Fan Mod Project

[BradMick]

So, basically because you don't really *like* wing commander you're out to change it all so that you *will* like wing commander? I mean, to me, if i'm making a fan project (which I am) i'm not really out to change anything, because everything about that universe is awesome. There's no reason to change anything about it. Sitting there and saying 'wow! I want to make a wing commander mod because I love wing commander, but damnit I didnt like this, this, this, and that so i'm going to change everything about!' says to me you have zero respect and don't actually like the universe at all, because if you did you'd like and respect it as it is and create an awesome experience with said tools. This is decidedly lame and like all projects of its ilk going to go absolutely nowhere or over to the 'hey lets add star wars, firefly, and star trek ships to wing commander! and take out the kilrathi, or make the kilrathi one foot tall lizard people with eleven foot long bat wings!' folks at WCU.

Brad

 

[Eder]

This so-called fan project proposition is absolutely insulting and revolting. I'm glad it'll never evolve beyond a couple threads on a forum, and it's kinda sad that you do not realize how you're completely pissing all over Wing Commander in your attempt to pay homage to it.

 

[Dundradal]

Agreed. This is a something that doesn't seem to want to do anything except screw with everything and mostly things that people love and don't want change.

If you tried to do all the changes you are talking about NO ONE would play your mod, why? Because it screws with everything we hold dear in concern to WC.

Even the smallest change can evoke the harshest of responses. Just ask the Standoff and Saga teams, they can go on and on about how people get passionate about the littlest things.

And again as I've said times before....

If it ain't broken...

 

[Miracynonyx100]

Eder,

I wasn't attempting to "piss" all over Wing-Commander. There's a reason (hear me out) why I was proposing a number of the changes.

Even if none of the models were changed, just repainted blue and gray (which has been done in other mods to my knowledge). Having flak-cannons wouldn't work. They wouldn't look realistic. That's why in WC-3 there weren't any. The point defenses would do the exact same thing the flak cannons would do except they would be beam weapons... they'd fire really fast and shoot at you when you approach and potentially blow up torpedoes. This forum accepts that the Tiger's Claw has 8 main lasers, 22 point-defense guns. So I see little problem there.

In the novels, they have commonly discussed the effects of the bussard-ramscoops. In WC-1, WC-2 etc, you're essentially flying with them open. They draw in stellar hydrogen and refuel the fighters as fast as they burn fuel off... and with some capships draw in more fuel than the engines and ship systems burn up. The produce drag limiting the craft's top speed with them open, and allow aerodynamic effects for maneuvering. Having the ability in the game to turn them off and dash would be an addition of realism to the game. This is also established in the canon It would also allow scenes from, say, Fleet-Action, End-Run, to be re-enacted in the game.

The roll-inertia effects as well as pitch-inertia and yaw-inertia are not just "taken" from WCP for the purpose of making it WCP like. In real life things take time to speed up and slow down. It would just be to add realism to the game. It wouldn't seriously affect the way the game is actually played.

Regarding the idea about acceleration curves and such. It was kind of an idea I had thought of. Again, it would be to add realism to the game -- accelerating in a gaseous medium results in an initially fast acceleration rate, then slows up as you reach the maximum speed. Additionally when you make turns in an atmospheric craft or a spacecraft with gas flowing over it, at an abrupt enough rate, you start to bleed off speed.

Regarding the Armor and Shield Ratings. The reason I suggested increasing the WC-1 capship shield and armor ratings was because it sounded to me, maybe I'm wrong, ridiculous that a WC-3 light fighter could waste a Bengal-Class Strike-Carrier with a single full gun-salvo... The idea wasn't even arbitrarily making up a new figure -- the actual thickness would remain the same. There are numerous types of armor in WC... some of which are many times stronger than durasteel. I would not do anything to make the armor ratings from WC-1 greater than WC-2, or WC-3 obviously.

The fly-through comment was based on the WC-4 Novel in which it said the Lexington was the same class of ship as the old Concordia. And they described it as having a fly-through deck. In fact the designers of WC-4 wanted to do that. They eventually decided to just scale up the Victory model and call it a Concordia-Class. But if the Confed-Dreadnaught was allowed to have a fly-through, and since a lot of people have likened the Waterloo's flight deck set up as being like a Mini-Concordia, I thought giving the Waterloo's flight-decks a fly-through wouldn't be such a bad idea.

The radar idea, using a screen that shows a 3D image, I just figured would be way easier to read than a 2D radar image. I've played WC, I understand how the 2D screen works... but it sounds much better for situational awareness to have a 3D view.

The sidestick comment was just based on the fact that a lot of modern fighters have them and they are considered superior to the previous set-ups. I just thought it would add realism to the game -- The plot wouldn't be changed at all.

And even if the Capship designs for WC-2 were altered to make them blend in with the rest of the WC-1 - WCP designs, they would still retain their 'essense' and would be readily recognizable.


Dundradal,

Well I wouldn't necessarily apply *all* the changes to the mod. But I listed all of my ideas.

I talked to some people on the Standoff and Saga teams IIRC... at least two people, whom I will not reveal their names, said things which basically amounted to you guys being like religious fundamentalists, getting all bent out of shape over the slightest change from tradition.


Victoria Kent

 

[NinjaLA]

When its not broken in the first place, stop trying to *fix* it.


also,

comparing people to religious fundamentalists is a great way to ensure that they never play any mod you might come up with.

 

[t.c.cgi]

I wasn't attempting to "piss" all over Wing-Commander.

This is like someone breaking my nose and then saying he's not trying to injure me.

Even if none of the models were changed, just repainted blue and gray (which has been done in other mods to my knowledge).

