Shouldn't there be structural limits for pitching up/down as well? It's not like the ships are magically stronger depending on whether they yaw/pitch.
- Status
Shouldn't there be structural limits for pitching up/down as well? It's not like the ships are magically stronger depending on whether they yaw/pitch.
Well it's no wonder, because it's all smoke and mirrors. Think about it:
Normally you'd have fixed thrusters, and you have them for a good reason. You need much less momentum for angular rotation than for, say, straight ahead acceleration. So when SC came with the "articulated thruster" thing, my senses were tingling immediately.
And indeed, what happens is this: You give a certain control input. That input is fed into a very simple control loop that essentially ramps up forces applied to your ship over time. These forces are linear and at a constant angle. Now at the same time, the rendered thrusters are animated in a way that has them start thrusting AND start rotating towards the intended thrust angle at the same time.
There's your disconnect. Your thrusters are shown as "already thrusting" and "still rotating", while the forces exerted on the ship are applied at a fixed relative angle. To make up for this, they have to tweak the ramp up curves to make it even remotely usable. Imagine giving left lateral thrust, and your ship briefly being pushed down or ahead as the thrusters already fire while they're not in the correct position yet. It's plain silly and I get a headache everytime someone blabs about how amazingly detailed and complex this system is.
It's like they had a very complex idea and stopped thinking it through before they started coding. That, or the "thrusters should rotate" thing was just decided at a board meeting.
Now in comparison, I do have a few beefs with the thrusters on Elite ships as well (like, why are they sometimes still firing when I'm not touching the controls while in FA-off?) - but you know what, a little inconsistency is a small price to pay for the first space game with really great combat since Freespace 2.
this might be the reason every ship has fixed thrusters now. its only the hornet and the aurora I think that has turning thrusters..
m50
maybe they are "fixing" them aswell in the future? or they make several models / customizations? the starter model has moving thusters - and the pro variants have fixed ones?
Last edited:
I thought that as well. Turned out I had to increase joystick's deadzones a bit.
Are they basically using the IFCS to smooth over all the cracks in the ships thrust implementations and tuning do you think? It does sound awfully complicated the way they've planned it, so if so I can't really blame them.
Ah! Thanks for the info (don't have any of the fancy ships so I didn't know about that), and yeah I do hope they'll fix the thrusters in place on all ships. Certainly a change for the better, even if it's simplyfying things. Or rather because it's simplifying things.
As cptzipzap stated above, it looks like they're ditching the articulated thrusters in favor of static thrusters anyway.
Last edited:
at least thats what I think as they are moving away from it more and more. and in my eyes this makes sense..
yeah it looks nice to have thaat turning thrusters but if its not working then away with it...
Maybe as an option for the bigger ships tankers and such where no dogfight capabilities are needed..
not sure.. well this goes also hand in and with gimbal weapons and mouse aim vs joystick (cant aim directly).. if mouse aim is like FPS and JS can only aim through ship turning - and that wobble stays then mouse is seriously overpowered.
They keep building the game from top down. As long as they are still creating and selling ships before they fix the flight model and make the game then they will be in a perpetual state of catching up.
It's ridiculous how backwards things are. Since CR is using "real physics" and building the ships first so they can sell them, CIG now has to keep redesigning the ships and their thruster placements so they work correctly.
Until they remove head from butt and start working on the game, I don't think they will have learned any lesson other than their backers are a bunch of suckers that they can extract $$$ from.
Slopey
Volunteer Moderator
^^ This.
$350 for the latest ship - and the fanbois are throwing money at them, for something they can't play for maybe a year+ and you can likely grind to get in game within 2-3 weeks of gameplay...
It's bonkers.
When they eventually ship it, it'll have to be a revelation in gaming (which I doubt) otherwise those with $2-5k invested in it will likely not be to happy, and over in the US, they'll sue for the wrong number of sugar lumps in your coffee, let alone $2k of buggy virtual space ships!
^^ This.
$350 for the latest ship - and the fanbois are throwing money at them, for something they can't play for maybe a year+ and you can likely grind to get in game within 2-3 weeks of gameplay...
It's bonkers.
When they eventually ship it, it'll have to be a revelation in gaming (which I doubt) otherwise those with $2-5k invested in it will likely not be to happy, and over in the US, they'll sue for the wrong number of sugar lumps in your coffee, let alone $2k of buggy virtual space ships!
