Flight physics in current and past space sim games

R

RFBurns

Spaceman
A hot topic in all areas of space sims is the flight physics. We all experienced the WC universe flight physics, even suttle changes from one WC game to another, then along comes Freespace, JumpGate, Starlancer to name a few. All with different flight physics. My question is, which game out of them all, past and present, give more accurate flight physics? In my opinion, WCIV and WCP have the most accurate flight physics. My reasons for choosing these two are the following:

1. The ships in WCP actually have motion that reacts to flight control, ie, if you turn right while moving forward, your ship slides a bit, due to the mass of the ship. In WCIV the ships do the same, maybe a tad less than WCP, but they do react to their mass depending on the ships speed.

2. Anything in motion, regardless of mass, has inertia in gravity and in 0 gravity. Which in a nutshell means that if you have something standing still in space, and you go up to it and tap on it, it will move and keep moving until something stops it, either by it running into something else or by a thrust opposite of the motion. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. I heard that somewhere in elementary school science.

3. The control of the ships in WCIV and WCP seem to have better response than in other sims. Even the physics in Privateer [IMO] are more accurate than in Freespace. In Freespace it feels like your flying on a rail. No inertia movement at all except for the forward motion when comming to a stop. That is not true space flight physics in my opinion.

For something to react in space, there needs to be something causing that reaction. Turning without some inertia movement in the opposite direction like in Freespace is like riding a roller coaster. Last time I checked, space ships dont need rails like trains do!

RFBurns

"Here Kitty Kitty Kitty" [quote, coms window, Privateer/RF]
 
RFBurns, you are seriously forgetting several space games. But first to physics. First of all, in any of the WC games the physics are laughable (In respect to realism, not fun though which is actually more important). Inertia is barely dealt with in WC games at best and the fact that you have to use Afterburner fuel to keep at a constant speed is silly. WC is far from alone in dealing with this. All ships in WC should be able to do the Shelton slide, as ships on the Babylon 5 series accuratly showed. Second, weapon ranges are extremely short in almost all of the games which makes no sense whatsoever for space combat (although once again, the intention was to make the game more fun by having dogfights, so it's not really a bad thing, just inaccurate). I-War is the most recent game that comes to my mind about having very accurate physics (WC's and FS's are generally called arcade physics due the the serious lack of realism). WC did it least have realistic collision until they took it out for WCP (which is probably the most unrealistic of all the engines, because your afterburner slide is much greater than in WCP, where you could fly straight into any ship and not even get a scratch). But if a game designer has to make a choice between realism and fun, realism should always be tossed.
 
sim physics

Ok I left out a few games, simply cause I didnt know they existed! Thats what happens when the military takes you away from lifes pleasures! I agree with you about the sliding action, which would represent real physics, but your right, the gameplay, storyline (if there is on in the game)take on a bigger role than realistic elements. Maybe I just got so used to the WC flight physics. Or it could be that since I also play a few airplane sims, which MSFS 2000 Pro and some others, do in fact take real world physics into the mix. Thus a more real feel for the real deal! Tho I am game for any type of flight sim, be it space or airplane or whirly bird (choppers), adding real world physics makes the game more interesting, more challenging. It takes a bit more pilot skills to dogfight with ships that slide some. You have to know when to compensate for that inertia as you turn or whatever. In FS I found that there wasnt much to flying those ships, except that most of the fighters in that game fly like bombers, weak rolls, turn rates very sluggish and very poor acceleration. FS2 was about the same to me, bomber characteristics on fighters, cept of course that stealth fighter, which next to the enemy fighters was the only ship in FS2 that had some webbos as far as flight control. Excellent roll rate, good turn rate and acceleration. Only bad thing that ship had was a poor weapons loadout.

RFBurns

"Come and get some!" [quote,pirate,Privateer 2]
 
If you want a Space sim with realistic physics try to find I-War or wait until its sequel comes out later this year. Be warned though, it does take alot of getting used to.
 
Re: sim physics

Originally posted by RFBurns
Thats what happens when the military takes you away from lifes pleasures!
RFBurns
Click to expand...

This is a little off subject, but what branch of the military?

