Spaceships that "fly" annoy me

[dawp]

couldn't you get the same basic flight characteristics by using thrusters in space?

 

[JTsyo]

couldn't you get the same basic flight characteristics by using thrusters in space?

You would need thrust vectoring to turn like you do in a plane with aerodynamic surfaces. Otherwise you would have to rotate your plane to the correct orientation and plan out your burns to get the proper vector. Say for example you were planning for a zero intercept. You would burn for x time, then coasts, then flip 180 and finally burn again for x time.

 

[DigDog]

i just remembered The Last Starfighter has a nice spaceship model .. and would rotate to change vector

remember this?

anyway, spaceships designed with diverging thrusters make sense, as you would push more out of one and less out the other and you would slowly turn;

but there's still the matter of accumulating acceleration .. once you've been firing thrusters full blast for a minute or so, it would take just as long to reverse that. None of that speedy aerodynamic turning.

Well ofc you can go full potato and say the spaceship has idk, a "gravity drive" or something like that; still, it wouldn't need wings.

 

[surfsatwerk]

That movie was the bomb. Watched it a million times as a kid.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

 

[lozina]

Wings are aesthetically pleasing is the top answer
A spaceship sized cue ball in space is hardly intimidating
Wings also provide hard points to mount forward facing weapon systems
And as mentioned if the ship plans to enter planetary atmospheres ala space shuttle

But yeah independence war had an awesome Newtonian physics engine. I miss that game so much.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Wings also provide hard points to mount forward facing weapon systems

Wouldn't putting a weapon at the end of a wing be a terrible idea in space? You're going to have some recoil from the weapon, and that force is acting as torque on the outside-most point of the ship; that's going to throw you off course, at the very least, and possibly into a rapid spin. If anything, you'd want to have the weapons as near to the center of the ship as possible (like the Enterprise does). And, sure, you could have matching weapons firing simultaneously on either wing so the forces cancel out (and just push you backwards), but if one fails, you can't use the other for fear of turning into a spinning ball of totally fucked.

Incidentally, has any video game ever worked that into their physics engine? "FIRE THE TORPEDOES.... Why are we spinning?"

 

[sdifox]

You might want your spaceship to have wings if ever you had the want/need to enter a planets atmosphere...? Unless of course you ship operates in a self contained zero gravity field, then shape would not matter.

You are assuming the atmospheres of different worlds in the universe have the same density?

 

[Exterous]

dp

 

[Juddog]

Was watching http://elite.frontier.co.uk/ (the video on front page) and i can't help but think "*yawn*, another boring WASD space sim"

Because physics, that's why.

Sorry but i just can't stand anymore spaceships that "fly", like planes do. Rear thrusters and wings, mmk?

Back in 1989 there was Space Rogue, and it had newtonian physics; you had to spin your ship, aim your thrusters in the opposite direction of where you wanted to go, and you would slowly change between your previous vector and the current one. That's it - i haven't seen anything like since then.
Same goes for films... and why would a spaceship even *have* wings.


..
(Slowly getting poster's remorse, thinking this shold be in Gaming)

anyway, fake spaceships annoy me. boo fake spaceships, yay realistic spaceships.

Now make some film/game with them.

You would like the Starcraft2 mod, "Star Battle". Ships have an acceleration rating as part of their speed, and you can't just spin on a dime (well maybe one or two ships can, but only because they're designed to be super fast).

 

[Exterous]

you can't use the other for fear of turning into a spinning ball of death

FTFY

 

[DigDog]

but if one fails, you can't use the other for fear of turning into a spinning ball of totally fucked.

You, Sir, are a poet.

On a different note, spaceships would still have to be built out of *something*,
so they wouldn't look much different from "two long metal poles and thin metal stuff all around it, with some nuts n bolts". Surely not a ball, and probably not a cube.

As AP said, torque still exists, so a long cylinder is better to push around than anything else .. and since people have to be in it, it would probably be flat and square.

Incidentally, the Star Trek franchise got it right, even though they did so retroactively; the idea of a disc for living quarters, a big cylinder for power, and two engines, separate from the body in case of explosion. Although something more linear like the later Enterprise from Voyager looks more functional.. the two narrow beams the NCC 1701 has are .. hmm ... crap.

 

[lozina]

Wouldn't putting a weapon at the end of a wing be a terrible idea in space? You're going to have some recoil from the weapon, and that force is acting as torque on the outside-most point of the ship; that's going to throw you off course, at the very least, and possibly into a rapid spin. If anything, you'd want to have the weapons as near to the center of the ship as possible (like the Enterprise does). And, sure, you could have matching weapons firing simultaneously on either wing so the forces cancel out (and just push you backwards), but if one fails, you can't use the other for fear of turning into a spinning ball of totally fucked.

Incidentally, has any video game ever worked that into their physics engine? "FIRE THE TORPEDOES.... Why are we spinning?"

I would assume we are either using recoil-less weapons or have thrusters/ailerons in place to automatically compensate for any potential imbalance of force to keep the craft moving straight.

 

[Gibsons]

Colony wars (PS1 games) had sorta realistic space flight. Spinning, reverse thrust, etc. IIRC though, the flight had friction, you would decelerate to full stop if the engines weren't going.

 

[Tiamat]

Of course they need wings. That way they have more surface area per unit of volume, making them more vulnerable to enemy fire.

Only from the bottom or top of the ship Unguided attack from dead-on front, rear, sides would be tough since the exposed surface would be minimal

 

[homebrew2ny]

You are assuming the atmospheres of different worlds in the universe have the same density?

No, not entirely. But I am assuming that many atmospheric conditions would benefit to varying degrees of success with a means for lift and drag.

 

[amish]

I guess you've never played halo?

I did, and I still remember Reach with its space level. fighting in orbit with Sabre that acted like a plane. zero vectoring on that one.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

I give you The Heart Of Gold

 

[jagec]

Wings are aesthetically pleasing is the top answer
A spaceship sized cue ball in space is hardly intimidating

Seeing the Death Star hovering above your post is amusing.

Yes, Independence War 1/2 did have a fun physics engine. But I forgave Freespace 1/2 their inaccurate physics because they were so darn fun to play.

Orbiter is a good sim if you're looking for accurate physics. Getting the space shuttle into a stable orbit is shockingly hard.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

 

[Gibsons]

I give you The Heart Of Gold

Looks like a panty shield? :\

 

[CZroe]

Was watching http://elite.frontier.co.uk/ (the video on front page) and i can't help but think "*yawn*, another boring WASD space sim"

Because physics, that's why.

Sorry but i just can't stand anymore spaceships that "fly", like planes do. Rear thrusters and wings, mmk?

Nothing wrong with rear thrusters. It really helps to put them in line with the center of gravity.

Back in 1989 there was Space Rogue, and it had newtonian physics; you had to spin your ship, aim your thrusters in the opposite direction of where you wanted to go, and you would slowly change between your previous vector and the current one. That's it - i haven't seen anything like since then.

There has never been a shortage of games that depict it that way. From "Asteroids" to "Star Control" to "Shoot Your Load," ... need I go on?

Same goes for films... and why would a spaceship even *have* wings.

I know, right? I mean, there has never been a fictional space ship that also enters atmospheres!

(Slowly getting poster's remorse, thinking this shold be in Gaming)

anyway, fake spaceships annoy me. boo fake spaceships, yay realistic spaceships.

Now make some film/game with them.

Would've been just as wrong there.

 

[mizzou]

if you take your spaceship into the atmosphere, youll be glad it has wings then

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

if you take your spaceship into the atmosphere, youll be glad it has wings then

And for everywhere else in the universe, there's Mastercard.

 

[NTMBK]