[Stormkeeper]

He did manage to crawl out and look at that hologram of his loved ones before croaking.  That's pretty impressive considering he smashed into a freakin' planet.

Point that.

I don't recall the condition of his flightsuit but there's no evidence that he died due to injuries in the crash. He could've simply had a damaged radio, and died awaiting some sort of rescue or recovery operation. Either way, it was a good image for the intro.

Pretty much.

The vid also shows you how tough Hercs are, to be able to withstand atmospheric re-entry like that.

[Androgeos Exeunt]

The part where the Manticore shot his fighter down with a missile was awesome.

He probably crash-landed into a boulder, crawled out and stared at a hologram of his parents, hoping that someday, he would be rescued, although a scene like this probably inferred that he knew he stood almost no chance of living to see the GTVA Colossus.

[Akalabeth Angel]

The part where the Manticore shot his fighter down with a missile was awesome.

He probably crash-landed into a boulder, crawled out and stared at a hologram of his parents, hoping that someday, he would be rescued, although a scene like this probably inferred that he knew he stood almost no chance of living to see the GTVA Colossus.

        Parents? That's him and his wife (or her and her husband)
        Evidenced by the fact that it looks like they're in wedding clothes, from what I can remember, and typically if a child has pictures of his parents its not on their wedding day.

        EDIT - oh wait, it's inconclusive. doesn't look like wedding gear. Even so, I always thought it was the wife rather than the parents.

[Androgeos Exeunt]

Interesting point, Akalabeth. I drew my presumption about the parents from the dialogue that was being spoken at that time.

Of children who saw, in the embers of dying stars, the destiny of their race. And they hurled themselves into the void of space with no fear.

But your point is valid too. You'll recognise a tuxedo anywhere.

[ShadowGorrath]

I think that that scene shown how the pilot felt hopeless, that the Lucifer will annihilate the entire terran and vasudan races, and that he wouldn't ever see his family again ( disregarding that he died anyway ).

[Admiral_Stones]

He did manage to crawl out and look at that hologram of his loved ones before croaking.  That's pretty impressive considering he smashed into a freaking' planet.

Point that.

I don't recall the condition of his flightsuit but there's no evidence that he died due to injuries in the crash. He could've simply had a damaged radio, and died awaiting some sort of rescue or recovery operation. Either way, it was a good image for the intro.

Pretty much.

The vid also shows you how tough Hercs are, to be able to withstand atmospheric reentry like that.

The scene was and is for cinematic purposes only.
This scene is, IMHO, not meant to show how tough Hercs are. Because that would be downright ridiculous.
(To get a picture, imagine a 20 tonne (and that's probably much to light) metal object crashing unto a surface with 20 km/s.
What should be left is a smoking crater and a few chunks of metal lying around)

[Akalabeth Angel]

Interesting point, Akalabeth. I drew my presumption about the parents from the dialogue that was being spoken at that time.

Of children who saw, in the embers of dying stars, the destiny of their race. And they hurled themselves into the void of space with no fear.

     Actually that probably makes more sense; if it were a sweetheart they probably would've just had the single portrait of the lover rather than a double portrait like that.

The scene was and is for cinematic purposes only.
This scene is, IMHO, not meant to show how tough Hercs are. Because that would be downright ridiculous.

         Yeah I'd agree. All the cinematics are basically there to tell a story, nothing more nothing less. Well, they're supposed to look wicked cool too of course. Which by and large they tend to accomplish.

[Flipside]

You could say, however, that the entire purpose of Freespace is to tell a story, none of it actually has to be right or in-line with the laws of Physics any more than stories like Star Wars or Firefly.

[Droid803]

There's a reason its Science FICTION.
If it says they are atmosphere-capable, then they are...

[Polpolion]

There's a reason its Science FICTION.
If it says they are atmosphere-capable, then they are...

http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3al.html#fiction

[Flipside]

There's a reason its Science FICTION.
If it says they are atmosphere-capable, then they are...

http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3al.html#fiction

Problem is, I disagree with that wholeheartedly. Putting shackles of reality on fiction is probably one of the most creatively inhibiting things you can do.

Asimov's books, for example, fly way outside the realm of physics in some respects, and are incredibly out-dated in others (since the were written circa 1950's). Doesn't mean they are not excellent stories.

[Akalabeth Angel]

Problem is, I disagree with that wholeheartedly. Putting shackles of reality on fiction is probably one of the most creatively inhibiting things you can do.

Asimov's books, for example, fly way outside the realm of physics in some respects, and are incredibly out-dated in others (since the were written circa 1950's). Doesn't mean they are not excellent stories.

    Not necessarily, putting reality onto fiction or science fiction only forces the author to be creative in different ways.
    It really all depends on the audience in any case. Honor Harrington I've heard is rather realistic in terms of warfare, and has a large audience, whereby the same token Star Wars is entirely unrealistic and has a large audience as well or on the extreme spectrum of things, something like Spell Jammer which age of sail ships travelling through space ether via some magic mumbo jumbo was very popular too. (Volition Bravos!!!)

