Some good thoughts, but I think #1 is incorrect. I have a very intense green laser that is visible to the naked eye in daylight, but that is because as it passes through a medium (atmosphere) light gets bounced back to my eyes as dust, vapor, etc scatters the laser light. This is why the laser is seen even better in fog.
You shouldn't be able to see a laser in vacuum unless it's coming right at your eye, I think. (Could be wrong.)
There are things called Particle lasers that operate using ionized particles (such as CO2) that diffract the light inside them as the ions disperse, which is why the lasers in elite only have an effective range of a few kilometers because the ionized particles in the laser beam eventually disperse and create light as they are dispersing eventualy terminating the beam.
In the lore of elite, some of your reactor fuel goes into creating the ionized particles for your lasers (which is why your fuel consumption rate is higher with energy weapons than with physical weapons)
the auto industry uses a Co2 laser to clean rust off of metal during car repairs.
1. Of course you would, they are high power lasers
2. The ship AI simulates these sounds as has been stated by frontier and lore, if your ship looses atmosphere you loose sound
3. Temporal relativity is impossible because the ship itself isnt traveling faster than light.
The FSD is propelling the ship by warping the 4th spatial dimension of the universe, but the ship itself is only moving a few hundred meters per second, which is why you drop out of supercruse/hyperspace if it malfunctions.
The damage comes from the Frame shift drive shifting the quantum density of your ship to allow it to move the mass of your ship because normal matter is incapable of traveling faster than light.
If the FSD fails the damage comes from the quantum density of your ship "rubberbanding" back to normal instead of at an even rate which can cause the mass of your ship to expand against and contract away from itself as it normalizes, which also can cause its kenetic momentum to change momentum.
4. It helps have a better flight path by inherently favouring pitch
5. Because the shields dont go all the way to the bottom on the SRV
6. What ate you talking about, everything in the game is using newtonian motion, unless you are mistaking flight assist for not having newtonian motion
7. Quantum density and the mass/speed ratio prevents the ship from taking damage during supercruise/hyperspace. Its the same principle as a ping pong ball being able to penetrate a wood board without it being damaged itself.
8. There is something called shield harmonics that you should look up.
9. The ship AI slows you down while landing gear is deployed because its expecting you to attempt landing not because of drag.
10. Stop trying to poke holes where there arent holes to be found
Sounds like a lot of made up reasons to maintain stale scifi tropes.
1. no
2. lame
3. Does not require FTL travel. What about sitting near a black hole?
4. Not as far as I am concerned.
5. So boost up, roll over and land upside down, or on the side, or on the front, or on the back
6. My bad. I meant speed limits and my brain farted
7. The ping pong ball is damage, just slightly.
8. Made up mumbo jumbo just to justify
9. Lame. The pilot is in control.
10. There are so many holes in this game it isn't even funny. But the holes do make for a more playable game which is the real reason for the holes. You would have been better off just admitting that fact up front.
Sounds like a lot of made up reasons to maintain stale scifi tropes.
1. no
2. lame
3. Does not require FTL travel. What about sitting near a black hole?
4. Not as far as I am concerned.
5. So boost up, roll over and land upside down, or on the side, or on the front, or on the back
6. My bad. I meant speed limits and my brain farted
7. The ping pong ball is damage, just slightly.
8. Made up mumbo jumbo just to justify
9. Lame. The pilot is in control.
10. There are so many holes in this game it isn't even funny. But the holes do make for a more playable game which is the real reason for the holes. You would have been better off just admitting that fact up front.
1. someone needs to open a book
2. someone is nitpicky
3. The ship AI stops you before you get close enough to a black hole for it to be a problem, but just like a black hole the FSD can warp space. however in hyperspace the ship is going so fast that the gravity of a black hole even if your ship grazed the event horizon the black hole wouldn't affect it because the ship is going 20,000 times the speed of light which is faster than the x-rays that escape a black hole's gravity
5. ok?
6. ah gotcha
7. not enough to be a problem
8. not made up jumbo. black holes & quasars affect quantum density naturally. neutron stars do it too but to a lesser degree. I suggest looking up "frame dragging" because its part of the principle the Frame shift drive operates on. it involves astronomical bodies affecting the 4th spatial dimension of the universe, and nasa has proven it exists.
9. yes the pilot is in control but the ship is always assiting the pilot
10. yes there are holes in the game but not where you are trying to poke them.
I'd actually quite like a pseudo realistic sound option.
Despite there being no air for sound to travel in, I'd like my ships computer to simulate the speed of sound (but maybe a bit faster), so explosions have a delayed boom and whatnot.
I'd actually quite like a pseudo realistic sound option.
Despite there being no air for sound to travel in, I'd like my ships computer to simulate the speed of sound (but maybe a bit faster), so explosions have a delayed boom and whatnot.
Just observation: Some people here are defending sound in space as though the OP suggested to remove that feature completely for everyone, whereby he just wants to have an option to selectively mute that source of sound on per-user basis. So why should such a switch bother anyone who likes sound in space, I don't get.
Just observation: Some people here are defending sound in space as though the OP suggested to remove that feature completely for everyone, whereby he just wants to have an option to selectively mute that source of sound on per-user basis. So why should such a switch bother anyone who likes sound in space, I don't get.
I wouldn't mind the option to disable sounds, but arbitrarily calling things in the game unrealistic comes from a stance of non-acceptance, being uninformed, or both.
Of which the OP has been open minded about said explanations
Strangely enough, light itself is invisible. You can only see it when it either a; goes directly into your eyes, or b; when it is reflected off an object. If you shine a light across a total vacuum in such a way that you cannot see the light source you would never see that light. However, if there was some dust you could see where the light beam was every time dust impinged upon the beam, as it would reflect light at that point.
3. The ship AI stops you before you get close enough to a black hole for it to be a problem, but just like a black hole the FSD can warp space. however in hyperspace the ship is going so fast that the gravity of a black hole even if your ship grazed the event horizon the black hole wouldn't affect it because the ship is going 20,000 times the speed of light which is faster than the x-rays that escape a black hole's gravity
Whether we are talking visible light, x-rays, or any other form of Electromagnetic Radiation they all travel at the same speed in a vacuum - the speed of light. X-rays are no exception. No form of EM can escape a black hole BUT consumed matter may emit X-rays before passing the event horizon. See https://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/astronomy-terms/black-hole3.htm for more information.
However, the event horizon of a black hole can be considered synonymous with the atmospheric/gravitational boundary of a planet - effectively the ship's safety systems prevent passing the point of no return.
On the matter of sounds in space and reality, other than cockpit generated noise I would not expect to hear anything - maybe feel own-ship engines but not hear them. Therefore, the only audio I would expect to hear in a space based cockpit modelling the real world exactly are those generated by cockpit instrumentation essentially. Maybe also hull damage effects but not much else.
Don't really get why people are getting bent out of shape over the presence of sound.
FDev have provided (or, at least, endorsed) a perfectly plausible explanation for how/why it's there so it's a bit daft to complain that it's "unrealistic".
You might as well complain that FSDs or Shields ruin your immersion too.
I guess it wouldn't be a bad thing if FDev did implement an "Exterior Sounds" slider, for those who want a more conventional experience, though.
Presumably, the game must know which sounds are "external", since it manages to attenuate them when your canopy breaches, so it should be possible to apply a slider to all those sounds.
I think you can blame the latest Star Trek movies and similar for that - personally, I think it is nit-picking to complain about it but I also believe there is no downside for FD to (eventually) add support for separate scaling based on source (own-ship or external) - default being the two are locked at the same level.
Saying that, I feel that FDev have tried to do a really good job of providing a very good item of entertainment. If I BELIEVE that the ship systems are capable of translating what they can 'hear' into something that I can hear, I find it very easy to "suspend my disbelief". This I CHOOSE to do. If other Players feel that something is unrealistic enough that they cannot believe it to be true that is THEIR problem.
We all have different opinions and red lines as far as realism and immersion in games are concerned.
There is stuff I would like to change that others do not want changed, and there is stuff others want changed I do not want changed etc.
