Share this project


Share this project

Reclaim the stars in the exciting new Space Epic from legendary game designer Chris Roberts.
34,397 backers pledged $2,134,374 to help bring this project to life.

Physics - Not a Dirty Word

Posted by Cloud Imperium Games Corporation (Creator)

There have been a lot of questions about how the game's physics system will work. Is it going to be 'physics light' like Wing Commander, an entirely serious model of Newtonian physics like more recent games, or something in-between? Chris Roberts recently addressed this in a forum post and we thought it'd be good to share this background with everyone:

As someone that was taking Physics at Manchester University before I dropped out to make games full time I can assure everyone that the physics model is COMPLETELY accurate and it's a full rigid body simulation. I know because I wrote the code.

Maybe I should have done a better job in the demo, but if you are flying at speed and you set your desired velocity to zero you WILL see the top front thrusters articulating and firing to slow your velocity. If you watch my demo you will notice there is some momentum with the Hornet when I slow down close to the bridge. It may not have been apparent on the screen, but I can assure the Hornet does not stop on a dime. if you load it up with more mass (like extra weapons) you feel the effect of this.

There is no drag modeled - everything is done as it would be in space.

Additionally there is actually counter thrust being applied inside the physics and if you had your hands on the controller you would feel it. If you look closely you will see the inertia of this - the ship doesn't stop rolling or pitching on a dime. There is however a very good reason why you don't actually see the thrusters fire entirely accurately.

The problem with visually depicting the proper thrust is that it would actually look pretty horrible (trust me this is how I first did it, and is still pretty easy to switch back to as I'm actually doing some extra work to make the visuals looks nicer).

The reason is because there is no drag in space, so even a micro amount of thrust starts the Hornet (or any spaceship) rotating until you apply counter thrust. So what is really happening is that the flight control system is always applying micro thrust and counter thrust to achieve the pilot's inputs. This results in the thrusters flickering off and on in micro amounts and you actually not getting a good feel of the general application of thrust. I think you know I like things to look cool (come on, we all know you probably wouldn't be engaging in space dogfights at WW2 speeds, but it's so much more fun than what the reality would probably be), so what happens is that the system is still modeled accurately, but I use the angular /linear velocity delta to drive the visual representation of thrust. Here's my code comment

//Note the thrustGoal is actually the linear velocity delta (desired vel - current vel of
//the vehicle & rotational vel rather than the actual linear & angular acceleration / thrust.
//This is because, while inaccurate its cooler to see more constant thrust that gives
//you a visual clue as to what correctional movement / velocity vectors the vehicle is using.
//If we just used the acceleration as opposed to the desired velocity correction, the thruster flames
//would flicker on and off - especially in the Wing Commander use case of Space, where
//there is no atmosphere to provide drag.
//Of course if you pass the actual accelerations to SetThrustGoal, then you'll get an accurate
//visual representation of what a thruster would really do

I hope that clears up any confusion!

I will admit that the ship doesn't need to have wings or fans on the front, but the idea behind that is for possible atmospheric flight (this is not a promise of planetary action for the early build but allows for expansions in this direction), and as a RAM scoop. Plus it just looks / feels cool!

Chris Roberts

  • Image 172600 original.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1


Only backers can post comments. Log In
    1. Robert "Spork Witch" Klebes on

      *visible, not physible; this is what happens when you're thinking ahead while typing, haha

    2. Robert "Spork Witch" Klebes on

      That's the thing, though, they WOULD be necessary, as at any moment it needs to be correcting and compensating to keep you where you're aiming.

      Not sure what you mean by scaling with velocity / acceleration, unless you mean the proposed method for determining speed caps on ships. Assuming that's the case, there's no need to make it fake physics, simply a setting on the flight computer. But as noted, there needs to be some reasonable maximum limit even if you disable the flight computer's safeties, for reasons of client and server performance, as well as simple playability (presumably it would be the same toggle you already will be using for the flight computer to allow you to spin on your axis while maintaining your previous velocity; too easy for a player to let his speed get out of hand).

      If you mean the graphic image, it certainly doesn't look perfectly "right," but it's easily physible which thrusters are affecting the ship's position and how much, which is sufficient for most.

      For data usage, you would need to send the delta vee so that the client can properly render the thrusters (remember what the code comments said in the update, the graphical representation is based on delta vee), so you couldn't use absolute positions (and given that we can extrapolate new positions based on previous + delta vee, there's no need to constantly resend absolute positions other than as an occasional reference check). As to deriving the rest of the data, possibly, possibly not. Given the number of thrusters that could be operating at once it would be an equation with multiple possible solutions, so the graphical representation for any ship but your own would only be a guess, not necessarily accurate; sending the additional data to correctly represent all those microbursts would be a significant increase in data being sent. Sticking to delta vee means we can ignore all those microbursts, since they cancel each other out.

    3. Missing avatar

      Mikael Öhman on

      Well, I'm not really sure why you are trying to explain this to me. I know the bursts comes from microadjustments, and that's precisely why i said such precise positioning probably isn't necessary. We have a space fighter whose path is constantly changing. Very different from, say, a rocket travling 200k miles to dock in a orbiting space station.
      Nothing in my mind motivates scaling with velocity scaling with acceleration. It just screams fake physics (and correctly so). There are far better methods to make it more visually appealing, e.g. only bursts that lasts longer than some time, or have some certain strength.

      As for data sent, I would have expected it to be sent as absolute positions, but either way, you are just one small numerical derivate from reconstructing the accelerations.

    4. Robert "Spork Witch" Klebes on

      You'd be constantly making the adjustments yourself if you turned it off completely. We're talking microbursts of acceleration to cancel out the fact that PERFECTLY canceling out the spin is all but impossible. Watch the video someone linked earlier in these comments to see what we're talking about, and also take a look at the optional RTS (think that's what they called them) in Kerbal Space Program. They're constantly firing, because staying exactly where you want requires constant adjustments.

      We don't know anything about how fuel will be modeled yet, and most games I've played in the past that modeled fuel only worried about it for main thrust, not maneuvering thrusters.

      As to the visuals, assuming it's not much trouble, I wouldn't object to the option for your own ship, but not for others. Showing it on other ships would result in orders of magnitude more data needing to be passed between clients; as it is, you only need to send the delta vee to the clients, not all the individual accelerations.

      They're said to be modeling orbital mechanics, so your suggestions and plans seem very much like a possibility. Definitely will have to include docking procedures in the autopilot, though, as anyone that's played Kerbal Space Program can tell you that plotting intercepts between orbital bodies that are moving is easier said than done. Seriously, if you want an appreciation for what NASA does when they get something like Curiosity to Mars in one piece, check out Kerbal Space Program, heh.

    5. Missing avatar

      FITCamaro on

      Let me clarify that when I say "tear apart" I mean destroy them with smaller ships that are more maneuverable.

    6. Missing avatar

      Mikael Öhman on

      Another vote for *at least* making this an option. It looks really really bad. As if the ship is flying through water rather than vacuum. If the flickering is to intense, then perhaps the flight control is wasting fuel and should be relaxed a bit, like a cutoff value at small path offsets

    7. Missing avatar

      FITCamaro on

      If we are in an area where there is some form of gravity well (black hole, sun, planet, etc) will the physics caused by that gravity affect the maneuverability of our ships? That would be an awesome combat tactic for smaller ships. To lure a larger ship that will be able to maneuver less into a gravity well so you can tear it apart. Just wondering if this aspect has been consider?

    8. Robert "Spork Witch" Klebes on

      That doesn't address the two issues of 1) processing load (both physics calculations -- even if we ignore relativistic effects -- and graphics calculations) and 2) playability.

