An observation on the combat video... Inertia

[Dietger]

Greetings Gentlemen, lads & lasses!

After lurking around here, for some time now, and crawling up and down this place,
I decided, Mr. Braben is still up to it and deserves support. So I begged my wifes permission; she lends me a considerable sum, and now, here I am, waiting for the Alpha!

To see where I'm coming from, let me explain and go back a little in time. I discarded Commodore and Atari completely - the "grafix" where not what I had in my mind back then, and at least for me, the interaction and possibilities where far too basic and crude for my taste, not at all what was in my head.

My entire childhood I aimed to be an adventurer, to become the hero and "Flieger", I felt was my destiny, to keep the awe, inspiring great deeds of arms and in general, keep me the happy boy I was.
Decades later I see back down on what I accomplished or failed to achieve in this regard, now a happy man. Part of this are both the net and modern State of the Art PC hardware in combination with smart game design, the later a part, the good fellows at Frontier spring to mind.

Now I'd like to contribute about concepts such as realism vs fun, simulation vs game. And whether or if our new to be made Elite is either the one or the other. Please lend me your ear for a minuted.
To make this rather long story short I go and postulate, a bit.

I hear people declare: Elite is a game, not a simulation. Not true. I beg to differ, you Gents got it all backwards

True is, this simulation is a game.

Proof? Well, this thing is not real, isn't it? But pretends so much! Fair enough, no?

Now this was the easy part, since, at least to an extend, logic and arguing makes sense. Whats rather hard is, to define "fun". If one says, she needs no stinking cockpit, wont bother with any kind of controller, joystick, or even a descent flightstick - forcefeedback - more then 2 bottoms, yes? Well, there is no arguing about that. YOU decide and desire whats fun for you, I can't help you there. Simple games don't call for complex controls nor complex controllers.

So, Elite is a rather complex, but in no way complicated simulation. A game. And a business.

Accessibility. The magic, greedy investors and strafing game developers, both, hope will keep their ships afloat. Make sure you know your, how does they call it nowadays?, "target audience". Make millions with little puppies, mooing, blating, in funny colors on the TV set in front of little children.
I see no kids around and about here, do you?

The truth is, it dawns me, little, to no learning curve, lets pretend, thats what we think is a good thing, makes for fast access, hence a "good" accessibility, but the thing to learn as well is, it brings you out of the rather boring experience, just as well. So lets do not shy away from player skill!

The cynical Wahrheit is, we may have made a bad, half°ssed simulation, a soon to be boring game, but we may still have made a good business. I think Frontier is aware of, or at least I hope so, the need to address advanced players just as well as the new ones. New players aren't stupid, they just are new, thats all.

Our dreams and imagination drives us here, modern vehicle simulations, are drawing more and more complex geometry on the screen, make them WORK, attach "real" functionality to bottoms and switches, make us walk trough it! Even the twitch shooter genre, pew pew combat sims, at least render this realistic, here the bad word again. We can say more plausible, if you like.

Now heres the important part- you're still awake, aren't you - anyone?

The flightmodel didn't has to be realistic, don't wont to wait years to pass Saturn, right?, but it got to be plausible and it should provide feedback! I want to immerse myself with the world and the ship on screen. Action and INTERaction provides this, make Elite come to life, make it "REAL", nothing a "meh" experience ever would.
What I have seen in the last video of it and what made me approach my wife, rather sheepish, I can tell you!, was what Mr. Lucas had in mind when he was about to make his fortune with Starwars. Looking at WWII guncam films. Nothing there resembled spacecombat, far from it, but even rather stupid gambles like sound in space!, does the trick!

So where does this left us? I plee for inertia and mass, manual landings, give us some things we can toy with.

Complex things don't have to feel complicated. I don't invent the wheel anew whenever I horse around in my car, do you? Marvel over spark plugs, the wiring, forces? Go away! We never do any calculations parking our cars or landing the aircraft.

My 2 cents.

All Hail the Emperor!

 

[Jenner]

Some license with the physics is necessary I think. I've played a bunch of Orbiter Space Flight Simular and I doubt you could make an engaging fighter sim when doing things like even adjusting your orbit to intercept the ISS is an extreme challenge. at the end of the day it's just a game and is supposed to be fun first and foremost. I also didn't really care for the jousting matches in Frontier.

Sounds like they are on the right track re: the flight model.

 

[natte hond]

I think his point was that while it's not necessarily dull in Frontier, it becomes dull when you transfer it to multiplayer, with humans flying efficiently rather than trying to make things fun for each other.

