Oolite Bulletins

Posted: **Sat May 03, 2025 3:11 pm**

The second Elite novella, Imprint, by Andy Redman, published in the back of the 1991 Elite Plus "basic flight manual", on the following pages, refer to the following directions/bearings in the context of flight/combat scenarios:

p. i2: "20: 40"
p. i16: "50: 80", "340: 20"
p. i23: "110: 95", "195: 15"
p. i43: "30 : 80"
p. i45: "310 : 120"

duck.ai's GPT suggests that these bearings might refer to azimuth:elevation, measured in degrees from a zero line straight ahead, and that elevations below the horizontal plane might be indicated by negative angle-values.

(1) However, p. i23 then indicates an elevation greater than 90deg, and the bearing should perhaps rather have been given as "290: 85". Similarly, p. i45's "310 : 120" might rather have been "130 : 60".

(2) It also seems reasonable to expect that at least one out of seven bearings might have had a negative elevation.

(3) From the rest of "Imprint", it seems that the author ... tried very hard

... to write high science-fiction, with his technobabble often spilling some of the babble over into non-techno contexts.

For these three reasons at least, there might be some doubt as to whether these bearings really conform to the "azimuth:elevation" format.

If there are any real-life pilots or experts in this regard among us, or anyone who knows Andy Redman personally and can ask him directly, I would greatly appreciate some elucidation to alleviate my frustration at the undecipherable incomprehensibility of it all.

Thanks.

Posted: **Mon May 05, 2025 7:57 am**

user2357 wrote: ↑Sat May 03, 2025 3:11 pm
p. i2: "20: 40"
p. i16: "50: 80", "340: 20"
p. i23: "110: 95", "195: 15"
p. i43: "30 : 80"
p. i45: "310 : 120"

duck.ai's GPT suggests that these bearings might refer to azimuth:elevation, measured in degrees from a zero line straight ahead, and that elevations below the horizontal plane might be indicated by negative angle-values.

(1) However, p. i23 then indicates an elevation greater than 90deg, and the bearing should perhaps rather have been given as "290: 85". Similarly, p. i45's "310 : 120" might rather have been "130 : 60".

(2) It also seems reasonable to expect that at least one out of seven bearings might have had a negative elevation.

(3) From the rest of "Imprint", it seems that the author ... tried very hard ... to write high science-fiction, with his technobabble often spilling some of the babble over into non-techno contexts.

I'm not sure that I understand your critique. If the numbers are measured on a 0°-360°, then I would count forwards in the approved manner (clockwise and upwards, for example) and 110:95, 195:15 and 290:85 are all three very different. As are 310:120 & 130:60.

And there would not be any negative elevations since there is no need for them - all is covered by the 0°-360° range.

Code: Select all

Cardinal point 	Azimuth
North 	           0°
East 	          90°
South 	         180°
West 	         270° (not "-90")

Does anybody know anything about Andy Redman?

Posted: **Tue May 06, 2025 4:54 am**

Cholmondely wrote: ↑Mon May 05, 2025 7:57 am
I'm not sure that I understand your critique. If the numbers are measured on a 0°-360°, then I would count forwards in the approved manner (clockwise and upwards, for example) and 110:95, 195:15 and 290:85 are all three very different. As are 310:120 & 130:60.

And there would not be any negative elevations since there is no need for them - all is covered by the 0°-360° range.
Code: Select all
Cardinal point 	Azimuth
North 	           0°
East 	          90°
South 	         180°
West 	         270° (not "-90")
Does anybody know anything about Andy Redman?

In the azimuth:elevation format, the azimuth is established first: "North"/straight ahead on the "zero"-line = 0deg/360deg, "East" = 90deg, "West" = 270deg, as you correctly indicated.

Then, afterwards, from that azimuth/direction, the elevation is determined: upwards, above the horizontal plane, indicated by positive angles; downwards, below, by negative angles. (Following your suggestion, none of the seven examples have elevations more than 180deg, which, in my mind, is still as identically-questionable as none of them having negative elevation-angles.)

After first establishing the azimuth direction, an elevation greater than 90deg is not illogical, but it is redundant, because the 180deg-opposite azimuth would simply require an elevation less than 90deg. ...and in maths, science and other technical fields, I think, the tendency is to make things as simple as possible, by first following the same, applicable logic consistently in all cases, and then also using the smallest numbers available...?

Extreme example: 45:175 = (180+45):(180-175) = 225:5.

As soon as you go past 90deg elevation, you're flipping over backwards onto the "reverse" direction, 180deg oppositely. Therefore, the questionable, extreme examples from Imprint go as follows:

110:95 = (180+110):(180-95) = 290:85
310:120 = (180+310):(180-120) = 490:60 = (490-360):60 = 130:60

Extremer example: 225:185 = (180+225):(180-185) = 405:-5 = (405-360):-5 = 45:-5
Which is simpler to grasp: 225:185 or 45:-5?

Also, notice how I consistently recommend:
if Elevation > 90deg, then NewAzimuth = 180deg + Azimuth, and NewElevation = 180deg - Elevation;
if NewAzimuth > 360deg, then NextAzimuth = NewAzimuth - 360deg.

If there had been no convention to use the simplest, smallest numbers available, then why not use 585:545 (which is also 45:-5, btw)? If 360deg is usually (conventionally) subtracted, why not simplify as much as possible, as indicated above?

(I do not understand why you also mention 195:15 in your question, because I have no query about it ... -- IF the Imprint bearings indeed follow the azimuth:elevation format.)

...and Andy Redman, I think, is a pseudonym... and an edible arts-graduate.

Posted: **Tue May 06, 2025 5:25 am**

So how about a "futuristic elevation" based on 360° (like azimuth) rather than our "current elevation" from 180° to -180° ?

Posted: **Tue May 06, 2025 7:42 am**

Okay, don't freak out, user2357. Take deep breaths, okay.

They're just random gibberish.

Sorry, man.

Posted: **Tue May 06, 2025 8:05 am**

I'm not freaking out.

All I'm trying to indicate is that I think that I've tried to do my homework as best I know how, and to provide a solid argument to show why Mr. Redman's bearings might very well be random gibberish.

...unless someone can explain how else I should rather interpret them. I would absolutely love to know what they actually mean, if they're not really gibberish.

In other words, I'm actually hoping they're not gibberish. ...but then, someone, please, help me to understand.

Posted: **Tue May 06, 2025 8:21 am**

It looks to me like a misapplication of the azimuth-elevation.

The azimuth certainly seems to fit:

1) “Hood span 30 anticlockwise” . Anticlockwise stipulated as Azimuth is normally clockwise.

2) “Another Skip fell short of planet waves and Hood found himself back in the Red. This time the pirate was confirmed as a Wolf Mk. Il, approaching fast on a 195:15 bearing.

"Tend", swore Rif. He knew he would be in range very soon. There was no time for idle pot- shots.

Rif arched into a head-to-head-and-hit velocity. He had to close the distance against the Wolf's superior fire-power, or his shields would be pulled apart swiftly and clinically. Hood got off three accurate bolts and watched almost helplessly as his shields fluxed wildly under heavy onslaught.”

195 is almost directly behind. Again, this seems to fit the storyline.

3) As does this: “Low and behind at 205.”

Posted: **Tue May 06, 2025 11:09 am**

Yes, agreed, Cholmondely. There does seem to be some azimuth:elevation concept involved, but the final application looks a bit wonky.

Regarding your first example, though, I think the meaning there is actually, that he rolled 30deg anticlockwise, because rolling is the only (anti-)clockwise manoeuvre the original Elite/Elite Plus could do. Pitching anticlockwise... yeah, nope, I don't really think so. Yaw would have fitted the description nicely within the context of our present analysis, but that was only brought in, AFAIK, after the Zartid mission in ArcElite, which was released after 1991sep, while Elite Plus had already been on the market since 1991apr17, I believe. (I can look up the sources for those dates, if you're interested.)

Your second example, "arching" over, pitching backwards, as it were, onto an original 195deg bearing, makes good sense, since 195deg is pretty much straight behind. ...although pitching over would actually take you to 180deg, and the original 195deg would then be at 15deg azimuth, on the horizontal, looking ahead towards that Wolf Mk II.

*

Further question: if some of these bearings were "behind", these measurements were probably not taken on the main view, but rather on the radar display. Why then not also (since your second Wolf Mk II example also mentions "range") include the range, and expand the bearings into position/location vectors? Example: 195:15:10, where the third number is a distance in kilometres. Surely, distances can at least be approximated from the radar display as well...?

Mr. Redman had some good ideas, and the Robin Hood and Egyptian mythology motifs and themes throughout are excellent expansions on the King Arthur and Greek mythology equivalents in The Dark Wheel, but ... <smh> ... some of the more technical bits in Imprint seem to be misaligned.

