Author Topic: Damn, can't change thread titles can you?  (Read 6442 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Alan Bolte

  • 28
  • Deneb III
    • @Compellor
Actual velocities and accelerations?
Specifically with respect to the Tsunami, I decided to ignore it entirely due to the following two issues:
1. As Pnakotus mentioned, there's no way to know how efficient the annihilation is, unless of course there's a larger quantity of antimatter in the bomb than listed, and the quantity listed is the average amount annihilated.
2. I'm having difficulty verifying this because I seem to have forgotten where my sources are, and I don't have easy access to FS1 techroom data guaranteed to be a direct copy, but I recall the units not being stated in tonnes, but rather something nonsensical like cubic tonnes. It is probable that at least some aspects of the English language have changed over time, so we could treat this not as a typo but rather an intentional use of nonsense units.

This leaves with something that is at least workable, rather than completely insane.

Blagh, this crossover business would be so much easier if I didn't have to deal with the FS universe in addition to all the more normally insane Sci-Fi universes. How the hell did I get into the pointless hobby anyway?
Anything worth doing is worth analyzing to death -Iranon

 

Offline Eishtmo

  • The one and only
  • 29
  • The One and Only
    • http://www.angelfire.com/games2/fsarchive/index.html
Actual velocities and accelerations?
GTM-3 Tsunami Bomb

Intelligent tracking similar to GTA targeting system - prior to launch, communicates with ship computer, gathering data about enemy target types and whereabouts - slow, low maneuverability - antimatter warhead (500 tonne3 mass-to-energy conversion) - due to instability of antimatter, no more than 10 may be carried on board a GTA bomber at any given time, unless pilot is granted a special permit by an appropriate governing body.

The Tsunami has now become the standard Terran bomb used to take out large targets.  It's short life requires that you get within 1500 meters of the target before sending it off, and since it needs a lock to be fired, it takes a brave pilot to fly straight enough for long enough to let one of these fly.  A few Tsunami's will take out almost any ship, barring a destroyer.  The antimatter warhead also washes over shields a little, so as long as it isn't too close to the center of the blast, a fighter or bomber has a good chance of surviving detonation.

Just ask, I got all sorts of things like this laying around.
Warpstorm  Bringing Disorder to Chaos, And Eventually We'll Get It Right.

---------

I know there is a method, but all I see is madness.

 

Offline Alan Bolte

  • 28
  • Deneb III
    • @Compellor
Actual velocities and accelerations?
Wait...was that actually written as tonne3, or was the 3 superscript?

OTOH, WTF does it matter? Gonna have to BS my way through this anyway.

Only info I really feel like I need now is how beams interact with shields. I'm gonna feel pretty stupid if there's some big obvious link somewhere.
Anything worth doing is worth analyzing to death -Iranon

 

Offline Eishtmo

  • The one and only
  • 29
  • The One and Only
    • http://www.angelfire.com/games2/fsarchive/index.html
Actual velocities and accelerations?
Just a 3, no superscript (I don't think the tables were capable of it).
Warpstorm  Bringing Disorder to Chaos, And Eventually We'll Get It Right.

---------

I know there is a method, but all I see is madness.

 

Offline Carl

  • Render artist
  • 211
    • http://www.3dap.com/hlp/
Actual velocities and accelerations?
so how does one translate a cubic tonne? does it mean that it's 5000 tonnes cubed? that would be 125 million tonnes of matter-->energy! :eek: or a 267.5 exaton explosion!!!! just one would shatter a small moon.
« Last Edit: December 20, 2004, 07:04:39 pm by 158 »
"Gunnery control, fry that ****er!" - nuclear1

 

Offline Eishtmo

  • The one and only
  • 29
  • The One and Only
    • http://www.angelfire.com/games2/fsarchive/index.html
Actual velocities and accelerations?
It probably means 500 cubic tonne mass->energy conversion, like it says.  Of course, it has to be far weaker than the 5000 megaton Harbinger, since it is, well, weaker.  That is, of course, assuming a perfect conversion, which it might never achieve.
Warpstorm  Bringing Disorder to Chaos, And Eventually We'll Get It Right.

---------

I know there is a method, but all I see is madness.

 

Offline Stryke 9

  • Village Person
    Reset count: 4
  • 211
Actual velocities and accelerations?
As regards beams, you may be asking the wrong question. Been a time since I consulted the reference bible and so on, so I don't know what technobabble is regarded as "canon" and thus can't be contradicted or everyone will run around screaming and tear their hear out- but ingame they're instantaneous, and there's ways to run with that physically. Think of it this way: we've got the whole subspace thing going, so alternate dimensions that can be used to flaunt the laws of space and time are already considered a reality in the game. The Shivans are a race that practically lives in one of these reality-warping alternate dimensions, and certainly are highly skilled at making use of them. They invented beam weapons.

So why couldn't the beam weapons be, instead of a traveling spray of coherent energy-of-some-sort, a one-dimensional rip in three-dimensional space that appears simultaneously at every point along its path, with one termination at the point of the beam projector (really some kind of Fancy Science Thingy along the lines of whatever makes those big shiny subspace "warps" appear in front of ships when they wanna bugger off- they even say in one of the briefs that nobody really gets how beams are supposed to work), and the other either located at a computer- selected point inside the target, or at some ridiculous distance away (or infinity)? The sudden temporary removal of even a fairly small slice of the universe would be pretty catastrophic all down the line- the glows surrounding beams themselves would be the result of trillions upon trillions of tiny nuclear explosions occurring as the (relatively) miniscule number of free-floating hydrogen atoms you get even in deep space met an infinitely thin line of condensed annihilation- and wouldn't affect spacetime disturbances like shields so much as more tangible things like the component atoms of all those parts of spaceships pertinent to keeping air and burning fuel in and the vacuum of space out. Why shields wouldn't take damage from a very small part of the ship they contain and the space around them going Hiroshima I'm not prepared to bull**** my way through, but there you go. You couldn't, say, slice through a planet or even a fighter with it, it's not that kind of weapon, but simply by making life very unpleasant along a single moving line all the way through to the other side you'd bypass any armor that ever existed or ever will and utterly mutilate anything with important internal machinery vulnerable to nuclear fission.

Also, while I'm extremely rusty on my particle physics last I remembered plasma was more or less containable by a strong magnetic field, and in fact could be magnetically polarized itself (this from playing around with the theory regarding Tokamaks). So presumably, were one to run a fairly coherent cloud of plasma through a ridiculously powerful electromagnet (or, better yet, a few of them), it would become highly magnetized in and of itself, trapping itself in its own field same way as a ball of magnetized iron filings will stick together without external interference, and would remain coherent until the field dissipated. This would have the added effect of allowing you to propel the thing using extant and relatively efficient technologies without having to touch the ****er. So there's your plasma ball right there- they still couldn't travel as slowly or be as coherent as they seem ingame, perhaps, but given sufficient power levels (which FreeSpace seems fond of exhibiting to the extreme), they'd be feasible at least.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2004, 05:02:08 pm by 262 »

 
Actual velocities and accelerations?
In my gameplay experience of FS2.




Beams don't interact with shields, at all.
They completely ignore them.
Whether you wish to believe that is because they puncture straight through them as the lance of longinus an AT Field, or just bad programming, I leave to you.


It would be nice if there were ways to dodge beams, or to have beams hit shields.
But nevermind.
"Neutrality means that you don't really care, cuz the struggle goes on even when you're not there: Blind and unaware."

"We still believe in all the things that we stood by before,
and after everything we've seen here maybe even more.
I know we're not the only ones, and we were not the first,
and unapologetically we'll stand behind each word."

 

Offline MetalDestroyer

  • Starwars reborn!
  • 210
Actual velocities and accelerations?
Lol, if beams hit shields really exist, Cruiser/Destroyer will not be more deadly than the actual version.
And so, whoever pilots on whatever fighter/bomber will easily destroy a massive object without being damaged.

 
Actual velocities and accelerations?
Hello Very Easy Player.
"Neutrality means that you don't really care, cuz the struggle goes on even when you're not there: Blind and unaware."

"We still believe in all the things that we stood by before,
and after everything we've seen here maybe even more.
I know we're not the only ones, and we were not the first,
and unapologetically we'll stand behind each word."

 

Offline NGTM-1R

  • I reject your reality and substitute my own
  • 213
  • Syndral Active. 0410.
Actual velocities and accelerations?
Beams can be dodged. By not moving.

No, I'm serious. You have show the beam no apparent movement across its field of view (you can be moving either directly toward or directly away from it, but you can't move laterally or vertically in relation to the beam turret), be at a relatively close distance (more then 150 meters, less then 500) and sometimes it will shoot around you. I've seen it happen many times.
"Load sabot. Target Zaku, direct front!"

A Feddie Story

 

Offline Carl

  • Render artist
  • 211
    • http://www.3dap.com/hlp/
Actual velocities and accelerations?
that's cause gunnery control is a really bad aim.
"Gunnery control, fry that ****er!" - nuclear1

 

Offline Cabbie

  • 27
Actual velocities and accelerations?
Quote
Originally posted by ngtm1r
Beams can be dodged. By not moving.

No, I'm serious. You have show the beam no apparent movement across its field of view (you can be moving either directly toward or directly away from it, but you can't move laterally or vertically in relation to the beam turret), be at a relatively close distance (more then 150 meters, less then 500) and sometimes it will shoot around you. I've seen it happen many times.


Interesting. I have noticed the same thing when playing the game. I would accidentally cut my throttle or move at an irregular pattern accidentally and the beams would under/overshoot me. Happened to me many times too.

 
Actual velocities and accelerations?
The beams are just terrible.  Who can't hit a target with a lightspeed beam?  Their abilities to aim their beam weapons is extremely suspect - or (more likely) the short charge time leaves them having to guess a little bit.

 

Offline aldo_14

  • Gunnery Control
  • 213
Actual velocities and accelerations?
It's the miss factor in the tables (or whatever it's called) that does that; otherwise the likes of AAAf beams would always hit you.  The games designed to assume you'll be moving 99% of the time in combat, and to work around that.

 
Actual velocities and accelerations?
I meant in-universe, not game mechanics.  But now that you mention it, do regular guns have a miss value?  I'd much rather see 2000+ speed AA guns that miss sometimes than the current situation.

 

Offline Alan Bolte

  • 28
  • Deneb III
    • @Compellor
Actual velocities and accelerations?
Power outages are oh so much fun. Well, at least I'm back.

About the shields/beams - okay, so what Pnakotus said about beams hitting shields was mistaken? Or did I misinterpret what he meant?

About magnetism - I'm trying to envision a magnetic field effect based on intracacies of electron movement and position within an atom that can produce more force than just having fewer electrons than protons, in addition to countering the expansion of a gas heated to thousands of Kelvans, and it just isn't working out. I don't know enough to run the numbers either, but I'm really not seeing it, though again this is just me being silly because I no longer care how FS weapons work and plan to BS my way through.
Anything worth doing is worth analyzing to death -Iranon

 

Offline DIO

  • 26
Actual velocities and accelerations?
Is it possible that with the aid of computer and maybe some drugs, that pilot is "feeling" the speed is 80m/s for pilot to respond to combat effectivly?
Like, when HUD shows target distance 2000, it's actually 2000km rather then 2000m?
I think this would explain why FS ship is so slow.

 

Offline aldo_14

  • Gunnery Control
  • 213
Actual velocities and accelerations?
Quote
Originally posted by DIO
Is it possible that with the aid of computer and maybe some drugs, that pilot is "feeling" the speed is 80m/s for pilot to respond to combat effectivly?
Like, when HUD shows target distance 2000, it's actually 2000km rather then 2000m?
I think this would explain why FS ship is so slow.


I believe the ships are scaled in the same units as the target distance, though; I tend to believe that the slowness is simply the most combat effective speed*, because the requirement for rapid transit between combat points is filled with intra-system jump drives.

*in terms of maneuverability versus speed... or in real terms, gameplay :D

 

Offline DIO

  • 26
Actual velocities and accelerations?
Quote
Originally posted by aldo_14


I believe the ships are scaled in the same units as the target distance, though; I tend to believe that the slowness is simply the most combat effective speed*, because the requirement for rapid transit between combat points is filled with intra-system jump drives.

*in terms of maneuverability versus speed... or in real terms, gameplay :D


Come to think of it, I completly forgotten about the collision:sigh:

Well, heres another theory or "in-brain complement"

First, theres no need for ultra high speed thanks to the subspace drive.
Subspace drive takes up alot of space and energy.
So the speed is limited.
Also FS ship doesn't have any intertia.
This could explained that theres alot of small maneuver thrusters on the ship for maneuvebility which compensated the inertia, which also uses up space and energy.

Another theory.
Effective way to attack a destroyer or cruiser is using a fighter or bomber.
fighter or bomber can jump in within few km of target, so fast speed won't be needed, or acutually it can be a burden when attacking a (comparing to space) small targets like spaceship.
And you need a maneuvability to evade enemy AA fire.
Some would say "why wont they use stand-off atack with a missile from thousend's of km away?"
This also could be explained by that ships in FS has highly advanced stealth system so it won't be visible in radar unless it's in close range.

Offcourse I'm no where near being a science and millitary expert and english is not my native language, so there should be billions of mistake in this "theory", but just a thought.