Hard Light Productions Forums
General FreeSpace => FreeSpace Discussion => Topic started by: Kail on December 16, 2004, 05:02:20 pm
-
I would assume that the scales and velocities in FS has nothing to do with reality. The physics themselves are not realistic at all, but it is positive. I remember playing JumpGate and I tried to dock with a station, controlling the ship's intertia with the main thruster was almost impossible. The FS way is better than, even if it means the ship has thrusters built to reduce speed and stop full acceleration.
Anyway, what would realistic speeds be? Speeds in FS are obviously in meters per seconds. Distances are in meters and km (klicks). And they're much closer than what would be realistic. Weapon range is also extremely short for gameplay, and so is sight, for performance reasons. Imagine being able to snipe other ships several klicks away. And well, the laser beams travel awfully slow being light and show extremely well in hard vacuum.
Also, would realistic physics and distances be desired? Would they add anything? Would they make the game more enjoyable or just a pain in the ass?
Please share your thoughts.
-
Pain...In...The...ASS.
Certain elements, I could probably live with. Others, like no sound, invisible lasers, and super high speeds would not be good for gameplay.
-
Why is everyone lately with realistic physics in Freespace?
-
I don't think there are many realistic things you could add to the game to 'improve' most would probably detract.
And, I've always taken the measurements as metres, or metres per second.
Basically because of the way they talk about collosus and the orion's in FS1.
For point of reference, for example;
An Orion is 2.1km long.
The only thing I think realism wise I would like to see;
Everything scaled on the size of fighters so that they are the actual sizes V said they were.
Because atm I think fighters are slightly outta proportion.
Never really paid much attention the realism, as that's the antithesis of what FS is about.
-
I have no idea. We discussed this earlier Kali, just a few threads down.
-
...as that's the antithesis of what FS is about.
Good point! :D
-
FS2 is at it's heart an arcade game, and as such, the game play should reflect that. You wouldn't expect realistic physics in Gradius, would you? pretty much the only arcade game with newtonian physics that i can think of is Asteroids, and that was wicked hard.
-
Originally posted by Kail
Anyway, what would realistic speeds be? Speeds in FS are obviously in meters per seconds. Distances are in meters and km (klicks). And they're much closer than what would be realistic.
it is meter per second. Mach 1 is 344 m/s, and the fastest FS2 ships can go less than half that. many modern fighters can travel faster than mach 1, and the f-22 can do it without afterburners, so FS2 fighters are very slow.
-
Perhaps they are slow for a reason. If you accelerate a ship at higher speeds, it gets exponencially much harder to slow down and stop, wich means colisions could not be avoided... The slower the ship goes, the better control you have over it.
Albeit i doubt :V: would have ever remembered this convenient explanation for their unrealistic settings...
-
Hence why i had that question a year ago about seperate atmospheric fighters and stuff... And still, what is with the uprising of questions about physics and stuff?
-
it would be somewhat impossible to hit ships moving at 2 kliks a second.
besides, if you think about it, the lack of apparent inertia and the slow speeds somewhat cancel eachother out.
besides, ships can obviously go much faster than what WE can use (in a cutscene IIRC a fighter gets from space to ground or something in a few seconds) so its just for super-afterburners or something. cruise engines maybe
oh, and im absolutely desperate usulaly to make sure that freespace is undisputably the best and more realistic game in teh world and elsewhere. *is somewhat insane*
-
I always felt cutsences howed real speed while ingame was slowed down for gameply.
In that cutscene (lucy killing vasuda) i think it was a Satis freighhter and not a fighter flying away, looks more like one to me.. carrying the few survivors.
-
Well, speeds of 2K/sec would make dogfighting near impossible. It would be more like two battleships attacking each other.
If you read SF that covers space combat you'll see that most SF authors have made space combat automated and AI-based or sometimes even unmanned simply because of the reaction speeds required in hard vacuum.
Also, in FS, why have piloted crafts? Apparently, you have an instant connection with Command (which is impossible, unless they use entanglement or some other more or less fictional technology), why can't you control your ship remotely from there, sitting safely in a simulator instead of risking your ass in a ship?
-
OH NO!!!
ITS THE RISE OF PHYSICS