First time I pressed the boost button in space, and immediately lost the velocity gained when the boost was over.... Yeah I knew this was gonna be just another arcade flying game.
@@i_do_coding It's not that they didn't know about it. It's pretty insulting if you really think they are too stupid to know how space works. They weren't trying to make a space sim. That wasn't the goal at all. They made a science/fantasy rpg set in space. They weren't trying to make a Star Citizen, No Man's Sky, or Elite Dangerous competitor. Anyone that was expecting that set themselves up for disappointment. This is why it has unrealistic Star Wars like flying. It was intentionally not realistic as far as flying goes.
@@carpetsmell2523 I wonder if they followed any of the material that has been put out over the years? They really showed exactly what the game has turned out to be.
The word "standards" in video games is just a euphemism for expectations and entitlement. Games are an art form, which you can't standardize. Also, when you talking about interest in stem fields: This is a small minority among gamers, which is why KSP is a niche game and games like Starfield bring in millions. Normal ppl don't care abot realism, they just want an enjoyable experience.
@@firstletterofthealphabet7308 To be honest, I had to look up "snobby and brash". English is not my first language. I'm curious how you would have phrased what i said without being "snobby and brash". This is funny.
@@firstletterofthealphabet7308I didn't think their comment was "snobby" at all, but I tend to assume comments are neutral unless they're outright hostile. Do you think you might be a bit sensitive?
@@Bennet2391 I both agree and disagree. You would be right in saying games are an art form, but only if its an expression of an individual mind. When you have games made by large groups if people, that begins to develop a more collective form of expression that is more difficult to delineate between art and a product. So when talking about an indie game I would agree that what you are saying is correct. But when comparing that to a business whose livelihood is selling a product to a group of people. Thats different. There is a standard for a company because they aren’t producing an art. There aren’t any standards when an independent artist uses it as an expression. Also the other comment must have misunderstood what you meant. You were truthful not “snobby or brash”.
I always liked kerbal space programs lack of weapons because if you wanted them, you had to design and build them yourself. The computer doesnt guess what your trying to do. It just simulates. In multiplayer, half the players just focus on destroying other peoples stuff. So building hi-tech weapons to defend yourself and your stuff was very satisfying. Especially because most people strait could not respond.
I remember when Scott Manley made videos about vessels fighting in multiplayer in KSP, with the Armoury mod (I don't remember the exact name of the mod). It was a huge load of fun content =)
Honestly I think future space combat will be very much like modern fighter jet combat, I don't mean old school dogfighting, I mean two modern latest gen fighter jets detecting and shooting down each other will very long range missiles from 60 kilometers away before the pilots can even see each other's aircraft
That's how it's portrayed in the Expanse TV show, or the PC game "Children of a Dead Earth". Granted nothing wrong with the WW2 dog fights in scifi shows, or games. Still hands down think old Xwing and Tie Fighter games are great, why they never did updates on those franchises is beyond me.
More like: have facility on the ground track the enemy and have a missile "rendezvous" with the enemy automatically from the other side of the planet. Space combat would be *exclusively* about who has more intel. Can you spot the enemy first? Can you see if some piece of space junk has an orbit conveniently ramming into yours? Well, that and how much fuel can you waste on changing your orbit for evasion.
@@darknewtNot every game is trying to be a space sim. Star Wars Squadrons flies unrealistically and yet no one complained about that not being simulated.
Ignoring the whole ksp thing i agree with the take that shooting is in too many games now, there's still original shooters coming out like doom eternal and ultrakill but in the majority of not mainly shooter games shooting just feels like a lazy way to add another level of gameplay which can turn out really boring
Starfield is not a space sim, it's an RPG set in space. If I want to manually do everything, I play NMS or KSP. As for realism, shure, they could've done things more like NMS, but I like that they focused on stories and characters instead of copying what other space games have already done.
YES! Just yes! I can't even enjoy Star Wars as much as I used to. It's still awesome, but just not right. I personally have come to the conclusion that the flying saucer actually is the ultimate shape for a ship. With all of the main engines on the bottom, it would be most maneuverable and the sustained thrust would push you onto the floor. For atmospheric entry, again you are pushed to the floor and the engines would be the heat shield and you have all that surface area for aerodynamic drag. I could continue on, but variations on flying saucers really are the best shape for interplanetary/interstellar design. They just need to not travel edge-on the way they do in Star Trek.
This is one of the reasons why I've been advocating for the idea that Star Wars isn't even Sci-Fi to begin with, but Fantasy with a Sci-Fi coat of paint.
Flying saucer would have a lot of drag and not aerodynamics at all to be launched out of the planet. Unless the way it moves is not based on propulsion, but something else like its fictional anti-gravity properties, warp bubble, distortion of space and time and other stuff.
This is a hilarious and entertaining comparison! Loved it! The space shooter genre goes back even further, though... Anyone remember Asteroids from the Atari days? Weirdly, it sounds like Asteroids may have had better physics than Starfield, lol
I think it did! :D Falcon -- if that was even its name -- a sort of Elite 2 by the same author if I remember right -- was also fairly realistic and it was 3D, but it was hard. With the extremely low detail necessary to do 3D in the 16-bit era, it was hard to judge distance or even orient your ship.
@@fridaycaliforniaa236 it’s like fallout in the future, except instead of walking through an expansive hand crafted world full of dangers and opportunities to your next objective, you quick travel there through several menus…
NMS still doesn't do orbits correctly, but at least the immersion is a lot better. You can really seamlessly land on a planet and get back up into space. Does it have a story now? It's so long ago I played it, I just did random stuff without knowing what I was doing.
@@hzlayer There is little point in comparing them. They are entirely different games. Starfield is like Fallout or Skyrim, but with a space theme. The ship building/flying is added to the formula, but otherwise you're doing the exact same things as before. This is not a bad thing, but you should know what kind of game you're buying.
The only game that managed to nail realistic newtonian space flight combat while still making it fun to play was I-war. They did a control system that allowed you to switch between "dogfight" and "newtonian" flight allowing you to switch modes, so with an attacker on your tail you could flip 180 degrees blast them with your main guns while your ship carried on its original trajectory then switch back to dogfight mode where it would automatically compensate and realistically stop you before you picked up speed again in the direction you were now facing, or you could flip back and restore dogfight mode to carry on on your original course. This required a complex HUD showing "trails" to make sense of what directions other ships were travelling in relative to you. I don't like to think what level of programming went into developing that game.
That's actually one of the reasons I like the idea of terra inficta if you get into a spacebattel you have the two army's crossing each other and you can change direction a bit depending on the amount of fuel and so on and if they crossed you have to wait like a whole orbit till they can intersect again also depending on fuel and other stuff haven't played it yet cause it seems really complex
Take a look at "Children of a dead Earth". That is to date probably the most accurate space warfare simulator outhere. You can design your own spacecraft, it has verry realistic space physics and it even has a story/campaign too.
love terra invicta, watched someone do a whole playthrough of it and people even left comments as soldiers recalling battles and such haven't bought it yet as well but it's def inspired a lot of stuff for my project
It’s not just that it’s “fighter planes dog fighting - but in space!”, it’s *world war 2* planes in space. Modern fighters wouldn’t even see each other, let alone get close enough to use guns very often.
I would imagine real space combat would not even be as exciting as in "The Expanse". If somebody hauls asteroids at relativistic speeds at you, there's no radar or anything that could give you enough early warning time to evade if the opposition has aimed well.
The usual reason for close combat in space is that it’s hard to aim/predict dumb weapons from super far out unless it’s a railgun, and even then it just means a slightly farther range. As for smart weapons like missiles/torps, those can be shot down with typical anti-missile defense systems. So that’s not always reliable either, but do act as the upper range limit against mobile targets. Thus you’re left with getting semi close and personal where short range mass drivers can cover the distance in a reasonable time frame to hit the target before they’ve moved significantly. “Stationary” (meaning fixed/predictable orbits and whatnot) targets can be hit easier with railguns or lobbing the odd asteroid from extreme ranges that make sense in space. The expanse also showed a little bit of that as well. In any case, truly realistic space combat is something that’s gonna be hard to do. My guess is it’ll look more like ww1 trench warfare, where you lob artillery (missiles/nukes/asteroids) and send endless waves of mobs (hopefully in this case unmanned craft) until the defense system is saturated/runs out of supplies. Then come the real ships with lots of support to establish a “beachhead.”
Because is more causal. The moment anyone plays KSP, learns to play it and enjoy it, it's a game changer in perspective. Any other game feels dull space travel wise.
I think the space shuttle orbital manövrering thuster bulges and the visual "weight" they have on how it looks are partially to blame for the pop culture placements. But they just skip the bit of thrusting through the centre of mass
It's a Bethesda game and I never expected it to feature actual Newtonian physics, but I've always wished for a game that did. Something that combines the traditional space fantasy/exploration with correct orbital mechanics. I think most people just prefer one or the other on its own, and there's only a minority who fall into the overlap, so nobody has deemed it worth making
Agree totally, my biggest ugh moment was flying into space the first time to realize someone had spilled a giant glass of milk throughout the galaxy. (granted I switched to an OLED specifically expecting a good implementation of HDR so that may influence how mad it made me). I didn't have any expectations of orbital mechanics, but that would have been awesome. Did expect at least some NMS quality ship flying though.
KSP2 interstellar feels like a pipe dream at this point - as much as I want KSP2 to be all the things they promised, we've been waiting for re-entry heating for SIX MONTHS. So extrapolate that time table and KSP2 will not be "finished" for at least 10 years.
I wonder, have you ever played Children of a Dead Earth? It's like KSP, but about realistic space combat exclusively, there is no planet-side gameplay, only space combat, orbital mechanics and component design.
All the things you outlined encompasses one of the many reasons I LOVED The Expanse as a tv show. They did an excellent job on the space physics. The authors of the original books did too, but the tv show really shined because it was shown on screen.
Just imagine what could be done with auto pilot and arbitrary fuel supplies. Even if the orbital mechanics were just a rendezvous during the loading screen to a close encounter, it would feel so good. I'm also a huge fan of six-axis flight, strafing all around, doing retro-burns to change direction, not only could this be a good opportunity to have crew skills for turrets, but it would be fantastic for co-op! Such strafing flight also fits quite nicely with twin-stick controls already, I can't imagine it would be much harder than helicopters are already.
It's not that hard but it's often quite counterintuitive (like making your manoeuvre at the opposite side of the orbit, thrusting tangentially to lower or rise your orbit, etc. And it's quite anticlimactic. You have to plan far ahead, and then wait, and wait again. People interested in Skyrim or Starfield do not want to play like that. If they want to land on a planet, it has to be now and you must see where you are going, not it to be on the far side of the orbit. Those are RPG, based on constant interactions with NPCs.
Not exactly related to this video BUT I think Starfield lacks immersion because of its numerous loading times, you can't explore the world seamlesly, and Elite Dangerous is immersive and its really cool to move around the world, but lacks interesting content imo :[
Maybe I am just too stupid? I boosted for a couple of minutes in the direction of the planet and didn't get any closer. At least it didn't appear that way because there was no distance counter or anything. I only landed by getting near a planet and then activate "land" from the map menu.
@@ShadowZone you can fly to other planets, but in reality you just wouldn't. There's no time warp, and you only travel a few hundred mph, so it would take years
@@matty7834 That's such a bullshit dev thing to say. That's what the NMS lied about too. In reality you just can't. Each area has a little 3d space for you to fly around in, once you hit the edge it creates the illusion of moving but you're actually just locked in place, like the edge of GTA maps/
Yeah, as a physicist and working in science education at a university in my mid 40s I just have to say: apples and oranges! Just because both have something to do with space, it does not make sense to compare them to each other in any way and to even think about comparing any of them to reality, at least per se. The rant was a bit like "oh you stupid bakers... why are you always selling boring bread! Do something new! Maybe sell meat instead! you know what the monkeys did on the trees? THEY started to eat meat! So you bakers should do the same! It is soooo unrealistic to only sell bread!"
I remember one old game which kept spaceflight quite real, at least in terms of docking and space battles. It was Elite's successor of the early 90s if not the late 80s. I think it was called Falcon but it's been too long. At the time, I found it just too hard, though with my Kerbal experience I'd probably find it easier. However, the graphics wouldn't help -- they were 3D but simplistic enough to be rendered on an Atari ST. With no textures and a very limited number of triangles, there's _very_ little detail to help you judge distance or even orient your ship.
Nice ad for Starfield. Not kidding. Good info. I don't see it as KSP ruining other space content. I think they ruin themselves when they so obviously ignore physics. But I certainly agree that experience with KSP really teaches you to see the issues that much more clearly. Ah, well. Keep up the good work!
It is a space FANTASY game. It is LOOSELY based upon real things but it is purely FANTASY. Like Star Trek or Star Wars, it is meant to tell a story and allow the player a FUN experience while doing so. Just think if Starfield used the same physics as KSP 1 and/or 2? Would the game be fun? Probably not. Everything you bring up is valid IF Someone airfield was trying to mimic KSP. For me, both games are fun. But I approach each game differently. BTW, I am approaching 70 and I love Starfield and that type of game as much as I love KSP 1/2.
Yes. You are older than me but I've seen the moon landing as a kid on tv so I'm up there. Space Engineers is a nice halfway type of game. Not physics-ally correct but that is mostly because they sacrificed correctness for complete freedom to build whatever you want and fly or drive it in ways that allow you to suspend disbelief. The game is from 2013, somewhat janky but with a solid modding community. Most powerful mods are 'scenarios'', they work a bit like a d&d game where a player creates a storyline where you can roleplay to your heart's desire.
"landing" on a planet through a loading screen is not fun by any means. It would be okay for a 90-s or early 00-s game because of software and hardware limitations but not for a modern game. Evochron Legacy was made by only one person but it's possible to actually land on any planet (or burn in the atmosphere) and planets are pretty well detailed.
@@astranger448 I am not dissing KSP in any way. I am simply saying that Starfield is not KSP and vis versa. I look upon each as their own separate entity and judge based upon fun factor. It is like comparing apples to oranges. I like both but each is different even though they are both fruits.
@@PalassCat Again, I am not comparing one AGAINST the other. You can like both equally but for different reasons. I will say that for me the “landing” on a planet gets extremely boring after you have done it 50 or 100 times. It becomes similar to landings in a cut scene to a degree. That is not to say seeing a cut scene is also boring after a while. The point is, I play games that are fun regardless of how they present “landings”.
Interesting perspective. I don’t have that problem. Starfield is a SciFi-RPG, it really isn’t calling out for Newtonian physics. Too complicated and it would totally ruin the pace of the game.
Starfield is an RPG, KSP and KSP2 are simulators. The gameplay is really fun and the story is good, I honestly don't get the comparison, if you don't like RPGs just don't play it.
8-year-old non-stop KSP player here (almost non-stop) and a few years old subscriber. In my opinion, you've stepped on a thin ice with this video. It seems you wanted to get a piece of hype. There is absolutely no point in comparing KSP with Starfield. I love the first and I don't really like the latter and KSP did not _ruin_ anything. Starfield lives on its own and has its own fanbase. It is a completely different game. In fact, KSP did not _ruin_ anything: there always have been franchises that ignore physics (Star Wars is the best example I presume). And it is okay: they are spectacular, have decent story and people love them. Physically accurate games were always a niche games. Don't compare Asteroids with the DART project. And don't put us against the other camp: they may live on their own and we will continue on our own. You might have do a Starfield preview/review video instead.
Hey there, thanks for being a long time subscriber! My brain might work differently from yours, because it is really hard for me to turn off my "reality sensor" nowadays. When I watched "Interstellar" back when it was in theaters, the first docking scene (not the spinning one) I thought "woah, that's about 5x too fast". It's easier to suspend my disbelief with Star Wars, because for me it is like a parallel universe, sort of a fairy tale. But every time a story is set in our backyard (Earth orbit, solar system etc) or tries to act "real" (e.g. you need a space suit everywhere instead of every planet has a breathable atmosphere like in Star Wars), I automatically start to analyse it whether or not it holds up. To list a very specific example from Starfield: your robot (Vasco) says "we are now in orbit around [planet name]." but it clearly is not an orbit. It is using words that have a very specific meaning but then doing something that isn't that. I did acknowledge in the video that KSP (and by extension other sims) are niche games, as you rightly point out. But then again, "The Expanse" exists and depicted somewhat realistic space combat. Also, there was "Descent: Freespace" which came out at the end of the 1990s that had a gameplay mechanic where you could switch your fighter so that it would flip around while moving along the current vector it was on. Similar to how Starfury fighters in "Bablyon 5" behaved. For its time, Freespace was actually considered a success. So there is a way to combine realism and entertainment. There always has to be a tradeoff. Even KSP is not 100% realistic, of course. But the approximation is a lot closer. I thought this would be a fun comparison to make, more as a piece of entertainment, not in a too serious way. I hope you were still able to enjoy it and continue to follow this channel! In any case: thanks a lot for your feedback!
@12:40 yes you can but even if you know the coordinates you can't discover them organically you have to find them through the side mission activity system!
With advanced flight control systems (most of which that are not available in Kerbal Space Program) the range of possible vehicle configurations becomes effectively limitless. Configurable stability augmentation, fuel transfer or ballast systems, and thrust differential all work together to modify non-ideal flight characteristics to a safe flight envelope. You should really try Juno: New Origins. It delivers on every aspect that KSP and KSP 2 has failed on. Complex builds are possible due to the game's higher performance, and users have already integrated interstellar flight like KSP 2 envisioned for two years now. This was possible due to the game's highly configurable build and planetary system editor.
People were disappointed finding out it’s not a full space sim. But that’s not something you can do very realistically in a roll playing game. I think Bethesda got a decent medium between the types of games styles
I would love to have a game with realistic space battles like Children of a Dead Earth with a bit more game in it. Terra Invicta for example has the travel times and dV requirements but the combat is more traditional face off. Still waiting for some big company to pick up Honor Harrington universe :)
3:45 than again there is the technology differences and just the fact that slamming orbital mechanics into a mainstream game wouldn't go over well. You want realistic space combat? Children of a dead earth is built for that.
I get that there's a basic evolved need to satisfy violence in our DNA, and I like some action in games as much as the next also but like you Shadow, I also find myself asking why we can't have more alternatives in gaming like KSP.
Very glad to hear others rant about "the gun problem". I don't mind guns in real life used properly, but for me the "game about shooting guns at guys with guns shooting guns at guns because guns" got really old 30 years ago. Same with movies. I'm starting to fall asleep during the super-important epic battles between elemental forces of good and evil du jour. I'm hoping games like KSP/KSP2, Outer Wilds, and movies like The Martian raise the bar. Just surviving in space is challenging enough, with plenty of drama for good writers.
You should try Star Citizen, basically a flight simulator in space, doesn't have realistic physics like KSP but there is no limits to where you can fly your ship and stuff, and theres no loading screens just like KSP
Physics are kinds real, it's just that there's an artificial "speed limit" in the saftey systems for every ship that you arnt allowed to disable, and this limit is well below orbital velocity. But if you turn off coupled mode (flight computer using thrusters to pretend wings work in space) you get a reasonable zero g system.
The 'dogfighting in space' started with Star Wars IIRC. Star Trek also had the fighting in a 2d plane like ships approach to space combat. Generally it's just spacey enough to make it sci-fi, but the physics go out the window for the sake of fun in many of these games. There was more inertia-based combat in some games over the years, but complex gravity was never really factored in. The ships were normally dumbed down to the unlimited fuel with overpowered engines for most of them, or the gravity was more of a curiosity with tiny planets relative to the huge ships. Heck, even some more air-plane simulation based things were simplified for fun. Games where AOA hardly mattered, structural integrity was magical. Not to mention the magical sensors that some of them employed... The Expanse recently made it's way on to the screen - it's one of the few hard sci-fi shows that really embraced what ships and ship combat would really be like. Even if it employed a high-power insane-isp engine to make it practical, everything else was way more realistic. Combat happens at insane ranges as you'd expect. Magical shields don't exist. A 'bullet' rips right through everything as you'd expect. Flesh bags can't pull insane Gs without being less alive than before. It's best to forget what's real in many of these games. They are imaginary worlds. Cowboys in space can be a lot more fun than thermal management and careful maneuvering over hours and a fight that starts and ends with a single well-placed kinetic weapon that travels for 20 minutes to hit its target after a position was revealed by an hot engine burn from a small orbital correction.
what you may not be realizing is that if you're in a dog fight with another ship in space. You can fly around like they do in Starfield and still be in an orbit. The perspective is from the ship. When you move around to fight the other ship you're changing your orbit but being how short fights are it's very much possible to have real fights like that in space. You don't see the orbit as you're perspective is always the ship and you don't get to zoom out like in kerbal. If you could zoom out in starfield then you can think of it as you and the other ships are flying around fighting in an area that is in orbit around the planet. But being that you don't have that view you can understand that would be the case. Also when in orbit around the planet again you're in perspective of the ship and can't zoom out like in kerbal so being that you would be in orbit for a short time you wouldn't see much of a change giving the distance of the orbit. final thoughts are when we do have war in space we will be able to fight like in starfield.
Maybe once someone comes up with a space game idea (other than KSP) where combat isn't the main thing, we'll get a bit more realistic physics as well. KSP has already shown that orbital physics (quite a bit simplified) can make a bit of gameplay in itself. Travel times and dV requirements could also be big part of trading gameplay. It's just a lot easier to stick with the beaten path and give players something to shoot at.
@@kindythecyborg Starfield doesn't even have space though lol! It's fake space with no physics. If you want to play an actual space game try out Outer Wilds, best there is.
The more knowledgeable players will become about how real physics applies to space, the more we will see space sims vs arcades. Well, at least that's my hope. I love KSP but imagine how much cooler it would be a proper RPG with some sort of KSP physic.
Furthermore, I've read somewhere that in Star Wars, those fighters brawls were inspired by WWII dogfights. At the time space was too far out from most people. Most scifi sims are inspired by those movies.
I get what you mean about the technological limitations to space dogfight combat but if we would get a much better fuel efficiency and could place strong directional thrust for the 6 directions... Once 2 craft are on a similar orbit, they could maneuver in a slowish dogfight around the celestial body... Yeah it does require some new combat tactics and precise interception course but it's possible... and not done even in videogames yet ! Can't wait to buy a real computer and get ksp2 when it's feature complete !
A about space games that are not based on conflict, and which has a more or less realistic orbital mechanics, you should give a look at "Flight of Nova", currently in early access on Steam but already quite beautiful and playable. You are piloting various spaceships in missions that make you transfer cargo from base to base of the same planet (requiring flying close to the terrain or have a parabolic trajectory, depending on the distance of the bases, from planet to space station in orbit (or reverse), or from station to station. There is no manoeuvering plan mode, like in KSP, so you have to eyeball your trajectories but if you have played KSP, you will have the good reflexes about how to change orbit and make a rendez-vous.
I think you're understating the proposed technological gap. Starfield ships have warp capability which suggest a massive energy differential with the RL tech we have now. Current RL space flight needs the conservation of momentum because the fuel to maneuver is far more finite. If we could remove that limitation, Sci-fi space combat becomes far more plausible.
Sure, but then why do they painstakingly model guns with magazines, shells being ejected, muzzle flash etc? Why not use a shiny stick that goes "boom"? They're not necessary for roleplay, are they?
Weak ass argument. You can nitpick any part of a video game and make a case for why it doesnt add the core premise. By your logic games should have no polish, or added depth. Also playing an RPG is about immersion, it kinda breaks immersion if you're just locked out of the reality you're supposedly inhabiting. Its simply becasue that designing real Newtonian orbital physics into a video game takes dedication, skill and passion for science and video games. It's clear Bethesda hold none of those three things very highly. It's simply because theyre not good enough to make a realistic space game. Outer WIlds devs could seriously teach them a thing or two lmao
@@ShadowZonethey are, it's just those things would stand out more to the average player and are 'expected' of FPS games to have these days, compared to orbital mechanics and spacecraft design
@@ShadowZone I don't disagree with you on the suspension of disbelief required to enjoy the space travel aspects. I just think the importance of it varies with the genre. I didn't mean to come across confrontational.
Not sure if anyone else has this, but I am experiencing some regular weird audio glitch effects while you are talking. I've listened to another dozen videos surrounding yours and none of them have it, just yours.
Yeah it’s stuff like unrealistic spaceflight that kinda annoys me with most modern space games, that’s why I wanna work on a more realistic one someday
Don't know much space games that have orbital mechanics but a good flight model should respect the conservation of momentum. The 90's game Independence War 2: Edge of Chaos is still the best space combat sim I've ever played. No liquid vacuum but a lot of inertia and you often fly with your main engine facing backwards to kill velocity. Evochron doesn't have orbital mechanics as well but it's possible to crash into a planet in any spot as in KSP (or explode trying to fly through a gas giant) and this game was made by only one guy. And hovering in space above the planet in Evochron does consume fuel.
NMS feels so... lonely. The companion mechanic and dialog in Starfield does help with the immersion. But as a space game in itself, it does not break any new ground. Looks pretty, though. And I am interested in the story.
I'd like to see a modern take on X-Wing. Space is a fluid, you have a max speed, no orbital mechanics, but more in-depth energy management and sensor management
starfield is not a space game, no matter how many times people say that, well it has a minigame emulating space when you are at orbit and appear random events , end, nothing more, it is there for immersion nothing more, starfield is an rpg, themed on a planet traveler character.
Space Engineers is a nice halfway point. Spaceflight is not as real as Kerbal but you have a complete if simplified experience. Where it shines is how you can build absolutely anything. If you want to build a space scooter or the Death Star you can. If you want peace all the time you can. If you want conflict you also can, you might have that Death Star gunning for you. And trying to land with just not enough fuel you will have you gripping your controller like your life depends on it. Once on the ground you jump in your hand built buggy and make of like a madman just for the fun of it.
Realism is good, but it can be bad too. Starfield isnt trying to be a simulator. Its a purely fantasy game, it isnt designed to be played as if its physics are accurate. Guns and stuff are relatively realistic because those would stand out more to the average player, compared to orbital mechanics. Starfield is basically like a 'more realistic' star wars, thats how i see it. I just think if starfield had the space physics of something like ksp i think itd be a lot shittier since it would take a lot more effort to go to and fro
Opinion poll! What do you guys think, is there enough demand for a AAA Hard-As-Nails Sci-Fi title? I think HardSF has been gaining popularity lately, but may be observer bias
In 2020, the original KSP sold 4 million copies after 9 years of being publicly available. In less than a week, over 6 million people have played Starfield. If that doesn't show where the demand is, I don't know what will.
I think it would be cool to have realistic space combat. If weapons are to be added, i think it should be a small gun turret designed to defend the craft from incoming space debris. But i think the rest of weapons should be designed by the player. (Mainly for if you have friends that you want to be overly competitive with)
I tried to visit Apollo 11 and opportunity rover, but I don't find anything :( In fact, planet exploration worse than No Man's Sky and even Elite Dangerous (because you don't have any type of vehicle for traveling on surface)
Gonna have to disagree with the there is no weapons in ksp claim, if I can build a rocket I can build a missile and I would have to classify that as a weapon personally
I Absolutely 100% agree. Since I started playing KSP many years ago I cant take many space games and movies seriously. Bad space physics in movies really anoy me. On a side note; the perfect game for me would be a full working KSP 2 (as promised, one day?) in combination with the game called Satisfactory.
With Star Citizen it was a bit of a disappointment that you'll be in orbit after some magical altitude but space combat was always going to be WW2 air combat. I guess those kinda tie together as well.
I think FTL has the best mechanics for space combat. Also instead of engine bells they should use gravity wave drives. no reaction mass and hovering in midair is no different from sitting on the ground. and you can hide them in the hull if you dont want to balance the axis of thrust. maybe if you overload the ufo with cargo it rears up on its back instead of going up.
@@Atlessa Because it isn't the main focus of the game. You shouldn't expect a full on space sim bolted on to an RPG game like how you can't expect a logistics manager game attached to a racing game
@@a_dreamer8612 No one is expecting a full on space sim, but is it asking too much for game devs to at least ATTEMPT to make spaceflight feel different from atmospheric flight??
I wouldnt put that on KSP, just knowing a bit about space flight makes anything "Soft SF" harder to get into. Even KSP cheats in places. But not every game has to be a "reallistic" space game either and devs resources and time are limited. Compromise are necesary one way or the other.
The truth is Starfield really isn't a space game, it's a space themed first person RPG. Spaceflight clearly isn't the main focus of the game, it's just a fancy overworld screen.
Honestly shooting games sell other kinds of games don't sell nearly as much as for the realism with physics people in general don't care and people who are science illiterate which is most people the ships in Starfield are realistic enough I've also heard a criticism that people don't like realistic Rockets because they're phallic and shape and people care more about the cool factor ratherj than realistic physics
Newtonian physics being absent is a big letdown. That being said as an RPG it is pretty great if you can get past the first 12 hours of gameplay. I almost threw in the towel before I started to feel rewarded for my time. The ship building UI in Starfield is mind numbingly bad.
yeah, that's my take, that we would be blown away by Starfield if we hadn't already, YEARS AGO, played Kerbal Space Program, Starmade, Outer Wilds, and Outer Worlds. Starfield brings little NEW to the table, and still uses the same cardboard npcs bethesda always uses. honestly Daggerfall Unity seems more innovative than Starfield.
starfield just released to late, if it came out before BG3 which raised rpg standards like it was supposed to an year ago would've probably received better reception. gaming in 2023 is just absolutely insane with great games coming out seemingly every week/month.
The Comparison of the Habitable Worlds of the Solar System Compared to the Kerbol System Sun Earth(Ultra-Habitable) Moon(Organic) Mars(Organic) Europa(Primitive) Enceladus(Primitive) Titan(Robotic) Saturn(Airborne) Kerbol Eve(Planktonic) Kerbin(Sub-Habitable) Minmus(Primitive) Laythe(Ultra-Habitable) Vall(Advanced) Eeloo(Simple)
First time I pressed the boost button in space, and immediately lost the velocity gained when the boost was over.... Yeah I knew this was gonna be just another arcade flying game.
damn is that true? Did they really not know about the fact that you don't lose momentum in space vacuum?
@@i_do_coding Todd is wearing the watch the Apollo astronauts wore, I'm pretty sure he knows, they just weren't in it to make a space sim.
@@i_do_coding It's not that they didn't know about it. It's pretty insulting if you really think they are too stupid to know how space works. They weren't trying to make a space sim. That wasn't the goal at all. They made a science/fantasy rpg set in space. They weren't trying to make a Star Citizen, No Man's Sky, or Elite Dangerous competitor. Anyone that was expecting that set themselves up for disappointment. This is why it has unrealistic Star Wars like flying. It was intentionally not realistic as far as flying goes.
in my head canonically it adds a reverse thrust at the end of the boost? meh the gameplay is fun.
thats not true. If you boost your ship and the boost ends, the spaceship fires its boostback engines to go back to the original speed.
Starfield isnt a space sim, its a space fantasy. A lot of people expected a spacesim.
out of a Bethesda game? lol.
@@Fierce0Deity0Link well yeah, look at all the other comments here.
I was expecting it to be about as accurate as radiation poisoning turning you into a ghoul 😅 (and was happy with that).
@@carpetsmell2523 I wonder if they followed any of the material that has been put out over the years? They really showed exactly what the game has turned out to be.
@@Niosus what for you mean? (sorry if im bring a little dumb)
I think increase in interest in stem fields and realistic space simulators raised standards for realism of space content
The word "standards" in video games is just a euphemism for expectations and entitlement. Games are an art form, which you can't standardize. Also, when you talking about interest in stem fields: This is a small minority among gamers, which is why KSP is a niche game and games like Starfield bring in millions. Normal ppl don't care abot realism, they just want an enjoyable experience.
@@Bennet2391you couldn’t have been analytical without being extremely snobby and brash?
@@firstletterofthealphabet7308 To be honest, I had to look up "snobby and brash". English is not my first language.
I'm curious how you would have phrased what i said without being "snobby and brash".
This is funny.
@@firstletterofthealphabet7308I didn't think their comment was "snobby" at all, but I tend to assume comments are neutral unless they're outright hostile. Do you think you might be a bit sensitive?
@@Bennet2391 I both agree and disagree. You would be right in saying games are an art form, but only if its an expression of an individual mind. When you have games made by large groups if people, that begins to develop a more collective form of expression that is more difficult to delineate between art and a product. So when talking about an indie game I would agree that what you are saying is correct. But when comparing that to a business whose livelihood is selling a product to a group of people. Thats different. There is a standard for a company because they aren’t producing an art. There aren’t any standards when an independent artist uses it as an expression. Also the other comment must have misunderstood what you meant. You were truthful not “snobby or brash”.
I always liked kerbal space programs lack of weapons because if you wanted them, you had to design and build them yourself. The computer doesnt guess what your trying to do. It just simulates.
In multiplayer, half the players just focus on destroying other peoples stuff. So building hi-tech weapons to defend yourself and your stuff was very satisfying. Especially because most people strait could not respond.
I remember when Scott Manley made videos about vessels fighting in multiplayer in KSP, with the Armoury mod (I don't remember the exact name of the mod). It was a huge load of fun content =)
Honestly I think future space combat will be very much like modern fighter jet combat, I don't mean old school dogfighting, I mean two modern latest gen fighter jets detecting and shooting down each other will very long range missiles from 60 kilometers away before the pilots can even see each other's aircraft
That's how it's portrayed in the Expanse TV show, or the PC game "Children of a Dead Earth".
Granted nothing wrong with the WW2 dog fights in scifi shows, or games. Still hands down think old Xwing and Tie Fighter games are great, why they never did updates on those franchises is beyond me.
Which can still be very exciting.
BVR combat in DCS is absolutely intense.