    Saying all science fiction should be realistic is forcing ideas onto other people, but that doesn't mean that author who want realistic fiction can't pursue it. I think that's mainly what the webpage is for, giving authors with realistic ideals the tools they need to create science fiction. Or that's how I take it.

    The main problem is when you get Star Wars or Freespace fanboys screaming "no it's realistic!". Well no, it's not. Its just a movie or a video game, take it for what it is and enjoy it. Sci-fi universes or even fantasy ones can be as creative as they want as long as they don't break the suspension of disbelief, and that further, they're internally consistent. All in my opinion of course.

[NGTM-1R]

http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3al.html#fiction

Hogwash. If I want to blow up the laws of physics and replace them with something assembled from the fragments plus my own stuff, or simply throw them out altogether, I am fully within my rights to do so. Now, on the other hand, that's not to say that Narrative Causality and Powers As Required By Plot should be allowed to run rampant.

Rather, the way in which stupidity lies is when in the construction of your own universe, or the borrowing of somebody else's, that it does not have an internally consistant set of laws. The presence, absence, or total failure of such is the only valid judgement of a work's worth that you can make in this area.



...Also, never ever say Honor Harrington is realistic again.

[Polpolion]

There's a reason its Science FICTION.
If it says they are atmosphere-capable, then they are...

http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3al.html#fiction

Problem is, I disagree with that wholeheartedly. Putting shackles of reality on fiction is probably one of the most creatively inhibiting things you can do.

Asimov's books, for example, fly way outside the realm of physics in some respects, and are incredibly out-dated in others (since the were written circa 1950's). Doesn't mean they are not excellent stories.

Then you and I hold realistic scifi and unrealistic scifi into two different tiers of appreciation. Don't get me wrong, I love all scifi, it's just I tend to prefer scifi that tries to adhere to realism. 

[Droid803]

There's a reason its Science FICTION.
If it says they are atmosphere-capable, then they are...

http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3al.html#fiction

Well, it happened. They broke the laws of physics. What are you going to do about it?
Its fine and all to say, "its not ok". In fact, I will admit the physics are incorrect. I know that. I'm not saying its realistic, but there's the fact that it was never intended to be realistic in the first place.
If you really wished, you could rewrite the FS engine to have accurate physics and everything. Would it make for a better story or a more enjoyable experience? I would think not. It would probably just be a massive waste of time.

We have fiction/fantasy because reality is boring. That's my opinion at any rate.

[Flipside]

Problem is, I disagree with that wholeheartedly. Putting shackles of reality on fiction is probably one of the most creatively inhibiting things you can do.

Asimov's books, for example, fly way outside the realm of physics in some respects, and are incredibly out-dated in others (since the were written circa 1950's). Doesn't mean they are not excellent stories.

    Not necessarily, putting reality onto fiction or science fiction only forces the author to be creative in different ways.
    It really all depends on the audience in any case. Honor Harrington I've heard is rather realistic in terms of warfare, and has a large audience, whereby the same token Star Wars is entirely unrealistic and has a large audience as well or on the extreme spectrum of things, something like Spell Jammer which age of sail ships travelling through space ether via some magic mumbo jumbo was very popular too. (Volition Bravos!!!)

    Saying all science fiction should be realistic is forcing ideas onto other people, but that doesn't mean that author who want realistic fiction can't pursue it. I think that's mainly what the webpage is for, giving authors with realistic ideals the tools they need to create science fiction. Or that's how I take it.

    The main problem is when you get Star Wars or Freespace fanboys screaming "no it's realistic!". Well no, it's not. Its just a movie or a video game, take it for what it is and enjoy it. Sci-fi universes or even fantasy ones can be as creative as they want as long as they don't break the suspension of disbelief, and that further, they're internally consistent. All in my opinion of course.

To an extent I agree, but to my mind it all boils down to what the author wants to do, it is, after all, their story to tell. If I use Asimov as an example again, there were a series of books commissioned by famous sci-fi authors based on Asimov's novels, and they decided that, rather than set it in the original point-point hyperspace universe, they'd try to 'real it up' by using wormholes to travel as well as other little 'adjustments' to make the story more up to date with modern physics.

To my mind, it pretty much ruined the Asimov universe in doing so, I didn't find the stories nearly as enjoyable. That may have been, in part, down to the writers themselves, but the addition of accurate physics did nothing to save it.

[TrashMan]

What about the Herc crash defies physics? 

[Mars]

If a Herc can widthstand multi-kiloton explosions, I don't see why it couldn't partially survive a crash at 20 m/s

[TrashMan]

We have no idea HOW he crashed...what angle, what speed. Probably the pilot re-gained some control.

[Mongoose]

We have fiction/fantasy because reality is boring. That's my opinion at any rate.

What this man said.  Quite frankly, realistic space travel as we know it utterly sucks.  Chemical rockets burning massive amounts of fuel to achieve low-Earth orbit?  Long-distance missions taking more than a decade to reach Pluto?  Even the most remotely plausible high-speed propulsion systems always being limited by the persistent bastard that is relativity?  **** all that.  I want my damn warp/hyperspace/subspace drives already.