You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In NowSign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new account
There are 69 replies in this Thread. The last Post () by SWAT_OP-R8R.
Good thing -> ppl bored of the vanilla FL engine will love it after installing the Mod.
Bad thing -> how many ppl are bored of the vanilla engine?
No question, the Mod has much more to offer ofc. but their should be a balance between MP playability, realism and beauty. Why did DA never added more realism?
Crookey is correct from the physical pov.
Appart from that i love it to have new ship and flight behaviors i second Inferno.
I'm still trying to get used to the new flight characteristics....some of it still seems backwards to me. Question on WR ...if it "replaces" componenets...why does it use so much cargo space?
True that. If at all, armor should take up place for cargo hold strengthening, armor plating, etc etc.
Here are my two cents:
Armor plates are mounted to the outside of the ship and make the hull harder to penetrate. Therefor the ship gets heavier and in fact "bigger" or "fat"
The weight reduction kit replaces components of the ship with ones that are made out of a lighter material, with light meaning less dense. But in order to maintain the stability it is necessary to use more material than before and even add some braces. So the ship loses weight but grows to the inside leaving less room for things like cargo.
Inertia is not the bad idea, it does give a note of "reality", but I think that gameplay itself does not allow to much of it. The flight mechanics and ship behavior are originally created without consideration to inertia. That's why ships sometime float too much and if you're not prepared for 180 degrees turn to trust out of the drift, it can lead to frustration.
About weight reduction kit: I think that it reduces the cargo space way too much. On the power side, the light materials should in theory decrease ship's dead weight leaving more power for the cargo. As for the space, the additional inner constructions should decrease space up to 25%, but certainly not up to 70% (one can argue that this is truth only for the light materials and constructions currently in use and that light materials of the future wouldn't have such limitations). On the other hand, the gain in speed/maneuverability is almost unnoticeable. I did some experimenting on "steering_torque" and "angular_drag" params on my ship (in my customized, SP only, repository 
) and get some far more interesting results. I also don't understand why the weight reduction kit and armor plates exclude each other (theoretically two items of the corresponding class should reset the ship's agility to default with addition of extra thickness to the hull)
Edit:
about the inertia again: the effect is different from system to system, somewhere almost non existent (CF systems in Sirius) , somewhere too emphasized (DK systems)
I have no problems with inertia during manoevers.
What I find strange is that a higher mass (inertia is directly proportional to mass) reduces ship top speed. This should not be the case. Acceleration will go down with higher mass, but top speed should remain the same. It should just take longer to reach top speed.
I think the addition of inertia was overdue, but the deceleration rate in Engine Kill is out of proportion. I agree with others here who point out that inertia has to work both ways to provide "realism", so the use of engines and thrusters would become as much a skill as the use of weapons from a PvP standpoint. So, if you use EK at full cruise speed, the heavier inertia of a frieghter or cap ship would demand some accurate timing on the part of the pilot (to avoid planet-diving at moors & docks), except in nebulae, where one would expect to see increased drag from the denser environment. The inertia setting feels right to me, but the open-space "drag" experienced in engine kill needs some correction. 
I don't like it but i can live with it, especially when i am not at server...anyway, inertia need to be reduced, and the question here is not does or does not inertia provide reality(because it is far away from reality), real question here is does game is playable more than it was before?I think this is not the case in 1,9, but only in my opinion.
I think that the Inertia is too heavy, I suggest to reduce it by 50%. Especially flying and fight in a asteroid field with full cargo is terrible. I think the space reduction by wheight reducer is also too much.
I think the inertia is just perfect as it is.
The Armor gives more hull to your ship and therefore becomes slow.
The Weight Reduction removes ___% of your cargo hold and therefore your ship becomes fast.
So you need to choose between Speed and Strenght.
That is good news, IMO! I look forward to testing the new configuration as soon as you've made the change on server-side. Even tho ships will now decelerate slower (with bigger risks for overshooting docks, etc.), it should also be easier to evade NPC's with the EK manoever. You're the best, OP! 
Yeah, bring it on OP for testing
So no more drifting through the whole jumpgate while trying to quick dock? Cool.
What I meant is that in reality one our atmospheric fighter has a weight ranging from 8.5 tons (F-16) to 16 tons (Su-27), without fuel (4 to 8 tons) and without missiles (0.5 to 3 tons). I suppose that a space fighter should have a similar weight. So do not make an enourmous difference a few tons of extra cargo. (I suppose for 50 escape pods 7.5 tons = 150 kg. every one).
lightest fighting jet was Alpha Jet A; Empty weight 3.5 tons
heaviest jet: Lockheed Martin F-22. 19.8 tons
so there is a huge range of differences
You are right, the range is more big of that I said. Of course on a F-20Tigershark (5 tons empty, 10 ready to fly) 7.5 extra tons do big difference, less on a Su-27 (16.3 tons empty, 33 max ready to fly).
The heaviest is the Mig-31 (22 tons). The weight of the F-22 varies depending on the source of 13.6 at 19.7 tons, the truth is that it is still classified.
