Overshooting while Approaching Planets and Stations

[Ra'Kaan]

I know, wrong forum but a great example of gravity and speed is in the old Wing Commander MOVIE - when Palidin got irate at Maniac for speeding up when heading towards "Scylla"

 

[Devari]

If you read "Or was it invented only to annoy people like so many other "features" of this game?" as a fair and legitimate question, I disagree. I see only tone suggestive of a desire to take jabs at ED, not an honest question.

I'm as critical of aspects of the game as anyone, but the OP is not conducive to reasonable discussion and does not suggest a willingness to discuss the mechanic - only use it as a means to complain, without considering whether that complaint is borne of ignorance of the complexities of what may actually be a decent mechanic.

It was a legitimate question, regardless of how it was phrased, and it should have been treated as such.

As far as the rest of your post, most of this has also been discussed and explained by FDEV and the community. Simple example is "Why are the yaw thrusters disproportionately weaker than other maneuvering thrusters?" Try searching yourself, and you'll see this is actually a very well thought out mechanic that has been explained in detail by the Devs and increases combat complexity. It has even been brought up in relation to SC's flight mechanics of an example of how these kinds of limitations greatly increase the enjoyability of combat. Your dislike of it is just due to ignorance, as if you had read the reasons why it was implemented you'd realize how much it increases the skill cap, viability of tactics and complexity of combat, without which combat would have been reduced to "spinning turret mode" as it was described by FDEV.

No, actually, most of the examples I've given have absolutely no rational explanation, either as game mechanics or as some type of background explanation, they were just arbitrarily implemented by FD to force players into a specific style of gameplay. I also notice you've ignored all of the examples except for weak yaw thrusters. Those were a poorly-implemented decision to force players to adopt an "atmospheric" flight model in the game, as was the arbitrary maximum speeds, and it has no background basis whatsoever. The idea of "not being space turrets" is not an excuse to force unrealistic and arbitrary game mechanics on players, it is simply a poor game mechanic with no background justification.

You might also realize (assuming you have actually played traditional flight sims with accurate flight models) that there are far better ways to encourage more diversity in terms of flight models and maneuvering strategies than what FD has gone with by artificially nerfing yaw. A well-designed FA-off mode for example (where control inputs will still actively try to maintain a neutral orientation without excessive overcorrection) would have gone a long way to addressing this. There's also the issue that FD had completely ignored the fact that even a slightly realistic space combat flight model would naturally expect ships with 6 DOF to behave like turrets in terms of their maneuvers but that doesn't necessarily mean that space combat has to be "boring". If you've watched the Vipers maneuvering in BSG or even the Starfuries in B5 they both essentially act as "turrets" in space during much of their maneuvering in addition to trying to achieve optimal positioning with other types of maneuvers.

The unfortunate reality is that many of the core game mechanics and decisions that FD implemented are extremely arbitrary and poorly thought out and we are going further down this path because of their inability to recognize this. The most recent example being their intent to nerf gimbals severely without recognizing that having already nerfed yaw disproportionately, given many ships very poor hardpoint placement without convergence and insisting that ships fly within blue-zone throttle ranges to maneuver properly have all led to a situation where players will naturally prefer gimbals for many builds. FD is both oblivious to how their prior arbitrary game mechanics have limited ship loadout choice and yet are very narrow-minded in their insistence on continuing those arbitrary game mechanics and think it's just a matter of applying another nerf/buff cycle to get the "results" they want out of player behavior.

 

[MadDogMurdock]

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.

Protip: How about doing some research?

None of the mechanics you've questioned are arbitrary, but deliberate design decisions made for 'reasons'.

E.g. The speed limit in space is a limitation of networking - without it the rubber-banding you sometimes get when instanced with another player would be much much worse.

Most of the others - because 'gameplay'.
It's a space pilot game, you're supposed to pilot your ship, not autopilot it.
Some things happen instantly because making them take a realistic time would be a pointless time sink.

I disagree with many of the gameplay choices FD have made but your choice of questions is poor.

 

[Underhook]

Please..... the game is science fiction. Dont try roo hard to be scientific here. We have ships travelling faster than light.

 

[Devari]

Protip: How about doing some research?

None of the mechanics you've questioned are arbitrary, but deliberate design decisions made for 'reasons'.

They were arbitrary decisions that were made for poor reasons that had no background justification, in order to force players to use a specific type of gameplay and this was done without actually determining whether the game mechanics were enjoyable or if they added anything important to the gameplay experience.

E.g. The speed limit in space is a limitation of networking - without it the rubber-banding you sometimes get when instanced with another player would be much much worse.

Sorry but you have no idea what you're talking about. "Networking" has absolutely nothing to do with the various speed-related mechanics they implemented and forced players to use in the game. There is no good reason to require players to hit boost every 5 seconds to maintain our maximum speed. That is an arbitrary limitation to require players to micro-manage their power systems to maintain their top speed in space and to force engine power usage to continually compete with power requirements for other systems. That quite simply should not be necessary in space when a ship is not changing direction.

It's a game mechanic that is completely unnecessary, has nothing at all to do with "networking", and doesn't make for good gameplay at all.

Most of the others - because 'gameplay'.
It's a space pilot game, you're supposed to pilot your ship, not autopilot it.
Some things happen instantly because making them take a realistic time would be a pointless time sink.

I disagree with many of the gameplay choices FD have made but your choice of questions is poor.

"Because gameplay" only works as a justification when it makes GOOD gameplay, which the examples I've given do not do.

 

[MadDogMurdock]

They were arbitrary decisions that were made for poor reasons that had no background justification, in order to force players to use a specific type of gameplay and this was done without actually determining whether the game mechanics were enjoyable or if they added anything important to the gameplay experience.



Sorry but you have no idea what you're talking about. "Networking" has absolutely nothing to do with the various speed-related mechanics they implemented and forced players to use in the game. There is no good reason to require players to hit boost every 5 seconds to maintain our maximum speed. That is an arbitrary limitation to require players to micro-manage their power systems to maintain their top speed in space and to force engine power usage to continually compete with power requirements for other systems. That quite simply should not be necessary in space when a ship is not changing direction.

It's a game mechanic that is completely unnecessary, has nothing at all to do with "networking", and doesn't make for good gameplay at all.



"Because gameplay" only works as a justification when it makes GOOD gameplay, which the examples I've given do not do.

You clearly have your mind made up and won't even give a second thought to ridiculous statements.

E.g. Boost - there's a reason it's called boost. Think about it

 

[Kriidah]

There is no good reason to require players to hit boost every 5 seconds to maintain our maximum speed. That is an arbitrary limitation to require players to micro-manage their power systems to maintain their top speed in space and to force engine power usage to continually compete with power requirements for other systems. That quite simply should not be necessary in space when a ship is not changing direction.

You fly with flight assist on a lot, don't you? You realize the ship with FA-On slows itself down intentionally, right?

 

[Lucian667]

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

There most certainly is with Newtonian physics but it really doesn't apply to supercruise because SC is not Newtonian motion, its a kind of semi-hyperspace travel where the laws of Newtonian motion in space are commonly broken, you accelerate and decelerate without reaction mass and you routinely exceed light speed. So trying to apply standard rocket-science principles to a fantasy sci-fi FTL method is basically doomed to failure. SC is not, and never was remotely related to rocket science.

That said, I find intentional overshooting in SC to be extremely useful when being pursued by an NPC pirate whom I dont wish to fight. You just overshoot at top speed, turn around and the pirate almost NEVER manages to line up and catch you before you reach your destination. A very useful game feature IMO.

 

[Devari]

You clearly have your mind made up and won't even give a second thought to ridiculous statements.

E.g. Boost - there's a reason it's called boost. Think about it

There's no reason why it should have to be applied every 5 seconds in space. Think about it.

You fly with flight assist on a lot, don't you? You realize the ship with FA-On slows itself down intentionally, right?

Yes, and that makes sense only because of the need to continually apply maneuvering thrusters. It does not make sense to slow a ship down from boost if you are not maneuvering. They should have simply had the ship speed remain at maximum after boosting, with no additional power consumption from the Eng capacitor, until the ship receives some other type of control input from the flight stick. Unless you are telling the ship you need to slow down to maneuver it should not be pre-programmed to continually waste fuel and power reducing your velocity back to cruising speeds every 5 seconds.

 

[MadDogMurdock]

There's no reason why it should have to be applied every 5 seconds in space. Think about it.



Yes, and that makes sense only because of the need to continually apply maneuvering thrusters. It does not make sense to slow a ship down from boost if you are not maneuvering. They should have simply had the ship speed remain at maximum after boosting, with no additional power consumption from the Eng capacitor, until the ship receives some other type of control input from the flight stick. Unless you are telling the ship you need to slow down to maneuver it should not be pre-programmed to continually waste fuel and power reducing your velocity back to cruising speeds every 5 seconds.

I thought about it.
Nope, boost still means the same to me as it meant a minute ago.

 

[Kigre]

Overshoot on purpose and watch the ship slow down faster than ever. (Then make a u-turn.)
This goes faster than cruising to target.

Also, if there is a another target BEHIND the one you are going to, target that and re-target orignal when close enough.

 

[Devari]

I thought about it.
Nope, boost still means the same to me as it meant a minute ago.

Sorry, I missed a few steps. I didn't realize you lacked the necessary education and knowledge base to think about the topic properly.

1. Read a basic physics textbook. This may take you quite a while, because the goal here is to actually understand the basics of Newtonian physics.

2. Watch non-fiction shows illustrating spaceflight maneuvers (space shuttle or EVA). That will show you how those concepts actually work in practice when applied to actual spaceflight.

3. Watch sci-fi shows that depict realistic spaceship maneuvers. That will show how those concepts would likely work when applied to a fictional space combat setting. BSG and Babylon 5 are good examples here in case you have no idea what shows I'm talking about. It is also worth noting that NASA expressed an interest in using the basis of the fictional Starfury starfighter design from B5 for possible development as an EVA frame because it was such an efficient engine arrangement for space maneuvers.

