Fighters. Biggest problem since everything else.

We still don't have this decided. It needs to be. So kindly decide.

They should have the full 6-degrees, but be able to pull maneuvers that they technically shouldn't be able to, like really tight turns.

Lemme see if I can whip up a flash of this.

I voted for something else. I believe that fighters should behave differently in space, or at least use alot less fuel, but no matter what they should have 6 degrees of freedom.

Also, if bombers and other small, personal spacecraft are being added as craftable with models, then they should have different characteristics (i.e. bombers can only tilt like flan's planes)

You know my opinion about space combat with fighters: freespace . Move the whole fighter to target the ship, shoot it with some lasers and plasma balls, launch a deadly missile and enjoy how the enemy tries to get rid of the missile. It's much funnier than weapon turning (like in black prophecy, yes I played it) because it requires you to manoeuvre and not just target the enemy with your mouse. You will have to stay directly on his tail and both you and the target will try to outmanoeuvre each other, resulting in thrilling dogfight. In black prophesy you feel more in an FPS. There are only 2 factors in your victory there: IF you know how to point your mouse at the target accurately (Not that big deal for most ppl) and if your equipment is good (aka if your level is high). The problem is that in the same time it lacks what turns FPS into more enjoyable - cover and different terrain.

As for bombers load them with anti-capship torpedoes and enjoy the show. OFC torpedoes are slow and can be shot down, so the escort fighters and point defences will get a chance to protect the ship. That where assault fighters come in - they destroy they enemy point defences with their heavy cannons and missiles. Their armor and shielding will allow them to withstand heavy flack fire. Their speed and manoeuvre ability is not something though , but it's not like a capship is fast enough to evade an assault fighter. OFC it means it will perform bad in interception duties, where the fast and manoeuvrable interceptors are used. Those same guys BTW are responsible for intercepting the incoming torpedoes and bombers. They somewhat lack in defence so space superiority fighters are needed to take out assault fighters. Those are average multi-purpose fighters, combining average weapons, shielding, speed and armor. This is basically it for Freespace fighting doctrine. OFC you can collide different classes together and there are exceptions. For example diff light bombers in the game are almost as manoeuvre as fighters allowing them to protect themselves in dogfights, they carry less payload though.

scout37 wrote:

bombers and other small, personal spacecraft are being added as craftable with models, then they should have different characteristics (i.e. bombers can only tilt like flan's planes)

I don't like the idea of bombers, because in the future they seem to be obsolete, when you have fighters that can hold tons of different munitions, and big ships over head that can fire down orbital air-strikes , and even very light 2 to 3 man frigates that could be fitted with bomber like stuff and they would be much more faster and tougher to take out.

this is what I think the very light frigate size might be around

This isn't about arming, it's about how the fighters move.

By bombers I didn't talk about orbital strikes. I don't see the need in this mod for ground battles at all (again too big ambitions) ... When I say bombers I mean large fighter-like ships that deploy anti-capship torpedoes .

Iv121 wrote:

By bombers I didn't talk about orbital strikes. I don't see the need in this mod for ground battles at all (again too big ambitions) ... When I say bombers I mean large fighter-like ships that deploy anti-capship torpedoes .

Yep, that's what I meant too.

Burnttoaster wrote:

scout37 wrote:

bombers and other small, personal spacecraft are being added as craftable with models, then they should have different characteristics (i.e. bombers can only tilt like flan's planes)

I don't like the idea of bombers, because in the future they seem to be obsolete, when you have fighters that can hold tons of different munitions, and big ships over head that can fire down orbital air-strikes , and even very light 2 to 3 man frigates that could be fitted with bomber like stuff and they would be much more faster and tougher to take out.

this is what I think the very light frigate size might be around

I don't believe bombers will ever be truly obsolete for a very long time. If it was as simple as what you just said, we would have alread stopped using bombers long ago. The purpose of bombers is to release incredibly large amounts of munitions onto a very large area OR a very accurate area. Also, fighters have the handicap of being to light and small to varry large scale ordnance. Bombers are a critical part in any invasion, because with them you can take out a hundred strategic structures with two to five bombers (depending on the size of the structure and type of ordnance) what would take hundreds of fighters to take out the exact same structure. Also, bombers would still be faster (at standard movement speed, not FTL) than frigates and other ship to ship fighting vessels.

Iv121 wrote:

By bombers I didn't talk about orbital strikes. I don't see the need in this mod for ground battles at all (again too big ambitions) ... When I say bombers I mean large fighter-like ships that deploy anti-capship torpedoes .

That's no bomber, that's a blowy-upy ship!

Well, there really are different things how to define a bomber: (I will be using Star Wars Ships as examples)

1.) Something that is like a large starfighter but with weapons mainly for taking out capships instead of other fighters. Example: Y-Wing

2.) quite small craft made to bomb the ground. Example: TIE-Bomber

oh, there actually is a third kind, altough I think noone will use it in FC...

3.) Kamikaze- bomber. Example: Killik Dartship

...oh, and I wanted to get back to the original topic:

Is it possible to make Joystick- controls possible for fighters?

I have a simple way to describe a bomber:

Spoiler:

This is a bomber.

The stuff on the side of the bomber is torpedoes.
Guess there is no better definition than a picture .

I thought we were going to have atmospheric bombers like:

Spoiler:

When I saw the picture that Iv posted, I kind of had the idea of a heavy ground assault fighter, that could hold more then just bombs, and do more then the cliché bomber role, and be more a
ground attack fighter.

Oh that cliché bomber role can kill hundreds of people with a well plased shot. You can theoratically shoot with that stuff at the ground but it would be a waste.
Besides I'm not sure that thing will hold in atmosphere...

This is about movement. We all know what bombers are and how they're different from fighters. That's not at all relevant to this thread. So... <drumroll>... Get back on topic! <badum- TISH>,<Whaa- whaaa- whhaaaaaaa>

and then about what means

Oh, wait, sorry, this was off topic.

er..... i voted? so its on topic that i voted other? but also kindof wanted to vote for the second to last one?

It should be easier than using all 6degrees realistic.
Have you ever played Star Wars Battlefront?
Flying should go on like this with means:
1.The Fighter Stops rotating at his own
2.You get Messages which show you what to do
3.You could turn upside down but it makes you feeling sick

Cheatmaster wrote:

It should be easier than using all 6degrees realistic.
Have you ever played Star Wars Battlefront?
Flying should go on like this with means:
1.The Fighter Stops rotating at his own
2.You get Messages which show you what to do
3.You could turn upside down but it makes you feeling sick

I would delete point 3 in space, mainly because there ain´t any "up" direction.
Also, I don´t understand what point 2 is supposed to mean.

Ivan2006 wrote:

Cheatmaster wrote:

It should be easier than using all 6degrees realistic.
Have you ever played Star Wars Battlefront?
Flying should go on like this with means:
1.The Fighter Stops rotating at his own
2.You get Messages which show you what to do
3.You could turn upside down but it makes you feeling sick

I would delete point 3 in space, mainly because there ain´t any "up" direction.
Also, I don´t understand what point 2 is supposed to mean.

Up would equal the up at the Mother Ship

2.Like Shields are down/ focus on the Weapons/missile detected

and so on

point 2 is quite pointless as it is up to the pilot to decide what to engage and maybe his commander building up priorities.

Incoming missile message will just confuse the pilot as he has no idea where it comes from , and also this warning is too slow in case the missile comes from up close. In freespace for example you are first warned someone is locking on you with constant "pip" sounds. Once the missile is launched you are warned with a louder "pip". An arrow appears on your lead display showing the direction of the missile and the pips indicate it's distance. The faster it signals the closer the missile. You should keep your ship at 90 deg to the missile to evade it. After that you do a sharp turn and launch a decoy if you want.

Finally you still didn’t answer the question - should we control it with 6 deg free lead (Like in Black Prophecy) or with straight lead (Like in real jets)

Iv121 wrote:

point 2 is quite pointless as it is up to the pilot to decide what to engage and maybe his commander building up priorities.

Incoming missile message will just confuse the pilot as he has no idea where it comes from , and also this warning is too slow in case the missile comes from up close. In freespace for example you are first warned someone is locking on you with constant "pip" sounds. Once the missile is launched you are warned with a louder "pip". An arrow appears on your lead display showing the direction of the missile and the pips indicate it's distance. The faster it signals the closer the missile. You should keep your ship at 90 deg to the missile to evade it. After that you do a sharp turn and launch a decoy if you want.

Finally you still didn’t answer the question - should we control it with 6 deg free lead (Like in Black Prophecy) or with straight lead (Like in real jets)

He has a point, though. The space combat in SWBF2 is awesome. FC should be like that. They're really hard to control without the PS2's joysticks, though.

Last_Jedi_Standing wrote:

Iv121 wrote:

point 2 is quite pointless as it is up to the pilot to decide what to engage and maybe his commander building up priorities.

Incoming missile message will just confuse the pilot as he has no idea where it comes from , and also this warning is too slow in case the missile comes from up close. In freespace for example you are first warned someone is locking on you with constant "pip" sounds. Once the missile is launched you are warned with a louder "pip". An arrow appears on your lead display showing the direction of the missile and the pips indicate it's distance. The faster it signals the closer the missile. You should keep your ship at 90 deg to the missile to evade it. After that you do a sharp turn and launch a decoy if you want.

Finally you still didn’t answer the question - should we control it with 6 deg free lead (Like in Black Prophecy) or with straight lead (Like in real jets)

He has a point, though. The space combat in SWBF2 is awesome. FC should be like that. They're really hard to control without the PS2's joysticks, though.

I haven´t played any of those flight games you are talking about, but I am sure, no matter how the controls will be:
I wanna be able to use my Joystick!