@@joelmulderrealism can be really fun developers are just afraid of taking risks
More like: have facility on the ground track the enemy and have a missile "rendezvous" with the enemy automatically from the other side of the planet.
Space combat would be *exclusively* about who has more intel. Can you spot the enemy first? Can you see if some piece of space junk has an orbit conveniently ramming into yours?
Well, that and how much fuel can you waste on changing your orbit for evasion.
@@TheLoneLlama "Children of a Dead Earth" literally what a real space combat sim would be with current tech.
This is so true. Playing Starfield I couldnt stop thinking about how it all makes no sense.
same, i knew before it even came out I was gonna have to suspend my belief a LOT.. Every game treats space travel like boats in 3d water
Especially the engine noise
exactly
@@darknewtNot every game is trying to be a space sim. Star Wars Squadrons flies unrealistically and yet no one complained about that not being simulated.
@@darknewt They treat ships more like planes and jet fighters, actually. But I get your point.
Ignoring the whole ksp thing i agree with the take that shooting is in too many games now, there's still original shooters coming out like doom eternal and ultrakill but in the majority of not mainly shooter games shooting just feels like a lazy way to add another level of gameplay which can turn out really boring
i love ultrakill
Starfield is not a space sim, it's an RPG set in space. If I want to manually do everything, I play NMS or KSP. As for realism, shure, they could've done things more like NMS, but I like that they focused on stories and characters instead of copying what other space games have already done.
YES! Just yes! I can't even enjoy Star Wars as much as I used to. It's still awesome, but just not right.
I personally have come to the conclusion that the flying saucer actually is the ultimate shape for a ship. With all of the main engines on the bottom, it would be most maneuverable and the sustained thrust would push you onto the floor. For atmospheric entry, again you are pushed to the floor and the engines would be the heat shield and you have all that surface area for aerodynamic drag. I could continue on, but variations on flying saucers really are the best shape for interplanetary/interstellar design. They just need to not travel edge-on the way they do in Star Trek.
This is one of the reasons why I've been advocating for the idea that Star Wars isn't even Sci-Fi to begin with, but Fantasy with a Sci-Fi coat of paint.
@@Atlessa Lucas modeled the dog fights after WW2 dog fights.
@@Atlessa-- I've grown fond of the term science fantasy, or space fantasy if there's zero justification for anything (and it's in space ofc).
Flying saucer would have a lot of drag and not aerodynamics at all to be launched out of the planet. Unless the way it moves is not based on propulsion, but something else like its fictional anti-gravity properties, warp bubble, distortion of space and time and other stuff.
The saucer could be
A. Assembled in space
B. Launched edge-up
C. Given a fairing-type cover or extension to decrease its aerodynamic Sa
This is a hilarious and entertaining comparison! Loved it!
The space shooter genre goes back even further, though... Anyone remember Asteroids from the Atari days? Weirdly, it sounds like Asteroids may have had better physics than Starfield, lol
I think it did! :D Falcon -- if that was even its name -- a sort of Elite 2 by the same author if I remember right -- was also fairly realistic and it was 3D, but it was hard. With the extremely low detail necessary to do 3D in the 16-bit era, it was hard to judge distance or even orient your ship.
Finally someone voicing my thoughts on StarField!
I want to love it SO badly, but it just feels like a loading screen simulator to me…
It's more like a Fallout in the future and with some transport between planets than a Bethesda version of Star Citizen. Just my opinion, of course.
@@fridaycaliforniaa236 it’s like fallout in the future, except instead of walking through an expansive hand crafted world full of dangers and opportunities to your next objective, you quick travel there through several menus…
I wouldnt say ksp or ksp2 ruined it really because nms existed before ksp2 and has a good landing system and story
NMS still doesn't do orbits correctly, but at least the immersion is a lot better. You can really seamlessly land on a planet and get back up into space.
Does it have a story now? It's so long ago I played it, I just did random stuff without knowing what I was doing.
@@ShadowZone yes it has a story and although it doesn't have realistic orbits I still think it's better than what I saw in the video
@@hzlayer There is little point in comparing them. They are entirely different games. Starfield is like Fallout or Skyrim, but with a space theme. The ship building/flying is added to the formula, but otherwise you're doing the exact same things as before. This is not a bad thing, but you should know what kind of game you're buying.
Starfield and NMS aren't supposed to be space sims.
@@ShadowZoneNMS developers quited orbital mechanics because the players kept reporting as a bug that the planets changed positions as time passed
The only space game KSP hadn't ruin for me is Outer Wild.
I did. It is fantastic and I love it dearly.
I hadn't heard of it. Sounds just right. Thanks for the tip!
The only game that managed to nail realistic newtonian space flight combat while still making it fun to play was I-war. They did a control system that allowed you to switch between "dogfight" and "newtonian" flight allowing you to switch modes, so with an attacker on your tail you could flip 180 degrees blast them with your main guns while your ship carried on its original trajectory then switch back to dogfight mode where it would automatically compensate and realistically stop you before you picked up speed again in the direction you were now facing, or you could flip back and restore dogfight mode to carry on on your original course. This required a complex HUD showing "trails" to make sense of what directions other ships were travelling in relative to you. I don't like to think what level of programming went into developing that game.
You should try out outer wilds, it is an extremely in depth story game based in space with fairly accurate physics
I remember the X Wing but the Wing Commander spinoff Privateer had a neat take on this concept. Underrated game
Privateer was fantastic. Much love for that game.
That's actually one of the reasons I like the idea of terra inficta if you get into a spacebattel you have the two army's crossing each other and you can change direction a bit depending on the amount of fuel and so on and if they crossed you have to wait like a whole orbit till they can intersect again also depending on fuel and other stuff haven't played it yet cause it seems really complex
Take a look at "Children of a dead Earth". That is to date probably the most accurate space warfare simulator outhere.
You can design your own spacecraft, it has verry realistic space physics and it even has a story/campaign too.
love terra invicta, watched someone do a whole playthrough of it and people even left comments as soldiers recalling battles and such
haven't bought it yet as well but it's def inspired a lot of stuff for my project
I can totally relate. Learning orbital dynamics has pretty much ruined most sci fi for me!
It’s not just that it’s “fighter planes dog fighting - but in space!”, it’s *world war 2* planes in space. Modern fighters wouldn’t even see each other, let alone get close enough to use guns very often.
I would imagine real space combat would not even be as exciting as in "The Expanse". If somebody hauls asteroids at relativistic speeds at you, there's no radar or anything that could give you enough early warning time to evade if the opposition has aimed well.
The usual reason for close combat in space is that it’s hard to aim/predict dumb weapons from super far out unless it’s a railgun, and even then it just means a slightly farther range. As for smart weapons like missiles/torps, those can be shot down with typical anti-missile defense systems. So that’s not always reliable either, but do act as the upper range limit against mobile targets. Thus you’re left with getting semi close and personal where short range mass drivers can cover the distance in a reasonable time frame to hit the target before they’ve moved significantly.
“Stationary” (meaning fixed/predictable orbits and whatnot) targets can be hit easier with railguns or lobbing the odd asteroid from extreme ranges that make sense in space. The expanse also showed a little bit of that as well. In any case, truly realistic space combat is something that’s gonna be hard to do. My guess is it’ll look more like ww1 trench warfare, where you lob artillery (missiles/nukes/asteroids) and send endless waves of mobs (hopefully in this case unmanned craft) until the defense system is saturated/runs out of supplies. Then come the real ships with lots of support to establish a “beachhead.”
"No Man's Sky" had a MUCH bigger impact then KSP will ever have on the average gamers space expectations.
Because is more causal. The moment anyone plays KSP, learns to play it and enjoy it, it's a game changer in perspective. Any other game feels dull space travel wise.
I think the space shuttle orbital manövrering thuster bulges and the visual "weight" they have on how it looks are partially to blame for the pop culture placements.
But they just skip the bit of thrusting through the centre of mass
It's a Bethesda game and I never expected it to feature actual Newtonian physics, but I've always wished for a game that did. Something that combines the traditional space fantasy/exploration with correct orbital mechanics. I think most people just prefer one or the other on its own, and there's only a minority who fall into the overlap, so nobody has deemed it worth making
Agree totally, my biggest ugh moment was flying into space the first time to realize someone had spilled a giant glass of milk throughout the galaxy. (granted I switched to an OLED specifically expecting a good implementation of HDR so that may influence how mad it made me). I didn't have any expectations of orbital mechanics, but that would have been awesome. Did expect at least some NMS quality ship flying though.
KSP2 interstellar feels like a pipe dream at this point - as much as I want KSP2 to be all the things they promised, we've been waiting for re-entry heating for SIX MONTHS. So extrapolate that time table and KSP2 will not be "finished" for at least 10 years.
I’d say at least 5 years minimum.
Man it's Skyrim in space, loving the hell out of it :D
I wonder, have you ever played Children of a Dead Earth? It's like KSP, but about realistic space combat exclusively, there is no planet-side gameplay, only space combat, orbital mechanics and component design.
You can make weapons in ksp if you really want. Mainly you are using the help of Sir Isaac Newton.
Bethesda just.. kinda..... Bethesda’d everywhere (obligatory morbin time joke)
And then Jeb entered the spaceship and said: It's Kerbin time!
@@ShadowZone It's Jebin' time!
I mean modding still exists and I belive Starfield has more mods than ksp2 atm^^
@@emmata98that’s because ksp2 is too shit for most people to be willing to mod it
@@Top-Code and bethesda having a wider audience and a longer history of modding...
All the things you outlined encompasses one of the many reasons I LOVED The Expanse as a tv show. They did an excellent job on the space physics. The authors of the original books did too, but the tv show really shined because it was shown on screen.
orbital mecanics aren't even that hard to understand, yet 90% of space games just won't bother with it, it's sad
Just imagine what could be done with auto pilot and arbitrary fuel supplies. Even if the orbital mechanics were just a rendezvous during the loading screen to a close encounter, it would feel so good.
I'm also a huge fan of six-axis flight, strafing all around, doing retro-burns to change direction, not only could this be a good opportunity to have crew skills for turrets, but it would be fantastic for co-op! Such strafing flight also fits quite nicely with twin-stick controls already, I can't imagine it would be much harder than helicopters are already.
It's not that hard but it's often quite counterintuitive (like making your manoeuvre at the opposite side of the orbit, thrusting tangentially to lower or rise your orbit, etc. And it's quite anticlimactic. You have to plan far ahead, and then wait, and wait again. People interested in Skyrim or Starfield do not want to play like that. If they want to land on a planet, it has to be now and you must see where you are going, not it to be on the far side of the orbit. Those are RPG, based on constant interactions with NPCs.
Not exactly related to this video BUT I think Starfield lacks immersion because of its numerous loading times, you can't explore the world seamlesly, and Elite Dangerous is immersive and its really cool to move around the world, but lacks interesting content imo :[
Children of a Dead Earth, if you want a more realistic space combat.
Kerbal Space program doesn't have weapons for only one reason.
You have to make a new type of weapons never seen before to fight in space.
AKA: Cruise Missiles for EVERYONE!
You cant land??? I heard someone flew to pluto in real time only for there to be no pluto untill they fast traveled. That is such a letdown.
Maybe I am just too stupid? I boosted for a couple of minutes in the direction of the planet and didn't get any closer. At least it didn't appear that way because there was no distance counter or anything.
I only landed by getting near a planet and then activate "land" from the map menu.
@@ShadowZone you can fly to other planets, but in reality you just wouldn't. There's no time warp, and you only travel a few hundred mph, so it would take years
Yeah, but exactly the same thing happen when someone tried to fly between star systems in Elite Dangerous. Turns out ED is a loading screen sim, too.
@@matty7834 That's such a bullshit dev thing to say. That's what the NMS lied about too. In reality you just can't. Each area has a little 3d space for you to fly around in, once you hit the edge it creates the illusion of moving but you're actually just locked in place, like the edge of GTA maps/
@@daveski7 no it doesn't, the planets literally get closer, someone tried it lol
Yeah, as a physicist and working in science education at a university in my mid 40s I just have to say: apples and oranges! Just because both have something to do with space, it does not make sense to compare them to each other in any way and to even think about comparing any of them to reality, at least per se. The rant was a bit like "oh you stupid bakers... why are you always selling boring bread! Do something new! Maybe sell meat instead! you know what the monkeys did on the trees? THEY started to eat meat! So you bakers should do the same! It is soooo unrealistic to only sell bread!"
I remember one old game which kept spaceflight quite real, at least in terms of docking and space battles. It was Elite's successor of the early 90s if not the late 80s. I think it was called Falcon but it's been too long. At the time, I found it just too hard, though with my Kerbal experience I'd probably find it easier. However, the graphics wouldn't help -- they were 3D but simplistic enough to be rendered on an Atari ST. With no textures and a very limited number of triangles, there's _very_ little detail to help you judge distance or even orient your ship.
Nice ad for Starfield. Not kidding. Good info. I don't see it as KSP ruining other space content. I think they ruin themselves when they so obviously ignore physics. But I certainly agree that experience with KSP really teaches you to see the issues that much more clearly. Ah, well. Keep up the good work!
It is a space FANTASY game. It is LOOSELY based upon real things but it is purely FANTASY. Like Star Trek or Star Wars, it is meant to tell a story and allow the player a FUN experience while doing so. Just think if Starfield used the same physics as KSP 1 and/or 2? Would the game be fun? Probably not. Everything you bring up is valid IF Someone airfield was trying to mimic KSP. For me, both games are fun. But I approach each game differently. BTW, I am approaching 70 and I love Starfield and that type of game as much as I love KSP 1/2.
Yes. You are older than me but I've seen the moon landing as a kid on tv so I'm up there. Space Engineers is a nice halfway type of game. Not physics-ally correct but that is mostly because they sacrificed correctness for complete freedom to build whatever you want and fly or drive it in ways that allow you to suspend disbelief. The game is from 2013, somewhat janky but with a solid modding community. Most powerful mods are 'scenarios'', they work a bit like a d&d game where a player creates a storyline where you can roleplay to your heart's desire.
"landing" on a planet through a loading screen is not fun by any means. It would be okay for a 90-s or early 00-s game because of software and hardware limitations but not for a modern game. Evochron Legacy was made by only one person but it's possible to actually land on any planet (or burn in the atmosphere) and planets are pretty well detailed.
@@astranger448 I am not dissing KSP in any way. I am simply saying that Starfield is not KSP and vis versa. I look upon each as their own separate entity and judge based upon fun factor. It is like comparing apples to oranges. I like both but each is different even though they are both fruits.
@@PalassCat Again, I am not comparing one AGAINST the other. You can like both equally but for different reasons. I will say that for me the “landing” on a planet gets extremely boring after you have done it 50 or 100 times. It becomes similar to landings in a cut scene to a degree. That is not to say seeing a cut scene is also boring after a while. The point is, I play games that are fun regardless of how they present “landings”.
@@MrGruug That's how I understood it. I should have worded this better.
Interesting perspective. I don’t have that problem. Starfield is a SciFi-RPG, it really isn’t calling out for Newtonian physics. Too complicated and it would totally ruin the pace of the game.
Starfield is an RPG, KSP and KSP2 are simulators. The gameplay is really fun and the story is good, I honestly don't get the comparison, if you don't like RPGs just don't play it.
Yeah, but then he would lose on all that sweet hype traffic.
8-year-old non-stop KSP player here (almost non-stop) and a few years old subscriber.
In my opinion, you've stepped on a thin ice with this video. It seems you wanted to get a piece of hype.
There is absolutely no point in comparing KSP with Starfield. I love the first and I don't really like the latter and KSP did not _ruin_ anything. Starfield lives on its own and has its own fanbase. It is a completely different game. In fact, KSP did not _ruin_ anything: there always have been franchises that ignore physics (Star Wars is the best example I presume). And it is okay: they are spectacular, have decent story and people love them.
Physically accurate games were always a niche games.
Don't compare Asteroids with the DART project.
And don't put us against the other camp: they may live on their own and we will continue on our own.
You might have do a Starfield preview/review video instead.
Hey there, thanks for being a long time subscriber!
My brain might work differently from yours, because it is really hard for me to turn off my "reality sensor" nowadays. When I watched "Interstellar" back when it was in theaters, the first docking scene (not the spinning one) I thought "woah, that's about 5x too fast".
It's easier to suspend my disbelief with Star Wars, because for me it is like a parallel universe, sort of a fairy tale.
But every time a story is set in our backyard (Earth orbit, solar system etc) or tries to act "real" (e.g. you need a space suit everywhere instead of every planet has a breathable atmosphere like in Star Wars), I automatically start to analyse it whether or not it holds up.
To list a very specific example from Starfield: your robot (Vasco) says "we are now in orbit around [planet name]." but it clearly is not an orbit. It is using words that have a very specific meaning but then doing something that isn't that.
I did acknowledge in the video that KSP (and by extension other sims) are niche games, as you rightly point out. But then again, "The Expanse" exists and depicted somewhat realistic space combat.
Also, there was "Descent: Freespace" which came out at the end of the 1990s that had a gameplay mechanic where you could switch your fighter so that it would flip around while moving along the current vector it was on. Similar to how Starfury fighters in "Bablyon 5" behaved. For its time, Freespace was actually considered a success.
So there is a way to combine realism and entertainment. There always has to be a tradeoff. Even KSP is not 100% realistic, of course. But the approximation is a lot closer.
I thought this would be a fun comparison to make, more as a piece of entertainment, not in a too serious way.
I hope you were still able to enjoy it and continue to follow this channel!
In any case: thanks a lot for your feedback!
@12:40 yes you can but even if you know the coordinates you can't discover them organically you have to find them through the side mission activity system!
With advanced flight control systems (most of which that are not available in Kerbal Space Program) the range of possible vehicle configurations becomes effectively limitless. Configurable stability augmentation, fuel transfer or ballast systems, and thrust differential all work together to modify non-ideal flight characteristics to a safe flight envelope. You should really try Juno: New Origins. It delivers on every aspect that KSP and KSP 2 has failed on. Complex builds are possible due to the game's higher performance, and users have already integrated interstellar flight like KSP 2 envisioned for two years now. This was possible due to the game's highly configurable build and planetary system editor.
People were disappointed finding out it’s not a full space sim. But that’s not something you can do very realistically in a roll playing game. I think Bethesda got a decent medium between the types of games styles
Have you played Children of a Dead Earth?
it’s probably the most realistic space combat simulator out there.
I would love to have a game with realistic space battles like Children of a Dead Earth with a bit more game in it. Terra Invicta for example has the travel times and dV requirements but the combat is more traditional face off.
Still waiting for some big company to pick up Honor Harrington universe :)
Ahhh, when the cutter is the only weapon that you have. I was doing that yesterday.
3:45 than again there is the technology differences and just the fact that slamming orbital mechanics into a mainstream game wouldn't go over well.
You want realistic space combat? Children of a dead earth is built for that.
Starfield = No Man's Skyrim
I get that there's a basic evolved need to satisfy violence in our DNA, and I like some action in games as much as the next also but like you Shadow, I also find myself asking why we can't have more alternatives in gaming like KSP.
Very glad to hear others rant about "the gun problem". I don't mind guns in real life used properly, but for me the "game about shooting guns at guys with guns shooting guns at guns because guns" got really old 30 years ago. Same with movies. I'm starting to fall asleep during the super-important epic battles between elemental forces of good and evil du jour. I'm hoping games like KSP/KSP2, Outer Wilds, and movies like The Martian raise the bar. Just surviving in space is challenging enough, with plenty of drama for good writers.
You should try Star Citizen, basically a flight simulator in space, doesn't have realistic physics like KSP but there is no limits to where you can fly your ship and stuff, and theres no loading screens just like KSP
Physics are kinds real, it's just that there's an artificial "speed limit" in the saftey systems for every ship that you arnt allowed to disable, and this limit is well below orbital velocity. But if you turn off coupled mode (flight computer using thrusters to pretend wings work in space) you get a reasonable zero g system.
The 'dogfighting in space' started with Star Wars IIRC. Star Trek also had the fighting in a 2d plane like ships approach to space combat.
Generally it's just spacey enough to make it sci-fi, but the physics go out the window for the sake of fun in many of these games.
There was more inertia-based combat in some games over the years, but complex gravity was never really factored in. The ships were normally dumbed down to the unlimited fuel with overpowered engines for most of them, or the gravity was more of a curiosity with tiny planets relative to the huge ships.
Heck, even some more air-plane simulation based things were simplified for fun. Games where AOA hardly mattered, structural integrity was magical. Not to mention the magical sensors that some of them employed...
The Expanse recently made it's way on to the screen - it's one of the few hard sci-fi shows that really embraced what ships and ship combat would really be like. Even if it employed a high-power insane-isp engine to make it practical, everything else was way more realistic. Combat happens at insane ranges as you'd expect. Magical shields don't exist. A 'bullet' rips right through everything as you'd expect. Flesh bags can't pull insane Gs without being less alive than before.
It's best to forget what's real in many of these games. They are imaginary worlds. Cowboys in space can be a lot more fun than thermal management and careful maneuvering over hours and a fight that starts and ends with a single well-placed kinetic weapon that travels for 20 minutes to hit its target after a position was revealed by an hot engine burn from a small orbital correction.
what you may not be realizing is that if you're in a dog fight with another ship in space. You can fly around like they do in Starfield and still be in an orbit. The perspective is from the ship. When you move around to fight the other ship you're changing your orbit but being how short fights are it's very much possible to have real fights like that in space. You don't see the orbit as you're perspective is always the ship and you don't get to zoom out like in kerbal. If you could zoom out in starfield then you can think of it as you and the other ships are flying around fighting in an area that is in orbit around the planet. But being that you don't have that view you can understand that would be the case. Also when in orbit around the planet again you're in perspective of the ship and can't zoom out like in kerbal so being that you would be in orbit for a short time you wouldn't see much of a change giving the distance of the orbit. final thoughts are when we do have war in space we will be able to fight like in starfield.
Maybe once someone comes up with a space game idea (other than KSP) where combat isn't the main thing, we'll get a bit more realistic physics as well. KSP has already shown that orbital physics (quite a bit simplified) can make a bit of gameplay in itself. Travel times and dV requirements could also be big part of trading gameplay.
It's just a lot easier to stick with the beaten path and give players something to shoot at.
Have you tried Flight of Nova yet? Really bare bones early access right now but man does it have potential
I actually really enjoy Starfield, it’s now my favorite space game and favorite game of 2023
BG3 and TOTK this year bro 💀
@@daveski7 Its just my opinion o~o I like BG3, its pretty cool. But I'm just a huge sucker for space ^^"
@@daveski7 Also not a big fan of TOTK tbh.
@@kindythecyborg Starfield doesn't even have space though lol! It's fake space with no physics.
If you want to play an actual space game try out Outer Wilds, best there is.
@@daveski7 I can tell you haven't even played the game. Once again, let me state. THIS IS MY OPINION
The more knowledgeable players will become about how real physics applies to space, the more we will see space sims vs arcades. Well, at least that's my hope. I love KSP but imagine how much cooler it would be a proper RPG with some sort of KSP physic.
Furthermore, I've read somewhere that in Star Wars, those fighters brawls were inspired by WWII dogfights. At the time space was too far out from most people. Most scifi sims are inspired by those movies.
i recommend playing star citizen, they have some pretty good physics imo (if they aren't exploding 💀💀)
Just remember to not pay more than the base $45, and turn off Coupled mode if you want Newtonian flight.
I get what you mean about the technological limitations to space dogfight combat but if we would get a much better fuel efficiency and could place strong directional thrust for the 6 directions... Once 2 craft are on a similar orbit, they could maneuver in a slowish dogfight around the celestial body... Yeah it does require some new combat tactics and precise interception course but it's possible... and not done even in videogames yet ! Can't wait to buy a real computer and get ksp2 when it's feature complete !
_Children of a Dead Earth_ did exactly that many years ago
A about space games that are not based on conflict, and which has a more or less realistic orbital mechanics, you should give a look at "Flight of Nova", currently in early access on Steam but already quite beautiful and playable. You are piloting various spaceships in missions that make you transfer cargo from base to base of the same planet (requiring flying close to the terrain or have a parabolic trajectory, depending on the distance of the bases, from planet to space station in orbit (or reverse), or from station to station. There is no manoeuvering plan mode, like in KSP, so you have to eyeball your trajectories but if you have played KSP, you will have the good reflexes about how to change orbit and make a rendez-vous.
No, it didn't. Kerbal ruined Kerbal. :)
I think you're understating the proposed technological gap. Starfield ships have warp capability which suggest a massive energy differential with the RL tech we have now. Current RL space flight needs the conservation of momentum because the fuel to maneuver is far more finite. If we could remove that limitation, Sci-fi space combat becomes far more plausible.
Why would you compare a Tesla model S with a sandwich?
To be fair in Starfield space is the setting for roleplay, not the focus of a simulator.
Sure, but then why do they painstakingly model guns with magazines, shells being ejected, muzzle flash etc? Why not use a shiny stick that goes "boom"?
They're not necessary for roleplay, are they?
@@ShadowZone Boomsticks! :D
Weak ass argument. You can nitpick any part of a video game and make a case for why it doesnt add the core premise. By your logic games should have no polish, or added depth. Also playing an RPG is about immersion, it kinda breaks immersion if you're just locked out of the reality you're supposedly inhabiting.
Its simply becasue that designing real Newtonian orbital physics into a video game takes dedication, skill and passion for science and video games. It's clear Bethesda hold none of those three things very highly.
