Are you sure? It shows players clipping in and out of the game engine on the right there
The Star Citizen Thread v5
- Thread starter Brett C
- Start date
- Status
Are you sure? It shows players clipping in and out of the game engine on the right there
IDK, I'd need to look back and re-read but my assumption was that Jon mentioned Evochron when you asked about other games that were doing what E: D was doing. You countered with something to the effect that Evochron wasn't PG and didn't simulate the Milky Way 1:1 which leads to what I posted.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
I take exception sir
Oh my...I do believe the plane is waving goodbye to all the ejected passengers.
Just NO!
It's not high enough fidelity for SC - you can see the strings and everything!!!!!
If I did say that, I concede on the PG, but not on the scale. I guess my point wasn't that they were doing the Milky Way 1:1 in particular, but that the scale was so large in principle. This, to me, is what really sets Elite apart from Evochron.
NEIGHI take exception sir
IDK, judging from this screen capture, I'd say that they're modeling atmospherics solely in front and around the ship.
http://imgur.com/7Rlrb4P
http://imgur.com/7Rlrb4P
Last edited:
5m20s:
Remember when they were going to accurately model the physics of the thrusters so that the position, rotation speed etc directly determined the flight characteristics of the ships? Only, they decided it was too hard to implement/tweak/make the ships fun to fly so they quietly dumbed it down?
I'll feel bad for the physics guy in that video when inevitably they do the same to his aerodynamic simulation.
Last edited:
Do you mean that they would accurately model the thruster physics, or that they dumbed it down? For the former, there's the Kickstarter page. For the latter, one might be able to prove it by close examination of a sample ship to see if thrusters do in fact articulate and if they do to (less easily) somehow find out if they're delivering a force to the ship.
e: if the thrusters deliver thrust ingame, then the mass and mass distribution of the ship would matter. If there is some way to load up the ship with mass, or reduce it, then the flight characteristics, in particular linear and rotational accelerations should change if the thrusters deliver thrust. And in addition, the rotational acceleration will be a function of the moment of inertia of the ship: Move a cargo crate to the side, does the rotational acceleration change?
If no to either or both questions, then the mechanic is dumbed down.
Last edited:
Try this. It's worth a giggle.
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/12741-Physics-Not-A-Dirty-Word
That they dumbed it down. Both of those are easy. Take a Hornet, switch the IFCS into decoupled mode and strafe (supposedly only uses the thrusters) up, down, left and right.
Actually, I'll create a small video and upload it to the googles.
EDIT:
https://youtu.be/Fp0cfMIYAAQ
Last edited:
You'd need better than that, since they could fake strafing characteristics?
My mistake, I'm not a rocket surgeon! I was just going based on some information I had heard, and the stuff I linked to which I was clearly wrong about, that based on heated atmosphere there would be a pushback and acceleration sort of like thermals add lift to gliders but not in the exact same context due to heat rising and all but you know what? Totally not something I understand so I'll concede to the experts!
No worries bro! It could be right, it's just the wiki page was talking about something else~ if you do find more info though it would be very interesting to read about
If I find some info, because now I want to find out if smoke was being blown up my you know, I'll definitely PM you! It's something that has always intrigued me as to how space ships designed for space would be able to actually "fly" in atmosphere since the structures, strengths, forces and controls are vastly different. Our space shuttle is a very obvious mixing of the two - fixed directional thrusters in addition to lifting body and small wings with a vertical stabilizer each wing/stabilizer incorporating control surfaces for atmospheric resistance/effects.
Really, this is your source; a post that specifically says that its flight model simulates Newtonian physics. Let me guess, your contention is with this "There is however a very good reason why you don’t actually see the thrusters fire entirely accurately. The problem with visually depicting the proper thrust is that it would actually look pretty horrible". Seem pretty legit as to why they don't SHOW the animations. If you look at my video I just posted in my previous post, you can clearly see thrusters firing as I thrust in the opposite direction. You can also see that the ship doesn't come to a complete stop but slows down; Newton's first, second and third laws of motion shown. So by this video, it seems that the flight model accurately models Newtonian physics (exhibited by the 3 laws of motion).
Last edited:
You can also see that the mass of the ship doesn't matter as it almost instantly stops and reverses direction.
What else would you need, me flying into one of those bigger asteroids to see how the "equal and opposite reaction" is handled? Do you need the debugging functions to show the thruster outputs because there are quite a few of them on the Bugsmasher videos.
Well yes - that is my source. Some guy called Chris Roberts posted it.
If a thruster is thrusting, and it indicates this state to the player, to achieve any level of fidelity it must display an accurate status of thrust. To achieve any level of realistic physics, that thrust then has to be vectored along the rigid-body of the model, appropriate thrust and / or torque applied - which of course will be compared with all the other thrusters actuating and some form of conclusion reached.
but...
So which is it?
It cannot be accurately modelled if it's not modelled.
Immersion. Fidelity. Fixed thrusters in atmospheric flight, with no flight control surfaces, and not even the appearance of thrust nozzle vectoring in the latest official video. I'll have a look at your video in a bit.
What are you talking about, you can clearly see when I stop thrusting from one side and switch to another. The flight model accurately models Newtonian physics. It shows inertia, it shows that that you need to apply more force to move heavier objects and you need to apply an equal and opposite force to counter the previous one. What you seem to be harping on is that not all the ships have the proper values attributed to them. Some ships act like they are light when they're suppose to be heavy but that's a very quick integer change (something that can be done later when more pressing things don't need to be developed and released).
Not trying to be mean or condescending but if you confused that hot air near a rocket engine nozzle allows things to go faster or is more efficient in atmosphere, kind of makes me question your opinions about Newtonian physics. Just so we're all on the same page, here is a link about everything we are talking about. http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/21st_century_science/lectures/lec03.html
- Status