Forums » Suggestions
Why does no one ever listen to me...
"--2003-07-24 08:28:29
Rabid Panda
I vote for a VF-1J (Skull Paint Job) or the VF-0... drooooool retinal targeting...
Ok seriously. Considering the speeds that you travel at the engines would have to be quite big, it makes sense in physics mode, you just have to swing your ship around and slow down, there are no reverse thrusters (tho still, you can slow down) Tho this game is no FA18 Korea, the flight combat is interesting to say the least. It's a wonder how you are able to slow down without any thrusters, and how the 100% drag effect works. Perhaps only certain ships should be allowed to move backwards due to the fact that they can have extra engines onboard. I brought this up awhile ago but people thought I was crazy, or just completely ignored me. My idea at the time was to allow the ship to only go in one direction unless additional engines were added on.
The first engine would allow you to control forward thrust and rolling actions and yaw to a certain degree.
A second engine would allow you to to control reverse thrust and have better control of pitch and yaw.
A third engine would be really two engines that would allow you to go up and down with greater ease.
Only certain ships would be able to equip all three engines, mainly the heavy bomber/trader ships. Gunships and light bombers would be able to equip two engines. Light fighters would only be able to equip the rear thrusters. Also different types of engines would allow for a more dynamic acceleration speeds. It's a risk and would take forever to balance just right but would allow for some pretty cool setups and different ship types for different jobs.
edit this message
--2003-07-24 12:44:29
Renegade ++RIP++
me shivers
no barrel rolls anymore :(
cheers
--2003-07-24 12:52:49
Rabid Panda
Well if you think about it, wouldn't most fighters have vector engines? So all you would have to do is point the engines in different directions for each other, much like how the modern fighters of today don't use the flaps to roll, they use the engines.
edit this message
--2003-07-24 21:11:06
Celebrim
For that matter, I'm not convinced that the ship's are using anything remotely like a Newtonian reaction thruster (aka a rocket). How do we know that the ships aren't gripping the fabric of space and pulling themselves around? It certainly isn't impossible that a culture capable of opening up greater than plank length wormholes in the fabric of space and jump driving from one system to another is using a non-reaction drive to get around. For that matter, how do we know that the ships aren't repeatedly teleporting themselves a small distance many times per second (aka 'warp drive')?
Maybe 'turbo' is some sort of high efficiency ion drive or fusion rocket, but I doubt it.
Maybe its best if we don't dwell to deeply on the physics of a game, because we might find that physics tells us that space combat between 'star fighters' is improbable or even impossible.
--2003-07-24 21:24:10
Rabid Panda
Yah, we can pull space along but we can't making a station that is slightly pretty, why don't we all just go get high on "The Spice" so we can fold space and avoid combat all together.
edit this message " - http://vendetta.guildsoftware.com/?action=msgboard&thread=2174&page=4
Look at that, I bring forth a quote, proof of sorts, unlike someone who still hasn't gotten back to one of my other post *cough*rogue*cough* If you excuse me, I have some people to stab in the face.
"--2003-07-24 08:28:29
Rabid Panda
I vote for a VF-1J (Skull Paint Job) or the VF-0... drooooool retinal targeting...
Ok seriously. Considering the speeds that you travel at the engines would have to be quite big, it makes sense in physics mode, you just have to swing your ship around and slow down, there are no reverse thrusters (tho still, you can slow down) Tho this game is no FA18 Korea, the flight combat is interesting to say the least. It's a wonder how you are able to slow down without any thrusters, and how the 100% drag effect works. Perhaps only certain ships should be allowed to move backwards due to the fact that they can have extra engines onboard. I brought this up awhile ago but people thought I was crazy, or just completely ignored me. My idea at the time was to allow the ship to only go in one direction unless additional engines were added on.
The first engine would allow you to control forward thrust and rolling actions and yaw to a certain degree.
A second engine would allow you to to control reverse thrust and have better control of pitch and yaw.
A third engine would be really two engines that would allow you to go up and down with greater ease.
Only certain ships would be able to equip all three engines, mainly the heavy bomber/trader ships. Gunships and light bombers would be able to equip two engines. Light fighters would only be able to equip the rear thrusters. Also different types of engines would allow for a more dynamic acceleration speeds. It's a risk and would take forever to balance just right but would allow for some pretty cool setups and different ship types for different jobs.
edit this message
--2003-07-24 12:44:29
Renegade ++RIP++
me shivers
no barrel rolls anymore :(
cheers
--2003-07-24 12:52:49
Rabid Panda
Well if you think about it, wouldn't most fighters have vector engines? So all you would have to do is point the engines in different directions for each other, much like how the modern fighters of today don't use the flaps to roll, they use the engines.
edit this message
--2003-07-24 21:11:06
Celebrim
For that matter, I'm not convinced that the ship's are using anything remotely like a Newtonian reaction thruster (aka a rocket). How do we know that the ships aren't gripping the fabric of space and pulling themselves around? It certainly isn't impossible that a culture capable of opening up greater than plank length wormholes in the fabric of space and jump driving from one system to another is using a non-reaction drive to get around. For that matter, how do we know that the ships aren't repeatedly teleporting themselves a small distance many times per second (aka 'warp drive')?
Maybe 'turbo' is some sort of high efficiency ion drive or fusion rocket, but I doubt it.
Maybe its best if we don't dwell to deeply on the physics of a game, because we might find that physics tells us that space combat between 'star fighters' is improbable or even impossible.
--2003-07-24 21:24:10
Rabid Panda
Yah, we can pull space along but we can't making a station that is slightly pretty, why don't we all just go get high on "The Spice" so we can fold space and avoid combat all together.
edit this message " - http://vendetta.guildsoftware.com/?action=msgboard&thread=2174&page=4
Look at that, I bring forth a quote, proof of sorts, unlike someone who still hasn't gotten back to one of my other post *cough*rogue*cough* If you excuse me, I have some people to stab in the face.
I think the maneuverability in Vendetta could still use some serious tweaking. What I mean is: you can fly straight ahead, straight rearwards, strafe up, down, left, right, and all at the same speed. Doesn't this strike anyone as odd, given the fact that the main engines point towards the rear of the fighter?
Strafing up or down, and flying backwards require smaller thrusters, similar to the ones that allow your ship to yaw, pitch and roll. They are far smaller than your main engines and thus far less powerful as well. Hence the acceleration and max speed of these maneuvers should be far inferior to the acceleration and speed you get from your main thrusters when flying straight ahead. Right now the only difference is that you can only turbo in the conventional direction of travel.
To get an example of realistic physics in this regard, watch the TV show Space: Above & Beyond.
Strafing up or down, and flying backwards require smaller thrusters, similar to the ones that allow your ship to yaw, pitch and roll. They are far smaller than your main engines and thus far less powerful as well. Hence the acceleration and max speed of these maneuvers should be far inferior to the acceleration and speed you get from your main thrusters when flying straight ahead. Right now the only difference is that you can only turbo in the conventional direction of travel.
To get an example of realistic physics in this regard, watch the TV show Space: Above & Beyond.
Its a good point, but it would probably be best to only have that apply to larger craft that move slowly anyway. For a fighter it would severly limit dodging abilities and thus make the game less fun.
Not realy. Everyone would be affected by it, and you could counter it by having the weapons do less damage, making the afterburners more powerful (greater accelleration) and allowing the ability to yaw and pitch while afterburning (roll is already possible AFAIK).
That's another thing that bugs me. Why would a ship be totaly unmaneuverable just because you hit the afterburner? It's logical that you can't to a tight turn around a small roid with full afterburner engaged, but you'd still be able to maneuver a little. Your yaw/pitch speed would not be affected, but the radius of your turns would, for obvious reasons.
That's another thing that bugs me. Why would a ship be totaly unmaneuverable just because you hit the afterburner? It's logical that you can't to a tight turn around a small roid with full afterburner engaged, but you'd still be able to maneuver a little. Your yaw/pitch speed would not be affected, but the radius of your turns would, for obvious reasons.
Because any change of direction while you have your APG brand Thrusters gonig will result in the diconnection of the APG brand red wire from the APG brand red wire port which would result in the loss of power APG brand Electro Energy Expulsion unit which would cause the engine to explode.
In other words. because APG brand stuff sucks.
In other words. because APG brand stuff sucks.
Seems to me like the main thrusters are reserved only for the "turbo" drive. Otherwise, the thrusters don't glow much. You can only turbo in the direction you are facing, so the main thrusters are always pushing forward. But while you move, they don't come into play as much. Possibly some sort of gravity drive or some other pseudo-scientific nonsense or fancy sci-fi gizmo is in place.
hm. i agree with nighty on that one. also, it'd stop these head-on attacks that seem quite unrealistic. real dogfight is about getting on your opponent's six and blast the hell out of him from behind. if you've played warbirds, you know what i'm talking about (yes, i suck there as well.)
i also second the thoughts about the afterburner.
i also second the thoughts about the afterburner.
Know what else is wierd? In physics mode, press a direction, keep moving. How come when you roll, you don't keep rolling until you try to roll in the other direction?
balancing thrusters?
Regards the roll: Urza is correct. I asked the devs this before and they said that rolls were self damping because otherwise they too difficult to control. Incidently, the same is true of rotations. In 'true' physics mode, if you started rotating, you wouldn't stop. However, the ship automatically corrects itself to keep control simplier.
Nighty: You are making several assumptions about the technology used by the craft in Vendetta that don't appear to me to be true. First, you are assuming that the craft are controled by some sort of 'thruster'. I don't think they are. If you will look at the ships, they don't have any thrusters and yet they can move in every direction. Also, the ships don't run out of or use any sort of fuel to move. If they were using a 'thruster' they'd have to be accellerating some sort of mass, but they aren't. It's my opinion that when the ships aren't using what we call 'turbo', that they are using a reactionless non-Newtonian drive of some sort - perhaps literally gripping the fabric of reality and crawling along. What you refer to as a 'thruster' really isn't a thruster at all - its a radiator designed to prevent the ship from melting due to excess heat being built up. The glare we see when a ship uses 'turbo' is merely the ship using its radiator as a primitive but effective ion drive (well actually, to be correct, a photonic drive). My guess is that you can't turn during 'turbo' because the ship has to devote to much power to the inefficient reaction drive and has none to spare for the non-reaction drive. Remember, the ship doesn't have ANY manuevering thrusters, as a look at any of the ships models will reveal. Thus they can only accelerate under a reaction drive in the direction that they are facing.
toshiro: I don't agree that it would stop these head on attacks, nor do I agree that you know what a 'real dogfight' would be like in space. The fact that 'real dogfights' in an atmosphere while under the effects of gravity have to do with getting on your opponent's 'six', has nothing to do with how they would play out in space. And yes, I have played warbirds and other flight sims. I also suck, but then atmospheres, gravity, engine torque and so forth make flight much more complicated than it ever would be in space.
The reason that nighty's suggestions wouldn't stop the 'head on' nature of space combat is that you still could simply rotate about on your axis to face your foe (while coasting in the direction you had been traveling), which is often what people do in Vendetta when someone 'gets on thier six'.
Nighty: You are making several assumptions about the technology used by the craft in Vendetta that don't appear to me to be true. First, you are assuming that the craft are controled by some sort of 'thruster'. I don't think they are. If you will look at the ships, they don't have any thrusters and yet they can move in every direction. Also, the ships don't run out of or use any sort of fuel to move. If they were using a 'thruster' they'd have to be accellerating some sort of mass, but they aren't. It's my opinion that when the ships aren't using what we call 'turbo', that they are using a reactionless non-Newtonian drive of some sort - perhaps literally gripping the fabric of reality and crawling along. What you refer to as a 'thruster' really isn't a thruster at all - its a radiator designed to prevent the ship from melting due to excess heat being built up. The glare we see when a ship uses 'turbo' is merely the ship using its radiator as a primitive but effective ion drive (well actually, to be correct, a photonic drive). My guess is that you can't turn during 'turbo' because the ship has to devote to much power to the inefficient reaction drive and has none to spare for the non-reaction drive. Remember, the ship doesn't have ANY manuevering thrusters, as a look at any of the ships models will reveal. Thus they can only accelerate under a reaction drive in the direction that they are facing.
toshiro: I don't agree that it would stop these head on attacks, nor do I agree that you know what a 'real dogfight' would be like in space. The fact that 'real dogfights' in an atmosphere while under the effects of gravity have to do with getting on your opponent's 'six', has nothing to do with how they would play out in space. And yes, I have played warbirds and other flight sims. I also suck, but then atmospheres, gravity, engine torque and so forth make flight much more complicated than it ever would be in space.
The reason that nighty's suggestions wouldn't stop the 'head on' nature of space combat is that you still could simply rotate about on your axis to face your foe (while coasting in the direction you had been traveling), which is often what people do in Vendetta when someone 'gets on thier six'.
for nondampening rolls, type /roll or /+roll
if you do that then hit D, you roll 2x faster than normal. great for dodging
if you do that then hit D, you roll 2x faster than normal. great for dodging
Celebrim: it's not 'coz you don't see them that they're not there. If you watch S:AAB closely you won't see the small thrusters that control yaw, pitch and roll either untill their use is made apparent by the little geisers of smoke appearing out of the hull of the vessels.
As regarding to the fuel: I never said these ships were fuel based.
The rear thruster glows more and more the faster you go; check it out in 3rd person view. With afterburner they glow a lot. Yes, this is consistent with the behaviour of jet engines in atmospherical flight; not much of a flame when in non afterburner mode, and a big one while afterburning. Based on this observation it's safe to assume that the main thrusters on the back of your ship do play a role in regular flight.
Your whole explanation on the ratiator thingie is just a pathetic excuse to justify an inherently wrong flight model, no offence. It's the same as playing a race game like Colin McRae and explaining the fact that your car can drive trough a thick tree without slowing down by assuming there's different kinds of trees and this must be a magical one, instead of accepting the fact that it's a bug in the game.
Not being able to turn while turboing is due to the fact that there's no energy left to divert to the whatever-makes-my-ship-turn-thingies. Great. Then how come:
a) afterburner feeds off your battery, and the battery can sustain your afterburner for quite a while and still indicate quite some charge in the capacity bar. Yet when you maneuver no energy drain is apparant in the battery charge, so if it feeds off the battery it uses so little power that it won't be noticeable anyway. If it doesn't feed off the battery, then there's not even a problem, since the afterburner clearly does, thus we're talking two completely separate energy grids here.
b) you can not maneuver while afterburning, however firing a weapon is no problem at all. If we would realy assume we're part of a race intelligent enough to discover the technology necessary to facilitate space travel and even space combat in small one-person vessels, do you realy think our race would at the same time be so retarded as to cut the energy to the maneuverability devices on the ship during afterburn, yet not to the weapons, thus leaving the soldier in his ship an easy prey due to the straight path he follows, but on the other hand give him something as useless as the capability to fire his weapons which he can't aim during afterburn anyway? Show our scientists some more respect man! ;)
c) you still can't maneuver with the afterburner shut off during the time it takes your ship to shed speed untill its speed is below or equal to its max speed without afterburners. Really, at this point your afterburners are not running, yet untill you reach your nominal speed you can't turn.
Then your whole two paragraphs against toshiro: I don't think you know how a dogfight in space would go either, so we have a case of pot/kettle/black. Again, I direct you towards S:AAB, which features some quite realistic dogfights which are physicaly correct. I am not saying this is the only possible model, but it's a realistic one since it's common practice to have the main propulsion aligned with the longitudonal axis of a fighter jet/vessel, directed rearwards, and in the case of spaceflight where you can't use surface area and aerodynamics to change direction you accomodate for this by using small maneuvering thrusters. Even our space shuttles work that way.
Note that indeed, it doesn't stop the head on nature of current dogifhts completely; one can boost away from an enemy, then turn around and fire. However, the act of boosting away from the enemy leaves his back unprotected for a while because he needs to face away from the enemy to reach that speed; it will change the dynamics of dogfights as we know it now. I think it will in fact make dogfights more fun and more realistic. At least I enjoyed the dogfights in S:AAB and my dogfights in other space shooters a lot more than the dogfights in vendetta which usualy boil down to "get close, keep enemy in sight, hit him with all you got" and although some self proclaimed rocket kings might argue that it takes a lot of practice to get those rockets straight up the enemy's face, the current dogfights have the finesse and grace of two barbarians beating each other up with large clubs.
And yes, atmospheres, engine torque etc... do make atmospheric dogfights more complicated, however note that in vendetta there is still an atmospheric flight model in a certain sense: your ship does indeed feel the effects of drag. Otherwise you could just accelerate as long as you like, instead of being constrained to a certain top speed, and when you would shut off the afterburners you would still fly at the speed you had right before you shut them off, instead of slowing down to your nominal speed. So, tell me, except for the fact that our ships have the aerodynamics of a soccer ball and don't suffer from gravity, just how is vendetta's flight model different from the atmospheric flight model used in flightsims?
And remember: engine torque still applies in space. The torque you speak of translates into force aka accelleration. In space the same newtonian rules still apply: bigger force equals bigger acceleration.
As regarding to the fuel: I never said these ships were fuel based.
The rear thruster glows more and more the faster you go; check it out in 3rd person view. With afterburner they glow a lot. Yes, this is consistent with the behaviour of jet engines in atmospherical flight; not much of a flame when in non afterburner mode, and a big one while afterburning. Based on this observation it's safe to assume that the main thrusters on the back of your ship do play a role in regular flight.
Your whole explanation on the ratiator thingie is just a pathetic excuse to justify an inherently wrong flight model, no offence. It's the same as playing a race game like Colin McRae and explaining the fact that your car can drive trough a thick tree without slowing down by assuming there's different kinds of trees and this must be a magical one, instead of accepting the fact that it's a bug in the game.
Not being able to turn while turboing is due to the fact that there's no energy left to divert to the whatever-makes-my-ship-turn-thingies. Great. Then how come:
a) afterburner feeds off your battery, and the battery can sustain your afterburner for quite a while and still indicate quite some charge in the capacity bar. Yet when you maneuver no energy drain is apparant in the battery charge, so if it feeds off the battery it uses so little power that it won't be noticeable anyway. If it doesn't feed off the battery, then there's not even a problem, since the afterburner clearly does, thus we're talking two completely separate energy grids here.
b) you can not maneuver while afterburning, however firing a weapon is no problem at all. If we would realy assume we're part of a race intelligent enough to discover the technology necessary to facilitate space travel and even space combat in small one-person vessels, do you realy think our race would at the same time be so retarded as to cut the energy to the maneuverability devices on the ship during afterburn, yet not to the weapons, thus leaving the soldier in his ship an easy prey due to the straight path he follows, but on the other hand give him something as useless as the capability to fire his weapons which he can't aim during afterburn anyway? Show our scientists some more respect man! ;)
c) you still can't maneuver with the afterburner shut off during the time it takes your ship to shed speed untill its speed is below or equal to its max speed without afterburners. Really, at this point your afterburners are not running, yet untill you reach your nominal speed you can't turn.
Then your whole two paragraphs against toshiro: I don't think you know how a dogfight in space would go either, so we have a case of pot/kettle/black. Again, I direct you towards S:AAB, which features some quite realistic dogfights which are physicaly correct. I am not saying this is the only possible model, but it's a realistic one since it's common practice to have the main propulsion aligned with the longitudonal axis of a fighter jet/vessel, directed rearwards, and in the case of spaceflight where you can't use surface area and aerodynamics to change direction you accomodate for this by using small maneuvering thrusters. Even our space shuttles work that way.
Note that indeed, it doesn't stop the head on nature of current dogifhts completely; one can boost away from an enemy, then turn around and fire. However, the act of boosting away from the enemy leaves his back unprotected for a while because he needs to face away from the enemy to reach that speed; it will change the dynamics of dogfights as we know it now. I think it will in fact make dogfights more fun and more realistic. At least I enjoyed the dogfights in S:AAB and my dogfights in other space shooters a lot more than the dogfights in vendetta which usualy boil down to "get close, keep enemy in sight, hit him with all you got" and although some self proclaimed rocket kings might argue that it takes a lot of practice to get those rockets straight up the enemy's face, the current dogfights have the finesse and grace of two barbarians beating each other up with large clubs.
And yes, atmospheres, engine torque etc... do make atmospheric dogfights more complicated, however note that in vendetta there is still an atmospheric flight model in a certain sense: your ship does indeed feel the effects of drag. Otherwise you could just accelerate as long as you like, instead of being constrained to a certain top speed, and when you would shut off the afterburners you would still fly at the speed you had right before you shut them off, instead of slowing down to your nominal speed. So, tell me, except for the fact that our ships have the aerodynamics of a soccer ball and don't suffer from gravity, just how is vendetta's flight model different from the atmospheric flight model used in flightsims?
And remember: engine torque still applies in space. The torque you speak of translates into force aka accelleration. In space the same newtonian rules still apply: bigger force equals bigger acceleration.
The reason you can't turn at the rediclus speeds you reach is because of the high G-forces caused by acceleration. Turning at high speeds cannot be done in modern aircraft because such turns (allthough safe for the plane) would result in pilot liquification, not cool. Sure at low speeds you can turn very fast, but at high speed splat.
I'll refute your other arguments when I'm not tired.
I'll refute your other arguments when I'm not tired.
Nighty: You've left so many holes in your arguement I hardly know where to start.
"If you watch S:AAB closely you won't see the small thrusters that control yaw, pitch and roll either untill their use is made apparent by the little geisers of smoke appearing out of the hull of the vessels."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this isn't S:AAB is it? And you don't see those little geysers of smoke appearing from the hull in Vendetta do you (not that you should see little geysers of smoke anyway, more on that latter).
"As regarding to the fuel: I never said these ships were fuel based."
A rocket must have fuel.
"...this is consistent with the behaviour of jet engines in atmospherical flight"
Which is a very good reason to assume that these aren't reaction thrusters, because it is not behavior consistant with rockets in a vacuum. Must rockets in a vacuum are going to use hypergolic fuels which burn without visible flame, and in any event any thruster expelling mass into a vacuum doesn't produce a clear plume because the atmosphere isn't there to contrain the motion of the plasma; rather, plasma (or gases) expelled into a vacuum 'bloom' in a very wide spray.
"Yet when you maneuver no energy drain is apparant in the battery charge, so if it feeds off the battery it uses so little power that it won't be noticeable anyway."
The key word there is 'apparant'. Just because none is apparant doesn't mean its not there. You are assuming that because the explanations regarding available power given to the players are simple (to minimize the learning curve), that the underlying powerflow also has to be.
"instead of accepting the fact that it's a bug in the game."
But it isn't a bug in the game. It's the intended design of the game that ships behave as they do.
"c) you still can't maneuver with the afterburner shut off during the time it takes your ship to shed speed untill its speed is below or equal to its max speed without afterburners."
Unless they've recently changed the flight model without saying anything, that's simply false. You can manuever with the afterburner shut off during the time it takes for your ship to shed speed - I've done it countless times.
"b) you can not maneuver while afterburning, however firing a weapon is no problem at all."
I'm not certain, but I think that is false as well. I'm pretty sure that if you hold down the fire button that you will stop 'turboing' during the time you are firing. You can of course rapidly toggle between the two, and most good pilots do.
"Even our space shuttles work that way."
My wife used to work for NASA - six shuttle missions. I don't think I need lessons on how space shuttles work.
"However, the act of boosting away from the enemy leaves his back unprotected for a while because he needs to face away from the enemy to reach that speed; it will change the dynamics of dogfights as we know it now."
Because of turbo, this is basicaly already true with no need to make changes.
"And remember: engine torque still applies in space."
Err, no. Not if you aren't using a turbine or rotary engine they don't, and you wouldn't, because this is a vacuum. The effect I'm speaking of is that particularly with single engine prop planes, turning in one direction can be slower than turning in the other becuase the spin of the engine/prop provides a twisting force (a torque) that tends to want to turn the plane in a particular direction. This is one of the reasons WWII flight sims provide more interesting tactics than modern ones (and why they are so popular, and why the P-38 is such a joy to fly). And that would be one way that Vendetta's flight model would be different than atmospheric flight sims.
"Otherwise you could just accelerate as long as you like, instead of being constrained to a certain top speed, and when you would shut off the afterburners you would still fly at the speed you had right before you shut them off, instead of slowing down to your nominal speed."
Well, duh. If that's the wierdest 'physics' that you've discovered in the flight model then you aren't really looking hard. But its absolutely essential that speeds be kept finite for alot of good reasons - finite size of memory, finite size of sectors, rounding errors, finite reaction time of human pilots, etc. If you want really wierd 'physics' try this, accellerate using strafe in one direction (lets call it 'x') till you hit your maximum speed. Now accelerate in a perpendicular direction (lets call it 'y'). Now watch how your vectors. Dispite the fact that you've exerted no force opposite 'x', you'll begin to slow in the 'x' direction (the proper term is bleed) as you increase your velocity in the 'y' direction. Eventually, when you hit your maximum speed in the 'y' direction, your 'x' vector will be 0. Why is that? Well, otherwise you could acceed you maximum speed by going diagonally, which would be even more odd.
"Again, I direct you towards S:AAB, which features some quite realistic dogfights which are physicaly correct."
No, I don't know what realistic dogfights are like in space, but neither do you nor the creators of S:AAB. All the physics and engineering I've had, and all the readings I've done on space travel lead me to conclude that any dogfighting at all is entirely unrealistic in space, but that doesn't stop me from liking fantasy genre's like 'star fighter sims'.
Finally:
"Your whole explanation on the ratiator thingie is just a pathetic excuse to justify an inherently wrong flight model, no offence."
No offence taken, and you are completely wrong. One of the greatest difficulties in designing a powered space ship is preventing it from melting itself. Any energy produced by the ship ultimately turns into heat (2nd law of thermodynamics). Because the ship is 'floating' in a vacuum, it doesn't radiate any heat to the surroundings except by 'black body radiation' - ei microwaves. Unfortunately, the ability of the average material to radiate heat as microwaves is far to insufficient to rid the average vessel of the sort of heat that it is producing so any realistic spaceship design must find someway to help that heat escape. The usual method is have some sort of radiator, and the most efficient radiator is to collect the heat in heat sinks of some sort and then 'beam' the energy away in some form of electromagnetic energy away from the ship. If you are familiar with David Brin's work, you'll remember this being a key plot element in his book 'Sundiver'. Well, this isn't just pseudo-scientific technobabble, its a real consideration, and I would assume that the ships we use generate tremendous ammounts of power - and thus heat - and have to have really effecient radiators to remove it.
"If you watch S:AAB closely you won't see the small thrusters that control yaw, pitch and roll either untill their use is made apparent by the little geisers of smoke appearing out of the hull of the vessels."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this isn't S:AAB is it? And you don't see those little geysers of smoke appearing from the hull in Vendetta do you (not that you should see little geysers of smoke anyway, more on that latter).
"As regarding to the fuel: I never said these ships were fuel based."
A rocket must have fuel.
"...this is consistent with the behaviour of jet engines in atmospherical flight"
Which is a very good reason to assume that these aren't reaction thrusters, because it is not behavior consistant with rockets in a vacuum. Must rockets in a vacuum are going to use hypergolic fuels which burn without visible flame, and in any event any thruster expelling mass into a vacuum doesn't produce a clear plume because the atmosphere isn't there to contrain the motion of the plasma; rather, plasma (or gases) expelled into a vacuum 'bloom' in a very wide spray.
"Yet when you maneuver no energy drain is apparant in the battery charge, so if it feeds off the battery it uses so little power that it won't be noticeable anyway."
The key word there is 'apparant'. Just because none is apparant doesn't mean its not there. You are assuming that because the explanations regarding available power given to the players are simple (to minimize the learning curve), that the underlying powerflow also has to be.
"instead of accepting the fact that it's a bug in the game."
But it isn't a bug in the game. It's the intended design of the game that ships behave as they do.
"c) you still can't maneuver with the afterburner shut off during the time it takes your ship to shed speed untill its speed is below or equal to its max speed without afterburners."
Unless they've recently changed the flight model without saying anything, that's simply false. You can manuever with the afterburner shut off during the time it takes for your ship to shed speed - I've done it countless times.
"b) you can not maneuver while afterburning, however firing a weapon is no problem at all."
I'm not certain, but I think that is false as well. I'm pretty sure that if you hold down the fire button that you will stop 'turboing' during the time you are firing. You can of course rapidly toggle between the two, and most good pilots do.
"Even our space shuttles work that way."
My wife used to work for NASA - six shuttle missions. I don't think I need lessons on how space shuttles work.
"However, the act of boosting away from the enemy leaves his back unprotected for a while because he needs to face away from the enemy to reach that speed; it will change the dynamics of dogfights as we know it now."
Because of turbo, this is basicaly already true with no need to make changes.
"And remember: engine torque still applies in space."
Err, no. Not if you aren't using a turbine or rotary engine they don't, and you wouldn't, because this is a vacuum. The effect I'm speaking of is that particularly with single engine prop planes, turning in one direction can be slower than turning in the other becuase the spin of the engine/prop provides a twisting force (a torque) that tends to want to turn the plane in a particular direction. This is one of the reasons WWII flight sims provide more interesting tactics than modern ones (and why they are so popular, and why the P-38 is such a joy to fly). And that would be one way that Vendetta's flight model would be different than atmospheric flight sims.
"Otherwise you could just accelerate as long as you like, instead of being constrained to a certain top speed, and when you would shut off the afterburners you would still fly at the speed you had right before you shut them off, instead of slowing down to your nominal speed."
Well, duh. If that's the wierdest 'physics' that you've discovered in the flight model then you aren't really looking hard. But its absolutely essential that speeds be kept finite for alot of good reasons - finite size of memory, finite size of sectors, rounding errors, finite reaction time of human pilots, etc. If you want really wierd 'physics' try this, accellerate using strafe in one direction (lets call it 'x') till you hit your maximum speed. Now accelerate in a perpendicular direction (lets call it 'y'). Now watch how your vectors. Dispite the fact that you've exerted no force opposite 'x', you'll begin to slow in the 'x' direction (the proper term is bleed) as you increase your velocity in the 'y' direction. Eventually, when you hit your maximum speed in the 'y' direction, your 'x' vector will be 0. Why is that? Well, otherwise you could acceed you maximum speed by going diagonally, which would be even more odd.
"Again, I direct you towards S:AAB, which features some quite realistic dogfights which are physicaly correct."
No, I don't know what realistic dogfights are like in space, but neither do you nor the creators of S:AAB. All the physics and engineering I've had, and all the readings I've done on space travel lead me to conclude that any dogfighting at all is entirely unrealistic in space, but that doesn't stop me from liking fantasy genre's like 'star fighter sims'.
Finally:
"Your whole explanation on the ratiator thingie is just a pathetic excuse to justify an inherently wrong flight model, no offence."
No offence taken, and you are completely wrong. One of the greatest difficulties in designing a powered space ship is preventing it from melting itself. Any energy produced by the ship ultimately turns into heat (2nd law of thermodynamics). Because the ship is 'floating' in a vacuum, it doesn't radiate any heat to the surroundings except by 'black body radiation' - ei microwaves. Unfortunately, the ability of the average material to radiate heat as microwaves is far to insufficient to rid the average vessel of the sort of heat that it is producing so any realistic spaceship design must find someway to help that heat escape. The usual method is have some sort of radiator, and the most efficient radiator is to collect the heat in heat sinks of some sort and then 'beam' the energy away in some form of electromagnetic energy away from the ship. If you are familiar with David Brin's work, you'll remember this being a key plot element in his book 'Sundiver'. Well, this isn't just pseudo-scientific technobabble, its a real consideration, and I would assume that the ships we use generate tremendous ammounts of power - and thus heat - and have to have really effecient radiators to remove it.
Um...long post....
"Correct me if I'm wrong, but this isn't S:AAB is it? And you don't see those little geysers of smoke appearing from the hull in Vendetta do you (not that you should see little geysers of smoke anyway, more on that latter)."
It's not because it ain't S:AAB that newtonian physics don't still apply. There is some stuff like this whole wormhole warp thrown in to make things more interresting, but that still accomodates a comfortable level of willing suspension of disbelief. Like I said before, I never said our ships were fuel based, but I do believe that no object in space can change direction or orientation without some sort of force being applied to it. This force does not necessarily have to come from the expulsion of mass; I'm willing to believe in powerful non mass-based propulsion and whatnot, I'm just not willing to believe that something so small I can't even see it can generate the same amount of force, hence acceleration, than the two big engines on the back of the ship.
"A rocket must have fuel."
OK, which is it boy? I never mentioned fuel, all of a sudden you drag up fuel kind of implying I said our vessels were fuel based. I refute that, saying I never said anything about fuel, and then you change opinion and try to prove my statement that there is _no_ fuel wrong, a statement I never made. Again, I never said anything about fuel. And yes, I too can read the manual and ingame text, so yes, I know ships operate on batteries and rockets have fuel. What's your point? Are you gonna point out every trivial thing I already know out to me in excruciating detail? (yes, you will, more on this later) Other than that, we weren't discussing rockets, we were discussing engines.
"Which is a very good reason to assume that these aren't reaction thrusters, because it is not behavior consistant with rockets in a vacuum. Must rockets in a vacuum are going to use hypergolic fuels which burn without visible flame, and in any event any thruster expelling mass into a vacuum doesn't produce a clear plume because the atmosphere isn't there to contrain the motion of the plasma; rather, plasma (or gases) expelled into a vacuum 'bloom' in a very wide spray."
Who said anything about rockets and fuel and expelling mass into a vacuum? Oh yeah, you did. Case closed. I already stated I'm willing to believe that there's other ways of applying a force to an object other than expelling mass into the vacuum. Didn't I already say something about our engines running off batteries? Yeah, I did. Then why do you keep insisting I said our ships propel themselves by expelling mass into a vacuum? Where have I ever said such a thing?
"The key word there is 'apparant'. Just because none is apparant doesn't mean its not there. You are assuming that because the explanations regarding available power given to the players are simple (to minimize the learning curve), that the underlying powerflow also has to be."
I assume that it is so, yes. What's wrong with assuming that since everything runs off the same power core, and this powercore still has reserve power left, this means all systems will continue to work untill the power is drained? You seem to assume that there's a whole lot more going on behind the scenes that we don't know about. Newsflash: games need to be coded. What the designer decides to code in goes in, what he decides not to code in doesn't go in. There are no freaky laws of physics at work here, just a bunch of lines of C-code. See the post I'm gonna make after this one to see what I refer to.
"But it isn't a bug in the game. It's the intended design of the game that ships behave as they do."
