(10-09-2013, 12:11 PM)Dratai Wrote: if Freelancer was to scale, those planets you see, the bases, and the stars, would be some tens, hundreds, or maybe even a thousand times bigger, and to the same effect, apart from each other.
your point being?
(10-09-2013, 12:11 PM)Dratai Wrote: The law of conservation.
not in fl
(10-09-2013, 12:11 PM)Dratai Wrote: Energy requirements.
not in fl unless you're doing cool stuff like cloaking
(10-09-2013, 12:11 PM)Dratai Wrote: Just the same as you have the ability to thrust, you need the ability to not spiral out of control.
so how do regular fl ships do it?
(10-09-2013, 12:11 PM)Dratai Wrote: Basically, if you have something that big, even in the vacuum of space, the faster such a thing goes, the harder it is to turn it.
therefore the increased propulsion systems and RCS etc. let's assume that future space RCS is able to compensate for the physics.
(10-09-2013, 12:11 PM)Dratai Wrote: If your own arguments are to be taken seriously, the fact that your ship moves that fast means that it would take just as much just to SLOW DOWN, and then even more to turn it.
"would take as much to slow down"... somebody clearly hasnt emergency braked from a battleship's 300ms engine kill drift.
Let me assure you that the primary objective of this post is to suggest the idea of a BS-sized one-man fighter. As I am obviously not a dev everything in my OP are just extremely sandpaper-rough concepts, also the RP-explanation and the "scientific" explanations I have for it.
(10-09-2013, 12:11 PM)Dratai Wrote: Therefore having more speed on a large, cumbersome ship (by this I mean it's a long/wide/whatever ship, so turning it is gonna take a while, for obvious reasons) just makes it even less agile.
Let's say we link 900 arrows together in parallel, remove 899 of the pilots, and make the cluster fly acrobatically. It wil still be almost as agile.
(10-09-2013, 12:11 PM)Dratai Wrote: The faster it goes in one direction, the less -likely- is it that it will turn on a dime. Especially when speeding.
That is only under the assumption that it hasn't exceeded the turn-on-a-dime break-even point. You are assuming that albeit its increased mass, our car has the same amount of friction between it and the ground, and that our plane has the same surface area on its control surfaces, that our spaceship has maneuvering systems of the same capabilities as it did before.
(10-09-2013, 12:11 PM)Dratai Wrote: Am I supposed to advocate we get maps that are so large that traders will never be truly safe and distances will be boring to cover due to scale?
Where. did. you. get. this. idea.
I'm okay with being proven wrong, however I am not okay with your floodish posts offering no constructive arguments whatsoever. I will now ask a dev to monitor this thread and delete any future floody posts.
No atmosphere? GTFO.
The propeller is the greatest invention of all time.
