26 replies to this topic

[stjobe]

1453 R, on 26 October 2015 - 08:05 AM, said:

In actuality, the 'lozenge' shape for starship design makes more sense than cubes or spheres. The engines have to go somewhere, and unless you put engines literally across the entire face of the engine side on a cube/sphere, you end up with a design where much of the starship's superstructure is put under radial/perpendicular stress from the force of its own engines rather than axial stress. A ship which expands hugely wide around its own engines is going to be much more fragile and liable to rip itself apart.

Aerodynamics obviously doesn't matter to starship designers, but physical engineering is still a key factor. A long, narrow ship is much easier to build strong enough to hold up to its own thrust than a Death Star or a Borg Block. Of course, all the sci-fi tropes get it wrong - the decks would not be arranged the long way, with people standing perpendicular to the line of thrust, but would instead be arranged the short way, with people's heads pointed the same direction as the ship's nose. Think a skyscraper, in space, with engines at the bottom and you have the most logical basic layout for a starship.

...anyways. Just felt like pointing that out.

And you're technically correct (the best kind of correct!) of course - if current physics are what we have to deal with. If anti-gravity technology, FTL engines, or any other sci-fi physics come into play, most bets are off (since we don't really know what such technology would entail).

Atomic Rockets is a very nice resource for anyone wondering about how to construct a space craft, it draws from both current science and sci-fi. The re-make of the site has made it a bit of a pain, but there's lots and lots of interesting stuff to read.

Anyway, to not stray altogether off topic, the barrel of a laser need not be anything more complicated than an armoured cowling, to protect the delicate innards from stray (or aimed!) shots, and to make it usable to whack the opponent over the cockpit with. And for that, you'd want a bit of length to it.

[1453 R]

Lasers don't generally have 'barrels' to begin with

I'm not really familiar with the construction of current-gen high-energy lasers, but the closest you really get is a tubular lasing chamber that is both required to be sealed at both ends and is also quite fragile. The Mad Dog's traditional/iconic three-meter double-decker phallic guns don't really make any sense whatsoever, especially as they very clearly have bores. Lasers don't have bores, they have lenses or emitters. Those emitters might be inset to some degree to help protect them from stray (or aimed!) shots, but after a certain point you're doing more harm than good with oversized housings. If the housing gets shot up and interferes with the beam, you still have a nonfunctional weapon if one that is admittedly much easier to repair.

Of course, that's not really the argument. The argument is that some folks are just really fond of the established aesthetic, which is fair. To some folks Mad Doges just aren't Mad Doges without those quad [rooster] cannons, and I can totally see that viewpoint. I hate the dynamic geometry system as much as anyone else, there's nothing 'dynamic' about it...but I also like a nice physics discussion from time to time, so hey! We can argue for the iconic look while also discussing why the BT artists in the eighties were completely off the mark, right?

[Narcissistic Martyr]

Titannium, on 25 October 2015 - 10:53 PM, said:

speaking of barrels.... Why cant we have empty shells from AC10/20 on the ground ?

Because it's a bunch of objects the game would have to render sucking up valuable compute resources for a minimal and intangible benefit?

[Mazzyplz]

yes, "aversion"



18 round barrels in this one mech