test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

So I have to know about the flight.

SystemSystem Member, NoReporting Posts: 178,019 Arc User
I read somewhere that hey won't be improving pitch beyond 45°

Could someone tell me WHY? Because it's starting to get on my nerves. I don't *especially* care if I can't do loops, but corkscrewing is getting old; especially in this one mission where the asteroid belt was 'diagonal' around a planet, and I had to fly out of the ring and down in order to get the ships 'below' me.
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    They tried allowing greater angles of ascent and descent early in the design and did not like how they turned out. If you think about it capital ships in Star Trek never turn at 90 degrees to the xy plane of reference. They are also always shown same side up, which would not happen in an environment where everyone could turn at any angle to the x-y plane or roll at will.

    Think about Wrath of Khan which is often cited as an example of Trek ships moving in 3D. The ships still have the same overall top reference -- you never seen one upside down to the other or one at a 90 degree angle to the other. When Kirk discusses dropping down to take advantage of the 3rd dimension, the Enterprise does not pitch down 90 degrees, instead it descends like a submarine, maintaining the xy plane as the primary frame of reference.

    While unrealistic, Trek Starship combat as portrayed in tv and film does not in general support pitches beyond 45 degrees.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Eykal wrote: »
    I read somewhere that hey won't be improving pitch beyond 45°

    Could someone tell me WHY? Because it's starting to get on my nerves. I don't *especially* care if I can't do loops, but corkscrewing is getting old; especially in this one mission where the asteroid belt was 'diagonal' around a planet, and I had to fly out of the ring and down in order to get the ships 'below' me.

    Oh I remember the mission...there's a couple of them, and they were a pain in the TRIBBLE....

    I don't mind aerial flight really, but they really buggered themselves by making missions that were obviously designed with spacial flight in mind, but un-doable by design... Trapped themselves by their own limitations...
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    They keep saying its cause the game engine cant take it or thats what they said in the 65 page deep archived one when I was watching it
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    They keep saying its cause the game engine cant take it or thats what they said in the 65 page deep archived one when I was watching it

    another reason why they should have built a new engine instead of rehashing COs piece of TRIBBLE engine.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Dejin wrote:
    They tried allowing greater angles of ascent and descent early in the design and did not like how they turned out. If you think about it capital ships in Star Trek never turn at 90 degrees to the xy plane of reference. They are also always shown same side up, which would not happen in an environment where everyone could turn at any angle to the x-y plane or roll at will.

    Think about Wrath of Khan which is often cited as an example of Trek ships moving in 3D. The ships still have the same overall top reference -- you never seen one upside down to the other or one at a 90 degree angle to the other. When Kirk discusses dropping down to take advantage of the 3rd dimension, the Enterprise does not pitch down 90 degrees, instead it descends like a submarine, maintaining the xy plane as the primary frame of reference.

    While unrealistic, Trek Starship combat as portrayed in tv and film does not in general support pitches beyond 45 degrees.

    I'm pretty sure the Defiant pitched down quite a bit on several occasions. I don't have that much of an issue with everything being aligned to the ecliptic, honestly. Would I prefer quite a bit more freedom of movement in this game? Most certainly. Will it happen? No. Would most people be good at flying the way I would like it? No.


    Also, I don't buy engine limitations as an excuse. The engine can make things face up, and it can make them move vertically. I don't see what would limit the pitch angle. Please enlighten me, someone. (Yes I know it's more complicated than that but I don't feel like explaining exactly what I mean right now.).
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Eykal wrote: »
    I'm pretty sure the Defiant pitched down quite a bit on several occasions. I don't have that much of an issue with everything being aligned to the ecliptic, honestly. Would I prefer quite a bit more freedom of movement in this game? Most certainly. Will it happen? No. Would most people be good at flying the way I would like it? No.

    Quite possibly on the Defiant. I'm not a DS9 guy (although I've been watching them in honor of STO and have gotten up to just a few episodes shy of the end of Season 2). I think the Defiant is kind-of on the edge of what constitutes a capital ship. From what I've seen of it, it seems to act as much more of a jet fighter than do the traditional Enterprise Cruisers. My observations on Star Trek ship behavior are from watching all of ToS, 8 of the movies, and smatterings of the other TV shows. Based on those observations, unlimited pitching will lead to very un-Trek-like combat (more realistic, but un-Trek-like).
    Eykal wrote: »
    Also, I don't buy engine limitations as an excuse. The engine can make things face up, and it can make them move vertically. I don't see what would limit the pitch angle. Please enlighten me, someone. (Yes I know it's more complicated than that but I don't feel like explaining exactly what I mean right now.).

    I'm almost positive I saw an interview where they specifically said that they experimented with having much steeper pitching, and that they were very unsatisfied with the results. I can't find it off-hand, but here's an interview where they talk about their space combat philosophy:
    ZAM: One of the most-criticized aspects of ship maneuvering is the "corkscrew spiral" required to increase or decrease altitude. Is this an acknowledged gameplay issue that will be addressed at some point?

    Zinkievich: We've definitely taken a look at this. We're currently exploring ways in which we could address this and still keep to our "tall ships" design philosophy.

    ZAM: On the topic of ship gameplay; most players agree that Cryptic did a great job a creating a three-dimensional space environment, but the Z-axis seems a bit under-utilized—as if everything "defaults" to the horizontal plane. Was this designed for accessibility's sake, or will the environment mechanics continue to evolve in future patching?

