Overshooting while Approaching Planets and Stations

[Itaki]

Is there any at least demi-realistic background to overshooting, e.g. in physics or rocket science? Or was it invented only to annoy people like so many other "features" of this game?

Cheers, Eric

SC can automatically adjust speed in the beginning of a trip while at full throttle.
SC can automatically slam on the brakes when you overshoot your destination at full throttle. Or is that gravitational pull?
Why does 75% throttle defeat Gravity?
SC for some bizarre reason can't slow down to correct SC exit speed if at full throttle.

Meh who cares? Just overshoot it then swing back around.

 

[MadDogMurdock]

I have no real problem with a maximum speed limit for gameplay purposes but there are far better ways of implementing the boost mechanic than what FD has chosen. For example they could have restricted boost "decay" to FA-On flight model only and allowed you to retain boost speed during FA-Off maneuvers. As it currently stands however FA-Off not only gives you zero assistance with maneuvering (i.e., the FA-Off mode won't even help to stabilize the ship's direction when you center the flight stick) you are still required to repeatedly boost to maintain your velocity.

The only situation where you get "free" maximum velocity with no need to repeatedly boost is when you're boosting and your thrusters are destroyed. For some reason the game is OK with indefinite boost speed when your thrusters are completely shot out, but not at any other time.

If you reboot-repair, however, you immediately start losing speed so that you return to zero velocity to repair those inactive thrusters.

It's not just an issue of being a poor gameplay decision, it's an issue that the game mechanics aren't even internally consistent with how the thrusters behave when comparing FA-On, FA-Off, "destroyed" thrusters and reboot/repair modes.



Sorry, you clearly haven't followed any of those steps. Go back and read steps 1-5 again.

The various flight model limitations in Elite are arbitrary, make for poor gameplay and aren't even internally consistent, in addition to not having any realistic relationship to Newtonian physics.



Sorry, but you have no idea what you're talking about here. Applying aspects of Newtonian flight mechanics to ships in Elite has nothing to do with "networking". Absolutely nothing. It has nothing to do with latency or network communication at all.

You simply aren't capable of understanding this so I would recommend that you stop pretending you know anything about programming or networking.

I suppose the game's designers don't know what they're talking about either:
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...r-in-real-time?p=167042&viewfull=1#post167042

 

[Lucian667]

I suppose the game's designers don't know what they're talking about either:
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...r-in-real-time?p=167042&viewfull=1#post167042

That's a really good link because it proves that the devs deliberately made things unrealistic in order to maintain the fun factor, specifically this quote.....

Now is this "realistic"? No. But then, neither is the 500 metres per second cap, so I'm not worrying, because: is it useful? Very! It allows ships to get away and catch up. It allows us to have additional ways to differentiate ships. In effect it's us designers going, "let's try and turn this frown upside down!"

And as Mike quite truthfully highlights; in our testing so far, speeds over 200 metres per second very quickly turn into something approaching the love child of medieval tilting and demolition derby. I can assure you, this is a lot less interesting than it sounds.

If it comes to a choice between realism and fun, I'm going to choose fun every single time.

 

[Devari]

I suppose the game's designers don't know what they're talking about either:
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...r-in-real-time?p=167042&viewfull=1#post167042

First, implementing a maximum speed is only one very specific aspect that relates to a Newtonian flight model and everything I'm discussing assumes that a maximum speed is kept in place for gameplay reasons. I'm focusing on all of the other flight model decisions they've made which are arbitrary such as boosting mechanics and those have nothing to do with maximum speeds which is a separate issue entirely. If you understood the implementation of Newtonian physics to flight models you would have realized that implementing a maximum speed for gameplay reasons is a completely separate decision from requiring players to push "boost" every 5 seconds to maintain whatever arbitrary maximum speed that FD has chosen to implement.

Second, FD dramatically over-simplifies game issues and this gets them in trouble frequently when players call them out on their "explanations" which are often misleading or flat-out incorrect. Even if you accepted what FD is claiming about a "limit" for ship speeds you would have realized that are many projectiles and other objects in the game that go much faster than 500 m/s. They have chosen to limit ship speeds WELL below what the game engine can easily handle which means the particular limit they've chosen for typical ship speeds is very much an arbitrary range.

Like I said you need to understand Newtonian physics (which you don't) and you need to understand actual game engine limitations (which have nothing to do with requiring a player to push boost every 5 seconds). Until you can demonstrate that you actually understand these issues you simply aren't going to be able to understand the concepts I'm describing.

 

[rrobes]

The game does cheat, next time you approach an USS, change your targeting from the USS to another object, say a planet, see what happens to your speed. This anomaly has nothing to do with gravity.

I use this effect to slow down while approaching the USS if there is a separate handy target in view.

If you're in a relatively agile ship, you can have fun half-looping by a nearby planet to reduce speed on approach to ports and pop out of SC at the last moment. My Corvette and Python are good at that, my Anaconda not so much.

 

[Matt Harpring]

The game does cheat, next time you approach an USS, change your targeting from the USS to another object, say a planet, see what happens to your speed. This anomaly has nothing to do with gravity.

I use this effect to slow down while approaching the USS if there is a separate handy target in view.

If you're in a relatively agile ship, you can have fun looping by a nearby planet to reduce speed on approach to ports and pop out of SC at the last moment.

I wonder if it cheats on the front end too. Do we know if you get faster acceleration if you're just pointing toward where you want to go without navlocking a destination?

 

[Cyrgon]

He will not be proven wrong MadDogMurdock, regardless of any backpedaling, rationalizing or blatant contradictions of previous statements. He has formed his opinion and won't be swayed regardless of facts or proof to the contrary. Lost cause, move on.

 

[MadDogMurdock]

First, implementing a maximum speed is only one very specific aspect that relates to a Newtonian flight model and everything I'm discussing about assumes that a maximum speed is kept in place for gameplay reasons. I'm focusing on all of the other flight model decisions they've made which are arbitrary such as boosting mechanics and those have nothing to do with maximum speeds which is a separate issue entirely. If you understood the implementation of Newtonian physics to flight models you would have realized that implementing a maximum speed for gameplay reasons is a completely separate decision from requiring players to push "boost" every 5 seconds to maintain whatever arbitrary maximum speed that FD has chosen to implement.

Second, FD dramatically over-simplifies game issues and this gets them in trouble frequently when players call them out on their "explanations" which are often misleading or flat-out incorrect. Even if you accepted what FD is claiming about a "limit" for ship speeds you would have realized that are many projectiles and other objects in the game that go much faster than 500 m/s. They have chosen to limit ship speeds WELL below what the game engine can easily handle which means the particular limit they've chosen for typical ship speeds is very much an arbitrary range.

Like I said you need to understand Newtonian physics (which you don't) and you need to understand actual game engine limitations (which have nothing to do with requiring a player to push boost every 5 seconds). Until you can demonstrate that you actually understand these issues you simply aren't going to be able to understand the concepts I'm describing.

I understand Newtonian physics very well. It's simply irrelevant to the game because it doesn't use it.
You are not required to use boost every 5 seconds, you just want to because it is faster than the nominal max speed of your ship.

Boost works the way it does because it's a balancing aspect of power management in combat. What you're asking for is just to remove boost altogether and have a higher max speed.

Yes, projectile weapons go faster than ships, but they can because they obey deterministic rules rather than the unpredictable moves of a human pilot so don't require the same p2p updates.

There's no lack of understanding here, just a basic disagreement with your flawed arguments so you can dump the condescending tone. You continue to make assumptions that you can't back up and just trot out the same flawed arguments over and over.
Read a little more of the thread I linked and you'll find discussion of what speeds were found to work best, speed as a ship design element, and various other interesting things that you'll likely sneer at as compromising reality.

 

[Devari]

I understand Newtonian physics very well.

Sorry, but you really don't.

It's simply irrelevant to the game because it doesn't use it.
You are not required to use boost every 5 seconds, you just want to because it is faster than the nominal max speed of your ship.

That is the point. Unnecessary and arbitrary game mechanics like nefed yaw, blue-zone throttle manevuering and boost mechanics are implemented to make Elite combat resemble atmospheric combat instead of making the game "feel" like space combat.

Boost works the way it does because it's a balancing aspect of power management in combat. What you're asking for is just to remove boost altogether and have a higher max speed.

That's not what I said at all. Do you even read my posts? I said that when NOT maneuvering your ship should not try to reduce your boost speed back to cruise speeds. All of the power management issues would remain relevant during combat when actively maneuvering. What would change is that you wouldn't need to push boost every 5 seconds when going in a straight line as this makes zero sense from a gameplay or game background perspective.

Yes, projectile weapons go faster than ships, but they can because they obey deterministic rules rather than the unpredictable moves of a human pilot so don't require the same p2p updates.

That's utter nonsense. You really have no idea how the game engine works at all, do you? The game client needs to send accurate information on the position and speed of your ship AND your weapon projectiles and these need to be synchronized properly. The P2P connections mean that your client does many of these calculations that would otherwise be done with a central game server, but since Elite does not use a central game server to run these aspects of the game and relies on P2P connections instead this means that the game requires your game client to make those calculations itself.

You just have zero idea how the game works and there is no way I can explain it to you when your knowledge on the topic is so profoundly incorrect.

There's no lack of understanding here, just a basic disagreement with your flawed arguments so you can dump the condescending tone. You continue to make assumptions that you can't back up and just trot out the same flawed arguments over and over.
Read a little more of the thread I linked and you'll find discussion of what speeds were found to work best, speed as a ship design element, and various other interesting things that you'll likely sneer at as compromising reality.

Sorry, but you have no idea how the game works or why the devs limit ships to their current maximum speeds. I can't explain this any more clearly than I already have.

 

[MadDogMurdock]

Sorry, but you really don't.



That is the point. Unnecessary and arbitrary game mechanics like nefed yaw, blue-zone throttle manevuering and boost mechanics are implemented to make Elite combat resemble atmospheric combat instead of making the game "feel" like space combat.



That's not what I said at all. Do you even read my posts? I said that when NOT maneuvering your ship should not try to reduce your boost speed back to cruise speeds. All of the power management issues would remain relevant during combat when actively maneuvering. What would change is that you wouldn't need to push boost every 5 seconds when going in a straight line as this makes zero sense from a gameplay or game background perspective.



That's utter nonsense. You really have no idea how the game engine works at all, do you? The game client needs to send accurate information on the position and speed of your ship AND your weapon projectiles and these need to be synchronized properly. The P2P connections mean that your client does many of these calculations that would otherwise be done with a central game server, but since Elite does not use a central game server to run these aspects of the game and relies on P2P connections instead this means that the game requires your game client to make those calculations itself.

You just have zero idea how the game works and there is no way I can explain it to you when your knowledge on the topic is so profoundly incorrect.



Sorry, but you have no idea how the game works or why the devs limit ships to their current maximum speeds. I can't explain this any more clearly than I already have.

Forum debating has a lot in common with Newton's laws.

1. A reader at rest will remain at rest unless acted on by an erroneous poster. An erroneous poster in motion continues in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by a factual poster.

2. Consternation is produced when a fact acts on an erroneous opinion. The stronger the opinion (of the erroneous poster) the greater the amount of fact needed (to correct the poster).

3. For every post there is an equal and opposite repost.

We could go on, but I'm sure you'll continue to doubt my credentials and comprehension skills rather than question your own assumptions.

 

[xaisis]

Is there any at least demi-realistic background to overshooting, e.g. in physics or rocket science? Or was it invented only to annoy people like so many other "features" of this game?

Cheers, Eric

Hi! xD
I am sure it is not there to annoy you.

I have found that if i go from 100% to 75% throttle at 10s too target then no overshots.

Try visit the guide subforum. Good stuff.

[hotas]

 

[Banana's_Are_Good_For_You]

Well I see the white knights are at it again.

Since you apparently view any criticism of the game as an "insult" and seem to be under the impression that the game is both internally consistent and has a well-developed background that supports the game mechanics, why don't you explain a few of the other game mechanics that make zero sense and have no background explanation whatsoever?

Don't answer them all at once, I expect you'll need a few minutes to compose yourself after all the "insults" I'm about to throw at the game.

Why isn't there an autopilot function for supercruise flight?
Why can we only use an autolanding feature for planetary landings when recalling a ship?
Why are there maximum speeds in space?
Why are the yaw thrusters disproportionately weaker than other maneuvering thrusters?
Why don't our NPC crew have escape pods?
Why is the SRV repaired instantly when it boards the ship but isn't refuelled?
Why aren't elemental materials available for purchase as commodities?
Why does cargo load and unload instantly?
Why does our escape pod return instantly to the nearest station with zero chance of failure upon ship destruction?

I can keep going but I'll see how you do with these ones first.

Protip: Maybe next time you can consider being more polite to posters who ask legitimate questions about arbitrary and frustrating game mechanics that are poorly implemented in the game.

Some of this, if incorporated, would bore players to death.
Other stuff was done for gameplay reasons and argued out in Betas.

This is a game with simulation elements.

Nice thread hijack though so you can get on your soapbox again.

There are always other games if this one isn't meeting your requirements because, and I hate to break t to you Sweetie, no matter how much you complain and whine, some things won't change as they'd involve a major reworking of the whole game.

Back to OP's point, middle of the blue keeps you true.
Too high and you overfly.
Simples.


And what the hyperactive one above suggest.^^

 

[Alex Brentnall]

Good lord this thread has gone so far downhill overnight. It started as a relatively straightforward thread about supercruise and now look at it.

Few more for the ignore list here but seriously guys pollute your own threads this thread here got way out of hand very quickly and I haven't seen the OP in ages.


A proud White knight, fanboy, carbare, griefer and simultaneously "ordinary bloke" signing way the hell out this thread.
(Labels are for silly people who have inadequate arguments and like to generalise).

Edit: Also unlike that other thread this doesn't have the comedy value of "objects accelerate infinitely in a vacuum!"

 

[Devari]

Some of this, if incorporated, would bore players to death.

Sure, instant cargo loading/unloading and instant escape pod recovery on ship destruction are obviously there for gameplay reasons. Although the exact same arguments could be made for a supercruise autopilot, or autolanding on planets, so it's the issue of inconsistent gameplay decisions that's the problem here.

Other stuff was done for gameplay reasons and argued out in Betas.

If by "argued out" you mean players told FD that certain game mechanics didn't work well, but they went with them anyways? Then sure, I suppose they were "argued out" but they certainly weren't addressed. The issue here is that we're still stuck with a set of very arbitrary and very inconsistent game mechanics that don't even stay consistent with previous decisions on gameplay issues. For example, FD decided that we should lose NPC pilots on ship destruction because "more grind" somehow makes the game better? Yet we don't lose Engineered weapons because reasons? Yeah, that makes perfect sense.

Nice thread hijack though so you can get on your soapbox again.

The topic of this thread was the inconsistent supercruse acceleration/deceleration which led into a larger discussion of other unnecessary and annoying game mechanics. It's hardly been hijacked.

There are always other games if this one isn't meeting your requirements

Unfortunately they aren't due to be released for a few more years so at the moment Elite is the only space-sim game on the market, although I've already started decreasing the time and money I've been spending on Elite and have started spending it elsewhere.

because, and I hate to break t to you Sweetie, no matter how much you complain and whine, some things won't change as they'd involve a major reworking of the whole game.

Yes, some things won't change, but many things can.

Take a look at gimbals, they're completely reworking them for no particular reason other than "metrics" and ignoring other major problems with the game. They can easily put that effort into improving mission rewards or multiplayer or powerplay instead, but they would rather force players to play the game a certain way instead of listening to balanced feedback from the player community.

As long as the white knight segment of the playerbase takes whatever FD gives us and loudly proclaims that it has no flaws then the game is only going to keep getting worse instead of better.

 

[smiths121]

I quite often overshoot, there is always an interesting player or NPC at my destination.A analysis, decide, then Look at the distance time and it always says 5 or lower. Hey, I am just a crap pilot.

Simob

 

[Cdr Voorheez]

If you stick to the "100% throttle until you hit the 00:07 marker" rule you will never ever overshoot.
This has been discussed in considerable depth and clarity in another thread I will try and link when I am home from work later.
But basically the rule goes like this:

100% throttle on approach
Slow to 50% at the 00:07 mark
Land

Simples.

 

[MTBFritz]

Is there any at least demi-realistic background to overshooting, e.g. in physics or rocket science? Or was it invented only to annoy people like so many other "features" of this game?

Cheers, Eric

Thats a really funny question making me wonder if you participate in the real world in any meaningfull way (I could think of several scenarios which would make your statement understandable from YOUR point of view but none of them are flattering).

I mean its BASIC physics. Its so basic in fact that everybody who RAN on his own legs in his life should get it. Yet you ask this question.

Oh yes its annoying, it was annoying for me as well but I knew why it happened resulting in me approaching the destination on my next attempt with a snails pace. Eventually I increased my speed on the following tours until I realized that the 75% throttle indeed is a good middle way (not perfect and you can adjust it with experience but for ewnbies its a good entry speed once you get into a certain range)

I wouldnt have bothered to post in this thread as it might be troll bait but I didnt see you responding so I wonder if you "got it" now?

 

[Ydiss]

It gives you the option to increase speed when you approach a target through a gravity well. The alternative is 100% throttle is optimised for approach deceleration but allows no flexibility when hitting that gravity well.

I prefer the way it is. And haven't overshot more than once in as long as I can remember. And that was because I wasn't paying attention.

Sometimes, simple isn't the best implementation. It is supposed to be a simulation game. Even a basic level of "complexity" should be expected. But this actually has a reason for being there.

 

[Devari]

I mean its BASIC physics. Its so basic in fact that everybody who RAN on his own legs in his life should get it. Yet you ask this question.

Actually, it has nothing to do with "physics" at all, it's an arbitrary acceleration/deceleration behavior for how the ship speeds work in supercruise.

I wouldnt have bothered to post in this thread as it might be troll bait but I didnt see you responding so I wonder if you "got it" now?

Did you actually read the rest of the thread where many players have posted that changing the target destination affects this acceleration/deceleration behavior? That tells you it isn't simply the supercruise mechanic responding directly to local gravitational fields, it's an intentional game mechanic that is arbitrary and irritating.

 

[Ydiss]

Actually, it has nothing to do with "physics" at all, it's an arbitrary acceleration/deceleration behavior for how the ship speeds work in supercruise.



Did you actually read the rest of the thread where many players have posted that changing the target destination affects this acceleration/deceleration behavior? That tells you it isn't simply the supercruise mechanic responding directly to local gravitational fields, it's an intentional game mechanic that is arbitrary and irritating.

It's not arbitrary though. If optimal deceleration was forced on 100% throttle, gravity wells would slow us down even more than they do now. The point of over throttle is to let us over compensate, as a choice, when required.

I prefer having control over it, personally. If you don't, stick to 75% and take longer.

Maybe FD will give you an auto pilot one day