141 réponses à ce sujet

[Symji]

I would surmise that the main reason why cruisers and dreadnoughts don't land on planets is not because they can't take off or land, but because the materials they are made from are not strong enough to support their own weight once the mass effect fields are powered down, not to mention the structural integrity of any landing area the things would need. Another thing to note is that Alliance ships, like Turian ships, are built aerodynamically, which means that they are designed to operate both in and out of atmosphere, unlike the Destiny Ascension, which is clearly a space only ship.

[Blacklash93]

Belisarius09 wrote...

i think it was a criuser. a dreadnaught entering atmosphere makes no sense. the decks are perpendicular to the axis of the ship. meaning once earths gravity kicked in all the crew would fall to the wall.

"The decks of large vessels are arranged perpendicular to the ship's axis of thrust, so that the "top" decks are towards the front of the ship and the "bottom" decks are towards the rear of the ship. "

also this "Dreadnoughts are so large that it is impossible to safely land them on a planet, and must discharge their drive cores into the magnetic field of a planet while in orbit." if you discharge your drive core, whats powers your ship to keep it hovering in atmosphere?

source: http://masseffect.wi...ps#Dreadnoughts

Ashley - "They're gonna take down the dreadnought!"

It was a dreadnought. Denial won't change that.

Modifié par Blacklash93, 06 novembre 2011 - 05:20 .

[Elvis_Mazur]

2 or 3 Reapers to take down a dreadnought? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Are you kidding me?! It's obviously the contrary!!

[SandTrout]

PetrySilva wrote...

2 or 3 Reapers to take down a dreadnought? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Are you kidding me?! It's obviously the contrary!!

way to not read anything in the thread...

[bobspoland]

SandTrout wrote...

PetrySilva wrote...

2 or 3 Reapers to take down a dreadnought? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Are you kidding me?! It's obviously the contrary!!

way to not read anything in the thread...

actually he did read it. I said it in the first post

also loving all this lore talk. Im glad my post has brought on this debate

Modifié par bobspoland, 06 novembre 2011 - 05:25 .

[SandTrout]

bobspoland wrote...

actually he did read it. I said it in the first post

also loving all this lore talk. Im glad my post has brought on this debate

I stand corrected. That was an idiotic statement and you diserved to be mocked for it.

[Sgt Stryker]

Maybe cruisers and dreadnoughts can enter atmosphere, but once they do, they cannot break orbit again? Just a guess.

Either that or BW forgot to read their own Codex. Won't be the first time. Speaking of which, where is the Codex in ME3?

[Symji]

Neofelis Nebulosa wrote...

Symji wrote...

I would surmise that the main reason why cruisers and dreadnoughts don't land on planets is not because they can't take off or land, but because the materials they are made from are not strong enough to support their own weight once the mass effect fields are powered down, not to mention the structural integrity of any landing area the things would need. Another thing to note is that Alliance ships, like Turian ships, are built aerodynamically, which means that they are designed to operate both in and out of atmosphere, unlike the Destiny Ascension, which is clearly a space only ship.

Not aerodynamically, thermodynamically!

Heat radiation is a lot easier when you got more surface which you can use, aka wings. The structures the Turian and Alliance ships exhibit are blatantly un-aerodynamically. There is no feasible balance, the focus of weight is off relative to the wings positions and proportions.

A thermodynamically designed vessel would not be comprised of just a few flat surfaces like the Alliance and Turian vessels, but thousands and thousands of ridged surfaces to give them the absolute largest possible surface area. The Alliance vessels need to deploy external heat sinks to vent excess heat because their skins are smooth and ablative to ward off guardian lasers.

Starships: Heat Management %3D%3D
Dispersal of heat generated by onboard systems is a critical issue for a ship. If it cannot deal with heat, the crew may be cooked within the hull.

Radiation is the only way to shed heat in a vacuum. Civilian vessels utilize large, fragile radiator panels that are impossible to armor. Warships use Diffuse Radiator Arrays (DRA), ceramic strips along the exterior of the armored hull. These make the ship appear striped to thermographic sensors. Since the arrangement of the strips depends on the internal configuration of the ship, the patterns for each vessel are unique and striking. On older ships, the DRA strips could become red- or white-hot. Dubbed "tiger stripes" or "war paint" by humans, the glowing DRA had a psychological impact on pirates and irregular forces.

Strip radiators are not as efficient as panels, but if damaged by enemy fire, the ship only loses a small portion of its total radiation capacity. In most cases, a vessel's DRA alone allows it to cruise with no difficulties. Operations deep within solar systems can cause problems.

A ship engaged in combat can produce titanic amounts of heat from maneuvering burns and weapons fire. When fighting in a high heat environment, warships employ high-efficiency "droplet" heat sinks.

In a droplet system, tanks of liquid sodium or lithium absorb heat within the ship. The liquid is vented from spray nozzles near the bow as a thin sheet of millions of micrometer-scale droplets. The droplets are caught at the stern and recycled into the system. A droplet system can sink 10-100 times as much heat as DRA strips.

Droplet sheets resemble a surface ship's wake through water. The wake peels out in sharp turns, spreading a fan of droplets as the ship changes vectors and leaves the coolant behind.

Modifié par Symji, 06 novembre 2011 - 06:32 .

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

Saphra Deden wrote...

It's the same thing. Hovering just above the surface would require the same expenditure of energy. More, actually. If your large ship can hover over the surface then it can land too. If I can't land then it can't hover over the surface.

I hope to god you are in junior high or something and haven't graduated highschool.

Hah!  You know your argument is in trouble when you have to result to ad hominem.  :lol:

Landing is not the same as hovering.  That's why there are two different words for the two different actions.

Also, the proof is in the video.  It happened.    If you're trying to argue it's impossible by using your understanding of the game's physics, then it is your understanding of the game's physics that is wrong.

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

Neofelis Nebulosa wrote...

Pal, we are long since past the premise to discuss whether that is a dreadnought or not, we have lined up a basic-lore discussion in here in which your "Deal with it" attitude has no place. Just a reminder to keep the discussion uninterrupted by such obstrusions.

The deal with it attitude has every place in the argument.  Some people are trying to refute what we have all seen and known can happen... Those people are trying to say it didn't happen because of physics this and physics that... but they're wrong.  It happened.  So which is incorrect?  That it happened... or that your understanding of the game's physics is wrong? 

Simple answer.  Your understanding of the game's physics is wrong.

Deal with it.

[Annihilator27]

bobspoland wrote...

So from the beta demo and from the e3 earth demo they have changed the ship that gets destory from a cruisers to a dreadnought.

It seems to me if the dreadnought is the most powerful ship in the fleet why does it take only one reaper to bring it down. You would think if there going "toe 2 toe" with each other the dreadnought would have caused serious damage to the reaper?

I would have though it would take at least 2 or 3 reapers to take down one.

I've been reading the codex and it says this "Dreadnoughts are so large that it is impossible to safely land them on a planet, and must discharge their drive cores into the magnetic field of a planet while in orbit" 

what do you guys think?

Reapers outclass Dreadnoughts. And I believe that wasnt even a Dreadnought version of a Reaper that took It out in two shots.It took a fleet to take down Sovereign.Didnt EDI say Reapers are impervious to dreadnought fire?

Modifié par annihilator27, 06 novembre 2011 - 06:53 .

[Medhia Nox]

@RinpocheSchnozeberry - while I agree with your statement about the "game's physics" I will say that I think it is VERY poor form to destroy science... in science fiction. Crazy wierdness for its own sake is usually relegated to (poor) fantasy. 

Some things have become accepted - like science fiction magic (called a million names from The Force to Biotics).

But - when basic laws of the universe are broken - a good writer ought to explain them, or if the story has nothing to do with why ships that size can enter an atmosphere at all, leave it out entirely.

=====

Anyway - I have no stake in the science fiction of it. I take the story at face value - if the ship is there, it's there, and there's some background reason for it.

But were I to consider writing science fiction - I would absolutely not commit some of what I consider to be grave violations of science fiction storytelling.

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 06 novembre 2011 - 07:04 .

[ShdwPlayer]

The main problem here I think is wether or not dreadnoughts can generate mass effect fields powerful enough to counteract their weight. (then whoever's argument of thrusters not being needed bla bla bla is correct)

From the wiki about Sovereign it says "The attack on Eden Prime demonstrated Sovereign's ability to generate mass effect fields powerful enough to land on a planetary surface. This implies it has a massive element zero core, and the ability to generate staggering amounts of power."

Granted it's all implied, But do we even have mass effect technology close to that of the Reapers? (note a Reaper's core could literally resist the gravity of a brown dwarf? the wiki calls it a failed star). And that's a derelict Reaper
(it could be argued that this is proof somewhat, that this is a derelict Repear with much less capabilites as an online Reaper therefore it is somewhat closer to our technological level. But then again it did generate a pretty impressive bubble of calm in the area of the star and did so for millions of years). It generated a field that sustained it in a stationary position for millions of years.

Bit of a side note the technology of the Reapers allowed a base to exist near a blackhole. It resisted that thing's gravity. Technology (mass effect) wise we're not even close to the Reapers

And I don't get the logic behind "hovering (which is what this dreadnought did/entering the atmosphere) is easier than landing". Granted it is never stated that dreadnoughts can't enter an atmosphere but then if they had fields powerful enough to keep them stationary, resisting earth's gravity all the while, then that field is powerful enough to allow them to land. Which is what the codex/wiki says they can't.

It's all really assertions supported by details which are then based on fact (lore-wise). But personally I'll keep believing that dreadnoughts without comparable capabilities (mass effect core/field wise) as a Reaper cannot enter/land on a planet

BTW "it happened" and should have it been possible/happened are two different things. I think the point here is that mass effect's lore seem to be bending because "it happened". Granted "it happened". We get it

Modifié par ShdwPlayer, 06 novembre 2011 - 07:11 .

[Symji]

Neofelis Nebulosa wrote...

Symji wrote...

Neofelis Nebulosa wrote...

Symji wrote...

I would surmise that the main reason why cruisers and dreadnoughts don't land on planets is not because they can't take off or land, but because the materials they are made from are not strong enough to support their own weight once the mass effect fields are powered down, not to mention the structural integrity of any landing area the things would need. Another thing to note is that Alliance ships, like Turian ships, are built aerodynamically, which means that they are designed to operate both in and out of atmosphere, unlike the Destiny Ascension, which is clearly a space only ship.

Not aerodynamically, thermodynamically!

Heat radiation is a lot easier when you got more surface which you can use, aka wings. The structures the Turian and Alliance ships exhibit are blatantly un-aerodynamically. There is no feasible balance, the focus of weight is off relative to the wings positions and proportions.

A thermodynamically designed vessel would not be comprised of just a few flat surfaces like the Alliance and Turian vessels, but thousands and thousands of ridged surfaces to give them the absolute largest possible surface area. The Alliance vessels need to deploy external heat sinks to vent excess heat because their skins are smooth and ablative to ward off guardian lasers.

*snip*

Those surfaces might seem flat to us, but that may not necessarily be the case.

But that doesn't change the point I made that from a structural point of view, the supposedly aerodynamic design are highly unfeasible.

http://images4.wikia...12-37-22-09.png

As can be seen by this screenie, Alliance cruisers are symmetrical, with two huge wings attached to a central fusilage similar in design to early delta wing planes like the Mirage. From this screenie we can see that ~80% of the cruiser's surface area is wing. It is not areodynamically unfeasible at all. The only thing it lacks is a tail rudder which can be compensated for with mass effect fields and vectored thrust.

[100k]

bobspoland wrote...

So from the beta demo and from the e3 earth demo they have changed the ship that gets destory from a cruisers to a dreadnought.

It seems to me if the dreadnought is the most powerful ship in the fleet why does it take only one reaper to bring it down. You would think if there going "toe 2 toe" with each other the dreadnought would have caused serious damage to the reaper?

I would have though it would take at least 2 or 3 reapers to take down one.

I've been reading the codex and it says this "Dreadnoughts are so large that it is impossible to safely land them on a planet, and must discharge their drive cores into the magnetic field of a planet while in orbit" 

what do you guys think?

If dreadnoughts could go toe to toe with a Reaper, then the old machines would have died thousands of years ago. As it stands...Reaper > dreadnought. Reaper > 2x dreadnought.

[Zkyire]

I've seen Star Wars ships being described as being uber-powerful (ridiculously so) in books, and then when they are shown in the movies and the tv show, they're depicted as being nowhere near that level of power.

This is just a case of that in Mass Effect. They establish one thing, and then ignore it for the sake of the on-screen depiction.

Lore vs CGI.

Ship specifications vs SFX.

Substance vs Style.

Yes it happened, so it's now 'canon' but that doesn't change the fact that it *shouldn't* have happened in the first place.

Either way we will still have to "deal with it" and move on. Why? Because even if it is a little annoying; it's still just a computer game and thus shouldn't matter that much to any of us.

Modifié par IEatWhatIPoo, 06 novembre 2011 - 07:20 .

[1136342t54_]

To be honest a Reaper should be able to destroy dreadnoughts. Even in one of the ME3 trailers they said there were multi megaton explosions occured on Earth. The Alliance do not have that kind of fire power unless they specifically used nukes or even worse Anti matter warheads. A dreadnoughts fires 36 kilotons (average dread) a shot.

It is also possible for a Dreadnought to enter atmosphere if they have gotten upgrades to Mass Effect core. Its not entirely impossible plus it didn't necessarily land. Hell it could have easily been a suicide mission. Many high ranked Alliance personnel was there it could easily be a distraction and it took a **** load of effort to keep vertical.

[1136342t54_]

IEatWhatIPoo wrote...

I've seen Star Wars ships being described as being uber-powerful (ridiculously so) in books, and then when they are shown in the movies and the tv show, they're depicted as being nowhere near that level of power.

This is just a case of that in Mass Effect. They establish one thing, and then ignore it for the sake of the on-screen depiction.

Lore vs CGI.

Ship specifications vs SFX.

Substance vs Style.

Yes it happened, so it's now 'canon' but that doesn't change the fact that it *shouldn't* have happened in the first place.

Either way we will still have to "deal with it" and move on. Why? Because even if it is a little annoying; it's still just a computer game and thus shouldn't matter that much to any of us.

This really isn't the same. Reapers ARE described super powerful in the lore and in the game they showed it by showing a (possible) dreadnought getting killed by a single Reaper. Hell the Reapers punched through Earth's defenses as Shepard ws speaking to those Admirals.

[Zkyire]

1136342t54 wrote...

IEatWhatIPoo wrote...

I've seen Star Wars ships being described as being uber-powerful (ridiculously so) in books, and then when they are shown in the movies and the tv show, they're depicted as being nowhere near that level of power.

This is just a case of that in Mass Effect. They establish one thing, and then ignore it for the sake of the on-screen depiction.

Lore vs CGI.

Ship specifications vs SFX.

Substance vs Style.

Yes it happened, so it's now 'canon' but that doesn't change the fact that it *shouldn't* have happened in the first place.

Either way we will still have to "deal with it" and move on. Why? Because even if it is a little annoying; it's still just a computer game and thus shouldn't matter that much to any of us.

This really isn't the same. Reapers ARE described super powerful in the lore and in the game they showed it by showing a (possible) dreadnought getting killed by a single Reaper. Hell the Reapers punched through Earth's defenses as Shepard ws speaking to those Admirals.

I'm talking about the Drednought not the Reaper.

[Blacklash93]

Neofelis Nebulosa wrote...

Fine then, if that's it, give us teleportation, ****s on the moon, LASER that actually travel at a fraction of that of a conventional kinetic bullet, time travel, Gojira (better yet Godzilla ...) and denominate biotics to the new Order of Jedi.

If we are fine with simply consuming what we are presented without the slightest notion of discussion or even *gasp* disapproval being allowed, then why not just flood the game with every possible thing that might just remotely be "cool" (how I begin to HATE this word's nowadays connotation) or flashy or simply "wow'y".

We'll see again in never.

One overlooked piece of lore vs. the devs going out of their way to bring nonsense isn't exactly a fair comparison.

I don't agree with this either. That ship should have been a cruiser the Reaper would have shot through like paper, but what can you do about it? Prevent similar occurences in the future, sure, but endlessly nagging about this one particular instnace isn't going to help that cause. It is what it is and we just need to deal with it.