🚀 go-pugleaf

A long time ago, in a galaxy far far away, <milodEs...@netcom.com>,
John DiCamillo <mi...@netcom.com> babbled something along the lines of
(Although I think it's some sort of conspiracy):
>Delance@ (Delance) writes:
>>      If you consider X-Wing realistic just because the ship rolls
>>when you turn left-right, this is not realistic in space since, as we
>>all should know, there's no atmosphere nor gravity in space. And since
>>WC3, WC games have this "alternative" flight mode option...
>
>Actually, there is one good reason to use banked turns
>in a space fighter: human physiology.  A human pilot can
>withstand more vertical Gs than lateral Gs.  Thus it makes
>sense to perform "coordinated turns" to keep the ship's
>acceleration vector aligned with the pilots body.
>
>But, this is all a lot of hooey because neither WC nor XvT
>nor Freespace even pretend to use thrusters to turn a ship.
>They all use some mysterious unseen, unnamed force (well,
>the Star Wars books make mention of an "etherial rudder"
>whatever that is...) to control attitude.  So it is kind of
>hard to say that any of them is more realistic than any
>of the others.
>
Except for I-War. In fact, the game makes a point of telling you which
thrusters are best for what turns (belly thrusters being the more
powerful that the yaw thrusters etc...).

This is why I-War is the best space-sim.
-- 
                                The Starglider
                    E-Mail:s...@thespian.demon.co.uk 
        WORLDS LARGEST I-WAR SITE HERE :http://www.thespian.demon.co.uk
          ICQ Number:1773852 WWPAGER:http://wwp.mirabilis.com/1773852
         REPLACE D.C.U WITH demon.co.uk TO REPLY TO POSTINGS MADE HERE