Anaximander
-
Posts
4846 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Anaximander
-
-
6 hours ago, Forodrim said:
I just came back to this to see if I understand you correctly.
you start with
F(1)/m(1) to get a(1)
then you take that a(1)
and do
m(2) = F(1)/a(1)
?
Or how do you start? I want to do this with some starting numbers. What is given at the start ?
Lets do a few iterations manually ...The () part represents iteration - the version of which function you are solving
For F(0) - call it inertial force or how much resistance an object will output to being moved - you get the classical F = m * a, where F is a vector and acceleration is a vector. And since microgravity exists - there is no such thing as 0 G, not when when the Gravitational Constant exsits.
For this, we will be expressing a(0) as a minium value of 0.1 m/s2 (cause otherwise we go into divide by zero territories, which is why mathematical bounadries exist, to explain things like this work and when they work).
On every iteration, of every function below for finding the left side, we assume an increment constantly on accelration, Force over acceleration and .Force over Mass.
i=1 (default iteration) : F(1) = m(0) * a(0) | m(1) = F(0) / a(0) | a(1) = F(0) / m(0)
i=2 (first iteration) : F(2) = m(1) * a(1) | m(2) = F(1) / a(1) | a(2) = F(1) / m(1)
i=3 (second iteration) : F(3) = m(2) * a(2) | m(3) = F(2) / a(2) | a(3) = F(2) / m(2)*this does not go to infinity, cause that's not actually practical for computations.
But let's assume the Function is of a thruster on a ship, constantly pushing towards one direction, with no more push put into it, essentially locking F into F(1) for the every next iteration.
This would cause a recursion - a single value reappearing within later iterations.
a(2) = F(1)/m(2).
then after we do the aforementioned methods but keeping FORCE the same.
a(3)= F(1)/m(3)
As you can tell, that's a diminishing return on acceleration.
And so on.
This means that, for x Newtons, their coefficient drops as the ship reaches a point where the force applied to it has no effect, the ship;'s mass (inertial mass at this point) EVENS out the push of the thruster, but keeps the velocity due to the laws of conservation of energy.
You may say "but I think if I can hit the pedal to the metal, I can accelerate with like 500 Gs of pure awesomeness". Yes, that's true, you COULD do that and for a long-ass time on top of that. But eventually ,as the curvatuire on the graph starts dropping, it would even out at 0 NET Force on your ship, essentially, your acceleration becoming 0, and maintaing a constant velocity.
A fellow member of the forums once told me "you can fart your way to Lightspeed, if you can maintain the acceleration it provides". It's a fun idea to ponder over. If you CAN maintain a less accelration, but for a prolonged period, you save both fuel ( engines don't burn as much ) and you gain more mileage out of your spaceship's fuel tank. Problem with farting to lightspeed, you'll end up shitting yourself to maintain the constant acceleration xDF= m*a assumes mass is a constant, and not subject to change. That's called "static" and Newtonian physics are called "classic model", Einstein proved "there is a relation between mass and how much it's accelerated changing its value". The part about "this works only near c" applies to the point of nearing one's Swarzschild Radius (flak austrian names are hard to write), where your mass will start affecting how you perceive time and space. Notice, NOT under your Swarzschild Radius, that's a black hole, and given a ship is not a colalpsing star, if a ship wa to hit full speed of light - assuming tachyons do not exist - the ship would literally atomise and disperrse, lieka dying black hole running out of mass to power its intense gravity.
In fact, Newton is falsely associated with F = m * a, he only did F = m * V, which is true but is ultiamately, not representing, but not actually representing. Newton assumed Gravitational Attraction is not a squared value. There is a story on Émilie du Châtelet and how she proved that F = m * V^2. Yes, v^2 is not acceleration, but once you run it in a timeframe it producess the "a" in F=m*a.
I hope this clears things up.
This is the reason EVE Online's formula assumes that if you go fast, you'll take less damag,e unless the enmy can hit you right on the bullsye with a lot of tracking.
Your ship's NET FORCE pushes away bullets on contact, emulated by taking less damage in a gamified abstract quantity of "damage".
And that's why NQ wants EVE's way of dealing with cobmat damage. In EVE, you can't target idividual parts. In DU, you cabn trick a person to hit your reinforced bow on your ship, by pretending to "go slow", thus tricking them to unload an entire volley or two onto your armored bow and shields and since they need to slow down to hit you better (more damage as theirr speed doesn't reduce their tracking), they are open for an attack by your guns. In fact, that's also a tactic used in EVE to trick smaller ships to lineup for a good old broadside on the face. Preend to be AFK, they will just hit approach (no angular), when they do light them up. good old Art of Baiting.
In fact, NQ can go one step beyond EVE. Make being hit by projectile weaponry slow down a ship, or change its vector i nspace (since F=m*a is VECTOR-F = m* VECTOR-a). That would be awesome in general, would make lasers' precision lack the literal STOPPING POWER of ballistics and railguns.
But that's just wishful thinking.
So yeah, that's the whole shouting contest about. It came to my attention earlier that the way I expressed a = F / (F/a) migt have been a bit if a clusterfuck, so, for what it's worth, part of the clusterflak's on my lack of temerity when writing out formulas.
-
Just now, Forodrim said:
so no source for your stuff, i guess that is an answer too.
Also you wrote quote: "human is found exposed to the vacuum of space it's a gambit of dying from flash freezing or EXPANDING LIKE A BALOOON until you pop."
This is plain wrong, now you try to wriggle out of this. this is weak and dishonest.
I didn't need you need to source 5th grade math and physics. Apaprently, these intense F=m*A calcualtions need clearly MIT approved papers on them.
Also, why you make it sound as if this whole thing is an honor duel and I pulled a pistol >.> ????
"You sir, art one ruffian and a scoundrel,, thou hath no dignitas on the manner on which you carry your duty".
If your beef is on what will kill you in vacuum, I mean, sure, I am wrong - and glad I'm wrong - for the inflation to happen after I kick the bucket from hypoxia induced brain-death - which means it'll be over witohut me knowing it. If you gonna sleep better at night and you don't feel like the gods have wronged you on this holiest of duels or somethimg, sure, here, have it.
"I, Twerkmotor, of sound (mostly) mind, at this present day, I accept the burden of the fact that Hypoxia induced brain-death is the lead cause of death in exposure of a human being, of average dimensions and weight, when exposed to the lack of elements of the vacuum of space and not flash-freezing or bloating like a baloon - which will eventually happen, just not before one's death in vacuum".
