WOOP!!! freelancer FTW!!!!! i used to play that loads when it first came out

Mansh00ter, did I just see a Sova carrier be destroyed....and sink? No, forget sink, did I just see it fall?

So much for physics.

On the origanal question, its actual more relistic. I'm a little rusty in science, but the only reason that planes are able to bank or do any of the fancy tricks they do is because of the air pressure and atmophere we have on the planet. The only way they would be able to do that in space would be to have exuast in every surface of the ship, which is just rediculas. It may not be visual pleasing, but its more realy that way.

Talk to IC about that - all I did was postpone the final explosion so that the ship could burn a little longer. The "falling" is hardcoded. IMO, they should have just randomly spun the ship upon destruction and give it a random vector thrust - it would look way better, though the sinking is also cooler than it just popping like a baloon.

People, the reason why Star Wars is practically a part of modern urban culture and 2001: A Space Odyssey is not, even though the latter is arguably a much better and deeper movie, is partly because the Star Wars are totally unrealistic but fun to watch. This tells you something about human nature.

It also tells you that if you want to make a good game, you have to take it easy with realism. The best design, in my opinion, is the one which fakes reality in a fun and believable way, even though a scientist may find it totally ridiculous (but are not complaining because its also totally fun).

Usually, you would be right (and in this case you are), but there are some cases where a ship could be destroyed and start sinking like a naval ship. for instance, if you are very close to a gravity well, close enough that you have to use your engines to maintain position, as soon as the engines cut out, the ship will start to fall. Also, if you blow a large hole in the side of the ship, the explosive decompression could push the ship to make it appear its falling. but yeah, in this case, it blew up... and went straight down, and detonated... its wrong, but as ManSh00ter said, its IC's idea. there are cases where sometimes a ship will keep moving in its original direction after its been destroyed, then detonates, thats cool, and it works.

they used to do this for all ships, whether they were moving or not... you would destroy a ship sitting dead still, and it would literally jump about 2 ship lengths away from where it was, spin a bit and blow up very quickly...

did you read any of the posts explaining why ships would bank etc in space? It was explained already... and they would do so, it has to do with Velocity and inertia/G forces.

i totally agree, maybe spin on the 1 or 2 axis at a time, have some smaller explosions then detonate. it should be diffferent for ships that are moving compared to those that are standing still. moving ships could keep moving and spin on axis' to give an uncontrolled feeling, while standing still caps could just stay as is or rotate a bit. i mean, you are a 2 million ton starship, and you re going to start moving at half thrust in 2 seconds?

i agree, thats why war games are so fun. you can either send an infantry battalion to its horrible painful death, and have 3 more absolutely identical ones to replace it, or you can play as a one man super soldier who can destroy everything from infantry to tanks and aircraft without so much as a scratch. there is no realism, otherwise people would realise how horrifying war is

agreed