newtonian physics? sure hope this is a bug

[Marvin]

I've got a couple hunderd dollars saved up in case Vice ever decides to increase the size of his download and add all these realistic options to the game.

[PlasmaJedi]

Lol... Hey, Marvin, I saw on a server a station close to the Sapphire BH, Not sure if it's close enough to trap AI, but you do indeed get pulled on.

In my opinion, I think Vice has done good with planet sizes, stars (altho they are tiny, its really hard to tell that! They feel huge!) and so on, and I don't think the Evoverse would still be what it is with a total physics overhaul.

It was merely a suggestion to make these small little gravity wells near planets actually affect your acceleration, and not merely your velocity. It would make it more interesting, and possibly more challenging, only if you're near a gravity well. Their effective range should only be increased slightly, to allow some things that would be harder if not, like entering an orbit. If anything more significant changes, it'll change part of the core gameplay.

Honestly? Gravity is fine how it is. Its not correct, but it is still a threat, and still and interesting part of the game. Whatever Vice chooses to do is up to him.

I do not intend to put down everyone's ideas, or to tell Vice how to make his game. I simply know how it can feel when people start talking about your work of art like it isn't done the way it should be.

[Marvin]

I was serious. Nonetheless, as it stands, this is as close at it gets. Orbiter would make a great space combat simulation ... if it had combat and the entire galaxy was laid out sandbox-style. Even without multiplayer, it woud be cool. But Orbiter isn't a galactic sandbox. This (Mercenary) is the next best thing.

[Capt_Caveman]

If you want to test something realistic try this. It's very difficult to create gameplay with such realistic gravity constraints.

I was thinking about that one also
It took me many hours just to learn how to get into orbit.
accurate physics and very challenging.

simulator only, not really a game.

[morbosfist]

No game's perfect, and this one does a pretty good job. The only other game I've played that's close is Terminus, and that one really went the extra mile by accounting for changes in mass, hull stress from high speeds/turning, etc. Not that that was always for the best. Really annoying to die from turning.

[Edited on 2-9-2013 by morbosfist]

[elthore]

so is this the final depth of physics in evochron?

[SeeJay]

so is this the final depth of physics in evochron?

Vice said a bit up in the thread that he wanted
feedback from players.

He might look into changing things.

[_-Caleb-_]

Hola.

If Vice deploy the realism of Newtonian physics.

It is possible a technical demo, for example: Only the Sapphire system, planets and stations and only 2 o 3 frames with changed physics?

So players could provide a more reliable feedback of what they really think of change.

Just a thought.

Regards!

[Munshine]

Orbiter is a great simulator (that I'm still afraid of) but it isn't a game. Kerbal Space Program is at the same time a game as you can do crazy things by building and lauching the most insane rockets ever . And also a simulation based on realistic physics as these rockets obviously can't fly.

I remember that Frontier Elite 2 was a realistic game even more realistic than Evochron. But space combat in Evochron is fun and still challenging while in Frontier it was terribly boring.

So it's difficult to gauge the fun between realism and arcade. An unchallenging and unrealistic game is boring but a too difficult and realistic game can also be frustrating.

So far I think that Evochron is very well tuned and balanced in this kind of things.


[Edited on 2-9-2013 by Munshine]

[PlasmaJedi]

I concur! EM is very well done. To make it too realistic will ruin it. That's one of the things with game development, once you get something that works, be VERY CAREFUL how you change it, or you'll lose whatever it was you had.

[Triton83]

The gravitational field formula could be used, provided that a mass would be given to each object. Considering the planets similar sizes, we probably won't feel much difference between each object gravitational effect, unless Vice gives them individually very arbitrary masses.

