[quote author=Thaeris link=topic=70473.msg1393569#msg1393569
Someone did note that the game was supposed to use Newtonian physics and do all manner of neat things, but all gameplay I've seen did not seem to demonstrate realism to me. Because those of you who do play the game seem to be quite attached to it, I would like to hear what does it for you. In that sense, I can thus drop my prior assesments of the program and hopefully replace those with better or good ones.
Can you be more specific? What exactly doesn't seam realistic to you?
What I can tell you is that the game does use nextonian physics. Ships have mass and thrust. Taking out the engines of a charging hiver cruiser will leave it drifting helplessly until it crashes into your planet (assuming it was heading for it), since de-accelerating with manouvering thrusters alone takes time...it's no uncommon for ships with destroyed engines to drift far away from the battle, assuming they were going fast when the lost the engines.
Kinetic weapons can push ships around (useful to bring ships with forward fixed weaponry out of aligment with their targets), rounds can deflect depending on the armor rating and angle of the impact/hull. Some heavy kinetic weapons, like impactors, even push your ships backwards when fired.
Individual polygons on the ship can be targeted, individual turrets can be stripped. All turrets are multi-part and tracking (except for fixed weapons), even point-defense turrets.
Space stations and defense satellites aren't really that effective, offense is the best defense.
Etc, etc, etc... I could write books about the little things that make this game great, but that would be just silly.
I recommend reading a few TAR's to get a better glimpse into the gameplay.