The Chieftan is annoying
- Thread starter Cmdr Bolamshea
- Start date
If you mean the (relative) position of some stars in our galaxy (the known star map), then yes it is consistent to that degree. Although I doubt all the planets and stuff are real.
But the rest is pure nonsense.
And a wonderful game.
I have enjoyed this thread ... thanks OP ... but to be honest, I wonder if poor Buck Rogers would have ever got off the ground with you guys ... humour only meant here ....
Cheers ...
Chief
Cheers ...
Chief
Anything can be explained in science fiction with the correct application of woo woo.
It can, but a lot of the point of "science" part of that title is that it should be plausible or really you might as well be in StarWars territory which is really more fantasy than scifi.
Oh please stop this nonsense, a simulation can be a recreation of a hypothetical situation. It does not need to be based on reality or current technology. ED, is a space simulator, using the word simulator doesn't solely apply to desktop simulators like DCS or Orbiter, those simulators are replicating training platforms.
The terms simulator and game are not mutually exclusive.
Last edited:
Y'know, that is all very plausible, and I've often assumed that ED ships use some kind of ion-drive myself.
The only trouble is, if that's the case, what is taking up all the space inside a ship's hull?
We know it's not cargo/passenger/crew space cos that only accounts for a tiny percentage of the internal volume of big ships.
I guess it could be the PP, shield generator and/or FSD but the configuration of ships like the T9 and T10 (ships with "outboard" thrusters) suggests that the thrusters, themselves, are big ol' assemblies.
In the case of the Chieftain, if the thrusters aren't filling up those pods, why are the pods (the front ones in particular) there at all?
If it's the gimbal mechanism that's taking up the space, and requires the pods, we're back to wondering how the landing gear fits in there as well.
For the most part, as long as a sci-fi ship looks cool then I'm happy but it's that little extra bit of plausibility that really makes a thing believable.
Seems like it might help if FDev got one of their artists to make some basic sketches of components such as thruster assemblies, FSDs, PPs and shield generators etc in, say, small, medium and large sizes to use for reference when ships are being designed.
I only just discovered this but, on a related topic, the producers of Star Trek write a "technical manual" for each series, which contains basic info' about what all the in-universe tech can and can't do.
The manuals aren't detailed, and they don't explain how anything works, but they lay down basic rules so that writers and designers can always come up with stuff that abides by all the rules that pre-exist in that fiction.
Last edited:
Pretty much sums it up.
No they are not real, but are simulated to as close as possible. As a galaxy sim, ED is very good at simulating what could be there.
One meaning of the word simulation:
Simulation is the imitation of the operation of a real-world process or system over time.
This is precisely what we have in ED with the galaxy. Then we have the gameplay part added on and even that has some simulation elements.
Maybe you should watch he discover scanner vid about how they created the galaxy.
Last edited:
I don't really see the confusion/conflict TBH.
It's well-known, for example, that Minecraft was created as a "geology simulator" in that it creates terrain which gradually changes depending on a variety of factors in an attempt to simulate how different types of terrain blend and interact with each other.
Same thing with ED.
They've taken what we know about how galaxies form and used it to extrapolate an in-game galaxy based on our knowledge.
I doubt anybody would dispute that Minecraft is a "planet simulator" and, in the same way, it seems fair to say ED is a "galaxy simulator".
Maybe people just don't like that they call it the "Milky Way" when it's really just a procedurally generated galaxy with a bunch of known systems mixed in?
When someone calls ED an arcade game and not a simulation is where the conflict is. Could you imagine trying to play ED at an arcade.
Not how it works. A narrative universe will always be a projection of the real one in which we live, else we cannot relate to the narrative. And this narrative universe has to follow a set of rules inherently logical to that universe. So narrative (i.e. imaginary) 3300 tech has to be relatable to us here, now, and accordingly has to follow relatable rules of tech here, now.
This is why ED ships have thrusters, exhausts, heat radiators, and a SC that roughly follows the principles of an Alcubierre drive rather than running on magic unicorn **** or something.
A friend of mine recently started, was trying to explain module grades and managing ships mass, also how to get his hauler to Diagunadri, lets just say we take all this knowledge for granted. Definitely doesn't feel like arcade mode for many newbies.
Man, I guess. For me, I'll just believe whatever they want to create, none of it is actually real anyway so I don't really see the point in being concerned. Now I suppose if they put the landing gear on top of the thing and you had to land it upside down I might ask questions, but this... meh. Seems even less worth talking about than telepresence.
And do not forget that the technology of the 3300s remains a mystery today
Yes, I'm afraid. World building is all in the detail.
That's not the point. ED does not try to predict 3300 technology; it tries to depict our idea of 3300 technology. It has to be relatable to us, here, now.
