I think that space is too bright in this game. since the only light source hitting asteroids, ships and stations is from the nearest star I think the dark side of them the side facing away from the star should be darker and that spotlights should be added to ships for flying through these areas
it would look great flying through an area of complete darkness and suddenly you see the flicker from the engines of pirate ships surrounding you
Well, most areas are filled with gases that scatter light, so that’s why it’s so bright. But a totally transparent space would be an interesting, albeit unplayable map.
putting realism aside, some maps are way too dark when looking in certain directions and if you get hit with an explosion or pulsar when in that area or camera angle you literally can’t see anything
I do agree that for the most part space isn’t acurately represented. I can’t +1 this just because we need it to be playable.
There could be some setup where sensors could wireframe dark objects, but that just wouldn’t be as fun.
Arcade guys. This is about pew pew, not realism. Realistic space battles will be two forces intersecting orbits and exchanging long range firepower in a fraction of seconds.
You need to avoid gravitational force to make a decent space battle, or just agree with the others to fight at the same time in the same orbit.
Realistic space battles will be two forces intersecting orbits and exchanging long range firepower in a fraction of seconds.
Good that we have someone who is a professional in the not even existing discipline of space battles. Seriously, why would you say that? There are a ton of circumstances people can’t even think about right now, without any experience.
I think that space is too bright in this game. since the only light source hitting asteroids, ships and stations is from the nearest star I think the dark side of them the side facing away from the star should be darker and that spotlights should be added to ships for flying through these areas
It’s a game, not a simulator. Doesn’t have to be accurate or realistic
Good that we have someone who is a professional in the not even existing discipline of space battles. Seriously, why would you say that? There are a ton of circumstances people can’t even think about right now, without any experience.
I’m not a professional in space battles discipline, but I have some knowledge of physics.
I’m not a professional in space battles discipline, but I have some knowledge of physics.
Actually this might be a good discussion.
Why do you think it would become a long range (sidequestion: what we mean by long here?) slugfest?
If we stay with kinetic weaponry, if you don’t speed it up to relativistic speeds, you won’t hit xxxx from afar. If you do however, one hit destroys everything. Doesn’t seem to be a good way to do battle.
What other methods are there?
Lazors look good, because there is no atmosphere to scatter the light, but I’m not sure how hard it is to keep it a coherent beam for many kilometers.
Ions? They are easy to speed up, but they don’t do actual damage.
Smart weaponry (self guiding drones)? Exploding or landing on a ship and cutting it up?
The possibilities are limitless, but I don’t see why long range is mandatory.