Time acceleration

[FluffyFreak]

I hate the time acceleration, I'd rather have something like Elite: Dangerous "Super-cruise", or Paragons "Transit Drive", or the I-War "LDS" - how about in-system hyperspace jumps from planet to planet?

EDIT:- yes, I am being an arse ;)

[bszlrd]

I'd side with insys jumps. And time acceleration could be useful for those situations (like stranded with low propellant reserves) for more traditional orbital maneuvering and transfers. And for players who are interested in them.
And there could be artificial jump points around high population worlds, but a lot of travel on outback systems.

I like the notion that space travel takes time. I agree that time acceleration is not an ideal gameplay mechanic, but it has it's place in my opinion. Almost all space games make my 80km commute pale in comparison to several AU or ly trips.
I know time accel has it's tedium and disconnectedness, but it gives room to imagination at the same time. And it adds a sense of grandness, as hours and days tick away, especially when there's a deadline.

Maybe it would feel better, if the autopilot would adjust time accel during transfers, but the player could override it.

[impaktor]

Apart from the multiplayer aspect I see no problem with time acceleration. Just start at New Hope, and accelerate time (21:00-24:00 January 1), watch the eclipse, as Hades blackens out the sun (the name is very fitting), and enshrouds the world in darkness!

Unless some very talented and devoted programmer with a passion and expertise for multiplier and networking joins, I think the question it moot.

I have never in my life played a single minute of multiplayer, and I somehow still find games fun, (although too time consuming for me at the moment).

[zzz]

The good thing about the time acceleration is it creates the feel of a vast universe, where one false hyperspace jump lets you travel for months.
It's exciting.
The permanent button clicking on the other hand is awful.

In-system jumps are o.k., if there is some travel time to them and not just jumping from station to station, which is unfortunately more logical in a blievable world.
No one will go for hours or days to a jump point when you can have it directly at your door.
And it takes away the possibility to go wherever you want without depending on some special travel device.

If Pioneer will have a more gamey approach in the future some sort of Elite Dangerous' frame shift drive is definetly the best option.

[DraQ]

I can't agree with proponents of no time acceleration and in-system jumps.

First, time acceleration is arguably the only way to decouple in game time from real time pacing. This means that travel times can be as long as we want them in universe without introducing tedium. Switch to in system jumps, and you have to carefully balance player boredom with stuff like pretty much the entire police force being able to turn up near instantly whenever you try to YARR! someone, or client wanting to be tens of ly away within ten minutes - why the hurry?
Case in point I-War 2 with its LDS - nice combat mechanics aside it already felt stupidly hectic for a space game, and yet traveling around was extremely tedious and boring. Yes, traveling isn't exactly entertaining in Pioneer now, but that's mostly due to the fact that it uses pretty much the same max time compression as Frontier despite featuring more modest accelerations and limited delta-v budgets. Traveling in Frontier was hassle free from player's PoV, yet it took a lot of in-game time and you couldn't change your destination rapidly once in transit - best of both worlds.
Adjust Pioneer's time compression to its ships' capabilities and make jumps a little less sluggish and this will be the case here too.

Second, it doesn't really feel like space without having to build-up then lose tremendous velocities. IMO Pioneer is mainly appealing to hardcore Sci-Fi nerds so the more 'physical' it can afford to be, the better. And with time acceleration Pioneer can afford a lot. Bonus points if stuff like S&R missions gets introduced, where you might have to intercept wrecked ship hurtling out of system or get a distress signal while hurtling by and unable to help. This builds the atmosphere we expect from space.

Third, the more limited the exotic and powerful technology is, the more controllable its side effects are and the less havoc it wreaks on your fiction. Currently Pioneer's hyperdrive is relatively limited in its capabilities - first and foremost it drops you off some 10AU from target, which rules out most devastating ripple effects it might have on game's logic. You can't really use it as offensive weapon or directly in combat, for example. Apart from making fairly casual interstellar travel feasible (which is the thing we want it for) it isn't much of a rule changer.

Fourth, already mentioned - time compressions lets rare phenomena be witnessed by the player or even have gameplay built around them, and, honestly with in-system jumps it would be pretty redundant mechanic.

Seriously, we already have I-War 2, we will have Elite Dangerous too. We don't need Pioneer to be one of those. We want Pioneer to be something game industry isn't inclined to provide.

Regarding G forces - fighter planes don't really have powerful (by Pioneer's standards) engines. Few are capable of more than 1G acceleration. The main source of G forces in modern day fighters is stuff like sharp turns made possible by aerodynamics. This makes the acceleration vector perpendicular to aerodynamic surfaces (by which I mean wings - ever wondered why fighters bank when they turn?) and resulting G forces act along pilot's long axis, which is about as bad as it gets.
Even then, adequately protected and trained human can endure about 6G without blacking out (for brief periods of time).
Now, in a spaceship you don't have aerodynamic surfaces to help you maneuver. The biggest source of acceleration is your main thruster, which means the strongest acceleration will always be along your ship's axis rather than perpendicular to it.
This means that instead of trying to force all pilot's blood into his feet or head, with pressure difference proportional to the length of pilot's body, the G forces will just try to shift the bodily fluids towards his back, with modest pressure differences resulting from equally modest distance between pilot's spine and sternum. In this set up over 20 G of sustained (although still relatively brief) acceleration should be tolerable without g-loc , especially if further protection/assist is provided (like assisted breathing or hydrostatic tank) and if there is some control interface requiring minimum or no movement on pilot's part. Accelerations around 3-5G would probably be more limited by issues like hygiene than endurance of human body.

Still, I think reducing accelerations in transit to 1G or below is a good idea and it doesn't have to compromise ships' agility in combat.
Basically, there are two ways of increasing thrust - increasing exhaust velocity and increasing the amount of reaction mass expelled. Exhaust velocity is limited by heat considerations and available power - the main problem is that velocity increases as square root of power (and resulting waste heat) so you're bound to hit the limits of what you can do soon enough. The alternative is increasing the consumption of reaction mass which increases the thrust linearly.
Basically this means that you can trade off efficiency for thrust.
Instead of just throttling drive's power, low vs high thrust options could adjust propellant consumption at constant engine power and thus allow trading thrust for exhaust velocity.
Low thrust could then be used for transits (and should be utilized by autopilot) compensating for meager acceleration with much longer burns, while the high thrust would be used for combat, lift-offs and thrust demanding orbital maneuvres. This could also make fuel matter in combat in spite of it happening in vastly different time scale from transits.

[Marcel]

We may all be hardcore Sci-Fi nerds but I don't think that realism should dimish gameplay. Your ideas are really good and may not actually change the player's experience very much if we can get another notch or two of time acceleration. The ships would all have to be redesigned as tail sitters beacuse of the direction of that 1G. That said, I like the absurdly powerful engines and the Newtonian system maneuvering as it is. This is supposed to be the year 3200. Frontier said that you endured the G forces by sitting in a comfy chair. Pioneer has a handwavium inertial damper field. System travel takes time and time acceleration is for the convience of the player. The commander would probably plug into a holodeck matrix to pass the time. Maybe that's what the dreamware was in FFE. I think that the gameplay as it is fits well with the space opera theme of Pioneer.

[DraQ]

We may all be hardcore Sci-Fi nerds but I don't think that realism should dimish gameplay.

That's why time compression is so awesome - it allows us to completely dissociate the tedium our characters experience from actual players' boredom.

The ships would all have to be redesigned as tail sitters beacuse of the direction of that 1G.

Or have reconfigurable interiors :P .

TBH I wouldn't object to redesigning most or all ships as tail sitters. It generally wouldn't involve more than just landing gear, and would solve the stupid and infuriating problem where you can't lift off because the set of thrusters most suitable for the task is pointing sideways instead of at the planet and you're forced to use a bunch of dinky ones that just won't do.

That said, I like the absurdly powerful engines and the Newtonian system maneuvering as it is.

You'd still have that acceleration when using high thrust mode - combat, lift offs and so on.
It's just that high thrust mode would be too uneconomical to use for any prolonged period of time. OTOH low thrust mode would have delta-v on the order of what we currently have in Pioneer, but with much lower thrust, so travel wouldn't be too different, except there would be much shorter coasting phase or no coasting at all.

This is supposed to be the year 3200. Frontier said that you endured the G forces by sitting in a comfy chair. Pioneer has a handwavium inertial damper field.

Actually, I would axe any handwavium that isn't necessary for the game to work. The accelerations in Pioneer would be perfectly tolerable if you did as much as replacing the comfy chair with some sort of high-tech water bed especially if we only limited them to combat and lift-offs.

System travel takes time and time acceleration is for the convience of the player. The commander would probably plug into a holodeck matrix to pass the time. Maybe that's what the dreamware was in FFE. I think that the gameplay as it is fits well with the space opera theme of Pioneer.

Precisely. :)

[bszlrd]

TBH I wouldn't object to redesigning most or all ships as tail sitters. It generally wouldn't involve more than just landing gear,

That's not that simple in most cases. Especially if it needs new UV maps. Not to mention redesigning some of the ships.
I'v originally intended the Mola as a tailsitter, and had plans for the Malabar to have that capability too. Kanara could work that way.
Also, some ships would look good as tail sitters, some won't. The Natrix would look quite odd that way in my opinion, same for the Nerodia or the DSMiner. Or the Pumpkinseed. Or the Deneb and Venturestar.
Some of those should not be atmo capable anyway if we are strict.

The case of tail-sitters comes up time to time, but I don't think we ever achieved anything close to consensus about them. One question is, tail-sitters or belly sitters contribute more to the space opera setting? Where we want to place our emphasis on the realism <-----> science-magic scale?
How much adjustment is needed for the players to get used to tail-landings? How unfamiliar it would feel to them visually? Does implementing it would worth the effort on the larger scale? Would it add to the playability or take away from it?
How much need for more realism would creep in if we would convert all ships to be tail sitters? Like engine efficiencies and power/propellant amounts, proper heat management, and spaceport and flight regulations for example.
It would cater to the die-hard space fans for sure, but it might rob enjoyment from the other players.

I'm more inclined towards keeping most of the ships belly sitters. I was thinking about it a lot, and felt bad sometimes to have them, or to have those sometimes ridiculously strong belly thrusters. But then I realized that we don't necessarily have to obsess over it more than necessary. We are making a sci-fi game after all, emphasis on game, so we need to take some artistical licenses.

In favor of belly sitters: The belly sitter configuration evokes some familiarity rooted in present day aircrafts and stuff, which is quite useful for immersion in my opinion.

In favor of tail sitters: They are more realistic, for sure. They are also unique these days. Can't really recall any game that have them, maybe that moon colony game with it's lander thingy. The question is, would it be for the sake of uniqueness, or it would add to the game in a meaningful way?

[lwho]

I pretty much prefer time acceleration over other concepts as it stresses the vastness of space while bridging the gap between realism and gameplay in a good way IMHO.

What I'm missing sometimes is kind of an "automatic" setting that would switch time acceleration depending on distance to visible bodies (somewhat similar to the acceleration limiting for simulation reasons). For example, when you just set it to maximum acceleration when arriving after a jump, the approach to the destination feels uncomfortably fast, i.e. it should reduce time acceleration earlier than necessary for simulation. This would probably avoid the "The permanent button clicking on the other hand is awful." mentioned by zzz.

[DraQ]

That's not that simple in most cases. Especially if it needs new UV maps.

Quite a few ships seem be textured in a way that leaves outer surface of landing gear cover texture in the spot where it is on the model, relative to the surrounding texture, so I don't think there would be need for massive reworking.

I'v originally intended the Mola as a tailsitter, and had plans for the Malabar to have that capability too. Kanara could work that way.

Well, to be honest, Mola looks just stupid when landed on its belly, it would look far better sitting on its tail. Should work great for Malabar and Vatakara as well.

Also, some ships would look good as tail sitters, some won't. The Natrix would look quite odd that way in my opinion, same for the Nerodia or the DSMiner. Or the Pumpkinseed. Or the Deneb and Venturestar.

I think a lot of stylistic concerns could be alleviated or eliminated with right placement of landing gear - telescoping out of midpoint, extending out of already present protrusions such as wing gondolas, etc. - to make it look stable and sound from engineering POV. Plane-like ships may look a bit weird, but we already have space shuttle launching in tail sitter configuration despite being plane like.

In the worst case scenario, some ships could be kept in belly lander configuration, while others (generally heavier ones) would be tail sitters (wasn't it already the case in older builds/Genesia mod?).
Ships having separate takeoff and landing thrusters could have low exhaust velocity (but high throughput) set for them. It would help justifying making those thrusters takeoff/landing exclusive (very high fuel consumption) and could be justified in fiction by unwilingness to have WMD grade plasma cannons firing point-blank at landing pads - high thrust, low exhaust velocity engines are generally much 'softer'.

I wouldn't mind exceptions, and in some cases - like DSMiner (which I hate visually, TBH, due to the silly protruding bridge in the back, I like one of (your?) concept sketches of one of its lighter relatives, though) - it could be a sensible way to make the ship not very landing capable.

OTOH the way you can land, for example, a Mola Mola, refuel, and find yourself unable to liftoff just because the main engines are pointing the wrong way is facepalm inducing.

Some of those should not be atmo capable anyway if we are strict.

Atmospheric capability becomes rather blurry concept when you have high-thrust fusion drives that enable controlled descent all the way down from the orbit, without any of that aerobraking and fiery reentry hassles.

With such drive attached even a cardboard box is atmospheric capable provided you fly slowly (and provided it doesn't catch fore from fusion engine's waste heat, but that is equally applicable to air-filled cardboard box in deep space), you just need to fly slowly. Simply put - high thrust and high delta-v together effectively eliminate the possibility of a ship being truly atmo incapable.

Besides, ships that wouldn't be atmo capable could still land on airless moons and planets. Weak thrust? Then they could land on lower mass moons and asteroids.
The only way to prevent a ship from landing anywhere would be not giving it a landing gear and making orbital station docking work without it.
If you just want to prevent landing on massive bodies you can limit main/liftoff thrust, but even then someone will hollow the ship out (to make thrust/weight ratio workable) and land there just to prove they can.

The case of tail-sitters comes up time to time, but I don't think we ever achieved anything close to consensus about them. One question is, tail-sitters or belly sitters contribute more to the space opera setting? Where we want to place our emphasis on the realism <-----> science-magic scale?

That has actually been a foregone conclusion the moment someone decided to simulate things rather thoroughly.

The way Pioneer works, it's no longer a question of aesthetics, but gameplay, and gameplay resulting from inability to fire your most powerful thrusters at the planet for no adequate reason is often frustrating.

How much adjustment is needed for the players to get used to tail-landings? How unfamiliar it would feel to them visually? Does implementing it would worth the effort on the larger scale? Would it add to the playability or take away from it?

1. None. At the very least they can land on autopilot, if they can already land manually in a belly lander, landing in tail lander should make no difference to them or be easier on high gravity worlds (I actually tend to do final approach aft down on those and flip for actual touchdown, because it's much more controllable), launches will also become much easier and more intuitive as your main engine will also propel you away from hard, unforgiving ground.
2. Don't care because of the above, also Pioneer is already full of unfamiliar stuff from having to brake before you see your destination to Newtonian space combat - maybe a sight of spacecraft sitting on its tail like every IRL spacecraft they've seen launching on TV won't traumatize them too much.
3. Probably.
4. Add - less frustration due to inability to take off because apparently :insert corp here:'s engineers were drunk on the job, easier takeoffs and landings.

How much need for more realism would creep in if we would convert all ships to be tail sitters? Like engine efficiencies and power/propellant amounts, proper heat management, and spaceport and flight regulations for example.
It would cater to the die-hard space fans for sure, but it might rob enjoyment from the other players.

First, it's a slippery slope fallacy.
Second, realism creep isn't undesirable as long as it doesn't impact the main premise of the game (private owners flying around in space trading and doing other stuff as well as pewpewing space pirates). As long as this premise and associated gameplay can be maintained, the realism creep will add to the feeling of authenticity and therefore awesomeness.
Third realism creep doesn't need to affect basic gameplay - for what beginner players cares an autopilot performs the basic task of getting from A to B, leaving only the choice of destination and screaming while they are shot to pieces by pirates to the player. Advanced players, OTOH, would probably like some actual difficulty curve that rewards their increasing abilities with increased choice of interesting gameplay goals (something original Frontier failed horribly at - it just took doing enough Barnard Star milkruns to buy yourself a Panther with SPA and 100+ shields and poke anything that haven't crashed into you with 20MW turrets - no skill necessary). From this perspective we want as much of this stuff as possible.

Beginner player might not know or care that their ship is much more fuel efficient in low thrust mode or how to manage heat or what ship has more efficient engine.
Their autopilot will fly them to their port of destination in whatever thrust mode it deems optimal, heat managment will generally be automated in normal flight, and ship descriptions/roles should tell them enough about what the ship is good at for any sort of basic missions they may undertake.

OTOH all those aspects might be vitally interesting for advanced players.

In favor of tail sitters: They are more realistic, for sure. They are also unique these days. Can't really recall any game that have them, maybe that moon colony game with it's lander thingy. The question is, would it be for the sake of uniqueness, or it would add to the game in a meaningful way?

See above, the way Pioneer works it's no longer a purely aesthetic choice, but a mechanical one.

I pretty much prefer time acceleration over other concepts as it stresses the vastness of space while bridging the gap between realism and gameplay in a good way IMHO.

What I'm missing sometimes is kind of an "automatic" setting that would switch time acceleration depending on distance to visible bodies (somewhat similar to the acceleration limiting for simulation reasons). For example, when you just set it to maximum acceleration when arriving after a jump, the approach to the destination feels uncomfortably fast, i.e. it should reduce time acceleration earlier than necessary for simulation. This would probably avoid the "The permanent button clicking on the other hand is awful." mentioned by zzz.

Don't we already have that? At worst it might need some distance tweaking.

And you can override it too if you don't want to take scenic route.