From the foundation patch-notes:
"Holding brake whilst turning now activates drift for fast turns"

Can't you guys just make it an option? "Arcade": star-wars physics. "Simulation": ship will rotate as long as the thruster isn't triggered, which is when the guidance thrusters engage, etc. It's in the game already. And this switch-solution has been used by other companies before, like Particle Systems with their I-War series.

It does so much for immersion to actually be able to start turning, and then hit thrust when you want to counter the momentum. The dogfighting is obviously set up to be controlled this way as well. So whether it's tilting downwards on entry to the planet, and straightening out the trajectory as you hit the atmosphere, or it's outsmarting the AI by coming sideways up along their flight-path - or strafing a freighter, etc., it just makes sense when the universe is as free and dynamic as it is in the first place.

If that's not going to happen, though - anyone know how the different flight-mods are playing with the latest update? Or if any mods are planned or about to be released that take care of it again?

So.. space-flight overhaul mods, lowflight, etc., don't work with the update.

Arcade mode turn is back, same issues as before with sensitivity settings.

Too bad.

Low Flight, at least, now works with the new update.

Nice. :) ..but honestly can't play the game again without the spaceflight overhaul controls now.

So in case anyone wondered, the way these mods are made is a bit complicated, involvs hexediting, and essentially experimentation with individual variables in a file called "GSPACESHIPGLOBALS.GLOBALS.MBIN".

And, the reason why it's difficult and cumbersome to mod is that this mbin file is a serialisation format pulled from other files, likely some xml-ish format that reference various other definition and binary/rawdata files. So that instead of reading things like
"<impulse>
<ship>
<shuttle>
<id>min speed</id>
<value>10</value>
</>
<scientific></>
<id>screw it, gas-pedal override for everyone!</>
<value>external reference solely containing the number 10 because xml is awesome and should be used as much as possible.txt</>
</ship>
</impulse>"

Instead of that, you get something like "ID1A" put inside the mbin file at a basically random location as these variables are pulled in from the original file, with the external references, if any inserted in between.

Once Hello Games makes any changes to the format of these files, or partially adds anything in between that affects the format, the location of the ID1A hex address changes.

So in case you had no respect for modders who figure this stuff out: start having respect now.

--------

What you can infer from the contents of these files is a whole range of different things, though.

1. There are 4 distinct sub-types of ships from a flight-control perspective (dropship/fighter/scientific/shuttle). I suspected from the beginning that this was the case, but I couldn't confirm it, or thought it was just a model reference, or something like that having to do with maybe the location of some ship-instruments or something. But all other elements of the ship is mapped elsewhere. And there are 4 setting-batches identified by ship-type, referencing a file that doesn't exist in the pak-dump released with the full game, and that are presumably not used for much of anything, that simply has to be the ship-specific overrides for the variables for the different ship-types. Presumably these ship-specific settings can be pulled into the creation of the mbin file when the project is built (although it would be hilarious if there is a fairly simple format that could be used to override the entire thing - but again, we don't know the format, or how any of this actually works, so it's about as easy as filing a house-key manually with a sharp stick. Conversely, anyone can turn a key if we have the right one given to us).

2. The level over the ship-specific types contain overrides of the kind that forces the throttle to stay on about 10% throttle at all times. I thought it was strange at the time, and wondered about why the pirates had a newtonian flight-path while nothing else did. But the guy who made the space-flight overhaul confirmed it: the way the flight-model was "fixed" to continuously adjust the flight-path towards the crosshairs is by constantly adding a small amount of forward thrust. This then stops you from being able to release the throttle, turn the ship around with the smaller guidance jets(figuratively speaking), and then flatten out the flight-path towards the crosshairs when you hit forward thrust. So this type of flight-system with the momentum-based physics, etc., actually exists in the game and is running at all times - but is "removed" by essentially putting a brick on the gas-pedal. (I will try to change some of these variables by comparing the numbers in the file with the speeds listed in the game, and see if it's possible to find the element to at least remove the brick from the gas-pedal later).

3. All the other limit-settings for speed in space, and in atmospheric flight, the hilarious "do not approach the ground" limit, the maximum speeds inside and outside the "close to planet" sections (when you fly a certain distance over the ground, the red cross in the hud changes to yellow arrows, etc) is set here in this file as well. Same mechanic that happens when near freighters and space-stations - you kill warp, limit pulse and set an absolute speed. Likely the lowflight mod succeeds at removing the "anti-suicide autopilot" by just lowering the value for the absolute flight inhibition to become closer to the objects.

4. Very likely, the speeds in this file has been set globally for all platforms for performance reasons - they don't want to see things popping in. So even though the actual engine handles - on practically any hardware - the first and second level of detail at hilarious speeds (that are in the range of 100 times faster than the normal flight-speed), there are gaps between lod 1 and lod 2 with the squares that might be visible in certain situations. So changing these variables in this particular file seems to not actually have happened since the first release (it's just the order and number of elements in the final mbin file that has changed).

5. There are other settings in here as well that are much more extensive than the "sensitivity" settings in the options menu. How fast you turn at no thrust, how slow you turn at thrust (obvious application: freighter craft turn slower than fighters. Threshold levels for drift (freighter keeps rotating for longer than a fighter). Increment for flight-path adjustment (how fast the flight-path flattens out on thrust). Likely there's also "lean" thresholds put in here (which might be what the ship-specific overrides are used for - the size of the cockpit canopy is different on the different models types). All the "quick-flight" mods, the speed during warp, etc., is all from here. There's also an increment setting in here somewhere for analog controls (to avoid extremely quick off-target turns), along with some sort of treshold for guidance snap-on. I'm guessing the formation flight when you have a target locked is in here as well, perhaps including an option to snap-on, and then let you adjust in smaller increments from that absolute point inwards and outwards from the target speed.

6. And none of this is actually used for anything in the game.

In other words, HG could - if they wanted to - expose all these settings in a humanly readable xml-file like the settings for the graphics and so on, by identifying the IDs given to these variables here. To let people adjust these variables to, ironically, actually end up reflecting what HG promised the game would contain. Since all of it is actually in there, except it's been tweaked apart.

I'm sure people wonder why I hate Sony so much. And this is why. It's not the first time, and likely won't be the last, that I've had a chance to look at a game's project files, and ended up finding these ham-fisted variable tweaks put in. Previously it was purely to reduce the work-load for the testers - to remove the need to test for different classes with different abilities and turning speeds, etc. Which in this case is 4 ship types instead of just one. The argument that was used, however, was that the focus-group found it confusing when things weren't identical. The control-schema had to be as simple and uniform as possible.

And that's what we get. Now also on PC.

So not quite as bad as I thought. But not much to go on when it comes to the unknown fields. Guessing ShipMinHeightForce is the invisible barrier above ground. Lots of stuff here that probably corresponds to things like the angle before you start burning in the atmosphere, how long it takes to slow down, when the flattening out of the curve happens, etc.

If you want to get at this, the GCSPACESHIPGLOBALS.GLOBAL.MBIN file is psarc packed into NMSARC.59B126E2.pak. Then use this voodoo here: https://github.com/emoose/MBINCompiler/blob/master/README.md to extract the mbin file. That.. I can only assume is done by finding the patterns somewhere, and making a qualified guess?

Bad news: I'm not entirely sure why the spaceflight overhaul mod doesn't work as in the previous version of the game, because the format of the extracted mbin file is identical. So tossup between the mbin encrypt causing some sort of fault, or possibly that other unknown values affect the ones that were changed somehow.

Other than that: Note the amount of dummy-floats - likely a factor of some sort, and they want to make it as small as possible. I.e., this is how you remove a feature or "tone it down". Reduce the factor until it's a negative max value.

And yes - that's how tweaking is done, and what you are waiting weeks for after the dev-studio releases their games. Some knob sitting at Sony tweaking around stuff like this.

So product of the investigations into futility so far:
1. The variables that affect the amount of correction on the course changes are probably set in a different place than before, or optionally overridden.
2. The "new and improved" controls actually function like this: if you turn 180 degrees around and hit brake, you now continue to cruise backwards. Previously, you would end up stopping the ship, before then backing away. This change is what's mentioned in the patch-notes, that "someone" "supposedly" wanted patched in. I swear I'm not making this up. It's not possible for me to spy what sort of radian or angle this threshold value is created from.
3. Most of the variables in the global file are not used at all, have no effect - or they simply don't parse properly for the new version of the game, and the replacement values are thrown away, leaving us with yet another variation in the end.
4. Mods in general now have to be installed in a separate directory, and the game no longer reads unpacked files. The game is also set up so that mods are disabled by default. And you are getting a helpful reminder that HG offers no support in the case of any problems.

Don't worry, I didn't think you offered any support for modding before either. In fact, I know that Sony only takes an interest in mods in the sense that they want to sell them through their marketplace. After buying them off modders for bupkis.

Meanwhile, the settings tweaked for the space-flight are of course known and easily changed by HG. Who apparently are both delighted and extremely happy to annoy their customers as much as possible. Even for the most petty detail.

Or as it's known more specifically, "listening to what Sony community folks are telling you 'everyone wants'". How is that working out for you, HG?

Theses clumsy HG space combat programmers, really need to bring David Weber, on board. He is a man who knows space warfare, crew assignments, and ship tactics. Google, "honorverse". Take care. Bye. Cya. birdbathscuba

I have to admit that i'm missing that SpaceFlightOverhaul mod, badly!

Low flight is ok, but the new version still handles like a dog (the default game feel!), even if allowing you to look down and fly low.

Looking at the code that was being modded to create these mods and it seems, as nipsen mentioned, that the controls are now hard-coded somewhere else and lots of new obfuscated elements just makes you wonder why? Why Hello Games? Are you legally forced by Sony to make controlling your ship so cumbersome?

Please take a look at the Space flight Overhaul mod (you will need to run it on the original pre Foundation game version) and playtest that for even just a little bit. Please. Let's get some sort of 'sanity' into the game flight control feel! :)

Why HG would make modding more difficult or remove the ability for some mods to work only seems like a step backwards. Since Sony is involved I would not be overly surprised if they made modding the game more difficulty intentionally, here is my logic for that statement.

The mods people added to the game to try and make this fiasco of a game better may have been ones that HG already had planned but either HG or Sony decided to limit third party ability to make mods so they can in the future pull a rabbit out of a hat and be the ones that put the features in the game so they themselves have chest thumping rights to thing that should have been in there the first place.

Yea yea I know, sounds like my tinfoil hat has a hole in it but I really cannot understand why HG did what they did to mess with mods so much, as I have said it was the mods that was making this game more tolerable and then HG comes along and decides to ruin what boost said mods were giving to the games reputation.

Just seems like the like to shoot themselves in the foot repetitiously.

Well actually since the latest 1.12 patch (for the Foundation Update version), they are actually, for the first time, mentioning mods at all and giving guidance for modders on how to set up the mod folder etc, so maybe they are finally taking mods more seriously? We shall see. One thing i have noticed is that Foundation Update incorporated a bunch of mod-like changes into it as part of the new default game, and that is a good move imho as mods can and do help devs make a better game, so HG are indeed paying attention to the mods, just not the flight improving ones!!!!!! Crazy dudes, probably too much stress recently has clouded their vision on that ;)

..I guess a more cynical view would be something like that they're expecting support issues with mods, and have just removed unpacked files from being included. While structuring it so mods in general can't really be successfully deployed without official sdk-inclusion. I.e., they're preparing for launching a "mod" base on the psn, and someone is seeing an opportunity to start charging for addons this way, while calling it "mods". But effectively limiting the type of mods in the process to content and full modules.

So instead of being able to use inserts for files that might actually have only partially parsed properly, so you could override certain settings and add partial scripts, and throw away the rest, that then would use the default base (I think that's why for example the Spaceflight Overhaul mod worked - that some of the settings were thrown out from wrong format and value range, etc. So the engine would technically parse the ones that worked and had the right format at runtime, and then keep other settings in the base. Some of the settings are like that now - you can change them all you want, but they have no effect: likely there's a second file from the foundation update that parses, while the mod doesn't, and the original settings are kept from a specific point when the actual settings-file the game takes values from is generated.

That's what it looks like in the decompiler at least. That the settings are actually just pulled when they're needed, and if they're invalid the parser just fails to set the number. Now, the whole file might have precedence, and another set of settings in patched inserts might not be set any longer, since this new file in a partially valid format is set to replace the original one, so when the parser complains, the rest is thrown out from the point the serialization is invalid, etc).

So while I think that HG should just make these settings transparent in the user-files, or better yet, document the whole thing and let people edit what really is fairly straightforward settings, on anything from max speed in warp to angle break in the atmosphere (when the ship burns, at what speed, etc), and the whole "min distance over ground" thing. Or better yet, just make an "arcade/simulation" switch, and let people choose between two consistent but diverging control setups (instead of what you usually see with Sony: a uniform average between the most extreme "everything on autopilot" view, and the "purist who thinks planet orbits are too complicated to have in a game anyway, so everything must be made static instead to give the appearance of a realistic space-view" view, and the "what about something that actually is playable, kind of thing, people?" view. And then ending up pleasing absolutely no one in the end.

Adding a simulation/arcade switch would fix that, if the simulation settings for example then is tied to settings not exposed in the immediate shipglobals file, but also to distances planets are away from each other, sizes, rotation, atmosphere depth, etc. So HG could specialize the arcade settings for what supposedly Sony people want, and then actually use the myriad of settings and features present in the code for something, for those of us who would like to see what HG actually has made.

Phasing out the overlays as well is also a good idea, but they should go further and allow settings for actually removing all of it, and then having a target for PC that aims for higher resolutions, less blurring, and higher detail. Instead of what we have now, which is a baseline with a bunch of full-scene filters that make the game chug to a halt on any setup once you increase the resolution past the ps4 upscale target. Because the game looks ridiculously good on higher resolutions, because so much of the cheap filtering early in the graphics pipeline is so successful, and gives the game the aesthetic we saw in the trailers. Rather than the whole "Halo with flashing blue lights on top of blurred background with dof on the wrong focal point always" thing Sony loves so much.

While I think that, I think we should respect two things:
1. HG might get into serious legal trouble if they even silently approve of disassembling even just the psarc archiving format Sony owns, and that the game is packaged with. Running uncompressed files speeds up certain things, some streaming issues disappear. And of course it's the same with the way the graphics pipeline works, where just the settings for the depht of field files is something HG can't expose from the user-point of view as long as they're using the licensed sdk. HG can't actually do anything about that as long as they're involved with Sony.

2. Support for mods will have to be unofficial. HG would be well served by helping make tools that depend on their serialization format, or exposing part of the foundation they are using. Rather than having modders gradually pilfer the decrypt-routines and field values and format from the disassembly, until the only way they can stop the more comprehensive mods is to add quirks to the serialization process that makes the mods stop working every patch, or set the modders back to square 1.5 with every update. But they can't, even if they wanted to, actually make modding supported officially when it involves either their or Sony's property.

So if HG wants to solve this, rather than seriously think they can make a classic by incrementally inching towards some fanbase feedback target that just waves in all directions at once -- then they need to invent a way around the platform parity problem.

I've suggested a sequel once Sony's support-agreement expires, but before Sony's publishing agreement expires (which might be never) where HG then could insist that because they have a different feature set in their game now, it is effectively a new game altogether. And then they could leave the Romance and Mako/buggy + Stronghold bullshit behind in NMS1, and add the stuff that never was "feature complete" to the point where it didn't have to be cut to the sequel.

Because none of this will be possible to add in the current Sony build anyway. That's an important part - that there's a legal problem involved with using a similar foundation for two versions of the game that have different features, that HG can't get around now. And that's likely why the ps4PRO thing is what they've targeted as the upper limit, and is what dictates what the rest of the versions will look and play like. Perhaps they'll be able to smuggle in parts of what they wanted, but it'll be like pouring jet-fuel into the tank of a tractor - it's a complete waste of time, you're not going to get to space anyway.

The other option would be to involve lawyers, and insist that the game that is currently deployed and tied to Sony's publishing agreement is one game. And then define that the game with other features and feature sets is a different game altogether that can be deployed separately. Sony would contest that, and want to squash it out of purely protecting their platform reputation. But that's the only way we're actually going to see any of these zombie-like gameplay tweaks removed again, and the missing features (that demonstrably exist in the game's deployed code) included.

I'm just saying - that won't happen, ever. And the best we can hope for is that they won't start encrypting the executables and the serialization formats, while cutting off the option to add partial inserts for certain script-commands. They could do that at any time, though. And I think that the last patch is basically explaining how far we can go: we will never have access to their scripting tools, to be able to create new events, type.. freighters on traderoutes, ships catching up with you in space turning up on the comms, giving you offers of various kinds, to get into battles or defend sectors, go to new systems to do such and such. And the angle to get access to editing the actual events that are in there is also being removed fairly deliberately.

So that's the extent to how much mods can actually do now, and we're not going to see any changes to this before someone manages to reverse-engineer HG's scripting language and half of the toolchain. It's just not going to happen.

I think you are spot on about Sony ready to roll over HG like a steamroller if things go even in the slightest way against them or portrays them in a negative light. And sadly I think HG may have bought into a perpetual never ending contract with them as well.

What we saw of Sean Murray from all those interviews was a person who was a nervous speaker who did not want to say anything that would have disappointed, I still find it hard to believe that not a single person at HG did not at one point in time tell Sean "You really need to be careful as to what your saying in these interviews"

And in a similar thought I am sure a person like that could have been swayed easily by Sony to more or less sell their rights away, I am not sure we will ever know what really had/has or will be going on.

They had one hell of a concept for a game and from what people are saying it is already set up to be greater then it is in the programming but for some reason it is not being allowed to show its full potential.

I feel bad for any developer that joins into a agreement with Sony, but I also feel a great deal of contempt for them as well since it is no secret how Sony conducts themselves.

Think the high point for me was when Yoshida was asked about their relationship with HG, and ended up casually remarking that they owe their existence to Sony. Not as a joke, just as if stating the obvious. Because that's really their attitude. Not that HG is contracted to do a job for them, or to produce some product to specification - they feel they are paying a studio to please specific people's whims.

We saw this as testers several times - people blamed directors, people blamed fans, people said the suggestions came from "feedback", etc. But no one in the test-groups made any sort of suggestion resembling what we got. And the PR guy at the studio admitted privately to me later that the studio itself didn't decide on changing the design of the game two weeks before release. So by process of elimination, the list of possible sources for these administrative decisions is very short.

I don't think this is very unique in the industry either. DICE Sweden, for example (they are Digital Illusions, legendary group/developer, produced any amount of super-talent in the industry). They ended up not being very happy with how EA tweaked their games, or how EA blamed DICE for EA's broken server backend and RSP-schema (global slots set up for a presumed peak number of players. Ensuring that everyone will have laggy players or be playing at servers on the opposite end of the world).

And instead of fixing that, they actually order specific technical development solutions from DICE that of course are easy to implement (60hz! 120Hz!, etc. And back to reducing the bandwidth and throughput requirements so you can play the game on a mobile phone link), but won't actually solve the problem. This has been going on since Bad Company 2 launched). And once that fails to impress anyone but the idiots in their immediate true believer sphere, and DICE then presumably just say: you know, this is bullshit, it doesn't make technical sense, you're wasting money, and our fans are getting pissed off about your market focus - this is a good product, and your support is shit. EA then creates a new studio called DICE in the US, that then replaces the tweaking process that presumably was left to a room full of monkeys before. No change in the approach happens, but the contract terms should be easier to deal with, at least. The actual games, of course, don't get better. Even if DICE LA are very good at "talking" with journalists, like when Totalbiscuit managed to name DICE LA "studio of the year", in spite of not actually having made anything, not having managed any productions, and literally only having been in charge of the PR push for Battlefield: Fuzz, and the selling of E-sports events for BF4.

Anyway. What annoys me is that after these hilarious decisions that crash the games are made, and frequently ends studios, etc. After that, Sony's people are allowed to get away with blaming the developer for any failure, without anyone at the development studio being in a position to even softly suggest some sort of disagreement. You would think that once these studios disband the stories would come out, of course.

But what happens is that the Geoff Keighley's are invested in pleasing whatever any publisher is selling, that they won't dare to run stories like this. And even if they did, the loudest fans would axe them to death afterwards anyway.

So no wonder we ran into people at Sony who acted like they were inviting us into some sort of honored dark cult, into the inner circle, when we got upgraded to level 5, or whatever it was. No wonder they have these obsessions with manager positions and undersecretaries that would have made even the Bush-administration start cackling in laughter. Because they see themselves as an integral part of not just selling the product, but in producing and conceiving the ideas and the way the product is enjoyed.

And I don't think it's unique to Sony. But Sony are one of the few publishers who actually do end studios with their manager bullshit. I'm hoping HG can extract themselves from it somehow. I hope they are wise enough to engage lawyers to explore what they need to do to extract themselves from Sony, so they know what they can laugh off and what they are legally obligated to do. So they can end the "cooperation" professionally, which Sony's people then will be pressured to accept, if only for the sake of appearances.

But I'm kind of expecting, with how ridiculous these things have been before, that if there's a settlement behind the scenes, it will involve a threat of opening some bullshit legal process on an "unresolved issue", that then threatens the studio to keep quiet and basically ensures they'll never create anything without Sony's approval in the industry again. I.e., "displease us, and we will unleash our lawyers on you - we spent 10 million to get hold of Geohot's allowance, even though he wasn't the one who made the hack, but merely publicized the theory of it. And we still own Jerry Lambert's face after he spited us in a Bridgestone commercial. Smile and wave, or we'll get you, you know we can".