The Star Citizen Thread V2.0

[Bains]

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).

According to Scott Manley, SC had no choice but to use x box controllers because of shows.. He performed this incredible U-turn from his first AC video where he clearly recognised the fact that his joystick was overlooked in favour of x box controller was a problem, to the next AC video where we was playing with an x box controller and suddenly vehemently defending SC's decision on the basis they had no other choice but to support x box controllers as a priority because of shows, presumably after a chat with a matey Dev...

If you've seen the two videos you'll know exactly what I mean. I don't accept that. Very poor. To be honest you have to lobotomize yourself in order to accept that. Give me 5 minutes with him over a pint and I'll utterly dismantle his argument. Since then I've put him down as a rank SC apologist.

 

[Thargon]

According to Scott Manley, SC had no choice but to use x box controllers because of shows...

I don't accept that. To be honest you have to lobotomize yourself in order to accept that. Give me 5 minutes with him over a pint and I'll utterly dismantle that argument. Since then I've put him down as an SC apologist.

Are you suggesting you don't need gimballing thrusters on a space ship to move? Hmm ok, good luck with that. Unless you mean they don't need to be gimballed (which is true) but you still need lateral and top/down thrusters.

 

[Bains]

Are you suggesting you don't need gimballing thrusters on a space ship to move? Hmm ok, good luck with that. Unless you mean they don't need to be gimballed (which is true) but you still need lateral and top/down thrusters.

No, not at all. I'm saying I'll take your view on the matter far more seriously than his, following a total loss of credibility he suffered in my eyes after listening to his rank apologist defense of SCs decision to support x box controllers as a priority over joysticks - given his argument required you to pretend that nobody ever used a joystick at a trade show, added to which it also required you to buy the absurd insinuation that asking people to use joysticks at trade shows was a completely unworkable non-starter on par with asking them to drop their pants in public.

I always had him down as being 'very generous' but this was a step too far into realms of being a SC fanboy/apologist for me.

 

[govny]

Are you suggesting you don't need gimballing thrusters on a space ship to move? Hmm ok, good luck with that. Unless you mean they don't need to be gimballed (which is true) but you still need lateral and top/down thrusters.

I suggest so.
you don't need gimballing thrusters, you need fixed directional trusters positioned in the right places and you can make any kind of manouvers.
someone that use gimballed trusters have not really understood how inertial movements works.

 

[Trash Gordon]

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.
...

Not to fuel the SC\ED debate but from a broader perspective I think it would be reasonable to go for one big gun on a ship that can spin fast in any direction.
instead of 4 smaller ones that are scattered all over the ship, in the worst case without the ability to shoot at the same target.
Gimbal technology would also only add weight and complexity that could be used for moar firepower.

http://gizmodo.com/5426453/the-physics-of-space-battles

Not that this has been, or should be dogmaticaly be introduced in any of the two games we are talking about, people need to chill.

 

[Bains]

Not to fuel the SC\ED debate but from a broader perspective I think it would be reasonable to go for one big gun on a ship that can spin fast in any direction.
instead of 4 smaller ones that are scattered all over the ship, in the worst case without the ability to shoot at the same target.
Gimbal technology would also only add weight and complexity that could be used for moar firepower.

http://gizmodo.com/5426453/the-physics-of-space-battles

Not that this has been, or should be dogmaticaly be introduced in any of the two games we are talking about, people need to chill.

I think SC are better off deciding for once and for all, what is the vision, what model would they like to employ as far as combat and flight, and then work backwards from there.

As the article points out, if uncompromising reality is really the model, you're better off going towards fast moving turreting spheres in space with all weapons gimbaled to hell. Which in turn kind of begs the question, why the need for all the romantic top gun ship design? I mean be honest, you'd imagine it is reasonable to assume that 1000 years in the future even a brick should be able to levitate in and out of planetary atmosphere if needs be. There's no need for the ships to in any way look like fighter planes.

Come to think of it by now we should be so far passed this debate its ridiculous we're still quagmired up to the neck in it with so little clarity on such fundamental topics.

 

[Stormprooter]

I would love to see Star Citizen create an atmospheric flight module - so you can fly the ships in atmosphere and have a different experience.

It is one of the things I am really looking forward to later on down the line with Elite: Dangerous. I am going to find somewhere with mountains and canyons and have a go at flying in those environments. My inspiration for wanting to do this comes from "Independence Day" - the bit near the beginning where Will Smith is evading the alien fighters in the canyons.

"Oh no! You did not just shoot that green sh*t at me!"

 

[Neo-ST]

I would love to see Star Citizen create an atmospheric flight module - so you can fly the ships in atmosphere and have a different experience.

You do realize that would require them to create a completely different and fun flight model ?

I mean be honest, you'd imagine it should be realistic that 1000 years in the future even a brick should be able to levitate in and out of planetary atmosphere if needs be. There's no need for the ships to in any way look like fighter planes.

C'mon Bains, you know it's all for sake of fun and making it easier for people to identify with.
It's been talked about in the early days of SC development and I think you already know it, so what's all the wondering for now ?

 

[Bains]

You do realize that would require them to create a completely different and fun flight model ?



C'mon Bains, you know it's all for sake of fun and making it easier for people to identify with.
It's been talked about in the early days of SC development and I think you already know it, so what's all the wondering for now ?

Sure fighter planes look cool as compared to spheres, but no, I honestly can't admit to knowing we were heading to fighters in space that act like turrets in space. That did catch me out big time. If for no other reason that I know it will lead to all the emphasis on weapon effectiveness, weapon range, shield strength etc rather than pilot skill.

And even now there's no way anyone can argue there's any kind of a clear vision as to what this model is or will be. At best I could define it as a halfway house in between the two doing kind of neither.

However I do suspect at this point they will edge towards dogfighting when the realization dawns on them of what they are losing with the turreting approach, whether or not they care to admit it even after the fact.

 

[Neo-ST]

It's one of the things that fall into the same category as the question of weapons and dogfighting.
Which would you rather choose - spheres/squares with automatic computerized weapons or Top Gun in space with dogfighting ?

 

[Bains]

You're asking me? dogfighting in computer assisted plus 6dof Newtonian all the way, no doubt. If you want to innovate and do something different, fine , look somewhere else, not the flight model. Multi crew ships, walking about in ships, million polygon ships, etc, that's all the differentiation you'll ever need. You don't need to differentiate any more than that, and you definitely don't need to screw up the best pilot experience by turning it into turrets in order to differentiate - that's just unnecessarily cutting your nose off to spite your face as far as I'm concerned.

 

[fourty6to3]

Bains, where was that picture you posted a while back of the bowl of chips and mouse inside the cockpit of the Hornet?

 

[Bains]

Bains, where was that picture you posted a while back of the bowl of chips and mouse inside the cockpit of the Hornet?

"The Mouse Commander"

 

[Stormprooter]

You do realize that would require them to create a completely different and fun flight model ?

Yes, but it would make far better use of the ship designs and vectored (gimbaled) thrusters.

 

[fourty6to3]

"The Mouse Commander"

LOL. That's the one.

I think CR knows damn well what he's doing with his game, which is why the question about the "sim" on 10(4)C was awkwardly answered. You could practically see the sweat beads on his forehead.

First he says that unrestricted yaw/pitch is not turreting because you can die quickly. Now he says follow the mouse isn't arcade because thrusters act realistically. He's just making up definitions as he goes.

 

[Neo-ST]

You're asking me? dog fighting all the way. If you want to innovate and do something different, fine , look somewhere else, not the flight model. Multi crew ships, walking about in ships, million polygon ships, etc, that's all the differentiation you'll ever need. You don't need to differentiate any more than that, and you definitely don't need to screw up the best pilot experience by turning it into turrets in order to differentiate - that's just unnecessarily cutting your nose off to spite your face as far as I'm concerned.

Then you can't complain about the look of ships, which is where this argument started.
Both dogfighting simulation and "romantic top gun" look of ships contribute to fun factor of the game. Something ED uses too.

Yes, but it would make far better use of the ship designs and vectored (gimbaled) thrusters.

Yeah....that's questionable, some ships don't look appropriate for atmospheric flight.

 

[Bains]

LOL. That's the one.

I think CR knows damn well what he's doing with his game, which is why the question about the "sim" on 10(4)C was awkwardly answered. You could practically see the sweat beads on his forehead.

First he says that unrestricted yaw/pitch is not turreting because you can die quickly. Now he says follow the mouse isn't arcade because thrusters act realistically. He's just making up definitions as he goes.

He's all over the place.

 

[Stormprooter]

Yeah....that's questionable, some ships don't look appropriate for atmospheric flight.

Those ships currently unsuitable would either need to be able to deploy aerofoils, or not be included.

 

[Neo-ST]

Those ships currently unsuitable would either need to be able to deploy aerofoils, or not be included.

Or use their VTOL engines, so they don't need to waste more time&money on additional R&D.

 

[Bains]

Then you can't complain about the look of ships, which is where this argument started.
Both dogfighting simulation and "romantic top gun" look of ships contribute to fun factor of the game. Something ED uses too.



Yeah....that's questionable, some ships don't look appropriate for atmospheric flight.

I don't know, I'm a big fan of the late great Iain Banks and his far future. If you really want to go hardcore, apply some imagination and a touch of artistic licence and I wouldn't have a problem with a generation of ships designed for it. But damn obvious fighter planes in space acting like turrets seems incongruous to me. Also I read it as evidence of clear cut change of course, their vision was clearly more romantic, ww2, starwars et all, and then for reasons only they know they changed it (reducing the skill ceiling I'm pretty sure), now we are stuck with a generation of ships originally envisioned to move in a different way while in a flight assisted mode.

The fact they changed the name of the dog fighting module after a year of waiting for it to arrive, to the arena commander at the last minute also clearly suggests this to me. They woke up one day and realised, "hang on, there's no dog fighting anymore in the dog fighting module, won't it draw attention to the fact making us look stupid? - err...what do we do? No problem! I know, we just change the name!" - Arena Commander is born.