It's the last 30 - 45 seconds that annoy me. If we could just slice that off..
Supercruise accelerating / Decelerating - vent your frustrations.
- Thread starter Boff'in
- Start date
This is what gets me too. I'm full throttle but slowing down when I still have a huge chunk of distance to cover. If anything, at full throttle I should be speeding up because of the gravity from the object I'm heading towards.
With that said, it is a minor gripe. Maybe FD made it that way for a reason, to show the science, to show that the human body cannot withstand the G-forces of going many times the speed of light down to X speed of light within Y amount of time. I dunno. To the OP, I am as busy as anyone else, have a two small kids, wife, many activities besides school and it is what it is. I'll sacrifice convenience for a more realistic game play.
Too many people mistake the higher engine strain for acceleration. Check your speed, you'll see it's actually decreasing. The higher-pitched engine noise is actually the engines trying to fight it.
As for these unexpected gravitational "anomalies" - Michael Brookes was talking about it in the pre-Horizons interview. There are objects and celestial bodies that doesn't have the model and collision mesh, yet (like comets, for example), but they are already simulated by stellar forge servers, hence they do manifest themselves as mass, in-game.
It's supposed that all the ships to achieve the HC or hyperjump, have inertial dampers! you dont need to deal with the Gs!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertia_damper
How about you stop telling him how to have a family? Lots of married folks play this game, and folks with children as well, and have more than 2 hrs a week to do it. He posted a common and fair gripe about the game. It deserves attention as a lot of us take issue with it. It doesn't deserve your judgement on how he lives his life.
So many people have this mule-backwards. The speed goes down as nearby mass increases - it's the same effect as Mass Lock. Local gravity decreases the effectiveness of the Frame Shift Drive.
I was under the impression that when in Supercruise, your velocity relative to your destination is 200c (or whatever it says on your dash), but your velocity relative to local spacetime is 0 because the FSD is compressing space in front of you and expanding it behind you rather than 'moving you'. This also explains why you don't experience relativistic time-dilation effects while travelling FTL in Supercruise... is this so? Am I wrong? I could be wrong, it has been known.
I think that we can stop pretending that there's science behind the logic here. I can be within scoopable distance of a star which is an enormous gravity well and still be able to get to 1c SC in a couple of seconds. But if I'm near a 0.01 earth mass moon it takes me a full bloody minute to get away from the damn thing.
I don't mind the gravity well slow down stuff.
What really bothers me is slowing down because I select another target. For example, cruising along in SC and I see a USS and target it to see what it is, and it's like I slam the brakes on. Just selecting another target should have nothing to do with changing your speed. Only your throttle settings, and relationship to nearby gravity sources, should affect your speed.
What really bothers me is slowing down because I select another target. For example, cruising along in SC and I see a USS and target it to see what it is, and it's like I slam the brakes on. Just selecting another target should have nothing to do with changing your speed. Only your throttle settings, and relationship to nearby gravity sources, should affect your speed.
The point about the supercruise thing is that it emphasizes the great extent of space, and tries to balance instantaneous arrival with a slight modicum of realism by not having instant acceleration/ deceleration so that our bodies and cargo don't pancake against the front of the ship as we arrive .......
..... on the other hand we have instant ship transfers proposed .... which now undermines the foundation of "space is big" and conflicts with the original reasoning behind the supercruise "slowdowns."
It would be interesting to see FD explain this disparity .... but I think they will not
............ on the other hand we have instant ship transfers proposed .... which now undermines the foundation of "space is big" and conflicts with the original reasoning behind the supercruise "slowdowns."
It would be interesting to see FD explain this disparity .... but I think they will not
Unless I am at 80% throttle for that final 6 LS approaching a station, I am at full throttle.
I absolutely understand this, but it doesn't make it any less irritating.
I'm happy with Supercruise as-is BUT I would like to see some basic optional autopilot features for those who want them, either by adding a new computer module you can buy, or expanding the functionality of the docking computer. People who spend long periods in Supercruise as part of their in-game career shouldn't be forced to stare at a dot in their crosshairs if they're willing to sacrifice some internal space for the privilege.
i would ALSO love it if your FSD rating had some impact on Supercruise performance. Whether that's better acceleration/deceleration or tighter turning or better resistance to interdictions or something else; it would be nice if the impact of your FSD choice affected something more than just jump range. This will be particularly relevant in 2.2, since the upcoming instant ship transfer feature will render jump range irrelevant for many builds, and it would be great if combat ships still had a *reason* to fit something other than a D-rated FSD.
i would ALSO love it if your FSD rating had some impact on Supercruise performance. Whether that's better acceleration/deceleration or tighter turning or better resistance to interdictions or something else; it would be nice if the impact of your FSD choice affected something more than just jump range. This will be particularly relevant in 2.2, since the upcoming instant ship transfer feature will render jump range irrelevant for many builds, and it would be great if combat ships still had a *reason* to fit something other than a D-rated FSD.
This really doesn't bother me; I intend to ignore the 'instant' part and choose my own 'ship arrives in...' timer. Changing SC, on the other hand, directly affects my gameplay. An autopilot to keep us in the shipping lane, awesome; micro-jumps or a massive speed increase, no ta.
Optical.....just optical distance. Check your HUD for the real distance again
than you will see, that a stellar object like earth has much lesser effect to the FSD. Also you can accelerate to 1 click or more, but not to 2001 click. This is the max possible speed and to achiev this, it will take about an hour or more.But in one thing you are right. Every star locks with the same mass, no matter which sort of star it is or how many real mass it has.
For example: a system with 2 stars
-a shiny huge O-star
-and a little K-star
When you fly from one to the other, the point from increasing speed to decreasing speed is in the middle of both.
This really doesn't make sense since the gravity of the O-star should be much higher than from the K-star. This point from acceleration to decceleration should be at around 8/10 from the travel distance, not right in the middle.
Overall I'm happy with super cruise. One of my favorite "places" to fly. Arcing in to a planetside landing approach is one of the more fantastic flight experiences I've had in Elite. I can't wait to do this on atmospheric worlds.
I've noticed that landable planets seem much better at not heavily suppressing acceleration, compared to the non-landable ones. Certainly feels like I can't use the landable planet's gravity wells for breaking as well, at least. Perhaps there will also be changes down the road to the non-landable planets.
Any time I fly toward a star (such as crossing station to station in a system), I fly in huge arcs, trying to keep the star at 90 degrees overhead as long as possible. My supercruise picks up speed far, far faster than if I flew in a straight line near the star. Similar also works with planetary masses, keeping them rear of the 3-9 line as much as possible during egress. When I travel from a mining ring out to an orbiting station, same thing. Put the planetary mass at 90 overhead, and make an outward arc to the station on the opposite side.
I've noticed that landable planets seem much better at not heavily suppressing acceleration, compared to the non-landable ones. Certainly feels like I can't use the landable planet's gravity wells for breaking as well, at least. Perhaps there will also be changes down the road to the non-landable planets.
Any time I fly toward a star (such as crossing station to station in a system), I fly in huge arcs, trying to keep the star at 90 degrees overhead as long as possible. My supercruise picks up speed far, far faster than if I flew in a straight line near the star. Similar also works with planetary masses, keeping them rear of the 3-9 line as much as possible during egress. When I travel from a mining ring out to an orbiting station, same thing. Put the planetary mass at 90 overhead, and make an outward arc to the station on the opposite side.
I don't have an issue with the supercruise as such, but there a re a couple of things that bug me.
1) If you're close to your destination, cruising at a speed that will get you there without overshooting, and then select something else (e.g. a USS), you'll instantly seem to accelerate to overshoot the original destination
2) Gravity wells
Personally, I think adding an overlay to the scanner, showing the gravity well limits of nearby planetary bodies would be useful - then we can steer to avoid them altogether.
1) If you're close to your destination, cruising at a speed that will get you there without overshooting, and then select something else (e.g. a USS), you'll instantly seem to accelerate to overshoot the original destination
2) Gravity wells
Personally, I think adding an overlay to the scanner, showing the gravity well limits of nearby planetary bodies would be useful - then we can steer to avoid them altogether.
Optical.....just optical distance. Check your HUD for the real distance again
But in one thing you are right. Every star locks with the same mass, no matter which sort of star it is or how many real mass it has.
For example: a system with 2 stars
-a shiny huge O-star
-and a little K-star
When you fly from one to the other, the point from increasing speed to decreasing speed is in the middle of both.
This really doesn't make sense since the gravity of the O-star should be much higher than from the K-star. This point from acceleration to decceleration should be at around 8/10 from the travel distance, not right in the middle.
I realize you can't reach out and touch the star, but still at the distance you're at the gravity well is immense. Thousands of times greater than the gravity well on the surface of any moon. The reason why SC speeds near stars is much faster than near moons isn't because of the science. It's because players would lose their minds if after every hyperspace jump our SC speeds slowly ticked up from 30km/s, they knew this so hard coded in the values we see today. It's all fiction guys, they can make it whatever they want. Personally I'm of the mind that they went too far in slowing down the pace of the game.
Even right now we've been told since finding the alien wreck that that's it until the middle of October. You're not exactly inspiring us to play your game Frontier. You need to speed everything up, the gameplay, the narrative, all of it.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
I live in a city where the mayor implemented 20mph speed limits on main roads just so he could manipulate congestion figures and you complaint about travelling between planets in a matter of minutes...
Difference is that one is a video game that's supposed to be fun to play. The other is real life that is not.
Last edited: