Author Topic: The one thing I didn't like about FS2 was how it handled the Sathanas  (Read 34113 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline TrashMan

  • T-tower Avenger. srsly.
  • 213
  • God-Emperor of your kind!
    • Minecraft
    • FLAMES OF WAR
Re: The one thing I didn't like about FS2 was how it handled the Sathanas
If it shoots down incoming attacks, it's probably a point defense weapon. Reactive armor just kind of blows itself up to destroy incoming rounds, whereas this fires a directed energy pulse to take things out.


Point defences can usually be used to shoot at anything. CIWS is a moderns point-defense system, yet you can use it in an offensive manner too, against lighter targets. So it's not a purely defensive system since it can attack things.




And when you collide with another ship, or missile or laser hits your shield, there would be a massive explosion. Antimatter = most powerfull explosive known to man at this time. The annihalation of even a tiny amount of anti-matter causes a gigantic explosion.

One proton-antiproton annihilation releases 300 times more energy than a fission or fusion reaction
the theoretical maximum yield-to-weight ratio for fusion weapons is 6 megatons of TNT per metric ton (25 TJ/kg)
1 kg uranium = 6 kilotons
1 kg antimatter = 1.8 megatons
Missile or laser bolt > 1 kg
yield of the harbinger = 1 megaton

In conclusion, if a piece of debris 5/9 kg (0.5555... kg) hit your shield, that would release as much energy, as a harbinger bomb.

At least you'll go out with a bang. A REALLY big bang.
Nobody dies as a virgin - the life ****s us all!

You're a wrongularity from which no right can escape!

 

Offline Dilmah G

  • Failed juggling
  • 211
  • The Token "G" of HLP
Re: The one thing I didn't like about FS2 was how it handled the Sathanas
Quote
Point defences can usually be used to shoot at anything. CIWS is a moderns point-defense system, yet you can use it in an offensive manner too, against lighter targets. So it's not a purely defensive system since it can attack things.
That may only be regarding the CIWS, systems with a restricted arc of fire or operating on different principles probably won't be able to do that, regardless, it's intended use is as a defensive system.
Trendy Lefty. Good music from a good friend of mine.

Freespace Rap: http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,62924.0.html

The Fighter Pilot Series: http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=72431.msg1431423#msg1431423

The word 'Yo' is only ever to be used as a singular greeting.
It is considered an insult to destroy a perfectly acceptable greeting by misuse. A 'Yo-Yo' is a toy spun from the index finger by small children and enthusiasts,
any such use as a greeting will result in prompt reprimand by any member of the 'African-American' or 'Sri-Lankans-who-think-they're-black' community

Fury`: if General Krav Maga wouldn't be enough, beating up 16 teenagers is going to get me into jail :p /
BlackMan: Maybe if you turned into pedobear you'd be more of a threat

 

Offline Kie99

  • 211
Re: The one thing I didn't like about FS2 was how it handled the Sathanas
And when you collide with another ship, or missile or laser hits your shield, there would be a massive explosion. Antimatter = most powerfull explosive known to man at this time. The annihalation of even a tiny amount of anti-matter causes a gigantic explosion.

One proton-antiproton annihilation releases 300 times more energy than a fission or fusion reaction
the theoretical maximum yield-to-weight ratio for fusion weapons is 6 megatons of TNT per metric ton (25 TJ/kg)
1 kg uranium = 6 kilotons
1 kg antimatter = 1.8 megatons
Missile or laser bolt > 1 kg
yield of the harbinger = 1 megaton

In conclusion, if a piece of debris 5/9 kg (0.5555... kg) hit your shield, that would release as much energy, as a harbinger bomb.

It'd be useful for Kamikaze attacks.
"You shot me in the bollocks, Tim"
"Like I said, no hard feelings"

 

Offline Killer Whale

  • 29
  • Oh no, not again.
Re: The one thing I didn't like about FS2 was how it handled the Sathanas
And when you collide with another ship, or missile or laser hits your shield, there would be a massive explosion. Antimatter = most powerfull explosive known to man at this time. The annihalation of even a tiny amount of anti-matter causes a gigantic explosion.

One proton-antiproton annihilation releases 300 times more energy than a fission or fusion reaction
the theoretical maximum yield-to-weight ratio for fusion weapons is 6 megatons of TNT per metric ton (25 TJ/kg)
1 kg uranium = 6 kilotons
1 kg antimatter = 1.8 megatons
Missile or laser bolt > 1 kg
yield of the harbinger = 1 megaton

In conclusion, if a piece of debris 5/9 kg (0.5555... kg) hit your shield, that would release as much energy, as a harbinger bomb.
Sorry, I got that wrong:
One proton-antiproton annihilation releases 300 times more energy than a fission or fusion reaction
the theoretical maximum yield-to-weight ratio for fusion weapons is 6 megatons of TNT per metric ton (25 TJ/kg)
1 kg uranium = 6 kilotons
1 kg antimatter = 1.8 megatons
Missile or laser bolt > 56 kg
yield of the harbinger = 5 gigatons

In conclusion, if a piece of debris 55 5/9 kg (55.5555... kg) hit your shield, that would release as much energy, as a harbinger bomb.

 

Offline ShadowGorrath

  • Not funny or clever
  • 211
Re: The one thing I didn't like about FS2 was how it handled the Sathanas
Yeah, somehow forgot that part. . . Posted that message at 4-5AM.

 

Offline MarkN

  • 26
Re: The one thing I didn't like about FS2 was how it handled the Sathanas
I could make a shield capable of deflecting plasma and a shield capable of deflecting metallic objects today, given unlimited budget and unlimited power (but even then it would probably have minimal effectivenes).
Accelarated plasmas are either magnetically or electrically accelarated, and the reverse of the accelaration mechanism. An electrostatically charged plasma bolt (out of something like a sychotron) would be electrically charged, and so could be deflected by making the facing side of the ship charged with the same polarity. This has two problems: 1) the other side of the ship would have to be chaged with the opposite polarity. 2) it would take far more energy to stop the plasma bolt that it took to accelarate it, so you end at a disadvantage.
To accelarate a plasma magnetically would need it to be conductive (most neutral plasmas are). To fight this an inductive magnetic field causing accelaration in a different direction would be needed. this would take less energy that the electrostatic defence field, and would have the advantage of defelecting any metallic object, such as a missile or coilgun round. of course, if a bullet could be made of plastic, it would easily penetrate, as would a laser.
This is still a mass based shield (as in the sphere of metal), but for directed energy and plasmas, a low-energy plasma field may work. If this constrained to surround your ship (by magnetic and electric fields), and of sufficient density, it could absorb much of the energy from plasma (rendering it harmless), and scatter directed light, spreadign it over a larger area (again making it harmless). If greater control ofver the field was available, it could also prematurely set off the detonation of missiles (Magnetic ripples through the detonation mechanism, deflect metallic objects, and render more advanced missile harmless by causing and EMP effect, knocking out it's targeting electronics. Even exotic particles could lose energy, either by cherenkov radiation or impact catalysed decay.

Of course, all of this energy would probably be better spent pounding the enemy ship.
A better defence would be similar to that used by large Clan warships in Battletech, where a bio-mimetic system of veins in the armour pump a rapid hardening armour substitute into any hole made in the armour, so reinforcing it. It must be noted that this does not need either nanotechnology or actual biological systems, just a supply of superconcrete.

 

Offline Killer Whale

  • 29
  • Oh no, not again.
Re: The one thing I didn't like about FS2 was how it handled the Sathanas
Or a thick hull.

 
Re: The one thing I didn't like about FS2 was how it handled the Sathanas
I think we're overlooking the real question. The guy said that; if we aren't worried about shields being unrealistic then why should we worry about other things being unrealistic, like ancient tech surviving in the centre of a sun. The thing is believability is an odd thing, something doesn't have to be realistic to be believable. Whatever we say about shields they don't seem odd, or unbelievable in Freespace.  Even if they might not be possible in our world, I at no point thought "Wow shields are unrealistic." Partly because I'm used to the concept from other Sci-fi games, and it's a technology which I can imagine could exist one day.  While on the other end of the scale we have for example something like ancient tech surviving at the core of the sun. It's just not something imaginable considering the logistics of it, and the simple fact is it's horrificly overcomplicated as there'd be easier alternatives.  Sure it might not be anymore realistic than shields, but unlike shields it's not "believable" or atleast doesn't feel right for the setting.

 

Offline colecampbell666

  • I See Dead Pictures
  • 212
  • Evolution and ascension.
Re: The one thing I didn't like about FS2 was how it handled the Sathanas
Who said anything about ancient tech in a sun?
Gettin' back to dodgin' lasers.

 

Offline Snail

  • SC 5
  • 214
  • Posts: ☂
Re: The one thing I didn't like about FS2 was how it handled the Sathanas
Yeah. Where did Ancient tech in a sun come from? :wtf:

 

Offline Spoon

  • 212
  • ヾ(´︶`♡)ノ
Re: The one thing I didn't like about FS2 was how it handled the Sathanas
I said something along those lines as a joke back on page 16
Quote
Just maaaaybe there was an ancient device hidden in the sun of capella and they needed the sun out of the way first
surely
Urutorahappī!!

[02:42] <@Axem> spoon somethings wrong
[02:42] <@Axem> critically wrong
[02:42] <@Axem> im happy with these missions now
[02:44] <@Axem> well
[02:44] <@Axem> with 2 of them

 

Offline Snail

  • SC 5
  • 214
  • Posts: ☂
Re: The one thing I didn't like about FS2 was how it handled the Sathanas
Wouldn't really help though would it...

 
Re: The one thing I didn't like about FS2 was how it handled the Sathanas
Erm I might be mistaken but that's why we're having this entire discussion of why shields are realistic or not  :p

 

Offline colecampbell666

  • I See Dead Pictures
  • 212
  • Evolution and ascension.
Re: The one thing I didn't like about FS2 was how it handled the Sathanas
Because we can.
Gettin' back to dodgin' lasers.

 

Offline Killer Whale

  • 29
  • Oh no, not again.
Re: The one thing I didn't like about FS2 was how it handled the Sathanas
I think we're overlooking the real question. The guy said that; if we aren't worried about shields being unrealistic then why should we worry about other things being unrealistic, like ancient tech surviving in the centre of a sun. The thing is believability is an odd thing, something doesn't have to be realistic to be believable. Whatever we say about shields they don't seem odd, or unbelievable in Freespace.  Even if they might not be possible in our world, I at no point thought "Wow shields are unrealistic." Partly because I'm used to the concept from other Sci-fi games, and it's a technology which I can imagine could exist one day.  While on the other end of the scale we have for example something like ancient tech surviving at the core of the sun. It's just not something imaginable considering the logistics of it, and the simple fact is it's horrificly overcomplicated as there'd be easier alternatives.  Sure it might not be anymore realistic than shields, but unlike shields it's not "believable" or atleast doesn't feel right for the setting.
hey... newguy!
:welcomered: