Experience a vast, open-ended universe filled with an infinite number of adventures. You are the freelancer Edison Trent, an intergalactic jack-of-all-trades. Your mission: whatever you want. Become a smuggler or a ruthless space thug, a naval hero or a trader. Dodge through asteroid fields while piloting elite spacecraft. The action is endless as you make your way through 48 known star systems. Greed, morality, compassion, anger... whatever motivates you, the dynamic universe will respond. Take the first step. The universe is waiting.
About Freelancer
Umm, any way to "rollback" the change Zerothis did to the post?
Edit: And the starship tag is the same as helicopter, submarine and other such tags.
Edit: And the starship tag is the same as helicopter, submarine and other such tags.
I'm sorry. gosh, I meant to reply to this article not replace it. I restored the text of the article but not the subject or source link (if it had these)
I meant to ask about the [[gametag:starship Starship]] tag.
[[gametag:starship Starship]] means a ship capable of taking many passengers from one star to another?
(I guess they'll let any idiot be an UVL editor)
I meant to ask about the [[gametag:starship Starship]] tag.
[[gametag:starship Starship]] means a ship capable of taking many passengers from one star to another?
(I guess they'll let any idiot be an UVL editor)
We are all prone to errors, what I can do is to make a better site interface and tools to revert errors.
For a start, I've highlighted the fact that you are editing an old article with a yellow background.
For a start, I've highlighted the fact that you are editing an old article with a yellow background.
[[quote:I meant to ask about the [[gametag:starship Starship]] tag.
[[gametag:starship Starship]] means a ship capable of taking many passengers from one star to another?]]
Means the user is in control of a space/[[link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship starship]]. So it's any vehicle that can cross deep space, with at least one pilot or an AI at the helm (usually an actual pilot since the player is in control of it). Think of all the spaceships in Star Wars (even things like the X-Wing/Tie fighter), Star Trek or Babylon 5 (even the [[link:http://b5tech.com/earthalliance/earthallianceshipsandvessels/earthfighters/earthfighters.html Starfuries]]) and you have pretty good idea. We should ignore the actual distance the vehicles can fly, as long as they can fly in space (= warp drive or not). Unless you can think of a good name that distinguishes the two, but I don't think it's very important since anything that can actually fly to other planets in games has a warp drive or other such nonsense because game makers don't expect players to wait years for them to reach their destination each time.
Note! Starship, helicopter, tank, submarine, etc. tags shouldn't be used in strategy or other games where you never are in quite "direct" control of such. Use plural forms of the words for those if you think they are in prominent enough role in them.
[[gametag:starship Starship]] means a ship capable of taking many passengers from one star to another?]]
Means the user is in control of a space/[[link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship starship]]. So it's any vehicle that can cross deep space, with at least one pilot or an AI at the helm (usually an actual pilot since the player is in control of it). Think of all the spaceships in Star Wars (even things like the X-Wing/Tie fighter), Star Trek or Babylon 5 (even the [[link:http://b5tech.com/earthalliance/earthallianceshipsandvessels/earthfighters/earthfighters.html Starfuries]]) and you have pretty good idea. We should ignore the actual distance the vehicles can fly, as long as they can fly in space (= warp drive or not). Unless you can think of a good name that distinguishes the two, but I don't think it's very important since anything that can actually fly to other planets in games has a warp drive or other such nonsense because game makers don't expect players to wait years for them to reach their destination each time.
Note! Starship, helicopter, tank, submarine, etc. tags shouldn't be used in strategy or other games where you never are in quite "direct" control of such. Use plural forms of the words for those if you think they are in prominent enough role in them.
Perhaps it should be called spacecraft. then add the tags orbital, interplanetary, interstellar, intergalactic, to indicate the scale of distance the ship can travel. Also related tags could be trans-lightspeed, trans-ftl (Faster-Than-Light), trans-sleeper , trans-generational, trans-relativity, to indicate the speed and mode of the spacecraft. Some of these tags could apply to communications also. Also of note would be the spacestation tag.
Using the Star Wars example:
All large craft in Star Wars (and a few of the smaller ones) can travel faster than light (Hyperspace). There are ships only suitable for orbiting or leaving and returning to a carrier spacecraft. Some go planet to planet. Some go from solar system to solar system. There are space stations. So six tags are added: spacecraft orbital interplanetary interstellar transftl spacestation
suggestions & comments?
Using the Star Wars example:
All large craft in Star Wars (and a few of the smaller ones) can travel faster than light (Hyperspace). There are ships only suitable for orbiting or leaving and returning to a carrier spacecraft. Some go planet to planet. Some go from solar system to solar system. There are space stations. So six tags are added: spacecraft orbital interplanetary interstellar transftl spacestation
suggestions & comments?
Your example could be expanded to any kind of game genre/theme.
Perhaps <b>game elements</b> should be handled separately, or perhaps like the music tags using a "special character"?
Perhaps <b>game elements</b> should be handled separately, or perhaps like the music tags using a "special character"?
[[quote:Perhaps it should be called spacecraft. then add the tags orbital, interplanetary, interstellar, intergalactic, to indicate the scale of distance the ship can travel.]]
I'd prefer if we left starship as a generic tag for those who don't care about the details (like me) :)
[[quote:Also related tags *snip*]]
The different travel speeds can actually be limited to sublight, superluminal and warp. Sublight is currently the most realistic one, superluminal just makes things go faster than light (bending the known laws of physics, specifically: relativity) in "real space" and warp can be used for everything where... well.. the space warps, the spacecraft uses some alternate dimension or other scifi stuff (e.g. Starburst like in Farscape, Subspace like in Star Trek, Hyperspace like in B5, or Warp Bubble like in Star Control 2, and countless others) to reach their destination.
[[quote:perhaps like the music tags using a "special character"?]]
If there were multiple of these special characters for multiple categories, then I'd be satisfied. Vehicles/transportation would have their own, something else would then have.. something else. But then I still can't answer why we'd do that. For songs I can understand it because they are not that vital or so strongly affecting the gameplay (and less likely known by most), but for this... it just doesn't seem worth it.
I'd prefer if we left starship as a generic tag for those who don't care about the details (like me) :)
[[quote:Also related tags *snip*]]
The different travel speeds can actually be limited to sublight, superluminal and warp. Sublight is currently the most realistic one, superluminal just makes things go faster than light (bending the known laws of physics, specifically: relativity) in "real space" and warp can be used for everything where... well.. the space warps, the spacecraft uses some alternate dimension or other scifi stuff (e.g. Starburst like in Farscape, Subspace like in Star Trek, Hyperspace like in B5, or Warp Bubble like in Star Control 2, and countless others) to reach their destination.
[[quote:perhaps like the music tags using a "special character"?]]
If there were multiple of these special characters for multiple categories, then I'd be satisfied. Vehicles/transportation would have their own, something else would then have.. something else. But then I still can't answer why we'd do that. For songs I can understand it because they are not that vital or so strongly affecting the gameplay (and less likely known by most), but for this... it just doesn't seem worth it.
I decided to "steal" [[link:/groups/info/spacestation spacestation]] as location tag, it's rather meaningless as vehicle or mode of transportation. The plural can be used for cases where there are more than one being controlled by player and the singular should work just fine when the player controls just one (for various reasons).
Now that I actually thought of it, spacecraft sounds more like the things we have now (that's what they're called, too, ha!) which are unable to perform prolonged flights beyond single destination and a return trip for repairs (do they?) and possibly being salvaged. Starship shouldn't be used for these instances, I think, since the modern spacecraft are so limited in their use. Same goes for lander modules.
The only thing I now lack is how to separate vehicles from modes of transportation or as "location". You know, instead of controlling the vehicle, the player is passenger in it. Doesn't really matter in cases where the player can't do anything significant while on board (= just some cutscene or the player's controls are locked while travelling).
The only thing I now lack is how to separate vehicles from modes of transportation or as "location". You know, instead of controlling the vehicle, the player is passenger in it. Doesn't really matter in cases where the player can't do anything significant while on board (= just some cutscene or the player's controls are locked while travelling).
[[quote:Now that I actually thought of it, spacecraft sounds more like the things we have now (that's what they're called, too, ha!) which are unable to perform prolonged flights beyond single destination and a return trip for repairs (do they?)]]
A Space Shuttle could dock at the International Space Station in between rendezvous with satellites or rendezvous with multiple satellites. But this has never happened or been planned as far as I know. Only a small number of satellites are in range for such a tour. Technically, any docking with the ISS could be defined as trip with two destinations (Start on Earth, destination 1:ISS, destination 2:Earth).
Also the Apollo missions to the Moon had two destinations, but those craft were hardly reusable. (The Space Shuttle is technically only partially reusable, as the launch engines must be replaced with new ones frequently)
The spacecrafts of [[link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Constellation Project Constellation]] will be capable, and are planned, to have several destinations in flight. Either manned or unmanned flights. Even, Earth→ISS→Moon→Mars→Moon→ISS→Earth. Once in space, one of the Ares spacecraft could conceivable stay there making multiple trips to the Satellites, Moon, Mars, all three, or Moon(drop passengers A)→Mars(drop passengers B, pickup passengers B)→Moon(pickup passengers A), always returning to the ISS for fuel delivered by Earth↔ISS spacecraft (a specialized automated fuel delivery spacecraft, or the same model as the interplanetary craft). Also they would be rendevouing with multiple landing crafts, as they are not launched from Earth with them (a different model launches the landers into orbit) nor do they bring them back to earth orbit. And there's no reason passengers need to be picked up and dropped off by the same spacecraft. Thus the technicality of replacing the Earth-launch engines would not detract from its reusability status. Apparently this will all start in 2009 and be fully operation in 2019. Its This includes a mock rescue of a lunar landing crew (crew transfer between spacecrafts to prove concept of 2nd spacecraft pickup/rescue) and an actual an lunar touchdown and return to earth (these are actually scheduled). Mars landings and Venus flybys are planned to be scheduled after 2019. So about 2020, humans will finally have our USS-1701 style spacecraft (with less crew, no transporters, no phasers, no photon torpedoes, no impulse, and no warp, and one-use shuttlecrafts). No ETA on the impulse and warp engines, but quantum entanglement transportations are being done now and 'traditional' (Star Trek style) matter-energy-matter transfer experiments are expected to begin soon. Matter to energy with full preservation of information down to a quantum state level has already been done. Now, only the process of transferring energy to matter with full preservation of information down to a quantum state is needed. John Close, an expert on atomic laser physics at the Australian National University in Canberra, says experiments combining both of these techniques might begin in 2013. Phasers and photon torpedoes are overkill at this point, if we encounter any Klingons, we have enough nukes to lobb for a good thousand years or so before we run out of ammo.
A Space Shuttle could dock at the International Space Station in between rendezvous with satellites or rendezvous with multiple satellites. But this has never happened or been planned as far as I know. Only a small number of satellites are in range for such a tour. Technically, any docking with the ISS could be defined as trip with two destinations (Start on Earth, destination 1:ISS, destination 2:Earth).
Also the Apollo missions to the Moon had two destinations, but those craft were hardly reusable. (The Space Shuttle is technically only partially reusable, as the launch engines must be replaced with new ones frequently)
The spacecrafts of [[link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Constellation Project Constellation]] will be capable, and are planned, to have several destinations in flight. Either manned or unmanned flights. Even, Earth→ISS→Moon→Mars→Moon→ISS→Earth. Once in space, one of the Ares spacecraft could conceivable stay there making multiple trips to the Satellites, Moon, Mars, all three, or Moon(drop passengers A)→Mars(drop passengers B, pickup passengers B)→Moon(pickup passengers A), always returning to the ISS for fuel delivered by Earth↔ISS spacecraft (a specialized automated fuel delivery spacecraft, or the same model as the interplanetary craft). Also they would be rendevouing with multiple landing crafts, as they are not launched from Earth with them (a different model launches the landers into orbit) nor do they bring them back to earth orbit. And there's no reason passengers need to be picked up and dropped off by the same spacecraft. Thus the technicality of replacing the Earth-launch engines would not detract from its reusability status. Apparently this will all start in 2009 and be fully operation in 2019. Its This includes a mock rescue of a lunar landing crew (crew transfer between spacecrafts to prove concept of 2nd spacecraft pickup/rescue) and an actual an lunar touchdown and return to earth (these are actually scheduled). Mars landings and Venus flybys are planned to be scheduled after 2019. So about 2020, humans will finally have our USS-1701 style spacecraft (with less crew, no transporters, no phasers, no photon torpedoes, no impulse, and no warp, and one-use shuttlecrafts). No ETA on the impulse and warp engines, but quantum entanglement transportations are being done now and 'traditional' (Star Trek style) matter-energy-matter transfer experiments are expected to begin soon. Matter to energy with full preservation of information down to a quantum state level has already been done. Now, only the process of transferring energy to matter with full preservation of information down to a quantum state is needed. John Close, an expert on atomic laser physics at the Australian National University in Canberra, says experiments combining both of these techniques might begin in 2013. Phasers and photon torpedoes are overkill at this point, if we encounter any Klingons, we have enough nukes to lobb for a good thousand years or so before we run out of ammo.
re: re:
[[quote:if we encounter any Klingons, we have enough nukes to lobb for a good thousand years or so before we run out of ammo.]]
Somehow I think physical missiles will have little chance of slipping through all the phaser fire thrown at them (if they ever did that in the serieses/movies, then they probably teleported the darn thing right onboard the Klingon warship, right?)
Somehow I think physical missiles will have little chance of slipping through all the phaser fire thrown at them (if they ever did that in the serieses/movies, then they probably teleported the darn thing right onboard the Klingon warship, right?)