Posted: Thu Jan 29, 2009 4:32 am
Hint; it's called 'realism versus fun'. Your arguments may or may not make sense, but noone's gonna care since the game is fun as is. Realism to the slightest details is 1) Less fun 2) a bitch.
This forum has gone [0] days without spambot deletion.
http://www.wyrdysm.com/phpBB3/
That depends.ArcaneDude wrote:Realism to the slightest details is 1) Less fun 2) a bitch.
Thanks. This is why I just wanted to talk about it, not make demands. I guess I chose a bad topic, since everyone just seems to respond with "whats the point?" and miss the actual point.ArcaneDude wrote:Hint; it's called 'realism versus fun'. Your arguments may or may not make sense, but noone's gonna care since the game is fun as is. Realism to the slightest details is 1) Less fun 2) a bitch.
On the contrary, I found this thread quite interesting. It seems I may be in the minority, but I thoroughly enjoy comparisons between Science Fiction and Science. I'm a fan of realism, because in many cases reality is more peculiar than the fiction based on it, but there are points where the fun factor wins out. As far as BSF is concerned, I'd say the fun factor vs. realism ratio is very well optimized, but that doesn't mean the comparisons aren't still interesting to read.Darlos9D wrote:I guess I chose a bad topic, since everyone just seems to respond with "whats the point?" and miss the actual point.
This is, as far as I am aware, correct. In space, all light based weapons would be invisible. When they hit a hull, though, you would get a very bright burst of light of the same color light the beam is made out of, assuming the beam is in the visible spectrum. You'd also get a good bang, though only audible to the crew of the receiving ship. You might be able to see plasma weapons, as they are matter (ionized gas), but known science states that plasma weapons are, by their very nature, not possible. The plasma would just dissipate into space. I can't speak for the visibility of particle beams. I doubt they'd be visible, but I really don't know. They would be more powerful than lasers, but the individual particles tend to repel themselves, causing the beam to widen fairly quickly, rendering it all but useless. This gives it a shorter range.In regards to energy weapons, I'm pretty sure that just about any energy beam would be invisible. Even bolts of electricity are only visible due to the super-heating of the atmosphere. In space, there'd be nothing for it to superheat. Same goes for any other energy or even small matter stream: with no air particles to heat up, bounce off of, or react with, there'd be no visible effects regardless of what the energy was. Something would have to be sent along with it to make it visible, since otherwise there'd be no reason for the particles to emit photons to make it visible. Of course, I'm no physics major either...
Adding to the fact that most people that play BSF don't have a degree in space engenieering with their only source of space-borne combat knowledge coming from Gundam/Macross/Star Wars/ Sci-fiction and we have a population of ship-builders that only likes really big lasers and explosions.Darlos9D wrote:
Of course, BF isn't really being advertised as an emotional experience, so such things aren't necessary in its case. Plus it's fleet-based, so that kind of ruins any singular perspective.
The trails of modern-day Ion Engines like the ones used on NASA's Dawn probe and the Japanese Hayabusa spacecraft are supposed to release a faintly glowing bluish trail from their thrusters.Darlos9D wrote:In regards to energy weapons, I'm pretty sure that just about any energy beam would be invisible. Even bolts of electricity are only visible due to the super-heating of the atmosphere. In space, there'd be nothing for it to superheat. Same goes for any other energy or even small matter stream: with no air particles to heat up, bounce off of, or react with, there'd be no visible effects regardless of what the energy was. Something would have to be sent along with it to make it visible, since otherwise there'd be no reason for the particles to emit photons to make it visible. Of course, I'm no physics major either...
www.projectrho.com/rocketI'll have to look up this whole Delta-V thing though.
No, you can modify your PD weapons to be more accurate if you want. And point beams are fail-proof dead-on accurate.Also, point defenses are great. Actually, I'd go so far as to say that, from a realism standpoint, the point defenses in BF are very INaccurate. Even modern point defense and anti-air guns are pinpoint accurate. Despite what entertainment shows us, you do NOT outmaneuver automated AA turrets. They shoot you, unless they're malfunctioning.
Bigger ships means more mass. More mass means more inertia, and more force needed to accelerate, decelerate and turn. More force calls for more energy to be used, more reaction mass to be spent.And controlling speeds does kinda make sense since if they do want to go particularly far or fast, they can just use their hyperspace jump things. Though it doesn't explain the logic behind making your biggest and most powerful and probably most useful ships the slowest. Besides game balancing that is.
For lasers, the beam would be invisible, but the burst of light and jet of expelled mass upon impact would be visible.Sponge wrote:This is, as far as I am aware, correct. In space, all light based weapons would be invisible. When they hit a hull, though, you would get a very bright burst of light of the same color light the beam is made out of, assuming the beam is in the visible spectrum. You'd also get a good bang, though only audible to the crew of the receiving ship. You might be able to see plasma weapons, as they are matter (ionized gas), but known science states that plasma weapons are, by their very nature, not possible. The plasma would just dissipate into space. I can't speak for the visibility of particle beams. I doubt they'd be visible, but I really don't know. They would be more powerful than lasers, but the individual particles tend to repel themselves, causing the beam to widen fairly quickly, rendering it all but useless. This gives it a shorter range.
You could make your plasma weapons, yes, but as I have already said, just about everything else would work better and do more damage for the amount of energy spent.Some kind of plasma weapon might work out if the ionized gas is contained by some magnetic field, which is generated by a solid core. So really you'd be firing a projectile that generates a magnetic field and is surrounded by plasma. Of course, this weapon would only be reasonable if the plasma were far more damaging than more conventional weapons.
You mean, like the radar screen in an AWACS plane, showing all friendly and enemy aircraft and missiles in the area? But with spiffy special effects?th15 wrote:I never actually fleshed it out, but the conceptualization for the graphical style of the game is that it's an enhanced image that is displayed on the tactical display in the CIC of your flagship. This accounts for beams and the glowy ships. Also it's plausible that the tactical display compresses distances into a useful representation, since Newtonian motion has very little meaning if not taken in relation to other moving objects.
That's kind of what I've always been envisioning.th15 wrote:Actually, draco is right.
I never actually fleshed it out, but the conceptualization for the graphical style of the game is that it's an enhanced image that is displayed on the tactical display in the CIC of your flagship. This accounts for beams and the glowy ships. Also it's plausible that the tactical display compresses distances into a useful representation, since Newtonian motion has very little meaning if not taken in relation to other moving objects.
Ships have all their tactical command from the CIC. Since engagement range extended beyond line of sight, it's become pointless to actually be on the bridge for combat command. Instead, officers are staring at plotting screens and radar displays a lot closer to what's in this picture:Skrim wrote:Darlos9D wrote:You mean, like the radar screen in an AWACS plane, showing all friendly and enemy aircraft and missiles in the area? But with spiffy special effects?
Rule of simplicity, they should be as simple and clear to read as possible and needed.th15 wrote: And even with millions of dollars of equipment and trained personnel, actual combat displays and interfaces rarely reach the level of ease of use and density of information that gamers take for granted in RTS games.
Aaactually, thanks to the square-cube rule, I do believe that if you scale a ship down it will need proportionally thinner, and therefor lighter, structure. So in that way, smaller, more nimble fighters are moderately realistic. The degree to which this is generally taken, to the point of emulating WW2 naval combat, is still silly though.Skrim wrote:If your dreadnought and your cruiser have equal maneuvering fuel, you will need the dreadnought to be slower and less agile. On the other hand, if you do cram proportionally more fuel into the dreadnought, both can have similar performance.
Small, fast, agile starfighters, though, are outright unrealistic.