I don't have a concise definition handy, but...Originally posted by Mystery muppet
Cyberpunk... Is there a definition for it?
Originally posted by RFBurns
IMO, FS and FS2 could learn alot from the Wing Commander games regarding flight physics. But of course, that is a very old debate that still remains wide open. Probably the most strange thing about the flight physics is the ships need to come to a stop gradually, yet turn at high speed like as if the ship was on a rail or something! I mean, would not the inertia of the ship moving in all axis be applied, and not just in the forward motion?!
While I enjoyed the plot of the original, I came away from FS2 thinking that Volition had wasted whatever money they spent on the authors they had hired to create the story.Originally posted by RFBurns
I also find FS 1 & 2 lacking the story part to be the downside of the games, plus the fact that you are thrown into the combat area with very little time to prepare for the mission (no autopilot to combat area). All of the Wing Commander games, except missions where you need to defend your carrier, gives you the chance to catch your breath, set your ship power allotments and psych up for the mission while flying to the combat area.
Originally posted by RFBurns
Probably the biggest thing I did not like about FS or FS2 was that cumbersome keyboard commands. Even the shortcut keys (very few of them) took too long to call up a specific flight group or wingman to give commands. In space combat, there is very little time to sit there and fumble thru keys to talk to a specific ship, and when there are many ships in your flight group, it becomes a useless feature during heavy combat!
Hmm...
Personal preference, I suppose. I had very little difficulty getting commands out to wingmen when I needed to.
As an interesting sidenote to this, the original Freespace is, to date, the only space combat sim that I'm aware of that had compatibility with Voice Recognition software. Unfortunately, as far as I know, this version of the game was ONLY available with off the shelf IBM brand PCs.
Something like this would be wonderful for the genre, especially when dealing with games like X-Wing Alliance (which, iirc, had even more keys than FS).
I'm sorry - run that by me again? You say that WCP/SO are the only games that closely represent Newtonian physics?Originally posted by RFBurns
IMO, FS and FS2 could learn alot from the Wing Commander games regarding flight physics. But of course, that is a very old debate that still remains wide open. Probably the most strange thing about the flight physics is the ships need to come to a stop gradually, yet turn at high speed like as if the ship was on a rail or something! I mean, would not the inertia of the ship moving in all axis be applied, and not just in the forward motion?!
WCP/SO and the fan made sim VS are probably (IMO) the only games to closely represent Newtonian physics, which are more accurate in depicting how a craft with mass would react in zero G in space. Even some of the older WC games, such as Armada and Privateer 1, also use Newtonian physics, or close resemblance of it. Again its an old debate, and probably a matter of preference to some players and not to others.
Have you ever played Independence War?
Its a well-established fact that almost every flight simulator currently out on the market (dating clear back to the venerable Star Raiders I used to play - although that was probably more realistic than almost everything out in the last decade) uses very unrealistic physics - with the notable exception of Independence War (and its sequel). The I-War games use physics so realistic that the afterburner slide looks embarassing.
Originally posted by RFBurns
Maybe now that the source is available, someone will create some kind of game that could closely resemble a WC game.
Perhaps.
I'd be more interested in someone developing a cohesive storyline to go along with a user created campaign. With just a modicum of work, it wouldn't be too difficult to craft a campaign that used a story model similar to the one in SOP (and have the pilots eject instead of die horribly with their fighter). I've toyed with it, myself, but never quite gotten around to figuring out how to use FRED, and get the job done.
Terminus had a pretty good Newtonian flight model as well. Jumpgate had a Newtonian engine in the early beta releases, but it was considered too difficult by most of the players, so they simplified it a bit for the public release. And there are a few games in development that plan to support realistic space flight physics: e.g. Homeplanet, and my game Starshatter.Originally posted by junior
Its a well-established fact that almost every flight simulator currently out on the market uses very unrealistic physics - with the notable exception of Independence War (and its sequel). The I-War games use physics so realistic that the afterburner slide looks embarassing.
Originally posted by junior
I'm sorry - run that by me again? You say that WCP/SO are the only games that closely represent Newtonian physics?
Have you ever played Independence War?
Its a well-established fact that almost every flight simulator currently out on the market (dating clear back to the venerable Star Raiders I used to play - although that was probably more realistic than almost everything out in the last decade) uses very unrealistic physics - with the notable exception of Independence War (and its sequel). The I-War games use physics so realistic that the afterburner slide looks embarassing.
Originally posted by milo
But yes, I-War and I-War 2 are about as good as you can find in a combat space sim. If you are a real physics junkie, try the freeware game Orbiter.
Originally posted by panther
Afterburners - I prefer the wc style.
Originally posted by Michael_A
I played around with fred in FS2 but soon got discouraged with it because I couldn't land on any Capital Ship. I even tried to fly into the Shivan Juggernaught and died...
Originally posted by RFBurns
Where can I find this freeware game Orbiter, that is if it is still available? Id like to try it!
Originally posted by milo
OK, it's been a while since I've played either WCP or FS. What was different about the afterburners?
(...)
Nonsense... jazz music has always maintained a relatively low profile, but it too had its highs and lows. And to claim that opera has been marginalised for a hundred years is just silly. The musical genre of film is a form of opera. And, as Baz Luhrman so kindly demonstrated, musicals are not dead. Plus, conventional operas are also regularly staged all over the world. All in all, operas are about as marginalised as action films.Originally posted by milo
Not everything is cyclical. Jazz music has been marginalized for forty years. Opera for almost a hundred. Yet these were once considered mainstream forms of entertainment.
It's not nonsense. Swing and jazz were mainstream entertainment in the 1940's. They were played in every dance hall and on every radio station across the United States, and were also pretty popular in Europe. Swing musicians like Gene Krupa and Benny Goodman were idolized by millions of teenagers. They were the NSync of their day.Originally posted by Quarto
Nonsense... jazz music has always maintained a relatively low profile, but it too had its highs and lows.
And to claim that opera has been marginalised for a hundred years is just silly. The musical genre of film is a form of opera. And, as Baz Luhrman so kindly demonstrated, musicals are not dead. Plus, conventional operas are also regularly staged all over the world. All in all, operas are about as marginalised as action films.