Hi, I just backed the kickstarter, and congrats on hitting your funding target so early on. I suggest working on pushing it up further, by adding more features for the stretch goals and posting more news about it on gaming sites, you need to do as much PR as possible and raise as much as you can in case you run into unforseen development hiccups (which every project invariably does).

Now on to the main topic: reading through the features I have some questions about the flight mechanics.
Does spaceflight in LT use newtonian physics? And if so, do ships have realistic methods of propulsion/flight control? Vectored thrusters, retro-thrusters for attitude control?

I would very much like to see a fully fleshed out flight model that will affect a spaceship's flight characteristics based on the placement and status of these systems, for example if you've been in a firefight and the starboard control thrusters are damaged/destroyed, you'll have to make manual corrections during flight to compensate for their loss.

Or you could buy a control subsystem to automatically manage and compensate for such things (as a ship upgrade option).

I've been playing a 2d, top-down spaceship shmup called Gimbal (it has a demo) that has just such a system implemented, albeit not having to deal with a 3rd dimension.

Josh's current stance is that it will be "mostly science fiction" so I wouldn't hold my breath, but I would love to see a fully fleshed out flight control system based on Newtonian physics.

There is already a thread for this in this subforum and another one over in Gameplay, please look around before creating a new thread next time.

Bele I DID check the gameplay section and this section. I don't see a thread asking about flight mechanics specifically there. And the other thread in this subforum was asking about physics in regards to collisions.

I was careful to state "Flight Mechanics" as my topic. It might all be within the same general umbrella of the subject of physics, but I haven't seen any topics asking about this particular subject.

As for the "mostly science fiction" quote, that could be interpreted in different ways as its a very vague statement, also because the guy asked a very vague question. Star Citizen is also "mostly science fiction", but they are promising newtonian physics and 'realistic' flight control mechanics.

Anyway, being a science fiction game doesn't necessarily preclude having a realistically modelled flight system. Though I understand if Josh doesn't intend to implement it and goes with a more arcadey style of gameplay a-la Freelancer, as making a game on his own is a huge challenge already.

since ive also backed SC id be happy to see LT go in ether direction. the realistic feel of the SC style has great draw and potential when it comes to immersion. but quite frankly some of my favorite memories of space gaming have come from flying star ships in Star trek bridge commander. and with this being the LT1 (and a mention of an expansion/sequel code named LT2 XD ) i would not be surprised (nor disappointed in the least) if option 2 was used to define the flight for this game.

I was refering to viewtopic.php?f=6&t=82 in this subforum and viewtopic.php?f=2&t=89 in gameplay, both quickly derailed into flight mechanic threads, mostly by me. For now all we can do is wait for Josh to comment on the subject.

Edit: This is embarrassing, apparently this question has been answered on the kickstarter FAQ, not sure if it's recently updated or if I just missed it when reading through it before.

Is the Flight Model Newtonian?

Yes and no. All ships are equipped with "dampening field" generators that counteract movement, which has the effect of producing a terminal velocity. However, these generators can be controlled on-the-fly, so that you can effectively adjust the flight model in-flight. This means that yes, you can indeed be moving in one direction and shooting in the other. However, due to technical limitations, it is not possible to accelerate to extremely high speeds - that is, there's always some terminal velocity. This is simply a requirement for allowing fast yet robust physical simulation. In summary, the flight model is not fixed, so you should be able to play whichever way you prefer. A.I. players will prefer higher control, thus will generally leave dampening quite high.

Bele wrote:Edit: This is embarrassing, apparently this question has been answered on the kickstarter FAQ, not sure if it's recently updated or if I just missed it when reading through it before.

You probably missed it, because all these Q&A were part of the original pitch.

Bele wrote:I was refering to viewtopic.php?f=6&t=82 in this subforum and viewtopic.php?f=2&t=89 in gameplay, both quickly derailed into flight mechanic threads, mostly by me. For now all we can do is wait for Josh to comment on the subject.

Edit: This is embarrassing, apparently this question has been answered on the kickstarter FAQ, not sure if it's recently updated or if I just missed it when reading through it before.

Is the Flight Model Newtonian?

Yes and no. All ships are equipped with "dampening field" generators that counteract movement, which has the effect of producing a terminal velocity. However, these generators can be controlled on-the-fly, so that you can effectively adjust the flight model in-flight. This means that yes, you can indeed be moving in one direction and shooting in the other. However, due to technical limitations, it is not possible to accelerate to extremely high speeds - that is, there's always some terminal velocity. This is simply a requirement for allowing fast yet robust physical simulation. In summary, the flight model is not fixed, so you should be able to play whichever way you prefer. A.I. players will prefer higher control, thus will generally leave dampening quite high.

Yep, it's been there

Answering questions is easy...but how to get people to read the answers? A much tougher problem

JoshParnell wrote: Answering questions is easy...but how to get people to read the answers? A much tougher problem

Use a larger font?

creat a common Q&A section (locked obviously) and keep answers in short bullet format. so you avoid the whole TLDR.

JoshParnell wrote: Yep, it's been there

Answering questions is easy...but how to get people to read the answers? A much tougher problem

Make sure to answer all the questions in the same place?

It should be more effective for you to copy a question and your answer to an official FAQ, then having to answer the same question 5 times

And having moderators who can keep the forums ordered and as clutter free as possible would help as well.

Bele wrote:
Edit: This is embarrassing, apparently this question has been answered on the kickstarter FAQ, not sure if it's recently updated or if I just missed it when reading through it before.

Duh, I didn't read that part :facepalm:

Well I guess that answers this question.

JoshParnell wrote: Yep, it's been there

Answering questions is easy...but how to get people to read the answers? A much tougher problem

Make an FAQ thread that's pinned so it shows up on every subforum?
It won't solve the problem of people asking questions already answered, but i'm sure it will reduce them at the very least.

Yes, I've really been meaning to make a one-FAQ-to-rule-them-all FAQ...

I guess the larger problem is: how does one create extra hours in the day to be able to do such things!?

JoshParnell wrote:Yes, I've really been meaning to make a one-FAQ-to-rule-them-all FAQ...

I guess the larger problem is: how does one create extra hours in the day to be able to do such things!?

By delegating work to others

And judging by what we've seen so far, how likely would that be? =P