102 réponses à ce sujet

[SNascimento]

Let's remember first how traditional FTL works in the trilogy. Mass Effect technology just lower the mass of the vessel, so it takes conventional means to propel it foward. Because of that, the fastest why to travel is to accelerate half way through the trip, turn the ship around and decelerate the rest of the way. Shepard even makes fun of this in this quote: "You wouldn't believe how often I hear "Why is the ship turning around? We're only halfway there!"

It's true that cutscenes never showed this. But there are two things to consider: cutscenes almost never follow codex entries and the ship leaving FTL pointing "foward" doesn't go against this method of travel. (I also believe we've never seen a full FTL travel that doesn't involve a Mass Relay)

If we look back at the E3'15 trailer however we see that the Tempest doesn't do this at all. It just go foward, much more like Star Wars than Mass Effect. And so I ask, what do you guys make of that? Should we disconsider it because it's a trailer/cutscene (we do know they want no loading screens in the game so that trave screen will be somehow in it). Will Bioware change in the final game? It is indeed a different way of travel, and if so, where did it come from and why wasn't it used before? 

Any ideas out there?

 

[Remix-General Aetius]

Nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking. Couldn't give a toss about any of that. More important details for Bioware to focus on.

[iM3GTR]

Wait, so the ship flies backwards in FTL? I'm glad that's never shown. It sounds ridiculous.

[SNascimento]

Wait, so the ship flies backwards in FTL? I'm glad that's never shown. It sounds ridiculous.

In scientific sound (not the FTL part that is). And it's quite awesome if you ask me. You should just watch The Expanse and you opinion will change. 

[Wulfram]

As you say, the people doing the cinematics have never cared much about what the lore says. So I wouldn't draw any conclusions

[Zazzerka]

Nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking. Couldn't give a toss about any of that. More important details for Bioware to focus on.

 

I would place faithfulness to the codex and science itself pretty close to the top of the priority list, personally.

[Remix-General Aetius]

I would place faithfulness to the codex and science itself pretty close to the top of the priority list, personally.

 

Not this. It would look stupid in cinematic flights for starters.

[Kierro Ren]

Wait, so the ship flies backwards in FTL? I'm glad that's never shown. It sounds ridiculous.

 

Not really, when you consider moon landings or probes (no puns) to Mars. The shuttle heads towards its destination, going head first

------> O

But when it gets there, it goes butt first <------ O This way it slows down, or else it'll hit said destination going 600+ miles per hour (Kilometers or w/e speed)

[Zazzerka]

Not this. It would look stupid in cinematic flights for starters.

 

I don't get this mindset. It would look realistic. The ships that fly through space like aeroplanes accompanied by WOOSH noises are infinitely more stupid.

[KirkyX]

Assuming it uses the same drive technology as the Normandy - generating mass concentrations to pull the ship though space, with the thrusters there to supplement the main drive - there's really no reason why the direction it's facing would have much bearing on whether it's applying reverse or forward thrust, at least in the context of FTL travel.

 

That's the lore justification, anyway. The real reason is that the devs don't think it'd look as cool for the ships to pop out of FTL arse-first. I, broadly speaking, agree.

[SNascimento]

Assuming it uses the same drive technology as the Normandy - generating mass concentrations to pull the ship though space, with the thrusters there to supplement the main drive - there's really no reason why the direction it's facing would have much bearing on whether it's applying reverse or forward thrust, at least in the context of FTL travel.

 

It would because it's not about which direction you're going, but which direction you're accelerating. The Normandy always move foward, but after the mid point in the travel, it is actually pointing "back". My impression is that the thrusters are still the primary way the Normandy accelerates. The "falling on itself" thing is just for stealth movements. 


 

That's the lore justification, anyway. The real reason is that the devs don't think it'd look as cool for the ships to pop out of FTL arse-first. I, broadly speaking, agree.

 

But you don't need to exit FTL "arse-first". When the ship decelerate back to the speed it will exit FTL it can just spin back and then start to increase it mass back. That's my take on how the ships move.  

[SNascimento]

Not this. It would look stupid in cinematic flights for starters.

Edited: No really, it can look very cool. 

[Shadow Recon117]

Normandy sr1 came out of ftl front facing at start of me2.
Collector ship came out front in surprise attack.
Pretty sure sr2 did it too in shadow broker

Outside the codex ships break the rule all the time.

[aoibhealfae]

If you look at the teaser closely, there's an Ark behind Tempest when it drop from FTL.

[KirkyX]

 

But you don't need to exit FTL "arse-first". When the ship decelerate back to the speed it will exit FTL it can just spin back and then start to increase it mass back. That's my take on how the ships move.  

Well, in that case, what's the issue with the way the Tempest dropped out of FTL in the trailer?

[SNascimento]

 

Well, in that case, what's the issue with the way the Tempest dropped out of FTL in the trailer?

None really, The scene that I mean is this one:

[KirkyX]

None really, The scene that I mean is this one:


 

Ah. Well, you could just think of it as a graphical representation of what is in reality a far more complicated process - like the little Normandy on the Galaxy Map - and call it a day?

[SNascimento]

Ah. Well, you could just think of it as a graphical representation of what is in reality a far more complicated process - like the little Normandy on the Galaxy Map - and call it a day?

That would work. I suppose I just would love to see a ship turning around. 

[fdrty]

None really, The scene that I mean is this one:

 

Looks to me like a wormhole.

[capn233]

Well really all that is needed is some acceleration opposite to the current vector.

 

It is interesting that they designed the Kodiak to have forward facing thrusters that look like they are the same as the rearward facing ones, so you could assume it could accelerate either direction equally, and as such would never have to bother rotating.

 

SR1 and 2 didn't have anything as obvious, nor does Tempest.  Of course we don't know how much thruster power is needed when you are manipulating the mass of the ship, so perhaps whatever bow or forward facing thrusters were enough given the field manipulation.  It could be that the rear thrusters are mostly there to provide max acceleration to escape from high gravity, or provide max combat acceleration, who knows.*

 

They did have some cutscenes with aerobraking, of course that was for much less deceleration.

 

*I mean ignoring that the real reason the cutscenes are like this is because it looks cool and like other works of fiction, and at least half the players would wonder why the ships are dropping out of FTL backwards if they did it this way.

 

edit: one thing I forgot is that both Normandys can accelerate to some extent without even using thrusters, which is part of how the stealth system is supposed to work.

[KaiserShep]

Oh come on.

 

 

May our conventional exit-FTL-headfirst live forever. 

 

Is there anything really precluding these ships having thrusters that, I dunno, just point in the opposite direction just for this purpose? The Normandy's nacelles seemed to have something like that. 

[The Twilight God]

Oh come on.



May our conventional exit-FTL-headfirst live forever.

Is there anything really precluding these ships having thrusters that, I dunno, just point in the opposite direction just for this purpose? The Normandy's nacelles seemed to have something like that.

That whole concept of turning around was stupid. The idea of doing that while moving faster than light would throw the ship wildly off course. The forward part of the nacelles are for drive core discharging I believe. The ship has a defined exhaust ports on the rear that aren't mirrored in the fore section.



The more rational approach is that a ship's engines can switch exhaust paths or fold forward (which may be possible with the Normandy if you look at it). In the case of the Normandy though, it has that "gravity falling" propulsion system (used for traveling while in stealth mode) making it possible to not have to have dual directional engines, but simply use the same method to create a gravity well behind the ship and be slowed down by the drag like an jet or race car's drag shoot.

As far the Arks they could use the same tech to travel while in FTL. If the game was post ME3 or the writers utilize tech from Sovereign's remains they could also have the added option of using Reaper style propulsion to explain it.

[Sartoz]

                                                                                    <<<<<<<<<<(0)>>>>>>>>>>

 

Newtonian physics applies to mass and velocity calculations under the speed of light. However, Newton gets a headache when you do approach the speed of light in the conventional way  (ie: rocket acceleration, for example).

 

FTL speeds is where you throw out Newton and go into another realm of mathematics.  If Einstein theory holds true, then you need to cheat Einstein when traveling faster than the speed of light. The tempest engine could translate the ship into sub-space where light speed is not a limiting factor or is less so or it can create its own wormhole as in the Stargate universe. 

 

Getting bogged down by space travel "limitations" is hardly a good game design. Just go from point A to B and be done with it.

[AngryFrozenWater]

You have a point there, SNascimento.

 

Our current (real) scientists have investigated at least two methods, which can achieve near light speed. Both have various problems to be solved like using massive amounts of exotic matter.

 

One method is the Krasnikov tube, but that requires a megastructure, which is not visible in the BTS video. It could also be an Alcubierre drive. That one creates a bubble that moves by contracting space in front of it and expanding space behind it. Some scientists argue that one cannot steer the drive, because the ship inside the bubble cannot send signals to the front of the bubble. Others calculated that anything inside the bubble cannot survive due to Hawking radiation.

 

That didn't stop SF writers to use them in stories.

 

Edited for clarity.

[Display Name Owner]

Not sure what OP's referring to tbh, but just off the top of my head, Andromeda possibly doesn't have Mass Relays, in which case a new means of getting around would be a necessity. As for the how, maybe they took lessons from the ships already existing in Andromeda, combined it with what they already had developed in the Milky Way, and Tempest was the result.