About Super-Cruise, FSD, consistency and suspension of disbelief

[Schrefu]

I've been trying to make sense of how the Super-Cruise FSD actually works, what it's underlying principles are. It does interact with gravitional wells in some form, but there doesn't seem to be a consistent pattern.

- If you hyper-jump into a system, you exit into the gravity well of the local star.

- You can accelerate much faster away from a star's gravity well than from a planet's gravity well. This difference in accelaration is even more pronounced when comparing asteroid belts and multiple stars in close proximity to each other.

- Gravity wells do not slow you down if you've already picked up some speed.

- Gravity wells do not affect your flight path.

- Large ships and wings of ships can the charging of the drive.

- Stations, while comparatively tiny to even small celestial bodies, can mass-lock your drive.

- While charging the ship gains heat.

- Once you've entered super-cruise or hyper-jump, you no longer gain heat (at least not from the drive).

- Deceleration is the same for arbitrary points in space (NAV, CZ), accumulations of matter (RES, AB), small stations, large stations, and other celestial bodies.

- If you get too close to a large gravity well, the ship computer system will disable the drive. It's not an effect of being too close to the gravity well, since the ship's system tells you it's doing that.


At first I thought the ship in super cruise is still being influenced by gravitational pull as evidenced by the slow accelaration near celestial bodies. But then I noticed deceleration is also lower near gravity wells. This lead me to think proximity of gravity wells affects efficiency of the drive system. The fact the ship builds up heat much quicker while being mass-locked by large ships and wings supports this idea.

But if the drive system's efficiency and rate of deceleration and accelaration is influenced by the size of gravity wells, how come it accelerates and deccelerates much quicker near stars than near planets or moons?

Speaking of mass-locking, how come a station's mass (a belt's mass, a capital ship's mass) can lock the drive, while being miniscule compared to the mass of a planet it's orbiting? If it were a station's (a capital ship's) control center remotely locking the drive for safety reasons, how come it's the same for asteroid belts and rings?

If the ship's computer system can forcefully disable the drive when too near a planet, how come it can't do the same for stations (or any location for that matter?

Of course you could invoke the "for game-play-reasons" for any of these. But I still wish this was more consistent, it kind of breaks the (otherwise great) immersion and suspension of disbelief for me.

 

[specialsymbol]

Fly towards a target (USS or something like that) without gravity well and unlock the target while decelerating or accelerating...

try to explain this.

 

[Drelthar]

Explanation is: gameplay mechanic

 

[Saint242]

You can get a lot closer to asteroids, ships and space stations than you can planets and stars. For these objects you can literally touch them. You can't get that close to planets and stars; your drive prevents you from getting close enough. The way I think about it is that the FSD in supercruise mode requires a relatively flat region of space/time away from a big gravity well, so when you get too close to a planet or star, the drive just does its emergency cut-off thing.

Deceleration when you approach small objects in space isn't your FSD not being *able* to go faster, it's because your ship's computer is limiting the FSD speed so you don't overshoot (although in this regard the computer kind of sucks because I overshoot all the time). But hey, there's still a big difference between overshooting at 0.5c and overshooting at 20c.

 

[Archvillain]

I'm happy to chalk it up as the same thing as Flight Assist.
The physics and maths behind frameshifting / supercruise, much like manouvering in zero-g vacuum, is a lot more complex than what needs to be exposed to the pilot. So the pilot simply gets control over a more intuitive "model" of flight instead. If the pilot really wants to shut down the flight computer, there is the "Flight Assist Off" option, but no such option exists for frameshift because that's catastrophically suicidal. Supercruise, as currently implemented, clearly has a lot of safeguards and computer-assists (automatically slowing for targeted signal signal sources, etc). Without the computer control, supercruise would not only be a short trip with a fatal ending, it would also be all but uncontrollable.

 

[Twelvefield]

Explanation is: gameplay mechanic

This gets my vote. It's all this way because despite the game modelling our galaxy, that same galaxy cannot be rendered in a single cell or instance.

 

[CMDR iLikeCookiesQ]

another one of those things: Why is it that while supercruising, you can see another ship 500 LS away in real time. In reality you would see that ship where it was 500 seconds ago, not where it is now. Of course implementing realism would be ridiculous and make navigating and catching up to other ships very hard. But still it is one of those inconsistencies.. perhaps you could justify seeing long distance ships in real time due to their "sub space signal" a signal that travels above space, ala star trek.

I think the frameshift drive in elite dangerous is some sort of implementation of the Alcubierre drive (link to wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive)
This could explain why you can travel faster than light during SC and while jumping? are SC and jump speed even different technologies?

Another inconsistency is that you dont feel any coriolis acceleration when docking/undocking from rotating stations.

 

[Morbad]

- If you hyper-jump into a system, you exit into the gravity well of the local star.

The biggest concentration of mass in the system.

You can accelerate much faster away from a star's gravity well than from a planet's gravity well.

You are generally much further away from most stars.

Gravity wells do not slow you down if you've already picked up some speed.

They do, but the higher your SC velocity the more of that effect you can ignore.

Gravity wells do not affect your flight path.

So what? SC is not the same as movement in normal space.

Large ships and wings of ships can the charging of the drive.

Out to a distance of 3km.

Stations, while comparatively tiny to even small celestial bodies, can mass-lock your drive.

Out to ~3km for outposts and 4-5km for larger starports.

You are never this close to any other celestial body.

Once you've entered super-cruise or hyper-jump, you no longer gain heat (at least not from the drive).

The drive still uses power and still produces heat that still needs to be removed; it's just more thermally efficient than charging to enter SC or jump.

Deceleration is the same for arbitrary points in space (NAV, CZ), accumulations of matter (RES, AB), small stations, large stations, and other celestial bodies.

Ranges are different for celestial bodies, the rest is controlled by the flight computer, if you have them targeted, in order to facilitate a smooth destination lock.

If you get too close to a large gravity well, the ship computer system will disable the drive. It's not an effect of being too close to the gravity well, since the ship's system tells you it's doing that

Yes, the flight computer has overriding control over certain aspects of flight.

But if the drive system's efficiency and rate of deceleration and accelaration is influenced by the size of gravity wells, how come it accelerates and deccelerates much quicker near stars than near planets or moons?

Distance.

Speaking of mass-locking, how come a station's mass (a belt's mass, a capital ship's mass) can lock the drive, while being miniscule compared to the mass of a planet it's orbiting?

Distance.

If the ship's computer system can forcefully disable the drive when too near a planet, how come it can't do the same for stations (or any location for that matter?

It could, but is there are reason for it to do so?

 

[Schrefu]

Seems like I wasn't very clear. I was aiming for presenting a (possibly incomplete) list of facts about the FSD and then using these to come to a model about the mechanics of the FSD.

The biggest concentration of mass in the system.

That's a fact I omitted, yes.

You are generally much further away from most stars.

I paid some more attention to this later on while playing, and that's certainly true.

They do, but the higher your SC velocity the more of that effect you can ignore.

So what? SC is not the same as movement in normal space.

Which wasn't a criticism, just an observation, just as this: Neither do they accelerate the ship as would be expected if we were in the same space-time when using the FSD. So again, not a criticism, just trying to make sense of the drive.

Out to a distance of 3km.

Out to ~3km for outposts and 4-5km for larger starports.

All true. I think it points to some threshold before which the drive system can't be activated. I'd guess it's because it would otherwise cause catastrophic heat build up and you'd just blow. Or maybe, the drive capacitors need to pass a certain activation energy that, again due to efficiency, it cannot reach while that close to gravity wells.

You are never this close to any other celestial body.

Well, since the game galaxy is modeled somewhat based on our real galaxy, the same basic laws sure would apply? And since we're mostly talking celestial bodies and gravity here, the inverse-square-law surely would make sense? The gravitational influence of a planet is by quite some orders of magnitude more influencial than the gravitational influence of a station or a group of ships. Stars are also quite some orders of magnitude more massive (and thus their gravitational influence) than the most massive of planets.

The drive still uses power and still produces heat that still needs to be removed; it's just more thermally efficient than charging to enter SC or jump.

Good point, seems plausible to me. I feel like this fits the efficiency model/explanation well.

Ranges are different for celestial bodies, the rest is controlled by the flight computer, if you have them targeted, in order to facilitate a smooth destination lock.

Yes, the flight computer has overriding control over certain aspects of flight.

It could, but is there are reason for it to do so?

Well then, I'd like a word with programmers of the flight computer. There's room for improvement regarding the "smooth destination lock". The current design sometimes fails to decelerate appropriately on approach.

It just bothers me that at 100% throttle before reaching ETA 0:07, throttling back to 75% the drive can deccelarate well enough, while at ETA 0:06 it completely fails to do so. Compare this to how the drive behaves while not around celestial bodies. It's the (seemingly) inconsistent behaviour of the drive I'm criticising.

Can't imagine the consequences of a ship in cruise blasting at .3c through the vicinity of a busy starport warping and distorting space all around it.

Regarding the automatic drop-out on target approach, would that not seem useful and convenient to you?
Since it's software, it could just be programmed to do it. You could even hire a different developer to modify it for you. Why is it all the same in all the ships from different manufacturers? Government regulated? What about pirates and independents?
_

I realize there's a lot of handwavium and game-play considerations involved, but it should still behave consistently within the confines of the narrative. I think it's fine that the drive is a purely fictional model and not necessarily founded in real physics. I just feel the current drive model has some exceptions that stop it from making it truly feel sensible, plausible and believable. That's my criticism.

My suggestion: Just fix the deceleration on target approach (difference between ETA 0:07 vs ETA 0:06), that's what feels inconsistent and most artificial about the drive currently.