Forums » Suggestions
Yea I know that blackouts and other side effects of high Gs would not happen at the pathetic speeds of these craft, its just a cheesy expanation for a futeristic version of a modern problem (that is not being able to turn fast/ at all when going full afterburners). Heck if these are gravitational drives (not anti-grav but grav) then high Gs might be caused by slowly moveing.
As for all you people who think dog fights are realistic, they don't even happen in modern day. Air combat consists of launching a standoff air to air missile from beyond visual range.
Of course that would make combat very boring, so dogfight resembling things are here to stay....
Unfortunatly so is rocket ramming :(
As for all you people who think dog fights are realistic, they don't even happen in modern day. Air combat consists of launching a standoff air to air missile from beyond visual range.
Of course that would make combat very boring, so dogfight resembling things are here to stay....
Unfortunatly so is rocket ramming :(
"No, this is a test version, and things still need to be tweaked. I point out some unralistic behavior, and you suddenly leap out of nowhere, make up a load of nonsense to support the arbitrary decisions made by the devs regarding the ship behaviour (decisions which are still open to debate, and are still under deveopment and will change). As long as the game isn't finished absolutely nothing is the intended design of the game. In fact, the devs are still working on the underlying physics model AFAIK. Nothing is decided as of yet, nothing is cast in stone, hence your farfetched nonsense trying to defend the behavior in the current incarnation of the project are useless since it might change overnight, and you'd have to come up with another farfetched freaky theory to defend _that_ behavior."
Dude. People will buy all sorts of bullshi*.
Dude. People will buy all sorts of bullshi*.
OK, no time nor motivation for a detailed breakdown of your post into all it's small facets, so allow me to just say 3 things here:
1) What forum we in? Read the topic. That's right, _suggestions_. Now if a guy ain't even allowed to suggest what he considers to be a gameplay improvement on the suggestions forum of a game under development, where is he allowed to do so? I'm not cramming anything down anyones throat, I'm just posting a suggestion in the designated suggestion-posting area of the site. You seem to be heavily opposed to the idea of different speeds and accelerations depending on the direction one travels in; most people I spoke to on IRC about this seem to agree with me. So I don't think my suggestion is "a fundamentaly flawed statement" as you seem to think. Also, you kind of challenge me to proving formaly that changing the flight dynamics will result in a better gameplay experience. I challenge you to prove the opposite. There is no way of telling for sure one way or the other unless we test this, but right now the game feels more like a 3D shooter than a space combat game, and I don't think that's what the devs had in mind.
2) You keep going on about the S:AAB example I've given. How many times, really dude, how many times do I have to repeat that an example is just an example. Nothing more. I have already stated numerous times that I do not consider fuel based propulsion/maneuverability as the only possibility and that I am willing to accept that no mass has to be expelled to generate a force. You say I keep on insinuating that our ships should maneuver by releasing small amounts of mass. After the first post I have not said anything to insinuate that the only way to maneuver is by releasing small amounts of mass. Great tactic, repeating one line from my very first post, then claim I'm the one who constantly keeps bringin it up. See? That's why I believe you're not capable of having a discussion: you can't even see the difference between what I really say and what you would like me to say.
3) I was around during 3.1; I know what went on back then.
And last but not least this gem:
"Are we even talking about the same game?"
Only if we are talking about Vendetta. You're not even aware of your ability to change course while at turbo speeds, so I don't think its my experience which is in question.
which was in response to you claiming:
"I'm pretty sure that if you hold down the fire button that you will stop 'turboing' during the time you are firing."
and NOT at all to anything regarding changing course while traveling at near turbo speeds. Trying to weasel your way out of a statement of pure ignorance? It's OK, I'm no cruel man. I'm not gonna offer you mustard to go with the foot, just get the damn thing out of your mouth already.
1) What forum we in? Read the topic. That's right, _suggestions_. Now if a guy ain't even allowed to suggest what he considers to be a gameplay improvement on the suggestions forum of a game under development, where is he allowed to do so? I'm not cramming anything down anyones throat, I'm just posting a suggestion in the designated suggestion-posting area of the site. You seem to be heavily opposed to the idea of different speeds and accelerations depending on the direction one travels in; most people I spoke to on IRC about this seem to agree with me. So I don't think my suggestion is "a fundamentaly flawed statement" as you seem to think. Also, you kind of challenge me to proving formaly that changing the flight dynamics will result in a better gameplay experience. I challenge you to prove the opposite. There is no way of telling for sure one way or the other unless we test this, but right now the game feels more like a 3D shooter than a space combat game, and I don't think that's what the devs had in mind.
