VS physics vs "real" physics

[safemode]

Disclaimer: Bored at work


the #1 issue is SPEC

SPEC as described in VS documention, compresses space in front of the ship (used to be along the ship's velocity vector) and expands space behind it, allowing the ship to appear to travel faster than light yet locally SPEC does not alter the ship's speed at all. SPEC is affected by gravity wells and shields, gradually gaining power as the force of gravity decreases or the distance from shields increases.

Problem #1: If you are compressing space-time, then you can't travel along that same space-time and not also be compressed.

That is to say, if i fold a piece of paper (crinkle-style) in order to compress it's length, then traveling along the paper does nothing for me. I would follow the folds and no shortcut would be made. In order to travel just the crinkled distance, i must travel in a dimension that is off of the surface of the paper, so that i start on surface of the paper on one end, and pass through the crumpled paper and exit on the opposite end on the surface again.

You cannot have SPEC travel without tunneling yourself off from the normal universe. Either you are traveling in the normal universe, and in such a case, your SPEC engine would not function as intended, or you become isolated from the regular universe temporarily and travel in another "space", one might call it a hyperspace or subspace.

What this means is that a ship in spec is no longer visible/detectable or otherwise existing in the universe everyone else is in. It should not show up on radar, it should not be able to be fired upon or collide with anything, most obviously it should not be visible to the eye.

It also means that a ship that's in spec wont see, detect or otherwise interact with anything in the regular universe. What a ship in spec "sees" when one looks outside of the canopy is up to artists interpretation, but it would have no likeness to the regular universe.

Indeed, the one possible accurate thing about spec is that it's effected by gravity. This makes a lot of sense since gravity is likely an extra-dimensional force and could concievably have an effect on SPEC travel.

So the changes that would need to be made in the game would be that turning on spec would result in that ship blipping out of existance. likewise, the ship that initiated spec would enter some sort of hyperspace where they no longer see or detect the normal universe. Relying totally on instrumentation and the computer to determine where they are in the regular universe.

Secondly, a ship that is speccing, dropping out of spec and speccing again, will show up on the radar as multiple blips of the same ship. This is due to the speed of light (which the game doesn't really care about anyway so it's a moot point).

Thirdly, While gravity wells the size of planets can nullify SPEC, the gravity of a ship is infinitesimal. Even a base. SPEC'd ships not designating a given base as a destination, should simply pass through any such bases along it's path.


Furthermore, the idea of SPEC caps are a necessary part of SPEC travel in making it more believable. The energies needed to manipulate space-time must be so great, that it doesn't make any sense at all why one would be able to harness such power in the SPEC engine, but not in weapons or shields.


Issue #2: Lasers aren't visible in space.

That's just a fact, end of story.


Issue #3: Missiles fired in space actually move through space, not air

Currently our missiles are all designed as if they were being used in air. They're not. It makes almost no sense at all to make missiles long in space. First, a long missile makes it very unlikely that the missile can turn in any meaningful amount once fired. This leaves dumbfires.

Secondly, missiles in space that turn sharply and track down ships trying to evade them are highly unbelievable. Any missile attempting to do a 180 would require a massive amount of fuel and it would have to come to nearly a complete stop when turning around. The idea that a missile could keep on an evading ship would imply that missiles have extremely complex and powerful engines, not something that would be anywhere near cheap.

Additionally, it makes very little sense for missiles to be designed to do anything but penetrate a ship prior to exploding, as exploding on the surface of the ship contributes a very little portion of it's energy to the ship. So while an elongated tube may not make much sense in space, a missile with a conical nose still does, indeed, the cone should be a very high strength drill bit and the missile should be rotating extremely fast during flight, acting as a sort of gyroscope to keep the missile stable during it's travel too.



well, back to work for now.

[HoodedWraith]

I don't have long enough handy to throw anything else out there but a reply to the missile section:

With the scales I keep reading about, the stuff you're throwing in a llama is pretty big, and the cap ship missiles are huge. A tracking missile in space could even be treated as if it's playing with gravitic propulsion (which is probably still too unsafe for humans or some such) which would allow it to crank an 80 degree turn rapidly.

As for the last point you make about missiles: x-ray warheads. I know I've been quoting the Honorverse pretty frequently, but a lot of his work makes sense. A missile with a one shot laser array, basically, which ends up destroying itself but delivering a heck of a wallop to the target.

Edit

The array isn't a targeting array, it just sends it out like a modern fragmentation grenade.

[safemode]

Gravimetric propulsion for missiles (with the disclaimer that it's too unsafe for people to use in ships) is pretty weak. Besides not being a known technology in VS, such a technology would be readily used for unmanned attack ships. The maneuverability would be such that remote control would make much more sense and the effectiveness would make it worth the added cost.

Now, yes missiles are big and so despite most of the energy being lost in a blast that explodes on the surface of a ship, the damage would still be significant. But, the shape of the missiles still doesn't make sense in space, since the engines of a missile are so far away from the center of gravity, they would be quite slow at responding to turn requests, and even more so, they would almost certainly always hit their target sideways. Since they are elongated, this distributes the blast over a wider area, decreasing it's effectiveness.


What's my idea for a missile?

Mixed. On one hand, the only missile i can see being worthwhile to create is a penetrating missile. No payload. Just a hunk of mass that blows a hole through the enemy's hull. Fuel, bombs etc, would just weaken the structure of the missile. So we're not really talking of a missile here, so much as a really really big bullet.

I dont think the rest of what missiles do in the game is very believable at all. It's a holdover from wanting to play WW2 dogfighting games but in space, cuz space is really cool. It's not so much as a matter of suspending disbelief, but just that it doesn't fit at all.

Basically the weapons in the game should follow a Beam, Bolt, mass projectile, special system.

[chuck_starchaser]

SPEC as described in VS documention, compresses space in front of the ship (used to be along the ship's velocity vector) and expands space behind it, allowing the ship to appear to travel faster than light yet locally SPEC does not alter the ship's speed at all. SPEC is affected by gravity wells and shields, gradually gaining power as the force of gravity decreases or the distance from shields increases.

Problem #1: If you are compressing space-time, then you can't travel along that same space-time and not also be compressed.

That is to say, if i fold a piece of paper (crinkle-style) in order to compress it's length, then traveling along the paper does nothing for me. I would follow the folds and no shortcut would be made.

I believe SPEC is based on the Alcubierre drive, which doesn't fold the sheet of paper; it compresses it, then stretches it back behind you. Think of space as a very stretched sheet of rubber: if you pull it towards yourself it doesn't sag, because it was already over-stretched like a million times; so if you can keep the rubber sheet compressed (de-stretched) as it passes under your feet, you may walk on it slowly, but move through it at great speed. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with Alcubierre; the math goes way over my head; but that's the concept: a "compressing" rather than a "folding" of space.

In order to travel just the crinkled distance, i must travel in a dimension that is off of the surface of the paper, so that i start on surface of the paper on one end, and pass through the crumpled paper and exit on the opposite end on the surface again.

That's a different concept: taking a wormhole or shortcut.
But if you're talking about leaving 3D space altogether, without a wormhole, then that's yet a third concept: That would be "sub-space" or "hyper-space" drive (AFAIK synonims). The idea here is a bit different: Assume that our normal space is, rather than a "brane", a 3D interface between two 4D mediums of different densities, such as the surface of the sea is the 2D interface between two 4D mediums. Sea ships travel on the interface; and are limited in speed not so much because of "friction" with the water, but because of the energy lost to causing waves (wakes) on the surface. Submarines can travel much faster than surface vessels, as they don't produce surface waves. The idea with sub-space/hyper-space drives is that you dive below the 3D interface of normal space; and then the speed of light (which is surface waves in normal space) no longer applies, and you can zip through that 4D space much faster, and re-surface to our normal 3D space when you want to. A hyper-submarine

You cannot have SPEC travel without tunneling yourself off from the normal universe. Either you are traveling in the normal universe, and in such a case, your SPEC engine would not function as intended, or you become isolated from the regular universe temporarily and travel in another "space", one might call it a hyperspace or subspace.

If my theory is correct, that SPEC is based on Alcubierre, then you can definitely have SPEC travel without tunneling. Alcubierre theory doesn't even consider hyperspace.

[HoodedWraith]

Gravimetric propulsion for missiles (with the disclaimer that it's too unsafe for people to use in ships) is pretty weak. Besides not being a known technology in VS, such a technology would be readily used for unmanned attack ships. The maneuverability would be such that remote control would make much more sense and the effectiveness would make it worth the added cost.

Now, yes missiles are big and so despite most of the energy being lost in a blast that explodes on the surface of a ship, the damage would still be significant. But, the shape of the missiles still doesn't make sense in space, since the engines of a missile are so far away from the center of gravity, they would be quite slow at responding to turn requests, and even more so, they would almost certainly always hit their target sideways. Since they are elongated, this distributes the blast over a wider area, decreasing it's effectiveness.


What's my idea for a missile?

Mixed. On one hand, the only missile i can see being worthwhile to create is a penetrating missile. No payload. Just a hunk of mass that blows a hole through the enemy's hull. Fuel, bombs etc, would just weaken the structure of the missile. So we're not really talking of a missile here, so much as a really really big bullet.

I dont think the rest of what missiles do in the game is very believable at all. It's a holdover from wanting to play WW2 dogfighting games but in space, cuz space is really cool. It's not so much as a matter of suspending disbelief, but just that it doesn't fit at all.

Basically the weapons in the game should follow a Beam, Bolt, mass projectile, special system.

Well in that case, drop 'light' missiles entirely and leave the missiles as cap ship weapons. Capitol ships will always be portrayed as mounting missiles, and realistically they'd be just as useful (especially penetrator birds like the one you're describing) as beam weaponry, moreso in fact. Missile tubes take up far less space than beam weapons, require less power to operate, and may fire far more rapidly than most beam weapons could realistically hope to without trading power for fire rate. True, typical HE missiles would be a bother; but laser warheads, shatterbombs (like a cluster bomb but with far more velocity behind small, penetrating explosives), and certain types of 'dirty' bombs would work quite well. In fact, while a clean near miss with a nuke wouldn't scratch the hull, the sudden electromagnetic pulse would still cause some havoc with sensors in a small section of the ship (should it have amazing shielding). Dirty bombs are simple: flood the area with enough radioactive contaminants to cook the crew, maybe even some of the systems, but leave the hull intact.

Personally, I do agree. Light missiles track entirely too well for them to be realistic. With conditions as they are, they should be limited to long range aids against fleeing or approaching vessels, and really would be rather simple to sideslip, since a realistic course correction would be something along the lines of a 45 degree arc for pitch and yaw (yes, a full 90 degree cone, woohoo!), even-no, especially for a capitol ship missile. Most of that mass is, in the end, warhead, not propellant.

[Phlogios]

I like the points you're making about the AI of the missiles. I agree that a missile should be designed to only be able to turn slightly, not follow a looping/spinning/whatever ship.

Invisible lasers, I vote no. Let's just call the weapons something else instead! I don't know, maybe having blasters that shoot gases or something (like in Star Wars).

[HoodedWraith]

I like the points you're making about the AI of the missiles. I agree that a missile should be designed to only be able to turn slightly, not follow a looping/spinning/whatever ship.

Invisible lasers, I vote no. Let's just call the weapons something else instead! I don't know, maybe having blasters that shoot gases or something (like in Star Wars).

Or tightly focused magnetic lines that somehow erm.... react with the particles that're being used to power the energy beam and cause light? >.>

Yeah, ok... definitely a reach there.

The missiles I can't take credit for, I've been a reader of military sci fi for far too much of my rather short (so far) time on Earth, and those are pretty much the only thing they point out for missiles, because they all mention that it takes far too long for the missile to loop back around and hit a target, so they self destruct or lock on another target with the same IFF codes.

I'd expand further, but I'll have to leave it for when I get back from a bit of a weekend getaway. Catch you all on the other end of the jump node!

[safemode]

a lot of the issues vs physics has with real physics is gameplay oriented. Obviously, invisible beam/laser type guns dont make much sense in a gameplay perspective, despite being completely realistic.

unfortunately the "gas with beam" type idea doesn't make sense when you consider your beam weapons and such are moving at the speed of light.


real warfare in the future in space is gonna be pretty damn dull looking. With random explosions with no visible cause as high powered lasers get pointed to and fro.

[chuck_starchaser]

All you need to defend from a laser is a mirror, though. And whoever shoots the laser will have to spend the next 24 hours dissipating the waste heat generated.
Discussing realism of future warfare would be a really good exercise; but it would need to be done in isolation; rather than get matters muddied by constant sniping arguments about whether this or that would be good for gameplay, or easy or hard to simulate... A brainstorm about realistic futurology would need to be free of any other contexts, or it would lead nowhere.

[loki1950]

So what better place than here in the OT forum

Enjoy the Choice

[chuck_starchaser]

Well, I'd love to have such a discussion, but,
a) I believe it would be OT here, because, well, I'm not sure exactly what safemode wants discussed in this thread, but I think the future of warfare is not it.
b) I'd like to know there are interested parties, and that they'd be willing to commit to such a discussion, and to commit to not letting VS-related concerns get in the way of it. Whether or not the conclusions it leads to have any relevance or value to VS would have to be judged later.

NOTE:
I would NOT come into it with any preconceived ideas. I've many times thought "wouldn't it be great to brainstorm about future space warfare?", but I've never done it. Having said that, I would expect other people to come into the discussion without preconceived ideas as well, rather than insisting that any favorite staples of sci-fi be included.

[loki1950]

Then we wait on safemode's input an yes a new thread would be best.

Enjoy the Choice

[safemode]

the discussion of the future of warfare is not something i think would get very far outside of the comparison to preconcieved notions of sci-fi space combat.

That being said, it's still important to compare VS physics to real world physics. The visibility of lasers in space is of major importance in so far as to identify just how obvious something can be yet still easily be ignored by users as being believable.

I would say that 10 out of 10 users will readily accept visible laser fire in space. Yet how many would accept that a ship can travel faster than light yet still be tracked by methods that would be limited by the speed of light, or be affected by things in normal space when a ship traveling faster than light would be required to be traveling outside of normal space? How many would accept that missiles behave much more like they are flying in an atmosphere and the ships seem to be designed for the most part as if they are to fly in at atmosphere, yet apparently never do?

Indeed, you can even find that most people will accept that ships fly in space like they fly in the sky. Yet the nerdier of the bunch will see through this farce. Even still, the idea that lasers are invisible in space is easily ignored by those because it's obvious that visibility is needed for gameplay sake.

I think understanding this conflict in logic is integral to making sure the game "physics" is robust and believable. It's not something that can just be decided by least believable or most believable, but that users actually determine believability in relation to what they have determined to be necessary for gameplay to function.

