Forums » General
I don't have time to mess about searching all the likely thousands of other threads on this as I have a job and a life so will get to the point.
I am looking for a Newtonian space sim (with computer assist as would likely be the case with a futuristic space craft) this requires a top speed of more than 150 meters per second or whatever tiny amount it is in the training! This is not a plane it is a space craft! This is supposed to be a space sim game!
The immersion is totally blown for me now and I can't play this as it is inconceivable that a space craft would move at such a pathetically low speed. This means that many of the space combat tactics I would employ would be more like using a submarine.
Great shame, I will go back to I war 2 even though that has certain limits too. Oh and Babylon 5 IFH. Let me know when you can move at a decent speed on this and I will come back to it. It seems great apart from that immersion destroying artificial limit that is set so so low! A jet plane goes faster then this ship! It's a joke. What a shame.
I am looking for a Newtonian space sim (with computer assist as would likely be the case with a futuristic space craft) this requires a top speed of more than 150 meters per second or whatever tiny amount it is in the training! This is not a plane it is a space craft! This is supposed to be a space sim game!
The immersion is totally blown for me now and I can't play this as it is inconceivable that a space craft would move at such a pathetically low speed. This means that many of the space combat tactics I would employ would be more like using a submarine.
Great shame, I will go back to I war 2 even though that has certain limits too. Oh and Babylon 5 IFH. Let me know when you can move at a decent speed on this and I will come back to it. It seems great apart from that immersion destroying artificial limit that is set so so low! A jet plane goes faster then this ship! It's a joke. What a shame.
word
+1
+1
"This is supposed to be a space sim game!"
No, it is supposed to be a space game. There is a difference.
"This means that many of the space combat tactics I would employ would be more like using a submarine. "
Not quite. Drag only happens while you are accelerating or traveling above the velocity cap. Within the non-turbo velocity cap, you can cut thrust and spin around without losing any velocity. Note that you'll have to disable the Flight Assist for this. The only tactic you lose is the ability to build up stupid-fast speeds and just blow through a blockade with no chance of being caught. It's also a little harder to just get the fastest ship available and run away (though you can still run away pretty damned easily). Otherwise, most tactics work out exactly the same unless you are wanting to have fights at distances where the speed of light begins delaying your feedback.
Anyway, if you want something more newtonian, check out Vegastrike. That's mostly a singleplayer game though, but it does have support for multiplayer servers (I haven't tried any, so can't vouch for those). A more realistic (but less complete and strictly singleplayer) option is Pioneer. Both are free, open source, and multi-platform.
Good luck trying to find a space MMO that has full newtonian flight. There are so many pathetic losers out there that I doubt very many devs would consider such a thing worth making.
No, it is supposed to be a space game. There is a difference.
"This means that many of the space combat tactics I would employ would be more like using a submarine. "
Not quite. Drag only happens while you are accelerating or traveling above the velocity cap. Within the non-turbo velocity cap, you can cut thrust and spin around without losing any velocity. Note that you'll have to disable the Flight Assist for this. The only tactic you lose is the ability to build up stupid-fast speeds and just blow through a blockade with no chance of being caught. It's also a little harder to just get the fastest ship available and run away (though you can still run away pretty damned easily). Otherwise, most tactics work out exactly the same unless you are wanting to have fights at distances where the speed of light begins delaying your feedback.
Anyway, if you want something more newtonian, check out Vegastrike. That's mostly a singleplayer game though, but it does have support for multiplayer servers (I haven't tried any, so can't vouch for those). A more realistic (but less complete and strictly singleplayer) option is Pioneer. Both are free, open source, and multi-platform.
Good luck trying to find a space MMO that has full newtonian flight. There are so many pathetic losers out there that I doubt very many devs would consider such a thing worth making.
immersion is totally blown for me now
Sand. Vagina. Learn how to turn off FA. Etc.
Full physics would result in stupidly unplayable speeds, so we don't have it. Having it would result in non-twitch combat, which is not fun. Period, full stop, end of issue.
If you need to wrap yourself in some kind of warm, fuzzy immersion blanket, assume that all speeds shown in-game are Millionsmeters/Second and that the ship's computers are displaying a playable simulation for your slow brain/eyes of what's actually happening in the real world. The explanation makes about as much sense as does your concern, so I think it all works out OK.
Not to mention the fact that spaceships engaged in combat via any system other than 'use a computer to target and fire while flying past at incredible speeds' would move at these speeds, using dampers/thrusters, just so the pilots could remain close enough to kill eachother.
Just because space allows for these kinds of speeds doesn't mean they're desirable. Moving that fast means all functions have to be 100% computer automated, as no pilot could respond to sensor input fast enough to for them to be doing the flying at the speeds you think are conceivable for spacecraft. That's putting a lot of faith in computer systems, and also eliminates the need for a pilot. Humans are a cargo-only item at those speeds. If you need a human's input, whether for combat patrol/flight or for mining exploration or trade...you're going to have ships that can fly slowly enough for them to be pilotable by the human.
And guess what? We have full speed when it's just mindless travel--called a jump drive!
Sand. Vagina. Learn how to turn off FA. Etc.
Full physics would result in stupidly unplayable speeds, so we don't have it. Having it would result in non-twitch combat, which is not fun. Period, full stop, end of issue.
If you need to wrap yourself in some kind of warm, fuzzy immersion blanket, assume that all speeds shown in-game are Millionsmeters/Second and that the ship's computers are displaying a playable simulation for your slow brain/eyes of what's actually happening in the real world. The explanation makes about as much sense as does your concern, so I think it all works out OK.
Not to mention the fact that spaceships engaged in combat via any system other than 'use a computer to target and fire while flying past at incredible speeds' would move at these speeds, using dampers/thrusters, just so the pilots could remain close enough to kill eachother.
Just because space allows for these kinds of speeds doesn't mean they're desirable. Moving that fast means all functions have to be 100% computer automated, as no pilot could respond to sensor input fast enough to for them to be doing the flying at the speeds you think are conceivable for spacecraft. That's putting a lot of faith in computer systems, and also eliminates the need for a pilot. Humans are a cargo-only item at those speeds. If you need a human's input, whether for combat patrol/flight or for mining exploration or trade...you're going to have ships that can fly slowly enough for them to be pilotable by the human.
And guess what? We have full speed when it's just mindless travel--called a jump drive!
In other words:
The devs gave their desired gameplay (which, having played, you've already seen) a higher priority than perfect simulation.
That said, if your "immersion" is obliterated as fully as you make it sound to be by something like that, the problem is not with the game nor with the game's designers.
The devs gave their desired gameplay (which, having played, you've already seen) a higher priority than perfect simulation.
That said, if your "immersion" is obliterated as fully as you make it sound to be by something like that, the problem is not with the game nor with the game's designers.
And by-the-by, don't think Star Citizen will be any different. There will be limits on the SC physics in exactly the same manner to ensure that there isn't absurdity in the combat model.
Unless you're in the practice of performing actual space combat manuvers in real life, you really shouldn't criticize the combat until you've tried it. Flying an EC-89 in the training sector is no basis for criticism.
Unless you're in the practice of performing actual space combat manuvers in real life, you really shouldn't criticize the combat until you've tried it. Flying an EC-89 in the training sector is no basis for criticism.
Obvious troll is obvious sweetheart? : )
There's an open source real-world physics space game combat out there that i forget the name of. If you can find it, give ita spin. You'll find the gameplay to be a lot less fun than what we have here in VO. Basically you run out of fuel because the pilot is an impatient meatbag.
10,000 m/s fast enough for ya?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4teRYCKq48I
In regular situations (as others have stated) gameplay > strict realism. We already have Newtonian physics within a particular sphere of velocity, and it makes for a very fun game (quite the opposite of what the title of this thread implies).
I'd also like to point out that dismissing VO due to turbo top speed before making it out of the training sector is like dismissing the sport of mountain biking after one trip down the front driveway with training wheels, but I suppose that would be too obvious.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4teRYCKq48I
In regular situations (as others have stated) gameplay > strict realism. We already have Newtonian physics within a particular sphere of velocity, and it makes for a very fun game (quite the opposite of what the title of this thread implies).
I'd also like to point out that dismissing VO due to turbo top speed before making it out of the training sector is like dismissing the sport of mountain biking after one trip down the front driveway with training wheels, but I suppose that would be too obvious.
The only space combat tactics possible with real unlimited top speeds are beam weapons and guided missiles from hundreds of miles away. You'd need a telescope to even tell you killed anyone.
Early in development we played it quite a bit with uncapped speeds, and it was really boring. I like realism when it doesn't infringe too much on fun, but the "reality" of space combat would be more like "whomever presses the button first.. wins".
And that's without getting into the whole discussion of projectile-type weapons ("blasters", whatever) and network latency. I'm making a networked game on earth. Unlike science fiction, I am limited by the speed of light. At extremely high rates of virtual speed, latency becomes a lot more problematic and collisions become more challenging to detect (you have to iterate the physics engine at like 2000 FPS to get the first point of contact, that kind of thing).
Early in development we played it quite a bit with uncapped speeds, and it was really boring. I like realism when it doesn't infringe too much on fun, but the "reality" of space combat would be more like "whomever presses the button first.. wins".
And that's without getting into the whole discussion of projectile-type weapons ("blasters", whatever) and network latency. I'm making a networked game on earth. Unlike science fiction, I am limited by the speed of light. At extremely high rates of virtual speed, latency becomes a lot more problematic and collisions become more challenging to detect (you have to iterate the physics engine at like 2000 FPS to get the first point of contact, that kind of thing).
You can't make a space game to be technically correct. It would be completely boring.
In fact even at the speed of light it would take 90 years just to get to the closest star or some such crap.
So as far as reality goes who cares about drifting in space at light speeds years and years and years LOL
150ms is fine in sector space or you would not even see the stations or roids when you pass them at light speeds
I assumed WH jumps was much faster without experiencing the reality that technically it may take years to jump to another sector of space.
Blah Blah Blah and so what
Incarnate is right " You'd need a telescope " LOL
In fact even at the speed of light it would take 90 years just to get to the closest star or some such crap.
So as far as reality goes who cares about drifting in space at light speeds years and years and years LOL
150ms is fine in sector space or you would not even see the stations or roids when you pass them at light speeds
I assumed WH jumps was much faster without experiencing the reality that technically it may take years to jump to another sector of space.
Blah Blah Blah and so what
Incarnate is right " You'd need a telescope " LOL
"In fact even at the speed of light it would take 90 years just to get to the closest star or some such crap."
Actually, it would "only" take 4.24 years to reach Proxima Centauri at the speed of light. Wikipedia has a list of the nearest stars that includes a few dozen within 17 light years.
The "90 years" number is closer to what it might take to get there using current technology. Though I think we can actually do better than that. If humanity made it our goal, I bet we could make it there within 60 years, including the time taken to design and build the ship.
Actually, it would "only" take 4.24 years to reach Proxima Centauri at the speed of light. Wikipedia has a list of the nearest stars that includes a few dozen within 17 light years.
The "90 years" number is closer to what it might take to get there using current technology. Though I think we can actually do better than that. If humanity made it our goal, I bet we could make it there within 60 years, including the time taken to design and build the ship.
"the "reality" of space combat would be more like "whomever presses the button first.. wins"."
You mean real space combat is with swarm rags!?!?
Damn newbs!!!
You mean real space combat is with swarm rags!?!?
Damn newbs!!!
+1 to pushbutton-first combat :P
Actually space combat realities have been addressed several times in sci fi lit. It pretty much doesnt work out well for the defenders as it is impossible to defend in 3d.
A good read is a collection of shorts called "There will be war" which deals with why any contact in space would likely result in war...
One of the fun tactics was to take a bunch of rail guns and pump out 1/4 inch bb's several million miles away to blanket the target.....
A good read is a collection of shorts called "There will be war" which deals with why any contact in space would likely result in war...
One of the fun tactics was to take a bunch of rail guns and pump out 1/4 inch bb's several million miles away to blanket the target.....
+1 to pushbutton-first combat :P
I have a lower ping and my computer is faster than yours. I win.
I have a lower ping and my computer is faster than yours. I win.
In one of Iain M. Banks' Culture books is a description of a space fight.
Afterwards the ship thought "12 milliseconds, it seemed longer" :)
Afterwards the ship thought "12 milliseconds, it seemed longer" :)
Rin Said: The "90 years" number is closer to what it might take to get there using current technology. Though I think we can actually do better than that. If humanity made it our goal, I bet we could make it there within 60 years, including the time taken to design and build the ship.
I agree. My most recent look at the Orion project estimates around 60 years to design and build an interstellar rocket, with an 80 year voyage to a star 6 light-years away, travelling at 0.7 (ish) percent of light-speed. This was a few months ago, and largely based on info released to the media, so we are probably well ahead of this projection in real life. With proper dedication, I'd estimate 50-100 years as a realistic goal. That said, the proposed rocket is propelled by detonating nuclear bombs behind it to accelerate it up to 0.7%LS (or whatever the percentage was), and again to slow down at the end of the voyage, though aerobraking and gravity assists from any planets/moons in the destination system could reduce the deceleration detonations needed. Not my idea of an ideal interstellar rocket though.
Faille.
I agree. My most recent look at the Orion project estimates around 60 years to design and build an interstellar rocket, with an 80 year voyage to a star 6 light-years away, travelling at 0.7 (ish) percent of light-speed. This was a few months ago, and largely based on info released to the media, so we are probably well ahead of this projection in real life. With proper dedication, I'd estimate 50-100 years as a realistic goal. That said, the proposed rocket is propelled by detonating nuclear bombs behind it to accelerate it up to 0.7%LS (or whatever the percentage was), and again to slow down at the end of the voyage, though aerobraking and gravity assists from any planets/moons in the destination system could reduce the deceleration detonations needed. Not my idea of an ideal interstellar rocket though.
Faille.
Yay nuclear fireworks!