yeah, but is FTL used in system? that's mainly what this pertains to, especially when you realize that if it is, FTL is somehow slower inside a solar system than in the local star cluster.
Bioware can rewrite physics.
Débuté par
Skirata129
, juil. 31 2011 07:34
Retour en haut
#52
Posté 31 juillet 2011 - 09:17
SandTrout
-
- Members
- 4 171 messages
Thread title: "Bioware can rewrite physics"
Yep, that pretty much sums up 99% of the science fiction genre.
Yep, that pretty much sums up 99% of the science fiction genre.
#53
Posté 31 juillet 2011 - 09:20
Praetor Knight
-
- Members
- 5 772 messages
As SandTrout brings up, I also think the title should reflect this thought .Skirata129 wrote...
yeah, but is FTL used in system? that's mainly what this pertains to, especially when you realize that if it is, FTL is somehow slower inside a solar system than in the local star cluster.
And from what I understand, FTL is used and gas giants are the prefered locations to vent the waste heat of FTL travel, I could try dig up at least one neat ME1 entry also.
Modifié par Praetor Shepard, 31 juillet 2011 - 09:23 .
#54
Posté 31 juillet 2011 - 09:23
didymos1120
-
- Members
- 14 580 messages
Praetor Shepard wrote...
And from what I understand, FTL is used and gas giants are the prefered locations to vent the waste heat of FTL travel, I could try dig up at least one neat ME1 entry also.
Of course it is. It would take days or weeks or even months to get around otherwise. Solar systems, while not as large as a galaxy, are still pretty large.
Modifié par didymos1120, 31 juillet 2011 - 09:24 .
#55
Posté 31 juillet 2011 - 09:25
Praetor Knight
-
- Members
- 5 772 messages
Right, the ME1 planet I'm looking for speaks of a ship that gets trapped on the surface and then tries to leave and gets obliterated.didymos1120 wrote...
Praetor Shepard wrote...
And from what I understand, FTL is used and gas giants are the prefered locations to vent the waste heat of FTL travel, I could try dig up at least one neat ME1 entry also.
Of course it is. It would take days or weeks or even months to get around otherwise. Solar systems, while not as large as a galaxy, are still pretty large.
I just can't remember the plantet name right now
#56
Posté 31 juillet 2011 - 09:27
bucyrus5000
-
- Members
- 829 messages
what freaked me out was the 1st time I fly through a sun. BW has teh fysx tyd dwn yo. lol got to love the planets orbiting half in stars.
#57
Posté 31 juillet 2011 - 09:35
S.A.K
-
- Members
- 2 741 messages
Well, what we look at when we fly the normany is the hologram the captain uses. Its not a real star. Also I think joker flyes the Normandy after shepard selects a destination. This also explains the braking. That is just how the glaxy map software works and not the real Normandy.bucyrus5000 wrote...
what freaked me out was the 1st time I fly through a sun. BW has teh fysx tyd dwn yo. lol got to love the planets orbiting half in stars.
#59
Posté 31 juillet 2011 - 09:42
Bazedragon
-
- Members
- 329 messages
The amount of element zero and power required for a drive increases exponentially to the mass being moved and the degree it is being lightened. Very massive ships or very high speeds are prohibitively expensive.
This power has to come from somewhere. In many sci-fi series, the engine core also doubles-up as a power core, so it could be assumed the same is happening on board the Normandy, and thus fuel must be used to off-set the drain from the eezo core.
#60
Posté 31 juillet 2011 - 09:52
Skirata129
-
- Members
- 1 992 messages
so you're telling me that if I fly my simulaton in circles before landing, Joker will do the EXACT same thing during the flight, and if my "simulation" runs out of fuel, EDI embezzles my minerals and sells them on the black market to pay for her extranet porn addiction?S.A.K wrote...
Well, what we look at when we fly the normany is the hologram the captain uses. Its not a real star. Also I think joker flyes the Normandy after shepard selects a destination. This also explains the braking. That is just how the glaxy map software works and not the real Normandy.bucyrus5000 wrote...
what freaked me out was the 1st time I fly through a sun. BW has teh fysx tyd dwn yo. lol got to love the planets orbiting half in stars.
Modifié par Skirata129, 31 juillet 2011 - 09:52 .
#61
Posté 31 juillet 2011 - 09:53
didymos1120
-
- Members
- 14 580 messages
Bazedragon wrote...
This power has to come from somewhere. In many sci-fi series, the engine core also doubles-up as a power core, so it could be assumed the same is happening on board the Normandy, and thus fuel must be used to off-set the drain from the eezo core.
The eezo does not generate power. It drains it. You have to run current through it to generate an ME field. It's certainly possible that the eezo and the reactor that generates the actual power are part of a single assembly that just gets called "the ME core", but there must still be a distinct power generation system.
Modifié par didymos1120, 31 juillet 2011 - 09:56 .
#62
Posté 31 juillet 2011 - 09:53
Praetor Knight
-
- Members
- 5 772 messages
heat becomes the most important factor in combat.Bazedragon wrote...
The amount of element zero and power required for a drive increases exponentially to the mass being moved and the degree it is being lightened. Very massive ships or very high speeds are prohibitively expensive.
This power has to come from somewhere. In many sci-fi series, the engine core also doubles-up as a power core, so it could be assumed the same is happening on board the Normandy, and thus fuel must be used to off-set the drain from the eezo core.
#63
Posté 31 juillet 2011 - 09:55
Praetor Knight
-
- Members
- 5 772 messages
that comes out of joker's paySkirata129 wrote...
the black market to pay for her extranet porn addiction?
#64
Posté 31 juillet 2011 - 09:59
Bazedragon
-
- Members
- 329 messages
didymos1120 wrote...
Bazedragon wrote...
This power has to come from somewhere. In many sci-fi series, the engine core also doubles-up as a power core, so it could be assumed the same is happening on board the Normandy, and thus fuel must be used to off-set the drain from the eezo core.
The eezo does not generate power. It drains it. You have to run current through it to generate an ME field. It's certainly possible that the eezo and reactor that generates the actual power are part of a single assembly just gets called "the ME core", but there must still be a distinct power generation system.
That's exactly my point, didymos. If the power comes from somewhere, and many sci-fi series have the engine system doubling up as a power generator (the heat being used probably for some conventional generator system - heating water to drive turbines which drive a generator - or something better) which could then provide the power to the Mass Effect Core.
The only trouble with that is that there would have to be fuel burning constantly, or a second reactor to power the rest of the ship.
#65
Posté 31 juillet 2011 - 10:03
xentar
-
- Members
- 937 messages
ramdog7 wrote...
Tell that to star wars, star trek, battlestar galatica, firefly ,etc
Well, actually, Firefly wasn't actually bad. And it was one of the few shows where there was no space in sound to please the crowds (until Serenity, that is). Anyway, the mass effect itself comtradics physics (and I mean contradicts, not expands like decent sci-fi phenomena do), so, artificial friction is only a minor addition.
#66
Posté 31 juillet 2011 - 10:11
Jayce
-
- Members
- 972 messages
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.
But the Normandy has brakes; it decelerates....
Why does the Normandy stop?
Because you decelerate.
and why do we need fuel to continue moving forward after we hit top speed? we only need it to accelerate and deccelerate.
Lore Answer: The eezo core consumes a hydrogen/eezo fuel mixture during FTL and if the regular fuel runs out, it has to consume pure eezo from your stockpiles. But the core only uses relatively minute amounts to accelerate or decelerate within star systems.
Real Answer: Because it was an easy and intuitive way to handle controls in the exploration mini-game.
#67
Posté 31 juillet 2011 - 10:11
Bazedragon
-
- Members
- 329 messages
xentar wrote...
Well, actually, Firefly wasn't actually bad. And it was one of the few shows where there was no space in sound to please the crowds (until Serenity, that is). Anyway, the mass effect itself comtradics physics (and I mean contradicts, not expands like decent sci-fi phenomena do), so, artificial friction is only a minor addition.
In truth, I'm not certain of this, but I believe Firely all takes place in one solar system containing many planets, and the reason it takes a while to get anywhere is a lack of FTL.
http://www.fireflywiki.org/Firefly/FasterThanLight
... statements from the creator Joss Whedon, from the Serenity Movie, and the general look of the TV episodes all combine to suggest that the light-speed limit is honored in the world of Firefly.
As for the sound in space, this was theorised (and supported by NASA, in fact) by J. Micheal Straczinsky (creator of Babylon 5) that if a ship explodes in space, you would in fact hear the explosion as any gasses within would expand outwards and carry the "sound" (such as it is) with it.
Engines - some eject fuel and use impulse to propell themselves, so you can assume that's why you hear their engines.
Can be assumed to be the same for Mass Effect, I suppose. Look at the Kodiak Shuttle when it is landing, the four engines are clearly expelling something - also visible on the collector ship (though whether or not you're in vacuum conditions there are... negotiable.
Modifié par Bazedragon, 31 juillet 2011 - 10:16 .
#68
Posté 31 juillet 2011 - 10:14
Sgt Stryker
-
- Members
- 2 590 messages
Skirata129 wrote...
so you're telling me that if I fly my simulaton in circles before landing, Joker will do the EXACT same thing during the flight, and if my "simulation" runs out of fuel, EDI embezzles my minerals and sells them on the black market to pay for her extranet porn addiction?S.A.K wrote...
Well, what we look at when we fly the normany is the hologram the captain uses. Its not a real star. Also I think joker flyes the Normandy after shepard selects a destination. This also explains the braking. That is just how the glaxy map software works and not the real Normandy.bucyrus5000 wrote...
what freaked me out was the 1st time I fly through a sun. BW has teh fysx tyd dwn yo. lol got to love the planets orbiting half in stars.
You're reading too much into a simple gameplay mechanic. In a similar vein, you don't honestly think that a single frigate/cruiser could deplete an entire world of its supply of rare metals, do you? Or that you can actually extract elements like platinum, palladium and iridium out of a gas giant?
#69
Posté 31 juillet 2011 - 10:15
SalsaDMA
-
- Members
- 2 512 messages
Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...
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.
ME2 doesn't consume fuel inside systems, only while traveling between systems within a cluster.
As for your sound peeve, I think it's more a case of poor explenation on the part of writers in those shows. If I were a pilot in a future spacecraft of advanced technology bristling with various gadgets and sensors, I would EXPECT 'pew pew' sounds when shots were fired near me, or the 'woosh' of engines if a ship brushed by. Reason: It's part of the interface the ship I would be piloting with gave me to allow me to discern my suroundings. limiting the interface to only what I can discern with my eyes would be counterproductive when sounds have been part of interfaces for eons.
Just think of it like this: which combat pilot would perform better?
The one that was blindfully ignorant of an enemy approaching from the side while blasting away with shots
or
The one that got audio indications that shots were wizzing by from his left side by the ships sensors translating the data of detecting the projectiles?
#70
Posté 31 juillet 2011 - 10:16
JPfanner
-
- Members
- 651 messages
There is a ton of information at this site, both speculative and real world. A lot of it is from NASA engineers and the like. Really gives you an understanding of the thermal issues involved with spacecraft, plus the real world information on how projected energy weapons work was spiffy.
http://www.projectrh...ocket/index.php
http://www.projectrh...ocket/index.php
#71
Posté 31 juillet 2011 - 10:18
SalsaDMA
-
- Members
- 2 512 messages
Skirata129 wrote...
Exactly. the ship shouldn't stop until I press BACKWARS on the controls, not when I stop applying pressure.Symji wrote...
Actually, in space it would take exactly the same amount of energy you used to accelerate the ship to decelerate it, otherwise you just wouldn't stop till you hit something. This means that you use engines/thrusters to move forward, then reverse them to slow down. Therefore, you burn fuel all the time.
It's the friendly 'drivers assistance' that kicks in so you don't accidently fly off into a random sun or something like that if you get a stroke wile handling the ship
#72
Guest_Arcian_*
Posté 31 juillet 2011 - 10:18
Guest_Arcian_*
Guest_Arcian_*
-
- Guests
Non-existant? Shows what you know about science.Symji wrote...
I love when people get so fiercely offended by their fanatical belief of non-existant but absolutely explainable in their own mind ideas that they have to resort to name calling. You sir have just made my day.
http://masseffect.wi...drive#FTL_Drive
Listen closely, since you might actually learn something here.
Mass Effect technology, including FTL, is dependant on a real-life force that contemporary scientists call "dark energy", sometimes called "negative energy". Dark energy is a force which is "pushing" the universe, the essential anti-thesis of gravity, and it's literally everywhere. 73% of the universe is dark energy, and it is causing a rapid expansion - faster than light - by "repulsing" matter through what is called "negative pressure". Negative pressure is also exhibited by dark matter.
Element Zero is another name for dark matter, and element zero can, among other things, create fields of varying mass - even negative ones.
Now, both dark energy and dark matter are poorly understood. BioWare just went with this and said that eezo, when injected with an electrical current, either increases mass, or reduces mass, which allows conventional thrust to reach speeds beyond light speed.
Now, unless you have enough scientific knowledge to figure out the specifics of Mass Effect flight, the problem with their definition of FTL is that:
1) Matter moving at the speed of light has infinite mass. Meaning, even if you reduced mass to 0,(insert googolplex of zeroes)1% of normal mass, it would still be infinite mass at the speed of light. This breaks the laws of physics.
2) To achieve the speed of light, you would need infinite energy. This is literally more energy than the universe has. In fact, without breaking the laws of physics through some unknown discovery, infinite energy is impossible to achieve under any real-life circumstances. Besides, we know starships cannot achieve infinite energy in Mass Effect anyway.
How a star ship in Mass Effect can propel itself at speeds beyond the speed of light is actually very simple:
1) The ship uses the mass effect core to create a strong mass effect field of negative mass around the ship that is self-contained. It is different from an Alcubierre drive because it does not warp space itself, but merely the ship's own mass. Negative mass has negative inertia, and therefore as the negative mass is increased, the faster the ship will go.
2) Conventional propulsion coupled with negative mass then creates a very unique and special effect. Under normal circumstances, inertia would demand more energy to create more thrust.
Imagine a car on a runway, with another car tied to the back with a chain. As the first car accelerates, the other car slowly starts to resist by pulling in the other direction, making it harder and harder for the first car to move.
With negative inertia, even a little thrust is enough to push the ship at extreme speeds, as there is no longer any resistance to movement.
Imagine the same two cars on a runway. Only this time, they are going the same way, with the second car before the first, still connected by the chain. When the first car starts to accelerate, the second car accelerates exponentially faster to get away from the first car. But since they are connected, both cars are picking up speed exponentially, with no resistance between them. As the first car steps on the pedal, the second car will shoot away like a lightning bolt, dragging the first car with it.
This juxtaposition of effects causes a very fast and relatively energy-cheap propulsion effect that does not violate either general laws of physics or newtonian laws, merely bypassing them and making them inapplicable.
HOWEVER, and here is my original point about this thread.
If the first car in the negative inertia-scenario slows down, so will the second car pulling it - just as the first car slowing down in the normal intertia-scenario slowing down would decrease resistance and make it easier on the energy reserves.
If the first car in the negative inertia-scenario stops entirely (i.e cutting the engines), so will the second car pulling it. Unlike in the normal inertia scenario, where the first car accounted for all the propulsion and will keep going until resistance drags it down, both cars in the negative inertia-scenario are dependant on each other to create the propulsion effect.
And the reason why the Normandy slows down on the FTL galaxy map if you release the mouse button or the left stick on the 360 controller is because if you don't spend fuel to keep your FTL engine going, you can't travel at FTL speeds.
Newtonian Laws or general laws of physics does not apply to FTL mechanics, and therefore Newton's First Law, "The velocity of a body remains constant unless the body is acted upon by an external force.", does not apply to a FTL starship in motion.
Quod erat demonstrandum, you cannot drift at FTL speeds because FTL depends on a combination of negative and positive push and pull-forces, negative inertia and negative mass, all of which are exempt from the general laws of physics.
#73
Posté 31 juillet 2011 - 10:19
Praetor Knight
-
- Members
- 5 772 messages
SalsaDMA wrote...
Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...
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.
ME2 doesn't consume fuel inside systems, only while traveling between systems within a cluster.
As for your sound peeve, I think it's more a case of poor explenation on the part of writers in those shows. If I were a pilot in a future spacecraft of advanced technology bristling with various gadgets and sensors, I would EXPECT 'pew pew' sounds when shots were fired near me, or the 'woosh' of engines if a ship brushed by. Reason: It's part of the interface the ship I would be piloting with gave me to allow me to discern my suroundings. limiting the interface to only what I can discern with my eyes would be counterproductive when sounds have been part of interfaces for eons.
Just think of it like this: which combat pilot would perform better?
The one that was blindfully ignorant of an enemy approaching from the side while blasting away with shots
or
The one that got audio indications that shots were wizzing by from his left side by the ships sensors translating the data of detecting the projectiles?
For sound, I like how this game frames the issue: www.youtube.com/watch
#74
Posté 31 juillet 2011 - 10:20
Uzrbital
-
- Members
- 173 messages
Bioware is so awesome that they CAN rewrite physics.
#75
Posté 31 juillet 2011 - 10:22
S.A.K
-
- Members
- 2 741 messages
Skirata129 wrote...
so you're telling me that if I fly my simulaton in circles before landing, Joker will do the EXACT same thing during the flight, and if my "simulation" runs out of fuel, EDI embezzles my minerals and sells them on the black market to pay for her extranet porn addiction?S.A.K wrote...
Well, what we look at when we fly the normany is the hologram the captain uses. Its not a real star. Also I think joker flyes the Normandy after shepard selects a destination. This also explains the braking. That is just how the glaxy map software works and not the real Normandy.bucyrus5000 wrote...
what freaked me out was the 1st time I fly through a sun. BW has teh fysx tyd dwn yo. lol got to love the planets orbiting half in stars.
Buddy I think you missed the part I highlighted.
