131 replies to this topic

[TeaL3af]

Riordan Lionheart, on 19 March 2012 - 11:02 AM, said:

Gonna be honest, never really liked the idea of mech speed determined by a set throttle instead of a more, and I know I'll get flak for this, arcade motion dynamic. To me it always seemed counter intuitive to have a basically forced cruise control for bipedal humanoid vehicles. I understand how it fit well into the TT game but in MW it doesn't seem more practical than a pressure sensitive joystick since most of us likely will be using alternate controls anyway (i.e. joysticks, usb 360 controllers, etc). Personally, I don't relish the idea of having to stop start using set speeds all the time, especially considering the increased emphasis on urban combat the devs said this game would have.

thoughts?

There are several reasons that the Throttle has to be the way it is:

1. Mechs need variable speed, you can't create this in a better way on a keyboard and it would be naive to assume everyone is going to be using something else.

2. One less button to hold.

3. Mechs aren't agile enough to take advantage of smoother speed changes anyway.

[Geist Null]

a real mechwarrior would use a modified nordic track excercise system while he plays. thankfully im old, lazy and too cheap to buy a new joystick.

[Tryg]

Negative Geist, heat buildup on the controls alone would be too much, even before the waste heat from the reactor reached you!

[Ramrod]

Scar, on 20 March 2012 - 08:55 AM, said:

Not only me, but dozens of millions well educated people who know what the term "simulator" really means. And it's not just semantics - it's a particular meaning of the term.

A source for the bolded claim would be awesome. Otherwise anyone can claim anything on the internet.

Scar, on 20 March 2012 - 08:55 AM, said:

And who are you that you speak for everyone? Jesus, is that you?

You're right, I must have missed the overwhelming outpouring of support for your views in this thread.

Scar, on 20 March 2012 - 08:55 AM, said:

It's not my problem if they don't know what the term really means. Black isn't white and Earth isn't flat, even if the whole world said it is.

You missed my point. Yes, the term "simulator" has been spread out to encompass things that often fit the word very poorly, and even not at all. So what? No matter how many websites you post your argument on, you will still find Wing Commander listed as a space combat simulator on every online store you visit, or game review you read. This is a fact that you alone will never, ever change. It would make it a lot easier for those of us who actually try to read your posts if you would just let it go.

[Beorning]

Ugh! Pages of thread polution - this must be a mech game forum!
I hope there will be a simple 'one stop' solution available and pilots are not forced to deal with an overly complicated control scheme that will detract from maneuvering the mech. One would hope future tech maintains KISS.
W - increase throttle and move forward
D - throttle backwards / move backwards (once forward acceleration reduced to zero / crosses zero point)

[Scar]

Ramrod, on 20 March 2012 - 11:26 AM, said:

A source for the bolded claim would be awesome. Otherwise anyone can claim anything on the internet.

You mean - source on the number of people in the world who got a proper engineering or scientific education? I'm not gonna find the exact number - only in Russia it's a millions of people, i presume in US and Europe numbers are even higher.

And you - don't forget to find the source on "nobody bothered".

Quote

You're right, I must have missed the overwhelming outpouring of support for your views in this thread.

Is this a 'no'? I guess so.

Quote

You missed my point. Yes, the term "simulator" has been spread out to encompass things that often fit the word very poorly, and even not at all. So what? No matter how many websites you post your argument on, you will still find Wing Commander listed as a space combat simulator on every online store you visit, or game review you read. This is a fact that you alone will never, ever change. It would make it a lot easier for those of us who actually try to read your posts if you would just let it go.

So what? No matter how many websites you post your argument on, you will still find Earth listed as flat on every online store you visit, or 'The Holy Inquisition physics digest' review you read. This is a fact that you alone will never, ever change. It would make it a lot easier for those of us who actually try to read your posts if you would just let it go.

E pur si muove!

I'm pretty happy that not everyone people in the world are such as you - or else we still stayed in the dark medieval ages. And i'm NOT alone - even in the game industry there is the whole army of well educated technical enthusiasts, such as Falcon, Lock On, DCS or MSFS virtual pilots. They'll laugh and call you "another one casual confused his sci-fi toys with our realistic simulations".

Link to the video deleted by the author as possibly violating the forum's rules.

Edited by Scar, 20 March 2012 - 12:20 PM.

[Gunslinger2]

I got used to the throttle being the number keys with reverse being backspace since ive always used the keyboard/mouse to play MW4, gonna be a bit hard not to hit the wrong keys out of habit but im sure ill get used to it.

I do have to say i liked the way the controls were set up in MW4, one hand on the mouse with groups programmed into the buttons, the other hand on the keyboard hovering over E J and the spacebar for torso centering (essential when you took a hit in close combat)

New game, new controls, just have to get used to it.

Guns

[Tryg]

A claim that there are scientists does not in fact cite that they agree with your statement. I happen to know there are a lot of people in the world, this does not mean that these people would be in agreement with anything I have to say. Further, many scientists and engineers can't even agree with each other, which makes the concept of a unifying consensus rather fictional.

We are not citing some questionable text here, we're citing a dictionary definition of the word. That said, if you disagree with the use of the language, this is a matter of opinion, not fact. The 'fact' is that the dictionary definition is the generally accepted usage of the word. This usage is broad and covers a great many things. That you disagree with it's usage does not invalidate it. The few engineers I've known in my time, are very much about textbook definitions of words, because a mistake in communication between engineers can have disasterous results. As such, they tend to use additional words to make things clear. Simulation is a broad term. True-to-life Flight Simulation, would be the way one states something more specific to avoid confusion.

[Ramrod]

Scar, I would like to preface this post by drawing your attention to the fact that never once did I disagree with your assertion that the use of the term "simulator" to refer to this type of game is a misappropriation of the term. I don't know why you're so angry, but please, whatever you do, be angry at someone else.

I am pointing out that your argument is falling on deaf ears here, and that you are only making things worse by getting progressively more and more upset. Your liberal use of bold lettering, font size increases, and exclamation marks comes across more as a child throwing a tantrum than someone making a sane, rational argument. Which is a pity because whenever you're not losing your temper, your posts have been helpful. EDIT: The font size increases have now, thankfully, been edited out of your most recent post. This is a good thing.

As for your points, you assume that every engineer or scientist cares about how a genre of computer games is referred to. This is a bold assumption. As for my source, go back and read this thread. Nobody has backed you up. You assume again that I meant the whole world. I made the mistake of not qualifying my statement and I regret it now, but I meant specifically this thread. You're alone in here, and I didn't mean to imply anything more than that.

As for the point about study sims, even you have to admit that there are different levels of simulation. Gran Turismo ostensibly is a car simulation, but it is nowhere near the depth of a study sim like DCS or Falcon. Even within air combat sims there are "lite" sims like Strike Fighters. The industry is improved by variety in terms of spreading the realism of simulations up and down the spectrum, not damaged by it. I hope that even you can agree with me on that.

Also, yeah, I regret to admit that I am not Jesus.

Edited by Ramrod, 20 March 2012 - 12:55 PM.

[Scar]

Ok guys, you won - WOW is an Orks simulator and Harry Potter books - the technical manuals on using of a magic.

And i regret i'm not a Galileo - i gave up

Edited by Scar, 20 March 2012 - 01:00 PM.

[Technoviking]

Thank you for participating in our debate simulator. If this were an actual debate, you could have a sip of water right now.

[Prosperity Park]

Technoviking, on 20 March 2012 - 01:04 PM, said:

Thank you for participating in our debate simulator. If this were an actual debate, you could have a sip of water right now.

*splash*

"Oh, **** it, I set the throttle too high on my drinking glass."

[Seabear]

Trotle all the way. Some of us don't want to have to keep pressure on a button ot move, And do remember as has been pointed out earlier, you are dealing with a minimum of 20 tons of moving metal. You will be working with momentum on a grand scale. Technology may change in the next melenium, but I sure physics won't.

