Elite: Dangerous

[WhiteGuts]

And it's really retarded, cause who'd want bananas when you have apples. Faggots, that's who.

 

[Runciter]

Even with nuclear power we're still talking about several weeks to a month of travel. And that's for Mars alone. The so-called space-sims are not about a month-long trip to mars, not even about a exploring the solar system. No, they're about Interstellar travel.
Even if we reach light speed (which is reaching into magic fantasy territory), that would still take several years to reach Alpha Centauri alone.

Have you played Frontier or FFE? You do interstellar jumps, but once you've jumped you can easily spend days or months in intrasystem flight, that's what the time compression is for. Of course, multiplayer eliminates time compression, but this is an example of a necessary concession which no-one seriously disputes.

So, once we magically solve hard problems, we will able to tackle the next hard problems?
You're not talking about chicken-and-egg situation, you're talking about some seriously hardcore situation. Things do not just magically get less expensive. Putting anything more than a little robot or a flag on the moon would alone be a revolutionary marvel, let alone build bases and send more satellites in more dangerous (debris and radiation) orbits on low-gravity planets.

And again, think of the scale. We're talking about making a base on the moon. Not colonies on Jupiter's moons, not space stations near Neptune, certainly not colonies on an earth-like planet thousands of light years away.

Humans accomplish extremely challenging projects all the time. An oil rig can cost up to something like $3B, which is more than the whole Curiosity rover mission, and there are hundreds of them in the world. It's a matter of organising labour, if you took all the effort in the oil industry and directed it towards a Mars colony, do you not think we'd have one by now? Do you think it's impossible that we'll have colonies on a few planets and moons in the far future? At that time it will be feasible for us to send a 100-year mission to Alpha Centauri. Sure, it's difficult to imagine generation colony ships being practical, but this is science fiction, the exploration of what is possible, it lets you omit the mathematical proof of the inevitability of your vision.

Again, don't get me wrong. I don't think that space sims should not have Newtonian physics, not at all. That sounds like a great game on its own, where you have to take inertia into consideration, you can't shift directions abruptly and so forth. Yes, that's sounds really great. Just stop pretending you want that because it's more realistic and scientifically accurate, it's fucking embarrassing. Like anime sperglords who want "realistic" mechas kind of pathetic.

The crowd pushing towards realism has no problems with filling a few gaps in our scientific knowledge in the name of more exciting gameplay. The problem is contradicting what has already been established in science, like the fact that that laws of physics are the same in all frames of reference and that velocity is relative. Jump drives, I-War's over-light-speed drives aren't a problem---they are the standard sci-fi approach of imagining that a certain new technology existed and exploring the consequences. They are also the minimum sufficient concession required to make a romantic vision of trade and pirates in space possible come true, I agree with you there. It would be interesting to see a less lazily invented universe in a game. But the key point is that these elements do not contradict known reality, especially not in a blatant and fundamental way like changing the basic dynamics of space flight. And even space trade and colonisation is not impossible for humans, at least in our own star system, and taking it to the stars with a fictional drive is only going one step further.

that feeling of plausibility that arcade games can never give us.

It is funny that a real space sim must have newtonian physics, but you don't care if the ships have magic armor, magic propulsion, magic lasers, magic computers and so on. Think of it this way, if the future ships can have those magic subsystem, maybe we will have magic controls that make the ships control like an arcade game. This has happened before, compared to WW2 fighter planes, today's jets controlled like a dream.

It's because the realistic space sim crowd is easy to please. There have been so few realistic space sims that if give us the basics done right then we'll forgive you a lot. And arguments such as WW2-vs-modern jets only go so far. After WW2 there was a trend to remove machine gun cannons from jets, with designers assuming that all future air-to-air combat would be fought beyond visual range (see e.g. F-4 Phantom). This turned out to be nonsense and soon after they brought them back and now you have guns in addition to missiles. Why should space be any different? As long as you have bottlenecks such as space stations or popular orbits, dogfights don't become implausible.

Anyway, all this has already been said here or on the Elite forums, someone should write a Space Nerd FAQ or something similar.

