catbarf on 2/3/2013 at 21:46
Quote Posted by DDL
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.
I see what you're getting at now, and you're right. Of course, you could say that the 'gameplay etc' perspective compromises the realism somewhat...
That Expeditions game looks pretty cool, would you mind describing the gameplay a bit?
DDL on 3/3/2013 at 11:35
It's like a mix of king's bounty, HoMM and choose-your-own-adventure, with you playing a conquistador in hispaniola (and later, mexico). Your hermandad of hand-picked grunts represents your fighting force, and fights, when they happen, are turn-based hex-map battles, which (as you acquire skills for your dudes) get fairly tactical fairly quickly -flanking attacks, attacks of opportunity etc.
When not fighting, you (as a single representative unit, a la kings bounty) wander around the world map finding interesting things and resolving quests and stuff, and have to camp each night, assigning people to various roles like patrolling and hunting and so on (and if you fuck this up, like forgetting to post guards, there's a chance someone'll run off with half your stuff).
You need to keep everyone fed, too. And happy: each member of your team has various character traits, like "pious", "greedy" or "racist". Be too accepting of all these weird foreign religions and whatnot, and your pious and racist people get pissed off.
Also, definite emphasis on multiple ways to resolve conflicts, and the writing is great (coz it's by Jonas Waever, of The Nameless Mod): it's well researched and a lot of it is roughly based on actual events (and the shit the conquistadors got up to is...terrifying). Sometimes you feel like a horrible person no matter how you resolve a situation.
Also, sometimes it's funny as hell.
You encounter a group of native hunters. They jabber something at you loudly.
>Ask Isabela to translate
>ATTACK
>Shout "DOES ANYONE SPEAK SPANISH, HERE?" :p
Disclaimer: Jonas is a friend of mine, so I'm biased as hell, admittedly, but yeah, it's a fun game. Hard, though.
Pyrian on 4/3/2013 at 17:34
Quote Posted by DDL
Velocity doesn't apply Gs in
any context, after all.
In an atmosphere, velocity relative to that atmosphere results in acceleration.
Quote Posted by DDL
But consider: if you have an engine that can output enough force to accelerate you at 8Gs.
That's, uh, quite an engine. The space shuttle, for example, caps out at 3Gs. A typical fighter jet's thrust/weight ratio is less than 2Gs. And with those 2Gs and an atmosphere, they produce 10+G turns, no problem. What could you do with 8Gs
and an atmosphere? Kill your pilot, for one thing.
Quote Posted by DDL
In the atmosphere this will not be sustainable, because eventually air resistance will balance out the thrust.
At 8Gs straight line, you're going to leave the atmosphere, and if you include the ability to
turn, then your statement is just false.
Quote Posted by DDL
(and indeed will probably be slightly higher than 8Gs, because air resistance
never applies)
See, this is such a strange notion to me. It's like, what are you
talking about? In space, your Gs
cap at your thrust/weight ratio. Atmospheres get you to Gs many times your thrust capabilities. A craft capable of 8G could get no more than 8G in space, and potentially much more in an atmosphere.
Quote Posted by DDL
And yes, I'm picturing a ship with thrusters all over the shop, catbarf.
If you're mimicking fighter-jet movements, then smaller roll-jets and strong forward and down engines are all that's really necessary. Also, if you're planning on having a human pilot (and 8Gs acceleration), that's a good idea; 8Gs of
downward acceleration (thrust from engines pointing up) will quickly burst the capillaries in the pilot's eyes, and kill her not long after. There are huge differences in how the human body withstands G-forces from various directions.
Quote Posted by DDL
...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.
Nonsense. You'll need a much more powerful engine to perform even comparable maneuvers, and the cap on G's has long been the squishy meat-bag inside rather than the titanium alloy aircraft performing it.
DDL on 4/3/2013 at 22:29
Ok, yeah: clearly I am not getting it. "velocity relative to that atmosphere results in acceleration." Velocity never results in an acceleration. Change in velocity, sure, but that's not velocity, it's literally a definition of acceleration.
How exactly does a craft capable of generating 8-Gs of thrust (in an atmosphere) manage to generate significantly more than that in an atmosphere? I'm honestly confused. My space example was to account for the fact that 8Gs (final) in atmosphere is against air resistance, whereas the same thrust in space would produce higher acceleration.
I mean, sure, if the atmosphere was "a brick wall", and you already had a decent velocity, then the deceleration would be killer, but if the atmosphere was a brick wall then your 8Gs are not going to get you a decent velocity in the first place. Are we purely talking "use massively streamlined shape to acquire high speed, then change inclination to expose massively unstreamlined shape to atmosphere, decelerate on resistance and thus get as close to hitting a brick wall as possible"?
Because that's pretty much the only way I can see it working, and if that's the case, well, A) that seems like a stupid thing to do, and B) while I'd be nevertheless forced to admit defeat, I'm also slightly disturbed at how much more hardcore physicsy you're taking this. I'm still thinking along line of "look how much more we could throw the pilot around if we didn't constantly have to account for atmosphere", and you're practically getting into "they didn't alter apparent Gs for minor changes in altitude, those fucks. That's no hardcore sim" territory, here.
We seem to be essentially have a conflict regarding
A)how much pseudo science is allowed (i.e. you include fuel and likely thrust capacities, and fucking ship alloy compositions, I use "computer game space magic")
B)what maneuvers are involved, since I guess I could also come up with a ton of ways of getting insane decelerations in space with only an 8G thruster, if you really want (space can have brick walls)
C)how destructive they are (8Gs being apparently a weak-ass cap, but also fatal?)
I kinda feel like I waded into an argument about horse meat in food and have suddenly found myself trying to justify buffer choice in diagnostic qPCR. It's an argument that has rapidly gone way beyond my initial questioning, and into crazy territory.
So, really, unless you actually care enough to address any of that, I'm gonna just say "assuming we're talking the aerodynamic brickwall example..ok, I guess you win, I guess?" and concede the field. Congrats.
So, anyway: what's everyone kicking? Apart from brick walls at 8Gs, of course.
EvaUnit02 on 19/3/2013 at 03:00
That Kickstarter was an incredibly disorganised mess. There was a lack of follow-through on promised updates ("We're working on a big update for tomorrow." *5 days later, no still update) by the game's developers and barely any communication in general from them. What's more there was a lack of transparency, the developers were so secretive. Small wonder why many believed it to be a scam.
I would not have touched this project with a barge pole.
Thirith on 26/3/2013 at 14:15
I loved History Line as a teenager, but when I tried to replay the game after it came out on GOG (or, if ZB is watching, GoG :ebil:) I couldn't get back into it. The controls were just so amazingly unwieldy!
