Independance War (1 and 2) and the Evochron series.
Blaspheming against the flight model.
- Thread starter Marek15
- Start date
So you want a slower game, with more sluggish ships? If you do the maths, there is enough g delivered by the thrusters to physically challenge pilots to extremes already.
And - as I said above - putting a heavier extra set of engines on a vehicle just because the pilot doesn't want to properly utilise the controls is not 'realistic'. Piling mass on because a pilot wants to use a rudder as effectively as elevators when they could just spend a quarter-second rolling first is *not* realistic in engineering terms.
And we already have slightly better scanners... up to 50-sih% extra range on long range mod, isn't it?
Easy for you to say that from the comfort of your sofa, with no company and nobody's jobs to risk on the basis of your personal consumer desires.
So they payed for a WW2 flight sim model in space? :S
ED was always tuned to be fun and arcade like. From its inception it was always going to be this way. This was explained in detail many times in Kickstarter and elsewhere.
While I War was good, I don't really know if it would make ED any better- examples:
With the BVR missiles available in I War it would be a case of who runs out of chaff or missiles first, as missiles were extremely powerful.
Sniper PBCs would be worse than what long range mods are in ED.
Closing speeds would be a problem in multiplayer.
I'd love an aggressor shield though.
I think for ED the flight model is fine, it simply(?) needs for other mechanics to be tweaked to bring other mechanics in line. One of the reasons I War flopped was because of its flight model; its not as accessible to the masses while EDs is more like Freespace and X Wing.
While I War was good, I don't really know if it would make ED any better- examples:
With the BVR missiles available in I War it would be a case of who runs out of chaff or missiles first, as missiles were extremely powerful.
Sniper PBCs would be worse than what long range mods are in ED.
Closing speeds would be a problem in multiplayer.
I'd love an aggressor shield though.
I think for ED the flight model is fine, it simply(?) needs for other mechanics to be tweaked to bring other mechanics in line. One of the reasons I War flopped was because of its flight model; its not as accessible to the masses while EDs is more like Freespace and X Wing.
Exactly, he's basically asking for hand holding. @Devari, learn to control the ship or keep FA engaged, the last thing I would want to see in game is rotational dampening with assist off.
Wrong. The exact opposite. If, in a combat situation, you have two ways to solve a problem instead of one, isn't it better? More flexibility instead of less? More control instead of less?
That is precisely the problem. Just because the flight limitations of a plane flying in an atmosphere is what planes do on Earth and we are familiar with it, it does not mean that such a model should be adopted in the total different situation of space flight.
Planes don't yaw well because of they way physics work in a planetary surface with an atmosphere. Planes use wings and tail-plans to create lift for them to be able to change direction and, you know, fly...
In space there is no air to create pressure on wings and tail-plans. And since there is no preferred direction, thrusters should operate equally on all directions of movement for increased efficiency and flexibility.
As I have said before, both are not mutually exclusive. They can be used to complement each other and improve gameplay.
Last edited:
Jepp.
Most of them had played both Elite and FE2 and found the full Newtonian model of FE2 to be boring in combat. Pitch/Roll was choice.
Interestingly I find that using fixed weapons works much better with kb and mouse then with a HOTAS. I still use the latter cause I like it but ...
Yes. I looked at Frontiers proposed flight model very carefully before I backed it. It was quite clear that they were aiming for WW1/WW2 style dogfighting, which is what I wanted.
That game's purpose is not to compete with ED. It's a hardcore space simulation game. ED is not one and was never intended to be so.
Evochron had an FM where you could go all Babylon 5 which was fun, but they changed it to be more dog-fighty and it just never felt as good after that IMO. Both styles have merit, both can be fun if done well it's the quality not the overall style that counts.
This one stands out the most to me, we're in space, one of the dangers for space walks, if you push off, you just keep going unless tethered, it's the same with ships, boost and you'll keep going unless you reverse thrust, while there is friction in the form of space dust, it's not enough to slow a craft that has momentum.
![[VR] Mad Mike](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/27/27910.jpg?1553527108){kind=avatar}
I like it myself, for me FA off is enough of a nod to Newtonian without going full elite 2 frontier.
It's a design decision and is deliberate, more starwars than bsg
But I respect the view. OP should Check star citizen out it may be what you want . Personally I prefer eds model but OPs view is cool
Last edited:
You are exaggerating.
Yes. But humans can deal with extreme Gs for short periods. Nothing new there.
Putting the "extra set" is what allows him to properly utilize the ship.
If it gives the pilot the edge in combat, you can bet it is.
Band aids are just that. They don't solve the inherent problem of gameplay, like the lack of proper BVR combat.
I guess it is, but catering to the lowest common denominator isn't a solution for excellence in any company.
Last edited:
I liked FE2's flightmodel a lot. But people differ in their preferences for many reasons. In my case: I am an aeronautical engineer so working out how to fly in FE2 was not too difficult and part of the fun.
And yet - even though yaw control in atmospheric craft consists only of a flap, rather than fusion thrusters - combat aircraft in reality lack this all-powerful yaw that you say is essential? The observed facts do not match your opinion.
In a combat situation, there is no point having two ways to solve a problem if an operator with a modicum of skill does not need one of them and possession of both options has a negative overall influence on performance, due to the mass increase.
What?!
Sorry, but that's kind of nonsense. If you want to blind us with science, then try doing it rather than coughing about 'I win because physics'. If planes don't 'yaw too good' because atmosphere, isn't it remarkable that if they roll into a turn and use elevators then they turn a lot more effectively... it's almost like one of the control surfaces is more effective than the other!
Thrusters in space will only all perform the same as each other if they are all the same size and placed in balance. Again: Adding a few tons just because a pilot can't be bothered to roll makes no sense in military designs.
All good points but:
All of these weapons could be regulated not to be unbalanced. That is feasible.
Initially in the combat, yes. But, eventually, all combat would break down to a "knife fight" or to a fast escape. IMO, it would be no trouble.
A very bad one, I must say...
The DDF had nothing to do with the flight model. Frontier did a lot of internal prototyping and settled on this flight model, which *they* thought was fun. It's been tweaked based on feedback but fundamentally it's all theirs.
This is a timeless debate. It was debated in alpha, beta and ever since. Some like it, some don't. It could probably do with a bit of balancing.
This is a timeless debate. It was debated in alpha, beta and ever since. Some like it, some don't. It could probably do with a bit of balancing.
No: You said that you want ships that properly model g. By definition that means slowing things down, because the current model is already very much on the generous side of physiology.
Up to a limit. We can't play the 'realism' card to speed turns up if they then result in 20g.
And yet we have been through two world wars and aircraft still don't have as powerful yaw controls as pitch. An entire century of human combat proves the supposition a fiction. Pilots bank into turns instead of coming home and crying that they'd have beaten that fw-190 if only the rudder was larger, and that they'd be happy to sacrifice some overall speed in order to have a larger rudder. :|
Greggs, Microsoft, Candy Crush Saga, McDonalds and Poundland may disagree with that assertion!