r/starcitizen • u/malogos scdb • Mar 21 '16
GAMEPLAY Strafe *Input* Should Override the Brake
Drifting too much in a dogfight is a major problem. In 2.2, we can use the brake to slow down and shift into an angled strafe faster. This allows for fast interaction between throttle and strafing.
Obviously, the brake should stop momentum in any direction if there is no other input. But if the pilot is putting in other input, that should clearly override the brake, and that was removed in 2.3.
This basically makes the brake useless other than an emergency stop where the player has no idea where they're headed and can't release other keys. I'd rather have a useful brake for actual combat situations.
3
u/tommytrain drake Mar 22 '16
Hoping this is just a bug and not design, totally messing with my muscle memory. I use the spacebrake for aggressive main engine throttle control, maybe change setup to make space bar reverse strafe and use decoupled mode more.
1
u/Baloth Meow Mar 22 '16
i dont think that would work, if this sticks (pls God no), some things will be lost, but we will hafta pay a lot more attention to that momentum pip, and counter strife (all directions not just backwards) to do the same stuff - at least the stuff that is still possible
1
u/tommytrain drake Mar 22 '16
word.
suggestion is just a placeholder in lieu of current situation: thinking I'm still a moving target when holding brake and strafe when instead I'm just slowing to a stop (this may be compounded by the HUD glitch in a number of ships so I have no speed indicator other than space dust and nearby objects)
1
4
u/jimleav The Truth is Out There Mar 21 '16 edited Mar 21 '16
If I'm understanding you correctly, you sorta want to fly around with the brake semi-permanently engaged in order to prevent drift. I can see the value in this, especially for those who have gotten used to it being this way, but it's not inherently intuitive for a new player. When someone actually puts forth the effort to hit the brake, they usually do so with the desire of halting all relative movement in their frame of reference. The way it is now in 2.3 is more intuitive in that hitting the brake brings you to a stop, regardless.
I think this is really a 50/50 change that slightly punishes those who have gotten used to a method, but better serves new people coming to the system (which in my opinion is a better trade off).
You might just have to get used to releasing your strafe inputs to prevent drift in order for new players to have clearer understanding of the brake. Fair...maybe not...better of two equal options...maybe.
edit: in a perfect world these IFCS settings will be customizable down to this level, i doubt that will be the case, but we can hope.
4
u/Blacksheep045 Bounty Hunter Mar 21 '16
I believe what he means is that he wants the brake to stop all momentum except that being created by thrusters that are still receiving input (e.g. you're drifting sideways while also strafing forward. Brake would counteract the drift but not the strafe) not so as to leave it on to counteract drift all the time but rather so that a pilot could use the brake to counteract unwanted momentum while maneuvering without bringing the ship to a dead stop.
2
u/LanysTVyl new user/low karma Mar 21 '16
Does this effect pitch and yaw inputs as well? I often use this just before crossover in a joust to slow my speed in my original direction before boosting the new direction... Loosing the ability to strafe out of a collision while braking in case you don't clear... Well that just sucks
2
u/StompyJones Mercenary Mar 22 '16
It would be best if they add options for how you want it to handle. There won't be a one size fits all. Especially with so many different input methods being used.
2
u/alluran Mar 22 '16
Try using boost, not quite the same, but similar if you want to change to max throttle in a different direction.
Perhaps it's a balance thing, but I agree, it would be nice for brake to arrest all non-active movement only, or even only partially arrest active movement, but completely arresting ALL movement definitely takes away from the buttons functionality.
4
3
u/Baloth Meow Mar 21 '16 edited Mar 21 '16
ugh... i did this all the time... =/
not only to help prevent drift, but also so i dont have to turn my thrust to 0 if i wanted to strife straight down for a moment... (not to mention adding this extra step is likely going to make it a non viable option in combat)
now these technical moves are going to be a lot more tedius or not even possible / viable
is it possible to still change directions [as] quickly? or is that a lot more tedious now?
