Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: LtHans on January 26, 2002, 09:56:22 AM
-
Any good ones comming out?
There really haven't been many good space simulator games.
I know why too.
They don't simulate space, despite what their name suggests. I want space to use physics. You thrust and coast. I used to love (trying) to play Microsoft's Space Simulator. I never got the hang of it, but damn it....at least I knew it was space.
If I could do an online space game I would do a Privateer style of game set in the Solar System. No aliens, no warp drive, no tacheyon cannons, no weird science. Only what we know now to be true would be used. Mostly. I would cave in and fudge some things and add theoretical near-future, but possible technology like fusion power. I would limit space to the solar system, but probably not fully simulate the full scale solar system. It would take too long to move around in the game at full scale. I would have the orbits of planets to scale to each other though. It would only take minutes or at most a few hours to cross distances that would take days and months (or years) in full scale.
Other things I want changed in most space sims.
1. G-forces. Yes, you can have G-forces in space. In airforce fighters you pull gees in turns, which is angular acceleration. In space, you can use G-forces when accelerating. Pilot fatigue levels and individual pilot tolerances can be used to make it "interesting" and somewhat unpredictable to know when you will black out.
2. Fighters vs Warship. In space warships win. Fighters in space are not real. They're better defined as PT gunboats (still, I will call them fighters). On the ground/ocean a fighter is completely different because ships float in the water, while fighters fly thru the air. In space both are operating on the same playing field. There isn't much that gives the "fighter" that much to give it a decisive edge. Only in large numbers should they be a threat to a battleship.
3. Gunsites. ALL space sims use the same dumb bellybutton predictor gunsite. Your target has crosshairs in front of it, meaning you have to chase that phantom gunsite, not the target. What is wrong with using the normal airforce's gunsights seen in jet sims. The type that lag behind your sceen's center. The end result is you get to put crosshairs on target and see your shots hit. With the current phantom target gunsites games use you spend all your time shooting at the icon, and don't get to see the target get hit. Yes, I know this is a minor detail, but it bothers me none the less.
4. Fuel. AKA Reaction Mass. You should have to watch your fuel. The less fuel you have, the faster you can accelerate (less weight). Drop tanks are an option too. So are solid rocket boosters (alot of thrust, but you can't shut them off once you lite them off, just jetison them...perhaps as weapons if they haven't run out of fuel yet).
5. Physics. Like I said, thrust and coast. I would probably not go full bore on this. I think physics similar to the old arcade game Asteroids works fine for space games. Acceleration could taper off the faster you go, and there is a slow, but steady deceleration over time.
6. Use the solar system. I beleave it would actually make the game more complicated/interesting, not less than most current space simulators. Thats a good thing. I have a few books about the solar system and it is very interesting. Add in human collonisation and space stations, complete with lots of politics and it becomes REALLY intersting. There are lots of places to see in the solar system, and not many are alike. Thruth is stranger than fiction.
7. Aerodynamic and asymetrical ships need not apply. Ship decks are aranged like skyscraper towers, not horizontal ocean ships. Also, you don't need to have nice, clean lines. They should be ballanced though.
8. Weapons. No fantasy weaponry. Lasers (measured in varying levels of power like XXX-megawatts) and nuclear missles ought to be the normal weapons. Lasers can cross the vast distances of space, while nuclear missle/torepedo weapons are shorter ranged weapons. I say shorter ranged because it takes time to cross the distances, it might be detected and shot down by a laser, and even if it does explode near the target in space the blast is not as intense as it is on Earth. There is no atmosphere to carry a blast wave. The only damage would be the radiation, which disipates rapidly and evenly in a 360 sphere. Real life nukes destroy buildings (or ships) in an area 10 miles or so around. In space 10 miles is really, really small.
Thus in space I think nukes are normal and not too impressive, even for ground battles on moons and planets with no air. You have to get in close to use them or they get shot down to quickly.
9. No machineguns lasers. In space combat games there generally isn't much terrain or atmosphere to use to gain an advantage. In space it pretty much should boil down to firing at the optimum time, not holding down the fire button untill the enemy dies. You should have to time your shots to get maximum effectiveness, even holding off firing if neccessary. This would give the concept of maneuver and firing back some weight. Otherwise if you can machinegun something, you will. You'll simply fly into range of each other, stop and exchange shots untill one side flinches and tries to run. I would rather see the two combantants try to dance around each other jockying for the prefect shot, shots the can't afford to waste. Limit shots by ammunition or heat build up or charging capacitors.
10. Ground combat. There is nothing wrong with tanks. Hover tanks are stupid as hell, even more so in a vaccuum. Robots are ok, but not humanoid ones. Why build your fighting vehicle so it is tall and stands out like a sore thumb with the potential it fall down and injure the crew?. There is nothing wrong with robotic tanks. I actually think we may see them for real in our own lifetime here in the real U.S. military.
I doubt there is such a thing as space infantry in space suits, except in boarding actions. For ground combat your men need to take air and food with them...and a toilet. You can't back pack all that. You need a vehicle. Therefore they will ALL be in tanks and AFVs that double as their home. They'll probably have a several of robot tanks under their command for each manned tank. Robots of all sizes, so you may see little ones that can go into human sized doors and hallways.
-
Well, the ONLY game to ever have true newtonian physics without the fantasy weapons was one of the first CD-ROM games, MANTIS: EXPERIMENTAL FIGHTER. You can download the whole game from http://www.theunderdogs.org/game.php?id=2107 . Note: its OLD so graphics are barely 256 colors in-game. The storyline and cinematics are very cool though.
In space there can be fighters. In fact, I believe that fighters would be even far more useful in space. A small craft armed with missiles.. even nuke-tipped missiles, will be able to beat the crap out of a massive cap ship if it scores a hit. And since shields are for the trekkies, big ships mean they wont be able to dodge a homing missile, countermeasures mostly useless (jam a video or laser guided missile? yah right)... a small squad of fighters would spell death to a flotilla of large vessels.
1)G-Forces: The only game to have ever tried to have G-forces and newtonian stuff was TERMINUS. And it was never finished. A real shame, the game showed promise.
4+5.) Mantis has this modeled. Running outta gas was not nice.
6) Mantis takes place mostly in the solar system, with the few incursions you make into other solar systems as part of the missions you must fly.
8+9) Mantis has what you say. The Mantis weapons are a machine gun (a rail gun) with limited ammo, the Mantis has 2 point defense automated turrets on the wings to shoot down incoming missiles (and they also have limited ammo), and missiles ranging from nuclear missiles to standard warhead missiles, cameras for recon and a laser system which you have to wait for it to recharge before every shot.
imo, space weapons would most likely be either projectile (missiles and bullets) for most crafts, beam weapons like lasers and masers would most likely be mounted on larger vessels that would be able to power them and put them on turrets of sorts. Nuclear missiles would not be the norm, you just cant give control of such powerful things to the armed forces in general. Besides, a conventional warhead in a missile would be devastating anyway. Missile hits ship,penetrates (like those anti-bunker missiles) explodes, shockwave tears the innards of the ship apart (as missile warhead interacts with ship's atmosphere). Not to mention the kinetic impact in the first place.
MANTIS Pics:
(http://www.theunderdogs.org/games/m/mantis/mantis-c.jpg)
(http://www.theunderdogs.org/games/m/mantis/mantis.jpg)
The review: "Mantis is one of the least known Microplay / Microprose games ever made, and for good reason: it is a mediocre ship-to-ship flight combat simulator that offers nothing new to fans of the genre. As M. Evan Brooks observes in his mini-review: "[the game] accomplished its mission adequately, but without dash or superlatives. The CD version was much more challenging, although even here, the challenge seemed to be more of the same." The graphics and sound are adequate, but most missions (even the extra ones in CD version) are of the boring kill-everything-in-sight variety. Overall, a very disappointing release from Microplay, maker of such underdogs as Midwinter series and Sea Rogue. Fans of space combat games should definitely play / replay numerous better games, such as the Wing Commander series.
