Sorry, but I'm not going to continue a non-productive discussion with you. You are now the first poster I've actually had to put on my block list.
Why does my SRV have such terrible traction?
- Thread starter FoxFire Ayderan
- Start date
Sorry, but I'm not going to continue a non-productive discussion with you. You are now the first poster I've actually had to put on my block list.
The discussion would be more productive if you would read and understand my posts.
And I bet I will be Number 2.
Babel was replying to you exactly the same way you reply to everyone, he even used your standard line about someone not reading your post. You just proved beyond doubt how shallow skinned you are.
Actually I think you need to wait in line. I suspect that Ancalagon is next. You can be third if you like though, there's lots of room on the list as I've only started using it today.
Well if you block everyone that disagrees with you, finally you can honestly say you won an argument here LD
Ian Phillips
Volunteer Moderator
You've just illustrated the opposing point wonderfully: You have nicely explained why it goes better up hills in reverse. Draw a little picture of your SRV side-on. Draw some vertical force lines through the wheels. Now do it again on a slope, twice: One forward, one reverse. Look at what the slope does to the centre of gravity. In reverse, that front end with more grip than the back has even MORE grip, whereas going upslope transfers a lot of the mass to the rear wheels which - as you just banged on about - have less traction, resulting in traction breaking sooner.
I was simply responding to a post by M00ka, which was a thinly-veiled personal attack where I was referred to as "shallow skinned" simply for using the ignore function.
Happy to do so, since I've been discussing this topic in considerable detail since the start of the thread.
There is little in ED that is logical or helps with lore based immersion. I did not know about how the SRV was designed but here again it is a flawed way of going about it.
I hate the SRV. I find it no fun at all. It hinders me because you need mats for engineers. I have used my thrustmaster Hotas X but its not a very smooth experience. I bought a cheapo joypad to see if that helps, but to configure it is maddening. Again I have to fight the config screen. There are too many buttons needed. On the flight stick I could at least use the buttons and have all the functions on it someplace.
The controller has 4 + the 8 at the front. I can't figure out how best to use it because I never had any practice with these things, save for the Megadrive decades ago. It is not intuitive to me. So what is most handy to use for acceleration? How to set up looking at panels? What is best for flight corrections? How to best use pips?
The constant spinning and traction is completely a middle finger to the player. if there was some lore... but no. FD didn't think it through at all. We use 1960's lunar buggy's that are annoying to work. Getting stuck behind a rock at slow speed, or your own landing gear. Back and forth beneath the ship to align. Nothing ever feels like you are in control.
And really, low power in engines doesn't help. Every planet is like ice. You fly and run out of power, you land on a rock and bang, you go crash about again. ED should have been designed by another company.
And you are sure there isn't something wrong with your settings? Like using digital rather than analogue axis?
BTW
The no. 1 reason for spinning is not steering but the throttle...
Using pedals + wheel / joystick or triggers with a gamepad and drive assist off works like a charm. A throttle + drive assist on applies way too much force to the wheels in certain situations. Immediately cut speed when you loose control and you should be able to avoid spinning around.
Nope, steers beautifully...and then it just doesn't. As we've established, the SRV steers better backwards and that's a design problem - if a vehicle has a design problem someone will soon come along and make an alternative that fixes that problem. Did I mention I'd like to see more SRVs?
Except that as I explained in the rest of the post that you quoted the weight transfer effects in the SRV are going to be minimal. Not only can the SRV generate its own downforce, the weight distribution is likely already front-loaded, not rear-loaded, otherwise the SRV design wouldn't have double wheels on the front to handle the extra weight. Essentially you already have a SRV design that is front-heavy and when going up a slope it should use the thrusters to generate appropriate downforce to allow it to have optimal traction control when driving forwards. What we currently have is the opposite and it wouldn't make any sense to design the SRV that way.
Last edited:
Nope, steers beautifully...and then it just doesn't. As we've established, the SRV steers better backwards and that's a design problem - if a vehicle has a design problem someone will soon come along and make an alternative that fixes that problem. Did I mention I'd like to see more SRVs?
While I'd like to see more SRVs, I think any vehicle would spin when you suddenly turn going 108 km/h on a dirt track...
Ah, ye olde appeal to authority.
This, I often end up reversing out of danger. Lol
It's far more stable. And you can shoot what's chasing you. Lol
I do think it'd be a fun QoL addition if the rear wheels stopped steering above 10m/s.
CMDR Cosmic Spacehead
Maybe, but complete hypothesis on the design, nonetheless. To me, I see a big hollow cockpit at the front, and chunky stuff at the back. Although rationally they'd have gone for 50/50 distribution, just as we aim for in contemporary car design... making it better at reversing up hills.
Remember that thrusters need to transfer that downforce through the vehicles wheels. Draw the force diagram again. Don't make me get Paint out, because the results of that will not be pretty.
This is genius. I should train my 6yo daughter to do this...
"Find arsenic. You can play Roblox after you collect 30. GO GO GO!!!"
Z...
The manufacturers don't care about the quality of the product they make, as there is no competition.
Do the same tests when driving in reverse. Surprise, surprise - no spinouts!
It's pretty clear to me that the spin-out characteristic was a deliberate addition and nothing to do with handling, steering or weight charactetistics. Two reasons: 1. It doesn't do it in reverse. 2. The spinout is always 180 deg.
Yes, by careful driving and having zero pips on the engines, the SRV is driveable. No, driving it is not particularly pleasurable. I agree with Devari that they should have given the SRV more realistic handling and provided more challenging terrain, but that's not so easy as the solution they chose. Everything could be fixed with a rear view camera, but then it would be too easy. like everything in the game, they add obstacles to make simple things difficult and time-consuming. That's what this game is and has always been about and why we have commanders still playing after thousands of hours.
Last edited:
Lol, thats about the biggest straw man I've read in months. I stated 2 lines of simple physics in reply to this:
Nothing more, nothing less.
You inject all kind of into these 2 lines, totally irrelephant to what I replied to, blow some smoke, twist a little here and there and conclude:
[where is it]
Do you mind if I put you back to where I pulled you from this morning?