Can we get an off switch for the new flight model or is that not possible ? CPU can be turned off, why not the flight model ? So the game can stay how it was for those that liked how the game was built and run for the last 5 odd years and still get updates with new blocks and stuff, without an off switch for the flight model we will continue to see bad reviews from veteran players with over a thousand hours in the game, they are powerful reviews when so many hours are spent in the game, they will cost sales, an off switch for the flight system is a great idea if its possible ? Is it not the point of the game to try and accommodate as many as possible, hence SP, MP, scenarios , yaml edits, config etc etc, and is it not blatantly obvious CPU and the new flight model simply do not do that at all ?
No, not at all! And Please! Restrain yourself using the word WE if it is YOU and a handful of others who (might) share your "pessimistic appraisal of the Situation" If you think I am not eligible to comment to your post - I am currently at 4.692 hours game-testing time.
For myself I could never go back to the way it was. It felt like I was a crane operator without a wire. Up, down, left, right, forward and back. That is not flying to me. At least now I do feel like I flying my crafts. Space travel for me is dead right now. Heck even my freighter in X3 Reunion moves faster then anything in here. That was fully loaded too! I have no desire to see whats out there until they fix the speed problem. Okay that's my 2 cents.
I'm fine with the new flight model...other than the artificial top speed limit applied based on mass - I really still don't get what that one change is trying to achieve. The flight model does have other quirks of course, but they're not so bothersome. Scoob.
....I think it tries to achieve, well hmmm, realism....Do not forget that mass storage should be also active to contribute to RP aspect of gameplay.
if the flight model is not changed, I will uninstall the game, I have 4600 hours in the MP and again on another account for creative work 1400 hours. 24 of my friends have not played Empyrion since the Alpha 11. As Piddlefoot says, CPU you can turn it off but not the crappy flight model. When I read in the forum what people want for super realistic crafting and physics functions they should remember that it is a game and not a simulation and that was a good thing up to Alpha 10. A lot of players want a switch to deactivate the flight model. CPU is currently completely pointless, I see no specialization, my suspicion is, that the developers knew that the requirements for the computers with the Alpha 11 higher and that they wanted to keep the builds small. The adjustable size class was enough, it was already demanding to build good CVs in class 5, SV - HV in class 1. I don't even want to talk about mass and volume. Can't have a Stack Combat Steel in the inventory, but what a miracle with WiFI it is possible (unless the content of the bar bugs away again and the items from the storage container). Hello, it is a game if, i want it realistic, i go to ESA, Roskosmos or NASA.
Well, I believe that won't happen soon - may be of course, but I don't think so - Was nice knowing you
Yea... Flight model is pretty bad. It could use some... Ah "refinements". In all seriousness though I doubt to they will roll it back. I wouldn't have as much of an issue with it if it wasn't so inconsistent and jerky. Having a roll so strong that I can do a 360 in half a second while taking 5 seconds to do a 180 front to back is silly. It would help if there was a limiter so I could tell it not to have a higher roll than... X. Overall my preference would be to invert the system as it is now. Basically have the shape of the ship be a secondary thing to the manuvering. While still primarily relying on rcs to maneuver. Though I admit setting a Max stat limiter might be more straight forward and less invasive to the people who actually.... Like the.... Thing...
@Don't Panic 1. Do you realize that threats do not help you? Yes you may leave the game any time you like but the point is you baught it anyway so go ahead. Play or leave.It is a free world. 2. We do not care about your friends. Reason ? Maybe 24 left but you see 240 must have come to the game anyway. Plus threats and moking do not help anyway. they are bad arguiments 3. Indeed this game is not a simulator. But have you imagined maybe the developers wanted to introduce the plight model in the first place, anyway? So maybe it is not jsut the request from some of the player base. some want it some do not. Developers introduced it. I do not think there was a vote somewhere. 4.I am one of those who have swithced CPU off. CPU is not pointless though. Many players use it. I might use it some time in the future when the game is finilized developement. 5. The developers know very well this is a game. It is their IP remember? And defineltely they do not want to make it some kind of simulator for ESA etc. Nobody knows what their future plans about a new IP might be though. In the mean time play the game and remember it is still in Alpha. PS : People still complain about the CPU even though there is a switch to turn it off... Go figure. Even if they play MP on servers with active CPU, this is still a free world and they go play somewhere else with the relevant setting set off. At least if they can't do that stop whining at developers and whine at the server admins of the said MP games. You guys really waste my time reading your posts on forums.
