[nubbles526]

Newton's second law of motion says:
"A body that is already moving would continue moving, unless a force is acting on it."

Coming to think, I think that a lot of the FreeSpace ships do not include this law. One example is when you hit your afterburners, and then you decalerate. I want to know how ships can do that, since space in a vacuum, and in theory the ship be still moving.

I want to discuss why this is happening, like is there a propulsion in front or something, or was it just they ignored it?

[achtung]

A.)  It's a video game

B.)  It does not have a Newtonian physics system

[Mobius]

Maybe because FS "physics" suck? In most sci-fi games I played fighters continue to move when I turn my afterburners off.

It seems to happen only ingame...if you look at the intros(of FS1 and FS2)fighters seem faster(they have different physics overall), just look at the Manticore.

A.)  It's a video game

B.)  It does not have a Newtonian physics system

1) So? Many other games have better physics!

2) Correct 

[Mustang19]

You've been playing long enough to know that this is just a game... off the top of my head I can point to five logical inconsistencies in FS (Your inspection of the lucifer in Antares... We've got a Shivan cruiser jumping in... the HoL helped us eliminate the Hammer of Light presence in Beta Aquilae/" " in Vega...). Wait, actually, you may have not been playing that long because you've unwittingly stolen your name from nubbles.    

There is no problem with the third law of motion. The training missions say that retro-rockets fire to slow you down, but I've never seen them fire. The problem is with your mind. Afterburner recharge would make no sense otherwise.

[Snail]

1) So? Many other games have better physics!

2) Correct 

Would that be at the expanse of gameplay?

[nubbles526]

Wait, actually, you may have not been playing that long because you've unwittingly stolen your name from nubbles.    

Oh, I didn't expect you to say that. Actually that account somehow couldn't send a activation e-mail to my yahoo , so I created nubbles526, and 526 means May 26th. So in theory I AM nubbles, with or without the 526.

1) So? Many other games have better physics!

2) Correct 

Would that be at the expanse of gameplay?

In my mind, there should be like propulsion system like the poseidon (can be seen inside the commandbrief of the first mission with the vasudans, where you have to escort the shield prototypes).

A.)  It's a video game

B.)  It does not have a Newtonian physics system

Err...what kind of physics does it use then? (I know I'm being stupid but...)

[Mobius]

You've been playing long enough to know that this is just a game... off the top of my head I can point to five logical inconsistencies in FS (Your inspection of the lucifer in Antares... We've got a Shivan cruiser jumping in... the HoL helped us eliminate the Hammer of Light presence in Beta Aquilae/" " in Vega...). Wait, actually, you may have not been playing that long because you've unwittingly stolen your name from nubbles.    

There is no problem with the third law of motion. The training missions say that retro-rockets fire to slow you down, but I've never seen them fire. The problem is with your mind. Afterburner recharge would make no sense otherwise.

That's FreeSpace 1.

In the intro of FS2 there are better physics(possibly because of cinematographic reasons). The same physics aren't used in-game(because wanted to keep the old FS1 system?). I played two games about Star Wars that had physics close to FreeSpace specifications!

[Snail]

In my mind, there should be like propulsion system like the poseidon (can be seen inside the commandbrief of the first mission with the vasudans, where you have to escort the shield prototypes).

I see no reason why such "reverse propulsion" should slow a fighter down from its top speed when it's trying to get somewhere fast. Whoever came up with that idea should be trialled for treason and hanged.

That's FreeSpace 1.

Which is still canon.

[nubbles526]

Wow, Snail, I think it makes more sense with the reverse propulsion, since it is (I think) the only way to slow fighter down. Otherwise you would get something like the spacecraft like the Columbia, orbiting at a speed of 22,500 km/h for infinte.

[lostllama]

1) So? Many other games have better physics!

2) Correct 

Would that be at the expanse of gameplay?

In my mind, there should be like propulsion system like the poseidon (can be seen inside the commandbrief of the first mission with the vasudans, where you have to escort the shield prototypes).

A.)  It's a video game

B.)  It does not have a Newtonian physics system

Err...what kind of physics does it use then? (I know I'm being stupid but...)

I reckon the smaller ships use the same means to maneuver around i.e. they use maneuvering thrusters. The thing is, they aren't modelled on the ships (except perhaps on the Poseidon, but even then you don't see them flare in-game).

FS uses semi-atmospheric arcade physics.... or something like that. 

One thing that I noticed about FS was the speeds the fighters can reach compared to, say, a ship in LucasArt's X-Wing or TIE Fighter games. They're so much slower in FS. It seems weird when you get rammed by an Orion going at it's top speed and you don't get squashed flat against it's hull like a tin can - you just get knocked about. Contrast this with X-Wing - you could be going at 300m/s and get rammed head on by a Calamari cruiser and you'd explode.

FS and Star Wars space sims do have many similarities despite this though, and not only in terms of flight models. And I have to agree, auto-reverse thrust after accelerating using the afterburner does seem to be counterproductive when you need to outrun the enemy. But then again if the enemy ships suffer from it then it's less of a problem.

The deceleration key in FS is actually called 'reverse thrust' but it doesn't make you go backwards after you've bled off your forward momentum.

Anywho, FS physics are still fun. 

[Turey]

The deceleration key in FS is actually called 'reverse thrust' but it doesn't make you go backwards after you've bled off your forward momentum.

It does if you've got reverse thrust enabled.

Anyway, if you want to try Newtonian physics in FS, use this build (from BtRL patch), then open up ships.tbl, and change/add these lines to your favorite ship:

Code: [Select]

$Gilde: YES
+Max Glide Speed: -1

Then hit Alt-G (or whatever you bound Glide to) and try hitting anything.

[AllStarZ]

If you want to try Newtonian physics, you're probably going to want to up velocity on weapons.

[lostllama]

The deceleration key in FS is actually called 'reverse thrust' but it doesn't make you go backwards after you've bled off your forward momentum.

It does if you've got reverse thrust enabled.

Anyway, if you want to try Newtonian physics in FS, use this build (from BtRL patch), then open up ships.tbl, and change/add these lines to your favorite ship:

Code: [Select]

$Gilde: YES
+Max Glide Speed: -1

Then hit Alt-G (or whatever you bound Glide to) and try hitting anything.

Really? Thanks, I didn't know about that.

The only thing that sounds similar to what you're suggesting there is Joshua's RealFlight mod. Wasn't Topgun (or was it TopAce?) working on some Newtonian mod? Yeah, balancing weapon and ship speed is an issue.

I've always generally thought that a Newtonian flight model is more advantageous in that you could shut down forward thrust, pivot the ship on it's axis, and end up moving in a different direction to what you're facing (and then of course shoot back at pursuers tailing you, B5 style-ee  ). But I might be wrong - most FS ships (the light fighters anyway) seem able to turn quite rapidly to face in the opposite direction. The GTF Enceladus (sp?) in Inferno: Alliance is a bit like that as it's so maneuverable.

[Snail]

Wow, Snail, I think it makes more sense with the reverse propulsion, since it is (I think) the only way to slow fighter down. Otherwise you would get something like the spacecraft like the Columbia, orbiting at a speed of 22,500 km/h for infinte.

Wow, Nubbles, if you're trying to intercept incoming bomber wings at 9,000 meters away, you don't want to be slowed down by your reverse thrusters costing the lives of thousands when those bombs explode everyone on that medical frigate you were trying to escort.

[Jeff Vader]

It's. A. ****ing. Game.

None of the existing space games are realistic. A truly realistic space game would have you planning the desired flight for months, taking note of every goddamn physics law and condition so that you could even get off the damn planet. And even if you got to go as far as space, you'd be limited to circling around the Earth orbit. Either that, or hurling to the stars with no destination, so that your character would eventually die of lack of nourishment.

FreeSpace is an arcade space action shooter. And as for the reverse thrusters, or whatever the hell they are, those are just a more or less clever way of explaining why the ships behave like they do, which is slowing down after the afterburner is killed. Which happens in many games besides FreeSpace..

[karajorma]

I'm going to take a different tack on this one.

Newton's third law of motion says:
"A body that is already moving would continue moving, unless a force is acting on it."

It so doesn't say that. You're thinking of the second law.

[Darklord42]

lol i was just about to say that

"Any object in motion will stay in motion unless acted on by an equal but opposite force."  part of the second law   

[Unknown Target]

This again? Freespace is an arcade game, it was not ever supposed to be realistic at all. If you want realism, modify the code or go play IWar2.

[Mars]

IWar2 BTW is one of the most boring games ever developed (as far as I'm concerned anyway) I can't think of any other game that boring.

[jr2]

Well, technically, you should be able to accelerate to ridiculous speed, because your exhaust would be travelling at what?  About 60,000 mph?