Discussion about real world flight controls

[Mephane]

Almost no YAW usage by players. That made me think why they are not using it!
I bumped on vid where player mentioned that yaw is very slow so it is almost no point in using it.
For me this is just outrageous to make ship nerfed down in yaw ability.
That makes no sense!
For me it is forcing player to use specific fight technique.
It looks like atmosphere dogfight performed by WW I airplanes!!

It still makes sense in space. Every maneuver inflicts g forces on the pilot, and if that maneuver is a hard yaw, they are pulled sideways in their seats. Imagine steering a vehicle when something is pulling you out of your seat to the left. On the other hand, pitching up or down only presses you into the seat or against the straps. Even if real fighter jets technically could yaw as hard as they can pitch, pilots would not do that.

Besides, this was explained by FD weeks before, we already knew flight would be like that.

 

[Komemiute]

Show me real pilot that would stand rolling and rolling over and over again in plane vs. plane combat that would not puke after some time or be tired by it!

You've GOT to be kidding me.

I work with training of modern fighter pilots and nowadays YAW is used the littlest of the time to do minor adjustment.

Real pilots only do roll and pitch.

Welcome to the real world.

 

[Snowblind]

You've GOT to be kidding me.

I work with training of modern fighter pilots and nowadays YAW is used the littlest of the time to do minor adjustment.

Real pilots only do roll and pitch.

Welcome to the real world.

In an atmosphere, where the wings and ailerons are doing the turning.

 

[Komemiute]

In an atmosphere, where the wings and ailerons are doing the turning.

But there's a reason for having ailerons and elevators on the stick and not the rudder...

Body can take better positive G rather than negative or side wise ones.
Since we have basic Newtonian physics here, it's just obvious they go for some sort of credible ships handling.

Plus, you want to take fight the most vertical you can, since here there's no gravity to make you lose speed and stall.

Man I can't wait to perform proper BFM in space!
And then elaborate them with Non-Assisted FCS!

But main reason still is that, and I agree, there's no need for Call of Duty in Spaaaaace. Don't want to see FPS behaviour in Elite.

Let yaw as it is. Please.

 

[Snowblind]

Body can take better (more) positive G rather than negative

This is true.

or side wise ones.

This is flat out false.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-forces#Horizontal_axis_g-force
and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4tuvOer_GI

The human body can sustain much, much higher G-forces along the horizontal axis because blood is not being shifted to and from the head.

 

[CoSm1c gAm3r]

It still makes sense in space. Every maneuver inflicts g forces on the pilot, and if that maneuver is a hard yaw, they are pulled sideways in their seats. Imagine steering a vehicle when something is pulling you out of your seat to the left. On the other hand, pitching up or down only presses you into the seat or against the straps. Even if real fighter jets technically could yaw as hard as they can pitch, pilots would not do that.

Besides, this was explained by FD weeks before, we already knew flight would be like that.

I bet you are not driving a car because it forces driver to move left and right and lateral G forces are so bad. Sad for you that you cant drive cars because all that lateral G forces.
Imagine those POOR F1 drivers they are making deadly sacrifice so other people may watch those beautiful fast cars.

R.I.P. F1 drivers

This is true. This is flat out false.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-forces#Horizontal_axis_g-force
and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4tuvOer_GI

The human body can sustain much, much higher G-forces along the horizontal axis because blood is not being shifted to and from the head.

Thanx for proving my point. I had no will to find this and argue with all those people who just hate... how they call it? Oh FPS in space. Silly definition. Space is space and it gives so much free movement not like in airplanes in earths atmosphere. But they are stubborn and want silly idea of airplanes in space
To bad that not many people understand what is space. Or they chose to ignore it because kids in them want FUN above anything else.
I see that this game will not be for me as all this people love that uberly silly idea of planes in vacuum including Braben :/
So I guess there is no point for me to try find any sense of logic and rational thinking in this forum and all punch through all that blind enthusiasm. I am outnumbered xD
I must say pass on this game.

 

[Komemiute]

Wait a minute.
Yeah and no.

I'm talking of LATERAL G acceleration, not HORIZONTAL ones.
There's a BIG difference.

Your own wikipedia link writes about a person standing accelerating forward.
Or backwards.

Of course that's better than being compressed.

But if you look at F1 racers they get between 5 and 6 G in lateral turns, as in fighters vertical manoeuvers you get from 9 to 12.
Source your own link.

I'd say that if planes could to a flat spin on themselves they COULD only do it if the pilot was in the center of gravity or there would be a massive acceleration in the directly opposite vector of movement...

But it gets pretty technical and I got to go back to work.
Catch you later.

 

[CoSm1c gAm3r]

Wait a minute.
Yeah and no.

I'm talking of LATERAL G acceleration, not HORIZONTAL ones.
There's a BIG difference.

Your own wikipedia link writes about a person standing accelerating forward.
Or backwards.

Of course that's better than being compressed.

But if you look at F1 racers they get between 5 and 6 G in lateral turns, as in fighters vertical manoeuvers you get from 9 to 12.
Source your own link.

I'd say that if planes could to a flat spin on themselves they COULD only do it if the pilot was in the center of gravity or there would be a massive acceleration in the directly opposite vector of movement...

But it gets pretty technical and I got to go back to work.
Catch you later.

You are silly if you think that lateral G forces are more dangerous than negative and positive G forces because lateral are less dangerous and human can take more G force in lateral so nerfing down yaw is simply stupid. And it is forced to make silly mechanics to make planes in space flight system which is totally dumb.
F1 cars was only example you "genius" They can take much more but F1 cars would loose grip so 5-6 is max!
Also silly example of human not being in center of mass. That sidewinder ship is exactly against your theory because pilot is almost exactly in center of mass so you arguments are invalid in that case TOTALLY.
If it would be ship that puts pilot out of mass center then ANY freaking G forces would make him suffer more than 15G so he would not be able to maneuver that ship in combat situations and all thrusters would need to be nerfed down! LOL His eyes would pop out in streams of blood

Watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUO0mwmqQSc
and this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdU7WU66nM

and imagine that you stand in center of that carousel. So if pilot is in center of ships mass he can take all directions rotations so making YAW dumbed down just to make silly planes in space mechanics of moving in vacuum is simply stupid! So you are supporting stupid idea just because you hate that in space ship can move in all directions like in FPP games. Guess what, space games are not FPP and comparison to them is silly or worst. It is stupid! You cannot play helicopter games because they rotate horizontally and can move up and down. OH no this is so FPS! So you hate games about helicopters. According to your logic xD

In space all spaceships are more like choppers not planes so all that silly explanations about dumbing down YAW are complete . Heli and planes are limited by atmosphere and air flow at high speed but anyway heli is more like spacecraft movement.

All your arguments fail. But most people here including Braben wants that stupid plane dogfighting mechanics that have complete no sense at all in space vacuum so there is no point in explaining anything really. Just be aware that there is no excuse to make yaw that much dumbed down in space. That makes game LUDICROUS in that aspect but hey if you like it and creators like it then go ahead and have you silly game for you I will end up with Rogue System game that treats space as vacuum and not like silly atmospheric flight in space. So I am glad that there are people who knows what is space and knows how it works and makes games so they mix realism of world with gameplay.

 

[[VR] Shadowman]

I agree that yaw shouldn't be nerfed, as I've said before in other threads. It seems having options for players is generally accepted on these forums as being a good thing, eg having FAOFF mode to appease the newtonians, yet FD appear to be stubborn when it comes to the yaw aspect (at least from the responses I've seen so far).

The argument of a more "cinematic experience" really doesn't make sense - we're not trying to make a film here.

 

[CoSm1c gAm3r]

For me it is sad that they don't understand that by making in space dogfight system like what is in atmospheric dogfights between planes is not only stupid and making combat LUDICROUS it is also tiring.

It is because in atmospheric flight pilots cannot go all the time pitch/roll and they don't do it so rapidly and frequently (it is like slomo compared to what ED is presenting) so watching dogfight in for example war thunder on realistic mode from cockpit anyone can see that they are not doing it frequently. There is ground below and all that maneuvers slows plane down so they must stop at some point.
And on low altitude they may only go around without rotating and pitching just turning (but top pilots dont do it anyway). In space there is no ground so they may go all the time with that roll/pitch with exact same speeds and that is annoying to watch.

In space there should be some kind of maneuver technique of course.... any but not planes dogfight and not making YAW nerfed so much on high speeds :/

 

[Reaper99]

Reading the dialog on the flight mechs have got my head spinning...

Seems that the folks who believe in true Newtonian physics in space want full range of motion...I think

Seems there are some that say that yaw is nerfed...agree there ...there is definite responsiveness in pitch, roll verses yaw...

now yaw might be bogged down from extreme speeds if there is resistance ie some kind of atmospheric resistance and gravity.

Space however is vacuum...or to be more technically represented there is no gravity so to speak...aside from multitudes of stars,systems, black holes and other space anomalies which do exert some kind of gravity outward however minute...also to consider...magnetic fields of all those heavenly bodies, then dense clouds of whatever...so on and so forth...if you fly thru say a dust cloud...would you trail some of it out when you emerge from other side...would some adhere to the ship?

and for the realism buffs...and good for you for it...unfortunately we hit a snag about realism...we still use liquid substance for "rocket propellants" we use small burst of gas venting for minor thrust adjustments...that's here and now...

we are playing a game that simulates a. ships and tech that don't exist in our reality. b. whats to say that in some far flung future we wouldn't find a more appropriate way to move in space...naw that's just ridiculous lets stay with tried and true method of relying on Newtonian theory...course why not just stick with horse and buggy instead of a car...im sure those guys had hard liners against the car and said it wouldn't work.

We limit our imagination and our innovativeness to a line of thought that seems a bit narrow...with respect your allowed those thoughts and reasoning however some ppl are progressive and would not want to think in the physics of stone age space travel...which by the way is our current state...regaurdless of those believing they can create propulsion systems from things like nuclear plants and solar winds and have shown that the theory is sound...but we already have something that works don't try different.

Braben and Roberts both have a vision of what they wanted to give us...they are achieving that goal...not OUR vision...if any of us have a different vision of what something should be a good idea would be to create it yourself rather than be critical of someone elses vision ...1. we aren't forced to buy or try 2. you have evechron if you cant create it yourself 3. plenty of us are very pleased with the outcome and are <redacked> happy that braben and Roberts came back to fill a void that has been lacking for years.

I've played from original elite, wc, xwing...everything that was stickin me inside the ship and stick ...that let me break free of our KNOWN space flight constraints and enjoy the pure fantasy of the what if and what would it be like.
and lets not forget mantis which was all about Newtonian movement.

All in all...hats off to braben...and his friends that gave us this vision and Roberts for his....lets remember that that's what brought most of us to this.

peace and good cheer to all who post no matter our different opinions...respect for our different perspectives...But in the end...Braben and his team vision...we either support with our wallet and our due diligence or ...for those who don't appreciate the vision....go to something else that makes them happy and can post without tearing down an excellent game for no other reason than it doesn't fit their square hole...

Merry Christmas all...for those that enjoy the new universe...Ill see ya in the pubs, clubs, dives, side by side, on ur six, or most unfavorably on my six

CHEERS

 

[CoSm1c gAm3r]

Now I know more about ED and I changed my mind a little bit on some aspects and I like in what direction ED moved.
I still don't like few things though.
I watched some wallpapers that show ships and human silhouette. Earlier I didn't realize how big those ships are. They are huge. I still hold my opinion that there should be no any nerfing down on ships lateral movements because of some silly explanations like "combat is more fun that way".

Rotation, pitch, yaw should be based on ships dimensions and mass.
For example cobra mkIII should have slower roll movement because of its width. So yaw and roll should be at the same speed. Pitch up and down should be little faster compared to yaw and roll.

From start I known how those ships look like thats why I am so negative about forcing pilot to use pitch/roll while there are no logical explanations for that decision.

 

[Dejay]

It still makes sense in space. Every maneuver inflicts g forces on the pilot, and if that maneuver is a hard yaw, they are pulled sideways in their seats. Imagine steering a vehicle when something is pulling you out of your seat to the left.

Imagine rotating in your swivel chair. Spinning, stopping, spinning in other direction. You can do that all day long As long as the ship isn't correcting course but only reorienting itself, the G forces through rotation are negligible. Well at least if you are reasonable close to the axis of rotation.

 

[laforge]

It still makes sense in space. Every maneuver inflicts g forces on the pilot, and if that maneuver is a hard yaw, they are pulled sideways in their seats. Imagine steering a vehicle when something is pulling you out of your seat to the left. On the other hand, pitching up or down only presses you into the seat or against the straps. Even if real fighter jets technically could yaw as hard as they can pitch, pilots would not do that.

While this explanation may sound plausible at first, you must bare in mind that you are talking only about the g-forces due to high sideways accelerations. But as far as I can see from the various videos here we have the situation that not only the yaw-accelerations but also the yaw-speed is capped to a very low value. This makes still no sense in space. The value could be alot higher untill you would experience large centrifugal forces.

...course why not just stick with horse and buggy instead of a car...im sure those guys had hard liners against the car and said it wouldn't work.

You realize that cars and todays spaceships obey Newtons laws of physics without Newton himself saw anything of this?

 

[JKF]

Fast yaw in combat should be done with flight assist off.

Kill the forward thrust, you are now drifting; no g force. Apply fast yaw as required then reapply thrust along your new vector.

In a well designed combat vehicle the side thrusters would be fired in such a way so as to ensure the centre of yaw rotation was the pilot position. Since the pilot sits at the front of the ship the forward side thrust would apply less power than the opposing aft side thrust causing the ship to rotate about the cockpit.

A similar a-symmetric thrust approach should also be applied to pitch control, keeping the pilot at the centre of rotation and so reducing the forces applied to the pilot.

Much more difficult to acccomplish would be keeping the pilot at the centre of rotation during a roll due to the design of the ship. This would likely encourage a pilot to utilise a properly implemented pitch/yaw manoeuvre rather than a pitch/roll manoeuvre since the later would be the least comfortable.