Search results

For bounty hunting, the keep them from jumping mechanic is useful, pulling ships out of quantum, not so much. A good EMP should accomplish the same task though. All the more reason to not want to take bounties in space.

I can see the idea of keeping people from jumping away from a planet, or base, that mechanic makes sense. The idea of being able to pull someone out of quantum with sensors that are, at best,light speed sensors, with Space being as vast as it is seems a bit much.

It is better than "DAZ soon."

On the other side of the coin you can't have the Star Destroyer run down the blockade runner in the epic scene that started the Star Wars franchise. Or the scene where the Star Destroyers were closing in on the Falcon before it "jumped to light speed" or didn't jump to light speed, depending on...

Yes. Sorry I misread your intention.

You place the thrusters where they work best. For example at the end of moment arms. :)

Only if the thrust (force) does not increase proportionately. F÷m=a. For example, an F-15 has about 1.75 times the mass of an F-16, but has twice the thrust of an F-16 so the F-15 accelerates faster (yes that is overly simplified since it isn't taking into account things such as parasitic drag...

On the other side of the coin you also have economy of scale. Larger fuel lines, water lines, gas lines are more efficeint. Smaller nuclear reactors are less stable and produce significantly less power than just comparing volume. No reason to believe anti-matter or fusion would be any...

You didn't. However if you use actual physics there is no reason a Destroyer shouldn't be faster and more maneuverable than a fighter.

You didn't. However if you use actual physics there is no reason a Destroyer shouldn't be faster and more maneuverable than a fighter. It would be based on design philosophy not size.

It is the only way to make light fighters actually relevant, especially carrier based fighters.

In the Pacific theater, where the target was shipping the B25 was equipped with 8 and sometimes as many as 12 pilot controlled forward facing guns. In that configuration the bombs were definittely secondary though. Neither of those were the inspiration for the Tali though. :)

To close out the initial discussion, it looks like the Connie wins. Not because it is the best choice on the list, given the current meta it isn't, but I feel if I get too used to flying something like a Freelancer, I will have to get used to flying something slow all over again. :)

It isn't a gun boat. The Lancaster Bomber had 30 caliber machineguns. 10 30 caliber machine guns were carried, max. In later models the rear quad mount was replaced, sometimes, with a pair of 50 cals. And the belly turret was generally removed. The B-17 carried (G model) 13 50 cal machineguns...

I have given up on landing at Loreville. Now I land near one of the gates and walk in. I then claim the ship that is outside, spawn one of my more stable ships, usually the Vanguard, power it up, let them open the ceiling, go straight up. Once I clear the doors, I raise the gear and wait for the...

The Tali has the same computers as the Hammerhead. They said no more than 4 automated turrets on the Hammerhead in the Hammerhead q&a. So the Tali could have 4 out of 5 turrets automated, so a Tali runs with a crew of 2 or 3. That doesn't change with the latest video. My issues with the Tali...

LOL. I like the way you think. LOL

Whose idea was it to land in silos and tunnels anyway?

Probably because landing at Loreville is such a PITA with the hover mechanics.

What did you hear that makes the Tali less useful?