As a relative n00b, I must admit I have no idea what the 'old' flight control system actually was. As for some of the comment on the current one, I can relate to many of them. I may only play PVE, however, as a flyer I like to be able to pull off precision targeting. I have wished many times we had some kind of sliders to control the extent of axis torque derived from thrust. I think the twitchiness is not so much a factor of the new thruster derive torque, but rather some kind of somewhat odd mouse input handling (acceleration) they have done that of course you may notice badly on some ship setups. In SE, I have to admit I prefer keeping these separate with thrusters and gyros which I guess is what the old model was about (RCS being equivalent to an SE gyro). My preference would not be to go back to the old model if this is what was, but instead give us some sliders that we can use for fine tuning our creations to allow limiting of the derived torque ideally separate slider for each axis. In SE, I would often design atmospheric ships that flew more like helicopters - ie most of their power was lift, and you would pitch down to accelerate, pitch up to slow etc (yes, they had the full thruster set, but with limited power). While this works in Empyrion, it definitely doesn't seem to work as well, or maybe its just an effect of vastly more powerful thrusters rlat8ve to their size and ship mass etc (compared to the rather weak thrusters in SE that you typically needed a stupid number of to get decent handling). I could add gyros to get the turn balance (though of course you still cant turn each axis beyond where you placed the gyros relative to CoG). For space ships, it was also nice to keep them independent, I could for eg have massive side thrust for strafing, but smooth turning or whatever. While is it playable as is (barring bugs), then it could definitely stand some tuning and give us some access to fine tuning.
No threat, fact. Yes, I have tested 38.7 hours from 25 November to now to determine that this new system is rubbish. and, don't become personal, I didn't become either.
Ok But when you post numbers of leaving players in a forum of a game, how does this sound to you? Don't you think that maybe the developers have the tools to monitor the player base anyway? All they ask here in forums is feedback regarding the gameplay. Not how many of our friends play or not the game. Just constructive posts.
Stay on topic and keep it civil. If s.o. is of a certain opinion, he might be as right or wrong as anyone else - and that's ok. /OT posts have been removed.
Unfortunately, I think it fails in that regard. I like many of the aspects of the new system, I'm even warming to CPU now it's balanced a LOT better. Losing so much speed though, just because I have a full cargo hold, feels wrong. I remember being mildly amused when I'd overload a vessel and it'd not be able to take off, or it would lift, but at a snails pace. However, it'd still get up to speed, eventually, then I'd have more amusement trying to slow down. Now, I get into my laden vessel, it takes of perfectly without any issues, acceleration is barely impacted, yet suddenly I can only do 10m/s or something silly. It feels reversed in that my potential top speed is impacted severely before I even really notice that the vessel feels sluggish acceleration-wise. If this were the other way around then it'd feel more natural. Still not quite right in my view but better. I.e. I load up my vessel, it struggles to get off the ground then takes ages to reach its somewhat reduced top speed. That's be fine. The current way feels backwards. If the devs are set on having a mass-related speed limit, so be it, but in order for it to feel better it's impact needs to be felt only after acceleration is already severely reduced. Off the top of my head - not real numbers, just an example of what I mean - if cargo mass is sufficient to cause say a 50% reduction in acceleration olong a given axis, then top speed could perhaps be limited by 10% on the same axis. When poor acceleration means it'll take an age to reach a theoretical max speed, you not reaching that max is, perhaps, less of an issue. Ideally, for me, I'd like the mass-related speed limit removed entirely. However, I'm attempting to compromise with a solution that retains this limit the devs seems to want, while making it far less intrusive and annoying during gameplay. Late-game, when the player is both material and tech rich, these issues can be worked around fairly easily - MORE POWER (thrust) is key lol. However, I find it's the early-game that feels most heavily impacted by this limitation. Plus it's at this stage the player is more limited by CPU too. My first HV or SV used to be a total joy for me, finally being able to carry lots of stuff, at speed. I'd overload it from time to time, expand it, add more thrust etc. and it would continue to perform well. Now however, that first HV / SV can quickly become a frustrating experience due to how quickly mass (cargo mostly) overwhelms its ability to travel at useful speeds - yet the craft still remains fairly responsive as acceleration hasn't been impacted to the same degree. In essence, the current system can give me a craft that feels "light" in that it responds fairly quickly to directional change, yet has a hugely reduced top speed. Compare that to a system where the craft starts to feel heavy and sluggish before the top speed is overly effected. I know my preference. I think, if the mass-related top-speed limit is to stay, this change to the balance would be acceptable for all, I hope. Hopefully I've communicated my thoughts on this clearly and my reasoning behind them. Scoob.
Since the game is in development Alpha I consider all/most mechanics to be temporal. Hence I do not worry about how things are todayregarding gameplay. If I think something is wrong, by my way of thinking I will report it. I do not believe that professional developers of any game would like create one just to see it's player base grow thin. I definetely believe Eleon GS goal is to make a game in their own pace to be fun and popular enogh to bring more players. After all...it's just a game.
I think some corners round up was done but still need some more improvement. I still hoping for a re think/design of the fly system. Actually that for me is a huge problem. But main problem of the game who was more important to fix than working at the new fly system was the long date Empyrion collision system. This is a main fix who afflict a lot game progression ( some times i really think to remove the game when crap staff happen), really annoying and make some times the simple thing really complicate. Other thing was same the long time request to move inside a ship when that is moving. Another Main problem who afflict game progression and fun. All of this are Main fix who require probably a lot of work on code. But still need to be done. What you guy prefer a fix on those problem or this fly system, who people can like or not ( i personally hate it ).
