Why does everyone call ED a space flight sim?

[da_wae]

Realistic in relation to what? 2018? Goodbye shields, FTL, lasers, and the entire rest of the game. Thanks.

You could argue that all new technologies are part of the "fi" part in "sci-fi", but that the overall maneuvering should stick to the "sci" part. In ED they're both in the "fi" field, tho.

Edit: don't get me wrong, I'm not claiming to speak for the majority. Most people deeply prefer "WW2 planes in space" / "Star Wars" approach to space flight.
I prefer the more realistic "Babylon 5" / "The Expanse" full Newtonian physics without much "handwavium" regarding rotational thrusters and true 6dof.

 

[DaveB]

artificially nerfed yaw (4-deg of freedom, not 6)

Somebody doesn't understand degrees of freedom. There are indeed 6 in ED, for any of them to be absent you would have to be UNABLE to do one or more of pitch, roll, yaw or translate in the x, y, or z directions. Even if you couldn't yaw at all you'd still have 5 not 4. That the 6 degrees of freedom have differing envelopes for the maximum acceleration and velocity achievable is indeed purely a gameplay thing rather than a matter of simulation fidelity but it is, on the whole, a necessary one unless you really want combat in ED to be purely "turrets in space".

Now, what would be interesting would be if we could "tune" our fly-by-wire systems a bit like the pips system for eng/sys/wep - with the stock params being 2/2/2... a set of pips for x/y/z translation so you could increase your vertical/lateral thruster effectiveness at the expense of top speed by setting 0/3/3, or if you really wanted more yaw at the expense of the other two axes you could set 1/1/4 on that set...

 

[babelfisch]

You could argue that all new technologies are part of the "fi" part in "sci-fi", but that the overall maneuvering should stick to the "sci" part. In ED they're both in the "fi" field, tho.

Why? We already established that the flight model follows real world physics and correctly works according to the ship design.

 

[777Driver]

Right. Indeed. Yes. Sorry about that. Apologies 777Driver, it seems my comment was the one uncalled for. Sorry about that.

No worries mate

 

[da_wae]

Why? We already established that the flight model follows real world physics and correctly works according to the ship design.

Ship design made to post hoc explain why the devs nerfed yaw during the beta.

Surprise: it was because a lot of players complained about "turrets in space".

 

[da_wae]

Somebody doesn't understand degrees of freedom. There are indeed 6 in ED, for any of them to be absent you would have to be UNABLE to do one or more of pitch, roll, yaw or translate in the x, y, or z directions. Even if you couldn't yaw at all you'd still have 5 not 4. That the 6 degrees of freedom have differing envelopes for the maximum acceleration and velocity achievable is indeed purely a gameplay thing rather than a matter of simulation fidelity but it is, on the whole, a necessary one unless you really want combat in ED to be purely "turrets in space".

Now, what would be interesting would be if we could "tune" our fly-by-wire systems a bit like the pips system for eng/sys/wep - with the stock params being 2/2/2... a set of pips for x/y/z translation so you could increase your vertical/lateral thruster effectiveness at the expense of top speed by setting 0/3/3, or if you really wanted more yaw at the expense of the other two axes you could set 1/1/4 on that set...

My bad, you're right, its 5 - not 4. And yes I realize that yaw still exists in game, but it's so severely nerfed compared to "roll and pitch" that it might as well not be in the game at all. It's there to pay lipservice to the community and sometimes be used to compensate in some manouvers, not as a true flight mechanism.

In reality, space ships would never roll and pitch, thats a manouver used by planes due to the nature of aerodynamics. In space, ships would operate very much like turrets.

 

[Cmdr Esteban]

Never said you can't use lateral thrusters. But yaw is so artificially nerfed it makes it pretty much useless except for "compensating" in manouvers...

Yaw limitations notwithstanding, you don't have your translational thrusters set up properly. They're not "buttons". They need to be set to analogue control inputs, with the same care you apply to pitch, yaw and throttle. If you've been treating your translational thrusters as a digital afterthought up until now, you've been doing it all wrong and you need to start from the beginning with your control set-up.

 

[da_wae]

Yaw limitations notwithstanding, you don't have your translational thrusters set up properly. They're not "buttons". They need to be set to analogue control inputs, with the same care you apply to pitch, yaw and throttle. If you've been treating your translational thrusters as a digital afterthought up until now, you've been doing it all wrong and you need to start from the beginning with your control set-up.

I use my lateral thrusters in the thumb mini-joystick my X-55 HOTAS provides on the main thruster.

Sorry for not flying double-stick, I will commit sudoku now, senpai.

 

[babelfisch]

My bad, you're right, its 5 - not 4. And yes I realize that yaw still exists in game, but it's so severely nerfed compared to "roll and pitch" that it might as well not be in the game at all. It's there to pay lipservice to the community and sometimes be used to compensate in some manouvers, not as a true flight mechanism.

In reality, space ships would never roll and pitch, thats a manouver used by planes due to the nature of aerodynamics. In space, ships would operate very much like turrets.

With the ability to land on planets (and in the future on atmospheric planets) lateral thrusters would become way more important than yaw.

 

[777Driver]

but it's so severely nerfed compared to "roll and pitch" that it might as well not be in the game at all.

In reality, space ships would never roll and pitch, thats a manouver used by planes due to the nature of aerodynamics. In space, ships would operate very much like turrets.

Assuming you also complain about large ships being too sluggish. I use all thrusters especially yaw. It is the only way to fly these ships efficiently. ~Even in SC, heavy use of Yaw when evading interdictions. Have gone through two sets of pedals.

In reality we would never have 2000+ tonnes ships dog fighting and pulling 80+g maneuvers.

 

[da_wae]

Assuming you also complain about large ships being too sluggish. I use all thrusters especially yaw. It is the only way to fly these ships efficiently. ~Even in SC, heavy use of Yaw when evading interdictions. Have gone through two sets of pedals.

In reality we would never have 2000+ tonnes ships dog fighting and pulling 80+g maneuvers.

Sluggishness is a product of acceleration / mass. So, the more mass the less acceleration / maneuverability is expected (especially considering the square-cube law).

Yaw being almost useless compared to pitch is absurd tho. No sane aerospace engineer would even design such a ship.

 

[DaveB]

In reality, space ships would never roll and pitch, thats a manouver used by planes due to the nature of aerodynamics. In space, ships would operate very much like turrets.

well they would (they do) do all three, but the distinction between roll/pitch/yaw would be largely nonexistent except as arbitrary axes, and you're perfectly correct about the turret thing.

The problem with that from a gameplay perspective is that it would change the whole combat paradigm and there's a couple of problems with how it would change it.

The first is that it would shift the style of combat into something more akin to sail-era naval engagements in 3 dimensions, it would be 90% strategic maneuvering to get your "broadside" into play and then you'd deliver a potentially devastating blow, possibly ending the engagement right there. Combat would be much slower-paced and this would be major issue for a huge chunk of ED's target market.

The second is a corollary to this which has nothing to do with the player-base for its impact. The range at which combatants exchanged fire would be much longer in such an engagement and the currently artificially-low ranges on our weapons are that way now because of the game architecture.

This being the case I believe the decision at FD to restrict the maneuvering envelope to promote more "aircraft-like" combat was the correct one. It is, undeniably, a loss of simulation fidelity but I honestly don't see how FD could have chosen differently without running into situations where we'd face a greater loss in that regard.

 

[da_wae]

well they would (they do) do all three, but the distinction between roll/pitch/yaw would be largely nonexistent except as arbitrary axes, and you're perfectly correct about the turret thing.

The problem with that from a gameplay perspective is that it would change the whole combat paradigm and there's a couple of problems with how it would change it.

The first is that it would shift the style of combat into something more akin to sail-era naval engagements in 3 dimensions, it would be 90% strategic maneuvering to get your "broadside" into play and then you'd deliver a potentially devastating blow, possibly ending the engagement right there. Combat would be much slower-paced and this would be major issue for a huge chunk of ED's target market.

The second is a corollary to this which has nothing to do with the player-base for its impact. The range at which combatants exchanged fire would be much longer in such an engagement and the currently artificially-low ranges on our weapons are that way now because of the game architecture.

This being the case I believe the decision at FD to restrict the maneuvering envelope to promote more "aircraft-like" combat was the correct one. It is, undeniably, a loss of simulation fidelity but I honestly don't see how FD could have chosen differently without running into situations where we'd face a greater loss in that regard.

I agree with your assessment. FDEV had to make a call about their space flight model, and they decided to go with what the community asked for during the Beta - nothing particularly wrong about that.

But calling the model they chose "realistic" is a huge stretch, tho.

Edit: to be fair, I meant "never use roll and pitch as the primary way to achieve a decent yaw-equivalent turn rate" - but it was too verbose

Edit 2: The combat model is even unrealistic for 2018 fighter-jet standards where most engagements occur BVR (beyond visual range).
ED space battles are akin to World War 2 tech dogfights.

 

[Cmdr Esteban]

I use my lateral thrusters in the thumb mini-joystick my X-55 HOTAS provides on the main thruster.

Sorry for not flying double-stick, I will commit sudoku now, senpai.

That would be Seppuku. But touché, and a particularly challenging Sudoku puzzle will do for now, I'll get back to you later if further recompense is required.

But I find it odd that with that set-up you still consider translational thrusters as a "compensatory" measure. Strange. Translational thrusters mean the difference between victory and defeat, in my experience.

 

[C2306]

Unless you have been to 3304, you cannot declare this game to be like or unlike reality, right now its the best portrayal we have of 3304. I'll also refer to it as a space sim or space flight sim even more if I know someones chewing teeth over it.

 

[777Driver]

Sluggishness is a product of acceleration / mass. So, the more mass the less acceleration / maneuverability is expected (especially considering the square-cube law).

No sane aerospace engineer would even design such a ship.

.

What are you going on about? That is not what I asked you. Once again, if we are talking about reality an aerospace engineer would design a vehicle with limited yaw/pitch/roll (for very obvious reasons) Way more limited then what we have in game. However I agree, each axis would be the same, no reason not to have it that way.

It is clear why FD chose that flight model, some will like it, some will hate it.

Bottom line, something tells me mankind won't be seeing 2000 tonne space planes shooting each with multi cannons, just a feeling I have.

 

[Eukanuba23]

Op must be a real hoot to watch any SciFi movie with, I wonder what he says about Star Wars

I'm going to derail this pointless thread by arguing that Star Wars is not in any way science fiction.

People think it is science fiction because it has space ships and laser guns, but these things are not inherently science fiction.

What all science fiction does is to take an existing technology, social trend or similar, and extrapolate it to imagine what might happen as a result of it. Star Wars does not do this. Star Wars is explicitly set in the past, no attempt is made to explain how any of the technologies work, there's a large dollop of magic, and the story structure is based on the mythic Hero's Journey. The Hero's Journey structure does not necessarily prevent a story from being science fiction (e.g. The Matrix), but Star Wars was the first to use it explicitly, and George Lucas very pointedly was trying to make a modern myth a la The Epic of Gilgamesh.

So, in conclusion: Star Wars is not science fiction and I will fight anybody who says otherwise.

PS: Classic science fiction in the Asimov/Clarke mould is largely dead, because the things they predicted either came true, or it's become apparent that they are either impossible or won't happen for thousands of years. The inheritor of their crown, the true modern science fiction, is Black Mirror. I shall also fight anybody who disagrees with that.

 

[da_wae]

What are you going on about? That is not what I asked you. Once again, if we are talking about reality an aerospace engineer would design a vehicle with limited yaw/pitch/roll (for very obvious reasons) Way more limited then what we have in game. However I agree, each axis would be the same, no reason not to have it that way.

It is clear why FD chose that flight model, some will like it, some will hate it.

Bottom line, something tells me mankind won't be seeing 2000 tonne space planes shooting each with multi cannons, just a feeling I have.

I'm pretty sure my original post was clear. No sane aerospace engineer would design a ship crippled from the start due to not being able to properly rotate upon itself at consistent rates. That's a basic feature for any space ship worth its name.

And no, probably no multi-cannons. If I had to guess, in a realistic possible future, space battles would almost always occur BVR, using a mix of missiles and probably railguns. Multi-cannons would probably be used for CQB and as a countermeasure to incoming missiles.

 

[da_wae]

I'm going to derail this pointless thread by arguing that Star Wars is not in any way science fiction.

People think it is science fiction because it has space ships and laser guns, but these things are not inherently science fiction.

What all science fiction does is to take an existing technology, social trend or similar, and extrapolate it to imagine what might happen as a result of it. Star Wars does not do this. Star Wars is explicitly set in the past, no attempt is made to explain how any of the technologies work, there's a large dollop of magic, and the story structure is based on the mythic Hero's Journey. The Hero's Journey structure does not necessarily prevent a story from being science fiction (e.g. The Matrix), but Star Wars was the first to use it explicitly, and George Lucas very pointedly was trying to make a modern myth a la The Epic of Gilgamesh.

So, in conclusion: Star Wars is not science fiction and I will fight anybody who says otherwise.

PS: Classic science fiction in the Asimov/Clarke mould is largely dead, because the things they predicted either came true, or it's become apparent that they are either impossible or won't happen for thousands of years. The inheritor of their crown, the true modern science fiction, is Black Mirror. I shall also fight anybody who disagrees with that.

Agree 100%. But you should try watching The Expanse. It's probably the only decent space sci-fi show nowadays (hard sci-fi, Asimov style).

 

[babelfisch]

I agree with your assessment. FDEV had to make a call about their space flight model, and they decided to go with what the community asked for during the Beta - nothing particularly wrong about that.

But calling the model they chose "realistic" is a huge stretch, tho.

Edit: to be fair, I meant "never use roll and pitch as the primary way to achieve a decent yaw-equivalent turn rate" - but it was too verbose

Edit 2: The combat model is even unrealistic for 2018 fighter-jet standards where most engagements occur BVR (beyond visual range).
ED space battles are akin to World War 2 tech dogfights.

Well, the reasons they chose this flight model are obvious and well known. As I said earlier, when I say the flight model is realistic within the rules of the game I refer to physics and ship design. Elite is pretty much spot on in this regard since everything is simulated correctly. Apart from canisters and I believe our thrusters get buffed when we launch from high G planets. IIRC canisters used to float indefinetely but that was changed based on community feedback.