In general I think FDev is doing a good job mediating between playability, fun and realism.
We all have different opinions and red lines as far as realism and immersion in games are concerned.
There is stuff I would like to change that others do not want changed, and there is stuff others want changed I do not want changed etc.
In general I think FDev is doing a good job mediating between playability, fun and realism.
The current ambient audio implementation is a fair compromise and has a strong precedent with prior art - both in terms of cinema/tv and existing games.
Strangely enough, light itself is invisible. You can only see it when it either a; goes directly into your eyes, or b; when it is reflected off an object. If you shine a light across a total vacuum in such a way that you cannot see the light source you would never see that light. However, if there was some dust you could see where the light beam was every time dust impinged upon the beam, as it would reflect light at that point.
Which is why we should not be able to see lasers in space. Point 1. Unless you make up some mumbo jumbo to justify it like a lot of other "holes" in the game.
Don't really get why people are getting bent out of shape over the presence of sound.
FDev have provided (or, at least, endorsed) a perfectly plausible explanation for how/why it's there so it's a bit daft to complain that it's "unrealistic".
You might as well complain that FSDs or Shields ruin your immersion too.
I guess it wouldn't be a bad thing if FDev did implement an "Exterior Sounds" slider, for those who want a more conventional experience, though.
Presumably, the game must know which sounds are "external", since it manages to attenuate them when your canopy breaches, so it should be possible to apply a slider to all those sounds.
I think you can blame the latest Star Trek movies and similar for that - personally, I think it is nit-picking to complain about it but I also believe there is no downside for FD to (eventually) add support for separate scaling based on source (own-ship or external) - default being the two are locked at the same level.
Agreed with both. The sound is good the way it is IMHO, especially with the existing explanations, plus taking into account the aspect of it just being a game. However, if it's trivial for FD to add an option to adjust the 'external' sound levels, and that improves the game for OP and a few others, then sure, why not.
Thinking about it, it might actually add something to the sound for everybody.
Personally, I reckon one of the coolest sounds in the game is the creaking and groaning your ship makes as you de-orbit.
If FDev did decide to provide a facility to attenuate exterior sounds, they'd probably need to add some routine and situational interior sounds.
There could be a humming sound from the PP, a rumbling from the thrusters as well as various clunks and creaks as you manoeuvre your ship as well as sparking a thumping noises when you're attacked or hit something.
That'd be required for those who wanted "realistic" sound and it'd also improve things for everybody else too.
Which is why we should not be able to see lasers in space. Point 1. Unless you make up some mumbo jumbo to justify it like a lot of other "holes" in the game.
This is what is called willful ignorance.
When someone continues to claim mumbo jumbo even though real life scientific studies support the explanation.
This is what is called willful ignorance.
When someone continues to claim mumbo jumbo even though real life scientific studies support the explanation.
8. not made up jumbo. black holes & quasars affect quantum density naturally. neutron stars do it too but to a lesser degree. I suggest looking up "frame dragging" because its part of the principle the Frame shift drive operates on. it involves astronomical bodies affecting the 4th spatial dimension of the universe, and nasa has proven it exists.
No surer sign of mumbo-jumbo than words with 'quantum' thrown in front of them. Anyway giving the benefit of the doubt on this one, could you explain what exactly you mean by quantum density? And what are you saying the effects of BHs and NSs are?
I suggest looking up "frame dragging" because its part of the principle the Frame shift drive operates on. it involves astronomical bodies affecting the 4th spatial dimension of the universe, and nasa has proven it exists.
Frame dragging is a consequence of rotating bodies in General Relativity. Gravity Probe B measured this along with another effect.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with a 4th spatial dimension.
For reference:
"Gravity Probe B, launched 20 April 2004, is a space experiment testing two fundamental predictions of Einstein's theory of General Relativity (GR), the geodetic and frame-dragging effects, by means of cryogenic gyroscopes in Earth orbit. Data collection started 28 August 2004 and ended 14 August 2005. Analysis of the data from all four gyroscopes results in a geodetic drift rate of -6,601.8+/- 18.3 mas/yr and a frame-dragging drift rate of -37.2 +/- 7.2 mas/yr, to be compared with the GR predictions of -6,606.1 mas/yr and -39.2 mas/yr, respectively (`mas' is milliarc-second; 1mas = 4.848 x 10-9 rad)."
Quick notes below for anyone not familiar with reading those type of abstracts:
In essence General Relativity predicts that there should be very small effects on gyroscopes orbiting a spinning body. The prediction from General Relativity for this instance is -0.00184 degrees per year for one effect (the geodetic effect) and -0.0000109 degrees per year for the other (frame dragging). (I've converted from mas/yr to degrees per year)
When any experiment is done, there are always inaccuracies in measurements, and results are expressed as the result along with a measure of the inaccuracy.
Looking at the geodetic result we have: -6,601.8 +/- 18.3 mas/yr. So the measurement is -6,601.8 mas/yr, but due to the limits in accuracy the actual result could be from -6,620.1 mas/yr to -6,583.5 mas/yr. The result aligns very well with the prediction of -6,606.1 mas/yr.
Looking at the frame dragging result, we have: -37.2 +/- 7.2 mas/yr. So the measurement is -37.2 mas/yr but due to the limits in accuracy the actual result could be from -44.4 mas/yr to -30 mas/yr. Although the measurement of -37.2 is slightly off from the prediction of -39.2 mas/yr, the prediction is still well within the bounds of the measurement.
Without being harsh, you are kinda making it sound like you're talking mumbo-jumbo...
No surer sign of mumbo-jumbo than words with 'quantum' thrown in front of them. Anyway giving the benefit of the doubt on this one, could you explain what exactly you mean by quantum density? And what are you saying the effects of BHs and NSs are?
Frame dragging is a consequence of rotating bodies in General Relativity. Gravity Probe B measured this along with another effect.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with a 4th spatial dimension.
For reference:
"Gravity Probe B, launched 20 April 2004, is a space experiment testing two fundamental predictions of Einstein's theory of General Relativity (GR), the geodetic and frame-dragging effects, by means of cryogenic gyroscopes in Earth orbit. Data collection started 28 August 2004 and ended 14 August 2005. Analysis of the data from all four gyroscopes results in a geodetic drift rate of -6,601.8+/- 18.3 mas/yr and a frame-dragging drift rate of -37.2 +/- 7.2 mas/yr, to be compared with the GR predictions of -6,606.1 mas/yr and -39.2 mas/yr, respectively (`mas' is milliarc-second; 1mas = 4.848 x 10-9 rad)."
Quick notes below for anyone not familiar with reading those type of abstracts:
In essence General Relativity predicts that there should be very small effects on gyroscopes orbiting a spinning body. The prediction from General Relativity for this instance is -0.00184 degrees per year for one effect (the geodetic effect) and -0.0000109 degrees per year for the other (frame dragging). (I've converted from mas/yr to degrees per year)
When any experiment is done, there are always inaccuracies in measurements, and results are expressed as the result along with a measure of the inaccuracy.
Looking at the geodetic result we have: -6,601.8 +/- 18.3 mas/yr. So the measurement is -6,601.8 mas/yr, but due to the limits in accuracy the actual result could be from -6,620.1 mas/yr to -6,583.5 mas/yr. The result aligns very well with the prediction of -6,606.1 mas/yr.
Looking at the frame dragging result, we have: -37.2 +/- 7.2 mas/yr. So the measurement is -37.2 mas/yr but due to the limits in accuracy the actual result could be from -44.4 mas/yr to -30 mas/yr. Although the measurement of -37.2 is slightly off from the prediction of -39.2 mas/yr, the prediction is still well within the bounds of the measurement.
Quantum density affects the ratio of volume to mass that a particle takes up, because of how black holes warp space they can affect the quantum density of nearby mass.
And frame dragging absolutely involves the 4th spatial dimension because of how it affects the curvature of space. the 4th spatial dimension is part of what makes gravity do what it does. Even nasa said that frame dragging involves the warping of space.
So boost up, roll over and land upside down, or on the side, or on the front, or on the back
