[brandx0]

Yes, the space battles in Star Wars are inspired by the idea of WWII in space.

Star Wars inspired by WWII in space
+
WWII Flight Sim
=/=
Star Wars Sim Mechanics = WWII Flight Sim Mechanics.

[Herra Tohtori]

Also, the Falcon is not just an ordinary YT-1200 Corellian transport, it's a heavily modified one. It's capabilities don't tell much at all about the original model...

I would be more interested in the fact that at sublight speed the Falcon can't seem to outrun a Star Destroyer (much less TIE Fighters). Are you going to give the capital ships high top speed but limited acceleration/deceleration? Or go for more "traditional" way for cap ships to move about?

[Mobius]

Yes, the space battles in Star Wars are inspired by the idea of WWII in space.

That's exactly what I was told when I was a kid but even back then I wondered if that statement is true. Machineguns aren't as deadly as laser shots...in Star Wars one or two hits are usually enough to take a fighter down, but during WWII the same number of machinegun(and even cannon) hits weren't enough. Useless to say that the mechanics of dogfights change accordingly.

[chief1983]

Machine guns, perhaps not, but many fighters were equipped with cannons that could actually rip a plane to shred in a few well placed shots.  Plus, SW weapons have a lower ROF but probably higher damage/hit in comparison.  You could make contact with a lot more bullets in the time you can hold a bead on the target than you could lasers.  Blasters are probably more similar to the machine guns, but not many companies in the SW universe rely on blasters alone (unlike the US Govt in WWII, with its over-insistence on machine guns vs cannons for dogfighters).

[Mobius]

Unless you aimed at the pilot and/or you used well placed incendiary bullets, it was damn hard to get a kill with a number of shots compared to the ones needed in SW. That's why I have been thinking for years that the classic SW-WWII comparison is not 100% true.

This adds virtually nothing to the topic, it's just my opinion, so people are free to ignore it.

[aRaven]

Unless you aimed at the pilot and/or you used well placed incendiary bullets, it was damn hard to get a kill with a number of shots compared to the ones needed in SW. That's why I have been thinking for years that the classic SW-WWII comparison is not 100% true.

This adds virtually nothing to the topic, it's just my opinion, so people are free to ignore it.

get your facts right... a cannons are neither machine guns nor incendiary rounds. cannons explode on impact, leaving massive holes in the attacked craft. a single 20mm cannon hit is able to rip a wing off a fighter. thats why ILM calls them laser CANNONS in Star Wars.

it is very hard to bring down a fighter only with machine guns as you said. apart from precise shots into the vulnerable areas you have to put half your ammo into the opponent to birng him down.

In FOTG we have the option to have many laser cannon and blaster variants...let's say we use it! this battlestation is the ultimate power in the universe...ok im zoning out

[CountBuggula]

Didn't you just contradict yourself?  If they should do strafing runs headon, why would it matter if the fighters are faster than the transports or not?

We can't ignore the Falcon's escape from the Death Star in Episode 4 - it was clearly moving slowly enough for TIE fighters to swarm around it in multiple strafing runs.  So unless they were purposely going slowly at that point...

Most EU references point to the fact that the Falcon has an extraordinarily fast Hyperdrive, not sublight engines, which is where Han's comment about it being the fastest ship in the galaxy comes from.

That said, during the Battle of Endor the Falcon is depicted as being as fast as many of the rebel starfighters, so I think Lucas just doesn't know how to be consistent.

[chief1983]

Of course the comparison isn't 100%, it's supposed to be _like_ WW2 in space, not an exact copy.  It's just one source of inspiration.  It probably more relates to the movement and the choreography of the fighting than the weapon's effect anyway.  But aRaven is still right, you don't seem to give the 20mm ShVAK cannons and the like enough credit.

[swashmebuckle]

cheater . still like the original music

Hehe, game design that makes the player fly the same 5 minute obstacle course 24 times gives cheating a good name.  As for the music, I completely agree that the dynamic iMUSE system was way ahead of its time and much more engrossing than using CD quality sound clips from the movies.  This has been troubling me since I started composing music for this game, so I'm perhaps gonna see if I can bother the SCP folks about getting some red hot music code.

[aRaven]

maybe you can reimagine X-Wing and TIE Fighter's MIDI score? Imagine a full orchestra playing the TIE Fighter music. That would be sooo awesome!

I heard Hans Zimmer doesn't use a orchestra anymore, but a software to simulate an orchestra, when he made the Batman OST. Maybe you can look into that?

[swashmebuckle]

Yeah, using sample-based and hybrid software instruments is the way to go for those not able to afford hiring a professional orchestra.  There will definitely be some TG MIDI influence in there, but I'm not sure if the game will support a dynamically adapting score like those games did.  Right now I think the engine can only crossfade between tracks, which is not very SW, but we'll see.

[Herra Tohtori]

Heh, get a decent public domain soundfont from somewhere and put midi music sequencer to the engine...

[CountBuggula]

Heh, get a decent public domain soundfont from somewhere and put midi music sequencer to the engine...

Timidity

[swashmebuckle]

Hehe, oh man, that would be sweet!  There's nothing quite like hearing that last nasally clarinet note that never got its off message playing all the way through the debrief .  Ah, good stuff.

[Scourge of Ages]

Yes, the space battles in Star Wars are inspired by the idea of WWII in space.

Star Wars inspired by WWII in space
+
WWII Flight Sim
=/=
Star Wars Sim Mechanics = WWII Flight Sim Mechanics.

What's the biggest difference between a SW sim and a WWII sim, besides technology?

"Air."

Ain't no air in space.

"There's an air-in-space museum."

EDIT: (aerospace)

BTW, I'm playing IL-2. Picked it up cheap at Circuit City.

[brandx0]

I don't get it...

[CountBuggula]

I don't get it...

Just smile and nod...

(actually the biggest difference between them is gravity, not air)

[chief1983]

I don't get it...

Just smile and nod...

(actually the biggest difference between them is gravity, not air)

Yup, gravity creates energy tactics that separate the two basically.

[swashmebuckle]

Kudos to whichever EU dude came up with the "Etheric Rudder", two words which conveniently explain away why ships move like they're in the air while remaining obviously BS enough to halt any further inquiry by the physics megadork element of sci-fi fandom.  Plus it sounds cool.  Speaking of rudders, has anyone found or cobbled together some pedals that work with Freespace for less than the ridiculous $100 they want for the Saitek or CH sets?  Gotta have yaw for that authentic dogfight feeling, but twisting the stick should be used for roll if anything...

[Pred the Penguin]

Without gravity there wouldn't be much of an atmosphere around...