[Scar]

20 tons is a weight of modern light armored vehicles, such as BTR-90 o Stryker APCs - and their drivers doesn't have any problems with pedals or momentum. Even much heavier armored vehicles, such as Merkava Mk.4(70 tons) or Abrams(60 tons) are utilizing the pedals. Finally, fly-by-wire control systems are known for decades - don't think it will be a problem in the 31st century, in reality where humanity discovered FTL engines and controlled thermonuclear reactions.

So, physics here isn't a problem at all - let the both types of throttle control be in MWO.

Edited by Scar, 21 March 2012 - 04:19 AM.

[HeadWar]

Seabear, on 20 March 2012 - 03:53 PM, said:

And do remember as has been pointed out earlier, you are dealing with a minimum of 20 tons of moving metal. You will be working with momentum on a grand scale. Technology may change in the next melenium, but I sure physics won't.

Are you assuming that a W to move forward, stop when you release it, automatically implies that you will immediately come to a dead stop as soon as you let go of the button? I don't think anyone has argued that (and I'm hoping that you aren't either, and I simply misunderstood you). Having momentum be a part of movement can easily be done even with a W to move control. WoT does it... (And has throttle as well. Best of both worlds, yay!)

[mr Zonke]

W = throttle up
S = throttle back
X = stop

Works great in MWLL, I allways end up holding W down when under pressure though =p
I don't see how a set run and walk speed like in FPS's would be enough to be effective in a mech...

ps. http://www.emotiv.com/apps/epoc/299/

[syngyne]

Scar, on 20 March 2012 - 10:50 PM, said:

Even much heavier armored vehicles, such as Merkava Mk.4(70 tons) or Abrams(60 tons) are utilizing the pedals.

Nitpick: the Abrams has a brake pedal. Speed is controlled with a twist throttle on the steering bar, sort of like a motorcycle.

[Scar]

You're right, Syngyne! My bad - i stand corrected. But still, it need to be pushed every time by the hand and if released - the vehicle is losing the traction.

But at the same time, mr Zonke made a very good point too - we can't change the speed smoothly if we're using "push to go" system on keyboard.

Edited by Scar, 21 March 2012 - 09:26 AM.

[HeadWar]

Scar, on 21 March 2012 - 09:25 AM, said:

But at the same time, mr Zonke made a very good point too - we can't change the speed smoothly if we're using "push to go" system on keyboard.

In many situations you'll only be interested in going full speed anyway, and changing direction is more important than precise speed control. (Especially if your own movement don't have any great impact on your own firing. Pet peeve...) On the other hand, in many other situations, keeping a constant speed while freeing your hands to other work is gonna be paramount. So, again, having both would be awesome.

[StompyMcGee]

I think the difficulty comes with balancing 'realism' against 'fun'.
IMO, in reality, a mech cockpit would have more in common with a fighter jet or helicopter than a wheeled/tracked vehicle.
You'd have one stick for right hand(with a crapload of thumb buttons, and trigger functions), a throttle column(also with moar buttons), rudder pedals, HUDs and eye-tracking software...
The trick is abstracting the controls so that you're not disadvantaged by using a 360 controller against someone with joysticks, gamepads, and rudder pedals.

HeadWar, on 21 March 2012 - 09:35 AM, said:

In many situations you'll only be interested in going full speed anyway, and changing direction is more important than precise speed control. (Especially if your own movement don't have any great impact on your own firing. Pet peeve...) On the other hand, in many other situations, keeping a constant speed while freeing your hands to other work is gonna be paramount. So, again, having both would be awesome.

BTW, the Challenger mkII(current British MBT) has a stabilised turret that makes, for a reasonably trained gunner, firing at 30mph over rough ground no less accurate than firing while stationary. Just sayin...

Edited by StompyMcGee, 21 March 2012 - 09:39 AM.