How big are Allegiance ships?
And I'm not saying they aren't. I was just implying that the Allegiance engine and its craft are not accurate enough for any proof of concept like you suggested.
Actually, I don't know what's going on in this thread anymore. All I'm interested in is maintaining that real physics with its limitations and advantages would make reasonable gameplay in allegiance. Especially if nukes and such were to be left out.
Space missiles would pretty much be tiny spacecraft and so much cmore related to their targets than atmosphere/gravity missiles are related to their targets. Spaceraft would not suffer from all the same limitations as aircraft would against missiles.
Acceleration +8G to -3G. Limited available main and RCS delta-V, unlimited emergency thrust. Scouts could still outrun everything else, just the whole concept of bingo fuel would come up all different.
Races with different G tolerances/fuel reagents ... mmm.
As long as the playfield stays the same, ppl wouldn't be whizzing past each other at ridiculous speeds ... well they could, but woudn't be stopping in time to get away from the ping of death. Fuel economy would be the most important thing. Carriers would be gold.
This is not a suggestion. This is just to say it wouldn't be boring. It'd just be different. Certainly not a dumb down.
Actually, I don't know what's going on in this thread anymore. All I'm interested in is maintaining that real physics with its limitations and advantages would make reasonable gameplay in allegiance. Especially if nukes and such were to be left out.
Space missiles would pretty much be tiny spacecraft and so much cmore related to their targets than atmosphere/gravity missiles are related to their targets. Spaceraft would not suffer from all the same limitations as aircraft would against missiles.
Acceleration +8G to -3G. Limited available main and RCS delta-V, unlimited emergency thrust. Scouts could still outrun everything else, just the whole concept of bingo fuel would come up all different.
Races with different G tolerances/fuel reagents ... mmm.
As long as the playfield stays the same, ppl wouldn't be whizzing past each other at ridiculous speeds ... well they could, but woudn't be stopping in time to get away from the ping of death. Fuel economy would be the most important thing. Carriers would be gold.
This is not a suggestion. This is just to say it wouldn't be boring. It'd just be different. Certainly not a dumb down.
Last edited by Jonan on Sat Mar 10, 2007 9:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
*****
My Sig
*****
My Sig
*****
In Alleg, you have to keep thrusting to go at your max speed. If that were true, any spacecraft would have to carry a ridiculous amount of fuel.
In real life, if you keep thrusting, you'd keep going faster. If you were going 1000m/s and wanted to turn, you'd have to apply 1000x[your mass] newtons to stop, and however much thrust you want in the direction you want to turn. If Alleg played like this, you could get into a ship, accelerate at 20m/s/s (just under 2 Gs) for 10 seconds and be going 200m/s. The problem is that when you wanted to turn at a right angle, it would take you another ten seconds.
People here really should know this, so I don't eve know why I'm writing it. On the topic of acceleration, however, doesn't booster3 give you more than 8Gs in a int? I guess I was underestimating the thrust missiles could have and their mass, sorry about that. But I think you'd agree with me that a missile the size of a small car would have trouble turning on a dime.
In real life, if you keep thrusting, you'd keep going faster. If you were going 1000m/s and wanted to turn, you'd have to apply 1000x[your mass] newtons to stop, and however much thrust you want in the direction you want to turn. If Alleg played like this, you could get into a ship, accelerate at 20m/s/s (just under 2 Gs) for 10 seconds and be going 200m/s. The problem is that when you wanted to turn at a right angle, it would take you another ten seconds.
People here really should know this, so I don't eve know why I'm writing it. On the topic of acceleration, however, doesn't booster3 give you more than 8Gs in a int? I guess I was underestimating the thrust missiles could have and their mass, sorry about that. But I think you'd agree with me that a missile the size of a small car would have trouble turning on a dime.
Missiles can turn on a dime without a problem. The problem is actually changing the vector. That depends on the mass and the current velocity vector.zecro wrote:QUOTE (zecro @ Mar 11 2007, 05:39 AM) In Alleg, you have to keep thrusting to go at your max speed. If that were true, any spacecraft would have to carry a ridiculous amount of fuel.
In real life, if you keep thrusting, you'd keep going faster. If you were going 1000m/s and wanted to turn, you'd have to apply 1000x[your mass] newtons to stop, and however much thrust you want in the direction you want to turn. If Alleg played like this, you could get into a ship, accelerate at 20m/s/s (just under 2 Gs) for 10 seconds and be going 200m/s. The problem is that when you wanted to turn at a right angle, it would take you another ten seconds.
People here really should know this, so I don't eve know why I'm writing it. On the topic of acceleration, however, doesn't booster3 give you more than 8Gs in a int? I guess I was underestimating the thrust missiles could have and their mass, sorry about that. But I think you'd agree with me that a missile the size of a small car would have trouble turning on a dime.
Why do you think you have to come to a complete stop to change your course?? I'd hate to drive behind you on the freeway.
You take your desired course vector, subtract your current course vector, and you have your required thrust vector. It's not difficult. And unless you're doing a huge turn, it's not going to be a big thrust vector.
And in space, a tiny amount of thrust can result in a huge difference in destination. The Apollo capsule could alter its orbital insertion vector by thousands of miles with a 10 second burn from its weenie hypergolic rocket.
You take your desired course vector, subtract your current course vector, and you have your required thrust vector. It's not difficult. And unless you're doing a huge turn, it's not going to be a big thrust vector.
And in space, a tiny amount of thrust can result in a huge difference in destination. The Apollo capsule could alter its orbital insertion vector by thousands of miles with a 10 second burn from its weenie hypergolic rocket.
@ImmortalZ: Yes.
I'm not saying you have to come to a complete stop. Also, I don't drive. If you want to turn at anything from -90 to 90 degrees from your course, you'd have to. Assuming the missile missed its target, it would have to negate its heading, and by the time it did that, it would be way past the target. it would be more of a
So I guess the real question is, would missiles miss? If you had a good missile-hit-avoidance system, perhaps you could thrust away enough so that the missile would be unable to change heading fast enough and would have to do something close to a 180 degree turn. It all depends on the masses and the speed of both objects. Then again, it would be difficult to see a missile in space assuming it was small enough and not burning fuel (it wouldn't after it accelerated enough). If you launched it with enough speed from a stationary object, it wouldn't have to burn any fuel once it was on a straight collision path. But if the object was moving, it would have to change its course and therefore burn fuel. Would a missile burning fuel have a louder signature than one that was not (e.g. a booster)? Would it really matter, becuase the target might not be able to thrust aside fast enough?
I'm not saying you have to come to a complete stop. Also, I don't drive. If you want to turn at anything from -90 to 90 degrees from your course, you'd have to. Assuming the missile missed its target, it would have to negate its heading, and by the time it did that, it would be way past the target. it would be more of a
So I guess the real question is, would missiles miss? If you had a good missile-hit-avoidance system, perhaps you could thrust away enough so that the missile would be unable to change heading fast enough and would have to do something close to a 180 degree turn. It all depends on the masses and the speed of both objects. Then again, it would be difficult to see a missile in space assuming it was small enough and not burning fuel (it wouldn't after it accelerated enough). If you launched it with enough speed from a stationary object, it wouldn't have to burn any fuel once it was on a straight collision path. But if the object was moving, it would have to change its course and therefore burn fuel. Would a missile burning fuel have a louder signature than one that was not (e.g. a booster)? Would it really matter, becuase the target might not be able to thrust aside fast enough?