Cornflakes
-
Posts
384 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by Cornflakes
-
And your system makes that easier... how? You still have to define which ships you are going to give them and have to give them access rights and collect your fees from them. And all that with a quick and easy to use interface. You outlined /nothing/ on how to handle that. With the RDMS you may be able to set up a pool of identical right groups for different ships. And leasing one away or leasing twenty away would just be typing a number in the "take x from pool" menu. identical effort for both scenarios
-
https://devblog.dualthegame.com/2015/05/21/rights-duties-management-system/
-
Hellooo griefing. Steal blueprint, start building a copy, stuff disintegrates. Why so a weird way of doing that? you build the ship outlined in the blueprint, blueprint self destroys afterwards. Same "only one production run", less grieding potential. And less lore weirdness: whythefark should my ship self deatroy when a copy gets built? What physical mechanism enforces that? Why cant i remove that mechanism? I built the copy, why are there physical effectors in it that i cant influence?
-
Erm... why not use the RDMS which is already going to be in the game? The original blueprint owner has all the initial rights. Exchanging royalities for a blueprint would be a general contract which exchanges blueprint read/execute access for a duty in an arbitary form, recurring payment, access to something, having to sing once a day for the blueprint owner... A change in royalities would be a change in the duties, which the owner of the blueprint can do through the RDMS interface. No arbitary npcs or timers required, no fixed currency required
-
There are torpedoes fired from aircraft and choppers and missiles fired from ships, so "fired from a seagoing vessel" cant be the definition of "torpedo". Wikipedia and merriam webster both give me roughly the same definition of a torpedo being am elongated projectile intended for underwater use Spacecraft rarely are underwater so they wont have much use for torpedoes.
-
That is literally the first time i heard that definition. The one i usually hear/know is that missles are the smaller ones, fired by and/or used against smaller vehicles, and torpedoes being the generally larger and more sluggish variant
-
No idea. It also isnt really relevant as "rocket" is just short for "rocket engine" in my text, because thats its common usage. You can use the engines for powered projectiles, but directing a stream of nuclear exhaust towards your ship isnt exactly a good idea :V
-
No, orion and plasma core rockets are different from nswr's. Gas/plasma core rockets typically arent intended to expell their nuclear fuel and the fuel doesnt come in direct contact with the reaction mass. Orion drives directly throw out nukes and have no/very small amounts of propellant. They also dont work or look in any way like a normal rocket. An NSWR superficially looks like a normal chemical rocket (fuel injection, reaction chamber, somewhat normal nozzle) and just directly dumps the fission fuel into its propellant and has it undergo fast, nuke-like fission. because it doesnt directly have to contain the reaction it can reach far higher temperatures than a solid or gas core rocket, leading to higher exhaust velocity and efficiency. Its a kind of gas core rocket where they went past reasonable and just went straight to meltdown with the "containment vessel" being the propellant
-
A tracked tank with afterburner thrusters would be awesome. if only robocraft worked on my computer, stupid broken anti cheat software :V
-
Why not both? A NSWR is essentially a nuclear explosion in your exhaust stream. Nuke them while you are flying away :V
-
You forgot nuclear salt water rockets. Performance without end and hot radioactive death for everyone
-
And what would prevent you from mounting thrusters on a tracked tank?
-
Tracks have the problems on the other end of the gravity scale But yeah, vehicles would have different flight ceilings. They would always have some movement abilities as their lift rises steeply at very low heights
-
That superconducting levitation needs a strong magnet on the other side, doesnt "just work". Would work for vehicles on prepared tracks but nowhere else. But yeah, flux pinned superconductors are cool With my simple lift calculation heavier vehicles would naturally stay closer to the ground as there the hover engines would be much more powerful I dont know how to include mass and local gravity into the calculation while still including a flight ceiling for vehicles. i thought about it, but everything i thought about made them too powerful
-
Well, i've been suggesting for a while now that stargates could act as "catapults" for ships. You dont require an arrival gate to get anywhere, but a jump without artival gate needs larger amounts of energy and complex calculations and high scanning effort of the star system you want to jump to. So you can get to new star systems with a departure gate only, but it needs time to calculate the jump, larger generators and possibly a more complex gate than gate to gate jumps.
-
On the "how high can hoverdrives fly" topic: Maybe they provide [blargh blargh directed gravity technobabble] upwards thrust that decreases with 1/h^k with h as the height measured from the terrain straight below it and k being some balancing constant ~2 That would decrease very fast with increasing height, faster than the gravitational pull (whichs 1/r^2 being measured from the center of the planet) and would enable a large variety of hovercraft. Large, heavy tank like vehicles which can only hover a few cm off the ground, over lighter speeder equivalents to "helicopter" like craft with light frames and oversized hover engines. Of course the usual variations of larger drives and MOAR POWAAAH apply
-
I think nobody is suggesting forcing the players onto fixed paths only. But interstellar/strategic movement needs limitations for good gameplay. Choke points make stories and cause people to think outside the box. When they have to find alternative routes, make treaties, sabotage blockades etc
-
No, you are describing the first step of the proton proton chain of solar fusion. Which is very hot fusion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton–proton_chain_reaction And a nucleus with two protons /is/ per definition helium because atoms are categorised by their number of protons. Helium2 is a highly unstable isotope of helium without any neutrons. Its still helium. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotope Cold fusion isnt "without wasting energy", cold fusion is a fusion reaction that happens at much lower reactant temperatures than solar fusion. It makes no statement about efficiency. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion I'll stop being annoying when you stop spouting nonsense as fact. Especially things you could check with 2 minutes of googling.
-
No, just stating facts.
-
Even if you skip the step of helium-2 to deuterium you are far from cold fusion. We skip that step all the time in terrestric fusion experiments and they are far from being cold fusion Solar fusion in general isnt cold fusion either, its the very definition of hot fusion
-
You asked "what is freeform travel? Is it like in eve where they move from star to star without jumpgates" I answer: "roughly, but you may not move instantly between stars" Where is that not an answer?
-
"Read between the lines" is no correct answer to "your stephen hawking text doesnt answer my question" And warping space or warping space-time is semantics, nothing else. And the paper still doesnt answer why drives would need weak points, heck, not even what they are
-
I know how fusion works, thank you. what are you trying to say there?
-
You asked what freeform travel is, i gave you an answer.
-
There is no single mention of warp drives at all, even less of them needing your mythical weak points to work.
