ED sub-light speed physics are super-unrealistic

[babelfisch]

Hm, thinking about the general issue, I always wondered...

Wouldn't there be a method to implement it at least in some locations or under specific circumstances?

Ever since CQC (now Arena) hit, it being a simulator not tied to any in-game mechanics, I could imagine specific Maps there where such Newtonian elements could be tested (benchmarked if you wish) and to provide an additional challenge.

If successful/appreciated, later it should be possible to implement it at least in "special locations" - be it "Ionic Gas clouds within a System interfering with and disabling some Computer Assistance" or proximity to specifc (not yet in Game) SciFi Objects or Planets/Phenomenon.
Placing some form of Conflict Zones or other Combat Opportunities there specifically would do the trick.

You can be sure that even me that doesn't like having it as a Universal Flight Model, I'd certainly check out these locations to see how it affects combat

So overall, I believe the current Flight Model does not have to remain exclusive. Frontier could come up with various means to selectively implement specific "Newtonain locations", either in CQC or the ELITE Universe without any lore breaking.
Wouldn't be a bad idea and if nothing else - offer some interesting twist to Combat in these locations.

Spoiler

For old times' sake...
How about one day we get pulled out of Hyperspace by Thargoids/something else and end up suddenly having to deal with Newtonian Flight Model?
There you have your "special location" and it even fits existing lore 100%

The suggestion is not bad, but in my opinion there are other areas which need work before they should put time an effort into it.

 

[Stoneski]

I hope this isn't advertising as I don't have any affiliation with it but if you want to try out full Newtonian physics you can try out the freeware Orbiter game http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/ and see if it's really something you want in a game.

As it turns out there are some compelling reasons why combat pilots and astronauts have to undertake years of aviation theory, study and have to put in a mind boggling number of hours in practice and simulation before they are allowed near an actual cockpit. Most of those guys would laugh through their PhD's at our desire for game realism and why wouldn't they? Of course, there are hardcore sim enthusiasts with their replica Boeing cockpit setups in the garage but those guys probably aren't playing ED as the very notion of Thargoids, Frame Shift Drives, Barnacles and crates of Tea on distant planetoids are not what they enjoy.

Also consider the fact we are dogfighting with pew-pew lasers on our ship instead of Beyond-Visual-Range type missiles that are mainly used in air combat today. How many cannon rounds do modern day fighters even carry today? Something like ~ 10 seconds worth of firing time? And this is technology that is less that 100 years old. In the 34th century you wouldn't have time to think about 'raising shields' as you would already be dead.

Now, I could try play this realistic game where it would take me 3 years to work out how to lift off without dying in an enormous fireball of shame or I could play the one where I can strap myself in, fire up my after burners and pretend I'm Max "Roid Toucher" Skywalker - Bounty Hunter Extraordinaire!

 

[Agony_Aunt]

OP - ok, you have your opinion, but hope you understand, if FD changed the flight model (they won't at this stage, for reasons Mike has given - ie: Design choice) there would be many people highly outraged by it.

If only because how it would change the nature of combat from close up combat to well.. combat like it was in Frontier. Without time accelleration, to compesate when you go to fast past your opponent, you'd be boosting back to your opponent for hours to continue the combat.

 

[Globusdiablo]

There has been plenty of discussion on this topic before including my own reasons for implementing the flight model the way it is (if someone can dig those out that would be grand). At the end of the day a realistic approach to space flight would necessitate a completely different game and thus experience that we weren't setting out to make in the first place. We never began the design of elite trying to be as realistic as possible nor did we try and do a Newtonian flight model then find out networking would mess that up. Instead we wanted to create a cinematic flight experience that was intuitive and familiar and it turns out that anything other than that would be a lot more problematic to implement anyway so it was fortunate we didn't have to.

It's a game. A quite good one at that.

Though I'll still complain about this and that.

Because I want it to be "just so"...[hotas]

 

[Vitamin Arrr]

This is how I explain it to myself :

True reason :
Gameplay, Newtonian flight was interesting - but naturally made for completely bizarre combat. Disliked by many, liked by a few.

Immersion-preserving reason :
After losing countless ships (damaged but Pilot still alive) tumbling into deep space at insane speeds, the few luckly recovered Pilots shared their horror stories of Thruster Malfunctions and their odyssee of floating through deep space uncontrolled at over 100km/sec with only microscopic odds of salvation.

Eventually a tragically failed rendevouz with a Rescue Ship (resulting in the destruction of both the stranded CMDR and the entire Rescue Crew, which was anticipated and transmitted live on all Galactic News Channels) caused all Governments and Engine/Ship Designers to agree on a fully redundant and autonomous safety feature.
From that day on, Thrusters on all Ships were automatically limiting the maximum speed the Ships would achieve in normal space.

It was discovered that proximity of nearby Gravity wells like Planets stretched the desired enevlope, but the safety feature still limited the max. velocities within acceptable limits.

I like where you are going with this. Lets add: "It was decided by the Geneva Convention Mark II that, even in space warfare, no ship shall travel faster than 400 m/s relative to the nearest major stellar body (e.g. ring or planet). This caused extreme destruction during the Battle of Earth, which lasted for 25 days, and ended when the moon swept through at 1052 m/s, destroying all ships and ending the war. The ships were unable to escape since they had mass-locked each other and their flight computers prohibited them from using thrusters to escape. Peace ensued, and the Convention stuck."

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

OP - ok, you have your opinion, but hope you understand, if FD changed the flight model (they won't at this stage, for reasons Mike has given - ie: Design choice) there would be many people highly outraged by it.

If only because how it would change the nature of combat from close up combat to well.. combat like it was in Frontier. Without time accelleration, to compesate when you go to fast past your opponent, you'd be boosting back to your opponent for hours to continue the combat.

Well, to be sure, it would make combat harder; but then again, I'm a non-violent trader/explorer who believes in a peaceful universe, not one optimized for killing each other. But I understand your point! I was mainly just curious about the reasons and it looks like there was a good reason so, point taken!

 

[Novaspear]

If we worry about if something is completely realistic, we cease to empower ourselves of the reason why we play this game - games are supposed to be fun. As soon as we caught up in concerning if it is realistic enough, then it will at some point cease to being fun. If you like realistic physics, then go play the space sim Orbiter - is challenging, educational, and is free. Elite Dangerous is fun, unlike Orbiter, because it is not a full-fledged simulation. We do not want a space 'simulator'. We want a space 'game'. Don't get me wrong, I like simulators and have used them for years but for a specific purpose - to learn and present a challenge that mimics the real world that I don't have the ability, time/money for, opportunity, or whatever. Elite Dangerous is about a fictional, future world/universe that doesn't exist and can present us with experiences and stories that we cannot have presently or 'possibly' ever. The point as well is, enjoy the game as it is and stop fussing about it - way too many people do that in this forum and it does, many agree, needs to stop.

 

[Cmdr Wullfen]

I could just see the complaints if you had to do a transfer burn and intercept every single time you wanted to shoot something

go play KSP and then let me know if that's really how you want elite to handle

NO? thought not

 

[Viking84]

I'm fine with the non-newtonian physics, but the nerfed yaw is really annoying. Makes the flight feel very sluggish, had almost forgotten it until I tried Evochron Legacy recently. Proper yaw response (almost on par with pitch and roll) was a revelation!

 

[Novaspear]

ED is the victim of George Lucas. Seriously.

Lucas is the father of dogfighting in space. When he was looking for inspiration for Star Wars space battles, he watched WW2 videos of prop planes dogfighting, and then translated it into space. And ever since then, when we think "space battles involving small craft" we think "just like Star Wars", therefore "just like WW2 prop planes and not like modern jets with missiles".

Sometimes there's justification for this. For example, in Gundam universe there's some kind of unobtanium/handwavium element that scrambles missile guidance systems. This limits conflict to using direct fire and melee weapons. It's clumsy and silly, but it sorta works on the same level restriction on ranged weapons and armor works in John Norman's Gor universe (you can't use ranged weapons and armor because "gods" will literally kill you with fire the moment you do).

Sometimes it's just there, reason be damned. Space behaves like a liquid within which all objects are suspended, AND there are additional mcguffins in place to make direct-fire weapons preferable to guided missiles. Therefore, we all get within spitting range of our targets and dogfight... just like Grandpa Lucas decreed in 1977. For an extreme example of liquid space, see Rebel Galaxy. In it, your ship literally grinds down to a halt the moment you let off the throttle, as if you are swimming through aspic.

So don't blame FD, blame George Lucas. He screwed us over way back then. And then screwed us over again by selling out so we can enjoy the adventures of Mary Sue and the Amazing Sanitation Worker.

I wasn't going to include this in my reply originally, but since you mentioned that movie I feel compelled to respond. Obviously and clearly, as my most post discussed, you missed the point by a mile. George Lucas didn't screw us. He made it 'fun' to watch - that is the point. If that movie was made to behave the way real physics do, then it would have been a complete flop; you sir need to stick to watching 2001: A Space Odyssey. I am not saying it wasn't a good movie (was rather descent), but it was made for a specific purpose and audience - to portray what the future 'reality' might be like. However, Stars Wars is a heck of a lot more fun to watch. By the way, I am willing to bet there are literally millions of fans out there that would disagree with you on this - good luck on fighting that one. George Lucas' overwhelming success all over the world with that movie is a complete and utter hand-in-the-face to ya - proof that what you're talking about it not what the majority want (just saying). ;-)

 

[Sir.Tj]

And on that note the thread will now be closed.

The Op has had their question answered and has commented as such.

Thanks all who contributed.