Blaspheming against the flight model.

[Marek15]

As the AI has gotten better over the years, the flaws in the flight model have become harder to ignore.

With ships being able to strafe and even reverse at full speed combat always ends up with both ships facing each other and flying in parallel, which is effectively the same as both standing still.
Because of this the ship with the most shielding and firepower is guaranteed to win, which does not make for very entertaining combat.
Whenever i fly a more agile ship my opponent will usually fly in reverse preventing me from exploiting its blind spot. And when i fly a less agile ship the roles reverse with me putting my ship in full reverse.

However the fault does not exclusively lie with the flight model. The hitscan weapons are in part to blame since they cannot be evaded unlike projectile weapons. This is likely why most space sims i have played so far shy away from hitscan weapons and exclusively use projectile weapons.

I fully acknowledge the pointlessness of this criticism since it is far too late to change something as fundamental as the flight model, 3 years too late to be specific. I also acknowledge that creating a good and satisfying flight model for space sims is difficult.

Now go head and tell me how wrong i am about everything and brag about how mindblowing your FA-off skills are because you are so much better at everything than me .

 

[Ren Garris]

I think the issue is that you spend too much time fighting and not enough time making friends in game.

Perhaps if you gave out hugs instead of whatever these hitscan things are, you may see a change.

 

[Devari]

As the AI has gotten better over the years, the flaws in the flight model have become harder to ignore.

With ships being able to strafe and even reverse at full speed combat always ends up with both ships facing each other and flying in parallel, which is effectively the same as both standing still.
Because of this the ship with the most shielding and firepower is guaranteed to win, which does not make for very entertaining combat.
Whenever i fly a more agile ship my opponent will usually fly in reverse preventing me from exploiting its blind spot. And when i fly a less agile ship the roles reverse with me putting my ship in full reverse.

However the fault does not exclusively lie with the flight model. The hitscan weapons are in part to blame since they cannot be evaded unlike projectile weapons. This is likely why most space sims i have played so far shy away from hitscan weapons and exclusively use projectile weapons.

I fully acknowledge the pointlessness of this criticism since it is far too late to change something as fundamental as the flight model, 3 years too late to be specific. I also acknowledge that creating a good and satisfying flight model for space sims is difficult.

Now go head and tell me how wrong i am about everything and brag about how mindblowing your FA-off skills are because you are so much better at everything than me .

The flaws in the flight model go far deeper than just flying backwards. There are many arbitrary restrictions which FD has done intentionally from the outset to force players into an "atmospheric flight" model, i.e., airplanes in space:

1. Blue zone maneuvering requires ships to limit themselves to a narrow range of speeds to prevent players from reducing their speed to zero to have the smallest possible turn radius. There is no logical physical explanation of why this would be the case, i.e., why maneuvering thrust would require forward velocity when the maneuvering thrusters are completely independent from the main engine. It's basically an artificial "stall speed" equivalent to prevent ships from becoming "turrets", and yet the most realistic and entertaining space combat depictions (i.e., Vipers in BSG and the Rocinante in the Expanse) are most interesting precisely because 6 DOF maneuvering is used properly.

2. Artificially nerfed yaw rates mean that you usually need to roll/pitch to change direction, which again is an attempt to force an "atmospheric" flight model. There's no logical reason to artificially nerf yaw thrusters and it simply forces the ships to be flown in a manner that is less "turret like" where you simply pitch/yaw the ship onto a target.

3. Artificially limited boost mechanics and top speeds further limits the gameplay, again to force an atmospheric flight model in space. The top speeds are somewhat understandable for gameplay purposes, but the need to continually spam boost and having the ship slow down every single time is ridiculous. There should be some sort of override where the ship maintains boost speed until you either maneuver or reduce the throttle, i.e., the reverse thrusters should not continually try to slow your ship down while you are telling the ship you want to be continually boosting. The gameplay idea here is to replicate an "afterburner" and "atmospheric drag" that you would encounter when flying a jet aircraft. In atmospheric flight you can't continually maintain your top speed without afterburner and the use of this is limited mostly due to "fuel" demands, in Elite they've instead decided to use the boost capacitor energy to limits top speed instead of fuel. Again, these artificial limitations just try to turn what would otherwise be a realistic fight model into arcade-like gameplay.

4. FA-off mode might make up for these problems if it were implemented intelligently instead of being a ridiculous twitch-gameplay mode. If FA-off was designed around a "neutral" control input being translated into zero net ship movement, i.e, if keeping the stick centered was interpreted by the flight model to automatically center the ship's roll/pitch/yaw rates while keeping each flight axis otherwise uncoupled, it might be a useful and enjoyable flight mode for most people. There is no reason to completely disable all flight assist in FA-off mode and the need to continually adjust the ship's orientation in FA-off is another needless arbitrary decision that FD did to keep players from using it routinely to get around the arbitrary limits of normal flight. Some players have been able to master FA-off technique but for most players it's only real use is to reduce your turning radius without leaving the blue-zone maneuvering range for throttle inputs, which was an arbitrary decision to begin with.

At this point we're stuck with the existing flight model and I don't see any way that these core issues are going to be improved. The only real hope is that FD will do some rebalancing of ship speeds or maneuvering to ensure smaller ships remain relevant in terms of gameplay, i.e., by using modules such as the Enhanced Performance thrusters for smaller ships. I still enjoy flying my Sidewinder, Eagle and Imperial Eagle but from a combat perspective they really aren't competitive and there should be a high-skill/high-risk niche for flying the smaller ships in combat.

 

[Uiros Ueramos]

The flaws in the flight model go far deeper than just flying backwards. There are many arbitrary restrictions which FD has done intentionally from the outset to force players into an "atmospheric flight" model, i.e., airplanes in space:

1. Blue zone maneuvering requires ships to limit themselves to a narrow range of speeds to prevent players from reducing their speed to zero to have the smallest possible turn radius. There is no logical physical explanation of why this would be the case, i.e., why maneuvering thrust would require forward velocity when the maneuvering thrusters are completely independent from the main engine. It's basically an artificial "stall speed" equivalent to prevent ships from becoming "turrets", and yet the most realistic and entertaining space combat depictions (i.e., Vipers in BSG and the Rocinante in the Expanse) are most interesting precisely because 6 DOF maneuvering is used properly.

2. Artificially nerfed yaw rates mean that you usually need to roll/pitch to change direction, which again is an attempt to force an "atmospheric" flight model. There's no logical reason to artificially nerf yaw thrusters and it simply forces the ships to be flown in a manner that is less "turret like" where you simply pitch/yaw the ship onto a target.

3. Artificially limited boost mechanics and top speeds further limits the gameplay, again to force an atmospheric flight model in space. The top speeds are somewhat understandable for gameplay purposes, but the need to continually spam boost and having the ship slow down every single time is ridiculous. There should be some sort of override where the ship maintains boost speed until you either maneuver or reduce the throttle, i.e., the reverse thrusters should not continually try to slow your ship down while you are telling the ship you want to be continually boosting. The gameplay idea here is to replicate an "afterburner" and "atmospheric drag" that you would encounter when flying a jet aircraft. In atmospheric flight you can't continually maintain your top speed without afterburner and the use of this is limited mostly due to "fuel" demands, in Elite they've instead decided to use the boost capacitor energy to limits top speed instead of fuel. Again, these artificial limitations just try to turn what would otherwise be a realistic fight model into arcade-like gameplay.

4. FA-off mode might make up for these problems if it were implemented intelligently instead of being a ridiculous twitch-gameplay mode. If FA-off was designed around a "neutral" control input being translated into zero net ship movement, i.e, if keeping the stick centered was interpreted by the flight model to automatically center the ship's roll/pitch/yaw rates while keeping each flight axis otherwise uncoupled, it might be a useful and enjoyable flight mode for most people. There is no reason to completely disable all flight assist in FA-off mode and the need to continually adjust the ship's orientation in FA-off is another needless arbitrary decision that FD did to keep players from using it routinely to get around the arbitrary limits of normal flight. Some players have been able to master FA-off technique but for most players it's only real use is to reduce your turning radius without leaving the blue-zone maneuvering range for throttle inputs, which was an arbitrary decision to begin with.

At this point we're stuck with the existing flight model and I don't see any way that these core issues are going to be improved. The only real hope is that FD will do some rebalancing of ship speeds or maneuvering to ensure smaller ships remain relevant in terms of gameplay, i.e., by using modules such as the Enhanced Performance thrusters for smaller ships. I still enjoy flying my Sidewinder, Eagle and Imperial Eagle but from a combat perspective they really aren't competitive and there should be a high-skill/high-risk niche for flying the smaller ships in combat.

Well analysed and explained. It is exactly like that. Stupid commercial decisions that lead to a ridiculous arcadish flight model.

I must also add the ridiculously limited sensor range and the lack of BVR combat. And there is more. But this would lead to another topic.

Nothing else to say, really...

 

[Luniticisi]

Flight models cool bro...

 

[EpicUnforgiven]

I 100% agree with Marek15

 

[Dbrn47]

Yea, it's odd. Not really much to say about it other than it could be better, but it's clear they wanted us to be limited in many ways. I've just grown used to it.

 

[Devari]

Well analysed and explained. It is exactly like that. Stupid commercial decisions that lead to a ridiculous arcadish flight model.

I must also add the ridiculously limited sensor range and the lack of BVR combat. And there is more. But this would lead to another topic.

Nothing else to say, really...

Don't get me started about the lack of proper BVR combat and the ridiculously limited sensor ranges. I routinely need to locate targets in a RES by looking for laser flashes for ships that aren't on my sensors at all. The ridiculousness of this is something I just have to ignore but it really does destroy any sense of immersion in combat.

Interestingly enough, Star Citizen is currently running into many of the same issues with their flight model, i.e., a balance between realism and playability. At this point they are still continually adjusting top speeds and boost mechanics so it is very much a work in progress but it tends to suffer from the same limitations that Elite has regarding the lack of effective BVR combat. Essentially what it comes down to is that if you are going to base a space combat game on using guns as primary weapons then you are going to have to force players into a combat style that mimics atmospheric combat to some extent. I can accept that relying on guns in space will create certain gameplay limitations but there are still much better ways to do this then what Elite has done with their flight model. Hopefully Star Citizen will take a look at what Elite has done and try to avoid making the same mistakes. Probably the one major aspect of Elite's gameplay model that has made the game enjoyable for me despite its many flaws is the implementation of gimbals which make up for a lot of these shortcomings. Although I have a full HOTAS setup I've learned to fly all my ships using the keyboard only (which is particularly useful when travelling with a laptop when I don't have access to a joystick) and the only reason it is feasible to fly entirely with the keyboard is because of how well they have implemented gimbal tracking. If they ever severely nerfed this, i.e, by doing something like what they proposed with the gimbal sensor nerf that they suggested last year, I would probably lose interest in ship combat in Elite as I don't find the flight model to be enjoyable if I have to manually aim fixed weapons with poor weapon convergence and artificially nerfed yaw control.

 

[CMDR Goro]

[...]

Was going to comment but that guy wrote it all. +1 rep

 

[Gully Foyle]

Flight models cool bro...

I like the flight model too.
Best compromise of gameplay and simulation is hard.

 

[Toumal]

So, have you played Elite Frontier? Because if you lust for realism, that one has you covered. And it is not a lot of fun.

 

[Jenner]

So, have you played Elite Frontier? Because if you lust for realism, that one has you covered. And it is not a lot of fun.

Lol.
I cut my Elite Teeth on that game, so I remember it fondly. Still, you are correct. : )

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Stupid commercial decisions that lead to a ridiculous arcadish flight model.

Games have to sell, otherwise the games wouldn't get made. Which is worse? The arcadey flight model or no game at all? Its not stupid, its sound business logic.

You might want a more realsitic flight model, but usually that doesn't go down well with the majority. Take a look at what happened to Hellion when you take realism too far.

 

[rrobes]

Now, whenever I start to think something in the game is not realistic, I tell myself, "IT'S A GAME".

 

[Toumal]

If you want complete realism, go play Starc... wait, no, they went full Freelancer.

But seriously, BSG and Expanse are bad examples, for in both shows the combatants somehow agree to move at low speeds relative to each other. That is not what happens typically. Usually it turns into a jousting match, also BVR means virtually ensured mutual destruction.

 

[Devari]

Games have to sell, otherwise the games wouldn't get made. Which is worse? The arcadey flight model or no game at all? Its not stupid, its sound business logic.

You might want a more realsitic flight model, but usually that doesn't go down well with the majority. Take a look at what happened to Hellion when you take realism too far.

It's not just an issue of realism though, it's an issue of forcing arbitrary gameplay decisions that make the gameplay and flight model less enjoyable in addition to being less realistic. The game could have easily implemented different decisions and it would have sold just fine, in fact removing many of these arbitrary restrictions would have probably made the game more accessible because all the game achieves with blue zone throttle restrictions, nerfed yaw and annoying boost mechanics is to make the gameplay less intuitive and easy to learn for new players.

 

[Barking_Mad]

No, they're not arbitrary. They're made for a reason, that being they decided they were the best for gameplay and to avoid certain situations. You could have had a different flight model and you'd still be sat here complaining about them because *other reasons*.

 

[Devari]

No, they're not arbitrary. They're made for a reason, that being they decided they were the best for gameplay and to avoid certain situations. You could have had a different flight model and you'd still be sat here complaining about them because *reasons*.

Did you read the OP or my post in this thread? The decisions that FD have made regarding Elite's flight model are very much arbitrary. There is no reason whatsoever to implement blue zone maneuvering, nerfed yaw or boost slowdown other than to force players into an arbitrary flight model that has nothing to do with space combat.

 

[Blasphemous One]

Its a game not simulation, a realistic flight model doesn't makes it fun for most nor it makes any business sense. what concerns me is all combat takes place WVR.

 

[metatheurgist]

Did you read the OP or my post in this thread? The decisions that FD have made regarding Elite's flight model are very much arbitrary. There is no reason whatsoever to implement blue zone maneuvering, nerfed yaw or boost slowdown other than to force players into an arbitrary flight model that has nothing to do with space combat.

I think you have to watch Scott Manley's video on how large the side thrusters would have to be for the yaw to "not be arbitrarily" limited.