 

[Ulminati]

And it's really retarded, cause who'd want bananas when you have apples. Faggots, that's who.

A phallic fruit for fruity autists who like to gobble cock.

 

[Ulminati]

Jesus christ, I've wasted my time doing trade runs. I found 3 unidentified signal sources with gold floating around just outside freeport. Ka-ching!

 

[almondblight]

I always wondered why some people get bent out of shape about newtonian physics and completely ignore everything else that's completely wrong with flight sims. Like lasers that leisurely float through space slower than a baseball pitch.

 

[J_C]

Jesus christ, I've wasted my time doing trade runs. I found 3 unidentified signal sources with gold floating around just outside freeport. Ka-ching!

God damn i wish I backed this instead of Star Citizen.

 

[Kalin]

I always wondered why some people get bent out of shape about newtonian physics and completely ignore everything else that's completely wrong with flight sims. Like lasers that leisurely float through space slower than a baseball pitch.

Lasers in the old games are basically instantaneous. As for Newtonian physics, it is in both Frontier and FFE and very much defines the entire spaceflight aspect. For me it is not so much about the realism (though it is nice) as it is about preserving the character of the games. Changing the physics changes everything from combat to exploration and travel between spaceports. For fans of the two most recent prequels I think it matters quite a lot.

 

[Ulminati]

I always wondered why some people get bent out of shape about newtonian physics and completely ignore everything else that's completely wrong with flight sims. Like lasers that leisurely float through space slower than a baseball pitch.

Lasers in the old games are basically instantaneous. As for Newtonian physics, it is in both Frontier and FFE and very much defines the entire spaceflight aspect. For me it is not so much about the realism (though it is nice) as it is about preserving the character of the games. Changing the physics changes everything from combat to exploration and travel between spaceports. For fans of the two most recent prequels I think it matters quite a lot.

Lasers in Elite: Dangerous are instantaneous as well. Which means that unless you've got one or the other on a gimballed mount, you seldom get to shoot both lasers and projectile weapons at the same time.

 

[buzz]

Have you played Frontier or FFE? You do interstellar jumps, but once you've jumped you can easily spend days or months in intrasystem flight, that's what the time compression is for. Of course, multiplayer eliminates time compression, but this is an example of a necessary concession which no-one seriously disputes.

Neah, I only tried the first Elite and didn't play much of it. I think I also played some X game but that's it. Never was a big fan of the "space sim" genre, I always felt like it missed the point somewhat. They played (for me) like a shittier version of sandbox/exploration games, with a focus on graphics and instant gratification instead of more fun things.

For me, space opera was not much about the space combat bits as much of everything else, the aliens, the mysterious new worlds, the dynamics with the crews. I always like Star Trek more than Star Wars because of that and the space combat sections were always the most boring for me.

So I was never really impressed by what I considered a poorer version of Pirates! set in space.

My favorite space games were more along the lines of Star Control, Starflight, Star Command, Protostar, that kind of stuff. Games with more plot and meat to the setting, diplomacy, exploring planetes, researching new forms of life, building new fleets and so on.

That's why I find the whole "realistic and challenging physics" argument a bit infantile. The whole point of space games is to either recreate that Star Trek feel (like I want) or that Han Solo in space feel (like most space sim fans want), like smuggling and trading and doing pew pew action stuff in space.

Han Solo in space BUT with Newtonian physics sounds more like an idea by that little kid who wants to act like a grown up. EDIT: Like wanting realistic hacking in Deus Ex, or realistic swordfighting.
It reminds me of what happened to modern shooters and modern games in general, moving from shlocky fun to "mature, gritty, realistic" games. Or how comic books in the 90s were all "realistic" and violent.

Call of Doodoo and ARMA are what you get when you take a basic game like Doom or Blood and add "Newtonian physics" to them.

Can't bunnyhop or rocket jump anymore, can't carry more than 2 weapons, gotta stay prone, gotta snipe from a distance. At least realistic military shooters have a precedent, I can imagine people (myself included) wanting to recreate that Saving Private Ryan feel.
But realistic space physics is the realm of hard sci-fi, not pulpy space operas. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

So let's wait until someone makes the video game equivalent of 2001 A Space Odyssey and then we can all happily enjoy realistic travels from earth to the moon that takes several hours.

 

[bonescraper]

Call of Doodoo and ARMA are what you get when you take a basic game like Doom or Blood and add "Newtonian physics" to them.

This. But more Call of Doodoo than Arma. Arma takes realism and applies it across the board. While CoD tries to be "authentic". It makes an impression of a serious game, while being completely the opposite. And with that it takes away the fun.

 

[Raapys]

I don't like space sims and haven't really played them much at all

Well, that explains a lot.

Seriously, what's going on here? Why would you be arguing in a space sim thread if you don't even like space sims and have no idea what you're talking about due to not having played any?

Kinda difficult to take anything you say seriously when your experience with space sims amounts to 'touched Elite and played some X'.

 

[almondblight]

Lasers in the old games are basically instantaneous.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FKjszHQI9w#t=242

Which gets brought up as the great example of realistic physics.

 

[Raapys]

Lasers in the old games are basically instantaneous.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FKjszHQI9w#t=242

Which gets brought up as the great example of realistic physics.

No, it gets brought up as a great example of a flight model done right. The game itself has plenty of flaws, but the flight model is better(read: more fun) than any of the arcade games' flight model.

 

[buzz]

Well, that explains a lot.

Seriously, what's going on here? Why would you be arguing in a space sim thread if you don't even like space sims and have no idea what you're talking about due to not having played any?

Kinda difficult to take anything you say seriously when your experience with space sims amounts to 'touched Elite and played some X'.

I don't see how your "I only like 3 games out of tens" is any more valid than mine. I like different kind of space adventures, ones that Elite or X don't really provide.
Kinda difficulty to take anything NP-fags say seriously when they think the so-called space sims are actual simulators.

 

[bonescraper]

the flight model is better(read: more fun)

As pictured here.



Yes, i know SC's flight model isn't 100% realistic, but it's close enough to see the difference.

 

[Raapys]

I don't see how your "I only like 3 games out of tens" is any more valid than mine. I like different kind of space adventures, ones that Elite or X don't really provide.
Kinda difficulty to take anything NP-fags say seriously when they think the so-called space sims are actual simulators.

For reference, I've played the following space sims: Elite, First Encounters, Xwing, Tie fighter, Privateer 1&2, one or two of the WC games, Freespace 1&2, Freelancer, all the X games, Iwar1&2, B5IFH, Evochron Mercenaries, and several more whose names I can't recall at the moment. I've enjoyed many, even most of them.

I've also played all the 'adventure/RPG' space games you refer to, i.e. Starflight, Star Control, Protostar, Planet's Edge, and many more, though I don't see how those are relevant to this discussion.

But then you're just jumping to useless insults rather than discussing like an adult. Why don't you go try out some more space sims and then come back and discuss when you actually have a clue about what you're talking about? Feels very pointless to discuss with people who just pretend to know something.

 

[Raapys]

the flight model is better(read: more fun)

As pictured here.

Yes, i know SC's flight model isn't 100% realistic, but it's close enough to see the difference.

I've haven't played SC and have no idea about their implementation. My comment was the Iwar2's flight model is more fun than that of any of the games I have played. So why don't you comment on Iwar2's implementation compared to the classic big arcade space sims rather than jumping to some other game(that's still 10 years away from release no less)?

 

[buzz]

What clue do I need to have to point out that space sims are not actual fucking simulators and sperglords are complaining about some non-problem?

That was the only argument I've made. That I find manchildren complaining about lack of Newtonian Physics to be absolutely hilarious, as space simulators are the least realistic video game genre and other more realistic video game genres (like city builders) have non-realistic elements and no one gives a fuck. I'm not defending "arcade" flight systems, just fighting the idea that pseudo-realism means better. The same argument is made by some idiots over on the cRPG section about turn-based vs RtwP and anyone with a bit of brain can see through that line of thought. You don't have to be a "connoisseur" on rtwp to get it.

