Slashdot Mirror


Elite Turns 25

satellite17 writes "The BBC notes that the classic space combat / trading sim Elite is 25 years old today. Elite was one of the first 3D games produced for a home computer and also one of the first open-ended games. Odd as it sounds now, this meant that even though it was popular with friends of the creators, David Braben and Ian Bell, they initially struggled to find a publisher. 'They just didn't get it; they wanted a high score and they wanted players to have three lives,' Braben said. It is also credited with influencing quite a few modern classics."

159 comments

  1. I learned about some history today. by JDeane · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I like love to read stuff like this, although I have heard of Elite before I did not read up on it much. Truly a ground breaker by any measure of the word. Any day I can learn something new is a good day :)

    1. Re:I learned about some history today. by flydpnkrtn · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well according to David Braben hardly anything said online about Elite 4 is true... argh... damn cock tease

      "Braben did, however, allay fears that Elite 4 may never see the light of day by confirming it is in development.

      âoeThere is absolutely tons of stuff about Elite online,â he said. âoeHardly any of it's true! Some of it is, but I'm not going to say which. We are working on it and it's very exciting.â"

      http://www.videogamer.com/news/hardly_any_elite_4_online_info_is_true_says_braben.html

    2. Re:I learned about some history today. by Kazymyr · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I've been hearing this for at least 10 years... How about the "preview" stuff on F.D.'s website a few years ago, that was then hastily taken down and never spoken of again?

      I guess now that D.N.F. is out of the picture, Elite 4 is the next best candidate for the vaporware award.

      --
      I hadn't known there were so many idiots in the world until I started using the Internet -Stanislaw Lem
    3. Re:I learned about some history today. by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      "Hastily taken down"? It was up there for about seven years. It listed the Dolphin as a possible platform when it was first written up and the only change was swapping out "GameCube" then killing the platforms list completely. You can hardly accuse them of an elaborate campaign of deception.

      Elite IV has a much better chance of being made than DNF ever did, because Frontier hasn't been working on it. That sounds stupid, but a developer that's shelved a project for ten years and works on other things isn't going to go bankrupt.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    4. Re:I learned about some history today. by Daetrin · · Score: 1

      I like love to read stuff like this, although I have heard of Elite before I did not read up on it much.

      Yeah, it inspired me to do a little research into my own favorite space trading game from way back when. It turns out Trade Wars turns 25 this year too! It was a BBS door game so it didn't really have much in the way of graphics (and definitely not 3D like Elite!) but i sure wasted a lot of time on that game in my youth :)

      And i guess that both games were at least partly inspired by Star Trader, a game i hadn't actually heard about before now.

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    5. Re:I learned about some history today. by Kazymyr · · Score: 1

      I was talking mostly of the E4 "concept art" that was hosted at one point on FD's web site, showcasing a scantily clad female running around the corridors of a spaceship. Kinda like Jolene Blalock did a number of years later.

      --
      I hadn't known there were so many idiots in the world until I started using the Internet -Stanislaw Lem
  2. I've been waiting since 1998... by qeveren · · Score: 1

    I wish they'd get working on Elite 4. :(

    --
    Don't just stand there, get that other dog!
    1. Re:I've been waiting since 1998... by FreeGamer · · Score: 1

      Note quite Elite 4, but a pretty good fan-made successor is Oolite. The test versions include support for shaders, bringing more modern looking ships to the game.

  3. Elite spiritual successor- Infinity: QFE by flydpnkrtn · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Until Elite 4 comes out (ahem, cough) Infinity: Quest for Earth looks to be its spiritual successor (yes there's seamless space travel to planetside, as showcased in the trailer)

    Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fp8WOCuR_pQ

    Site: http://www.infinity-universe.com/Infinity/

    Can't wait for this to come out... Frontier First Encouters with a DirectX engine just isn't cutting it anymore....

    1. Re:Elite spiritual successor- Infinity: QFE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looking for this game too. As far as space games go, there are the Star Trek and Star Wars MMOs, each patiently waited for by their respective fanboys, and the rest of the media heavily favors Jumpgate Evolution as the "next big" space game. But almost nobody talks about Infinity, it seems like a real underdog to me.

      Too bad that, based on their development schedule, they seem to be the spiritual successor not only to Elite but also to Duke Nukem Forever.

    2. Re:Elite spiritual successor- Infinity: QFE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looks like it hasn't been updated in awhile.

      I'm smelling vaporware.

    3. Re:Elite spiritual successor- Infinity: QFE by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      Too bad it is a MOO, so it will never be a fun game to play. Just a space grind.

    4. Re:Elite spiritual successor- Infinity: QFE by flydpnkrtn · · Score: 1

      Yes I actually remember seeing a lot of people on Infinity's forum gnashing their teeth because it will be MMO... hopefully that doesn't sap all the fun out of it...

    5. Re:Elite spiritual successor- Infinity: QFE by MartinSchou · · Score: 1

      I found this video showing off combat.

      Made me think "damn, I would love to see what a Serenity (Firefly) type battlescene would be like in that engine.

      Hundreds of ships, big and small on either side just duking it out and you in the middle trying to get to the space port on the planed.

      Lol ... just got to the end where the pilot docks the plane. Now that's a neat trick - don't think it'd work so well with a carrier group though.

    6. Re:Elite spiritual successor- Infinity: QFE by Brazilian+Geek · · Score: 1

      It looks great but for space sims I'd prefer a single player experience - nothing against MMORPGs but I'm not all that into fighting to stay alive and get better ships nor participating in a corporation. I want to freely explore space and pick fights only when I want to fight all at my own time.

      The ability to freely fly through space is something that really attracted me in Final Frontier (my first game of the series) and I really liked swooping down on planets and explore them without worrying to much about making a buck.

      Anyway, thanks for the heads up, nice game but I'm not too sure that's for me.

      --
      All browsers' default homepage should read: Don't Panic...
    7. Re:Elite spiritual successor- Infinity: QFE by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Informative
      There are a few games I'd call the spiritual successor to Elite:

      Oolite is the most obvious one. It faithfully recreates the Elite gameplay, but updates the graphics (slightly) and provides a simple way for others to expand the game. It is basically what you would end up with if you tried to write Elite (rather than 'some space trading/combat game') today.

      Vega Strike has broadly the same gameplay mechanics as Elite, but is much richer; lots of different things to trade, different things available at different stations, different factions to join or fight, and so on. It also has massively improved graphics (detailed textures, gratuitous use of shaders) without that detracting from the game actually being fun.

      Transcendence is a bit different. It's a 2D top-down game, but it has a lot of the things that made Elite fun. It's somewhere between XPilot, Elite, and Nethack. (It's Windows-only, but runs very well in WINE.)

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    8. Re:Elite spiritual successor- Infinity: QFE by Kazymyr · · Score: 1

      I concur on Vega Strike. Been following its development for years, it's actively developed and maintained, with an active base of players/beta-testers, and of course it's open source so if you want you can fork it and customize any way you want. And of course it has been very playable for years. Only wish it were more widely known.

      --
      I hadn't known there were so many idiots in the world until I started using the Internet -Stanislaw Lem
    9. Re:Elite spiritual successor- Infinity: QFE by flydpnkrtn · · Score: 1

      Vega Strike is a good open source example... good point. I heard they're working on moving to Ogre too... should be interesting. I played around with Vega Strike a couple of years ago, but it felt like it hadn't "cooked" long enough so to speak

      http://vegastrike.sourceforge.net/wiki/Development:Ogre

    10. Re:Elite spiritual successor- Infinity: QFE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oolite has taken the mechanics of the original game and given them a well-needed graphics update. I was lucky enough to help with the Famous Planets, Your Ad Here boards, Ring Racing League ships, and Griff Con(venience) Store graphics (Username on the Oolite forum: Pangloss). It's incredible how we can add animation just by stacking frames on a 24-bit PNG like frames in a movie.

      Here's a video showing what Griff has done with the Thargoid ship. In fact, here is a look at the standard ships, bang up to date, courtesy of the Ololite forum.

      Haven't been there in a while. They just might drag me back in...

    11. Re:Elite spiritual successor- Infinity: QFE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those ships look much better than the standard ones! It seems there's more graphic goodness there than I initially thought! :)

  4. Some would call X3 the successor... by popo · · Score: 1

    ... if you could actually figure out how to play it that is...

    --
    ------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
    1. Re:Some would call X3 the successor... by flydpnkrtn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      X3 doesn't have seamless planetside travel, does it? I think the last review I read said it didn't... although technically that means I'm looking for a "Frontier: Elite II" or "Frontier First Encounters" successor... the original Elite had no planetside stuff

      Until the day I can warp into a system, take my ship that's in space 10,000 AU from the nearest planet, point it at that blue looking planet over yonder (all the while dealing with Newtonian physics), and fly down to the surface (without cutscenes or whatever), then fly around some mountains, notice a weird looking tribe staring at me, then fly back out to space I won't consider a game Elite's successor.

      Yea I'm a little bit religious about a damn good realistic game set in space

    2. Re:Some would call X3 the successor... by lennier · · Score: 1

      "warp into a system, take my ship that's in space 10,000 AU from the nearest planet, point it at that blue looking planet over yonder (all the while dealing with Newtonian physics)"

      That might take some time... perhaps you want to handwave in some non-Newtonian (and non-Einsteinian) physics instead?

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    3. Re:Some would call X3 the successor... by Dahamma · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Ehhhh... I think with the statement "warp into a system" he has already decided he wants to add in some non-Newtonian physics... (though it would have been nice if he noticed that ;)

      In practice, he wants what everyone wants with the holy grail of space sims - seamless transitions between extraplanatary, solar system, and terrestrial environments. Ideally with seamless transitions between "inside the ship" and "outside the ship", whether it's on a space station, planet, or just ejected into the void. Honestly, if they want to simulate "travelling really fast", all the better (especially if they make it look like "the jump to light speed"!) As long as you have total control over your 1st (or evern 3rd) person character throughout the various transitions it's going to be a pretty amazing experience...

    4. Re:Some would call X3 the successor... by Toonol · · Score: 4, Informative

      That was actually emulated in the game. If you accelerated to Pluto from Earth at 1g, it would take (approximately) a realistic amount of time to reach it.

      What made it bearable were two concessions: You could alter the flow of time in the game, when nothing interesting was happening, so hours would tick by like seconds... and ships could accelerate at (ahem) hundreds of g's. So it had some outlandish elements, but the mechanics were thoroughly Newtonian.

      It was beautiful. You could thrust toward Saturn, then cut your engines, point any direction, and just slingshot around... start accelerating again when you're headed at the sun, to approach the Earth. I would buy a modern equivalent, even if it wasn't a game at all, just a space flight sim. With the same infinite number of procedurally generated solar systems.

    5. Re:Some would call X3 the successor... by Toonol · · Score: 1

      Bad form to reply to myself, I know, but I wanted to point out: If you allow high acceleration, the solar system becomes remarkable small. At 100g, Pluto is only about 6-10 days away.

      That's why planetary exploration should be done by AIs loaded into high thrust nuclear rockets... as soon as we get AIs and high thrust nuclear rockets.

    6. Re:Some would call X3 the successor... by TheLink · · Score: 1

      > That's why planetary exploration should be done by AIs loaded into high thrust nuclear rockets

      In the time it takes for us to get AIs and high thrust nuclear rockets, we could send a fair number of robots to Pluto a few times :).

      Anyway, I think we should figure out how to make space stations with artificial "gravity" and decent radiation shielding. Once we work that and other little details out, it doesn't matter how long it takes to travel. You could then build a space colony where humans can live in indefinitely - reproduce, bring up children, etc.

      --
    7. Re:Some would call X3 the successor... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could do those things in Battlecruiser 3000 and Universal Combat. It's a shame that they were both complete crap.

    8. Re:Some would call X3 the successor... by julesh · · Score: 1

      That's why planetary exploration should be done by AIs loaded into high thrust nuclear rockets... as soon as we get AIs and high thrust nuclear rockets.

      Even then, accelerating at 100g for 6 days is implausible, due to the fuel mass requirements. Even with just a 1kg payload, your fuel to accelerate it is going to weigh millions of tonnes.

      This is why I prefer Elite's original solution to the problem, the jump drive: point in the right direction and engage a non-newtonian drive that stops working when you're too close to something else.

    9. Re:Some would call X3 the successor... by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Indeed... and Newtonian manoeuvring just doesn't work too well in the human brain.

      Movies depicting space travel with Newtonian manoeuvring are regarded as artsy. Movies with "etheric rudder" (to borrow the Star Wars term) have exciting space battles.

      Battlestar Galactica (the original) used etheric rudder. The re-imaging was Newtonian, but got away with it by making things about strategy rather than tactics (and people rather than ships), and obscuring combat in a haze of gunsmoke and camera shake.

      Games are the same way. Playing I-War is hard. Playing the X-Wing series isn't easy, but the curve is less steep, because it's like air combat, but the vector of gravity has been removed, simplifying the flight model.

      I was certainly impressed by the Newtonian mechanics in the Frontier series, but I enjoyed the combat in Elite a lot more.

      Space combat with laser weapons in a world of Newtonian mechanics just isn't interesting, because it consists of

      • Close to optimal range (this being close enough to be in weapons range but far away enough that your opponent can't accelerate laterally out of your weapon reticle)
      • Fire

      Victory is entirely determined by who has the most power behind their shields and lasers. You spend the majority of your time in the early stages of Frontier avoiding combat because you'll be whiffed out of existence like a water balloon hitting the sun. Then when you have enough cash to beef up your ship, you are effectively untouchable.

      Short-range particle bolt weapons and etheric rudder may not be realistic, but they are a lot more fun.

    10. Re:Some would call X3 the successor... by MartinSchou · · Score: 1

      Even then, accelerating at 100g for 6 days is implausible, due to the fuel mass requirements

      Isn't that a matter of the type of energy conversion?

      If we use an 2H_2 + O_2 => 2 H_2O reaction we get about 1.56×10^7 J/kg of energy.
      If we use nuclear fission, we get about 1.5×10^13 J/kg
      If we use nuclear fusion, we get about 6.3×10^14 J/kkg
      If we use matter-antimatter, we get 9×10^16 J/kg

      The gains in energy density results in a massive reduction of weight (or increase of payload).

      Now, I tried doing the maths for the energy needed to accelerate just 1 kg at 100 g for 6 days, but I ended up with a result with some very odd units: 5,090,688 m×kg/s.

      Best thing I can think of is kinetic energy: E = ½ × m × v^2. We already know that we end up with units of kg and m/s (mass and velocity), so just substitute.

      But, I noticed something when checking Pluto: At its closest it is 29.65834067 AU from the Sun. Align everything and we get a minimum distance of 28.66 AU from Earth to Pluto. 28.66 AU in 6 days is 8,270,12 km/s. 10 days it's 4,962.36 km/s

      Now, my physics isn't exactly the best in the world, especially when dealing with something that is moving at 1.66 to 2.75% the speed of light.

      Anyway, 1 kg moving at 4,962.36 km/s has 1.23 × 10^13 joules of energy in it. This is 1/1000th of the total energy output from a matter-anti-matter reaction of 1 kg. It is even less than what we can get from 1 kg of nuclear fuel. But we would need about 100,000 tonnes of hydrogen and oxygen.

      But it's very unlikely that my maths for that bit is correct. The numbers are probably correct, but the energy needed to accelerate to those speeds etc. are very suspect, simply due to the mechanics of it all and so on.

      I am sure there are some moderate simple formulas for working out the mechanics of this idea. I'm not expecting anything like (a+b+c*d+e)/(f*g), but I wouldn't be surprised if it's down to something workable like a 4th degree polynomials with mass, distance and travel time in some way.

    11. Re:Some would call X3 the successor... by kisak · · Score: 1

      And X3 can be run natively on your linux box: X3: Reunion

      --

      --- guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people ---

    12. Re:Some would call X3 the successor... by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is why the "realistic" space sim zealots will never be happy. If a company ever actually gave them the game they wanted, one that was truly realistic as per our current understanding of physics and such, it'd be way too boring to actually play. They do not actually want what they believe they want. Goes double since realistically, a pilot would have almost nothing to do with combat. A computer would be doing all the controlling, the pilot would simply press a button to let it know that it was weapons free.

      We already see this with air craft today. When a pilot goes on a bombing run, they don't fly the plane, it flys itself. Its route has been programmed in to the on board navigation computer. The plane lets them know when they are near the target, and when to signal for bomb release. When they do signal, it doesn't actually drop the bombs, just lets the computer know that it is allowed to drop the bombs when it calculates the time to be right. The bombs then guide themselves according to their navigation computers, as the plane moves on.

      This sort of thing would apply to space combat to an even larger degree. A computer would be handling all the complex aspects of moving the ship and aiming the weapons, a human would only specify targets and destinations and such.

      So thanks but no thanks, I'll take highly unrealistic, fun games.

    13. Re:Some would call X3 the successor... by Amiralul · · Score: 1

      That's totally unrealistic. You cannot point at Pluto, accelerate and wait a few years to get there. Pluto, like Earth, revolves around the Sun, you have to consider that to, in a realistic environment. Check the Orbiter space simulator, for instance, you'll get the idea.

    14. Re:Some would call X3 the successor... by julesh · · Score: 1

      Even then, accelerating at 100g for 6 days is implausible, due to the fuel mass requirements

      Isn't that a matter of the type of energy conversion?

      IANARS (I am not a rocket scientist), but I do know a little about the field, so take this with a small pinch of salt:

      Energy balancing is the wrong approach here, as you can quite easily violate fundamental limits without noticing it when performing the calculation in this fashion. It comes more down to the requirement that the acceleration of the ship be produced by ejecting mass from the ship in the opposite direction. Newtonian mechanics suggests there is no viable alternative method of moving the ship[1], so this is what we have. When M kg of mass leaves the ship travelling at v m/s, the ship gains Mv momentum (conservation of momentum). The theoretical limit of v is c, approximately 3e+8 m/s.

      Our acceleration of 100g for 6 days results in a change of velocity (delta v) of around 5.1 e+8 m/s (yes, I know this results in a velocity that exceeds the speed of light, but of course the acceleration will be in one direction for half the trip and the other for the remainder, so no actual fundamental physical limits are violated...).

      Now, if we are accelerating uniformly (as the original post suggested, and is how things work in the Frontier series of games), this means that the average momentum imparted to our reaction mass is going to be equal to half of its total mass times our delta v (because, on average, we are carrying half of it with us at any given time).

      So, with reaction mass Mr and ship mass Ms and total impulse I we have:

      I = (0.5*Mr + Ms) * deltav [units will be kg m/s]

      We also know from the first paragraph of this reply that:

      Isp = 3e8 (kg m/s) / kg (which are strange units but it works out best below...)

      so:

      I = Isp*Mr = 3e8*Mr kg m/s

      3e8*Mr = (0.5*Mr + Ms)5.1e8
      Mr = 1.7(0.5*Mr + Ms)
      Mr = 0.85Mr + Ms .15Mr = Ms

      So, even with this fundamentally implausible drive method, we still need to carry nearly 7 times as much fuel as mass of the rest of the ship. Note that, in general, for any exhaust velocity Isp:

      Isp*Mr = (0.5*Mr + Ms)5.1e8
      Mr = (5.1e8/Isp) (0.5*Mr + Ms)
      (1 - 2.55e8/Isp) Mr = Ms

      For Isp here. The only one that meets the requirement is the photon drive, i.e. direct translation of reaction mass into photons at the speed of light, which we have no idea how to do. The highest that we have any inkling of being possible is the antimatter beam thruster, which is estimated at about 1e8.

      [1]: Obviously, there are potential methods of doing so that aren't Newtonian, but as per the discussion above that is explicity _not_ what we're discussing here; the only alternative Newtonian method would rely on harvesting momentum from the environment somehow, which obviously cannot reach such accelerations as 100g in the kind of environments we're discussing.

    15. Re:Some would call X3 the successor... by julesh · · Score: 1

      I wrote: For Isp here

      Ahem. What I meant to write was:

      For Isp < 2.55e8 (ie 85% of the speed of light) this is actually unattainable (the mass of the non-fuel portions of the ship would need to be negative).

      There's a handy table of Isp for some thruster technologies, both real and proposed, here.

    16. Re:Some would call X3 the successor... by click2005 · · Score: 1

      One game that really should have been patched to support multiple cores fully.
      The rest of the galaxy (out of sector) could have been done really well on extra cores.
      Or even better, an add-on to support offloading OOS processing to networked machines too.

      --
      I am a free slashdotter. I will not be modded, blogged, DRM'd, patented, podcasted or RFID'd. My life is my own.
    17. Re:Some would call X3 the successor... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On your GNU/Linux/x86 box but not, say GNU/Linux/PPC or GNU/Linux/amd64, and will only work with outdated shared libraries or as a static binary, which will probably cause it to stop working in a couple of years after things like OpenAL move on.

    18. Re:Some would call X3 the successor... by mike2R · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yeah X3 isn't ideal if you want a believable space simulator - no Newtonian physics, no planets you can visit, tiny crowded playing area (compared to reality - it's a very big game area in an absolute sense). I've heard it described as a submarine sim with space graphics, which is fair enough all things considered.

      That said I absolutely love the game, and do think of it as the spiritual successor to Elite (and even Frontier). The amount of stuff you can do in the game, from trading, to fighting, to salvaging, to exploring, to building you own space stations and automated trading fleets is huge. And the game looks absolutely gorgeous (although it is a system hog, particularly for CPU).

      My current game is fairly early on - I don't have any of the huge capital ships yet - but when looking for trouble I tool around in an M6 (corvette) class, which is the smallest 'big ship' where you rely on your turrets rather than your main battery for a lot of your fighting.. I have two TM (military transport) class ships following me around, each carrying four M4 (interceptor/medium fighter) class which I order launched before going into combat. The particular TMs I'm using have very heavy shields, so they can survive a fight as well, so I have a proper little battle fleet.

      My M4s are configured to use (spam might be more accurate) missiles. I produce these in my own factory complex and ferry them across to my TMs, the fighters are set to replenish there each time they dock.

      I have 3 high-level automated traders which jump around the universe on their own, making me cash, and a couple more low-level ones I'm training up. A couple of stations scattered around, with automated ships buying and selling for them (there are also NPC traders which will deal with your factories), and my missile complex (several factories joined together so they share inputs and outputs, and produce some of their own intermediate goods). There are lots of randomly generated missions, which are the source of much of my income, and also multiple plot arcs which I'm going through as and when I feel like it.

      I haven't played for a while, and typing this I really don't know why... :)

      The game is certainly not without flaws, there are bugs (although Egosoft are amazingly good at supporting their products after release, and tend to release as free patches stuff they could easily sell as an expansion pack), and the game is hard to get into - it is intimidatingly complex and the in-game tutorial leaves a lot to be desired. But it is a game that will reward those initial hours with an amazing experience. It also has about the best gaming forum I've ever come across; player demographics are definitely skewed towards older people, and they tend to be hugely enthusiastic about the game and more than willing to help newbies come to grips with it.

      Well, that's my evangelism done for today :) (If I've managed to inspire anyone, two bits of advice - buy the current game (X3: Terran Conflict) if your system can handle it, it is significantly easier to get started in than the earlier X3: Reunion. And choose the Terran Defender start, it is by far the best for newbies - very nice M4 fighting ship from the off, and you start right at the beginning of one of the major plot arcs, which has a lot of nice goodies available as rewards.)

      --
      This sig all sigs devours
    19. Re:Some would call X3 the successor... by LordSnooty · · Score: 1

      space flight sim

      Have you tried Celestia? It does have some rudimentary flight controls. Probably not exactly what you're after but might be a bit of fun. And it's FOSS, so there's chance for a fully-blown space flight sim.

    20. Re:Some would call X3 the successor... by grumbel · · Score: 1

      it'd be way too boring to actually play.

      Then the game design was crap. Games do not get boring when you use realistic physics, they get boring when you cram realistic physics into gameplay that was designed for StarWars-type physics. The reason why space flight with lasers can't work with real physics in a game is simply that it can't work in reality either. Physics in space just aren't any good to emulate normal airplane behavior. The solution of course is to simply go away from completly unrealistic gameplay situations and back to something more realistic. Make a space game about exploration and non-violent missions in orbit instead of fighting and you could have something quite a bit more interesting. Don't place it into the far future and you won't have trouble with to much automation either, the shuttle after all is still landed manually.

      A setting similar to the Planetes for example could make a great hard sci-fi game, instead of just being yet another Wing Commander clone.

    21. Re:Some would call X3 the successor... by MartinSchou · · Score: 1

      So, even with this fundamentally implausible drive method, we still need to carry nearly 7 times as much fuel as mass of the rest of the ship.

      Is that necessarily a big issue?

      If we go back to matter+anti-matter reactions, you'd need some matter to annihilate. Any human expedition will have to carry food and water in large quantities, and if we can annihilate the human waste directly, we can save weight on toilet facilities. If we use large amounts of water as a shield against radiation, we get "free" radiation shielding and drinking water in one, and our fuel store just ended up having two extra functions = more weight reduction. Well, water used as radiation shielding is probably a lot heavier than something like lead.

      At decent temperatures (the ones we'd need for human habitation in the ship) water is very easy to transport as well, so there are no need for highly complicated fuel pipelines. Can be done with very lightweight plastics built directly into the plumbing systems.

      I'm sure there are lots of other ways you could cut down on the weight requirements as well.

      One thing that confuses me a little bit, is that if you reduce the acceleration to 50g and up the travel time to 12 days you still end up with a delta_v of 5.1 e8. That way we can keep halving and doubling and ending up with constantly having that much energy.

      Using the Motion Example from Hyper Physics, I get some rather different numbers:
      Halfway distance (where you need to turn around) is 2,143,589,742,000 meters.
      Initial velocity: 0 m/s
      Acceleration: 982 m/s^2
      That solves for time = 66,073.92 seconds (18 hours, 21 minutes, 13.92 seconds)
      Final velocity: 64,884,591.80 m/s (21.64% of the speed of light)

      If we change it to 30 m/s^2 (just over 3 g) we solve for v_max = 11,340,872.3 m/s (3.78% of c) and time 4 days, 9 hours, 1 minute.

      At 9.82 m/s^2 we get 7 days, 15 hours, 32 minutes and v_max = 660,739.2 m/s (0.22% of c).

      At those speeds even 1 g would be sufficient. We can easily pack enough food etc. to last for a 3 month expedition into space. How Stuff Works says ~400 kg food and 1,500 litres of water per person for a 2 year expedition. If we're doing 3 months total (2 months on Pluto, 14 days out, 14 days back) you'd only need about 250 kg of food per person. That's a tiny amount.

      If we use your formulas again:
      I = Isp*Mr = 3e8*Mr kg m/s

      3e8*Mr = (0.5*Mr + Ms)*660,739.2*2 (*2 as we have to slow down again)
      Mr = (0.5*Mr + Ms)*660,739.2 m/s*2/c
      Mr = (0.5*Mr + Ms)*0.0044
      907.44 Mr = 0.5 Mr + Ms
      907 Mr = Ms

      Now we're down to carrying 1.2 kg of fuel for every ton of spaceship for the improbable type of drive. Up that to a 1:1 ratio and I think something like fusion becomes readily attainable? 2 tonne of fuel to 1 ton of spaceship would probably considered an insane leap forward.

      But, again, this is something I only have very little knowledge about, and I know that most of that is probably incorrect. And I wouldn't be at all surprised if I screwed up the calculations. I'm just a very curious kind of guy :D

    22. Re:Some would call X3 the successor... by kisak · · Score: 1

      I believe it runs on GNU/linux/amd64 as you call it, even though I have only tried on an Ubuntu x86. And as long as LGP stays a float I assume they will produce patches if OpenAL etc need it, they have at least done so far.

      --

      --- guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people ---

    23. Re:Some would call X3 the successor... by Sockatume · · Score: 2, Funny

      My combat algorithm was somewhat less refined than yours. I couldn't keep track of the enemy in flight, so I developed:

      1) Lock autopilot onto enemy
      2) a) If enemy is flying away, shoot at him.
      2) b) If enemy is shooting at me, break lock and fly in another direction until he stops
      2) c) If enemy launches missile, lock on autopilot, shoot, and hope missile bites it
      3) If enemy is still alive, return to 1

      As you can probably guess, about half of my encounters resulted in mutual destruction by collision.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    24. Re:Some would call X3 the successor... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Newtonian manoeuvring just doesn't work too well in the human brain."

      Then how does one explain Elite's success?

    25. Re:Some would call X3 the successor... by flydpnkrtn · · Score: 1

      Hmm reading over your description maybe I'll get a box together capable of running X3... it does sound pretty good

    26. Re:Some would call X3 the successor... by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 1

      I think I was idealising it somewhat .. perhaps it would have been like that if it had been better balanced...

      In actuality I remember pretty much what you describe.

      It didn't help that most of the ships had reaction drives capable of of fairly excessive acceleration ; I think they topped out at about 12g. Again, human brains are optimized for lower accelerations. And because there was no upper limit on relative velocity, there was a lot of "jousting". And if you used the autopilot, collisions :-).

    27. Re:Some would call X3 the successor... by mike2R · · Score: 1

      If you want something to whet your appetite there is a fantasticly well written gameplay AAR: Squiddy McSquid's possibly short life.

      Spoilers abound (but you need to spoil yourself quite a bit to learn X3 anyway IMO) and it is written for other players, so some of it may not make much sense for someone who hasn't played the game. It should give you a real idea of the possibilities of the game however - the author is an inveterate pirate, which makes for good reading, he is also very, very good at the game; there is no way I could ever pull off most of the stuff there.

      --
      This sig all sigs devours
    28. Re:Some would call X3 the successor... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, we were happy with Frontier and Frontier First Encounteres. Why wouldn't we be happy with sequels?

    29. Re:Some would call X3 the successor... by bluntman2008 · · Score: 1

      What annoys me is that this is easily achievable on today's hardware, as being proved by Infinity, but no games company seems willing to actual do it. X3 is okay, but the star map is a horrid grid, the travel between sectors is via gates (what is it with gates and space games?!) and there is no interaction with planets. On the upside you can have multiple ships, the economy is dynamic, you can build your own stations, and there are a lot of mods/plug-ins. I got so bored waiting for "Elite 4" or Infinity to be released I started making my own (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLAc1nm6w4E)!

    30. Re:Some would call X3 the successor... by flydpnkrtn · · Score: 1

      I just read the first post (damn cliffhangers!) but yea, appetite successfully whetted :) I'll read the rest after work

      X3 definitely does have the Elite feel from what I've seen... I really love being able to fly down to a planet seamlessly though... it really cranks up the "suspense of disbelief" factor IMO

      I played Vendetta Online for a while, but the skyboxes didn't do it for me (you can see the planet and other stuff off in the distance, but don't you dare try to fly to it or anything - you're in a box, remember?)

    31. Re:Some would call X3 the successor... by joss · · Score: 1

      You need earthsim2 .. it's in alpha right now though, but it's sweeeeeeeeet http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xwGucH-e_o

      --
      http://rareformnewmedia.com/
    32. Re:Some would call X3 the successor... by duguk · · Score: 1

      We already see this with air craft today. When a pilot goes on a bombing run, they don't fly the plane, it flys itself. Its route has been programmed in to the on board navigation computer. The plane lets them know when they are near the target, and when to signal for bomb release.

      That'd be a simulation, not a "realistic space" game.

    33. Re:Some would call X3 the successor... by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 1

      I encourage you to get a BBC emulator and play it.

      Elite wasn't Newtonian. It was "etheric rudder". It had a short-range FTL "warp" drive for intersystem travel. Combat and docking were like flying a plane with no gravity. Enemy ships bank, roll, and climb. The throttle control governed velocity, not acceleration. And for all that, it was notoriously difficult, particularly the fine manoeuvre of docking, but fun.

      The "Frontier" sequels used Newtonian mechanics are (IMHO) much less fun to fly, because you rely so much on the autopilot for everything, because the human brain can't cope with it. (I used to play when I was 19 and my brain was educated but still young and fresh, so I don't think it's a problem with my brain per se). Combat in particular (as noted in sibling posts) wasn't much nearly as much fun either, because something going past at nearly 600km/hr[1] is too hard to hit with a laser controlled by your mouse, so you'd use the autopilot (and crash into your target, unsurprisingly), or guided missiles (boring).

      [1] the relative velocity you get if two ships with 20g thrusters fire their engine for one second each while facing each other

    34. Re:Some would call X3 the successor... by Reapy · · Score: 1

      Oh nice description. I have x3:runion collecting dust. I liked the idea of it and got all psyched up to play it, but the upfront work confused the living hell out of me and I kind of let it just go before I could really get myself into it. That and securom! :) I'll take a look at the terran conflict game since I didn't catch its release or anything. Thanks!

    35. Re:Some would call X3 the successor... by mike2R · · Score: 1

      Just to be clear - I don't want to be the cause of you upgrading your system under false pretenses :)

      The X3 games are sector based games, so there are over 200 sectors connected together by Stargate-style jumpgates. Each sector, while technically unlimited in size, has all its interesting things within a box that varies between about 60km a side to 300km a side (with a few things scattered off the beaten track to reward the curious). To give you an idea, here is an X3:TC Universe Map (I wouldn't study it in detail however or you really will spoil yourself). Also planets are pretty pictures painted on the backdrop, and can't be orbited or interacted with at all.

      So, coupled with the Aristotelean physics, this is not a "space simulator" in the way that Frontier was. I hope that doesn't put you off, it is a truly fantastic game, but I know a lot of Frontier fans have certain opinions about realism that X3 does not even try to meet :)

      --
      This sig all sigs devours
    36. Re:Some would call X3 the successor... by lordholm · · Score: 1

      "Movies depicting space travel with Newtonian manoeuvring are regarded as artsy."

      Babylon 5 had a lot of space battles where there was newtonian mechanics involved. I would not call that artsy...

      The battles where in-fact very exciting at some points, some of the best I have seen in a TV-series at least

      --
      "Civis Europaeus sum!"
    37. Re:Some would call X3 the successor... by mike2R · · Score: 1

      heh, I really do know what you mean. To be honest TC isn't much better than Reunion when it comes to the whole WTF?? element when first playing. It still has the same gotchas, reading newbie forum posts you get the same list of questions over and over, eg:

      Why can't I hit anything with my lasers?
      - You need to buy Fight Command Software Mk 1 and then toggle the autoaim on. Oh and this doesn't work with the mouse button controlled firing which aims at your cursor (new in TC IIRC) but only with the bore-sight Reunion style firing which is tucked away with a binding to the Ctrl button by default, although it is the only type of firing you will want to do until you are fighting capital ships.

      Why can't I see the prices at a station unless I'm landed there?
      - You need to have the Trading System Extension software (not Trade Command Mk1, 2 or 3) installed on the ship you are currently flying, and have an asset in the relevant sector. Basically you need a Navigation Satellite network which you can easily lay automatically, as long as you know that you need to fit Explorer Command software to the ship in question, and give it at least 1 Nav Sat before you have the option.

      I really like this game, but it does seem to take forever to get anywhere..
      - Oh dear, how long have you being playing without the compress time feature... try pressing 'j'...

      etc etc etc :)

      One of the things about an incredibly complex game developed by a small software house I suppose. When you are banging your head against a wall trying to work out if you can do something simple, the answer is nearly always 'Yes', as long as you can read the mind of the developer who coded the feature :)

      The big advantages of TC over Reunion come in when you are over the initial complete confusion - a huge amount of the grind has been taken out; instead of having to dock at station after station looking for missions, you see icons around stations that have missions to give and can Com them to take the mission (sounds small, but this is a HUGE improvement). Race reputation moves much faster (some do say too fast), so you don't have to grind away before you can buy a decent ship. Readily available combat missions give you an reasonable way to make money from fighting apart from simply trying to cap ships. A much more generous plot-mission sequence where you actually get decent rewards for following the plot. An in-game encyclopedia that remembers the specs/where to buy/sell etc of all wares, software, equipment, weapons and ships (there's a lot more to TC, but those are some of the big improvements that help newer players getting started)

      It really is a game where the forum is not an optional extra. Thankfully the forum is excellent.

      --
      This sig all sigs devours
    38. Re:Some would call X3 the successor... by ogdenk · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This is why the "realistic" space sim zealots will never be happy. If a company ever actually gave them the game they wanted, one that was truly realistic as per our current understanding of physics and such, it'd be way too boring to actually play.

      BS. There's a reason MS Flight Simulator succeeded though it was rather boring to most people. There's a reason IL-2 Sturmovik is still making money. Realistic sims sell, just to a much smaller niche market. Boring for you and other 12 yr olds? Probably. Most of them can't even get a plane off the ground in IL2.

      http://www.fasterlight.com/exoflight/

      Exoflight is a sim based on realistic newtonian physics. Kinda fun. No combat. Space Combat by the X-Plane guys is fun too but the "combat" part is lame due to the lame weapons. Both of these are free.

      The ultimate space combat sim to me would be a game set in the cold war era in LEO, to and from the moon and maybe mars. Basically Apollo and Gemini capsules with belt fed .50 cals w/ compensating thrusters. Soyuz capsules with 23mm cannon. Cobbled together crappy tin can space stations (also armed).

      Shields, laser weapons and particle cannons are what ruin the fun in space games for me. Slugthrowers and missiles with limited propulsion/maneuvering fuel would make it insanely fun, especially if you accurately model venting atmosphere from bullet holes effecting the stability and maneuvering of the craft. This is how spacecraft to spacecraft combat would take place today, just with better targeting systems. A .50 in space would have MUCH greater effective range than a similar weapon in the atmosphere. You just can't afford to send lots of missiles up on each spacecraft.

      I think a space combat sim with realistic physics set in 1974 instead of 2269 would be more fun. Hell, there's even an AGC emulator now that could probably be shoehorned in and scripted to make it easier for non-astronauts to use.

      They do not actually want what they believe they want.

      Who are you to tell me what I want? I want true realism without pipe dream lasers with unlimited ammo, particle cannons or warp drives (time acceleration to make it playable is cool though).

      I've played sims with realistic newtonian physics and I deal with them very well. It takes getting used to but is actually more immersive. You want that tired old Wing Commander shit, you go ahead and buy it. It got boring well over a decade ago.

      So thanks but no thanks, I'll take highly unrealistic, fun games.

      To each his own, but your opinion is not shared with others and it's awful arrogant of you to think you can tell people they don't want something they want.

      A highly realistic space game can be a blast if done right. Stuff set in the far future doesn't interest me all that much anyway.

    39. Re:Some would call X3 the successor... by Sibko · · Score: 1

      This is why the "realistic" space sim zealots will never be happy. If a company ever actually gave them the game they wanted, one that was truly realistic as per our current understanding of physics and such, it'd be way too boring to actually play.

      As one of those "Space Realism Zealots" I can tell you flat out that you're wrong. Realism doesn't make the game boring, it makes the game different, and what I'm seeing you do, is equating different with bad.

      A good example of how you can make realistic space combat fun would be the tabletop wargame Attack Vector: Tactical. Here are some battle reports to give an idea what it plays like.

      Heck, the biggest complaint against AV:T has more to do with the rules being fairly complex than anything about the actual gameplay. Those same complex rules are easily dealt with when applied to a computer game. A computer can perform a range-angle lookup instantly and far more exactly than someone using a ruler and the supplied play aid for AV:T can.

      As you can clearly see in the above links, there is nothing about realism that prevents you from maneuvering around and using tactics in space. You just didn't know it could be like that, and assumed all realistic space combat was boring. Space isn't like flight, and it isn't like sailing in the ocean or under the sea, or fighting on land, it's a completely different medium that has its own unique effects on the way combat would work. Just because it doesn't copy WWII naval battles doesn't mean it sucks.

    40. Re:Some would call X3 the successor... by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      I thought the "jump" button just caused a time skip, not a physical jump...

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    41. Re:Some would call X3 the successor... by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Elite didn't have it? Only the sequels did, I'm not sure how well those did compared to the original.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    42. Re:Some would call X3 the successor... by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Tom Clancy's HAWX managed to make plane combat with guided missiles fun. The tricky part is to fly in a way that confuses the enemy missile's guidance and makes it fly past you harmlessly while also launching your missiles in a vector that makes them likely to hit the target (either dead frontal while praying that the enemy doesn't dodge or from the rear).

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    43. Re:Some would call X3 the successor... by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Soyuz capsules with 23mm cannon.

      I reckon it'd look somewhat like this.

      I imagine accuracy would be a massive issue in battles at that range, your average machinegun isn't going to land many hits at 300km distance even without atmospheric friction to worry about. You could try using the airplane approach of throwing more bullets at the problem but that'd have a nasty amount of recoil and throw both your aim and your movement off-course. I don't think you're going to score many hits without using guided missiles that can correct their course after launch or just lasers (and I mean the real light kind, not the slow moving bullet type you see in movies).

      Maybe the first challenge could already be spotting the enemy with your sensors, kinda like sub warfare.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    44. Re:Some would call X3 the successor... by ogdenk · · Score: 1

      Actually, it'd probably look more like this:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salyut_3

      "Self-defense" gun

      trials of the on-board 23 mm Nudelmann aircraft cannon (other sources say it was a Nudelmann NR-30 30 mm gun) were conducted with positive results at ranges from 500 m to 3000 m

      Slugthrowers would probably be for up close and personal use. I imagine it being a cross between sub warfare and jet combat. Once you use up the big munitions and countermeasures at extreme range, it'd end up being a very brutal slaughter up close with most if not all of both crews likely dead or soon to be dead if surprise can't be achieved. Especially with HE cannon rounds. Rocket propelled chaff canisters would make things interesting too.

      You'd have guidance, you might even have some limited target tracking. Equipment was very heavy too. There's a lot of weird constraints to consider. A PDP11/03 or 11/23 would have been considered a luxury "small" footprint machine in those days.

      Hell I think it would make a cool game. Maybe even a cool movie.

    45. Re:Some would call X3 the successor... by julesh · · Score: 1

      the shuttle after all is still landed manually.

      Maybe, but only after its navigation computer has aerobraked it down to a speed where it's controllable by humans. Plus, it is _capable_ of entirely automatic landing; the only reason they doesn't usually do this is basically down to paranoia.

    46. Re:Some would call X3 the successor... by julesh · · Score: 1

      because something going past at nearly 600km/hr[1] is too hard to hit with a laser controlled by your mouse ...

      [1] the relative velocity you get if two ships with 20g thrusters fire their engine for one second each while facing each other

      This exposes two issues with the game design, not with the principle of newtonian space sims:

      1. 20g is way too high a thrust for the sizes of ships involved. 600km/hr wouldn't be a problem if the ships were bigger, and wouldn't happen as much if the thrust were lower.

      2. If aiming is too hard then some kind of targetting assistance should be provided... but *not* by engaging the autopilot, which negates the most fun part of flying a newtonian space combat sim, i.e. trying to control your ship with 3 complete degrees of freedom while keeping your weapons on target and avoiding your enemy getting a good lock on you.

      It also exposes an issue with how you were playing the game, but that could also be seen as a game mechanic failure: there was no tutorial that taught you how to fight properly. In Frontier, the *best* method of combat was to turn your ship into free flight mode, stick the retro-thrusters on and try to keep the enemy in front of you. That way, the enemy's acceleration towards you is reduced and you can keep firing at them for longer, long enough to be able to (hopefully) get several hits in each run.

    47. Re:Some would call X3 the successor... by julesh · · Score: 1

      The Elite manual describes it thus:

      Increase forward velocity to maximum. At this point you can take full advantage of the space-skip facility (J). Inter- space jumping does not function (because of interference patterns) if there is another ship, a planet or a sun in the immediate vicinity.

    48. Re:Some would call X3 the successor... by Toonol · · Score: 1

      That's only because we coast for most of the trip. If you actually had a rocket that could thrust at several g's for weeks on end, navigation becomes much simpler; almost seat-of-the-pants easy. The sun's gravity well loses its importance. The convoluted courses we plan for deep-space probes are because of their immense duration and minimal acceleration.

  5. Investing in new ideas feared back then by Techman83 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It was something that I thought was a bit more recent phenomenon. But it seems that once a market becomes "established" that it becomes tougher to get people to invest in an idea that isn't safe. And it just goes to show what a significant impact that this game had on the industry and what a shame it would have been if they had given up.

    --
    # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i cat
    Damn, my RAM is full of cats. MEOW!!
    1. Re:Investing in new ideas feared back then by 4D6963 · · Score: 1

      it becomes tougher to get people to invest in an idea that isn't safe

      Yeah, maybe cause ideas that are not safe are not safe. Innovative ideas are a crapshoot, no matter how brilliant it seems you can't tell if it's going to stick or not.

      --
      You just got troll'd!
    2. Re:Investing in new ideas feared back then by Techman83 · · Score: 1

      True enough, but taking it to a more personal notch, some of my riskiest decisions have brought about the biggest rewards and some of them failed epically. I couldn't imagine me being happy, stuck in some dead end job back home, instead I'm on the other side of the country, well on the way to getting married, recently purchased a house etc. etc.

      Sometimes the safe bet isn't the right bet

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i cat
      Damn, my RAM is full of cats. MEOW!!
    3. Re:Investing in new ideas feared back then by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      How much did Elite cost to make? Two guys, working for a few months? Lots of companies now are prepared to make that kind of gamble. It's the kind of gamble where you have teams of over a hundred artists, programmers, musicians, animators, and so on all working for a year or more that they are more hesitant.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    4. Re:Investing in new ideas feared back then by LordSnooty · · Score: 1

      1984 was a very long time ago, and only a couple of years into the mainstream home computer market. Perhaps the investment now needed in hundred of programmers & graphics artists is the equivalent of a company committing to produce 10,000 cassettes and a marketing campaign. Hugely different scales of investment, but the same question - will people like this? Back then, it's easy to see why there was doubt, every other game seemed to be a simple shoot-em-up. Even if I think of luminaries such as Ocean Software, they spent the first few years of their life churning out identikit shooters & platformers. Only once their success had built up did they start to take risks with more original games (though they found a new mainstay in the film/coin-op licences)

    5. Re:Investing in new ideas feared back then by 4D6963 · · Score: 1

      Yep, I know what you mean, I myself have taken risky bets that have paid off. But it's usually hard to convince anyone to take a piece of your own risk pie.

      --
      You just got troll'd!
  6. The BBC Micro version was first and best by GreatDrok · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I remember getting Elite on my BBC Model B back in '84 on cassette. It took quite a while to load but was well worth it. When I upgraded my machine with Opus DDOS and an 800K double sided, double density 5 1/4" floppy drive I was able to get the floppy version which loaded my more quickly. You really needed the analogue controller too. I stuck an old Scalextric controller on top of mine to give me a full hand grip and I could fly rings around other ships.

    I tried other versions like the C=64 and PC versions but they really didn't work as well as the version for the BBC despite the fact that there was little use of colour (only the dash) but the mode 4 high resolution monochrome graphics were much crisper and animation was faster on the BBC than other platforms. The BBC Micro was a real gem for quality games. The versions of arcade games like PacMan, Defender, Scramble and so on were in many ways better than their arcade equivalent. The BBC had some really nice hardware acceleration features such as hardware scrolling (both vertical and horizontal) and a very configurable video ULA which is how they were able to do the mode switching part way down the screen in Elite where it switched from mode 4 (320x256 1 bit colour) to mode 5 (160x256 2 bit colour).

    It was a real slog to get to "Elite" but worth the journey. Very few games today are anything like as enjoyable despite the improvements in technology. I guess GTAIII was the first time since Elite I had anything like the same feeling of freedom and the thrill of just being bad.

    --
    "I have the attention span of a strobe lit goldfish, please get to the point quickly!"
    1. Re:The BBC Micro version was first and best by Goffee71 · · Score: 1

      Atari ST version was lovely though - spent years on and off watching those shaded little Cobras and Kraits whizzing about.

      Always waiting for the magic trip into Witchspace

      --
      If he's the Walrus then can I be a penguin please?
    2. Re:The BBC Micro version was first and best by Haxamanish · · Score: 1

      Nope, ArcElite was the best version, but then again the Archimedes was also a "BBC Micro" (well at least the A300-series had the BBC logo) :P

    3. Re:The BBC Micro version was first and best by GreatDrok · · Score: 1

      "Nope, ArcElite was the best version, but then again the Archimedes was also a "BBC Micro" (well at least the A300-series had the BBC logo) :P"

      Although I never played the Arc version I have to say I'm not convinced by the solid polygon models. I still think the old wireframe style of the original looks best.

      --
      "I have the attention span of a strobe lit goldfish, please get to the point quickly!"
    4. Re:The BBC Micro version was first and best by iapetus · · Score: 1

      There was a patch for the Archimedes version to give you fluffy dice in the cockpit and a 'My other ship is a Thargoid' bumper sticker. This alone makes it the ultimate version.

      --
      ++ Say to Elrond "Hello.".
      Elrond says "No.". Elrond gives you some lunch.
    5. Re:The BBC Micro version was first and best by Ginger+Unicorn · · Score: 1

      i seem to remember the electron version loaded off the tape in an astonishingly quick time. Faster than all the other acornsoft games... maybe my memory is faulty...

      --
      (1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
    6. Re:The BBC Micro version was first and best by Tomsk70 · · Score: 1

      The C64 version was better, I'm afraid - the extra memory meant there were special missions and more ships :-)

    7. Re:The BBC Micro version was first and best by GreatDrok · · Score: 1

      "The C64 version was better, I'm afraid - the extra memory meant there were special missions and more ships :-)"

      The C64 version felt sluggish and the lack of an analogue controller made it harder to do really neat aerobatics (spaceobatics?). The BBC Micro was so much faster than all the other machines of the same generation and the graphics capabilities we better than the C64 despite the lack of hardware sprites. Sound was better on the C64, I'll grant you.

      --
      "I have the attention span of a strobe lit goldfish, please get to the point quickly!"
  7. hardware requirements by Errtu76 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    FTA:

    "We crafted every single byte and would work for hours just to free up three or four bytes so we could put in a new feature or ability.

    "That level of concentration on things have been lost today when you have things that are many megabytes or even gigabytes in size," he added.

    I wish more developers would do this with today's games. Then perhaps i wouldn't have to upgrade my computer so often when i wanted to play a new game. I know the article only mentioned memory usage, but i'm sure this goes for cpu / video power as well.

    1. Re:hardware requirements by Spit · · Score: 1

      Personal computers back then were more akin to consoles with keyboards, with a standard configuration and hardware features making it possible to optimize.

      --
      POKE 36879,8
    2. Re:hardware requirements by Haeleth · · Score: 1

      That simply isn't true -- at least, not of the BBC Micro, which came in a number of different configurations and was easily upgraded.

      And just how many models of Apple II were there, again?

      And let's not even get into the MSX, which was produced in dozens of variations by different manufacturers.

    3. Re:hardware requirements by Xest · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, and then you also wouldn't see games released for about 10 years too.

      The kind of memory and CPU cycles you can free up by these kinds of optimizations, compared to the amount of memory and cycles available just makes it not even worth it. The amount of time required to do this level of optimisation on games of the size and complexity we have today would add many years to development time.

      This coupled with the fact that compilers nowadays do a better job on the fly than most developers can anyway means it's really a pipe dream to have all your games completely and thoroughly hand optimised from start to finish, and amusingly you'd likely only see a couple of fps benefit, and maybe a few mb of memory savings. It's just not justifiable.

      From a commercial standpoint it would be suicidal too, everyone else would be developing as normal, and by the time you'd finally released your perfectly hand optimised game, the optimisations would be irrelevant as your game would be 5 - 10 years old and everyone would've bought far more powerful PCs anyway.

      If upgrading your PC is a problem, and you're not bothered about the above side effect of having games behind the times that hand optimisation of a complete game would cause, why not just buy last gen games rather than trying to play all the latest and greatest?

      The fact is, those skills have been lost for a reason- they're just not important in modern game development where the pressure is on to produce ever more code and content than before and where that level of optimisation offers so little benefit when taken with the fact most game/renedering libraries (DirectX, OpenGL), and most compilers ensure this optimisation is done for you already where it matters. I certainly think we're at risk of losing low level programmers, and that's not a good thing, but this is certainly not an area where their loss matters- I'm more concerned about the loss of people who can do low level stuff to support reverse engineering of DRM, proprietary protocols and that sort of thing.

      This is not to say games don't need optimisation at all, of course they do, there is still plenty of scope for that, but to hand craft each byte of content and machine code? Not worth it.

    4. Re:hardware requirements by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      In the days of Elite it was true. Games and other programs were simply designated for BBC Model A or BBC Model B. With the majority being Model B.

      Of course if you had a Model A, as I did, you could upgrade bits piecemeal to Model B spec. I upgraded the memory to 32KB pretty soon, which was enough for most games to run. But when Planetoids (Defender) came out, I had to add the 6522 VIA chip too. That game used the timer in the chip.

      But that upgradability is besides the point. Games were aimed at, and marketed for either A or B. Planetoid for example just said it was for Model B. There were no minimum requirements listed on the pack as a PC game would have.

      Later there were other models, but again, they offered specific named models to be aimed at. Not the infinate variability of PCs.

    5. Re:hardware requirements by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This coupled with the fact that compilers nowadays do a better job on the fly than most developers can anyway means it's really a pipe dream to have all your games completely and thoroughly hand optimised from start to finish, and amusingly you'd likely only see a couple of fps benefit, and maybe a few mb of memory savings. It's just not justifiable.

