Author Topic: Phase Displacement Space Drives - potentially useful energy drive for BR?  (Read 2671 times)

Wadusher

  • Founder
  • *
  • Posts: 234
Hi everyone! Its been a while since I posted here, hasn't it?  :P

Anyway, I recently stumbled across a concept for a cool looking sublight warp drive called a Phase Displacement Space Drive, which is essentially a series of powerful magnets that can expand and contract space at slightly faster than the speed of light. They're fairly slow but seem very efficient, due to not having to carry around big, heavy propellant all over the place. They do need loads of energy, but we'd likely be hauling reactors everywhere in game for other reasons, so I would assume this to be a pretty big advantage.  :D

What do you guys think, would they make a good addition to the game? I can see these being used as, rotational thrusters and possibly main engines for smaller ships.  :)

Strait Raider

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1335
  • It's "Strait", as in the body of water.
Looks like another crock of pseudoscience purporting to have the secret to a reactionless drive exploiting the general public's weak understanding of magnetism.

Personally I'd prefer no explanation for in-game drives to having pseudo-science explanations. :/

There are plenty of sub-light propulsion systems which are grounded in real scientific principles.
« Last Edit: March 17, 2014, 09:13:23 pm by Strait Raider »

Iago

  • Founder
  • *
  • Posts: 148
  • Keep calm and charge the FTL drive
That looks totally like Star Trek. I'm all for it, but it should have its drawbacks.
Superbia mentis potens in armis.

Me2005

  • Founder
  • Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 2104
Looks like another crock of pseudoscience purporting to have the secret to a reactionless drive exploiting the general public's weak understanding of magnetism.

Personally I'd prefer no explanation for in-game drives to having pseudo-science explanations. :/

There are plenty of sub-light propulsion systems which are grounded in real scientific principles.

+1

Look up the photon drive. Basically reactionless, but you're trading reaction mass for fuel mass in spades. And if we had those in-game, the implication would be that we could pretty easily level planets.

That looks totally like Star Trek. I'm all for it, but it should have its drawbacks.

I think there should probably just be one in-game method of STL-travel that players can modify to suit their tastes. Frankly, I'm realizing you could just have one main engine block and we'd be able to modify the output nearly endlessly as long as each block only adds X thrust. More blocks = more thrust for more fuel.
But you were dead a thousand times. Hopeless encounters successfully won. A man long dead, grafted to machines your builders did not understand. You follow the path, fitting into an infinite pattern. Yours to manipulate, to create and rebuild.

I know who you are.

You are destiny.

Aaron

  • BR Developer
  • Creative Director, ZanMgt
  • *****
  • Posts: 2018
  • Available on the IRC from 9:00am to 5:00pm (EST)
    • http://www.zanmgt.com
Hahah yeah, during my early research on space propulsion I came across this thing too.  Figured something similar could excuse our "every direction" thruster blocks, but I think I'm with Strait here in not having too deep of an explanation on how the things work.

Welcome back Wadusher, btw.  ;)


Quote from: Me2005
I think there should probably just be one in-game method of STL-travel that players can modify to suit their tastes.

Biggest separation we've seen is the need for 'torque' thrusters that have a lighter and more immediate touch for turning, and 'drive' thrusters for moar speeds but maybe have a longer start/stop period that'd be too clunky for turning.

Might also want a dedicated "booster" to get up to speed faster.

We'll see as we espirement in the multiplayer environment.  ::)
Stop by the IRC and say Hi! -- Online Dev Chat

Me2005

  • Founder
  • Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 2104
Biggest separation we've seen is the need for 'torque' thrusters that have a lighter and more immediate touch for turning, and 'drive' thrusters for moar speeds but maybe have a longer start/stop period that'd be too clunky for turning.

Might also want a dedicated "booster" to get up to speed faster.

We'll see as we espirement in the multiplayer environment.  ::)


Agreed; the second part of my quote was "one main-engine block" which could've been clearer. Afterburners could be a use-mode of the main block that burns 2x as much fuel for 2x the thrust, or a result of blocks stacked 2 deep (or something). The jist was that the actual STL method shouldn't be varied that much (so no impulse, proton, chemical, etc. etc. "made-up-tech" engines, just one all-around black-box 'engine tech'), and that there also probably don't need to be many block-types for engines either (main, RCS/support, maybe boost).
But you were dead a thousand times. Hopeless encounters successfully won. A man long dead, grafted to machines your builders did not understand. You follow the path, fitting into an infinite pattern. Yours to manipulate, to create and rebuild.

I know who you are.

You are destiny.

Wadusher

  • Founder
  • *
  • Posts: 234
That looks totally like Star Trek. I'm all for it, but it should have its drawbacks.
Exactly. :D
I figure one of its drawbacks would be the fact that they make more heat than most engines.
Hahah yeah, during my early research on space propulsion I came across this thing too.  Figured something similar could excuse our "every direction" thruster blocks, but I think I'm with Strait here in not having too deep of an explanation on how the things work.

Welcome back Wadusher, btw.  ;)


Biggest separation we've seen is the need for 'torque' thrusters that have a lighter and more immediate touch for turning, and 'drive' thrusters for moar speeds but maybe have a longer start/stop period that'd be too clunky for turning.

Might also want a dedicated "booster" to get up to speed faster.

We'll see as we espirement in the multiplayer environment.  ::)

I was never gone. ;)
That's essentially what I had in mind for the engines. And yeah, I agree, we don't need a lot of technobabble beyond "energy/fuel goes in, thrust comes out" to explain them. :P

Axel

  • Founder
  • *
  • Posts: 94
I'd suggest Ion Thrusters for maneuvering and whatever other tech for sub-light.

Personally I'd prefer no explanation for in-game drives to having pseudo-science explanations. :/

I think videogames need to stop throwing in with quackery in general. It's only okay when the media's admitting/aware of how bad the science is, and even then, it still has to be pulled off in a cool way. Giving some stuff its own name and establishing your own internally consistent rules for it is a far better method than trying to use someone else's warped view of realism.
« Last Edit: March 30, 2015, 01:25:22 pm by Axel »

Aaron

  • BR Developer
  • Creative Director, ZanMgt
  • *****
  • Posts: 2018
  • Available on the IRC from 9:00am to 5:00pm (EST)
    • http://www.zanmgt.com
@Axel

As a dev, using a someone else's standard for some hand-wavium is just a way to move on to the next problem with the game without having to spend too much time on it.

It's a good point though, and something I'll keep in mind. ^.^
Stop by the IRC and say Hi! -- Online Dev Chat