    Zinkievich: It goes back to "tall ships." The starships you pilot in STO are massive; even a small ship staffs a crew of 50. They don't move like fighter jets. We felt that the best way to give the ships a feeling of mass was to provide them with an internal equilibrium, so turns feel like turns and so on. Going to a true Newtonian model in which there's no real difference between flying sideways and level, while physically accurate, probably would turn off more people than you'd think.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    That last sentence there, in that interview, is what I meant, that people wouldn't like the way I'd like it to be. I love full-3D newtonian flight, but not a lot of people do.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Even 60 deg would help a TON
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    What Eykal said. I don't know how many people here have played space games with true Newtonian physics, but it is HARD. Basically, any direction you're heading in you're going to continue heading in unless force is applied in another direction. Of course, once you get the hang of it it CAN be fun...especially when fighting some clueless loudmouth <G>.

    Vendetta Online has Newtonian physics. But so many people complained they had to put an 'arcade' style in as well. A lot of people don't want real physics in their space games.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    kamui wrote: »
    What Eykal said. I don't know how many people here have played space games with true Newtonian physics, but it is HARD. Basically, any direction you're heading in you're going to continue heading in unless force is applied in another direction. Of course, once you get the hang of it it CAN be fun...especially when fighting some clueless loudmouth <G>.

    Vendetta Online has Newtonian physics. But so many people complained they had to put an 'arcade' style in as well. A lot of people don't want real physics in their space games.

    Newtonian physics have never been part of star trek ship movement although it has been done in episodes when they turn off dampening but that has very little to do with 3d vs 2d space. If cryptic is intent on keeping 2d space then they need to fix all the vertical missions. Personally I'd prefer them to just increase the max climb rate in the short term and give us full 3d flight in the long term.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Dejin wrote:
    They tried allowing greater angles of ascent and descent early in the design and did not like how they turned out. If you think about it capital ships in Star Trek never turn at 90 degrees to the xy plane of reference. They are also always shown same side up, which would not happen in an environment where everyone could turn at any angle to the x-y plane or roll at will.

    Think about Wrath of Khan which is often cited as an example of Trek ships moving in 3D. The ships still have the same overall top reference -- you never seen one upside down to the other or one at a 90 degree angle to the other. When Kirk discusses dropping down to take advantage of the 3rd dimension, the Enterprise does not pitch down 90 degrees, instead it descends like a submarine, maintaining the xy plane as the primary frame of reference.

    While unrealistic, Trek Starship combat as portrayed in tv and film does not in general support pitches beyond 45 degrees.

    What a great explanation - seems so obvious when you lay it out like that. This post alone resolves the issue for me. Thanks again.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    If it was done properly you would be able to shut your engines off spin with thrusters and be going backwards at full impulse. Could be fun but I imagine it would cause all sorts of problemms
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Kevscar wrote: »
    If it was done properly you would be able to shut your engines off spin with thrusters and be going backwards at full impulse. Could be fun but I imagine it would cause all sorts of problemms

    Actually thats what I was expecting from a space game.

    Anyway, I dont need real physics, but they should at least make movement and physics fun and coherent.

    Right now movement in STO is just annoying to a point that it becomes a major factor in me canceling my subscription (if I do it after three month, which is my usual timeframe for MMORPGs that suck TRIBBLE at release).
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Well I love sector space, make a sharp turn at full speed and my ship skids sideways. Never knew space was icy. Need to buy anti-skid nacelles or fire my navigator.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    kamui wrote: »
    What Eykal said. I don't know how many people here have played space games with true Newtonian physics, but it is HARD. Basically, any direction you're heading in you're going to continue heading in unless force is applied in another direction. Of course, once you get the hang of it it CAN be fun...especially when fighting some clueless loudmouth <G>.

    Vendetta Online has Newtonian physics. But so many people complained they had to put an 'arcade' style in as well. A lot of people don't want real physics in their space games.

    Yes, you wanna see what a dogfight in newtonian physics would be like? pay for a bit of the original Jumpgate or Vandetta Online. You likely wont like it lol
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Space Cowboys Online [AKA Flysis AKA Air Rivals (Keeps getting sold)] Has both basic and advanced control modes.

    Flight is fully Newtonian however, the controls are differentiated like this:

    Basic Mode:
    Controls: WASD+Space with mouse to fire.
    Decent and Ascension is limited to +/- 75° from neutral plane.
    Any manual roll/loop maneuvers are disabled, and in the event of a tilted, or inverted ship, the ship is automatically corrected to be properly orientated with the neutral plane.

    Advanced Mode:
    Controls changed to: (WASD/LRM)+Space with axillary mouse, or other mapped controls to fire.
    Unrestricted Decent and Ascension (Looping possible)
    Roll/loop maneuvers enabled. Auto-correction delay extended to 10 seconds from release of maneuvering control button. (namely right mouse, or whatever the control was set to)

    This allowed flexibility to newer players, or players who preferred not to fly in true Newtonian style to fly as they wanted, but also allowed the experienced players to perform Immelmann up-and-overs, aileron rolls, and to literally fly upside down if they wanted to. The ship was still just as maneuverable, but added a new dimension to tact and skill when your enemy could approach from a pure negative z axis, or zero-g-roll out of the way of incoming snipe missiles without having to use SP to perform an evasive barrel roll.

    An engine similar to this would, at least in my mind, be fun.
Sign In or Register to comment.