What are you kicking?

catbarf on 26/2/2013 at 20:01

Quote Posted by DDL

Wait, g-forces only make sense in an atmosphere? Since when?

Positive G-forces applied during a turn in an atmosphere (you pull up too hard and black out) are because an atmosphere is pushing hard against the bottom of the plane to force it to change vector, and the rest of your body thanks to inertia doesn't want to come along. That's why a plane can change direction even with its engines out, because the atmosphere provides the necessary force.

In space, you'd only experience positive G-force if your ship was accelerating upwards instead of forwards, and it wouldn't matter if you're turning or not. If you went full throttle and turned hard, you'd just be getting constantly pushed back in your seat due to the normal acceleration and you'd happen to be turning at the same time. Your ship would pinwheel while continuing to travel along its original vector. A little less exciting.

My point is that they're applying the WW2 aerial dogfight to a space game, and then trying to make it realistic, complete with 'realistic' representations of real-world physics that shouldn't survive the transition. Dogfighting just doesn't work in a Newtonian setting unless you start throwing in made-up caveats and limitations (like speed limits so it doesn't become jousting, or fake G-forces so you can quickly change direction) to force the behavior you want. It works for FreeSpace and Wing Commander because they're not trying to be rivet-counting space sims, but in a game that's keeping track of pilot temperature and oxygen mix it's a little weird.

I look forward to seeing how it progresses, I mean it would be ridiculous to dismiss it on the basis of a single touted feature, it just seems odd and I'm wondering just how realistic it'll actually be.

Pyrian on 26/2/2013 at 22:30

Yeah, realistic space combat is likely to be all about killing them farther away than they can kill you, which is unlikely to ever make for a good action game.

catbarf on 26/2/2013 at 23:50

Quote Posted by Pyrian

Yeah, realistic space combat is likely to be all about killing them farther away than they can kill you, which is unlikely to ever make for a good action game.

True, but there are still degrees. Independence War, Starshatter, and Allegiance managed to make space combat work in a Newtonian context without doing weird stuff to physics in the process.

This strikes me more like if someone wanted to make a realistic, in-depth shooter, but used Quake as their thematic model. So you've got a modern, gritty FPS with bullet penetration, realistic weapons handling, and people dying in two hits, but with double jumping and people running around at 20mph. It's not inherently bad, just kind of inconsistent, or at least difficult to reconcile contradictory themes.

Like I said, it's way too early to be judging the game, but that's just the impression I get from reading the page.

retractingblinds on 1/3/2013 at 15:29

Quote Posted by Spitter

I don't quite have the balls to give them enough money for a cyberdwarf bodypillow backer reward though.

I did. I'll take pics when the case comes around.

DDL on 1/3/2013 at 17:00

Quote Posted by catbarf

Physics stuff

Huh, well I could be wrong (happens more often than I'd like), but I'm thinking that ANY acceleration produces shitloads of Gs, whether it's in atmosphere mediated by...atmosphere, or space, mediated by retrograde thrusters or whatever. If you want to pull a hairpin turn in the atmosphere, you can bank off the air resistance, sure....but pulling off the exact same maneuver in space, via clever thrusters and shit, should produce exactly the same Gs, since the change in velocity and vector is identical.

I suspect the reason we're reaching different conclusions is that I'm picturing space combat here as dog-fighting mediated by lots of retrothruster action, but with the added danger of far higher caps on theoretical acceleration (so: stupid and massively wasteful space combat, but fun as a game), whereas you're picturing space combat here as long constant vectors with occasional shifts mediated by small bursts of impulse (so: sensible and efficient space combat, but frustratingly like asteroids as a game).

I'm working on "if we had dogfights in space, the Gs would potentially be intense" and you're working on "we wouldn't have dogfights in space, that's a stupid idea".

Which is admittedly true.

catbarf on 1/3/2013 at 17:59

Quote Posted by DDL

You're right that the overall force is the same, but the vector of thrust relative to the translation vector is different, and that's what matters. What we term 'positive Gs' in aircraft are when a turn forces the pilot down into his seat, making it harder for blood to reach the brain. And again, it's because when you turn, the atmosphere pushes against the bottom of the plane, applying a very substantial acceleration to move it into the new vector. Same happens with a car- you pull a hard turn, the ground pushes against your tires to force your car onto the new vector, and since your body doesn't want to go along you experience a G-force to the side.

In space, the only way you're going to change your vector is if your ship applies thrust to change it. So if your ship has a main thruster and some retro-thrusters, the only directions the acceleration can be in are directly forwards and directly backwards.

If you pull a 180 degree turn in an airplane, you experience positive Gs because the force that provides the change in vector is perpendicular to the plane's movement vector. If you pull a 180 degree turn in space, you're just flipping over and then turning on the engines, providing a thrust in the same vector as the movement.

