Jump to content
Xplosiv

Inertia Dampeners?

Recommended Posts

The Devs could add a "High G Training" skill and the player can get more strength permanently, and on Heavy G worlds, they suffer no penalty on their movement speed or their stamina consumption. That's a good way of emulating the effects.

 

As for "live X amount there to gain X bonus strength"... well, don't know, it sounds like grinding, which the skill system the Devs want is ideologically against it, so, who knows.

Uh oh someone said gravity training

44a2be1144a6fde352e615daec51a2e42881ed95

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh oh someone said gravity training

44a2be1144a6fde352e615daec51a2e42881ed95

 

Think of this as any other RPG, where you add more Strength and Endurance bonuses to your character, only Strength is also a measure of how good you are at tolerating under G-Forces.

 

 

A warship's crewman SHOULD have the proper stats for the job, he's going into battle, with tight maneuvers and Gs, you can't have a crewman who won't be able to operate in such conditions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"

Inertia dampening is a wonderful feature to add--it gives immersion a significant boost. But, to have vehicles moving in space forever, without the aid of flipping mechanics, retrograde thrusters or black magic might be a little extreme for some. I'm not against realistic physics--rocket science should be implemented in a space game for the sake of the "space" in the name--but everything should be done in moderation.

KSP style mechanics aren't that difficult to learn (I imagine it took most of us the tutorial and a few flights to understand it) so I don't see why those with a good intuitive sense of Newtonian mechanics should be penalised as potential pilots over some newbie kid who doesn't even understand the DST triangle yet.

 

For the time being, however, it is best to let constructs stop moving due to the forces of deceleration. When the engines turn off, the object begins to slow down till it stops. In the future, we can explore the possibilities of putting Newton's first law in total effect. 

That goes against every sense of the world around us though. What's the point of differentiating between an atmosphere and space if they're both slowing the ship down? How can one make a space game feel like it's real without Newton's three laws?

 


 

Twerk, if I'm understanding correctly, these inertial dumpers are essentially fluids absorbing the momentum from accelerating? Sounds like the huge water drums they put in the upper floors of skyscrapers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Twerk, if I'm understanding correctly, these inertial dumpers are essentially fluids absorbing the momentum from accelerating? Sounds like the huge water drums they put in the upper floors of skyscrapers.

Dunno about that, first time I hear of such drums. The liquid solution acts as a G forces cushion. I guess because of the height of the floors and the rotation of earth the people on those floors experience greateer speeds??? Not enough to do the Vegeta thing, but enough to cause migraines, so yeah, those water drums COULD in-fact cushion those extra two decimal point G forces from affecting the people in them.

 

Essentially, think of a watership's hull and the spacing in it full of air, so the ship can float on water (because a battleship will sink otherwise). It's the same logic, only for a spaceship, you fill the spaceing in the hull with the liquid solution to cushion the crew of G Forces. It's not a nullifier, and the liquid got limits.

 

 

In the lore, the Arkship uses Kyrium, a man-made mineral that can absorb brutal decelerations an absorb the gravitational forces applied to the ship. I would guess, that high grade Dumpers would require Kyrium as their key components. It won't be like the Arkship's pure Kyrium, but it will be like an alloy of Kyrium and Techtetium for example, that provides the highest G Forces absorption.

 

As for the qeustion that will come by someone, that goes like : "But Twerkie. whys we cant haves Pure Kyrium Ship?"

 

Because Lil' Timmy, if your ship's hull can absorb 100% of G Forces, it means it is also immune to any form of damage. Look at the Arkship. How do you think it landed like that without shattering into leptons? Exactly. So, Pure Kyrium, not so much, Kyrium / Technetium alloys, maybe, with the grade of the material being equivalent to long and harrowing processing periods. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love what Twerk has proposed, but I doubt it will be implemented. At least not in the first release.

 

There definitely needs to be factors that will require player skill in order to fly the ship. A good pilot in a mediocre ship should be able to outfly a bad pilot in a good ship.

 

Whatever they do, I don't want to be standing on the bridge and watch my pilot sitting next to me goat faint while G forces have no effect on me. (Like a SC video I watched)

 

JC mentioned "player skill" in addition to "avatar skill", so I'm confident that whatever they do, it will be great!

 

(I have much more confidence in him than over CR)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope so too, but they may implement it by using boosters instead of dampeners. Just like in real life, reverse thrust stops forward motion, and as for as in-atmosphere, you should be able to stop/hover by having vertical boolsters.

This is, by definition, what an inertia damper is.  

 

I hope they have an inertia damper option.  Otherwise this game will not be fun...it's amazing how much gravity, friction, and pressure assist us in everyday life.  I have accidentally hit 'z' so many times in SE and turned off my dampers and paid a serious consequence for it!  

 

I know you think I have made a brash and serious accusation by saying it won't be fun without inertial dampers...but spending 3/4's of your time trying to stop your roll and xyz momentum is NOT fun.  If you think it is then you probably have too much time on your hands.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is, by definition, what an inertia damper is.  

 

I hope they have an inertia damper option.  Otherwise this game will not be fun...it's amazing how much gravity, friction, and pressure assist us in everyday life.  I have accidentally hit 'z' so many times in SE and turned off my dampers and paid a serious consequence for it!  

 

I know you think I have made a brash and serious accusation by saying it won't be fun without inertial dampers...but spending 3/4's of your time trying to stop your roll and xyz momentum is NOT fun.  If you think it is then you probably have too much time on your hands.  

The booster idea that's called an inertial damper / dampener, is by definition stupid at best.

 

It's like calling Deceleration as "Acceleration Dampening Force".

 

An inertia dumper is giving you leeway on how FAST you can decelerate, the boosters proposed are the DECELERATION instrument. They work together. The higher the quality of the dumpers, the GREATER the deceleration that can happen, along with how tight a shp's turn can be.

 

Those "boosters" that fire away from your destination won't keep your crew alive in order to accelerate to higher and higher speeds. An inertia dumper will, via the liquid method, as it would turn 50 Gs, to a more survivable 3 Gs (numbers could vary).

 

The boosters firing away, are the frigging BRAKE. A brake is not an inertia dumper, as dumpers are more like the Airbags. They are there so you won't die if you had to withstand a VERY brutal deceleration rate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The booster idea that's called an inertial damper / dampener, is by definition stupid at best.

 

It's like calling Deceleration as "Acceleration Dampening Force".

 

An inertia dumper is giving you leeway on how FAST you can decelerate, the boosters proposed are the DECELERATION instrument. They work together. The higher the quality of the dumpers, the GREATER the deceleration that can happen, along with how tight a shp's turn can be.

 

Those "boosters" that fire away from your destination won't keep your crew alive in order to accelerate to higher and higher speeds. An inertia dumper will, via the liquid method, as it would turn 50 Gs, to a more survivable 3 Gs (numbers could vary).

 

The boosters firing away, are the frigging BRAKE. A brake is not an inertia dumper, as dumpers are more like the Airbags. They are there so you won't die if you had to withstand a VERY brutal deceleration rate.

I'm thinking the inertial dampers would consist of some kind of quantum technology that generates a field inside the hull of a ship that bleeds kinetic energy from the objects inside the field at a molecular level by absorbing Higgs bosons or some other subatomic plot device.  A liquid filled interior would certainly dampen the effects of inertia but the added mass would make every ship wallow like a barge filled with lead.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There seem to be several ideas that could work from what has been discussed here, with multiple grades of performance being suggested a few times.

Maybe the "tech tree" of the inertial dumpers/dampeners would look something like this:

-Liquid: least expensive, decent performance, easieast to manufacture.

-Liquid-Tech Hybrid: more expensive, takes less space than just liquid, also lighter.

-Tech: expensive, smaller than Liquid-Tech and lighter, but requires more power to run than either of the previous.

-Tech-Kyrium Hybrid: very expensive and hard to obtain, lightest/smallest yet with stellar performance, requires less power than just Tech.

-Kyrium: insanely expensive and rare, but the best of the best!

 

Now, I am sure some you creative minds out there could come up with a way to give each type an advantage/disadvantage over the others, instead of a straight tech tree like I did, (worst-to-best,) like maybe Liquid could have an advantage somehow, other than price?

Or Kyrium could have a weakness?

Then you would end up with other combos too, like Liquid-Kyrium!

 

Edit: Ooh! Here's an idea! As you move up the tech tree, each level is effective for a smaller area than the type before! So while a Liquid dumper protects the entire crew/ship, by the time you get to the Tech level, it only protects one room in the ship, or can be split for less effectiveness over several rooms, and so on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm thinking the inertial dampers would consist of some kind of quantum technology that generates a field inside the hull of a ship that bleeds kinetic energy from the objects inside the field at a molecular level by absorbing Higgs bosons or some other subatomic plot device.  A liquid filled interior would certainly dampen the effects of inertia but the added mass would make every ship wallow like a barge filled with lead.  

Too bad the Developers have Kyrium in the Lore. If the Arkship had to use Kyrium to cushion G-Forces and not some quantum macguffin. 

 

Notice, water IS a medium to dump inertia into, but it's not the most efficient. There are researchers who've made liquid armors, kevlars filled with silica-rich fluid on its interior, to withstand the shockwave of a bullet almost entirely, and I'm talking 7.22 here, not 0.22.

 

The liquid goes WITHIN the hull's layers by the way, not WITHIN the ship. You would not have people floating in water.

 

Also, the way I see it, the Devs will have alloys that utilise Kyrium being used as "layers" when making a ship's to withstand high G forces, that's a very good reason for good builders to shine through.

 

Pure Kyrium is unknown of how it is made, so I expect for Smelters to be able to make Unpure Kyrium which can't absorb the full of Inertia, but can absorb some of it, with Unpure Kyrium being combined with other minerals to create like, Stainless Kyrium Steel, or something along those lines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Too bad the Developers have Kyrium in the Lore. If the Arkship had to use Kyrium to cushion G-Forces and not some quantum macguffin. 

 

Notice, water IS a medium to dump inertia into, but it's not the most efficient. There are researchers who've made liquid armors, kevlars filled with silica-rich fluid on its interior, to withstand the shockwave of a bullet almost entirely, and I'm talking 7.22 here, not 0.22.

 

The liquid goes WITHIN the hull's layers by the way, not WITHIN the ship. You would not have people floating in water.

 

Also, the way I see it, the Devs will have alloys that utilise Kyrium being used as "layers" when making a ship's to withstand high G forces, that's a very good reason for good builders to shine through.

 

Pure Kyrium is unknown of how it is made, so I expect for Smelters to be able to make Unpure Kyrium which can't abosrob FULLY Inertia, but can absorb some of it, with Unpure Kyrium being combined with other minerals to create like, Stainless Kyrium Steel, or something along those lines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There seems to be some confusion in this thread about the physics and terminology.

 

Inertia doesn't refer to motion or kinetic energy or whatever. Inertia is a property of mass, or in fact a numeric quantification of mass, that describes the propensity of the object possessing that mass to resist changes to its state of motion (i.e. resist acceleration, hence  F = m * a -- acceleration due to a given force depends on mass, AKA inertia).

 

To me, the sci-fi term "inertial dampener", refers to a technology that allows e.g. passengers of a vessel to accelerate at rates that would otherwise injure them (squish them like pancakes, rip their cells apart and turn them into a paste like a centrifuge would, etc). This is achieved by creating a force field that uniformly accelerates the occupants (only force I know that does this to all matter equally is gravity, but for argument's sake lets say an EM field of some special construction) instead of squishing them forwards mechanically. This is more or less a given in a game that involves interplanetary travel within play-session-sized time frames (a trip to Mars in a few minutes or hours? Well, you could do it in maybe a day or so if you accelerated half way at 1g, and decelerated the rest of the way -- but if you wanted to do it in minutes you'd be exposed to hundreds of times the equivalent of earth's gravitational acceleration and ... you'd die ... so you definitely need dampening for that). Other compromises in realism will also have to be made when you consider you'd be traveling at notable fraction of the speed of light in doing that, and we really don't want to model time dilation and other relativistic effects (Right, guys? Given the fact that the game is being played in a more or less inertial frame of reference where simultaneity is a given? It wouldn't make for fun gameplay -- it should play more like a space opera than ultra-hard sci-fi).

 

On the other hand, hovering in place without user input, or bringing a moving ship to a halt on its own, represent completely separate mechanism, and refers to delegating the responsibility of applying force to the craft to an automatic control system rather than having a user micromanage thrusters individually. Given that the developers have already outlined roughly how ship building and scripting will work, and that in general we'll be allowed to program the behavior of elements such as thrusters and automate them to some degree, I can posit with pretty good confidence that it will be possible for individuals such as myself to create such automatic reaction control systems and the like at our leisure, and the OP needen't worry about it.

 

As for realistic Newtonian physics being involved in space travel, or motion in general -- I'm all for it. Sure it might be difficult for a layperson to grasp that you need to decelerate to stop in a vacuum devoid of friction etc. but the aforementioned control systems and scripting should allow for players who do understand physics to make crafts that are automated to a degree that they seem intuitive for a layperson to pilot. I think it would be cool and worthwhile to have the underlying physics to be realistic, and just allow the players to build a layer of abstraction on top of that to make ships behave more like what people are used to on earth, or at least make things easy to pilot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There seems to be some confusion in this thread about the physics and terminology.

 

Inertia doesn't refer to motion or kinetic energy or whatever. Inertia is a property of mass, or in fact a numeric quantification of mass, that describes the propensity of the object possessing that mass to resist changes to its state of motion (i.e. resist acceleration, hence  F = m * a -- acceleration due to a given force depends on mass, AKA inertia).

 

To me, the sci-fi term "inertial dampener", refers to a technology that allows e.g. passengers of a vessel to accelerate at rates that would otherwise injure them (squish them like pancakes, rip their cells apart and turn them into a paste like a centrifuge would, etc). This is achieved by creating a force field that uniformly accelerates the occupants (only force I know that does this to all matter equally is gravity, but for argument's sake lets say an EM field of some special construction) instead of squishing them forwards mechanically. This is more or less a given in a game that involves interplanetary travel within play-session-sized time frames (a trip to Mars in a few minutes or hours? Well, you could do it in maybe a day or so if you accelerated half way at 1g, and decelerated the rest of the way -- but if you wanted to do it in minutes you'd be exposed to hundreds of times the equivalent of earth's gravitational acceleration and ... you'd die ... so you definitely need dampening for that). Other compromises in realism will also have to be made when you consider you'd be traveling at notable fraction of the speed of light in doing that, and we really don't want to model time dilation and other relativistic effects (Right, guys? Given the fact that the game is being played in a more or less inertial frame of reference where simultaneity is a given? It wouldn't make for fun gameplay -- it should play more like a space opera than ultra-hard sci-fi).

 

On the other hand, hovering in place without user input, or bringing a moving ship to a halt on its own, represent completely separate mechanism, and refers to delegating the responsibility of applying force to the craft to an automatic control system rather than having a user micromanage thrusters individually. Given that the developers have already outlined roughly how ship building and scripting will work, and that in general we'll be allowed to program the behavior of elements such as thrusters and automate them to some degree, I can posit with pretty good confidence that it will be possible for individuals such as myself to create such automatic reaction control systems and the like at our leisure, and the OP needen't worry about it.

 

As for realistic Newtonian physics being involved in space travel, or motion in general -- I'm all for it. Sure it might be difficult for a layperson to grasp that you need to decelerate to stop in a vacuum devoid of friction etc. but the aforementioned control systems and scripting should allow for players who do understand physics to make crafts that are automated to a degree that they seem intuitive for a layperson to pilot. I think it would be cool and worthwhile to have the underlying physics to be realistic, and just allow the players to build a layer of abstraction on top of that to make ships behave more like what people are used to on earth, or at least make things easy to pilot.

First, there will be warpspeed, so you won't have to travel between planets for 3 to 5 hours with sub-light speed.

 

Second, you won't be getting to 0.99999999999 c, because the devs would not allow for it. Think more like top acceleration being 0.2 c , and that's a very generous acceleration as far as my expectations go.

 

Third, the way their servers update, if you were to go at - for the sake of arguement - 0.99999999999 c, a person looking at you 1,000,000 kilometers away, would see you moving very very very fast on their perspective and would have no way of predicting your position with accuracy for an intercept as you would be practically move to fast for them to know where you are at. That's the closest thing to relativity in a game, as NOTHING in simultaneous on the server, except for people and objects that are nearby. Everything else, has a time delay. So, if you were to start turning going a 0.9999 c, they observers would not be able to tell until you were already turning and heading their way. 

 

Fourth, the maneuverability and inertia play a role on ship to ship engagements and pilot skill being needed for a 6 DoF cruise control of a ship. Without inertia, mass and speed become irrelevant, and ship builders do not have to compensate for anything, which can lead to banana shaped ships. Why put effort and thought in thrusters placetments for spins and turns? So yeah, those micromanagements in Lua do not only come into play on cruise controls, but also on regulating how much a ship can turn, given how many G the crew could tolerate depending on inertia, either an enclosed frame as I suggested, or the unified field shenanigans which can be emulated via the "Artificial gravity" route. The point is, earth applies gravity to all of us, but last I've checked an earthquake will sure as heck shake me around. Same deal with ships. They gather speed, hence mass and they tremble due to that, so the gravity idea can't really work, cause it would mean that the ship's part can't be moved by any external force, hence, indestructible ship, like the conundrum of the Stark Trek inertial dampeners, that for some reason, make the ship shake :P If you were to maneuver around in a ship, going at 0.1 c and begin to turn at an angle the ship shouldn't, the Lua scripts of the navigator would prohibit them from doing so. That's what te Lua are here for.

 

In my opinion, the Devs have an excuse for making quality of materials that reduce the effects of G-forces via the Unpure Kyrium explanation of the lore. It would make miners and smelters create a cartel of Unpure Kyrium, it would allow good builders to shine and it would make pilots who know of their ships' limits distinguish themselves from the average nooblord. The Devs only need to make the engine figure out an enclosed voxel space of that material frame is meant to take less G-forces. Who knows, if they do that they would also be able to emulate atmosphere and depressurisation as well. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, there will be warpspeed, so you won't have to travel between planets for 3 to 5 hours with sub-light speed.

 

Yes, exactly the kind of compromise with realism I was refering to. So since you're warping, you get to travel at relativistic velocities without having to deal with relativistic effects. Yay.

 

Think more like top acceleration being 0.2 c , and that's a very generous acceleration as far as my expectations go.

 

Speed, not acceleration. And yeah, maybe, but it doesn't really matter.

 

 

Third, the way their servers update, if you were to go at - for the sake of arguement - 0.99999999999 c, a person looking at you 1,000,000 kilometers away, would see you moving very very very fast on their perspective and would have no way of predicting your position with accuracy for an intercept as you would be practically move to fast for them to know where you are at. That's the closest thing to relativity in a game, as NOTHING in simultaneous on the server, except for people and objects that are nearby. Everything else, has a time delay. So, if you were to start turning going a 0.9999 c, they observers would not be able to tell until you were already turning and heading their way. 

 

That's not the kind of simultaneity I'm talking about. Additionally, the difficulty in "leading" targets doesn't come from velocity (which is trivial to compensate for with simple extrapolation), but from acceleration (for which you can only have probabilistic models to predict with, in the case of non-formulaic, stochastic motion) and other, higher derivatives of position with respect to time (jerk, snap, etc.). A computer can predict a perfect shot on a target moving at constant velocity, and a human operator of the weapon can arrive at it with heuristically (shoot too far ahead, behind, eventually hone in).

 

My guess is also that light speed will not be modeled as a finite quantity. That is to say, that the only delay between an explosion happening on the other side of the solar system would be the time it takes from it to arrive from the server responsible for simulating the explosion to your client machine, i.e. less than a couple hundred milliseconds. Mainly because it would not yield much benefit (as far as I can tell) and would add some overhead.

 

 

Fourth, the maneuverability and inertia play a role on ship to ship engagements and pilot skill being needed for a 6 DoF cruise control of a ship. Without inertia, mass and speed become irrelevant, and ship builders do not have to compensate for anything, which can lead to banana shaped ships. Why put effort and thought in thrusters placetments for spins and turns? So yeah, those micromanagements in Lua do not only come into play on cruise controls, but also on regulating how much a ship can turn, given how many G the crew could tolerate depending on inertia, either an enclosed frame as I suggested, or the unified field shenanigans which can be emulated via the "Artificial gravity" route. The point is, earth applies gravity to all of us, but last I've checked an earthquake will sure as heck shake me around. Same deal with ships. They gather speed, hence mass and they tremble due to that, so the gravity idea can't really work, cause it would mean that the ship's part can't be moved by any external force, hence, indestructible ship, like the conundrum of the Stark Trek inertial dampeners, that for some reason, make the ship shake :P If you were to maneuver around in a ship, going at 0.1 c and begin to turn at an angle the ship shouldn't, the Lua scripts of the navigator would prohibit them from doing so. That's what te Lua are here for.

 

I'm still not convinced you understand what inertia means, but regardless, I'm not advocating implementing inertialess (i.e. massless) ships. That's part of the reason why I corrected the usage of the term inertia and specified what I was talking about with inertial dampeners. The term "inertial dampeners" as it stands, is a misnomer -- the mechanism I described (also how it's used in popular culture) has nothing to do with inertia, per se. It is about applying acceleration uniformly, rather than only to, say, the back of a passenger (because they'll break down based on the sedimentary principle due to the force being applied as a pressure to the back rather than to every particle individually).

 

Your earthquake analogy is not applicable. What's a more apt example of the effect is how it feels to be in freefall in earth's gravitational field, versus how it feels to stand on the ground. You can feel the strain the force the ground is exerting on you to stop you from being accelerated by the field is causing to your tissue (compared to falling, where you feel no such strain at all). In free fall, while you're still being accelerated at 1g, you can't feel it, because the acceleration is being applied by a gravitational field (I won't confuse you any further by bringing relativistic interpretations into this so we'll just treat gravity as a force/field). Similarly, you could accelerate at 10-20+g if you got close enough to Jupiter, for instance, and that 10-20+g would feel like nothing so long as you were being accelerated by the field rather than by being pushed by an object (analogous to a rocket).

 

Also the whole "gather speed, hence mass" part is nonsense, if we're talking about inertial mass. What you're probably trying to get at is kinetic energy or momentum, which are different things entirely. And I've no idea where you called that indestructability thing from -- it's not a consequence of "inertial dampening", a function of the ship being applied inwards to its occupants, rather than to any parts of the ship itself -- and even if it was, external forces would still cause the same kinds of differentials that accelerating in a ship without dampening would cause, i.e. damage.

 

 

In my opinion, the Devs have an excuse for making quality of materials that reduce the effects of G-forces via the Unpure Kyrium explanation of the lore. It would make miners and smelters create a cartel of Unpure Kyrium, it would allow good builders to shine and it would make pilots who know of their ships' limits distinguish themselves from the average nooblord. The Devs only need to make the engine figure out an enclosed voxel space of that material frame is meant to take less G-forces. Who knows, if they do that they would also be able to emulate atmosphere and depressurisation as well. 

 

Yeah, whoever wrote the lore on Kyrium doesn't seem to understand physics very well either if they imply that somehow blocking gravitons from entering the ship (which is the only real consequence of having "graviton absorbing ship material" or whatever, is that these particles would be blocked from entering or leaving the ship, thereby limiting the effect of outside gravitational fields from affecting the occupants, which could be useful near a blackhole or other strong non-homogeneous gravitational fields where tidal forces become problematic) would save the occupants from the detrimental effects of acceleration by pushing, which it most certainly wouldn't, since other force mediating particles (gluons and photons mainly) could still move through the Kyrium hull, not to even mention the fact that the passenger-surface interaction doesn't work through the hull at all, it's decisively internal and hence completely independent of any particle absorbing effects the hull might have -- the force carrying particles would have no issue whatsoever effecting the particles of the passengers' surfaces in the normal, destructive way in high acceleration situations.

 

Putting all of that aside, however, I see no reason to just either forego simulating g-forces altogether or to add some sort of feathering effect based on how good your ship is or something -- and then give a physicist-friendly lore explanation for it (e.g. some BS about artificial gravitational fields somehow generated without lugging around actual planets with your ship -- still better than "graviton absorbing" at any rate).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still not convinced you understand what inertia means, but regardless, I'm not advocating implementing inertialess (i.e. massless) ships. That's part of the reason why I corrected the usage of the term inertia and specified what I was talking about with inertial dampeners. The term "inertial dampeners" as it stands, is a misnomer -- the mechanism I described (also how it's used in popular culture) has nothing to do with inertia, per se. It is about applying acceleration uniformly, rather than only to, say, the back of a passenger (because they'll break down based on the sedimentary principle due to the force being applied as a pressure to the back rather than to every particle individually).

I did comment the exact same thing 3 pages ago :| Inertia is the resistance an object demonstrates on being moved. That's why I used the term "Inerita Dumpers", which is not "Inertia Dampener".

 

Inertia Dumpers are meant to cushion the effects of G forces applied to the crew inside and they are actually scientifically accurate, they are a medium in which you dumb G forces so the effects resistance inertia applies to the crew will be far less than normal, as the cushion will make the atmosphere itself inside the ship quite unbearable. 

 

The basic idea of this, is that you can have the hull of a ship flooded with a dense liquid solution, uniformally spread to wushion the effects of acceleration and retrograde deceleration.

 

Also the whole "gather speed, hence mass" part is nonsense, if we're talking about inertial mass. What you're probably trying to get at is kinetic energy or momentum, which are different things entirely. And I've no idea where you called that indestructability thing from -- it's not a consequence of "inertial dampening", a function of the ship being applied inwards to its occupants, rather than to any parts of the ship itself -- and even if it was, external forces would still cause the same kinds of differentials that accelerating in a ship without dampening would cause, i.e. damage.

I guess you proved Einstein and his theory wrong. Good job. Apparently, acceleration is not a thing needed to achieve higher and higher speeds, because apparently, objects don't become heavier and heavier the faster they go, thus needing more force projected to them.

 

 

Also, the lore is sound as far as G forces go. They need an element to explain why the ship is plunged on the planet's surface and why it isn't shattered to pieces. They got it. Kyrium is a man-made material.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did comment the exact same thing 3 pages ago :| Inertia is the resistance an object demonstrates on being moved. That's why I used the term "Inerita Dumpers", which is not "Inertia Dampener".

 

Inertia Dumpers are meant to cushion the effects of G forces applied to the crew inside and they are actually scientifically accurate, they are a medium in which you dumb G forces so the effects resistance inertia applies to the crew will be far less than normal, as the cushion will make the atmosphere itself inside the ship quite unbearable. 

 

The basic idea of this, is that you can have the hull of a ship flooded with a dense liquid solution, uniformally spread to wushion the effects of acceleration and retrograde deceleration.

 

That still wouldn't work as well as the typical Sci-Fi dampeners. Even if you were immersed in fluid, it still wouldn't permit hundreds of g -- because although the surface that's accelerating you is now touching every part of your skin, your body is still non-homogeneous and the denser parts will concentrate towards the way you're being pushed from. And it would have to be completely solid or you'd just slowly drift through the material, depending on density -- so really a pod of some kind would be more desirable. The kinds I've seen in Sci-Fi books actually involve filling the lungs and other cavities in the body with the gel as well which further helps with structural integrity, but it only works down to the level of tissues (cells would still get ripped apart at centrifuge-levels of acceleration).

 

The incorrect parts that I'm talking about specifically are where you say things like "absorb inertia", or that inertia increases with velocity, neither of which makes any sense. Inertia can't be "absorbed" or "transfered", unless you mean transfering mass (which is basically the same as inertia) -- you're probably talking about kinetic energy or momentum. Also, inertia (resting mass) is constant and independent of velocity, unlike for instance the aforementioned kinetic energy and momentum. 

 

 

I guess you proved Einstein and his theory wrong. Good job. Apparently, acceleration is not a thing needed to achieve higher and higher speeds, because apparently, objects don't become heavier and heavier the faster they go, thus needing more force projected to them.

Also, the lore is sound as far as G forces go. They need an element to explain why the ship is plunged on the planet's surface and why it isn't shattered to pieces. They got it. Kyrium is a man-made material.

 

You're confusing inertia (resting mass) with relativistic mass. I doubt the game will incorporate Einstein's theories of relativity, or have relativistic effects of any kind -- as I  already stated. I avoided bringing up the topic as much as possible to avoid further confusing people who struggle with basic mechanics (a far simpler collection of physics principles than relativity).

 

Relativistic mass arises from the mass-energy equivalence that comes into play at relativistic speeds. But as I said, I don't think there's any benefit (especially considering the cost of simulating things of such complexity, not to mention the difficulty of designing a game around such models) in including relativity. I won't go into the very complicated math/physics involved as I don't think there's much point in the context of a thread where people struggle with basics like the Pythagorean theorem -- and it wouldn't serve any purpose anyways.

 

As for your comment regarding Kyrium, you either don't understand the notion of g-forces or you didn't read the part where I underline how there are more than just once force mediating particle (that, unlike gravitons, actually exist and are much more germane when examining things like collisions, where gravitons are not a factor).

To re-iterate: things like touch (e.g. crashing into a planet) are mediated by particles that give rise to electromagnetic force (read: photons, not gravitons) and therefore Kyrium, as described by their lore, is useless when it comes to sustaining crashes and protecting the crew inside. I already explained possible use cases for such a material but they're few and far between and certainly not what the writer intended.

 

 

[EDIT:] I also urge you to note how far off-topic this discussion is veering, and remind anyone still reading that we've addressed the OP's inquiry in that I think we all agree that the kind of system he's refering to (due to Space Engineers confusingly introducing a third use for the term in addition to the typical scientific and the typical Sci-Fi sense of the word) probably will be in the game in some form. So... /thread, I guess?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're all arguing scientific theory vs game design.

 

This topic can be broken down into TWO factors that can be addressed programmatically.

 

1.  Construct Inertia - which is part of the flight model

2.  G force effects upon the avatar

 

I completely agree with Twerk that we would want "player skill" involved with piloting a ship.  Having a construct model inertia is important.  It doesn't need to be "true newtonian physics", but having some drift will go a LONG way to making piloting challenging.

 

Another factor used in flight sims is G-LoC (G Force related Loss of Consciousness).  Flying a plane at its mechanical limits, may exceed the physical limitations of your body.  This results is that your avatar experiences a blackout, or redout.  

 

Even rotating a LARGE construct on its axis will exert LARGE forces upon the avatars that are at its extremities vs those avatars close to the axis.  The math involved would be quite significant.  And this doesn't address the MASSIVE G forces that would turn you to jelly, when accellerating to FTL speeds.

 

Its easier to say in the game lore that this issue has been resolved through scientific development.

 

Unfortunately, that removes the "G-LoC envelope" when it comes to piloting a ship.  It makes piloting easier.  That's why construct inertia SHOULD be implemented.  It will create an opportunity for a player to develop skill in flying the ship.

 

I'm completely open to other factors that would make piloting a ship challenging, but believe G-LoC should be removed via game lore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're all arguing scientific theory vs game design.

 

This topic can be broken down into TWO factors that can be addressed programmatically.

 

1.  Construct Inertia - which is part of the flight model

2.  G force effects upon the avatar

 

I completely agree with Twerk that we would want "player skill" involved with piloting a ship.  Having a construct model inertia is important.  It doesn't need to be "true newtonian physics", but having some drift will go a LONG way to making piloting challenging.

 

Another factor used in flight sims is G-LoC (G Force related Loss of Consciousness).  Flying a plane at its mechanical limits, may exceed the physical limitations of your body.  This results is that your avatar experiences a blackout, or redout.  

 

Even rotating a LARGE construct on its axis will exert LARGE forces upon the avatars that are at its extremities vs those avatars close to the axis.  The math involved would be quite significant.  And this doesn't address the MASSIVE G forces that would turn you to jelly, when accellerating to FTL speeds.

 

Its easier to say in the game lore that this issue has been resolved through scientific development.

 

Unfortunately, that removes the "G-LoC envelope" when it comes to piloting a ship.  It makes piloting easier.  That's why construct inertia SHOULD be implemented.  It will create an opportunity for a player to develop skill in flying the ship.

 

I'm completely open to other factors that would make piloting a ship challenging, but believe G-LoC should be removed via game lore.

Yeah, i just want a feature, where you can hit a key and your ship stays in that position the best it can. instead of your ship being bumped and drifting off into the void. If that's even possible, if your ship stays in place as long as you don't move it via the controls. I would be fine with that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...