[Ace]

Newton or no newton, that is the question.

Overall we've seen games like I-War take a shot at this style of gameplay and then games that I do not care to remember offer an "arcade" and a "real" model at the same time.

Babylon 5: Into the Fire promised a fun newtonian mode which would be balanced even for multiplay. I-War 2 doesn't seem to do this as every game I've played of it has a maximum speed per ship much like FreeSpace.

Of course a non-newtonian model with sliding and the rotational or "shelton slide" being in it offers much of what a newtonian model promises.

Then again, a true space sim can be met by adding in full newtonian physics and blackout/redout with G-Forces. One complaint by some people is how space sims are the "bastards of gaming, being not quite a flight sim but not quite an arcade game" the closest thing being to this I'd assume are the mech combat games.

Some like Freelancer and at times Bridge Commander remove the player from flight control, so the actual physics model hardly matters compared to the gunnery and fire control. This however is not an option for any game wanting to be a true successor to the throne of military space simulation, though an autopilot formate option is excellent to have.

What do you, all think of this?

[Stryke 9]

Newtonian physics allows for better flight control, as flight models like I-War's would simply be impossible to operate if they weren't Newtonian. I think it's mostly because we're used to some things in real life working a certain way, and thus we can move like we really move in RL- who's ever let the gas off a car and seen it come to an immediate standstill? Doesn't it feel kinda... odd when that happens in a game? I dunno, maybe I'm used to operating vehicles (even imaginary ones) like I'd move, and so when I can't turn properly or there's some kinda strangely placed cap on acceleration speed I get a little screwed up, even if I know it's there.

[Blitz_Lightning]

What about relativity? As you approach the speed of light, objects look shorter. And with many games happening in space, it really should be a factor (How long does it take to fly someplace? Here to the sun at light speed is 8 minutes).

[Mr. Vega]

I don't think those effects would show up at 850 m/s, unless you were on the LDS or something.

[Shrike]

Originally posted by Blitz_Lightning
What about relativity? As you approach the speed of light, objects look shorter. And with many games happening in space, it really should be a factor (How long does it take to fly someplace? Here to the sun at light speed is 8 minutes).

Relativistic combat isn't exactly an option for a fun space sim game...... At those kinds of speeds and ranges, everything would be computer controlled.

[Dark_4ce]

I dunno... I 'm kinda split in this decision. On the one hand having it simple like Freespace adds a whole lot more FUN and action cause you're not concentrating on going too fast in one direction, but it takes away at realism. But I've never been much of a fan of realism, cause if I wanted it, I could just go outside. So, games that could incorporate both in a sence, but still lean mostly on the non-newtonion model, would be good. Just basic speed and fun which allows sliding and such. Games are meant to be fun, not frustrating.

[CP5670]

I personally like the Newtonian physics system better because, in my opinion, it increases the skill factor in the game for close-up confrontations. (imagine an online dogfight with these types of partially-controlled sliding motions; that would be awesome ) The maximum thrust speeds can be removed (insead adding in a maximum acceleration rate for each fighter), which can be useful for covering large distances quickly, but with the added penalty that it will become harder to slow down. It probably will not be too much of an issue in a dogfight though, since you will have to keep turning a lot anyway, preventing players from reaching higher speeds. It would be nice to be able to switch the systems though, as in IW2.

A relativistic physics system would be quite neat but probably not as practical, since it would be almost the same as a classical physics system at FS-like speeds and would require much more FP processing power to crunch through the equations.

[Ace]

Relativistic isn't an option, also remember that G-Forces put a limit on acceleration so ships *do* have a top speed, what the pilot and spaceframe can handle.

Right now I'm thinking the best system is the FS one, however with an option to toggle newtonian which is right on the blackout threshold. (i.e. a little more acceleration from your FS style speed you're going to have blackouts, this means you can pull awesome and weird manuvers but at risk of a control loss)

[Zeronet]

Originally posted by Dark_4ce
I dunno... I 'm kinda split in this decision. On the one hand having it simple like Freespace adds a whole lot more FUN and action cause you're not concentrating on going too fast in one direction, but it takes away at realism. But I've never been much of a fan of realism, cause if I wanted it, I could just go outside. So, games that could incorporate both in a sence, but still lean mostly on the non-newtonion model, would be good. Just basic speed and fun which allows sliding and such. Games are meant to be fun, not frustrating.

You can go outside and do stuff you can in IWAR2?

[aldo_14]

Well, methinks FS2 is the more fun and accessible game compared to I-War 2.... it's not as realistic, but it's more 'arcade fun' stylee... that's why I bought it in the first place.

[CP5670]

Looks like the switchable physics mode sounds like the ebst idea to accomodate everyone's wishes. I would get started on this right away if I actually knew any C++.

Relativistic isn't an option, also remember that G-Forces put a limit on acceleration so ships *do* have a top speed, what the pilot and spaceframe can handle.

Actually, that would limit the acceleration, but the velocities would still be unlimited.

[Alikchi]

It doesn't matter about the pilot and the space frame. Just flash a "WARNING - TOP SPEED REACHED" or something when you do, and if you keep on going faster, well, you die. That'd be a lot more fun

[Mr. Vega]

Or maybye the max. speed limit is just a safety precaution(at 80 m/s, the computer refuses to power up the engines unless the speed drops). But you should also be able to turn it off.

[Stryke 9]

Like in I-War?

Problem is, the only real point of reference most of us (or at least I) have is Independence War. Which was not only a single, very stylized game, but not the best game to have in mind for anything.

[Grey Wolf]

Newtonian. I want to see a Ursa going at a destroyer, turn to late, and smash sideways into it, completely obliterating the Ursa

[Stryke 9]

And, at that speed, most likely the destroyer. Ursa looks like it can take a lotta RCS jets.

[##UnknownPlayer##]

My opinion on the whole issue is that you'd achieve maximum fun if you mixed the two modes as part of the gameplay. I.E. your ship can operate in an anti-inertial mode where you get something akin to Freespace physics, but you can also shut this off to fly newtonian.

All the benefits of Freespace fun physics combined with plenty to make mastering the flight make you really powerful (i.e. something like afterburning over something, kicking of the anti-inertial mode so you can slide and spin around to face the person head on, then kick on the anti-intertial so you come to a quick stop as you kill them).

However, the advantage here is you could go solely one or the other depending how you liked it.

[Nico]

newtonian, but with some restrictions. I got plenty of ideas for a fun newtonian spacesim, but I'll keep them for myself.
anyway, non newtonian tends to be more popular, so...

[Kazashi]

My take on the matter would be to include both styles of physics, basically in the same light as UnknownPlayer has described. Consider the non-newtonian method a "training" flight mode for fresh pilots and planet huggers, where the overall movement is controlled by a system of thrusters that continually adjust output to provide the most "aeroplane" movement possible. Of course, the extra power required by this system means that turn rates and maximum speeds will be a lot less, in the tens of metres/sec. At the flick of a switch, the active RCS is turned off, newtonian physics kick in to full effect, and the player can spin on a dime and accelerate to reletavistic speeds.

In practice, relativity wouldn't come into the equation in the case of a dogfight. Even if the spacecraft could accelerate at 9G continuously it would take months, if not years, to reach .5c where such distortions would begin to rise to prominence. While a fighter could attain some whacky speeds, going too fast means you overshoot targets and waste energy, meaning that most battles would still be conducted at a leisurely pace. However, there's nothing stopping some fictitious anomaly (or even the story fountain that is a black hole) introducing relativistic physics and situations into such a game. Maybe in a couple of years

[Shrike]

Why are all you people harping on about relativistic speeds?  Do you understand just how fast and unplayable that is?