I'm not disagreeing...just pointing out that technically speaking, any system which "models flight" is a flight model and the question as to how good or bad that model is doesn't change that.
And the counter-argument is that SC doesn't really do that, and not just in the “it's just bad” sense.
It has a flight model in the same sense that using the “fly” command in Unreal presents the player with a flight model — i.e. not really. Just because you used that command doesn't mean you're modelling actual flight. All you're doing is moving around freely in 3D.
Granted, it's a bit more complicated, but the end result in SC is actually the same. Underneath all the overcomplicated stupidity of the design CIG has chosen, there
is indeed a physics simulation, but it is being bound, gagged, gimpmasked, choked, and lit-matches-beneath-your-toenails:ed into behaving the way it behaves. And that's the whole point: the end goal for this “model” is to
not model flight at all, but to make a physics sim behave like the “fly” command. They've layered a physics sim on top of an FPS movement model and then tortured that sim to behave like the FPS movement it is layered on top of. It's the quintessential CIG-style backwards over-engineering case.
It's not just that the whole thing doesn't behave like anything you'd ever remotely want to imply had any similarities with a flight model — it's that it models noclip. Its purpose is to
remove the physics; to
remove the flight; and instead to model a laggy tarpit of a point-and-click interface. At that point, calling it a flight model is… well… I wouldn't want to star a big row by calling it “wrong” so let's instead go for “lmao no, silly”.
e: That said, I will readily grant you that CIG
wants to call it a “flight model” but that's just CIG not understanding words and being objectively, factually
wrong misinformed, same with how they have completely confused themselves about what words like “fidelity” and “refactor” and “release” mean.
