Targeting. Static reticle or Floating reticle ?

[deMangler]

As far as realism goes, I find it quite simple and easy to immerse myself in the Elite world where, for some reason, all weapons have to be aimed and fired by a human, including turrets, and there is no E/war.
I don't have to think about it much because it is consistent and provides for good game-play. The only time I would start to wonder if it was 'realistic' or not would be if some inconsistency made me question it. Otherwise I can just enjoy it.

It seems to me that most of the cry's for 'realism' in various threads are more cry's for consistency with current technological and methodological paradigms rather than 'realism'. There is no need for this because the Elite universe uses different paradigms, part of the justification for which is that it is set in the far enough future that almost arbitrary differences from the present can be allowed for to enable enough suspension of disbelief to enjoy the mechanics that give rise to good game-play.
Hows that for a sentence...

 

[rooty]

I'd like to point out something that I think everyone has missed - mostly we wont be flying 33rd century combat aircraft we will be flying the 33rd century version of trucks with guns added.

Not sure about this - there will be fans of all different types of craft, from small, agile fighters to behemoth freighters - depends on what you choose to do in the game.

The Cobra Mk iii did me fine in the original Elite and an Asp was (imho) the best all-rounder in FE2. I wouldn't describe either as a truck.

My aim will be to kit out a decent, agile ship (be it an Asp or something similar) with a bit of room for cargo to make enough money to fund repairs from my chosen game lifestyle, depending on how well bounties and missions pay (never quite enough on FE2).

 

[JackWeaver]

Fixed reticule as standard.

Ships can run with engines off and work like a turret, best for small ships.

Lead sight as an optional upgrade.

Fixed guns, those with limited arc and fully rotatable turrets should be weapon choices.

 

[Bounder]

As far as realism goes, I find it quite simple and easy to immerse myself in the Elite world where, for some reason, all weapons have to be aimed and fired by a human, including turrets, and there is no E/war.
I don't have to think about it much because it is consistent and provides for good game-play. The only time I would start to wonder if it was 'realistic' or not would be if some inconsistency made me question it. Otherwise I can just enjoy it.

It seems to me that most of the cry's for 'realism' in various threads are more cry's for consistency with current technological and methodological paradigms rather than 'realism'. There is no need for this because the Elite universe uses different paradigms, part of the justification for which is that it is set in the far enough future that almost arbitrary differences from the present can be allowed for to enable enough suspension of disbelief to enjoy the mechanics that give rise to good game-play.
Hows that for a sentence...

For me it's more about self-consistency - where modern-day examples are made it's because they're specifically relevant. Hence it's internally inconsistent that a spacefaring civilisation would lose vital technologies that we have now - rather than building upon them.

There's a logic to AndyB's point above that the military or licensed private security agencies will retain the best toys - IOW there'll be weapons restrictions, at least in civilised jurisdictions. Except then there'll inevitably be a black market, too..

Classic Elite is self-consistent because of what it achieved on limited hardware - you were unburdened by objection because you were so blown away by the technical marvel, and sucked in by the revolutionary depth of gameplay. It got away with its technical limits because it was self-evidently at the very bleeding edge of what was possible, and it inspired one's imagination to fill in the gaps.

FE2/FFE followed exactly the same course - wowing us with undreamt of levels of realism, and again, massively exceeding our expectations.

And there's the rub: my minimum expectations are that in terms of self-consistent plausibility, E: D will be to FE2/FFE what they were to Elite 'A'. Classic Elite with new graphics wouldn't be able to touch the thrills and glory of the original game because the custard flight model and single-planet-per-star cosmology is inconsistent with current hardware abilities.

It's not merely a question of conceding realism to gameplay, but of maintaining plausibility. That's the issue. If there's believable reason for a restriction then it's easily overlooked. Inexplicably handicapped weapons systems would grate, though.

 

[Zak Gordon]

@Bounder, maybe the problem is you are projecting the potential future too strongly on what you want the current non-future Elite: Dangerous to be?

90% of people playing E: D will be doing it on 2D displays, using a mouse, keyboard, joystick or some combination of that. In some design aspects based on that current day technological limit KISS is often best, and in the specific case of Elite: Dangerous it has a game series to pay lip service to?

Is X3 a really easy game to play and manage, or is it a victim of it's own success at complexity? It feels pretty hi-tech, but then also that complexity of hi-tech makes it feel a little clunky in some aspects of it's gameplay. I love the X series (X2 my fav) in general, but it was not an Elite beater, it was different.

Part of what made Elite such a darn good game series was the immediacy of the simulation, there was very little complexity on top of the already complex mathematical simulation of our galaxy and you ability to mess around in it.

KISS,+ don't fix what isn't broken. Granted not always the best method, but in the short time span FD have for this project, and the current quite humble budget, they might be sound design principles to adhere too?

 

[Robert Maynard]

If there's believable reason for a restriction then it's easily overlooked. Inexplicably handicapped weapons systems would grate, though.

I do understand that, but don't want those with mobile mounted guns (and a keyboard/mouse FPS background) to be using the mouse as an instant aiming device - instant gun traversing is not realistic, therefore a fixed deg/sec traversing rate (and suitably limited traverse limiting cone) would be more realistic.

.... but as this may be technology limited to military use then it could automatically be confiscated on docking in well policed systems.

 

[Bounder]

I do understand that, but don't want those with mobile mounted guns (and a keyboard/mouse FPS background) to be using the mouse as an instant aiming device - instant gun traversing is not realistic, therefore a fixed deg/sec traversing rate (and suitably limited traverse limiting cone) would be more realistic.

.... but as this may be technology limited to military use then it could automatically be confiscated on docking in well policed systems.

Yep, fair say..

 

[Bounder]

@Bounder, maybe the problem is you are projecting the potential future too strongly on what you want the current non-future Elite: Dangerous to be?

90% of people playing E: D will be doing it on 2D displays, using a mouse, keyboard, joystick or some combination of that. In some design aspects based on that current day technological limit KISS is often best, and in the specific case of Elite: Dangerous it has a game series to pay lip service to?

Is X3 a really easy game to play and manage, or is it a victim of it's own success at complexity? It feels pretty hi-tech, but then also that complexity of hi-tech makes it feel a little clunky in some aspects of it's gameplay. I love the X series (X2 my fav) in general, but it was not an Elite beater, it was different.

Part of what made Elite such a darn good game series was the immediacy of the simulation, there was very little complexity on top of the already complex mathematical simulation of our galaxy and you ability to mess around in it.

KISS,+ don't fix what isn't broken. Granted not always the best method, but in the short time span FD have for this project, and the current quite humble budget, they might be sound design principles to adhere too?

The issue of a floating reticle - essentially a mouse cursor - to point the ship and/or weapons isn't that technically controversial though; indeed it'd simplify things being able to fly single handed - one mouse replacing at least seven keys, just for basic flight control.

As i've said i enjoy the classic flight controls and consider myself a dab hand at them, but the absence of movable reticles would seem a glaring omission..