      This is simply false. Compilers are dumb. They won't take a O(n^N) algorithm and turn it into O(log(n)). It is still the programmers responsibility to make sure the code is efficient.

    6. Re:hardware requirements by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      The quote I always think of when people demand this kind of optimisation is from the STANTEC Zebra's programmers' manual, explaining that the 150 instruction limit for Simple Code programs is not a significant problem, 'because no program longer than 150 could possibly be debugged'. The BBC Model B had 32KB of RAM; that's 32KB for the game code, the frame buffer, and all of the data. When a program is that small, it's entirely feasible to spend some time working on every single byte.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    7. Re:hardware requirements by joss · · Score: 1

      Your last two sentences are true but do not refute what he was saying. Compilers do a better job of translating C [say] into machine code on today's architectures than a typical programmer would. Of course the programmer is responsible for using the right algorithm but that is easier in C/C++ than assembly.

      --
      http://rareformnewmedia.com/
    8. Re:hardware requirements by Thoughts+from+Englan · · Score: 1

      Spit (23158) and BasilBrush (643681) seem to have forgotten the fact that there were many different personal computers available at this time so while it is true that the BBC model A could be upgraded to the standard of the model B there were also the apples, dragons, sinclairs, comodores, ataris etc (and many more) which in some cases had the same CPU and Memory but were still completely incompatible with the Acorn/BBC. Personaly I was exclusively an Acorn/BBC owner from early '81 with a kit built atom until about '95 when my work ment I needed to get into the grind of PC compatibility (I still have the Atom, BBC and Archimedes 310 though - all heavily upgraded) but it doesn't stop me appreciating some of the other tech out there at the time.

      --
      That was supposed to be "Thoughts from England" ... Oh well.
    9. Re:hardware requirements by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Tthat just adds weight to the point being made. The different home computers being incompatible is equivalent with consoles now being incompatible. Ports had to be made, where "port" all too often meant: write from scratch without access to the original's source code.

      Again, on each of those platforms, you were writing a game targeted for a fixed spec machine. Generally the particular spec that was the biggest seller. You knew the processor speed, and you were writing for a fixed RAM size. And you inevitably had to hand optimise to fit the game in to the limited resources of the machine.

      A couple of years ago I had fun writing versions of Donkey Kong and Defender for the Hydra console. A 32K RAM "retro" console. It was great fun squeezing the games into that limited hardware, counting bytes al the way. It'd have been no fun at all doing them for a modern PC.

    10. Re:hardware requirements by Thoughts+from+Englan · · Score: 1

      wups - my bad - I read Spit's post as saying all machines had the same spec and your post appeared to be agreeing with that. I now sit corrected (I would stand corrected but it makes typing tricky) Of course my memory sugests that most games (not all but most) only appeared on one family of machines although there were always copycats about that were similar. I remember a friend introducing me to (I think) frontier on his amiga which I gather (thanks google) was also writen by David Braben - he left me with it for a few mins and whenhe came back I had worked out how to game the trading system allowing me to build up a substantial bank balance and buy the top of the range ship and equipment (no hacking involved - just manipulating the market). it made the game rather pointless as we could fly around wiping out everything in sight. Please excuse my mad rambling - something to do with nostalgia or old age creeping up on me :o)

      --
      That was supposed to be "Thoughts from England" ... Oh well.
    11. Re:hardware requirements by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>This is not to say games don't need optimisation at all, of course they do, there is still plenty of scope for that, but to hand craft each byte of content and machine code? Not worth it.

      I remember going to a talk held by the SOE people in San Diego back in the Everquest days, and they said that just saving one byte off one of their status updates would save them X millions of dollars every year in bandwidth costs. So they really did inspect and handcraft every bit that went out over the network.

    12. Re:hardware requirements by mikael · · Score: 1

      Back then, your 6502/Z80 home computer had around 64K RAM at most. 8K to 16K of that would be for the OS. The screen would take 8K. That leaves you with 32K of bytes to play with. Instructions would take anything from 1 to 3 bytes, so you could write at most 30,000 instructions.

      You are going to need to reserve some memory for your graphics library (drawing points, line, triangles, text, pixelmaps, circles and ellipses). You can't use floating point maths, so will need your own fixed point 16-bit library for 3D maths.

      More memory will be needed for pixelmaps and fonts. A single font will take from 1K (128 8x8 characters) to 4K (128 16x16 bit characters). You'll have a basic bitmap editor to create fonts, pixelmaps. Your geometry will be calculated by hand, since you won't be able to render too many triangles. Rendering your screen will be a combination of drawing lines, triangles and pasting pixelmaps (not too different from today). You might be able to use page flipping or hardware scrolling to implement double buffering.

      Managing player state is simpler - using bytes will be preferred for most variables, but you might need 16-bits or 32-bits for scores and credits. You need to maintain information about the virtual world - the names of the planets/solar systems plus the trading prices. One hundred planets with twenty different commodities might use up 2K of memory.

      Because you are dealing with a limit of 32K with resources measured in 1K blocks, it was easy to do bean-counting, especially since a slow disk drive meant you couldn't easily load/save data to disk, except for saving and loading the game at fixed points in the game (eg. on planet side).

      A modern PC today will consist of 4 Gigabyes of memory, a large OS (1 Gigabyte+ for IO buffers), a graphics card with 256Mbyte of memory and 100+ stream processors, two or more hyperthreaded cores, fast cached hard-disk drives 250Gbytes+ in size. Instructions for the CPU range from 4 bytes to 32+ bytes in size, giving 134 million instructions. However, with optimizing compilers with parallel instruction execution, code optimization, hyperthreading and multithreading, worrying about individual CPU instruction counts is less important. Using 32-bit integers is more efficient than using bytes or 16-bit integers. The only way to really optimize source code is to use performance tuners and optimizing compilers. With middleware, you might not even have that option.

      With data, just a single 3D vertex is going to take up at least 48 bytes (vertex + tangent space). A model might consist of 20K vertices, so that is 500K for a start. A single texture for a 3D model might take up 1 MByte or more (terrain maps especially), but many graphics techniques require multi-texturing, so you might need two or more such textures for a single model. Don't forget the sampled audio and video clips streamed from disk or CD/DVD. Multiple threads will be used to handle user-input events, rendering, virtual world updates from the network server.

      Just getting approval to introduce a new character, get the artist/animator time to paint/animate that content is going to take many days of development.
      It might even require hiring an actor to do some of the motion and audio.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    13. Re:hardware requirements by Xest · · Score: 1

      That's really where compression comes in rather than this kind of optimisation, because this kind of optimisation ultimately leads to reducing maintainability of the application such as including content directly in the executable rather than including code to load it from file when required.

      I doubt for a second they really handcrafted it, else they'd never have got any patches done as they had to unmangle everything so they could even make changes. Saving bandwidth costs is one thing, but this level of optimisation would kill the product as it would be unmaintainable.

      This is particularly true when as I say, they could just build a custom compression routing that compressed their data pretty well anyway (and almost certainly no less so than they'd save by manually trying to shrink content, and then compress it).

    14. Re:hardware requirements by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>I doubt for a second they really handcrafted it, else they'd never have got any patches done as they had to unmangle everything so they could even make changes. Saving bandwidth costs is one thing, but this level of optimisation would kill the product as it would be unmaintainable.

      Uh, no. You can certainly change your protocol and not break everything, since you require clients to always be up to date - you don't need backwards compatibility. The point of the talk was exactly that - they didn't send any unnecessary data out over the line. I'm sure they compressed it as well as doing the bit packing and other tweaks they talked about.

    15. Re:hardware requirements by Xest · · Score: 1

      So in other words they didn't optimise the binaries or content at all for lower RAM usage and CPU usage as is being discussed, they simply optimised the network protocol?

      Well yes, of course- that's exactly what I said, some optimisation is still entirely relevant, but that's not the sort of optimisation being discussed here. Writing an efficient protocol is a completely different game to crafting code and content to be non-generic so as to optimise CPU/RAM usage at the expense of easy modification at a later date.

    16. Re:hardware requirements by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>Well yes, of course- that's exactly what I said, some optimisation is still entirely relevant, but that's not the sort of optimisation being discussed here.

      Sure, fair enough. And I do think network protocols are one of the areas where it's still really justified. Even in this era of high speed internet (sorta), the difference in responsiveness and speed of a well done network protocol, like Quakeworld's, and the alternative, is quite apparent.

  8. Let's not forget the road to these stars was paved by D4C5CE · · Score: 4, Informative
    ...by another unsung hero: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/4127/the_history_of_star_raiders_.php?page=2

    Doug Neubauer's Star Raiders, a 1979 game for the Atari 8-bit line of personal computers, is a shining example of what happens when a developer is told that something can't be done, does it anyway, and then is promptly forgotten for having done it. Star Raiders is one of those rare games that can truly be said to have been ahead of its time.

  9. There was a bug in the Spectrum version by thewils · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If you launched, then spun round and re-entered the dock hitting hyperspace at the same time, you appeared, docked, at your destination.

    Saved all that tedious trading until you could buy lots of weapons etc.

    --
    Once I was a four stone apology. Now I am two separate gorillas.
    1. Re:There was a bug in the Spectrum version by julesh · · Score: 1

      If you launched, then spun round and re-entered the dock hitting hyperspace at the same time, you appeared, docked, at your destination.

      Saved all that tedious trading until you could buy lots of weapons etc.

      That wasn't the only bug in the Spectrum version. It also let you save your game from the screen that appeared after you had died; if you did this, then reloaded it, you would appear inside the station in the system you died in, with full cargo etc.

    2. Re:There was a bug in the Spectrum version by Kazymyr · · Score: 1

      That's not a bug, that's a feature!

      I used this "feature" countless times to get a new pilot started, you know, get enough credits to buy decent equipment instead of getting blown out of the sky on the first trip. Good ole times.

      --
      I hadn't known there were so many idiots in the world until I started using the Internet -Stanislaw Lem
    3. Re:There was a bug in the Spectrum version by forgotten_my_nick · · Score: 1

      To go one step further on the Spectrum when you loaded the game for the first time, rather then starting the game hit save instead. Then load that back in and you had max amount of cash and elite status.

    4. Re:There was a bug in the Spectrum version by Kazymyr · · Score: 1

      Cool, I played for so many years and didn't know this. Of course, the catch is that you also become a fugitive, and the sun you're orbiting around is going nova... (yeah, I just had to try it)

      --
      I hadn't known there were so many idiots in the world until I started using the Internet -Stanislaw Lem
  10. the Modern version oolite rocks! by chrispatch · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I found oolite a year or two ago and was amazed at how much fun this game still is!

  11. My C=64 by Nethead · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If there is one thing I miss about my old C64, it's Elite. I lost many, many hours on that game. How they built such a large universe on such a small platform I'll never figure out. Thanks guys!

    --
    -- I have a private email server in my basement.
    1. Re:My C=64 by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      Seeding! The huge universe was generated, procedurally, from a one-byte-or-so seed. The procedure is deterministic so the universe always turns out the same provided the seed is the same, but it's essentially arbitrary.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    2. Re:My C=64 by julesh · · Score: 1

      If there is one thing I miss about my old C64, it's Elite. I lost many, many hours on that game. How they built such a large universe on such a small platform I'll never figure out.

      It was all produced from a random number generator. Ian Bell has released C source code that's equivalent to the original 6502 assembly version, if you really want to know.

    3. Re:My C=64 by nightranger · · Score: 0

      Memory lane or what?
      My all time favourite game on the C64 and the main reason I bought 2 of the 1541(?) disk drives.
      The first time listening to the Blue Danube during the docking sequences and getting the ship to rotate in time with the airlock.
      Buying the docking computer to not have to listen.
      Trawling for lost cargo.
      Took me about 9 months to reach Elite. I dont remember any special screen or anything.
      Good times.

      --
      That means turning it over to our tame racing driver, the sig.
    4. Re:My C=64 by julesh · · Score: 1

      Took me about 9 months to reach Elite. I dont remember any special screen or anything.

      IIRC, it pops up a message that says "Congratulations, Commander" across the bottom of the screen.

  12. da bomb by peas_n_carrots · · Score: 1

    Wow I feel old... this was seriously the bomb when it came out. So far ahead of its time, had me hooked for years!

  13. Thargoids. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...they were real?

    Well, yeah, they were. You just had to have played long enough.

    It took me a long time (Apple ][ version) before I encountered them by chance. Still wasn't sure it was real the next morning. Then a couple of weeks later, the Galactic Navy found me. Had some papers they wanted delivered.

    And then "Thargoids. Why'd it have to be Thargoids?"

    It wasn't a story arc by modern standards -- but after countless hours of play that stood on their own as just plain fun -- to have something like that pop out of nowhere, and to have the rarest "random encounter" spawn chase me more than halfway across the galaxy... was something I remember to this day.

    It wasn't until DOOM came out that I had dreams about a video game.

    Happy 25th, Elite. I still have that Apple ][, and I'm digging out that disk this weekend.

    1. Re:Thargoids. by Keill · · Score: 1

      It was easy to run into thargoids on the NES version - just hold down on the d-pad when warping...

      I used to play Elite on the NES when babysitting - damn I'm getting old... :( (I had it on the speccy too, but that damn lens-lok *!^$%"^&!).

      --
      'Stupidity is an often fatal disease' - R. A. Heinlein
    2. Re:Thargoids. by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Thargoids attacked me the first time I used the galactic hyperdrive. As soon as I appeared in real space again, they fired at me and destroyed my ship in about three seconds. I didn't use a galactic hyperdrive for a long time afterward as a result of that; I assumed all ships in the second galaxy would be like that...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    3. Re:Thargoids. by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      I rarely ever made it past one docking maneuver but I did run into a bunch of Thargoid invasion ships once and wrecked quite a few of them (plus their drones or whatever it was they launched) before they finally killed me and that was with the starting equipment. I think it was on the C64.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
  14. Elite 2 and 3 by Dexter+Herbivore · · Score: 1

    I have to say that I was so disappointed by the sequels compared to the simplicity and variety of the original that I'm afraid for any further sequel. I felt that Braden and Bell tried to expand the game too much for what the capabilities of systems were at the time. It'd be nice to see what they can do with the flexibility of modern systems.

    1. Re:Elite 2 and 3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The sequels were Braben's babies. Bell got cut in on royalties for 2, but only because of some reused code or somesuch. He had no involvement in (or royalties for, I think) 3.

      And I tend to agree: Frontier tried to be too much, wasn't as gripping. Many would dispute that though, I've met people that think it was the (energy?) bomb.

      Anyway, go aptitude install oolite and have fun again :)

    2. Re:Elite 2 and 3 by Haeleth · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The problem with the sequels was that they went all out for realism, whereas the original went all out for fun.

      So in the original, to fly to another system you undock, hyperspace, and apply your jump drive a few times. If you meet opposition, you engage in an exciting dogfight with usually several enemies.

      In Frontier, to fly to another system you undock, fly outside hyperspace range, hyperspace, and then spend the next twenty minutes slowly accelerating and decelerating across an entire solar system. If you meet opposition, it takes the form of a single enemy. You remain relatively stationary while it flies slowly round you in circles, only coming into range for a few seconds every three or four minutes.

      Realistic? Sure. Immersive? Yes, actually, for a few days. But the original was gripping for months, while the sequels got boring very quickly, and that was entirely down to the fact that realistic is not fun.

    3. Re:Elite 2 and 3 by forgotten_my_nick · · Score: 1

      Although Final Frontier was extremely impressive coding for its time (despite the bugs).

      They had a 3D game you can fly in space, land on planets with millions of star systems and missions/ships/etc. All on one 3.5" floppy disk.

      Prior to that you were looking at a swapping CDs mid game to get anything halfway decent.

  15. The Free Will paradigm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think what made the game so successful (at least it did for me) was the ability to do what you wanted to do and when you wanted. The most fun I've had with video games have been those that had this element to some degree. And, it wasn't just pointless free will like wandering around the unpopulated, unused portions of a game map. I'll never forget the excitement I felt when wandering into a system with a Python transported by a flotilla of escort fighters. I had a choice to attack them or move on to the space station (and you know I made the wrong decision!).

  16. Riedequat is a tedious world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    but plagued by mutant tree frogs.

  17. If you liked Elite... by Alioth · · Score: 5, Informative

    ...you may like Oolite, an Elite tribute. It has the goodness that ArcElite has too - it is not player centric, you can encounter epic battles (I've seen three or four distinct groups of ships battling it out, with the Police mixed in there too). The game is open source (GPL) and expandable with expansion packs (so now you can have Generation Ships and Space Dredgers, as well as scenes from the Dark Wheel like the Tionisla Orbital Graveyard). It's available for OSX, Linux and Windows (it was originally developed for OSX).

    http://oolite.aegidian.org/

    Latest version is 1.73, and there is a wiki for the game at http://wiki.alioth.net/

    1. Re:If you liked Elite... by Dynamoo · · Score: 1

      Absolutely.. Oolite is brilliant! And the expansion packs are great too :) I'd mod you up if I could!

      --
      Never email donotemail@WeAreSpammers.com
    2. Re:If you liked Elite... by A+Friendly+Troll · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I went and downloaded it.

      First it tried to install into c:\oolite, completely disrespecting the past fifteen years of application development for Windows. I have no idea where it's going to save files, but I'm willing to bet it's not nowhere near my profile folder.

      After it got installed, it opened a readme file that said how to edit .GNUstepDefaults (what?) and somewhere near the end of the file - which I can't find anymore - it said that exiting the game is done through Shift+Escape (huh?), plus a whole bunch of stuff I forgot.

      When first running the game, it asked me if I wanted to load the previous commander, despite never running the game before.

      Then I somehow got into the game and started pressing various keys, starting with Escape, Enter and Space, which got me nowhere. Then I pressed F1 (as I decided to go one by one) and suddenly I was in space. Randomly pressing all other keys also managed to get me nowhere.

      I admitted defeat and went to read the reference sheet. Again, that got me nowhere, despite somehow going to a different solar system, until I googled for "oolite tutorial", which helped me find out that I should press the "j" key in order to get to the planet a lot faster. Sadly, that didn't work, and I have no idea why... So it got me nowhere for the third time.

      It might be a good Elite clone and full of goodness, but it's anything but intuitive and playable. I see there are all kinds of expansion packs available; all that time spent and nobody ever thought of adding such a simple thing as a god damn menu when the Escape key is pressed, or incorporating a small tutorial, or at least making the F1 key display *help* instead of throwing you out into space at the start of the game?!

      Bye, uninstalled. I'll check out Vega Strike next week.

    3. Re:If you liked Elite... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, so - apart from not reading readme.pdf & 'advice for new commanders' you also managed not to read the oolite reference sheet, so inconveniently placed inside the start menu next to the oolite shortcut?

      Ok, the keys don't make much sense to you if you never played Oolite, or even seen the reference sheet. On that basis, I'm impressed you managed to even start the game at all, what with them making it so difficult for you! Personally, looking at the reference sheet and skimming the other stuff kind of helped me. Ymmv, though.

      Good luck with any game more difficult than tic-tac-toe! :)

  18. In the meantime we have EVE Online by Grail · · Score: 1

    Sure, it's fishtank physics, but you have the same ability to take off from a station, choosing to either pirate your way to riches or trade valuable goods across the galaxy. Even better (or worse, perhaps?) is that you get to compete in these activities against real people (not Thargoids, as exciting as they were).

  19. Great Elite article by ZosoZ · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Francis Spufford's book The Backroom Boys has a chapter about the creation of Elite, and a fair chunk of it is on The Guardian's website. One of my favourite bits is, after they came up with the procedural method for creating the universe, how they picked the seed:

    "Braben and Bell called the starting number for a galaxy "a seed" and, in truth, creating the game this way was more like gardening than deliberately constructing something. You had to plant the seed and see what grew. It was another sense in which they were ceding direct control over the game in favour of working indirectly on the player's experience. But they did want to start the player off in a reasonably friendly bit of space, where the pickings were good and they wouldn't get instantly clobbered. Since there was no way to edit a galaxy, you just had to try galaxy after galaxy, seed after seed, until something suitable grew. "I remember thinking it was very wasteful," Braben says. "You'd type in a number, a birthday or something, and see what galaxy that came out with. 'No, I don't like that. No, I don't like that. That cluster looks horrible'." They also decided they had better check the 256 system names in the galaxy where the player would be plunked down, in case any of the four-letter words were actually four-letter words. "One of the first galaxies we tried had a system called Arse. We couldn't use the whole galaxy. We just threw it away!""

  20. Elite forerunners by Ed+Avis · · Score: 1

    Elite has certainly been very influential on later games but it didn't appear out of nowhere. The authors were inspired by Star Raiders on the Atari 400. I also wonder if the earlier BBC Micro game Starship Command might have been an influence.

    --
    -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
  21. Talking about the mode switching.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    how did they do that ? ( It always bugged me)

    1. Re:Talking about the mode switching.... by flowsnake · · Score: 1

      how did they do that ? ( It always bugged me)

      As time progresses between vsyncs, the CRT electron beam scans left-to-right, then moves down a line, then left-to-right, until it hits the bottom-right - then it starts again at the next vsync. You set the video controller registers to mode A before the first line hits the CRT. A bit later, but before it reaches the bottom of the screen, you push new values into the video controller registers changing it to mode B; all the remaining lines are sent to the CRT in the new mode. You just have to make sure that the video controller register values get changed at the right point during each frame, and make sure that the mapped video memory contains data in the right format either side of the mode 'boundary' (although no boundary really exists). You can change mode more than once per frame if you want.

