[Sesquipedalian]

I'm claiming 1) that putting such weaponry on a turret the size of a cruiser would be preposterous, and 2) that turret recoil on anything firing energy based weapons is also preposterous.

[Stunaep]

yes, but it looks cool.

[Stryke 9]

Besides which, some sort of hydraulic pump-action would help accelerate a plasma weapon, and the most efficient way to do that would be to put the pump in the turret.

But that's just a rationalization, for those who need such. As Stu said, it would look cool.

[Terorist]

Originally posted by Sesquipedalian
I'm claiming 1) that putting such weaponry on a turret the size of a cruiser would be preposterous, and 2) that turret recoil on anything firing energy based weapons is also preposterous.

Agreed on both points - but big honking rail guns would be nice and they'd benefit from recoil. I'm talking big, not cruiser-size here, so turrets sized just from a few meters to about 10 meters max ought to be realistic (as in arcade-game-realistic).

[Kazan]

how about the guns in Babylon 5, or S:AAB, etc

they have recoil

[diamondgeezer]

D'oh... he's right, folks. And they're laser cannons in S:AAB, too

*sulks*

[TrashMan]

A turret that packs a big punch HAS to have recoil!

DO IT! *plays with baseball bat again...*

[Petrarch of the VBB]

Yes. Get on with it!

Long live eye-candy!

[TrashMan]

Originally posted by Sesquipedalian
I'm claiming 1) that putting such weaponry on a turret the size of a cruiser would be preposterous, and 2) that turret recoil on anything firing energy based weapons is also preposterous.

1. Agree...totally

2. DON'T AGREE....
    Why the hell not? energy based turrets can't have recoil? where did you get THAT silly idea?

[Sesquipedalian]

Originally posted by TrashMan

2. DON'T AGREE....
    Why the hell not? energy based turrets can't have recoil? where did you get THAT silly idea?

I got that silly idea from the basic laws of physics.

I never said anything about what energy weapons could or could not do.  Words like "can" and "could" imply possibility and hypothetical validity.  I said they do not.  There is no possibility.  They just plain don't.

Recoil is produced when the propellant that causes the projectile to accelerate is ignited.  For a bullet, that is when the gunpowder in the shell casing is exploded.  For a missile, it is the fuel powering the missile.  When that happens, half of the force goes into moving the projectile forward, while half of it slams into the back of the barrel, pushing it backwards.  Hence, recoil.

Lasers (or any other energy based sci-fi death-ray you like) do not work that way.  There is no propellant to be exploded.  In the case of the simple laser, electricity is passed through some substance (e.g. argon gas), which causes extra energy to be added to the atoms in the gas.  To get rid of this extra energy, the atoms emit photons, which are focused and directed out of the canister as a laser.  Nothing in this process generates recoil.

[Stryke 9]

Law of Thermodynamic say: Every thing, part move forward, other part move back, yes yes?

Take plasma. Maybe a pound. Throw it at cruiser at .4 c. Boom. Recoil. Recoil of acceleration equipment right through hull and out other side. Throw it at FreeSpace speeds... not so much. Maybe move an inch an hour opposite direction. So make FS bolts move faster.

Or, assume pump-action like said above. It look cool. We happy. In pants. Change clothes, clean keyboard, remind selves to lose moving-thingy fetish.

[Sesquipedalian]

 In more detail now about the laser: each individual atom spews its photon in a random direction.  Only those photons which happen to be generated in a direction aligned with the main axis of the gas chamber become part of the emitted laser beam.  The rest are lost.  Meanwhile, since each atom releases its photon in a random direction, each atom recoils in the opposite random direction.  Since it is random, there will be an even dispersal pattern for all the photons, and thus for all the recoiling atoms.  Therefore, the vector sum of all the recoiling atoms will be 0 in all dimensions, and thus there will be no overall force directing the mass of atoms as a whole in any one direction.

In other words, thermodynamics is not disobeyed, but in a laser, all the reactionary force is absorbed by the gas atoms themselves and is not transfered to the surronding equipment.

[Stryke 9]

Er... for one thing, if lasers just filtered out everything but the light going in one specific direction, you'd need a 75w lightbulb or more to get as much power as is in one of those little pen lasers, and they'd make damnably poor weapons. There's generally a good bit of focussing there, I believe. For another, since you'd be taking all the light from one direction (the size of the arc is neither here nor there right now), that'd mean there was a slight disproportion, with a little more light bouncing off the back of the generation chamber than the front. Not enough to generate a noticeable effect as far as movement goes (personally, I'd be more worried about being deep-fried, blinded, or irradiated, depending on the efficiency and generation type of the laser), but still technically some.

But with the exception of beams, none of the weapons in Freespace are likely candidates as lasers, and we've already assessed that beams wouldn't recoil.

[Sesquipedalian]

They DO make damnably poor weapons.  Substances used in lasing, however, are much more efficient than a tugsten wire at producing light, in that almost none of the electricity's energy is converted into thermal energy.  Further, in order to reduce the amount of energy lost through the photons which head off in the wrong directions, the interior of the chamber is all reflective, so that the photons will bounce back into the gas cloud again and hopefully be absorbed by another atom, exciting it and causing another photon to be again emitted.  If this one is headed in the right direction, good enough.  Otherwise, the process is repeated. Less electricity is needed this way, though the net effect so far as our recoil question is concerned is zero.

If they aren't supposed to be lasers, then what the heck are they?

[Stryke 9]

I think some were supposed to be lasers ('fact, I recall one being a maser, which wouldn't be visible at all. Though it would make for a nasty weapon), but since they all just looked like slow-moving globs of glowing matter, and we're evidently going for accuracy with the whole recoil thing (which is a good thing to some extent, mind, I like my SF hard), call 'em plasma and tracers. Which would have a degree of recoil, though plasma probably not a whole lot.

[TrashMan]

Laws of physiscs?!!:rolleyes:

Just what do you know about weapons in FS and the way they work.... PLEASE, enlight me!
I had a talk with a profesor of mine (who works at CERN!!!), and since you don't exacly know how they work, and you don't have a degree in physics....SHUT UP!

[J3Vr6]

Now now, no one has to get offensive.  Sesqu-whatever is giving his opinion, and so is Stryke.  Just because one has a differing opinion doesn't mean anyone has a right to shut someone else up.  I'd expect that in an Iraq debate, but not in here.

I don't really care if lasers in the real world don't recoil or if Stryke doesn't wear pants.  It looks cool (the recoil, not Stryke in his under roos) and many people wish to see it implemented.  If one was to get into the debate of what should be realistic in this game, then there wouldn't be any sound in FS.  But the sound is there to give ambiance and emersion.

So putting recoil in the turrets (except beams) would make the game more enjoyable, and would actually make the turrets seem like they're firing deadly weaponry.

So if it's possible to implement, and someone has the time to get to it, then please consider it.

[Kazan]

Sesq: If you don't like recoil don't make any ships that use it and/or disable it (like a command line option, or options screen option, etc)


Everyone else: LETS HAVE OUR ROCKIN RECOIL!

[TrashMan]

Originally posted by Kazan
Sesq: If you don't like recoil don't make any ships that use it and/or disable it (like a command line option, or options screen option, etc)


Everyone else: LETS HAVE OUR ROCKIN RECOIL!

I couldn't have saidit better myself!
GO FOR IT!:D

EDIT: It was never my intention to get offensive....sorry

[Sesquipedalian]

Originally posted by TrashMan
Laws of physiscs?!!:rolleyes:

Just what do you know about weapons in FS and the way they work.... PLEASE, enlight me!
I had a talk with a profesor of mine (who works at CERN!!!), and since you don't exacly know how they work, and you don't have a degree in physics....SHUT UP!

I believe I just did tell you what I know, and I am more inclined to trust it than what you think you heard from your professor.  Furthermore, I did in fact clean house in physics, but eventually gave it up because I wanted to pursue something more specifically relevant and meaningful to the human soul.  I know what I am talking about.  I will admit I am rather in the dark about why you are being so fabulously rude, however.

Thankfully, there are some more reasonable folk around:

Originally posted by J3Vr6
Now now, no one has to get offensive.  Sesqu-whatever is giving his opinion, and so is Stryke.  Just because one has a differing opinion doesn't mean anyone has a right to shut someone else up.  I'd expect that in an Iraq debate, but not in here.

I don't really care if lasers in the real world don't recoil or if Stryke doesn't wear pants.  It looks cool (the recoil, not Stryke in his under roos) and many people wish to see it implemented.  If one was to get into the debate of what should be realistic in this game, then there wouldn't be any sound in FS.  But the sound is there to give ambiance and emersion.

So putting recoil in the turrets (except beams) would make the game more enjoyable, and would actually make the turrets seem like they're firing deadly weaponry.

So if it's possible to implement, and someone has the time to get to it, then please consider it.

Originally posted by Kazan
Sesq: If you don't like recoil don't make any ships that use it and/or disable it (like a command line option, or options screen option, etc)


Everyone else: LETS HAVE OUR ROCKIN RECOIL!

Ah, but you misunderstand me, gentlemen.    If someone wants to put the required code in for recoil, fair enough, and I have no objection to its being there.  It will indeed look cool.  My argument here is all derivative of contesting Trashman's statement that lasers on giant turrets would produce "very visible" recoil; it is not derivative of any particular opposition to having the effect put in.  To put it finely, I am not saying anything about whether someone could put in recoil for the sake of visual effect, but only contesting the notion that someone should put it in for the sake of realism.  If someone wants to code it, by all means do so, but those who demand it to be done have no justification.