Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Waiting for the "Great Codey" to post his "Great Demo" here. (Ain't gonna see much tho...)

  • Jukarrn

    Posts: 91

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]

    [hide]


    You will not have to disable the FBW system, you only have to tell it to not change your velocity vector unless you manually input vector changes with your other joystick or coolie hat. Basicly you set your FBW system to only do exactly what you control... either rotational acceleration or straight acceleration.

    In a dogfight, a human would have to manually toggle the FBW to let it know if he intends to roll/strafe/move up or down (relatively) while maintaining forward flight or not. Since the devs are unable to code in the necessary intelligence of a real FBW as in real life that would allow the game's FBW decide for itself what the player's intentions are.

    Now, there are 12 degrees of freedom, controlled by multiple thrusters and hence FBW input commands;

    Forward/Reverse
    Up/Down
    Pitch Up/Pitch Down
    Roll Left/Roll Right
    Swing Left/Swing Right
    Strafe Left/Strafe Right.

    The user (in advance mode) would need to have control over the FBW in charge of the thrusters for each of these individual axis if they wanted complete freedom to move along each axis. This is because at any point in time, FBW may be command any one of these thrusters. And because any one of these thrusters may be being fired by the FBW, you could not just shut the entire FBW off, since this could cause the ship to spin uncontrollably in a random direction (if CR is indeed keeping good physics)

    You'd have to have individual control over each FBW thruster command.
    Yeah in Diaspora FBW never actually gets turned off totally.. thrusters are always stopping the ship from turning or rolling when you're not trying to do those maneuvers. So you're saying since any of the thrusters could be firing to correct your ship when you ask them to do something else it'd effect how it flies? Makes me wonder cause in Diaspora when you come out of a glide or a strafe you don't instantly hit your new vector. Obviously you don't want to turn too fast or you could pass out.. but maybe there is also a delay from busy thrusters. Maybe better thrusters can reduce that sort of thing in SC.. that'd be interesting.
  • codester

    Posts: 1082

    Posted:
    Edited: by codester
    Posted:
    Edited:
    [hide]


    Yeah in Diaspora FBW never actually gets turned off totally.. thrusters are always stopping the ship from turning or rolling when you're not trying to do those maneuvers. So you're saying since any of the thrusters could be firing to correct your ship when you ask them to do something else it'd effect how it flies? Makes me wonder cause in Diaspora when you come out of a glide or a strafe you don't instantly hit your new vector. Obviously you don't want to turn too fast or you could pass out.. but maybe there is also a delay from busy thrusters. Maybe better thrusters can reduce that sort of thing in SC.. that'd be interesting.

    If you study this video

    0.jpg


    You'd notice that it is impossible for the pilot to perform a roll given the FBW's intervention. The FBW is constantly assuming that he wants to turn. You could imagine that it is automatically commanding the thrusters to counter the previous motion by firing counter thrust. In reality, the pilot would have to manually disable the individual thrusters countering his desired roll direction, while leaving the uninvolved thrusters alone. He could not just disable the entire FBW, since if he did this while a thruster was being fired by the FBW, he'd loose control of the ship! This would therefore have to be done selectively.

    And we haven't even touched on the issue of arbitrarily capping speeds, terminal velocities, the fact that it takes a shorter time to stop than it takes to move even though the retro thrusters are not as powerful as the main thruster, or deadly G-Forces! Yet, I suspect that CIG will be giving us a flight model very close to this one. Diaspora is not an example of good physics.

    People think it is because they do not have a good frame of reference. But, if you want this in Star Citizen, then my point is moot.

    On the other hand, if you want good physics, and enjoyable game play, and a challenge, my propulsion system is the way to go.

    Your loosh tastes like chicken!
  • North_Star

    Posts: 955

    Posted:
    Posted:
    Sounds very similar to starship propulsion from a series of books written by Alan Dean Foster, first of them written in the early 70's, For love of Mother-not being the first.

  • Jukarrn

    Posts: 91

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]

    [hide]


    Yeah in Diaspora FBW never actually gets turned off totally.. thrusters are always stopping the ship from turning or rolling when you're not trying to do those maneuvers. So you're saying since any of the thrusters could be firing to correct your ship when you ask them to do something else it'd effect how it flies? Makes me wonder cause in Diaspora when you come out of a glide or a strafe you don't instantly hit your new vector. Obviously you don't want to turn too fast or you could pass out.. but maybe there is also a delay from busy thrusters. Maybe better thrusters can reduce that sort of thing in SC.. that'd be interesting.

    If you study this video

    0.jpg


    You'd notice that it is impossible for the pilot to perform a roll given the FBW's intervention. The FBW is constantly assuming that he wants to turn. You could imagine that it is automatically commanding the thrusters to counter the previous motion by firing counter thrust. In reality, the pilot would have to manually disable the individual thrusters countering his desired roll direction, while leaving the uninvolved thrusters alone. He could not just disable the entire FBW, since if he did this while a thruster was being fired by the FBW, he'd loose control of the ship! This would therefore have to be done selectively.

    And we haven't even touched on the issue of arbitrarily capping speeds, terminal velocities, the fact that it takes a shorter time to stop than it takes to move even though the retro thrusters are not as powerful as the main thruster, or deadly G-Forces! Yet, I suspect that CIG will be giving us a flight model very close to this one. Diaspora is not an example of good physics.

    People think it is because they do not have a good frame of reference. But, if you want this in Star Citizen, then my point is moot.

    On the other hand, if you want good physics, and enjoyable game play, and a challenge, my propulsion system is the way to go.

    Well no I wouldn't call it an example of good physics though I would call it a good example of part newtonian part WW2 in space.

    But you can roll in Diaspora.. in both flight modes. I have it bound to joystick twist.

    I think SC will be pretty similar to how Diaspora does it. I wouldn't mind if they used your ideas though. But still.. theres going to some jazz hands explainations going on in this game like most Sci-Fi.
  • Viscaro

    Posts: 13

    Posted:
    Posted:
    I don't get why people are arguing against codey. His solution will let you fly the way you want to, but uses a "realistic" method of simulation instead of just an unexplainable, immersion ruining physics fakery. Codeys solution gives an elegant way of limiting top speed without breaking the laws of physics.

    If we *MUST* have a limited top speed, I'd quite like to have a believable reason.
  • Shiari

    Posts: 1321

    Posted:
    Posted:
    You'll always be on fly-by-wire, as the avionics system controls the thrusters based on the pilots input ... but the more advanced avionics systems will allow you to turn off the "fly to where my nose is pointing" mode of that FBW system and make advanced moves possible like turning 180 while continuing to glide on the same vector. No neural network is required, as it will be a deliberate action by the pilot to switch to such a mode.
    WebGL map
  • wulfling

    Posts: 67

    Posted:
    Posted:
    I really think Codey has his stuff in order, and his proposed system would make for an incredible sim experience. Be a lot better to implement that than to half ass fudge a physics system to make it work poorly as we usually get.
  • croberts68

    Developer

    Posted:
    Edited: by croberts68
    Posted:
    Edited:
    Skyflash's summary of what I'm trying to achieve accurately sums up what will underpin the space dogfighting simulation.

    And just to re-iterate - the flight model / movement you have seen (and will always see) is 100% Newtonian. All movement of spaceships in gameplay is achieved by applying impulses to the rigid body of the spaceship - either to affect the linear velocity or the angular velocity. There is no cheating / fudging where we introduce fake drag or anything.

    As its almost impossible for a pilot to individually control every thruster's attitude and burn to achieve his desired maneuver there is a system which we call the Intelligent Flight Control System (IFCS) that interprets the pilot's input, maps it to a desired result then handles the calculations and control of the thrusters to achieve the result.

    I doubt we will ever allow a pilot to try and fly manually and control every thruster individually, but I wont rule it out. But what will definitely happen is that there will be various levels of control / over-ride - you will on a more advanced system be able to specify that your flight inputs are just to control your orientation and not for your velocity vector. There will be other ways to affect how the IFCS behaves - turning off G limiting on certain maneuvers (as the standard system will always operate inside an envelope of safety but a more adventurous pilot may want to push the limits at the risk of blacking out or death to gain that extra edge in a dogfight)

    The idea is that the basic / beginner / simple IFCS will be set up to make flying around pretty simple and intuitive. It will take the pilot's inputs and map them to behavior similar to Wing Commander / Privateer - you control the orientation of your ship and set a desired velocity, the IFCS tries to achieve a velocity vector matching your forward vector multiplied by desired speed - which was actually how Wing Commander / Privateer actually worked - it was a basic Newtonian under it all despite popular belief - its why you would "slide" when you hit afterburners and tried to turn - normally there was enough excess thrust for maneuvering to adjust the velocity fairly instantaneously but as the speed got higher it would take a little while to correct to the desired velocity vector.

    As you upgrade your IFCS / customize it you will be able to drill down and change its behavior.

    The commercials use a combination of this (we have the ability to set a spline curve that the IFCS tries to fly a spaceship along) and occasionally the cinematic artist will hand key positions for "dramatic" effect (for instance the Hornet firing the retro thrusters wouldn't tilt up if you were just arresting velocity - although the IFCS could achieve that if you asked it to - but it looks cool and screams "Top Gun")

    I think some of people's confusion (including Codey's) as to whether Star Citizen currently uses correct Newtonian physics stems from the fact that the visual thrust that is displayed from the various thrusters is NOT indicative of the actual thrust being applied - Currently the magnitude of the exhaust flame is showing the magnitude of the component of the delta of velocity between the desired velocity vector and the current velocity vector in the thruster's direction. The direction and flame are really just indicating which component of the velocity vector is being adjusted - so if your sliding sideways due to an aggressive maneuver you'll see the thruster jets firing in the opposite direction as the ship tries to adjust the velocity vector to be aligned with the ships forward vector. I've posted about this before but originally I had the thrusters portraying their thrust and orientation correctly but as there is no drag or force to fight against in space what happened was that the thrusters would oscillate around and flicker off and on, which looked more like a visual glitch or a bug in the system so I switched the visuals (but not the actual physical modeling) to the above system. I intend to take another pass at this and try and have a visual representation that while not 100% accurate (as I believe that will always look silly as the the thruster burns are usually one or two frames maximum given the low velocities the dogfight operates at) will be a lot closer. So you'll see the thruster starting a turn and the opposite thruster deploying to arrest the turn. I think this will help with perception as well as keep the visual elements I want (thrusters gimbaling to apply thrust, cool looking burns).

    Codey's ideas and enthusiasm are appreciated and he has some good ideas.

    However I'm not looking for a reason to make the dogfighting "more" correct - Codey's suggestion is really another "in-fiction" way of justifying low velocity space dogfighting that handles similarly to atmospheric dogfighting.

    The "in-fiction" reason in Star Citizen for the low velocities during dogfighting is due to a human pilots ability sustain large G-forces. If you need rapid and dramatic velocity vector changes (note this is different than orientation changes) unless we have developed a way to sustain / absorb much higher forces than we can presently the top speeds will be naturally limited as the faster you go the smaller vector change you can enact without applying a potentially lethal amount of force on the pilot. Even today most jet fighter airframes can take a lot more G-Force than the pilot. This is probably why in the future most air combat (and probably space combat) will be done with drones - but where's the fun it that?

    So in the Star Citizen universe you can go very fast (much faster than during a dogfight) but the faster you go the less maneuvering you can do. During dogfighting the IFCS limits your top velocity for safety reasons (if you start going too fast it will fire retro thrusters to slow you down). I am toying with the idea of a pilot being able to turn this "safety" off to a certain extent (at large magnitudes the physics system breaks down as there isn't enough precision in a 32 bit float). At faster speeds it may either limit how much you can turn (not very helpful if you have a missile on your tail!) or would cause you to back out / die if you told the IFCS to adjust your velocity vector quicker than your body could take.

    Due to this travel between distant locations will probably entail a period of linear acceleration and then an equal amount of deceleration as you approach your destination. But during this you wont really be able to make dramatic or quick course corrections which also folds nicely into our "in-fiction" explanation for "auto pilot" or "warp" in system -

    Because you will be traveling at velocities several orders of magnitude than while dogfighting you can only every "warp" in a straight line and the ship's systems will pull you out of warp when close to other ships / navigation hazards (like asteroids, planets etc.) as it would be impossible to affect any significant velocity vector change in a short period (the kind that would be needed to avoid a collision) without killing the pilot / crew.

    I do think that a local gravity field / effect (Codey's proposal) would be a great way to explain how ships can achieve 0.2c in system without a huge fuel burn - We haven't really detailed out the physics behind "auto-pilot" / "warp" mode in system (which is what the RSI Quantum drive was all about) so maybe we "borrow" some of Codey's system for that as I think its a pretty cool idea. It would be especially handy if due to the "physics" of the gravity field it somehow negated the forces being applied to the pilot / crew so we would have a good in-fiction explanation why we can accelerate to 0.2c in a relatively short order of time but need to keep dogfighting speeds really low due to the inability for the human body to sustain forces above a certain level.
  • Thoroughbred

    Posts: 308

    Posted:
    Posted:
    and that is why we love Star CItizen.

    Thanks Mr. Roberts ;)
    // END TRANSMISSION
  • wulfling

    Posts: 67

    Posted:
    Posted:
    That... pretty much addresses all of my concerns reguarding the flight aspect of the game... Thanks Chris, Fantastic work.
  • Jukarrn

    Posts: 91

    Posted:
    Posted:
    Sounds good to me! Definitely understand it better now. Thanks Chris!

    Well done Codey, looks like we could see some of your ideas in the game. :)

  • DracoStannis

    Posts: 10468

    Posted:
    Edited: by DracoStannis
    Posted:
    Edited:
    [hide]

    Put's down the smack down once again * on that space dogfighting simulation physics.


    Antonio-Banderas-computer-you-got-me-yos
    ACES WIKI
    WE HAVE BACON!
  • TripWire

    Posts: 212

    Posted:
    Posted:
    OMG I love how detailed your post was. Marry me, Chris. I mean, I'm a straight guy, but... yeah.
    Carl Sagan - Symphony of Science ft. Stephen Hawking
    LN, Lancer, Cutlass, Caterpillar, Connie, Avenger, 315P/325A/350R, M50, F7A-M*3, Gladiator, Retaliator, Starfarer*3, Scout, Merchantman, Idris-P, Gladius, 890
  • Varquai

    Posts: 676

    Posted:
    Posted:
    Well, now I'm really glad I read through 4 pages to get to Chris' post on the topic..

    We really need the galactapedia to consolidate this information. Likely by tomorrow, this thread, and that information will be buried a few pages down.
  • TripWire

    Posts: 212

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]

    Well, now I'm really glad I read through 4 pages to get to Chris' post on the topic..

    We really need the galactapedia to consolidate this information. Likely by tomorrow, this thread, and that information will be buried a few pages down.

    I agree, replies like the one Chris posted here are absolutely invaluable for curtailing potential questions.
    Carl Sagan - Symphony of Science ft. Stephen Hawking
    LN, Lancer, Cutlass, Caterpillar, Connie, Avenger, 315P/325A/350R, M50, F7A-M*3, Gladiator, Retaliator, Starfarer*3, Scout, Merchantman, Idris-P, Gladius, 890
  • Adava

    Posts: 4

    Posted:
    Posted:
    Science is Fun :D
    <a href=xIWF9bG.png />

  • ubachung

    Posts: 40

    Posted:
    Posted:
    After reading through the entire thread I can't help wondering if the OP was actually Codey's sockpuppet.
  • Polecat

    Posts: 3297

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]

    Science is Fun :D

    Only as long as it doesn't get in the way of dynamic dog fighting. Reality can be a cruel mistress.
  • Black_Bulldog

    Posts: 4315

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]

    Well, now I'm really glad I read through 4 pages to get to Chris' post on the topic..

    We really need the galactapedia to consolidate this information. Likely by tomorrow, this thread, and that information will be buried a few pages down.

    Yes indeed.
  • Cochrane

    Posts: 1640

    Posted:
    Edited: by Cochrane
    Posted:
    Edited:
    This is the most interesting thread on the forum... I never had that much joy reading posts and imagine space mechanics as i did the last two hours reading the four pages. @codester I really thank you for your gorgeous thoughts, ideas and explanations. Good to know that there is someone out there with similar interests. I'm looking forward to read more posts from you.