      You could always read the Elite source code to see how Bell+Braben did it.

  22. Hyperspace Malfunction by physburn · · Score: 1
    Now your have kill Thargoid invasion craft, until your hyperdrive get fixed. That game eat months of my childhood.

    ---

    3D Shooter Games @ Feed Distiller

  23. If you liked the game... by david.given · · Score: 1

    ...then watch the musical!

    No, really, go and look --- it was written by Aiden Bell (Ian Bell's brother) and Brian Phillips. Okay, you are going to have to stage it yourself, but the full book's there.

    There's lots of other good stuff on Ian Bell's Elite website, including versions for most microcomputers, actual source code for the original BBC Micro version (which is damn scary, by the way), concept art, lots of reviews and interviews, a version of the trading engine written in C that's compatible with the original, unreleased versions (Game Boy Elite!), the novella The Dark Wheel that came with the game... and, sadly, lots of info about the ongoing feud between Bell and Braben after they fell out.

  24. Games have come such a long way since Elite... by Tomsk70 · · Score: 1

    ...after all, it's been 25 years. That's 25 years in which to come up with new ideas.

    So where are we now?

    I recently paid Steam £30 to play X3: Terran Conflict - a 3D space sim where you start with a basic ship, and have to trade/ fight/ pirate your way up the food chain..... .....oh.....

  25. Open Source? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    some ppl are working on an OS game kinda like frontier 2

    http://pioneer.sourceforge.net/

  26. Is this a Star Raiders clone/enhancement? by gr8_phk · · Score: 1

    It looks like a super-deluxe version of Star Raiders from the Atari 8-bit. Or is that a bad analogy?

    1. Re:Is this a Star Raiders clone/enhancement? by slim · · Score: 1

      Star Raiders was sprite based. Elite uses 3D vector graphics. Plus the space combat is not the core of the game -- it's merely an obstacle to trading.

  27. history changes, human nature doesn't by Tom · · Score: 3, Insightful

    'They just didn't get it; they wanted a high score and they wanted players to have three lives,'

    Funny how that drives games development until this day. It's not 3 lives, but in the MMO market, for example, few dare to deviate from the "Level 60 cap, classes, crafting and grinding" concept. And those that do are almost always the minor players.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    1. Re:history changes, human nature doesn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair, EVERYONE except Blizzard is a "minor player" in the MMO market.

    2. Re:history changes, human nature doesn't by ImprovOmega · · Score: 1

      Well, *now* sure. But the concept of "Level cap, classes, crafting, and grinding" has been around since...well you could argue since D&D started the mainstream RPG market. It's a really addictive and successful model, there's no real impetus to change it in any meaningful way.

    3. Re:history changes, human nature doesn't by Tom · · Score: 1

      Not so sure about that. WoW is the biggest game by far, yes. But on the company level? Have you checked out NCSoft lately? If you total all their games (and don't forget that the biggest MMORPG market isn't the west, but asia, so make sure to count in the titles that were never released in the west!), I'm not entirely sure where you'd end up.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  28. And all in less than 32K! by AlvySinger · · Score: 1
    If not reading TFA (or Wikipedia): The BBC B has 32K RAM of which 10K was mapped to video and another 3K was used by the beeb itself (include a few 256bytes pages for the disk drive).

    The disk version did page to disk on docking but only to load alternate sets of ships, etc. All that game in basically 10K. (Props to Star Raiders too for similar on the Atari as referenced elsewhere) Those were the days, etc.

    Off topic but I recall a similar code-cram pubished in a magazine: a small routine to display text in any colour at any angle at any size anywhere on screen. This did use the OS character maps (each display character stored in 8 bytes) but managed the functionality in 256 bytes of 6502 assembly.

    Beeb was good for first introduction to beating protection mechanisms - it was possible to set an execution only flag on binary programs (so run only - you could load then save). However, this could be defeated by a few bytes of code to reset the relevant protection bit in a routine called several times a second by using the screen refresh interrupt. Very useful for getting games available on tape only onto disk. Load the image from disk, then move it down in memory over the memory allocated to the disk drive and run it. &E00 - those were the days, etc. As a professional programmer that same buzz is hard to come by...

    1. Re:And all in less than 32K! by joss · · Score: 1

      *opt 1,2

      --
      http://rareformnewmedia.com/
    2. Re:And all in less than 32K! by AlvySinger · · Score: 1

      *opt 1,2

      Tell that to kids today and they just wouldn't understand...

  29. Missions by MtlDty · · Score: 2, Funny

    I cant even begin to imagine how many hours my younger brother and I put into this game on the C64. I was hooked from the start, with the fabulous novella that came in the instruction manual. I pity those that only ever had a pirate version, the box set/manual/novella were a huge help in fuelling the imagination.

    I still remember the day though when I came back home and my brother said 'oh I was playing Elite and it said something about 'Do you want to accept this mission' so I said no'
    He still has imprints of my hands around his neck. I never ever saw a mission appear when I was playing.

    Anyone else get through the missions? They still remain one of the greatest mysteries around that game to me.

  30. What about Flight Simulator? by fortapocalypse · · Score: 1

    SubLOGIC Flight Simulator introduced 3D flight around 1980-81. If we're talking about history, that is what really started things.

    1. Re:What about Flight Simulator? by elrous0 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Star Raiders came out in 1979.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    2. Re:What about Flight Simulator? by fortapocalypse · · Score: 1

      Star Raiders's concept of environment was a lot more limited than FS-1 because you had to jump from one "block" to the next, whereas FS-1 had a fluid line drawing representation of airports and scenery throughout a large world. More FS-1 history here. If you are going old school on "3D", how about StarHawk (1979) or Night Driver? (1976)

  31. Mod parent: +1 ELITE by kale77in · · Score: 1

    I've been wanting an Elite clone for some years now... never worked out whether Vega Strike was that; it always ran too slow.

    sudo apt-get install oolite

    Oolite, moreover, is in the Ubuntu repositories! Clearly someone out there is thinking...

  32. Happy Birthday Elite by Thumper_SVX · · Score: 2, Funny

    Not strictly on topic... but Elite is mentioned and I just have to post this as this entire thread reminded me of the following animation;

    http://www2.b3ta.com/heyhey16k/heyhey16k.swf

    Awesome... and good old days. Damn... now I'm going to fill the rest of my week of vacation playing Oolite... thanks, Slashdot :P

  33. Re:You just described EVE Online... by vertinox · · Score: 1

    This sort of thing would apply to space combat to an even larger degree. A computer would be handling all the complex aspects of moving the ship and aiming the weapons, a human would only specify targets and destinations and such.

    So thanks but no thanks, I'll take highly unrealistic, fun games. ...except that it is fun, but EVE is about politics more than Newtonian physics simulation.

    You as the pilot simply set destination and targets and when to fire, but you'd be amazed at the complexity of the game.

    You often find yourself engaging and killing enemies at ranges greater than 50km but there are other techniques to have close range combat, but since you don't directly control the flight of the craft that doesn't matter that much either.

    Overall, I have a hunch if we were to have space combat in the future, it would be like EVE in which you engage your opponent at vast distances with smart weaponry.

    Trust me... Its a blast.

    --
    "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
    -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
  34. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  35. Memories :) by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

    I must say that Elite is one of the earliest computer games I played on a PC. I never managed to get the C64 version which is a shame, but around the time I (or my parents rather) upgraded my C64 to a new PC (a nice shiny 486 20Mhz with 2MB of RAM and an 80MB hard drive), Wal-mart had a ton of their old stock of PC games on the floor clearances for $2 each. I remember getting Elite and Millenium from that stash, and both were a blast. There may have been an old Commander Keen game in there too - can't remember.

    Elite was truly a demonstration of how little graphics and storage you needed to make a fun game.

    --
    "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
  36. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  37. Braben.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (.. VIRUS !!! SICK SICK SICK Late 80s.. many 12hr+ sessions.. wish I had taped'em..)

    What's I'd like to see in a space combat game is some of the stuff described in E. E. Smith's Lensman series; always enjoyed those "cones of destruction" and "planet smashers". First we need the inertialess drive, though :)

  38. Terminus by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

    Space combat with laser weapons in a world of Newtonian mechanics just isn't interesting, because it consists of

    Victory is entirely determined by who has the most power behind their shields and lasers. You spend the majority of your time in the early stages of Frontier avoiding combat because you'll be whiffed out of existence like a water balloon hitting the sun. Then when you have enough cash to beef up your ship, you are effectively untouchable.

    Short-range particle bolt weapons and etheric rudder may not be realistic, but they are a lot more fun.

    Well it's not like lasers and Newtonian physics are a package deal.

    Terminus used Newtonian physics and particle bolt weapons (and torpedoes), and it was hella fun, such that I find "etheric rudder" (nice term btw) games to be boring. If I wanted aerodynamic flight, I'd be playing a combat flight sim!

    3D circle-strafing (sphere strafing?) ruled. Get 4 or more ships involved in the dogfight and you had some seriously awesome space ballet going on as everyone tried to dodge out of the other's lines of fire. And you really could take the lightest, cheapest fighter and smoke the biggest, heaviest gunship just by being faster -- though in practice that was very risky, since the heaviest gun could blow your ass to pieces in one decent hit and your ship still had momentum.

    Terminus had its own set of problems (mainly not being popular enough to have 4+ ship battles be very common) but it showed how fun Newtonian physics could be in a space sim. I'll never play another space sim that doesn't do it.

    And hey, at least theoretically you could have lasers and other light-speed weapons... that would just mean combat would take place at distances far enough that you still have a chance to dodge (or rather, move erratically hoping the beam you can't see heading towards you isn't going to hit you). So well out of visual range and with completely automatic aiming, so maybe that wouldn't be as fun.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  39. Oh great.... by SwampChicken · · Score: 1

    ....so this means I've been waiting 25 years for an newer version of Elite. :(

  40. Re:You just described EVE Online... by julesh · · Score: 1

    ...except that it is fun, but EVE is about politics more than Newtonian physics simulation.

    You as the pilot simply set destination and targets and when to fire, but you'd be amazed at the complexity of the game.

    You often find yourself engaging and killing enemies at ranges greater than 50km but there are other techniques to have close range combat, but since you don't directly control the flight of the craft that doesn't matter that much either.

    Overall, I have a hunch if we were to have space combat in the future, it would be like EVE in which you engage your opponent at vast distances with smart weaponry.

    Trust me... Its a blast.

    Funny. I did the EVE 14 day trial about a month or so ago, and found it one of the most tedious games I'd ever played. And it's decidedly non-newtonian physics really annoyed me, especially because with the computer controlled movement and combat there's essentially no reason *not* to use newtonian physics.