Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Shrike on March 24, 2001, 03:38:00 am
-
I thought it would be an interesting exercise to see what everyone would like to see in a next-generation space sim. (I'm not calling it an Advanced Space Sim because of the acronym)
This is not intended to be a thread on what you would want in FS3. That has been done to death. Instead, consider what is possible with a fresh game.
Some topics for consideration:
Primary weapons on capital ships; Cannons, Beams, Torpedoes, others, or multiple types?
Style of weapons on fighters; Large number of small missiles (FS) or few powerful missiles (SL, WC)
Weapons outfits; Fully modular (FS), partially modular (see mechwarrior 4) or fixed (SL/WC)
Level of armament; Heavy armament of light weapons or light armament of heavy weapons?
Physics involved; Newtonian or non?
Shielding; All ships (SL, WC), some ships (FS) or none/special only (B5)
Should fighters have turrets?
How big should capships be?
Some things I'd like to see implemented:
A MW4 style modularity, allowing heavier weapons to be mounted on larger ships.
All subsystems be destroyable objects.
Have multiple parts to capital ships and perhaps fighters so concentrated strikes are more effective.
Post your thoughts.
-
1) Multiple types, I would like to see some kint of Gatling cannon.
2) Few powerful. Seems more realistic to me.
3) Partially modular. Certain fighters can carry certain weapons on certain hardpoints.
4) different, dependent on the class of ship.
5) Newtonian, but with automatic controls to stop your ship, or force it into a certain direction.
6) some, also dependent on the ship class
7) Commonly no, but the ability should be there for special ships.
8) Lots of small ships and some really big.
-
my turn (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/smile.gif)
capship weapons: all of them (I personnaly love the big guns on the new cruiser of Wing Commander Secret Ops though)
Fighter missiles: both, depending on the ship and what it's aimed for (big missiles against bomber, swarmers for fighters)
wepaons outfit: partially modular (realism: you can't put weapons taht have so different designs at the same place aka prometheus/maxim)
level of armament (see missiles)
physics: though one, newton shold be great (realism), but as anyone ever played Space Simulator? Try to flight as in a dogfight... That's jst not fun. so no newtonian.
shielding: none/special
turrets: no, damn, fighters are fighters, not battle fortresses lol
capship size: from frigate to Death Star size (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/smile.gif)
What I would like to see: mission planificators like in fighter simulators (see Flanker2.0 or Falcon4.0), geomodable ships, true speed (something like sushi's velocity mod, I really loves this), true asteroid fields (see Empire Strikes Back), Virtual cockpit with broad field of view (or active one: when a ships pass just next to your sze, the head quicly turns to see what happens, without losing the front view of course -yeah I know this one is weird-)
------------------
venom2506
Member of the Robotech mod for FS2
http://robotechlan.com/freespace2/
and of Hidden Terror, the Shivan campaign
http://shivancampaign.homestead.com/index.html
My own page:
http://shivancampaign.homestead.com/index.html
-
Multiple piloted fighters and capships, kinda like XWA but better implementation.
(It was a hack in XWA but it worked, i.e. two people could operate the turrets on the millenium falcon while another flew it).
-
/me pries open fat can of worms
Capships weapons: FS2 has got this DOWN. Don't change anything.
Fighter weapons: Both. Again, FS2 has this really good, and I'd keep the same sort of distribution of weapons. About all I'd want to add is an effective Impact Mortar type weapon(ala D3, sort of like throwing a grenade) that would dumbfire forward fairly slowly, and then explode fairly big.
Missile style: Once again, FS2 has this nailed pretty good IMO. Some bigger anti-fighter missiles might make things interesting, though...
Outfitting: Slightly modular. Take the FS model and make it so that instead of certain SHIPS can use different weapons, make it so certain HARDPOINTS on various ships can use different weapons. Sort of like your average jet sim.
Armamant levels: Both!
Physics: Semi-newtonian(see old post below...)
"THREE physics models. First is current FS model, space with drag. This model is in effect in deep space with your engine ON. I'll explain the effect like this: the engine works by creating a micro-subspace opening in the core. Since Subspace exists in a higher energy state, energy naturally flows out of the opening, and that energy is used to run the ship. It is also stored in fuel cells, for the Afterburner. However, the particles streaming across the barrier also have a braking effect on the spacecraft-that's where the drag comes from. In this model, max speed is limited, and turn rate is proportional to speed.
The second model works with your engine off. With the Engine off, there is no subspace opening, no friction, and only the power you have stored in your AB tanks. This means you get Newtonian physics with only a little bit of thrust. Turn rate is whatever the max for the ship is. This mode would be activated whenever the player turned the engine off- the ship would continue at it's previous velocity, along it's previous vector. This would be similar to a Wing Commander style slide, but more difficult to use effectively and more plausible.
The third engine would be for atmospheric flight. Certain ships would have enough of an airfoil to be able to have certain aerodynamics, which they could use to outmanouver non-airfoil ships in an atmosphere. The first two models would also apply here, where the subspace fissure provided rocket power, and turning off the engine would make you just a glider. Max speed would be much lower, since the atmosphere would induce extra drag."
To this I would add increased speed(Velocity Mod! FS2 version coming soon.) And yes, I did make that "subspace gate" thing up, but I like it because it's a good excuse for some sort of frictional effect, necessary IMO for a fun space-sim.
And you probably guessed it, but I want TRUE planets, with TRUE atmosphereic reentry and some gravity effects- less than would be realistic, but I'll come up with a game-plausible reason given some time. (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/biggrin.gif)
Shielding: All ships, with a radius that can by bypassed by fighters and underneath which fighters can attack the ship surface as if it weren't there. And beams shouldn't go through shields, ala Star Trek.
Fighter turrets: extremely limited. Only for the larger bombers, and only one. None of this three-turret bomber stuff. (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/smile.gif)
Capship size- FS sizes...multiplied by about two. And some VERY big space stations.
I'd also love to see some mission planning- like Venom said, something from F4 would be awesome(although probably not QUITE that detailed. (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/smile.gif)) Virtual cockpit with padlock is a must, and one of my major regrets about FS(Speed was the other, but I've got that mostly taken care of...***VMOD***) For a great example of a virtual cockpit to use, see something like Jane's F15 where you have one mode to use the mouse(or head tracker (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/smile.gif)) to look around, a set of fixed views, and a padlock view that would keep your eyes on the target as you watch your ship's cockpit roll around you. If you have never seen this, try a game that has it, it is REALLY cool. (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/biggrin.gif)
I'd buy a multiplayer option to play as a turret. Especially if you make it so after you die, you can jump into a nearby capship turret for the rest of the round, or something like that.
Whew...
/me passes the can onto the next guy...
------------------
Sushi- the OTHER white meat!
-
Interesting.
Here's some more stuff that I'd find cool.
X-Ray laser heads (think a bomb that fires a beam for a second or two)
'Smart' ASMs, that dodge and weave.
Drive trails extending for km behind the capships, death to anything flying through.
Realistic ranges/speeds; we're talking when it says the target is 10,000 km away it really is!
-
I agree with Setekh's idea. We show be able to look around the cockpit. Maybe with a mouse or keyboard. That was the one thing was disappointed with FreeSpace.
------------------
Long Live The Fighters!!!
Do or do not. There is no try - Master Yoda
Yub yub Commander! - Major Wes Janson
GTD Excellence ("http://freespace.volitionwatch.com/excellence") Webmaster
NeoHunter< [b][email protected][/b] >
Upcoming campaign: Fury Storm
-
To be a next generation space combat, you need some sort of groundbreaking setup. Personally I think it would be a little more like Homeworld where you would have a large area of space and you would travel from event point to event point.
FS could easily accomodate that with subspace. Part of the next generation thing would be new technologies (not just weapons) and perhaps even role playing aspects (ie. your pilot values could influence certain skills or abilities - and I mean aside from the standard fare of firing guns quicker or increased scanner range).
-
Here's what I'd like to put in a space sim if I ever made one... (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/smile.gif)
Physics:
What Sushi has said... Being able to go Newtonian at anytime I want REALLY appeals to me... Even if I have to run off of stored power to do so...
Full 3-dimentional motion... I want to be able to slide and rotate along all 3 axes... I don't like being constrained to flying a spacecraft like it's an aircraft all the time... Sure, it might require a specialized controller (i.e: a space orb controller), or a semi-complex control scheme, but I still want that freedom...
Armaments:
Lots of laser and particle weapons, both beam and non-beam; missiles and torpedoes, which move properly under the physics model; conventional projectile weapons, like machine guns; and interceptors & other defensive weaponry...
Hardpoints would be limited as to what kind of weapons it can hold, not the ship itself... And hardpoints could be switched like other components, but replacing a missile hardpoint with a laser hardpoint might cost you other components...
As for turrets... They could be considered a type of hardpoint... If you want one or more you can have it, but it might cost you a lot more component space than a standard hardpoint would...
Shields would be a type of component you could plug into your ship (only one per ship tho')... Not absolutely necessary, but would be a great advantage... Also some shields might be more susceptible to lasers, while others might be weaker against projectiles, etc...
Extras:
Looking around the cockpit (using the mouse probably) would be nice... (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/smile.gif)
Piloting capships would be very nice too... (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/biggrin.gif)
-
Something like the MechWarrior series where you can not only customize the fighter or bomber's loadout but also choose whether you want to include other equipment like a Shield Regenerator that speeds up the regeneration of your fighter's shields.
Or maybe a component that when equipped on a fighter like the GTF Erinyes, provides extra Primary cannon energy. This would give you a bit more energy before your eight banks of Kaysers or Maxims drain it.
With these equipment comes weight and size problems. Sometimes, you may find that your fighter cannot accept anymore equipment or components and you may have to sacrifice, say the Shield Regenerator to make way for the Energy Pack (I know this name sucks) because you anticipate that you'll be killing more than running in your GTF Erinyes, so you need the gun energy more than shields.
------------------
Long Live The Fighters!!!
Do or do not. There is no try - Master Yoda
Yub yub Commander! - Major Wes Janson
GTD Excellence ("http://freespace.volitionwatch.com/excellence") Webmaster
NeoHunter< [b][email protected][/b] >
Upcoming campaign: Fury Storm
-
Hmm......here's a thought. How about using NP (out new Newtonian Physics abbreviation) and varying masses for different components to generate the handling charactersitics? Here's an example:
Let's say 250 KN (kilonewtons) for a given drive. Your ship frame weights 17 tons, the reactor + engines 4 tons, your guns total 3 tons and you have a one ton sensor array, making your ship a total of 25 tons in weight. So 250 KN/ 25 tons = 10 newtons/kilo, which comes out to an acceleration of 10m/s
Obviously, it would end up being more complicated than this, but it's probably workable.
-
Damn, as I said before, you should all try Space Simulator (old microsft game from the flight simulator series...) It's all about newtonian physics, weight, mass, acceleration, and flight simulators finally looks like a shoot'em up next to this thing (just try to tand the LEM on the moon, to see what I mean (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/wink.gif) It's trully a nighmare to fly with newtonian physics...)
------------------
venom2506
Member of the Robotech mod for FS2
http://robotechlan.com/freespace2/
and of Hidden Terror, the Shivan campaign
http://shivancampaign.homestead.com/index.html
My own page:
http://shivancampaign.homestead.com/index.html
-
Short: FS2 with more powerful plasma turrets and geo-mod (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/biggrin.gif)
Oh, and Newtonian physics.
-
My thoughts on 3-axis freedom of motion:
Only in a limited sense. Yes, I think ships should be able to move in every direction, but not by very much. Forward thrust should have at least 10-15 times the effect as side/reverse thrust. The reverse/side thrust would mainly be used for docking manouvers and maybe to give your ship a slight edge in combat- for example, by sliding down and thrusting forward while tilting up, you could fire at ships not directly in front of you. I'm still not sure if this would be a good thing even if the slide was very limited, but it's an interesting thought...
But there is NO way I would go for anything close to even thrust in all directions. Descent isn't a bad game, but it doesn't work as a space sim.
------------------
Sushi- the OTHER white meat!
-
Sushi, I was thinking that the main (forward) engines would be like 4 times more powerful than the others myself... (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/smile.gif)
-
Sounds a bit like Babylon 5's Starfuries. (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/smile.gif)
------------------
Long Live The Fighters!!!
Do or do not. There is no try - Master Yoda
Yub yub Commander! - Major Wes Janson
GTD Excellence ("http://freespace.volitionwatch.com/excellence") Webmaster
NeoHunter< [b][email protected][/b] >
Upcoming campaign: Fury Storm
-
For primary weapons, I'd like to see basically the same things that everyone else has already posted as well as some unconventional types. In other words, things that aren't weapons in the sense we normally think of them (cause explosive damage/smash into the target). Perhaps some sort of EW to screw with sensors, something that has the capacity to irradiate the target (a good capture weapon, kill the crew and then just clean the ship up (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/smile.gif)). An idea I'd like to see is a massive net designed to cut ships apart...something that is composed of relatively thin yet strong fibers that are made of (or coated with) some sort of radar absorbing (invisible or nearly so on sensors) material. If the ships travel at fast speeds (I'm thinking something along the lines of I-War or whatnot) the net would be difficult to spot visually as well as on sensors. Ship collides with the net, ship gets shredded (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/smile.gif). Maybe have it be suspended at appropriate places by some kind of bouy that is designed to be difficult to spot as well. As a defense against missiles/torpedos, maybe some kind of 'pellet gun' (<--lame name). What I mean is something like a shotgun, only larger. It spits out thousands of hard pellets at high speeds, the launcher is just aimed in the direction of the incoming missiles and fired, the idea being the fast moving pellets and (I assume) fast moving missiles collide with the end result being the missile's destruction (hopefully, anyway). Could be good against light fighters too (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/wink.gif).
For fighter weapons, I would go with a few powerful missiles for the most part. Rather depends on what the fighters are capable of, how large they are, etc. Partially modular for the weapons outfitting...some things can't be mounted in some places and somethings can't be removed (though it might be fun to put in a life support system just to see how many people actually tried to play without it (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/biggrin.gif)).
For level of armament, a mixture of both I think would be best. Maybe have some specialist types that go to either extreme.
As for the physics, maybe make it user selectable like in I-War. You could play it 'arcade' or FS-style or you could play it with full Newtonian. Maybe have a sort of realism setting for it where you can toggle some of the options or adjust how severely they effect things (all the way from no realism at all to ultra-real).
For shielding a favor an approach of none or only special cases. This would make it more challenging, IMO...instead of just taking hits because your shields will absorb it and eventually regenerate, you try your best to avoid taking hits because armor doesn't regenerate. Or, if there are going to be shields maybe they aren't kept up all the time because of extreme drain of energy or something. Maybe they can only be raised for short time periods, this would make timing of raising them critical for ships (raise it too soon and they have to be lowered before whatever they were there to stop hits them). Or, again, something along the lines of I-War...instead of a fully encapsulating shield it is used more like a handheld shield...you have to have it between you and whatever you are hoping to block for it to be any use (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/smile.gif).
I don't think fighters should have turrets, but bombers definitely should have one at least if they are the typical lumbering pigs (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/smile.gif). When it comes to bombers I'd like to see some more variation in them. You could have fast ones that don't have a turret but carry rather light bomb loads (something like an Artimis or Zeus), then those in between (something like an Ursa or Medusa and such), and the biggest would be large bombers (B-17 or B-52 type affairs) with staggering bomb loads but they are slow and unweildy and despite multiple are rather easy prey if not properly escorted.
I'm not sure how big capital ships should be, I would like to see them similar in size to FS series, though no juggernauts or very few of them. They don't make much sense to me...sure they have a lot of firepower, but a force of ships like the destroyers in FS2 could be much more effective. They can group together for mass firepower or be spread apart to project power through out a wide area. That and huge ships are just magnets for attack.
The thing I'd like to see is some ECM/EW incorporated into the games. Jamming of sensors/guidance systems, attempts to redirect the targetting of an incoming warhead, interference with communications. Also attempts at stealth (reduced emissions, etc.). In short, I'd like to see more realistic sensors (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/smile.gif).
