Bandit LOAF
Long Live the Confederation!
I meant what I said, I said what I meant, I said it, I meant it, one-hundred percent.
(Errr, and I much prefer debate to arse-kissing... not that I mind the latter <G>)
Technology gap between WC 3 and WCP
- Thread starter Sonntag
- Start date
I meant what I said, I said what I meant, I said it, I meant it, one-hundred percent.
(Errr, and I much prefer debate to arse-kissing... not that I mind the latter <G>)
Quarto
Unknown Enemy
Actually, the Krant's cockpits are both off-centre - and the ship is 100% symmetrical
.That having been said, the reason WC1/2 ships are symmetrical is to save memory and space - if a ship is symmetrical, you only have to make bitmaps for half of the rotation, and then you simply flip them to get the other half. If they weren't symmetrical, you probably wouldn't be able to fight more than one type of ship at a time in WC1 - so capship strikes would be rather lame
.
mpanty
Keen Commander
Oh, I did not know that... that's very interesting information Quarto...
And indeed, you are right, ships are symmetrical in WC I and II (where the bitmap-ship was actually still used)...
But in WC III, all ships are asymmtrical if I recall... makes them more fearsome I guess...
And indeed, you are right, ships are symmetrical in WC I and II (where the bitmap-ship was actually still used)...
But in WC III, all ships are asymmtrical if I recall... makes them more fearsome I guess...
mpanty
Keen Commander
Supdon3
Kal-El
Originally posted by Quarto
Actually, the Krant's cockpits are both off-centre - and the ship is 100% symmetrical
That having been said, the reason WC1/2 ships are symmetrical is to save memory and space - if a ship is symmetrical, you only have to make bitmaps for half of the rotation, and then you simply flip them to get the other half. If they weren't symmetrical, you probably wouldn't be able to fight more than one type of ship at a time in WC1 - so capship strikes would be rather lame
So in reality, the reason they look symmetrical is because we only see have of them, the other half is just a mirror! They fooled us all with their mirror-down-the-middleing field!
LividLiquid
Rear Admiral
It's quite obvious to me that not a horrible ammount of attention was paid to ship design and dates in the games, but it sure is fun to site these examples and find excuses for them.
E.G.
Every Confed ship in WC2 was scrapped in WC3. Only one year later.
Explanation? Oh, well... uh... they were using them. We just didn't see them on a craft as new as the Concordia. They had state of the art ships. But then again... we saw them later on the Lexington. But wait... the novel of Wc4 states that the Border worlds used older ships because they were poor. Like Ferrets and the like.
Man. We're all going to think ourselves into a big ol' fat depression.
E.G.
Every Confed ship in WC2 was scrapped in WC3. Only one year later.
Explanation? Oh, well... uh... they were using them. We just didn't see them on a craft as new as the Concordia. They had state of the art ships. But then again... we saw them later on the Lexington. But wait... the novel of Wc4 states that the Border worlds used older ships because they were poor. Like Ferrets and the like.
Man. We're all going to think ourselves into a big ol' fat depression.
TC
SubCrid
Wow, how does that mean they didn't pay attention to ship design?
Also, it's not an excuse of any sort that we saw older fighters in WC3. We know for a fact that the Victory was an old carrier, which had mostly old fighters as well... Also, it isn't that much fun to fly all the same craft in all the games.
TC
Also, it's not an excuse of any sort that we saw older fighters in WC3. We know for a fact that the Victory was an old carrier, which had mostly old fighters as well... Also, it isn't that much fun to fly all the same craft in all the games.
TC