Forged Alliance Forever Forged Alliance Forever Forums 2016-08-31T18:01:45+02:00 /feed.php?f=39&t=12876 2016-08-31T18:01:45+02:00 2016-08-31T18:01:45+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=12876&p=134085#p134085 <![CDATA[Re: real off-topic and off-world]]> Statistics: Posted by TheKoopa — 31 Aug 2016, 18:01


]]>
2016-08-29T12:13:26+02:00 2016-08-29T12:13:26+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=12876&p=133790#p133790 <![CDATA[Re: real off-topic and off-world]]>
TheKoopa wrote:
Just play Space Engineers )


All Space engineers like games show what SE should've really been like (Empyrion galactic survival, planet nomads, etc..) they arent exactly space engis but they definitly what it shouldve been like if the devs wouldnt focus on graphics which is what mostly ruins the game because no one i know can run SE in a planet with more than 50 fps

Statistics: Posted by Spearhead — 29 Aug 2016, 12:13


]]>
2016-08-29T06:22:28+02:00 2016-08-29T06:22:28+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=12876&p=133773#p133773 <![CDATA[Re: real off-topic and off-world]]>
AdmiralZeech wrote:
I mention anime because I don't think these sorts of tropes appear in english-language film/TV very much. English-language media seems to be more action oriented, with amazing feats from a single heroic pilot or captain winning the day, where the fleet is just a backdrop pew-pewing each other uselessly.

Asian fiction & myths historically have a lot more "tactician heroes", which might be why you can get away with anime where a large part of the show is diagrams explaining why Admiral X was incredibly brilliant and did this incredibly innovative formation that totally caught the enemy offguard etc etc.

That would be because the western ideal of a "hero" includes some measure of self-sacrifice. While western film does have the masterful tactician as a trope. Who can sway the final outcomes with their brilliance. Western film tends to glamorise the achieving of one's ends, for the greater good, through personal sacrifice.

Statistics: Posted by Hawkei — 29 Aug 2016, 06:22


]]>
2016-08-29T02:15:26+02:00 2016-08-29T02:15:26+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=12876&p=133764#p133764 <![CDATA[Re: real off-topic and off-world]]>
Nepty wrote:
I don't like Reebok anymore. I'm never buying their shoes again. Guess why. Just look below.

Image

I told it somewhere, they are everywhere, pls nerf.

Statistics: Posted by NapSpan — 29 Aug 2016, 02:15


]]>
2016-08-28T22:12:58+02:00 2016-08-28T22:12:58+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=12876&p=133739#p133739 <![CDATA[Re: real off-topic and off-world]]>
Image

Statistics: Posted by Nepty — 28 Aug 2016, 22:12


]]>
2016-08-12T05:32:47+02:00 2016-08-12T05:32:47+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=12876&p=132671#p132671 <![CDATA[Re: real off-topic and off-world]]>
The first one (a very old anime, but a classic) is a long series full of political intrigue and large scale space fleet battles. I really love this kind of stuff, detailed depictions of strategies and tactics, pitting commander against commander, etc.

The second is a really interesting take on space ship to ship combat (and then throw in a bunch of teenage girls.... ). Rather than using aircraft or naval as a basis, instead this show embraces the idea that space ships can use innovative and unknown technologies and tactics. It becomes a cat and mouse game, "Enemy ship detected! What kind of weapon do they have? How will they attack?"


I mention anime because I don't think these sorts of tropes appear in english-language film/TV very much. English-language media seems to be more action oriented, with amazing feats from a single heroic pilot or captain winning the day, where the fleet is just a backdrop pew-pewing each other uselessly.

Asian fiction & myths historically have a lot more "tactician heroes", which might be why you can get away with anime where a large part of the show is diagrams explaining why Admiral X was incredibly brilliant and did this incredibly innovative formation that totally caught the enemy offguard etc etc.

Statistics: Posted by AdmiralZeech — 12 Aug 2016, 05:32


]]>
2016-08-07T12:40:26+02:00 2016-08-07T12:40:26+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=12876&p=132381#p132381 <![CDATA[Re: real off-topic and off-world]]>
Gorton wrote:
Right, thanks for the clarification, from an earlier post I got that impression somewhere
I'm aware that having thrusters on opposite sides of the wings helps turning speed, but the same effect is caused by having a thruster fire left at the back of the viper, and at the front fire right. I'm also going to go out on a limb here and say that the starfury requires significantly more thrust to move, as it has more mass.

Aside from that, if you were already moving significantly fast, I don't think a starfury could in fact turn and accelerate in a different direction (without pivoting the main engines into use) - I googled it quickly and all the fans say it can, yet when I go find video clips, the fighters turn themselves (very nicely, i'll admit) to the back engines. That's pretty reasonable, and as to why - those smaller engines on the wings are certainly not going to be able to provide enough thrust to counter the velocity they've already achieved due to those larger engines along the back, unless they're not going very fast.
Probably a fundamental difference in what the writers thought was required to fight - in bsg they moved fast, in babylon5, not so much

I'm done, btw . I'd rather leave the theorycrafting battles to people who care

Also, I really want more good scifi shows (

I appreciate the sentiment. No point arguing about things which are the subject of personal opinions. ;) The BSG Viper is a nice looking craft and I wont say otherwise.

Though when it comes to space manoeuvre this is where Newtonian physics comes into effect.

1. An object will remain in constant motion until acted upon by a force.
2. That force is equal to the mass of an object multiplied by its acceleration.
3. For every force there is an equal and opposite reaction force.

So what this means is that when a spaceship turns it's thrusters off it will not stop, but it will continue with precisely the same speed and heading indefinitely - until acted upon by another force. So it can continue moving in one direction while pointing it's nose somewhere else and both the Viper and Starfury have this capability.

Now there is also another tradeoff for the spacecraft designer, which is that to achieve the best acceleration you need a high thrust to weight ratio, and this means you need to be carrying a minimum of dead weight. The problem with the Viper is that it is using a completely different set of thrusters for attitude control, and when it is accelerating in a straight line, those attitude thrusters are doing nothing. They are dead weight - and this poses a problem for the Viper designer... If they make the RCS engines too small the craft will not turn fast enough. If they make them too big then they will be carrying a lot of excess weight... Unlike a civilian spacecraft, military ones need fast turn rates and therefore powerful turning engines.

The B5 Starfury gets around this problem by using the main engines for both attitude control and forward thrust... The downside of the Starfury is that by moving the engines away from the centre of mass like this the designers have also increased the Mass Moment of Inertia (just like a flywheel). So that the craft now needs more torque to generate the same amount of spin. They have also increased the stresses on the airframe which means that the structure is probably heavier than the Viper.

Turning arguments aside, there is one critical difference between the Viper and the Starfury. The Starfury is capable of thrusting in any direction without the need for rotation. This includes the ability to apply retro-thrust. The Viper is only capable of thrusting in the same direction which it is shooting. For it to apply retro-thrust, or thrust in any other direction, this means coming about - which would likely mean that it cannot fire. In is a big disadvantage in manoeuvring combat.

One looks like a race car, with small silhouette and high speed . The other is blocky, turns on a dime and has more manoeuvring options. Impossible to say how these two fictional craft would actually perform...

Statistics: Posted by Hawkei — 07 Aug 2016, 12:40


]]>
2016-08-06T15:11:29+02:00 2016-08-06T15:11:29+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=12876&p=132320#p132320 <![CDATA[Re: real off-topic and off-world]]> Statistics: Posted by TheKoopa — 06 Aug 2016, 15:11


]]>
2016-08-06T14:10:07+02:00 2016-08-06T14:10:07+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=12876&p=132315#p132315 <![CDATA[Re: real off-topic and off-world]]>
Hawkei wrote:
Actually the engines on a Starfury don't move. Because they are mounted on pylons away from the centre of mass this means that (for example) activating the pro-grade thrusters on the ports side along with the retro-grade thrusters on the starboard side would cause the craft to spin.

One problem which I see with the Viper concept is that it has no retro-grade thrusters, and is using RCS thrusters to turn. This creates two problems, the first being (theoretically) a slower rate of turn. The second problem would be the need to turn completely about and use main thrusters for retrograde thrust. Something which almost every space franchise (including Star Wars) has never picked up on. The problem is seen in a lot of the battles where Viper pilots die - simply because they are closing too fast with their opponent, but can't slow down without breaking off their attack... and Viper pilots seem to have this suicidal tendency to shoot at stuff even though it means running into things ;)


Right, thanks for the clarification, from an earlier post I got that impression somewhere
I'm aware that having thrusters on opposite sides of the wings helps turning speed, but the same effect is caused by having a thruster fire left at the back of the viper, and at the front fire right. I'm also going to go out on a limb here and say that the starfury requires significantly more thrust to move, as it has more mass.

Aside from that, if you were already moving significantly fast, I don't think a starfury could in fact turn and accelerate in a different direction (without pivoting the main engines into use) - I googled it quickly and all the fans say it can, yet when I go find video clips, the fighters turn themselves (very nicely, i'll admit) to the back engines. That's pretty reasonable, and as to why - those smaller engines on the wings are certainly not going to be able to provide enough thrust to counter the velocity they've already achieved due to those larger engines along the back, unless they're not going very fast.
Probably a fundamental difference in what the writers thought was required to fight - in bsg they moved fast, in babylon5, not so much

I'm done, btw . I'd rather leave the theorycrafting battles to people who care

Also, I really want more good scifi shows (

Statistics: Posted by Gorton — 06 Aug 2016, 14:10


]]>
2016-08-06T08:19:52+02:00 2016-08-06T08:19:52+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=12876&p=132293#p132293 <![CDATA[Re: real off-topic and off-world]]>
Nepty wrote:
IE: it can immediately 180 turn and kill the target that was chasing it. A 180 turn without leaving position or current moving direction.
One of the best fighters in sci-fi history.


smells airmicro

Statistics: Posted by Masyaka — 06 Aug 2016, 08:19


]]>
2016-08-06T06:37:30+02:00 2016-08-06T06:37:30+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=12876&p=132291#p132291 <![CDATA[Re: real off-topic and off-world]]>
One problem which I see with the Viper concept is that it has no retro-grade thrusters, and is using RCS thrusters to turn. This creates two problems, the first being (theoretically) a slower rate of turn. The second problem would be the need to turn completely about and use main thrusters for retrograde thrust. Something which almost every space franchise (including Star Wars) has never picked up on. The problem is seen in a lot of the battles where Viper pilots die - simply because they are closing too fast with their opponent, but can't slow down without breaking off their attack... and Viper pilots seem to have this suicidal tendency to shoot at stuff even though it means running into things ;)

The Starfury
object

Statistics: Posted by Hawkei — 06 Aug 2016, 06:37


]]>
2016-08-06T00:58:30+02:00 2016-08-06T00:58:30+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=12876&p=132282#p132282 <![CDATA[Re: real off-topic and off-world]]>

Statistics: Posted by Nepty — 06 Aug 2016, 00:58


]]>
2016-08-06T00:48:34+02:00 2016-08-06T00:48:34+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=12876&p=132281#p132281 <![CDATA[Re: real off-topic and off-world]]> Hence, moveable engines are pointless. If babylon 5 is showing you that those moving engines at the back are somehow causing them to do 180 flips (It's been far too long, I don't remember) it's bollocks :D

Statistics: Posted by Gorton — 06 Aug 2016, 00:48


]]>
2016-08-06T00:06:11+02:00 2016-08-06T00:06:11+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=12876&p=132279#p132279 <![CDATA[Re: real off-topic and off-world]]>
Gorton wrote:
Hawkei, space.
It's space.
Think about that for a second, and realise that there is nothing stopping you from firing an engine sideways (even a tiny one) to turn , as there is no medium.
There's no real need for a turning engine.


Secondly, iirc starfuries also fire forwards. Not sure where you're going with that.


Okay okay I'll explain.
Starfury can do insane maneuvers:

IE: it can immediately 180 turn and kill the target that was chasing it. A 180 turn without leaving position or current moving direction.

A starfury also evaded a pursuing target by just moving straight upwards and letting the target pass under it. It was an instant upward move without changing its facing.

One of the best fighters in sci-fi history.

Statistics: Posted by Nepty — 06 Aug 2016, 00:06


]]>
2016-08-05T23:00:16+02:00 2016-08-05T23:00:16+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=12876&p=132267#p132267 <![CDATA[Re: real off-topic and off-world]]> It's space.
Think about that for a second, and realise that there is nothing stopping you from firing an engine sideways (even a tiny one) to turn , as there is no medium.
There's no real need for a turning engine.


Secondly, iirc starfuries also fire forwards. Not sure where you're going with that.

Statistics: Posted by Gorton — 05 Aug 2016, 23:00


]]>