[Galemp]

Originally posted by Venom
btw, considering some ships can strafe left/right and up/down, it would make sense they could fly back too...
but all that is a pain to use with a joystick ( hence my mouse control request, btw ).

Ever play Descent?

I think what he was asking in Q1 was, if you're sitting still and firing your Morning Star, why don't you get pushed backwards?

[Exarch]

We should all be thankful FS2 isn't based on a realistic flight model. Try Elite 2, which has just that, and see just how cumbersome dogfighting is. So from a point of wanting the game to be fun, freespace physics beat real physics. And without a doubt it IS fun, thus it aint broke, and we don't need it fixed

[mikhael]

Originally posted by Exarch
We should all be thankful FS2 isn't based on a realistic flight model. Try Elite 2, which has just that, and see just how cumbersome dogfighting is. So from a point of wanting the game to be fun, freespace physics beat real physics. And without a doubt it IS fun, thus it aint broke, and we don't need it fixed

Or try the transcendent Iwar2 where you have a realistic flight model and dogfights are an elaborate and graceful dance.

Of course, most of you arcade pilots don't stand a chance when real physics are in play.

[petmar]

Originally posted by GalacticEmperor


Ever play Descent?

I think what he was asking in Q1 was, if you're sitting still and firing your Morning Star, why don't you get pushed backwards?

That's exactly what I meant. Also, about the spin question, i mean that if you fire at the port wing of a seth that's playing dead with a morningstar, the entire ship moves in the same direction, instead of pivoting about its center of mass. This also extrapolates to all other ships and scenarios, except when the ship is already spinning.

[Starks]

Your point is valid but moot in context that FS2 uses its own physics.

[petmar]

Originally posted by mikhael


Or try the transcendent Iwar2 where you have a realistic flight model and dogfights are an elaborate and graceful dance.

Of course, most of you arcade pilots don't stand a chance when real physics are in play.

I agree, but, the main point is that we have clear physics violations that make some parts of the game unbelieveable.

HOWEVER... I also want to congratulate and thank the people involved both with the supernova subscripting and thank volition for its foresight in a few issues, such as the supernova which is totally physically accurate (the first shockwave is lesser in total damage than the second, the first is stellar atmosphere, the second is the fusion core matter, which is mainly superheated superfluidic iron), and also collisions, which actually give the proper reverse velocities.

I didn't start this topic to criticize the game negatively, I just mean to suggest some ways of improving it. So, in that case, please post replies and physics questions as often as you like!

[Bobboau]

I have always been a bit urket at the way the physics is aplyed to rotateing ships, namely that if you hit a ship with some mega wackamatron 5000 and the ship trys to turn rather than flying back in the direction you hit it it will act like a car in revers gear going back in it's frame of reference rather than the global frame

[TrashMan]

Where does it say that fs2 ships don't have reverse thrusters to come to a complete stop? You don't have to see them or control them, it could be automaticly, so.....
If that's the case that there is no physcs violation...
And it does make sense...you could make a space-fighter that moves just like a standard atmospheric one.... you just need a bunch of ai controlled thrusters.....

[Nico]

Originally posted by GalacticEmperor


Ever play Descent?

I think what he was asking in Q1 was, if you're sitting still and firing your Morning Star, why don't you get pushed backwards?

well yeah, obviously... never heard about my old Descent campaign for FS2?

[Starks]

Speaking of Descent... What was that "Use Descent Physics" code that Volition slipped in?

[petmar]

Documentation note: Is there anyone out there on the source project who knows where exactly to find the physics engine in this maze of code that we call our beloved FS2?

[Goober5000]

Originally posted by petmar
Documentation note: Is there anyone out there on the source project who knows where exactly to find the physics engine in this maze of code that we call our beloved FS2?

http://fs2source.warpcore.org/guided_tour.txt

- The physics library is pretty well partitioned and lives in its own little
  world. If you want to add newtonian motion, that's where you'd start.

Probably in the physics folder.

[petmar]

thanks !

[Rampage]

"Sound cannot travel through vacuum.  It requires a medium."

This would make the game pretty boring, without sound and all.  But realistically, sound in space is non-existent.  In nebulas, however, sound can exist due to the presence of a medium (ionized particles).

[petmar]

This is true, and I was hoping that someone would point this out.
However, though fs2 suffers from the star wars sound syndrome, I believe that it might be explained by saying that there are optical sensor on the fighters that re-interpret light as sound and put it through to a speakers in the cockpit, so that the pilot could be alerted to something coming from any given side.

[petmar]

Most of the gun weapons in fs2 are energy based. Now, since we know that this makes them light-based weapons, that means that we should only be able to see them upon impact. Unless the craft have quantum-interlace sensors that can detect and show things faster than the speed of light, which they probably don't, gun fire should NOT be visible! Also, this might make swerving to avoid anything but missiles a bit more interesting.

While we're on the topic, though, why not try to make the levels of difficulty more and more realistic, since they'd be harder and harder as they approached realism?

[kasperl]

well, a blop of plasma wqould still be visible, but i know most wepaons should be insvible, but hey, i would a lot rather be shooting something i can see then invisible super realistic wepaons.

and invisible weapons should be easy to make, just a pain in the *** to use though, aiming will be very, very hard.

[petmar]

Originally posted by kasperl
well, a blop of plasma wqould still be visible, but i know most wepaons should be insvible, but hey, i would a lot rather be shooting something i can see then invisible super realistic wepaons.

and invisible weapons should be easy to make, just a pain in the *** to use though, aiming will be very, very hard.

That's why I think they should be used under the higher difficulty levels. However, the plasma idea works, as would ion and magnetic field perpetuators (advanced rail gun designs).

[Stryke 9]

No.

You ever played a sim with invisible bullets? I bet not. Wanna know why? They suck ass. It's ugly as ****, and that's the kind of **** involving those land whales you see at McDonald's. It looks like the game was done by a four-year-old, makes it hard to aim while in a close dogfight, means that you can't see what's going on at any given minute in combat, and is frickin' hideous. All right? Realism is one thing, but if you want to take it to the extent where it detracts from gameplay, go play Orbiter.

Fact, with a little model tinkering right now you can see it yourself. And it truly is the most godawful looking thing you will ever see in FreeSpace short of an entire TC of untextured superpowerful cubes named "TeH DeStRoIeRR!!!!11!1!"

[petmar]

As I had stated earlier... that's why I think they should specifically be said to be rail-based or plasma/ion-based guns.