Is Elite Dangerous a simulator to you?

I think it's more of a game than a simulator as it is quite arcadey.
Bit of a tangent, people keep using the term "arcadey"... what do people mean by this?

I have my own idea of it, but the way it gets used, i feel like people mistakenly bought Elite thinking they were buying Compton's Multimedia Encyclopedia.

Edit: fyi, not commenting explicitly on your use here Bob, just a more general observation.
 
Well I hate to say it OP, but Elite Dangerous is

NOT A [FLIGHT] SIMULATOR

I've only just realized this in a big, bold font way. You see, I've been learning how to fly my newly-constructed Krait in Space Engineers, and holy freaking cow is that hard! In SE, weight and mass (two different things depending if I'm over a 1G planet or in space), inertia, ship orientation all matter greatly. This thing drifts way worse than the Dropship and takes much longer to slow down than a Cutter. I basically need to flip around like The Expanse if I want to slow down "quickly" by using the main thrusters for braking. In gravity it's even harder to fly. If I point the nose at a down angle while flying over a normal-size planet, I will pick up forward velocity because the braking thrusters cannot counter the weight of the ship. The vertical thrusters barely keep the ship in the sky, and if I fill my cargo bay to the max, they actually won't! If I turn upside-down, I will start to fall. As for routine things like docking, lining up with a docking collar takes serious precision, time, and practice. And then there is combat - engagements feel more like Navy ship battles than jet fighters in space (unless I'm using an actual 'jet fighter' SLF). Big ships do not turn and flip like they magically do in ED.

And then there is power management, which is much more involved than ED. I can burn through a quarter of my fuel just landing, and if I'm not careful my batteries can give out causing my atmospheric vertical thrusters to die, at which point my Krait falls from the sky like a brick. To manage fuel and power, I have "pips" for all the various class of thrusters - main thrusters, vertical thrusters, lateral thrusters, braking thrusters, and atmospheric thrusters, all of which I toggle on and off to save fuel. Flying FA-Off is pretty much a requirement except for docking and course correction, as FA-On consumes way more fuel and power.

While all this probably sounds like a nightmare to the average ED player, I personally LOVE it. It makes flying challenging, fun, and realistic. After all, I'm flying a freaking factory-sized building with "wings", not Bruno Stachel's aerobatic airplane. This along with well-implemented space legs gives a way better sense of scale, which is ironic since I play SE on a laptop screen and ED in VR. Let me say it again, the Krait is a freaking BIG ship - bigger than the factory I used to build it! In SE, it feels properly big. In ED it does not, even in VR.

So yeah, my lego / Minecraft space game is much more of a simulator (even though it's not truly a simulator) than ED is. ED is a complex arcade game in comparison, a truth I only recently have come to learn...

Not saying your assertion is wrong, but your post doesn't support it.

You built a ship in a different game that is not analogous to it's ED inspiration and highlighted the greater difficulties in doing much more manually, with equipment of far inferior performance.

If I had a realistic flight simulator of flying a toy quadcopter, it would be phenomenally easy to fly, even arcadey, because a real toy quadcopter is mostly flown by it's own electronics that translate user commands into actions. For example, I do not have to manually balance the torque of each individual rotor dozens of times a second, I just have to let go of the controls and it will hover, almost perfectly stable, even in adverse conditions, by itself. I could certainly build a superficially similar quadcopter in another simulator, try to fly it without the accelerometers, gyroscopes, and computers that makes flying a real one practical, then comment how much more complex and difficult it is. I could even use lead acid batteries instead of lithium polymer ones, and crappy handwound dipole electric motors, just to make it sluggish and gobble power, but it wouldn't be a better toy quadcopter simulator.

This is what you did with Space Engineers.

Bit of a tangent, people keep using the term "arcadey"... what do people mean by this?


If you've ever been to a video arcade and played something with tanks, guns, or aircraft that are superficially similar to real ones, you'll get the meaning.
 
If you've ever been to a video arcade and played something with tanks, guns, or aircraft that are superficially similar to real ones, you'll get the meaning.
Oh yeah, I'm well aware of what a video arcade is i just really don't understand it's use to describe elite; like i said, it's broad use by players in general seems to imply I'd have a hard time finding anything you could call a game which wouldn't be classified as "arcadey"...

Frankly, i think it's use belies an inability in most cases to actually articulate the problem people have with the game, and it's just "The cool criticism to make" for most people right now.

In short, i have an understanding of what "arcadey" means, and it feels like the term is being misused to the point of meaninglessness.
 
Not saying your assertion is wrong, but your post doesn't support it.

You built a ship in a different game that is not analogous to it's ED inspiration and highlighted the greater difficulties in doing much more manually, with equipment of far inferior performance.

If I had a realistic flight simulator of flying a toy quadcopter, it would be phenomenally easy to fly, even arcadey, because a real toy quadcopter is mostly flown by it's own electronics that translate user commands into actions. For example, I do not have to manually balance the torque of each individual rotor dozens of times a second, I just have to let go of the controls and it will hover, almost perfectly stable, even in adverse conditions, by itself. I could certainly build a superficially similar quadcopter in another simulator, try to fly it without the accelerometers, gyroscopes, and computers that makes flying a real one practical, then comment how much more complex and difficult it is. I could even use lead acid batteries instead of lithium polymer ones, and crappy handwound dipole electric motors, just to make it sluggish and gobble power, but it wouldn't be a better toy quadcopter simulator.

This is what you did with Space Engineers.
SE has the equivalent of FA-On, just like ED, but this can't change the laws of physics. All my manual additions are for efficiency sake, not to win this argument LOL. You've defended Elite's magic thrusters in the past with great zeal, so I know I'll not win you over to my "side", but is "simulating" magic actually a simulation? Sure "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic", but once you use this logic to call ED a simulator, then Skyrim is also a simulator, as is basically any other 3D game. Heck, FPS have been called "murder simulators", but they tend not to be labeled as such in the game industry. Now Flight SIMULATOR, on the other hand...

Supposedly KSP 2 will have magic rocket engines from the future. Perhaps I'll build a Corvette to specs in that game (which is pretty darn close to a simulator) and see if I can toss it around like a rag doll the way we can in Elite :p
 
I wonder how many other people treat Elite Dangerous as a simulation type of game in the first place... Let me know! :)
Whats the point I wonder? What "is" is a pretty useless question as you can expect 8 billion different answers. What conclusion do you want to draw from it?
 
Bit of a tangent, people keep using the term "arcadey"... what do people mean by this?

I have my own idea of it, but the way it gets used, i feel like people mistakenly bought Elite thinking they were buying Compton's Multimedia Encyclopedia.

Edit: fyi, not commenting explicitly on your use here Bob, just a more general observation.
For example, landing in Elite Dangerous is very simplistic when compared to a flight simulator. There is no instrument panel to align and guide you into the station. You just fly through a gap and hope for best.

The flight mechanics gave up on using newtonian physics to make the combat more fun.
 
Last edited:
Gameplay is a "Simcade": fact

[Arcade]------------------[Simcade]---ED--------------[Simulator]|

I place it like the first Project Cars which was on the sim side of simcade but was still defo simcade. ED is not deep enough in any areas to quality for simulator [edit Stella-forge maybe is?] but it is too deep for an arcade. Like ED.
 
Last edited:
Bit of a tangent, people keep using the term "arcadey"... what do people mean by this?

I have my own idea of it, but the way it gets used, i feel like people mistakenly bought Elite thinking they were buying Compton's Multimedia Encyclopedia.

Edit: fyi, not commenting explicitly on your use here Bob, just a more general observation.
Hitpoints (Health), damage model, flight model, spawning behaviour, RNG reliance, loot, game economy from the top of my head. I mean mostly Flight model and economy when I coin ED as arcadey.
 
The very first generation of sims began around the same time as Elite - so you had Aviator, the first 8-bit flight sim i was aware of, from Geoff Crammond, and then for example Revs, the very first racing sim in the modern vein, also from Geoff Crammond..

These were true 'sims' in that the 'game' element was in learning to control the vehicle against the natural physical forces being applied to it as you move through the world - so keeping your airspeed up, your landing speed down etc., or sensing the rubber-squealing limits of lateral traction as you cling to the edges of the 80's Silverstone GP layout..


So when i wasn't playing Elite, i was playing these games, or else if i wanted an arcade blast then i'd load a shoot-em up or scroller, or maybe a puzzle game or text adventure etc..

So the 'sim' category of gaming became well established in the same years we were playing Elite..

..and within that context, classic Elite was a space adventure game with space-sim aspirations, in that it was a fully 3D environment that gave the player 6DoF, and thus 3D spatial awareness of your heading and direction relative to other bodies, of what nearby ships were doing, and in the heat of battle especially this spatial awareness was incredibly immersive, and felt compellingly 'simmy'.

You were also very much aware however that it was taxing every last transistor in your micro, and the framerate could drop to 1 FPS as enemy hulls popped off around you in a tight furball..

And much was plainly 'missing' insofar as its belonging was implied by the core defining game concept (seamless 6DoF with no walls or limits), even though it was clearly not practical to include; so for example if you fly too close to a planet, you just explode without any planetary-specific effects.

And there were just two types of planet - death stars and basket balls. Both did admiral jobs in conveying shape and spin, but they were obviously too small and too coarsely detailed for the game concept that was implied, as opposed to what it was actually feasible to include.


Elite's 2 & 3 blew the lid off those constraints, because Braben arguably only needed a few more kb's to add them, whereas the Amiga had 64x the available memory..

Thus the Frontier: Elite engine simply pulled out all the stops - there were no more limits for all practical intents and purposes, so planets had terrain, craters, land bases, cities, rivers and bridges and sprawling suburbs whether open-air or domed, atmospheres had 'density' and 'viscosity' in terms of drag and hull heating relative to speed, thermodynamics modelling in terms of damage relative to heating - basic implementations, but they were there. All basic 'consistency' checkboxes, covered..

So yes, absolutely: Elite now became the proper sim it was born to be, what it had always wanted, and promised, to fulfill. That realism was no longer 'implied' or 'alluded to' - it was jut all there. No limits, go where you want, do what you want, how you want, when you want.

And it totally worked, in a magical and exhilerating way that no game before or since has been able to touch. Frontier: Elite belongs in the Science Museum. It should have borne a virtual space race that would've lead to a modern Elite that pwned half the internet..

The result was that 'the game' was the simulation. Frontier: Elite basically opened up a portal to another universe, a near-infinite playground of naturalistic, emergent thrills limited only by the imagination..


Note here for example, i've clocked incoming attackers at range, and lead them down to the surface of a nearby planet, choosing a battleground to my advantage:

clickme

Note the yellow "hull temp" bar on the console as the ship first tucks into the tenuous atmosphere, the complete freedom to thrust and rotate in any plane or axis, skimming the surface while panning around.. likewise, the enemy ships getting it wrong and exploding as they enter atmosphere too fast, smoking debris falling back down under gravity..

This, surely, is what Braben meant when describing the game's 'sense of immediacy' - it's fluid, intuitively responsive, a quality that comes into its own in Elite's classic furballs:

clickme

And OMG - gravity! Just that one, beautiful simple element - a constant, uniform acceleration towards bodies as a function of their mass and distance! So simple to implement as to be virtually free, yet a whole transformative world of gaming in its own right!

The art of falling.. falling, with style. Wild elipticals, or expertly-low altitudes with near-zero corrections:

clickme

Aerobraking against a brown dwarf, or slinghotting around a neutron star. How about a figure-8 slingshot between two neutron stars, or between a neutron star and a blue giant? Go find 'em and try it!

It's the promise of that first, classic Elite, finally realised. No fakesies:

clickme

That's sim-gaming, no question, right? It's messing about on the water.. stretching your wings, a Sunday drive, or sitting on a bench in San Andreas watching the world go by - the game is the sim. You can do anything, but don't have to. VR.

For a taste of what a modern Elite might offer, look no further than Pioneer:

clcikme

It's a pity Pioneer lacks Elite's intense fixed-beams CQB - imagine a good furball in those environments!


But in conclusion, ED is, by design, the modern 'anti-elite' - the literal antithesis of everything Elite stands for: you're not allowed full ship control, you're not really managing conservation of momentum or kinetic energy or gravity in a naturalistic way, it's all canned FX and arcade set-pieces for a MMP skinnerbox cash-cow, only faithful to the first-gen game in alluding to and implying the possibilities it can't actually deliver, all of Frontier: Elite's breakthoughs abandonded but for the dissociated backdrop of astronomical realism..

The result, for this old commander, is that when i point an ED ship at a planet and open the throttles, it lurches forwards, groaning, then the thrusters shut down and cease responding to inputs; the planet should immediately start growing to fill the screen, yet nothing happens and i'm just stuck there unable to move..

So you gotta enable the no-clipping mo- i mean, "warp drive", with a transition, with a countdown, with a loading frenzy and a change in environment and then more of these interrupting transitions removing more and more freedom of movement - orbital cruise, glide mode, critical attack angle - all of which belong in scare quotes of course - the gameplay limitations are slave to its inner gears, springs and pulleys and they're simply incapable of rendering the 'Elite' gaming environment, so can only paint allusions and homages to it.

I see ED fans as naive, not realising they could actually be doing all this stuff for real, instead of the pretense and artifice of realism that is all ED can fulfill.

I'll be generous, and say that ED is faithful to classic Elite only if ED2 is basically Frontier: Elite 4, finally making good on the promise of its foreunner. It remains a complete affront to the Frontier: Elite ethos though - which found the game in the simulation, rather than just tacking disparate game elements onto a spacey backdrop, selling out the brand & concept for a revenue stream..