------------------
A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic. -Joseph Stalin
Chocalate covered Headz...crunchy on the outside, juicy in the middle...the Vasudan's favorite snackfood.
-
Originally posted by IceFire:
As a defense against missiles/torpedos, maybe some kind of 'pellet gun' (<--lame name). What I mean is something like a shotgun, only larger. It spits out thousands of hard pellets at high speeds, the launcher is just aimed in the direction of the incoming missiles and fired, the idea being the fast moving pellets and (I assume) fast moving missiles collide with the end result being the missile's destruction (hopefully, anyway). Could be good against light fighters too.
Like the LBX from MechWarrior?
------------------
Long Live The Fighters!!!
Do or do not. There is no try - Master Yoda
Yub yub Commander! - Major Wes Janson
GTD Excellence ("http://freespace.volitionwatch.com/excellence") Webmaster
NeoHunter< [b][email protected][/b] >
Upcoming campaign: Fury Storm
-
Something I'd like to toy with is the distinction between real world fighter style and the current combat space sim.
Something which is kind of facilitated by the Velocity mod right now, but not quite the same. In games like Falcon 3.0, I remember the thrill I got from dogfighting a single ship for a good few minutes and then finally pulling off on a hunch and lining up behind a ship - then hearing the familiar Sidewinder growl, and finally to squeeze the trigger and almost feel the missile leap off the rails and speed towards the bogey in my sights. Then to finish it off, the enemy burst into a ball of flames, and debris (albeit very badly rendered debris) began to rain down the to the earth below. That was damn cool.
FreeSpace does not emulate this at all. Quite possible one of the biggest reasons why is that there is no reason for constant movement - no gravity, so ships can actually stop in their tracks (unlike air combat sims where you'd drop like a rock and simply - die). But I wish, very much, that there could be a more personal feel to the mission. A better feeling of integration with characters you fly with, a better feel of who the enemy is, rather than Arjuna 3, Taurus 1. Make the people you fly with people. I think this will be one of the keys to creating the next-generation space sim.
-
Just like in Secret Ops (I really like this FREE game). There's no CGI anim, no videos, all is done with the game engine. But there's a big mood (much more tha in his commercial counterpart Prophecy), with pilots who seems true and all.
About the big juggernaught nonsense, You may be right, Ice Heart... But they are just FUN! They are here for plot, background and the "Damn!!!" factor (as in "Damn!!!! Look at this thing, it's huge!!). Naaaah, I want big ships, bigger ships, and biggest ships!
------------------
venom2506
Member of the Robotech mod for FS2 ("http://robotechlan.com/freespace2/")
and of Hidden Terror, the Shivan campaign ("http://shivancampaign.homestead.com/index.html
")
and My own page ("http://shivancampaign.homestead.com/index.html")
-
Sometimes I wonder - as the next generation of games (of all genres, not just space sims) comes and goes, is there anything that is really changing or improving - except the realism of the game? I realise that developers must be running out of ideas, but I truly yearn for a game that is really different. Truly daunting, and kind of OT - but still... (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/smile.gif)
(Btw venom - enjoy your new sig (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/biggrin.gif))
-
Originally posted by NeoHunter:
Sounds a bit like Babylon 5's Starfuries. (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/smile.gif)
Actually, that's what I was going for... (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/biggrin.gif) That's an execellent design for a space superiority fighter... (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/smile.gif) I think that if someone in the future had to come up with a design for a space fighter, they probably couldn't come up with a better base design than the Starfury... (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/wink.gif)
I came up with all of the stuff in my first post in the space of 10 minutes so there's a lot of room for improvement... (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/biggrin.gif)
-
-Multiple types of Capship Weapons
-Varies on type of mission.
-Partially Modular, so there are specific
Bomb and Missile slots.
-Again, varies on type of mission.
-No Newtonian.
-Shields on all fighters, bombers, and small
to medium sized Capships. (Large ones just
have heavy armor.)
-No fighter turrets.
-Capships ranging from about Fenris size to
as large as the SSDs and th Collosus.
And some other ideas:
-Only joystick. (In my opinion, the idea to
make Freelancer joystick free sucks.)
-Civilian ships.
-The choice to leave the military if you
want to or the possibility of being kicked
out.
-Completely variable storyline. (Like most
modern RPGs.)
-The ability to fight on both sides of the
war.
-
Originally posted by CobaltStarr:
Actually, that's what I was going for... (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/biggrin.gif) That's an execellent design for a space superiority fighter... (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/smile.gif) I think that if someone in the future had to come up with a design for a space fighter, they probably couldn't come up with a better base design than the Starfury... (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/wink.gif)
I came up with all of the stuff in my first post in the space of 10 minutes so there's a lot of room for improvement... (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/biggrin.gif)
The Starfury from Babylon 5 was way cool! When I first saw Babylon 5 on TV, I was awed by its manuverability. There was trailer of it being chased by an alien fighter. Then suddenly, it stopped its forward thrust and did a 180 and fired continuously at the alien fighter behind him!! That's how I think real space fighters will be created in the future. If Man ever gets down to concentrating more on exploration of space and invention of space technology rather than have petty wars here and there.......
I also found another concept of Babylon 5 very appealing. The ability to intercept enemy fire. Like I fire 10 plasma shots at a enemy corvette and the enemy fires 10 shots as well to stop them from hitting his ship's hull. Very nice instead of sci-fi shows like Star Wars and Star Trek where the weapons always hit their targets. FreeSpace 2 has that problem as well. In Babylon 5, I think casulties are lower.
------------------
...and one day, Man will journey farther and faster into Space. - My thoughts
GTD Excellence ("http://freespace.volitionwatch.com/excellence") Webmaster
NeoHunter< [b][email protected][/b] >
Upcoming campaign: Fury Storm
-
I don't know about lower casualties. Into the Fire had one big assed battle. I don't think there has been a bigger battle in the history of science fiction. Its a testament to the guys who created the special effects.
-
What happened in Into The Fire?
------------------
...and one day, Man will journey farther and faster into Space. - My thoughts
GTD Excellence ("http://freespace.volitionwatch.com/excellence") Webmaster
NeoHunter< [b][email protected][/b] >
Upcoming campaign: Fury Storm
-
Originally posted by NeoHunter:
What happened in Into The Fire?
"one big assed battle. I don't think there has been a bigger battle in the history of science fiction. Its a testament to the guys who created the special effects." (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/wink.gif)
It has to be said that the scope and skill of the set piece battles in B5 is only rivaled by a small handfull of Startrek episodes and the final piece of Return of the Jedi.
------------------
- ICQ: 57179504
Webmaster: Hard Light Productions ("http://www.3dap.com/hlp/")
Staffer and P1mp: Ross128 ("http://ross128.telefragged.com") Sounds of Thunder ("http://ross128.telefragged.com/sot/index.shtml")
Fight the future!
-
Just a wee bump...I've been looking into this some more.
-
It'd be cool to see a voice command implementation so that you wouldn't have to type on the keyboard to give your wingmen orders.
------------------
.....File not found....please enter password
Co-Creator, GroundZero ("http://www.subspacezero.com")
-
Then again, that would probably take quite a bit of CPU power to process on the fly. Not to mention the problems voice-recognition software has had with people of different accents.
-
Maybe as a supplement (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/smile.gif) It couldn't be more than a few words.
Alpha 2, attack, Scorpio 1 (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/biggrin.gif)
------------------
.....File not found....please enter password
Co-Creator, GroundZero ("http://www.subspacezero.com")
-
The best way to do that - and ensure it works - would be to ask the player to record at least three voice samples for each voice command he wants to issue. Then the computer would be able to recognize him, and only him.
-
Yeh, that would be good. (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/smile.gif)
-
I was a part of a team which *was* working on such a next generation game.
Everything mentioned here is very easy to impliment, and the voice commands were a favorite of mine (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/wink.gif)
However, the developing company believed they would be better suited in making cliche' FPS games and has vanished into obscurity.
I was working on this project during my long absence to FSW, mainly due to non-disclosure acts.
Now that it's dead, and that the design documents and some core materials are under personal copyright (Adam N. Rorabaugh) I plan on using these material in case I ever find a good group of programmers. (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/wink.gif)
------------------
Ace
Staff member FreeSpace Watch
http://freespace.volitionwatch.com/ ("http://freespace.volitionwatch.com/")
-
well i know a few people who might be interested...so long as there's nothing REALLY hard to code..(err...2 to be precise, uni 1st year)
And i doubt you'll find any shortage of modellers in these parts :P
------------------
All your quantum physicist are belong to us!
-
To be honest what i would want to see in a space sim is;
More correct physics
More accurate hit effects...i want to see CHUNKS flying out of an orion when it gets sliced in half with a shivan beam.
proper 3D per-pixel glow effects
Real shadows
fully modular systems (get to change reactors on later levels?)
more interaction with capships...in FS2 its much better than most, because capships don't just site there and wait to be thrashed by a fighter wing...you must stick another capship in there to neutralise it.
so i suppose it boils down to a far more advanced AI
(more) Interactive wingmen - its not that hard...unreal tournament can have people randomly saying stuff to simulate a conversation.
Better lighting FX (i want the darkside of a ship to be just that...DARK)
Better shading model
I'm sure most modern 3D DX8 compliant accelerators could handle a phong or even blinn shading model
more flexible campaign/storyline
I know its been done before, but a very advanced campaign generator system would make for a high replayability factor
Neway..this has probably allready been said...oh yea, one last thing:
wEvil on the 3D modelling team (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/smile.gif)
------------------
All your quantum physicist are belong to us!
-
Originally posted by wEvil:
More correct physics
Have you played IW1? (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/smile.gif)
-
About the whole Newtonian physics debate...
Sure, it can be really hard to play (dogfight, etc) with pure Newtonian physics; but I don't think that you need pure Newtonian physics to have Newtonian physics.
You could have a game with those physics, but instead of you the player controlling all the thrust and vectors, there would be an onboard computer to handle all that math and control. Then it would be like you just point your ship where you want to go, and the computer fires all the right thrusters to get you there.
But I think another factor of Newtonian physics that would have to be considered is the design of the ship. You can't have ships where you have a big engine in the back and a bunch of thrusters to turn it. Let's say you were attacking a big cargo container, but you're flying towards it and you'll crash into it. With a "big engine" ship you would have to turn away from your target, and apply thrust to stop, then turn back towards your target to keep firing. Not very game friendly.
What you could have with Newtonian is new ships where your weapons system rotates seperately from your engines system. This then could (and would probably have to) introduce a whole new game control system (maybe like two joysticks) where can control where you're flying and where you're shooting separately. Although I'm sure this would create a whole new level of complex game; and I should probably stop rambling now.
Joe
-
never played IW-1
apprently it was good?
------------------
http://www.wevil.co.uk ("http://www.wevil.co.uk") - how NOT to do a website
-
Nice idea, Joe. That's sweet. (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/smile.gif)
wEvil: IW1 is - different. I didn't like it because I was too used to FS, which has a very different style of play. I should have another crack at it. (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/smile.gif)
-
I got the idea from two old games I remember (but don't remember the names).
One was an arcade space game (kinda like Asteroids but you shot enemy ships and such) where you could play two-player mode where one player controled the ship and the other player the weapons.
The other one as an old Atari game. It was something (set in the future) where you had to shoot robots while saving humans. In one-player mode you would shoot and move in the same direction; but in two-player mode one person would control where you went and the other person controlled where you shot. It was really fun, and me and my brother would get up early so that we could play before going to school. (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/smile.gif)
With a PC space sim I don't know how easy it would be to have two players at the computer(especially since space sims aren't that popular right now)... so that's where I thought you might need two joysticks.
Joe.
-
tyrian you're thinking of (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/smile.gif)
------------------
http://www.wevil.co.uk ("http://www.wevil.co.uk") - how NOT to do a website
-
Thought of a few more ideas...
Rather than asteroids textured to look like comets... how about actual comet fields. As you destroy the comets, they shatter into clouds of gas (like mini-nebulas). They would eventually dissipate, but very slowly so that while you're playing you can shoot up a bunch of comets and create clouds of gas and debris (mini-nebulas) to hide and dogfight in and out of.
This is idea is just to resurrect what I know X-Wing had (I don't know about others). The game had a (like) flight recorder where you could, after playing the mission and having the recorder on, you could go back an rewatch the mission/battle from any ship's viewpoint (even an floating camera you could fly around the battle with), and you could pause and rewind the mission to see what else was happening. (Could also be used to see where such fighters came from and what they did so when you replay the mission you can expect those events).
This next idea is an adaption of Descent's ability to record demo movies. It would be great if the game engine had to ability to record the game action (from your playing viewpoint) and export it into a movie file (like screenshots but a real movie). Then you could create your own trailers just like the FS ones--but create them right from the game.
Joe.
-
Here's an evil thought.
what if for the 'big engine' ships the drive was coded so it didn't have an engine wash, but was instead a real fusion trail.... IE like being at groud zero of a low-kt nuke. Obviously if you're dealing with the insanely high firepower values of FS, that's kind of useless.
-
a fusion plume would break ANYTHING into its' consituent elements (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/smile.gif)
good thinking, watson!
------------------
http://www.wevil.co.uk ("http://www.wevil.co.uk") - how NOT to do a website
-
*kicks this thread up again*
-
How about this: Everything's adjustable (Mechcommander), but w/ weapon hardpoints. For instance, you could switch from having average sensors and engines, to really good engines and weaker sensors (maybe target lock takes longer). Perhaps as you earn rank, more options are available. Or perhaps some sort of credit system. It would really throw a wrench into the works, so if you found, say, an Artemis, at long range, you wouldn't know whether it was faster, more maneuverable, tougher, or had a bigger payload. It would be pretty interesting, especially for MP.
-
Going back to the starfury bit, I reckon it'd be cool if you could use special shortcuts to perform maneuvers - like F would make the fighter cut it's engines and spin through 180 degrees (so it's going in the same direction but flying backwards).
I'd also like the whole begin able to move in three dimensions.
Here's an example of what you could do:
Hit the hard up key, which makes the craft jink upwards violently, hit the 180 deg. key and zoom off in the other direct etc.
Also, the effects of G forces on the pilot to a certain extent, so when you are make REALLY hard maneuvers, there is the chance you might black out (maybe a AI would control it until consiousness is regained, or maybe not, it might depend on the craft).
On the control front, why not use what the starfuries are meant to use: a combination of hand movements (keyboard+joystick) and voice commands (like "Engage afterburners on my mark... MARK!"-sinclair, battle of the line, B5 (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/wink.gif))
Also I would like to see planetary flying, where if your craft is not atmosphere capable you plumet, but even if it is, it becomes much less maneuverable.
Basically: Maneuverability, the ability to go practically anywhere (also multiple jumps per mission could be useful), big Beam weaponry and others - like the Siege cannon from Cataclysm (which I might be able to make in Freespace (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~freespace/ubb/noncgi/biggrin.gif)).
------------------
Chickens? Where? Where BOOM!! ("http://members.tripod.co.uk/sPaZm")
Folks... we have a very special guest for you tonight... I would likje to introduce:
MR HORN :-Linkin Park ;)
Project coordinator of Alternate Reality: The Chickens Cometh ("http://members.tripod.co.uk/sPaZm") and A... errr... team member of The Perfect Storm.
-
New weapons- Limpet Mines
You fire one and it attaches to a capships hull, waits 5 secs and explodes, making a big hole. And accompanying vapour effects to show the escaping oxygen.
-
Basically right now space sims are similar to flight sims in a dark background. The only differences is everything is floating, you can stop, and you don't have to worry about crashing into land. (only ships for those flight impaired)
Right now we are not really sure how newtonian physics would apply because once you enter a solar system you have to deal with all the different forces of gravity. It would be a pain. But I like joe's idea about how you should have a computer deal with it. But here's the catch, we would not be used to that, because you would be changing positions constantly and there wouldn't be any fluid motion, I think this is why develeopers are afraid to use those physics.