Forums » Suggestions
Most likely already suggested (effect sounds and graphics)
It's nice to have a deboop plugin but if we could change more sounds, or we could be given the variables required to edit more sounds by modding deboop, I apologize but the sounds for turrets and such are insanely annoying.
Can something be done about the angle of Warp/Jump effect on tablets?
The blue rings are nice but not as cool, partially due to the angle as it looks when other ships jump, which look nice.
Flight and such are awesome but physics on thrusters is missing conserved momentum, when disabling thrusters one should not lose the momentum gained from such thrust
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/momentum/Lesson-2/Momentum-Conservation-Principle
(I'm currently imagining that the navcom slows me down afterwards due to Thrusters exceeding the longterm operating safety speed the Hull can withstand and thus negates the momentum for safety when thrusters are disengaged)
Can something be done about the angle of Warp/Jump effect on tablets?
The blue rings are nice but not as cool, partially due to the angle as it looks when other ships jump, which look nice.
Flight and such are awesome but physics on thrusters is missing conserved momentum, when disabling thrusters one should not lose the momentum gained from such thrust
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/momentum/Lesson-2/Momentum-Conservation-Principle
(I'm currently imagining that the navcom slows me down afterwards due to Thrusters exceeding the longterm operating safety speed the Hull can withstand and thus negates the momentum for safety when thrusters are disengaged)
I'm not going to comment on the first two paragraphs, but I will respond to the physics question.
The reason it's not "true" physics, is because it would not be fun. Pure and simple. The game tries to maintain a physics that is as close as possible to the "true physics", while still being fun. I personally don't mind it that much, and it's close enough to true physics to still be immersive.
The reason it's not "true" physics, is because it would not be fun. Pure and simple. The game tries to maintain a physics that is as close as possible to the "true physics", while still being fun. I personally don't mind it that much, and it's close enough to true physics to still be immersive.
There's a plugin to switch the sounds to Wing Commander. Filename is wcmusic-0.2.zip.. you'll have to search around for it.
Your momentum is conserved so long as you are not turbo-ing. If you are on a tablet, long press the Activate button and thumb over Flight Mode, then tap it again to turn off Flight Assist. You will be able to accelerate in one direction, then turn your heading toward any direction you like while your momentum is conserved.
You cannot maintain turbo speeds ( > 55 to 75 m/s) while changing your heading as a design decision, and there is a friction that slows you down to sub-turbo speed when you release. I don't believe there's another multiplayer space game that doesn't include some sort of top speed. I think the reason for this is to confine player engagements to a reactionable reference frame. In some (most) cases, fun gameplay trumps realism.
I've found Vendetta to have better physical fidelity than most games from a Newtonian standpoint. For example, it's not like any Star Wars game I've played, where your starfighter's heading is always more or less the direction of your velocity vector (some people call this 'planes in space'). In Vendetta, full Newtonian mechanics are respected within a certain sphere of velocities.
You cannot maintain turbo speeds ( > 55 to 75 m/s) while changing your heading as a design decision, and there is a friction that slows you down to sub-turbo speed when you release. I don't believe there's another multiplayer space game that doesn't include some sort of top speed. I think the reason for this is to confine player engagements to a reactionable reference frame. In some (most) cases, fun gameplay trumps realism.
I've found Vendetta to have better physical fidelity than most games from a Newtonian standpoint. For example, it's not like any Star Wars game I've played, where your starfighter's heading is always more or less the direction of your velocity vector (some people call this 'planes in space'). In Vendetta, full Newtonian mechanics are respected within a certain sphere of velocities.
"I don't believe there's another multiplayer space game that doesn't include some sort of top speed."
This is obviously true in the literal sense; computers cannot handle infinite ranges of magnitudes. Practically speaking, however, I know of at least one multiplayer space game (Shores of Hazeron) that lets you go up to 150,876 m/s without warp drives, and currently up to 6,789,420 m/s with them. They do use non-Newtonian steering though (unless you build your ship with rocket engines instead of gravity drives). Basically, your ship's velocity vector rotates with its orientation, and your turning rate decreases as your velocity increases to stop people from turning on a dime while going incredibly fast.
That's not a space-fighter oriented game, though; combat in that game is pretty weak. I'm not aware of any multiplayer space-fighter games that use high velocity limits, other than perhaps the multiplayer version of Vegastrike (which I haven't tried; I've only played single-player).
I do reject the common assertion that permitting high speeds would not be fun, and I make this rejection despite knowing that some of the detractors played VO back when it did permit high speeds. I do this because while I haven't played VO with high speeds, I've played Vegastrike, and despite all the unpolished aspects of that game compared to VO, it was fun.
But not everybody is me. VO is already a niche game, and raising the speed limits would increase the difficulty and make it more niche. It would also take a lot of developer time, because not only would all the ships and weapons need to be re-balanced, but also the physics engine would need to be made more robust to handle the amount of distance that could be covered between frames at those speeds. So changing things would probably not be good for the game.
This is obviously true in the literal sense; computers cannot handle infinite ranges of magnitudes. Practically speaking, however, I know of at least one multiplayer space game (Shores of Hazeron) that lets you go up to 150,876 m/s without warp drives, and currently up to 6,789,420 m/s with them. They do use non-Newtonian steering though (unless you build your ship with rocket engines instead of gravity drives). Basically, your ship's velocity vector rotates with its orientation, and your turning rate decreases as your velocity increases to stop people from turning on a dime while going incredibly fast.
That's not a space-fighter oriented game, though; combat in that game is pretty weak. I'm not aware of any multiplayer space-fighter games that use high velocity limits, other than perhaps the multiplayer version of Vegastrike (which I haven't tried; I've only played single-player).
I do reject the common assertion that permitting high speeds would not be fun, and I make this rejection despite knowing that some of the detractors played VO back when it did permit high speeds. I do this because while I haven't played VO with high speeds, I've played Vegastrike, and despite all the unpolished aspects of that game compared to VO, it was fun.
But not everybody is me. VO is already a niche game, and raising the speed limits would increase the difficulty and make it more niche. It would also take a lot of developer time, because not only would all the ships and weapons need to be re-balanced, but also the physics engine would need to be made more robust to handle the amount of distance that could be covered between frames at those speeds. So changing things would probably not be good for the game.