You van vary it, what you’ve read is wrong then.
Game Discussions Star Citizen Discussion Thread v12
- Thread starter Yaffle
- Start date
-
- Tags
- star citizen
Note there is a throttle bug in 3.10 at the moment:
robertsspaceindustries.com
Spectrum - v7.49.0
RSI’s Spectrum is our integrated community and player interaction service, including chat, forums, game integration, and Player Organization facilities. Player Organizations (“Org”...
robertsspaceindustries.com
Since I haven't been able to leave area 18 as of yet...I haven't had a chance to suffer the bug. Normally the throttle on the HOTAS works as it does in any other flying game although it's set by default to have a centre detente, forward and backward from centre giving forward and reverse thrust. That may work fine with some Mickey mouse joysticks but doesn't with the majority of HOTAS'sss. I have mine set like I had in ED...fully pulled back zeros the throttle with a reverse button to enable reverse thrust, using the throttle as normal.
There's added cruise control and speed limiter settings, both of these are of absolutely no use to anyone using a HOTAS... but they're there for the M/KB and Xbox controller turrets in space folks so they can do the turrets in space thing instead of flying a spaceship.
There's added cruise control and speed limiter settings, both of these are of absolutely no use to anyone using a HOTAS... but they're there for the M/KB and Xbox controller turrets in space folks so they can do the turrets in space thing instead of flying a spaceship.
Last edited:
Gonna preface this with I fly using a HOMAS set up. So I use a joystick in my left hand and I don't actually have the "throttle" settings set up in SC. I use forward/backward strafe, which are different. I also only fly decoupled.
In SC there are two modes coupled and decoupled. The are somewhat equivalent to elite's flight assist on and flight assist off.
In coupled mode, when you set your throttle, you are not really directly controlling your thrusters. In coupled mode your throttle is setting a desired speed.
So if we use a ship that has top speed of 1000m/s, when you set your throttle at 50% you are saying you want to be going 500m/s. The thrusters on your ship will fire at 100% thrust until you achieve the desired speed.
As a result, in coupled mode your thrusters are sorta binary on/off in many circumstances. This is part of the reason SC's ships look so jumpy, janky etc.
In decoupled mode where you set the throttle is telling the thrusters how much thrust to produce. You set your throttle at 50% and the thrusters are firing off at 50% power.
I almost always fly this way and it results in much smoother "flying".
SC has an acceleration limiter, to allow coupled pilots to fly at something less than 100% thrust when changing speed. Probably primarily for landing. A band aid for a weird design decision.
Cruise control is also useful for HOSAS or HOMAS coupled pilots or decoupled pilots in atmo. Although I dont have it set up.
No no, don't confuse what CIG have implemented with what they talked about doing.
There is (or was) a multi-page document on the RSI website outlining CR's dreams for multicrew mining.
EDIT: ah, see you already discussed this. That's what you get for not catching up with the thread before posting.
Yeah, I meant actual design documents. Like those you write for people to follow, I didn't mean website advertising material aimed at backers. Nobody at CIG gave a damn about "Death of a Spaceman" at any point. Of course I remember those halcyon days of heady theorycrafting!
I think CR seriously did give a damn about it and still wants to implement that.
Especially the Anaconda. Broken piece of nonsense.
Last edited:
lol, fine. the corvette too? its 167m long and, if i remember right, more maneuverable than the anaconda.
Needs a serious hit with the nerf bat.
If they were really efficient recycling backer's money they wouldn't need that loan or sell shares to investors
If those are just measures to ensure its ongoing then you consider the total length of "recycling duration" and can say its still efficient. Might not for much longer but up to this point its been very efficient (not saying recycling but whatever they are doing) considering the development results coming out of it.
Enjoyment because of visual representation is a factor I can understand. Some games are fun. They are even more fun when the graphics are top-notch. How many older games I play(ed) where I wished somebody would make an up-to-date rework. Same game, better graphics.
Graphics never make a game. But they can be part of a good one. The differentiation is critical. In Star Citizens case I would always consider graphics last but there really isnt anything much else to consider at this point. Year after year graphics get better in video games and budgets for making them also increase. I remember an Ubisoft statement saying that modern graphical representation is very expensive. Games dont leap in terms of complexity or depth anymore as they did 20 years ago (so thats not really a factor for cost) but the eye candy does.
Now we have Star Citizen which to date has cost more then 350+ million dollars and the current result has next to no depth or complexity. Hell, its not even HALF FINISHED regarding features but it "looks really nice". After 8 years of active development CIGs own results debunk its approach and shows to the world "this is NOT how you do game development". And buckling down to get it finished because you already invested so much money or time into it is the textbook example for sunk cost fallacy.
And questions like "give me another game that does all this and I ll back that" is a justification because obviously CIG isnt the company to do this either. Maybe another company will down the line but that requires some more patience.....strangely enough a quality that SC backers claim to have in spades but express very little of (its gonna be Star Citizen and its gonna be now). I have no doubt that a game like Star Citizen will eventually be made. Not because of CIG or Star Citizen tho (even tho this project will help future projects by showing what NOT to do). But because the project is run by a competent company that gets the support it needs and which knows what its doing. How so many people "are okay" to finance CIGs school-money and watch them flop around cluelessly perverting the original design into something impossible and grotesque is beyond me. But I also dont understand addicts tho I understand the involved mechanics leading to one.
I guess I m glad that I m "resistent" to the visual infection thats needed to allow me to look past SCs abundant flaws and problems and bask in the glory of its screenshots.
It doesn't need a face-lift at this time. First it needs a decent skeleton. Then what it needs is a working heart, lungs, liver, intestines, colon, spleen, and other internal organs. It'll also need a brain, eyes, nose, mouth, ears, skin, and other sensory organs. Once all that's in place, the remaining skeleton will need to be fleshed out with muscles, tendons, ligaments, and of course cartilage.
Then, and only then, should it receive a face-lift.... because after another fifteen years of getting all that into place, it'll definitely need one.
That reminded me of 90 year olds doing face-lifts /laugh why bother, you wont fool anybody ^^
At this point and because of his reactions to issues its pretty appearant that hes "forcing" himself to play this. Hes one of the "slow" kids for sure but not one of the slowest by far. There are still people out there who look at shiny pictures and think SC is an awesome game.
At the same time design documents are held up in order to defend the SC dream or convince people that "its coming". I m not sure what to call that if you use "analy retentive" for realistic evaluations but I d have a few juicy expressions in german on hand for that
If everybody knows "CIG is bad and producing a game" I really wonder why its still ongoing so maybe theres more to it....
It doesnt really matter any more. FD has turned ED into arcade shooter with powerups.
Surely you mean rock shooter?
Went past me - I do play Deep Rock Galactic however.