Re: [nbos] Astro3 Experimental Build"Mike Oliver" Wed Nov 25th, 2009
I agree about the lack of physics in Star Wars & Star Trek - but they
are probably the two best-known and generally popular SciFi packages
around. This suggests that, for the purposes of role-playing games, the
physics is of less concern than the visuals and action to which the star
systems form a back drop. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to have the
physics as accurate as possible, but we're talking about a game aid here
(and what a game aid!!!)
The way you suggest of producing a graphic treatment of a multiple
system is almost exactly what the MegaTraveller World Builder supplement
provides and would provide for my requirements. I'm not technical enough
to understand how Ed produces the System diagrams but it seems to me
that this facility can be programmed separately from the main programme
and called by it as needed, taking appropriate parameters (this may well
be how it is done anyway). Maybe this provides the necessary freedom to
tailor-make something in line with what's being suggested here.
Possibly, an entirely separate facility could be designed and sold as an
adjunct to AS proper, providing a high level of graphic treatment to
individual solar systems but utilizing data from AS and linking-in to
the facilities of FM8 to develop the planetary surfaces as maps. I'd buy
[mailto:nbossoftware-bounces-at-nbos.com] On Behalf Of Robert Graham
Sent: 24 November 2009 21:59
Subject: Re: [nbos] Astro3 Experimental Build
Depends Star Wars IMHO isn't the greatest example of any scifi.. oh it
made SCIFI 'famous' don't get me wrong, but 70's and then the prequals
to me are not staple of Scifi, especially when you notice that apart
from Star Trek, most of the modern Scifi does pay at least lip service
to the realities of Physics.. Here are some examples.
1. Babylon 5 - Well given JMS actually went to NASA to check most
of his designs and the way they behave (except for those using
Gravimetric drive (ie the whitestars being able to move how they do)
2. Space Above and Beyond - Used Real Physics when it suited them.
3. BSG (New) - Uses Real Physics oh 90% of the time.
4. Star Trek - Doesn't use physics 90% of the time.
5. Stargate - Depends on the episode as to if they use real
Physics, though Universe seems to at least use it more realistically.
The thing that gets me is people are continuing to think that stars
should all effect every planet, can I point out some 'real' physics
here, Jupiter is the largest mass in our system outside of the sun, yes
it does effect the pull of gravity on everything else in the solar
system, but the suns overrides even Jupiter, now Astro Ignores gravity
data anyway.. it's not actually truely simulating the physics (sorry if
you think it is but it's not) How can I prove this.. Remove Jupiter from
an Astro Solarsystem chart, the orbits don't 'change' why? Because Astro
takes 3 points of data to make the orbit *shrugs* so long as no one
wants crazy figure eight style orbits etc then i don't see the 'issues'
with having a multipul star solar system set up like this:
First star on list = Primary.
Second Star on list has a 'distance' like a planet and is set to orbit
the first star.
Then each 'star' has it's planets list and those planets and moons are
unaffected by the other stars.. of course As I've said I'd like to have
a more fluid ability to zoom etc on the maps.. so that we can center a
star zoom down and when we get close enough have the system show up
first with the planets then based on how close a planet is to the camera
it's children (moons) after all you just tell the application data to
'cull' anything beyond a certain 'view point' of the camera, it would
open up the option of having the planets able to be set up with trade
Because the biggest 'down fall' i find at the moment with Astro is the
lack of support for simple IN SYSTEM design, ie I want to detail the
Hell out of one system with all the major trade lanes etc i can't do
that and get a visual output.
Nbossoftware mailing list