FS Travel and Special Relativity

[Mal-Adjusted]

So, as I'm mapping a system I noticed something that got me thinking. So when you have a star that is a long way out within a system, you peg the throttle and head there. Your speed slowly climbs and climbs. I remember going more than 2000c at one point. I noticed that eventually, the arrival time stops ticking down and I get it Special Relativity and all. But then the distance stops counting down faster and faster even though my speed keeps climbing. Shouldn't the distance countdown continue to speed up with my multiple of c?

I get that it's a game and all, but it ken be quite annoying to have a star that is tens or even hundreds of thousands of light seconds away and even though your speed keeps climbing you just don't get there any faster from your frame of reference.

If there is going to be that point then let us at least hyper jump to the specific star within a system instead of some weird physics thing that makes exploring almost too monotones to handle. At least if we could pick our arrival point in a system, we could jump to another system and back in to the other star. Or better yet, let us hyper jump within a system over X amount of distance.

Just a thought.

 

[Stellar Gambit]

I know nothing of science,

but if I was a betting man, I would say it's because in space, you need points of reference and your ability to interact with them that helps you calculate speed.

the further you get away from one star that harder it is, The navigation system must not communicate with the sensor scanning system to well.

mind you I have never gone further than 160,000Ls away, so never experienced it myself

Or it could be another reason entirely - but I'll go with that

 

[varonica]

So, as I'm mapping a system I noticed something that got me thinking. So when you have a star that is a long way out within a system, you peg the throttle and head there. Your speed slowly climbs and climbs. I remember going more than 2000c at one point. I noticed that eventually, the arrival time stops ticking down and I get it Special Relativity and all. But then the distance stops counting down faster and faster even though my speed keeps climbing. Shouldn't the distance countdown continue to speed up with my multiple of c?

I get that it's a game and all, but it ken be quite annoying to have a star that is tens or even hundreds of thousands of light seconds away and even though your speed keeps climbing you just don't get there any faster from your frame of reference.

If there is going to be that point then let us at least hyper jump to the specific star within a system instead of some weird physics thing that makes exploring almost too monotones to handle. At least if we could pick our arrival point in a system, we could jump to another system and back in to the other star. Or better yet, let us hyper jump within a system over X amount of distance.

Just a thought.

Your max speed is 2001c.

And no it's nothing to do with special relativity, the FSD operates outside of the rules that govern special relativity. The distance counter countdown is purely governed by statistics and estimated time of arrival, it speeds up as you are accelerating because it is compensating for the changed arrival time which drops as you accelerate, once your speed reaches the high c's, and eventually 2001c the difference between your predicted arrival time and actual arrival time become proportionally less so the distance counter settles down to the actual value rather than predicted value. Also note that except for very large distances you start decelerating around the halfway mark, this then appears to make the timer slow down, but again it's just a predictive thing and not to do with relativity at all.

Your third point, I suggest reading through the many threads that already argue this point from micro-jumps to star gates and everything in between. It's a oft discussed subject that never seems to die.

 

[damon8r351]

I once had a weird glitch where I was supercruising to the B companion in LHS 3447, and the light seconds and timer stopped ticking down at 70,000 ls out. I left it alone for a few minutes expecting it to fix itself, and when it didn't, I unselected it as a target. When I reselected it, it showed me being 14,000 ls out all of a sudden. Do you that something like that happened?

 

[Mal-Adjusted]

Your max speed is 2001c.

And no it's nothing to do with special relativity, the FSD operates outside of the rules that govern special relativity. The distance counter countdown is purely governed by statistics and estimated time of arrival, it speeds up as you are accelerating because it is compensating for the changed arrival time which drops as you accelerate, once your speed reaches the high c's, and eventually 2001c the difference between your predicted arrival time and actual arrival time become proportionally less so the distance counter settles down to the actual value rather than predicted value.

So the distance to the target should be accurate and the time is just an estimate. Fine, but that still doesn't address my pooint. As my speed increases, the rate at which the distance counts down should count down faster and faster. At a certain point during accelleration (if I recall, somewhere around 1000c) the rate at which your ditance to target counts down stops changing in relation to your speed. ie.. if I am travelling at 1000c the distance to target decreases by X/second. If I increase my speed to 2000c then my distance rate of decrease should change to X times 2/second.

BTW, I think I misspoke. I believe it is general relativity, not special. Whatever the case, I only referenced that because the ETA stops counting down at some point, so I assumed that it was an attempt to tip their hats to Einstein. Being that it is called a "Frame Shift Drive" and the fact that we travel faster than the speed of light (which would change our "frame" of reference as we speed up and slow down), it was a very natural assumption.