4. Play Elite and push boost every 5 seconds, keeping in mind that steps 1-3 should be telling you how annoying, arbitrary and unrealistic that is, not to mention that it makes for poor gameplay.

5. Think about it.

 

[Lucian667]

Also, if there is a another target BEHIND the one you are going to, target that and re-target orignal when close enough.

Nice advice, I'm going to have to try that little trick.

 

[Lucian667]

4. Play Elite and push boost every 5 seconds, keeping in mind that steps 1-3 should be telling you how annoying, arbitrary and unrealistic that is, not to mention that it makes for poor gameplay.

Unrealistic? definitely. Poor gameplay? Not so sure about that, I think it was done that way to avoid the sort of horrible gameplay they'd inevitably get if they stuck religiously to Newtonian motion rules in space. Elite II Frontier worked that way and the combat was really, really terrible. FD wanted to avoid that sort of hyper-speed jousting combat and IMO did a good job of making combat fun in ED even though - yes - its unrealistic.

 

[Kriidah]

Yes, and that makes sense only because of the need to continually apply maneuvering thrusters. It does not make sense to slow a ship down from boost if you are not maneuvering. They should have simply had the ship speed remain at maximum after boosting, with no additional power consumption from the Eng capacitor, until the ship receives some other type of control input from the flight stick. Unless you are telling the ship you need to slow down to maneuver it should not be pre-programmed to continually waste fuel and power reducing your velocity back to cruising speeds every 5 seconds.

It is pre programmed to to bring you down to the speed that you are currently throttled too, which is your ships max speed pre boost. To have that ignored largely, turn off Flight Assist AI.

 

[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

75% throttle at 7 seconds ETA and you're golden.

 

[MadDogMurdock]

Sorry, I missed a few steps. I didn't realize you lacked the necessary education and knowledge base to think about the topic properly.

1. Read a basic physics textbook. This may take you quite a while, because the goal here is to actually understand the basics of Newtonian physics.

2. Watch non-fiction shows illustrating spaceflight maneuvers (space shuttle or EVA). That will show you how those concepts actually work in practice when applied to actual spaceflight.

3. Watch sci-fi shows that depict realistic spaceship maneuvers. That will show how those concepts would likely work when applied to a fictional space combat setting. BSG and Babylon 5 are good examples here in case you have no idea what shows I'm talking about. It is also worth noting that NASA expressed interest in using the basis of the fictional Starfury starfighter design from B5 for possible development as an EVA frame because it was such an efficient engine arrangement for space maneuvers.

4. Play Elite and push boost every 5 seconds, keeping in mind that steps 1-3 should be telling you how annoying, arbitrary and unrealistic that is, not to mention that it makes for poor gameplay.

5. Think about it.

Oh dear! You just lack basic comprehension that this is a game with limitations.

1. Newtonian physics does not apply. I tried before but I'll try again. The speed limit exists because of the need to try and track moving objects that are simulated on separate machines communicating over a network. Latency means that there is an actual limit to how fast FD can allow objects to go before real-time tracking breaks and you get rubber-banding.

2. and 3. See 1

4. You have a misconception - maximum speed is your best non-boost speed. Boost temporarily allows you to exceed it, hence why it is called boost. The trade off is that if you want to do it often, you need 4 pips to engines, sacrificing weapons and shields. This is called gameplay, allowing players to manage their power settings in order to adapt to tactical situations.

5. Read, understand, don't overthink the game.

 

[Devari]

Unrealistic? definitely. Poor gameplay? Not so sure about that, I think it was done that way to avoid the sort of horrible gameplay they'd inevitably get if they stuck religiously to Newtonian motion rules in space. Elite II Frontier worked that way and the combat was really, really terrible. FD wanted to avoid that sort of hyper-speed jousting combat and IMO did a good job of making combat fun in ED even though - yes - its unrealistic.

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.

Oh dear! You just lack basic comprehension that this is a game with limitations.

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.

1. Newtonian physics does not apply. I tried before but I'll try again. The speed limit exists because of the need to try and track moving objects that are simulated on separate machines communicating over a network. Latency means that there is an actual limit to how fast FD can allow objects to go before real-time tracking breaks and you get rubber-banding.

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.

 

[Lucian667]

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.

Totally agree with you that its unrealistic. Totally agree with you that is not logical or internally consistent. I just dont see how that automatically makes for bad gameplay. I love the way combat works in ED its one of the most fun things in the game. Completely unrealistic for sure, but super amounts of fun.

Could they have come up with a more realistic and logically consistent movement model while still maintaining the fun factor? Meh, maybe but really I'm fine with it just being fun to fight while I successfully suspend my disbelief about the abuse of physics. Its like watching an Avengers movie, totally unrealistic but you just put your brain in neutral and enjoy the fights.

 

[Red Anders]

Duly repped!
Having my ships rendez-vous took me hours, and docking about 50 minutes of bumping around and exploding stuff.

Sounds ideal for much of the Elite player base, although I'd expect their forums to be filled with demands for rendezvous taking a week or more within 2 days.