Prev: [OFFICIAL] A small request.... :-) Next: RE: Vector Movement and SML's

Re: [FT] Vector Silliness

From: Tom Anderson <thomas.anderson@u...>
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 00:05:28 +0100 (BST)
Subject: Re: [FT] Vector Silliness

On Wed, 11 Aug 1999, Roger Books wrote:

> On 11-Aug-99 at 10:27, Keith Watt ( wrote:
> > Roger Books wrote:
> > 
> > > > 3) Limit "push" movement to 1 and allow a ship to "push"
forward. This
> > > > brings "push" movement back to what it should be. Minimal,
> > > > for docking. Rationalization: Maneuvering thrusters are MUCH
> > > > powerful than the main drive.
> > > 
> > > You forgot
> > > 
> > > 4.  Do not allow a push and a thrust to be separated by a rotate.
> > 
> > Or even simpler and more realistic, don't allow pushes at all.  A
> > thruster push, I feel sure, was inspired by the idea of "docking
> > thrusters" for finely-controlled movements, but in order to use
> > thrusters to get the kind of results you see from pushes in the
> > you've got to have a main drive mounted on all four sides of the
> > Aside from the fact that this would look silly (note none of the
> > do this!), it's really totally unnecessary.  Just allow any number
> > combination of rotates and main drives and all the problems are

i'd agree - thrusters arren't powerful enough to give sideways motion of
the same order of magnitude as the main drive (if they were, turning
be free). the only amendment we need to make is to take out pushes. good
for realism and consistency, possibly bad for playability. personally,
do it, but i imagine many people wouldn't.

> So if you have X thrust you may rotate (any amount, costing one) and
> then thrust X-1?  Sounds good to me.

i don't think this is what Keith was suggesting.

> Hmmm, Kr'vak (sp?) still get pushes?

how to deal with the KV under vector is a big problem - now that
can spin like sufis, the KV need a new edge. perhaps they get an extra
turn or something?


Prev: [OFFICIAL] A small request.... :-) Next: RE: Vector Movement and SML's