Hard Light Productions Forums

General FreeSpace => FreeSpace Discussion => Topic started by: Kie99 on February 13, 2005, 10:37:11 am

Title: Nano Jumping is Stupid
Post by: Kie99 on February 13, 2005, 10:37:11 am: What's Nano Jumping?

You know, when a ship is in a battle and then suddenly it jumps out and reappears near a weaker part of a ship. For Example, in a (Made up by me) user-made campaign:
A Colossus is in a fight with a Sathanas, the Sathanas is at 75% hull and the Colossus is at 25% Hull, the Colossus jumps out and ends up behind the Sathanas, shoots a BFGreen at the LRed on the Sathanas's arse and then proceeds to toast the Sathanas.

Why is this Stupid?

Because if the Colossus did that then the Sathanas would just enter subspace and emerge facing the Colossus again. The Colossus wouldn't be able to move behid the Sath because it would need to recharge its jump drives.

Nano Jumping almost always puts you at a disadvantage.

Almost?

Well I'll give another example, this time from Inferno.

The EASD Nemesis (A big nasty ÜberDestroyer) is alreaady in the area and then the GTCa Independence (A semi-Juggernaught) enters the battle area in a good position to destroy the Nemesis (Nasty ÜberDestroyer). The Nemesis then jumps out and emerges on a weaker flank of the Indepence (Semi-Jugg) The player then has to destroy some beam cannons on the Nemesis. The reason a nano-jump would be advantageous to the Nemesisis because the Independence has just arrived and has no energy left in its subspace drives so it can't just nano-jump into a better position.
Title: Nano Jumping is Stupid
Post by: Taristin on February 13, 2005, 10:38:52 am: Ok.

So don't use it, then.
Title: Nano Jumping is Stupid
Post by: Kie99 on February 13, 2005, 10:40:58 am: I won't, I'm just trying to persuade others not to because it annoys me, looks stupid, and is unrealistic.
Title: Nano Jumping is Stupid
Post by: TopAce on February 13, 2005, 10:58:51 am: Where was this used in FS2?
Title: Nano Jumping is Stupid
Post by: pyro-manic on February 13, 2005, 10:58:56 am: Um, the entire game is shockingly unrealistic. And I can only recall two instances of tactical subspace jumps - the Nemesis/Independence encounter at the end of INF and in the Boomerang mini-campaign - so it's not as if it's prolific...
Title: Nano Jumping is Stupid
Post by: Jal-18 on February 13, 2005, 11:12:05 am: Better question is: what credentials do you have to be ordering us not to do certain stuff? Don't like it? Fine, don't play it. I don't think the mission designer will be terribly upset. But you have no right to be telling everyone else what they can and can't do.
Title: Nano Jumping is Stupid
Post by: karajorma on February 13, 2005, 11:13:54 am: Quote
Originally posted by kietotheworld
I won't, I'm just trying to persuade others not to because it annoys me, looks stupid, and is unrealistic.

In your opinion.

I personally don't use nano jumps because I didn't see any evidence that they were possible in FS1 or FS2 and I have no desire to add new ships to the game which are capable of doing it (Or saying that old ships have now been retro-fitted to do them).

However if someone wants to say that ships in their campaign can do it I'm certainly not going to argue. If a ship can perform a nano jump there are a large number of occassions where it would prove very useful. Especially against an enemy ship that has jumped in and therefore has uncharged subspace engines.

Quite frankly I don't see what the problem with nano jumps is.
Title: Nano Jumping is Stupid
Post by: Kie99 on February 13, 2005, 11:41:59 am: Quote
Originally posted by Jal-18
Better question is: what credentials do you have to be ordering us not to do certain stuff? Don't like it? Fine, don't play it. I don't think the mission designer will be terribly upset. But you have no right to be telling everyone else what they can and can't do.

I'm not ordering you not to do anything, I'm just saying that its very unrealistica and offering some friendly advice. I'm sorry if it came acroos in another way.
Title: Nano Jumping is Stupid
Post by: TopAce on February 13, 2005, 12:00:27 pm: Quote
Originally posted by karajorma
In your opinion.

I personally don't use nano jumps because I didn't see any evidence that they were possible in FS1 or FS2 and I have no desire to add new ships to the game which are capable of doing it (Or saying that old ships have now been retro-fitted to do them).

However if someone wants to say that ships in their campaign can do it I'm certainly not going to argue. If a ship can perform a nano jump there are a large number of occassions where it would prove very useful. Especially against an enemy ship that has jumped in and therefore has uncharged subspace engines.

Quite frankly I don't see what the problem with nano jumps is.

Not to talk about that the nano jumping ship and the newly arriving ship MUST have the same values everywhere(hull, subsystem strengths, cargo, etc.)
Title: Nano Jumping is Stupid
Post by: Carl on February 13, 2005, 12:22:46 pm: Quote
Originally posted by kietotheworld
unrealistica

now don't tell me that doesn't sound like a modern art movement from the 1970s.
Title: Nano Jumping is Stupid
Post by: Taristin on February 13, 2005, 12:52:32 pm: What's the point of this thread? :wtf:
Title: Nano Jumping is Stupid
Post by: TopAce on February 13, 2005, 12:53:53 pm: Telling negative opinion to people about nanojumps. It's almost like a feedback thread.
Title: Nano Jumping is Stupid
Post by: aldo_14 on February 13, 2005, 12:59:46 pm: nanojump is, IMO a bit of a pandora's box, because it can be abused horribly to have ludicrous and annoying situations.

But, it's also got use as a plot device - in particular, if you need to negate the effects of powerful node blockades.
Title: Nano Jumping is Stupid
Post by: Nuclear1 on February 13, 2005, 01:27:14 pm: Are we talking about jumping in and, after only a matter of seconds of being in a certain mission, jumping right back out?

I'll reference both Derelict's Auriga-smash-through mission and the Iceni jumping in under the Colossus in the main FS2 campaign if so.
Title: Nano Jumping is Stupid
Post by: pyro-manic on February 13, 2005, 01:34:21 pm: No. Tactical jumps, like a ship that is being attacked jumps out, and reappears behind the ship that was attacking it. So short-range, real-time jumps where a ship jumps from one place to another in-mission.
Title: Nano Jumping is Stupid
Post by: Mongoose on February 13, 2005, 01:39:15 pm: I always wondered how the Iceni managed that insta-jump. Was it some inherent property of that ship, like quickly-recharging jump drives, or did the crew just divert a massive surge of power to jump engines in a desperate attempt to make the fast escape?
Title: Nano Jumping is Stupid
Post by: Nuclear1 on February 13, 2005, 01:36:43 pm: Ah. Yes, that it stupid, but I agree with everyone else in this thread as well.
Title: Nano Jumping is Stupid
Post by: aldo_14 on February 13, 2005, 01:45:02 pm: Quote
Originally posted by Mongoose
I always wondered how the Iceni managed that insta-jump. Was it some inherent property of that ship, like quickly-recharging jump drives, or did the crew just divert a massive surge of power to jump engines in a desperate attempt to make the fast escape?

I wouldn't be surprised if the Iceni was purpose-built to be a blockade runner, myself. Given it's purpose, and it's small size (for a command ship for an entire rebellion), it'd make a fair bit of sense if it was designed to run rather than fight.
Title: Nano Jumping is Stupid
Post by: pyro-manic on February 13, 2005, 01:48:14 pm: Depends where it jumped from. Perhaps it was only a very short distance from where it started to the portal, so it didn't use much power? So it would still have reserves left. Or perhaps it did just put all power to engines, instead of weapons (I'd imagine the power normally used for beams would be quite substantial). And it wasn't really an "insta-jump"...
Title: Nano Jumping is Stupid
Post by: IceFire on February 13, 2005, 02:29:36 pm: You won't see any tactical jumps in BWO. Nothing in a small distance anyways. I always figured the subspace drives that power this sort of thing aren't 100% accurate and that accuracy varries inversely in proportion to distance. So its easier to make a good jump over a longer distance within the gravity well of a star than to make a short jump which will be highly erratic.
Title: Nano Jumping is Stupid
Post by: StratComm on February 13, 2005, 02:38:18 pm: I'd agree with that assesment if it weren't so obvious that exit coordinates are extremely precise over long distances. If they are accurate to within a constant factor then short-range jumps within that factor would indeed be useless. However, we know that the absolute maximum "off target" radius is 8km (the Psamtic upon discovery of the second Knossos) and that was considered extreme, and as close as ships jump in formation, I doubt it's even close to that long. The explanation I would rather use is that subspace drives simply have a minimum range; while it might be easy to target an exit point, getting the drives revved up to enter subspace and then precisely exiting it too short a time later would be impossible. If that makes any sense...
Title: Nano Jumping is Stupid
Post by: FireCrack on February 13, 2005, 02:45:17 pm: ^ mabye minimum range, mabye they are only linear meaning a ship cant "turn" in subspace (once it's in theres a set line it must emerge on)

actualy that linear thing probably wouldnt work, becasue it would make subspace tracking stupidly easy.
Title: Nano Jumping is Stupid
Post by: pyro-manic on February 13, 2005, 03:00:05 pm: Ah, but remember the first mission of FS2? Command tells the Psamtik that it has vectored the Belisarius' course to the Psamtik's location, which implies that it is possible to predict the path of a vessel through subspace. And subspace tracking technology was found on Altair in the great war anyway - it was used to track the Lucifer into the Sol jump node...
Title: Nano Jumping is Stupid
Post by: Charismatic on February 13, 2005, 03:02:41 pm: I would have to agree with stratcomm, there must be a minimum time of subspace warp before you can be released, otherwise its just like a high power\speed engine, that hauls caps around quickly.
Title: Nano Jumping is Stupid
Post by: karajorma on February 13, 2005, 03:40:12 pm: Quote
Originally posted by StratComm
I'd agree with that assesment if it weren't so obvious that exit coordinates are extremely precise over long distances. If they are accurate to within a constant factor then short-range jumps within that factor would indeed be useless. However, we know that the absolute maximum "off target" radius is 8km (the Psamtic upon discovery of the second Knossos) and that was considered extreme, and as close as ships jump in formation, I doubt it's even close to that long. The explanation I would rather use is that subspace drives simply have a minimum range; while it might be easy to target an exit point, getting the drives revved up to enter subspace and then precisely exiting it too short a time later would be impossible. If that makes any sense...

That is a possibility but I wouldn't agree with the logic you used to say that Icefire is wrong. My view of the matter is a combination of the two.

I see it as all being a matter of energy. A ship exiting subspace will take the lowest energy route out. This explains why ships which jump out in formation also reappear in formation. The lead ship punches a hole in realspace as it exits and the other ships simply follow it through.

If you try to make a nano jump however you specifically have to tell the computers to ignore the lowest energy route (since the lowest energy route is the hole in realspace you just used to get into subspace). This limits the distance at which you can jump back in at (basically preventing nano jumps. You'd simply reappear where you started!).

Over a long distance you can jump in more accurately because it is highly unlikely that anything will be generating a subspace hole at the same frequency that your ship is using.

The fact that the GTVA knew the exact angle that the NTF capships would be taking out of the Epsilon Pegasi node in King's Gambit is supporting evidence for the theory. Ships can go into subspace at any angle. The come out down the lowest energy slope. IF you can predict what that will be you can be ready for them.
Title: Nano Jumping is Stupid
Post by: TrashMan on February 13, 2005, 04:28:12 pm: Quote
Originally posted by Mongoose
I always wondered how the Iceni managed that insta-jump. Was it some inherent property of that ship, like quickly-recharging jump drives, or did the crew just divert a massive surge of power to jump engines in a desperate attempt to make the fast escape?

Helloooo?

The Iceni jumped trough the Knossos. It's a jump-gate, you don't need charged jumpdrives for it!:D
Title: Nano Jumping is Stupid
Post by: Kie99 on February 13, 2005, 04:39:06 pm: That is the most inane post I have ever seen. The knossos creates a jump node, it doesn't magically syncronize your ship with subspace, or get your speed up to about 135 M/S
Title: Nano Jumping is Stupid
Post by: karajorma on February 13, 2005, 04:41:51 pm: Kietotheworld's got a good point. If the Knossos worked that way all the other NTF fighters would have probably followed the Iceni rather that hanging about fighting the Colossus.
Title: Nano Jumping is Stupid
Post by: NGTM-1R on February 13, 2005, 05:02:07 pm: Actually, they ran the other way once the Iceni escaped.

And considering that Ulysses wing was in-mission for very little time (I'd have to check, but I'm almost certain it's less then a minute.). that kinda flies in the face of power-based arguments. If fighters, old fighters at that, can jump in and then jump out again in under a minute, power requirements for insystem jumps can't be the factor holding them back.
Title: Nano Jumping is Stupid
Post by: karajorma on February 13, 2005, 05:21:33 pm: Quote
Originally posted by ngtm1r
Actually, they ran the other way once the Iceni escaped.

And considering that Ulysses wing was in-mission for very little time (I'd have to check, but I'm almost certain it's less then a minute.). that kinda flies in the face of power-based arguments. If fighters, old fighters at that, can jump in and then jump out again in under a minute, power requirements for insystem jumps can't be the factor holding them back.

They didn't follow the Iceni because they lacked intersystem jump engines. Nothing to do with power levels.

However if Trashman is correct and the Iceni didn't need power in its jump engines to use the knossos because the knossos bypasses the need to have working jump engines somehow then the question has to be why on Earth the NTF fighters couldn't use it regardless of whether they had intersystem jump engines or not.

As for power levels it's obvious in the game that fighters don't take long to recharge their jump engines. This is no doubt cause of their small mass to power output ratios.

Besides if power levels following a jump are not an issue how do you explain the numerous times when a ship hasn't jumped out even under heavy attack? Kings Gambit is a good example of this. Those NTF ships took Mjolnir fire for a couple of minutes before jumping out. Why would any sane captain do that? Also why don't ships attempting to leave a system jump in at the node and then straight back out again?
Title: Nano Jumping is Stupid
Post by: aldo_14 on February 13, 2005, 05:42:47 pm: Well, the NTF fighters wouldn't have anywhere to go, though; IIRC the Iceni doesn't have a fighterbay.

However, the command briefs clearly state the Knossos is a stabilisation device, not a 'jumpgate'.
Title: Nano Jumping is Stupid
Post by: Flaser on February 13, 2005, 05:48:20 pm: I think kara's statement is true to a degree - ships follow the energy minimum principle in subspace too - however it doesn't mean that by putting in exessive energy you can't alter the exit point.

However I think generally it is a very good approach - and has a bit of scientific validity to it -, since it can explain a lot of things if we examine :V: n-dimensional techno-babble with the energy minimum as one of our principles.

Subspace is defined as moving among the n-th dimension of normal space - so actually you're moving in space just like ours, except not among x, y, z or any combination of the conventional axis, but in THAT way that's still perindicular to all directions you may come up with.

It is accepted that the presence of a gravitational field makes entering and moving in subspace easier - hence the lower energy treshold on intrasystem jumps.

This is also the reason why you're often relativly close to planets - their gravitic field adds an even greater kick to the relation.Kara's application of the energy minimum principle superbly works with this:
In a gravitic field you have negative potential energy, this energy is the same ammount that the gravitic field's work produced.
By forcing the field to actually output energy - and lower your own - you can reduce the energy nivo of the jump tremendously.

I think that gravity still affects you in subspace and objects in real space also simultaniously exist in subspace too.
The Psamtik's misjump - thanks to the Sath's presence - is good canon evidence.

Therefore it's not like two separate universes that overlap in certain places.
Normal space and subspace are one and the same.
Moving in subspace is actually moving in finer the structure of space-time that normally results in miniscule distortions only detectable on the quantum scale.

So any object in real space will also appear in subspace too. However this doesn't prevent you from seemingly (from real space) going through it. In fact you go by it.

Imagine a ball - we live on its surface that is normal space - however under cetain circumstances its normally solid walls become gasesous and we can burrow through the ball.
An observer in normal space who can monitor our progress (SS-tracking?) may see us go faster that the speed of light, since all he sees is our trace on the surface of the ball and can't measure our direct course inside the ball.

OK, but if that's so there are things inside the ball and on its surface and its pretty much the two-worlds model? Right?
The ball is a good enough representation for the outside observer, however it doesn't properly describe the structure of space time. We don't puch a hole in it even if it appears to be so from elsewhere. We just move along inside it in a different manner.

From the internal observer, each and every single object in real space will be present in subspace too.

How can we achieve that? The moebius came to my mind as the object with similar qualities. Its dual nature provided the inspiration for my explanation:

When I'm moving on a piece of paper I can move 2 diretions.
Imgine that the paper has bump in it.
When I enter and go on the bump I still percieve space as a 2 dimensional thing, however since I actually move in 3D I will realise that although I move as usual my movement won't properly correlate with my progress - distances will grow and I will be freaked out as suddenly my own speed seems to reduce and space itself expand around me.

Subspace works exactly like that except it does the opposite of that effect - space seems to shrink and close in on itself. We live warped piece of paper and when I move in subspace I force the paper to flaten out and shrink.

Why is this explanation any better that the burrowed through ball?
In the ball model I suddenly change my very nature from moving in a semi 2D manner to pure 3D - my whole perception of space changes. Which isn't the case with subspace.
The ball model also forces the universe to have a great concentraion among its "normal dimensions", while IMHO it is much more likely that it has a similar distribution pattern along all dimension.

Finally in the warped paper model even when I'm moving on the wapred or flat paper everything is still on the same piece of paper moving along it in the same manner, all that changes is the distance and thereby their interaction with me when I move on the paper in a different state.

So the warped paper model qualifies the one and the same approach I took to subspace.

What does this translate to in practice?

If I jump in a solar system all the stellar bodies will still be present and their gravity will act on me - a beneficial thing if I move towards the sun or any other body.
OK, but then I can only go in one direction without inputing massive ammounts of energy.
Not necessarly - it's all a matter of how I warp the paper/space. If make it so that a different stellar body appears closer to me with the difference in its matter calculated for I can force the planet (for instance Jupiter in Sol) to work against the sun, and if the space is warped toward the destination more it wil have a greater force pulling me there.

The nice thing about this model also explains why most of the time I don't have to use any prolusion in subspace (though I'm able to since it interacts with me just like normal space) - I simply let gravity take its toll, and it can accelerate me faster and cheaper than any concievable engine.

This also explains why I can't make long jumps anywher - if I made such a long jump in a changing gravitational environment, amplified by the warp the tidal forces could pretty much shred me to tiny bits and pieces.

What's the explanation behind jump nodes?

Compared to planets, stars are very-very far. To achieve a warp of sufficient magnitude toward the destination star to overpower my own I have to input a gargantuan ammount of energy.

In theory with sufficeint energy I could jump to any given star - the problem is that I might as well burn the very star I want to jump from to achieve the effect since the energy nivo can be so high (Capella anyone?).

Therefore I must look for weak spost - stars closest to my own.
Beside those, being at certain Lagrange points could also make my life easier since the planets in the system can add a little boost, and the isotrope gravitational fields of these orbits also makes the calculation and seemless transition easier.

However when I spoke of this warp in our paper space I never took into account a crucial fact beside the warping capacity of gravitation fields:

Who ever said that space itself is homogene, isotrop in all directions on all dimensions.

Our experiences with it so far seemed to appear so, however soon we learnt gravitation practically warps space time (the intial effect used to initiate a jump).

If space was so even, why do we have these irregularities - stars, galaxies?

When the BIG BOOM took place, small irregularities must have arisen. With those similar irregularities may be inherent to the geomerty of space itself.
Between some stars, this legacy of the BOOM may still live a warp in the fabric still existing. In some instances it may even move, or change with time creating unstable nodes, while otherwise the participants have stabilized it with their pull.

(The Knososs can't create a node, it merly stabilizes one).

Therefore beside factors of gravity and inherent warp can exist in space. Areas in a solar system where or in space where we can slip into this pre-created / inherited warps is what we could define as a node.
Title: Nano Jumping is Stupid
Post by: Kie99 on February 13, 2005, 06:22:05 pm: Quote
Originally posted by Flaser
*snip*The Psamtik's misjump - thanks to the Sath's presence - is good canon evidence.
*snip*

The Psamtik misjumped because of the knossos, not the Sath, the Sath's gravitational influence would be minimal, after all you don't see ships getting pulled towards it do you?
Title: Nano Jumping is Stupid
Post by: TrashMan on February 13, 2005, 06:22:31 pm: Quote
Originally posted by kietotheworld
That is the most inane post I have ever seen. The knossos creates a jump node, it doesn't magically syncronize your ship with subspace, or get your speed up to about 135 M/S

No, but don't you think the Iceni needed far less energy and effort to make the jump into the Knossos than it would need otherwise?
Besides, we have no idea how much energy one jump uses and from where hte Iceni jumped in. for all we know it might have been very clsoe by (or very far away, depending on the "what uses less power" theory)
Title: Nano Jumping is Stupid
Post by: aldo_14 on February 13, 2005, 06:39:24 pm: Quote
Originally posted by TrashMan

No, but don't you think the Iceni needed far less energy and effort to make the jump into the Knossos than it would need otherwise?

Why?
Title: Nano Jumping is Stupid
Post by: Kie99 on February 13, 2005, 06:43:04 pm: Quote
Originally posted by TrashMan

No, but don't you think the Iceni needed far less energy and effort to make the jump into the Knossos than it would need otherwise?
Besides, we have no idea how much energy one jump uses and from where hte Iceni jumped in. for all we know it might have been very clsoe by (or very far away, depending on the "what uses less power" theory)

Quite simply no.

Capital ships need some time to recharge their jump drives, even to go through the knossos. Remember the Sathanas in the nebula, why didn't it just jump straight to the Knossos and into Gamma Draconis? Because it needed to recharge its drives. Don't forget that Shivan subspace tech is significantly more advanced GTVA subspace tech.
Title: Nano Jumping is Stupid
Post by: StratComm on February 13, 2005, 07:20:22 pm: I'm sorry kara, I don't think the more complicated explanation is worth it on this one. Besides the fact that I hate the notion of somehow harnessing energy out of a gravity well to travel out of it by any means other than kinetic. I don't see how GPE could be put to use for anything other than creating a stable subspace layer throughout a system.

Quote
Originally posted by TrashMan

No, but don't you think the Iceni needed far less energy and effort to make the jump into the Knossos than it would need otherwise?
Besides, we have no idea how much energy one jump uses and from where hte Iceni jumped in. for all we know it might have been very clsoe by (or very far away, depending on the "what uses less power" theory)

I'll second the "why" comment. Since the Iceni is the only ship we ever see do anything like that, it's a lot simpler (and more supported) to assume that the ship was designed to run blockades. It ran one prior to King's Gambit, obviously, as well as a couple more en route to Gamma Draconis. It also repeatedly jumped whenever it pleased the rest of the times you see it; when you first discover it and in the following mission it leaves as soon as a) it's discovered or b) it reaches the node it's trying to jump out through. Add to the fact that the Iceni was never adequately armed (it's not even port-starboard balanced, and it's a symmetrical ship) and it's pretty clear that it was never intended to do direct combat.

Also, I think jump energy is pretty much constant, actually, at least for intra-system jumps. Nothing in canon suggests otherwise.
Title: Nano Jumping is Stupid
Post by: Carl on February 13, 2005, 07:43:24 pm: Quote
Originally posted by aldo_14

I wouldn't be surprised if the Iceni was purpose-built to be a blockade runner, myself. Given it's purpose, and it's small size (for a command ship for an entire rebellion), it'd make a fair bit of sense if it was designed to run rather than fight.

i don't know about that. it's got better stats than other corvettes, and has depleted uranium armor, which would make it heavier and slower. The Iceni seems better fit to stand and fight.
Title: Nano Jumping is Stupid
Post by: StratComm on February 13, 2005, 07:47:54 pm: Quote
Originally posted by Carl

i don't know about that. it's got better stats than other corvettes, and has depleted uranium armor, which would make it heavier and slower. The Iceni seems better fit to stand and fight.

Heavy as opposed to collapsed-core molybdenum sheathing? I don't think so.

And the Iceni is certainly faster than any other corvette (or cruiser, for that matter; not much can keep pace with it. Ok, the Mentu can, but nothing else). Don't know about turning offhand, but that's not really the point.
Title: Nano Jumping is Stupid
Post by: NGTM-1R on February 13, 2005, 08:48:56 pm: Heavy, yes, when one considers that collapsed-core molybdenum sheathing probably offers better protection for tonnage used, yet the Iceni is more resistant to damage then a Deimos, which means that its total tonnage of armor must be more then that of a Deimos to offer greater protection, and it is using a less damage-resistant armor.

The Iceni's armor plate probably weighs about 1.5 times what that of a Deimos corvette does.
Title: Nano Jumping is Stupid
Post by: StratComm on February 13, 2005, 09:25:02 pm: That's a really random number to be pulling out since all of this is clearly based in real-world science :rolleyes:

Doesn't change the fact that the Iceni is faster though.
Title: Nano Jumping is Stupid
Post by: NGTM-1R on February 13, 2005, 09:29:44 pm: It's a guess, I admit. But it's a good guess. I did bother to find some stuff about relative weights.
Title: Nano Jumping is Stupid
Post by: StratComm on February 13, 2005, 09:42:08 pm: Actually not much can be said about the Iceni's armor, as the depleted uranium mentioned is just shielding around its subsystems. It could be using more advanced (and lighter) armor than the Deimos for what we know of it.
Title: Nano Jumping is Stupid
Post by: IceFire on February 13, 2005, 11:23:06 pm: Keep in mind a few things.

1) It was mentioned that Bosch's move was risky.
2) The Iceni is a custom built frigate class vessel. It may have fast recycling or redundant subspace generators that are considered superflous and expensive on other classes that are more mass produced.
3) The Knossos is not a jump gate. Its a subspace node stabilization device. The inter system node was there...the Knossos creates the necessary conditions for it to be stabilized. But its otherwise like any other inter-system node. It requires the specialized jump drive to do it and its not fitted on all fighters although it can be...including ships from the FS1 era (we know this because at the end of FS1 such technology was mentioned as having been outfitted).
Title: Nano Jumping is Stupid
Post by: Carl on February 14, 2005, 12:47:49 am: Quote
Originally posted by StratComm
Heavy as opposed to collapsed-core molybdenum sheathing? I don't think so.

how would you know? there is no such thing as collapsed-core molybdenum, and the game gives no information on it's density compared the the non-fictional depleted uranium.
Title: Nano Jumping is Stupid
Post by: Kie99 on February 14, 2005, 04:02:45 am: :nervous: Why would the weight matter in space.

*gets dragged away by Freespace Marines*
Title: Nano Jumping is Stupid
Post by: NGTM-1R on February 14, 2005, 04:02:23 am: Weight=Mass=Inertia=Difficulty getting ship to move

EDIT: **** it, timewarped!
Title: Nano Jumping is Stupid
Post by: aldo_14 on February 14, 2005, 05:21:09 am: Quote
Originally posted by Carl

i don't know about that. it's got better stats than other corvettes, and has depleted uranium armor, which would make it heavier and slower. The Iceni seems better fit to stand and fight.

Against an Orion? With no fighter cover of it's own? This is a command ship, after all - GTVA finds it, they throw everything at it. Hell, they deployed the Colossus to ambush it after all (even if it did sod all good).

If Bosch's aim was to get into that nebula and contact the Shivans, he would have known he'd need to run at least one blockade.

Quote
Originally posted by ngtm1r
Weight=Mass=Inertia=Difficulty getting ship to move

EDIT: **** it, timewarped!

Weight = Mass * Gravity

If I recall my Higher Physics correctly. (which was my worst subject.....)
Title: Nano Jumping is Stupid
Post by: Kie99 on February 14, 2005, 05:50:30 am: And there is no gravity in space. So weight is
1000000KG Mass (Random Figure)
X
0 Gravity

So there is no weight, hence no inertia, hence no difficulty in getting it to move.

EDIT: After writing that I realised something. Freespace isn't very realistica.
Title: Nano Jumping is Stupid
Post by: phatosealpha on February 14, 2005, 06:17:09 am: Nah, doesn't work like that. Weight and inertia aren't the same thing. Weight is a measure of gravity affect on something, inertia is it's resistance to a change in velocity. All matter has inertia proportional to it's mass all the time. In fact, mass is basically a measure of inertia.

To say the least, if no gravity meant no inertia, the second you went into zero gravity you'd either cease to exist or be converted into energy in a truly magnificent explosion. Neither would be amenable to space travel, and sattelites would be a very, very bad idea.

The Iceni doesn't have to overcome the force of gravity, but it does have to overcome it's own inertia to make any change in velocity.
Title: Nano Jumping is Stupid
Post by: Kie99 on February 14, 2005, 06:25:59 am: I don't understand but luckily I don't need to!
Title: Nano Jumping is Stupid
Post by: aldo_14 on February 14, 2005, 06:53:51 am: There is gravity in space; it just isn't the constant it is in Earth.
Title: Nano Jumping is Stupid
Post by: phatosealpha on February 14, 2005, 06:56:42 am: *Grin*

As for the iceni, I think it's a combination of it's relatively small size and a redundant power source or battery of some kind. Fighters and ships as large as a reloading vessel can definitely make instajumps, in/out. Destroyer jump limitations are clearly not all that major - the Eva jumps in and out in "Playing Judas" in under 3 minutes, iirc.

The Iceni is smaller and doesn't seem to have any problem with quick use of subspace drives - heck, it goes from asteroid base to subspace jump in Place of Chariots pretty darned quickly.
Title: Nano Jumping is Stupid
Post by: karajorma on February 14, 2005, 12:10:23 pm: Quote
Originally posted by StratComm
I'm sorry kara, I don't think the more complicated explanation is worth it on this one. Besides the fact that I hate the notion of somehow harnessing energy out of a gravity well to travel out of it by any means other than kinetic. I don't see how GPE could be put to use for anything other than creating a stable subspace layer throughout a system.

:wtf: I'm not sure I follow your counter argument Stratt. I never mentioned harnessing energy from anything other than the ships jump engines.

Were you actually responding to Flaser or something?

Quote
Originally posted by Flaser
I think kara's statement is true to a degree - ships follow the energy minimum principle in subspace too - however it doesn't mean that by putting in exessive energy you can't alter the exit point.

If ever the situation came up that I wanted a nano jump or for ships to exit a subspace node on a unpredictable vector I'd probably say the same thing.

Till then I'm not going to worry about it much :D
Title: Nano Jumping is Stupid
Post by: FireCrack on February 14, 2005, 03:48:30 pm: Most craft are probably designed with capacitors to rapidly recharge the jump drives and special ways to discharge the EM static from the jump.

kieto, there is definitly inertia in space, otherwise i could be in space right by the colossus, flick it with my pinky finger, and it would instantly reach infinity times the speed of light then instantly stop again.

Momentum=mass*velocity, nothing to do with gravity
Title: Nano Jumping is Stupid
Post by: Hippo on February 14, 2005, 04:17:27 pm: gravity is only a factor in acceleration, or resistance
Title: Nano Jumping is Stupid
Post by: pyro-manic on February 14, 2005, 04:23:48 pm: Newton's laws, people. :nod: Equilibruim and resultant forces and all that good stuff.
Title: Nano Jumping is Stupid
Post by: StratComm on February 14, 2005, 04:49:42 pm: Kara: you're right, the specifics of what I was saying go back to flaser. The point I intended to argue with you (I wasn't fully cognisant when this started - thank you illness :meh:) is the subspace hole explanation as to why ships remain in formation; all I'd point out there is that we always (with the sole exception of the lucifer destruction scene in FS1) see ships create their own jump point, not exit with another. Flaser's response, though, sounds way too much like warp theory for the term "subspace" or the blue lights that Freespace uses to describe it to possibly allow.

Oh, and guys, please quit making crap up about gravity. Yes, it is the least understood basic force, but on a macroscopic scale gravity is a force field. Nothing more.
Title: Nano Jumping is Stupid
Post by: Woolie Wool on February 14, 2005, 05:18:21 pm: Quote
Originally posted by aldo_14
nanojump is, IMO a bit of a pandora's box, because it can be abused horribly to have ludicrous and annoying situations.

But, it's also got use as a plot device - in particular, if you need to negate the effects of powerful node blockades.

I gave capships interdictor devices for Starforce to prevent ships from nanojumping constantly. Also, it prevents large ships, which can form their own interstellar jump nodes, from going anywhere they want--when the interdictors are on, you have to use fixed nodes.
Title: Nano Jumping is Stupid
Post by: karajorma on February 14, 2005, 05:21:49 pm: Quote
Originally posted by StratComm
Kara: you're right, the specifics of what I was saying go back to flaser. The point I intended to argue with you (I wasn't fully cognisant when this started - thank you illness :meh:) is the subspace hole explanation as to why ships remain in formation; all I'd point out there is that we always (with the sole exception of the lucifer destruction scene in FS1) see ships create their own jump point, not exit with another. Flaser's response, though, sounds way too much like warp theory for the term "subspace" or the blue lights that Freespace uses to describe it to possibly allow.

I certainly wasn't implying that they'd exit from the same jump point.

What I was saying is that if the fleet enter subspace together, and are trying to exit in around the same sort of area then all of the fleets jump points will form close to each other because the first node has weakened the fabric of normal space significatly so the other nodes will also form relatively close to the first one.

A good analogy for what I'm trying to say is that old heavy weight on a rubber sheet example that is used all the time for gravity.

With two ball bearings the lowest energy configuration is for them to sit side by side (I.e jump points close to each other). It takes a lot more energy to get one of them to sit on top of the other (same jump point) because to do that you'd have to put energy in to drag the rubber sheet down far enough that they would do that.

Of course if one of the bearings is much heavier than the other then it is possible to get them to do that without as much energy being required. Which means that fighters can use a capships jump point but only if more energy if used then would be required for it to make it's own jump point.
Title: Nano Jumping is Stupid
Post by: StratComm on February 14, 2005, 05:39:26 pm: Ah, ok I see your point (still don't agree with you there, but that's fine - it's not like any of this is ever explained).
Title: Nano Jumping is Stupid
Post by: karajorma on February 14, 2005, 05:49:05 pm: You still see it as simply being down to a limit on the minimum jump distance then?

Well I am imposing a limit too. I'm just explaining the reason for it :)
Title: Nano Jumping is Stupid
Post by: StratComm on February 14, 2005, 05:54:58 pm: My reason for a minimum distance is timing. If you want to get treknical, it's because a subspace drive must ramp a ship's n-th dimentional vibration up to enter subspace and then dampen it down again to exit, and this simply cannot be done quickly enough to exit subspace within extreme proximity (lets say 100 clicks, maybe an order of magnitude or two higher, but something like that) without the ship's subspace momentum carrying it farther.
Title: Nano Jumping is Stupid
Post by: pyro-manic on February 14, 2005, 06:12:42 pm: StratComm: I'm not sure we know enough about the nature of subspace to say that. Yes, the ship has to be at the same frequency, but is that what actually make it enter subspace, or does it merely facilitate entry? And what about different frequencies? There's presumably a rather large range that subspace covers (the whole tracking the Lucifer through the Sol node thingy suggests this to me), so perhaps distance is affected (even controlled?) by the frequency? So different "layers" of subspace allow you to travel different distances. So the hardest-to-reach, or "furthest" layers, that give you the longest range, are only accessible via jump nodes, whereas the "closest" layers are much easier to get to, but only allow you to travel short distances.

OK, end of wild conjecture. Just wanted to post some of my thoughts... :)
Title: Nano Jumping is Stupid
Post by: Flaser on February 14, 2005, 10:12:29 pm: I hate when no-one picks out the important part from my long rants.
I'll do my best to write it clearly:

Assumption no.1: Subspace is not a separate entity, real space and subspace are one and the same
Assumption no.2: As a result all laws of pysics are the same "in subspace" (since you're still in normal space).

Q: What do I mean one and the same?
A: String theory calls for a 10 or 25 dimensional universe, where all particles are handled as small elementary oscillators buzzing among the said dimensions.

Q: How is that possible when we only see 4 dimensions on a macro scale?
A: Imagine an orange - it's a sphere. However up close it has all these bumps and ridges. The same happens here. 4 of the dimensions act on a macroscale while the rest are wrapped up and only effect things on really small (quantum physics) distance.

Q: What does that have to do with subspace?
A: Subspace is exactly the said dimensions of normal space. You can't really enter subspace since you're already in it. You can't normally move along those dimensions.

Theory:

When you enter subspace, you're not going anywher - all you do is actually force all the particles in you and your ship to oscillate more violently among said dimensions - forcing them to "unwrap".

The trick is that although everything is present in all dimensions, their coordinates may be wildly different from those in the conventional 4d space.

To shrink space or warp space (something that you don't really do but your that's your perception of the event) by moving along a dimension where the distance between you and your target is a lot less than in normal dimensions.

As you see it's not quite like the Albaquerque drive that's often reffered to as warp and what Trekkie ships seem to use. (Where you create a ripple in space and ride the wave).

You don't warp space - that's only your perception of the event - you merly force it act as continuum along the dimensions that normally take effect only on quantum level.

Q: What does gravity have to do with all of this?
A1: On its own nothing. However since it already warps space it may lower the energy nivo of forcing its "hidden" dimensions to unwrap.
A2: It still affects you while you're moving in the said dimensions. You can probably pick dimensions where your destination's field of gravity pulls you stronger than your departure points. Doing that will negate the need for a prolusion device "in subspace". (The current that seems to pull everything in the corridor could be this).

Q: So what does gravity have to do with nodes?
A: Probably not much - it makes unwrapping space easier, but if the effect were enough to reach another star we wouldn't have nodes.

Q: If so what are nodes?
A: Failures and/or irregularities inhereted from the Bib Boom - portions of space where the hidden dimensions are still somewhat unwrapped.

Q: So is there any "source" or "origin" of subspace?
A: Yes and no. The structure of the universe was probably always like this.
- However if you ask about the origin of the nodes, the Big Boom may be guilty: at the time the energy levels were so high that all the dimensions were unwrapped since any oscillation must have been huge. As the expansion took place and the average energy levels lowered and for some reason the energy didn't evenly propagate on all dimensions, therefore some of the dimensions where enriched others depleted leading to unwrapped and wrapped dimensions. Irregularities though allowed parts of the universe to differ - with some of their dimension not so un/wrapped.
Title: Nano Jumping is Stupid
Post by: Kie99 on February 15, 2005, 07:57:34 am: here is something very important to the continuation of this debate:

Ships don't have to move when they are travelling through subspace:

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v517/kietotheworld/Lucifer.jpg)
Title: Nano Jumping is Stupid
Post by: NGTM-1R on February 15, 2005, 12:34:14 pm: Lacking normal references in subspace, perhaps the Lucifer, being the largest object visible, is the frame of reference chosen by the navigation system on your fighter and therefore doesn't appear to move?

Okay, that's a stretch. But chase missions feel rather boring when neither your capship nor theirs is actually moving. Motion is what makes it a chase, after all. Having both the chaser(s) and the chasee exit subspace from the same point in a chase only makes sense, as well, and for that at least one of them has to move.

In the case of escort missions, motion, and a defined jump-out point, give the player a visible objective as opposed to a somewhat nebulous timelimit. I don't look at the mission clock so often when dogfighting, and I'm willing to bet and lay odds that most other folks don't either. It's much easier to visibly see how close the ship I'm escorting is to its exit point.

In short, this is where good gameplay overrides being canon-friendly.
Title: Nano Jumping is Stupid
Post by: TopAce on February 15, 2005, 12:39:04 pm: ^ ^ ^ ^

I would say the same, if the Lucifer were moving, that mission would be less enjoyable.
Title: Nano Jumping is Stupid
Post by: karajorma on February 15, 2005, 01:08:20 pm: Quote
Originally posted by StratComm
My reason for a minimum distance is timing. If you want to get treknical, it's because a subspace drive must ramp a ship's n-th dimentional vibration up to enter subspace and then dampen it down again to exit, and this simply cannot be done quickly enough to exit subspace within extreme proximity (lets say 100 clicks, maybe an order of magnitude or two higher, but something like that) without the ship's subspace momentum carrying it farther.

Sounds fair enough to me. I prefer my explaination but yours covers all the important points too :D
Title: Nano Jumping is Stupid
Post by: aldo_14 on February 15, 2005, 01:22:24 pm: Quote
Originally posted by TopAce
^ ^ ^ ^

I would say the same, if the Lucifer were moving, that mission would be less enjoyable.

*ding*

:D

And that, is all we really need to know about movement in subspace.
Title: Nano Jumping is Stupid
Post by: Hippo on February 15, 2005, 03:50:59 pm: I agree with flaser with everything, except that there has to be some way that (in the FS universe), gravity effects subspace a lot more. Everything has gravity, including the lucifer... But the lucifer would probably not have enough gravity to, for instance, move a space shuttle parked 50 meters away, with no outside forces acting on it. Mass is directly proportional to gravity, through some formula involving n², that i don't remember... So taking the gravity effect coming from the lucifer, and again, ignoring almost everything else, you could say that subspace is effected by even small amounts of gravetational distortion, allowing the subspace "bubble" for lack of better terms, to be extended around the lucifer. Subspace tracking meerly needs to locate this "bubble" and "reach" it (without actually arriving anywhere, or assemling atoms, only to reach the same "frequency" (again, bad word) of the lucifer...

That would make more sense if i knew the words for half the stuff i was trying to babble about...
Title: Nano Jumping is Stupid
Post by: TrashMan on February 15, 2005, 04:02:29 pm: Anyone know how supspace tracking works?

Do you detect the ship whan it's starting it's jump or when it's in subspace.
Do you even have to be in visual/main sensor range of the ship when it's jumping to detect it.

In other words - if a ship is hiding in a asteroid field and makes a jump toward a enemy position, can the enemy detect it before it arrives?
Title: Nano Jumping is Stupid
Post by: StratComm on February 15, 2005, 04:08:33 pm: From what we've seen, the ship doing the tracking has to be within sensor/visial range of the jumping ship as it departs, and it's subspace vector is derived from that. You can't see them coming if they are jumping from a hidden location or just plain outside of sensor range of allied ships.
Title: Nano Jumping is Stupid
Post by: Hippo on February 15, 2005, 04:09:06 pm: maybe... we don't know if the bellasarius was tracked by the blocade, or by command by elsewhere...

so it could be debated either way...
Title: Nano Jumping is Stupid
Post by: StratComm on February 15, 2005, 04:13:41 pm: Well, other instances of tracking seem to rely on ships being present. In Clash of the Titans (FS1), when you jump in the Bastion reports that the Lucifer is not there and that it must have jumped on to Delta Serpentis. Not that they'd tracked it there. Plus in that same mission they did not pick up the Demon before it jumped in. In the next mission, the Bastion was present and tracked the Lucifer into the DS-Sol node as fighters were being scrambled to intercept it.

Also, in FS2, there's never any warning that hostile ships are about to jump in unless they retreated from another engagement or ran a blockade.
Title: Nano Jumping is Stupid
Post by: InfernoGod on February 15, 2005, 05:01:22 pm: To defend campaigns such as Inferno, that take place in the future (and I mean, more than 10 years after Capella): What's not to say that the technology to perform nano-jumping hasn't been invented yet? For all we know, the EA made a jump drive that allowed nano-jumping for quick jumps. Just a possibility. However, maybe that shouldn't be able to jump and arrive so close to their original spot. Example: the Shivan corvette in Boomerang.
Spoiler:
It arrived a good distance away from its original position when it nano-jumped. (when it was attacking the mining station)
Title: Nano Jumping is Stupid
Post by: tofu on February 16, 2005, 10:42:14 am: Personally, I think the problem is that there aren't any well-established, set in stone physics for the Freespace universe. What I mean is, the capability is there to make jumps, so we just assume that ships can jump anywhere at any time. Most people also assume that there is some delay between jumps to recharge or something, but even that isn't a really well-established fact, it's just an assumption.

If you're going to make up a universe for a sci-fi book or something, one of the first things you should do is write down the rules for that universe. Here is a quick example off the top of my head:

rule 1: inside of a solar system, ships can only make jumps between places where the distortion of space-time due to large bodies is equal.

For example, in the inner solar system, the sun's gravity greatly distorts space-time. The Earth also distorts space-time. If you're in low earth orbit, the total distortion of space-time for your location is equal to the sum of what you feel from the sun at 1AU plus what you get from the Earth. Jupiter is much farther away from the sun, so the distortion due to the sun is much less, but Jupiter is also very big and distorts space-time more than the Earth. At some distance from Jupiter, the sum of Jupiter + the sun is equal to the sum of the sun + the earth. That means that you can make a jump from low earth orbit to that orbital distance from Jupiter.

Mars on the other hand, is smaller than the Earth and farther away from the sun, so there's no way to jump from low earth orbit to any orbit around mars. What you've have to do to get to mars is use your sublight engines to travel away from the Earth, then you'd be able to jump into low martian orbit.

I guess I'm rambling so I'll stop there. The point is that rules like this give you a reason to do something in the game world. As it stands now, there are no rules, so I always have to ask the question, "why is that freighter just sitting there letting me attack it? Why doesn't it just jump to the other side of the solar system? Why did this ship jump in 2km away from the inter-system node? Now I have to guard it for like an hour while it slowly moves toward the node. Why didn't it jump in 3 inches away from the node and immediately jump out of the system?" A set of rules governing the physics of this imaginary universe would answer a lot of those questions. Then you could say, for instance, that because of this space station's proximity to this planet, a ship starting out at the inter-system node, will always jump in at 5km away. Of course, the good news is that if it's followed, the bad guys will also have to jump in 5km away. See, having made up physics rules like that gives you a good framework for creating scenarios.

Anyway, like the original poster, I'm just expressing an opinion and hopefully spurring discussion. I realize that no such rules exist in freespace and I don't want anyone to think that I'm telling them what to do.
Title: Nano Jumping is Stupid
Post by: StratComm on February 16, 2005, 10:56:43 am: I know of very few Sci-fi universes in which there does exist a concrete, set-in-stone set of rules. It'd be nice if they were around in the rest, but I don't think they suffer from their lack. It needs to work first and foremost, but once that's been established no one cares about the specifics. And since sci-fi is inherently entertainment, the last thing you want to do is actually try to present those rules to the audience, as they'll fall asleep before they actually get to the story. All we can do is debate what does and does not make sense given what we do know. From what the game has shown us and from what can be inferred from things like slow capital ship cruising speed and the relative distances between objects in-game, things like the recharge time on jump engines are all-but-given (I think it's actually mentioned in King's Gambit, so there's canon reference to it too) as are issues of jump precision, etc. Part of the problem is that it's been so long since some of us actually played through the campaign that we literally don't remember how :v: used their sci-fi the same way as everyone else :)
Title: Nano Jumping is Stupid
Post by: Kie99 on February 16, 2005, 01:08:33 pm: The reson ships don't just "Jump in 3 inches from the node and then immediately (sp?) jump out again" is because they need to r3charg3 their jump drives, as it is mentioned in the briefing for:
"The King's Gambit"
Title: Nano Jumping is Stupid
Post by: Flaser on February 16, 2005, 02:55:05 pm: Quote
Originally posted by Hippo
I agree with flaser with everything, except that there has to be some way that (in the FS universe), gravity effects subspace a lot more. Everything has gravity, including the lucifer... But the lucifer would probably not have enough gravity to, for instance, move a space shuttle parked 50 meters away, with no outside forces acting on it. Mass is directly proportional to gravity, through some formula involving n², that i don't remember... So taking the gravity effect coming from the lucifer, and again, ignoring almost everything else, you could say that subspace is effected by even small amounts of gravetational distortion, allowing the subspace "bubble" for lack of better terms, to be extended around the lucifer. Subspace tracking meerly needs to locate this "bubble" and "reach" it (without actually arriving anywhere, or assemling atoms, only to reach the same "frequency" (again, bad word) of the lucifer...

That would make more sense if i knew the words for half the stuff i was trying to babble about...

Gravity doesn't have to affect subspace anymore!

Actually the relation of gravity is:

F = f * (M*m) / r^2

F = Force
f = gravitic constant (a very small number)
M = mass of one body
m = mass of other body
r = radius or distance between the bodies

Gravity actually doesn't have a fundemetally prime effect on subspace - since it's not a separate entity, but a form or complexity of ordinary space-time that has little effect most of the time.
All of the forces - magnetic fields, electrostatic fields, gravity - all affect you when you've unwrapped the dimensions and move along them.

The only reason why I spoke of gravity primerly is that is the only force that stellard bodies have on your ship unless you wanna take a dip in a sun.

Electromagnetic fields, electromagnetic particles probably also seem warp space to a degree, but do so on different dimensions. (This could be why the Whiteside drive works).*

There is a trick to this whole warping I will cover later on**

When the Bastion chased the Lucifer, most of the time they knew what node it passed through, so its destination was known.

The problem is that there are an unlimited number of ways you can get from point A to point B through these hidden dimensions.
Even through a corridor (which may have any shape!) the Lucifer could use any given path it saw fit.

Subspace tracking is precisly knowing the dimensions, or how you precisly put it: the vector it took to go from point A to point B.

**I also must explain something: you're not in a bubble of real space! You don't need any bubble.
I stressed it that the warp effect is only your perception - you don't warp space.

The ship taking a subspace jump doesn't warp space, open up the hidden dimensions or forming a bubble and forcing that through these dimensions.
Instead it forces all of its particles to resonate on THOSE dimensions and bit by bit its whole energy is transferred to those dimensions.
The ship will still have part of its oscillations in in real space coordinates - but those will be reduced to quantic levels that are similar to what his other oscillations used to be. - You can go through it as if it was ghost, your presence having little effect on him and vice versa.

The nice thing about this is that most manmade objects have very little energy density in subspace without jumping on your vector. Even if you jump, but on a different vector they will still have a very low energy density. (Under energy density I mean the sum of oscillations that your main osciallations are on.)
However big natural object like planets or suns, even though they have little energy density their huge volume still makes them a notable presence.
Therefore you can still see suns and planets in subspace, but they're but a shadow of their normal selves.

It is possible that some of the missing matter, or the dark matter is actually in this state, therefore along certain vectors you'll find otherwise invisible objects - suns, nebulae or planets.
Some vectors may be so plagued in cetain areas with such matter or energy that it is impossible to travel along those vectors even if they are accesable.

You probably don't need a drive once you've enterred this state.
Depending on your vector, something may grab you/push you or you may end up lost in this state, floating forever - this happened to the Nyarlhoteph.

The question is how do ships force this resonation in their structure? If it need physical contact each and every ship must use its own drive to enter and exit subspace. However a ship may deploy fighters once in subspace, and those will have the same vector as the launcher. - I'm inclined to believe this.

That's why the Lucifer could launch ships in subspace, but you needed a special intersystem drive to chase it.
When the Lucifer exits, you already have the same vector as it does, so exit jumping will put you in the almost exact space.

There is also a possibility that was never used in the series: changing your vector once 'en route.
The problem is that even though some of your reference points may still be present - like suns or gasgiant - but their readings won't correlate at all to their normal ones, and there is no whatsoever insurance that your vector "shrunk" space isotrophly (equally among all directions).
Still during an intrasystem jump, with a shallow and slow vector a truely gifted pilot (with maybe a good sense of fortune / scrying :) ) may be able to change his vector en-route and effectily move around the solar system instead using inter-mittent jumps.

What is also rarely taken into account by mission desingers (unlike the overdiscussed recharge time) is the severity of navigation problems.

Once you made a jump, all you have is the data of the subspace vector, which doesn't have any correlation with your jump vector in realspace.
Space is not uniform, subspace has different properties in all of it.
Not only do you need to acertain your position once in real space, but to be able to jump next time with precision you also have to map the properties of subspace in the area - along as many vectors as possible.

First off: Acertaning your position is darn hard - explorer ships will spend a couple of weeks at minimum looking for similar stars. The problem is that the similar stars your looking for may be anywhere in their liftime. The light you're used to coming from them has been travelling for hundreds of years. When you jump to a different location the light will have to cross a different distance therefore it will have different properties since its from a different period of the star's life.
You will have to look for nebule and specific galaxies far away that change little with a couple of hundrey light year jump.
Also for a more precise measurement you'll have to look for star groups in the apropiate setting (their setup changes with time too! The stars move and the star signes chagne...).

So once you've made the jump, your hapless navigator spent the next 4 weeks doing a million readings to tell you that's you've moved 4 parsecs outwards in the galaxy.

Next you have to map subspace in the area for a couple of vectors. Once done, you jump back and hope your readings are good enough to arrive at the right place.

There could be devious nodes around that aren't just simple tunnels - systems or webs that connect several star system. They may be too complex for the GTVA and or too dangerous.
This could explain why the GTA maps had more nodes - the GTVA later decided to abandon some of these trick or not so trustworthy routes.

If you return, its time to have another go - you've only made a map for a couple of vectors, you need to cover a spectrum of vectors to make sure that a wide range of ships with different subspace drives would be able to make the journey.

*Artificial Gravity may be a byproduct of the subspace drive - instead a complete shift, we force the particles to change into gravitons.
The most likely problem why the system isn't widely used or employed as a weapon*** that it must have a sizeable subspace drive, and only very high energy particles can be forced to convert.

***In Infinite Ryvius they had gravity weapons - those things are worse that whatever any of you degrade them to be. You can slice up a planet! The Death Star is a toy compared to that...
Title: Nano Jumping is Stupid
Post by: Kie99 on February 16, 2005, 04:38:28 pm: I heard an interesting theory about the Lucifer's shield on another forum. That the Lucifer was shielded by a bubble of subspace and when something hits the Shield it gets sent into subspace, so when teh Lucifer goes into subspace that's why its shield doesn't work.
Title: Nano Jumping is Stupid
Post by: StratComm on February 16, 2005, 05:11:37 pm: That'd have to hold true for all shields though, since no one's shields work in SS. There almost has to be some connection between shields and subspace, as it doesn't seem to affect anything else on a ship.
Title: Nano Jumping is Stupid
Post by: FireCrack on February 16, 2005, 05:30:44 pm: the universal gravitational constant (G, not f) is 6.67*10^-11 or 0.0000000000667, just to give a feel of ho weak gravity actualy is.

In comparisin the fromula for an electric feild is essentialy the same, just with different variables, the contant for that formula (cant remember the name ATM) is 9*10^9, or 9000000000.
Title: Nano Jumping is Stupid
Post by: WMCoolmon on February 16, 2005, 07:03:08 pm: Quote
Originally posted by StratComm
That'd have to hold true for all shields though, since no one's shields work in SS. There almost has to be some connection between shields and subspace, as it doesn't seem to affect anything else on a ship.

There was a thread a bit back where someone mentioned the FS bible said that going into subspace involved vibrating. Perhaps this vibrating would cause havoc with the shield generators and so they're switched off automatically. All we know is that shields can't be used in subspace, not that they can't be turned on/don't work at all. (IIIRC)
Title: Nano Jumping is Stupid
Post by: StratComm on February 16, 2005, 07:15:02 pm: You'd think that the Lucifer (or for that matter any shivan ship, assuming they know more about subspace than the GTVA) would just reactivate it's shield the moment allied craft jumped into the corridor behind it. But you're right, we don't actually know that.
Title: Nano Jumping is Stupid
Post by: Flaser on February 17, 2005, 12:38:46 am: IMHO shields are a modification of the subspace drive - you extend a very stron EM field that's capable of initiating the vector change.

The reason why it sucks energy is that you have to cover the massive demand the process normally needs.
Title: Nano Jumping is Stupid
Post by: WMCoolmon on February 17, 2005, 12:54:42 am: Quote
Originally posted by StratComm
You'd think that the Lucifer (or for that matter any shivan ship, assuming they know more about subspace than the GTVA) would just reactivate it's shield the moment allied craft jumped into the corridor behind it. But you're right, we don't actually know that.

Well, I was thinking more along the lines that activating shields would instantly deplete or damage them. ie, if the shield is polarized somehow, and so is subspace, you flip on shields and your ship gets fried. :D

Or, when the shields are activated, rapid shaking of the equipment makes the emitters shift out of alignment, frying the shield system, damaging the craft, or just making the shields basically ineffective for some amount of time.

Beams also go through shields, too. (Unless you use the nobeampierce flag ;) )
Title: Nano Jumping is Stupid
Post by: aldo_14 on February 17, 2005, 03:55:00 am: Quote
Originally posted by WMCoolmon

There was a thread a bit back where someone mentioned the FS bible said that going into subspace involved vibrating. Perhaps this vibrating would cause havoc with the shield generators and so they're switched off automatically.

All we know is that shields can't be used in subspace, not that they can't be turned on/don't work at all. (IIIRC)

They can't sustain the power output under jump phenomena (see the lab cutscene script).

(Incidentally, the vibration is to open up the entrypoint to subspace)
Title: Nano Jumping is Stupid
Post by: Flaser on February 22, 2005, 05:24:17 am: It isn't:

Quote
A jump drive causes a ship to vibrate in multiple dimensions until its modulations are in perfect synchronization with the subspace continuum. A vortex opens, creating an aperture from an infinitesimally small point in the cosmos, enabling the vessel to cross the subspace threshold.

Taken from the techroom description and in extent the fs-doc.

The vibration takes effect on the ship and not the space around it.

IMHO the vortex is how humans percieve the transition from normal-space dispersion to subspace dispersion of all your osciallations.

The reason why you can't use shields inside subspace IMHO doesn't have anything to do with polarisations (there was no whatsoever reference to such a nature of subspace).
It was also never mentioned that you need power to maintain jump phenomenon - you could have disabled ships in subspace and they don't fall/jump out.

IMHO the reason is far less the impossibility of using shields in subspace - My opinion is that it IS possible to use them.
The reason why no one does is the fatality of doing so.

Shields force jump anything thrown at you at a random vector. However Newton 3rd law still takes place - beside putting in the needed energy you also have to deal with the inverse force.
Since the rocket/laser/beam doesn't hit you, you can argue there is no such thing - but it hits your shield, and when it force warps the incoming threat it changes it's vector as if a force was applied in THAT dirrection (a term I have to use when speaking of using subspace).

The inverse force takes its toll on the bearer of the field - you. Therefore you will be somewhat warped moved in THAT dirrection too.

Imagine what happens if you did that in subspace: your vector will be suddenly altered.
Even though you may avoid the attack you can be lost in subspace forever. (Maybe that's what happened to the Nyarlhoteph).
Title: Nano Jumping is Stupid
Post by: Mongoose on February 22, 2005, 01:24:48 pm: Flaser, in the transcript for one of the cutscenes omitted from FS1, there was a mention of shields causing too much of a power drain to be used in subspace. It's in the Reference Bible.