Hard Light Productions Forums
Modding, Mission Design, and Coding => FS2 Open Coding - The Source Code Project (SCP) => Topic started by: HotSnoJ on December 14, 2002, 12:58:51 pm
-
Instead of just the ship explosion hurting things around it the bombs it currently has are added to the explosion.
-
would be neat.
-
it would be neat and also emphisies don't be to close to a bomer and or support when it blows
-
Like in StarLancer when you smoke a Coalition bomber and its torpedos detonate along with the ship. Cool.
-
wouldnt that look strange/get lost if you have say 100 explosion in a main one or do you mean just the damage it does ?
note : i wannt geomode ships :D
-
There we go! If a bomber or support ship has a rack of Helioses on board then the explosion should be at least as large as that of a Helios.
Originally posted by Fetty
note : i wannt geomode ships :D
Shaddup. :p
-
i could look into this.
-
For two reasons...
(1) fighters/bombers - would only be affected if they still have that ordinance abord... Comp would have to calculate current damage potentional at moment of death..
(2) Capships - Far as I know they have an INFINITE amount of secondaries... so what would be the limit? Say one explosion for every missile port it has at moment of death?
I'm NOT saying don't or that it can't be done. But basicly these are the 2 big issues I can think of if you do this...
-
Additionally, the bombs don't actually have to explode if the ship carrying them explodes. Take atomic bombs, for example. They need a nuclear chain reaction started, and a chemical explosion isn't enough to trigger one. The bomb casing would melt, and break, and probably spew radiation all over the place, but it wouldn't cause a nuclear explosion.
-
antimatter helioses would be another story
-
Originally posted by PhReAk
antimatter helioses would be another story
Antimatter Remotes--for those times when you absolutely, positively have to disintegrate every bastard in the AO. :D
Goober5000 is right about some warheads not blowing up (like nuclear bombs), but that isn't true of all ordinance, especially not of solid-fueled rockets/missiles. Witness the dangers of magazine fires and ammo dump disasters in the history of the US Navy. In the future your bombs/rockets/missiles might use different propellants, but they'll all have one thing in common with modern propellants: they'll be very explosive and very flammable.
Of course, that's unimportant. What's really important is that big explosions with lots of secondary explosions look damned cool. :)
-
Originally posted by mikhael
In the future your bombs/rockets/missiles might use different propellants, but they'll all have one thing in common with modern propellants: they'll be very explosive and very flammable.
What if they are using gravitic propulsion. :D
-
Originally posted by IceFire
What if they are using gravitic propulsion. :D
I'm not sure, but I don't think I remember Helios' orbiting it's target... :D
-
Originally posted by IceFire
What if they are using gravitic propulsion. :D
I know. I'll take this device designed to BLOW THE HELL UP. Then I'll take a complex, delicate and very costly propulsion system and USE IT TO DELIVER THE ORDINANCE THAT'S GOING TO BLOW UP.
Um. Dude, that's just dumb.
Besides, gravitic propulsion would be like invisible and INVISIBLE DOES NOT LOOK COOL.
I really need to lay off the caffeine.
-
what if its magnetic and uses other magnets to bounce of other ships ?
-
Originally posted by Fetty
what if its magnetic and uses other magnets to bounce of other ships ?
You mean other than the whole short range, omnidirectional nature of magnetism making it a pretty dumb idea as a propulsion system?
Chemical propulsion provides for a nice high specific impulse AND gives a reason for missile trails AND gives an excuse for big explosions.
What with the opposition to big explosions?
-
Ask a Vasudan they're good at propulsion.
That leads me to a serious point - aren't most propulsion systems in the GTVA Vasudan designed? (Like the Interceptor missile) Could help to find canon on what type of propulsion is used..
-
Originally posted by mikhael
nature of magnetism making it a pretty dumb idea as a propulsion system?
it was a joke :wink:
if you look over to ion propulsion
uses xenon gas and inonises that wich results in very high velocity of the molecule or whatever and object is moved, on earth that drive couldnt move a couple sheets of paper but in space it serves its purpose :D
givin the fuel efficiency and the nature of the "fuel" it isnt as explosive as "conventional" rockets
-
Originally posted by mikhael
I know. I'll take this device designed to BLOW THE HELL UP. Then I'll take a complex, delicate and very costly propulsion system and USE IT TO DELIVER THE ORDINANCE THAT'S GOING TO BLOW UP.
Um. Dude, that's just dumb.
Besides, gravitic propulsion would be like invisible and INVISIBLE DOES NOT LOOK COOL.
I really need to lay off the caffeine.
Yes too much caffeine.
Delicate and very costly propoulsion system...well yes and perhaps someone thought that way when they started strapping rocket motors onto warheads during WWII. Or when they started putting electronic guidance systems into those rockets turning them into missiles.
If gravitic propulsion works as well as people theorize it to work...then having the manuvering capability on a warhead is crucial when your trying to hit a moving target. So, not its not dumb...and nothing is ever out of the runnings when it comes to technology.
Onto magnetism. A company in Japan experimented to some success using magnetic propulsion in boats. Some may be familar with the technology in its fictional name "caterpillar drive" (Hunt for the Red October). Apparently it works...but I forget how well. Well enough to make some news headlines some time back...I never really followed up on it. SO magnetism isn't such a "stupid" idea in its entirety either.
My mantra with technology is that given the right amount of time, experience, and expertise...just about anything is possible. And if you look at all the imposibilities of this century (you can't clone animals, you can't break the sound barrier, going to the moon is impossible, flying through the air in a heavier than air craft is impossible, wireless communication is impossible, sending someones voice through electronic wires is impossible, etc.) I'm fairly confident with that mantra.
Oh and I have no opposition to something blowing the hell up in a video game. I'm very much appreciative of as many explosions as possible (OTT's Doomhammer missile anyone?). I'm just playing devils advocate and trying to expand a few minds.
-
well, I'd just say that one explosion per missile onboard would look damn cool ( and damn "game over" if it's a jotun or an uriel with its full loadout that explodes next or not that next to you ) :D
would drain the resources badly tho.
-
while wer talking about detail
when flying and being destroyed a ship should "spill" its payload wich then explodes
think about that :D
-
Originally posted by IceFire
Onto magnetism. A company in Japan experimented to some success using magnetic propulsion in boats. Some may be familar with the technology in its fictional name "caterpillar drive" (Hunt for the Red October). Apparently it works...but I forget how well. Well enough to make some news headlines some time back...I never really followed up on it. SO magnetism isn't such a "stupid" idea in its entirety either.
Note the proper name of that propulsion: magnetohydrodynamics. it needs a fluid (water, hence the HYDRO fragment) to force through troughs to create a thrust effect. We've progressed past the idea of space as being permeated by the aether. I don't think you're going to get anything remotely resembling thrust from the freefloating hydrogen particles out there. [with the exception of a Bussard ramjet type device, but that has to be signifigantly larger than a missile to be of any use to anyone due to the incredibly low density of matter it has to work with).
My mantra with technology is that given the right amount of time, experience, and expertise...just about anything is possible. And if you look at all the imposibilities of this century (you can't clone animals, you can't break the sound barrier, going to the moon is impossible, flying through the air in a heavier than air craft is impossible, wireless communication is impossible, sending someones voice through electronic wires is impossible, etc.) I'm fairly confident with that mantra.
I agree--to an extent. There are hard physical laws that cannot be ignored nor broken, however. Magnetism will never be a long range force. Gravity will never be a strong force outside of a mass of superdense, supermassive chunk of matter. Even assuming you could focus gravity, or twist magnetism into a serious mode of propulsion, you would have far greater destructive ability than a mere missile. You're talking about a deeper understanding and manipulation of space-time to achieve those effects. Why bother with a mere missile?
Back to the subject at hand: blow up all the ordinance aboard. It would look cool, make hanging around stuff much more dangerous and generally be more fun. And THAT is the whole point.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Note the proper name of that propulsion: magnetohydrodynamics. it needs a fluid (water, hence the HYDRO fragment)
just to say that it works very well in air too, hence the hyd... ok, doesn't work, but still it works in air, I've seen stuff about that, it was cool.
-
I knew it was a water thing, I didn't hear anything about air...but thats cool enough. I was using it more as a point rather than a realistic application to space.
True that there are the laws of physics and I fully suscribe to the idea that there are certain things that cannot be done or cannot be done in a certain way. But I still have a healthy dose of optimism that we don't know all of the tricks in the bag and there are plenty more laws that we haven't really begun to understand.
I really hope the universe is still filled with many wonders and that we haven't begun to start solving even a fraction of them.
-
Originally posted by Fetty
if you look over to ion propulsion
uses xenon gas and inonises that wich results in very high velocity of the molecule or whatever and object is moved, on earth that drive couldnt move a couple sheets of paper but in space it serves its purpose :D
givin the fuel efficiency and the nature of the "fuel" it isnt as explosive as "conventional" rockets
Yeah, except for the fact that it would take roughly two weeks to get up to 2 meters per second with the technology we have now. And I doubt there is going to be some major breakthrough that will enable us to travel at 30 meters per second in under a second, ever.
-
Originally posted by IceFire
I really hope the universe is still filled with many wonders and that we haven't begun to start solving even a fraction of them.
Any universe which has a Neutron Electron is as marvelous and wonderful as can ever exist. The damn thing is its own antiparticle. That just rocks.
From Everything2.com's entry:
A lepton, symbol [ lower-case Greek letter nu], with a mass less than 1.5X10-5 that of an electron. It has a neutral charge, and hence is its own antiparticle. It is believed to be stable, and has a quantum spin of +1/2. Its spin is oriented opposite its velocity, as in all neutrinos.
Electron neutrinos, and other neutrinos, are only effected by the weak and gravimetric forces, so they rarely react with other forms of matter, and are therefore difficult to detect.
This data is only from various theories and experiments. The existance of the electron neutrino has been proven, but its charge, spin, mass, and half-life are still under question.
-
Originally posted by demon442
Yeah, except for the fact that it would take roughly two weeks to get up to 2 meters per second with the technology we have now. And I doubt there is going to be some major breakthrough that will enable us to travel at 30 meters per second in under a second, ever.
leme answer that with another quote
by Bill Gates
640kb will last 5 years
you never know whats gona happen
especialy with high technology
and the game plays in the future or do you see deimoses launching from kennedy space port ?:D so it very well can be possible or not
isnt the universe a great place ? i wouldnt wana live anywhere else
-
These 'neutron electron' particles, or neutrinos, do have seperate antipatricles - antineutrinos. If what everything2.com said is true, then neutrons would be their own antiparticles (as they have no charge!) and there could be no atoms as anything bigger than hydrogen would simply go boom.
Antineutrinos are given off in beta decay of radioactive nuclei in response to an electron being given off, as the lepton number has to remain constant (electron = +1, antineutrino = -1), like the conservation of charge or energy. There have been discussions on whether neutrinos can change between 'types' - electron, muon and tau and there have been huge detectors set up using tanks of water to try and find them. They have had a few 'hits' per week and there is a huge endeavour using a part of the Mediterranean sea as a detector. A neutrino will annihilate with an antineutrino of the same type (and possibly other types), but never with another neutrino.
The only particles that are their own antiparticles are some mesons (particles consisting of 2 quarks, the components of protons, neutrons, lambdas, etc) and the bosons, or force carriers - photons, gluons (carriers of the strong force), Z particles (a carrier of the weak force, but it is very unstable) and possibly the graviton, but gravitons have never been contained or produced artificially, so we can't prove it.
Just trying to set the record straight.
-
Originally posted by <<ERROR>>
[a bunch of stuff removed that basically says I was wrong, and proves you can't always trust the web. I should have looked up the entry in my encyclopaedic reference. I was wrong.]
The only particles that are their own antiparticles are some mesons (particles consisting of 2 quarks, the components of protons, neutrons, lambdas, etc) and the bosons, or force carriers - photons, gluons (carriers of the strong force), Z particles (a carrier of the weak force, but it is very unstable) and possibly the graviton, but gravitons have never been contained or produced artificially, so we can't prove it.
Just trying to set the record straight.
Strictly speaking, gravitons have never been observed or detected in any way, only theorised.
The point, however, which was missed in the above correction, is that quantum mechanics makes the universe a properly weird and wonderful place without having to add in crazy fruity IMPOSSIBLE things.
Oh, and Fetty: you can think that way all you want, but you're not going to overcome physics with wishful thinking. Gates wasn't referencing a verifiable physical fact about the universe. He was stating an opinion about the future. The two are not even remotely in the same ballpark.
-
please do enlighten me
no technology has ever advanced ?
and is not possible for that technology to advance ?
never heard of theoretical physics ?
(that is mostly wishful thinking, e.g. Tachyons)
and plz do tell me that you know everything about the universe so that i may call you god
-
Originally posted by Fetty
please do enlighten me
no technology has ever advanced ?
and is not possible for that technology to advance ?
never heard of theoretical physics ?
(that is mostly wishful thinking, e.g. Tachyons)
and plz do tell me that you know everything about the universe so that i may call you god
Don't call me god. I'd disappear because I don't believe in me (as such).
However, you imply that its possible to advance past the actual limitations of physics--which is impossible. Its like saying "if I add 2 and 2 together enough times, I'll get 5!" There ARE hard rules to the unverse. They don't apply in all scales, but with the realms in which they do apply, they are inescapable. If you don't believe it, just go an try to build something really simple, like a perpetual motion machine.
You're never ever going to be able to make a photon of any sort impart more specific impulse than it does RIGHT NOW. You will NEVER make gravity push instead of pull. Magnetism will always be additive. Mass/energy will always be conserved. Entropy will always increase. Hydrogen atoms will always be the most plentiful element in the Universe. Light speed is always constant within a given medium. These are simple, immutable, inescapable facts of the universe in which we live. Debating them does not make them change. Wishing for it does not make them change. No matter how many advances you make in science you can't beat the system. It's physics, not magic or mysticism or religion or philosophy or history.
Hate to burst your bubble.
-
the sun spinns arround us
the world is flat
.............
do you know what im trying to say ?
since we where talking about the future i was talking about what ifs you dont know what advances in understanding we make and nether do i
what if gravity is pure bs ?
remember ? the world cant be round thats impossible, but then ....
its just a theory
but without imagination of that could be wed still sit in caves
-
Originally posted by mikhael
In the future your bombs/rockets/missiles might use different propellants, but they'll all have one thing in common with modern propellants: they'll be very explosive and very flammable.
Untrue. FS ships use deuterium fuel, which is in the absence of oxygen pretty much inert - it's fusion fuel, not chemical reagents. Thus, unless you make it fuse, it's not doing much.
Helioses on the other hand...... lets just say an explosion in the magazine of a destroyer would leave very very small chunks.
-
Originally posted by Shrike
Untrue. FS ships use deuterium fuel, which is in the absence of oxygen pretty much inert - it's fusion fuel, not chemical reagents. Thus, unless you make it fuse, it's not doing much.
Well, yeah, Shrike: SHIPS use fusion for generating power/motive-force. But you don't want to strap a fusion drive on the back of the thing that's going to blow up intentionally; reaction based drive system give a great motive force and they're pretty much designed for disposability. Its almost the perfect thing for ordinance delivery.
Fetty: I suggest going back to school, learning some scientific methodology and history. Then you will understand the differences between "The earth is flat!" and "Gravity is always additive.". Until you have grasped the differences between the two, there's no point in considering the discussion.
-
Oh, and Fetty: you can think that way all you want, but you're not going to overcome physics with wishful thinking
I think you're missing the point. You can't break proven boundaries, you just go around them - It was impossible to get a square root of a negative number using real numbers, so complex numbers were invented. It's still impossible to get a square root of a negative number under the condition of the result being a real number, but if you change the condition to the result being a complex nubmer, you can.
-
OK, I see your point. There is no harm in optimism.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Well, yeah, Shrike: SHIPS use fusion for generating power/motive-force. But you don't want to strap a fusion drive on the back of the thing that's going to blow up intentionally; reaction based drive system give a great motive force and they're pretty much designed for disposability. Its almost the perfect thing for ordinance delivery.
A harbinger bomb is specifically stated to use a half-scale fighter drive, and the harbinger is 30+ years old. While chemical rockets may be the suggested RL system, FS uses fusion drives on at least some of its munitions.
-
mikhael : u dont understand theoretical physics do you
its both knowledge and imagination but i think u dont have much imagination so as you nicly sayd : thers no point in discussing
and please dont come with the crap of go back studying
you dont even know what kind of school i was nor my grades not even the country
for you that what is, is and thers no other possibility
fine with me i respect that i simply dont agree
-
Originally posted by Fetty
mikhael : u dont understand theoretical physics do you
its both knowledge and imagination but i think u dont have much imagination so as you nicly sayd : thers no point in discussing
Obviously, I haven't the foggiest clue as to your conception of "theoretical physics". I could go into a proper internet pissing contest of who has the bigger library, or has read the most book or has gone to which schools. I shall, however, not. I'll state it bluntly: I believe you to be incorrect, wrong, and furthermore, way off-base. I cannot backup this position in any rational way, of course.
and please dont come with the crap of go back studying
you dont even know what kind of school i was nor my grades not even the country
I would say that it would have to be an excellent school with excellent grades in a country known for its excellent tertiary educational system. I am, of course, basing all of this on the clarity and correctness of your statements--as well as your excellent grasp of the language. I should never have sought to match my wits and education against your excellent mind.
for you that what is, is and thers no other possibility
fine with me i respect that i simply dont agree
I fully respect that you do not agree, I do, however, feel it imperitive to point out, once again, that you are incorrect, wrong, and miseducated on the matter which you endavour to discuss.
Shrike: I stand corrected. Foolish though it is to use something like a fusion drive for ordinance delivery, it would appear that the GT[v]A does not consider it a great expense to throw away such drive systems on mere bombs. My other points, however, still stand.
-
*gets popcorn*
this should be fun...
-
Originally posted by Analazon
*gets popcorn*
this should be fun...
Nah. I'll shut up now. :D
-
rats...it was just getting interesting...
-
honeybunny
i think your forgetting that we are talking about a game
and i do appologise that english isnt my motherlanguage im so terribly sorry :rolleyes:
a lil question there
you american ?
if so i give up allmight allknowing being
i now know that you are right and everybody is wrong, im sorry to have opposed your mighy brain how foolish of me
btw think rocket fuel is cheap ? :ha: oh sorry yes it is i forgot master
now ill go bak playing with my briks
-
Originally posted by Fetty
honeybunny
i think your forgetting that we are talking about a game
and i do appologise that english isnt my motherlanguage im so terribly sorry :rolleyes:
a lil question there
you american ?
if so i give up allmight allknowing being
i now know that you are right and everybody is wrong, im sorry to have opposed your mighy brain how foolish of me
btw think rocket fuel is cheap ? :ha: oh sorry yes it is i forgot master
now ill go bak playing with my briks
*Looks around* Whats this about again?
Oh yes, cascade explosions in bombers when they're destroyed! Is it getting done? Yes or No?
All your secret campaign are belong to us!
Whats that meant to mean? :nervous: :shaking: :nervous:
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Shrike: I stand corrected. Foolish though it is to use something like a fusion drive for ordinance delivery, it would appear that the GT[v]A does not consider it a great expense to throw away such drive systems on mere bombs. My other points, however, still stand.
Foolish as it would appear to us, anyhow. I'm sure people in WWII would consider the computing power inside a Tomahawk to be criminal waste to be thrown away on a single-use weapon, but they get used all the time nowadays. 300+ years of advancement. No reason to believe that they can't churn out fusion drives like we churn out chemical rockets.
But yes, there's distinct advantages to a solid-fuel rocket in the short burn/high impulse regime.
-
Originally posted by Shrike
I'm sure people in WWII would consider the computing power inside a Tomahawk to be criminal waste to be thrown away on a single-use weapon,
I still do. *strokes PC*
-
Originally posted by vyper
Whats that meant to mean? :nervous: :shaking: :nervous:
well...you asked if I [glow=white]Got Secret Campaign?[/glow], and my answer is [glow=white]all your secret campaign are belong to us[/glow]
:D
-
Perhaps when a ship carrying munitions is destroyed, it can drop a few Harbingers right in the middle with a low random velocity (thruster off; i.e. no acceleration). Then they'd collide with the chunks of the ship and explode. Any bombs that happen to make it out of the explosion will be a hazard until they detonate.
I can see this being used as a better kamikaze attack. Instead of having a ship detonate at a certain distance with a explosion of a certain power, you smash the ship literally (maybe add an option to to detonate the ship?) and when the ship cracks open, it explodes, and the then any munitions spill out and explode too.
@Fetter
Don't you think attacking his nationality and writing him off as arrogant and stubborn when he disagrees with you to be a little weak?
The beliefs we had in the past were not observations, nor were they theorised, proved by observation and then scrutinized by others. They were stated, thought out "logically" and then just accepted without testing.
The earth is round, people have pointed out before even Christopher Columbus (rolls eyes) that the earth cannot be flat else why do ships disappear over the horizon? Just that people ignored it.
It wasn't impossible to take the square root of negative numbers. That's just what they tell primary students so they won't ask. It just wasn't defined until they decided to call them imaginary numbers and developed a system to work with them.
Theoretical physics work requires a lot of imagination. It also requires immense skill in math to prove your ideas. That's why crackpots are never taken seriously or given a second thought even if they go to the media. They either state existing theory wrong to "disprove" it or they don't use the conditions stated by the theory. They also have nothing to replace or correct the theory that's able to predict new things, is quantifiable and is backed by observable data.
Incidentally, military equipment is actually obscenely expensive. If I had a single Sidewinder missile and sold it back to the military (without being busted) then I'd be able to get a brand new custom rig every year for the next few years.
If the new weapon can do damage and the damage is deemed necessary, it will be paid for.
The Harbinger was special-issue. It's the only weapon able to crack Shivan capitol ships quickly. Considering that it's a do-or-die situation, I'm not surprised they shelled out the cash to build those things. They go SOOO slow even with the fusion engine.
-
soo where is it ermmmmm
ha found it (http://members.cox.net/wmcoolmon/images/welcome.gif)
(somebody give the usual text :D )
ok that was not nice of me to attak his nationality (and yours)
but in the past (and im sorry to say cuz my dad is also american) roughly 80% of the people that i met and that are more or less well simply minded come from america
(e.g. europe thats somewhere up north right ?, or we should use nukes on first strike base and many many more i could fill a couple of pages)
stubborn well ok be stubborn but the arrogant way of him saying im right nur not thers no other possibility go back to school ? tahts just the way i experienced with most americans
sorry
so much for that
talking about expensive weps : nukes (also considering the cost of maintaining it and housing it)
-
Actually, nukes are fairly low maintenance, all things considered. It's the manufacturing that's the expensive part, after all it just sits there until it gets used.
-
sry was thinking of icbm's n stuff
u know them nukes that sit ontop of missles
those are expensive in maintaining after all they got a bunker wraped arround em