Forums » Suggestions
Breaking
I just did a little test. Took my lil valk and accelerated to 225m/s then I hit the breaks. It went from 225m/s to 0 in 2 seconds flat...
What it means is that my brains should be splattered on the windshield now... even if I was wearing my safety belt...
Not a very important point, but do we really need such breaks on the ships?
What it means is that my brains should be splattered on the windshield now... even if I was wearing my safety belt...
Not a very important point, but do we really need such breaks on the ships?
Indeed we do!
But that reminds me of another question to do with breaking and acceleration. If the ship engines utilize some type of gravitron engine that actually creates a gravity field or whatever, warps space and time, whatever....
...then why can we slow down so much faster than we can speed up?
But that reminds me of another question to do with breaking and acceleration. If the ship engines utilize some type of gravitron engine that actually creates a gravity field or whatever, warps space and time, whatever....
...then why can we slow down so much faster than we can speed up?
Dark matter is really sticky?
When you are 2 seconds away from an asteroid, you'll be glad you had them.
When you are 2 seconds away from an asteroid, you'll be glad you had them.
Not to be too picky, but 'breaking' is different from 'braking'. So much so that I expected an entirely different thread.
On topic:
Simple explanation: The reverse thrust ('brakes') are so much stronger because you do not use them as much, whereas the forward thrust ('engine') is used at much longer intervals, especially when boosting. That allows them to produce more acceleration (negative), over less time, which would roughly translate into the same strain put on the entire contraption as when moving forward.
I haven't got the time to actually provide evidence for my rather unsubstantiated claims, but think about this: a car doesn't brake all the time, or reverse all the time, but it moves forward almost the entire time it is being used.
On topic:
Simple explanation: The reverse thrust ('brakes') are so much stronger because you do not use them as much, whereas the forward thrust ('engine') is used at much longer intervals, especially when boosting. That allows them to produce more acceleration (negative), over less time, which would roughly translate into the same strain put on the entire contraption as when moving forward.
I haven't got the time to actually provide evidence for my rather unsubstantiated claims, but think about this: a car doesn't brake all the time, or reverse all the time, but it moves forward almost the entire time it is being used.
How about we all just accept that the physics in this game are very unrealistic, but much more fun than IRL, and stop posting silly threads pointing it out.
No, we do not need such wonderfully good brakes, but they are nice; just like we don't need capital ships or FTL travel, but they would be/are nice.
No, we do not need such wonderfully good brakes, but they are nice; just like we don't need capital ships or FTL travel, but they would be/are nice.
But wording technobabble explanations for game mechanics is fun, especially if the rest of your day consists of solving countless problems for exam preparation :)
Not having "brakes" would make battles interesting. A car's brakes are completely different. They don't provide thrust, just resistance; and they only work because your car has wheels. There's nothing to resist against in space. If anything, with the current explaination for the engine (which is inconsistent with the way the ships look), the ships should slow as fast as the speed up, or accelerate as fast as they can stop. The unrealistic game physics are easier than real life physics and much quicker to master, but I think it would be interesting to not have brakes, just reverse thrusters on some ships (not as strong as the main engine). This is what I was expecting when I first started playing, and I had gotten used to it in EV (admittedly, 2D is very different from 3D). The only reason it wouldn't work well is docking. That's why I think that small reverse thrusters, useful enough for docking and keeping distance during mining, would be good. Also, it would keep people from complaining about "backrolling," since it would be impossible.
Not to be too picky, but 'breaking' is different from 'braking'. So much so that I expected an entirely different thread.
I was about to make a wise-@$$ comment about the Itani and their shoddy ship manufacturing specs, but you beat me to the mockery punch.
I was about to make a wise-@$$ comment about the Itani and their shoddy ship manufacturing specs, but you beat me to the mockery punch.
I just wear my Vesto-Brak-o-matic (tm), manufactured by Seta-Slane and Sons PLC. (Est. 3713).
Professor Chaos... "Not having "brakes" would make" this game just like every other space flight sim ever made... I like that the combat is completely different; oh, and back-rolling is good for me - bad for you!
It is about breaking.... breaking the game
How about this:
The gravitron engine works by creating gravity wells ahead of the ship's path. Locomotion occurs as the ship "falls" into each new well. Top speed is governed by how quickly a well can be generated and closed before a new one is formed, and by ship mass. Forward locomotion is the most rapid because gravitron projectors are directional and forward-facing. Rotating the projectors for better directionality is complicated because they are large relative to the mass of the ship they are able to move.
One brakes with a gravitron engine by opening a well opposite the current trajectory and allowing the ship to "fall" completely in. There is a small rear-facing projector for this purpose. The gravitational pull is sufficient to keep brains where they belong.
Of course, this is all in the Vendetta Universe and disregards such niceties as frictionless space flight in RL, in-depth thinking, etc.. But, hey, it's fun to fly.
The gravitron engine works by creating gravity wells ahead of the ship's path. Locomotion occurs as the ship "falls" into each new well. Top speed is governed by how quickly a well can be generated and closed before a new one is formed, and by ship mass. Forward locomotion is the most rapid because gravitron projectors are directional and forward-facing. Rotating the projectors for better directionality is complicated because they are large relative to the mass of the ship they are able to move.
One brakes with a gravitron engine by opening a well opposite the current trajectory and allowing the ship to "fall" completely in. There is a small rear-facing projector for this purpose. The gravitational pull is sufficient to keep brains where they belong.
