They have some money, and are well funded; but they also seem to be spending it quite fast. Personally, I think that this may hurt CIG whether they recruit support, or lose engine support. Not a good situation to be in.
- Status
They have some money, and are well funded; but they also seem to be spending it quite fast. Personally, I think that this may hurt CIG whether they recruit support, or lose engine support. Not a good situation to be in.
So the nerfed yaw only makes ED unrealistic in comparison to SC. It is funny how you mention that ED universe is more realistic but do not see it as a significant advantage of ED over SC. And in the mean time you think that SC non-nerfed yaw is the greatest advantage of the game that makes negligible any other problem that SC has as well as all other unrealistic implementations.
If the game is not fun than there is no matter how realistic the flight model is.
I didn't rate the advantage one way or another, if you want to have an adult discussion you'll have to stop resorting to trying to put words in my mouth.
I love the majesty of ED's galaxy, I truly wish SC's was going to be as faithfully represented (hopefully one day it might) but for now the games have a different focus in this respect. If you want to know, nice as it is as a backdrop I don't know that I'd rate it as all that significant an advantage, I honestly think the hand-crafted locations SC's 'verse is built from are going to make more interesting destinations. ED's space stations are nicely done but they're going to feel highly repetitive very quickly.
But most of all I want to get immersed in flying a starship not an aeroplane.
It is hard to tell without actually seeing CIG budget breakdown. All we can do is speculate wildly.
For all we know CIG could be rolling 50cents on the dollar into investments of various sorts which are unrelated to the actual game development.
There is a whole lot of fuzzy.
If I was in Chris Roberts shoes I would be trying to make the best game possible whilst maintaining the marketing momentum of ship sales. He knows he is on to something when he can convince people to shell out hundreds and thousands of dollars on virtual ships, gameplay promises and the related fantasies induced.
I love it. haha
Last edited:
It's true neither game reflects what we expect space combat to actually be like - everything from visible lasers to humans in ships flies in the face of realism - but Commander Maugham's example is a good one about yaw being nerfed because up+down is more fun than left+right. A better way of putting it might be that SC ships have stronger internal logic - RSI's designers started with a concept of how the ship was constructed and reasoned their way out to the flight model, whereas Frontier's designers did it the other way. Many people have said all that cleverness hasn't been communicated through gameplay yet, and I agree all the theory in the world is pointless unless it comes across in play, but a first alpha with a poor flight model isn't as worrying from a team that wanted to lock down the mechanics first. Now is definitely the time to start pushing them about the flight model, and polite-but-firm questions about how specific mechanics make the game better can speed their way into the right mindset, but once they get there they should have the tools necessary to make ships feel very interesting indeed.
As an example of how SC could evolve, imagine a trading ship where most of its guns were at the front and 90% of its mass was cargo. If you were attacked by pirates and chose to space your front cargo compartment, that would give the pirates something to scoop up, but would push your centre of gravity back. That could change combat from pirates swarming all over your sluggish ship to sitting right where you can swing your big guns, making a counter-attack suddenly a viable option.
Maybe we are, but we just wont find out for another 5 years.
Last edited:
They will probably hit the sweet spot on the 3rd iteration, like the previous series.
I've been thinking about that a bit. It seems to me that one of the limitations to acceleration is the limits of the pilot. Humans have much better G-tolerance in positive Gs than negative, and I suspect they're also much better at dealing with Roll than Yaw.
If they implemented a physiological model (Black-out/Red-out) they could let you do what you wanted to the simulated limits of the pilot, since I'm pretty sure we could build a ship that could cope with more G than the pilot.
Or they could just have the fly-by-wire limit the yaw/negative G to the rated ability of the pilot, which might give us something close to what E: D is delivering.
People really should stop focusing on all the "sim"/"realism" vs "arcade" . It's not important. What is important is that the game is fun. I can tell you right now that I had way more fun playing Radiant Silvergun than the entire Wing Commander and Elite series combined, despite it being a very arcade-y shmup. Why? Because I mowed down waves of enemies with a badass spaceship that had a sword. A freaking sword!
Now when it comes to combat neither ED or SC has a ship with a sword, but they can make up for this obvious detriment by being fun in other ways. ED does this by making the combat a bit of a mix between WWII style dogfighting and semi-Newtonian physics. Is it fully realistic? No. Is the ship simulated to the level you would find in Falcon 4.0? No. Does it matter? Not really. And even if this means a loss of gameplay "depth," (which it doesn't) there are plenty of other things to do in ED that enhance the combat experience.
So is the combat in AC fun? (And I don't mean is it fun to look at the pretty graphics.) At the moment, it's decidedly lacking, though plenty of people seem to have fun tooling around with what they have. Can it be fun with the current flight model? I don't see why not. With some (many) tweaks, it could reach that point. It doesn't even need to be adapted to accomodate a roll/pitch system to get there. (Freespace was very fun with it's yaw/pitch system.) But it may just need some SC backers to bite the bullet and accept the flight model for what it is, and start considering how this model could be adjusted to be more fun . . .
