An Idea for Turning Speed

[firestar3637]

Make it based off thrust, like it would be in real life.

Sorry if this has been posted before.

 

[LETHALVIP3RZZ]

turning speed needs a multitude of factors to be decided, such as mass and aerodynamics; would a bus with a rocket booster turn quicker?

 

[firestar3637]

Aerodynamics would play a very small role in turning speed in space. Haven\'t you heard there are very few particles in space? If there is no thrust, a ship can\'t turn in space. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

 

[Krosulhah]

First off, about everybody knows that, but there would have to be stuff like RCS or something similar to actually make it turn correctly without going crazy.

 

[NeonSturm]

If there is no thrust, a ship can\'t turn in space.


Wrong!

Imagine 2 weels in a formation which look like the number 8.

what happens if you turn them both clockwise?

EVEN 1 weel will cause a temporary motion to turn your ship around.

 

[firestar3637]

Those wheels turning is a form of thrust. Right now, you can turn your ship around without any means of thrust, and I think that is fairly stupid.

And I am sorry, my previous post did have an inconsiderate tone.

 

[-Moose-]

This means that bigger ships will always turn faster than smaller ships because bigger ships can have more thrust.



Smaller ships should be able to turn faster to aid in dog fights and give them an edge over bigger ships.

 

[awesome270]

smaller ships can turn faster then bigger ones

 

[-Moose-]

If you make the turning speed based off of thrust alone then smaller ships won\'t be able to turn as fast because larger ships have room for more engines and more thrust, thus more turning speed.

 

[LETHALVIP3RZZ]

this was the point i was getting at, you must include mass into the equation, and i said aerodynamics due to the OP saying \'like real life\'

 

[firestar3637]

My idea is that the larger the ship, the more thrusters you\'ll need to turn quickly. It\'s the same idea as the acceleration and max speed from thrusters that we have now. Fighters would still be able to turn quickly, just as it is easy to make them accelerate quickly compared to big ships.

 

[NeonSturm]

Me: We need fighters to be faster.

You: But bigger ships have more efficient engines!!!

Me: True, but it if you have 2 ships - one big and one small - you can afford better fuel for your small one (buff first 3..x thrusters?).

Me: In Star-Trek some small ship traveled cloaked inside a bigger ones warp field - no own power requirements. What if we let small ships move faster if a big ships close to them moves in the same direction? (project % speed from big ships onto small ships - can be stronger the greater the efficiency difference in thrusters?)

 

[lman94]

those wheels are NOT a form of thrust. thrust is obtained by ejecting matter in the opposite direction as the desired one. those spinning wheels, aka reaction wheels, can only rotate the craft. you need thrust to move it laterally.

 

[BlisAx]

I do agree that thrust should play a better part in turning. Right now I feel that large ships turn slower than they should. The current system is on the right track as a large ship should turn slower than a small ship. If not atleast add directional thrusters to add in turning or something. The less limits the better becase how i see it, if you can build it then you have a right to use it.

 

[h0yer]

Low mass ships need less kN/m² per maneuvering thruster, because, well, they don\'t have to accelerate that much mass.

So you could make a 1000m ship turn quite fast, if ad-equate thrusters are mounted. That would be thrusters as big as the main engines.

So called \"reaction wheels\" are mainly used to stabilize and align satellites. Their \"reaction mass\" is no fuel, but rather their own mass. They are completely unusable in \"piloted\" spacecraft, since rotation acceleration is extremely slow + baaad \"attack and delay\". A SM-dreadnought would need reaction wheels almost as big as the dread itself. And those wheels need to be \"reset\" regularily.

The thrust, that a common fire extiguisher gives, is already enough, to spin a free in space floating 250kg man up to a speed, where he just will tear himself apart with his own centrifugal power.

Example: Hubble\'s reaction wheels may turn it about 2rpm



My extension:

Eventually add a maneuvering thruster block, that, well enhances maneuverability (only turnrate), but again raises mass, so less acceleration and less max speed. Could and would life with that

So you decide, if you build a small, fast, light and highly maneuverable fighter, or a bulky fat and slow cruiser, that though is able to turn quite fast, but has nearly no acceleration.

There must never be (I hope so) a 800m Dreadnought that outruns, outmaneuvers and outaccelerates a fighter o0

 

[firestar3637]

Alright, you guys are having trouble understanding my idea, and that is partially my fault. I will elaborate:

An effective method of turning, the one which I am thinking of, is being able to have thrusters all around your ship, pointing different direction for moving different directions, like it is in space engineers. The turning speed would be based off of the few thrusters in the front left and right, the ones in the back left and right, and finally, the MASS OF THE SHIP. If you have a higher mass, you\'ll need more thrusters to turn it.

You guys also seem to think that I want big ships to turn faster and accelerate faster than small ships I DON\'T (However, big ships should be able to achieve much higher maximum speeds). It would be the same system that it is for the normal movement we have. In my idea, if you want a big ship to turn faster than a fighter, you\'re going to have to put a LOT of thrusters in there, which would hurt the ship\'s dps, shields, and power supply/storage.



Edit: Actually the guy above me pretty much understands it. Sorry.

 

[firestar3637]

What I\'m trying to say is that a ship cant turn without some force making it move. Right now in Starmade, you can turn a ship without any force making it move.

 

[h0yer]

Thx, I do what I can^^

If I got it correct: (details gallore) you want to implement maneuvering thrusters, that have to be placed like on current real spacevehicles at the \"corners\" of your vessel or in detail, evenly distributed around its barycenter (center of mass), in arrays, facing each direction for lateral movement (all right facing thrusters fire: left strafing) AND rotation (fore right upper and lower corner right facing thrusters fire and aft left upper and lower left facing thrusters fire: rotating (yaw) to the left) eventually left fore and right back facing thrusters too, going swastika-fireworks mode and spinning yourself beyond the roche-threshold (you just tear up yourself, fire extinguisher) :D

Do we have a physicist here? We need one now^^

Edit:

What I\'m saying:

yes and no (actually no) :/

This game mechanic of maneuvering thrusters requieres deep knowledge and understanding of all the above mentioned stuff (physics). Placing your thrusters bad, requires finetuning of every single thruster so you won\' start to spin while just wanting to strafe, because the thrust force is not balanced. This would make stabilizing a rotating and linear moving ship almost impossible. Too complicated for the most, for me as well, I know only the background not the details.

 

[Sergeant Base]

Just hell no! Physicists are the most annoying people I\'ve ever met (trying to explain every little thing -.-\' ).

 

[NuclearLemons]

is i understood everything that robot said, and an adition to that is to male a propper rotation one must add a counter thruster to decrease the soeed of rotation however in turning its the same but at different ends of the vehicle.