No, this is a test version, and things still need to be tweaked. I point out some unralistic behavior, and you suddenly leap out of nowhere, make up a load of nonsense to support the arbitrary decisions made by the devs regarding the ship behaviour (decisions which are still open to debate, and are still under deveopment and will change). As long as the game isn't finished absolutely nothing is the intended design of the game. In fact, the devs are still working on the underlying physics model AFAIK. Nothing is decided as of yet, nothing is cast in stone, hence your farfetched nonsense trying to defend the behavior in the current incarnation of the project are useless since it might change overnight, and you'd have to come up with another farfetched freaky theory to defend _that_ behavior.
"Unless they've recently changed the flight model without saying anything, that's simply false. You can manuever with the afterburner shut off during the time it takes for your ship to shed speed - I've done it countless times."
Maybe I'm wrong, but I got the distinct impression it's impossible, or at least you rotate at a very reduced speed. Will check this later.
"I'm not certain, but I think that is false as well. I'm pretty sure that if you hold down the fire button that you will stop 'turboing' during the time you are firing. You can of course rapidly toggle between the two, and most good pilots do."
Are we even talking about the same game?
"My wife used to work for NASA - six shuttle missions. I don't think I need lessons on how space shuttles work."
And that makes you an expert on what, exactly? Unless you're married to yourself I don't think having a wife who worked for NASA implies anything about your knowledge of spaceflight dynamics. Sorry, pal, but "my wife does this", "my mother did that", "my uncle is the president of that" are statements which don't impress me much. My father worked at the Ford factory in Genk, Belgium, yet I know diddly squat about car engines.
"Because of turbo, this is basicaly already true with no need to make changes."
When was the last time you saw somebody turbo in the middle of a dogfight? Yes, it happens, but only noobs do it, or people trying to get away from the fight.
"Err, no. Not if you aren't using a turbine or rotary engine they don't, and you wouldn't, because this is a vacuum. The effect I'm speaking of is that particularly with single engine prop planes, turning in one direction can be slower than turning in the other becuase the spin of the engine/prop provides a twisting force (a torque) that tends to want to turn the plane in a particular direction. This is one of the reasons WWII flight sims provide more interesting tactics than modern ones (and why they are so popular, and why the P-38 is such a joy to fly). And that would be one way that Vendetta's flight model would be different than atmospheric flight sims."
Oh, you mean that engine torque; I thought you ment torque in the more general sense, like in those torque vs rpm graphs for car engines. Which in our engines isn't related to torque (no rotating parts) but can be roughly translated into propulsional power.
"Well, duh. If that's the wierdest 'physics' that you've discovered in the flight model then you aren't really looking hard. But its absolutely essential that speeds be kept finite for alot of good reasons - finite size of memory, finite size of sectors, rounding errors, finite reaction time of human pilots, etc. If you want really wierd 'physics' try this, accellerate using strafe in one direction (lets call it 'x') till you hit your maximum speed. Now accelerate in a perpendicular direction (lets call it 'y'). Now watch how your vectors. Dispite the fact that you've exerted no force opposite 'x', you'll begin to slow in the 'x' direction (the proper term is bleed) as you increase your velocity in the 'y' direction. Eventually, when you hit your maximum speed in the 'y' direction, your 'x' vector will be 0. Why is that? Well, otherwise you could acceed you maximum speed by going diagonally, which would be even more odd."
Who ever said that was the weirdest physics I found in the game, who ever said I was looking for the weirdest physics in the game, who ever said I didn't already notice that, and why the hell do you keep pointing out the obvious to me, (see above) and when did this discussion turn into a "find the weirdest physics" contest? As to the reasons why these constraints are put there, I'm a programmer myself, so I know about memory constrants etc... but those are not realy the issue. It's playability. A real physics model would be too hard for most players, and infinite acceleration would screw up the gameplay.
"No, I don't know what realistic dogfights are like in space, but neither do you nor the creators of S:AAB. All the physics and engineering I've had, and all the readings I've done on space travel lead me to conclude that any dogfighting at all is entirely unrealistic in space, but that doesn't stop me from liking fantasy genre's like 'star fighter sims'."
Sure, I agree with you in that respect: with our current technology it is indeed impossible. However, there's a willing suspension of disbelief at work here. People are willing to believe space travel exists as pictured in many sci-fi shows etc... Given newtonian physics and assuming we have engines powerful enough to change direction at speeds that would facilitate dogfights, how would a dogfight in space look like? Certainly not the way it looks like in Vendetta. S:AAB somes a lot closer to portraing actual dogfight dynamics in space, assuming the technology to support it is there.
"No offence taken, and you are completely wrong. One of the greatest difficulties in designing a powered space ship is preventing it from melting itself. Any energy produced by the ship ultimately turns into heat (2nd law of thermodynamics). Because the ship is 'floating' in a vacuum, it doesn't radiate any heat to the surroundings except by 'black body radiation' - ei microwaves. Unfortunately, the ability of the average material to radiate heat as microwaves is far to insufficient to rid the average vessel of the sort of heat that it is producing so any realistic spaceship design must find someway to help that heat escape. The usual method is have some sort of radiator, and the most efficient radiator is to collect the heat in heat sinks of some sort and then 'beam' the energy away in some form of electromagnetic energy away from the ship. If you are familiar with David Brin's work, you'll remember this being a key plot element in his book 'Sundiver'. Well, this isn't just pseudo-scientific technobabble, its a real consideration, and I would assume that the ships we use generate tremendous ammounts of power - and thus heat - and have to have really effecient radiators to remove it."
Which is all the more reason to assume those things on the back of the ship aren't it. I don't have to tell you that the bigger the surface area of the heatsink, the more heat it can dissipate. So instead of mounting those heatsink + heat expulsion systems on the back of the ship where any sane person would expect an engine to go, they could have made it a lot more efficient by mounting them on the large flat areas of the ship's hull. But, this is completely beside the point, since it's obvious those things are the engines, no matter how hard you try to deny it. To you it might look like a bunch of heatsinks, to all other inhabitants of this reality they're engines. I am willing to discuss this matter further on a constructive level, but not if the whole point of your replies keeps boiling down to:
a) pointing out to me that which I already know
b) laying words in my mouth I never said
c) changing your opinion all the time to attack my arguments from all sides
d) focusing on things that aren't realy important to the discussion
e) generalising any example I make into a statement that the example I give is the only model I consider to be possible
f) drag issues into the discussion which have nothing to do with the discussion and then try to convince me that I am the one who brought it up.
Can you do those six little things for me? Great, then we can continue this discussion, and perhaps gain some insights that currently elude us. If not: it's been fun talking to ya, but now I wanna talk to someone who's not living in another dimension and possibly has an actual clue on how to conduct a discussion.
It's not because it ain't S:AAB that newtonian physics don't still apply. There is some stuff like this whole wormhole warp thrown in to make things more interresting, but that still accomodates a comfortable level of willing suspension of disbelief. Like I said before, I never said our ships were fuel based, but I do believe that no object in space can change direction or orientation without some sort of force being applied to it. This force does not necessarily have to come from the expulsion of mass; I'm willing to believe in powerful non mass-based propulsion and whatnot, I'm just not willing to believe that something so small I can't even see it can generate the same amount of force, hence acceleration, than the two big engines on the back of the ship.
"A rocket must have fuel."
OK, which is it boy? I never mentioned fuel, all of a sudden you drag up fuel kind of implying I said our vessels were fuel based. I refute that, saying I never said anything about fuel, and then you change opinion and try to prove my statement that there is _no_ fuel wrong, a statement I never made. Again, I never said anything about fuel. And yes, I too can read the manual and ingame text, so yes, I know ships operate on batteries and rockets have fuel. What's your point? Are you gonna point out every trivial thing I already know out to me in excruciating detail? (yes, you will, more on this later) Other than that, we weren't discussing rockets, we were discussing engines.
"Which is a very good reason to assume that these aren't reaction thrusters, because it is not behavior consistant with rockets in a vacuum. Must rockets in a vacuum are going to use hypergolic fuels which burn without visible flame, and in any event any thruster expelling mass into a vacuum doesn't produce a clear plume because the atmosphere isn't there to contrain the motion of the plasma; rather, plasma (or gases) expelled into a vacuum 'bloom' in a very wide spray."
Who said anything about rockets and fuel and expelling mass into a vacuum? Oh yeah, you did. Case closed. I already stated I'm willing to believe that there's other ways of applying a force to an object other than expelling mass into the vacuum. Didn't I already say something about our engines running off batteries? Yeah, I did. Then why do you keep insisting I said our ships propel themselves by expelling mass into a vacuum? Where have I ever said such a thing?
"The key word there is 'apparant'. Just because none is apparant doesn't mean its not there. You are assuming that because the explanations regarding available power given to the players are simple (to minimize the learning curve), that the underlying powerflow also has to be."
I assume that it is so, yes. What's wrong with assuming that since everything runs off the same power core, and this powercore still has reserve power left, this means all systems will continue to work untill the power is drained? You seem to assume that there's a whole lot more going on behind the scenes that we don't know about. Newsflash: games need to be coded. What the designer decides to code in goes in, what he decides not to code in doesn't go in. There are no freaky laws of physics at work here, just a bunch of lines of C-code. See the post I'm gonna make after this one to see what I refer to.