Originally posted by RFBurns
I agree with you about the sliding action, which would represent real physics, but your right, the gameplay, storyline (if there is on in the game)take on a bigger role than realistic elements. Maybe I just got so used to the WC flight physics. Or it could be that since I also play a few airplane sims, which MSFS 2000 Pro and some others, do in fact take real world physics into the mix. Thus a more real feel for the real deal!
Click to expand...

I would have to agree with you that a game with real physics to me takes much more piloting skill, and is much more fun to play than one with simple arcade physics. If you have ever played Wing Commander Armada or FS multiplayer, than you would know that playing against a human often turns into a turning war, and the one who wins is the one who has the better maneuverabililty. This is especially so in FS in which the heaviest fighter can often maneuver and stay with the fastest fighters. After a while it is really quite boring since it is nearly impossible to hit anyone in a close dogfight. Turning battles did not ocurr as much in single player WC primarily due to the fact that Origin likes to program the AI to do burnouts and then face you head to head.
A new dogfight engine with the physics of Babylon 5 would to me be much more interesting. Wing commander did have some realistic physics in it, but the WC flight engine was the first to get coined "arcade." Maybe a happy medium between the two?
 
military branch

Off WC subjects, but to answer your question I am on active reserve in the USAF, tactical radar operator/technician, 1985-1995, stationed out of HAFB/WSMR. Worked on the tracking systems for the ATA/ATS Sidewinder missle used on just about every fighter in the US inventory. Further info is, well sort of classified since Im still in active reserve! :)

RFBurns

"Lookin sharp ace!" [quote, pirate, Privateer/RF]
 
Re: military branch

Originally posted by RFBurns
Off WC subjects, but to answer your question I am on active reserve in the USAF, tactical radar operator/technician, 1985-1995, stationed out of HAFB/WSMR. Worked on the tracking systems for the ATA/ATS Sidewinder missle used on just about every fighter in the US inventory. Further info is, well sort of classified since Im still in active reserve! :)
Click to expand...

Interesting. You don't find many members of us military in the WC community. I am US Navy active stationed out of Annapolis Maryland as a Midshipman at the Naval Academy.

Telephone:
I dont really like to play games that the Ships move too slow like RaiderWars. It's just no fun.
Click to expand...
[/i]
I have never played RaiderWars, but if the physics are anything similar to FreeSpace than you'll notice that the ships in FS move much more slowly than in WC. In terms of actual game code with the way they deal with flight physics, WC ships would move extremely fast in an FS engine. My main gripes is that in FS when dogfights occur they don't give you the feeling of a fast moving spacecraft going at 300kps or more. In FS it seemed like extremely manuevable golf-carts engaging in a duel.
Is this also true in RaiderWars?
 
military branch

Hiya JazzMan, my brother was in the Navy, spent quite some time down under in Sydney. He came back and had to re-learn how to drive on the right side of the road! :D

RFBurns

"Good to see a freindly ship" [quote,merchant,Privateer/RF]
 
In Vondoom's quote of Laughable physics in WCP, I want to make a counter, while it may not be ideal physics, try this experiment. If you don't already have it, get WCPEdit. Pick a ship of your choice, and up the mass to say...oh...around 70,000 units. (can't remember what it's measured in, i.e. tonnes, metric tonnes, grams :)) anyway, set that, and play a sim mission with that ship. Now go back, and up that mass (just the mass, not anything else) and to around 700,000 units (or more). Now, try to turn with the ease you can when you're at normal mass. This may only be one factor in physics, but IMHO, inertia and it's effects in 0g has alot of effect on the flight charastics of ANYTHING. Just ask any NASA pilot who's manuvered up there. Physics are dealt out in pretty accurate measures in WC (at least in Prophecy, can't expect much out of WCIV and lower, 'cause #1 I haven't tried them, and #2, they are kinda, well, old *ducks flying objects*)
 
In WC (and virtually all space sims) ships fly pretty much as they would in air (granted WC ships do slide some). The point is (and very obvious to anyone who has played I-War or any other game with Newtonian Physics) is that space craft fly NOTHING at all like they do in WC. They are only barely simulated at all in WC. The reason though was to make the game more exciting and fun, not realistic. There is nothing wrong with they way ships in WC fly "unless" you expect them to fly like ships in space would. WC has many things, but like most things sci-fi, realism is not one of them.
 
I played I-War and I think you sould all stop pushing those teories around.
One word for you Vondoom, Tachtions.
and theres goes your "we cant pass the speed of light" teories, we DONT want a space sim that, Like in I-War, we spend more time in keeping the damn thing flying in the direction we want to, that fighting the emeny.
If you like that type of Fight sim, well I-War 2 will be come out soon, so play it.
Until we go to space, we cant be sure of anything and if thing will be that complicated, someone will find out to make things more simple to fly.
So stop saying that, It start to get old.
Go say something like, The Eisen is a Vesuvius class heavy Carrier so we can go back to WC universe.
 
First of all Dragon, I never said that WC's flight engine was the wrong way to go. I prefer it to I-War's if you had bothered to read my post. And second of all, we have been up in space and we do know how ships travel in microgravity. Thirdly, Tachyons are therotical particles that are MASSLESS. That is why, theoretically, they might could travel faster than light. You could make a ship that flies like a WC ship, but it would burn massive amounts of fuel, when you could just as easily take advantage of its superior mobility. A ship flying under true Newtonion Physics (Like in B5) would generally be able to outmanuerver a ship from WC because it can Autoslide nonstop. Not even all of WC ships can do that???? which makes no sense. Stop complaining about the realities of the world unless you want to bother to learn something about them.
 
Right and in the real world, once a ship was up to say 1200 kps it would stay at that speed practically indefinitely and a ship would not have a speed limit. Look at the Ion engine, it uses the thrust of less than .5 pounds yet continues to be active for periods of 6 months to a year and after a year DS1 (deep space 1, the first ion propelled space probe) is up to a speed higher than our older probes, thus if WC had Newtonian physics, the ships would be able to reach anyspeed if they were willing to compromise manuverablity.
 
The ships in B5 had newtonian physics and to some degree the constant accelleration of newtonian physics but for the most part, the ships in B5 were limited to maxmimum speed as well. I feel that if a new space sim game should model a new flight physics engine it should be something like B5 where autoslide was engaged all the time. This would take a bit more skill flying, but it would sure make for an interesting space sim. I think that there should be somewhat of a crossroads for the two. WC is often described as being arcade like, where as I-War is described as being too realistic. What about a compromise. I feel that B5 flight physics is that compromise. It has constant thrust (most of the time anyway) like in WC, but they can initiate maneuvers that require more skill than the turn and burn technique in WC. Now if only Interplay had not canceled their B5 space sim we coul've seen just how fun or difficult flying with realistic physics would be.
Any Comments?
 
Actually B5 ships never used constant acceleration. They would burn to accelerate but otherwise they were not used. Some ships did have engine glow, but you can tell engine glow in the series from when they were actually accelerating. And it was Sierra who canceled, not interplay.
 
B5 was canceled? did not know.

There are ways to change the Newtonion Physics in current tecnology. a example is the F-117 Nighthawk, its unflyable but by use of Computers it can stay on air, That could be also be use in WC universe by using small trusters to limited the max speed to enchance flying performance.
 
Has anyone tried some of the aircraft sims, particularly the MS Flight Sim 2000 or 2000 pro or any similar sim where varying winds, air pockets, air densities, fuel, weight, and altitude play critical roles in keeping even a simple cessna in the air? Trust me, landing a Learjet 45 even at 180 knots landing speed in 30mph crosswinds is not easy! Not to mention landing a 747 jumbo with the same circumstances! Even if you flew on auto ILS approach, the computer has a hard time keeping the aircraft lined up properly to the runway! Point being is, I think applying some real world physics to sims adds to a sims enjoyment. Plus it gives the player a taste of what it would really be like, again adding to the game experience. But I dont think if adding real world physics to a sim while 100 bogies are comming at you, you dont have time to try to keep a bogie lined in your gun sites. There should be some happy medium I think!

RFBurns

"Your'e clear to pass" [quote,militia,Privateer/RF]
 
Ummm Dragon, the F-117 does not change Newtonian Physics in any way, shape, or form. It is unflyable unless the computer helps though because of so many corrections that have to be made that a human could not reliably keep up with them. No altering of Physics are done. I don't understand how you think people can just alter physics whenever they want??? And in reality no one would want a craft to fly like a plane does in the air. There are just too many advantages to maneuverabilty to dump all of those to waste major amounts of fuel so that it flies like jets do.
 
I like to know your teorie in how the "Black hole" works. It sucks light.if it did not, we sould never be able to find one with our current tecnology.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top