Most of the time, I saw it through a canopy covered in rain and fog.
Elite's Next Technology Breakthrough!
- Thread starter Ralph Vargr
- Start date
Most of the time, I saw it through a canopy covered in rain and fog.
OK +1 and make it so.
We can throw in some guardian woo woo and toss the air jets.
FDEV has all of the inertia.
Why do we need AG? Everything stays more perky without gravity.
The space shuttle is designed with gravity in mind. Still doesn't have artificial gravity.
Given the amount of time our ships spend docked on rotating stations or planet surfaces, their designs would reflect that.
So is the FSD, and shields, if you want magic. Not totally frying in stellar corona's might be another case.
Corona is diffuse enough to be plausible, but FSD and shields are definitely magic, as depicted.
Sure they could coexist, but I see exactly zero need for that type of AG. I actually think it would harm the game.
It won't. Thruster packs and magnetic boots will work fine.
Ever play Crysis?
Yeah pretty much. Nobody cares about what David Braben said would/wouldn't be in the game; Frontier least of all. They've already got artificial gravity working in-game for human hair and coffee cups, I'm sure it'll be ready for entire people soon enough.
Star Citizen has artificial gravity but they've still got spinney parts on their stations and I'm pretty sure it follows the same logic you brought up.
In real life, you can have artificial gravity by accelerating at 1g continuously. Then when you are standing upright, up is the direction you are traveling. Then when you get halfway to your destination you rotate the ship so that down is the direction you are traveling and you decelerate at 1g continuously. That would be a cool trip in real life. Lol.
Thruster packs and magnetic boots might work fine for you (the player) but they're not going to help with modelling the environment where, in a zero-g environment, everything is going to have to be designed so that it can float around if it isn't stuck down somehow.
Sure, I'd absolutely love to play around in zero-g environment as well but if creating a system that allows for zero-g is holding up space-legs then I'd rather they accepted AG and got on with it.
Also not sure how it might harm the game, but there we are.
![[VR] Goooost](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/111/111637.jpg?1589354934){kind=avatar}
Artificial Gravity.
I'm convinced that the same technology that makes frame shift drive possible would be able to generate artificial gravity on a shipwide scale, and this would be absolutely necessary in order to pull the kind of Gs that we do in game without feeling them. The only reason some megaships, capital ships, and stations dont use this form of artificial gravity is that it doesnt scale well, which is the same exact reason that they use a different type of jump drive. It's the difference of stretching spacetime and tearing a giant hole in spacetime, one is easily adapted to gravity.
This would also mean that you would lose gravity on your ship once the frameshift is shot out. It could get very interesting.
This is what I've been saying, and it actually is less "magic" than all the silly explanations we get about how humans survive the extreme variations in forces CMDRs would be exposed to in ED (especially with G5 DDs). We don't just survive, we thrive! (Our avatars are more physically fit than I am.) I'm not sure why people are okay with magic drugs / nanites / instant evolution / [insert magical description about how my pilot can live in zero G for months and then land on an 8 G world with no side effects], but they are not okay with AG from our physics-defying, space-bending FSD.
All that said, this game ignores gravity in general now that I think about it. I'm taking passengers from high (relatively speaking) G planets to low G moons and vice-versa. It's definitely not what we see in The Expanse, and real life for that matter (watch astronauts struggle when they return to earth after being on ISS for awhile).
Last edited:
DeletedUser191218
D
Isn't this just gravity?
I write my own Lore, so I don't care what you yahoos or even Braben himself says, MY ships have AG when in supercruise. Period, end-of-story, I win!
ps - this is why passengers are willing to pay so much money to fly on my ships.
No, you have gravity during supercruise. There is nothing artificial about it. If it pulls you down such you can walk around, it is gravity. Gravity has two states. Present and absent. If it's present, it's gravity, if it's not present then it is zero gravity. Since there is absolutely no difference between naturally occurring gravity and gravity that is artificially produced, it is simply gravity. You can call it what you want, it doesn't change anything. You can call the thing you sit on a door instead of a chair, but the function of the device remains the same so it is a chair no matter what you or I say. Same with gravity. You can say it's artificial gravity but the function and results remain the same. So why waste 4 syllables when you don't need to?
I'd always assumed that the FSD, being a drive that shifts your frame of reference, simply generates a small inertial reference frame into the superstructure of your ship causing a localized gravitational field to point "down". When in normal flight, this reference frame acts as an inertial dampener to avoid murdering the crew with 30G maneuvering forces.
The reason stations spin is because they're large and usually stationary relative to their orbital flight path, so it's much easier in technobabble and also economics to generate artificial gravity through centrifugal force, rather than multiple/massive FSD cores.
The reason stations spin is because they're large and usually stationary relative to their orbital flight path, so it's much easier in technobabble and also economics to generate artificial gravity through centrifugal force, rather than multiple/massive FSD cores.
Mostly for convenience sake gravity has been mistreated as something casual and a relatively easily artificially created force, while we still don't really know what exactly we are dealing with.
For all we know it's weak and seems to make an impression on space/time which makes things kinda "roll" towards mass. But how and why and what-the-holy-standard-model is still a mystery. So I vote against artificial gravity. Even if hyperspace jumping also has to deal with mass somehow, it might still be more realistic to assume we can pull it off than artificial gravity.
For all we know it's weak and seems to make an impression on space/time which makes things kinda "roll" towards mass. But how and why and what-the-holy-standard-model is still a mystery. So I vote against artificial gravity. Even if hyperspace jumping also has to deal with mass somehow, it might still be more realistic to assume we can pull it off than artificial gravity.
What about artificial intelligence, artificial lighting, and artificial diamonds? Are they exactly the same too?
My take on it is that if its not naturally occurring, but man made, its artificial. Its all semantics.
My take on it is that if its not naturally occurring, but man made, its artificial. Its all semantics.