Realistic sized objects could be a good way to use the grav field calculation with a real impact on gameplay. And IMHO it would be great! But considering the map scale and the jumpdrive range, many of the game's features would have to be modified. Besides, finding someone or something in the map and in space would be difficult, and we'd need more radar range. I suppose the computing load would be much higher and impact on many computers. Tidal forces could also be simulated if objects had realistic sizes. It'd be great for the black holes, maybe for new featured neutron stars... Space would be even more dangerous

But even with all this, the global feeling about atmospheric entry and orbit would be the same.

Regarding atmospheric physics, it's very complicated to simulate a full-realistic behavior, with atmosphere layers and all, but I agree there is probably a way to improve the actual behavior with some tweaking.

Regarding realistic orbits, we'd need Kepler's laws. It could be great, but would need more navigation tools or a very high range map. I can't imagine how difficult it would be to find Pearl hidden planet without it (not to mention the fact that the closest star to Pearl hidden planet isn't Pearl star ). If all planets and moons have a revolution period, and if objects orbit around them, even finding gates or stations would be complicated. But once again, with new nav tools, it's maybe feasible...

Many pilots consider Evochron physics hard to handle. Better physics would be great, but I'm afraid that could discourage many new players. Moreover, most of the vet's knacks are actually game physics exploits...

Orbiting stations aside, you can build a trade station close enough to a star for gravity to have influence over your flight path. One such station was built so close that AI, if approaching from the wrong direction, get pulled toward the star and blow up.

I recommand my "Sunbath" station in Sapphire (CAV, CPB, G1) close to Erato star. My advice: don't use the station gate 1!

[Marvin]

I recommand my "Sunbath" station in Sapphire (CAV, CPB, G1) close to Erato star. My advice: don't use the station gate 1!

If you have the technique down pat, I suggest you build one of those in a more hostile system. Then count the number of AI who attempt to dock at Gate 1.

[Triton83]

Gate 1 is actually stuck on the star I have buildt one near Agate Hub star and experimented new ways to fulfil fighting contracts

[Edited on 9/2/2013 by Triton83]

[DennyMala]

Well, I never regarded EM as a too realistic simulation but this may get to some interesting considerations and debate.

I don't know if implementing such changes will benefit or not to the game but I'm all ear to consider this.

[-splosives-]

The least thing vice can do is make gravity towards altitude a squared function like in real life instead of a linear one like it is now.

[DaveK]

Gravity is not a force of acceleration, but velocity.

G = 32 ft/sec squared. Approximately. Squared.

beat me to it!

Though I was, in my defense, bemused by the statement that it isn't "true" (true?? True????) Newtonian (presumably) movement in reponse to gravitational and inertial mass - Einstein move over and let the oldies through!

[Marvin]

He is correct, though, about Evoverse gravity. Objects float down from outer space and never pick up speed. It's like they're all on parachutes (maybe they are).

[jeremyhak2]

Yep, this game definitely needs to implement orbital mechanics.

Perhaps not extremely realistic orbits to the point where calculations are needed (as in Orbiter, trying to get into orbit was one heck of a challenge. Not to mention planetary transfers >.<) but the gravity should at least be based on acceleration so that we can even do a stable orbit at all. It would be awesome to be able to go in a low planetary orbit, watch the planet go from night to day to night and alter the size of the orbit based on current velocity.

As of now, if you went IDS to 0 or intertial mode in a gravity field, the spacecraft would fall as light as a feather Orbital mechanics would make the newtonian physics more apparent xD

This opens up to a whole set of new navigation tools, such as calculating when and how to jump directly into orbit. Although this is optional, reentry should include lowering forward velocity while in orbit to make it more realistic. Of course we should still be able to just go straight directly into a planet to keep its simplicity (and for those who are lazy xD).

I was hoping advanced reentries can be done by lowering the orbiting velocity that should let you come at speeds faster than 1450 m/s as long as your pitch is set to 20 degrees (to dissipate the heat across the spacecraft), vs. a newbie straight-in approach where you are still limited to that 1450 m/s velocity limit. Of course this is all just extra orbiting techniques to include

This acceleration-based gravity of course only applies when you are near a planet or star and you enter the gravity field. When outside this field, we should be able to dock with the stations like we do now, without having to worry about gravity. This about as far as I'd go into with realism considering it is newtonian physics, but hopefully the fun factor can still be maintained

[Maarschalk]

Iirc, it is mentioned some where that the descent to a planet in inertia is an automatic built in safety system control so that you float down to the planet like a feather instead of falling uncontrolably at devastating velocities due to gravity!. Your thrusters and engine systems compensate automaticaly when descending in inertia mode to a safe freefall velocity!. You can try it out and iirc, you will see your fuel consumption still going because fuel is being used to compensate for the inertia freefall, well you are not actually free falling but it feels like your freefalling as a feather!......

[Edited on 2-12-2013 by Maarschalk]

[-splosives-]

Gravity is not a force of acceleration, but velocity.

Brilliant!
Why didn't I think of that?
This is most likely the most impostant fact that should change in the gravity mechanics of evochron.
This would make orbiting possible.

Gravity should be like a thruster that constantly accelerates downwards to the planet.

Maybe Vice could implement mechanics where the force diminishes as you go faster, simulating lift created by wings.
(only in planetary mode, in space mode it should just drag you down)
And if you want to get to outer space, you would be required constantly use afterburner to counter the gravity, just like a space shuttle.
Usage of IDS would just cause stall.

That would make an awesome addition to the gameplay in my opinion.


[Edited on 2-12-2013 by -splosives-]

[Triton83]

Gravity is an acceleration (unit = N/kg = m/s²).

[-splosives-]

Gravity is an acceleration (unit = N/kg = m/s²).

Not exactly.
Gravity itself is a force.
and as we all know F=m*a where a is acceleration and m is mass

[Edited on 2-12-2013 by -splosives-]

[Triton83]

No, the force is the weight (in N), resulting of the application of a gravity field (in m/s²) to a mass (kg).

[-splosives-]

No, the force is the weight (in N), resulting of the application of a gravity field (in m/s²) to a mass (kg).

No, Gravity is a force. Doesn't matter what we call it though, it's just semantics.

I know what you mean when you say that it's an acceleration, and you're right.
The gravitational constant G (9.81 on earth) is an acceleration.



To prove my point I will quote one of the most brilliant people that ever lived: Sir Isaac Newton

“I deduced that the forces which keep the planets in their orbs must [be] reciprocally as the squares of their distances from the centers about which they revolve: and thereby compared the force requisite to keep the Moon in her Orb with the force of gravity at the surface of the Earth; and found them answer pretty nearly.�

[Edited on 2-12-2013 by -splosives-]

[PlasmaJedi]

quote by splosives:

Brilliant!
Why didn't I think of that?
This is most likely the most impostant fact that should change in the gravity mechanics of evochron.
This would make orbiting possible.

Gravity should be like a thruster that constantly accelerates downwards to the planet.
--------------------------------------

Well, regardless, in reality Gravity makes you fall faster and faster, a force, which makes you accelerate, like any constant force would.

If you've ever sat in the blaze of a star's corona to collect fuel, you'll know that you can do the impossible, HOVER with engines OFF, in place! In the evoverse, gravity works by applying a VELOCITY to the ship, which means if you get 'up to' an equal and opposite speed, you can shut off your engines and hover. You can do this in inertial or in IDS.

That's what the whole thread is about. Gravity doesn't work like it does in real life, regardless of the size or scale, you only ever accelerate because the applied speed gets faster as you get closer. It seems Vice expected gravity to make a difference when flying with IDS, where it will happily think its sitting still as you plummet toward the sun.

If gravity worked by force, you could actually do stuff like orbit, or slingshot with a blackhole or sun, cool stuff like that. As it is now, it does fine in the game, but isn't accurate at all.

Since it will change gameplay, and likely screw with the AI, I suggest if Vice tries this at all, he do a bbeta implementation or something, incase it doesn't work right.