Listen to Bambuz, he obviously knows a lot about this field.

I think you're confusing him with Kell. 

makes sense, you make decisions like that... (Though I don't find the circular gravity thing unbelievable.)

If you're not creating a whole universe that is trying to stay internally consistent, then it's easier to just concentrate on short term believability (which in itself is hard of course).

If you are going to create a whole universe then you have to spend some time thinking both the rules and also the ways you still can break the rules to just make it presentable. 

surely, the same ship that travels through space wouldn't also land during the invasion; it would stop in orbit and then release hundreds or thousands of smaller landing craft right? Just like the large, ocean-worthy troop transport ships didn't beach themselves during the invasion of normandy, they stopped at a distance from shore and launched smaller landing boats.

Regarding realism, the whole idea of aliens traveling across space to invade earth requires so many leaps of imagination it's hard to make any claims of "realism" since we have to invent biology and technology just to have the scenario happen. E.g. what is a "realistic" faster-than-light drive? There is no such thing, based on our current knowledge of physics.

So, I agree with what kell said in that you can at best pursue "believability" because realism is out the window. Like with the troop transport ships and landing crafts, and the dogfights in starwars, and the submarine battles of star trek, your best approach will be to make heavy use of analogs to human experience. 

going to point out the flaw here:

Neither do they travel through "interstellar" space, since by definition they remain orbiting earth and don't travel between stars.

because it is too obvious to mention, nor the maneuver I was alluding to to buttress my point in using 'interstellar' instead of 'interplanetary' in my choice of words. However, that purpose is the flaw in my own argument because now it is also used in chasing comets. 

http://steamcommunity.com/id/ankh_dk 

gosh you're so smart HT, so smart you don't even have to bother with a rebuttal, right?
I'm afraid it's not really obvious enough for me though, crushingly thick as I am.

You're still deliberately ignoring the perfectly valid and comprehensible point I was making: star wars starfighters don't move in a way that would be possible in space, they fly like aeroplanes. Everyone gets that.
I don't know what your problem is. 

add me to!!!

http://steamcommunity.com/id/trinca 

would be a great name for a black exploitation sci-fi thriller. Think "Shaft" meets "The Andromeda Strain" 

 

you cut-up 

obviously,

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/94/Xwing_vs_tie_fighter_cover.jpg/255px-Xwing_vs_tie_fighter_cover.jpg

the tie-fighter and X-Wing were not designed aerodynamics in mind. Look at those flimsy wings. The combat is realistic in terms of space movement, what you and Starbuck are seeing are distorted interpretations created by your earthling centric minds because you want to relive the glory of aces on high. That is not what happening in Star Wars at all. 

in space, when you fly forward, you can turn and point your nose to where you are coming from and still keep going where you were going... Like spacecraft and satellites do.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8BbrXT97SE

But X-wings don't do that. They fly swoops like WW2 airplanes.

That's what the whole fuss is about. 

The combat is realistic in terms of space movement

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton 

as to which thread breaks out into a flame war first:) 

...there I am struggling with the existence of God and the Problem of Evil and Cacodaemony rears its ugly head.

DooM is everywhere ;) 

starwars 'physics'. i hate that like every space flying game has them. :\

btw, kell, did you actually design the Shirow ship on your site? it's not really clear if all 3 ships there are from movies (as the sulaco is).
if you did design it, nice one. it's a sweet silhouette. :)

i loved the look of the aliens sulaco ship when i first saw it. it struck a chord that i never found in other mainstream scifi. i like the more 'utilitarian' approach to ship design. i wish we could see that in games more often. 

The combat is realistic in terms of space movement

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac...

take the easy side of a argument. 

starwars 'physics'. i hate that like every space flying game has them. :\

As I recall, Frontier, the sequel to Elite, had very realistic physics. At least, it allowed for the facing-reverse that bambuz described.

btw, kell, did you actually design the Shirow ship on your site? it's not really clear if all 3 ships there are from movies (as the sulaco is).
if you did design it, nice one. it's a sweet silhouette. :)

Yes I did. I designed the Ohio as well, extrapolated from a very small and simple detail in one of the diagrams in the afformentioned Aliens Technical Manual.

i loved the look of the aliens sulaco ship when i first saw it. it struck a chord that i never found in other mainstream scifi.

As I say on my page, I believe it's the most influential ship design because it manages to strike such an effective balance between 'realism' and 'believability'. It just feels right somehow. 

and Bambuz/Lunaran,
what part of the word 'earthling' made you think that post was serious? 

 

yeah, I thought those letters had more gravitas than the others. 

Warp Spasm (by ijed)
Vertical Map Pack (by trinca/lurker/rudl/spirit)

http://underworld.planetquake.gamespy.com/index.html 

 

Of course. 

nice reviews ;) thks