Missile speed

Weird thing is, of you drop a canister into orbit it does fall into the gravity well. Why not apply these physics to at LEAST the aftermath part?

as far as the instancing in elite dangerous works, its a bit more logical as long as you are outside the gavity well.

if you drop into a ring around a planet, the rocks may lock static to you, but your whole instance is still orbiting that planet, and as such, everything you drop does not drift automatically towards the planet.
if you drop into normal space within the gravity well of a planet its suddenly different. everything falls in a straight line towards the planet. you could say the instance created is in a geostationary orbit, but not a stable one.

THAT is what i find weird, especially when its a mission USS with cargo you need to salvage - that was perfectly stable until you are instanced with it together. suddenly all the salvage starts to accelerate towards the planet. perpendicular to the surface.
probably the price that had to be paid for the "seamless" descent to the ground.
 
...and weapon range is increased by an absurd amount if weapons followed Newtonian physics.

A more realistic physics model would require a full redesign of sensors and targeting (not even to sci-fi levels really, either) because things like lasers, railguns, missiles, and torpedoes would be effective at ranges that are currently absurd to consider fighting at. Combat would be dramatically different as a lot of combat would take place at beyond visual range - as it really should be for space combat anyway. I could see a lot more emphasis being placed on sensor accuracy, heat reduction mechanics, and things like chaff, point defense, and ECM.

"Legacy" kinetic weapons like cannons, multicannons, and frag-cannons would be more niche-use close-range tools.

Basically, combat would be a lot less "Star Wars" and a lot more "The Expanse". Imagine combat that used less of the pilot-centered system we have now, but instead used a weapons & targeting interface similar to the new exploration system, but geared for BVR ship-to-ship combat. Like I said, it would require a radical departure from what we have now, but could totally be fun in its own way, if that was what they designed for.

but who would pay for a game where your space combat is more or less a digital version of the game "battleship" -> shoot at A7 -> miss -> etc.
 
Newtonian physics is what you have when objects obey Newton's laws of motion...and our ships do, quite well, with FA Off, as long as certain relative velocities are not reached. You will accelerate correctly based on the forces applied, whether they come from thrusters, impacts, or gravity, until you reach those limits.

Don't forget that there's this bizarre, arbitrary turn rate thing going on too (as well as the speed caps you've mentioned). There's no Newtonian reason why a ship would have to be traveling at a specific speed to have optimal rotation rates (the blue zone), nor at a specific throttle setting (aside from 'maximum' from any attitude thrusters). Bizarre stuff seems to happen in FA off as well - I suspect there might be an extra curb or even boost added where it's not justified.

Plus I'd like to add that it's more like "accelerate correctly based on forces applied ... until you get close to those limits." Even with FA off, as you approach maximum speed, your acceleration drops off gradually, it doesn't suddenly hit zero (and being a programmer of similar simulations, I can imagine why, heh).

Finally - what is rotation correction doing whilst we dock? The rotating stations can't be handled by just a roll once you leave the central axis...

I can totally get why they'd do such things though. Frontier: Elite II used much more accurate Newtonian physics, and the fights really were largely just high speed jousting matches...sometimes taking several passes to even get close to a ship. Personally, I wouldn't have even bothered with the screwy hybrid stuff, and just made it X-Wing XIV: X-Wing Vs. Thargoid Interceptor.

RE: Missiles though - everybody should consider what it might mean if you could do fractional-c strikes with missiles, heh.

Edit: Oh yeah forgot the magical engine enhancement when we land on planets. The ships actually have awful thrusters and would crash on most planets without that magical boost ;)
 
Tail Chase Pursuit Guidance is boring. Takes no skill to use and no skill to avoid, only speed or an ecm. The problem with making a missile faster for this case is that the missile will always hit because ED missiles don't use guidance law, don't use Newtonian physics, nor do they drift. They go straight to their target at their defined speed.

If you are thinking that high velocity missiles would turn this game into some kind of battleship game, you're mistaken. In fact, Newtonian missiles which follow some rudimentary guidance law are the only type of missiles that will provide fun and meaningful gameplay. It is not even a matter of personal opinion because the current version does not have gameplay elements to even apply opinions to. It is factually simplistic. Lock on, fire, forget, and watch it either hit, get ecm'ed, or they literally outrun it which should never be the case for missile gameplay. In our case, they are just cannons that wipe out modules while never missing or requiring any aim.

In a Newtonian physics environment, a missile's maximum trajectory curvature will always be limited by it's acceleration, and that limit becomes more hindering the faster it goes. This means, if you are being chased, you will more likely get hit than if you were to joust it. The trick is only to maneuver out of the missile's curvature bounds. This depends on the lead guidance law coefficient, which can be set to either be perfectly accurate, or just accurate enough to work on some situations but not all. The latter is what is ideal for engaging gameplay. If you do not know what I'm talking about at this point, then your personal opinion is based on incomplete knowledge and you should think twice before spewing nonsense about battleship and long range combat. You don't even get to target ships beyond 7-13k so the argument gets silly on a basic level.
 
just a question:

how do we get from the initial question of "why are missiles not fired with the initial speed of the ship that fires them"
(aka in elite dangerous thats ~max 800m/s ship + 750m/s = 1550 m/s aka slower then an unmodified multicannon round)

to talking about missiles fired with fractions of c velocity?

if the speed vector of ships is already added to bullets and even those slow moving projectiles of plasma accelerators,
why would it matter for the even slower dumbfire and seeker missiles?
 
To sum up an answer to those arguing FOR realistic Newtonian physics, saying the game would devolve into jousting matches is somewhat innacurate.
Look at fighter plane evolution. Dog fighting and tossing out bombs by by hand eventually lead to modern jets, which operate using BVR (jargon for Beyond Visual Range). Space combat would be similar.

I imagine the linear progression would focus on 2 schools of combat:
1. BRV detection and engagement.
2. Detection circumvention and ambush tactics.

Basically long range cannon vs stealth ships lol. Seriously though, we would fight using high speed acceleration and target/fire systems to launch projectiles. If you were detected and didn't notice the aggressor, you would die in the first volley.

Basically Newtonian space combat would be boring as all hell for the skilled and a rebuy screen background for the unskilled. Or just an uptick in Mobius membership.
 
If ED did model the reaction mass, nothing would change. There is enough mass that leaves the ship via fuel consumption to account for any amount of thrust any ship in the game can produce with exhaust velocities below the speed of light. That they chose to abstract this a little more heavily than Kerbal (which absolutely does abstract things past a certain level of detail) is neither here nor there.



This is exactly backwards.

The laws of physics are the foundation, the stuff that breaks them for gameplay purposes is what's bolted on top.

OK, I'm not trying to spoil your day, and for what it's worth I think ED would be worse off if it tried to model full Newtonian physics.

However, as you seem to be familiar with Kerbal how about this as a challenge;

Using no hacks or mods of any kind, record a flight in kerbal that takes off from Kerbin, flies a straight line to an asteroid, and then does an immelman turn above it.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom