Supercruise: can we fix this?

[Lacika2000]

Keep in mind, you're .15 ls from the planet. and 3.7 from the star. How long does it take to reach 5 c when you're 3.7 light seconds from the planet?

That is exactly the point. At 0.15 Ls away from the planet the gravitational force acting on the ship is a fraction of what is action on the ship when it is 3.7 Ls away from the star. At 0.15 Ls away from the planet it is g = 0.43, while at 3.7 Ls away from the star g = 86.4!!!

YET: the ship cannot gain speed in supercruise as fast when moving away from the planet, not even at the same level as moving away from the star, while the gravitational effect is more than 100 times less at the planet vs. at the star.

This is a major inconsistency that, in my eye, a game suggesting to be a space flight simulation game simply cannot afford. I strongly believed this needs to be fixed in ED.

PS: when you are 3.7 Ls away from the planet, the g = 0.0007 based on the planet only, while the effect of the star in the same point of space at a 451 Ls distance from the star is g = 0.006, so around 10 times as large as the planet's gravitational influence.

 

[Lacika2000]

Supercruise isn't confusing - you press a key, your ship goes fast - who gives a monkey's about its consistency, it is a game. My remark about "not changing the laws of physics" is just that the game's travel mechanics are constructed around a "kind-of" physics (not real physics) and seeking to change how that works in all these whiney "supercruise is boring" threads would have an enormous effect on the game,

I linked to the original "Science in Elite" thread (with quotes around the word "bible") since it is held as a good resource.

I am seriously bored with this so I'm off to play a game rather than wear out my keys on pedants.

The linked "science" is not really exact beyond some really untraceable semi-scientific narrative (I am not ready to call it "space magic mumbo-jumbo" but it is close to it) that has no numerical/theoretical backing that appears to actually stand up for a test.

For the record: I did not whine about supercruise being boring.

Instead, I have raised an issue that supercruise is not consistent with classical or relativistic physics, when comparing departure times around various celestial bodies (knowing their masses and the distances from the bodies when departing from their vicinity).

The reason I actually would like to understand this discrepancy (and if it is indeed incorrect, have it fixed) because ED is claimed to be space flight simulation game, not a "space magic" flight simulation game. Plus it is inherently wrong, in my humble opinion, to not be able to accelerate away as quickly from an object with smaller mass than from a star having a five (!!!) orders of magnitude higher mass.

I did some simple calculations that anybody can replicate and/or verify. So far nobody has refuted the results I have derived. Instead of meaningful debate, I have heard many 'theories' that, in the piercing words of Wolfgang Pauli, are "not even wrong"... maybe you are bored (or have run out of anything reasonable to add), but that does not make it right.

 

[Para Handy]

.........
For the record: I did not whine about supercruise being boring.

..... because ED is claimed to be space flight simulation game, not a "space magic" flight simulation game. ........

1. For the record: My remark to that effect was a generalisation about the prolific number of threads about supercruise travel times - it was not addressed to you or aimed at you so please don't take it out of context.

2. Elite is not a space flight simulation game - you need to go to Kerbal Space Program for that. Elite Dangerous has always used a very loose interpretation of physics to provide an entertaining gameplay experience. I used the term "handwavium" knowingly as that is exactly what the game design has incorporated - take an idea, manipulate it somehow to make it more "playable". If they removed the mechanism that you object to then you can just watch the player figures drop like a stone - imagine arriving at ANY SYSTEM and spending the hugely longer time required to supercruise away from the star to even the closest body. You really cannot see that this is probably the reason for the different effects?

I was not going to input here again but it is taking an age to install summat on the new laptop so I thought that I'd just see if you really, honestly couldn't see why things are the way they are?

The link I gave tipping it as " the bible" was written by a physicist (@DCello), he wrote:

"... Currently I’m a Theoretical Particle Physics & Cosmology Researcher. I’m a Doctor with a PhD in Astrophysics and Aerospace Engineering ... "

Also in that thread you will find another physicist @Monk who is still on these fora (@DCello has not been on here for a year). There are others too, maybe one will come in who can help you come to terms with the situation. I am no physicist (retired electronics engineer and schoolteacher, and an amateur astronomer) so I do not attempt to propound on the actual science personally (took me ages to get through the MOOC on the Higgs Boson ).

 

[Majic-12]

I'm not a theoretical physicist, but I play one on TV, which is to say that I enjoy sitting on top of the TV pretending to be a theoretical physicist.

 

[Galactic Fork]

That is exactly the point. At 0.15 Ls away from the planet the gravitational force acting on the ship is a fraction of what is action on the ship when it is 3.7 Ls away from the star. At 0.15 Ls away from the planet it is g = 0.43, while at 3.7 Ls away from the star g = 86.4!!!

YET: the ship cannot gain speed in supercruise as fast when moving away from the planet, not even at the same level as moving away from the star, while the gravitational effect is more than 100 times less at the planet vs. at the star.

This is a major inconsistency that, in my eye, a game suggesting to be a space flight simulation game simply cannot afford. I strongly believed this needs to be fixed in ED.

PS: when you are 3.7 Ls away from the planet, the g = 0.0007 based on the planet only, while the effect of the star in the same point of space at a 451 Ls distance from the star is g = 0.006, so around 10 times as large as the planet's gravitational influence.

The amount of gravity isn't the point. Supercruise isn't affected by gravity itself, or not in the same way it would affect you outside of supercruise. It's not momentum towards the planet. It's more resistance. And this resistance is based more on proximity than power. Using a star is the worst way to examine this because we can't get super close to the surface. You're outside the range when resistance is the strongest.

So for an experiment to see how much mass actually matters find planets and moons of assorted sizes. Take off from the planet starting when mass lock drops. Then measure how long it takes to go to 5 c. Do this towards the star, away from the star and perpendicular to the star. These will help factor out the star's contributing resistance.

My theory is that mass mostly only contributes to the diameter of the resistance sphere.

I did a test roughly 3.7 ls from a planet and headed towards the star. It was close to the time it took you going from the sun to reach 5c.

 

[Taifu]

The linked "science" is not really exact beyond some really untraceable semi-scientific narrative (I am not ready to call it "space magic mumbo-jumbo" but it is close to it) that has no numerical/theoretical backing that appears to actually stand up for a test.

For the record: I did not whine about supercruise being boring.

Instead, I have raised an issue that supercruise is not consistent with classical or relativistic physics, when comparing departure times around various celestial bodies (knowing their masses and the distances from the bodies when departing from their vicinity).

The reason I actually would like to understand this discrepancy (and if it is indeed incorrect, have it fixed) because ED is claimed to be space flight simulation game, not a "space magic" flight simulation game. Plus it is inherently wrong, in my humble opinion, to not be able to accelerate away as quickly from an object with smaller mass than from a star having a five (!!!) orders of magnitude higher mass.

I did some simple calculations that anybody can replicate and/or verify. So far nobody has refuted the results I have derived. Instead of meaningful debate, I have heard many 'theories' that, in the piercing words of Wolfgang Pauli, are "not even wrong"... maybe you are bored (or have run out of anything reasonable to add), but that does not make it right.

You need to change the frame of reference you are judging Elite Dangerous from.

FDev claim Elite Dangerous is many things including "flight simulator" and yet space has a speed limit, which is different for different ships, and different for the same ship in different configurations. FDev also claim it is an MMO because technically, it is Massive, it is Multi Player and it is Online.

I have watched David Braben on a live stream answer a question on crossplay by saying you can play with people from Playstation and Xbox, because every player plays in a single galaxy. Though not what the question was asking, that is technically true.

The reality is that FDev built the game and tested it. They then changed it depending on criteria, only really known to them, until they were happy with the result.

I do not recall FDev ever claiming that supercruse is an accurate recreation of faster than light travel, probably because, right now, nothing is known to be able to travel at speeds faster than light. So how can anything they create be "right", when the very thing they have created is fictional?

Right now your argument is in exactly the same category as claiming Superman shouldn't be able to fly unaided because his arm span is too small or Spiderman shouldn't be able to walk up walls or across ceilings with boots on.

Plenty of people on the forum have tried to explain the basis of FDev's supercruse implementation. Its blatantly not good enough for you. So how about you use that big brain of yours to let us know the exact criteria FDev settled on. I would genuinely be interested and I bet others from the community would be too.

