Hard Light Productions Forums
General FreeSpace => FreeSpace Discussion => Topic started by: ScottFreeCapital on February 10, 2015, 08:37:40 pm
-
I just get a quick search on Google and here on the forums and couldn't find it - is there an explanation from Freespace canon (or Volition) for the physics of the game?
Is it only really for gameplay purposes?
-
I just get a quick search on Google and here on the forums and couldn't find it - is there an explanation from Freespace canon (or Volition) for the physics of the game?
Nope.
Is it only really for gameplay purposes?
Your guess is as good as anyone else's.
We have people who adopt the "it's an abstraction for gameplay purposes" view and people who adopt the "it actually happens exactly the way it looks in-game" view.
-
Clearly it's the luminiferous aether exhibiting a drag force on the ships.
-
Freespace taken at gameplay value has some pretty insane physics compared to even things like Star Trek and Star Wars.
-A gun that can juggle fighters through kinetic energy
- Antimatter bombs that are in the 25 GT range. And that your fighters can survive being a few feet from.
- Fighters that can destroy asteroids with only their main cannons
- Psychotic asteroids that prey on capital ships
- Fighters with set speed values.
-FRICTION !
-EVERY GUN is like a nuclear weapon. The maxim is like hundreds of Hiroshima bombs per second.
-
I just get a quick search on Google and here on the forums and couldn't find it - is there an explanation from Freespace canon (or Volition) for the physics of the game?
Is it only really for gameplay purposes?
To give a more serious answer, I think that it's just for gameplay purposes, to maximize the compatibility with as many people as possible. Or, to be as playable by as many people as possible right out of the box.
A Wikipedia page says that there are some elements of Newtonian Physics, but I think that they designed it this way just to be as "compatible" with as many people as possible.
-
I did read something about how the float data type has certain limitations in terms of the number of decimal values that can be calculated with it.
The issues of float numbers are also common with most games and something that developers often have to contend with, including myself.
http://www.hobbygamedev.com/beg/float-and-int/
This might be one reason why they might want to limit speed... but there's a strong argument for gameplay as far as I can tell too, mainly because of ship sizes. It is fun to shoot at something that's 200 meters from you and moving 60 m/s, for example, but when it's 4km from you and within seconds could end up being 50km, 100km, 200km+ because of uninhibited inertia... now there's not much fun in aiming laser cannons at that.
I'm trying to imagine what a plausible explanation might be for the physics in the story, but perhaps it is best left unaddressed.
-
In order to preserve floating point accuracy, we generally limit the size of the playing field, not the speed of objects within it.
In my opinion, the gameplay argument is the stronger one; by limiting the speed of all actors, we can ensure that fights will actually involve a few intricate maneuvers as opposed to the high-speed jousting that an unlimited speed would produce. The flight model in FS2 is set up to feel right, to meet the expectations players consciously or subconsciously have of how space combat works. A more interesting case study for this is Diaspora; BSG made an effort to make ship movement look right while actually playing it loose in terms of actual physics, which Diaspora emulates perfectly.
Also, as Star Citizen proves, making a completely accurate flight model that uses proper physics that is actually fun to fly is a nightmare of complexity. It's better to fake it well, and let it feel right, than doing it right and making it feel bad.
-
I did read something about how the float data type has certain limitations in terms of the number of decimal values that can be calculated with it.
The issues of float numbers are also common with most games and something that developers often have to contend with, including myself.
http://www.hobbygamedev.com/beg/float-and-int/
This might be one reason why they might want to limit speed... but there's a strong argument for gameplay as far as I can tell too, mainly because of ship sizes. It is fun to shoot at something that's 200 meters from you and moving 60 m/s, for example, but when it's 4km from you and within seconds could end up being 50km, 100km, 200km+ because of uninhibited inertia... now there's not much fun in aiming laser cannons at that.
I'm trying to imagine what a plausible explanation might be for the physics in the story, but perhaps it is best left unaddressed.
I've seen a few people here on HLP say things about how it's just super-advanced technology that enables the unrealistic physics. Personally, I love that explanation!
-
I've seen a few people here on HLP say things about how it's just super-advanced technology that enables the unrealistic physics. Personally, I love that explanation!
Haha, the only problem with that is that when it comes to the other races like the Shivans - it would give them a tactical advantage to be able to rotate their ships (or at least turrets) and fire at you while moving about in space. Avoiding friction and having free moving inertia could also be used in war battles for suicide missions, or to outrun interceptors.
I think for purposes of story, it is better to leave it unaddressed or at least just say: FreeSpace is a different universe with different laws of physics. In FreeSpace space: some amount of drag/friction exists, gravity does not act the same way. The end.
I do like the idea of advanced technology being the thing that automatically balances your ship, stops you when you turn off your engines, etc. but it is not consistent with the game world that Volition created, IMO.
-
But Shivans CAN glide(at least in FSO, can't be arsed to check retail). Not their capships, of course, that would be OP. Imagine getting glide-strafed by a Sath.
-
I don't remember the Shivans being able to glide.
They have always had lateral thrusters, though
-
I don't think there's much rationalising it other than to say that the FS universe works on very different principles to our own. I think it has to happen more or less as it does in the game, if the Freespace universe had realistic physics even the most basic elements of the universe as presented such as fighters existing and being piloted by humans and capital ships vulnerable to bombs fired from human piloted bombers being feasible would be utterly absurd. That's without even going into the implications of subspace travel.
-
The original Pokedex entry for Charizard says that its breath melts boulders, but you don't see it leaving a trail of burning cities and charred skeletons in its wake. Take anything Freespace says about its physics as technobabble.
-
Gameplay and story separation. Simple as that.
The majority of starfighter sims play like a WWII dogfighter for two reasons:
1. It's somewhat expected. That's how we've tended to be exposed to it in other media, the most prominent probably being Star Wars.
2. it's what's fun. Fighter sims are fun, but being in space adds an extra element to the 3 dimensional aspect in that there's no ground to hit and you can have capital ships around where you are rather than just on the surface of an ocean, or just gunning down zeplins. Not to mention, neutonian movement is somewhat non-intuitive for most, and actually trying to control that with the standard HOTAS has its limitations.
-
Gameplay and story separation. Simple as that.
The majority of starfighter sims play like a WWII dogfighter for two reasons:
1. It's somewhat expected. That's how we've tended to be exposed to it in other media, the most prominent probably being Star Wars.
2. it's what's fun. Fighter sims are fun, but being in space adds an extra element to the 3 dimensional aspect in that there's no ground to hit and you can have capital ships around where you are rather than just on the surface of an ocean, or just gunning down zeplins. Not to mention, neutonian movement is somewhat non-intuitive for most, and actually trying to control that with the standard HOTAS has its limitations.
Yeah, I think from a design perspective there's an important question - do you provide real physics or do you make it simple and fun (like Star Wars)? I think there's a little bit of a contrast - FreeSpace, in my interpretation, has a very serious tone to it and is meant to be kind of a dark story. It has all the elements of a dark story: conspiracy, humanity being threatened, severing ties with a species' homeworld (actually two species if you count Vasudans), politics, and so on. The contrast is then created by the fact that that's a really serious universe where as Star Wars is meant to be space fantasy. I think FreeSpace leans more toward the actual science fiction side, or at least, it's kind of meant to lean that direction.
FreeSpace, as a universe, follows a lot of rules. Star Wars doesn't necessarily, especially when comparing the prequels to the original trilogy (though if you prefer to imagine only the original trilogy exists then I'm right there with you). Star Wars can change on a whim using the Force as a plot device. The Force is everything - it's telekinesis, it's telepathy, and then in the Expanded Universe it's omniscience, it's sensing things from across the galaxy, and all kinds of ridiculous fantasy things.
FreeSpace, on the other hand, has rules to subspace, weapons, movement, explosive force and lots of other things that are demonstrated in the game. One alternative to having the player compensate for Newtonian physics would be to have the ship automatically compensate for it. As I understand it, this has been done before. I think a game called Eterium actually tried to do this, though I haven't actually played it.
http://rogueearth.com/eteriumgame/
I guess for the purpose of the FreeSpace universe, these pieces were intentional and should be left there to stay. Changing it up would dramatically change the experience of the game and maybe not add a huge amount to the story.
-
Yeah, I think that it just makes FreeSpace playable for a wider audience.
-
Gameplay and story separation. Simple as that.
The majority of starfighter sims play like a WWII dogfighter for two reasons:
1. It's somewhat expected. That's how we've tended to be exposed to it in other media, the most prominent probably being Star Wars.
2. it's what's fun. Fighter sims are fun, but being in space adds an extra element to the 3 dimensional aspect in that there's no ground to hit and you can have capital ships around where you are rather than just on the surface of an ocean, or just gunning down zeplins. Not to mention, neutonian movement is somewhat non-intuitive for most, and actually trying to control that with the standard HOTAS has its limitations.
As one of Robert Heinlein's characters said in "The Cat Who Walks Through Walls":
"One minor difficulty -- Right-angled turns are about the most no-good piloting one can do. You waste delta vee something scandalous -- your boat probably doesn't carry that much fuel. (``Delta vee'' -- pilot's jargon for ``change in velocity'' because, in equations, Greek letter delta means a fractional change and ``v'' stands for velocity -- and please remember that ``velocity'' is a direction as well as a speed, which is why rocket ships don't make U-turns.) " So basically, with Newtonian physics, a space fighter battle would really just be a one-time jousting match. That would not be nearly as much fun as "WWII in space".
-
Yeah, and it would also be like learning how to walk because you're constantly having to remember that you won't slow down until you use your ship's thrusters.
-
Yeah, and it would also be like learning how to walk because you're constantly having to remember that you won't slow down until you use your ship's thrusters.
It would be like playing Orbiter. Which for the inexperienced is a terrible, soul crushing experience.
-
Yeah, and it would also be like learning how to walk because you're constantly having to remember that you won't slow down until you use your ship's thrusters.
It would be like playing Orbiter. Which for the inexperienced is a terrible, soul crushing experience.
I'll have to remember that: if I ever see the game 'Orbiter' and think that it would be a good idea to try it, DON'T. hehe
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbiter_(simulator)
-
On the other hand, Independence War (1 and 2) and the much older Warhead do a pretty good job of making more Newtonian physics fun.
So it is possible, it's just a very different kind of game.
-
I'll have to remember that: if I ever see the game 'Orbiter' and think that it would be a good idea to try it, DON'T. hehe
Orbiter is fine. It's a more serious, more sim-oriented precursor to Kerbal Space Program, so if you like all the mission planning and execution stuff of KSP, Orbiter may give you some of the same thrills.
-
I think that the best mindset to go by in terms of FS physics is an adapted version of the MST3K mantra (which I won't link because TVTropes): "Repeat to yourself, it's just a game, you should really just relax."
-
Orbiter does more than the usual "Space Game", even with newtonian flight physics. It actually simulates orbital motion, which makes flying itself very complex (much like in KSP, really, except visual feedback for it is poorer). It's also about as much a scientific tool as it is a game. TBH, KSP as it stands is a good starting point for learning the basics before jumping into Orbiter, and there are mods that make it almost as realisitc, but more capable and intuitive, than Orbiter.
What I-War and Starshatter (great game, like a flightsim in space) do, and also I've Found Her and TGOS (both freeware Babylon 5-based space sims, the latter based on FSO engine) is much simpler. Motion is newtonian, but there's no gravity to speak of. Flying around in that and fighting is hard, but manageable. You don't have to worry about orbital mechanics, or crashing into a planet/being thrown out of the system, for that matter. Orbital combat would be very different from that, with tactical usage of orbital mechanics being vital (not to mention it would take place at great distances, because forcing a close orbital encounter to happen is hard enough when both parties want it to happen). In "inertial newtonian" flight model, all you have to do is avoid accelerating to what you can't (quickly) decelerate from, and be effective with your missiles (since guns are relegated to a secondary weapon role, like in RL dogfights).
-
Gravity is almost entirely irrelevant when considering faster than light travel. When you have the ability to move from one frame of reference to another without traversing through normal space, you are already far beyond the understanding of Newtonian physics.
-
Except we're not talking about FTL travel. FTL travel (at least the part when you're actually moving FTL) is showed in-game only once, in FS1. We're talking about flight physics.
Also, gravity is not irrelevant when considering FTL travel. Even in FS, it matters a lot. If a way to travel in FTL is ever discovered, gravity will almost certainly influence it.
-
The problem is that if you're jumping from orbiting one planet to orbiting a different one you have changed your velocity by several thousand m/s. We're talking about being able to jump through space and somehow compensate for that. So it's pretty pointless to fixate on what is in comparison a relatively tiny issue like ships having different inertia from what they should.
-
Except we're not talking about FTL travel.
They are inseparable. Every time a ship jumps in the FTL travel matters, because the ship manages to do so in a frame of reference that matches the velocities and motions of every other ship on the field magically.
-
Yes, but my comment referred to STL flight physics. I didn't bring FTL into this. On a theoretical basis, only KSP and Orbiter make sense, FTL or not. Inertial newtonian is less unrealistic than what FS does, but it's still not realistic. FTL in general, unless we're talking an exceptionally realistic work, is something "detached" from normal physics, like FS nodes are. Besides, as far as we've seen, inside a node physics are just the same as outside, so obviously the whole "FTL travel" aspect can be glossed over, with the huge velocity change done with some sort of magic.
-
No, really.
The moment you bring FTL into anything, you have already broken physics far past the point a Newtonian flight model can fix. At that point you're trying to fix the car windscreen after you've blown up the engine and blown the wheels off.
FTL completely and utterly breaks any semblance of realistic physics. If you can travel at FTL, relativity and even inertial frames of reference are completely and utterly meaningless. In the kind of time frames even an intense Freespace fight takes place in, if everyone magically arrives in the same inertial frame of reference, the only meaningful acceleration is going to be of the entire frame of reference.
No game reproduces those velocities meaningfully despite Orbiter. KSP is a joke, physics wise.
-
Dragon: You've completely missed the point being made by me and Karaj.
STL travel and FTL travel are inseparable in FreeSpace not because of intersystem nodes; it's because in FreeSpace you can jump from high orbit of one planet in the system to a low orbit of another, without restriction, effectively instantly. Nothing is required to remain the same; orientation, velocity, direction of motion. Trying to construct some kind of STL flight model for FS requires accommodating the fact that starting conditions are based on how the FTL flight works.
Even if it's "glossed over", the basic premise is still "your starting conditions are whatever you wanted them to be after a subspace jump" which is a pretty big deal.
-
Actually, it would seem that FTL is subject to some form of restriction. For example, why not use it to speed through the system at 100km/s relative to everything else? Nobody ever uses the million of obvious exploits related to this, so it's obvious that there are restrictions that we aren't told about. FTL in FS is set up specifically not to interfere with STL combat, putting everyone in a given location on equal footing with regards to speed, going in the direction of their choosing (unless using a node, which causes you to arrive in a set direction). You can use it to change orbits, but apparently there are a few very specific orbits you can jump into. As such, FS actually does allow separation of FTL physics and "flight physics". Your starting conditions are not what you want them to be - they're severely restricted, otherwise there would be a number of exploits available that we don't see. As far as we've seen, you can only choose orientation you jump in with, with speed being determined by where you jumped in to.
No game reproduces those velocities meaningfully despite Orbiter. KSP is a joke, physics wise.
KSP does orbital physics pretty well. Could've been better, but once you get out of atmosphere, it's not bad.
-
You guys are MASSIVELY over-thinking this.
Just remember the answer one of the Star Trek staff gave when asked how the Heisenburg Compensators work
"They work very well, thank you"
-
New discoveries do not break the old model of physics, they simply reveal an edge case for which the old model did not account. Subspace travel does not nullify the rules of normal space. Differences between the frame of reference at departure and emergence are a result of subspace's warped topology. That all ships in local space always share the same frame of reference is because those ships all need to conform to the same normal-space orbital mechanics and gravitational landscape.
Just because a plane can reverse direction by flipping in midair does not mean it doesn't have to turn left and right when taxiing on the runway.
-
You guys are MASSIVELY over-thinking this.
That's what we do here. :)
-
New discoveries do not break the old model of physics, they simply reveal an edge case for which the old model did not account. Subspace travel does not nullify the rules of normal space. Differences between the frame of reference at departure and emergence are a result of subspace's warped topology. That all ships in local space always share the same frame of reference is because those ships all need to conform to the same normal-space orbital mechanics and gravitational landscape.
Just because a plane can reverse direction by flipping in midair does not mean it doesn't have to turn left and right when taxiing on the runway.
I'm not saying doesn't have to. I'm saying that in terms of physics, if you have a plane that can turn into a cat, wondering how it turns left or right when the yoke doesn't seem to be connected to the wheels is a minor issue.
There's no real sensible explanation for why a ship jumping out of subspace has to be at orbital velocity for a certain body nearby. And what happens if a moon or something else happens to be in the same part of space, why don't you have to orbit that too? And why with suitably small objects (something like a Martian moon) don't we end up fighting while having to orbit at very fast speeds? What happens if you jump in somewhere and comet happens to be passing by?
Given that we have engines that can somehow overcome all those issues, you can easier to handwave away the other physics problems. Just say FS2 engines don't actually move the ship, they bend space around them. When they are destroyed or are turned off the ship doesn't continue moving because it never actually ever started moving, it was always at rest. Then you say that you need this kind of engine in order to enter subspace and ships which tried having both were either too expensive, or too heavy to be combat effective. Cause I'd imagine you'd need a pretty ****ing impressive engine to move a 2km Orion around.
-
New discoveries do not break the old model of physics, they simply reveal an edge case for which the old model did not account. Subspace travel does not nullify the rules of normal space. Differences between the frame of reference at departure and emergence are a result of subspace's warped topology. That all ships in local space always share the same frame of reference is because those ships all need to conform to the same normal-space orbital mechanics and gravitational landscape.
Just because a plane can reverse direction by flipping in midair does not mean it doesn't have to turn left and right when taxiing on the runway.
Yes, that's the argument I use. You can use the word "subspace" to mean anything.
It doesn't mean it is correct. I am discussing real physics ie solutions to Einsteins general relativistic topology. Worse, we have broken physics plenty of times. Newtonian mechanics are not correct in any real sense. In fact, THEY are the edge case, not the other way around. The bulk of matter in the universe exists in a variety of quantum mechanical states and only their statistically averaged motion, when applied to large groups of bodies (by no means the bulk of matter in the universe) can be described in Newtonian terms.
The same cannot be said of relativistic motion.
-
There's no real sensible explanation for why a ship jumping out of subspace has to be at orbital velocity for a certain body nearby. And what happens if a moon or something else happens to be in the same part of space, why don't you have to orbit that too? And why with suitably small objects (something like a Martian moon) don't we end up fighting while having to orbit at very fast speeds? What happens if you jump in somewhere and comet happens to be passing by?
Because normal space still follows the rules as we understand them. You can bypass the speed of light using subspace (in which you don't actually move faster than the speed of light, but instead use a different topology to shorten the distance), but you need to emerge at the appropriate velocity or you're still going to be in a deteriorating orbit.
You are fighting at very fast speeds, you just don't notice because (1) everything in the fight shares the same frame of reference, so you only see things moving at ±60m/s relative velocity, and (2) the game engine couldn't and still can't efficiently render animated backgrounds.
Given that we have engines that can somehow overcome all those issues, you can easier to handwave away the other physics problems. Just say FS2 engines don't actually move the ship, they bend space around them. When they are destroyed or are turned off the ship doesn't continue moving because it never actually ever started moving, it was always at rest. Then you say that you need this kind of engine in order to enter subspace and ships which tried having both were either too expensive, or too heavy to be combat effective. Cause I'd imagine you'd need a pretty ****ing impressive engine to move a 2km Orion around.
That begs the question why we don't have capship shields that simply curve space to deflect incoming fire. Ships are still using standard propulsion (though very advanced propulsion it must be), the lack of newtonian flight is just a gameplay consideration.
It doesn't mean it is correct. I am discussing real physics ie solutions to Einsteins general relativistic topology. Worse, we have broken physics plenty of times. Newtonian mechanics are not correct in any real sense. In fact, THEY are the edge case, not the other way around. The bulk of matter in the universe exists in a variety of quantum mechanical states and only their statistically averaged motion, when applied to large groups of bodies (by no means the bulk of matter in the universe) can be described in Newtonian terms.
The same cannot be said of relativistic motion.
It is fortunate then that the game takes place at a macroscopic scale where newtonian physics should dominate, not quantum mechanics.
AFAIK we never see a Freespace engagement at significant relativistic speed (at least, unless somebody has created a mission in close proximity to a neutron star or black hole), so that's a non-issue as well.
-
Because normal space still follows the rules as we understand them. You can bypass the speed of light using subspace (in which you don't actually move faster than the speed of light, but instead use a different topology to shorten the distance), but you need to emerge at the appropriate velocity or you're still going to be in a deteriorating orbit.
I can see why you'd want to do that. But why does it have to work like that? Why can't you emerge in a deteriorating orbit? There's no real sensible reason for it.
What you are basically saying is that somehow objects exiting supspace automatically adjusting their speed to the exact orbital speed for that particular position. Why would that happen?
That begs the question why we don't have capship shields that simply curve space to deflect incoming fire. Ships are still using standard propulsion (though very advanced propulsion it must be), the lack of newtonian flight is just a gameplay consideration.
I'm sure it was just a gameplay issue and :v: didn't give it much thought. I'm replying to anyone who is still attempting to come up with an in-game explanation for it. As for shields, who says you can do that to something external to the ship? Or hell, maybe shields are warping space or dumping the energy into subspace using the same principals and the Shivans were the only ones who could make that work on a large scale.
-
I can see why you'd want to do that. But why does it have to work like that? Why can't you emerge in a deteriorating orbit? There's no real sensible reason for it.
What you are basically saying is that somehow objects exiting supspace automatically adjusting their speed to the exact orbital speed for that particular position. Why would that happen?
I'm sure you can jump into any orbit, stable or otherwise. Or no orbit at all, if you so please. Exit velocity is going to be part of your jump calculations, not an automatic thing.
-
Yet we never see anyone ever do that. No matter how useful a manoeuvre it would be.
The point I'm making here is that while it's a nice idea to try to explain away the reasons for why combat is non-newtonian you ignore the massive elephant in the room that is FTL travel if you explain it away on its own.
-
Yet we never see anyone ever do that. No matter how useful a manoeuvre it would be.
Would it ever actually be a useful maneuver? It's not as though combat ranges in FS encourage it with their shortness, nor is there any particular circumstance where a highly differential velocity would grant advantages over precise jump placement (or protect you from bad jump placement).
-
It would sure make the whole "invulnerable Lucifer" thing moot.
-
Yet we never see anyone ever do that. No matter how useful a manoeuvre it would be.
Would it ever actually be a useful maneuver? It's not as though combat ranges in FS encourage it with their shortness, nor is there any particular circumstance where a highly differential velocity would grant advantages over precise jump placement (or protect you from bad jump placement).
You could, for example, jump in an unmanned suicide ship on a collision course with the target, with velocity difference on order of kilometers per second. Why use normal weapons if you can do that? Nobody does that, so there's some restriction that makes this impossible.
I can see why you'd want to do that. But why does it have to work like that? Why can't you emerge in a deteriorating orbit? There's no real sensible reason for it.
What you are basically saying is that somehow objects exiting supspace automatically adjusting their speed to the exact orbital speed for that particular position. Why would that happen?
That's something related to subspace properties, and thus needs to be explained as a part of how subspace works. Maybe it's about jump nodes (which are used even by intrasystem drives, it's just that they aren't very stable). Maybe the spacecraft's velocity is that of the jump node, and something prevents jump nodes from existing in "wrong" orbits.
-
You could, for example, jump in an unmanned suicide ship on a collision course with the target, with velocity difference on order of kilometers per second. Why use normal weapons if you can do that? Nobody does that, so there's some restriction that makes this impossible.
There is very little proof in the games this would be possible with the normal accuracy of a jump and the ability of existing ships to correct their course. Also, warship hulls are expensive, y'know. The only hull in the game that's ever used a suicide craft short of deeply, deeply in extremis is the Anubis.
-
You could, for example, jump in an unmanned suicide ship on a collision course with the target, with velocity difference on order of kilometers per second. Why use normal weapons if you can do that? Nobody does that, so there's some restriction that makes this impossible.
Because jump drives are expensive, and ships are expensive, and if you've got a jump-capable ship you might as well arm it with a mass driver and lob collapsed-core molybdenum slugs at the order of kilometers per second into the enemy before your suicide strike.
-
Is everyone forgetting that Koth threw an entire ****ing Orion at the Colossus at one point? :p
Admittedly though that was in desperation.
Would it ever actually be a useful maneuver? It's not as though combat ranges in FS encourage it with their shortness, nor is there any particular circumstance where a highly differential velocity would grant advantages over precise jump placement (or protect you from bad jump placement).
Blockade running, ensuring you have time to recharge jump engines, etc. Offensively it might not be that useful but defensively it's pretty good. Jump into hight orbit, translate down to lower orbit, get slingshotted off into space at several km/s. Anything jumping in after you would somehow have to match that speed. Which makes it great for staging posts etc.
I'm not saying it's impossible to do that, just that once you start examining freespace physics and wondering why certain tactics aren't used things get screwy very, very quickly.
-
True on blockade running. My guess is that spacetime topology makes it become harder to jump the further you get from a gravity well or subspace node, so just blitzing through might strand you beyond your ability to jump out, without the delta-v to correct course, and lacking the supplies for the long journey to the next subspace-active region, if any.
And of course, the risk of colliding with another ship at high relative velocity making your ship a fast-moving cloud of plasma instead.
-
The Hammer of Light tried to plough an Aten into the Galatea in the same mission as the Anubis suicide fighters. That mission would have been a lot more difficult if it was travelling at 11 km/s relative to the Galatea.
-
Relevant:
(https://christopheryardin.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/cannon_trajectories.jpg)
-
Blockade running, ensuring you have time to recharge jump engines, etc.
Only blockades we see are node blockades, and that means recharging/charging your drives for the jump out. You can't go flying in at a hugely different frame from the Node itself, you've got to hang around a bit.
Or you'd have to do it from pretty far out, in which case the blockade might be able to make a similar jump of their own.
The Hammer of Light tried to plough an Aten into the Galatea in the same mission as the Anubis suicide fighters. That mission would have been a lot more difficult if it was travelling at 11 km/s relative to the Galatea.
As already pointed out, there's no reason to believe they could have aimed the jump exit that well.
-
The fact that near enough every ship that emerges from subspace ends up pointing at something relevant to their mission suggests to me they can aim their exit vector just fine, and the level of precision implied by the fact that literally every ship that enters the field of engagement in the correct frame of reference in both games implies a very high degree of accuracy.