Something Juicehead said.

[Miauzi]

Vor 4 Stunden sagte aslab:

Ich habe dieses Spiel noch nicht gespielt, also tappe ich im Dunkeln. Aber ich denke, es wäre einfacher, die Planeten rotieren zu lassen, als den Asteroiden eine Rotationsbahn zu geben. Wenn sich die Planeten drehen, hat man das Gefühl, dass sie sich im Stillstand auf einer Umlaufbahn befinden und sich mit dem Asteroidengürtel bewegen. Wenn sie in Bewegung sind, werden sie die Umlaufbahn durchbrechen, aber die Asteroiden werden immer noch so aussehen, als würden sie sie umkreisen.

 

 

But the planets don't rotate - your own spaceship doesn't have an orbit around the planet either - otherwise you would have a considerable relative speed to the surface (approx. 7 km/s) ... and a VISIBLE change in the landscape beneath you.

There are countless videos on YouTube from NASA or ESA that show, for example, the ISS (international space station) flying AROUND the earth.

You can even access the DIRECT broadcast in real time and get quasi-live images of the space station and the changing surface of the earth.

Or you can watch the launch and flight of the "Big fucking Rocket" from SpaceX ... Mr. Musk has to go on his next test flight soon.

To add:

the earth rotates around itself at around 1,600 km/h at the equator

a satellite or a spaceship or the ISS have an orbital speed of 27,000 km/h ... and for this reason do NOT fall to the earth's surface

in the game neither the asteroid nor your spaceship have such a speed ... even with its engines and acceleration your ram ship cannot reach a speed of more than 1,000-2,000 km/h - so it would never be able to orbit the earth in a circle.

So how is such a spaceship supposed to reach a space station orbiting a planet and dock there?

As I have already written - I am not bothered by "gadgets" such as FTL drives or micro-gravity in spaceships ... it bothers me when basic laws of science are so clearly violated!

And this also includes the fact that such a dense collection of asteroids is not stable - it will "crumble" itself in a few thousand years... they also have a natural attraction to each other (GRAVITATION)... so such collections above a planet cannot be of natural origin.

But if they are of artificial origin... the burning question immediately arises -> who "parked" these planet killers there?

Because each of these chunks - which you find in the game above a planet - destroys its entire biosphere when it hits!

So if people had the technology to put such chunks into the orbits of planets - why were they not used as weapons of war or why does no one (e.g. from the military) talk about the dangers of such bodies?

If it was NOT humanity - then we have proof that an alien civilization was in this area of space only recently (a maximum of a few thousand years ago) and "played with marbles".

So - no matter how you look at it - there is no plausible explanation for the presence of asteroids near planets... and that makes it comic book bullshit!

[aslab]

15 hours ago, Miauzi said:

 

But the planets don't rotate - your own spaceship doesn't have an orbit around the planet either - otherwise you would have a considerable relative speed to the surface (approx. 7 km/s) ... and a VISIBLE change in the landscape beneath you.

There are countless videos on YouTube from NASA or ESA that show, for example, the ISS (international space station) flying AROUND the earth.

You can even access the DIRECT broadcast in real time and get quasi-live images of the space station and the changing surface of the earth.

Or you can watch the launch and flight of the "Big fucking Rocket" from SpaceX ... Mr. Musk has to go on his next test flight soon.

To add:

the earth rotates around itself at around 1,600 km/h at the equator

a satellite or a spaceship or the ISS have an orbital speed of 27,000 km/h ... and for this reason do NOT fall to the earth's surface

in the game neither the asteroid nor your spaceship have such a speed ... even with its engines and acceleration your ram ship cannot reach a speed of more than 1,000-2,000 km/h - so it would never be able to orbit the earth in a circle.

So how is such a spaceship supposed to reach a space station orbiting a planet and dock there?

As I have already written - I am not bothered by "gadgets" such as FTL drives or micro-gravity in spaceships ... it bothers me when basic laws of science are so clearly violated!

And this also includes the fact that such a dense collection of asteroids is not stable - it will "crumble" itself in a few thousand years... they also have a natural attraction to each other (GRAVITATION)... so such collections above a planet cannot be of natural origin.

But if they are of artificial origin... the burning question immediately arises -> who "parked" these planet killers there?

Because each of these chunks - which you find in the game above a planet - destroys its entire biosphere when it hits!

So if people had the technology to put such chunks into the orbits of planets - why were they not used as weapons of war or why does no one (e.g. from the military) talk about the dangers of such bodies?

If it was NOT humanity - then we have proof that an alien civilization was in this area of space only recently (a maximum of a few thousand years ago) and "played with marbles".

So - no matter how you look at it - there is no plausible explanation for the presence of asteroids near planets... and that makes it comic book bullshit!

You my friend are absolutely correct. These games have very little to do with reality. If our games mirrored reality, we would be playing holographic games which can simulate not just 3d sight and sound, but also taste, smell, and touch. The holographic games will let use realize the game of life. Now, in trance one can realize the self, and screen of life. Sadly, after entering life's game, we commonly forget that where playing a game and believe fantasy as reality.

 

But back to our 2-dimensional games that try to trick the eye that their 3d. If one where to mod the game and give the planets a spin, the static dull appearance that I envision from your description should be mitigated. Maybe the science won’t add up, but floating around a planet, when the planet is really the only one spinning, may be pleasing to the eyes, and pleasure is ultimately what we are all after,

Edited July 23, 2024 by aslab

[Miauzi]

Vor 1 Stunde sagte aslab:

Du, mein Freund, hast vollkommen recht. Diese Spiele haben sehr wenig mit der Realität zu tun. Wenn unsere Spiele die Realität widerspiegeln würden, würden wir holografische Spiele spielen, die nicht nur dreidimensionales Sehen und Geräusch, sondern auch Geschmack, Geruch und Berührung simulieren können. Die holografischen Spiele ermöglichen es Ihnen, das Spiel des Lebens zu verwirklichen. Jetzt kann man in Trance das Selbst und den Bildschirm des Lebens erkennen. Leider vergessen wir oft, nachdem wir uns auf das Spiel des Lebens eingelassen haben, dass wir ein Spiel spielen und glauben, Fantasie sei Realität.