This thread is not meant to be a thread about what's wrong with VS physics, but what about VS physics needs to be wrong, and what can be made right out of the lack of need to be wrong.

[chuck_starchaser]

I see.

Well, you've already put it in a nutshell. Visibility of lasers is necessary for gameplay, so we accept it. Tractor and repulsor beams are not necessary to gameplay, IMO, so I hate them.

I do think VS is in serious trouble; I've been saying so for like 7 years. The problem is it was originally inspired on WC Privateer, but aimed to be "better". I don't mind science fantasy, frankly; though I value Hard Science Fiction a lot more; but the worst you can have is badly planned in-between's. For an example of pure science fantasy, we got PU. For an example of Hard Science Fiction, I can offer future mod Tadpole.

For a short description, in Tadpole, the fastest cargo ship you can get has a massive VASIMR thruster and a nuclear power plant that can push you at a steady 0.3 G's, generating artificial gravity for the crew by virtue of constant acceleration. It accelerates at 0.3 G's during half of your trip, then turns 180 degrees and deccelerates at 0.3 G's during the second half of the trip. At that acceleration, a trip to Mars would take 5 days. A trip to Pluto, about a month and a half. Player time == game time. No cheating. What you have is an alarm clock, like in Fallout 2. And you have tons of work to do during the trip: research, maintenance, lining up cargo contracts for the next trip, and the one after, answering emails, chatting with the ship's computer...
Not sure how "realistic" that is; but it will be a hell of a lot more believable than Vegastrike. Combat we also plan to make as realistic as possible, but we haven't brainstormed about it much yet.

What business books that advocate that you "listen to your customers" miss out on is that if you listen ONLY to your customers you'll never gain new ones. You need to listen to your NON-customers if you want to expand your market. I think the same thing applies to games. If you only listen to what Vegastrike players want to see, you'll just continue to please Vegastrike players, and no-one else. I once was saying to Hellcat that space travel should take longer than it does and he almost laughed at me; or I think he actually did; and a bunch of other forum members too. Turns out most players were complaining it took too long to get from one place to another. So, that's the conondrum: You got the type of player that just wants to shoot at things, and those morons are the majority, unfortunately. Then you get the rest of players, who want story, who want challenging trade, true economics, who want a deep background, like to be able to follow a merchant ship and discover a trade route that makes sense, who want physics realism, etceteras. If you make the process a democratic one, Vegastrike will continue to drift towards the level of an arcade. Hell, there was even a bunch of players I remember once, who wanted to see automatic credits paid for every enemy ship you destroy... speaking of arcades...

All that to reply to one sentence"

Indeed, you can even find that most people will accept that ships fly in space like they fly in the sky. Yet the nerdier of the bunch ...

So I answer with another question: Do you really care what *most* people want? No great work of art was ever made democratically, and there's a reason for it.

As for the rest:

What we accept or not is based on our knowledge of how things actually are, first of all. To someone who doesn't know physics or astronomy or who has any clue about anything, asteroids moving around in circles and "nebulas" that look like clouds in space and feature lightning and interference is perfectly fine. To someone who knows the first thing about asteroids or what nebulas are, these are terribly offensive things.
So, whom do you want to cater to?
Needless to say, I think a game or book or movie should cater to the knowledgeable, even if the ignorant were to throw a tantrum. Why? Because the ignorant will be made less ignorant by it, and they will thank you, eventually; and will have a fond memory of a game that taught them so many things they didn't know before they played it.

And what we accept or not is also based on our perception of how necessary it is, if it's not realistic or believable. I perceive exactly zero necessity for asteroids that spin around a center for no reason. I perceive zero game necessity to have clouds in space misrepresenting nebulas. So I'm doubly peeved about such things.

But there's another issue: Communication and Organization. Many years ago I complained also about ships only having thrusters at the back. I said "how come ships are able to accelerate and deccelerate frontally, backwardly, laterally, vertically, etceteras, and as powerfully in all directions; yet the models only show thrusters at the back?" JackS took this complaint of mine more seriously than most, and set down the guidelines that future ship models should have retro thrusters and maneuvering thrusters. And he keeps repeating this week after week, and yet models keep coming in with only thrusters at the back; or with diminutive retro thrusters at best. I think there's a necessity for strength in communications. There need to be at least a few model proposal threads locked and with "REJECTED" appended to their titles, to serve as examples to others. There needs to be a bit of flaming and charisma shown to disabuse the masses from the concept that this is some kind of potluck project.

[TBeholder]

the #1 issue is SPEC
SPEC as described in VS documention, compresses space in front of the ship (used to be along the ship's velocity vector) and expands space behind it, allowing the ship to appear to travel faster than light yet locally SPEC does not alter the ship's speed at all.
Problem #1: If you are compressing space-time, then you can't travel along that same space-time and not also be compressed.

...for external PoV (FoR) ? It depends on specific spatial anomaly. Metrics differ.
w_a) AFAIK, warp anomaly in Alcubierre style compresses space before and decompresses behind. Working area is surrounded by "wrinkle" anomaly, but in itself is "flat" and can be non-scaled.
w_b) Some kind of symmetric "spatial lens" could do the same, but direction is irrelevant: this anomaly indiscriminately compresses space it covers, so when moved it compresses area it enters and decompresses area it leaves.
Center of working area must be flat to avoid anomaly affecting ship, but
w_b1) in the "hill"-like anomaly it's scaled flatspace.
w_b2) in "jug"-like anomaly it may be non-scaled... and not strictly related to "jug neck" radius, so "jug" configuration could lead to arbitrary external size... and unique set of issues.

In "hill" (simplest) case of "spatial lens", ship inside magnification "lens" (normal travel mode) is enlarged for external PoV: moving 100 m locally at 10x warp is moving 1000 m externally. V = dL/dt, so if Vexternal = Vinternal * Kwarp and you don't want to meddle with time (or give up hope of coherent multiplayer), this explicitly means Lexternal = Linternal * Kwarp. Anomaly is large: for working area Rexternal = Rinternal * Kwarp, then add width of anomaly itself.
And vice versa for reduction "lens" (sometimes can be useful too).

(w_a) vs. (w_b) is, so to speak, "force" warp vs. "potential" warp. Choice affects maneurability, because warp rate (as it is) does not raises instantly (which is sensible if it's in direct relation to energy pumped into "warp field"). Therefore lateral warp rate would be achieved only at the expense of longitudinal, and if asymmetric spatial anomaly is not instantly turnable, lateral acceleration should not be multiplied instantly upon command.

w_c) More complex, but also more interesting case (i'd try this way if i saw implications better, and chuck_starchaser already mentioned this in VS context) would involve starting with strict (in any FoR and any instant, not "when warp drive will be turned off again" or special FoR) momentum conservation, trading inertial mass for velocity, i.e. in external FoR Vwarped = Vflat * Kwarp, Mwarped = Mflat / Kwarp, if this can be tweaked to FTL (which depends on used RT and its interpretation).

Short review of FTL variants is there, also some links.

It should not show up on radar, it should not be able to be fired upon or collide with anything, most obviously it should not be visible to the eye. [...] What a ship in spec "sees" when one looks outside of the canopy is up to artists interpretation, but it would have no likeness to the regular universe.

It depends. For "lens/hill" anomaly you can sit stationary in someone's FoR while having warp rate>1 but less-than-light speed (you attain 1 km/s multiplied 2x, and they accelerate by the same 2 km/s using only jets, then you rest relative to each other again).
But when you move FTL, obviously you can see anything only in fore cone and is visible in aft cone, but not vice versa. Some signal for passive sensors may pass, but radar is useless, in and out, in any direction. And at 90 c visibility cone is narrow and signals are bound to be dopplerized very far. Incoming FTL ship is detectable only by warp field detectors.

Indeed, the one possible accurate thing about spec is that it's effected by gravity. This makes a lot of sense since gravity is likely an extra-dimensional force and could concievably have an effect on SPEC travel.

It depends. But even if we consider gravity to be usual physical field (quantums and all) and not inertia-like warp field as in GRT, still
g_a) gravity can somehow affect warp anomaly itself (e.g. you need to spend more and more power just to sustain its proper form, then it becomes impossible),
g_b) gravity affects warp drive and used interactions (even if warp is "below" gravity, generator and its EM fields are still "above"),
g_c) gravity forces may intensify because effective inert mass is reduced but not gravitational mass, so ship is pulled harder.
g_d) normally safe level of space curvature in almost flat working space (where ship is placed) causes gravitational heterogeneity and thus deformation forces, amplified due to (g_c). It's not direct effect, but "reduce warp rate or be torn apart" constraint. Then you could slightly override default safety to reduce warp limitations at the cost of some damage to large pieces like hull and armor (it's better to bend some girders than to be fried).

Thirdly, While gravity wells the size of planets can nullify SPEC, the gravity of a ship is infinitesimal. Even a base.

1) true, but specific masses and distances needs to be calculated.
2) apart from gravity, if anomaly is large enough, it's borders will simply touch objects and interact with them (this hinders SPEC-zipping around at point-blank distance from another ship or even missile). Decrease in anomaly size reduces warp rate.

the idea of SPEC caps are a necessary part of SPEC travel in making it more believable. The energies needed to manipulate space-time must be so great

Agreed, though whether it's spent mostly to raise warp rate higher than it is, or to constantly at full power depends on choice of model and warp drive variant.

[safemode]

the problem that you are ignoring with the spatial lens and other warp methods you mentioned is that space-time is not a 2d fabric that can be compressed and uncompressed in isolation from what's on it. You are made up of whatever the hell space-time is. If your device compresses or warps space-time, yet does not in some way remove you from normal space-time, then you too will be compressed or warped by the very engine you are using.


Thus, you will have no net effect. The only _ONLY_ way to have a net effect of moving FTL with these warp type devices is to be removed from the universe in which the device is affecting. In doing this, you guarantee that anything in the normal universe is cut off from your ship, otherwise you would be still within the affected space-time that your device is warping and thus render it useless.

So while i agree, there are multiple ways to envision the warping of space-time around your ship, there is only one way to travel across that warpage without succumbing to the same effect.

thus, the overall effect is as i stated, you are removed from the universe that the rest of everyone else not SPEC'ing are in. You can't see them, they can't see you and such.

Now, obviously, we are still allowing for some method of interacting with the known universe if we are still warping space-time from our isolated bubble/tunnel. Since gravity already has some theories as to being extra-dimensional to explain it's rather weak force compared to the other basic forces as well as to explain it's relation to the other forces, it makes perfect sense to make gravity our one deux ex machina in FTL travel. Not only is it the method we would use to create the SPEC field, but it would also be the way we can track where we are in the regular universe and it would inhibit the device from working in inconvenient areas (like near a planet/star).



Now, putting that point aside for a moment.

Realistic (really realistic) type sci-fi is largely boring to the gaming public. For many many reasons that are all really obvious. Concessions can be made for gameplay, but when you make a space-game work at the speed that realistic space travel would occur at, well then, you understand why the majority of realistic plans for space-travel involve cryostasis or some other type of "hibernation". It's mind numbingly boring and uneventful. No matter how much planning you can put into a journey to mars. If you want to make the game time 1:1 with real time, you're going to run out of users and developers about 15 minutes into checking the nuclear reactor coolant levels for the 5th time and making sure the oxygen recyclers are functioning.

This is why VS is the way it is now. A game needs developers, and developers like working on something that actually gets used. So while this thread is about pointing out the wrongness of VS physics, it's also about what of that wrongness is necessary to maintain the game's attractiveness to gamers and developers and such alike. It's definitely not that i'm saying to cater to the majority. But in figuring out the difference between what the minority wants, and what it needs. Often they dont know that the two are different.

What those people say they want is realism, but that's hardly what they need.

Not to say realistic simulators dont have a place, but we're talking about a game, not a tool.

[safemode]

I see.

Well, you've already put it in a nutshell. Visibility of lasers is necessary for gameplay, so we accept it. Tractor and repulsor beams are not necessary to gameplay, IMO, so I hate them.

I do think VS is in serious trouble; I've been saying so for like 7 years. The problem is it was originally inspired on WC Privateer, but aimed to be "better". I don't mind science fantasy, frankly; though I value Hard Science Fiction a lot more; but the worst you can have is badly planned in-between's. For an example of pure science fantasy, we got PU. For an example of Hard Science Fiction, I can offer future mod Tadpole.

Yet, it is gaining momentum rather than losing it. Or at the very least, it's maintaining it's level of activity. This demonstrates a divergence in what you think is trouble, and what apparently the rest of the people think as advancement. Not saying i disagree or agree, but lets move on.

For a short description, in Tadpole, ... (cut from quote) ...

Not sure how "realistic" that is; but it will be a hell of a lot more believable than Vegastrike. Combat we also plan to make as realistic as possible, but we haven't brainstormed about it much yet.

First, imagine the likelihood of meeting up with another ship in space anywhere else but at a base. in those rare, barely existing instances, achieving a firing solution that doesn't get ruined the minute your target changes course to evade is almost non-existent.

What you're talking about is a simulator. Like Flight Sim, only it's in space so imagine playing Flight sim in a basically plain blue sky with nothing below you or around you for hours on end. The only thing to keep you busy being the tedius manipulation of various in-ship controls that when handled properly result in no change at all to the game (since the object would be to continue on course and not die).

Such a simulator has only 3 possible futures. It's a tool that will see little if any use since it's not likely to be realistic enough for serious engineers. It becomes warped into a conventional space-combat/strategy type game after developers realize that they dont like realistic simulators after all. Or finally, some path i'm apparently not seeing is taken and the game finds it's niche like the Sim games have. I'm not seeing the third happening because i dont see how that can be accomplished without giving up the realism requirements.

What business books that advocate that you "listen to your customers" miss out on is that if you listen ONLY to your customers you'll never gain new ones. You need to listen to your NON-customers if you want to expand your market. I think the same thing applies to games. If you only listen to what Vegastrike players want to see, you'll just continue to please Vegastrike players, and no-one else. I once was saying to Hellcat that space travel should take longer than it does and he almost laughed at me; or I think he actually did; and a bunch of other forum members too. Turns out most players were complaining it took too long to get from one place to another. So, that's the conondrum: You got the type of player that just wants to shoot at things, and those morons are the majority, unfortunately. Then you get the rest of players, who want story, who want challenging trade, true economics, who want a deep background, like to be able to follow a merchant ship and discover a trade route that makes sense, who want physics realism, etceteras. If you make the process a democratic one, Vegastrike will continue to drift towards the level of an arcade. Hell, there was even a bunch of players I remember once, who wanted to see automatic credits paid for every enemy ship you destroy... speaking of arcades...

The problem is that VS only has the "shoot em up" gameplay. There is no story, no strategy and no real RPG feel. So obviously, the users playing it are mostly the type that want the Privateer/WC combat, because that's all we currently offer. These players aren't just shoot em up people though for the most part. They would welcome strategy and story if it was there and good, and when they get it we'll stop seeing all the posts about how it still takes "30 seconds to go half a light year" messages.

One complaint i didn't think i'd see here was that we're catering to VS users. We're constantly getting trolls about how we're ignoring the users requests. It can't be both. The job of the developers is to weed out the wants from the needs and hopefully they sometimes match with the developer's own wants and needs when they look at the game. While there is nothing absolute tying the developer to the users' requests, most people want to work on a game that people want to play. More importantly, they have to have a game that non-developers want to create content for. which brings me to my next point.

We can't just reject models and artwork simply to make a point. We can stomp our feet and hold our breath as the developers and say that only artwork matching such and such requirements will be accepted, but if we can't get anyone to make those models and artwork for us, the game is dead. A compromise has to be reached between artistic vision and game developer direction. This is the most visible part of the issue between making what people want vs making what people need. The creators of the game have a responsibility to make sure the game stays true to their vision, but that doesn't mean they understand the practicality of some parts of that vision. If the artists only want to create ships (even totally alien looking ones) that have functional ties to familiar modes of transportation, then that's what we get to work with. And it's not just about settling, we have to think about why artists want to create the models that way. I think it's much more deeply intrinsic to how we imagine and conceive of things, than simply "i want to do it this way because that's how i think it should be".
The brain associates everything in a fairly basic way. If we dont want to spend a book's worth of explanation about the flight mechanics and characteristics of the ships in our game, then we need to make certain associations with what the people playing the game are familiar with.


The other aspect of VS you have to contend with is the small community involved in contributing content and developing. In a larger community, the developers may have more sway, since the number of content contributors will be large enough to cater to what the developers want. We dont have such a luxury. Artists have a decent amount of power when it comes to the look and feel for the game, because we're heavily dependent on them, and without the few we have, the game would be dead.

What i'm trying to get at is that VS is a small scale project with a huge code/data-base. We need to work with the artists and other content contributors, not dictate them. We dont have the ability to dictate them. Plain and simple. Doing such a thing would be suicide, and what point is having your way if you're the only one enjoying it. That's not the OSS developer type attitude. Unlike really small projects, you can't just create this game for yourself and damn everyone else, we need other people to make it happen and that means dealing with what they want too. Otherwise, you have to be prepared to have to do _everything_ by yourself. If you can code the game, write the scripting, create the audio, mix the music, construct the models and draw the textures and organize it into a game yourself, then you need to stop working for free.

All that to reply to one sentence"

Indeed, you can even find that most people will accept that ships fly in space like they fly in the sky. Yet the nerdier of the bunch ...

So I answer with another question: Do you really care what *most* people want? No great work of art was ever made democratically, and there's a reason for it.

The only opinions i really care about when it comes to VS are the opinions of other people who contribute to it. I like to listen to end users but they have extremely little power compared to what other developers or content creators want/need. While no great work of art was created democratically, no great work of art was designed by one person, then implemented by the work of hundreds of others for free.
When you have to depend on the work of others (not simply accept, but depend) then you have created a democratic republic.

What we accept or not is based on our knowledge of how things actually are, first of all. To someone who doesn't know physics or astronomy or who has any clue about anything, asteroids moving around in circles and "nebulas" that look like clouds in space and feature lightning and interference is perfectly fine. To someone who knows the first thing about asteroids or what nebulas are, these are terribly offensive things.

Some things in the game are limited by our ability to simulate things realistically. while others are obviously hold-overs from much more simplistic games. Asteroid fields are a little of both. Nebulas are definitely the former. I would assume that any realistic depiction of being inside a nebula would have very little if any visual difference from not being inside one. Since, if the gas was hot enough to emit visible light or radiation strong enough to damage the ship, then we'd likely be beyond the tolerance of the any believable ship.

Asteroid fields would require millions of units to create realistically, since they would have spread out into a ring orbiting whatever body they were orbiting. They likely would not exist in a dense enough field to cause any sort of obstacle to VS type ships.

The problem here is, there are very few things in space to provide any kind of natural obstacles. While i would much rather there be a lot more synthetic obstacles (like mine fields and such) we currently have not gone that route. So lacking realistic obstacles, for the sake of gameplay and limited by processing resources, reality was warped to it's current state.

In the instance of the nebula for example, i would still like to see systems that are foggy representations of being inside a nebula. The visual effect and gameplay characteristics that can be given to such systems far outweighs the fact that the color and density of such clouds would not be visible when inside them for all but the most inhospitable ones. People need something to look at when in space, and black backgrounds with some white speckles isn't going to cut it. Why not also make them part of the gameplay? One of the few ways to spice up space visuals are nebulas. End of story.

As for asteroid fields and whatever else we come up with. I wish we could do them the right way. I just fear that we still dont have the power to render the tens of thousands upon thousands of asteroids necessary to create any usable density to make them functional at all in-game. We could make do with a much less dense feature, but then they would become a very costly feature with little payoff, compared to a costly feature that would have a high payoff.

In such a situation, we have explained away asteroid fields by only making them around large objects. Like very large asteroid bases or jump points where the local gravity could be assumed to have captures free roaming asteroids throughout history.

So, whom do you want to cater to?
Needless to say, I think a game or book or movie should cater to the knowledgeable, even if the ignorant were to throw a tantrum. Why? Because the ignorant will be made less ignorant by it, and they will thank you, eventually; and will have a fond memory of a game that taught them so many things they didn't know before they played it.

You know how great artists are usually never recognized during their lifetime. They create whatever they want and dont care if anyone else likes it or thinks highly of it. A lot of the time they end up poor and die alone depressing deaths. Then years/decades later people decide that what they created was genius and it becomes the new norm that the artists of the day have to match to succeed or do what they want and face the same fate (if they're lucky). Unlike painting a picture, making a movie costs money, and the work of many more people than just yourself. Likewise, making a game, especially open source, requires the effort of many people, if not the money of many people as well. These people aren't interested in realizing your greatness years later after you've come and gone.

As an artist drawing a picture, you are the dictator. Nobody else has any power over what you do. You can cater to whoever you like.

As someone who is creating something and depending on the work of many others, you are no longer the dictator. You can't simply cater to the minority and drag the masses kicking and screaming into your vision. The best you can hope for is either surviving of just the minority (unlikely) or nudging the majority gradually to your vision.

Treating movie making or game development like drawing a picture shows a serious lack in understanding the pursuit of creating them.

And what we accept or not is also based on our perception of how necessary it is, if it's not realistic or believable. I perceive exactly zero necessity for asteroids that spin around a center for no reason. I perceive zero game necessity to have clouds in space misrepresenting nebulas. So I'm doubly peeved about such things.

Asteroids orbiting around a point of interest is a holdover from simpler games, and they were kept because nobody wrote in anything better to act as an obstacle. I would rather see mines being used, with asteroids relegated to a more realistic role, though it would be very impractical.

if you dont see the necessity to find some way to give the "terrain" some variety, then you have a disassociation between the problems faced in gameplay and the issues faced portraying reality. There has to be _Something_ to break up the monotony of space visuals. Nebulas are the best candidate, despite having to fudge certain characteristics. The point is, there is nothing _better_ and there is an absolute need. If something can be found to take the place of having to use nebulas in this manner, then i'm all ears.

As it is, we currently dont really implement nebulas, the idea to use a foggy system as being inside a nebula is a thought of mine. Currently we have "nebulas" as glassy geometric figures in space. they're obviously not supposed to be that way regardless of anyone's idea of purpose.

Gameplay has needs. It's the designers job to warp reality to fit those needs and find or create reasons why they've warped reality in such a way. It's not the designers job to ignore gameplay's needs and depend on reality being enough. They'll be rewarded with a whole lot of nobody playing their game.

But there's another issue: Communication and Organization. Many years ago I complained also about ships only having thrusters at the back. I said "how come ships are able to accelerate and deccelerate frontally, backwardly, laterally, vertically, etceteras, and as powerfully in all directions; yet the models only show thrusters at the back?" JackS took this complaint of mine more seriously than most, and set down the guidelines that future ship models should have retro thrusters and maneuvering thrusters. And he keeps repeating this week after week, and yet models keep coming in with only thrusters at the back; or with diminutive retro thrusters at best. I think there's a necessity for strength in communications. There need to be at least a few model proposal threads locked and with "REJECTED" appended to their titles, to serve as examples to others. There needs to be a bit of flaming and charisma shown to disabuse the masses from the concept that this is some kind of potluck project.

I brought this up earlier in this post, and i've also made questions regarding this type of thing in the forum before. Also when dealing with missiles in this thread. It comes down to _NEEDING_ models and ships to get anyone interested in the game, not to simply gain end users, but to gain other developers attention. We need more people working on VS and we're not going to get those people with a game that nobody plays and has no content even if the underlying code is there. It has to build up to the point where we can pick and choose who we want to contribute on all our demands, rather than having to request people to help.

in addition to that, we have to think of what it would mean to get every artist on the same page as far as ship designing. Not every artist can be an aerospace engineer. The game developers aren't even aerospace engineers. Even if a set of rules are hashed out, there will never be a consensus on what is more realistic, and what the artists create could follow those guidelines but still not seem very practical. We simply dont have the man-power to be that pedantic.

So we're left with warping reality a bit to explain why things look the way they do. We pretend cockpicts are sensor arrays because glass on a ship is logically stupid (even if it's as hard as saphire), we pretend retro and maneuvering thrusters dont exist, we pretend the center of mass of a ship has no effect on the handling of said ship when thrusters are asymmetrical or off-center. we do a lot of wrong things when dealing with models. How much of that is due to mis-communicating the needs of the project, and how much of it has to do with requiring some resemblance of variety in gameplay? That's the question.

we can't make it too hard to create artwork for the game, yet obviously we have to make certain lines that can't be crossed in terms of believability. The problem that you've come to hate with VS is that we are building up to the total number of units we want available, and this is being done to support variety more than correctness with the hope that the correctness can be added in later after interest in the game is achieved due to there actually being units to populate the game.

The chicken and the egg is our eternal issue here. Can we get the amount of developers and contributors necessary to create a realistic and complete game with strict rules and direction or do we allow the strict rules and direction to come after we get the amount of developers and contributors necessary to handle a complete game. It's much more likely for the latter to be possible than the former. Hence VS as it is now, at 0.5

[TBeholder]

You are made up of whatever the hell space-time is. If your device compresses or warps space-time, yet does not in some way remove you from normal space-time, then you too will be compressed or warped by the very engine you are using.

Well, in external FoR, it would look as if ship changed size. Warp-stretching would mean only that you're better target due to size (though maneuver better), and vice versa. Also, anomaly brings some other weird side-effects, like having effective index of refraction <1 (where local lightspeed is increased for external PoV) and thus possible total internal reflection on border with normal space, both n and angle enhancing with warp. Reverse for diminishing lens. Smooth refraction change would look rather strange, of course. And it's not a matter of auto-compensation like doppler effect.
"Lens" anomaly as such is not exclusively usable for FTL, and allows it only in some models (perhaps not in GRT, but GRT has Alcubierre and IMHO better having simple lens than tape drive ). It should be first considered at rest and low velocities (refraction and so on). As an option, even if it allows FTL at all, this may require special procedure to "step over" light speed (which makes warpdrive even more complex), just because EM radiation ceases to emerge from fore surface. How all this would look at "effective velocity" > c is not readily obvious.

Thus, you will have no net effect. [...] there is only one way to travel across that warpage without succumbing to the same effect.

Why exactly “succumbing to the same effectâ€

[safemode]

You are made up of whatever the hell space-time is. If your device compresses or warps space-time, yet does not in some way remove you from normal space-time, then you too will be compressed or warped by the very engine you are using.

Well, in external FoR, it would look as if ship changed size. Warp-stretching would mean only that you're better target due to size (though maneuver better), and vice versa. Also, anomaly brings some other weird side-effects, like having effective index of refraction <1 (where local lightspeed is increased for external PoV) and thus possible total internal reflection on border with normal space, both n and angle enhancing with warp. Reverse for diminishing lens. Smooth refraction change would look rather strange, of course. And it's not a matter of auto-compensation like doppler effect.
"Lens" anomaly as such is not exclusively usable for FTL, and allows it only in some models (perhaps not in GRT, but GRT has Alcubierre and IMHO better having simple lens than tape drive ). It should be first considered at rest and low velocities (refraction and so on). As an option, even if it allows FTL at all, this may require special procedure to "step over" light speed (which makes warpdrive even more complex), just because EM radiation ceases to emerge from fore surface. How all this would look at "effective velocity" > c is not readily obvious.

you dont get it. If you can see externally, the warpage of the ship, then the space it's residing in is getting warped as well, so the coordinates become warped as well. If everything is kept in the same ratio locally then and the ship goes no faster or slower than it would if it wasn't warping anything at all.

Your external reference of the ship would never stretch while the space it's residing in compresses. It _Cannot_ happen. You can imagine it can happen, but the only way for the ship to remain un-compressed, is if it's isolated from the space-time it's residing in and around. This would make it impossible for light to reach the ship and get to your eyes.

Thus, you will have no net effect. [...] there is only one way to travel across that warpage without succumbing to the same effect.

Why exactly “succumbing to the same effectâ€

[safemode]

With warp, people seemto get stuck on the idea that space-time is a fabric that things sit on. This fabric then can be manipulated by special devices and that which is on it remains unaffected, creating visual distortions and the like as it travels across the warped fabric.

Wrong.

space-time is not just something the ship flies through. space-time is in the ship itself. If you try crossing warped space-time, you will be warped in the same exact manner. If you are warped in the same manner, then you have no benefit at all with warping it in the first place. You will travel at effectively the same speed that you would have traveled had you not used it.

There is only one way to avoid being affected by the warpage of space-time. You have to be isolated away from that space-time. You have to keep your local space-time unwarped, while warping that around you. This can't be done by unwarping the warped space-time as you travel, this would result in no net effect again. You have to travel through the warped space-time. This means you have to travel in a dimension other than the 3 we travel in, because those 3 are being warped. So, not only are you traveling in an isolated bubble of space-time (and since it's isolated space-time, light and everything else (but gravity) has no way of interacting with it) but you are also moving along an axis that nothing in normal space (but maybe gravity) can move along.

