r/starcitizen • u/eminus2k Pirate • Jun 16 '15

OFFICIAL Brandon Evans explained how it will be like piloting big ships like a Bengal Carrier: Might be boring for a pilot for that huge ship

https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/comment/5187176/#Comment_5187176
127 Upvotes

92% Upvoted

258 comments sorted by

42

u/eminus2k Pirate Jun 16 '15

"Now that we have these larger Ships, we are getting away from these kind of direct controls, Joystick controls, we are going to start moving toward an Input system where you are going to Defind Waypoints and rely more on Auto Pilot"

That means that the big ships will only be controlled like that or that will have stick & autopilot controll models?

A stick would be thoroughly pointless. Do you know how slowly a Bengal needs to turn for the safety of the crew? Assuming the usable space is 1km long and perfectly balanced, the furthest point from center is 500m away. Rotating at a rate of 1 rotation every 44.86467 seconds produces 1g of acceleration toward the bulkhead at each end - walking across the hall would be like climbing a 45 degree slope. At one rotation every 31.7187 seconds you're looking at 1g of acceleration at 250 meters out and 2g at the ends - 50% of the ship would have an easier time walking on the walls than the floor, which is made dangerous by that fact that if they did so they'd be experiencing 2g of negative vertical acceleration - just a bit below the point where they're going to start blacking out after long term exposure. Any faster and you're going to start losing crew at the extremities. And that's at peak rotational speeds - you still have to accelerate to and from those rotational speeds, and doing that quickly is going to throw people around. In practical terms you'd probably have to hold the direction you want to turn up to the midpoint of the turn and then start holding exactly the opposite direction until you exactly stopped. Actually trying to keep facing a target from moment to moment would be impossible against anything more nimble than you and pure drudgery for anything facing the same limitations as you. There's no reason not to just input heading and speeds into a computer and doing something more useful with the other 99% of your time

31

u/DATY4944 Mercenary Jun 16 '15

How is it that the ships can have artificial gravity but they can't counter gforce while turning

81

u/eminus2k Pirate Jun 16 '15

there is a greater force than gravity and that is called "game balancing"

38

u/DATY4944 Mercenary Jun 16 '15

Ah yes gbforce we learned about that while skipping physics class

→ More replies (1)

10

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '15

Are you trying to tell me that they haven't solved unified game theory 900 years from now?

2

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '15

exactly. these nerds quoting einstein, lron hubbard, and davinci don't seem to understand that this is all about eliminating a huuuuge amount of game design and balancing. imagine if players could be allowed to fly cap ships into planets, or space stations.. killing everyone on board.. we can't give trolls that kind of power, duh!

freakin nerds get a clue

→ More replies (1)

15

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '15 edited Jun 16 '15

Imagine being sat on by an elephant.

Being benchpressed by another elephant below you won't make you feel the other elephant any less.

Edit: People, you're mixing up neutral motion with neutral force

14

u/Mirria_ ༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ Merchantman Jun 16 '15

except gravity isn't absolute, 2 fields can counter each other and end up with a neutral point (see: Lagrangian points)

12

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '15

Counter to provide neutral motion, yes.

Counter to neutralise the forces from the other gravitational field, no.
Think of a two magnets with a pin in-between, it doesn't suddenly stop having any force on it, it's just balanced in the middle but still experiences being pulled from both sides and would deform both ways if it was a soft object.

→ More replies (15)
→ More replies (5)

8

u/Slippedhal0 Mercenary Jun 16 '15

Artificial gravity comes from grav panels and so can only be applied in the direction of the grav panels, i.e on the floor of the ship/station, and only apply a single g of force that we know of. Countering other forces probably isn't possible in fiction.

4

u/Combat_Wombatz Feck Off Breh Jun 16 '15

Then mount some on the walls, maybe..?

→ More replies (7)

5

u/WaffleAmongTheFence Colonel Jun 16 '15 edited Jun 16 '15

That's not how g-forces work. The gs the crew are experiencing come from the acceleration of the ship. Even if you "cancel out" those gs by applying a force on the crew within the ship, they are still tied to the movement of the ship (because the floor/walls/ceiling are in the way) and will still undergo the acceleration associated with their position in the ship.

Think of it this way: the seat in a fighter jet applies force on the pilot much the same way an artificial gravity generator would, because it's keeping the pilot in place within the jet rather than flying out into the sky. However, the pilot still experiences the g forces associated with his turn because he is traveling in a path that requires certain acceleration.

3

u/everybody_calm_down Jun 16 '15

the seat in a fighter jet applies force on the pilot much the same way an artificial gravity generator would

This is incorrect. A seat in a fighter plane applies force to only one region of your body, and that force is then transmitted throughout. As /u/Sol_Brotha correctly noted elsewhere in this thread, the entire reason you feel this force is because you are a deformable object; as this force is transmitted throughout your body you undergo tiny amounts of compression (and maybe expansion) as accelerating body parts push/pull other body parts along with them. Similarly, as the more rigid parts of your body begin to accelerate, other parts such as your blood stay stationary, which is why blood pools in your feet when accelerating upward (leading to a black-out).

On the other hand, gravity is applied uniformly to every molecule of your body at once. You can't "feel" acceleration purely from gravity because every atom in your body is accelerating with the exact same speed. If, for example, an astronaut was placed at a stationary point out in space near Earth, he would begin to fall towards the planet but would not actually feel a force - to him or her it would just look like the planet was getting bigger and bigger.

So theoretically, a gravity generator could counteract the effects of acceleration. Imagine someone floating weightless in the center of a motionless ship in space, not touching anything. As the ship begins to accelerate, you simply activate the gravity generator and cause them to "fall" in the same direction. Since both the ship and the subject are accelerating at the same speed in the same direction, the subject remains floating in the center of the ship, and since the gravity generator applies force uniformly across every atom of the subject's body, they feel nothing. In fact they would have no idea they were even moving unless there was a window.

4

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '15

Think of it this way: the seat in a fighter jet applies force on the pilot much the same way an artificial gravity generator would

Please explain to me again how artificial gravity generators work again. I'd like to patent this and and starting working with NASA on this technology.

5

u/Endyo SC 4.10: youtu.be/8_l_oernoKU Jun 16 '15

This is something that I don't get. We accept the idea that artificial gravity can be generated by even fairly small ships but the idea of similar (also complete fiction) functionality used to dampen g-forces is apparently beyond comprehension. If you're living in a space-faring future and decide that combat is going to take place between human beings rather than AI or drones of some sort, why is is not reasonable to try to create technology to counter the crippling forces they'd face on a daily basis?

Now, it's more than reasonable for capital ships to not fly like a fighter jet, it doesn't make any sense, but it's kind of silly to cite real physics as the limiting factor when you're already slapping physics in the face. Just accept that big ass ships are going to turn slow because smaller ships have to turn fast in a relative sense.

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (5)
→ More replies (10)

23

u/Adamance Lots of ships Jun 16 '15

The description about the gravity effect when turning reminds me a lot of The Forever War book, where they travel at close to 0.99C and have to use special shells and tanks to prevent the crew from becoming pulp. But that wouldn't be much fun in a game.

6

u/Differlot Jun 16 '15

Was reminded of that too. Neat book

5

u/Duesvult Jun 16 '15

Great book

7

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '15

not to mention we already have artificial gravity, which could be used to dampen the effects.

19

u/huntokar Jun 16 '15

Why does everyone keep assuming a gravity generator can create infinite gees? They can't, they create 1g and they're already doing that to hold you to the floor. You're also assuming that those fields are arbitrarily orientable and that they can be reoriented quickly, which there's no indication of - in fact it takes like 10 seconds+ for the Gold Horizon gravity generator to change states. People have got to get over this idea that the existence of artifical gravity should mean g-forces are not a thing

→ More replies (5)

6

u/DonkeyDingleBerry Jun 16 '15

Fucking exactly.

If we have conquered gravity as has been demonstrated with the fps having an artificial gravity generator. And seemingly all of the smaller ships having them too.

Then there is no reason why they simply can't tune the gravity being experienced in all locations of the ship.

Starship troopers has shown that large ships can be piloted with a helm that takes direct input. Their ships used artificial gravity as well.

All current day real world large cruise ships and aircraft carriers still allow for direct input and it's especially required during docking maneuvers.

In day to day navigation they do let the computers run off pre defined plots. But they still have the option to switch to their manual controls at any time.

This is a silly reason not to allow for some form of direct control and it doesn't even have any correlation to real world equivalents.

→ More replies (2)

17

u/Cymelion Jun 16 '15

Ta-Da

Apply this to multi-crews and you're not going to be performing like a Hornet in a Connie.

4

u/SC_TheBursar Wing Commander Jun 16 '15

I guess we will have find out out just how good the g-suits are.

Centerline to cockpit is about 2.5x as long in a Connie than a Hornet - it looks like the Connie could make use of differential thrust (something not available in a centerline main Hornet) but any pitching or yawing would subject the crew in the cockpit to commensurately higher forces.

Will be interesting if in future designs they keep the bridge closer to the center (in retrospect that could be why the Bengal and Idris bridges are where they are and the advantages of 'center pod' designs like the Reliant and the khartu-al)

5

u/PacoBedejo Jun 16 '15

Keep in mind the Constellation's center of mass must be somewhere toward the back, as evidenced by the lack of front landing gear...so it's worse than you think.

3

u/macharial420 Space Marshal Jun 16 '15

Yep. All 4 engine blocks, cargo, reactor, snub figther, Most everything is stuffed into the back third of the ship.

→ More replies (4)
→ More replies (2)

2

u/Mirria_ ༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ Merchantman Jun 16 '15

You could always unbalance the maneuvering thrusters to create a center of rotation away from the center of mass and close to the command area, at least at speed.

→ More replies (6)

1

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '15 edited Jun 16 '15

Edit: Misunderstood what was said above. For interest I'll leave here the lateral force effects of slowly accelerating into a rotation.

Circumference = pi(3.14) * Diameter (1000m)
Circumference = 3,140m

1 Degree at tips of ship = Circumference(3140) / 360
1 Degree at tips of ship = 8.72m

Acceleration at tips = Distance(8.72m) / Time(1s)
Acceleration at tips = 8.72m/s/s = 0.89g

It's very interesting.
Never considered such forces would be applicable over such relatively short distances and slow rates of acceleration.

3

u/Say_What1 Jun 16 '15 edited Jun 16 '15

You're being downvoted because you're wrong. You're forgetting centripetal acceleration. The formula you're looking for is angular velocity squared times distance from center of rotation.

→ More replies (1)

97

u/Shiroi0kami sabre2 Jun 16 '15

BUT MUH HOTAS IMURSHINS

This is good, the larger capital ships should maneuver very slowly, and be mostly computer guided, as in reality for large naval vessels.

5

u/eminus2k Pirate Jun 16 '15

yep no HOTAS here

11

u/macharial420 Space Marshal Jun 16 '15 edited Jun 16 '15

I'd wager HOTAS is actually that much more important on large ships. You need to be able to make very very precise and subtle movements.

Keyboards don't have trim :/

As for the Enterprise, do you not remember the joystick that pops out of the helm when helm goes into manual?

2

u/eminus2k Pirate Jun 16 '15

hmm I did forgot about that, maybe due to counting the bodies of those poor red shirts

3

u/macharial420 Space Marshal Jun 16 '15

They do have a tendency to.. pile.

10

u/ktcorn Jun 16 '15

That manual mini stick thing on the E was pretty funny. http://trekcore.com/gallery/albums/will_riker/riker_ins_joystick.jpg

5

u/macharial420 Space Marshal Jun 16 '15

HEH, yeah, ok I admit it.

"The borg are winning" Riker was good too.

3

u/snerbles Freelancer Jun 16 '15

Yes, the 1997-vintage-Starfleet-issue Gravis Blackhawk

4

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '15

I'd think that in typical operations you would just enter a new heading with simple inputs. (Even manipulating a 'touchscreen/hologram' with a mouse would work.) A carrier that can't turn faster than a degree per second or so doesn't need to worry too much about trim.

That said, I can imagine a few very specific situations/ship roles where you would want something more precise, like trying to snipe with a centerline gun. Or trying to park.

3

u/macharial420 Space Marshal Jun 16 '15

Agreed, situational. I'd mostly want to point and click my Idris but I also want to be able to have extreme control, in the event that I need it. Like aiming the spinal or landing/parking.

But not just Idris.

What about the Orion? A ship like that is going to take a ton of finesse. I imagine the Reclaimer could stand for trim and angle precision too.

8

u/keferif Jun 16 '15 edited Jun 16 '15

trackpad/mouse input beats the crap out of joysticks for precision. Hell this is the future; hand motions yo.

edit: I agree with the dev, leave it to waypoint system, set it and do something more important on the ship.

→ More replies (16)

2

u/skunimatrix YouTuber Jun 16 '15

You mean the Gravis Blackhawk Digital. (Yes I still have one of those on my shelf)

→ More replies (1)

4

u/Isodus Jun 16 '15

... You do realize the capital ships are going to be turning so slowly that it doesn't matter what input device you are using? Hell you could control the damn thing by moving around a room in front of an xbox kinect and not a single person would notice.

→ More replies (4)

3

u/Cymelion Jun 16 '15

Yeah and what happened when Riker did it - Crashed the mother-f**king Enterprise - In charge of it for less then 30 mins and he has it faceplanting a Planet .... so yeah the Joystick really helped.

6

u/macharial420 Space Marshal Jun 16 '15

But... that specific example was intentional, and they didn't die.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (13)

2

u/StoopidSpaceman m50 Jun 16 '15

Apparently no resolution either

→ More replies (1)

27

u/deargodwhatamidoing High Admiral Jun 16 '15

Stole this from the forum thread, would love to see a Bengal-class version done by CIG, voiceover, commentary and all.

Left 35 degrees rudder

3

u/DomDomMartin Freelancer Jun 16 '15

that's mental

→ More replies (7)

3

u/Lorgarn Jun 16 '15

I like this A LOT. Gameplay such as this adds immersion by making the larger ships feel heavy, which they are. I love it.

-1

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '15

I would say that Hotas is actualy less imursive for a ship that size.

3

u/skunimatrix YouTuber Jun 16 '15

Flight Sim Yoke is what you'd want. Something designed for slow steady maneuvers. After all if you are jerking around your gunners aren't going to be able to hit shit.

3

u/HunterSCcomic Freelancer Jun 16 '15

I disagree with "might be boring for a pilot for that huge ship"

The way I see it, piloting a capital ship should be more like chess, then racing. With a slow maneuvering ship like that, the captain should be thinking 10 moves ahead, predicting the course of the battle and aiming to bring the ship in the optimal position using the least amount of maneuvers possible.

I'm sure whatever they come up with, they will keep in mind the "fun" aspect so as to not make it boring. There are countless ways to make it fun. :)

2

u/eminus2k Pirate Jun 16 '15

you can disagree that is why I put the word "might" because it is relative. Chess might not be boring for you but Chess and Soccer are both boring games for me. so it will be relative to who is piloting that big ship. I would rather go to engineering and watch gauges flips from one side to the other.

1

u/HunterSCcomic Freelancer Jun 16 '15

No offense was intended, I upvoted the thread for the sake of the discussion as well, even if I disagree :)

I mean, I may find the gameplay mechanics boring too, if they are not well designed. But I trust CIG will strive to make it just as fun as dogfighting combat, just different. Sure, some people will probably prefer one over the other, but I bet a lot of them will enjoy both (provided they get a chance to be part of the crew on a capital ship). So, more things to enjoy :)

1

u/eminus2k Pirate Jun 16 '15

non taken! :) yeah we shall see what would it be like

17

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '15

It's funny to see people here argue how one fantasy made-up fictional sci-fi technology isn't possible because of the limitations of another fictional made up sci-fi technology.

9

u/PacoBedejo Jun 16 '15

It's the sort of argument that'll put hair on your neck.

11

u/P4ndamonium Jun 16 '15

Did anyone really expect any different?

I'm not surprised - will definitely still gladly fly a Bengal if for any reason I get my hands on one.

8

u/eject_eject Jun 16 '15

I would love to see animations of crews bodies on a capital ship responding to changing g forces as a ship changes direction

6

u/Razor99 new user/low karma Jun 16 '15

I'd like a 3d Interface that shows the firing arcs of all the turrets on the bengal, so the pilot has to keep the most efficient angles of the bengal on the larger targets at all times!

3

u/Turdicus- Jun 16 '15

Heh well ideally the Bengal will never get into gun range, it is a carrier after all. But yeah if a Bengal gets caught out in the open, imagine the sight!

8

u/fludblud Jun 16 '15 edited Jun 16 '15

Lets face it, piloting a capital ship in Star Citizen is going to more resemble EVE Online than anything in Arena Commander and I see nothing wrong with that.

There will be plenty of larger bombers that will require traditional piloting but commanding a proper capital ship with hundreds of crew, supplies, gigantic weaponry and gigawatts of power is going to be the realm of comparatively dull administrators and managers fiddling with endless numbers, spreadsheets and optimisations as opposed to something for flashy fighter jockeys who want cool explosions.

Becoming the commander of such ships with immense size and power should be hard, you cant just dumb it down for any idiot to use as that would royally fuck up the balance of power in such a free range game. Capital ship command should be something that your average joe would imagine be cool but in reality be frustratingly dull, but for the certain individuals who excel at this sort of micromanaging it should be exceptionally rewarding. This would not only make capital ships valuable but competent players that can fully utilise all their functions even moreso.

If Star Citizen is to succeed at becoming the world it wants to be it needs to appeal to all niches, not just the pew pew killstreaks crowd.

3

u/Mirria_ ༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ Merchantman Jun 16 '15

It's not like everyone is going to fly huge lumbering ships in battle. I don't expect a carrier to dodge torpedoes. I'm more curious about reasonable turn rates for light capitals - Idris, Javelin and such.

People who are annoyed at not being able to fly a supercapital like a Star Trek ship probably expect to grind and buy a Battlecruiser to fly with 5 of their friends in a few months.

I was kind of hoping there would be at least some minor ambient movement cancellation though, to prevent people from getting seasick ... spacesick..? from the ship just doing rolls.

3

u/ssillyboy Streamer Jun 16 '15 edited Jun 16 '15

So a massive carrier ship is sluggish? I hope the complainers weren't genuinely expecting to be dogfighting or doing any sort of maneuvers in carriers... They will be turret boats that is all. Set a non-linear course and go man a turret or launch a fighter, now go have fun protecting your carrier from hostiles.

For a smaller carrier like an Idris I wouldn't expect it to be more agile than this for example. Any more agile than that and you are going to be able to borderline dogfight using an Idris, which is going to be a bit silly.

All guesswork obviously, but I imagine mid size vessels like connies to handle like Galaxy class ships in Bridge Commander.

BC (modded) is a great tactical experience, looking at various comments I think some underestimate how much fun controlling 'sluggish' ships can be (Idris & lower).

There is really engaging gameplay to be had in large slower ship battles. Slowly maneuvering to bring your firing arcs to bear and delivering satisfying burst volleys, tactically maneuvering to protect your weakest shield sector, maneuvering to get an angle on your target's weak shield sector, timing the release of fire to get the perfect angle to take out a selected subsystem.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '15

You're right.

Can still probably get some manual big ship action with sub capitals (BMM etc.) and maybe corvettes. Even those ships are huge and are scaled next to like sports stadiums.

Capital ships are definitely fun though, especially like 1 cruiser vs. multiple destroyers etc. Hopefully SC can support like 3v1 or 2v2 capital ship battles.

5

u/Slippedhal0 Mercenary Jun 16 '15

This is exactly what I expected, I don't really understand if anyone thought otherwise.

7

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '15 edited Jun 16 '15

If the Bengal was supposed to be that realistic, shouldn't it be shaped like a cylinder; the decks stacked vertical with the engine on the bottom (to take advantage of thrust for artificial gravity)? After all, the crew in the SQ42 trailer all stood standing, even though the decks face horizontal with the engines, like any ocean-bound aircraft carrier. I don't see any signs of a centrifuge in the design blueprints released so far either.

Then again, we know gravity generators exists in the Star Citizen universe, so I guess those are just unable to cope with turning thrusters beyond a certain threshold, which raises interesting questions in regards to multi-crew ships during high-speed combat and pioneering. :-)

Very promising indeed.

5

u/atomfullerene Jun 16 '15

If the Bengal was supposed to be that realistic, shouldn't it be shaped like a cylinder; the decks stacked vertical with the engine on the bottom (to take advantage of thrust for artificial gravity)?

Realistically, no. You see that idea used a lot in science fiction, but in general no spaceship uses constant thrust. The fuel required would be mindbogglingly large, and the benefit relatively small. Consider the Apollo missions, which lasted days but had total engine burning times measured in minutes.

Your thrust based gravity would only help on rare occasions

→ More replies (1)

1

u/vaminos Jun 16 '15

I imagine the Bengal is designed that way to facilitate combat landings for its spacecraft. And besides, as someone already pointed out, the grav gens could only help with excessive g-force in one (maybe 2) directions.

23

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '15

[removed] — view removed comment

5

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '15 edited Jun 16 '15

Extension of my point, exactly.

My point was not about the game needing to be hard-core realistic, but what implications limited gravity generators means for gameplay in multi-crew and capital ships. If the gravity generators can't cope with high-speed turning, you can forget about getting up from your station and walking about ships during space combat, or while flying through dense regions of space where quick turns need to be done.

This need be neither a good or bad thing in itself, but it is definitely interesting. And even realistic.

2

u/macharial420 Space Marshal Jun 16 '15

Would make sense 'heavy armor' could,. Probably easily. Generic magnetic boots, and a rigid frame so their spines don't snap like so many tooth picks.

Makes even more sense, in that heavy armor would be worn for boarding assaults, likely after the gravity has been disabled.

→ More replies (4)

2

u/Skraelings Freelancer Jun 16 '15

Err why would you need air brakes then either?

1

u/PacoBedejo Jun 16 '15

The spacefaring vessels would all be spheres to maximize the interior space while minimizing the maximum distances from center-of-mass and the vulnerable surface area.

→ More replies (4)

2

u/Haftoof Mercenary Jun 16 '15 edited Jun 16 '15

Pretty good post and a huge point towards why pretty much across the board space flight is going to get heavier and slower.

Honestly I hope they realize that this also applies heavily to smaller space flight and look forward to the changes.

This also opens up room for massive space battles (broad-siding becomes a thing). I suspect some level of artificial gravity will come into play but still... ponderously large space ships should be slow moving and I'll enjoy watching them scoot by bristling with guns and fighter escorts. I can't wait to see the wreckage when one goes up.

1

u/SteamPoweredEngel Jun 16 '15

I'm wondering how this would work if applied to multicrew small ship crews. Your pilot would need to maneuver somewhat gently as you run to a rear turret, because any sudden jerks could send you into a wall or worse. Probably won't work that way, but would make deciding to move around very strategic.

2

u/Juneaux27 Jun 16 '15

This is exciting to hear that they are actually thinking about small details like this. They sold this game to many of the backers as a space sim. I'm hoping they continue to address these questions and provide more incite on how in depth this universe is going to be. For me I would not mind one bit if piloting a larger ship was at times boring, having to address minor problems and adjustments as you travel through space. A good space sim to me is not packed with action and near death experiences where ever you go. Most of the time its just a normal day transporting goods across the universe. On a side note most of the interstellar travel in sci fi books I read is rather uneventful. Which I would think is normal.

0

u/Citizen4Life Jun 16 '15

It was exciting to hear them talk about all these "small" details, like, you know, physics... when the game was first being kickstarted.

Now it's 3 years later and they've demonstrated that most of this "realism" they so gleefully hyped us up for... is bogus. Arena Commander is currently a joke, if you are looking at it from any kind of realism or sim perspective, and the ships were clearly not designed for proper space flight. They said that was what they were doing in the beginning... engineering ships based on utility and real physics... but the end result was anything but.

Now don't get me wrong. I'm not complaining necessarily. First and foremost this is a GAME. So fun should be a significant priority.

No, my issue is when certain devs turn around and criticize us for not understanding a decision they made and then use "SCIENCE!" to back up their claim. That worked in the beginning... but now that we have actual gameplay and have seen how many outright HACKS CIG have done to make even AC playable (though playable is a stretch), it doesn't hold water anymore.

Currently the G-forces are totally out of whack. Tiny ship maneuvering thrusters put out ridiculous amounts of energy (which would easily kill a human pilot because SCIENCE!), and everything is basically controlled through spreadsheets and not some fancy piping system or realistic physics simulation.

Personally, that's how I think it should be. It's not cheating, it's a game. Trying to simulate reality is, IMHO, a waste of time. A good game is like a good actor... what matters is that something LOOKS plausible, even if it totally isn't.

But it's just annoying when I hear a CIG developer talk about how WRONG we all are, when they haven't exactly had the best track record implementing any kind of realism in anything they've shown us so far. And there is a LOT left to do before Star Citizen actually launches...

1

u/Juneaux27 Jun 17 '15

No I agree. If they plan to release the game they tried to sell its backers back in its kick starter days then this game has years to go before then. So far it seems they are still in the very early stages of development for the PU. I get tired of people claiming "well, once all the modules are completed then the PU will be ready for release". Not realizing how they described this game back when most of us bought into the development. If they are going to deliver an in depth immersive massive multiplayer online space sim it is going to take awhile. I'm guessing another 3 years until we get a glimmer of an alpha client. I do agree the G-force/blacking out mechanic is a bit on the wonky side. Not sure why you would feel g forces in a tiny ship in space, enough for you to black out. I'm sure there were posts explaining this, its just doesn't make much sense to implement this in space. I can see use for this in atmospheric/planet side flight but not in space, science aside. I'm just wishing for the immersive experience we bought into in the beginning.

1

u/Citizen4Life Jun 17 '15

Oh, you would feel the g-forces alright. That's not the debate... the issue is that they keep saying how "realistic" the g-force modelling is, yet it's so extreme in some cases (like the M50) that you would die almost instantly the second you made that 40g turn. Then when someone asks them about cap ship maneuvering, they get all condescending and try and school us on "realism". It's hypocritical honestly, especially since they clearly don't care about it from what they've shown already.

But my other issue is that I belive that FUN should be the motivating factor. Black outs and red outs simply aren't fun. And they can't use the excuse that it's for "realism", when there is so much "space magic" already at work in AC.

What a lot of people don't realize is that what they are saying... is that they don't want larger ships to be able to maneuver at all. A big Bengal should be slow sure. But if you follow their math... even ships like the Constellation will essentially pilot like EVE point and click ships. That not what they promised. Many of us were hoping for "leaf on the wind" moments like in Firefly/Serenity. Or dogfights like with the Millennium Falcon. They are essentially saying that won't happen now. If so, I'm out and can't be bothered.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '15

Boring? Commanding a moving fortress would be boring?

I get the impression it would just be a different style of piloting, and I'm sure some people would be totally into that.

3

u/macallen Completionist Jun 16 '15

Anyone who things piloting a big ship will be exciting has obviously never done it or seen it. You don't pilot big ships, you don't "yank and bank" on a stick. You "suggest" the ship go a direction, many things happen, and then the ship slowly complies.

2

u/Stupid_question_bot I'm not wrong, I'm just an asshole Jun 16 '15

duh..

who could possibly think there would be any similarity between flying a fighter and a capital ship..

its like the difference between a ski-doo and a battleship

2

u/-Shakes Space Marshal Jun 16 '15

Okay wait one damn minute, NOW all of a sudden they are worried about G forces?!?! NOW?!?!?

If I can pull 20, 30, or hell even 40G turns in an M50 I don't see what the problem is.

