Skip to main content

Indie game storeFree gamesFun gamesHorror games
Game developmentAssetsComics
SalesBundles
Jobs
TagsGame Engines
(2 edits) (+1)

I made a 1 hour video of this, but I feel it is probably painful to watch lol, and you probably wouldn't want to, but if you want me to I can upload it. 

My thoughts are as follows.

I can't help but feel the solution is overcomplicated. Switching between modes sounds straightforward enough on paper, but when it changes everything about the controls and behavior of the craft rather than just one or two things it makes things much more complicated. And for example, if I want to control vertical thrust, I need to change to hover mode, but in hover mode I can no longer roll the aircraft, and etc. By gaining some things I'm losing others.

Also, "automating" certain things to smooth out the user experience can be a great tool, but while the goal is to simplify the inputs, if you're not careful you can make them more complicated in a way. For example if I just want to move straight forward, I switch to manual mode, but if I don't have enough speed it's only giving me vertical thrust. I "can't" just move forward because I have to contend with the rules of how it wants to work rather than how I want it to work.

Between this and the aforementioned mode switching, I find myself wanting for more consistency in the controls. My game is designed as a very different experience, but it also features both airplane-like and helicopter-like control. I have no mode switching; if I want to move up I press the button to move up; if I want to move forward I press the button to move forward; some things adjust here and there but the inputs always move you in the same ways and when you want to move (or at least apply forces) in those ways you always can. It's hard for me to imagine why that wouldn't be achievable for what you're trying to do, but maybe there's something I'm missing.

The thing I had the hardest time with in general was slowing down. There are no brakes, and while I didn't specifically expect there to be brakes while playing, it does beg the question: how does a craft that flies like an airplane and lands like a helicopter transition between the two without brakes? It clearly is possible to do so within your game, but it's not clear what the proper answer to that question is or what the intended method is. Of course the other question you can ask is, why not have brakes?
Edit: I just found the part on the game page where you mention the engines firing backwards, but the way you implemented it seems counterintuitive. Why not give the player more direct control over it rather than have it tied to a particular maneuver in a particular case?

I wanted to do something like fly in and bank sharply left or right and then use vertical thrust to counteract my forward inertia, but switching to hover mode cancels out my ability to roll.

When I was in the tunnel I was trying to switch to manual mode and fly straight forward to exit the tunnel, but it kept flying me up into the ceiling of the thing, because I was not up to speed. It doesn't seem helpful for the manual mode thrust to move you up vertically when you're already up in the air but not up to speed. I also sometimes would try to accelerate and roll/turn right away but since the thrust starts out vertical only I would just go straight into the ground. As I understand it you're trying to compensate for a lack of lift in the transition to forward flight, which understandably complicates things, but it brings me to my next point.

While I'm confident "airplane controls" are a good idea for a spaceship game, I'm not so confident that it makes sense to have aerodynamic lift. I could understand if your goal was to create a game about a VTOL jet that can also somehow fly in space, and you wanted to achieve that with some realism, but the way you presented the concept was wingless sci-fi movie space ships taking off and landing, which doesn't seem in line with that. I understand there is a collision there between making something fly like a plane and not fly like a plane, but there are certain things about the concepts of gaining and maintaining lift that I don't feel someone piloting a spaceworthy metal brick should ever have to think about.

I definitely believe in the idea you have here, and clearly you've made it work for yourself, as the videos you've shared look very pleasing in how you're able to pull off the landings. 

(3 edits)

This is great stuff, thanks. I do think a lot of the problems here are framing problems and that a good tutorial to set expectations would go a long way on addressing your feedback, but also it's kind of supposed to be a little weird. Some other random points:

  • "Because I have to contend with the rules of how it wants to work rather than how I want it to work."
    • Considering all the different ships will have slightly different controls and handling quirks, it sort of is the intent that you learn how to work around the given control set and flying style. You might not like how one ship flies, but maybe you like another more, etc.
  • "The thing I had the hardest time with in general was slowing down. There are no brakes, and while I didn't specifically expect there to be brakes while playing, it does beg the question: how does a craft that flies like an airplane and lands like a helicopter transition between the two without brakes?"
    • This is a really good question, that has two answers. The first is that in the final version you have direct access to the reverse thrusters when in normal flight. This makes slowing down to hovering speed very easy. The throttle actually works a bit differently in the final version than it does here to make this a lot easier and make a lot more sense.
    • The second answer is that it kind of is complicated because ironically what you're describing as a problem is actually a real problem and skill with landing helicopters in real life. When helicopters are flying at speed, they actually fly like planes, and pitching up causes them to gain altitude and fly up. This will happen in the game too if you're also flying at speed, so slowing down to an appropriate speed before going into hover mode is actually important. Knowing when and how you can start easing the nose up for "reverse thrust" is also part of the skill. This is extremely helicopter-like and I thought it was really cool, THAT SAID it is weird and inconvenient that you can't reverse thrust in normal flight, especially because this is critical for space-flight. Hence the point above.
  • "I wanted to do something like fly in and bank sharply left or right and then use vertical thrust to counteract my forward inertia, but switching to hover mode cancels out my ability to roll."
    • There isn't a direct way to do this, but in the full version since drag depends on the ship's velocity flying belly down will slow you down dramatically and you can do handbrake turn landings. Ship turn rates are unaffected by airspeed, so they can turn fast enough that at low speeds you will basically stop in midair from the drag. 
    • This isn't the most elegant handbrake landing (it was my first try) but you get the idea. 
  • "When I was in the tunnel I was trying to switch to manual mode"
    • The tunnel is actually exactly what the training missions are going to frame as something specifically for the hover mode, since it's about very precise maneuvering in a very tight space. It doesn't make sense to use the manual mode for this. In the full game, one of the types of hangars the player needs to be able to fly and land in are very tight vertical spaces and manual mode is just not meant for that kind of maneuvering. Honestly I think "manual mode" is a bad name for it, because it implies that it's meant to be a "full control" superset of what the hover mode does and that's just not the case. The "Hover Mode" itself has changed names like 5 times so far, because I'm not exactly happy about that either. I almost wish I could call it GERWALK but nobody would get that.
  • "I'm not so confident that it makes sense to have aerodynamic lift"
    • The aerodynamics is exactly where all the interesting difficulties come from in the flight model, so it's non-negotiable. Mastering the transition between forward flight and hovering flight is one of the most important and difficult aspects of flying a helicopter, and that's the kind of feeling I wanted to get across. Also even a brick will be affected by aerodynamic forces, and depending on the ship, some ships will be more "bricklike" than others. The prototype transport is the generic everything ship, so it has enough aero to be interesting, but is mainly focused mainly on the hover mode stuff.

I know it might sound like I'm arguing with these points, but this is actually really encouraging because most of the parts of the game you're describing as being difficult are supposed to be difficult and take some practice to really get right. The game is about nailing sick landings, and if it was super trivial to do, what's even the point of the game?

As I said before, I think a lot of the problems are coming from incorrect framing and expectations, and I think with a decently designed tutorial (and tutorial level) a lot of that could be ironed out. That said there are some control oddities that I'm not exactly sure how to handle. Space raises some very annoying questions and is essentially two more control modes even if it wasn't intended to be. That will require more testing. 

It's also important to note that in some cases the omissions of certain features is very deliberate because it would go against the very thing I'm aiming for. E.g. I actually did try having direct control of forward/reverse thrusters while in hover mode (there's video of it too) and it looks and feels atrocious, nullifying everything I thought was interesting about the control and flight model.

Thanks again for trying this and noting it all down! You always come at my games from a very different place, and always give very detailed and insightful feedback on how a normal person might (or might not) survive contact with them.

(1 edit)

It sounds like the changes you have/will have in the updated version are good ones. At one point I did try to turn the craft perpendicular expecting the extra drag would slow me down, but for reasons that are now obvious didn't have success with it. 

