🚀 go-pugleaf

No, WC: Prophecy looks much better. FS is still a good game tho.

--
Sincerely,
Mike Evans (Intrepid)
mikea...@mindspring.com
http://members.xoom.com/INTREPID
http://members.xoom.com/INTREPID/gamespage.htm
Typhoon wrote in message <6iblav$q6e$1...@nnrp3.snfc21.pbi.net>...
>After a day with the Descent: Freespace demo...I gotta say that I was
>only half-heartedly impressed.
>
>Those of you impressed with 3D eye candy should grab the demo...IMO it
>easily unseats Prophecy as the best looking space-sim available. The
>framerate on a Voodoo2 P133 was quite satisfactory.
>
>I knew going in that this game was a derivative of the Wing Commander
>games...No illusions there. It does seem to incorporate a lot of
>X-Wing/TIE mission elements- so it seems like a step forward.
>
>However, I have to take exception with the flight engine-which doesn't
>seem to be any different from any other WC-inspired space-sim. After
>mucking about in I-War for the past three months, I found myself
>wanting to lateral thruster slide in Freespace....one of the things
>that made Descent 1 & 2 so much fun.
>
>But that feature isn't in Freespace. And its omission makes the game's
>flight engine---altogether unremarkable.
>
>
>*****Saturn S. Padua | typ...@pacbell.net ****
>

I did some messing around with the demo, and you can color me unimpressed.
That damn afterburner jitter gets annoying after about 30 seconds. Also, is
it just me, or do the gunsight crosshairs tend to get lost when things get
hairy? And the sounds are pretty pathetic.

Prophecy has better graphics and music, IMHO.

Cheers,
-Pat

	I was very impressed. It's the best NON-WC space comabat sim
around... I'm still downloading X-COM Interceptor demo, so that might
change.

	I liked the briefing... The music and 3DFX effects are good..
The commands are similar to WC and XvT, so it's not very hard really.
It have the swarmer missiles just like the wasp, and the laser looks
like the WC mass driver.

	Overall, it appears to be a good game.


typ...@pacbellDIESPAM.net (Typhoon) wrote:

>After a day with the Descent: Freespace demo...I gotta say that I was
>only half-heartedly impressed.
>
>Those of you impressed with 3D eye candy should grab the demo...IMO it
>easily unseats Prophecy as the best looking space-sim available. The
>framerate on a Voodoo2 P133 was quite satisfactory.
>
>I knew going in that this game was a derivative of the Wing Commander
>games...No illusions there. It does seem to incorporate a lot of
>X-Wing/TIE mission elements- so it seems like a step forward.
>
>However, I have to take exception with the flight engine-which doesn't
>seem to be any different from any other WC-inspired space-sim. After
>mucking about in I-War for the past three months, I found myself
>wanting to lateral thruster slide in Freespace....one of the things
>that made Descent 1 & 2 so much fun.
>
>But that feature isn't in Freespace. And its omission makes the game's
>flight engine---altogether unremarkable.

	

     >> Delance <<

Typhoon wrote in message <6iblav$q6e$1...@nnrp3.snfc21.pbi.net>...
>After a day with the Descent: Freespace demo...I gotta say that I was
>only half-heartedly impressed.
>
>Those of you impressed with 3D eye candy should grab the demo...IMO it
>easily unseats Prophecy as the best looking space-sim available. The
>framerate on a Voodoo2 P133 was quite satisfactory.

I dunno, I think Prophecy was better, but we've only seen 3 missions in
Freespace.

>I knew going in that this game was a derivative of the Wing Commander
>games...No illusions there. It does seem to incorporate a lot of
>X-Wing/TIE mission elements- so it seems like a step forward.
>
>However, I have to take exception with the flight engine-which doesn't
>seem to be any different from any other WC-inspired space-sim. After
>mucking about in I-War for the past three months, I found myself
>wanting to lateral thruster slide in Freespace....one of the things
>that made Descent 1 & 2 so much fun.


I agree.  I think it's in the same league with the Lucasarts and Wing
Commander games.  Multiplayer should be great.

-Krud

I have to admit i was sad after discovering it was a arcade space-sim.
I mean i was hoping for a x-wing type of game, not like wing comander.It
just gets dull scroling around folowing the red cross and then trying to hit
the circle.
Altough they are the best gaphics I have ever seen, even better than the
recent wingcomander,.
Just so sad, all that potential and a mere arcade action game...I wish the
guys who programed it went on to make games like elite.

Eduardo
Krud wrote in message <6ifhpf$aul$1...@camel21.mindspring.com>...
>Typhoon wrote in message <6iblav$q6e$1...@nnrp3.snfc21.pbi.net>...
>>After a day with the Descent: Freespace demo...I gotta say that I was
>>only half-heartedly impressed.
>>
>>Those of you impressed with 3D eye candy should grab the demo...IMO it
>>easily unseats Prophecy as the best looking space-sim available. The
>>framerate on a Voodoo2 P133 was quite satisfactory.
>
>I dunno, I think Prophecy was better, but we've only seen 3 missions in
>Freespace.
>
>>I knew going in that this game was a derivative of the Wing Commander
>>games...No illusions there. It does seem to incorporate a lot of
>>X-

"Daniel e Eduardo Silva" <hel...@mail.telepac.pt> spoke thusly:

>I have to admit i was sad after discovering it was a arcade space-sim.
>I mean i was hoping for a x-wing type of game, not like wing comander.It
>just gets dull scroling around folowing the red cross and then trying to hit
>the circle.
<snip>
>Just so sad, all that potential and a mere arcade action game...I wish the
>guys who programed it went on to make games like elite.

It's my experience that two things most important to any *space-sim*
are Flight Engine and Mission Design. And the brief demo of Freespace
shows us one, and a brief glimpse of the other.

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.

I'll be the first to admit that Freespace's engine was not what I
expected/wanted, but I'm gonna give it the benefit of a doubt anyways
and grab it once it hits the shelves. Flight engine is an important
part of the package, but its the missions/story/campaigns that create
the actual immersion- something that I think Freespace will deliver in
spades.


*****Saturn S. Padua | typ...@pacbell.net ****

Yes, you�re right on that one. The demo just gives us the smell of the
story/campaigns...If they end up being great in the final relase, I may end
up buying it.
You�ve played x-wing, or tie-fighter, right? One cool thing we could do with
it was to dodge the lasers coming from the big vessels.You started seeing
them coming and would go down , then up again to the initial position facing
the ship.And the, you would see those lasers passing by on top of you...It
was that kind of strategy i tought Freespace would have(will have?).

Eduardo
Typhoon wrote in message <6imfoj$dgg$1...@nnrp3.snfc21.pbi.net>...
>"

>part of the package, but its the missions/story/campaigns that create
>the actual immersion- something that I think Freespace will deliver in
>spades.
>
>
>*****Saturn S. Padua | typ...@pacbell.net ****
>

"Daniel e Eduardo Silva" <hel...@mail.telepac.pt> wrote:
>You´ve played x-wing, or tie-fighter, right? One cool thing we could do with
>it was to dodge the lasers coming from the big vessels.You started seeing
>them coming and would go down , then up again to the initial position facing
>the ship.And the, you would see those lasers passing by on top of you...It
>was that kind of strategy i tought Freespace would have(will have?).

Oh yeah, it will.  You won't believe the things you'll see.  Every
time I test some missions, I'm amazed at the scenes I'm witnessing.
Seriously, you guys will love it.

--
Adam Pletcher
Volition, Inc.
ad...@volition-inc.com

Maybe you  should have shown that on the demo?...

Damn great  special efects!  Was the team who made freespace, the same who
did descent1 & 2?If not what was their previous work?(games, i mean)

Eduardo

Adam Pletcher wrote in message <35500cbd...@192.48.96.24>...
>"Daniel e Eduardo Silva" <hel...@mail.telepac.pt> wrote:
>>You�ve played x-wing, or tie-fighter, right? One cool thing we could do
with
>>it was to dodge the lasers coming from the big vessels.You started seeing
>>them coming and would go down , then up again to the initial position
facing
>>the ship.And the, you would see those lasers passing by on top of you...It
>>was that kind of strategy i tought Freespace would have(will have?).
>
>Oh yeah, it will.  You won't believe the things you'll see.  Every
>time I test some missions, I'm amazed at the scenes I'm witnessing.
>Seriously, you guys will love it.
>
>--
>Adam Pletcher
>Volition, Inc.
>ad...@volition-inc.com

"Daniel e Eduardo Silva" <hel...@mail.telepac.pt> wrote:
>Damn great  special efects!  Was the team who made freespace, the same who
>did descent1 & 2?If not what was their previous work?(games, i mean)

About half of the D1 & D2 teams went on to work on FreeSpace.  This is
the first project for the rest of the FS team.

--
Adam Pletcher
Volition, Inc.
ad...@volition-inc.com

Adam Pletcher wrote in message <35500cbd...@192.48.96.24>...
<
>Oh yeah, it will.  You won't believe the things you'll see.  Every
>time I test some missions, I'm amazed at the scenes I'm witnessing.
>Seriously, you guys will love it.


Well, let's cut out all the hype and get to the more serious issues.  Is there
a nude code?

-Krud :)

>Well, let's cut out all the hype and get to the more serious issues.  Is there
>a nude code?

I believe the aliens are always nude.

---
Mike Kulas, Volition, Inc./Parallax Software

Mike Kulas wrote in message <354f5625....@news1.alterdial.uu.net>...
>>Well, let's cut out all the hype and get to the more serious issues.  Is
there
>>a nude code?
>
>I believe the aliens are always nude.


Kewl.  Do they look like the aliens in that movie where the 3 Stooges went to
Venus? (or was that Abbott and Costello?)

-Krud

In article <354f5625....@news1.alterdial.uu.net>, Mike Kulas
<mi...@volition-inc.com> writes
>>Well, let's cut out all the hype and get to the more serious issues.  Is there
>>a nude code?
>
>I believe the aliens are always nude.

It seems that since Carmageddon everybody wants an '18' rating in
Btitain ;-)


>
>---
>Mike Kulas, Volition, Inc./Parallax Software



Mike Hussey

Krud wrote:
> 
> Adam Pletcher wrote in message <35500cbd...@192.48.96.24>...
> <
> >Oh yeah, it will.  You won't believe the things you'll see.  Every
> >time I test some missions, I'm amazed at the scenes I'm witnessing.
> >Seriously, you guys will love it.
> 
> Well, let's cut out all the hype and get to the more serious issues.  Is there
> a nude code?

Yup, just enter in the secret code and see all the ships nekkid! With no
clothes on! Even better, all the cute lieutenants onboard the capital
ships will be wearing ST:TOS miniskirts. 'Course, they're atomized when
you blow up the ships so you can't really see 'em but take my word,
they're there. :) 

Oy, this is what late hours will do to you. :) 

--
Greg Muir
Design Staff, GrimmWare
greg...@flinet.com
**for business stuff please use --> gm...@grimmware.com
http://www.grimmware.com
-- Wisdom of Kings --
It's a strategic wargame occuring in real-time, not real-time strategy.
"Arrogance and stupidity all in one package. How efficient."
Windows 98 marketing slogan

mi...@volition-inc.com (Mike Kulas) wrote:

>>Well, let's cut out all the hype and get to the more serious issues.  Is there
>>a nude code?
>
>I believe the aliens are always nude.

	Really? They can build spaceships but can't manage to
manufacture some clothing? :)


     >> Delance <<

	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 <<

The combination sundial/calender read Fri, 08 May 1998 15:53:41 GMT,
and that is the moment when Delance@ (Delance) confessed the following
after being sodomized by a band of dwarves courtesy of Neo Rubicant:

>mi...@volition-inc.com (Mike Kulas) wrote:
>
>>>Well, let's cut out all the hype and get to the more serious issues.  Is there
>>>a nude code?
>>
>>I believe the aliens are always nude.
>
>	Really? They can build spaceships but can't manage to
>manufacture some clothing? :)
>
>
>     >> Delance <<

They have a very loose, laid-back, care-free lifestyle, apparantly. :)


Thierry Nguyen. 
Peon, CGW. Has no say in anything of remote importance.
"The Angel of Death is so beautiful, that upon seeing it, you fall
in love so hard, so fast, that you soul is pulled out through your eyes." -Neil Gaiman 

Delance@ (Delance) writes:

>	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.

WC is arcade because it doesn't have any angular momentum.
When you move the joystick, the ship turns at a constant
rate and when you center the joystick, this ship stops
turning instantly.  Freespace and IWar (and the original
Descent games) use a more realistic physics model which
features angular momentum.

>	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.

-- 

================================================================
John DiCamillo 	                           Fiery the Angels Fell 
mi...@netcom.com         Deep thunder rolled around their shores
www.irth.net/milo                  Burning with the fires of Orc

mi...@netcom.com (John DiCamillo) wrote:

>Delance@ (Delance) writes:
>
>>	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.
>
>WC is arcade because it doesn't have any angular momentum.
>When you move the joystick, the ship turns at a constant
>rate and when you center the joystick, this ship stops
>turning instantly.  Freespace and IWar (and the original
>Descent games) use a more realistic physics model which
>features angular momentum.

	Not quite! On Freespace, when you turn to a direction, you
face that direction. The turn is not very responsive (which gives the
illusion of) but there's no inertia.

	As for WC, there's inertia, since WC1. It's really easy to
prove, just fly head on a capship at full speed and turn 90 degrees.
You'll hit the capship, even if you are facing empty space. You can't
do it with Freespace nor X-Wing. End of story.

	WCP is even better, with linear acceleration... At any event,
no flight sim is truly realistic until if features something that have
actually existed and worked, not even I-War, which is the modern sim
that have the more realistic inertia model.

>>	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.

	It's somewhat irrelevant! Of course all those space fighters
have some kind of gravity generator! There's gravity on the capships,
right? So on the fighters there's some way to counter the G-effects.
Or else a fighter that would accelerate from 0 to 1500kps in a few
seconds would probably kill anyone.

	Games feature this turn to pretend that they are realistic to
people that know flight-sims. As for the lateral Gs, hey, tell that to
all F-1 pilots...

>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.

	Not quite right again, the WCP Vampire have fully vectoring
thrusters. So does the Panther (horizontal)

	OK, so most of them don't have it. Still, it could be some gas
jet that is invisible.

     >> Delance <<

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

The Starglider <starg...@thespian.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>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.

	This information is WRONG. Elite II: Frontier also featured
lateral thrusters, a lot of time before I-War. And before that, IIRC,
Mantis Fighter was also a very realistic space-sim.

	I-War is the most realistic capship simulator around. If you
like realistic capship simulators, it's the best for you. But for
people who prefer fighters, it's not that much fun.


     >> Delance <<

On Sat, 09 May 1998 00:00:01 GMT, thie...@mindspring.com (Thierry Nguyen)
wrote:

>The combination sundial/calender read Fri, 08 May 1998 15:53:41 GMT,
>and that is the moment when Delance@ (Delance) confessed the following
>after being sodomized by a band of dwarves courtesy of Neo Rubicant:
>
>>mi...@volition-inc.com (Mike Kulas) wrote:
>>
>>>>Well, let's cut out all the hype and get to the more serious issues.  Is there
>>>>a nude code?
>>>
>>>I believe the aliens are always nude.
>>
>>	Really? They can build spaceships but can't manage to
>>manufacture some clothing? :)
>>
>>
>>     >> Delance <<
>

Nah, I think they're nudists

Derek Smart, Ph.D.
Designer/Lead Developer
Battlecruiser:3000AD

"The man who follows the crowd will usually get no further 
than the crowd.  The man who walks alone is likely to find 
himself in places no one has ever been."

ICQ                     : 158435
Email                   : mailto:dsm...@pobox.com
Media Contact           : mailto:bc3000a...@mindspring.com
World Wide Web          : www.bc3000ad.com
BC3K Latest News        : www.bc3000ad.com/temp/gnn.html
Active Worlds           : Teleport to GALCOM at www.activeworlds.com

Delance@ (Delance) writes:
>mi...@netcom.com (John DiCamillo) wrote:
>>Delance@ (Delance) writes:

>>>	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.
>>
>>WC is arcade because it doesn't have any angular momentum.
>>When you move the joystick, the ship turns at a constant
>>rate and when you center the joystick, this ship stops
>>turning instantly.  Freespace and IWar (and the original
>>Descent games) use a more realistic physics model which
>>features angular momentum.

>	Not quite! On Freespace, when you turn to a direction, you
>face that direction. The turn is not very responsive (which gives the
>illusion of) but there's no inertia.

>	As for WC, there's inertia, since WC1. It's really easy to
>prove, just fly head on a capship at full speed and turn 90 degrees.
>You'll hit the capship, even if you are facing empty space. You can't
>do it with Freespace nor X-Wing. End of story.

You are confusing "inertia" or linear momentum with angular
momentum.  Inertia is the tendency for an object to continue
moving in a straight line until acted upon by some force.
Angular momentum is the tendency for an object to keep rotating
about its center of mass until acted upon by some force.

Freespace and IWar use physics models with both linear and
angular momentum, the WC series uses a physics model with
linear momentum only.

>	It's somewhat irrelevant! Of course all those space fighters
>have some kind of gravity generator! There's gravity on the capships,
>right? So on the fighters there's some way to counter the G-effects.
>Or else a fighter that would accelerate from 0 to 1500kps in a few
>seconds would probably kill anyone.

And of course, 1500 kps is not equal to 1500 km/s or even
1500 m/s.  Think about it: if you were traveling 1500 km
each second, how long would it take to fly the length of
a 2000 meter ship like the Midway?

Answer: about 0.0013 seconds.

Based on the observable speeds of the fighters (about 10
or 20 seconds to fly 2km at 1500kps) we can estimate their
speed in contemporary units as being around 200 - 300 knots
tops.  They accelerate pretty quickly, but a standard G
suit should suffice.  No gravity generators are needed,
which is not to say that they are not included.

-- 

================================================================
John DiCamillo 	                           Fiery the Angels Fell 
mi...@netcom.com         Deep thunder rolled around their shores
www.irth.net/milo                  Burning with the fires of Orc

Delance@ (Delance) wrote:
>	Not quite! On Freespace, when you turn to a direction, you
>face that direction. The turn is not very responsive (which gives the
>illusion of) but there's no inertia.

There is, in fact, real inertia in FreeSpace.  Obviously not the
amount you're looking for, however.

--
Adam Pletcher
Volition, Inc.
ad...@volition-inc.com

ad...@volition-inc.com (Adam Pletcher) wrote:

>Delance@ (Delance) wrote:
>>	Not quite! On Freespace, when you turn to a direction, you
>>face that direction. The turn is not very responsive (which gives the
>>illusion of) but there's no inertia.
>
>There is, in fact, real inertia in FreeSpace.  Obviously not the
>amount you're looking for, however.

	I felt the intertia but I could not do the turn-and-hit trick.
I'll try again to go full AB and try to hit that big capship w/o
looking at it...


     >> Delance <<

A long time ago, in a galaxy far far away, <3554db06.13662333@news.newsg
uy.com>, Delance@?.? babbled something along the lines of (Although I
think it's some sort of conspiracy):
>The Starglider <starg...@thespian.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>       This information is WRONG. Elite II: Frontier also featured
>lateral thrusters, a lot of time before I-War. And before that, IIRC,
>Mantis Fighter was also a very realistic space-sim.
Calm down! I never once said that I-War was the only one! It's just the
best!

-- 
                                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

The Starglider <starg...@thespian.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>A long time ago, in a galaxy far far away, <3554db06.13662333@news.newsg
>uy.com>, Delance@?.? babbled something along the lines of (Although I
>think it's some sort of conspiracy):
>>The Starglider <starg...@thespian.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>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.
>>
>>       This information is WRONG. Elite II: Frontier also featured
>>lateral thrusters, a lot of time before I-War. And before that, IIRC,
>>Mantis Fighter was also a very realistic space-sim.
>Calm down! I never once said that I-War was the only one! It's just the
>best!

	You said: "Except for I-War". I was just correcting an
incorrect information.

     >> Delance <<

mi...@netcom.com (John DiCamillo) wrote:

>>	As for WC, there's inertia, since WC1. It's really easy to
>>prove, just fly head on a capship at full speed and turn 90 degrees.
>>You'll hit the capship, even if you are facing empty space. You can't
>>do it with Freespace nor X-Wing. End of story.
>
>You are confusing "inertia" or linear momentum with angular
>momentum.  Inertia is the tendency for an object to continue
>moving in a straight line until acted upon by some force.
>Angular momentum is the tendency for an object to keep rotating
>about its center of mass until acted upon by some force.
>
>Freespace and IWar use physics models with both linear and
>angular momentum, the WC series uses a physics model with
>linear momentum only.

	Actually... You might be right on that.

	As a note, I have made some tests with the Apollo fighter and
the GTC Orff on the Freespace demo, and it's quite hard to make a 90o
turn and still hit the ship, even at full speed, unlike WC games.
Also, I'd like to no that the physics model of WCP is different from
the previous WC games.

>>	It's somewhat irrelevant! Of course all those space fighters
>>have some kind of gravity generator! There's gravity on the capships,
>>right? So on the fighters there's some way to counter the G-effects.
>>Or else a fighter that would accelerate from 0 to 1500kps in a few
>>seconds would probably kill anyone.
>
>And of course, 1500 kps is not equal to 1500 km/s or even
>1500 m/s.  Think about it: if you were traveling 1500 km
>each second, how long would it take to fly the length of
>a 2000 meter ship like the Midway?
>
>Answer: about 0.0013 seconds.
>
>Based on the observable speeds of the fighters (about 10
>or 20 seconds to fly 2km at 1500kps) we can estimate their
>speed in contemporary units as being around 200 - 300 knots
>tops.  They accelerate pretty quickly, but a standard G
>suit should suffice.  No gravity generators are needed,
>which is not to say that they are not included.

	Knots?? Hey, can you translate this to the metric system? :)

	Well... WC ships accelerate pretty fast. It would be almost
impossible for pilots to sustain this massive stress, hours and hours
almost everyday, w/o some kind of gravity generator... 1 or 2 times,
fine, but several times everyday with this kind of G-force is
stressing.

	Not to mention that the fighting capacity of a pilot under
this force would suffer a lot.


     >> Delance <<