This was so hilarious, I nearly wet myself.
"What the People Want"
- Thread starter drc1983
- Start date
- Status
After having viewed the various SC videos, I also found that amusing. I wasn't at all impressed with the SC flight model and think it looks even worse than ED's.
I don't think I'll be buying SC when it eventually comes out as a full release. It's just not for me.
Viajero
Volunteer Moderator
Yeah, I think the main reason why there is such a big different in backer numbers atm is the very very effective marketing machine CIG has come up with. It has nohting to do with "newtonianism" or lack thereof....
The idea of "selling ships", limited editions, LTI etc etc and its psychological ties is tremendous and I am sure will be case study material in business schools in years to come. That girl, Sandy Garner, is certainly going places.
The idea of "selling ships", limited editions, LTI etc etc and its psychological ties is tremendous and I am sure will be case study material in business schools in years to come. That girl, Sandy Garner, is certainly going places.
Last edited:
I don't have much of an opinion on SC, but what's abundantly clear is that SC and ED are two totally different games. The idea that one will succeed or fail because of the other is totally ridiculous. As was the idea that most people want a true Newtonian flight model. Personally, I'd prefer the Frontier Elite flight model, but I'm not stupid enough to think that I represent all gamers. I'm also not so wrapped up in my own personal tastes that I can't recognise the merits of a different flight model.
Finally, the idea that ED will fail because of a game that's nowhere near release is just priceless.
And good luck to SC. I hope it succeeds and prospers. But this constant playing one off against the other is just childish.
What I like is that the owners/creators of the two games backed each others Kickstarter campaigns - they are not in competition, they see the two games being different enough to satisfy different needs.
If the two Kickstarter campaigns had NOT been at the same time - and the two games were released in completely different years - would there have been all this aggro??
If the two Kickstarter campaigns had NOT been at the same time - and the two games were released in completely different years - would there have been all this aggro??
Totally agree on all points. I wish SC all the best - it's just not for me, and that's fine because there are thousands of folks out there that'll enjoy SC once it comes out, I'm sure. Just as there will be thousands of folks out there who - like me - will enjoy ED. I'm also sure there will be people who enjoy both.
This is indeed "interesting times", and it's great to see how both games are evolving and developing.
Where was star citizen when I was a wee lad. No thankya, i'll be backing team Elite all the way. What's the point in having two space sims the same anyways?
I backed the sim that gave me countless happy memories growing up. Braben built the sim he himself wanted to play and i'm happy to play in his back yard any day
That's like saying, "I'm never going to drive a car, because they only had horses when I was a lad"!:S
It's not quite as simple as that, but technically, yes.
As much as I dislike using Wikipedia as a reference, this article is a good primer on the subject : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceleration
Have a search on the internet for the topic - it can get quite hoary
EDIT: and we haven't even touched on the subject of frame-of-reference and relativity
rgds.
Also inertia and the laws of thermodynamics haven't even been taken into consideration let alone a trip into einsteinium physics.
Yes, if a real spaceship is powered by magic and dreams. Neither game is actually realistic (plus SC does have speed limits), and it would be nice if people stopped abusing "realistic" to the point of it becoming a meaningless buzzword.
http://forums.spacebattles.com/threads/essay-on-realistic-space-combat-i-wrote.131056/
http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacewarintro.php
This thread is silly because you will NEVER get a "real" space flight "simulation" either with the "other" game or here in ED. Those who mistakenly assume ED is (or aims to be) a "space simulation" are wrong.
Just to name a few things out of my head, a "real" simulation would not have sound in space, flying faster than light would (likely....) be impossible....oh..gravity in ships would be impossible..etc..etc...UNLESS we get into the realm of SciFi.
So..this game or any other game CAN only be a compromise of "what's fun"..and approaching reality and real physics as far as is feasible and makes sense in a game.
Please...get away from the idea that ED or any other game aims to simulate realistic space flight...it's simply not the case AND ALSO WOULD NOT MAKE SENSE.
