Coming anniversary sale.

[SoloFlyer]

For pure freighters I might agree wholesale, but I like the idea of larger ships being quick...adds an "oh shit" factor to the verse. Small fish in a big pond kind of thing.

I think even having some quick freighters might not be a bad thing. The Millennium Falcon was a light freighter and that was pretty quick. Being able to actually run a blockade for smuggling if that's your flavor would be a nice feature to have.

 

[Bambooza]

I think even having some quick freighters might not be a bad thing. The Millennium Falcon was a light freighter and that was pretty quick. Being able to actually run a blockade for smuggling if that's your flavor would be a nice feature to have.

We have some from ships like the Aurora, Cutlass, and Avenger, then there is the Freelancer and its variants Hull A, Constellation and its variants, Mercery, Hull B and as you go bigger they go slower like the StarFarer, Hercules and Hull C/D/E

 

[Richard Bong]

The Freelancer isn't exactly fast compared to the Connie, but which one to use is an individual thing. I use the Connie regularly, but I also use a Freelancer DUR or Max, and sometimes a Cutlass Black.

For some reason, CIG seems to think that a larger ship should be slower just because it's larger. That should be dependent on thrust of the engines, not the size of the ship. But it's the same for everyone so I don't worry about it, it's just kind of "yet another curiosity".

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

 

[Vavrik]

Where exactly did I say that carriers should fly faster than fighters?

 

[Richard Bong]

Where exactly did I say that carriers should fly faster than fighters?

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.

 

[Michael]

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.

[nitpicking]
Well there are some practical engineering reasons. You can't simply make everything bigger and keep a good thrust to weight ratio. Momentum, tensile strength and rocket equation just to name some reasons. You just can't supersize your engines mostly for combustion stability reasons also.

So if you're using actual real physics there are a lot of good reasons bigger ships will be slower and less agile.
[/nitpicking]

 

[Richard Bong]

Where exactly did I say that carriers should fly faster than fighters?

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.

 

[Richard Bong]

[nitpicking]
Well there are some practical engineering reasons. You can't simply make everything bigger and keep a good thrust to weight ratio. Momentum, tensile strength and rocket equation just to name some reasons. You just can't supersize your engines mostly for combustion stability reasons also.

So if you're using actual real physics there are a lot of good reasons bigger ships will be slower and less agile.
[/nitpicking]

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 different.

Momentum is one thing that doesn't apply. F=MA doesn't care what the mass is. It is strictly the ratio of force and mass. In atmosphere you have friction increasing based on size, that does not apply in space.

Control needs are finite. (Beyond a certain point there is no reason to scale up your bridge, even if you seperate out aux control, CIC and add a flag bridge.)

You are correct, you can't just scale up structure. Look at the Empire State Building, as an example. They scaled up the supports and used a higher tensile strength (titanium vs. steel) material. As a result the building is way over engineered and would likely survive a magnitude 11 quake. Another instance where economy of scale applies.

Now I am presuming, when I say there is no reason that a Destroyer can't be as agile as a fighter, that they are designed with the same basic concept in mind, combat first.

 

[at-2500]

This is a place where the military ship role and naming thing breaks down. On earths oceans, bigger ships can generally drive faster than smaller boats, as long as they go through the water instead of planing. They also accelerate slower. I am looking forward to the Kraken and multiple systems to see whether the combination of high QT speed and low speed otherwise make good gameplay. I'd think so.

 

[Vavrik]

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

Ah I did misunderstand the perspective.
In actual physics, larger ships will not be slower., they will accelerate slower. There is a difference, and you don't have to mention agility, since all agility comes from acceleration. The formula for this is incredibly simple, and unless it is acted on by another force, the ship will automagically fly in a perfectly straight line. no need to sit and watch it. Some stuff you probably already know...

From newtonian physics, which is the "good enough" model that can get you to a moon or planet
the formula is:
a = F/m (force / mass)

or slightly more complicated, but used in space flight flight
a = Δv / Δt (change in velocity / change in time)

If you work it out, they're both the same equation.

And, it turns out that being in a planetary gravity well just messes with you because by definition, the straight line is bent into a circle around the planet, and is called an orbit. The atmospheric flight model is actually identical too. You still have the orbit, but the calculation of F is complicated by the forces resisting the movement of the ship from the atmosphere. That's lift and drag. Throw a baseball or football, shoot a rabbit with a 22, or launch a space plane.... physical model does not change.


BUT we are in CIGs universe in the game and they have a truncated physics engine and weird atmospheres that end with a thud even if you're only moving at 150 m/s, at weird altitudes that seem to imply that CIG used meters to represent feet, or even inches in the case of some of the moons. And a hand full of other anomalies. This is all for gameplay, and we have to view it from that perspective in the game, in CIG's universe. I accept that in the game.

The only thing I'm saying is that even in CIG's universe, there is no reason to make ships fly slower just because they are bigger. If I add more thrust, I should get a different acceleration AND a different final velocity. There is no reason why a capital ship shouldn't be able to fly faster than an Aquila, but I don't think (for gameplay reasons) that they should fly faster than a fighter.

(My opinion) The effect in the game of not doing this is that ships are too predictable, and the predictability removes some skill that shouldn't be removed, like courage, and tactical awareness, and replaces it with blind luck and twitch - two things you have far more of when you're 23, than you do when you're 40, even if you're in perfect health, and even if you're not aware of it yet.

 

[Talonsbane]

I think that we can ALL agree that a larger & more flushed out Verse than we currently have will be much better. If you disagree, then I believe that you might be needing a beverage refresh / refill. Cheers!

 

[Richard Bong]

Ah I did misunderstand the perspective.
In actual physics, larger ships will not be slower., they will accelerate slower.

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, but it is still a good demonstration and still true.).

But we have a game where the designers want dogfighting, so like Top Gun ignoring AIM-54 missiles (Phoenix), a bit of handwavium is applied to physics.

 

[NaffNaffBobFace]

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, but it is still a good demonstration and still true.).

But we have a game where the designers want dogfighting, so like Top Gun ignoring AIM-54 missiles (Phoenix), a bit of handwavium is applied to physics.

So would the large ships engines have to somehow distribute the increased thrust evenly across all parts of the craft, or would outlying things need a proportional amount of structural reinforcement too?

 

[Bambooza]

Struts. Kerbal teaches us they add no mass and can greatly reinforce structural integrity.

Its how RSI handles their ship construction.

 

[Vavrik]

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, but it is still a good demonstration and still true.).

But we have a game where the designers want dogfighting, so like Top Gun ignoring AIM-54 missiles (Phoenix), a bit of handwavium is applied to physics.

Well, I can't argue. We're both saying the same thing for both real life (a = F/m or as you wrote it, F÷m=a) and in the game, which has a truncated physical model for gameplay, so that ships have a finite maximum velocity. I forgot to specify "for a given force" in the sentence you quoted... but it's in the math that way.

 

[Vavrik]

Struts. Kerbal teaches us they add no mass and can greatly reinforce structural integrity.

Its how RSI handles their ship construction.

Wait a sec... RSI is on Kerbin? Staffed by Kerbals probably no doubt. THAT explains a LOT of things!!!

 

[Richard Bong]

So would the large ships engines have to somehow distribute the increased thrust evenly across all parts of the craft, or would outlying things need a proportional amount of structural reinforcement too?

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

 

[Richard Bong]

Well, I can't argue. We're both saying the same thing for both real life (a = F/m or as you wrote it, F÷m=a) and in the game, which has a truncated physical model for gameplay, so that ships have a finite maximum velocity. I forgot to specify "for a given force" in the sentence you quoted... but it's in the math that way.

Yes. Sorry I misread your intention.

 

[Richard Bong]

True, but then you couldn't have the epic StarWars battles with large ships slowly closing in on each other's firing range and swarms of fighters and bombers interacting with each other as well as the slow-moving capital ships. While it is unrealistic it does give lots of gameplay options and epic moments that outweigh the breaking from reality.

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 the scene. :)

I think the only reason for Star Destroyers in the first Star Wars film was to give you something to compare the Death Star size to.

 

[Bambooza]

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 the scene. :)

I think the only reason for Star Destroyers in the first Star Wars film was to give you something to compare the Death Star size to.

And this is where game design is a struggle. Do you make capital ships the top tier that makes fighters mostly irrelevant or do you make capitals slow so that fighters have a nitch? While it doesn't make logical real-world sense especially since there shouldn't be a max top speed until you get closer to the speed of light (near .8 to .9). From a game mechanic standpoint, it is valid as it allows those in fighters and bombers to have a purpose and giving the capital ships some severe handicaps. While this doesn't mirror the real world it gives gameplay opportunities that encourage groups to work together with many options. So with capital ships many strengths from defense and firepower it needs some limitations and the easiest is to just make it slow otherwise why would you fly in anything else? While costs are an initial game limitation as the player economy saturates with wealth this becomes a nonfactor. The reason for the saturation of the player economy is often to allow causal players to still be able to achieve most of the gameplay loops without hurting the overall gameplay experience.