Print it, put a portrait on it, personal suggestion, add RGB around it. -
3 minutes ago, Forodrim said:
your equations make no sense at all. the thing is relativistic acceleration. the faster you go, the harder it becomes to further accelerate you, however this effect become only relevant if go close to c as the mass gain for slow speeds is negligible. I linked you the wiki article that describes this including the proper equations. Can I see some sources for your equations?
it says " you won’t freeze (or explode)" which is exactly what you claimed.
It also says: "This leads to a condition called hypoxia, or oxygen deprivation. Within 15 seconds, deoxygenated blood begins to be delivered to the brain, whereupon unconsciousness results. Data from animal experiments and training accidents suggest that an individual could survive at least another minute in a vacuum while unconscious, but not much longer"
So you will die from oxygen deprivation or, suffocation, which is exactly what I said.You just repeated what I said. Hypoxia is lack of oxygen to the brain. Literally, take a plastic bag, brathe into it continuously for a minute or two, you'll start tripping (making sure it's sealed of course). That's going to cause mild hypoxai, ince you don't breathe in oxygne, but your own CO2 emissions. it's just the full effect of this will happen in vqacuum cause your internal pressure on your lungs will just force the oxygen out of the lungs, instead of them getting into the bloodstream. You just had to "correct me", by copypasting the text you didn't even udnerstanmd what the words in it meant.
Also, are words hard? Cause you do fail to understand the so called "relativistic acceleration", is a function with a recursive value.
At this point I can't even bother with you anymore, you just copy paste things you thin kare "righT" off of Google search. You said something about "ignoring you"? Do that? It's totally optional, I am not your mother to tell you what to do. You clearly ae a person who values his time and how he spends it. You will come to the right decision. -
13 minutes ago, Atmosph3rik said:
Elite: Dangerous has something called "engineers". For anyone who doesn't play it's basically an NPC that you seek out because they are able to make specific upgrades to specific parts of your ship.
Now obviously DU isn't going to have NPCs. But it would be interesting if after building a ship you might be able to go find certain players with certain skill sets. And they would be able to upgrade aspects of your ship, or specific elements.
That way a player who might specialize in warp engines would have a way of earning a profit besides actually building and selling them brand new.
And it brings some life and individuality to ships.
Okay, here's the thing.
That idea is falling under the "Avatar specialisation".
i.e. in EVE (I know, stay with me, it's relevant) there are "rigs" you can mount on your ship. Tthey act like a modified PC rig would, with a custom cooler for example.
Rigs can overrclock your Ship, amp its repair systems, or amp its damage and / or tracking speeds.
That's actually a good thing for SPECIALISATION for engineers, like "Jury Rigger", people who can make a modification to a machine to "enchant it" if you prefer that term from tradition.
But you know, instead of "you gain +10 STR", it's more like "you gain more fire rate on your turret that's modded, but it also loses HP faster, thus needing repair more often".
Same logic on the bottomline. But still, that's a profession, a Jury Rigger, a guy who can enchant a ship's modules. And depending on the bonuses to the Engineer, it may actually be possible to use it for example as a "combat repair" for AvA as well.
That kind of thing gives players more professions in-game, more roles ,and a gameplay aspect to master. -
28 minutes ago, Forodrim said:
no, show me where I said that. You seem to have serious problems to understand what I said.
nope
source:
http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2013/space-human-body/Where are your sources?
When you claimed a=a in a recursive function (which means you take a new iteration everytime you are nesting the function). That's when you failed. You either don't know or understand what a function is, or you didn't understand my wording of it. I was very clear from the start, but I guess, people just don't read close enough. Hatesr gotta hate after all.
Also, take the effort and read what you link to, don't grab the first thing on google search.
The thing you linked to only says "you will inflate after you die, as the released oxygen out of your blood will cause deoxygenated blood to go to the brain and unconsciousness to follow immediately", in other words "you'll die in your sleep if you find yourself in vacuum" - which is a good way to go in general they say - and the majority of the article (which is a good read fyi, you SHOUILD read it) refers to all the known syndromes that astronauts suffer after prolonged exposure to microgravity and how it can affect space-farring in the futur if it ever becomes a reality for humans to bounce between Mars and Erath for example, as our physiology is not meant for space, we are REALLY not welcome in space.
So, what you digging at Skip?12 minutes ago, Takao said:I have two problem with the "constructs levelling up" mechanic:
- It make no sense at all. Even if each construct would have an AI, then the AI itself would "level up", not the construct. You could then copy the AI to other constructs and they would be as equally good (when those constructs are equal).
- It's an additional "My character's stats / values are better than your's so I win" mechanic. What matters should be the skill of the individual player, not his characters stats.
The second one here is my main concern.
And I really hope that the levelling mechanic for the character, they are planning won't do exactly that...
Oh boy, I think Twerky interpreted the energy preservation law slightly wrong -.-
Half I agree that grinding is - in general -- stupid. Mining is enough of a grind.
As WoW proved, once you put Gearscore in the game, it all becomes about Gearscore. "I got +1 GS, I am better".
What are you referring to as "not doing exactly that?" Cause NQ have said they want EVE's style of progression (linear with timers).. Unleess you mean "no XP grinding for 12 hours to gain 1 level" , cause I did play Albion Online...it's a grindfest if I ever seen one.
Yes, that was a like on your constructive post. Unlike others, I am not biased against people, I can disagree, debate, argue and agree with them. It's the benefit of not carrying any ego. I'm pure id.
Also, that's what you've been doing all this time >.> ? Scouring le webs to find a new spin on "Trying to prove Einstein wrong"? Cause you did try that already. Didn't work. Just saying.
Also, conservation of energy is a byproduct of what I speak of. I am only validating the part about EVE's formula that says "the faster a ship goes, the less damage it takes, if the attacker can't track you to "lead" a shot in the equation and mitigate your speed by making the buillet hit you directly, at a 90deg angle". The part about the consservation of momentum in a close system is a whole other herd of goats to even approach - so let's not, we got a cluster-F at this point here, let's not expand it even more, it will benefit none. -
2 minutes ago, Grizzord said:
Thank you for the explanation it was perfectly laid out for me. and i now that i understand better i can rest easier. one last question though.. will there be front facing turrets for single maned ships?? i assume so but just a question.
Don't know that. I guess you mean things like "nose guns" for fighters? In that case, yeah, probably and depending on how NQ structures the in-game scripts, it may be possible to make a "solo flying frigate" for example that handlesl ike a fighter jet in space. But that is just speculation for now..
-
35 minutes ago, Atmosph3rik said:
I apologize if i'm interrupting. But i'm going to talk about the game for just a minute if that's ok.
I think the OPs original suggestion had to do with constructs becoming more powerful the longer they are around.
That seems like a cool idea to me. And i don't see any reason why it couldn't fit into the way NQ plans to do "progression" currently.
