The "baffled" David Brewer, he say:
> Have I missed something? I like B5, indeed a few weeks ago I
Are you weird? No (not because of this, anyway. What you do in your own time
is your business. B-) ) Have you missed something? Perhaps.
> Indeed I'm hard pressed to recall any particular examples of
There are quite a few examples of Newtonian/3-D movement, mostly
involving fighters, especially StarFuries. Cases in point (from memory):
-- "Midnight on the Firing Line": Sinclair rotates 180 degrees to zap a
pursuing Raider
-- "Soul Hunter": Lots of tight, close-in manoeuvring using all the
StarFury's thrusters as Sinclair tries to grapple the tumbling Soul Hunter
ship
-- "Signs and Portents": Garibaldi vectors up and out of the line of
fire of a
Raider, then rotates nose-down to zap him as he overshoots
-- "Revelations": G'Kar's fighter escort 180's to stop pursuing Shadows
-- "The Fall of Night": The female Zeta Squadron pilot who dodges
Keffer's attack, then zaps him a la Garibaldi in S&P. Later, 'Furies strafe
the Centauri
BC, rotating nose-down to fire as they fly by
-- "Severed Dreams": The EarthForce reinforcements (including 2 Omegas)
rotate about their yaw axes to head for the jumpgate before the incoming
Minbari decide to attack
There are lots of other, smaller examples of ships and fighters uncoupling
their
heading from their facing -- a StarFury speciality.
> Ships, IIRC, move like... ships. Slowly and in the direction they
Oh, B5 isn't perfect -- look at Centauri and Raider fighters -- although
a lot of the seeming inaccuracies can be explained away as the product of POV
movement,
field drives, etc. -- if you really _want_ to explain it away. In
"reality", the FX people aren't clued up on what true Newtonian movement in
space looks like.
And, I have to admit, I can't even begin to justify the Shadows' habit of
"stopping" when a telepath jams them or they get hit by, say, a White Star's
BYEW...
> I don't even recall anything resembling a tactical manoeuvre,
Take a look at the episodes listed above, and you'll see some. The point is
that B5 has made more of an effort to do it right than any other series. Star
Trek is quite entitled to do what it likes regarding FTL movement, because
no-one
knows how (or _if_) that works, but they always mess up sub-light
flight, most
especially by equating thrust/power with _speed_ rather than
acceleration (so
FT has one up on them, anyway). Other series/films are either
deliberately or
through ignorance based on aircraft/ship movement. Only B5 has even
tried to get it right; they don't always succeed but, all in all, JMS and co.
do a much better job than any other show I know of.
That being the case, there is, I believe, a strong feeling among the members
of this list that a B5 game should do what the series itself hasn't been able
to
achieve completely -- namely, use a proper, correct-as-we-can-make-it,
playable Newtonian movement system that doesn't require a computer or a
qualification in navigation to use. Not an easy task, but worth the effort if
we can get it right or help someone else do it.
As far as the appeal of B5 and Sir Ike's laws go, I think it boils down to
what makes a good SF TV show (or book, story or film, for that matter). You've
got to have a good plot and good characters, and SFX are a big help (although
look at Dr Who, B7, early ST, etc.), but, to make it really work, it has to be
_believable_. Oh, sure, you can postulate FTL travel, transporters,
psionics and the like, but once you've done that, you have to work out how
they work and stick to the rules. To quote Larry Niven, internal consistency
is all. B5 has done this and, most of the time, they make the effort to play
out their conflicts within
these boundaries -- one of which is Newtonian physics. There are some
classic errors in B5, but they have at least tried.
So, yes, one of the attractions of B5 for me is that they base their visuals
on real physics (it also leads to some lovely scenes, like the StarFuries
strafing the BC, that you just don't get in other shows). And because of that,
I want B5 games to reflect those principles. And I think we can do it.
Phil
I agree with Phil.
Paul
----------
From: Phillip Atcliffe[SMTP:P-ATCLIFFE@wpg.uwe.ac.uk]
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 1997 8:29 AM
To: FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk
Subject: B5 and Sir Isaac - Reply
The "baffled" David Brewer, he say:
> Have I missed something? I like B5, indeed a few weeks ago I
Are you weird? No (not because of this, anyway. What you do in your own time
is your business. B-) ) Have you missed something? Perhaps.
> Indeed I'm hard pressed to recall any particular examples of
There are quite a few examples of Newtonian/3-D movement, mostly
involving fighters, especially StarFuries. Cases in point (from memory):
-- "Midnight on the Firing Line": Sinclair rotates 180 degrees to zap a
pursuing Raider
-- "Soul Hunter": Lots of tight, close-in manoeuvring using all the
StarFury's thrusters as Sinclair tries to grapple the tumbling Soul Hunter
ship
-- "Signs and Portents": Garibaldi vectors up and out of the line of
fire of a
Raider, then rotates nose-down to zap him as he overshoots
-- "Revelations": G'Kar's fighter escort 180's to stop pursuing Shadows
-- "The Fall of Night": The female Zeta Squadron pilot who dodges
Keffer's attack, then zaps him a la Garibaldi in S&P. Later, 'Furies strafe
the Centauri
BC, rotating nose-down to fire as they fly by
-- "Severed Dreams": The EarthForce reinforcements (including 2 Omegas)
rotate about their yaw axes to head for the jumpgate before the incoming
Minbari decide to attack
There are lots of other, smaller examples of ships and fighters uncoupling
their
heading from their facing -- a StarFury speciality.
> Ships, IIRC, move like... ships. Slowly and in the direction they
Oh, B5 isn't perfect -- look at Centauri and Raider fighters -- although
a lot of the seeming inaccuracies can be explained away as the product of POV
movement,
field drives, etc. -- if you really _want_ to explain it away. In
"reality", the FX people aren't clued up on what true Newtonian movement in
space looks like.
And, I have to admit, I can't even begin to justify the Shadows' habit of
"stopping" when a telepath jams them or they get hit by, say, a White Star's
BYEW...
> I don't even recall anything resembling a tactical manoeuvre,
Take a look at the episodes listed above, and you'll see some. The point is
that B5 has made more of an effort to do it right than any other series. Star
Trek is quite entitled to do what it likes regarding FTL movement, because
no-one
knows how (or _if_) that works, but they always mess up sub-light
flight, most
especially by equating thrust/power with _speed_ rather than
acceleration (so
FT has one up on them, anyway). Other series/films are either
deliberately or
through ignorance based on aircraft/ship movement. Only B5 has even
tried to get it right; they don't always succeed but, all in all, JMS and co.
do a much better job than any other show I know of.
That being the case, there is, I believe, a strong feeling among the members
of this list that a B5 game should do what the series itself hasn't been able
to
achieve completely -- namely, use a proper, correct-as-we-can-make-it,
playable Newtonian movement system that doesn't require a computer or a
qualification in navigation to use. Not an easy task, but worth the effort if
we can get it right or help someone else do it.
As far as the appeal of B5 and Sir Ike's laws go, I think it boils down to
what makes a good SF TV show (or book, story or film, for that matter). You've
got to have a good plot and good characters, and SFX are a big help (although
look at Dr Who, B7, early ST, etc.), but, to make it really work, it has to be
_believable_. Oh, sure, you can postulate FTL travel, transporters,
psionics and the like, but once you've done that, you have to work out how
they work and stick to the rules. To quote Larry Niven, internal consistency
is all. B5 has done this and, most of the time, they make the effort to play
out their conflicts within
these boundaries -- one of which is Newtonian physics. There are some
classic errors in B5, but they have at least tried.
So, yes, one of the attractions of B5 for me is that they base their visuals
on real physics (it also leads to some lovely scenes, like the StarFuries
strafing the BC, that you just don't get in other shows). And because of that,
I want B5 games to reflect those principles. And I think we can do it.
Phil
> In message <s33014a3.057@wpg.uwe.ac.uk> Phillip Atcliffe writes:
Or perhaps not. Let's see...
> >Indeed I'm hard pressed to recall any particular examples of
You have a good memory, BTW.
> -- "Midnight on the Firing Line": Sinclair rotates 180 degrees to zap
A 180. Thrust not applied across direction of travel.
> -- "Soul Hunter": Lots of tight, close-in manoeuvring using all the
Not sure what to make of this... I don't have a video handy and I don't recall
it well.
> -- "Signs and Portents": Garibaldi vectors up and out of the line of
Thrust not applied in a direction across that of travel.
> -- "Revelations": G'Kar's fighter escort 180's to stop pursuing
A 180. Thrust not applied across direction of travel.
> -- "The Fall of Night": The female Zeta Squadron pilot who dodges
Thrust not applied across direction of travel.
> -- "Severed Dreams": The EarthForce reinforcements (including 2
A 180. Thrust not applied across direction of travel.
> That being the case, there is, I believe, a strong feeling among the
There's certainly a strong feeling coming across, and I'm not knocking
Newtonian games in general. What has come across to me is an attitude that
only a vector movement game can capture the "spirit" of B5, and I think that
that assertion would be horseshit. Flying ships around in a vector movement
system in my, perhaps limited, understanding means rotating your ship to apply
thrust across the direction of movement, turning the ship through centripetal
forces, sliding diagonally and I certainly haven't seen that yet on TV. So
vector-based movement would produce battles quite unlike those on the
B5 programme.
B5 uses a very limited subset of the maneouvering open to thrusting spaceships
that obey Sir I.
So, frankly, anyone that feels emphatic that *only* a vector movement system
can capture the spirit of B5 can consider themselves scoffed at by Yours
Truely. If B5 Wars includes 180's and gives fighters a good attack in all
directions then that covers the Newtonian chrome. (Whether the rest of the
game is any cop I'm in no position to say.)
I'm not saying such a B5 vector game shouldn't be played, but I don't see why
Agents of Gaming should put up with any moaning about it being utterly
necessary.
> Are you weird? No (not because of this, anyway. What you do in your
There's a lot of jinking using the non-primary thrusters while Sinclair
tries to line up with the tunbling Soul Hunter ship.
> -- "Signs and Portents": Garibaldi vectors up and out of the line of
Errrr...better look again? I'm watching it now.:) There's quite a few
instances when the 'Furies use their 'bottom' and 'top' thrusters to change
facing, directions, and stop. They don't use continuous thrust, no, but they
are using thrust across the direction of travel.
> -- "The Fall of Night": The female Zeta Squadron pilot who dodges
Hmmm...I just popped out S&P and put this ep in...looked to me as if thrust
was applied across direction of travel.
Are you maybe meaning the main engines not being used other than in the
+/-
line of travel? 'Cause they are using side thrusters to alter heading,
direction, and speed (albeit generally to slow down if a speed change).
Mk
In message <01IGQPDG6EMQ9GWXUM@avion.stsci.edu> "Out of my mind. Back in
> five minutes." writes:
> >> -- "Signs and Portents": Garibaldi vectors up and out of the line
Well, yes, I was unclear perhaps. Obviously some thrust is being used across
the direction of travel to change heading whenever a 'Fury jinks and swoops
about like a plane. Or rotates like a mobile turret.
If you can show me a 'Fury turn 90 degrees and apply main thrusters to give a
centripetal force, or even just to slide diagonally, I'll be much more
impressed with the importance of thrust vectoring to B5 wargaming than I am
right now.
> If you can show me a 'Fury turn 90 degrees and apply main thrusters
Eek. I don't wanna be in a 'Fury which does that, thanks. ;-)
> or even just to slide diagonally, I'll
Now diagnolly we can do, but why use the main thrusters when the side
thrusters will do the job for you? Diagnol has been shown (albeit ever so
briefly, and you *could* interpret it as a 'swoop' since it happens so
fast and you don't get to see full follow-through - at least in the ep
I'm thinking of at the moment [signs&portents]) but uses the side thrusters.
I'll have to go back at some point here and rigorously rewatch 'Severed
Dreams' again to check their stuff.
Mk
If you examine the maneuvering of the Star Furies closely you will see that
the main engines are used in counter thrust operations to rotate the fighter.
When the rogue Minbari warship comes to blast B5 and Sheridan dispatches
squadrons to intercept them you can see this counter thrust operation as the
fighters turn to watch the Minbari fighters go by. We also see the use of
Newtonian mechanics by the White Star in many occasions. Once while in the gas
cloud of Jupiter it spins and thrust to reverse its direction of travel but
coasts for some time in reverse as it reduces momentum. Then we see it again
when the White Star is orbiting a planet and is about to come out of the
shadow of the planet and be spotted by a shadow warship. They know that in
order to prevent their coming out of the planetary shadow, that they'll have
to use the engines, thus revealing their position... In the end they drift
out. To those who scoff at the idea that a B5 game must have realistic
movement systems, I scoff back. As one who proposed a workable game system
with momentum rules, I want one to reflect the B5 universe properly. I have
not played B5 Wars but if Agents of Gaming just took their knowledge of Star
Fleet Battles and smudged it to fit B5, that would be unfortunate and a waste
of money. I'll play Full Thrust and my home grown game instead and save myself
the expense of a game that will not survive. Those who play SFB will continue
SFB, B5 wars will have a small market and die out. What a waste of an
excellent opportunity. Phil P.
In message <01IGREJ2YR4O9GXAA1@avion.stsci.edu> "Out of my mind. Back in
> five minutes." writes:
OK, I'll bite. Why not?
> >or even just to slide diagonally, I'll
Fair point. "Diagonal" was a misused term here, because I was thinking in game
terms (so we *can* yank this back to a gaming discussion) where movement is
parcelled out into discrete increments. I suppose I meant "parabolically". If
you're going from A to B, but pointing toward C then the fastest way to get to
B is to rotate your craft towards a point beyond B and burn those engines so's
you
get to B toot-sweet in a parabola. In a game this comes out of the
wash as a diagonal slide. This is, in my limited experience, how
things move in rotate-and-thrust-from-behind Newtonian games.
> I'll have to go back at some point here and rigorously rewatch
Did that. Some Starfuries "go turret", and the second group of Earthforce
ships "go 180". I'm not mechanic enough to consider exactly what the effect of
those humungous gyroscopes would be when they spin to astern...
In message <01IGREB4YMFM9GXAA1@avion.stsci.edu> "Out of my mind. Back in
> five minutes." writes:
Me neither. I thought that I was inferring something that was not deliberately
implied for inference. I inferred from the context, not the reference.
> >> Okay, it's a fine line 'tween the two. I put B5 in the category of
True... but in B5 we have a program often described as a steal from J.R.R.
Tolkien, and it would be difficult to be more fantastic. Nor
does anyone on Trek live on the Tower of Babel (that's Babel-on-5).
They both, I note, have irritatingly large numbers of prominent elves.
> and they keep coming up with this damned
OK, now you *have* lost me.