Well, I don't know about side boosters, but the reason why more massive objects don't turn so easily is because of inertia.... heavier objects need more force to make them move in comparison to lighter objects.

Of course, this is assuming that all ships use the same engines. Actually, it's rather boring that light, heavy and very heavy fighters all move at the same velocities (cruise, afterburn, etc.) You would think heavy fighters would move more slowly, although I sometimes get the impression that VHF ships tend to take a longer time to enter cruise.

I have seen a few posts regarding the physics in space and I think there could be a simple misunderstanding. I had to have it explained to me a number of years ago aswell.

Although there is no gravity in space, objects in space still have mass. The confusion arises when we think of weight as the same thing as mass. They are different. In fact, weight is a product of mass and gravity. And because there is no gravity in space, you get an equation times zero, thus zero weight. But the mass remains constant (unless you eat lots of jelly donuts...then your mass increases...mmmm, jelly donuts).

Anyway, mass still has an effect on objects moving through space. Newtonian science says that "an object in motion tends to stay in motion". The crux of this law is that once an object of any given mass is traveling in a straight line, in a frictionless environment, that object will have a tendency, ie, will WANT to continue to travel in that line. Thus, it becomes more difficult to change the trajectory or velocity of that object. And the more mass that object has, the more difficult it becomes to alter that object's range of motion. Thus, a MASSive frieghter requires more forces acting upon it (thrust, turning arc, etc) in order to change it's direction.

Anyway, the point is mass does not equal weight. Weight is irrelevant in space, since there is no gravity. Mass, however, is very relevant.

Ok, physics lesson over. Now this message is likely to be corrected, amended, disputed, or altered by the numerous scientists, engineers and physicists who very likely know more about this stuff than I do.

Now...time for those jelly donuts...



Those are my thoughts, not yours, I'm WapCaplet[!

Wap, you are certainly correct. The mass does effect inertia and accelleration. The top forward speed (cruise, burners, engine) however, would be unaffected. In space, with the same engine, all ships would have the same forward top speed, it would just take more massive ships longer to reach that speed (lower accelleration). In this respect, as far as I can tell, the game does a fair job of representing that.

nope.... if u want a real physics simulation, try using whatever NASA uses to train astronauts.....

FL is supposed to be a game, and dont complain about the physics while lloking at a planet that is only 5 or 6 times wider than a battleship is wide..

but yes, it is annoying that LFs are same speed as VHF/FR, but what can ya say? this has been discussed at length, so i think either a *click* or just stay away from it by yourself.

Remember, on a scale of 1 to Awesome, I'm Totally Great

---

Wap, you are certainly correct. The mass does effect inertia and accelleration. The top forward speed (cruise, burners, engine) however, would be unaffected. In space, with the same engine, all ships would have the same forward top speed, it would just take more massive ships longer to reach that speed (lower accelleration). In this respect, as far as I can tell, the game does a fair job of representing that.

---

Actually, they shouldn't really have any sort of relevant top speed.

Actually responde to the question about top speed, I believe that this is the max theoretical speed you can get to without breaking the speed of light barrier.
I believe in this game they assume that the speed of light is the limit, that why they don't do warp speed or other scifi thing and they have jump hole instead. Just my 2 cents.

If you want a more realistic flight model in space play Independence War. At least in I-War you don't really have a speed barrier. However, after years of playing Wing Commander games, X-Wing or TIE Fighter games, and even Starlancer, why do you need to mention the absurdity of a fighter's top speed in space. All of the space-sim games I mentioned (I-War excluded) have a top speed to their spacecraft. So, why is it that you need to complain about it now? This post isn't to insult ppl about their complaints, but rather to bring to your attention that an upper limit to your speed (Cruise, afterburner, or standard) is not a new concept in space-sims. Most of us have gotten used to it by now. However, the fact that all the ships in FL, be they freighter, light fighter, heavy fighter, or VHF all have the same top speeds should be something you should be complaining about (albeit lightly complaining). However, I don't mind overlooking this aspect of the game...just for the simple fact that it doesn't really matter. The game is fun. Mindless, sometimes chaotic, fun. Cheers.

BTW: the speed of light is 300000 meters per second. Cruise speed (even trade lane speeds) are not even close to this value.

Edited by - Ein-7919 on 01-04-2003 06:19:18

Edited by - Ein-7919 on 01-04-2003 07:53:00

i read from an earlir post about some side boosters, and thnx Wap, for the 'heads up' forgot my physics for the time being. well, get VHF ship compatible side boosters and another thing, the ships don't seem to go into orbit. . when ur near planets. . . but that'll make it all weird. . . so disregarded.
ok, now i'm gonna go anal and say. . .
according to my trusted astronomy book,
speed of light, or the 'c' bit in e=mc(2), = 299,792.458 km/s in space.
and break down uranus to form: ur anus, well, i just had to say that, to go with my anal character.........

presently, my world is upside down, so if u do not mind, u'll have to tok to my a$$