Jump to content

Newtonian Physics vs. the SC's Physics


Thomas Braun
 Share

Recommended Posts

The lurker speaks

If you want a modern space SIMULATOR look up Orbiter. It is freeware and is the most accurate space sim I have ever encountered. (If you thought BC was hard, try launching the shuttle into orbit or a moonshot!)

In regards to battle cruiser, I would only change one thing in the physics model: Relative speed. It drives me absolutely crazy when a station speeds away from underneath you in an EVA. If you are attached to an object, you have the same velocity and direction as that object. If you thrust up using your jet pack you will still maintain the horizontal speed of the station. This would also allow for the actual use of the orbital supply depots.

*disclaimer* this may have been changed in BCG but I have heard nothing about it

In terms of energy and force: Electricity and Magnetism are related by Maxwell’s 4 equations but they are not the same phenomena. A principal difference of magnetism is the non-existence of magnetic monopoles that is you cannot have a positive magnet, there will always be a positive and a negative end. Electric potential is different in that you can have a net positive object and a net negative object.

Shadow,

Electrostatic forces also work is space.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I didn't mean to imply they didn't. Sorry if I did. I was just attempting to explain what you more eloquently said infering Maxwell's Equations. But electrostatics works both ways. You may repel like charges, but opposite charges will be equally attracted. In any case, "energy" doesn't have a polarity.

But you bring up an interesting side point. Stellar matter and remnant high energy photons (radiation), free electrons or protons, and other material, to say nothing of solar flares. Space is literally filled with "stuff" floating around (at incredible speeds). Suns eject (and absorb) massive quantities of stuff. Nebulas are all but forgotten in this sim and yet pose incredible navigation (and other) difficulties. Ion storms, electro-statics at their best, would be another interesting encounter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

quote:

Originally posted by LostInSpace:

quote:

Originally posted by Thermidor:

I don't really have a problem with the physics model in use, other than the fact that ships can stop on a dime (I imagine all of my crew are smashed to a pulp from deceleration and are instantly cloned by the ships computer).

Ummmm, Inertia dampers are employed.


In that case, how come colliding with another ship results in such massive damage?

My guess is that the flight subsystems don't have "warning" like they do when you order a deceleration, and can't kick in the dampener fast enough to completely protect the ship, but do bring it online in time to prevent complete destruction of both vessels.

As for Newtonian physics in general, I agree that there's no point using them unless they actually add to the game, and in this case I think they would detract from it...but it would be nice to have ships differentiated by acceleration, rather than maximum speed. Maybe it's something to do with particle shielding being more efficient with a smaller hull area or something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Ice Cold is right, you would need electro statics( and alot of it) to repel the objects floating around in space. Also a shield should be able to contain the atmosphere around a ship so if there was a hull breach and the shields came on it would stop the vacume effect... as for what a shield is made out of, im not sure. but it would have to be someting that can reflect or absorbe light in the case of lasers, but to be truely effective the shield must be able to repel anything so a mixture of technologies would have to be combined into one possibly createing a layer effect. Like an outer layer that repels heat and an inward layer that repels kinetic energy and another that repels light. After you have all of that you will most likely not be able to see anything beacuse your shield repels light wahaha

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Ok, this is my first real post so take it easy on me. IÔÇÖve been anxiously awaiting the arrival of UC for some time now and have been prepping for it in the simulator (i.e. the E2 demo). I havenÔÇÖt played BC since its first installment many years ago. I was so jaded by the experience (letÔÇÖs not relive that here) that I couldnÔÇÖt work up the courage to drop hard cash on the subsequent sequels to the game (in hind site it looks like I may have missed a lot especially with BCMG). But the new screen shots, movies and general discussions of UC have called me back like a siren. IÔÇÖm hooked and really excited about the upcoming release.

One thing, however, that troubled me originally about the game was this lack of Newtonian physics. I couldnÔÇÖt reconcile the notion that I was flying this 2 km long starship and could stop on a galcredit. I know from reading the thread here that a great many of you including the SC himself (click of heals and salute!) disagree with me on this. I felt that a game like BC would be the perfect game for Newtonian physics and that it would really add to the strategy of combat. In other games that have employed a reasonable physics engines (i.e. IDW and EOC), the combat was too fast pace to really use it to its full potential. But the pace of BC would be perfect for it. At last itÔÇÖs not to be and thatÔÇÖs cool too. I just had to find a way to rationalize this in my head so that I can prepare for a truly immersive experience when the game finally hits my door step (no rush, take your time SC. Enjoy a cold brew and continue with the bug squash). What follows is a speculative (if not plausible) explanation for it. Perhaps this will help others resolve it in their own heads. For the rest of you who donÔÇÖt particularly care one way or another (itÔÇÖs just a game right, I keep telling myself) then you can just leave your head well enough alone.

The idea revolves around technology based on generating artificial flux fields. Imagine if you will that rather than using conventional engines that rely on that antiquated 20th century concept of reaction kinetics you instead generate a controlled flux field in the immediate vicinity of the craft. A containment field that just encompasses the ship itself that is unstable and collapses after only a few milliseconds. The field imparts a minor fold in space-time along the longitudinal axis of the ship displacing it only a fraction of a centimeter from its original position in space-time. ÔÇ£What good is that,ÔÇØ you ask? Well, itÔÇÖs not much good if you only do it once, but if you can generate the field many thousand times a second the ship would appear to move. The advantage is that ship wouldnÔÇÖt be subjected to any of those pesky inertia effect because ÔÇ£itÔÇØ wouldnÔÇÖt really be moving in the traditional since. Instead, space-time itself would be moving around it. The faster you can regenerate the flux containment field the ÔÇ£fasterÔÇØ the ship would appear to be moving. This is also why there is a max speed because the max ÔÇ£velocityÔÇØ depends on how fast the engines can regenerate the field. Better engines regenerate the field faster.

I also have theories for how such a technology could be implemented to make transporters and cloak work but I wonÔÇÖt boor you with that. This post is outrageously long as it is.

Just some thought food for you all

cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Spindoktor:

I have an engineering degree so I have had courses in electromagenetic field theory, thermodynamics, and such... Thanks for bringing back my nightmares.

LOL Besides, if I read that correctly, it would mean you could only move in one direction ... opposite the motion of the galaxy (and beyond).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are refering to "Warp drive," the act of bending space to make you travel distance shorter. Newtonian physics takes a back seat in the BC line unfortunatly but I think that the game play makes up for that. There is one aspect I will address in terms of orbital mechanics:

Say you are an SF marine standing on a space station orbiting some planet. In the game, if you jump up the station will zip out from underneath you for your veloicity relative to the earth is zero. This will not happen in reality. You are moving along with the station in an internal frame of refrence. Ex. If you jump up and down in an airplane you land in the same spot (disclaimer: almost the same spot) on the floor. Remember when you are on the space station you are in orbit to, orbital radius is mass independent therefore if you are on the station and jump off, you will have the same orbital path as it does.

v^2=G*m(planet)/r(from center of the planetary body)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gee SC,

You must be getting "soft" in your later years. You almost Banned me for a similar post back in 98/99.

Dirt12 wrote:

quote:

The field imparts a minor fold in space-time along the longitudinal axis of the ship displacing it only a fraction of a centimeter from its original position in space-time. ÔÇ£What good is that,ÔÇØ you ask? Well, itÔÇÖs not much good if you only do it once, but if you can generate the field many thousand times a second the ship would appear to move. The advantage is that ship wouldnÔÇÖt be subjected to any of those pesky inertia effect because ÔÇ£itÔÇØ wouldnÔÇÖt really be moving in the traditional since. Instead, space-time itself would be moving around it. The faster you can regenerate the flux containment field the ÔÇ£fasterÔÇØ the ship would appear to be moving. This is also why there is a max speed because the max ÔÇ£velocityÔÇØ depends on how fast the engines can regenerate the field. Better engines regenerate the field faster.

I also have theories for how such a technology could be implemented to make transporters and cloak work but I wonÔÇÖt boor you with that. This post is outrageously long as it is.


"Big Grin"

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...