From what I'm gathering you guys need to apologze to GSH/KEN

[deadscion]

Sir? How much is the large bag of Popcorn?

[Patriarch]

If I ever do get into the game development industry, or at least develop something that warrants a message board with contributors, this is a glaring example that I have to be careful who I communicate with when it comes to the intended vision of the game and what everyone is doing with it.

As I've browsed these forums I've seen people who are concerned with the:

* fun and playtime aspect
* balancing of the units and the two sides (physics, price, etc.)
* general bugs
* viable use of unconventional strategy

Technically, I'm concerned with the bugs.  I've already made my comments in the past about the fun and play aspect.  And I'm not experienced enough in strat to talk about the balancing.  As far as the unconventional strategies go, that is where a lot of people will disagree.  Some people will think something belongs in the game, some people will think it doesn't.  And I expect I will have disagreements with those I discuss my ideas for a game with in the future.  It's already happened - the people I presented the idea to practically tried to take it over and tell me it wasn't a game worth making if it didn't have certain things in it, and accused me of not planning to use, and therefore wasn't really even listening to, their suggestions.

In the end, the men in charge need to decide what they will do.  Some players will leave because of it, some will stay, and some will enjoy the arguments and fuel the fire.

I think many people are learning many lessons from all of this.  Not much of it has surprised me.

Get out your popcorn.  Or at least take productive notes.

[Slaor]

"And who cares weather the tanks are anti-gravity, magnetic, rockets or whatever. Chill out guys its just a game."

Well nobody really cares, it's just an interesting thought exercise. It's also about the first rave I've ever had with Mower that hasn't degenerated into him calling me a commie and me calling him a redneck so I'm kinda enjoying it Regardless it's substantially more interesting and constructive than some of the crap being posted here.

[MowerMan]

Saying gravity is a weak force is really relative to the masses involved, and the generated field involved.  Whatever the force is, that is what you are countering, strong or weak.  The force increases by a square of the distance.

What specific magnetic drives are that NASA is working are you referring to DX?  Most "mag lev" systems are working off special surfaces (materials and components).  Generally magnetic drives do not play well of any surface.

My only point is that you combine thrust with "a force" that counters gravity, and you will go up.  We do it now with thrust alone.  Therefore it is completely illogical to call flying a physics bug.

He he he...  Yeah Slaor, we've had some pretty good "discussions".

[OvermindDL1]

This is not the most complete discription, but it is pretty dang close and introduced in very laymans terms about how gravity, electromagnatism and such works, ignore the part about String theory, that is actually being weeded out and this is starting to get old.
The Elegant Universe

[Slaor]

"Saying gravity is a weak force is really relative to the masses involved"

Not so - hence the ability of a bar magnet to hover despite the entire mass of the Earth pulling it downwards. Gravity really is very weak compared to the other fundamental forces, and electromagnetic forces are actually rsponsible for most day to day phenomena in the universe - gravity is just responsible for the distribution of matter and large scale physical structures. But anyways, neither of us are experts so I'll leave it at that.

Main point I guess is that there are always different ways of looking at the same problem.

And you are right, it is completely logical to have flying units in BZ2 - hence bombers and APCs. However "hover" craft can't fly - so if scouts and tanks are defined as "hover"craft, as opposed to "air" craft bombers and APCs then it is in fact illogical for them to fly -> a bug -> squashed

Good chattin with you bro.

[technoid]

However "hover" craft can't fly - so if scouts and tanks are defined as "hover"craft, as opposed to "air" craft bombers and APCs then it is in fact illogical for them to fly -> a bug -> squashed

[/size]May I butt in (without approval, hehe) and say that... the BZ/BZII hoverunits, as they are going through the air, aren't technically flying per se, but rather "jumping", especially when they ski up a hill.  A really low & short orbital flight you could say. It is similar to ski jumping or motocross.  Or a better analogy would be the SW speederbike, where in that universe, hover/antigrav is commonly known more as "repulsorlift".  BTW, repulsorlift doesn't turn off when engines are cut.  In BZII, hovercraft fall and touch the ground.  Just 2 different views on antigrav levitation.

