VWBB - Engine design

Show all 15 posts from this thread on one page

VWBB (http://volitionwatch.papageorgefamily/vwbb/index.php)
- FreeSpace 1/2 Discussion (http://volitionwatch.papageorgefamily/vwbb/forumdisplay.php?forumid=33)
-- Engine design (http://volitionwatch.papageorgefamily/vwbb/showthread.php?threadid=8786)

Posted by ns33 on 04-30-2003 06:37 PM:

Engine design

There are so many engine designs in FS that if you look at them all, there are some that dont seem plausible.

(This isnt a "not plausible" one.) Take the cases of the corvets, the Deimos and the Sobek. Each has a rear-located engine, yet they both have an engine at the front-"bottom" (no orientation in space ). While the Sobek only has one engine subsystem, the Deimos has 3, and one of them for the smaller engine situated in the front. The engineering is so that if one, or even two engines were destroyed, the backup could at least sustain some power. But can a flimsy engine like the one situated in the front really provide enough power to move that thing at 25m/s?

On the situation of the Deimos, what purpose does the "downward" pointing engine serve? In space, devoid of friction, one push off a single point will send an object into the opposite direction. Shouldnt the downward-oriented engine of the Deimos push it "upwards"??

With the Herc II, it has a primary nacells pointing rear-ward, but it also has 4 nacelles \\edit (oops, didnt finish). Since all force is a push off of a single point SOMEWHERE, we can conclude that those 4 oulets are pushing off of a single, shared point: the center of the fighter. Being so, would that make a fighter "heavier" (harder to control)??

__________________
Freedom suppressed and again regained bites with keener fangs than freedom never endangered." -Cicero
"Comple others: do not be compelled by them." -Sun-tzu
"Black holes are where God divided by zero." -Steven Wright
"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake." -Napoleon

Leagacy at the [VBB] - October 2001 - April 2002 - 555 posts
[url=http://www.3dap.com/hlp/hosted/the158th]The 158th[/url]

Posted by Bigbossman on 05-01-2003 02:59 AM:

You're a wiser man than I.
Im not sure how much technical detail went into the ships specifications themselves.
But you gotta admit, each element you mentioned made the respective ship look that much cooler

__________________
One thing about freespace has not just been etched in my memory, but has become a part of my memory, the destruction of the colossus. I can still smell the burning pine wood...

Posted by BabProj Team on 05-01-2003 04:01 AM:

The original Herc 2 model actually had the four extra thrusters pointing up and downwards. May have been the intention to make it look more manuverable.

__________________
- The Babylon Project Team

Posted by GalacticEmperor on 05-01-2003 04:42 AM:

Just remember, when you're doing structural analysis stress tests of a Deimos' collapsed molbydenum armor sheathing, that this is in a universe where objects decelerate of their own accord in a vacuum.

__________________
Palpy uber alles!
-Woolie Wool

Galemp, you should be shoved into the intake of a Boeing 777.
-Mikhael, upon seeing my [url=http://dynamic4.gamespy.com/~freespace/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19105]FS uglies[/url]

[url=http://www.3dap.com/hlp/hosted/fsport/]Revisit the Great War at the Freespace Port![/url]

Posted by ns33 on 05-02-2003 01:16 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by GalacticEmperor
that this is in a universe where objects decelerate of their own accord in a vacuum.

Yeah

They somehow stop without having to push off another point.

But the point I'm trying to make is, since the Her II has 4 thrusters pushing off of one point which is located at the center of the ship body, does it make is less manuverable?? It doesnt apply force to propel, it applies force to push on itself.

Posted by ltnarol on 05-02-2003 12:24 PM:

Keep in mind that different engines or thrusters can be adjusted separately, meaning the 4 smaller thrusters on the Herc2 were probably meant to be maneuvering thrusters.

On the question of the Deimos sustaining 25ms on one engine, it shouldn't be able to do that, and it doesn't. Take out 2 engines on the Deimos and see how far it slows down .

__________________
[url="http://www.3dap.com/hlp/hosted/the158th/"]158th Banshee Squadron[/url]

Posted by hayabusa on 05-14-2003 08:28 AM:

Well sims rely on compromise between reality and "playability", but there are two things concerning the engines in the FS 2 I don`t like so much. One, as the engnes go worse itshould cause significant slowdowns tothe ship. There`s one but it works partially and you need to damage the engines seriously to cause a real slowdown.
On the other hand, it`s more realistic. In zero gravity turning off the engies doesn`t make to ship go slower.
Second thing: as the engines go down, the ship should not stop, but loose control and float, with almoust the same speed but unable to turn or change direction unless it meets a shockwave or is hit. think it could also look great: a damaged ship that moves with no control... more dramatic.

__________________
Lasciate ogni speranza... Dante Alighieri
I`m not the king of your minds...

Posted by Krackers87 on 06-04-2003 04:25 PM:

Yes and more nauseating. Imagine spining around for 5 minutes then getting hit and spinning around some more. Besides dont we play games to escape reality? If we realy wanted realistic games why even have GTA 3? just go doing drugs and shooting people if you want to get your kick of realism. And furthermore there are 2 games i know that are pretty realistic. 1 battlecruiser milenium (which has the stepest learning curve ever, as you try to figure out all of the thousands of controls to move 3 feet.) and Terminus (which has a very realistic flight system where you dont slow down unless you use your engines, but the game also sucks ass).

__________________
Coming soon! Prisoners of War my FS2 campaign.

Posted by hayabusa on 06-15-2003 05:33 PM:

Well yes uless we make it so it wo`t move too fast. Just a bit of floatig, slow movemet.

__________________
Lasciate ogni speranza... Dante Alighieri
I`m not the king of your minds...

Posted by Hippo on 06-15-2003 07:55 PM:

I can see it now... Player ship is disabled by a missile while going 80M/s... Support ship can't docklet alone catch up... Out of control shivan fighter careens into you... You spin on and on and on... (minutes later) "Alpha one, desertion is grounds for a court-martial..." *game crashes after sexp "good secondary time 'Stilletto II'"...

__________________
Im too young to be a hippie :hippy: , but the only good hippie is a hippo...

:hippy:

Posted by hayabusa on 06-16-2003 12:52 PM:

Well it would be more realistic. You cannot call in the support ship when your communication is disabled as well.
And I was thinking rather - but not only - about the big ships. I mean as these ships get disabled they should float slowly. And change direction or angular momentum ( but with quite small rate) due to torpedo hits.

__________________
Lasciate ogni speranza... Dante Alighieri
I`m not the king of your minds...

Posted by ns33 on 06-16-2003 03:14 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by hayabusa
And change direction or angular momentum ( but with quite small rate) due to torpedo hits.

Small cruisers do. If you hit them with kinetic weapons such as the MS (and enough ships hit it), the cap ship will accelerate to a set velocity in the direction of weapon fire based on the number of weapons that are trained on it. Missile impacts and blasts on smaller ships will change their velocity. However, missiles and bombs dont affect cap ships too much, while both are factors for smaller targets.

Posted by hayabusa on 06-18-2003 03:39 PM:

I`ve noticed that. Well it`s quite OK. maybe it`s good as it is now.

Anyway there`s one other thing that could have been done: wrecks, like that Orion from the intro. I mean it was pretty impossible when FS2 has emerged , but... let`s say, something like geomod... a cruiser with bad hole after direct hit of helios or pair of cyclops... I don`t mean it`s bad as it is, but it would be really awesome. Or a destroyer, with all front part cut off by several direct hits. Cruiser with huge, rusty holes after it has been destroyed by beam cannons.

Oh. Funny, that, you know, I`ve played demo of the freelancer. Nothing special, actually it`s worse than freespace, the graphic... well a bit better but the ship`s design is much worse IMO.

Freespace. Still being impressed. Well among the positives there`s also dubbing. Polish company that released Polish version of the Freespace managed to hire good actors, the command is really something, some pilots...

__________________
Lasciate ogni speranza... Dante Alighieri
I`m not the king of your minds...

Posted by Tar-Palantir on 06-19-2003 07:41 AM:

quote:
You cannot call in the support ship when your communication is disabled as well.

Are you sure? I'll pretty certain that I've managed to (call in support ship was the only opition highlighted). It may have been that you were in a 'no support ship' mission?

__________________
'The past tempts us, the present confuses us, and the future frightens us ...and our lives slip away, moment by moment, lost in that vast, terrible in-between.' - Emperor Turhan

'Whether or not what you do has the effect you want, it will have three at least you never expected, and one of those usually unpleasant.' - Law of Unintended Consequences

Why not visit the [url=http://www.sectorgame.com/timeofchange/]Time of Change[/url] website?

Or perhaps my own website - [url=http://www.geocities.com/ackleyfarran/]Telencephalon[/url]

Posted by hayabusa on 06-19-2003 01:25 PM:

Welll I remember one mission where support was certainly allowed. My communication was about 8% and I called in the support.
No effect.
I gave orders to my wingmen. No reaction.
I`m quite sure the support was allowed and disabled communication seemed to be the only purpose.

__________________
Lasciate ogni speranza... Dante Alighieri
I`m not the king of your minds...

All times are EST. The time now is 10:52 AM.

Show all 15 posts from this thread on one page