Page 2 of 2
Posted: Sun May 28, 2006 10:49 pm
Bombers aren't so much slower as more vunerable with less thrust, because that prevents them from manuvering as quickly and makes them much easier to hit.
Posted: Wed May 31, 2006 1:21 am
actually, i think the weight of the parts are insignificant compared to the benefits of they offer. i would take a heavily armed and armored fighter over a light fighter with two more thrust and turn any day of the week
Posted: Fri Jun 02, 2006 12:27 am
Just to say a little something that might not matter much... But this is happening in space right? So then why would how heavy something is make a difference if there is no resistance or forces to use that weight?
I might be missing something but if the same force is applied to two objects of varying masses then those objects (if no back force is applied due to them being in space) will move at the same speed, no matter the weight.
Also we could say the top speed is something like right below the speed of light, and no matter how hard the ships try they cannot break it without another kind of force.
Posted: Fri Jun 02, 2006 1:26 am
Warmaster, I suggest you take a course in elementary physics. An object has mass and it takes energy to accelerate mass. The more mass, the more energy required. This applies in space, on earth, or wherever. The bigger a ship is, the more engines it should take to accelerate it. Same with missiles. Bigger (more massive) missiles should be less able to accelerate because they are pushing more mass around.
Sean has already posted that the physics is goofed up. I need to send him a few simple formulas and algorithms. At some time in the future, I'd like to see the physics a bit closer to reality. The first and simplest one is D=.5AT^2 which obviously does not take into account relativistic effects. You might also investigate Lorentz transformation.
Posted: Fri Jun 02, 2006 2:26 am
Okay then... I see the rather large flaw in my logic, something exactly along the lines of Acceleration = Force / Mass... So I'm wrong, ignore my previous statement then, and pardon the fact that I was thinking about resistance at strange times of day.
But the maximum attainable speed still holds some water.
And yes I will understand the greater aspects (and re-remember the simpler ones) at some time later in my life.
Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 3:06 am
Zephyr wrote:...but bombers in "real life" are slower than fighters, since they have to carry heavier ordnance. I know that in space this doesn't necessarily matter, but in my opinion it would somehow feel more "right" if fighters were quicker than bombers - after all, isn't their speed and agility what makes them fighters?
Well, actually I can think of several IRL examples of bombers being as fast, or nearly as fast as the contemporary fighters:
WWI: Zepplins could outpace several of the scout planes that were sent after them. Even the later designs such as the Nieuport 17, Sopwith Camel, and SE 5a had trouble attacking them.
WWII: The American B26 and the British Mosquito were both described as "really hot ships". The Mosquito was actually faster than most german fighters of the day once it dropped its load. The Me-262a doesn't count (as it really didn't have any contemporary counterparts)
Modern: The Paniva Toronado and the B-1A are both supersonic planes. There is also the F-111 and F-15E aircraft, both of which are mach-2 aircraft.
Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 11:33 am
I've got a idea so that both sides will be happy.. How about in the formations bit, put in "Stay in formation" which means that your fighters will go the same speed as the bombers. It'll will put on by default. If you ticked off Stay in Formation, your fighters would not go the same speed as the bombers and will og at their own speed. That would be useful for attacking. Have your squadron attack and when the first missle is fired, take off the Stay in Formation option, and let your fighters slaughter the enemy.