Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
This topic has been locked 
A moderator of this forum has marked a post as the answer to the topic above.
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
^
This guy has a point!
If this were not true then we could just slap on more main thrusters to any rocket and theoretically go faster and faster except there is a point at which the added mass and fuel mass results in no new net thrust. We on Earth know that mainly what slows us down is friction through the atmosphere so we also think if you remove that you get infinite velocity but this is not true. You get infinite travel at velocity but you do not achieve infinite acceleration.
Each rocket has a limit of acceleration. A rocket can only propel an object up to a point at which point its max thrust results in no net change in velocity.
For chemical rockets:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation
Roughly the max velocity of any rocket is twice the value of its jet velocity.
ED's attitude thrusters appear to be chemical rockets. Not sure where they get their magic fuel from or why they have infinite fuel but they appear to be chemical rockets.
Keep in mind spaceships are also designed to handle vertical loads more than lateral loads. Even in space high lateral loads can rip a spacecraft apart. Just b/c there is no atmosphere does not mean there is no G loading, momentum, moments of inertia, torque, etc. All forces still apply in space.
what's Star Citizen like
well, there are other ways to control yaw than little thrusters all over the ship. actual space-ships (to include rockets and satellites and robot explorers) use a multitude of techniques. There are reaction-wheels, tiny thrusters at strategic focal points, as well as gimballed main engines, or vector-plate deflectors on the main engines. (actually modern jets probably fly more like space rockets than like the planes in ED, because of their vectored thrust).. In the case of These stunt fighters, my money is on a blend of gimballed engine and vector-plate (on the main engine) to result in basically any maneuvering a pilot might need in open space. tiny thrusters all over are useful when docking, because the ship can't move much relative to nearby objects, but if there's any room at all, a gimballed or vector-plated main engine would do the job much better,,, we're talking about a LOT MORE THRUST coming out of the main engine ,, assuming said engine is as big as the pictures show.
basically the reality is,,, the ships pictured in the game would be able to whip 180 as fast as you can think it. no question. In reality, they could whip 180 so hard the pilot would need to be a hardass just to survive it. We're talking about moving fast.
In ED there is always a balance to be had between gameplay and realism. Depending on the person, a feature in ED might be too real or not real enough.
I think FD made the right decision here regarding the flight model. It might not be realistic, but its fun (subjectively).
Imagine if ED had realistic flight. Can you imagine how many players would immediately have been turned off by it? In the original game and Frontier it had a more releastiic flight model... imagine how well a flight model like that would have been recieved.
As others have mentioed here, turrets in space doesn't really give you that Star Wars feeling of flying around like some sort of ace combat pilot.
For instance your car is great at going forward. The bearings are designed to roll forward. Your car sucks at going sideways against the stiction of the tires. You will destroy your bearings and your CV's and your tires if you drift your car with no modifications. Even with modifications you will still destroy bearings, axles, CV's and tires.
Why do you think the Space Shuttle Challenger broke apart in flight? It is NOT b/c it exploded. It did not explode at all. It disintegrated. When the attachments broke attaching the shuttle wings to the boosters and tank it left the shuttle to face head on air at enormous speeds. Well this is not controlled flight anymore. So the shuttle yawed quickly to the left at over Mach 3 which resulted in its immediate breakup. The shuttle could handle Mach 3 going forward but it cannot handle Mach 3 with the side of it fuselage facing the oncoming air stream. Instant breakup.
There are always forces being exerted on a craft. Most craft are designed to go forward and are engineered appropriately. They are not designed to handle tons of lateral stress. Everything matters from the location of the CG to the shape of the object as to what it can handle and what it cannot.
The shuttle broke apart due to the airstream but in space if it was going fast enough in the wrong direction it could still break apart. We think b/c space is a vacuum that anything goes. Wrong. Objects will eventually break apart due to forces whether they are in space or in atmospheres. Everything has its theoretical limit.
If anything Kerbal Space Program will teach you quickly that just b/c you are in space doesn't mean anything goes. Bad things can happen if you exert forces on your craft it was not engineered for or designed to handle.
Once you're in microgravity, a wing is just dead weight. It's not gonna rip off for no other reason than it's not bolted on. The reason for that one however, is centrifugal force. Thus the argument could be; "Why did you build a ship that pulls itself apart?"
In that case; literally any change in vector is pulling that wing off. I'm just saying.
This.
I can - to a certain extent - see what the OP means; there are times when I would like a bit more lateral authority on my DBX. A few times while scouting planets some of my touchdowns have been in deep canyons. I tend to use helicopter procedures when scouting ground because hey - it's what I know lol. However, in general terms the yaw is quite sufficient for what we're doing in the game. For non-combat flight yaw is generally for fine-tuning an approach and assistance in 'plank-wing' style turns which I prefer around stations. In combat yaw is fairly useless - roll and pitch are much more effective and tactically superior.
In truth, no-one can say with certainty what the yaw of any of these ships should be; these are physically impossible spacecraft with utterly unrealistic behaviours.
Therefore, Frontier has to choose a balance of forces that is sufficiently realistic to aid immersion and playability. It has to design an overall philosophy that works for everything from an Eagle to an Anaconda. Based on my own play time, I think they've found quite an effective balance.
In Kerbal Space Program build a three stage rocket and put a thruster on one stage that points perpendicular to the designed flight path. Now if you can get the unbalanced thing into space when in orbit light the perpendicular rockets. My bet is the forces will rip the rest of the rocket apart. The rocket can handle longitudinal forces along its length but it cannot handle lateral forces well at all. The velocity vector of a craft should pass from aft to front through the CG. Now what design could handle lateral forces? A Borg Cube. Since it has equal amounts of mass and structure along all axes it should be able to handle all forces. But it could not handle shearing forces nor could it handle aerodynamic forces. Aerodynamic resistance is based on surface area and since the cube has a ton it is not an optimal design for atmospheric flight. It would fly b/c even a brick will fly if you throw it fast enough but it won't be optimal and would requires tons of energy. An optimal spacecraft design for both atmosphere and space is the one that is closest to a sphere or a saucer. Those shapes can handle forces along all axes.
ED is airplanes in space. Based on that theory alone the yaw here is simulating yaw in aircraft. And since aircraft cannot handle massive yaw forces this is why ED yaw is the way it is. But the forces in ED are unrealistic for any design. Inertia alone would destroy every single craft. Dropping into local from relativistic speeds would vaporize your craft. I have calculated the acceleration in ED from stop to 1C and it pulls over 25 to 30 G's at any given time. Instant death. It also decelerates at -25 to -30G's with a max of over -100G's when dropping from SC to local.
NASA has stated they could accelerate to around 80% of lightspeed with a constant acceleration over time. B/c the acceleration is constant your body would be ok. Your body, and objects, are not ok with sudden decel or accel. But gradual works just fine.
So don't complain about ED being unrealistic in one aspect. It is in ALL aspects. Hence, it is a game.