If you mean a sv 200 blocks long shouldn't more as agile as a small sv, you are right. But to be fair the limiting factor is the mass here. A sv 200 blocks long can still be as light as a small cv, since cv blocks have way more mass.
Well I mean more than this, I gave numbers to show how size can "intersect" between the small and big voxel grids. To be fair the limiting factor is design. I insist on this because "design" is the act of distributing mass along axis and /or center, and this can yield very different results with two different designs with identical mass, same class ships. "Mass" is one of the parameters included in "design". A throwing disk (olympic) and a javelin can have the same mass, but they won't behave the same. "Design" is not a linear or monolithic concept, "mass" is only one piece of the puzzle that "design" tries to solve (or not...). So even with more mass, if a CV is designed compact with consequent thruster placement, and a lighter SV is made like an elongated fish with bad thruster placement, the CV will be more agile. And it only makes sense, "physically" and "structurally" speaking.
This is true to some extend. No matter how you design a ship, or distribute the mass, if it is heavy it will accelerate slower. There is no escape from that. But design is important especially relative to each ship, as you mention. You can design a very big ship with very light materials to make it relatively fast, for example. But again this will only work to an extend, and in game this is certainly broken.
If you want me to agree with this you have to be more "accurate" : thrust-to-mass ratio is what will determine acceleration. So "mass" again is only one factor here.
Thanks for reminder, but I am the one bringing the term thrust to weight ratio up in the first place, and repeating stuff doesn't really help as far as the experience goes.
Here we go, you nitpicking again. Do you have a memory wipe every time we speak? Do I need to repeat every single thing I said every time? Do you really expect me to spoonfeed every bit of information again and again? Read this, you obviously need to use it more. The argument wouldn't get this long for sure if you did. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning
You "forget" to be polite just like you "forget" to expose your ideas in a complete and meaningful way. One does not compensate for the other. When you write : " ... this is not "true" because "design" also includes deciding thrust for the mass. If you mentioned something different previously, it has no bearing on the comprehension of this one here. One problem in this discussion, as can be seen for a few pages now, is that you make off-topic comparisons and incomplete statements, repeatedly, while asking people to believe you are in total control of your subject, and it's the others that have problems. You get picked up on obvious mistakes, you start insulting. In your last posts you broke rules #1, #4 and #9. @Ambaire posted this just a few days ago (and forgot about it ?). .
Just came back after a few months away and its very impressive. Question about Shields though, are they completely useless or am I doing something wrong. First time out in SV on local moon in starter system and after two hits they are down white the structure shooting has apparently unbreakable Shields?
Unless it's changed, the best way to take out npc structure shields is to dig a tunnel under the poi and apply explosive charges to the underside until it breaks. You'll need about 30-50 of them.
Oh joy. Sounds like that won't be something I'll be doing. If this shield doesn't prevent me from leaving a trail of littered ships around the galaxy then it seems it is pointless then. Bit of a let down.
You are deliberately making me repeat myself, I have answers to all your nonsense and there are even people acknowledging my points while yours fail at every turn. You are bringing stuff up like we never discussed them and trying to win it by using populism, trying to show me like an unreasonable person relying on people that dont read past comments. Again, no matter how you design your ship mass is more important. It is basic physics, and more engine power wont help you since inertia is a thing. I am really tired to explain it over and over, go read wiki article or something and stop bothering me. [/QUOTE]
For people who fail to use deductive reasoning bringing pieces together, here are the arguments made against me and here are the answers: 1. Why energy change made to the game was important? Because thing with more mass takes more energy to accelerate, and ships consuming more energy with more engines and rcs should consume more energy. 2. Is design is more important than mass? No, if your design has a lot of mass it will be harder to move it since it will require more energy (inertia). This is the reason why number one priority in a real rocket is its mass, it wont go anywhere no matter how you design it until you solve that problem. 3. Is it reasonable to have a cv moving like a sv in the game? No. For the reasons above, to make a cv move like a sv you need to consume a lot of energy, and in current state it is broken. You cant claim it is fair that a cv with weapons and shields stronger than a sv is fair to move like a sv. 4. Doesn't engine power solve this problem? No. Since a hardened steel block is 32kg for SV and 2 tonnes (or 2000kg) for CV, thing with more mass has more inertia therefore require more energy to move. So engines for a CV should require a lot more energy. More engine you put faster you go, but each engine will consume exponentially more energy. That is the problem with putting more engines or more powerful engines, they cant help you after a certain point if you dont want to throw energy system in the game to garbage bin and say energy is limitless. 5. How about Multi-player? These dynamics are universal and applied by many other games, including multi-player ones. 6. How about Single-player? These dynamics are universal and applied by many other games, including single-player ones. 7. You can't create real physics in the game therefore your arguments are pointless. Yes, you cant recreate an exact copy of reality in a game (yet) but there are two good reasons to make it as real as it gets; first one is immersion, second one is the balance. So you borrow from real examples to make your game work properly. Yes, a game can work without realism but that becomes an arcade game at that point. There is no reason to make the game a simulation, but if we are going to direction of an arcade game we might as well make the game work with fluid dynamics everywhere. (How planes fly in atmosphere) 8. That much of realism is not necessary in this game. (Game works just fine for me) Ignoring problems other people have is not a good idea. Ask America.
It's almost fun to see you writing different versions of nonsense each time. That's not an argument, that's a question. Lol... " Is an ensemble more important than one of its elements ? " - " No, if your ensemble has lots of elements... " .
I don't have to explain myself for liking something or have I? The problem is that you can not like only a Part of messages... so what part you like and what not...may lead to false assumptions
Not you : he liked your post stating we have drag in space... after saying "the game might as well have fluid dynamics everywhere"...
