[BlackDove]

Only the Falcon has no afterburner.  The Shrike and Falcon projectile streams converge at 300m in front of the firing ship, mitigating the wide spaced gunpoint issue.

Actually, I find the limited afterburners that run out after a few seconds of use a cock-up.

I get it, you pulled it off in the engine, congrats, but you've created a massive loophole in where you'll need to introduce (or just generate the obvious disparity) the new magical engines that run on TIME and not fuel (as are the engines of Freespace). That kind of crap suspends disbelief.

I had thought of a cunning plan for the "how come afterburners use fuel now but not later" thing.  A major advance of the Angel was to be the removal of the restricted afterburners.

I completely deny that I had anything whatsoever to do with that outro cutscene 

How about a nice fresh one, then??

There's absolutely no way you can introduce engines that run on time, replacing engines that run on fuel.

"Oh hey, those old engines that run on fuel? Old. Here's some new ones, that don't need fuel. You just have to wait for them to recharge, and they work forever! WOOOOOOOO!!!"

And any OTHER avenue of attempted explanation (like, they run off the suns in the system, are vacuum powered, or any other crazy ****) just brings you that much further to the theories that sound non-believeable and force the player to accept something that they know wasn't decreed by canon (or Volition). It's akin to writing the Shivan Manifesto. Bat**** crazy.

You should've just left it alone, and made the recharge time much slower than we have on our FS1/FS2 ships.

[The Spac]

My theory is that afterburners have become an overburn of the propulsion system that can only be safely maintained for a certain duration. Which is why your engines glow brighter when they are active :-D :-)

[jr2]

Jeez.  Has BD ever heard of a capacitor?  How about a flash bulb? (The kind that operate cameras.)  The RC doesn't put out enough power to the engine system to power the afterburners all the time, so it charges a capacitor.  When AB is engaged, the capacitor drains.  That's basic concept, anyways.  Now, you could also use fuel, but that brings the problem of running out.. you'd have to refuel. 

[Snail]

Who knows, maybe the technology to recharge/refuel afterburners is already made, but is only on capital ships. They were miniaturized or became cheaper later and were fitted on individual fighters, like subspace drives.

[jr2]

Capships don't have ABurners.  They could really, really use them, though.

[Snail]

Do you think I'm stupid or something? I can tell that some smartass is going to reply to this post. "you are stupid lulz" :doubt:

I meant that they were fitted on the docking bays of capships, and were used on fighters, not on the capship itself.

[Herra Tohtori]

FS/2 afterburners don't run on time. They run on energy pool that is drained by using and recharged from the reactor, as opposed to using fuel in traditional sense. So the claim that

There's absolutely no way you can introduce engines that run on time, replacing engines that run on fuel.

is quite irrelevant anyway, but here's one way I can think of...

The "afterburner" in FS and FS2 is essentially an energy pool, as stated. For example, it could be a really high capacity capacitor (or array of them) that, when de-charged, will boost the ion engine voltage* and, subsequently, increase thrust. As opposed to older true afterburners that use chemical propellant.


I could envision that in TV-war, the standard engines are already based on something else than chemical propellant, but that afterburners still use chemical propellant because the standard engine technology can't yet produce equivalent thrust. But when the technology progressed, a way to store and release energy efficiently enough to produce afterburner-equivalent engine boost was introduced and subsequently the need for chemical propellant AB's disappeared. The fact that engine boost is still called afterburner is more likely due to linguistic convenience than technical accuracy.

EDIT: Added a main verb to a sentence

*Obviously, I have no idea what the thrusters in FS/2 actually are, but I would say the lack of fuel most likely means they are particle thrusters of some kind and most likely not based on chemical fuel as energy source. And the easiest way to make a particle thruster is an ion engine. Second easiest would be directing some lightweight gas through hot reactor core and let it expand, but somehow I don't think this is the case with FS/2 thrusters. In that case, the "afterburner" gauge would perhaps not actually be an energy gauge, but rather some kind of reverse overheat detector - when the temperature is "on the blue", you can use afterburner; when the afterburner bar is depleted, the reactor overheat failsafes engage and prevent afterburner usage until the cooling system returns the reactor to nominal readings. Afterburner/engine energy would actually be directed to cooling systems rather than to the engine directly in this scenario.

Damn, that's already two ways...

[BlackDove]

I don't recall anyone mentioning a capacitor in the FS1/FS2 texts. Do point it out to me if I'm wrong. If I'm not, it's just another theory, one I don't give two ****s about because it comes from you, and not the writer.

Yes, sure, it sounds likely. It is also unlikely that the engines are powered by the pilots urine. However, since we don't know how it operates (we weren't told), the pilot pissing and making it recharge, and there being some sort of a capacitor you learned about in your high school sci-fi class, are both equally acceptable theories, mostly because neither one matters.

[Cyker]

Given that slashdot story about urine-powered batteries, you might be onto something there...

[Herra Tohtori]

I don't recall anyone mentioning a capacitor in the FS1/FS2 texts. Do point it out to me if I'm wrong. If I'm not, it's just another theory, one I don't give two ****s about because it comes from you, and not the writer.

And your point in this is... what, exactly? Similarly I could state that I don't give a rat's rear about you stating something impossible because it comes from you and not ... Whoever it was that decided to put fuel afterburners in TVWP can, of course, explain their reasoning in more accurate way than I or ngtmr-1 with our guesswork. But I do care, obviously, since I'm responding to it... Oh well.

Your original claim was that

There's absolutely no way you can introduce engines that run on time, replacing engines that run on fuel.

and since no one has introduced engines that run on time replacing engines that run on fuel, it's irrelevant anyway, but assuming you meant that replacing fuel-consuming afterburners with energy pool -operated boost system (which is what TVWP does)...

Yes, sure, it [the possible mechanisms on exactly how the afterburners work in canon FS/FS2] sounds likely. It is also unlikely that the engines are powered by the pilots urine. However, since we don't know how it operates (we weren't told), the pilot pissing and making it recharge, and there being some sort of a capacitor you learned about in your high school sci-fi class, are both equally acceptable theories, mostly because neither one matters.

Again, your original claim was that "there's absolutely no way you can introduce engines that run on time, replacing engines that run on fuel", and then you say that the proposed possible theories are not only possible but likely as well?

You conclude your post by saying that engines running on bodily fluids of the pilots is equally likely than plausible tech-based description, just because neither have been specified to be canonically true in FreeSpace universe... which is IMHO just some kind of strawman argument to distract from the fact that your original statement is equally wrong as any of the hypotheses proposed thus far.

True as it may be that none of these theories matter much because they can't be neither confirmed or falsified, that was not the point of this debacle. You simply stated that there was no way to plausibly explain why fuel-consuming afterburners of TVWP would have been replaced with energy pool -operated engine boost systems; you were wrong since there are multiple (more or less) plausible ways to explain it. With or without technobabble. Or urine.


The important thing to remember IMHO is that TVWP is not canon. I don't think no one is trying to claim it as such. Thus the transition from fuel-consuming afterburners to "time-consuming" ones is non-canon. And so are the ways to explain this transition. But claiming that there's no way to do it (in a plausible way, if I interpreted your post correctly) is not really anything but a sentence without much argumentation behind it. There are plausible ways to explain and there's no need to stick to canon, especially about things that are not mentioned in canon.

Besides, the best explanation is that TVWP makers want to introduce some variation to the gameplay, and making the afterburner limited by fuel rather than energy output capacity is one way to do that.

Is there some specific reason why you think it's unlikely that fuel-consuming afterburners were used before the switch to more familiar, FS1-era (and later) afterburners? In canon context, that is.

[lostllama]

According to the ani for the Apollo, 'pulse emission coils' are used in the secondary(?) thrusters (i.e. the ones in the nacelle type things on either side). Don't know if that helps this discussion or not but thought I'd mention it. 

EDIT: Just checked the ani for the Athena too... it has these labels on the ship:
- pulse exchange unit
- AB fuel reserve
- storage capacitors
- particle transfer bundles
- coolant mounting plate? (bit hard to read this one)
- buildup collector plates
- coolant routes

Hmm, interesting but I have nay idea what this all means. Sounds like a particle acceleration thingy is used on FS1 ships... maybe. 

[BlackDove]

Herra, no matter how many paragraphs you write adressing each and every one of my sentences, nay words, it doesn't deter from the fact, that if the engines are replaced with the ones that run on time instead of fuel, it's an avenue that has to be explained.

Whether TVWP is canon or not is irrelevant. I play TVWP as a fun campaign made by someone who wanted to make something entertaining. And the avenue for making **** up, like the story, and the Jovian Coalition or the informal sentence structure, is the territory I'm willing to give to the campaign makers to dazzle me with the creative process.

But once you tie an empirical and funcitoning game mechanic as a bridge, and do it in a way where it deviates (and depends on) from the canon in such a way that CANON has to be INTERPERTED (with no information on how to get to the end result), then you're ****ing with **** you shouldn't have touched at all.

The moment anyone comes up with "flux capacitors from back to the future power these super machines" or "fecal matter on board, keep on pumping the gas", you're defining the fuction of the game I played, which was made by Volition, and since Volition didn't say anything about the engines (and just made them so), I will be actively reminded every time I hit the afterburners, that what I'm playing is, in fact, "fake".

It. Does. Not. Work.

Just no.

[jr2]

  OK: look.. here's a speeeeecial explaination made 'speeecially for you:  IT'S A GAME SHUDDUP AND PLAY.

[NGTM-1R]

You have already recast your argument from one of the validity of the changes to one of their canonicity, or you failed to communicate it in a way that anyone here managed to understand. This is sometimes called "scrambling." But fine. I'll bite.

So, basically, you put conditions on your suspension of disbelief; you refuse to judge based on possible validity compared with everything else already known and general level of non-sequitor. Instead you declare certain things sancrosact. These must be the same. They will brook no improvement and no changes.

This is, perforce, an emotional and not a rational belief, because for it to be rational, then there must exist the possiblity you can be persuaded otherwise. You've already stated this is not the case. The problem then, is something with you, as opposed to something with TVWP. There are lots of people out there who would welcome such explanations, because better understanding of what's going on increases immersion. You don't have to write things off as "just 'cause," which has a way of breaking suspension of disbelief.


On a slightly different, but related point:

From a rational point of view, when you're out there waving around the Golgotha like a giant e-peen and then you come in here and complain about something that can be worked out using physics we understand, it stinks of hypocripsy. The Golgotha fires a beam (which, incidentally, is vastly more powerful than anything in canon FS possibly excepting the SSL, and therefore ****s with the gameplay mechanics; any new ship or new weapon does that, to boot. Every time I see a Selket, should my mind scream "THAT'S FAKE"?) that is supposedly a meson bomb blast focused and directed. How the hell you would contain a meson bomb blast, let alone control it, beggars the imagination. It simply shouldn't be possible by all we know about FreeSpace.

But you expect us to accept it. And not this.

[General Battuta]

 

Whoa, BlackDove, no offense, but you're not making much sense.

When I first read your post I agreed with you, but then I realized: yes, it makes perfect sense that they come up with a much more efficient afterburner that can only be engaged for limited periods of time (due to overheating or stress problems.)

The TVWP approach seems perfectly realistic. It's a transition from today's fuel-based afterburners to Freespace's fuel-unlimited time-dependent afterburners, and it seems totally justified to me.

And capacitors aren't science fiction, friend, they're used in real technology all the time.

[Herra Tohtori]

->BlackDove: I'm not sure if I understand what you are arguing about any more.

Are you really saying that campaigns occurring long time from the Great War/ Second Shivan Incursion (either in future or past) still shouldn't have any game mechanic changes, if there's no information provided by on how things tick in the canon tech of FS1/FS2 era?


And that the reason to this is that since thing X works differently than in retail games, it feels "fake" in the deviating mod because there's no canon to derivate a reason for why it's different (aside from about 14 years of technological advantages spurred by continuous warfare)?


If that's the fundamental reason, I guess I can just acknowledge your opinion and say that I disagree. To me it's just difference in the technology and doesn't specifically need to be explained... Certainly less than the targeting/sensor system being so lacking. Especially as current radar/transponder/tracking technology would work in space as it does in aviation... you should at least be able to target and identify friendly targets in the beginning even... but I digress.

Just out of curiosity, is there also no way to replace the energy blob laser thingy weapons with old-fashioned, chemically propelled projectile guns in some campaigns happening earlier on the timeline? There's no canon information to confirm that ever happened. There's no information to derive the path of weapons engineering that led to ML-16 seen in the beginning of FS1 retail campaign. Perhaps they just had even weaker lasers to begin with?

Of course, I prefer to ask why they wouldn't have used projectile weapons, since we already have rather functional and destructive ones at our disposal now. I can't think of any reason why they wouldn't work in space. Similarly, I prefer to ask why they wouldn't have been using fuel afterburners at some stage rather than why they would have been using them...

And I still say that neither TVWP or FS1/FS2 have afterburners that run on time. It's much more accurate to say that canon afterburners run on energy, since the afterburner recharge rate is directly tied to engine energy settings. And TVWP afterburners run on fuel as far as I've understood correctly.

[ShadowGorrath]

Is that a Derek Smart syndrome up there ?

Seriously , I came here to read people opinions on the afterburners , not some guys writing "I am right , you are wrong" paragraphs . . .

[TrashMan]

Capships don't have ABurners.  They could really, really use them, though.

OK, this will now be my next demand for the SCP. Capships with WORKING afterburners...can they work?

Do you think I'm stupid or something? Tongue I can tell that some smartass is going to reply to this post. "you are stupid lulz"

I meant that they were fitted on the docking bays of capships, and were used on fighters, not on the capship itself.

Don't you mean a catapult?

[Flaser]

If I recall, earlier it was several times hypothesized, that Freespace ships use nuclear engines. The fact that ships have to be refueled with fusionables (hence we have gas-miners) points to this.

I find the ion engine unlikely though, the reason is that although ion engines have a very-very good specific impulse (which makes them very good as interplanetary cruising engines) is their god-awful low thrust (that is the force they exert). Nuclear engines are a rare breed, that have both a respectable specific impulse as well as an insane thrust. (In engine designs you usually have one or the other).

How does a nuclear engine work? Just as Herra wrote they do: you pass the propellant through the reactor space (not necessarily so it takes part in the reaction), so it gains heat from the nuclear reaction taking place there and therefore gains pressure, which the thermal-to-kinetic engine, otherwise known as a thruster converts to momentum of the propellant.

You could use either a fusion or a fission reaction. Fission designs usually use separate fuel and propellant (except some even crazies designs), while fusion designs tend to do the opposite. Fusion designs that actually use the plasma as their propellant also take care of another problem: heat management, as you expel most of the heat with the plasma.

Because fission designs require a massive shielding, and are both mechanically and construction wise more complex; I think fusion engines are a more likely candidate for a fighter engine.

The main advancement required for building one are superconducting materials to build and maintain a magnetic bottle; as well as better understanding of plasma physics to focus and channel the built up plasma. These designs typically lack moving parts, so with sufficient overheads, can be extremely robust.
(The same is true for ion engines).

EDIT:

SIP

Hmm...now that sounds like an ion engine. (....or a fusion, but as much as I'm in favor of nuclear engines, I have to admit the first is just as likely based on this).

[Snail]

Was deuterium ever canonically referenced as the fuel of FS ships?