Can't we have just this much -><.- 3D in FT?

In a message dated 99-02-01 15:37:01 EST, you write:

<< OK, I understand (and agree now that I'v played for a while) that 3D is
basically abstracted out of FT. The only place where this
_really_breaks
 down is around planets. Forget big basketball sized planets - they're
 too cumbersome. I mean normal 1-2" size planets.

A space simulation really fails IMHO if you treat a planet as an impassable
object. There should be such a thing as 'above' or 'below' a planet, when it's
a) easy to deal with in FT (even with minis) and b) adds interesting tactical
variety to a game

Simple (top of the head) rules for flying over or under a planet. 1) When
writing thrust orders, declare whether you're going over or under the planet.
Cost do do so is 1 thrust. If you don't actually reach the planet, the thrust
is lost. If you don't pay the thrust and touch the planet, you crash. 2) You
are considered over or under the planet if you are less than 1" from the limb.
Beyond this distance the 3D aspect can be abstracted away. 3) Ships that are
over the planet can't fire at ships that are under it and vice versa. There
are no other fire restrictions. (4) 'Planetary batteries' that are on the
'top' or 'bottom' of the planet shouild be able to buy 360 degree arcs.

In a message dated 99-02-01 21:27:53 EST, you write:

<< Perhaps I'm overlooking something--why not do "one side of" and
"other side
 of" the planet?  Which works with the rules as is.    What situation
are you trying unsuccessfully to reproduce? >> Using a scale that was posted
to the list a long time ago the earth is 13" in diamiter and the moon
something like 3. And you also have the asteroids.
-Stephen