It's not a matter of frames of reference or opinions really. If we're going to say that the FTL travel works by compressing space-time, then you have to provide a means for not also succumbing to the same effect, since you as well as the space you're traveling through are of the same space-time. The only means for shielding yourself from your device is what i described.

edit:

I just wanted to be clear, i'm not saying we are using gravity to create the warpage of space-time. Just that gravity is the only thing we wouldn't have to completely make up that links the ship that is SPEC'ing to the regular space-time. We would need something made-up to actually manipulate space-time to do what we do in SPEC. Gravity alone can't be used to explain the process because gravity propagates at the speed of light (by any theory currently known) , we need something that is much much faster. That leaves us with tachyons or even more theoretical means of playing with space-time. In the end, the more we try to pretend to explain the deep mechanics of how spec works, the more it'll sound like Star Trek garble. I'm just concerned with the implementation aspects that affect gameplay.

[chuck_starchaser]

With warp, people seemto get stuck on the idea that space-time is a fabric that things sit on. This fabric then can be manipulated by special devices and that which is on it remains unaffected, creating visual distortions and the like as it travels across the warped fabric.

Wrong.

space-time is not just something the ship flies through. space-time is in the ship itself. If you try crossing warped space-time, you will be warped in the same exact manner. If you are warped in the same manner, then you have no benefit at all with warping it in the first place. You will travel at effectively the same speed that you would have traveled had you not used it.

I won't say "you're wrong", because we're treading along the far fronteers of scientific theory, and there are lots of disagreement. What I will say is that the common current view is that space IS a fabric, and I'm not sure but I think that the thinking goes that its stretching and compressing does NOT correspondingly stretch/compress matter in it. I could be wrong. Electromagnetic waves ARE stretched(/compressed), as the microwave background supposedly is the remnant of gamma rays at the big bang that have been stretched by the universe's expansion.
Did you know? If you calculate from doppler red-shift the speed at which the furthest galaxies recede away from us, you get figures up to like 2.5 times the speed of light. This apparent contradiction is answered by saying that c is the limit of speed for travel through the fabric of space; but that it does not apply to the rate of expansion of space itself.

There is only one way to avoid being affected by the warpage of space-time. You have to be isolated away from that space-time. You have to keep your local space-time unwarped, while warping that around you. This can't be done by unwarping the warped space-time as you travel, this would result in no net effect again. You have to travel through the warped space-time. This means you have to travel in a dimension other than the 3 we travel in, because those 3 are being warped.

The Alcubierre drive is NOT based on "warping" space but on "compressing" it. It's like a wave, but a longitudinal wave, rather than a transversal one. I don't know that it would work, and I much prefer to travel in sub-space; so I much agree with you; but your critique of Alcubierre drive theory would be considered in error.

[safemode]

With warp, people seemto get stuck on the idea that space-time is a fabric that things sit on. This fabric then can be manipulated by special devices and that which is on it remains unaffected, creating visual distortions and the like as it travels across the warped fabric.

Wrong.

space-time is not just something the ship flies through. space-time is in the ship itself. If you try crossing warped space-time, you will be warped in the same exact manner. If you are warped in the same manner, then you have no benefit at all with warping it in the first place. You will travel at effectively the same speed that you would have traveled had you not used it.

I won't say "you're wrong", because we're treading along the far fronteers of scientific theory, and there are lots of disagreement. What I will say is that the common current view is that space IS a fabric, and I'm not sure but I think that the thinking goes that its stretching and compressing does NOT correspondingly stretch/compress matter in it. I could be wrong.

You are misled, but due to the model used to explain General Relativity's idea of gravity. "fabric" is used in that instance to explain a very specific idea, that gravity is a geometric feature of space-time. It is not used to explain the nature of space-time. Space-time is not only that which we travel in, it's that which our molecules travel in, that which our atoms travel in, that which the quarks and leptons and etc travel in. Space-time does not stop at our ship's hull, or our skin, it doesn't even stop at protons and neutrons.

If you then compress or expand space-time, you also compress or expand everything in that area of space-time. They're not two different things. You're expanding or compressing our 3 (plus time) dimensional universe, albeit very locally.

Electromagnetic waves ARE stretched(/compressed), as the microwave background supposedly is the remnant of gamma rays at the big bang that have been stretched by the universe's expansion.
Did you know? If you calculate from doppler red-shift the speed at which the furthest galaxies recede away from us, you get figures up to like 2.5 times the speed of light. This apparent contradiction is answered by saying that c is the limit of speed for travel through the fabric of space; but that it does not apply to the rate of expansion of space itself.

indeed, but that has nothing to do with the makeup of space-time being a fabric that stops at the barrier of matter. The idea that space-time (our 3d + time universe) is of a substance that can grow or shrink is not contrary to what i'm saying, indeed it is a dependency. The idea that space-time can be manipulated faster than the speed of light is completely required by SPEC. Since being limited by light implies that the force is traveling within the confines of our universe, so by compressing our universe, the force we are sending out is also compressed with it, therefore, we get a strange limitation with SPEC where we can't travel faster than light, only approach it without having to deal with inertia. Not cool. Hence the force must travel faster than light, and thus, cannot travel within our universe, since travel is limited to C. So like our universe which is expanding/contracting within some other dimension and not constrained by C, so must the force we are exerting on space-time in order to keep up with the rippling compression we'd exert as we move across normal space in SPEC.

There is only one way to avoid being affected by the warpage of space-time. You have to be isolated away from that space-time. You have to keep your local space-time unwarped, while warping that around you. This can't be done by unwarping the warped space-time as you travel, this would result in no net effect again. You have to travel through the warped space-time. This means you have to travel in a dimension other than the 3 we travel in, because those 3 are being warped.

The Alcubierre drive is NOT based on "warping" space but on "compressing" it. It's like a wave, but a longitudinal wave, rather than a transversal one. I don't know that it would work, and I much prefer to travel in sub-space; so I much agree with you; but your critique of Alcubierre drive theory would be considered in error.

SPEC IS warping. It's exactly the same mechanics as star trek warping. You compress space-time in front of the ship, space-time then expands behind the ship, thus propelling you forward faster than light. The main difference being that unlike star trek warp which is soley accelerated by this warping, SPEC warp is accelerated by conventional thrust. Thus, what SPEC does that star trek warp doesn't is create a tunnel, rather than a bubble. A bubble would not be accelerated by conventional thrust, but a tunnel could. This tunnel would have to have one end attached to the real universe, with the other end growing towards the destination, only opening when dropping out of spec.

Star trek warp is much easier to visualize functioning. SPEC warp requires that a tunnel be maintained. Otherwise, you're stuck with trying to explain how the thrust in your local bubble of space-time is propelling your bubble which is cut-off from the surrounding universe by any such forces.


So lets delve deeper into the validity of spec. If we accept normal thrust as providing the forward movement when in SPEC, and we must be isolated from the universe (at least the universe in which we are traveling through), then we must visualize the travel as somewhat like a tunnel that is burrowing through space-time, starting from the initial position and moving towards the destination. It wouldn't have to grow far because as you burrow forward, the compression effect collapses behind you.

A side-effect of SPEC then would be you would trail exhaust or emissions from your engine across the path from your beginning towards your destination, and this path would appear to grow faster than light, but the particles would only have the inertia of the ship at it's normal speed. They would just spontaneously appear in space as the compresesd space-time "bubble" breaks down back to normal space-time.