It's simply because theyre not good enough to make a realistic space game. Outer WIlds devs could seriously teach them a thing or two lmao
@@ShadowZonethey are, it's just those things would stand out more to the average player and are 'expected' of FPS games to have these days, compared to orbital mechanics and spacecraft design
@@ShadowZone I don't disagree with you on the suspension of disbelief required to enjoy the space travel aspects. I just think the importance of it varies with the genre. I didn't mean to come across confrontational.
Not sure if anyone else has this, but I am experiencing some regular weird audio glitch effects while you are talking. I've listened to another dozen videos surrounding yours and none of them have it, just yours.
Yeah it’s stuff like unrealistic spaceflight that kinda annoys me with most modern space games, that’s why I wanna work on a more realistic one someday
4:10 in kerbal space program are starshooters that are fireworks but can be used as gun for destroing other spaceships.
Don't know much space games that have orbital mechanics but a good flight model should respect the conservation of momentum. The 90's game Independence War 2: Edge of Chaos is still the best space combat sim I've ever played. No liquid vacuum but a lot of inertia and you often fly with your main engine facing backwards to kill velocity.
Evochron doesn't have orbital mechanics as well but it's possible to crash into a planet in any spot as in KSP (or explode trying to fly through a gas giant) and this game was made by only one guy. And hovering in space above the planet in Evochron does consume fuel.
And Star citizen, and NMS, and even the poor Elite Dangerous, each one is a far better space game than Shitfield
NMS feels so... lonely. The companion mechanic and dialog in Starfield does help with the immersion.
But as a space game in itself, it does not break any new ground. Looks pretty, though. And I am interested in the story.
Star Citizen is a game?
They're completely different games. If you don't like RPGs, you won't like Starfield, that's fine.
I'd like to see a modern take on X-Wing. Space is a fluid, you have a max speed, no orbital mechanics, but more in-depth energy management and sensor management
Fwiw, most of those gripes about physics realism are why The Expanse is generally pretty good for a scifi show.
starfield is not a space game, no matter how many times people say that, well it has a minigame emulating space when you are at orbit and appear random events , end, nothing more, it is there for immersion nothing more,
starfield is an rpg, themed on a planet traveler character.
They should have just called it Fieldfield
To me, the only show that did a true effort to make space combat « kinda realistic » is _The Expanse_
> No living beings that want to kill you
Have you forgotten about the KRACKEN!??
All hail the immortal Kraken.
I an still triggered by the fact that planetary ring is starfield are not catching the planets shadow
Oh, that's cheap! It can't be hard to implement, it's not a complex shadow.
Space Engineers is a nice halfway point. Spaceflight is not as real as Kerbal but you have a complete if simplified experience. Where it shines is how you can build absolutely anything. If you want to build a space scooter or the Death Star you can. If you want peace all the time you can. If you want conflict you also can, you might have that Death Star gunning for you. And trying to land with just not enough fuel you will have you gripping your controller like your life depends on it. Once on the ground you jump in your hand built buggy and make of like a madman just for the fun of it.
Realism is good, but it can be bad too. Starfield isnt trying to be a simulator. Its a purely fantasy game, it isnt designed to be played as if its physics are accurate. Guns and stuff are relatively realistic because those would stand out more to the average player, compared to orbital mechanics. Starfield is basically like a 'more realistic' star wars, thats how i see it. I just think if starfield had the space physics of something like ksp i think itd be a lot shittier since it would take a lot more effort to go to and fro
star citizen is what you are looking for. great game but its not finished, but you can still play it.
Opinion poll! What do you guys think, is there enough demand for a AAA Hard-As-Nails Sci-Fi title? I think HardSF has been gaining popularity lately, but may be observer bias
In 2020, the original KSP sold 4 million copies after 9 years of being publicly available. In less than a week, over 6 million people have played Starfield. If that doesn't show where the demand is, I don't know what will.
@@a_dreamer8612 Dude, incomparable titles. It's not like it's either/or situation either.
I think it would be cool to have realistic space combat. If weapons are to be added, i think it should be a small gun turret designed to defend the craft from incoming space debris. But i think the rest of weapons should be designed by the player. (Mainly for if you have friends that you want to be overly competitive with)
I tried to visit Apollo 11 and opportunity rover, but I don't find anything :(
In fact, planet exploration worse than No Man's Sky and even Elite Dangerous (because you don't have any type of vehicle for traveling on surface)
Gonna have to disagree with the there is no weapons in ksp claim, if I can build a rocket I can build a missile and I would have to classify that as a weapon personally
thanks, it was reassuring hearing someone say what it needed to be said, very well said
I Absolutely 100% agree. Since I started playing KSP many years ago I cant take many space games and movies seriously. Bad space physics in movies really anoy me. On a side note; the perfect game for me would be a full working KSP 2 (as promised, one day?) in combination with the game called Satisfactory.
Had this realization with star citizen. I also have a hard time watching space movies and shows.
With Star Citizen it was a bit of a disappointment that you'll be in orbit after some magical altitude but space combat was always going to be WW2 air combat. I guess those kinda tie together as well.
@@Qwarzz Not orbit- if you turn off coupled mode, you'll fall to the planet from pretty far out, very slowly.
@@rakaydosdraj8405 As soon as it stops showing altitude you can no longer fall down.
I think FTL has the best mechanics for space combat. Also instead of engine bells they should use gravity wave drives. no reaction mass and hovering in midair is no different from sitting on the ground. and you can hide them in the hull if you dont want to balance the axis of thrust. maybe if you overload the ufo with cargo it rears up on its back instead of going up.
4:10
In the words of Admiral Adama: "The ship itself is a weapon"
This video makes no sense, you’re comparing a space simulator with a sci-fi action RPG.
And RPGs can not ever be compared to reality (or simulations thereof) because...?
@@Atlessa Because it isn't the main focus of the game. You shouldn't expect a full on space sim bolted on to an RPG game like how you can't expect a logistics manager game attached to a racing game
@@a_dreamer8612 No one is expecting a full on space sim, but is it asking too much for game devs to at least ATTEMPT to make spaceflight feel different from atmospheric flight??
A Expansion game with space combat woud be perfect
I wouldnt put that on KSP, just knowing a bit about space flight makes anything "Soft SF" harder to get into. Even KSP cheats in places.
But not every game has to be a "reallistic" space game either and devs resources and time are limited. Compromise are necesary one way or the other.
The truth is Starfield really isn't a space game, it's a space themed first person RPG. Spaceflight clearly isn't the main focus of the game, it's just a fancy overworld screen.
Honestly shooting games sell other kinds of games don't sell nearly as much as for the realism with physics people in general don't care and people who are science illiterate which is most people the ships in Starfield are realistic enough I've also heard a criticism that people don't like realistic Rockets because they're phallic and shape and people care more about the cool factor ratherj than realistic physics
"Space out" sounds like something a Spaceifornian surfer dude would say after hitting the space ganja with his zero-gravity bong.
"we dont have war in space, fortunately"
we dont have war in space, *yet*
Newtonian physics being absent is a big letdown. That being said as an RPG it is pretty great if you can get past the first 12 hours of gameplay. I almost threw in the towel before I started to feel rewarded for my time. The ship building UI in Starfield is mind numbingly bad.
I haven't had the time to get that far yet. I just watched a few clips how it works. It's just very basic stuff from what I've seen.
@@ShadowZone Do you know about RPG game that has better spaceship building system?
yeah, that's my take, that we would be blown away by Starfield if we hadn't already, YEARS AGO, played Kerbal Space Program, Starmade, Outer Wilds, and Outer Worlds. Starfield brings little NEW to the table, and still uses the same cardboard npcs bethesda always uses. honestly Daggerfall Unity seems more innovative than Starfield.
my biggest hate is engines spooling down as craft land
starfield just released to late, if it came out before BG3 which raised rpg standards like it was supposed to an year ago would've probably received better reception. gaming in 2023 is just absolutely insane with great games coming out seemingly every week/month.
If you like space games that are not all about shooting people, I recommend Outer Wilds (not worlds)
Yes, that game is excellent! I already played through it multiple times, including the "Echoes of the Eye" DLC. Every time a joy to experience.
The Comparison of the Habitable Worlds of the Solar System Compared to the Kerbol System
Sun
Earth(Ultra-Habitable)
Moon(Organic)
Mars(Organic)
Europa(Primitive)
Enceladus(Primitive)
Titan(Robotic)
Saturn(Airborne)
Kerbol
Eve(Planktonic)
Kerbin(Sub-Habitable)
Minmus(Primitive)
Laythe(Ultra-Habitable)
Vall(Advanced)
Eeloo(Simple)
Speaking of, have you tried Flight of Nova?