Physics of Elite Dangerous

[Max Stingray]

Sorry, but there are no orbital mechanics for ships at all. At least not properly accurate ones as defined by Newtons laws of motion.

Orbiting would only work in space normal speed, not in SC, because the effect of the FSD drive warps space and messes with the mass of the ship, which is why we can fly in straight lines in solar systems using FSD in systems. To put the into context for you, Halley's Comet moves at 254,016 km/h and still moves in an elliptical orbit. For a ship in Elite Dangerous to move at 245,016 km/h it would have to be using FSD and therefore not bound to the same laws of physics as it's currently warping space.

Conversely, The delta-v of the ships in Elite when travelling at space normal speed isn't enough to achieve orbit around Earth. If you exit SC next to a planet you're not in orbit and would never be able to achieve orbit, because you simply cannot go fast enough. The Cobra I fly has a max speed of around 406m/s with boost. The delta-v needed to achieve low Earth orbit starts around 9.4 km/s. So, basically, the space shuttle in low Earth orbit would be travelling faster than a Cobra Mk 3 at its highest space normal speed.

So, basically, and put plainly, the "physics" in Elite Dangerous are bunkum!

Yes, it is bunkers, its a game (just think on the cap on speed!). I was just pointing out that at the speed we travel orbits are irrelevant and we can just fly straight to our destination. I did not watch the video some posted about orbit. Planets do move, but probably on a very simple model.

 

[Max Stingray]

Orbital Mechanics are implemented. We just don't have anything to measure it, because it's not necessary.

Slingshot in supercruise would not work, since you would be ripped apart with the collapsing warp bubble. That's where the emergency drop comes in, it collapses the warp bubble sort of controlled...doesn't always work perfectly, since you get hull damage (and a lot of structural damage!).

I said pretend-slingshot for a reason.
Imagine somwthing like (while in Supercrusie)
1 - Select a destination in system
2 - press button
3 - some target trajectory appears
4 - if you fly close enough to the the target trajectory with game mechanise similar to "orbit mode" you will accelerate and get to the desired destination quicker than normal SC.
It would give the illusion of slingshot manoeuvre and it may be implemented in such way as to require some skill to execute with good results

Bouns feature: if you have navigator on board he could "compute" some multihop trajectory for the pilot to follow. Explorers would love it.

The illusion of doing it for real is all we need.

 

[John Rhys]

I said pretend-slingshot for a reason.
Imagine somwthing like (while in Supercrusie)
1 - Select a destination in system
2 - press button
3 - some target trajectory appears
4 - if you fly close enough to the the target trajectory with game mechanise similar to "orbit mode" you will accelerate and get to the desired destination quicker than normal SC.
It would give the illusion of slingshot manoeuvre and it may be implemented in such way as to require some skill to execute with good results

Bouns feature: if you have navigator on board he could "compute" some multihop trajectory for the pilot to follow. Explorers would love it.

The illusion of doing it for real is all we need.

Would not work, since you just can't use any gravity at all. However, since the gravitation of planets do affect supercruise (slowing down), what i could imagine would be to plot a course around those gravity wells.

Former nuclear physicist, anyway. I made a move from lab coat to a polo shirt in the software business years ago.

The math looks fine, though as a former practitioner of applied physics (making theoretical physics relevant to engineers) my first investigations would go to limitations and logistics of scale. Most limitations here will come in the form of "not small enough", "not powerful enough", or "not persistent enough".

Even just for a single seater ship, like a Sidey, we have quite a ways to wait for the applied physics and the engineering to get to the compact, powerful and long-lasting power source that would be needed.

As for the theory itself, it seems the most plausible for FTL in our dimension.

So, you got the basic understanding of advanced physics I'd love to change my office for a lab coat...

Yeah, applied physics is something completely different, especially with this kind of stuff.
But, since that theory is pretty much the Warp Drive of Star Trek (and supposed Supercruise - as observed by the properties what the ships can do and can't do. Ships in Star Trek could also very well go to Warp straight from Orbit...however, the chances of ripping the planet apart where to great - can't remember that TNG episode...), this makes me kind of happy

The most interesting part for me is this. Consindering how the warp coils in star trek are supposed to work (they rotate the plasma from the warp core, generated by annihilation of Deuterium and Anti-Deuterium, "pumping" it through magnetic conduits into highly superconducting magnetically charged coils) and we have absolutely no explanation in game but some lore points (Starship One, Antares, something failed in the "mechanical" part of the FSD while charging) - i'm excited for the coming years, even if this theory is going to be wrong...it still is exciting.

This, i found the most interesting:

The main requirement, negative energy also called vacuum energy is a property of a vacuum where subatomic particles smaller than an atom dart into and out of existence almost instantaneously. According to the rules of quantum mechanics negative energy creates a negative quantum pressure that propels the warp bubble and therefore our starship forward.

Which is one of the biggest, unsolved mysteries of spacetime and physics today...and if i understand this correctly, this would also completely negate any Hawking Radation, since no Energy would evaporate (or "used")

 

[Stavro Mueller]

TBH I've not experimented with orbiting in ED as it seems futile given the wonky physics. I did see Scott Manley got an orbit going recently on a particularly small moon. He got forward velocity balanced with his ship's rate of falling so that he was continuously missing the ground (orbit 101). Even so, it seems futile because you could never rendevous with another craft as for a given height the two ships would have to be moving at different velocities and you're also limited by ship top speed as to what size planet you can orbit around. I think the salvage missions would be a lot more interesting if you had to line up an orbital rendevous with the canisters rather than trying to chase them down to the ground when they spawn in but I know that kind of gameplay isn't everyone's cup of tea considering how many complain of not even being able to orbit Kerbin in Kerbal Space Program.

Then again, KSP is a much more popular game than ED so maybe they are the ones who have it right after all.

Just to say, I love the terminology 'missing the ground'. It's so very Douglas Adams.

 

[Stavro Mueller]

There is actually a very real problem about spaceflight, which is that you can't ignore relativity (in that, while you may not be going at relativistic speeds, what is it that we ought to measure your speed relative to?). This is a small problem, and the interested observer might figure out the percentage to which it would affect our velocities. The interested observer could figure this out for all these problems that we think up; while precision is difficult, every single thing we argue about in these forums can be settled with a little maths.

Saying that, what we do here - is agree not to apply maths. That would simply be bad manners. My proposed qualifier is that: everyone here appreciates maths, and when we intend to deploy it, we state our intentions, and then we show something - ideally some inconsistency either within the game or within a common interpretation of the game.

 

[Mu77ley]

Then again, KSP is a much more popular game than ED so maybe they are the ones who have it right after all.

Steam stats would seem to suggest otherwise: http://steamcharts.com/cmp/359320,220200#3m

 

[Stavro Mueller]

I'm pretty sure that some orbital mechanics happen. Otherwise, why would things slip out of focus until you got a lock?

I am also pretty sure that the Milky Way galaxy is considered, at the star level, to be static. Including the motion of systems relative to each other would really be difficult, at least as far as maintaining consistency for an MMO.

What I actually think is happening is this: The Galaxy is generated. The systems are generated. They are given a T=0. You show up. Your arrival time is compared to T. You have your experience. Actually, I kind of know this is how it is done. The issue with the physics isn't an issue, to be honest. The various 'physics'es in this game are dealt with separately, in the way most consistent at the time. Which is the only way it could be done. You can't deal with galaxy-scale physics with the same calculator that does your orbital physics (or at least, not in the same way).

 

[Ziljan]

don't forget it's main component

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/bd/e1/7c/bde17c9a54746b6b2fe8eceaf8d3d882.jpg

because shields should let lasers through with scientific explanations.

Obviously the shields are selectively permeable by photons, otherwise forget lasers... how would we even SEE anything with shields up?

 

[Stavro Mueller]

Obviously the shields are selectively permeable by photons, otherwise forget lasers... how would we even SEE anything with shields up?

Yeeess, but if they are permeable to photons, they're useless against lasers ...

The only possible answer to most of this, given we want to believe, is that what we see is generated by the computer, because there's no way we can see anything directly as that would open us up to fire.

 

[AH_ImADot]

Apologies if anyone feels offended by the fact that I'm calling on Elites orbital physics, but Elite Dangerous is not a realistic space flight simulation, it's just a game.

Then it's a good thing that what I got for my money was a game...because I wasn't trying to buy a realistic space flight simulation.

 

[Stavro Mueller]

Sorry, but there are no orbital mechanics for ships at all. At least not properly accurate ones as defined by Newtons laws of motion.

Orbiting would only work in space normal speed, not in SC, because the effect of the FSD drive warps space and messes with the mass of the ship, which is why we can fly in straight lines in solar systems using FSD in systems. To put the into context for you, Halley's Comet moves at 254,016 km/h and still moves in an elliptical orbit. For a ship in Elite Dangerous to move at 245,016 km/h it would have to be using FSD and therefore not bound to the same laws of physics as it's currently warping space.

Conversely, The delta-v of the ships in Elite when travelling at space normal speed isn't enough to achieve orbit around Earth. If you exit SC next to a planet you're not in orbit and would never be able to achieve orbit, because you simply cannot go fast enough. The Cobra I fly has a max speed of around 406m/s with boost. The delta-v needed to achieve low Earth orbit starts around 9.4 km/s. So, basically, the space shuttle in low Earth orbit would be travelling faster than a Cobra Mk 3 at its highest space normal speed.

So, basically, and put plainly, the "physics" in Elite Dangerous are bunkum!

Hi guy, taking issue with your paragraph about leaving SC near a planet and not being able to achieve orbit for low speed; all this statement does is illustrate your non-comprehension of relativity. Don't get upset about that. It's very normal to not understand relativity. If I was setting a question, it might be: which frame of reference is the 406m/s of the Cobra in? Clue: the point is, there's no physical reason to choose any frame at all - other than where you started from! Since this is not a constraint of ours, it has nothing to say with regard to the possibility or not of achieving orbit.

I actually am a physicist.

 

[John Rhys]

I actually am a physicist.

Then you should know, that relativistic effects have absolutely no effect at those kinds of velocities we go. (you can go 1000 m/s when turning off your thrusters and plummeting to the ground of a planet with high gravity). Or/and you have not understood the concept of Supercruise/Warp Drive. Also: The relative speed of a ship is probably determined the same way, a meter is determined. The "0 m/s"/standing completely still in space is determined (or based/recalculated for the depending orbit you are in) by precise measurements and the ships computer compensating for gravitational effects.

Maths are done. But we have nothing in game to measure anything properly. Also: Those are theoretical physics. We can't even begin to grasp the actual mechanics behind those physics at the moment. Best example for mind boggling physics/quantum mechanics? Spacetime Crystals, that violate the second law of thermodynamics - proven in experiments just a few weeks ago.

And if shields are selectively permiable to photons, it would not be a problem.

 

[Spacecat]

Meh. It's a game. If it was real, flying to Alpha Centauri would take thousands of years. Now, that would be a grind.

 

[Stavro Mueller]

Then you should know, that relativistic effects have absolutely no effect at those kinds of velocities we go. (you can go 1000 m/s when turning off your thrusters and plummeting to the ground of a planet with high gravity). Or/and you have not understood the concept of Supercruise/Warp Drive. Also: The relative speed of a ship is probably determined the same way, a meter is determined. The "0 m/s"/standing completely still in space is determined (or based/recalculated for the depending orbit you are in) by precise measurements and the ships computer compensating for gravitational effects.

Maths are done. But we have nothing in game to measure anything properly. Also: Those are theoretical physics. We can't even begin to grasp the actual mechanics behind those physics at the moment. Best example for mind boggling physics/quantum mechanics? Spacetime Crystals, that violate the second law of thermodynamics - proven in experiments just a few weeks ago.

And if shields are selectively permiable to photons, it would not be a problem.

I wasn't talking about 'relativistic effects'. Just simple relativity - in that your velocity measured by the ship is only valid in your particular frame of reference. Have you ever thought about what that 400 m/s is actually measured relative to?

Spacetime crystals don't violate thermodynamics, as they are open systems. (They are great though - a real example of creative physics finding genuine opportunities for technology.) Nothing violates thermodynamics and information can't travel faster than light. They're basically the two immutable parts of the current physics, which seem to be so robust against all attempts to circumvent them that they may unfortunately always be true. Well, the thermodynamics laws will always be true, since all of the get-out clauses are contained in the phrase 'closed system'. Hopefully, FTL travel might emerge - but that's an emotional hope of mine; it almost certainly will not. Anyway, the point is, when a person is writing the phrase 'violate the laws of thermodynamics', they are just wrong, and always will be. Unless the words 'nothing can', or 'does not', or something like that, precedes it.

Shields obviously are selectively permeable to photons, since they are transparent (as ziljan said). I was only messing around there - obviously there has to be some suspension of disbelief - but not if your ship computer is generating all the visuals. How do we see anything travelling at superluminal speeds otherwise? This is one reason why I would like to see broken canopies having much more interesting effects. Imagine if you just saw the inside of the shield as a perfect mirror until it went down, when the full fury of the nearby star hit your helmet (which would of course have its own darkening something-or-other) - that would be awesome.

 

[peteuplink]

I actually am a physicist.

Yeah, sure you are, and I'm Professor Brian Cox.

Go live your fantasy someplace else, you foolish person.

Relativity isn't hard to understand. For example, from my point of view, I'm not moving. But in actuality I'm moving relative to the motion of the planets. I'm sitting in my chair, but I'm not occupying the same area of space from one moment to the next. people on a stationary train seeing another train moving past them see themselves as the ones who are not moving, but the people on the train moving past see themselves as the train thats not moving and the stationary train as in motion.

Obviously the ships in Elite Dangerous, when close to planets and stations, also have to more relative to them or else we wouldn't be able to land on them. But the way it's done in the game is not the same way relativity works in real life. What is happening in the game is the "simulation" is treating the planet surface or the station as a fixed point with the ship able to move to coordinates around it. it works in the same way a flight sim holds the player in the air. it gives the illusion of flight but really all that's happening is some mathematics are holding your aircraft at a multiple of the Z axis until the player changes it. A flight sim is basically a model being held at multiples of the Z axis above a plane, and ED works in pretty much the same way. It's a fudge to make it look realistic. That's why when I fly around the planet at altitude, it behaves the same way as flying around the planet at low level. Sure, I'm moving relative to the planet, but not because of actual relativity, but because the game is holding me there.

You see, the point I'm trying to make, is that in the game at low altitude I can fly in any direction, change height, roll, pitch, come to a dead stop... At high altitude I can do all of these things. I could stop and fly in completely the other direction if I wished... This is not orbiting, it's simply flying around at high altitude using the same physics as low level flight. There's no orbital mechanics at play here. The movement of a plane moving through Earths atmosphere at, say 30,000 feet, and the movement of a space ship moving through orbit are different (not entirely different but different enough that you can't fly a space ship in the same manner as you fly a plane). But ED treats both high level and low level flight exactly the same.

If you were a physicist you'd know this. Any moron can repeat something from wikipedia and say they're a scientist.

 

[Max Stingray]

Would not work, since you just can't use any gravity at all. However, since the gravitation of planets do affect supercruise (slowing down), what i could imagine would be to plot a course around those gravity wells.

How bold do I need to type the word "pretend" in pretend-slingshot? I was talking about creating an illusion to enhance gameplay with something somewhat similar to reality. Of course it can be made to work in game, in game you can instant transfer across the universe and if they want they can add a magic button to create cash and gold canisters out of thin air. It obviously does not work now in game now as it is not an implemented feature.

 

[Stavro Mueller]

Yeah, sure you are, and I'm Professor Brian Cox.

Go live your fantasy someplace else, you foolish person.

Relativiy isn;t hard to understand. For example, from my point of view, I'm not moving. But in actuality I'm moving relative to the motion of the planets. I'm sitting in my chair, but I'm not occupying the same area of space from one moment to the next.

Obviously the ships in Elite Dangerous, when close to planets and stations, also have to more relative to them or else we wouldn't be able to land on them. But the way it's done in the game is not the same way relativity works in real life. What is happening in the game is the "simulation" is treating the planet surface or the station as a fixed point with the ship able to move to coordinates around it. That's why when I fly around the planet at altitude, it behaves the same way as flying around the planet at low level. Sure, I'm moving relative to the planet, but not because of actual relativity, but because the game is holding me there.

You see, the point I'm trying to make, is that at low altitude I can fly in any direction, change height, roll, pitch, come to a dead stop... At high altitude I can do all of these things. I could stop and fly in completely the other direction if I wished... This is not orbiting, it's simply flying around at high altitude. The movement of a plane moving through Earths atmosphere at, say 30,000 feet, and the movement of a space ship moving through orbit are different. But ED treats both high level and low level flight exactly the same.

If you were a physicist you'd know this. Any moron can repeat something from wikipedia and say they're a scientist.

Your frame of reference when you are sufficiently high above the planet (like in the rings, for example) is itself in orbit. That's just because the game defines it so. In that case, you are in orbit. The other thing about flying around in normal space above a planet not being in orbit, I agree with. Something marvellous happens to negate all outside forces and at 0 m/s you are static in relation to the planet, not orbiting it. At least, that's how it seems. But using that to declare that all physics in Elite is bunkum is a bit strange. Of course it's all bunkum at some level, they have to take some shortcuts to allow it to be a game. The easiest one is allowing the ship to define its own frame of reference - then, all things like elliptical orbits and high speeds just cease to be important.

 

[Ddraig]

Or we could agree this is a game that has mechanics in place that pretend to sell the illusion of physics compromised by gameplay conveniences.
All discussion about the topic is moot.

 

[Bryan K]

Or we could agree this is a game that has mechanics in place that pretend to sell the illusion of physics compromised by gameplay conveniences.
All discussion about the topic is moot.

Or that it's all really unfinished. Look at black holes. They're just a trippy-looking yet disappointing placeholder. I flew up to one in an SLF and took a selfie, with no ill-effects. Sure, maybe someday black holes will have reasonable physics, but they're probably near the bottom of FDev's list.

 

[Lily from anim.o.v.e]

btw, i remember my brother had a simposn comic once, in that comic the geeks were making an own space movie and they made it scientifically realistical. And everyone watchign it hated it because there was no sound since there is no sound in space. So large parts of this game are just "bad" because they are required for a cooler gamimg experience.