Hard Light Productions Forums

General FreeSpace => FreeSpace Discussion => Topic started by: foolfromhell on July 23, 2007, 11:19:12 am

Title: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: foolfromhell on July 23, 2007, 11:19:12 am
I got to the Vasudan Pilot Exchange program and I used the Maxim and the Prometheus-S Cannon and the same time. The Recoil is UNCONTROLLABLE. It goes all over the place!
Title: Re: Does teh Serapis have too much recoil?
Post by: Ghostavo on July 23, 2007, 11:26:40 am
The recoil is from the Maxim, not to do with the fighter itself.
Title: Re: Does teh Serapis have too much recoil?
Post by: haloboy100 on July 23, 2007, 11:35:03 am
ya, the maxim does that to any fighter.
Title: Re: Does teh Serapis have too much recoil?
Post by: Gamma_Draconis on July 23, 2007, 04:49:50 pm
The Maxim should really really replace blob turrets. A cruiser loaded with them would deal massive damage to other ships.
Title: Re: Does teh Serapis have too much recoil?
Post by: Polpolion on July 23, 2007, 04:59:11 pm
except fighter's and bomber's shields.
Title: Re: Does teh Serapis have too much recoil?
Post by: Topgun on July 23, 2007, 05:05:44 pm
that's way I created a wep that is a maxim wrapped in a banshee wave. :drevil:
WAY too much energy use.
Title: Re: Does teh Serapis have too much recoil?
Post by: Game_Master64 on July 23, 2007, 08:03:27 pm
except fighter's and bomber's shields.

thats what morning stars and AAA's are for
Title: Re: Does teh Serapis have too much recoil?
Post by: Hades on July 23, 2007, 08:04:45 pm
Yes Morning star on Capital ships is so ****ing annoying. :mad: :mad2:
Title: Re: Does teh Serapis have too much recoil?
Post by: haloboy100 on July 23, 2007, 09:09:45 pm
ya, I'm surprised that command didn't put them on fragile targets like transports

But, yet again, this IS command we're talking about :doubt:
Title: Re: Does teh Serapis have too much recoil?
Post by: Cobra on July 23, 2007, 09:27:19 pm
Oh for ****'S SAKE, don't start in with this **** again.
Title: Re: Does teh Serapis have too much recoil?
Post by: achtung on July 24, 2007, 03:33:35 am
The Maxim should really really replace blob turrets. A cruiser loaded with them would deal massive damage to other ships.

I once armed a Leviathan with about 20 Maxims to each turret then pitted it against large waves of fighters and a couple shivan cruisers.  It did well.
Title: Re: Does teh Serapis have too much recoil?
Post by: Snail on July 24, 2007, 09:40:37 am
Oh for ****'S SAKE, don't start in with this **** again.

I agree Cobra. I've only been here for 1 year and I've seen so many "Command's Stupid oh my god" jokes, as well as "Oh, just send in Alpha 1 LOLOLOLROFLMAO" jokes that it just gets god damn old. :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Does teh Serapis have too much recoil?
Post by: foolfromhell on July 24, 2007, 09:51:02 am
What was command thinking anyway when they sent one Hecate to fight against the Sathanas?
Hell, 100 bombers could have taken down the Sathanas... but NOOO! You have to send 12 bombers and one Hecate! the 100 bombers would have been a lot more cost effective too!
Title: Re: Does teh Serapis have too much recoil?
Post by: Snail on July 24, 2007, 05:33:52 pm
Nono, I mean how much does it cost to pay 10,000 crewmen for 3 years?
Title: Re: Does teh Serapis have too much recoil?
Post by: TrashMan on July 24, 2007, 05:43:34 pm
That depends...how big is a Orion crewman salary? :p
Title: Re: Does teh Serapis have too much recoil?
Post by: Snail on July 24, 2007, 05:44:16 pm
That's the thing. Estimate.
Title: Re: Does teh Serapis have too much recoil?
Post by: foolfromhell on July 24, 2007, 05:46:01 pm
Nono, I mean how much does it cost to pay 10,000 crewmen for 3 years?

http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Employer=U.S._Navy/Salary

Looks like the average is $60,000.

60,000x 10,000x 3 = 1,800,000,000
I come out to $1.8 Billion.
Omg, wtf? Either GTVA Workers are overpaid WAY too much, or building an Orion costs less than an Ursa
because a B-2 Bomber nowadays is ~2 Billion.

Volition most definitely screwd up on these numbers. Or the FS Port team screwd it up,
Anyone have the original FS1 to check the Tech Room in?
Title: Re: Does teh Serapis have too much recoil?
Post by: BlueFlames on July 24, 2007, 05:46:06 pm
Figuring $40,000 per person, per year, $1,200,000,000.  Methinks calculating the cost of a moon would be a more difficult affair, as you have raw area and the value of mineral rights to consider.
Title: Re: Does teh Serapis have too much recoil?
Post by: Snail on July 24, 2007, 05:50:46 pm
Yeah, they did mess up badly on their numbers there.

Far outweighs.... Maybe it costs around 2 billion? Still... Messed up. :blah:
Title: Re: Does teh Serapis have too much recoil?
Post by: Topgun on July 24, 2007, 05:51:38 pm
no, moons are cheap. the're tons of them!
Title: Re: Does teh Serapis have too much recoil?
Post by: Snail on July 24, 2007, 05:53:52 pm
Still, it costs 2 billion to make a bomber today, how is it only 2 billion for a 2 km behemoth?
Title: Re: Does teh Serapis have too much recoil?
Post by: TrashMan on July 24, 2007, 05:57:16 pm
The $ has gone up a LOT  in the future? Like it was before the big economic crisis in the 50-ies, only even better ;)
Title: Re: Does teh Serapis have too much recoil?
Post by: haloboy100 on July 24, 2007, 06:27:24 pm
Still, it costs 2 billion to make a bomber today, how is it only 2 billion for a 2 km behemoth?

I think a ursas would cost maybe twice as much as a present-day space shuttle, if you ask me.
Title: Re: Does teh Serapis have too much recoil?
Post by: foolfromhell on July 24, 2007, 06:35:05 pm
Still, it costs 2 billion to make a bomber today, how is it only 2 billion for a 2 km behemoth?

I think a ursas would cost maybe twice as much as a present-day space shuttle, if you ask me.

I dont think so. i mean, the Ursa isnt really THAT much better than other bombers.  Thus, the Ursa cant be more than 2x the price of, say, a Zeus. The GTA/ GTVA would never spend so much on a baseline bomber...

Should this topic be renamed to like "The Orion is way too cheap" or something? The Serapis stuff is misleading the where this conversation has gone.
Title: Re: Does teh Serapis have too much recoil?
Post by: Ghostavo on July 24, 2007, 06:36:12 pm
I just love how people extrapolate values from today's "wet" navy and "air" force 300 years into the future at space force...
Title: Re: Does teh Serapis have too much recoil?
Post by: castor on July 24, 2007, 06:39:52 pm
Nothin can cost that much :blah:
Title: Re: Does teh Serapis have too much recoil?
Post by: Kie99 on July 24, 2007, 06:44:57 pm
That was when the Ursa was first created...I'm sure 32 years later the prices would be a bit lower.
Title: Re: Does teh Serapis have too much recoil?
Post by: foolfromhell on July 24, 2007, 06:52:27 pm
I just love how people extrapolate values from today's "wet" navy and "air" force 300 years into the future at space force...

Well, the salary of navymen/spacemen is probably going to be the same relatively compared to the rest of the workforce. As in, average salary in the US is $40,000 and Navy pays $70,000.
its a relative measure.
Title: Re: Does teh Serapis have too much recoil?
Post by: Ghostavo on July 24, 2007, 07:01:38 pm
How do you know that the space force's salary isn't going to be superior to what's paid today in the navy (inflation aside)? Or inferior? It's still a baseless extrapolation.
Title: Re: Does teh Serapis have too much recoil?
Post by: TrashMan on July 24, 2007, 07:10:10 pm
If it was THAT superior to everyone elses salary, everyone would go in the GTVA navy.

We can safely assume that the salary is high..military allways gets a loot of moolah ;7

Either in the FS2 universe a 100$ is worht a LOT more than today (let's say it's like 100-1000 times more) or Orions are dirt cheap :lol:
Title: Re: Does teh Serapis have too much recoil?
Post by: haloboy100 on July 24, 2007, 07:11:48 pm
Alright, goober. Break of this page from the main thread.
Title: Re: Does teh Serapis have too much recoil?
Post by: foolfromhell on July 24, 2007, 07:13:03 pm
Alright, goober. Break of this page from the main thread.

And the second page. And part of the 1st page.
Thanks.
Quote
How do you know that the space force's salary isn't going to be superior to what's paid today in the navy (inflation aside)? Or inferior? It's still a baseless extrapolation.

The GTVA employs A LOT OF PEOPLE.
Either they are drafted (likely during T&V and Great War.) or they are paid. I am sure the GTVA cant invest so much money in 3000 crewmen in a destroyer that can be destroyed by a few bombers...
Then again. This IS command we are talking about...
Title: Re: Does teh Serapis have too much recoil?
Post by: Ghostavo on July 24, 2007, 07:14:29 pm
If it was THAT superior to everyone elses salary, everyone would go in the GTVA navy.

It may be a selective system, as in only a select few (well... "few" enough to crew the whole fleet I guess) are chosen. Much like air force pilots.

The GTVA is not obliged to employ everyone that wants to be in the army.
Title: Re: Does teh Serapis have too much recoil?
Post by: Flipside on July 24, 2007, 07:22:42 pm
Damn, it's hard to split a topic when people are still posting in it :nervous:
Title: Re: Does teh Serapis have too much recoil?
Post by: Ghostavo on July 24, 2007, 07:31:22 pm
The GTVA employs A LOT OF PEOPLE.

Oh really?

Quote
Either they are drafted (likely during T&V and Great War.) or they are paid. I am sure the GTVA cant invest so much money in 3000 crewmen in a destroyer that can be destroyed by a few bombers...

Try 10000 in a destroyer. And by that logic, the whole fleet would be nothing but a single argos transport because why bother building fighters/bombers/capital ships when they can be taken by capital ships/fighters/bombers respectively?

Also, people seem to forget that the GTVA consists of more than a single planet.
Title: Re: Does teh Serapis have too much recoil?
Post by: Vasudan Commander on July 24, 2007, 07:31:40 pm
In my theory, it would probably cost the same as buying an expensive car as it would to build a space fighter, given that the national-state of the world became a global-state, and put aside petty squabbling and humanity united to turn its eyes towards the stars.

Think about it. How much do you suppose the world, as a w(hole), spends on military a year? all that metal, logistics, and funds put to waste making war against fellow man, when it could be put into science.

If there was no war, we'd have the moon settled in 5 years, and mars settled in 15.
Title: Re: Does teh Serapis have too much recoil?
Post by: foolfromhell on July 24, 2007, 07:32:16 pm
Damn, it's hard to split a topic when people are still posting in it :nervous:

No need anymore.
I renamed the topic.
Now, its
"Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?"
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: Vasudan Commander on July 24, 2007, 07:33:02 pm
wow, didnt know you could do that  :wtf:
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: Flipside on July 24, 2007, 07:35:19 pm
Heh, well I'm not remerging them tonight, it was hard enough splitting the bugger. I'll fix it up after the dentist tomorrow :)
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: AlphaOne on July 25, 2007, 04:17:55 am
How do you even know they are paid in dolaras and not Euros or even salt for that matter??? You have no idea what the curency is ! Also as far as the Orion goes it was said i believe in the tech room that an Orion costs more then the salary of its entire crew for 3 or 4 years. So that is a lot of meney. however that still does not explain the easiness with which GTVA commands sends in destroyers to front line action and against targets they were never ever designed to take on. And of course they get blow away. Also i do not believe fighters and bommbers are that chpea. Remember that asfar as we klnow it is only the shivans that we have seen travel with a full compliment of fighters on beard as far as we know !

Or rather the game left me with the impresion that Neither the Aquitane or the Psamtik have a full cargo of fighters/bommbers.
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: Mars on July 25, 2007, 06:04:35 am
I don't think any of us are under the illusion that it's a form of currency currently in use.

The spam seems to be getting thick around here.
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: Vasudan Commander on July 25, 2007, 06:50:57 am
Spam rhymes with Ham.  :D :bump: :warp: :snipe: :headz:
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: Mathwiz6 on July 25, 2007, 08:02:00 am
Clearly, it's not dollars. But it's an equivalent value, which is sufficient for us today to understand.

The issue is, they probably have more money, without inflation, given that they have more resources.
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: AlphaOne on July 25, 2007, 08:16:52 am
Well 1 Orion cost a whole lot of money so I imagine that the newer classes cost even more. Also let us not forget that whyle a destroyer would take about 1 year to complete for its crew salary to amount to the value of the destroyer they first have to survive that long. Then we must imagine that even if the salary would be that much it would still be a very cheap when compared to the actual benefits of the said destroyer and a experienced crew.

You can not replace experience no matter how much you try or spend. So in the long run the GTVA would consider that keeping safe its teritory is more important then the actual cost of the crews.

I imagine they dedicate a whole lot of meny to the milatary force of the GTVA much more then they would care to spend on something else.

also they control several inhabited planets perhaps half of thenm are used for mining and economical activity even more then half and the rest for actual living space. There must be a lot of comuting around .....!

Hell if I were them i'd dedicate up to 70% of the total income generated to the milatary ! If the civ. population have a problem they can go take it out with the shivans if they do not aprove.

Also ther are sure to be some sort of recruitment gooing around in the GTVA altough not of the full scale tipe whre milatary is mandatory but in cases where the GTVA needs soldiers pilots etc they can just recruit them . altough such a thing would be very useless after capella since I can imagine the enlistment offices would be overrun with volunteers. Some of them Because it may give them a war bed and a hot meal some of the for a chance to take revenge on the shivans ! Anyway if they considered it worthwhile to build the collie then a destroyer would be dirtcheap to them.


The only real problem I see is how do you balance the need for new moder warships which would be very high after capella with the problem of gooing out of meney in a very short amount of time. Since I believe the GTVA has the abilaty to build faster then thei can pay for everithing.

Title: Re: Does teh Serapis have too much recoil?
Post by: Woolie Wool on July 25, 2007, 10:04:56 am
In my theory, it would probably cost the same as buying an expensive car as it would to build a space fighter, given that the national-state of the world became a global-state, and put aside petty squabbling and humanity united to turn its eyes towards the stars.

Think about it. How much do you suppose the world, as a w(hole), spends on military a year? all that metal, logistics, and funds put to waste making war against fellow man, when it could be put into science.

If there was no war, we'd have the moon settled in 5 years, and mars settled in 15.

So how's life in your wonderful, war-free utopia? Been conquered lately? You will be. How are you going to incorporate these nation-states into your world state without killing people? There are millions and millions of people who will gladly kill you to keep ahold of their nation-states.

Society is defined by Uses and Thems, and the only way to have a world-state is to make all of humanity an Us, which then gives you the need for a Them.

Unless you have some of these nearby to use for whipping up outward aggression and paranoia, your world-state won't last long:

(http://archives.volitionwatch.com/download/fs1mod/Vasudan.jpg)

Also, your theory is very ill-informed. Even civilian aircraft costs many millions of dollars. An expensive car is only around $70,000. Military aircraft are even more expensive due to their more advanced technologies, materials, and design (Cessna and Gulfstream don't sell F-22s). All those military toys are very, very expensive.

Also, the costs of those 100 Ursas might actually be more than the Orion. Hell, four B-2 Spirits are the same price as a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier.
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: haloboy100 on July 25, 2007, 11:01:37 am
Yeah, he does have a point there. IF everybody was as peaceful and diplomatic as the Vasudans, there wouldn't be any wars around(and, hell, I'm sure they have had some civil wars in their history). But, being as aggressive and idealistic as humans are, there are bound to be some violent disagreements, and thats when wars come in. War is an inevitable thing in human culture.
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: Dark Hunter on July 25, 2007, 02:14:20 pm
The Vasudans have never particularly struck me as "peaceful" and "diplomatic"... at least, not any moreso than humans.

Kinda hard for them to be completely diplomatic when they are as arrogant as they are.
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: Woolie Wool on July 25, 2007, 02:24:56 pm
Yeah, he does have a point there. IF everybody was as peaceful and diplomatic as the Vasudans, there wouldn't be any wars around(and, hell, I'm sure they have had some civil wars in their history). But, being as aggressive and idealistic as humans are, there are bound to be some violent disagreements, and thats when wars come in. War is an inevitable thing in human culture.

I just used the Vasudan picture as a general representation of aliens.
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: Flipside on July 25, 2007, 02:39:46 pm
Spam rhymes with Ham.  :D :bump: :warp: :snipe: :headz:

Lock rhymes with 'Dont be a....'
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: Topgun on July 25, 2007, 02:52:46 pm
Sock!!?!!
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: Hades on July 25, 2007, 02:54:10 pm
c***!!?!??
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: Topgun on July 25, 2007, 02:59:12 pm
[napoleon dynamite] I knew what the word was! GOD! [\napoleon dynamite]
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: Hades on July 25, 2007, 03:01:23 pm
 :lol:  That kid was EMO so bad. :lol: :nervous: :warp:
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: foolfromhell on July 25, 2007, 03:11:06 pm
IF everybody was as peaceful and diplomatic as the Vasudans,

The Vasudans falsely blamed the Humans for a gang war caused by Vasudans and they waged war.
The GTVA would have been formed some 40 years earlier, but the Vasudans blamed the Terrans for an internal Vasudan conflict.
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: Dark Hunter on July 25, 2007, 03:18:44 pm
Say what? I've never heard of that. Not from in-game texts nor from the FSRefBible, or from any other canon source I've read.

I don't believe any canon source ever states the original cause of the T-V War.
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: achtung on July 25, 2007, 04:13:20 pm
In my theory, it would probably cost the same as buying an expensive car as it would to build a space fighter, given that the national-state of the world became a global-state, and put aside petty squabbling and humanity united to turn its eyes towards the stars.

Think about it. How much do you suppose the world, as a w(hole), spends on military a year? all that metal, logistics, and funds put to waste making war against fellow man, when it could be put into science.

If there was no war, we'd have the moon settled in 5 years, and mars settled in 15.

Major advancements in Rocket Science were made during wartime, for war.
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: foolfromhell on July 25, 2007, 04:27:44 pm
Say what? I've never heard of that. Not from in-game texts nor from the FSRefBible, or from any other canon source I've read.

I don't believe any canon source ever states the original cause of the T-V War.
http://www.hard-light.net/wiki/index.php/Terran-Vasudan_War#January:
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: Flipside on July 25, 2007, 04:30:26 pm
Yup, not canon, though, in all fairness, you never claimed it was :)
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: AlphaOne on July 26, 2007, 07:33:15 am
Well I believe that when a race achieves he absolue high in its evolution as a species it either ends up bowing itself up or choses a rather pacifistic way of doog thigs. This is not to say that they do not advance theyr weapons and such its just that they usualy spend theyr time talking then fighting.

Or ather it should be that when a species if advanced enough so that it no longer considers ANY other race as a threat to them they usualy should go about peacefully exporing and making friends. Now i know this is childish thinking but what the hel one can only hope.

As far as the shivans go....were from mi POV they  are a stagnanat and dead ace as far as its future goes. so unless they find a new way of dooing hings in the long run the shivans will become and endangere species. I mean look at the GTVA in general they achived the same teh level of the shivans with een a few minor advantages here and there. And the GTVA is only in its infancy so to speak. In the long run the GTVA will prove to become muh more powerfull then the shivans ever dreamed if they keep this up. I mean the GTVA has managed to take cuantum steps in its development of new tech in a matter of years now imagine how far they will go in a century or a milenia.

Asuming the shivans dont blats them by then
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: jr2 on July 26, 2007, 07:49:07 am
Why does everyone have to use the B-2 and F-22 when comparing with an Ursa?  Try a B-52.  Or F-B-111.  Or even a B-1B.  The Ursa is not a stealth bomber!
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: castor on July 26, 2007, 07:52:14 am
The Ursa is not a stealth bomber!
It gets quite close though :D
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: jr2 on July 26, 2007, 07:54:42 am
:wtf: ?!?  The Ursa?  The Pegasus is the only "Stealth" craft, other than the Loki & Shivans' fighters, initially.
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: AlphaOne on July 26, 2007, 08:08:44 am
Well then the GTVA shoul really start building some sort of stealth warships.
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: Woolie Wool on July 26, 2007, 09:05:15 am
It's not a stealth bomber, but it's an extremely advanced, extremely expensive piece of equpment. A B-2 is both of those things. A B-52 is neither of those things.
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: castor on July 26, 2007, 09:11:30 am
:wtf: ?!?  The Ursa?  The Pegasus is the only "Stealth" craft, other than the Loki & Shivans' fighters, initially.
No, no.. I just thought it was such a brilliant statement, caught me completely off guard ;)
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: jr2 on July 26, 2007, 09:18:28 am
It's not a stealth bomber, but it's an extremely advanced, extremely expensive piece of equpment. A B-2 is both of those things. A B-52 is neither of those things.
A B-1B is.  :p
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: Gamma_Draconis on July 26, 2007, 03:56:56 pm
 A stealth Destroyer is a ridicious idea. Even if you can't get a target lock on it, its a huge chunk of metal. All you gotta do is point your guns at it and fire away. Not to mention the Destroyer would probably look funky and very very very expensive. We have no idea how advance the Shivans are. For all we know, we could have been facing Shivan pirates that are wandering out in the corners of the universe while the actual Shivan Empire and its fleet probably has ships we can't even begin imagine. I mean the GTVA has pirates right? Then why can't the Shivans? Imagine all the GTVA was fighting was a bunch of old out of date ships that were piloted by Pirates. Come to think of it, maybe the Lucifer Fleet was a pirate fleet and the Sathanas fleet was an actual Shivan Fleet.
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: Bob-san on July 26, 2007, 04:44:51 pm
It's not a stealth bomber, but it's an extremely advanced, extremely expensive piece of equpment. A B-2 is both of those things. A B-52 is neither of those things.
A B-1B is.  :p
I wouldn't really compare an Ursa to a B-52 or a B-1B... I'd more compare them to an F-14. Huge, aged, advanced for when it was produced, upgraded to stay "competitive". The Ursa is no fighter, but it meets all other specs. It's a huge bomber, tried-and-true. Its not really that advanced now--it's just big and capable. I'd gladly fly an Ursa over any other bomber and most fighters.
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: jr2 on July 26, 2007, 05:14:22 pm
Unit cost   US$283 million in 1998


(http://www.richard-seaman.com/Aircraft/AirShows/ChicagoAirAndWater2001/B1s/B1Climbing5oClock.jpg)
(http://home1.gte.net/lbalders/b1_trsnc.jpg)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c3/B1s.jpg)
(http://www.b1b.wpafb.af.mil/images/gallery/b1_lake.jpg)

Supersonic, partially stealth, swing-wing...

Recant!!
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: TrashMan on July 26, 2007, 05:33:13 pm
I LUV the Lancer!!!!! :D :D :D :D
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: AlphaOne on July 27, 2007, 03:11:41 am
What the?? about the stealth warship....its not suposed to be imune to beam cannon just a hell of a lot harder to get a sensor lock on it and make it harder for the bommbers to egt a lock and fire at it. That is all. Sure the beams can be fired opticly but who cares as long as the miss rate will go up and the bommbers will most likeli have to get much more closer to unload they bommbes which will make them a hell of a lot more vulnerable to aaaf and fighter attacks.


so what if it looks funny for all i care it can look like a bunny if it works I do not mind. Oh and the GTVA even if they can not prioduce a stealth warships like a destroyer or something they should be more then capable of making stealth bommbers and heavy fighters. Oh and if the shivans were so advanced they would of been able to get rid of you before you managed to scan they sath and even take out a few fighters.

So stop asuming the shivan are allmighty and all knowingly because we all know they are not 1 Sure they may be more advanced in some areas but they are inferior to the GTVA in some aeas as well.

There is no doubt they are powerfull very powerfull but to asume they are gods its like the whole HOL speaches from FS1.......are you by ani chance a vasudan fanatic??
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: Gamma_Draconis on July 27, 2007, 04:18:14 am
Maybe....  :nervous:

We have no idea how powerful the Shivans are. Until we have found a Shivan installation or planet, we have to assume the worst. We can never win a frontal confrontation with the Shivans.

About the stealth Destroyer, I bet its really expensive to build any kind of stealth spacecraft. I'm willing to bet the Pegasus is the most expensive fighter hardware the GTVA currently owns. Imagine the amount of money and resources it'll take to construct a stealth Destroyer. Stealth Bombers would be nice but I think all stealth spacecrafts have to be light and nimble. I can see a new kinda of light bomber, maybe a fighter/bomber with stealth technology. They can be used to deliver surgical strikes and will probably be operated by the GTVI.
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: Admiral Edivad on July 27, 2007, 04:33:22 am
About the stealth Destroyer.....

how about stealth installations? would it be possible?
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: Gamma_Draconis on July 27, 2007, 04:38:21 am
About the stealth Destroyer.....

how about stealth installations? would it be possible?

1. It would be really expensive.
2. It won't be as effective because its still a giant hulking piece of metal.
3. It'll still appear on radar, except you just can't accurately target it.
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: TrashMan on July 27, 2007, 05:32:42 am
Wouldn't stealth bombers make things too easy on the player? When you can come into fireing position without being noticed and deliver the payload where it hurts the most..a big advantage..

Hm.. you could of course, make stealth bombers like they do it in Allegiance - same as normal bombers, only FAR less armored and they can't carry the biggest bombs (Helios). Thus, when a few of them set up and preform a first strike it does wonders, but after tehat they got to run for their lives.
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: AlphaOne on July 27, 2007, 05:43:32 am
Well I never said that such spacecraft would have to like a heavy bommber heavy armour heavy payload. But it would be nice to have a small advantage over the shivans. About the instalations beeing stealth ...well.... unless you have some sort of way to cloak it or something like that it would be a waste of time...they are just too big. unles they are hidden deep within the sistem ....but still it would be more expensive then a Collie to build such a stealth behemoth.


About the destroyer beeing stealth well granted they would be expensive and so as not to make them to overpowering they would have to have smaller fighter bays and be in general smaller then normal destroyers.

On the same not you could make use of some stealth corvettes and frigates. They would not cos as much and would be ideal for striking at the shivans without unbalacing the game. Granted they woul be operated by some sort of speacialized crews such as the GTVI or SOC . They do not have to be many of them even a dozen or so would be more then enough to become a very powerfull tool against the shivans.

They would not be able to win the war but they can sure as hell deliver some serious hurt back at the shivans and perhaps help the GTVA survive major engagements.
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: jr2 on July 27, 2007, 08:24:43 am
Geez, guys... Iceni ring a bell?
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: AlphaOne on July 27, 2007, 08:56:32 am
The Iceni was not a stealth ship. It was a very fast frigate with weaponry that could match a destroyer class ship. Altough it had weak aaaf defences and no fighterbay.

The iceni is a superb ship and very beutifull I might add. Besides this it is a very very deadly ship to any other warship except for the Collie and Sath. It could in theory take out with ease a ship such as a Hecate which focuses maynli on its C&C and carrier abilaties rather then raw firepower and could even pose a very serious problem to Hatshepsut class destroyers. Hell the Iceni could be a threat to almost any if not all destroyers in game so far. Remember it has no less the 3BG mounted on it. Not even the Hecate has that many BG mounted on it and the Hecate is a damn destroyer.

However if a ship such as the Iceni were to become a stealth ship it would be more then a match to any and all destroyers present in game. This would offset the weak aaf defences and its lack of a fighterbay and would eneble it to go directly for the destroyer without too much problems from the bommbers and fighters.

However this is not to say that it would not require some sort of fighter/bommber escort. Even with prymaries a ship can be disabled.

That is why I believe that a stealth Deimos would be another nail in the coffin of the shivans. The Deimos has an outrageous aaaf capabilaty for its size and can take on wing after wing after wing of fighters and bommber and get out almost intact. Not to meion is has some acceptable firepower from its 4 slasher beams.
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: jr2 on July 27, 2007, 10:35:33 am
Iceni isn't a stealth ship now...
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: Hades on July 27, 2007, 10:46:25 am
Iceni isn't a stealth ship now...

The Iceni isn't alive now either......

<.<
>.>
 :warp:
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: foolfromhell on July 27, 2007, 11:02:32 am
Quote
The Iceni isn't alive now either......
Dude. Its 2007. Of course its not alive now.
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: jr2 on July 27, 2007, 11:04:38 am
The Iceni asteroid thingy was stealth, even though it had engines & turrets.  So :p it was stealth.  Couldn't lock on until you were how close to it?
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: AlphaOne on July 27, 2007, 11:05:00 am
Iceni isn't a stealth ship now...

The Iceni isn't alive now either......

<.<
>.>
 :warp:

Details details that will most definetly be worked out in the future. :D  





Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: Hades on July 27, 2007, 11:07:24 am
Argo not argu.And 3 ursa is almost the size of a transport.(I know these fighters are not scale, they can't be).
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: Ghostavo on July 27, 2007, 11:09:20 am
The Iceni asteroid thingy was stealth, even though it had engines & turrets.  So :p it was stealth.  Couldn't lock on until you were how close to it?

So your plan for a stealth fleet is to bury all ships under 100 feet of asteroid rock?

I can imagine now, FreeSpace 2++ starring Alpha 1 as a fighter crammed inside a hollow rock.
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: jr2 on July 27, 2007, 11:10:49 am
...Try the Pegasus.  OWNED...
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: Ghostavo on July 27, 2007, 12:01:19 pm
...Try the Pegasus.  OWNED...

Because we all know the pegasus is known for it's weaponry and large size. Or are you trying to say it's small frame and unusual design have nothing to do with it's stealth technology?

Do you plan to have 20 meter or so destroyers?
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: jr2 on July 27, 2007, 05:56:02 pm
...Alpha 1 as a fighter??

Anyways, large ships can't be 'stealth', but they can be stealthy... unless you have a cloaking device.  Basically, you just have to reduce your EM signature, and deflect scanners off of you so that the return looks like random noise.  Or just jam all craft in the vicinity... you'll know someone's out there jamming you, but you won't know where.
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: Ghostavo on July 27, 2007, 06:00:01 pm
...Alpha 1 as a fighter??

Anyways, large ships can't be 'stealth', but they can be stealthy... unless you have a cloaking device.  Basically, you just have to reduce your EM signature, and deflect scanners off of you so that the return looks like random noise.  Or just jam all craft in the vicinity... you'll know someone's out there jamming you, but you won't know where.

Then that's a whole other story. What you are talking about is ECM, which is a diferent approach. That's like calling all shivan fighters, stealth fighters because at first you couldn't get a lock on them.
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: Bob-san on July 27, 2007, 06:02:43 pm
Hell, get a AWACS ship out there and blind them! Make a nice set of AWACS ships.... have one prevent lock on your warship(s) and then make a line until they're all well out of weapons range, each protecting the closer.
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: jr2 on July 27, 2007, 06:04:55 pm
That gets expensive.
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: Ghostavo on July 27, 2007, 06:06:53 pm
And AWACS doesn't prevent the enemy from getting a lock on a target, it just helps detect ships.
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: jr2 on July 27, 2007, 06:07:34 pm
FS2 AWACS.  Real AWACS can to a ton of neat stuff.
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: Ghostavo on July 27, 2007, 06:11:30 pm
FS2 AWACS.  Real AWACS can to a ton of neat stuff.

Real AWACS provides a cover by giving ships the option to disable active radars while mantaining an active radar coverage.

In FreeSpace the only time you use it is in the nebula, which the AWACS needs to be real close to detect anything. Outside the nebula I have no idea. Either way, it doesn't disable the enemy's sensors.
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: jr2 on July 27, 2007, 06:13:40 pm
Where's DySkO?
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: Woolie Wool on July 27, 2007, 06:17:02 pm
FS2 sensors are complete **** compared to modern-day sensors. A ship with modern detection arrays could detect a manned starship of any size ANYWHERE in the solar system because it would be lit up like the Fourth of July on thermal imaging. The proper temperature scale for use in space is Kelvin, where 0 is absoute zero. Space is around 2-3 Kelvins. A manned starship would be 290 kelvins in the manned sections and 400+ in the powerplant.
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: jr2 on July 27, 2007, 06:19:18 pm
Thermal imaging's data relies on infrared light, which travels at the speed of light.  So, it would only be good tactically at closer ranges, longer ranges (like from Earth to Neptune) would be a bit behind.
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: Woolie Wool on July 27, 2007, 06:22:25 pm
Thermal imaging's data relies on infrared light, which travels at the speed of light.  So, it would only be good tactically at closer ranges, longer ranges (like from Earth to Neptune) would be a bit behind.

Unless you make lots of subspace jumps, your ship will be slow enough that it doesn't really matter. It would take days to travel any appreciable difference at sublight. The Boadicea would've had a built-in brilliant flaming homing beacon in the form of its own crew haitats and reactors. You could never, ever hide a manned ship or installation in space. It's impossible. You could MAYBE hide a drone ship if you deactivated all power and left it derelict, but turn anything on and people will see you. The heat difference between the background on Earth and people is very small, 20-30 kelvins at most. In space, it's enough to broadcast your position all the way across the solar system and beyond. To escape detection, you'd need a real cloaking device, and, from the physics we know currently, such devices would not only hide the user from the outside universe, it would hide the universe from the user--you would be blind.
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: Ghostavo on July 27, 2007, 06:25:57 pm
You could somehow try to prevent the heat from escaping, although cooling the reactor would probably be tricky. I-War2 aproaches a bit on this issue.
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: jr2 on July 27, 2007, 06:29:56 pm
Rip a page from Star Trek's Impulse engines - dump the thermal exhaust into sub/hyperspace.  Might not completely shield you, but would reduce your signature.
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: Gamma_Draconis on July 27, 2007, 08:38:47 pm
Having a chain of AWACs jamming your enemy's sensors isn't going to work. All they need to do then, is fire their primaries at the AWAC ships and there goes all your money.
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: jr2 on July 28, 2007, 03:52:55 am
Dumbfire trebbys
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: TrashMan on July 28, 2007, 05:06:34 am
FS2 sensors are complete **** compared to modern-day sensors. A ship with modern detection arrays could detect a manned starship of any size ANYWHERE in the solar system because it would be lit up like the Fourth of July on thermal imaging. The proper temperature scale for use in space is Kelvin, where 0 is absoute zero. Space is around 2-3 Kelvins. A manned starship would be 290 kelvins in the manned sections and 400+ in the powerplant.

Ah...but what if the ship is behind another object? Planet...asteroid..or the sun?
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: castor on July 28, 2007, 06:15:03 am
Hmm.. could they really detect, lets say Fenris engine heat from 150 000 000 miles?
I relly don't know, but I'd imagine that the heat source needs to be big enough to be detected.
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: Polpolion on July 28, 2007, 10:56:40 am
FS2 sensors are complete **** compared to modern-day sensors. A ship with modern detection arrays could detect a manned starship of any size ANYWHERE in the solar system because it would be lit up like the Fourth of July on thermal imaging. The proper temperature scale for use in space is Kelvin, where 0 is absoute zero. Space is around 2-3 Kelvins. A manned starship would be 290 kelvins in the manned sections and 400+ in the powerplant.

Have you ever noticed how there is no limit to sensor ranges in FS?
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: Kie99 on July 28, 2007, 11:04:54 am
FS2 sensors are complete **** compared to modern-day sensors. A ship with modern detection arrays could detect a manned starship of any size ANYWHERE in the solar system because it would be lit up like the Fourth of July on thermal imaging. The proper temperature scale for use in space is Kelvin, where 0 is absoute zero. Space is around 2-3 Kelvins. A manned starship would be 290 kelvins in the manned sections and 400+ in the powerplant.

Have you ever noticed how there is no limit to sensor ranges in FS?

Obviously there is or you would detect every ship in the universe when your radar range was set to Infinity.
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: AlphaOne on July 28, 2007, 01:38:58 pm
well then if FS2 sensors are useless then current day sensors....well....with or without them it would be the same thing. Remember that in FS2 you can get live feed of of ships that enter or exit the field and even know what tipe how much damage they have taken etc. For modern day sensors to track a ship or even an asteroid is very dificult unless it is at close range. Also remember that the radar coverage of the space near Earth is very limited and primitive. I heard on some documentary saing that if they are incredibly lucky they can detect an asteroid headed for earth 1 year to 2 years. That is if they are incredibly lucky. If not in normal circumstances we wouldnt know about it untill it was right at our door step.


Regardless of these things i believe that a ship similar to the awacs could be used to jam other hostile ships and give you an advantage.
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: Woolie Wool on July 28, 2007, 01:42:59 pm
You could somehow try to prevent the heat from escaping, although cooling the reactor would probably be tricky. I-War2 aproaches a bit on this issue.

Impossible. You cannot destroy energy, it violates the first law of thermodynamics. The heat must get out, or it will fry the ship and everyone aboard (and they'll see you anyway because your ship is so hot).  The subspace thing doesn't work either. The energy for just one jump shuts down a Terran ship's jump drive for about a minute, judging from FS2. You just can't keep a subspace rift open for an extended period. Maybe the Shivans can, but not the GTVA. Also, the subspace rift itself would emit energy (especially since it glows), broadcasting its presence to sensors.
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: Polpolion on July 28, 2007, 01:49:01 pm
FS2 sensors are complete **** compared to modern-day sensors. A ship with modern detection arrays could detect a manned starship of any size ANYWHERE in the solar system because it would be lit up like the Fourth of July on thermal imaging. The proper temperature scale for use in space is Kelvin, where 0 is absoute zero. Space is around 2-3 Kelvins. A manned starship would be 290 kelvins in the manned sections and 400+ in the powerplant.

Have you ever noticed how there is no limit to sensor ranges in FS?

Obviously there is or you would detect every ship in the universe when your radar range was set to Infinity.

Ahh... touche... But still, have  a ship warp in at any distance in fred, and watch your radar screen.
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: Mustang19 on July 28, 2007, 07:28:05 pm
:v: was never the one for hard sci-fi. But given the technology that would realistically be available in the 24th century, being stealthy wouldn't be difficult. Redirecting or storing your heat wouldn't be the problem. What would really kill FS ships is their bright shiny paint schemes. Even if the Shivans blocked all thier other EM transmissions, their bright red decor would give them away easily.

About the whole IR thing, remember that heat needs a medium to travel through. Space doesn't count. You need to be spewing photons or some other particle (like the sun does) to transmit heat an appreciable distance through space within a reasonable ammount of time.

Quote
You could somehow try to prevent the heat from escaping, although cooling the reactor would probably be tricky.

Even if you think IR is a legitimate way to detect spaceships, no problem here. Just store your heat, then let it out every few hours in a random direction and speed to prevent the enemy from getting a solid lock. Or, bring along a buttload of heat decoys.
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: Kie99 on July 28, 2007, 07:35:44 pm
FS2 sensors are complete **** compared to modern-day sensors. A ship with modern detection arrays could detect a manned starship of any size ANYWHERE in the solar system because it would be lit up like the Fourth of July on thermal imaging. The proper temperature scale for use in space is Kelvin, where 0 is absoute zero. Space is around 2-3 Kelvins. A manned starship would be 290 kelvins in the manned sections and 400+ in the powerplant.

Have you ever noticed how there is no limit to sensor ranges in FS?

Obviously there is or you would detect every ship in the universe when your radar range was set to Infinity.

Ahh... touche... But still, have  a ship warp in at any distance in fred, and watch your radar screen.

In FRED you can arm a Colossus with about 50 BFReds, doesn't mean it would work in the "real" Freespace universe.  Look at the Sathanes near the Capella sun, you can't target them.
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: karajorma on July 29, 2007, 01:58:15 am
That's mainly cause V made them untargetable.
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: Snail on July 29, 2007, 06:40:04 am
Don't you love it when you're in Paris for a week and the thread grows 6 pages?
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: jr2 on July 29, 2007, 06:52:51 am
What, no Internet in Paris?  :p
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: Snail on July 29, 2007, 07:19:26 am
Internet, yes.

But a SNAIL can't appear at an internet cafe, can I?
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: Woolie Wool on July 29, 2007, 10:23:30 am
:v: was never the one for hard sci-fi. But given the technology that would realistically be available in the 24th century, being stealthy wouldn't be difficult. Redirecting or storing your heat wouldn't be the problem. What would really kill FS ships is their bright shiny paint schemes. Even if the Shivans blocked all thier other EM transmissions, their bright red decor would give them away easily.

About the whole IR thing, remember that heat needs a medium to travel through. Space doesn't count. You need to be spewing photons or some other particle (like the sun does) to transmit heat an appreciable distance through space within a reasonable ammount of time.

Quote
You could somehow try to prevent the heat from escaping, although cooling the reactor would probably be tricky.

Even if you think IR is a legitimate way to detect spaceships, no problem here. Just store your heat, then let it out every few hours in a random direction and speed to prevent the enemy from getting a solid lock. Or, bring along a buttload of heat decoys.

Heat does not need a medium--it is not sound. Infrared radiation is photons! It's the same as light, only a longer wavelength.  Also, photons are weird, as they are both a particle and a wave simultaneously.

Furthermore, decoys don't work. If these missiles have even a rudimentary AI in them, you would need a decoy with the same size, mass, and thermal characteristics of your ship--an exact duplicate of your ship! This is not feasible,  as the decoy would be just as expensive as the ship.

http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3w.html#nostealth
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: Mathwiz6 on July 29, 2007, 12:43:50 pm
Ok. On the list of temporary sensor blockers, how about getting a coolant sink, which is then used to generate energy, which is then used either to fire infrared radiation in a beam in a random direction, or to power the ship? The coolant sink isn't emmiting anything, the energy is dispersed in a manner which is improbable to be detected (Unless, coincidentially, you are directly in the path of the beam). Furthermore, so long as you use the sink to keep energy from reaching the outer hull (Which, like air conditioning, is very expensive in energy terms to do), nothing is emitted into space (at least, no IR).

Wait, I just pulled that out of my ***. Ah well. If it works, I call credit  :lol:
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: Kie99 on July 29, 2007, 04:20:23 pm
That's mainly cause V made them untargetable.

Which is a part of the Freespace Universe.  Shows that the sensors can't something that far away.
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: jr2 on July 30, 2007, 02:48:52 am
Either that, or the subspace crap they were doing atm had an effect on the sensors....
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: Mustang19 on July 30, 2007, 08:29:29 am
You can see them perfectly fine. Mk1 eyeball.  :rolleyes:

Bear in mind that your targeting computer may be just ignoring them, so 80 Sathanases aren't cluttering your targeting list.

Quote
Furthermore, decoys don't work. If these missiles have even a rudimentary AI in them, you would need a decoy with the same size, mass, and thermal characteristics of your ship--an exact duplicate of your ship! This is not feasible,  as the decoy would be just as expensive as the ship.

Change your heat signature using various techniques, and you can have whatever IR image you want. That's all a decoy would have to do, send out a similar number of photons in a similar way. By simplifying (or randomizing) your own IR signature, you can get decoys to work.

And thank you for correcting my terrible physics knowledge.  :P
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: Woolie Wool on July 30, 2007, 09:31:05 am
The problem is that the enemy will be locked on to YOUR ship. If you drop a decoy that's as fast as your ship but much lighter, then its thrusters will be far too dim. If you drop a decoy whose thrusters are the same brightness but it's much lighter, it will be moving too fast to fool the scanner. Therefore, you need a decoy that's the same mass as your ship. This is not practical.
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: NGTM-1R on July 30, 2007, 10:18:17 am
FS2 sensors are complete **** compared to modern-day sensors. A ship with modern detection arrays could detect a manned starship of any size ANYWHERE in the solar system because it would be lit up like the Fourth of July on thermal imaging. The proper temperature scale for use in space is Kelvin, where 0 is absoute zero. Space is around 2-3 Kelvins. A manned starship would be 290 kelvins in the manned sections and 400+ in the powerplant.

I call bull****.

It's only within the last twenty years we've even been able to pick out infrared targets on Earth's surface from orbit. Yes, we can detect remarkably dim infrared sources now...with purpose-built satellites using extremely expensive cryogenic cooling systems that, by the way, are not at all suited to a combat craft. They also take extremely long exposure times to resolve such an image of something that is for all intents and purposes not moving at all. This also assumes that ships have no shielding of any sort to reduce their infrared signature, which is ludicrious.

You're missing Mustang's point, perhaps willfully. Thrusters are not the only source of IR energy. Flares yes? It would be a relatively simple matter for the technology involved to duplicate the IR image of ship.

However from another standpoint this does not appear to be how FS decoys work at all. Rather they appear to break missile lock simply by emitting as much IR/RF energy as possible, washing out everything else so that a missile cannot resolve any other targets.
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: Snail on July 30, 2007, 10:22:27 am
Thank you, ngtm1r.
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: AlphaOne on July 30, 2007, 10:52:16 am
Soo basicly what the guy said was ...wrong. So then besides costs involved what is to stop the GTVA from making some sort of stealth warship or bommbers or fighters?
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: Woolie Wool on July 30, 2007, 11:08:41 am
FS2 sensors are complete **** compared to modern-day sensors. A ship with modern detection arrays could detect a manned starship of any size ANYWHERE in the solar system because it would be lit up like the Fourth of July on thermal imaging. The proper temperature scale for use in space is Kelvin, where 0 is absoute zero. Space is around 2-3 Kelvins. A manned starship would be 290 kelvins in the manned sections and 400+ in the powerplant.

I call bull****.

It's only within the last twenty years we've even been able to pick out infrared targets on Earth's surface from orbit. Yes, we can detect remarkably dim infrared sources now...with purpose-built satellites using extremely expensive cryogenic cooling systems that, by the way, are not at all suited to a combat craft. They also take extremely long exposure times to resolve such an image of something that is for all intents and purposes not moving at all. This also assumes that ships have no shielding of any sort to reduce their infrared signature, which is ludicrious.
The problem is that picking out a 300k person on a 280k Earth is a hell of a lot more difficult than picking out a 290k ship against ~2k  space (I'm using Kelvins instead of Fahrenheit or Celsius because it is more relevant to space). Earth is a huge infrared source. Even with infrared shielding, space is so cold and so dark that you will stand out against it.

Perhaps IR sensors are complex and fragile now, but this will probably not be the case in the future. The first computers were the size of large rooms  and were full of thousands of extremely delicate vacuum tubes. Today, Pentium III-equivalent chips are being made that can withstand enough radiation to instantly kill a human being and Panasonic builds "ToughBooks" which can withstand violent physical impacts and still run. You share one of Trashman's erroneous assumptions--the assumption that technology will be just like it is now. Furthermore, these telescopes (and that's what they are) are complete overkill for searching for starships. They're meant to look at objects tens of millions of light years away. Much more robust thermal imaging sensors would suffice.

In short: Space is really, really dark. Ships are fairly bright. They're pretty hard to miss.

Quote
You're missing Mustang's point, perhaps willfully. Thrusters are not the only source of IR energy. Flares yes? It would be a relatively simple matter for the technology involved to duplicate the IR image of ship.

However from another standpoint this does not appear to be how FS decoys work at all. Rather they appear to break missile lock simply by emitting as much IR/RF energy as possible, washing out everything else so that a missile cannot resolve any other targets.

You might as well make it a gigantic bomb then. You're not going to create that much IR unless you're dropping nuclear mines out the back of your fighter. Using thermal imaging on Earth is like standing on a floodlight, and we can still resolve people and animals. It's unlikely to fool a missile and it certainly won't fool the ship that launched said missile.

On Earth, you have ambient radiation and heat as well as the  fact that creating a lot of IR will heat up the air and make  the air emit more IR. In space you have neither of these luxuries.
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: TrashMan on July 30, 2007, 11:23:16 am
You share one of Trashman's erroneous assumptions--the assumption that technology will be just like it is now.

WTF?  :wtf:
I make no such assumptions..I'm merely aware of the limitations technology & science has and will have. Some people act like science is magic that can do anything. :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: Mustang19 on July 30, 2007, 11:46:19 am
The problem is that the enemy will be locked on to YOUR ship. If you drop a decoy that's as fast as your ship but much lighter, then its thrusters will be far too dim. If you drop a decoy whose thrusters are the same brightness but it's much lighter, it will be moving too fast to fool the scanner. Therefore, you need a decoy that's the same mass as your ship. This is not practical.


You will be storing your heat and only emitting every once and a while. You can drop the decoy anytime, anywhere. The idea is not to break lock or something, but to make the enemy skeptical of his sensors when all these random contacts pop up.

The decoy will be moving as fast as your own ship when you release it. Give it a bit of a boost, if you really have to make its speed match yours.

Quote
You're not going to create that much IR unless you're dropping nuclear mines out the back of your fighter

Store your heat, and then load it into your decoys.
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: Gamma_Draconis on July 30, 2007, 11:50:51 am
Soo basicly what the guy said was ...wrong. So then besides costs involved what is to stop the GTVA from making some sort of stealth warship or bommbers or fighters?

Think about it..... How the hell can you miss a giant 2km Destroyer? Besides, it appears stealth technology involves making holes in the craft. I mean, look at the Pegasus. There is a reason why it looks so weird.
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: Hades on July 30, 2007, 11:53:55 am
Soo basicly what the guy said was ...wrong. So then besides costs involved what is to stop the GTVA from making some sort of stealth warship or bommbers or fighters?

Would you stop saying the same thing over and over.You have said this 3 or 4 times already. :blah:
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: Woolie Wool on July 30, 2007, 12:04:30 pm
The problem is that the enemy will be locked on to YOUR ship. If you drop a decoy that's as fast as your ship but much lighter, then its thrusters will be far too dim. If you drop a decoy whose thrusters are the same brightness but it's much lighter, it will be moving too fast to fool the scanner. Therefore, you need a decoy that's the same mass as your ship. This is not practical.


You will be storing your heat and only emitting every once and a while. You can drop the decoy anytime, anywhere. The idea is not to break lock or something, but to make the enemy skeptical of his sensors when all these random contacts pop up.

The decoy will be moving as fast as your own ship when you release it. Give it a bit of a boost, if you really have to make its speed match yours.

Quote
You're not going to create that much IR unless you're dropping nuclear mines out the back of your fighter

Store your heat, and then load it into your decoys.

You can't "store heat". Heat is the kinetic energy of the atoms and molecules making up a structure. Storing heat makes something hot. Something that's hot gives off lots of infrared. Something that gives off lots of infrared announces its location to everyone within a couple of light years. Any object that has heat energy will give off electromagnetic radiation, but energy is driven by the second law of thermodynamics (entropy always increases) to dissipate, and the only method of dissipation in space is radiation.
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: Mustang19 on July 30, 2007, 12:29:04 pm
What about a heat sink? How do IR reflective materials work, as often used by the military (IE the "V"-shaped IR tape you've seen on some American and Israeli tanks)?

I don't know much about physics, obviously, but I think there's some way to store large amounts of heat for an extended period of time. Not with current technology, of course.

Heat is radiation, basically, and you have several ways to contain or absorb radiation. Correct?
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: Woolie Wool on July 30, 2007, 12:42:24 pm
What about a heat sink? How do IR reflective materials work, as often used by the military (IE the "V"-shaped IR tape you've seen on some American and Israeli tanks)?

I don't know much about physics, obviously, but I think there's some way to store large amounts of heat for an extended period of time. Not with current technology, of course.

Heat is radiation, basically, and you have several ways to contain or absorb radiation. Correct?

Not without reradiating it in some other form. Shielding against hard radiation (gamma rays, etc.), will energize the material in the shielding, causing it to give off lower-energy photons (this is why "swimming tank" reactors have a blue glow around them--the radiation energizes the water, causing it to emit photons). Heat sinks are even worse, because their purpose is to vent heat away from them--by convection in an atmosphere, by radiation in space. Heat sinks are like beacons advertising where your ship is.

Do you have a Wikipedia link or some other source for this IR reflective material. Not that reflective material would work, as it would reflect only rays given off from other ships--it would not affect your own heat.
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: NGTM-1R on July 30, 2007, 01:42:51 pm
The problem is that picking out a 300k person on a 280k Earth is a hell of a lot more difficult than picking out a 290k ship against ~2k  space (I'm using Kelvins instead of Fahrenheit or Celsius because it is more relevant to space). Earth is a huge infrared source. Even with infrared shielding, space is so cold and so dark that you will stand out against it.

Not necessarily; for example as of right now we really can't track single people still via infrared from orbit. Even single vehicles is tough, unless they're large vehicles like ships. Similarly at this point in time there exists natural insulation good enough to retain 100% or nearly so of heat generated. Go look at a polar bear in the infrared sometime. They show as ambient temperature except for the nose and eyes. And if they can do it...

Perhaps IR sensors are complex and fragile now, but this will probably not be the case in the future.

There are, perforce, objective realities that militate against; one of them is the cryo requirement, which there is simply no way around. You have to cool it. You have to give it as little insulation as possible so it doesn't retain heat or cooling it gets much more troublesome. This is basic physics at work. Armoring such a system is simply not practical. You also forget that while yes, it may be possible to build it tougher, weaponry in FS is ridiculously powerful to the point where modern tactical nukes are only decent ante.

Even assuming all these things are possible you must then pick out this target from all the other faint infrared sources you'll detect out there. This is no mean task. There will be thousands of such sources, many of which will not be matchable to objects in visible light or existing planets/moons/asteroids, many of which will be transitory or new. A background or at least some grounding in astronomy would do you good. With an exposure time of each image of, say, an hour (down from the several it takes today), anything that has discernable motion in that time will be spread out and lost as it did not emit enough from the same spot to show up.

You share one of Trashman's erroneous assumptions--the assumption that technology will be just like it is now.

This statement will come back to haunt you in a bit.

You might as well make it a gigantic bomb then. You're not going to create that much IR unless you're dropping nuclear mines out the back of your fighter. Using thermal imaging on Earth is like standing on a floodlight, and we can still resolve people and animals. It's unlikely to fool a missile and it certainly won't fool the ship that launched said missile.

Like right about now.

Who said you aren't dumping nuclear mines out of the back of your fighter? But let's be realistic. An unshielded nuclear reactor has a thermal signature to rival the Sun, which was one of the reasons that the ASAT program used infrared seekers for the proposed task of shooting down nuclear-powered Russian satellites. Dumping a short-term unshielded fusion reaction out the rear end of your fighter is entirely feasible and quite within the realm of possiblity.
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: jr2 on July 30, 2007, 03:02:27 pm
And, BTW, one of the ways to break IR lock today is by dumping flares which have about as much heat as your engine (or more!), also, by firing a beam at the missile that fries its thermal imaging, and also, by aiming into the sun, and pulling off at the last moment (although this tactic works less and less with newer missiles.)
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: AlphaOne on July 31, 2007, 10:49:19 pm
What the......has ca mouflaging a ship gone completely out the window??? I mean sure it is old fashioned but when you have powerfull jaming or stealth tech available the only thing that would make you a target is well....the ship itself ! So blend in with the backround! Or invent some sort of damned cloaking devices as in Star Trek...altough I do believe i'm gooing over the hills with this last tech.

Yet still stealth does not mean you have to put holes in the shiop...abyone remember the vasudan stealth fighter???


Also Who sais you need dozens and dozens of bommbers when a couple of cruisers armed with Mjolnir cannons can do the job very very fast and efective.
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: Snail on August 01, 2007, 08:23:55 am
I agree with AlphaOne.
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: Woolie Wool on August 01, 2007, 10:07:26 am
Not necessarily; for example as of right now we really can't track single people still via infrared from orbit. Even single vehicles is tough, unless they're large vehicles like ships. Similarly at this point in time there exists natural insulation good enough to retain 100% or nearly so of heat generated. Go look at a polar bear in the infrared sometime. They show as ambient temperature except for the nose and eyes. And if they can do it...
STOP MAKING COMPARISONS TO USING IR ON EARTH. Earth is much, much hotter than space, and therefore it is much, much harder to see things. Load up an FS2 mission and try to track targets while staring directly into the center of the sun. With the HDRish smartshader on, or drive while another car's high beams are being reflected into your face. That is what using IR to track people on Earth is like.

Perhaps IR sensors are complex and fragile now, but this will probably not be the case in the future.

Quote
There are, perforce, objective realities that militate against; one of them is the cryo requirement, which there is simply no way around. You have to cool it. You have to give it as little insulation as possible so it doesn't retain heat or cooling it gets much more troublesome. This is basic physics at work. Armoring such a system is simply not practical. You also forget that while yes, it may be possible to build it tougher, weaponry in FS is ridiculously powerful to the point where modern tactical nukes are only decent ante.
Considering the kind of combat we see in FreeSpace, we could easily sacrifice range for durability. Also, creating a material capable of withstanding multi-gigaton direct hits is completely impossible, so magical handwaving materials are already present in FreeSpace!

Quote
Even assuming all these things are possible you must then pick out this target from all the other faint infrared sources you'll detect out there. This is no mean task. There will be thousands of such sources, many of which will not be matchable to objects in visible light or existing planets/moons/asteroids, many of which will be transitory or new. A background or at least some grounding in astronomy would do you good. With an exposure time of each image of, say, an hour (down from the several it takes today), anything that has discernable motion in that time will be spread out and lost as it did not emit enough from the same spot to show up.
It's a wonder how radar operators manage to make out anything with massive radio sources blasting away from all over the world, then (the Earth produces more radio waves than an area of the Sun equivalent to Earth's surface area. That's a lot of radio waves), or radar signals reflecting off the ground, clouds, etc. It's not that difficult to discern a moving target from non-moving space. Furthermore, you're thinking of a telescope, while my idea is a more advanced version of a police thermal imaging camera. But wait, it gets even better! A ship like an Orion-class destroyer is not going to be a faint IR source. To move several billion (yes, billion with a B) tons of starship and power multi-gigaton beam cannons, you need an almost inconceivable amount of energy, This energy is going to result in a similarly incredible amount of heat and radiation in multiple spectra--IR, visible, UV, even X rays! Even in an hour, an Orion won't move very far in astronomical terms, and if the signal does spread out, you're going to get a very bright line along the Orion's course. If the heat of the crew compartment is a beacon, the energy released by its engines will be an enormous flaming arrow pointing down from the sky, visible on UV and X ray detectors as well as on infrared.

An Orion is not a faint signal. It is a huge signal. Woe be to any planet it enters the atmosphere of, considering the amount of energy put out by its drive engines alone.

You might as well make it a gigantic bomb then. You're not going to create that much IR unless you're dropping nuclear mines out the back of your fighter. Using thermal imaging on Earth is like standing on a floodlight, and we can still resolve people and animals. It's unlikely to fool a missile and it certainly won't fool the ship that launched said missile.

I was talking about missiles like the Harpoon, which we have no modern equivalent of. Aspect-seeking missiles lock on by the shape and possibly texture of the target ship's hull. Providing a completely dissimilar decoy will not fool a Harpoon or Trebuchet. Also, a modern aircraft's engine is like a firecracker compared to those of even FreeSpace fighters, which have been shown in command brief animations in FS1 to go from the surface to space in a matter of seconds! Such engines would likely be brighter than a nuclear explosion, and devastate anything that followed a FreeSpace fighter too closely. Try hiding that with a chaff pod (you can't).

Quote
Who said you aren't dumping nuclear mines out of the back of your fighter? But let's be realistic. An unshielded nuclear reactor has a thermal signature to rival the Sun, which was one of the reasons that the ASAT program used infrared seekers for the proposed task of shooting down nuclear-powered Russian satellites. Dumping a short-term unshielded fusion reaction out the rear end of your fighter is entirely feasible and quite within the realm of possiblity.

FreeSpace ships already "dump an unshielded fusion reaction" out their engines, as evidenced by the description of gas miners collecting fuel for "fusion drives". They take plasma out of a fusion reactor's core and spew it out the back--a massive fountain of intensely radioactive plasma blasting out of your ship at obscene velocities. Face it: stealth in space is as much technobabble and hand-waving bull**** as doing loop-the-loops and banked turns in space, humanoid Vasudans, color-changing Subach blob cannon "xasers", and subspace.
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: akenbosch on August 01, 2007, 02:17:49 pm
hey, this is the future. you dont know what they can do! before it was invented, the very idea of television was considered impossible....except by the inventor, of course.
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: TrashMan on August 01, 2007, 03:21:03 pm
Despite what you might belive science HAS limits.. it's not magical.

Lasers act like lasers. Period. Thus, they are in a spectrum mostly invisible to human eye and travel at a speed of light... they're nothing like FS lasers.

Supspace? Theoreticly it like wormhoels...not impossible..
Banking in space? With multiple thrusters and a powerfull nav computer it's possible for a space fighter to behave like that.
Humanoid vasudans? Also not impossible.
Subach changing colors? Maby it's coolin in space or dissolving..also possible.
Making a star go nova prematurely? Sci-fi at it's best :lol: Impossible

Armor capable of withstanding multi-gigaton blasts? Impossible.. Alttough the question is does it withstand a balst at all? Becosue if it did, no capship would get any noticable damage for Cyclops of Harbringer...
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: Snail on August 01, 2007, 03:54:54 pm
Lasers aren't lasers. They're supercompressed gas of something.
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: akenbosch on August 01, 2007, 05:09:20 pm
beamz are a stream of hypercompressed gas mixed with particles, usualy of the radioactive sort.

*looks at wingmen with third eyes, extra noses, and fish-like appearances*

time to switch to tachyons...
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: TrashMan on August 01, 2007, 05:11:21 pm
"My god! Steve just got shot in the head!"
"Which head?" :lol:

Meh..I say GRAVITRONS :drevil:...Or a friggin laser on a moon :drevil:
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: akenbosch on August 01, 2007, 05:13:38 pm
gravitrons? you could do that with $Mass: -10000 just as easily!


edit: we better get on topic...karas already locked one!
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: TrashMan on August 01, 2007, 05:14:46 pm
Hm..if you set mass to like 100000000, can you push a destroyer? :confused:
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: Snail on August 01, 2007, 05:16:21 pm
The thread that kara locked was stupid. It degraded into spam in the fifth post or so. :doubt:

Beams are photon-based.
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: akenbosch on August 01, 2007, 05:18:21 pm
light photons? but those travel at the speed of light! it has to be gas! why else would it be colourful?

anothe rproblem is the warmup/warmdown. what are those particles it sucks in and concentrates into the beam? and where do they go during warmdown? into the ship for energy reserves, or back out into space?
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: Kie99 on August 01, 2007, 05:43:02 pm
Hm..if you set mass to like 100000000, can you push a destroyer? :confused:

Yeah....its fun to set your Mara to Mass 10000000 for Into the Lions Den and watch the Sathanas get destroyed when it hits you.
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: akenbosch on August 01, 2007, 05:46:40 pm
what would snipes say?
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: TrashMan on August 01, 2007, 05:46:54 pm
It's Superman!  :lol:
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: Snail on August 01, 2007, 05:49:44 pm
RAM! RAM! RAM! Hit that Sathanas, pilot!!
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: diceman111 on August 01, 2007, 05:50:11 pm
I think its popcorn, or clowns
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: TrashMan on August 01, 2007, 05:52:10 pm
I say.. wrong thread Dicy Ol' boy?  :pimp: Care for a spot of tea?
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: akenbosch on August 01, 2007, 05:56:56 pm
we have earl grey, mary pink, carl red, and sandwhich bread. what would you care for? :pimp:
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: TrashMan on August 01, 2007, 06:07:04 pm
earl gray, shaken, not stirrred :cool:


Eh..jsut got an idea...for my next project I'm going to have Alpha 1 push a planet! Gonna need a big planet.pof but it will be worth it to play bowling with shivans as pins! :lol:
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: akenbosch on August 01, 2007, 06:08:45 pm
beamz dont go forever...except with +weapon range: and a very large number. i'll give you the code for a streaming beam if you want, though.
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: TrashMan on August 01, 2007, 06:13:44 pm
I meant giving teh loki Alpha 1 is in 10000000000000 points of mass, speed and HP.

Then do some physical pushing. Either the planet will move, or Alpha 1 will get to know it's core up clsoe and personal!
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: akenbosch on August 01, 2007, 06:18:29 pm
*woosh*

*bump*

shivans: AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA-*hit*

alpha 1: WAHOO! another strike!

Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: jr2 on August 02, 2007, 03:30:06 am
OK, back on topic:

I think the FS / SW lasers can be explained as a contained / and/or charged laser blast.  I know it is possible to contain or "stop" a laser, they have done it.  Whether or not it is possible to contain a pent-up amount of laser energy inside of soem sort of plasma and shoot it is another matter.  I think firing the plasma would be easy enough, but eventually the plasma would not contain the laser... hence the "laser's" max range, which would be based on the strength of the plasma field containing it.
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: Grizzly on August 02, 2007, 04:01:16 am
Isn't such thing called a Xaser?
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: jr2 on August 02, 2007, 04:03:11 am
Not sure... Nope, that means "X-Ray" version of laser, ie, X aser, instead of L aser.  See here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xaser).

EDIT: Looky here:

Quote from: Wikipedia
Science fiction films special effects often depict laser beams propagating at only a few metres per second—slowly enough to see their progress, in a manner reminiscent of conventional tracer ammunition—whereas in reality a laser beam travels at the speed of light and would seem to appear instantly to the naked eye from start to end. Some fans claim that the "laser beams" shown in such movies are in fact other type of sci-fi weaponry, such as particle beams (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_beam) or plasma weapons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_weapon).
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: Woolie Wool on August 02, 2007, 03:51:07 pm
Quote
Supspace? Theoreticly it like wormhoels...not impossible..
Where does the exotic matter scaffolding required to keep open the wormhole not there? Why isn't the end you go through to enter subspace a black hole? The fact that it's glowing means that stuff is coming OUT of it.
Banking in space? With multiple thrusters and a powerfull nav computer it's possible for a space fighter to behave like that.
Such a method of maneuvering would make your fighter less effective that the flight style seen on Babylon 5 before they started wanking off to "gravimetric" propulsion.
Quote
Humanoid vasudans? Also not impossible.
So incredibly unlikely that it's ridiculous to even consider.
Quote
Subach changing colors? Maby it's coolin in space or dissolving..also possible.
Radiation doesn't "cool"--the light will diffuse over long ranges, but a laser will keep its original wavelength. Like it or not, FreeSpace is constructed with extreme scientific ignorance, and it's pathetic sensor system is among the worst offenders. You just can't do stealth in space. Furthermore, the Subach is an X-ray laser, so it should be invisible!

Quote
I think the FS / SW lasers can be explained as a contained / and/or charged laser blast.  I know it is possible to contain or "stop" a laser, they have done it.  Whether or not it is possible to contain a pent-up amount of laser energy inside of soem sort of plasma and shoot it is another matter.  I think firing the plasma would be easy enough, but eventually the plasma would not contain the laser... hence the "laser's" max range, which would be based on the strength of the plasma field containing it.
Your explanation doesn't make any sense. Lasers are "stopped" either by mirrors, which reflect them, or strong materials that absorb them completely. You can't freeze electromagnetic radiation. The plasma doesn't work either, because plasma is extremely volatile. Plasma molecules desperately want to get away from other plasma molecules, so firing plasma is like firing a blast of steam at an opponent--completely useless, as it instantly diffuses. You might as well say the thing is constructed out of pure technobabble.
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: Gamma_Draconis on August 02, 2007, 03:54:08 pm
Likewise, there is no sound in space either. But I bet you the game wouldn't be very fun if you were shooting invisible Xasers and no sound except for the background music.
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: Hades on August 02, 2007, 03:55:40 pm
Also Fire cannot exist in space because there is no oxygen. :P
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: akenbosch on August 02, 2007, 03:56:33 pm
why have a realistic game when you can have a cool one?
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: Woolie Wool on August 02, 2007, 03:57:29 pm
I wasn't arguing that FreeSpace sucked because its physics don't work, I am arguing that it's physics don't work. The quality of the game has no bearing on the fact that the idea of stealth ships and color changing X-ray blob guns contradict the way things actually are.

The GTF Pegasus is cool, even if you are Rockeye fodder in one. The problem is that in real life, stealth fighters don't work in space.
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: akenbosch on August 02, 2007, 03:59:56 pm
they do if you use the "stealth" flag on a SCP build
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: Snail on August 02, 2007, 04:03:18 pm
The problem is that in real life, stealth fighters don't work in space.

And sound doesn't travel in space.

Stop trying to compare FS phenomena to real-life.
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: Woolie Wool on August 02, 2007, 04:03:55 pm
The problem is that in real life, stealth fighters don't work in space.

And sound doesn't travel in space.

Stop trying to compare FS phenomena to real-life.

Concession accepted.
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: TrashMan on August 02, 2007, 04:43:47 pm
Where does the exotic matter scaffolding required to keep open the wormhole not there? Why isn't the end you go through to enter subspace a black hole? The fact that it's glowing means that stuff is coming OUT of it.

The wormhoels/subspace/hyperspace and all that shizt are all theorethical construct, not yet proven..and something that the top scientistsare debating about..
so unless you're one of hte greatest minds on Earth, I wouldn't go into arguments regarding their inner workings or "belivability"

Quote
So incredibly unlikely that it's ridiculous to even consider.

Actually it's impossible to calculate. It *could* be that the humanoid shape is an optimal shape and that practicly ALL alien races would be humanoid... There's no way to tell
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: Turey on August 02, 2007, 05:44:18 pm
Quote
So incredibly unlikely that it's ridiculous to even consider.

Actually it's impossible to calculate. It *could* be that the humanoid shape is an optimal shape and that practicly ALL alien races would be humanoid... There's no way to tell


More likely, it's not the humanoid shape that's optimal, but bilateral symmetry. After all, 90% of all multi-celled life on earth has bilateral symmetry.
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: Bob-san on August 03, 2007, 03:35:28 pm
We are a product of our environment.

Might I bring up another inaccuracy? Your eyes can't see colors in space without aide--generally in a brightened cockpit (which could be distracting) or mechanical aide.

Anyways--If I remember correctly, one of our weapons requires an igniter of gases in order to work--something about a 1/10 of a millisecond or something... I don't remember which one or the other details, but I'm about 95% sure that it's mentioned in-game or by :v:.
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: akenbosch on August 03, 2007, 04:17:43 pm
the prometheus. and the maxim accelarates uranium shells.
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: Agent_Koopa on August 03, 2007, 04:27:01 pm
Might I bring up another inaccuracy? Your eyes can't see colors in space without aide--generally in a brightened cockpit (which could be distracting) or mechanical aide.

Really? Where have you heard that?
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: Bob-san on August 03, 2007, 04:37:53 pm
Might I bring up another inaccuracy? Your eyes can't see colors in space without aide--generally in a brightened cockpit (which could be distracting) or mechanical aide.

Really? Where have you heard that?
You can't see colors in space because your cones (color) are inactive in low-light conditions. Instead, your rods (b,w,&g-s) are making the images in your eyes--they're responsible primarily during low-light conditions.

Next off--I removed "Prometheus" from my post quoted by you because I was unsure--someone else might know for sure.

the prometheus. and the maxim accelarates uranium shells.
+1

Didn't the Subach receive a bit of a technical-workings overview too? I know it is considered Xaser, though I think the GTVA would be stupid not to pigment a weapon--it makes it easier to dodge but that's both positive and negative. As general-use, for and against the NTF at least, it would be necessary to pigment it so your own fighters can dodge enemy and friendly fire.
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: Snail on August 03, 2007, 04:39:45 pm
I know it is considered Xaser, though I think the GTVA would be stupid not to pigment a weapon--it makes it easier to dodge but that's both positive and negative.

Like tracer fire.
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: TrashMan on August 03, 2007, 04:41:04 pm
You can't see colors in space because your cones (color) are inactive in low-light conditions. Instead, your rods (b,w,&g-s) are making the images in your eyes--they're responsible primarily during low-light conditions.

Helooo? Cones are part of the eyes. And there's enough light in space to see...what are you talking about?

Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: Bob-san on August 03, 2007, 04:58:48 pm
You can't see colors in space because your cones (color) are inactive in low-light conditions. Instead, your rods (b,w,&g-s) are making the images in your eyes--they're responsible primarily during low-light conditions.

Helooo? Cones are part of the eyes. And there's enough light in space to see...what are you talking about?


It's all about cones and rods... if I remember human optics correctly, your cones deactivate in low-light conditions. Let me put it this way--unless there is a planet, major ship close to you, or a lot of light from other sources, you cannot see the color involved in the scene. You need lengthened exposure to the darkness (an hour) to see the colors clearly.

Do this tonight--in an interior room of your place of living, turn off all lights in said room and turn on the TV in a connecting room. All light from under the door will appear to be white--regardless if the light is actually blue, green, red, &c.

EDIT: I mean to see colors--you can only see in gray-scale in low-light conditions.

EDIT 2:
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye
The retina contains two forms of photosensitive cells important to vision—rods and cones. Though structurally and metabolically similar, their function is quite different. Rod cells are highly sensitive to light allowing them to respond in dim light and dark conditions, however, they cannot detect color. These are the cells which allow humans and other animals to see by moonlight, or with very little available light (as in a dark room). This is why the darker conditions become, the less color objects seem to have. Cone cells, conversely, need high light intensities to respond and have high visual acuity. Different cone cells respond to different wavelengths of light, which allows an organism to see color.
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: TrashMan on August 03, 2007, 05:09:18 pm
Yeah, I know that...but you seem to imply there's not much light in space...

What is there to block the Sun praytell????
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: jr2 on August 03, 2007, 07:48:32 pm
Depends if you're on the other side of a planet or not.  But IIRC, if you look at the sun without specially shielded lenses / facemasks, you will have your eyes damaged.
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: akenbosch on August 03, 2007, 07:53:10 pm
[yoda]sunshielded cockpits, freespace is lacking. hmmmMMMMmmm.[/yoda]
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: jr2 on August 03, 2007, 07:59:28 pm
Well, you wouldn't notice... the shuttle windows have this shielding, as do astronauts' face masks... but it's not a visible coating.
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: akenbosch on August 03, 2007, 08:04:00 pm
then why does the sun fill the screen with light? in reality, the pilots eyes would fry!
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: jr2 on August 03, 2007, 08:08:17 pm
Urg... It's not the amount of light, it's the type.  There is no o-zone to shield out the UV, gamma radiation, etc.  So you have to shield those out, like UV sunglasses.  And no, they don't have to be tinted to be UV proof.
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: TrashMan on August 04, 2007, 04:34:38 am
Depends if you're on the other side of a planet or not.  But IIRC, if you look at the sun without specially shielded lenses / facemasks, you will have your eyes damaged.

Only idiots stare at the Sun anyway.. But in-space you can see everything clearly..there's enough light...indeed, sometimes even too much light.
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: Bob-san on August 04, 2007, 07:23:35 am
I was stating the fact for when you're away from orbit--we can see what appears to be nebulae. If that happened to be actual space and we didn't have aides for colour, we'd take hours to be able to see any colour. However, I think we'd have the proper visual shielding to look at suns without killing eyes.
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: Grizzly on August 04, 2007, 07:55:28 am
to the main qeustion:

because only one will survive...
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: TrashMan on August 04, 2007, 08:43:13 am
I'm not quite sure thats correct..... :doubt:
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: Woolie Wool on August 04, 2007, 12:03:47 pm
Quote
So incredibly unlikely that it's ridiculous to even consider.

Actually it's impossible to calculate. It *could* be that the humanoid shape is an optimal shape and that practicly ALL alien races would be humanoid... There's no way to tell


More likely, it's not the humanoid shape that's optimal, but bilateral symmetry. After all, 90% of all multi-celled life on earth has bilateral symmetry.

Yes, but cockroaches, flatworms, and Shivans are also symmetrical.

Well, you wouldn't notice... the shuttle windows have this shielding, as do astronauts' face masks... but it's not a visible coating.

IIRC the Shuttle windows appear black from the outside, so it is visible.
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: akenbosch on August 04, 2007, 12:11:33 pm
so why did we go and make all the cockpits clear?
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: Kie99 on August 04, 2007, 02:26:29 pm
so why did we go and make all the cockpits clear?

Because it looks cool, and the cockpit in the opening cutscene to FS1 was clear.  The real question is why every pilot has a look of panic in his eyes.
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: Mobius on August 04, 2007, 02:55:12 pm
Maybe because the pilot is too small and you can barely see him ingame...the pilot model itself is low poly. But all cockpit effects are excellent.

Him...

!!!

What about females?!? :lol:

Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: TrashMan on August 04, 2007, 03:34:50 pm
Yea..we need sexy felmale pilot models...after all ,we dont' want to be accused of beinh shovinist pigs..all men pilots in HTL models..

Heard of the chainmail bikini concpet? Well I'm for a flightsuit bikini!
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: akenbosch on August 04, 2007, 06:09:49 pm
im for too-scale pilots where the HUD panel is located where it is in the cutscene (1-2 feet below eye level), and you have a co-pilot. THERES CANON FOR YA!

ps: what about shivan and vasudan pilots?
pss: what happens if said bibkini cockpit has a male head ani?
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: AlphaOne on August 04, 2007, 10:43:03 pm
well the only thing i can imagine is a lot of guis never looking at fs fighter/bommber cockpits the same again! I know I wont!

Btw on this idea has anyone done any sort of graphics to be added on the side of capships in fs you know the ones they usde to have in ww2 on bommbers and fighters etc??
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: jr2 on August 05, 2007, 12:54:19 am
Put some teeth on the front of the Apollo, Herc, and the Erinyes.
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: Gamma_Draconis on August 05, 2007, 04:25:24 am
I believe the Loki has standard teeth painting. I wonder why they painted Lokis like that...
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: Mobius on August 05, 2007, 05:27:26 am
Because the Loki does recon and some teeth would have made it more aggressive :D

The Zeus has two white Pegasus(maybe they're just horses, I don't remember).
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: Snail on August 05, 2007, 07:19:39 am
Put some teeth on the front of the Apollo, Herc, and the Erinyes.

I wouldn't use them if you did that. The teeth texture was good for some things, but not for others IMO.
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: Woolie Wool on August 05, 2007, 09:32:18 am
Where would the teeth go on an Apollo? Its nose is the wrong shape.

And the Loki already has a gaping shark mouth painted on it.
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: Polpolion on August 08, 2007, 09:01:06 pm
im for too-scale pilots where the HUD panel is located where it is in the cutscene (1-2 feet below eye level), and you have a co-pilot. THERES CANON FOR YA!

ps: what about shivan and vasudan pilots?
pss: what happens if said bibkini cockpit has a male head ani?


I'd be willing to bet that the cockpit varies from ship to ship, so it would only be for the Apollo that the opening cutscene would be good for.

IIRC someone was doing a Vasudan cockpit a while back. I remember seeing it in a Herc I for some reason, but I don't know what really happened to it. Shivan fighters don't really have cockpits. Or at least ones with the canopy.

A bikini flight suit is stupid. I mean, it's just stupid. Sexy, yes; but smart, no.
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: jr2 on August 08, 2007, 09:12:53 pm
Flight suits are bulky... life support equipment, as well as being designed not to tear when you catch your hand on something or another!  :eek:
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: akenbosch on August 08, 2007, 09:14:06 pm
i guess you could fit all that onto a bikini...but it would lose its appeal to some boys. UNLESS, of course, you like the very body shape of the bikini-wearer to be mostly obscured.
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: Woolie Wool on August 08, 2007, 10:52:32 pm
The thing is that the flight suit has to cover the ENTIRE body, which is why the GTA flight suit has a visor in the helmet and a neck seal.
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: Agent_Koopa on August 08, 2007, 10:53:37 pm
im for too-scale pilots where the HUD panel is located where it is in the cutscene (1-2 feet below eye level), and you have a co-pilot. THERES CANON FOR YA!
I'd be willing to bet that the cockpit varies from ship to ship, so it would only be for the Apollo that the opening cutscene would be good for.

Wait... a HUD below eye level? Does that make any sense at all?
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: akenbosch on August 08, 2007, 10:56:14 pm
it wouldnt matter, the HUD panel would be too small for the pilot to even see the reticle...
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: jr2 on August 09, 2007, 01:39:12 am
Future HUDs will be projected onto the visor of your helmet.  Current HUDs are projected onto a transparent screen mounted in front of the pilot.
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: TrashMan on August 09, 2007, 06:13:56 am
im for too-scale pilots where the HUD panel is located where it is in the cutscene (1-2 feet below eye level), and you have a co-pilot. THERES CANON FOR YA!

ps: what about shivan and vasudan pilots?
pss: what happens if said bibkini cockpit has a male head ani?

then you'll LUV my models. :D

Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: Desert Tyrant on August 09, 2007, 11:19:36 pm
The topic question is about several different shades of retarded.

BY using 'lolz why put t3h gunz on shipz when bomberz do better lolz'  this, it's basically as stupid of a question as asking 'Why did the US Navy put 16in batteries on Iowa Battleships?'  WHy did the Japanese but 18 inch batteries on the Yamato and Mushashi?

Perhaps torpdos are ****ing expensive.  Perhaps bombers require a piss-load of fuel.  Perhas Beam Cannons give them zomg teeth!!!11

 
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: jaedub51 on August 09, 2007, 11:33:40 pm
The topic question is about several different shades of retarded.

BY using 'lolz why put t3h gunz on shipz when bomberz do better lolz'  this, it's basically as stupid of a question as asking 'Why did the US Navy put 16in batteries on Iowa Battleships?'  WHy did the Japanese but 18 inch batteries on the Yamato and Mushashi?

Perhas torpdos are ****ing expensive.  Perhas bombers require a piss-load of fuel.  Perhas Beam Cannons give them zomg teeth!!!11

 

Perfect explanation.
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: Desert Tyrant on August 09, 2007, 11:41:07 pm
The topic question is about several different shades of retarded.

BY using 'lolz why put t3h gunz on shipz when bomberz do better lolz'  this, it's basically as stupid of a question as asking 'Why did the US Navy put 16in batteries on Iowa Battleships?'  WHy did the Japanese but 18 inch batteries on the Yamato and Mushashi?

Perhas torpdos are ****ing expensive.  Perhas bombers require a piss-load of fuel.  Perhas Beam Cannons give them zomg teeth!!!11

 

Perfect explanation.

Are you being sarcastic? 
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: Excalibur on August 09, 2007, 11:57:57 pm
to the main qeustion:

because only one will survive...




Hmmm......

The Sath has many blind spots though, the bomber could release their ordinates and warp out before the massive explosion.


Also, why don't they just get a conventional nuclear bomb and implant it just into the hull of the Sath?

Or fire one into the engines?

That'd be way cheaper than hundreds of helios'
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: Snail on August 10, 2007, 04:34:16 am
The topic question is about several different shades of retarded.

BY using 'lolz why put t3h gunz on shipz when bomberz do better lolz'  this, it's basically as stupid of a question as asking 'Why did the US Navy put 16in batteries on Iowa Battleships?'  WHy did the Japanese but 18 inch batteries on the Yamato and Mushashi?

Perhas torpdos are ****ing expensive.  Perhas bombers require a piss-load of fuel.  Perhas Beam Cannons give them zomg teeth!!!11

Perfect explanation.

Are you being sarcastic? 

I don't think he is. Helios warheads are ANTI-MATTER bombs.
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: TrashMan on August 10, 2007, 05:49:16 am
The topic question is about several different shades of retarded.

BY using 'lolz why put t3h gunz on shipz when bomberz do better lolz'  this, it's basically as stupid of a question as asking 'Why did the US Navy put 16in batteries on Iowa Battleships?'  WHy did the Japanese but 18 inch batteries on the Yamato and Mushashi?

Perhaps torpdos are ****ing expensive.  Perhaps bombers require a piss-load of fuel.  Perhas Beam Cannons give them zomg teeth!!!11

Yeah it is...but so is this comunity :D

IIRC, alltough the Yamato had technicly bigger guns, their power and range was approximately rated the same. The USA had better shells (explosives) and guns..not to mention killer targeting systems for that time.
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: Desert Tyrant on August 10, 2007, 10:07:41 am
The topic question is about several different shades of retarded.

BY using 'lolz why put t3h gunz on shipz when bomberz do better lolz'  this, it's basically as stupid of a question as asking 'Why did the US Navy put 16in batteries on Iowa Battleships?'  WHy did the Japanese but 18 inch batteries on the Yamato and Mushashi?

Perhaps torpdos are ****ing expensive.  Perhaps bombers require a piss-load of fuel.  Perhas Beam Cannons give them zomg teeth!!!11

Yeah it is...but so is this comunity :D

Oh, so that's why you got your title.

Quote
IIRC, alltough the Yamato had technicly bigger guns, their power and range was approximately rated the same. The USA had better shells (explosives) and guns..not to mention killer targeting systems for that time.

The Iowa had better fire control, and speed.  The Iowa could dictate the terms of battle to the Yamato.
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: TrashMan on August 10, 2007, 11:28:55 am
Quote
Oh, so that's why you got your title.

Nah..I ment that in the nicest possibl way..

I must have pissed off someone with the power to change my title.. It happens every so often after I dominate ( :P) a discussion... some schmuck changes my title.
I don't mind..It shows they broke under pressure ;7


B.t.w. - Khrone Beserkers?
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: Polpolion on August 10, 2007, 11:58:03 am
Future HUDs will be projected onto the visor of your helmet.  Current HUDs are projected onto a transparent screen mounted in front of the pilot.

Where's the reticle going to be? It'd be kinda useless in your helmet, unless your head is bolted to the headrest so you can't move it.
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: RangerKarl on August 10, 2007, 12:44:04 pm
The gunsight reticle could easily be positioned on a virtual axis facing forward, while any offbore weapons could be slewed to helmet. Augmented reality and all that, nothing truly insurmountable.
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: Snail on August 10, 2007, 12:47:48 pm
I don't mind..It shows they broke under pressure ;7

You suck at spamming. And your quotes don't even link or have time stamps.
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: TrashMan on August 10, 2007, 01:38:36 pm
You suck at spamming. And your quotes don't even link or have time stamps.

That's becosue I don't do that... :p
Since when must a quote link?
b.t.w - what's a time stamp?
Title: Re: Why a destroyer when 100 Ursas can take out a Sathanas?
Post by: jr2 on August 11, 2007, 09:31:47 am
Future HUDs will be projected onto the visor of your helmet.  Current HUDs are projected onto a transparent screen mounted in front of the pilot.

Where's the reticle going to be? It'd be kinda useless in your helmet, unless your head is bolted to the headrest so you can't move it.

Your reticle for a gun that did not move would stay where it belongs, dead center in the front of the aircraft, and as you turn your head, it will move to the side and eventually pass out of your field of view (move off-screen).  For missiles, the test version on the F-15 allowed pilots to lock onto targets behind them and fire their missiles; the missile would then fire forwards, turn around, and track the target.  ;7  IIRC, this system is standard on the F-22.  (And probably the F-35.)

You suck at spamming. And your quotes don't even link or have time stamps.

That's becosue I don't do that... :p
Since when must a quote link?
b.t.w - what's a time stamp?

A time stamp is the "on August 10, 2007, 02:38:36 PM" part of the quote.