' Wrote:I do believe these things have been sanctioned in the past....
But, anyway, why are we arguing about what Freelancer doesn't do, instead of what it does do? Did it occur to anyone that it might not be the ships, but the Planets that are scaled wrong? Because the space shuttle re-enters Earth's atmosphere without a docking ring doesn't mean that the ships of Freelancer can easily, otherwise they would be doing so easily, and docking rings wouldn't exist.
Mooring Fixtures exist for the same reason, because large transports cannot escape the atmosphere of a planet. Maybe the force of gravity and their mass has something to do with that? Most of the planets have a larger radius and mass than Earth (Only main planet I looked into that had a smaller radius and mass was NL), and so their force of gravity would be higher (And in the case of NB, much higher). I would love to argue physics here, but, the physics in Freelancer aren't the best (As we all know) and an exact material list isn't given for the Advanced Train, though, we could extrapolate using Densities and whatever, but, lots of room for error there. I think that we can assume because we can't enter the atmosphere ingame that it is physically impossible for the majority of us to enter the atmosphere and then escape it. If not, well, that's what text RPGs are for, isn't it? To make your own game up?
You've never studied the laws of physics or orbital mechanics have you? Going straight down like we do in Freelancer is like diving into a swimming pool with no water ... you'd be pancaked and whatever survived the impact would burn up before reaching the ground. Not to mention the tremendous explosion that would occur and the shockwave that would follow. You have to enter the atmosphere at a certain angle. If you hit too steep (like a nose dive) ... you end up like a bug on a windshield. If you hit too shallow ... you bounce off the atmosphere like a flat rock skimming across a pond.
Mooring fixtures and docking rings are game mechanics because the programmer didn't take the time or effort to add realism to the game. Same reason trade lanes, planets and such are stationary. In reality you couldn't setup a physical trade lane between planets because the planets would be continuously circling the sun ... and moons and stations orbiting around the planets. Its game mechanics ... has nothing to do with reality. And since everyone here is so dead set on throwing what's "real" into this game for role play purposes ... you've gotta take realism into consideration. I get tired of hearing double speak. Want realism or not? Cause you can't say real in one instance and simulate in another.
And large vessels (in TODAY's setting) cannot land on a planet because they are not built to withstand combat. TODAY's space vessels are built light and cheap. But in the FUTURE ... vessels (I hope) are built with better and stronger materials ... and built to withstand combat (ahem Nuke mines). So they're not likely to fall apart in the atmosphere. Ever watch Star Trek, Firefly, etc? Voyager actually landed on a planet during one episode of ST Voyager. And Firefly (one of Disco's ships ... from the Firefly series) was DESIGNED to fly both in space and within the atmosphere. But the Fireflly in Disco has to dock with a Mooring Fixture. In reality ... if a vessel cannot enter the atmosphere or land on a planet would not dock with a mooring fixture ... it would enter into orbit or dock with a station and take landing craft from the ship to the surface and such. But not a mooring fixture that is touching the atmosphere.
So ... if you wanna go with the logic that these "large vessels" cannot withstand the atmosphere and gravity and such ... maybe these vessels should loose a bit of their hull integrity. Maybe they should not be made to withstand torpedoes or guns or mines and such. Reality or not ... make up your mind.
