Answer me this time please people..
- Thread starter TCSTigersClaw
- Start date
scheherazade
Rear Admiral
hey! i said that too didn't i
. i stated more than once that catapults are good in wc 'just beacause they are'.i dont argue wc. my posts have been along the lines of 'pro catapult' reasons not aligning with substantial benefits, in the context of actuality.
-scheherazade
scheherazade
Rear Admiral
yes.
by geometric scaling, any set of states in its entirety, if scaled as a whole by some ratio, all of its attributes will scale by that same ratio.
therefore, if you take the earth, with some point of 9.8 on its surface.
scale it down till the earth is the size od the carrier.
the 9.8 force will be scaled by that same ratio.
this geometric comparison, as opposed to your arithmetic, is the true one.
why?
because it maintains the state relationships in the system
for example :
on the surface of the earth, at some point/location, part of the mass lines are directly out (into the center of the earth), and some are stretching out to the horizon (meaning that the 9.8 has only a tangental portion of those lines attributed to it).
now if you were to scale down the earth to the size of a carrier, and do it with a static arithmetic method, the mass lines would mostly all be direct. the distance would have increased to the object in question, but the relationship of the mass lines would not be maintained. therefore the force effects are not parallel and the relationship of the original scene, and the smaller scene, are not comparable.
now to do it the correct way and maintain your radius, you would have to scale down the density of the earth till its resultant mass was equal to a carriers. then you could compare. but i'm sure you realize that when density is scaled down and the scene is static, the 9.8 force that was generated by that orignal mass will scale by that same ratio.
to compare 2 like situations.
(point on earth surface)
(point on carrier surface(at entrance))
you must maintain the relationship for the comparison. if you do not then the forces affecting the measure at that point, are no longer the same forces, and you are no longer comparing similar points.
because this calculation was a comparison, of 2 like relationships, you can not break the relationship. you must maintain geometric equivalence.
-scheherazade
p.s. yes i know the carrier is a square. but practically when you match shrunken-earth-mass and carrier mass, its the same as if the carrier were crushed into a ball. its actually a volume difference rather than mass difference. the carriers volume is like a solid sphere, expanded and de-densified to the shape of a square. so the relationship isnt perfect. to be perfect i would have to shrink the earth more untill it matches what the carrier would be if it were melted into a sphere. so i concede to you that my calculation wasnt correct on this ground. i did not maintain geometric symmetry between the comparison items either. although if i did, the earth-scaling factor would have been greater, and the resultant force would have been yet smaller. so it would be more in my favor anyways.
Frosty
a full fledged GF
No, you said:Originally posted by scheherazade
hey! i said that too didn't i
Don't start backtracking now that we've got you where we want you. You're not going to get out of this without admitting that you were wrong by changing your argument on the fly. The only way you can do that is to prove that catapults make no sense with logical information, sorta like how we've all proved that they do make sense. Nobody believes that you entered a discussion that was clearly about catapults in WC and said, "catapults make no sense," yet didn't really mean WC catapults.
Kind of odd, since this is a WC board...
Yeah, too bad the "context of actuality" has absolutely nothing at all to do with this discussion. The context of a fictional 27th-century has everything to do with it, and by examining that context, we can see that, quite obviously, catapults do offer a substantial benefit, or else they'd not be in use.
Quit dancing around.
TC
SubCrid
Didn't even bother with the rest of the post.
So basically you just admitted that your results are skewed... Since as I proved below and stated a number of times, your equation provides the acceleration due to gravity at a distance equal to that of the radius of the earth from the carrier. This results in a number 7 orders of magnitude smaller than what it would be near to the carrier.
scheherazade
Rear Admiral
geometric comparison is appripriate to maintain the relationship between forces. your calcualtion is a point to point calculation. which is not the case. 9.8 on earth is a measure. it is the result of force lines stretching into the core, and ones at high offsets to the horizon. your measure treats the forces as a point in the centre of the force-exherting item. which is not the case. you are wrong.
