Because we have a system that works. Nothing is broken. Nothing needs fixing
Build our own Settlements
- Thread starter tent
- Start date
Because we have a system that works. Nothing is broken. Nothing needs fixing
Adding player bases could conceivably add content to exploration. Survey planets / moons for suitable construction sites, i.e. looking for water, raw materials, etc.
Oh... sorry, i forget that EDO is undisputably aknowledged as one of the best game of the decade
Elite Dangerous its a space sim.
Just adding another...
Everything is fine ^%JMH everything is fine ^&^**&&% everyth8ing is fine...kldnhlndd everything i...
Last edited by a moderator:
As you drive around and walk around on planets
. That argument might have held up in the days before horizons but now not muchIsn't it a 'make a living in the galaxy they way you want to'-sim?
We have an atmospheric flight model in space and there is no relative effect when approaching or passing C. Bad start for talking about a simulation
Last edited:
That's a bit simplistic. You're not approaching (and could never pass) C in normal space using Newtonian thrust, you're in supercruise, which may be science fiction, but it could someday be actual science. In other words, no relativistic effect. Though I will give you the point that C itself is infinite, in that the world looks the same out my window regardless of my speed ratio to C, and that if it takes me 10 seconds to travel 10 light minutes, I should be able to watch myself jump into a system 9:50 minutes later due to the actual light from the event taking that long to reach my new location.We have an atmospheric flight model in space and there is no relative effect when approaching or passing C. Bad start for talking about a simulation
As for flight model, a lot of the "airplane feel" is due to flight assist, which actually makes sense.
Of course the big "what" is the arbitrary speed limits based on engine size (as if engines are overcoming drag) and the "boost to speed up, only to apply retro-thrusters to slow right back down again", which of course simulates EWP / afterburners rather than anything that makes sense in a vacuum. I much rather that engine size and boost affected acceleration instead of maximum speed, meaning a lighter ship with a bigger engine could always catch up to a heavier ship with a smaller engine (A = F/M), but either ship could go as fast as they want, eventually. But Elite goes for the "biplanes in space" feel, so it is what it is
We have an atmospheric flight model in space and there is no relative effect when approaching or passing C. Bad start for talking about a simulation
Simply because we dont get anywhere near C
The FSD works like an idealized Alcubierre Drive that provides apparent faster-than-light travel by highly compressing the space around the ship while we travel at normal space speeds in that highly compressed frame.
Basically we still do 200m/s or whatever speed we set, but in an extremely compressed space and we get an apparent multiples of C speeds - this we can travel very fast, but we get spared of any relativistic effects
The compression level varies with the gravitational wells - so we get really low apparent speeds nearby surfaces (2.5km/s) but this can go to an apparent hundreds of C when far from gravitational wells (2001C seems to be the limit - an artificial limit speculated to be a reference to 2001 Space Odyssey)
![[VR] Mad Mike](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/27/27910.jpg?1553527108){kind=avatar}
regardless of realism the important question is, is the flight model enjoyable in ED.? for me it is a resounding YES!!! FA off gives enough of a nod to me to newtonian flight, combined with FAon reminds me of the 1st game in the series..... it has taken the best from all the previous games.
IF the answer for you is no you dont like the model than the game is a dead duck and as such it does not matter if it is real or not.
personally i think the flight model is better than full newtonian.
taking that to the false gravity in Elite....... For me, false gravity does NOT add to the enjoyment of the game, and i think having it realistic as per the design plan, with a combination of EVA and mag boots would be a far more interesting experience and would make the game better.
that said, i am not losing sleep over it either way, that ship has long sailed and FD are unlikely to revisit such a large thing now.
IF the answer for you is no you dont like the model than the game is a dead duck and as such it does not matter if it is real or not.
personally i think the flight model is better than full newtonian.
taking that to the false gravity in Elite....... For me, false gravity does NOT add to the enjoyment of the game, and i think having it realistic as per the design plan, with a combination of EVA and mag boots would be a far more interesting experience and would make the game better.
that said, i am not losing sleep over it either way, that ship has long sailed and FD are unlikely to revisit such a large thing now.
