[GZG] Re: [OFFICIAL] Question to you all.....

I'm assuming the goal of Vector is to be "more realistic" than
cinematic...

1) The system as it currently stands (FT/FB1/FB2 standard): ie, 1 
thrust point will rotate any ship to any heading in vector movement.
	a) I haven't played this but like it in theory.

	I like this because in vector movement ship facing shouldn't
matter.
Directional momentum is preserved and that seems to be a good thing to
make
the game "more realistic" then cinematic.  1 thrust point to change
heading
seems like a reasonable trade off to handle the mechanics of an actual
change of facing: apply rotational acceleration, coast until almost
reaching
desired heading, and apply rotational deceleration.  Higher mass ships
have
proportionally larger thrust engines so the cost to change facing is
proportionally higher which also seems "more realistic" than cinematic.  

I see how the turn burn turn tactic and the implications on ship design
are
an uncomfortable problem 

2) The system used in the EFSB (the Babylon Project FT variant), 
where 1 thrust point only allows rotation by 1 course point (30 
degrees).
	b) I haven't played this but dislike it in theory.

If a change in heading is: apply rotational acceleration, coast until
almost
reaching desired heading, and apply rotational deceleration then the 30
degree restriction doesn't make sense.	

3) 1 thrust point allows rotation by up to 2 course points (60 degrees).
	b) I haven't played this but dislike it in theory.
	Same problem as # 2.

4) If you are using thrust points as a proxy for a measure of time then
maybe the 30/60 degree limit could work.  The first thrust point starts
and
stops the change of heading and handles the 30/60 degree change of
heading.
For each additional thrust points burn time the ship can continue to
rotate
in "coast mode" 30/60 degrees.

-Steven Gott

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l