Star Citizen: Chris Robert`s new space sim (the Wing Commander guy)

[TechBoyJK]

What do you guys think about this? I have dual T16000m's and while I'm fairly happy with my current keybindings, I was curious about better options. A redditor sent me this

Consider binding your left stick forward/back to "strafe forward/strafe backward" and stick left/right to "strafe left/strafe right". My sticks have twist, so I have twist left set to "strafe up" and twist right set to "strafe down". I use hat switches for UI stuff mostly.
Right stick is, obviously, pitch/yaw/roll.
Throttle is pretty much pointless if you have two sticks. You get much better control using strafe instead. And yes, strafe will use your main engines, so you're not missing out. I fly exclusively in decoupled mode now with dual sticks.

What do you guys think of using strafe f/b as your throttle? I've yet to try it, but something in my gut feels like this guy might be onto something. I'm going to try it tonight and see if it works for me.

 

[rivethead]

What do you guys think about this? I have dual T16000m's and while I'm fairly happy with my current keybindings, I was curious about better options. A redditor sent me this



What do you guys think of using strafe f/b as your throttle? I've yet to try it, but something in my gut feels like this guy might be onto something. I'm going to try it tonight and see if it works for me.

I think the "problem" is that you'll need to continue pressing the left stick forward to move forward.....that could get a little old and lead to sore wrists. The benefit to a throttle is that you can take your hands completely off the sticks (they return to center) and you still can control the speed.

The reddit commenter is likely happy with this set up since he's probably primarily using it for combat. All anyone thinks about right now is combat. But imagine a cargo haul that's going to take 12 minutes to make. Do you really want to be pushing the left stick forward for 12 straight minutes to maintain forward velocity?

 

[Stringjam]

What do you guys think about this? I have dual T16000m's and while I'm fairly happy with my current keybindings, I was curious about better options. A redditor sent me this



What do you guys think of using strafe f/b as your throttle? I've yet to try it, but something in my gut feels like this guy might be onto something. I'm going to try it tonight and see if it works for me.

That wouldn't have been RadiantFlux would it?

A lot of dual-stick guys use that setup and love it. I tried it and didn't, because I don't like holding the stick forward (as rivet mentioned). Just personal preference though.

I much prefer vertical on Y, lateral on X, and roll on twist. However, I have pedals so that's where my forward / reverse strafe are at. If I didn't have pedals, I would probably have to rethink it.

You can still bind throttle to another input (like the slider on your stick base) for making long runs. And yes, you don't need to map throttle to your sticks, because forward strafe is all you need there. It gets you the same top speed as throttle (which is why he said throttle was useless).

I don't currently have throttle bound to anything because there aren't really any long runs to make yet. I probably will bind it to a slider when there are, or maybe even throw my CH ProThrottle back into action....just because I miss seeing it.

 

[TechBoyJK]

That wouldn't have been RadiantFlux would it?

https://www.reddit.com/user/tallmortal

 

[TechBoyJK]

That wouldn't have been RadiantFlux would it?

A lot of dual-stick guys use that setup and love it. I tried it and didn't, because I don't like holding the stick forward (as rivet mentioned). Just personal preference though.

I much prefer vertical on Y, lateral on X, and roll on twist. However, I have pedals so that's where my forward / reverse strafe are at. If I didn't have pedals, I would probably have to rethink it.

You can still bind throttle to another input (like the slider on your stick base) for making long runs. And yes, you don't need to map throttle to your sticks, because forward strafe is all you need there. It gets you the same top speed as throttle (which is why he said throttle was useless).

I don't currently have throttle bound to anything because there aren't really any long runs to make yet. I probably will bind it to a slider when there are, or maybe even throw my CH ProThrottle back into action....just because I miss seeing it.

So, I wasn't using the slider on the T16000m because it required me to take my hand off the stick. But if I did setup the stick for strafe f/b as suggested on reddit, that would leave the throttle to only be needed for longer trips, in which using the throttle on the base seems more reasonable.

 

[Stringjam]

So, I wasn't using the slider on the T16000m because it required me to take my hand off the stick. But if I did setup the stick for strafe f/b as suggested on reddit, that would leave the throttle to only be needed for longer trips, in which using the throttle on the base seems more reasonable.

Yup!

If I remember right, you always need to zero your throttle before controlling your ship with strafe forward. I think I remember messing around with it and experiencing some wonky behavior when the throttle was left engaged and forward strafe was applied.

 

[TechBoyJK]

Yup!

If I remember right, you always need to zero your throttle before controlling your ship with strafe forward. I think I remember messing around with it and experiencing some wonky behavior when the throttle was left engaged and forward strafe was applied.

You bring up a good point about zeroing throttle.

Unlike the stick, which physically centers itself, the slider doesn't.. so that might cause some hangups where i keep having to take the time to physically recenter it.. that could become a hassle.

I'm almost considering going with 3 sticks. L/C/R Left stick would be strafe, center would be throttle, and right would be look.

Basically a HOSATAS

 

[Stringjam]

You bring up a good point about zeroing throttle.

Unlike the stick, which physically centers itself, the slider doesn't.. so that might cause some hangups where i keep having to take the time to physically recenter it.. that could become a hassle.

I'm almost considering going with 3 sticks. L/C/R Left stick would be strafe, center would be throttle, and right would be look.

Basically a HOSATAS

Well, you wouldn't need to center the slider because you start it pulled all the way back at 0, just like a hand throttle, so zeroing it would just be pulling it back again.

Having throttle on a stick would be of no use, since you already have forward strafe on the left stick. Throwing a hand-throttle in there could be useful for throttle though (but a bit overkill considering the slider essentially does the same thing, but without the fun factor.. )

 

[TechBoyJK]

Well, you wouldn't need to center the slider because you start it pulled all the way back at 0, just like a hand throttle, so zeroing it would just be pulling it back again.

Having throttle on a stick would be of no use, since you already have forward strafe on the left stick. Throwing a hand-throttle in there could be useful for throttle though (but a bit overkill considering the slider essentially does the same thing, but without the fun factor.. )

Yes, to be clear, 3rd stick would be an actual throttle. I have the T16000m's (i wish they used a shorter model number lol) setup as left right (sticks are reversed for grip), so I wouldn't want a similar stick in the middle. However, I would want a 'throttle' styled stick in the middle. I almost think I'd prefer a throttle to pedals (for throttle).

But I'll get something cheap before I spend a lot. The CH throttle is more than what I paid for both t16000m's

 

[TechBoyJK]

Well, you wouldn't need to center the slider because you start it pulled all the way back at 0, just like a hand throttle, so zeroing it would just be pulling it back again.

Ahhhh I was thinking the slider was setup as a +- range with the center being zero.

Shows how little I've played with it.

So in the case that it starts at zero, I would simply have to flick it back down until it stopped.

 

[Stringjam]

I almost think I'd prefer a throttle to pedals (for throttle).

Definitely. I like to think of the throttle in SC basically as cruise control, so any input device that automatically returns to center (or zero) is not a good fit for it.

Strafe forward on the other hand is perfect for those auto-return inputs. To me, strafe forward is more like the gas pedal in your car (which may be one reason I like mapping it to my right pedal, it just makes sense to me).

 

[DeathReborn]

I got as far as plugging in my Warthog & T16000m to try some SC before remembering I was waiting for the SC stuff before going in. I tend to get ingrained on a control system which takes quite some breaking.

Saying that I will most likely be online tomorrow (28th) afternoon/evening (UK time that is) for some exploring or manning of guns/turret.

I really hope the 300 Series gets some reworking, it kinda seems like the black sheep lately.

 

[Fallen Kell]

The black sheep is still most certainly the Cutlass.

 

[Stringjam]

The black sheep is still most certainly the Cutlass.

Cutlass needs some serious work, for sure. Thing is a cow right now. Hopefully it isn't too difficult to get it where it needs to be. The design is pretty solid, but the handling values are way off.

With the 300X though, nothing short of a complete modeling overhaul will do it justice. It's supposed to be the BMW 500 series of single-seaters, and currently there's barely a reason to own it (and I paid big $$ for my 350R, which can't even strafe without bucking like a pissed off bull on PCP). That is, if you can even get it off the landing pad and ignore the fact that the engines don't render.

I get it though. Projects like this require priorities, and I can see why they have filtered them to the ships they have (SQ42, multi-crew). I'm confident they will circle-back to take care of the misfits.

It's just hard to be patient on the island of misfit ships.

 

[Sabrewings]

Yeah, I really like my 300i. It's my favorite AC ship at the moment with 2x CF-117s and 1x CF-227. Kinda ruined it when they borked the shield options on the holotable as the stock shield sucks.

Soon the Sabre will be flight ready and I won't look at anything else for AC ever again... Please give me 4x S3s, please and thank you. Noobifier was able to equip it that way on the holotable now, and hopefully it'll make it to flight ready like that. DPS is near that of the SH on a much more nimble platform.

 

[Stringjam]

DPS is near that of the SH on a much more nimble platform.

Well, that's what we hope, anyway. 2.0 basically normalized the ships that were supposed to be more nimble.

Just look at the Gladius. You can't do anything with it. With current jerk values and thruster output, you're nothing more than a green target for the Hornets, and the Sabre is bigger and heavier than the Gladius, so where will it end up?

Don't mean to sound negative though, I think they'll fix it. I know they're aware of the discrepancy, it's just how long will it take to fix it. One of the flight dev crew said they were going to increase acceleration values again, but that unleashed a sh*t storm from the atmospheric flight crowd. It's going to be very hard to make everyone happy, because you CAN'T make everyone happy.

I think 2.0 introduced some good things (3rd order acceleration), but I think the values are way off. Version 1.3, which unfortunately got almost no play because of bugs, was in a really good place. 1.2 was vector-change madness, but 1.3 really nailed a good balance of maneuverability vs a semblance of realism. The closer they move back to 1.3 with the new flight model approach the better, IMO.

 

[Sabrewings]

Well, that's what we hope, anyway. 2.0 basically normalized the ships that were supposed to be more nimble.

Just look at the Gladius. You can't do anything with it. With current jerk values and thruster output, you're nothing more than a green target for the Hornets, and the Sabre is bigger and heavier than the Gladius, so where will it end up?

Don't mean to sound negative though, I think they'll fix it. I know they're aware of the discrepancy, it's just how long will it take to fix it. One of the flight dev crew said they were going to increase acceleration values again, but that unleashed a sh*t storm from the atmospheric flight crowd. It's going to be very hard to make everyone happy, because you CAN'T make everyone happy.

I think 2.0 introduced some good things (3rd order acceleration), but I think the values are way off. Version 1.3, which unfortunately got almost no play because of bugs, was in a really good place. 1.2 was vector-change madness, but 1.3 really nailed a good balance of maneuverability vs a semblance of realism. The closer they move back to 1.3 with the new flight model approach the better, IMO.

You've got a lot of valid concerns. I have them myself in quite a few areas now that I'm "wait and see... and pray" on. Flight model, Connie role/final stats, death of a spaceman, etc.

In the flight model, I'd be quite happy with a 1.3-esque change to it. 1.3 was fun, except that I didn't play it much because I always spawned in the wrong craft. Even in the current version, the Sabre should be pretty fun. It's supposed to have Gladius level maneuverability (whatever that may be at the time) and can really bring some pain if they let us set it up well. Combine that with redundancy, stealth, and hopefully a power plant with enough freedom to power it all and it's sure to be a strong contender. I'm looking forward to seeing what it can do.

 

[TechBoyJK]

I've settled into the 'wait and pray' camp.

They raised the money. It's their ideas. I'm supporting it for a reason and it's just easier to sit back and take it; whatever it may be.

I like my Avenger. squeeeeee

 

[Stringjam]

Combine that with redundancy, stealth, and hopefully a power plant with enough freedom to power it all and it's sure to be a strong contender. I'm looking forward to seeing what it can do.

Yeah, I'm excited about the Sabre as well. Seems like just my kind of combat ship - - fast, maneuverable, and stealthy!

I just hope the Gladius doesn't get left in the dust. IMO, only the racing ships should be faster and better handling than the Gladius. It's small, light, and was designed for a single purpose.

 

[rivethead]

Yeah, I'm excited about the Sabre as well. Seems like just my kind of combat ship - - fast, maneuverable, and stealthy!

I just hope the Gladius doesn't get left in the dust. IMO, only the racing ships should be faster and better handling than the Gladius. It's small, light, and was designed for a single purpose.

Completely agree on the Gladius.

But I don't think the Sabre should be that maneuverable at all. Unless I'm missing something (correct me if I am), the Sabre was designed for stealth hit and run attacks. It hides. It waits. It hits fast and hard. It runs.

It's not designed for dogfighting. It doesn't need to be maneuverable.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

The black sheep is still most certainly the Cutlass.

Yup it is....maybe the re-balance will make it more what I thought it would be essentially a mini gunship. Not super fast, moderately maneuverable but tougher and more harder hitting.

 

[Worthington]

Didn't they say something in regards to the saber not being able to take much of pounding? and it's not a small craft so you're probably right. Get in, do your damage and GTFO. If you get caught up in the mess you're gonna die.

 

[TechBoyJK]

Are there many ships faster than the Avenger? It seems pretty quick. 1450mps at cruise.

I ended up playing at extra hour last night just floating around with some other players looking for some of the ship wrecks around Yela.

Those asteroids get tough when they're in the shadows. You barely see them until it's too late.

 

[Sabrewings]

I just hope the Gladius doesn't get left in the dust. IMO, only the racing ships should be faster and better handling than the Gladius. It's small, light, and was designed for a single purpose.

The Gladius is also old. The Sabre is its spiritual successor. A brand new Aegis light fighter. CIG has said it will be very similar to the Gladius, just with a bit more weight. Fair trade off to me given what it's bringing to the fight:

How well will the Sabre handle in comparison to the Gladius? Will it be a good ship for Gladius pilots to transition into?

The Sabre is going to handle very similarly to the Gladius, if you look closely the manoeuvring thruster type and placement is very similar to the Gladius. If you enjoy flying the Gladius the Sabre should behave broadly the same but with a little extra weight to it.

The Gladius is described as a short range patrol fighter, the Vanguard as long range fighter. Where does the Sabre fit in? Is it a light, medium, or heavy fighter?

The Sabre is a medium fighter in classification, however with its advanced construction and components falls towards the lighter end of medium.

https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/15014-Aegis-Sabre-Q-A

On raw stats alone, the Sabre looks to be more maneuverable than the Gladius, though. It boasts 8 TR2 MAVs for 18000kg while the Gladius has 8 TR1 MAVs for 16000kg.

Completely agree on the Gladius.

But I don't think the Sabre should be that maneuverable at all. Unless I'm missing something (correct me if I am), the Sabre was designed for stealth hit and run attacks. It hides. It waits. It hits fast and hard. It runs.

It's not designed for dogfighting. It doesn't need to be maneuverable.

It's not designed for brawling, but it is very much a fighter. Its forte will be using its stealth for surprise alpha attacks, but it also boasts an impressive shield. Max size is TBD, but it will have four independent generators. So, it will do best in surprise attacks then getting out of detection range, but it certainly doesn't have to. It should maneuver well enough to not be a sitting duck and can bring 4xS3s to the situation.

Didn't they say something in regards to the saber not being able to take much of pounding? and it's not a small craft so you're probably right. Get in, do your damage and GTFO. If you get caught up in the mess you're gonna die.

It has less armor than a Hornet (for weight savings) but it has an impressive shield setup. The idea will be that as long as your shields are doing fine you're good, but once they are showing wear or a ballistics boat shows up, time to take a step back and play by your rules again.

 

[Stringjam]

Completely agree on the Gladius.

But I don't think the Sabre should be that maneuverable at all. Unless I'm missing something (correct me if I am), the Sabre was designed for stealth hit and run attacks. It hides. It waits. It hits fast and hard. It runs.

It's not designed for dogfighting. It doesn't need to be maneuverable.

I think maneuverable needs a context. I'm basing the level of maneuverability on its comparison specs against the Super Hornet:

Sabre
26m
18,000 kg

SH
24m
23,218 kg

So the Sabre is significantly lighter than the SH, and only 2m longer. Both have the exact same size and number of mav thrusters.

So based on that, I feel like the Sabre should have a distinct handling advantage over the Hornet. Faster strafe speed and quicker turning due to reduced mass.

The problem right now is, maneuverability as an advantage for single-seaters has suffered a huge blow (but likely will return to some level).


Now compare the above to the Gladius:

Gladius
20m
16,000kg


So if those numbers are remotely accurate (probably will change, who knows how much), the Gladius should retain a significant handling advantage over both, especially being a full 6m shorter than the Sabre. A short ship should definitely be able to rotate quicker than a long one.


So how maneuverable should a Sabre be? I think it will be somewhere around an Origin 300i. The length and mass are fairly similar, with the Sabre being a little lighter.

It should have a very good SCM speed though with twin TR3s.

All just theory-crafting though. As we see right now, those ship specs can mean very little until they get this stuff sorted out.