Hard Light Productions Forums
General FreeSpace => FreeSpace Discussion => Topic started by: Eishtmo on August 27, 2001, 11:19:00 am
-
Over on the Spacebattles Vs. forums, the most vile pit of insanity I've ever found, Freespace has recently been a contestent in several battles. Quickly, its been declared the loser because its too damn slow. And it got me to thinking: Why?
Why are Freespace ships so damn slow? And then, another question came to mind: Are they really that slow? I'll get to that one in a minute.
So why are they so slow? I can think of only three reasons: (lots of colons today)
1) Volition balancing. When they were making the game, they tried to come up with a speed that would balance the game. Reasonable, of course, it makes the game loads of fun. I'm more than willing to accept that explination.
2) Volition made a mistake (!). I know, blasphemy. But maybe, just maybe, they didn't grasp the ideas of the metric system, and thought that 80 m/s is actually quite fast (in fact, its about 200 miles an hour, slow for a fighter). This is understandable, sense Volition is made of Americans, who generally can't stand any damned European system screwing up their speed limit signs.
3) In game reasoning. Meaning that for reasons that are hard to understand, the GTA, if it was real, made the ships slower on purpose. The only reason I can see this making sense is that as the 14 Year War draged on, more and more pilots were dying, and less experianced pilots were put in the seats. So, to prevent these pilots from blacking out and crashing into the side of an Orion, they lowered the speeds of the fighters. This also allowed special breaking thrusters to work easier. On some level it makes sense. What doesn't make sense, is why the Shivans were moving at such speeds. Of course, that's balancing.
Well, those are the only three I could think of, I'd be happy to entertain more. But this line of thought lead me to the interesting idea: (more colons) Freespace ships may not be that slow.
Those speed numbers have never been given a unit in game, they're just 0-100+. No m/s, km/s, miles/hour ect. Now, we've basically assumed that it is m/s, and I suppose it works, but is it true? Well, it isn't the easiest thing to test, of course. We'd have to set up a mission to act as a time trial or something to test it, and I'm not sure how to do it. Of course, maybe I'm wrong and they really are going m/s. If so, no biggy, we'll just head back up to the original three reasons why. But if they are going at a different speed, it would be nice to know for the future (and so I can smeer those assholes on SB, so I'm insane too, bite me).
Any thoughts?
------------------
I know there is a method, but all I see is madness.
-
Well, the antidote is to use the cutscene speeds, as many over there have done (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/smile.gif)
They are m/s, I'm pretty sure of it. Go fly alongside an Orion and see for yourself (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/tongue.gif)
-
FS ships were designed more for manuverability instead of speed. Look at Starlancer. The ships move at extremely high speeds, but because they handle like turtles, a hit against one is possible at more than a hundred Klicks. In Freespace, when you are in a dogfight, you are really in a twisting, turning furball.
If you really want a comeback argument, use the wingman AI as a point. While FS fans hate the wingman AI, it is still superior to many games. Tachyon, SL and WC wingmen can't make kills, and I-War 1 wingmen can't stay alive more than a minute against even odds. FS wingmen do die, but that is because your three wingmen just went up against three times their number in shivans, and they took a few of them down with them.
Also, FS ships are durable as all hell, and, of course, beams.
-
Originally posted by ^Graff:
FS ships were designed more for manuverability instead of speed. Look at Starlancer. The ships move at extremely high speeds, but because they handle like turtles, a hit against one is possible at more than a hundred Klicks. In Freespace, when you are in a dogfight, you are really in a twisting, turning furball.
If you really want a comeback argument, use the wingman AI as a point. While FS fans hate the wingman AI, it is still superior to many games. Tachyon, SL and WC wingmen can't make kills, and I-War 1 wingmen can't stay alive more than a minute against even odds. FS wingmen do die, but that is because your three wingmen just went up against three times their number in shivans, and they took a few of them down with them.
Also, FS ships are durable as all hell, and, of course, beams.
I agree with this... there's no need for speed in FS, as subspace jumps are used for long distances. Also, bearing in ming the physics engine, I like to use the Harrier Vs F-15 anlogy;
A Harrier can easily out-maneuver and take down an F-15, because it is VTOl, and has a very small turning circle compared to the faster F-15. Of course, it isn't as good at running away, or making strike raids.
Plus, having a low top speed makes the big ships look even bigger (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/biggrin.gif)
-
Originally posted by aldo_14:
I agree with this... there's no need for speed in FS, as subspace jumps are used for long distances. Also, bearing in ming the physics engine, I like to use the Harrier Vs F-15 anlogy;
A Harrier can easily out-maneuver and take down an F-15, because it is VTOl, and has a very small turning circle compared to the faster F-15. Of course, it isn't as good at running away, or making strike raids.
Plus, having a low top speed makes the big ships look even bigger (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/biggrin.gif)
Nah, I don't agree. When ships go faster, it's more fun. Try sushi's mod...
For the f15 analogy, it's ridiculous. Modern fighters just don't dogfight, and a f15 will shoot a harrier the same way a harrier will shoot a f15: long range.
-
If modern fighters weren't designed for dogfighting, then why did the USAF choose the F-22 over the F-23? The ONLY advantage that the F-22 had over the F-23 design was its dogfighting ability. And I DO mean ONLY.
-
just speed up the game wit hthe speed function running at x16 game speed and well see how long they live (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/wink.gif)
-
Originally posted by ^Graff:
If modern fighters weren't designed for dogfighting, then why did the USAF choose the F-22 over the F-23? The ONLY advantage that the F-22 had over the F-23 design was its dogfighting ability. And I DO mean ONLY.
No, I think the F22 could reach supersonic speed w/o afterburners, and not the YF23. the 23 was more agile than the 22.
-
Originally posted by Eishtmo:
Those speed numbers have never been given a unit in game, they're just 0-100+. No m/s, km/s, miles/hour ect. Now, we've basically assumed that it is m/s, and I suppose it works, but is it true?
Actually, sometime near the beginning (or beginning mission) of the FS2 campaign, the squad leader talks about "clicks" being kilometers. Thus, FS2 measures ship distances in m/s.
------------------
Creator of the Table Edit ("http://denebsystem0.tripod.com/tbledt.html") project.
IRC: /server twisted.ma.us.DAL.net /join #Deneb ("http://denebsystem0.tripod.com/chat.html")
Visit The Deneb System ("http://denebsystem0.tripod.com/").
Balance?! Don't you talk to me about balance when you've seen all the Sathanases the Shivans have!! - Joey_21
Checkout the System Madness II campaign ("http://denebsystem0.tripod.com/chi2orionis.html")
-
Both air dominance fighters were designed for supercruise, as it was one of the requirements set by the Air Force. The Northrop/McDonnell-Douglas team designed their fighter with an emphasis on stealth, with manuverability second, and the Lockheed-Martin/Boeing team designed it with manuverability first, stealth second. That's why the F-22 has the thrust vectoring engines and the F-23 doesn't. The F-23 was very manuverable, but not as good as the F-22.
Edit: One in four air-to-air kills happen in dogfights, so they do still happen.
[This message has been edited by ^Graff (edited 08-27-2001).]
-
Originally posted by Joey_21:
Actually, sometime near the beginning (or beginning mission) of the FS2 campaign, the squad leader talks about "clicks" being kilometers. Thus, FS2 measures ship distances in m/s.
Yes, and in the mission where you must defend the Bastion on her last mission (Clash of the Titans II; second to last mission of the entire campaign) one of the pilots says the Trebuchets have a max range of five kilometers. So it's logical and resonable to say that speed in the FreeSpace universe is measured in meters per second. Just lock up a bandit with the Trebuchet missile at max range and see what I mean.
Sorry, that was supposed to be "mission", not "meson". Dunno where that came from. (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/smile.gif)
[This message has been edited by Slasher (edited 08-27-2001).]
-
Funny, I always felt that FS was fast, but thats probably because I was just playing Mechwarrior 4 in an assault mech.
Then I would play Aliens vs. Predator and everything felt slow after that...
------------------
You're not drunk if you can lie on the floor without holding on.
-
Maybe slower engines are significantly cheaper (A-1 for mass production!). (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/smile.gif)
-
they mustve spent a lot of money on AvP then. Good God that game is frantic.
*SCREECH* *SLASH* *SNAP* *GAHHHHHH* *BOOM* *SCREEEEEECH* *AHHHHHHHHH* *blackness* *silence*
------------------
You're not drunk if you can lie on the floor without holding on.
-
It's not frantic the way I play it....
