New X:Rebirth

[WynnTTr]

Looks good. The lighting is spectacular.

 

[element1108]

Nice, thanks! X series has brought me back into space combat from Xwing/Wing Commander days. The new look is outstanding.

[104th_Crunch]

Hope it has cockpits and Trackir!!!!

[Succellus]

I will post on the site, but i hope they ll have:

tripple monitor support,

Track ir support,

Multi USB controler support,

Newton Physics, which will call Diferencial integrated thrust (since you need them to turn your spacecraft) which mean the hability more or less present to slide vertically or horizontally.

 

Since one guy can do it Evochron online why big companies can t ?

 

And i really would like they bring actuall tech brought forward, even if those are ingame payd upgrades:

HUD display and HIFD (Helmet integraded feature and displays) - this will be a blast with track ir.

 

I m tired of old WW2 style awesomely advanced cockpit.

 

tTe 3d map in X series is awfully horrible. Painfully old, even the old X-wing had a better scheme for situational awareness. 1 display to show whats in front of you and another to show what is back. Easy and intuitive solution.

Edited April 25, 2011 by Succellus

[DocSigma]

DCS style space combat sim! I want wing commander prophecy or Freespace2 on mega mega steroids. DCS level of detail and complexity, cutting edge graphics engine, click able cockpit with at least a 150 knobs, switches, and rotaries.

[Succellus]

Hehehe Docsigma.

I agree that the space sims are really cheezy on procedural and as i ve said somewhere, they are all too much WW2 like. few to no missiles or countermeasure.

 

But i a bit agaisnt you too, i have enought reality with DCS not being a real pilot.

 

And anyhow they dont even know how to do a HUD or a HMD with integrated info... much less something as complex as DCS.

 

But i lounge for a greater kind of armement, defense system, countermeasures and the like.

Imagina a slow missile designed to pass force field and then upon sensing realease a flechete like ogive build up to pierce hull and emitt EMP or simply high blast.

As it is slow it can very well be blasted away by fighters or defense battery, but if it hits the main deck...

 

So many possibilities...so much waste of potential.

[asparagin]

Oh, now I see there already was a thread on Rebirth. Sry for opening a new one!

[Succellus]

Oh, now I see there already was a thread on Rebirth. Sry for opening a new one!

 

 

Nah , yours was the first one.

[Rusty_M]

Oh I'm going to want this!

[DarkFire]

Looks very nice indeed! I just wish that someone would make Freespace 3. The Freespace series were the best space combat games I've ever played...

[Pyroflash]

Hehehe Docsigma.

I agree that the space sims are really cheezy on procedural and as i ve said somewhere, they are all too much WW2 like. few to no missiles or countermeasure.

 

But i a bit agaisnt you too, i have enought reality with DCS not being a real pilot.

 

And anyhow they dont even know how to do a HUD or a HMD with integrated info... much less something as complex as DCS.

 

But i lounge for a greater kind of armement, defense system, countermeasures and the like.

Imagina a slow missile designed to pass force field and then upon sensing realease a flechete like ogive build up to pierce hull and emitt EMP or simply high blast.

As it is slow it can very well be blasted away by fighters or defense battery, but if it hits the main deck...

 

So many possibilities...so much waste of potential.

 

Sorry, but the lack of missiles is based in reality. Real space ships would probably not have any missiles because the simple fact that barring things like unguided rockets, missiles would simply not work in space.

 

The reason for this being is that the missile would have to completely rely on thrust to control its movement because conventional technologies such as fins would be completely useless in space. Due to this, the missile would be sacrificing a huge amount of payload capacity and velocity in order to effectively reach its target with maneuvering thrusters. At which point something like a high power laser or a simple mass driver would be much more effective.

 

Aside from that however, I really hope the new X has at least some multiplayer component. The biggest turnoff for the first three in the long run was the lack on any multiplayer.

[asparagin]

The reason for this being is that the missile would have to completely rely on thrust to control its movement because conventional technologies such as fins would be completely useless in space. Due to this, the missile would be sacrificing a huge amount of payload capacity and velocity in order to effectively reach its target with maneuvering thrusters. At which point something like a high power laser or a simple mass driver would be much more effective.

 

What about the lack of atmosphere which leads to no drag?

[aaron886]

Many if not most current air to air missiles utilize thrust vectoring in some capacity, Pyro.

[KillaALF]

Aside from that however, I really hope the new X has at least some multiplayer component. The biggest turnoff for the first three in the long run was the lack on any multiplayer.

 

It won't - this has been confirmed by Egosoft's CEO Bernd Lehahn in a recent interview.

 

"Krawall.de: Ein Wort: Multiplayer? /One word: multiplayer?

Bernd Lehahn: Nee. / Nope."

