I am starting to hate the new flight mechanics

[LameFox]

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

Er... what?

[Sorrowless]

All my S/M ships behave like they have the old combat thrusters, so no more "all round" way of handling the ship. Is this as it should be or is it a bug?

I never used the combat thrusters as I've always hated that flight model. I know it is probably just my problem, but I can't even park a ship like that, let alone fight in it... (I always used a pilot to park them and changed the thrusters as soon as I could).

L and X/L ships seem more sluggish, but that was to be expected, and I can still handle them as they behave like before (following my mouse and not rotating to the side where the mouse is pointing...)

I tried several S/M ships In my old (7.10) game, they all have all round thrusters, and I simply can't fly them course they just rotate like with the combat thrusters.

Is this a bug or just the way the S/M ships now handle, meaning I can't play anymore?

[jlehtone]

I never used the combat thrusters as I've always hated that flight model. I know it is probably just my problem, but I can't even park a ship like that, let alone fight in it... (I always used a pilot to park them and changed the thrusters as soon as I could).

Controls has "Adaptive Steering" (for Controllers and Mouse separately). Do you have it on? When off, should it not keep same "primary" for all ships?

[Gergin]

Prior to 7.5, I loved dogfighting in a Mamba with Exceptional mods. You had enough agility to get behind targets and enough shield strength to soak their ally's shots while you unload your Tau Accelerators or Neutron Gatlings into something.

7.5 has introduced multiple problems with dogfighting in a S ship

First and foremost, now that boosting is no longer dependent on shield energy, enemies are able to repeatedly boost around in combat even if you get a good salvo off on them and strip their shielding. This means you are constantly having to chase down your target to get them back in range. You used to be able to essentially pin down a target by stripping their shielding off but now, there's nothing you can do to prevent them from boosting all over the place. This combined with the next issue makes taking down targets take substantially longer.

Second, basically all ships and particularly Split ships (the ostensible dogfight kings) are really slippery which makes getting into and maintaining desired positioning much more difficult. Combined with a huge increase in enemy mobility due to the changes to boost, getting behind S targets is extremely difficult.

Third, due to the two issues above, weapon balancing has been massively upset. Beam Emitters are now absolutely leaps and bounds ahead of any other option when it comes to killing S ships. Instead of bothering with dogfighting or basically interacting with the new flight model, just beam things down at range.
"But that's their intended role!" you might say. Sure but why bother having all this variety if there's one option that is SO much better than alternatives.
Stuff like the Neutron Gatling are now almost entirely worthless because getting close enough to reliably land hits on anything smaller than Frigates is annoying. You basically either run Plasma/Blast Mortar for M hunting or Beams for S hunting and that's it. Everything else is kind of out the window now.

I used to love dogfighting in S ships but it kind of feels awful now and like you're just straight up handicapping yourself. Why bother with dogfighting when I can just fly an M ship with Beam Emitters and basically ignore everything?
Sure Beams don't have the raw DPS of other options but they're amazing against S, can chew through M's if you have enough of them and can be used to strip L's of all their turrets quickly due to their precision.

[jlehtone]

First and foremost, now that boosting is no longer dependent on shield energy, enemies are able to repeatedly boost around in combat even if you get a good salvo off on them and strip their shielding. This means you are constantly having to chase down your target to get them back in range. You used to be able to essentially pin down a target by stripping their shielding off but now, there's nothing you can do to prevent them from boosting all over the place.

That was a concern that was clearly expressed when the proposal for this new boost was discussed. Those in favor of new boost deemed it less critical.

To be fair, there are in essence only three ships: the one you fly (A), the ship in your fleet (B), and the enemy (C).
If we ignore the A as an outlier, we are left with four combos:

1. Both B and C burn their shields when boosting. This was the old boost and loss of shield (and life) of B seemed disturbing.
2. Neither B nor C consumes shields when boosting. This is the current boost.
3. Only C consumes shields when boosting. That definitely would be an unfair advantage for our fleets.
4. Only B consumes shields when boosting. Those that dislike losing ships would be more outraged than they were with the old boost.

The option #2 is least bad for B and C.

I used to love dogfighting in S ships but it kind of feels awful now and like you're just straight up handicapping yourself. Why bother with dogfighting when I can just fly an M ship with Beam Emitters and basically ignore everything?

That is the difference between fight and kill. Why risk yourself in a fight (that implies a chance of win for both sides) if you can kill?
There was no sane reason to fight to begin with. If there was no way to avoid the fight, then you were in bad position.
We fight for the thrill, because we have the "Reload" magick. If the thrill is gone, then we don't.

[Gergin]

To be fair, there are in essence only three ships: the one you fly (A), the ship in your fleet (B), and the enemy (C).
If we ignore the A as an outlier, we are left with four combos:

1. Both B and C burn their shields when boosting. This was the old boost and loss of shield (and life) of B seemed disturbing.
2. Neither B nor C consumes shields when boosting. This is the current boost.
3. Only C consumes shields when boosting. That definitely would be an unfair advantage for our fleets.
4. Only B consumes shields when boosting. Those that dislike losing ships would be more outraged than they were with the old boost.

The option #2 is least bad for B and C.

The important thing is that A, B and C all operate on the same rules.
I disagree that option #2 is the least bad, at least for S ships!

Thinking about it, I think basically ALL of my current frustrations with the system would disappear if boosting for S ships remained tied to shield and boosting for M and up used the new separate pool. M and L ships burning their shield via boosting was silly and it made them substantially weaker than they should have been.
S ship shields already function in a very different way than M and L shields and when it was tied to boosting, there were more meaningful differences between the different racial options. Split shields were great for dogfighting due to having the shortest delay before they started recharging but now that it's separated, they're pretty much objectively the worst option. The consideration for shield selection is ONLY about how it impacts your health now which seems like a step backwards as you are no longer weighing how it also impacts your mobility.

That is the difference between fight and kill. Why risk yourself in a fight (that implies a chance of win for both sides) if you can kill?
There was no sane reason to fight to begin with. If there was no way to avoid the fight, then you were in bad position.
We fight for the thrill, because we have the "Reload" magick. If the thrill is gone, then we don't.

For me personally, this update has basically killed off my desire to personally pilot an entire class of ship in combat (S ships). They used to be really fun AND effective when properly modified but now it just feels like you're massively handicapping yourself and fighting other S ships is more frustrating and tedious than fun.
That is not a positive development for ME. I'm sure other people feel differently but I'm pretty upset that one of my favorite parts of the game has kind of been gutted.
Ultimately it all boils down to how a change impacts the player's experience and the changes are absolutely a net negative for me right now.

[GCU Grey Area]

Prior to 7.5, I loved dogfighting in a Mamba with Exceptional mods...

Would suggest trying different engines. There are now very significant differences between the engines made by each of the factions. There's a brief summary of the general characteristics for each engine type in the flight model FAQ. Might be one of the other engines might suit you better than what you currently have installed in your Mamba.

Have not flown any Split ships yet in 7.5, however have certainly noticed a considerable difference between Paranid & Argon. Most of my ships are Paranid (playing the new Uncocooned start), however recently acquired the Litigious Rodent from one the Terran plots. It has an Argon mk2 combat engine & it did take a fair while to get used to it's handling - very different to the Paranid S ships I'd been flying up to that point.

Might also be worth considering which chassis & engine mods you install. Some of them can be a bit of a double edged sword in 7.5, adding speed at the cost of control.

[alt3rn1ty]

Prior to 7.5, I loved dogfighting in a Mamba with Exceptional mods...

Would suggest trying different engines. There are now very significant differences between the engines made by each of the factions. There's a brief summary of the general characteristics for each engine type in the flight model FAQ. Might be one of the other engines might suit you better than what you currently have installed in your Mamba.

Have not flown any Split ships yet in 7.5, however have certainly noticed a considerable difference between Paranid & Argon. Most of my ships are Paranid (playing the new Uncocooned start), however recently acquired the Litigious Rodent from one the Terran plots. It has an Argon mk2 combat engine & it did take a fair while to get used to it's handling - very different to the Paranid S ships I'd been flying up to that point.

Might also be worth considering which chassis & engine mods you install. Some of them can be a bit of a double edged sword in 7.5, adding speed at the cost of control.

^^ This. I think a lot of people need to re-experiment with what Engine you have, plus Chassis + Engine mods .. For every ship you have. Its a pain but I am of the same opinion as GCU Grey area.

[Sorrowless]

I never used the combat thrusters as I've always hated that flight model. I know it is probably just my problem, but I can't even park a ship like that, let alone fight in it... (I always used a pilot to park them and changed the thrusters as soon as I could).

Controls has "Adaptive Steering" (for Controllers and Mouse separately). Do you have it on? When off, should it not keep same "primary" for all ships?

I'm 48 playing on a PC since 13 years old. No, controllers are not for me. Mouse and keyboard is all I use.

But the problem is not the controller, it's just all my S/M ships behave as if they had the old combat thrusters, meaning they go up and down, but if I try to go to the sides with the mouse, they just roll.

This doesn't happen with capital ships. If I go to the side, they slowly turn to the side. As I'm not a combat pilot, I don't understand Why all my S/M ships have to behave like that.

Also, most of my ships are Terran, and they state that the Terran engines are the easiest to use, so I'm really confused if I have a bug in my save after 7.5 or if it's intended.

That is really the only thing I need to understand, course if it's intended that all S/M ships handle as if they had the old combat thrusters (independently of what I fit them with as I've tried a bunch of different ships with different configurations), then I can't play anymore...

If it's a bug, them I might start the game again... Which is a shame as I'm almost through all storylines, but still have some things to do (finished around 85% of all storylines).

[alt3rn1ty]

I never used the combat thrusters as I've always hated that flight model. I know it is probably just my problem, but I can't even park a ship like that, let alone fight in it... (I always used a pilot to park them and changed the thrusters as soon as I could).

Controls has "Adaptive Steering" (for Controllers and Mouse separately). Do you have it on? When off, should it not keep same "primary" for all ships?

I'm 48 playing on a PC since 13 years old. No, controllers are not for me. Mouse and keyboard is all I use.

But the problem is not the controller, it's just all my S/M ships behave as if they had the old combat thrusters, meaning they go up and down, but if I try to go to the sides with the mouse, they just roll.

This doesn't happen with capital ships. If I go to the side, they slowly turn to the side. As I'm not a combat pilot, I don't understand Why all my S/M ships have to behave like that.

I have the same problem I think.

Adaptive steering is turned off for Mouse + Keyboard, yet dragging the ships steering left or right in any ship with the mouse, the ships slowly starts to roll in the same direction, so at the end of turning I have to use Q / E keys to correct it. I could have the auto-leveling on which would solve it, but I also hate that being on because if I actually want to incline a bit myself using the Q / E keys, I dont want that being auto corrected.

[LameFox]

What ships does that happen with?

For me adaptive steering is off and I fly in combat with autoroll off, at least for small and medium ships. When I mouse steer to the sides they do a sort of cosmetic tilt to the other direction, but don't continue rolling at all.

I *have* seen some erroneous rolling when auto-roll is on and the ship is angled downward (not perfectly, but like at 45 degrees) but that sounds unrelated.

[Sorrowless]

What ships does that happen with?

For me adaptive steering is off and I fly in combat with autoroll off, at least for small and medium ships. When I mouse steer to the sides they do a sort of cosmetic tilt to the other direction, but don't continue rolling at all.

I *have* seen some erroneous rolling when auto-roll is on and the ship is angled downward (not perfectly, but like at 45 degrees) but that sounds unrelated.

I've tried a bunch of different Terran ships and sindicate ships as they are the ones I use the most in my game.

But My earlking and Asgard behave correctly.

And all my ships are fitted with "all round" thrusters.

[LameFox]

I don't have any Terran ships available right now but I checked in a Lux and that was fine, no rolling with autoroll off and mouse steering to the sides.

[Sorrowless]

What ships does that happen with?

For me adaptive steering is off and I fly in combat with autoroll off, at least for small and medium ships. When I mouse steer to the sides they do a sort of cosmetic tilt to the other direction, but don't continue rolling at all.

I *have* seen some erroneous rolling when auto-roll is on and the ship is angled downward (not perfectly, but like at 45 degrees) but that sounds unrelated.

I've tried a bunch of different Terran ships and sindicate ships as they are the ones I use the most in my game.

But My earlking and Asgard behave correctly.

And all my ships are fitted with "all round" thrusters.

DAMN... ok, game saved for me. I did not change anything in the game, but adaptive steering was on... I'm back to happy gaming days! thanks guys!

[jlehtone]

First basics.
* Yaw is turning left and right
* Roll is rotating clockwise and counter-clockwise

One of them is "primary" and the other is "secondary". X-axis on joystick and left/right on mouse should be the primary.

When Adaptive Steering (AS) is on, something -- presumably the specs of the thrusters -- determines whether the primary input does Yaw or Roll. In the old flight model the Combat Thrusters had faster roll than yaw, so primary did roll, and All-around Thrusters had better yaw, so primary did yaw.

I don't know whether roll is higher on all small Thrusters in the new flight model, or AS decision uses other threshold than "greater than", or there is bug in the decision.

When AS is off, the primary is bound to same event on all ships regardless of thrusters. Again, I don't know whether user can dictate which (yaw or roll) that is for mouse.

adaptive steering was on... I'm back to happy gaming days! thanks guys!

Ok, at least the mouse left/right to Yaw is possible.

[flywlyx]

First basics.
* Yaw is turning left and right
* Roll is rotating clockwise and counter-clockwise

One of them is "primary" and the other is "secondary". X-axis on joystick and left/right on mouse should be the primary.

When Adaptive Steering (AS) is on, something -- presumably the specs of the thrusters -- determines whether the primary input does Yaw or Roll. In the old flight model the Combat Thrusters had faster roll than yaw, so primary did roll, and All-around Thrusters had better yaw, so primary did yaw.

I don't know whether roll is higher on all small Thrusters in the new flight model, or AS decision uses other threshold than "greater than", or there is bug in the decision.

When AS is off, the primary is bound to same event on all ships regardless of thrusters. Again, I don't know whether user can dictate which (yaw or roll) that is for mouse.

If I understand correctly, it refers to Yaw and Pitch. The concept behind adaptive steering is that in some cases, using Roll + Pitch is faster than Yaw, so the system automatically selects the more efficient option.

This idea is clearly inherited from atmospheric aircraft, where the ailerons are positioned far from the center of mass. However, in space, thrusters are typically placed at the bow and stern, meaning that for many ships, Pitch and Yaw should be significantly faster than Roll.

[stooper88]

First basics.
* Yaw is turning left and right
* Roll is rotating clockwise and counter-clockwise

One of them is "primary" and the other is "secondary". X-axis on joystick and left/right on mouse should be the primary.

When Adaptive Steering (AS) is on, something -- presumably the specs of the thrusters -- determines whether the primary input does Yaw or Roll. In the old flight model the Combat Thrusters had faster roll than yaw, so primary did roll, and All-around Thrusters had better yaw, so primary did yaw.

I don't know whether roll is higher on all small Thrusters in the new flight model, or AS decision uses other threshold than "greater than", or there is bug in the decision.

When AS is off, the primary is bound to same event on all ships regardless of thrusters. Again, I don't know whether user can dictate which (yaw or roll) that is for mouse.

If I understand correctly, it refers to Yaw and Pitch. The concept behind adaptive steering is that in some cases, using Roll + Pitch is faster than Yaw, so the system automatically selects the more efficient option.

This idea is clearly inherited from atmospheric aircraft, where the ailerons are positioned far from the center of mass. However, in space, thrusters are typically placed at the bow and stern, meaning that for many ships, Pitch and Yaw should be significantly faster than Roll.

Although there is truth regarding the legacy impact of atmospheric flight dynamics, there are other reasons why many space sims still favor Roll+Pitch mechanics, especially for combat/dogfight oriented scenarios. This is due to weapons being primarily arrayed along the X-Z plane of most vessels. Hence, tracking with Yaw will result in asymmetrical "leading" of targets and significant performance loss. In contrast, rolling the vessel and pitching allows the "weapon plane" to remain orthogonal to the direction of "turn" thus providing superior targeting.

As such, the historical "combat thruster" reliance on Roll+Pitch has non-cosmetic merits.

[flywlyx]

Although there is truth regarding the legacy impact of atmospheric flight dynamics, there are other reasons why many space sims still favor Roll+Pitch mechanics, especially for combat/dogfight oriented scenarios. This is due to weapons being primarily arrayed along the X-Z plane of most vessels. Hence, tracking with Yaw will result in asymmetrical "leading" of targets and significant performance loss. In contrast, rolling the vessel and pitching allows the "weapon plane" to remain orthogonal to the direction of "turn" thus providing superior targeting.

As such, the historical "combat thruster" reliance on Roll+Pitch has non-cosmetic merits.

I think you're referring to the X-Y plane as the horizontal plane? In any case, the efficiency depends on the shape of the spacecraft. If the ship is cylindrical, using pitch and yaw for aiming will result in significantly higher rotation speeds, making it more efficient than relying on rolling.

And the current underwing weapon mounting is still a carryover from atmospheric aircraft, despite spacecraft operating under different principles. In space, underwing mounts offer no real benefits—only a weaker structure and a reduced firing arc. But I think the most important aspect of X4 ships is looking cool rather than being logically designed.

[stooper88]

Although there is truth regarding the legacy impact of atmospheric flight dynamics, there are other reasons why many space sims still favor Roll+Pitch mechanics, especially for combat/dogfight oriented scenarios. This is due to weapons being primarily arrayed along the X-Z plane of most vessels. Hence, tracking with Yaw will result in asymmetrical "leading" of targets and significant performance loss. In contrast, rolling the vessel and pitching allows the "weapon plane" to remain orthogonal to the direction of "turn" thus providing superior targeting.

As such, the historical "combat thruster" reliance on Roll+Pitch has non-cosmetic merits.

I think you're referring to the X-Y plane as the horizontal plane? In any case, the efficiency depends on the shape of the spacecraft. If the ship is cylindrical, using pitch and yaw for aiming will result in significantly higher rotation speeds, making it more efficient than relying on rolling.

And the current underwing weapon mounting is still a carryover from atmospheric aircraft, despite spacecraft operating under different principles. In space, underwing mounts offer no real benefits—only a weaker structure and a reduced firing arc. But I think the most important aspect of X4 ships is looking cool rather than being logically designed.

X-Z is the convention for the standard ecliptic in the X-verse, hence I deferred to the X convention. And while it's true that cylindrical -- or better yet, spherical -- ships would be more "logical" for 3-dimensional space travel, the simple truth is space sims are by and large science fiction. There's no sense in criticizing every detail and every design decision. "Spaceships" having wings because they look cool is certainly not a "fault" that is unique to X4. Furthermore, even popular and well-respected sci-fi franchises that forgo "wings" still retain planar, non-cylindrical ship designs, if for no other reason than to provide a familiar sense of orientation.

[flywlyx]

X-Z is the convention for the standard ecliptic in the X-verse, hence I deferred to the X convention. And while it's true that cylindrical -- or better yet, spherical -- ships would be more "logical" for 3-dimensional space travel, the simple truth is space sims are by and large science fiction. There's no sense in criticizing every detail and every design decision. "Spaceships" having wings because they look cool is certainly not a "fault" that is unique to X4. Furthermore, even popular and well-respected sci-fi franchises that forgo "wings" still retain planar, non-cylindrical ship designs, if for no other reason than to provide a familiar sense of orientation.

Right, it's been a while since I last looked at their ship files—I completely forgot about their coordinate system.

A spherical design might be better suited for civilian ships that don’t require transatmospheric flight, while a cylindrical shape remains ideal for warships to minimize their projected area. In many sci-fi franchises, winged spaceships are usually justified by their need for transatmospheric flight, which makes sense to some extent. It’s a pity that this feature was never an option in the X-verse.