I can appreciate wanting to have some complexity, and not just the simplest possible form of the concept. There is a question of, do the quirks make it challenging in a way that's fun to contend with. For me personally, dealing with a lot of inertia in three dimensions like this already feels challenging, but things that add confusion or inputs not doing what I expect them to do, those sorts of "challenges" are harder for me to come to terms with.

I'm still not convinced that having two separate modes the way you have them is either necessary or a good idea. But I'm also curious to know what led you to try that in the first place. I can understand as far as you wanting airplane like flight and helicopter like flight, and so you have two different modes for it, that kind of follows at least on paper. But practically speaking, it doesn't seem like something that arose out of necessity, or maybe I'm just not seeing it. 

As I mentioned, I'm not fond of how many things change when you switch modes. I could understand if it was something a little more specific, like enabling a particular kind of stabilizing effect. Then at least the button would have a clearer intention and utility, rather than being a button that just changes "a bunch of things." It's also unclear precisely how/when to make the transition from one mode to the other. You talked about using maneuvering skill to make the transition between modes of flight, but you also have a button that's supposed to cross that transition; how do the two meet?

To give a more concrete suggestion, why not leave the pitch/roll control unchanged between modes and just have the hover mode try to stabilize you vertically or something? If the player wants to flip upside down and crash then let them. That would keep the controls more consistent and make it clearer what the button is for. You could also have the hover mode be an on/off feature rather than creating a logical division between two separate flight modes (which would also help solve your naming issue).

(5 edits)
I'm also curious to know what led you to try that in the first place . . . But practically speaking, it doesn't seem like something that arose out of necessity, or maybe I'm just not seeing it. 

The short answer is that a fully manual flight mode won't give me the results I'm looking for without a flight model that is both less forgiving, and requires much more complex and precise input devices such as a full on HOTAS. Even in Tiny Combat, which does have a fully manual control setup, you can't get the level of precision, smoothness, and the "cinematic look" I'm after without fancy hardware. There's a reason I call out Star Citizen in the the game's page, and it's because that kind of flight model and control setup just doesn't lend itself to good landings.

This goes back to the helicopter stuff I was talking about. Helicopters fly like both helicopters and planes in a realistic sim (i.e. DCS) and it's all controllable because you aren't flying this on a gamepad, and you are doing things at a much slower, more controlled pace. You can't whip these things around like a video game sci-fi spaceship, the way I'd like to be able to, because the physics just doesn't work that way. So to give that faster pace, and more responsive handling, you need to up the power on everything, exaggerate the physics, and so on. However in doing that, it also becomes even harder to control. With a mode switch, you can adapt the controls, filter them, tune them, to specific regimes of flight and make it very controllable. It's similar to how aim down sights completely changed how FPS games were made on console. When a player uses ADS, they are expressing their intent to precisely aim, and you can lower the sensitivity, snap the crosshair, and change how recoil is handled.

Without some kind of mode switch, the only other option to make these kinds of physics controllable (and good looking enough, which is the whole point here, this is a very aesthetics driven project) is for the ship to massively change in behavior on its own. The way that the throttle blends from lift to main engine in the "manual" mode is actually vestigial from experiments on that, though I liked it enough to keep it. Not all ships behave this way either, e.g. the aerodyne that's not in the prototype doesn't use the lift engines at all in the manual mode. So there will variety in how things fly and control. It's also an avenue for me to experiment in different control methods and physics. However the problem with some kind of magic blending that somehow deduces what the player is trying to do, is that inevitably you're going to guess incorrectly about what the user wants to do and that feels really bad!

The modes communicate the player's intent, and from there you can optimize the two modes for their own special purposes. If you want to hover in a precise and tight controlled area: hover mode. If you want to land vertically: hover mode. If you want to fly somewhere far away: normal mode. If the player doesn't understand this, and is trying to use the modes for things they aren't designed for, that is as I've been going on about, a training issue. A good tutorial should cover this, but at the same time I don't think it's a problem that the player might have to learn and practice a skill. That's kind of the whole point here.