      Now I don't know the exact impact on processing, but depending on how crowded the area was (for example, flying just over the plane of an asteroid belt) the GPU processing load would increase greatly as speed increased, not to mention server needs as it has to update you on what's where and doing what.

      As to playability, it's not even a question that allowing those kinds of speeds would quickly become unplayable and make maneuvering far too difficult, not to mention making management of speed far too tasking for enjoyable play. It would also necessitate main thruster control like in XF5700: M.A.N.T.I.S. where you had a dedicated key to activate the thruster and released it to cease the burn.

      Unearthly's solution, making maximum speed a function of acceleration and setting a time limit (that is, your max speed is the speed you can reach within X seconds or stop again within Y seconds). By using this as our baseline, we can then connect a traditional throttle (as is intended to be used with this game) and divide it up into percentages of that resulting max speed, and having the flight computer handle main engine burns and retro-thruster burns to attempt to maintain a constant forward speed.

      This results in very intuitive controls and a very playable balance whereas an unlimited or extremely high max like you propose would require less intuitive controls and be far less playable in general.

      Provided we determine the "allowed time" based on ship's mass, we can also make this scale nicely to get the effects and behaviour people expect and make for fun and interesting gameplay (while maintaining a fair margin of realism as well as high playability). That is, that massive carrier could take full minutes to get moving to its maximum speed, and likewise to stop, which makes sense for a really massive ship. Meanwhile small fighters would be able to get moving and stop moving relatively quickly, but still have noticeable acceleration curves.

      The core thing is that, while realism should always be strived for, playability should not be sacrificed unnecessarily for little gain. Being able to achieve truly extreme speeds, while it might be cool and fun, would simply not be practical in normal gameplay and introduces many issues in behaviour, control, and playability. This is a reasonable one to sacrifice a LITTLE bit of realistism in the form of C being the only speed limit, in the name of making the game far more playable and still just as fun except for that handful of niche scenarios. It would even make logical sense to have it pre-programmed into the flight computer, for the same playability reasons I've mentioned here.

      That said, it actually opens up a possibility, namely disabling the safety in the flight computer to enable you to make a constant burn to attain particularly high speeds. Even then, however, I would argue in favor of still having some reasonable limit, for the other reasons I've mentioned, as well as still covering playability (it will take a LOT of forethought to know when you'll need to start your retroburn if you're going at really extreme speeds; it might be a fun challenge for some, and definitely has tactical potential, but in general it would be an edge-case and hurt playability for a majority of players).

    9. Roland on

      I agree and disagree. There should not be a hard maximum limit, but a limit determined by the size of the system.

      If you want to travel in system A from an edge to edge, you must accelerate up to halfway point and decelerate, (depends on the thrust ratio of front and back thrusters). The maximum velocity is when you reach halfway point. In solar system for example, if you accelerate 30m/s/s from edge, you won't be travelling anywhere near the speed of light when you fly near the sun (mid point)

    10. Robert "Spork Witch" Klebes on

      It's definitely this that looked off, heh

      If you look closely (by his own admission, it's hard to tell in the short clips and movements the videos showed), though, you can see the drift and cancelation on rotation and even when trying to come to a stop. The implication is that it would be far more noticeable (though without being inconvenient or intrusive) in actual gameplay.

    11. Patrick on

      @spork: I guess I should have worded it better; I do understand it's purely cosmetic. You make fair points about reading movements and lowering the amount of data. It's not that big a thing for me, but I noticed that in Chris' demonstration video of the fly-by-wire system something looked 'off' to me re. the thrusters, and I wondered if it might be this.

    12. Robert "Spork Witch" Klebes on

      To be honest, that looks pretty much exactly like he described it. I think is point is that, in general, it looks far cooler to have the thrusters giving very clear indications of the desired movement of the ship. It's also more useful to see it that way in reading a ship's movements. Finally, it's also less data to pass to the various clients in multiplayer, as the only ship that needs to know about ALL of the (hidden) thruster actions is yours, as your client only needs to know where the other ships are, and what VISIBLE thrusters are firing where.

