Guard Frequency Episode 053 | We’ve Got Crystal Balls

Comments

5 responses to “Guard Frequency Episode 053 | We’ve Got Crystal Balls”

1. 

   seannewboy

   January 6, 2015

   I am all about the function over form, i would rather have a ship with a missing/glitched texture, than a ship that did not work.

   Wonderful episode everyone.

   As for ideas, there have been some wonderful new pictures from the hubble recently.

   Reply
2. 

   Ostron

   January 7, 2015

   Great show, welcome back Lennon; your melodious tenor was sorely missed.

   I have no problem with form overriding function to a certain point. I’ve read a lot of hard-scifi books (i.e. books where the author injects as much real science as possible) and invariably all of spacecraft end up being various sizes of cylinders or ovoids due to the realities of physics and the best possible use of mass distribution. The crew, meanwhile, spends most of their time worrying about fuel, air, water, and whether the 5000 local gravitational forces are pulling them off course. Also Chris has pointed out; realistically space combat likely plays out as two remote controlled objects firing missiles at each other from distances measured in Astronomical Units. That game could theoretically be tactically challenging, but I don’t think it would be visually stimulating.

   As long as the liberties taken with the physics don’t introduce game-breaking imbalance (like if we discover the maneuvering thrusters on an Idris allow it to pull a 180 in one second) I’m okay with some inconsistencies.

   Anyone who’s taken college physics or actually flown an aircraft/spacecraft cringes when people ask for “realistic physics” the same way combat veterans do when people want a “realisitc shooter” game.

   Reply
3. 

   Kinitsu

   January 7, 2015

   For the thruster discussion I turn to Nebohtes’ reasoning he brought up in his Modularity series (part 2 to be exact) http://youtu.be/28sLBq6XnrE go to 6:25 or so when it switches to thrusters. That point being, thrusters need to be more powerful than a main engine but burn out much more rapidly (not just thruster’s fuel, but also durability). Not to mention the signature from a long full burn of thrusters.

   As a side note, you guys should check out his Modularity series that he has so far as it would make a nice segment. As it is a deep analysis of a sample system based on the pipeline CiG is using (or should be using)

   In regard to the question for the week, I am one who sees the fence and instead of choosing a side or straddle it, I take out bolt cutters and cut a hole so I may freely pass between the sides. I will fall in love with a ship by looks alone just as easily as by its functionality. Like I bought a Banu Merchantman and a Xi’an scout for their designs alone. To me they are beautiful. I also have an Aurora, which I find an ugly red headed stepchild for its durability and modularity. All the while I love it the same as the Xi’an and Banu. I would proudly park all three next to one another… But screw the Mustang. I CCUed my Omega from the Never settle to a 315p the moment I could.

   Reply
4. 

   Spam

   January 8, 2015

   I think the form following function argument was lost a long time ago with the artificial “top speed” mechanic. In space you should really be able to accelerate toward the speed of light with the size of your engines really only effecting the rate of acceleration. This was a real disappointment to me , and I’ve resigned myself to playing call of duty in space.

   Reply
5. 

   Drachir

   January 9, 2015

   My preference is function over form. CIG seems to be taking the approach that it is perfectly alright to do weeks of programming instead of hours of design, but remember that CR is old-school. He was programming games when a couple of folks could make a game that was considered “AAA” at the time (Wing Commander!).
   SC design, with it’s focus on more realistic and component based ships (where ship actual performance is derived from components instead of the other way around) will almost always have issues with form trumping function.
   I also get that the original iterations were for marketing and fund-raising purposes, and they may have made the very common decision to reuse proof-of-concept and prototype code in the production code. That almost always falls under “seemed like a good idea at the time”.
   While I think they will resolve the immediate issues of form over function, I think it will continue to masticate their collective buttocks for years to come.

   Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.