Shipwright Archive

---

duncje wrote:

With no friction, there is no need for acceleration once you get to a set speed. No force is required to retain speed. However, it would take longer for a higher mass ship to reach top speed, and more force to maneuver the ship.

Anywho, something like this is already in the game. It is the "spdx" factor in SSSnuggles's FAQ that is stickied above (however, they are blank at the time, as he's waiting for info on it).

---

It works mostly like this. If you don't believe me, try to accelerate in one of the Tie Bombers. All my other ships are at top spd in a mere instant. This one takes a noticably longer period.

---

certifiedandrew wrote:
I was doing some thinking. Force = mass * acceleration, so a greater force is required to move a bigass ship like a Y-wing at the same velocity as a Light Duty TIE. Currently, a 67 speed engine will move any and every ship at 67 speed. Are they telling me that the engine is capable of producing that much more force when in a huge ship, but it can't produce that same extra force while in a small ship?

Here's my thought. Strike it down or support it, just give me an opinion.

*The lightest of ships, like the TIE Light Duty and the Z95, should get 100% speed efficiency out of an engine, even at max mass. This Engine Efficiency would be displayed along with Mass and Energy on the main management screen.

*As ship mass increases, the engine efficiency should decrease. In other words, a Y-Wing with 30k mass on it should get, say, 85% speed efficiency (56.95 speed from the 67 speed engine), and a model with 150k mass should get 50% efficiency. We could use a scale that mimics reality, but then the hulking ships would move much too slowly, so we should give them a little room. The multiplayer ships should only suffer a 50% efficiency loss--at most.

*Ships like the A-Wing and TIE Interceptor are supposed to be extremely fast badasses. Right now, they're no faster than a hulking vessel equipped with an identical engine. Perhaps we could have an option to equip them with two engines. Of course, each engine would only get like 77% efficiency at max mass, but this would cause them to live up to their legends. Two 67 speed engines would result in 103.18 speed, but sacrifices would be made in accordance with mass. In other Star Wars literature and games, these ships are fast enough to outrun missiles, but have weak shields and their blasters aren't up to par with the X-wing, for example.

*Mark V engine speed needs to be increased, or perhaps a special Mark VI is in order, but restricted to Multiplayer vessels. Using kickass resources and subcomponents, I can currently make a Mark V that is only about 8 speeds faster than a Mark IV, but adds a ton of mass. Not many ships would be using these, and ships like the YT1300, Decimator, and Nova could certainly use the extra speed.

Comments, questions, ideas?

---

Agree, but you're in space. In space, if you fire a thruster you will continue to accelerate as long as you are applying thrust. And unless infuenced by another force, you will coast forever.

In space, mass is irrelevant to performance... as is body shape, etc, etc.

---

WS-GodLike wrote:

---

ajac09 wrote:

Their to small for 2 engines. I think the A-wing should be able to take special high performance engine same with the tie intercetpor since both of them were suppose to be designed for interceptor missions and tight g manuvers ( and yes thier is g's in space ) thier designed for more extreme speeds and manuverability.

---

How can there be G force in space when there is no gravity?

---

There is gravity in space. Gravity is not dependent on an atmosphere. However, gravity an extremely weak force (if you even consider it a force) and you don't really feel it unless you're standing on a planet or being accelerated in space. In orbit, you and your craftare falling around the earth in a circle.Next time you're falling take a penny out of your pocket and release it. It will fall next to you. It's everything falling together that makes it so there is no "relative" gravity. You float around because the ship doesn't have sufficient mass to distort spacetime enough to make you stick to your chair.

Eiensteinwrotethis thing called "The Theory of Relativity" In which he describes gravity and how it curves spacetime. Fascinating stuff.

If you light the engines and accelerate, you will be pushed back in your chair and experience G forces. You will also accelerate as long as you're thrusters are on, and you will not slow down until an outside force affects you. Be it gravity, or acceleration in the opposite direction.

Message Edited by Taewyn on 11-05-2004 08:03 AM

Actually there is gravity in space. But its tiny compared to being in an atmosphere. Planets have gravity wells. Any large body can have them. Dont ask me how. I aint Stephen Hawking.

Tyranus

Gravity distorts spacetime, that's how. You fall toward a center of gravity because space curves. Light bends around massive objects, and at the event-horizon of a black hole, a light beam can get trapped and orbit around the edge.

Fascinating stuff.

I've been reading about M-Theory, and one of the proposals is that gravity is a force from another dimension that leaks into our universe. Crazy stuff, but it explains why it's so weak compared to the electromagnetic and strong/weak nuclear forces. And also explains why we can't cram that round peg into the square hole of The Standard Model... It's a force from another dimension. No wonder we can't find the graviton, it exists on a parallel plane!

Think about it, the gravity of the whole earth ispulling down on you, but you can lift your arm effortlessly.