 

Aber zurück zu unseren zweidimensionalen Spielen, die versuchen, das Auge zu täuschen, weil sie dreidimensional sind. Wenn man das Spiel modifizieren und den Planeten eine Wendung geben möchte, sollte das statische, langweilige Erscheinungsbild, das ich mir aufgrund Ihrer Beschreibung vorstelle, gemildert werden. Vielleicht reicht die Wissenschaft nicht aus, aber um einen Planeten herumzuschweben, wenn dieser tatsächlich der Einzige ist, der sich dreht, mag für die Augen angenehm sein, und Vergnügen ist letztendlich das, wonach wir alle suchen.

 

how to do it right in my opinion -> "elite dangerous"

Planets have a visible rotation - you actually fly around moons and planets with the spaceship and see a changing surface... although there is a "seamless" transition from orbit to the surface... so no loading screen when landing

yes - there are also ground vehicles - but you can also walk in a spacesuit

Previous shortcoming - no habitable planets can be accessed yet... but it is in development.

axo - the game world is actually our entire Milky Way (with 400,000,000,000 star systems) ... the spheres inhabited by humans comprise perhaps 10,000 systems

of course something like this only works online - but in solo mode you only have NPCs as opponents or "partners"

both games are ultimately NOT comparable - because they pursue very different concepts ... I just mentioned ED - because a good "simulation" of planets and spaceships is not rocket science

and ... of course, in addition to asteroid belts - which you can fly into for mining purposes - there are also the ring zones of gas giants - in which you also mine ... and it is precisely in these rings of gas giants that you have a real "density of chunks" like you know from SFi trash or old simulations of Saturn's rings

[nIn nIn nIn]

I have over 800 hours play time. The planets do rotate. They also orbit their sun. The vast distances between the orbital bodies is the reason real time travel is impractical - nobody will tolerate having to spend an entire month (real life time) traveling from one planet to the next. This is why fast travel is the way it's implemented in the game. An asteroid belt would need to have large permanent bodies that are indestructible to enable fast travel. Then the destructible asteroids could span out either side to "infinity" (except definitely finite).

 

Just remember, the in game mini map is NOT to scale.

[urabi]

Hard to say. 
Starfield isnt bad tho. But its not really good either.

Ship- and Outpost building shows A LOT of potential but then again, there seems to be no purpose behind when you've done this. 
Space in general feels rather dull and empty. I mean, yea, i get it: It's space. But on the other hand, its a video game. Some space walking on meteroids with abandoned bases, creatures, pirates or whatever would prolly already do a lot, subjecively speaking. 

 

Combat is okay'ish. It's a bethesda game after all and i'd be fine with it if other parts of the game wouldnt be that flawed. 

 

At the moments it's rather a raw skelleton and it's pretty much about upcoming updates/dlc's and most of all the modding community how this skelleton will be utilized.

[Miauzi]

Vor 22 Minuten sagte Urabi:

Schwer zu sagen.
Starfield ist allerdings nicht schlecht. Aber wirklich gut ist es auch nicht.

Der Schiffs- und Außenpostenbau weist VIEL Potenzial auf, aber andererseits scheint dahinter kein Sinn zu stecken, wenn Sie dies getan haben.
Der Raum fühlt sich im Allgemeinen eher langweilig und leer an. Ich meine, ja, ich verstehe: Es ist der Weltraum. Aber andererseits ist es ein Videospiel. Etwas Weltraumspaziergang auf Meteroiden mit verlassenen Stützpunkten, Kreaturen, Piraten oder was auch immer würde subjektiv gesehen wahrscheinlich schon viel bewirken. 

 

Der Kampf ist okay. Es ist schließlich ein Bethesda-Spiel und ich wäre damit einverstanden, wenn andere Teile des Spiels nicht so fehlerhaft wären. 

 

Im Moment handelt es sich eher um ein rohes Grundgerüst und es geht im Wesentlichen um kommende Updates/DLCs und vor allem um die Modding-Community, wie dieses Grundgerüst genutzt wird.

 

Why build outposts?

The original plan was that without an outpost you wouldn't be able to get far enough to the "right" of the map area - because the amount of fuel on a ship is limited.

These outposts were supposed to produce the fuel needed for further exploration - because there are simply NO gas stations in the right half.

But that would have required some work and thought on the part of the player... and Bugdesta got cold feet shortly before the release... and deleted the fuel consumption for FTL flights!

This means that building bases and ultimately building other (better) spaceships is superfluous - you just have to make sure that you can make a sufficiently long single jump through upgrades (or skills).

The elements that many people find really exciting and useful have been deleted or blocked... and this makes this weak game feel even weaker!

[Miauzi]

Vor 10 Stunden sagte nIn nIn nIn:

Ich habe über 800 Stunden Spielzeit. Die Planeten drehen sich. Sie umkreisen auch ihre Sonne. Die großen Entfernungen zwischen den Orbitalkörpern sind der Grund dafür, dass Echtzeitreisen unpraktisch sind – niemand wird es tolerieren, einen ganzen Monat (reale Lebenszeit) damit verbringen zu müssen, von einem Planeten zum nächsten zu reisen. Aus diesem Grund ist Schnellreisen im Spiel implementiert. Ein Asteroidengürtel müsste über große permanente Körper verfügen, die unzerstörbar sind, um eine schnelle Fortbewegung zu ermöglichen. Dann könnten sich die zerstörbaren Asteroiden auf beiden Seiten bis zur „Unendlichkeit“ erstrecken (außer definitiv endlich).

