Wankel engines in space?

CATPAIN KIRK

CATPAIN KIRK
TL;DR: Forward maneuvering thrusters are quite a bit undersized compared to main thrusters, so braking should take longer than accelerating, whereas accelerating to full backward speed should take way longer than accelarating forward.

Ok - so far I've found EDs flightmode to be quite satisfying, but one thing puzzles me - the craft currently in the game have main thrusters at their rear-end and multiple maneuvering thrusters arranged around the ship, yet (in my control scheme), the ship can be set to reverse its main thrusters at the blink of an eye, moving backwards at the same speed they move forward only shortly thereafter.

It must have been asked before, but I performed a forum search and kept checking for an hour now but couldn't find any satisfying answer:

The main thrusters are there for propelling the ship forward. To slow it down, the board computer will disable them and activate forward maneuvering thrusters which will then slow it down. Of course forward maneuvering thrusters are quite a bit undersized compared to main thrusters (at least judging from their visual representation), so braking should take longer than accelerating, whereas accelerating to full backward speed should take way longer than accelarating forward.

To achieve current mechanics, ships would need to be designed with an equally sized propulsion drive in the stern as well as the aft, which is obviously not the case.

The only engine capable of this would be a ****el engine, but that would obviously not work in space, so what's the devs explanation on this?

[edit]: Sorry - obviously interfered with the word censor unwillingly - the engine I'm referring to is this.

[edit2]: Apparently, links are wrongly censored as well - I was referring to a wunkel engine (replace the U with an A)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

popuptoaster

P
CATPAIN KIRK said:
TL;DR: Forward maneuvering thrusters are quite a bit undersized compared to main thrusters, so braking should take longer than accelerating, whereas accelerating to full backward speed should take way longer than accelarating forward.

Ok - so far I've found EDs flightmode to be quite satisfying, but one thing puzzles me - the craft currently in the game have main thrusters at their rear-end and multiple maneuvering thrusters arranged around the ship, yet (in my control scheme), the ship can be set to reverse its main thrusters at the blink of an eye, moving backwards at the same speed they move forward only shortly thereafter.

It must have been asked before, but I performed a forum search and kept checking for an hour now but couldn't find any satisfying answer:

The main thrusters are there for propelling the ship forward. To slow it down, the board computer will disable them and activate forward maneuvering thrusters which will then slow it down. Of course forward maneuvering thrusters are quite a bit undersized compared to main thrusters (at least judging from their visual representation), so braking should take longer than accelerating, whereas accelerating to full backward speed should take way longer than accelarating forward.

To achieve current mechanics, ships would need to be designed with an equally sized propulsion drive in the stern as well as the aft, which is obviously not the case.

The only engine capable of this would be a ****el engine, but that would obviously not work in space, so what's the devs explanation on this?

[edit]: Sorry - obviously interfered with the word censor unwillingly - the engine I'm referring to is this.

[edit2]: Apparently, links are wrongly censored as well - I was referring to a wunkel engine (replace the U with an A)
Click to expand...


The flight model is set up for gameplay not realism, but if you want a handwavium explanation then the large thruster exhausts you can see could be that big because the frameshift drive uses them as exhausts as well, meaning while they look larger they are in fact only the same size as the front ones.
 

CATPAIN KIRK

CATPAIN KIRK
popuptoaster said:
The flight model is set up for gameplay not realism, but if you want a handwavium explanation then the large thruster exhausts you can see could be that big because the frameshift drive uses them as exhausts as well, meaning while they look larger they are in fact only the same size as the front ones.
Click to expand...

Well - that's quite counter-intuitive and whilst I have exploited the fact that my ship will reverse it's directional vector within seconds to my adavntage more often than not, it still feels wrong.

Nice attemt to explain though :).
 

Darojax

Darojax
It's realism vs playability and good looks. You'll find that in the game here and there, for example regarding the combat; no realistic newtonian physics in play like it was in Frontier: Elite 2, for example.
 

Mazhurg

Mazhurg
CATPAIN KIRK said:
Well - that's quite counter-intuitive and whilst I have exploited the fact that my ship will reverse it's directional vector within seconds to my adavntage more often than not, it still feels wrong.

Nice attemt to explain though :).
Click to expand...

Can you imagine the players (many - not all) reactions if the reverse thrusters where weak enough from apparent size to take a proportionate time to stop the ships?

There would be competitions to count the amount of bug splats in front and in the stations... :D
 

NeoRacer

N
Make up (Pretend) any fiction you want. Its a game.


CATPAIN KIRK said:
TL;DR: Forward maneuvering thrusters are quite a bit undersized compared to main thrusters, so braking should take longer than accelerating, whereas accelerating to full backward speed should take way longer than accelarating forward.

Ok - so far I've found EDs flightmode to be quite satisfying, but one thing puzzles me - the craft currently in the game have main thrusters at their rear-end and multiple maneuvering thrusters arranged around the ship, yet (in my control scheme), the ship can be set to reverse its main thrusters at the blink of an eye, moving backwards at the same speed they move forward only shortly thereafter.

It must have been asked before, but I performed a forum search and kept checking for an hour now but couldn't find any satisfying answer:

The main thrusters are there for propelling the ship forward. To slow it down, the board computer will disable them and activate forward maneuvering thrusters which will then slow it down. Of course forward maneuvering thrusters are quite a bit undersized compared to main thrusters (at least judging from their visual representation), so braking should take longer than accelerating, whereas accelerating to full backward speed should take way longer than accelarating forward.

To achieve current mechanics, ships would need to be designed with an equally sized propulsion drive in the stern as well as the aft, which is obviously not the case.

The only engine capable of this would be a ****el engine, but that would obviously not work in space, so what's the devs explanation on this?

[edit]: Sorry - obviously interfered with the word censor unwillingly - the engine I'm referring to is this.

[edit2]: Apparently, links are wrongly censored as well - I was referring to a wunkel engine (replace the U with an A)
Click to expand...
 

Adept

Adept
The reverse thrusters have been toned down a little... and more may be coming. I know they need that oomph for making the ships fly like fighter planes banking in the aether (and I do like that) but I'd still prefer if accelerations were slower... especially when hitting the retros.
 

ZaphodBeeble

ZaphodBeeble
CATPAIN KIRK said:
The only engine capable of this would be a w@nkel engine, but that would obviously not work in space, so what's the devs explanation on this?
Click to expand...

I don't understand how a rotary engine, as used in the Mazda RX-8 and other Mazda cars, can be used in space or how it can be 'ported' to be used in space?
 

Bingo Brewster

Bingo Brewster
CATPAIN KIRK said:
TL;DR: Forward maneuvering thrusters are quite a bit undersized compared to main thrusters, so braking should take longer than accelerating, whereas accelerating to full backward speed should take way longer than accelarating forward.

Ok - so far I've found EDs flightmode to be quite satisfying, but one thing puzzles me - the craft currently in the game have main thrusters at their rear-end and multiple maneuvering thrusters arranged around the ship, yet (in my control scheme), the ship can be set to reverse its main thrusters at the blink of an eye, moving backwards at the same speed they move forward only shortly thereafter.

It must have been asked before, but I performed a forum search and kept checking for an hour now but couldn't find any satisfying answer:

The main thrusters are there for propelling the ship forward. To slow it down, the board computer will disable them and activate forward maneuvering thrusters which will then slow it down. Of course forward maneuvering thrusters are quite a bit undersized compared to main thrusters (at least judging from their visual representation), so braking should take longer than accelerating, whereas accelerating to full backward speed should take way longer than accelarating forward.

To achieve current mechanics, ships would need to be designed with an equally sized propulsion drive in the stern as well as the aft, which is obviously not the case.