Anyway, speederbikes can jump from ramps/hills, but as they come back to the ground, they rest at their specific repulsor height. It's just like any vehicle that's meant to stay on the ground, real or fictional I suppose.  

But if you are all alluding to infinite/vertical hovering, well, then I suppose that all depends on how these BZ craft were originally designed to hover.  I've agreed that the inf hover is a bug, but although it has become a feature, I'd say it has become overused (but not necessarily 'abused' I would think depending on who is doing it).  In Quake2, rocketjumping is a bug which has become a feature (which I recall DF referenced to here awhile back).  The thing is, I'm not sure if many players use it, especially in non-hook mods. When hook became a standard implement in Quake mods, RJ's got lost in the skill factor, except maybe in Rocket Arenas (though you can use it whenever/wherever you want).

The amusing part of BZII hover physics is where hovercraft can also right themselves to topside if they rollover, hehe. You don't see that in real life with air-propelled hovering!  Splat!  

[OvermindDL1]

I obviously can tell no one has yet watched that show I posted above

[technoid]

This is the one with Prof. Greene, right?   I saw TEU awhile back, though I didn't see all the parts.  I think I watched it last autumn.  I focused a lot on the string theory episodes.  Or maybe I'm confusing this with another of Green's PBS physics show.  I must blame this confusion on all those closed super-overlapped 11 dimensions per string.  

[Slaor]

Yeah 11 dimensions kinda bends the mind doesn't it I like M theory though, seems pretty promising from what I've seen and the ramifications are a lot easier for me to conceptualise than strings ever were. Will make time to watch those vids OM, right up my alley

[OvermindDL1]

I liked em as well, although the String theory is quickly becoming outdated...

[MowerMan]

Well Sloar, gravity is strong enough to keep your ass planted on the earth's surface!!!  (ha ha ha).  

You guys are missing the point a little bit.  It doesn't matter what theory one might apply, it still is obvious that the float in some sort of field that radiates from the center of mass of the craft.  They are low mass craft that can accelerate negativly and positivly using thrust at a rate that overcome gravity if you if you can orient the thrusters toward the center of the local gravitational field.  There is nothing in physics that says that won't happen.

Oh yeah, when I say that gravity becomes a strong force, I don't mean relative to other forces, I mean relative to gravity.  Take two rare reath magnets (opposite poles facing each other), if their are an inch apart, it pretty easy to pull them ten inches apart.  If you let the come in contact, try pulling them apart...

OM Nova is a great series (even though much of the popular know theories are likely incorrect)

[CmptrWz]

Mower, from my understanding, you aren't dealing with gravity when they touch, so your argument doesn't hold.

And for all we know the crafts in question aren't exactly "low mass", and the field itself may not operate against gravity. Thus, if the field doesn't operate against gravity all your theories go out the window, as your theories depend on the field operating against gravity. Thus, physics take over and say that the thrusters for movement on the ground aren't strong enough to achieve infinite flight.

[NukeDaddy]

I liked em as well, although the String theory is quickly becoming outdated...

Got a link on that OM?  I want to know what the new theory is.....

[NukeDaddy]

Mower, from my understanding, you aren't dealing with gravity when they touch, so your argument doesn't hold.

And for all we know the crafts in question aren't exactly "low mass", and the field itself may not operate against gravity. Thus, if the field doesn't operate against gravity all your theories go out the window, as your theories depend on the field operating against gravity. Thus, physics take over and say that the thrusters for movement on the ground aren't strong enough to achieve infinite flight.

Well, to operate within our "current" understanding of the universal laws, it would have to be either gravity or rocket thrust.  The only other option would be some sort of hyperdimensional device.  Something has to act upon some-other-thing to get movement or hover, be it gravity, inertia or some other force we don't know about.