[The E]

Exactly. We have not a single idea about how GTVA shields and beams work.

[esarai]

Sorry about jumping this thread without bothering to read first--if I missed something, hit me.

UNSC MAC weapons do seem like they would be rather effective against GTVA vessels, seeing as how they can be fired at extremely long ranges with very powerful yield.

Yeah, the UNSC has a severe range and kinetic kill advantage compared to the GTVA.  I noticed, however, that GTVA capital ships can withstand direct strikes from nuclear weapons and not experience hull failure, implying incredibly thick armor.  I will hazard a guess at 10m thick at the thinnest places on the ship.  Given armor like that, I'm curious whether a UNSC ship-based MAC round would be capable of piercing the hull of a GTVA destroyer.  GTVA definitely should stay away from the UNSC orbital defense MACs.  They'd be torn to shreds.

On a different note relating to ship speeds, I've always wondered if the speed reported in FS is a velocity relative to a specific battlespace, and perhaps that battlespace may be hurtling through space insanely fast.  Perhaps all the ships within a specific theater match 'battlespace velocity' upon exiting warp for ease of engaging one another (hitting something moving 700 km/s with a shell in space is incredibly difficult.  I'd say it's a miracle Halo ships can hit anything at all).  When an FS ship exits subspace, it's initially traveling +300m/s and decelerates, which could be the final stage of this proposed battlespace velocity matching.

[Scotty]

On a different note relating to ship speeds, I've always wondered if the speed reported in FS is a velocity relative to a specific battlespace, and perhaps that battlespace may be hurtling through space insanely fast.  Perhaps all the ships within a specific theater match 'battlespace velocity' upon exiting warp for ease of engaging one another (hitting something moving 700 km/s with a shell in space is incredibly difficult.  I'd say it's a miracle Halo ships can hit anything at all).  When an FS ship exits subspace, it's initially traveling +300m/s and decelerates, which could be the final stage of this proposed battlespace velocity matching.

However, that does not explain why there is a velocity cap, which is infinitely frustrating on escort missions where enemies appear several kilometers away in different directions.  Plus, if you still have motion debris enabled, they sit still if you hit zero velocity, which means that either they are moving at this proposed battlespace speed (sorry, but I doubt that) or that they are in fact at zero velocity (granted, relative to something, just not the battlespace or anything within easy frame of reference).

[General Battuta]

On a different note relating to ship speeds, I've always wondered if the speed reported in FS is a velocity relative to a specific battlespace, and perhaps that battlespace may be hurtling through space insanely fast.  Perhaps all the ships within a specific theater match 'battlespace velocity' upon exiting warp for ease of engaging one another (hitting something moving 700 km/s with a shell in space is incredibly difficult.  I'd say it's a miracle Halo ships can hit anything at all).  When an FS ship exits subspace, it's initially traveling +300m/s and decelerates, which could be the final stage of this proposed battlespace velocity matching.

Relativity fail!

Think about what you're saying here. Any arbitrarily selected point in space, including the chair you're (presumably) sitting in right now, is 'hurtling through space insanely fast' from the perspective of another inertial reference frame.

All velocities in everything ever are just relative to a chosen reference frame. That means that the ships in FreeSpace, even if they do perform velocity matching, are still at some kind of massive velocity disadvantage to every more 'realistic' setting.

As Scotty points out, the velocity cap just makes it make no sense,

[esarai]

However, that does not explain why there is a velocity cap, which is infinitely frustrating on escort missions where enemies appear several kilometers away in different directions.

I was assuming that FS plasma thrusters behave similarly to RL plasma thrusters, in which they are highly efficient, but not terribly powerful. This would mean that eventually there comes a point at which you are still accelerating, but the increase in velocity is so small as to be almost unnoticeable.  Granted, the FS limits do occur too quickly for this to be the case, and are probably low, but it could explain the behavior and we can pin the unrealistic acceleration on artistic license (well rather gameplay license.  FS would be a whole different thing if the accelerations were realistic).

Relativity fail!

This is unnecessary.  I have not failed to grasp the principles of relativity.  I have failed to know your assumptions on the relative strengths of UNSC and GTVA engines.

Think about what you're saying here. Any arbitrarily selected point in space, including the chair you're (presumably) sitting in right now, is 'hurtling through space insanely fast' from the perspective of another inertial reference frame.

Of course.  This is basic to everyone's understanding of reference frames.  I can't see how this alone is applicable as a counterpoint to my suggestion.  Perhaps there's something else you mean to say but have not yet said.

That means that the ships in FreeSpace, even if they do perform velocity matching, are still at some kind of massive velocity disadvantage to every more 'realistic' setting.

It seems as if the unstated assumption (which is more to the point) you're using is Halo engines are more powerful than FS engines, and therefore even if an Orion were to emerge next to a Halcyon, the Halcyon could accelerate or decelerate to escape and the Orion would have to wait for its jump drive to recharge before it could pursue it.  Does anyone know the acceleration characteristics of a UNSC ship?  And who said velocity matching occurs once and that's it?  It may be a continuous process.  But as there's nothing in the FS Canon to validate this, I'll retire the idea to my own mind.

[General Battuta]

However, that does not explain why there is a velocity cap, which is infinitely frustrating on escort missions where enemies appear several kilometers away in different directions.

I was assuming that FS plasma thrusters behave similarly to RL plasma thrusters, in which they are highly efficient, but not terribly powerful. This would mean that eventually there comes a point at which you are still accelerating, but the increase in velocity is so small as to be almost unnoticeable.  Granted, the FS limits do occur too quickly for this to be the case, and are probably low, but it could explain the behavior and we can pin the unrealistic acceleration on artistic license (well rather gameplay license.  FS would be a whole different thing if the accelerations were realistic).

This makes no sense. Acceleration occurs independent of velocity. Real life plasma thrusters will not 'lose acceleration' as velocity increases. Thus, the point you describe where the increase in velocity will become unnoticeably small will never happen, because the increase in velocity will remain constant.

Of course.  This is basic to everyone's understanding of reference frames.  I can't see how this alone is applicable as a counterpoint to my suggestion.  Perhaps there's something else you mean to say but have not yet said.

Your entire point was based around the notion that there was some kind of matching going on relative to a reference frame. Yet since such reference frames exist in all physical systems, this simply reduces to the notion that FreeSpace engines suck and make no sense, which is the original point.

[Aardwolf]

It makes perfect sense! The ships' engine subsystems (including the ones the Shivans use) all have a little computer chip in them that makes them "play nice"... if anyone tries to go faster than some arbitrary speed relative to some arbitrary reference frame, it slows 'em down. Thus making sure that nobody is a spoilsport (going faster than that speed).

Oh wait, that's not the ships' engines, that's the game's engine!

Note: the idea of all of the pilots on all sides willingly not going faster than some speed relative to an arbitrary reference frame, even when it's a life-or-death situation... is bogus.

[Qent]

However, that does not explain why there is a velocity cap, which is infinitely frustrating on escort missions where enemies appear several kilometers away in different directions.

I was assuming that FS plasma thrusters behave similarly to RL plasma thrusters, in which they are highly efficient, but not terribly powerful. This would mean that eventually there comes a point at which you are still accelerating, but the increase in velocity is so small as to be almost unnoticeable.  Granted, the FS limits do occur too quickly for this to be the case, and are probably low, but it could explain the behavior and we can pin the unrealistic acceleration on artistic license (well rather gameplay license.  FS would be a whole different thing if the accelerations were realistic).

This makes no sense. Acceleration occurs independent of velocity. Real life plasma thrusters will not 'lose acceleration' as velocity increases. Thus, the point you describe where the increase in velocity will become unnoticeably small will never happen, because the increase in velocity will remain constant.

Actually it is possible to have an acceleration that is constant but very small compared to 15 m/s. But this is not consistent with the game, because if the acceleration were that small then it would take a very long time for a ship to accelerate to 15 m/s. And that's pretty much what esarai said.

[General Battuta]

Actually it is possible to have an acceleration that is constant but very small compared to 15 m/s.

That's not what we claimed, though - he claimed the acceleration would become smaller as the velocity increased in the case of real life plasma thrusters.

Now, his argument may have been that said acceleration becomes smaller proportional to the total velocity, but if that's the case then we're back to the relativity fail argument since the total velocity is zero in the ship's inertial reference frame.

[Aardwolf]

Actually it is possible to have an acceleration that is constant but very small compared to 15 m/s.

Wait, WHAT? Accelerations are in m/s², not m/s. You're comparing apples to oranges.

[Droid803]

Actually it is possible to have an acceleration that is constant but very small compared to 15 m/s.

That's not what we claimed, though - he claimed the acceleration would become smaller as the velocity increased in the case of real life plasma thrusters.

Now, his argument may have been that said acceleration becomes smaller proportional to the total velocity, but if that's the case then we're back to the relativity fail argument since the total velocity is zero in the ship's inertial reference frame.

When you approach the speed of light your acceleration drops off, doesn't it?
Since you can't actually go faster anymore, you end up becoming more massive instead (or something)?

[Scotty]

I think acceleration drops off because it requires exponentially more energy to accelerate objects to very high c fractional speeds (i.e. .99c).  If the energy expended does not change, the acceleration drops. (If I'm wrong, tell me.)

[The E]

I think acceleration drops off because it requires exponentially more energy to accelerate objects to very high c fractional speeds (i.e. .99c).  If the energy expended does not change, the acceleration drops. (If I'm wrong, tell me.)

Yep, that's exactly right. 15 mps^2 are 15 mps^2, whether you're at rest or at .9 c. However, the amount of energy expended to get those 15 mps^2 differs.

[General Battuta]

When you approach the speed of light your acceleration drops off, doesn't it?
Since you can't actually go faster anymore, you end up becoming more massive instead (or something)?

I think acceleration drops off because it requires exponentially more energy to accelerate objects to very high c fractional speeds (i.e. .99c).  If the energy expended does not change, the acceleration drops. (If I'm wrong, tell me.)

I think acceleration drops off because it requires exponentially more energy to accelerate objects to very high c fractional speeds (i.e. .99c).  If the energy expended does not change, the acceleration drops. (If I'm wrong, tell me.)

Yep, that's exactly right. 15 mps^2 are 15 mps^2, whether you're at rest or at .9 c. However, the amount of energy expended to get those 15 mps^2 differs.

The velocities involved here are not remotely c-fractional. His argument was specifically about ships maneuvering around a common inertial reference frame.

Also, this is partially wrong. To an observer on board the thrusting ship, the acceleration will never drop off, and the ship will move in a completely Newtonian way. The surrounding universe, however, will do some pretty weird things.
 
Only an observer on a planet watching the ship would see any kind of acceleration fall-off. In relativity you always have to specify what reference frame the observer and the target are in.

[esarai]

This makes no sense. Acceleration occurs independent of velocity. Real life plasma thrusters will not 'lose acceleration' as velocity increases. Thus, the point you describe where the increase in velocity will become unnoticeably small will never happen, because the increase in velocity will remain constant.

Check the post, please.  I never said they 'lose acceleration,' nor did I claim that acceleration 'becomes smaller.'  I guess what I said was too ambiguous.  I meant that eventually you will attain a velocity that makes additional increases in velocity insignificant, so let me rephrase:

This would mean that eventually there comes a point at which you are still accelerating, but the increase in velocity is so small compared to your present velocity as to be almost unnoticeable.

Here's an extreme example: say you accelerate at 7 m/s^2 for a very long time until you're traveling approximately 1/3 c.  1/3 c >> 7 m/s. At this point, an additional 7 m/s added to your velocity is almost unnoticeable, since it will be hard to tell 100,000,000 m/s from 100,000,007 m/s.  Though given the potential thrust of a plasma thruster, the FS values become incredibly unrealistic and suggest this may not be the case. 

Note: the idea of all of the pilots on all sides willingly not going faster than some speed relative to an arbitrary reference frame, even when it's a life-or-death situation... is bogus.

 

Assuming the FS capship post-jump deceleration is a product of velocity matching, it becomes possible that a matched velocity can be maintained outside of subspace through an unknown mechanism by the attacking vessel.  If this were so, said match is involuntary, and can only be escaped by jumping away.  However, this is all rampant speculation that has no grounding in canon, and has severely hijacked your thread.  I return you now to your regularly scheduled debate.

[General Battuta]

This makes no sense. Acceleration occurs independent of velocity. Real life plasma thrusters will not 'lose acceleration' as velocity increases. Thus, the point you describe where the increase in velocity will become unnoticeably small will never happen, because the increase in velocity will remain constant.

Check the post, please.  I never said they 'lose acceleration,' nor did I claim that acceleration 'becomes smaller.'  I guess what I said was too ambiguous.  I meant that eventually you will attain a velocity that makes additional increases in velocity insignificant, so let me rephrase:

This would mean that eventually there comes a point at which you are still accelerating, but the increase in velocity is so small compared to your present velocity as to be almost unnoticeable.

Here's an extreme example: say you accelerate at 7 m/s^2 for a very long time until you're traveling approximately 1/3 c.  1/3 c >> 7 m/s. At this point, an additional 7 m/s added to your velocity is almost unnoticeable, since it will be hard to tell 100,000,000 m/s from 100,000,007 m/s.  Though given the potential thrust of a plasma thruster, the FS values become incredibly unrealistic and suggest this may not be the case.  

You're missing the point again.

Right now, you are traveling at 200,000 kilometers per second, viewed from someone else's IRF.

If you are then thrown (accelerated) through a wall at a mere additional twenty kilometers per second, is that change in velocity insignificant? Hell no. Yet you claim it is.

Is it, as you claim, 'hard to tell the difference'? Again, hell no.

Therefore, this:

at this point, an additional 7 m/s added to your velocity is almost unnoticeable, since it will be hard to tell 100,000,000 m/s from 100,000,007 m/s

Does not compute.

Like Aardwolf said, you're attempting to compare velocity and acceleration, yet they're very different things. Your velocity has no bearing on your acceleration. The big mistake you're making is thinking that it does.

EDIT: To clarify. Any given observer (ship, in this instance) views its own velocity as zero in its reference frame. All that it can sense is the acceleration it's under. Therefore, it doesn't matter whether it's cruising at 10 m/s or 10,000 m/s from an observers's standpoint. A thruster firing at 5 m/s/s will always feel like the same change in velocity to it, and it's always equally significant.

[Qent]

Say there's an Orion. It's moving towards a node at 15m/s relative to the node (since that's what matters usually). Its engines are at full, giving it a 0.01m/s² acceleration towards the node, which is the maximum acceleration an Orion can ever achieve under its own power.

I'm not comparing m/s² to m/s, but in one more second, the change in velocity relative to the node is negligible. The 0.01m/s² is from the assumption that ion engines are very weak.

Of course this has other implications that don't fit with the game. The supposition that FS accelerations are extremely overstated is just supposed to explain why large ships going at 15m/s (game velocity) do not seem to accelerate.

[General Battuta]

Yeah, but the Orion can accelerate from 0 to 15 m/s very rapidly, so it still doesn't work out.

[Droid803]

It's the space friction, man.

[General Battuta]

All that motion debris.