Classic Space War for PC?
Douglas W. Jones,201H MLH,3193350740,3193382879
> The original video game is Space War, which
> ran on PDP-10 stroke tubes at MIT Project
> MAC and SAIL in the early 70's.
Try early '60s, and put it on a PDP-1, not a PDP-10. The game spread like
wildfire, and was quickly ported to a variety of computers, the PDP-8, the
DDP-224, and many others. The minimum hardware required, other than a
computer with a switch register, was a dual digital to analog converter and
a scope to use as an output device.
Doug Jones
jo...@cs.uiowa.edu
Mike Butts
ran on PDP-10 stroke tubes at MIT Project
Sun in the center, two ships, rotate left/right,
rocket, fire. Gravity and inertia correctly
modeled in the 2-D game space. When not
shooting at each other, you could have
orbital mechanics fun with the ships.
MS Arcade Asteroids reminded me that I've always
wanted such a thing on PC. Has it been done?
Thanks in advance.
--Mike Butts mbu...@netcom.com
PS: Some versions had torpedos that were subject to
gravity. When near the sun, you had to be careful
you didn't shoot yourself.
Paul Tomblin
>The original video game is Space War, which
>ran on PDP-10 stroke tubes at MIT Project
>MAC and SAIL in the early 70's. Simple: a
When I first started at university (1979), we had a video game in the arcade
that sounds a LOT like Space War. Two ships, joysticks and thrusters for
each one. You got to choose whether the sun in the middle had no gravity,
negative gravity, or regular gravity. You got to choose whether the
"universe" was bounded or wrapped around. I think you got to choose whether
you would bounce off the sun or die. You shot missiles that went straight,
or torpedoes that were affected by gravity. Vector graphics like Asteroids.
Anybody remember this video game? Is it Space War?
Unfortunately, because it was too much fun flying around instead of shooting
each other, the game didn't make enough money so they ripped it out and
replaced it with a "Black Knight" pinball game.
--
Paul Tomblin (formerly p...@geovision.gvc.com)
Anybody want to buy some stock in a GIS company real cheap?
Sean Captain Napalm Conner
[stuff about Space War -- snip ]
>
>MS Arcade Asteroids reminded me that I've always
>wanted such a thing on PC. Has it been done?
>
>PS: Some versions had torpedos that were subject to
>gravity. When near the sun, you had to be careful
>you didn't shoot yourself.
>
I have a version from WAAAAY back. I got it, oh, five or six years ago,
and it was probably a few years old then. Written for 640x200 CGA in pure
assembly (and I should know, I dissasembled it to try to reverse engineer it
over one summer five or six years ago 8-)
For some reason, it only seems to work on true blue IBM PC's (at least, in
my experience, running it on three machines: IBM PCjr, IBM PS/2 mod80 and
a Data General/1 80C88 portable, it only ran on the PS/2. On the others, it
ran for about a minute until the keyboard froze up ... go figure 8-)
It has the two ships, missiles that are affected with gravity, and options
for a planet (instead of a sun), gravity or robot play (either ship, or both).
-spc (I could probably upload it to an FTP site. It was PD when I got it
years ago. Doubt if the author would mind a new audience 8-)
A Myles
>When I first started at university (1979), we had a video game in the arcade
>that sounds a LOT like Space War. Two ships, joysticks and thrusters for
>each one. You got to choose whether the sun in the middle had no gravity,
>negative gravity, or regular gravity. You got to choose whether the
>"universe" was bounded or wrapped around. I think you got to choose whether
>you would bounce off the sun or die. You shot missiles that went straight,
>or torpedoes that were affected by gravity. Vector graphics like Asteroids.
>Anybody remember this video game? Is it Space War?
Blue screen? (light blue on darker blue vector graphics)
Vaguely familiar from my youth (10/11ish)
Andy.
maurice.r.baker
>
>The minimum hardware required, other than a
>computer with a switch register, was a dual digital to analog converter and
>a scope to use as an output device.
>
This immediately brought the SYM-1 6502-based single board computer to mind
[close relative of the KIM, AIM, etc. from late seventies]. Although my
well-worn manuals have long since gone to their reward along with the computer,
so I can't supply exact details, it did feature a nifty set of X-Y-Z outputs
[or perhaps Y-Z outputs and H-sweep trigger pulse now that I think about it]
to drive an ordinary oscilloscope. Also included (in the manual, not in ROM
if once again memory is correct) was the assembler/machine language routine
needed to write "text" to scope screen. And it worked too!
I used my SYM-1 to build a controller for a mobile telephone system in 1979-1980
time frame. It was a good deal for a couple of hundred bucks back then....much
better (IMHO) than the KIM. At first I hand-assembled everything but then wrote
a bunch of 6502 instruction macros for a Z80 assembler (Cromemco's), finally
moving up to a genuine 6502 cross assembler. If I remember right, you could get
BASIC and 6502 assembler ROMs but we never did.
Anybody else remember their SYM-1 board ?
M. Baker
AT&T Bell Labs
mrbaker at attmail.com
Fred Temple
>From: mr...@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (maurice.r.baker)
>Subject: SYM-1 (was Re: Classic Space War for PC?)
>Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1993 13:10:32 GMT
I not only remember my SYM-1, but I actually still use it. I've got
it rigged up for use as a RTTY terminal with amateur radio. The SYM-1
is interfaced to my Heathkit transceiver and an old keyboard and 16X32
monochrome CRT.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Frederick J. Temple | Internet - tem...@columbia.dsu.edu
Dakota State University | Amateur Radio - KB0GKD
Madison, South Dakota | Disclaimer - I express only my opinions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"By three methods we may learn wisdom;
First, by reflection, which is noblest;
Second, by imitation, which is easiest;
and Third, by experience, which is the bitterest." - Confucius
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Kozisek
Yes. I have one in mt bedroom.
Internet: D...@QRM.UUCP
Slownet : 3819 Euclid Ave. Orange, CA 92669
"If Clinton is the answer, it must be a pretty stupid question!"
Larry Mc Donald
> In article <mbuttsCE...@netcom.com> mbu...@netcom.com (Mike Butts) write
>
> [stuff about Space War -- snip ]
>
> >
> >MS Arcade Asteroids reminded me that I've always
> >wanted such a thing on PC. Has it been done?
> >
> >PS: Some versions had torpedos that were subject to
> >gravity. When near the sun, you had to be careful
> >you didn't shoot yourself.
> >
>
> I have a version from WAAAAY back. I got it, oh, five or six years ago,
> and it was probably a few years old then. Written for 640x200 CGA in pure
> assembly (and I should know, I dissasembled it to try to reverse engineer it
> over one summer five or six years ago 8-)
Too bad ya didn't get the registration file that came with
it. The author was offering the source code for really cheap,
something like $20, if I remember right.
> For some reason, it only seems to work on true blue IBM PC's (at least, in
> my experience, running it on three machines: IBM PCjr, IBM PS/2 mod80 and
> a Data General/1 80C88 portable, it only ran on the PS/2. On the others, it
> ran for about a minute until the keyboard froze up ... go figure 8-)
Odd, I've run my copy on everything from a PC to 386s and
have never had a problem with it crashing. It does get too fast
to play on a 386, tho...
> It has the two ships, missiles that are affected with gravity, and options
> for a planet (instead of a sun), gravity or robot play (either ship, or both)
>
> -spc (I could probably upload it to an FTP site. It was PD when I got it
> years ago. Doubt if the author would mind a new audience 8-)
If anyone wants the copy I have with the docs, I could
UUENCODE it to ya (no FTP here >:( ).
Larry Mc Donald, N6ZMB
Internet: La...@qrm.UUCP or dhw68k.cts.com!qrm!larry
Snailnet: 235 1/2 W. Wilshire, Fullerton, CA. 92632
Phonenet: +1 714 526 4347
Paul M. Wexelblat
|> From: mbu...@netcom.com (Mike Butts)
|> Subject: Classic Space War for PC?
|> Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1993 19:39:16 GMT
|>
|> The original video game is Space War, which
|> ran on PDP-10 stroke tubes at MIT Project
|> MAC and SAIL in the early 70's. Simple: a
As Doug Jones points out in another posting, try the early '60s not 70's
and the machine was the PDP-1 not the -10 , and try BBN
If any of you have a PDP-1 with DECscope, I still have a paper tape
of PDP-1 Space War.
(I'll send you a Xerox (r) of it :-> )
I believe the computer museum in Boston does have a PDP-1 with spacewar,
but it uses those joystick things, not the old, original console switches.
More Space War stories available upon request...
--
...Wex
(Please note new domain name, now w...@cs.uml.edu)
(University of Lowell is now University of Massachusetts Lowell)
John Honniball
mr...@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (maurice.r.baker) writes:
> This immediately brought the SYM-1 6502-based single board computer to mind
> Anybody else remember their SYM-1 board ?
I have one in my loft (attic) at home! I was given the machine by my
old school when I called in once to ask about valve (vacuum tube)
scopes.
Its got a hex keypad, LED display and 6502 CPU. Somebody has wired
up a cassette recorder and an edge connector with some sort of
custom hardware.
Anybody got a manual :-)
--
BJ. (John Honniball)
INMOS Ltd., Bristol, UK.
Darwin O'Connor
>con...@cse.fau.edu (Sean "Captain Napalm" Conner) writes:
>> In article <mbuttsCE...@netcom.com> mbu...@netcom.com (Mike Butts) write
>>
>> [stuff about Space War --
>> >
>> >MS Arcade Asteroids reminded me that I've always
>> >wanted such a thing on PC. Has it been done?
>> >
>> >PS: Some versions had torpedos that were subject to
>> >gravity. When near the sun, you had to be careful
>> >you didn't shoot yourself.
>> >
>>
>> I have a version from WAAAAY back. I got it, oh, five or six years ago,
>> and it was probably a few years old then. Written for 640x200 CGA in pure
>> assembly (and I should know, I dissasembled it to try to reverse engineer it
>> over one summer five or six years ago 8-)
I have that. I also have a version that was written for a HERC card with,
of course, higher resoluation. It's the way to go if your SVGA card can do it.
> Too bad ya didn't get the registration file that came with
>it. The author was offering the source code for really cheap,
>something like $20, if I remember right.
The sound of distant screaming...
>> For some reason, it only seems to work on true blue IBM PC's (at least, in
>> my experience, running it on three machines: IBM PCjr, IBM PS/2 mod80 and
>> a Data General/1 80C88 portable, it only ran on the PS/2. On the others, it
>> ran for about a minute until the keyboard froze up ... go figure 8-)
> Odd, I've run my copy on everything from a PC to 386s and
>have never had a problem with it crashing. It does get too fast
>to play on a 386, tho...
I've never had problems with it either.
>> It has the two ships, missiles that are affected with gravity, and options
>> for a planet (instead of a sun), gravity or robot play (either ship, or both)
--
Darwin O'Connor | "Make mistakes and confuse the enemy"
doc...@cc.umanitoba.ca | - The Doctor
People with slow modems will not be happy with this unnecessary line.
James R Ebright
>
>As Doug Jones points out in another posting, try the early '60s not 70's
>and the machine was the PDP-1 not the -10 , and try BBN
>
DEC's display at the '69 FJCC in Boston. They had an 8 running Space War.
Some 10 year old kid was taking on all comers and kicking butt...
One of the best Space War articles was done in Rolling Stone about 15 years
ago! :)
>
>More Space War stories available upon request...
YES Pleeze, on a new thread?
--
Information farming at... For addr&phone: finger A/~~\A
THE Ohio State University jebr...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu ((0 0))____
Jim Ebright e-mail: jr...@osu.edu \ / \
Support Privacy: Support Encryption (--)\
Kip Crosby
In article <1993Sep30.2...@news.uiowa.edu>, Douglas W. Jones,201H MLH,3193350740,3193382879 (jones@pyrite) writes:
>From article <mbuttsCE...@netcom.com>, by mbu...@netcom.com (Mike Butts):
>> The original video game is Space War, which
>> ran on PDP-10 stroke tubes at MIT Project
>> MAC and SAIL in the early 70's.
>
>
See also Scott Robinson's article in the July '93 ANALYTICAL
ENGINE, although a couple of errors in that have since been
pointed out :-) I personally first played Space War in October or
November 1964 and it was not real new then.
__________________________________________
Kip Crosby c...@chac.win.net
Computer History Association of California
"History is what you make it...."
Peter D. Henry
>
>When I first started at university (1979), we had a video game in the arcade
>that sounds a LOT like Space War. Two ships, joysticks and thrusters for
>each one. You got to choose whether the sun in the middle had no gravity,
>negative gravity, or regular gravity. You got to choose whether the
>"universe" was bounded or wrapped around. I think you got to choose whether
>you would bounce off the sun or die. You shot missiles that went straight,
>or torpedoes that were affected by gravity. Vector graphics like Asteroids.
>Anybody remember this video game? Is it Space War?
>
Yes, it was Known as Space War; I remember one in the bowels of the MIT
student Union (near the bowling alley, I think).
I would pay a significant amount of money for one of these arcade games,
in case anyone knows where on eis. Lots of nostalgia and good
memories...
-Peter D. Henry
p...@crl.com
Adam Justin Thornton
the PDP-1 game of the same name.
Adam
--
ad...@rice.edu | These? Rice's opinions? Yeah, right. | "Might there have
been fewer crimes in the name of Jesus, and more mercy in the name of Judas
Iscariot?"--Thomas Pynchon | Overheard in Waco: "This is not an assault."
Save the Choad! | Win/NT: Yesterday's technology tomorrow. | 64,928 | Fnord
Joe Morris
>From article <mbuttsCE...@netcom.com>, by mbu...@netcom.com (Mike Butts):
>> The original video game is Space War, which ran on PDP-10 stroke tubes
>>at MIT Project MAC and SAIL in the early 70's.
>Try early '60s, and put it on a PDP-1, not a PDP-10.
And the PDP-1 we ran it on was really an amazing box: Memory of FOUR K!
(well, actually that's 4K words of 18 bits each), and a blazing memory
cycle of 5 uS.
The game was so popular that it "signed" the console log itself: You might
see entries for an hour or two for the staff programmers, a block here
and there for a student, an occasional Big Name (Marvin Minsky, for example),
and huge blocks of time merely noted as "Spacewar."
When we got DEC's first drum (Wow! 32 tracks, each of which holds exactly one
coreload of 4K words!) one of the tracks was instantly dedicated to Spacewar,
and the console load tape for it shrunk to a bootstrap a couple of
feet long.
Joe Morris / MITRE
Tommy Usher
MB> The original video game is Space War, which
MB> ran on PDP-10 stroke tubes at MIT Prooject
MB> MAC and SAIL in the early 70's. Simple: a
MB> Sun in the center, two ships, rotate left/right,
MB> rocket, fire. Gravity and inertia correctly
MB> modeled in the 2-D game space. When not
MB> shooting at each other, you could have
MB> orbital mechanics fun with the ships.
MB> MS Arcade Asteroids reminded me that I've always
MB> wanted such a thing on PC. Has it been done?
Yes, there is a version on the PC-SIG CD-ROM. I don't remember the
disk number, but it is not listed in the current book. It is still
on the lastest disk that I saw though. Our local library has it, and
they provide a text search program that allows you to search the file
descriptions. That is how I found my copy.
---
. SLMR 2.1a . "I think not," said Descartes, and disappeared.
fri...@flying-disk.com
> I believe the computer museum in Boston does have a PDP-1 with spacewar,
> but it uses those joystick things, not the old, original console switches.
I believe that that PDP-1 is the one from MIT.
At a late 60's or early 70's FJCC, there was a ruggedized DG Nova
running spacewar. I played it all afternoon until they closed
the convention hall. That was the only time I got to play it
for many years.
About 1987 I visited the Computer Museum in Boston and saw
the PDP-1, which is only turned on for special events.
Next to it was a Mac running a very good emulation of the
original program.
A young boy (about 10) was playing spacewar with his mother
with the results you would expect. I watched him totally
destroy his mother's ships for several games and was mildly
bothered that he didn't even give her a fighting chance to
learn the game before he blasted her.
After a while, she noticed me watching and asked, "Would you
like to try it?" The pleading in her voice was obvious
("Please?"). I took my seat and patiently listened while
the kid told me how to play, assuming that I was just another
clueless old adult.
The first game did not go well -- my reflexes were poor and
I was not used to the control box. The kid beat me.
The second time, I started to hit my stride: thrust on,
right turn, wait until the angle was just right, fire a
torpedo and watch it loop around the sun and KABLOOIE!
The kid was surprised (to say the least). "Lucky shot",
he said, "Again?" "Sure", I replied.
About ten identical games later, I got bored at sucker-punching
the kid and got up to leave. After walking about 30 feet, I
looked back over my shoulder. The kid and his mother were
just standing there, staring at me.
-- Alan E. Frisbie Fri...@Flying-Disk.Com
-- Flying Disk Systems, Inc.
-- 4759 Round Top Drive (213) 256-2575 (voice)
-- Los Angeles, CA 90065 (213) 258-3585 (FAX)
Kip Crosby
In article <28hqi6$4...@ulowell.uml.edu>, Paul M. Wexelblat (w...@cs.ulowell.edu) writes:
>In article <mbuttsCE...@netcom.com>, mbu...@netcom.com (Mike Butts) writes:
>|> From: mbu...@netcom.com (Mike Butts)
>|> Subject: Classic Space War for PC?
>and the machine was the PDP-1 not the -10 , and try BBN
>
>If any of you have a PDP-1 with DECscope, I still have a paper tape
>of PDP-1 Space War.
>
>
played Space War on the PDP-1....
I will never for the life of me remember, this long later, whether
the first computer I ever played with was BBN's PDP-1 or the IBM
1620 in the lobby of the Harvard chem lab....
or was it one of the CTSS machines....
James R Ebright
>
> More! More! It was precisely at BBN that Scott Robinson and I
>played Space War on the PDP-1....
>
>I will never for the life of me remember, this long later, whether
>the first computer I ever played with was BBN's PDP-1 or the IBM
>1620 in the lobby of the Harvard chem lab....
>or was it one of the CTSS machines....
>
IBM 7094 (two banks of memory - A and B - with the supervisor running
in A and users swapped in and out of B) and I thought only one was ever
built.
And I didn't think CTSS ever had a vector graphic display -- You had to
go use the PDP-12s for that :) -- just lots of 1022s and 2741s.
Bernie Cosell
} In article <mbuttsCE...@netcom.com>, mbu...@netcom.com (Mike Butts) writes:
} |> The original video game is Space War, which
} |> ran on PDP-10 stroke tubes at MIT Project
} |> MAC and SAIL in the early 70's. Simple: a
}
} As Doug Jones points out in another posting, try the early '60s not 70's
} and the machine was the PDP-1 not the -10 , and try BBN
Actually, don't try BBN. It was written by Steve Russell on the RLE
PDP-1 at MIT in 1962.
/Bernie\
[how many of these did you remember? ]
spacewar 3.1 24 sep 62 pt.1
3/ jmp sbf /ignore seq. break
jmp a40
jmp a1 /use test word for control, not iot 11
/interesting and often changed contstants
/symb loc usual value (all instructions are executed,
/and may be replaced by jda or jsp)
tno, 6, law i 41 /number of torps+1
tvl, 7, sar 4s /torpedoe velocity
rlt, 10, law i 20 /torpedoe reload time
tlf, 11, law i 140 /torpedoe life
foo, 12, -20000 /fuel supply
maa, 13, 10 /spaceship angular acceleration
sac, 14, sar 4s /spaceship acceleration
str, 15, 1 /star capture radius
me1, 16, 6000 /collision "radius"
me2, 17, 3000 /above/2
ddd, 20, -0 /0 to save space for ddt
the, 21, sar 9s /amount of torpedoe space warpage
mhs, 22, law i 10 /number of hyperspace shots
hd1, 23, law i 40 /time in hyperspace before breakout
hd2, 24, law i 100 /time in hyperspace breakout
hd3, 25, law i 200 /time to recharge hyperfield generators
hr1, 26, scl 9s /scale on hyperspatial displacement
hr2, 27, scl 4s /scale on hyperspatially induced velocity
hur, 30, 40000 /hyperspatial uncertancy
ran, 31, 0 /random number
--
Bernie Cosell cos...@world.std.com
Fantasy Farm Fibers, Pearisburg, VA (703) 921-2358
Kip Crosby
In article <IcWEt*0...@world.std.com>, Bernie Cosell (cos...@world.std.com) writes:
>Actually, don't try BBN. It was written by Steve Russell on the RLE
>PDP-1 at MIT in 1962.
>
"Slug," right? (Any idea where he got that?)
Lennart Regebro
>> Odd, I've run my copy on everything from a PC to 386s and
>>have never had a problem with it crashing. It does get too fast
>>to play on a 386, tho...
>
>I've never had problems with it either.
Well, then. Upload it!
--
Warning: Fatal error reading.newsrc -- restoring old .newsrc.
No old .newsrc found, creating new. All your read marks will be invalid.
You have 15674 unread articles in alt.cooking.vegetarian, read now? [ynq]
Edward Rice
JR> And I didn't think CTSS ever had a vector graphic display
JR> -- You had to go use the PDP-12s for that :) -- just lots of 1022s
JR> and 2741s.
The 2741 would have come later. IBM 1050's were the ones most likely to have
been connected to CTSS-period machinery. We had some 1050's hooked up to some
of our 1401 systems in the mid-'60's, and they were exciting devices then.
Christopher ANDERSON
> If anyone wants the copy I have with the docs, I could
>UUENCODE it to ya (no FTP here >:( ).
I'd like a copy, please! (I tried to email you, but it bounced :-( )
Thankx in advance, ThunderKat.
--
ThunderKat / Chris Anderson / Court Scribe s90...@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au
s90...@otto.bf.rmit.oz.au
"I vote we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to
be sure." - Ripley, in ALIENS (just after the marines get trashed!)
Neil W. Van Dyke
my PC. Has anyone ported/rewritten it for X or the old Apollo?
Steven Pemberton
>
> con...@cse.fau.edu (Sean "Captain Napalm" Conner) writes:
>
> > In article <mbuttsCE...@netcom.com> mbu...@netcom.com (Mike Butts) write
> >
> > [stuff about Space War -- snip ]
> > >
> > >MS Arcade Asteroids reminded me that I've always
> > >wanted such a thing on PC. Has it been done?
> > >
> If anyone wants the copy I have with the docs, I could
> UUENCODE it to ya (no FTP here >:( ).
>
YES!! YES!! YES!!!
Please feel free to email me a copy. :)
ps/ I tried emailing you, but it bounced. :(
Steven James A Pemberton Phone (BH) 61-3-614-6144
3rd Floor,120 King Street Go (AH) 61-3-818-2230
Melbourne, 3000 OS/2! Fax 61-3-629-6791
Victoria, Australia IP s...@ogre.apana.org.au
Ralph Barbagallo
: About 1987 I visited the Computer Museum in Boston and saw
: the PDP-1, which is only turned on for special events.
: Next to it was a Mac running a very good emulation of the
: original program.
I played the Mac version at the Computer Museum around '86-'87. I
guess it wasn't too hard to emulate it.. eh? I want to play the
Cinematronics arcade version though. There are a lot of decent PD
versions for all systems nowadays.. (I used to HATE the Atari 2600 version).
--
Ralph A.Barbagallo III_Only AMIGA Makes it Possible!_nug...@genesis.nred.ma.us
[ Amiga 4000/030, Amiga 500, Commodore 64, Atari 800XL, Atari 2600, 7800, ]
[ Lynx, Sega Master System, Genesis, Game Gear, NES, SNES, Game Boy, NEO GEO]
[ TurboGrafx-16/CDROM, Odyssey 500, ColecoVision, Vectrex, Intellivision... ]
Richard E. Byer
>Cinematronics arcade version though. There are a lot of decent PD
>versions for all systems nowadays.. (I used to HATE the Atari 2600 version).
Sorry, I am just a little tired of people saying lots of Space war programs
exist, but nobody says where!
--
-----------------------------------------------
| Ben Byer | by...@netcom.com | bb...@bix.com |
-----------------------------------------------
James R Ebright
>nug...@genesis.nred.ma.us (Ralph Barbagallo) writes:
>>Cinematronics arcade version though. There are a lot of decent PD
>>versions for all systems nowadays.. (I used to HATE the Atari 2600 version).
>For what computer, where, NOW, NOW, NOW!
>Sorry, I am just a little tired of people saying lots of Space war programs
>exist, but nobody says where!
ftp-os2.nmsu.edu
os2/all/games/aster221.zip
A wonderful OS/2 version...
Antonio Vasconcelos
: If anyone wants the copy I have with the docs, I could
I'd like to have it.
And probablly a load of other guys too, why not post it to c.f.c. ?
--
| Regards, |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Antonio Vasconcelos at The Lisbon $tock Exchange - va...@bvl.pt |
| "I DO *NOT* SPEAK FOR BVL" * NeXTmail * ro...@bvl.pt |
`-_________________________________________________________________-'
So Long, and Thanks for all the fish.
Magnus Olsson
Rafy Marootians <ra...@cairo.anu.edu.au> wrote:
>mbu...@netcom.com (Mike Butts) writes:
>MB> The original video game is Space War, which
>MB> ran on PDP-10 stroke tubes at MIT Prooject
>MB> MAC and SAIL in the early 70's. Simple: a
>MB> Sun in the center, two ships, rotate left/right,
>MB> rocket, fire. Gravity and inertia correctly
>MB> modeled in the 2-D game space. When not
>MB> shooting at each other, you could have
>MB> orbital mechanics fun with the ships.
>
>my all-time fav. computer games) is not correct
> ~~~
Well, it has occured to me, but then I'm a physicist...
If _classical Newtonian_ gravity were to wok in the same way in a 2-D
universe as in ours, the force wouldn't be proportional to 1/r^2 (r
being the distance from the "sun" to the spaceship) but as 1/r.
From this point of view, one could say that Space War doesn't
"correctly simulate gravity in a 2-D universe".
However, the matter is more complicated than this.
Firstly, _Einsteinian_ gravity, i.e. general relativity, won't work at
all in 2 space dimensions. Either there is no gravitational force at
all, or the theory is radically different. That means that we can't
make any arguments by analogy with our familiar 3-D (or, rather,
(3+1)-D) world.
Secondly, even if one says taht we should stick to the analogy to
Newtonian gravity (i.e., to be more mathematically precise, that the
gravitational potential should be a solution to Poisson's equation in
2 dimensions) and use a force prop. to 1/r we would get problems. The
reason is that in a 1/r force field, there are no stable orbits
(except for the perfectly circular ones). This means that the space
ships would behave quite differently from the way they do in 3-space.
One might ask whether what one *really* wants is to simulate a truly
2-D world, or to simulate a 2-D cross section through our 3-D
universe. (I.e. we have the ordinary universe with some strange law
added that forces all space ships to keep in the plane of the ecliptic
all the time). All the space games I've seen that even attempt to have
realistic physics (most, alas, don't - space ships stop dead as soon
as you release the thrustre button, and similar atrocities) do the
latter thing.
IMHO this is a good solution, since it's the best simulation you can
get of "real" spaceflight on a 2-D screen. I find it far easier to
swallow that I'm forbidden by divine law to leave the ecliptic, but
that I can still have my familiar elliptical orbits, than to have the
strange, non-closed orbits that I would get in a true 2-D world (with
Newtonian gravity). But this is of course a matter of taste.
Magnus Olsson | \e+ /_
Department of Theoretical Physics | \ Z / q
University of Lund, Sweden | >----<
mag...@thep.lu.se, the...@selund.bitnet | / \===== g
PGP key available via finger or on request | /e- \q
John West
>>Did it ever occur to anyone that the gravity simulated in Space War (one of
>>my all-time fav. computer games) is not correct
>Well, it has occured to me, but then I'm a physicist...
>If _classical Newtonian_ gravity were to wok in the same way in a 2-D
>universe as in ours, the force wouldn't be proportional to 1/r^2 (r
>being the distance from the "sun" to the spaceship) but as 1/r.
...
>However, the matter is more complicated than this.
It certainly is. I once wrote a gravity wars program, and had to use 1/r^3
gravity to get it to feel good. That certainly doesn't match reality, does
it? You also have the problem of scales: if that planet is supposed to be
the size of Earth, then those ships are BIG, and go very very quickly.
Remember, this is a *game*. There is a big difference between realism and
playability. Sadly some game writers haven't figured this out yet.
John West
Gary Wong
>One might ask whether what one *really* wants is to simulate a truly
>2-D world, or to simulate a 2-D cross section through our 3-D
>universe. (I.e. we have the ordinary universe with some strange law
>added that forces all space ships to keep in the plane of the ecliptic
>all the time).
Exactly! This is what I had always imagined Space War (et al.) were
doing; I never really thought anybody would bother writing something
weird enough to simulate a 2-D universe. (You don't need strange laws
added, either - just build spaceships with yaw and thrust, but no
pitch or roll and they'll automatically stay in a particular plane,
depending which way up they were built, and assuming nobody pushes
them and the pilots don't throw things out of their ships to get a
bit of momentum in the forbidden dimension. Oh, and every other
body in the simulation has to have its C.O.M. in the same plane too,
but that's not hard.)
>All the space games I've seen that even attempt to have
>realistic physics (most, alas, don't - space ships stop dead as soon
>as you release the thrustre button, and similar atrocities) do the
>latter thing.
I know - it's horrible what some psuedo-scientific simulations
invent. I am prepared to accept some contrived explanation of
why things can travel faster than light, 'cos otherwise interstellar
travel would be way too boring. Sound effects in a vacuum are
OK 'cos otherwise blowing things up would be way too boring.
I can even give up the relativistic effects of high-speed travel,
'cos it gets a bit hard to keep the plot sane if one ship ages
at a different rate relative to another. But what I *really*
hate (peeve mode on) is ships that can only posess momentum in
the direction they are pointing! Elite does it, Star Trek
sometimes does... How often have you seen a starship travelling
at half the speed of light that suddenly decides to turn round?
Instead of taking 6 months to slow down and 6 months to get
back up to speed in the other direction, the ship just turns
around in about 10 seconds! The poor crew would be subjected
to something like 3 million Gs, and they don't even fall over
when I'd expect their skeletons to be crushed into jelly on the
front wall of their starship! (OK, peeve mode off now)
But despite what reservations some of you may have about
Space War's 2-D universe, I find it totally consistent with
what I would expect (alright, ships are half the size of
planets and missiles are the size of large continents, but
I don't care. There is a maximum velocity too, which is a
bit of a shame, but since you'd be mad to actually go that
fast in the game it's OK). I hope I never learn enough
physics to find any major flaws in the game.
Gary.
--
Gary Wong, PbA TP CM. | Disclaimer: The above opinions do not represent
(Pinball Addict, | those of my cat, the Prime Minister, the University
Terrible Programmer | or even myself. Instead, this article was generated
& Chocolate Muncher.) | with: main(){while(putchar(rand()));}
Timothy D. Shoppa x4256
!>
!>One might ask whether what one *really* wants is to simulate a truly
!>2-D world, or to simulate a 2-D cross section through our 3-D
!>universe. (I.e. we have the ordinary universe with some strange law
!>added that forces all space ships to keep in the plane of the ecliptic
!>all the time). All the space games I've seen that even attempt to have
!>realistic physics (most, alas, don't - space ships stop dead as soon
!>as you release the thrustre button, and similar atrocities) do the
!>latter thing.
!>
!>IMHO this is a good solution, since it's the best simulation you can
!>get of "real" spaceflight on a 2-D screen. I find it far easier to
!>swallow that I'm forbidden by divine law to leave the ecliptic, but
!>that I can still have my familiar elliptical orbits, than to have the
!>strange, non-closed orbits that I would get in a true 2-D world (with
!>Newtonian gravity). But this is of course a matter of taste.
!>
!>
I've always found it amusing that in science fiction movies, the spaceships
always approach each other in the same plane, with the appropriate
orientation. On Star Trek, for example, about the only time you ever see
a spaceship that isn't aligned with all other spaceships is when it
is crippled or heavily damaged. (Of course, there are many, many other
details that TV and/or movie science fiction don't bother to explain.
There is the famous lack of restrooms onboard the Enterprise, for example.)
Larry Mc Donald
> In <1993Oct11.2...@nomina.lu.se> mag...@thep.lu.se (Magnus Olsson) wr
>
> >All the space games I've seen that even attempt to have
> >realistic physics (most, alas, don't - space ships stop dead as soon
> >as you release the thrustre button, and similar atrocities) do the
> >latter thing.
>
> I know - it's horrible what some psuedo-scientific simulations
> invent. I am prepared to accept some contrived explanation of
> why things can travel faster than light, 'cos otherwise interstellar
> travel would be way too boring. Sound effects in a vacuum are
> OK 'cos otherwise blowing things up would be way too boring.
> I can even give up the relativistic effects of high-speed travel,
> 'cos it gets a bit hard to keep the plot sane if one ship ages
> at a different rate relative to another. But what I *really*
> hate (peeve mode on) is ships that can only posess momentum in
> the direction they are pointing!
The Cinematronics version of Spacewars did just these things,
while the version for the IBM PC would probably be more to your
liking. The PC version leaves a ship in motion once it's in
motion and you can then rotate the ship anyway you want and it
will continue on it's original track. The only way to change the
direction of the ship it to rotate it and fire in the direction
you want to go and then you still have to consider the original
vector as part of your new track. It was pretty difficult to
bring one of those ships to a stop (the hyperspace button would
bring it to another part of the screen and leave it stopped) and
with the PC version, you had to spend more time controlling the
ship than blasting the other player. The Cinematronics arcade
version may have been scientifically less accurate, but it was at
least 200% more fun to play.
Larry Mc Donald, N6ZMB
Internet: La...@qrm.UUCP or dhw68k.cts.com!qrm!larry
Snailnet: 235 1/2 W. Wilshire, Fullerton, CA. 92632
Phonenet: +1 714 526 4347
John Mechalas
>
>I've always found it amusing that in science fiction movies, the spaceships
>always approach each other in the same plane, with the appropriate
>orientation. On Star Trek, for example, about the only time you ever see
>a spaceship that isn't aligned with all other spaceships is when it
>is crippled or heavily damaged. (Of course, there are many, many other
>details that TV and/or movie science fiction don't bother to explain.
>There is the famous lack of restrooms onboard the Enterprise, for example.)
Obviously, in worlds like "Star Trek", society is so advanced that they
have not only managed to do away with the common cold and headaches, but also
bodily wastes. Notice there aren't any lawyers, either. :)
Cheers,
John
--
John Mechalas \ If you think my opinions are Purdue's, then
mech...@expert.cc.purdue.edu \ you vastly overestimate my importance.
Purdue University \ Stamp out and abolish redundancy.
School of Aeronautical Engineering \ If you can read this you are too close.
Mike Muise
>Obviously, in worlds like "Star Trek", society is so advanced that they
>have not only managed to do away with the common cold and headaches, but also
>bodily wastes. Notice there aren't any lawyers, either. :)
This is redundant.
sorry, couldn't resist. ;)
mike
Data Rentals and Sales
>>
>>I've always found it amusing that in science fiction movies, the spaceships
>>always approach each other in the same plane, with the appropriate
>>orientation. On Star Trek, for example, about the only time you ever see
>>a spaceship that isn't aligned with all other spaceships is when it
>>is crippled or heavily damaged. (Of course, there are many, many other
>>details that TV and/or movie science fiction don't bother to explain.
>>There is the famous lack of restrooms onboard the Enterprise, for example.)
>
>Obviously, in worlds like "Star Trek", society is so advanced that they
>have not only managed to do away with the common cold and headaches, but also
>bodily wastes. Notice there aren't any lawyers, either. :)
>
Nah, you walk up to the panel, press the button, and get the crap
transported out of you. (sorry about that).
--
#include <standard.disclaimer>
_
Kevin D Quitt 96.37% of all statistics are made up
Ross
>always approach each other in the same plane, with the appropriate
>orientation. On Star Trek, for example, about the only time you ever see
>a spaceship that isn't aligned with all other spaceships is when it
>is crippled or heavily damaged. (Of course, there are many, many other
>details that TV and/or movie science fiction don't bother to explain.
>There is the famous lack of restrooms onboard the Enterprise, for example.)
>
> Tim (sho...@almach.caltech.edu)
Haven't you seen Star Trek II? Kirk destroys Kahn's ship by attacking
him from a different plane - it seems that twentieth century humans
were not three-dimensionally aware when it came to combat... :-)
Ross
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ross Hamilton, graduate student, Dept of CS, Uni. of Warwick
Office : CS102 Phone : 2350 Email : ro...@dcs.warwick.ac.uk
Snail : AV1004, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL
Paul Tomblin
>Haven't you seen Star Trek II? Kirk destroys Kahn's ship by attacking
>him from a different plane - it seems that twentieth century humans
>were not three-dimensionally aware when it came to combat... :-)
Yes, but even when Kirk was thinking 3 dimensionally, he just dropped to a
lower plane with the same relative UP! He was thinking like 3D chess, not
like 2 objects in zero gravity.
I swear, a WWI fighter pilot knew more about 3D thinking than the writers of
Star Trek. Just once I'd like to see the Enterprise do a split-s turn.
--
"Personally, my favorite sequence was the one about the crabs fighting each
other for territory in the pool of liquefied bat guano where they spend their
entire lives. In addition to being amusing, it was a wonderful metaphor for
some aspects of my previous career in the computer industry." - Joe Chew
Larry Richardson
|>
|> Obviously, in worlds like "Star Trek", society is so advanced that they
|> have not only managed to do away with the common cold and headaches, but also
|> bodily wastes. Notice there aren't any lawyers, either. :)
|>
|> Cheers,
|> John
|>
|> --
|> John Mechalas \ If you think my opinions are Purdue's, then
|> mech...@expert.cc.purdue.edu \ you vastly overestimate my importance.
|> Purdue University \ Stamp out and abolish redundancy.
|> School of Aeronautical Engineering \ If you can read this you are too close.
This has nothing to do with video games, but in the original Star Trek series
they still have the common cold bug around (no cure even then!).
Larry Richardson
rich...@foghorn.orl.mmc.com
Chris_F...@cup.portal.com
but Timothy Shoppa (?) mentioned "the famous lack of restrooms on the Enter-
prise" from Star Trek.)
---
Actually if you want to nitpick, on the USS Enterprise Blueprints set that
used to be available (ST:TOS, not TNG), there *were* restrooms. They were
generally tucked away in corners of crew cabins. Personally, I'm kind of
GLAD Star Trek never actually showed restrooms; what would they show? Bodily
wastes going away by the reverse of the "food dispenser" technology? There'd
just be no POINT in showing it, and the censors would go mad. Hmm, maybe
THAT would be a sufficient reason to have shown it. Hmm again.
Chris Chiesa
Chris_F...@cup.portal.com
Duane Takamine
>
>I know - it's horrible what some psuedo-scientific simulations
>invent. I am prepared to accept some contrived explanation of
>why things can travel faster than light, 'cos otherwise interstellar
>travel would be way too boring. Sound effects in a vacuum are
>OK 'cos otherwise blowing things up would be way too boring.
>I can even give up the relativistic effects of high-speed travel,
>'cos it gets a bit hard to keep the plot sane if one ship ages
>at a different rate relative to another. But what I *really*
>hate (peeve mode on) is ships that can only posess momentum in
>the direction they are pointing! Elite does it, Star Trek
>sometimes does... How often have you seen a starship travelling
>at half the speed of light that suddenly decides to turn round?
>Instead of taking 6 months to slow down and 6 months to get
>back up to speed in the other direction, the ship just turns
>around in about 10 seconds! The poor crew would be subjected
>to something like 3 million Gs, and they don't even fall over
>when I'd expect their skeletons to be crushed into jelly on the
>front wall of their starship! (OK, peeve mode off now)
It is pretty clear that Warp drive does not obey standard inertial
laws; in fact note the terminology of "dropping out of warp." At high
impulses (normal, relativistic and inertial obeying) speeds, they invoke
"inertial dampers" which act to counteract the inertial forces created
by high accelerations. No more difficult to swallow than anything else,
I would expect.
>
>But despite what reservations some of you may have about
>Space War's 2-D universe, I find it totally consistent with
>what I would expect (alright, ships are half the size of
>planets and missiles are the size of large continents, but
>I don't care. There is a maximum velocity too, which is a
>bit of a shame, but since you'd be mad to actually go that
>fast in the game it's OK). I hope I never learn enough
>physics to find any major flaws in the game.
>
I always figured that the maximum speed was just a playability
compromise. Given that you have indefinite fuel (in most versions) that
would allow you to theoretically accelerate to a velocity that the
video monitor really couldn't track. Then the problem becomes one of
hitting an object moving so fast that it doesn't even occupy a
continuum of space; it would jump from location to location. For that
matter, your own missiles would have trouble hitting your opponent
for the same reason.
For people who do not like the gravity model of Space War, I'm
surprised they do not complain that the size of the ship relative to
the size of the gravity body means that tidal forces would tear it
apart before an actual collision.
Duane
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Duane Takamine du...@shell.portal.com
Island CD Creations [a divison of Madd Hacker Productions]
"We work for pizza and beer."
Duane Takamine
>always approach each other in the same plane, with the appropriate
>orientation. On Star Trek, for example, about the only time you ever see
>a spaceship that isn't aligned with all other spaceships is when it
>is crippled or heavily damaged. (Of course, there are many, many other
>details that TV and/or movie science fiction don't bother to explain.
>There is the famous lack of restrooms onboard the Enterprise, for example.)
>
> Tim (sho...@almach.caltech.edu)
In TNG, there are restrooms (there was an episode, if I remember
correctly, where people were trapped in one (among other places) for
some reason.
The pointing in the same plane one is harder to explain away.
In Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, there is a nice touch when the
Enterprise rises back into the same plane as the Reliant, it doesn't
just ascent straight up; it *spirals* up, as if the ship were trying to
look in all directions as it rose to make sure they weren't ascending
*in front* of the Reliant. In that movie the reason the action took
place primarily in one plane was actually stated as being Khan's lack
of experience in maneuvering his ship in 2 dimentions only.
The only thing I can offer is that perhaps it is just the norm
that if two ships are heading toward each other, then of course they
would be facing each other (and be in the same plane) and if two ships
are not approaching each other then they never really see each other
anyway.
The worse example of bad sci-fi on screen was the landing bays of
the Battlestars in _Battlestar Galactica_.
Getting back to the original topic of physics in video games, is
anyone aware of a 3-D space war type game which uses real gravity models?
I know a little about orbital mechanics, and they are unintuitive enough
that perhaps that is why such games aren't written.
Patrik Andila
: In article <1993Oct12....@cs.aukuni.ac.nz> gw...@cs.aukuni.ac.nz (Gary Wong) writes:
: >hate (peeve mode on) is ships that can only posess momentum in
: >the direction they are pointing! Elite does it, Star Trek
: >sometimes does... How often have you seen a starship travelling
There are games that have at least newtonian physics built
in, an old one is Space Rogue, of course that one has a terrible
way of interplanetary travel (2D). The actual combat can be done
with conservation of momentum in 3D.
: >at half the speed of light that suddenly decides to turn round?
: >Instead of taking 6 months to slow down and 6 months to get
: >back up to speed in the other direction, the ship just turns
: >around in about 10 seconds! The poor crew would be subjected
: >to something like 3 million Gs, and they don't even fall over
: >when I'd expect their skeletons to be crushed into jelly on the
: >front wall of their starship! (OK, peeve mode off now)
The fact I have most difficulty accepting is the 'turn' part
when it is so much more logical to rotate the ship and accelerate.
(This is the reason I still play SR sometimes).
I guess some compromises are allowed to keep the battles from
lasting way too long for most people's spare time.
--
Patrik Andila | "The vanity of the selfless, even those who
a70...@chyde.uwasa.fi | practice utmost humility, is boundless" E.Hoffer
Paul Tomblin
> The pointing in the same plane one is harder to explain away.
>In Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, there is a nice touch when the
>Enterprise rises back into the same plane as the Reliant, it doesn't
>just ascent straight up; it *spirals* up, as if the ship were trying to
>look in all directions as it rose to make sure they weren't ascending
>*in front* of the Reliant. In that movie the reason the action took
>place primarily in one plane was actually stated as being Khan's lack
>of experience in maneuvering his ship in 2 dimentions only.
But why even rise to the same plane at all. You're relatively below
somebody, and you want to shoot them - why not just point your ship at them,
rather than rising up to the same plane. A fighter pilot would never make
that mistake, and they have gravity and the earth to worry about!
Silver Omega
a70...@uwasa.fi (Patrik Andila) writes:
> Duane Takamine (du...@shell.portal.com) wrote:
> : In article <1993Oct12....@cs.aukuni.ac.nz> gw...@cs.aukuni.ac.nz (Gary Wong) writes:
> : >hate (peeve mode on) is ships that can only posess momentum in
> : >the direction they are pointing! Elite does it, Star Trek
> : >sometimes does... How often have you seen a starship travelling
>
> There are games that have at least newtonian physics built
> in, an old one is Space Rogue, of course that one has a terrible
> way of interplanetary travel (2D). The actual combat can be done
> with conservation of momentum in 3D.
Warhead (Amiga) was pretty good; 3D star map, 3D inertial combat, no
"laser beams", some computerised navigation, and so on. I think the
main problem was a tendancy for missiles to travel at a maximum
speed relative to the local planet, rather than to the speed of your
ship or the target.
It was pretty neat rotating the star map, zooming in and out, etc.
in 3D. One of the better space combat games, IMO.
Harry.
--
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" - Emerson
Harry Johnston, uda...@bay.cc.kcl.ac.uk
Jason 'KodaK' Balicki
> It is pretty clear that Warp drive does not obey standard inertial
>laws; in fact note the terminology of "dropping out of warp." At high
>impulses (normal, relativistic and inertial obeying) speeds, they invoke
>"inertial dampers" which act to counteract the inertial forces created
>by high accelerations. No more difficult to swallow than anything else,
>I would expect.
And yet, a simple phasar blast will send all of them flying across the
bridge.
--
Jason Balicki | ko...@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
Chris_F...@cup.portal.com
"Lunatic Fringe" game that comes with "After Dark" as a SCREEN SAVER for the
Macintosh! Momentum and acceleration are properly conserved, although grav-
ity doesn't really enter into the scenario. My favorite challenge (so far;
I've only gotten up to level 4 (a co-worker says he's reached level 12)) is
that when your ship is damaged in a certain way, it rotates wildly out of
control; if you "thrust" under those conditions, the thrust vector "sprays"
around in all directions as you rotate, such that the only way to make
directed progress is to carefully thrust ONLY when your ship is pointing
in the direction you wish to travel. You can also thrust throughout some
larger arc CENTERED on the direction you wish to travel, and let the vec-
tor sum act on your ship. Very very well done. I can't believe it's a
screen-saver! Would love to have it for my Amiga; anybody know if it's
been done? :-)
Chris Chiesa
Chris_F...@cup.portal.com
iv...@cc.usu.edu
>
> Haven't you seen Star Trek II? Kirk destroys Kahn's ship by attacking
> him from a different plane - it seems that twentieth century humans
> were not three-dimensionally aware when it came to combat... :-)
Perhaps, but both ships agreed on which way is "up". They never come
across ships that think "up" is a different direction.
--
----------------+------------------------------------------------------
Roger Ivie | Don't think of it as a 'new' computer, think of it as
iv...@cc.usu.edu | 'obsolete-ready'
Ralph Barbagallo
Well that was the big thing about Star Control when it first came
out.. that it was a modern Space War. I used to have Star Control challenges
all the time on the Genesis version with my friend...we played that game to
DEATH! However, it is one of the best one on one games out there... The
'strategy' mode sucks though.
I saw Star Control II on my friend's PC and I didn't think it was
all that great. (Too bad there wasn't an Amiga version though) I want to
see a game like Star Control but MUCH more in-depth as far as weapons,
tactics, flight manuvers, etc.
Aloysius Kinsella
>across ships that think "up" is a different direction.
Up is towards polaris, duh.
(for the humor impaired: :) :) :) )
/--------| 'nuff about what's wrong with you, here's my story: |--------\
/ James Aloysius Kinsella { (Call me Al...) } "Inspiration's \
| 604 E. Armory, Rm 110 { kinse...@nova.novanet.org } what you are |
| Champaign, IL 61820 { aloy...@uiuc.edu, or: } to me..." |
\ Phone: (217) 344-2512 { aloy...@imsa.edu } --Led Zeppelin /
\| GCS d(--)-p+c++l-u+(++)e+m+(---)(*)s+++/++n---h-f+g+w++++t(+)r(+)y* |/
Ralph Barbagallo
was recently on a CU Amiga coverdisk (I forget the name). It runs in interlace
mode (too bad it won't work in DBLNTSC/PAL) and has a lot of options..
--
Ralph A. Barbagallo III --- rbar...@cs.uml.edu --- Only AMIGA makes it
Possible...
Only C O M M O D O R E stands in the way....
ZzzzzZZZzzzzzzZzzzzzzz.... .
Ross Smith
>In article <12OCT199...@almach.caltech.edu> sho...@almach.caltech.edu (Timothy D. Shoppa x4256) writes:
>>I've always found it amusing that in science fiction movies, the spaceships
>>always approach each other in the same plane, with the appropriate
>>orientation. On Star Trek, for example, about the only time you ever see
>>a spaceship that isn't aligned with all other spaceships is when it
>>is crippled or heavily damaged. (Of course, there are many, many other
>>details that TV and/or movie science fiction don't bother to explain.
>>There is the famous lack of restrooms onboard the Enterprise, for example.)
>
>him from a different plane - it seems that twentieth century humans
>were not three-dimensionally aware when it came to combat... :-)
What gets me is the way all those ships always bank when they turn :-)
--
... Ross Smith (Wanganui, New Zealand) ... al...@acheron.amigans.gen.nz ...
"A Real Cat's aim is to get through life peacefully, with as little
interference from human beings as possible. Very much like real humans, in
fact." (Terry Pratchett)
Steven King
> I always figured that the maximum speed was just a playability
>compromise. Given that you have indefinite fuel (in most versions) that
>would allow you to theoretically accelerate to a velocity that the
>video monitor really couldn't track.
An Amiga clone of Space War does just this. The screen wraps (forget
whether or not this is an option setting) and you can point in one
direction and keep thrusting until you finally start strobing. You're
going so fast the monitor only plots you once or twice a refresh, and it
looks like you're standing still or moving backwards.
--
Steven King, Proprietor of the PShrink Wrap BBS ve...@pshrink.chi.il.us
Data Communications for the Psychology Professional 2400: +1 708 487 9727
"Put your analyst on danger money, baby... Now!" 14400: +1 708 487 5864
bean
> And yet, a simple phasar blast will send all of them flying across the
> bridge.
No, actually that happens because they're throwing themselves out of their
chairs. :)
----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
I'm sure there were times you wondered | be...@sys6626.bison.mb.ca |
why you were doing it ... like banging +----------------------------+
your head into a wall, it's absolute bliss when it stops - Prince Ed.
Robert Kudla
>Actually if you want to nitpick, on the USS Enterprise Blueprints set that
>used to be available (ST:TOS, not TNG), there *were* restrooms. They were
>generally tucked away in corners of crew cabins. Personally, I'm kind of
>GLAD Star Trek never actually showed restrooms; what would they show? Bodily
A bald woman behind frosted glass taking a waterless shower, maybe? :)
Rob
--
Rob ku...@acm.rpi.edu robk...@aol.com Keywords - Oldfield Jane's
Leather Yes Win3.1 Phish light blue right Bondage r.e.m. DTP Steely
Dan DS9 FNM OWL TFF Genesis The only thing we have to fear is
fearlessness. The bigger the weapon, the greater the fear.
Gabe M Wiener
bean <be...@sys6626.bison.mb.ca> wrote:
>> And yet, a simple phasar blast will send all of them flying across the
>> bridge.
>
>No, actually that happens because they're throwing themselves out of their
>chairs. :)
I'm reminded of a story I heard about a Paramount exec being asked why they
didn't just put seatbelts on the chairs on the original series.
"Because," the guy from paramount answered, "if we did that, the actors
couldn't fall out of them."
--
Gabe Wiener -- gm...@columbia.edu -- N2GPZ -- PGP on request
Sound engineering, recording, and digital mastering for classical music
"I am terrified at the thought that so much hideous and bad music
will be put on records forever." --Sir Arthur Sullivan
Aaron G Goldstein
Space War for .. by Ross Sm...@acheron.amiga
> In article <1993Oct13.0...@dcs.warwick.ac.uk>
ro...@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (
> Ross) writes:
> >In article <12OCT199...@almach.caltech.edu>
sho...@almach.caltech.edu (
> Timothy D. Shoppa x4256) writes:
> >>I've always found it amusing that in science fiction movies, the spaceships
> >>always approach each other in the same plane, with the appropriate
> >>orientation. On Star Trek, for example, about the only time you ever see
> >>a spaceship that isn't aligned with all other spaceships is when it
> >>is crippled or heavily damaged. (Of course, there are many, many other
> >>details that TV and/or movie science fiction don't bother to explain.
> >>There is the famous lack of restrooms onboard the Enterprise, for example.)
> >
> >Haven't you seen Star Trek II? Kirk destroys Kahn's ship by attacking
> >him from a different plane - it seems that twentieth century humans
> >were not three-dimensionally aware when it came to combat... :-)
>
> What gets me is the way all those ships always bank when they turn :-)
Here's my theory - Star Trek, and most other popular 'science fiction'
are not now, nor have they ever been, terribly good if you judge them
from the standpoint of being good science fiction. So screw scientfic
accuracy, and what makes sense in zero-g! Enjoy the show...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bread mold - My opinions may have changed, but the fact that I am correct
has not. (Not sure who said that first...)
Enjoy life to it's fullest!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
khc...@hydra.maths.unsw.edu.au
|>
|> What gets me is the way all those ships always bank when they turn :-)
|>
so as the centripetal force points "down".
Kin Hoong
DoN. Nichols
>In article <1993Oct13.0...@dcs.warwick.ac.uk> ro...@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Ross) writes:
>>In article <12OCT199...@almach.caltech.edu> sho...@almach.caltech.edu (Timothy D. Shoppa x4256) writes:
>>>I've always found it amusing that in science fiction movies, the spaceships
>>>always approach each other in the same plane, with the appropriate
>>>orientation. On Star Trek, for example, about the only time you ever see
>>>a spaceship that isn't aligned with all other spaceships is when it
>>>is crippled or heavily damaged. (Of course, there are many, many other
>>>details that TV and/or movie science fiction don't bother to explain.
>>>There is the famous lack of restrooms onboard the Enterprise, for example.)
>>
>>Haven't you seen Star Trek II? Kirk destroys Kahn's ship by attacking
>>him from a different plane - it seems that twentieth century humans
>>were not three-dimensionally aware when it came to combat... :-)
>
>What gets me is the way all those ships always bank when they turn :-)
Well ... there's a reasonable explanation for that. It keeps the
acceleration forces on the individuals in the ships simply adding to their
apparent weight, rather than attempting to throw them laterally from their
seats. (Of course, this assumes the absence of intertial dampers, or at
least the desire to have the forces in a convenient direction if the dampers
were to fail. -- They may still be enough to pulp the individuals, but they
will be pulped into their proper seats, and not onto the ceiling. :-)
--
Email: <dnic...@d-and-d.com> | ...!uunet!ceilidh!dnichols
<dnic...@ceilidh.beartrack.com>
Donald Nichols (DoN.) | Voice (Days): (703) 704-2280 (Eves): (703) 938-4564
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
Stephen Robert Norris
Don't they bank the same way as aircraft - ie "into" the turn? This
seems to me to be the right way...
>Kin Hoong
Stephen
Jason 'KodaK' Balicki
>Here's my theory - Star Trek, and most other popular 'science fiction'
>are not now, nor have they ever been, terribly good if you judge them
>from the standpoint of being good science fiction. So screw scientfic
>accuracy, and what makes sense in zero-g! Enjoy the show...
Yes, yes, in the words of the MST3K theme song:
...if you wonder how he eats and breathes
and other science facts
repeat to yourself it's just a show
and you should just relax. . .
--
Jason Balicki | ko...@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
Alan Curry
>>>>I've always found it amusing that in science fiction movies, the spaceships
>>>>always approach each other in the same plane, with the appropriate
>>>>orientation. On Star Trek, for example, about the only time you ever see
>>>>a spaceship that isn't aligned with all other spaceships is when it
>>>>is crippled or heavily damaged. (Of course, there are many, many other
>>>>details that TV and/or movie science fiction don't bother to explain.
>>>>There is the famous lack of restrooms onboard the Enterprise, for example.)
Star Trek does take place entirely in our galaxy, which is nearly
2-dimensional, so it seems reasonable that ships travelling between points
in this galaxy should remain aligned in 2 dimensions.
.sig under construction
Email cur...@feserve.cc.purdue.edu
Danny R. Faught
Ralph Barbagallo <rbar...@cs.uml.edu> wrote:
> There's an excellent SpaceWar game out for the Amiga... I think it
>was recently on a CU Amiga coverdisk (I forget the name). It runs in interlace
>mode (too bad it won't work in DBLNTSC/PAL) and has a lot of options..
Yea, I had my first SpaceWar experience last night, after poking
around on wuarchive.wustl.edu. I believe it was in
/systems/amiga/boing/games/SpaceWar.{readme,lha} It's shareware.
--
Danny Faught -- Convex rookie -- MPP OS Test Development
"Everything is deeply intertwingled." (Ted Nelson, _Computer Lib_)