Hidden Fold out wings for atmospheric flight - is Fdev holding out on us?

[Morbad]

Nothing to do with thrust or velocity. The higher the mass, the better it can handle turbulence. An Eagle is going to have a harder time than a Cutter.

A blimp will handle turbulence much worse than Sidewinder missile, despite being much bigger in every regard.

Density, drag, and thrust are all important.

Smaller ships in ED are much more dense, tend to have lower drag coefficients, and have proportionally stronger thrusters. It's the difference between a baseball and a beach ball...which one of those is more at the mercy of wind turbulence?

Regardless of the density of ED ships, relying on aerodynamics to keep them in the air is going to be like strapping a cardboard box to a budgie and hoping it'll fly.

Only applicable if the thrusters don't work, which would usually be more of an issue on an airless world than on one with atmosphere.

 

[Armyofducks]

Radical idea:

They might just deal with the fact it's a video game and have ships fly in-atmosphere the same way those Star Destroyers in Star Wars do: Artistic license.

I think this every time the aerodynamics argument comes up. Same with the whole artificial gravity argument for legs.

How does SC deal with atmos worlds? From what I've seen they look like they sort of ignore it there as well

 

[Rubbernuke]

What about shields providing an aerodynamic surface? When engaged any brick could be tuned to be more aerodynamic.

 

[Stealthie]

The biggest differences should/will be heat build-up from drag. FA-OFF, a ship wouldn't be able to maintain a fixed velocity with the engines at idle. Larger ships will be able to handle turbulence/buffeting much better.

None of the ships have control surfaces, so it is still down to good old brute force to maneuver these hulks. Also, a ship like a T7 or T9 should result in a massive amount of wake turbulence for anything following within a few km's.

Would be nice to see things like ground effect added (much easier to land in atmo's due to the cushion of the atmosphere between the surface and underside of the hull)

Am not holding my breath for any of the above ;-)

Well, we do already have some heat issues with ships flying on planet surfaces so I guess that could be expanded on.

Main thing is, currently all we ever do is take-off and then either point our ships up in the air and jump to SC or engage our FSD.
With atmo' planets would, presumably, come more gameplay related to flying around on the surface so even if aero' was a minor advantage, it might become something worth considering when engaging in atmo' gameplay.

Regarding control surfaces, that could be something an "aero-shield" could plausibly provide.
Land on the surface in a regular ship and you get poor handling.
Fit a fancy aero-shield and it generates adaptive control surfaces which enhance agility.

 

[777Driver]

A blimp will handle turbulence much worse than Sidewinder missile, despite being much bigger in every regard.

A blimp is rubbish at handling turbulence, a very bad example, so is a tiny streamlined missile. A 1000+ tonne cutter is going to move around way less due to atmospheric turbulence than an 80 tonne Eagle. Once again, ships velocity and thrust have nothing to do with it. The only thing that matters is the velocity of the air mass and the type of vortices encountered - updrafts,downdrafts, crosswinds, wind shear etc etc.

I guarantee you, the higher mass vehicle, gross tonnage or whatever you wanna call it, will provide a smoother ride. Mass acts as a dampener.

Not that any of the above will be simulated.

 

[VR SenseiMatty]

I guarantee you, the higher mass vehicle, gross tonnage or whatever you wanna call it, will provide a smoother ride.

I can confirm this. The higher the mass the higher the inertia so the higher the energy required to affect the body.
Fly with a Cessna on a windy day and you will get sick. Fly the same day on a B747 and you'll notice few bumps only.

 

[Stealthie]

Only applicable if the thrusters don't work, which would usually be more of an issue on an airless world than on one with atmosphere.

Isn't that kind of the entire point of a discussion like this?

We already have ships that can overcome gravity without the use of aero' aids.

If FDev introduce atmo' planets they've got two choices:-
1) make it so atmospheres have little/no effect on flight dynamics.
2) make it so they do.

If they go with option 1, then entire discussion is redundant.
If they go with option 2, they're going to have come up with something that allows for certain ships to outperform others as a result of their aero' characteristics.

Realistically, it's probably going to end up being a sort of "hybrid" system, where your ship still mostly relies on thrust to keep it in the air and allow it to manoeuvre (possibly gnerating heat as a result) but then some ships will have aerodynamic properties that allow them extra agility, and use the thrusters less (resulting in less heat) as a result.

 

[Morbad]

A blimp is rubbish at handling turbulence

Because it's cross sectional area is enormous relative to it's mass.

A 1000+ tonne cutter is going to move around way less due to atmospheric turbulence than an 80 tonne Eagle.

No it's not, because a Cutter has proportionally less mass for a given area, from any angle, than that Eagle.

A Cutter is more blimp-like than airplane-like.

Once again, ships velocity and thrust have nothing to do with it.

Thrust directly counters drag and ED ships can thrust in any direction. Indeed, with FA On, they will actively counter any forces that would cause them to deviate from their flight path.

The only thing that matters is the velocity of the air mass and the type of vortices encountered - updrafts. downdrafts, crosswinds, wind shear etc etc.

The air mass has to push on the vehicle. Cross sectional area is important, specifically with how it relates to the mass of the vessel.

It's like wing loading.

A guarantee you, the higher mass vehicle, gross tonnage or whatever you wanna call it, will provide a smoother ride.

Mass, in and of itself, is completely irrelevant. You are ignoring the same characteristics that make blimps rubbish at handling turbulence...namely low mass for a given cross section--that are more severe as ships get larger in ED.

Fly with a Cessna on a windy day and you will get sick. Fly the same day on a B747 and you'll notice few bumps only.

A Cessna is lighter for a given crossection than than 747.

The precise opposite is true for the Eagle vs. Cutter comparison.

 

[777Driver]

Because it's cross sectional area is enormous relative to it's mass.



No it's not, because a Cutter has proportionally less mass for a given area, from any angle, than that Eagle.

A Cutter is more blimp-like than airplane-like.



Thrust directly counters drag and ED ships can thrust in any direction. Indeed, with FA On, they will actively counter any forces that would cause them to deviate from their flight path.



The air mass has to push on the vehicle. Cross sectional area is important, specifically with how it relates to the mass of the vessel.

It's like wing loading.



Mass, in and of itself, is completely irrelevant. You are ignoring the same characteristics that make blimps rubbish at handling turbulence...namely low mass for a given cross section--that are more severe as ships get larger in ED.



A Cessna is lighter for a given crossection than than 747.

The precise opposite is true for the Eagle vs. Cutter comparison.

You are going to have to start providing some numbers. A Cutter is capable of a mass upwards of 3000 tonnes, it's actual relative size is not that much larger than many Russian cargo planes, AN-124 has a TOW of around 700 tonnes. You seem to be comparing these L-pads ships to blimps.

Apologies for the derail, but yeah, give me some actual figures.

 

[VR SenseiMatty]

Isn't that kind of the entire point of a discussion like this?

We already have ships that can overcome gravity without the use of aero' aids.

If FDev introduce atmo' planets they've got two choices:-
1) make it so atmospheres have little/no effect on flight dynamics.
2) make it so they do.

If they go with option 1, then entire discussion is redundant.
If they go with option 2, they're going to have come up with something that allows for certain ships to outperform others as a result of their aero' characteristics.

Realistically, it's probably going to end up being a sort of "hybrid" system, where your ship still mostly relies on thrust to keep it in the air and allow it to manoeuvre (possibly gnerating heat as a result) but then some ships will have aerodynamic properties that allow them extra agility, and use the thrusters less (resulting in less heat) as a result.

While I see the potential for new engaging gameplay, I don't believe FDEV will go for the second choice. Too complex for a game that is already trying to do more than what it should actually do.

Most of flight simulators don't even go in such details. The flight models is actually a set of equations that defines the aircraft behaviour. There's no aerodynamic simulated because the simulator developer already knows everything about the airplane.
So the aircraft 3D model that you see is actually just cosmetic. A brick would fly in the same way.

To make it good in ED it would be even more complex because FDEV needs to:
1. creating the basic for a simple aerodynamic simulation
2. analyze each ship aerodynamical behaviour to define a simplified flight model for each ship (<---- this is a huge effort)
3. find a set of equations and parameters that can re-correct the equations at number 1 and 2 to have a universal flight model able to simulate flight on all type of planets (because of different gas composition, density, pressure etc.) The difference between planets is not negligible!

 

[VR SenseiMatty]

A Cessna is lighter for a given crossection than than 747.

Nope, the Cessna is much more dense than a B747. Fly on an empty B747 without interiors too and a minimum reserve of fuel and fly in a cessna with full tanks and 4 people on board and you will still have a smoother flight in the B747.

 

[VR StarLightPL]

Radical idea:

They might just deal with the fact it's a video game and have ships fly in-atmosphere the same way those Star Destroyers in Star Wars do: Artistic license.

The moaning about the flight model would never end.

 

[Havoc4U]

I was under the thinking that all the ships are designed with airfoil to fly in atmospheres - I mean wings & tails are not needed in space flight.....

 

[Oldviboy]

I was under the thinking that all the ships are designed with airfoil to fly in atmospheres - I mean wings & tails are not needed in space flight.....

it would be fun if once the players got space legs, they started asking for space wings

 

[Deleted member 110222]

The moaning about the flight model would never end.

Of course not. Half this community is just salty that they were unlucky enough to live in the 21st century and this will mean they never get to be a real space man.

"Born too late to explore the world. Born too soon to explore the galaxy. Born just in time to browse dank memes."

I'll take the memes. Memes are cool. The true peak of our species.

 

[777Driver]

I mean wings & tails are not needed in space flight.....

They are not needed in an atmosphere either, fuel burn in our ships is the same at 100% thrust or 1% thrust, so no need to worry about reducing drag for fuel-efficiency. The thrusters also provide infinitely more lift than any surface. The devs kinda painted themselves into a corner.

It would be completely different if our ships used a propulsion system similar to what we have today.

 

[Morbad]

You are going to have to start providing some numbers. A Cutter is capable of a mass upwards of 3000 tonnes, it's actual relative size is not that much larger than many Russian cargo planes, AN-124 has a TOW of around 700 tonnes. You seem to be comparing these L-pads ships to blimps.

Apologies for the derail, but yeah, give me some actual figures.

I found the BPs for both ships and took rough measurements of their respective areas from different profiles.

A fully loaded Eagle is about 100 tons mass and has vertical cross sectional area of about 450m^2, a forward area of of about 100m^2, and a side profile area of about 180m^2.

A fully loaded Cutter is about 2300 tons mass and has a vertical cross sectional area of about 11000m^2, a forward facing area of about 2900m^2, and a side profile area of about 5000m^2.

The crossectional loading in the vertical profile is actually quite close, but the forward and side profiles deviate noticeably in favor of the Eagle with respect to higher mass vs. area.

I don't have the tools to get an accurate drag coefficent for either ship, but I'm almost certain the Eagle would be lower from most angles, which would also reduce the effect of turbulence. Acceleration provided by the thrusters is also dramatically better in favor of the Eagle, in all vectors.

There is pretty much no way the Cutter would be less susceptible to turbulence than the Eagle. The Eagle has the same or higher mass for a given unit of exposed area, and a much stronger active compensation system.

Also, a Cutter is way bigger than an AN-124...by about an order of magnitude of area, and almost two orders of magnitude of volume. You can't just look at a single linear dimension; a pencil with fins is not as big as a cucumber of the same length.

The comparison of L-pad ships to blimps is not unfounded. It's hyperbole, but only barely. If large ships the retain even vaguely similar mass vs. crossectional areas, they will be of vastly lower density.

Square–cube law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

EDIT:
I couldn't find any direct AN-124 vs. Cutter comparison images, but this is accurate for an FDL vs. 747-400:

Spoiler

And the AN-124 vs. the 747-8

Spoiler

The Cutter is much bigger even in maximum linear dimensions, probably has 40-50 times the volume of the AN-124 and only three or four times times the mass.

Well under a tenth of the density of an airplane may not quite be in blimp territory, but it's a wild difference.

If FDev introduce atmo' planets they've got two choices:-
1) make it so atmospheres have little/no effect on flight dynamics.
2) make it so they do.

If they go with option 1, then entire discussion is redundant.
If they go with option 2, they're going to have come up with something that allows for certain ships to outperform others as a result of their aero' characteristics.

Realistically, it's probably going to end up being a sort of "hybrid" system, where your ship still mostly relies on thrust to keep it in the air and allow it to manoeuvre (possibly gnerating heat as a result) but then some ships will have aerodynamic properties that allow them extra agility, and use the thrusters less (resulting in less heat) as a result.

I think option #2 is nearly a given and implies your hybrid system.

A T-7 is probably not going to handle well in a thick atmosphere, but it's also not very relevant if it can glide or not, because it's still got copious thrust.

Nope, the Cessna is much more dense than a B747.

I don't have figures on hand, but that sounds exceptionally unlikely to me.

Regardless, we're not talking about density (if we were there would be zero doubt about ED's ships: https://i.redd.it/8lphpq3lsfpx.png), but cross sectional area.

Wing loading is a good indicator. Lower the wing loading the more susceptible to turbulence it will be, in general. A 747 has much higher wing loading than most Cessnas.

If you do the math for the weight vs. cross sectional area, the 747 will also be much higher.

 

[777Driver]

I found the BPs for both ships and took rough measurements of their respective areas from different profiles.

A fully loaded Eagle is about 100 tons mass and has vertical cross sectional area of about 450m^2, a forward area of of about 100m^2, and a side profile area of about 180m^2.

A fully loaded Cutter is about 2300 tons mass and has a vertical cross sectional area of about 11000m^2, a forward facing area of about 2900m^2, and a side profile area of about 5000m^2.

The crossectional loading in the vertical profile is actually quite close, but the forward and side profiles deviate noticeably in favor of the Eagle with respect to higher mass vs. area.

I don't have the tools to get an accurate drag coefficent for either ship, but I'm almost certain the Eagle would be lower from most angles, which would also reduce the effect of turbulence. Acceleration provided by the thrusters is also dramatically better in favor of the Eagle, in all vectors.

There is pretty much no way the Cutter would be less susceptible to turbulence than the Eagle. The Eagle has the same or higher mass for a given unit of exposed area, and a much stronger active compensation system.

Also, a Cutter is way bigger than an AN-124...by about an order of magnitude of area, and almost two orders of magnitude of volume. You can't just look at a single linear dimension; a pencil with fins is not as big as a cucumber of the same length.

The comparison of L-pad ships to blimps is not unfounded. It's hyperbole, but only barely. If large ships the retain even vaguely similar mass vs. crossectional areas, they will be of vastly lower density.

Square–cube law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I think option #2 is nearly a given and implies your hybrid system.

A T-7 is probably not going to handle well in a thick atmosphere, but it's also not very relevant if it can glide or not, because it's still got copious thrust.



I don't have figures on hand, but that sounds exceptionally unlikely to me.

Regardles, we're not talking about density (if we were there would be zero doubt about ED's ships: https://i.redd.it/8lphpq3lsfpx.png), but cross sectional area.

Wing loading is a good indicator. Lower the wing loading the more susceptible to turbulence it will be, in general. A 747 has much higher wing loading than most Cessnas.

If you do the math for the weight vs. cross sectional area, the 747 will also be much higher.

Very nice, not 100% convinced though. Since we have definite figures for say an A380 compared to a Cesnna, can you run some figures for that? I'll be home shortly.

Let's leave thrusters and FA-ON compensation out of it. FA-ON thrusters are terrible, can't even stabilize a ship on non-atmo planets.

Nice one mate, cheers.

 

[Morbad]

Since we have definite figures for say an A380 compared to a Cesnna, can you run some figures for that?

Well, the wing loading is easy enough to look up and is about a factor of ten greater for the A380 (680kg/m^2) vs. a Cessna 172R (69kg/m^2).

That ratio is also within margin of error for the top-down and side profile areas vs. weight of my very sloppy measurements of the first two images I found on google for them.

If you can find me some nicer images of the profile views of these aircraft, it's easy enough to scale them and measure them in GIMP.

FA-ON thrusters are terrible, can't even stabilize a ship on non-atmo planets.

That depends on the planet and the ship. FA on thrusters do a pretty good job of stabilizing ships with strong vertical and lateral acceleration (and the Eagle is among the highest here) at low or middling levels of gravity.

 

[VR StarLightPL]

You know I am observing this discussion from a layman point of view and let me tell you, this community is the worst nightmare to game developers world wide. I say that half-jokingly, however, games are about having fun. That idea of "fun" is not necessarily simulating every godforsaken molecule of air tbh. I know that scientific accuracy is E: D's forte, but let's not take things to the extreme... Just add some "roughness" to the way ships handle in atmosphere (due to magical thrusters pushing in every imaginable direction). Add some variance based on thruster class, add some nice atmospheric effect, rain, random wind gusts... Every "normal" gaming community would be happy with that. But here? No siree, someone would run the T9 model through a wind tunnel and start whinging about how this doesn't check out, because it just so happens he or she is a highly trained professional in this field. We're old farts and demanding like old farts while we should really try to hang our disbelief and just accept that it's not real world we're playing with, but magical space pixels in an unicorn magical space galaxy, somewhat modelled after our own using a few simplified rules of physics. Yet here people seem to expect something that is akin to new Flight Simulator from Microsoft (which looks extremely promising btw.) in atmospheric flight, then full blown newton physics and gravity wells, realistic black hole accretion disks, realistic lighting based on star densities and whatnot , comets, space legs with fully interactive environments etc. etc.

So yeah, I pity the developer to have highly skilled critics in every science and tech field imaginable watching their hands, no pressure. I wouldn't trade places with FDev