, not flight simulator, which of course was Geoff Crammond's Aviator, also for the Beeb. Hey there's an idea - do you think a modern version of Aviator, with procedural generation, DX12 graphics and VR etc. would be better off reverting back to its original flight model? Cos that's what flightsimmers really want - that 8-bit nostalgia, right?

You've got it back arsewards - Elite was the premier spaceflight game, and as good as it got from the whole genre... until Elite 2 came along, which was even more Elite-y, and raised that same bar even further. Not a different bar. Not a substitute bar. The spaceflight-game bar.

Elite was always about spaceships in space. Not aeroplanes. Massive great flying tanks. Turreting, jousting tanks with fwacking great lasers and shields, in space, slogging it out to the death with bone-crushing G's and missiles and ECM's and unparalleled freedom of motion.

Being tied down and constrained rips the heart out of the game. Spaceflight is freedom of motion, regardless of speed relative to anything else.


I just can't understand why anyone would prefer being immobilised this way? Is it cos you think you won't be able to fly with a HOTAS anymore? Just because you can set your own speed? You can configure your HOTAS exactly as it is in ED, in FFED3D. I even rigged one up to my Beeb back in the day - soldered all the buttons on it to a ribbon cable, with an RS242 socket connector on the case top, wired directly to the underside of the keyboard... clunky, but worked.. Still have it somewhere IIRC.. But no one's got anything against joysticks. Mouse and keys proved to be far more fun in FE2/FFE as you have more precise control, so it's a crying shame ED is stuck with the Arc Elite input restrictions for mouse and keys.. and yes i know yaw can be mapped to x-mouse but it's too nerfed to be useable. Bottom line is that whereas Elite was traditionally defined by the unparalleled freedoms it allowed, ED reneges on all of them; you're no longer free to pilot your own ship (it won't move when you tell it to, if it thinks you're going a bit fast, eh), it's not-at-all-seamless, but full of clunky lockup transitions, and transitions for the transitions, without save files it's no longer possible to enjoy consequence-free risk (ie. fun)..

You're arguing for a speed limit, in space, in Elite, of all games? That's never what Elite was about. That's the polar opposite. It's what all the naff competition does so inanely adequately. What Elite was always the antidote to. Alas, no more..

 

[nanite2000]

LOL "Elite's original model".

Another great fanbois canard.

I stopped reading right there.

You're obnoxious. On to the ignore list you go.