Welcome to Keen Software House Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the KSH community.
  1. You are currently browsing our forum as a guest. Create your own forum account to access all forum functionality.

STU Science Team: GravDrives

Discussion in 'General' started by RaptorMonkey, Feb 26, 2017.

Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.
  1. IPD Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    205
    not true, you can remotely control drones at a further distance than with a normal antenna
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  2. PLPM Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    850
    "Almost" ;)

    Still for the cost, they better have SOME advantage.
     
  3. IPD Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    205
    How ar antenna better than Laser antenna? you cant create a linked chain of antenna that goes from the planet to the moon with normal antennae can you? Because i have done it and managed to remotely control a resource shuttle from the moon to my base on earth.
     
  4. Gth Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    15
    Realistically speaking the kind of technology required to generate gravity like these generators do (at least within our current understanding of physics and such) would be the same technology that would make a warp drive kind of device possible (the warping of spacetime can be leveraged to generate artificial gravity in much the same way it would be used to propel a bubble of spacetime in X direction, just on a much much smaller scale).

    And this essentially means that a gravity drive is actually just a warp drive. However the problem with this is that the generators don't generate gravity realistically, and as a result how we're using them to create propulsion isn't realistic either. The field should be fully spherical and should get stronger as you get closer to it. If the in-game generators did this, it wouldn't only kill grav drives as we know them (while still retaining other uses for them, such as PMW ejection as well as gravitational shielding), but would in turn make it possible to create a much much better version of them for ship propulsion purposes.

    Of course the problem here is that we're working backwards, with a derivative technology being used to emulate its originator. A real warp drive would be performing both effects at once, expanding and contracting spacetime, whereas the generators can only do one at a time, with the drive itself being that object that these fields are acting on directly, which in turn moves anything connected to it along, so in effect in order to actually get this drive to work properly we'd have to have to have a new "engine" block created that can perform this. Having the two functions separate would prevent it from working properly as it stands.

    So with all that being said and with the idea of still retaining the "engineering" aspect of the game itself, may be an adequate solution is this:

    Make the gravity generators act as they actually should, with spherical fields being generated, and remove the artificial mass block (and allowing all blocks to have mass. I'm still unsure why this wasn't done this way to begin with beyond lazy).

    1. Realistic gravity fields not only present a neat engineering puzzle for providing gravity for your ship (do I make one half of the ship upside down, or do I create larger "bulk head" esque sections where gravity fields overlap that I stick all of my non-essential equipment in, or may be some other solution) but should also resolve the apparent bug that makes current grav drives possible. Giving all blocks mass (and thus the ability to be affected by gravity properly) retains the gravity driven concepts that have already been created (PMW ejection, gravity shielding, etc etc) but prevents the the physics abuse behind grav drives.

    2. Mimic the spacetime warping by introducing the ability for multiple gravity generators (and for arguments sake lets say they have to be directly connected one another to do this, so that singular generators can still be used to create the basic fields needed for crew use and for other uses) to interact with one another (beyond just increasing the amount of G's induced in the field), but have opposing directions. Multiple generators should be able to increase the size of the field, and their physical separation should be able to increase the size of a "gravity deadzone".

    So for example, say you have a group of four generators to propel, lets say one block. The two forward generators should be set to contract (IE, normal gravity), and the two rear generators would be expanding (IE, reversed gravity). And we set each pair 3 blocks length away. (arbitrary numbers for example purposes fyi)

    With each generator generating its own field, we connect them together (with lets call it a "gravity conveyor"). The connected generator pair would in turn cause an artificial lagrange point in space, allowing everything inside the size of this point to not be affected by the rather powerful fields on either side. This mimics the essential "bubble" of a warp drive, while in turn circumvents the effects these fields would have on the ship otherwise. The size of this point would be derived from a combination of their physical distance to one another as well as power level (IE, field size and strenth) of the fields being generated. The fewest drives at maximum distance and power should produce the same effect as the maximum number of drives at minimum distance and power.

    Then you take these two groups of generators and connect them, and in doing this, the lagrange point bubbles caused by both groups combine in a size derived again from the same idea. Number of generators, the configuration of said generators, and the distance between them, but now also taking into account the distance between both groups. And this gives you the warp bubble.

    However now, with this bubble created, the propulsion part of this system has to be generated. So, we take into account the direction of gravity of the fields and the respective strength of them to determine an effective acceleration for the bubble and the direction of said acceleration. The "gravity conveyor" system would enable this system to determine direction quite easily and without any arbitrary decisions on how it does it. With the two groups of generators being connected, ideally with a straight conveyor pipe down the center line of the ship on both X and Y axes, the direction of travel would be determined by following the conveyors in a straight line from the expanding set of generators to the contracting set.

    And of course you would want to balance these gameplay wise by having them draw an appropriate amount of power when they connect like this

    Naturally, this wouldn't be as easy as it was to just type out, but I think it would be an effective solution if its possible within the engine to do it. Gets rid of physics abuse and maintains the emergent behavior properties that makes the opposition to fixing this problem rather unappealing.

    And it also introduces even more interesting contraptions. Same idea with the artificial lagrange points can be used to create this:

    [​IMG]

    And that would be quite awesome.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  5. PLPM Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    850
    General:
    1- Costs, both in LGs and Small grids are smaller
    2- No need for line of sight

    Large grid:
    3- The antenna has more range and less energy draw while connected, however it uses 20 ish more Kw while both are idle (I might be wrong on this one) and is 4x2x1 so it´s bigger

    Small grid:
    4- The normal antenna is much smaller than the laser one, but it does have a much more limited range.
     
  6. The Churrosaur Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    744
    I can't believe we've gone four pages without anyone posting this yet:

    [​IMG]
     
    • Funny Funny x 4
  7. jerry060599 Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    37
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Hotshot Jimmy Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,500
    Wheres that thruster mod link when you need it. For those who want to be hardcore and need to balance all the thrusters on a ship.
     
  9. IPD Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    205
    I cant tell whether you are saying the antenna or laser has less range.
     
  10. PLPM Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    850
    Hmmm... Well, I think I´d be able to tell considering the "normal antenna" is my main subject in that sentences, followed by a second which I compared it to. Placing "but" as well, a but, denying to some degree the first statement about the "normal antenna"

    It is kind of confusing, just in case, I was talking of the normal one :p
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.