quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: Well...the only thing that kinda annoyed me about the Valdore (besides their complete ineffectivness in battle) is that the ship moves too much like a very small ship (it even banks like a KBOP when it turns!).
Really - ships shouldn't 'bank' in space... unless they are near large gravitational source.
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
posted
Why wouldn't a ship bank in space? Wouldn't using thrusters to bank the ship free-up the impulse engines to provide maximum forward thrust?
-------------------- Later, J _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ The Last Person to post in the late Voyager Forum. Bashing both Voyager, Enterprise, and "The Bun" in one glorious post.
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
Aircraft bank (rotate about their longitudinal axis) when turning because their control surfaces alter the flow of air around them, which creates pressure differences that cause one wing to be pushed up and the other to be pushed down. It's a side-effect of the aerodynamic forces acting on the wings and tail. But since there IS no atmosphere in space, a starship instead has to turn by rotating about its vertical axis (yawing) with plain old thrusters and wouldn't bank at all while using them. There'd also be nothing to gain by banking manually, unless the lateral thrusters were less powerful than the ventral/dorsal ones or the IDF generators could for some reason handle a two-dimensional acceleration better than a 1D one or the impulse engine nozzles could only vector thrust vertically or whatever.
*cough* Realistically *cough*, ships should always turn like that Ambassador in the Emissary teaser.
[ March 15, 2004, 04:37 PM: Message edited by: Cartman ]
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: Well...the only thing that kinda annoyed me about the Valdore (besides their complete ineffectivness in battle) is that the ship moves too much like a very small ship (it even banks like a KBOP when it turns!).
Really - ships shouldn't 'bank' in space... unless they are near large gravitational source.
ships does 'bank" in space this has been done either in impulse or wrap speed.. here's some urls that mentions banking turn..
posted
I'd put it in the same catagory as "sound in space". Scientifically wrong, but done for visual (or audio) effect. Ships not banking would look "wrong". For some reason.
Although, thinking about it, the ships didn't really bank in STII, did they? I know they were going more for "big battleships fighting" with that, which probably explains it. And STVI, where the ships were filmed with the same idea in mind, and where we definitely see a ship turn without banking (Chang watching the Enterprise-A on his viewscreen during the final battle).
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Objects moving in a vacuum look different than objects moving in an atmosphere, but I'm not so sure it looks different enough to jar people out of the narrative. (Thus justifying it as a necessary dramatic convention.)
I mean, consider (horror!) Babylon 5.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
The "banking" thing coud be the ship matching up it's x/y axis to meet an enemy ship at the same perspective (allowing for more effective firepower?) or just a gradual course correction while at impulse.
It's also possible that the "banking" is deliberate so an enemy's weapons have a harder time locking onto key point son your hull. Kinda to spread out damage.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Sol System: Objects moving in a vacuum look different than objects moving in an atmosphere, but I'm not so sure it looks different enough to jar people out of the narrative. (Thus justifying it as a necessary dramatic convention.)
I mean, consider (horror!) Babylon 5.
Amen.
That said, there was that OpenGL freeware game that was floating around recently, and it let you try to fly a Starfury. Emphasis on the "let". Perhaps I'm too old, but I simply couldn't master the "inertia" mode after all those years of TIE Fighter/X-Wing and whatnot, it was too much of a mind flip.
posted
I don't normally get all angry and stuff at cancelled projects, but I really would have liked to have seen "Into The Fire" get made. It was looking very promising, and proper physics on a space fighter game had never been done. The closest was Independence War, but that was a capital ship. And they gave you a load of aids and simplified the system for I-War 2.
And giving the game a quote from a comic does not impress me. Well, maybe a little.
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: The "banking" thing coud be the ship matching up it's x/y axis to meet an enemy ship at the same perspective (allowing for more effective firepower?) or just a gradual course correction while at impulse.
It's also possible that the "banking" is deliberate so an enemy's weapons have a harder time locking onto key point son your hull. Kinda to spread out damage.
But banking is mostly an undesired effect during a turn, product of the way control surfaces on airplanes work. While banking, you may momentarily lose sight of an enemy, which can be lethal... A spaceship, OTOH, doesn't NEED to bank, since it can turn around a single axis (without leaving the plane) using position thrusters, and in doing so, would keep sight of an enemy during the whole turn (of course, if they're flying on "sensors", that point is moot). It seems to me that the only way a spaceship could bank would be if it simultaneously applied thrusters on the side of the prow and the bottom of the same flank, then in the middle of the turn it applied the opposite flank's thrusters... not a very efficient maneuver. Oh, and of course, first the ship should use braking thrusters, regardless of whether it intends to "bank" or not.
Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: Although, thinking about it, the ships didn't really bank in STII, did they? I know they were going more for "big battleships fighting" with that, which probably explains it. And STVI, where the ships were filmed with the same idea in mind, and where we definitely see a ship turn without banking (Chang watching the Enterprise-A on his viewscreen during the final battle).
That wasn't a turn. It was a BOP POV shot of the Enterprise as Chang circled her. Apparently the unedited version of the shot was a much longer shot than we saw in the film, going about 180 degrees around.
And there is some banking in TWOK. When Kirk orders "hard a starboard" the ship leans way over as she turns away.
-------------------- "Well, I mean, it's generally understood that, of all of the people in the world, Mike Nelson is the best." -- ULTRA MAGNUS, steadfast in curmudgeon
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