What if the construct or even maybe individual elements progressed in the exact same way that players will? Would that be an acceptable topic of discussion to our supreme forum gatekeeper captaintwerkmotor?
Could we have your permission to talk about that?
NQ : " We remove grind with EVE's skill training system"
Random Grizzly Carebear : "But I like grinding, I have been grinding for 1000 days traight in Korean F2P Adventures the MMO to get my +111 MAgical Nipple Armor for my Waifu Ultra Super Warrior. I need that in DU. I can't live my life wthout being a gullag prisoner breaking stones, day in, day out".
NQ went with EVE's system, cause it's fair, you grinding won't gain you an advantage. Also, this whole "elvel;ing" pisses inb the face of :
a ) industry
b ) market
c ) balance
d ) clever ship design
It's very exploitable, just make a second account and farm core units with some voxels on it - every algorithm for "fair fight" is explotaible, they always have been).
So, you take :
1) killing other players for XP
2) exploitable imbalance
Add in RMT for buying "level 10 ships" and you got F2P MMO Trifecta on terrible game loops.
-
6 minutes ago, Forodrim said:
No, just no. it is called relativistic acceleration and it is a bit more complicated than that (for starters -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceleration_(special_relativity) and how about you show some of your sources about your stuff here ).
Also, as others have pointed out already, it only really matters if your velocity gets close to c
So were are you admitting you were wrong about HEAT warheads, momentum as force and humans flash freezing/exploding in vacuum?
:facepalm:
So, what you are saying is, tat if you yo uwere to drive your car, at 100 km/h and tin can hits you at 10 m/s, yoyu mean to tell me that the tin-can won't be bounced off?
Cause that's what Takao insists. Cause that's what a bullet hitting your ship in space , with the masses of the ships involved would end up happening. Yeah, you need speeds close to c to get common sense working.
The missiles are not even relevant to the original arguement by now (which was also Takao derailing the arguemetn even more, you know), that's the actual arguement all this time. The hit formula EVE has (which is an emulation of the aforementioned things poitned out an d if it's bearing merit since DU follows the same mentality of hit-chance. Also, in SPACE, a missile exploding would vaporise anything or at least, turn to shrapnels that mean nothing. Tanks are mostly, immobile and / or move relatively slowlly - spaceshups are not bound bty the same geometry.
And yes, moving fast is actually adding to you shrugging off ballistics - and reducing the time a laser can "focus" on one spot, thus also aplying for laser turrets in such a context. Like it orn ot, that's reality. It's why if a ball comes at you you can raise your hand to preotct yourself from it. It's like saying a footballer needs to go at near c speeds to be ble to catch a ball or shoot it away from their side of the playing field while the ball is landing. Yes, we know Messi can hit a ball really hard, but I don't think he can clock near c sppeds mate.
Exposure in vacuum causing your body to inflate - or flash freeze, if you curl up -is the main lead for possible death in vacuum, if you find youself exposed to it, without an EVA suit. Suffocation is one of those things that an kill you, not the leading cause.
Also, me being once wrong, and you being stuck up your rear (you got reported for falsely accusing me of derailing FYI) only shows yo uare just another forum warrior, ready to "fight the evil".
You are just a hater at this point. Seethe some more. Unless you can prove that Messi has to go at near c speeds with a kick of his to send a ball flying as it lands on the field, your arguement is full of holes and just miscreant. -
16 minutes ago, 0something0 said:
Math?
t=number of words Capt.TwerkMotor has posted on a thread
s=Volume of salt in kg produced by the servers
3t^2 = s
Request to lock thread. You don't educate people by salt. Give some actual salt-free websites.
if not_agree_with_viewpoints==true and opportunity==1 then local.joinTheHateBandwagon() end
You guys are excellent fascists. Too bad your war is on education, calling "correcting people who are wrong" as "salt".
I said time and time again, "it's a Recursive Function". It's not my fault these people have 1st grade knoweldge of math and don't know Recursions work only on iterations of a function (Sigma notation). That should have been the tell-tale sign I was wasting my time with people Is should be explaining things one by one, starting from what words mean.
Peace, I'm out, this only reinforces my idea of this community. -
59 minutes ago, Forodrim said:
nope, force is needed to change momentum.
in your example you are wildly mixing newtonian force and stuff like the weak force.=> a = F * (a/F)
=> a = a
=> shocking!
nope, HEAT is a type of warhead. Can be used as shell (fired by a tank (russian BK14 shell) for example) or a missile (TOW missile for example)
nope, not going to happen.
In space heat radiation is very limited, so you will not freeze. you will also not explode.
Death in space will occur by suffocation.
=> just in the other thread in which you claimed a modern carrier does fire cruise missiles you mostly have no idea what you are talking about but like to hear yourself talk
=> consider yourself ignored.
Edit: I will also start to report your posts since you continue to derail almost every discussion with your ramblings.Problem with the Cruise missiles is I do accept corrections when I am wrong - as I did in that thread.
The nested m = F/a in an a = F/m is the product of the the first alteration on the whole model, applied again into the same equation.
You people do STATIC math. In static math, yes, that would be a = a, cause it's the same value a=a. But it's recursive. It's a(2) = F(1)/m(2) and it's m(2) = F(1)/a(1).
Then it's m(3) = F(1)/a(3) if you keep the same PUSH on your ship, you will end up getting less and less acceleration. This is called a recursion.
IIf you think a(2) == a(1), you need help.
But you don't get what Recursion is, do you? NO, you don't.
Acceleration goes down, the more mass an object accumulates due to the push applied and to keep up the G forces of the acceleration ,means the ratio of Newtons to Kg must remain constant, which means more Newtons, which means more % on the Engine's output, which means more fuel burned, which means more mass accumulated, with the Newtons applying momentum, whih can push and mitigate bulelts hitting you.
You people can't even understand examples, let alone recursions in functions.Weaker people like you talk tough, but in reality, you are just that, weak. "Consider yourself ignored" means only "I want my wrong ideas not corrected". Go watch some Infowars now, you do seem to be hostile against education already.
Unlilke you, I admitted my indeed wrong assumption that a Carrier could fire cruise missiles. YOu are incapable of admitting mistakes, that's why you are weak.
You people reinforce Tesla's view on humanity and evolution.
A lot.
Also, you got reported for faulty accusing me of derailing.
I didn't derail, Takao did, as he did in the ship naming thread to "take on the big boys".
He failed. Again. As you did champ.
Enjoy your report. -
10 minutes ago, gyurka66 said:
I think i can safely assume you neither know what you are talking about because you should be talking about the mechanic that has been suggested in this topic. You know you could easily send essays about how retarded is the other person in email. That would be great for everybody.
it's perfectly useless to dicuss highschool physics in a video game forum because it's a video game forum. And to video games physics don't apply.
That's not the arguementation.
His arguement is "this is not realistic", without him understanding jcrap on how actual quantification happens when you design a predictive analytics index.
The system EVE has works like a charm and NovaQuark has some real talent in it to amek the system work even better than it does in EVE. It's jsut that people want "WW2 in space" with missiles meaning 1 hit kill and possibly sounds when lsers are fired or bulelts are fired.
That's the arguement here for, if the EVE system has merit - which it does, anyone with knowledge of what Discrete Mathematic is can just look at the forumla and realise what it means.
It's just a clever way of expressing shooting mechanics via algorithms.
Plus, Takao tries to tell me things like Einstein's equations don't even work. Which is funny. Clearly, he's some Hawkin's level of genious, he he figured out on his own the equation EVE uses means if you stand still, yo ucan be hit far easier by your enemies. I mean, it tkaes at least 3 PhDs to unlock such an insight into how reality works. According to him, standing still and being hit fro mrange, is "the code working wrong".
NQ has made their statement in the past, there will be this system in-game and missiles will be as good a weapon as you can make them to be, not a "cheese" weapon like in bad games who think dogfights in space will happen at ranges dogfights don't even happen in atmoshpere, TODAY. -
1 hour ago, Takao said:
First of, thank you for publicly showing that you are
- arrogant
- overly self convinced
- incompetent in many areas
Which leeds me to the conclusion that you suffering from Dunning Krueger Effect so I can safely ignore your physic and math crap show and don't even have to bother disproving you in that points.
Ok, this proves on of two things:
1) You really think, that a = F/(F/a) is a relevant thing. That means that you are just incompetent in basic math equations.
2) You know that a = F/(F/a) <=> a = a <=> 1 = 1 and therefore means absolut nothing because
every formular put inside itself will result in 1 = 1
which means you trying to just fool other people with that "pseudo science math" and therefor you are just pathetic.
Please, go ahead and do that.
In vacuum there is 0 presure.
In earth atmosphere, at ground level there is 1 bar pressure.
That means the difference is 1 bar.
If humans would expand in the vacuum like a baloon, they would be crushed when they are in a 2 bar enviroment, like for example after diving 10 meter in water, because there the pressure difference is also 1 bar.
Do they?
No they don't.
What will happen in the vacuum however, is that your body liquids begin to boil, because of the their lowered boiling point.
This will not couse the human to expand like a ballon.
It will just kill you.
1. It's interesting, that you have completly ignored the anti-ship missiles here. Because if you make absolute statements, then one counterexample disproves your statement.
2. So you are saying, that the Saturn V (and any other space craft) are missiles and not rockets? Or are you telling me that they are all unguided?
3. "Missile" is a guided projectiles mostly with rocket boosters or jet engines (cruise missiles) as propulsion.
4. A rocket is a missile.
5. There are unguided and guided anti-tank rockets.
6. EVERYTHING with explosives and a casing (out of a material that doesn't instantly vaporise because of the explosion) around that explosive has shrapnells. Infantry held anti-tank missiles usually are build to create extra shrapnells, so that you can use those rockets against infantry, too (or better).
So thank you again for proving your arrogance and incompetence to the public.
If you any actually sources that disproves my statment above (your opinion is still not a proof) AND prove your statements from before, post them or stop talking about this topic.
Do you understand what recursive functions are or how they behave? You are just a cluster-F of misconceptions.
Like in the ship naming thread, you attacked me, who was right on his knowledge of what a battleship is, you said "the people on the HMS Dreadnaguht were stipid if they confsued a battleship equiped ship for a cruiser even if its size was so", without actually knowing that back then they used only binoculars to detect visually ships and they could not have told the Bismarck was a battleship from the looks of it.Funny you brought up the Dunning-Krueger thing, had to look it up. is that what they diagnosed you with? It was VERY specific to be on the top of your head, like you intimately know this condition. I don't know much on psychology, but I am getting the vibe you are indeed suffering from some inferiority complex.
You did the exact same faulty arguement on the ship class thread. All of the same faulty logic. You had to be told the facts, and then yo uhad to be told to not claim you speak german, which you don't, that's a fact, but you kept claiming the Bismarck, was a "He" not a "She" despite how it's called in the german language or how ship tradiition goes - on top of your claims that "Dreadnaught" is a sci-fi ship class, when the HMS Dreadnaught is the source of the whole idea, or how ships are classified as battleship or cruiser.
Calling CCP as a game developer and people who have been awarded for their incredible knack on detail and realism, stupid, is just bold on your end. I guess that's why you quit EVE???? Too many people reminding you you're not that good when it comes to figuring math on the fly or figuring how to make money with proper market research?
And like the ship naming thread, you being told you are wrong, makes you turtle up and double-down even more.
I don't care what your issues are man, you clearly do not understand F=m*a as a recursion won't return 1. It will return some diminished result, a diminishing return, which is how E=m*c2 works as well . Yeah, you called Einstein wrong. Congratulations, you hit new levels.
Oh, wait, I can hear it. Yeah, "F=m*a is not E=m*c2! Newtons are not Energy!!".
Yeah, cause Kinetic Energy is not Energy, right??? You claimed objects have NO Energy - none - you claimed Einstein's equation is not working. Next step, "Climate Change is not real, it's all a hoax, I talk to a shaman and he told me the Sky Spirits keep the rain from dropping!".
You clearly don't know what Sigma notations are, or how they work, or how nesting functions works, or what relations are in math. You clearly don't know mathematical analysis, or have any idea on how it operates. You think of classical arithmetics and static models, not dynamic ones.
The reason a human will boil - and inflate - in vacuum, is due to the Law of Entropy, hot goes to cold. The skin gets colder, then the core heat of the body tries to migrate to it, thus causing an expansion, as the cycle repeats until the water on the body , fro mthe rapid migration, starts boiliong, releasing oxygen, and inflating the body in the process. You don't even know what happens when water boils or what HEAT is. I bet you confuse Heat and Temperature as well. Your kind of people do that.
That's the same reason people who do deep diving, ascend gradually and descend gradually to the surface and the deep respectively, so their body can acclamate. Otherwise their muscles will spasm - or worse their heart may go to arythmia which can lead to cardiac arrest- as the body tries to adjust pressure from the depth of the sea, to the atmospheric pressure of water surface. It's also why ASTRONAUTS, depressurise before getting into a space suit ,cause the suits are not capable to contain the astronaut i nthe cvvacuum if they are not acclamted for the vacuum of space, cause the suit will expand fro mthe heat the astronaut's body emits.