The AI ships in Frontier do a lot of silly things that don't make sense in a combat situation. If they didn't act like that, the combat would have become sadistically difficult and rather one-dimensional.

This was largely true of the original Elite as well, however.

as far as I know it has never been done before.
that's also what makes it such a opportunity.
adding to the unique experience.
there fore I think its a bolt statement to bombard it with dull.
I hope its going to be tested anyway.
to a extend that is , I know flying formation in full Newtonian environment
is close to impossible.
either way its going to be great I know

its also great that Frontier lets us tag along with al our thoughts.
thanks mr Braben.

 

[Captain N]

They already tested it at FD, that's why Michael was able to make that statement!

There have also been other games that have done something similar, like Vendetta Online and Allegiance. I never found them that impressive, though they have their fans.

 

[insanephoton]

as far as I know it has never been done before.
that's also what makes it such a opportunity.
adding to the unique experience.
there fore I think its a bolt statement to bombard it with dull.
I hope its going to be tested anyway.
to a extend that is , I know flying formation in full Newtonian environment
is close to impossible.
either way its going to be great I know

its also great that Frontier lets us tag along with al our thoughts.
thanks mr Braben.

If it's the same conversation that we're talking about, it was Mike Evans talking about it. The impression I got was that they had tried play testing full Newtonian at Frontier and the combat just broke down to two ships circling each other and facing each other blasting away until one of them was dead. Pretty much the 3D equivalent of playing an FPS on a flat level floor with no cover.

 

[RAMJB]

Greetings Gentlemen, lads & lasses!

After lurking around here, for some time now, and crawling up and down this place....

I won't quote everything else as one walltext per forum page is enough

Nicely said and well put. And totally agreed. Let's hope they find a way to make the game interesting, fun, attractive for new players, but at the same time complex and advanced enough to make it a truly believable and immersive space simulator game...not just a space game.

That last one it's already covered with SC anyway. Let those who just want to have a nonrealistic experience (and theres absolutely -nothing- wrong with that) enjoy it in a game that offers just that. But keep this one one step ahead in that sense.
I really hope Elite Dangerous will deliver something much much more evolved, believable and immersive than just "planes in the space" .

 

[Sagan Ross]

Main question here would be... you can measure the kinetic momentum of your craft but relative to -what-?.

Two ways you can do this with having to rely on proximity to other objects - 1: Take an agreed upon unit of measure/mass (Lets just say a steel ball for convince but it can be anything really) - Now measure the mass of the steel ball as you gain momentum, Anything with mass that moves gain mass when accelerated(minute - to infinite) gravity of stellar objects will influence this measurement but that will only mean you have to change the scale to adapt.

Only thing that really matters is your own angular momentum - fly to a planet and you might only have to burn 10 secs at 20% power in order to reach your preferred speed on the scale while flying away from a planet might require you to burn for 20 secs - Kind of like a speedometer - going up a hill more engine power is needed to maintain speed, down hill needs less the concept is quite easy.

2: Isolate a photon - use it as a constant, measure the red/blue shifting as you gain/lose mass(speed)

Will any of these methods work perfectly? - probably not, But just like a speedometer in a car you just need them to work well enough.

Actually humans have measured speed this way ever since somebody dropped a robe with knots on it into water

Long distance navigation is another matter and probably will require relative measurements.

 

[Luniticisi]

The main thing I worry about is, as much as it seems to be loved by the fans who got to grips with it, The full Newtonian flight mechanic From FE2 and FFE, will not be popular with the masses, I know that if the same flight mechanic was placed into Elite: Dangerous, I would personally be disappointed and would 'Abandon ship'.

A good example of popularity, is the fact that the original 'Elite' was re-made, for pretty much every gaming platform over a number of years .. better graphics, more content but essentially the same game, by the same people.

It was accessible by the masses and I could be wrong but I saw it somewhere that the original 'Elite' for the BBC micro, out-sold the amount of BBC computers sold ... the BBC micro, sold about 1 million machines.

So who knows how many units 'Elite' sold when it came to the Amiga, Atari ST, Apple II, Amstrad CPC, Commodore 64, ZX Spectrum, MSX, Tatung Einstein and IBM PC compatible. and also the Nintendo Entertainment System
(N.E.S)

I understand fans of FE2 and FFE wanting more of the same but 'In my opinion' ... and it is my opinion.. that you are in a minority, It was a niche game ... True, on these forums there is a lot of love for the FE2/FFE flight mechanics, but the facts show that it isn't popular, For example, FE2 sold between (it might have changed a bit now, but not much) 350,000 to 500,000 units.

And, for the life of me I cannot find the sale's figures for FFE as so many copy's were returned as it was released too early, and was full of bugs.
But I doubt it was many more than FE2.

So what I am saying is let's merge the great (and popular) gameplay of 'Elite' with the scope and detail of the sequels FE2 and FFE.

Frontier Developments want to bring us a new incarnation of the 'Elite' Universe, one that everyone can play (they want to sell as many copies of the game as possible, otherwise whats the point?)

Make it accessible, make it fun and most of all make it Elite !

If you disagree, then fine but I am making a valid point, Elite: Dangerous is not just for the Elite

 

[RAMJB]

All good and sound. But I think that there's a point that many miss and that's the concept of "the masses" not being capable to adapt to and like something that requires them to learn. They will - if they feel it's worth it in the end. It's all about the incentive. If the end is great people will go to extreme lenghts to learn some REALLY complicated stuff. Look at EVE online. It's not related with actual flying mechanics, but what you have to learn to be really good at that game?...how complicated it actually is, how much thinking is required, how MUCH you really need to learn before actually understanding how to do well at it?.

yet hundreds of thousands of people did it. they went through it and they learned it. EVE might be a lot but it's not a dumbed down game. The flying part for sure is dumbed down but the actual game is complicated as heck and takes MUCH longer to really understand than what it takes for someone to get a firm grasp on newtonian phisics.


I'm perfectly conscious that FFE and FE2 had a mechanics model that will probably prove unpopular amongst many people if implemented exactly the same, but I do think that there's a perfectly feasible balance to be struck between realism, enjoyement, fun gameplay and easy access to the game.

One idea that sits midway I posted avobe - make controls optional so if someone wants to take full advantage of newtonian phisics he can, while others who want to have it easier can "fly by wire" letting the computer adapt their spaceship's movement to resemble atmospheric flight. That not only kind of satisfies both ends of the spectrum, it also turns into a challenge for the guy who has been using FbW options and maybe wants to step his piloting game up and chooses to start turning it off and learn step by step. It's a challenge. And challenges are fun and rewarding.

Those who don't like that style can perfectly stay within "FbW" bounds and live happily.

Of course is not without it's faults - this is an idea that would give whoever is using the full mechanics an instant and important advantage in combat because he can do stuff that no "atmosferic flight model" can follow. But is just an instance and an example - a compromise can be reached between both worlds that keeps everyone reasonably happy, gameplay interesting for everyone, -AND- the game with a very important realistic flavor (which I think it's of vital importance as it's a great way to set ED very apart of other potential competing titles as SC).

Compromises can and probably should be made to make things accesible for everyone, but I still think a high degree of underlying realistic phisics are a must for Elite: Dangerous. Then you can use the excuse of technology to somehow "dumb" their effects down a bit (and if that's made an optional thing, even better, so whoever wants the full brunt of real phisics can face them so if they want), but still the mechanics should somehow be there. You can't pretend to be a space simulator if you don't portray spaceflight characteristics at least to a point.

Otherwise what you end up with is another fake space-based starship "game", and let's be honest if I wanted that I'd rather fund another X-wing series game, or be another of the zillions of hyped persons who can't wait for Star Citizen to be released.


In any case I'm one of those who think that the "masses" don't need to be fed dumbed down things, and that if what they're offered something good enough, they'll be happy to learn how it works in order to enjoy it. Of course it shouldn't be super complex, but it doesn't have to be overly simplified either. "the masses" aren't stupid. They're just lazy. Give them a good reason to learn, and they will do so. Make the game so good they can't resist but learning how to properly fly it -and they will.

that's my take at least.

 

[Maxeren]

One idea that sits midway I posted avobe - make controls optional so if someone wants to take full advantage of newtonian phisics he can, while others who want to have it easier can "fly by wire" letting the computer adapt their spaceship's movement to resemble atmospheric flight.

Don't think that will work, because there might be advantages to using one or the other flight mechanic, so one might have a better chance in a fight by using one of the methods. They would have to be equal gameplay wise and i can't see how you would balance that.

 

[Dietger]

Make it accessible, make it fun and most of all make it Elite !

If you disagree, then fine but I am making a valid point, Elite: Dangerous is not just for the Elite

Absolute!

A full scale Newton flight-model, would need a lot of processing power, I doubt it would be fun in every aspect the game has to offer and most gamers wouldn't bother long playing it.

IMO there should be more meat to it, then say, in the X-series games. Flying and ship to ship combat there is stupid simple, well, but that's that then. Absolutely boring.

A compromise is needed.

 

[RAMJB]

Don't think that will work, because there might be advantages to using one or the other flight mechanic, so one might have a better chance in a fight by using one of the methods. They would have to be equal gameplay wise and i can't see how you would balance that.

Yeah I mentioned that aswell in my message.

I don't say the idea I propose is perfect or should be the way to go (it certainly is not perfect). I just use it to represent that there are ways to reach a middle point where real phisics are still there, but the player still gets a more intuitive gameplay than what FE2 or FFE were for the guy who had never opened a phisics book.

 

[Luniticisi]

I really don't think that the 'Masses' need to be fed .. dumbed down material, that wasn't my point ... they just don't need learning curves so high on how to fly their ships.

The X- games had, in my view, the largest learning curve of any space sim, but piloting wasn't one of them, it was all about the micro-management of the game and the understanding of how things worked. you could become legend at fighting in space but that was down to you ... the pilot.

As far as we have been told, there will be no shutting off engines and turning your ship around (still moving in the same direction) to either attack or escape, so it seems that the Full Newtonian flight mechanic of FE2 and FFE are out, we seem to be moving towards a compromise, and I for one hope it lean's towards the elite model, with bells on !!

 

[FrogsFriend]

Towards the end of the video did anybody else notice the top-left of the HUD saying 'flight assist active' or words to that effect?

EDIT - I know it was just a artists mock-up, but still.

 

[Styggron]

Some license with the physics is necessary I think. I've played a bunch of Orbiter Space Flight Simular and I doubt you could make an engaging fighter sim when doing things like even adjusting your orbit to intercept the ISS is an extreme challenge. at the end of the day it's just a game and is supposed to be fun first and foremost. I also didn't really care for the jousting matches in Frontier.

Sounds like they are on the right track re: the flight model.

LOVE Orbiter.......

 

[Jenner]

LOVE Orbiter.......

Yeah, it's awesome! The feeling of accomplishment you get when you do things in that is phenomenal. The first time I flew a Delta Glider from Kennedy Space Center and landed on Brighton Beach on the moon was one of my greatest gaming achievements.

Admittedly I've never played the original Elite (gasp!) but I played the hell out of Frontier. If they take the flight mehanics down a notch from that I'll be happy.

 

[natte hond]

Absolute!

A full scale Newton flight-model, would need a lot of processing power.

my old Amiga can do it.
without a ram card it runs a wopping 14mhz.
but with my GVP50mhz 68030 wow

I don,t think it will cost to much processor power.
it might generate a lot of traffic but I cant oversee that.

what ever happens it going to be great
even if I can,t turn a round mid flight.
there use to be aft guns as well so blast you any way.

(hmm haven't read any thing about those do)

 

[Darth Sidious]

Maybe and if its not too much of a hassle
Could full and partial newtonian flight be possible in single player mode?
Because the debate of experience is interesting in itself
And or as an ode to the original.

I think that would be very nice and gratifying

 

[Kipper]

I'm a backer of the 'star wars' flight model.

As impressive as the full newtonian model would be, I think you'd find it would reduce excitement in reality. It would just become a game of who can 'turret' onto their target quickest and open fire. If one person had it and the other one didn't - the one that didn't would be dead every time.

As unrealistic as it may be, I'd prefer to have my fights like a WW1/2 era fighter but in and amongst asteroids, planetary rings and the superstructure of stations and large ships etc. In 'open space' you could argue it might become less exciting, but that's where you throw in larger numbers to make sure the fighting is more intense. For larger ship combat, the use the attrition of damaging modules and having fighter screens and more drawn out experience with more variables.

IMHO, the X-Wing games were as exciting as any I remember playing during a big battle... the many, many weak fighters, the capital ships with their many guns, the corvettes zipping out changing the shape of the battle, etc.

In atmospheres, later - you can differentiate combat because you introduce the ground and atmospheric resistance into the equation, so the more you circle about, the more altitude or speed you lose, like a real plane. Eventually someone has to hit the power and climb back out before both combatants pile into the ground, but since this leaves you vulnerable, who wants to be the first to do that?

 

[Dietger]

Guess, I would and will be happy with both, the newton and or the WW1/2 approach. Perhaps a mix of some sort? Both could be fun. With both, getting the angles on the other guy will be key though. Dogfighting or ambushes, run&gun, there are fundamental principles to be considered. How or in which way you accomplish things will be a matter of balancing I bet. And I am not sure, but I guess, the full blown Newton fm will be more repetitive.