CPU is so silly, you need a spreadsheet to fully understand whats what and how much CPU you really have to use on each block..... Inert blocks with CPU ratings, nothing short of a restriction to keep builds smaller. There is no fixing a system touted as specialization, when its simply not specialization and no matter how much window dressing you put on it, its fundamentally flawed and will always be a depressing drag on the game that used to be so restriction free in building. https://steamcommunity.com/app/383120/discussions/0/1744519017711924519/ Post 12 has your awesome new spreadsheet, should be included in every instal of Empyrion and should pop up at the loading screen so people can see how chump chump CPU really is. This game now has more restrictions in building than SE, or pretty much any other space voxel building game I can think of. What a terrible direction. Who thinks more building restrictions are a smart way to go for a voxel building game, hands up, lets take count ? WE now have a long list of added restrictions to this game and CPU was completely uncalled for and should have been a booster system, and if any one trys to BS me that the current extender system is a booster system, I will loose all respect for your comments, put in into a spread sheet, its obvious whats happened here. The whole thing is a massive restriction system on building, and forces players to absolutely build in one fashion, YOUR way or the high way, YOUR being ELEONs way. Turn it off I hear you say...... WHAT ABOUT THE FLIGHT MODEL...... Cant turn it off, its directly connected to CPU, its fundamentally flawed in more than one way. Modelling our flight model of any one of these games would have been 10000% better than what we got, we did not get proper flight controls, we got a mash up of the current, via CPU restrictions, omg what a messy system. X-Plane 11. ... Microsoft Flight Simulator X: Steam Edition. ... Kerbal Space Program. ... Take on Helicopters. ... Rise of Flight: The First Great Air War. ... Infinite Flight. ... FlyInside. ... Aerofly FS. WarThunder Why are games with proper flight controls SOOOOO popular, well thats pretty simple, they offer DIFFERENCES between the aircraft, that people can relate to, even people that have never flown a real aircraft in there entire life, an utterly huge chunk of this genre use the flight controls in arcade mode when playing, think of that more as a current day drone pilot, very similar, proper distinction between flight controls WAS so important, its really such a huge pity this game took the lazy , overly complex, messy and restrictive system to couple with the new flight model . Its Alpha.... Its bullshit. Its over 5 years and such a fundamental change to the flight systems, SHOULD have been one for the better, not the worse. The game was built on that flight model, the old one, arcade as it was, it was relate-able. Now its just so out of whack, it drives people to not want to load the game up, and worse, drives some to leave scathing reviews, people with thousands of hours. If it was just a few, yea sure, fussy people, but its constant, since 11, and MP is but a shell of its former self. So why not have an off switch for the new flight model ? Are you all so against that option, why ? Spite ? I did not just ask what you think the devs did this for, Im asking you personally, all of you, why be against an off button for the flight model ?
I think who fly system is a core code. And cannot simply be disabled. You are maybe asking for the possibility to have in the game two fly system to switch as you wish. I think whp this is not possible also becouse new game improvment should be done using this core system as a backbone and have two flysystem can complicate the interaction with new game improvment and have to dial costanyly also with two flysystem bug fixing. I think ia not praticable what you are asking for. Also engine cpu e thrust balancment is done for this fly system. If you put another one you should force a balancement for the other system as well. My opinion is you should move on and accept the situation like is now. You can of course desagree. As i had done too. Maybe one day the will put the hand again on this mess. Lets keep the hope at last.
After reading this it has made me take more notice of the behavior and try to balance things out properly in an SV build I am doing. I have to say I am coming around to very strongly disliking the system as-is to the point of considering it to be just plain broken and badly thought out. My main complaint is that I would expect a real system even based upon current today tech to automatically provide balancing of the torque from available thruster from knowing their positions and the current center of mass (according to cargo load if that is an impacting factor). This seems to be particular a problem for SVs designed to be heavy lifters, or high-G planet capable as when not under such loads, they will be extremely twitchy to fly or very unbalanced - for eg, will pitch very rapidly in one direction while being very slow in the other. There is no way to designate that the massive lift thruster be excluded from orientation control and thus even being the tiniest bit off center just badly skews the affect of the intended directional thrusters despite is being as close to vertical center as I can place it (which would be fine for a modern proper thrust control system). Either this needs a proper auto balancing control system, or we need to be able to exert fine control somehow during our build process. Currently I and coming around to think that the current implementation only works for a cube with perfectly centered cargo blocks. A modern day drone has a MUCH better auto-balancing system than this. If you want to avoid implementing an auto-balancer (which isn't hard, I have written such for gravity drive scripts in space engineers which tend to be rather more fiddly in SE than thrusters), then you have to take the cheapo route and consider thrust to also be at the center of mass and only acting upon the center of mass, which I guess is what the old system was and used RCS to provide the turning. In SE the RCS has to be appropriately placed, but the location of thrusters didn't matter. Right now - I think its broken and needs urgent attention. I am fine with the current approach, but a) it needs to be done properly to auto balance thrust and 'torque', and b) we need some fine control over it, particular so that massive boot/lift thruster can be all but excluded from orientation, or may their impact reduced to a few %, so whatever control we have also needs to be very finely adjustable at the low end of the range. Something like N% steps will not cut it.
