Home Forums Free SciFi Gaming Projects Pioneer Pioneer Techlevel discussion

Viewing 11 posts - 16 through 26 (of 26 total)



Humble Book Bundle ends on 9/11/2019


  • Author
    Posts
  • #84184
    Avatars2odan
    Participant

    Hehe, tbh I’m happy either way 🙂

    Quote:

    Let them be big complicated structures on planets/stations so the player can destroy them on scripted missions et voila, you have a relatively plausible system that most people will be happy with.

    Actually I quite like this idea as it gets around a few problems.. like crime ect that the player commits.




    Humble Book Bundle ends on 9/11/2019


    #84185
    AvatarUncleBob
    Participant

    Problem I see with destructible environment is that it has to go a long way… If important installations are destroyed, they have to get rebuilt. Since installations currently are “fixed assets” produced by the generator, it will need referencing which stations have been destroyed and when, so it doesn’t generate them when it shouldn’t. Once a station is rebuilt this reference could be removed to keep savefiles clean, however, so unless someone goes on an insane station destruction rampage savefile bloat should not be a problem.

    However, in the context of the game, destroying a spacestation with a single ship seems not very credible. These installations are gigantic, and unless we have flyable capital ships, I couldn’t quite imagine what ship could take one out, even with Huge Plasma Accelerators(TM).

    Plus, taking out a station to solve your legal problems with the assasination you just carried out doesn’t seem to be an adequate way to solve the problem. Some ships would be bound to get away, and you should pretty fast end up with a galactic warrant for mass murder, FTL communications or not. Especially if the station is not the only installation in the system, you’d have to go genocidal maniac to insure that no word gets out. These aren’t King David’s times anymore… 😆

    When factions get implemented, destruction runs could get a potentially very profitable way of income, but as long as there’s no CapShips or squadron management I just don’t buy it. And those aren’t really things I would expect too fast. I also cannot think of what I would need the cash for if I already have a ship that can blow away a station…

    #84186
    AvatarBrianetta
    Participant
    UncleBob wrote:
    When factions get implemented, destruction runs could get a potentially very profitable way of income, but as long as there’s no CapShips or squadron management I just don’t buy it. And those aren’t really things I would expect too fast. I also cannot think of what I would need the cash for if I already have a ship that can blow away a station…

    Frontier let you blow away installations with nuclear missiles. They were generated specially, but they weren’t exactly small. Of course, nuclear ordnance isn’t on general sale, and in any case Frontier rendered all system stations invulnerable even to nukes.

    Saved game bloat isn’t an issue when it comes to tracking destroyed stations; it just requires an extra bit per station. They can be rebuilt or replaced after a few years when the player is elsewhere; perhaps they could remain unavailable for docking for some time after that, too, to simulate the interior construction period.

    It’s all doable. It just needs planning out.

    #84187
    AvatarUncleBob
    Participant

    ah yes, the good old nukes. How could i forgett about those.

    When they get impleeted, we should find another name for them, though. Since my drive seems able to handle a few mega-hiroshimas per second in luminosity and radiation, high yield warheads in the pioneer verse should probably use some other destructive force than these two, since we seem capable of handling them quite expertly…

    #84188
    AvatarBrianetta
    Participant
    UncleBob wrote:
    ah yes, the good old nukes. How could i forgett about those.

    When they get impleeted, we should find another name for them, though. Since my drive seems able to handle a few mega-hiroshimas per second in luminosity and radiation, high yield warheads in the pioneer verse should probably use some other destructive force than these two, since we seem capable of handling them quite expertly…

    Your drive uses applied phlebotinum. As we’ve already stated, your thrusters are reactionless drives. Your ship doesn’t get any lighter; nothing’s actually coming out. This is further evidenced by the lack of scorch marks and hurricanes left all over the planet after a spacecraft takes off.

    #84189
    AvatarUncleBob
    Participant
    Quote:
    As we’ve already stated, your thrusters are reactionless drives.

    Ah. I wasn’t quite sure wheather they were reactionless drives with exhausts or rocket engines without fuel consumption. Most of the ships have some kind of nozzle, though, so It seems kind of weird to declare them as reactionless. Although their power output would be more practical to handle when they don’t throw ravening particle streams of death around, but if they don’t throw anything out, where do they go with the heat? I get a feeling that I’m too much nitpicking here… Consistancy is kinda hard to establish afterwards. 😕

    #84190
    AvatarBrianetta
    Participant
    UncleBob wrote:
    Quote:
    As we’ve already stated, your thrusters are reactionless drives.

    Ah. I wasn’t quite sure wheather they were reactionless drives with exhausts or rocket engines without fuel consumption. Most of the ships have some kind of nozzle, though, so It seems kind of weird to declare them as reactionless. Although their power output would be more practical to handle when they don’t throw ravening particle streams of death around, but if they don’t throw anything out, where do they go with the heat? I get a feeling that I’m too much nitpicking here… Consistancy is kinda hard to establish afterwards. 😕

    The heat comes out of the back of your PC. It’s why the fan blows warm air.

    The difference between reactionless drives with exhausts or rocket engines without fuel consumption is entirely semantic. Our ships will stop being reactionless when they accelerate by ejecting mass. This would mean getting lighter as they do so, and it might well never happen. Almost all space games use reactionless thrusters; one notable exception is Orbiter.

    #84191
    Avatars2odan
    Participant
    Quote:
    one notable exception is Orbiter.

    How on Earth could you forget Frontier/FFE 😉

    #84192
    AvatarUncleBob
    Participant
    Quote:
    The heat comes out of the back of your PC. It’s why the fan blows warm air.

    So that’s why my CPU overheats while playing Pioneer 😆

    Quote:
    The difference between reactionless drives with exhausts or rocket engines without fuel consumption is entirely semantic.

    Yes it is. But the whole consistency question in Space Opera is more or less semantic, but it’s still important for the immersion.

    Quote:
    How on Earth could you forget Frontier/FFE

    While they technically had fuel consumption, they had constant weight. Even regardless of how much you loaded. Oh, and FFE had a nice Bug that would half gravity when the display switched from AU to km… 😯

    #84193
    Avatars2odan
    Participant
    Quote:
    While they technically had fuel consumption, they had constant weight. Even regardless of how much you loaded.

    Oh yeah of course I forgot ship’s mass was constant 🙂 But thats probably down to simple limitations of the engine, I mean cargo and other goods had a mass of 1ton per unit, its just the ship didn’t take that into account…

    I think how I’d like to see it done is to seperate engines and power systems out. You fuel the power system with hydrogen or whatever, which in turn will fuel the hyperdrive and other systems or charge a capacitor which feeds the systems.

    With actual thrusters we could either drain the power/fuel reserve of the power plant, or actually provide a seperate propellant which uses the heat from the powerplant to expand the gasses ect.

    Having a seperate propellant is the most plausible of the two but it might be unnecessarily complicated.. But to me it seems the better option for added depth… 🙂

    #84194
    AvatarBrianetta
    Participant

    Propellant != fuel.

    Modern rockets use the spent fuel as propellant, but electric motors (such as an ion engine) use electricity as fuel and an inert gas (normally Xenon) as propellant.

    In all cases, acceleration happens in two directions with a net acceleration of zero; propellant goes backwards, spacecraft goes forwards. The mass of both added together remains constant, but the ship must get less massive because it is literally throwing its mass away.

    Fuel is fun, but it’s even more fun if you can take on too much propellant to lift off! Time to refuel/restock in orbit before heading out…

Viewing 11 posts - 16 through 26 (of 26 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.