Guest John Boren Posted March 9, 1999 Report Share Posted March 9, 1999 Pardon me if this issue has already been addressed, but is there any chance of a Newtonian flight model in the upcoming sequel? My two favorite games right now are BC3K and I-War. BC3K can't be beat for complexity, gameplay and gamer immersion, but I-war's flight model is just a joy fly around in.Is this in any way feasable? sincerely, John Boren Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supreme Cmdr Posted March 9, 1999 Report Share Posted March 9, 1999 Though we won't be doing true Newtonian physics (neither does I-War or anyone else for that matter), the flight dynamics in BC:3020AD will be vastly improved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 9, 1999 Report Share Posted March 9, 1999 I think MANTIS got pretty close *G*. Although I-War's model is more playable, MANTIS's flight model, although a pain to fly, was very cool. IMHO, just slow down the BC (or speed it up if H-jumps are taken out) and cut its manouverability by another 50% and it'll be ok :-).Vastly improved? OK I can live with that :-)... dont we get a hint on how much improvement? I'm just asking in terms of comparison with the current BC, not any new "feature" that might compromise the *grand plan and inmaculate secret* of 3020 :-).-Tac- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MrBeAr Posted March 9, 1999 Report Share Posted March 9, 1999 What about Einsteinian/relativistic physics? At least it could be used for fuel consumption. But what about the length of the bc and the passing of time? Ultra high speeds could slow down the time spent in transit... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Fury Posted March 10, 1999 Report Share Posted March 10, 1999 Relativistic physics - such as time dilation would mean that the closer you get to the speed of light, the slower the time YOU experience compared to the rest of the universe - you'd be harder to hit (the place where you're "seen" is way behind where you physically "are") but everybody at "normal speed" would seem to be flitting around like gnats on speed, so hitting targets would be virtually impossible. I suppose it would be good for recon purposes, but if you sent out a radar pulse, the returning signal might be so degraded by the time it gets to you that it would be useless (remember the EM pulse can only travel at light speed) plus you would get distortion and a lot of doppler effects....I say that having to keep track of different BC's and other ships with each having a different "time speed profile" would probably bring a quad *insert latest/fastest intel or alpha chip here* machine to its knees.... Personally i feel there's not much wrong with the current "feel" of space flight - just a few changes which have already been discussed should make it perfect...Just my two bits - open for comments...Fury Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Somerset Posted March 10, 1999 Report Share Posted March 10, 1999 Plus, with Einstein's theory of relativity, the faster you go, the more energy it takes. Trying to get to light speed at relatvistic velocity is impossible, because you need an infinite amount of energy. BC's hyperdrive eliminates the problem. However, BC's are snails at relativistic speeds. If the hyperdrive were eliminated, as Tac suggests, the BC would need to go at a good clip, say .25c. It has been suggested that above .25c you encounter relativistic time dialation so going over that would be impractical unless in an emergency.------------------ Cmdr. Benjamin Somerset GCV Swiftsure "We sail into history..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 10, 1999 Report Share Posted March 10, 1999 WOW! What an IDEA!Hey Derek, an idea for a future BC3K game! How about a game that takes place BEFORE humanity had contact with ET's? I'm sure we managed to have *some* wars before that *G*.Since the h-drive and all that cool tech wasnt discovered yet, you could tinker with time dilation, thrust vectoring, stuff like that.Just a thought! :-) Maybe THEN a newtonian physics model could be used. That would be so cool!------------------ Fleet Leader Daniel "Tac" Londono GCV Usagi (Wraith Flagship) Hell Hound Wing Commander =Wraith Fleet= "Hard,Fast, Furious...FIRST!" "The World is tired of Words.It wants Examples"-Shoghi Effendi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Lindsey Posted March 11, 1999 Report Share Posted March 11, 1999 quote:Personally I feel there's not much wrong with the current "feel" of space flight - just a few changes which have already been discussed should make it perfect... Comments? Thank you Fury. Thank you, thank you. I have always felt the speed issue was fine. Even the slugging down of the BC after the free version. I got used to it. It was a bit dissappointing but it was more realistic. A big ship shouldn't be able to maneuver like an IC. Notice I said Maneuver and not "chase down". Chasing an IC down is easy. It's maneuvering like it and pinning it in your sights that is hard. Anyway several rants lay beneath the surface but thanks for seeing that the model as it is is fine. Commander Chavik ICV Phoenix Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Fury Posted March 11, 1999 Report Share Posted March 11, 1999 You're welcome, Mr Lindsey.... Can't really fault the model - the only "feature" thats annoys me is "Ludicrous speed" due to the fact that even the IC using AI can never quite catch up (ever chased a cowardly, severely damaged enemy which just decided to leave its "throttle jammed open" and head off the map?) But enough about that well discussed topic....Any more ideas?? ------------------ Cmdr Fury GCV Hydra "Those who have not yet realized danger are generally the bravest soldiers." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 11, 1999 Report Share Posted March 11, 1999 Well, you could leave the ludicrous speed, but make it accessible to players too. Or perhaps make that ludicrous speed burn out fuel at the same rate as the tractor beam? Half a minute and your fuel is nearly gone.That and reduce the manouverability by 50% per every 2000 kps (for ALL ships).It works wonders on Netrek.Or take out hyperjumps, make BC max speed 10,000 kps (AI and player). That should be enought speed to move through the map IMHO (which is usually disregarded and treated as a statement..*G*). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Zach Gaskins Posted March 11, 1999 Report Share Posted March 11, 1999 quote:the only "feature" thats annoys me is "Ludicrous speed" due to the fact that even the IC using AI can never quite catch up (ever chased a cowardly, severely damaged enemy which just decided to leave its "throttle jammed open" and head off the map?)Hehe...ever since I used that term to describe it, I keep picturing Dark Helmet in the INS/MIL cruiser that I'm chasing, and when they drop out of LS, him flying across the bridge and ramming into the controls. ------------------ Cmdr. Zach Gaskins GCV Hypercephalic GALCOM IFTCC Liaison Intragalactic Free Trade & Commodities Coalition Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Somerset Posted March 12, 1999 Report Share Posted March 12, 1999 Reducing AI and player speed to 10,000 kps might sound nice at first. But, you have to realize that you'll have to wait over 1.6 hours to get to that nearest jumpgate. If you're really into realism, then it's right up your alley. Otherwise, it'll be something to complain about.------------------ Cmdr. Benjamin Somerset GCV Swiftsure "We sail into history..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Lindsey Posted March 12, 1999 Report Share Posted March 12, 1999 Ideas about what? As I've said , I think the flight model/acceleration models are fine but then I got to thinking I am viewing this game on a machine capable of 14 FPS at best and 9 down to 5 once things start happening. (yes I am above the latest printed specs )(But then again I have noticed every patch increases the required processing power). So then I think any more slugging down of the BC should be done in the same manner as the original slugging down. That is, it should be plugged into the original flight model. Therefore everyone has the same ratio of slowing down. (don't can me on this makes sense to me.) Timing a max accel to a set time (IE the 45 sec's proposed) would can some guys on slower machines while allowing others to escape unscathed. Anyway just want to keep things fair and I'm sure the SC has a dozen ways to do this.Time dilation? Nah; don't introduce it. Would bugger the game tremendously. Fun to talk about it but really doesn't come into play.AI speeds? Just keep things fair (as above). I really hate that enemies can AI speed away from a missile. The trick is to get close enough so they don't have time to react. 3-5 clicks is usually pretty good. And this makes perfect sense. The only other thing is that if you fire a missile at it's extreme range the enemy has plenty of time to react. Perfectly feasible too. And plenty of time to AI speed away. Darn! It gets hard deciding what's fair. Anyway just keep things fair in my opinion.As usual, all wishes posted with standard disclaimers. IE; Derek will take what he likes and use it. If not he'll ignore us. Fun to talk about it in any event. Commander Chavik ICV Poenix Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 12, 1999 Report Share Posted March 12, 1999 1.6 hours? You timed it?Well, what I meant was to take out the h-jumps, eliminating the NPC collisions when exiting h-space, eliminating the problem of ships hypering out (very annoying to me), AND adding more tactical elements to the game. What I meant was that a ship would travel at X speed maximum [where X is the speed needed to travel from one side of the map to another in 5 minutes or so (I said SIDE not nav point.. avg nav point to nav point would be 2 or 3 minutes)].So if your ship takes that time, you would have to really plan and or/ know what you're doing 'cause that hypering thing,IMHO, is almost like the Wing Commander autopilot fly-by. Chavik's Acceleration idea could also be implemented into this.Chavik: Time dilation would be cool in a pre-3000ad game eh? :-).Oh, and once the missile bug is fixed (which the CIC labeled as "cosmetic"...which I dont think so.. i think that it will change the way battles are fought in TacOps.But again, he is the CIC and I am his headache, so go figure *G*) you will see your IC's competing with your BC on how many ships they can take out hehehe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad Mojo Posted March 12, 1999 Report Share Posted March 12, 1999 Well, I'll admit, I wouldn't have a real problem with overall acceleration or deceleration being decreased, but I'm of the opinion that cruisers should defiantly outrun an IC. The basic fact is that a cruiser has more legs than a fighter and be able to achieve much higher speeds as a result. However, I do wanna mention that time dilation, while cool for pure geek out factors, is rather unplayable. Possibly as a strat game, but not as a sim. In fact a wonderful example of how much of a pain time dilation can be, read 'the forever war' by Joseph Haldeman. Very reminiscent of 'Starship Troopers' by Heinlen (the book silly, not the movie that was loosely based upon it). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MohammeD_X Posted March 14, 1999 Report Share Posted March 14, 1999 Speaking of Starship Troopers, did you see the WC movie? It's loosely based on the Wing Commander games, although the creator of Wing Commander made the movie...go figure... Anyways, I loved the flight physics in I-War. Excellent. However, the only thing I'd like is to be able to move my Battlecruiser in ANY direction while in any position like can be done in I-War. I don't care how its done. I do like using VTOL in space to conduct manuevers while in battle, like:"Z up (VTOL),invert(after disengaging VTOL), fire as they pass by..." I'd like to be able to slide right or left, etc., like in I-War. While I'm on it, I'd like to see some better energy weapons too, like some beam-weapons, like in B5 and Elite. Imagine flyin yer cruiser and zapping something! Not shooting an energy ball and waiting to see if you got the trajectory right. ZAP! FuN! Some Gamespy-like online-30 cruisers in a server fleet battling would be nice too. And of course, some newer grfx, doesn't have to be all high-end-state-of-the-art to get good grfx (look at the game The Darklight Conflict). Actually, I like the 3d ships as they are right now. Just replace the sprites with true-3d stuff, that'll be cool. I think that's it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Commander Hamblin Posted March 31, 1999 Report Share Posted March 31, 1999 Hey, if you are going to use Einstiens theory of relativity then shouldn't you include that travelling faster than the speed of light is impossible? I mean, I know that the BC3k's hyperdrive probably circumvents the speed of light rather than breaks it but, er, oh I have just answered my own question. Never mind then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Chrome Tiger Posted April 1, 1999 Report Share Posted April 1, 1999 quote:Some Gamespy-like online-30 cruisers in a server fleet battling would be nice too.Well, if it's any help, I'm one of the GameSpy Beta Team, and if Dr. Smart and the BC Team consider GameSpy Support, I'll be one of the first to back them on it on my end.While we're discussing flight models, I'd like to point out the upcoming B5 Combat Sim, which promises a very VTOL-oriented flight model...and is something I'm very much looking forward to playing. Granted, in the B5 sim you'll be flying a Star Fury, not a BC, but I think a similar flight model would definately work on the larger scale, provided inertial effects in a non/low-gravity environment are taken into account...it makes for some really tricky combat maneuvers, too...which anyone who's watched B5 can attest to... ------------------ Chrome Tiger Director of Operations/Lead Webmaster 3DNexus http://nexus.telefragged.com [This message has been edited by Chrome Tiger (edited 04-01-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ron Wallin Posted April 1, 1999 Report Share Posted April 1, 1999 VTOL, are you talking Vertical Take Off and Landing as in Harrier Jump Jet, etc? B5 will include a more realistic flight model so that you can perform the infamous straffing runs. Here's their description of the feature: "Easy to learn inertial flight mode creates true zero gravity space flight: execute sideways strafing run and other unique maneuvers."Being an avid quake/q2 player, I like anything that allows sidestep manuevers. Now add circle straffing on an x,y, AND z axis and I'm losing sleep! BC has that to an extent with it's VTOL feature, only it's not fast enough and too ackward to use effectively (but I've been working on a plausible tactic )However, a true space flight model would be impossible to play at best. Remember, every (including the smallest movement) has an opposit reaction. That means, every time you spin a PTA turret, you've got to perform manuever to compensate, etc. Has anyone here played Mantis. If you have then you know how frustrating a realistic flight model can be.Not only the flight model, but your BC would have to be re-fitted with inertia dampeners (small rokets) all over the hull... it would be pretty ugly. However, if there was some way to use a repulsion/attraction to the natural gravitational pull of planets/stars, then the tech would be feasible without the need for propellant based flight correction. The computer would simply increase/decrease anti-grav based on the given need. And a resourcefull Cmdr. could change the variables to give his/her BC a little more combat manueverabillity! Now that would be COOL.Cmdr. Akira[This message has been edited by Ron Wallin (edited 04-01-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Chrome Tiger Posted April 1, 1999 Report Share Posted April 1, 1999 Actually, I wrote that post after a 24-hour period of no sleep, and VTOL was the closest term I could come up with. A more appropriate term I think would be a 'vectored thrust' flight model...in which thrusters are positioned strategically to allow movement in any direction independant of ship orientation. quote:However, a true space flight model would be impossible to play at best. Remember, every (including the smallest movement) has an opposit reaction. That means, every time you spin a PTA turret, you've got to perform manuever to compensate, etc. A very true and valid point...but then, that's what computers are for. It wouldn't be necessary for the commander to perform every compensatory thruster firing, if the ship computer is programmed to do it for you. You give it the initial move (z-axis -40 degrees for example), and the computer auto-fires to compensate for inertia. Based on study of B5 'combat footage', this has got to be the system used in the Star Fury...those thrusters fire WAY too quickly and precisely to be human controlled.The PTA turret scenarios would also be handled by the computer system, automatically compensating for turret movement by countering where necessary to avoid course drift. quote:Not only the flight model, but your BC would have to be re-fitted with inertia dampeners (small rokets) all over the hull... it would be pretty ugly. Refitted, yes...ugly? Not necessarily...we're dealing with 3020-level design specs. Even the OMS jets on the front of the Space Shuttle are flush with the ship's surface...you don't even see them unless you look for 'em. And another very well-known Starship (*cough*Enterprise*cough*) has got manuvering thruster clusters all over it, without making the ship 'ugly'. And the inertial dampener system would be just as subtle. (If I remember correctly, the ID system of the aforementioned starship is a combination of maneuvering thrusters and artificial gravity.) quote:However, if there was some way to use a repulsion/attraction to the natural gravitational pull of planets/stars, then the tech would be feasible without the need for propellant based flight correction. The computer would simply increase/decrease anti-grav based on the given need. And a resourcefull Cmdr. could change the variables to give his/her BC a little more combat manueverabillity! Now that would be COOL.Ah, gravitic impulsion/propulsion...a damn interesting idea, and definately useful for in-system spaceflight...but I don't think it would be feasible for intersystem travel, and even in-system, you'd have to have a conventional propulsion system to work with it, making minor course/attitude adjustments (via computer). You're right about the Cmdr. adjustments though...with the right tweaking, you could adjust a combat course to use a moon/planet as a slingshot or springboard to get to a position you want on the enemy...but man, would that be hell to learn!Anyway, I think I've babbled enough for the moment... ...sometimes I get on a streak and don't know when to shut up...------------------ Chrome Tiger Director of Operations/Lead Webmaster 3DNexus http://nexus.telefragged.com [This message has been edited by Chrome Tiger (edited 04-01-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts