I think the whole argument here is resting on the wrong terminology. I don't have the beta, but given the descriptions I've seen/read I have to agree with the proposed overhauls here.

More importantly, it's not a matter of realism as it is a matter of authenticity. Sticking a bunch of planets in a big cloud and linking them with cute little lines might make it easy from a gameplay perspective but it makes it lame from an authentic standpoint. I'm not asking for anyone to come out with some sort of detailed astrophysionomial algorithm calculating the exact orbital speed of each planet around their transaxiormial suns or to generate realistic asteroid belts where each rock is thousands of miles apart from its nearest neighbor and precisely oriented around its heuganejaysuistic axis; instead, I'm just asking for it to *feel* like I am moving my ships through a solar system.

Phased lanes should be done away with; space is *big* and it just feels wrong to be arbitrarily constrained to a few narrow lanes for no reason other than the fact that that's how it was programmed. Instead of phase lanes, there should be nebulas or gas clouds in between planets to set up ambushes or secret shipyards. There should be asteroid belts to hide in. There should be black holes and cosmic maelstroms that are a danger to fleets and can destroy them. Imagine this scenario: a fleet is traveling in open space between a nebula and a black hole. An enemy fleet emerges from the nebula, ambushing them on their flank and, in their hasty retreat to react, the fleet is pushed further and further back and is sucked into and destroyed by the black hole. My issue is that Ironclad is defending the phased space lanes by hiding behind the explanation that THEY and ONLY THEY are what gives terrain to the game, whereas, as the example shows, this is completely false. There are plenty of ways to terrain space, it just takes time and a little creativity. Admittedly, it would take *a lot* of time for a game on the scale of Sins.

Basically, it should look like I'm managing a solar empire, not a bunch of circles linked by lines that generate numbers which let me make more ships.

Yes indeed, it's a matter of starting with an idea and then making it practical. Maybe not black holes, but you seem to have ignored the possibility of putting maelstroms, suns, or any other sort of violent space phenomena in. Hell, make stuff up - I'm sure we haven't discovered every potential entity in space, so be creative. Phase lanes are not creative. They are derivative and boring, precisely because they have been done before and make things arbitrarily narrow.

the only real thing that fixed lane travel does is eliminate those cities in between the planetary orbits

and again i think the phase lanes should have to be put in by the player after the game starts

that way you can have the fast traval of the lanes and the openness of space without the lanes

I disagree.
I feel that both realism and authenticity take a backseat to gameplay and fun. If an open game is actaully more fun then with lanes, then I'm all for the open ended model. But I don't think it is more fun.

I think the game becomes unmanagable and far to chaotic to be enjoyed, in a pure open model. Not that the idea is inherently bad, or that lanes are the end-all of game making, but I say "Go with what's fun"

the only problem with this argument is that unless you have the phase interrupter then the game really is open becouse enamy ships can jump before defenses can get to them to stop them