[Powo]

Instead each ships moving in 2 or 8 directions, how about certain types of ships that have built in side and/or front engines slots so the ship can thrust in other directions rather than forwards.

That would be interesting.

[Jonboy]

... because that's really the only model that works in space for accelerating... unless you resort to sci-fi. Forward force is generated as you push rocket fuel backwards by Newton's 3rd Law. Obviously, you can push the fuel in any direction, all you need is either (A) more plumbing or (B) a system turn the main thruster pipe. Both are already in Jumpgate. You turn the main pipe as you turn your ship, you face the same direction. There is plumbing for (A) in Jumpgate Evolution with the new up/down and lateral thrusters. There's also thrusters for stopping in Jumpgate Classic.

Stopping and after-burner need extra fuel. The main thruster and turning with pitch and yaw have an infinite supply.

[netburnr]

I didn't think the engine in Jumpgate Classic moved, I always envisioned it as thrusters that change our direction, but now that I think about it, if that were true one your out of AB fuel you wouldn't be able to turn. interesting.

See thats why I said I don't see a problem with allowing a smaller percentage to be used for reverse, aka braking. Sure you won't be able to fly backwards at 400d, but at least you can slow a ship when you've used all your thrusters up.

But like I said originally, I'm not sure how the controls would work, and I'm interested to see how ND is implementing the controls for the lateral thrusters.

[vorlon31]

Im not keen on flying backwards but I do like the inertia off toggles used in some games.

[Karash]

I would imagine the controllers would be HAT enabled so you could have both horizontal and vertical thrusters in relation to your position. These would be extremely weak aux. thrusters that just fine tune your ship's flight path. Certain ships could have more powerful ones, and even the Quantar could have a factional advantage.

The main thrust of the engine, and how we fly in Jumpgate I think will not change much at all...just enhanced.

[netburnr]

But what about those of us that use the HAT for directional view, and actually USE that feature alot, we can't unbind our hat for thrusters...

[Badger]

I demand the right to fly backwards at 400!! And as for netburn's problem, just buy the X52 with its 15 integrated HATs and optional neural interface.

It'd be cool if there were two "rings" of directional thrusters (imagining the ship as a theoretical cylinder, with the engine on one circular side, and the thrusters in circles around the curved face) and each ring was controlled independently by a different HAT. More maneuverability = more crazy stuff. More crazy stuff = more ways to wrangle squids. And of course, more ways to wrangle squids = more squid dumps on netburnrol's house.

Edit: My girlfriend's very sleepy contribution to this thread is, "I want more squid in my HAT".

[Karash]

Originally Posted by netburnrol

But what about those of us that use the HAT for directional view, and actually USE that feature alot, we can't unbind our hat for thrusters...

There are a lot of setups that have 3 or 4 HATs net

You need to upgrade your setup or something.

[Jump]

I've tried moving my hat in game but it never does anything but mess up my hair.

[Wild_Bill]

(blushes furiously) Obviously my math is on a par with my combat skills. As far as reverse thrusters are concerned, I'm satisfied with what we have. I can see the value for lighter combat ships (as in RL) but for most of what I fly I don't think it would be all that useful, short of having equally large engines forward/backward. Vectored thrust won't do it IMO.

[Badger]

Originally Posted by Karash

There are a lot of setups that have 3 or 4 HATs net

You need to upgrade your setup or something.

The trouble I always have with that setup is the HAT start falling off and cluttering up the keyboard. Especially when I use my deerstalker alongside the bowler.

[Chaser]

I agree vertored thrust would help manuvering a lot, and wouldnt take a lot of new controls, it would be part of the average engine control system. I think what Badger said when he first started this thread,if I'm not mistaken, was reverse thrusters for the bigger heavier ships that are harder to control. Fighters are much more manuverable and thus wouldnt have them. Like a tow with maybe 15-25% reverse thrust so it could dock quicker to avoid station hits or maybe miners who could move quicker from asteroid to asteroid cuase they have more low speed control. I wouldnt add them to fighters cause they really dont need them.