Trying to incorporate real star constellations, planets and distances correctly per scale...all nice and good...but it has nothing to do with a "space sim" in that sense.
If you want a space sim, load up Planetarium or something. If you want to have FUN instead....play this game...or "the other" game. That's my take on it.
Just to name a few things out of my head, a "real" simulation would not have sound in space, flying faster than light would (likely....) be impossible....oh..gravity in ships would be impossible..etc..etc...UNLESS we get into the realm of SciFi.
So..this game or any other game CAN only be a compromise of "what's fun"..and approaching reality and real physics as far as is feasible and makes sense in a game.
Please...get away from the idea that ED or any other game aims to simulate realistic space flight...it's simply not the case AND ALSO WOULD NOT MAKE SENSE.
Trying to incorporate real star constellations, planets and distances correctly per scale...all nice and good...but it has nothing to do with a "space sim" in that sense.
If you want a space sim, load up Planetarium or something. If you want to have FUN instead....play this game...or "the other" game. That's my take on it.
>>
but we need to have a 'turn assist' mode that has our ships stop spinning automatically when we center the joystick,
>>
Says who? WHO says what "we" need to have? If I were to fly with FA off all-the time I'd probably already jumped out of the window because of frustration.
IRONY: FA ON mode is not even that unrealistic as you make it sound since I can well *imagine* that future space-ship controls would work that way that thrusters etc. automatically work as would be the case here in ED with FA on. There is nothing "wrong" or unrealistic per se, it doesn't make those flight physics less realistic.
Even with boosting and seeing that boost speed is only maintained for a second and then the ship becomes slower again.....while not "realistic" I could see this implemented that way that you boost your ship and then an automatic thruster kicks in which decelerates your ship again, for whatever reason, maybe because as a safety mechanism because ships can only endure this speed for so long...or to prevent excessive fuel usage..whatever...
I also think there are FAR more important issues which need to be addressed in this game than what you propose that it needs to have "as realistic as possible" behaviour in flight. I also don't buy one bit that an majority of gamers would like the game to be like that.
but we need to have a 'turn assist' mode that has our ships stop spinning automatically when we center the joystick,
>>
Says who? WHO says what "we" need to have? If I were to fly with FA off all-the time I'd probably already jumped out of the window because of frustration.
IRONY: FA ON mode is not even that unrealistic as you make it sound since I can well *imagine* that future space-ship controls would work that way that thrusters etc. automatically work as would be the case here in ED with FA on. There is nothing "wrong" or unrealistic per se, it doesn't make those flight physics less realistic.
Even with boosting and seeing that boost speed is only maintained for a second and then the ship becomes slower again.....while not "realistic" I could see this implemented that way that you boost your ship and then an automatic thruster kicks in which decelerates your ship again, for whatever reason, maybe because as a safety mechanism because ships can only endure this speed for so long...or to prevent excessive fuel usage..whatever...
I also think there are FAR more important issues which need to be addressed in this game than what you propose that it needs to have "as realistic as possible" behaviour in flight. I also don't buy one bit that an majority of gamers would like the game to be like that.
No, FD are creating the game they want to create, they are not creating "what the people want" in the way that you think they are. Also, bear in mind that the Publisher you are trying to appeal to, doesn't actually exist.
People who want realism obviously hate gameplay that is fun.
Someone should do a NASA simulator for the 5 people who care, it would let you fly to Mars, 7 months in realtime. Enjoy
They did that. It's called "Orbiter" and it's really cool, but makes for very boring space battles
Purely from a speculative point of view, what is deemed "realistic" now, is based on current technology and our current scientific understanding.
We're talking about 1,300 years into the future. What amazing tech might have developed by then? Would it not be logical for the human race to develop tech that makes space machines easier to control?
What is to say that thrusters and other reaction-based propulsion systems won't be so advanced, and the fly-by-wire systems won't be so advanced, that the result is the current flight model that ED uses? Why must spacecraft 1,300 years in the future fly like the way ours do now to be "realistic"?
Think back a few hundred years. The only way for man to "fly" was in a balloon. It must be filled with lighter-than-air gases. If someone proposed a metallic, non-balloon way to fly, it would have been deemed "unrealistic" as metal is heavy and thus can't fly. Same for ships. It was only around 1780s that metal ships were built. Prior to that, all ships were made from wood because it floats; because nobody understood the science back then that metal ships could also float.
If we can believe the invention of FTL drives (superluminal drives, aka FSD, aka faster-than-light drives), why can't we believe that sublight engines might be as advanced as well?
Star Wars fighters fly like in atmosphere out in space, and everybody seem to love it
We're talking about 1,300 years into the future. What amazing tech might have developed by then? Would it not be logical for the human race to develop tech that makes space machines easier to control?
What is to say that thrusters and other reaction-based propulsion systems won't be so advanced, and the fly-by-wire systems won't be so advanced, that the result is the current flight model that ED uses? Why must spacecraft 1,300 years in the future fly like the way ours do now to be "realistic"?
Think back a few hundred years. The only way for man to "fly" was in a balloon. It must be filled with lighter-than-air gases. If someone proposed a metallic, non-balloon way to fly, it would have been deemed "unrealistic" as metal is heavy and thus can't fly. Same for ships. It was only around 1780s that metal ships were built. Prior to that, all ships were made from wood because it floats; because nobody understood the science back then that metal ships could also float.
If we can believe the invention of FTL drives (superluminal drives, aka FSD, aka faster-than-light drives), why can't we believe that sublight engines might be as advanced as well?
Star Wars fighters fly like in atmosphere out in space, and everybody seem to love it
Purely from a speculative point of view, what is deemed "realistic" now, is based on current technology and our current scientific understanding.
We're talking about 1,300 years into the future. What amazing tech might have developed by then? Would it not be logical for the human race to develop tech that makes space machines easier to control?
What is to say that thrusters and other reaction-based propulsion systems won't be so advanced, and the fly-by-wire systems won't be so advanced, that the result is the current flight model that ED uses? Why must spacecraft 1,300 years in the future fly like the way ours do now to be "realistic"?
Think back a few hundred years. The only way for man to "fly" was in a balloon. It must be filled with lighter-than-air gases. If someone proposed a metallic, non-balloon way to fly, it would have been deemed "unrealistic" as metal is heavy and thus can't fly. Same for ships. It was only around 1780s that metal ships were built. Prior to that, all ships were made from wood because it floats; because nobody understood the science back then that metal ships could also float.
If we can believe the invention of FTL drives (superluminal drives, aka FSD, aka faster-than-light drives), why can't we believe that sublight engines might be as advanced as well?
Star Wars fighters fly like in atmosphere out in space, and everybody seem to love it
Yep, totally agree with you, and you basically describe Flight Assist On. I shall refrain from any comment for what should happen for Flight Assist Off, as my opinion on that matter gets stomped on regularly and agressively - so I consider myself "suppressed" on that matter
And before anyone wants to further stomp on me for my views, let me remind you what I said earlier in this thread...
As a reader of hard science fiction novels I find the concept of combat you described above VERY interesting - just sayin'
I do realise, however, that I'm in the minority here, also that for the purposes of a mere computer game, it probably is necessary to rewrite the laws of physics in order to satisfy the emotional needs of the average gamer who wants to participate in close-quarter aerial-battles-in-space. (omg I'm so Elitist!
I love Elite and also already love the ED Betas so I shall be playing this game and ignoring the nerfed flight model as such - it's only a game after all; if I feel the need to control a space vehicle and have a battle of wits against geniune Newtonian physics I'll just have to look for that somewhere else from time to time. Perhaps even fire up Frontier: Elite II, hmm, there's an idea
So no stomping or snark please
Regards.
- Status