Thrust vs. Top Speed

Command a squadron of spaceships
User avatar
Zephyr
Posts: 82
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 5:01 pm
Location: Enfield, North London, UK

Thrust vs. Top Speed

Post by Zephyr » Mon Apr 24, 2006 2:21 pm

I've just realised that there's something in CM that doesn't seem to make sense to me - the top speed of ships. I'm no physicist, so bear with me, but "thrust" in the game seems to just refer to acceleration, and has no effect on top speed. More weight = less thrust, more engines = more thrust, obviously, but where does top speed come into this? All ships seen to have the same maximum speed, regardless of their thrust rating. A CM figher might take 3 or 4 turns to reach its max speed, and a bomber might take 6 or 7 turns, but they both end up going at the same speed. Surely the fighter would have the capacity to reach a higher top speed as it has more thrust...? Or does space not work like that because it's space? In real life, a small-engined car with low "thrust" has a much lower top speed than a large-engined one.

Also, I've just screwed up in the CMT designs manager and somehow managed to delete the Water Tanker :-) Could someone please use theirs to change it from a built-in to a custom and stick it on their website so I can download it? Thanks!
Dinosaurs aren't extinct, they're just hiding behind things.
Kangaroos are just mice standing much closer to you.

User avatar
Sean OConnor
Posts: 1299
Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2004 7:47 am
Location: Cambridge, UK
Contact:

Post by Sean OConnor » Mon Apr 24, 2006 5:09 pm

Yeah, the physics is all wrong - but then it's a 2D battle anyway and it ought to be 3D!

User avatar
Zephyr
Posts: 82
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 5:01 pm
Location: Enfield, North London, UK

Post by Zephyr » Mon Apr 24, 2006 5:35 pm

:lol:
Dinosaurs aren't extinct, they're just hiding behind things.
Kangaroos are just mice standing much closer to you.

TheKangaroo
Posts: 492
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 11:07 pm
Location: Hamburg, Germany

Post by TheKangaroo » Mon Apr 24, 2006 6:34 pm

Actually that's not wrong. Concerning cars this works out since the engine has to compensate for friction (the tires rolling make the car get slower, as well as air hitting the car head on), while in space there is (virtually) no friction theoretically limiting speed only to the speed of light. Though I don't think light speed would be very practicable the amount of thrust doesn't actually determine a top-speed of a spacecraft.
Besides I like this the way it is... :wink:

User avatar
ima_gnu
Posts: 186
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2005 11:57 pm
Location: Kelowna, BC, Canada

Post by ima_gnu » Tue Apr 25, 2006 1:20 am

I think a fighter should be able to nearly match the speed of a dark blue missile - the name if which is evading me, having just gotten home form a 14 hour day of....construction! w0rd. But yeah. I think I should be allowed to run straight away from a missile and have it nearly not catch me. Or have a once-per-20-turn nos button. So you can have like...three turns of super-duper high speed. Actually, I'm just throwing out ideas cuz I'm tired, but feel free to read them! Actually, you already have! w00t.
I poop, therefore I am.

User avatar
Zephyr
Posts: 82
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 5:01 pm
Location: Enfield, North London, UK

Post by Zephyr » Tue Apr 25, 2006 9:13 am

TheKangaroo wrote:the amount of thrust doesn't actually determine a top-speed of a spacecraft.


So in "real life" every spacecraft has the same theoretical top speed, it's just a case of how long it takes to get to it?

I don't think that any ship should be so fast as to be able to out-run a missile in a straight line, but I do think that it would be more realistic somehow if fighters could have a higher top speed than bombers.
Dinosaurs aren't extinct, they're just hiding behind things.
Kangaroos are just mice standing much closer to you.

TheKangaroo
Posts: 492
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 11:07 pm
Location: Hamburg, Germany

Post by TheKangaroo » Tue Apr 25, 2006 9:45 am

So in "real life" every spacecraft has the same theoretical top speed, it's just a case of how long it takes to get to it?

Exactly.

User avatar
BoxZone_Author
Posts: 331
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2004 7:46 pm
Location: UK (back from USA)
Contact:

Post by BoxZone_Author » Wed Apr 26, 2006 11:56 pm

Playability vs Realism

My vote goes to Playability every time.

Lukov
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 4:34 pm

Post by Lukov » Thu Apr 27, 2006 3:33 am

Me too.

User avatar
Zephyr
Posts: 82
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 5:01 pm
Location: Enfield, North London, UK

Post by Zephyr » Thu Apr 27, 2006 10:26 am

Maybe missiles with larger warheads should be heavier...?
Dinosaurs aren't extinct, they're just hiding behind things.
Kangaroos are just mice standing much closer to you.

TheKangaroo
Posts: 492
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 11:07 pm
Location: Hamburg, Germany

Post by TheKangaroo » Thu Apr 27, 2006 8:37 pm

My vote goes to Playability every time

Right, especially since realism is quite off limits for a game like this, don't you think? Anyway I'd hate the heavier ships in my squadron trailing all the way...

User avatar
Zephyr
Posts: 82
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 5:01 pm
Location: Enfield, North London, UK

Post by Zephyr » Thu Apr 27, 2006 10:01 pm

...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?
Dinosaurs aren't extinct, they're just hiding behind things.
Kangaroos are just mice standing much closer to you.

TheKangaroo
Posts: 492
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 11:07 pm
Location: Hamburg, Germany

Post by TheKangaroo » Thu Apr 27, 2006 10:15 pm

Well, we could talk about that till the cows come home. They still differ from the 'bombers' due to maneuverability, sensors and payload and anyway we all draw that line ourselves. I guess I could take topspeeds being mass-depending, too, I'm just not as enthusiastic.

User avatar
Zephyr
Posts: 82
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 5:01 pm
Location: Enfield, North London, UK

Post by Zephyr » Thu Apr 27, 2006 10:23 pm

I'm just going for "playability", and think that fighters should have a greater top-end than bombers. Otherwise you could just design a "perfect" fighter, then copy it and change all its Daycorns and Geenees for Plectrons and Oriks. The ship has the same thrust/turn/stealth/radar characteristics but now has a bomb load rather than an "air-to-air" load. I think that that decreases the realism, and therefore the playability, a bit. I like to see *some* link between the game and reality (even though we're flying fighters with Critical Mass engines in outer space! :D )
Dinosaurs aren't extinct, they're just hiding behind things.
Kangaroos are just mice standing much closer to you.

User avatar
BoxZone_Author
Posts: 331
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2004 7:46 pm
Location: UK (back from USA)
Contact:

Post by BoxZone_Author » Fri Apr 28, 2006 12:03 am

Sean has decided to make all the missiles the same weight.
The heavier damage ones either have no maneuvering capability or are very slow.
The fast, high maneuver ones have less room for warhead.

Maneuverability and acceleration of your ship are dependent on it's weight and the number of thrusters you put on it.

So you can have some "very big" fighters (that tend not to be built in air combat).

Post Reply