' Wrote:Actualy professional aerobatic Airplanes ( ~0.5-0.7 Tonns) "manuevering potential" is nearly matched (in low speed) by their much heavier counterparts in military, for instance the famouse Mig-29 (17 Tonns) or Eurofighter (16 Tonns). Also you have other Planes inbetween that are far less maneuverable, so this is a question of design, technological mastership and coast, not nessesary related to mass/inertia.
there's no friction in space, hon. therefore agility is a result inertia and maneuvering engines power
' Wrote:there's no friction in space, hon. therefore agility is a result inertia and maneuvering engines power
Well to be exact the Gameengine is not working with that "no friction" unless you hit "engine kill". Even than in FL agility only means the ability to turn direction/orientation fast because in FL speed and thrust are infact the same inside same ship class, nomatter its hull or mass.
The physic engine of FL is a capped/fake one if you like and that in real space friction is (mostly) abcent therefor does not matter, hon.*
*(actualy there are only very few Spacegames that implement physics correctly (Frontier: First Encounters (1995! with real starsystems gravitation!), Independence War, Starshatter to name some) and the majority realy simulates an unfitting aerodynamic physic without gravitation (like FL))
If we're talking about "realistic mass" then we are already ignoring the physics-breaking parts of the game.
If you want to calc "real" masses then try this approach: find the volume of the ship, assume 80-95% of it is empty space (air, which does still have mass!) and the rest is entirely composed of a heavy "metal". This "metal" represents things like hull, engine components, chairs, computers, etc. Fiddle with the percentages and what your "metal" density is. Civilian ships would have closer to 95% empty, while heavily armored warships would have closer to 80% Note that the bigger the warship is, the more people it has on board and the more empty space it has onboard.