Why does everyone call ED a space flight sim?

[da_wae]

Obviously it's a gameplay reason but it's still simulated physically correct, which is the point we are arguing about. If retro thrusters wouldn't keep you at safe speeds you would be correct, you would somehow magically slow down. But that's not the case.

There's no such thing as "Safe speeds" in space.
All speeds are safe. The only potentially unsafe thing is acceleration rate.

Trying to justify unrealistic measures taken by the devs to improve gameplay as if indeed they were "realistic" cuz "muh flight computer" is a huge intellectual stretch. There's nothing at all realistic with anything related to space flight in this game, except for the part where you see stars.

 

[babelfisch]

There's no such thing as "Safe speeds" in space. All speeds are safe. The only thing unsafe is acceleration.

Trying to justify unrealistic measures taken by the devs to improve gameplay as if indeed they were "realistic" cuz "muh flight computer" is a huge intellectual stretch. There's nothing at all realistic with anything related to space flight in this game, except for the part where you see stars.

We are talking about physics being correctly applied. Stop changing the topic.

 

[da_wae]

We are talking about physics being correctly applied. Stop changing the topic.

No, we're talking about the realism of Elite Dangerous' simulation. Physics is but a small (yet important) part of it.

 

[znôrt]

to be fair, so long as we do not wipe each other out, or in some other way make the planet inhospitable, it is highly unlikely much will change.

i think it is generally accepted that for the most part a homo sapiens from 50-200k years ago would largely be the same as from one today..... i doubt another 1.2k years will make much difference evolutionary speaking (it is only 30 or so generations after all)

of course natural evolution is slow, but we are just starting to cross that boundary. unless something happens that removes access to gene technology, we will use it to evolve ourselves.

as an example, it could be that the first person to be 'technically immortal' already lives today. this wouldn't mean we have to reveal all secrets of immortality just today, but just make enough sensible improvements in fighting aging during his lifetime, so we can gradually extend it.

this just makes sense to do. of course there are moral an ethical hurdles but imo these will be set aside once the new reality has changed humanity's fundamental mindset enough. the current mindset isn't universal either, it's what it is for practical reasons; it's just a narrative that made sense in the industrial revolution, which replaced a totally different mindset that was desirable at the time of the crusades, etc ...

 

[babelfisch]

No, we're talking about the realism of Elite Dangerous' simulation. Physics is but a small part of it.

No, we are talking about physics being correctly simulated and you claim they aren't.

 

[Stigbob]

No, we're talking about the realism of Elite Dangerous' simulation. Physics is but a small part of it.

Real enough balancing playability and fun against boredom and a duff flight model. Which is what simulations do.

 

[da_wae]

No, we are talking about physics being correctly simulated and you claim they aren't.

No, this topic really is about the overall realism and verisimilitude of the ED simulation.

But I mean, if you wan to get nitpicky with physics, FSD drives are virtually impossible to achieve given our current knowledge of physics.

Still, even if Newtonian physics engine of the game might not be 100% broken, its interactions with all other gameplay mechanics still lead to very unrealistic gameplay (which is what the topic is about).

 

[Morbad]

The Expanse. It's probably the only decent space sci-fi show nowadays (hard sci-fi, Asimov style).

Well, except for all the alien stuff...

Even the Epstein drive, which is the whole reason the setting works, is fairly borderline for a hard sci-fi element.

That means "FA-off" is not "FA-off", more like "FA-light" / "diet FA" then.

Exactly. The game has never had a fully FA Off mode.

However, you can tell there is a Newtonian flight model behind all of it because of the number of times they've had to patch bugs to keep players from breaking the speed 'limits' of the game.

Used to be possible to out thrust the retros and accelerate indefinitely if you applied just the right mix of thrust vectors. Being hit by certain attacks or getting too close to exploding ships also used to be able to do this. Even now, you can use gravity wells to achieve extreme velocities in normal space.

By and large the effects of forces on the basic motion of ships are modelled realistically...it's just that a realistic flight model isn't part of Frontier's vision, so they layer all sorts of constraints on top. Most of these try to present the limitations in a variety of plausible ways, but when it comes down to it, they are there simply because that's they way they want it to be. FA Off isn't really FA Off, and even if you destroy the thrusters of a ship, it will still apply counter thrust when it reaches an arbitrary speed limit.

 

[da_wae]

Real enough balancing playability and fun against boredom and a duff flight model. Which is what simulations do.

No, games do that. Simulations simulate.

ED is not even in the same ballpark as MS Flight Simulator in terms of fidelity of simulation. Now that's a simulator. ED is a game.

 

[da_wae]

... even if you destroy the thrusters of a ship, it will still apply counter thrust when it reaches an arbitrary speed limit.

[haha] [haha] [haha]

Super realistic stuff.

 

[da_wae]

Well, except for all the alien stuff...

Even the Epstein drive, which is the whole reason the setting works, is fairly borderline for a hard sci-fi element.

True, but even Asimov had aliens and faster-than-light travel

 

[babelfisch]

No, this topic really is about the overall realism and verisimilitude of the ED simulation.

But our current discussion was about physics being simulated correctly. I can show you the quote if you forgot what you posted.

But I mean, if you wan to get nitpicky with physics, FSD drives are virtually impossible to achieve given our current knowledge of physics.

You don't say.

Still, even if Newtonian physics engine of the game might not be 100% broken, its interactions with all other gameplay mechanics still lead to very unrealistic gameplay (which is what the topic is about).

Well at least that puts an end to the discussion.

 

[da_wae]

But our current discussion was about physics being simulated correctly. I can show you the quote if you forgot what you posted.