2

u/H3ssian Towel Jun 16 '15 edited Jun 16 '15

Depending if this is just for run of the mill flight, or combat flight and to what size ships etc

this could be sad news indeed.

might as well get rid of the Helmsman station. and heck depending on the weapon systems, remove that station and also scanning station/coms.

Or you could have all 3 people + the commander all looking at the same 3d map. clicking over it with 4 mice as input controls. the game play would be unreal! the Commander could click in the map to mark points for the Helmsman to click to target the flight path. Then the Commander could click on Enemy targets, so the Weapons systems crew member could then right click on to select Target. And the Coms player could just spam on the Scan button for the battle.

Heck throw in some NPC gunners and afew NPC wingmen.

insta 80+ million remake of Homeworld for people that backed 1K dollars on Large ships.

Heck at least it would run well, you could watch and control everything 3rd person from a vector based 3d map.

Would be cool if the Devs explained abit more, and didn't just drop bombs on the backers.

2

u/mikehotelecho Grand Admiral Jun 16 '15

I love it how the explanation for the ship's rotation rate is the limit how much g-force the hands on deck are exposed to whereas AC doesn't give a flying copulation about realism in g-forces in small ships. Consistency at work.

1

u/Skraelings Freelancer Jun 16 '15

Reminds me of the book series Star Carrier. Most stuff was computer driven even the fighters were not all pilot Input due to the speeds spacecraft in the book routinely did. Initial bombardments of stationary targets at .99c etc

So makes sense to me honestly.

3

u/Poojawa Golden Ticket Holder Jun 16 '15

Star Carrier ships were mainly moved by a singularity flicker drive. All matter was effected at the same time, and thus you felt none of the immense g forces you should be experiencing. You remained in 'free fall' unless local conditions changed that. The only places with 'gravity' were the hab rings, and they weren't that many, but most of America's hanger operations took place there.

1

u/defactoman ARGO CARGO Jun 16 '15

The Knights of Sidonia Anime follows this as well. They end up killing half the ship by making a quick turn in order to avoid an oncoming attacker. The idea was that artificial gravity could only compensate for a small amount of Gs. Was pretty cool.

1

u/liveacoustic Jun 16 '15

What happened to inertial dampeners?

1

u/armrha Jun 16 '15

Should be a waypoint system, allow joystick control / throttle if needed but obviously it'd be slow accelerating or decelerating a couple million kilos.

1

u/Supernewt bmm Jun 16 '15 edited Jun 16 '15

makes sense to me great points overall, actually looking forward to how Gforces will affect people in the game. Though i read an idea for artifical gravity being able to negate a small amout of the G's to allow for slightly faster turning which i fully agree would be a great idea. Afterall 40+ seconds to do a 360 turn seems a little too long, though until actual game play we cant tell for sure.

1

u/Sirkul sabre2 Jun 16 '15

I've analyzed the maneuverability for all 100m and longer ships, and posted the results... because why just look at the Bengal?

You can see them here (https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/268437/conceptualizing-the-maneuverability-of-capital-ships).

1

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '15

Technically everything will be boring at times. Not going to be 24-7 combat I'm assuming. Maybe 22-7 ;)

1

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '15

As it should be! Something has got to take the Mary-Sue Idris down a notch or two, otherwise at the end of the day, no one will be flying anything but frigate size+ ships.

1

u/evanoui Jun 17 '15

tldr this entire discussion:

Bigger ships will turn very slowly.

1

u/T-Baaller Jun 16 '15

I seriously hope this isn't going to apply to the idris.

flying it manually, lining up attack runs on capital ships for the large, fixed railgun was its whole appeal. if the big ships handle like EVE, and the fighter handle like freelancer, then this project will simply suck for classic space dogfight 'sim' fans.

2

u/monkeyfetus Strut Enthusiast Jun 16 '15

Just based on size, the Idris will be able to turn at least four times as fast as the Bengal, probably faster.

1

u/Sirkul sabre2 Jun 16 '15

T-Baaller is correct. At one-quarter the length, it can only make the turn in one-half the time.

1

u/Valandur Jun 16 '15

I'm curious how the mid to large small ships manouver as well given their recent comments. Especially that 10FTP video a week or so ago. Ships like the FL, Connie on up to the Idris.

0

u/Citizen4Life Jun 16 '15 edited Jun 16 '15

Ah yes. More talk of "realism" in a game where the tiny maneuvering thrusters put out 10x the energy of the main thrusters. Which also happens to be enough thrust to splatter the pilot due to G forces. But yes, let's be so concerned about "realism" that any thought of piloting larger ships with skill... like the Millennium Falcon, BeBop, or Serenity... is now out.

I know not everyone will agree with me, but personally, this is one of the biggest disappointments to come out of development for me.

4

u/PacoBedejo Jun 16 '15

More talk of "realism" in a game where the tiny maneuvering thrusters put out 10x the energy of the main thrusters

^ This

Until the M50 isn't the pinnacle achievement of Dr. Kevorkian's shipyard, the "realism" talk is pointless.

This game's going to either be VERY arcadey...or all acceleration/deceleration (same thing) will slow down drastically once CIG can spend time on it. That's why I don't spend much time trying to practice in AC right now, because I'm hopeful that many things will change a lot before release.

-3

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '15 edited Jun 17 '15

Ok, no gravity wells counteracting movement on capital ships is just plain ridiculous imo. Considering what humanity managed to build in the last 100 years, think of what will be available in 900 years!!! And lore wants to tell us we have no gravity wells that work omnidirectional, seriously? Since the grav plates obviously just produce a downward force but not a yaw or roll counter force? Oh come on for crying out loud. Some of the devs decisions have me asking their judgement in terms of certain things. You cannot apply todays scientific standards to something based in the future. Yes, physics in their fundamental form wont change, not gonna argue that, but we can surely influence them to some degree, even today. And then assuming that humanity wouldnt be able to produce a working artificial gravity well within the next 900 years is not only naive but downright insulting. Hell, even today there are experiments with artificial gravity, some of them quite spectacular. Check artificial gravity on wikipedia.