In fact, it's the same reason people faint when going from freezing cold to warm enviroments. Change in internal pressure.Missiles are any object carrying a warhead, a warhead can the tip of an arrow, to the hollow round of a bullet. Yeah, round and bullet are not the same thing on the projectile, I'll be expecting you telling me how I am wrong on that part and how NATO's classifications are invalid. Rockets, are anything carrying a heavy payload with a certain fuel behind it.
Likewise, Rockets, are anything DUMP-FIRED. That is why Stingers are Missiles and RPGs are Rockets. Stigners LOCK-ON to a target, RPGs just fire a propelled granade.
And no, I didn't ignore the anti-ship "missile", Torpedos are mines attached to a propulsion, they are water-operating rockets for all intents and purposes They work with the same priming technology and need to be aimed. Submarines armed with nukes, carry them as ballistic missiles.
Yes, you failed at even knowing it's not "missile" it's "Ballistic Missile" when you talk of the weapon, not the category. I didn't knew you lacked that much on encyclopedic knowledge, but hey, don't sweat it. You didn't even know that ship sizes are sorted by displacement, not size alone, or that any ship is a "she", in any language, in any navy. Germans and Austrians on this very community had to tell you to stop claiming nonsense on their language on how the Bismarck is referred to as a ship, which is a "She".
And space missions, use missiles. The media called them "Rockets" so the uneducated masses could relay to 1960s science fiction, that called all spaceships rocketships. They dump said missiles when they reach certain altitudes. They don't ride on a "rocketship", they ride on missiles, ballistic missiles, they boost with them, the CRAFT is the shuttle (or w/e the russians fly these days). The shuttle is not a missile, it's its "warhead" or arrowhead if you preferr.
Now, guess why the space shuttle is called like that. So the uneducated masses could relate the vehicle to Star Trek's shuttle. Yeah, I know, stupid.
Don't let facts cloud your judgement though. I bet there are things you know, I don't know. I bet everyone has something to teach someone.
Yours is not this field.
I may be arrogant, but it's onyl cause i know what I am talking about.
Cheers. -
2 hours ago, Takao said:
I haven’t played star citizens and currently I have no interest in doing so. I am watching their bug smashers series and had watched a few of their developer videos.
Their techniques are really impressive:
- Algorithmen for generating whole cities, including the buildings interiours
- Using custom weighted normals for all 3D models (no sharp edges). Also they are not the first to do so.
- Generally using tiled textures and decals for details. As a player you see the result as lower gpu and hard drive requirements, for them it reduces the time for making ships quite drastically.
One solution for the fleet problem would be to cap the fleet size at half the maximum the system can handle.
Whats the definition of an mmo?
If the economy is persistent, you could meet every person in game, then wouldn’t it be a mmo?
But in general they have promised a lot and couldn’t deliver that much so far. Let’s see how this will turn out.
They should have just created the single player / coop campaign first, and then after that started on the whole mmo thing...
Not to be blunt, their algorithms are not "impressive". The same technique with cell-population can be achieved by anyone who is 3rd Semester at CSD - and 3D modelling skyscrappers can be achieved on tumblr or pinterest.
Their only real innovation is their shaderwork. And Shaders - no disrespect to any graphics specialist - are just a matter of time investment in developement.
Decima Engine, the one Kojima uses for his next trip into early dementia, is a pwoerful engine ,with 10x the shaderwork that Lumberyard has. It even has floating hair now, after Kojima totally not stole source code from Fox Engine and added it to Decima's.
Wanna bet after Death Stranding comes out Star Citizen will move to Decima engine? Deep down, you know it.
It's not really that impressive when you KNOW what's behind the magic trick they play. It's just they try to make a skyscrapper out of duct-tape and hype. That's not how this works.
NQ built the netcode framework first. That's the game's core. Netcode. That's what DU lives and dies by. Combat can be tuned, building can be tuned, RP can be enriched, and customisation can be all about Hello Kitty stickers (hopefully). But broken Netcode means broken experience.
Do not confuse an expensive toy with a good toy, Star Citizen is to video games what iPhone X is to smartphones. Just hype.
And DU is like the first Iphone. Groundbreaking shit. -
1 hour ago, Lethys said:
SC is offtopic ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I'm glad DU goes for a mathematical solution and doesn't count on real player skills to hit someone. That's the right approach right there: tell your fanbase your goal (massive MMO) and tell them what you CAN'T do (simulated bullets, realistic physics,...)
I mean, they "could" do bullet physics, just not in this current iteration of processor speeds - or the next decade in general
.
Give Intel a decade, those guys will come out with 20 Ghz commercial CPUs with 32 cores each.
That or a toaster. One of the two.
At that point, maybe DU can ditch the hit-chance, but currently? Not a chance, the frequency for updates is just not enough for a mainframe to spare enough processing prowess for spawned bullets.
The real good thing about DU, is that it doesn't lock out people with not the best internet speeds - and given the recent clusterflak in the US, I bet the problem will become apparent with most games.
DU is just no reliant on low latencies, that's the smart move imho. -
1) I stopped paying attention the moment you failed to understand where the recursion is on F=m*a. You apply force, object geins mass, you need more force to get more acceleration. It's why an object with mass can only achieve 99% of the speed of light, but don't let science stop you. I really had to work hard to get back into reading what you wrote after that.
More on this later.
2) Clap-Clap. You figured out that if you stand still or have no angular velocity, bullets can hit you even when slow easily as you can be tracked easily and you can't apply your own momentum to push away the bullets and mitigate the damage. God dayum. I hope your next discovery is that water can get you wet and that getting hit by a lightning won't make you The Flash - don't try it, I seen people getting hit by lightning, it only makes you a devout Christian afterwards.
3) Failing at middle school level physics is one thing, failing at common sense is a whole new level of bleach-drinking reasons to end my existence. You never heard of inertial mass... or know what force is... you always have force and work, you confuse it with EXTRA force and work. Literally, you are held together by forces. If you had no forces, you would be torn apart by the wind, if a ship had no force at all, it would be flipped by a single wave. Holy crap man, you don't even know that momentum is FORCE, nor than inertia and momentum are two faces of the same coin.
4) F = m*a. Here is some middle school math, the previous equation can be also written as m = F/a. I know, you don't know entry level math. SHOCKER. You may say "but what about me, I am idle at this moment ahave have mass". Guess what, yo uare not idle. You have been hurling through space at 22000 km/s on a spit of rock called Earth. It's relative what yo ucall "idle".
m = F/a
a = F/m.
put this sucker in a function now.
a = F/(F/a)
Woooooo, math is crazeh. We just figured out that the more the force, the less he effect eccelration has. You know, it's called a Diminishing Return. It's how Recursion works best. But what do I know.
I can write you a Sigma-notation for it, but I don't really care for your personal enlightenment enough to bother.
This is why "density" is a dynamic value. Also, here is a shocker for you, Law of Entropy. Hot goes to cold. An object that's charged with energy, gets hot. If a ship goes past its acceleration tolerance and its materials faulter (not only humans have a G toelrance), it WILL explode due to difference in internal pressure and the vacuum of space. It's why if a human is found exposed to the vacuum of space it's a gambit of dying from flash freezing or EXPANDING LIKE A BALOOON until you pop.
I know, I will be expecting your take on "Fake science" and how in space you can actually breathe and the sun is not powered by CNO cycles of fusion but by magic. At this point man, I expect this from you.
5) Are you shitting me? HEAT are shells. Shells are big big bullets. You confused a TANK SHELL, with a MISSILE.
I so do hope you mean shells, cause otherwise, you confused a ROCKET, with a MISSILE. Holy crap man, you are heavily misinformed. A Rocket and a missile are not the same thing. Missiles are guided, Rockets are propelled Grenades.Bonus , you now understand why the RPG launcher is called Rocket Propelled Grenade. Guess what, Missiles don't have shrapnels, grenades have them. You confused ROCKETS, with MISSILES. Or TANK SHELLS with MISSILES.
Next step, Bicycles have Wheels. Monster Trucks have Wheels. Bicycles are Monster Trucks. GG.
6) Lesson of making sense of life."Mathematics is the science of quantifying abstracts, Arithmetics is the science for accounting for objects".
The system used for missile damage, has to quantify things in a concise way. This is why "leading" the target, is represneted with an above 50% hit chance status and why 50% in EVE is "xweapon hits Y for z damage" and 100% tracking is "xweapon smashes y for z damage"
Missiles use the same level of quantifying abstracts, cause that's how programming works. You can't set a dataset to every single value on the book, cause math has some rules and sets needs to be able to even out when summed. So, the missiles, have merged some of the aspect of mssiles, like fuse timers and / or ballistic technology into RELATIONS to other abstracts, like EXPLOSION RADIUS.
This clears things up? No? I don't care enough to explain things more, not to be mean, but if you don't know you can move variables around an equation, it means you may not be able to understand the above example as well.
Also, In EVE, smaller targets, if hit by a missile from a larger ship, usualy means the pilot flying is a moron - no sugar coating, I was a moron such as those guys once, but I learned how to fly, I just learned to gt more angular - on my Kestrel I can outrun missiles all day long, since missiles have a lifespan which is equal to their flight time multiplied by their speed If a missile moves at 100 meters per second, and its flight time is 10 seconjds, it has a 1000 m range of operations, it will run out of fuel at 10 seconds, thus making it inert, despawining the missile in the process. I know, shocker, you can avoid missiels altogether. Now you know why SMART PEOPLE use rocekts for PvP, not Missiles. Missiles can be fended off with smartbombs as well.
If your transversal is kept above 1km for ten seconds, the missile cannot connect.
This also applies when the missile explodes, this is how the missile takes int oaccount "missile speed" on the explosion.
Also, NO MISSILE CAN LEAD A TARGET. That's not what predictive analytics can do. IT's math, not the Occult, a missile can't tell where target WILL BE, only to HOME-IN.
7)
I haven't played EVE in a long time either. Beam Sniper ships made me hate myself for cheating the game. -
30 minutes ago, Takao said:
Ähm, can you make a 64 ship fleet?
Wouldn't that mean that a 63 ship fleet is effectively unbeatable, as long as the 1 enemy ship isn't capable of destroying either all 63 ship or 1, so that you can trade 1:1?
You tell me. That's what people point to as a flaud in the whole system.
But their fanbase will just say"nah, it's gonna be fiiiiiiiine, they will amke 1000000000 ships fill i non place.. Also, the NPc population wil lbe 10:1. Yes, for every player, 10 NPCs will be in the game...".
It's not an MMO if it's Battlefield sized PvP.
It's not an MMO if it has matchmaking for essentially open world PvP.
In general, it's a cluster-F in progress the whole thing. Their Alpha 3.0 was suppsoeed to come out last year, o November, now it's pushed till Kingdom Cometh. -
13 minutes ago, Takao said:
Who sad their net code is revolutionary?
Fact is: their net code works better than most other net codes, because they achieve a very low latency by letting clients sent updates to the server once every frame and not on a fixed number or to a maxim at which the servers itself sends updates to the clients.
Yes, I'm still wondering how they want to manage bigger battles or at what ping you are playing these.
They may have a persistent universe, but they have different servers, like in WoW.
Peer-2-peer means that you don't have a server which runs the game / session, but instead the clients connect to each other directly.
Basically every online shooter does not use P2P. I know only of Destiny 2 that uses P2P.
CoD used P2P for the last 14 years or however long it's going for.
It's just that bad. And Destiny is supposedly an "MMO". Yeah, MMO built on P2P, lol.
As for Star Citizen ,the last thing I recall is that they worked mon makin each ship handle as an isntance, so, a local battle can have up to 64 ships, with upto 64 people in each ship, and use the ship as a parent entity for updates to everyone on board.
Problem with that, is, you guessed it, 63 ship fleets, vs 1 guy who cant'; call for backup. Lord Mandalore on yoitube have a good video on the whole game with a very good point on SC's instancing extravaganza. -
52 minutes ago, Takao said:
@korean netcode: well, yes and no. Good netcode will improve online experience everywhere. The test was done not on Korean servers, but on American (YouTube Channel „battle nonsense“).
I took the time to look up the Black Squad video he made (funny enough, I have seen his channel i nthe past).
Black Squad uses AWS servers - like DU does currently - to host the sessions. DU uses those servers to connect player locally, and the Actor Model takes care of the calculations. Black Squad's netcode, is not anything revolutionary, it's a dedicated server that can change location within the AWS cloud. Cool, but DU has Actor Model. Actor Model is simply what I described many times.
I may live in Northern Kekistan, and you may live in Southern Ponyville, we both connect to different servers on AWS' cloud, but in-ghame, we seem to be standing on the same patch of land. That'sActor Model for you.
However, Black Squad has NO innovative features, other than hosting games on a cloud server, thus keeping the distance between players at a relative minimum. It's using a 30hz update rate.
EVE runs at like 1hz. Literally, 1 update per second. But since they use CSP a lot, they have to actually slow down to verify the authoritatitive of the client, thus it goes even lower than that, the more people are on on a node. For PvP, it's great, everyone palys on the ssme latency, you can't claim "omg, lag" in EVE, that's the game where EVERYONE plays on the same footing.
I can't say for certain - not yet anyway - but DU can work at 4 hz probably (250ms), depending on the servers NQ rents from aWS (there are lots of different machines in AWS' clouid, from 400 USD rent to some really "ouch" prices). Thing is, 4Hz is not enough for shooting mechanics, not when the average gun fires at 5 rounds per second..
You are in one partition, and shoot at me on another partition, then the server updates both of us on damage status, but visually ,we get updated with a delay on me shooting you and me getting a hit marker, from partition to partition. But this requires a predetermined set within the action prediction the server does to make the updates happen. You just can't have bullets migrating partitions through the server, it would just tank the mainframe's performance - simialr to how an EVE node cracks under a lot of weight and hence why Ti-Di exists to begin with.Also now you see why people with actual education on these scoff at Star Citizen's "cloud based servers". 240ms delay works for DU's lockl-and-fire, not for SC's balls to the wall shooter with spawned bullets.
It's important to understand though, Actor Model has not been widely used for games before - not at this scale DU goes for. This is why me - as well as others - are on board with DU from the start. The game itself is an afterthought, we want to see this technical marvel come alive.
If DU succeeds, maybe games will start evolving and not utilise a piece of shit Peer-2-Peer host on every game. -
4 minutes ago, gyurka66 said:
I think i can suggest a better alternative that might even please Twerk.
As an engineer works on the same ship for a long time they should uderstand the mechanisms more and should be able to improve them thus making the ship more effective and personal.
That's still though, an aspect of what a gunner does. Engineers could do things like diverting power, or scripting better UIs for the gunners - which I have the suspicion might help in the long-run ,since not many people understand geometry).
Alternatively, like EVE has "Tracking Computers", an engineer can operate that part of the ship, similar to how a "buffer" acts in other MMOs.
Ships in DU are after all just group PvP. Roles like "healer" and "dps" still apply,. but for the whole ship, and the whole ship acts as a role of its own in a fleet.
-
32 minutes ago, Takao said:
That is wrong.
the mass of an object, and therefore it’s density, is CONSTANT and not proportional to the objects speed, as long as the velocity is not relativistic (<0,1 c).
Space combat will take place below that speed.
Also, moving fast will not increase your resilience for damage, because if you get hit, the projectile that hits you will be faster than you or if not, you will fly into it at your high speed.
speed is relative: there is no difference when you fly at x km/h into a projectile with 0 km/h or when a projectile with x km/h fly into a ship with 0 km/h.
for explosion mechanics:
in eve the damage of missiles is spread out over the missiles explosion radius. If the target (signature?) radius is lower, you do proportional less damage.
That mechanic is not very good and also misleading. The explosions main damage value should represent its force st point blank range and its explosions radius the max distance where the explosion can damage things. The damage is then correctly scaled over that distance (double distance = quarter damage). how much damage would cruise missile or torpedo (in eve) do against a stationary frigate?
That’s not what I’m talking about, see above.
Also, in the eve mechanics the explosion velocity of bigger missiles is significantly lower than of smaller ones.
Thats unrealistic and also, as far as I know, the calculation doesn’t take the missiles own velocity into account.
If the missile hits a target directly in the front, the explosion wave WILL hit the ship fully.
if the missile hits the back of the ship, it has to be at least as fast as the ship itself and therefor its explosion wave will be faster.
This is a conjecture of bad understanding of what Recursion is.
Density is as much a constant, as gravity is.
You don't need a faster projectile to hit a target, you need only tracking and leading. Leading targets is how snipers get to hit moving targets. It's standar practise, and it is used on ship warfare IRL. You HAVE to lead a target.
However, Newton's Second Law, means that if your bullet, was to hit a moving target, that is traversing a certain length of space with a certain force, and your bullet's Work is less than the target's Work, the target will displace (reduce its force of push / energy) the bullet.
In other words, the faster your kinetic energy the more it CAN make bullets bounce off of you if you were to move fast enough. That contributes to a virtual density of a target. Of course, this also means that a target, if they accelerate past a point of acceleration, they can shatter (literally explode) as if they would if they were to abruptly stop (decceleration is just acceleration to the opposite vector).
This means that EVE's model is accurate. You can track a target, you can hit a target, but if your leading is not right (expreessed with Ranges and Tracking), you won't do much damage.
This is why EVE has "smashing" and "hit" and "crushing" Hit Statuses. When it's "Smashing" it means the bullet hit on the 90% angle (full application of damage, no displacement, no bouncing off).
Welcome to math, it's fun here.
As for missiles...
no missile explodes on point blank. No person building missiles would do that, that's brain dead thing to do with missiles.
Torpedos, missiles and other ballistic warheads, explode on proximity, NOT contact.
Yoru signature radius means "how well can this missile see you". If the missile sees a large signature, it will far easily find the "center" to land the warhead near the object.
If the Signature is small, then the missile will try and explode where it THINKS the target is, givenm the target is so small, it can barely pinpoint it.
Explosions, lose potency with the further they travel ,as of the Inverse Square Law (the reason why sound grows weaker and why light becomes dimmer at ranges). Ihis also means, that if a Missile was to deal 10 KiloTonnes worth of an explosion, that would be spread across its entire surface of the explosion for T1, then half that for T2, then hafl that for T3 and so on.
In EVE, the "explosion speed" and "explosion time" means how much the dmg wil lbe multiplied, depending on how fast the enemy goes.
Frigates going at 4000 m/s , hit by a 100m/s explosion, will take x% of the missiles explosion radius (meters of explosion per seconf oexplosion), mitigated even more by how much of the explosion the frigate caught on its b ody.
I don't know if you played EVE a lot, but these things are kinda not known by newbros - or some veterans I've seen =shudders=.
There is a reason an in-game University exists in EVE Online to teach people all these things... -
Just now, Eternal said:
Does that mean you BOO's will not raid me? or the opposite?
I would like to ignored by BOO
We ignore everyone. We don't actively hunt people. Just saying ,if I am out and I come across you, I'll shoot first, ask qquestions never. That's how I handle people who do have misery-generation in mind.
I am proactive like that. -
44 minutes ago, Takao said:
I just hope that the combat in DU is at least fluent and not slowed down like in eve online....
netcode and bullets: not every game spawns physically bullets, some use a hit scan system (counter strike for example), where you shoot with laser pointers effectively.
also a higher server update rate (60<->30 per seconds) doesn’t automatically means a shorter lag (=time between you press fire and the shot is registered by the server).
there is a Korean ego-shooter with only 30 Server updates per Seconds but a shorter lag then most games with 60 updates per second.