-scheherzade
-scheherzade
scheherazade
Rear Admiral
frosty <
i did say that, as a comment on catapults in reality.
and i said this about catapults in wc.
" will though grant one complete advantage to the catapult system. WC just 'SAYS' its quicker. so under that statement it must be quicker. even if the numbers dont add up. -BECAUSE IT JUST IS-. thats the only serious argument that can be placed for catapult launching. you cant prove a tactical advantage otherwise.
"
the discussion stems from an original comment about a fighter not being able to take off case the launch bays were damaged. in wc, that is a good reason. the person was asking, shouldnt fighters in actuality be able to just hover and take off out of the bays, what was stopping them.
hence things drifted into wc reasons vs reality reasons.
then it got into catapults, launch tubes, scoops, the works...
-scheherazade
i did say that, as a comment on catapults in reality.
and i said this about catapults in wc.
" will though grant one complete advantage to the catapult system. WC just 'SAYS' its quicker. so under that statement it must be quicker. even if the numbers dont add up. -BECAUSE IT JUST IS-. thats the only serious argument that can be placed for catapult launching. you cant prove a tactical advantage otherwise.
"
the discussion stems from an original comment about a fighter not being able to take off case the launch bays were damaged. in wc, that is a good reason. the person was asking, shouldnt fighters in actuality be able to just hover and take off out of the bays, what was stopping them.
hence things drifted into wc reasons vs reality reasons.
then it got into catapults, launch tubes, scoops, the works...
-scheherazade
TC
SubCrid
Wow... I like how your method of invalidating my argument is to invalidate my equation. While it's true that as it's a non-spherical body the field varies, we don't have enough information about the ships to treat them as they should be. As a result, we fall back to the best approximation we can make. As I proved below, your method of comparison uses the exact same assumption of a spherical body as mine, except at a distance that makes the number useless for comparison's sake as it's not the distance we wish to compare.
What it comes down to is that my model is, unfortunately, not ideal. Yours is, however, representative of something entirely different than the point you were trying to make.
What it comes down to is that my model is, unfortunately, not ideal. Yours is, however, representative of something entirely different than the point you were trying to make.
scheherazade
Rear Admiral
during takeoff, the carrier will not attract the fighter with an unescapable gravity well.
escapable defined as 9.8
9.8 sample defined as earth on surface
takeoff defined as fighter at the exit hole, in essence, surface.
that is the case in question.
my model is off by some bit due to variance in density, which results in a 'stretch' in the actual fighter location. i.e. it is at some altitude compared to a perfect ball of the carrier mass. so it has a radius that is enlarged by some amount.
then your model has a radius enlarged by a tremendous amount.
mine is closer.
-scheherazade
escapable defined as 9.8
9.8 sample defined as earth on surface
takeoff defined as fighter at the exit hole, in essence, surface.
that is the case in question.
my model is off by some bit due to variance in density, which results in a 'stretch' in the actual fighter location. i.e. it is at some altitude compared to a perfect ball of the carrier mass. so it has a radius that is enlarged by some amount.
then your model has a radius enlarged by a tremendous amount.
mine is closer.
-scheherazade
TC
SubCrid
No. Your model assumes a linear relationship between field and mass, which there is, but neglects the relationship with the distance between the bodies. It's horrifically inaccurate.
Wow, how could a radius be enlarged if the resulting field is larger? If your model were correct and the radius in the model I used was somehow enlarged the result would be smaller due to the fact that field decreases with distance...
scheherazade
Rear Admiral
carrier has greater volume than its perfect mass sphere
measure on carrier surface has greater radius from mass centre than a measure taken from the surface of the perfect mass sphere.
take into account the earth-point model, shrunk to equivalent mass of a carrier.
we both looked at this mass situation.
*mine treated it as a scaled geometric relationship.
*yours treated it as a scaled point to point relationship.
