Author Topic: Physics of TBP  (Read 4370 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Well i just started out plaing TBP liek 2 days gao so i am pretty new to it and FS2, so i dunno much about the engine or the possibilaties. This isnt my first space simulator or shot em up and recently i ahve been playignt he free standign game IFH. And in TBP i wasnt able to see if you guys hadinertial flight, or capabilaties fro sliding sideways and up downa nd so on. Also how i make the game use my mouse for right left  turn and pitch up and down.

this might be a bit hard to understand if it is tell em and i'll try and elaborate more.

 

Offline KappaWing

  • Lost in the nebula
  • 28
  • 1000101
:welcome: EAD TAES ;)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the SCP features sliding up/down/foreward/back controls. Check the control configuration section in the options menu.
"Your efforts to interdict me have failed, papacy. Pentagon, engage propaganda drive."
"Now, Protestant scum, you will see the power of this fully armed and operational Papal Station!"

 

Offline Deepblue

  • Corporate Shill
  • 210
You first have to edit the tables and then bind keys to allow for sliding. However the physics in the game are always not gonna be realistic.

 
Yeah i am noticing. The physics apply more to airplanes then spaceships. Bummer. :sigh:

 

Offline Bobboau

  • Just a MODern kinda guy
    Just MODerately cool
    And MODest too
  • 213
actualy it's more like the physics apply more to fun than reality. its a matter of taste I supose. the engine wasn't designed for it but it can do something very similar, there is a reason why TBP uses the physics it does, rather than the physics it could.

slideing is totaly suported by the FSO, but it isn't enabled in TBP becase they just recently, it'll probly get enabled sooner or later
Bobboau, bringing you products that work... in theory
learn to use PCS
creator of the ProXimus Procedural Texture and Effect Generator
My latest build of PCS2, get it while it's hot!
PCS 2.0.3


DEUTERONOMY 22:11
Thou shalt not wear a garment of diverse sorts, [as] of woollen and linen together

 
Yeah becaus ei am used to playing IFH right now wich totaly applys realw orld physics tot he fligh models wich si what i had been lookign for a very long time in space figther games. But for now i guets this will have to do.

 

Offline Skullar

  • 29
TBP : Cool dogfights , cool and fast avionics

IFH : Realistic physics that suck coz they are realistic.

If I want REALISM I play Falcon4.0 , and not a space combat game. I want to have FUN.
A REALISTIC space combat ganme also shouldn't have explosion sounds, weapon sounds , flyby sounds and so on... perhapos you let that go to your mind. :)

 
Well i didnt mean for sounds and all. Just for the flight model. Once you get used ot it it rocks. But the one here is also good.

 

Offline Raapys

  • 25
The flight model actually works very well in IFH. Problem is the distances. Way too long/far to everything, and things are just too small.
Had the realistic physics been implemented in TBP with the current ship sizes and distances, I'm sure it would have worked great.

 
Yeah I'd agree to that. All i know for now is that I rape trougth enemy ships in IFH and still learning TBP. Here the common tactic for the enemy is to spin in circles around you and you around him. So we basicly get caugth in a turning competion. Havent had that style of fighting since Red Baron 1. Not used to it anymore .:p :p

 

Offline karajorma

  • King Louie - Jungle VIP
  • Administrator
  • 214
    • Karajorma's Freespace FAQ
I think the best way to think of it is to say that TBP was designed for arcade physics and IFH was designed for a more realistic approach.

Gamers can therefore play with whichever  physics engine they prefer.

Giving TBP a real physics engine would be somewhat pointless cause it would then put it in direct competition with IFH and what would be the point in doing that?
Karajorma's Freespace FAQ. It's almost like asking me yourself.

[ Diaspora ] - [ Seeds Of Rebellion ] - [ Mind Games ]

 
Well, if both sides were trying to create something better than the other team, then we'd have two great games to play... not that we don't now, but there's always room for improvement, right? :)

 
Yeah their is always room for improvement no matter what. You cna always improve something.

  

Offline Raapys

  • 25
"Giving TBP a real physics engine would be somewhat pointless cause it would then put it in direct competition with IFH and what would be the point in doing that?"

Would you rather have just AMD or Intel, than both? Evolution is helped by competition.

 

Offline NGTM-1R

  • I reject your reality and substitute my own
  • 213
  • Syndral Active. 0410.
IFH would die a horrible death, though. Because in addition to apparently having more people working on the project at TPB, one has to consider the improvements the SCP team makes all the time.
"Load sabot. Target Zaku, direct front!"

A Feddie Story

 
I dont think IFH would die but it would suffer. But a breach betwwent he two games woudl be cool for me anyways.

Becuase theya re stuff in IFH i find way better then TBP like: Realistic flight model (i just fell in love with it) Size of jump gates and jump point realism, (i foudn in PTB the jump gate much to big and the jump points dont destroy whats in its area of effect plus their almost flat, plus the ship just passes trought it, where in IFH their like the real thing almost. You see the flash fo the disapering ship and also the shrinking growup effect.) Stuff liek that i like a whole lot mroe in IFH. And the hud (you ee every ship in yrou feild of veiw is marked but a marker of the color red green or blue depending on their alegiance. TBP you dotn you need to ahve a lock on them, makes it quite hard to find ships at times.

In TBP i lke some stuff over IFH to like: Weapons loadout (god i love thsi feature dont have it in IFH) Full scale campgaings, a multyplayer is seems but i need to try it, I fidn the campaing stories better on this one so far. Plus we ahve an editor to make new missons and what's not. I am still learning TBP so i might have not named soem stuff i would have named if i knew the game better.

But for me if youd take booth those worlds and slam them into one I'd be super happy.

 

Offline karajorma

  • King Louie - Jungle VIP
  • Administrator
  • 214
    • Karajorma's Freespace FAQ
Quote
Originally posted by Raapys
"Giving TBP a real physics engine would be somewhat pointless cause it would then put it in direct competition with IFH and what would be the point in doing that?"

Would you rather have just AMD or Intel, than both? Evolution is helped by competition.


Sure competition is good but it's not like AMD Vs Intel. It's like saying both chips have to have to run on exactly the same motherboards. You'd lose a lot of the advantages of both if you tried to cram them together.

At the moment you can choose. If you made TBP use a realistic flight model you're actually cutting down on choice. If you want to fly in the B5 universe you'd have to play with realistic physics. What's the point? I'd rather have a choice about how I play.  

Besides it's a pretty moot point. Realistic physics would almost certainly require AI changes. So far no one has been crazy enough to touch the AI functions to add something comparatively simple like gunship AI. I doubt that anyone is going to be willing to make large changes to the AI functions even if TBP actually wanted them (Which from the posts on here no one in the team particularly seems to want).
Karajorma's Freespace FAQ. It's almost like asking me yourself.

[ Diaspora ] - [ Seeds Of Rebellion ] - [ Mind Games ]

 
Yeha true the Ai woudl nee dto be changed or ti would still be trying to fly like airplanes. And then they would seriously be EASY TARGETS mroe like SITTING DUCKS. lol. I hadn't thought about that.

 

Offline -Norbert-

  • 211
Well the last time this was discussed, most people said they like the current flight model more (I think that was even back on FirstOnes)
And I don't know for sure, but isn't there a B5 Mod for I-War too?

And one very good argument is missing so far:
In the Show they made turns, which are impossible in IFH (and most probably in reality too).

 

Offline croxis

  • 20
There is more to a mod (or a game for that matter) than the physics engine.  There are so many elements and layers to gameplay, the story, the look and feel.  I do NOT think making TBP a newton based engine will cause compitition or hurt IFH in any way, shape, or form because they are two very different games.

(Side note: Yes I-War and I-War 2 have B5 mods)
(Side note two:  What kind of physics is based on what you are use to.  I had a hard time adjusting to I-War after playing wing commander.  Now I started playing freespace 1 and I'm having a hard time flying because I've becomed so accustomed to newtonian physics.)