Now, before when i treated SPEC as a bubble like star trek (which would be easier) i said that nothing could see or interact with a ship in spec because the bubble is completely sealing it off of normal space-time. This would not be entirely true for the way SPEC works. SPEC has to have a tail open to normal space-time, otherwise the idea that normal propulsion drives you forward makes no sense. So if a ship is direct behind a ship that is activating spec, they will see the ship still, not moving any faster or anything, that is until the compression effect takes hold. Then the ship will quickly red-shift and disappear from sight. You could shoot the ship from behind it while it's effective velocity is lower than C, but once the compression effect propels it beyond C, your weapons would never reach it.

Another interesting side-effect is nullification of a ship in spec by activating spec directly behind it. Since there is a tail opening into the local space-time around the ship that is spec'ing, a SPEC engine activating behind such a ship would be able to SPEC compress the space-time around the ship in front and thus pull it back into normal space-time (at least in the sense that now the local acceleration of ship in front is suffering from the same effect that i suggested would occur if there was no space-time shielding from the compressed space-time).

The idea of what would happen to intersecting SPEC ships in other orientations is not all that interesting, as the bubble effect would protect it. Only when the compression effect has a vector in the same direction as another would we have an issue with the SPEC of one or both ships collapsing.

[vodalian]

Star trek warp theory:

"A warp field is the means by which a warp drive propels a starship at faster-than-light (or warp) speeds. Generated by field coils, usually found in nacelles, the field surrounds the ship asymmetrically, which causes the space within it to accelerate.

The warp field is a subspace displacement which warps space around the vessel, allowing it to "ride" on a distortion and travel faster than the speed of light."

[chuck_starchaser]

I won't say "you're wrong", because we're treading along the far fronteers of scientific theory, and there are lots of disagreement. What I will say is that the common current view is that space IS a fabric, and I'm not sure but I think that the thinking goes that its stretching and compressing does NOT correspondingly stretch/compress matter in it. I could be wrong.

You are misled, but due to the model used to explain General Relativity's idea of gravity. "fabric" is used in that instance to explain a very specific idea, that gravity is a geometric feature of space-time. It is not used to explain the nature of space-time.

You're making assumptions as to where my concepts come from... I never spoke about gravity. What I meant by "space IS a fabric" is "space is something and NOT nothing". That's all. I take issue with the modern fashion of treating space as an abstraction. Before Einstein, people thought of space as a Cartesian abstraction. You would think that after Einstein theorized, and was later confirmed, that space has curvature, people finally would come to grips with the obvious fact that space is something, right? Wrong: The erudite idiots' concern is 100% with its form. So space went from being a cartesian abstraction to now being a topological abstraction, and no awareness was gained about the fact that it is something. I won't say "it has substance", because to say that would be misconstrued as that I mean that it is made of particles or something. I've no idea whether space has inner "structure", but what I am convinced about is that whatever it is, it is not nothing; it is NOT a mathematical abstraction.
Our 3D space being curved it means that it is either like a membrane, or like an intersticial space between two membranes; but more likely it is an interface between two substantially different 4D "mediums", and here again I don't mean "mediums" as mathematical abstractions, but as "things". And don't ask me whether these mediums have "mass" or "elasticity". I don't know; but somehow they have to be "substatially" (using the term tongue-in-cheek) different from each other to form an interface. I suppose a "4D substance" must have something like "meta-mass", measured in kg^1.333 units , that we can't even fathom.
No idea.
But considering the fact that vacuum has measurable magnetic permeability and dielectric constant (which "nothing" would NOT have), perhaps these are like surface, 3D manifestations of deeper, 4D attributes of the distinct 4D mediums and how they interact at the 3D interface.

I personally don't believe Alcubierre theory. I was just trying to explain it to you because you were talking about SPEC and I believe SPEC is inspired in Alcubierre. I believe you can have only transversal waves in the 3D space we know, because it is an interface between two 4D mediums; and you can ONLY have transversal waves on interfaces (like waves on water are transversal). But Alcubierre disagrees with me and insists you can have longitudinal waves in space, like you can have within a continuum, like sound waves in air or underwater. So I disagree with Alcubierre; I don't believe what he proposes is feasible; --IMO it's just a bunch of fallacies hidden under a thick layer of inscrutable math. But I was just telling you what his theory is; if you don't accept it, good!; we're on the same team.

I prefer leaving the 3D interface and traveling through the 4D medium. A lot smoother...

And, BTW, I am offended by the term "space-time"; because it assumes that time and space are not distinct, when it should be obvious to a 5 year old that they are. And when people say that "time is THE fourth dimension" I ask them to indicate to me THE first, and they always try to skirt around the issue and start babbling nonsense.
But you have the whole world on your side, and about a billion authorities to appeal to on this matter, so I'm just going to stay out of all this.
People love to confuse themselves, --and scientists are people--, maybe because it feels cooler to think, accept, believe that reality is imponderable, than to make the effort to ponder with clarity.

[TBeholder]

you dont get it. If you can see externally, the warpage of the ship, then the space it's residing in is getting warped as well, so the coordinates become warped as well. If everything is kept in the same ratio locally then and the ship goes no faster or slower than it would if it wasn't warping anything at all.

If you try crossing warped space-time, you will be warped in the same exact manner. If you are warped in the same manner, then you have no benefit at all with warping it in the first place. You will travel at effectively the same speed that you would have traveled had you not used it.

Here's gap between "everything is kept in the same ratio locally" and "the ship goes no faster or slower" externally. You assume second to be unavoidable consequence of first, but did not demonstrated this yet. Or what is inconsistent in my simple low-velocity low-warp example. I'll elaborate:
- from external PoV, distances inside work area looks stretched (x2), so ship passes measuring marker nose-to-tail in the same time, but each point moves faster (x2)
- from internal PoV, distances outside work area are shrunk (x0.5), so marker slows down and stretches to its "real" size when it enters work area and regains its velocity x2 and size x0.5 again when leaves.
Work area is "flat" space area inside anomaly, and of course for any purely internal process (when not compared with something else, crossing non-flat region of anomaly) any "flat" space looks the same, whatever its relation to other flat space areas is. Curvature is locally detectable, but "scaling" is relative to other places only.
In ray optics terms, "slows down" = "refraction factor increases" and "quickens" = "refraction factor decreases". So, if anomaly works like that, here's even way for "warp optics", though stretched warp generator pod inside lens may spoil some part of fun.

What I will say is that the common current view is that space IS a fabric, and I'm not sure but I think that the thinking goes that its stretching and compressing does NOT correspondingly stretch/compress matter in it. I could be wrong. Electromagnetic waves ARE stretched(/compressed)

More precisely, here is Riemannian space representing gravity effects (how trajectories are bent), like "gravity refraction" — this agrees with experimental data. Main issue is whether to assume it is "true" bent space we see (as in GRT), or it's "effective space" made by G-field which therefore is laid over some — we could say "more true" — space (Minkowski in RTG). In second case warp effects not inherently connected with gravity looks more simple (some other field could impose its own rules over space even before gravity).

"fabric" is used in that instance to explain a very specific idea, that gravity is a geometric feature of space-time. It is not used to explain the nature of space-time.

But it is. Immediate R.-space curvature, as opposed to quantized field. That's why Hilbert claimed energy-momentum and angular momentum conservation laws can't exist in GRT. And that is what makes "effective space" true-field approach so attractive.

In an effort to get a unified equation that explains all of the basic forces, the mathematics points towards requiring multiple dimensions to bring gravity in with the rest of the forces. The utter lack of ability to do so without extra dimensions seems to

...prompt that maybe someone tries to assemble puzzle without having all its pieces on hand. But introduction of “physics extensionsâ€