Answer me this time please people..

Originally posted by TCSTigersClaw
Now what stopped the Concordia`s fighters to take off? A damaged runway?They could land Vertically if they wanted.They had Atmosphear Accesable Fighers such as Rapier,Ferret,Sabre..
This means that they can land/take off vertically.We see that in the lading sequence all the fighters have Vertical landing,why not Take off ?
Click to expand...

A storyline stopped Concordia's fighters to take of, contrary to popular belief.

Without the runway being blocked, fighters could launch, and our man Blair would not be saving the day. He would be stuck at that dead-end job for the rest of his military career. That wouldn't make much of a game would it? Wing Commander: Patroller.

My answer to your question would be: because Chris Roberts wanted it that way. :p
 
Originally posted by Haesslich
My mistake. I recall the comment about the CCG noting craft also have thrusters, and earlier debates about the 'thrusters versus scoops' role - though primary maneuvering still seems to be scoop-based, at least for gross movements. This would include things like 'bank hard 90 degrees' versus 'rotate slowly 1 degree right', unless you're using autoslide or something - where I can't imagine using scoops to change the fighter's orientation.
Click to expand...

I still like the thought that the thrusters are the devices used to control the scoops into maneuvering the ship... I'm not sure why you can't imagine using the scoops field to change the fighter's orientation small amounts...



Still, wrong constant, and I'm trying to figure out where the minimal gravitation attraction kicks in. It'd be easy to overcome - but I'm still more worried about that carrier behind me accelerating than overcoming its minor gravity.
Click to expand...

no... it's a perfectly legitimate constant if the radius from the center of gravity of the two objects is equal... watch.

9.8=G(m(earth)/r^2)
x=G(m(object)/r^2)

r^2=G*m(earth)/9.8
r^2=G*m(object)/x

G*m(earth)/9.8=G*m(object)/x

m(earth)/9.8=m(object)/x
x=[m(object)/m(earth)] *9.8
 
Originally posted by TC
I still like the thought that the thrusters are the devices used to control the scoops into maneuvering the ship... I'm not sure why you can't imagine using the scoops field to change the fighter's orientation small amounts...
Click to expand...

I see what you mean - though perhaps my conceptualization of the scoop concept came more from the idea that scoops are energy fields, and you'd be using thrusters for more directed applications of force.


no... it's a perfectly legitimate constant if the radius from the center of gravity of the two objects is equal... watch.

9.8=G(m(earth)/r^2)
x=G(m(object)/r^2)

r^2=G*m(earth)/9.8
r^2=G*m(object)/x

G*m(earth)/9.8=G*m(object)/x

m(earth)/9.8=m(object)/x
x=[m(object)/m(earth)] *9.8
Click to expand...

I think I see what you mean here. Except, as you've noted earlier, it sure as hell doesn't work this way with the differences between a fighter and a carrier.
 
i know the radii are diggerent for earth and carrier, but making them equal would only exaggerate the difference. get away from the carrier to earths radius and you got even less gravitational attraction to the carrier. the calc error was bad typing into the calculator. sorry.

the way i was expressing things was that catapults make sense in wc universe (look down and see i agree they are better in wc), they just dont have a clear advantage in actuality, albeit they are not totally disadvantaged either. i showed before that both methods had their benefits.

but in any case, i think it would be pretty neat to compile a databank of all the different reasons provided in games, manuals, books, etc, for all things wing commander. it would help in things like making a game or soemthing of the sort, actually make it like the wc universe says it should be in all aspects.

-scheherazade
 
Originally posted by scheherazade
i know the radii are diggerent for earth and carrier, but making them equal would only exaggerate the difference. get away from the carrier to earths radius and you got even less gravitational attraction to the carrier. the calc error was bad typing into the calculator. sorry.
Click to expand...

Either you're lying to cover up the fact that you don't know what you're talking about, or you're trying to manipulate people by purposely skewing numbers... I can't see how either of those could be a good thing...

the way i was expressing things was that catapults make sense in wc universe (look down and see i agree they are better in wc), they just dont have a clear advantage in actuality, albeit they are not totally disadvantaged either. i showed before that both methods had their benefits.
Click to expand...

Except people have given you reasons to why there are actual advantages...

b[]but in any case, i think it would be pretty neat to compile a databank of all the different reasons provided in games, manuals, books, etc, for all things wing commander. it would help in things like making a game or soemthing of the sort, actually make it like the wc universe says it should be in all aspects. [/B]
Click to expand...

I don't think you realize the size of the project you're proposing here...
 
i know its a big project. but it would be good if there were to be an all-encoompassing fan-made game, cause then it could be designed to follow wc to the letter.

i didnt skew numbers. if i did hit *9.8 in that last calculation (which i didnt do) the value would have been larger, in effect farther from what i wanted. so it was skewed away from my target, and closer to yours.

do you deny that getting farther form a mass makes its attraction at your location weaker?

-scheherazade
 
Originally posted by scheherazade
i know its a big project. but it would be good if there were to be an all-encoompassing fan-made game, cause then it could be designed to follow wc to the letter.

i didnt skew numbers. if i did hit *9.8 in that last calculation (which i didnt do) the value would have been larger, in effect farther from what i wanted. so it was skewed away from my target, and closer to yours.

do you deny that getting farther form a mass makes its attraction at your location weaker?
Click to expand...

OK... you said this:

i know the radii are diggerent for earth and carrier, but making them equal would only exaggerate the difference. get away from the carrier to earths radius and you got even less gravitational attraction to the carrier.
Click to expand...

Hence I assume you're intentionally overexaggerating the practical difference in the acceleration due to gravity, Since you calculated the acceleration due to the gravitational field of the carrier at a distance equal to the radius of earth away from the carrier rather than at a realistic difference. This seems rather stupid to me as it's true that it's a relatively small number either way. Either you're still not understanding what you calculated, trying to cover the fact that you don't know what you're calculating, or intentionally misrepresenting the truth...
 
"This seems rather stupid to me as it's true that it's a relatively small number either way"

yes that is exactly what i'm getting at.

it is stupid. so stupid, in any way you look at it, that its senile to say that a fighter would have to escape a carriers gravity well.

we know a fighter can hover in 9.8.
we know it can take off of a planet
we know a carrier is terribly smaller than earth

the rationalle is [(something small)/(something big)]*(a 'value') can only make that 'value' smaller.

if the 'something big' is REALLY BIG compared to the 'something small', then the 'value' will approach 0.

the use of these values was to put it into context. which it does well. earth is much larger than a carrier, and 9.8 does become 0 by ratios. i could have used other numbers, but at least these relate to the situation.

eliminating earths radius and treating the mass as a point the size of a carrier would give a greater number than 9.8, but not by much, and it would still approach 0.

increasing the distance to the carrier would not even affect the ratio, and in practical terms, a larger distance makes the carrier more insignificant, which it already is very insignificant.

so how possibly could a carriers gravity well be so strong that a fighter needs help to get away, when it doesnt need help getting away from a planet.

-scheherazade
 
Read my posts. I don't actually care about what the effects are. Your math is stupidly wrong. The equation you used will result in numbers that are 7 orders of magnitude smaller than the practical reality at the least. The fact that you say that you know this means that you're blatantly misrepresenting the truth. 7 orders of magnitude is insanely large...


the rationalle is [(something small)/(something big)]*(a 'value') can only make that 'value' smaller.
Click to expand...

Except that it isn't the relationship between the two values, so that doesn't prove anything, or even put it into context. If you want to prove something you actually need to use things that model reality...

Watch me use your math to put two objects into context...

----
here's the earth...

mass = 6.0x10^24 kilograms
radius = 6.4x10^6 meters

other object

mass = 1.5x10^24 kg
radius = 3.2x10^6 m

(1.5x10^24 kg/ 6.0x10^24kg) x 9.8 m/s^2= 2.45 m/s^2

Wow, the gravitational field of the second object is obviously much much smaller!

But wait! The two both have a different radius... hmm...

Now let's calculate this properly

G*(mass)/(radius^2)=Gravitational Field

Earth:

6.67 x 10^-11 N-m^2/kg^2 * (6.0x10^24) / (6.4x10^6)^2
=9.8m/s^2

Other object:

6.67 x 10^-11 N-m^2/kg^2 * (1.5x10^24) / (3.2x10^6)^2
=9.8m/s^2

Wow, it's sure a good thing I took the radius into account.

---
 
Originally posted by scheherazade
ok, then you calculate it and tell us what the number is. if its even close to 1, then i consede you are completely right.

-scheherazade
Click to expand...

I'm completely right even though the value isn't close to 1... Your calculations don't mean anything because they don't represent the situation. You apparantly know this, but used them anyway...
 
Originally posted by scheherazade
so then is the result ralationship between carrier and earth forces even close to 1 your 'correct' way?

-scheherazade
Click to expand...

I'll quote the edited one as well, then... here's what I said in the post you're responding to...

Read my posts. I don't actually care about what the effects are. Your math is stupidly wrong.
Click to expand...
 
your calculation only says that per unit mass you have the same attraction. no crap.

my calculation was to show that the masses were not the same, and far from the same.

saying its 7 orders of magnitude off from the real acelleration means nothing since i was not finding real acelleration, merely relating the values. you dont like 9.8? fine. use 29. or 256, or 928, or 123542315. doesnt matter. wont be in context, but hey, doesnt matter. the point is small/big X something means sopmething gets smaller.

if big is not a problem relative to something, then small relative to something wont be a problem either.

i dont care what the real massed are, or anthing. its a matter of relationships. something puny will not affect something with more force than something huge. its that simple.

-scheherazade
 
actually, taking into account radius would make things invalid. why?

cause i could be on the other side of the galaxy from earth, and right next to a carrier. then the radius' would make the forces a lot different. radius is actually skewing the data if you choose to change the carriers radius.

the data has to be interpreted in the situation that it lyes, because that is the situation in question.

right next to earth
force of earth
right next to a carrier
force of carrier

that is the situation. leaving it will only go farther from the presented argument.

{
taking off of earth (right next to it) is possible
taking off of a carrier (right next to is) is possible
}
vs
{
taking off of earth (right next to it) is possible
taking off of a carrier (right next to is) is not possible
}

we are not taking off of a carrier at earths radius' distance. that wouldnt be the case in question.

-scheherazade
 
I like Frosty's explanation.

Originally posted by Frosty
Yes, but all your reasons are based entirely on the fallacious assumption that Wing Commander's completely fictional future-technology is unable to circumvent the problems you say it faces, which it quite obviously has, since catapults exist in WC, and are used all the time.

Put it this way: Catapults are quite clearly an excellent solution for launching fighters in a Wing Commander context simply because they exist and are used regularly. If they were frivolous accessories that offered no tangible advantage over manual take-off, then they would not exist. Ergo, we can assume that there is no reasonable argument against them, for if there were, they would not be in use.
Click to expand...

If an entire Confederation (consisting of hundreds of worlds and thousands of scientists) has decided that using catapults is the best method of getting fighters into space, then using catapults is the best method of getting fighters into space. Feel free to continue presenting all the calculations and explanations that you want, but the simple fact that catapults exist and are being used proves you wrong.
 
Catapaults are used because Chris Roberts says so. He's a WWII lover, he loves old-style tech. Launching fighters on a catapault off a carrier is just cool.

YES, fighters can launch vertically, but gee, that's boring. I'm sure all fighters can. We've seen the Dragon (okay some of you people prefer to call it the Lance for some reason) do it, we've seen the Ferret do it, any civilian craft can do it, any fighter from WC3 and 4 can do it too, in fact, there is no possible way there is a fighter in WC3 because all you do is increase throttle and there you go, you're moving.

There is no rational way to explain the decision to use catapaults other than one: it would be really boring to take off vertically. :p

If you wanted some sort of answer that's more to your liking, I would say: yeah, it would be a waste of afterburner fuel to launch without a catapault, you'd be like half-empty by the time you get off the flight deck or something. Before WCP, you actually ran out of fuel while afterburning. :) Hah, whoddathunkit.
 
Originally posted by Cam
YES, fighters can launch vertically, but gee, that's boring. I'm sure all fighters can. We've seen the Dragon (okay some of you people prefer to call it the Lance for some reason) do it, we've seen the Ferret do it, any civilian craft can do it, any fighter from WC3 and 4 can do it too
Click to expand...

Those were all in atmospheric scenes, were they not?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top