Yes, i am talking about the SC. But relativistic effects are intrinsic to the structure of spacetime and do not depend on scientific knowledge. You can indeed locally avoid a desynchronisation due to speed by locally moving space-time around you instead of moving yourself in space-time, but there are still at least the relativistic effects linked to the speed of the bubble's movement as well as those generated by the positive and negative deformations of space-time which structure the bubble itself.That's a bit simplistic. You're not approaching (and could never pass) C in normal space using Newtonian thrust, you're in supercruise, which may be science fiction, but it could someday be actual science. In other words, no relativistic effect. Though I will give you the point that C itself is infinite, in that the world looks the same out my window regardless of my speed ratio to C, and that if it takes me 10 seconds to travel 10 light minutes, I should be able to watch myself jump into a system 9:50 minutes later due to the actual light from the event taking that long to reach my new location.
Obviously, this would make the SC unusable.
Without counting that warp-like engines involve that negative mass repels positive mass and positive mass attracts negative mass, which seems to be less and less the case.
Furthermore, each system should have its own "proper time" which should not be perfectly synchronised.
So... not simAs for flight model, a lot of the "airplane feel" is due to flight assist, which actually makes sense.
Of course the big "what" is the arbitrary speed limits based on engine size (as if engines are overcoming drag) and the "boost to speed up, only to apply retro-thrusters to slow right back down again", which of course simulates EWP / afterburners rather than anything that makes sense in a vacuum. I much rather that engine size and boost affected acceleration instead of maximum speed, meaning a lighter ship with a bigger engine could always catch up to a heavier ship with a smaller engine (A = F/M), but either ship could go as fast as they want, eventually. But Elite goes for the "biplanes in space" feel, so it is what it is
And i also wonder how they determine the ship speed in normal space since a speed is always determined relativistically to something else. I mean, on planet up to orbit, the speed is determined relativistically to the ground, air, water or GPS. But in space ?
Same answer as @Old Duck
Elite the game has never been a sim and i dont think Frontier ever claimed it was. Internal consistency is not something which is only important in a simulation imo, but is important in most types games, as well as stories.So... not sim
And i also wonder how they determine the ship speed in normal space since a speed is always determined relativistically to something else. I mean, on planet up to orbit, the speed is determined relativistically to the ground, air, water or GPS. But in space ?
however the stellar forge which generates the galaxy IS meant to be a simulation based around real physics to make it. and by many accounts its a pretty good effort.
Yes this part is true, since when you're in the space around a low-orbiting outpost (I forget the name, but there's one close to the original starter system), your ship is observably traveling many thousands of meters per second relative to the planet below; which can be experienced firsthand if your drop out of supercruise desyncs and the outpost races away from you at insane speeds.
Though the fellow you're replying to said Elite is a space sim, not a space flight sim, so relatively-speaking (comparing stellar forge to the simplistic skyboxes of Space Engineers, X4 Foundations, No Man's Sky, etc), I agree with him. Of course this depends on your definition of "what is a simulator", since obviously even the stellar forge can't compete to an actual NASA simulation of the galaxy running on a super computer. At that point we're getting into semantics.
Anyway, what does this have to do with base-building?
Eva in ship without false gravity or inertial compensation is just impossible for gameplay sake. Look what happens when a car slightly bump another one. It would be even more dramatic in void space.
Last edited:
As a run-time simulation, no indeed. But the galaxy in ED seem to be static. And the picture of the galaxy produced by the Stellar Forge is really not bad at all and should be able to compete with what space agencies and physicists could produce 10-20 years ago.
It's just that the argument that because ED is a space simulation then such a thing shouldn't exist really es me off. So i just destroy the idea that ED is a space simulation every time i come across it (which is quite easy since ED is indeed not a simulation).
i dont think it is so black and white what is and isnt a sim. not all sims are created equal.
however it is moot either way imo as for me it is about verisimilitude. This is where EDs flight model is genius imo. going from FA on to FAoff it may not be accurate newtonian physics, but it is enough of a nod towards it to make it "feel" like i am flying a space ship - VR helps massively too, (YMMV)
just like gravity and low gravity does not need to be simulated perfectly when on foot content, but just enough to keep the 4th wall intact.
but it is still moot imo. the point is Gravity as well as lack of it is important in Elite Dangerous because that was an early premise of the game universe.
PS is this a sim or not? it was certainly sold as one.
Somebody says that because Elite is a space sim, we can't build bases on moons and planets? Well that's a silly argument, since IRL space agencies are planning to establish bases on the moon and Mars someday in the not too distant future.
No, just that ED is a space sim. Which is enough for me to destroy this argument once again
No ED is an arcadish game situated in a somewhat realistic simulation of space..
The keyword being a game and not a simulator..
The keyword being a game and not a simulator..