fun, more detailed game physics > 90s game physics
Fix'd. If not, why not keep TIE Fighter's visuals too? Why have joystick support or better resolutions? Why bother with a new TIE Fighter at all? :P
Descent (and Descent: Freespace) came out in the 90s and had (marginally more) more advance physics. Because they knew they needed them. But I'd settle for something beyond "Ships travel in perfectly straight lines at a set top speed", I don't need "real world physics" in something that entirely avoids that.
Blah blah: plot device to explain why people don't just throw gigantic solid blocks of heavy metals at planets at lightspeed to annihilate them, because it would annihilate everything and the universe wouldn't be plausible because a whacko with a spaceship is as powerful as Moff Tarkin
I'm okay with this
Newton doesn't exist in Star Wars anyways. In TIE Fighter or any of the other Larry Holland games, when you turn off your engines in space, you come to a complete stop.
Well, yeah. He wasn't born yet.
Purely non-Newtonian physics inevitably feel wrong to me. Then again, I got into TIE Fighter because I loved flight sims. Really, any similar game would really benefit from some sense of momentum and application of other forces, rather than "Your fighter can turn in any direction without any sort of problems, only limited by turn speed".
I think it'd make for more interesting dogfighting. Force people to do something other than try and out-turn each other for ten minutes. But, that's only me. I'm sure that would piss people off as well.
I like IL-2 too, but I don't think Newtonian physics necessarily help Star Wars. I mean, look at how big the engines on a SD are, compared to an X-wing. That would mean a SD would be much faster than an X-wing in space.
Blah blah: plot device to explain why people don't just throw gigantic solid blocks of heavy metals at planets at lightspeed to annihilate them, because it would annihilate everything and the universe wouldn't be plausible because a whacko with a spaceship is as powerful as Moff Tarkin
I'm okay with this
Newton doesn't exist in Star Wars anyways. In TIE Fighter or any of the other Larry Holland games, when you turn off your engines in space, you come to a complete stop.
Well, yeah. He wasn't born yet.
Purely non-Newtonian physics inevitably feel wrong to me. Then again, I got into TIE Fighter because I loved flight sims. Really, any similar game would really benefit from some sense of momentum and application of other forces, rather than "Your fighter can turn in any direction without any sort of problems, only limited by turn speed".
I think it'd make for more interesting dogfighting. Force people to do something other than try and out-turn each other for ten minutes. But, that's only me. I'm sure that would piss people off as well.
I like IL-2 too, but I don't think Newtonian physics necessarily help Star Wars. I mean, look at how big the engines on a SD are, compared to an X-wing. That would mean a SD would be much faster than an X-wing in space.
Except the apparent mechanics in Star Wars can be very, very easily subverted, so that's not a problem. Mass is an issue too, look how much mass an SD would have compared to an X-Wing. And then there's engine output. That will not be a problem. I haven't said I'm demanding strict Newtonian physics, since those are flat-out impossible in the setting, but really, fighter combat needs to evolve beyond "Empty space, point your fighter in any direction to go that way in a completely straight line at any time".
Honestly, apparently, a Star Destroyer can go 40% of the speed of a X-Wing anyway (something like that), if traveling in a straight line.
In-planet combat would be a completely different matter--for something like that, I'm aware that Star Wars ships have gravity-defying technology, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have things like momentum in maneuvering or weather conditions. Likewise, in space, make it more interesting than ships that just go in the direction you point them endlessly. Why can't I slide like I see ships doing constantly in the movies? How come ship damage has no effect on maneuverability (sort of the engines just stopping completely, which rarely happens).
Ship maneuverability really should mean something besides "how fast can you turn left or right". But that's only my opinion, which is why I acknowledged purists wouldn't like it.
fun, more detailed game physics > 90s game physics
Fix'd. If not, why not keep TIE Fighter's visuals too? Why have joystick support or better resolutions? Why bother with a new TIE Fighter at all? :P
Descent (and Descent: Freespace) came out in the 90s and had (marginally more) more advance physics. Because they knew they needed them. But I'd settle for something beyond "Ships travel in perfectly straight lines at a set top speed", I don't need "real world physics" in something that entirely avoids that.
Descent, and not Freespace, was still dominated by the strafe-movement physics of 90s fps physics, though. Which is what made it, and those other games, fun.
So, really, flying in a straight line was the slowest thing you could do.
Just once I'd like to hear Papa Palpatine or Vader say "Tea. Earl Grey. Hot."
And then force choking a guy who doesn't make it well.
And yeah, TNG is full of incredibly boring people. Really stands out in comparison to the original series, where the average Starfleet officer's interests seemed to be babes, brew, brawling (and chess).
Just once I'd like to hear Papa Palpatine or Vader say "Tea. Earl Grey. Hot."
And then force choking a guy who doesn't make it well.
And yeah, TNG is full of incredibly boring people. Really stands out in comparison to the original series, where the average Starfleet officer's interests seemed to be babes, brew, brawling (and chess).
60's Star Trek was a lot like NASA of the 60's- a bunch of smart, hard-partying guys. Astronauts back then were like brainy rockstars.
TNG was like NASA of the 90's- boring, overly-bureaucratic and completely devoid of risk-taking or sexiness. I mean, Troi was the show's sex appeal.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
0
Options
chiasaur11Never doubt a raccoon.Do you think it's trademarked?Registered Userregular
Just once I'd like to hear Papa Palpatine or Vader say "Tea. Earl Grey. Hot."
And then force choking a guy who doesn't make it well.
And yeah, TNG is full of incredibly boring people. Really stands out in comparison to the original series, where the average Starfleet officer's interests seemed to be babes, brew, brawling (and chess).
60's Star Trek was a lot like NASA of the 60's- a bunch of smart, hard-partying guys. Astronauts back then were like brainy rockstars.
TNG was like NASA of the 90's- boring, overly-bureaucratic and completely devoid of risk-taking or sexiness. I mean, Troi was the show's sex appeal.
Does Deep Space 9 mean the NASA of the future is running morally ambiguous military operations?
fun, more detailed game physics > 90s game physics
Fix'd. If not, why not keep TIE Fighter's visuals too? Why have joystick support or better resolutions? Why bother with a new TIE Fighter at all? :P
Descent (and Descent: Freespace) came out in the 90s and had (marginally more) more advance physics. Because they knew they needed them. But I'd settle for something beyond "Ships travel in perfectly straight lines at a set top speed", I don't need "real world physics" in something that entirely avoids that.
Descent, and not Freespace, was still dominated by the strafe-movement physics of 90s fps physics, though. Which is what made it, and those other games, fun.
So, really, flying in a straight line was the slowest thing you could do.
And X-Wing and TIE Fighter have no form of strafing or sliding. Descent would have, obviously, sucked without that feature, and TIE Fighter could benefit from that small step, even if it is faster paced.
Synthesis on
0
Options
L Ron HowardThe duckMinnesotaRegistered Userregular
edited February 2011
There was a game that I saw that was trying to basically create Descent/X-Wing in Newtonian space using as close to real physics as possible.
IIRC, it was abandoned because there is no way to control it well enough. Even if you have two joysticks, one for pitch and yaw and the other for slewing, you're still missing thrust from the main engine (in the back) and rotation. Not to mention if you add things such as different weapons and weapon configurations/hardpoints, shield options, sensor configurations, etc.
It was also abandoned because it was boring as hell. In even small to medium sized maps, you end up playing a space version of a submarine simulator, making ever-so-minute adjustments and watching your sensor trying to find the other guy hoping he won't see you; hoping you run into/see him first. But the second you did anything to engage him, he saw you. Basically, you'd float around for a really stupid long time, and then the game would be over and both players would be dead.
I can't remember the name at the moment, and I don't really care to go look it up, because it just wasn't fun.
Basically any attempt to change Star Wars from "WWII naval battles in space" to "actual space combat" would pretty much wreck everything.
Look at a Star Destroyer. I think it's one of the coolest looking SW spaceships, but it makes no sense as a combat SPACEship. The vast majority of the guns are topside. That's good if you're a warship on Earth being attacked by dive bombers, but in space you can be attacked from any side. There's almost no defenses on the SD's belly.
Battles would be confusing messes, because there'd be no need for all the ships to align along the same plane. Half the ships might be upside down - assuming one can even define which direction is "up" in space.
You wouldn't even have anything recognizable as a dogfight. Ships don't need to bank in space. The space shuttle doesn't bank, it has booster jets on its sides that fire when it wants to move laterally.
You'd have no sound of screaming TIE engines, or lasers being fired. Explosions would be tiny, as there is only the tiny amount of oxygen in the fighter to sustain them. Ships with engines running should be constantly accelerating, instead we have constant thrust = constant velocity.
You definitely can do Newtonian physics simply, there was a BSG mod for Freespace 2 that I checked out which did exactly that. You don't even need one joystick lol.
I love shows with real spaceship physics. I'm cool with FTL and artifical gravity, etc. but everything else should be as "hard" as possible. BSG fighter battles and strafing runs were far more enjoyable than Star Wars ones IMO.
You'd have to do away with the Force as well, which is basically, let's face it, magic that a wizard did. If sound can't travel through empty vacuum, telepathic brain waves can't. If they existed.
It would pretty much remove a lot of stuff from those movies.
Basically any attempt to change Star Wars from "WWII naval battles in space" to "actual space combat" would pretty much wreck everything.
Look at a Star Destroyer. I think it's one of the coolest looking SW spaceships, but it makes no sense as a combat SPACEship. The vast majority of the guns are topside. That's good if you're a warship on Earth being attacked by dive bombers, but in space you can be attacked from any side. There's almost no defenses on the SD's belly.
Battles would be confusing messes, because there'd be no need for all the ships to align along the same plane. Half the ships might be upside down - assuming one can even define which direction is "up" in space.
You wouldn't even have anything recognizable as a dogfight. Ships don't need to bank in space. The space shuttle doesn't bank, it has booster jets on its sides that fire when it wants to move laterally.
You'd have no sound of screaming TIE engines, or lasers being fired. Explosions would be tiny, as there is only the tiny amount of oxygen in the fighter to sustain them. Ships with engines running should be constantly accelerating, instead we have constant thrust = constant velocity.
The bolded drives me crazy in every sci-fi universe. I mean, it just... space is huge, and I... What? you blockaded them? Huh? Space borders? What? I can't wrap my head around concepts that involve an infinitely expanding void.
That said, I can't name anything I love more than how space fights are portrayed in Star Wars, anyways. Just dog fightin' with lasers and pewpewpew all over. I can push past the logic-disconnect for the sake of "HOLY CRAP, LASER-SUPER-DEATH-RAY-ENGINES WITH MEGA-ZAPPING-STUFF!"
I guess what I'm saying is I love Star Destroyers. Things are just the greatest. This is why Empire at War is one of the best things the Star Wars EU has given its fans. It could benefit from a Y-axis or something, and not being so God damned ugly, but targetting a space-fish-cruiser and bustin' their engines, then tractoring them and letting some bounty hunters rip 'em up is the best RTS experience I've ever had. Still waiting for "Star Wars: Total War in Space, Now with More Pews".
You definitely can do Newtonian physics simply, there was a BSG mod for Freespace 2 that I checked out which did exactly that. You don't even need one joystick lol.
I love shows with real spaceship physics. I'm cool with FTL and artifical gravity, etc. but everything else should be as "hard" as possible. BSG fighter battles and strafing runs were far more enjoyable than Star Wars ones IMO.
How good a fight is, whether between spaceships or people, has more to do with choreography and cinematography than physics. The opening scene in Ep3 could have had 100% perfect Newtonian physics and it still would've sucked because there was so much crap on the screen no one could tell what was even going on.
Ep4 Battle of Yavin + wacky movie physics > Ep3 Battle of whatever + 100% perfect physics.
You'd have to do away with the Force as well, which is basically, let's face it, magic that a wizard did. If sound can't travel through empty vacuum, telepathic brain waves can't. If they existed.
It would pretty much remove a lot of stuff from those movies.
Honestly I'm cool with Space Wizards, I just can't stand space friction and space 2D nonsense.
Babylon 5 starfighters obeyed Newtonian physics and they had psychics. The concepts aren't mutually exclusive.
Seems like as good a time as any to ask--anyone care to recommend any Empire or War (or expansion) mods?
I'm mostly looking for mods with really big character rosters, mods that include major visual upgrades (Thrawn's Revenge or the FX Mods are examples) or mods that really expand the scale of the battles and galaxy to actually fit Star Wars. Anyone found one they like?
Basically any attempt to change Star Wars from "WWII naval battles in space" to "actual space combat" would pretty much wreck everything.
Look at a Star Destroyer. I think it's one of the coolest looking SW spaceships, but it makes no sense as a combat SPACEship. The vast majority of the guns are topside. That's good if you're a warship on Earth being attacked by dive bombers, but in space you can be attacked from any side. There's almost no defenses on the SD's belly.
Battles would be confusing messes, because there'd be no need for all the ships to align along the same plane. Half the ships might be upside down - assuming one can even define which direction is "up" in space.
You wouldn't even have anything recognizable as a dogfight. Ships don't need to bank in space. The space shuttle doesn't bank, it has booster jets on its sides that fire when it wants to move laterally.
You'd have no sound of screaming TIE engines, or lasers being fired. Explosions would be tiny, as there is only the tiny amount of oxygen in the fighter to sustain them. Ships with engines running should be constantly accelerating, instead we have constant thrust = constant velocity.
The bolded drives me crazy in every sci-fi universe. I mean, it just... space is huge, and I... What? you blockaded them? Huh? Space borders? What? I can't wrap my head around concepts that involve an infinitely expanding void.
Actually, Star Wars has this explained in a variety of EU books. The Star Wars galaxy is extremely hazardous. The only way to safely travel through it in hyperspace is along very specific and mapped out Hyperspace Lanes, that are known to be free of obstruction. Even the slightest miscalculation could send you jumping into a star or something.
Therefore, to blockade a system in Star Wars, you simply need to block the small Hyperspace Lanes that leads to and from that system. The Empire does this by sticking an Interdictor cruiser and some support vessels in the middle of the Hyperspace Lane. The Interdictor creates a Gravity well inside the Hyperspace Lane, which forces any ship out of Hyperspace, at which point they open fire and destroy said vessel. While you won't stop everything, you'll probably stop a good 99% of the traffic in and out of a system. If you keep more ships inside the system, you can clean up the rest of the traffic that avoids the Hyperspace Lanes.
AspectVoid on
PSN|AspectVoid
0
Options
chiasaur11Never doubt a raccoon.Do you think it's trademarked?Registered Userregular
Basically any attempt to change Star Wars from "WWII naval battles in space" to "actual space combat" would pretty much wreck everything.
Look at a Star Destroyer. I think it's one of the coolest looking SW spaceships, but it makes no sense as a combat SPACEship. The vast majority of the guns are topside. That's good if you're a warship on Earth being attacked by dive bombers, but in space you can be attacked from any side. There's almost no defenses on the SD's belly.
Battles would be confusing messes, because there'd be no need for all the ships to align along the same plane. Half the ships might be upside down - assuming one can even define which direction is "up" in space.
You wouldn't even have anything recognizable as a dogfight. Ships don't need to bank in space. The space shuttle doesn't bank, it has booster jets on its sides that fire when it wants to move laterally.
You'd have no sound of screaming TIE engines, or lasers being fired. Explosions would be tiny, as there is only the tiny amount of oxygen in the fighter to sustain them. Ships with engines running should be constantly accelerating, instead we have constant thrust = constant velocity.
The bolded drives me crazy in every sci-fi universe. I mean, it just... space is huge, and I... What? you blockaded them? Huh? Space borders? What? I can't wrap my head around concepts that involve an infinitely expanding void.
Actually, Star Wars has this explained in a variety of EU books. The Star Wars galaxy is extremely hazardous. The only way to safely travel through it in hyperspace is along very specific and mapped out Hyperspace Lanes, that are known to be free of obstruction. Even the slightest miscalculation could send you jumping into a star or something.
Therefore, to blockade a system in Star Wars, you simply need to block the small Hyperspace Lanes that leads to and from that system. The Empire does this by sticking an Interdictor cruiser and some support vessels in the middle of the Hyperspace Lane. The Interdictor creates a Gravity well inside the Hyperspace Lane, which forces any ship out of Hyperspace, at which point they open fire and destroy said vessel. While you won't stop everything, you'll probably stop a good 99% of the traffic in and out of a system. If you keep more ships inside the system, you can clean up the rest of the traffic that avoids the Hyperspace Lanes.
Except Solo.
Solo is probably the bane of Imperial traffic cops, moonshine regulators, and similar the galaxy over.
I don't know if there's really only a certain number of hyperspace routes that exist, as opposed to there only being a certain number that have been charted and are regarded as safe. If you're on top of a mountain, you can ski down whatever side of it you want, but I'd recommend taking the designated route.
That's about it. It's rarely touched upon, but someone actually has to blindly explore new hyperspace routes. Well, not blindly, but they have to make calculations and guesses on things that aren't certain, and if they make a mistake they're dead.
Actually, Star Wars has this explained in a variety of EU books. The Star Wars galaxy is extremely hazardous. The only way to safely travel through it in hyperspace is along very specific and mapped out Hyperspace Lanes, that are known to be free of obstruction. Even the slightest miscalculation could send you jumping into a star or something.
Therefore, to blockade a system in Star Wars, you simply need to block the small Hyperspace Lanes that leads to and from that system. The Empire does this by sticking an Interdictor cruiser and some support vessels in the middle of the Hyperspace Lane. The Interdictor creates a Gravity well inside the Hyperspace Lane, which forces any ship out of Hyperspace, at which point they open fire and destroy said vessel. While you won't stop everything, you'll probably stop a good 99% of the traffic in and out of a system. If you keep more ships inside the system, you can clean up the rest of the traffic that avoids the Hyperspace Lanes.
Right, a wizard did it. I know. :P
Like I said, despite sci-fi being completely bonkers with its science, its just so cool, I couldn't care less. I'll take turbo lasers and hyperdrive over real science any day.
Babylon 5 followed proper physics in space and the space battles were great.
There is nothing inherently boring about using proper physics.
Watching the fights on TV was cool, but I'm not so sure about the implementation in games. There is a game where you pilot a starfury: Baylon 5: I Found Her I never got very far with it, but I was also without a flightstick so....
Point being, while watching the combat may be fun and interesting, can you translate that into a game well? Not sure it has been accomplished as yet.
May have to DL and try B5 again now that I have a working stick...
I think the project is defunct now, but IIRC the Freespace 2 Mod "Beyond the Red Line" was a full conversion Battlestar Galactica mod where you fly a viper with newtonian physics.
I remember trying the demo and doing just fine with mouse + keyboard, if it still exists you could give that a shot.
...Look at a Star Destroyer. I think it's one of the coolest looking SW spaceships, but it makes no sense as a combat SPACEship. The vast majority of the guns are topside. That's good if you're a warship on Earth being attacked by dive bombers, but in space you can be attacked from any side. There's almost no defenses on the SD's belly...
It makes some sense though, if you're following the "Best defense is a good offense" strategy.
Assuming you have a limited amount of power for your weapon systems, concentrating them all in the same facing seems logical. As you said, it's space. You should be able to point your weapon side at a target with relatively little trouble assuming you're facing a big ship. This would give you a big concentrated punch to quickly take out a target.
You'd still want to give some defenses to cover the rest of the ship from fighters long enough for it to roll or rotate to bring the big guns to bear then blow the hell out of a big attacker.
The alternative, evenly distributing your weapons to give you a medium punch on all facings, would likely lead to much longer drawn out combats since you wouldn't be able to take down a target nearly as quickly if you can only focus a quarter of your guns on them at a time.
Star Wars navel battles involve a whole lot of rolling and frontage management. They're a lot like oldschool navel battles for that, except with huge lasers instead of cannons.
Well, in reality you'd probably just use missiles. But assuming turret based weapons are awesome in the setting (and turbo-lasers aren't actually lasers so much as plasma bolts that result in giga-ton detonations, seriously they numbers they picked are absurd) you'd probably want to array them at the very top and bottom of your ship and just rotate to broadside the enemy.
Remember each shot has momentum and will rotate your ship, if you place the turrets in a diametrically opposed arrangement then the forces cancel out.
They do use a lot of missiles, but in the Star Wars universe missile countermeasures are strong enough to keep things evened out.
All Star Wars spaceships are also equipped with systems that automatically dampen or negate the effects of recoil, inertia, acceleration, and just about anything else that would prevent a smooth ride. Of course, they can all be tweaked, as demonstrated by Porkins in the EU canon.
What's really bad design though is having an external bridge, with windows no less. Everyone loves the way battleships and aircraft carriers look with that tower in the center, but even they have a Bridge where the guy drives the boat and then a CIC deep in the middle of the ship where people actually get all their data and give orders and whatever.
Lanlaorn on
0
Options
L Ron HowardThe duckMinnesotaRegistered Userregular
edited February 2011
It really is such a shame that when they designed the ships that they were thinking of how well such a thing would function in space as opposed to what would make it look cool in a movie...
The guy actually understood the concepts of racial equality (He wasn't human.), was a good boss (When someone fucked up, rather then force choke them, he listened to what they did, and realized that they had done everything possible to stop a crucial flaw in a system. He then promoted the guy to fix the issue. Turns out, he did, because the next time the flaw was exploited by the Republic, it nearly lead to the crew of the Falcon getting killed.) that didn't kill his troops, and had the un-matched loyalty of everyone that worked underneath him (See: Being a good boss.).
Late on this, but Thrawn has his personal bodyguard, Rukh, kill one of the personnel on the bridge of the Chimera because the guy fucked up on a ... I think tractor beam that the heroes had managed to escape via some space chicanery.
Admittedly, the man tried to explain that it wasn't his fault because he had never been trained in how to counter it (trying to pass blame to your trainer is not classy), but having your bodyguard slaughter him (in what was hinted to be a very unpleasant way) right in front of everyone is the kind of thing Vader would do.
It stood out, really, because Thrawn doesn't seem like that kind of character. He doesn't like wasting resources; I would've expected him to bust the man back down to private, or maybe put him on some other menial duty.
I guess he needed to make an example out of him? I don't know; I guess that's possible. I think Zahn went out of his way on it, though, because he wanted to establish Thrawn as a Bad Guy. It was still early in the first book of the Thrawn Trilogy, and I don't think his character had been fully established yet.
Posts
Fix'd. If not, why not keep TIE Fighter's visuals too? Why have joystick support or better resolutions? Why bother with a new TIE Fighter at all? :P
Descent (and Descent: Freespace) came out in the 90s and had (marginally more) more advance physics. Because they knew they needed them. But I'd settle for something beyond "Ships travel in perfectly straight lines at a set top speed", I don't need "real world physics" in something that entirely avoids that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7cXWrdHshE
So...how 'bout them lightsabers?
I like IL-2 too, but I don't think Newtonian physics necessarily help Star Wars. I mean, look at how big the engines on a SD are, compared to an X-wing. That would mean a SD would be much faster than an X-wing in space.
Except the apparent mechanics in Star Wars can be very, very easily subverted, so that's not a problem. Mass is an issue too, look how much mass an SD would have compared to an X-Wing. And then there's engine output. That will not be a problem. I haven't said I'm demanding strict Newtonian physics, since those are flat-out impossible in the setting, but really, fighter combat needs to evolve beyond "Empty space, point your fighter in any direction to go that way in a completely straight line at any time".
Honestly, apparently, a Star Destroyer can go 40% of the speed of a X-Wing anyway (something like that), if traveling in a straight line.
In-planet combat would be a completely different matter--for something like that, I'm aware that Star Wars ships have gravity-defying technology, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have things like momentum in maneuvering or weather conditions. Likewise, in space, make it more interesting than ships that just go in the direction you point them endlessly. Why can't I slide like I see ships doing constantly in the movies? How come ship damage has no effect on maneuverability (sort of the engines just stopping completely, which rarely happens).
Ship maneuverability really should mean something besides "how fast can you turn left or right". But that's only my opinion, which is why I acknowledged purists wouldn't like it.
At least people in Star Wars hang out in dive bars and listen to cool jizz.
Rigorous Scholarship
I guess they'd have to be. They spend their careers being diligent, compassionate, and wearing pajamas.
The really seedy underbelly of Mos Eisley...
Descent, and not Freespace, was still dominated by the strafe-movement physics of 90s fps physics, though. Which is what made it, and those other games, fun.
So, really, flying in a straight line was the slowest thing you could do.
Anyone want to beta read a paranormal mystery novella? Here's your chance.
stream
They love it when there's hot jizz within ear shot.
And then force choking a guy who doesn't make it well.
And yeah, TNG is full of incredibly boring people. Really stands out in comparison to the original series, where the average Starfleet officer's interests seemed to be babes, brew, brawling (and chess).
Why I fear the ocean.
TNG was like NASA of the 90's- boring, overly-bureaucratic and completely devoid of risk-taking or sexiness. I mean, Troi was the show's sex appeal.
Rigorous Scholarship
Does Deep Space 9 mean the NASA of the future is running morally ambiguous military operations?
Because that would be cool.
Why I fear the ocean.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izYAn7XDFys&feature=related
Rigorous Scholarship
And X-Wing and TIE Fighter have no form of strafing or sliding. Descent would have, obviously, sucked without that feature, and TIE Fighter could benefit from that small step, even if it is faster paced.
IIRC, it was abandoned because there is no way to control it well enough. Even if you have two joysticks, one for pitch and yaw and the other for slewing, you're still missing thrust from the main engine (in the back) and rotation. Not to mention if you add things such as different weapons and weapon configurations/hardpoints, shield options, sensor configurations, etc.
It was also abandoned because it was boring as hell. In even small to medium sized maps, you end up playing a space version of a submarine simulator, making ever-so-minute adjustments and watching your sensor trying to find the other guy hoping he won't see you; hoping you run into/see him first. But the second you did anything to engage him, he saw you. Basically, you'd float around for a really stupid long time, and then the game would be over and both players would be dead.
I can't remember the name at the moment, and I don't really care to go look it up, because it just wasn't fun.
I don't think it made it out of the beta phase.
Look at a Star Destroyer. I think it's one of the coolest looking SW spaceships, but it makes no sense as a combat SPACEship. The vast majority of the guns are topside. That's good if you're a warship on Earth being attacked by dive bombers, but in space you can be attacked from any side. There's almost no defenses on the SD's belly.
Battles would be confusing messes, because there'd be no need for all the ships to align along the same plane. Half the ships might be upside down - assuming one can even define which direction is "up" in space.
You wouldn't even have anything recognizable as a dogfight. Ships don't need to bank in space. The space shuttle doesn't bank, it has booster jets on its sides that fire when it wants to move laterally.
You'd have no sound of screaming TIE engines, or lasers being fired. Explosions would be tiny, as there is only the tiny amount of oxygen in the fighter to sustain them. Ships with engines running should be constantly accelerating, instead we have constant thrust = constant velocity.
I love shows with real spaceship physics. I'm cool with FTL and artifical gravity, etc. but everything else should be as "hard" as possible. BSG fighter battles and strafing runs were far more enjoyable than Star Wars ones IMO.
It would pretty much remove a lot of stuff from those movies.
The bolded drives me crazy in every sci-fi universe. I mean, it just... space is huge, and I... What? you blockaded them? Huh? Space borders? What? I can't wrap my head around concepts that involve an infinitely expanding void.
That said, I can't name anything I love more than how space fights are portrayed in Star Wars, anyways. Just dog fightin' with lasers and pewpewpew all over. I can push past the logic-disconnect for the sake of "HOLY CRAP, LASER-SUPER-DEATH-RAY-ENGINES WITH MEGA-ZAPPING-STUFF!"
I guess what I'm saying is I love Star Destroyers. Things are just the greatest. This is why Empire at War is one of the best things the Star Wars EU has given its fans. It could benefit from a Y-axis or something, and not being so God damned ugly, but targetting a space-fish-cruiser and bustin' their engines, then tractoring them and letting some bounty hunters rip 'em up is the best RTS experience I've ever had. Still waiting for "Star Wars: Total War in Space, Now with More Pews".
How good a fight is, whether between spaceships or people, has more to do with choreography and cinematography than physics. The opening scene in Ep3 could have had 100% perfect Newtonian physics and it still would've sucked because there was so much crap on the screen no one could tell what was even going on.
Ep4 Battle of Yavin + wacky movie physics > Ep3 Battle of whatever + 100% perfect physics.
Honestly I'm cool with Space Wizards, I just can't stand space friction and space 2D nonsense.
Babylon 5 starfighters obeyed Newtonian physics and they had psychics. The concepts aren't mutually exclusive.
There is nothing inherently boring about using proper physics.
I'm mostly looking for mods with really big character rosters, mods that include major visual upgrades (Thrawn's Revenge or the FX Mods are examples) or mods that really expand the scale of the battles and galaxy to actually fit Star Wars. Anyone found one they like?
Vader turns into a scorpion.
Bet you didn't see THAT in the special editions.
Actually, Star Wars has this explained in a variety of EU books. The Star Wars galaxy is extremely hazardous. The only way to safely travel through it in hyperspace is along very specific and mapped out Hyperspace Lanes, that are known to be free of obstruction. Even the slightest miscalculation could send you jumping into a star or something.
Therefore, to blockade a system in Star Wars, you simply need to block the small Hyperspace Lanes that leads to and from that system. The Empire does this by sticking an Interdictor cruiser and some support vessels in the middle of the Hyperspace Lane. The Interdictor creates a Gravity well inside the Hyperspace Lane, which forces any ship out of Hyperspace, at which point they open fire and destroy said vessel. While you won't stop everything, you'll probably stop a good 99% of the traffic in and out of a system. If you keep more ships inside the system, you can clean up the rest of the traffic that avoids the Hyperspace Lanes.
Except Solo.
Solo is probably the bane of Imperial traffic cops, moonshine regulators, and similar the galaxy over.
Why I fear the ocean.
There's nothing inherently entertaining about using proper physics either.
Anyone want to beta read a paranormal mystery novella? Here's your chance.
stream
Right, a wizard did it. I know. :P
Like I said, despite sci-fi being completely bonkers with its science, its just so cool, I couldn't care less. I'll take turbo lasers and hyperdrive over real science any day.
Watching the fights on TV was cool, but I'm not so sure about the implementation in games. There is a game where you pilot a starfury: Baylon 5: I Found Her I never got very far with it, but I was also without a flightstick so....
Point being, while watching the combat may be fun and interesting, can you translate that into a game well? Not sure it has been accomplished as yet.
May have to DL and try B5 again now that I have a working stick...
I remember trying the demo and doing just fine with mouse + keyboard, if it still exists you could give that a shot.
It makes some sense though, if you're following the "Best defense is a good offense" strategy.
Assuming you have a limited amount of power for your weapon systems, concentrating them all in the same facing seems logical. As you said, it's space. You should be able to point your weapon side at a target with relatively little trouble assuming you're facing a big ship. This would give you a big concentrated punch to quickly take out a target.
You'd still want to give some defenses to cover the rest of the ship from fighters long enough for it to roll or rotate to bring the big guns to bear then blow the hell out of a big attacker.
The alternative, evenly distributing your weapons to give you a medium punch on all facings, would likely lead to much longer drawn out combats since you wouldn't be able to take down a target nearly as quickly if you can only focus a quarter of your guns on them at a time.
Anyone want to beta read a paranormal mystery novella? Here's your chance.
stream
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
Remember each shot has momentum and will rotate your ship, if you place the turrets in a diametrically opposed arrangement then the forces cancel out.
All Star Wars spaceships are also equipped with systems that automatically dampen or negate the effects of recoil, inertia, acceleration, and just about anything else that would prevent a smooth ride. Of course, they can all be tweaked, as demonstrated by Porkins in the EU canon.
Anyone want to beta read a paranormal mystery novella? Here's your chance.
stream
Late on this, but Thrawn has his personal bodyguard, Rukh, kill one of the personnel on the bridge of the Chimera because the guy fucked up on a ... I think tractor beam that the heroes had managed to escape via some space chicanery.
Admittedly, the man tried to explain that it wasn't his fault because he had never been trained in how to counter it (trying to pass blame to your trainer is not classy), but having your bodyguard slaughter him (in what was hinted to be a very unpleasant way) right in front of everyone is the kind of thing Vader would do.
It stood out, really, because Thrawn doesn't seem like that kind of character. He doesn't like wasting resources; I would've expected him to bust the man back down to private, or maybe put him on some other menial duty.
I guess he needed to make an example out of him? I don't know; I guess that's possible. I think Zahn went out of his way on it, though, because he wanted to establish Thrawn as a Bad Guy. It was still early in the first book of the Thrawn Trilogy, and I don't think his character had been fully established yet.
PSN: ShogunGunshow
Origin: ShogunGunshow