The Old Elite IV speculation thread

[Turbo Beholder]

Acceleration (especially rotational) limits is one thing, and some gun correction to some degree is another. "Direction is set to" pointer is third.
Accelerations are already "inflated stats" in FFE. Such a combat style with ships whizzing about is possible only because FFE have obviously incomplete devices list.
► Why autopilot cannot merely turn around and perform simple thrust braking, but any ship needs to rely on extra thruster nearly (but still less) as powerful as cruising accelerator for intrasystem flight is a complete mystery.
► To survive attack of single missile detectable by its radar, any ship larger than WWII bomber does not need to perform any evasive maneuver - nor it need to have some activating-on-demand "ECM": classic autocannon turret or two should do it well. Automatically. It's not "Dune: Spacing Guild" and there was no Butlerian Jihad , right ?
Laser antimissile turret is possible too, though it should have laser cannon different from anti-ship weapons (requirements differs).
► There would not be such thing as combat at less-than-kilometer distance in multiple approaches: at such point-blank range good 30-mm turret could just peel off half of ship before it would manage to run away. Because there's no time to evade uncontrolled projectile at typical artillery speed.
► Aiming at beam weapon's max range could be possible: should there be any decent optics and some small angle of gun correction (or at least precise mode of ship control), why we'd have to aim at something inside single pixel ?

Of course, there were reasons to release FFE in very raw form, not only with bugs, but to degree of impact on setting ...but i see no reasons to consider this raw state to be more or less complete.

 

[Blood]

Stimulating reply

... WWII bomber ...

This made me think about modern warfare. Examples are Irak and Afghanistan. Sometime ago I was watching a program on TV about the historic milestones in warfare. With special attention on the period 1914-200?. Was reflecting on that.
The one message on war was : nowadays, size doesn’t matter. Nowadys you do not need a WWII bomber. What you need is the fastest processor you can get. The processor locks the target. Then mayem starts.

You mention things like “automatically” for computerguided missilecounteractions (Laser antimissile turret), computerguided assault on ships (the autocannon), computerguided targetlock and firing (aiming at beam weapon's max range).
That’s not Elite4; it is modern warfare features.
I guess following this path flying a ship in Elite4 can be really different from Elite 2 and 3.

Instead on focussing on the issue of the cockpit (quote from Steve O B Have somewhere in one of the postings : “So, to get to the point, what is the new elite console going to be like?”), the question here could be :
What will be the focus of the pilot in Elite4 ? What things, as owner and pilot of a craft in combat, are really the things you will have to keep an eye on if you are in modern warfare or to be more accurate on that : in future spacecombat and are keen to survive.

Mhmmm, Elite4 might really need the option of a triple Monitor configuration. I would want them to be operated like a flightsim multi Monitor configuration . I will probably never be in space. Elite4 might come in the closest to that wish. I hate to think to be forced to use my hard earned multiscreens exclusively for informational views, such as a solar-system map, starmap for navigation, communications and so on. I prefer enjoying the scenery I think .

To return to the topic : thrusters could well be the most important thing you need in combat in order to counter the processorpower of the enemyplayer. The best thing to survive, multiplayer or singleplayer, imho, could be the situation in which the enemy player is not able to get a lock on you .
Somebody out there with experience in that field ?


Blood.

 

[Turbo Beholder]

... WWII bomber ...

What you need is the fastest processor you can get. The processor locks the target. Then mayem starts.

Well, that's another point. ECM's proper target is foe's entire guidance system, not just proximity sensor fuse. And where radar is, things like HARM emerges.

You mention things like “automatically” for computerguided missilecounteractions (Laser antimissile turret), computerguided assault on ships (the autocannon), computerguided targetlock and firing

Of course, one could order to "fire when target in crosshair", to auto-correct, or just to see "predicted" target marker while using kinetic weapons... Yes, but it's not my point. Point was: there's lots of things absence of which looks unnatural.

That’s not Elite4; it is modern warfare features.

