Supposed to be.
But it plays like turrets in space, even in multiplayer currently.
Joust than spin spin spin spin
Ship designs
- Thread starter CmdrBond
- Start date
Supposed to be.
But it plays like turrets in space, even in multiplayer currently.
Joust than spin spin spin spin
Certainly not!
I disagree. Sure the few, very small fighter type ships look plausible, granted, but have a look at the bigger designs, they look cartoonish, IMO. They'll disintegrate during reentry.
ED's "Keilform" is way more realistic. Every ship supposed to land on planets needs a strict aerodynamic shape.
Star Citizens design (IMO) is simply more of the same old teenage boy stuff we've seen for over a decade.
You could take their ships and stick them in any game (that has ships) from the last 10 years and, besides the added fidelity of recent hardware advancements, and they'd fit right in.
While the ships are "new" the design choices certainly are not. I call it "Gears of War" syndrome.
Star Citizen (so far) is the largest crowd funded fund raiser in history. Think Public Radio in the fall, which is why I changed the channel months ago.
If I had fantasies about being a huge no neck Rambo in space with huge guns to compensate for my rather normal one I'd be all over Star Citizen. I'd probably need to get acne, hairy palms and move back to mom's basement too.
Hey! I'd be a wookie! Sweet, want to see my big guns bro?
You could take their ships and stick them in any game (that has ships) from the last 10 years and, besides the added fidelity of recent hardware advancements, and they'd fit right in.
While the ships are "new" the design choices certainly are not. I call it "Gears of War" syndrome.
Star Citizen (so far) is the largest crowd funded fund raiser in history. Think Public Radio in the fall, which is why I changed the channel months ago.
If I had fantasies about being a huge no neck Rambo in space with huge guns to compensate for my rather normal one I'd be all over Star Citizen. I'd probably need to get acne, hairy palms and move back to mom's basement too.
Hey! I'd be a wookie! Sweet, want to see my big guns bro?
Last edited:
On ship design, how about the designs for Star Wars.
Most of them were iconic, foreign, interesting in appearance, and mostly rational.
The X wing has an iconic shape that has 4 wide-angled gun points to maximize hit rate, given they are fixed forward.
The A wing looks cheap to produce and fast.
The Tie Fighters look the most foreign with those solar foils, which I think is all for looks rather than for function? What's their function exactly.
Lastly, the Millennium Falcon. She a beauty with a function disc shape, turrets both above & below, etc.
Most of them were iconic, foreign, interesting in appearance, and mostly rational.
The X wing has an iconic shape that has 4 wide-angled gun points to maximize hit rate, given they are fixed forward.
The A wing looks cheap to produce and fast.
The Tie Fighters look the most foreign with those solar foils, which I think is all for looks rather than for function? What's their function exactly.
Lastly, the Millennium Falcon. She a beauty with a function disc shape, turrets both above & below, etc.
Much as I like the design (mostly because they look worn and rugged I think) I would not call the X wing practical or sensible. Spread out guns to maximize hitrate? All that does is require the weapons to have a convergeance, meaning the weapons would have to be gimballed (to some degree) to accomodate for different distances of fire. No, if they wanted to put fixed lasers in a sensible place they would have put them in the nose. Otherwise they would have put them in turrets which I suppose would occupy for instance the R2D2-slot.
Star Wars is the epitome of jets in space. They all fly just like jets in space and have the odd "shiny bullets" kind of lasers as well.
/Merf - will respect the wedge.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
.... only if those ships entered the atmosphere on a ballistic trajectory at near to orbital speed.
I would expect, with the engines and thrusters the ships have for combat, that they could slow to geosynchronous speeds and drop straight down at relatively low speed. Atmospheric loads at low speed would be relatively easy to handle for a ship designed for the g-loading of space combat.
Even the larger SC ships seen in the hangar module so far seem quite small in comparison to Elite ships like the Eagle. Not to say the Eagle is actually larger but the E3 trailer made it clear just how big our favourite single-seater fighter actually is. It dwarfs the standard SC fighters.
Despite being smaller, the SC ships have loads of kibbles and functionless-looking knobbly bits. The aesthetic in some of the middle-sized ones, particularly the internals, makes me think "camper-van". Their design ancestry from Wing Commander is clear, but somehow they don't manage to retain the cleaner lines of those ships. The WC Hornet and Rapier, capital ships like the original Bengal class carrier and the Broadsword from WCII spring to mind. And the ugly-but-functional-workhorse designs of the Orion and Galaxy from Pirvateer. Those were very nice ships.
I like some of the SC designs, but the Elite ships are the more elegant designs in my opinion.
Despite being smaller, the SC ships have loads of kibbles and functionless-looking knobbly bits. The aesthetic in some of the middle-sized ones, particularly the internals, makes me think "camper-van". Their design ancestry from Wing Commander is clear, but somehow they don't manage to retain the cleaner lines of those ships. The WC Hornet and Rapier, capital ships like the original Bengal class carrier and the Broadsword from WCII spring to mind. And the ugly-but-functional-workhorse designs of the Orion and Galaxy from Pirvateer. Those were very nice ships.
I like some of the SC designs, but the Elite ships are the more elegant designs in my opinion.
Last edited:
That's the main principle, look at all the early commentary from FD on the ship design based on things like "would the weapons actually fit here?", "how does it land?" and "how do you get the cargo in and out?"
Comparing ship designs of both games based on our current world / tech "realism" is pointless.
Ships designs of both games are based on in-game-universe "realism" and nothing else. The main difference is that both SciFi universes are different. While Elite is are more hard SciFi approach Star Citizen is more fantasy or "high" SciFi based.
Both games have complete designed ships, read: exterior, interior, systems and placement of those, center of mass, thrusters and so on. That you can not walk within your ED ship does not mean there is no interior.
David Braben talked multiple times about this, even on the new E3 material, and the concepts shown in this thread.
The visual design of both games is also mainly artistic choice and has no impact on "realism" of those ships. Yes, some SC ships where redesigned because of thruster or interior placement issues, but the overall aesthetic design was mostly retained.
But SC could use ED ships and made them work, if they wanted. And vice-versa, where is the point?
If we like those ships is still a mater of personal taste and which SciFi universe suits us more. None of those things is realistic in any way.
So don't get in wars with each other about personal taste masked as "but it's more realistic". Admit that you like this or that design more get over it.
Edit: I personally like the ED design very much. Because the whole universe is much more my taste. A can't stand SC's (artistic) design philosophy. I still see what they are doing with their ships and have to say that this is some very good work. But that does not mean I have to like it or that I think its more plausible than what Frontier does.
Ships designs of both games are based on in-game-universe "realism" and nothing else. The main difference is that both SciFi universes are different. While Elite is are more hard SciFi approach Star Citizen is more fantasy or "high" SciFi based.
Both games have complete designed ships, read: exterior, interior, systems and placement of those, center of mass, thrusters and so on. That you can not walk within your ED ship does not mean there is no interior.
David Braben talked multiple times about this, even on the new E3 material, and the concepts shown in this thread.
The visual design of both games is also mainly artistic choice and has no impact on "realism" of those ships. Yes, some SC ships where redesigned because of thruster or interior placement issues, but the overall aesthetic design was mostly retained.
But SC could use ED ships and made them work, if they wanted. And vice-versa, where is the point?
If we like those ships is still a mater of personal taste and which SciFi universe suits us more. None of those things is realistic in any way.
So don't get in wars with each other about personal taste masked as "but it's more realistic". Admit that you like this or that design more get over it.
Edit: I personally like the ED design very much. Because the whole universe is much more my taste. A can't stand SC's (artistic) design philosophy. I still see what they are doing with their ships and have to say that this is some very good work. But that does not mean I have to like it or that I think its more plausible than what Frontier does.
Last edited:
So don't get in wars with each other about personal taste masked as "but it's more realistic". Admit that you like this or that design more get over it.
How realistic something comes across to a person might however be what affects this like/dislike reaction. When someone says "x is more realistic" in these kind of discussions what they actually mean is "x looks more plausible to me in my frame of reference" but that is far too wordy for most.
"Realism" in games most often deal more with being consistent within its own frame of reference (and in extension its audience frame of reference). The goal is for the game to "feel right" and to maintain suspension of disbelief. In short, it does not matter if something is realistic (as in would work in our meatspace world) as long as it conforms to the rules portrayed by the universe in question. If the universe in question for instance introduces and explains a concept of artificial gravity players will suspend their disbelief regarding spaceships designed just like if they where a large vehicle on/near earth but players will react with disbelief when someone suddenly conjures a fireball to incinerate its enemies.
What I am getting at here is that when something isn not explicitly explained, players assume it works as in their familiar frame of reference. This creates an issue in communication with games that edge closer to simulation style games, because they must more carefully explain the differences between our normal meatspace and the game world. So in that venue it is not entirely off to talk about "x is more realistic than y" because it can be an indication as to how well x and y respectively explain and communicate their game world.
/Merf - Rant mode activated >_<
Wings and spoilers in space makes no sense to me.
And the Hornet is the worst spaceship I ever saw. Obiouvsly, are my personal feelings
Sure, and this is all personal taste.
My first space game was the original Wing Commander on my old Amiga. I loved that game. But now I can't stand the "bullet" energy weapons SC is using. A didn't care about them as child playing WC back then. But now? ... no way!
My favorite space game, excluding ED, is the original I-War. Man, I love that. Maybe that's the game that changed my SciFi taste in a more "hard SciFi" direction. That game thought me what Lagrangian points are and used a similar "supercruise" mechanic, called linear displacement system (LDS-drive). They had "plausible" scale solar systems and you where flying a crewed combat vessel, maybe comparable to a Cobra in Elite. That was the closest you could get to a space sim with proper gameplay. But this is going OT, sry.
We can't argue taste ... well, we can but we shouldn't
Ah, good example! Now, SC is portraying itself to be along the space "sim" lines. Yet there is little to no explanation why lasers move as shiny bullets and not... well... laser. For someone focusing on the "sim" aspect this will trigger disbelief while for instance a Star Wars fan might not even reflect over this. The issue here is in the mismatch between the game and its target audience (They aim wide enough to include the "sim" people but provide no explanation to this particular behaviour).
As you say, we can not and should not argue taste, but we could discuss how well a game conveys its reference frame to its target audience. As a crude meassuring stick one could use the number of "This is not realistic" sentiments expressed over each game (lower is better).
So yeah, just me ranting on how arguments on which game is the "most realistic" is not a complete waste of time, but yes going terribly of topic and I apologise.
/Merf - Perception is just such a darned interesting topic...
Remember Columbia?
Hi there Robert.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Columbia_disaster
Info I found on Wiki, last altitude / speed date there reads:
8:55:00 (EI+651): Nearly 11 minutes after Columbia re-entered the atmosphere, wing leading-edge temperatures normally reached nearly 3,000 °F (1,650 °C).
8:55:32 (EI+683): Columbia crossed from Nevada into Utah. Speed: Mach 21.8; altitude: 223,400 feet (68.1 km; 42.31 mi).
8:58:20 (EI+851): Columbia crossed from New Mexico into Texas. Speed: Mach 19.5; altitude: 209,800 feet (63.9 km; 39.73 mi).
2 Minutes later the shuttle and its 6 humans where a smudge half across the new world.
Well, this, ED and SC are games, so basically we can do, and have, what we want :smilie: But it'll be not realistic. Beside this, you can simulate in games what you want, but do it quickly; ppl playing games a very intolerant if they are bored, so every thing has do be swift and fast forward. If there isn't any fast and easy way down on the planet, ppl start complaining.
Look at the landing mechanic in ED now. Its one of the easiest landings/touchdown you can have in games, broke cos of the instancing/network, but still, it seems too hard for many.
I know, a lot of bakers here, including myself, would love to see a close to RL simulation of things, but this game simply wouldn't sell.
Kind Regards!
Hi there Robert.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Columbia_disaster
Info I found on Wiki, last altitude / speed date there reads:
8:55:00 (EI+651): Nearly 11 minutes after Columbia re-entered the atmosphere, wing leading-edge temperatures normally reached nearly 3,000 °F (1,650 °C).
8:55:32 (EI+683): Columbia crossed from Nevada into Utah. Speed: Mach 21.8; altitude: 223,400 feet (68.1 km; 42.31 mi).
8:58:20 (EI+851): Columbia crossed from New Mexico into Texas. Speed: Mach 19.5; altitude: 209,800 feet (63.9 km; 39.73 mi).
2 Minutes later the shuttle and its 6 humans where a smudge half across the new world.
Well, this, ED and SC are games, so basically we can do, and have, what we want :smilie: But it'll be not realistic. Beside this, you can simulate in games what you want, but do it quickly; ppl playing games a very intolerant if they are bored, so every thing has do be swift and fast forward. If there isn't any fast and easy way down on the planet, ppl start complaining.
Look at the landing mechanic in ED now. Its one of the easiest landings/touchdown you can have in games, broke cos of the instancing/network, but still, it seems too hard for many.
I know, a lot of bakers here, including myself, would love to see a close to RL simulation of things, but this game simply wouldn't sell.
Kind Regards!
The point regarding Star Wars (and also Star Trek) is that these are very deep universes with an endless amount of background information that is available for interested people. So yes, they are explaining ever bit of their tech. But I don't think that this is actually needed in this scope. Its mostly the first impression you get of an universe that will decide if you like it or not. If a SciFi piece meets your taste you are probably more likely to ignore some inconsistencies in its design. But there are also other things that influence this, of course.
I was really blown away by the initial SC announcement trailer. But I was later put off, partly by these design choices but mostly because of that, what I personally perceive as over-hype and feature over-blow. I'm myself a software developer and lead a small team, designing and programming in-house software for an also relatively small company. All business stuff, no games or such things. But I know what it means to promise features and plan their development and time schedule. And I also know what it is like to go to the chiefs office and stand it when those are not met.
And I grew very, very skeptical after SC ongoing sales and promise after promise. These design choices they made where just the icing on the cake. And none of Chris Roberts games was a sim, ever. Do they really target sim fans? I think that will bite them back later on.
But I still think, the work the CIG teams is doing is very good, on a technical and design level. But it's not my taste and I don't think they are managed well.
TL;DR: Frontier =
/ CIG = :S / Me = Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Hi Dietger,
The shuttle was effectively a glider after the final deceleration burn - our ships will not be, that was my point.
As our ship is powered, we could enter an atmosphere at any speed we chose - higher speeds would be inadvisable, of course - but it could be as slow as we like (relative to the atmosphere), therefore limiting atmospheric friction heating effects.
Agreed, within the game world, this would be plausible of course.
So instead of a ballistic entry, a powered descent all the way from low orbit? I think that makes the most sense considering what our ships are already capable off.