You don't say.



Well at least that puts an end to the discussion.

The discussion was always framed around the realism of the overall ED experience.

Just because the physics engine applies the right formulas, doesn't make the overall resulting physics simulation realistic.

Edit: But hey, what do I know, you're the one who deems ED worth of the "simulation" moniker [haha] [haha] [haha]

 

[babelfisch]

The discussion was always framed around the realism of the overall ED experience.

Just because the physics engine applies the right formulas, doesn't make the overall resulting physics simulation realistic.

Nobody said Elite is a realistic simulation, you completly missed the point of the discussion.

The original question was if Elite is a space sim which has already been answered ages ago. Yes, according to the gaming media, wikipedia and most people who know what they are talking about it is. It isn't a realistic simulation though.

You can read it here:

FIFA is a sports game. You aren't doing any sport though. Unless you are calling gaming a sport but in that case every game would be a sports game. The genre term space sim is being used for games like Elite since at least 25 years (that's when I first heard it) by the gaming media, players and developers.

People are of course right when they say that Elite isn't a realistic simulation, but that's not what the term suggests. You need to remember what most other games looked like when the term was first used. Take a look at Pong, Space Invaders or Pac-Man. Now compare that to Elite and you realise why people called it a space sim. That's where the term comes from and the reason it's still used today, Elite defined the genre way before real simulators even existed.

Some other notable space sims:

Wing Commander: A space sim.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wing_Commander_(franchise)

Freelancer: A space sim.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freelancer_(video_game)

Freespace: A space sim.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FreeSpace_2

X: A space sim.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_(video_game_series)

As you can see none of these games are realistic simulators, but they are all called space sim. That's not because the name describes the game, but because that's how the genre is defined. That's how language works, it isn't always descriptive and the meaning can be something completely different than the words suggest. I could just as well argue that the Super Bowl isn't a sport event but something in your kitchen.

 

[Stigbob]

No, games do that. Simulations simulate.

ED is not even in the same ballpark as MS Flight Simulator in terms of fidelity of simulation. Now that's a simulator. ED is a game.

Its a game that simulates, and does it well. Newtonian ones are generally elliptical jousting yawnfests with too much yaw.

 

[da_wae]

Nobody said Elite is a realistic simulation, you completly missed the point of the discussion.

The original question was if Elite is a space sim which has already been answered ages ago. Yes, according to the gaming media, wikipedia and most people who know what they are talking about it is. It isn't a realistic simulation though.

So if the gaming media and wikipedia said the Earth was flat, Earth would be flat [haha]


ED is a space game. There's nothing "simulation" about it. It's not even self-consistent internally (no FTL communications force us to deliver data in our ships, yet you can holo instantly across the galaxy to your mates ship).

 

[znôrt]

It's because the primary demographic for this game are literally fantasists.

well, that's because it's a game.

further, it's not only fantasy what determines the model, there are also practical limits as to what can be simulated. in short, you would need a complete universe to completely simulate a universe. everything else will be always just an aproximation. i can't understand the word simulation without the premise that it entails shortcuts. so in the end the issue is just a preference for a shortcut ratio

yes, you are right, the overwhelming majority of gamers don't want a simulator. meaning they want shortcuts.

actually, the genre went nearly extinct in the last two decades, and is still 'at risk' (alert: dramatization).

 

[babelfisch]

So if the gaming media and wikipedia said the Earth was flat, Earth would be flat [haha]


ED is a space game. There's nothing "simulation" about it. It's not even self-consistent internally (no FTL communications force us to deliver data in our ships, yet you can holo instantly across the galaxy to your mates ship).

Space sim is the name of the genre. And Elite basically invented it.

 

[da_wae]

Nobody said Elite is a realistic simulation, you completly missed the point of the discussion.

The original question was if Elite is a space sim which has already been answered ages ago. Yes, according to the gaming media, wikipedia and most people who know what they are talking about it is. It isn't a realistic simulation though.

You can read it here:

None of those are space simulators, they're games that take place in space.

This is a space sim: https://store.steampowered.com/app/457860/Apollo_11_VR/

 

[IndigoWyrd]

That's a logical fallacy.
Maybe the restricted yaw is 'unrealistic' (although it's physically correctly simulated and is in line with thruster placement). Saying the game isn't realistic because of it is nonsense though. It is realistic within the rules of the game. Which involves lasers, shields, FTL and so on. The entire idea of flying and fighting in space ships is unrealistic. Following that argument I could still call the game unrealistic even if they would remove limited yaw. I could just say it's unrealistic that we are using multicannons and it's entirely artifical just to make the game more fun. This doesn't get us anywhere.

In reality space ships would be as safe as possible. Which means that you wouldn't even be in control of the thrusters but would just use an autopilot. And you would probably not have yaw at all, it's more efficient to use less thrusters and use roll instead.

I do believe there to be a logical fallacy in your sighting of a logical fallacy. The idea of flying space ships is quite realistic. While it is true that modern astronauts, and even those of previous decades, did and do rely on computer control systems to get them where they’re going, these can, and have been, overridden by manual controls when warranted.

Armstrong did it to put the LEM down on the moon because the computer systems were overloaded. Manual dockings have happened at the ISS due to system faults, and manual operation is a regular and routine part of astronaut training because equipment can and does fail.

Space Combat.. a bit on the hokey side, sure, but to say it is unrealistic? That’s a stretch.

As a realistic simulation, Elite doesn’t make the cut. Try Take On Mars for realistic simulation. Or because it is pretty cool and fun.