And the reason I put my third point here is because it is a feature request, or as the forum heading says, suggestions and feedback. Consider my feedback filed.

As far as the FSD operating outside relativity, why not at least make an attempt to explain it or make it appear to operate withing the laws of the universe. After all, the whole game is very realism based. Why just wave it off as magic or something. I mean, it wouldn't be hard to just explain that it folds space time ... and then make an attempt to be consistent by having the ETA and distance to target reflect that.

 

[varonica]

So the distance to the target should be accurate and the time is just an estimate. Fine, but that still doesn't address my pooint. As my speed increases, the rate at which the distance counts down should count down faster and faster. At a certain point during accelleration (if I recall, somewhere around 1000c) the rate at which your ditance to target counts down stops changing in relation to your speed. ie.. if I am travelling at 1000c the distance to target decreases by X/second. If I increase my speed to 2000c then my distance rate of decrease should change to X times 2/second.

Nonono, this is all completely wrong, I tried to explain it but perhaps I wasn't clear, I will try again.

When you start off accelerating towards a distant object the countdown will go faster than when you are nearing the end of your acceleration (assuming you are approaching 2001c) It works like this (with some slight exaggeration to get the point over). If you accelerate from 1c to 2c, early in your trip, the length of time it takes to travel to the distant object halves, so instead of taking 30 minutes it takes 15 minutes, when you accelerate from 2c to 3c the amount if time it takes to get to your destination drops by a third to 7.5 minutes, when you go from 3c to 4c the amount of time it takes to get to your destination drops by a quarter to 2.75 minutes. So, assuming that your rate of acceleration is constant the rate of countdown of the timer will reduce as you accelerate. Does that make sense? I think it does.

It's complicated by the fact that your rate of acceleration isn't constant, when first starting out you will be near the point of emergence, the local star, your acceleration will be slower due to the effects of gravity, for instance try stopping halfway to your destination, in deep space far away from gravity wells you will accelerate to the your maximum speed in a few seconds, all of this combines to make the counter very difficult to apply to what is actually happening. At time it appears to nearly stop altogether, this is because once you have passed the halfway mark you start decelerating, it appears as if time is slowing down, but it's because your speed is dropping, if you slow down by 1c the timer adjust by waiting longer than a second before decrementing.

A few other things I forgot, the clock appears to stand still, but it isn't, this only happens during deceleration. At a point in deceleration your rate of deceleration matches the time/distance curve such that for each second that passes while decelerating it takes one second longer to arrive at your destination, I believe the clock counter when it calculates remaining time does this based on a constant speed. In other words if you are travelling at say 900c it calculates the time it would take to get there based on travelling all the way at 900c, which may equal 10m 30s. I am going to assume it makes one calculation a second for simplicity. The next second it calculates the time you are slightly closer so it should decrement by one second, but in the meantime you have decelerated, you are closer but you are travelling slower, so the calculation based on your new stats comes to..10m 30s, hence the clock appears to stop and it can behave like this for quite a while.

I will have to look at your 1000c versus 2000c question, common sense says it should take half the time at 2000c, but I suspect the calculation varies due to the reducing distance, common sense, in many cases, can be misleading, with the distance reducing at different rates there may be some other factor at work.

 

[Mal-Adjusted]

I understand your point completely and agree with you on all counts here. Your ETA should change (or should I say stop changing as you decelerate and change faster as you accelerate). I get that. That isn't what I was trying to explain here.

Let's forget the ETA for now and just address the rate at which your distance to target changes.

I will have to look at your 1000c versus 2000c question, common sense says it should take half the time at 2000c, but I suspect the calculation varies due to the reducing distance.

Why would the calculation change?

I'm not talking acceleration or deceleration here.

If I travel from point A to point B at X speed, it will take me Y amount of time (real time, not ETA time, forget that junk, assume this is in your car).
If I take the same trip at 2*X the time it takes me would be half that, Y/2 right?

Now, if I'm looking at and odometer during those two trips, wouldn't the odometer move more slowly on the first trip than on the second one?

That is what I'm talking about and what is not happening on long FS trips. If you travel at 1000c your distance to target (your odometer in this case) is ticking down at rate X. If you now accelerate to 2000c, your distance to target should now be counting down twice as quickly right?

It doesn't. Try it, you'll see.

This is my point, not that the ETA changes or doesn't when you are accelerating or decelerating. I get that; although it doesn't seem to work that way during long runs, but that is beside the point here.

I know we're breaking the laws of physics here, but let's at least be consistent about how we do it.

 

[Mal-Adjusted]

The other thing that I wasn't addressing here is silly but still...

If I am 10LS from something and traveling at 10c, shouldn't I get there in 1 second? Or if I'm traveling at 1c shouldn't I arrive at that point in 10 seconds?

I'm just saying.

 

[varonica]

I understand your point completely and agree with you on all counts here. Your ETA should change (or should I say stop changing as you decelerate and change faster as you accelerate). I get that. That isn't what I was trying to explain here.

Let's forget the ETA for now and just address the rate at which your distance to target changes.



Why would the calculation change?

I'm not talking acceleration or deceleration here.

If I travel from point A to point B at X speed, it will take me Y amount of time (real time, not ETA time, forget that junk, assume this is in your car).
If I take the same trip at 2*X the time it takes me would be half that, Y/2 right?

Now, if I'm looking at and odometer during those two trips, wouldn't the odometer move more slowly on the first trip than on the second one?

That is what I'm talking about and what is not happening on long FS trips. If you travel at 1000c your distance to target (your odometer in this case) is ticking down at rate X. If you now accelerate to 2000c, your distance to target should now be counting down twice as quickly right?

It doesn't. Try it, you'll see.

The distance to target doesn't change, it's still the same whether you are travelling at 1c or 2c, true, but the rate of distance countdown is never going to be fixed because you are always either accelerating or decelerating, even on the furthest run, to Hutton Orbital for instance I think your max speed is around 1800c, once you get within a certain distance you start decelerating, so I suspect the issue comes because even on a long run you are always either accelerating or decelerating, whether it would change if you fixed your speed manually at a lower speed I don't know, maybe using 500c and 1000c to test. I have got up to 2001c once but that was pointing away from the only star and letting it go for quite a while.

This is my point, not that the ETA changes or doesn't when you are accelerating or decelerating. I get that; although it doesn't seem to work that way during long runs, but that is beside the point here.

I know we're breaking the laws of physics here, but let's at least be consistent about how we do it.

I suspect it is consistent, but I also suspect there are factors of which we don't have enough information.

 

[varonica]

The other thing that I wasn't addressing here is silly but still...

If I am 10LS from something and traveling at 10c, shouldn't I get there in 1 second? Or if I'm traveling at 1c shouldn't I arrive at that point in 10 seconds?

I'm just saying.

Yeah I know what you mean, but does the navigation computer take into account intervening gravity wells for the calculation, I know when you get to close to a planet you often get the "slow down" warning, meaning that you are being slowed by the gravity well of the body, and there is also the loop of shame thing, you are decelerating when you approach your target, I think even if you have the accelerator pegged you are still slowing down somewhat, I think either the nav computer or local gravitation conditions does that. You can indeed crash into a planet, but you can't do it at 2001c, I have gone past some pretty fast though.

The only thing I can say is, it needs some testing and experimentation. There are probably underlying rules we could work out with some research, the problem is getting the time to put into it.

 

[Caliber_az]

[h=2]FS Travel and Special Relativity[/h]
I don't think this game uses special relativity, I am not even sure sure it uses general relativity. Correct me if I am wrong but it would use Newtonian as most of its baseline. Anyone smart enough to to understand the math could correct me on this or maybe explain it .. lol

Caliber_az

 

[Nero Tacitus]

[h=2]FS Travel and Special Relativity[/h]
I don't think this game uses special relativity, I am not even sure sure it uses general relativity. Correct me if I am wrong but it would use Newtonian as most of its baseline. Anyone smart enough to to understand the math could correct me on this or maybe explain it .. lol

Caliber_az

The game plays pretty fast and loose with physics in general. The fact that we can exceed the speed of light at all, let alone simultaneously perceive other objects normally, should throw any question of an Einsteinian universe out the window (as we understand it now, anyway). That being said, there's 1001 theories that allow for violations of the Einsteinian universe, all beginning with a massive if, so speculating about the plausibility of FTL, given several hundred more years of human understanding, is kind of pointless. Overall, I think FDev have done a pretty good job choosing which laws to bend to implement features that are required for the game to function well, while maintaining a plausible universe.
ED is, understandably, designed for enjoyment, not pure accuracy. If it were designed for the latter, I'd image the game would be far more tedious to play, and we'd still be arguing over violations of causality etc.

 

[Mal-Adjusted]

The other thing that I wasn't addressing here is silly but still...

If I am 10LS from something and traveling at 10c, shouldn't I get there in 1 second? Or if I'm traveling at 1c shouldn't I arrive at that point in 10 seconds?

I'm just saying.

I.m posting this before I read your responses because I can probably guess what's coming. I know I'm and idiot for that one. I played right after I posted that And I am completely wrong. It looks like the speed at close range is probably mapped correctly.

So, I'll now read your posts and take my beating. LOL

 

[Mal-Adjusted]

I suspect it is consistent, but I also suspect there are factors of which we don't have enough information.

Why would there be information we don't have here? It's basic physics (aside from the FTL thing). Speed is speed and distance is distance unless we are talking relativity, frame shifting, folding space time and things like that. At which point things get much much more complicated.

 

[Mal-Adjusted]

[h=2]FS Travel and Special Relativity[/h]
I don't think this game uses special relativity, I am not even sure sure it uses general relativity. Correct me if I am wrong but it would use Newtonian as most of its baseline. Anyone smart enough to to understand the math could correct me on this or maybe explain it .. lol

Caliber_az

Oh boy, that's a can of worms for sure. There is a lot of great information out there about general relativity and the frame shifting stuff. I'm no mathematician, but you don't need math to understand it. It is all about time and space being one and the same thing hence the word coined by Einstein Timespace. They are intimately linked. Then you have to start to consider your frame of reference in that mix. It would take a very long post indeed to do it even a cursory look. It is absolutely fascinating and well worth the time to get your head around it.

 

[Mal-Adjusted]

The game plays pretty fast and loose with physics in general. The fact that we can exceed the speed of light at all, let alone simultaneously perceive other objects normally, should throw any question of an Einsteinian universe out the window (as we understand it now, anyway). That being said, there's 1001 theories that allow for violations of the Einsteinian universe, all beginning with a massive if, so speculating about the plausibility of FTL, given several hundred more years of human understanding, is kind of pointless. Overall, I think FDev have done a pretty good job choosing which laws to bend to implement features that are required for the game to function well, while maintaining a plausible universe.
ED is, understandably, designed for enjoyment, not pure accuracy.

I didn't think we were talking about the plausibility of the FTL travel in this game. At least I wasn't and never wanted to go there. I just wanted to point out the fact that on long in system hauls seems to be inaccurate to the rules the the devs set up in the game.

I love breaking the laws of physics for the sake of fun in a game, I just want it to be consistent.

 

[varonica]

Why would there be information we don't have here? It's basic physics (aside from the FTL thing). Speed is speed and distance is distance unless we are talking relativity, frame shifting, folding space time and things like that. At which point things get much much more complicated.

Only in reference to things that affect travel speed, such as gravity wells, there are things we don't know but can probably work out through experimentation, there's a difference between information being hidden and simply information we don't have yet. I would suggest one being how far away from a body does the gravity affect the FSD. For instance I have achieved 2001c but only when pointing directly away from a star, but from what I have read you only get up to around 1865c on the way to Hutton, yet if you slow down to 30kps halfway there and then accelerate you get up to 1800+c in seconds, the question is, since it doesn't appear to be an acceleration factor, is it the nav computer or the gravity wells of the stars slowing you down. If you deselect Hutton orbital but keep travelling in the same direction can you go faster and just slow down when you get close?

I have heard you used to be able to do that but can't anymore so it appears to be an artificial restriction and not a physics restriction.

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

Your speed and distance is never a constant. Even at top speed your distance is continually reducing. The countdown just gives you an ETA at the speed and distance at the time. So it always is a moving factor no matter what. It is accurate for what it is, but don't look at it as an overall ETA as that would be wrong, as it would be impossible for it to predict your own acceleration and deceleration, and how close you supercruise to gravity wells etc.

It's not like a GPS Navigation system in your car, when it can easily get an overall ETA as it can tell exactly what your probable speed is for each road, whether it is 30, 40, 60 or 70mph and also add in current traffic issues to that calculation. It knows the distance and probable speeds.

 

[Nero Tacitus]

I didn't think we were talking about the plausibility of the FTL travel in this game. At least I wasn't and never wanted to go there. I just wanted to point out the fact that on long in system hauls seems to be inaccurate to the rules the the devs set up in the game.

I love breaking the laws of physics for the sake of fun in a game, I just want it to be consistent.

Hence why I quoted a seperate question in my response, the point can still be applied to your OP however. The clock not ticking down is either a product of A) law(s) of physics unique to a game set in a futuristic universe, or B) a bug. And your request for mini-jumps is ubiquitous on the forums, so I wouldn't hold your breath.

 

[Mal-Adjusted]

If you deselect Hutton orbital but keep travelling in the same direction can you go faster and just slow down when you get close?

I have heard you used to be able to do that but can't anymore so it appears to be an artificial restriction and not a physics restriction.

I hadn't thought of doing that until you just mentioned it. What a great way to cut down your travel time. I think it still works as long as you are a fair distance from a celestial body, say outside of a planet's moons orbital rings'ish. I had noticed that as you change your target from say an unknown signal back to your destination station your speed automatically picks back up. I will definitely be putting that to use.