[General Battuta]

IF you apply a sufficient force vector to a given body from the required directions, you can make that body travel in the direction you want with the magnitude you want. As I've said, I've not yet looked into the source code to see how the engine does it, but seeing as FS ships move in what appear to be perfect arcs, that movement IS explainable by actual mechanics.

When the vector comes from nowhere, we call that 'violation of conservation of energy'.

The only way to justify FS physics is through technobabble - or by realizing that they're just there for fun.

[Mongoose]

I played a demo of a Russian space sim I think was called Home Planet that had a full Newtonian physics implementation.  I found it to be absolutely terrible, as I spent most of the combat whizzing hundreds of kilometers in any direction past whatever I was targeting.  Even if I had managed to get used to the flight system, I couldn't see it being much fun at all, as I'd have to constantly be fiddling with my ship's vector, inertial mode, thrust direction, and the like.  All I want to do in space is point, aim, and shoot, and FreeSpace allows me to do so superbly (if not always skillfully).

I do like a few of Thaeris's ideas, though.  Being able to eject from an exploding fighter and get picked up by a support craft could be fun, since it would give your wingmen a small chance of completing the mission objectives on their own.  Launching and landing sequences would add a nice bit of immersion to the game.  And localized, variable-density nebulae would be incredibly cool even in FS2 as it stands now.

[General Battuta]

I do really like the variable-density nebula idea. I think Freelancer had those (well, by nature it must have.)

[Thaeris]

The vector obviously comes from the ship. The power for that vector obviously comes from technobabble, as does the Loki's "flying" straight with the engines mounted so far above the center of mass: the moment from that force vector should be pushing it downward. There's undoubtably a lot of unrealistic elements in the FS universe, but I'm making the point that the motion of the ships is to some degree explainable as is.

So, no. I'm not just wrong.

-Thaeris

[General Battuta]

The vector obviously comes from the ship. The power for that vector obviously comes from technobabble, as does the Loki's "flying" straight with the engines mounted so far above the center of mass: the moment from that force vector should be pushing it downward. There's undoubtably a lot of unrealistic elements in the FS universe, but I'm making the point that the motion of the ships is to some degree explainable as is.

So, no. I'm not just wrong.

-Thaeris

When it's explainable via magic, it's not explainable.

In order for the ship to make a smooth, atmospheric turn, thrusters on both sides of the ship would need to gimbal and throttle dynamically in order to create the illusion of a swooping bank - a maneuver that takes more time than the pure Newtonian equivalent would. Now, if your point is that you can mimic atmospheric motion using only Newtonian thrust on a gross level, then that may be true; but if your point is that this is what FS ships are doing, then it makes no sense and it is just wrong.

[Thaeris]

I'm referring to concepts. Where's your imagination?

-Thaeris

[General Battuta]

My imagination is doing fine, thanks, as my fiction output should well evidence.

But reviewing your posts I can see that you backed off earlier from this claim

As far as Newtonian physics go... I would have added this in the last post had I remembered... you might even call FS a sim which relies on Newtonain physics. It's simply the matter that enough of a tangental force is applied to whatever direction the given ship is turning in that it moves in those perfect arcs. Of course, that's just from observations of the game. I'm not sure how the actual code does it because I've not yet needed to look. Still, that factor holds true.

and that the argument was in no small part based on talking past each other, so let's move on.

[Droid803]

I'm referring to concepts. Where's your imagination?

-Thaeris

It's a bad concept even...

You could mimic atmospheric flight in a vacuum, but how you'd do it is basically magic. Not to mention it'd be pointless, inefficient, and uneffective.

The reason it's there is gameplay mechanics - it's what makes it fun. Not anything else.

[General Battuta]

He's just pointing out that it's possible. Which is, I believe, true.

Trying to explain it by the use of 'subspace drag' or whatever is probably not a good idea, though.

[Droid803]

Yeah, it's possible, but that's simply trying to explain gameplay mechanics by using...weird logic.
Which is strange.

[Thaeris]

The reason for why you'd want a fighter to handle like that is strange. That is irrefutable.

The logic simply stating that due to a set of hypothetical conditions, the fighter can maneuver like that is not, as you put it, weird logic. It's a mere statement.

To conclude, the whole point with the physics discussion was to point out, as Battuta has said, that spacecraft could handle like that... and be accounted for with realistic physics. Simultaneously, the process needed to maintain such flight is very unreasonable. Unless, of course, you throw in some techno mumbo-jumbo as previously stated as well. I think I added that in the first time I brought up Newtonian physics. In fact, the original point (now very much secondary) was to somehow prove realistic physics in FS wouldn't be so far-fetched.

In that sense, I'd point out that my "hypothetical FS3" would not handle the same as FS2. It would be fun and easy to handle, ideally, but use realistic or "more realistic" flight dynamics. Perhaps you might consider it a graduation from the flight model BtRL used if no other example will suffice.

-Thaeris

[Droid803]

Well, after the flight behavior you'd have to deal with the subluminal lasers and no additive velocity before you can get realistic physics in FS not being far fetched...

Sure, I guess FS3 could make it more realistic, but going full Newtonian would probably drive away more people than it would bring in.

[Thaeris]

Probably true.

As far as "lasers" are concerned, I usually go with "bolts of plasma" or that jazz. And then no one wants to talk about finite ammo for the Maxim, Avenger, Flail, etc.

The point would be to make the game have more of a believable feel to it. I like that sort of thing. However, taking into account recoil, center-of-mass shift due to expending ordnance, etc., would take away a lot of the fun. Not to mention... as has already been mentioned... the unrealistic ship designs often encountered.

The new physics would take into account a fixed CM (which FS already does) and not worry about a great deal of the little things. Any more on the specifics of this point and I might as well start logging algorithms...

[General Battuta]

The existing flight model is, I think, part of what defines FreeSpace's fun and accessibility.

The 'bolts of plasma' explanation is equal BS since any plasma weapon should have a very supersonic muzzle velocity, unfortunately.

[Droid803]

It's basically the rule of cool going on here...but it's more like the rule of fun.
Whatever is fun goes.

Realism is great but fun comes first.

And it turns out we're all in agreement about that pretty much.

[stuart133]

The thing is that there are (a lot?) already games out there using more realistic features that Freespace (drift, full Newtonian, limited ammo) and Freespace has that angle that that is not necessary, but that a pick up and play approach is much more fun.