For reference, I did play and finish the first 2 Wing Commander games and Freespace 2 . I thought we talked about open-world type of stuff.

 

[Raapys]

But where, exactly, did I argue for newtonian physics purely for the sake of having newtonian physics or a 'realistic' game? Where did I say space sims are simulators rather than just a game genre? And how would you know whether one style is or isn't natively better than another without having tried both(obviously implementation is alpha omega in both cases)? Isn't that then just an uneducated guess from your side? One inherit advantage of newtonian for instance, is that flight assists + strong side thrusters effectively = arcade, thus giving you both worlds.

I'd be genuinely curious to hear from someone who's tried EliteD/SC and Iwar2 with regards to the flight models though.

 

[MasterSmithFandango]

My laptop will burn to a crisp if I try to play this right now, so waiting for my new rig. My body is ready.

 

[Kalin]

If you crave an immediate fix I would recommend the Windows-version of Frontier: First Encounters.

Runs perfectly on modern systems, fixes a lot of bugs and allows you to switch the blue background to snazzy black, all courtesy of some dedicated decker bros.

 

[bonescraper]

I've haven't played SC and have no idea about their implementation. My comment was the Iwar2's flight model is more fun than that of any of the games I have played. So why don't you comment on Iwar2's implementation compared to the classic big arcade space sims rather than jumping to some other game(that's still 10 years away from release no less)?

Ok, I-War's flight mechanics are definitely interesing and fun, they work in that particular game really well. It gives you a taste of freedom of space flight and adds a new layer of complexity. And i would definitely like to see more well made space games with Newtonian flight physics... Especially, because i didn't like I-War 2 for enirely different reasons.

But i don't believe that every game should follow I-War 2 from now on. Definitely not. I want my Tie Fighters to fly like Tie Fighters. Freespace 2 could work like that, yeah. But it doesn't and it still doesn't make it a bad game. To me, flight model is just a small cog in the whole mechanism that makes a space sim. You know what ED does that I-War does not? It simulates our galaxy and orbital mechanics, it has gravity wells, gravitional slinghots, accurate distances and constellations... and near-instant laser beams. So stop sperging about something that's not going to happen anyway, and enjoy the game for what it is.

One inherit advantage of newtonian for instance, is that flight assists + strong side thrusters effectively = arcade, thus giving you both worlds.

You pretty much just described Star Citizen's flight model. As a result, a lot of people complains about input lag in that game (lag = time required to apply counter thrust to change the direction they are moving in).

Anyway, i'm outta this pointless discussion.

 

[buzz]

And how would you know whether one style is or isn't natively better than another without having tried both(obviously implementation is alpha omega in both cases)?

I don't. Look, I already covered that in my first posts:

That being said, I'm not against making space games feel and play different. Innovation is key and it's why space games have evolved from Space Invaders and Galaxian to Elite and Wing Commnander.

Just don't pretend you're doing it for the sake of making games scientifically accurate. If you want scientifically accurate games, play Orbiter or SSM and try to promote those kind of games to be further developed.

and here:

Again, don't get me wrong. I don't think that space sims should not have Newtonian physics, not at all. That sounds like a great game on its own, where you have to take inertia into consideration, you can't shift directions abruptly and so forth. Yes, that's sounds really great. Just stop pretending you want that because it's more realistic and scientifically accurate, it's fucking embarrassing. Like anime sperglords who want "realistic" mechas kind of pathetic.

Notice that I never really replied to your posts specifically, because you've made your point clear that it's not about realism as much as it is about a more challenging gameplay. I disagree on that front myself (mainly because I think you focus your idea of challenge on the wrong things, like reducing abstraction) but I respect your opinion.

I'm just trying to point out that "space sims are simulators ergo ships should move like in space hurr" argument is an error in logic.

 

[potatojohn]

Why do you keep posting in this thread, when you have openly admitted that you have zero experience relevant to the topic.

 

[Bradylama]

Why do you keep posting in this thread, when you have openly admitted that you have zero experience relevant to the topic.