Can someone explain ship mass to me real quick?

[shambles1980]

The reason that a feather and a two ton weight hit the floor at the same time from the same height in space, compared to dropping them on earth is not about the differences in mass. On Earth if you do that the two ton weight will hit the ground first because of the way the feather is shaped and the way it interacts with the atmosphere. If you were to drop a two ton weight and a two gram weight, they would both hit the ground at the same time, whether you did this in space or on Earth. However if you wanted to move a two ton weight it would take more energy than it would to move a two gram weight. This is the same in space as it is on Earth. Think of an ocean liner vs a dingy. If you were to push against a dingy you would find it very easy to push away. Try doing the same with an ocean liner and it would not budge. You would need more energy to move the ocean liner than the energy you would need to move the dingy.

this is only due to to the friction provided by the water..

a 2 ton car with no wheels or hubs sat on the floor would be immovable due to friction. But put some wheels on it and with some effort you can push it.

A 3 ton ship on land would not be pushed by you at all. but put it in water and buoyancy effectively lightens it meaning that with some effort you can move it. You have to use more effort to move than a smaller object due to it having a greater resistance with the water, as the force of it pushing down is exerted back against it.
Now in space a mass is effectively weightless the only gravity acting upon it is produced by its self. Any amount of thrust that is capable of moving it even the smallest amount provided it is continually applied will continue to accelerate and propel the mass.
there is no "big rocket makes it go faster than little rocket equation" regardless of the size of propulsion provided that it is enough to move it even the slightest bit (so little that you would not even notice looking at it) it will continue to accelerate exponentially as long as that propulsion is constantly applied.

the only issue there is after that is stopping the thing.
that is where mass becomes a big thing.. Stopping a large mass is MUCH more difficult than propelling it.

Acceleration of the masses of these ships should be the same given the difference in thrusters on them. and even if they used the same thrusters they would be close to identical being of so little mass.
the top speeds would also be identical.
the only thing that would change is how much energy would have to be used to stop the things after they reached terminal velocity.

 

[Jaspm23]

this is only due to to the friction provided by the water..

a 2 ton car with no wheels or hubs sat on the floor would be immovable due to friction. But put some wheels on it and with some effort you can push it.

A 3 ton ship on land would not be pushed by you at all. but put it in water and buoyancy effectively lightens it meaning that with some effort you can move it. You have to use more effort to move than a smaller object due to it having a greater resistance with the water, as the force of it pushing down is exerted back against it.
Now in space a mass is effectively weightless the only gravity acting upon it is produced by its self. Any amount of thrust that is capable of moving it even the smallest amount provided it is continually applied will continue to accelerate and propel the mass.
there is no "big rocket makes it go faster than little rocket equation" regardless of the size of propulsion provided that it is enough to move it even the slightest bit (so little that you would not even notice looking at it) it will continue to accelerate exponentially as long as that propulsion is constantly applied.

the only issue there is after that is stopping the thing.
that is where mass becomes a big thing.. Stopping a large mass is MUCH more difficult than propelling it.

Acceleration of the masses of these ships should be the same given the difference in thrusters on them. and even if they used the same thrusters they would be close to identical being of so little mass.
the top speeds would also be identical.
the only thing that would change is how much energy would have to be used to stop the things after they reached terminal velocity.

It is true that that you can move big objects in space with even smallest amounts of energy. If a giant asteroid was highly reflective even the photons from a star reflecting back off it would move it. However if it had less mass, I still think that the object with less mass would accelerate at a quicker rate. But I guess I could be wrong... Surely if it takes more energy to stop a moving object with greater mass, than it would an object with less mass. Then surely you would need more energy to accelerate an object of greater mass at the same rate as it would be to accelerate an object with less mass? Honestly I really don't know...

 

[shambles1980]

the non moving object has a nominal value which is its mass. there is no velocity to equate. so all it is is mass, all the mass can do in space is exert its force as gravity. At this point provided it is not close enough to a smaller object to exert its force on the smaller object they are essentially equal. just objects in space weightless..
However once you propel that mass it also has velocity, this is simply energy in one of its most basic forms. a small amount of energy exerted on a mass in space given no friction to dissipate that energy will be stored in the mass as inertia. (kinetic energy if you will) all this stored up energy becomes quite immense, and very difficult to stop, you would have to use the same amount of energy stored in the mass against the mass to bring it to a stand still.
Now if you think of a 20 mile wide asteroid traveling at a reasonable speed and it hit a planet. All that energy it dissipates by blowing a big hole in the side of it, was equal to the energy that would have been needed to stop it.
But the energy needed to start it in motion was probably no more than you would find in a common firework but applied for a much longer period of time.

Then of course you have light speed travel equations which change things considerably.
if we use Einsteins theory. then mass is not a constant when it approaches light speed and so the mass lessens however the velocity becomes greater. So at light speed or faster the ships would inherit exactly the same momentum, given mass x velocity would equal out at the speed of light and greater.
but i dont see a point in discussing that, because stupid things like i cant go fast with my landing gear down annoy me because there is no drag so why would it slow me down!

 

[Stealth Gamer92]

I LEARNED SOMETHING! SCIENCE HURTEDED ME BRAIN!

 

[Jaspm23]

the non moving object has a nominal value which is its mass. there is no velocity to equate. so all it is is mass, all the mass can do in space is exert its force as gravity. At this point provided it is not close enough to a smaller object to exert its force on the smaller object they are essentially equal. just objects in space weightless..
However once you propel that mass it also has velocity, this is simply energy in one of its most basic forms. a small amount of energy exerted on a mass in space given no friction to dissipate that energy will be stored in the mass as inertia. (kinetic energy if you will) all this stored up energy becomes quite immense, and very difficult to stop, you would have to use the same amount of energy stored in the mass against the mass to bring it to a stand still.
Now if you think of a 20 mile wide asteroid traveling at a reasonable speed and it hit a planet. All that energy it dissipates by blowing a big hole in the side of it, was equal to the energy that would have been needed to stop it.
But the energy needed to start it in motion was probably no more than you would find in a common firework but applied for a much longer period of time.

Then of course you have light speed travel equations which change things considerably.
if we use Einsteins theory. then mass is not a constant when it approaches light speed and so the mass lessens however the velocity becomes greater. So at light speed or faster the ships would inherit exactly the same momentum, given mass x velocity would equal out at the speed of light and greater.
but i dont see a point in discussing that, because stupid things like i cant go fast with my landing gear down annoy me because there is no drag so why would it slow me down!

I love all this kind of stuff, and you do know far more about this kind of thing than I do. However I'm pretty sure mass increases as it approaches light speed. Its kinetic energy will become infinite and so its mass does too? But I've probably got that wrong as well. Any ways its getting late and I must go to bed.

 

[Stealth Gamer92]

I love all this kind of stuff, and you do know far more about this kind of thing than I do. However I'm pretty sure mass increases as it approaches light speed. .

You are correct sir!

 

[MikDaTv]

i always thought the top speed was an enforced safety system. Like a type 9 is slow to accelerate and has a low top speed because if the thrusters were left on, pushing that huge mass through space up to break neck speeds would put undue strain on the thrusters. So to prevent the strain, the ships computers cut the thrusters out when the ship reaches what the computer thinks is the "Cruising speed." You've selected.

Less massive ships can achieve a might higher top speed because the thrusters don't can get them to that speed faster and safer due to the decreased mass.

 

[Stealth Gamer92]

i always thought the top speed was an enforced safety system. Like a type 9 is slow to accelerate and has a low top speed because if the thrusters were left on, pushing that huge mass through space up to break neck speeds would put undue strain on the thrusters. So to prevent the strain, the ships computers cut the thrusters out when the ship reaches what the computer thinks is the "Cruising speed." You've selected.

Less massive ships can achieve a might higher top speed because the thrusters don't can get them to that speed faster and safer due to the decreased mass.

In space very little force would allow an object to speed up indeffintely.

 

[El Dragoon!]

So as I understand it, you generally want your ships mass to be BELOW optimum mass. If it is ABOVE optimum mass, some components (IE: shield generators) will not work at peak efficiency.

Is this correct?

?
big ships are big and little ships are little, is that quick enough

 

[MikDaTv]

In space very little force would allow an object to speed up indeffintely.

a technicality. We aren't talking about solar wind or gravity pushing/pulling on some object out in the middle of nowhere.

We're talking about a space craft that achieves thrust via man made, highly complex, fallible thrusters which also consume fuel. keeping the thrusters on for practically indefinite periods to achieve huge amounts of speed is both needless and unsafe, especially when you consider if you need to get somewhere in a hurry you have your magic frame shift drive.

i mean obviously it's a gameplay mechanic. ED is not a "Simulator" The frame shift drive takes physics and twists it up and threw it in the trash long before an arbitrary top speed ever did.

 

[Stealth Gamer92]

a technicality. We aren't talking about solar wind or gravity pushing/pulling on some object out in the middle of nowhere.

We're talking about a space craft that achieves thrust via man made, highly complex, fallible thrusters which also consume fuel. keeping the thrusters on for practically indefinite periods to achieve huge amounts of speed is both needless and unsafe, especially when you consider if you need to get somewhere in a hurry you have your magic frame shift drive.

i mean obviously it's a gameplay mechanic. ED is not a "Simulator" The frame shift drive takes physics and twists it up and threw it in the trash long before an arbitrary top speed ever did.

What I said is not affected by what you said. I was just pointing out that given our engine's and how relatively little fuel they use(depending on ship) if we did a minimum possible thrust we could reach absurd speed's until we approached light speed....in theory anyway.

My only problem with the propulsion and speed arises when I listen....the thruster's sound like they keep running to keep you at speed, that's my only annoyance in this regard. I like that they gave us speed limit's to the ship's, it made ship choice more tactical. ED is a sim, it's just a sim that felt the need to make minor sacrifices for gameplay. If ED wasn't a sim we'd have no gravity affect's, no fuel limitation's, no weapon's that could run out of ammo, and the game would likely be 99% "pew pew" instead of how it is now...basically it'd be No Mans Sky.

 

[shambles1980]

sorry my bad i said mass decreases.. mass increases as the kinetic energy is basically stored as mass.. What i should say is its size gets smaller.
My bad.

any way regardless of all the whys and this formula shows that A should equal to B and C is the same as 1 And A but observed from a different precept..

I still think that the ships should be the same speed but harder to slow down when they are bigger. (and il give them acceleration differences for balancing)
But for the love of physics.
i don't need to put my landing gear or hard points away just to achieve top speed.. They wont cause any drag so leave them alone.

 

[CaliMeatWagon]

It has already been stated by Frontier that the reason for the speeds are gameplay. At certain speeds frame rate drops considerably and the dogfighting would become almost impossible.
Also, this game would be extremely boring if every ship traveled at the same speeds and had the same level of maneuverability. So again, these decisions were made to insure quality gameplay.

Like others have stated, there is a balance between realism and gameplay. You make it too realistic and it loses it fun, make it too unrealistic and it loses it's challenge.

Haha..

Imagine when ever we have a lift off, and when ever we are able to fly 30 times the speed of light in Supercruise, how "unlikely" it is to be able to survive the G-Forces you will experience when turning around to interdict somebody..


Not to mention the full stop form supercruise.. There will be nothing more then a little pile of Goo on the windows, IF the windows, or ship, are still there..

If this game is using the current theoretically possible means of faster than light travel, then in reality we are not moving at all. Space is moving around us and our ship remains in a "stationary" position. So we would not have to worry about acceleration.

But regardless of how realistic it is, it all comes down to this: Realism vs. Gameplay. And personally, I would rather deal with some unrealistic features instead of having a 4.3Ly trip take 165,000 years. (The length it would take us to reach Alpha Centauri with our current technology).

 

[L0CI]

Aaaaand a handful of people are now enjoying a discussion about physics while the remainder of the community bailed out some time ago. I believe we've proved that fun>fact and/or gameplay>realism

 

[Stealth Gamer92]

Like others have stated, there is a balance between realism and gameplay. You make it too realistic and it loses it fun, make it too unrealistic and it loses it's challenge.




If this game is using the current theoretically possible means of faster than light travel, then in reality we are not moving at all. Space is moving around us and our ship remains in a "stationary" position. So we would not have to worry about acceleration.
.

Yep, that's how Super Cruise work's.

 

[TwoWheeledToad]

Ooooo... I just new this thread was going to scientifically messy! I love this stuff!

 

[CaliMeatWagon]

Yep, that's how Super Cruise work's.

Well I'm not sure what faster than light theory they are basing it off, so I not stating that that is how it works. But if they are going with the current theory then it is.

 

[Stealth Gamer92]

Well I'm not sure what faster than light theory they are basing it off, so I not stating that that is how it works. But if they are going with the current theory then it is.

They've explained it before, and it's the current theory.

 

[Mole HD]

All that still doesn't help me find 8A thrusters for my Cutter

 

[Jaspm23]

"i don't need to put my landing gear or hard points away just to achieve top speed.. They wont cause any drag so leave them alone"

Correct that you would not need them to be put away due to drag, but maybe to conserve enough energy from the power plant to achieve super cruise.