Any and all Newtonian spacesims to fuel my nerdgasms

[Saint_Proverbius]

Newtonian physics being a lustpoint for spacesims has never made much sense to me. If you can build a spaceship capable of interstellar flight, I'm reasonably sure you can design it to overcome the limitations of airplanes. You're already overcoming the whole d=rt thing and the speed of light cap, after all. A few well placed thrusters can overcome inertia.

 

[Emotional Vampire]

How does Frontier make Newton roll in his grave?

I have no idea what Frontier is, let me consult the Wiki.

"Combat is handled completely realistically. In practice, this means both ships taking slingshot thrusts at each other, lasers being fired constantly at each other, until one of the ships is destroyed."

HAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHHAHAAHAHAHA

Nevermind my furry friend, if you call a game realistic only because the ship doesn't act like a plane, we have nothing to talk about.

 

[Barbader]

For evochron renegades:

# Realistic zero gravity inertia based 'Newtonian' style flight model including complete 3-way rotation and 3-way direction control with optional variable input. An advanced inertial dampening system helps keep flight control simple in space, atmospheres, and gravity fields.

# Seamless planet descents that can include weather effects such as rain, snow, and turbulence. Explore planets for hidden benefits, trade at city stations, mine their surfaces for valuable materials, or hide in their atmospheres... they are an important part of the game's interactive universe.

# A vast seamless universe that lets you fly anywhere without loading screens or sudden environment flipping. Fly from planet to planet, star to star, solar system to solar system seamlessly.

# No required trade lanes or warp gates to hold you back. The game's universe is yours to explore with an open space navigation system and built-in jump drives. Optional warp gates are available for faster long distance travel and you can also install new gates in desired locations with the game's customizable universe.

Its worthy note that the controls can be: only keyboard, keyboard + mouse, keyboard+mouse(freelancer style) or joystick.

You can try the demo aswell...

 

[Barbader]

Newtonian physics being a lustpoint for spacesims has never made much sense to me. If you can build a spaceship capable of interstellar flight, I'm reasonably sure you can design it to overcome the limitations of airplanes. You're already overcoming the whole d=rt thing and the speed of light cap, after all. A few well placed thrusters can overcome inertia.

Precisely, Evochron Renegades, notice this and use that system... thrusters to overcome the inertia... and with the space key changes the ship to an inertial system.

 

[DraQ]

Newtonian physics being a lustpoint for spacesims has never made much sense to me.

Post, never been so much fail!
...
(quite odd actually, coming from senior, respected member, and all )

If you can build a spaceship capable of interstellar flight, I'm reasonably sure you can design it to overcome the limitations of airplanes.

And that's probably why spaceships in about 99% of so-called "space sims" behave like WW1 fighter planes except for being immune to aerodynamical issues, like stalling, but still have to bank when turning, can't fly backwards or sideways and move at most at several hundred km/h relative to target.

"spaceships behave exactly like arcade-ish WW1fighter planes instead of behaving like spaceships because they're technologically advanced" =/= height of brilliance.

You're already overcoming the whole d=rt thing

Wat. How exactly?

And no, "by shrinking planets to the size of a city and moving them so close together, that you can see them all simultaneously as giant balls in the sky" is not a valid answer - that's what retarded "space sims" do.

and the speed of light cap, after all.

Only because it's usually necessary for the story and it usually involves arcane space-time manipulation devices that are not used outside the interstellar flight anyway.

I haven't seen even one spacesim where ships use their jump/warp/spacetime embolism/whatever-drives as prime movers in combat (which might actually be quite awesome), and no, it wouldn't produce "ships are WW1 fighters, teehee!" effect.

A few well placed thrusters can overcome inertia.

First, of how much inertia are we talking here? Walking around in the park kind of inertia? Speeding down the highway inertia? That's actually quite a lot, already - if a tree or some other obstacle overcomes the inertia of a car traveling at laughable (compared to velocity attained by spaceships and astronomical bodies) speed of 100mph, the car is destroyed, and squishy human passengers are turned into bloody mess. Maybe the inertia of a fighter jet traveling at Mach 2? Still unimpressive compared to astronomical speed? How about the inertia of actually buzzing through the system at tens (or thousands) of km/s?

Second, is this really advantageous to have thrusters automatically overcome inertia?
This Emotional Vampire 'tard (too bad he's not an intellectual vampire, maybe he'd cease sucking after absorbing some brains) has unwittingly provided an answer. Inexperienced players invariably fail to disable this kind of 'cruise control' (which is actually useful when flying close to a planetary surface, or while performing certain maneuvers) while in combat which results in them wildly slingshooting around and unable to control their craft.

Assume two identical craft, with the same set of thrusters. One is controlled manually, another one has it's thrusters fired by on-board computer in a manner that makes it's flight characteristics reminescent of arcade model used by typical "space sim". Both craft are fitted with forward firing weapons. It's readily apparent, that the first craft will have an edge over the second one because it will be able to perform certain maneuvers the second one can't, like being able to 'flip' without changing the direction of flight and fire at the enemy behind with it's main guns.

I am a complete retard and ignorant one at that.

Confirmed! :D

And, FYI "slingshot effect" is also known as "retarded pilot effect" - if you put a retard or complete n00b (how convenient that you're both) in front of Frontier, slingshot maneuvers will ensue.

 

[Seboss]

Right, manual thrust is the only way to go in Frontier. The combat in this game sure looks nothing like the WWI dogfights of arcade space shooters.

 

[DraQ]

Right, manual thrust is the only way to go in Frontier. The combat in this game sure looks nothing like the WWI dogfights of arcade space shooters.

And by "manual thrust" you mean full manual mislabeled as "engines off", not semi-auto mislabeled as "manual", I presume?

Yes, I agree.

 

[Emotional Vampire]

More staggering ignorance fueled by fanboy RAGE

Okay, okay, I already lauged at you, no need to drag this.

 

[Seboss]

And by "manual thrust" you mean full manual mislabeled as "engines off", not semi-auto mislabeled as "manual", I presume?

Yes, I agree.

Can't say I remember how it was labeled. I would qualify it as the "press shift and enter keys like a maniac to keep the tango in the reticle and avoid drifting away like an idiot"-mode, or something like that.

 

[DraQ]

@Seboss:

Try JJFFE - it's a replacement executable for FFE that allows it to run on modern machines, fixes a lot of stuff and gives you full control over directional thrusters via numpad.

Not only do I fail at life, but I fail at the internets too.
I should kill myself.

Precisely! :D

 

[SuicideBunny]

A few well placed thrusters can overcome inertia.

wat?
wait.. that doesn't look right.. let's fix it:
WAT?

also, this site needs a blinking tag.

though a game with attributes could be fun where ships are actually capable of pretty awesome maneuvers, but put strain on systems, cargo, and pilot, possibly resulting in the latter's death.

 

[corky842]

How about this?

Enter Space Combat, a space simulator where all of the laws of physics are accurately applied to your vehichle.

You enter the spaceship mass, size, and thruster and engine powers and locations and see how the resulting ship handles... with the physics being accurate.

 

[Data4]

How about this?

Enter Space Combat, a space simulator where all of the laws of physics are accurately applied to your vehichle.

You enter the spaceship mass, size, and thruster and engine powers and locations and see how the resulting ship handles... with the physics being accurate.

Austin Mayer is a goofy-ass Mac-tard, but he seems to know his flight physics. I've read several accounts of his X-Plane being used by people like Burt Ruttan in the development of experimental aircraft. I'd check this program out myself, but I'm a dumbass who prefers WW 2 style flying in my space combat games.

It'd be interesting to hear what others think, though.

 

[Destroid]

Atmospheric flight will always be more interesting than space flight because of gravity.

 

[youhomofo]

Newtonian physics being a lustpoint for spacesims has never made much sense to me. If you can build a spaceship capable of interstellar flight, I'm reasonably sure you can design it to overcome the limitations of airplanes. You're already overcoming the whole d=rt thing and the speed of light cap, after all. A few well placed thrusters can overcome inertia.

Why would you want to overcome inertia? That's what sets a spacesim apart from ass with lasers.

And not every spacesim allows you to overcome the speed of light. Some have... mystical gates that work for no explicable reason.

Personally, I love Terminus. It's loads of fun and probably the closest we'll ever come to a "realistic" spacesim, given that a truly realistic spacesim would probably not involve missiles, fighters, carriers, or any of the cool stuff we generally associate with the genre.

 

[DraQ]

Atmospheric flight will always be more interesting than space flight because of gravity.

No, and no.
First, not 'more interesting', but 'different'. As long as proper physical model is used for a given type of sim, I am content. The trouble starts, when flight sims start using physics of sub sims, sub sims of racing sims, racing sims of spoacesims and spacesims of flight sims.
Second, no, the atmosphere and gravity have surprisingly little in common. Learn to distinguish those two. Also, gravity and newtonian physics are perfectly compatibile.

Why would you want to overcome inertia? That's what sets a spacesim apart from ass with lasers.

This.

 

[Destroid]

Gravity IS the component of atmospheric (assumed to be in the atmosphere of a planet) that makes that flight model more interesting than space sims - in a space sim every direction is the same. This drastically limits the kind of maneuvers available to a pilot. Space doesnt allow you to play the altitude/speed energy based games that decent flight sims (such as IL-2) allow you to.

Playing in an atmosphere without gravity could give some potentially strange results, although playing with gravity and no atmosphere would probably be better. Still strange though.

 

[DraQ]

On the other hand space does allow you to do some rather quirky things thanks to the lack of aerodynamical limitations - for example you can rotate your craft freely without altering it's velocity vector, you can always accelerate, etc.

My point is that space sims should be in spaaace!

Also, do try Frontier - atmospheric flight model is simplistic at best, but gravity is simulated there, you can even put your ship in orbit around some large mass.

 

[Disconnected]

My point is that space sims should be in spaaace!

Your point is they should use a dramatic, but entirely fictional, system of physics, based on the real thing. Not that I disagree with the sentiment, mind. It's just that if actually set in space, the concept of spacesims is utter nonsense.

 

[DraQ]

My point is that space sims should be in spaaace!

Your point is they should use a dramatic, but entirely fictional, system of physics, based on the real thing.

Well, if it's based on the real thing, it's not entirely fictional (barring hyperspace). Sure, the details regarding drive systems or combat are entirely fictional, but not the physics itself.

It's just that if actually set in space, the concept of spacesims is utter nonsense.

Wha?

 

[Disconnected]

Sure, the details regarding drive systems or combat are entirely fictional, but not the physics itself.

Sure they are. The physics are about as accurate as the economics.

As for your "Wha?" Try to consider the scales, velocities, reaction & travel times, and the amounts of energy that'd have to be involved in the real thing. Then think about the economics of the technologies involved.

The scale/energy/reaction problems means that the kind of combat you get in Newtonian sims wouldn't ever happen in real space, and even if it did, the "raider" could never inflict damage and never survive. In reality, an accelerated mass equivalent to sim craft X would be a much better weapon than the craft, that's how ridiculous the concept is. No, still doesn't mean spacesims aren't cool. I'm cool. Doesn't mean I'm not ridiculous

What you might get, is combat at relativistic speeds, but that's an entirely different proposition. Basically it would consist of you trying to pin enemy trajectories, intercepting them with something (a pinball or an H-bomb, makes no difference at such extremes), and hoping like hell they don't manage to do the same to you. It would never take more than 1 hit. There'd never be anything interesting left (even if you're into HE physics, you'd be too far away for useful observation), and the wait would be anything from instantaneous to a couple of hundred years (or more, depending on your amazing tech). So.. Turn based strategy, not dogfights.

I completely agree that spacesim physics should approximate the real world, but a hefty degree of artistic license is necessary. A spacesim set in real space would be... Well, it'd be nothing like a spacesim.

 

[MetalCraze]

Space sims must have physics. Compare the bland "I fly where my ship is pointing to" ship control of X series and Freelancer to the dynamic space sims with physics. I find the latter ones more interesting in terms of flight. Because it actually feels like you are controlling the big piece of metal which is one of the main points of the simulators, no? Also flying backwards using inertia while firing at enemies on your tail looks quite badass.

 

[DraQ]

Sure, the details regarding drive systems or combat are entirely fictional, but not the physics itself.

Sure they are. The physics are about as accurate as the economics.

As for your "Wha?" Try to consider the scales, velocities, reaction & travel times, and the amounts of energy that'd have to be involved in the real thing. Then think about the economics of the technologies involved.

The only problems I see here is the energy and the actual approach to combat (which involves reaction times), and I covered those with my "drive systems and combat" part. Sure, even 'realistic' space sims are probably somewhat anachronistic ('anachronistic' as in jet fighters with pilots firing muskets at one another), but it's still the matter of practicality of such approach rather than physical feasibility.
Overall, the physics seen in, for example, Frontier series, seems much better than the economics.

The scale/energy/reaction problems means that the kind of combat you get in Newtonian sims wouldn't ever happen in real space, and even if it did, the "raider" could never inflict damage and never survive.

Why? I could see that if you said that such combat would never happen because close approach and dogfight attempts would be pretty retarded with powerful weapon and targeting systems used, but I don't see much scale or energy problems here (energy problems would prevent my Asp from reaching almost 1/3c on 3t of hydrogen in about a week, but I don't see how they would prevent spacesim-like combat).

In reality, an accelerated mass equivalent to sim craft X would be a much better weapon than the craft, that's how ridiculous the concept is. No, still doesn't mean spacesims aren't cool. I'm cool. Doesn't mean I'm not ridiculous

What you might get, is combat at relativistic speeds, but that's an entirely different proposition. Basically it would consist of you trying to pin enemy trajectories, intercepting them with something (a pinball or an H-bomb, makes no difference at such extremes), and hoping like hell they don't manage to do the same to you. It would never take more than 1 hit.

Personally I'd use a handful of fine gravel or some sort of vapour cloud.

I completely agree that spacesim physics should approximate the real world, but a hefty degree of artistic license is necessary.

Artistic licence - the only place where I really see a lot of it involved is dogfight as your typical combat scenario.

A spacesim set in real space would be... Well, it'd be nothing like a spacesim.

Might be quite interesting, actually.

Space sims must have physics. Compare the bland "I fly where my ship is pointing to" ship control of X series and Freelancer to the dynamic space sims with physics. I find the latter ones more interesting in terms of flight. Because it actually feels like you are controlling the big piece of metal which is one of the main points of the simulators, no? Also flying backwards using inertia while firing at enemies on your tail looks quite badass.

This. Space must feel like space.

 

[Seboss]

Is there any spacesim out there that tackled the problem of cooling a 250t space ship accelerating continuously for days on hydrogen fusion? Just curious

 

[Destroid]

They should put guns in orbiter :D