[an0n]

Any chance of getting some way to reduce the turning speed of a given type of ship in proportion to it's speed?

How it works in FS-Retail is too unrealistic; And I don't like semi-gliding as it's cliched and doesn't look as good.

[Flaser]

Originally posted by an0n
Any chance of getting some way to reduce the turning speed of a given type of ship in proportion to it's speed?

How it works in FS-Retail is too unrealistic; And I don't like semi-gliding as it's cliched and doesn't look as good.

That's utter bull****!

Turning is actually one of the few things, that do act realistically - your speed in space has no what so ****ing ever effect on your turn rate - only your exiting spin.

If only, thrust was used properly: full thrust applied for full setting / the a - button, and navigational speed limits. Instead setting the speed you would set the thust.
3 flightmodes:
Restrained - auto-stops spinning and slowly (as fast as the currently awailible lateral thrust) corrects lateral speed until it is zero.
2 submodes: map and target oriented. Map oriented works compared the the nodes/stationary points in the map (which would be in fact moving at the pre-set speeds to maintain current orbit). Target oriented corrects speed compared to the target.
Retarded - same as above, but no lateral speed correction.
Unrestrained - no whatsoever correction, full manual.

Speedlimits are always given in map-oriented mode - and still apply in target oriented mode.

//////

That would be a more "realistic" flight model.

However if you're looking for a flighsimish flight model, where the turn-rate has a max on a speed graph for gamplay reasons that's fine with me, just don't think that would be any more realistic than the current model.

//////

Newtonian extension: Limits can be switched off.

Results: if you hit the limits and go too far from the fleet, the radar  will show less and less signals, and you may be lost.
Once, lost you will have no whatsoever indication of your speed and unless you rejoin with the fleet.
You're probably screwed, since you'll have to be within a given area with a given speed to jump sucessfully - fighters probably don't have the computing capacity of their own to initiate jumps as precisely as bigger ships so you may misjump compared to your fleet's destination.
Fighters are given a set of jump coordinates and readings before going on a mission so they can jump safely by updating their data with minor scans. A fighter pilot may still make a sucessfull precise jump, but he has to spend quite some time, acertaining his position relative speed in the system and then wait for his computer to churn out the new jump parameters - which will take a while and he will probably have to make orbit changes to make it so that said parameters are within the capabilities of his subspace drive.
This is the reason why command always yepps: Only jump out when given a permission. When you recieve you traitor debrifing you've already wandered for half a day at least trying to correct your last blind jump with which you escaped from the fray.

[an0n]

Originally posted by Flaser
That's utter bull****!

Turning is actually one of the few things, that do act realistically - your speed in space has no what so ****ing ever effect on your turn rate - only your exiting spin.

There's no point in having realistic turning if the speed is still stupid.

As it is, movement in FS is simply: Woosh-Stop-Woosh-TurnWithoutSlowingInTheSlightest-Woosh

You can just go zipping around at max speed without a care in the world.

And Newtonian movement is stupid because it's impractical and hard to control. All battles are reduced to ****ty ballets where you've got to plan everything 10 moves ahead or go spinning off into oblivion.

[Nico]

I gather you sucked at Iwar?

[an0n]

**** you.

And, yes.

[terren]

the flight in FS is quite realistic, :V: just forgot to tell us that all FS fighters and cap ships use the Inertal damper.   Which lets them jump with out killing everyone on board, but also constantly slows the ships down relitive to the jump nodes, which as far as astrophisicysts(sp) can diterman are relitive to the position and rotation of the galaxy.

[Nico]

Originally posted by an0n
**** you.

I'm working on it

Bah, personnally, newtonian physics are the only thing I really wanna see in FS. The game in it's current state just doesn't excite me enough so I wanna mod it anymore.

[Inquisitor]

2 things:

One, this thread would have appeared much more civil to an outsider if the first sentence in the first replie wasn't "That's bull****!!!111"

Be nice to everyone, inlcuding anon.

Two, Nico, maybe your are bored because you have been modding it for 5 years

[Nico]

Can't say I've done much last year. Nah, but I just ended up modding and not playing, coz, well, the gameplay, no matter how you mod the game, stays the same. I love all the visual improvements, I'm sure fredders couldn't live w/o the new triggers etc anymore, but what I long for is new gameplay elements, not just another occasion to say: "look, with reflection maps, my new ships looks ubber, no?"
And it seems the things that really blow me away with spacesims, lately, are real time traffic ( you know, ships doing their random, daily stuff on their own ), newtonian physics ( coz you really pilot, you don't just aim at the next target ), multiple locations ( you feel like you're in a complete, coherent universe ), stuff like that. But I know it's not possible and that makes poor Nico sad, and Nico's FS2 CDs dusty

[Inquisitor]

About the ONLY thing on that list that is remotely-likely, is the physics (please note my use of the word remotely), FS2 seems best at telling stories, more linear gameplay. So you might be stuck

[BlackDove]

Personally, as far as FS1 goes, all props to the ingame mechanics and ass kickage, but I had a hell of a lot more fun out of command briefings/briefings/ship selection/debriefings.

