Turning is the generalized term describing three different types of movement. Pitch, Yaw, Roll. Furthermore, among any type of movement, there is both acceleration and speed to account for (and probably much more!). Rotational kinematics are by no means a simple problem to tackle.
Though resistance is minimal in space, resistance as a physical factor still is necessary to give the \"feel\" of spacebattles we know and love from SciFi.
There is no upper limit known in space for top speed. Speed can be considered a function, not of mass but of resistance (surface area) vs thrust. Acceleration is a function of mass vs thrust. Both stats: speed and acceleration, must be applied to all three rotational movements for a realistic feel. Alexander Prime has some examples above.
Any rotational physics will have a natural opportunity-cost relationship with linear physics. A sphere or cube may rotate quite well, but will fail (given equal mass and thrust) at approaching the top linear speed of a pencil-thin rocket-style ship. However, off a starting line, with equal mass and thrust they should be neck and neck until the sphere/cube hits its earlier top speed and the rocket continues acceleration, pulling away.
A player directly controls acceleration and deceleration, but not speed. Control comes as the player touches \"accelerators\" for various directions.
There are 6 accelerators, each with 6 related decelerators to account for:
Forward-reverse currently accounts for the primary thruster direction, the z-value. (w-s on keyboard)
Height accounts for another. (q-e on keys)
Left-Right Strafe another. (a-d on keys)
These summarize the linear physics.
Roll is the first rotational force. (z-x on keys or L-ctrl+mouse)
Pitch is controlled by the y-axis of the mouse.
Yaw is controlled by the x-axis of the mouse.
These summarize the rotational physics.
There are 6 faces on a cube. Six directions to orient any block, such as a thruster or a rotational thruster.
The rotational thruster should be an independent block from the original thruster in order to function.
This addition would make the most sense for creative ship design if thrusters themselves became directional. For example, if some thrusters would be required to be oriented \"backward\" for braking and the ship be hindered from linear movements without thrusters (traditional, linear thrusters) placed in those directions.
The term for the relationship of rotational force with distance from the center of an object is called torque. Maneuvering thrusters would generate more torque the greater their distance from the ship center.
I like the idea of maneuvering thrusters, while the implementation seems possible it could also be potentially awkward. Developers will have to consider risk/reward vs other projects, as always. That said, in spite of the complexity, something like this has my vote, because I can, as always, trust balance in the hands of a game designer, who watches more closely than I this very thing.
P.S. What I really want to see is someone forget to put brakes on a massive battleship and never be able to stop it for all eternity as it plummets far away into the heavens. Haha, sucker. Your final frontier is being pushed by an unmanned juggernaut of random collision. I\'m sure the first intelligent civilization it encounters will be a bit puzzled...
Also, a ship with a design flaw or battle damage might not, in the words of the immortal zoolander, be an \"ambi-turner.\" (I got so shot-up that now I only turn left, help!) In Sci-Fi lots of ships wind up \"dead in the water.\" Otherwise fully functional but unable to effectively maneuver. I\'d like to see a few ships that can spin like a one-winged housefly but can\'t actually get anywhere without a bit of repair work.