To add insult to injury, CIG isn't exactly falling over themselves to address the FPS point and click gameplay that they promised wouldn't be there over a year ago. In fact, they also promised WWII dogfighting like Star Wars and we ended up with a turret fest. Their promotional videos STILL show the atmospheric WWII dogfighting and it's a complete misrepresentation of actual gameplay.
Do the backers hold them accountable? Nope. Not when the influx of the attention-deficit 16 year old 4chan generation is the majority and will foam at the mouth to attack anyone who dares criticize CIG. Millions of dollars later and the topic of the day for them is fish tanks, towels, and lamps.
Then something has gone very, very wrong. Because most people are complaining.
Yes, people really don't like the 0.9v patch. Stating that its next to impossible to hit anything, that mouse control hornets rule everything and are easy mode. That this patch showed the problems with the flight model and the OP of the mouse controls. That the P2W has gotten much worse so that now unless you have a $100+ ship there is no reason to play. Lots of people are not happy with the current mechanics in AC.
The funny part is, all it took was for CIG just to change the way game works to a little bit more skill based on the aiming and boom. It just went to show the huge disparity between the different controllers not to mention the wonky IFCS. Things people have been talking about and complaining about for months. Of course it also does not help that ships which are combat oriented are much better than those that are meant to haul stuff etc. Then you also have game weapons behind actual money pay walls and etc.
Now you see even die hard defenders of the Arena Commander on how good it was jumping on the complaining.
Mu77ley
Volunteer Moderator
If we get to Arena Commander 1.0 without a major overhaul of the controls and flight model the whole game is going to deteriorate into just an HD update of Freelancer, which is the polar opposite of what I signed up for.
If that's the case I'll have to seriously consider selling my account and just walking away.
If that's the case I'll have to seriously consider selling my account and just walking away.
The problem is that CIG considers v1.0 the "SPOT" where Arena Commander needs to be before they start implementing major changes. It's where AC should of been back in April according to CIG. But we are not there yet 4+ months later and no where near v1.0. It's pretty telling how far in development they are. I mean I just find it hilarious that CIG blamed community for early AC release when it was them that told us AC would be out like few weeks after April PAX in v1.0 state.
Anyway, by far, if you are not satisfied with the flight of this game come Jan/Feb 2015 maybe PU Alpha, then it will definitely not be the game for you. I am still holding out and giving my feedback to CIG hoping for things to change and influence the game in the right direction. But if it's not there by the time PU Alpha hits, I will sell the remainder of my ships. I have already done so with more than half of my ships already for a tiddy profit.
I backed the game for promises made back in 2012, there is no reason for me to keep supporting them if they are just going to keep changing what they want with the game once they have gotten all the money. I find it insulting that they have made us original backers so many promises on what the game will be to get our funds, and once they had them and the funds attracted people who have never played a space game, let alone heard of CR they all of a sudden do not need us.
Wow, that's news for me.
I don't really spend time on their forums, except for the Elite thread.
I once wrote a post about majority not being satisfied with current flight model, and got ridiculed for it.
You will walk away and the house wins.
If I was a CEO of a company that took millions from people and gave them something similar to AC and saw people simply walking away, I'd be happy because instead of meeting my justice, they simply - left
It'd be the best possible outcome for me.
Last edited:
What feature does SC have that supporters are most looking forward to see in game?
What differentiates SC from ED in a way that should make the forumites here want to play it? Meaning after ED releases all its announced modules/ expansions as well.
Concepts somehow promised or anchored are OK, since It is doubtful Arena Commander will sell anyone on SC as the BDSSE. But I do think AC is a neat idea to keep players invested in the title by giving a quick pop-in, pop-out, no risk play area to muck around with. IF FD would give the starting scenario training grounds a mult-player option ED would be able to have something similar but with a larger arena.
What differentiates SC from ED in a way that should make the forumites here want to play it? Meaning after ED releases all its announced modules/ expansions as well.
Concepts somehow promised or anchored are OK, since It is doubtful Arena Commander will sell anyone on SC as the BDSSE. But I do think AC is a neat idea to keep players invested in the title by giving a quick pop-in, pop-out, no risk play area to muck around with. IF FD would give the starting scenario training grounds a mult-player option ED would be able to have something similar but with a larger arena.
The biggest difference?
For me it will be the groups and organizations. I enjoyed that far too much in EvE not to have it in Elite. I really enjoy having organizations and being a part of them. Having organizations fight each other for dominance over territory/controlling stations and etc.
That is one of the biggest differentiators between the two games to be honest. Where as in Elite it is more about you and your ship against the vast universe.
- Status