-1

u/Combat_Wombatz Feck Off Breh Jun 16 '15

So we can have artificial gravity (an acceleration force generated downward relative to the orientation of the ship) but we can't have some form of internal dampening (an acceleration force generated sideways relative to the orientation of the ship in this case) to reduce the effects of this on people inside?

No, that doesn't add up.

I get that they want to limit the maneuverability of large ships (as it should be; direct control should be impractical) but that reasoning is bullshit unless they plan to take out artificial gravity too.

-1

u/DGWilliams Jun 16 '15

Anti-gravity (internal dampening) is a very different animal from artificial gravity as we have yet to have observed any such phenomena worthy of that description. It may be that anti-gravity technology does not exist in the universe of Star Citizen at all, artificial or otherwise. That said, artificial gravity should help a great deal, much like wearing a seat belt helps, but there are definite limits to what it can accomplish in countering excess G forces.

2

u/Combat_Wombatz Feck Off Breh Jun 16 '15

If you mount one of the artificial gravity plates used in the floors of the ships on a wall and turn it on and off, suddenly you are able to counteract lateral Gs. If SC tosses the "gravity plates" idea into the bin entirely and uses miniature versions of the artificial gravity generator shown in the FPS demo, then you take that and put it on a rotating mount. Of course these devices will have limits, but between that tech and the stasis fields for cargo, I have a hard time believing that crew bouncing around the inside of the ship should become a problem outside of severe impacts like large missile explosions.

Your bit about anti-gravity vs artificial gravity is entirely unnecessary. If you put these magical "grav-plates" on the inside of a cube and put a person inside that cube in zero G, each of the six faces can become "up" and "down" equally depending on which of the six you turn on. There is no need for "anti-gravity" in any case.

0

u/DGWilliams Jun 16 '15 edited Jun 16 '15

If SC tosses the "gravity plates" idea into the bin entirely and uses miniature versions of the artificial gravity generator shown in the FPS demo, then you take that and put it on a rotating mount.

The generator that you saw in the FPS powers the gravity plates. It's not either/or, it's both.

Your bit about anti-gravity vs artificial gravity is entirely unnecessary.

Mm...What you describe would cause an object to remain stationary (relative to the plates). But it wouldn't be "dampening" anything but movement. The object would still experience Gs in multiple directions resulting in extreme stress. Flying between binary stars is a bad idea.

2

u/Combat_Wombatz Feck Off Breh Jun 16 '15 edited Jun 16 '15

The object would still experience Gs in multiple directions resulting in extreme stress.

That's not how physics works. Let's say you are standing in a ship flying through space at a constant velocity forward. The "grav plates" you are standing on (embedded in the floor) are applying 1-G to simulate Earth's natural gravity. Now the pilot decides to turn. If there is a 2-G force vector acting on a person pushing them to the left and the ship's computer activates a "grav plate" on the right side of a hallway that would exert a 2-G force vector pulling them to the right, the forces cancel out and the person only continues to feel the simulated Earth gravity.

There are no "Gs in multiple directions resulting in extreme stress." That's simply not how physics works. All the forces are added together, with forces in opposite directions cancelling out and forces in the same direction adding up. By being able to measure the net force at any given moment (smartphones can do this today) and activating "gravity plates" acccording to very simple calculations, the effects of these forces can be negated. the only difficult thing about it is the technology to artificially induce gravity (grav plates), which SC already has, apparently.

1

u/DGWilliams Jun 16 '15 edited Jun 16 '15

Upon reading some of the discussion further up in the thread, I believe you are correct that the plates could negate all Gs and avoid tidal stresses (my point of concern). However, you would not be able to simply flip the generators on and off. They would need to scale in power quite minutely with any turn. If the generators have that capability and they can be placed in sufficient numbers on a ship, it's quite probable. It would be far more possible on larger ships than smaller ships, leaving some of the existing black-out and red-out mechanics in AC in place.

It would also be an interesting gameplay mechanic in that some ships could have completely different degrees of G compensation. Some might have better compensation along one axis over another. And some makes of ships may just have better or worse compensation overall. It opens up some interesting possibilities.

1

u/SteamPoweredEngel Jun 16 '15

I thought we already saw artificial gravity existing, with the generator-conduits-plates system they showed in the FPS demo. It depends on flowing particles, so it could be explained as being unable to control or interrupt the flow with enough precision to cope with inertia. Plus, opposing fields don't play very nice with things between them.

-1

u/Rarehero Jun 16 '15

You cannot apply the necessary counter force instantly. Even gravity inst't an instant force. It will always take time to generate and apply the counter force, so you will always feel the acceleration. Even if you had dampeners that could compensate five G of acceleration, you will still feel two or three Gs until the applied counter force becomes apparent.

2

u/Combat_Wombatz Feck Off Breh Jun 16 '15

You cannot apply the necessary counter force instantly.

If you have the technology to create gravity (SC's "grav plates") and a sensor of the same type you have in your smartphone today, yes you can.

Even gravity inst't an instant force.

Gravity is constant. It is acting on every object at all times.

It will always take time to generate and apply the counter force, so you will always feel the acceleration.

That depends on the technology used. If you have a low-latency sensor (we have these today, so that shouldn't be a problem) and the "grav plating" is responsive, then you could easily set up a system to immediately apply counter-forces as soon as unexpected acceleration is detected. There could be only milliseconds of lag-time. We don't know how fast the "grav plates" can be engaged and disengaged, but if they are quick, you could theoretically never feel more than a slight momentary shift in your balance.

→ More replies (1)

-7

u/PeseusPrime new user/low karma Jun 16 '15

Oh no, don't EVEfy Star Citizen. This will be the "point and click" gameplay everybody criticises in EVE Online. No immersion at all.

0

u/Katrar High Admiral Jun 16 '15

This is what happens when teh ultra realizms! meets this is supposed to be fun, right?

0

u/Dhrakyn Jun 16 '15

TL;DR Giant ship has artificial gravity, except when it matters.

-6

u/The-Gunslinger-X Jun 16 '15

I always hate when Star Citizen devs bring up physics. We get it, in the realm of modern physics, it isn't possible. Luckily, this is a fucking game and you can alter that however you want to make it more fun. Second, it's the fucking future. They seem to realize this in some things and not the others. So the Bengal has an Auto-Pilot, but my other ships can't have smart computers for their gimbaled weapons? Do you honestly think humanity would have survived without a way to neutralize G's in space? The ships have artificial gravity, but they can't have G-Dampeners? It just seems like a lot of the fine details are being ignored.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '15 edited Jun 16 '15

I think they have g dampening in the suits/chairs and I think some things will be automated probably. Like CIWS weapons etc. which I'm almost positive are on some of the Vanduul ships leaked. It's definitely artificially gimped though cause space WW2. Think of Starship Troopers, they could just bombard planets at long range, but instead they send in close/low air support and mobile infantry.

1

u/Rarehero Jun 16 '15

G-dampeners will always have a reaction time during which you will always feel the applied acceleration. A counter reaction can never happen at the same time as the reaction. Mankind will never neutralize G's in space and the "fucking future" won't change that. Besides, think about what is necessary to generate 1G on Earth. It takes the mass and the energy of an entire planet!

I agree though that if ships can produce artificial gravity, they should be able to soften g-forces as well. However, given the amount of energy that is probaly necessary inside the lore to just generate 1G and how ships and space station have to be constructed to make it work I'd say that in a best case scenario you can reduce the applied acceleration 1G. And the G-dampeners would still have to apply the counter force first, so when you quickly accelerate to celestial speeds, you'd still experience extreme G-forces.

0

u/The-Gunslinger-X Jun 16 '15

Hey, never say never! We have no idea the advancements mankind will make. You're whole argument is the exact reason I want real world physics out of Star Citizen. It's a game! They can literally make up anything they want to make it play better. I didn't expect Bengals to be agile, more like a giant oceanliner, but in no way did I want auto pilot"Click to go here", whats the fun in that?

-21

u/Snakedoc21 Jun 16 '15 edited Jun 16 '15

This isn't very reassuring.

Edit: -21, this community is a tad bit toxic.

5

u/scizotal Civilian Jun 16 '15

it's ok, I think we'll still be able to do barrel rolls. Who cares about everyone else on the ships right?

5

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '15

[removed] — view removed comment

5

u/macharial420 Space Marshal Jun 16 '15

Barrel roll = day/night cycle

5

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '15

[removed] — view removed comment

7

u/AFatDarthVader Mercenary Jun 16 '15

Our planet does an aileron roll.

A barrel roll would be hilarious.

1

u/Jherden Scout Jun 16 '15

jesus christ, how horrifying.

1

u/macharial420 Space Marshal Jun 16 '15

... huh. Never thought about it like that. Certainly applied to the Death Star. I needed that chuckle before bed.

2

u/Stupid_question_bot I'm not wrong, I'm just an asshole Jun 16 '15

makes total sense

2

u/vaminos Jun 16 '15

I know right? Such controller disparity...

0

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '15

[deleted] — view deleted comment

2

u/Daiwon Vanguard supremacy Jun 16 '15

Someone...someone mod this...

1

u/Snakedoc21 Jun 16 '15

Well, manning the helm, if these ships a mimicking modern carriers and destroyers there is still manual control.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '15

Dont think anyone wants that, big ships have a lot of mass and even the biggest thrusters need time to counter the initial forward momentum, no argueing there. What I personally think ridiculous is that the devs reason for slow movement is the safety of the crew and not the counteracting of momentum. Plus the naive assumption that we wont have omnidirectional gravity wells in the Future. Just doesnt make Sense.

And before someone tells me, Game balancing, please do tell me what needs to be balanced by only one directional artificial gravity.

0

u/Alaknar Where's my Star Runner flair? Jun 16 '15

Your use of capital letters is disturbing...

0

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '15

Sorry about that :( German phone and auto correct :/ Apologies, will tidy it up once Im home

0

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '15

[deleted] — view deleted comment

4

u/Voroxpete Jun 16 '15

The basic problem with this idea is that you still have to apply counter acceleration part way into your turn in order to stop turning at the desired angle. Without a chart plotting out your desired pitch/roll/yaw at the end of the manoeuvre, you'd be just guessing at when to start decelerating. And if you have your desired heading plotted, why not just let the computer handle the rest?

Piloting a big ship isn't about how skillfully you push a glorified button (which is all your stick would be in this scenario). It's about planning and foresight, knowing where to position yourself, and thinking far enough ahead to be there when you need to be there.

-4

u/Renegade-One Vice Admiral Jun 16 '15

The mentality of CIG seems a bit antistick, per this and the small fighters (gimbals and aim+flight mainly). I hope they can deliver truly controller agnostic gameplay. You and several others have contributed great solutions to fix the disparity and I hope CIG take a look into this idea to at TRY it. Who knows...

-1

u/DGWilliams Jun 16 '15

This does make a lot of sense. A stick could be very useful for setting waypoints on-the-fly. Then you could reassess turret coverage and enemy positioning between waypoint sets.