The type 6 thrusters flap, but it doesn't do jack to the manoeuvrability.
The Chieftan is annoying
- Thread starter Cmdr Bolamshea
- Start date
The type 6 thrusters flap, but it doesn't do jack to the manoeuvrability.
I'm halfway through watching Thursdays live stream where they revealed the Chieftan.
It's a nice looking ship but there's only one part that I can't help but feel break the 'believability' of the ship...
The landing gear in the rear engine pods.
The engines being external like that are very cool, and I love the way they look.
I know I have to turn off the reasoning bit of my brain when playing a game that involved FTL travel, but that landing gear really grates on me, let me explaing my reasoning.
Those big bulky pods are very likely to be rammed full of engine; 3 thrusters on the back and a big one on the front; that should be taking a lot of space inside.
How the devil does the whole mechanism of the landing gear fit inside it as well? When the landing gear deploys it looks very much like the solid metal struts that connects to the 'foot' of the landing gear should be cutting straight through the internals of the thruster -
http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd133/therealhozz/landinggear1.jpg
See those 2 big pieces of metal there? They look like they line up almost directly behind the bottom two thrusters.
Then from this view -
http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd133/therealhozz/landinggear2_1.jpg
that massive chunk of metal looks like it would go nearly all the way through to the roof of the pod. leaving some very cramped space inside for all three of the rear thrusters.
I'm guessing that these engines should be the most powerful ones on the ship (along with the pods at the front) but when they only have this much space to fit in
http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd133/therealhozz/landinggear3.jpg
the idea just doesn't work in my head.
This then raises the other question in my head 'Why did the only put landing gear in the rear pods when from a manufacturing point of view, it would have been cheaper to mass produce two versions of the pods left hand and right hand instead of 4 versions, left with gear, right with gear, front left and front right.'
(don't even get me started on the fact that whilst flying in space and deploying the gear should have resulted in the ship flying in vertical (relative to the ship) circles).
Yes, I know it's just a game, but all the ships so far have been at least a little bit believable. This ship, for the most part is but that rear gear. grr.
I'm really not complaining I'm just pointing out that the internal mechanics don't seem to work in the really cool looking ship and it annoys the logic in me
It folds up flat taking up less space then you think.
I don't have problem with believing the landing gear wouldn't fit in.
But I think it's a shame all four nacelles don't rotate upon landing. That would look even cooler.
But I think it's a shame all four nacelles don't rotate upon landing. That would look even cooler.
I'm halfway through watching Thursdays live stream where they revealed the Chieftan.
It's a nice looking ship but there's only one part that I can't help but feel break the 'believability' of the ship...
The landing gear in the rear engine pods.
The engines being external like that are very cool, and I love the way they look.
I know I have to turn off the reasoning bit of my brain when playing a game that involved FTL travel, but that landing gear really grates on me, let me explaing my reasoning.
Those big bulky pods are very likely to be rammed full of engine; 3 thrusters on the back and a big one on the front; that should be taking a lot of space inside.
How the devil does the whole mechanism of the landing gear fit inside it as well? When the landing gear deploys it looks very much like the solid metal struts that connects to the 'foot' of the landing gear should be cutting straight through the internals of the thruster -
http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd133/therealhozz/landinggear1.jpg
See those 2 big pieces of metal there? They look like they line up almost directly behind the bottom two thrusters.
Then from this view -
http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd133/therealhozz/landinggear2_1.jpg
that massive chunk of metal looks like it would go nearly all the way through to the roof of the pod. leaving some very cramped space inside for all three of the rear thrusters.
I'm guessing that these engines should be the most powerful ones on the ship (along with the pods at the front) but when they only have this much space to fit in
http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd133/therealhozz/landinggear3.jpg
the idea just doesn't work in my head.
This then raises the other question in my head 'Why did the only put landing gear in the rear pods when from a manufacturing point of view, it would have been cheaper to mass produce two versions of the pods left hand and right hand instead of 4 versions, left with gear, right with gear, front left and front right.'
(don't even get me started on the fact that whilst flying in space and deploying the gear should have resulted in the ship flying in vertical (relative to the ship) circles).
Yes, I know it's just a game, but all the ships so far have been at least a little bit believable. This ship, for the most part is but that rear gear. grr.
I'm really not complaining I'm just pointing out that the internal mechanics don't seem to work in the really cool looking ship and it annoys the logic in me
You are right of course.
I love the Chieftain.
I love the engine placement.
I also love the landing gear placement.
But the two don't go together.
These futuristic engines needn't be particularly long, as engines appear to be similar to modern ion engines in concept, just working at significantly higher energies. It might be convention to put a lot of energy storage and transfer mechanisms right in front of the thrusters, but there's no rule that says you have to, so the remainder of the pod space could very easily just be the well for the undercarriage to retract into.
Why put the undercarriage there? Maybe when in early development, the Chieftain was intended to be a dropship or carryall? In that case, a wide thrust base makes sense, as does moving undercarriage off of the centerline, allowing larger carry space. Perhaps originally all 4 nacelles rotated, but as the ship was remodelled as a direct fighter, they simplified and reinforced the front nacelles, but opted to retain the rear design. Engineering projects can take all sorts of twists and turns.
All that aside, it irks me no end to see off-center lines of thrust, without counteracting forces at work. The thrusters on the rear nacelle should cut out, angle to face completely rearward, or other thrusters should angle to provide the opposing forces when landing gear is deployed.
Why put the undercarriage there? Maybe when in early development, the Chieftain was intended to be a dropship or carryall? In that case, a wide thrust base makes sense, as does moving undercarriage off of the centerline, allowing larger carry space. Perhaps originally all 4 nacelles rotated, but as the ship was remodelled as a direct fighter, they simplified and reinforced the front nacelles, but opted to retain the rear design. Engineering projects can take all sorts of twists and turns.
All that aside, it irks me no end to see off-center lines of thrust, without counteracting forces at work. The thrusters on the rear nacelle should cut out, angle to face completely rearward, or other thrusters should angle to provide the opposing forces when landing gear is deployed.
Excactly my thoughts!
Next someone will be telling me there is just no way that R2D2 could have had that third leg in his body as well as all the necessary circuitry, power plant, motors & appendages.
If the underecarriage using the thruster-pod is the deal breaker for ED [in a Wall-E sort of way]; then goodness knows how suspension of disbelief was achieved for:
1. When your ship is destroyed: your instantaneous transport across the whole galaxy to the last space station you docked in
2. You can travel across the whole of the bubble in about an hour [depending on FSD] and yet people think that's worth paying hundreds of thousands of credits [i.e. many x the value of a new sidewinder] for, when the Earth equivalent is a few quid
3. That in the year 3304, you cannot buy tungsten or tin in bulk, when they are available in bulk now
4. That an engine with a G5 Dirty Drive upgrade, that took 250 rolls to achieve, is instantly replaced with the same (highly improbable and difficult) modification at any station in the galaxy after you destroy the original
I am sure many others could add to this list.
Luckily - I am blessed with the ability to suspend my disbelief.
If the underecarriage using the thruster-pod is the deal breaker for ED [in a Wall-E sort of way]; then goodness knows how suspension of disbelief was achieved for:
1. When your ship is destroyed: your instantaneous transport across the whole galaxy to the last space station you docked in
2. You can travel across the whole of the bubble in about an hour [depending on FSD] and yet people think that's worth paying hundreds of thousands of credits [i.e. many x the value of a new sidewinder] for, when the Earth equivalent is a few quid
3. That in the year 3304, you cannot buy tungsten or tin in bulk, when they are available in bulk now
4. That an engine with a G5 Dirty Drive upgrade, that took 250 rolls to achieve, is instantly replaced with the same (highly improbable and difficult) modification at any station in the galaxy after you destroy the original
I am sure many others could add to this list.
Luckily - I am blessed with the ability to suspend my disbelief.
I'm really not complaining I'm just pointing out that the internal mechanics don't seem to work in the really cool looking ship and it annoys the logic in me
Haha... Watching the live stream I immediately saw two things: 1) that ship looks cool and 2) argh... that engine-landing-gear can't work. Sure, I will buy Chieftain but I already fear landing that thing. I can imagine those engines failing to provide enough thrust at any moment.
The space travel is complete garbage from a scientific viewpoint, both ignoring known science and doing things that are probably impossible in this universe. (Anyone who mentions Miguel's paper (or similar ideas) should read it first and think through the implications.). I suppose the phrase '....accurate as possible' is a big caveat, but even this is moot.
ED is an arcade game, not a simulation. And wonderful as a consequence.
Having said that, I agree that it should be internally consistent and not grate unnecessarily. At least the Cheiftan has not got spoilers for the downforce LOL.
It appears they have been doing this for centuries.
Is a good point. Two differences though that's nice skinny tubular frame and we know it fits behind the engine.
OP's pic shows massive solid blocks of material and we have no idea what the engine actually is.
The nozzle blades on the engine exhaust leads us to think "jet" or "rocket" which we know are very long. But it has also been suggested that the engine may actually be almost flat.
So actually who knows?
In the end though this is a good discussion thread [up]
Last edited:
As far as I can tell, the engines in the model provide additional mass, physical hitboxes and visual hints of motion...
They are not actually responsible for generating vectored thrust themselves. A ship's motion is purely dictated by algorithms, not actual physical thruster placement... That is why Star Citizen had run into so much trouble with its (now pretty much abandoned) physically accurate thruster regime...
Designing a ship that actually flies well based on physical principles is hard and would engage an actual aerospace firm with actual physics and design knowledge for a long time...
And looking at Star Citizen's ships ships, it's clear no scientists were involved in their unfeasibly inefficient designs... (and I'm saying this as a backer!)
Thus (AFAIK) Elite Dangerous takes the more sensible approach (for a space shoot-em-up) and sticks to mathematical models, with any articulation following rule of cool and maths and not the other way 'round.
Proof that thrusters are not physically implemented is that The Cutter, whose vertical thrusters can only generate about 0.5G, can be use them to take off (albeit slowly) from a 9G planet!
Last edited:
The pic I posted was with a lot of tongue in cheek. If I have to explain it for myself I would go with what Monk said, in fact first time I saw any rotating outlets I thought Harrier.
Just extent the four (or in this case back two) with flexible ducting and that is the way I will justify it if I have to. As we are more than a thousand years in the future we have no way of knowing the advances that will be made. Smaller power plants with larger output is very possible. At the end of the day though it's a game and handwaveium is a versatile substance.
Yes. I'm sure the game mechanics will work just fine. It's my imagination which causes problems -- Chieftain landing-gear-thrusters just don't look trustworthy.
ED is not an arcade game. I wish people would use the correct terminology. It's is a simulation with game elements. Or a game the simulation elements, basically a hybrid. But one thing I do know is that you could never play this game in an arcade.
After watching the stream with the Chieftain, my first thought was was that my Chieftain ship name is going to frog related.
Miniturization, friend, this is the future.
A Diamondback is a moth. Does this mean your Chieftain will eat Diamondbacks for breakfast?
