🚀 go-pugleaf

	Why do you think WC engine arcade inspired, and X-Wing is
realistic? This is completely wrong... In fact, X-Wing's flight engine
don't even features inertia and ships tend to fly like they were in
atmosphere, not space, while WC engine, specially WCP, is much closer
to what a space ship would be like without making gameplay boring.

	The same happens with Freespace, as it seems to me that it's
engine have some good inertia values on it. I-War is very realistic,
just like some older games like Mantis Fighter and Frontier II,
however, none of those three is fully realistic.

	There's always the balance between realism and gameplay. I'm
not saying WC is realistic, but it surely is much more realistic than
X-Wing, for the simple fact that it's engine handles inertia and
acceleration in a much more realistic way than X-Wing engine, that
when it comes to this issues (inertia, acceleration) is way more
arcade inspired than WC. As a matter of fact, I like X-Wing a lot,
however, it's not very realistic, and it surely is not a realistic sim
compared with WC.

	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...

typ...@pacbellDIESPAM.net (Typhoon) wrote:
>I wouldn't completely rule out Freespace  because it implements an
>"arcade/WC-inspired" flight engine...It can make up for this
>shortcoming if the game has really good and challenging
>missions/campaigns. 
>
>Look at classic X-Wing. That title had the toughest and most memorable
>missions ever seen in any space-sim. Even last year's lackluster
>Starfleet Academy had some very clever missions, even if it did fly a
>starship like a WC-fighter. Pick up I-War and you'll see a game that
>is the perfect match of engine/mission complexity. The *immersion*
>created by each of these titles was very convincing.


     >> Delance <<