[StratComm]

That's a really random number to be pulling out since all of this is clearly based in real-world science

Doesn't change the fact that the Iceni is faster though.

[NGTM-1R]

It's a guess, I admit. But it's a good guess. I did bother to find some stuff about relative weights.

[StratComm]

Actually not much can be said about the Iceni's armor, as the depleted uranium mentioned is just shielding around its subsystems.  It could be using more advanced (and lighter) armor than the Deimos for what we know of it.

[IceFire]

Keep in mind a few things.

1) It was mentioned that Bosch's move was risky.
2) The Iceni is a custom built frigate class vessel.  It may have fast recycling or redundant subspace generators that are considered superflous and expensive on other classes that are more mass produced.
3) The Knossos is not a jump gate.  Its a subspace node stabilization device.  The inter system node was there...the Knossos creates the necessary conditions for it to be stabilized.  But its otherwise like any other inter-system node. It requires the specialized jump drive to do it and its not fitted on all fighters although it can be...including ships from the FS1 era (we know this because at the end of FS1 such technology was mentioned as having been outfitted).

[Carl]

Originally posted by StratComm
Heavy as opposed to collapsed-core molybdenum sheathing?  I don't think so.

how would you know? there is no such thing as collapsed-core molybdenum, and the game gives no information on it's density compared the the non-fictional depleted uranium.

[Kie99]

Why would the weight matter in space.

*gets dragged away by Freespace Marines*

[NGTM-1R]

Weight=Mass=Inertia=Difficulty getting ship to move


EDIT: **** it, timewarped!

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Carl


i don't know about that. it's got better stats than other corvettes, and has depleted uranium armor, which would make it heavier and slower. The Iceni seems better fit to stand and fight.

Against an Orion?  With no fighter cover of it's own? This is a command ship, after all - GTVA finds it, they throw everything at it.  Hell, they deployed the Colossus to ambush it after all (even if it did sod all good).

If Bosch's aim was to get into that nebula and contact the Shivans, he would have known he'd need to run at least one blockade.

Originally posted by ngtm1r
Weight=Mass=Inertia=Difficulty getting ship to move


EDIT: **** it, timewarped!

Weight = Mass * Gravity

If I recall my Higher Physics correctly.  (which was my worst subject.....)

[Kie99]

And there is no gravity in space. So weight is
1000000KG Mass (Random Figure)
X
0 Gravity

So there is no weight, hence no inertia, hence no difficulty in getting it to move.

EDIT: After writing that I realised something.  Freespace isn't very realistica.

[phatosealpha]

Nah, doesn't work like that.    Weight and inertia aren't the same thing.  Weight is a measure of gravity affect on something, inertia is it's resistance to a change in velocity.  All matter has inertia proportional to it's mass all the time.  In fact, mass is basically a measure of inertia.

To say the least, if no gravity meant no inertia, the second you went into zero gravity you'd either cease to exist or be converted into energy in a truly magnificent explosion.  Neither would be amenable to space travel, and sattelites would be a very, very bad idea.

The Iceni doesn't have to overcome the force of gravity, but it does have to overcome it's own inertia to make any change in velocity.

[Kie99]

I don't understand but luckily I don't need to!

[aldo_14]

There is gravity in space; it just isn't the constant it is in Earth.

[phatosealpha]

*Grin*

As for the iceni, I think it's a combination of it's relatively small size and a redundant power source or battery of some kind.  Fighters and ships as large as a reloading vessel can definitely make instajumps, in/out.  Destroyer jump limitations are clearly not all that major - the Eva jumps in and out in "Playing Judas" in under 3 minutes, iirc.

The Iceni is smaller and doesn't seem to have any problem with quick use of subspace drives - heck, it goes from asteroid base to subspace jump in Place of Chariots pretty darned quickly.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by StratComm
I'm sorry kara, I don't think the more complicated explanation is worth it on this one.  Besides the fact that I hate the notion of somehow harnessing energy out of a gravity well to travel out of it by any means other than kinetic.  I don't see how GPE could be put to use for anything other than creating a stable subspace layer throughout a system.

I'm not sure I follow your counter argument Stratt. I never mentioned harnessing energy from anything other than the ships jump engines.

Were you actually responding to Flaser or something?

Originally posted by Flaser
I think kara's statement is true to a degree - ships follow the energy minimum principle in subspace too - however it doesn't mean that by putting in exessive energy you can't alter the exit point.

If ever the situation came up that I wanted a nano jump or for ships to exit a subspace node on a unpredictable vector I'd probably say the same thing.
 
Till then I'm not going to worry about it much

[FireCrack]

Most craft are probably designed with capacitors to rapidly recharge the jump drives and special ways to discharge the EM static from the jump.

kieto, there is definitly inertia in space, otherwise i could be in space right by the colossus, flick it with my pinky finger, and it would instantly reach infinity times the speed of light then instantly stop again.

Momentum=mass*velocity, nothing to do with gravity

[Hippo]

gravity is only a factor in acceleration, or resistance

[pyro-manic]

Newton's laws, people. Equilibruim and resultant forces and all that good stuff.

[StratComm]

Kara: you're right, the specifics of what I was saying go back to flaser.  The point I intended to argue with you (I wasn't fully cognisant when this started - thank you illness :meh:) is the subspace hole explanation as to why ships remain in formation; all I'd point out there is that we always (with the sole exception of the lucifer destruction scene in FS1) see ships create their own jump point, not exit with another.  Flaser's response, though, sounds way too much like warp theory for the term "subspace" or the blue lights that Freespace uses to describe it to possibly allow.

Oh, and guys, please quit making crap up about gravity.  Yes, it is the least understood basic force, but on a macroscopic scale gravity is a force field.  Nothing more.

[Woolie Wool]

Originally posted by aldo_14
nanojump is, IMO a bit of a pandora's box, because it can be abused horribly to have ludicrous and annoying situations.

But, it's also got use as a plot device - in particular, if you need to negate the effects of powerful node blockades.

I gave capships interdictor devices for Starforce to prevent ships from nanojumping constantly. Also, it prevents large ships, which can form their own interstellar jump nodes, from going anywhere they want--when the interdictors are on, you have to use fixed nodes.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by StratComm
Kara: you're right, the specifics of what I was saying go back to flaser.  The point I intended to argue with you (I wasn't fully cognisant when this started - thank you illness :meh:) is the subspace hole explanation as to why ships remain in formation; all I'd point out there is that we always (with the sole exception of the lucifer destruction scene in FS1) see ships create their own jump point, not exit with another.  Flaser's response, though, sounds way too much like warp theory for the term "subspace" or the blue lights that Freespace uses to describe it to possibly allow.

I certainly wasn't implying that they'd exit from the same jump point.

What I was saying is that if the fleet enter subspace together, and are trying to exit in around the same sort of area then all of the fleets jump points will form close to each other because the first node has weakened the fabric of normal space significatly so the other nodes will also form relatively close to the first one.

A good analogy for what I'm trying to say is that old heavy weight on a rubber sheet example that is used all the time for gravity.

With  two ball bearings the lowest energy configuration is for them to sit side by side (I.e jump points close to each other). It takes a lot more energy to get one of them to sit on top of the other  (same jump point) because to do that you'd have to put energy in to drag the rubber sheet down far enough that they would do that.

Of course if one of the bearings is much heavier than the other then it is possible to get them to do that without as much energy being required. Which means that fighters can use a capships jump point but only if more energy if used then would be required for it to make it's own jump point.