The only engine capable of this would be a ****el engine, but that would obviously not work in space, so what's the devs explanation on this?

[edit]: Sorry - obviously interfered with the word censor unwillingly - the engine I'm referring to is this.

[edit2]: Apparently, links are wrongly censored as well - I was referring to a wunkel engine (replace the U with an A)
Click to expand...
Directional thrusters, like on the current crop of VTOL aircraft would achieve this. And if I'm not mistaken this was the posit put forward by by the designers.

The designers have also explained that if reverse is less powerful that forward, then the craft would take much longer to brake, stop.

Despite the nod to game play, basically they are still dealing with real physics here. (One of the reasons they are not gong to magically increase the cargo capacity of of the Sidewinder as some have suggested. If a ship is only physically big enough to fit 4 canisters then that's your lot.)

I believe there are quite a few threads concerning reverse that would be of interest to the motivated searcher (That's not a put down. I know the search facility of these fora is not great)
 

CATPAIN KIRK

CATPAIN KIRK
NeoRacer said:
Make up (Pretend) any fiction you want. Its a game.
Click to expand...

Of course it's a game. If it's well-designed that does include a physical model in accordance with it visual representation.

If the visual representation matches the averagely intelligent persons expectations, it's all well.

Now I'm a mediocre mind and I think the current mechanics in these regards are absolutely counter-intuitive.

My question to you is: Why do you think having the exact same acceleration backwards as forwards is intuitive or improving gameplay, whereas it shouldn't be possible as depicted in the visual representation of the ship?
 

CATPAIN KIRK

CATPAIN KIRK
Bingo Brewster said:
The designers have also explained that if reverse is less powerful that forward, then the craft would take much longer to brake, stop.
Click to expand...

Well - if I drive my (virtual) Porsche at 300 km/h, it will take it exponetially longer to stop than if I was driving it at sixty.

That's intuitive and what average Joe (like me) would assume when you have rear thrusters 100 times the size of your front thrusters.

I still don't see how opposing that would improve intuitivity or gameplay.


Do rear thrusters suck in a vacuum at reverse mode? Would sucking in a Vacuum actually accelerate a ship?

Would that feel intuitive to you?
 
Last edited:

SuperG

S
The only way I can think of is fuel efficiency.

Take the SR71 Blackbird. Mach 3 is cruise speed. Not max speed. Max speed would burn the plane.

In space you could do this.

Fuel efficiency cruise speed. Most economic way for main FTL and thrusters. 1/3G
And normal mode max speed Which it can handle for long time. up to 1G
High power mode. Long burst. 2 G
Emergency mode. short burst 10 G

And then you could shop for engines which are balanced out to have more power or more endurance or

Also for the FTL drives.
 

Seonid

Seonid
The two main characteristics of a rotary engine are the very small number of moving parts and the very small size (people were always surprised how small the two 650cc rotors in my RX8 were). It also red-lined at 9500 which was fun but none of this is really related to spaceships as far as I can see.
 

CATPAIN KIRK

CATPAIN KIRK
el_tel said:
Maybe the main engines can suck as well as blow
Click to expand...

Sucking a Vacuum wont accelerate you. That's the entire point.

I don't mind physical inaccuracies if they serve gameplay, but this one is counter-intuitive even to morons like me and doesn't improve gameplay at all. It artificially adds in a really cheap trick.
 

kaserei

kaserei
hehehe In a world gone mad with negativity, that censorship made me laugh so much I forgot what the OP said! I also liked the megamaid reference above.

Oh yes, reverse thrust cap'n, she apparently can take much more.. I see your point, and stopping is faster when you turn around... as long as you have not just reached top AB speed, then things seem to have a built in delay when you turn around.

My wish list would be for a set of manoeuvring thrusters set in all directions, even the rear, and that they all accelerate a little (a lot) slower in straight lines.. even forward. That way, with the main thruster offline, I might not hit the conning tower so often when docking XD
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom