Hard Light Productions Forums
Hosted Projects - FS2 Required => Blue Planet => Topic started by: ZeroCooL on June 07, 2011, 11:03:05 pm
-
Why do the beam weapons of the GTVA Terran ships are blue?
Do you have something to do with the use of meson reactors ?
-
Why is the Prometheus cannon green? Why does the Hercules have four engines and not six? Why do a lot of UEF ships a spinny section?
They're all design-related questions that likely had little "scientific" support and were merely chosen for aesthetic effect (I think there might have been a specific reason for the spinny section, though).
-
Yes.
-
Blue is both a higher-energy color than green and a colder color, associated with precision and penetration.
-
It symbolises the yearning of the Colonial Terrans for their home planet with its blue seas and blue skies.
-
Blame Inferno?
-
(I think there might have been a specific reason for the spinny section, though).
Gravity?
-
Blame Inferno?
Pretty much. Inferno already had blue beams tabled up so I stole them and changed their damage.
-
Even beams get lonely.
-
Energy saver bulbs :yes:
-
I'm going to make UV colored beams.
They're going to make your monitor output UV light to give people Vitamin D!
And Skin Cancer.
-
I think you should ponder why beams are even visible first. :lol:
-
Because beams are plasma, not just photons. :P
-
(I think there might have been a specific reason for the spinny section, though).
Gravity?
"The most noteworthy design concept is the utilisation of a rotating section, creating gravity for those aboard the vessel. This greatly reduces the need for power hungry gravity plating, and serves as a platform for the ships medium range sensor arrays giving them an outstanding field of view. It also acts as a centrifugal power generator that powers most of the secondary subsystems leaving the main reactors free to deliver more power to the engines, weapons and other primary subsystems. - UEFg Karuna
-
But Inferno didn't have the first blue beams. Those were from volition. Now granted, they only used blue for anti-fighter beams, but they were still blue beams.
Blue beams also go much better with the color scheme of the new GTVA ships.
-
(I think there might have been a specific reason for the spinny section, though).
Gravity?
"The most noteworthy design concept is the utilisation of a rotating section, creating gravity for those aboard the vessel. This greatly reduces the need for power hungry gravity plating, and serves as a platform for the ships medium range sensor arrays giving them an outstanding field of view. It also acts as a centrifugal power generator that powers most of the secondary subsystems leaving the main reactors free to deliver more power to the engines, weapons and other primary subsystems. - UEFg Karuna
I've always wondered how you walked through those sections from the rest of the ship though... they don't turn slowly.
-
(I think there might have been a specific reason for the spinny section, though).
Gravity?
"The most noteworthy design concept is the utilisation of a rotating section, creating gravity for those aboard the vessel. This greatly reduces the need for power hungry gravity plating, and serves as a platform for the ships medium range sensor arrays giving them an outstanding field of view. It also acts as a centrifugal power generator that powers most of the secondary subsystems leaving the main reactors free to deliver more power to the engines, weapons and other primary subsystems. - UEFg Karuna
I've always wondered how you walked through those sections from the rest of the ship though... they don't turn slowly.
There should be a central axle connecting from one end to the other end while the centrifuge gets to spin freely or something. Without a counter-torque the Karuna should always be rolling to one side...
-
That still doesn't explain how you get on the centrifuge.
-
The further towards the center of the gravity section you go, the less speed the block travels at and thus also has less gravity. If you build a tunnel through the very center of that section you can enter and exit it as easily as we go through one of those turning doors often used for shopping mall main entrances.... or rather float, since we talk zero g in the center of the gracity block.
-
See 2001 for details.
But yeah, I agree that the things spin too fast. Does anyone have any numbers on the size of the things and their Hz? We could do a quick calc at the resulting G force.
EDIT: Ok, I haven't any freespace tool in here, so I'll have to guess based on the wiki page and some videos.
I'd guess that the Hz is about 0.125 rotations per second (8 secs per rotation), and the thing is about a hundred meters radius (well something on that order of magnitude).
For this we have to calculate the perimeter: Pi*radius*2, gives something like 600 meters.
The velocity in the perimeter is thus 75ms-1.
We can now calculate the centrifugal acceleration: a = v^2/r,
a = 75^2 / 100 <=> a = 56,25ms-1.
One G is 9.8ms-1 give or take, so we are somewhere around 5 to 6 times G in the outer parts (given the error margin, this could be between, say, 4G to 10G).
So yeah, it's spinning too fast. The 1G radius in that Hz frequency is about 30 meters, give or take.
-
The further towards the center of the gravity section you go, the less speed the block travels at and thus also has less gravity. If you build a tunnel through the very center of that section you can enter and exit it as easily as we go through one of those turning doors often used for shopping mall main entrances.... or rather float, since we talk zero g in the center of the gracity block.
Good point, I know how that works... but it still seems hazardous no? :P
-
Probably the same method as a crew of an EA Omega goes from non-spinning to spinning :P
-
using fairly simple timing controls you could have a coil based transfer lift system. A weighted "bottom" to the car would ensure correct orientation.
-
That still doesn't explain how you get on the centrifuge.
Holes in the central axle. Or do you mean finding a way to strap yourself on the outside of the centrifuge?
-
The spinning piece has a well known canonical function:
it is a melee weapon to destroy attacking fighters
5 to 6 times G in the outer parts (given the error margin, this could be between, say, 4G to 10G).
it is also a high gravity weightlifting deck to keep the pilots super buff
-
Now it makes sense!
-
The spinning piece has a well known canonical function:
it is a melee weapon to destroy attacking fighters
Heh, all the spinny sections of UEF big ships are made to kill fighters trying to do a melee, but the best fighterswatter is the GTSC Faustus. They're huge!
-
I thought the best fighter-swatter was a manouvering Colossus...
-
Well we're talking about the spinny-thingies on ships, and the Colossus doesn't possess one so...
-
The Colossus is a capital ship swatter.
-
I think this is digging too deeply into it. Hasanyone ever calculated the same for an Omega destroyer or asked how the pegasus inverted recovery pilots end up the right way up? Too much science kills the fiction ;)
-
"The most noteworthy design concept is the utilisation of a rotating section, creating gravity for those aboard the vessel. This greatly reduces the need for power hungry gravity plating, and serves as a platform for the ships medium range sensor arrays giving them an outstanding field of view. It also acts as a centrifugal power generator that powers most of the secondary subsystems leaving the main reactors free to deliver more power to the engines, weapons and other primary subsystems. - UEFg Karuna
:mad: :confused: :lol: :mad: :confused: :lol: :mad: :confused: :lol: :mad: :confused: :lol: :mad: :confused: :lol: :mad: :confused: :lol: :mad: :confused: :lol:
If the rotating section's rotational kinetic energy is being used to generate electricity, then it's going to slow down as it rotates. To keep it spinning at a constant rate, the reactors will have to power it. Otherwise you're getting energy out of nowhere. Assuming 100% efficiency in all involved energy transfers (which is by definition a flawed assumption), you're breaking even on the energy load on the reactor while adding a needless and easily-disrupted step in the power flow.
I know this is FreeSpace, and I'll further preface this by reiterating that Blue Planet is awesome, but Christ on a ****ing bike. That's right up there with the "focused afocal maser" from Eve Online.
-
I'm pretty sure that tech description is not actually -
Let me go check
Uh yeah that tech description was patched out a long time ago because it doesn't make any sense. It was never even in War in Heaven.
-
Well, that's a relief. :p
As for the intensity of gravity on the rotating sections, if we're talking 6g at the tips, the gravity at the widest points would be pretty Earth-like. Still potentially problematic considering that many of the UEF's soldiers grew up in significantly less than Earth gravity, though.
-
Ok Ok, just wondering, I think it will be free of speculation for each
-
Most quaters are most likely in the central section, with a lower gravity section for those from the planets/moons with lower g.
The rest is armor, storage areas, flashing lights, sensors, etc.
-
I'm going to make UV colored beams.
They're going to make your monitor output UV light to give people Vitamin D!
:lol: curing vitamin deficiency across the globe.
"The most noteworthy design concept is the utilisation of a rotating section, creating gravity for those aboard the vessel. This greatly reduces the need for power hungry gravity plating, and serves as a platform for the ships medium range sensor arrays giving them an outstanding field of view. It also acts as a centrifugal power generator that powers most of the secondary subsystems leaving the main reactors free to deliver more power to the engines, weapons and other primary subsystems. - UEFg Karuna
not to fuel a fire or anything here but if i had to model the internals of this part it would have a central corridor or tram way running down the middle to allow access to each end of the ship. inside would contain braking and starting systems (never know when you'll need to arrest the rotation) and a a contra-rotating component to counter act the torque. as far as over coming friction, the amount of juice required to keep the thing moving would be negligible as its momentum would do most of the work. besides, if humans haven't devised a really good friction less bearing by the 23 hundreds...well....then we suck.
just throwin' that in there for fun. besides...its freespace, if we want sound in space then damnit we should have it!
now that i think about that would be kinda a fun side project "tour the inside of a karuna!"
-
now that i think about that would be kinda a fun side project "tour the inside of a karuna!"
;7
-
as far as over coming friction, the amount of juice required to keep the thing moving would be negligible as its momentum would do most of the work. besides, if humans haven't devised a really good friction less bearing by the 23 hundreds...well....then we suck.
To clarify, what I took issue with wasn't overcoming friction. That's possible even with modern technology. The problem was with using the rotating section to generate power, which would necessitate sapping its rotational kinetic energy (which would in turn need to be replenished by the reactor).
But GB knew what I was talking about, and also knew it was nonsense, so it was never in WiH, anyways. :p
And I second Snail's motion.
-
You could just put chemical jets on the spinny bit and spin it that way :V:
-
You could just put chemical jets on the spinny bit and spin it that way :V:
yes...YES!! i like where this is going!
wait....lets think about the poor bastard that has to go out the and replace them when the burn out... having bad merry go-round flashbacks...
-
Remember that breaking and starging system you mentioned in your previous post? That would be a good use for it, would it not?
-
So how does the Karuna not roll to one direction without a counter-torque? I assume it could be a smaller spinny bit inside the big spinny bit, spinning in the opposite direction but a bit faster since it's smaller.
-
Remember that breaking and starging system you mentioned in your previous post? That would be a good use for it, would it not?
No, no, we have to conserve the kinetic energy. Let the poor bastard go out while it's spinning.
-
Probably not a big concern. Compared to the amount of energy required to fire a Karuna's kinetic kill weapons, starting and stopping the rotating section should be negligible.
-
(I think there might have been a specific reason for the spinny section, though).
Gravity?
"The most noteworthy design concept is the utilisation of a rotating section, creating gravity for those aboard the vessel. This greatly reduces the need for power hungry gravity plating, and serves as a platform for the ships medium range sensor arrays giving them an outstanding field of view. It also acts as a centrifugal power generator that powers most of the secondary subsystems leaving the main reactors free to deliver more power to the engines, weapons and other primary subsystems. - UEFg Karuna
How can it act as a power generator? Woudnt it take more energy to spin it up in the first place? Or have Feds invented perpetuum mobile? :D
EDIT: nevermind, already answered.
-
(I think there might have been a specific reason for the spinny section, though).
Gravity?
"The most noteworthy design concept is the utilisation of a rotating section, creating gravity for those aboard the vessel. This greatly reduces the need for power hungry gravity plating, and serves as a platform for the ships medium range sensor arrays giving them an outstanding field of view. It also acts as a centrifugal power generator that powers most of the secondary subsystems leaving the main reactors free to deliver more power to the engines, weapons and other primary subsystems. - UEFg Karuna
How can it act as a power generator? Woudnt it take more energy to spin it up in the first place? Or have Feds invented perpetuum mobile? :D
EDIT: nevermind, already answered.
I suppose if you twist the wording slightly the rotators could be considered more like a flywheel rather than a generator, so for normal running the ship uses the main reactors but in situations like combat where you need all the power you can get you hook up the secondary generator drive shaft to the rotating section and let the power generated from that power your minor systems. When combat is over run the generator in reverse until the rotator is back up to speed and disengage the generator.
-
Or you could just ignore that tech description because it was never in War in Heaven.
-
That was actually a neat idea, to use the momentum of the wheel as a battery back up.
If we imagine that the bulk of the mass of the rotating things are more or less at a radius of 60m, each with a thousand tons, we can have this neat formula:
E = 1/2 Iw^2
E = 1/2 ((m1m2/(m1+m2))d^2) * 16^2
E = 1/2((1 000 000^2/ 2 000 000) * 60^2) * 256
E = 230 400 000 000 J
E = 230 GigaJoules.
Pretty awesome. If you think that a barrel of oil has 6 gigajoules give or take, we can see that this entire design is utterly inneficient :lol:
-
The first two lines are fine...its the assertion that it actually generates power that's dubious. If only it just read "The most noteworthy design concept is the utilisation of a rotating section, creating gravity for those aboard the vessel. This greatly reduces the need for power hungry gravity plating, and serves as a platform for the ships medium range sensor arrays giving them an outstanding field of view."...if only..
-
Argh stop it!
-
Argh stop it!
That would release the energy that was put into starting it, but due to the inherent efficiency of all non-ideal systems, not all the energy would be in usable form.
-
I've lways held on to the belief that for any "techy stuff", the assumption of "wizards did it with beany magic" pretty much covers any doubts I had.
I'm sticking to it :yes:
-
Because having different coloured beams for different races looks cool. That's about it in my opinion.
-
But the "blue beam users" are the same race and even faction as the "green beam users", just a new generation of ships with new technology.
-
x-ray beams rocks. They can be visualized by having the target ship suddenly become a fried skeleton of itself.
-
I seem to recall reading somewhere that particle beams are probably a better bet, thanks to the fact that E=mv2/2 gets closer and closer to E=mc2 the faster you accelerate the particles.
-
I seem to recall reading somewhere that particle beams are probably a better bet, thanks to the fact that E=mv2/2 gets closer and closer to E=mc2 the faster you accelerate the particles.
Due to relativistic corrections, E=mv2/2 actually exceeds E=mc2 at somewhere around 87% of the speed of light (the full kinetic energy equation for a fast-moving object is E=mv2/[2*SQRT(1-v2/c2)]). The chief disadvantage of particle beams is that they would lose cohesion much more rapidly than lasers and would therefore have a much shorter range. Still, by "short range," we're talking thousands of kilometers versus several light-seconds. Not really enough of a limitation to make trouble for FS2 combat.
-
Rail guns.
-
Why is the Prometheus cannon green? Why does the Hercules have four engines and not six? Why do a lot of UEF ships a spinny section?
They're all design-related questions that likely had little "scientific" support and were merely chosen for aesthetic effect (I think there might have been a specific reason for the spinny section, though).
I can live with being a pawn if the game makes sense!
OT: For me at least, blue reminds me of amped up AAA beams, something like a tier up from ultraAAA. It gives precisely the impression of focus and penetration that Battutta mentioned, maybe not for the same reason.
OffT: The Karuna's pretty big. You don't have to fill the entire centrifuge with space that people are meant to say in. The tips would be filled with sensors, centrifugal generators (how is this intelligent? If you hook up an electric generator to the moving parts, all you do is increase the resistance on the engine running the spinning motion, for net energy loss compared to no generators), and gyms.
-
Guys there are no centrifugal generators
-
There are no Shivans in BWO.
-
There is no Gargant.
-
There is no Spoon.
-
based on observations, as only the new ships GTVA like Raynor and the Chimera, this type of weapon used,
placing a queen Ice Beam Cannon in a GTD Hecate, (assuming that a reactor was a chaplain is able to feed)
the beam of light will remain thin, very cohesion, and accurate, but green, maintain the properties of cohesion and precision for designing the beam cannon, but maybe would lose rank and damage to be powered by a standard reactor, and not a new-generation reactor (Meson)
understanding that the color blue was chosen aesthetically, it will only look for a logical, to be applied, but also explained the weapons when they are, more lethal sound xD
Thanks for responding!
-
Actually the idea of updating older weapons not with the punch of the new, but as if they are better optimized with new technologies and new "focusing" ideas, etc. sounds pretty well.
-
Reminds me a little bit of the Iowas or Midway...how is this called in englisch...combat refit?
-
based on observations, as only the new ships GTVA like Raynor and the Chimera, this type of weapon used,
placing a queen Ice Beam Cannon in a GTD Hecate, (assuming that a reactor was a chaplain is able to feed)
The problem is, in BP fluff, retrofitting the new beams on the old ships is not an option for the GTVA, given that they are rather spending the money on entirely new ships. In addition, the new beam designs are a big departure from the old ones, and retrofitting is not a straightforward procedure.
-
In the case of the Aeolus though, they're building entirely new ships, so it's not so really retrofitting.
-
Aeolus, though, was designed with old beams in mind.
Since new beams are power hungry, large and require a special kind of emiter (as seen on most new GTVA ships), adding them to Aeolus is not worth the cost, since used properly, it shouldn't need to use them, being an antifighter ship.
-
Aeolus, though, was designed with old beams in mind.
Since new beams are power hungry, large and require a special kind of emiter (as seen on most new GTVA ships), adding them to Aeolus is not worth the cost, since used properly, it shouldn't need to use them, being an antifighter ship.
yes, it is useless to adapt the GTC Aeolus to use the new beam emitters, and that other ships met the anti-capital function much better than this, and besides its main role is to ship escort
but taking the conversation a little later I think it can be quite helpful for GTVA, place a beam emitters "Ice Queen" at the tip of the GTD Hecate
Replacing the Crypt Hammer, changing the beam emitter, and adapting it to be used by Hecate, would be a sort of "Green Queen", less effective than the "Ice Queen" yes, of course, but I'm sure that the modification will would give a little more range and higher precision and talking about a destroyer, I think the modification may be worth,
-
If the upgrade is doing only that, increasing slightly the range/power, then it's definitely not worth it. Crypt Hammers (BGreens for those who don't read tech descriptions) are much cheaper than retrofitting the destroyer, they are reliable, and they are easily overloaded, which, according to the tech description, has become common practice since the whole technology got perfected. This is used and abused in WiH in both missions where Hecates are involved.
This kind of stability and reliability won't be found on jury-rigged retrofit.
-
If the upgrade is doing only that, increasing slightly the range/power, then it's definitely not worth it. Crypt Hammers (BGreens for those who don't read tech descriptions) are much cheaper than retrofitting the destroyer, they are reliable, and they are easily overloaded, which, according to the tech description, has become common practice since the whole technology got perfected. This is used and abused in WiH in both missions where Hecates are involved.
This kind of stability and reliability won't be found on jury-rigged retrofit.
there is no way of knowing how it would affect the modification, that is something that only BP guys know ^ ^
it can increase the range, I'm sure, I think the theory is more cohesion = more can stretch if you lose the ability to do damage
-
there is no way of knowing how it would affect the modification, that is something that only BP guys know ^ ^
They don't know a thing 'til they make it. :nervous:
-
there is no way of knowing how it would affect the modification, that is something that only BP guys know ^ ^
They don't know a thing 'til they make it. :nervous:
Touche
-
But why would they improve the Hecates anti-capship capabilities, when they try to avoid putting the Hecate in that situation as much as they possibly can. The Hecate is a carrier, not a destroyer hunter.
For that you got strike corvettes and in really tight situations Titans, Raynors or even Orions.
And while it isn't specifically mentioned in any fluff I read, I wouldn't be surprised if the GTVA has plans to phase out their Hecates and replace them with Titans as soon as the got enough of those build.
-
Because every time the Hecates got jumped during the NTF/2nd Shivan conflicts they got creamed
-
Putting a better beam up front wouldn't help much. The UEF would just try to pin them down from other angles, and then you'd have wasted millions of credits for nuthin'.
-
Yup. Not to mention how fragile the beam dishes are, already on a reliable design, would probably be even more fragile on a jury-rigged retrofit.
The Hecate is just not a anti-cap design. They're already being phased out, as quickly as the GTVA can build Titans and Raynors, aka slowly.
-
Yup. Not to mention how fragile the beam dishes are, already on a reliable design, would probably be even more fragile on a jury-rigged retrofit.
The Hecate is just not a anti-cap design. They're already being phased out, as quickly as the GTVA can build Titans and Raynors, aka slowly.
Ok!..
if the titan is excellent, Hecate paresca makes a piece of trash
-
Hm, I don't think they phase the Hecates out.
The Titan is something like a strike carrier.
Under normal condition it send her Squadrons, but if the need arises, they will jump and blast the hell out of an enemy.
The Hecate is a dedicated carrier, able to fend of enemy cruisers perhaps and I guess, they are a lot cheaper to build and maintain than Titans.
-
Wrong. The Hecate is a failed design in BP continuity. A dedicated carrier is not a survivable concept, not in BP. Yes, Titans are more expensive. But they are also vastly more capable. The Hecate's many, many drawbacks mean that the class will be retired as soon as the GTVA can afford to do so.
The Hecate is a dedicated carrier, able to fend of enemy cruisers perhaps and I guess, they are a lot cheaper to build and maintain than Titans.
Only if said Cruiser is a) terminally stupid and comes out of subspace in front of the Hecate, b) the Cruiser isn't a Lilith, and c) the Cruiser comes in unsupported. Hecates cannot defend themselves adequately if they get jumped.
-
Crizza's right, though - the Hecate is not going anywhere soon if only because it's a capable fighter platform and the GTVA needs those.
-
Hm, if the Hecate is a failed design...
Does it have one or two wings of bombers on standby, to buy time as her jump drives charge?
-
Hm, if the Hecate is a failed design...
Does it have one or two wings of bombers on standby, to buy time as her jump drives charge?
Well, I wonder if the Phoenicia had some bomber wings while the destroyer was about to get grill'd by the Sathanas...
-
Hm, if the Hecate is a failed design...
Does it have one or two wings of bombers on standby, to buy time as her jump drives charge?
Well, I wonder if the Phoenicia had some bomber wings while the destroyer was about to get grill'd by the Sathanas...
In Soviet Gamma Draconis, Hecate buys time for YOU!
-
Of course the Phoenicia had bomber support. They had an entire squadron of Sekhmets engaging the Sathanas at the same time. Granted, that's not the Phoenicia's own complement, but the game had to use the player in that mission somehow. :P
-
Of course the Phoenicia had bomber support. They had an entire squadron of Sekhmets engaging the Sathanas at the same time. Granted, that's not the Phoenicia's own complement, but the game had to use the player in that mission somehow. :P
There were Sekhmets in that mission?
-
A whole wing of Bakhas. :)
-
Of course the Phoenicia had bomber support. They had an entire squadron of Sekhmets engaging the Sathanas at the same time. Granted, that's not the Phoenicia's own complement, but the game had to use the player in that mission somehow. :P
There were Sekhmets in that mission?
Yes, one of the few (if not the only) mission where you can fly a Sekhmet.
-
How long has it been since you played the retail campaign ?
You never have the opportunity to fly the Sekhmet in retail. Not once. You only fly against it in the first SOC mission, but that's about it. All you fly in Bearbaiting and High Noon are Bakhas.
-
How long has it been since you played the retail campaign ?
You never have the opportunity to fly the Sekhmet in retail. Not once. You only fly against it in the first SOC mission, but that's about it. All you fly in Bearbaiting and High Noon are Bakhas.
Damnit.
-
Yay I confused my bombers.
I am, however, fairly sure there's more than one wing of bombers in that mission.
-
Two wings IIRC. Doesn't really make a whole squadron, but here you go.
-
Isn't the 2nd wing only send in to help in the cleanup/blockade once the Sath has jumped out?
-
Hm, if the Hecate is a failed design...
Does it have one or two wings of bombers on standby, to buy time as her jump drives charge?
Well, I wonder if the Phoenicia had some bomber wings while the destroyer was about to get grill'd by the Sathanas...
In Soviet Gamma Draconis, Hecate buys time for YOU!
LOL
Hecate was always a horrible ship is fit for the battle between capital ships, and against the UEF is useless by itself can only launch raids, with their fighters and bombers, while she is waiting for some light years away, talking bombers,
-
Due to relativistic corrections, E=mv2/2 actually exceeds E=mc2 at somewhere around 87% of the speed of light (the full kinetic energy equation for a fast-moving object is E=mv2/[2*SQRT(1-v2/c2)]). The chief disadvantage of particle beams is that they would lose cohesion much more rapidly than lasers and would therefore have a much shorter range. Still, by "short range," we're talking thousands of kilometers versus several light-seconds. Not really enough of a limitation to make trouble for FS2 combat.
No it doesn't. Relativistic KE pulls away from Newtonian KE pretty quickly as you get close to c. The actual formula for relativistic KE is T = mc^2/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2) - mc^2, by the way. Tell Wolfram Alpha to graph x^2/2 and 1/sqrt(1-x^2) - 1 and you'll see what I mean.
And I could have sworn that I flew a Sekhmet in bog standard retail FS2 in Bearbaiting once upon a time. I do distinctly remember having two banks of Helios for that mission.
-
T???
-
T???
Yes, T. That's honestly pretty standard usage in physics for kinetic energy. And here's the Wolfram Alpha link (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=graph+T+%3d+299792458^2%2fsqrt%281-v^2%2f299792458^2%29-299792458^2++and+T+%3d+v^2%2f2%2c+v+%3E%3d+0&incParTime=true) for the plot.
-
Neat
-
And I could have sworn that I flew a Sekhmet in bog standard retail FS2 in Bearbaiting once upon a time. I do distinctly remember having two banks of Helios for that mission.
Sure you weren't playing one of the many fan remakes?
-
Due to relativistic corrections, E=mv2/2 actually exceeds E=mc2 at somewhere around 87% of the speed of light (the full kinetic energy equation for a fast-moving object is E=mv2/[2*SQRT(1-v2/c2)]). The chief disadvantage of particle beams is that they would lose cohesion much more rapidly than lasers and would therefore have a much shorter range. Still, by "short range," we're talking thousands of kilometers versus several light-seconds. Not really enough of a limitation to make trouble for FS2 combat.
No it doesn't. Relativistic KE pulls away from Newtonian KE pretty quickly as you get close to c. The actual formula for relativistic KE is T = mc^2/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2) - mc^2, by the way. Tell Wolfram Alpha to graph x^2/2 and 1/sqrt(1-x^2) - 1 and you'll see what I mean.
Yep, you're right, I had the equation wrong. Oops.