Weight matters in space?

BlueClaw

Spaceman
In the WC4 mission, where you first had to fly a recon mission in the 'Dead Zone' of the Peleus System, why did Pliers' extra armour plating affect the speed of the fighter you chose to fly by decreasing it? Pliers' mentions that the engines would be under strain from all that extra weight, so he suggests that you shift all your power from the now useless shields to the engines. But why does the extra armour put a strain on the engines in the first place, since they're flying in space, where weight shouldn't matter?
 

Haesslich

Spaceman
Don't forget the energy involved.

Greater mass = greater energy needed to initiate movement, and the engines would be under more strain pushing all that mass, and be unable to push the fighter as fast.
 

Strider55881

Spaceman
Why do the ships have a top speed?
How can a ship safely travel at 450 KPS without hitting a speck of dust and being destroyed?

Probably because computer games are a form of escapism and don't have to follow the same laws that we have to. Besides, if games had to follow every single law of physics, WC wouldn't exist.
 

Preacher

Swabbie
Banned
Originally posted by BlueClaw
'Nobody gets out of life alive.' - Amos Trask

RE: Your sig:
"Nobody gets out of here alive." - Jim Morrison (the Lizard King)

Alarmingly similar, no?...
 

Frosty

a full fledged GF
Re: Re: Weight matters in space?

Originally posted by Strider55881
Why do the ships have a top speed?
The ramscoops employed for fuel-gathering add drag, limiting a ships terminal velocity.
How can a ship safely travel at 450 KPS without hitting a speck of dust and being destroyed?
Wing Commander ships have inertial dampeners that help protect the pilot from acceleration forces. Since ships have artificial gravity, this isn't much of a leap.
Besides, if games had to follow every single law of physics, WC wouldn't exist.
Illogical assumption. Many games strive to adhere to every law of physics, and with each revision, are able to do so with amazing accuracy, while still remaining fun. WC would still exist. In fact, it doesn't take too great a leap of faith to accept that WC isn't necessarily unrealistic. How can we know what technologies will be available to us so many hundreds of years in the future?
Originally posted by Preacher
Alarmingly similar, no?...
Hehe, no.
 

Strider55881

Spaceman
Re: Re: Re: Weight matters in space?

Originally posted by Frosty

Many games strive to adhere to every law of physics, and with each revision, are able to do so with amazing accuracy, while still remaining fun. WC would still exist. In fact, it doesn't take too great a leap of faith to accept that WC isn't necessarily unrealistic.
But would it still be the Wing Commander that we all know and love?

While I agree that there are fun space sims out there that do a good job of including the laws of motion, all that I'm saying is that real physics aren't necessary for a game to be fun. Space is a vacuum, so sound can't travel through space, but if and when this is implemented in Space sims, imagine all of the amazing, adrenaline increasing sound effects we would lose. The hiss of lasers hitting shields, the screech of a stormfire tearing into a hull, or even the whine of a Tie-fighter flying near. All of this would be gone.

How can we know what technologies will be available to us so many hundreds of years in the future?

I believe that's why it's called science fiction, scientifically improbable now, but could be scientifically possible in the future.
 

Rami Sihvo

Spaceman
No beacuse those things don´t appeal to masses. Realistic space flight can be made enjoyable like in I-war but those sounds had to stay beacuse no-one likes to play with sound off. Also in future space ships will probably have also sound based information system so crew can hear whats happening outside.
 

Frosty

a full fledged GF
Originally posted by Strider55881
I believe that's why it's called science fiction, scientifically improbable now, but could be scientifically possible in the future.
That's my point, though.
Originally posted by Rami Sihvo
Also in future space ships will probably have also sound based information system so crew can hear whats happening outside.
Precisely. Some sort of system which uses sound to communicate data to a pilot of a ship like this will most certainly show up sometime.

However, it's the epitome of silliness to say that a game with realistic physics would not have sound if it were set in space. The category of cinematics steals that one away. I don't think having sounds for entertainment detracts meaningfully from the "realism" of a game.
 

BlueClaw

Spaceman
Re: Re: Weight matters in space?

Originally posted by Preacher


RE: Your sig:
"Nobody gets out of here alive." - Jim Morrison (the Lizard King)

Alarmingly similar, no?...

Well, sort of...
 

BlueClaw

Spaceman
While we're on the topic of speed and such, what exact purpose did the acceleration absorbers of a fighter serve? I remember they were among the components of the fighters of WC1 and WC2 that could be damaged. The damage report always showed the acceleration absorbers as being destroyed, but did their destruction actually affect your fighter in any way?
 

Mekt-Hakkikt

Mpanty's bane
I don't think so. As they were almost always the first internal component to be damaged, I always thought of them as some sort of warning to the player: Look, your armour has been breached, that hit destroyed only an unimportant component, the next one will be really missed.
 
Originally posted by Lunatic
Momentum and inertia. Pliers probably meant mass, which is a component of weight.

Mass and weight are two different things. Weight has to do with gravitaional pull on an object, i.e. Earths gravitaional pull excerts a force of 200 pounds on my body. Mass has to do with the amount of space an object displaces, i.e. a rock dropped into a one liter container of water would displace a certain amount of the water, giving you the mass of the rock.

Not only are we dealing with inertia and momentum but also
potential and kinetic energy. A fighter with a larger mass needs more potential enery to get it to move. Once it begins to move all the potential energy is converted into kinetic energy. Inertia also has to do with getting the fighter to move. A stationary fighter has no inertia and therefore needs some sort of force i.e. engines to get it to move. The larger the fighter, the more potential energy and inertia is needed to move it.

My physics is kinda rusty so everything I mentioned above may not be entirely correct. If only I had my trusty physics book.;)
 

Lunatic

Spaceman
Uhhh, you're talkin about volume. Mass is, well, how much stuff there is. And to be exact, weight = mass x force of gravity.

Hope you guys don't mind, i'm studying for my physics regents :rolleyes: New York rules, but why the hell do we need these dumb*** 3 hour tests!
 

Saturnyne

Vice Admiral
I just always thought it was a matter of action/reaction laws. You'd need more action to push a larger ship than you would a smaller one, that kind of thing.
 

Wedge009

Rogue Leader
Originally posted by BlueClaw
...what exact purpose did the acceleration absorbers of a fighter serve?
Already answered in other threads: they're similar to inertial compensators in Star Wars fighters - if they go, the pilot is more vulnerable to the effects of G-forces in sharp turns etc.
 
Top