Mars on the Limb of the Moon



Go to http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap030724.html for a larger version of this beautiful image, made by an amateur astronomer!

Top Ten Playwrights' Words and Phrases To Run From

10. Beckett-esque
9. Tear[ing] down the fourth wall
8. Gay-Themed
7. Ireland
6. Dramedy
5. Cancer
4. Slice of Life
3. Pedophile Priest
2. Adapted from my [book/short story/screenplay/poetry]
1. 9/11

Feeding Your Space Jones

I love computer games in general, but I really love a good space game. I suppose it's natural, because I was a nut about space ever since I was a kid. I loved Star Trek, and I can still remember watching the Apollo missions. (I can't understand how people decided that was boring -- maybe it was because NASA made it look too easy?) I can't remember a time in my life when it wasn't my fondest wish to fly in space. And my personal discovery of computers was closely linked to the time when I realized that computers are essential to space travel. It wasn't a long step from that to computer games.

A computer game is basically just a fantasy amplifier, and as I've already mentioned, my fantasy is to fly in space. I have a pretty high standard for my space games, though; higher than most people's. Let me put this way: I'm more 2001 than Star Wars. I really want a space game that at least makes a nod toward realistic mechanics, although of course it needs to be fun. It's true that I enjoyed X-Wing, Tie Fighter, Wing Commander, et al, and even though these games work for a lot of people, for me they didn't really scratch that space itch. That's because the flight mechanics in these games aren't really space flight mechanics; they're second-hand airplane mechanics. These games were really low-fidelity World War II air combat sims which had been skinned to look like space games. Airplanes are okay, but I'm fantasizing about flying a space ship, and I don't want it to behave like an airplane. A space ship keeps moving after you turn off the engine; in fact, most of the time, the engine is off. A space ship doesn't have to be pointed in the same direction t's moving in (unless you're flying through an atmosphere). You don't turn a space ship by "banking" it. Unfortunately, most computer game designers didn't understand the difference between airplanes and space ships, or else they didn't care. I think it was because of Star Wars, which shaped the expectations of designers and audience alike.

The granddaddy of all video games was Space War, which prominently features space ships moving like space ships, and is therefore one of my favorites. This game eventually spawned a commercial version and was a major part of the early video game revolution. Atari had a small series of games which were inspired by Space War and actually featured realistic space mechanics, and which satisfied me for some time. Asteroids is the main example, and is my favorite arcade game even today, but there were also Lunar Lander and Gravitar in the Atari fold.

I definitely enjoy games which involve shooting. I loved Descent (1, 2, and 3), for example, and there's a lot of shooting in Descent. However, shooting is not necessary for me to enjoy a game or a simulator. It all gets back to how much the game enables your fantasy, and to be honest, my usual fantasy is less Han Solo and more Neil Armstrong. (Descent, by the way, replicated the disorientation of true 3D movement in a zero-g environment better than anything else before or since, and thus is still a huge favorite of mine.)

I thought I'd really found what I was looking for in 1994 with the release of the Microsoft Space Simulator. This program by the Bruce Artwick Organization was a masterpiece of the genre. It was pretty realistic, it was beautiful to look at, there was a wide variety of ships to fly, the manual was excellent, and the controls were fairly good. It wasn't perfect, but it was definitely the best realistic space simulator available, and it was the gold standard for years after its release. The loyalty that MSS inspires to this day is a testament to the quality of the program and the power of simulation as a fantasy amplifier. Unfortunately, Microsoft cancelled the product, for whatever reason. Was it poor sales? Was it because they didn't keep it updated quickly enough to keep pace with Windows? Who knows? It's possible that it just wasn't a big enough hit for Microsoft. I know my fanaticism for realism and detail is not very mainstream: after all, most people think X-Wing is a space simulation. But given that Microsoft markets a Train Simulator, I just can't figure out why they had to cancel the Space Simulator. I'm not saying my fantasy of flying a space ship is more valid than someone else's fantasy of driving a train -- hey, whatever gets you going. I'm a live-and-let-live kind of guy. It's just that I have a hard time believing there are more hard-core train sim junkies out there than space sim junkies.

Maybe it has to do with the learning curve. The learning curve for a realistic space simulator is very steep. Getting to where you want to go is not a simple matter of pointing your ship toward your target and pressing the "Go" button. Piloting a space ship requires a good understanding of physics. That's true for piloting planes, too, and cars and trains, for that matter. In those cases, however, we're all familiar enough with ordinary Earthbound physics through a lifetime of living on Earth. Orbital mechanics is not intuitive for most of us, though, and it can seem very intimidating. Unless you're willing to invest the time into learning how to fly,it's not going to be a very rewarding experience, and unless the power of your fantasy is strong enough to motivate you into making that investment, you'll probably decide that this is too boring for you. I understand that; it was my exact response to the genre of realistic racing games, e.g. Papyrus NASCAR Racing. It's a great sim, but it's very hard to drive those simulated cars well. It takes real skill, but since being a NASCAR driver was never my fantasy, I was never motivated enough to learn how to do it. On the other hand, if that's what turns you on, more power to you. You might notice, however, that the ultra-realistic racecar sim genre has a market share problem, just as the ultra-realistic space sim genre does. Maybe people generally want to feel enabled, not challenged, by their fantasies when the computer fleshes them out.

After the demise of Microsoft Space Simulator, hardcore space simulator fans were left without any outlet until late 2000, when Orbiter arrived. This program, which amazingly enough is completely free, is a labor of love for its author, Martin Schweiger. The program has undergone several revisions since then, and just keeps getting better. Orbiter easily eclipses the achievement of Microsoft Space Simulator, except that interstellar space flight is not supported. The realism is very high, the controls are very good, and the performance is excellent. The manual is first-rate. The program includes a host of vessels to fly, including a very good rendition of the Space Shuttle (with freely available sources!), as well as some more exotic (and less realistic) craft. All of the planets of the solar system, and many of their moons, are rendered in beautiful detail. Best of all, Orbiter is fully customizable, and it has spawned a very active and friendly community which has created numerous addons. These addons include new instruments, new planets and moons, new ships and new scenarios. The ships range from ultra-realistic Apollo moon missions to a TIE Interceptor.

(Now, an aside: from a certain point of view, piloting a space ship is hard because our technology is so feeble in comparison to the gravity of the sun and the planets. It takes four days and a big expendable rocket to get to the moon in the Apollo spacecraft, and you have to plan your trip carefully. As I noted, you can't just point and go. Unless you're flying the TIE interceptor! When I fired up that baby, I really did just point it at the moon and go! And I got there in about an hour!) ("He's heading for that small moon...")

I think the sublime achievement of Orbiter is its poise at precisely the right level of difficulty for the player. The computer helps you enough to make it possible to fly, but not so much as to remove the challenge of flying. It's certainly possible to design a control system for a spacecraft which allows the user to fly an entire space mission under automatic control: you punch in where you want to go, say "Tranquility Base", press "Go", and the computer flies the rest of the mission for you. That wouldn't be much fun. On the other hand, while it's theoretically possible, it would be very hard to get to the moon on manual control, with just a joystick and a throttle control. At best you would hopelessly flail around space, missing the moon on every try until you give up; at worst you might delve into your copy of Bate and Mueller, and run some calculations until you think you've come up with a good trajectory, and try to eyeball it. That's not much fun either. (Hey, if I wanted to do homework, I'd be doing homework!) However, the basic set of instruments provided in Orbiter are enough (just barely enough!) to allow the player to more or less fly by the seat of his pants, and even then it's hard. Therefore, there is challenge, and challenge definitely helps to engage the player. I attempted the moon voyage three times before I made it successfully! The sense of achievement one derives from accomplishing a mission objective, e.g. landing on Mars, is real and very palpable.