So even if we have dogfights in space, the forces aren't going to be anything like what you experience in a plane. You'd just get slammed back in your seat every time you accelerate, or thrown forward if you apply retro-thrusters, and it's irrespective of your current velocity or vector. What we call G-forces are basically the results of an aerodynamic body interacting with an atmosphere, and it's not applicable.

Sorry to derail the thread with physics wankery, in all honesty I'm glad that more games are trying to take a more realistic approach to space, even if it's not 100% there.

DDL on 1/3/2013 at 21:52

But again, you're assuming the maneuvering is sensible, efficient "exactly enough thrust to turn and then move in the new intended direction", rather than the "this is a fucking space dog fight, baby! Apply non-linear thrust to mimic atmospheric banking, only SPACIER",

Dogfights in space that mimic atmospheric fights (complete with G-forces, only with potential for MOAR G) are entirely possible, they're just utterly nonsensical from any practical standpoint, because they'd be haemorrhaging fuel. The only difference between 'atmospheric maneuvering' and 'space maneuvering that mimics atmospheric maneuvering' is that the latter is wasteful and pointless. But more fun, game-wise.

If they're having them in a game while also boasting about physics/G-forces, I feel compelled to apply physics to them rather than just going "oh well".

And I guess, even in sensible, efficient 'vector' fights, the accelerations you could muster (and the duration you could muster them for) would be significantly more intense. If only because there's nothing to stop them continuing indefinitely (fuel and relativity notwithstanding).

And yes, ditto on the apologies for physics derailing.

Pyrian on 1/3/2013 at 23:38

Quote Posted by DDL

And I guess, even in sensible, efficient 'vector' fights, the accelerations you could muster (and the duration you could muster them for) would be significantly more intense. If only because there's nothing to stop them continuing indefinitely (fuel and relativity notwithstanding).

:confused: It looks to me like maybe you're getting acceleration and velocity mixed up. Velocity applies no G-forces in space. And while acceleration doesn't have to fight air resistance, it also cannot use it, which is normally the stronger factor. Nevermind losing the free-oxygen component of your fuel source.

catbarf on 2/3/2013 at 01:22

Quote Posted by DDL

You're absolutely right that it could be mimicked, but it requires more than just the main engines and some retro-thrusters. In order to have a force of 6Gs pressing you down into your seat, like you might experience during a hard turn in a jet, the only way to do this in a non-atmospheric setting is to apply an upward acceleration of 6Gs. Presumably this means your ship has engines on the bottom, and pretty powerful ones at that. If your ship can do the same thing pitching down or turning to the sides, then you have to have engines on the top and the sides too.

In other words, yes, it's doable, but then your space ship doesn't really behave like a fighter jet, because you have engines all over it that should let you 'strafe' in any direction at pretty high speed. Then it's less like Wing Commander and more like Descent, which doesn't seem to be what they're going for.

DDL on 2/3/2013 at 09:46

Quote Posted by Pyrian

No, which was why I was careful to constantly use acceleration as my metric. Velocity doesn't apply Gs in any context, after all.

But consider: if you have an engine that can output enough force to accelerate you at 8Gs. In the atmosphere this will not be sustainable, because eventually air resistance will balance out the thrust. You'll accelerate to your top speed, then maintain that speed with no net G-force (other than actual gravity). In space, you'll accelerate until you run out of fuel. Those 8Gs will now be maintained for a lot longer (and indeed will probably be slightly higher than 8Gs, because air resistance never applies).

And yes, I'm picturing a ship with thrusters all over the shop, catbarf. Like the corners of this baby:

Inline Image:

http://er.jsc.nasa.gov/seh/lemmod.gif

We're still, I think, at cross-purposes as to what we're picturing. You're having trouble accepting the idea of a ship designed to allow it to maneuver like a fighter plane, because it makes zero sense in a space context. I'm assuming for the purposes of silly gameplay etc that this IS the case, even though I agree it makes zero sense, and then considering that such a fighter plane would be able to do everything an atmospheric plane could do, but would be able to pull off more strenuous maneuvers. Does that make sense? Sure, if it HAD all those thrusters it would still be better served maneuvering as you're picturing, but again "gameplay etc". I'm working realism around the premise (even if the premise is stupid), rather than just disregarding the premise as stupid.

EDIT: also, I am trying to decide if this argument is stupider than the iron sights debate. Jesus. Sorry. :-/

Anyway, back on subject: I was kicking this

(http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/2128128298/expeditions-conquistador)

And am now playing the beta. It's fun. Turn-based tactical colonial racism!:sly: