102 réponses à ce sujet

[SKAR]

It can FTL anywhere just like any other ship in the universe. Remember leaving the starting cerb base at the beginning of ME2?

[SNascimento]

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.

 

Not really. In space you can turn the ship any way you like if you're not using your thrusters. It's a logical conclusion that that holds true for FTL travel in Mass Effect as well, and so the ships can turn and decelerate even if traveling faster than light. 

[AngryFrozenWater]

Not really. In space you can turn the ship any way you like if you're not using your thrusters. It's a logical conclusion that that holds true for FTL travel in Mass Effect as well, and so the ships can turn and decelerate even if traveling faster than light. 

Yes.

 

ME didn't pull the idea from thin air. It is based on a method to travel near the speed of light that has been studied.

 

Source: Space travel using constant acceleration.

 

Problems: It requires lots of fuel. The ship will experience drag due to matter/energy it encounters in space. You also don't want to get hit by large objects - especially at high speeds.

 

Edit: An improvement would be to design an engine which can both generate thrust and backthrust. That way the ship itself doesn't need to turn halfway. Instead you simply switch off the thrust and switch on the backthrust. Maybe that is what we see in the BTS video.

[iM3GTR]

It can FTL anywhere just like any other ship in the universe. Remember leaving the starting cerb base at the beginning of ME2?

I'm still bitter about that. A shuttle with FTL? It was complete bullsh*t!

Someone had just cured death and I was pissed off about the shuttle. Ha! Crazy!

[scruffylad]

This is why I only zip around the galaxy in a flying saucer. No one can tell which way it's facing when I pop out of FTL.

[SKAR]

I'm still bitter about that. A shuttle with FTL? It was complete bullsh*t!

Someone had just cured death and I was pissed off about the shuttle. Ha! Crazy!

Science fiction ***hole. Accept it. And the Normandy. Why don't you argue about mass relays and biotics while you're at it. Then go over to the Halo forum and cry about the Spartan program. Come on man.

[iM3GTR]

Science fiction ***hole. Accept it. And the Normandy. Why don't you argue about mass relays and biotics while you're at it. Then go over to the Halo forum and cry about the Spartan program. Come on man.

No thanks. I'm good.

[SKAR]

No thanks. I'm good.

That's on you.

[Kabooooom]

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.



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.

This is 100% correct and (besides cutscene convenience) is probably the in game reason for why ships exit FTL "front first" in the games.

As for the trailer, it's either 1) cinematic convenience or 2) truly a new form of FTL. I think (1) is far more likely, but if it is (2), it's probably because they found new Remnant FTL tech.

[AlanC9]

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.

Only if you kept the engines burning while you were turning. Why would you do that? And what does FTL have to do with it?

Sure, I suppose you could fuss around with thrust vectoring if you need to keep the nose of the ship pointed forward all the time, but what's the point of that? Besides making the cutscenes look more like Star Trek, that is.

[Arcian]

Because it is equipped with a FTP engine. That's Faster-Than-Plot. It gets the protagonists where they need to be, when they need to be there, 100% of the time the plot doesn't call for them being late. How does it work? Well, Smuggy McSmuggington puts his pen on the paper, and then magic happens.

[SardaukarElite]

As mentioned, the simplest explanation is that the Tempest can reverse its thrust. 

 

Given how nimble the the Normandy and Kodiak are depicted as being, how ridiculously advanced ME tech is supposed to be, and how real world aircraft use vectored thrust, it seems kind of silly that the Tempest would need to spin, or that any other ship would. 

[Norhik Krios]

Can Andromeda finally come out, please? This forum is going places. Holy kroganpoo, seriously people? Are you really talking about what direction a ship should face while coming out of Hyper Space, while that hasn't even yet been discovered? People, sit the hell down, it's science fiction. I hope none of you will get jobs as game developers in the future, or else we will have cubes and spheres in games, as ships, in the future...

[SardaukarElite]

Can Andromeda finally come out, please? This forum is going places. Holy kroganpoo, seriously people? Are you really talking about what direction a ship should face while coming out of Hyper Space, while that hasn't even yet been discovered? People, sit the hell down, it's science fiction. I hope none of you will get jobs as game developers in the future, or else we will have cubes and spheres in games, as ships, in the future...

 

 

It's a basic hypothetical, people who can't or aren't inclined to solve it should probably avoid programming and creative writing. 

 

Or posting on forums about games that haven't come out yet, ideally. 

[The Twilight God]

Not really. In space you can turn the ship any way you like if you're not using your thrusters. It's a logical conclusion that that holds true for FTL travel in Mass Effect as well, and so the ships can turn and decelerate even if traveling faster than light.

How does one turn without thrusters? If there is no thrust the ship would just coast. There is no air friction like when you're in an atmosphere so a rudder-type part won't work.

Given the distance between stars the slightest bit of deviation would result in you completely missing the star system itself. If the distance is far enough you might miss the entire star cluster. Making turning maneuvers at that speed doesn't seem plausible. Even if it was somehow possible the nose of the ship would have to perfectly realign with the destination. There couldn't be so much as 1mm deviation. And as other have pointed out the in-game cutscenes do not show a ship arriving backwards. It's like some writer thought it sounded scientific, but didn't bother to coordinate it with the art and animation teams.

Is there an actual codex entry stating this or is this based solely on that one comment with the salarian sales clerk?

[Arcian]

Can Andromeda finally come out, please? This forum is going places. Holy kroganpoo, seriously people? Are you really talking about what direction a ship should face while coming out of Hyper Space, while that hasn't even yet been discovered? People, sit the hell down, it's science fiction. I hope none of you will get jobs as game developers in the future, or else we will have cubes and spheres in games, as ships, in the future...

There is no hyperspace in Mass Effect.

Also, the fiction part of Science Fiction is only meant to indicate that the work is fictional, it is not an invitation to ignore the science part of Science Fiction.

How does one turn without thrusters? If there is no thrust the ship would just coast. There is no air friction like when you're in an atmosphere so a rudder-type part won't work.

Reaction wheels.

[Snorka]

[SNascimento]

How does one turn without thrusters? If there is no thrust the ship would just coast. There is no air friction like when you're in an atmosphere so a rudder-type part won't work.

Given the distance between stars the slightest bit of deviation would result in you completely missing the star system itself. If the distance is far enough you might miss the entire star cluster. Making turning maneuvers at that speed doesn't seem plausible. Even if it was somehow possible the nose of the ship would have to perfectly realign with the destination. There couldn't be so much as 1mm deviation. And as other have pointed out the in-game cutscenes do not show a ship arriving backwards. It's like some writer thought it sounded scientific, but didn't bother to coordinate it with the art and animation teams.

Is there an actual codex entry stating this or is this based solely on that one comment with the salarian sales clerk?

I don't think there are a codex entries mentioning the spin, but it does say a ship still needs to propel itself using conventional means. Hence, accelerating, spinning and decelerating becomes the fastest way to travel. It's really quite simple.

And computers are there to make sure you don't miss your destination, that is a non issue. Indeed, the chances of missing the target would be there regardless of if you move inside the FTL or not. 

[Wulfram]

Edit: An improvement would be to design an engine which can both generate thrust and backthrust. That way the ship itself doesn't need to turn halfway. Instead you simply switch off the thrust and switch on the backthrust. Maybe that is what we see in the BTS video.

I think this is a concept that could make sense for a military vessel. A civilian ship it seems like it wouldn't be worth the hassle - surely its easier just to turn the ship around - but a military ship would want to be able to both accelerate and decelerate while pointing its guns at the enemy, and having separate stern and aft guns would reduce your effective firepower

[The Twilight God]

I don't think there are a codex entries mentioning the spin, but it does say a ship still needs to propel itself using conventional means. Hence, accelerating, spinning and decelerating becomes the fastest way to travel. It's really quite simple.

And computers are there to make sure you don't miss your destination, that is a non issue. Indeed, the chances of missing the target would be there regardless of if you move inside the FTL or not.

My issues wasn't the concept, but the means.

Reaction wheels.

Learn something new every day. Never heard of this before. Well that answers that.

[AlanC9]

Because it is equipped with a FTP engine. That's Faster-Than-Plot. It gets the protagonists where they need to be, when they need to be there, 100% of the time the plot doesn't call for them being late. How does it work? Well, Smuggy McSmuggington puts his pen on the paper, and then magic happens.

Well, I'm glad someone gets the lore.

[AlanC9]

How does one turn without thrusters? If there is no thrust the ship would just coast. There is no air friction like when you're in an atmosphere so a rudder-type part won't work.

Given the distance between stars the slightest bit of deviation would result in you completely missing the star system itself. If the distance is far enough you might miss the entire star cluster.

Wait a second. If you're coasting, there's no deviation. As for the mechanics of reorienting the ship, you do it the same way our current spacecraft do it, so either reaction control thrusters or maybe gyros. Per the Codex, it's either chemical rockets or the Helios system on military ships. Normandy decelerates the same way an Apollo mission entered lunar orbit, or a space shuttle deorbited.

It's like some writer thought it sounded scientific, but didn't bother to coordinate it with the art and animation teams.

Ya think?

[Laughing_Man]

I suppose I could vaguely think of some way to use the Mass Effect bubble the drive core generates to negate the momentum of the ship and so drop out of FTL.

 

But yeah, it's another example of how Bioware usually handles the established lore when it comes to cut scenes.

[AlanC9]

I think this is a concept that could make sense for a military vessel. A civilian ship it seems like it wouldn't be worth the hassle - surely its easier just to turn the ship around - but a military ship would want to be able to both accelerate and decelerate while pointing its guns at the enemy, and having separate stern and aft guns would reduce your effective firepower

Probably. But I don't see any cheap way to build an antiproton drive with thrust vectoring; might be easier to just build two sets of engines.

[Monk]

Probably. But I don't see any cheap way to build an antiproton drive with thrust vectoring; might be easier to just build two sets of engines.

 

Based on the designs of the Normandy's, i always got the sense they built each engine compartment with "exhaust" manifolds on both ends, which would account for not needing to turn the ship around during deaccelerate. I imagine the Tempest is designed similarly, it's just that the wings are covering up the deacceleration manifolds.