🚀 go-pugleaf

It needs to be a Wing Commander game.  No question about it.

It could be amazing on today's hardware... even consoles could handle
space flight games with great production values without fucking it up.

On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 17:45:40 -0700, noman <no_m_an@zzzyahoo.yycom>
wrote:

>The creator of Wing Commander, Strike Commander, Privateer and
>Freelancer is about to announce a game he has been working on for more
>than an year. The website <http://robertsspaceindustries.com/start/> has
>a countdown timer currently set to end on October 10.

I would love a new Wing Commander game. The Wing Commander series is
one of the few action type games that I ever really loved. I have such
fond memories of the first game  back in, I think, 1990 or 91. I
eventually bought and played them all. 

noman  <no_m_an@zzzyahoo.yycom> wrote:
>With the power of today’s computers and the reach of the internet I
>finally feel I have the tools to build the connected experience that I
>always dreamed of. A world that would be more satisfying and richer than
>any film I could work on.

This part doesn't sound promising.  Sounds overly ambitious and aside
from added layers of chrome in the graphics, I'm not really sure how
technology has changed much in the last ten years to enable him to make
a game he couldn't make before.

Hmm... I guess motion controls are new, but hopefully that's not what
he's thinking of.

					Ross Ridge

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

On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 12:43:53 -0500, Xocyll <Xocyll@kingston.net>
wrote:

>Ross Ridge <rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> looked up from reading the
>entrails of the porn spammer to utter  "The Augury is good, the signs
>say:
>
>>noman  <no_m_an@zzzyahoo.yycom> wrote:
>>>With the power of today’s computers and the reach of the internet I
>>>finally feel I have the tools to build the connected experience that I
>>>always dreamed of. A world that would be more satisfying and richer than
>>>any film I could work on.
>>
>>This part doesn't sound promising.  Sounds overly ambitious and aside
>>from added layers of chrome in the graphics, I'm not really sure how
>>technology has changed much in the last ten years to enable him to make
>>a game he couldn't make before.
>
>Well the raw computing power would allow for bigger fights - fleet
>actions and such while still having the high detail graphics people
>expect these days. 
>More detailed asteroid fields with realistic motion perhaps?
>PhysX could also play a big part.

Space combat sims are notoriously easy on computing resources, because
you only have to deal with the polygons of the vehicles, explosions /
etc rather than waste computing resources on the physical landscape.
Flight sims should be the same way, but not quite because the world on
the ground has to be physically modeled in some sort of believable way
when you get close to it.

>Hopefully he's gotten past his "I want to be a movie director" phase

>Also hopefully it'll be more a Wing Commander/Privateer kind of game
>rather than a Freelancer type of overly scripted idiocy (and boy did it
>have some insanely stupid errors.)
>Honestly, it's like they employed the same "fact and continuity"
>checkers that the SyFy channel does for it's movies.
>[Ok that was after the buyout and after he left.]

Incredibly, seeing as how I've never even big a big sci-fi buff, I
really enjoyed the old Wing Commander games, even the cutscenes.  I
guess maybe having Malcolm McDowell involved made all it worthwhile?
It's been a long time since I've played and very little of the memory
remains for me, other than the general positive impression I had of
the series.

>I could really go for another game like Privateer with modern
>graphics/physics and more ships.
>
>>Hmm... I guess motion controls are new, but hopefully that's not what
>>he's thinking of.
>
>You thinking of the wii/kinect type motion stuff?
>If so, ewwwww!  
>I can't think of anything less appropriate for controlling a spaceship
>(unless it's one of those little pod ships from Earth Final Conflict.)

Rumor has it that it will require Kinect.  You have to extend your
arms out to change wing positions and use leg motions to simulate
landing gear ;) jk

Actually the 360 already has a controller available for it that seems
ideal for a game like this if used in conjunction with mouse and
keyboard... if the 360 version doesn't work with PC then Razer or some
other company should jump on it for space combat sims.  I haven't used
it but folks who have seem to love it for driving games:

http://www.microsoftstore.com/store/msstore/en_US/pd/productID.231553600?WT.mc_id=mercent&mr:trackingCode=804A953A-F5B6-E011-B18D-001B21A69EB0&mr:referralID=NA&mr:adType=pla&origin=pla

Only thing is its a little hard for me to picture myself actually
using it.  It cannot possibly be good for a grown man's sex life to be
observed using one of those.

Ross Ridge <rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> looked up from reading the
entrails of the porn spammer to utter  "The Augury is good, the signs
say:

>noman  <no_m_an@zzzyahoo.yycom> wrote:
>>With the power of today’s computers and the reach of the internet I
>>finally feel I have the tools to build the connected experience that I
>>always dreamed of. A world that would be more satisfying and richer than
>>any film I could work on.
>
>This part doesn't sound promising.  Sounds overly ambitious and aside
>from added layers of chrome in the graphics, I'm not really sure how
>technology has changed much in the last ten years to enable him to make
>a game he couldn't make before.

Well the raw computing power would allow for bigger fights - fleet
actions and such while still having the high detail graphics people
expect these days. 
More detailed asteroid fields with realistic motion perhaps?
PhysX could also play a big part.

Hopefully he's gotten past his "I want to be a movie director" phase

Also hopefully it'll be more a Wing Commander/Privateer kind of game
rather than a Freelancer type of overly scripted idiocy (and boy did it
have some insanely stupid errors.)
Honestly, it's like they employed the same "fact and continuity"
checkers that the SyFy channel does for it's movies.
[Ok that was after the buyout and after he left.]

I could really go for another game like Privateer with modern
graphics/physics and more ships.

>Hmm... I guess motion controls are new, but hopefully that's not what
>he's thinking of.

You thinking of the wii/kinect type motion stuff?
If so, ewwwww!  
I can't think of anything less appropriate for controlling a spaceship
(unless it's one of those little pod ships from Earth Final Conflict.)

Xocyll
-- 
I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of 
a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably, 
Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So 
FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr 

On 9/11/2012 9:11 AM, Ross Ridge wrote:
> noman  <no_m_an@zzzyahoo.yycom> wrote:
>> With the power of today’s computers and the reach of the internet I
>> finally feel I have the tools to build the connected experience that I
>> always dreamed of. A world that would be more satisfying and richer than
>> any film I could work on.
> 
> This part doesn't sound promising.  Sounds overly ambitious and aside
> from added layers of chrome in the graphics, I'm not really sure how
> technology has changed much in the last ten years to enable him to make
> a game he couldn't make before.
> 
> Hmm... I guess motion controls are new, but hopefully that's not what
> he's thinking of.
> 

He has always sounded overly ambitious. The first time I got to know
about Wing Commander was an article in Compute! more than twenty years
ago, where he claimed how WC would have this revolutionary tech of
bit-mapped space ships enabling a fast and fluid combat model, all in
256 color VGA. The game when it came out, didn't disappoint.

For this unannounced game, I'd put the emphasis on the "connected
experience" he mentioned. It could be seamless transitions from space to
planetary atmosphere and then FPS type controls on the ground, or big
persistent campaigns which have both strategic and flight-combat
portions, with very large scale battles. He could also mean non-FMV
cut-scenes that flow seamlessly into and out of action sequences. And I
am sure (though I hope I am proven wrong) that there will be a big
online component.

The better CPU/GPU tech of today surely helps with these types of
ambitions, but I think the presence of very mature development tools
(Unreal Engine and likes, PhysX, Havok, online systems like Steamworks
etc) is also what he was hinting at.

By the way, once I created an account and accessed the site, I came
across a poll right away about the preference of seeing the cockpits in
flight sequences. I found it a bit encouraging.
--
Noman

On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 21:15:20 -0400, Rin Stowleigh <rstowleigh@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>It needs to be a Wing Commander game.  No question about it.
>
>It could be amazing on today's hardware... even consoles could handle
>space flight games with great production values without fucking it up.

I wish that were the case too, but looking at the screenshot on the
account creation page it looks more likely to be something more akin to
an updated version of Freelancer.  That's just fine by me.  I spent ages
playing Freelancer, especially once I'd got the RebalanceMOD installed,
and the PC is long overdue for a decent space sim.

Freelancer 2?  Sign me up!

Andy

Rin Stowleigh <rstowleigh@gmail.com> looked up from reading the entrails
of the porn spammer to utter  "The Augury is good, the signs say:

>On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 12:43:53 -0500, Xocyll <Xocyll@kingston.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Ross Ridge <rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> looked up from reading the
>>entrails of the porn spammer to utter  "The Augury is good, the signs
>>say:
>>
>>>noman  <no_m_an@zzzyahoo.yycom> wrote:
>>>>With the power of today’s computers and the reach of the internet I
>>>>finally feel I have the tools to build the connected experience that I
>>>>always dreamed of. A world that would be more satisfying and richer than
>>>>any film I could work on.
>>>
>>>This part doesn't sound promising.  Sounds overly ambitious and aside
>>>from added layers of chrome in the graphics, I'm not really sure how
>>>technology has changed much in the last ten years to enable him to make
>>>a game he couldn't make before.
>>
>>Well the raw computing power would allow for bigger fights - fleet
>>actions and such while still having the high detail graphics people
>>expect these days. 
>>More detailed asteroid fields with realistic motion perhaps?
>>PhysX could also play a big part.
>
>Space combat sims are notoriously easy on computing resources, because
>you only have to deal with the polygons of the vehicles, explosions /
>etc rather than waste computing resources on the physical landscape.
>Flight sims should be the same way, but not quite because the world on
>the ground has to be physically modeled in some sort of believable way
>when you get close to it.

That's kind of the point I'm making; With the power of modern CPUs/GPUs
they could do actual asteroid belts with real motion etc, it doesn't
have to be nothing but ships and space dust.

Maybe if there's a privateer kind of game, they could have actual
asteroid mining - land on an asteroid, set up mining gear, harvest,
leave as opposed to the existing type of shoot randomly appearing
destructible asteroid bit and get a piece or 3 of some ore.

There's all kinds of environments in space other than empty space and
randomly placed junk (like in the Freelancer junk belts.)

>>Hopefully he's gotten past his "I want to be a movie director" phase
>
>>Also hopefully it'll be more a Wing Commander/Privateer kind of game
>>rather than a Freelancer type of overly scripted idiocy (and boy did it
>>have some insanely stupid errors.)
>>Honestly, it's like they employed the same "fact and continuity"
>>checkers that the SyFy channel does for it's movies.
>>[Ok that was after the buyout and after he left.]
>
>Incredibly, seeing as how I've never even big a big sci-fi buff, I
>really enjoyed the old Wing Commander games, even the cutscenes.  I
>guess maybe having Malcolm McDowell involved made all it worthwhile?
>It's been a long time since I've played and very little of the memory
>remains for me, other than the general positive impression I had of
>the series.

I liked the early Wing Commanders when it was all rendered cutscenes,
since they were fairly minimal.  Then he went the interactive movie
direction and I do not like that at all.
WC4 had multiple acted cutscenes just moving between places on the ship,
and full, acted FMV cockpit communications (which causes MASSIVE
slowdowns when they played in combat.  Gee my wingman is making a
battlecry - do I REALLY need to see the actors face as he says it?

>>I could really go for another game like Privateer with modern
>>graphics/physics and more ships.
>>
>>>Hmm... I guess motion controls are new, but hopefully that's not what
>>>he's thinking of.
>>
>>You thinking of the wii/kinect type motion stuff?
>>If so, ewwwww!  
>>I can't think of anything less appropriate for controlling a spaceship
>>(unless it's one of those little pod ships from Earth Final Conflict.)
>
>Rumor has it that it will require Kinect.  You have to extend your
>arms out to change wing positions and use leg motions to simulate
>landing gear ;) jk
>
>Actually the 360 already has a controller available for it that seems
>ideal for a game like this if used in conjunction with mouse and
>keyboard... if the 360 version doesn't work with PC then Razer or some
>other company should jump on it for space combat sims.  I haven't used
>it but folks who have seem to love it for driving games:
>
>http://www.microsoftstore.com/store/msstore/en_US/pd/productID.231553600?WT.mc_id=mercent&mr:trackingCode=804A953A-F5B6-E011-B18D-001B21A69EB0&mr:referralID=NA&mr:adType=pla&origin=pla

While I could sort of see that sort of thing being good for driving,
since you could rest it in your lap, flying with it would get pretty
wearing on the arms after a while since the up and down actions would
preclude resting it on a surface for long, especially in combat.

>Only thing is its a little hard for me to picture myself actually
>using it.  It cannot possibly be good for a grown man's sex life to be
>observed using one of those.

Heh.

Xocyll
-- 
I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of 
a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably, 
Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So 
FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr 

On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 17:45:40 -0700, noman <no_m_an@zzzyahoo.yycom>
wrote:

[snip]

>My name is Chris Roberts.
>
>And if you would indulge me I would like to create a world for you."

Anyone else think this sounds like a Massively Multiplayer thing?
Hopefully it isn't an over-inflated Peter Molyneux type announcement.

noman  <no_m_an@zzzyahoo.yycom> wrote:
>He has always sounded overly ambitious. The first time I got to know
>about Wing Commander was an article in Compute! more than twenty years
>ago, where he claimed how WC would have this revolutionary tech of
>bit-mapped space ships enabling a fast and fluid combat model, all in
>256 color VGA. The game when it came out, didn't disappoint.

On the other hand there was all the hype surrounding Strike Commander,
which when it finally was released did disappoint.

>For this unannounced game, I'd put the emphasis on the "connected
>experience" he mentioned. It could be seamless transitions from space to
>planetary atmosphere and then FPS type controls on the ground, or big
>persistent campaigns which have both strategic and flight-combat
>portions, with very large scale battles. He could also mean non-FMV
>cut-scenes that flow seamlessly into and out of action sequences. And I
>am sure (though I hope I am proven wrong) that there will be a big
>online component.

Yah, I don't see any of that needing needing new technology to implement.
A lot innovative design work to implement in a way that actually works
and is fun, but you only need faster computers to make it look prettier.

>The better CPU/GPU tech of today surely helps with these types of
>ambitions, but I think the presence of very mature development tools
>(Unreal Engine and likes, PhysX, Havok, online systems like Steamworks
>etc) is also what he was hinting at.

Well, the Unreal Engine has been around for more than ten years, and
the physics in a space-sim game are very simple and regardless of the
type of game are just added chrome.  I don't see anything fundamentally
enabling in Steamworks, it just offers standardized lobbies, voice
chat and acheivements, nothing that affects the actual game itself.
Oh, and I guess microtransactions... I suppose that's more practical now.

					Ross Ridge

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

Xocyll  <Xocyll@kingston.net> wrote:
>That's kind of the point I'm making; With the power of modern CPUs/GPUs
>they could do actual asteroid belts with real motion etc, it doesn't
>have to be nothing but ships and space dust.

Actual asteroid belts are empty.  Unless the Death Star has been recently
through the system you're not going to find one asteroid anywhere near
another in a naturally occuring belt.

					Ross Ridge

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

Xocyll  <Xocyll@kingston.net> wrote:
>Actual asteroid belts that we have _seen_, IE in this system, are mostly
>empty.  Who knows what the situation will be in other systems.
>Especially Multiple Sun systems.

No, it would require too much mass to have a belt of the density you're
imagining.  The constant collisions would also soon reduce it to dust.
Short of a planet blowing up relatively recently you're not going to
find any place in the universe where asteroids routinely collide every
minute or so.

Now there's a good chance there will be the dense sort of asteroid belts
you want in this game, but like the faster-than-light travel that will
also likely be in the game, it'll be made up science fiction, not reality.

					Ross Ridge

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

Ross Ridge <rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> looked up from reading the
entrails of the porn spammer to utter  "The Augury is good, the signs
say:

>Xocyll  <Xocyll@kingston.net> wrote:
>>That's kind of the point I'm making; With the power of modern CPUs/GPUs
>>they could do actual asteroid belts with real motion etc, it doesn't
>>have to be nothing but ships and space dust.
>
>Actual asteroid belts are empty.  Unless the Death Star has been recently
>through the system you're not going to find one asteroid anywhere near
>another in a naturally occuring belt.

Actual asteroid belts that we have _seen_, IE in this system, are mostly
empty.  Who knows what the situation will be in other systems.
Especially Multiple Sun systems.

Xocyll
-- 
I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of 
a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably, 
Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So 
FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr 

Ross Ridge <rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> looked up from reading the
entrails of the porn spammer to utter  "The Augury is good, the signs
say:

>Xocyll  <Xocyll@kingston.net> wrote:
>>Actual asteroid belts that we have _seen_, IE in this system, are mostly
>>empty.  Who knows what the situation will be in other systems.
>>Especially Multiple Sun systems.
>
>No, it would require too much mass to have a belt of the density you're
>imagining.  

Since I never specified a density I wonder how you can say this.

>The constant collisions would also soon reduce it to dust.
>Short of a planet blowing up relatively recently you're not going to
>find any place in the universe where asteroids routinely collide every
>minute or so.

Well there's all kinds of reason for destruction of planetary bodies.
Rogue wandering star passes through existing system and a planetary
collision, multiple sun system causing same, comet interactions, Roche
limit breakups of moons and so on.
That's not even getting into acts of war.

>Now there's a good chance there will be the dense sort of asteroid belts
>you want in this game, but like the faster-than-light travel that will
>also likely be in the game, it'll be made up science fiction, not reality.

Little hard to say what reality for the entire universe is based on one,
single sun, system Ross.

How many times over the years have scientists looked at local conditions
and declared "this is how it all works" then found they were completely
wrong when they looked at a larger area?

Xocyll
-- 
I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of 
a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably, 
Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So 
FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr 

On Thu, 13 Sep 2012 07:10:21 -0500, Xocyll <Xocyll@kingston.net>
wrote:

>Little hard to say what reality for the entire universe is based on one,
>single sun, system Ross.
>
>How many times over the years have scientists looked at local conditions
>and declared "this is how it all works" then found they were completely
>wrong when they looked at a larger area?
>
>Xocyll

I don't know how many times, but your post reminds me of when
astronomers found Jupiter sized gas planets orbiting very close (and
very fast) to their parent star. They were not expecting that at all.
These types of planets are 'supposed' to orbit very far away like it
does here in our solar system with Jupiter, Saturn, etc.

Ross Ridge <rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> looked up from reading the
>No, it would require too much mass to have a belt of the density you're
>imagining.  

Xocyll  <Xocyll@kingston.net> wrote:
>Since I never specified a density I wonder how you can say this.

You described an asteroid belt were the density was high enough for
physics modeling complex enough to benefit from technologies introduced
in the last decade.  For an asteroid collision to a chance of happening
in an asteroid belt in the time frame of real-time space-sim game then
it would have to be incredibly dense.  An actual asteroid *belt* would
be more massive than the star (or stars) it orbits.

>>Now there's a good chance there will be the dense sort of asteroid belts
>>you want in this game, but like the faster-than-light travel that will
>>also likely be in the game, it'll be made up science fiction, not reality.
>
>Little hard to say what reality for the entire universe is based on one,
>single sun, system Ross.

No, it's not in this case.  Like I said, even if an asteroid belt dense
as you describe existed, it would soon be reduced to dust by all the
collisions you want to happen there.  Even if every planet is destined
to explode one day then it would still be infinitesimaly unlikely that
one would have naturally exploded recently enough.  Planets just aren't
been created fast enough for all the regularily colliding asteroids you
imagine to naturally exist.

>How many times over the years have scientists looked at local conditions
>and declared "this is how it all works" then found they were completely
>wrong when they looked at a larger area?

Of course we know how it works, if it we didn't understand the
basic physics behind it all, we couldn't do the physics simulation
you want.  Seriously, what do you think would happen if you ran the
physics simulation you want in the game?  What's going to keep all
the asteroids bunched up together?  What's going to prevent all the
collisions you expect to happen from pulverising the asteroids into
smaller and smaller rocks?  Any space-sim game that uses a physics
based model for its asteroids is going to have to cheat the physics in
some way.  Asteroids are going to have to be prevented from flying off
into space every which way and new asteroids are going to have to come
out of nowhere to replace the asteroids that have gotten too small and
too numerous to track.  It'll probably also have to just completely
reset all the asteroids every time you leave the area and come back.

The laws of physics don't magically change in a binary star system or
anywhere else in the universe.  While it's almost certain that the dense
kind of asteroid belts that exist in every space-sim game ever made
will also be in this game, they're nothing more than science fiction.
Whether the fiction has these asteroids occurring naturally or more
plausibly by the actions of a Death Star, they're not going be modelled
by truly realistic physics.  A true and accurate physics simulation just
isn't going to produce the results that you and every other space-sim
gamer expect.

					Ross Ridge

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

Ross Ridge <rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> looked up from reading the
entrails of the porn spammer to utter  "The Augury is good, the signs
say:

>Ross Ridge <rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> looked up from reading the
>>No, it would require too much mass to have a belt of the density you're
>>imagining.  
>
>Xocyll  <Xocyll@kingston.net> wrote:
>>Since I never specified a density I wonder how you can say this.
>
>You described an asteroid belt were the density was high enough for
>physics modeling complex enough to benefit from technologies introduced
>in the last decade.  For an asteroid collision to a chance of happening
>in an asteroid belt in the time frame of real-time space-sim game then
>it would have to be incredibly dense.  An actual asteroid *belt* would
>be more massive than the star (or stars) it orbits.

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.
I said nothing about Hollywood style "a collision every minute" type
belts, YOU came up with that.

And since I also talked about asteroid mining and landing on the
asteroids to do mining, that would mean keeping track of each individual
asteroid and it's condition/resources as well as it's motion (orbitally
and rotational.)   

It should be pretty obvious from this that I'm not talking about a belt
with hundreds of thousands (or more) of asteroids banging into each
other all the time - that would preclude landing on them and mining,
much less being able to keep track of them all.

>>>Now there's a good chance there will be the dense sort of asteroid belts
>>>you want in this game, but like the faster-than-light travel that will
>>>also likely be in the game, it'll be made up science fiction, not reality.
>>
>>Little hard to say what reality for the entire universe is based on one,
>>single sun, system Ross.
>
>No, it's not in this case.  Like I said, even if an asteroid belt dense
>as you describe existed, it would soon be reduced to dust by all the
>collisions you want to happen there.  

I never described any density Ross, you leapt to your own conclusions
going against what I actually said.

>Even if every planet is destined
>to explode one day then it would still be infinitesimaly unlikely that
>one would have naturally exploded recently enough.  Planets just aren't
>been created fast enough for all the regularily colliding asteroids you
>imagine to naturally exist.

Again, the only one imagining regularly colliding asteroids is YOU Ross.
I said absolutely nothing about collisions.

>>How many times over the years have scientists looked at local conditions
>>and declared "this is how it all works" then found they were completely
>>wrong when they looked at a larger area?
>
>Of course we know how it works, if it we didn't understand the
>basic physics behind it all, we couldn't do the physics simulation
>you want.  Seriously, what do you think would happen if you ran the
>physics simulation you want in the game?  What's going to keep all
>the asteroids bunched up together?  What's going to prevent all the
>collisions you expect to happen from pulverising the asteroids into
>smaller and smaller rocks?  Any space-sim game that uses a physics
>based model for its asteroids is going to have to cheat the physics in
>some way.  Asteroids are going to have to be prevented from flying off
>into space every which way and new asteroids are going to have to come
>out of nowhere to replace the asteroids that have gotten too small and
>too numerous to track.  It'll probably also have to just completely
>reset all the asteroids every time you leave the area and come back.

Gee Ross, why don't you go back and read my original posts on the
matter, you obviously didn't the first time since what you are ascribing
as my wants are the exact opposite of them.

>The laws of physics don't magically change in a binary star system or
>anywhere else in the universe.

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.

As for a Binary system - I didn't say Binary, I said multiple.

Imagine a 4+ sun system with multiple planets and moons around each sun,
and perhaps a dense Oort cloud sending in comets, maybe even a brown
dwarf in a highly eccentric orbit that passes through every few thousand
years.
That's not going to settle down and stay stable the way our system did.

There would be collisions and there would be debris - how much, who
knows.

>While it's almost certain that the dense
>kind of asteroid belts that exist in every space-sim game ever made
>will also be in this game, they're nothing more than science fiction.
>Whether the fiction has these asteroids occurring naturally or more
>plausibly by the actions of a Death Star, they're not going be modelled
>by truly realistic physics.  A true and accurate physics simulation just
>isn't going to produce the results that you and every other space-sim
>gamer expect.

Well you leapt to the conclusion I was talking about the kind of
asteroid belts seen in most games.
Since I was talking about landing on them and mining, obviously I was
not since those belts are completely randomly created and fade out as
soon as they're offscreen (like cars in the GTA games), they aren't
static, they aren't tracked or anything else that would required any
kind of physics.
Not to mention that since those randomly created ones are extremely
dense and banging into each other all the time, any ship that landed on
one would be destroyed in no time at all.

Since I _specifically_ mentioned landing on them and mining them, just
how in the hell did you leap to the conclusion I was talking about an
ultra dense Hollywood/game type belt where the very thing I was
describing would be impossible?

Honestly Ross, you're usually better at this.

Xocyll
-- 
I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of 
a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably, 
Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So 
FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr 

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  //	  

Hehehe..  I see you've stumbled into one of Ross Ridge's twisted
clusterfuck threads.  I can't say I didn't waste a bit of time trying
to discuss games with him in the past myself.. It took two or three
posts before I realized he's a cup of fruit.

How do you solve a problem like Ross Ridge?

Ross Ridge <rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> looked up from reading the
entrails of the porn spammer to utter  "The Augury is good, the signs
say:

>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.

It's not implicit at all, you're reaching.

A lot of distinct, detailed asteroids you can land on - each one of
which would be modeled and require a hefty GPU to do so.
It's not just a round rock.

Keeping track of hundreds (or thousands) of individually distinct
asteroids, their condition, their resources, their orbits etc would
require a hefty CPU as well.

Not ot mention that the act of mining an asteroid would change it's
orbit.

>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.

Most Games' asteroid belts (or fields) are made up of nothing but the
exact same rock (or 2 or 3 different rocks) randomly placed over and
over again as obstacles you can run into.  
They often cannot be damaged, and in the few cases where you can damage
them, when you come back to the area, they're all back again since they
aren't tracked.
In the case of Freelancer the main asteroids/junk can't be damaged at
all (nor can the "mines" (explosive)) they do this AND have the
occasional tiny rock in some fields you can shoot and "mine" - it blows
up and leaves resources behind.

Most of them are there as nothing more than an obstacle for you to have
to weave through at speed, sometimes under fire.
Wing Commander did it, Privateer did it, Freelancer abused the hell out
of it.  It's been long enough since I last played that I can't recall if
Tachyon did it.  The X-games tended not to.

>>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.

It's a big universe Ross and we've only seen one tiny corner of it.
Might as well extrapolate how the entire planet works based on how
conditions are in my kitchen closet.

We're just assuming that conditions are the same everywhere and Science
is full of those kinds of assumptions that were later proved wrong.
I'm keeping an open mind.

That's science, hypothesize, then test.  We haven't tested yet since we
haven't managed to leave the system yet.

>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.

That is unfortunately true.  I was just pointing out that modern CPUs
and GPUs could enable things that simply weren't possible before, not
that Chris "I want to be a movie director" Roberts would use them for
those things.

Xocyll
-- 
I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of 
a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably, 
Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So 
FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr 

Ross Ridge <rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> looked up from reading the
>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.

Xocyll  <Xocyll@kingston.net> wrote:
>A lot of distinct, detailed asteroids you can land on - each one of
>which would be modeled and require a hefty GPU to do so.
>It's not just a round rock.

In the original Starflight (which was ported to the Commodore 64) you
could land of lots of distinct planets.  It doesn't take a lot of CPU or
GPU to implement this, it just takes more power to make it look prettier.
More detailed asteroids are just chrome, not any sort of new gameplay.
If Chris Roberts wanted to implement landing on asteroids and setting
up mines he could've done so in the original Privateer.  It would've
looked bad but everything you described in terms of gameplay could've
been done back then.  The 1994 game Alien Legacy did almost everything
you described, you could land of distinct asteroids, each rendered
differently, and set up mines on them, just not from a space-sim
perspective.

In my original post I said that I couldn't think of any reason why
you would need better CPUs or GPUs to implement new sorts of gameplay,
nothing that you couldn't have done ten years ago, you'd only need it
to implement better graphics.  You presented your idea for improving on
asteroids in that context as if it were a counter example.  As a gameplay
idea what you've described could've implemented on PCs more than 20
years ago.  If all you really want here is better asteroid rendering,
then modern technology can make a difference, but I'm suprised if this
minor graphical detail is what you consider so important.

>Most Games' asteroid belts (or fields) are made up of nothing but the
>exact same rock (or 2 or 3 different rocks) randomly placed over and
>over again as obstacles you can run into.  
>
>They often cannot be damaged, and in the few cases where you can damage
>them, when you come back to the area, they're all back again since they
>aren't tracked.

Since you've never seen an asteroid in another solar system then by your
own arugment you cannot say that any of this is unrealistic.  You don't
*know* that asteroids don't all look alike or don't suddenly reapear
when you're not looking.

Even asteroids in original Wing Commander could be a realistic depiction
if the laws of physics can change so that everything looks pixelated.

Like I said, this discussion is pointless.  If you're going to define
what's realistic is based on what you imagine to be real and not based on
what we know to be real then anything anyone imagines can be considered
equally realistic.  Asteroids could actually be the droppings of space
unicorns and mined for rare and precious rainbow-coloured gummi bears.
At least that wouldn't require changing the laws of physics.

					Ross Ridge

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

Ross Ridge <rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> looked up from reading the
entrails of the porn spammer to utter  "The Augury is good, the signs
say:

>Ross Ridge <rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> looked up from reading the
>>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.
>
>Xocyll  <Xocyll@kingston.net> wrote:
>>A lot of distinct, detailed asteroids you can land on - each one of
>>which would be modeled and require a hefty GPU to do so.
>>It's not just a round rock.
>
>In the original Starflight (which was ported to the Commodore 64) you
>could land of lots of distinct planets.  

Yeah and those planets were full 3d representations that you actually
entered the atmosphere of, getting lower and lower while the details got
higher and higher?  Why am I thinking not?

>It doesn't take a lot of CPU or
>GPU to implement this, it just takes more power to make it look prettier.
>More detailed asteroids are just chrome, not any sort of new gameplay.
>If Chris Roberts wanted to implement landing on asteroids and setting
>up mines he could've done so in the original Privateer.  It would've
>looked bad but everything you described in terms of gameplay could've
>been done back then.  The 1994 game Alien Legacy did almost everything
>you described, you could land of distinct asteroids, each rendered
>differently, and set up mines on them, just not from a space-sim
>perspective.
>
>In my original post I said that I couldn't think of any reason why
>you would need better CPUs or GPUs to implement new sorts of gameplay,
>nothing that you couldn't have done ten years ago, you'd only need it
>to implement better graphics.  You presented your idea for improving on
>asteroids in that context as if it were a counter example.  As a gameplay
>idea what you've described could've implemented on PCs more than 20
>years ago.  If all you really want here is better asteroid rendering,
>then modern technology can make a difference, but I'm suprised if this
>minor graphical detail is what you consider so important.

For an accurate representation of an asteroid, you would need a heft
GPU.
Hell just what we've seen on the moon shows that - it's not just a nice
smooth ball, you've got lots of jagged edges (and there would be more
once you started blasting.

Using a planet as a counter example is silly since it's just represented
as a sphere with a texture on it or it's just a 2d sprite and appears
the same regardless of direction (depending on the game.)

Whereas doing an asteroid you can land on, (and presumably it would have
to be large enough for you to land on while at the same time be small
enough for whatever mineral scanner the ship has to be able to scan the
whole thing,) requires a full, 3 dimensional, detailed representation.

You're going to have to find a spot you can land on, or make one with
your ships weapons.

More like a capital ship with superstructure you can fly into, as
opposed to the ball in space or 2d sprite in space.

>>Most Games' asteroid belts (or fields) are made up of nothing but the
>>exact same rock (or 2 or 3 different rocks) randomly placed over and
>>over again as obstacles you can run into.  
>>
>>They often cannot be damaged, and in the few cases where you can damage
>>them, when you come back to the area, they're all back again since they
>>aren't tracked.
>
>Since you've never seen an asteroid in another solar system then by your
>own arugment you cannot say that any of this is unrealistic.  You don't
>*know* that asteroids don't all look alike or don't suddenly reapear
>when you're not looking.

Well since it's hypothesized that they're the result of the breakup of
larger objects (moons and planets) and we know how things look when we
blow them up, that's not much of a stretch.
We can assume they'd be similar.  We can't assume that every system will
behave exactly like ours does, since we know there are multi-star
systems out there.

The day they find asteroids that vanish and reappear is they day I'll
believe we're all part of a console game since that's

>Even asteroids in original Wing Commander could be a realistic depiction
>if the laws of physics can change so that everything looks pixelated.

Silly but true.
It's a big universe (in theory*) and we just don't know that the same
rules that apply here apply everywhere.

* In theory, since science fiction has described this kind of thing before.
Philip Jose Farmer's World of Tiers Series, where the advanced race
create pocket universes and it turns out that Earth was so created and
our universe ends at 3AU, the rest of the universe is just a simulation.

They didn't do it to be cruel (as ascribed to them by the main
protagonist), it was their first creation and an exact duplicate of
their own system - which had been created by some other race and had the
same limitations -which is how they found out it was possible to do it
in the first place.

Or read some Vernor Vinge for scifi where the universe is made up of
various layers and zones where different things are possible and where
the speed of light is variable depending on what zones you're in.

So much of yesterday's science fiction has become science fact, so many
beliefs about how the world worked have been disproved, why assume that
what we consider the "Laws" of physics are universal laws and not a
local set of rules?

>Like I said, this discussion is pointless.  If you're going to define
>what's realistic is based on what you imagine to be real and not based on
>what we know to be real then anything anyone imagines can be considered
>equally realistic.  Asteroids could actually be the droppings of space
>unicorns and mined for rare and precious rainbow-coloured gummi bears.
>At least that wouldn't require changing the laws of physics.

Yeah it would, the inverse square law - not to mention an organic
creature that craps irregularly shaped rocks in space.  Those are some
heavy duty intestines it has.
What does it feed on to leave behind asteroids of rainbow coloured gummi
bears?

I don't think the buying public would be too interested in a space-sim
type game with unicorns and gummi-bear asteroids though.
Since you bring it up I'll assume you would be.

But how nice to see you're going to just declare it pointless and never
actually answer the question of what the hell were you thinking when you
went off on this ultra dense asteroid field business and ascribed that
as my wants when it's the exact opposite.

Xocyll
-- 
I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of 
a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably, 
Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So 
FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr 

On 9/14/2012 10:32 AM, Xocyll wrote:

> So much of yesterday's science fiction has become science fact, so many
> beliefs about how the world worked have been disproved, why assume that
> what we consider the "Laws" of physics are universal laws and not a
> local set of rules?
> 

Well, by that argument, this whole exchange is pointless since anything
is possible then.

And there's a reason to believe in universal laws of physics. In our
solar system, Newtonian physics coupled with special and general
relativity principles correctly predict the observations. Same is true
for distant stars in Milky Way.

There are holes in our current understanding that need to be filled
(unifying force and particle theory is one big example), however the
mechanics of a debris field/asteroid belt are hardly considered a mystery.

In any case, we are talking about Chris Roberts, who had a space-ship
hide behind an asteroid in the Wing Commander movie, and where everyone
on board had to stay quiet to escape detection, copying scenes from
countless WW2 movies involving u-boats. Laws of physics take a backseat,
if they come in the way of having a fun and enjoyable space opera, which
is fine by me.
--
Noman

Ross Ridge <rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> looked up from reading the
>In the original Starflight (which was ported to the Commodore 64) you
>could land of lots of distinct planets.  

Xocyll  <Xocyll@kingston.net> wrote:
>Yeah and those planets were full 3d representations that you actually
>entered the atmosphere of, getting lower and lower while the details got
>higher and higher?  Why am I thinking not?

Yes, that's exactly what happened in the game.  Graphically it's not
all that impressive by today's standard, but back in 1986 it was really
amazing.

>For an accurate representation of an asteroid, you would need a heft
>GPU.

For an accurate graphical representation even todays computers can't
render an asteroid perfectly.  For gameplay purposes, you could do a
wireform representation with all sorts of crags, bumps and whatnot that
you could land on using computers that are over 20 years old.

>Well since it's hypothesized that they're the result of the breakup of
>larger objects (moons and planets) and we know how things look when we
>blow them up, that's not much of a stretch.

We don't *know* that's true in every solar system.  By your own arguments
asteroid could be formed in completely different ways in other places
in the Universe.

>We can assume they'd be similar.  We can't assume that every system will
>behave exactly like ours does, since we know there are multi-star
>systems out there.

Hold it, why do you get abritrary decide what must be same and what
can be be different?  Why does something as fundamental as the laws of
physics get to change, but not how asteroids are formed?

If I can't say your idea of asteroids is unrealistic because I can't
possibly know what asteriods are like in another solar system, then
neither can you.

>I don't think the buying public would be too interested in a space-sim
>type game with unicorns and gummi-bear asteroids though.
>Since you bring it up I'll assume you would be.

No, it was an example of how ridiculous your argument is.  You haven't
actually tried to justify this asteriod idea of yours as being something
that anyone other than yourself would actually want to have in game.
You've only tried to justify it as being more realistic, and by your
own arguments space unicorns that shit out asteroids is just as realistic.

>But how nice to see you're going to just declare it pointless and never
>actually answer the question of what the hell were you thinking when you
>went off on this ultra dense asteroid field business and ascribed that
>as my wants when it's the exact opposite.

As I already explained, I incorrectly assumed that you were talking
about a gameplay idea which couldn't be implemented on PCs available ten
years ago.  I also incorrectly assumed by realistic you ment something
that resembles what we know is real rather than something that we can
only imagine exists.  You don't need a lot of computing power to draw a
single asteroid on screen, and if more than one asteroid is visible on
screen at a time then the asteroids are massively more dense than could
naturally occur in reality as we know it.

Seriously, what point do think there is in continuing to discuss whether
or not your idea of asteroids are realistic or not?  I could point out all
the factual errors you've made, try to clear up all your misunderstandings
about physics and space, but what's the point?  Everything we actually
know about the universe is compelely irrelevent because you've declared
that things could be different.  You've declared that even the laws of
physics could be different.

					Ross Ridge

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

noman  <no_m_an@zzzyahoo.yycom> wrote:
>In any case, we are talking about Chris Roberts, who had a space-ship
>hide behind an asteroid in the Wing Commander movie, and where everyone
>on board had to stay quiet to escape detection, copying scenes from
>countless WW2 movies involving u-boats. Laws of physics take a backseat,
>if they come in the way of having a fun and enjoyable space opera, which
>is fine by me.

I like to think that most space games takes place in a universe which is
almost exactly like our own except one little physical difference.  Outer
space isn't a vacuum, instead there's some sort of invisible unbreathable
gas that permeates all of space.  Pretty much explains everything in
your typical space-sim game, like why you can hear exploding spaceships,
lack of inertia, fighters than bank when turning, even those sparkly
little things that move past your ship so you can tell you're moving.

					Ross Ridge

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

Ross Ridge <rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> looked up from reading the
entrails of the porn spammer to utter  "The Augury is good, the signs
say:

>noman  <no_m_an@zzzyahoo.yycom> wrote:
>>In any case, we are talking about Chris Roberts, who had a space-ship
>>hide behind an asteroid in the Wing Commander movie, and where everyone
>>on board had to stay quiet to escape detection, copying scenes from
>>countless WW2 movies involving u-boats. Laws of physics take a backseat,
>>if they come in the way of having a fun and enjoyable space opera, which
>>is fine by me.
>
>I like to think that most space games takes place in a universe which is
>almost exactly like our own except one little physical difference.  Outer
>space isn't a vacuum, instead there's some sort of invisible unbreathable
>gas that permeates all of space.  Pretty much explains everything in
>your typical space-sim game, like why you can hear exploding spaceships,
>lack of inertia, fighters than bank when turning, even those sparkly
>little things that move past your ship so you can tell you're moving.

That's the "ether" used in a lot of very old scifi ('30s.)

Xocyll
-- 
I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of 
a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably, 
Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So 
FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr 

Xocyll, I made a mistake.  I assumed you were talking about gameplay
feature that you thought couldn't be implemented on computers ten years
ago.  Since you didn't mention any level of graphics quality, I had no
way of knowing you only ment that games couldn't have implemented this
feature with whatever arbitrary level of quality you expected.  I also
assumed you were a reasonable and intelligent person, who had a basic
understanding of computers and outer space.  Given these assumptions,
which I think were reasonable to make at the time, and the context of
your original post in this thread, I think any reasonable person could
see that this was an honest mistake on my part.

However, honest mistake or not, it would be wrong of me not to learn
from this.  I see now that you're both unreasonable and ignorant.  You've
apparently been wasting your time arguing with Rin lately that you've
picked up his bad habits.  You're arguing contridictory points, you're
ignoring pretty much everything I say, and you're even denying things
you said while simulatenously vigorously defending them at great length.

I apologize for making incorrect assmumptions about what you ment to say.
It won't happen again.  I don't waste my time arguing with Rin anymore,
and I won't waste my time with you either.

					Ross Ridge

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

Ross Ridge <rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> looked up from reading the
entrails of the porn spammer to utter  "The Augury is good, the signs
say:

>Ross Ridge <rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> looked up from reading the
>>In the original Starflight (which was ported to the Commodore 64) you
>>could land of lots of distinct planets.  
>
>Xocyll  <Xocyll@kingston.net> wrote:
>>Yeah and those planets were full 3d representations that you actually
>>entered the atmosphere of, getting lower and lower while the details got
>>higher and higher?  Why am I thinking not?
>
>Yes, that's exactly what happened in the game.  Graphically it's not
>all that impressive by today's standard, but back in 1986 it was really
>amazing.
>
>>For an accurate representation of an asteroid, you would need a heft
>>GPU.
>
>For an accurate graphical representation even todays computers can't
>render an asteroid perfectly.  For gameplay purposes, you could do a
>wireform representation with all sorts of crags, bumps and whatnot that
>you could land on using computers that are over 20 years old.

Except I'm not talking about wireform.

>>Well since it's hypothesized that they're the result of the breakup of
>>larger objects (moons and planets) and we know how things look when we
>>blow them up, that's not much of a stretch.
>
>We don't *know* that's true in every solar system.  By your own arguments
>asteroid could be formed in completely different ways in other places
>in the Universe.

Gee Ross, why do you think I used the word "hypothesized" and the "not
much of a stretch" phrase?

>>We can assume they'd be similar.  We can't assume that every system will
>>behave exactly like ours does, since we know there are multi-star
>>systems out there.
>
>Hold it, why do you get abritrary decide what must be same and what
>can be be different?  Why does something as fundamental as the laws of
>physics get to change, but not how asteroids are formed?
>
>If I can't say your idea of asteroids is unrealistic because I can't
>possibly know what asteriods are like in another solar system, then
>neither can you.

Except Ross, your whole argument for how asteroid BELTS are was based on
YOUR imagination of what I thought asteroid belts looked like, something
that was completely false.

>>I don't think the buying public would be too interested in a space-sim
>>type game with unicorns and gummi-bear asteroids though.
>>Since you bring it up I'll assume you would be.
>
>No, it was an example of how ridiculous your argument is.  You haven't
>actually tried to justify this asteriod idea of yours as being something
>that anyone other than yourself would actually want to have in game.
>You've only tried to justify it as being more realistic, and by your
>own arguments space unicorns that shit out asteroids is just as realistic.

I put it forward as an example of something that could be done now in a
Privateer type game, that couldn't be done back in the day.

The X-Games (BTF, 2,3) show that there is a market for that kind of
thing, since in X2 etc you set up automated mines on asteroids as well
as various other factory complexes and Privateer was all about doing
your own thing, not rigidly following an on-rails story.

For that matter EVNova also had asteroid mining and even had a
specialized asteroid mining ship (although it was a top down 2d game and
you didn't actually land on the asteroids you blew them up and captured
the pieces.)

>>But how nice to see you're going to just declare it pointless and never
>>actually answer the question of what the hell were you thinking when you
>>went off on this ultra dense asteroid field business and ascribed that
>>as my wants when it's the exact opposite.
>
>As I already explained, I incorrectly assumed that you were talking
>about a gameplay idea which couldn't be implemented on PCs available ten
>years ago.  

Except the ultra dense fields, formed randomly and disappearing when
you've stopped looking and reforming when you come back that you talked
about are EXACTLY what they used 10 years ago and more.

>I also incorrectly assumed by realistic you ment something
>that resembles what we know is real rather than something that we can
>only imagine exists.  

Really?  I say realistic asteroid field and you start talking about
ultra-dense Hollywood style fields with collisions every minute or so.

How is that YOU assuming that by realistic I meant realistic when YOU
start talking about something that you argue would be totally
unrealistic and would totally preclude what I specifically mentioned?

You misread what I wrote (or didn't read it at all), leapt to a
conclusion and started arguing furiously about something that no one but
you thought.  When corrected you just dropped it without ever admitting
what you did, and here you are doing it again.

>You don't need a lot of computing power to draw a
>single asteroid on screen, and if more than one asteroid is visible on
>screen at a time then the asteroids are massively more dense than could
>naturally occur in reality as we know it.

Really you don't need a lot of computing power to draw one highly
irregularly shaped asteroid that's rotating in 3 dimensions and
following a specific orbit that will be changed by your ship firing on
it to clear a spot to land?

I'm assuming by asteroid density you're actually talking about the
density of the asteroid field here not the density of a particular
asteroid.

Why exactly couldn't you have one up close and another one or two on
screen off in the distance, miles away, yet still visible to the naked
eye/scanner?  

There are going to be asteroids out there that aren't heavy mass
objects, being made up of lighter elements only (so the gravity
interactions would be minimal.)  A very large silicon asteroid would be
very light (mass) and also catch what little light there might be making
it visible.


And Ross, if you're saying HERE that "You don't need a lot of computing
power to draw a single asteroid on screen," and at the start of this
message that "For an accurate graphical representation even todays
computers can't render an asteroid perfectly."

You don't think there's a middle ground in there somewhere?
A detailed asteroid as perfect in graphics and physics as we can make it
with modern CPUs and GPUs.  
Something of a detail level that would be totally impossible to do 10
years ago, or even last year.

I'd like to have a little more SIM in my Space-sims.

>Seriously, what point do think there is in continuing to discuss whether
>or not your idea of asteroids are realistic or not?  I could point out all
>the factual errors you've made, try to clear up all your misunderstandings
>about physics and space, but what's the point?  Everything we actually
>know about the universe is compelely irrelevent because you've declared
>that things could be different.  You've declared that even the laws of
>physics could be different.

I haven't declared anything Ross, you're the only one making blanket
statements here.  All I said is we haven't been out of this system so we
CAN'T KNOW that the conditions observed here hold true out there.


Two words Ross, Dark Matter.

Our theories of the universe don't work unless we introduce this
invisible undetectable kludge to explain why the figures don't add up.
We have no proof dark matter exists, it's a theory to explain the
anomalies in the observational data that DON'T fit our "laws".

Xocyll
-- 
I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of 
a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably, 
Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So 
FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr 

On 9/10/2012 5:45 PM, noman wrote:
> The creator of Wing Commander, Strike Commander, Privateer and
> Freelancer is about to announce a game he has been working on for more
> than an year. The website <http://robertsspaceindustries.com/start/> has
> a countdown timer currently set to end on October 10.

> "With the power of today’s computers and the reach of the internet I
> finally feel I have the tools to build the connected experience that I
> always dreamed of. A world that would be more satisfying and richer than
> any film I could work on.
> [snip]
> 
> My name is Chris Roberts.
> 
> And if you would indulge me I would like to create a world for you."

Some more details about his vision for the game can be found in this
Gamespot article.
<http://www.gamespot.com/news/wing-commander-creator-talks-new-project-6397488>

"....... Roberts said that the project's visuals may be slightly ahead
of what next-generation consoles from Microsoft and Sony will offer, and
this visual prowess has always been an aim for the developer.

"I want to get back to the roots of what I did in the old days with Wing
Commander, which was, if you've got a really badass PC, this is going to
show it off," he said.

One way in which Roberts' new game will leverage current technology is
through its use of an online component. He said his new game will allow
the community to connect in ways that Wing Commander or Freelancer
players never could.

"In the old days of making games…you built everything, put it on discs;
it went out and shipped to a store. You hoped people liked it. Then they
played it for a month or a week and then you're off for another three
years making a game. Right now is a really good time to re-enter because
I feel like there's opportunity now that maybe there wasn't even a few
years ago," he said.

Roberts' new project will also leverage its online presence to boost its
story-telling. He explained that his new game will not mirror other
online games in only offering one or two updates a year, but rather it
will release a host of "micro-updates" on a frequent basis............"
................

Seems to me that besides the updated visuals, he might be looking at
some Demon's Souls style online components, if not a full fledged online
game. His focus is definitely on PC, and the statement below is encouraging.

".........I don't want to do a mobile game. I don't want to do a social
game. I'd shoot myself. And I know people are getting paid to do it, but
I like to do these big splashy,
jaw-to-the-ground…get-lost-in-the-fantasy-of-it-all [type of
games]........."

--
Noman

On Thu, 04 Oct 2012 12:48:37 -0700, noman <no_m_an@zzzyahoo.yycom>
wrote:

>On 9/10/2012 5:45 PM, noman wrote:
>> The creator of Wing Commander, Strike Commander, Privateer and
>> Freelancer is about to announce a game he has been working on for more
>> than an year. The website <http://robertsspaceindustries.com/start/> has
>> a countdown timer currently set to end on October 10.
>
>> "With the power of today’s computers and the reach of the internet I
>> finally feel I have the tools to build the connected experience that I
>> always dreamed of. A world that would be more satisfying and richer than
>> any film I could work on.
>> [snip]
>> 
>> My name is Chris Roberts.
>> 
>> And if you would indulge me I would like to create a world for you."
>
>Some more details about his vision for the game can be found in this
>Gamespot article.
><http://www.gamespot.com/news/wing-commander-creator-talks-new-project-6397488>
>
>"....... Roberts said that the project's visuals may be slightly ahead
>of what next-generation consoles from Microsoft and Sony will offer, and
>this visual prowess has always been an aim for the developer.
>
>"I want to get back to the roots of what I did in the old days with Wing
>Commander, which was, if you've got a really badass PC, this is going to
>show it off," he said.
>
>One way in which Roberts' new game will leverage current technology is
>through its use of an online component. He said his new game will allow
>the community to connect in ways that Wing Commander or Freelancer
>players never could.
>
>"In the old days of making games…you built everything, put it on discs;
>it went out and shipped to a store. You hoped people liked it. Then they
>played it for a month or a week and then you're off for another three
>years making a game. Right now is a really good time to re-enter because
>I feel like there's opportunity now that maybe there wasn't even a few
>years ago," he said.
>
>Roberts' new project will also leverage its online presence to boost its
>story-telling. He explained that his new game will not mirror other
>online games in only offering one or two updates a year, but rather it
>will release a host of "micro-updates" on a frequent basis............"
>................
>
>Seems to me that besides the updated visuals, he might be looking at
>some Demon's Souls style online components, if not a full fledged online
>game. His focus is definitely on PC, and the statement below is encouraging.
>
>".........I don't want to do a mobile game. I don't want to do a social
>game. I'd shoot myself. And I know people are getting paid to do it, but
>I like to do these big splashy,
>jaw-to-the-ground…get-lost-in-the-fantasy-of-it-all [type of
>games]........."

Hmm..  He says he doesn't want to do a social game, but also mentions
an online component to the game.  I hope this means simple small-team
or 1 on 1 multiplayer dogfights and not something more ambitious.  The
dogfights could be a lot of fun though.