Utopian Enforcer Cannon is a multi-cannon ?

[Kyokushin]

velocity is not constant, acceleration is.

I can only say look at the links below:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceleration
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed

If your statement would be true, then rockets will be not neccessary.
Rocket is creating thrust, thrust makes acceeleration. When rocket is turned off, there is no thrust then there is no acceleration. Rocket is moving with gained speed.
Also about weapons. If you shooting from cannon, the ball acceleration is caused by explosion inside the cannon. After explosion ball is moving in gained speed.

Of course we are talking about vacuum and no stron gravity field.

 

[Riktar]

So to recap

1. OP asks about a particular weapon and it's capabilities.

2. Then OP makes a bass-ackwards physics statement.

3. Members point out the fallacy of statement.

4. OP stands by his statement.

5. Much humour is derived from reading replies by other forum members.

6. OP disappears from thread for several pages.

7. OP re-appears and tries to walk back statement by way of yelling "I was just kidding"

8. Forum members call on the OP's explanantion.

9. Further humor is derived from ongoing statements.

10. Original question is still not resolved and OP disappears again.

I think that covers it.

 

[ronin516]

Especially as Newton's first law is the most applicable to the scenario

The only way that would make a difference (if you were correct) would be in much much much much greater distances than applicable in the game. So for the game they should just have the same damage regardless of distance. Accept for energy based weapons which would loose integrity in space no matter what and still dissipate.

 

[satrycus]

I think it's funny that you throw in some pseudo-math and troll physics and get 220 responses but serious discussions (or pretty much any post to the suggestion forum) get a handful before dropping to page 2 and forgotten.

At least I'll know how to craft my next thread in the suggestions forum so it gets looked at. I got some nifty ones. Like how the radiant energy around hull (especially when close to star or scooping inside it) would physically make the way Elite ships cool their systems impossible. Throw some thermodynamic equations in there.

Then if i need some real attention, i'll just start it with a series of equations with based on the somewhat observable assumption that Supercruise operates by making the ship invisible to gravity, yet none of the other forces (strong weak nuclear reactions and EM ). So to an outside observer, whether they're in supercruise or not, you exhibit no gravity so Fgrav is proportional to (m1 * m2) /d. So if Fgrav is 0, then m1 or m2 or both is 0. Since in order for supercruise to mask gravity from your ship yet allow EM and other forces to interact with you (so you can fuel scoop) you simultaneously need to exhibit a force on objects physically (allowing you to scoop them) or put you in danger of colliding them, so F=ma must be non-zero, and we know acceleration changes in SC so mass must be non-zero to external observers (yet we knowmass can't be non-zero if it has no gravity. The only conclusion is that the SC puts your ship in a fluctuating quantum state where mass exists and doesn't exist possibly creating an exploit where by constantly observing an object gravitationally would prohibit it from interacting with external objects via any other force ...allowing it to pass through physical objects as well as blinding the ship visually.

0/10, must try harder.

 

[Alex Brentnall]

So to recap

1. OP asks about a particular weapon and it's capabilities.

2. Then OP makes a bass-ackwards physics statement.

3. Members point out the fallacy of statement.

4. OP stands by his statement.

5. Much humour is derived from reading replies by other forum members.

6. OP disappears from thread for several pages.

7. OP re-appears and tries to walk back statement by way of yelling "I was just kidding"

8. Forum members call on the OP's explanantion.

9. Further humor is derived from ongoing statements.

10. Original question is still not resolved and OP disappears again.

I think that covers it.

+1 for updating me
I posted a few at the start of this and left when I saw that the lunatics were running the asylum.
Im just going to go on record of saying we all deserve a telling off for being off topic. But OP deserves a telling off for trolling (or "kidding").

On-Topic:
Spitballing here but I'd say they chose to buff the multicannon at small sizes only because its one of the most popular weapons and will persuade new players in Eagles/Vipers to sign up for powerplay. In a way it fits with the Alliance lore of strength through numbers of smaller ships not one giant capital class.
Also insert generic response about Just because its not what you wanted doesn't mean its not useful... etc etc...

 

[John Smallberries]

 

[yyy]

So it's a multi-cannon that does more damage than a normal multi-cannon and is limited to class 1 fixed. You're kidding me right?

What are you enforcing with this weapon; your ineptitude at loadout decisions?

I thought the idea with this was it was a cannon that did more damage similar to the damage a plasma cannon does but with the power usage of a normal cannon (along with slower refire rate like plasma). And as a normal cannon, it would be available in all class ranges.

This multi-cannon is garbage. If FD had issues with balancing a multi-cannon in the higher classes due to damage and such, what in the simulated galaxy would make them choose that weapon to augment for power play?

and while i'm ranting. When are projectile weapon damage going to go up as distance increases similar to how energy weapon damage goes down with distance? Cannon/plasma/rail fire increases in kinetic energy the more distance to target. If we're going to simulate energy weapon fall-off, we should do the same for projectile pick-up. Instead it seems FD treats decreased damage due to distance the same regardless of weapon. Not asking for 100% accurate kinematics, but it would be trivial to inverse energy weapon's dropoff for projectile weapons.

I put on my physics degree hat.

In free space a projectile neither loses or gains kinetic energy unless a force acts upon it. So if a projectile leaves the cannon at a specific speed say x m/s even after travelling 1km to its target, the projectile will have exactly the same speed. The purpose of a projectile is to deliver the kinetic energy it gains when it left the cannon to its target. So provided there was a perfectly inelastic collision with its target you will see maximum amount of damage, but under no circumstance can the damage exceed the original kinetic energy. Usually the amount of damage is less than the kinetic energy because heat and light is also produced and the projectile will induce vibrations in the ship's hull which in turn will induce pressure waves inside the oxygen atmosphere of the ship. So the kinetic energy of the projectile could be described like this:

Total kinetic energy = Kinetic energy at the point it leaves the multi-cannon = energy at time of impact (i.e. thermal + light + vibrational energy + energy required to deform/pierce ship's hull).

An energy weapon is more difficult to describe since there is no equivalent in RL. The only real example is a laser and the beam certainly doesn't gain energy after leaving the laser.

Physics hat off.

 

[novonic]

Well, if you are in a perfectly circular orbit, then acceleration would be constant. And acceleration does not necessarily change an objects speed, it changes its velocity, which is its speed and direction combined. In a perfectly circular orbit, both your speed and acceleration are constant.

Perhaps this is the source of the confusion?

 

[Chalito]

Well, if you are in a perfectly circular orbit, then acceleration would be constant. And acceleration does not necessarily change an objects speed, it changes its velocity, which is its speed and direction combined. In a perfectly circular orbit, both your speed and acceleration are constant.

Perhaps this is the source of the confusion?

Shhhhh!! no! come on, you'll spoil the fun

 

[ChubbyBunneh]

Well, if you are in a perfectly circular orbit, then acceleration would be constant. And acceleration does not necessarily change an objects speed, it changes its velocity, which is its speed and direction combined. In a perfectly circular orbit, both your speed and acceleration are constant.

Perhaps this is the source of the confusion?

But bullets don't travel in perfect circles which was the context of the original claim. Except that fireball gun in NES Contra, those bullets did go in circles.

I think I've figured it out. OP must be a visitor to our world from the digital world via quantum teleportation like Tron.

 

[Munial]

can we sticky this thread as a warning to others?

 

[Tacheel]

really do not know what to say....
hopes OP ain't a physics teacher, but knowing the world we live in, it wouldn't surprise me.

An object is on constant acceleration unless a force is applied??? oh really! wow - I see the world in a whole new light now - no wonder things didn't make sense before.

 

[Jynessa Loraeyn]

I think it's funny that you throw in some pseudo-math and troll physics and get 220 responses but serious discussions (or pretty much any post to the suggestion forum) get a handful before dropping to page 2 and forgotten.

At least I'll know how to craft my next thread in the suggestions forum so it gets looked at. I got some nifty ones. Like how the radiant energy around hull (especially when close to star or scooping inside it) would physically make the way Elite ships cool their systems impossible. Throw some thermodynamic equations in there.

Then if i need some real attention, i'll just start it with a series of equations with based on the somewhat observable assumption that Supercruise operates by making the ship invisible to gravity, yet none of the other forces (strong weak nuclear reactions and EM ). So to an outside observer, whether they're in supercruise or not, you exhibit no gravity so Fgrav is proportional to (m1 * m2) /d. So if Fgrav is 0, then m1 or m2 or both is 0. Since in order for supercruise to mask gravity from your ship yet allow EM and other forces to interact with you (so you can fuel scoop) you simultaneously need to exhibit a force on objects physically (allowing you to scoop them) or put you in danger of colliding them, so F=ma must be non-zero, and we know acceleration changes in SC so mass must be non-zero to external observers (yet we knowmass can't be non-zero if it has no gravity. The only conclusion is that the SC puts your ship in a fluctuating quantum state where mass exists and doesn't exist possibly creating an exploit where by constantly observing an object gravitationally would prohibit it from interacting with external objects via any other force ...allowing it to pass through physical objects as well as blinding the ship visually.

Hey... I just thought you ought to consider... if you're truly just trying to craft your posts to elicit discussion... well then you've shot yourself in the foot a little. What you're saying now is "I was trolling the whole time". So the results of that will be...

1. People who do not believe you - they'll just keep thinking you screwed up and now you're desperately backpedalling... they'll be less likely to take any future posts of yours seriously.

2. People who do believe you - they'll think you're trolling with every post you make now... so they will also be less likely to take your future posts seriously.

This seems kind of counterproductive if your intention was to have any kind of discussion from now on.

How about this? You could just own up and say "sorry guys, I did mix up velocity and acceleration - my bad! Hilarious thread" and show you're big enough to say when you're wrong. I think most of us will think more of you for that - we all have the right to fluff our lines now and again and make mistakes. There might be some ribbing down the line, but you could just laugh along and defuse it.

If you're really going to go with the whole, "I am such an expert internet troll" preening routine, isn't that kind of messing up in itself even more? If you're really all about crafting your exquisitely subtle posts to elicit what you want, wouldn't it make more sense, even in that situation, to pretend to show humility and persuade people you're a big enough guy to own up to a simple mistake? Then people would be more likely to believe you or take your posts seriously in future right?

 

[noodle]

This is the first time I have read someone's posts with my mouth hanging open in sheer incredulity.

The ego continues to exert force upon an argument long after it has been proved flawed, thus ensuring a constantly increasing velocity

 

[Barulf McBaren]

Well, if you are in a perfectly circular orbit, then acceleration would be constant. And acceleration does not necessarily change an objects speed, it changes its velocity, which is its speed and direction combined. In a perfectly circular orbit, both your speed and acceleration are constant.

Perhaps this is the source of the confusion?

Well, an acceleration of 0 is also fairly constant I guess

 

[Slippery Jim DiGriz]

Actually as the universe is expanding and the rate of expansion is (apparently) increasing then the distance between any two given points in spacetime is increasing and the rate of increase is itself increasing it could be said that the OP is actually sort of almost correct (but not in the way he thought).

Of course this "acceleration" is tiny and as the distance between points is also increasing it all sort of cancels out.

This is all due to the vast amounts of dark matter (thought to exist) between the stars and galaxies exerting a gravitational force on everything else.

 

[Vandaahl]

Actually as the universe is expanding and the rate of expansion is (apparently) increasing then the distance between any two given points in spacetime is increasing and the rate of increase is itself increasing it could be said that the OP is actually sort of almost correct (but not in the way he thought).

Not really An expanding universe means the distance between galaxies increases, not the galaxies themselves. Their size is determined by their mass and should remain the same.

Or not, thinking about that old "balloon example"

Anyway, he's wrong

 

[Julio Montega]

Not really An expanding universe means the distance between galaxies increases, not the galaxies themselves. Their size is determined by their mass and should remain the same.

You call them "galaxies" i call them "giant space amoeba", just creeping away from each other, horribly horribly slow.

 

[Richard Voorhees]

...the thread that keeps on giving.

 

[Monk]

...the thread that keeps on giving.

And Carl Sagan keeps spinning in his grave...OMG, where is he getting that rotational acceleration! OP is on to something!