ED sub-light speed physics are super-unrealistic

[inspectorgadget]

Good summary. +rep.

 

[Sir.Tj]

Elite is not a simulator and it's not about realism. It's arcady.

People shouldn't really feel like they are in space.

This issue has been presented to FD a long time ago, yet they still have failed to address it.

But, guess what. We get a HUD clock. So you don't have to turn your eyes so much as to see the clock in the systray on the monitor next to it - that you can't use for E anyway. Totally worth it ;-).

Not sure how you think that FD hasn't addressed the reasoning behind the Speed limit imposed on ships, We've linked a few posts that give the thought processes behind the decision.

Personally I wouldn't call ED arcadey but it is a game not a simulator and everyone sees the game in their own way.

The clock was requested many times by players and as such was added. Very usedful if you're wearing a HMD for example.

 

[babelfisch]

Elite is not a simulator and it's not about realism. It's arcady.

People shouldn't really feel like they are in space.

This issue has been presented to FD a long time ago, yet they still have failed to address it.

But, guess what. We get a HUD clock. So you don't have to turn your eyes so much as to see the clock in the systray on the monitor next to it - that you can't use for E anyway. Totally worth it ;-).

Edit: The worst part is that Frontier got it all right back then with Frontier - Elite II. And now they couldn't built on that due to their own "technical limitations" that they introduced by waiving the offline mode.

Wrong, they didn't fail to adress it, they just don't agree with you. Plain and simple.

 

[Zelos1983]

Wrong, they didn't fail to adress it,

They failed to address it. If they would have addressed it, it wouldn't be an issue. But of course, simple logic seems hard to understand for you ;-).

BTW, I'm not interested in excuses WHY they didn't address it. It's just a binary fact that the issue remains unaddressed.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

But, guess what. We get a HUD clock.

Saves me going: "What? 1:30 AM already, I got to get up in a couple of hours!". Indeed totally worth it.

Edit: The worst part is that Frontier got it all right back then with Frontier - Elite II.

I disagree again. Frontier - Elite II did not have a HUD clock.

 

[CMDR MAIN SEQUENCE]

They failed to address it. If they would have addressed it, it wouldn't be an issue. But of course, simple logic seems hard to understand for you ;-).

BTW, I'm not interested in excuses WHY they didn't address it. It's just a binary fact that the issue remains unaddressed.

It's not an issue, so they didn't address it.

 

[Zelos1983]

I disagree again. Frontier - Elite II did not have a HUD clock.

Elite II had an ingame clock. It made sense for two reasons:
1. Ingame time was not real time
2. People usually had only one monitor back then, so there was no other clock to look at.

It's not an issue, so they didn't address it.

It is an issue, people complain about it. Hard to notice, eh?

 

[Sergio Smegolia]

They failed to address it. If they would have addressed it, it wouldn't be an issue. But of course, simple logic seems hard to understand for you ;-).

BTW, I'm not interested in excuses WHY they didn't address it. It's just a binary fact that the issue remains unaddressed.

It's not an issue for most, for you maybe. You're that important then? Nah. That's why they didn't address it.

 

[Sir.Tj]

I disagree again. Frontier - Elite II did not have a HUD clock.

Well it sort of did.

Oh and lets not start taking post shots at each other please?

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

It is design decision due of combination of design evaluation process and technical limitations of being MP game. If you have issue with it, that's fine, that's your personal opinion, but that's all - nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Viajero]

Let me have a go at sourcing some of my favourite Mike quotes :

This one about why rotation rates in ED are artificially slow(er) than what could be theoretically possible in a full newtonian:

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=35855&page=6&p=696031&viewfull=1#post696031

In space strafing around a target that is constantly aiming at you is equivalent to them strafing around you whilst you stay stationary and aim at them. In fact if both players are doing it then it's equivalent to both just being stationary and looking at each other the whole time.

All your suggestions are mechanics designed to counter the problem we've already fixed by just limiting turn rates whilst being slow thus encouraging players to keep moving which can result in ship breaking off from one another and applying other manoeuvring to out wit their opponents.

Also I'm glad we're the first to try breaking the far too full of tropes and cliché game mechanics cookie cutter game design that goes into space combat games. We did this because we're fed up with space combat game typically being a dressed up FPS/Debug camera flight model where FPS mouse control is the de-facto way to play and fast aiming 13 year olds are the champions of the day! We're making the game we want to make. It's already vastly different from anything else out there and I recognise players might approach the game with preconceptions of how things work but like most games that are different from the norm they'll just have to learn to play within the new framework the game operates in or go play something else. The game is what it is.

This one about the gameplay reason of the "blue zone" being at mid point for optimum turn rates (instead of faster rate with slower speeds):

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=35855&page=6&p=695845&viewfull=1#post695845

I don't know about you but if I stop in my flight games I fall out of the sky pretty consistently. If you are referring to space based games can you give me some examples?

Here is an example dogfight between two ships that start in a head on position with zero speed giving maximum turn rates:

Player A stays still and starts firing on the approaching Player B.
Player B flies straight towards Player A firing the whole time.

Until Player B passes by Player A the damage inflicted between them is the same.

Once Player B passes A he begins to slow down and begin the turn around to bring his opponent in his sights, all the while not shooting at Player A any more.

Player A however is stationary and thus has the BEST turn rate and can flip themselves over before Player B has finished his own turn around manoeuvre. Thus Player A gets to start shooting at Player B far sooner and the damage inflicted is no longer equal.

Player A will win this engagement every time. Thus Player B is forced to apply similar tactics (staying still) to make sure they get the same shooting time as player A. This results in two ships looking at each other, not moving, shooting each other until one player dies.

In a typical space game that lacks lateral thrusters that would be the end result as any attempt to dodge requires forward movement and forward movement will cause the turn rates to lower making it hard to turn to hit the enemy accurately. However we have lateral thrusters so dodging around stationary point is somewhat more feasible but the speed up still will lower turn rates making it hard to aim as fast.

Either way that is the logical conclusion of making turn rates get better the slower you fly all the way to being stationary. It's not like we didn't test this thoroughly ourselves you know.

And this one about why Yaw rotation rates are even slower than pitch or roll (includes the comment about cinematic flight):

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=29623&page=9&p=609596&viewfull=1#post609596

Indeed, a request is just that. We don't have to do anything if we don't want to but that doesn't mean we didn't read and consider the request. Suffice to say a low yaw rate is a fundamental part of our games aesthetics and a corner stone to our flight model that we at frontier like the way it is. We're not changing it, for to do so would be to compromise our own vision for what Elite: Dangerous is and what it's going to be. I don't give a damn what all the other space games have done in the past, nor do I care that our yaw rates are apparently even slower than a plane's is (though every time I've tried doing a pure yaw turn in IL-2 I've stalled my plane before I got anything that even resembled a steady and fast turn rate). Fast yaw and pitch in a space game is a video game trope of the highest order along with banner arrows sliding around the screen and compasses telling you where to fly all the time. I'm almost certain that other developers just implement those features because they've been so prevalent rather than actually reassessing whether the game needed them or could be even better without them! We found for example that the compass that pointed you towards your target at all times made combat too easy to end in stalemate of circling. As soon as we tried removing it all of a sudden it was more exciting to fight someone because they could give you the slip whilst you weren't glancing at your sensors and even if you did pay attention to the sensors the difference in the way the information is presented can still mean you don't quite stay on the target's tail perfectly, again providing more opportunities for them to turn the tide of the battle.

Suffice to say we wanted Elite to feel like star wars in terms of how the ships move by banking/rolling and pitching through manoeuvres opposed to the yaw and pitch based FPS style movement most other space games offered (where roll plays little or no part). That limitation to having to do your main directional change manoeuvring by pitching makes the flight path taken to be more cinematic and means a skilled player can predict the manoeuvres of an opponent in advanced by observing their current roll position relative to themselves only. So long as they match the roll quickly enough they can always follow through the inevitable pitch manoeuvre effectively and maintain the chase. If the target could yaw or pitch effectively then it's much harder to assess what they're going to do as they're current roll position doesn't really matter any more.

Finally realism has played no part whatsoever in any of our design discussions about the flight model. We don't care what would be realistic as we only care what the game play experience is when flying these ships and so far we feel we're hitting the right notes for the majority of our audience.

 

[Sir.Tj]

Knock it off please.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

 

[inspectorgadget]

having to do your main directional change manoeuvring by pitching makes the flight path taken to be more cinematic

Cinematic? Is he referring to the view from the cockpit? Because I can't see my flight path.

 

[Mike Evans]

Cinematic? Is he referring to the view from the cockpit? Because I can't see my flight path.

You can see the flight path of ships ahead of you though

 

[Viajero]

Cinematic? Is he referring to the view from the cockpit? Because I can't see my flight path.

You still can, albeit in a different way, the feeling is achieved by looking at external references. Be it stations, asteroids, the skybox, or other ships nearby, etc. You can see how your ship rolls and pitches based on those references.

 

[Genar-Hofoen]

You can see the flight path of ships ahead of you though

And it's usually "straight towards you - before they zoom past in a joust"

 

[Deleted member 38366]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UMIbdN0UFE

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!

No, I remember my own fights, as well as the Video part specifically entitled "How to do it" - which showed everything "wrong" a.k.a Sub-Optimal with it from a combat experience.
Might as well park the ships next to each other and tank it out without moving (= the same as having no relative motion to each other).
"Sitting Duck Warfare" I like to call Newtonian rubber-banding, which is still easily visible in many FA off fight Videos that display very similar shortcomings of the newtonian fight model as expected.

But as said, some folks liked that alot (personal taste requires no justification), so no reason for a flak jacket

Me, I prefer the artificial "Flight Sim" mechanics over Newtonian rubber-banding, static tanking or a 14000m/sec fly-by any day.
(I'd still like to see a Newtonian High Intensity Conflict Zone evolve into 1v1's spread out over 10000km within 15 Minutes into the fight - just for kicks *g*)

 

[igor37]

It is an issue, people complain about it. Hard to notice, eh?

Not all complaints have to be taken seriously. You can't satisfy everyone as everyone wants something else from a game. It may be an issue for some people, but removing the speed limit would be an issue for many, many more players, at least as soon as they realized how bad this idea is.
A game has to be playable, no matter what some customers say.

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

Not all complaints have to be taken seriously. You can't satisfy everyone as everyone wants something else from a game. It may be an issue for some people, but removing the speed limit would be an issue for many, many more players, at least as soon as they realized how bad this idea is.
A game has to be playable, no matter what some customers say.

Speed limit is because of MP nature of the game. You can't avoid that. It's not even because people like it or not.

 

[Genar-Hofoen]

No, I remember my own fights, as well as the Video part specifically entitled "How to do it" - which showed everything "wrong" a.k.a Sub-Optimal with it from a combat experience.
Might as well park the ships next to each other and tank it out without moving (= the same as having no relative motion to each other).
"Sitting Duck Warfare" I like to call Newtonian rubber-banding, which is still easily visible in many FA off fight Videos that display very similar shortcomings of the newtonian fight model as expected.

But as said, some folks liked that alot (personal taste requires no justification), so no reason for a flak jacket

Heheh have some friendly rep

The thing is, I've found that even with FA On, ships are still either jousting, or are orbiting each other - this was partly used as justification for going down the "cinematic" flight model.

And there's a reason why it's "cinematic"; it looks good - on a cinema screen, in third party view, with the static audience being the third party