Hard Light Productions Forums
Modding, Mission Design, and Coding => The Modding Workshop => Topic started by: Legate Damar on May 05, 2012, 01:37:24 pm
-
Possible or not?
And what about dorsal/ventral thrusters? Sort of like how in Descent you could slide in any direction.
-
Well, side thrust is possible, although I'm not so sure about afterburners, you would have to look at the ships.tbl page on the wiki.
-
I know about lateral thrust, I mean afterburners. I didn't see a way to add them on the table so I figured the code could be modified for it maybe.
-
It's possible. Note, you've got three values on +Aburn Max Vel:
The first two control the sidethrust speed while afterburning. Note, it won't change the acceleration, just maximum velocity. Or so I think.
-
And what about dorsal/ventral thrusters? Sort of like how in Descent you could slide in any direction.
Sorry I should have specified that by side thrust I actually meant that any side of the ship could be given thrust capabilities. My bad :).
EDIT - ninja'd
-
It's possible. Note, you've got three values on +Aburn Max Vel:
The first two control the sidethrust speed while afterburning. Note, it won't change the acceleration, just maximum velocity. Or so I think.
Well I was thinking something like if a missle is heading right for me from the front at the last second I could burn to the side and avoid it. Would make for an interesting tactic.
-
why not just make faster lats then?
you really want another key set to press?
-
Just wondering if it could be done. Then maybe incorporate it into the AI for more challenging enemies.
-
Impractical, when one considers how afterburn actually works.
-
low accel time lateral thrust is already very good for dodging missiles, and pretty damn annoying on the AI. No need for AB.
-
Impractical, when one considers how afterburn actually works.
Really? Do you think reverse afterburners should be taken out of the engine too? Be very careful when making arguments based on realism.
-
i think the thrusters get boosted when the burners are on, but im not sure. its been awhile since i messed with that stuff.
Impractical, when one considers how afterburn actually works.
Really? Do you think reverse afterburners should be taken out of the engine too? Be very careful when making arguments based on realism.
to really nitpick i dont think afterburners would work in space at all. they require bypass airflow and **** like that. ive always been of the opinion that "afterburners" are just an affectionate nickname for whatever kind of engine boost technology that the fs universe uses. if the engines are something like nuclear-electric (we know fighters have reactors of some sort), then "afterburner fuel" is actually a capacitor bank, that stores a charge for temporarily boosting the thrust output of the engine. spin this into your technobabble however you see fit.
-
Tachyon's afterburner stored a small amount of engine plasma into a compact containment vessel. The craft's power system would sap a bit of engine power while doing so, and you could control how quickly the vessel was charged/ how slowly your craft moves until it's charged.
The burn key, would inject the contained plasma into the exhaust of the engines, thereby increasing the amount of matter being ejected from the nozzles and (theoretically) increase the amount of thrust quite a bit.
-
Yeah, conventional craft today take advantage of the fact that there is still plenty of unused oxygen in a jet exhaust -- so they inject more fuel into the stream and ignite it, producing more thrust.
-
I don't see how this as any bearing on the topic of lateral "afterburning" in space at all.
RULE OF COOL.
-
I don't see how this as any bearing on the topic of lateral "afterburning" in space at all.
RULE OF COOL.
:yes:
-
I don't see how this as any bearing on the topic of lateral "afterburning" in space at all.
RULE OF COOL.
Well let me explain. First you need to realize that I'm incredibly smart. Then you'll understand why [INSERT THEORY HERE] doesn't make sense in FS if you consider all of my knowledge on how it works in real life.
-
Err. I'd rather just attribute all that as fan chatter. :rolleyes: I don't think anyone was actually suggesting it not be done in FS, except perhaps G0atmaster (and he might have been talking about how the afterburner actually works in the engine or the AI or FS, not r/l)
-
Hearing on this topic reminded me of the Quick Boost thrusters on Armored Cores in the 4th generation. Primarily a means of jinking and dodging as well as stopping momentum. I've always imagined such a technique used in FS2, dunno how good it would be considering the AI will likely not be able to perform such things with any sort of skill. Either way I'm pretty sure this is about a sudden near instantaneous boost in a direction, so frankly I'd not push up the normal lateral thrust acceleration values alone cause it would be rather perverse considering I strafe all the time.
-
Space afterburners =/= aircraft afterburners.
Assuming that FS2 ships use some type of plasma exhaust (which given that fusion reactors are alluded to, it is more than likely that this is the case), then all you really need for afterburners is to shoot MORE PLASMA through the engine, or perhaps heat the plasma hotter to eject it faster - both of which can be done from a dedicated reserve of charged plasma or a giant capacitor bank. That explains the little afterburner bar. When the plasma accumulators/capacitors are empty, you just need to recharge them. The on-board reactor takes care of that.
Chemical-burning rocket afterburners wouldn't function like this in the slightest.
If there are engines on the front/sides/top/bottom of the ships to maneuver and steer, then there is no real reason that lateral or reverse 'afterburners' are impractical. Calling it 'afterburner' is a little bit of a nomenclature error methinks, if they really are plasma thrusters - a more proper term would be 'overload' or 'overcharge'. It is very obvious that afterburners make things go faster, which is most likely why volition called it afterburner. It's instantly familiar to everyone.
My Singularity mod features lateral thrust and reverse thrust at half normal forward speed - because those thrusters are smaller. Forward is the obvious direction for afterburners. Backwards isn't much of a stretch. Full slide afterburners would require some pretty awesome maneuvering jets though. Although this part is really just personal preference for some semblance of realism along with the rule of cool.
-
Regarding nomenclature, remember that rifles went by "rifled musket" for quite some time. Or that despite the floppy being retired, "save" buttons still have a picture of one.
People prefer applying old names to new things, so calling it an "afterburner" is perfectly logical, if technically inaccurate.
-
Space afterburners =/= aircraft afterburners.
Assuming that FS2 ships use some type of plasma exhaust (which given that fusion reactors are alluded to, it is more than likely that this is the case), then all you really need for afterburners is to shoot MORE PLASMA through the engine, or perhaps heat the plasma hotter to eject it faster - both of which can be done from a dedicated reserve of charged plasma or a giant capacitor bank. That explains the little afterburner bar. When the plasma accumulators/capacitors are empty, you just need to recharge them. The on-board reactor takes care of that.
Chemical-burning rocket afterburners wouldn't function like this in the slightest.
If there are engines on the front/sides/top/bottom of the ships to maneuver and steer, then there is no real reason that lateral or reverse 'afterburners' are impractical. Calling it 'afterburner' is a little bit of a nomenclature error methinks, if they really are plasma thrusters - a more proper term would be 'overload' or 'overcharge'. It is very obvious that afterburners make things go faster, which is most likely why volition called it afterburner. It's instantly familiar to everyone.
My Singularity mod features lateral thrust and reverse thrust at half normal forward speed - because those thrusters are smaller. Forward is the obvious direction for afterburners. Backwards isn't much of a stretch. Full slide afterburners would require some pretty awesome maneuvering jets though. Although this part is really just personal preference for some semblance of realism along with the rule of cool.
When I said afterburners I just used the term the game calls them that everyone is familiar with.
In-universe, the most advanced/manueverable ships in my mod just have one rear-mounted engine and no thrusters anywhere else.
Instead, they maneuver using something called GIDF (Gravitational Inertia Distortion Field).
This is how it works (Warning: Technobabble)
The GIDF projects a graviton field around the ship, which can be shifted at the speed of light to redistribute the craft's inertia and center of mass anywhere in the field, allowing it to change direction and speed near instantly.
The lateral "afterburners" I'm talking about are not any kind of thruster, jet, or engine, but the effect of shifting a high amount of inertia to the side with the GIDF.
-
I want to take minor pot-shots at your technobabble, because it's also for great justice:
Inertia... you need to be careful when using the term, but it's alright in this instance. The center of mass, however, unless you're butchering the ship from the inside out, will change very little unless the shape of the ship changes or you're shifting the consumables. The "grav-drive" should do nothing but project a new acceleration vector, thus shifting the force vector on the ship, which thus changes its direction (thus altering the inertia of the vessel ;) ) and velocity in that direction. Ideally it also maintains an ideal amount of internal force on and in the vessel, allowing the crew and the ship to survive truly rigorous maneuvers.
-
I meant center of gravity, not mass, sorry.
EDIT: Oh and it does compensate for internal intertia, but only to a limited extent. This is by design, so physically weak and fragile races like Terrans cannot pilot a GIDF ship without killing themselves.
-
Then it's a bad design. I hope you enjoy working with hairline cracks and impending strucural failures in the near future as well. :p
-
The dangerous inertial forces only occur in the cockpit
-
Remind me to never hire you as an engineer. In fact, I'll fire you in advance. Just sayin'...
-
That's "artificer" in this campaign's lingo
-
The dangerous inertial forces only occur in the cockpit
lol
-
The dangerous inertial forces only occur in the cockpit
Do you know how stupid this sounds?
-
The dangerous inertial forces only occur in the cockpit
so it only shifts the center of gravity/mass/whatever you technobabble it out as inside the cokpit? woohoo, schlock mercenary gravy guns come to mind.
gravy alluding to what exactly will happen with the pilot. if you needed an explanation and couldnt infer it from the "name". seeing as your general lack of understanding of anything is, yes, you need the explanation.
-
Shivans can survive it.
Other races, not so much.
It can still be disabled, of course.
-
I believe this thread is the reason why you typically don't explain the technobabble unless it's absolutely necessary, especally since as noted above you shattered the Suspension of Disbelief with your bad explanation ;) You would have been fine just calling it a grav-drive that humans can't survive using (or whatever Fun With Acronyms variant you prefer), then letting the player work out the rest in his or her head. (I also somehow imagine that, given FS limits, it'd be quite simple to make a fighter such that a human could survive lateral ABing easily, whether it be by dampening, some method of ensuring the pilot is perpendicular to the new acceleration vector, etc. - stuff that's a pain to do but should be simple if you're manipulating gravity on-the-fly. Mayhaps a plot point? :p)
... speaking of gravity drives, does anyone remember Microsoft Space Simulator? IIRC, they had a ship that projected a gravity field in front of it to move - the Callisto, I think.
-
Yeah they could build a version that humans could survive. Point is that they didn't.
-
But its stupid to say "they built it with dampers everywhere BUT the cockpit", because apparently the pilots are more durable than the rest of the ship?? Then why do you even need a ship.
-
But its stupid to say "they built it with dampers everywhere BUT the cockpit", because apparently the pilots are more durable than the rest of the ship?? Then why do you even need a ship.
Apparently, Shivans don't have a big enough colon to serve as a chemical propellant chamber for long space flights.
-
Well then you don't need a ship, just gotta strap boosters on. You're more durable than the ship anyway.
-
There's also the issue of subspace drives, weaponry, etc.
Or it could be a failsafe that only disables the dampers in the cockpit when a non-Shivan is detected in it.
-
Silly security system. Why not just disable *everything* if a non-Shivan is detected in it?
-
I believe this thread is the reason why you typically don't explain the technobabble unless it's absolutely necessary, especally since
-
I believe this thread is the reason why you typically don't explain the technobabble unless it's absolutely necessary, especally since
Well if you're going to explain exactly how it works be prepared to get picked apart for it~
-
Because then they might find a way around it... better to let them think it's working, then when they try to fly it then they die and it autoplots a jump to the nearest Shivan base. So they get their fighter back. Sort of like, did you see Stargate SG-1? They put a failsafe in the Goa'uld fighter that made it fly back to the base when it was captured.
See in FS1/FS2 a Shivan fighter always gets captured, figured they would get wise to that and take precautions against it.
-
Apparently, Shivans don't have a big enough colon to serve as a chemical propellant chamber for long space flights.
They do if they use this much bull**** physics!
-
Because then they might find a way around it... better to let them think it's working, then when they try to fly it then they die and it autoplots a jump to the nearest Shivan base. So they get their fighter back. Sort of like, did you see Stargate SG-1? They put a failsafe in the Goa'uld fighter that made it fly back to the base when it was captured.
See in FS1/FS2 a Shivan fighter always gets captured, figured they would get wise to that and take precautions against it.
If I can find a way around shutting down everything, I can find a way around shutting down of one system. Most likely. Just sayin'.
Better off not letting them fly anything at all than just nerfing one capability. Just make it shut itself down and fly back with the live pilot inside, for questioning, or disposal. Don't wait on them *discovering* how to activate something which will kill them. That's really silly. What if they never activate it and use it to infiltrate your ranks again anyway?
Disabling one non-critical system solves nothing. Shut the whole thing down, have it seal itself, and return to the carrier. Might still bite you in the ass due to giving your position away, but at least you're eliminating the possibility of it coming back to haunt you as much as possible.
Don't bank on "OH HEY THIS IS A WORKING FIGHTER I WONDER WHAT THIS BUTTON DOES>", why bother with such a stupid failsafe? It's not very "fail safe" at all, and is rather prone to actually failing to do anything.
-
See in FS1/FS2 a Shivan fighter always gets captured, figured they would get wise to that and take precautions against it.
Assumes they care. They might not; numbers are small and effect they can determine may not be serious. (Particularly when there might have been no survivors to tell anyone in FS1.)
-
Because then they might find a way around it... better to let them think it's working, then when they try to fly it then they die and it autoplots a jump to the nearest Shivan base. So they get their fighter back. Sort of like, did you see Stargate SG-1? They put a failsafe in the Goa'uld fighter that made it fly back to the base when it was captured.
See in FS1/FS2 a Shivan fighter always gets captured, figured they would get wise to that and take precautions against it.
If I can find a way around shutting down everything, I can find a way around shutting down of one system. Most likely. Just sayin'.
Not if it suddenly happens when you're in the cockpit and you die instantly from inertial forces.
Better off not letting them fly anything at all than just nerfing one capability. Just make it shut itself down and fly back with the live pilot inside, for questioning, or disposal.
Shivans aren't exactly big on capturing enemies... they did it to Bosch but that was a special case.
Don't wait on them *discovering* how to activate something which will kill them. That's really silly. What if they never activate it and use it to infiltrate your ranks again anyway?
If they capture the ship but never try to activate it? What good is it to them then?
Disabling one non-critical system solves nothing. Shut the whole thing down, have it seal itself, and return to the carrier. Might still bite you in the ass due to giving your position away, but at least you're eliminating the possibility of it coming back to haunt you as much as possible.
It would only have to shut down after it's already in flight and ready to jump, else it would be analyzed and maybe reactivated again.
Don't bank on "OH HEY THIS IS A WORKING FIGHTER I WONDER WHAT THIS BUTTON DOES>", why bother with such a stupid failsafe? It's not very "fail safe" at all, and is rather prone to actually failing to do anything.
There is no button... the pilot doesn't need to do anything to make it happen. It just happens when the ship's computer detects that it is safe to jump and there is a non-Shivan flying it.
Assumes they care. They might not; numbers are small and effect they can determine may not be serious. (Particularly when there might have been no survivors to tell anyone in FS1.)
Well for the purposes of this idea let's say they do care.