[airstrike] Scrolling levels?

[Big Pilot]

I've never heard of Biplanes nor played it so I can't comment on it. I commented about the physics because I myself find  the learning curve too great compared to Sopwith, and I myself believe that a game like this should be easy to learn and play. I mean, there are already tons of games out there where you have to read a 200 page manual before you can play. People just want to have clean and simple fun, that's all. They don't want to figure out all sorts of smart physics just to play a game, they just want to jump right in and start shooting. Anyway, that's my take on it. 

At least now I know where you guys are coming from. At least it gives me the option of making my own Sopwith clone. ;)

----- Original Message -----
From: Ulf_Ekström <ulfek at ifm.liu.se>
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 14:32:35 +0100
To: airstrike at icculus.org
Subject: Re: [airstrike] Scrolling levels? 

> On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 02:20:38PM +0100, Big Pilot wrote:
> 
> >  I noticed this game as it is modelled after a CGA game I used to
> > play a long time ago called 'Sopwith' I think. Only this game had a
> > scrolling display which was alot more fun. So I'm asking, do you
> > guys intend to make something similar?
> 
> It is not modelled after Sopwith, but after 'Biplanes' on intellivision and
> BIP on the Amiga. These games both had single screen levels, but we do intend
> to have larger levels! We have not yet released a 1.0 version, so be patient.
> We are also working on ground based objects, like tanks and people, so I think
> it will be great fun when it finally works.	
> 
> > Also, the physics in the game are *too* good, as is the AI of the
> >computer controlled player. I would make the physics a lot more like
> >'Sopwith' i.e. simple with no accelleration, aerodynamics, gravity
> >etc. or at least adjustable.
> 
> Again, Sopwith is still there is you want to play it.. Of course the
> physics should be fun, rather than realistic, but I think that more
> advanced physics is more fun! For example I'm working on rotating
> objects in collisions right now, and it makes a huge differense for
> what you can do. (For example if your plane gets hit from below in the
> tail it will start to spin. You can also not balance on the tail/nose,
> and you can land on top of any object (like on top of the zeppelin for
> example). 
> 
> It is kind of fun to explore the limits of 2d physics..
> 
> In the future all mechanics will be adjustable (and it is right now
> for some parameters, i.e. you can download the airstrike-airtest version and
> send your favourite settings to this list).
> 
> Ulf
> 

-- 
______________________________________________
http://www.linuxmail.org/
Now with POP3/IMAP access for only US$19.95/yr

Powered by Outblaze