+mine was wrong because the point of measure was off by the difference of a carrier 1/2 length vs perfect mass sphere radius
+yours was off by the difference of a perfect mass sphere vs the original earth radius.
both + are off, because the calculated distance is greater than the perfect mass sphere radius would have been.
distance is critical here.
although field decreases with distance, at close distances the relationship is tricky, because any change in distance sways results a lot.
the distance in question here is 1 radian from the center, the surface.
imagine moving 1 radian towards the center. now all forces are gone
move 1 radian out. the force weakens with distance, but not that much because the force lines that once were spread out flat are coming together and becoming more parallel.
move 2 radians out and the lines are even more parallel. the force weakened, but in a more regular fashion.
in your model, the move would have had only a regular relationship between points. i.e. going to the center of the mass would have actually increased gravity, rather than decrease.
in my model there is no room for motion at all. the relationships are kept static. it becomes less accurate as distance increases since it relates less and less to the original value.
ALTHOUGH, because the force drop, in actuality, during surface takeoff doesnt fall off like in a regular relationship (lines becoming more parallel, increasing their effectiveness, even though losing force, sort of making a null change zone), slight variations in distance, paricularly away from the surface, have only a small force variation. like a ladder sliding down a wall. you can slide the base away form the wall a good amount before the top starts sloding down the wall with good speed.
my point of measure is only a small distance from the perfect sphere. meaning that even though the force falloff in the field exists, it is just leaving its irregular ladder-like phase, so its only skewed a little.
your formula used distances.
it compared the force of attraction earth at a distance of 1 radian (surface)
it compared the force of attraction carrier at 1 earth radian.
but there never was a fighter launched at that radius. it was launched at the carriers 1/2 length, which you could cionsider its pseudo-radius-albeit-larger
if you choose to scale mass, you should scale distance too (or at least use the new one), since that is your point of measure. measure from there to the mass center.
you were finding falloff at a position that was irrelevant to the whole problem. thats why you were off by a factor of 7.
-schehearzade
measure on carrier surface has greater radius from mass centre than a measure taken from the surface of the perfect mass sphere.
take into account the earth-point model, shrunk to equivalent mass of a carrier.
we both looked at this mass situation.
*mine treated it as a scaled geometric relationship.
*yours treated it as a scaled point to point relationship.
+mine was wrong because the point of measure was off by the difference of a carrier 1/2 length vs perfect mass sphere radius
+yours was off by the difference of a perfect mass sphere vs the original earth radius.
both + are off, because the calculated distance is greater than the perfect mass sphere radius would have been.
distance is critical here.
although field decreases with distance, at close distances the relationship is tricky, because any change in distance sways results a lot.
the distance in question here is 1 radian from the center, the surface.
imagine moving 1 radian towards the center. now all forces are gone
move 1 radian out. the force weakens with distance, but not that much because the force lines that once were spread out flat are coming together and becoming more parallel.
move 2 radians out and the lines are even more parallel. the force weakened, but in a more regular fashion.
in your model, the move would have had only a regular relationship between points. i.e. going to the center of the mass would have actually increased gravity, rather than decrease.
in my model there is no room for motion at all. the relationships are kept static. it becomes less accurate as distance increases since it relates less and less to the original value.
ALTHOUGH, because the force drop, in actuality, during surface takeoff doesnt fall off like in a regular relationship (lines becoming more parallel, increasing their effectiveness, even though losing force, sort of making a null change zone), slight variations in distance, paricularly away from the surface, have only a small force variation. like a ladder sliding down a wall. you can slide the base away form the wall a good amount before the top starts sloding down the wall with good speed.
my point of measure is only a small distance from the perfect sphere. meaning that even though the force falloff in the field exists, it is just leaving its irregular ladder-like phase, so its only skewed a little.
your formula used distances.
it compared the force of attraction earth at a distance of 1 radian (surface)
it compared the force of attraction carrier at 1 earth radian.