 

Denken Sie daran, dass die Minikarte im Spiel NICHT maßstabsgetreu ist.

 

You can also have 8,000 hours of gameplay... I noticed after just 2-3 hours that none of the spaceships, when they reach a planet, have even the slightest bit of the orbital speed required for a circular orbit... because then the planet's surface would pass much faster beneath the spaceship.

What something like that should look like... there are enough TV documentaries or even direct links to the ISS's external cameras.

With the meager speed that the spaceships reach in StarField (barely 1,000 km/h) - they cannot even leave the grav field of a moon or planet... these are simple physical and astronomical facts.

That's why it is completely irrelevant how long such a journey would hypothetically take... because the spaceship cannot get away from any celestial body without FTL!

And even if you put Newton, Kepler and all other well-known scientists aside - at the maximum speed, a flight from Earth to Mars alone would take several years... from Earth to Pluto several decades.

All of this is ultimately total nonsense... but the solution that would solve this dilemma was simply left out by Bugdesta -> a fast drive for travel WITHIN star systems... just look at the game "Elite" (the Super Cruise)

With such a drive, you don't need loading screens and you can move freely within a star system without "jumping".

The NON-existence of such a simple game mechanic (which is more than 30 years old!) is, for me personally, the death switch for this botched game!

[sila]

On 7/19/2024 at 6:44 AM, Djlegends said:

since apparently everybody forgotten about how shitty fo76 was at release

I remember, it was great comedy watching that dumpster fire from the sidelines while staying faaaaar away from it.

 

My favorite parts were actually the promotional stuff they did. The fancy rum bottles that people spent a lot of money on *for the cool bottle shape* that turned out to be just a plastic shell over a regular bottle. The burlap sack fiasco... The nuke launch codes not working after a new year. So many it was weekly videos for months lol. You don't get to watch a dumpster fire that entertaining very often.

[sila]

1 hour ago, Miauzi said:

 

Why build outposts?

The original plan was that without an outpost you wouldn't be able to get far enough to the "right" of the map area - because the amount of fuel on a ship is limited.

These outposts were supposed to produce the fuel needed for further exploration - because there are simply NO gas stations in the right half.

But that would have required some work and thought on the part of the player... and Bugdesta got cold feet shortly before the release... and deleted the fuel consumption for FTL flights!

This means that building bases and ultimately building other (better) spaceships is superfluous - you just have to make sure that you can make a sufficiently long single jump through upgrades (or skills).

The elements that many people find really exciting and useful have been deleted or blocked... and this makes this weak game feel even weaker!

On this I will agree. Not having limited fuel  was really dumb in Starfield and it was plainly obvious it was intended to be something you needed to refill. Why even have the fuel mechanic if it doesn't do anything? 

 

Especially the base building felt like it was utterly pointless and tacked on. I was really excited to build some bases in Starfield when it became clear it would be a source of materials. But... you never actually need the materials from bases in the quantities they produce for anything but more bases. It was even less useful than it was in Fallout 4. After my first 10 hours of playing I never bothered with it in Starfield

Edited July 24, 2024 by sila

[Miauzi]

Am 24.07.2024 um 16:36 Uhr sagte Sila:

Dem stimme ich zu. In Starfield war es wirklich dumm, nicht über eine begrenzte Treibstoffmenge zu verfügen, und es war ganz offensichtlich, dass es etwas sein sollte, das man nachfüllen musste. Warum überhaupt den Kraftstoffmechaniker haben, wenn er nichts tut? 

 

Vor allem das Basisgebäude schien völlig sinnlos und zusammengeheftet zu sein. Ich war wirklich aufgeregt, einige Stützpunkte in Starfield zu bauen, als klar wurde, dass dies eine Materialquelle sein würde. Aber... man braucht die Materialien von Basen in den Mengen, die sie produzieren, eigentlich nie für etwas anderes als für mehr Basen. Es war sogar noch weniger nützlich als in Fallout 4. Nach den ersten 10 Spielstunden habe ich mich in Starfield nie mehr damit beschäftigt

 

It was planned that you could connect your own bases to each other - similar to the settlements in Fallout... of course without an NPC with a two-headed pack cow.

But that was broken at the time of release - but that was hardly communicated.

You could try to link the storage containers of two bases using a "link"... but I never managed to use the raw materials from another base.

I don't know if that's fixed now.

I don't know if the actions (what you have to build or how you have to "connect" it) in a base have been simplified...

I don't know

I had 30 days' access to the game via a subscription - I was particularly interested in base building.

Just getting a decent amount of light into the base... a never-ending pain.

My conclusion after this month was that the base's construction and usage system in particular should either be urgently revised or, better yet, completely rebuilt.

From games like Fallout, you were used to the fact that the storage capacity in the settlement is very large, aka infinite.

In StarField, it is limited by the number and type of containers... but a lot of things are completely wrongly weighted.

The cargo containers of your own ship can transport/accommodate several times the volume of cargo - as a stack of storage containers that have more volume than the entire spaceship.

The difference between the "personal" backpack and the storage containers is even more striking... to completely empty a backpack, 2-3 completely empty medium containers were often necessary.

And for the containers, you have to organize materials (like titanium!) in order to even build them.

It all seemed so completely botched that it was pure frustration.

