🚀 go-pugleaf

Xocyll  <Xocyll@kingston.net> wrote:
>Uh Ross, the only person who said _anything_ about asteroid collisions
>is YOU.  All I said is that CPUs and GPUs have become powerful enough to
>be able to model asteroid belts realistically.

It was implicit, if you don't have them colliding then you don't need
modern CPUs or GPUs to model them.  A Commodore 64 could do it.

What then is unrealistic in your mind about existing asteroid belts in
space-sim games?  Indeed, what basis do you have for saying they're not
already being realistically modelled in space-sim games?  Other than
the fact that they're not like the only real asteroids we know about,
of course.

>As far as we know - it's not like we've been out of this system to
>*know* for sure that what we think of as the natural LAWS of physics are
>indeed universal and not just a local condition.

Ok, then this discussion is completely pointless.  If you honestly
believe the laws of physics can change like that then anything anyone
imagines about how asteroids behave in other solar systems could be
considered realistic.  If Chris Robers implements asteroid belts in his
game completely different than you're asking for you can't say they're
unrealistic because his imaginary physics are just as real as your own.

I should also say that there's not much point to your "realism" argument
because given Chris Roberts track record he obviously doesn't care about
realism in his games.  If you get a chance to sumbit actual feedback,
I suggest something more along the lines how cool and awesome your vision
of how asteroid belts is.

					Ross Ridge

-- 
 l/  //	  Ross Ridge -- The Great HTMU
[oo][oo]  rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
-()-/()/  http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/~rridge/ 
 db  //