I totally appreciate your position, it's just that I want to fly Newtonian all the time. I'm a spaceman. On a spaceship. in space, dammit!
The Flight Model - Can it be expanded to MORE than Airplanes in space?
- Thread starter Snarfbuckle
- Start date
It's not friction, watch how the thrusters operate, they decelerate the ship to nn boost speed. The logic behind it has been outlined.
The devs could either remove boosting completely- (Make max cruise speed the boost speed) or revert to how it was previously, assist off means no reversers activating after a boost. Neither is going to happen, the old FA-OFF model gave too much of an advantage over the AI
Am going to be blunt here, you are coming up with bad ideas, also you are showing a serious lack of knowledge when it comes to FA-OFF, yet you want it changed for the rest of us that have been flying pure FA-OFF for years.
I like the flight model to stay even closer to Elite and further from FFE/FE2.
I think FA-off should be disabled in combat situations.
Sorry. Had to say it.
Then you're just left with jousting, which in my opinion is even worse than "turrets in space". It's boring as all hell. ED combat videos are truly boring to watch. They're either just jousting or one or more are in FA Off and orbiting each other, sometimes boost-orbiting in FA Off. And it's basically a slug-fest, each shooting lasers/plasma/bullets at each other until someone dies.
ED combat has to be THE most boring activity ever, in open space. There is zero tactics to it, precisely because of the 3D environment it's set in - there's no cover to use, unless you're fighting in an asteroid field, which makes it a bit better. And these days with RNGineering the battle is decided at the outfitting screen.
But the vast majority of ED combat videos are set in open space - and they're dull as ditchwater to watch.
Two sets?
We are using the SAME thrusters for all other maneuvers and they perform better at OTHER maneuvers.
Minimum amount of thrusters we need and that most ships have are:
X4 top
X4 bottom
X--X
- - -
X--X
The above X are the thrusters.
To SPIN right i use the following X4 (top and bottom thruster sets on each side)
X--X
- - -
X--X
To LOOP i use the following pair of X2 forward thrusters and X2 rear thrusters
X--X
- - -
X--X
Both actions use the same type of maneuvering thrusters and a set of X4 thrusters in combination but when I use them for SPIN we have LESS output.
Sure, thruster placement could apply since they USUALLY face upwards or downward to some degree
But we still run into the issue that we could EASILY use ONE main thruster and one retro thruster in combination to increase the efficiency in that case.
X
X--X
- - -
X--X
----X
But for game balance reasons we are sluggish to spin.
EDIT: Heck, they could just put a penalty for maximum speed due to bleed off from using a retro thruster and only ONE main thruster to spin.
Last edited:
No, an engineer would totally design a ship to have much stronger turning ability in one direction, given that to do so in both axis would require additional mass and is just compensating for a weakness of the pilot, in not being able to properly function in a 3D environment.
Here's your choice: For X mass you can have a ship which turns at speed '2' in two axis. Or you can have a ship which turns at speed '3' in one axis, '1' in the other, but can spin on the other axis in a negligible amount of time. The one which has asymmetrical but ultimately more powerful turning thrusters is the most agile.
Not sure if you are talking about me? I fly Piper Archers & contract for an Aerospace company in the Middle East, I don't fly commercially. Just putting that out there again.
Anyway, once again, these ships behave like fictional space ships, quit the aircraft comparisons people.
Our ships actually behave more like those small submarines / ROVs with thrusters for all direction.
A weightless environment with friction.
What has happened before, will happen again.
Just like this thread.
I say this as a battle-scarred veteran of the original Flight Model Wars more than 2 years ago.
Forget your arguments over this - I vehemently advocated for a more newtonian flight model back then, got angry, got infractions, a temp ban and suchlike. Under a different forum nom de plume.
Basically, FDEV will not budge on this. We're all stuck with what we have
Just like this thread.
I say this as a battle-scarred veteran of the original Flight Model Wars more than 2 years ago.
Forget your arguments over this - I vehemently advocated for a more newtonian flight model back then, got angry, got infractions, a temp ban and suchlike. Under a different forum nom de plume.
Basically, FDEV will not budge on this. We're all stuck with what we have
Yes, you still need the same AMOUNT of thrusters, but to make them capable of turning the vessel faster, they need to deliver more thrust. Which means larger, heavier, more powerful thrusters. Ultimately, one could end up with an engine as large as the main engine for every directional thruster. But would that make sense as a design as regards efficiency? Heck no!
This I think is why FA-OFF need more options and the ability to SPIN faster needs improving.
Maneuvering is the most important ability if there is no cover and unlike airplanes we are not affected by gravitational effects like pressure and wind that limits our movement.
Limiting us in movement to have our ships (for the most part) act like airplanes makes the combat less fun.
but then you ask ED to be an arcade game and not a space fight game, becase true space fight game is newtonian and therefore turrets in space. FD tried to mix it ending up with a semi arcade whatever.
maybe but this is ebcause our ships are more of less deisgned like aircrafts or ships and not like actual spaceships. if you deisgn a proper spacehips it would be shaped to be less on 2 planes and act on 4 planes or even be spheroid to not have badly turnangle ons epcific angles.
or they owuld be cross shaped shaped with small engines at the ends of the lines for a proper equally valid movement in all directions. because a proper spaceship deisgn would be a flying turret in space with maybe a main thruster for a directional speed. or maybe even without any main thrusters at all.
no thats just your assumption that it would be like this, but it isn't Because what you do is basically summuming that the rolling thrusters suddenly came for free, then of course yes 3 in one direction and 1 in the other is better, but thats just leaving out the investment on rolling thrusters.
Last edited:
I don't mind the limited yaw or the speed bleed. I just want my space-brakes to space-brake as well as the other guys' space-brakes.What has happened before, will happen again.
Just like this thread.
I say this as a battle-scarred veteran of the original Flight Model Wars more than 2 years ago.
Forget your arguments over this - I vehemently advocated for a more newtonian flight model back then, got angry, got infractions, a temp ban and suchlike. Under a different forum nom de plume.
Basically, FDEV will not budge on this. We're all stuck with what we have
Well, yes, exactly! That's what I'm trying to explain and that's what makes this game less of a simulation and more of an arcade shoot-em-up
And that's why it's futile to ask FDEV to revisit the flight model. Ain't gonna happen folks.
You miss my point.
If we have thrusters evenly placed along a hull with EQUAL thrust in all directions then any combination of X4 maneuvering thrusters would change the ships orientation in the same amount of time.
And since we use the SAME maneuvering thrusters for all directional changes it becomes odd when ONE type of vector change is far slower.
And that COULD be even more improved by using one main retro thruster and main engine thruster to improve that spin.
You get paid to fly planes. That rather trumps anyone else's experience here, save perhaps the guy who flies F-16s; but I'm not seeing him here disagreeing!
Revisit, no, but ITERATE, yes please.
They will never change the CORE of the flight model but they CAN improve upon it.
Why would they all be equal?
Why would every thruster be capable of delivering seven g of thrust, for example?
Is every control surface of an aircraft the same size?
Why build it like that when - with the flick of the stick - a pilot can present whichever thruster he desires and utilise the most powerful one? It makes no sense to engineer them all for the same power, when all that is required is to spin the vessel so that the most powerful thrusters are used to make the manoeuvre?
Last edited:
What you are talking about though isn't improvement. It's ruining what makes combat enjoyable.
different question, if you had a set of 6 points to assign, how would you deisgn your ship? you have 3 axis that it would have to do the rolling. thats the rollign we have now, the pitch and the jaw. Rolling isn't free, rolling is one of the 3 axis. your previous 3vs1 comparison was just not good because you gave free rolling.
if you 3vs1 as before you will be weak vs opponents left and right form you because you need to roll slow before you can utilise the high values of pitching. so engineering wise you just gave yourself a disadvantage. Further if you deisgn it that way you also have disadvantages in vasious lfight directions, because you can't utilise these thrusters for 3 dimensional movement and it would force you fly circles aroudn your enemy not facign him. while the other equllay distributed method would allows you to "hover" around an enemy in any direction while facing him.