Why not ?.. Besides, things i mentioned are not even "modern warfare features", but merely old anti-aircraft fire control systems of 194*-s, by Norbert Wiener. Decent physics is nice thing, and i'm happy to see it in FFE, but having no fire control systems at all (without Butlerian Jihad and total prohibition of most automatics, as in Dune setting) on armed spaceship looks almost as strange as "liquid vacuum" physics of arcade "Space"-Simulators. Even worse than lack of basic telescopes and anti-missile weapons.

I guess following this path flying a ship in Elite4 can be really different from Elite 2 and 3.

Yes, maybe as far as FFE differs from ZX Elite. I'd consider it one more (perhaps final) step necessary to move from arcade component to true simulator.

Instead on focussing on the issue of the cockpit (quote from Steve O B Have somewhere in one of the postings : “So, to get to the point, what is the new elite console going to be like?”)

IMHO it's not just "cockpit", but the same interface issue in other words. Isn't proper structurization of both information and controls vital for good simulator (or anything complex at all) ? It's sole thing which can make it "realistic" and playable at the same time. Otherwise it will be nearly uncontrollable because of complexity ("wall of little gauges and buttons", as in old SF). Even if such one is automated, automatics are uncontrollable too.
Though the same seems to be appliable to simulated craft itself.

What will be the focus of the pilot in Elite4 ? What things, as owner and pilot of a craft in combat, are really the things you will have to keep an eye on if you are in modern warfare or to be more accurate on that : in future spacecombat and are keen to survive.

Perhaps best answer would be: "To keep track of situation and to make decisions" - everything else is jobs for interface and automatics. But isn't it what combat is about anyway, after leaving aside all physical ordeals ?.. Therefore interface must give handy representation of tactical space and vital parts of ship status first of all.

To return to the topic : thrusters could well be the most important thing you need in combat in order to counter the processorpower of the enemyplayer.

That's too, but it's mainly another issue of time given for maneuver, etc as well (small nimble craft can make evasion maneuver where bulkier cannot). Which returns to my example of dodging non-guided projectiles and minimal range.

 

[Blood]

like our chat

You sure got my drift.
First : We agree. We both want to move Elite from arcade component to true simulator. The term “true simulator” being tricky but the meaning being able to be understood by everybody.
Second : Your point taken : there are lots of things missing or absent in FFE. Calling that “looking unnatural”, I can understand within the context of your wish moving Elite towards a simulator.
Third : Vital for good fun, indeed, is being able to monitor the situation and making decisions based on interpretation of the presentation of tactical space and vital parts of ship status first of all. I think no one, waiting for Elite4, will disagree on that. FE2 and FFE had lots of that too.

You seem to be fond of “the DUNE setting”. Cannot remember that too well; need to see that film for a third time I guess.

Now if, and I say “if”, in Elite4 the choice for how to handle a (smaller) spacecraft will be based on looks and handling of aircrafts combined with mounted gun in forward view again, than IMO forward, rethro and side-thrusters will play an important role.
If on the other hand computercontrolled systems will find their way into the game; Okay with me. I ‘d love that and thrusters might play a more modest part in the game. But than again, Elite4 might have the same combatsystem as FE2 and FFE : dated and bugged. Espessially in autopilot-mode. With just nicer graphics.

And we would still buy it.

Let us return to your example of dodging non-guided projectiles and minimal range attack with your point-blank range good 30-mm turret. I would not like to have my ship peeled off half. I would not. I hate repair-cost.
Meaning I want a megafast processor in my system-line-up that will keep my ship out of the less-than-a-kilometer range of your chitty-bang-bang. And my good-old side-thrusters to bring me just there.

Blood.

 

[Turbo Beholder]

You seem to be fond of “the DUNE setting”. Cannot remember that too well; need to see that film for a third time I guess.

Film ? Why "Dune" - just because i know only one setting where lots of advanced technologies and lack of most basic automatics have reason to coexist.

Now if, and I say “if”, in Elite4 the choice for how to handle a (smaller) spacecraft will be based on looks and handling of aircrafts combined with mounted gun in forward view again, than IMO forward, rethro and side-thrusters will play an important role.

Of course, in free space 6 DOF control is desirable. But which subset we'll choose to bind to controls as "main" (e.g. Elite or Aircraft style) is a matter of specific tactical balance, usability... and pilot's personal taste.
But there's lots of things pre-set. Existance of main axis (and "main" thruster on it) is a matter of structural layout and (for athmospheric-capable ships) aerodynamics. Rotational acceleration limits are matter of geometry (generally). Even if "acceleration compensator" exists (and acceleration limits are inflated, as in FFE), it would more likely to extend maximum values than to change proportions.

Let us return to your example of dodging non-guided projectiles and minimal range attack with your point-blank range good 30-mm turret. I would not like to have my ship peeled off half. I would not. I hate repair-cost.

And it's too easy to get some critical damage, starting from blind sector of missile defence. Then you can:
1) have really tough - and therefore heavier - armor (it's for bigger ships, of course), or
2) avoid to approach any opponents with kinetic weapons to such a short range where they cannot miss and you cannot evade.
Of course, your opponent does the same. If it's not a suicide attack. In latter case, either you can run away or both going to die. Ramming by "merely" 200 t into other 200 t at "merely" 500 m/s would most likely to turn both objects into very large cloud of very small fragments. The same is true for any thing you cannot evade so massive that you cannot turn it into chaff completely (hence guided high-caliber kinetic weapons for greater ships).
Whatever shield is used, it's hardly should be an exception to the laws of conservation of momentum and energy.

Meaning I want a megafast processor in my system-line-up that will keep my ship out of the less-than-a-kilometer range of your chitty-bang-bang.

It's not a matter of extra-complex calculations, only having acquisition/tracking system ("Scanner" for FFE ) with decent range estimation, and some basic means of extrapolation (combination of target speed vector with projectile flight time estimation).
Balance point: "extra-dangerous range" can vary, but small ship is better in evasion while bigger ship can have greater firepower. Non-kamikaze opponent should avoid extra-dangerous range too. Hence it's less matter of having edge over foes, and more avoiding silly accidents.
Of course, greater ship can have much better armor and shields, but it's not the same issue.

GM:"I don't know, how many tentacles does GREAT CTHULHU have ?"
PC:""Er?  As many as he wants?  Too many?"

Battleship, on the other hand, is likely to kill with impunity any vessels of total mass comparable with mass of its gun alone. If it have antenna twice bigger than your hull and enough detection hardware to enjoy 10x better signal/ratio, it can recognize class of your ship when you'll see it only as "something big with radar". If it have atomic beam gun and effective thickness of your armor is not enough to stop it, Big Guy does really need only as many computers as it's necessary to
1) using radar data, show target marks on screen,
2) switch zoom, and
3) control gun correction actuator with joystick or pointing device.
Why it could need more ? To harm it at megameter range you'd need some weapon of comparable power... and size. If ship needs any better computers for combat than multiple target tracking requires, it's going to be ECM/ECCM, not systems for precise prediction of unpredictable.

And my good-old side-thrusters to bring me just there.

That's quite true, especially considering what acceleration at the end points of ship should be caused by even moderate turning speed. Can we steer destroyer like car ?

 

[Blood]

Seems the time has come to read the book as well. Hahaha. That said I am interested by your phrase : “advanced technologies and lack of most basic automatics have reason to coexist”. Will pay attention on that if I ever will read the book or again see the movie.

You already may have guessed I am not an engineer nor do I have a degree in physics, but I like visualising your remarks.

You prefer a method like “6 DOF control”. An experimental technique used for transportation moves: the fine manipulation, in this case spacecraft, required for alignments and insertions.
Or : Objective of the research project 6 DOF control is to expand the existing multivariable control scheme for the motion platform of the flight simulator to deal with three issues:
- To take the flexibilities of the flight shuttle into consideration;
- To deal with the mechanical flexible interaction between shuttle and projection screen;
- To robustify the control laws over the entire operational envelope of the platform.
Or : Electromagnetic control of a free body : design and control of a 6 DOF magnetically levitated spherical laser deflection system.
I googled somewhat because I am almost certain no reader of this post will know about “6 DOF control”. But again I might be the only n00b.
I am not sure DB will order his team to make 6 DOF control happen in Elite4 tho. He might even tell you it was already implemented in FFE but not noticable because implemented to almost perfection
Properly installed in Elite4 it should make for a more realistic simulator experience, of that I can be convinced. Not sure having it installed will please my PC.

