on the question of 'realism'

jedt

J
'realism', whatever that means, is something of a vexed topic in this forum.

given that we are talking about a space game... not a sim, how real does it have to be?

the flight model gets chewed over at great, and tedious, length. if it were implemented as is currently real then we would all be pottering around in near earth orbits in soyuz variants.

take it a step beyond. to kick off a discussion on 'realism' i will start with this...

the physiological effects of space flight. how will the ed model cope with such problems as muscle wastage and bone loss? given that we will, allegedly, be walking around in space stations or on planets after months of space flight.
 

Memnoch

M
I intend to get my self a couple of car batteries. To these I will attach leads that connect to a couple of those cilice things that those odd Opus Dei people wear, one wrapped about each thigh. Through the application of such technology I shall defeat muscle wastage. For bone loss I shall simply eat chalk. :)
 

Patrick_68000

Patrick_68000
There have been already discussions about the realism. I think the majority prefer the gameplay rather than too much realism. The pleasure of playing primarily to the detriment of boring realism.
 

Memnoch

M
If I just wanted realism I would go an play Orbiter. I want to fly around and shoot stuff, in addition to all the other bits. I want it to feel "realistic" enough to feel right, and fun enough to actually want to come back and play it again tomorrow.
 

jedt

J
eating chalk will, undoubtely, have some interesting scatological effects sadly prevention of bone loss is not one of them.
 

Memnoch

M
Okay, how about:

http://www.webmd.com/osteoporosis/guide/osteoporosis_treatment_care

But if we are talking about micro-gravity environments. I would imagine that a ships pilot would be under the effects of gravity a lot of the time as they fly about. It would be a poor comparison to look at our current space pioneers orbiting earth to someone piloting a space craft. And if they aren't in a regularly accelerating and decelerating ship they will pinned to the inside of a rotating space station.

Are they likely to suffer the same effects as our current astronauts? Perhaps the effects would be much reduced or the long term effects because their actual exposure to micro-gravity environments would be for a much smaller proportion of their time in space?
 

Kawboy

Kawboy
At least 3 hours a day, I'll put my ship in a spin sufficient to simulate 1 g and go lay on the hull.. and drink lot's of milk
 

jedt

J
Memnoch said:
Okay, how about:

http://www.webmd.com/osteoporosis/guide/osteoporosis_treatment_care

But if we are talking about micro-gravity environments. I would imagine that a ships pilot would be under the effects of gravity a lot of the time as they fly about. It would be a poor comparison to look at our current space pioneers orbiting earth to someone piloting a space craft. And if they aren't in a regularly accelerating and decelerating ship they will pinned to the inside of a rotating space station.

Are they likely to suffer the same effects as our current astronauts? Perhaps the effects would be much reduced or the long term effects because their actual exposure to micro-gravity environments would be for a much smaller proportion of their time in space?
Click to expand...

yes. fair point. i just posed that question as a start... in the hope that others have more ideas.
 

jedt

J
Kawboy said:
At least 3 hours a day, I'll put my ship in a spin sufficient to simulate 1 g and go lay on the hull.. and drink lot's of milk
Click to expand...

from where the milk is coming? bear in mind you have limited cargo space....or is it cows in space!!!!!! with the attendant fodder and scatological issues. jeeez i can't believe i just typed that...
 

NeoRacer

N
Thats taking it a bit too far. If I were you, I'd be more worried about ACTUAL MUSCLE WASTE..from sitting in a chair with OR on for days on end lol


jedt said:
'realism', whatever that means, is something of a vexed topic in this forum.

given that we are talking about a space game... not a sim, how real does it have to be?

the flight model gets chewed over at great, and tedious, length. if it were implemented as is currently real then we would all be pottering around in near earth orbits in soyuz variants.

take it a step beyond. to kick off a discussion on 'realism' i will start with this...

the physiological effects of space flight. how will the ed model cope with such problems as muscle wastage and bone loss? given that we will, allegedly, be walking around in space stations or on planets after months of space flight.
Click to expand...
 

jedt

J
NeoRacer said:
Thats taking it a bit too far. If I were you, I'd be more worried about ACTUAL MUSCLE WASTE..from sitting in a chair with OR on for days on end lol
Click to expand...

ah... i don't have or and i have to get up every now and then to milk the cow....
 

Memnoch

M
NeoRacer said:
Thats taking it a bit too far. If I were you, I'd be more worried about ACTUAL MUSCLE WASTE..from sitting in a chair with OR on for days on end lol
Click to expand...

And after a 27 hour epic ED session, Memnoch finally removes his OR as the hunger pains kick in...

Gareb.jpg
 

Ittiz

Ittiz
I think the issue of realism has been so hotly debated on here because we all have different expectations of what this game is. Some people think it's ridicules to want physics as real as you can get (Einstienian would be great ;)). First off we have to remember a few things. This is a game set in the future. It's a space trading game. Certain technologies are presumed to exist. Aliens exist. We have to keep all those things in mind before realism is discussed. So taking the very premise of the game into account people floating around in Soyuz variants is unrealistic. Why would we do that when we have jump drives and fusion rockets? It doesn't make sense.

So boiling it down one group of people want a game that is essentially a fantasy world simulation of David Braben's vision of the future. So basically they take part in a fantasy world that beyond its setting is as real as possible. The other side of the coin is the people who want to play a game based on David Braben's vision of the future. It just has to be realistic enough for the game to feel real, but not so real playing the game gets in the way of having fun.

For the first group cutting corners kinda wrecks it. For the second group over complicating something that could seem real, but be fun and easy if they just fudged things is annoying and not fun to play.

The big question is why do we have these two camps? The answer is simple David Braben made two game series based (debatablely) on the same universe. The Elite Series and the Frontier Series. They are even called different things, even though Frontier was called the sequel to Elite. Fundamentally they are different. Elite was a space trading game and Frontier was a Space trading simulation that was as real as we could get with the hardware of the day. So the two camps were formed based on which game that particular person liked and got immersed in.

So looking at the debate about Elite: Dangerous we have to think about which one of these camps it was meant to serve. Even though FD says it's the sequel to Frontier First Encounters I think the name says it all. It's not called "Frontier: Dangerous" it's called "Elite: Dangerous." So it's the first real sequel to Elite.

Sad for someone like me since I was never able to get into Elite, but loved Frontier. I just hope that someday FD does make another Frontier.
 

laforge

L
Imo the debate about the flight model is more a debate about good and bad science fiction. As a rule of thumb one can say that good science fiction is something which does not interfere or only subtle interfere with present science, while bad science fiction have obvious contradictions to todays physics. It is very subjective what 'subtle' means, so we have alot discussion going on :)
 

Hamerstein

Hamerstein
laforge said:
Imo the debate about the flight model is more a debate about good and bad science fiction. As a rule of thumb one can say that good science fiction is something which does not interfere or only subtle interfere with present science, while bad science fiction have obvious contradictions to todays physics. It is very subjective what 'subtle' means, so we have alot discussion going on :)
Click to expand...

Hmm I'm more inclined to think that good science fiction is internally consistent. If your sci-fi universe has space unicorns that's fine, just as long as your space unicorns work consistently within the confines of your universe.

The risk with defining the quality of science fiction by today's science facts are that you cannot be certain that your facts are in fact, facts. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom