MookMcMook

Haven't seen a lot of physics talk going on so I thought I'd start a thread. Might be too early in development for this but I'm going to do it anyway. I'm going to break this up into separate posts because there's a lot to account for here. There's some discussion going on between the posts so just skip through and find my numbered and titles posts to see the full info in one place.
 
1: Investigating gravity and other values
 
In the video on atmospheric flight we can see certain values, given to us or expressed as variables, specific to the vessel and the environment:

Misc. values
Altitude Presumably in m above sea level given the altitude in the above pic
Mass In metric tons judging by the change in mass, in kg,  shown above. Thus 1 ton = 1000 kg
 
 
Forces
Looking at forces in the vertical plane we see:
Lift = 7.3mg Force up = 8.3mg Weight = mg In the real world aerodynamic lift is a force due to the airflow under the wings of an aircraft. In this game this is not the case as the guy in the video said the vessel would have no lifting capability if there was no vertical booster. However, aerodynamic lifting parts are to be added in future: click here. Let’s look at the free body force diagram (not to scale):
 

 
Here we see Force up - Weight = Lift. This means lift is in fact the resultant force on the vessel going up. There is clearly no aerodynamic lift as if there were: Force up - Weight = Lift + Aerodynamic lift. Also this diagram shows us that g is the same for the values of acceleration given for the vessel and for the gravitational field of the planet (it would have to be a pretty hard coincidence if the difference in the values of g was making up for the apparent absence of some sort of aerodynamic lift). Another thing it shows is that the acceleration value next to the force (i.e. 200 kN/ 8.3 g) is the acceleration due to that force itself and not the resultant force on the vessel.
Finding g
So we can find the true value of g by rearranging F = ma = mng to g = F/mn (where F = force, m=mass and n = the coefficient of g for acceleration)
Using the forwards and upwards forces as input, their respective accelerations and the mass as 2 ton the two values of g we get are (to 4sf):
12.04 and 12.20 ms^-2
Averaging at:
12.12 ms^-2
It still feels a little weird having the value of g as around 12 when the whole purpose of expressing the acceleration of the vessel in g instead of ms^-2 is to make it more relateable.
The thing is the uncertainty in the value of mass is 25%. Because it is rounded to 1sf it can be anywhere between 1.5 and 2.5 ton:
Doing the calculations in finding g again, using the upper limit of the mass (2.5 ton), we get the values:
9.639 and 9.756 ms^2
Averaging at:
9.698 ms^2
That's pretty close.
 
Gravity according to DU
Pretty wishy washy considering the certain info: In this video (06/042017) we can see a vessel reaching what the guy describes as "escape velocity” and then proceeding to perform some sort of orbit around the planet. Whether this is some form of pseudo-orbit or a proper orbit is debatable. The guy in the atmospheric flight video also states that if we have enough initial velocity on burnout we can escape the gravity 'reel' and orbit. Otherwise we fall back down. The thing is in real physics the term ‘escape velocity’ describes the initial velocity needed for an object to escape the pull of a gravitational field altogether. It’s unclear what his terminology is describing. He also implies that the engines on a craft need to be turned off for it to start orbiting. But we can clearly see his vessel in its ‘orbit state’ has acceleration of 0.5g and is moving at increasing speed. This means he is in an eccentric orbit and the field strength diminishes with distance, meaning one can alter their orbital trajectory and orbital mechanics is a thing (at least in the context of a ship around a planet- needs stronger affirmation). In the context of the video he is moving from the apoapsis to the periapsis as he is speeding up.
 
From a tweet on anti-gravity generators (discussed later) we find a simplified equation for the diminishing effect of gravity with distance:
 

The real equation for the acceleration is:
 
 (in the context of NQs equation r would be x)
(G=gravitational constant, M=mass of planet, r=radius from core)
But at NQ they don't have time to be thinking about the average density of a planet for its mass or the gravitational constant. What they do is simplify the right hand side of the expression (GM/r^2) to other values to make it have the same dimension. Instead of GM the constant of proportionality is gr0^2. Which gives the same dimension of ms^-2.
 
Evidence of pseudo-gravity can be found in this video (05/07/2017) but will be discussed in later topics
In this video (18/07/2016), looking at the space station, we can see why there would be no spin on the planet and it isn’t orbiting the sun (that is assuming they haven't put the station in a geostationary orbit which I doubt they have). This is because the station is stationary and uses static cores (it is quoted to be 5km long so too big for dynamic core ships) as opposed to the dynamic ones for ships. NQ says (24/09/2016) they will add planet spin in the future though. But currently they use a rotating skybox. Also see this DU wiki quote:
“Currently, planets do not rotate on their axis, but this feature may be added at a later date. However, planets will never orbit around their stars, for technology and gameplay reasons.”
If spin is added, space stations cannot simply be static. However, if not added they can work fine. A docking ship can simply use its VTOL thrusters in braking its orbital velocity to prevent itself falling to the planet.
 

 
 
Here we see a discussion on the fb page. This suggests static constructs in orbit will be an exception or a dynamic construct can be linked to a static construct to help it move. The latter makes sense as you would need a starting voxel to build off in space.
 
Another speculation is anti-gravity fields could hold constructs stationary instead of orbiting. See anti-gravity section for more details. However, the tweet where JC was working on antigravity is dated to 2018 whereas the static orbit video is dated to 2016. So it is unlikely antigravity was developed by this point.
Antigravity according to DU
We don’t know exactly how antigravity will work but we know how it might work.
 

 
Here we can see some of JC’s tweets on the matter. He has made some curves in desmos representing the effects of antigravity. One thing you can tell right off the bat is the green line represents a conventional curve of gravitational force against distance. So f(x) is probably force and x is probably distance. The first half of the equation previously discussed relates to the green line.
He has also explained the orange curve. It describes a field with a point in it that will repel objects entering the zone. Anything caught in the 'distortion well' that has no forces acting on it other that of gravitational pull will oscillate around x=34 without stopping unless placed perfectly on x=34.
The second part of the equation is mostly maths and does not have much to do with physics. By adding a gaussian function to the standard gravity field you are able to create a given area where g is negative (anti-gravity). The thing is you want it to be on a specific location. As if the anti-gravity function were simply a negative gravity function you would start with infinite acceleration at 0 displacement and that's why you use a gaussian function.
 
The function as a whole effectively simulates a planet. r0 is probably the radius of the planet which creates this field and h the altitude from the sea level of this planet. So r0 +h is the distance from the core of the planet and from the graphic, in this case, it values something around 32 (kilometres I guess). In the exponential term, s is a term that indicates how far across the well is and a indicates how deep the well is (the magnitude of negative acceleration produced by it).
So by choosing r0+h you can set where you want your gravity well to be, choose s to set how large it is and a to set how deep it is. If you want to have anti-gravity (so that the function is negative somewhere), you have to choose a wisely. If you choose a=0, then you have the standard field of gravity (the green curve). The well does not have much effect for small values of s.
 
The function also could represent the field around planets in game for space stations to achieve ‘static orbit’. The point is to make the gravity field being zero at some points. Then in these points you will no longer accelerate toward the planet and if your velocity is zero then you will stay on these points and so you are able to have an ‘floating’ station without needing it to have angular velocity (as it's supposed to be built using static cores in the game). But by doing this you have to place your object very accurately otherwise it will oscillate indefinitely around the point (depending how far you placed the object from the equilibrium point supposing that the gravity field is the only force). So it is likely they will introduce some friction (or anything that dissipates energy) to stabilize the position.
Conclusion
g is probably 9.81. It makes sense from a design POV, being the same for the planet and for the expression of the acceleration. In the future we could see differing values of g for different celestial bodies causing different lifts. Further, more controlled testing can affirm the value of g but through mere speculation (Trusting NQ is consistent in their game design) we can assume it to be 9.81. Instead of going by the mass given in the engineer report, for more accuracy in your calculations use: m = F/g(1 + L) where F = force up and L = the coefficient of acceleration due to lift I'm pretty 50/50 on whether NQ will add realistic orbital mechanics to the game as the evidence points to no clear conclusion. Will have to await more updates and to get myself into alpha 2 to do some tests. Keeping Newtonian mechanics to the basic level until further confirmation. It is unclear as to how NQ plans to manage space station orbits as of yet. But they will orbit normally for sure. Antigravity presented in the context of JC’s ‘orange line’ seems like it is supposed to hold objects in ‘stasis’ around a point. However, if this point moves the object in stasis will jiggle about accordingly. So it may be for ‘static orbits’ but needs polishing first if so. The g against r equation from the tweet is highly suggestive of diminishing fields and itself being the equation to be used  

Nuclear physics. Such a broad category of science leading to the most remarkable discoveries... and the most destructive of weapons. It would be nice to see how this would play out in DU, since I have seen a bunch of people suggesting nukes (hehe). This could possibly lead to quantum mechanics in game, leading to quantum computing or some other crap like that. If it is too much stress on the server, fair enough. It's just a suggestion from the realm of madness inside of my brain. 