In any case, as it currently stands, AC can't be labeled as being "arcade-y." It's not really fun enough, and the Hornet doesn't have a sword.
Now when it comes to combat neither ED or SC has a ship with a sword, but they can make up for this obvious detriment by being fun in other ways. ED does this by making the combat a bit of a mix between WWII style dogfighting and semi-Newtonian physics. Is it fully realistic? No. Is the ship simulated to the level you would find in Falcon 4.0? No. Does it matter? Not really. And even if this means a loss of gameplay "depth," (which it doesn't) there are plenty of other things to do in ED that enhance the combat experience.
So is the combat in AC fun? (And I don't mean is it fun to look at the pretty graphics.) At the moment, it's decidedly lacking, though plenty of people seem to have fun tooling around with what they have. Can it be fun with the current flight model? I don't see why not. With some (many) tweaks, it could reach that point. It doesn't even need to be adapted to accomodate a roll/pitch system to get there. (Freespace was very fun with it's yaw/pitch system.) But it may just need some SC backers to bite the bullet and accept the flight model for what it is, and start considering how this model could be adjusted to be more fun . . .
In any case, as it currently stands, AC can't be labeled as being "arcade-y." It's not really fun enough, and the Hornet doesn't have a sword.
Who says that the current Pitch/Roll/Yaw rates in SC are realistic at all?
When you have the game creator come out and tell you that currently, the maneuvering thrusters are 30-50% of the power of the main thruster, you know that there are some problems. Who knows what kind of other ridiculous numbers they have in the system now and they need tweaking. Not to mention there is a current inherent IFCS problem with the way they did their PiD curves.
Anyway, I find it quite ridiculous that you can use Oculus Rift and TrackerIR to aim your gimbal weapons. Let's not even start discussing the ability for mouse users to both fly and aim at the same time. Giving the players the ability to freely aim their gimbal weapons as opposed to a little bigger circle than fixed weapons is a huge over sight, almost as huge as CIG releasing a product, Arena Commander v.8 in such a raw state.
After messing around with DCS: Black Shark 2 for the last 2 days I can asure you that AC ships handle very precise and are not jumpy in any way
.Yaw and pitch rates are also reasonable if we asume that thrusters have compareable power to what lifts todays aircraft of the ground.
Damn helicopters are hard.
After messing around with DCS: Black Shark 2 for the last 2 days I can asure you that AC ships handle very precise and are not jumpy in any way
Yaw and pitch rates are also reasonable if we asume that thrusters have compareable power to what lifts todays aircraft of the ground.
Damn helicopters are hard.
As an aside I found that Black Shark is the one helicopter that does not fly like a helicopter! It's weird as hell.
Last edited:
They simply do not care. CR said that SC features the most realistic flight model and they believe him. Despite that CR has admitted that maneuvering thrusters are overpowered, ship speed being too slow, crappy flight controls and IFCS system not working as intended. They simply act like they have never heard or read the latter.
People as in ED fans should dismiss argument as they see fit. Okay how confinient.
As If airplanes dogfighting is the only gameplay mechanic that could only be fun.
Then a naval game could not exist as it could not be fun.
Then a submarine game can not exist because it could not be fun.
Then there are a series of startrek games wich is very different then airplanes in space. More ships in space.
Your Elite extremist are hypocrits you could look up the archives how X series is burned dwn to the ground by having this low speed limit.
As a not done dev choice. And now is it oke and defended like pitbulls.
So this means what Xseries does is valid for the sake of gameplay.
I guess both devs are more focusing on airplanes in space dogfighting. But then again there are much more games then.
Falcon 4.0 or tornado or strike commander.
There are also much more space games.
But also submarine668
And the startrek games.
Startrek Legacy
Startrek fleet Commander III.
So there are much more options for fun gameplay then dogfighting in space.
Keep in mind that slowpace long distant missile like warfare can be fun to.
But if you are only into up close fast frantic space aktion. And thats your way you like it so be it. But airdogfighting isn't the only way that can be fun.
But we are shown a lot of movie and TV show soft sci- FI of like everything happening in plain sight.
The startrek games might be arcady to. Its not ment to be realistic but triue to the trek franchise.
But then again I am thinking of a space sim more based on that kind of gameplay with a twist. A more tactical slow pace game where it is about endurence and manange warships in battle.
Even so if following realism and come to conclusion that expected that manned fighters are bad thing in realistic setting it would even be a game with out manned fighters.
But this could be solved by having fighter drones. And even with remote controled it solves the short live expectation of fighter pilot in manned solution.
With sensor you see everything in sight on your main screen altho it is 2 AU away.
Example battlestar galactica bridge out view is closed by blast wall.
When I have asked you to explain what is arcadey in ED you did not answer. And now you are saying it again without any arguments in support of your statement. How can we continue this discussion if you do not support your ideas with valid arguments?
psyron
Banned
Even if SC/AC physics are absolutely accurate there would still be that question why SC space ships then wouldn't be designed that way that all ships can shoot in any direction? Would be easy to design ships in that way.
Doing so would give the ships hudge advantages compared to others.
So why don't they create such ships in SC? Because of BALANCING the game!
At the end - whether you look to ED or SC - it's all about creating a game that is BALANCED.
Even SC/AC with their proclaimed "real physics" have to sacrifice realistic ship design in order to get things BALANCED!
So all the talk about realistic vs unrealistic is nonsense!
It's all about creating a balanced and fun to play game!
Edit:
Because if flying skills aren't needed because shooting down an enemy is all about pointing the guns at him and click a (mouse) button, then the game degenerates to the only question "WHO HAS THE BIGGER GUN" ... wow, that's real fun ... !!!
The flying mechanics of ED are the direct result of trying to counteract this. What about SC? Time will show ...
Doing so would give the ships hudge advantages compared to others.
So why don't they create such ships in SC? Because of BALANCING the game!
At the end - whether you look to ED or SC - it's all about creating a game that is BALANCED.
Even SC/AC with their proclaimed "real physics" have to sacrifice realistic ship design in order to get things BALANCED!
So all the talk about realistic vs unrealistic is nonsense!
It's all about creating a balanced and fun to play game!
Edit:
Because if flying skills aren't needed because shooting down an enemy is all about pointing the guns at him and click a (mouse) button, then the game degenerates to the only question "WHO HAS THE BIGGER GUN" ... wow, that's real fun ... !!!
The flying mechanics of ED are the direct result of trying to counteract this. What about SC? Time will show ...
Last edited:
just a small note: they fly by Chris Roberts imagined real world behaviours after many centuries, just because HE decides how long are delays after GIMBALED thrusters start to work in the needed direction and HOW powerfull they are.
so if in future will be used mainly only fixed thrusters all CR simulation is completely useless and completely not real. also with implementing any significant delays in thruster reaction he made game lame and not fun...so basically he made what he wanted, called it REAL and forget to design his ships in a proper way for space flight and still calls it REAL, while there are real only 2 things: applied force will move ship in opposite direction to force applied and while there are no forces applied ship will move which are basic laws.
what does this all say? you cannot call REAL anything that you artificially limit and he limited currently much more than ED did, so it is funny how someone can call SC flight model better, in current state it is completely limited and not even for gameplay purposes but because of stupid thruster designs and positions on ship.
i still think they had to use fixed thrusters and place them in packs each at different angle and just turn on one at a time, and not "invent" annything crappy, in a fight you care speed, precision and safety and obviously gimbaled thrusters must be placed completely outside the ship and can be damaged much more easily than fixed ones, hell, you can place fixed thruster inside ship and just keep it's nozzle out... so all this "real flight model" is a , they just had to use their brains and think about 500 years in future and make best ship designs, while all they did is check current fighters/bombers and copy pasted some parts of them completely, but they are ancient compared to to the PU setup and designed for atmospheric flight...well done CIG.
psyron
Banned
Yes, the GIMBALED thrusters and the resulting delays are one expample of epic fail in SC. Accurate physics but crap ship design?!
The SC "reality" land grab. This new front opened up by the SC faithful. Such nonsense. Coming from a game where lasers go 'Pew Pew' and move slower than tube trains, you can look at your ship in god view, maneuvering thrusters move for no other reason than they look cool in 3pV, the universe is tiny (apparently because space being big is 'boring'??), planets are scaled down and devoid of orbital characteristics, planetary landings are an 'unnecessary cosmetic feature' but instead you have towels and fish tanks in your hanger, there's a big arrow on the hud, etc etc etc...
But if the SC faithful are trying to claim reality as their domain its understandable in so far as it's all that is left for them to try and cling on to. Thanks to finally getting a look at AC, SC has spectacularly lost the high ground of being a skill game, added to which their model has been laughably reduced to being labelled a turret shooter.
You got to feel pity really. I mean can you imagine how embarrassing it must be, when you swagger into the pilots lounge only to realise everyone is looking at you thinking, "Oh look, a mouse commander..."
...And then the wisecracks start.
"Hey bub, did you hear about the hornet pilot who couldn't show up for his flight exam so he sent his pet squirrel instead? I heard he passed"
But if the SC faithful are trying to claim reality as their domain its understandable in so far as it's all that is left for them to try and cling on to. Thanks to finally getting a look at AC, SC has spectacularly lost the high ground of being a skill game, added to which their model has been laughably reduced to being labelled a turret shooter.
You got to feel pity really. I mean can you imagine how embarrassing it must be, when you swagger into the pilots lounge only to realise everyone is looking at you thinking, "Oh look, a mouse commander..."
...And then the wisecracks start.
"Hey bub, did you hear about the hornet pilot who couldn't show up for his flight exam so he sent his pet squirrel instead? I heard he passed"
Last edited:
You kind of need gimballing thrusters if you are to move in space at all... I suggest you watch Scott Manley's explanation of fighters in space (with Kerbal to illustrate).
Explanation: The thrusters are effectively doing what the wing's do in atmospheric flight - giving the turning forces needed to orient the ship.
Explanation: The thrusters are effectively doing what the wing's do in atmospheric flight - giving the turning forces needed to orient the ship.
Last edited:
- Status