opinions on game design issue
Peter Ashford
What are people's feelings about which is preferable: Newtonian flight
physics for realism or atmospheric flight model for ease of use /
familiarity?
fwibbler
Ease of use.
--
Graham
Website - http://www.thedeathzone.free-online.co.uk
Norbert Leister
> Ease of use.
*vote*
Jens Ayton
>
> What are people's feelings about which is preferable: Newtonian flight
> physics for realism or atmospheric flight model for ease of use /
> familiarity?
A well-designed, easy-to-use realistic model. Seriously, there's no
reason it can't be done. I'm thinking of a particular game, but I can't
remember what it's called. :-/
--
Jens Ayton
[Jongware]
news:1172458761.1...@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Real physics add to the "real" atmosphere, the suspension of disbelief we
all crave for. OTOH, the atmos model is easier to fly -- maybe because an
airplane is easier to fly than a rocket? I don't have particular problems
with newtonian, which may be the reason I'm a multibillionaire but still
"mostly worthless" in dogfights (that's slightly below "harmless").
I guess it's the same with sound. Screaming jets or "In space, no-one can
hear your scream"? I *should* prefer the latter, but guess what...
[Jongware]
Milan Babuskov
> What are people's feelings about which is preferable: Newtonian flight
> physics for realism or atmospheric flight model for ease of use /
> familiarity?
Given the fact that there is a lot of such games on the market perhaps
offering something different might be a good idea to attract people who
are bored with "yet another" space shooter.
BTW, take a look at game in my signature, you might get some ideas about
"trading" part of the game.
--
Milan Babuskov
http://www.guacosoft.com
James Willmott
Make it easy to use, and more importantly, fun.
EricP
<peter.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
Both as an easily selected option during gameplay
Tim Wheatley
It depends on what surrounds that flight model. If the rest of the
game is good enough I'd try to master any flight physics the game had.
Steve
Unfortunately, the definition of "fun" varies from person to person :-(
Steve
--
www.frontierastro.co.uk
FrontierAstro - Dedicated to Elite, Frontier and Astronomy
Nats
right.
"Peter Ashford" <peter.m...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1172458761.1...@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Andrej G.
i would prefer a newtonian flight model. a realistic flight model can
always be made easier to fly if it's too hard; an easy flight model
can't be made more realistic.
take a look at how it's done in certain flight sims: you keep the
original realistic flight model and just disable (or tone down)
"advanced" features like inertia, stalls, spins, gyroscopic precession,
possible stress damage to the airframe, etc.. and then you have a sim
where you fly an x-wing vs ww2 fighters :).
though, from what i remember of my first days playing frontier, flying
would have been a lot easier by just giving my ship stronger thrusters
and by toning down inertia :).
--
andrej
John Jordan
>
> though, from what i remember of my first days playing frontier, flying
> would have been a lot easier by just giving my ship stronger thrusters
> and by toning down inertia :).
Actually, the main problem with Frontier and FFE's combat is that the
thrusters are too strong compared to the size of the ships, which is why
you end up jousting. FFE added a frictional combat fudge to work around
the AI's inability to control their lateral velocity, which does
essentially tone down inertia.
Attitude control in Frontier and FFE is actually inertialess, although
velocity-limited. IIRC, Elite's attitude control was more newtonian.
--
John Jordan
Peter Ashford
IWar?
Peter Ashford
> Andrej G. wrote:
>
> > though, from what i remember of my first days playing frontier, flying
> > would have been a lot easier by just giving my ship stronger thrusters
> > and by toning down inertia :).
>
> Actually, the main problem with Frontier and FFE's combat is that the
> thrusters are too strong compared to the size of the ships, which is why
> you end up jousting. FFE added a frictional combat fudge to work around
> the AI's inability to control their lateral velocity, which does
> essentially tone down inertia.
Well, that's rather what I've got at the moment - Newtonian with
inertial damping (effectively a pretend friction) that you can turn on
or off. I'm at the point where I'm trying to figure out whether I go
further down the track of developing simulated assisting technologies
to make the ship more simple / easy to fly, or scrap the Newtonian bit
and just go with simple atmo flight.
I agree with the people who say it needs to be fun first and foremost,
but I also see the point that Newtonian could be made more accessable
with assisting technology (ala IWar). However I also see that I could
spend ages fudging Newtonian flight and end up with something still
not as intuitive as atmo flight.
ahab
If you can make realistic flight fun then go for it. Worst possible
decision is to go for an accessible unrealistic flight model and
screw it up. Then you lose on all counts. Of course an addictive
atmo flight/combat element combined with an immersive world would be
something almost noone has pulled off since original elite.
One thing missing from this thread seems to be examples of good
dogfighting games. For my part I'm thinking Hardwar, Crimson Skies
(so much like Chocks Away on the Archimedes) and maybe Freespace.
I-War seemed like it could be great but I just couldn't get used to it.
Same goes for Tachyon, kinda.
In the end it comes down to personal taste and the only real reason
to make a game is to do what you like in your own way. If anyone
out there buys/plays it then thats just validation that you're not
alone in the universe...
Peter Ashford
Hardwar was atmo flight, wasn't it? And your examples of Crimson
Skies seem to support the atmo=fun equation. I know what you mean
about I-War. It never quite gelled for me, either.
James Willmott
> James Willmott wrote:
>
>>Peter Ashford wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I'm writing a space trader / shooter.
>>>
>>>What are people's feelings about which is preferable: Newtonian
>>>flight physics for realism or atmospheric flight model for ease of
>>>use / familiarity?
>>
>>Make it easy to use, and more importantly, fun.
>
>
> Unfortunately, the definition of "fun" varies from person to person :-(
True, but most people would agree if something is 'not fun'
jw.
James Willmott
> If it's too easy it's boring. I feel that you have to learn and
> practice to become good. Difficulty levels should be an option.
I agree fully. If there is no challenge it will become very boring. But
the challenge doesn't just have to be the flight controls, if anything,
the flight controls should be as easy to use as possible, the challenge
should come from the game itself in the number and intelligence of the
enemies and obstacles you face.
I like difficulty levels, they make it easy to start enjoying the game,
but you can tune the game to remain enjoyable for longer.
jw.
Fost
Pitch/roll Vs point anywhere thrusters. The latter is what works well with a
mouse, and is a more likely space flight model, however I find it to be a
bit pants in the fun stakes. Pitch/roll is the only way you are going to get
a great dogfighting experience. Point anywhere works more like quake in
space - still fun, but you lose that nice dogfight feel. Problem is - if you
are thinking of selling this game, you'll need mouse control, and that's why
everyone who's done a space game of late has point anywhere mouse control.
Still, give me a flightstick and pitch/roll any day...
-Nick Tipping
www.moonpod.com
Simon Challands
"Fost" <m...@moon.base> wrote:
There's no reason why pitch / roll can't work with a mouse. It worked fine
in ArcElite, and even if it took a little getting used to it was ultimately
quite rewarding. I'm not a fan of making control systems too easy - there
has to be some satisfaction from being able to fly well, and a bit of a
learning curve rewards that. Zarch was a very good example of this (and
a largely Newtonian model, with gravity, but with a fairly limited top
speed). It seemed almost impossible to fly the thing at first, but with
some practice was highly manoeuvrable.
--
Simon Challands
windgiver
beginning _but_ allow them to purchase some sort of computer assistance
modules that make control easier and easier (like you have to pay for
power steering or abs etc for cars now...). In the future computers would
probably make flying a spaceship as easy as riding a bicycle... Players
could then opt to make their flight easier (if this was a problem or first
upgrade their thrusters, lazers etc...) You could also allow the player to
go to 'college' to learn about flying and they could effectiveley execute
certain manouvers (aka Star Treck...) with a single click. The original
Elite had this feature by making you manually dock for a while before you
could afford the (blue danube?) docking computer...
Rafe Zetter
The first thing to realise is that you are never going to please everyone, at least not here as we have had this argument oh so many times...
Your best bet is IMHO to implement a hybrid system as flying with newtonian physics is great for realism when your goal is to get from planet A to
planet B, but when it comes to space combat the 'realistic' model sucks, it is just not as much fun in a good old dogfight..
I Loved frontier for the scope and context, but hated the point and click mouse controls for combat. So I think that a Hybrid using 'semi-realistic'
flight model would probably work best...
Regards