Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Indeed:
[video=youtube;W4bEQlVvUvI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4bEQlVvUvI[/video]
[video=youtube;t2uaRHFmBT4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2uaRHFmBT4[/video]
And I thought my ship was fast until...
- Thread starter zinzaemon
- Start date
Indeed:
[video=youtube;W4bEQlVvUvI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4bEQlVvUvI[/video]
[video=youtube;t2uaRHFmBT4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2uaRHFmBT4[/video]
Anyone else want the plastic toy set now?
Hell. Yes. As a model painter I would pay good for money for quality castings.
Ok smart asses
Lets compare apples to apples shall we and ignore supercruise and jump drives.
Taking any of your new fangled space ships using standard drives in a vacuum, even the very fastest highly engineered variants couldn't even boost to the SR71's cruising speed in an, admittedly thin, atmosphere.
Seems a little slow, no?
A real life plane in purely atmospheric flight vs a theoretical spaceship in a video game.
Apples with apples alright.
On another note, I'd love to have a ship (wish the FDL did this actually), or engineer mod that was faster. Not top speed but acceleration. Like standing start boost causes partial blackout. Anyone else? Maybe I've just watched too much Macross and Gundam, but I feel like I want something that would be brutal on the pilot. Flight harness bruises and all.
You're comparing the real-world max speed of real-world machinery to pretend not-max-speed of pretend machinery. It might be an interesting discussion, yes. But no, you do not get to claim any sort of "high ground" as doing the real "apples to apples" comparison.
Because you are so blatantly, obviously, not.
You're intentionally limiting things so that you can make your complaint. Which is fine. But don't pretend like that's not the case.
Such topics as these are tiresome, if sometimes slightly amusing. However, I must admit to falling into the trap on occasion.
As someone previously stated; it's all about game mechanics and NOT about actual physics.
I will give the OP the benefit of doubt and assume the posting was a bit of tongue in cheek.
Anyone with the slightest awareness of Newtonian physics can pick this game to shreds. So why bother?
As someone previously stated; it's all about game mechanics and NOT about actual physics.
I will give the OP the benefit of doubt and assume the posting was a bit of tongue in cheek.
Anyone with the slightest awareness of Newtonian physics can pick this game to shreds. So why bother?
Last edited:
lol , everything here is just stupid... I'm more concerned about what in the hell is generating "DRAG" on the ships... not it's top "speed"... But it's a game anyways... I get that the game is so scarce right now of content that you guys need to argue about any to keep focus of it... but jesus!
Weight sure, but mass is very valid.
The answer is always going to be "it's a game, it has to be playable"
I'd like to have ships that can travel about 4x as fast as these can, jump 5x as far, but cannot carry any cargo or do any data missions. They are just there for transport of the commander from starport to starport (cannot land on planets).
The SR71's that we had needed to be anchored down with heavy duty cables just to do run up tests at near full throttle. And the locals at RAF Mildenhall had to be warned because of the excessive noise it created. We're talking about rattle the windows noise.
And just for the fun of it, each of the silver, special allow tires costs about $10,000 each.
Chief
And just for the fun of it, each of the silver, special allow tires costs about $10,000 each.
Chief
The SR 71 also had a TON of issues. For one, it dumped so much fuel on the tarmac before every take off that it needed to be refueled in the air immediately via air tanker upon reaching cruising speed. This was because the air friction at high speeds melted any and all fuel lines and almost any sealing material but the titanium metal body. So it relied entirely on the heat from air friction to flex the titanium and seal up the fuel tank as it flew. Even at 80,000+ ft, the atmospheric drag made the entire heat resistant body red hot at top speed. The pilots had to wear special pressure suits that also had industrial cooling systems hooked into them just to survive.
Of the 21 or so birds in service, each one also had a very distinct "personality" while flying at mach speeds because of inperfections in manufacturing of each one. This is why most pilots drummed out of the blackbird program. Only a few were ever good enough to fly the thing.
Of the 21 or so birds in service, each one also had a very distinct "personality" while flying at mach speeds because of inperfections in manufacturing of each one. This is why most pilots drummed out of the blackbird program. Only a few were ever good enough to fly the thing.
Last edited:
Since we're posting interesting things about the SR-71, allow me to draw your attention to this account of a pilot who survived one of them disintegrating around him at Mach 3.18.
Last edited:
They lost quite a few aircraft, amazing that only one crew member died whilst that machine was in service. Anyway, this topic reminded of a very American video I was sent a while back.
No denying that machine was a beast.
[video=youtube;Lg73GKm7GgI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lg73GKm7GgI[/video]
I kinda wish that all ships had the same speed limit of 1000 m/s, and that the only things determining how well a ship moves are based on mass and thrust. For example, a T9 would be able to hit 1000 eventually, but the acceleration would start to become weak beyond 200, making it take a long time to reach 1000. It would probably generate better gameplay.
Acceleration in ED is a bit too high. Unless you're in the big 3, you hit top speed almost instantly, otherwise, you have to wait a second or two. Because of this, you can get in and out of range very quickly when performing the boost-ram-turn or jousting method. There aren't a whole lot of opportunities to chase tail unless your ship has a higher top speed and your enemy foolishly thinks they can outrun you. This is because top speeds are low and accelerations are high.
I kinda get the feeling that the devs and almost the entire community have never played other space combat sims before. Hardly anyone seems aware of the potential diversity that exists in flight styles. In ED, you either joust or circle fight with FAoff. Anything else is going to be a foolish choice for one of the two pilots.
When momentum + speed matter and you are fighting wing vs wing, getting a lineup for focusing a target while minimizing your team's damage intake becomes a challenging focus. That kind of gameplay does not exist in ED. It's as simple as point and go or point and shoot.
Acceleration in ED is a bit too high. Unless you're in the big 3, you hit top speed almost instantly, otherwise, you have to wait a second or two. Because of this, you can get in and out of range very quickly when performing the boost-ram-turn or jousting method. There aren't a whole lot of opportunities to chase tail unless your ship has a higher top speed and your enemy foolishly thinks they can outrun you. This is because top speeds are low and accelerations are high.
I kinda get the feeling that the devs and almost the entire community have never played other space combat sims before. Hardly anyone seems aware of the potential diversity that exists in flight styles. In ED, you either joust or circle fight with FAoff. Anything else is going to be a foolish choice for one of the two pilots.
When momentum + speed matter and you are fighting wing vs wing, getting a lineup for focusing a target while minimizing your team's damage intake becomes a challenging focus. That kind of gameplay does not exist in ED. It's as simple as point and go or point and shoot.
The SR-71 was never meant as a fighter/interceptor. It's skin was a paper thin alloy. No weapons, no armor, just a skinny pilot with a large bladder and a camera array.
Its only defence was speed and altitude, but even it couldn't outrun a missile. Comparisons are fun, but I'd wager it would fall prey to a missile equipped sidewinder correctly positioned. That is, if we ever get atmospheric capability. BTW, anybody ever clocked missiles in ED?
Its only defence was speed and altitude, but even it couldn't outrun a missile. Comparisons are fun, but I'd wager it would fall prey to a missile equipped sidewinder correctly positioned. That is, if we ever get atmospheric capability. BTW, anybody ever clocked missiles in ED?
Fantastic video, thanks for sharing
ED's fastest missiles are the dumbfires, and they only make 750m/s. Our seekers are good for 625m/s, or 600m/s for packhounds.
Last edited:
I've seen this plenty of times in written form, never knew there's a video of it as well.
Quite something that SR-71 and its crew.
The simple answer is that
gameplay > gamelore.
Pretty much stops there.
If you look at how targeting works; for instance, it's very much about player input. Having ships that cruise around at 1000ms would be more realistic, but you aren't going to hit anything with our current combat mechanics - if you are going to have ships moving that fast - with targeting and munitions mechanics to cater for it, you start waking into the realm of dogfight simulation. Like.. where sensor range, munitions speed and computerization takes over large parts of the combat.
I would prefer something like that perhaps - but only because I'm not even that big on combat. I would trade a more fun direct input experience for something more genuine - but I don't play combat that much and for those who do like it, they are probably in a better position to make suggestions.
gameplay > gamelore.
Pretty much stops there.
If you look at how targeting works; for instance, it's very much about player input. Having ships that cruise around at 1000ms would be more realistic, but you aren't going to hit anything with our current combat mechanics - if you are going to have ships moving that fast - with targeting and munitions mechanics to cater for it, you start waking into the realm of dogfight simulation. Like.. where sensor range, munitions speed and computerization takes over large parts of the combat.
I would prefer something like that perhaps - but only because I'm not even that big on combat. I would trade a more fun direct input experience for something more genuine - but I don't play combat that much and for those who do like it, they are probably in a better position to make suggestions.