Let them complain.
Drive a race car on a road course, go into a corner at 120 mph plus, drift sideways at 100 mph.
I can tell you right now. I see zero gauges.
Pros might. I'm to busy.
Please fix the dashbaords ...
- Thread starter limpetdwarf
- Start date
Drive a race car on a road course, go into a corner at 120 mph plus, drift sideways at 100 mph.
I can tell you right now. I see zero gauges.
Pros might. I'm to busy.
That's because your neck is bugged.
There is that.
Different resolutions have different results. The more 'square' the player screen the less the effect.
So if I run in 1920x1440 I can still see the bottom of the radar screen when pitching up the ship.
But I purchased a curved widescreen to play ED in 3440x1440 and I lose a lot of the radar screen.
Maybe a simple graphics toggle command to turn this movement feature on/off would be easier
than having to redesign all the supplied ED resolutions.
So if I run in 1920x1440 I can still see the bottom of the radar screen when pitching up the ship.
But I purchased a curved widescreen to play ED in 3440x1440 and I lose a lot of the radar screen.
Maybe a simple graphics toggle command to turn this movement feature on/off would be easier
than having to redesign all the supplied ED resolutions.
Last edited:
That something is intentional doesn't mean it isn't a bug. It doesn't matter weather the head moves or the panel, the effect is entirely unrealistic. It's also very bad for gameplay and a nuisance. If you like it, you wouldn't need to turn it off if it was possible to do that.
It's one of the things that make the game bad, so why not just fix it. Is even any of the developers looking at this section of the forum? If nobody looks at it, there is no point in having it and no point in posting anything here.
Going on about VR is not helpful. Is it even possible to use VR on current consoles? Is VR equipment given as a requirement to play Elite?
It's one of the things that make the game bad, so why not just fix it. Is even any of the developers looking at this section of the forum? If nobody looks at it, there is no point in having it and no point in posting anything here.
Going on about VR is not helpful. Is it even possible to use VR on current consoles? Is VR equipment given as a requirement to play Elite?
Last edited:
Definitely not a bug, definitely an intentional feature, and definitely a feature that I don’t mind. I rather enjoy it in fact, and find myself pretending I’m being pressed back into the sofa by unrealistically high g-force when turning hard while playing.
You don’t like it. I like it, therefore I have decreed it shall stay. See? I can do it too.
EDIT: console player sans VR
You don’t like it. I like it, therefore I have decreed it shall stay. See? I can do it too.
EDIT: console player sans VR
If something is intentional then BY DEFINITION it is NOT a bug. Jeez. Why is this so difficult for you to understand? Language matters if you want to communicate effectively with others, you can't just change the meaning of words willy nilly.
It also happens to be "realistic".
Whether or not you like it is quite a different thing and entirely subjective. Some people like this feature, others don't, so the simple thing to do is to ask FDev to add a switch to disable it for those who don't.
And no, the FDev developers job isn't to read the forums. They are busy actually working. If you want to raise this as a feature request, then use the bug tracker and get people to vote for it. See here : https://issues.frontierstore.net/
It's a "feature" you don't like, there are probably a dozen or more features I don't like in ED, but they aren't bugs, they are features, live with it, this thread is getting tiresome!
Of course you can call everything you like or don't like a feature. That doesn't mean that some things aren't bugs even someone calls them features.
OhFORF!
At this stage I seriously don't know whether this is a language issue (ie,english isn't your first language), you're trolling, or ... <redacted>.
I'm out of this thread. THere's no helping some people.
No, some things are "features," meant to be in the game, some things are "bugs," not meant to be in the game, so no, you are wrong, incorrect, mistaken, confused, erroneous, faulty, inaccurate, misguided or simply trolling. It's hard to work out because on one hand I find it hard to believe someone could be this much mistaken about something, on the other hand I do expect a much higher standard of trolling, maybe I have been spoiled by my usual company and should make allowances for trolling of a lower order.
What is this, American politics? Why so polarized when there is a third option - include a switch in the settings to allow this "feature" to be toggled on or off, just like "camera shake". This is an EASY way to make everyone happy!
Its is entirely scientifically accurate and realsitic.
its called G-Force. Means that effects of 'gravity' are increased at high speed and turning. have you never seen a car driver lean their head into the bend in the road? Seriously, just drive behind someone and watch their head as they go round corners.
You may not like i, you may want an optional on/off. Thats a different argument entirely but you lose support by saying its a bug when its science and dont comprehend we have magnets not artificial gravity.
Argue for the on/off because you dont like it, it makes you sick, whatever, just dont say its because the game is bugged when its not or all the replies will be answering that and not the original suggestion.
Please enlighten me as to how the lore explains that while the ship is being pulled up, the head of the pilot moves (locks) upward(!) so much that the pilot becomes unable to see crucial instruments, and why no solutions have been found to avoid the problem. It's not like the engineers didn't have a lot of time to come up with something better.
Please explain why the head doesn't appear to move downwards(!) (i. e. the pilot looks downwards) when the ship is being pulled up. It is it perhaps because the cockipt is hanging lose?
Please consider in your explanation where the pilot is sitting in regard to the axis around which the ship is turning. And think of the Anaconda, compared to other ships ...
Last edited:
I am more inclined to think it is more about you looking the way you are trying to go. so if you pull up you will most likely look in that direction. and most of the time when you do this, you tend to be chasing someone.
