安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文（繁体中文）
日本語（日语）
한국어（韩语）
ไทย（泰语）
български（保加利亚语）
Čeština（捷克语）
Dansk（丹麦语）
Deutsch（德语）
English（英语）
Español-España（西班牙语 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希腊语）
Français（法语）
Italiano（意大利语）
Bahasa Indonesia（印度尼西亚语）
Magyar（匈牙利语）
Nederlands（荷兰语）
Norsk（挪威语）
Polski（波兰语）
Português（葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙）
Português-Brasil（葡萄牙语 - 巴西）
Română（罗马尼亚语）
Русский（俄语）
Suomi（芬兰语）
Svenska（瑞典语）
Türkçe（土耳其语）
Tiếng Việt（越南语）
Українська（乌克兰语）
报告翻译问题
讨论规则及指引
举报此帖
Starfield however, keeps getting hammered for an area they chose not to, which is the George Lucas / Disney "Fighter Jet" caricature of orbital physics.
So you bought the Cutlass Black ($100USD) and the
Avenger ($60USD or more) and the one you say you like and are considering buying is the
Eclipse ($300USD)
All the pricing I use either comes directly from "Roberts Space industries" (SC's developer) website where they sell those ships for real world money or from the WIKI.
I hope you can see how with those prices and the comparison of a released game to a game that is not released and may well not ever be just smacks of you trying to be antagonistic.
While I do think that Starfield is priced too high, you trying to say that Scam Citizen has better ships and the implication is that we should all buy into that game is frankly hilarious at this point. You might have a point if SC gets released, but I still doubt it.
Excellent, fantastic and everything is all up in the air until it actually releases, SC and SQ42 included. Do you think that those ships not purchased with real world money are not going to be removed when SC (the multiplayer game) goes live, if it goes live.
I also bought an ultrawide, two 1600tm flight sticks, pedals, a bunch of other random stuff. It's my money bro lol. You can buy whatever you want, man. 4 wheelers cost more than any of this. an atv. a boat, etc. why do you care lol.
and that's it. you dont have to spend another dollar. you can get any other ship in the game with in-game currency. its an mmo so you will be grinding and doing quests or sometimes players will just give you money. or you can join their crew. i dont care what you do rofl
star citizen ships must enter orbit and fly in atmospheres which star citizien also has. do you ahve the game? it sounds like you dont have teh game.
anyway ships are designed to fly in air and stuff as well as space. they land on planets and fly around canyons and stuff. it functions like you would hope starfield would.
I do have the game although to be honest, it has been shelved for about 18 months
The problem is in the mechanic. The energy that must be shed in the descent from a stable orbit to a planetary surface is roughly equal to the energy that was expended in the ascent from a planetary surface to a stable orbit.
Star Citizen (At least when I played it) perpetuates the fiction that orbital descent is simply a matter of angling the nose of your space plane down slightly and "flying" it in, but that is completely backwards.
The minimum orbital velocity for an Earth sized planet is just under 8 kilometers a second, which is Mach 23+ or roughly 9 times faster than a rifle bullet. Shedding that velocity (energy) is an aft-first braking maneuver. If the ship is designed to either glide or fly in an atmosphere, it is turned around nose first only after a sufficient amount of the orbital velocity has been shed. Otherwise you would be ripped apart and incinerated, even if your ship was solid metal through and through.
Like I said, it is an example of the "Rule of cool" --The laws of physics have been suspended to make the game more fun and engaging.
I don't mean this a negatively as it might sound and I do like the game. I just don't think it's terribly fair that Starfield is being hammered for not including this mechanic.
yeah only those who love Scam Citizen and don't criticize it are "grown ups with stable jobs", right?