Try playing the game with mouse and keyboard first. If you like it enough, you can then think about getting a joystick.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Star Citizen Alpha 2.0 | The 'Verse Awakens
- Thread starter Raticus79
- Start date
Try playing the game with mouse and keyboard first. If you like it enough, you can then think about getting a joystick.
VlaudTheImpaler
tl;dr
Flying was terrible with mouse and keyboard... can I use the pedals along with my controller or something? I really want to test the pedals lol.
VlaudTheImpaler
tl;dr
What is the best way then?
I've seen quite a few videos of people showing how to set up twin sticks for star citizen. A lot of the forums for both SC and Elite that I have gone to have a lot of people advocating for a twin stick and pedal set up. I'm pretty sure I've even heard some gaffers gushing about a twin stick setup as well.
Is it just preference or is there some fundamental flaw in the flying mechanics for star citizen atm?
What would be an example of good flight mechanics for a space sim?
I do agree that there is a lot of work to be done, but I would not call the flight model crap.
WWII in space.
Basically this ^ it is the mots satisfying IMO.
The flightmodel in SC just means there's loads and loads of turreting and almost no chasing/trying to get someone of your tail.
Then there's also the fact that the ships doesn't seem to have any feel of mass which just feels wrong in my opinion. It also looks absolutely rediculous. It really sticks out in a game as focused on visuals as SC.
You know my comment was meant as sarcasm, haha? If you want WWII in space there's always ED. I'm glad they are doing a take on a Newtonian model. Maybe it's not the most intuitive or makes the best pew pew moments, but it makes for a great space sim once the game is more about cruising around doing stuff instead of only being able to shoot each other.
It's also normal for a ship to feel more responsive when turning around an axis. Moments of inertia are not that high and the actual distance that needs to be covered for a complete turn is quite low. People always perceive this as an incorrect model, while it actually is gravity, airdrag and lift force that limits the turnability of a plane in the air, because those forces change depending on the angle and speed of the plane. Those aren't issues in space.
staticneuron
Member
It hurts my heart that this needs to be explained. But I guess if nearly all the plane games are relative to what we know as dogfighting on earth then I guess it needs to be hammered out that this is in space.
Then again like stated in a previous OT this far ahead in time, with the technology on display dogfighting doesn't make much sense. So I guess whatever makes people happy.
Dubbedinenglish
Banned
Even basic flying still feels bad in SC. Seriously go watch people flying assist off in ED or download Diaspora, they are actually fun to fly in those games and take skill to maneuver. There is still no real control of fine moments or landing/takeoff. They made the big deal of switching from an excel based flight model to a "physics" based one where they use ghost thrusters to make ships fly. The biggest issue is they still don't know how to make flying fun. we're at a point where EVA feels more like a space sim than the actual ships.
Another big problem is how they frame engagements between ships. They have no real role for missiles and targeting/contact is the computer yelling at you with no real information along with the terrible radar they have. When you get into gunrange the spastic flight mechanics and IM mode make the game not about maneuvering and the chase, but more like a FPS where the only requirement is pixel perfect aiming. The result is ships just flying towards eachother aiming until they eventually collide. It's just not fun to play.
Yes I know it was sarcasm, but it's my opinion that it would be more fun. I don't see how the current model will be more enjoyable when cruising around. It still feels crap. IMO of course.
Also any realism argument is arbitrary since there's so many unrealistic things in the game that are there because of the "rule of cool". Like the ship designs for example. Which make no sense considering the flight physics, leading to things like ghost thrusters having to be implemented. It's just so inconsistent.
Exactly. It's arbitrary. It's like why they added a lore explanation of why you can hear the sound in space. It's because it's not as "immersive" and fun if it's quiet like it really should be.
Anton Sugar
Member
I REALLY enjoy ED's flight and combat, but I think SC has the chance to establish a really unique model.
I DO think it will take a lot of tweaking to make it satisfying. Creating an "accurate" model does not always translate to a fun model but I don't think it's inherently doomed. They just need to figure out how to strike a good balance.
To be fair, neither is maximum speed unless you approach the speed of light and that one still behaves as if there were an atmosphere in most space games.
I agree that flying still needs to be fun. But I think it's better to have a unique system instead of copying others. You can still play other games if you like those, and there is nothing wrong with that. SC doesn't need to be the catch-all space sim, it's not possible to satisfy all those wildly different demands.
Speed is limited because you still need to be able to brake and turn within respectable limits. Since centripetal acceleration scales with the square of the speed, turning would nearly be impossible at high speed. If you only want to go in a straight line, use the quantum drive.
Speed is limited because you still need to be able to brake and turn within respectable limits. Since centripetal acceleration scales with the square of the speed, turning would nearly be impossible at high speed. If you only want to go in a straight line, use the quantum drive.
And I don't see how they can make it fun. There's certainly nothing to inspire confidence that they'll get it right. They seem to have decided on a super twitchy turreting flight model. I suppose there's nothing inherently wrong with that. But it's not for me.
I have the same pedals and use a Steam controller with them pretty effectively. Regular controller would work fine with them too. I've stayed away from HOTAS due to space constraints, so can't say much about that. People normally associate pedals with full HOTAS setups, but I think they're pretty useful in general.
I think this derail was in bad form due to cutting down on potential for real responses to Vlaud's question.
It was a real response. I don't think flying stick improves the experience at all.
Whatever you're the most used to is best I suppose.
I do, however. Personally I find it much more satisfying particularly with dual joysticks.
However, I wouldn't recommend somebody just get a joystick willy-nilly, especially if they're strapped for cash.
Its coming somewhere between EP1 comes out and Private Server support is added. Maybe. You know I hate when people make questions like "When is Star Marine coming out" or "What happened with sata ball?" *drones on for an hour*
Why?
Oh ok.
MrFrankFontaine
Banned
Any word on when they are planning on adding VR support?
I just started getting into Elite Dangerous due to picking up the CV1 Rift and I can't imagine playing any other way now.
As an original backer of Star Citizen, I'm really excited by what this game will offer once it's fully released, but I won't even install it if it doesn't have VR support...
I just started getting into Elite Dangerous due to picking up the CV1 Rift and I can't imagine playing any other way now.
As an original backer of Star Citizen, I'm really excited by what this game will offer once it's fully released, but I won't even install it if it doesn't have VR support...
VR is a long way away. Even if the alpha's UI and functionality were designed with VR in mind (they're not), the fact that the client framerate is tied to server congestion is a dealbreaker. You simply can't hit a steady 90 FPS.
Zalusithix
Member
You likely wont be installing for a long time then. I don't see VR happening any time soon, and I expect any initial VR implementation to be a partial one at best. There's just so many things to address for Star Citizen in VR. Elite is infinitely easier to do VR with, and even it has issues like the galaxy map.
MrFrankFontaine
Banned
Thanks for the responses. That's very disappointing if true.
Yes. I've had situations when it did run at 60 but that was a fresh instance when the server had one or two people on it at most.
Dictator93
Member
You should just slap it up to Very High and wait for server performance to get better.
ATV 100 Part 2
Comes with the Bengal Ship Shape.
Dat Bangal Hangar
Atv has been delayed for a bit, but they released a new pic of the Bengal.
ATV 100 Part 2
Comes with the Bengal Ship Shape.
Dat Bangal Hangar
Fuck me, I don't care if I would be relegated to janitor, I'd gladly work on that ship.
A lot of area to clean. I personally wouldn't be up for that job.
----
Small insight into the production of the cinematics in SQ42 (despite being partially marketing for AVID tools):
Avid Powers ‘Star Citizen – Squadron 42's’ Galactic Editing
Sax Russel
Banned
It is quite the leap to imagine 90+ things happening at once and the game/server not shitting itself ;D
Dictator93
Member
Those Bengal interior shots are just plain intense. Like damn.
F42 UK and DE always manage to impress with what they are working on. Their ship team seems particularly talented in terms of leveraging the tech and art work flows they built for the game.
Damn.
Also... olffsetting the Mobiglas position is a great idea. It does feel like an overlay at the moment inspite of its diagetic nature and offsetting the arm and making the projection isometric instead of paralell will give it way more depth.
F42 UK and DE always manage to impress with what they are working on. Their ship team seems particularly talented in terms of leveraging the tech and art work flows they built for the game.
Damn.
Also... olffsetting the Mobiglas position is a great idea. It does feel like an overlay at the moment inspite of its diagetic nature and offsetting the arm and making the projection isometric instead of paralell will give it way more depth.
Zalusithix
Member
Oh man, I really hope GAF loves this game. I want to see our Org get so big that we have the fighting potential to actually capture one of these monsters.
Assuming they pull off the miracle needed to get enough people in an instance to run a ship of that size, it'll require far more people than even the best we could theoretically muster. Let alone realistically manage. Even if we somehow managed to capture one, we wouldn't have enough to keep it. Have to remember that a Bengal falls under the persistent ships category. You need a 24/7/365 presence on it that's capable of running it. It never logs off, and is forever vulnerable to both player and AI attack.
So you'd need an org large enough to simultaneously capture and run the Bengal itself in addition to the actual fighter contingent, and still manage to carry out all other org operations. Perpetually. Very few orgs will have both the (dedicated) people, and the management skills to carry that out alone. Far more likely that any Bengal will be a joint op between an alliance of larger orgs.
To be fair, GAF has players from around the world, and I know SC has a huge following in Europe (Germany at the very least has a massive following). But I get your point, it's going to be tough. Still, I'm hoping we get surprised by the level of GAF involvement and we can at least attempt to capture one.
I guess we'll see what happens, I doubt player-flown Bengals are going to be a thing until far after launch, maybe years.
Btw, Companies House UK released F42UK's FY2015 financials: £12m/$15.5m annual running cost after ~20% tax Credits
Considering F42UK is by far their largest studio, $15.5m is not bad at all. I'm sure a big part of the cost is the motion capture stuff, so their doing a great job of keeping costs down.
Zalusithix
Member
Yeah, GAF covers a number of time zones, but it's heavily biased towards the US and from there western Europe. That leaves a huge hole where we'd be lacking even if we had the player count to hold it for our "prime" period. This applies to most orgs really, as groups tend to have location biases due to language differences and such. Those that are large enough to theoretically have 24 hour coverage are zerg orgs and will be hard pressed to organize their forces since virtually everybody joining is either an affiliate or not very invested in the org to begin with.
I'm just hoping for ships that large to have a biometric equivalent of a synchronized key system or something similar. Essentially a way to split command of them so a number of orgs can split ownership without any one being able to just go off and do what they want without explicit support from a representative from all responsible parties.
As for financials, on the flip side they haven't managed to make that much in 2016 yet. Without other studio numbers though, and given the lopsided funding skewed towards the end of the year sales, it's hard to tell exactly whether they're anything close to self sustaining.
Those images look great, thanks for the link to the report.
Zalusithix
Member
Well that Retaliator certainly isn't flight ready. =P
So damn pretty. This put a huge grin on my face.
Similar threads
- Locked