Hard Light Productions Forums

General FreeSpace => FreeSpace Discussion => Topic started by: Lepanto on January 27, 2014, 11:11:01 am

Title: FS Physics and Distances
Post by: Lepanto on January 27, 2014, 11:11:01 am
As everyone knows, FS ships move really slowly in realspace (by any remotely realistic standards) and fight at visual range, even when real-life spaceships should move and engage at far greater speeds and distances. Of course, I'm well aware that FS is designed for gameplay first, and scientific accuracy a distant second. I just want to know how HLP users, especially those who want to add a bit of a realistic hard sci-fi edge to their campaigns, prefer to rationalize FS's soft sci-fi physics.
Title: Re: FS Physics and Distances
Post by: Grizzly on January 27, 2014, 11:16:14 am
Table mods! :D Sushi's velocity mod rather recommended.

Aside from that... No, not really interested. FS2 always emphasized the "Fi" part of sci-fi anyway, and if we want an hard sci-fi edge, we've got von Nuemann probes :P.
Title: Re: FS Physics and Distances
Post by: General Battuta on January 27, 2014, 12:00:53 pm
There is no genuinely effective rationalization. One thing you can do, however, is accept that subspace drives are so much more powerful than reaction drives for traversing long distances that most engagements begin with everyone jumping into a common reference frame and then maneuvering at low relative velocities.

It's not much but it's there!
Title: Re: FS Physics and Distances
Post by: MatthTheGeek on January 27, 2014, 12:33:09 pm
It never made sense, never tried to, and never pretended to.

I believe the amount of campaigns produced in the FS universe is a testament that most people don't care. It's a game.
Title: Re: FS Physics and Distances
Post by: Mobius on January 27, 2014, 12:38:56 pm
Option 3. When I think of the universe FreeSpace is proposed to describe, I imagine different mechanics with stuff like higher speeds (as seen in the Intro cutscenes of both games), deadlier beams (Behemoth Vs. Vigilant anim, FS2's cover) and more effective blob turrets.
Title: Re: FS Physics and Distances
Post by: General Battuta on January 27, 2014, 12:43:11 pm
Option 3. When I think of the universe FreeSpace is proposed to describe, I imagine different mechanics with stuff like higher speeds (as seen in the Intro cutscenes of both games), deadlier beams (Behemoth Vs. Vigilant anim, FS2's cover) and more effective blob turrets.

This is fine as just a light remix but if you move towards genuine realism you accidentally render every weapon system and combat doctrine in the setting malformed and irrelevant.

You don't have to alter beams at all to make them as effective as the FS2 cover art, and if you do you accidentally create a really boring game.
Title: Re: FS Physics and Distances
Post by: Luis Dias on January 27, 2014, 12:48:38 pm
A space battle would actually look more like Ian M Bank's kind of war, which is extremely boring and just too abstract.
Title: Re: FS Physics and Distances
Post by: General Battuta on January 27, 2014, 12:52:26 pm
I love that bit in Surface Detail where the protagonist's on the ROU watching a battle and she's like 'wow it's all going so fast!' and the ROU says 'oh no, the battle was over in less than a minute. This is a replay.'
Title: Re: FS Physics and Distances
Post by: Phantom Hoover on January 27, 2014, 01:04:22 pm
GOU, not ROU
Title: Re: FS Physics and Distances
Post by: General Battuta on January 27, 2014, 01:07:26 pm
I'll ROU your GOU, foo
Title: Re: FS Physics and Distances
Post by: The E on January 27, 2014, 01:35:44 pm
ROU ROU FIGHT DA POWER
Title: Re: FS Physics and Distances
Post by: Mongoose on January 27, 2014, 01:50:45 pm
Option 1, dun care, just fly and shoot things.
Title: Re: FS Physics and Distances
Post by: Phantom Hoover on January 27, 2014, 01:52:22 pm
option 1 seems essentially the same as option 2
Title: Re: FS Physics and Distances
Post by: mjn.mixael on January 27, 2014, 01:54:56 pm
Option 1 indeed. In fact, I would find it rather annoying if a story went out of it's way to explain any sort of -non physics- or whatever sci-fi magic is going on. We got enough of that technobabble in Star Trek. :)

I prefer to just play it and enjoy it without it trying to prove to my mind that it actually could happen.
Title: Re: FS Physics and Distances
Post by: General Battuta on January 27, 2014, 02:05:59 pm
Option 3 is pretty much Objectively Wrong since everything about the setting falls apart if you try to pretend ranges and velocities are greater. You end up with a nightmare world of kamikaze drones, constant unblockable RKV bombardment, and no sexy little manned fighters to fly. Jump nodes also become impassable barriers since you either come out of them too slow (and die) or too fast (and you hit the kinetic mines and die).
Title: Re: FS Physics and Distances
Post by: 666maslo666 on January 27, 2014, 03:56:07 pm
In a world with subspace, what would you actually accomplish with a powerful engine capable of great speeds? No matter how fast you go, your velocity can be matched with a single subspace jump. Similarly, its useless for interception, when the opponent can just jump away when you get to him using your sublight engine. Its better to put that ship space a big engine would take up into more powerful capacitors enabling more frequent subspace jumps. Its pretty logical that Freespace ships are slow.

The small combat distance is unexplainable though.
Title: Re: FS Physics and Distances
Post by: Dragon on January 27, 2014, 03:57:58 pm
Note, the "realistic space battle" doesn't necessarily have to be the boring, simplistic image people often invoke. It all depends on tech level and conditions. Most analyses dealing with space battles simplify a lot and assume even more. For example, "unblockable RKV bombardment" won't happen if you don't have tech to propel stuff to such velocities. IRL, lasers lose coherence after a while, missiles can be shot down and mass drivers are limited by a number of structural and energetic constraints. Most "realistic" discussions of space warfare assume that those difficulties were overcome, but it's perfectly possible to write a story in which they weren't. It's even possible to make things such as fighters and "space stealth" perfectly viable, as long as you have a good idea of what kind of "tech level" it'd take.

That said, it'd take a mighty odd way of tech development to end up with anything remotely resembling FS2. Not to mention the fact flight physics are utterly wrong (not impossible to change) and orbital mechanics are not simulated (big problem, orbital motion is very different from what we're used to, and fighting for empty space sounds unlikely).
Title: Re: FS Physics and Distances
Post by: General Battuta on January 27, 2014, 04:03:16 pm
Unfortunately in FreeSpace you have the tech to propel things to arbitrary relative velocities built right in.
Title: Re: FS Physics and Distances
Post by: JCDNWarrior on January 27, 2014, 04:21:05 pm
If a more realistic way opens up more fun and unique gameplay and faster, riskier (collission) movement, then I am certainly for it, however for Freespace (and mods like BP) I prefer keeping it as it is with incremental improvements. What Dimensional Eclipse (and other mods) do is also really nice though, raising the speed of flight and general distance that ships engage eachother in. I believe both methods could work within one campaign, in particular if you can assign ships to fulfill certain roles between the two methods and ping-pong the player more towards vanguard, rearguard/artillery, and the main force.
Of course, then the main question of how subspace and subspace tactics/chess is involved would appear, I believe.

Title: Re: FS Physics and Distances
Post by: General Battuta on January 27, 2014, 04:38:15 pm
In general I'm a big fan of velocity mods but I do worry about the way that it actually slows down the gameplay. It's a more deliberate, less twitch-based game with higher velocities and that's not always what I'm looking for.
Title: Re: FS Physics and Distances
Post by: Rheyah on January 27, 2014, 05:23:59 pm
I delight in the moronic physics of Freespace.  It lets me have all my scientist power fantasies and talk absolute nonsense and yet still, tell a fairly good story.

However, for one point - if you had the ability to jump across entire systems for a fraction of the energy expended moving around, why would you ever make long range, powerful engines if it came at the cost of raw firepower?

The physics are stupid as hell though and I LOVE it.  I've lost count of the number of setting discussions that can be ended with the word "subspace" ;)
Title: Re: FS Physics and Distances
Post by: Deepstar on January 27, 2014, 05:41:52 pm
I imagine if Dimensional Eclipse was released without Auto aim... it would be some kind of hell to kill even one enemy...

For me the FS Physics and distances are only gameplay wise. In escort missions, we only participate in the few minutes where the action takes place. In universe canon escort missions take hours, regardless of how fast the ships are. In my personal freespace universe, i use for my fan-fictions, the in-game speed and ranges are only scaled down versions of their "real" counterparts.

I think for gameplay reasons it makes much sense to use slower crafts.
I think the battles are much intense this way, especially if you have capital ships involved. A Colossus would not be so impressive if you can pass by it in only 5 seconds... i think the whole universe would seem much smaller. And this "greatness" was always one of the strong parts in both games, especially in FS2.
That Freespace does use arcade physics instead of Newtonian ones lies in the same reason. Play Frontier - Elite 2, Frontier: First Encounters, Independence War, which also uses slowed down vessels during fight sequences, and Homeplanet and compare it with FreeSpace and others... the battles are more intense in the latter ones and make, imho, much more fun.
Title: Re: FS Physics and Distances
Post by: General Battuta on January 27, 2014, 05:43:03 pm
Since subspace drives can clearly put you at a relative stop compared to objects with a very different velocity - for instance, jumping into orbit of another planet in the system - I think the deepest and most terrible secret of FreeSpace (which we all have to pretend we aren't aware of) is that any subspace-capable ship can be a relativistic missile. If only Koth had thought to jump the Repulse out and then arrive at the same position moving at .7 C.
Title: Re: FS Physics and Distances
Post by: niffiwan on January 27, 2014, 05:55:41 pm
The jump drive of the Repulse was still recharging when the Colossus arrived :nervous:
Title: Re: FS Physics and Distances
Post by: fightermedic on January 27, 2014, 07:04:32 pm
well
i'm creating a complete overhaul mod for the game with new flight physics, because i just can't stand the completely wrong physics that do not even try to feel realistic (mind you, not "be", just "feel"a little bit) anymore after having played Diaspora, which has the balance between realistic and gamey spot on
there's your answer i guess ;)
Title: Re: FS Physics and Distances
Post by: karajorma on January 27, 2014, 10:32:06 pm
Unfortunately in FreeSpace you have the tech to propel things to arbitrary relative velocities built right in.

I've always wondered why when you jump into the orbit of a planet you don't immediately see it disappear away at around 30km/s :p

That said, that's a flaw in almost every sci-fi setting with some sort of hyperspace travel.
Title: Re: FS Physics and Distances
Post by: Dragon on January 28, 2014, 04:25:12 pm
Since subspace drives can clearly put you at a relative stop compared to objects with a very different velocity - for instance, jumping into orbit of another planet in the system - I think the deepest and most terrible secret of FreeSpace (which we all have to pretend we aren't aware of) is that any subspace-capable ship can be a relativistic missile. If only Koth had thought to jump the Repulse out and then arrive at the same position moving at .7 C.
Well, jump drives are, by definition, not governed by the laws of physics as we know them. So, maybe there's an arbitrary limit on jumpout speed? Since ships cannot, for some reason, exceed an arbitrary speed limit relative to whatever reference frame they're all using, jumpdrives probably have the exact same limitation. It seems to be some sort of "snap to gravity well" kind of thing. That would also probably explain limited ship speeds. Since they all jump in into a common reference frame, their relative velocities would not be very high. The thing with phlebotinium is that since it isn't realistic in first place, all limits on what it can do and what it can't are set by the author.
Title: Re: FS Physics and Distances
Post by: fightermedic on January 28, 2014, 04:56:19 pm
you have to accept two things with subspace:
you must enter and exit at a very low speed, or TERRIBLE things happen
if you don't stick with that, the whole game falls apart

the way i have generally rationalized away the low speed of everything so far is that if you are flying too fast, the ship computers  and small side thrusters can't handle all the destabilizing effects of small particles hitting the ship, and then everything goes haywire
that's of course total BS, but hey, at least it's SOME reason
Title: Re: FS Physics and Distances
Post by: An4ximandros on January 28, 2014, 04:59:50 pm
I always thought it had to do with the magical mcguffin and the giant cake that lurks at the end of the infinite freespace tunnel. If you go too fast you'll reach the end of the tunnel and smash the cake. And that would be quite rude.
Title: Re: FS Physics and Distances
Post by: MatthTheGeek on January 28, 2014, 05:07:52 pm
you must enter and exit at a very low speed, or TERRIBLE things happen
Tell that to destroyers. They obviously didn't get the memo.
Title: Re: FS Physics and Distances
Post by: Luis Dias on January 28, 2014, 05:15:25 pm
I think he means by "low speeds" anything ranging below 10km/s.
Title: Re: FS Physics and Distances
Post by: 666maslo666 on January 28, 2014, 05:21:28 pm
Jump drive requires a lot of energy, presumably part of this energy may be used by the jump drive to match velocity with the other location. Typical motion of stars is on the order of tens of kilometers per second. If my calculations are right, a 100 ton ship making a typical interstellar jump with 20km/s change of velocity would thus require at least 20 TJ of energy. Fusion reactor with 1GW output can recharge this jump energy in 5.5 hours. On the other hand relativistic projectiles would need orders of magnitude more energy, making them not feasible.
Title: Re: FS Physics and Distances
Post by: fightermedic on January 28, 2014, 05:27:11 pm
I think he means by "low speeds" anything ranging below 10km/s.
of course
obviously:
more mass = higher relative speed in and out of subspace
at least that is what freespace tells us
for whatever reason
Title: Re: FS Physics and Distances
Post by: Phantom Hoover on January 28, 2014, 05:52:01 pm
The problem is that if you accept relativity you can jump out at any speed you want, because there's no privileged referenced frame (and besides, if you can match velocities on interplanetary jumps you can reach kill vehicle velocities no problem).
Title: Re: FS Physics and Distances
Post by: Dragon on January 28, 2014, 06:03:25 pm
Hence why my "snap to gravity well" proposition. Your speed needs to be low compared to the body you're orbiting (or perhaps more specifically, to the jump node's orbital velocity), due to nature of subspace and jumpdrives. Notice that all jumpdrives, even intrasystem ones, make use of jump nodes. Presumably, it's also impossible to generate a jump node moving at an arbitrary velocity, due to them being tied to gravity wells.
Title: Re: FS Physics and Distances
Post by: Luis Dias on January 28, 2014, 06:26:19 pm
I think it's obvious every single point in space is pegged to a local velocity system we should henceforth call "Plot Velocity" and it masterfully manages every single ship nearby to synchronize their relative speeds to match all other local reference frames down to an error margin of 200 m/s, which coincidentally is on the same order of magnitude of speed of the anti-Newtonian dampened engines prevalent on all ships due to something called "Game Design Constraints". Any scientist who has scratched his head thinking about this problem has always been strangely attacked by some form of psychological malady that we believe is originated by some advanced form of MYOB* hacking attack from unkonwn alien origin. Further analysis is deeply unadvised precisely for the latter referenced reason.

*Mind Your Own Business.
Title: Re: FS Physics and Distances
Post by: karajorma on January 28, 2014, 07:56:13 pm
The funny thing is that if you assume that ships must enter and exit subspace at a low velocity the low speed of Freespace ships becomes a lot more sensible. A ship travelling at much higher velocity would need several minutes to slow down before it could jump out. Higher speed might actually become somewhat of a disadvantage.
Title: Re: FS Physics and Distances
Post by: Mars on January 28, 2014, 09:43:44 pm
But FS ships clearly orbit celestial objects, and jump in at orbital speed.
Title: Re: FS Physics and Distances
Post by: karajorma on January 28, 2014, 10:08:03 pm
I mean low speed relative to whatever. Yeah, it doesn't make sense itself, but it makes something else make more sense. :p
Title: Re: FS Physics and Distances
Post by: NGTM-1R on January 28, 2014, 10:09:51 pm
I mean low speed relative to whatever. Yeah, it doesn't make sense itself, but it makes something else make more sense. :p

To be honest it can make perfect sense considering ~subspace is magic~.
Title: Re: FS Physics and Distances
Post by: General Battuta on January 28, 2014, 11:08:40 pm
Well, jump drives are, by definition, not governed by the laws of physics as we know them. So, maybe there's an arbitrary limit on jumpout speed? Since ships cannot, for some reason, exceed an arbitrary speed limit relative to whatever reference frame they're all using, jumpdrives probably have the exact same limitation. It seems to be some sort of "snap to gravity well" kind of thing. That would also probably explain limited ship speeds. Since they all jump in into a common reference frame, their relative velocities would not be very high. The thing with phlebotinium is that since it isn't realistic in first place, all limits on what it can do and what it can't are set by the author.

you have to accept two things with subspace:
you must enter and exit at a very low speed, or TERRIBLE things happen
if you don't stick with that, the whole game falls apart

the way i have generally rationalized away the low speed of everything so far is that if you are flying too fast, the ship computers  and small side thrusters can't handle all the destabilizing effects of small particles hitting the ship, and then everything goes haywire
that's of course total BS, but hey, at least it's SOME reason

Jump drive requires a lot of energy, presumably part of this energy may be used by the jump drive to match velocity with the other location. Typical motion of stars is on the order of tens of kilometers per second. If my calculations are right, a 100 ton ship making a typical interstellar jump with 20km/s change of velocity would thus require at least 20 TJ of energy. Fusion reactor with 1GW output can recharge this jump energy in 5.5 hours. On the other hand relativistic projectiles would need orders of magnitude more energy, making them not feasible.

All this withers in the face of this

The problem is that if you accept relativity you can jump out at any speed you want, because there's no privileged referenced frame (and besides, if you can match velocities on interplanetary jumps you can reach kill vehicle velocities no problem).

The velocity differential involved in jumping from, say, an inner to an outer planet is spectacular, and easily enough to turn your ship into an impactor with kinetic kill capability (or, alternately, unstoppable 'peace, mother****ers' exit velocity). You can't just 'snap to the gravity well' because you must arrive at your location with a specific vector - if you have the capability to match orbits with a given ship, and another given ship in an orbit with exactly opposite inclination, you have the capability to arrive in a head-to-head collision with anything in orbit of the local body. Put in simpler terms: if you can place yourself into an arbitrary orbit of a target body (and apparently you can), you can place yourself into an arbitrary collision orbit.

There are probably ways to finagle some fake physics to make it all work: the relative velocities of your entry and exit frames are (as suggested above) constrained by the power output of your ship...but this still leaves you with the nightmare conclusion that the optimal weapons are fighter-sized drones with subspace drives that spot targets and then jump to maximum possible relative velocity.

This reminds me a bit of the 'sound in space is all rendered by your cockpit!' argument in that it's a fundamentally doomed attempt to work backwards from a narrative and design conceit to create something 'realistic'. No cockpit is going to render a series of nearby blasts as static-washed clippy booms, it's going to deliver a series of carefully calibrated informational sounds that convey useful information about the blast to a trained pilot. The subspace drive has the capability to move ships instantly between very disparate reference frames even at intergalactic distances (though who knows how the hell nodes work - the node connection geodesic may make the velocity differential irrelevant), so there is no way to avoid them being really, really useful for creating kinetic kill vehicles even if you restrict them to a narrow band of delta-V and try to create privileged reference frames. Dragon's right, of course, that the author has pretty wide license in establishing limitations, so I guess you could create some kind of rule that says...huh, no, I actually can't think of a way to do it that's physically consistent.

The best solutions are, of course

I think it's obvious every single point in space is pegged to a local velocity system we should henceforth call "Plot Velocity" and it masterfully manages every single ship nearby to synchronize their relative speeds to match all other local reference frames down to an error margin of 200 m/s, which coincidentally is on the same order of magnitude of speed of the anti-Newtonian dampened engines prevalent on all ships due to something called "Game Design Constraints". Any scientist who has scratched his head thinking about this problem has always been strangely attacked by some form of psychological malady that we believe is originated by some advanced form of MYOB* hacking attack from unkonwn alien origin. Further analysis is deeply unadvised precisely for the latter referenced reason.

*Mind Your Own Business.

~subspace is magic~.
Title: Re: FS Physics and Distances
Post by: fightermedic on January 29, 2014, 04:55:38 am
I mean low speed relative to whatever. Yeah, it doesn't make sense itself, but it makes something else make more sense. :p

To be honest it can make perfect sense considering ~subspace is magic~.
exactly :)
subspace is the one thing that doesn't need to make sense in any way
Title: Re: FS Physics and Distances
Post by: Lepanto on January 30, 2014, 09:45:44 am
Well, thanks guys, I guess the community's opinion is obvious.

Personally, I just sometimes loosely imagine that the battles are taking place at pseudo-realistic large distances (without really thinking about the physics involved; I'm no physics expert anyway.)

~subspace is magic~.

I used to wonder what subspace could be . . .
Title: Re: FS Physics and Distances
Post by: Dragon on January 30, 2014, 02:13:28 pm
You can't just 'snap to the gravity well' because you must arrive at your location with a specific vector - if you have the capability to match orbits with a given ship, and another given ship in an orbit with exactly opposite inclination, you have the capability to arrive in a head-to-head collision with anything in orbit of the local body. Put in simpler terms: if you can place yourself into an arbitrary orbit of a target body (and apparently you can), you can place yourself into an arbitrary collision orbit.
Note, at no place in FS does the ship warp into an arbitrary orbit - quite the contrary. They all arrive in the same, likely prograde orbit with only very slight variation in inclination, an it usually seems to be an equatorial one, too, or at least not far off it. You could probably fiddle with gravity distribution and define a certain privileged set of orbits in which it's easy to open a jump node. That doesn't exactly fix everything, but since jumpdrives don't seem to very accurate as well, it's possible that warping something in close, but in a highly different orbit was never precise enough to be a viable weapon system (notice noone thinks of jump-ramming, even without relativistic velocities, ships to move quite fast at warpout).
That would handle intrasystem travel, for interstellar one, I've always assumed this:
Quote
the node connection geodesic may make the velocity differential irrelevant
No matter what, the ship comes out of the node at a set velocity vector (see: blocades, not only you can predict how fast the ship goes, but in which direction!), and node itself seems to have a very well defined velocity as well. It's an inherent law of how jumpnodes work, apparently.
Title: Re: FS Physics and Distances
Post by: General Battuta on January 30, 2014, 02:30:33 pm
You can't just 'snap to the gravity well' because you must arrive at your location with a specific vector - if you have the capability to match orbits with a given ship, and another given ship in an orbit with exactly opposite inclination, you have the capability to arrive in a head-to-head collision with anything in orbit of the local body. Put in simpler terms: if you can place yourself into an arbitrary orbit of a target body (and apparently you can), you can place yourself into an arbitrary collision orbit.
Note, at no place in FS does the ship warp into an arbitrary orbit - quite the contrary. They all arrive in the same, likely prograde orbit with only very slight variation in inclination, an it usually seems to be an equatorial one, too, or at least not far off it.

We really don't have any canonical evidence for this. All we see in canon is ships arriving at a local rest relative to other objects in orbits. Some of these orbits are quite unusual: the transports in Surrender, Belisarius are moving away from the planet on fusion drives, so it's either highly elliptical or a brachistochrone escape trajectory. That's not an equatorial orbit, and in fact it's implied to be an escape orbit, so it seems that a subspace drive can put you in any orbit you please. In other cases ships arrive at installations that might be located at Lagrange points, or at relative rest to bodies that have very unusual orbital configurations or don't seem to obey orbital mechanics at all.

A great case of the latter is in High Noon: the Sath and Colossus are at relative rest to the Vega and Gamma Drac jump nodes, which are at relative rest to each other. Yet by the time of Their Finest Hour, the Gamma Drac jump node has moved far away from the Vega node - confirmed just two missions later in Apocalypse, when the Vega node is nowhere near the Gamma Drac node! Either these two nodes had a very close periapsis on elliptical orbits and then moved apart, or they skip around erratically as in BP canon. In the former case, we can conceive of a subspace drive dropping these ships at relative rest to the nodes, but if the latter, the drives must have picked a pretty weird velocity vector to arrive on.

So: two orbits, one of them definitely not a low-inclination equatorial, the second possibly a low-inclination equatorial but also possibly not an orbit at all. The idea that jump drives can only reach a narrow range of orbital configurations also violates parsimony: why aren't installations maneuvered into inclined or retrograde orbits, and thus rendered totally unassailable by subspace? What about all those deep-space engagements nowhere near an orbiting body - why didn't the NTF jump its ships to safe points in Gamma Drac and then use fusion drives to burn into 'illegal' target orbits, rendering them totally inassailable? It just doesn't work with the canon.

The reason nobody thinks about using jumps as weapon systems in FreeSpace is because that would make the story and gameplay bad, so the writing wisely just ignores it. It's impossible for some magical reason. The canonical precision of jumps is probably adequate for jump ramming to be a great tactic - the Psamtik's botched jump to Knossos II is only off by a few kilometers and we routinely see ships hitting much smaller targets, like the Colossus' faceoff with the Repulse.
Title: Re: FS Physics and Distances
Post by: Dragon on January 30, 2014, 02:56:41 pm
It might also have to do with the fact FS physics hate capship-capship collisions. :) I could see this being utilized in a mission, if the collision physics weren't so bad.
As for other problems, TBH, canon isn't really consistent about jump physics. Even "magic" explanation would be problematic for some of those points, because even magic usually has some rules. I mean, what's the point of talking orbital mechanics when things don't obey them even without jumping? Surrender, Belisarius is especially problematic, especially since burning radially doesn't really help you escape unless you're running a very powerful brachistochrone (on order of 1G or more), and if they were doing that, they'd vanish off mission in a few seconds due to huge acceleration required.

For the Vega-Gamma Drac node problem, I prefer just to take BP canon explanation. Any other only introduces bigger problems.

Also, there's little consistency on just how much FS sublight drives can do. If gameplay is anything to go by, then there's a good reason for nothing being in retrograde/high inclination orbits. Namely, they won't be able to get into them with those pathetic engines. Inclination changes are bloody expensive, and retrograde orbits are an extreme example of this. TWR also matters, changing inclination with an RL orbital engine takes ages. On the other hand, FS ships do seem to have unlimited dV, and there are, IIRC, quite a few cases that imply their TWR is very good, too.
Title: Re: FS Physics and Distances
Post by: General Battuta on January 30, 2014, 02:59:58 pm
Yeah, I agree. Basically it comes down to the fact that they have excellent sublight engines that could give them fantastic delta-V because they can seemingly burn forever, except that they have magic velocity caps.
Title: Re: FS Physics and Distances
Post by: Dragon on January 30, 2014, 05:06:16 pm
They're exactly the same type of "Sci-Fi space engine" Star Wars use. The closest thing to them I know of would be a magnetic confinement fusion drive, which has Isp of a few million seconds and can achieve quite high thrusts if the confinement magnets are good enough (a long shot, but nothing impossible). Though we also know that FS ships have separate reactors and engines, which implies some kind of electric (but not ion, too high thrust) engine, or at least an engine which can't produce electricity. There's also the velocity cap, which might be possible to explain in combat (B5:TGOS has flight physics in which you'll quickly realize this, keeping relative velocity down is required for any sort of combat), but less so during transit, where you're certainly better off with some sort brachistochrone if you've got a fusion drive. Oh, and that's not even mentioning the afterburner, which is among the strangest pieces of FS tech, physically speaking. It allows a ship to make well over 10Gs for a short amount of time, then drains energy to prevent velocity from dropping just about as fast. The best assumption would be that sublight engines are also based on some kind of subspace technology, which means they're just as good phlebotinium as the jump drives...
Title: Re: FS Physics and Distances
Post by: AdmiralRalwood on January 30, 2014, 08:44:21 pm
(B5:TGOS has flight physics in which you'll quickly realize this, keeping relative velocity down is required for any sort of combat)
And before that there was B5:IFH:D&O, in which attempting to accelerate to high speed just results in you flying straight past the battle and having to spend quite some time decelerating and then re-accelerating in the right direction (the bigger question is why your weapons have such a pathetic range, but hey, every sci-fi universe has its ~magic~ somewhere, right?).
Title: Re: FS Physics and Distances
Post by: Dragon on January 31, 2014, 02:32:49 pm
Well, with plasma weapons, you'd expect the range not to be too good. Which is a major reason not to use them IRL. I really liked TGOS and it's predecessor, B4:The Minbari Project, they had a nice, pretty realistic (if difficult to master) flight model.