http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/...8/rogue-system
Guy is trying to make what essentialy is Falcon 4 (BMS) in space. Why aren't we salivating all over it? Shame it looks like it's not gonna get funded. I would love to play it.
Throw some dough at it. Maybe he can make it.
Are you telling me that a fighter startup takes half an hour?
Nope, it's a presentation of systems already modeled. Watch it, for me it's great.
1-man space fighters don't make a lot of sense for a large variety of reasons, and to handwave that into making sense sort of clashes with the study sim nature of this. I really love where the guy is going with making a hardcore space sim, but if he's going to do it right, it needs to be with multi-crewed ships (2-4 players to fly it). And not in a "one guy pulls up until the enemy is in the gun arc while the other guy points his cursor over the enemy" kind of way.Originally Posted by rufuske
Guy is trying to make what essentialy is Falcon 4 (BMS
Watch the third part. Larger ships with multiple stations operated by different players in multiplayer (!!!) are one of the features, ca 5 min, when he talks about extensions.
Last edited by rufuske; March 16 2013 at 10:01:00 PM.
The thing I don't like is that he wants money for a core module, he's going for the DCS structure which works fine for DCS.. Except the DCS core module is free. I get the impression that he's actively seeking to abandon whatever he gets money for immediately after he can release it in a workable condition so that he can work on the plugin modules. Which would be fine except they aren't what I'd be paying for if I backed it.
That's why I haven't backed it.
Poland treats me like shit and I hate them as a result of it
Such as?
Missiles and unmanned drones would be more effective in space.Such as?
Much like what murika has been striving for. And yet F-22 isn't unmanned and neither is a missile.Missiles and unmanned drones would be more effective in space.Such as?
And doesn't go in space.Much like what murika has been striving for. And yet F-22 isn't unmanned and neither is a missile.Missiles and unmanned drones would be more effective in space.Such as?
Poland treats me like shit and I hate them as a result of it
Because space is so very different.And doesn't go in space.Much like what murika has been striving for. And yet F-22 isn't unmanned and neither is a missile.Missiles and unmanned drones would be more effective in space.Such as?
>implying you can't cross 10g in atmo
>implying no cost efficiency in space
>implying AI flexibility
etc
Whatever your perception a manned interceptor is always nice.
Its also 17 years old.Because space is so very different.And doesn't go in space.Much like what murika has been striving for. And yet F-22 isn't unmanned and neither is a missile.Missiles and unmanned drones would be more effective in space.Such as?
>implying you can't cross 10g in atmo
>implying no cost efficiency in space
>implying AI flexibility
etc
Whatever your perception a manned interceptor is always nice.
The Reaper around 12 years old making it a better indication as to where USAF money is being spent now.
Come back when there are autonomous fighters you'd let cruise near your commercial airliners because that's what we are talking about here.Its also 17 years old.Because space is so very different.And doesn't go in space.Much like what murika has been striving for. And yet F-22 isn't unmanned and neither is a missile.Missiles and unmanned drones would be more effective in space.Such as?
>implying you can't cross 10g in atmo
>implying no cost efficiency in space
>implying AI flexibility
etc
Whatever your perception a manned interceptor is always nice.
The Reaper around 12 years old making it a better indication as to where USAF money is being spent now.
No, im pretty sure we are talking about unmanned drones. Unmanned does not mean AI.Come back when there are autonomous fighters you'd let cruise near your commercial airliners because that's what we are talking about here.Its also 17 years old.Because space is so very different.And doesn't go in space.Much like what murika has been striving for. And yet F-22 isn't unmanned and neither is a missile.Missiles and unmanned drones would be more effective in space.Such as?
>implying you can't cross 10g in atmo
>implying no cost efficiency in space
>implying AI flexibility
etc
Whatever your perception a manned interceptor is always nice.
The Reaper around 12 years old making it a better indication as to where USAF money is being spent now.
1 man fighters make perfect sense because they're totally fuckin' rad.
Unlike in atmosphere, your ability to influence your vector in space is hard capped by the amount of reaction mass you can carry. The 60-70 kilos of human that you need to carry in a 1-man fighter is not only that much less reaction mass that you can carry, but it also decreases the effectiveness of whatever remains. Runs some numbers through the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation and you'll see that adding a tiny amount of payload mass requires a significantly bigger amount of reaction mass to be added in order to achieve the same deltaV. Now factor in that if you were to put them into a battlestar style carrier, you're not only carrying the additional mass (and life support requirements) of all the people to fly the things, but also the additional reaction mass required to move the people inside the fighters (which are themselves severely nerfed due to having to carry a person), and you might as well forget the one-man fighters and carry 4x the fighter payload in large semi-smart missiles.Such as?
And if you're worried about your missiles being shot down: anything capable of hitting your missiles will be even more capable of hitting your 1-man fighters, as your fighters are not only less mass efficient, but their evasive capabilities are severely nerfed due to the physical limits of a human on board.
In order for multi crewing to be fun, there need to be distinct reasons for the crew to be there, basically making the ship unmanagable without people manning all the stations. If you've got flyable 1-man fighters that make sense in-universe, there are too many things being handwaved into existence for there to be any point (from a players perspective) to having a big ship with a crew.
Dangerous waters was a great example of multi-crewing done right. Also Artemis (kind of). I think for a "hardcore" space game to really take off, it needs to go that route in order to be anything more than dumbed down WWII dogfights without the altitude<->speed tradeoff.
Last edited by dpidcoe; March 17 2013 at 02:36:16 AM.
Burnsides law of space combat / rule of cool.
The problem is that once the cool wears off, there's not much of a game left. It's especially glaring when it's a game like this one with a lot of detail put into the systems.
Last edited by dpidcoe; March 17 2013 at 02:43:55 AM.
oh wow
Last i heard netwon's third law works everywhere.
You know those big vent thingies on the front of aircraft? Those are for scooping in reaction mass, heating it up, and then blowing it out the back at a higher velocity than it entered. Or do the jet engines in russia carry their own tanks full of compressed air?oh wow
Last i heard netwon's third law works everywhere.
Only a problem and a case of cool wearing off if you're possibly the most horribly boring bitternerd on the forums who hates everything in existance.Burnsides law of space combat / rule of cool.
The problem is that once the cool wears off, there's not much of a game left. It's especially glaring when it's a game like this one with a lot of detail put into the systems.
Yep, sounds about right.
On the other hand, not sure what's the point of this game. Hardcore space sim? You need to invent so many things to even make this work (otherwise we'd be flying in space or at least have ideas as to the how) that i'm not sure how much of a "real sim" it can be at all.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks