Not magical at all...

[Thatchinho]

OK, (not) serious question for those who are good at being clever:

The space stations spinning because they create rotational gravity. Correct?
When we hover above the landing pad and disable thrusters the ship 'falls' towards the landing pad. Still correct?

Why?

I would guess (and that's really just guessing, I suck at being clever) that rotational gravity only affects stuff that touches the rotating body.

Ok, first, don’t forget that ships have Rotational Correction switched on by default - it’s this that deals with being inside a rotating frame of reference, and makes the adjustments to make it appear (when looking out of the cockpit) as though it’s a non-rotating frame of reference. I might be wrong, but AFAIK, Rotational Correction is always on, including in FA off, and will only turn off if you specifically turn it off via the ship’s menus.

Anyway, started out on an explanation of the physics of what’s going on with a ship inside a station (or at least what should be going on!). It might take quite a bit of explaining though, and I’ve got no idea where you’re at with this stuff already so I’ve stopped at the first key ‘does that make sense so far point’.

It’s in the spoiler below. Happy to continue or stop there, and to adjust the level of explanation being given. Whatever works for you!

Edit - Didn’t answer the actual questions straight up. But for reference the answers are:

-No. (In very layman’s terms it’s kind of yes, but Rotational Gravity is actually a pretty misleading term and will lead to misunderstandings of what’s actually going on).

- No. (Again it’s kind of yes in layman’s terms, but it’s not actually what’s happening, and is misleading in terms of understanding what’s actually happening.)

Spoiler

First scenario is what should happen in the station starting aligned along the centre line, with Rotational Correction and FA off.

Three things to consider:

A. the ship’s translational movement/momentum
B. the ships rotational movement/momentum
C. the station’s movement/momentum

All three are independent.

All three have a starting state. Whatever that is will stay the same unless a force is applied.

A starts as 0
C is fixed at whatever the standard station rotation rate is.
B is determined by the pilot.

Let’s say B = 0.

The pilot will see the station spinning around at rate C.

The pilot applies a small thrust downwards.

The important thing to note is that ‘downwards’ is not in relation to the station, it’s effectively just a direction drawn relative to the ships instantaneous orientation compared to the skybox.

With B=0, consider a laser being shone straight downwards from the ship to mark a point on the inner surface of the station.

Where the laser is shining in space will not change, but because the station itself is rotating in space, the laser spot will prescribe a full loop of the inside of the station.

From the perspective of someone stood on the inner surface of the station, it would look like there’s a spinning ship with a laser coming out of the bottom of it.

All good so far?

Next steps are to deal with:

- what happens when a small directional thrust is applied.

- what happens when B != 0

Edit 2 - Obviously, disregard all of the above completely if the '(not)' was meant to indicate that an explanation wasn't being asked for whatsoever!

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

OK, (not) serious question for those who are good at being clever:

The space stations spinning because they create rotational gravity. Correct?
When we hover above the landing pad and disable thrusters the ship 'falls' towards the landing pad. Still correct?

Why?

I would guess (and that's really just guessing, I suck at being clever) that rotational gravity only affects stuff that touches the rotating body.

Gravity doesn't require that two bodies touch. When you jump out the airplane Earth will still pull you down, no?

 

[Tyvolus]

The player is only a hologram when operating a SLF. They are simulating a cmdr onboard the ship & inside the SRV. But seriously guys, this a frikin game. It's like the FS2020 crowd complaining that they cant buy coffee and hit on the hostie.

late 2020...immersion is a huge part of gaming. buying a cup of coffee in a flight sim, at an airport, may sound small, but its all about being a part of an immersive world for epic games...otherwise its just asteroids. heh

 

[Winterwalker]

I so wanted multicrew gunner to be like this:
View attachment 184702

Actually wing mate and I had a play around with multicrew just recently and gunner pretty much is like that.

If I had a place to be constructive i'd probably ask for the default camera view to be pushed forward, or have it zoom there so you don't have to see your ship in the foreground but an unstabilised view would be unusable. The view you have, works.

I'd also bet 100% the last thing on Han Solo's mind in this situation is the shape of the windows. He'd be focussed on his mini-screen targetting and if you do that in multicrew (just roll with it) to my mind it's much more fun than people give it credit for. If you want to gaze at the cockpit, exit the targetting view.

 

[WR3ND]

I so wanted multicrew gunner to be like this:
View attachment 184702

Yeah, that would have been on the more ideal side. Strange that we get all these weird views like the FSS and such in an otherwise FPV style game.

 

[Watcher]

So in an article in PCGames they quoted the Devs saying this... “That goes across all things, like writing technology levels and making sure that the technology in the game is not magical. There is a degree of credibility and science there behind it, where we can. So yeah, absolutely, and all those things we discuss quite a lot,” he concludes.

Yes, because it makes so much sense to be able to teleport to a cockpit across the galaxy instantly but you can't transmit your exploration data...

Post your own below.

UPDATE: From a post I made below... "Oddly, most people think I'm complaining about telepresence when actually I'm poking a bit of fun at the devs and asking you for what makes you giggle or shake your head..." But then, if you have to explain the joke...

Make it seem to make sense where you can but generally bow to gameplay.
Of course, you might disagree with the gameplay choices but thats something else
As for the tech things, well, I think that has slipped over time but hey ho, it's still pretty and fun.

Data thing is certainly odd, then again things like total lack of reasonable scaling in powerplants is another. Similarly with sensor systems.

One that gets me is if ship are as cheap and relatively disposable as they appear to be and are as capable as they appear to be and there are now hundreds of systems many of them with billions of people... How come there are any unexplored stars left in the galaxy (that are with reasonable jump range of any other star)? The galaxy is big but with such huge populations and such available ships pretty much everywhere should be swamped.

 

[babelfisch]

Gravity doesn't require that two bodies touch. When you jump out the airplane Earth will still pull you down, no?

But earth has real gravity. The space station just creates centrifugal force by spinning. If you put water in a bucket it becomes the bucket and spin it around your arm the water will stay in the bucket because of centrifugal force. That's how I imagine it, but it's entirely possible that I am an idiot.

 

[babelfisch]

Ok, first, don’t forget that ships have Rotational Correction switched on by default - it’s this that deals with being inside a rotating frame of reference, and makes the adjustments to make it appear (when looking out of the cockpit) as though it’s a non-rotating frame of reference. I might be wrong, but AFAIK, Rotational Correction is always on, including in FA off, and will only turn off if you specifically turn it off via the ship’s menus.

Anyway, started out on an explanation of the physics of what’s going on with a ship inside a station (or at least what should be going on!). It might take quite a bit of explaining though, and I’ve got no idea where you’re at with this stuff already so I’ve stopped at the first key ‘does that make sense so far point’.

It’s in the spoiler below. Happy to continue or stop there, and to adjust the level of explanation being given. Whatever works for you!

Edit - Didn’t answer the actual questions straight up. But for reference the answers are:

-No. (In very layman’s terms it’s kind of yes, but Rotational Gravity is actually a pretty misleading term and will lead to misunderstandings of what’s actually going on).

- No. (Again it’s kind of yes in layman’s terms, but it’s not actually what’s happening, and is misleading in terms of understanding what’s actually happening.)

Spoiler

First scenario is what should happen in the station starting aligned along the centre line, with Rotational Correction and FA off.

Three things to consider:

A. the ship’s translational movement/momentum
B. the ships rotational movement/momentum
C. the station’s movement/momentum

All three are independent.

All three have a starting state. Whatever that is will stay the same unless a force is applied.

A starts as 0
C is fixed at whatever the standard station rotation rate is.
B is determined by the pilot.

Let’s say B = 0.

The pilot will see the station spinning around at rate C.

The pilot applies a small thrust downwards.

The important thing to note is that ‘downwards’ is not in relation to the station, it’s effectively just a direction drawn relative to the ships instantaneous orientation compared to the skybox.

With B=0, consider a laser being shone straight downwards from the ship to mark a point on the inner surface of the station.

Where the laser is shining in space will not change, but because the station itself is rotating in space, the laser spot will prescribe a full loop of the inside of the station.

From the perspective of someone stood on the inner surface of the station, it would look like there’s a spinning ship with a laser coming out of the bottom of it.

All good so far?

Next steps are to deal with:

- what happens when a small directional thrust is applied.

- what happens when B != 0

Edit 2 - Obviously, disregard all of the above completely if the '(not)' was meant to indicate that an explanation wasn't being asked for whatsoever!

I believe I can follow you, but I still have no idea why my ship performs a touchdown, in fact I am more confused than I was before because the ship shouldn't even stay above the pad.

 

[Stamford Rider]

I believe I can follow you, but I still have no idea why my ship performs a touchdown, in fact I am more confused than I was before because the ship shouldn't even stay above the pad.

Turn off the rotational correction (somewhere in the right hand panel), and it won't. Do it in something cheap.

 

[babelfisch]

Turn off the rotational correction (somewhere in the right hand panel), and it won't. Do it in something cheap.

OK, that's good. How does rotational correction work without fuel? Because IIRC you are 'stationary' (=not stationary) when you run out of fuel and perform the touchdown when hovering above the pad.

 

[WR3ND]

Actually wing mate and I had a play around with multicrew just recently and gunner pretty much is like that.

If I had a place to be constructive i'd probably ask for the default camera view to be pushed forward, or have it zoom there so you don't have to see your ship in the foreground but an unstabilised view would be unusable. The view you have, works.

I'd also bet 100% the last thing on Han Solo's mind in this situation is the shape of the windows. He'd be focussed on his mini-screen targetting and if you do that in multicrew (just roll with it) to my mind it's much more fun than people give it credit for. If you want to gaze at the cockpit, exit the targetting view.

I've just been assuming people's brains are being plugged into VR computers Matrix style. Not exactly the game I was hoping for and expecting in 2015 in that regard though.

 

[Winterwalker]

I've just been assuming people's brains are being plugged into VR computers Matrix style. Not exactly the game I was hoping for and expecting in 2015 in that regard though.

I agree, the story told, virtual representation (which in fact looks exactly like the ship in all regards including explosions, because it is the actual ship) is really thin. An overlay with reads on hull and shield percentages, temps, and ammo levels (with manual over-ride for reload before the clip empties ,would be a major deal to implement though. I just reckon push camera forward so no matter where you look the ship is behind you and is no longer able to break your immurshuns. Reckon you'd get at least 50% increase in take up. Even now, once you get it going it's a laugh.

 

[Stamford Rider]

OK, that's good. How does rotational correction work without fuel?

Physics says it doesn't. E: D says "it'll be fine". This is the magic thread, after all.

 

[Thatchinho]

I believe I can follow you, but I still have no idea why my ship performs a touchdown, in fact I am more confused than I was before because the ship shouldn't even stay above the pad.

I can explain that. Would be easier if I could do it via drawing diagrams while talking through it.

Full explanation will take a lot of doing so I'll try a shorter version.

There's three levels to this. The first level kind of covers it at a simple level, but the 3 levels are needed to properly illustrate what happens.


Firstly though, the key to it all is that at the instant you turn FA and Rotational Correction off, your ship is actually moving in a straight line sideways at a fixed speed. With the assists off, it will then continue in the same direction at the same speed. The same with rotation - the instant you turn the assists off, the ship will continue to rotate at whatever rate it was at that point.


Level 1.

Let's first draw an imaginary circle. Now put a dot just above the bottom of the circle and draw a line sideways from it. That line shows how your ship will move with the assists off. As you see the line reaches the circle at some point.

If you put yourself 'in' the dot you will start at a certain distance from the circle, and then as time moves forward you'll get closer to the circle and eventually reach it. That's what's happening to your ship.



Let's just go through the next levels to understand how it appears when you're in the ship.


Level 2.

Firstly put a second dot at the bottom of the circle. This represents the pad. The position of the pad will move along the circle as the position of the ship moves along the line.

Now make the circle very very big, and put the ship dot a very small amount above the bottom.

At the instant of turning off the assists the ship-dot will be moving sideways at a speed that is almost the same as the pad-dot. (In the starting instant, the pad dot will be moving in parallel to the ship-dot but ever so slightly faster.)

The ship dot then travels at its own fixed speed along the line, and the pad dot travels at its own fixed speed along the circle.

In that situation (where the circle is very big and the ship dot just above the bottom), the ship dot will travel along the line and the pad dot will travel along the circle such that both hit the circle/line intersection point at the same time.


Level 3

We just need now to consider relative angles.

To do this add an arrow pointing upwards from each dot. Now consider being back on the ship and that with the assists on, the ship stays level with the pad. Now back to the diagram and transpose the ship-dot out of the circle. First move the pad-dot around the circle at 1 rpm. Note the arrow always points to the centre of the circle. Now spin the ship-dot at 1 rpm. Compare the arrows at equal time points. You'll note the arrows are always pointing in the parallel direction. Note also that with the assists off, the ship continues to spin at a constant rate.

Now apply that back to the ship-dot being inside the circle. As the ship-dot move along the line and the pad-dot moves along the circle the direction arrows both change, but it's exactly the same as above - at any given time, both arrows will be pointing in the same direction.

In other words, when in the ship, the ship's floor will always be at the same angle to the pad's surface as it was when you switched the assists off.

That's the final part.


Summary

Now just apply all three levels and consider how it will appear from the perspective of being in the ship.

It all sums such that from that perspective, when you switch all the assists off, your ship will appear to fall downwards towards the pad.


Quite a long explanation. Like I say, it'd be easy if I could just draw the diagrams while talking through them. As it is I've had to try to describe the diagrams as well as talking through them. Hope it makes sense!


Bear in mind that this is all just for that situation where the ship is just above the pad. How the ship moves within the station more generally, and how the assists work to give it the appearance they do, is another matter.

 

[Deleted member 121570]

I might be wrong, but AFAIK, Rotational Correction is always on, including in FA off, and will only turn off if you specifically turn it off via the ship’s menus.

Cool explanations btw! Just to correct this bit tho; Rotational Correction has no effect at all when FA is off. If you're FA on and turn off RC, you'll find the station rotates around you though. That's cos FA on holds the ship steady whilst the station keeps moving.

If you're FA on and turn FA off, you'll find the station doesn't rotate around you (at least until you make some control inputs). You're already synced with it rotationally.

If you're FA off though and synced up, rotating with station, and turn off RC, you'll see - no effect at all.

 

[CDOTS]

I don't mind teleportation atm as I understand it's just the foundation. So I figure about 10 years from now before we can interact with stuff and be able to walk out of our ships. Being realistic. Lol

 

[Bottom Hat]

I hate this game. It's nothing like reality.

I've flown my spaceship for 30 years, man and boy, and it's the hardest game in the world. Nothing compares to it in real life, not even the magic bits, and David Blaine agrees with me.

Yours dubiously,
General Solo.

 

[Thatchinho]

Cool explanations btw! Just to correct this bit tho; Rotational Correction has no effect at all when FA is off. If you're FA on and turn off RC, you'll find the station rotates around you though. That's cos FA on holds the ship steady whilst the station keeps moving.

If you're FA on and turn FA off, you'll find the station doesn't rotate around you (at least until you make some control inputs). You're already synced with it rotationally.

If you're FA off though and synced up, rotating with station, and turn off RC, you'll see - no effect at all.

Ta! (On several fronts! )

Went and double checked in game, and yeah, as you say Rotational Correction only applies to FA on. Thanks for pointing it out!

So essentially Rotational Correction is a layer on top of FA, and when active acts to make the ship fly as though the station isn't rotating. And with Rotational Correction off, FA just works as per the wider instance which the station is rotating inside.

Cheers!

 

[Sapyx]

I don't think this one has been mentioned yet.

Elements.

Elite gets +5 points for using actual, real-world, real-science, real-chemistry elements for everything. No elerium, endurium or unobtainium here, no sirrree!

Elite gets -500 points for not using these elements in a way that's entirely consistent with reality.

- Why can you mine gold by the metric tonne just by shooting a laser at some rocks, while carbon and iron are scraped off the ground in milligram quantities and not purchasable in bulk?
- Why are radioactive substances, such as technetium, polonium and tritium, stable for an indefinite time period?

 

[Sapyx]

And another one...

Fuel use.

Scenario one: I'm hovering above the surface of a high-G planet. My thrusters are continually firing, to stop me from plummeting into the ground.

Scenario two: I'm fighting in combat, pulling lots of high-G manoeuvres, lots of boosting, plus spewing out prodigious amounts of directed energy fire towards my targets, as well as needing lots of energy to recharge shields.

Scenario three: I'm floating in deep space, not moving, just sitting there. Still fully powered up, though.

In each of these scenarios, my fuel use is identical. Or if not exactly identical, then near enough to make no difference. Fuel expended as thrust, and fuel expended to create energy for other purposes, is not actually taken fromt he fuel tank - or anywhere else, for that matter. Not even a matter-antimatter enigne could produce that so much thrust form so little fuel consumption.

I'm not demanding scientifically realistic power-to-weight ratios, since that would make for sriously un-fun gameplay having to constantly refuel. I'm just saying that pumping the thrusters at full power should use more fuel than floating in deep space.