5 responses

A thread of 2 messages, 27 October 1993 to 28 October 1993, in the order they were sent.

#6253 5 responses

J Roberson · 27 October 1993

This may be a little brief because I have little time to respond to the
past two digests.

1: Handmade High-tech: where do you draw the line? Some of the parts required
to build more advanced and efficient machinery simply MUST be manufactured? Is
it alright if it's powered by 'natural' fctories, like a mill that uses a
water wheel? I can tell you how a jet turbine works, but I wouldn't know what
to build it out of to accept the streeses--and you might not be able to make the
alloys without a masive foundry (which is a kind of factory). You need to be
more discriminating in your definition. But it's a good idea.

2: Near Stars: I would be very interested in an Excel version of the list.
Please send it to me at:
	[email removed]
Provided of course it doesn't take up some obscene amount of space. I can
probably handle about 750K without deleting all the other stuff I have.

3: 0-G cargo. Well, no, it doesn't get easier to move. You still have all that
mass to shove around. On Earth, you fight the the force pulling it down
(Gravity) but in space you're just as likely to push yourself farther than the
box you're pushing.

4:Z-coordinates: James vassilakos said there was difficulty when two stars
occupy the same Z-coordinate on a 3D map. I think he meant the same XY
coordinates; identical Z-coordinates would put them on the same page. If they're
on the same XY coordinates, one's right beneath the other, which would indeed
make it hard to spot on a series of transparencies.

5:Armor penetration: I can understand HE not penetrating well, especially if
it blows up on impact. HEAP, I agree, should burn right through armor.

As for lasers, let's discuss armor. Kevlar is made up of a ballistic weave, like
a big quilt. When something blunt (a bat, a bullet) hits it, it spreads the
damage out over a greater surface area, dispersing it in a way. However, as a
weave, it is very susceptible to impaling attacks, like knive and lasers (which
are pretty thin). I would ignore the armor rating againt laser for any armor
based on such a weave (though hard armor, like a battlesuit, should have full
protection).


J Roberson

#6259 3D Maps / In favor of the software approach

james vassilakos · 28 October 1993 · reply to #6253

J Roberson ([email removed]) writes:
> Z-coordinates: James vassilakos said there was difficulty when two stars
> occupy the same Z-coordinate on a 3D map. I think he meant the same XY
> coordinates; identical Z-coordinates would put them on the same page. If
> they're on the same XY coordinates, one's right beneath the other, which
> would indeed make it hard to spot on a series of transparencies.

Yikes! Yes, thanks for the correction. Two stars on the same Z-axis was
what I meant. A while back a very short-lived SF-RPG named Universe
came out, and it had (for its time), the very best near star map in
three dimensions. I often think that it's unfortuate that the publishers
didn't release the game in the "little black book" format which
Classic Traveller is known for. Certainly, they could have probably
attracted the attention of numerous Traveller players that way. But
that's beside the point.

Anyway, they semi-solved the two-stars/one-z-axis problem by having
one dot with two names and two z-coordinates. Of course, just imagine
the difficulties should every discrete z-coordinate between the top
of the map and the bottom be occupied by a set of stars with the same
XY coordinate. You'd have a map-makers nightmare.

But, as difficult as this problem is for the astrographer, it's
even worse for the programmer. We have to envision the problem
beforehand and find a solution without ever knowing what the
data set looks like. In other words, we have to solve for all
cases.

This is probably a key reason 2d maps are so popular. They just plain
easier to work with. But, you have to admit, there's something very
SFy about looking at a 3d starmap as opposed to a 2d one. 3d maps
give you a sense of a *really big* universe out there. 2d maps look
too much like settlements on a planetary surface. They aren't nearly
as neat to look at. They don't make you *feel* like you're really
in space.

This is why I think a rotable 3d map on a computer would be the ideal
solution, but I know of no programs (even non-ftpable ones) which will
fully satisfy the requirements at hand.

1. 3d/rotatable (obviously)
2. display name of the star-system beside the identifier on the map,
   legibly, semi-regardless of the user's point of perspective.
3. use color and size to further distinguish stellar/system features.
4. incorporate an adjustable cartesian grid with numbering displayed.
5. IBM executable (assume SVGA or better)
6. Input data stored in TEXT file (this is important, because we need
   to be able to write simple programs to generate this data, and it
   would be nice to be able to hand-modify it with choice of editor).

Anyway, that would be the sort of 3d map viewer I'd pick up if there
were any immediately available (ftp or otherwise). Unfortunately, I don't
believe that any exist which meet even half of these requirements
(well, I suppose ACAD meets *half* of the requirements, but certainly
not all of them). Anyway, if any of you distinguished programmers
decide that you want to make a project out of this problem, please
consider the above before you set down to coding.

           _   /|       Jim Vassilakos
           \`o_O'       [email removed]
             ( )        [email removed]
              U         [email removed]
           Aachk!       (USA) [phone removed]