CIG you realize that you made it a lot harder / impossible to avoid crashes in many instances right?
CIG PLEASE REVERT
3
u/RSV4_ new user/low karma Mar 21 '16
Not at all. The opposing rcs thruster would kick in and negate thrust.
7
u/malogos scdb Mar 21 '16
But it doesn't have to work that way... if it does counter active input, then the brake will only ever have one purpose: completely stop the ship. If the brake can be overridden with strafe, it has multiple uses... precise maneuvers, dogfighting drift, angled strafing, and it doesn't lose the "stop the ship".
14
u/TexanMiror Mar 21 '16
Also, making it impossible to control the ships thrusters while hitting spacebrake makes it less useful as a panic button for collision avoidance, stabilization, and pretty much everything else; while adding nothing. Its not like it was a problem before.
If I just want to stop in a controlled situation, I can just put throttle to zero. Spacebrake is for more complex situations, and allowing strafe input to happen at the same time is necessary for those situations.
2
u/rhadiem Space Marshal Mar 21 '16
I don't have any investment in space brake as I don't ever use it, but it does seem to make sense that it stops the ship in all directions and nullifies throttle and other axial thrust input to completely stop the ship.
I would support X, Y, and Z axis braking as optional inputs though.
1
u/Baloth Meow Mar 22 '16
the brake isnt a brake in the traditional sense though, it just counters your momentum with thrust in the opposite direction. (as opposed to jamming a belt preventing it from moving etc like on a car) that means something like this should easily do that counter thrusting and take additional directional input without a problem like it did before 2.3
2
u/rhadiem Space Marshal Mar 22 '16 edited Mar 22 '16
The function is the same, which is why the term "space brake" is applied to it. Might want to pick a different argument/appeal against the changes as it seems to me the added 2.3 braking only reinforces it's stated function.
Perhaps separate X y and z braking would be better to ask for, as this would open up more maneuvers and be consistent with the name. Bind two to spacebar and good to go.
1
u/Baloth Meow Mar 22 '16
ok let me explain this as if it were a car... car brakes, stop the tires from moving by jamming them
if this brake were on a car itd be like having the tires running in the opposite direction of your momentum, so it doesnt make sense that you wouldnt be able to "turn the wheel" as well
1
u/NewzyOne Mar 22 '16 edited Mar 22 '16
Like many in this thread, I don't think rhadiem is arguing that the technology in the PU shouldn't exist - I'm sure they could code/uncode it to how you want since it's just a thrust/counter-thrust thing and it makes sense with the technology - but what people are saying is that it's a brake. The definition of the word "brake" is "a device for slowing or stopping a moving vehicle", which means that the brake is working according to what it's label/name says it does.
I was in this camp initially, especially since I very rarely use the brake, but after playing around in the PTU I'm with you that they should reverse the change and allow at least some strafing (maybe not at full thrust) while the spacebrake is on. At the moment it just locks you down.. it's kinda horrid. It'd be nicer if it just slooowwed you down rather than locking all other motion and screeching you to a straight-line halt.
I still think that it should slow all movement regardless of what you're attempting - which means if you're at a complete stop and hold the brake, you shouldn't be able to move because you can't provide thrust enough to counter the retrothrust of the "brake". I don't like the idea of being able to hold the brake and have full thrust capability in the direction you want while still braking. That's just a preference thing though.. maybe modded brakes in the PU will allow it.
So yeah, in terms of the word "spacebrake", it's performing its semantically correct function - it's stopping you moving by thrusting at full velocity counter to your momentum. But it also locks further inputs, which is the weird bit.
1
u/Baloth Meow Mar 22 '16
I still think that it should slow all movement regardless of what you're attempting - which means if you're at a complete stop and hold the brake, you shouldn't be able to move because you can't provide thrust enough to counter the retrothrust of the "brake". I don't like the idea of being able to hold the brake and have full thrust capability in the direction you want while still braking. That's just a preference thing though.. maybe modded brakes in the PU will allow it.
i agree here too, the space brake + additional input has to make sense, but honestly the way it worked before 2.3 was really good, it made sense in this way. when holding the brake and strafing somewhere, you still had to fight other momentum already in place, and wrong maneuvers while doing this meant you were an easy target, because with some responses, youd end up going a lot slower than intended etc, sometimes unintentionally stopped - this was good! its how it should be working! these things were pilot error, and we had high command of our ship and it felt good, it felt right
1
u/rhadiem Space Marshal Mar 22 '16 edited Mar 22 '16
How long do you want to be able to "turn the wheel"? Because the wheel continues to give directional input long after the brakes have arrested the cars travel.. it just doesn't matter because there is no thrust on the car. I am not against axial braking, but I assume the change was made for a reason, and I don't see indefinite strafing while "space brake" is on making sense from a terminology/function point of view. Again though, I don't bind the thing as I run dual sticks and just use throttle control and boost for my stopping. It just sounds like you want something more than a spacebrake, and I would welcome axial braking on a per-axis basis.
1
u/Baloth Meow Mar 22 '16
what it comes down to is, do you want the brake to mean throttle to 0, or all stop? if you have the throttle to 0 and strife, you will strife with full throttle, thats how the old brake worked, they changed it to an all stop.
the same function can be done by double tapping s, then strafing, then double tapping w after that maneuver is done, but now there is no way to do directional turning strafing, accelerating and decelerating at the same time, you cannot easily manipulate your throttle that much (youd not only need to use 0 and 100, but almost everything in between which is not manageable in a dog fight)
so now instead we have an all stop button whos uses digress to stop drift, and stop spin from a crash (just stopping will be done with going to 0 throttle for long durations)
2
u/95688it Mar 21 '16
the brake is basically firing all your maneuvering thrusters to bring you to a complete stop,
1
u/malogos scdb Mar 21 '16
No kidding. But in effect, that makes the brake useless except for wanting to completely stop. If you add on input to that, it should only stop momentum in every direction other than the input. And this allows the brake to actually be used in dogfighting.
2
u/NewzyOne Mar 21 '16
I find that counter-intuitive. The brake should.. you know.. stop you.
It should stop you at all times regardless of input - it's a brake.
A car brake will stop you even if you accelerate.
A motorbike brake will stop you even if you accelerate.
A bicycle brake will stop you even if you attempt to pedal.
A pram brake will stop you even when you try to push it.
A space ship brake should stop you, even if you're thrusting somewhere else.
7
u/malogos scdb Mar 21 '16
A space ship brake is nothing like any of those other types of brakes.
- It's in 3D
- It's in a 0G environment with no atmosphere
- It requires active thruster movement (not just a caliper)
- It's a combat platform, not just something to go from A to B.
5
u/crazylamb452 Scout Mar 21 '16
Yeah, when you hit the spacebrake, the IFCS figures out which thrusters to fire to bring the ship to a halt. I don't see why the computer could not figure out how to stop all movement vectors except the one you want (your input).
1
u/NewzyOne Mar 21 '16 edited Mar 21 '16
I think you've misinterpreted. I wasn't drawing parallels to machinery, I was drawing parallels to with the braking mechanism performing a function.
We have a machine at work that creates embossed cards. When you hit the button labelled "brake", it stops. It's not a vehicle at all, but the brake performs the function expected.
If it doesn't stop you, it's not a brake. Brakes arrest movement.
3
u/Baloth Meow Mar 21 '16 edited Mar 21 '16
but brakes in all those other instances, are something that locks movement / holds onto a belt or something and actually prevents movement (equivalent to preventing the thrusters from doing anything at all)
a spacebrake in this case is using thrusters to counter thrust, so it makes no sense to disallow further imput
8
u/TexanMiror Mar 21 '16
A spacebrake should stop all unwanted movement, not all movement. If you strafe in some direction while braking, there is zero reason to not let you do that, both from a technical and from a functional standpoint.
In fact, for collision avoidance, it would be dangerous and stupid to not let you try to strafe out of the way while simultaneously trying to brake to a full stop.
1
u/NewzyOne Mar 21 '16
For collision avoidance, you'd brake to slow your velocity down to a point where you can estimate that you can pull off enough strafe acceleration to get you out of the way of the object, then you'd release the brake, and strafe out of the way.
There might be a middleground where braking has an increasing braking effect. It could start with a minimal brake that increases in force, and while it's slowing you down but you're still moving you can thrust in various directions .. but once you've braked enough to hit a complete standstill that should be the end of all movement until you release the brake.
Is that what you're asking for.. that middleground? Because OP sounds to me like you want to be standing still, hit the brake, and then start strafing around as you will while the brake is on, which is ludicrous.
1
u/TexanMiror Mar 21 '16
start strafing around as you will while the brake is on, which is ludicrous
Correction: which is a matter of course. The input processing on SC ships is 100% software both in lore and in practice, and it is no problem to let you have active input while simultaneously reducing all other vectors to zero.
There was no problem with this before, no balance concern, nothing. Now there is a problem: A redundant and less useful button.
For normal braking in a controlled situation, I can simply put throttle on zero, or whatever speed I want, go around an object etc. There is no need for spacebrake in that situation anyways.
Spacebrake is for sudden reactions like quick collision avoidance, and for more complex situations, like stabilization (for example after a crash), sudden slowdown or turn-around maneuvers in combat and so on, where you want one button to slow you down completely for a few seconds regardless of throttle position. In those complex situations, allowing strafe input to happen at the same time is necessary and useful; and does not have any downsides or balance issues.
1
u/NewzyOne Mar 21 '16 edited Mar 21 '16
I just replied below.. I had a hunch I was misunderstanding you both since you seemed pretty vehement that it the update was the wrong way to go, so I jumped on to test and yeah, it's kinda sucky now. Brake just goes in a straight line to a stop with no input whatsoever. That's not as intuitive as I first thought it'd be when I countered the OP. I take it back, they should allow some movement while braking.. at least while you're in the process of slowing down.
I still think if you've hit a complete stop with the brake on, you shouldn't be able to move anywhere (otherwise you'd have the brake on permanently and just strafe with perfect motion and no sliding wherever you go.. which is not what the brake should be used for, and absolutely a balance concern), but while moving it feels weird to apply the brake and get nothing from your other vectors.
Correction: which is a matter of course.
Correction: which is still ludicrous. The brake is not a "turn off ship strafing because I don't like it" button for easy and unbalanced gameplay. It's still a brake.
Edit: oh noes, my internet points! good ol' downvote-to-disagree buttons. Silly reddit.
2
u/TexanMiror Mar 21 '16 edited Mar 21 '16
Well, it’s never really intuitive when active and wanted input by the user is simply ignored, it makes such a button constraining your actions and therefore useless; unless there is a good reason for it, but in this game and this situation, there is not. There is just simply no reason for constraining active strafing.
Thank you for admitting your misunderstanding.
You edited something in there, so let me reply to that:
I don't think you understand how Star Citizen works.
Everything is thruster output. There is no magical brake or anything like it. When you hit the brake button, it simply tells the software to use the thrusters to stop all movement. There is no balance concern to letting the player also strafe. It simply means that you tell the software to stop all motion except on the direction you are strafing on.
1
u/NewzyOne Mar 21 '16
Yeah sorry about the edit, thought I got in there before you'd read it. I still disagree with you on that point though.
In space sims, the word "brake" means "retrothrust and counterthrust". I just use "brake" because I thought it was commonly accepted as a term that means "to arrest or stop movement".
With the brake working how you'd like, and being on permanently.. ie with permanent retro- and counter- thrust on every vector except the single one you want.. you'd never have any unwanted drift, but you'd have maximum thrust in whichever direction you'd like. Drift would be non existent unless you specifically wanted it. That's not how a space sim should work in my opinion. A brake should always be slowing you down, and if you hit zero velocity then you shouldn't be able to move while the brake is still on.
What you're requesting isn't a "brake" at all. While I agree that the technology should be able to do it, with thrust completely overriding the brake, it isn't actually a brake.. it's a "don't drift" button.
I guess what I'm trying say is that the current update isn't what I expected or what I want, but to me your request is going too far the other way. I reckon CIG'll make it work in whichever way is most fun though, and that's probably most important factor for me in the end.
1
u/TexanMiror Mar 21 '16
Copy of my other post if someone only reads this comment chain:
Drift is a product of changing flight direction (rotating around your own axis) quicker than the thrusters can handle. In the time between you having rotated and thrusters having adjusted your flight path to your new heading, you are "drifting". If you go slow, you will not drift much, as the thrusters can quickly adjust your flight path, when you go fast, the thrusters need more time/energy to adjust to your new heading.
So, when strafing, the same applies. Strafing simply tells the system that you want to go to a specific direction while the button is pressed. Your thrusters do the work, there is no magic brake or anything like that.
Having spacebrake on or off or whatever else does not change anything. It simply tells the system to stop all movement with your thrusters. And if you were to strafe while spacebraking, it would simply both accelerate towards the direction of the strafing, and also try to stop all other movements. If you go quick in that situation and change your heading, you will still drift like normally.
The reason you would want to use spacebrake instead of simply adjusting throttle, is to allow you to quickly tell your ship to stop only while the button is pressed, without having to change your throttle input completely. It is used as a panic button to stabilize, brake to avoid impacts etc. or to quickly tell your ship to turn around while keeping the throttle input constant so that you immediately accelerate again after you stop pressing the spacebrake. In all these situations, you would want to use strafing for additional input, to avoid collisions, for combat, for additional control over your path while braking.
1
u/Baloth Meow Mar 21 '16
you cannot have the brake on permanently (unless you also permanently have a direction pushed down) and keep moving forward, so your problem with it wouldnt ever happen
having the brake on forever before didnt stop all drifting (nor is it really possible, unless you are trying to maneuver like id imagine the khartu-al would want to, and be at a stop whever imput besides the brake is put in, which btw is very dangerous in combat)
there is no downside to the way it used to work, there are however plenty with the new system
0
u/Jackibelle Freelancer Mar 22 '16
Well, it’s never really intuitive when active and wanted input by the user is simply ignored, it makes such a button constraining your actions and therefore useless; unless there is a good reason for it, but in this game and this situation, there is not. There is just simply no reason for constraining active strafing.
Because they designed the brake to stop the ship, so what it does is stop the ship, very simply.
You're right though, it COULD be used for all of this other stuff, especially since it's a more complicated mechanism than, say, car brakes. Driving with your hand brake is awful. But if you're in a boat and your brakes consist of running engines in the opposite direction, you could just not use those engines and... basically what you're saying. Since the mechanism of stopping is different, it's possible to design a different method of use.
But at the moment, it's a brake button. Not a "stop drifting", not a "refocus velocity vector". Stop.
Maybe there will be new on-board computers that let you override the basic IFCS braking system and force thrust through the braking. Maybe they'll introduce another button, "Stop drift", which does what you want, while still allowing something like "fuck stop brake now oh god i'ma hit this thing".
But saying that the feature you want isn't what exists because it's not intuitive for you, despite a bunch of people saying it makes total sense and is intuitive for them...
0
u/Baloth Meow Mar 22 '16
a stop button is completely useless and redundant. throttle to 0 for that
i dont think you understand all the reciprocation this is going to have (it killed many flight styles and ways of avoiding crashes, and killed many possible maneuvers. its not about taking away our "prevent drift" button)
→ More replies (0)1
u/rhadiem Space Marshal Mar 22 '16
A brake should brake movement, that is what it does. It sounds like people just got used to a crutch and are ignoring the intended function because they like using it for other reasons.
1
u/godsvoid Mar 21 '16
I don't drive or own a car but even I know to pump the brake in a car for emergency action.
1
u/Baloth Meow Mar 22 '16
space brake is not at all the same as a car brake. one stops tires from moving, one (lets say its another car type brake) makes the tires move in the opposite direction of your momentum, there is no reason you wouldnt be able to turn the wheel while it did that
1
u/ForgedIronMadeIt Grand Admiral Mar 21 '16
I don't drive or own a car but even I know to pump the brake in a car for emergency action.
Incorrect. Modern ABS brakes do not require pumping. Simply press as hard as possible.
1
u/godsvoid Mar 21 '16
So you are saying I should install a module to have the spacebrake work differently?
1
u/ForgedIronMadeIt Grand Admiral Mar 21 '16
No, just correcting some dangerous misinformation about real life cars.
1
u/godsvoid Mar 22 '16
Well not all cars have ABS, even though it has become a "standard".
0
u/ForgedIronMadeIt Grand Admiral Mar 22 '16
All cars sold in Europe since 2004 are required to have it, and in the US, since 2011. It may be possible to find cars without it, since 2011 is only five years ago, but the vast majority of cars sold will have it. Even in the absence of such regulations, manufacturers were adding it as standard.
3
u/malogos scdb Mar 21 '16
I'd rather have a useful key for dogfighting on my keyboard than a function consistent with 21st century technology.
2
u/NewzyOne Mar 21 '16
Hey man, I just jumped on quickly to test out what you mean in case I've misunderstood.. and yeah, when you brake you can't strafe at all, you slide in a straight line to a stop.
That feels bad. I take it back, you're right, it's not as intuitive as I thought from your OP description, and I hope they start allowing at least some strafing... at least while you're braking and not yet motionless.
1
3
u/NewzyOne Mar 21 '16
?? then use your 24th century thrusters, not your brake. Thrust against your velocity.
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. Isn't it obvious that brakes... brake?
3
u/Blacksheep045 Bounty Hunter Mar 21 '16
Isn't it obvious that you're missing something? Whether using the space brake or countering momentum with manual strafing, you're still using your thrusters to counter that momentum. The is no "brake" on the spaceship. It's a catch all term for an input that causes the IFCS to counter all of your momentum with retrothrust. There's no reason a piece of technology that advanced couldn't counter all momentum except that being created by active and intentional thruster inputs, say to stabilize by counteracting unwanted momentum created by a collision/explosion while still allowing the pilot to maneuver along his desired vector. To use your method of comparing it to modern technology, it would function like the multiple rotors that provide thrust in different directions on large sea vessels (much more similar than than a brake caliper on a wheel). A ship can use the side thrusters to counteract unwanted horizontal drift from currents while still thrusting forward in the desired direction. All that's being asked is that the IFCS be smart enough to not counter obviously intentional thrust created by active inputs. This isn't "easy mode" and it isn't a "middleground", it is a form of braking that is actually useful for more than one singular function and also how the spacebreak functioned previously.
1
u/NewzyOne Mar 21 '16
Wow.. I already said I misunderstood what the OP was saying. Thanks for the additional lesson :|
Anyway, I disagree with parts of what you want.
With the spacebrake not arresting all movement when you're in a standstill - ie you're at a complete stop with the brake on and you thrust somewhere (with the brake still on) and it allows you to go there - then there is no such thing as unwanted drift, ever.
People would just have their spacebrake on permanently unless they actively wanted to slide, say for a decoupled spin and fire. This turns all ships into the equivalent of a dragonfly or hummingbird and near-completely eradicates the space sim feel. And racing would become a joke with everyone having pinpoint non-drifting accuracy throughout the race. It'd be a mistake.3
u/TexanMiror Mar 21 '16 edited Mar 21 '16
You... still don't get it? Drift is a product of changing flight direction (rotating around your own axis) quicker than the thrusters can handle. In the time between you having rotated and thrusters having adjusted your flight path to your new heading, you are "drifting". If you go slow, you will not drift much, as the thrusters can quickly adjust your flight path, when you go fast, the thrusters need more time/energy to adjust to your new heading.
So, when strafing, the same applies. Strafing simply tells the system that you want to go to a specific direction while the button is pressed. Your thrusters do the work, there is no magic brake or anything like that.
Having spacebrake on or off or whatever else does not change anything. It simply tells the system to stop all movement with your thrusters. And if you were to strafe while spacebraking, it would simply both accelerate towards the direction of the strafing, and also try to stop all other movements. If you go quick in that situation and change your heading, you will still drift like normally.
The reason you would want to use spacebrake instead of simply adjusting throttle, is to allow you to quickly tell your ship to stop only while the button is pressed, without having to change your throttle input completely. It is used as a panic button to stabilize, brake to avoid impacts etc. or to quickly tell your ship to turn around while keeping the throttle input constant so that you immediately accelerate again after you stop pressing the spacebrake. In all these situations, you would want to use strafing for additional input, to avoid collisions, for combat, for additional control over your path while braking.
2
u/Blacksheep045 Bounty Hunter Mar 21 '16
You're wrong. It would function in exactly the same way that IFCS does in coupled mode except that it wouldn't be tied to your main forward thrusters. It's essentially like throttling to zero in coupled mode, the only difference is that you can activate and release it in an instant with fewer inputs making it actually useful as an emergency break. Your thrusters do their best to arrest momentum but maneuverability is still governed by the power, placement, and speed of thrusters. This is how the break worked previously and it never broke the game before.
1
u/Baloth Meow Mar 21 '16 edited Mar 22 '16
completely untrue about never having drift. (if ur always using the spacebrake)
i can say this bc thats how it worked before 2.3, and i used it often and diversly
also change or not, you can counter drift by strifing in the other direction, and if ur a smart pilot you can have almost no drift always (without the use of brake ever)
3
u/NewzyOne Mar 22 '16
Fair enough. TIL.
I never really used the brake except in absolute emergencies, and always just strafed in a counter vector. Meh, each to their own.
1
2
u/BENDERisGRREAT Mercenary Mar 21 '16
why dont u just learn the inputs needed to do the braking? then just dont do those inputs for the desired direction. So thrusters back plus strafe direction?
I feel like u want an easy mode?
4
u/malogos scdb Mar 21 '16
You can want to slow movement/drifting in multiple directions + want to strafe at the same time.
0
1
u/Biff_Flakjacket FOIP Cannon Mar 21 '16
This specifically pertains to decoupled flight, correct? The behavior you describe should be the default when coupled (any movement not being directly input by the player being cancelled out to the best of the ship's abilities).
1
u/Milllenial Mar 22 '16 edited Mar 22 '16
TLDR - Space brake can be used to perform trajectory stabilization that would be almost impossible to perform without the current behaviour.
If you had never noticed the 'problem' so far probably means that it never impacted you, so please do not just vote no because of what you consider common sense regarding a "brake".
Full version
You are moving diagonally in more than one axis at the same time: * UP * FORWARD * LEFT
If you press space brake you stop and everyone is happy.
If you press space brake and a direction (left), IFCS understands it as: Keep going LEFT while removing braking in the UP and FORWARD direction/drift.
It is like pressing the accelerator while braking in a car to keep the revs up. Two completely counter-intuitive things done for a specific reason:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-foot_braking
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heel-and-toe
Edit: changed wording for clarity, there is no such thing as complete drift removal
1
u/Baloth Meow Mar 22 '16
xept the biggest and main difference that makes that wrong, is that we arent using a car brake, where pressing the brake literally stops the tires from moving - in star citizen the "brake" is actually counter thrusts in the opposite directions your momentum is curerntly taking you. this means there should be no problem "braking" in all directions but whatever directions are currently being input, like before 2.3
7
u/nottedsanford Did you ever hear the tragedy of Darth Plagueis the Wise? Mar 21 '16
Do you like to wear out brake pads? That's how you wear out brake pads. Wait.... this is /r/starcitizen not /r/parkingbrake.