Marine, standing in the lightest room in the level... in the corner.... firing wildly at anything that so much as flickers... (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/wink.gif)
-
I usually play as the Alien, and hes fast, very fast, almost to the point where its too fast to react to anything..
which is why I'm usually creeping along the ceiling, waiting for something to walk under so I can bite its head off...
------------------
You're not drunk if you can lie on the floor without holding on.
-
IW2 combat is awesome...... I proved the superiority of newtonian physics against a station that was trying to shoot the crap outta me. Plus, zipping along with combat speeds at a REAL 1+ km/s (unlike the alleged speeds in WC/SL) is ******* great!
-
Originally posted by Thorn:
they mustve spent a lot of money on AvP then. Good God that game is frantic.
*SCREECH* *SLASH* *SNAP* *GAHHHHHH* *BOOM* *SCREEEEEECH* *AHHHHHHHHH* *blackness* *silence*
I feel your pain (heh, get it?), Thorn. All that Screeching and Slashing and blackness you describe up there happened to me in the first five seconds of playing the Marine demo. When I played the Alien demo, however, all I got was the "*AHHHHHHHHH*" and "*silence*" parts. I never was meant to be an alien.
-
Alien is definately the way to go. Xenos are the stealth ninja assassins of the universe.
Has anyone ever beaten the Marine campaign?
-
I have... Hard as hell... You have to lure the Queen into an airlock and then blow it out into space..
------------------
You're not drunk if you can lie on the floor without holding on.
-
the smartgun isn't enough to blast it?
-
No, bullets just piss it off...
------------------
You're not drunk if you can lie on the floor without holding on.
-
Reason FS is slow is because of this:
The game works on game units. A ship such as the Orion is X number of game units so therefore, to make the ship actually look like its 1.9km long means that the ships have to fly at Y number of game units to make it work.
It has nothing to do with realism or a long and involved thought process, its just the easiest, simplistic way to do it.
At least its not as unrealistic as WC's speeds where your fighter flies at 500kps and still takes 30 seconds to fly the length of a small cruiser thats less than a KM in length (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/smile.gif)
-
thank you sir I was about to bring that up.
-
If FS2 was fast, you wouldn't get to look at all of the cool spaceships. You would see a little dot, go towards it and it would look like a spaceship for the split second you were close to it, then turn into a little dot again when got farther away
------------------
-
I think a lot of that has to do with the fact that your viewscreen (cockpit view) is so large and it makes the ships you have centered there seem smaller than they really are because of the aforementioned reasons. I never quite got the feeling of awe I was probably supposed to when I looked at a several kilometer long spaceship. Then again, maybe my expectations were to high. (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/smile.gif)
-
Maybe its because what is being measured in FS/FS2 is not ACTUAL velocity (which could be quite fast to an observer in the proper frame of reference) but instead maybe the speeds and accelerations are measureing how quickly they can move (change vectors) in relation to another unit sharing the same reference frame.
Example: The US space shuttle 'Atlantis' uses its main engines to reach orbital velocity (around 25 times the speed of sound as I recall). To an observer on the ground this is quite fast (this is one frame of reference). To an observer about 300 meters away in space station 'alpha' the shuttle doesn't seem to be moving very quickly at all (in this frame of reference both the observer and the shuttle are travelling at roughly the same speed). The shuttle turns around and fires its OMS thrusters, increasing its distance from the station by about 65m/second. Although the shuttle is still screaming along at (about) mach 25 to an observer on the ground, the observer in the station sees it slowly glide away from her at this leisurely pace. What we're measuring is not the actual velocity of the object, but its ability to change its position relative to the observer.
Roughly the same could be said of FS battles. Only in this case we might be orbiting a star instead of a planet. A ship still needs to maintain its orbital velocity. If two groups of ships want to fight then FIRST they match thier ACTUAL vectors and then they maneuver REALATIVE to each other.
That's the best expaination I could come up with anyway... I don't know, it kinda made sense to me.
-
Originally posted by Slasher:
I think a lot of that has to do with the fact that your viewscreen (cockpit view) is so large and it makes the ships you have centered there seem smaller than they really are because of the aforementioned reasons. I never quite got the feeling of awe I was probably supposed to when I looked at a several kilometer long spaceship. Then again, maybe my expectations were to high. (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/smile.gif)
The FS engine doesn't have quite enough perspective.
-
I dunno, flyin around in a Perseus fightin Maras can seem quite fast at times...
------------------
You're not drunk if you can lie on the floor without holding on.
-
a
Originally posted by jonskowitz:
Maybe its because what is being measured in FS/FS2 is not ACTUAL velocity (which could be quite fast to an observer in the proper frame of reference) but instead maybe the speeds and accelerations are measureing how quickly they can move (change vectors) in relation to another unit sharing the same reference frame.
Example: The US space shuttle 'Atlantis' uses its main engines to reach orbital velocity (around 25 times the speed of sound as I recall). To an observer on the ground this is quite fast (this is one frame of reference). To an observer about 300 meters away in space station 'alpha' the shuttle doesn't seem to be moving very quickly at all (in this frame of reference both the observer and the shuttle are travelling at roughly the same speed). The shuttle turns around and fires its OMS thrusters, increasing its distance from the station by about 65m/second. Although the shuttle is still screaming along at (about) mach 25 to an observer on the ground, the observer in the station sees it slowly glide away from her at this leisurely pace. What we're measuring is not the actual velocity of the object, but its ability to change its position relative to the observer.
Roughly the same could be said of FS battles. Only in this case we might be orbiting a star instead of a planet. A ship still needs to maintain its orbital velocity. If two groups of ships want to fight then FIRST they match thier ACTUAL vectors and then they maneuver REALATIVE to each other.
That's the best expaination I could come up with anyway... I don't know, it kinda made sense to me.
Frame of reference. Yes, that is very important. I mean, when playing IW2, naturally you don't feel like you're going much faster than in FS2 at all - where in reality, you are travelling at least one magnitude faster.
-
Originally posted by Eishtmo:
Over on the Spacebattles Vs. forums, the most vile pit of insanity I've ever found, Freespace has recently been a contestent in several battles. Quickly, its been declared the loser because its too damn slow.
Yeah, but the firepower sure as hell helps. (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/wink.gif)
As for the vilest pit, it beats out OMM's? I'm impressed. (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/biggrin.gif)
-
Originally posted by Shrike:
Yeah, but the firepower sure as hell helps. (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/wink.gif)
Hey, here's a whole new topic again.
How does FS stack up to other universes in terms of weaponry? What could an ML-16 do to an F-16, a Tie?
-
Well, the fighter weapons are passable, missiles are KT-level. But beams are high MT/low-GT per second weapons.......
-
That could probably cut holes in indutrial-grade butter, right? (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/biggrin.gif)
-
Originally posted by Shrike:
As for the vilest pit, it beats out OMM's? I'm impressed. (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/biggrin.gif)
They're not insane about sci-fi crap. They're crazy on a whole different, sick as hell, level. The PoE people are even sicker.
------------------
I know there is a method, but all I see is madness.
-
The game works on game units. A ship such as the Orion is X number of game units so therefore, to make the ship actually look like its 1.9km long means that the ships have to fly at Y number of game units to make it work.
It has nothing to do with realism or a long and involved thought process, its just the easiest, simplistic way to do it.
Actually when Volition was developing FreeSpace they hated this about X-Wing and WC, and so to scale their vessels to appear large they decided to base ships on real units.
One game unit equals one meter, and every single FreeSpace ship is to scale.
No trickery or work arounds there.
In order to give FS ships the majestic feel when flying past them, speeds were given a limit under 100m/s or so for thrusters, under 200m/s for afterburners as a rule.
Also to the people thinking FS ships seem small, it's all due to the mission design. FS2 didn't take as much advantage of ship sizes as FS1 for making "beauty shots and camera angles."
In the first FS1 mission, Eve of Destruction, the GTC Orff seemed to dwarf anything I'd seen in the Wing Commander games.
All due to the initial angle...
------------------
Ace
Staff member FreeSpace Watch
http://freespace.volitionwatch.com/ ("http://freespace.volitionwatch.com/")
-
Originally posted by Ace:
In the first FS1 mission, Eve of Destruction, the GTC Orff seemed to dwarf anything I'd seen in the Wing Commander games.
All due to the initial angle...
It did? I didn't think it looked that big. What I thought was big was the Ma'at in the FS1 demo depot-raid mission, 'cos that thing shot back. (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/wink.gif)