[Dysko]

The Scorpion's glow:

Those are Manticores

[jr2]

I knew I should have looked them up... ok, fixed now.
EDIT: Anyways, what are the chances of getting effects like that in-game?  The explosions look sort of the same, but they are very blocky comparatively.

[neoterran]

There's no smoke in space, let's not implement that.

[Herra Tohtori]

Why wouldn't there be smoke in space?

If a spaceship is on fire and spewing atmosphere and flames and who knows what, damn sure there'll be some smoke too. The only thing is that it wouldn't be trailing the ship, it would follow it and expand spherically from the ship, provided that the ship isn't accelerating.

[neoterran]

because smoke requires things to burn and things don't burn in space, becasue there is no oxygen. So you would see red sparky particles or red embers from damaged stuff, but definately no flames like in the video and no smoke.

[NGTM-1R]

Leaking atmosphere was mentioned I think. 'sides, I kinda liked Freelancer's damage effects for caps.

[Herra Tohtori]

A flame consists of a bunch of glowing combustion particles. And when those particles stop glowing they become smoke.

So, in the first place, a flame doesn't need fire to exist. A flow of hot glowing gas is sufficient to look like a flame. There's bound to be some pretty hot stoff in a FreeSpace fighter craft so I wouldn't wonder that if something technical is pierced, glowy stuff leaks out.

Not to mention that there's bound to be oxygen tanks in a space ship, also in FS fighters unless the FS tech uses transmutators to change bunch of protons, neutrons and electrons into oxygen on the fly... Which I doubt. So, a combustion-based explosion is also a possibility.

[Taristin]

My word, can not a single thread exist where there's an explosion in space without someone saying that there shouldn't be fire?!

[Mongoose]

Exactly.  As my freshman-year physics professor said, "What fun are space fights without huge explosions?"

[Huggybaby]

As long as oxygen is in the vented gases, why wouldn't it burn anyway?

[MP-Ryan]

As long as oxygen is in the vented gases, why wouldn't it burn anyway?

If it was ignited before it was exposed to the vacuum, it would - briefly.

What people forget about space is its a vacuum - which means gases will not only diffuse apart, they'll actually be pulled apart by molecular motion (not in the sense of atoms being split, but oxygen gas would diffuse so rapidly that there wouldn't be enough present to allow oxidation and combustion to occur.

The argument for no smoke/flame in space is not because they don't occur, but rather because they disappear so rapidly.

[Taristin]

But that looks boooorrrriiiinggg!

[Herra Tohtori]

The argument for no smoke/flame in space is not because they don't occur, but rather because they disappear so rapidly.

Ah, but you must consider the fact that since the gas leaks obviously exist in retail FS2, it's easily explained by increasing the volume of escaping glowing gas so that it produces the effects that we see.

I'm sure it's one form of anthropic principle... Because the flames are there (and have to be for graphics to look prettier), the amount of leaking gas must be sufficient to produce the flames. Just like because there's life in universe (I apparently even intelligent, though reports remain unconfirmed), it means that the values that define the reality (physical constants) must have certain values. It's the easiest way to avoid problems with extremely unrealistic things such as flames in space, huge explosions, almost complete disappearances of miles long spaceships upon mentioned explosions leaving only few spacehunks floating around, huge blue vortices leaving to subspace, universes popping out of nothingness to produce all that into your computer screen... Thinks like that are most easily explained by strong anthropic principle.

The more difficult explanations involve much more headache.

[fsi.scsi]

Ever seen footage from the Apollo 13 capsule - when they had an oxygen leak? Gas was diffusing pretty rapidly (and visibly) from the service module.  Or Stage 3 of the lunar rockets being jettisoned - you can briefly see a ring of fire around the spent lower stage. 

It's the same way when you light a match, then seal it in a vacuum - it will burn as long as there is an oxygen supply.  Plain combustion is pretty boring, though. 

[jr2]

Ever seen footage from the Apollo 13 capsule - when they had an oxygen leak? Gas was diffusing pretty rapidly (and visibly) from the service module.  Or Stage 3 of the lunar rockets being jettisoned - you can briefly see a ring of fire around the spent lower stage. 

It's the same way when you light a match, then seal it in a vacuum - it will burn as long as there is an oxygen supply.  Plain combustion is pretty boring, though. 

...darn, you beat me to the punch. 

[CaptJosh]

Not seal it in a vacuum, seal it in a container. It will burn until it smothers itself in combustion byproduct. It's not quite the same as in space where the fuel simply dissipates.

[jr2]

...Right, but you have a continual source of fuel + O₂: your ship.  The fire would actually be burning in your ship, spewing into the void.  Also, as mentioned above, you can see it when stuff is leaking from your ship; it's not a very good sign...

Houston, we have a problem...

[neoterran]

regardless of the above. it would not look like it does in all space movies where the flames are essentially earthbound analogues.

[jr2]

...which movies have flames burning on the outside of a ship, resembling flames on Earth?  Flames on the inside, of course, would be the same except for gravity's lack of effect.  (Unless artificial gravity is in use.)

[neoterran]

...which movies have flames burning on the outside of a ship, resembling flames on Earth?  Flames on the inside, of course, would be the same except for gravity's lack of effect.  (Unless artificial gravity is in use.)

The freespace cutscenes in this very thread, and the battlestar galactica scenes (new series)