Ships should suffer inertial damage

[amadeus1171]

I've seen a video once of a corvette armed with Prismatic Shields and a full complement of shield boosters dive nose-first into a planet at speeds only a corvette can attain with flight assist off, smash into the surface, only to bounce off unaffected with only one ring of shields gone.

This is ridiculous! You mean to tell me there is no damage from inertia in this game?

IRL, if you impact something of sufficient hardness with your car going a sufficient amount of speed your aorta can actually separate from your heart causing instant death. Nothing like this happens in game.

If a plane crashes into the ground it crushes onto itself and disintegrates, shield or no shield.

In game if a ship ram another ship both should suffer some kind of structural damage because of inertia, shield or no shield, and it shoudn't jut be limited to hull. Modules should have some varying degree of damage as well.

The same holds true if you slam your ship into a planet or on a landing deck, or even clip the sides or top or bottom of the letterbox, your ship should suffer some kind of inertial structural damage.

Well, that's my spew. What do you think?

 

[Aashenfox]

I agree completely. Though I do appreciate the coding effort involved to achieve it, maybe something to ask for in the next paid content.

 

[kpmop]

Inertial dampers!

Fair point though - SRVs take collision damage even if their shields are up...

 

[Chris Simon]

So you also want to be squished to bloody soup when your Courier accelerates from 0 to Mach 2 in 1.2 seconds, I guess.

Great idea. Fun experience. Much realism, wow.
No, I think realism in games should have limits, thank you.

 

[Slange Lands]

I've seen a video once of a corvette armed with Prismatic Shields and a full complement of shield boosters dive nose-first into a planet at speeds only a corvette can attain with flight assist off, smash into the surface, only to bounce off unaffected with only one ring of shields gone.

This is ridiculous! You mean to tell me there is no damage from inertia in this game?

IRL, if you impact something of sufficient hardness with your car going a sufficient amount of speed your aorta can actually separate from your heart causing instant death. Nothing like this happens in game.

If a plane crashes into the ground it crushes onto itself and disintegrates, shield or no shield.

In game if a ship ram another ship both should suffer some kind of structural damage because of inertia, shield or no shield, and it shoudn't jut be limited to hull. Modules should have some varying degree of damage as well.

The same holds true if you slam your ship into a planet or on a landing deck, or even clip the sides or top or bottom of the letterbox, your ship should suffer some kind of inertial structural damage.

Well, that's my spew. What do you think?

Of course your post makes a lot of sense.
However, I think many of us would prefer to not have yet another way to lose cents.

Just using my prescience.



P.S. Of course, your scents may vary.

 

[bladebss]

I agree. This would make more sence and make ramming in combat a more calculated manuver.. as right now some ships are often build as ram rods.

BUT this ramming 'abuse' has arisen as a responce to massive hit point inflation.. just saying.

 

[xxThe_Dice_manxx]

Completely agree.

Head on collisions should result in the larger mass obliterating the smaller mass with damage to the larger as well.

Colliding with solid objects at high speeds should cause severe damage or instant death shields or no shields.

Colliding with solid objects at moderate speeds should result in severe damage to ship.

It should also effect cargo and modules.

For instance if you were to be carrying explosives a collisions should cause them to explode with interesting results.

 

[777Driver]

I agree. This would make more sence and make ramming in combat a more calculated manuver.. as right now some ships are often build as ram rods.

BUT this ramming 'abuse' has arisen as a responce to massive hit point inflation.. just saying.

Yeah, you'd just get one guy in a wing configured to ram the heck out of anything smaller, with devestating amounts of damage being done. The online combat side of this game has screwed up so much in ED. Heavily computer assisted flight model, unrealistic damage modelling, crazy legal system..

I'd pay good money for an offline version of ED that was more believable and focused primarily on exploring the galaxy.

 

[pippo]

Where's that video, OP?

 

[Chris Simon]

Yeah, you'd just get one guy in a wing configured to ram the heck out of anything smaller, with devestating amounts of damage being done. The online combat side of this game has screwed up so much in ED. Heavily computer assisted flight model, unrealistic damage modelling, crazy legal system..

I'd pay good money for an offline version of ED that was more believable and focused primarily on exploring the galaxy.

Amen to that.

 

[Morbad]

Well, that's my spew. What do you think?

Our ships can clearly withstand extreme forces of acceleration without damage.

I wouldn't mind if this durability was toned down and there were limits to what our ships could withstand, but I don't think it would be easy to implement properly at this point and would settle for them restoring collision damage to what it originally was (2.5x what it is now).

So you also want to be squished to bloody soup when your Courier accelerates from 0 to Mach 2 in 1.2 seconds, I guess.

I think the physical limits of whatever our CMDRs are is a pretty good place to put limits on the ships, as safety features.

I agree. This would make more sence and make ramming in combat a more calculated manuver.. as right now some ships are often build as ram rods.

BUT this ramming 'abuse' has arisen as a responce to massive hit point inflation.. just saying.

The implications of structural acceleration limits goes far beyond collisions, even if collisions are most apparent.

Flipping a 200m ship end over end in a handful of seconds would tear one apart if it were of a more credible mass and/or made of less fantastic materials. It would also kill anyone not near the point of rotation, if they were mere humans, and not freakishly durable super CMDRs, engineered to pilot magic space ships over dozens of generations.

 

[Ertman]

I had a funny experience a couple of months ago when I was interdicted near a planet. Speed was over 2Mm/s and about 0.5s after the interdiction started the game noticed that there is a planet and ended the interdiction. Then I hit the surface at some ridiculous speed and instead of going boom I bounced back up over 4km. Just before hitting the planet I was spinning as if I would've lost the interdiction and I didn't get any damage to shields or hull and the whole thing was like lol wut.

Anyway, it would be nice to have shields work like they do with SRV's and if I boost 500m/s to a landing pad it might feel better to take some damage instead of losing one ring of shields...

 

[Vandaahl]

This is ridiculous! You mean to tell me there is no damage from inertia in this game?

Well, that's my spew. What do you think?

I'm glad I'm playing their game and not yours.

Grab a calculator and see what it takes to get from 0 to 100 C in 3 seconds... In your game, we would have a re-buy screen once a minute. Thanks, but no.

 

[Aashenfox]

I'm glad I'm playing their game and not yours.

Grab a calculator and see what it takes to get from 0 to 100 C in 3 seconds... In your game, we would have a re-buy screen once a minute. Thanks, but no.

Acceleration in an Alcubierre warp bubble would be inertia-less. So the OP's point stands as regards normal space. A good point is made about some ships normal space acceleration, but hey, 3304? Special G-suits? Head canon something cos no inertia is equally immersion breaking as realistic would be fun-destroying.

 

[Morbad]

I'm glad I'm playing their game and not yours.

Grab a calculator and see what it takes to get from 0 to 100 C in 3 seconds... In your game, we would have a re-buy screen once a minute. Thanks, but no.

Irrelevant, as no one is suggesting inertia apply to means of travel that would obviously not feature acceleration in, and barely features movement through, normal space.

 

[Vandaahl]

Acceleration in an Alcubierre warp bubble would be inertia-less.

Sure, only you'll arrive at the station while humans are still living in caves. If you want inertia damage, then I want time dilation.

 

[Alec Turner]

Where's that video, OP?

Not the OP's video but here's a short blooper reel from Speedbowl weekend ...

[video=youtube_share;6lhxbHTQOxI]https://youtu.be/6lhxbHTQOxI[/video]

Now I won't lie, death did ensue ... but considering these surface collisions were at over 4000m/s even surviving for a short duration is pretty unlikely!

Oh, and while I'm at it, surviving these landings seems pretty unlikely too!

[video=youtube_share;PMAlsNNuQYk]https://youtu.be/PMAlsNNuQYk[/video]

 

[fus roh potato]

I'm glad I'm playing their game and not yours.

Grab a calculator and see what it takes to get from 0 to 100 C in 3 seconds... In your game, we would have a re-buy screen once a minute. Thanks, but no.

The theory of the FSD is that it bends space to allow for the space within to accelerate. That means the ship itself is not accelerating within it's inertial frame, but rather that the inertial frame itself is accelerating - IE no inertial forces.

What OP is talking about is why don't ships suffer from collision damage to the hull when shields are up, or rotational inertial stresses. A full speed collision would result in damage regardless of shielding, and a ship such as the Corvette would likely be limited to a 10 degree per second pitching rate in more realistic circumstances. Such rules would hardly be game breaking, but rather just different and believable.

 

[pippo]

Not the OP's video but here's a short blooper reel from Speedbowl weekend

Thanks for the link, Alec...




... I'm normally on the white knight side of the fence but seriously, this shouldn't even be debated and ticketed straight away and bug reported.

 

[Aashenfox]

Sure, only you'll arrive at the station while humans are still living in caves. If you want inertia damage, then I want time dilation.

No, that's not accurate either.

If someone comes to you and says they don't like wasps, would you advise them to wipe out all wasps? Don't you think that solutions are capable of having a middle ground?