Diminishing returns for propulsion stacking

Discussion in 'Suggestions' started by RadElert_007, Jan 6, 2019.

  1. IronCartographer

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2017
    Messages:
    919
    Likes Received:
    1,238
    Unless/until we get in-system warp jumps, speed caps definitely matter. Travel to moons, stations, etc.
     
    #41
  2. TmikeS3

    TmikeS3 Commander

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2017
    Messages:
    108
    Likes Received:
    64
    When I say the should not really matter. , is there effectively unlimited realistically. and should be high enough that even if you burned half way too the moon and then started a braking maneuver or retro burn , you should not reach what ever the theoretical speed cap. keep in mind with out something like an inertial compensator, and just are gravity generator to help dampen acceleration , We would not be able to handle an constant acceleration of more then about 4 or 5 gs and that would be unpleasant 1 gee we would not feel at all and 2 gees would be much more conferrable as we would only feel one gee of the accel . unless we assume that pilots and passenger seats are acceleration couches, and even then I don't see us being able to handle more then 10 gees or so... thought that might explain why we cant get out of or seats well the ship is moving, if we assume the ship is always doing a burn or retro burn. un less at a rest relative
     
    #42
  3. IronCartographer

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2017
    Messages:
    919
    Likes Received:
    1,238
    No, it's because of the inner workings of the game engine's physics combined with network latency making it impossible to guarantee relative coordinates and collision sensibility without certain assumptions and simplifications: Most notably, top speed, but also co-moving coordinate precision and/or relativism.

    This illustrates the challenges nicely:
     
    #43
  4. TmikeS3

    TmikeS3 Commander

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2017
    Messages:
    108
    Likes Received:
    64
    I understand because game engine limits there need to be things like top speeds. what would be nice is if the could be high enough so as not to matter realistically to us the player with the acceptation of being in a planets amto but that gives us a handy way to deal with that, and that's the terminal velocity. there is only so fast you can go throw a gas or a liquid as it takes time for the molecules to get pushed out of the way , I not sure what the top seed is now, but it use to belike wait 50 in amto and 100 in space, problem is that 100m/s is not even orbital speed that's like around 2 or 3 km/s well if your dealing with earth any one I think 100 m/s might be orbital speed for the moon
     
    #44
    TNTBOY479 likes this.
  5. TNTBOY479

    TNTBOY479 Commander

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2017
    Messages:
    159
    Likes Received:
    115
    I think the only thing that needs to be limited in terms of speed with big CVs is the turning speed that you can acheive with enough RCS blocks. Them acheiving top speed i dont consider an issue at all. Besides they would be pretty obsolete if they became too slow.
     
    #45
    TmikeS3 likes this.
  6. Sephrajin

    Sephrajin Captain

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2017
    Messages:
    790
    Likes Received:
    1,974
    And they dont.
    Stacking Imbalance sounds absolutly wrong to my ears.
    For a ship of bigger size you need more than juts 1 thruster per side.

    Dont get it wrong, just because there are high acceleration values, doesnt mean ist Combat capable.
    Specialy CV's that cant turn on a dime, are vulnerable = thus need to be a dreadnough = which shold not turn fast -> circle closed.

    It is up to the builder (you!?) to decide what s/he builds.
    It is up to the Player (you!?) to decide what he uses.

    If you neither build, nor subscibe builds that match what you're asking for/suggest to be used, you're not supporting that idea, but just demanding, while mainwhile cut off the freedom to build whatever we like -> for those that do not share the same point of view.

    For example, my builds often have 'high values' (30-70), because I want them to be compatible with my Scenario.
    True it only offers planets up to 3g as of now, but that doesnt mean higher G's are not planned.

    Meaning:
    Allthough (many of) my ships have a (too) high acceleration (not really, been told so by People who then chosen a ship with even higher values) , that doesnt make them 'fighters' but merly high gravity compatible.

    Conclusion:
    I know it is a new and strange concept nowadays… but find a place where you can fight with Honor!
    A place where other PvP'er share your PoV, and build/choose their ships according to predefined rules (such 'outlines' you mentioned).
    Only then you'll find the challenge and joy you're looking for.

    Oh.. and if you think 250 RCS are much, no it's not.
    It depends on the ship. I have a ship with 700 RCS, and it turns as much as 0.3°... and I know of a ship using 1500 RCS which handles just as bad...

    Realism aside, it's a game and this should make fun -> one should be able to build hughe fanstastic ships and be able to enjoy them.
    But to my feeling, we're heading very much the Sim way, why not play SE or ED then?

    Dreadnought:
    20181227004524_1.jpg

    'Fighter':
    20181226081701_1.jpg
    I agree on the speedcaps, in terms of: should be higher for both of them -> in space.

    my 2 cents
     
    #46
    IronCartographer likes this.
  7. RadElert_007

    RadElert_007 Commander

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2016
    Messages:
    154
    Likes Received:
    47
    Which is exactly what people do that allows CVs to turn on the dime.

    That and RCS spamming, both RCS and thrusters can be stacked infinitely.

    Well duh, obviously a ship can have the agility of a fighter but that doesnt make it good. However this is the same for any building technique.

    Yes... thats exactly what I am saying. Dreadnoughs should still be allowed to be durable, they just should not have the agility of a fighter while doing so.

    Building however you want is one thing, abusing mechanics which are objectively broken is another.

    You will not be forbidden from using capital ships, they just won't have the agility of a fighter while having 10 layers of CS.

    So you want to be continued to allow to abuse broken thruster stacking mechanics because you are unwilling to adapt your scenario to permit more balanced ships to be usable?

    The same flawed logic can be applied to people who believe that it is ok to abuse broken mechanics because "MUH FREEDOM", if you don't like the game being balanced then why not find a group who has no problem with game breaking balance issues existing?

    I did state that if this was to be implemented, I would like for server owners to be able to adjust how much diminishing returns effects thrusters on their server so they can change it from vanilla to whatever or even opt out completely.

    I never mentioned anything about RCS numbers...

    All I have said about RCS was that they could be stacked infinetly just like thrusters. Please read the posts so you understand what I am even saying before offering criticism.

    The "I should be allowed to abuse broken mechanics because muh freedom xDDDD" argument is a fallacy.

    Ok so you build some ships, what does this prove?
     
    #47
  8. TmikeS3

    TmikeS3 Commander

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2017
    Messages:
    108
    Likes Received:
    64
    What I would like to know is what are ships are using for Reaction mass, The Engines look like Ion or plasma engines, but those require reaction mass , I wonder if that would salve is problem, Which incidentally why I stooped using Ion engines in SE when they added the Hydrogen Engines. I know we need some had waving but Even the Enterprises impulse engines are basically plasma rockets using fusion reactors to heat of the reaction mass . and RCS also needs some kind of Reaction mass.
     
    #48
  9. geostar1024

    geostar1024 Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2016
    Messages:
    5,165
    Likes Received:
    7,095
    I've always thought it was Promethium, after it's been . . processed . . by generators. Unfortunately, fuel tanks have a constant mass right now, though with the advent of mass and volume they could finally have wet and dry masses.

    Reaction wheels and CMGs don't, though technically angular momentum desaturation is needed eventually with both (which usually means propellant unless you can be clever and use gravitational or magnetic gradients). Given that even KSP doesn't model angular momentum saturation in its reaction wheels, Empyrion probably definitely doesn't need to model it. RCS devices need very high power consumption when active, though.
     
    #49

Share This Page