Re: FT Newtonian Acceleration

Mike Hillsgrove wrote:

>First, Full Thrust is a FLEET GAME.  That means that some things have
to be
>simplified.  There was a day I was capable of calculating the position
of
>ships based on simple physics. I don't feel like doing that anymore.
The
>simple vector system may not be totally realistic, but is far more
realistic
>than the cinematic system.
>
>Of course, since the "game" simulates a space opera rather than
anything
>NASA would be interested in does it really matter?
>
>Simple is better!  B5 has more real physics than Star Trek.  BUT, Star
Trek
>has more TV shows, more movies, and more followers.
>
Just because I came up with a couple of ideas to simulate this does not 
mean that I am advocating it or will even try it myself.  Doug Evans 
asked a question about this and I thought I would give him an idea to 
tinker with if he really wants to try.	Roger West's Vector solution was

better (simpler and quicker) than mine.  If he likes either of them, 
then "Yeah!  I helped".  If not, then <shrug>.

J