Jump to content

Newtonian Physics vs. the SC's Physics


Thomas Braun
 Share

Recommended Posts

First, I want to say that I love BCM and that there is probably no game out there that compares with the concept and scope of BCM. But, I was reading through the BCO stuff, and noticed a lot about "crappy" Newtonian physics. There is only 1 game that I have ever seen Newtonian physics done right in, Terminus. It offered thrust capabilities for all directions, infinite acceleration (up to the point were it would tear your ship (always a fighter) apart).

Just saying there are some (at least 1) good Newtonian physics engines out there, even though the game wasn't great at all.

But, my question is what is the concept (or operating theory) behind the SC's aparently inertialess physics (except on impact). Is it like the Inertialess Drive from 3001 (in the same series with 2001 and 2010), or is there no concept behind it and we're just to take it on faith that it works.

[ 01-27-2002: Message edited by: T-WOPR ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Questions within questions is what you have T-WOPR.

In the context of BCM it 3000 AD. I would hope propulsion systems could compensate for Newtonian physics. Then repeat after Derek, "It's a game, it's a game, it's a game."

I hate Newtonian physiics. If a game is set in 2100 and the last space shuttle has to land on the moon maybe fine. But if it's 3000 ad then I would expect systems could compensate.

Rant over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The motivation for having Newtonian physics in a game should not be for the mere sake of having it in a game, because the game needs to be fun. If space sims were genuinely realistic, then apart from what's happening inside your ship's structure, there wouldn't be any sound effects because sound doesn't travel in space. Imagine Star Wars without the laser blasts, explosions, and engine noise. Such physics should only be included if they add something positive to the experience (the lack of sound in 2001: A Space Odyssey was a smart move).

The only game I have played that has properly balanced physics with gameplay to make a fun experience is Independence War, then there are those fun games that add a little bit of physics to make the space combat more tactical (eg the Shelton Slide in Wing Commander).

The reason why combat games that use comprehensively realistic space physics are extremely rare is because nobody really knows what space combat would be like, thus it is not only difficult to make such a realistic game fun, it would also be difficult to make it realistic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depends... there was this old 2D-shooter-scroller game (Tyrian, anyone played that?) that had a somehow good explanation of how you could get sounds in space.

They were speaking about gravitronic sensor, to sense the "space-time" ripples created by any object's movement and such, then computing it to create realistic sounds.

"When you ride you space-yacht thru an asteroid field, it's preferable to hear more than techno-music or simply nothing"

I found the explanation pretty good, and somewhat realistic.

For flight physics, I'd rather see a "relaxed" version, where the good stuff would be implemented, and the bad stuff removed, or getting it's effects reduced.

Like unlimited speed : yeah, could be cool, but then ships don't accelerate as fast. Afterburners would imperatively need to be weakened, cause it wouldn't make sense in battle. Acceleration would make all the difference, instead of max speed, as it is right now.

Inertia : tends to be a problem in most games, when you're taking too much time to aim, and to try to head in the good direction, but manoeuvering could have an automatic drag depending on the thrust factor (higher the thrust, sharper the turns, and less deviation), not too much, just enough too feel you are big and hard to turn (and fighters could be screeching around starstation's stuctures ). I can imagine it now... a strafing StormCarrier

[ 01-27-2002: Message edited by: Epsilon 5 ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you start going that fast, even the tiniest piece of space debris could become a potential ship killer. With all sorts of stuff flying around out there you wouldn't want to go that fast. Once you start shooting up ships even more stuff gets thrown around. Just imagine all the shrapnel caused by a BC Mk3 getting blown to pieces. Some of that stuff is moving awfully fast.

So then we invent shields. Shields will protect us from all this nasty stuff so we can travel at more manageable speeds. All is good and well but some things are still going too fast. Maybe there is some sort of galactic standard for shields that says "If your ship goes _______ fast then your shields must be ________ strong." Kinda seems like common sense to me. Any faster and your shields will start to degrade from being hit all the time. Not good if you're planning on going really fast into battle.

So shouldn't a capital ship go faster than a fighter because it can have more powerful sheilds? It can, but then again it has to be able to stop in a reasonable amount of time and space without having to turn the entire thing around and do a full burn in the opposite direction just to keep from smashing into things. Also remember there is still a human element involved. Unless all craft are piloted by AI and computers, then a human must be able to make decisions in a human response time or the whole craft is going too fast and is quite useless.

Just my 2 cents

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, all the things mentioned above aside, consider this.

SC puts time in to make this game. He has only so many hours to spend on it, but a gazzillion things to put in. So, does he decide to tweak those turrets arcs to perfection so that they shoot in the right and realistic direction or does he spend the time to program the newtonian physics and then more time to make sure AI uses them right and doesn't fling itself all over the place. So take your pic, what would you take out and what would you leave in. On the other hand don't, because what you would want is not necesarily what others would want, and don't forget, SC is ultimatly the one who decides.

So on one hand maybe it would be nice to see a trully newtonian flight model, or a relaxed version of that model, or maybe some wacky off the wall way to fly, but then something else doesn't make it in, and SC already has his own wishlist which is a mile long. So take a number, or rather don't, just kick back and enjoy the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by Charles Lindsey:

I agree with you Menchise. Newtonian physics should not be present just for the sake of Newtonian physics.


Yep. Which is why I'm never going to do it. Ever. The game is already complex enough as it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our only hope is to license the bc engine, chop off everything but the solar system, put in newtonian flight model,add bricks-with-engines ship models , watch the AI crash into everything...for the next 15 weeks until it learns and add a bubble-triggered grenade with a "Pick me Up" sign on it to the inventory...

and enjoy!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yep. That's about it. That would pretty much be Terminus with Cap Ships you could fly.

The SC -

quote:

Yep. Which is why I'm never going to do it. Ever. The game is already complex enough as it is.

I guess that's why its "A Derek Smart Simulation"

and not a "Space Combat Simulation."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Go and find a REALLY old copy of Microsoft Space Simulator if you want them fancy physics and see how hard things can get. Oh... no fair using the "zero-out" cheat key.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If anyone has ever read Roger Macbride Allen's "Allies and Aliens", he writes some pretty intense space combat making it take place using "Newtonian Physics".

----

"I watched the display as a Beast chased a bandit up out of orbit. By then we knew very precisely how much fuel the bandits could carry, and thus how long, all told, they might fire their engines.

I guess the pilot of the Beast worked it out in his head. He chased the bandit at his top accelration, 2.6 gees. The bandit could do 3.1, and he started out 1000 Kilometers ahead of his pursuer, gradually edging farther and farther ahead. But, even if he had wanted to, he couldn't have turned back; the Beast would have had him.

After three quarters of an hour at 3.1 gees, the bandit was moving at a speed many times faster than the planet's escape velocity. The Beast turned around and headed for home at an easy 1 gee. The bandit was as good as dead. He didn't have the fuel in his tanks to get back.

He tried. He not only had to shed his speed, but shed it fast enough to get back to the planet, where he might hope for rescue. Maybe his engines finally melted to slag, maybe his tanks dried sooner than they should have. He didn't make it.

He's still out there, somewhere."

Allen, R (1995) Allies and Aliens. Baen Books

----

There are other scenes describing how slow sombat was, how important orbit, trajectories and gravity are when flying a craft in space.

If we had to deal with all these factors, and try to play BCM, then we'd have a manual the size of an encyclopedia to read just so we could fly

Sure it wouldn't be the same as the story I quoted above since the ships don't run on fuel, but you can get a sense of how complicated space flight would be.

I'll go with Charles above statement:

quote:

In the context of BCM it 3000 AD. I would hope propulsion systems could compensate for Newtonian physics. ... But if it's 3000 ad then I would expect systems could compensate.

Cheers!

[ 01-28-2002, 18:13: Message edited by: Fractux ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be nice to see a very limited newtonian physics model added to fighters. I miss the old afterburner slide found in Wing Commander. You could set a course, then while holding down a button maintain that precise course, but you were able to change your angle to open fire on another ship as you flew by on your original course. It was a hard skill to master but quite enjoyable. When the button was released the ship could return to it's orignal heading and allow you to resume flying.

If someone was chasing you, you could hold the button down, spin your ship 180 degrees and let them have it. Sort of turns your craft into a pta turret.

It would be reminiscent of some of the babylon 5 combat scenes with the whitestars ripping apart some large ships hull (while flying sideways).

Who cares if large ships have newtonian physics, they don't turn worth a damn anyways.

Just my 2 cents

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it would be more than just 1 book in an encyclopedia. The physicists who plot the course of the shuttle all have doctorates, and from the finest schools in the country (or out). There's a reason why they know exactly where the shuttle is going to be at exactly any milli-second. To actually fly is TRUE newtonian physics, is very hard. However, some fairly realistic games have come about (Independence War). But then, what did IW lack? Free form, trade, ability to fly other ships, AI that didn't rely (heavily) on auto-targetting, etc etc etc. SC has made a game that doesn't have newtonian physics, because there just simply isn't time to fit it in, unless of course you want the game pushed back to 2005. Thankfully, he decided not to, and we have it in our greedy little hands right now

Though, I'll be the first to admit, I LOVE the change in tactics with newtonian (or semi-newtonian) physics. But it's not necessary to make a good game, especially if it will cause lower framerates, and lower quality game over all due to time constraints. SC made his game just right, and it only gets better....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont think anyone mentioned it, but all of the elite series, I think, I havn't played much of the origional ones, but Frontier 2 and Frontier first encounters both had a GREAT newtonian physics model, and great combat too...manual control in every direction, and even turrets and forward and aft guns in some craft...even when you wanted to pick up cargo pods, you had to match velocity to pick it up...that was a challange...I still play it sometimes, and if you can ignore the good for it's time graphix, then its a great game, although a bit tedious till you get a good ship...(you could buy new ships once you got enough money, it was a bit like privateer, but better...anyway...great game, yadayada yada it's free, yada yada yada, may have some trouble running it...yada yada yada...goto theunderdogs.org I think they have the link...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just think its funny where all this energy dissapears too. Even in the future, you have to do something with that 500 million tons of mass hurtling through space at 1000+km/s, I don't think a BC could stop on a dime (which it thankfully doesn't or else I would cry). But I suppose in the future they would have inertial dampners or something (like in 3001). But why would you. . . Nevermind. I shut up now. I will simply believe that it works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

I think it would be more than just 1 book in an encyclopedia. The physicists who plot the course of the shuttle all have doctorates, and from the finest schools in the country (or out). There's a reason why they know exactly where the shuttle is going to be at exactly any milli-second. To actually fly is TRUE newtonian physics, is very hard.

Well at NASA each mililiters of fuel is important, so they must not waste anything, in case something goes wrong.

In 3000ad, you have hyperdrives, and you generally have a generous supply of radine, and when you're running low you can easily get back home. So wasting a few units of radine is not that critically bad.

However what annoys me is the max speed. When you hit ABs you accelerate so fast.... then freeze at some speed instantly, or almost. I'd say that lowering the AB power at a third of the current power and making the max speed of each ship 5x faster and with a longer full-dead accel speed time would already improve things... hmmm hit-and-runs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He he...my two favourire points of contention in Space Sims..."sounds in space" and "newtonian flight"...

The two best - and possibly most plausible - explanations I've heard come from old Star Wars forums. Boy, those guys sure get passionate about their X-Wings...*grin*

SOUND

One word - Biofeedback. As has been mentioned with the asteroid field example, pilots need to be as combat-aware as possible. Just because they're in space, is no reason to simply ignore a fully functional sense - the sense of hearing. So, when the on-board computers detect weapons fire on the left side of the ship, they generate sound effects offset so that they sound as if they are coming from that area - an immediate cue to take evasive action. The sound of explosions or laser fire hitting a craft may be, in the heat of battle, the cue that alerts a pilot to craft under attack before they can detect this based on their displays - especially if the craft is out of their immediate vision.

NEWTONIAN FLIGHT

Well, there are a few explanations for this and I'd be intersted in seeing which one the SC supports for BCM.

1) Gravity Drives. The concept of a gravity drive comes from Star Trek, I believe, although it may have been around earlier. This concept is that conventional kinetic energy drives are only used to drive the ship forward. Maneuvering and reverse thrust are accomplished by using a gravity generator that simply creates differential gravity fields that pull or propel the ship in one direction or another. An auto-coordination computer accepts "conventional" inputs from the pilot or helm and converts them into "newtonian" thrust profiles to move the ship in the appropriate direction and cancel out the vectors when the desired velocity and vector are reached. The concept of a gravity drive explains atmospheric flight in ship that are obviously not aerodynamic. The ship's conventional kinetic energy thrusters propel it forward; altitude is maintained by the gravity drive simply holding the craft in the air.

2) Maneuvering thrusters.

In this model, there are a seris of thrusters recessed into the ship's hull at strategic locations. These thrusters allow the ship to move in a 3D plane. "Conventional" inputs from the pilot or helm are converted by an auto-coordination computer into "newtonian" thrust profiles which, once again, move the ship to the desired heading and velocity and then cancel out lateral movement automatically.

Maneuvering thrusters explain atmospheric flight in non-aerodynamic craft simply py providing downward thrust to support the craft's vertical position, which the main thrusters provide forward momentum.

Well, just my $0.02.

-GD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pfft if in a thousand years, mankind is still stuck in the world of newtonian physics for space flight, I guess we wouldn't have progressed much. I mean think about it, our moblie phone is evolving by the day. Hell, one of my lecturer is going to be the first human being with a chip interfaced (Prof. Warwick) into one of his arm.

I guess there shouldn't be any Newtonian physics for space travel in the future. Besides, my warmonger is slow enough thank you without being stuck with primitive Newtonian thrusters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...