Support NeoGAF

[Dictator93]

Am I brain dead in the head if I think the current combat is quite enjoyable?

Am I crazy for realizing that a lot of the combat subsystems aren't even in the game yet (cyber warefare and most of the stealth gameplay)?

 

[Teknopathetic]

"Am I brain dead in the head if I think the current combat is quite enjoyable?

Am I crazy for realizing that a lot of the combat subsystems aren't even in the game yet (cyber warefare and most of the stealth gameplay?)"


I wouldn't say brain dead, however a lot of the combat subsystems that haven't been implemented are completely unrelated to what Pomerlaw (and I) find problematic with the current state of combat.

 

[phoenixyz]

Am I brain dead in the head if I think the current combat is quite enjoyable?

Am I crazy for realizing that a lot of the combat subsystems aren't even in the game yet (cyber warefare and most of the stealth gameplay)?

And Multi-Person-Ships, and much customizability etc.
No you are neither crazy nor brain dead.

 

[Dictator93]

"Am I brain dead in the head if I think the current combat is quite enjoyable?

Am I crazy for realizing that a lot of the combat subsystems aren't even in the game yet (cyber warefare and most of the stealth gameplay?)"


I wouldn't say brain dead, however a lot of the combat subsystems that haven't been implemented are completely unrelated to what Pomerlaw (and I) find problematic with the current state of combat.

Which can be reduced down to "gimbals" right? I find the flight modelling and the way it is translated into hotas controls to be great.

The main problem has to do with mouse-using gimballed weapons... right? From a balance perspective?

EDIT: if they got rid of mouse controlled gimballed weapons... I really wouldn't have any problem.

 

[Teknopathetic]

Not entirely. There's also discontent with the flight model as a whole with regards to the current power of thrusters on ships and yaw (I disagree with yaw, personally).

 

[Dictator93]

Not entirely. There's also discontent with the flight model as a whole with regards to the current power of thrusters on ships and yaw (I disagree with yaw, personally).

Hrmm. Didn't the control changes introduced in November address this to some degree?

 

[Zalusithix]

I would also like to step back and point out that this conversation is about how can one strip away as many aspects of the game as possible to avoid combat just so you can say "It's okay if the ship combat's not great because you can do X without it!" which grosses me out a little bit.

Flip that on its head and you get "It's okay if <insert other game element here> is not great, because you can do combat without it!"

All aspects need to be good. Combat is one of those aspects.

 

[Teknopathetic]

"Hrmm. Didn't the control changes introduced in November address this to some degree?"

You can go back to the last page to read Pomerlaw and Dubbedinenglish's complaints verbatim, but no, not really.


"All aspects need to be good. Combat is one of those aspects."

That I can agree with.

 

[RK9039]

Since when do weapons use cargo space? Weapons go on external hardpoints. Storage is internal. Or do you mean lowering your mass for further jump range? That said, even with weapons, you'll most likely be dead if you try fighting back in something like a T6.

Yeah I meant for mass. I got rid of all hardpoints and scanner.

 

[Danthrax]

Am I allowed to do bombing runs from space to the atmosphere to destroy your stock market building? Or is planet surface stuff immune to that?

Does the FPS mode work on planet surfaces so someone could shoot you walking to work?

Or is the day trading stuff totally GUI elements, and you don't have a physical body to be shot at? I'm ignorant of all this stuff.

You cannot do bombing runs on surface buildings, no. There's no manually controlled atmospheric flight. Autopilot takes you through takeoff and landing sequences.

The FPS mode does work, but on more civilized, secure worlds like Terra, you go through a security checkpoint once you get off your ship. They may not let you take your weapons at all past that point. If you do bring a weapon past the checkpoint (or use shady contacts to purchase one on the inside), you could waste someone in the city only to be immediately swarmed and incarcerated (or killed on the spot) by planetary police.

I don't even know if there will be day trading, I was being silly. I imagine you'll be able to manage a trade empire of some sort without even flying, though, by hiring pilots (NPCs or real people) to fly cargo that you own from one planet to another. That stuff would be controlled through GUIs, but you'll be able to manually load and unload cargo if you really feel like doing so. Even if you mostly hired people to do missions for you to maintain a trade empire, though, you'd still have a physical body standing at a mission counter or a bar or whatever. Other players would see you looking at a menu being holographically projected from the personal computer on your arm.

 

[Raticus79]

I don't even know if there will be day trading, I was being silly. I imagine you'll be able to manage a trade empire of some sort without even flying, though, by hiring pilots (NPCs or real people) to fly cargo that you own from one planet to another. That stuff would be controlled through GUIs, but you'll be able to manually load and unload cargo if you really feel like doing so. Even if you mostly hired people to do missions for you to maintain a trade empire, though, you'd still have a physical body standing at a mission counter or a bar or whatever. Other players would see you looking at a menu being holographically projected from the personal computer on your arm.

If standing in one spot and using a menu endlessly was a viable way to make money in the game, people would bot it like crazy until the margins were so small that human players would see no point in the activity.

(source: Diablo III auction house)

---

I hope Star Citizen sticks to their guns when it comes to avoiding restrictions like the slow yaw in Elite. That wannabe air flight is immersion breaking for me.

 

[Burny]

I hope Star Citizen sticks to their guns when it comes to avoiding restrictions like the slow yaw in Elite. That wannabe air flight is immersion breaking for me.

Which immersion is that? It merely goes against your preconceived - or aquired - idea of the way space flight works for fictional ships in a fictional universe. Maybe the thrusters involved just aren't powerful enough to let the ships yaw faster? The air flight is clearly a fly-by-wire system in place to make the ships more managable and can be turned off.

On the other hand, I feel that the current, almost restriction less approach in Arena Commander makes it feel like an arena FPS with som added degrees of freedom. It's the restrictions in a vehicle's controls as much as anything that make a sim game. Going by my short test flights, Arena Commander to me doesn't feel like one, yet. It doesn't have to be an over-penalization of yaw vs. roll. The way the thrusters are arranged, the ships are clearly designed to turn on a dime in contrast to Elite's designs. They're doing it so unbelievably fast however, that they feel like weightless toys. How powerful are thos thrusters? Depending on what you expect from controlling such a vhicle, that may be just as immersion breaking.

Here's hoping Star Citizen revises it's flight model thoroughly before release. The base implementation is all well, but it currently plays out more like a much more complex Freelancer than a space sim, largely due to leaving out practically any restrictions in ship handling.

 

[Blizzard]

Which immersion is that? It merely goes against your preconceived - or aquired - idea of the way space flight works for fictional ships in a fictional universe. Maybe the thrusters involved just aren't powerful enough to let the ships yaw faster? The air flight is clearly a fly-by-wire system in place to make the ships more managable and can be turned off.

On the other hand, I feel that the current, almost restriction less approach in Arena Commander makes it feel like an arena FPS with som added degrees of freedom. It's the restrictions in a vehicle's controls as much as anything that make a sim game. Going by my short test flights, Arena Commander to me doesn't feel like one, yet. It doesn't have to be an over-penalization of yaw vs. roll. The way the thrusters are arranged, the ships are clearly designed to turn on a dime in contrast to Elite's designs. They're doing it so unbelievably fast however, that they feel like weightless toys. How powerful are thos thrusters? Depending on what you expect from controlling such a vhicle, that may be just as immersion breaking.

Here's hoping Star Citizen revises it's flight model thoroughly before release. The base implementation is all well, but it currently plays out more like a much more complex Freelancer than a space sim, largely due to leaving out practically any restrictions in ship handling.

How can one argue that Star Citizen does not play out like a space sim, and call for a thorough revision of the flight model, while simultaneously arguing maybes in regard to "the way space flight works for fictional ships in a fictional universe"?

Couldn't one bring similar arguments against making turn rate slower? Couldn't one argue that the flight model is accurate in regard to a fictional universe?

 

[ASTROID2]

If people think the small ships we have now should control slowly just think about how slow they would want a large ship like the Sarfarer to turn.

 

[Agremont]

If people think the small ships we have now should control slowly just think about how slow they would want a large ship like the Sarfarer to turn.

I personally think they're turning way too fast. It feels like the manouvering thrusters are just as powerful as the main ones. There's little "feel" in the ships in my opinion. They start, stop, move in all directions so fast that it looks comical. But what do I know, maybe that's realistic.

 

[Zabojnik]

I'm staying as far away from AC as possible, since I want to go into S42 with virgin hands, so I can't speak about the flight model from first-hand experience. I've seen quite a few videos of people flying in pretty spectacular fashion though, drifting around asteroids, letting the momentum carry them as they turned the ship around and all that stuff. Looked like mad fun ... and something that I assume requires quite a bit of skill / practice to get the hang of. I wonder how many people actually took the time to properly learn and utilize all the different flying modes, etc. before complaining. I'm not talking about anyone in particular, just saying.

 

[CSJ]

Spinning gyos? I didn't think that reaction wheels / CMGs were mechanisms for fast attitude control. If anything they'd seem to be a hindrance to being able to rapidly shift directions.

They supplement thrusters, if you apply breaking to an axis it's going to help. (Though it sounds like you know more than me by knowing the proper term! )
Of course, it's not solely enough but it's their explanation for why they turn so quick.
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/engineering/13951-Flight-Model-And-Input-Controls

But unlike thrusters they say that have to actually turn and fire for anything to happen in the physics simulation, the gyro's don't exist they just use it as a reason, so they probably increase the turn rates/thrust output to simulate it having them.
Plus it's like the year 3300 or something. Fuuuture gyros!

I need to try out the latest patch, try the tutorial - I saw a video of someone thrusting upwards out of the tutorial asteroid hangar and as soon as he let go of thrusting the ship stopped on a dime like it had no mass. If they can add a bit of inertia there it'd be nice. It should take just as much time to slow down as it took to speed up with dorsal/ventral thrusters.

 

[Dictator93]

They supplement thrusters, if you apply breaking to an axis it's going to help. (Though it sounds like you know more than me by knowing the proper term! )
Of course, it's not solely enough but it's their explanation for why they turn so quick.
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/engineering/13951-Flight-Model-And-Input-Controls

But unlike thrusters they say that have to actually turn and fire for anything to happen in the physics simulation, the gyro's don't exist they just use it as a reason, so they probably increase the turn rates/thrust output to simulate it having them.
Plus it's like the year 3300 or something. Fuuuture gyros!

I need to try out the latest patch, try the tutorial - I saw a video of someone thrusting upwards out of the tutorial asteroid hangar and as soon as he let go of thrusting the ship stopped on a dime like it had no mass. If they can add a bit of inertia there it'd be nice. It should take just as much time to slow down as it took to speed up with dorsal/ventral thrusters.

That is as a result of the computer mode of thrust and not the game's physicalisation. The retrograde thrusters prevent that drift in the normal IFCS driven mode. Decoupled causes drift.

Are you saying they should implement a time lag between when the retrograde thrusters fire to make it "bob"? Like a ship at sea?

 

[Burny]

How can one argue that Star Citizen does not play out like a space sim, and call for a thorough revision of the flight model, while simultaneously arguing maybes in regard to "the way space flight works for fictional ships in a fictional universe"?

Couldn't one bring similar arguments against making turn rate slower? Couldn't one argue that the flight model is accurate in regard to a fictional universe?

It's design mixed with personal preference and some basic stomach feeling how the mass of those ships might play out.

Of course they can argue that the thrusters are so powerful (and the ship's frames so robust), that they can near instantaneously accelerate the ship and therefore adjust yaw/roll/pitch of the ships as fast as you can hurl the mouse around. That's basically the current model. On the other hand, they could just as well argue that those small thrusters take some more time to accelerate the ships in any direction, which do have some mass after all.

IMO that'd actually do them a favour, because that would make the amount and placement of the steering thrusters relevant and the small ships distinguishable by more than the amount of weapons they carry and their max speed. As they even have a separate section in their ship specs about the amount and type of thrusters, I suspect the current flight model might even be a kind of placeholder in that regard.

As I said, for me it's the restrictions of vehicles that make sims interesting just as much as their "powers". Some more restrictions would shift the focus on vehicle control and give the ships some more in game character.

 

[Mikeside]

I'm not sure why but I just can't seem to get a satisfying setup for my ship (325a) with my X52 Pro.

I think I need to spend some time deciding on buttons and adjusting the sensitivity/deadzone for my stick.

Does anybody have some advice they might like to impart?


I'm going to look at getting a mini keyboard I can put on a bracket and label up the keys so sit alongside the stick for extra functions. I'm also thinking of getting a 3d mouse (we have a load at work which we sell to companies to use for CAD purposes) to use for strafing around and docking. Probably needless, but a lot of fun. The only issue is that with all that extra input, it'll make it awkward when Oculus consumer kit comes out, because I won't actually be able to see any of those keys, but I think it'll be worth the tradeoff.


edit: Infact, I've just ordered a mini-keyboard and a flexible tablet arm which I'm going to repurpose to hold the keyboard, so now I just need to measure up the keys (which look very flat) so I can create and print some stickers for various functions in the game. If anybody happens to have a 3DConnexions Space Navigator or similar, could you test it to see if it'll work in the game for strafing and turning? If it works, I'm definitely getting one

 

[KKRT00]

It's design mixed with personal preference and some basic stomach feeling how the mass of those ships might play out.

Of course they can argue that the thrusters are so powerful (and the ship's frames so robust), that they can near instantaneously accelerate the ship and therefore adjust yaw/roll/pitch of the ships as fast as you can hurl the mouse around. That's basically the current model. On the other hand, they could just as well argue that those small thrusters take some more time to accelerate the ships in any direction, which do have some mass after all.

IMO that'd actually do them a favour, because that would make the amount and placement of the steering thrusters relevant and the small ships distinguishable by more than the amount of weapons they carry and their max speed. As they even have a separate section in their ship specs about the amount and type of thrusters, I suspect the current flight model might even be a kind of placeholder in that regard.

As I said, for me it's the restrictions of vehicles that make sims interesting just as much as their "powers". Some more restrictions would shift the focus on vehicle control and give the ships some more in game character.

You know that CIG aims at simulating everything as it should work? And that comes to thruster placement and power, and mass distribution on ships?
They are not going to create artificial restriction on modules and ships to make them different, because their philosophy is to make them more like real cars, so that components of the ships and how ships are build, change the way how they handle.

 

[CSJ]

That is as a result of the computer mode of thrust and not the game's physicalisation. The retrograde thrusters prevent that drift in the normal IFCS driven mode. Decoupled causes drift.

Are you saying they should implement a time lag between when the retrograde thrusters fire to make it "bob"? Like a ship at sea?

No what I'm saying is if I hit my ventral thrusters and accelerate to a speed for say an entire second, then let go and let it counter thrust (dorsal) to stop (or I manually counter thrust) it'd be nice if it didn't stop literally the next frame.
I'm not talking about relative forward motion with velocity changes, just an up and down movement for simplicities sake. I already know that gunning it balls to the wall and changing direction does have some weight behind it.

Edit: I thought I typed this out, but like I said before I haven't played the last few updates.

 

[KKRT00]

No what I'm saying is if I hit my ventral thrusters and accelerate to a speed for say an entire second, then let go and let it counter thrust (dorsal) to stop (or I manually counter thrust) it'd be nice if it didn't stop literally the next frame.

This should not be possible with their physics engine, like at all.
They even recently added cheating system for cinematics to bypass some physics calculations, to make some turns normally not possible, being possible.

 

[CSJ]

I'm just going to have to actually try it out and see what's changed
I'll record it if I find something odd, it could've been a certain ship during a certain part of it's creation that wasn't playing ball.

 

[Burny]

You know that CIG aims at simulating everything as it should work? And that comes to thruster placement and power, and mass distribution on ships?
They are not going to create artificial restriction on modules and ships to make them different, because their philosophy is to make them more like real cars, so that components of the ships and how ships are build, change the way how they handle.

I'd actually like to see a computation of their ship physics. How much thrust exactly do their thrusters generate, how is the mass distributed? How much mass do the various ships have? It's not artificial restriction when they limit the amount of thrust the small thrusters can generate or the speed at which the thruster's mechanic can rotate them. It' no different from real vehicles - somehwere physics set a limit and as it's a sci fi sim, they can determine what the limit in their universe is going to be.

Apart from that, there is a whole lot of artificial limiting and gamification in any space "sim". Star Citizen is no exception, they are just trying to simulate and gamify as many systems as they can, which sets them apart. The ship deactivating the main thrusters to keep a "max speed" is an artificial limit, the ships' design and handling that leads to something akin to WWII/korea war type dogfights in space is another one.

Keeping those imo desirable design tradeoffs in mind, I'd welcome if the ships physics had them handle a bit more like, well, ships and less like UT99 characters. They don't need to yaw anywhere near as sluggishly as Elite's ships, but they should make the ship's orientation worth a consideration in a dogfight. Otherwise it removes a whole lot of depth that the flight model could have. Naturally, those who'd raver keep the current point & shoot physics/mechanics, would probably - at least at first - not take well to such changes.

 

[KKRT00]

It's not artificial restriction when they limit the amount of thrust the small thrusters can generate or the speed at which the thruster's mechanic can rotate them. It' no different from real vehicles - somehwere physics set a limit and as it's a sci fi sim, they can determine what the limit in their universe is going to be.

Of course they do this. They balance the modules all the time, they have even application for this called Thruster Calc, which they expanded lately.
But You have to in mind that ships with similar mass and mass distribution that are using same thrusters will handle almost exactly the same.
And You also have in mind that we currently have 'placeholders' fitting in ships, we dont have overclocking of modules, ability to refit ships with different tiers and quality of modules, change placement of modules, have proper power management or add cargo to different parts to change mass center of the ship, so they handle similarly when normally they will not.

 

[SmartBase]

Is it weird that this article on their website about cargo and physical manipulation of objects was far more interesting to me than the usual fluff on there?

 

[Zalusithix]

Is it weird that this article on their website about cargo and physical manipulation of objects was far more interesting to me than the usual fluff on there?

Usual fluff? There's plenty of design based articles that they publish that focus on the different aspects of the game.

 

[Dubbedinenglish]

This should not be possible with their physics engine, like at all.
They even recently added cheating system for cinematics to bypass some physics calculations, to make some turns normally not possible, being possible.

Well there is a lot that should be "not possible" with their physics calculation, like flying around a damaged Cutlass with no thrusters or hull (literally a flying cockpit). Or the Avenger v 300i straight line thrust being equal etc etc.

I'd actually like to see a computation of their ship physics. How much thrust exactly do their thrusters generate, how is the mass distributed? How much mass do the various ships have? It's not artificial restriction when they limit the amount of thrust the small thrusters can generate or the speed at which the thruster's mechanic can rotate them. It' no different from real vehicles - somehwere physics set a limit and as it's a sci fi sim, they can determine what the limit in their universe is going to be.

Apart from that, there is a whole lot of artificial limiting and gamification in any space "sim". Star Citizen is no exception, they are just trying to simulate and gamify as many systems as they can, which sets them apart. The ship deactivating the main thrusters to keep a "max speed" is an artificial limit, the ships' design and handling that leads to something akin to WWII/korea war type dogfights in space is another one.

Keeping those imo desirable design tradeoffs in mind, I'd welcome if the ships physics had them handle a bit more like, well, ships and less like UT99 characters. They don't need to yaw anywhere near as sluggishly as Elite's ships, but they should make the ship's orientation worth a consideration in a dogfight. Otherwise it removes a whole lot of depth that the flight model could have. Naturally, those who'd raver keep the current point & shoot physics/mechanics, would probably - at least at first - not take well to such changes.

Agree completely.

 

[KKRT00]

Well there is a lot that should be "not possible" with their physics calculation, like flying around a damaged Cutlass with no thrusters or hull (literally a flying cockpit). Or the Avenger v 300i straight line thrust being equal etc etc.

Those are not physics errors. In one case main thrusters are not disabled after being damage, second is just thruster component balancing.

 

[Raticus79]

Which immersion is that? It merely goes against your preconceived - or aquired - idea of the way space flight works for fictional ships in a fictional universe. Maybe the thrusters involved just aren't powerful enough to let the ships yaw faster? [...]

I'm just talking about suspension of disbelief in fiction and the internal consistency of the rules of the fictional world. I remember opening up Elite, seeing the yaw rate and thinking "wow, it's like someone bought an expensive flight stick and really wanted to make sure their space game flew like a WWII fighter so they could use it". In-universe, it's hard to come up for an explanation for it. If it was just an issue of weak thrusters, someone would have made stronger yaw thrusters because it would be a significant advantage. If it was a regulation issue, outlaws would have made ships that broke those rules. So, it's something that needs to be handwaved as something that is the way it is for gameplay reasons. That's fine, obviously compromises need to be made.

Like you said, it's a style choice. Personally I'm just hoping they stick to making a space game instead of a WWII-planes-in-space game. I'm glad they're creating something new where people have to think in 3D in a new way, try new input methods and adapt. I agree that the ships are a bit too agile and I'd like to see more weight to the movement.

 

[Zalusithix]

I'm just talking about suspension of disbelief in fiction and the internal consistency of the rules of the fictional world. I remember opening up Elite, seeing the yaw rate and thinking "wow, it's like someone bought an expensive flight stick and really wanted to make sure their space game flew like a WWII fighter so they could use it". In-universe, it's hard to come up for an explanation for it. If it was just an issue of weak thrusters, someone would have made stronger yaw thrusters because it would be a significant advantage. If it was a regulation issue, outlaws would have made ships that broke those rules. So, it's something that needs to be handwaved as something that is the way it is for gameplay reasons. That's fine, obviously compromises need to be made.

Like you said, it's a style choice. Personally I'm just hoping they stick to making a space game instead of a WWII-planes-in-space game. I'm glad they're creating something new where people have to think in 3D in a new way, try new input methods and adapt. I agree that the ships are a bit too agile and I'd like to see more weight to the movement.

I'm not sure the ED decision was made to appease flight stick users. Any good HOTAS setup will also include pedals for yaw control. I view it as a stylistic choice more than anything.

 

[Pomerlaw]

I'm just talking about suspension of disbelief in fiction and the internal consistency of the rules of the fictional world. I remember opening up Elite, seeing the yaw rate and thinking "wow, it's like someone bought an expensive flight stick and really wanted to make sure their space game flew like a WWII fighter so they could use it". In-universe, it's hard to come up for an explanation for it. If it was just an issue of weak thrusters, someone would have made stronger yaw thrusters because it would be a significant advantage. If it was a regulation issue, outlaws would have made ships that broke those rules. So, it's something that needs to be handwaved as something that is the way it is for gameplay reasons. That's fine, obviously compromises need to be made.

Like you said, it's a style choice. Personally I'm just hoping they stick to making a space game instead of a WWII-planes-in-space game. I'm glad they're creating something new where people have to think in 3D in a new way, try new input methods and adapt. I agree that the ships are a bit too agile and I'd like to see more weight to the movement.

Like you said, Elite did it for gameplay reasons, they wanted to go Star Wars style.

Remember, neither Elite or Star Citizen is realistic, or a representation of how space combat would look and feel.

What I find upsetting is how long they are coming along with everything, but to me it feels like they skipped the basics. 6 months ago I still believed they would make big changes, now not so much...

 

[Raticus79]

Remember, neither Elite or Star Citizen is realistic, or a representation of how space combat would look and feel.

Yup, and that's fine. Doing KSP-style hour long burns and firing at unseen enemies across the solar system would be realistic, not fun.

I'm not sure the ED decision was made to appease flight stick users. Any good HOTAS setup will also include pedals for yaw control. I view it as a stylistic choice more than anything.

Yeah, it's primarily a style choice for sure. Being well-suited to equipment the user base has available was more of a side observation, it's not like I have a big conspiracy theory going. I was also thinking of stuff like the limited horizontal/vertical thrust. People can sort of do that with a HOTAS, but I think it would be relatively awkward compared to a "3D mouse" 6DOF input device.

 

[KKRT00]

What I find upsetting is how long they are coming along with everything, but to me it feels like they skipped the basics. 6 months ago I still believed they would make big changes, now not so much...

Long? They are working extremely fast, like almost mindblowing fast for the scope they are undertaking. I actually feel sorry for many CIG devs, because they probably work a lot of overtime.
Have You ever worked in software development company?

And skipped basics? Your desired basics are basically the easiest change they can make to fly model, they just dont want to do it without completely killing the current design.

 

[Zalusithix]

Yup, and that's fine. Doing KSP-style hour long burns and firing at unseen enemies across the solar system would be realistic, not fun.



Yeah, it's primarily a style choice for sure. Being well-suited to equipment the user base has available was more of a side observation, it's not like I have a big conspiracy theory going. I was also thinking of stuff like the limited horizontal/vertical thrust. People can sort of do that with a HOTAS, but I think it would be relatively awkward compared to a "3D mouse" 6DOF input device.

Until I have my custom throttle created (first comes the chair mounting frame for the existing HOTAS), I've been using the mouse hat on my Warthog throttle to a decent enough effect in ED for the strafing thrust. Certainly not as good as what I plan on building, but it gives me some level of analog control in both direction and intensity. It might not work so well with SC's more powerful thrusters though without becoming overly twitchy. I haven't tried it as I'm basically forgoing playing SC until I have my final control setup - which is a few months off at least.

 

[staticneuron]

I was wondering why this sounded familiar.

I hope they get more people working on the flight model soon. Ships need more weight, less acceleration, and they need to nerf the mouse flight/aim. There is still time to make the dogfight flying more important. Right now its all about who can aim and click the quickest...

To which I responded

You do realize Star Citizen take place in the vacuum of space right?

And also mentioned

It wouldn't matter. The concept of ship needs more weight/mass, is silly given their numbers. That means there is some sort of expectation on how the game controls or feels. If the game is designed correctly you wouldn't "feel" or get the impression of the mass of your ship because there is no fight against gravity, and no wind resistance. The only thing to give you sense of speed an maneuverability is gauging in relation to any nearby mass or the read outs on your hud.

AC right now the nearby masses are large asteroids, space stations and a planet or two. You could try to compare to other ships but unless you have grasped the concept they are only fighting inertia and their power rating, not size, would affect their maneuverability then it would be another lost point to bring up.



But it is such a common expectation it is funny what people think about the experience they should be having in a vehicle traveling through space. It is almost as amusing as those people who believe that 1:1 scale for star systems is a good idea for a game.

Keeping those imo desirable design tradeoffs in mind, I'd welcome if the ships physics had them handle a bit more like, well, ships and less like UT99 characters. They don't need to yaw anywhere near as sluggishly as Elite's ships, but they should make the ship's orientation worth a consideration in a dogfight. Otherwise it removes a whole lot of depth that the flight model could have. Naturally, those who'd raver keep the current point & shoot physics/mechanics, would probably - at least at first - not take well to such changes.

You do realize that when you mention this you are implying a particular impression a "ship" should have. It really seems as if you may be basing this on ships that exist within our atmosphere. Because you have to understand that this game takes place hundreds if not over a thousand yeas into the future and our old decommissioned Shuttle thrusters used 25 lbs (111 newtons) of sustained thrust to maneuver ship that when empty is 151,000 lbs (note: when in space, shuttle was never empty) in vacuum of space.

The idea that so far in the future we wouldn't have thrusters capable of stopping the smaller fighters on a dime or turning them around completely is pretty crazy.

Edit: As an example the Super Hornet is around 51,200 lbs.

 

[Pomerlaw]

Long? They are working extremely fast, like almost mindblowing fast for the scope they are undertaking. I actually feel sorry for many CIG devs, because they probably work a lot of overtime.
Have You ever worked in software development company?

And skipped basics? Your desired basics are basically the easiest change they can make to fly model, they just dont want to do it without completely killing the current design.

Nope, never worked in software departement, but I don't doubt for a second that it is a lot of work. I'm not blaming the devs, just stating that the focus of the team is not where it should be imo.

My "desired" basics as you say, should have been in AC 1.0 in some form. Meaning, flying the ship should at least have the same importance as aiming your weapons. It should be challenging and rewarding. The current design is crap imo, and alpha (or pre pre pre alpha, it depends) should be the best time to test the basics, balance, and provide feedback.

Take Elite. Love it or hate it, guys who played the Alpha and Beta will all tell you the flight controls / model was already pretty solid back then. It didn't change that much. That's one of the reasons I don't expect CGI to change it much now.

I
You do realize that when you mention this you are implying a particular impression a "ship" should have. It really seems as if you may be basing this on ships that exist within our atmosphere. Because you have to understand that this game takes place hundreds if not over a thousand yeas into the future and our old decommissioned Shuttle thrusters used 25 lbs (111 newtons) of sustained thrust to maneuver ship that when empty is 151,000 lbs (note: when in space shuttle was never empty) in vacuum of space.

The idea that so far in the future we wouldn't have thrusters capable of stopping the smaller fighters on a dime or turning them around completely is pretty crazy.

Edit: As an example the Super Hornet is around 51,200 lbs.

You do realize it is a game and what is important is gameplay? And you do realize we will never fight in spaceships in the future?

 

[Danthrax]

You do realize that when you mention this you are implying a particular impression a "ship" should have. It really seems as if you may be basing this on ships that exist within our atmosphere. Because you have to understand that this game takes place hundreds if not over a thousand yeas into the future and our old decommissioned Shuttle thrusters used 25 lbs (111 newtons) of sustained thrust to maneuver ship that when empty is 151,000 lbs (note: when in space, shuttle was never empty) in vacuum of space.

It takes place 930 years in the future and progresses in real time (in 2012, the game's fiction was set in 2942, and this year, the game's fiction is set in 2945).

 

[Dubbedinenglish]

You do realize it is a game and what is important is gameplay? And you do realize we will never fight in spaceships in the future?

If were a *realistic* future we would be in capital ships firing off FTL targeting buoys systems away and then launching FTL ballistic missiles at said targets systems away. Ships would be spheres and have no canopies but rather 360 degree cameras.

When I think what it should be, the flight model should be closer to BSG and Babylon 5 in terms of flight.

 

[Zalusithix]

If were a *realistic* future we would be in capital ships firing off FTL targeting buoys systems away and then launching FTL ballistic missiles at said targets systems away. Ships would be spheres and have no canopies but rather 360 degree cameras.

When I think what it should be, the flight model should be closer to BSG and Babylon 5 in terms of flight.

Actually, that's more science fiction than hard realistic science. FTL anything is purely conceptual at this point and for the foreseeable future. Once we can obtain FTL speeds, then all bets are off on what combat will turn into. Or rather, combat becomes pointless with FTL. If you can push a large ship to FTL speeds, then you can basically use the ship itself as a massive bullet that's impossible to dodge. The energy imparted from the impact of that ship could destroy a world, let alone another ship.

Still, even in a more realistic viewpoint, we'd continue with the trend of slinging very fast projectiles over great distances. As the tech advances, the projectiles get faster and the distances longer. Eventually the projectiles get fast enough that no amount of armor is going to help and any manned ship wouldn't be able to avoid them even at great distances.

 

[staticneuron]

It takes place 930 years in the future and progresses in real time (in 2012, the game's fiction was set in 2942, and this year, the game's fiction is set in 2945).

There multiple teams working on the game at the same time and the reason they didn't fully flesh out some subsystems was to reduce redundancy. The underlying engine work they have been working on for the past year is finally being brought out and is getting us closer to what the final end result should be.

You do realize it is a game and what is important is gameplay? And you do realize we will never fight in spaceships in the future?

Indeed but what I am addressing is expectation and there is one thing to state a preference, it is entirely another thing to imply that preference is logical in terms of what a space sim "should" feel like.

It takes place 930 years in the future and progresses in real time (in 2012, the game's fiction was set in 2942, and this year, the game's fiction is set in 2945).

Nice

 

[Burny]

The idea that so far in the future we wouldn't have thrusters capable of stopping the smaller fighters on a dime or turning them around completely is pretty crazy.

The very idea of dogfights in spaceships with manually aimed weapons is pretty crazy. No fighter in Arena Commander would catch as much as a Space Shuttle, if it were to encounter one. According to Wikipedia, the Space Shuttles reached around 7700m/s in orbital flight. What do Fighters reach in Arena Commander? 400m/s? The design tradeoffs are everywhere in Star Citizen.

While they're at it then, they could just as well make all the work they're doing to distinguish their ship's as heavy/light fighters, bombers and gunships worthwhile, by making the flight characteristics matter. Personal preference of course, but their current ship controls lack depth and character.

 

[staticneuron]

The very idea of dogfights in spaceships with manually aimed weapons is pretty crazy. No fighter in Arena Commander would catch as much as a Space Shuttle, if it were to encounter one. According to Wikipedia, the Space Shuttles reached around 7700m/s in orbital flight. What do Fighters reach in Arena Commander? 400m/s? The design tradeoffs are everywhere in Star Citizen.

Limitation of tech obviously (size of playable arena) and then gameplay concessions. Everything is scaled back because the galaxies are not going to be to scale. Totally illogical to have something that fast. And then obvious gameplay concessions which were mentioned from the start. A RPS mechanic so the dedicated ships will have an advantage but not erase skill.

While they're at it then, they could just as well make all the work they're doing to distinguish their ship's as heavy/light fighters, bombers and gunships worthwhile, by making the flight characteristics matter. Personal preference of course, but their current ship controls lack depth and character.

I see where you are coming from but then again, if they really balanced ships based off of states and role, then skill would be removed from the table in terms of these fights. Power and defense would just win all the time, every time.

 

[Zalusithix]

The very idea of dogfights in spaceships with manually aimed weapons is pretty crazy. No fighter in Arena Commander would catch as much as a Space Shuttle, if it were to encounter one. According to Wikipedia, the Space Shuttles reached around 7700m/s in orbital flight. What do Fighters reach in Arena Commander? 400m/s? The design tradeoffs are everywhere in Star Citizen.

While they're at it then, they could just as well make all the work they're doing to distinguish their ship's as heavy/light fighters, bombers and gunships worthwhile, by making the flight characteristics matter. Personal preference of course, but their current ship controls lack depth and character.

That's orbital speed relative to Earth. If it was going slower, gravity would overcome it and it'd fall back into the atmosphere. The International Space Station is also going that "fast". That's not the speed you'd be going relative to another ship if you were having a dogfight. "Speed" (which is all relative to a frame of reference) in SC is constrained to values that would keep the acceleration needed to perform combat maneuvers low enough that they wouldn't kill a person. It's a necessary trade off if you're going to have dogfights in space - with or without manually aimed weapons.

If they made the cap a lot higher (or outright removed it) and kept acceleration vales the same as current, then inertial drift would become a huge factor. Person A keeps accelerating towards person B who's not even moving. Eventually "A" gets close to "B" and starts to decelerate, but he's been accelerating for so long that he can't stop in time and shoots past "B". "A" then turns the ship around to head back to "B", but the thrust still isn't enough to overcome his initial acceleration, so he's now aiming at "B", yet still getting further away - albeit at a slower rate. And that's just with "B" standing still. Start having both of them move and make the arena large enough for this to actually happen in and you end up with one hell of a mess when it comes to gameplay. Reality isn't fun.

 

[Burny]

That's orbital speed relative to Earth. If it was going slower, gravity would overcome it and it'd fall back into the atmosphere. The International Space Station is also going that "fast". That's not the speed you'd be going relative to another ship if you were having a dogfight. "Speed" (which is all relative to a frame of reference) in SC is constrained to values that would keep the acceleration needed to perform combat maneuvers low enough that they wouldn't kill a person. It's a necessary trade off if you're going to have dogfights in space - with or without manually aimed weapons.

If they made the cap a lot higher (or outright removed it) and kept acceleration vales the same as current, then inertial drift would become a huge factor. Person A keeps accelerating towards person B who's not even moving. Eventually "A" gets close to "B" and starts to decelerate, but he's been accelerating for so long that he can't stop in time and shoots past "B". "A" then turns the ship around to head back to "B", but the thrust still isn't enough to overcome his initial acceleration, so he's now aiming at "B", yet still getting further away - albeit at a slower rate. And that's just with "B" standing still. Start having both of them move and make the arena large enough for this to actually happen in and you end up with one hell of a mess when it comes to gameplay. Reality isn't fun.

Doesn't matter if it's orbital speed. Given enough thrust and acceleration time, ships would reach such speeds in space outside of the gravitation of planets as well. Relatively speaking, you'd be facing speed differences anywhere from 0m/s to the sum of both ship's speeds in a dogfight. As you can see from your scenario, there would be no dogfight then as our space sims present them. Simply put: why would anybody under attack want their max speed artificially limited when they could just get away flying in a straight line? Which leads us back to my argument: As reality doesn't sound as fun as our Sci-Fi vision of space combat, they could jus as well reconsider whether almost instantaneous orientation changes of the Star Citizen ships is what they want to be going for, even if hypothetical thruster technology might allow for it some 900 years in the future.

 

[Zalusithix]

Doesn't matter if it's orbital speed. Given enough thrust and acceleration time, ships would reach such speeds in space outside of the gravitation of planets as well. Relatively speaking, you'd be facing speed differences anywhere from 0m/s to the sum of both ship's speeds in a dogfight. As you can see from your scenario, there would be no dogfight then as our space sims present them. Simply put: why would anybody under attack want their max speed artificially limited when they could just get away flying in a straight line? Which leads us back to my argument: As reality doesn't sound as fun as our Sci-Fi vision of space combat, they could jus as well reconsider whether almost instantaneous orientation changes of the Star Citizen ships is what they want to be going for, even if hypothetical thruster technology might allow for it some 900 years in the future.

I never said ships couldn't reach those speeds. I just said that they couldn't effectively dogfight at them. You also couldn't (easily) get away from somebody else by continual acceleration in a straight line unless you could accelerate faster than them. To that end, the result wouldn't be too different from the current situation where different ships have different "max" speeds. The faster ships will continue to distance itself from the slower one. The only practical difference between the two is that you'll both be a hell of a lot further from wherever the chase started under the same acceleration, and the distances between two ships under different acceleration will increase faster than when compared to velocity differences.

*Edit: Technically the same acceleration will also lead to an increased distance between the ships based on the relative time lag between the two ships throttling up. They'll always be X seconds apart, but the distance between them will grow due to the constantly increasing velocity. In a straight line this is meaningless as distance is irrelevant so long as they'll be right on your ass again once you slow down, but if you could survive long enough to build up enough distance that they can't track you any more, then you could change direction and they'll never be any the wiser.

At any rate, space games have to straddle a line where you have the juxtaposition of realism and gameplay. Things need to be kept realistic enough to keep it from seeming like a magical fantasy land, but at the same time a lot of real life aspects need to be tossed or the game would cease to be any fun. What balance a game ends up striking is mostly going to be a personal preference thing. The only really objective thing is if they have internal consistency.

 

[Dictator93]

Sorry to spam some images, but these are gorgeous weapon models (with rather ridiculously high polygon counts given their edge detail):

 

[KKRT00]

WOW

 

[Raticus79]

That's one grippy-looking grip!

This cloth strap stands out too: