Aw: Re: [stella] Starmaster disassembled

Subject: Aw: Re: [stella] Starmaster disassembled
From: cybergoth@xxxxxxxx
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 15:03:13 +0200 (CEST)
Hi Glenn!

> >Imagine one big 2 dimensional map looking like this:
> >_______________________________________
> >|                   B                 |
> >|                                     |
> >|                                     |
> >|         ____________________        |
> >|         |                  |        |
> >|         |                  |        |
> >|         |        A         |        |
> >|         |                  |        |
> >|         |__________________|        |
> >|                                     |
> >|                                     |
> >|_____________________________________|
> I believe what this is is a kind of projection map.  I suppose it would be 
> effective enough.

Phew... that's good to hear :-)
> It still doesn't take into account the distance of the enemy ships.  You 
> can't get around having 3 axes of some sort.  The scaling factor of the 
> ships acts as the Z somehow.  SR adds to this with a "wide-angle lens" 
> effect that adds to the sense of perspective.  Small objects appear larger 
> as you rotate them to the edges of the screen.

I've to check that, as it sounds interesting. I - as you were suspecting - had in mind
of pseudo-doing the Z-axxis via the index to the current size. An incoming object
would just *grow*, but actually it wouldn't move at all. The effect should be
the same though.
> >Pressing the rearview button for exmple would then be *just* moving the
> >pilot's point of view 1/2 of the map length up or down...
> Not just up or down, what if the ship was to the left or right of the A
> box.

I haven't thought that approach too deep into detail. Maybe it can't be done
as simple as I imagine it. I'll see what happens, when I'm actually doing it.
> >Even Elite does it like that, so I think such a reality level needs more
> >horsepower than a 6502 :-)
> Not at all.  If a Z (distance from ship) coordinate were updated for all 
> objects each frame, then you could have a conditional section when hardware
> collision occurs that makes sure the Z matches or is within an acceptable 
> fudge range that prevented a ship that's just a blip from being destroyed on
> the corner of the screen where your photons are supposedly just coming out 
> of your ship.

That's a good point. I think it would work like you said.
Hm... yould have to additionally 'track' your shots then... hm...

BTW: Having the ship firing with lasers - The immediate hit or miss of an enemy
within your sight - Should be damn realistic then.
> It's kinda the difference between making a real 3D game and a simple 
> shooting gallery game like the really fake 3D section of Gorf.

Yes, of course. But for Star Fire I decided to always skip reality for
fast 'n' furious gameplay. Even if it'd then come down to a 
just wave-after-wave' presenting shooting gallery - as you call it, I'd favor
that. I'll definitely go for the adrenalin rush :-)
(This'd just life up more to the 'Star Fire' brand I think. IMHO it never was 
 intended to be an accurate sim)


BTW: The last part of the 'The Final Kernel' Trilogy of Gunfight 2600
is coming soon (i.e. hopefully tomorrow) with the (kernel-)update focusing on your words:
"I noticed that the missiles kick up a scanline at the other end of the 
screen when you shoot them, sorta like what happens in Oystron.  Is this 
unavoidable?" :-)

Noch nicht im Urlaub gewesen, jetzt aber los!

Archives (includes files) at
Unsub & more at

Current Thread