Modified Acceleration and Consumable Fuel

Talk among developers, and propose and discuss general development planning/tackling/etc... feature in this forum.
nphillips
Hunter
Hunter
Posts: 85
Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2009 9:28 pm

Modified Acceleration and Consumable Fuel

Post by nphillips »

This idea is based on a conversation Deus Siddus and chuck_starchaser were having in my Mule thread.
Deus Siddus wrote:A while back you mentioned burst-maneuver chemical rockets being used in the fighters in your tadpole universe. Maybe a similar concept of a limited time maneuvering system that doesn't draw juice or therefore create massive heat, could be used in VS. Like a panel of many small, self contained, one use "solid fuel" rocket engines based on alternating layers of matter/anti-matter and reaction mass (pure matter). They could be used one at a time for bursts of multiple g acceleration measured in seconds maybe?
chuck_starchaser wrote:Yes, that would work, and you're welcome to adopt the idea for VS; but it will take major engine work to implement, I'm afraid. Essentially, instead of an "afterburner" you'd tap the Tab key once, and would get X number of seconds acceleration forward, and the booster count would go down by one.
Now, in VS, ships can accelerate at ridiculous rates not just forward but laterally, up, down... so you'd need more than just the Tab key. Maybe the numeric keypad keys?
Furthermore, these chemical boosters would be few in number, and therefore a very precious resource. This negates the entire current philosophy in Vegastrike of having a computer that automatically controls thrusters to make your flight mechanics emulate atmospheric avionics. You simply could not let the ship's computer waste boosters capriciously.
So, in other words, this would "change everything". For the better, though...
Mostly, my idea has nothing to do with forward accelerations. The main thrusters are outside the scope of this idea. Specifically, I'm looking at the way ships adjust their yaw, pitch, and roll, as well as adding additional motion along the x and z axes (similar to the FPS strafing).

From a realistic technical standpoint, Deus's idea of single-fire rockets on a single panel presents two serious issues with the reliability of control. Since these rockets have to be powerful enough to push the ship in a certain direction, there will be different results with each rocket fired, especially for rockets on opposite sides of the panel -- while they will apply the same amount of force, they are not being applied at the same location, which results in "unexpected" motion. That's a dangerous proposition. The other issue is that there is a big package of explosives sitting exposed on the hull of the ship; a target begging to be ignited. Having all of those rockets fire at once would result in a catastrophic loss of control (potentially lethal in combat).

But I like the idea of expendable fuel for controlling the ship. So, my modification of the idea is to keep the ship's computer in control of ion thrusters that provide standard y/p/r, but the maximum acceleration for all ships using these thrusters would be less than 0.25G. For higher accelerations, the pilot can activate these boosters.

These thrusters would use liquid fuel, pulled from a shared source. Any rotation faster than the ion thrusters could provide would draw from the fuel supply. When the fuel is gone, it's gone until the ship docks for refueling. Plus, having the thrusters be liquid fuel-based gives a finer control over the ship's movement, as opposed to a solid fuel rocket that can't be turned off once it's ignited.

In terms of game controls, I think a combination of mouse and keyboard controls could be utilized. For the "avionic controls", the mouse would be used -- stay within the inner 50% screen, around the targeting reticule, and the ion thrusters are used. Outside of that, the boosters are turned on. For the sliding motions, the well-known WASD combination could be used.

I'm not entirely sure what the existing fuel gauge is for, but I've never seen it run out...so I also propose that these thrusters take over the use of that particular bar, with noticeable effect. (I think it's currently for SPEC/Overdrive....but again, I've never seen it drop; if it does, it recharges)
chuck_starchaser
Elite
Elite
Posts: 8014
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2003 4:03 am
Location: Montreal
Contact:

Re: Modified Acceleration and Consumable Fuel

Post by chuck_starchaser »

Sounds magnificent to me.

By the way, it shouldn't be too hard to implement. Spiritplumber did something similar for mispec ships in WCU, which used expendable fuel for afterburner (though it was the same fuel used by the jump drive, in that case; so that if you used too much afterburner in a system without a base to land on you'd get stranded). And I believe that was done on the Python side of things.

The only gottcha with having low-accel main engines is that the SPEC drive needs to be modified so as to keep the game playable in terms of flight times. Essentially, we'd need much higher multipliers a lot sooner. I have had an idea for SPEC lurking in the back of my head for years; but I'll start a separate thread to address it.
Deus Siddis
Elite
Elite
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2007 3:42 pm

Re: Modified Acceleration and Consumable Fuel

Post by Deus Siddis »

nphillips wrote: From a realistic technical standpoint, Deus's idea of single-fire rockets on a single panel presents two serious issues with the reliability of control. Since these rockets have to be powerful enough to push the ship in a certain direction, there will be different results with each rocket fired, especially for rockets on opposite sides of the panel -- while they will apply the same amount of force, they are not being applied at the same location, which results in "unexpected" motion. That's a dangerous proposition. The other issue is that there is a big package of explosives sitting exposed on the hull of the ship; a target begging to be ignited. Having all of those rockets fire at once would result in a catastrophic loss of control (potentially lethal in combat).
I guess the "panel" mechanism was kind of a brainfart on my part, but you could just have thruster 'cartridges' that the ship pushes out as they are needed, with the supply of them stored internally so as not to be a major vulnerability.
These thrusters would use liquid fuel, pulled from a shared source. Any rotation faster than the ion thrusters could provide would draw from the fuel supply. When the fuel is gone, it's gone until the ship docks for refueling. Plus, having the thrusters be liquid fuel-based gives a finer control over the ship's movement, as opposed to a solid fuel rocket that can't be turned off once it's ignited.
Partly as a product of VS being set so far in the future, there is economical access to such things as antimatter, so wouldn't chemical rockets in general be obsolete?

I remember reading someplace that a mass of antimatter around that of a paperclip would convert into enough energy to launch the space shuttle into orbit. So if you can make the matter-antimatter-to-energy conversion take place basically outside of the ship, direct it into a reaction mass in a particular direction, you should have some serious and sustainable Gs with limited waste heat build up in the ship, right?
chuck_starchaser
Elite
Elite
Posts: 8014
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2003 4:03 am
Location: Montreal
Contact:

Re: Modified Acceleration and Consumable Fuel

Post by chuck_starchaser »

Deus Siddis wrote:Partly as a product of VS being set so far in the future, there is economical access to such things as antimatter, so wouldn't chemical rockets in general be obsolete?
I thought we were trying to close Pandora's box. That reopens it. With the argument that the game is set so far into the future one can justify anything. Fact is, that far into the future we migt well be living in caves again. (Heck, we'll be living in caves starting 100 years from now, and ending 25,000 years from now; if living at all. That shoots Vegastrike's time-frame right out of the sky.)
Scientific and technological advancement are a bubble ready to burst. They've sown the seeds of their own destruction by continuously releasing technologies that reduced entropy for us by pushing it onto the environment; and since the environment is not exchangeable it has no price, so a solution can't be sold; and the political stomach to clean the environment is not there and won't be there, and it's already too late. So the bubble will burst soon, and with it all we know as "civilization". So this business of "everything will be possible in the future" is a pipe-dream. The bubble is bursting as we speak, with funding for universities going down, industries shutting down, currencies spiralling towards inflation around the world, food production going down... Wait a few more years if you don't believe me.
But even if scientific advancement were to continue linearly as in the past, there ARE such things as hard limits in what CAN be done, whether 1000 years from now, or 1,000,000 years from now. Matter-antimatter has a gazillion problems. First, you need to produce antimatter, which takes as much energy or a lot more to produce as you're going to store. Second, how do you store antimatter? Presently, it is suspended in vacuum using electric and magnetic fields. For that to work, though, the antimatter has to have electric charge (positron charge, if you prefer), otherwise it is immune to magnetic confinement. But if it has charge, it repels itself, making confinement hard. IOW, confinement is either hard or impossible. Third, how do you control the release of energy? Fourth, the matter-antimatter explosions ("burning" if you prefer) need to push against something, to communicate impulse to the ship. What is this "something" made of? (Hint: something in the unobtainium family.) Fifth, when matter and antimatter anihilate you get most of the energy coming out as electromagnetic waves; a lot of it as X rays and gamma rays that may go through your whole ship and communicate no impulse to the ship whatsoever. And whatever waves do interact wih the plate or the rest of the ship are more heat producing than impulse providing.
If you were talking of detonating nuclear devices to propel the ship, at least you'd have a lot of energy coming out as neutrons, which have mass, and could propel the ship by hitting a shield or plate; but with antimatter-matter reactions you get just about no mass, rather just waves, and of the most damaging wavelengths.
It's one thing to say "a gram of antimatter packs this much energy", and quite another is to find a way to recover useful energy from it.
I remember reading someplace that a mass of antimatter around that of a paperclip would convert into enough energy to launch the space shuttle into orbit.
Ditto. And how do you store an amount of antimatter the size of a paper clip, in the first place? I know... because "the game is set so far into the future"... All will be possible "in the future"...
So if you can make the matter-antimatter-to-energy conversion take place basically outside of the ship, direct it into a reaction mass in a particular direction, you should have some serious and sustainable Gs with limited waste heat build up in the ship, right?
There's HUGE waste heat implied in what you're proposing; MUCH more than with plasma drives. You are simply concentrating the waste heat into whatever push-plate the matter-antimatter reaction is pushing against. That will be heated to 50 million degrees in a nanosecond. Nothing could remain solid. But if you're going to say that a material should exist that can take mater-antimatter "burning" heat and pressure, just because the game is set so far into the future, then what's the point of brainstorming? With blind faith in that science and technology will advance continuously forever, right through magic and beyond, plainly there's no point in even considering any constraints whatsoever. This conversation doesn't serve a purpose anymore.

And what for do you want to be able to accelerate at several G's again? Just to lose the sense of scale again?

If there's a way to use antimatter for propulsion, and energy is almost free due to fusion power, then what constraints do we have? None! We have NO problems. We're back to square zero.

You seem to be trying to solve the problem of propulsion. What we need to do is re-discover the problem of propulsion; NOT to solve it.

It's already solved, in Vegastrike; and that solution ruins the sense of scale in the whole game; so we wanted to UN-solve it... But here you're trying to solve it again, and now with even more handwavium than before: bringing in anti-matter, --probably the most sci-fi-abused scientific concept after wormholes...
And for what? To permit multi-G accelerations, when the whole point of this exercise was to get rid of them ?!?!?! :x
Deus Siddis
Elite
Elite
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2007 3:42 pm

Re: Modified Acceleration and Consumable Fuel

Post by Deus Siddis »

First off, let's calm down a bit, I was only asking questions, not proposing anything. I only brought up antimatter because its known to be real (unlike say electrogravitics), so I was curious if it had any potential.

You sent me a PM and then deleted it, so I assume you are upset about a general direction you perceive I am going in. But right now I don't really have one yet personally, I am mostly just inquiring.
chuck_starchaser wrote:I thought we were trying to close Pandora's box. That reopens it. With the argument that the game is set so far into the future one can justify anything.
I didn't mean that, but what I meant is things that are possible but limited today might be less limited in the future. Not that the future excuse should allow physical laws to be broken as is currently done. So I was asking what could be done with antimatter if it was more available, not saying we should use it as handwavium and be back where we started.
Fact is, that far into the future we migt well be living in caves again. (Heck, we'll be living in caves starting 100 years from now, and ending 25,000 years from now; if living at all. That shoots Vegastrike's time-frame right out of the sky.) Scientific and technological advancement are a bubble ready to burst. They've sown the seeds of their own destruction by continuously releasing technologies that reduced entropy for us by pushing it onto the environment; and since the environment is not exchangeable it has no price, so a solution can't be sold; and the political stomach to clean the environment is not there and won't be there, and it's already too late. So the bubble will burst soon, and with it all we know as "civilization". So this business of "everything will be possible in the future" is a pipe-dream. The bubble is bursting as we speak, with funding for universities going down, industries shutting down, currencies spiralling towards inflation around the world, food production going down... Wait a few more years if you don't believe me.
You are preaching to the choir. In fact you forgot to mention hyper specialization in individual human knowledge, increasing global inter-dependence and the exposure to the surface and resulting scattering and practical loss of non-renewable resources accessible to more primitive means of mining. Which equals we are going back to the Neolithic for many interglacial periods at best. Well good riddance to bad rubbish I say, but we digress. . .

The VS, WC and VT mods at best are set in a universe where human civilization doesn't burn itself or you imagine comes back for a second shot in the distant future and makes it into space. But whatever the case, the VS engine currently is specialized for space games, so this is the genre we are dealing with.
And what for do you want to be able to accelerate at several G's again? Just to lose the sense of scale again?
I definitely want to lower accelerations a lot but you said yourself:
chuck_starchaser wrote:This project is NOT abandoned; and we know its project leads are not too keen on realism.
Take the case of shields, for example: According to JackS they work by deforming space. To me, that's THE most
absurd account of shields in any universe (and I never liked any account much, for starters); but it's something
we have to live with.
So I don't know if we will be able to lower Gs down that low. For the fastest craft, we might not be able to go lower than 5Gs, do to canon.

And then personally, I don't see a problem with some craft having accelerations similar to high performing land, sea and air vehicles in today's modern reality, as far as a sense of scale goes. If the llama has sane acceleration that gives the player a sense of scale, then if the player later buys a combat, scout or racer craft, he might feel like he is just going really fast, not that everything is unrealistically small as it currently is. But let's keep in mind this is a different consideration from realism.
And for what? To justify multi-G accelerations, when the whole point was to get rid of them :x
I thought the idea was just to lower the accelerations to some thing that makes sense. I didn't think there was a disproportionately big difference between a fraction of a G and more than one.
chuck_starchaser
Elite
Elite
Posts: 8014
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2003 4:03 am
Location: Montreal
Contact:

Re: Modified Acceleration and Consumable Fuel

Post by chuck_starchaser »

Deus Siddis wrote:First off, let's calm down a bit, I was only asking questions, not proposing anything. I only brought up antimatter because its known to be real (unlike say electrogravitics), so I was curious if it had any potential.

You sent me a PM and then deleted it, so I assume you are upset about a general direction you perceive I am going in. But right now I don't really have one yet personally, I am mostly just inquiring.
Very perceptive :D I sent you a flame so big I'd rather not remember it. Be glad I deleted it. ;-)
The VS, WC and VT mods at best are set in a universe where human civilization doesn't burn itself or you imagine comes back for a second shot in the distant future and makes it into space. But whatever the case, the VS engine currently is specialized for space games, so this is the genre we are dealing with.
Agreed.
I definitely want to lower accelerations a lot but you said yourself:
chuck_starchaser wrote:This project is NOT abandoned; and we know its project leads are not too keen on realism.
Take the case of shields, for example: According to JackS they work by deforming space. To me, that's THE most
absurd account of shields in any universe (and I never liked any account much, for starters); but it's something
we have to live with.
So I don't know if we will be able to lower Gs down that low. For the fastest craft, we might not be able to go lower than 5Gs, do to canon.
True. I guess my hope is that this time we can make it work right, first; then show it to the powerz. Thing is, back in the days I was on this board sword fighting JackS and Hellcat, I never got a fair chance. They said they did a test of low accels, and that it was no good, according to them, but no details about the test, so I couldn't defend my position. For it to work, there needs to be changes to spec and the auto-pilot. Interceptions by AI's, for example, need to be done just right; planned with foresight.
And then personally, I don't see a problem with some craft having accelerations similar to high performing land, sea and air vehicles in today's modern reality, as far as a sense of scale goes.
And what do you think those accelerations are? All much less than 1 G, except carrier take-offs, which are assisted.
You may have heard about multi-G turns by fighter planes; but that's NOT engine acceleration: The acceleration to supersonic speeds took minutes; then you pull the stick and you're using the air to push against to make a high G turn; --and spend in a matter of seconds the momentum you gained over minutes of acceleration.
If the llama has sane acceleration that gives the player a sense of scale, then if the player later buys a combat, scout or racer craft, he might feel like he is just going really fast, not that everything is unrealistically small as it currently is. But let's keep in mind this is a different consideration from realism.
Sense of scale is a consideration from believability; thruster acceleration IS a consideration from realism.
I thought the idea was just to lower the accelerations to some thing that makes sense. I didn't think there was a disproportionately big difference between a fraction of a G and more than one.
Multi-G accelerations do NOT make sense, unless you're going to spend all the fuel you've got in less than a minute. And it serves no purpose: You can easily move out of the way of incoming fire with 1 G accel or less.
Deus Siddis
Elite
Elite
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2007 3:42 pm

Re: Modified Acceleration and Consumable Fuel

Post by Deus Siddis »

chuck_starchaser wrote:Very perceptive :D I sent you a flame so big I'd rather not remember it. Be glad I deleted it. ;-)
Well just try to keep in mind that me being in a bit of a middle man situation at the moment, I probably have to walk a tightrope or else meet a wall of static and subsequently not be able to get much done here. I don't know if ultimately the tightrope means a compromise, but it will probably be some kind of journey at least.
True. I guess my hope is that this time we can make it work right, first; then show it to the powerz. Thing is, back in the days I was on this board sword fighting JackS and Hellcat, I never got a fair chance. They said they did a test of low accels, and that it was no good, according to them, but no details about the test, so I couldn't defend my position. For it to work, there needs to be changes to spec and the auto-pilot. Interceptions by AI's, for example, need to be done just right; planned with foresight.
Fair enough, though some of those things might be difficult to accomplish until safemode or klauss has more free time available or a new devoted coder reaches their level of knowledge.

Projectile weapon speeds are another thing that will need adjustment by the way, since lower accelerations could make maneuvering too pointless unless they were lowered in parity.
And what do you think those accelerations are? All much less than 1 G, except carrier take-offs, which are assisted.
You may have heard about multi-G turns by fighter planes; but that's NOT engine acceleration: The acceleration to supersonic speeds took minutes; then you pull the stick and you're using the air to push against to make a high G turn; --and spend in a matter of seconds the momentum you gained over minutes of acceleration.
No not deceleration, only powered acceleration I meant. Like the Space Shuttle (minus the gravity working against it, which offers a free G), SR-71, land-speed record vehicles. So I guessed 1-2Gs.
Multi-G accelerations do NOT make sense, unless you're going to spend all the fuel you've got in less than a minute. And it serves no purpose: You can easily move out of the way of incoming fire with 1 G accel or less.
When I talk about top G's I'm thinking of scrambling interceptors and racers (think drag racers in space), since VS seems to have these things. Most ships, when they are landing, could do fine with a lot less.
chuck_starchaser
Elite
Elite
Posts: 8014
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2003 4:03 am
Location: Montreal
Contact:

Re: Modified Acceleration and Consumable Fuel

Post by chuck_starchaser »

Deus Siddis wrote:Well just try to keep in mind...
Filed away.
Fair enough, though some of those things might be difficult to accomplish until safemode or klauss has more free time available or a new devoted coder reaches their level of knowledge.
Well, Hellcat once showed me where the code for autopilot and spec were, but there was data I was missing to implement my version. I can probably dig up the emails and take another crack at it.
Projectile weapon speeds are another thing that will need adjustment by the way, since lower accelerations could make maneuvering too pointless unless they were lowered in parity.
Haven't played VS in ages; maybe I'm used to projectile speeds being pretty slow in PU.
And what do you think those accelerations are? All much less than 1 G, except carrier take-offs, which are assisted.
You may have heard about multi-G turns by fighter planes; but that's NOT engine acceleration: The acceleration to supersonic speeds took minutes; then you pull the stick and you're using the air to push against to make a high G turn; --and spend in a matter of seconds the momentum you gained over minutes of acceleration.
No not deceleration, only powered acceleration I meant. Like the Space Shuttle (minus the gravity working against it, which offers a free G), SR-71, land-speed record vehicles. So I guessed 1-2Gs.
I didn't mean "decceleration". I meant "turning". If you run at top speed and then grab onto a pole with one hand you might experience more than one g of centrifugal force. That doesn't mean that you can sprint at more than one g. Similarly, a fighter plane accelerates at much less than 1 g even with afterburner; but you can experience several g's if you pull the stick while going fast.
The space shuttle is THE wrong example here: It is hanging from a fuel tank many times its own size on the pad, and sandwiched between two huge boosters. Of course it does many g's acceleration for several minutes!
When I talk about top G's I'm thinking of scrambling interceptors and racers (think drag racers in space), since VS seems to have these things. Most ships, when they are landing, could do fine with a lot less.
Ahhhh, interceptors yes. This is a very special case. Interceptors are by definition short range and specialized for fighting and for NO travel whatsoever; so they got the space to pack a sizable amount of fuel. But the player never owns one, anyways; it would be pretty useless if you have no cargo space, no jump drive, no spec... only short range, chemical engines for scrambling out of a station and coming back within minutes. OTOH, this could be an odd job some player might care for: You buy an interceptor and then only get home base defense missions.
But another application for interceptors would be as larger ship defenders; you could get hired by a cargo ship captain to travel aboard the ship, sitting in your interceptor the whole time, ready to launch at the first sign of trouble. But you'd depend on getting jobs as interceptor pilot aboard large ships, to get from one system to another.
Deus Siddis
Elite
Elite
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2007 3:42 pm

Re: Modified Acceleration and Consumable Fuel

Post by Deus Siddis »

chuck_starchaser wrote:Well, Hellcat once showed me where the code for autopilot and spec were, but there was data I was missing to implement my version. I can probably dig up the emails and take another crack at it.
Alright. I guess implementing the booster system would require assistance though, right?
Haven't played VS in ages; maybe I'm used to projectile speeds being pretty slow in PU.
It looks like they range from 2,000 to 30,000 meters per second.
I didn't mean "decceleration". I meant "turning". If you run at top speed and then grab onto a pole with one hand you might experience more than one g of centrifugal force. That doesn't mean that you can sprint at more than one g. Similarly, a fighter plane accelerates at much less than 1 g even with afterburner; but you can experience several g's if you pull the stick while going fast.
Yeah I understand the difference between centrifugal force and linear acceleration. But can't say the F-22 make like 1G linearly?

