Prev: Re: [FT] [OT?] Has anyone considered... Next: Re: Star Wars a la Stargrunt?

Re: [FT] [OT?] Has anyone considered...

From: devans@u...
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 16:22:39 -0500
Subject: Re: [FT] [OT?] Has anyone considered...


***
>Keep it at 6 arcs: fore, aft, dorsal, ventral, port, starboard.

I'd say 8 (or 6): the six standard FT arcs, top, and bottom (though
in my opinion, the top and bottom are optional; you could easily just
go with the six regular arcs, leaving it up to the maneuvering ship
to get it to work).
***

One could  certainly say the first IS the regular way; FTII without the
FB
changes. ;->=

I'm sorry, but 6 arcs that cover 180 degrees in the vertical is a little
too simplistic for my tastes, and the 8 or 12 that feel better, either
the
8 to which you allude, and weapons out of ANY are optional, or 12, the 6
FB
arcs, split top and bottom. Painful, no?

In 3-D, I think 6, with a quarter roll to bring new arcs to bear, makes
more sense and is easier to visualize.

The_Beast

-Douglas J. Evans, curmudgeon

One World, one Web, one Program - Microsoft promotional ad
Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer - Adolf Hitler

Prev: Re: [FT] [OT?] Has anyone considered... Next: Re: Star Wars a la Stargrunt?