Yes, really. You see, inconsistency is the whole point.
PLEASE stop the way space stations ROTATE
- Thread starter specialsymbol
- Start date
Yes, really. You see, inconsistency is the whole point.
Well I for one am not going to start getting into Tensor analysis just because of a forum. I accept what I see and take it, as it is offered. Why spend time on this when there are more fundamental questions to be asked, like who built these damn orbitals and why are they not all RAL9010.
How is the way stations currently rotate cooler than it would be if Frontier wasn't lazy and actually made them rotate around their center of mass rather than the logical object's center?
Setting their center of mass as the center of rotation wouldn't change the way they are currently rotating.
I suspect one reason for it being like it do is that since '84 Elite has taken a lot of cues from 2001:
but again the real reason and the only thing you should concern yourself with is that that's the way it is because it's cool.
Last edited:
Sorry Bran but your answer isn't adequate. The reason is that FD don't in fact offer 4th millenium technology. They offer 3rd millenium technology (have you looked at the station speakers recently? 2nd millenium.) and call it "realistic".
You're either "realistic" or you're not. FD, in reality, are not. That's why we have this unsatisfying bouillabaise of both/either/neither.
P.S.
And once again, does anyone actually know the answer (3rd millenium please) to this conundrum of geostationary rotation? I'm genuinely curious.
Last edited:
It would, because we know full well why they are rotating the way they rotate. And the reason has nothing to do with lore and pseudo thrusters constantly firing. They rotate around the point from which the game calculates your distance to the station. And that point couldn't be at the center of mass for gameplay reasons, since Orbis stations can be very long with the only bit of interest to the player being at the very end, far away from the CoM.
If FD actually used the CoM, instead of a cone-shaped rotation, we'd get an hourglass-shaped one. For the player not much would change since the rotation is very slow on most stations, but for the few stations on very fast orbits it would actually make docking interesting.
And it wouldn't look as stupid as it does now.
Last edited:
So your looking under a rock to find the rock in your hand or chasing your tail. This is a game, more than that it's a sci-fi game and no matter what any dev claims they have taken poetic license to the limit by including things which we are trying to explain.
It's like trying to explain the lights in the monolith from 2001, only A.C.Clark knew what he was writing about despite decades of speculation by the readers/viewers.
You may as well try to find out how a bee flies.
As for the question your're asking, you will never get the reply that is correct because non of us, including the devs knows without several super computers to work out mass, thrust, inertia not just of the station but of all the ships docking/un-docking, the effect of the thrust from those actions and a billion other factors.
So, sorry to tell you this but if you want to know how... ask NASA.
Last edited:
I'm not sure I understand the distinction above between "shifted" and "flung" about, but I do agree the stations have zero (or very low) G at their 'centre', hence if a ship is destroyed in-dock, its wreckage floats about the dock instead of crashing down upon some poor unsuspecting pilot/deck-hand.
The fact that you have ponds in the more plush stations, which are only marginally lower than the landing pads, makes me wonder though. If that really is a pond in low-G, I REALLY want to get out of my ship and go make some low-G splashes. Wheeeeeeeeeee!
Yeah, I only noticed the difference in wording between the outposts and station pads when I googled the exact wording for my post. I was/am just a bit confused by the ponds in a low-G environment (where they are only marginally further from the axis than the landing pads), the fact that parked vehicles and crates are bound to the station (all magnetic?) and the placement of the warnings - though there's a good explanation for that below.
I like this answer! The warning might make slightly more sense at the entrance/exit corridor rather than along the border of the landing pad where it suggests the low-G zone is delimited by the pad boundaries. But still, I like the idea that throwing a crate hard upwards hard enough might flatten someone on the opposite side of the dock, while still giving me time to run and hide. Muhahaha.
Last edited:
Well, it's ~.1 G. You can have water, but it'll splash a lot higher if disturbed.
The only perceivable rotation on 99% of stations is longitudinal, which would not change by shifting the center of mass. I do not believe that the wobbly hourglass rotation would be tolerated from a lore standpoint because of how touchy getting anything larger than a T6 through the mail slot would be. This is why we say thrusters are correcting for the wobble if pressed for an explanation - but the truth is an explanation isn't really needed. Just go with it.
The only perceivable rotation on 99% of stations is longitudinal, which would not change by shifting the center of mass. I do not believe that the wobbly hourglass rotation would be tolerated from a lore standpoint because of how touchy getting anything larger than a T6 through the mail slot would be. This is why we say thrusters are correcting for the wobble if pressed for an explanation - but the truth is an explanation isn't really needed. Just go with it.
Last edited:
Just to say, I'm a student in physics, and everything in the game concerning stations IS CORRECT.
Objects can rotate on more than one axis (as for an example just look at olympic divers). If the rotation is initially properly set, they don't even need thrusters to correct it.
Finally, when inside the station, the ship is only dealing with a weaker form of gravity created by the radial acceleration of the spinning. I assume that 1000 years later they can make a ship stand still in an atmosphere without any trouble.
Objects can rotate on more than one axis (as for an example just look at olympic divers). If the rotation is initially properly set, they don't even need thrusters to correct it.
Finally, when inside the station, the ship is only dealing with a weaker form of gravity created by the radial acceleration of the spinning. I assume that 1000 years later they can make a ship stand still in an atmosphere without any trouble.
Oh thank you. An answer that concerns itself with objective (3rd millenium) reality.
Whatever that means.
But making things accord to 3rd millenium technology, and then saying "it's ok, this apparent inconsistency is due to 4th millenium technology" is, well, inconsistent. I mean, if we're talking 4th millenium then why can't we have all kinds of stuff that'd be considered impossible now?
Do you see?
If you read carefully, what I only said about 3rd millenium is that they can surely make a ship stand still in a gravity field, just as a helicopter. If a helicopter is able to hover in 1g, they should be able to make ships hover in let's say 0.5G in 1000 years.
Read it all carefully becore disclaiming please.
Ssshhh! They are not meant to know yet, not until ED has all the parts it is missing from the prequel games (and yes that includes u......erm the 'Thargoids'), then we can show them the moon entrance.
You're right. I apologise.
Last edited:
If you mean anti-grav hovering then even in the 10th or 100th centuries it still may not be possible. There is no logical reason to assume that this (or any kind of FTL either) is actually possible regardless of how long you wait.
If you mean hover like a helicopter or vtol plane then we can do it already in 1g. Lower g would make it easier.
Last edited:
Hmmm. Would it be fair to say that no one actually knows the answer?
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attitude_control
You're welcome.
I can see you must be terribly clever and so on, but, alas, I'm not. In what way does that link answer the question? Please keep it simple for us idiots.