Either way, at this point you have me convinced that we don't need to exceed 1G for normal thrusters though (outside of landings and takeoffs which currently aren't simulated anyway).
chuck_starchaser
Elite
Elite
Posts: 8014
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2003 4:03 am
Location: Montreal
Contact:

Re: Modified Acceleration and Consumable Fuel

Post by chuck_starchaser »

Deus Siddis wrote:I guess implementing the booster system would require assistance though, right?
Probably; I will know what I don't know once I look at the code; and right now I got the llama and the new shader on my plate. But like I said, Spiritplumber already did tie the use of afterburner to consumable fuel in WCU, for milspec ships; and I'm pretty sure it was done on the Python side.
It looks like they range from 2,000 to 30,000 meters per second.
Ouch. That's fast.
Yeah I understand the difference between centrifugal force and linear acceleration. But can't say the F-22 make like 1G linearly?
Just about. Maximum acceleration is obtained from zero speed, of course, as there's no air drag yet.
A rough measure of maximum acceleration potential at zero speed is the Thrust to Weight Ratio (T/W).
T/W for the F-22 is 1.14. The F-15 Eagle takes the prize, with T/W of 1.29.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrust-to- ... r_Aircraft
Either way, at this point you have me convinced that we don't need to exceed 1G for normal thrusters though (outside of landings and takeoffs which currently aren't simulated anyway).
Unless we implement interceptors. Interceptors could indeed boast 2 or 3 G's, as they don't need a power plant or jump drive or spec or ion/plasma drives, nor cargo space, nor torpedoes or mines; and of whatever physical munitions they carry they don't need to carry a lot, since they can land, resupply, and take off again. So, interceptors would be little more than fat chemical thrusters with big fuel tanks, a cockpit, and a combination of guided missiles and machine guns. Old-fashioned chemical projectiles and propulsion; to avoid the need of a power plant altogether. I.O.W., if we had a ship designed and specialized for high acceleration, and devoted well over 3/4 of its mass to thrusters and fuel, for short time operation; then yes. And we could make such interceptors very common; they'd probably be in higher demand than more general purpose fighters.
Deus Siddis
Elite
Elite
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2007 3:42 pm

Re: Modified Acceleration and Consumable Fuel

Post by Deus Siddis »

chuck_starchaser wrote:Probably; I will know what I don't know once I look at the code; and right now I got the llama and the new shader on my plate. But like I said, Spiritplumber already did tie the use of afterburner to consumable fuel in WCU, for milspec ships; and I'm pretty sure it was done on the Python side.
Oh by the way, I forgot to mention that fuel actually is consumable in VS 0.5, but I never ran it all the way out to see what happens exactly. Basically it runs out slowly by constantly thrusting (like if you switch to "flight mode" which shuts down your speed governor) and not landing, which I think refuels you automatically. Weapon fire might expend it too, but if it doesn't, then fuel probably represents your on-board reaction mass, not whatever is the fuel for your reactor, which is my guess.
Ouch. That's fast.
Yeah, they are mostly railguns, coilguns and I guess ball lightning guns, so basically low mass, high speed projectiles.
Unless we implement interceptors. Interceptors could indeed boast 2 or 3 G's, as they don't need a power plant or jump drive or spec or ion/plasma drives, nor cargo space, nor torpedoes or mines; and of whatever physical munitions they carry they don't need to carry a lot, since they can land, resupply, and take off again. So, interceptors would be little more than fat chemical thrusters with big fuel tanks, a cockpit, and a combination of guided missiles and machine guns. Old-fashioned chemical projectiles and propulsion; to avoid the need of a power plant altogether. I.O.W., if we had a ship designed and specialized for high acceleration, and devoted well over 3/4 of its mass to thrusters and fuel, for short time operation; then yes. And we could make such interceptors very common; they'd probably be in higher demand than more general purpose fighters.
They would still need to have a small reactor, minimal plasma thrusters and spec drive to be useful enough I think, but then at least some factions would probably build such craft, like maybe Mechanists with their love of specialized units or the Aera with their largely capital-defense-oriented strike craft design.

They might compete with plasma thruster powered interceptors with a max of 1G acceleration, which I guess wouldn't have the same fuel limitation, but have slower and/or shorter sprints and/or less firepower do to overheating and a dependency on large, exposed radiators.

Something safemode and myself had discussed in the past was the idea of eliminating reactors and capacitors as upgrades and the limitation on weapon output and such, using heat buildup as the limitation instead of energy production, a bit like the BattleTech universe. So you would have radiator upgrades in place of reactor upgrades and heat-sink upgrades in place of capacitor upgrades.
chuck_starchaser
Elite
Elite
Posts: 8014
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2003 4:03 am
Location: Montreal
Contact:

Re: Modified Acceleration and Consumable Fuel

Post by chuck_starchaser »

Deus Siddis wrote:
chuck_starchaser wrote:Probably; I will know what I don't know once I look at the code; and right now I got the llama and the new shader on my plate. But like I said, Spiritplumber already did tie the use of afterburner to consumable fuel in WCU, for milspec ships; and I'm pretty sure it was done on the Python side.
Oh by the way, I forgot to mention that fuel actually is consumable in VS 0.5, but I never ran it all the way out to see what happens exactly. Basically it runs out slowly by constantly thrusting (like if you switch to "flight mode" which shuts down your speed governor) and not landing, which I think refuels you automatically. Weapon fire might expend it too, but if it doesn't, then fuel probably represents your on-board reaction mass, not whatever is the fuel for your reactor, which is my guess.
Ahhh, so it doesn't recharge? Good to know. So we might be able to simply tweak the stored amount. So there's something like "fuel capacity" in VS's units.csv? Never saw such thing in PU's units.csv.
They would still need to have a small reactor, minimal plasma thrusters and spec drive to be useful enough I think,
Why? If their only use is as defenses for larger ships and stations, they don't need range; and they don't need spec either, --their host ship would wait for them to land back in before engaging spec.
They might compete with plasma thruster powered interceptors with a max of 1G acceleration, which I guess wouldn't have the same fuel limitation, but have slower and/or shorter sprints and/or less firepower do to overheating and a dependency on large, exposed radiators.
Exactly. This is why in WC fighters don't have jump drives, for the most part (with the first exception happening in 2669; the Excalibur, which only carried enough jump fuel for a single jump); whereas most civilian craft already had jump drives by 2669. Simply because military fighters travel aboard carriers; so they don't need a jump drive; and can use the upgrade space for more useful things, such as fuel and ammo. IOW, the standard fighter in WC is an interceptor, the way we speak of interceptors here.
Similarly, I see no reason why every craft in VS should have a spec drive; and it makes things monotonous for it to be so, IMO.
Something safemode and myself had discussed in the past was the idea of eliminating reactors and capacitors as upgrades and the limitation on weapon output and such, using heat buildup as the limitation instead of energy production, a bit like the BattleTech universe. So you would have radiator upgrades in place of reactor upgrades and heat-sink upgrades in place of capacitor upgrades.
Good thinking; that'd be a far better paradigm.
Deus Siddis
Elite
Elite
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2007 3:42 pm

Re: Modified Acceleration and Consumable Fuel

Post by Deus Siddis »

chuck_starchaser wrote:Ahhh, so it doesn't recharge? Good to know. So we might be able to simply tweak the stored amount. So there's something like "fuel capacity" in VS's units.csv? Never saw such thing in PU's units.csv.
Units.csv is kind of cryptic, for example the weapons are listed there but where are their stats? I can't seem to find them.

Anyway I tested the fuel consumption and it appears to not be fully implemented. When you run out of fuel (by spending several minutes on afterburner in my test case) your weapons and SPEC/JUMP capacitors no longer recharge, but your normal engines still seem to work. I guess this confirms it is meant to be reactor fuel, not reaction mass for the engines after all. Makes me wonder if weapon fire, shield regen, SPEC and JUMP usage drains it too, it seems like it should.

So the fuel currently does not seem to affect the thrusters at all- it can only be affected by them, oddly enough.
They would still need to have a small reactor, minimal plasma thrusters and spec drive to be useful enough I think,
Why? If their only use is as defenses for larger ships and stations, they don't need range; and they don't need spec either, --their host ship would wait for them to land back in before engaging spec.
Because if you can't intercept the assault craft before they have closed the distance with SPEC, you might as well launch missiles directly at them from your capital ships and escorts. And you're taking a big risk letting them get in that close, as opposed to sending out "SPEC-ranged" interceptors, that make the intercept just about anywhere along the way.

Also gameplay wise, any ship that is not SPEC-capable is basically unplayable, so only the AI can fly it. That could be okay for a few ships, like maybe the Andolian "Pavlov" combat drones, but it might be better to not take too many interceptors out of the player's arsenal by making them carrier dependent.
Similarly, I see no reason why every craft in VS should have a spec drive; and it makes things monotonous for it to be so, IMO.
There are a few ships like that already actually, as well as ships that have SPEC but not JUMP. Just not any space-based manned strike craft currently, that I know of. Mostly local service craft, some shuttles (like military dropships) and escape pods.
chuck_starchaser
Elite
Elite
Posts: 8014
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2003 4:03 am
Location: Montreal
Contact:

Re: Modified Acceleration and Consumable Fuel

Post by chuck_starchaser »

Deus Siddis wrote:
chuck_starchaser wrote:Ahhh, so it doesn't recharge? Good to know. So we might be able to simply tweak the stored amount. So there's something like "fuel capacity" in VS's units.csv? Never saw such thing in PU's units.csv.
Units.csv is kind of cryptic, for example the weapons are listed there but where are their stats? I can't seem to find them.
Hmm... No idea; they might be in an xml file somewhere. Weapons have very different stats from those of ships and stations; so it doesn't surprise me they'd be treated differently; and before ships and stations moved to a .csv file, they used to be defined in xml files; so chances are weapon stats have stayed where they were, wherever that is, in xml probably.
Anyway I tested the fuel consumption and it appears to not be fully implemented. When you run out of fuel (by spending several minutes on afterburner in my test case) your weapons and SPEC/JUMP capacitors no longer recharge, but your normal engines still seem to work.
That's great! That's what we want:
  • Normal engines = Plasma = fusion energy = low accel but never run out of energy.
  • Afterburner and strafing drives = chemical fuel = higher accel; but it does run out.
So the fuel currently does not seem to affect the thrusters at all- it can only be affected by them, oddly enough.
No; wait: You said the *normal* engines kept working; NOT afterburner, right?
Afterburner consumes that fuel; and when that fuel runs out, afterburner stops working?
They would still need to have a small reactor, minimal plasma thrusters and spec drive to be useful enough I think,
Why? If their only use is as defenses for larger ships and stations, they don't need range; and they don't need spec either, --their host ship would wait for them to land back in before engaging spec.
Because if you can't intercept the assault craft before they have closed the distance with SPEC, you might as well launch missiles directly at them from your capital ships and escorts. And you're taking a big risk letting them get in that close, as opposed to sending out "SPEC-ranged" interceptors, that make the intercept just about anywhere along the way.
Well, there's probably no problem that can't be solved by launching enough missiles at it. Furthermore, the range of any missile in space it virtually infinite; yet somehow VS has other types of weapons besides missiles. And I wasn't thinking of "letting enemies get close" as a problem gambler's problem; but more as one of those things that just happen, sometimes, and that you'd better plan for...
Now, just look at the absurdity of your argument: You're basically saying that one shouldn't plan on short range defense because you think one should plan to stop any attackers at a distance, instead... ?!?!?!?!
Frankly, I don't believe you're capable of really believing an absurdity of such magnitude; I think that you're just arguing for the sake of arguing; and that you oppose and monkey-wrench everything that comes your way as a matter of policy or sport.
But anyhow; I don't care; I don't own shares of any interceptor manufacturer. I just thought you wanted to have craft capable of multi-G so I just wanted to say that specialized interceptors like I described probably would; but if you want to load them with other equipment and force them to overlap the roles of other types of craft, then they are no longer interceptors, in my view; and would not have the space for high G accels.
This problem is not new, though; it happens at military appropriations all the time: A new plane or ship or land vehicle is proposed to fill a particular role, but then everybody starts pushing for extra features for this and that, and in the end it becomes a multi-role vehicle, of which there were many already. Design by committee precludes specialization, and eventually destroys militaries and nations from the inside. Same thing happens in civilian industries: trucks become more like cars; cars become more like trucks, until everybody owns an SUV, and regrets it. Same thing happens in game projects.
So, I'm not going to continue arguing for interceptors. This thread was about using liquid fuel instead of solid fuel for thrusters, and I agree it's a good idea.
Also gameplay wise, any ship that is not SPEC-capable is basically unplayable, so only the AI can fly it.
Indeed. But that's because most players want to explore the universe. But if a player is happy to stay at one base, and get paid by the hour for scrambling out once in a while, then an interceptor would be right. Also for a player who would be happy to work aboard a merchant ship, and learn its trading route. Just for the sake of having interesting choices.
But anyhow, my first idea was of interceptors that only the AI controls. It was a few minutes later that I thought it might be interesting to let crazy players buy them, for whatever they may be worth to own. But it's obvious you don't want them; so I rest my case.
That could be okay for a few ships, like maybe the Andolian "Pavlov" combat drones, but it might be better to not take too many interceptors out of the player's arsenal by making them carrier dependent.
I completely disagree: There are plenty of ships that the player can own that are basically good at everything; with the only conondrum of cargo space versus fighting ability. It wouldn't hurt to have a bit of variety, like a ship that's terrible at a lot of things, but excels at one. But like I said, I don't own any shares of interceptor manufacturers; I was just mentioning what I thought were cool possibilities. I was trying to please YOU with the interceptor idea; not myself. But you don't like them; that's fine: I have nothing invested in it. Have it your way.
Similarly, I see no reason why every craft in VS should have a spec drive; and it makes things monotonous for it to be so, IMO.
There are a few ships like that already actually, as well as ships that have SPEC but not JUMP. Just not any space-based manned strike craft currently, that I know of. Mostly local service craft, some shuttles (like military dropships) and escape pods.
There could also be maintenance vehicles for EVA work around stations that have chemical thrusters only; no spec; no jump drive; no power plant. Also, short range cargo vehicles that can load/unload cargo between large cargo ships and small stations without a large ship docking. But forget I said any of this; I don't want to go from one argument to half a dozen. I want exactly zero arguments, right now.
And I think the original topic of this thread should get a chance, anyways.
Deus Siddis
Elite
Elite
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2007 3:42 pm

Re: Modified Acceleration and Consumable Fuel

Post by Deus Siddis »

chuck_starchaser wrote:Hmm... No idea; they might be in an xml file somewhere.
Yeah, the somewhere is the question though. Since it doesn't appear to be in the units folder, it would appear that this is another little VS "directory mystery".
No; wait: You said the *normal* engines kept working; NOT afterburner, right?
Afterburner consumes that fuel; and when that fuel runs out, afterburner stops working?
Well to be honest I don't know about the afterburner- I was using the tab key, but I don't know for sure what that does and if your ships comes with an afterburner built in or if you buy it separately.
Now, just look at the absurdity of your argument: You're basically saying that one shouldn't plan on short range defense because you think one should plan to stop any attackers at a distance, instead... ?!?!?!?!
No I just meant most factions would probably prefer the option to intercept at different ranges if they will be giving up so much space for strike craft storage, maintenance, resupply, etc. But there are some factions who could go for it, like Andolians, Mechanists and maybe Aera if had to take a guess.

But I really don't care either way, if someone wants to code short-ranged interceptors (mostly some AI work I'd guess) and the canon doesn't care, then I think that is a green light.
Frankly, I don't believe you're capable of really believing an absurdity of such magnitude; I think that you're just arguing for the sake of arguing; and that you oppose and monkey-wrench everything that comes your way as a matter of policy or sport.
I think you should consider the possibility that making these kinds of judgments before you really know what someone is saying isn't going to work any better at any point in the future, than it has in the past.

It is really damn hard to get the amount of people needed to put a game together, to agree on what they are making. So if we make too many changes at once, both big strokes and small strokes, it runs the risk of offending some parties.

Reducing ship sizes and accelerations are big strokes, but which need to be done to cure VS' "Oldgameitis", the classic combination of huge scale and speed and shitty bland graphics and gameplay. Add too many canon changing small strokes to this as well though and I fear it could become too hard for some people to swallow. But that is just me, you can of course go directly to the founding devs with ideas or implement them.
Indeed. But that's because most players want to explore the universe. But if a player is happy to stay at one base, and get paid by the hour for scrambling out once in a while, then an interceptor would be right. Also for a player who would be happy to work aboard a merchant ship, and learn its trading route. Just for the sake of having interesting choices.
But anyhow, my first idea was of interceptors that only the AI controls.
The Andolian Pavlov interceptor and bomber are commanded or controlled via remote, which would be difficult at distances SPEC could take them too do to delay times, thus they might be some of the best candidates for such a craft, going by current canon.
There could also be maintenance vehicles for EVA work around stations that have chemical thrusters only; no spec; no jump drive; no power plant. Also, short range cargo vehicles that can load/unload cargo between large cargo ships and small stations without a large ship docking.
Certainly possible, I don't think the canon says anything against that. In fact, the largest Aera dropship primarily uses large jet engines of some sort. This sort of variety of specialized units is fairly common in the current VS canon, just not as much within the range of vessels that are player-purchase-able. Engine and canon changes would be needed to alter that.
And I think the original topic of this thread should get a chance, anyways.
Personally, I feel it could have a very good chance, because it helps close the gap between the 5-10G ceiling jackS was talking about putting into place previously and reasonable accelerations. And it might help close the gap between extreme ordnance speeds and the counter-measure maneuvering accelerations.

I bet you that is how crazy acceleration came to be by the way- to dodge railgun rounds after they have been fired you need to be really, really fast.
chuck_starchaser
Elite
Elite
Posts: 8014
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2003 4:03 am
Location: Montreal
Contact:

Re: Modified Acceleration and Consumable Fuel

Post by chuck_starchaser »

Deus Siddis wrote:Personally, I feel it could have a very good chance, because it helps close the gap between the 5-10G ceiling jackS was talking about putting into place previously and reasonable accelerations. And it might help close the gap between extreme ordnance speeds and the counter-measure maneuvering accelerations.
Alright, so, there's light at the end of the tunnel...
I think if we could agree to some numbers ASAP it will save a lot of time:
  • 1.5G - 3G: Ultra-light interceptors with chemical propulsion only; fuel for a couple of minutes worth of acceleration time. No reactor; no spec; no jump drive. For base defense or carried on large ships for close range engagements.
  • 0.75G - 1.5G: Typical fighter acceleration when using nphillips' chemical boosters. Couple of minutes' fuel.
  • 0.4G - 0.75G: Chemical booster acceleration of a ship the size of a llama
  • ~0.3G: Plasma engine acceleration for a typical fighter
  • 0.15G: Normal engine acceleration for a ship the size of the llama.
  • 0.05G: Normal acceleration of large ships like the Clydesdale (you wouldn't "see" it move).
I bet you that is how crazy acceleration came to be by the way- to dodge railgun rounds after they have been fired you need to be really, really fast.
Well, this is neither here nor there; but I think the crazy accelerations were actually necessary before there was SPEC.
Long before your days, there were no FTL engines in Vegastrike. What there was was time compression.
But even with very high numbers in time compression, travel still would take a lot of time.
There was also no autopilot. Getting from planet A to planet B was challenging. Low accelerations would require you to plan your trip taking gravitation into account (slingshots and all that). High accelerations, on the other hand, made gravitational issues irrelevant, and shortened travel times considerably.
Since SPEC, my argument has been that high accelerations are no longer necessary, since spec can be tweaked to get similar results.
But in regards to rail-guns, I'd say that it's probably the other way around: That fast weapons were needed because of the evasion ability that high accelerations afforded; but I'm just guessing.
Deus Siddis
Elite
Elite
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2007 3:42 pm

Re: Modified Acceleration and Consumable Fuel

Post by Deus Siddis »

chuck_starchaser wrote:Alright, so, there's light at the end of the tunnel...
I think if we could agree to some numbers ASAP it will save a lot of time:
  • 1.5G - 3G: Ultra-light interceptors with chemical propulsion only; fuel for a couple of minutes worth of acceleration time. No reactor; no spec; no jump drive. For base defense or carried on large ships for close range engagements.
  • 0.75G - 1.5G: Typical fighter acceleration when using nphillips' chemical boosters. Couple of minutes' fuel.
  • 0.4G - 0.75G: Chemical booster acceleration of a ship the size of a llama
  • ~0.3G: Plasma engine acceleration for a typical fighter
  • 0.15G: Normal engine acceleration for a ship the size of the llama.
  • 0.05G: Normal acceleration of large ships like the Clydesdale (you wouldn't "see" it move).
Those look pretty good, I wouldn't mind seeing slightly higher values for the plasmas, but I concur they are good figures to begin the gameplay testing.
Well, this is neither here nor there; but I think the crazy accelerations were actually necessary before there was SPEC.
Long before your days, there were no FTL engines in Vegastrike. What there was was time compression.
But even with very high numbers in time compression, travel still would take a lot of time.
There was also no autopilot. Getting from planet A to planet B was challenging. Low accelerations would require you to plan your trip taking gravitation into account (slingshots and all that). High accelerations, on the other hand, made gravitational issues irrelevant, and shortened travel times considerably.
Since SPEC, my argument has been that high accelerations are no longer necessary, since spec can be tweaked to get similar results.
But in regards to rail-guns, I'd say that it's probably the other way around: That fast weapons were needed because of the evasion ability that high accelerations afforded; but I'm just guessing.
Well you're probably right then, but once SPEC was implemented, those railgun values might have been a big part of keeping them up, since their exit velocities in-game seem to match up well with those wikipedia gives on real-world railgun tests and near future plans.
chuck_starchaser
Elite
Elite
Posts: 8014
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2003 4:03 am
Location: Montreal
Contact:

Re: Modified Acceleration and Consumable Fuel

Post by chuck_starchaser »

Deus Siddis wrote:Those look pretty good, I wouldn't mind seeing slightly higher values for the plasmas, but I concur they are good figures to begin the gameplay testing.
Glad you like them. My thinking about plasma limits goes like this, just to clarify:
The larger a ship is, the lower the accel; because the mass of a ship tends to increase by something between the square and the cube of linear size, but basic strength of materials doesn't. To use JackS imagery, imagine you got the Eiffel Tower floating in space, and you put four engines on it where the feet are. Assuming the four engines can be guaranteed to thrust equally at all times, you could conceivably accelerate the Eiffel Tower at 1 G without destroying it.
But now, if you build a structure so large that it could not hold its own weight if you put it on the ground on Earth, then you can't accelerate it at 1 G in space either. That's precisely the case with something as big as the Clydesdale. It would be something like 15 times the height of the Empire State building. Furthermore, tall structures on Earth, such as the Eiffel Tower, are mostly decorative; they don't have to haul cargo. If you tried to build a big cargo space into the Eiffel Tower and fill it with rock, the whole thing would come down.
So, I would think that 1 G thrusting would be the limit for a 100 meter ship, say; and one which was designed specifically to be a "fast hauler" or "blockade runner", at that.
But what about smaller ships?
I think smaller ships, although not so structurally limited, would incur losses of scale in reactor
efficiency and net power output. You can't build a 100 cc piston engine as efficient as a 4 litre
engine. Efficiencies tend to suffer at the lower ends of most scales. Some of the NASA probes
have nuclear power plants; but terribly inefficient ones, that produce only a few watts output.
Finally, there's the peak output versus steady state output efficiencies to consider:
As a designer of spacecraft, you may find that, on average, a 0.2 G thrust is economically ideal
for a given vessel to haul cargo for a given commercial range. But if you need to make it able
to occasionally thrust at 2 G's, you may have to change the design in ways that make the 0.2G
standard thrusting less efficient. So, it may pay to have a dual system whereby you use a
different kind of thrusting for the occasional high G burst.
Well you're probably right then, but once SPEC was implemented, those railgun values might have been a big part of keeping them up, since their exit velocities in-game seem to match up well with those wikipedia gives on real-world railgun tests and near future plans.
Thing is, when SPEC was implemented there was no plan to introduce changes in any other areas of the game. SPEC was introduced to get rid of the hated time-compression feature; nothing else. Game features based on the assumption of high G accelerations remained where they were, it perfect symbiosis with weapon types, AND with the new SPEC. IOW, SPEC was tuned to produce desired flight times given the assumption of high G accelerations.
nphillips
Hunter
Hunter
Posts: 85
Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2009 9:28 pm

Re: Modified Acceleration and Consumable Fuel

Post by nphillips »

Chuck, that is a BRILLIANT description of the acceleration issue.

