[jimmcslim]

It wouldn't be the first time that accuracy has been sacrificed for playability... A space sim that fully relied on Newtonian physics would probably be quite tedious and difficult? (In fact, I think one of the previous Frontier titles was guilty of this)

That said, I do believe Elite: Dangerous does allow you to adopt an advanced mode that might be closer to what you are expecting.

[lloeki]

In Wing Commander Prophecy there was a key (or button if HOTAS was your style) that made you temporarily cut off the "atmospheric flight simulation" mode.

Using inertia and rotating was the only way to "strafe" along a cap ship, and much more efficient at destroying turrets than your usual back and forth fire-and-forget missile/torpedo/guns-blazing runs typical of post X-Wing/TIE Fighter space operas.

Also you could just turn around and shoot whoever is behind you (except they've got a time advantage since suddenly you're moving on a straight line and by the time you've got them on sight you're dead). An incredibly useful strategy was to just pivot then throw in the after burner for dramatic direction changes in an attempt to outmaneuver your opponent.

I always thought this game landed a good balance between fun and realism, with a suspension-of-disbelief-compatible in-story explanation that you're usually in computer assisted mode that simulates atmospheric flight behavior because otherwise dogfights are humanly impossible to manage.

[okasaki]

Independence War 1 & 2 and many other games had newtonian physics and were lots of fun.

To be it seems awfully insulting that players wouldn't understand that a ship doesn't necessarily go where it's pointing, which is really what it comes down to.

[maglevfield]

Interplanetary flight in I-War 1 & 2 was done with the inertia-less LDS drive (same as Elite: Dangerous super-cruise), you practically didn't do it in Newtonian mode opposed to the previous Elite sequels where everything was done in a single Newtonian mode, which also featured realistic orbital dynamics, moving celestial bodies and freeform planetary re-entry.

That said Elite: Dangerous regular flight physics are still Newtonian, even more so than I-War series as it features rigid body dynamics and not a point mass, but the ships have very strong maneuvering thrusters a flight control system computer to counteract the skidding and keep it within a certain speed limit, but you can partially turn it off.

See videos below:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KAJuR5giGo&t=2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwVYc_iPAvg

[coder23]

That makes the combat much more interesting, but the flight model is still way of, it simply violates Newtonian laws. You turn and accelerate immediately like a plane if you choose to and there is a max speed limit, unlike I-War. Resembles airplanes with the ability to strafe and pivot, which is fun but not what some want.

[maglevfield]

It doesn't violate any Newtonian laws.

http://elite-dangerous.wikia.com/wiki/Elite:_Dangerous_FAQ#W...

[coder23]

If their marketing department says it follows correct physics, and the game actually doesn't, you just blindly believe them.

You can't say you follow some rules and then break them when you choose to and then say your game is Newtonian. Because then every game having player moving in the world is.

Here are the facts. When turning you keep you velocity, which implies magical thrusters that can change power drastically when needed to do so. But why not use that power all the time and not only when turning? Doesn't make any sense. And there is a maximum speed limit. How does that follow the Newtonian laws?

[z3phyr]

Does Kerbal Space Program qualify as a space sim?

[the_af]

KSP sounds tremendously interesting, but I think in the context of this discussion we're talking about combat space sims.

[TeMPOraL]

Well, people did various type of space combat experiments in KSP, and they're as easy and interesting as you'd expect (i.e. not very much).