[deathspeed]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbiter_(simulator)

[karajorma]

On the other hand, Independence War (1 and 2) and the much older Warhead do a pretty good job of making more Newtonian physics fun.

So it is possible, it's just a very different kind of game.

[The E]

I'll have to remember that: if I ever see the game 'Orbiter' and think that it would be a good idea to try it, DON'T. hehe

Orbiter is fine. It's a more serious, more sim-oriented precursor to Kerbal Space Program, so if you like all the mission planning and execution stuff of KSP, Orbiter may give you some of the same thrills.

[Mongoose]

I think that the best mindset to go by in terms of FS physics is an adapted version of the MST3K mantra (which I won't link because TVTropes): "Repeat to yourself, it's just a game,  you should really just relax."

[Dragon]

Orbiter does more than the usual "Space Game", even with newtonian flight physics. It actually simulates orbital motion, which makes flying itself very complex (much like in KSP, really, except visual feedback for it is poorer). It's also about as much a scientific tool as it is a game. TBH, KSP as it stands is a good starting point for learning the basics before jumping into Orbiter, and there are mods that make it almost as realisitc, but more capable and intuitive, than Orbiter.

What I-War and Starshatter (great game, like a flightsim in space) do, and also I've Found Her and TGOS (both freeware Babylon 5-based space sims, the latter based on FSO engine) is much simpler. Motion is newtonian, but there's no gravity to speak of. Flying around in that and fighting is hard, but manageable. You don't have to worry about orbital mechanics, or crashing into a planet/being thrown out of the system, for that matter. Orbital combat would be very different from that, with tactical usage of orbital mechanics being vital (not to mention it would take place at great distances, because forcing a close orbital encounter to happen is hard enough when both parties want it to happen). In "inertial newtonian" flight model, all you have to do is avoid accelerating to what you can't (quickly) decelerate from, and be effective with your missiles (since guns are relegated to a secondary weapon role, like in RL dogfights).

[Rheyah]

Gravity is almost entirely irrelevant when considering faster than light travel.  When you have the ability to move from one frame of reference to another without traversing through normal space, you are already far beyond the understanding of Newtonian physics.

[Dragon]

Except we're not talking about FTL travel. FTL travel (at least the part when you're actually moving FTL) is showed in-game only once, in FS1. We're talking about flight physics.

Also, gravity is not irrelevant when considering FTL travel. Even in FS, it matters a lot. If a way to travel in FTL is ever discovered, gravity will almost certainly influence it.

[karajorma]

The problem is that if you're jumping from orbiting one planet to orbiting a different one you have changed your velocity by several thousand m/s. We're talking about being able to jump through space and somehow compensate for that. So it's pretty pointless to fixate on what is in comparison a relatively tiny issue like ships having different inertia from what they should.

[NGTM-1R]

Except we're not talking about FTL travel.

They are inseparable. Every time a ship jumps in the FTL travel matters, because the ship manages to do so in a frame of reference that matches the velocities and motions of every other ship on the field magically.

[Dragon]

Yes, but my comment referred to STL flight physics. I didn't bring FTL into this. On a theoretical basis, only KSP and Orbiter make sense, FTL or not. Inertial newtonian is less unrealistic than what FS does, but it's still not realistic. FTL in general, unless we're talking an exceptionally realistic work, is something "detached" from normal physics, like FS nodes are. Besides, as far as we've seen, inside a node physics are just the same as outside, so obviously the whole "FTL travel" aspect can be glossed over, with the huge velocity change done with some sort of magic.

[Rheyah]

No, really.

The moment you bring FTL into anything, you have already broken physics far past the point a Newtonian flight model can fix.  At that point you're trying to fix the car windscreen after you've blown up the engine and blown the wheels off.

FTL completely and utterly breaks any semblance of realistic physics.  If you can travel at FTL, relativity and even inertial frames of reference are completely and utterly meaningless.  In the kind of time frames even an intense Freespace fight takes place in, if everyone magically arrives in the same inertial frame of reference, the only meaningful acceleration is going to be of the entire frame of reference.

No game reproduces those velocities meaningfully despite Orbiter.  KSP is a joke, physics wise.

[NGTM-1R]

Dragon: You've completely missed the point being made by me and Karaj.

STL travel and FTL travel are inseparable in FreeSpace not because of intersystem nodes; it's because in FreeSpace you can jump from high orbit of one planet in the system to a low orbit of another, without restriction, effectively instantly. Nothing is required to remain the same; orientation, velocity, direction of motion. Trying to construct some kind of STL flight model for FS requires accommodating the fact that starting conditions are based on how the FTL flight works.

Even if it's "glossed over", the basic premise is still "your starting conditions are whatever you wanted them to be after a subspace jump" which is a pretty big deal.

[Dragon]

Actually, it would seem that FTL is subject to some form of restriction. For example, why not use it to speed through the system at 100km/s relative to everything else? Nobody ever uses the million of obvious exploits related to this, so it's obvious that there are restrictions that we aren't told about. FTL in FS is set up specifically not to interfere with STL combat, putting everyone in a given location on equal footing with regards to speed, going in the direction of their choosing (unless using a node, which causes you to arrive in a set direction). You can use it to change orbits, but apparently there are a few very specific orbits you can jump into. As such, FS actually does allow separation of FTL physics and "flight physics". Your starting conditions are not what you want them to be - they're severely restricted, otherwise there would be a number of exploits available that we don't see. As far as we've seen, you can only choose orientation you jump in with, with speed being determined by where you jumped in to.

No game reproduces those velocities meaningfully despite Orbiter.  KSP is a joke, physics wise.

KSP does orbital physics pretty well. Could've been better, but once you get out of atmosphere, it's not bad.

[BirdofPrey]

You guys are MASSIVELY over-thinking this.

Just remember the answer one of the Star Trek staff gave when asked how the Heisenburg Compensators work
"They work very well, thank you"

[qwadtep]

New discoveries do not break the old model of physics, they simply reveal an edge case for which the old model did not account. Subspace travel does not nullify the rules of normal space. Differences between the frame of reference at departure and emergence are a result of subspace's warped topology. That all ships in local space always share the same frame of reference is because those ships all need to conform to the same normal-space orbital mechanics and gravitational landscape.

Just because a plane can reverse direction by flipping in midair does not mean it doesn't have to turn left and right when taxiing on the runway.

[deathspeed]

You guys are MASSIVELY over-thinking this.

That's what we do here. 

[karajorma]

New discoveries do not break the old model of physics, they simply reveal an edge case for which the old model did not account. Subspace travel does not nullify the rules of normal space. Differences between the frame of reference at departure and emergence are a result of subspace's warped topology. That all ships in local space always share the same frame of reference is because those ships all need to conform to the same normal-space orbital mechanics and gravitational landscape.

Just because a plane can reverse direction by flipping in midair does not mean it doesn't have to turn left and right when taxiing on the runway.

I'm not saying doesn't have to. I'm saying that in terms of physics, if you have a plane that can turn into a cat, wondering how it turns left or right when the yoke doesn't seem to be connected to the wheels is a minor issue.

There's no real sensible explanation for why a ship jumping out of subspace has to be at orbital velocity for a certain body nearby. And what happens if a moon or something else happens to be in the same part of space, why don't you have to orbit that too? And why with suitably small objects (something like a Martian moon) don't we end up fighting while having to orbit at very fast speeds? What happens if you jump in somewhere and comet happens to be passing by?

Given that we have engines that can somehow overcome all those issues, you can easier to handwave away the other physics problems. Just say FS2 engines don't actually move the ship, they bend space around them. When they are destroyed or are turned off the ship doesn't continue moving because it never actually ever started moving, it was always at rest. Then you say that you need this kind of engine in order to enter subspace and ships which tried having both were either too expensive, or too heavy to be combat effective. Cause I'd imagine you'd need a pretty ****ing impressive engine to move a 2km Orion around.

[Rheyah]

New discoveries do not break the old model of physics, they simply reveal an edge case for which the old model did not account. Subspace travel does not nullify the rules of normal space. Differences between the frame of reference at departure and emergence are a result of subspace's warped topology. That all ships in local space always share the same frame of reference is because those ships all need to conform to the same normal-space orbital mechanics and gravitational landscape.

Just because a plane can reverse direction by flipping in midair does not mean it doesn't have to turn left and right when taxiing on the runway.

Yes, that's the argument I use.  You can use the word "subspace" to mean anything.

It doesn't mean it is correct.  I am discussing real physics ie solutions to Einsteins general relativistic topology.  Worse, we have broken physics plenty of times.  Newtonian mechanics are not correct in any real sense.  In fact, THEY are the edge case, not the other way around.  The bulk of matter in the universe exists in a variety of quantum mechanical states and only their statistically averaged motion, when applied to large groups of bodies (by no means the bulk of matter in the universe) can be described in Newtonian terms.

The same cannot be said of relativistic motion.

[qwadtep]

There's no real sensible explanation for why a ship jumping out of subspace has to be at orbital velocity for a certain body nearby. And what happens if a moon or something else happens to be in the same part of space, why don't you have to orbit that too? And why with suitably small objects (something like a Martian moon) don't we end up fighting while having to orbit at very fast speeds? What happens if you jump in somewhere and comet happens to be passing by?

Because normal space still follows the rules as we understand them. You can bypass the speed of light using subspace (in which you don't actually move faster than the speed of light, but instead use a different topology to shorten the distance), but you need to emerge at the appropriate velocity or you're still going to be in a deteriorating orbit.

You are fighting at very fast speeds, you just don't notice because (1) everything in the fight shares the same frame of reference, so you only see things moving at ±60m/s relative velocity, and (2) the game engine couldn't and still can't efficiently render animated backgrounds.

Given that we have engines that can somehow overcome all those issues, you can easier to handwave away the other physics problems. Just say FS2 engines don't actually move the ship, they bend space around them. When they are destroyed or are turned off the ship doesn't continue moving because it never actually ever started moving, it was always at rest. Then you say that you need this kind of engine in order to enter subspace and ships which tried having both were either too expensive, or too heavy to be combat effective. Cause I'd imagine you'd need a pretty ****ing impressive engine to move a 2km Orion around.

That begs the question why we don't have capship shields that simply curve space to deflect incoming fire. Ships are still using standard propulsion (though very advanced propulsion it must be), the lack of newtonian flight is just a gameplay consideration.

It doesn't mean it is correct.  I am discussing real physics ie solutions to Einsteins general relativistic topology.  Worse, we have broken physics plenty of times.  Newtonian mechanics are not correct in any real sense.  In fact, THEY are the edge case, not the other way around.  The bulk of matter in the universe exists in a variety of quantum mechanical states and only their statistically averaged motion, when applied to large groups of bodies (by no means the bulk of matter in the universe) can be described in Newtonian terms.

The same cannot be said of relativistic motion.

It is fortunate then that the game takes place at a macroscopic scale where newtonian physics should dominate, not quantum mechanics.
AFAIK we never see a Freespace engagement at significant relativistic speed (at least, unless somebody has created a mission in close proximity to a neutron star or black hole), so that's a non-issue as well.

[karajorma]

Because normal space still follows the rules as we understand them. You can bypass the speed of light using subspace (in which you don't actually move faster than the speed of light, but instead use a different topology to shorten the distance), but you need to emerge at the appropriate velocity or you're still going to be in a deteriorating orbit.

I can see why you'd want to do that. But why does it have to work like that? Why can't you emerge in a deteriorating orbit? There's no real sensible reason for it.

What you are basically saying is that somehow objects exiting supspace automatically adjusting their speed to the exact orbital speed for that particular position. Why would that happen?

That begs the question why we don't have capship shields that simply curve space to deflect incoming fire. Ships are still using standard propulsion (though very advanced propulsion it must be), the lack of newtonian flight is just a gameplay consideration.

I'm sure it was just a gameplay issue and didn't give it much thought. I'm replying to anyone who is still attempting to come up with an in-game explanation for it. As for shields, who says you can do that to something external to the ship? Or hell, maybe shields are warping space or dumping the energy into subspace using the same principals and the Shivans were the only ones who could make that work on a large scale.