Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'physics'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Starting Zone
    • Rules & Announcements
    • The Arkship Pub
    • Novark's Organization Registry
    • General Discussions
    • Off Topic Discussions
  • Ideas & Gameplay discussions
    • Idea Box
    • The Builder's Corner
    • The Gameplay Mechanics Assembly
    • DevBlog Feedback
  • Fan Art, Fan Fictions & Roleplay
    • Novark Agora
    • Novark Archives
    • Novark Art Gallery

Found 12 results

  1. Since it has been confirmed that we will be able to build, let's call them "Megastructures", like Deathstars or possibly even howl moons, will it be a thing for man made vessels to have a gravitational pull. Meaning that if some group or coalition actually managed it to construct a space station with ~160km width I don't see a reason why it shouldn't attract small objects. Would it be to much load for the Servers to calculate the gravitational effects of every Ship, Station, etc?
  2. Re-Entry?

    While i know there are already some topics mentioning Re-entry i thought it fit to make an entire thread dedicated to this. Re-entry is something i believe Dual universe could use for a great deal of reasons. For example you could use it as a weapon, ramming ships into atmosphere to the point where they burn up. Not even to mention that it is a feature that few space sims like this have succeeded in. It wouldnt be too harsh on PC's as well. I cant see a little light coming off a ship and the ship exploding really affecting anything, especially considering what other things will be going on. Either way. Thats my suggestion. Not much, but yeah.
  3. Physics 'n stuff

    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
  4. Nuclear Physics Engine

    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.
  5. Lunar Revolution

    Planets won't revolve around their parent celestial body as far as we know but are we going to have moons of planets and maybe planetary rings? If so, they should revolve around their parent celestial body since they have relatively short revolution times.
  6. Collision

    Hello all, forgive me if this has been discussed before but i was wondering if ship collision would cause damage? I had an idea for a ship that would have a thick bulwark on the front that would ram enemy ships during battle but i hadn't seen any information of ship collision mechanics. Just wondering, thanks.
  7. Orbital Mechanics

    What do you guys think about orbital mechanics and other realistic physics elements? I personally think it would be cool to do a Hommen Transfer in my custom-built starship and sneaking up on enemy ships where they don't expect it. I suppose it would be cool to have other realism features, but this isn't that kind of game. Still, orbital mechanics are cool.
  8. Water physics

    The starting planet has a lot of water, will it have physical properties? Would love to dam a river and build a hydro plant, Producing large amounts of "free" power. I can see such a building being a very valuable asset, And target. Moats Aqua ducts Irrigation Canals Land reclamation Swamp draining So much game play from physical water. I'm sure a few headaches making it work as well.
  9. The BIPM

    All May I present https://community.dualthegame.com/organization/bureau-international-des-poids-et-mesures Yeah - I know - it's not the right place to post this. Ha!! Not really - pretty much the sorts of people who should be in it are here. Basic idea - this is a pre-alpha thematic org, set up expressly to: a) talk DU and standards - what would need to change from the world we know to the world we're going to. to note, discuss, propose and ratify standards as a community (using the forums etc) which can be passed to NQ for consideration. c) Write a bit of pre-history/lore to go along with all this. Because something has to be fun in stuff like this Now, because I've not tested this yet - if you are already a member of another group and the system won't let you apply and join - send me a DM and I'll add your name to a standing membership roll post - either way it's not a big issue as we're such a small community so far anyway that everyone knows everyone. I'll come up with some sort of psuedo-structure people can have fun with later on.
  10. Hello Dualiers, The plan right now is (according to what i have seen and heard) to have a stats based locking targeting system. it is extremely cheap. too cheap. the problem with it is that the battle becomes more of a dice roll, as can be seen in eve online. You target point blank on a battleship (miss) wtf... these kinds of things are frustrating. there are tons of ways to contour the problem with kinetic weapons and their delay, the easiest way to reduce performance drain is to handle them like a shell + their movement, it calculates then an intersection on that 4D-ish object (it is in practice flattened into 3D) every frame, not more expensive than having a player. then you can put a limit in the form of reloading time, real battleship shells take 10-20 seconds to reload in best of cases. besides that, lasers are practically free, but do less damage, and have tendency to overheat so you have to stop them quite often if not reducing their lifespan considerably, and use a lot of energy. you get the idea of the gameplay implications. this system would allow to handle all weaponry shots in one container, thus reducing development costs and code base pollution risks. this is mostly important if we want to make weapons interact between planets and space, as punching a hole in a vessel in space would be ludicrous from the planets surface. and what about 1000mm planet-space cannons, do these not ark? in addition to that this system would allow for massive increase in need of good targeting scripts or canoneers (there would be visual aid for players (can be cheaply calculated with raymarching, but it is relative t the memory architecture you chose for the physics mesh, if there is a phase where it is static in the loop, it may be worth it to do it asynchronously in a separate thread if it is the case) eve online opted for that system because it uses 1 second ticks, i don't think you work like that, and if it is the case there is no advantage to it except a relatively small amount of computations, as you would have to determine the voxel to break anyway... and what about people who want a fast fighter with Gatlings? locking would be so unsatisfying, especially if you target a starbase... but anyway, this is my opinion and my vision of locking may be wrong. hope you find this idea interresting . just remember, my point is control vs simplicity (pro control).
  11. I'd like to create a list of all the elements, voxels, and mesh ideas we would all like to build with in-game that have not been mentioned by the devs yet. A short list of what I'd like to see follows. Artificial gravity voxels with diminishing returns based on how close you are to a natural gravity well. Voxels with "traction" that the character avatar "sticks" to so we can build moving platforms we won't slide off of. Diminishing returns based on how far you are from a gravity well. Voxels that can only be constructed in certain conditions such as an airless, high, or zero-g environment. (Could make certain shipyards more or less valuable and/or capable.) Voxels that can have different properties if certain conditions are met. (apply power and you increase mass for instance.) "Floating" component voxels. Functionality identical to other types but for aesthetics only. (See my forum portrait for an example.) Anyone else with ideas? I think this thread could be quite expansive.
  12. Small Intro I'm the type of person who enjoys playing SI-FI survival games, space sims, and some voxel building games. I've played a handful of them including: - Space Engineers - Elite Dangerous - Modded Minecraft(?) - Landmark - Scrap Mechanics - (and let us pretend starforge didn't happen) I played more than those but those are the ones that came to mind Now let us get to the suggestions. My suggestions are going to be based on what I loved and hated about the games I played before and what I wish this game would have. Please be warned that some of them are on a large scale. Physics: From the games I played, I really enjoy an in depth physics system where everything has to be accounted for. Gravity, inertia, trajectory, weight, mass, velocity, etc. I would love to see that implemented in the game, I would personally enjoy it less if the ship I'm flying turns and shifts as fast as the camera. However, there is a certain point in the game where you have to allow for bypasses to make the gaming experience more enjoyable. Collision: Collision is a sensitive topic. While it's fine and dandy in theory, it is not easily implemented in games, *cough* Space Engineers *cough*. but I would enjoy a precise collision system to allow the creation of complex machines that can have gears and bearings. I would love to make machines that can do different tasks using basic materials and the in-game physics mechanics such as sliding doors and rolling windows. And while we're on the topic of collision, adding pistons and rotors would be nice. Pipes and Conveyors: This is a weird topic for debate. While it may not be in the game's scope, it's nice to have the idea out there Pipes and conveyors can change the way the in-game items are transferred. Having Fueling valves for ships (and anything that uses said fuel) and conveyors to unload cargo for processing or storage. Now this is where the physics bypass I mentioned earlier comes into play, allow the items to be transferred using conveyor tubes (within reason of course), such as limiting the tubes to certain volumes, for example: tube A can carry a maximum of say 10, and tube B can carry say a 100, the volume of a rock cluster is let's say 50, thus tube B can transfer the item but tube A cannot. And maybe the extra layer of: if it's too big break it down using a machine to allow smaller pieces to pass through. (This is just a random idea) Micro Machinery: This is a fun little idea I got when I read that the game would allow you to script to a certain degree. Now I don't know the details of this but this is a version I find interesting. Programming is not for everyone, some people like it, some people don't. So why not make it for everyone to enjoy. Allow scripts to be contained in "chips", a small item that can carry a snippet of code, and then allow them to be assembled onto boards. These boards would provide an I/O (in/out) functionality for the chips and allow them to work with each other if the snippet accepts it. And take it a step further, boards can be grouped on a computer unit where it would facilitate the I/O functionality of the boards working together. This would result in the market containing chips made by people, addons to existing chips, and blank chips. Now there is a flaw in this system, what happens when someone makes a chip that does everything. A solution for that would be consequences, if the chip's code is too long the chip is more expensive to craft, if the chip needs more I/O ports it adds up to the cost, have different boards support different chips. More expensive chips need more expensive boards, and thus a more expensive computer unit. This would not solve the "problem", it would just make it significantly harder to achieve so it would be reserved for the end game. (Oh and have it so the chips cannot be edited after finalization. Of course allow the author to do it using a coding machine of some sort). Spawning Mechanics: I don't like the idea of everyone starting in the exact same spot. I understand that the starting planet has to look a certain way. So why not have different identical starting cities on different planets, so the city is the same but the planet is randomly generated. People can choose a starting planet from a list of planets that have a pseudo limit on them. say a planet can only have 2000 players start on it, then it disappears from the list of planets to choose from and gets replaced by a newly generated planet. That is to allow friends to choose the same starting planet from the list. (and maybe allow invites so they can start on a planet their friends are already playing on).