Would you like to see some asymmetrical ships in Elite: Dangerous?

[Robert Maynard]

I wrote that the ships in Elite Dangerous would be screwed if they lost a thruster. That you would try to apply Elite Dangerous' design flaws to real world airplanes, without even bothering to consider what is involved, is your "logic", not mine. No. I do not consider the F-22 to be asymmetric. That doesn't even make sense.

Twin engined passenger jets can fly on one engine - the remaining thrust vector is definitely not passing through the centroid of mass. They do, however, apply corrective rudder to permit them to continue to undertake controlled flight.

By the same token, the Anaconda could still travel using one of two main drives - while applying corrective yaw to mitigate the thrust induced moment.

 

[Miklos Atreides]

Basically I am all in for more variety in respect to ships. More helps more.
There is no known reason that 100s of billions of human inhabitants have created the currently known ships only.
Also would appreciate to see ships is space players cannot fly like bulk carriers (maybe asymetrical ones) ground
support ships that operate on scheduled basis and so many more.

But because it is not related to gameplay and eyecandy only chances are low that anything moves pretty soon.

(BTW: some added flyable ships I wouldn't reject them as long as they balance)

Regards,
Miklos

 

[veryinky]

Then that means that the majority of the rest of the ship is at the bottom. Since the hull itself weights 400T and all the heavy components double that, it seems quite well balanced out. If we assume those 400T to include crucial electronics then they could balance it out at the bottom.

Also, the thrusters themselves do have mass, as you might well know.

And yes, they would be screwed if they lost a thruster. It would also be easier to counter such a problem than when compared to an asymmetrical vessel. Ships have side thrusters as well. Those would go crazy calculating the counter forces on an asymmetrical vessel, whereas a symmetrical you need a steady force to counter-balance the damage.

This isn't how physics works, I'm sorry.

"majority of the rest of the ship".

Think about what you just wrote.

The rest of the ship, let alone the mass fraction that would be the "majority of the rest of the ship", even if that majority meant 99.999% of the rest of the ship still weighs less than what is above the center of mass. This is basic math at this point. Algebra. Why do you not get this?

Do you even know what the words "center of mass" and "center of thrust" means? As it applies to vehicle design?

Why would there be counter forces on an asymmetrical vessel? Why do you believe it'd be "crazy calculating" one asymmetrical ship as opposed to a now asymmetrical (damaged symmetrical) ship which you believe would be "steady".

Why do you think it's ok for a ship to be asymmetrical along the Y axis but a crime against all that is science to be asymmetrical along the X axis?

All, and I mean every single ship in the game is asymmetrical along the X axis.

 

[Mr_sukebe]

Personally I'd love to see us given a way to change the visuals of our ship (not just the decals/paintwork), i.e. the shape of it, whilst say maintaining the same statistics and capabilities. So an Asp might well retain it's loadout, but might move the cockpit to the rear and get flattened out.

 

[veryinky]

By the same token, the Anaconda could still travel using one of two main drives - while applying corrective yaw to mitigate the thrust induced moment.

The fact that Elite lacks true Newtonian physics bothers me to no end. I hate WW2 planes in space.

I would love it if every RCS thruster actually used modeled forces to figure turn rates, and damage to same individual RCS units would cause ships to alter their handling.

Making it so ship thrusters really did provide thrust along the ship's center of mass, which would move based on the internal cargo, fuel and ammunition mass.

Really looking forward to Children of a Dead Earth for my fix of realistic space combat.

 

[Apos]

This isn't how physics works, I'm sorry.

"majority of the rest of the ship".

Think about what you just wrote.

The rest of the ship, let alone the mass fraction that would be the "majority of the rest of the ship", even if that majority meant 99.999% of the rest of the ship still weighs less than what is above the center of mass. This is basic math at this point. Algebra. Why do you not get this?

Do you even know what the words "center of mass" and "center of thrust" means? As it applies to vehicle design?

Why would there be counter forces on an asymmetrical vessel? Why do you believe it'd be "crazy calculating" one asymmetrical ship as opposed to a now asymmetrical (damaged symmetrical) ship which you believe would be "steady".

Why do you think it's ok for a ship to be asymmetrical along the Y axis but a crime against all that is science to be asymmetrical along the X axis?

All, and I mean every single ship in the game is asymmetrical along the X axis.

Yes, majority of the rest of the ship. meaning that out of those 400 tonnes of hull, 350 would be spread alongside the bottom, with more possibly at the grand bottom due to the fighter hatch. Alongside electronics and the other internals that are not on the upper side.

You haven't proven that the Anaconda does not have a lined up center of mass. It's quite impossible to do it because there are no details on the ship's distribution to its entirety. And you do need its entirety to do it. All I know is that it's perfectly possible for the Anaconda to have good calibration and that's what I claimed. You're the one who deals in absolutes. If you want to deal with absolutes, then prove them.

And the reason why the X axis is more important than the Y axis is because it's the axis that contains the area which will create the lift force in atmospheric flight. And if you don't create an equal amount of lift on both sides, then you start rolling.

 

[veryinky]

All I know is that it's perfectly possible for the Anaconda to have good calibration and that's what I claimed. You're the one who deals in absolutes. If you want to deal with absolutes, then prove them.

Possible but very unlikely. You're arguing that most of the Anaconda's hull is ballast and that it's magically below the center of thrust because reasons. In the end all you have is "in my opinion" to back you up, I have the fact that ALL of the Anaconda's core internal and optional internal mount points are above the ship's center of thrust.

"it's possible" "I guess" "I think" "I claim" "All I know" "in my opinion"

There's no point in arguing facts against opinions. You have an irrational hatred of physics and like symmetry for a purely aesthetic sense.

And the reason why the X axis is more important than the Y axis is because it's the axis that contains the area which will create the lift force in atmospheric flight. And if you don't create an equal amount of lift on both sides, then you start rolling.

SPACE. SHIPS. Space ships do not need wings or lift force.

And, if we're specifically talking about Elite Dangerous ships:

Which do not even fly in the traditional sense, they're in "frame shift supercruise glide" while near a planet or actively using their bottom RCS thrusters to provide lift.

 

[Apos]

Possible but very unlikely. You're arguing that most of the Anaconda's hull is ballast and that it's magically below the center of thrust because reasons. In the end all you have is "in my opinion" to back you up, I have the fact that ALL of the Anaconda's core internal and optional internal mount points are above the ship's center of thrust.

"it's possible" "I guess" "I think" "I claim" "All I know" "in my opinion"

There's no point in arguing facts against opinions. You have an irrational hatred of physics and like symmetry for a purely aesthetic sense.


SPACE. SHIPS. Space ships do not need wings or lift force.

And, if we're specifically talking about Elite Dangerous ships:

Which do not even fly in the traditional sense, they're in "frame shift supercruise glide" while near a planet or actively using their bottom RCS thrusters to provide lift.

I hate physics so much that I study engineering, yes.

The hull doesn't have to be evenly distributed, because it doesn't have to have the same composition all around. It's simple as that.

And yes, I do not claim to provide facts when I don't have all of them and can't come to an accurate conclusion. You're clinging on the one fact that many heavy internals are on the top and come to the conclusion based on that. I don't know if you hate or love physics, but you don't seem to be in good terms with taking a cautious approach.

And our space ships are supposed to be able to go down into atmospheres later down the line, so they kinda do. And don't. Technically the sheer power of the thrusters powered by fusion used in the game should nullify any need for lift in an atmosphere, but someone could argue: Why not have extra lift for free?

 

[Gamel0rd1]

You cant. for lore reasons. the ships are designed to be flat/arrowhead like because of how are FSDs work.

I cannot see how Jacques station looked like an arrowhead.

 

[Deadspin]

By the same token, the Anaconda could still travel using one of two main drives - while applying corrective yaw to mitigate the thrust induced moment.

If yaw actually worked worth a damn, sure.

 

[Robert Maynard]

The fact that Elite lacks true Newtonian physics bothers me to no end. I hate WW2 planes in space.

That ship sailed, I would expect, before the Kickstarter had even been announced - Frontier decided on the flight model for this sequel a long time ago.

 

[Robert Maynard]

If yaw actually worked worth a damn, sure.

We have infinitely more yaw capability than the original game....

 

[veryinky]

I hate physics so much that I study engineering, yes.

As an engineer who's been practicing mechanical with a specialization in mechatronics and the design and development of drones for close to a decade I hope you're specializing in something like environmental or acoustical.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

That ship sailed, I would expect, before the Kickstarter had even been announced - Frontier decided on the flight model for this sequel a long time ago.

I also object to using WW2 plane engine sound samples for the basis for their sound engineering, but that's an other design decision I will complain about at an other time. I've heard what a magnetoplasmadynamic thruster prototype sounds like in person and I can say with absolute certainty that it does not sound like a Sopwith Camel biplane.

 

[Apos]

As an engineer who's been practicing mechanical with a specialization in mechatronics and the design and development of drones for close to a decade I hope you're specializing in something like environmental or acoustical.

I'm thinking of material technology.

Anyway, all that matters is:

Possible but very unlikely.

Anything else is related to your attitude, which frankly I don't care about. You have admitted that it's possible and thus can't prove it without any sort of denial. That means that what you're claiming is not a fact. You can beat around the bush all you like for all intents and purposes, your amusement or even your projection of self-worth.

 

[veryinky]

You have admitted that it's possible and thus can't prove it without any sort of denial. That means that what you're claiming is not a fact. You can beat around the bush all you like for all intents and purposes, your amusement or even your projection of self-worth.

Same to you.

It's also possible for a brick to spontaneously fly into space due to quantum probability, it's just very, very unlikely. So yes, I concede that it's entirely possible for RimLiner Galactic to have made the majority of the Anaconda's mass to be useless ballast weight at the bottom of the ship to balance the center of thrust but I would stress that this would be stupid and very unlikely to have be done. It's the reason I picked the Anaconda; it's the most extreme example of a ship being unbalanced in the Y axis that we know of given it's component placement. For what you say to be plausible, that there's a huge hidden counter-weight at the bottom of the ship would mean that the rest of ship's hull would have to be made of styrofoam and balsa wood. By volume, 83% of the Anaconda is above the center of thrust; you can check this fact for yourself by downloading the extracted model files. This is an undeniable truth so try to understand what you're implying with your ballast theory.

And, think about it.

You say you hate asymmetrical craft but you go out of your way to defend the most asymmetrical ship (y axis) in the game by clinging onto hopes and dreams that magic ballast somehow cancels out physics.

 

[Shaamaan]

I hate physics so much that I study engineering, yes.

NEEEEEERD!

<disclaimer: the above is actually an honest, even if tongue-in-cheek, compliment>

 

[777Driver]

Twin engined passenger jets can fly on one engine - the remaining thrust vector is definitely not passing through the centroid of mass. They do, however, apply corrective rudder to permit them to continue to undertake controlled flight.

By the same token, the Anaconda could still travel using one of two main drives - while applying corrective yaw to mitigate the thrust induced moment.

With a single engine operative your only limitation is Vmcg & Vmca, basically the minimum speed of the airflow over the surfaces to maintain control whilst still having the option to engage maximum thrust on the remaining engine. Falling below that speed and applying maximum thrust will cause the aircraft to roll and a complete loss of control. You have software like 'TAC' thrust asymmetry compensation that does all the hard work on modern machines these days. The funny thing is TAC is artificially limited to keep the crew in the loop, it could easily do the job without any pilot input, the design philosophy is that the pilot should always assist the computer in critical situations to retain some feel of what is happening.

How does all that relate to asymmetric ships? Well for a start our ships don't have to rely on aerodynamic control, we have a ridiculous amount of thrust on tap - 5,2m/s² acceleration on all thrusters including our maneuvering thrusters (don't quote me on that, some smart Russian dude did the calculation). What is even better is that fuel is more abundant than water in the ED universe, from a designers point of view drag and thruster efficiency is a non issue, our ships are even artificially limited, quite similar to how it works in reality.

Bottom line is there is no reason why Asymmetric ships couldn't exist in the ED universe, in reality tho it would be incredibly inefficient, the fuel burn and drag (In an Atmosphere) would be extreme.

 

[Apos]

Same to you.

It's also possible for a brick to spontaneously fly into space due to quantum probability, it's just very, very unlikely. So yes, I concede that it's entirely possible for RimLiner Galactic to have made the majority of the Anaconda's mass to be useless ballast weight at the bottom of the ship to balance the center of thrust but I would stress that this would be stupid and very unlikely to have be done. It's the reason I picked the Anaconda; it's the most extreme example of a ship being unbalanced in the Y axis that we know of given it's component placement. For what you say to be plausible, that there's a huge hidden counter-weight at the bottom of the ship would mean that the rest of ship's hull would have to be made of styrofoam and balsa wood. By volume, 83% of the Anaconda is above the center of thrust; you can check this fact for yourself by downloading the extracted model files. This is an undeniable truth so try to understand what you're implying with your ballast theory.

And, think about it.

You say you hate asymmetrical craft but you go out of your way to defend the most asymmetrical ship (y axis) in the game by clinging onto hopes and dreams that magic ballast somehow cancels out physics.

The Anaconda already has to be made from something just as light as styrofoam because there is no way that thing's hull weights 400 tonnes anyway.

So I'm not making any far stretch here compared to the standards the ship is based upon anyway. The anaconda is a hope and dream in itself. If they can make such a light, yet durable material, then you bet they can distribute it at will and counter-act any weight at the top by placing everything else important at the bottom. The husk itself is probably lighter than styrofoam all things considered...

 

[Deadspin]

We have infinitely more yaw capability than the original game....

Not enough to counter one sided thrust.

 

[777Driver]

Not enough to counter one sided thrust.

Of course we have enough thrust..