If I understand you correctly you’re trying to tell me propulsion and thrust, as you see it, are not that important in space when it comes to combat. It’s just more or less essential for getting where you want to be (next starport … or … example : Kamikaze-decoration-job on someone else’s hull like the mobs in FFE really like preferring).
Again if I am correct, implying keeping distance may not be enough in combat.
Okay with me and it would really shift away from combat-experience in FE2 and FFE.
Saying all that, flying really gets separated from combat. FE2 and FFE seems to be really based on ideas around 194?, aren’t they ?
Things said about combat are interesting too.
I quote : Big Guy does really need only as many computers as it's necessary to
1) using radar data (acquisition/tracking system/multiple target tracking), show target marks on screen,
2) switch zoom
3) control gun correction actuator with joystick or pointing device.
4) ECM/ECCM
likely to kill with impunity any vessels of total mass comparable with mass of its gun alone.

So there’s an answer on my earlier question : What things, as owner and pilot in Elite4 of a craft in combat, are really the things you are likely to have to keep an eye on if you are in future spacecombat and are keen to survive. The scanner not in 2D like the Eliteserie thus far but more 3D I may hope. And to have a decent fire-control-system would be really nice.

Suppose Elite4 will bring all that. And we’d love that just as much as hyperjumping and better graphics for the scenery.
Another issue emerging.
Seems to me with the proper gear on a Maffia-PantherClipper with “magameter-harm-range” you will not stand a chance. Looks to me in this case things like Elite4-missions are shifting towards WOW-group-combat. And combat is something I want from Elte4 too. Loads of ‘em .
What is the combatsituation going to look like if you own, say, a HARRIER and taking on the mission of killing the Maffia Boss in this really well-geared-PantherClipper. What will be your odds in succeeding the mission?
You wanna fly this HARRIER ?

And Yes, you can. You can steer destroyer like car in almost any spacegame mentioned in this other thread. Better. You may be steering a 90 degrees turn to the right or left with no curve and no sweat.

 

[caol]

... The only difference I was/am experiencing is that the lasersight-system of, in general, a more heavy ship is less stable to operate. It sort of wobbles...

I think this is because you are moving the whole ship not just the laser and heavier ships are harder to move due to their increased mass (if you start swinging round in one direction then it takes a lot more thrust to stop you and swing you back in the other direction).

I thought the sluggishness of bigger ships was quite a nice feature.

 

[Blood]

Rotational accelaration

I thought the sluggishness of bigger ships was quite a nice feature.

True. IMO it relates to the choises the Frontier-team made to establish an ingame-model-of-flight for spacecraft.

(if you start swinging round in one direction then it takes a lot more thrust to stop you and swing you back in the other direction).

True. In space it’s sort of mass + energy of movement.

I think this is because you are moving the whole ship not just the laser

True. To get the enemy in line of fire you will have to rotate your ship while moving on in accordance to your forward axis.

and heavier ships are harder to move due to their increased mass

True. But not in FE2/FFE I think.

Let us compare two craft. PantherClipper and LION.
PantherClipper : retro thruster accelaration 3 G ; main 6 G ; Mass 2500 t.
LION : retro thruster accelaration 3 G ; main 5 G ; Mass 300 t.
Concentrate our visualisation on the “movement” of your arm/wrist. It determined the rotation of the craft. Say the mob was right behind you at say 0,73 km and you decide to make the fastest swing you are able to make, like a madman, to get it in your line of fire. [Yes, sluggishness was there but we agreed not to concentrate on that feature but on the “movement” of your arm/wrist]
The “movement” of your arm/wrist (so BEFORE sluggishness) made your craft rotate. To me, there was no real difference in rotational speed for PantherClipper OR Lion (or any other craft).
You are telling me : “heavier ships are harder to move due to their increased mass”.
The mass of the PantherClipper is 8,3 times that of the LION. The forward thruster at the back of both craft, to me, seem to be fixed and not able to physically rotate. So rotational acceleration, again to me, seems to be coming from the retro thruster, which could be three or more of them and rotational.
I do not understand how the PantherClipper can rotate at the same speed as the LION (As I stated : to me, there was no real difference in rotational speed for PantherClipper OR Lion or any other craft; only difference was sluggishness AFTER the rotation).
So. Where does the extra thrust come from? To me, it is within the choises made and within the presets of the used (mathematical) model of flight.
I agree with “Turbo_Beholder” : in FE2 and in FFE acceleration limits are inflated.
In accordance with my experience : heavier ships were not harder to move. Not in FE2. Not in FFE.

Do not get me wrong. I love FFE. Discovered the FrontierAstro page and playing FFE again for 5 weeks now. Great game.
I am thinking over this thruster-thingie a few days now. It seems to me a choice for a more realistic flight behaviour (in Elite4) could make it if you make the choice of limitations on the range of beamweapons. The (made it up) argument could be governments don’t want ships with beamrange of 150 km or more. Some playful kids, chasing eatch other in dogfight, at an altitude of ca. 100 km, (with enhanced Kiddo-shields), unintendedly could really kill loads of civilians down on the planet. Now we can’t have that can we ?

Blood.

 

[caol]

Blood: Yeah, fair point. On refelction I think you're correct.

However I guess when you're making a game like that you have to balance realism vs playability. It is a "game" afterall, not a simulation. I'd imagine that it's quite tricky to get the right balance...

 

[Crayfish]

True. But not in FE2/FFE I think.

The larger craft are more sluggish in FFE at least. Unfortunately its a fairly simplistic model and it only has three settings, one for small craft and two for larger craft.

Full details here.

 

[Blood]

Great link. Thx.

To get back to the topic.
1. Movements of the mouse/ joystick are added to an accumulator which represents a "desired rotation" for the ship. Conclusion : only limited flight simulation for craft ingame.
2. The effect where a ship continues turning after you stop moving the mouse is a result of an accumulator added to the mouse/ joystick.
3. Moving mouse/ joystick in the opposite direction zeroes the accumulator and hence stops the ship immediately.
4. FFE only has three turn rates, each precisely half of the previous one. (~2.5; ~5 or ~10 seconds for 360 degrees) Conclusion 1 : in FFE acceleration limits are inflated. Conclusion 2 : acceleration numbers given in the manual are fake I think. Conclusion 3 : I did not notice/experience the different models (difference in flight/combat experience) with large(r) ships.

Not matter. Still like the game.
Pleading for more though. I am humanoid after all. Yes, I am
So how about thrusters in the devices list so you can build your own ship ??
Or maybe less demanding : give every craft it’s own flightbehaviour-modelling.
Dual-core ; quatro-core or even better could be standard in 2012 and/or years after that.

Wanted to add a last thing. Tip for traders playing FFE. Traders only. Can’t help it. Traders have this special place.
You can really get stuck on a number of planets with a big(ger) tradeship. Reason : the high gravityforce due to the mass of the planet. As a trader you may be able to land on it. But there will be no departure. You will feel PUNKED.
So. Thrusters are important for traders too.
My guess.
No offence.

Blood.

 

[Turbo Beholder]

That said I am interested by your phrase : “advanced technologies and lack of most basic automatics have reason to coexist”

In brief, there was Butlerian Jihad - something like civil war throughout entire spacefaring humankind, which led to convention outlawed most computers and automatics, much like nuclear weapons. That's why Guild navigators and mentats exists - instead of computers for navigation and strategy models.

I am not sure DB will order his team to make 6 DOF control happen in Elite4 tho.

I don't see why this can be great problem. It's characteristic of free-space object. Most free-space vessels should have 6-DOF maneuver capability, but it does not means "player have to use 6DOF manipulator". Of course, most known control methods are far from that - and it would be rather inconvenient to really use more than 3 DOF control (X+Y+rudder joystick, etc); better if remappable (like Elite or Flight-sim control method choice in FFE, but in more complex combinations).
And angular acceleration is very limited anyway, especially for large ships. Hence 6 DOF is only possibility... which should be used mainly by docking computer or in very specific control modes (3 DOF manipulator + strafe/rotation switch key) in unusual circumstances. It's not for generic combat.

He might even tell you it was already implemented in FFE

It's actually 4-DOF (6 minus 2 "strafe" DOFs perpendicular to main axis), though not very adjustable. Without "inflated" acceleration values, control methods would need improvement.

If I understand you correctly you’re trying to tell me propulsion and thrust, as you see it, are not that important in space when it comes to combat.

It depends of ship classes, but mainly yes, for purely mechanic movement and as long as opponents can "see" (locate and identify) each other clearly.
But here's interesting twist: what if SPEC-drive does not just get mass-|warp- locked at "far combat distance", but only decreases its efficiency ? Such "tactical SPEC" opens possibilities which would change balance. And "magnifyed effective acceleration" is not the same as "inflated acceleration", while it still allows the combat of manoeuvre.
Returning to "Goliath" example: if 3-4 heavy fighters can dodge unpredictably and really fast and thus circumvent battleship's gun adjustment cone unscathed, then 1-2 of them must cause mass-/warp-lock while others move to attack. From this position, it looks like fighters are not ones who will die. At 10-20 km/s approach speed even simplest non-guided AP kinetic weapons can be quite deadly for large target. ECM cannot fool nonexistent guidance and fuse systems and it's hard to break heavy AP projectiles in given time. And big ship have no time to avoid them.

So there’s an answer on my earlier question : What things, as owner and pilot in Elite4 of a craft in combat, are really the things you are likely to have

It depends of specific setting - both warp-physics model used and devices available for all. And in given setting it depends of tactics planned - i.e. ship class, probable opponents' ship class, role (whether we want to pursue or to flee).
For tac-SPEC setting, one wants high-magnification SPEC to catch up or run away and lock-hard SPEC to dodge in combat. If we cannot have both maximums at once - here's our choice which is needed more or where our subjective optimum is.

You can steer destroyer like car in almost any spacegame mentioned in this other thread. Better. You may be steering a 90 degrees turn to the right or left with no curve and no sweat.

Exactly. Then we have only to find out it's length, then calculate linear acceleration caused by this turn... and weep. Really, angular acceleration is nasty thing.
"Curve" as such is not needed in free space, though turning "on the nail" means ship is "sitting duck" (abbr. for "duck in straight-line uniform motion") inviting attacks - hence it's advisable to include some linear acceleration(s) in maneuver when threatened.

 

[Mido]

I hope elite will be released in my life time.

Hello,


I have been looking for an Elite like game since the last game and all of the never came close to the original game.

My question what is the reason Elite 4 isnt in the making? Why why why?
I read 10 years ago that the game would come out in 2004 and i have been waiting since then. There is information on the frontier site about Elite 4 but that hasnt been changed in years. Are they ever planing to make Elite 4? or the the information on the site just a trick to get people to come and visit the site to get hits?

If making Elite 4 is to much of risk for the company at least rerelease elite 2 or 3 with updated graphics.

I think that the Elite fan base isnt big enough for Frontier to make a profit and rather go for the mainstream like other major company like EA and UBI.

Still would like to see someone from Frontier give us (me) an answer if Elite will ever come and when.

apologies for my bad english and blunt remarks.

thanks.

Mido

 

[Steve O B Have]

Elite 4 is in dev but it is not Frontiers primary concern. If you read back through the forums you will find many threads similar to yours asking the same question with the same answers.

Search is your friend!

Welcome to the forums.

 

[JohannStrauss]

One thing is for sure:

It depends on your age.

At least you have something to keep you hanging on...

 

[NoLifeKing]

Elite 4 "Navigation" and "Flight System" Thread

Hello folks!
I’m new to the forum but an old fan of the game. Experienced my first contact when I was about 10 with then freshly published Frontier Elite 2 on the Amiga. With a game like Elite 4 there is still sufficient room for hopes, dreams and speculation which makes the forums all the more interesting. After lurking around for quite a bit I felt compelled to throw in my two cents as well. But first I have to admit that I’m neither fluent in English nor do I know much about astrophysics, so please correct me when I’m wrong.

