ED sub-light speed physics are super-unrealistic

Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.

Insomnia

Insomnia
Is it a game or a sim? I'd say it tries to be both but ends up being neither.

As for the OP, I hear you, but I'm very satisfied with how the flight mechanics work. It's definitely the best aspect of the game and FD nailed it tbh.
 

babelfisch

babelfisch
MagicTofu said:
Most definitely N°1 reason for maximum speed indeed.
Click to expand...

Nope, No1 reason is that the game would be unplayable with unlimited speeds. They didn't need to think of a solution because they didn't want to implement it anyway. So networking can't be the reason, even if it would be a good one.
 

orangiey

O
If you could accelerate indefinitely until relativistic effect became a problem - I'm not a physicist so I don't know exactly when this is but lets say 90% c - what would you do with this velocity?

It's far too fast to travel in local space and combat would be impossible, but not fast enough to travel between star systems or even between stations in a star system.

I think people forget how fast the speed of light is - accelerating at 1g would take 315 days to reach 90%c, even accelerating at 10g would take 31.5 days - no real practical use I'm sure you'll agree
 

Zak Gordon

Zak Gordon
Vasious said:
And networking
Click to expand...

Yeah, we were told very early on it was due to networking data transfer limits, as ED is an always connected game (even in Solo), they have to have speed limits, and ships within those, or else the game just would not work.

If it had a fully single player mode (like the older Elites) that would not be a problem at all. It is the first real obvious limit imposed on the games design due to the MMO aspect.
 

tawittle

tawittle
you could say the game is super unrealistic because you're supposed to be in space yet you are physically on earth while playing.
 
Last edited:

Navigare Necesse Est

Navigare Necesse Est
Ziggy Stardust said:
One of the reason I detested Frontier (Elite II, the game) was just this.

Hooray, we're having realistic flight mechanics. It ruins the game, but at least we have realism! Who cares about gameplay in a game right? What we need is realism!
Click to expand...

Brr, it was awful. All the overshooting... However, I-War (aka Independence War) had a very good newtonian model. The best I've played in space sims.
 

Doctor.Fast

Doctor.Fast
Vitamin Arrr said:
For a space sim I will allow some breakage of physics, like to achieve FTL.

But why should regular, sub-light-speed travel have ridiculously unrealistic physics? It's just stupid. I don't understand why a space sim like this, which seems to try pretty hard to have realism, would totally neglect physics when it comes to accelleration and velocity.

Case in point: ships all have a maximim velocity. That's idiotic. That's not how space ships work.

If a space ship starts off at fixed point A and accelerates at 10m/s^2 in a constant direction away from A, then its speed relative to point A will purely be a function of time. Until you get into the territory of relativistic speeds, where length contraction is a thing, that 10m/s^2 would continue stacking and stacking and stacking.

However in ED, ships all top out at some max speed, then even if you boost, you slow back down again after boosting. What is causing you to slow back down?! There is no air resistance in space. There is no friction. No current. Unless God has you in a tractor beam, or you yourself are accelerating or decelerating in a particular direction, then you should never ever change velocity either faster or slower.

And why is there a magic brick-wall top speed for ships? That is so dumb. What mystical force is preventing them from going faster...?

And what is the displayed speed shown relative to, anyway? It seems to be relative to the nearest asteroid or planet surface, but we all know that asteroids and planets are by no means stationary objects. They are all moving very quickly indeed around their host star... so when I drop out of supercruise in an asteroid belt, now I am moving thousands of kilometers per second faster relative to the star then when I was right in front of it. So there really is no top speed, really, there's just what the game engine artificially imposes relative to the local coordinate space.

But why? Was this some kind of programming difficulty that just couldn't be got around? If so I'd love to hear a technical explanation as to why, since I think FD could be excused for this if their reason is sound.
Click to expand...

The insurance doesnt pay, if the ship goes faster than a certain cap. Obviously. :D
 

Genar-Hofoen

Genar-Hofoen
Blah blah blah

"gameplay trumps realism" - not always valid.

"Networking" - might be valid.

"Because turrets in space / Jousting!" - the biggest and most laughable excuse of them all :)

Why?

Because the first is an excuse for the other two, for one.

One of the BIG reasons given was "turrets in space/jousting" - if you look at practically all ED videos featuring battle in space, they're still either orbiting each other, or jousting (when it's not a case of cat & mouse). The crappy Star Wars flight model did not solve the orbiting/jousting one bit.

As for those saying the Frontier: Elite II flight model was "rubbish" or "made for bad gameplay" - utter tosh - you simply weren't thinking in 3D...

[video=youtube;RbTUTNenvCY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbTUTNenvCY[/video]

I'll bow to the Great God of Newtonian Flight, Isinona, for the last word on just how effective the Newtonian-based flight model of Fronteir: Elite II was;

[video=youtube;9UMIbdN0UFE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UMIbdN0UFE[/video]

I think when someone says "the flight model made for a horrible experience in Frontier", they're just remembering their experience in the first part of Isinona's video where he specifically entitled it "What not to do" - you basically were flying Newtonian all wrong! :)

Basically in ED, the ship's "flight computer" is actually hard-wired to fight against you. It is constantly trying to get you dead. "No, you can't travel more than X m/s because..."

Now, I know I'm coming off as a whiner here - but do bear in mind that whilst the ED flight model still sticks in my craw to this day, it hasn't stopped me playing the game when I can. I still think ED is a good game, and I'm glad I'm playing a modern-day version of my favourite game of all time, the one I grew up with. It's just - ugh... I just disagree with the flight model decision and I think the reasons given for it are pretty much invalid. :)

*dons asbestos trousers , flak jacket, and tin hat for this one* :)
 
Last edited:

wstephenson

wstephenson
Shadowdancer said:
Dear OP, you have started the nine thousand five hundred and thirty first thread on this exact topic. It won't go well. Enjoy your stay. You may also be interested in Rogue System.
Click to expand...

"Post realism based rant against game mechanic" is on the Video Game Critical Theory 101 coursework plan, they all have to do it. I hear OP was responsible for the "Missing realistic obesity and amphetamine side-effects" post over on the Pac-man forums, too.
 
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom