Hard Light Productions Forums
General FreeSpace => FreeSpace Discussion => Topic started by: Kestrellius on May 28, 2015, 06:15:34 pm
-
Hi everyone, I'm new here. Don't I get an introduction to a Shivan named Carl or something?
Anyway, I thought I'd post some rubbish on how I think we can explain sound in space, shockwaves, but more importantly, the apparent presence of friction in vacuum.
Put simply, space in Freespace acts like an atmosphere because it is an atmosphere. See, subspace is full of magic fairy dust that ever so conveniently acts just like air, except when we need it not to. It's not strictly speaking an atmosphere -- it's not even matter -- but it creates friction.
The reason realspace is full of it is because people keep poking holes in subspace. Now, during the early years of space travel, nobody'd been using subspace in Sol...well, possibly ever, but let's say since the Ancients. As a result, any subspace particles that had been present had long dissipated, and early human spacecraft were working with proper vacuum.
And then everything changed, when subspace opened.
I'd like to think this resulted in a lot of hilarious wars where people started shooting projectiles at each other from light-minutes away, not realizing why their bullets were gradually coming to a stop two miles from their ship.
Anyway. This was semi-inspired by the "silly laser idea" thread. And...also another thread about the same thing that I can't remember the name of. It was about lasers actually being laser-excited plasma guns. Which is pretty much how Star Wars does it. Well, occasionally with particle beams. But eh.
-
carl is not here today but i am a shivan, do you want me to take a call for him?
-
Hey, I read that thread. You are not a Shivan. You are a Shivan warship. You were very specific about that.
...and oddly reminiscent of Dave Strider. I think it's the lack of punctuation.
Also I realized there's a hole in this theory, which is that an atmosphere in space would completely bork orbital mechanics. Like, completely. Maybe...maybe subspace particles only effect things that have subspace drives? Admittedly, that raises the question of why long-range mass-drivers aren't being used, but on the other hand, there's never really been anything to suggest that they're not simply inferior to energy weapons...
-
An atmosphere would lead to much faster ships courtesy of having a medium to propel themselves against, and in turn ships would be much more aerodynamic. Doesn't really fit. It's better to just accept that things are the way they are because it's more fun that way.
I still wonder what sort of reasoning the GTVA might have had in phasing out the Avenger. Asides from it being an old gun.
It was probably simply outclassed by the Subach HL-7. As for the Maxim, I'd guess the violent recoil leads to a very short barrel life, so using it outside of a very narrow role (allowing anti-warship strikes from safe distance) would quickly bog down the logistics chain and maintenance crews. It butchers strike craft just fine, it just isn't economical to do so.
-
It would also cause some havoc in planets' orbits and so on... not a good sight to see...
-
planets are already moving through an atmosphere, they're used to it by now duh
-
As for the Maxim, I'd guess the violent recoil leads to a very short barrel life, so using it outside of a very narrow role (allowing anti-warship strikes from safe distance) would quickly bog down the logistics chain and maintenance crews. It butchers strike craft just fine, it just isn't economical to do so.
Hmm...
/me ponders introducing a mechanic whereby continuous Maxim fire increases the stress on the barrel, and giving it too much stress causes it to break mid-mission.
-
Well the thing is I generally demand absolute internal consistency in fiction. That is to say, I don't accept the concept of the suspension of disbelief. Spaceships and aliens don't require suspension of disbelief, because this is a universe where spaceships and aliens are real. It's not our universe*. And I have no trouble believing that; it doesn't require me to stop thinking about its plausibility.
But, in general, physics are assumed to work in fictional universes the same way they do in ours, except when indicated otherwise. So we basically have a choice of either finding some way to explain the odd physics, which is what I'm trying to do, or say that physics don't work the same way in FS. But in that case, we have to figure out how physics do work.
...if anyone has questions, I will gladly rant about this for hours.
*Which is not to say that spaceships and aliens aren't real in our universe. But you get my point. I was going to say dragons and unicorns, but this was more fitting.
-
You know how physics work in FreeSpace; you can watch things move, you can open up the engine and examine the code. The text is the text!
-
Well, but what we see in-game isn't everything. For the most obvious example, what effect does FSics (I'm gonna call it FSics) have on orbits? Or gravity? Or normal people going about their day on a planet? We know how spaceships function, but...
-
Nodes canonically don't seem to obey orbital mechanics.
Although I think I've put as much thought into the vagaries of FS canon as anyone on Earth by this point, ultimately we confront the fact that FreeSpace is a universe built on story logic to convey a narrative. It is not a mimesis of an internally consistent world, nor does most good fiction try to present any such critter.
-
Hmmmm. Well, I'll keep working on coming up with an explanation that satisfactorily makes sense of every single gameplay mechanic, while fitting the story perfectly, having totally consistent internal logic, and inducing a constant feeling of bliss in anyone aware of it.
Also...am I posting poorly? Just, in general? I don't want to make a bad impression...
-
Nah, it's great to have discussion about stuff.
I think you will eventually come to peace with the fact that fictional words worlds are better off without attempting that kind of project. But that's just my hope as a writer!
-
Well, in a lot of cases I'm pretty much fine with just sort of handwaving it as "there's an explanation but I don't feel like coming up with what it actually is". I'm just not okay with the notion that since it's fiction, it doesn't matter. I mean, think about the people stuck in a reality with natural laws that aren't consistent. ...granted that might be kind of cool, but whatever.
Edit: also relevant https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJOwdrTA8Gw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJOwdrTA8Gw)
this explains everything
-
As for the Maxim, I'd guess the violent recoil leads to a very short barrel life, so using it outside of a very narrow role (allowing anti-warship strikes from safe distance) would quickly bog down the logistics chain and maintenance crews. It butchers strike craft just fine, it just isn't economical to do so.
Hmm...
/me ponders introducing a mechanic whereby continuous Maxim fire increases the stress on the barrel, and giving it too much stress causes it to break mid-mission.
I doubt the Maxim is so poorly designed that it would break before depleting its ammo. It just might only last three or four missions before it's unable to operate to spec and the maintenance crew has to replace it. I recall that Rogue Squadron's V-wing had guns that overheat if you use the rapid-fire setting for more than a few seconds, though, which might be interesting.
I don't accept the concept of the suspension of disbelief. Spaceships and aliens don't require suspension of disbelief, because this is a universe where spaceships and aliens are real. It's not our universe*. And I have no trouble believing that; it doesn't require me to stop thinking about its plausibility.
That is by definition suspension of disbelief. Your problem isn't with suspension of disbelief, it's with the concept of simulation. You might just as soon question why FPS characters can cure buckshot to the chest with a box of moldy band-aids, or why Charizard doesn't accidentally burn down every gym.
-
My personal canon states that ships behave as if they are in an atmosphere because of inertial dampeners (which are tenuously real canon - there's a cargo container in I forget what mission that contains them). Inertial dampeners are required so as not to kill the pilots, but have the unavoidable side effect of slowing the ship.
-
The problem with that explanation is that there are situations where it would be both practical and advantageous to disable the dampeners, but nobody ever does.
-
Inertial dampening is insanely complicated and can't be switched on and off at will (i.e., I don't challenge my internal canon hard enough to keep finding holes. This is why beams can be massive lasers and also be visible).
Some cutting-edge tech can do it on some fighters (glide).
-
I will stop if you want me to stop!
-
(beams are lightsabers)
-
/me ponders introducing a mechanic whereby continuous Maxim fire increases the stress on the barrel, and giving it too much stress causes it to break mid-mission.
And that's how the maintenance crew got *blammed* (http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Commissar)
-
Well. This thread got weird.
-
Belated welcome beam.
:welcomered:
-
(beams are lightsabers)
*invokes the comment someone made a long time ago on a thread regarding in-engine beam physics*
-
(beams are lightsabers)
("Power up photon beam cannon")
-
("Power up photon beam cannon")
(Well, "photon torpedoes" use matter/antimatter warheads...)
-
("Power up photon beam cannon")
(Well, "photon torpedoes" use matter/antimatter warheads...)
Photons are the product of electron/positron annihilation, so...
-
One aspect of "expanded universe" and "fanon" that I find to be cringeworthy is the pursuit of explanations for 'background static' elements, such as sound and non-newtonian physics in space. For example, trying to explain why Tie Fighters make that roaring sound (or any sound at all) just adds layers of confusion and fluff between the viewer/reader/player and actual plot. The mental gymnastics of trying to, say, justify non-newtonian physics, produces a distraction from things that actually make good stories...like space battles, space politics, and people trying to live difficult lives in space against a backdrop of cosmic horror, etc.
source: annoying friends in High School who tried to sell me on a variety of crappy "expanded universes" for Star Wars, Borehammer 40k, and some other fukin' **** I have mercifully forgotten
edit: I slightly regret this cruel post
-
One aspect of "expanded universe" and "fanon" that I find to be cringeworthy is the pursuit of explanations for 'background static' elements, such as sound and non-newtonian physics in space. For example, trying to explain why Tie Fighters make that roaring sound (or any sound at all) just adds layers of confusion and fluff between the viewer/reader/player and actual plot. The mental gymnastics of trying to, say, justify non-newtonian physics, produces a distraction from things that actually make good stories...like space battles, space politics, and people trying to live difficult lives in space against a backdrop of cosmic horror, etc.
source: annoying friends in High School who tried to sell me on a variety of crappy "expanded universes" for Star Wars, Borehammer 40k, and some other fukin' **** I have mercifully forgotten
edit: I slightly regret this cruel post
No it's true and right. You can say it to make people like you. Another thing you can do is say it when you want to feel correct.
-
Some people just like works of fiction for what they are on the surface. A lot of people also want to examine those works in detail and concoct elaborate fanon explanations for every setting detail and perceived inconsistency. Surely we can respect that we each engage the material in different ways?
-
One aspect of "expanded universe" and "fanon" that I find to be cringeworthy is the pursuit of explanations for 'background static' elements, such as sound and non-newtonian physics in space. For example, trying to explain why Tie Fighters make that roaring sound (or any sound at all) just adds layers of confusion and fluff between the viewer/reader/player and actual plot. The mental gymnastics of trying to, say, justify non-newtonian physics, produces a distraction from things that actually make good stories...like space battles, space politics, and people trying to live difficult lives in space against a backdrop of cosmic horror, etc.
source: annoying friends in High School who tried to sell me on a variety of crappy "expanded universes" for Star Wars, Borehammer 40k, and some other fukin' **** I have mercifully forgotten
edit: I slightly regret this cruel post
The trouble is that people think fiction is about us. It's not. Fiction is about fiction. Entertainment is secondary to constructing a universe, and if that universe lacks fidelity, the writer has failed. If you want to make departures from our universe in how yours is constructed, that's fine -- it's good, in fact. Just copy-pasting our own universe and sticking your story into it is a dreadful idea, because it'll end up filling the cosmic hierarchy with derivative crap. (I just hope other races are more creative and less self-centered.) However, you have to explain how said universe works. Or at least establish that it does work somehow.
-
You don't have to do any of that and you can still create amazing art. A universe can operate entirely on dream logic and possess no internal consistency whatsoever, and it can be the fundament of a great story. A universe without fidelity may indicate a writer's triumph.
Analyzing and scrutinizing fictional universes is actually pretty dope and I'm down with it: the problem is that this technique is radically overrepresented in nerd spaces (due to really effective marketing) and the huge array of other techniques you can use to understand and improve fiction are often ignored.
People will happily analyze screen flash to estimate the yield of a turbolaser, but god forbid someone mention 'subtext'
-
Thomas Ligotti articulated a singular and compelling vision over the course of a cult career by arguing, over and over again, that nothing makes any sense and no one exists.
-
I would again wager that I have spent as much time rationalizing, cataloging, systematizing and explaining every wrinkle of the FS canon as anyone on Earth. We've gone as far as figuring out possible explanations for ship name discrepancies that were just V's errors. This analysis has helped generate and support an FS mythos now far more developed and internally consistent than the original canon. I clearly don't hate the technique!
But whenever you deploy a technique you must recognize its limitations and the strengths of its alternatives, lest you apply it in a situation outside its performance envelope. This is not a matter of personal preference. It's a matter of developing as a reader of text.
-
My post has generated unintelligible responses from both sides of the debate, so I can only blame myself. I suck.
Entertainment is secondary to constructing a universe
If your goal is to produce unreadable fan-fiction, then you are right; but if you wish to make FreeSpace (The Game) a more immersive, fun story-telling experience, you are objectively wrong. The FreeSpace universe literally exists to supply a game (the universe was created to allow for entertainment).
This is why the Star Wars expanded universe got flushed...it grew so bloated and fixated on background static that it became an obstacle to telling a good story.
No it's true and right. You can say it to make people like you. Another thing you can do is say it when you want to feel correct.
So many "it's" make it impossible for me to understand your reply. Your post is like the hit film Prometheus...so much is left to my imagination.
-
This thread will help us achieve CHIM.
-
Oh hey a TES lore nerd.
And the goal here is more Amaranth than CHIM, although CHIM is generally considered a prerequisite...
-
One aspect of "expanded universe" and "fanon" that I find to be cringeworthy is the pursuit of explanations for 'background static' elements, such as sound and non-newtonian physics in space. For example, trying to explain why Tie Fighters make that roaring sound (or any sound at all) just adds layers of confusion and fluff between the viewer/reader/player and actual plot. The mental gymnastics of trying to, say, justify non-newtonian physics, produces a distraction from things that actually make good stories...like space battles, space politics, and people trying to live difficult lives in space against a backdrop of cosmic horror, etc.
*cough*midichlorians*cough*
Some people just like works of fiction for what they are on the surface. A lot of people also want to examine those works in detail and concoct elaborate fanon explanations for every setting detail and perceived inconsistency. Surely we can respect that we each engage the material in different ways?
That's true, but I do think there's a fundamental difference between doing that sort of thing to the work itself, versus trying to awkwardly cram out-of-universe factors into the work, which is what the vast majority of that sort of fanon seems to be. We all know that FS ship movements don't remotely conform to the basic laws of physics, and I think we all realize that they were made that way because :v: wanted to capture the "WWII in space" feel that earlier genre pieces had popularized. Now you can get wrap your mind into knots trying to rationalize what you see in-game, or you can just employ the MST3K Mantra, blame it all on luminiferous aether, and get on with blowing up Shivans. I know which one I think suits the overall experience better.
To cite a non-FS example, the classic DS9 episode "Trials and Tribble-ations" had the characters wondering about the different appearance of Klingons in the TOS-era setting, and Worf grumbling in response, "We don't like to talk about it." It was a fantastic little way of hand-waving away the external reality of the original series not having the makeup budget to make Klingons look any different than normal humans with ugly beards. The funny part is that the (overall excellent) final season of Enterprise actually came up with an in-universe explanation for what had happened, and while the arc was pretty good, looking back I feel like leaving things at Worf's one-liner was the best way to go.
-
Hi everyone, I'm new here. Don't I get an introduction to a Shivan named Carl or something?
I'll bring carl to you. You'd be surprised how cash he makes whenever he visits thailand.
-
Hi everyone, I'm new here. Don't I get an introduction to a Shivan named Carl or something?
There's a thread I made (http://is.gd/6h9GIc) with a bunch of welcome speeches in it. Fair warning, bring a lunch with you.