Why do I slow down when I take my finger off my booster when I'm in hard vacuum?

Why do I slow down when I take my finger off my booster when I'm in hard vacuum?

 

All starfighters are equipped with inertial dampeners and reverse thrusters...

 

Obviously GS is an arcade game, not a realistic simulation. If you want relativistic physics, go play Kerbal Space Program.

Do you really want a dog-fighting game based on Newtonian physics? Really?

 

Good luck decelerating to turn around before the match ends.

Do you really want a dog-fighting game based on Newtonian physics? Really?

 

Good luck decelerating to turn around before the match ends.

 

This.

 

I love my realism, but I don't mix my realism with my Star Wars...

 

Think:

 

Bye bye lightsabers, bye bye force, bye bye cool laser beam effects... (I mean, you do realize that you cannot actually see a noncontinuous (burst) laser beam, right, because, you know, it kinda travels at a really high rate of speed?)

 

Those just happen to be the three things without which Star Wars would be sublimely boring. Would the OP also prefer that when you throw someone 20 feet with the force that you are then thrown 20 feet in the opposite direction? Might as well throw out every single spacecraft supposedly capable of entering a planetary atmosphere as well, because 99.9% of the spacecraft used in Star Wars could not actually fly in and/or enter an atmosphere.

 

The list goes on...

Edited December 3, 2013 by iHumanist

Yes assuming by 'dogfighting' you meant space combat and not air. Because all air combat games should apply physics. But even for space combat, yes. Though I understand this is a derp arcade game. And I'll be playing Star Citizen instead of this crap when it comes out. Oh, how I can only dream of the day.....

That's the thing, I'm used to space combat games that ARE a bit more realistic so I find this really counter-intuitive. Don't get me wrong, it's still fun, but it feels really arcade-y and I can't see it holding my interest.

That's the thing, I'm used to space combat games that ARE a bit more realistic so I find this really counter-intuitive. Don't get me wrong, it's still fun, but it feels really arcade-y and I can't see it holding my interest.

 

I agree. I'm already over it. That being said, should they give you some more control options and ability to adjust sensitivity? I'll give it another try.

That's the thing, I'm used to space combat games that ARE a bit more realistic so I find this really counter-intuitive. Don't get me wrong, it's still fun, but it feels really arcade-y and I can't see it holding my interest.

 

This is where we have to agree to disagree: there is no such thing as a "realistic" space combat game. By labeling something "realistic," you're stating that it simulates reality. At present, "realistic space combat" is launching missiles from Earth at satellites in low Earth orbit.

 

Sure, applying realistic physics to space combat might be fun to some but as another poster pointed out, you'd spend the entire time screwing around with acceleration-related issues. Acceleration in a vacuum is an incredibly tricky thing, especially when one is accelerating near a massive mass or multiple massive masses. (I'm going to have to say that more often...!) Gravity sucks.

Oh come on. Just leave extreme realism aside for a while.

 

At this rate, my next question is gonna be, "Why am I hearing *PEW PEW PEW* *WHOOSH!!!* *'SPLOSION !!!* *PEW PEW PEW* in a vacuum?

Personally, I wish it would maintain your speed when you let off the throttle, not so much for "realism", but simply so I don't have to mash W the entire time I'm going from point A to B. My prior space sim experience is from FreeSpace 2, where you could simply set your throttle to max, which was more convenient.

Oh come on. Just leave extreme realism aside for a while.

 

At this rate, my next question is gonna be, "Why am I hearing *PEW PEW PEW* *WHOOSH!!!* *'SPLOSION !!!* *PEW PEW PEW* in a vacuum?

 

You know what I call "extreme realism?"

 

Realism.