Sensors - The science of size and scale

Ben Ryder

Ben Ryder
Is this odd. It strikes me as odd. I've always thought it was strange.

You can get a A1 sensor / scanner thing with a 6km range and pop it in to a sidewinder for 20,000 credits. It uses hardly any power and works brilliantly.

However to do the same thing in any other ship means getting a bigger and more expensive device... that does as good if not a worse job.

Say I had a big old Anaconda and I wanted exactly the same kind of thing. Give me scanner data of around 6km. The device I would need would cost almost 2 million credits and would weigh almost 150 times as much and would need Braben megajules squared power to run it.

Why cant I just stick the A1 sensor in the Anaconda? I dont get it. Never have done.

So I tried som real world tests and took my mobile phone for test drive using google maps and a pair of binoculars too to add to the realism.

Test 1. Walking. Worked fine. no difference in range
Test 2. On a Unicycle. As abover
Test 3. In a C5. As above
Test 4. In a Robin Reliant. As above
Test 5. In the back of a black cab
Test 6. Atop a red double deceker london tour bus. As above
Test 7. In the Cutty Sark pub. As above
Test 8. On the deck of the Cutty Sark ship. As above.


In all the above tests I did not find the need to getting bigger, heavier and more expensive scanner equipement based on the size of the transport.

So now the science bit is over can someone please explain why big ships need incredibly expensive, heavy, enegry draining scanners to do excatly the same job as a smaller version?

dom_joly_phone.jpg


This cap clearly flies an anaconda
 
Last edited:

shadragon

shadragon
Speaking as someone who has worked on F-18's and C-130 transport aircraft (and many others) I can confirm the larger the A/C, the larger the sensor payload. The larger A/C can carry more and they design sensors to go into the space available.
 

thorn-

thorn-
shadragon said:
Speaking as someone who has worked on F-18's and C-130 transport aircraft (and many others) I can confirm the larger the A/C, the larger the sensor payload. The larger A/C can carry more and they design sensors to go into the space available.
Click to expand...

Does the C130 have more sensor power/features/range than the F18?
 

Non Grata

Non Grata
At the same time (if I understand it correctly), shield boosters weigh the same regardless of ship size. I don't understand how that works.
 

Ben Ryder

Ben Ryder
shadragon said:
Speaking as someone who has worked on F-18's and C-130 transport aircraft (and many others) I can confirm the larger the A/C, the larger the sensor payload. The larger A/C can carry more and they design sensors to go into the space available.
Click to expand...

Does it provide exactly the same range, features and quality at far higher cost, power draw and weight ( x100s)?
 

kalniel

kalniel
Why are you applying science to a game like Elite? This is about fun over science. Distinctly un-scientific mechanisms are in place to ensure greater overall fun.
 

Conch

Conch
it is indeed odd.. but from a not gameplay part i can understand, having a bigger ship, is having more sensors around and in the ship. (not talking about scanrange.)
 

StiTch

StiTch
tbh, extended radar would do my nut in.

Ability to re-focus radar atm is very useful, but if that radar was split over 20 km, I would regardless get a mess of blobs where I realistically want a more detailed report of what's around me. And that's what I need it for - keep track of enemies that are trying to pressure me while I hit on their wingmate.

I don't need to keep track of something several times my fire distance away.
 

thorn-

thorn-
kalniel said:
Why are you applying science to a game like Elite? This is about fun over science. Distinctly un-scientific mechanisms are in place to ensure greater overall fun.
Click to expand...

How does the greater cost and weight of the Conda's sensor vs the Sidewinder's (which has exactly the same capability) add to the greater overall fun?
 
Last edited:

Deep Thought 42

D
I look at it like this
The Sidewinder has a sheet of paper between your sensors & Open Space & a Small EM Signiture
The Bigger ships have Inches of energy reflecting Hull / Armour Plating between your sensors & Open Space & a Larger EM Signiture

So the Size & Energy usage would be bigger in larger ships to compensate for Hull & Armour plating
 
Last edited:

StiTch

StiTch
Deep Thought 42 said:
I look at it like this
The Sidewinder has a sheet of paper between your sensors & Open Space & a Small EM Signiture
The Bigger ships have Inches of energy reflecting Hull / Armour Plating between your sensors & Open Space & a Larger EM Signiture

So the Size & Energy usage would be bigger in larger ships to compensate for Hull & Armour plating
Click to expand...

Also the aspect that you need to sense all around you, not just a single location. Anecdotes about taking your GPS phone for a hell of a trip are both welcome and a good chuckle, but that's only effective for pinpointing where you are.

You can't put GPS on your phone, point it forwards and have it map everything around you.

So conceivably the big ships need bigger sensors to fit all around the ship and ensure full range coverage.

Realistically....of course it's damn gameplay. Everything is gameplay. It's a game! They could have picked 1T or 500T and we're no closer to knowing would it would actually be in futuristic spaceships, nor would we likely care for the purposes of ED outside the obvious selling point that you've had contact with the future ;)

For these reasons I still find the term "space simulator" a bit...lacking.
 
Last edited:

Siranui

S
Ben Ryder said:
In all the above tests I did not find the need to getting bigger, heavier and more expensive scanner equipement based on the size of the transport.
Click to expand...


I would argue that a larger vessel requires additional mass in order to shield the sensors fully against the much larger ship emissions. And perhaps that the larger surface area requires more sensor units for 360 coverage, assuming we are using thermal sensors.

Neither explain the vast difference, but certainly *some* extra mass seems reasonable.
 

Orchideous

O
You are forgetting the effect of mass on space time.

More energy will be required to climb out of the depression in space time caused by a hull of greater mass.......Obviously [wink]
 

Wolf Starslayer

Wolf Starslayer
As our sensor work by detecting heat emissions, you need a net or grid of receiver's all over the hull as the hull itself would block upper receiver's detecting threats from below etc. Therefore this net of receiver's gets much bigger the greater the hull mass/volume; also greater amounts of wiring to send the signals back to the main computer for interpretation. That's my take on the weight thing.
 

thorn-

thorn-
Wolf Starslayer said:
As our sensor work by detecting heat emissions, you need a net or grid of receiver's all over the hull as the hull itself would block upper receiver's detecting threats from below etc.
Click to expand...

There is no "grid of sensors" all over the ship. It's a single internal component.
 

IndigoWyrd

IndigoWyrd
This topic has been done before, more than once.

Let's consider this:

Your sidewinder would fit inside an anaconda several times over. It's a tiny ship, which means it does not require a large, powerful sensor array to be able to scan beyond itself.
That exact same sensor array, in an Anaconda would barely be able to detect you using the latrine right next door. It just lacks the power.

Or if you think of it in terms of a house - a single wireless access point will cover the average house.
That same wireless access point would not provide coverage for a mansion - several access points would be required to provide the same degree of coverage.

The same holds true for life support systems.
Tiny ship, tiny system, tiny price.
Giant ship, giant system, giant price.

That's really all there is to it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom