It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Originally posted by koboldfodder How exactly does on suffer G effects if they are flying in a zero G setting and there is no gravity on the ship?
G force is created by acceleration (as well as mass).
Originally posted by LittleBoot Originally posted by koboldfodder How exactly does on suffer G effects if they are flying in a zero G setting and there is no gravity on the ship?
You can just say momentum/inertia :P
Originally posted by aRtFuLThinGTrue newtonian spacefight in a game would've been something similar to Elite: Frontier and and Frontier 2: First Encounters
I miss that flight model so much, it was great fun.
It is weird that people do not understand basic physics and lack the imagination how space flight actually works.
Originally posted by Blah64 Originally posted by william0532 The only thing bothering me about the game now, is the new stretch goals are offering role specific ships. Which essentially makes them better/best ships. One of the original design principles highly touted by CIG was no better ships. You outfit hulls to fit your playstyle, but if they add role specific ships, than you won't do that. You will get that "one" ship that is the best at what you like to do in the game. For those that are sucked in by the whole "pick a class" that best fits your holy trinity model, this is acceptable. For those like me, that like games that let you do whatever the hell you want it's a bit of a hit. I liked SWG before professions. I liked freelancer before the Eagle lol. Not saying this is a major turn off, or has kililed the game for me, but I'm drawn back by it. I wanted to get a ship that feels right, and use the equipment to fully get the best that I wanted it out of it, now I'll merely buy the ship that is the best at what I want to do. Kind of a disappointment.
The assumption that there weren't going to be role specific ships seems strange and unfounded. Star Citizen has always been touted as a 'successor' to the great space games of yesteryear. If you've played any space game, ever, then you would be familiar with role specific ships, thus it seems natural that Star Citizen would follow suit.
In regards to Star Citizen, I am of the opinion that they will create a good game for space game fans, but the level of hype for this is just so ridiculously high, that no matter what they are able to put out, it cannot possibly satisfy everyone's expectations, and thus be met with disappointment everywhere. Honestly, I think a lot of people don't really even know that many details about the game, they are just thinking, 'It will be the greatest game ever'. Just reading threads about Star Citizen in various forums,it is painful seeing different people describe completely different games.
I'm fan of the game, let me preface with that.
Now, games of yesteryear? No. Wing Commander/Freelancer(if you want quotes I can provide them).
Freelancer; until the eagle(arguably) there was no best setup. You took a preference and built on it. Every thing had a positive and negative to it.
Originally with SC; Every ship fit a preference. If you were a solo player and prefer straight line speed, you could buy a 300i. If you wanted to be an explorer, you could turn that 300i into the explorer variant by changing it's equipment(it becomes a 315). If you wanted to be an interceptor fighter, you could change it's equipment to fit that role(it becomes a 325).
But than, they changed their design philosophy a little bit by coming out with the 350r, a 300i built for racing. However, you couldn't upgrade your 300i to a 350r. There was some pissing and moaning on the forums about it, but everyone kind of chilled out, cause it was a racer. That's a mini game. No real effect to the PU at all. So people stopped posting the "devs lied" quotes about no best ship and such, because it was basically just a ship for a mini game(racing).
Now, they are coming out with a "specific role ship" every other day with another million dollars.
Alot of people bought ships because of their descriptions. I bought a constellation because;
I play with friends(it's a multiplayer ship)
I want to be a bounty hunter(it's description-When you think handsome bounty hunter making his own way in a galaxy of enemies, you think the Constellation).
But now, they are going to come out with a bounty hunter specific ship, meaning the constellation was just a waste of money.
People that bought the constellation for the explorer aspect, they are ****ing retarded too, and expected to upgrade to whatever explorer specific ship comes out. If you bought the Constellation for mining(big cargo hold), well your a dip**** because now there is the Orion mining platform that will be better.
It's a money grab pure and simple. People are melting and upgrading, melting and upgrading.
Don't get me wrong, I'm done with buying ships(I've got a constellation, 300i, and an aurora) so I'm pretty stupid anyway and a decent enough contributor and believer in the game. I just don't like this new philosophy.
Originally posted by SirBalin Originally posted by strawhat0981 Will this game really be the sci-fi mmo game everyone wants? I so want a great sci-fi "mmo" but i feel this might fall short.
Honestly dude...I get what you are wanting as far as the next sci-fi...and lots of small companies have trield, just hasn't happened. A big company needs to put the efforts in and make that happen. As far as SC...it's space so...guess you could call it sci-fi, but tbh, I'd classify it more as a space flight sim. If that sounds sci-fi to you...great, but I don't consider this the next sci-fi game...more the next great space flight sim. Just my opinion.
I think it's veering away from "just a space sim".
Chris Roberts openly admitted to shifting some of the focus when he saw that 60 % of the fan base was more interested in exploring than combat related activities.
I wanted a pure space sim, but I'm warming up too the idea of this being a sci fi universe with more too it.
I mean, if your saying it's not a sci fi game if it's not as fleshed out as the entire star wars universe, well sure. However, they are starting with three main alien species, with two on the way later
Vanduul-vile warrior race that apparently eats us
XI'AN-your typical sci fi trope thinker race
Banu-typical sci fi trope trader species
There is a lot of ground content being added to the game(lots of space ports, hubs, stations and such) and now they will include ground combat in lawless space.
Seems pretty sci fi too me, even though I'm sure it won't be as massive as some would like, at launch.
Originally posted by Gdemami Originally posted by aRtFuLThinG True newtonian spacefight in a game would've been something similar to Elite: Frontier and and Frontier 2: First Encounters
Yeah I liked that one too.
Too be fair though I think it is hard for anyone who isn't really knowledgeble in spaceflight/physics in some way to understand that type of system/realism. I mean moving in true 3 dimension is not what we do as human beings do in day out, and we also lives within the constraint of the Earth's atomsphere and gravity most of the time.
Spaceflight mechanics is just not something that comes naturally to us, whereas something like trajectory of a cannonball or arrow or a ball flight and the concept of resistance we can easily understand even without any knowledge of physics because we experiences it everyday.
Originally posted by SuperNick Personally seen these projects come and go two dozen times over.
Actually, you have not. This one is being developed by one of the biggest names in the industry, WITHOUT a publisher. So that certainly has not happened "two dozen times over".
Secondly, this project has set a crowdfunding record, not just for video games, but for any crowdfunded project ever. So that part is literally unprecedented, rather than something we've seen "two dozen times over".
Originally posted by MagereBird Originally posted by SuperNick Personally seen these projects come and go two dozen times over.
Appeal to authority is a fallacious argument.
Secondly, the amount gathered is irrelevant, principle of making promises and being paid for that remains the same.
Originally posted by Gdemami Originally posted by MagereBird Originally posted by SuperNick Personally seen these projects come and go two dozen times over.
Nonsense. There is even legal precedent for 'appeal to authority'. They call them expert witnesses. The legal system formally recognizes that there are individuals who are experts in specific fields.
As for the amount gathered being irrelevant, that's just an opinion, no more valid than mine.
Was wondering this myself, had never heard of it as a possibility in zero g space. Granted I've not kept up on my physics so I maybe out of the loop.
Originally posted by MagereBirdNonsense. There is even legal precedent for 'appeal to authority'. They call them expert witnesses. The legal system formally recognizes that there are individuals who are experts in specific fields.As for the amount gathered being irrelevant, that's just an opinion, no more valid than mine.
So now you are using circular reasoning?
Appeal to authority isn't fallacious because an authority says so?
No, mine statement is valid because it is reasoned and true.
Originally posted by morbuskabis Originally posted by koboldfodder How exactly does on suffer G effects if they are flying in a zero G setting and there is no gravity on the ship?
This could give you the answer: MadSci Network: Astronomy
"The idea of gravitational acceleration on the ground, is that the Earth is pulling on you, trying to make you accelerate downwards at 9.8 meters per second per second. (When you step off of a ladder, you speed increases by 9.8 m/s every second. If you were in the air for a second, you'd be traveling downward at 9.8 m/s by the end.) Your feet, however, exert forces on the ground - enough force to try to accelerate you upwards at 9.8 meters per second per second. That's what you feel as "weight" on the ground: your feet, or your bottom, or or your back, resisting the gravitational acceleration of the earth. Sometimes it's easier to think about these forces if you imagine yourself standing on a big spring; the force of gravity on your body is counteracted by the upward force of the spring.
But anything that tries to accelerate you (or decelerate, same thing) requires it to push on your feet or bottom or whatver. When you're in a car that's accelerating hard, the back of the seat has to push on you to make you accelerate with it. If the car is turning hard, the seat or door or whatever has to push on you sideways to make your body move in the same way the car moves - remember that in the absence of these forces, "an object in motion tends to stay in motion in a straight line". These are what we sometimes call G-forces; there's a G-force acting on you from behind when the car accelerates, and from the side when it turns, and from the front when it brakes. And there's always the chair pushing up on your bottom to counteract gravity itself. Very different phenomena, but from your perspective they all feel like different strengths of gravity acting in all different directions.
Put the car in space; now, there's no acceleration due to gravity pulling you down into your seat. But if your car (with rockets on the back!) accelerates or turns, it still has to push on your body so that you keep up. Those pushing forces are the G-forces. So in a rocket moving in a straight line in space (and by Einstein's theory, any "gravitational orbit" counts as a straight line!), yeah, you could float forever in the middle of the cockpit. But the rocket turns suddenly - your body "doesn't notice" and keeps going in a straight line - oof! and the wall crashes into you and pushes you wherever it wants. That feels like a G-force. If the acceleration due to the wall was 9.8 m/s^2, you could "stand" on the wall and it would feel like you were standing on the Earth, since the force on your feet would be the same!"
Thanks. Always good to learn something new everyday.
Originally posted by Gdemami Originally posted by MagereBird Nonsense. There is even legal precedent for 'appeal to authority'. They call them expert witnesses. The legal system formally recognizes that there are individuals who are experts in specific fields. As for the amount gathered being irrelevant, that's just an opinion, no more valid than mine.
No, mine statement is valid because it is reasoned and true.
LOL. Appeal to authority isn't fallacious because society says so. It's a cultural standard. Not in all cultures, I'm sure, but many including mine. Perhaps you don't agree, but that doesn't make your position valid.
Originally posted by MagereBirdLOL. Appeal to authority isn't fallacious because society says so. It's a cultural standard. Not in all cultures, I'm sure, but many including mine. Perhaps you don't agree, but that doesn't make your position valid.
So I assume you do not know what fallacy is then...that makes it clear and simple.
Originally posted by Gdemami Originally posted by MagereBird LOL. Appeal to authority isn't fallacious because society says so. It's a cultural standard. Not in all cultures, I'm sure, but many including mine. Perhaps you don't agree, but that doesn't make your position valid.
Assume whatever you wish.
Originally posted by winter Originally posted by koboldfodder How exactly does on suffer G effects if they are flying in a zero G setting and there is no gravity on the ship?
The concept of gravity in itself (mathematically speaking) is basically a constant downward acceleration towards a mass.
So in theory any constant acceleration in one direction can create effects similar to gravity.
Hence in spaceflight mechanics there is such a thing called "1G Acceleration", which is, in essence, accelerate (keyword here is accelerate, not to be confused with speed) your spacecraft by a constant pace of 9.8 metres per second so that the occupant inside can feel as if their are walking in Earth's gravity.
Originally posted by Gdemami Originally posted by xm522 I do not know much about Star Citizen but i may be of help with this physics fight. if your 'space ship' has a maximum velocity then it's not following newtonian physics. If your spaceship has a maximum which ranges around .1C (C = 3.0x10^8m/s) then it may have some relativity in that physics engine. and yes, any artificial drag on a ship would mean that it's not following newtonian physics
It is still a game thus some restrictions and adjustments could/should be made, so despite it won't be simulating space flight 100%, it would still keep enough resemblance to provide the feel of newtonian flight mechanics.
There is no resemblance with space flight in SC tho. The game even renders wake trails on wing-tips. Ridiculous.
Yet, you still see people defending it with "quotes from manual", they rather believe what they are fed then their own judgement. No wonder they gathered so much funding.
un-acceptable, usually wake trails would not appear in space.
although unlike what most people believe space is not empty and there could very well be some ice/dust floating around, but it shouldnt be significant enough to cause wake trails. maybe SC can justify it with some sort of technology may an ionization technology to protect from radiation so as you move (and the faster you move) you get weird 'trails' though it shouldnt just be on the wings.
honestly though if done right the game could have VERY realistic physics (even wiith need regulatory limitations to keep the game fun). and to make this possible would not be hard at all, infact this incorrect physics probably would tax the engine far more than correct physics.