View Thread
 Ship Proximity Kills
|
|
| enterprise |
Posted on 14-11-2005 15:48
|
 Posts: 81 Joined: October 10 2005 |
yes the lovelly deutherium.:ale: a fusion reactor in any circumunstances blow up when get out of control. the only problem is that we don't know how a reactor of this type run. i read something about laser ignition in fusion reactor, the laser is used to reach the temperature adequate to start deutherium-deutherium fusion, the helium3 fusion need a bigger temperature. in any case this type of reaction i think that if get out of control will start a massive deutherium-deutherium fusion and after an explosion. the H Bomb use a fission-fussion-fission system and the increase of energy emission in fact is provoked by the fusion phase. to boldly go where no one has gone before
|
|
|
|
| Nemmerle |
Posted on 14-11-2005 16:29
|
 Posts: 113 Joined: September 16 2005 |
I can't be bothered to write this out myself so I've asked google to help you: Fusion reactor safety http://www.iter.org/index_faq.htm http://www.fusion.org.uk/focus/index.htm |
|
|
|
| enterprise |
Posted on 14-11-2005 18:45
|
|
Posts: 81 Joined: October 10 2005 |
uhm you have right, dammit films i hate how the manipulate the science. ok the fusion system is safe and don't explode. then why the ships blow up?!? why the ships simply cease fire and and drift away? we must give some type of reason for the ship's explosion. anyone played to nexus jupiter incident? in that game the ships blow up and have fusion reactors. must be a reason for the ship's explosion. ok in star trek there is antimatter: no problem. in star wars: i really don't know, a am still thinking what are the blasters:confused:. there the fusion reactors are safe, the warhead need arm, ion cannon are nothing without energy and the bullets are electromagnetically fired. the only thing that justify the ship's explosion is the eps system. but in any case is sure that don't involve other ships. is this discuddion futile?:yell: to boldly go where no one has gone before
|
|
|
|
| Glacialis |
Posted on 14-11-2005 19:06
|
 Posts: 368 Joined: September 02 2005 |
I think things blow up in games and movies because they look neat.  If a reactor is still generating plasma when it loses structural integrity or the plasma is otherwise leaked into the ship, that's a very good reason for boom. |
|
|
|
| TelQuessir |
Posted on 14-11-2005 23:28
|
 Posts: 2598 Joined: August 30 2005 |
I would say that some sort of emergency plasma ejection system would be necessary for warships. Dumping the reactor plasma at the cost of the entire drive section would be preferable to having the whole ship meltdown. Thus enterprise is correct on that note and Glacialis feel free to take this discussion a step further and propose that I do away with exploding ships completely. Non combat capable ships will just have to be dealt with in a different way. One method is to have every system, weapon and engine be permanently destroyable so as to allow the modelling of disabled hulks, but this will create the case where physically destroying an opponent's hull is a non-viable tactic, or leads to a reduction of AI performance as they waste ammunition on hulks so as to blow them up. Pros and cons. Stepping aside from that for a moment I say ships blowing up is a valid occurance when taking catastrophic damage. A real-life occurance of a spaceship being destroyed however, would probably be visually less dramatic than most movies and games. Edited by TelQuessir on 14-11-2005 23:30 |
|
|
|
| DogMeat |
Posted on 15-11-2005 02:55
|
|
Posts: 8 Joined: September 12 2005 |
this is proberbly off topic but Quote Glacialis wrote: There is no "EMP" resulting from nuclear (fusion/fission) reactions in space. and Quote Glacialis wrote: Plasma is dangerous, sure. But you would need to tightly focus it to do any damage as space is very, very cold and almost zero pressure. sry but i've got 2 question just what you mean by these? the problem isn't that people are breeding like rabbits, its that we're not dying like flys
|
|
|
|
| yasotay |
Posted on 15-11-2005 04:10
|
 Posts: 637 Joined: September 09 2005 |
Tel' - I think that this is one place where we really might want to consider a bit of gamesmanship. I do realize this is not in line philosophically with where PDS has been or desires to go, but with a wet navy it is rather easy because the ship sinks or the crew abandons and then the hulk is sunk to preclude a threat to navigation. It will be hard to indicate when a ship is not able functioning at all and thus a redundant target. If you want to go with less than total destruction, I might recommend that the ship change aspect from the fight (say 80 degrees nose high or low with the small explosions going off). The other point I wonder about is when does the ship become debris and not count against the fleet count for a player? After a significant fight you will have an aweful lot of extra polys floating around. While potentially visually satisfying, it will choke all but the most high end of systems. The ships will have to disappear after a while (a personnel dislike with RTS games) or you will have to come up with a means for them not to count... which seems a bit of a challenge. I go back to my "drift to the edge of the map and disappear as a solution. Burning frigates and caps floating about are very appealing but I wonder if the HW2 engine can handle it after a fight. Edited by yasotay on 15-11-2005 04:13 |
|
|
|
| TelQuessir |
Posted on 15-11-2005 04:23
|
|
Posts: 2598 Joined: August 30 2005 |
The answer to yasotay's closing statement is: Not very well at all. The solution to this seems to point towards modelling "destroyed" ships and implementing them as debris objects. These can be scripted to spin, drift etc when created. For large capital ships, this seems to be a good investment. |
|
|
|
| Warman1 |
Posted on 15-11-2005 05:16
|
|
Posts: 146 Joined: September 08 2005 |
*nods* I like the modeled ship debris idea. And I was thinking as an additive to it if someone wants to volunteer (my comp got wiped so my software for this stuff is gone) maybe we can also modify the explosion image itself and possibly include little visuals of escape pods leaving the ship as it explodes. The pods wouldn't have to actually be real objects, just part of the image that goes away when the explosion image goes away. |
|
|
|
| Nemmerle |
Posted on 15-11-2005 08:14
|
|
Posts: 113 Joined: September 16 2005 |
Alternately we could implement the long awaited anti-matter powerplants stick them at the centre of the ship with a lot of shielding so they don't get knocked out during a firefight and let them breech when the ships health indicator reaches zero.
Edited by Nemmerle on 15-11-2005 08:15 |
|
|
|
| enterprise |
Posted on 15-11-2005 08:28
|
|
Posts: 81 Joined: October 10 2005 |
yes i think that an autodestruction system will prevent enemy to discover some tecnological secrets.
to boldly go where no one has gone before
|
|
|
|
| TelQuessir |
Posted on 15-11-2005 09:30
|
|
Posts: 2598 Joined: August 30 2005 |
Scuttling an abandoned ship or to prevent it from falling into enemy hands is one thing, but not all ship COs are the "fight to the death" type. Of course it is situation-dependent and if you're fighting as part of an established team (hence good possibility of allied support) or when your ships are few in number then taking all means to save the ship would be a logical option. There is a huge difference between sacrificing yourself for no gain, and withdrawing to fight another day. Much of this is culture and as aforementioned, situation dependent. |
|
|
|
| Nemmerle |
Posted on 15-11-2005 12:45
|
|
Posts: 113 Joined: September 16 2005 |
Why would you leave something like that in the CO's hands? Considering the advanced nature of AI systems it doesn't seem unreasonable to assume that the computer will be programmed to destroy the ship in the event it is rendered disabled. |
|
|
|
| Glacialis |
Posted on 15-11-2005 15:12
|
|
Posts: 368 Joined: September 02 2005 |
If the crew can still get off and there's no immediate danger -- something an AI is not qualified to judge -- it best not be self destructing. I propose that explosions be kept, for the following reason: A reactor may not be able to instantaneously shut down. Reactor containment failure, while not nearly as destructive as an antimatter reactor would be, is still enough to cause extreme superstructure failure. Energy distribution throughout a ship is unlikely to be organized such that direct reactor feeds are required. Instead, I envision capacitors for DEW batteries, capable of powering a particular weapon or collection of weapons for half a minute or so of continuous firing, maybe more. And that's a lot of energy for non-DEW systems. Capacitors servicing non-functional weapon systems can be configured to provide power elsewhere. This gives time for damage control crews to re-route and repair power lines as necessary. However. When a fusion reactor goes into critical overload, it doesn't seem likely that any fuse in the world can stop a massive burst of power. They can dampen it, but once it overloads those capacitors, who will also have failsafes to dampen what they can, boom near the capacitor. This is probably minor so long as the superstructure is intact and the chain of command is still functioning. Damage control can take care of overloaded fuses (metric ton fuses, heh). But once the reactor goes, any energy left in the capacitors is going to be very touchy due to all of the power surges. And of course there's going to be primary power lines buried deep in the hull that aren't supposed to get damaged, and react poorly (ie, spewing plasma and massive electrical current everywhere) when they are. If a ship's effective superstructure goes to zero, systems may still function (weapons firing, escape pods launching). But any protection of interior systems is gone. One more missile, one more DEW, one more railgun round -- that's all it takes to hit the previously well-armored systems that are likely to take such an assault poorly. Boom. On a side note, as much as it would kill framerates, seeing escape pods shoot out of anything frigate size or larger would be spiffy. Even if they fade away a few seconds later. |
|
|
|
| TelQuessir |
Posted on 18-11-2005 04:29
|
|
Posts: 2598 Joined: August 30 2005 |
Mmm, most interesting and article-deployable read. I'll get to your turret writeup soon. |
|
|
|
| yasotay |
Posted on 18-11-2005 11:51
|
|
Posts: 637 Joined: September 09 2005 |
I have always thought the destroyed ship models would be great, but we have always been challenged to have time and modellers to do so. That might require reprioritization of efforts, and long lead time, but I agree that it would enhance the overall appeal of PDS. Hopefully you could use fewer polys too in order to reduce the load. I think both the 'fight or flight' and the 'boom' are superb ideas. The 'fight or flight is a real consideration in war. The question is where do they run? To the SY? Edge of the map? Hyper out of the game? Will they run every time, or is it a random number generation? As to the 'boom' I have often repeated that if it is feasible (a reminder to the newer crew, I am a rock when it comes to computers) there is just as much chance the ship will just float and burn as there is that it will explode. I agree very much with Glacialis line of thought, but how do we impliment the visuals? |
|
|
|
| Vor_Rhonin |
Posted on 10-12-2005 06:25
|
 Posts: 42 Joined: November 14 2005 |
Reactor Explosions If you believe that nuclear reactors can not 'explode', look to Chernobl. When the reactor went, it blew it's roof off (literally). Edited by Vor_Rhonin on 10-12-2005 06:26 If you think that you are in a 'no win' scenario, it just means that you haven't been creative enough yet.
If you can't beat a problem directly, try flanking it. Any problem can be solved with the proper application of |
|
|
|
| Itharu |
Posted on 12-12-2005 05:25
|
 Posts: 363 Joined: September 23 2005 |
Quote CMDR_Vor_Rhonin wrote: Reactor Explosions If you believe that nuclear reactors can not 'explode', look to Chernobl. When the reactor went, it blew it's roof off (literally). That was a steam explosion. Nuclear explosions DO NOT HAPPEN. There's a reason why when nuke reactors have problems, they're called melt downs, because when uranium tends to atomically split, it keeps doing so unless excess neutrons can be absorbed. Otherwise that uranium gets hot and starts melting all over the place. And in the case of Chernobyl, it melted until it got to the steam pipes which decompressed quite violently. -Fear the Might of the Imperial Cortharian Fleet
|
|
|
|
| TelQuessir |
Posted on 12-12-2005 08:24
|
|
Posts: 2598 Joined: August 30 2005 |
It is sort of interesting to note the specific causes of the Chernobyl disaster. |
|
|
|
| Itharu |
Posted on 12-12-2005 18:12
|
|
Posts: 363 Joined: September 23 2005 |
Quote TelQuessir wrote: It is sort of interesting to note the specific causes of the Chernobyl disaster. A good lession of Not experimenting with a nuclear reactor was learnt by everyone. 3 Mile Isle could have just been as bad. But if more CANDU reactors were used, everyone would be happier and safer. -Fear the Might of the Imperial Cortharian Fleet
|
|
|
|
| Jump to Forum |