Inertia

[3342578]

<snip>

OKAY. With that covered, I’d like to get on the ball with the Newtonian physics.

 

First of all, lyravega, the “jousting” bit would only occur if there was not sliding/strafing abilities in SC. The only time I remember having to use jousting techniques in a space sim was when flying in a strafe-less Wing Commander Saga, while flying the Arrow, which can cut it’s engines and retain even afterburn-level velocities.

Plus, only the ints move fast enough to do something like that. Figs and frigs, not so much.

 

The physics are fine for a semulator (semi-simulator. lol), with one small problem, when I turn after accelerating, my ship carries its forward velocity to the new direction, rather than maintaining it’s original direction. It also maintains its magnitude.

While everything else is acceptable, this is not.

 

<snip>

 

Thanks for wording properly what I had in mind.

 

As to “jousting” part - I also played Evochron and (much) earlier Independence War - indeed FULL Newtonian physics can be awkward to control. In Evochron even with the use of side engines for strafing/sliding in the heat of battle it could throw you miles away from your opponent, not to mention that running away from someone who missed the turn just few degrees was way too easy. It sure gives a fair challenge for realism-loving pilots and the bar is raised in the “skill” department - but there’s no place for that in Star Conflict. Main reason would be the size of each map -  not suited for such speeds and distances.

 

Time for the anecdote: I went last evening to practice with my friend driving a car in bad conditions - we use to do that on an old airfield which is covered with ice this time of the year.

 That’s when I came up with yet another argument to back up partial inertia.

Why sometimes sharp turn feels so “unnatural” in Star Conflict?

Game makes us feel the high speed of the ship but then we encounter something which suddenly breaks that immersion and we feel sluggish.

Because with enough speed we can drift with a car, while here we can’t do it at all without using a strafe key…

[011]

Thanks for wording properly what I had in mind.

 

As to “jousting” part - I also played Evochron and (much) earlier Independence War - indeed FULL Newtonian physics can be awkward to control. In Evochron even with the use of side engines for strafing/sliding in the heat of battle it could throw you miles away from your opponent, not to mention that running away from someone who missed the turn just few degrees was way too easy. It sure gives a fair challenge for realism-loving pilots and the bar is raised in the “skill” department - but there’s no place for that in Star Conflict. Main reason would be the size of each map -  not suited for such speeds and distances.

K

 

Time for the anecdote: I went last evening to practice with my friend driving a car in bad conditions - we use to do that on an old airfield which is covered with ice this time of the year.

 That’s when I came up with yet another argument to back up partial inertia.

Why sometimes sharp turn feels so “unnatural” in Star Conflict?

Game makes us feel the high speed of the ship but then we encounter something which suddenly breaks that immersion and we feel sluggish.

Because with enough speed we can drift with a car, while here we can’t do it at all without using a strafe key…

Yep.

[1109810]

@ionosphere

I was assuming that star conflict is set in space. Hence in the void. If there is “some kind of atmosphere” it’s because of some gravity pull that gathers gases and particles. And I can’t feel any, my ships is floating and not accelerated. Plus my conclusion is that there must be some kind of matter (which I called jelly) to explain those bizarre facts…

Laser scattering : I wasn’t speaking about spread or accuracy. Scattering is what gives us the ability to see a laser ray. You see lasers because of Tindall scattering on dust particles. In the void you don’t see lasers. Period.

Sound is a pressure wave. Without matter, no pressure. You shouldn’t be able to hear anything from the other ships. Of course you would hear everything hitting your ship. Lasers, plasma, guns…

Blast explosions : I have no problem with zone damage in the future. I was merely stating that shock waves in the void can’t exist.

[011]

@ionosphere

I was assuming that star conflict is set in space. Hence in the void. If there is “some kind of atmosphere” it’s because of some gravity pull that gathers gases and particles. And I can’t feel any, my ships is floating and not accelerated. Plus my conclusion is that there must be some kind of matter (which I called jelly) to explain those bizarre facts…

>Implying anti-gravity technology can’t exist

>Implying you aren’t actually in orbit and can’t “feel” the vectors because of what’s described by Special Relativity

 

Laser scattering : I wasn’t speaking about spread or accuracy. Scattering is what gives us the ability to see a laser ray. You see lasers because of Tindall scattering on dust particles. In the void you don’t see lasers. Period.

That’s because those lasers are coherent and all of the photons are thrown forward. 'You try to squeeze too much EM energy in a single beam with a focusing system that works outside of the weapon system (like a lightsaber, which is actually how they work and keep their shape), the excess and chaotic EM energy that’s too much for the stream to handle will be discharged.

Boom. “Scattering.”

Also, if you even tried to use a standard laser stream like we know them today, ample reflective armor (especially considering the level of technology in SC) would be more than enough to null the threat.

Sound is a pressure wave. Without matter, no pressure. You shouldn’t be able to hear anything from the other ships. Of course you would hear everything hitting your ship. Lasers, plasma, guns…

*non-relative facepalm*

 

Go back and read what I had written

 

Blast explosions : I have no problem with zone damage in the future. I was merely stating that shock waves in the void can’t exist.

Not matter/sonic shockwaves, no.

[1109810]

Well i thought we where talking about science…

I just stated some basic scientific facts, to make a pun on the subject of the OP.

You contradict me with science fiction. I won’t even try to explain why, I don’t think you’re open to that, but all your arguments are non scientific.

Also, you are the one contradicting me, so please apply to yourself what you advise and read what I wrote. You are very arrogant and aggressive, my dear sir.

[011]

Well i thought we where talking about science…

I just stated some basic scientific facts, to make a pun on the subject of the OP.

>“Scientific Facts™”

Facts maybe, but change the idea and the formula, and these facts become useless to the question of “how.”

 

You contradict me with science fiction. I won’t even try to explain why, I don’t think you’re open to that, but all your arguments are non scientific.

>Non-scientific

>Implying hyper-pressure EM streams - to where the EM energy is so saturated, it starts trying to decompress and veers off the original course - have been compressed by a magnetic field into a coherent stream EVER by any scientific group ever.

>Implying science fiction hasn’t become science reality before

>Implying you can disprove an idea just by saying “it’s non-scientific”

>Implying that you didn’t just pull a Genetic Fallacy by doing so

 

Also, you are the one contradicting me, so please apply to yourself what you advise and read what I wrote.

lol

I haven’t taken a damn thing you’ve said out of context. You said that certain things in the game are impossibilities, and I’m attacking these assertions by changing the root idea that gets these elements into the game.

Facts in an argument are only as good as the ideas they’re founded on.

 

You are very arrogant and aggressive, my dear sir.

Yes, and???

 

 

EDIT/ADDENDUM:

The Reason Number One why I have a huge beef with modern science is the lack of ideas and the demonization of anything that doesn’t fit the rhetoric.

It’s rife with politics, and it’s becoming a serious problem. Both in and outside of the laboratory, as seen above.

[2980074]

Why are you trying to put science in fiction? Oh wait…

[011]

Why are you trying to put science in fiction? Oh wait…

Ohh~ that slaps me on the knee.

[3342578]

I actually like where that conversation is going even if it gets a bit sidetracked from original post. I just hope we can discuss stuff politely as grown up intelligent people so the thread won’t be locked…
 

 

“Anything you dream is fiction, and anything you accomplish is science, the whole history of mankind is nothing but science fiction. ”
 
** ~~~~ Ray Bradbury**
 

 

Science-fiction became, since the beginning of XX century (if not earlier), a major driving force for humanity to reach unreachable - Moon landing, space exploration, high speed connections, virtual reality, nano-technology - to name just few. Unfortunately some people can be way too strict either about amount of science in the fiction or how much fiction can “run wild” with its ideas.
 
Fiction must be kept in the boundaries of internal consistency or it changes into some lucid dream fantasy. While surrealistic imaginations don’t need (and actually shouldn’t) providing any explanation - solid fiction is build with foundations rooted in what we already know. Either it’s hard science or just pseudo science - doesn’t really matter - as long as it creates believable environment  for the fiction to exist and as long as it provides internally consistent explanation for the world it tries to describe.
 
So, instead of feeding your egos and trying to contradict everything which don’t fit your picture - maybe it would be better in such conversation - to work towards a goal of improving existing fiction to make it more solid and believable? Yes, that includes also reading what someone else wrote. 
 
We are all just mere virtual beings without any authority - we build our charisma through what we say and write - and how many people agree or disagree with it. Neither arrogance nor lack of reading comprehension skills makes any of us look smarter - quite contrary, actually. 
 
Making a pun of someone’s idea without even trying to understand that idea and reasons behind it is pointless - even if awkwardly trying to make them look scientific.
 
Having a beef with modern science and acting arrogant hardly leads to revolutionary conclusions - and can only escalate towards less and less constructive barking on each other.
 
I think it’s worth keeping in mind, when you click that “Reply” button next time.
 

 
Now, back on topic (kind of). The main reason why we actually discuss certain flying model existing in the game or explain some inconsistencies of it , is that developers don’t provide enough explanation themselves. I actually think that it all boils down to some technical / programming flaws within the game engine and developers - instead of “wasting” time to improve that somehow come up with (rather ridiculous) explanations of why it works like that. I call them ridiculous not because they are particularly bad - but because they lack any depth which stays in sharp contrast with what many folks presented in this very thread.
 
From today’s news: 
 

Q: Why do ships with the engine shut off lose momentum, and is there an explanation in the story?
A: The ship’s systems automatically compensate for inertia to make the fights easier for the pilots.

Q: Sounds of shots are also confusing. Are you going to explain that?
A: The sounds are generated by the on-board computer for ease of the combat situation.

 

Seriously, after all that heated discussion we had here I just lolled when I read it. So… blunt… in comparison…

[011]

@OXIA:
 
Not one thing is impossible. Some things will work differently than expected, some things require the use of different forces, some things are more complex, and some things are even more simple than expected.
It’s not the end-game that’s fiction, it’s the explanation and methods to get said result.

That being said, ego-stroking is a problem, and that is exactly the problem I have with science today. There’s too much Texas Sharpshooting and placing politics above the journey. It’s more about image than results.

I am an xxxx strictly to be an xxxx, not because I think I know more. I have a problem with people who think “well it HAS to be this/that way.” Even tho I do it myself, it’s only to prove a point. I have also come to many breakthrough conclusions, even in my arrogance, which is, again, not about myself, but from within.

---

Back on topic, code-based physics is a xxxxx. Most of the IRL physics tests are done with very high-end rigs, with tons of code picking up on every little detail. But those are done with many, individual sensors, running separate data-streams. Therefore a single program can be run in multiple instances running through several different processors at one time. A single platform with shitloads of things going on with only one data stream, is a far different story.
 
I have to say tho, after playing the game since closed-beta, the ships ARE being slowed down by their maneuvering jets. There’s just no engine-cut function, and most of the ships are sluggish. 

At least it’s not as bad as Freespace, tho ;p.
Seriously, a interceptor with big-xxxx engines only going roughly a third of the speed of sound, even with afterburners? (Mach 1 is 340 mps, the GTF Perseus’ full burn is 140 mps)
In deep-space?
How about N O.

^{Stil loav u bby}
 
Thank God for Wing Commander.

 

---

 

EDIT: Wait, this thing will sensor the other word for donkey but not “damn”?

L O L

gijn pls

[1683977]

Q: Why do ships with the engine shut off lose momentum, and is there an explanation in the story?

A: The ship’s systems automatically compensate for inertia to make the fights easier for the pilots.

 

So they deliberately dumbed piloting down.  What a pity, what a waste of an opportunity to create a great space dogfighting game.  Instead, we have World of Tanks in Jello.

 

I have nothing against automatic compensation and loss of momentum, but to make it 100% as if the ship’s on railroad tracks & must keep its full speed in the direction its facing regardless of sudden direction changes … it just feels so wrong.  Maybe they should borrow some physics code from War Thunder

[3229935]

 

To be absolutely on topic, I feel if the first movement is possible it would be a great addition to the game.

 

Oh and, dog fights are kinda overrated.

[2980074]

Well that top maneuver can be done just at low speeds with the current movement system, the speed can be buffed so that such a maneuver could be faster for smaller ships, that or be added as an item buff.

[1109810]

Thanks OXIA

[3045375]

Well that top maneuver can be done just at low speeds with the current movement system, the speed can be buffed so that such a maneuver could be faster for smaller ships, that or be added as an item buff.

 

I could see adding it as an active toggle mod for those who want it. Something like “Inertial Destabilizer” or some other such Sci-Fi name for it. Taking up an active slot for that kind of capability makes sense for those who want it, as it gives ships the ability to do some way more complex maneuvers. It would allow people to “turn off” the stabilizing controls that the ship’s computer has in place and fly the ship a little more like it would be in reality (losing less velocity, inertia, etc.) Maybe an interceptor-only module? It could certainly make Detonation a lot more interesting.

[011]

@Benache: I’m sure he was talking to you too, bruh.

---

I could see adding it as an active toggle mod for those who want it. Something like “Inertial Destabilizer” or some other such Sci-Fi name for it. Taking up an active slot for that kind of capability makes sense for those who want it, as it gives ships the ability to do some way more complex maneuvers. It would allow people to “turn off” the stabilizing controls that the ship’s computer has in place and fly the ship a little more like it would be in reality (losing less velocity, inertia, etc.) Maybe an interceptor-only module? It could certainly make Detonation a lot more interesting.

Active Modules are single-use devices, until they recharge, and putting a time-limit on it is pointless. It should either be A Passive Module or a gameplay toggle.

If it’s put into the Game, Options submenu, then it should be called “Fly-By-Wire” (which is the proper term). Or more accurately, the option should be labeled “Disable Fly-By-Wire,” and have a tick-box. I’d be even better if it was mapped to a keystroke instead, like Freespace Open’s “Glide” and “Toggle Glide.”

Tho, I’m not sure if it should be a press-and-hold or a toggle. Maybe both?

Hmm… Descent’s “Rear View” key works the same way: If you tap the button, it’s a toggle, but if you hold it down for more than half a second, it becomes a press-and-hold - so likewise, when you let go, the view switches back. Also, this is on the original game, not just the source ports.

All-in-all, it’s a brilliant and possible addition to SC, Passive Module, option, or keystroke (it would suck as an Active Module).

[3342578]

Well that top maneuver can be done just at low speeds with the current movement system, the speed can be buffed so that such a maneuver could be faster for smaller ships, that or be added as an item buff.

 

Not exactly. Only thing can be done with current system is to cut the engine, hit reverse, activate afterburner and start “hovering” backwards with reduced speed. It’s the same type of action which allows you to “drift” with using afterburner+strafe while turning. The point why I see adding proper type of inertia (even if partial) is that with current system, during a fast paced fight, trying to pull such maneuver makes you loose a lot of momentum and turns dogfight into a sull whacking-each-other-while-hoovering resistance vs firepower comparison.

 

I also like the idea of passive (or active but with some minimum-to-none cooldown similarly to how Jericho fighters shield is working) implant allowing to “glide” - " Autopilot Bypass Capacitor" or something like that. I wouldn’t restrict it to only one type of ships though as it could have many uses for all ship class.

It would create the need to sacrifice one of your improvements to allow more flight maneuvers and agility.

 

**@ kgptzac **I don’t quite understand what you mean by dogfights being overrated? I would say they are underrated and that’s the main reason people suck at this kind of game. I can only guess you play sniper or other heavy frigate more often than a fighter

 

**@ IonosphereNegate & Benache **honestly it was directed to both of you, to cool you down a bit, which seems successful.   a Sisyphean task… -_-"

 

I’d love to have some proof that such suggestions are actually read by the developers. At least one of them taking part in discussions on English forums (and not only on Russian as it is now) would be a bit more encouraging, tbh.

[1109810]

I’m cool.

[011]

The point why I see adding proper type of inertia (even if partial) is that with current system, during a fast paced fight, trying to pull such maneuver makes you loose a lot of momentum and turns dogfight into a sull whacking-each-other-while-hoovering resistance vs firepower comparison.

^This.

I get chopped up while flying figs like I’m a fish in a barrel. It’s really pointless to even try, except at medium to long ranges.

While I understand that they’re heavy-hitters, even the A-10 Thunderbolt II can put up a fight against other, faster, aircraft despite being a very heavy fighter that cannot even break Mach. It can, however, turn on a literal dime to face it’s opponent, and it can limp away with only one engine.

 

I also like the idea of passive (or active but with some minimum-to-none cooldown similarly to how Jericho fighters shield is working) implant allowing to “glide” - " Autopilot Bypass Capacitor" or something like that. I wouldn’t restrict it to only one type of ships though as it could have many uses for all ship class.

It would create the need to sacrifice one of your improvements to allow more flight maneuvers and agility.

It would definitely be best as a Passive Module, if it’s a module at all. Unfortunately, Passive Modules cannot be toggled.

Maybe a toggle-able ship modification? IDK if adding any more part categories would be wise :U

I only say this because I think it would be terrible as an Active Module. 'Could be wrong, tho.

 

**@ IonosphereNegate & Benache **honestly it was directed to both of you, to cool you down a bit, which seems successful.

I’m always calm - just arrogant ;).

^{I’m not a jerk, tho, unless crossed :U.}

[1109810]

And i don’t like when someone misreads me and then contradicts me about something i didn’t say…