"But it isn't a bug in the game. It's the intended design of the game that ships behave as they do."
No, this is a test version, and things still need to be tweaked. I point out some unralistic behavior, and you suddenly leap out of nowhere, make up a load of nonsense to support the arbitrary decisions made by the devs regarding the ship behaviour (decisions which are still open to debate, and are still under deveopment and will change). As long as the game isn't finished absolutely nothing is the intended design of the game. In fact, the devs are still working on the underlying physics model AFAIK. Nothing is decided as of yet, nothing is cast in stone, hence your farfetched nonsense trying to defend the behavior in the current incarnation of the project are useless since it might change overnight, and you'd have to come up with another farfetched freaky theory to defend _that_ behavior.
"Unless they've recently changed the flight model without saying anything, that's simply false. You can manuever with the afterburner shut off during the time it takes for your ship to shed speed - I've done it countless times."
Maybe I'm wrong, but I got the distinct impression it's impossible, or at least you rotate at a very reduced speed. Will check this later.
"I'm not certain, but I think that is false as well. I'm pretty sure that if you hold down the fire button that you will stop 'turboing' during the time you are firing. You can of course rapidly toggle between the two, and most good pilots do."
Are we even talking about the same game?
"My wife used to work for NASA - six shuttle missions. I don't think I need lessons on how space shuttles work."
And that makes you an expert on what, exactly? Unless you're married to yourself I don't think having a wife who worked for NASA implies anything about your knowledge of spaceflight dynamics. Sorry, pal, but "my wife does this", "my mother did that", "my uncle is the president of that" are statements which don't impress me much. My father worked at the Ford factory in Genk, Belgium, yet I know diddly squat about car engines.
"Because of turbo, this is basicaly already true with no need to make changes."
When was the last time you saw somebody turbo in the middle of a dogfight? Yes, it happens, but only noobs do it, or people trying to get away from the fight.
"Err, no. Not if you aren't using a turbine or rotary engine they don't, and you wouldn't, because this is a vacuum. The effect I'm speaking of is that particularly with single engine prop planes, turning in one direction can be slower than turning in the other becuase the spin of the engine/prop provides a twisting force (a torque) that tends to want to turn the plane in a particular direction. This is one of the reasons WWII flight sims provide more interesting tactics than modern ones (and why they are so popular, and why the P-38 is such a joy to fly). And that would be one way that Vendetta's flight model would be different than atmospheric flight sims."
Oh, you mean that engine torque; I thought you ment torque in the more general sense, like in those torque vs rpm graphs for car engines. Which in our engines isn't related to torque (no rotating parts) but can be roughly translated into propulsional power.
"Well, duh. If that's the wierdest 'physics' that you've discovered in the flight model then you aren't really looking hard. But its absolutely essential that speeds be kept finite for alot of good reasons - finite size of memory, finite size of sectors, rounding errors, finite reaction time of human pilots, etc. If you want really wierd 'physics' try this, accellerate using strafe in one direction (lets call it 'x') till you hit your maximum speed. Now accelerate in a perpendicular direction (lets call it 'y'). Now watch how your vectors. Dispite the fact that you've exerted no force opposite 'x', you'll begin to slow in the 'x' direction (the proper term is bleed) as you increase your velocity in the 'y' direction. Eventually, when you hit your maximum speed in the 'y' direction, your 'x' vector will be 0. Why is that? Well, otherwise you could acceed you maximum speed by going diagonally, which would be even more odd."
Who ever said that was the weirdest physics I found in the game, who ever said I was looking for the weirdest physics in the game, who ever said I didn't already notice that, and why the hell do you keep pointing out the obvious to me, (see above) and when did this discussion turn into a "find the weirdest physics" contest? As to the reasons why these constraints are put there, I'm a programmer myself, so I know about memory constrants etc... but those are not realy the issue. It's playability. A real physics model would be too hard for most players, and infinite acceleration would screw up the gameplay.
"No, I don't know what realistic dogfights are like in space, but neither do you nor the creators of S:AAB. All the physics and engineering I've had, and all the readings I've done on space travel lead me to conclude that any dogfighting at all is entirely unrealistic in space, but that doesn't stop me from liking fantasy genre's like 'star fighter sims'."
Sure, I agree with you in that respect: with our current technology it is indeed impossible. However, there's a willing suspension of disbelief at work here. People are willing to believe space travel exists as pictured in many sci-fi shows etc... Given newtonian physics and assuming we have engines powerful enough to change direction at speeds that would facilitate dogfights, how would a dogfight in space look like? Certainly not the way it looks like in Vendetta. S:AAB somes a lot closer to portraing actual dogfight dynamics in space, assuming the technology to support it is there.
"No offence taken, and you are completely wrong. One of the greatest difficulties in designing a powered space ship is preventing it from melting itself. Any energy produced by the ship ultimately turns into heat (2nd law of thermodynamics). Because the ship is 'floating' in a vacuum, it doesn't radiate any heat to the surroundings except by 'black body radiation' - ei microwaves. Unfortunately, the ability of the average material to radiate heat as microwaves is far to insufficient to rid the average vessel of the sort of heat that it is producing so any realistic spaceship design must find someway to help that heat escape. The usual method is have some sort of radiator, and the most efficient radiator is to collect the heat in heat sinks of some sort and then 'beam' the energy away in some form of electromagnetic energy away from the ship. If you are familiar with David Brin's work, you'll remember this being a key plot element in his book 'Sundiver'. Well, this isn't just pseudo-scientific technobabble, its a real consideration, and I would assume that the ships we use generate tremendous ammounts of power - and thus heat - and have to have really effecient radiators to remove it."
Which is all the more reason to assume those things on the back of the ship aren't it. I don't have to tell you that the bigger the surface area of the heatsink, the more heat it can dissipate. So instead of mounting those heatsink + heat expulsion systems on the back of the ship where any sane person would expect an engine to go, they could have made it a lot more efficient by mounting them on the large flat areas of the ship's hull. But, this is completely beside the point, since it's obvious those things are the engines, no matter how hard you try to deny it. To you it might look like a bunch of heatsinks, to all other inhabitants of this reality they're engines. I am willing to discuss this matter further on a constructive level, but not if the whole point of your replies keeps boiling down to:
a) pointing out to me that which I already know
b) laying words in my mouth I never said
c) changing your opinion all the time to attack my arguments from all sides
d) focusing on things that aren't realy important to the discussion
e) generalising any example I make into a statement that the example I give is the only model I consider to be possible
f) drag issues into the discussion which have nothing to do with the discussion and then try to convince me that I am the one who brought it up.
Can you do those six little things for me? Great, then we can continue this discussion, and perhaps gain some insights that currently elude us. If not: it's been fun talking to ya, but now I wanna talk to someone who's not living in another dimension and possibly has an actual clue on how to conduct a discussion.
OK, and now a clean post to get the discussion back on track. The reason the ships accelerate equaly in all directions is not some mumbo jumbo about propulsion systems grabbing the fabric of space and crawling along like a spider on a web, but far more mundane: probably only one variable is used for the acceleration, and one for the top speed.
Realisticaly speaking longitudonal motion should have two vars for both accell/speed: one for the positive motion, one for the negative, due to the proportional difference between the big rear engines and the so-small-you-don't-even-see-them brake "thrusters".
Left/right movement will suffice with one, since ships are designed symmetricaly, hence the "thrusters" on both sides will also be positioned equaly and have the same power.
For up/down movement there are two possibilities. Easiest would be to assume again equal amount of "thrusters" at the same locations, resulting in one var being sufficient, however one could also argue that ships enter an area with gravity when docking, and need more downforce to keep floating in the hangar, resulting in more thrusters pointing down, hence more acceleration/topspeed in the upward direction compared to downward when in space. Since we know little about what actualy goes on inside a hangar however, this is mere speculation. I'm assuming there is gravity inside though, and your ship is not assisted by any arm that grabs on to you when you enter the hangar (due to the fact that you'd need a different arm layout for nearly every shipdesign we currently have), so the assumption that more powerful downforce is being used is not at all a strange one.
Realisticaly speaking longitudonal motion should have two vars for both accell/speed: one for the positive motion, one for the negative, due to the proportional difference between the big rear engines and the so-small-you-don't-even-see-them brake "thrusters".
Left/right movement will suffice with one, since ships are designed symmetricaly, hence the "thrusters" on both sides will also be positioned equaly and have the same power.
For up/down movement there are two possibilities. Easiest would be to assume again equal amount of "thrusters" at the same locations, resulting in one var being sufficient, however one could also argue that ships enter an area with gravity when docking, and need more downforce to keep floating in the hangar, resulting in more thrusters pointing down, hence more acceleration/topspeed in the upward direction compared to downward when in space. Since we know little about what actualy goes on inside a hangar however, this is mere speculation. I'm assuming there is gravity inside though, and your ship is not assisted by any arm that grabs on to you when you enter the hangar (due to the fact that you'd need a different arm layout for nearly every shipdesign we currently have), so the assumption that more powerful downforce is being used is not at all a strange one.
Let me point out something here, the devs (as do 99.9% of all other sci fi games/books/movies do) are basing their flight dynamics on a thrust/propulsion based system. Why? Cause it's well understood and is easy to model. Look at what we currently have: Thrusters, turbo, RCS (reaction control systems).
IF it was possible to do, they COULD base it on an anti-gravity type model. IE motion in ANY direction at ANY time is possible. you want to have a vector going 90 degrees up and 90 degress forward, NP. You want to change that to 75 degrees down and 225 degrees back, NP. It happens (almost instantly). With a standard thrust based system... there's a period of time required to change that. HOWEVER, since AFAIK, no one has ever actually ACHIEVED anti gravity flight, we don't KNOW how to model it well. We can MAKE assumptions... but that's all that we can do.
IF it was possible to do, they COULD base it on an anti-gravity type model. IE motion in ANY direction at ANY time is possible. you want to have a vector going 90 degrees up and 90 degress forward, NP. You want to change that to 75 degrees down and 225 degrees back, NP. It happens (almost instantly). With a standard thrust based system... there's a period of time required to change that. HOWEVER, since AFAIK, no one has ever actually ACHIEVED anti gravity flight, we don't KNOW how to model it well. We can MAKE assumptions... but that's all that we can do.
"If you watch S:AAB closely you won't see the small thrusters that control yaw, pitch and roll either untill their use is made apparent by the little geisers of smoke appearing out of the hull of the vessels.
As regarding to the fuel: I never said these ships were fuel based."
Ok maybe not, but you sure keep implying through your comparisons that our ships should manuever by releasing small ammounts of mass. And if you aren't implying that our ships should manuever by releasing small ammounts of mass, then you are also conceding that its possible that 'thrusters' don't look anything like rocket engines.
So I'm simply saying, why not concede that if the ships move using a non-Newtonian drive mechanism, that they don't need 'thrusters' at all? And if they don't need thrusters at all, why not also admit that the flight model doesn't have to resemble that of a 20th century space shuttle?
I wouldn't want to make any sort of claim that the physics of this game are perfectly consistant with reality. Its a game. Physics as you well know take a back seat to game play. Let's go back to your main claim:
"Strafing up or down, and flying backwards require smaller thrusters, similar to the ones that allow your ship to yaw, pitch and roll. They are far smaller than your main engines and thus far less powerful as well. Hence the acceleration and max speed of these maneuvers should be far inferior to the acceleration and speed you get from your main thrusters when flying straight ahead. Right now the only difference is that you can only turbo in the conventional direction of travel."
I'm merely trying to show you that none of those assumptions has to be true, and in fact since making those assumptions doesn't explain the current flight model, assumptions which do better explaining the current flight model are more likely to be true within the game universe. The devs are under no obligation to conform thier tastes to your preconcieved notions.
What you've basically done is come in here, make alot of questionable assertions about 'realistic technology', and tried to cram down everyone else's throat the idea that since a realistic star fighter has little manuevering thrusters that have less force than the big main thrusters, that the flight model needs to change to accomodate your vision of reality. As I said, once you concede that thrusters are not expelling mass in order to generate accelleration you can just give up on all your other claims flying up, down, and backward requiring 'smaller thrusters' or that we absolutely need a rear mounted main thruster or anything else.
So when I say that those brightly shining thingies on the back of the ships might mainly be radiators, I'm saying it not because I care whether they are radiators or drive mechanisms or both, but because I'm trying to point out to you that there is more than one explanation. Incidently, the ammount of surface area of the radiator is only of marginal importance with this sort of technology. The ammount of surface area of the 'heat sink' would only be the primary design consideration of a passive heat sink. For a mechanism that actively emmits radiation, the primary consideration is the output which need not primarily be tied to surface area.
"No, this is a test version, and things still need to be tweaked. I point out some unralistic behavior..."
Sure, its a test version, and things need to be tweaked. But that doesn't mean that the whole flight model is a bug comparable to clipping issues and other errors in code. What this means is that in your opinion the flight model would be better if it were different - ei more like 'Space Above and Beyond'. However, the flight model is only 'unrealistic' in your opinion. You are just making assumptions about manuevering thrusters and so forth, and they just don't have to apply. I'm trying to show you that with a little bit of an open mind about what technology is being employed, we can dispence with all these stupid arguements that the flight model should change because it isn't realistic and get on to what is really important - what makes for a good game.
"However, there's a willing suspension of disbelief at work here."
Good. Now will it.
And so far you haven't said anything that convinces me that totally replacing the flight model would make for a better game, or for that matter even one that is significantly different once all the work is put into it. All I can tell you are accomplishing is a slight variation on the fact that 'foward motion' should generally be easier than motion in other directions - and it already is.
"Maybe I'm wrong, but I got the distinct impression it's impossible, or at least you rotate at a very reduced speed. Will check this later."
You are wrong. I've never gotten the impression you rotate at a reduced speed. If you don't do turbo toggling to make course corrections at high speed, or arent' aware you are doing it, I'm not sure your understanding of how to fly is high enough to really be criticizing the game play.
"Are we even talking about the same game?"
Only if we are talking about Vendetta. You're not even aware of your ability to change course while at turbo speeds, so I don't think its my experience which is in question.
"When was the last time you saw somebody turbo in the middle of a dogfight? Yes, it happens, but only noobs do it, or people trying to get away from the fight."
The only kind of person that would make that statement is one that has only been playing since the turbo tap bug was fixed, which in my opinion qualifies you as a n00b. If you go back to the 3.1 build, the balance and flight model of the time necessitated high reliance on turbo. And since Arolte, a pilot whose skills (if not necessarily temperment) I do respect keeps begging for things like heavy engines consuming less turbo power because the medium engine is now too efficient I can only assume that turbo still in the opinion of the best pilots is important to combat. And yes, even with turbo tapping not yielding excess energy, there are still lots of good reasons to employ turbo. And yes, everyone knows that with turbo tap fixed, alot of the balance has dropped out of the game and will need to be retweaked. I suspect that that is what you are noticing, but you lack the experience to understand the change in context.
As for focusing on things that aren't really important to the discussion, I'd say trying to make a case for changing the game play based on 'Space Above & Beyond' and its assumptions about future technology definately qualifies. You seem like someone that ought to understand that ultimately it's not the physics which define the gameplay, but the gameplay which defines the physics. My explanations conform to the existing gameplay, and I don't expect the gameplay to conform to my expectations. I don't see why the devs should try to conform to yours.
Lastly, my understanding of the physics and technology of space travel is not in question, and has been I think more than sufficiently demonstrated both in this thread and in many threads in the past.
As for my ability to have a discussion, when you recognize your claim that started this all, "Hence the acceleration and max speed of these maneuvers should be far inferior to the acceleration and speed you get from your main thrusters when flying straight ahead." for the fundamentally flawed statement that it is, then perhaps we can have a useful discussion.
As regarding to the fuel: I never said these ships were fuel based."
Ok maybe not, but you sure keep implying through your comparisons that our ships should manuever by releasing small ammounts of mass. And if you aren't implying that our ships should manuever by releasing small ammounts of mass, then you are also conceding that its possible that 'thrusters' don't look anything like rocket engines.
So I'm simply saying, why not concede that if the ships move using a non-Newtonian drive mechanism, that they don't need 'thrusters' at all? And if they don't need thrusters at all, why not also admit that the flight model doesn't have to resemble that of a 20th century space shuttle?
I wouldn't want to make any sort of claim that the physics of this game are perfectly consistant with reality. Its a game. Physics as you well know take a back seat to game play. Let's go back to your main claim:
"Strafing up or down, and flying backwards require smaller thrusters, similar to the ones that allow your ship to yaw, pitch and roll. They are far smaller than your main engines and thus far less powerful as well. Hence the acceleration and max speed of these maneuvers should be far inferior to the acceleration and speed you get from your main thrusters when flying straight ahead. Right now the only difference is that you can only turbo in the conventional direction of travel."
I'm merely trying to show you that none of those assumptions has to be true, and in fact since making those assumptions doesn't explain the current flight model, assumptions which do better explaining the current flight model are more likely to be true within the game universe. The devs are under no obligation to conform thier tastes to your preconcieved notions.
What you've basically done is come in here, make alot of questionable assertions about 'realistic technology', and tried to cram down everyone else's throat the idea that since a realistic star fighter has little manuevering thrusters that have less force than the big main thrusters, that the flight model needs to change to accomodate your vision of reality. As I said, once you concede that thrusters are not expelling mass in order to generate accelleration you can just give up on all your other claims flying up, down, and backward requiring 'smaller thrusters' or that we absolutely need a rear mounted main thruster or anything else.
So when I say that those brightly shining thingies on the back of the ships might mainly be radiators, I'm saying it not because I care whether they are radiators or drive mechanisms or both, but because I'm trying to point out to you that there is more than one explanation. Incidently, the ammount of surface area of the radiator is only of marginal importance with this sort of technology. The ammount of surface area of the 'heat sink' would only be the primary design consideration of a passive heat sink. For a mechanism that actively emmits radiation, the primary consideration is the output which need not primarily be tied to surface area.
"No, this is a test version, and things still need to be tweaked. I point out some unralistic behavior..."
Sure, its a test version, and things need to be tweaked. But that doesn't mean that the whole flight model is a bug comparable to clipping issues and other errors in code. What this means is that in your opinion the flight model would be better if it were different - ei more like 'Space Above and Beyond'. However, the flight model is only 'unrealistic' in your opinion. You are just making assumptions about manuevering thrusters and so forth, and they just don't have to apply. I'm trying to show you that with a little bit of an open mind about what technology is being employed, we can dispence with all these stupid arguements that the flight model should change because it isn't realistic and get on to what is really important - what makes for a good game.
"However, there's a willing suspension of disbelief at work here."
Good. Now will it.
And so far you haven't said anything that convinces me that totally replacing the flight model would make for a better game, or for that matter even one that is significantly different once all the work is put into it. All I can tell you are accomplishing is a slight variation on the fact that 'foward motion' should generally be easier than motion in other directions - and it already is.
"Maybe I'm wrong, but I got the distinct impression it's impossible, or at least you rotate at a very reduced speed. Will check this later."
You are wrong. I've never gotten the impression you rotate at a reduced speed. If you don't do turbo toggling to make course corrections at high speed, or arent' aware you are doing it, I'm not sure your understanding of how to fly is high enough to really be criticizing the game play.
"Are we even talking about the same game?"
Only if we are talking about Vendetta. You're not even aware of your ability to change course while at turbo speeds, so I don't think its my experience which is in question.
"When was the last time you saw somebody turbo in the middle of a dogfight? Yes, it happens, but only noobs do it, or people trying to get away from the fight."
The only kind of person that would make that statement is one that has only been playing since the turbo tap bug was fixed, which in my opinion qualifies you as a n00b. If you go back to the 3.1 build, the balance and flight model of the time necessitated high reliance on turbo. And since Arolte, a pilot whose skills (if not necessarily temperment) I do respect keeps begging for things like heavy engines consuming less turbo power because the medium engine is now too efficient I can only assume that turbo still in the opinion of the best pilots is important to combat. And yes, even with turbo tapping not yielding excess energy, there are still lots of good reasons to employ turbo. And yes, everyone knows that with turbo tap fixed, alot of the balance has dropped out of the game and will need to be retweaked. I suspect that that is what you are noticing, but you lack the experience to understand the change in context.
As for focusing on things that aren't really important to the discussion, I'd say trying to make a case for changing the game play based on 'Space Above & Beyond' and its assumptions about future technology definately qualifies. You seem like someone that ought to understand that ultimately it's not the physics which define the gameplay, but the gameplay which defines the physics. My explanations conform to the existing gameplay, and I don't expect the gameplay to conform to my expectations. I don't see why the devs should try to conform to yours.
Lastly, my understanding of the physics and technology of space travel is not in question, and has been I think more than sufficiently demonstrated both in this thread and in many threads in the past.
As for my ability to have a discussion, when you recognize your claim that started this all, "Hence the acceleration and max speed of these maneuvers should be far inferior to the acceleration and speed you get from your main thrusters when flying straight ahead." for the fundamentally flawed statement that it is, then perhaps we can have a useful discussion.
in reply to celebrim's post:
"I don't agree that it would stop these head on attacks, nor do I agree that you know what a 'real dogfight' would be like in space. The fact that 'real dogfights' in an atmosphere while under the effects of gravity have to do with getting on your opponent's 'six', has nothing to do with how they would play out in space. And yes, I have played warbirds and other flight sims. I also suck, but then atmospheres, gravity, engine torque and so forth make flight much more complicated than it ever would be in space."
ok, comparing dogfights in space and those under intraatmospheric circumstances is stupid. my fault.
but you state that gravitational forces don't apply in space, which is not totally correct; however, those can be neglected (very small ship mass; long distances from really big objects, read: planets and planetoids; very big engines).
The reason that nighty's suggestions wouldn't stop the 'head on' nature of space combat is that you still could simply rotate about on your axis to face your foe (while coasting in the direction you had been traveling), which is often what people do in Vendetta when someone 'gets on thier six'.
hm. ok. again, my bad. i ought to think more, write less.
about the heat sinks and stuff:
hm. true that about the 2nd law of thermodynamics. but if we forget about newton's law of actio=reactio, why not forget about thermodynamics (just about equally important in physics beyond quantum mechanics)?
i really wish we could get blueprints of the ships to study their internal construction.
but if we had heat sinks of some sort, this could be used to work the thrusters used for yaw, pitch and roll. problem with that is, you'd need expendable fuel (water would work) which we don't have. too bad.
in answer to daon rendiv's post:
"The reason you can't turn at the rediclus speeds you reach is because of the high G-forces caused by acceleration. Turning at high speeds cannot be done in modern aircraft because such turns (allthough safe for the plane) would result in pilot liquification, not cool. Sure at low speeds you can turn very fast, but at high speed splat."
erm. if we have some antigravitational engine, why not create a zero-gravity field around the pilot (i believe there have already been theories about this)?
additionally, i'd like to ask if you mean by "rediculous" rediculously fast or slow.
i'd agree with the "slow". it's 200 m/s, right? that's 720 km/h or roughly 450 m/h (1 mile = 1.609344 kilometers). that's not even supersonic. and the 65 m/s are 234 km/h, not much faster than a car at high speed.
ok, fighter pilots in ww2 had blackouts in really tight turns, at about 400-600 km/h.
but don't you think a highly sophisticated society as in vendetta would have found a way to at least partially counter centrifugal or g-induced forces (the latter actually a misleading term, as it's not the gravitational force of a planet that affects the pilot but the centrifugal or centripetal forces).
on a sidenote, turns at high speeds *are* (or should be) possible, but, as nighty already mentioned, with greatly increased radii.
"I don't agree that it would stop these head on attacks, nor do I agree that you know what a 'real dogfight' would be like in space. The fact that 'real dogfights' in an atmosphere while under the effects of gravity have to do with getting on your opponent's 'six', has nothing to do with how they would play out in space. And yes, I have played warbirds and other flight sims. I also suck, but then atmospheres, gravity, engine torque and so forth make flight much more complicated than it ever would be in space."
ok, comparing dogfights in space and those under intraatmospheric circumstances is stupid. my fault.
but you state that gravitational forces don't apply in space, which is not totally correct; however, those can be neglected (very small ship mass; long distances from really big objects, read: planets and planetoids; very big engines).
The reason that nighty's suggestions wouldn't stop the 'head on' nature of space combat is that you still could simply rotate about on your axis to face your foe (while coasting in the direction you had been traveling), which is often what people do in Vendetta when someone 'gets on thier six'.
hm. ok. again, my bad. i ought to think more, write less.
about the heat sinks and stuff:
hm. true that about the 2nd law of thermodynamics. but if we forget about newton's law of actio=reactio, why not forget about thermodynamics (just about equally important in physics beyond quantum mechanics)?
i really wish we could get blueprints of the ships to study their internal construction.
but if we had heat sinks of some sort, this could be used to work the thrusters used for yaw, pitch and roll. problem with that is, you'd need expendable fuel (water would work) which we don't have. too bad.
in answer to daon rendiv's post:
"The reason you can't turn at the rediclus speeds you reach is because of the high G-forces caused by acceleration. Turning at high speeds cannot be done in modern aircraft because such turns (allthough safe for the plane) would result in pilot liquification, not cool. Sure at low speeds you can turn very fast, but at high speed splat."
erm. if we have some antigravitational engine, why not create a zero-gravity field around the pilot (i believe there have already been theories about this)?
additionally, i'd like to ask if you mean by "rediculous" rediculously fast or slow.
i'd agree with the "slow". it's 200 m/s, right? that's 720 km/h or roughly 450 m/h (1 mile = 1.609344 kilometers). that's not even supersonic. and the 65 m/s are 234 km/h, not much faster than a car at high speed.
ok, fighter pilots in ww2 had blackouts in really tight turns, at about 400-600 km/h.
but don't you think a highly sophisticated society as in vendetta would have found a way to at least partially counter centrifugal or g-induced forces (the latter actually a misleading term, as it's not the gravitational force of a planet that affects the pilot but the centrifugal or centripetal forces).
on a sidenote, turns at high speeds *are* (or should be) possible, but, as nighty already mentioned, with greatly increased radii.