150 réponses à ce sujet

[Skirata129]

In ME2, when you're doing the whole galactic exploration and strip mining thing, your ship will accelerate when you push forward and will slow down and stop when you don't, taking up fuel the entire time you're moving. All well and good except for one thing.

Space doesn't have friction.

why does the Normandy stop and why do we need fuel to continue moving forward after we hit top speed? we only need it to accelerate and deccelerate.

[Aveen130]

Stop over thinking it. Its just a game, not everything has to be perfectly realistic.

[Mister Mida]

Just drop the fuel thing entirely, among most other things that ME2's map came with.

[Bogsnot1]

Mass Effect cause cancel out physics. Just watch how the Normandy banks in space, as if its flying through an atmosphere.

The only thing in the ME universe that obeys the laws of physics is a 20kg ferrous slug.

Modifié par Bogsnot1, 31 juillet 2011 - 07:38 .

[didymos1120]

Because that was easy to implement.

[Praetor Knight]

How about as an alcubierre drive?

And the Codex says you still need thrusters.



Edit: link shall worketh 

Modifié par Praetor Shepard, 31 juillet 2011 - 07:42 .

[Inutaisho7996]

Bogsnot1 wrote...

Mass Effect cause cancel out physics. Just watch how the Normandy banks in space, as if its flying through an atmosphere.

The only thing in the ME universe that obeys the laws of physics is a 20kg ferrous slug.

www.youtube.com/watch
 
BioWare is very much aware that banking in a vacuum is hard.

[KingNothing125]

I think you're putting the cart before the horse, chief.

There's that whole thing about it being impossible to travel faster than the speed of light, also "element zero" doesn't exist.

I wouldn't worry too much about consuming fuel for intracluster travel.

[ramdog7]

Tell that to star wars, star trek, battlestar galatica, firefly ,etc

[Praetor Knight]

KingNothing125 wrote...

I think you're putting the cart before the horse, chief.

There's that whole thing about it being impossible to travel faster than the speed of light, also "element zero" doesn't exist.

I wouldn't worry too much about consuming fuel for intracluster travel.

We do have higgs-bosons. 


And this too.

Thrusters

A mass effect drive core decreases the mass of a bubble of space-time around a ship. This gives the ship the potential to move quickly, but does not apply any motive power. Ships use their sublight thrusters for motive power in FTL. There are several varieties of thruster, varying in performance versus economy. All ships are equipped with arrays of hydrogen-oxygen reaction control thrusters for maneuvering.

Ion drives electrically accelerate charged particles as a reaction mass. They are extremely efficient, but produce negligible thrust. They are mainly used for automated cargo barges.

The primary commercial engine is a "fusion torch", which vents the plasma of a ship's power plant. Fusion torches offer powerful acceleration at the cost of difficult heat management. Torch fuel is fairly cheap: helium-3 skimmed from gas giants and deuterium extracted from seawater or cometary bodies. Propellant is hydrogen, likewise skimmed from gas giants.

In combat, military vessels require accelerations beyond the capability of fusion torches. Warship thrusters inject antiprotons into a reaction chamber filled with hydrogen. The matter-antimatter annihilation provides unmatched motive power. The drawback is fuel production; antiprotons must be manufactured one particle at a time. Most antimatter production is done at massive solar arrays orbiting energetic stars, making them high-value targets in wartime.

The exhaust of fusion and antiproton drives is measured in millions of degrees Celsius. Any vessel caught behind them will melt like wax in a blowtorch.

Any long-duration interstellar flight consists of two phases: acceleration and deceleration. Starships accelerate to the half-way point of their journey, then flip 180 degrees and apply thrust on the opposite vector, decelerating as they finish the trip. The engines are always operating, and peak speed is attained at the middle of the flight.

[Skirata129]

Praetor Shepard wrote...

How about as an alcubierre drive?

And the Codex says you still need thrusters.



Edit: link shall worketh 

that codex entry actually agreed with me, meaning the flying simulation is at odds with both Isaac Newton and some poor Bioware writer.

[Bogsnot1]

ramdog7 wrote...

Tell that to star wars, star trek, battlestar galatica, firefly ,etc

Actually, BSG got that right, at last on the Vipers and Raptors. Maneuvering thrusters were used to change the crafts pitch, yaw, and roll.
Babylon 5 is the only TV show that Ive seen that (apart from jumpgates and technomages) fully obeys the laws of physics.

[BrotherCorvid]

Bogsnot1 wrote...

Mass Effect cause cancel out physics. Just watch how the Normandy banks in space, as if its flying through an atmosphere.

The only thing in the ME universe that obeys the laws of physics is a 20kg ferrous slug.

THAT. MEANS. ISAAC NEWTON IS THE DEADLIEST SONOFA**** IN THE GALAXY.

[Inutaisho7996]

Skirata129 wrote...

Praetor Shepard wrote...

How about as an alcubierre drive?

And the Codex says you still need thrusters.



Edit: link shall worketh 

that codex entry actually agreed with me, meaning the flying simulation is at odds with both Isaac Newton and some poor Bioware writer.

It would be too confusing for people if the Normandy suddenly switched directions in the middle of flight. Just imagine that's what's happening and deal with it.

[didymos1120]

Seriously: it's just a stupid gameplay mechanic they introduced to make the map more interactive. As well complain that it's all horribly out of scale, or that the SR-2 can fly straight through stars, or that everything is always so well-lit or about any number of other departures from reality and lore that the Galaxy Map has. It's an interface, nothing more.

Modifié par didymos1120, 31 juillet 2011 - 07:51 .

[Praetor Knight]

Skirata129 wrote...

Praetor Shepard wrote...

How about as an alcubierre drive?

And the Codex says you still need thrusters.



Edit: link shall worketh 

that codex entry actually agreed with me, meaning the flying simulation is at odds with both Isaac Newton and some poor Bioware writer.

I just wonder about distance and time, which the scale of the map seems as if it could struggle with simlulating, as we've seen it in ME2.

[SpiderFan1217]

Skirata129 wrote...

In ME2, when you're doing the whole galactic exploration and strip mining thing, your ship will accelerate when you push forward and will slow down and stop when you don't, taking up fuel the entire time you're moving. All well and good except for one thing.

Space doesn't have friction.

why does the Normandy stop and why do we need fuel to continue moving forward after we hit top speed? we only need it to accelerate and deccelerate.

  Sounds to me like someone's a little jealous that they can't rewrite physics... 

[FoxShadowblade]

Still want to play a game that obeys the laws of physics?

No?

Didn't think so. Real life is BORING, hence why we play as a dashing commander that bangs alien women. ...Or men, if your into that.

Modifié par FoxShadowblade, 31 juillet 2011 - 07:55 .

[sy7ar]

you know when you're moving out of a system that will take your ship to FTL which means it consumes certain fuels to create MASS EFFECT to let that happen.

[Reptillius]

Actually... not having to use fuel to keep moving does not go against Isaac Newton... Because his laws do leave open quite clearly for objects traveling without equal forces acting against them. It's one of the basic tenants of his theories...

The problem with the ship keeping moving just because we let go of the stick being that it could just run amok because we stop paying attention and game wise it's often safer to have it stop moving rather than fly on endlessly or crash into some invisible barier at the edge of the screen.

[BlackwindTheCommander]

Quick question, of all the things regarding to physics that could be argued in ME, why is the MAP such a big deal?

[Whatever42]

Inside systems, solar winds slow it down. Outside systems, they are going FTL, which requires the active engagement of the engines.

My pet peeve is the sound in space. I think that's why Firefly failed. People demand the whoosh of engines and the pew pew of lasers. Silence unnerves them.

And no higgs-bosun yet. I don't think they'll find it. Personally, I'm hoping they don't find it. That theory is confusing and I don't like being confused. I hope they disprove black holes next. This whole everything is a reflection talk is scaring me.

[Reptillius]

Reptillius wrote...

Actually... not having to use fuel to keep moving does not go against Isaac Newton... Because his laws do leave open quite clearly for objects traveling without equal forces acting against them. It's one of the basic tenants of his theories...


[*]An object that is at rest will stay at rest unless an unbalanced force acts upon it.
[*]An object that is in motion will not change its velocity unless an unbalanced force acts upon it.

The problem with the ship keeping moving just because we let go of the stick being that it could just run amok because we stop paying attention and game wise it's often safer to have it stop moving rather than fly on endlessly or crash into some invisible barier at the edge of the screen.