You whine about canon this and canon that, and then pull out something like this. Amazing.

Having flak-cannons wouldn't work. They wouldn't look realistic.

I think you misunderstand the word realistic.

That's why in WC-3 there weren't any.

You never mentioned that you were close friends with the WC3 production team.

This forum accepts that the Tiger's Claw has 8 main lasers, 22 point-defense guns. So I see little problem there.

I submit evidence to the court, Article A. The Tiger's Claw's gunnery crew are all sissy panzies, and their prefered tactic is to let the enemy ram them.

In the novels, they have commonly discussed the effects of the bussard-ramscoops. In WC-1, WC-2 etc, you're essentially flying with them open. They draw in stellar hydrogen and refuel the fighters as fast as they burn fuel off... and with some capships draw in more fuel than the engines and ship systems burn up. The produce drag limiting the craft's top speed with them open, and allow aerodynamic effects for maneuvering. Having the ability in the game to turn them off and dash would be an addition of realism to the game. This is also established in the canon It would also allow scenes from, say, Fleet-Action, End-Run, to be re-enacted in the game.

CONGRATULATIONS! You've discovered autopilot! Have a cookie.

The fly-through comment was based on the WC-4 Novel in which it said the Lexington was the same class of ship as the old Concordia.

We almost have a Concordia for every day of the week. Today's Concordia is the Omega-Behemoth dreadnought supercarrior with a fly-through deck that launches battlewagons.

The radar idea, using a screen that shows a 3D image, I just figured would be way easier to read than a 2D radar image. I've played WC, I understand how the 2D screen works... but it sounds much better for situational awareness to have a 3D view.

But... it's going to be in 2D anyway. Most of us still haven't bought our Sony CyberHolovision 500" TVs yet, so we can't enjoy your True3D TM masterpiece.

The sidestick comment was just based on the fact that a lot of modern fighters have them and they are considered superior to the previous set-ups. I just thought it would add realism to the game -- The plot wouldn't be changed at all.

What if I'm left handed? I guess I'm just #&^@ed.

And even if the Capship designs for WC-2 were altered to make them blend in with the rest of the WC-1 - WCP designs, they would still retain their 'essense' and would be readily recognizable.

Oh, well I guess if they're going to retain their essence, then I won't mind. Because one thing I learned to do in Wing Commander was sense the souls of ships around.

I talked to some people on the Standoff and Saga teams IIRC... at least two people, whom I will not reveal their names, said things which basically amounted to you guys being like religious fundamentalists, getting all bent out of shape over the slightest change from tradition.

What the hell is this? You don't even have the guts to insult us directly? You have to say "so-and-so says you're such-and-such!"? Just say it. "You guys are assholes for not treating me like God's gift to Wing Commander!"

 

[Dundradal]

Dundradal,

Well I wouldn't necessarily apply *all* the changes to the mod. But I listed all of my ideas.

I talked to some people on the Standoff and Saga teams IIRC... at least two people, whom I will not reveal their names, said things which basically amounted to you guys being like religious fundamentalists, getting all bent out of shape over the slightest change from tradition.


Victoria Kent

Wow, just wow.

First off, Eder and I both are on the Standoff team, albeit I in an extremely minor role. So it's hard for me to imagine someone else on the team calling anyone else a name they wouldn't label themselves with.

Secondly, Standoff has made several changes that are different from the games. Christ, just do a search on gun convergence and you can see one example for yourself.

It's one thing to add/change things that work towards the environment you are trying to create, but the things you want to change are things that most people will have issue with. We are getting bent out of shape because most of your ideas are simply stupid to be blunt.

The correct term is fanboy and what a shocker to find WC fanboys on a WC fansite. Imagine the chances of that.

 

[Miracynonyx100]

t.c.cgi

This is like someone breaking my nose and then saying he's not trying to injure me.

Now that's being a bit melodramatic. Plus I usually aim for the jaw/chin in fights anyway

You whine about canon this and canon that, and then pull out something like this. Amazing.

How would re-painting the exact same model gray and blue instead of green be a breach of canon? Keep in mind in the old days the color pallets they had weren't as sophisticated as now (WC-3 and beyond).

I think you misunderstand the word realistic.

How?

You never mentioned that you were close friends with the WC3 production team.

This was covered ages ago... either on this forum or on the Acenet forum. While I cannot quote exactly what was said as I simply don't remember... I do remember enough to say that they decided not to go with flak cannons because it didn't work in the new game engine or in one way or another did not look realistic.

I submit evidence to the court, Article A. The Tiger's Claw's gunnery crew are all sissy panzies, and their prefered tactic is to let the enemy ram them.

Get out of here... Either way though, ask LOAF what the Tiger's Claws' armament is. He'll tell you 8 laser turrets, 22 point defense, etc...

CONGRATULATIONS! You've discovered autopilot! Have a cookie.

What's wrong with being able to do it without being on autopilot. Shelton-slides are an effective combat tactic. Technically *all* fighters should be able to slide...

We almost have a Concordia for every day of the week. Today's Concordia is the Omega-Behemoth dreadnought supercarrior with a fly-through deck that launches battlewagons.

I never said that... I said that in WC-4 it was stated that the Lexington was the same type of ship as the Concordia (CVS-65). And in the book it was described by the way they approached the ship that it had a fly through bay.

But... it's going to be in 2D anyway. Most of us still haven't bought our Sony CyberHolovision 500" TVs yet, so we can't enjoy your True3D TM masterpiece.

Well yeah... but you'd see a globe instead of a flat disc. That would still give you a far greater degree of situational-awareness... it would be far easier to work with.

What if I'm left handed? I guess I'm just #&^@ed.

Actually, it's not that big a deal. I'm a pilot, and have sat in either seat. I've also played video games using a joystic which is placed on the right side. I'm left handed and it hasn't posed a major problem.

Regarding fighter planes, the pilots left hand is always on the throttle and the right hand on the stick. Having a sidestick is simply easier.

Oh, well I guess if they're going to retain their essence, then I won't mind. Because one thing I learned to do in Wing Commander was sense the souls of ships around.

It was a figure of speech. It means even if I was to modify the designs, I wouldn't modify it so much that you couldn't recognize what the original ship was.

What the hell is this? You don't even have the guts to insult us directly? You have to say "so-and-so says you're such-and-such!"? Just say it. "You guys are assholes for not treating me like God's gift to Wing Commander!"

No, honestly I have talked to somebody. The technical wording one person I talked to actually used was more like "these people are some of the most hard-headed people I've ever known". And technically this person was working on WC Saga to the best of my knowledge.



Dundradal

Wow, just wow.

First off, Eder and I both are on the Standoff team, albeit I in an extremely minor role. So it's hard for me to imagine someone else on the team calling anyone else a name they wouldn't label themselves with.

Secondly, Standoff has made several changes that are different from the games. Christ, just do a search on gun convergence and you can see one example for yourself.

Jesus H F**king Christ, I said WC Saga or Standoff to avoid the risk of naming names... Either way, the person was a WC Saga member, and the basic thing he said was that the members on the CIC forum are some of the most hard-headed people he'd ever encountered.

It's one thing to add/change things that work towards the environment you are trying to create, but the things you want to change are things that most people will have issue with. We are getting bent out of shape because most of your ideas are simply stupid to be blunt.

So you don't think using a more modern color pallette (blue/gray) than the WC-1 and WC-2 game, using a more advanced game engine and maneuvering and handling characteristics that are more realistic -- even though *some* (the ability to cut the intakes and slide or travel at very high transit speeds) of it is canon is a bad idea?

The correct term is fanboy and what a shocker to find WC fanboys on a WC fansite. Imagine the chances of that.

Actually... I've been on many scifi-fan forums. I even was a moderator of one. Star Trek mostly, and I can tell you -- that you guys are the most extreme in regards to "fanboyishness" (I know that's not a word, and not even accurate as there are female WC fans - I'm one)



Victoria Kent

BUSH / CHENEY 2004
Capitalizing on Tragedy since September 2001

 

[Dundradal]

Dundradal


Jesus H F**king Christ, I said WC Saga or Standoff to avoid the risk of naming names... Either way, the person was a WC Saga member, and the basic thing he said was that the members on the CIC forum are some of the most hard-headed people he'd ever encountered.

The only thing I'm saying about this is, we aren't as hard-headed as you think. We are just intelligent about how we think about WC. We aren't being hard-headed now your ideas are retarded to almost all of us. They simply don't make any sense.

So you don't think using a more modern color pallette (blue/gray) than the WC-1 and WC-2 game, using a more advanced game engine and maneuvering and handling characteristics that are more realistic -- even though *some* (the ability to cut the intakes and slide or travel at very high transit speeds) of it is canon is a bad idea?

What the fuck? I think that's a horrible idea. If it's not broken DON'T FUCKING TOUCH IT. I don't know how many times I have to say it. What the hell would be the point of closing the scoops and going fast? How would that be good for gameplay? It doesn't sound fun at all or practical. You would screw with the balance too much.

Actually... I've been on many scifi-fan forums. I even was a moderator of one. Star Trek mostly, and I can tell you -- that you guys are the most extreme in regards to "fanboyishness" (I know that's not a word, and not even accurate as there are female WC fans - I'm one)

You were probably the only member on that board.

I don't think we are even close to worst in regards to levels of other fanboys. I don't understand how you can say that if you've been to other boards and proposed ideas like you are here. You would get the same response if not worse.

 

[NinjaLA]

Thats because we all know what happens on startrek fan forums.. first people start getting ideas and then they start throwing away whole movies and episodes as a breach of personal canon.

A.) there is no such thing as personal canon,

B.)Nemesis was a fine movie and even if it doesn't fit with your personal vision for Star Trek, it doesn't mean it shouldn't be considered EVERY bit as valid to the story as every other story told in the star trek universe. I could rewrite starwars episode 1-3 a thousand different ways to fit my personal wishes, but I ACCEPT 1-3 as the official story.

c.)Wing Commander has A LOT less plot holes and continuity breaches than ANY other franchise I am aware of.. So why tamper with something that already works?

 

[ChrisReid]

There's been a lot of weirdo stuff posted in the last twelve hours, so I'm only going to bother with a few of the sillier things.

Well, it seems kind of absurd that you'd have a carrier with 24 cm of armor, then in the next game , your cruisers would have around 400, and in WC-3 you'd see fighters with shield ratings equivalent to that of armor levels of cruisers in WC-2. Even Bandit LOAF has discussed that there are various types of armor and their strength is a certain equivalent that of durasteel. Even if the literal armor rating is 24 cm, it could easily be far stronger with a good type of armor, so the Tiger's Claw could have a considerably stronger hull than the 24 centimeter listing as we're not sure what kind of armor it uses.

Seriously, stop invoking "even Bandit LOAF" when you don't understand what you're talking about. The different armor types explain why the different thickness equivalency values exist in the first place. It makes no sense to use that as some kind of excuse to shake up all the numbers.

Regarding the throttle and stick placement, since the 1970's fighter planes have started, and now have become more and more commonly fitted with a HOTAS set up which features the control-stick on the right side, and the throttles on the left-side, including the brand new F-22. Considering WC-1, WC-2 and WC-3 take place hundreds of years in the future, it would be logical that such a set-up, which is actually easier to use, would be used on WC-fighters.

Considering that Wing Commander takes place hundreds of years in the future, it doesn't matter what kind of layouts were popular in the first ten years of the 21st century. All we have to go on is what we actually see in Wing Commander.

Wing Commander fighters, and capships have Inertial-Dampers / Acceleration-Absorbers which nullify most of the acceleration sensation. There's still a tiny amount that manages to be felt by the pilot. Especially during the hardest of turns. An "Indicated-G" meter, which would show what the pilot is being subjected to would be kind of cool IMHO.

Do you not see that it'd be completely worthless? It's already a given that a magic physics-altering device is keeping the number to within a very narrow band, so the numbers being spit out by your G meter wouldn't mean anything.

The fly-through comment was based on the WC-4 Novel in which it said the Lexington was the same class of ship as the old Concordia. And they described it as having a fly-through deck. In fact the designers of WC-4 wanted to do that. They eventually decided to just scale up the Victory model and call it a Concordia-Class. But if the Confed-Dreadnaught was allowed to have a fly-through, and since a lot of people have likened the Waterloo's flight deck set up as being like a Mini-Concordia, I thought giving the Waterloo's flight-decks a fly-through wouldn't be such a bad idea.

This is a good example of incorrect assumptions being based on incorrect assumptions, which are themselves based on incorrect assumptions.

How would re-painting the exact same model gray and blue instead of green be a breach of canon? Keep in mind in the old days the color pallets they had weren't as sophisticated as now (WC-3 and beyond).

Yeah, it was awesome when I got my first Pentium and we could suddenly see the color blue.

BUSH / CHENEY 2004
Capitalizing on Tragedy since September 2001

Where did this come from?

 

[Eder]

I talked to some people on the Standoff and Saga teams IIRC... at least two people, whom I will not reveal their names, said things which basically amounted to you guys being like religious fundamentalists, getting all bent out of shape over the slightest change from tradition.

Which is one of the biggest reasons why Standoff is awesome. People like Standoff because they like Wing Commander... If you or I decide to make our own personal versions of Wing Commander continuity, everyone else will think it's crap, because we'll have arbitrarily thrown stuff out the window (stuff that might sound "unrealistic" to you or stupid to me, but that just might be one of the things someone else thinks is great about WC).

The reason all of us registered to these forums in the first place is because we like Wing Commander. You may want to paint ships blue, and someone else may want to resize the Raptor... but as a general rule, the more you mess with it, the less Wing Commander it is, and the more people will be revolted at your attempt to slap the Wing Commander name to something that nobody but you will recognize as a Wing Commander game.

This is something that you fail to understand is just about every single one of your posts. You walked into a forum where people were talking about something they like, and you do *nothing* but suggest arbitrary changes to those very things that made everyone else come together in the first place, for no reason other than "in my opinion..."

You can't expect that to be a popular course of action.

 

[t.c.cgi]

Now that's being a bit melodramatic.

Thank you.

How would re-painting the exact same model gray and blue instead of green be a breach of canon? Keep in mind in the old days the color pallets they had weren't as sophisticated as now (WC-3 and beyond).

IIRC there wasn't a color jump between WC1/2 and WC3/4. I believe they were both 8-bit (256 colors). Unless you played WC1/2 in a setting besides VGA. More to the point, it's against canon specifically for the reason that it is never stated anywhere that I know of that the ship classes exist in any colors not shown in the games. The opposite is true as well. If you suddenly said "I'm following a new fleet, so I'm going to paint it all PINK!" that'd make more sense than saying "I'm painting it all BLUE because that was the last color used!"

Besides, the red ones go faster.

How?

Because...

...looking realistic is dependant on how good your programmer(s) and artist(s) are.

...being unrealistic to reality would require that FLAK was not invented and used extensively to the point of it being a science.

...being unrealistic to Wing Commander would require that explosing laser bolts were not invented and used for 10+ years.

So, there is something fundamentally wrong with your use of that word. Unless you were making a funny.

This was covered ages ago... either on this forum or on the Acenet forum. While I cannot quote exactly what was said as I simply don't remember... I do remember enough to say that they decided not to go with flak cannons because it didn't work in the new game engine or in one way or another did not look realistic.

There you go again! You invented something to back up your claim but have no actual source to show!

Either way though, ask LOAF what the Tiger's Claws' armament is. He'll tell you 8 laser turrets, 22 point defense, etc...

That's wonderful. But LOAF isn't the one calling FLAK unrealistic and aiming to retcon Wing Commander until it's a labotimized, drooling mess of stupid. 22 point defense weapons could be exploding laser bolt cannons.

What's wrong with being able to do it without being on autopilot.

Because it's stupidly boring and pointless?

I never said that... I said that in WC-4 it was stated that the Lexington was the same type of ship as the Concordia (CVS-65). And in the book it was described by the way they approached the ship that it had a fly through bay.

There is a Concordia-class carrier, a Concordia-class cruiser, and a Confederation-class dreadnought. All three had ships named Concordia. More to the point, the Lexington is in WC4 and it's not a Confederation-class dreadnought. I suggest you play the game before rebutting that the Lexington is Confederation-class.

Well yeah... but you'd see a globe instead of a flat disc. That would still give you a far greater degree of situational-awareness... it would be far easier to work with.

I fully understand what you are saying... I did the first time, so here it goes.

It will be a circle, because it's flat. Globes, better known as spheres, are not flat. If you shade the circle to creat the illusion that it's a sphere, then you will have CRAP all over the display making certain areas difficult to visually interpret. No matter what you do your radar will be a flat 2D plane. So then you have a permanent problem of depth perception.

Wing Commander's radar accepts this and puts it on a flat plane completely, showing the orientation of a target, but not its distance. Also, the Wing Commander radar is as intuitive as it gets. If the red dot is in the center, you should see it. If it's up, down, left or right, turn in that direction and you will eventually see it. If it's in the outer circle then do a 180 turn.

In order to get an equal level of intuitiveness with a "3D" radar you have to use lots of lines, and when you get a lot of ships in one area, you get a lot of lines, and thus so much clutter that the radar makes absolutely no sense at-a-glance.

I'm a pilot.

And I'm Deke Slayton. I have, again, used sarcasm.

Having a sidestick is simply easier.

Only if you are unable to move your arm in its full range of motion.

It was a figure of speech. It means even if I was to modify the designs, I wouldn't modify it so much that you couldn't recognize what the original ship was.

I'm glad you spelled that out for me, because I'm so incredibly daft.

No, honestly I have talked to somebody. The technical wording one person I talked to actually used was more like "these people are some of the most hard-headed people I've ever known". And technically this person was working on WC Saga to the best of my knowledge.

Yeah? Well... my coworkers who wish to go unnamed because they don't own computers, much less visit the forums, say that you're a troll and a tattle-tale. So nyah.

BUSH / CHENEY 2004
Capitalizing on Tragedy since September 2001

...a big troll.

 

[Miracynonyx100]

Eder,

Which is one of the biggest reasons why Standoff is awesome. People like Standoff because they like Wing Commander... If you or I decide to make our own personal versions of Wing Commander continuity, everyone else will think it's crap, because we'll have arbitrarily thrown stuff out the window (stuff that might sound "unrealistic" to you or stupid to me, but that just might be one of the things someone else thinks is great about WC).

I really don't get it. WCP had roll-inertia effects. Nobody claimed that as being a problem... if I said I was going to use the WCP engine for the mod, nobody would have complained about that.

So why the complaint if I added it into the FS2 Engine which can accomodate that... and if WC-1 and WC-2 and even WC-3 designers had the ability to do what WCP can, they probably would have?

I'm really confused...

The reason all of us registered to these forums in the first place is because we like Wing Commander. You may want to paint ships blue, and someone else may want to resize the Raptor... but as a general rule, the more you mess with it, the less Wing Commander it is, and the more people will be revolted at your attempt to slap the Wing Commander name to something that nobody but you will recognize as a Wing Commander game.

Why is there such an objection in painting the ships blue and gray like in WC-3? The green paint-job was largely the result of a simpler color palette back in 1990-1992 -- if they had the color palette they have today, they probably would not have used green -- they probably would have used more muted colors like blue and gray. Modern naval vessels are often painted shades of gray as well. Plus people have advocated the exact same thing I've advocated at least in regards to the colors of ships, and nobody has ever gotten this much flak over it.

And, to my knowledge, I have *never* not once advocated resizing the Raptor or any WC-1 fighter... The Raptor was one of my favorite fighters.

Additionally, I am technically not entitled to slap the Wing Commander name officially to anything. If I made a mod I could call it Wing Commander something, but anything any of us make unless it's working for EA, is technically in the strictest terms not canon.

This is something that you fail to understand is just about every single one of your posts. You walked into a forum where people were talking about something they like, and you do *nothing* but suggest arbitrary changes to those very things that made everyone else come together in the first place, for no reason other than "in my opinion..."

You can't expect that to be a popular course of action.[/QUOTE]


Maybe you're right. Still, isn't everybody allowed to have opinions as long as nobody gets hurt? I mean you guys have done no injury to me... I've done no injury to you


Victoria Kent

 

[ChrisReid]

Why is there such an objection in painting the ships blue and gray like in WC-3? The green paint-job was largely the result of a simpler color palette back in 1990-1992 -- if they had the color palette they have today, they probably would not have used green

Wrong, as someone pointed out earlier. WC1, WC2 and WC3 all use 256 colors. Yes, there are versions of WC1 with less, but the standard DOS WC1 had the exact same colors available to it as WC3.

And, to my knowledge, I have *never* not once advocated resizing the Raptor or any WC-1 fighter... The Raptor was one of my favorite fighters.

They're not talking about you. It's a reference to the lengthy debate about the Standoff team's choice to use the "proper" size for the Raptor in its 3D engine. But they have a difficult-to-dispute defense: they are using all the known unchanged numbers.

Modern naval vessels are often painted shades of gray as well. Plus people have advocated the exact same thing I've advocated at least in regards to the colors of ships, and nobody has ever gotten this much flak over it.

If you were unaware of the Raptor thing, then you're not very familiar with the flak that various teams get for the choices they make in regards to these issues.

Maybe you're right. Still, isn't everybody allowed to have opinions as long as nobody gets hurt? I mean you guys have done no injury to me... I've done no injury to you

Blermh.

 

[Miracynonyx100]

tc.cgi

IIRC there wasn't a color jump between WC1/2 and WC3/4. I believe they were both 8-bit (256 colors). Unless you played WC1/2 in a setting besides VGA. More to the point, it's against canon specifically for the reason that it is never stated anywhere that I know of that the ship classes exist in any colors not shown in the games. The opposite is true as well. If you suddenly said "I'm following a new fleet, so I'm going to paint it all PINK!" that'd make more sense than saying "I'm painting it all BLUE because that was the last color used!"

Besides, the red ones go faster.

Well, WC-3 was obviously meant to look a hell of a lot more realistic than any of the previous games. Full Motion Video, Elaborate Green-Screen FX. I would assume the blue/gray was simply an extention of this.

Who in their right mind would paint a ship pink? I've always been more partial to dark red. I look way better in that color

Because...

...looking realistic is dependant on how good your programmer(s) and artist(s) are.

...being unrealistic to reality would require that FLAK was not invented and used extensively to the point of it being a science.

...being unrealistic to Wing Commander would require that explosing laser bolts were not invented and used for 10+ years.

Okay, let's say that's right... that the Talahassee and Southampton were old designs that didn't use flak guns... then how come in WC-4 which took place after WC-3, with even some new capship designs (Vesuvius at least), and in WCP which took place WAY later, featured no ships with flak-cannons.

I mean, flak cannons were so effective in WC-1 and WC-2... why would they replace such an effective system with three flak guns able to cover a big cruiser, with an older gun system that requires more turrets for the same coverage.

In the WC4 game, a scene in the CIC of the Intrepid showed the Vesuvius as not only carrying 14 AMG, but 40 smaller guns as well... much more than the amount of flak guns that could do the same coverage (the Connie had 3 flak guns, so the Vesuvius was twice as big, and a bit wider... so 8 - 10 flak guns tops?)...

Also, the Plunkett and Murphy also carry no flak-cannons and they're even newer designs.

There you go again! You invented something to back up your claim but have no actual source to show!

I didn't make it up... it was a long time ago either on this forum or on Acenet. I asked LOAF once for a picture I posted on this forum like a year ago and he couldn't find it. Does that mean I lied about drawing the picture? No... it just means the chat only stores data past a given amount of time then it gets deleted. I'm pretty sure if I looked on Acenet if it even exists anymore, I could go back as far as I could and still not find that post. It doesn't mean it wasn't said.

That's wonderful. But LOAF isn't the one calling FLAK unrealistic and aiming to retcon Wing Commander until it's a labotimized, drooling mess of stupid. 22 point defense weapons could be exploding laser bolt cannons.

Still odd that they wouldn't listed the point defense guns as "Flak cannons". Plus 3 flak-cannons top are required to cover a cruiser like a Waterloo. The most I've ever seen was on a Snakeir which had 6.

Because it's stupidly boring and pointless?

Well, the ability to cut the intakes could be used for other things too... like to shelton slide. That can be a real useful maneuver in a dogfight... especially when you got two guys trying to get at each other's tail... the ability to quickly slide and point your nose right at the sucker would enable you to end the engagement right there.

The F-22's high alpha capability allows a similar effect to be achieved today...

Although, there is one thing that puzzles me... if every ship can cut it's intakes and dash, it would be almost required to cover any appreciable distance... why can't all ships slide (WC-3, WC-4, WC-P)? If they can cut their intakes... they can slide by definition...

There is a Concordia-class carrier, a Concordia-class cruiser, and a Confederation-class dreadnought. All three had ships named Concordia. More to the point, the Lexington is in WC4 and it's not a Confederation-class dreadnought. I suggest you play the game before rebutting that the Lexington is Confederation-class.

In the *game* it was a Concordia-Class carrier... a design resembling a scaled up Yorktown-class. However in the WC4-Novel it was the same kind of ship as the Concordia... and since Blair talked about the WC's-Office looking just like the one Jeannette Deveraux had pretty obviously pins it down as the Dreadnaught (CVS-65)... in fact even the game designers planned to take a Confed-dreadnaught and have a fly-through deck in it. They had trouble making the model work. So they instead took the Yorktown design and scaled it up to 800 meters.

I fully understand what you are saying... I did the first time, so here it goes.

It will be a circle, because it's flat. Globes, better known as spheres, are not flat. If you shade the circle to creat the illusion that it's a sphere, then you will have CRAP all over the display making certain areas difficult to visually interpret. No matter what you do your radar will be a flat 2D plane. So then you have a permanent problem of depth perception.

Wing Commander's radar accepts this and puts it on a flat plane completely, showing the orientation of a target, but not its distance. Also, the Wing Commander radar is as intuitive as it gets. If the red dot is in the center, you should see it. If it's up, down, left or right, turn in that direction and you will eventually see it. If it's in the outer circle then do a 180 turn.

In order to get an equal level of intuitiveness with a "3D" radar you have to use lots of lines, and when you get a lot of ships in one area, you get a lot of lines, and thus so much clutter that the radar makes absolutely no sense at-a-glance.

This is just a basic -- but look at the radar plot... two circles which portray a 3-dimentional effect. This is the basic idea.

And I'm Deke Slayton. I have, again, used sarcasm.

I wasn't being sarcastic. I really am a liscenced pilot.

Only if you are unable to move your arm in its full range of motion.

Actually even then... technically a sidestick is easier to work with. Modern airplanes have such a control column arrangement for a reason. And it's not designed that way for a fad... it's because it works better. A better set up works better regardless of what century it's in, unless somehow humans were genetically engineered with a totally different body layout-- and looking at the characters in WC-- they're human beings.

I'm glad you spelled that out for me, because I'm so incredibly daft.

Well, I wanted to clarify

Yeah? Well... my coworkers who wish to go unnamed because they don't own computers, much less visit the forums, say that you're a troll and a tattle-tale. So nyah.

No... I'm not making this person up... I don't want to name names because it would probably piss the person off...

...a big troll.

That wasn't meant really as a troll -- I just wanted to have some kind of quote... and I suppose I could use other ones too...


ChrisReid,

Wrong, as someone pointed out earlier. WC1, WC2 and WC3 all use 256 colors. Yes, there are versions of WC1 with less, but the standard DOS WC1 had the exact same colors available to it as WC3.

As I said in my response to tc.cgi... WC-3 was obviously meant to look a hell of a lot more realistic than WC-1 or WC-2. After all, it had FMV scenes, lots of green-screen graphics, and such. And muted colors like blues and grays tend to be far more realistic than bright green.

They're not talking about you. It's a refernce to the lengthy debate about the Standoff team's choice to use the "proper" size for the Raptor in its 3D engine. But they have a difficult-to-dispute defense: they are using all the known unchanged numbers.

Oh, I think I actually remember that. Either way... I think they made the right decision to keep the Raptor at it's 36-meter length.

If you were unaware of the Raptor thing, then you're not very familiar with the flak that various teams get for the choices they make in regards to these issues.

I only vaguely remember it. I still think their decision was correct to use the 36-meter size for the Raptor...


Victoria Kent,

"He was sittin' up there for more than an hour way up there on the Texas-Tower, shootin' from the twenty-seventh floor. He didn't choke or slash or slit them, not our Charles Joseph Whitman, he won't be an architect no more..." - Kinky Friedman
"The Ballad of Charles Whitman"

 

[Darkmage]

if you want to make something truly amazing that people will bow down and treat you as a god for. don't remake a wing commander game if you want to make a real difference in the modification scene what you need to do is make it accessible. Freespace 2 is one of the best graphical engines around, it has mods and fan addons years later for one reason. Fred/Fred2. Vegastrike can do more than freespace 2 can yet it has no notable modifications hell with the exception of gemini gold most of the Vegastrike fan creations are in a total shambles. Prophecy has some of the best fan made content around but it has it condensed into about 3 projects and nothing else gets off the ground. Do you know why? two things are lacking.

1. Tools make making mods possible both vegastrike and prophecy are lacking a lot of the infrastructure to make decent mods. yes some talented coders can hack away at the engine and get brilliant results, all 3 of them. Vegastrike and Prophecy could be 10x what they are now with proper editing tools. however making these tools is really hard. I know a few people attempting it and I will be buying these people a ton of booze if they ever finish

2. this is the important one. Ok even with good tools look at Freespace 2. There are say 400 mods. 20 of them are good. All the good ones have ultra tight discipline. one man coming in promising the world isn't going to make your project. You need to get a minimum of 5-10 20 guys really to be onboar with your idea. That doesn't happen easily. People starting new projects off the bat are just not going to get much done. There are exceptions to the rule of course but they burn out, I know guys like Eder and Brad are committed to getting one maybe 2 projects out before they stop. (btw guys you are gods amongst men)

I've been in this scene since 2000. I was 15 with a big head of ideas and an even bigger mouth. I got some people together and we made some stuff overall I think we failed, but we did succeed with some things. Some people love it some hate it you are the final judge of your work I think. I want the scene to be more open to people. I think at the moment it's too closed. It's too modelling or programming or scripting orientated. I want to see more things like HCL's wc3ks mission editor only with a bit more depth. stuff that normal folks can grab and whip up a campaign over a few months with. Not slogging away for years with little appreciable progress. I think I've seen about 5 different remake or wc spinofff game engines and not one has decent tools to make a game in. Sure all the engines can make a game but you need a degree in C or Java or maybe python or .net to work in them.

I once wanted to make a game, it was going to be a privateer game with all the ships from 1/2/3 and academy/armada. I haven't given up on the idea, but damn it's a lot of work. Frankly we may never finish but that's not why we make it now We make it because we love it and it's fun and I make it for myself. But one thing I learnt is this, I don't post about Wing Commander Universe. Posting about what may happen doesn't make it happen rather it makes some people giddy with excitement, but mainly it just pisses people off when nothing comes of it. It may never get finished, I am lazy and my time management sucks. I know there have been about 3-5 offshoots of the project and there's been people doing weird things to the name, adding extra things etc (ah the joys of open development but whilst I say that remember without all those other people you wouldn't have gemini gold. if we had been closed noone could have come in to work on it. John and the core Gold team would have never touched the engine.) I no longer care about not finsihing it I will work on it my way in my time . But I thought that I would some of my experiences with people so they'd maybe get a glimpse of the process from the side of a developer who isn't as dedicated as some are (sort of a weekend warrior's perspective.). Modding is hard grueling work. and often nothing of great worth comes of it. I'm proud that we got gemini gold as an offshoot of the original vegastrike work. What we started got something fun out. Even if 90% of what I did was discarded along the way.
960

As a final note. Wing commander 1-4 academy armada privateer combined have over 80 ships. now if a ship takes 4 hours to model and texturing takes another 6-8 hours. You're looking at 960 hours of development time throw in prophecy and privateer 2 and that number becomes over 200 ships and probably 2200 hours of development time remaking WC games is possible but it's HARD. Also factor in changes to hardware, engine technology etcc, and you see why we haven't finished. Plus you need stats, balancing, mission scripting etc. It's HELL. remaking wc 1-2 you're looking at 500 hours modelling work minimum. plus mission writing etc. Good luck with that.

 

[Dundradal]

Eder,


I really don't get it. WCP had roll-inertia effects. Nobody claimed that as being a problem... if I said I was going to use the WCP engine for the mod, nobody would have complained about that.

So why the complaint if I added it into the FS2 Engine which can accomodate that... and if WC-1 and WC-2 and even WC-3 designers had the ability to do what WCP can, they probably would have?

I'm really confused...

Because to all of us this doesn't mean anything. Roll-inertia effects? I move the stick the fighter moves. If I use the rudder pedals it rolls. That's all I want. That's all of us want. You start talking about adding things with no explanation except long drawn out paragraphs that don't say anything except "in my opinion" "I read somewhere once a long time ago but it's impossible to prove"

Think about how that looks to us. You are making claims that make no sense and when we try to inform you or point you in the direction of the source material you seem to ignore it and keep on your stupid path.

Again, have you even read Star*Soldier yet? Or looked at a single episode of Academy? You really should spend some time exploring the CIC before posting more. This is getting old.

 

[Bandit LOAF]

Oh lucky day, there are two of these threads.

SWC had radically different graphics than WC-1.

Yes, and people continue to complain about it.

Regarding the Kilrathi designs featuring more aggressive edges isn't all that crazy -- by the way it was written in WC-3 in the manual, it seemed as if the designs of the Kilrathi were common practice. The Krant, Jalthi, and to an extent the Dralthi look pretty good. The capital ships would combine WC-1 and WC-3 traits yet looking simpler than WC-3 designs. In terms of changing the WC-2 ships around, not all of them would be changed -- the Gilgamesh largely looks good. The Waterloo looks a bit cartoonish, or like something you'd get in a McDonald's Happy Meal back in the eighties.

You said this on IRC a few weeks ago and everyone argued at you until you /parted. So, a friendly suggestion - when you can't make an argument for some particular bit of nonsense and you fall apart even trying... DO NOT GO AND REPEAT IT AGAIN.

The second statement may have been correct in 1990 - 1992, and even 1994-1996... still, in WC-3 they did away with the idea of flak-turrets in WC-3 since they didn't look realistic. And modern day we have far greater computational capacity -- we can simulate dozens of turrets on loads of ships.

It doesn't take any significant computer resources to 'simulate' lots of weapons. The problem is two things:

* Game balance. If you actually want to design a game (and we know you don't), then you will take this to heart: a game is not the sum of its technical parts. If the Tiger's Claw has 22 heavy cannons and 30 defense lasers and a giant flak field then missions defending it won't be any fun. Similarly, if a Ralari has a zillion lasers and quad neutrons and whatever then it won't be any fun to attack. In game building, play balance comes before the geeky stat fetish.

* Your usual problem with linear time. In most cases, 'additional' weapons (ie, 40 point defense guns and torpedoes for the Vesuvius) are added by later sources - in this case, the novelization.

The fly-through comment was based on the WC-4 Novel in which it said the Lexington was the same class of ship as the old Concordia. And they described it as having a fly-through deck. In fact the designers of WC-4 wanted to do that. They eventually decided to just scale up the Victory model and call it a Concordia-Class. But if the Confed-Dreadnaught was allowed to have a fly-through, and since a lot of people have likened the Waterloo's flight deck set up as being like a Mini-Concordia, I thought giving the Waterloo's flight-decks a fly-through wouldn't be such a bad idea.

Here is some million dollar advice: if you don't know something, don't repeat it.

The Wing Commander IV script mentions a 'Concordia class carrier' in the dialogue. The writers of the novel took this to mean that the Lexington and Princeton were the same class as the Concordia... while the game designers took this to mean that their new ship design was 'Concordia class'. The novel went to press well before the game was finished and so couldn't be changed in this respect - you will find similar things in all novelizations. The (easy) retcon is that the Concordia-class has similar deck layouts to the Confederation-class. None of this has anything about a 3D model that doesn't work.

Also, there's no claim in the book that the Lexington has a 'fly through bay'.

How would re-painting the exact same model gray and blue instead of green be a breach of canon? Keep in mind in the old days the color pallets they had weren't as sophisticated as now (WC-3 and beyond).

If you don't understand how to use a word, don't use it. Canon goes in your pile.

The problem everyone is expressing here is severalfold, but I'll point out two of them:

* Your not understanding the point of a remake. The goal of a Wing Commander I remake should be to make a game that's as close to Wing Commander I as possible - which means the cool army green spaceships that we see serving in that particular place and time in the original story.

* Your absolutely offensive and inconsiderate abusive misunderstanding of the English language. Stop saying things like 'more advanced' and 'more realistic'. We're talking about a videogame about spaceships, none of these superlatives and... nonperlatives... can mean anything but that you want to offend a group of people who (surprise, surprise) actually *like* these games.

Get out of here... Either way though, ask LOAF what the Tiger's Claws' armament is. He'll tell you 8 laser turrets, 22 point defense, etc...

And I'll also tell you how many guns were simulated in the game, how they didn't ever actually fire, why that was important then and why a remake should emulate that rather than the letter of the continuity. Don't drop my name if you don't understand how I think.

I didn't make it up... it was a long time ago either on this forum or on Acenet. I asked LOAF once for a picture I posted on this forum like a year ago and he couldn't find it. Does that mean I lied about drawing the picture? No... it just means the chat only stores data past a given amount of time then it gets deleted. I'm pretty sure if I looked on Acenet if it even exists anymore, I could go back as far as I could and still not find that post. It doesn't mean it wasn't said.

No, I told you that I didn't save random images from the board and that you'd have to check in the archive to see if it still existed.

No... I'm not making this person up... I don't want to name names because it would probably piss the person off...

Kevin Caccamo.

As I said in my response to tc.cgi... WC-3 was obviously meant to look a hell of a lot more realistic than WC-1 or WC-2. After all, it had FMV scenes, lots of green-screen graphics, and such. And muted colors like blues and grays tend to be far more realistic than bright green.

We're going to go ahead and move 'realistic' into the column of things you aren't allowed to say until you learn what they mean. It will be right at home with 'meter' and 'fly through bay'.

And I'm Deke Slayton. I have, again, used sarcasm.

Mr. Slayton, are you a turtle?

 

[ck9791]

Miracynonyx, do you have the knowledge and determination to do what you are describing in this thread, or is it just talk about what you'd like to see?