Why do you need all that stuff stored in a base -> there are some skills that you can only improve by crafting... for example, making medicines

Why do I get a cold or hypothermia on a planet in the rain while wearing a spacesuit?

I wear a spacesuit and poison myself on a moon with no atmosphere (at a source of NOBLE GASES!)... or burn my lungs.

And because so much is broken - you constantly need a lot of medicine... which you can make yourself - so you need a base where you can do this.

[DocClox]

On 7/24/2024 at 2:47 AM, nIn nIn nIn said:

The vast distances between the orbital bodies is the reason real time travel is impractical - nobody will tolerate having to spend an entire month (real life time) traveling from one planet to the next.

 

Assuming you can do constant 1-g acceleration outside of combat with mid point turnover, worst case is still liable to be two weeks, game time. Of course, that still works out at 16 hours in real time which is still a lot longer than most people would be happy to spend looking at empty space. That said, I don't see why some sort of time compression should be out of the question.

 

It still seems like an odd design choice. It's like making an Age Of Sail pirate game and then only allowing you to sail around in city harbors because "no one is interested in all that high seas stuff".

[Miauzi]

Vor einer Stunde sagte DocClox:

 

Unter der Annahme, dass Sie außerhalb des Kampfes eine konstante 1-g-Beschleunigung mit mittlerem Punktumsatz erzielen können, dürfte der schlimmste Fall immer noch zwei Wochen Spielzeit betragen. Natürlich funktioniert das immer noch bei 16 Stunden in Echtzeit, was immer noch viel länger ist, als die meisten Leute gerne damit verbringen würden, sich den leeren Raum anzusehen. Allerdings verstehe ich nicht, warum eine Art Zeitkomprimierung nicht in Frage kommen sollte.

 

Es scheint immer noch eine seltsame Designentscheidung zu sein. Es ist so, als würde man ein Piratenspiel „Age Of Sail“ machen und einem dann nur erlauben, in Stadthäfen herumzusegeln, weil „niemand sich für all diesen Hochseekram interessiert“.

 

This 1g acceleration is ultimately a purely arbitrary assumption - it could just as well be 0.1 or 2.0 g.

The gravity on board the spaceships is completely independent (decoupled) from the mass inertia of the flight ... because the gravitational field IN the spaceship is at an angle of 90° to the longitudinal axis of the ship and thus to the main direction of flight!

By the way, time compression was the mechanic in "Elite 2" - a game that is about 30 years old ... or FTL in "real time" aka "supercruise" as in the current "Eilte"

The decision to work with loading screens had an important reason -> each moon and each planet is a separate space zone

see Mars - its nearby moons can be reached by flight - but they are only 2D disks ... something similar would happen with the Earth's moon.

Otherwise you would have to make the space of an entire star system into a single space zone... but can this "engine" even handle it -> ???

And so the whole game ultimately feels like a patchwork!

[DocClox]

1 hour ago, Miauzi said:

This 1g acceleration is ultimately a purely arbitrary assumption - it could just as well be 0.1 or 2.0 g.

 

Of course it is. What's your point?

 

1 hour ago, Miauzi said:

By the way, time compression was the mechanic in "Elite 2" - a game that is about 30 years old ... or FTL in "real time" aka "supercruise" as in the current "Eilte"

 

I know. I played the original back on the BBC micro back in the 1980s.

 

1 hour ago, Miauzi said:

Otherwise you would have to make the space of an entire star system into a single space zone... but can this "engine" even handle it -> ???

 

I'm pretty sure they could do some sort of background loading during flight. It's not as if they have to do it in a hurry.

 

1 hour ago, Miauzi said:

And so the whole game ultimately feels like a patchwork!

 

Like I say, it seems like an odd design decision.

 

[edit]

 

To make the numbers a little less arbitrary, the Saturn V rocket generates >4g in acceleration.  The Frontier can't generate much less that than or it wouldn't be able to get off-planet. So if anything, my assumption is on the low side and travel times would be correspondingly less.

Edited July 26, 2024 by DocClox

[nIn nIn nIn]

The recording on Luna, first grav drive test to Jupiter. They said the trip would have taken 3 months without the grav drive. Thruster technology hasn't advanced all that much since then.

 

The most unrealistic thing is the lack of fuel needed for the thrusters. The He3 is for the grav drive only.

 

The discord lore channel has had numerous discussions about in system travel. It's obvious to me the grav drive is used for all interplanetary travel, not just interstellar. BGS should have used the grav drive animation rather than the thruster animation they are using.

 

The game doesn't actually depict Newtonian physics at all, there is no constant acceleration - such a travel method would require completely impractical fuel tanks. Other sci-fi universes use fictional engines to bypass the fuel requirements. Star wars and Star Trek are examples. BGS chose their NASA-Punk theme deliberately to depict a future that is vastly less developed technology wise. Chemical thrusters need fuel. Just look at the size of the fuel tank needed for the space shuttle's that nasa actually used.

[DocClox]

8 minutes ago, nIn nIn nIn said:

The recording on Luna, first grav drive test to Jupiter. They said the trip would have taken 3 months without the grav drive. Thruster technology hasn't advanced all that much since then.

 

Does it say that anywhere?

 

8 minutes ago, nIn nIn nIn said:

The most unrealistic thing is the lack of fuel needed for the thrusters. The He3 is for the grav drive only.

 

I think that was something from the Traveller rules that made it into the game but never got as far as exposition. Traveller assumed that maneuver fuel costs were basically a rounding error compared with the energy needed to open a jump portal. You needed to allocate a small reserve for maneuver, but it would never run out except where required by plot and Referee.

 

I'm reasonably happy to assume that Starfield engines work the same way.

 

8 minutes ago, nIn nIn nIn said:

The discord lore channel has had numerous discussions about in system travel. It's obvious to me the grav drive is used for all interplanetary travel, not just interstellar. BGS should have used the grav drive animation rather than the thruster animation they are using.

 

Except that the only evidence either way is those same animations. Why go to the trouble of making them unless they are supposed to mean something? It's not like there's anywhere else in the game where they'd make sense.

 

12 minutes ago, nIn nIn nIn said:

The game doesn't actually depict Newtonian physics at all, there is no constant acceleration - such a travel method would require completely impractical fuel tanks

 

I mean the space combat has ships slow down if you turn the thrust off. Because starships are secretly WWII fighters for gameplay reasons. I'm reasonably happy to assume that the way space combat works isn't representative of the the way the physics of the gameworld is supposed to work.

 

16 minutes ago, nIn nIn nIn said:

Chemical thrusters need fuel. Just look at the size of the fuel tank needed for the space shuttle's that nasa actually used.

 

Well exactly. If the Frontier is using NASA tech chemical thrusters to fly, then it should need a booster rocket the size of a tower block to achieve orbit from a one-gee planet. This clearly isn't the case. Therefore we can assume that the thrusters are considerably more efficient than the ones we can make now, Therefore it doesn't make sense to assume travel times based assumptions of our here-and-now thruster technology.

[Miauzi]

Vor einer Stunde sagte DocClox:

 

Steht das irgendwo?

 

 

Ich denke, das war etwas aus den Traveller-Regeln, das ins Spiel gelangte, aber nie bis zur Darstellung gelangte. Traveler ging davon aus, dass die Manövertreibstoffkosten im Grunde ein Rundungsfehler im Vergleich zur Energie waren, die zum Öffnen eines Sprungportals benötigt wurde. Man musste eine kleine Reserve für Manöver bereitstellen, die jedoch nie zur Neige gehen würde, es sei denn, die Handlung und der Schiedsrichter verlangten es.

 

Ich gehe einigermaßen davon aus, dass Starfield-Motoren auf die gleiche Weise funktionieren.

 

 

Abgesehen davon, dass der einzige Beweis in beiden Fällen dieselben Animationen sind. Warum sollte man sich die Mühe machen, sie herzustellen, wenn sie nicht etwas bedeuten sollen? Es ist nicht so, dass es irgendwo sonst im Spiel einen Sinn ergeben würde.

 

 

Ich meine, im Weltraumkampf werden Schiffe langsamer, wenn man den Schub ausschaltet. Weil Raumschiffe aus Gameplay-Gründen insgeheim Kampfflugzeuge aus dem Zweiten Weltkrieg sind. Ich gehe einigermaßen davon aus, dass die Art und Weise, wie Weltraumkämpfe funktionieren, nicht repräsentativ für die Art und Weise ist, wie die Physik der Spielwelt soll funktionieren .

 

 

Nun genau. Wenn die Frontier zum Fliegen chemische Triebwerke der NASA nutzt, müsste sie eine Trägerrakete in der Größe eines Hochhauses benötigen, um von einem Ein-G-Planeten in die Umlaufbahn zu gelangen. Dies ist eindeutig nicht der Fall. Daher können wir davon ausgehen, dass die Triebwerke erheblich effizienter sind als die, die wir derzeit herstellen können. Daher macht es keinen Sinn, Annahmen auf der Grundlage von Reisezeiten unserer hier und jetzt bestehenden Triebwerkstechnologie anzunehmen.

 

To sum it up in a few words:

The space flight that one would expect in this SF scenario - so that the internal logic of this world works - has absolutely nothing to do with what is actually shown to us in the game or what we experience in our own spaceship.

This break is far too big for me personally... one of the reasons why even good mods won't bring me back into the game.

[DocClox]

Like I said, it seems like an odd design decision.

 

Have fun with whatever you end up playing.

[Twycross448]

On 7/19/2024 at 5:10 AM, Kraven12 said:

If you had the ear to Todd Howard and you want to save the game, so between now and the new expansion what would you tell Mr. Howard on what he should do to save this IP and keep his vision of 10 year plan?

 

Completely embrace the modding community and help them out in any way necessary. For example, publish the cheat sheets for the various file formats and how they changed since FO4, so fan made tools like xEdit and NIFskope can be brought up to speed completely and be made fully compatible with the game. Also, get the official CK documentation up to speed.

 

That is what I would say. Basically, work with your fans. Not with your shareholders.

[DocClox]

18 minutes ago, Twycross448 said:

 

Completely embrace the modding community and help them out in any way necessary. For example, publish the cheat sheets for the various file formats and how they changed since FO4, so fan made tools like xEdit and NIFskope can be brought up to speed completely and be made fully compatible with the game. Also, get the official CK documentation up to speed.

 

That is what I would say. Basically, work with your fans. Not with your shareholders.

 

He could start by getting creationkit.com back up, and updated for Starfield.

Edited July 27, 2024 by DocClox

[Djlegends]

19 minutes ago, DocClox said:

 

He could start by getting creationkit.com back up, and updated for Starfield.

the site is ready but currently in development hell

[aslab]

On 7/18/2024 at 11:10 PM, Kraven12 said:

 

If you had the ear to Todd Howard and you want to save the game, so between now and the new expansion what would you tell Mr. Howard on what he should do to save this IP and keep his vision of 10 year plan?

 

At some point, a large DLC/ or mod should get created which completely overhauls flying, especially landing on a planet and taking off. The planet will have to load after entering its atmosphere, from there a player will have to know how to fly in order to land properly, or take off. A large unbalanced ship will have a harder time landing, and weather conditions will have to be factored in as well.

 

Think flight simulator rolled into starfield with an option to turn on auto pilot, or use a worm hole. The possibility’s from here goes further like adding in atmosphere aerial vehicles such as helicopters, and maybe planes. Although this whole idea can throw a corkscrew into the multiple load screens per a planet setup.

 

On 7/26/2024 at 10:21 AM, DocClox said:

Well exactly. If the Frontier is using NASA tech chemical thrusters to fly, then it should need a booster rocket the size of a tower block to achieve orbit from a one-gee planet. This clearly isn't the case. Therefore we can assume that the thrusters are considerably more efficient than the ones we can make now, Therefore it doesn't make sense to assume travel times based assumptions of our here-and-now thruster technology.

 

Regarding thruster technology, at some point the human race has to leave our destructive combustion technology behind, in favor of more natural technology such as fusion technology. In general, a combustion engine can’t run past 30% thermal efficiency, (although some car companies are claiming to have 50% efficiency engines being tested, they are probably recycling the heat). As long as our technology is destructive in nature, nature will break our effort.  If we switched to natural implosion/suction/fusion/geometrical technology, we can get over 90% thermal efficiency. We as humans think ourselves as the supreme intelligence. Humans laugh at the environmentalist, and the more they destroy the more success they appear to have. Life turns into a game where each must try to claim what’s good as their own, ultimately leading to larger and larger forms of destruction. A battle against nature is a battle against oneself. A battle against oneself always ends in pain. When a person is too blind to realize that they hurt themselves, they may even ask why they are in pain. As the Buddhist said “The source of all pain is ignorance”.

[Miauzi]

Vor 2 Stunden sagte aslab:

Irgendwann sollte ein großer DLC oder Mod erstellt werden, der das Fliegen komplett überarbeitet, insbesondere die Landung auf einem Planeten und den Start. Der Planet muss geladen werden, nachdem er in seine Atmosphäre gelangt ist. Von dort aus muss der Spieler wissen, wie man fliegt, um richtig zu landen oder abzuheben. Ein großes, unausgeglichenes Schiff wird eine schwerere Landung haben und auch die Wetterbedingungen müssen berücksichtigt werden.

 

Was die Triebwerkstechnologie betrifft, wird die Menschheit irgendwann unsere zerstörerische Verbrennungstechnologie hinter sich lassen und sich stattdessen einer natürlicheren Technologie wie der Fusionstechnologie zuwenden müssen. Im Allgemeinen kann ein Verbrennungsmotor nicht über einen thermischen Wirkungsgrad von 30 % hinaus laufen (obwohl einige Automobilhersteller behaupten, dass Motoren mit einem Wirkungsgrad von 50 % getestet werden, recyceln sie die Wärme wahrscheinlich). Solange unsere Technologie zerstörerischer Natur ist, wird die Natur unsere Bemühungen zunichte machen.   Wenn wir auf natürliche Implosions-/Saug-/Fusions-/geometrische Technologie umsteigen, können wir einen thermischen Wirkungsgrad von über 90 % erreichen. Wir Menschen halten uns für die höchste Intelligenz. Menschen lachen über Umweltschützer, und je mehr sie zerstören, desto erfolgreicher scheinen sie zu sein. Das Leben wird zu einem Spiel, in dem jeder versuchen muss, das Gute für sich zu beanspruchen, was letztendlich zu immer größeren Formen der Zerstörung führt. Ein Kampf gegen die Natur ist ein Kampf gegen sich selbst. Ein Kampf gegen sich selbst endet immer mit Schmerzen. Wenn eine Person zu blind ist, um zu erkennen, dass sie sich selbst verletzt hat, fragt sie sich möglicherweise sogar, warum sie Schmerzen hat. Wie der Buddhist sagte: „Die Quelle allen Schmerzes ist Unwissenheit.“

 

Fascinating for a mechanical engineer with a broad scientific background - who wanted to go into space travel as a career 35 years ago... but if you weren't 100% politically clean in the "Eastern Bloc"... whatever - I can't change that today.

But if you're throwing around numbers so well here - talking about efficiency - you should perhaps also write down what basis you're working on... because what I've read there is a good comparison of "apples and pears"

Specifically:

Combustion engines get their heat from CHEMICAL combustion processes - so gasoline (a hydrocarbon) reacts with the oxygen in the air to form -> carbon dioxide and water (gaseous aka water vapor)... since carbon dioxide is a gas that massively boosts the greenhouse effect - you shouldn't really use it on this scale anymore.

The efficiency of a heat engine is determined by thermodynamics - in other words, what heat energy is created by the chemical reaction and what of it can be used to convert it into mechanical energy.

Yes - in cars and trucks, in real operation, we are at around 20-25%... test bench values for continuous operation are theoretical values and can sometimes be 40% or slightly higher.

The most effective combustion engine in practical use is a ship diesel - which runs on heavy oil... it actually reaches over 40% in continuous operation

Stationary engines for generating electricity are around 35-40% when using natural gas as a chemical energy source - and of course the waste heat from the engine cooling AND the heat from the exhaust gas can also be used here - in total, 85-95% of the heat generated can be used - but not even half of that is "exergy"!

If you optimize a combustion system for the stationary generation of exergy (e.g. for electrical power), system combinations are used -> combined cycle systems... natural gas is burned in a gas turbine and the extremely hot exhaust gases are fed into a steam generator - the steam from which drives a steam turbine.

Gas and steam turbines "convert" around 55% of the heat generated during combustion into mechanical drive energy -> this drives generators.

Space travel has almost nothing to do with all of this - even the chemical engines that we use today for our launch vehicles - have nothing to do with all of this... except that a chemical reaction takes place here too.

But instead of air (a mixture of 80% nitrogen and 20% oxygen), chemical engines generally work with pure oxygen... and thus achieve a significantly higher heat output... because you don't have to heat the nitrogen in the air as well, etc.

But now "other" engines and "other energy sources" have been brought into play... and here you're comparing "apples" (chemical reactions) with "pears" (nuclear fusion)... but that's pure charlatanry!!

And then they also babble about "un-natural" and "natural"... from here on you're no longer moving on the ground of natural science and engineering technology but of meta-physics and esotericism... as if a chemical reaction was something "unnatural"??

By the way - a classic nuclear power plant - which uses the fission of uranium nuclei as a heat source - does not have a higher thermal efficiency than a power plant that uses hard coal to heat the water-steam cycle... they are both simple condensation power plants - 40-45% in large plants

The use of nuclear fusion - i.e. the fusion of light atomic nuclei - does not change this... here too, the "boiler" principle is ultimately applied - here too, the majority of the heat generated is ultimately "waste" - which can only be used to heat buildings in winter.

And in hot summers - which are becoming more and more the norm here in Europe - a country like France has to shut down the majority of its nuclear power plants - because there is hardly enough water left in the rivers on which these power plants are located. If the power plants were to be operated anyway, the water would be much too warm... the result of this is a massive reduction in the oxygen content -> the fish suffocate.

Slogans and pious wishes won't get you anywhere - only clear expertise and actual scientific knowledge such as physics, chemistry and astronomy will get you anywhere!

[aslab]

16 hours ago, Miauzi said:

 

Fascinating for a mechanical engineer with a broad scientific background - who wanted to go into space travel as a career 35 years ago... but if you weren't 100% politically clean in the "Eastern Bloc"... whatever - I can't change that today.

But if you're throwing around numbers so well here - talking about efficiency - you should perhaps also write down what basis you're working on... because what I've read there is a good comparison of "apples and pears"

Specifically:

Combustion engines get their heat from CHEMICAL combustion processes - so gasoline (a hydrocarbon) reacts with the oxygen in the air to form -> carbon dioxide and water (gaseous aka water vapor)... since carbon dioxide is a gas that massively boosts the greenhouse effect - you shouldn't really use it on this scale anymore.

The efficiency of a heat engine is determined by thermodynamics - in other words, what heat energy is created by the chemical reaction and what of it can be used to convert it into mechanical energy.

Yes - in cars and trucks, in real operation, we are at around 20-25%... test bench values for continuous operation are theoretical values and can sometimes be 40% or slightly higher.

The most effective combustion engine in practical use is a ship diesel - which runs on heavy oil... it actually reaches over 40% in continuous operation

Stationary engines for generating electricity are around 35-40% when using natural gas as a chemical energy source - and of course the waste heat from the engine cooling AND the heat from the exhaust gas can also be used here - in total, 85-95% of the heat generated can be used - but not even half of that is "exergy"!

If you optimize a combustion system for the stationary generation of exergy (e.g. for electrical power), system combinations are used -> combined cycle systems... natural gas is burned in a gas turbine and the extremely hot exhaust gases are fed into a steam generator - the steam from which drives a steam turbine.

Gas and steam turbines "convert" around 55% of the heat generated during combustion into mechanical drive energy -> this drives generators.

Space travel has almost nothing to do with all of this - even the chemical engines that we use today for our launch vehicles - have nothing to do with all of this... except that a chemical reaction takes place here too.

But instead of air (a mixture of 80% nitrogen and 20% oxygen), chemical engines generally work with pure oxygen... and thus achieve a significantly higher heat output... because you don't have to heat the nitrogen in the air as well, etc.

But now "other" engines and "other energy sources" have been brought into play... and here you're comparing "apples" (chemical reactions) with "pears" (nuclear fusion)... but that's pure charlatanry!!

And then they also babble about "un-natural" and "natural"... from here on you're no longer moving on the ground of natural science and engineering technology but of meta-physics and esotericism... as if a chemical reaction was something "unnatural"??

By the way - a classic nuclear power plant - which uses the fission of uranium nuclei as a heat source - does not have a higher thermal efficiency than a power plant that uses hard coal to heat the water-steam cycle... they are both simple condensation power plants - 40-45% in large plants

The use of nuclear fusion - i.e. the fusion of light atomic nuclei - does not change this... here too, the "boiler" principle is ultimately applied - here too, the majority of the heat generated is ultimately "waste" - which can only be used to heat buildings in winter.

And in hot summers - which are becoming more and more the norm here in Europe - a country like France has to shut down the majority of its nuclear power plants - because there is hardly enough water left in the rivers on which these power plants are located. If the power plants were to be operated anyway, the water would be much too warm... the result of this is a massive reduction in the oxygen content -> the fish suffocate.

Slogans and pious wishes won't get you anywhere - only clear expertise and actual scientific knowledge such as physics, chemistry and astronomy will get you anywhere!

 

When I was typing my post, I was thinking about leaving the 30% efficacy out. As 30% wasn’t something showing up on popular data. But the number 30% in my head from previous learnings. So, I left the disclaimer about car engines reaching 50% as a way to say, there are other numbers out there.  

 

Here is a little paragraph I found online “The efficiency of rockets is about 0.678 (source in german). Sounds bad at first, but thermodynamics has something called "carnot efficiency" which is the theoretically maximum technical efficiency for machines making work by heat. Mostly it results in something between 0.6 and 0.7”

 

The 30% that I have in my head must be talking about total efficiency. I would have to revisit my learning's, as it’s been many years since I read these books, and will have to freshen up in order to fully indulge in an argument considering explosive engines vs implosive engines.

 

But the concept goes something like this. Propulsion is the most commonly understood method of movement as it is simple to understand, and commonly used. A force pushes something forward and the item moves in that direction. We get lots of fancy equations figuring out the vectors and forces needed to move an item in a direction and so on.

 

Yet there is a far more efficient way of proposing a craft forward and it involves negative pressure. vortex technologies led to the creation of the jet engine and submarine engines. During WWll the implosion concept was taken further in order to create an energy machine. This energy machine fell into the Americans hands shortly after WWll. The energy machine was later mystified a flying saucer AKA UFO.

 

If one can expand their mind past the limiting constrains imposed by scientific laws. If science got back to observing nature instead of predominantly relying on fantasized equations. One may realize that nature never uses a straight line. The path is always curved and many times takes on a seismic wave form. Yet the engineers will always try to form a straight path, breaking the natural laws that haven’t made it into science yet. The fastest way to move an item straight will always involve some type of rotation. If trying to propel an item straight without a rotation the resistance will increase as the speed increase.

 

Edited July 28, 2024 by aslab

[Miauzi]

Vor 25 Minuten sagte aslab:

 

Als ich meinen Beitrag schrieb, dachte ich darüber nach, die 30 % Wirksamkeit wegzulassen. Da 30 % in den populären Daten nicht auftauchten. Aber die Zahl 30 % in meinem Kopf aus früheren Erkenntnissen. Deshalb habe ich den Haftungsausschluss bezüglich der Reichweite von 50 % bei Automotoren hinterlassen, um zu verdeutlichen, dass es da draußen noch andere Zahlen gibt.  

 

Hier ist ein kleiner Absatz, den ich online gefunden habe: „Die Effizienz von Raketen liegt bei etwa 0,678“ ( Quelle auf Deutsch ). Klingt zunächst schlecht, aber in der Thermodynamik gibt es einen sogenannten „ Carnot-Wirkungsgrad “, bei dem es sich um den theoretisch maximalen technischen Wirkungsgrad für Maschinen handelt, die Arbeit durch Wärme verrichten. Meistens ergibt sich ein Wert zwischen 0,6 und 0,7 Zoll.

 

Die 30 %, die ich im Kopf habe, müssen sich auf die Gesamteffizienz beziehen. Da es viele Jahre her ist, seit ich diese Bücher gelesen habe, müsste ich meine Lernerfahrungen noch einmal durchgehen und mich auffrischen, um mich einer Auseinandersetzung über explosive Motoren vs. implosive Motoren voll und ganz hingeben zu können.

 

Aber das Konzept geht ungefähr so. Der Antrieb ist die am häufigsten verstandene Bewegungsmethode, da er einfach zu verstehen und häufig verwendet wird. Eine Kraft schiebt etwas nach vorne und der Gegenstand bewegt sich in diese Richtung. Wir erhalten viele ausgefallene Gleichungen, die die Vektoren und Kräfte ermitteln, die erforderlich sind, um einen Gegenstand in eine Richtung zu bewegen und so weiter.

 

Es gibt jedoch einen weitaus effizienteren Weg, ein Handwerk voranzutreiben, und dieser beinhaltet negativen Druck. Wirbeltechnologien führten zur Entwicklung von Strahltriebwerken und U-Boot-Triebwerken. Im Zweiten Weltkrieg wurde das Implosionskonzept weiterentwickelt, um eine Energiemaschine zu schaffen. Diese Energiemaschine fiel kurz nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg in die Hände der Amerikaner. Die Energiemaschine wurde später als fliegende Untertasse, auch bekannt als UFO, bezeichnet.

 

Wenn man seinen Geist über die einschränkenden Zwänge wissenschaftlicher Gesetze hinaus erweitern kann. Wenn die Wissenschaft wieder zur Beobachtung der Natur zurückkehren würde, anstatt sich vorwiegend auf erfundene Gleichungen zu verlassen. Man kann erkennen, dass die Natur niemals eine gerade Linie verwendet. Der Weg ist immer gekrümmt und nimmt oft die Form einer seismischen Welle an. Dennoch werden die Ingenieure immer versuchen, einen geraden Weg zu finden und die Naturgesetze zu brechen, die noch nicht in die Wissenschaft Eingang gefunden haben. Der schnellste Weg, einen Gegenstand gerade zu bewegen, ist immer eine Art Drehung. Wenn man versucht, einen Gegenstand ohne Drehung geradeaus voranzutreiben, erhöht sich der Widerstand mit zunehmender Geschwindigkeit.

 

 

What a surrogate for ignorance and anti-science... it is worth making just one comment:

 

all of this could only be written and made accessible by a computer - whose components function on the basis of the findings of quantum mechanics

 

And these findings are formulated mathematically - because otherwise they would not be applicable at all... if one were to ignore these "self-invented" equations - one would have at most mechanical or electro-mechanical computing units... there would not even be discrete transistors based on semiconductors

 

 

 

[aslab]

21 hours ago, Miauzi said:

 

What a surrogate for ignorance and anti-science... it is worth making just one comment:

 

all of this could only be written and made accessible by a computer - whose components function on the basis of the findings of quantum mechanics

 

And these findings are formulated mathematically - because otherwise they would not be applicable at all... if one were to ignore these "self-invented" equations - one would have at most mechanical or electro-mechanical computing units... there would not even be discrete transistors based on semiconductors

 

 

 

 

Oh, so sad I touched a cord, but I hope you understand that computers are one of our only technology’s that comes close to mimicking nature. If only all our machines mimicked nature instead of fighting her. Humanity would be living in a utopia. A utopia where one can control nature and can get anything they want. All they have to do in return is, abide by natures rules, and serve her.