Starfield

2851 readers

1 users here now

Welcome to the Starfield community on Lemmy.zip!

Follow instance rules (no spam, keep it civil and respectful, be constructive, tag NSFW)

Helpful links:

Spoiler policy:

No spoilers in titles; if you want to share images with spoilers, preferably post the image in the body of the post. If you do make an image post, mark it NSFW.
Add [Spoilers] to your title if there will be untagged spoilers in the post.
Game mechanics and general discoveries (ship parts, weapons, etc) don't need a spoiler tag.
Details about questlines and other story related content are spoilers. Use your best judgement!

Post & comment spoiler syntax:

&lt;spoiler here>

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

Demigodrick@lemmy.zip

Lets talk about physics of the speed of spaceship (lemmings.world)

submitted 1 year ago by whiskers@lemmings.world to c/starfield@lemmy.zip

49 comments fedilink hide all child comments

In reality, there is (almost) no force to reduce speed in space.

It was quite unituitive to me in the beginning that when I boost the spaceship, it works lke a car on earth rather than a spaceship. I'd have liked the spaceship to continue to gain speed when either the boost was applied or you continue to throttle the engine. They could have kept a fuel limit to keep the speed in check.

What are your thoughts on this? Would you have liked this to be more based in reality or prefer the familiar car based speed/acceleration that's in the game?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Eheran@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That does not make sense. Breaking in space costs as much fuel as accelerating.

[–] stankmut@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Starship designers assumed that you want to slow down when you let off the throttle, much like today's One Pedal mode in electric cars. Otherwise you would've engaged cruise control if you wanted to keep the same speed.

[–] KiranWells@pawb.social 0 points 1 year ago

Exactly; the idea is familiarity, not efficiency. To be fair, this argument doesn't make sense for all situations, so it is possible I misunderstood what the original post was talking about specifically.