...unless someone can show how they actually make sense. ...And that's what I'm asking: someone, please, educate me. Thanks.

Posted: **Tue May 06, 2025 11:26 am**

user2357 wrote: ↑Tue May 06, 2025 11:09 am
Yes, agreed, Cholmondely. There does seem to be some azimuth:elevation concept involved, but the final application looks a bit wonky.

Regarding your first example, though, I think the meaning there is actually, that he rolled 30deg anticlockwise, because rolling is the only (anti-)clockwise manoeuvre the original Elite/Elite Plus could do. Pitching anticlockwise... yeah, nope, I don't really think so. Yaw would have fitted the description nicely within the context of our present analysis, but that was only brought in, AFAIK, after the Zartid mission in ArcElite, which was released after 1991sep, while Elite Plus had already been on the market since 1991apr17, I believe. (I can look up the sources for those dates, if you're interested.)

Your second example, "arching" over, pitching backwards, as it were, onto an original 195deg bearing, makes good sense, since 195deg is pretty much straight behind. ...although pitching over would actually take you to 180deg, and the original 195deg would then be at 15deg azimuth, on the horizontal, looking ahead towards that Wolf Mk II.

You are presuming that our unknown Mr. Redman played the game long enough to get used to the methods of movement in it. Furthermore, if Rif was using a keyboard to fly, fine. But if he is using a joystick?

user2357 wrote: ↑Tue May 06, 2025 11:09 am
Further question: if some of these bearings were "behind", these measurements were probably not taken on the main view, but rather on the radar display. Why then not also (since your second Wolf Mk II example also mentions "range") include the range, and expand the bearings into position/location vectors? Example: 195:15:10, where the third number is a distance in kilometres. Surely, distances can at least be approximated from the radar display as well...?

We have distances, kilometres and things in Oolite. Did Classic Elite give the player any information about distances?

user2357 wrote: ↑Tue May 06, 2025 11:09 am
Mr. Redman had some good ideas, and the Robin Hood and Egyptian mythology motifs and themes throughout are excellent expansions on the King Arthur and Greek mythology equivalents in The Dark Wheel, but ... <smh> ... some of the more technical bits in Imprint seem to be misaligned.

...unless someone can show how they actually make sense. ...And that's what I'm asking: someone, please, educate me. Thanks.

I'm less concerned about the technical gubbins. I find Imprint excellent and immersive for its description of Corporate States, which I'd love to see introduced into Oolite.

Posted: **Tue May 06, 2025 2:57 pm**

... Good points, all of them!

Yes, and, if Mr. Redman was as good at playing as Mr. Holdstock had confessed to have been, then he might not have got used to the methods of movement so much. ...And, yes, joysticks are beyond my ken. (Assumptions are sneaky little things... -- especially my own.)

Regarding distances... One (this one, i.e. specifically me, and my assumptions again) would assume that, even if Elite Plus did not give very clear suggestions as to distances on the radar display (c.f. the Elite Plus manual, pp. 31 & 32), then at least Rif Hood could have had clearer such suggestions in a real ship, hopefully...? ... In Space, with it's infamous issues regarding depth perception and judging distances, one would expect a real-life radar display to have some indication of distance, for health and safety reasons, and such.

...And, yes, Imprint does give some lovely detail regarding GalCop politics. Those Templars and the Interstellar Sanction might make for some interesting action in Oolite. ...And that Excelsior... might have comparable geometry to a Fer-de-Lance, according to all accounts... Any volunteers for building yet another mission OXP, including a new ship?

Posted: **Tue May 06, 2025 5:45 pm**

user2357 wrote: ↑Tue May 06, 2025 2:57 pm
...And, yes, joysticks are beyond my ken

Ah... joysticks... ! It is a pain to plug it in, into my laptop, I confess.

But playing with it....

It really adds to the immersion. I really feel that I am flying a ship. My TM4 has beautiful curves which fit my hands live a glove and get the imaginative juices flowing. It is not the most substantial piece of equipment (started yawing to the right within a couple of months of purchase), but it has been designed with a touch of imagination.

Oolite Bulletins

Imprint bearings...?

Imprint bearings...?

Re: Imprint bearings...?

Re: Imprint bearings...?

Re: Imprint bearings...?

Re: Imprint bearings...?

Re: Imprint bearings...?

Re: Imprint bearings...?

Re: Imprint bearings...?

Re: Imprint bearings...?

Re: Imprint bearings...?

Re: Imprint bearings...?