No WMDs? Of course, that also rules out most nuclear propulsion since any interesting propulsion system is also a WMD, AKA the Kizinti Lession. So it looms like we will be stuck to nuclear (fission) thermal and nuclear ion engines. Fusion engines make creating hypervelocity kinetic weapons too easy and antimatter.... That also probably rules out ftl systems that you bring along (warp drive) since it probably takes a lot of energy to *break physics*. But NQ might handwave that the fusion reactors were way too heavy to even think about putting on ships. And its a lot harder to make a nuclear *bomb* then to make a nuclear reactor. There probably wont be any actual nuclear physics simulation since that probably takes a supercomputer to do.

A bounty system can be abused. Bad avatar A get 1 million credit bounty placed on its head, he goes to his mate (or players other avatar) who shoot bad avatar A and collects the bounty. This ends up being a win-win for the bad guys, not only did they cause a loss of some sort by the original act to get a bounty on their head, but they then end up fleecing the player again by collecting the very bounty that was meant to punish......  yep, rewarding the bad guys.
 
So bounties aren't as great as they may seem
 

I think it is a fairly well done video. I have always preferred MMO's/Sandbox, and if the game allows me to build things then thats a definite plus for me (One of the reasons I left Eve Online was that even though I was industrialist what I was building wasn't my design).
 
One thing the video didnt mention, as its only something I've seen in DU and Second Life, is that guided/instant games can be built inside of the MMO so that if people want quick fights, car races, gambling match etc etc etc it can be built within the game and run by players for players, with no extra development burden on the main game developers (NQ and Linden Labs respectively).
 
If NQ can actually pull of the single shard/one universe goal then it will be the first game to be truely 'one', that will allow the players to segment into what they please - combat parks included.
 
So I think the video is pretty spot on, I just see DU as the game that will redefine what it is to be an MMO/Sandbox/Themepark

Try SE, though Du won't have the physics because it's meant as a MMO. 
You can find the latest AMA on dualthegame.com and one question was about electricity. It'll be ingame at some point so my personal (!!!) Bet is that at some Point you have to link everything with Power. Fuel and functionality of elements is just done via a virtual link (See videos of ship builds).

If I remember right in one of the ask the Dev type talks they stated you would go from solar system to the next closes solar system for gate to gate transport and would not be able to jump the galaxy with one gate jump but more like connect the dots from solar system to solar system ? I will try to find it and add it to this post !

It depends on how they plan to make max speed limit. It could be tied to square root of (thrusts divided by mass), so kind of pseudo-space-drag system. Then reaching top speed will depend on how much you want to spend on propulsion and fuel (sacrificing cargo capacity and range).
Thus dedicated pirate ship would be super-fast, quite armed, but not really armoured. And mass cargo transport would be slow and bulky. And courier ship for most valuable cargo fast and armoured, but without any weapons.
 
I though about inverting cost based on distance, but it would make whole universe feel small. I'd rather see players do several jumps to go across galaxy. Maybe something like this:
 
1. IMO distance should't affect building price. Regarding ship size - what fits can fly. You pay for perimeter length (each module increasing it by 5m, modlue price is constant). So the bigger the more expensive, but also more economical.
2. There should be some "most economical distance" (as seen in the graph). To avoid both short range jumps and travelling whole galaxy in one jump. That together with inability to make gates too close to planets keep piracy viable. Thus they wouldn't need to be so prohibitively expensive.
And again it's cost per module, thus you get best results by sending huge, cigar-like ships that fit just right into the gate.
 
PS. I've been using lone tree as my avatar for years, and that's just one nice version of Yggdrasil I found.

I would think if you or your organization has a warp gate but don't want just any other organization or person to use it you could cut the power source off / security code or simple enough just like a building or cockpit use the right , duties and management system to keep others from using the gates ability with out your permission !
 
Personally I am happy the gates will be liked going from point A to point B and back rather than a dial up system which would be almost impossible to defend seeing  that enemies could come from any point in the galaxy and at the same time provide they have cracked or stolen your code !
 
I don't really see a problem with one way warp probes ? Probe sends message it found new system then you find a place you want to build warp gate after you build gate A , you make sure you have enough supplies to build gate B and use the Probes warp ability. Once you get to the new solar system you find a place to put gate B. Activate system and connect gate point A to gate point B. Its not confirmed and things are subjected to change but I think it will be that simple or close to it?
 
I hope gates are static structure because something moving and warping things inside of it not to mention the speed and direction its moving could end up with some jacked up physics not to mention putting unneeded stresses on the server!

Simple, nuke it

If gates are dynamic structures, then you could use them offensively. You could effectively snatch or steal the ships of other people by throwing the gates at them.
 
Of course, then the question is how is momentum conserved through a gate? If the gate is moving, does the ship on the other end acquire the relative velocity upon exit? If so, you could also forcibly crash opponents ships into planets or each other.
 
Ultimately, gates need sizes, ranges, limitations, and variations. If any gate can connect to any other gate, the whole universe becomes point-to-point, limiting interesting interactions (namely, plotting courses and avoiding traps and events).

Good piece with no immediate surprising news but definitely some interesting stuff 'between the lines'.. Nice read!
 
https://medium.com/@jcbaillie/the-oasis-from-ready-player-one-will-soon-be-a-reality-870121af659e

Comments like this generally come from people who do not actually play EVE, do not understand the game or got burnt somehow, generally due to their own mistakes or stupidity in game. The EVE community is one of the strongest and most supportive I know. If NQ even comes close to matching it that would be great. EVE is an unforgiving and harsh environment where loss is very real and it's easy to get punished for mistakes or ignorance. And to those who do not expect or look for that, this can be tough. EVE certainly is not for anyone, as is the case with DU actually. If you feel/think the EVE community is toxic you obviously have not been around much nor have you been part of many other communities.
 
It's true there is a lot of banter and shit talking/posting in and around EVE but this is for the vast majority in good spirits and for fun. If anyone has ever been to FanFest, EVE Vegas or another EVE player meetup he or she knows how tight the bond is between players and how well the community building in EVE has succeeded. Again, an example for DU to strive for IMO.
 
Could CCP do a better job at maintaining and managing (the development of) EVE? Certainly and we, as players, do not leave an opportunity unused to let them know, it's for a good part what has kept the game strong and going (as well as dying  ) for a good 15 years now.
 
IMO, DU can only hope to come close to what EVE Online has achieved over the years. It will be a tough uphill battle and while the promise and building blocks are certainly there, it remains to be seen how far NQ can take their vision.

I never got into EVE myself.  But it's been a pretty huge success for what 15 years now?
 
Anyway I hope that DU can be a game for the dog eat dog EVE players.  And the casual voxel artists, and SIMS style house decorators, and twitch streamers, and whatever else too.
 
We need everyone's money!  
 
 

So I saw a comment on this tweet from Dual Universe where someone wanted a plushie made of the robot pet:
 


And then I had one made

Awesome ! Next up: Warp science: Like what Quantum is to Newtonian but Warp to Quantum... or just use  more "big words".

Unless required otherwise by law, I don't think NQ should be in the business of playing content police.
 
If players don't want something ugly, they should be the ones to go out there and change it.
 
Once NQ starts removing every little thing that people are reporting as offensive, there really is no end to the rabbit hole that would open up. 

that's certainly not how it will work as such a system can be trolled and abused to oblivion

When the Novark accelerates to past light speed, wouldn't it be constantly bombarded with particles from the space dust and gas? Can kyrium contain this much bombardment before disintigrating? The only warp drive that can travel faster than light is known as the Alcubierre warp drive, proposed by Miguel Alcubierre, which bends the fabric of space time to make distances contract closer together, resulting in a kind of bubble. There are many problems that could theoretically occur as a result of this drive. 1) Particles could be swept up along the path of this bubble, resulting in possible high energy release towards a particular planet, annihilating said planet, or doing extreme damage to this planet without destroying it. Another problem is the survivability of the inside of the bubble, which is completely cut because of too much Hawking radiation. Also, the ship's crew, or in this case A.I., would not be able to control the ship because it would be going too fast. So, in the game lore, could new physics possibly be discovered that could help the probability of this device bring practically used in this timeframe? Thanks,
 
-Rhino

Actually quantum is a very, very, very small thing xD

Not about warp drives, but JC has been posting about gravity generators and their math on Twitter