Ship Wobble

[afreeflyingsoul]

I know this is an old topic, but go ahead and tell me this has already been addressed...

I've said this before, I'm going to say it again (and again, and again). Please, for the love of physics, get rid of ship wobble near the surface of planets. It grates on my every last nerve! I have degrees in both applied physics and mechanical engineering and this "wobble" would never, never, never be allowed in a real world space craft! (watch the Apollo landings)

It doesn't add any challenge to the game (easily overcome) but it does add bizarreness! From whence come the force that is acting on my ship to cause the wobble! There's no atmosphere! If the stated offical explanation were true (the thrusters are too weak) my ship would just sink to the planet and I'd be stuck there, forever, never to leave. But they're obviously not too weak cause all that happens is wobble.

I am aware that the majority of players are just fine with the wobble (bully for them), but for a game that prides itself on fidelity to physics, it is simply unacceptable. If the developers want to keep the wobble, please change the official explanation to what it really is, "we thought it would be better to have wobble, just because", and drop the shoddy excuse of "the thrusters are too weak".

ugh... Okay, now bring on the stop-whining, this-is-already-discussed-elsewhere, we-talked-about-this, just-enjoy-the-game, why-won't-people-stop-complaining replies!

TL;DR: Fix the wobble or fix the explanation (see bold).

 

[afreeflyingsoul]

If you want to add a penalty for near surface ship operations, how about something that makes sense, like increased rates of fuel consumption (proportional to the gravity field) and with the increased burn, maneuvering thruster malfunctions and failure! That would be awesome, and realistic, and within the bounds of physics!

Just imagine, hovering over a high gravity planet at an inclined angle of attack and boon, you lose your right forward lateral thruster, you start listing to the right and you're ships handling becomes all wonky cause you've lost a thrust vector, that would be awesome!

 

[Hydrino]

If you want to add a penalty for near surface ship operations, how about something that makes sense, like increased rates of fuel consumption (proportional to the gravity field) and with the increased burn, maneuvering thruster malfunctions and failure! That would be awesome, and realistic, and within the bounds of physics!

Just imagine, hovering over a high gravity planet at an inclined angle of attack and boon, you lose your right forward lateral thruster, you start listing to the right and you're ships handling becomes all wonky cause you've lost a thrust vector, that would be awesome!

agreed. Especially when I am chasing loot or cargo after a low-orbit fight and the wobble/ auto-levelling makes it impossible to scoop up the goods.

 

[SMcA]

And while you are at it. I want to whinge about the ship drifting off course in SC.
That is not realism just a game mechanic to make you pay attention.

 

[Arkku]

Agreed, I've always been wondering about the wobble. We specifically can't land on planets with an atmosphere, so why make it seem like there is an atmosphere?

 

[afreeflyingsoul]

And while you are at it. I want to whinge about the ship drifting off course in SC.
That is not realism just a game mechanic to make you pay attention.

I've never experienced ship drift in super-cruise, that may be an hardware input problem in your system.

Are you using a joystick? It may need calibration.
Are you using a game pad? Twirl the analog stick a complete 360 to calibrate.
Are you using an optical mouse? Check your surface, wood-grain, other complex random patterns, and sometimes glass cause problems for the tracking mechanisms in modern mice.

- - - Updated - - -

agreed. Especially when I am chasing loot or cargo after a low-orbit fight and the wobble/ auto-levelling makes it impossible to scoop up the goods.

Mayhap they could make this wobble a toggle feature. Folks that think it's an appropriate game mechanic can keep it, while those of use who feel like it's fingernails-on-a-chalkboard-maddening can turn it off!

While I'm living my pipe dream, maybe they'll make the ambient lighting in the cockpits of our ships optional and let us turn the lights out (all the lights, especially the ones next to the flight stick and throttle)!

 

[xondk]

I know this is an old topic, but go ahead and tell me this has already been addressed...

I've said this before, I'm going to say it again (and again, and again). Please, for the love of physics, get rid of ship wobble near the surface of planets. It grates on my every last nerve! I have degrees in both applied physics and mechanical engineering and this "wobble" would never, never, never be allowed in a real world space craft! (watch the Apollo landings)

It doesn't add any challenge to the game (easily overcome) but it does add bizarreness! From whence come the force that is acting on my ship to cause the wobble! There's no atmosphere! If the stated offical explanation were true (the thrusters are too weak) my ship would just sink to the planet and I'd be stuck there, forever, never to leave. But they're obviously not too weak cause all that happens is wobble.

I am aware that the majority of players are just fine with the wobble (bully for them), but for a game that prides itself on fidelity to physics, it is simply unacceptable. If the developers want to keep the wobble, please change the official explanation to what it really is, "we thought it would be better to have wobble, just because", and drop the shoddy excuse of "the thrusters are too weak".

ugh... Okay, now bring on the stop-whining, this-is-already-discussed-elsewhere, we-talked-about-this, just-enjoy-the-game, why-won't-people-stop-complaining replies!

TL;DR: Fix the wobble or fix the explanation (see bold).

Last I checked, the wobble only happens when your main vertical thrusters are not those used to keep your ship level. You'll notice you do not wobble if you level out your ship.
So the explanation makes good sense in my book? if you are aiming downwards you are basically trying to balance your ship with the reverse thrusters, and not the spread out thrusters along your ship pointing downwards?
That said, the wobble does feel a bit artificial, maybe it should instead be changed to be more Newtonian in nature?

 

[SMcA]

I've never experienced ship drift in super-cruise, that may be an hardware input problem in your system.

Are you using a joystick? It may need calibration.
Are you using a game pad? Twirl the analog stick a complete 360 to calibrate.
Are you using an optical mouse? Check your surface, wood-grain, other complex random patterns, and sometimes glass cause problems for the tracking mechanisms in modern mice.

You're probably right. I do have a X52 Pro.
I just logged on and it is rock steady ATM. (100kLs in a straight line.)
When it happens again I will check the output to the control panel and see it there is an offset at neutral or if there is any jitter. I certainly had an offset on the throttle at zero but that has gone as well. Maybe it needed a couple of years to burn in. [where is it]
Thanks for confirming it is only me.

 

[Tryst]

Where did you get the "no atmosphere" idea? There is an atmosphere on EVERY planet, no matter how thin it might be. Even the Earth's moon has an atmosphere although thin enough to still be classed as a vacuum. Basic physics tells you that any large mass would attract particles that would ultimately form a thin atmosphere. You try travelling at extreme speeds (even 120m/s equals 432Km/hour or 268.4 MPH) near any astral body and you'll feel a small amount of turbulence, yes, even the Apollo landings experienced a small amount of shaking but you don't notice it from the internal cam because it's mounted firmly on the thing that's moving. In a car, you don't see the car moving, it appears that everything around it is moving but you are staying still with respect to the car's interior. If your head was fixed inside the car like the cam on the Apollo craft, you wouldn't even see the car jolt when you hit a bump in the road, Your head wobbles on your neck so you notice the bumps and jolts more than a cam would and you would certainly notice it in a ship travelling in excess of 260MPH.

 

[afreeflyingsoul]

Where did you get the "no atmosphere" idea? There is an atmosphere on EVERY planet, no matter how thin it might be. Even the Earth's moon has an atmosphere although thin enough to still be classed as a vacuum. Basic physics tells you that any large mass would attract particles that would ultimately form a thin atmosphere. You try travelling at extreme speeds (even 120m/s equals 432Km/hour or 268.4 MPH) near any astral body and you'll feel a small amount of turbulence, yes, even the Apollo landings experienced a small amount of shaking but you don't notice it from the internal cam because it's mounted firmly on the thing that's moving. In a car, you don't see the car moving, it appears that everything around it is moving but you are staying still with respect to the car's interior. If your head was fixed inside the car like the cam on the Apollo craft, you wouldn't even see the car jolt when you hit a bump in the road, Your head wobbles on your neck so you notice the bumps and jolts more than a cam would and you would certainly notice it in a ship travelling in excess of 260MPH.

Yes, I am aware, but I'm using the parlance of Elite Dangerous: Horizons. If you're playing the game, check out the system map in a system that has land-able planets after you do a surface scan.

Pre-scan:

Spoiler

Post-scan:

Spoiler

You'll notice on the left-hand side of the screen there's some information regarding the planet, including Atmosphere type. All planets that can be landed on in ED:H are classified as "No Atmosphere" planets.

The game developers, at least, David Braben, is well aware that strictly speaking this isn't true, there is at some level an atmosphere at least when the planet is facing the sun, however they take the liberty of rounding the ATMs down to zero.

Furthermore, the wobble that I am referring too occurs only when the ship is stopped and only occurs at a downward pitch attitude.

Video here:
https://youtu.be/atBERx6Na4w

I would be more than happy, as a matter of fact, I'd be delighted if there was turbulence in the game! But this is simply a game mechanic to add a little "spice" to planetary landings, and it's rather bothersome for me (I freely admit this is a personal preference, but it's my personal preference so I care about it).

As to the shake from the Apollo, that wasn't turbulence, that was the rocket engine firing (tends to cause a ruckus), not the negligible lunar atmosphere. As to the experience of turbulence in the lunar atmosphere, I'll leave you with this quote from NASA (remember how fast the International Space Station is traveling):

At sea level on Earth, we breathe in an atmosphere where each cubic centimeter contains 10,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules; by comparison the lunar atmosphere has less than 1,000,000 molecules in the same volume. That still sounds like a lot, but it is what we consider to be a very good vacuum on Earth. In fact, the density of the atmosphere at the moon's surface is comparable to the density of the outermost fringes of Earth's atmosphere where the International Space Station orbits.​

 

[afreeflyingsoul]

Last I checked, the wobble only happens when your main vertical thrusters are not those used to keep your ship level. You'll notice you do not wobble if you level out your ship.
So the explanation makes good sense in my book? if you are aiming downwards you are basically trying to balance your ship with the reverse thrusters, and not the spread out thrusters along your ship pointing downwards?
That said, the wobble does feel a bit artificial, maybe it should instead be changed to be more Newtonian in nature?

I will admit that it is a passable explanation, it sounds sciency, but it ignores Newtonian mechanics completely (I'm going to assume everyone reading this is familiar with the 3 Laws):

Gravity, for the purposes of this discussion, can be treated as a uniform force field at the planet's surface (when the sample volume is small enough), and Gravity is the only force acting on our ships.* This means that the only external force acting on our ship (assuming no nearby hostiles) is a uniform, uni-directional force that can only be countered in with a force of equal magnitude and opposite vector. ED have already demonstrated our ships have finely tuned flight assist algorithms that have no trouble with simple physics in the deep vacuum of space, so why would the algorithm go the pot in a uniform force field?

Short answer: it wouldn't.

Hence my frustration with the wobble mechanic! >screams internally<

I realize this is just a personal thing and I'm still playing the game, but it's like an itch that you can't scratch, or a tickle in the back of your throat that you can't clear, or a sink that you can't stop from dripping... So that's why I'm asking that it be removed from the game.




*ignoring the infinitesimally small mass of the atmosphere that's present around all heavenly bodies and assuming the only to bodies in the universe with mass are your ship and the planet and both are point objects!**

**just for fun lets assume a heavy atmosphere of 100% O2 at 1,000,000 particles per cubic centimeter, and O2 has a mass of 31.9988 g per mole, where there are 6.022 x 10^23 particles per mole of substance, that means a mass of 5.3 x 10^-17 grams per cubic centimeter!

 

[DocLooshkin]

Hello, Afreeflyingsoul.

You're not the only one who doesn't like it. From memory - and from trying it out again after reading this thread - it's an entirely arbitrary and unreasonable effect that contradicts any sense of logic in the game. The effect is identical everywhere inside the blue line, once we drop to sublight, regardless of planetary mass and volume and regardless of whether the ship is ten metres or hundreds of kilometres from the surface.

Try as I might, I can't think of anything external that could exert such perfectly consistent force upon a ship, nor think of any 'natural' fault within a ship that might account for it. The best idea I can come up with is that it might be an intentional, preprogrammed effect designed to discourage pilots from shooting at planetary installations - humanity's most unconvincing and badly-implemented security measure, in a galactic empire already defined by it's wilfully-ineffectual security.

On a more personal note, I'm playing on a 3D monitor. While I can appreciate the technical excellence needed to create a "realistic" swimming-motion, I find the effect to be far too heavy-handedly applied, to the point of being nauseating. When the missions were revised a while back, I took one to retrieve a few canisters of something-or-other from what turned out to be high above a small moon. I spent the best part of an hour repeatedly respawning the mission POI and trying to retrieve the bloody things - and in the end, I just felt sick as a dog and abandoned the mission. I don't want to play those missions any more, not even a little bit.

+1 for - at bare minimum - toning the effect down by an order of magnitude.

 

[Tryst]

There is another reason. You pilot isn't rock steady and has to breathe. The video shows a small movement akin to the pilots body moving as he breathes, much like the cockpit veers to obscure one side of your view when you turn due to inertia, (although they got it wrong because you don't get pushed to the left by inertia if you're turning left, also you don't get thrown forward when accelerating fast). The mistake with that wobble was that it should be in contrast to the cockpit, not the ground.

 

[Lestat]

You know afreeflyingsoul in theory you might be right. But like Movies and games it called Drama otherwise the movies or games would be boring.

 

[trollson]

I put it down to a behaviour of Flight Assist - try landing on a planet with FAOFF and see how it feels?

 

[afreeflyingsoul]

You know afreeflyingsoul in theory you might be right. But like Movies and games it called Drama otherwise the movies or games would be boring.

Hence my request that they just call it what it is: drama

I do disagree with the idea that removing the wobble would make the game boring, rather, I'd posit that it would make the game more aesthetically pleasing and thus have the opposite effect. I think a better course for making the game more interesting would be component failures (like losing one or two of your vectoring thrusters) and dynamic fuel consumption (i.e. when you're hovering, you're burning more fuel, and the higher the gravity the quicker you go through fuel and the higher the fuel consumption the greater risk you'd have of component failure (like a fuel pump failure, really the gameplay opportunities are unlimited, all due to getting rid of an artificial game mechanic!))).

- - - Updated - - -

I put it down to a behaviour of Flight Assist - try landing on a planet with FAOFF and see how it feels?

Hmmm... I had forgotten about Flight Assist (I've been exploring for months now, only turn it off when in combat), I'll give that a try, thanks for the suggestion.

 

[xondk]

I will admit that it is a passable explanation, it sounds sciency, but it ignores Newtonian mechanics completely (I'm going to assume everyone reading this is familiar with the 3 Laws):

Gravity, for the purposes of this discussion, can be treated as a uniform force field at the planet's surface (when the sample volume is small enough), and Gravity is the only force acting on our ships.* This means that the only external force acting on our ship (assuming no nearby hostiles) is a uniform, uni-directional force that can only be countered in with a force of equal magnitude and opposite vector. ED have already demonstrated our ships have finely tuned flight assist algorithms that have no trouble with simple physics in the deep vacuum of space, so why would the algorithm go the pot in a uniform force field?

Short answer: it wouldn't.

Hence my frustration with the wobble mechanic! >screams internally<

I realize this is just a personal thing and I'm still playing the game, but it's like an itch that you can't scratch, or a tickle in the back of your throat that you can't clear, or a sink that you can't stop from dripping... So that's why I'm asking that it be removed from the game.




*ignoring the infinitesimally small mass of the atmosphere that's present around all heavenly bodies and assuming the only to bodies in the universe with mass are your ship and the planet and both are point objects!**

**just for fun lets assume a heavy atmosphere of 100% O2 at 1,000,000 particles per cubic centimeter, and O2 has a mass of 31.9988 g per mole, where there are 6.022 x 10^23 particles per mole of substance, that means a mass of 5.3 x 10^-17 grams per cubic centimeter!

I get what you are saying, though I still think it is close, you are basically asking your ship to balance on stilts, when aiming directly down, the reverse thrusters, though yes, I agree the vertical thrusters should be able to compensate for the wobbling, but then again, that can't be easy with the weight of the ship aimed as it does how would that be represented? I would say the wobble should be different, it should if anything be so when you are aiming directly down, and not trying to do anything else, thrusters wouldn't have to compensate for your control so they could keep the wobble away, if you try to control your ship though then you'd feel resistance, the wobble should affect control rather then actually making it 'wobble' rather it should be your control accuracy that wobbles, say you try to pitch 50% but instead pitch because it is fighting to balance itself and such, wobbles between say 30-70% of actual input? because at the time of your input it, it could be the thrusters are already trying to compensate and as such would be less effective, or it could be you are already due to wobble moving that way, and as such your control would be more effective then suspected, of course it would react after a certain time and adjust to your input, but that latency plus control inaccuracy would maybe translate the whole thing better physical wise?

The need to battle controls rather then having your ship be oddly wobbly?

 

[Loophole]

Another way to look at the "wobble" is to consider that the "thrusters" are not actually "thrusters" as we think of them (i.e. working by ejecting reaction mass). I envision them as actually another variation of the "frameshift" effect - the reason I come to this conclusion is this: the "thrusters" don't consume fuel, or certainly not enough that you can observe any variation in consumption dependant on throttle setting, boosting or manouvering. They definitely don't consume enough mass to produce the enourmous thrust we observe.

So my conclusion is that the "thrusters" are utilising a form of "frameshift" effect to produce force (perhaps some sort of miniature contained supercruise bubble). The "jet exhausts" we observe are either just visual artefacts of the thrusters (virtual particles annihilating themselves?), or are decorations added by the manufacturers to please their customers (like chrome fins on a car

The "wobble" can then be justified with technobabble - something about the thruster fields becomeing unstable at low speeds in a gravitational field, if they are not orthogonal to the gravitational gradient.

Still, I don't know why they don't just fix it by reversing the polarity - that always works in Star Trek :-D

 

[[VR] Merkir]

Because I can't justify the wobble any other way, I simply choose to believe FD wrote the software to handle atmospheric landings now, and forgot to turn off the atmosphere simulation component for (near) vacuum landings when Horizons was released. I'm saying this tongue-in-cheek but... well... you know... based on other bugs I've seen...

Does anyone have a link to FD's own explanation of the flight dynamics for planetary landings? Apologies if it's already been posted here. Thanks in advance.

 

[Octanoz]

I'm sorry but... what?

This is what is troubling you with respect to realism?

I'm with Lestat here. Just a little added drama. We can also hear shooting, boosting and explosions in space. Please don't try to take that away from us! (Maybe the losing speed with FA off, you should definitely protest that!)

I can sort of sympathise in seeing this is the most simulator-like experience in a released game out there (that I'm aware of, anyway) but it's still more Star Wars than Space Shuttle Columbia Simulator 2017. As it should be, in my humble opinion.