      That said, your comment seems to imply that you didn't understand the update. Specifically that the ships ARE having forces applied exactly like in the video. All of those microaccelerations ARE being calculated and applied in-game, it's just that they hide the VISIBLE firing of the thrusters. So it's not that SC will use "movie-physics" behaviour (it's not, it's using REAL physics behaviour), it's only that it's SHOWING just the movie-physics thruster firing as graphical effects. The important parts, the actual application of those forces, are in fact being properly calculated and applied.

    13. Patrick on

      Would it be possible to show a comparison video of realistic vs. movie-physics vernier thruster behavior? I'm sure Chris took the right decision here, but I'm curious to see how it looks. This came to mind:… :)

    14. bleachorange on

      Saturday Oct 20, 11:16am EDT
      How are the system/sector physics currently being planned?
      Will it be stationary, as in Freelancer, or will Newtonian physics be implemented here as well (Stations would be either Geo-synchronous, lagrange points, polar orbits, etc.)? Will the planets be stationary around the system/sector, or will they be in different orbital points, with planetary rotation, as the game goes on?

      Cloud Imperium Games Corporation
      Saturday Oct 20, 11:17am EDT
      We're thinking proper orbital physics right now. Chris has become a BIG fan of getting his physics right, lately.

    15. bleachorange on

      @spork, someone from cloudimperium confirmed as much to me about the planetary bodies, though i think at this point it's a goal, and we'll see what happens.

    16. bleachorange on

      cool, my new copy of freelancer just got here! sooooo playing that tonight.

    17. Paul D on

      I'm working of a tablet to ... Simulated keyboards and "cut-and-paste" with gestures are challenging :-)
      Thank you for the suggestion, I'll re-post in the main comment thread.

    18. Robert "Spork Witch" Klebes on

      Actually, there is some indication in the main comments thread that Chris is, in fact, interested in and is trying to model gravity and proper movement of celestial bodies in the solar systems in the game. That said, I have seen no direct quotes to support it, but if one was made you can probably find it added to the unofficial FAQ on google docs. I'm on my tablet, so getting you a link would be a pain, but if you ask in the main comments thread, someone should give you the link to the unofficial FAQ google doc pretty quickly.

    19. Paul D on

      Interesting, will the physics apply to all objects and include the effect of Gravity?

      If it doesn't all good of course, the mathematical and computational effort requires to track and model the physics of innumerable items floating around in space would be immense.

      However I think it would be cool if Gravity was included. Imagine the effect of flying too close to a planet/star/blackhole after a battle with reduced thrust. Alternatively, using a bodies gravetational affect to create thrust. Food for thought perhaps?

    20. Robert "Spork Witch" Klebes on

      I type at approximately 97 wpm on a real keyboard, and that's including the time it takes me to hit backspace and correct typos. Right now i'm actually typing on a motorolla xoom tablet using the stock android keyboard, and i've never tested myself on it, but i'd give a rough estimate of at least 60 or 70 words per minute, adjusted for the same corrective action. The difference is i sometimes miss typos, or ignore them because they,re harder to fix on a tablet, whereas i have 100% accuracy on a real keyboard (allowing for brain thinking one word and typing another, which i've been known to do if i'm thinking of many things at once or holding a conversation while typing. It might also interest you to know that i'm sending this while at the village pub with loud people around me, a beer in one hand, a cigarette in the other, and the stereo going.

    21. Robert "Spork Witch" Klebes on

      Expanding on the "time to stop" idea, i would even go so far as to say ships dry mass (standard terminology for vehicles and weapons platforms, dry weight is nothing but the vehicle itself, no fuel, no cargo, no extra equipment, no ammo, etc.,) should be a modifier. For a fighter, saying, perhaps, 30 seconds as the number would be reasonable, but for a full-size fleet-grade carrier, i don't think it would be at all unreasonable to set it as high as even 3 minutesl possibly more. Even in EVE, which doesn't stress over realism, a freighter (largest cargo ship in the game) can literally take as much as two minutes or more to reach the 75% max speed required in the game to enter warp (and that's from a dead stop; if you're moving in a direction other than the destination it's worse since you need to reach speed AND get your bearing in line after countering the previous velocity in another direction).

      Viable (and VERY rough) suggested first TEST values:
      fighters at 15 seconds
      capitals at 5 minutes
      ships in the middle of the fighters and capitals (in terms of mass) at 1 minute 30 seconds

    22. Voxavs on

      @ Spork Witch
      How do you type that fast? What kind of sorcery is this!?

    23. bleachorange on

      deifinitely post that to the forums. just don't be suprised if you earn some vitriol.

    24. Robert "Spork Witch" Klebes on

      Voxavs, read the comments and view the source I indicated. They've confirmed that as emphatically yes, as regards toggling off the flight assist. As to the rest, it seemed to be a scripted start sequence, and slow lasers are enough of a sci-fi staple as to be a nonissue. I view the only relevant point you raised as being flight controls, and that's already been answered in the affirmative, back on announcement day.

    25. Robert "Spork Witch" Klebes on

      That sounds like a very viable and reasonable compromise between realism, system load, and playability. I would support such a solution. Post it to the official forums, they watch those more closely, and they will be far more long-lived. They're still getting used to kickstarter, but they've had these forums going a long while and intend to keep them going until they're out of business.

    26. Voxavs on

      Will you be able to use inertion to fly straight but shoot backwards? It's ok if not, but this would be a nice touch. Pirates sticking to asteroids with the systems off, to be more stealthy is a game feature or was it made just for the trailer? Also i want to say that the flight system that looks cool and plays smooth and fun is better than "-OH MY GODABLE, THIS IS SO REALISTIC, how to start the engine by the way? -Oh that's easy: press UP, DOWN, UP, LEFT, A, B, A, A, B, then START and SELECT". I know a lot of people will be bitching about "explosions in space" and "Slow flying lasers" and " This is too arcady" or whatever, but IMO flying a craft must be an enjoyable experience, not a fight against your own ship.

    27. Robert "Spork Witch" Klebes on

      Target them explicitly? No, only on the larger, slower ships where we could reasonably expect speeds and our targeting computers would facilitate such precision (current JDAMs can literally be aimed through a half-meter square window, when dropped from thousands of feet).

      But yes, the systems ARE all modeled as objects in and on the ship (per the GDC announcement), and if i hapoen to get a lucky hit (just like a lucky shotgun-headshot at 25 meters in counterstrike) I would fully expect it to have the relevant effects.

      As to the "rationalizations," the sound is perfectly reasonable, provided the accuracy / fidelity is tied to the quality and damage level of the sensor systems. As to explosions, that's not rationalization, that's fact. Would an explosion be long-lived? No, but there'd be a visible fireball for enough time to notice it (the teaser vid actually seemed to model it well on that fighter exploding, as it was small and short, in keeping with the atmosphere that ship might hold). Likewise, a leak could enable fires to eject from a damaged large ship. These are not great stretches of the imagination or stretches of belief, and they result in a moreqe visually pleasing game (as well as producing useful indications of damage done, making for a more fun experience.)

      On the other hand, as they've been clear that all subcomponents are physical parts, not just aetherial "features," it follows that any feature has related components, and they've assured us that all components can be damaged independently. It's also very realistic.

    28. Unearthly on

      Regarding maximum velocities, I think there will need to be something. Even if this game is going to be a sim, programming relativistic physics would be crazy. And even before you get to relativistic speeds, if your craft can go extremely fast it makes for rather difficult gameplay. Let alone the performance implications of going extremely fast.

      One thing that could simply be done is have an in-world maximum velocity limiter. Without something like that, travel within a system would be extremely dangerous. It might sound like an excuse, but I think it would be reasonable. Perhaps the maximum velocity could be based on a maximum time to reach zero velocity. This would naturally give small fighters a higher allowed velocity compared to large cruisers that have a lot of mass to manipulate.

    29. Robert Porter on

      @Spork: Those are rationalized explanations for popular visual effects. If you feel like rationalizing everything in this game, feel free. But let's have them make an awesome game as priority #1 and a fully accurate space sim as priority #2. You're talking about targeting someone's dampeners or directional thrusters to take them out. Do you really think that, playing online, it's realistic to be able to pinpoint a system on a rapidly moving ship? Or in real life for that matter? That'd be like me shooting somone's hand off in an FPS: Not much damage overall, but completely takes them out of the game, for what amounts to a lucky shot. Fairness is more important than physics in a competitive, online game.

    30. bleachorange on

      i like many sim aspects. but some visual, and some gameplay aspects, while not completely realistic, do improve the experience. (aka fireballs, sound, etc.). there are other things, like relativistic speeds, that while realistic, would seem poor gameplay material.

      this doesn't seem to apply to you, but it is annoying that 2 years before release, there are already people saying 'I won't support this if X feature isn't just like I want it", sigh... it's just irritating, I suppose.

    31. Robert "Spork Witch" Klebes on

      @robert porter
      Actually, yes, this is a space sim, not just a space game. Ace Combat, by comparison, is a flying game, not a flight sim.

      The itch video, pitch description, and comments and goals stated regularly by the devs in comments, interviews, and videos all state explicitly and emphatically that this is a sim, not just a game.

      That said, a sim does not preclude explosions in space, nor sound in space. Sound can be covered with eve online's in-character explanation: the computer simulates sound based on sensor data for purposes of pilot comfort (perfect silence would be potentially maddening) and for improving, naturally and taking advantage of normal insticts and senses, situational awareness. Babylong 5 explained explosions accurately and realistically in the episode that followed a pair of maintenance workers around the ship during a major battle that included boarding actions in season 5. Assuming the ship contains an atmosphere, there is sufficient atmosphere to produce a fireball, and major injuries to larger ships could produce jets of flame as they vent atmosphere. The colours of the flames would depend on the chemical composition of the atmosphere in question.

    32. Robert Porter on

      @Ludvig: Seriously? This is a space GAME not a space SIM. And just because fiery explosions aren't realistic in space, doesn't mean whatever fuel we're dealing with in the future won't give a pleasant "fiery" visual. I've had friends like you, and even in the nerd community, it's annoying to have someone "nit-picking" every damn perceived "inaccuracy" in games and movies. Willfully suspend your disbelief so the designers can spend time making an awesome game, not a technically accurate snoozefest.

    33. Robert "Spork Witch" Klebes on

      As long as the dampeners are a targetable subsystem, like everything else, that's cool with me. Taking out your dampeners mid-bank and making you black out would be awesome to give me the advantage. I would even argue the flight computer itself should be possible to damage, forcing you into manual newtonian flight until it's repaired.

    34. bleachorange on

      well, i'm all for inertial dampeners. make the physics what you want, but this is a game, and I don't need my character blacking out or anything due to G forces.

    35. Missing avatar

      Marko Karonen on

      I was very skeptical about the physics after seeing the trailers, but this update cleared up some of the issues and made me a backer. That said, fighter designs and carrier ops seen in trailers still look horribly unpractical. Some very good questions and notes in these comments, especially from Dr.Power and Ludvig Böklin.

    36. Robert "Spork Witch" Klebes on

      Also, because it's relevant here, the GDC announcement has explicit confirmation that we WILL DEFINITELY be able to toggle off the flight computer.

      Confirmation is the answer to the first fan question, at approximately 44:00…

    37. Robert "Spork Witch" Klebes on

      Also, just because I fee like being a pedant for a second, it's ALL acceleration, never deceleration (kind of like the PERCEIVED "centrifugal" force vs the ACTUAL "centripetal" force). Acceleration is change in velocity, and whether you're using that acceleration to cancel out your momentum, or to increase it, it's still acceleration, technically (though it's normal to refer to the cancellation of momentum as deceleration, much like we talk about the non-existent-but-perceived "centrifugal" force that we "feel" when under the effects of a centripetal force).

      Sorry, that was purely gratuitous and pedantic :P

    38. Sarrok on

      @Spork Witch

      You're right and I was just about to come back and make it right LOL (that will teach me to google for info before opening my big mouth)

    39. Missing avatar

      High Admiral Core on

      @Spork Witch

      Great post and highly informative.

    40. Robert "Spork Witch" Klebes on

      You're wrong (sorry.) G forces in terms of maeneuvering are a result of DELTA velocity, or the change in velocity (velocity is not just speed, but also the direction of it, remember). Any time you change your velocity, you're exerting force on the craft and your body to make that change, and we measure those forces in relation to standard earth gravities, or Gs. Whether you're planetside or in space, the effecs are exactly the same (because they're generally far greater than the planetary gravity field).

      That said, there are some ways to mitigate this, and a lot of that is in the flight suits pilots wear. They include air bladders that inflate depending on the maneuvers, compressing the extremities. Combined with the pilot intentionally tensing muscles this can help keep blood where it needs to be and reduce the chance of blackout or redout (redout being too many negative Gs, causing a rush of blood to the head). This is why when you listen to flight recordings of pilots pulling high-g maneuvers they sound like they're extremely physically exerted; it's because they ARE.

    41. Missing avatar

      High Admiral Core on

      I am fairly sure acceleration and deceleration of mass will still create the same effect as it would in a gravity environment.

    42. Sarrok on


      I dont think G-Force applies in space, but correct me if I'm wrong.

    43. Missing avatar

      High Admiral Core on

      I assume Gs will play a role or are we going with tech has fixed some this?

    44. Missing avatar

      brokentofu on

      I vote also for the ability to turn off automatic deceleration. I would love to be able to do some starbuck style maneuvering. Killing forward thrusters to rotate my ship 180 degrees and face my opponent. If a space ship flies like it is in atmosphere but in's not realistic.

    45. Sarrok on


      If I'm being followed in a dogfight can I;

      A. Shut off main thrusters and use mini thrusters on my ship to rotate and attack my attacker while still being carried by inertia away from the attacker?

      B. Use the joystick to maneuver behind my attacker using the fly-by-wire system as if I was in atmosphere.


    46. Missing avatar

      brokentofu on

      Please make an option in the settings so we can choose how the thrusters look. Some of us want to see micro pulses because we would like a more realistic experience

    47. Missing avatar

      Geno Merci on

      Another vote for the ability to turn off automatic deceleration. Not just for enhanced gameplay, but because this would be a guaranteed method of control for the pilot through his console in this era. It would add a lot to the realism, and also gives you the opportunity to play with control damage as you've said you would like to do on the forums.

      Automatic deceleration in space travel would be off as a default. The most precious commodity is fuel, and momentum is THE primary tool for the conservation of it.

    48. bleachorange on

      yes, i agree on the engine off, trajectory based maneuvering allowing for you to rotate in-flight and target other ships.

    49. Roland on

      I agree to disagree Chris. I petition for an option for realism fans to change the visuals as they see fit! An option wouldn't hurt surely? Also I am sure flickering can also be made to look nice through bloom effects.

    50. Missing avatar

      Mark Bober on

      You *have* to have the ability to cancel out the auto-correct - I want to set a vector and fly along at my own inertia through a cloud of targets while I go all "Last Starfighter" on them.

      This is a _must_.

      Please :)