Jump To Lightspeed Archive
Thread: JTL Physics Completley Off (fun yes, but darn it)
Page 1 of 4
Sirpi
Fri Nov 12, 2004 6:43 am
#1
Want to know if there was a reason that physics were done the way they were in space.
1. The only max speed you have is light (unless you coun't hyperspace/wormholes/warping etc). Ships would have a max ACCELERATION, not a max speed.
2. There is no atmosphere, no medium, to slow a ship, so why cant we blast away, cut the burners, then coast (hmmm, Battlestar Galactica (the new one)has done it the best i've seen so far), or rotate around and blast our pursuers
3. Targeting distance is in meters? If it takes my ship that long do fly 3000 meters i'd be better off in a space suit with a can of hairspray to propel me 
I realize some of these may be design issues, but I'd really like to know. Also, The 'X-Wing' series of games (God bless 'em) had the same problem. While totally entertaining, it was like your ship was a combination of car/plane. It really acted nothing like a ship in space, other than you being able to 'sit still' and rotate on your various axis.
DeathToVader
Fri Nov 12, 2004 6:54 am
#3
George Lucas designed it this way. It is the way he wanted it and has been the same since the 1970's. He was a big fan of world war 2 dogfighting and used gun canera footage to film the space battle scenes.
Vicotnik
Fri Nov 12, 2004 6:59 am
#4
Sirpi wrote:
Want to know if there was a reason that physics were done the way they were in space.
1. The only max speed you have is light (unless you coun't hyperspace/wormholes/warping etc). Ships would have a max ACCELERATION, not a max speed.
2. There is no atmosphere, no medium, to slow a ship, so why cant we blast away, cut the burners, then coast (hmmm, Battlestar Galactica (the new one)has done it the best i've seen so far), or rotate around and blast our pursuers
3. Targeting distance is in meters? If it takes my ship that long do fly 3000 meters i'd be better off in a space suit with a can of hairspray to propel me
I realize some of these may be design issues, but I'd really like to know. Also, The 'X-Wing' series of games (God bless 'em) had the same problem. While totally entertaining, it was like your ship was a combination of car/plane. It really acted nothing like a ship in space, other than you being able to 'sit still' and rotate on your various axis.
Basically, there is one big and easy reason: This is Star Wars.
Star Wars has never been known for it's realistic view on space physics, in fact the dogfights in the Star Wars movies were based on dogfights with old WW 2 planes. While the flightmodel in JTL is far from perfect, I would say that it's kinda going to far to say that the X-wing series had a "problem" with this. Personally, I found those flightengines to be rather close to the movies.
Lilleth
Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:01 am
#5
Better let physics out of SciFi games - it would makethem unplayable.
To your statement about the max speed: Every ship has a max speed, because (Einstein told us) you need energy to reach some level of speed. A ship has some mass - and to give this mass acceleration you need energy. So the maximum speed is determined by the energy you have available.
Second thing: space is not a vacuum. There is no real vacuum in the universe. You have billions and more billions of particles of different sizes. So you have also the problem that colliding with some of the particles can do severe damage to your ship (Apollo 13 is a good example for this).
It is right that you need a very long time to get your ship stopped because there is not much resistance in space - but at least there is some.
And to the "meters" - I wondered first time too. But now I think it's "miles" - imagination is a good thing you know 
Yours
JediArchon
Fri Nov 12, 2004 8:01 am
#6
As with any game of the genre, you need to suspend your belief (or disbelief) to truly enjoy the game. I can say that for the most part, I have enjoyed the expansion and am quite comfortable with the trade off of fun vs. realism.
The ability to stop in space just by cutting your throttle doesn't bother me at all, no more than using the Force to lift an X-wing out of a swamp does, or using a flashlight as a sword. If Lucas had based his movies on physical reality, it would have been very boring indeed.
The one thing that I am having a very hard time tolerating though are the fighter tactics that result in annoyances. It seems like every fighter type has a core tactic that it doesn't very from, especially TIE fighter/interceptors. They make a pass with their guns, go into a broad turn, then as you follow them shallowly in the turn, they make an abrupt turn towards you, shoot and typically end up ramming your starship, then repeating the process. After being rammed 10 times in a single dogfight, it tends to grate on one's nerves.
The ability to stop in space just by cutting your throttle doesn't bother me at all, no more than using the Force to lift an X-wing out of a swamp does, or using a flashlight as a sword. If Lucas had based his movies on physical reality, it would have been very boring indeed.
The one thing that I am having a very hard time tolerating though are the fighter tactics that result in annoyances. It seems like every fighter type has a core tactic that it doesn't very from, especially TIE fighter/interceptors. They make a pass with their guns, go into a broad turn, then as you follow them shallowly in the turn, they make an abrupt turn towards you, shoot and typically end up ramming your starship, then repeating the process. After being rammed 10 times in a single dogfight, it tends to grate on one's nerves.
WCjtace
Fri Nov 12, 2004 8:18 am
#7
Umm - actually there is a physical limit to your velocity in space, and it's not the speed of light. It's the speed of the exhaust particles coming out of the back of your engine. For every action there is an equal and oposite reaction. The basics is that baring friction, in space more engines doesn't let you go faster it just let's you get to your top speed faster.
But honestly all that is besides the point, Star Wars has never been about space simulation, it's been about fun.
DathoImilli
Fri Nov 12, 2004 8:20 am
#8
Hmm, lets just say that they don't have the same physics in a galaxy far far away.
As far as the ship ramming technique. That irritates the hell outta me as well. If I wanted to ram someone I'd put a big concrete block on the front of my ship instead of spending the cash on blasters.
Stavro
Fri Nov 12, 2004 8:24 am
#9
You want more realistic physics, try Jumpgate.
I was going to say more about the "SW physics", but it was already covered by earlier posts.
I was going to say more about the "SW physics", but it was already covered by earlier posts.
SanRa_Ledav
Fri Nov 12, 2004 8:42 am
#10
Watch an episode of Black Sheep Squadron.
You'll see some dogfights and aircraft carrier runs that GL used almost unmodified for the flight paths in the DS attack in ANH.
You'll see some dogfights and aircraft carrier runs that GL used almost unmodified for the flight paths in the DS attack in ANH.
wrathbenelli
Fri Nov 12, 2004 9:16 am
#11
Cool discussion man,
my two cents->>
If by speed you mean velocity, then yes, there is a maximum speed and it is a function of an engines ability to move mass a specific distance with respect to time. All of us who took pysics or dynamics know that particle velocity (speed) is the derivative of particle location with respect to time. Therefore,if a space engine was build and outfitted to a known mass, we could determine the maximum velocity of that engine emperically by observing the engine performance as it propels a known mass a certain distance, within a known time. That velocity could be used as the maximum velocity.
To go one step further, the second derivative of the position, or the derivative of the velocity, will yeild the acceleration of the particle. The same emperical data could be used then to calculate an engines maximum acceleration.
Isnt it great being a nerd.
Aden_Nak
Fri Nov 12, 2004 9:25 am
#12
The real reason is that space combat in the Star Wars universe is a parallel of World War II (as is everything else in the Star Wars universe, on one level or another). However, if you want a Star Wars Technology explaination for this, there have been several offerend in the Extended Universe.
The first is an issue of structural integrity. Specificly, that the ships' top speeds are actually capped by the maximum velocity at which they can safely travel. Some versions of this explanation work in the concept that inertial dampeners are used to hold the ship together, and they act, in effect, as a counter-kinetic force to the engine thrust. This ties in with the second explanation I have read, that said inertial dameners are also keeping the pilots from being squashed like bugs due to the acceleration, and this also produces a counter-force.
Hey, I didn't say they were GOOD explanations, just what's out there.
The first is an issue of structural integrity. Specificly, that the ships' top speeds are actually capped by the maximum velocity at which they can safely travel. Some versions of this explanation work in the concept that inertial dampeners are used to hold the ship together, and they act, in effect, as a counter-kinetic force to the engine thrust. This ties in with the second explanation I have read, that said inertial dameners are also keeping the pilots from being squashed like bugs due to the acceleration, and this also produces a counter-force.
Hey, I didn't say they were GOOD explanations, just what's out there.
Sirpi
Sat Nov 13, 2004 5:30 am
#13
Good input, but to clarify a few things
1. alot of you are confusing Velocity/Speed with acceleration. The 'thrust' limits acceleration, not speed (until you get very high up, like half the speed of light, and then, speed is limited by mass if i remember correctly), unless, as mentioned above, your talking velocity as a funtion of time, which is of course limited. However, my main point was that I just wanna coast. So, I could have a 1lb thruster attached to a boulder and it would eventually reach a very high speed, even though it would take forever. Current Ion propulsion systems work like this. They have very low thrust, but nearly limitless power, so they can accelerate for a very very long time.
2. I realize where lucas got his ideas from, I also realize the last two movies destroyed my childhood fantasy world (I was 5 when the first StarWars appeared) Oh, and Black Sheep Squadron if one of my favorite series btw, I am a Marine, and wanted to be a pilot before the doc said I couldn't (vision), so Pappy is fairly well known to me.
(I was 5 when the first StarWars appeared) Oh, and Black Sheep Squadron if one of my favorite series btw, I am a Marine, and wanted to be a pilot before the doc said I couldn't (vision), so Pappy is fairly well known to me.3. Space, for all intensive purposes, is a vacuum. There are not enough particles per cubic meter to slow a ship that fast (unless you hit an asteroid or meteor shower), and yes, i realize there are all kinds of tidbits 'floating' around out there. But, if it were enough to matter, then all of our satellites and shuttle missions wouldnt be posssible, or at the very least, a real pain in the arse.
4. I know also that fun comes first and foremost, but fun to me is being able to cut the engines and rotate around blazing away while 'flying' backwards. Did no one else read on of the Star Wars novels (can't remember which one) where wedge does that very same maneuever and blasts like 3 tie fighters that were chasing him?
Page 1 of 4