2) You keep going on about the S:AAB example I've given. How many times, really dude, how many times do I have to repeat that an example is just an example. Nothing more. I have already stated numerous times that I do not consider fuel based propulsion/maneuverability as the only possibility and that I am willing to accept that no mass has to be expelled to generate a force. You say I keep on insinuating that our ships should maneuver by releasing small amounts of mass. After the first post I have not said anything to insinuate that the only way to maneuver is by releasing small amounts of mass. Great tactic, repeating one line from my very first post, then claim I'm the one who constantly keeps bringin it up. See? That's why I believe you're not capable of having a discussion: you can't even see the difference between what I really say and what you would like me to say.
3) I was around during 3.1; I know what went on back then.
And last but not least this gem:
"Are we even talking about the same game?"
Only if we are talking about Vendetta. You're not even aware of your ability to change course while at turbo speeds, so I don't think its my experience which is in question.
which was in response to you claiming:
"I'm pretty sure that if you hold down the fire button that you will stop 'turboing' during the time you are firing."
and NOT at all to anything regarding changing course while traveling at near turbo speeds. Trying to weasel your way out of a statement of pure ignorance? It's OK, I'm no cruel man. I'm not gonna offer you mustard to go with the foot, just get the damn thing out of your mouth already.
[17:07:32] <FiReMaGe> but please tell me those are engines
[17:07:40] <Incarnate> they're pretty. that's what they are.
What's that mean? Other than me begging, it means everything isn't all tightly based on some drawn out schematic of the ship and engines.
[17:08:31] <Incarnate> there's actually a discussion of engine technology in our storyline
[17:08:41] <Incarnate> a couple of pages worth. but, I don't remember what I.. wrote..
[17:08:44] <Incarnate> it was like 2 years ago.
[17:08:56] <FiReMaGe> incarnate, whatever you do, never make them heatsinks :)
[17:09:07] <Incarnate> fm: heatsinks makes no bloody sense
[17:09:12] <Incarnate> there's nothing to couple to in space
(Sorry, Celebrim, if that was offensive, I like to bring humour around in IRC)
As for the all of your slightly... just slighty assuming what they have as "engines", its best if you don't. Vendetta is a program, you can make almost anything act the way you want, there doesn't need to be, although as I can see that everyone wants it to, realistics behind it.
And yes, so he made documents 2 years ago, but most of the ships were probably designed before that (the ones that will not be in the full version).
Okay, so this is like a flight simulator. There needs to be realistics, but some of you seem to be trying to bind logic to every little thing of this game right now. Explain to me when you mine a mine (try this, in 3rd person with F2), it moves down slightly, then more slightly moves up? This is a game, does that really need logic behind it? Are you going to tell me there's some kind of electro-magnetic feild or super xithricite effect?
IF you did not try to bind any logic to the above example of laying a mine, then you can see the flight model is not completely bound to some realistics.
Don't tell me you haven't been binding any logic at all to these engines. The many posts about how Nighty's assumption is wrong just proves that you are.
Just take a look at the flight model again. Mouse look off makes you rotate faster? Here's something ALL of you can accept as a bug or unpolishment. If you pilot a vulture and crazily move in a hangar and suddenly be projected into an object and actually get inside it. Are you going to bind any logic to that? Can't you see that there are some things of the CURRENT flight model that can't have logic.
I hope not to see a reply with words as bind as the root word and quotes around that word.
a1k0n once said that before the public test, you could turn with afterburners. Above that, he said speeds would not decrease; meaning no drag or friction out of no where was in place. Why was it removed? GAMEPLAY! He said it was very hard to encounter people. Possibly even difficulties in fighting. So they took both out because of that, are you going to bind logic to it? Maybe they have, but it's just "energy is focused on afterburners". Does that sound like a greatly realistic explanation? Focused on afterburners? But I can fire. Amazingly, this has already been discussed in the thread.
After Nighty's first post, I thought the next thread would be some suggestions of improving gameplay, but instead, logic (Which seemed distorted because it was bound to what it shouldnt be. Yes, some of you also say you aren't fully assuming it, then why smack it in his face?) was smacked in his face.
This thread is now LIKE the discussion of what the scientists of Vendetta chose to study for ships. I capitalize LIKE for no quoting me and then telling me that you're talking about what the engines COULD be.
So the devs (above) had made changes based on gameplay. Can you? With suggestions?
[17:07:40] <Incarnate> they're pretty. that's what they are.
What's that mean? Other than me begging, it means everything isn't all tightly based on some drawn out schematic of the ship and engines.
[17:08:31] <Incarnate> there's actually a discussion of engine technology in our storyline
[17:08:41] <Incarnate> a couple of pages worth. but, I don't remember what I.. wrote..
[17:08:44] <Incarnate> it was like 2 years ago.
[17:08:56] <FiReMaGe> incarnate, whatever you do, never make them heatsinks :)
[17:09:07] <Incarnate> fm: heatsinks makes no bloody sense
[17:09:12] <Incarnate> there's nothing to couple to in space
(Sorry, Celebrim, if that was offensive, I like to bring humour around in IRC)
As for the all of your slightly... just slighty assuming what they have as "engines", its best if you don't. Vendetta is a program, you can make almost anything act the way you want, there doesn't need to be, although as I can see that everyone wants it to, realistics behind it.
And yes, so he made documents 2 years ago, but most of the ships were probably designed before that (the ones that will not be in the full version).
Okay, so this is like a flight simulator. There needs to be realistics, but some of you seem to be trying to bind logic to every little thing of this game right now. Explain to me when you mine a mine (try this, in 3rd person with F2), it moves down slightly, then more slightly moves up? This is a game, does that really need logic behind it? Are you going to tell me there's some kind of electro-magnetic feild or super xithricite effect?
IF you did not try to bind any logic to the above example of laying a mine, then you can see the flight model is not completely bound to some realistics.
Don't tell me you haven't been binding any logic at all to these engines. The many posts about how Nighty's assumption is wrong just proves that you are.
Just take a look at the flight model again. Mouse look off makes you rotate faster? Here's something ALL of you can accept as a bug or unpolishment. If you pilot a vulture and crazily move in a hangar and suddenly be projected into an object and actually get inside it. Are you going to bind any logic to that? Can't you see that there are some things of the CURRENT flight model that can't have logic.
I hope not to see a reply with words as bind as the root word and quotes around that word.
a1k0n once said that before the public test, you could turn with afterburners. Above that, he said speeds would not decrease; meaning no drag or friction out of no where was in place. Why was it removed? GAMEPLAY! He said it was very hard to encounter people. Possibly even difficulties in fighting. So they took both out because of that, are you going to bind logic to it? Maybe they have, but it's just "energy is focused on afterburners". Does that sound like a greatly realistic explanation? Focused on afterburners? But I can fire. Amazingly, this has already been discussed in the thread.
After Nighty's first post, I thought the next thread would be some suggestions of improving gameplay, but instead, logic (Which seemed distorted because it was bound to what it shouldnt be. Yes, some of you also say you aren't fully assuming it, then why smack it in his face?) was smacked in his face.
This thread is now LIKE the discussion of what the scientists of Vendetta chose to study for ships. I capitalize LIKE for no quoting me and then telling me that you're talking about what the engines COULD be.
So the devs (above) had made changes based on gameplay. Can you? With suggestions?
If the starting argument as to why to change the flight system hadn't been (as the title cleary states) "unrealistic manuverablity" then ppl wouldn't (or at least would have no reason to) apply logic based on their preconived notions of how objects in space behave.
Now that I'v got that off my chest, if someone can give me a solid reason explaining why said changes would improve gameplay, then by all means change it. But realisim for the sake of realism often sucks. Sure some ppl love Tom Clancy games but most ppl would prefer the "realism" of counter-strike (for anyone who thinks counter-strike is realistic, explain why the kevlar vests do not completly block 9mm bullets as per real life, or why a shot to an unhelemted head isn't an auto-kill)
Now that I'v got that off my chest, if someone can give me a solid reason explaining why said changes would improve gameplay, then by all means change it. But realisim for the sake of realism often sucks. Sure some ppl love Tom Clancy games but most ppl would prefer the "realism" of counter-strike (for anyone who thinks counter-strike is realistic, explain why the kevlar vests do not completly block 9mm bullets as per real life, or why a shot to an unhelemted head isn't an auto-kill)
FiReMaGe: An excellent post, and I'm not offended at all. I agree with you entirely, and the whole logical argument you develop is one that underpins exactly what I'm trying to say.
If you'll look at Nighty's original post, and my original response, before I got bogged down in all the various issues he raised you should see that the heart of my complaint is exactly the same as yours.
Nighty makes the suggestion:
"I think the maneuverability in Vendetta could still use some serious tweaking."
Which is all well and good. I don't think anyone here doesn't think that the flight engine couldn't use some tweaking. But he still doesn't seem to understand what is wrong with the rest of the post. Rather than offering gameplay suggestions, he tries to impose some preconcieved notion about what is realistic on to the gameplay. He offers me no proof that the manueverability could use some tweaking, much less that the tweaking it could use is what he suggests. Instead he attempts to derive the flight model from a set of assumptions about what is 'realistic', not about what is good.
As I said before, I could care less if the things on the back of the engines are rockets, or heatsinks, or both. My point was exactly what I said it was in my thesis sentence, "You are making several assumptions about the technology used by the craft in Vendetta that don't appear to me to be true." If there is more than one way to look at what is realistic, then there is no arguement about gameplay that you can base solely on realism as he tried to do.
BTW, for the record, when Incarnate mentions that there is nothing to couple to in space therefore they can't be heatsinks, that's precisely why they can be heatsinks. Incarnate's absolutely right - heat energy can't transfered in a vacuum. The only way to radiate it is convert it to eletromagnetic energy and beam it off the ship. Since these ships generate power, they have to do this. But of, course, the fact that they have to radiate heat energy as EM a) doesn't mean the glowy things on the back have to be heat sinks, b) probably isn't important to the average gamer, and c) has nothing to do with gameplay. It only was mentioned to attempt to deflate arguments based around what is realistic, because a serious discussion about what is realistic would generate a game nothing like what the developers are trying to develop.
"This is a game, does that really need logic behind it?"
Nope.
"So the devs (above) had made changes based on gameplay. Can you? With suggestions?"
Thank you. I see know that that is what I should have said all along. But I want you to note, that I'm not the one trying to force changes in the flight model based on my understanding of physics. Despite my arguing, when Nighty wants to get the thread back on track, he still doesn't get it. Quote:
"Realisticaly speaking longitudonal motion should have two vars for both accell/speed: one for the positive motion, one for the negative, due to the proportional difference between the big rear engines and the so-small-you-don't-even-see-them brake "thrusters"."
Once again, all his evidence is what is 'realistic', and that's why this thread has never become a discussion of how to improve gameplay. It never started out as one.
PS: I figured out why I have never been able to fire and turbo at the same time. I assume many of you always could, but I put both turbo and fire on my joystick and apparantly the joystick (an old flightstick pro) either refuses to send both buttons depressed messages or Vendetta fails to recognize both buttons depressed. Either way, whenever I fire turboing I stop turboing. And here I always thought it was a feature. :)
If you'll look at Nighty's original post, and my original response, before I got bogged down in all the various issues he raised you should see that the heart of my complaint is exactly the same as yours.
Nighty makes the suggestion:
"I think the maneuverability in Vendetta could still use some serious tweaking."
Which is all well and good. I don't think anyone here doesn't think that the flight engine couldn't use some tweaking. But he still doesn't seem to understand what is wrong with the rest of the post. Rather than offering gameplay suggestions, he tries to impose some preconcieved notion about what is realistic on to the gameplay. He offers me no proof that the manueverability could use some tweaking, much less that the tweaking it could use is what he suggests. Instead he attempts to derive the flight model from a set of assumptions about what is 'realistic', not about what is good.
As I said before, I could care less if the things on the back of the engines are rockets, or heatsinks, or both. My point was exactly what I said it was in my thesis sentence, "You are making several assumptions about the technology used by the craft in Vendetta that don't appear to me to be true." If there is more than one way to look at what is realistic, then there is no arguement about gameplay that you can base solely on realism as he tried to do.
BTW, for the record, when Incarnate mentions that there is nothing to couple to in space therefore they can't be heatsinks, that's precisely why they can be heatsinks. Incarnate's absolutely right - heat energy can't transfered in a vacuum. The only way to radiate it is convert it to eletromagnetic energy and beam it off the ship. Since these ships generate power, they have to do this. But of, course, the fact that they have to radiate heat energy as EM a) doesn't mean the glowy things on the back have to be heat sinks, b) probably isn't important to the average gamer, and c) has nothing to do with gameplay. It only was mentioned to attempt to deflate arguments based around what is realistic, because a serious discussion about what is realistic would generate a game nothing like what the developers are trying to develop.
"This is a game, does that really need logic behind it?"
Nope.
"So the devs (above) had made changes based on gameplay. Can you? With suggestions?"
Thank you. I see know that that is what I should have said all along. But I want you to note, that I'm not the one trying to force changes in the flight model based on my understanding of physics. Despite my arguing, when Nighty wants to get the thread back on track, he still doesn't get it. Quote:
"Realisticaly speaking longitudonal motion should have two vars for both accell/speed: one for the positive motion, one for the negative, due to the proportional difference between the big rear engines and the so-small-you-don't-even-see-them brake "thrusters"."
Once again, all his evidence is what is 'realistic', and that's why this thread has never become a discussion of how to improve gameplay. It never started out as one.
PS: I figured out why I have never been able to fire and turbo at the same time. I assume many of you always could, but I put both turbo and fire on my joystick and apparantly the joystick (an old flightstick pro) either refuses to send both buttons depressed messages or Vendetta fails to recognize both buttons depressed. Either way, whenever I fire turboing I stop turboing. And here I always thought it was a feature. :)
I agree with Celebrim about non-Newtonian propulsion. I think we can use this to technobabble a reason for only traveling at 65m/s and 200m/s. The hyperspace motivator that activates wormholes has the effect of tethering the ship to a certain point in space. The propulsion system, even with its great power, can only counteract that tethering force enough to propel us at 65m/s for cruise and 200m/s for turbo.
The time to draw upon hard science and pseudo-scientific sci-fi technobabble will be when the flight model, ship models and visual effects are finalized. Then the devs, with or without us, can write up a nice piece on this for the game's web site and/or manual. The producers of science fiction do it all the time. The gameplay considerations and "coolness" factors must come first. :)
Asp
The time to draw upon hard science and pseudo-scientific sci-fi technobabble will be when the flight model, ship models and visual effects are finalized. Then the devs, with or without us, can write up a nice piece on this for the game's web site and/or manual. The producers of science fiction do it all the time. The gameplay considerations and "coolness" factors must come first. :)
Asp
For my part, I'd just rather not explain things. If it really becomes an issue they could just put a 'k' in front of the 'm's in the game (except for ship sizes), and probably no one would notice that we weren't actually moving at 200km/s, and those that would notice probably wouldn't care.
That's what Wing Commander used to do, as I recall. I like the honesty of meters per second, personally. :)
Asp
Asp
Celebrim said: "Which is all well and good. I don't think anyone here doesn't think that the flight engine couldn't use some tweaking. But he still doesn't seem to understand what is wrong with the rest of the post. Rather than offering gameplay suggestions, he tries to impose some preconcieved notion about what is realistic on to the gameplay. He offers me no proof that the manueverability could use some tweaking, much less that the tweaking it could use is what he suggests. Instead he attempts to derive the flight model from a set of assumptions about what is 'realistic', not about what is good."
Your preaching to the quire man, just read my post before this one.
Later he said "For my part, I'd just rather not explain things. If it really becomes an issue they could just put a 'k' in front of the 'm's in the game (except for ship sizes), and probably no one would notice that we weren't actually moving at 200km/s, and those that would notice probably wouldn't care."
Nah, I prefer the honesty of games like freespace.
Your preaching to the quire man, just read my post before this one.
Later he said "For my part, I'd just rather not explain things. If it really becomes an issue they could just put a 'k' in front of the 'm's in the game (except for ship sizes), and probably no one would notice that we weren't actually moving at 200km/s, and those that would notice probably wouldn't care."
Nah, I prefer the honesty of games like freespace.
/me points at Celebrim and Nighty, having read approx half the thread, and says "Don't argue- it's pointless, and Vendetta is JUST A GAME".
/me then points at his post about engine energy usage being based on speed and maneuvering and the reaction to that
/me applauds Celebrim for his radiator thingy that he used.
/me then points at his post about engine energy usage being based on speed and maneuvering and the reaction to that
/me applauds Celebrim for his radiator thingy that he used.
/me looks quizzically at Rapid Panda about the highlighting of his post. it wasnt that impressive that you should have reposted it :(
/me looks at nighty and Celebrim and states; me has wasted a lot of time on reading this, and I still dont understand a thing.
And im not at all interested in how unrealistic something is nighty, you can always explain this as being a part of the vendetta laws of physics. If you really want to point it out.
But what I am interested in is resolving gameplayissues like rocketramming, nuking stations, incorperation of mission and so on... . Sorry , I know it isnt that nice to say it but, the devs are busy doing that so please let them get on with that and just post a suggestion like this:
Thoughts about the Manouvrability in game. In there you could highlight it as being unrealistic to the Earths laws, think about it a title is a small line about the contents of the thread. what you did do, but it seemed like you were mad or dissapointed at them for not making it as you wanted it ;).
cheers
/me looks at nighty and Celebrim and states; me has wasted a lot of time on reading this, and I still dont understand a thing.
And im not at all interested in how unrealistic something is nighty, you can always explain this as being a part of the vendetta laws of physics. If you really want to point it out.
But what I am interested in is resolving gameplayissues like rocketramming, nuking stations, incorperation of mission and so on... . Sorry , I know it isnt that nice to say it but, the devs are busy doing that so please let them get on with that and just post a suggestion like this:
Thoughts about the Manouvrability in game. In there you could highlight it as being unrealistic to the Earths laws, think about it a title is a small line about the contents of the thread. what you did do, but it seemed like you were mad or dissapointed at them for not making it as you wanted it ;).
cheers
Woot!!! wOOt!!! WooT!!!!
Rene, i think Nightys idea is great... !!!! Dont mean to be rude but the whole idea of a beta test game, and a discussions board, is to discuss any new ideas, changes, etc etc..
Nighty, nice one mate!! The devs proberly are too busy but what a discussion, couldn't help laughing at a few of the reply's...lol
Oh, i did like the fuel idea.. i keeps poping up.. but whats to say when all the planets run out of fuel.. what will be used next.. Solar power? Electricty? How about the idea (Thats already in place) of the Battery Pack???? Or maybe we could just have petrol stations in space??? Yeah Giant intergalatic Gas/Petrol Friagtes that could plug in and fill u up!!!
Dev's how much to fill my Vulture? maybe you could make out how much fuel my craft can take.. oh a while ur there how many miles to the gallon can it do...thanks!!!!
Oh well, /me heads off the watch his daily episode of Space above and beyond.. followed by Babylon5!!....Whilst the rest of you can get back to watching Star Trek!!!
Beam me up scottie!!!
WM
Rene, i think Nightys idea is great... !!!! Dont mean to be rude but the whole idea of a beta test game, and a discussions board, is to discuss any new ideas, changes, etc etc..
Nighty, nice one mate!! The devs proberly are too busy but what a discussion, couldn't help laughing at a few of the reply's...lol
Oh, i did like the fuel idea.. i keeps poping up.. but whats to say when all the planets run out of fuel.. what will be used next.. Solar power? Electricty? How about the idea (Thats already in place) of the Battery Pack???? Or maybe we could just have petrol stations in space??? Yeah Giant intergalatic Gas/Petrol Friagtes that could plug in and fill u up!!!
Dev's how much to fill my Vulture? maybe you could make out how much fuel my craft can take.. oh a while ur there how many miles to the gallon can it do...thanks!!!!
Oh well, /me heads off the watch his daily episode of Space above and beyond.. followed by Babylon5!!....Whilst the rest of you can get back to watching Star Trek!!!
Beam me up scottie!!!
WM
Wow, what a headache. I couldn't bring myself to read all the posts, but I thought I'll toss in my two cents, one for each of two topics which were brought up recently.
Fuel
I never liked the idea of fuel. You need to remember that this is the year 4432 AD. We are in the year 2003 where we have theories on producing a successful fusion engine, which has a near-infinite supply of energy. Heck, right now we can harness solar power with more and more efficient panels every year. So when you toss yourself 2429 years forward, don't you think by then they would've developed a compact fusion or extremely efficient solar energy engine (or even anti-matter engine) by then?
Why are so many people fixated on expendable fuel engines? Assuming our destructive nature will enable us to survive another 2000 years, there is no doubt in my mind that we would've found a rechargeable source of energy by then to power our spacecraft or any other engine for that matter. Why some of you insist on bringing fuel into the game is beyond me.
Even if you wanted fuel in the game, the implementation of it would be problematic. First of all there's one possible situation where you'd drift across the edge of the universe without fuel and you'll need to literally paddle your way back at a cruising speed. If you wanted sector-based fuel, you run into the problem of finding a station in a sector that doesn't even have stations. Where would you refuel to jump outta that sector?
But in any case, I think the most important argument presented against the implementation fuel is, again, the likelihood that we'll even see fuel some 2000 years ahead of us. I truly believe we'll get to the point where highly efficient energy will become a reality, as many of you may find it hard to believe. But remember, that's a LONG way ahead of us.
Physics
Well, the devs have already tried the idea of removing the speed limit on ships, and I think they've already decided to keep the current way of limiting those maximum speeds. So I think that's out. I think it would be a neat idea to sort of have that effect on rockets and missiles though, where the engine burns out and the projectile keeps a constant speed. But other than that I doubt something like that would ever change.
In regard's to Nighty's argument, I can see where he's coming from... but I'm still unsure which "side" to pick in the argument. S:AAB seems to take more of an atmospheric approach to space combat. I've seen the show and I know that most of the combat sequences behave more like they would on Earth's atmosphere. The aliens (Chiggers I think they were called) had spacecraft which could do extremely sharp turns, while the humans had SA-43 Hammerhead fighters that would take wider turns. Realistically, however, the ships in Vendetta as they behave now would be more factual than the television show. I wouldn't say 100% accurate, but more nonetheless.
In my opinion we're simply not used to seeing spaceships duke it out in zero G environments. We only assume by watching sci-fi shows, and most often they try to replicate dogfighting here on Earth to make it look more dramatic. But it just doesn't work that way in space. Things tend to look weird and fake in space because... well, sometimes the truth is stranger than fiction.
To some extent I do have to agree with Nighty in that the current physics need some sort of revision. I'm personally not too happy with the rubber ball feel of the collision physics. And while some of us whine about the maneuverability of some ships, in reality the turn rate would be A LOT slower than they are now in Vendetta. But for the sake of keeping the sci-fi theme to the game (and retaining a high level of what many call "fun"), I think the devs could get away with a lot of those "unrealistic" things simply because it's the year 4432 and they'll have WAY better technology that would seem out-of-this-world for us today.
I too would like to see some atmospheric sectors or areas where the actual physics of your environment would change slightly. Part of me wants the down-to-Earth flight simulator feel to combat, while another part of me wants the space combat simulator feel to it. By giving the player the option between physics mode and arcade mode, I think they've made a fairly good compromise of both worlds.
PS: A long while back in 3.1.x I asked the devs if we'll eventually see spaceships with animated retro-rockets. Lo and behold they said it was planned. So every time we see a ship rotate or strafe, we might see a mist of vapor coming out of tiny holes to indicate that they are in fact working. I'm not sure whether they're still planning on it, but I think it would be extremely awesome.
=)~
Fuel
I never liked the idea of fuel. You need to remember that this is the year 4432 AD. We are in the year 2003 where we have theories on producing a successful fusion engine, which has a near-infinite supply of energy. Heck, right now we can harness solar power with more and more efficient panels every year. So when you toss yourself 2429 years forward, don't you think by then they would've developed a compact fusion or extremely efficient solar energy engine (or even anti-matter engine) by then?
Why are so many people fixated on expendable fuel engines? Assuming our destructive nature will enable us to survive another 2000 years, there is no doubt in my mind that we would've found a rechargeable source of energy by then to power our spacecraft or any other engine for that matter. Why some of you insist on bringing fuel into the game is beyond me.
Even if you wanted fuel in the game, the implementation of it would be problematic. First of all there's one possible situation where you'd drift across the edge of the universe without fuel and you'll need to literally paddle your way back at a cruising speed. If you wanted sector-based fuel, you run into the problem of finding a station in a sector that doesn't even have stations. Where would you refuel to jump outta that sector?
But in any case, I think the most important argument presented against the implementation fuel is, again, the likelihood that we'll even see fuel some 2000 years ahead of us. I truly believe we'll get to the point where highly efficient energy will become a reality, as many of you may find it hard to believe. But remember, that's a LONG way ahead of us.
Physics
Well, the devs have already tried the idea of removing the speed limit on ships, and I think they've already decided to keep the current way of limiting those maximum speeds. So I think that's out. I think it would be a neat idea to sort of have that effect on rockets and missiles though, where the engine burns out and the projectile keeps a constant speed. But other than that I doubt something like that would ever change.
In regard's to Nighty's argument, I can see where he's coming from... but I'm still unsure which "side" to pick in the argument. S:AAB seems to take more of an atmospheric approach to space combat. I've seen the show and I know that most of the combat sequences behave more like they would on Earth's atmosphere. The aliens (Chiggers I think they were called) had spacecraft which could do extremely sharp turns, while the humans had SA-43 Hammerhead fighters that would take wider turns. Realistically, however, the ships in Vendetta as they behave now would be more factual than the television show. I wouldn't say 100% accurate, but more nonetheless.
In my opinion we're simply not used to seeing spaceships duke it out in zero G environments. We only assume by watching sci-fi shows, and most often they try to replicate dogfighting here on Earth to make it look more dramatic. But it just doesn't work that way in space. Things tend to look weird and fake in space because... well, sometimes the truth is stranger than fiction.
To some extent I do have to agree with Nighty in that the current physics need some sort of revision. I'm personally not too happy with the rubber ball feel of the collision physics. And while some of us whine about the maneuverability of some ships, in reality the turn rate would be A LOT slower than they are now in Vendetta. But for the sake of keeping the sci-fi theme to the game (and retaining a high level of what many call "fun"), I think the devs could get away with a lot of those "unrealistic" things simply because it's the year 4432 and they'll have WAY better technology that would seem out-of-this-world for us today.
I too would like to see some atmospheric sectors or areas where the actual physics of your environment would change slightly. Part of me wants the down-to-Earth flight simulator feel to combat, while another part of me wants the space combat simulator feel to it. By giving the player the option between physics mode and arcade mode, I think they've made a fairly good compromise of both worlds.
PS: A long while back in 3.1.x I asked the devs if we'll eventually see spaceships with animated retro-rockets. Lo and behold they said it was planned. So every time we see a ship rotate or strafe, we might see a mist of vapor coming out of tiny holes to indicate that they are in fact working. I'm not sure whether they're still planning on it, but I think it would be extremely awesome.
=)~
I don't want retro-rockets. I would prefer to think that the ships employ some kind of advanced gravitic drive or something that does not involve using boosters to turn. It just makes it feel more futuristic.
What?! Now you're just inventing some fictional force. Unless you've got some scientific backing with the way you're asking, I'll have to shake my head in disgrace towards you.
/me shakes his head in disgrace towards Pavan
Anyway, why don't you think retro-rockets would not look cool? It's not like you're going to see bulky tubes sticking out of the sides of the ship. They're just tiny holes embedded in the hull of the ship that let out some form of propellant to give it a rotational or sideways force. The space shuttle's orbiter has plenty of 'em. The Prometheus seems to have them in place already--the glowing portions of the fuselage in the center. They need only be animated now. It's only a matter of time before the all the non-specials are redesigned with 'em too. Muwhahaha!!!
PS: While vector-thrusting technology exists, it's really not as flexible as retro-rockets would be in space. The Valkyrie works in mysterious ways perhaps--one in which the mightiest of rocket rammers wouldn't even understand.
/me shakes his head in disgrace towards Pavan
Anyway, why don't you think retro-rockets would not look cool? It's not like you're going to see bulky tubes sticking out of the sides of the ship. They're just tiny holes embedded in the hull of the ship that let out some form of propellant to give it a rotational or sideways force. The space shuttle's orbiter has plenty of 'em. The Prometheus seems to have them in place already--the glowing portions of the fuselage in the center. They need only be animated now. It's only a matter of time before the all the non-specials are redesigned with 'em too. Muwhahaha!!!
PS: While vector-thrusting technology exists, it's really not as flexible as retro-rockets would be in space. The Valkyrie works in mysterious ways perhaps--one in which the mightiest of rocket rammers wouldn't even understand.
Um. If it puts out propellant, and you want to stick as close to fact as possible, then you need fuel. :o
me doesnt want fuel.
Me doesnt like to tank even in real life. So please dont let me tank in vendetta.
cheers
Me doesnt like to tank even in real life. So please dont let me tank in vendetta.
cheers
Actually no. Current retro-rockets don't even have to utilize fuel. Something as simple as compressed air can provide propulsion. Any type of liquid or vapor matter will do, as long as it provides enough thrust. And seeing how Vendetta's spaceships can recycle oxygen, I think you can use some of that oxygen or carbon dioxide as your propellants for retro-rockets.
But even if it uses oxygen, it's putting out oxygen, so unless we can violate the laws of physics and create matter (or unless we can convert energy to matter, which would require phenominal amounts of energy to make even a single atom), we're still talking about some kind of stored and used substance.