Missile dodging

[CodeBlack]

I like the Idea of dodging rockets with my fighter, as it makes ships that only use rockets vulnerable to fighters, but deadly for large and slow ships.

 

[Malacodor]

No you're not accelerating. Unless you're falling the floor of course. But I think you're not.
Unless you're referring to the gravitational acceleration that gets canceled out because the floor and the chair are preventing you from falling.

We are both right. It's not acceleration in Newtonian physics, but it is in general relativity (rule of thumb: if you feel a force that presses you into your seat you are accelerating, no matter if you are at home, in a car or a space ship).

 

[Valiant70]

That feels like a half measure that benefits larger ships over smaller ships. Large ships can support a lot of point defence turrets that can (will be able to) shoot down missiles. Small ships will be forced to constantly turn around to shoot missiles down, rather than rapidly changing direction to avoid the missile. I'm hoping the damage pulse can be used to hit missiles. Could be used as chaff.

It's easy to put a tiny PD turret on the top and aft of a 100-mass ship. You need only:
1. Core
2. BOBBY Artificial Idiot Module
3. Damage beam computer
4. Damage beam module

Optional:

5. One or two shield capacitor(s)
6. One or two shield recharger(s)

That's 4-8 blocks. If you're a little creative you can make them look halfway good too. Don't worry. Your fighters are at no disadvantage. :D

cceleration refers to a change (usually an increase) in velocity - it has no bearing on direction. Changing direction is changing direction. Increasing speed is usually referred to as acceleration. You can accelerate in a direction, and you can change the direction you are accelerating in, but 'acceleration' is not a term that refers explicitly to - or one that even implies - a change in direction.

Velocity is a vector, meaning it has both magnitude AND direction. Acceleration, technically and correctly, is a change in velocity. Velocity includes direction and acceleration changes velocity. Therefore a change in direction (of movement mind you, not where you aim your nose) is technically acceleration.

"Acceleration" referring to an increase in speed regardless of direction is more of a car term (Antonym: deceleration). This definition of "acceleration" should not be used for space ships where vectors are far more relevant than linear speed. If you use the car definition for space ships you will look silly and confuse people, so please don't do that. :p

 

[BeefBacon]

Velocity is a vector, meaning it has both magnitude AND direction. Acceleration, technically and correctly, is a change in velocity. Velocity includes direction and acceleration changes velocity. Therefore a change in direction (of movement mind you, not where you aim your nose) is technically acceleration.

"Acceleration" referring to an increase in speed regardless of direction is more of a car term (Antonym: deceleration). This definition of "acceleration" should not be used for space ships where vectors are far more relevant than linear speed. If you use the car definition for space ships you will look silly and confuse people, so please don't do that. :p

That seems convoluted. The concept makes sense, sure, but it doesn't make sense to describe a term using a point of reference that most people don't understand, especially on a forum that - if I'm not mistaken - is comprised mostly of teenagers, not astrophysicists. Using a car as an analogy is one that everyone understands. Talking about vectors and linear or non-linear acceleration makes it difficult to apply to a real-world understanding of movement. It might be an oversimplification, but it seems that most of the opposition to my use of the term has boiled down to little more than semantics.

Now, will there be any more discussion on the actual topic, or will we carry on discussing physics and mathematics on a thread that does not warrant it?

 

[Incap]

New Effect: Chaff.

Attached to missiles they do no damage but throw off missile tracking when fired..

 

[jayman38]

Spoiler: Off-Topic: Chaff Effect

My thoughts on different chaff weapon effects:
1. slaved to Cannon: tracking device: slow-reload, high speed, in-flight tracking-disabled guided missiles can reacquire the target structure if it is hit with these and continue tracking. (counter-balance to missile-slave)
2. slaved to Beam: blinding laser: slow-reload, minimal damage, causes the hit player (whether as astronaut or pilot) to see a white flash on their entire screen which gradually diminishes back to normal, turns off tracking when it hits missiles, instead of destroying them; still destroys dumb-fire missiles (maybe reduced damage to the missile either way?).
3. slaved to missile: as you described: no damage, slower than regular missiles, turns off tracking in nearby missiles (or maybe changes nearby-missile tracking to go after the chaff missile instead of the target structure)
4. slaved to pulse: flash-bang: slow-reload, minimal damage, hit players (whether astronaut or pilot) see a white flash on their entire screen which gradually diminishes back to normal. Primarily an anti-personnel weapon, but still effective in "spear" type ships.

 

[Keptick]

It's actually possible to dodge missiles. The way I do it is by flying towards the target and side-stepping the missiles at the absolute last second. It requires very good timing and a bit of luck, though.