TL;DR - too damn right Elite's a sim. The mother all.

But ED ain't Elite..

Pioneer is, plainly, more Elite-ish than ED, yet it too falls short of that marque, with no fixed-beam CQB. But it's still a sim, in the Elite tradition.

ED is a game about that sim, referencing it in many ways, yet whilst replicating almost nothing of its actual gameplay; the allure is there, but possibilites never realised have only so much enduring appeal.. and going through the motions of pretense in ED when i could be playing the real deal with slightly older graphics is no compromise..



Edited as this ghastly forum s/w breaks all your yt links
This is one of my favorite posts in a long time, and it has me wishing I hadn't missed out on Frontier: Elite (I was active duty at the time, no games).
 
To me, Elite is an odd simulator.

Take flying the ships - this simulation of what future space ships are like is both awesome and flawed.

I think we all know what works, but what doesn't simulate well includes the extremely week thursters that make flying a spaceship more like flying a plane (i.e. you can't turn side to side fast, but can turn up and down fast - a change made in the beta because allegedly someone didn't like feeling like they were flying a turret?)

That, plus there's no real FA off mode - while you can coast forever in space (and Space Engineers) when you cut your thrust to zero, this doesn't work in Elite.

Then you have the weird gravity in supercruise - granted supercruise is a "made up" thing so they can make it behave anyway they want, but the whole unstoppable acceleration if you cross the invisible line has always seemed weird to me - it is absolutely not like speeding down a hill.

Honestly, has no one in the future thought of installing a small supercruise engine in reverse so we can have space breaks? (aka reverse supercruise)

Don't get me wrong, I think Elite is a fun game, but I'd only call it "simulator like."
 
Many people enjoy flying and fighting flight assist off which gives a quasy (speed limited) Newtonian physics. That bit become closer to simulating certain flight models.
Being able to flip and spin a skyscraper like it's a WWII biplane (even with FA-off) may not technically break Newtonian physics (as long as you use Morbad's magic thrusters), but it feels like it would at least break the ship itself along with the crew and passengers inside!
 
Being able to flip and spin a skyscraper like it's a WWII biplane (even with FA-off) may not technically break Newtonian physics (as long as you use Morbad's magic thrusters), but it feels like it would at least break the ship itself along with the crew and passengers inside!
Haha!

I agree. I mainly fly small ships so forget about the bigger ones. Though that still depends on the positions of the thrusters to where stresses will be. That's wot I rekon though but I'm not a structural space-engineer!

For ships like asp and the best ship in the world, an engineered Sidey, where the centre of gravity is more centred and the distance from which is more uniform, I do thing you are good to go. :) I am not sure even when you clip something and spin out would damage the ship??

Dunno
 
Hitpoints (Health), damage model, flight model, spawning behaviour, RNG reliance, loot, game economy from the top of my head. I mean mostly Flight model and economy when I coin ED as arcadey.
For example, landing in Elite Dangerous is very simplistic when compared to a flight simulator. There is no instrument panel to align and guide you into the station. You just fly through a gap and hope for best.

The flight mechanics gave up on using newtonian physics to make the combat more fun.
See, both these seem like incredibly low bars to declare a game "Arcade". I mean, I'm not going to sit here and argue subjective definitions, but if that's the threshold for something to be "arcade", then so too were the original Elite, FE2 and FFE, as they all tick most of those boxes.

So, going back to my original comment, I'm not enitrely sure what the expectation was for ED to be, other than a replication of it's predecessors which were all, ultimately, games, not simulators, if the definition we seem to be edging towards is that all games are "arcadey", which is kinda a useless term at that point.
 
It's not a sim.

Correction, it is not a study sim or commercial simulator used for training. It is obviously a sim, like many other desktop sims out there.

I have a bunch of driving/space/flight simulators on my hard drive, from casual to commercial, you can even download software for commercial fixed based sims online.

Nothing is going to change the fact that they all use the title 'Simulator'
 
Last edited:
See, both these seem like incredibly low bars to declare a game "Arcade". I mean, I'm not going to sit here and argue subjective definitions, but if that's the threshold for something to be "arcade", then so too were the original Elite, FE2 and FFE, as they all tick most of those boxes.

So, going back to my original comment, I'm not enitrely sure what the expectation was for ED to be, other than a replication of it's predecessors which were all, ultimately, games, not simulators.
Yes, Elite franchise was always more game than sim. That's nothing bad per se. Arcadey means however a too simple mechanic when I use it. e.g: flight model speed limit. It's done because of MP, but I find that price was too high. It's a fricken space game after all.
 
Back
Top Bottom