Why are there no Elite/Privateer clones?
Olaf
I can't understand why there are no games that are clones of these two
great, successful games. They both spawned shitty sequels, I know, but why
give up on them. Something like Privateer Gold with updated graphics and
just more of the same would sell like wild. The same with Elite. That
game rocked on a commodroe 64 for christs sake!
olaf
ih...@hormell.winternet.com
Olaf <ol...@onr.com> imparts their wisdom:
Well there's always BC3K ;) (I haven't tried it yet, even though it's
free. 50 meg download, ug.)
There is also a game called 'X' in development which sounds very 'Elite'
like. I don't have an url for it, but if you search for it in PC games on
HappyPuppy you should find it.
Lastly '4th Millenium' might be 'Elite' like, but the more I read about it
the more it looks like a cross between 'Wing Commander' and 'Quake'.
Maybe not a bad game, but not a SF-CRPG.
--
--
[=========================================================================]
| John 'ihop' Dassow | 'Name!', 'Job!', 'Bye!': the wisdom of the Ages. |
| | |
| <+-+*+-+*+-+*+-+> | Remove 'hormell.' from email address to reply. |
[=========================================================================]
Henri H. Arsenault
In article
<2DF38C86FEC555D0.82498D1E...@library-proxy.airnews.ne
t>, "Olaf" <ol...@onr.com> wrote:
> I can't understand why there are no games that are clones of these two
> great, successful games. They both spawned shitty sequels, I know, but why
> give up on them. Something like Privateer Gold with updated graphics and
> just more of the same would sell like wild. The same with Elite. That
> game rocked on a commodroe 64 for christs sake!
>
In fact, Elite had two sequels, and it was downhill all the way (especially
with the last one)...
--
remove *nospam* in address for email
Krud
Olaf wrote in message
<2DF38C86FEC555D0.82498D1E...@library-proxy.airnews.ne
t>...
>I can't understand why there are no games that are clones of these two
>great, successful games. They both spawned shitty sequels, I know, but why
>give up on them. Something like Privateer Gold with updated graphics and
>just more of the same would sell like wild. The same with Elite. That
>game rocked on a commodroe 64 for christs sake!
The same people who made the original Privateer are working on a game called
"Ares Rising". It is supposed to be very similar to Privateer but with more
emphasis on trading.
It's being beta tested now, but I don't know when it's scheduled for
release.
-Krud
Krud
Krud wrote in message <6d6t8e$v...@camel18.mindspring.com>...
>Olaf wrote in message
><2DF38C86FEC555D0.82498D1E...@library-proxy.airnews.n
e
>t>...
>>I can't understand why there are no games that are clones of these two
>>great, successful games. They both spawned shitty sequels, I know, but
why
>>give up on them. Something like Privateer Gold with updated graphics and
>>just more of the same would sell like wild. The same with Elite. That
>>game rocked on a commodroe 64 for christs sake!
>
>
>The same people who made the original Privateer are working on a game
called
>"Ares Rising". It is supposed to be very similar to Privateer but with
more
>emphasis on trading.
>It's being beta tested now, but I don't know when it's scheduled for
>release.
Oh yeah, it supports multiplayer also :)
-Krud
Mark Asher
On 27 Feb 1998 15:39:52 GMT, "Olaf" <ol...@onr.com> wrote:
>I can't understand why there are no games that are clones of these two
>great, successful games. They both spawned shitty sequels, I know, but why
>give up on them. Something like Privateer Gold with updated graphics and
>just more of the same would sell like wild. The same with Elite. That
>game rocked on a commodroe 64 for christs sake!
Archimedean Dynasty and the recently released game Sub Culture are
underwater games that are a bit like Privateer from all accounts. I
don't know if they have the random missions like Privateer had,
though.
You can order Archimedean Dynasty directly from Blue Byte now for $10.
Mark Asher
Kasey Chang (fix address before replying to me!)
On 27 Feb 1998 15:39:52 GMT, "Olaf" <ol...@onr.com> wrote:
>I can't understand why there are no games that are clones of these two
>great, successful games. They both spawned shitty sequels, I know, but why
>give up on them. Something like Privateer Gold with updated graphics and
>just more of the same would sell like wild. The same with Elite. That
>game rocked on a commodroe 64 for christs sake!
What I want to see is the ONLINE version! Imagine planets to travel
to, fixers to get missions from, ships to ally or fight against, NEVER
knowing if the other side is a real person or an AI imitation! Now
that would be cool!
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Kasey Chang DCL, Fremont, CA k a s e y c @ d i s c o p y . c o m
PDOXWIN, Star Trek, Computer Games, Science Fiction, Writing, && more
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Commercial use of this e-mail address implies your consent to pay me
amounts of up to US$100.00 per e-mail message from you received by me.
Samuel Martin Ventola
If you are interested in this genre, you might check out the postings
in alt.fan.elite. Word over there is (1) one of the Elite authors,
David Braben, is working on a new Elite-type game, and (2) some of the
players of the game are working on their own project to build an
Elite-type game.
I think some also say BC3000 is an Elite-type game. I haven't been
able to get that one working yet.
Sam
In
<2DF38C86FEC555D0.82498D1E...@library-proxy.airne
s.net> "Olaf" <ol...@onr.com> writes:
>
>I can't understand why there are no games that are clones of these two
>great, successful games. They both spawned shitty sequels, I know,
but why
>give up on them. Something like Privateer Gold with updated graphics
and
>just more of the same would sell like wild. The same with Elite.
That
>game rocked on a commodroe 64 for christs sake!
>
>olaf
Mark Asher
On Fri, 27 Feb 1998 17:03:54 GMT, Kas...@spamsucker.discopy.com (Kasey
Chang (fix address before replying to me!)) wrote:
>On 27 Feb 1998 15:39:52 GMT, "Olaf" <ol...@onr.com> wrote:
>
>>I can't understand why there are no games that are clones of these two
>>great, successful games. They both spawned shitty sequels, I know, but why
>>give up on them. Something like Privateer Gold with updated graphics and
>>just more of the same would sell like wild. The same with Elite. That
>>game rocked on a commodroe 64 for christs sake!
>
>What I want to see is the ONLINE version! Imagine planets to travel
>to, fixers to get missions from, ships to ally or fight against, NEVER
>knowing if the other side is a real person or an AI imitation! Now
>that would be cool!
Planetary Raiders from ICI/IMagic is what you want. It's not ready
yet, but it will be one of those $2/hour games.
Mark Asher
Ben Flieger
Mark Asher wrote in message
<34f71d20....@gatekeeper.impacttech.com>...
Raider Wars was in open beta test(it is just the combat engine of PR)
last time I checked and is FREE. Bugs+lag are heavy, though.
>
>Mark Asher
Twin Ion Engine
In article <2DF38C86FEC555D0.82498D1E...@library-proxy.airnews.net>, "Olaf" <ol...@onr.com> wrote:
>I can't understand why there are no games that are clones of these two
>great, successful games. They both spawned shitty sequels, I know, but why
>give up on them. Something like Privateer Gold with updated graphics and
>just more of the same would sell like wild. The same with Elite. That
>game rocked on a commodroe 64 for christs sake!
>
My opinion is that these game belongs to the role playing genre but was stuck
in a "flight-sim" interface. Hence it could not win as a flight sim and could
not grow as a RPG. Maybe another permutation may come out of it, for you to
truely play different "classes" like fighter-pilots, merchants, bounty-hunters
etc...
WiL :)
*Replace imperial.navy.squadron with pacific.net.sg
to e-mail to me*
Krud
Twin Ion Engine wrote in message <6d7hor$6im$1...@dosa.alt.net>...
>
>My opinion is that these game belongs to the role playing genre but was
stuck
>in a "flight-sim" interface. Hence it could not win as a flight sim and
could
>not grow as a RPG. Maybe another permutation may come out of it, for
you to
>truely play different "classes" like fighter-pilots, merchants,
bounty-hunters
>etc...
You know, that's a great idea. A mix of Privateer and Fallout.
-Krud
steve b./cg splus
Olaf enlightened the world with this pearl of wisdom...
>I can't understand why there are no games that are clones of these two
>great, successful games. They both spawned shitty sequels, I know, but why
>give up on them. Something like Privateer Gold with updated graphics and
>just more of the same would sell like wild. The same with Elite. That
>game rocked on a commodroe 64 for christs sake!
There are a few games in development like this. Some people have
mentioned Ares Rising. I have a REALLY old build of it, and they called
me the other day (I'm about six days behind on voice mail *sigh*).
There's also a couple of major releases in this genre on the way, but I
can't talk about them publicly. All I can say is that you won't want to
miss our May issue...
--
--------------------------------
steve bauman - sba...@cdmag.com
editor - computer games strategy plus | www.cdmag.com
"...criticism should be partial, passionate and political,
that is to say, written from an exclusive point of view,
but a point of view that opens up the widest horizons."
-Charles Baudelaire
alo...@mindspring.com
ma...@cdmnet.com (Mark Asher) wrote:
>Planetary Raiders from ICI/IMagic is what you want. It's not ready
>yet, but it will be one of those $2/hour games.
In other words, a rip off.
Andrew
Jon Saloga
On Fri, 27 Feb 1998 17:42:46 GMT, ma...@cdmnet.com (Mark Asher) wrote:
>On 27 Feb 1998 15:39:52 GMT, "Olaf" <ol...@onr.com> wrote:
>
>>I can't understand why there are no games that are clones of these two
>>great, successful games. They both spawned shitty sequels, I know, but why
>>give up on them. Something like Privateer Gold with updated graphics and
>>just more of the same would sell like wild. The same with Elite. That
>>game rocked on a commodroe 64 for christs sake!
>
>Archimedean Dynasty and the recently released game Sub Culture are
>underwater games that are a bit like Privateer from all accounts. I
>don't know if they have the random missions like Privateer had,
>though.
>You can order Archimedean Dynasty directly from Blue Byte now for $10.
Archimedean Dynasty is nothing like Privateer or Elite. It's more like
Wing Commander or TIE Fighter. Archimedean Dynasty has a trading
routine, but it is completely static. You can buy and sell items, but
the demand, supply, and prices never change, and there's no chance for
any combat in between, as the entire journey consists of a cutscene.
The main game is a series of scripted missions with the option of
taking occasional side jobs that are also all scripted. No randomness
whatsoever. However, it is still a very good story-based sci-fi sim.
If you liked TIE fighter, you will almost certainly like AD. For 10
bucks, it's a steal. I just picked up Subculture the other day ($25 at
Sams Club) and haven't had a chance to boot it up yet, but the manual
seems to indicate a more flexible and random game than AD.
Jon
Krud
Mark Asher wrote in message
>
>Archimedean Dynasty and the recently released game Sub Culture are
>underwater games that are a bit like Privateer from all accounts. I
>don't know if they have the random missions like Privateer had,
>though.
Archimedean Dynasty was more like Mercenaries in that it was all
missions and no actual trading. I think it's one of the most underated
games of all time. Subculture, on the other hand was a very pretty but
very shallow game (no pun intended). It was more of an action game than
a sim. I think it would be a fun game for kids but it lasted me about 2
days before I got bored with it.
-Krud
Geoffrey Stratton
Krud (au...@mindspring.com) wrote:
: Twin Ion Engine wrote in message <6d7hor$6im$1...@dosa.alt.net>...
I've long thought Traveller, the pen-and-paper space RPG, would be a great
foundation for a PC game since the career choices, ship customization
options and unlimited mobility would make for basically limitless replay
value. I'd also like to see a more Car Wars-oriented game where you
basically have open car customizability, total freedom of movement and a
choice of your role within the setting (highwayman, gang member, cop,
smuggler, vigilante, mercenary, defender of the remaining pockets of
civilization, etc.). Daggerfall meets I76.
I think there's a market for action games with heavy RPG roots since there
are a lot of dorks like myself who used to play pen-and-paper RPGs around.
Perhaps publishers fear heavy RPG overtones would scare away the action
market and vice versa. Or maybe games of this level of complexity are
just too great a time investment.
Ramblings aside, whatever happened to the space-mercenary sim Hard War
that Interplay was supposed to put out last year? This game seems to have
vanished.
-Geoff
: -Krud
:
Twin Ion Engine
There are two ways they can make a cross-genre game :
* Take two existing products' engine and combined them. Then design the RPG
elements around the engine. For example, LucasArts can combined the TIE
Fighter space sim engine with the Jedi Knight engine and form a Han-Solo kind
of game. Add in database of the known universe, a little background activities
involving the rebel-imperial war and viola, you have a Han-Solo-type RPG game.
Play as a smuggler, an honest merchant, a Boba-Fett type bounty hunter etc...
This will appeal to people who wants more action then RPG elements. Sort of
like a more complicated version of Diablo.
* Use a single-engine GUI and have a consistent GUI. Add in heavy RPG elements
here, turn-based tactical battles and possibly double level of zoom
(wilderness of space vs planetside) . For example, using a Ultima 7 engine,
you can see a sort of top-down perspective of your character while in the
streets of some space sport city in some backwater planets. And the same
perspective while in space as you see you beloved customised ship. Battles
will likely be something like MOO2 tactical battle with initiatives and
whatnots.
This will appeal the heavy RPG-er or people who like Fallout.
Arnaldo Horta
Geoffrey Stratton wrote:
> I've long thought Traveller, the pen-and-paper space RPG, would be a great
> foundation for a PC game since the career choices, ship customization
> options and unlimited mobility would make for basically limitless replay
> value. I'd also like to see a more Car Wars-oriented game where you
> basically have open car customizability, total freedom of movement and a
> choice of your role within the setting (highwayman, gang member, cop,
> smuggler, vigilante, mercenary, defender of the remaining pockets of
> civilization, etc.). Daggerfall meets I76.
There were PC RPG's based on Traveller (actually, on MegaTraveller).
They were nod good conversions, so they faded into dust.....
Arnie Horta
remove the obvious thing from my email address to reply....
Geoffrey Stratton
Arnaldo Horta (aho...@nowayspam-home.com) wrote:
Do you happen to remember who made them and when? For the life of me I
can't recall anything based on Traveller--I vaguely remember the Tunnels
and Trolls game and (of course) the original SSI AD&D stuff. I also think
there were plans for a game based on the Top Secret pen and paper RPG but
don't know if they ever came to fruition (?).
-Geoff
: Arnie Horta
Michael W. Bay
Geoffrey Stratton wrote:
>
> Arnaldo Horta (aho...@nowayspam-home.com) wrote:
> : There were PC RPG's based on Traveller (actually, on MegaTraveller).
> : They were nod good conversions, so they faded into dust.....
>
> Do you happen to remember who made them and when? For the life of me I
> can't recall anything based on Traveller--I vaguely remember the Tunnels
> and Trolls game and (of course) the original SSI AD&D stuff. I also think
> there were plans for a game based on the Top Secret pen and paper RPG but
> don't know if they ever came to fruition (?).
>
> -Geoff
There were actually two; IIRC they were developed by Paragon and
distributed by Microprose. I bought the second one, which had something
to do with finding an Ancient secret. The character generation was
great, worth having just to create NPCs. But, the game play was awkward
and combat was just as bad.
--
Michael W. Bay
[remove the ANTI and the SPAM from my email address to respond]
http://members.aol.com/producer
Rolf Blom
Geoffrey Stratton <ez05...@dogbert.ucdavis.edu> skrev i inlägg
-snip-
> Do you happen to remember who made them and when? For the life of me I
> can't recall anything based on Traveller--I vaguely remember the Tunnels
> and Trolls game and (of course) the original SSI AD&D stuff. I also
think
> there were plans for a game based on the Top Secret pen and paper RPG but
> don't know if they ever came to fruition (?).
>
> -Geoff
Digging deep in a bargain bin at Tandy's, I found MegaTraveller 1
(The Zhodani Conspiracy), and some other oldies on a CD
called "Space Legends" from Empire software, (re-)released in -95.
The -93 trademark is Paragon Software & Game Designer's Workshop:s.
I haven't tried it out yet, but it looks fit to run on an XT, with EGA
graphics.
/Rolf
Mark McGann
In article <34f71d20....@gatekeeper.impacttech.com>,
Mark Asher <ma...@cdmnet.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 27 Feb 1998 17:03:54 GMT, Kas...@spamsucker.discopy.com (Kasey
>>On 27 Feb 1998 15:39:52 GMT, "Olaf" <ol...@onr.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I can't understand why there are no games that are clones of these two
>>>great, successful games. They both spawned shitty sequels, I know, but why
>>>give up on them. Something like Privateer Gold with updated graphics and
>>>just more of the same would sell like wild. The same with Elite. That
>>>game rocked on a commodroe 64 for christs sake!
I must say I too am dissapointed that there have been no sucessful
sequels to Elite (I personally didn't care for privateer). I suspect the
reason for this is that the type of game a sucessful Elite sequel would
be different and unqiue in todays gaming market. While those are good
qualities too us (gamers), I suspect it turns off developers who can't point
to another game like it and say "See, games like this sell".
A good Elite sequel should have gameplay similar to Moria, IMO.
Instead of exploring down into a dungeon the player would explore out
into space, and just like the dungeon in Moria, space should be limitless
with more dangerous areas always waiting to be explored. Gameplay
doesn't have to be complex, but it needs to be open-eneded (i.e.,
NO SCRIPTED ANYTHING), and you always need to be able to continue
to upgrade your ship.
What killed Privateer for me was the scripting of the plot, and
the fact that in two days of play it was possible to have equiped yourself
with the best ship with the best equipment. As soon as I maxed out my
ship I stopped playing the game, I couldn't have cared less about the
scripted missions.
>>What I want to see is the ONLINE version! Imagine planets to travel
>>to, fixers to get missions from, ships to ally or fight against, NEVER
>>knowing if the other side is a real person or an AI imitation! Now
>>that would be cool!
A virtual persistant universe any number of people could log
onto and play. It's my wet dream of a game, unfortunatly it's not
going to happen for at least 5-10 years. There are several reasons for
this, first the internet and the speed of a typically internet
connection simply isn't fast enough to support games like this yet.
Second, non one has any experience making games like this so there
needs to be a painful growth period before any good games will arive.
Third, the demand for this type of game just isn't high enough to
justify the cost.
>Planetary Raiders from ICI/IMagic is what you want. It's not ready
>yet, but it will be one of those $2/hour games.
I've looked into Planetary Raiders, first off the $2/hour
rate is far more than I'd ever consider paying for an online game.
(I'd be in the poorhouse if I paid $2/h for CTF). The game also
seems to suffer from horrbile lag.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Mark McGann mcg...@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu |
|"If a million people do a stupid thing it's still a stupid thing" - Opus |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Geoffrey Stratton
3a.174...@news1.lig.bellsouth.net>
Distribution:
Flenn Klar (faith...@premier.net) wrote:
: ez05...@dogbert.ucdavis.edu (Geoffrey Stratton) wrote:
:
: >Arnaldo Horta (aho...@nowayspam-home.com) wrote:
: >
: >Do you happen to remember who made them and when? For the life of me I
: >can't recall anything based on Traveller--I vaguely remember the Tunnels
: >and Trolls game and (of course) the original SSI AD&D stuff. I also think
: >there were plans for a game based on the Top Secret pen and paper RPG but
: >don't know if they ever came to fruition (?).
: >
: >-Geoff
: >
: >: Arnie Horta
: >: remove the obvious thing from my email address to reply....
:
: There was also a Car Wars game, called Autoduel, put out by Origin I
: believe, WAY back. I think I have it in a 200K zip somewhere. It was
: basically the Privateer thing, run missions, make money, beef up
: vehicle, run tougher missions, wash, rinse, repeat.
Yes, I remember this one. A classic, of course. Origin was talking about
releasing this one on a CD with some other old games at one point but have
been quiet about it for a while now, so I don't know what happened to
their plans. Either way I'd much prefer an updated Autoduel with modern
technology, sort of like what Westwood is doing with Dune 2000. Nostalgia
software hits the point of diminishing return after a while, I think.
: I'm not sure if anyone mentioned it, but Mechwarrior Mercenaries is
: good for this, and is bargain binned right now.
Assuming you can stand the numerous technical problems, yes.
: It's _really_ too bad Privateer II sucked so badly. I think it gave
: the genre a bad name, and will scare off developers. Somebody that was
: on the design team of Privateer, was clearly missing from Privateer
: II. Much as I liked Christopher Walken, Jurgen Prochnow, John Hurt,
: and the rest, I could have done without all that for a better game.
: They needed far more weapons, the missions were all either impossible
: or cakewalks. They needed more ships, too, or at least some ships
: between the Shaman @$17k and the next useful one around $80k. You had
: to fly the Shaman too long.
:
: I'm really afraid Privateer II might have been the kiss of death to
: this kind of game. Hopefully some developers will realize it was that
: game that sucked, not the general idea. Which clearly people like.
Privateer II was strange, really strange. It's almost as though Origin
got cold feet about making a deeper game and stopped midway, the result
of which was a half-assed game all around.
Ironically, "pure" action games seem to be the most willing to experiment
with the freeform mission structure we're talking about here. Apogee's
Death Rally/Raptor vehicle upgrade model to me is a simple foundation on
which much more complex simulations could be built. Carmageddon would be
there if they'd only have bothered fleshing out the upgrade system. More
recently I've been playing Grand Theft Auto simply because screwing up a
mission isn't a showstopper. Sub Culture was interesting, too.
I think there are a lot of interesting ideas floating around, many of
which suggest "deeper" action is imminently workable, but the game
companies seem hesitant to explore them fully. You may be right about
the Privateer II fallout, which is unfortunate since I think the game
represents Origin's confusion as to the identity of their target audience
rather than a lack of viability in the genre.
-Geoff
: FK
Geoffrey Stratton
Rolf Blom (Rolf...@swipnet.se) wrote:
: Digging deep in a bargain bin at Tandy's, I found MegaTraveller 1
: (The Zhodani Conspiracy), and some other oldies on a CD
: called "Space Legends" from Empire software, (re-)released in -95.
:
: The -93 trademark is Paragon Software & Game Designer's Workshop:s.
:
: I haven't tried it out yet, but it looks fit to run on an XT, with EGA
: graphics.
:
: /Rolf
Thanks -- I'd be interested in hearing how Traveller plays, although some
of the other responses in this thread haven't exactly been complimentary
toward it.
-Geoff
Scott Jennings
Megatraveller 1 is a total dog. Probably the worst CRPG ever made (and
that's saying a lot.) The best part is the character generation
routine, which makes actual Megatraveller characters and is completely
unrelated to the rest of the game. The story's boring, and the game
mechanics are ludicrous.
On 7 Mar 1998 00:52:09 GMT, ez05...@dogbert.ucdavis.edu (Geoffrey
Carlos Smith
In article <6dpg17$vjc$1...@rs10.tcs.tulane.edu>, mcg...@rs1.tcs.tulane.edu
says...
> In article <34f71d20....@gatekeeper.impacttech.com>,
> Mark Asher <ma...@cdmnet.com> wrote:
> >On Fri, 27 Feb 1998 17:03:54 GMT, Kas...@spamsucker.discopy.com (Kasey
> >Chang (fix address before replying to me!)) wrote:
> >>On 27 Feb 1998 15:39:52 GMT, "Olaf" <ol...@onr.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>I can't understand why there are no games that are clones of these two
> >>>great, successful games. They both spawned shitty sequels, I know, but why
> >>>give up on them. Something like Privateer Gold with updated graphics and
> >>>just more of the same would sell like wild. The same with Elite. That
> >>>game rocked on a commodroe 64 for christs sake!
You all might want to check out the upcoming game "X" at
http://www.egosoft.com/
This looks pretty cool, and along the lines of the games mentioned,
trade, bounty missions, upgrades, even become a manufacturer...
Don't know how scripted it will be though, apparently there is
some back plot. Also I couldn't find anything on the flight
model, whether it's the "airplane in space" model we see so
often or a true space flight model.
Carlos
Geoffrey Tobin
That's an interesting series of questions about space flight models.
In response to Flenn's thoughtful post:
1. Personally I prefer not to have atmospheric flight models, because
aircraft are so much harder to manouevre than spacecraft!
2. I find it very hard to believe that advanced space combat technology
would use human pilots at all. Human reaction times are far too slow,
and the win would always go to the quicker computer. (For example, Star
Trek's combat orders are laughably impractical.)
3. At low speeds, I agree that craft that spend all their time in space
should not be streamlined. After all, satellites and space probes are
not.
4. However, at sufficiently near-light velocities, even the thinly
spread molecules of space would introduce drag.
5. For FTL, if it's possible, then who knows how it would work? So
SF and game writers can postulate any FTL flight model they choose.
--
Best wishes!
Geoffrey Tobin
Email: G.T...@latrobe.edu.au
WWW: http://www.ee.latrobe.edu.au/~gt/gt.html
Rick Ryan
In article <6en46r$p1r$1...@news.latrobe.edu.au>, G.T...@latrobe.edu.au wrote:
>That's an interesting series of questions about space flight models.
>In response to Flenn's thoughtful post:
>
>1. Personally I prefer not to have atmospheric flight models, because
>aircraft are so much harder to manouevre than spacecraft!
>
>2. I find it very hard to believe that advanced space combat technology
>would use human pilots at all. Human reaction times are far too slow,
>and the win would always go to the quicker computer. (For example, Star
>Trek's combat orders are laughably impractical.)
>
>3. At low speeds, I agree that craft that spend all their time in space
>should not be streamlined. After all, satellites and space probes are
>not.
>
>4. However, at sufficiently near-light velocities, even the thinly
>spread molecules of space would introduce drag.
>
>5. For FTL, if it's possible, then who knows how it would work? So
>SF and game writers can postulate any FTL flight model they choose.
Try a old game called mantis for a good space fighter game .
For one thing fuel is seconds of acceleration and it is a good model of flight
in a zero g
Mark Weatherhead
>3. At low speeds, I agree that craft that spend all their time in space
>should not be streamlined. After all, satellites and space probes are
>not.
>
>4. However, at sufficiently near-light velocities, even the thinly
>spread molecules of space would introduce drag.
Perhaps you could argue that streamlined craft would pose a more difficult
target for lasers/projectiles due to deflections than craft with angular
surfaces - deflector shields aside.
Mark.
Oriental Hero
I missed that article on space fight models but having lurked on the
GURPS mailing list, space battles have been discussed for this pen 'n
paper RPG so...
> >In response to Flenn's thoughtful post:
> >
> >1. Personally I prefer not to have atmospheric flight models, because
> >aircraft are so much harder to manouevre than spacecraft!
> >
> >2. I find it very hard to believe that advanced space combat technology
> >would use human pilots at all. Human reaction times are far too slow,
> >and the win would always go to the quicker computer. (For example, Star
> >Trek's combat orders are laughably impractical.)
Hmmm, wasn't there a similar arguement when homing missiles were
introduced into the military? They figured that remote drones would be
all you needed to along with payloads of missiles... Of course, you
might have beam weapons then but considering the distances of
interstellar combat or intrasystem, distances are immense and you would
have to have incredible electromagnetic control / beam focusing to stop
a laser beam from spreading from a coherent focused 2 inch beam of
annihilation to a 6 m diameter tanning lamp!
Besides which, haven't you seen Buck Rogers in the 25th century :)
> >3. At low speeds, I agree that craft that spend all their time in space
> >should not be streamlined. After all, satellites and space probes are
> >not.
> >
> >4. However, at sufficiently near-light velocities, even the thinly
> >spread molecules of space would introduce drag.
I was just thinking of the effect of impacting a molecule in space at
near light velocities. Kinda like a particle accelerator in reverse!!
Which is why there would obviously be some kinda shielding or other
(Warp field anyone? Or how about inertialess for those EEDoc Smith
fans...)
> >5. For FTL, if it's possible, then who knows how it would work? So
> >SF and game writers can postulate any FTL flight model they choose.
I'm not taking the mickey here but I couldn't help notice a few
inconsistancies...
Actually, GURPS will be bringing out GURPS Traveller and that should
have a pretty cool system for space combat. I'll probably try using
Dejanews to track down that post...
Hope I contributed...
Oriental Hero
-----------------------------------------------
"Man's life does not last a hundred years,
But always is it full of a thousand years' cares.
Short the midday, bitter long the night.
Why then, do you not grasp the lamp
And seek out the short-lived joys?
Why do you wait
Year after year?"
A Han Philospher
from the Springs of Chinese Wisdom
Paul Miller
On Thu, 19 Mar 1998 16:49:23 GMT, faith...@premier.net (Flenn Klar) wrote:
>g...@faraday.ee.latrobe.edu.au (Geoffrey Tobin) wrote:
>
>>That's an interesting series of questions about space flight models.
>>In response to Flenn's thoughtful post:
>>
>>1. Personally I prefer not to have atmospheric flight models, because
>>aircraft are so much harder to manouevre than spacecraft!
>
>Clearly:) I still wonder how much fun a realistic space model would
>be. But since as far as I'm aware there hasn't been one, so there's no
>empirical evidence yet.
>
A sort of realistic flight model would only have to take into effect inertia of
the craft, thrust vectors, and any relevant gravitational effects. :) Relevant
in this context is pretty easy to discern by the 1/x^-2 law of gravitation;
stuff that's far enough away to produce a force less than some constant can be
ignored. So it is possible, if realistic values of thrust and mass are used, to
somewhat realistically model flight of a spacecraft. What's more, it should be
easier than realistically modelling atmospheric flight.
>Yes but even at those speeds, were combat even practical anyway,
Combat is at least possible at slower than light speeds, since you can fire beam
weapons or projectiles in the direction the ship is moving and not worry about
catching up to your projectiles. ;) Projectiles certainly become less feasible
as v -> c. Now whether a practical beam weapon that works for ship to ship
combat would be possible, I don't know.
Remember, the key is that we are talking about ships large enough to house say
10 people at the minimum. I know there has been work done by firing lasters at
orbiting satellites to disrupt their electronics, but I don't think lasers would
be practical for destroying enemy ships. ECM and anti-ECM would probably be the
best (as in most effective) method of attack aside from nuclear weapons.
>Assuming we don't have some sort of reactionlaess and/or inertialess
>drive....
Captain, I canna change the lawsa physics! ;)
>>5. For FTL, if it's possible, then who knows how it would work? So
>>SF and game writers can postulate any FTL flight model they choose.
>
>Right, my point being, I wish they WOULD at least give some nod of an
>explanation as to why things are this certain way. Just something to
>hang my suspension of disbelief upon.
However, for FTL combat, one needs to have FTL weapons! This a priori rules out
ordinary electromagnetic beam weapons, unless the FTL model chosen is one in
which space is actually warped by huge gravitational forces, and you fire
through your wormhole back at the opponent. Since warping space to that degree
would most likely require a unified field theory as its foundations, that
further assumes that such a UFT even allows firing EM weapons through such a
temporarily created wormhole. After all, the closest analogy would be firing an
EM pulse at a black hole. The results of such an exercise are usually not too
interesting. :-)
Krud
Paul Miller wrote in message <3511c504...@nntp.lni.net>...
because
>>>aircraft are so much harder to manouevre than spacecraft!
>>
>>Clearly:) I still wonder how much fun a realistic space model would
>>be. But since as far as I'm aware there hasn't been one, so there's no
>>empirical evidence yet.
>>
>
>A sort of realistic flight model would only have to take into effect
inertia of
>the craft, thrust vectors, and any relevant gravitational effects. :)
Relevant
>in this context is pretty easy to discern by the 1/x^-2 law of
gravitation;
>stuff that's far enough away to produce a force less than some constant
can be
>ignored. So it is possible, if realistic values of thrust and mass are
used, to
>somewhat realistically model flight of a spacecraft. What's more, it
should be
>easier than realistically modelling atmospheric flight.
Inertia or momentum? Have you all seen I-War, from Particle Systems?
It's the most convincing space flight model that I've seen.
-Krud
Neil Fradkin
> Inertia or momentum?
In this context the words are interchangable.
> Have you all seen I-War, from Particle Systems?
> It's the most convincing space flight model that I've seen.
Heck, the original elite had a completely realistic flight model. As
someone else pointed out, a basic newtonian space flight model is
amazingly simple to understand and simple to implement, an order of
power easier than an atmospheric model. Even with a few curves like
adding some external forces (a nearby body's gravity for example) it's
still pretty simple.
Christoph Nahr
On Fri, 20 Mar 1998 08:28:34 -0500, "Krud"
<au...@nospam.mindspring.com> wrote:
>Inertia or momentum? Have you all seen I-War, from Particle Systems?
>It's the most convincing space flight model that I've seen.
Speaking of realistic space flight models, I don't know if it has been
brought up in this thread but Elite 2 (or was it 3?) actually tried to
simulate space flight and battles with realistic physics. Needless to
say, it was confusing and tedious in the extreme...
The spaceships were flying through empty space most of the time, with
an extremely small window of opportunity to actually exchange fire
with an opponent coming from the opposite direction. If you didn't
navigate carefully you wouldn't even come into weapon range. Once you
had passed by your opponent you had to slow down, turn, locate the
opponent and start another round in the tournament... yawn.
--
Chris Nahr (chn...@emailNOSPAM.msn.com)
Remove NOSPAM to reply via e-mail
Krud
Christoph Nahr wrote in message <35128e86...@enews.newsguy.com>...
<< Speaking of realistic space flight models, I don't know if it has
been
brought up in this thread but Elite 2 (or was it 3?) actually tried to
simulate space flight and battles with realistic physics. Needless to
say, it was confusing and tedious in the extreme...>>
Well, in my profesional opinion (as an experienced space cadet) <g> I
think I-War's flight model is a good mix of realism and gameplay. They
used a HUD targeting system similar to the "funnel" that the F-16 uses.
It makes locating and targeting enemies much easier than it would have
been without the HUD system. It has all the action of a Wing Commander
game with a much more convincing flight model.
-Krud
Krud
Neil Fradkin wrote in message <3512A0...@secant.com>...
>> Inertia or momentum?
>
> In this context the words are interchangable.
True. It's amazing how a little thing like this can add so much
percieved realism to a game. Wing Commander always felt to arcad-ish to
me, and the X-Wing games felt too much like an atmospheric flight model.
I-War feels like I'm piloting a real spacecraft.
> Heck, the original elite had a completely realistic flight model. As
>someone else pointed out, a basic newtonian space flight model is
>amazingly simple to understand and simple to implement, an order of
>power easier than an atmospheric model. Even with a few curves like
>adding some external forces (a nearby body's gravity for example) it's
>still pretty simple.
But fighting in Elite wasn't fun. I agree with Chris that it was like a
jousting match. It was a great game, but the space combat wasn't it's
strongest point, IMO. I-War doesn't have the depth that Elite had, but
the space combat is more fun. I would definitely recommend it to any
fan of sci-fi sims. Especially since you can buy it from Murray and
Sons for $35 (US). Just download the 1.1 patch from the Particle
Systems web site and it will work perfectly with U.S. keyboards. Plus,
it looks fantastic, even without 3d acceleration. The opening cutscene
is one of the best I've ever seen in a game. It really does a good job
of setting the mood.
-Krud
Paul Miller
On Fri, 20 Mar 1998 16:09:29 GMT, faith...@premier.net (Flenn Klar) wrote:
>pmiller@*DIESPAMMERS*.lni.net (Paul Miller) wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 19 Mar 1998 16:49:23 GMT, faith...@premier.net (Flenn Klar) wrote:
>>
>>>g...@faraday.ee.latrobe.edu.au (Geoffrey Tobin) wrote:
>>>
>>A sort of realistic flight model would only have to take into effect inertia of
>>the craft, thrust vectors, and any relevant gravitational effects. :)
[...]
>>What's more, it should be easier than realistically modelling atmospheric flight.
>
>No, clearly it can be done, and is much easier. If anyone remembers
>the Traveller space combat game Mayday, they'll know how easy it is.
Is this a board game?
>I
>still don't know how much fun a first person game _combat_piloting_
>such a craft would be. If your motive was winning and not dying, which
>if it were real life of course it would be, it would involve a lot of
>v accumulation and manuevering for a high v high angle off run, a few
>seconds of terror and activity, then if you survived, and thought you
>still held the advantage, then a lot of dumping v, turning around,
>manuevering and do it again. IOW a VERY small amount of time in
>shooting combat.
Kind of reminds me of an ancient shareware game called Space War. There's a sun
and one planet, and two enemy ships. You pilot one and a human or computer
opponent pilots the other. You win by either destroying the enemy with a
missile or laser shot (which means getting through his shields), or if the
opponent slams into the planet or sun. Now the only really interesting thing
about it other than the flight model was that there was a stable orbit with
respect to the planet and sun that you could enter which would cause the
computer player to slam into the sun every time while getting into position to
blast you. :-) Unfortunately, this was a 2D game, but what can you expect for
1985-era shareware?
I'd think an even more sensible approach at slower than c, assuming practical EM
beams would be to move as fast as possible AWAY from the opponent and shoot with
rear mounted beam weapons. It seems to me, there was a ship in one of the Star
Control games which fired projectiles from the rear (the Vux maybe?). Boy that
thing kicked ass. Entirely unrealistic due to thrust vectors of the ship and
projectile, but essentially it's the same principle.
Beam weapons become unusable at relatively short distances even if the
dissipation problem is completely solved, though. If the target is say, one
light second away (3.3 x 10^6 m, or 3.3*10^3 km I believe), then merely
detecting the target takes one second, and that is if you instantly recognise it
for what it is. Assuming the target moves (probably a good assumption), that
its motion is not dictated entirely by gravitational forces (enemy ships won't
likely just sit around orbitting a planet or sun waiting for you to blast them
all the time), and (here's the biggie) that the distance between you and them
remains >= 1 light second, the target gets 1 second or more to move before it
can actually be hit. Of course you can guess its course assuming no change in
acceleration and compensating for gravitational effects, if you observe for a
bit, but if a target knows you're out there someplace and knows you want to
shoot at it, it can evade pretty easily just by changing course once in a while.
Assuming missiles are the way to go, just launch guided missiles and run away,
hopefully avoiding the opponent's missiles. Thus the best defence would be to
either escape detection by the missiles or futz up their guidance systems
(stealth or ECM), or blast them somehow with beam weapons.
>Well certainly it's possible, just how practical is another matter. To
>me guided munitions seem the most reasonable for space combat, it's
>just not as fun. Dog fights in space don't seem likely, but dog fights
>are what people enjoy in a game.
Dog fights don't even happen in air warfare anymore. ;)
>>>>5. For FTL, if it's possible, then who knows how it would work? So
>>>>SF and game writers can postulate any FTL flight model they choose.
>>>
>>>Right, my point being, I wish they WOULD at least give some nod of an
>>>explanation as to why things are this certain way. Just something to
>>>hang my suspension of disbelief upon.
>>
>>However, for FTL combat, one needs to have FTL weapons! This a priori rules out
>>ordinary electromagnetic beam weapons, unless the FTL model chosen is one in
>>which space is actually warped by huge gravitational forces, and you fire
>>through your wormhole back at the opponent. Since warping space to that degree
>>would most likely require a unified field theory as its foundations, that
>>further assumes that such a UFT even allows firing EM weapons through such a
>>temporarily created wormhole. After all, the closest analogy would be firing an
>>EM pulse at a black hole. The results of such an exercise are usually not too
>>interesting. :-)
>
>LOL.
>
>Well Star Trek solves the problem by having FTL beam weapons, and
>presumably little warp drives on their guided munitions. It's a little
>fuzzy here because other races seem to use what have been explained as
>regular beam weapons in FTL combat as well. Of course this opens up a
>host of other problems...
Don't laugh too soon. :-) I recently read a rather entertaining book called
_The Physics of Star Trek_ by Lawrence M. Krauss. It's full of fun facts like
"the number of people in the United States who would not recognize the phrase
'Beam me up, Scotty' is roughly comparable to the number of people who have
never heard of ketchup." Seriously, the author is a theoretical physicist, and
while I am a physics dummy, Stephen Hawking has given the book at least an
implicit nod by writing a foreward, so I'm assuming there is at least some truth
to what is said in it.
FTL via warping space is mentioned as one of the things that is at least
theoretically possible. Now, the energy requirements are huge, of course, and
it's not likely that FTL will ever be possible, but at least the theory does not
discount it. Essentially, you have to contract space in front of you while
expanding it behind you. Hence you can move at a very slow local velocity while
still covering a large global distance.
The problem with this seems to be that while you can fire beam weapons ahead of
you well enough, firing at any angle other than straight ahead doesn't work
well. Also, because space/time itself is warped, a ship that got sufficiently
close would essentially be able to ride your spacetime wave. It seems to give a
new meaning to the phrase 'evasive action'.
Although I know nothing of the real details, it's a fun book, and one that every
Trekker ought to read.
And on that note, this particular branch of the thread is getting horrendously
off topic for c.s.ibm.pc.g.s, and if it continues any longer, I shall have to
set followups to rec.games.design or something. ;-)
Tyf Seadragon
>Speaking of realistic space flight models, I don't know if it has been
>brought up in this thread but Elite 2 (or was it 3?) actually tried to
>simulate space flight and battles with realistic physics.
>
>The spaceships were flying through empty space most of the time, with
>an extremely small window of opportunity to actually exchange fire
>with an opponent coming from the opposite direction. If you didn't
My experience was completely different. More like dogfighting -
getting into range, matching velocity, beaming the enemy, then
scarpering if someone shot a missile :)
>Needless to say, it was confusing and tedious in the extreme...
Actually, I'm more inclined to think that it was E2 that was confusing
and tedious. For one thing, the manual controls were pathetic - the
choice of full forward and reverse thrust is *not* a good control
system :) It would have been much nicer to have had full six-degree
control, or whatever you call it. Not to mention that most of the
game mechanics were shot to hell.
I'm not a flight buff myself, but I have a friend who is, and after a
brief period of puzzlement, he was hooked - he could see the potential
implicit in the concept. Pity about the game :(
--
"The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head."
Tyf Seadragon -=UDIC=- Please cc replies to
'typhon AT wave DOT co DOT nz', otherwise I may not get them.
Christoph Nahr
Just thought I'd clear up something: I was talking about Elite TWO
and/or Elite THREE ("Frontier" and "Final Encounters", resp.) I don't
remember which one of them (or both?) tried to simulate "real"
spaceships with that jousting combat and strange controls.
I was NOT talking about the ORIGINAL Elite (without a number). Elite
was probably a bit more realistic than other games (with solar systems
where you needed a jump engine to bridge the distance between planets)
but the controls were OK and the game was an all-time classic for me.
Jon Ballinger
It was frontier which needed the obscure jousting style combat.... AFAIK
most people just bought a Panther, stuck the largest laser they could afford
and aimed at the piddly little ships that invariably attacked you....
anything bigger and it was a case of who hits who first...
Jon Ballinger
Christoph Nahr wrote in message <351517e0...@enews.newsguy.com>...
Steve Wood
NOTE: This message is intended to contribute to this thread, not to comment
on any single posting, so I've not bothered to emphasize who said what.
Tyf Seadragon wrote in message <3513c59...@news.edu.sollentuna.se>...
>On Fri, 20 Mar 1998 16:23:24 GMT, chn...@emailNOSPAM.msn.com
>(Christoph Nahr) wrote:
>
>>Speaking of realistic space flight models, I don't know if it has been
>>brought up in this thread but Elite 2 (or was it 3?) actually tried to
>>simulate space flight and battles with realistic physics.
Yep, Frontier(E:F) and First Encounters(E:FI) had Newtonian flight-models
and attempted to model orbital mechanics. One of the biggest problems with
the game was the combat, which was reduced to two basic strategies. You
could do a series of full-throttle fly-by manuevers which amounted to
"jousting" matches, or you could spend hours jinking back and forth on the
stick to match velocities and close with the target--who only had to change
course slightly to eliminate all your hard work.
I posted a message earlier to the effect that any Newtonian/Orbital
Mechanics space-simulator _has_ to have a good "autopilot." In many
respects, E:F and E:FI had the worst autopilot possible for this type of
game. Any "real" space-simulator should have the capability to match
vectors or assume orbit trajectories without requiring manual
"seat-of-the-pants" flying. Imagine the value of being able to assume
geosynchrous orbit with a LOS to the ground-station the guy you want for
that juicy bounty is parked at. You up in orbit, beyond the reach of the
law, watching, waiting. heh. And being able to lock onto a ship and close
to within some reasonable distance, then use your computer to _keep_ you
within a relative "theatre" for the dogfight. That would have been a good
and believable system. The games were set in the 3200's, is it realistic to
assume that Humanity has completely forgotten how to programme autopilots?
>Actually, I'm more inclined to think that it was E2 that was confusing
>and tedious. For one thing, the manual controls were pathetic - the
>choice of full forward and reverse thrust is *not* a good control
>system :) It would have been much nicer to have had full six-degree
>control, or whatever you call it. Not to mention that most of the
>game mechanics were shot to hell.
I think a good autopilot or "computer copilot" would have made this game a
LOT better. Tranfer orbits, trajectories which allowed you to control
duration, fuel consumption and arrival location would have been marvelous.
For example, a courier might use a minimum time trajectory to get in-system,
which would be expensive in terms of fuel, but a big cargo craft might use
low-energy, longer duration trajectories. Also, if gravity had been better
modelled, you might have been able to use a Gravity-whip maneuver to increas
velocity. I know the manual said you could, but I could never get it to work
reliably, and I cetrainly couldn't use it to do anything for travel
time--just combat. I'm picturing a course (in Sol) which might incorporate
G-whips around saturn and Jupiter to increase velocity, maybe even a whip
around Sol for breaking (which might also result in full fuel tanks, if your
ship was set up for it). If you were chasing someone, you might even HAVE
to use G-whip maneuvers to match their velocity (and there's a cool idea,
you might be able to _start_ chasing a ship days after they leave port,
you'd just need to use a different trajectory to catch up.)
>
>I'm not a flight buff myself, but I have a friend who is, and after a
>brief period of puzzlement, he was hooked - he could see the potential
>implicit in the concept. Pity about the game :(
Everyone who ever played ELITE or it's successors was hooked on the
potential. Too bad the game(s) always had under-realised areas. Didn't
stop them from becoming cult-classics, though.
I know if an open-ended game using the I-WAR engine comes out, I'll be
drooling all the way to the store.
Steve Wood scw...@netcom.ca
Dave Whiteside
In article <3511c504...@nntp.lni.net>, pmiller@*DIESPAMMERS*.lni.net
(Paul Miller) wrote:
> Remember, the key is that we are talking about ships large enough to
> house say
> 10 people at the minimum. I know there has been work done by firing
> lasters at
> orbiting satellites to disrupt their electronics, but I don't think
> lasers would
> be practical for destroying enemy ships. ECM and anti-ECM would
> probably be the
> best (as in most effective) method of attack aside from nuclear weapons.
or dumping a load of sand into the path of your enemy
Dave
Whoever lays a hand on me to govern me is a usurper and a tyrant,
I declare them my enemy.
[Zounds]
Dave Whiteside
In article <3512fbc3....@nntp.lni.net>,
pmiller@*DIESPAMMERS*.lni.net (Paul Miller) wrote:
<snip>
> Kind of reminds me of an ancient shareware game called Space War.
> There's a sun
> and one planet, and two enemy ships. You pilot one and a human or
> computer
> opponent pilots the other. You win by either destroying the enemy with
> a
> missile or laser shot (which means getting through his shields), or if
> the
> opponent slams into the planet or sun. Now the only really interesting
> thing
> about it other than the flight model was that there was a stable orbit
> with
> respect to the planet and sun that you could enter which would cause the
> computer player to slam into the sun every time while getting into
> position to
> blast you. :-) Unfortunately, this was a 2D game, but what can you
> expect for
> 1985-era shareware?
it was pre space-invaders and playable at the arcades - loads of fun.
Dave
Christoph Nahr
On Sun, 22 Mar 1998 11:01:54 -0700, "Steve Wood" <scw...@netcom.ca>
wrote:
>I posted a message earlier to the effect that any Newtonian/Orbital
>Mechanics space-simulator _has_ to have a good "autopilot."
Very good idea, that would have made Elite 2 & 3 much better (or at
least somewhat enjoyable...) Isn't there some development still going
on by a couple of hobbyists to create a new Elite? A combination of a
preplanned general course, automatic control to keep in range of a
target and manual fine adjustment (e.g. for targetting during combat)
might be worth a thought.
Sorry if you already posted that, I came late for the thread. :-)
>I know if an open-ended game using the I-WAR engine comes out, I'll be
>drooling all the way to the store.
Me too! I played the I-War demo and I thought "now if this great game
only had an open-ended story like good old Elite, or at least a random
mission generator...". A few canned missions aren't even worth the
effort to learn the controls IMO.
Steve Wood
Christoph Nahr wrote in message <3516a3e7...@enews.newsguy.com>...
On Sun, 22 Mar 1998 11:01:54 -0700, "Steve Wood" <scw...@netcom.ca>
wrote:
>Very good idea, that would have made Elite 2 & 3 much better (or at
>least somewhat enjoyable...) Isn't there some development still going
>on by a couple of hobbyists to create a new Elite? A combination of a
>preplanned general course, automatic control to keep in range of a
>target and manual fine adjustment (e.g. for targetting during combat)
>might be worth a thought.
>Sorry if you already posted that, I came late for the thread. :-)
I think I mentioned some of that in an earlier post, but it's such a good
idea it bears repetition. Anyone who reads any of the so-called "hard"
science-fiction out there knows that there has already been a _lot_ of
thought put into how "real" space-craft would navigate.
If there is a team of fans/hobbyists out there working on an Elite-inspired
title, I'd love to hear about it. ANYONE?
>Me too! I played the I-War demo and I thought "now if this great game
>only had an open-ended story like good old Elite, or at least a random
>mission generator...". A few canned missions aren't even worth the
>effort to learn the controls IMO.
I had almost word-for-word the same thought. In I-War, they finally got
space-flight in a game right. I-War has a good plot too, but people who
liked Elite want an open-ended game. This is actually a _good_ thing,
because the company that released I-War has the opportunity to release an
eagerly anticipated second title if they listen to Elite fans.
(HINT HINT!)
Steve Wood scw...@netcom.ca
Paul Miller
On 23 Mar 1998 13:11:27 GMT, da...@srowan.cix.co.uk (Dave Whiteside) wrote:
>In article <3512fbc3....@nntp.lni.net>,
>pmiller@*DIESPAMMERS*.lni.net (Paul Miller) wrote:
><snip>
>> Kind of reminds me of an ancient shareware game called Space War.
>> There's a sun and one planet, and two enemy ships.
>> Unfortunately, this was a 2D game, but what can you
>> expect for 1985-era shareware?
>it was pre space-invaders and playable at the arcades - loads of fun.
Right, I almost forgot there was an arcade version, too. I never played that
one, but I'd suppose the version I did play was some sort of clone of it.
Wonder if the arcade version had the same problem as the PC version I played. I
doubt I could even play it anymore without using a slowdown program ;)
Dave Whiteside
In article <6f6h7t$f05$1...@tor-nn1.netcom.ca>, scw...@netcom.ca (Steve Wood)
wrote:
><SNIP>
> If there is a team of fans/hobbyists out there working on an
> Elite-inspired
> title, I'd love to hear about it. ANYONE?
it's called TEP [The Elite Project] - there is often talk in one of the
elite newsgroups [cant think off had which one]
do a search using dejanews and you should find references - these is also
a link of Ian Bells page - though he doesn't actively contribute.
Dave
Dave Whiteside
In article <3517c7a6...@nntp.lni.net>, pmiller@*DIESPAMMERS*.lni.net
(Paul Miller) wrote:
> On 23 Mar 1998 13:11:27 GMT, da...@srowan.cix.co.uk (Dave Whiteside)
> wrote:
>
> >In article <3512fbc3....@nntp.lni.net>,
> >pmiller@*DIESPAMMERS*.lni.net (Paul Miller) wrote:
> ><snip>
> >> Kind of reminds me of an ancient shareware game called Space War.
> >> There's a sun and one planet, and two enemy ships.
> >> Unfortunately, this was a 2D game, but what can you
> >> expect for 1985-era shareware?
>
> >it was pre space-invaders and playable at the arcades - loads of fun.
>
> Right, I almost forgot there was an arcade version, too. I never
> played that
> one, but I'd suppose the version I did play was some sort of clone of
> it.
> Wonder if the arcade version had the same problem as the PC version I
> played. I
> doubt I could even play it anymore without using a slowdown program ;)
>
Yes, IIRC, the computer versions where based on the original [that had
vector graphics] and I think that you probably could do the same sort
trick.
Dave
Thrasher
>Don't get me started on ST! The bad science in ST can occupy a whole
>eveneing's conversation. (and has more than a few times) Re your
>specific point, we have to assume biologically and/or cybernetically
>enhanced nervous systems. Robot pilots just aren't as much fun and are
>harder to identify with.
Also, "robot" pilots are stupid. If we can use today's state of AI
programming as an indicator of future developments. Nobody argues that
a computer can't react faster, and do things an order of magnitude
faster, than a human. Will that be a good thing if what the computer
decides to do is completely assinine? The AI oponents in a game today
have all the same advantages you are talking about, yet there is not a
one of them that I can't completely beat the hell out of, and so can
anybody else who has half a brain. Star Trek had it right. Human tells
the computer to lock on phasers. Human tells the computer to fire
phasers. Unless we can work a few miracles with artifical intelligence
that's the way it's going to be. There may have been a lot of bad
science in star trek, but a lot of the stuff they "made up" has come
to pass, too.
Olaf
Back to the thread...It seems as though Origin is planning Privateer 3
afterall (I thought it was dead). I hope they are still solvent to produce
the game. There is a preview of it in this months CGS+. However, the way
the preview is written, I would not be surprised if the game is not released
until 99. Just the same, I can not wait. Anyone who liked the original
Privateer should pick up this issue. Off topic, this magazine has really
picked up lately, not only is it dirt cheap, I find it very informative nad
generally good reading. I think Chips n Bits bought it or something.
olaf
Thrasher
That is good news. Privateer was a really good game, it had everything
Wing Commander had but took the game to another level. I hope they can
get back to what made privateer great, instead of coing further down
the course they set with Privateer II...
Thrasher
On Fri, 27 Mar 1998 18:07:40 GMT, faith...@premier.net (Flenn Klar)
wrote:
>What has come true that was made up by Star Trek?
Voice recognition. Well, maybe they didn't make it up, but it was the
first time I was exposed to it, and that was in the 60's. Oh, yeah,
and the space shuttle. They made that up too. Lotsa stuff.
>Ok you started it. Star Trek has it almost completely wrong. Even if
>you wanted human involvement the dripping with drama pauses that
>always come on the show would logically mean a blowed up ship. Even
>then, they imply that somehow a human has a real part in the
>targetting process, some ppl are better gunners than others somehow,
Fast typing. Command Line and all that you know. They probably were
using Linux on the enterprise.
>and some ppl (Chekov) can actually be responsible for missing.
Syntax errors. Didn't you ever notice the sour looks on his face and
the mumbling under his breath? I've seen that before, usually in
response to "Bad command or file name"...
Mike Zeares
In article <351c0a83.10475611@news>,
spect...@hotmail.com (Thrasher) wrote:
>
> On Fri, 27 Mar 1998 18:07:40 GMT, faith...@premier.net (Flenn Klar)
> wrote:
>
> >What has come true that was made up by Star Trek?
>
> Voice recognition. Well, maybe they didn't make it up, but it was the
> first time I was exposed to it, and that was in the 60's. Oh, yeah,
> and the space shuttle. They made that up too. Lotsa stuff.
Electronic notepads. 3 1/2" floppies. Nimoy made a comment about how his
cell phone looks like a communicator (it's the flip-open kind). I wonder how
much high-tech is influenced by the desire to have working Star Trek gadgets.
> >Ok you started it. Star Trek has it almost completely wrong. Even if
> >you wanted human involvement the dripping with drama pauses that
> >always come on the show would logically mean a blowed up ship. Even
> >then, they imply that somehow a human has a real part in the
> >targetting process, some ppl are better gunners than others somehow,
>
> Fast typing. Command Line and all that you know. They probably were
> using Linux on the enterprise.
Valeris was doing that on "STVI:TUC." That bridge also apparently used a
sound mixing board for thruster controls. Reminded me of "Battlestar
Galactica," where the ship was controlled by a TRS-80. Or was it an Apple?
>
> >and some ppl (Chekov) can actually be responsible for missing.
>
> Syntax errors. Didn't you ever notice the sour looks on his face and
> the mumbling under his breath? I've seen that before, usually in
> response to "Bad command or file name"...
>
That must have been the trick they pulled on Khan:
Joachim: Khan! Our shields are dropping!
Khan: Raise them!
Computer display: Error reading drive a: Abort? Retry? Ignore?
Joachim:(pounds on the keys, message repeats) I can't!
Khan: (flipping through the Dos 5.0 manual) Where's the override? The
override!
Mike Zeares
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Damien Falgoust
"Mike Zeares" <mike....@tandem.com> wrote:
>> >What has come true that was made up by Star Trek?
>>
>> Voice recognition. Well, maybe they didn't make it up, but it was the
>> first time I was exposed to it, and that was in the 60's. Oh, yeah,
>> and the space shuttle. They made that up too. Lotsa stuff.
>Electronic notepads. 3 1/2" floppies. Nimoy made a comment about how his
>cell phone looks like a communicator (it's the flip-open kind). I wonder how
>much high-tech is influenced by the desire to have working Star Trek gadgets.
Actually, this is true. I recall reading somewhere that when cell
phones first came out, they designed them to flip open because the
baby boom generation -- weaned on Star Trek -- thought that looked
more futuristic. Star Trek is indeed the source of the flip-phone
design.
(snip)
----------------------------------------
Damien Falgoust
University of Texas School of Law -- 2L
dfal...@mail.utexas.edu
http://www.geocities.com/NapaValley/3578/
**************************************
Visit my page for Law School Outlines &
Debunking Conspiracy Myths!
**************************************
"boo_inigma@paradox.com"
On Sat, 28 Mar 1998 06:14:27 -0600, "Mike Zeares"
<mike....@tandem.com> wrote:
>Joachim: Khan! Our shields are dropping!
>Khan: Raise them!
>Computer display: Error reading drive a: Abort? Retry? Ignore?
>Joachim:(pounds on the keys, message repeats) I can't!
>Khan: (flipping through the Dos 5.0 manual) Where's the override? The
>override!
>Mike Zeares
*funny* What an idea for a "humorous" episode. Instead of
fighting an "external enemy" they fight the enemy within,
the same thing we fight with; our "computers."
Eminent danger speeding toward them on viewscreen.
Kirk:: "Computer!"
Computer:: "My drives hurt and it's my time of the month
leave me the hell alone!"
Kirk: "Whut? Computer respond."
Computer: "Splurp rut..." paper, yes paper! starts flying
out of recesses they didn't know the ship had.
Kirk: "Bones, get up here with your medical kit!"
Scotty: "Yei, Cap'n she gano' take much more of this
pressure. She needs to vent, Cap'n."
Spock: "This is so f**king illogical! I'm sick of you pasty
ass humans and your stooopid computers. Mind meld THIS
monkeybrain. There I said it."
Bones run in and examines the 'patient.'
Kirk: 'Bones?"
Yep you guessed it.
Bones: "She's dead Gym."
Kirk hangs his head, then suddenly snaps it up in
melodramatic fashion that only Kirk can. Launches into a 2.5
hour soliloquy about the virtues of female computers, and
how he's lost yet another female companion.
( Doesn't _every_ love interest of the bridge crew *always*
die by the end of the episode? With the exclusion of the
most ridiculous couple in the galaxy: Worf-tongue and that
Trill thing.)
[Q] How can you tell if a ST crew member will die? By the
color of their uniform, of course.