    And needless to say but worth to mention... Thank you Chris for your post. That's why i love this game and it's community so much.

    Once again i have to say: YOU GUYS ROCK!!!


    Cheers,
    Cochrane
  • PC-3PO

    Posts: 335

    Posted:
    Posted:
    Chris Roberts=Awesome-Sauce!!!
  • Bearcat

    Posts: 530

    Posted:
    Posted:
    "If you need rapid and dramatic velocity vector changes (note this is different than orientation changes) unless we have developed a way to sustain / absorb much higher forces than we can presently the top speeds will be naturally limited as the faster you go the smaller vector change you can enact without applying a potentially lethal amount of force on the pilot. Even today most jet fighter airframes can take a lot more G-Force than the pilot."

    "So in the Star Citizen universe you can go very fast (much faster than during a dogfight) but the faster you go the less maneuvering you can do."

    Like I was trying to explain before, "speed" is a non-factor on the forces a pilot will feel. The thrust-to-weight ratio is the only factor which influences how much force will be exerted upon the pilot. There's no need for a top speed for the pilot's sake. Sure, if the ship could pull proportionately tight turns at high speed then it would be dangerous, but it can't, because it's just in space. We tend to think of fighters working this way because we're accustomed to thinking of atmospheric flight, where a hard turn at high speed equals high-g's. That is only true because of the atmosphere. If a pilot is going mach 3 in space they can spin in circles with the main thruster on full burn all day and the pilot will never feel the difference. There is no absolute concept of speed in space. Speed can only be understood relative to a point of reference, otherwise the concept means nothing. It certainly does not limit your maneuverability.

    Wing Commander ships always slowed down just as fast as they sped up. If Wing Commander were using real physics then the ships all would have had beefy thrusters pointing forward and backward to explain the deceleration capability.

    Suggestion: Whatever warp-field disruption explanation gets used to explain in-system faster-than-light travel, that same system should also be used to explain how only 60-100 ships can be in one place at the same time.
    Hornet Driver
  • Karab

    Posts: 1182

    Posted:
    Edited: by Karab
    Posted:
    Edited:
    As usual, nice write-up Chris, and good points Codester.
    J7GJZPN.png
  • croberts68

    Developer

    Posted:
    Edited: by Toast
    Posted:
    Edited:
    [hide]

    "
    Like I was trying to explain before, "speed" is a non-factor on the forces a pilot will feel. The thrust-to-weight ratio is the only factor which influences how much force will be exerted upon the pilot. There's no need for a top speed for the pilot's sake. Sure, if the ship could pull proportionately tight turns at high speed then it would be dangerous, but it can't, because it's just in space. We tend to think of fighters working this way because we're accustomed to thinking of atmospheric flight, where a hard turn at high speed equals high-g's. That is only true because of the atmosphere. If a pilot is going mach 3 in space they can spin in circles with the main thruster on full burn all day and the pilot will never feel the difference. There is no absolute concept of speed in space. Speed can only be understood relative to a point of reference, otherwise the concept means nothing. It certainly does not limit your maneuverability.

    Wing Commander ships always slowed down just as fast as they sped up. If Wing Commander were using real physics then the ships all would have had beefy thrusters pointing forward and backward to explain the deceleration capability.

    I don't normally get into this discussion but I can't help myself here.

    If my velocity vector (in 3D; x,y,z) is 0,2000,0 (that would be 2000 m/s in the +Y direction which is our arbitrary forward) and you want to change this vector to 2000,0,0 (i.e. flying at the same speed but at right angles to the previous direction of motion) you would have to apply enough force to the object to decelerate its +Y velocity to 0 and its +X velocity to 2000 m/s. As f=ma and a= dv/dt it stands that f=(m*dv)/dt, the force enacted on the ship (and therefore the pilot as he's a separate loose body restrained inside the ship somehow) will be inversely proportional to the time of spent decelerating. You make this velocity adjustment quickly the force will be fairly large. This is true in space or in atmosphere.

    And as far as WC is concerned the ships had two thrust ratings - a "Maneuvering" thrust rating and a "Main" thrust rating. The maneuvering thrust rating was used to adjust the velocity vector outside the main thrusts direction (which was always forward). IT was assumed the maneuvering thrust could be applied in any direction (Other than forwards which the main thrust took care of) WC did use a basic Newtonian model (I should know as I programmed it!) but it was simplified in terms of simulating the ships ability to apply force to change its velocity vector, with the simulation of the thrusters abstracted to a maneuvering and main thrust ability per ship.
  • Varquai

    Posts: 676

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]

    [hide]

    "
    Like I was trying to explain before, "speed" is a non-factor on the forces a pilot will feel. The thrust-to-weight ratio is the only factor which influences how much force will be exerted upon the pilot. There's no need for a top speed for the pilot's sake. Sure, if the ship could pull proportionately tight turns at high speed then it would be dangerous, but it can't, because it's just in space. We tend to think of fighters working this way because we're accustomed to thinking of atmospheric flight, where a hard turn at high speed equals high-g's. That is only true because of the atmosphere. If a pilot is going mach 3 in space they can spin in circles with the main thruster on full burn all day and the pilot will never feel the difference. There is no absolute concept of speed in space. Speed can only be understood relative to a point of reference, otherwise the concept means nothing. It certainly does not limit your maneuverability.

    Wing Commander ships always slowed down just as fast as they sped up. If Wing Commander were using real physics then the ships all would have had beefy thrusters pointing forward and backward to explain the deceleration capability.

    I don't normally get into this discussion but I can't help myself here.

    If my velocity vector (in 3D; x,y,z) is 0,2000,0 (that would be 2000 m/s in the +Y direction which is our arbitrary forward) and you want to change this vector to 2000,0,0 (i.e. flying at the same speed but at right angles to the previous direction of motion) you would have to apply enough force to the object to decelerate its +Y velocity to 0 and its +X velocity to 2000 m/s. As f=ma and a= dv/dt it stands that f=(m*dv)/dt, the force enacted on the ship (and therefore the pilot as he's a separate lose body restrained inside the ship somehow) will be inversely proportional to the time of spent decelerating. You make this velocity adjustment quickly the force will be fairly large. This is true in space or in atmosphere.

    And as far as WC is concerned the ships had two thrust ratings - a "Maneuvering" thrust rating and a "Main" thrust rating. The maneuvering thrust rating was used to adjust the velocity vector outside the main thrusts direction (which was always forward). IT was assumed the maneuvering thrust could be applied in any direction (Other than forwards which the main thrust took care of) WC did use a basic Newtonian model (I should know as I programmed it!) but it was simplified in terms of simulating the ships ability to apply force to change its velocity vector, with the simulation of the thrusters abstracted to a maneuvering and main thrust ability per ship.
    I think what Bearcat is getting at is that your ship doesn't have more power just because it is travelling at a higher speed.
    i.e. if you're velocity is 0,2000,0 and you want to change to 2000,0,0 your thrusters will incur a certain force on your body. If you're velocity is 0,10000,0 and you want to change to 10000,0,0 your thrusters will exert the exact same force.
    In your equation: f=(m*dv)/dt
    your dt will increase proportionally. It'll take longer to change velocities, but the force would end up being the same.
    Sure, if the ship could make the change from 0,10000,0 to 10000,0,0 in the same time as the slower speed turn, then the force would be significantly greater. But either the ships max thrust capabilities, or the IFCS (as you said) would limit the thrust so you didn't blackout/die.

    So.. top speed doesn't really matter except for making dogfighting actually fun..
  • Kynareth

    Posts: 32

    Posted:
    Posted:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-force




    I greatly look forward to experiencing Newtonian physics in Star Citizen! This has been an intriguing discussion.
    | Gloria invictum imperium scientiae |
    ======
    Cutlass Black \\ Asterope || Vanguard \\ Zenithar || Constellation Phoenix \\ Aldebaran || 890 Jump \\ Omega Centauri

  • SmCaudata

    Posts: 97

    Posted:
    Posted:
    Thrust is what matters for the forces on the human body. If top speed was too great for the allowable thrust dog fighting would be difficult and not fun. Because you have giant loops with only fractions of a second to fire.
  • MonRock

    Posts: 157

    Posted:
    Posted:
    Cool...

    I just have one question about G force applied to pilots and it affecting menuverablity.

    Any chance there would be tech in this universe that would dampen the effects of forces applied to the hull, and then to the pilots?
    If an example is needed.....
    PacificRim2.jpg

    Or! is this my sifi nerd showing to much?
    Whoever appeals to the law against his fellow man is either a fool, or a coward. Whoever cannot take care of himself without that law is both. For a wounded man shall say to his assailant, "If i live, i will kill you. If i die, you are forgiven." OMERTA!
  • Fritzilla

    Posts: 25

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]

    [hide]

    [hide]

    "
    Like I was trying to explain before, "speed" is a non-factor on the forces a pilot will feel. The thrust-to-weight ratio is the only factor which influences how much force will be exerted upon the pilot. There's no need for a top speed for the pilot's sake. Sure, if the ship could pull proportionately tight turns at high speed then it would be dangerous, but it can't, because it's just in space. We tend to think of fighters working this way because we're accustomed to thinking of atmospheric flight, where a hard turn at high speed equals high-g's. That is only true because of the atmosphere. If a pilot is going mach 3 in space they can spin in circles with the main thruster on full burn all day and the pilot will never feel the difference. There is no absolute concept of speed in space. Speed can only be understood relative to a point of reference, otherwise the concept means nothing. It certainly does not limit your maneuverability.

    Wing Commander ships always slowed down just as fast as they sped up. If Wing Commander were using real physics then the ships all would have had beefy thrusters pointing forward and backward to explain the deceleration capability.

    I don't normally get into this discussion but I can't help myself here.

    If my velocity vector (in 3D; x,y,z) is 0,2000,0 (that would be 2000 m/s in the +Y direction which is our arbitrary forward) and you want to change this vector to 2000,0,0 (i.e. flying at the same speed but at right angles to the previous direction of motion) you would have to apply enough force to the object to decelerate its +Y velocity to 0 and its +X velocity to 2000 m/s. As f=ma and a= dv/dt it stands that f=(m*dv)/dt, the force enacted on the ship (and therefore the pilot as he's a separate lose body restrained inside the ship somehow) will be inversely proportional to the time of spent decelerating. You make this velocity adjustment quickly the force will be fairly large. This is true in space or in atmosphere.

    And as far as WC is concerned the ships had two thrust ratings - a "Maneuvering" thrust rating and a "Main" thrust rating. The maneuvering thrust rating was used to adjust the velocity vector outside the main thrusts direction (which was always forward). IT was assumed the maneuvering thrust could be applied in any direction (Other than forwards which the main thrust took care of) WC did use a basic Newtonian model (I should know as I programmed it!) but it was simplified in terms of simulating the ships ability to apply force to change its velocity vector, with the simulation of the thrusters abstracted to a maneuvering and main thrust ability per ship.
    I think what Bearcat is getting at is that your ship doesn't have more power just because it is travelling at a higher speed.
    i.e. if you're velocity is 0,2000,0 and you want to change to 2000,0,0 your thrusters will incur a certain force on your body. If you're velocity is 0,10000,0 and you want to change to 10000,0,0 your thrusters will exert the exact same force.
    In your equation: f=(m*dv)/dt
    your dt will increase proportionally. It'll take longer to change velocities, but the force would end up being the same.
    Sure, if the ship could make the change from 0,10000,0 to 10000,0,0 in the same time as the slower speed turn, then the force would be significantly greater. But either the ships max thrust capabilities, or the IFCS (as you said) would limit the thrust so you didn't blackout/die.

    So.. top speed doesn't really matter except for making dogfighting actually fun..
    Let me try to wrap my brain around this.

    If we take your two examples and had those ships follow the exact same path in space, then the pilot travelling at 10000 would feel a much greater force, yes?

    If we kept the forces applied to the pilots constant, then wouldn't the ship travelling at 10000 would make a much larger arc?

    I think to keep the feel of 'dogfighting' we have to limit the speed, otherwise it turns into 'jousting'.

  • CaptainBruce

    Posts: 413

    Posted:
    Edited: by CaptainBruce
    Posted:
    Edited:
    I understand your normal stance of not getting into these discussions CR, but let me say, thank you for doing so here. It was very informative and quite helpful.
    Dc0EBQ4.jpg
Sign In or Register to comment.