This is supposed to be "The best damn space sim, period!" That would be Honor Harrington, The Expanse, Traveller Book 2 combat, etc. "The best damn space sim period" isn't Snoopy vs. the Red Baron which is, apparently what we signed up for.
Yes, this is what we all signed up for because those who understand physics, know that player interactions would not happen in a playground with an arbitrarily high velocity of the ships. Not only this, but players would be crashing into things like planets just as they do when driving in the snow. I think you need to think about it and you'll agree, CIG was correct when from the start they recognized that we can't have arbitrarily high relative velocities in the game. Nothing would function in a playable way.
If you want to complain about this, think about the velocities given laser weapons and what happened when CIG originally released tachyon weapons. It sounded like zero time to target (emulating light speed) was a good idea until they found no one was missing their target with those weapons. CIG was then forced to nerf them, as they made the game unplayable. Think what would happen EVERY time a ship was hit by a tiny asteroid--BOOM! No ship left at all. Ships can't fly through asteroid fields, but the experience is fun! If Han Solo can do it, I wanna do it. Likewise again, turret play is artificially enhanced for good reasons. What we found during WWII is that even the best turrets like those found on the B-29 have virtually no effect. The best gunners flying the best turrets simply did not hit attacking fighters sufficient to keep them safe. What eventually turned the tide of the air war over Europe was the P-51, chiefly because it had enough range to guard the big bombers from the Luftwaffe. Real physics would make all turret play useless--it simply would not exist in game. Instead of trying to be accurate here, CIG instead tries to introduce play that emulates turrets and stealth found on the seas--and it works. It makes great gameplay. Witness too the loss of tactics like blockades and minefields. Without serious departures from reality, those tactics would have no place in the game. With a limit to velocity like we find on the seas, those dynamics can have a place.
I once saw a great interview with George Lucas where the interviewer challenged him about turrets and he responded that they were indeed emulating naval tactics rather than aerial, because we know aerial gunners never hit their targets.
Space physics makes some things too easy and some things too hard, and that doesn't make for a challenging game. It makes for a game no one will play.
BTW, I like the Expanse too, but they also don't accurately represent real physics. Many of the maneuvers seen by the Rocinante represent hundreds of gees acceleration that would kill the crew and render their ships into molten slag. The same is true when viewing aircraft in cinema, where they're supposedly going Mach 5 pulling "slow" turns. In reality, craft like the Blackbird traverse whole states before they change direction even a few degrees, because higher turn rates would generate gee forces sufficient to generate a rapid, unscheduled disassembly.
I think CIG is still learning and I disagree with their call back in 3.14 to make all combat closer. They killed the ranges of most guns, eliminated sniping entirely. I don't like it, but they want to see Snoopy antics. There should be an ability to dogfight. You don't really have that in space. If they cut dogfighting entirely, how many players do you think would stay and how many would leave?
One thing I can say is, the combat is more exciting and better than before. Players aren't forced to joust they way they used to be. That much is entirely good, IMHO.
