Works for me, and others have commented about it, the problem must be at your end.
Its lifted from this applied physics study guide, the first diagram in the "Acceleration in Circular Motion" section.
Coriolis Station Physics
- Thread starter drew
- Start date
Its lifted from this applied physics study guide, the first diagram in the "Acceleration in Circular Motion" section.
By now it is not at all clear what your actual point is.laforge said:
The Coriolis effect you experience while walking on the station is still the same Coriolis effect you experience while flying inside the station, or outside for that matter. It's only a perception coming from looking at a rotating frame of reference from inside that rotating frame of reference - all you need to do to simulate it is to simulate the laws of Newton in an inertial frame of reference independent of the station's rotation and that's already being done - which was being doubted by some people in this thread which is why I made that video in the first place.
They aren't "my" cuboctahedron-shaped stations and they have been called Coriolis stations for 30 years already. You're the one arguing they should be called something else and I still don't get your rationale.
If you want to name a class of station after Tsiolkovsky (and indeed, why not), why should it be specifically the Coriolis station, which already has an established name and not some new type of station?
How about calling cylindrical stations (big ones) Babylons?
And on a more obscure note Dodecahedron stations, could be called 'Zodiac'.
They've been "dodo"s for decades...
I would prefer to call the big cylindrical stations "Rama", after the original idea from Arthur C. Clarke's novel by the same name.
The difference between 'not wanting' and 'avoiding'.
Ok one last try: This may all be true, but I was not talking about the Coriolis effect on a fictional station but about the implementation of Coriolis force in this game when walking inside the station (this is now the fourth time I told that). That effect you linked can be observed in every game having a rotating object. Every game developer will tell you that the physics when walking outside of your ship (inside a station) will be implemented independently from the flight physics.
Too bad that even 30 years ago it was already wrong. The concept and naming of these stations is alot older than elite. You know what? Call your stations like you want, I honestly dont care about it anymore. It looks like my attempts to produce reasonable insight or a change just hit granit. Its like with other certain topics here. Lets remake elite '84 with new graphics and be happy.
Last edited:
This is supposed to interest me, how?laforge said:
Yes, I get that. And my point still stands that it's the same thing. Is this the third time I told you that? Gosh.
I'm pretty sure that people who design space stations can call them anything they want. Who are you to tell them it's "wrong"?
errrrrr.......a scientist?
It is not the same thing. Ask a developer here, he will tell you that too.
And those people who invented these stations already named them over one century ago. They never spoke of 'Coriolis stations'. And who I am? I am just a human being like you.
On a sidenote: Judging from the posts here I get the impression that this name simply emerged from the fact that some people dont know the difference between centripetal force and the coriolis effect (and some of those who know about it use this name because 'coriolis station' is a good joke).
Last edited:
Well okay. Developers, would you use a different physics engine for non-ship objects moving inside a space station than the one you use for the ships?laforge said:
Again, who is the guy who invented space stations in the specific shape of a cuboctahedron over a century ago and made this idea public, so that he is more in the right to name it than Ian Bell?
People use the name because that's the name given to the station in the Elite manual as well as inside ED itself and because it's the only station type implemented in the game at the moment.
Yaffle
Volunteer Moderator
This made my head hurt thinking about it, but I don't think so, no.
The truck is moving with reference to the station. It is still trying to move in a straight line but the bounds of the station stop it. That's the centripetal force pushing it inwards to stop it going through the wall and out into space. I think.
Like a motorbike rider on the wall of death.
But it is Friday, I'm a biologist (well, biochemist/lawyer/accountant) not a physicist so I may be wrong.
No, that is NOT the correct question. It must be:
"Do you include Coriolis effects into the physics when being ouside of your ship on board a space station?"
And the answer will be no, believe me.
How do you know that?
They didn't need to implement anything special to make the Coriolis effect manifest with the spaceships either. The only thing you need for that is to make the station actually spin and have the physics be calculated in the inertial frame of reference.
They could just as easily do that with the other objects, like walking characters or any physobs they interact with.
It sounds like you don't have much faith in FD's programmers if you don't believe they can do that.
They didn't need to implement anything special to make the Coriolis effect manifest with the spaceships either. The only thing you need for that is to make the station actually spin and have the physics be calculated in the inertial frame of reference.
They could just as easily do that with the other objects, like walking characters or any physobs they interact with.
It sounds like you don't have much faith in FD's programmers if you don't believe they can do that.
The point is that a rotating frame is not an inertial frame, therefore it would make the entire physics engine more complicated for an effect which is small for large stations anyways and gives weird behaviour in small stations.