[Succellus]

Sorry, but the lack of missiles is based in reality. Real space ships would probably not have any missiles because the simple fact that barring things like unguided rockets, missiles would simply not work in space.

 

The reason for this being is that the missile would have to completely rely on thrust to control its movement because conventional technologies such as fins would be completely useless in space. Due to this, the missile would be sacrificing a huge amount of payload capacity and velocity in order to effectively reach its target with maneuvering thrusters. At which point something like a high power laser or a simple mass driver would be much more effective.

 

Aside from that however, I really hope the new X has at least some multiplayer component. The biggest turnoff for the first three in the long run was the lack on any multiplayer.

 

I couldn t disagree more:

 

Well if missiles can t work in space, how the hell can the spaceship work ?

Its exactly the same theory and same procedure. How can you ship not waste power in combat and you end up without energy ? Same apply to missiles.

 

obviously IR wouldn t work, but the engine leave some signature , without counting Radar, eletroptical, scan link, laser grid, datalink and the whatnot futuristic gizmo can have.

Damn!! iT could be fire and forget, fire and follow (just maintain the ennemy ship in the aiming reticle), "ballistic" etc

You could also think dozen of other stuff that could enhance the gameplay, so it doesn t feel so much Il2 ish.

EMP blast, defensive mine spread, rear oriented defensive missile, So much oportunities and so few imagination by the designers....its a bit sad.

 

I don t care much about MP, there s plenty of them between EVE and its copy paste.

If you want MP try Evochron Mercenaries Online. Same base as X-rebirth but it have more features. Its not MMO, but you can get a small group of buddies to fly toghether online.

Edited May 9, 2011 by Succellus

[asparagin]

obviously IR wouldn t work,

 

Why shouldn't it work?

[Succellus]

Why shouldn't it work?

 

I don t know, maybe not enught eat produced by engines since those aren t burn oriented, or extremely fast heat dispersion on the vacuum ?

 

OTOH there s the heat generated to keep the pilot warmed so he can survive in a non enclosed suit.

 

You could have a missile locked on biologic lifeform signature. Who knows

[asparagin]

I think they would do fine, IR gets away with no problem through the vacuum of space, therefore IR telescopes

[swift]

Meh that mizzlez, we need a friken Death Star :spam_laser:

 

 

[asparagin]

:thumbup: where d'you find that cool .gif?

[swift]

:thumbup: where d'you find that cool .gif?

 

To be honest I scavenged it from another forum, but take a look at this page

 

 

Sorry for the OT fellas... errmmmh I'm really looking forward to this title :music_whistling:

[Succellus]

The likelyhod of a new Star Wars space sim tends toward zero while George Lucas is Alive.:mad:

[Pyroflash]

I don t know, maybe not enught eat produced by engines since those aren t burn oriented, or extremely fast heat dispersion on the vacuum ?

 

Actually, heat does not transfer in space well at all. If you want to remove heat from your spacecraft, you would have to extend massive radiators to do so because of the lack of particles in space.

 

The only problem you might encounter is the lack of a way to cool your IR sensor, but that can be fixed through other means like cooling fluid.

 

Many if not most current air to air missiles utilize thrust vectoring in some capacity, Pyro.[/Quote]

 

while that may be true(ex.AIM-9X), The ability to vector thrust in a missile would not help because you would need maneuvering energy eg. extra fuel for maneuvers. Many current missiles run out of propelling power long before they even come close to reaching their target, relying on control surfaces to provide terminal corrections to target. So if you want extra fuel saved for maneuvering, you either end up with a very slow missile, or a very weak one(adding more fuel means reducing the amount of explosives). Either that, or a Very, Very short ranged missile at which point why not just use guns?

Edited May 9, 2011 by Pyroflash

[GGTharos]

Actually a missile would be quite viable. You can launch it out of a mass driver, and it will add more velosity still by using the rocket motor, thus extending the Rtr of the weapon. Since the target is probably not terribly maneuverable, you can use terminal stage guidance thrusters separate from the now burned-out engine. Further, such missiles might make excellent space mines.

 

The reason for this being is that the missile would have to completely rely on thrust to control its movement because conventional technologies such as fins would be completely useless in space. Due to this, the missile would be sacrificing a huge amount of payload capacity and velocity in order to effectively reach its target with maneuvering thrusters. At which point something like a high power laser or a simple mass driver would be much more effective.

[Pyroflash]

Actually a missile would be quite viable. You can launch it out of a mass driver, and it will add more velosity still by using the rocket motor, thus extending the Rtr of the weapon. Since the target is probably not terribly maneuverable, you can use terminal stage guidance thrusters separate from the now burned-out engine. Further, such missiles might make excellent space mines.

 

True, but isn't that more like guided artillery than a true missile? I was talking about the practice of using conventional missiles in space. like just mounting them on your wings thinking everything would work the same as it would in atmo.