Forums » General
A "VO Physics" Hypothetical Question
Given two Tridents, two completely identical tridents in every way, except top speed (not turbo).
They both sit with brakes on, full throttle (FA on), no turbo allowed.
Will Trident A (Top Speed of 50m/s) or Trident B (Top Speed of 200m/s) reach 50m/s faster given that both release the brakes at the exact same time?
Why?
They both sit with brakes on, full throttle (FA on), no turbo allowed.
Will Trident A (Top Speed of 50m/s) or Trident B (Top Speed of 200m/s) reach 50m/s faster given that both release the brakes at the exact same time?
Why?
Hypothetical answer:
If both dents have exactly the same acceleration !constant!, then they reach 50 m/s at exactly the same time. and the B ship will continue to accelerate until it reaches 200 m/s.
If acceleration is controlled by a function which has a saturation like shape, that is the acceleration decreases the closer the top speed is then Dent B will reach 50 m/s faster.
But inc/ray/a1k0n/mom will tell whether this answer is valid or not.
If both dents have exactly the same acceleration !constant!, then they reach 50 m/s at exactly the same time. and the B ship will continue to accelerate until it reaches 200 m/s.
If acceleration is controlled by a function which has a saturation like shape, that is the acceleration decreases the closer the top speed is then Dent B will reach 50 m/s faster.
But inc/ray/a1k0n/mom will tell whether this answer is valid or not.
How is this easier for the physics model instead of constant though? It seems retarded and makes no sense.
I doubt it's about what's easier for the physics engine, so much as what makes for better game play.
Given that acceleration in a vacuum is determined by thrust and mass, any fuel consuming engine will actually improve its acceleration as fuel is consumed, and its mass is reduced. However, as discussed elsewhere, "real" physics makes for dull game play, in terms of combat, as well as travel times. It is the same reason we have a top speed, ships function perfectly until destroyed, and our ships have an unspecified FTL drive of some form (in system jumps), and death isn't fatal.
It's a game. Roll with it.
Faille.
Given that acceleration in a vacuum is determined by thrust and mass, any fuel consuming engine will actually improve its acceleration as fuel is consumed, and its mass is reduced. However, as discussed elsewhere, "real" physics makes for dull game play, in terms of combat, as well as travel times. It is the same reason we have a top speed, ships function perfectly until destroyed, and our ships have an unspecified FTL drive of some form (in system jumps), and death isn't fatal.
It's a game. Roll with it.
Faille.
Constant accel with a sharp cutoff at the max speed would feel even more weird and stupid than what we have now.
Might give a smarter aiming computer and it's only because we're used to it haha
It would accentuate the jitteryness of combat especially with lighter crafts and potentially make them extremely problematic for some of the higher latency connections. Ships would have the potential to be even more jittery at higher speeds where your latency can affect how smooth the animation of the ship occurs.
If we were to remove this its a kick in the teeth to those with higher latency for starters.
If you don't believe me try fighting a superlight on one of your laggy days. They have the high 75m/s top speed which means they can get to 65m/s faster than most ships AND they have a good thrust/weight ratio meaning they do it faster. It contributes significantly to the potential for lag and unfairness for some connections so that's why we don't have it.
If we were to remove this its a kick in the teeth to those with higher latency for starters.
If you don't believe me try fighting a superlight on one of your laggy days. They have the high 75m/s top speed which means they can get to 65m/s faster than most ships AND they have a good thrust/weight ratio meaning they do it faster. It contributes significantly to the potential for lag and unfairness for some connections so that's why we don't have it.
Why would a ship be jittery in a vacuum?
The vacuum is quantized.
lol
/pants on head
/pants on head
Um, no Kierky. Everything in a digital computer is quantized -- that is why they are digital computers instead of analog computers. You can make it less obvious by using more precision, but that increases the bandwidth usage, memory usage, and processing time.
As for TRS's objection, the jitteryness he mentions has nothing to do with quantization. He just means that ships would have access to their full thrust in any direction at all times (so long as they aren't at maximum velocity). That means you can create larger changes of velocity in the same slice of time, and that means that people with latency will be at more of a disadvantage than they are now. Latency is most disruptive when rapid changes are involved.
As for TRS's objection, the jitteryness he mentions has nothing to do with quantization. He just means that ships would have access to their full thrust in any direction at all times (so long as they aren't at maximum velocity). That means you can create larger changes of velocity in the same slice of time, and that means that people with latency will be at more of a disadvantage than they are now. Latency is most disruptive when rapid changes are involved.
Oh kierky got schooled!
Your mum got schooled by me.