The stuff you do in a mission is just a pass/fail rate for everything else. The game really knows how to tell a story if you let it tell an awesome one.

Anyway...

As far as I'm concerned, the in-game movement is good enough as is. It takes skill to master it completely (especially on insane, since that's where it's at), unless you're a pussy playing on very easy or easy...hell, or medium.

[Nico]

Originally posted by Inquisitor
About the ONLY thing on that list that is remotely-likely, is the physics (please note my use of the word remotely), FS2 seems best at telling stories, more linear gameplay. So you might be stuck

I know, it was not a wish list, don't worry
On that regard ( the story telling, linear thing ), the only thing that FS2 lacks is ingame cutscenes ala wing commander 5/ prophecy. That said, I know I've seen mentions of something more or less like that being possible, so maybe I'm wrong and it's already there.

[Black Wolf]

It's a bit of a shame really. I'd really like to be able to play the trader game in the FS universe.

Nico: Play Blaise Russel's Shrouding the Light campaign. Has some very awesome in game cutscenes.

[Flaser]

Originally posted by Inquisitor
About the ONLY thing on that list that is remotely-likely, is the physics (please note my use of the word remotely), FS2 seems best at telling stories, more linear gameplay. So you might be stuck

I must digress Sir!

Take a look at Goober's Freespacelancer - though it is a bit slow right now, with some loading optimalization said aims aren't so far fetched.
With persistant variables a lot of consistent multi-mission - ergo multi-are- stuff are already possible.

IMHO random traffic may be generated by using an extended database to spawn all the traders, and an extended species / IFF options - which Goober already works on AFAIK.

I'm exited to hear though that you believe the physics change possible - I'm a fan of I-War's gameplay.

Also sorry for the hard up-beat at an0n, I'm just a bit sensitive to scientific proof, that's all.

[Black Wolf]

Goobs FSLancer was done, as I understand it, with totally retail level sexping. If the SCP could simplify and streamline the process, and a few FREDders would contribute some semi generic missions, we could probably get a basic but fun trading sim going.

[Nico]

Hmm, about the traffic thing, don't spank me coz I'm a complete beotian whe it comes to code, but:
Is there some kind of "random" Sexp? With that, I assume you could get something like that
1) the game selects a few "nodal points" ( subsapce nodes, stations, something set as nodal point in fred, dunno, expend )
2) it randomly takes into a traffic list that features the ships you'd want to see in that traffic. Everything civilian, for exemple. Use a min/max entry to set the intensity of the traffic.
3) It makes those ships go round randomly between the nodal points, say, ships jumps in from the node, goes to the station, docks, waits 2 minutes, undocks, goes to another nodal point. If the other nodall point is a station, it does the same again, if it's a container ( and the ship is a freighter ), it picks it up, etc. If it picks up a container, it'll drop it near the next nodal point, unless it goes to a subspace node, then it'll just jump out, container or not.

Ok, that was useless rambling, I know, just thought it was a funny idea, so why not post it? Dismiss it at will

[Black Wolf]

You'd need to give the game a lot more detail to do it properly, but the idea is sound.

[Goober5000]

ShadowWolf is doing something like this for Mercenaries, and we're actually building off of the proof-of-concept stuff in Freespacelancer.

[karajorma]

I've been meaning to do an open ended campaign since PVs were introduced. If I can get SoR and either MG or TMA under my belt before Mercs is ready I might try one myself

[Mongoose]

No offense to anyone, but don't change a thing about Freespace's physics.  I don't care if it doesn't follow Newton's laws; I just want to be able to fly the damn thing. I played a demo of Home Planet, which features Newtonian physics, and absolutely despised it; unless you were using the Newtonian inertial mode, your ship speed was grossly limited.  With it on, however, the whole thing consisted overshooting your target by 20 kilometers, turning around, and overshooting it in the opposite direction by another 10 kilometers.  Repeat ad nauseam.  Freespace's controls are the best I've ever seen; there's no mucking about with "real" physics.  Just turn, aim, and shoot.  Keep it simple, stupid.