Mad Over FREELANCER!!!!

When the solar system formed, all the objects were traveling the same direction and upon the same plane. Everything rotated in the same direction as a whole, since it was flung off by the central stellar mass as it formed the star.

The majority of systems are supposed to be like this. One dead give-away that a body was originally an extrasolar object is it's rotational direction and inclination to the solar plane.

Or, at least, that's what my aging textbooks say.

No confusion; just wrong or right ... Only Solutions

Well there ya go. Flat solar systems are realistic. Too bad freelancer systems all include planets about 1km wide just a few km from a tiny sun. [sarcastic]gee, that's sure realistic[/sarcastic]

Too bad freelancer systems all include planets about 1km wide just a few km from a tiny sun.

You know, it's things like that that steer me towards passing on even a bargin-bin version of the Freelancer game. :D:D Well, that and all the bad press it received. Mouse over joystick is bad enough... but planets 1 km wide?

I really thought the industry was past all this. I mean, Privateer, Wing Commander all had to have small systems. The hardware just wasn't up to the challenge (though for Prophecy and Privateer II it should have been close).

The size of the systems is the first thing I noticed when I played EoC. I thought the technology had finally caught up, and figured, since PS was able to do it, all future space sim games would follow suit and feature large systems/planets/suns/etc.

Seems the industry might be headed in a different direction.

Hmmm. I wonder what sizes the systems are in X2... I'll have to post the INA on that. I'd like to know before I shell out the bucks for X2.

Damn you Particle Systems!!! You spoiled me forever! :D


<edit> Well, that takes care of that:

Question Posted by MichaelShane at INA forum: Nanoprobe (or anyone else who's snagged a copy of X2): Are the systems as large as, say, EoC? Or do they feature 1 km wide planets, as I hear Freelancer does? How realistic is celestial stuff in the game?


Answer Posted by Petec at INA forum: Systems are small, they seem to bee more like sectors or clumps of stations, only kms apart. and your ship is painfully slow. no LDS or realistic physics. But this is a very different game to EOC.
planets seem huge and look great but you cant fly around them like in I-war. They seem to be just a backdrop. Perhaps the game will open up later with further playing, but I doubt it. The Game focuses on trading, station bulding and plot discovery rather than realistic space flight.

No confusion; just wrong or right ... Only Solutions

ive always thought that the Engine and phyisics for Freelancer would be fantastic if set in and underwater setting. I mean if one was to merge Aqua (a fun arcady game i found, lacking in a few serious areas though) Freelancer (the trading engine is one of if not the best, and the voice overs are uber-realistic (detailed real-time transmissions about trade and docking etc etc) and a bit of IW2 soul, technobabble and just realism...well...it would be a God like game.

you could even inculde things like, Getting to the surface and becomming a boat, with some ships being more amphibious than others. Also, 1k 'underwater eco bubbles' are a great concept, much more so than 1k planets....

and then one could inculde tactics to do with depth (water pressure/temp affecting equipment/weapons/sensors etc etc), currents (weeee!!), and all sorts of stuff. And if you did the engine properly you could treat yourself to some real eye candy!. Then there could be caves and what-not. Not to mention doing some lovly memoriable moments...like turboing the engines straight up so that you break the surface of the water, fall back down, and the topedos following you fly straight up into the air and explode (blue sub six everyone). One that note. if anyone has seen blue sub six then they would know the kind of world i am talking about (not nessesarily that story line though). Also the life forms could be done too, deep see one could hit the thermal vents, or if your 10m from the ocean top you would be treated to an extravanza of colour and life on the reef...assuming you dont scrape your hull agaisnt it an get damaged.

Or you could have a scary lighting-reflex match in the ruins of the flooded cities, with so many random sonar contacts and heat sources and turbulence caused by the buildings.

Also, to give a real sense of freedom one could have 3 modes of transport. 1 normal thrusters. 2 'dipol drive' (similar to LDS, but underwater) and 3, gates...tube gates....just like in freelancer, except they are giant tubes with reinforcements every 1km and a valve system in the middle that allows superfast speed.

yeah, ...im dreaming now...

[/rant]

Jwk...comander of =HEMP HUNGRY MONKEY=
www.i-war2.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=310

That makes so much sense it should be illegal.

*sigs*

meh freelancer just plain boring, combat really is unrealistic, hardly ne physics. and worst of all, manythings are not real sized, like the planets are like only 20-30km in diameter. I like iwar2 the most is cause i love the realistic system size. like its cool to travel like several billion km on LDS drive, especially cool when u approach a planet.

the only thing i find fun in freelancer is dl certain mod to go into a 32 vs 32 battle almost newhere... just 4 fun blasting. but even at 32vs 32, the dogfighting is eqivalent to like 6 on 6 on iwar2...