Then FDev can crack on and ignore it, just like they do to the other 99.99% of the forums.

 

[Ian Skippy]

Imagine playing a game where you accelerate to 2000x the speed of light, can jump 100 light years in seconds and get instantly transported across the galaxy upon death and thinking:"hmmm, I think the discrepancy between near-planet and near-star acceleration in supercruise, when using a speculative propulsion technique based on improbable assumptions, seems unrealistic!"

 

[Lacika2000]

Imagine playing a game where you accelerate to 2000x the speed of light, can jump 100 light years in seconds and get instantly transported across the galaxy upon death and thinking:"hmmm, I think the discrepancy between near-planet and near-star acceleration in supercruise, when using a speculative propulsion technique based on improbable assumptions, seems unrealistic!"

Exactly, because what little is left for internal consistency is also seemingly missing, once you start to measure things...

 

[Lacika2000]

1. For the record: My remark to that effect was a generalisation about the prolific number of threads about supercruise travel times - it was not addressed to you or aimed at you so please don't take it out of context.

As you were quoting my post in your reply, I have naturally implied your remark was addressed to me (just like this post of yours I am quoting now).

2. Elite is not a space flight simulation game - you need to go to Kerbal Space Program for that. Elite Dangerous has always used a very loose interpretation of physics to provide an entertaining gameplay experience. I used the term "handwavium" knowingly as that is exactly what the game design has incorporated - take an idea, manipulate it somehow to make it more "playable". If they removed the mechanism that you object to then you can just watch the player figures drop like a stone - imagine arriving at ANY SYSTEM and spending the hugely longer time required to supercruise away from the star to even the closest body. You really cannot see that this is probably the reason for the different effects?

Perhaps I am doing something wrong by looking things up, see this entry on Wikipedia for example.

The link I gave tipping it as " the bible" was written by a physicist (@DCello), he wrote:

"... Currently I’m a Theoretical Particle Physics & Cosmology Researcher. I’m a Doctor with a PhD in Astrophysics and Aerospace Engineering ... "

Also in that thread you will find another physicist @Monk who is still on these fora (@DCello has not been on here for a year). There are others too, maybe one will come in who can help you come to terms with the situation. I am no physicist (retired electronics engineer and schoolteacher, and an amateur astronomer) so I do not attempt to propound on the actual science personally (took me ages to get through the MOOC on the Higgs Boson ).

I was not doubting the title or the prior education of the author and the key contributors, I have simple reflected on the content having any (if at all) falsifiable claims. This is because I am trying to figure out how the supercruise mechanics actually works, instead of waving yet another 'pseudo-scientific' explanation as a substitute, or just simply resorting to tautology.

I am happy to settle with two possible outcomes (as I see it now developing):

1. We keep claiming the supercruise mechanics is governed by gravity (however 'loosely') and there is falsifiable explanation that highlights why we deviate from the expected effect in the vicinity of planets (or other low mass objects).
2. We stop claiming the supercruise mechanics is related to mass & gravity and help educate the community (and correct the 'bible') so that this false information will stop propagating.

Any helping hand in this endeavor is welcome. The calculations (at least the Newtonian or simple relativistic terms) are not that difficult and we have an extended database on the celestial objects in every system to test the actual observations.

 

[Lacika2000]

...

Plenty of people on the forum have tried to explain the basis of FDev's supercruse implementation. Its blatantly not good enough for you. So how about you use that big brain of yours to let us know the exact criteria FDev settled on. I would genuinely be interested and I bet others from the community would be too.

Then FDev can crack on and ignore it, just like they do to the other 99.99% of the forums.

If trying to understand a key gameplay mechanics and replicate the claims circulating in the community on how it works by calculating the claims is wrong, please count me guilty... Ultimately, it is not about big brains or small brains: it is about an internally consistent explanation of this key gameplay mechanics.

Interestingly, some of you playing the game for a long time was not even aware of this discrepancy. I guess now that you are, maybe a few of you actually would like to understand it why.

 

[Lacika2000]

The amount of gravity isn't the point. Supercruise isn't affected by gravity itself, or not in the same way it would affect you outside of supercruise. It's not momentum towards the planet. It's more resistance. And this resistance is based more on proximity than power. Using a star is the worst way to examine this because we can't get super close to the surface. You're outside the range when resistance is the strongest.

So for an experiment to see how much mass actually matters find planets and moons of assorted sizes. Take off from the planet starting when mass lock drops. Then measure how long it takes to go to 5 c. Do this towards the star, away from the star and perpendicular to the star. These will help factor out the star's contributing resistance.

My theory is that mass mostly only contributes to the diameter of the resistance sphere.

I did a test roughly 3.7 ls from a planet and headed towards the star. It was close to the time it took you going from the sun to reach 5c.

I am actually intrigued to test your claim that is is distance to any large mass object, not its gravity that governs the maximum speed in supercruise.

Do you have more actual measurement points by any chance? Any systems is fine, as I can retrieve the mass and generic distance data from the existing databases.

 

[FrogsFriend]

I feel at this point you're going to have to go out and start flying some circles around isolated stars and planets to get some actual data

 

[Para Handy]

.....
Perhaps I am doing something wrong by looking things up, see this entry on Wikipedia for example.
.....

Well gosh Wikipedia as an authority, whatever next? LOL However if you wish to go down that route perhaps you had be better advised to actually research the authority you quote. I refer of course to that Wikipedia entry's own link to what it considers "space flight simulation games" where you will find the following extract:

"... Some games in the genre aim to recreate a realistic portrayal of space flight, involving the calculation of orbits within a more complete physics simulation than pseudo space flight simulators. Others focus on gameplay rather than simulating space flight in all its facets. The realism of the latter games is limited to what the game designer deems to be appropriate for the gameplay, instead of focusing on the realism of moving the spacecraft in space. ... "

So again I am left wondering why on earth (or planetary body of your choice) you are so stuck on this pedantry - did you create this forum account just to amuse yourself with this nit-picking? Let's face it you have done nothing but post on this thread you started.

I am done with this, I think you need to either get on with playing the game or if you are so determined to stick with "real science" go buy Kerbal Space Program - it is on offer on Steam at the moment. No doubt you can find a forum for that where you can find fault.

 

[Florenus]

Exactly, because what little is left for internal consistency is also seemingly missing, once you start to measure things...

Its a game. They bend the rules for gameplay reasons. For example in normal space all ships have speed limit. Or you can see ships in SC hundreds of light seconds away, flying away from you with 200 times FTL speed, when in reality their image shouldn't even arrive to you and they should be somewhere else by the time you see them.

You reach higher speeds faster near stars, because otherwise some people would whine those forums to the ground, claiming boredom is killing them in SC.

 

[Taifu]

Ultimately, it is not about big brains or small brains: it is about an internally consistent explanation of this key gameplay mechanics.

Please, for the sake of the forums, do NOT investigate:

• Ship thrusters (in different gravitational conditions)
• Ships mass in relation to their physical size (especially the Anaconda)
• The effects of ship maneuverability and pilot seat position on the human body
• How the RemLock mask can keep the pilot alive and conscious after ship canopy blow out when being shot with... any ship weapon
• SRV driving performance or their thrusters (in different gravitational conditions)
• Any of the Engineering Bodging special effects
• Why Iron and other common materials in the galaxy can't be bought from the commodities market or gathered in large quantities by mining
• Why asteroids have a finite number of chunks available to collect and remain the size of a skyscraper when depleted
• What is keeping the rubbish, drinks and people sticking to one surface of an outpost when artificial gravity doesn't exist.

FDev is almost infamous for its "internally consistent" implementation of the Elite Dangerous game world. Those the ones I could be bothered to type out, without delving into the gaping fissure of MultiPew and its implications on... nearly everything in the Elite Dangerous universe. Ultimately, if you are looking for "internally consistent explanations", you need to look somewhere else, or just except the Elite Dangerous is just a game.

Interestingly, some of you playing the game for a long time was not even aware of this discrepancy. I guess now that you are, maybe a few of you actually would like to understand it why.

Sure, knock yourself out. Again, I would be genuinely interested if you could narrow down the actual criteria FDev used in their particular implementation of a theoretical propulsion system. But understand that I think that would have absolutely zero impact on not just how I play the game, but also FDev. Because supercruse is one of the few things in Elite Dangerous that isn't broken, and more to your point, works as expected and works in a consistent way.

That consistent way just happens to be very slightly inconsistent with Newtonian physics.

 

[Galactic Fork]

This got me really curious about the ins and outs of SuperCruise and gravity and I discovered something I think is interesting. As you move away from the star, the rate of increase of max speed increases, until you reach a certain point and then your max speed starts increasing at a slower pace. At 1600c, I was gaining 1 c every 2.65 seconds. At 1900c, it's down to a 1 c increase every 5.5 seconds.

So there is a definitely push from stars when moving away from them in supercruise that diminishes the farther away from them you are. I'm going to keep going and see if there's a point where the rate of increase of max speed is steady. Hopefully before it maxes at at 9999c. And I also want to see if there's a point where you can head towards a star and have your max speed increase without a star behind you.

Edit: Nevermind, looks like 2001 C is max.
Edit2: Well that's disappointing. until somewhere between .16 and .15 light years you can continue heading at 2001c towards the star. But that's useless for testing if the mass of the star matters because that's a huge span of distance.

 

[Para Handy]

Whilst perusing Chiggy's ELW hunt in the core expedition thread I noticed another thread that might appeal to some people:

So @Lacika2000 - how do you feel about indulging your fascination with investigations by joining-in with the Apollo-15 Expedition's Stellar Density Mapping project:

Apollo 15 Expedition Science Project: Stellar Density Mapping

Stellar Density Mapping - How To Guide Background - warning, very long thread As part of the Apollo 15 Expedition, we're going to be doing another round of stellar density data collection over the course of the trip. The route follows along the Sagittarius Gap for about 10 kly before crossing...

forums.frontier.co.uk

I'm sure you will find it right up your street.

 

[NyanTurian]

Now you are being daft. Where are you forced to undertake long trips in those situations? Map, don't map - your choice. Then you seek to imply that lots of short trips are onerous. Purlease ....

I'm out .. got a laptop to prise all the bloatware out of - that is actually more appealing than this thread! Enjoy finding someone else to bait... bye

Regardless of the insults thrown at me, I'm curious what journeys do you typically undertake? Yes, I make constant use of both galaxy and system maps.

 

[Lacika2000]

Well gosh Wikipedia as an authority, whatever next? LOL However if you wish to go down that route perhaps you had be better advised to actually research the authority you quote. I refer of course to that Wikipedia entry's own link to what it considers "space flight simulation games" where you will find the following extract:

"... Some games in the genre aim to recreate a realistic portrayal of space flight, involving the calculation of orbits within a more complete physics simulation than pseudo space flight simulators. Others focus on gameplay rather than simulating space flight in all its facets. The realism of the latter games is limited to what the game designer deems to be appropriate for the gameplay, instead of focusing on the realism of moving the spacecraft in space. ... "

So again I am left wondering why on earth (or planetary body of your choice) you are so stuck on this pedantry - did you create this forum account just to amuse yourself with this nit-picking? Let's face it you have done nothing but post on this thread you started.

I am done with this, I think you need to either get on with playing the game or if you are so determined to stick with "real science" go buy Kerbal Space Program - it is on offer on Steam at the moment. No doubt you can find a forum for that where you can find fault.

It seems you have run out of useable arguments supporting how 'gravity' or 'mass' is actually related to supercruise max speed. That's not my fault... as I have mentioned earlier, I am happy to verify falsifiable arguments and go the extra mile (if needed) to actually calculate things.

 

[Lacika2000]

Whilst perusing Chiggy's ELW hunt in the core expedition thread I noticed another thread that might appeal to some people:

So @Lacika2000 - how do you feel about indulging your fascination with investigations by joining-in with the Apollo-15 Expedition's Stellar Density Mapping project:

Apollo 15 Expedition Science Project: Stellar Density Mapping

Stellar Density Mapping - How To Guide Background - warning, very long thread As part of the Apollo 15 Expedition, we're going to be doing another round of stellar density data collection over the course of the trip. The route follows along the Sagittarius Gap for about 10 kly before crossing...

forums.frontier.co.uk

I'm sure you will find it right up your street.

Thank you for suggesting, I will check it out.