That would suck and screw up a lot of RP actually. Speaking of wich, I'm supposed to be dead. So...

/me crashes

What? No, the pilot is in the ship. Just that whether or not the "cockpit" has windows is irrelevant. You're sitting in your ship, wearing a VR helmet type thing. Or, plugged into your ship directly. Or, surrounded by a semitransparent spherical moving screen that's retinally projected. Take your pick. But the data would come primarily from external sensors. Better to have armor and hardened sensors than pretty windows.

How we survive multiple deaths.. dunno, frankly. We were going to do escape pods originally, but ended up not having time for it. Maybe we will eventually. The "cloning" thing is popular in other games.. whatever. So many other, bigger problems in the game at present, I don't worry about that issue very much.

ah. that's what i assumed. though, there's a bit of confusion as to weither we regenerate or escape-pod/teleport.

there's been a bit of both in rp during the last year.

hence the escape pod suggestions from a while back.

my vote goes to pods, and having to pod your way back to the nearest station.

"It's not a car. Look at the models for most ships: you'll see that it would be impossible for a pilot to look back as you assume."

So your case against aft view is your percieved "realism"? In a *space* sim?? A space sim where most ships can't reach supersonic speed (330m/s), and that uses 'laser bolts' that also move at subsonic speeds? Not to mention space 'drag', wormholes and all the other stuff you suspend disbelief for (e.g. instant teleport to your station on 'death')? But a rear-facing view is unrealistic? What then, in your world, costitutes realism? I can happily accept all the unrealism in VO, as they are a set of rules that govern this particular gameverse. But claiming that an aft view is 'unrealistic' is plain silly. I can simply postulate that *any* view is synthetically generated inside the pilot's helm (just like it is now synthetically generated on your screen). Would it be such a stretch to assume that a civilization that masters jump and wormhole technology can't build a sensor cluster that can look into more than one direction (or that it never occured to them to simply build two such clusters and mount them in opposing directions)? How 'realistic' is that?

No, I believe that any argument based on game 'realism' is folly. I would like an aft view because I think it would help me enjoy the game better, because it would help me to better immerse myself in the game. Now, you may not like that, and that would be your prerogative. And I would like to know why, because I assume there is a good reason for that. But let's stay away from the 'realism' argument, shall we?

No, you're just reading it wrong. Ships in this game actually fly at 220 miles per second. There, realism. In fact...

No, I'm not reading it wrong. If you simply made all the numbers thousandfold (by 'adding a k'), then the ship would be a couple of kilomerters long, and you'd be docking at near relativistic speed. Space stations and asteroids would have their own gravity wells, and nothing would be closer to reality than it is. Since speed is movement to a fixed size, and we have ships that are a fixed size, anyone who claims that you can simple 'add a k to the numbers' has no clue what the hell they are talking about. This is elementary physics, people, so don't try to argue it away. I have no quarrel with the current implementation, as I want fun, not realism in a game (reality is bad enough as it is. No need to emulate that). But that is why I can't take the 'realism' argument serious.

Actually by k i meant making it kN instead of N that it's now.
Because as is our ships would accelerate under 1m/s^2 which obviously is not the case, but if we treat those values as kN than acceleration is in 40-70m/s^2 range which is actually what we see.
What Mynt said there obviously doesn't make sense.
All that is not the topic of this thread tho.

Oh, I had no problem with acceleration (never actually thought of it). But speed would still top out around 450 mph (200 m/s), right?

Yes all the other values are good as they are. No need to change that without a good reason.

Start with the assumption that I know what I'm talking about, and the idea will make sense I promise.

The last six posts are off-topic.

Hmm. I wonder if you could do this with a bind.

Something like:
+boost
Mouselook ON
Mouse- 180
(onrelease)
Mouse-180
Mouselook OFF
-boost

Someone who actually knows bind-language would have to tell me if that would work, but if it does, cool.