Of course, this is all in the Vendetta Universe and disregards such niceties as frictionless space flight in RL, in-depth thinking, etc.. But, hey, it's fun to fly.
Your description also explains why missiles can not keep up with ships - they can only fit a less powerful gravitonic thruster, therefore making them unable to generate a well far enough ahead to open to a usable size by the time the missile passes.
However braking is then not generating a well behind the ship, but allowing it longer to open ahead of the ship, therefore opening it more, therefore making it deeper. Since it is further behind by that time (as the ship moved further during the longer time that it was opening for), the ship tries to climb out of the deep well instead of falling into it, decelerating very quickly.
If this was to be made how ships actually work it would add some interesting effects to the game - enabling you to fall into other ships' wells, and other ships causing your path to destabilise.
It is probably a bad idea though because of the programming effort involved, lack of manpower, etc.
When I started playing I did not expect the brakes to be there, I only discovered them several days into the game. They are a good thing though.
However braking is then not generating a well behind the ship, but allowing it longer to open ahead of the ship, therefore opening it more, therefore making it deeper. Since it is further behind by that time (as the ship moved further during the longer time that it was opening for), the ship tries to climb out of the deep well instead of falling into it, decelerating very quickly.
If this was to be made how ships actually work it would add some interesting effects to the game - enabling you to fall into other ships' wells, and other ships causing your path to destabilise.
It is probably a bad idea though because of the programming effort involved, lack of manpower, etc.
When I started playing I did not expect the brakes to be there, I only discovered them several days into the game. They are a good thing though.
Missiles are probably newtonian. It wouldn't make sense to fit a sophisticated (and possibly expensive) drive technology in one-time appliances like missiles.
Thinking about the explanations with wells and such, I think I'll have to agree with LostCommander in that physics, especially kinematics and kinetics, can not be brought to a convergence with the game's mechanics. Let's just say it's a game, and leave it at that, or else I'm going to get seriously weirded out.
Thinking about the explanations with wells and such, I think I'll have to agree with LostCommander in that physics, especially kinematics and kinetics, can not be brought to a convergence with the game's mechanics. Let's just say it's a game, and leave it at that, or else I'm going to get seriously weirded out.
>The only reason it wouldn't work well is docking. That's why I
>think that small reverse thrusters, useful enough for docking and
>keeping distance during mining, would be good. Also, it would keep
>people from complaining about "backrolling," since it would be
>impossible.
do you mean to say no strafe capabilities or actually no breaks?
if you actually mean no breaks than i have to disagree as i dock quite effectively without them, and backrolling doesn't use breaks at all.
anywa, for the technobable:
what if every ship has an inertial dampening system that when used in conjunction with a flight computer is part of the Flight Assist system. However as a side effect, when the enertial dampener is set to maximum, it reduces the ship's enertial mass to almost 0, allowing very small amounts of thrust to cancle out the ship's velocity, while simultaniously protecting the pilot from the josteling effect of the massive acceleration. However the enertial dampener is only designed to operate at full capacity for a 1-1.5s time fraim, and various failsafes are in place to prevent it from being activated for longer as the system would overload shortly thereafter (say 5 seconds).
it is also possable that the inertial dampener is ised as part of the turbo-engin.
>think that small reverse thrusters, useful enough for docking and
>keeping distance during mining, would be good. Also, it would keep
>people from complaining about "backrolling," since it would be
>impossible.
do you mean to say no strafe capabilities or actually no breaks?
if you actually mean no breaks than i have to disagree as i dock quite effectively without them, and backrolling doesn't use breaks at all.
anywa, for the technobable:
what if every ship has an inertial dampening system that when used in conjunction with a flight computer is part of the Flight Assist system. However as a side effect, when the enertial dampener is set to maximum, it reduces the ship's enertial mass to almost 0, allowing very small amounts of thrust to cancle out the ship's velocity, while simultaniously protecting the pilot from the josteling effect of the massive acceleration. However the enertial dampener is only designed to operate at full capacity for a 1-1.5s time fraim, and various failsafes are in place to prevent it from being activated for longer as the system would overload shortly thereafter (say 5 seconds).
it is also possable that the inertial dampener is ised as part of the turbo-engin.
Unfortunately Whistler, there's a problem with that.
you see, gravity will operate as a wave, and continue to move in the inertial reference frame in which you set it up. So, you won't "Fall in" to a velocity of 0, you'll have to keep it going behind you if you want to slow down all the way.
So, the decelerate time should be EXACTLY the same as the accelerate time.
you see, gravity will operate as a wave, and continue to move in the inertial reference frame in which you set it up. So, you won't "Fall in" to a velocity of 0, you'll have to keep it going behind you if you want to slow down all the way.
So, the decelerate time should be EXACTLY the same as the accelerate time.
If that whole gravitron engine thingie was true then we should be able to pull ships toward our own gravity well.
Yes, and with the gravity well of a connie, we and everything else should get pulled in and stuck to it as it flew by.
Connie's Gravity Well
Connie's Gravity Well
Borring, and useless thread... But that's my point;
i lik eth egame and all its physics.
It works so don't complain about everything you see !?
i lik eth egame and all its physics.
It works so don't complain about everything you see !?
Keep in mind that I didn't introduce the gravitron engines into the discussion - they're already part of the story.
Okay, so maybe the grav engines are only for forward motion and then we have netonian thrusters for the other axes.
I agree, it's just a game, but it's fun to kick this stuff around.
Okay, so maybe the grav engines are only for forward motion and then we have netonian thrusters for the other axes.
I agree, it's just a game, but it's fun to kick this stuff around.