Is this a good or bad feature, that is obvious that people have different preferences here, and I am firmly in the camp of give us the choice to disable this behaviour.
The ship isn't being pulled up, basic physics in space, nothing pulls the ship, there is thrust from the ship to change trajectory which forces you back into your seat because you aren't part of the ship. If I pull the joystick back to bring the nose up there are thrusters in the nose which push the nose up, but there is still thrust from the rear thrusters and the combined thrust from all the thrusters currently being used will give you a force direction with which you can calculate the effect on the body and head, you use this to determine what happens to your FOV, which is likely what FDEV use to calculate how your view moves around.
There is no simple "being pulled up" in flying a spaceship, that's a rather simplistic concept that certainly doesn't take into account the multiple vectors of force acting on the pilots body. When you pull the stick back and the forward thruster push the nose up the force vector from the thrusters is still straight in relation to the ship and your body, and since the rear thrusters are much more powerful than the nose thrusters they will decide where your body goes.
Last edited:
It doesn't work that way. Effectively, the nose of the ship is being pulled up, and the pilots head might follow that movement not immidiately. The result is that the head of the pilot would appear to move down (in relation to the (cockpit of) the ship and then catch up.
Once the head has cought up with the movement (the forces), it would go back to looking straight. But see what happens when you constantly "pull up" your ship: The instruments stay off screen, and that is totally unrealistic.
Pulling up means that the dashboard (instruments) move up and not down, and after a short delay for the head to catch up with it, they would have to move move down to "normal".
The explantion that would conform to physics is that the dashboard would sit loose in that it is mounted on springs. When you constantly pull the ship up, due to the resulting forces these springs would be stretched or compressed as long as they are subjected to this force.
If the pilot is not strong enough to keep his head (or move it back) in position with his muscles alone, the head would move down and stay down. It would not move up and he could he still see the instruments.
What other/all thrusters do in total is in a way irrelevant for this because the ship does turn around an axis that doesn't necessarily go through the ship (from left to right or right to left). Otherwise the ship won't turn. Imagine the ship flying round in a circle, and you will know that the pilots head would move down and not up (unless the pilots default position is sitting with his neck bent backwards all the time, but nobody sits like that).
If the axis goes through the ship, what happens depends on where the pilot is located in relation to the axis. He can sit in front, on it or behind it (Anaconda).
My Anaconda is in storage somewhere so I can't try it. Maybe someone in an Anaconda can verify what happens when they pull up with the ship otherwise standing still (assuming that the pilot is at the rear end of the ship and not at the front). Does the cockpit move down or up?
If it moves down and if the pilot is sitting at the rear, then how would you explain the cockpit moving down (if it does, but I never noticed a cockpit moving up rather than down)?
Once the head has cought up with the movement (the forces), it would go back to looking straight. But see what happens when you constantly "pull up" your ship: The instruments stay off screen, and that is totally unrealistic.
Pulling up means that the dashboard (instruments) move up and not down, and after a short delay for the head to catch up with it, they would have to move move down to "normal".
The explantion that would conform to physics is that the dashboard would sit loose in that it is mounted on springs. When you constantly pull the ship up, due to the resulting forces these springs would be stretched or compressed as long as they are subjected to this force.
If the pilot is not strong enough to keep his head (or move it back) in position with his muscles alone, the head would move down and stay down. It would not move up and he could he still see the instruments.
What other/all thrusters do in total is in a way irrelevant for this because the ship does turn around an axis that doesn't necessarily go through the ship (from left to right or right to left). Otherwise the ship won't turn. Imagine the ship flying round in a circle, and you will know that the pilots head would move down and not up (unless the pilots default position is sitting with his neck bent backwards all the time, but nobody sits like that).
If the axis goes through the ship, what happens depends on where the pilot is located in relation to the axis. He can sit in front, on it or behind it (Anaconda).
My Anaconda is in storage somewhere so I can't try it. Maybe someone in an Anaconda can verify what happens when they pull up with the ship otherwise standing still (assuming that the pilot is at the rear end of the ship and not at the front). Does the cockpit move down or up?
If it moves down and if the pilot is sitting at the rear, then how would you explain the cockpit moving down (if it does, but I never noticed a cockpit moving up rather than down)?
Last edited:
Reading around... your 2nd suggestion feels likely...
But top marks to several posters who have explained the mechanics of the game very well, even if the OP rejects such explanations because they are in direct opposition to their opinion of what should be
Calculated the forces involved and determined that have you? I have seen many people incorrectly using physics to try and prove a point, the point here being that FDEV have done their best to create a realistic flight model and I am pretty sure they used computers to calculate the way things move in the cabin if relation to the forces involved. It's much more likely, given the competing vectors of thrust, that the head would be pushed vertically down on the neck rather than flop down like bobble head. You see the forward thruster are providing much more force than the nose thrusters pushing the nose up, so the actual direction of force you will experience is between the two, and far more inclined to the forward thrusters than the nose thrusters since they are providing more thrust.
What you are doing is using atmospheric physics in space, and that doesn't work, when you pull the nose up in a plane the main vector of thust comes from the aerofoils, the wings, as you nose up air resistance pushes back on the plane via the wings and forward thrust drops due to working against gravity so you get a major force operating vertically to the angle of climb and that pushes your body forward and down in relation to the cabin, there is no equivelant force in a spaceship, all your calculations must come from the combined vectors of the upward nose thrusters and forward thrusters, so the effects will be hugely different to an aircraft doing the same manouver.