[Ace]

Alright, standard Descent style sliding is possible but difficult to impliment, but what about rotational sliding, the type of slide done in the otherwise not very good (IMHO) Tachyon: The Fringe?

i.e. press the button and though you are going one direction in movement, you can turn arround and fire in another.

Personally, I think that something like this would be great in say a Babylon 5 mod or a mod aiming for more newtonian style physics.

[mikhael]

*smack*
Tachyon was rockin--except that last Bora mission.

I'd like to see this too. The slide system in Tachyon is probably its second best feature (after its perfect nebula effect). Hold a button and your vector is locked and you can spin on your origin/axis freely. THAT would improve combat in Freespace hugely.

[Nico]

Originally posted by Ace
Alright, standard Descent style sliding is possible but difficult to impliment, but what about rotational sliding, the type of slide done in the otherwise not very good (IMHO) Tachyon: The Fringe?

i.e. press the button and though you are going one direction in movement, you can turn arround and fire in another.

Personally, I think that something like this would be great in say a Babylon 5 mod or a mod aiming for more newtonian style physics.

I asked for that ages ago ( I called that strafing )

[Nuke]

freespace nebulas are 100 times better that that crap tachyon used. WHACK!   if thats the game's best feature, no wonder it sucks.

i like to think that all ships in freespace run stabilisers to cancel out rotational and slide forces once they are no longer needed. without them the pilot would be overwealmed with trying to keep his ship stable, making combat difficult. you could have an option to deactivate theese stabilizers allowing for more fancy moves, such as power slides (achieved by goin full throttle, cutting throttle and deactivating stabilisers, and then turning to the object to straif) the downside would be that you would have to manually stabilise your rotational speeds. without stabilisers you would essentially have true zero g physics. the downside is that you would need to change the controls to privide better slide controls and the ability to reverse thrust. we can now map the slide buttons, but we cant bind it to an axis (i have 6 on my controler) and reverse thrust can only be achived with the z key (you could have the lower 10% of the throttle asigned to retrothrust). i think a few more control tweaks are in order.

i just got a thought, how about having a stabilizer subsystem, if it gets disabled during combat, you're screwed!

[WMCoolmon]

I'm pretty certain that (Making the ship lose control when the stabilizer was destroyed) would require doing a lot of coding on the physics side of things, since FS2 uses semi-Newtonian physics. Using real physics, as long as the ship has engines burning, your fighter should be accelerating.

Edit: Clarification. Nobody saw that, did you?

[IceFire]

I don't think it would be too hard...compaired to other things being done.  Essentially, it just locks the vessels current speed and trajectory and allows the controls to rotate the vessel around.  This was in WC3, 4, WCP, Tachyon and probably another sim I'm forgetting.

[Nuke]

i dont mean making full on newtonian physics. thats a ***** to fly with (go play frontier: elite2 or fronteir: first encounters and see). for an example of what im talking about, go load a game of descent 2, then use gxedit to turn down the drag. if you throttle forward, you keep going unless you aplly reverse thrust. if you apply rotational thrust then you will keep spinning untill you apply thrust in the oppisite direction. freespace phisics makes it seem like you are flying in an atmoshpere. my psudotheaory is that the ships stabilizers automaticly cancel out any undesired motion (such as lateral drift and finished turns), thus keeping your ship flying forward. this is kinda like fly by wire systems used in modern aircraft, they simplify the controlls and thus makes the aircraft impossible to stall.

[IceFire]

I think everyone agree's with you nuke.  But go play one of those games (Wing Commander 3 is a great example) and you see how the same FreeSpace style of gameplay is present, but tapping CapsLock in WC3 (on the Arrow or the Excalibur) and holding it will let you spin around and do slide attacks on enemy capital ships and even against fighters.  It let me get through some of those particularly tough missions.

Its a great idea.  Newtonian is very difficult for play in a FreeSpace 2 style universe (with fighters and forward firing guns and whatnot) and it shouldn't be used.  But, some concessions to let us get a few more manuvers should be cool.

[mikhael]

Originally posted by Nuke
freespace nebulas are 100 times better that that crap tachyon used. WHACK!   if thats the game's best feature, no wonder it sucks.

First things first, don't be an asshole. You're being an asshole, and its really uncalled for.  This has been a Public Service Announcement.

Besides,  the nebulae in Tachyon beat out the nebulae in FS hands down. They were thick, soupy, dense, didn't pixelate and they just plain looked good. They were as nothing compared to I-war2 nebulae, however (mmm. Particle field based nebulae)

i like to think that all ships in freespace run stabilisers to cancel out rotational and slide forces once they are no longer needed. without them the pilot would be overwealmed with trying to keep his ship stable, making combat difficult....

Um... all of us I-war/I-war2 veterans would likely have to disagree with you in the strongest possible terms. Anyone who takes the time to practice can get the hang of newtonian physics. I-war wasn't the cakewalk that Freespace is,

As for Tachyon, the only thing wrong with it was that it suffered from the same arcadish flight model as Freespace.

[Nuke]

as a veteran of combat flight sim 2, a game that makes a serious attempt to have a realistic atmospheric flight engine, i know a thing or too about realistic physics. there even worse when you have a ground to run into (or usually the case in cfs2, the paciffic), add the difficulty of carrier landings and you got an asshole with mad skills. i dont mean to diss i-war, cause i never played it, ive been looking for a copy, but no luck.

i never sugested using newtonian physics in freespace. ship stablizers keep the ship under control so the pilot can focus on combat (which kinda fits the plot). should the stableizers fail, you have to counteract every action you make, essentially newtonian physics minus the theory of relativity, though i perfer the term zero friction physics.

tachyon nebulas consist of layers of transpatent planes, that are bland looking, tiled textures. freespace textures, with the dibrits sprites and models, poofs that swirl and rotate into eachother. the effect makes them look like they have volume. for freespace being a year or so older than tachyon, it clearly has the better engine and definetley a better plot.

[mikhael]

Originally posted by Nuke
blahblahblahblahblahblahsomethingaboutskillsblahblahblahblahblah...

Um. Yeah. Whatever.

tachyon nebulas consist of layers of transpatent planes, that are bland looking, tiled textures. freespace textures, with the dibrits sprites and models, poofs that swirl and rotate into eachother. the effect makes them look like they have volume. for freespace being a year or so older than tachyon, it clearly has the better engine and definetley a better plot.

Tachyon's nebulas had depth. Freespace nebulae had crappy looking pixelated poofs. They didn't look particularly good to me.

The "plot" of Freespace2 has been discussed to death in another thread in another forum. Suffice it to say, FS1 had serious plot, FS2 was lacking severely.

The main point of my respone, above was that newtonian physics are rather easy to handle if you have half a brain and know how to use it. Making up silly "stabilisers' is pointless. If such a "stabiliser" system was implemented in the system, it should not make the ship uncontrollable when destroyed. It should turn off flight correction, and let the player deal with a newtonian flight model. I would, of course, do whatever was necessary to get that part of my ship damaged immediately (as, likely, would most anyone who has every handled a newtonian flight model).

[IceFire]

Realistic flight sim physics more reside in the realm of Il-2.  CFS2 has its problems...but I hear its a pretty good game anyways.

Anyways.  Nobody better want newtonian on FS2...just doesn't work.  But what would work is this slide key thing.  Lets have it

[mikhael]

Originally posted by IceFire
Anyways.  Nobody better want newtonian on FS2...just doesn't work.  But what would work is this slide key thing.  Lets have it

I want a newtonian flight model in Freespace2, IceFire. At least as an option. If I had the ability, I'd hack it in myself.

But the Tachyon-style slide key would be an acceptable substitute. I do think, though, that "slide" should be enabled only on ships that have a particular TBL entry that allows for it. It wouldn't make sense for Herc2s to start auto-sliding for strafing runs on capships.

[Nuke]

the stablizer thing is an excuse for freespace's curent physics, im talking about makeing this made up concept destroyable and deactivateable.

[Nico]

Originally posted by mikhael


I want a newtonian flight model in Freespace2, IceFire. At least as an option. If I had the ability, I'd hack it in myself.

But the Tachyon-style slide key would be an acceptable substitute. I do think, though, that "slide" should be enabled only on ships that have a particular TBL entry that allows for it. It wouldn't make sense for Herc2s to start auto-sliding for strafing runs on capships.

newtonian physics were to be implemented in FS2, I'd trash OTT in the second and would do OS again