It hadn't occurred to me to make the comparison between thrusting and sitting on Earth.

That makes me wonder if we aren't building these ships entirely wrong, then. From a structural perspective, it's easier to build a warehouse that's 3m tall and 500m square than 3m square and 500m tall. And it's the latter that we're doing with our ships!

Plus, don't forget that on Earth, the 1G force is evenly spread out, and constantly applied across the entire base of the structure (generally speaking). On our ships, we have that force applied at specific points with no apparent structure to help spread it across the back end of the ship. Plus, it's applied arbitrarily applied, often with sudden changes (i.e. no thrust to full thrust in a very short period of time). Not to mention that the thrusters are the equivalent of putting a building onto stilts....

(I suddenly have images of extra-wide and incredibly stubby ships in my mind....)
Deus Siddis
Elite
Elite
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2007 3:42 pm

Re: Modified Acceleration and Consumable Fuel

Post by Deus Siddis »

chuck_starchaser wrote:Glad you like them. My thinking about plasma limits goes like this, just to clarify: . . .
That has always been my thinking on the subject too.

We just need to keep a special eye on how player-purchase-able ships from ~10 to ~200 meters in length perform for human players during testing. It is desirable for gameplay that such craft be reasonably flyable for players using the current default control scheme.

Craft much larger than that (and therefore less responsive), if playable, will probably need a new "command" style interface, where the player sets courses or destinations for example, rather than directly controlling the ships' thrusters. Or at least a more advanced display that shows ship trajectory or such.
Thing is, when SPEC was implemented there was no plan to introduce changes in any other areas of the game. SPEC was introduced to get rid of the hated time-compression feature; nothing else. Game features based on the assumption of high G accelerations remained where they were, it perfect symbiosis with weapon types, AND with the new SPEC. IOW, SPEC was tuned to produce desired flight times given the assumption of high G accelerations.
Well it might need to be adjusted, but currently SPEC is a little on the fast side anyway, IMO. So maybe much adjustment to it won't be necessary, to restore a "space is vast, not fast" feel to the game.

To compensate though, monetary rewards for missions and trade would need to be adjusted. Completing "a long and arduous journey" in space should offer a considerable reward. IMO, if exaggeration is needed, it is better to exaggerate rewards than travel speeds, for a space setting.

But either way we need to pay close attention to flight computer governor and ordnance exit velocity values as ship accelerations are lowered. Those are musts, methinks.
Deus Siddis
Elite
Elite
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2007 3:42 pm

Re: Modified Acceleration and Consumable Fuel

Post by Deus Siddis »

nphillips wrote: That makes me wonder if we aren't building these ships entirely wrong, then. From a structural perspective, it's easier to build a warehouse that's 3m tall and 500m square than 3m square and 500m tall. And it's the latter that we're doing with our ships!

Plus, don't forget that on Earth, the 1G force is evenly spread out, and constantly applied across the entire base of the structure (generally speaking). On our ships, we have that force applied at specific points with no apparent structure to help spread it across the back end of the ship. Plus, it's applied arbitrarily applied, often with sudden changes (i.e. no thrust to full thrust in a very short period of time). Not to mention that the thrusters are the equivalent of putting a building onto stilts....
Maybe those two things answer each other. If you had wider and taller ships, the 'stilts' would be farther apart so that the torque/leverage(?) between them and the dead-weight points of the cross section between the stilts would be greater. Having longer ships maybe focuses the stress of "varying inertia" between parts of the ship that are thrusters and parts that are dead weight as compression rather than torque/leverage.

Hopefully some of that makes sense. . . :?

Anyway, when the stilts come from six directions rather than one, this would change and ships would become stubby again. But maybe then larger ships have much higher main thrust to retro/lateral thrust ratio. Otherwise they'd rip themselves apart.
nphillips
Hunter
Hunter
Posts: 85
Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2009 9:28 pm

Re: Modified Acceleration and Consumable Fuel

Post by nphillips »

Deus Siddis wrote:Maybe those two things answer each other. If you had wider and taller ships, the 'stilts' would be farther apart so that the torque/leverage(?) between them and the dead-weight points of the cross section between the stilts would be greater. Having longer ships maybe focuses the stress of "varying inertia" between parts of the ship that are thrusters and parts that are dead weight as compression rather than torque/leverage.

Hopefully some of that makes sense. . . :?
That's true, too -- it would require MORE engines, and at the size, it might be more efficient to have multiple reactors to avoid containing the plasma in tubes across the backend of the ship. More reactors means added inefficiency, added complexity....
chuck_starchaser
Elite
Elite
Posts: 8014
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2003 4:03 am
Location: Montreal
Contact:

Re: Modified Acceleration and Consumable Fuel

Post by chuck_starchaser »

Exactly. Making a ship 3 meters long but with the cross-section of Texas is not ideal either. I think that, for space, the Borg have it about right with their Cube :D But anyhow, the simplest solution, and the one that will feel best in-game is scaling down acceleration with ship size.
Frankly, I don't care about player ownership of large ships. You could simply remove it, as we're planning to do with PU; or you could have a "Going to sleep; wake me up in 8 hours" clock like in Fallout 2. Large ships don't have to be slow, in space; but they must be very slow accelerating and maneuvering. Think of an oil supertanker parallel parking at Basra. You should be able to sit in your llama and watch a Clydesdale for several hours just maneuvering to its docking, while sipping margaritas. I know I would.
This business of ships supposedly kilometer-scale coming and going like busy bees is cartoonish; it makes them look like toys.
The same goes for sub-units. If a turret is supposedly 25 meters in diameter, then it can't turn around in a fraction of a second.
Regarding SPEC, I think it will have to be speeded up HUGE, like by orders of magnitude. Reason being that travel times increase with the inverse of acceleration squared.
Errol_Summerlin
Merchant
Merchant
Posts: 46
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 4:10 am

Re: Modified Acceleration and Consumable Fuel

Post by Errol_Summerlin »

@chuck
d=1/2*a*t^2...solve for t=sqrt(2d/a)...thus, for a given distance, t goes as 1/sqrt(a)...not as 1/a^2...but the point stands that big capital ships will take forever to get where they are going. I can see this being a really cool thing in an mmorpg...Some guy heads out of dock in a giant cargo hauler. You go message all your buddies and organize a hit. You have plenty of time to get your buds in system and get organized because the target is moving nice and slow. For the person hauling the cargo, well 1. hauling that much cargo makes some serious cash and is probably worth the travel time monetarily speaking. 2. It won't be boring because you will probably be talking with people about the unusual number of small fighter craft that recently entered the system and trying to hastily hire some escorts in-flight. You will also need to be watching your radar for incoming 3. With fully customizable player-designed spacecraft. It should not be a problem to design a ship that is basically engines and cargo space that seriously get around. It might still be bad at turning unless they decide to stick some serious maneuvering thrusters on there, but it is perfectly feasible that a giant ship could have the same forward acceleration as small fighter...it would just take a lot more engines to do it...especially while the freighter is laden with cargo. The stuctural integrity issue that you brought up though does warrant consideration, but I imagine the particular scenario one is developing in the game would affect these limitations. It would make the most sense to have each hull (assuming fully customizable ships) have a maximum acceleration associated with it based on its size. This value could be increased by constructing the hull out of more advanced materials or adding structural integrity moduals (take up space and mass on the ship but increase the max value of a). Just as a side note, I am not 100% sure, but I believe that the equilateral trigonal pyramid is considered to be the most stable structure per unit mass of support structure. Might seem funny looking, but I think that is probably the most likely shape for futuristic capital ships. (very star destroyeresque)

As for the original concept you proposed of having a base acceleration that is independent of fuel and a more powerful acceleration that is (can be) fuel dependent. It sounds great to me, but I think it is important to consider how the un-fueled thruster gets its energy. For that matter, how the ship gets its energy is another fundamental question. I generally think of anti-matter engines as the best idea that still obey known laws of physics. It gives a very simple equation for fuel consumption in E=mc^2. The energy generated by this anti-matter engine can (and should..unless you can think of a huge power source that doesn't use fuel) power everything on the ship...it provides thrust...torque (via maneuvering thrusters)...weapon energy and shields if you want them in your game. Furthermore, the primary product of anti-matter annihilation is light...which also happens to have a specific impulse greater than any other form of propulsion with a propellant velocity of c. It is essentially, the most powerful fuel we can imagine currently. However, what happens if you run out of fuel...are you stranded in space forever? The answer should be no for game mechanics reasons...but then how does the ship get power once it has run out of anti-matter? Well, I would suggest solar power. It is possible that the entire ship hull could be made of a super conducting material that efficiently converts benign photons that strike it into usable electricity. Anything that is at MeV energies or less. At GeV energies, these photons would probably penetrate the hull and cause damage. Interestingly, the output from an anti-matter annihilation thruster would be 512MeV photons which could potentially provide a mechanism for charing an allies ship.

So in the end, you would have two sources of power. A battery, which stores energy..that is replenished by solar power as you fly(and potentially by an ally at range) and is used first for any ship activities and an anti-matter annihilation engine that uses fuel that is used only when the battery is completely drained. Anyway...that is my two cents.
chuck_starchaser
Elite
Elite
Posts: 8014
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2003 4:03 am
Location: Montreal
Contact:

Re: Modified Acceleration and Consumable Fuel

Post by chuck_starchaser »

Errol_Summerlin wrote:@chuck
d=1/2*a*t^2...solve for t=sqrt(2d/a)...thus, for a given distance, t goes as 1/sqrt(a)...not as 1/a^2.
Good catch!
..but the point stands that big capital ships will take forever to get where they are going. I can see this being a really cool thing in an mmorpg...Some guy heads out of dock in a giant cargo hauler. You go message all your buddies and organize a hit. You have plenty of time to get your buds in system and get organized because the target is moving nice and slow. For the person hauling the cargo, well 1. hauling that much cargo makes some serious cash and is probably worth the travel time monetarily speaking. 2. It won't be boring because you will probably be talking with people about the unusual number of small fighter craft that recently entered the system and trying to hastily hire some escorts in-flight. You will also need to be watching your radar for incoming 3.
Exactly.
With fully customizable player-designed spacecraft. It should not be a problem to design a ship that is basically engines and cargo space that seriously get around. It might still be bad at turning unless they decide to stick some serious maneuvering thrusters on there, but it is perfectly feasible that a giant ship could have the same forward acceleration as small fighter...it would just take a lot more engines to do it...especially while the freighter is laden with cargo.
Can't. There's a reason why sky-scrapers 20 kilometers high don't exist. They can't be accelerated by the ground against 1G gravity. Same applies to a structure in space. Worse, because buildings on the ground don't sport maneuvering jets.
The stuctural integrity issue that you brought up though does warrant consideration, but I imagine the particular scenario one is developing in the game would affect these limitations.
Not sure what scenario you're talking about. If you refer to futuristic materials, I'm very skeptical about futurism (in spite of being a big sci-fi reader); but even if I'm wrong and we have materials 1000 times stronger in the future, what does that do for us in terms of gameplay? Nothing. Because if you see a 5 kilometer long ship and it accelerates like a lear-jet, you (the player) will simply assume that it is roughly the size of a lear-jet. Why? Because kilometer-sized structures accelerating at multi-G accelerations are totally outside our experience AND imaginative capacity.
It would make the most sense to have each hull (assuming fully customizable ships) have a maximum acceleration associated with it based on its size. This value could be increased by constructing the hull out of more advanced materials or adding structural integrity moduals (take up space and mass on the ship but increase the max value of a).
Ditto. Neither kinesthetically believable, nor of any gameplay value; unless you're talking about boosting accel from 0.02 G to 0.023 G, or something like that.
Just as a side note, I am not 100% sure, but I believe that the equilateral trigonal pyramid
It's called "tetrahedron".
is considered to be the most stable structure per unit mass of support structure. Might seem funny looking, but I think that is probably the most likely shape for futuristic capital ships. (very star destroyeresque)
True!
R. Buckminster Fuller suggested a tetrahedral shape for a floating arcology, in a book.
Thing is, though, there's other considerations, such as ease of loading and unloading of cargo, servicing and maintenance; scalability, etceteras. I think the cargo ships of the space age will be more like very long trains of identical modules, each with its own propulsion drives; and ports will probably be like drive-through's, so the cargo ship never completely stops at a port; it just moves slowly through a station and the modules are unloaded, serviced and re-loaded as they pass. But this is not the direction of vegastrike; more like stuff for another mod.
As for the original concept you proposed of having a base acceleration that is independent of fuel and a more powerful acceleration that is (can be) fuel dependent. It sounds great to me, but I think it is important to consider how the un-fueled thruster gets its energy. For that matter, how the ship gets its energy is another fundamental question. I generally think of anti-matter engines as the best idea that still obey known laws of physics. It gives a very simple equation for fuel consumption in E=mc^2. The energy generated by this anti-matter engine can (and should..unless you can think of a huge power source that doesn't use fuel) power everything on the ship...it provides thrust...torque (via maneuvering thrusters)...weapon energy and shields if you want them in your game. Furthermore, the primary product of anti-matter annihilation is light...which also happens to have a specific impulse greater than any other form of propulsion with a propellant velocity of c. It is essentially, the most powerful fuel we can imagine currently. However, what happens if you run out of fuel...are you stranded in space forever? The answer should be no for game mechanics reasons...but then how does the ship get power once it has run out of anti-matter? Well, I would suggest solar power. It is possible that the entire ship hull could be made of a super conducting material that efficiently converts benign photons that strike it into usable electricity. Anything that is at MeV energies or less. At GeV energies, these photons would probably penetrate the hull and cause damage. Interestingly, the output from an anti-matter annihilation thruster would be 512MeV photons which could potentially provide a mechanism for charing an allies ship.
Well, I'm not the lead guy for vegastrike; not sure there is one anymore; but the matter of antimatter was considered a long many years ago, and abandoned for fusion. And I can't say I disagree with the decision. Problem with antimatter is storage, as you probably know already.
Having said that, it once occurred to me that a new "chemistry" might perhaps be conceivable, where matter and antimatter are bonded in a stable fashion and grown into chrystals. It would have to be some matter crystal structure with cavities featuring a lot of negative charges pointing inwards, where a single anti-hydrogen or anti-deuterium nucleus fits suspended.
But anyhow, in the vegastrike universe ships' power comes from fusion; and I once argued we needed a specification for the fusion fuel, but that never happened. I'd argue for Helium 3.
But in any case, what makes it really easy to sweep aside the fuel and propulsion problems is the fact that we have a much bigger problem to solve first: Getting rid of excess heat.
So in the end, you would have two sources of power. A battery, which stores energy..that is replenished by solar power as you fly(and potentially by an ally at range) and is used first for any ship activities and an anti-matter annihilation engine that uses fuel that is used only when the battery is completely drained. Anyway...that is my two cents.
Well, thing is, solar power would be so miniscule, even if you had solar cells spreading out for miles, that if you were to run out of fusion fuel out there you'd have to put the ship on autopilot and go into the cryogenic suspension tank; set the alarm clock for 200 years later.
Post Reply