This post refers to the issue of Space Flight and Navigation, the importance of the issue for the game and possible solutions to overcoming the space sim genre’s barriers. Other gameplay issues that are not related to this should not be of concern here.


Elite 4 Space Flight System

This idea depends on Elite 4 being produced as a massive multiplayer game in which everything happens in real time. For such a game it would be necessary to give a lot of attention to the overall gameplay balance. As a result you have to make some compromises in accordance to real life physics and scale down the size of planetary systems for the sake of the flight system and traveling time.

You also have to simplify and change some things; for example make the orbit of a planet around a sun not an ellipsis but a circle, or limit the orbital speed of planetary bodies so you do not have to plot difficult courses to be able to reach a planet and land on it.

I attempted to think of a system of navigation that allows as much as possible of the “space simulator” to remain in the game while still tending to to needs of the multiplayer community and the freedom to pursue different careers in the game from the law abiding trader to the neutral freelancer to piracy.

I developed this idea by cannibalizing a lot of different space sim games and using the ideas I thought best. Considering traveling time I used several popular mmorpgs as basis. In my system I distinguish between three modes of flight.

Hyperspace Travel
Cruise Engines
Normal Flight


Hyperspace

Hyperspace can be activated only within a certain distance to a sun (Hyperdrive Jump Range – HJR) and is instant transportation from system to system.

HJR would be shortly further from the stellar body than the distance at which the sun’s gravitational pull would exceed escape velocity. Damage to your ship by heat and radiation would occur still later at a closer distance. If you’re caught in a sun’s gravitational pull you could still hyper out of the system in due time before you’re ship gets damaged by the proximity to the sun.

The hyperspace entry point at the target system is random at HJR to the system’s sun.

This way of handling system to system travel would result in longer travel time for traders to the outer planets of a planetary system. There would be different prices and goods within one single system as well as different amounts of criminal activity, police and profits to be made the further you would venture from the system’s core.

A trader would be more secure near the core of the system but cannot make huge profits. The further he travels from the core the more dangerous it would get but different prices and goods on the planets further from the sun would result in larger profits. It would be the same for pirates, only that their secure sector would be in the outer planets.

Using this idea to make single planetary systems more diverse and interesting would be a key element of the gameplay. It would limit the amount of populated solar systems you would need to keep the game interesting to maybe a dozen systems which is beneficial, since it is easier to overview for the player as well as the administrators and it would eliminate repetitive designs and scenarios which occurred a lot in FE2 and FFE.


Cruise Engines

Building upon the idea from “Freelancer” you would have an engine mode which enables you to travel around the planetary system.

Cruise Speed should be fast enough to travel to the outermost planets of a system in a reasonable amount of time, like maybe 5 minutes.

It is important that you cannot use weapons while cruising.

Cruise engines cannot be used inside a certain range to a populated planet or a sun (if you hyper into a system you would have to use normal drive for a short while to enter Cruise Engine Range – CER). CER should be shortly further than a space stations orbit at a populated planet and shortly further than HJR at a sun. You would still be able to use it in proximity to other larger stellar bodies like gas giants who do not have starports and do slingshot moves using the gravitational pull.

Cruise Speed is not an absolute speed. You should be able to accelerate and decelerate from a certain minimum to a certain maximum speed which should be the same for all vessels. For example if the fastest fighter in the game would have a “normal flight” high speed of 1000 units, 1500 with afterburner, cruise speed should start at 2000 units and go up to maybe 5000 units.

The reason for this is to make it easier to meet up with a convoy or a battlefield or a disable trader instead of having to time your exit from cruise speed to a microsecond and possibly missing the rendezvous point.

Making use of the figures in the given example traveling in a planetary system from the sun to the outermost planet could take 3 minutes at cruise speed and 15 minutes at normal speed. Acceptable figures I believe.

