[Suggestion] Aircraft Physics

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by strikearrow, Sep 9, 2020.

  1. strikearrow

    Go play star conflict press B for first person and that is how this game should have aircraft physics and HUD
  2. InexoraVC

    PS2 aircraft HUD should be reworked. Deeply. Thoroughly.
    I don't think the physics should be changed - It took a lot of effort to learn to fly at least a little
  3. Demigan

    Just seeing the title I instantly go "what physics?".

    Could you tell us a bit about the physics and HUD in Star Conflict? I've just watched a video and it just seems "meh" and "doesn't really work for PS2". It has 0 gravity physics, which is basically one of the big problems with PS2's system, there seems to be very little actual dodging and aircraft flight maneuvers going on with most of the combat being some strafing while they use the mouse to aim their guns for accurate shots. It doesn't seem very interesting or engaging from that angle. Frankly it doesn't seem to be much of a step up with the only exception that it would be more intuitive for players to learn.
    • Up x 1
  4. baybal

    I would very much like if PS2 gets some, even if most simple, lift model.

    An ESF should not be able to turn of a dime, and maintain lift at the same time without rolling. Same for Galaxies which seem to be able to yaw without rolling, at very low speed.

    It will be interesting to try implementing wake in physics to deter people tailing somebody at close distance.
  5. iller

    I've always been really curious whether having the physics more like the Ace Combat series might improve everyone's interactions with Air to Ground fighting? Of course you'd still make room for the VTOL mechanics as well, but the crux of the point is that the air game should no longer only be limited to ==> Unlock Hover3 frame and NEVER EVER USE ANYTHING ELSE.

    I don't hate on it because I don't know how to use it... figuring out the reverse manuever on my own was EZ PZ after all the time I've already spent using these things to barrel roll between INDAR TREES. I just think that bugging out your hitbox because the game's own Engine can't handle an accurate Interpolation calculation is really just an exploit and shouldn't be hailed as the "Pro Gamer Move" that it currently is.
  6. InexoraVC

    why ? ESF isn't a plane. It's a jet helicopter. Pure jet helicopter. It has relatively low max speed ˜230 / 350 with afterburner, high maneuverabilty at low speed and ability to lift and land vertically. Nothing is wrong with its physics.
  7. Pelojian

    ESFs are basically harriers with a different layout & weapon selection. they should be bound by reasonable flight physics not the stuff PS2 has.

    PS2 airgame is hard to get into precisely because it's flight physics don't match other games and the default control scheme is nothing like standard flight game controls add on top of that a glitch (RM) that was left in because pilots cried.
  8. InexoraVC

    Why ? If there is something not similar then we should ban/force change it ? Why ?

    no "standard" flight game controls. So what ? Why change ?
  9. Pelojian

    1) because it will bring a real airplay to the game and make the air <> ground interaction more balanced. right now it's hover mode and RM, nothing else, no actual dogfighting techniques. being bound by flight physics will drastically improve AA's ability, the reason why early AA guns were effective against low flying aircraft is the aircraft's range of actions could be predicted, aircraft couldn't turn on a dime and do a bunch of **** that would make them stall in real life

    2) when 90-95% of the flight sims and flight games use one set of controls people are used to then that one game poorly assigns the default it makes at a hassle for flight vets to rebind everything and complicates things for new pilots that don't realize PS2's default control scheme isn't suitable for flying games. also with actual dogfighting taking place due to better flight physics the airgame is not about mastering an obscure bug (RM) and a limited amount of skills they have to practice to near perfection.

    how many games are there where you literally need 100's of hours of flight time to no be easy meat for pro pilots?
    • Up x 1
  10. Demigan

    Controls for everything are very important and follow a few rules:
    - controls need to be easy to access. You have no use for spreading buttons across your keyboard. This is why games went from the arrow keys to using the WASD keys, as it allowed easier access to a variety of buttons.

    - controls need to be intuitive. If they are intuitive players are more inclined to use them and you'll see a larger amount of players enjoying it. You could make a game where the space bar makes you duck and the ctrl button makes you jump, but that just needlessly uses a controlscheme that isnt accepted.
    The air-game equates to something like this: all controls on infantry are the same, but the moment you enter a vehicle the vertical mouse control is inverted without an option to turn this off. There's no reason to keep it like this, and even you should understand that it would hurt the amount of players who join the vehicle game if this were true. The option to set your own controls to a variety of widely used controlschemes as well as modify it to your liking is vital. But the standard controlscheme HAS to be as much standardized so that the average player can use it, with veterans having the ability to adapt it.
    The air controls currently are horrible. The standard controls dont even have all necessary buttons bound by default! That is undefensible.

    - unique features need to attract players, not scare them away. If only a few players can enjoy a feature it is a bad feature, ESPECIALLY if these few players get a unique and powerful fearure all to themselves. Naturally such people will complain and question any and all attempts to take away their crutches.
    These features also need to be standardized. Using vague line of "now your landing gear is out and you can afterburn upwards" is not good for player retention.

    As for the physics, how about we actually add some? Any game mechanic where there is just one method of attack that works is bad. You dont want one guy to defeat everyone else just because he's the best at one type of combat. You want the fight to evolve: one maneuver is defeated by another maneuver, knowing when to pull different maneuvers, how to change mid-maneuver and what consequences that has would allow players to become masters at different aspects of flight. The only one's enjoying such features are the one's on top, and they detract from the game.
    • Up x 2
  11. InexoraVC

    From my point of view the main problems with ESFs are:
    1. Speed and drection (e.g. the vector) of your bullets doesn't consider the speed and direction (the vector) of your ESF. That is the most difficult part to get used to. You have to "feel" your vector, your opponent's vector and then adjust your aim.
    2. Mouse acceleration. It is very hard to set and to get used to right sensiivity to hit someone. If you set mouse sensitivity which is good for 1v1 hover duels, you'll lack some maneuverability
    3. The HUD. You have no info about your vector at all, and no speed and height in 3dperson view
    4. The FOV. You can't adjust your FOV as you do for an infantry
    5. No free look in 3rd person view mode. You can't see what is behind ( "Nohow").
    6. Players with 3 monitors will have a great advantage over you, because they have MUCH more field of view and in 3rd person view can see objects even behind them.