but there never was a fighter launched at that radius. it was launched at the carriers 1/2 length, which you could cionsider its pseudo-radius-albeit-larger
if you choose to scale mass, you should scale distance too (or at least use the new one), since that is your point of measure. measure from there to the mass center.
you were finding falloff at a position that was irrelevant to the whole problem. thats why you
were off by a factor of 7.-schehearzade
scheherazade
Rear Admiral
gotta get to working on a programming project. exams next week and need the weekdays to study. no more time to play on the boards with you .
but 'i'll be back'. have some stuff to argue about cant wait.
cheers,
-scheherazade
.but 'i'll be back'.
have some stuff to argue about cant wait.cheers,
-scheherazade
The issue of a fighter taking off needing to clear the carrier's artificial gravity field is pretty much irrelavant given that the fighter's engines are capable of giving VASTLY more acceleration than any piddling little carrier's gravity could overcome.
Let's say that Maestro is launching directly from the Midway's hangar bay in a Vampire fighter. The Vampire has a rated acceleration of 720 km/s^2. This is approximately SEVENTY-FIVE THOUSAND times more acceleration than the one-gee gravity field aboard the carrier. And for those who feel that the measurements should be meters and not kilometers (and the scaling in WC games definitely makes it feel more like meters), that is still an acceleration of 720 m/s^2, which is about 75 gravities. Either way, Maestro certainly has so much engine power that he can safely ignore any effects from the Midway's artificial gravity once his landing gear lifts from the deck.
Regarding the use of launch tubes and catapults, in Prophecy they do seem to give a speed advantage to the fighter being launched--you are going at three thousand or so kps when you emerge, which is exactly the moment where you would be most vulnerable to any enemies that are close enough to hit you, plus you get clear of the Midway that much quicker.
Someone earlier said that there is no parallism advantage to using launch tubes with catapults. However, that would be assuming that there is a single flight line from which the fighters are then distributed to the various tubes. However, it is perfectly plausable that, given sufficient facilities and crew, each launch tube could have its own separate flight line. This would mean that having six launch tubes would allow fighters to be launched three times as quickly as having only two tubes. Also, since fighters are not being launched from the bays, this means that a carrier can launch AND recover fighters at the same time! This is a great advantage in a drawn-out fight in which one squadron would be landing to replenish its ordnance and fuel while another squadron launches to replace it in the battle.
Let's say that Maestro is launching directly from the Midway's hangar bay in a Vampire fighter. The Vampire has a rated acceleration of 720 km/s^2. This is approximately SEVENTY-FIVE THOUSAND times more acceleration than the one-gee gravity field aboard the carrier. And for those who feel that the measurements should be meters and not kilometers (and the scaling in WC games definitely makes it feel more like meters), that is still an acceleration of 720 m/s^2, which is about 75 gravities. Either way, Maestro certainly has so much engine power that he can safely ignore any effects from the Midway's artificial gravity once his landing gear lifts from the deck.
Regarding the use of launch tubes and catapults, in Prophecy they do seem to give a speed advantage to the fighter being launched--you are going at three thousand or so kps when you emerge, which is exactly the moment where you would be most vulnerable to any enemies that are close enough to hit you, plus you get clear of the Midway that much quicker.
Someone earlier said that there is no parallism advantage to using launch tubes with catapults. However, that would be assuming that there is a single flight line from which the fighters are then distributed to the various tubes. However, it is perfectly plausable that, given sufficient facilities and crew, each launch tube could have its own separate flight line. This would mean that having six launch tubes would allow fighters to be launched three times as quickly as having only two tubes. Also, since fighters are not being launched from the bays, this means that a carrier can launch AND recover fighters at the same time! This is a great advantage in a drawn-out fight in which one squadron would be landing to replenish its ordnance and fuel while another squadron launches to replace it in the battle.
Bandit LOAF
Long Live the Confederation!
I'm not doubting that -- but they probably aren't capable of attaining that acceleration while *onboard* the carrier...
TCSTigersClaw
Greek Special Forces B' Company "Naoussa" 2007-200
This Thread I opened became tooooooooooooooo Big....I wasnt around these days but I got a lot to say.
I got to read all these stuff first...
or maybe Ill just stop it here cause it ll never end
I got to read all these stuff first...
or maybe Ill just stop it here cause it ll never end
Wow, catching up to this post with a slight hangover is hard .
This thing got really complicated real fast, and now it seems to be an argument over mathematical equations and approximations (point masses, field densities/variations, etc). Since I really don't want to get sucked into this black hole of 'I'm right because of this result' math I 'll just drop a few points and ask a couple of questions:
1) Approximations are GOOD. The only way anything in this world gets built/tested/designed is because we use defined and proven approximations to arrive at solutions. Which is one reason I laugh at my collegues who give 5 sig dig's in an answer but when that solution is implemented, the actual accuracy ond repeatability is much less. Then they wonder why they don't get the same results form their finished product as they did form their simulations. It makes me laugh. And the really frustrating part about it is, people won't listen when you tell them that approximations are so much more convienient than solving an equation to the letter. One of my collegues grad project involoved constructing a UNII-band filter, which he designed religiously for days and simulated for days more. When he finally was done, it was no where near the specs he had laid out for it. I tried to tell him that he was trying to be too precise but he wouldn't listen. SO I took 4 hours out of my day, designed a 900MHz filter constructed it on PCB and showed him how close the result was to my 'quick-and-dirty' simulations. He refused to listen and is currently on his second try with his overly precise calcs. Moral of the story- proven assumptions and approximations are good, and some people just don't want to listen.
2) I don't understand how someone can argue over this stuff when we know so little about the environmnt we are talking about. Sure, I offered my 2 cents in earlier for shits and giggles but come on, physics may stay the same but we are taking about over half a millinium into the future! I think by then we probably have a little better understanding of how things work in deep space. I know it's fun to argue, but come on. I wsa called down because I was using 21st century physics to answer fictional 26th century questions (which is kindof fun), but unless someone personally knew HG Wells and had a glimps of the distant future, that's exactly whats happening here. moral of this story - we probably don't have enough information to have this debate, but hell it's fun anyway so who am I to tell you to stop.
3) People are still talking about carriers launching with scoops closed even though we never do in the game (and I don't think it happened in the books. Actually I think the launching of fighters was proposed in one of the books but slowing down was not an option? ). I'd like someone to tell me why the reaons I gave earlier as this being a bad idea in any situation were wrong (even though again they are based on 21st century information).
Okay, question time:
actually both are directed to LOAF, buut I'd appreciate an answer from anyone.
No one answered my previous question so I'll ask again. Can someone tell me (or direct me to the thread where this was discussed earlier) what our speed in WC actually is. It's pretty evident that our speed clicker is wrong when we fly by a ship at 400kps. What's the scoop?
So how come when we launch in WC3 we can stop anywhere along the legth of the deck we want to? Wouldn't this kindof mean that there wasn't anythign behind us pushing?
C-ya
. This thing got really complicated real fast, and now it seems to be an argument over mathematical equations and approximations (point masses, field densities/variations, etc). Since I really don't want to get sucked into this black hole of 'I'm right because of this result' math I 'll just drop a few points and ask a couple of questions:
1) Approximations are GOOD. The only way anything in this world gets built/tested/designed is because we use defined and proven approximations to arrive at solutions. Which is one reason I laugh at my collegues who give 5 sig dig's in an answer but when that solution is implemented, the actual accuracy ond repeatability is much less. Then they wonder why they don't get the same results form their finished product as they did form their simulations. It makes me laugh.
And the really frustrating part about it is, people won't listen when you tell them that approximations are so much more convienient than solving an equation to the letter. One of my collegues grad project involoved constructing a UNII-band filter, which he designed religiously for days and simulated for days more. When he finally was done, it was no where near the specs he had laid out for it. I tried to tell him that he was trying to be too precise but he wouldn't listen. SO I took 4 hours out of my day, designed a 900MHz filter constructed it on PCB and showed him how close the result was to my 'quick-and-dirty' simulations. He refused to listen and is currently on his second try with his overly precise calcs. Moral of the story- proven assumptions and approximations are good, and some people just don't want to listen.2) I don't understand how someone can argue over this stuff when we know so little about the environmnt we are talking about. Sure, I offered my 2 cents in earlier for shits and giggles but come on, physics may stay the same but we are taking about over half a millinium into the future! I think by then we probably have a little better understanding of how things work in deep space. I know it's fun to argue, but come on. I wsa called down because I was using 21st century physics to answer fictional 26th century questions (which is kindof fun), but unless someone personally knew HG Wells and had a glimps of the distant future, that's exactly whats happening here. moral of this story - we probably don't have enough information to have this debate, but hell it's fun anyway so who am I to tell you to stop.
3) People are still talking about carriers launching with scoops closed even though we never do in the game (and I don't think it happened in the books. Actually I think the launching of fighters was proposed in one of the books but slowing down was not an option? ). I'd like someone to tell me why the reaons I gave earlier as this being a bad idea in any situation were wrong (even though again they are based on 21st century information).
Okay, question time:
actually both are directed to LOAF, buut I'd appreciate an answer from anyone.
No one answered my previous question so I'll ask again. Can someone tell me (or direct me to the thread where this was discussed earlier) what our speed in WC actually is. It's pretty evident that our speed clicker is wrong when we fly by a ship at 400kps. What's the scoop?
So how come when we launch in WC3 we can stop anywhere along the legth of the deck we want to? Wouldn't this kindof mean that there wasn't anythign behind us pushing?
C-ya
TCSTigersClaw
Greek Special Forces B' Company "Naoussa" 2007-200
About the catapults you said and that in Wc3 we can actually do whatever we want during the take-off.....
Man Wc its not actually a simulation....If it was,you would need 3 keyboards for the commands.....
They just made it easy-Takeoff , easy-landing.....
you see what actually happens in the novels.....
Just like ,why in the game the Border Worlds didnt use their Take off method in the Game just like they do in the Novel??
Cause the game is a game, you cant have everything you want in it.
about the speed.....they are talking about Kps,Klicks Per Second, Kilometers Per Second...in every manual they are saying these..
Man Wc its not actually a simulation....If it was,you would need 3 keyboards for the commands.....
They just made it easy-Takeoff , easy-landing.....
you see what actually happens in the novels.....
Just like ,why in the game the Border Worlds didnt use their Take off method in the Game just like they do in the Novel??
Cause the game is a game, you cant have everything you want in it.
about the speed.....they are talking about Kps,Klicks Per Second, Kilometers Per Second...in every manual they are saying these..
Yes but these speeds are inaccurate, in teh games your moving past a 800 meter carrier at 400kps. Exactly how long does it take you 2,3,4 seconds. It just doesn't add up, and I've seen a few of the old hands here talking about this problem before and I was looking for the definitive answer.
C-ya
Given the apparent scaling of the ships in WC games, and the fact that an enemy fighter does NOT zoom in from beyond your visual range, zip past you, and zoom back OUT of your visual range in under five seconds, as it would if it were going 400 kilometers per second or so (I don't think ANY human can see a forty-meter-long fighter at a range of a thousand kilometers using only his naked eyeballs), I would say that for game purposes your speed is METERS per second instead of kilometers, at least in dogfighting mode (maybe it is kilometers when travelling between nav points though).
Wedge009
Rogue Leader
I think that's pretty much the explanation LOAF gave. Argh, can't really remember, but I think it was something to do with the fact that your range to target changes the unit of measurement to m (presumably for metres) in the VDU.
Also, how would nose-diving into a base or planet at 500 kps sound?
Also, how would nose-diving into a base or planet at 500 kps sound?