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

I considered this for a while.

Each ship would have an x,y,z location.

Each ship would have a 360x,360y,360(roll) facing.

Each ship would have a 360x,360y,Velocity course.

Fire arcs would each gain a "free" arc of elevation (either 0 to +30 or
0 to
-30) to define the "cone" of the weapon. There would also be 2
additional
arcs (straight up and straight down). This forms the aforementioned 12
sided
polygon (with a flat edge forward. You could place a flat FACE forward,
but
it makes it more difficult to visualize the other arcs and they don't
line
up with existing arcs).

Movement orders would include: Thrust (MD), Yaw, Climb/Descent, Roll,
Push. 
Yaw, Climb/Descent, and roll are best described in +/- clockface terms.
Thrust and Push as thrust along a direction (6 points forward; 1 point
up
and 1 point port).

Three FTMaps would have to be generated (x,y; x,z; y,z). And ship
outlines
would not be presented in perspective. Roll would not be able to be
captured
by FTMap.

I decided that I did not have the math ability to do this.

-----
Brian Bell
bkb@beol.net
http://members.xoom.com/rlyehable/ft/	
-----

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sean Bayan Schoonmaker [SMTP:s_schoon@pacbell.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2000 11:06 AM
> To:	gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
> Subject:	Re: [FT] [OT?] Has anyone considered...
> 
> >....doing full 3D FT on a computer? The weapon ranges and stuff all
give
> >themselves to easy 3D. Firing arcs might be a pain. You'd have to
> "encase"
> >your ship in a polygon (12 sider?) and decide which weapons can fire
> through
> >which arcs.
> 
> Another, possibly better way of doing this would be to assign an axis 
> to each weapon (which would be one of the d12 directions) and spread 
> out an allowable "off center" cone from there. I.E. a 3 arc weapon 
> would have a 90 degree possible variation, resulting in a half sphere 
> from the "pointer."
> 
> >  The vector rules ought to more or less work,
> >though we'd need to have a different syntax to imply thrust up/down.
> 
> No need to exclude Cinematic. Either works.
> 
> >It's a pity that someone couldn't negotiate for a copy of the
Homeworld
> >engine and we could use some FT models. I'd want to re-write the
"rules"
> for
> >weapons and screens such that they would be conformant to FT-ish
rules,
> and
> >it would be neat to have status displays that look roughly like
> shipsheets.
> >But all of this does sound within the realm of possibility on today's
> >systems.
> 
> No need to even get that complex. It could be done in that same 
> manner as FTMap, allowing PBEM games, etc.
> 
> 
> Schoon