Note: This download is the floppy version, with speech add-on included."
Is on the money on only 2 things: Its shoot-em-all in sight missions which are the only kind of mission you get throught 95% of the game and its long.
What this guy didnt mention is that its the only game so far (and this review was done waaaay back then) to use realistic newtonian flight, a VERY intuitive radar system (much, much better than Wing Commander's.. the one in MANTIS is almost 3-D! Back in those days! wow!) and a very helpful autopilot systems. Id say this is a space combat SIM, not a space combat GAME.
You could also try out Independence War (I-War) , its good graphics and newtonian flight model are excellent, albeit the game royally SUCKS. If it wasnt for the incredible flight model, it'd a waste of hard disk space.
Finally, while not a real-flight physics game, check out BATTLECRUISER MILLENIUM. (http://www.3000ad.com)
-
Trade Wars 2002! (http://www.franknputer.com) :D
-
I participated in the JumpGate open beta test. It's pretty cool. Much like the old PC game, Elite.
Now, it's a pay per play setup, much like Aces High.
-
I was in Jumpgate Beta as well. It sucks, royally. Only thing that game has very well done is its music and the laser fire fx.
-
Never heard of such an online game (yet) BUT:
-Try Independence War (http://www.gamesdomain.com/gdreview/zones/reviews/pc/dec97/iwar.html) and its sequel Edge of Chaos (http://www.gamesdomain.com/gdreview/zones/reviews/pc/jul01/edge.html) . Nice space sim with newtonian physics.
-read the Night's Dawn trilogy (The Reality dysfunction, the Neutronium Alchemist, the Naked God), by Peter F. Hamilton...you'll love it ;)
-
This is NOT online, but it is a pretty good space simulator:
Orbiter
(http://www.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/~martins/orbit/gallery20.jpg) (http://www.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/~martins/orbit/orbit.html)
You can go through an entire shuttle mission from launch, docking with ISS, to landing. Also, you can fly some more advanced ships and fly to the moon, Mars, or any other planet. There's a cool rotating station in lunar orbit that is really challenging to dock at. Orbiter is free to download/use. :)
-
Yep Sancho, that's a GREAT sim and improving rapidly!
I had the chance to speak to its creator recently and he said he was preparing a new version to be released soon :)
If you are into space, seriously speaking, try orbiter.
The new url is: http://www.orbitersim.com
Daniel, aka Cyrano
-
I downloaded orbiter before I made this post (saw a small add for it in a Computer Gamming World issue). It is another MS Space Simulator. Very complex. I think I might enjoy it.
However, I think it is generally too complex for an adventure game. I do want real space, complete with orbits and trajectories, but it's hard to balance that with the need to move the game along. Spending all night just getting into orbit wouldn't make for a great space sim where the real goal is to earn a living in space.
There are a few online pay-to-play games that I am aware of.
1. Earth and Beyond from WestWood Studios.
2. Jumpgame
3. Darkspace.
I'm not too framiliar with how their gameplay will work. I need to check on the some more.
Now, back when the old ICI crew (Pyro and HiTech included) were working on WarBirds together they did have a space sim going, Planetary Raiders. It never took off, mainly because their physics and game balancing never really worked well. As I stated above, in air to air combat a machinegun works because you can do manuvers that use gravity and wingloading to outsmart your opponent. In space there is no such thing. Thus it should be more like old warships. Infrequent single shots that really count if they connect.
I doubt that HiTech and Pyro have any interest in this genre.
If you ever go into gamming book stores a good pen and paper game that is about what I am looking for is the Jovian Chronicles. They're the same gus who did Heavy Gear. Anime style sci-fi games, but with one foot in reality at the same time. Granted, Jovian Chronicles use giant robots flying in space that isn't realistic, but they try to keep most of it real.
Another good source I refer to about futuristic spaceship combat is the Aliens Colonial Marine Tech Manual. Aliens, as in the facehugger, chestburster, eyeless monsteres that stalk Sigorny Weaver/Ripley. The section in the back has fairly reasonably sounding info about how the military cruisers conduct normal space warfare.
Although Heavy Gear failed to be a contender with MechWarrior (since Activision lost that license to Microsoft), I think the Jovian Chronicles would work.
(http://www.dp9.com/tour/JOVIAN/PATHFINDER.GIF) (http://www.dp9.com/tour/JOVIAN/Poseidon.GIF)
Again, I doubt it will ever become a computer game.
-
Uhhh Jumpgate....... Mining, minig, mining.... boooring :D
Sancho, that Shuttle thing looks neat, Downloading now :)
-
"As I stated above, in air to air combat a machinegun works because you can do manuvers that use gravity and wingloading to outsmart your opponent"
In space, a machine gun (well, most likely a magnetic rail gun since you gunpowder wont ignite in vacuum) would still work quite well. Think about it, in air combat you have to get CLOSE to your opponent to hit him...thanks to friction and gravity. In space, once the bullet goes, it has the same punch at 2 meters and at 50 kilometers away. Being much, much cheaper than lobbing a missile, a ship with "machine guns" (which would fire cannon rounds actually, 30mm rounds? 50mm?) would spray the areas where the enemy vessel is likely to be (like deflection shooting) and where its likely to evade to. Thanks to the refire rate, saturation fire would be more effective than lobbing a missile (which in space would be easy to shoot down and if it missed the target, is highly unlikely to get a 2nd pass at target due to delta-v / fuel issues).
-
Tac, the problem would be the actual "punch" that the round would have, since we would only have the inertial mass of the object, the damage would come mainly from the impact velocity.
In order to achieve a high impact velocity, either the target should be moving towards the bullet or you would need a pretty damn big magnetic cannon to accelerate it.
If that was feasible, then the deflector technology would be developed (in theory, it's possible to ionize a small object from quite afar and deviate it from its trajectory just enough to miss the target.
IMO, space battles would be fought from quite a short distance to avoid deflection or with guided missiles (unaffected by the deflectors). Then again missiles could be detected and destroyed by this magnetic cannons :D
So much for Science Fiction... :)
Daniel, aka Cyrano
-
Gunpowder would ingite perfectly well in a vacuum or underwater - even the ancient blackpowder. That is an advantage of having an oxidizer as a part of a mix.
Actually, gunpowder ignites inside the shell/barrel anyway, so it couldn't care less if there is vacuum outside or not.
A bigger space ship will have a huge advantage in combat due to extra sensor and computing power and ammo for the point-defence and offencive weapons and armor - the volume/weight is increased as a cube of size while the surface (that has to be protected) as square.
As a ship gets twice as big, it can mount four times the weapons/sensors but 8 times the ammunition.
It's armor weight per total weight ratio will get twice as good with the same armor thickness.
A big ship with unlimited computing power and ammo will have a huge advantage over a small "fighter".
Any fighter would have to shoot from extreme distances and the large ship would either easily evade dense stream of dumb progectiles or "shoot down" scattered ones with it's own bullets.
The best weapons to hit a big ship would seem to be either a long thin dumb rods (smallest crossection/large mass) shot in packs (like a shotgun) or small missles that would be able to move sidewise erratically and generate some ECM to avoid being shot dowm.
That is if anyone cares to hit a spaceship with a stone-age technology.
An x-ray laser nuclear warhead/torpedo launched from far away and detonated miles from the target to direct a pack of light-speed X-ray beams at the target would be a logical device.
BTW, the current modern fighters X35, F22 etc. are most likely the last manned models in history, no reason to expect that space combat would ever have to be manned.
miko
-
Would Star Wars Galaxies be out of the question?
Should release sometime this year.
-
space combat will be in an expansion for SWG. don't expect that aspect of SWG until 2003 at the earliest.
As for the rest... Any conjecture on actual space combat weaponry is just that... conjecture. :)
-
Originally posted by Nifty
...As for the rest... Any conjecture on actual space combat weaponry is just that... conjecture. :)
I'll second that...but unless anti-g technology is quickly developped, I think space battles will have much in common with modern submarines battle: the first one who detects the other(s) with passive sensors will have almost won.
-
http://www.eve-online.com
XNachoX
Proud member of the 56th FG
-------------------------
(http://dba.gamepoint.net/images/dogbert1.gif) (http://dba.gamepoint.net/images/dogbert.gif)
Dogbert. Kind director of Human Resources.
-
I've sat and thought about what this genre lacks and came up with yet another problem that I see in space games.
They don't use the planets.
Sure, they have planets in them, but most of the time your flying between space stations. Planets are often just background artwork. What is wrong with allowing the player to enter the atmosphere and land on the world in question?
About space weaponry. I beleave that guided missles will probably be the first weapons seen in the first space battle. I doubt you will see things like railguns or cannons (yes, gunpowder DOES work in space) except as short ranged weapons. The distances in space are so vast that a cannon won't hit much unless its a hell of a giant. Thats also heavy. Weight is the bane of all spaceships. Thus you need lightwieght weapons. A cruise missle isn't a bad first weapon. Even if you don't use it, you can still use its fuel if your need to for whatever reason.
Energy weapons, like lasers seem logical too as they are much longer ranged, a HELL of a lot faster and difficult to dodge, don't need ammo, and already exist as experimental weapons for space warfare. The real life USAF has two modified testbed Boeing 747s that have a big laser in the nosecone for shooting down incoming missles. They're from President Reagens "Star Wars" program.
Both also have something guns don't, including rail guns. Recoil. A machinegun will send you flying back as you fire it. Ditto for a 16 inch gun in space. Granted, that might actually be an asset in space combat (get in range, fire, get out), but so far from what I have seen most spacecraft right now are fragile. Building the thing heavy enough to take the recoil is added weight, and slows you down.
Warships will probably also be stealth ships. Wet Navy ones on the oceans are already being created that way. Seems to me that the spaceship ones will too.
-
Well, the thing is that unless the Vulcans come visit us, I doubt we will ever have armed spaceships... who are we going to fight against?
Asteroids?
We can't even get the funds to construct a "simple" international space station (most of the technology has been developed prior to its fabrication and proved reliable), so building two armed spaceships that can fight against each other is soooooooooo far away (my wild guess is no less than a millenia).
Besides, in case we actually found someone to fight against, we'd have to send the "battleship" some 3000 years to reach its destination. :)
Oh well, I'm getting depressed... :D
So much space...
Daniel, aka Cyrano
-
DL'd the game last night pretty kewl but really not for the i just wanna have fun beginner :) Btw is it me or is there no sound in the game?
-
Space is silent :D
-
Originally posted by XNachoX
http://www.eve-online.com
dude this game looks sweet as hell i signed up for the beta, hope i get in.
-
Signed in BETA too :cool: !
Nacho, btw, you owe me a new KBoard...wrecked by flows of saliva....
-
A 10 meter long magnetic tube can propel a small projectile to nearly 4 times the speed of sound before it exits the "barrel". Its been done earthside, with the huge problem being that you need to maintain a vacuum to achieve it. That's the basics behind NASA's Mass Driver delivery system (being researched). Just think that with mere magnets we can propel a passenger train weighing TONS and TONS of kilos to very high speeds (bullet trains)... and without a vacuum! And how fast are the bullet trains that are being designed to work in vacuum travel? FAST. Damn fast.
In space, having vacuum for granted, you could make a machine gun with those principles (in fact, if it hasnt been already designed and tested by the US gov's "black programs" id be VERY surprised!). You could also have weapons firing slower projectiles to cause more damage to the surface of the target.. a high speed projectile in space is more likely to make a hole in one side and another on the other side since it doesnt have time to transfer all its kinetic energy to the target.. and not much damage may be done, but a relatively slow flying projectile (400mph?) would be able to impact and fully x-fer its kinetic E and create some serious damage. It all depends on what you want to do with the weapon.
"Gunpowder would ingite perfectly well in a vacuum or underwater - even the ancient blackpowder. That is an advantage of having an oxidizer as a part of a mix.
Actually, gunpowder ignites inside the shell/barrel anyway, so it couldn't care less if there is vacuum outside or not."
Yes, but the gas pressure on the barrel would dissipate at a much faster rate than on earth (where you fire stuff under 1 atmosphere of pressure) and thus have less power to propel the projectile. Besides, a magnet does it better and far cheaper.
"A big ship with unlimited computing power and ammo will have a huge advantage over a small "fighter"."
Not if that fighter has missiles. Or if that fighter has 2 dozen others like him firing missiles at the cap ship at the same time.
"Any fighter would have to shoot from extreme distances and the large ship would either easily evade dense stream of dumb progectiles or "shoot down" scattered ones with it's own bullets."
Large ships have larger inertias to overcome, no matter how poweful an engine it has.Besides, a spray of bullets is hard to evade with such big vessels.. quite a few are likely to hit. A fighter on the other hand would be able to "jink" to avoid defensive fire and get close to the cap ship (though I doubt getting close to a cap ship would be something a fighter would want to do hehe) . I would also consider shooting down a bullet with another bullet to be not only extremely improbable, but also impractical. A missile, being large and having an engine perhaps, but not a bullet.
"An x-ray laser nuclear warhead/torpedo launched from far away and detonated miles from the target to direct a pack of light-speed X-ray beams at the target would be a logical device."
Too expensive imo. Remember your best weapons are done by the lowest bidder. ;)
Magnetic rail guns do not create recoil. Magnets do all the work.
-
Yes..that game does look sweet as hell. signed up the other day, and if you look in the message boards u can find some pretty interesting things about how they use physics and stuff, and yes, those are videos and Screenshots from the game :D
-
the ingame video looks sweet as all hell.
the sound of the missle thing hitting the ship is good.
-
Actually, gunpowder ignites inside the shell/barrel anyway, so it couldn't care less if there is vacuum outside or not."
Yes, but the gas pressure on the barrel would dissipate at a much faster rate than on earth (where you fire stuff under 1 atmosphere of pressure) and thus have less power to propel the projectile.
I'd have thought the projectile would travel faster because there wouldn't be a buildup of air in the barrel in front of the projectile.
-
Originally posted by Tac
"Gunpowder would ingite perfectly well in a vacuum or underwater - even the ancient blackpowder. That is an advantage of having an oxidizer as a part of a mix.
Actually, gunpowder ignites inside the shell/barrel anyway, so it couldn't care less if there is vacuum outside or not."
Yes, but the gas pressure on the barrel would dissipate at a much faster rate than on earth (where you fire stuff under 1 atmosphere of pressure) and thus have less power to propel the projectile. Besides, a magnet does it better and far cheaper.
Wrong. Outside atmosphere has only a negative effect on the pressure inside the barrel (relative pressure= pressure inside - pressure outside). Hence, muzzle velocity would be higher in vacuum.
But this kind of weapon would only be useful at very short range as a last ditch line of defense, or against non-maneuvering targets.
About ship's inertia and maneuvering: don't forget the limit will be the human body. So if a big ship can attain 10 Gs acceleration, it will be as maneuverable as a 'fighter', with the advantage of better sensors, better defense weapons and bigger offensive weapons (longer range, smarter). Only advantages of a small ship would be price and reduced detectability.
-
Nashwan, you are correct. A normal rifle will work better in space than it does on the ground. All air does is get in the way and slow the bullet down. Hell, you don't even need a rifle in space. A smoothbore will work fine because even with the bullet spinning in a random direction, there is no air to cause the bullet to hook like a curveball.
However, it does have recoil which will send the shooter backwards.
Magnetic rail guns do not create recoil. Magnets do all the work.
Wrong, that is not how physics works. It is irrelavent how you move an object. Gunpowder, muscle power, magnetic, they all work the same. For every action there is an equal and oposite reaction. You fling a solid hunk of steel out a railgun, it will push back on the railgun (and the spaceship it is mounted on). For example a 1 kilogram bullet flung out of a 10 kilogram railgun at a speed of 100 meters per second will send the railgun backwards at a speed of 10 meters per second. Force = Mass * Speed.
Railguns do have one way that they could be used that do NOT create recoil...well, they do, but using two railguns in opposition and firing them both at the same time. Build two accelerators in a ring shape, one accelerating a bullet clockwise, and another counterclockwise. If you only build one accelerator ring the bullet will accelerate inside the ring one direction, causing the ship to rotate the oposite direction. With two they counteract each other.
Then at the right time you shut off the magnets and open doors on the rings leting the bullets fly off on a tangent.
This was the way the Dreadnaught Corvette you controlled in the first Independence War worked. It basically was a detachable space shuttle on the front (you never took it down into a planet atmosphere though, but it was a shuttlecraft), a particle acelerator ring in the middle (instead of a railgun), and a big rocket engine nozzle on the back.
Hans.
-
Well, the thing is that unless the Vulcans come visit us, I doubt we will ever have armed spaceships. Who are we going to fight against?
Despite what Star Trek would have you beleave, the future is going to be the same as today. We're going to be shooting at each other, just with new methods and in new locations. People will fight over something. We always have, we always will.
Hans.
-
Hehe not as long as it's SOOOOOOOOOOO expensive to be out there :D:D:D:D
Oh, and about the future... I think I'm as far off as you can be. Nobody knows what the future will be, and that's the good thing about it :)
Matrix-alike? Blade Runner-alike? T2 perhaps? Nonsense, just wait and see :D
Daniel, aka Cyrano
-
1)G-Forces: The only game to have ever tried to have G-forces and newtonian stuff was TERMINUS. And it was never finished. A real shame, the game showed promise
Absolutely false. "Frontier: Elite 2" and "Frontier: First encounters" both were space simulators with full newtonian mechanics represented in a very very cool way.
Both games are currently freeware, so you can look for them. A bit lacking in graphics now, but both are well worth a try (were bug-ridden when they first appeared, now the freeware versions are fully patched and stable).
-
I agree that the future is open and that everything is possible. However, from our past history and evolution, we can try to guess how it will probably be like.
Take a look at how the fighters evolved since WWI: always bigger, heavier, faster. Compare a Sopwith Camel in size and weight with a P51, than compare this P51 with a F15...
Range of weapons and sensors has increased dramatically too.
Saying that combat spaceship will be small and will fight at short distances is one of the less probable hypothesis. It would be much safer to stay in a big ship at extreme range and launch unmanned smart drones which will do the dirty work and take all the risks (besides, unmanned vehicles would be able to withstand much higher acceleration than manned fighters).
There is one constant tho: man's imagination to make life miserable to other men is infinite.
As usual, edited for typos and weird use of Shakespeare's tongue
-
never heard of those games r4m, will look them up, thanks :)
-
WHAT? you never heard about David Braven's Elite?!...well, those are its sequels :).
Tac, look in any search engine by the words Elite, Frontier and FFE. You can also look in the website: http://www.frontier.co.uk/
They used to be DOS games, but there was an special application to make FFE run under windows, wich is VERY cool (I have it in my HD).
Give it a try...really immersing. I still love it and is a 1995 game! :)