Oh , never said the rate of updates reduces latent...er, latency.
The problem with any korean game's netcode, is that they use the advanced Telecom infrastructure found only in Korea .
It's the same thing with gamesl ike Tera, Blade & Soul(yeah, let's not talk about it) and Black Desert Online. They are all built on working with that certrain infrastructure, which is why Porting the Korean client into worldwide release is not very easy, since the netcode needs adapting.
As for the hitscan, sure, but the OP spoke of spawning projectiles. While hitscan COULD work for DU, it would not work with the way they partition the game world. Hitscans and probabilities mix as well as peanut butter and Budweiser.
And yeah, Ti-Di (time dilation) from EVE is not present in DU, but they do have demonstrated their take on this, with the delayed radiant updates from one partition on the server to another, so, your client can easily figure out what's happening ,by having a "streamed" array of actions and vectors to transition player models and ships on the screen. EVE's CSP model of Netcoding, is demanding Ti-Di, so the sequence of the netcode can service everyone equally.
If EVE deals with load in "time", DU deals with it in "space" via its partitioning of the server. -
13 minutes ago, Eternal said:
So Combat-system will be based on EVE's Tracking and Range. There is also just partial-damage(not 100%) if you do not hit directly. OK. I understand.
See?
Also, there is the "top-kek" as I like to call it, sniper gameplay.
If you can lock a target at 250km, but you got a short falloff, you can still hit them , if the target is not moving.
The hit formula guarantess that 1% of your hits, will deal 300% dmg, think of it like criticals in oter games, only the way you procur it is more "risky". That 1% Perfect Hit (now called Wrecking Hit), is a FLAT chance, meaning ,if you got 1% chance to hit, this 1% chance now is 100% on every hit you can pull off (1%).
But if the enemy target is not moving... now oyu get the idea. The maximum dmg model is "Smashing", at 150% damge, meant for Blaster ships or Pulser ships (or crazy a-holes who fly Autocannons). A sniper battleship, can dish out the same level of dmg as a brawler, by catching people off-guard.
Same thing works in DU if NQ so chooses to apply it, from AvA to CvC.
But I got a suspicion, given how Unigine has a lot of nice toys under the hood, they CAN do much more intricate things with the formula.
Still put you in a black list though, this suggestion of yours really tilted me. It's a recipe for toxicity. -
4 minutes ago, Takao said:
Ah ok.
I hope that will not be in du. I have played eve and the mechanic is very frustrating if you deal with battleships only a little bit damage to frigates even when you hit (especially with missiles!)
hit chance and damage should be generally separated.
UH... Explosions in space are not like in Atmoshpere.
Explosions work on a surfare area. It's not Star Wars, one missile CAN"T blow up a Death Star.
If your ship is only 1% of an explosion surface, and you are far off an explosion, you won't be affected. That's how PHYSICS work. EVE is very accurate on how missiles work. In atmosphere, explosions like nukes, are itnesified due to the shockwave - the mechanical wave - being propagated via air mollecules. in Space, explosions are just intense heat, no kinetic displacement to actually cause intense damage.
Also, if you flew a missile boat in eVE, and yo udidn't use painters, of coruse you'd do little damage. I fly bobmers (torpedo frigates) and I can easily blow up other frigates with two Target Painters (increase the enemy's signature, thus the y take more dmg out of oyur missiles and other people can lock onto them faster, like Sniper Battleships from 250km
God Bless synergies in EVE).
So, I guess you just played before you got to the good stuff ey? It's okay.
Also, I don't know what you talk about, but Rokh sniper-fit battleship can explode Frigates at 250km with one volley or two. It jsut takes a metric f-ton to lock onto them - which can be helped by smaller ships painting the target so you can lock onoy them faster.
Thing is, this is a "vague idea". DU has far more intricate netcode and physics displayed, so NQ can advance the sytem.
But like it or not, a ship's speed makes it take less dmage. It's just physics, if you don't like physics, you can go check str Citzien ,where Recursion is not even an afterthought on how ships fly.
F = m * a. That means the faster a ship goes, the more mass it has. And the more mass over a smaller volume, the more DESNE an obejct is. The more DENSE an object is, the more resilient is becomes when alternations are appleid to it.
This iwhat the hit formula emulates in EVE Online. It's math. If you don't speak math,. you better not speak at all when it comes to algorithms.
The chance to hit IS the damage generator.
An idea about construct vs construct
in Idea Box
Posted
That's the fault there.
F= m *a is written as such cause Principia Mathematica and the fact mathematicians are very picky on how equatiosn are portrayed.
You don't solve for F, you solve for acceleration.
And I did say a(0) is the inert state where only microgravity adds any if any acceleration. You can look back through it if you want.
So, for F(0) = m(0) * a(0) = 1000kg * 0.1 m/s2 (assumed microgravity of such a value)
F(0) = 100 Newtons. Any force greater than that will push the object foward.
Now, where's the issue. ENGINES, produce force, G is procurred by how efficiently the engiens push. That's the msitake you made, you approach this recursion backwards - which is a fault ,as we solve TOWARDS G, not given it.
If F(1) = 1000 Newtons (1 KN)
a(1) = F(1) / m(0) = 1 G.
But m(1) = F(1) / a(1) which as you can see, clearly is 1000kg... right?
But this is a SIGMA-notation. This is a summation of iterations and F(1) is a recursion and thus a non-variable. The "missing part", is what I amsaying that from the start. This is an iteration based system. You guys either didn't read that, didn't understand that, or thought Sigma notation is a code word or something
m(2) = m(1) + [ F(1) / (a(1) + a(2)) ] which is then nested in another sigmal Sigma. I won't actaully spell it out, for reasons that will become apparent at the end of the post.
This is as far as I can go before my serious-Twerk wave-function collapses and I revert back to my cave troll form until the next DevDiary, where I revert to my meme-machine form.
Blame it on my lack of careing to properly spell out an arguement to people who - I am assuming here - have knowledge of math, given how you guys keep insisting this thing is false.
If you can't understand why the above summation works, it's really not my problem beyond this point.
Also, Sigma-notation - if you happen to deal with scripts of any kind or code of any language - is the
"for i = 1 and i < 10 do"
Which means in Sigma-notation :
"for every 1 iteration, do this, until you reach 10 iterations"
So, no, I won't bother handing people a serious algorithm like "figure out if you can overtake a person on a collision with them, given your speed and their mass". You do it on your own free time.
I did promise to make NQ see the error of having no ship-to-ship collision damage, and I do intent on delivering with the most game-breaking mechanics on this side of the interwebs. Does that make a bad person for thinking like that? Who cares, certainly not I.
The moar you know I guess.
Have a good day. o7