PLEASE stop the way space stations ROTATE

[bootsam]

.... and may choose to only fit one on cost and security grounds - the atmospheric retention system employed by the docking tube may not be cheap and one at each end would encourage drive-through attacks....

Security didnt seem too tight to prevent people launching attacks from WITHIN the station now did it? So thats yer 'security' one debunked. Ner. As for cost, well are you implying that these stations were subject to a value engineering exercise? It would at least explain the rubbish PA system.

I employ Structural Engineers to wash my car. Some architects DO actually know some physics you know!
Just kidding about the car though, some of my best friends are engineers.

SE only have to wash cars due to late and overdue invoices that architects fail to pay on time. 'Some Physics' is appropriate, its just the physics they do know bares no resemblance to the physics they need to know in order to build things. Its rare to find an old school architect who knows that Youngs Modulus isnt a face moisturising cream.

Grandad was an architect, but he was the black sheep of this engineering dynasty or dysentery as it is at the mo due to a dodgy kebab.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Security didnt seem too tight to prevent people launching attacks from WITHIN the station now did it? So thats yer 'security' one debunked. Ner.

Sadly no - the docking controllers seemed to be inexplicably unable to remember the identities of the miscreants who kept boosting out and splatting innocent inbound parties trying to dock - they kept letting them re-enter the station and prepare for more mischief.

 

[shadragon]

Forgive me for stating the obvious: It's a game.

If you want to redesign E: D to conform only to scientifically proven principles, we'd lose hyperspace and limit SC to < 1 C. If you were travelling at 1 C (The speed of light) your time would slow to the point where when you got back to your base station, three hundred thousand years would have passed.

Discovery scanners would only work at the speed of light and it would take 43 minutes for Jupiter to show up.

Oh, docking computers would actually work and trading computers would give you the best routes from the station you visited.

It's a game! Just accept it and move on.

 

[who?]

Nope. In Elite: Dangerous universe humans do not possess the technology to manipulate localised gravitation fields.

The landing pads have low gravity in rotating stations because they're so close to the axis of rotation. IIRC it is supposed to be about 1/10 of the gravity on Earth. At the outer edge of station the gravitational effect is about equal to Earth surface gravity.

On various outposts the landing pads indeed are in zero-g. They use magnetic clamps to attach the ship to them.

I'm not 100% convinced. If so, why have these warnings on the side of the landing pads, facing out to either side? "Hi [person already in a low/zero G environment], careful! This is a low/zero-G environment!". Which is obviously a bit pointless.

Based on their position and orientation, it's far more likely these warnings are to people about to step onto the pad that they're entering a low/zero G environment.

If the area around the landing pads is low/zero G, then it raises questions about the vehicles in the dock (those on the circular rings, those parked by the landing pads, and those that would travel along the roadways travelling the length of the dock). Aren't there also ponds in some of the Sol stations? Ponds in zero G?

 

[Ralph Vargr]

Night carrier landings are not hard enough.

 

[Brujah]

I'm not 100% convinced. If so, why have these warnings on the side of the landing pads, facing out to either side? "Hi [person already in a low/zero G environment], careful! This is a low/zero-G environment!". Which is obviously a bit pointless.

Based on their position and orientation, it's far more likely these warnings are to people about to step onto the pad that they're entering a low/zero G environment.

If the area around the landing pads is low/zero G, then it raises questions about the vehicles in the dock (those on the circular rings, those parked by the landing pads, and those that would travel along the roadways travelling the length of the dock). Aren't there also ponds in some of the Sol stations? Ponds in zero G?

Try being in a station with Flight Assist Off and don't touch the controls. You get shifted about. Now try it with Flight Assist On, but Rotational Correction off. You get flung about.

I suggest the physics inside the station are working just fine. The ship's computer (or you if you're FA-Off) compensates for the motion and the gravity effect.

 

[Ben Ryder]

I can't stand it anymore. It makes me cringe everytime I drop out of SC and see a station.
THIS DOESN'T WORK!!!

You can't have space stations rotate like they do AND have the entrance point in the general direction of the planet they're orbiting.

It will not work! The entrance will be, after half an orbit, opposite of the planet.
Which would, by the way, not change a thing as when you drop out of SC it's always a gamble where the entrance is - it definitely is NEVER where you expect it.



Solution is simple:
Have them rotate perpendicular to their orbit plane.
And please, for heaven's sake, add a second entrance. Lots of problems solved (except for occasional drafts of space winds with two doors open..).

Erm... The entrance is always where I expect it. I think you are doing something wrong.

 

[telperion]

Erm... The entrance is always where I expect it. I think you are doing something wrong.

What this gentleman says.

 

[Mysturji]

I can't stand it anymore. It makes me cringe everytime I drop out of SC and see a station.
THIS DOESN'T WORK!!!

You can't have space stations rotate like they do AND have the entrance point in the general direction of the planet they're orbiting.

It will not work! The entrance will be, after half an orbit, opposite of the planet.
Which would, by the way, not change a thing as when you drop out of SC it's always a gamble where the entrance is - it definitely is NEVER where you expect it.



Solution is simple:
Have them rotate perpendicular to their orbit plane.
And please, for heaven's sake, add a second entrance. Lots of problems solved (except for occasional drafts of space winds with two doors open..).

Worst case of CDO* I've ever seen
Ever heard of gyroscopes? You can spin them up AND down.




















* Like OCD, but the letters are in Alphabetical Order** ... AS THEY SHOULD BE!!!!

** Significant Capitals

 

[mossfoot]

I'm not 100% convinced. If so, why have these warnings on the side of the landing pads, facing out to either side? "Hi [person already in a low/zero G environment], careful! This is a low/zero-G environment!". Which is obviously a bit pointless.

Based on their position and orientation, it's far more likely these warnings are to people about to step onto the pad that they're entering a low/zero G environment.

If the area around the landing pads is low/zero G, then it raises questions about the vehicles in the dock (those on the circular rings, those parked by the landing pads, and those that would travel along the roadways travelling the length of the dock). Aren't there also ponds in some of the Sol stations? Ponds in zero G?

All rotating station pads have the low-gee warning. It is about 0.1G. It is because it is closer to the axis than the habitation area. Only non rotating station pads should have zero gee warnings.

 

[Marc Alexander]

Good lord - this thread is still going?!?

 

[mossfoot]

By far, and I mean by far the biggest issue with a rotating station is that docking as it's perceived in the game would be nearly impossible. You cannot have "rotation lock" once you're off the central axis. Your ship would need to continually side-thrust, assuming its attitude was perfectly aligned to the chord of the axis of rotation. If you roll or pitch your ship, it won't be able to correct its position perfectly, and there's no indication that our ships side-thrust during landing in stations.

The thrusters are automated to compensate for rotation once inside, but you have the option of turning if off in one of the menus

 

[Cody]

Good lord - this thread is still going?!?

Aye... it's a rotating thread that needs locking! <grins>

 

[Lord_Crazy]

Aye... it's a rotating thread that needs locking! <grins>

Agree. Also with a second entrance so we can escape from it faster. Unless the thread won't have any input after half an orbit as the entrance will not face the forum anymore.

 

[Spog]

Does anyone actually know the anser to this conundrum. And when I say "know" I mean, like, know.

There isn't one.

1. A spinning object may resist rotation in a different axis but it can still be done.

2. There is no rule in ED that a stations entrance will always face the body it orbits (even though many do)

3. It's a game.

That won't do at all, not in this forum. Isn't the development team one that prides itself on scientific realism, whatever that means? Else why have rotating stations at all? We could have anti-grav instead.

P.S.

Is it something to do with the Right Hand Rule? Or is it the Left Hand Rule?

 

[bossbrigand]

I'm not 100% convinced. If so, why have these warnings on the side of the landing pads, facing out to either side? "Hi [person already in a low/zero G environment], careful! This is a low/zero-G environment!". Which is obviously a bit pointless.

Based on their position and orientation, it's far more likely these warnings are to people about to step onto the pad that they're entering a low/zero G environment.

If the area around the landing pads is low/zero G, then it raises questions about the vehicles in the dock (those on the circular rings, those parked by the landing pads, and those that would travel along the roadways travelling the length of the dock). Aren't there also ponds in some of the Sol stations? Ponds in zero G?

Low G doesn't mean zero G. The warnings are there for the same reason that we mark edges and drops: watch out! "Gravity" in the station feels less the closer you get to the center, so as you step out of a close quarters environment (a starship, corridor or building) you're reminded that you're in a low G environment because if you jump, trip or otherwise take to the air you will find yourself at a higher altitude than you expected - nevermind the coriolis effect depositing your broken body on the opposite side of the station after you get creamed by an incoming vessel.

Does anyone actually know the anser to this conundrum. And when I say "know" I mean, like, know.

I know the answer - it's "Elite is a game with design decisions made to reflect but not perfectly emulate reality in all ways"

That won't do at all, not in this forum. Isn't the development team one that prides itself on scientific realism, whatever that means? Else why have rotating stations at all? We could have anti-grav instead.

Unlike static stations with artificial gravity, rotating stations are a dazzling and interesting set piece inside and out. Next.

 

[Spog]

I know the answer - it's "Elite is a game with design decisions made to reflect but not perfectly emulate reality in all ways"



Unlike static stations with artificial gravity, rotating stations are a dazzling and interesting set piece inside and out. Next.

My apologies, I didn't make myself clear. I was looking for a real answer, not a pile of specious sophistry.

Now, does anyone actually know the answer to this conundrum?

 

[bossbrigand]

My apologies, I didn't make myself clear. I was looking for a real answer, not a pile of specious sophistry.

Now, does anyone actually know the answer to this conundrum?

Does anyone know the answer to why spice in Dune does what it does? Does anyone have a scientific explanation for the magic in Elder Scrolls? Does anyone ask those kinds of questions? No, because both of those are design decisions which do not beg to be dismantled and critiqued on an internet forum for their unscientificness.

 

[AlexRyder]

I HAVE A SPACESHIP WITH FRAMESHIFT AND BIG LASERS

FRONTIER, Y U NO ORBITAL MECHANICS


...really?

 

[bossbrigand]

I HAVE A SPACESHIP WITH FRAMESHIFT AND BIG LASERS

FRONTIER, Y U NO ORBITAL MECHANICS


...really?

Exactly... anyone who questions the ~430 m/s hard speed cap gets shouted down. Nobody asks why the nacelles on the Clipper don't shear off under enough force to accelerate an 800 metric tonne ship to 410 m/s in just a couple seconds. Nobody asks what kind of high energy density fuel we're burning to produce that much thrust, come to think of it. Or how the magic bubble shields work. Or how we can have instant transgalactic communication. Or why railguns look like blue lasers, even though there's no atmosphere to form a plasma sheath.

But God, NO - the stations aren't wobbling enough to accurately simulate orbital motion.

The answer is really damn simple - it's a game and some stuff is cooler the way it is.