Cruise Speed can be disrupted with an anti cruise missile, just like in Freelancer. When hit by such a torpedo/missile it takes a certain amount of time until you can use your cruise engine again. Of course this missile should be fast enough to stop any ship in cruise speed but also have a limited range so that pirates would need to plot an intercept course.

Newtonian physics have effect for cruise speed but collision detection should be disabled for smaller objects like spacecrafts and small asteroids. It would be a bother to unintentionally fly through a small battle scene, hit a spacecraft and die without being able to evade because of the high speed.


Normal Flight

Normal flight is of course based on Newtonian physics but you have to make amendments and compromises. Here I recall the pleasant experience of “Starshatter The Gathering Storm” which flight system is still my favorite.

There should be a maximum speed for each type of vessel that cannot be breached by engine power alone (external influences like gravity could make a difference). The max speed should also not differ to much from ship type to ship type. If 1000 units is the max speed for the fastest fighters it should be about 750 for the largest freighter and 500 for the biggest capital ships.

Important is how fast the ship can accelerate to that speed. As I learned from “Starshatter”, in Newtonian flight physics acceleration equals maneuverability, which with is of utmost importance and completely different to arcade style space flight simulators. For this reason larger ships should not be equipped with afterburners.


Scanner

Also very important for navigation is the factor of being able to locate a ship with your scanners. I think it would be wise to distinguish between long range (FE2 ship blips in the planetary system display) and short range scanners.

Ships traveling with cruise engines would show up clearly on the long range scanner, those traveling with normal engines would only show up on short range scanners. Ships who shut down their reactor, disabling engines and shields, would not show up on any scanners at all. Of course if they are spotted visually they would be sitting ducks until their engines and shields power up again. Hyperspace clouds should be visible on every scanner.

The reasons for this are gameplay balancing issues for merchant, pirates and freelancer classes. This system would for example enable pirates to lay low near the possible hyperspace entries at a sun without being detected by the stronger police presence at the core of the planetary system. You could for instance use your normal engines to “sneak” around places that would be dangerous for your class, since you would not show up on long range sensors.

[Edit]

Feature Overview

- simplified and scaled planetary system physics according to gameplay balance
- Hyperdrive can only be activated in proximity of a sun, resulting in:
- Diversity of criminal activity, ecology, etc., inside planetary systems
- Cruise Engine for interplanetary travel
- Normal flight with simplified and altered Newtonian physics (again, for gameplay issues)
- Long and short range scanners and different ways of locating ships according to their mode of transportation

[Edit]

Damn, that was a lot of stuff that accumulated in my mind over the last months. I hope that, in spite of the humongous amount of text, I was able to communicate my ideas successfully. For better understanding it would be good to test the games I mentioned earlier.

I can only hope that I could still satisfy the expectations of the old Elite gamers in this forum. Again, this idea is build upon the foundation of multiplayer gameplay balance issues. If there is anything in my proposal that is not Elite or if there is anything to add, please feel free to flame me into next tuesday. I would also like to read more of different ideas and approaches to the problem of navigation in Elite 4, if you have to offer them.

 

[djbully]

The place your bets for Elite IV release date thread!

Hi all,
Just thought I'd start this as a light hearted bit o fun. Maybe whoever guesses correctly the actual release date when/if we get there, maybe Frontier could offer a prize of a free copy of Elite IV to the winner! Hint, Hint.

So you need to make a guess like this DD/MM/YYYY

So here comes mine for what its worth! 09/11/2009

Thats my B'day by the way and Elite IV would be a mighty fine present!!!

Cheers and good luck guessing!
Bully

 

[Steve O B Have]

LOL ok I'll take that

Nov 2009 -for a day maybe 14-15

 

[Steve]

So you need to make a guess like this DD/MM/YYYY

I don't know why but, if I remember correctly, both Elite and FE2 were released in September (1984 and 1993 respectively), so I'll go for 18/09/2009 (do games still get released on Fridays? It's been so long since I bought one!).
Ok, so FFE was released in May-ish 1995, but I think all agree it was rushed out early

 

[Henry Krinkle]

14/12/2012