I am starting to hate the new flight mechanics

[LameFox]

Isn't that the way it should be? Maybe get a smaller more manurable ship if you want nice handling when flying? X/XL should feel like flying a truck, right? not very nice experience unless you appreciate the feeling of flying a truck, that is (Truck Simulator fans here!?)

It's different—the current system is difficult to understand unless you dig through all the numbers in the game files. There's no clear logic behind it; it's just the way the developers decided.
The previous system was easy to learn and use, whereas the current one is nearly impossible to grasp without reading the source code and is much harder to use.
On the other hand, the AI doesn’t know how to use its ships properly, making combat much easier now.

What...? Why on earth would you resort to that?

[flywlyx]

What...? Why on earth would you resort to that?

Why not? Acceleration is inconsistent, deceleration is inconsistent, and steering speed is inconsistent. The new flight model basically makes everything around the ship unpredictable without any particular reason.
Reading the source code seems like the only option to me, but if you have another method, I'd love to hear it.

[LameFox]

What...? Why on earth would you resort to that?

Why not? Acceleration is inconsistent, deceleration is inconsistent, and steering speed is inconsistent. The new flight model basically makes everything around the ship unpredictable without any particular reason.
Reading the source code seems like the only option to me, but if you have another method, I'd love to hear it.

Inconsistent when? Like different ships/gear? At random?

For the former I just fly it and react to how it works case by case. Same as if I play a new game.

For the latter it's not an issue I have had. In fact I think it's smoother for me now than it used to be, for instance the way speed lowers agility used to sometimes occur in strange unpredictable ways that wouldn't repeat identically a second time, so I couldn't even bug report them. Plus NPC ships used to do crazy impossible physics defying things with much greater regularity, meaning that I could not always rely on physics itself to be consistent. Now it actually feels a lot more stable in what to expect.

[deadmoomin]

What...? Why on earth would you resort to that?

Why not? Acceleration is inconsistent, deceleration is inconsistent, and steering speed is inconsistent. The new flight model basically makes everything around the ship unpredictable without any particular reason.
Reading the source code seems like the only option to me, but if you have another method, I'd love to hear it.

IRL I notice a big difference between my old VW Coupe compared to my newer Ford Coupe....very similar cars on paper but they feel very different and "inconsistent".

From EgoSoft FAQ on the update:

Q: How does flying feel different?
A: ..."There are more pronounced differences between engine types, manufacturers, and models, too."...

Sounds like they are making the ships have "character" and distinct "feel" between manufacturers and classes. That's a very good thing, imo.

But I have not tried the update myself yet, so I cannot say for certain.

[vvvvvvvv]

Why not? Acceleration is inconsistent, deceleration is inconsistent, and steering speed is inconsistent. The new flight model basically makes everything around the ship unpredictable without any particular reason.
Reading the source code seems like the only option to me, but if you have another method, I'd love to hear it.

???

It takes couple of minutes to get used to it. Looking for "logic" will only create problems.

In racing/flight sims, rather than, I don't know, applying your knowledge of aerodynamics to mental model of airplane control surface geometry... instead of that you simply learn what the vehicle can and cannot do. By feeling. Same deal here. Nothing new compared to any other game. If you need to read source code, that's, I believe, doing it very wrong. You don't need to read source code of universe to drive a car in real world.

In this game, it is "forward thruster is strong, sideways thruster is weak, some things brake faster, you can correct your movement with boost, disabling flight assist is often useful". That's really it. Velocity indicator helps.

[flywlyx]

Inconsistent when? Like different ships/gear? At random?
For the former I just fly it and react to how it works case by case. Same as if I play a new game.

That approach is fine for simpler games, but in more complex games, there should be documentation on thrust curves, friction curves, and steering curves.
With so many ships and engines to choose from, relying solely on feel to make a selection seems like far too much effort to me.

IRL I notice a big difference between my old VW Coupe compared to my newer Ford Coupe....very similar cars on paper but they feel very different and "inconsistent".

I'm not sure which model you're referring to as being similar, but as far as I know, VW and Ford use completely different engines, transmissions, chassis, and suspensions, making it nearly impossible for them to have similar handling.
The issue isn't that differences exist—the problem is that there's no clear explanation for why those differences exist.

It takes couple of minutes to get used to it. Looking for "logic" will only create problems.

It's entirely a matter of personal preference. If the "think" in X4's motto implies turning off your brain and just relying on instinct, I’d say that goes completely against the common understanding of the word.

[jlehtone]

The issue isn't that differences exist—the problem is that there's no clear explanation for why those differences exist.

For engines?

Isn't it -- and was with the previous flight model too -- that different species have different interests? (E.g. Split prefer fast cruise.)

Are those "artificial whys"? Sure. "IRL", our James industrial spy Bond would have already stolen and sold all the tech secrets.

[deadmoomin]

The issue isn't that differences exist—the problem is that there's no clear explanation for why those differences exist.

i would hope there is some modelling of real world material physics/factors that determine these differences. some believable system working behind the distinctions. just so it feels more "real".

but if not (if it's just "artistic" variable edits), i'm not sure if any value would be lost to the game. dunno.

[flywlyx]

For engines?

Isn't it -- and was with the previous flight model too -- that different species have different interests? (E.g. Split prefer fast cruise.)

Are those "artificial whys"? Sure. "IRL", our James industrial spy Bond would have already stolen and sold all the tech secrets.

It's a completely different story now. You can check the guide—the new model introduces significant changes to ship handling. In the previous version, many ships had copy-pasted stats, making most parameters irrelevant.

i would hope there is some modelling of real world material physics/factors that determine these differences. some believable system working behind the distinctions. just so it feels more "real".

but if not (if it's just "artistic" variable edits), i'm not sure if any value would be lost to the game. dunno.

The real world operates under full Newtonian physics, which would likely be too drastic of a change for the game.
I'm not expecting that level of overhaul, but at the very least, they should make these hidden numbers visible in the game.

[vvvvvvvv]

It's entirely a matter of personal preference. If the "think" in X4's motto implies turning off your brain and just relying on instinct, I’d say that goes completely against the common understanding of the word.

Flying is 80% instinct with high level thought being taken every few seconds. For thinking heavy part there's empire management and building aspect, or RTS style play.

For engines to be perfectly logical, this would've been an engineering sim. Something akin to SimplePlanes/SimpleRockets or kerbal. Then all ships would need to be designed according to the laws of physics which will not be very fun.

However, if you're looking for logic, then steam announcement here had al ink to a pdf discussing flight model:
https://steamcommunity.com/app/392160/e ... 338598469/

In the case of X, its design priorities do not warrant a complex rigid body simulation. Instead, a ship's acceleration limits are designer-defined based on performance goals for each ship. But regardless of how the flight characteristics of a ship are defined, whether from a complex rigid body simulation or abstracted into a simple set of accelerations, once those accelerations are defined, my goal is to provide a control system that will translate a player's inputs into the realistic Newtonian accelerations needed to carry out those commands.

Coefficients are tuned to make the ship follow designer's vision. That's the logic. "I want a ship to feel this/that way". Given the beta was running for 3 months, most likely by now they correspond to the vision of the designer.

[jlehtone]

It's a completely different story now. You can check the guide—the new model introduces significant changes to ship handling. In the previous version, many ships had copy-pasted stats, making most parameters irrelevant.

Is it really different? There were numbers. There are numbers. No leap to Newtonian.
Boron engines are still the "best" (for Boron ships).


Some say that there is now "mass". Does cargo affect?
Do all wares have same density, i.e. is the only deciding value the how many cubic meters you have?
Would there be a way to prevent scoping up heavy cargo when we hoover up inventory items?

[GCU Grey Area]

Some say that there is now "mass". Does cargo affect?

Always did. I often do the mining for the Nividium needed for research purposes myself. Handling of my M miner was always substantially different on the way out (when empty) compared to the drunken cow it turns into on the way back with a full hold. If the Kha'ak dislike my mining activities have found it's essential to dump cargo before fighting in order to improve handling. If I've modified the miner to increase it's speed & reduce drag it's often necessary to start braking anything up to 100km away from my HQ if I want to come to stop anywhere near it.

[flywlyx]

Flying is 80% instinct with high level thought being taken every few seconds. For thinking heavy part there's empire management and building aspect, or RTS style play.

For engines to be perfectly logical, this would've been an engineering sim. Something akin to SimplePlanes/SimpleRockets or kerbal. Then all ships would need to be designed according to the laws of physics which will not be very fun.

However, if you're looking for logic, then steam announcement here had al ink to a pdf discussing flight model:
https://steamcommunity.com/app/392160/e ... 338598469/

In the case of X, its design priorities do not warrant a complex rigid body simulation. Instead, a ship's acceleration limits are designer-defined based on performance goals for each ship. But regardless of how the flight characteristics of a ship are defined, whether from a complex rigid body simulation or abstracted into a simple set of accelerations, once those accelerations are defined, my goal is to provide a control system that will translate a player's inputs into the realistic Newtonian accelerations needed to carry out those commands.

Coefficients are tuned to make the ship follow designer's vision. That's the logic. "I want a ship to feel this/that way". Given the beta was running for 3 months, most likely by now they correspond to the vision of the designer.

That high-level decision-making should be based on the vessel's performance rather than pure instinct. Instinct itself is developed through habits formed by the understanding of the vessel's performance.
I understand how nobrainer shooter games operate, but I hope they aim for something more refined than that.

I'm not advocating for a perfectly logical game engine—there's no such thing, as every game operates within a specific design scope. I’ve made it clear:

The real world operates under full Newtonian physics, which would likely be too drastic of a change for the game.
I'm not expecting that level of overhaul, but at the very least, they should make these hidden numbers visible in the game.

Is it really different? There were numbers. There are numbers. No leap to Newtonian.
Boron engines are still the "best" (for Boron ships).


Some say that there is now "mass". Does cargo affect?
Do all wares have same density, i.e. is the only deciding value the how many cubic meters you have?
Would there be a way to prevent scoping up heavy cargo when we hoover up inventory items?

Mass is always a factor—heavier ships also have reduced agility in the older version—but overall, all ships feel much more "soapy" now.

[A5PECT]

I like the changes: different ships feel different to fly, and engines and thrusters have a bit more going on beyond variations in top speed.

I think there would be less confusion among players if the game just told them the mass and drag statistics for ship hulls. A lot of complaints are about ships "not behaving as expected", and ship mass and drag are major variables in that equation that are withheld from the player for some reason.

There are a few ship/component statistics that are like that. It's always been very strange how the ship modding mechanic lets players modify certain values without ever telling you the actual value you're starting from

[LameFox]

That approach is fine for simpler games, but in more complex games, there should be documentation on thrust curves, friction curves, and steering curves.
With so many ships and engines to choose from, relying solely on feel to make a selection seems like far too much effort to me.

Well, I do think they should document it (in general, I feel games should do this more, instead of relying on wikis and forums).

I wouldn't say it takes much effort though. I'm just doing this intuitively. It's like, if I get in a ship and find it drifts a lot, I will go on longer attack runs and (if safe) slow down to turn. If I find one is really agile already and I never feel like I need to spin faster, I might put all-around thrusters on and use the higher strafe to dodge incoming fire. If it has a long duration boost, I'll use that more proactively to avoid getting shot at; if I see that bar is small or not keeping up with my use, I'll rely on brief pulses when fire is already incoming and save a reserve for needing to break contact and enter travel drive. et cetera. All this is really just reacting to the situation, not something I have to think about at the time. Looking at exact details first would take me a lot more time/effort than just flying it and seeing what happens.

[vvvvvvvv]

That high-level decision-making should be based on the vessel's performance rather than pure instinct.

Vessels' performance is handled by the instinct or, to be more precise through intuitive understanding. You intuitively learn how the thing handles, and handle it intuitively without thinking about it. Because logical reasoning is very slow. That's basically normal process with most games. You "get used" to a vehicle and drive it without worrying about parameters. Like walking, pretty much.

Real world does not operate under newtonian but under Einsteinian physics. The game, however, is newtonian. F = ma. It is just it adds few extra F to make handling manageable. As most space games do. Again see the document from the announcement. It explains both reasoning and mentions that the game is newtonian.

[flywlyx]

I wouldn't say it takes much effort though. I'm just doing this intuitively. It's like, if I get in a ship and find it drifts a lot, I will go on longer attack runs and (if safe) slow down to turn. If I find one is really agile already and I never feel like I need to spin faster, I might put all-around thrusters on and use the higher strafe to dodge incoming fire. If it has a long duration boost, I'll use that more proactively to avoid getting shot at; if I see that bar is small or not keeping up with my use, I'll rely on brief pulses when fire is already incoming and save a reserve for needing to break contact and enter travel drive. et cetera. All this is really just reacting to the situation, not something I have to think about at the time. Looking at exact details first would take me a lot more time/effort than just flying it and seeing what happens.

It's likely just a difference in habits. I prefer knowing what to expect, as I see testing without a clear scope as a waste of time.

[Lexer440]

In some ways I too have issues with it.

1. Big slow ships are slower now but IMO too slow, (have we not heard of bow thrusters?). Thrusters that they have are apparently just for show as they don't seem to actually do anything.

2. The ship drift is an uncontrollable spin out, its beyond funny. Flight Assist off should give that realism, FA ON should give player more control. As it is FA on or off makes no difference, its been made completely redundant.

3. Boost ignores throttle position, when released ship remains at max throttle regardless of control.

[Pesanur]

3. Boost ignores throttle position, when released ship remains at max throttle regardless of control.

This didn't changed, the old flight model has the same behaviour.

About the other points, I'm agree, Egosoft rushed the launch of the new flight model, it needs a loot of work yet. All ships need to be more controllable and be able of more accurate combat maneuvers with the flight assist on.

[13913408324]

In the new flight model,the L/XL ships passed through the stargate, it violated the rules of physics