Proposal Discussion Elite: Dangerous is a "fly by wire" flight sim?!

[Zieman]

I believe it has been said that it will always be possible to swap to the single player offline mode anyway if you decide it is not your bag.

So the way I see it, there is no reason what so ever not to start in Ironman, then make the call when you die whether to go into the All pot, and then check that out, and then if that is no good, go into the single player online (with the option to invite a select few), before finally giving up and going offline.

on the other hand, if you start in the SP Offline mode, I dont think you can transfer into the online world.

(please correct me if I am wrong).

I view the SP offline as an absolutely last resort (like if you internet connection isn't stable, or you want to play while not being connected)). SP online gives you the evolving Galaxy, if you don't want any interaction with other players.

 

[The Space Pirate]

WHAT? You guys already have personal space ships over there in the UK???


PS: I don't think the network code prediction / extrapolation isn't really the main point for limiting speeds, since acceleration is constant and the only factor for the prediction. Solutions could have been found for that, like for any technical problem.

Yep - no other country has them. We like flying them over the States and causing UFO panics.

 

[Gibbonici]

Maybe someone from space, or the future, could comment on how realistic the experience is for those concerned?

I'm from the future but not in the alpha so I couldn't say.

I can say that Elite:Elite:Elite:Elite:Elite:Elite:Elite:Elite: Dangerous is a great game though, but the time travel mechanic is a bit controversial for some, being that it follows a linear model rather than the full-multiversal simulation favoured by purists. Thing is 4-dimensional networking isn't up to full-multiversal simulation, and besides that the gameplay would be rubbish. I mean who wants to play as an infinitely elliptical quantum waveform in a massless space-time, even if it is scientifically accurate?

 

[laforge]

My impression was that the main issue was tracking player speeds and positions at ridiculously fast relative velocities. The "jousting in space" seemed like more of a secondary concern. Wasn't there something about an upper relative speed that the network code could handle?

In my opinion i'd rather switch to a server-client model if this can fix issues like that as long as there can be no solution found in the p2p model. Thre should be enough money to finance such a concept. Of course this would make alot work now in this stage of development, but the gain you would get would be huge.

So far we have just one map, lets wait until we see supercruise in action.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

In my opinion i'd rather switch to a server-client model if this can fix issues like that as long as there can be no solution found in the p2p model. Thre should be enough money to finance such a concept. Of course this would make alot work now in this stage of development, but the gain you would get would be huge.

So far we have just one map, lets wait until we see supercruise in action.

you are making the assumption that the current model is broken and is infact inferior to what DB would ideally like.

I think that is potentially an incorrect assumption. No doubt, the net code needs work, and indeed I think the devs have said it is getting a major overhaul over the coming months.

 

[Ayo]

Hey Ayo. Thanks for the intel. This was exactly what I was worried about...
Are you in the alpha, and are you happy with it. From what you wrote, I'm guessing you'r not, but maybe you would like to elaborate?

I'm not in alpha so I don't have hands on experience. I'm happy with it and I'm worried about it. From the point of view of making fights exciting and interesting, I quite like it. I'm not sure it would ever be as fun with a full Newtonian flight modal, but I just don't see yet how it will work on a large scale over vast distances between large gravitational spheres of influence when those bodies are moving relative to each other at much greater speeds than the top speed these ships can fly.

 

[Zak Gordon]

Welcome to the forums Globusdiablo, and because people have been down rating your thread i'm going to give it 5 stars.

This topic has been done to death, which is why people are voting your thread down. A lot of detail is in the DDF forum archives, it can be pretty detailed, so go in to it in the same way you would a physics exam and you will be fine

I'm a Newtonian fan, i love Frontier and FFE more than the original Elite in part due to there use of it. I love the I-war series of space flight games. I grew up playing those flight sim games on computer that required you to read a large manual and use a keyboard overlay for the dozens of keyboard commands you needed to know to actually play those kind of games. I love detailed. I love the realism it brings to the game.

Having said that I know many people do not, especially these days. We have grown accustomed to i-phone game simplicity, and that has meant many people feel they won't have the time and patience to invest in very demanding games anymore.

So this all has an impact on a games design (not just this one, but most modern games suffer from this). The MP aspect was very much a shaping influence on ED also. You simply can't have a MP game within the Newtonian framework, it just would not work.

Still if you go look at a bunch of the alpha gameplay video's i think you will agree it looks pretty good, even without full Newtonian physics. It will be interesting to see what advantage (if any!) turning off flight assist may give in combat, so it may turn out be a good option to go for, for those that have the time and patience to learn it's more complex controls? I wonder if anyone has tried this yet?

 

[Philip Coutts]

Still if you go look at a bunch of the alpha gameplay video's i think you will agree it looks pretty good, even without full Newtonian physics. It will be interesting to see what advantage (if any!) turning off flight assist may give in combat, so it may turn out be a good option to go for, for those that have the time and patience to learn it's more complex controls? I wonder if anyone has tried this yet?

The best pilots I've come up against in the Alpha are flying a mix of FAon / FAoff so for me there is a clear benefit and it's a skill based benefit.

 

[Zak Gordon]

The best pilots I've come up against in the Alpha are flying a mix of FAon / FAoff so for me there is a clear benefit and it's a skill based benefit.

Awesome! And there you go OP, worry not, flying more like you are used to in Frontier and FFE will serve you well

Thanks for the info Philip

 

[noodle]

Awesome! And there you go OP, worry not, flying more like you are used to in Frontier and FFE will serve you well

Thanks for the info Philip

That assumes that the primary objection to a lack of Newtonian flight is the combat model (although even here, FA off doesn't give you Newtonian flight due to nerfed speed and yaw). My main objection is the issues it creates with speed relative to orbital bodies etc. It remains to be seen how much supercruise will mitigate that.

 

[Philip Coutts]

Awesome! And there you go OP, worry not, flying more like you are used to in Frontier and FFE will serve you well

Thanks for the info Philip

No problem the 3 best pilots I've come up against are (in no particular order) Cmdrs Sunffler, Avior and Alex Mua'dib. As I say they fly a mix of FAon / off and seem to be able to turn very quickly and have an unnering way of keeping you in their sights whilst staying out of your sights! If you put in the time and practice with FAoff I really believe it will give you an edge and add something different to your gameplay.

There are other tricks and tips for non-FAoff pilots and what has become very clear during Alpha is the flight model is very easy to pick up and play but there is a real depth to it once you start to get into it.

 

[Cosmo Bozo]

In my opinion i'd rather switch to a server-client model if this can fix issues like that as long as there can be no solution found in the p2p model. Thre should be enough money to finance such a concept. Of course this would make alot work now in this stage of development, but the gain you would get would be huge.

So far we have just one map, lets wait until we see supercruise in action.

Doesn't star citizen have exactly the same issue? With their server/client system...

 

[Associat0r]

That assumes that the primary objection to a lack of Newtonian flight is the combat model (although even here, FA off doesn't give you Newtonian flight due to nerfed speed and yaw).

This is nonsense, Elite: Dangerous is newtonian and no speed/yaw constraints imposed by the flight computer is gonna change that fact.

My main objection is the issues it creates with speed relative to orbital bodies etc. It remains to be seen how much supercruise will mitigate that.

This has already been explained months ago, that it will just seamlessly blend across them even in conventional flight.

Threads like this make me angry and should be closed, since they perpetuate misinformation and make our game look bad for no reason, also stop putting the simplistic point mass physics model of FE2/FFE on a pedestal it had FBW too, it's outdated and incomplete (doesn't handle rotation) by today's standards.

 

[noodle]

This is nonsense, Elite: Dangerous is newtonian and no speed/yaw constraints imposed by the flight computer is gonna change that fact.

Please don't be rude. If there is an artificially imposed maximum speed, and an artificially restricted range of movement, then it cannot possibly be described as Newtonian. So it would be nice if you could avoid dismissing someone's opinion as "nonsense" just because you don't agree with it.

This has already been explained months ago, that it will just seamlessly blend across them even in conventional flight.

I disagree. I think there are a lot of questions still to answer.

Threads like this make me angry

Then you have some anger issues that you need to address. Please don't take them out on me.

and should be closed

since they perpetuate misinformation

Can't speak for the whole thread, but my posts certainly don't do that.

and make our game look bad

It's not "our" game. It's "a" game. And like all games, it will have some elements that are good, some elements that are bad, and some elements that are entirely a matter of personal preference. I'm in the alpha and loving it, so any comments I make are entirely constructive. Anything I don't like about the game is a matter of personal preference, and that doesn't make it "bad". I would hope most people are capable of understanding such a distinction.

for no reason, also stop putting the simplistic point mass physics model of FE2/FFE on a pedestal

Please address this at someone else, because it certainly has nothing to do with anything that I said.

 

[J.T.Kirk]

What a pointless thread, indeed. The whole thing has been discussed to death. I'm happy E: D doesn't have FE2/FFE's flight mechanics and is closer to the original Elite. As it should be.

 

[noodle]

What a pointless thread, indeed. The whole thing has been discussed to death. I'm happy E: D doesn't have FE2/FFE's flight mechanics and is closer to the original Elite. As it should be.

What a pointless comment. If you don't want to contribute to the discussion, then you're not obliged to

 

[Philip Coutts]

Okay deep breath everyone, lets not have this descend into the ***-for-tat that previous discussions have become. There are valid points on both sides but ultimately it's up to Frontier to make the game that they want to make and the one that they think will appeal to the widest possible player base.

 

[laforge]

+1 for noodle

What a pointless thread, indeed. The whole thing has been discussed to death. I'm happy E: D doesn't have FE2/FFE's flight mechanics and is closer to the original Elite. As it should be.

And yet you felt to post in this thread your personal opinion as well... so many posts in such a short time. I dont think this makes the thread pointless.

 

[noodle]

Okay deep breath everyone, lets not have this descend into the ***-for-tat that previous discussions have become. There are valid points on both sides but ultimately it's up to Frontier to make the game that they want to make and the one that they think will appeal to the widest possible player base.

Which I don't think anyone would disagree with

I will miss elements of the fully Newtonian model, but I think the combat is more fun, I can understand the MP reasons why full Newtonian is probably impossible, and I'm open to the idea the FD might address some of my concerns in exciting and interesting ways - like the frame shift drive.

 

[J.T.Kirk]

What a pointless comment. If you don't want to contribute to the discussion, then you're not obliged to

I'm sorry, but what is there to "discuss"? This has been discussed to death, and the game will be released this year. Or are you suggesting to change the flight mechanics of the game now? If you don't see it as a pointless discussion, I rest my case.