Rationale for 2D world in which planets don\'t move
 

In another topic someone complained (mildly) that SEIV was 2D and that the planets don't orbit the stars. OK, of course we know that ITRW it is like that because it's easier to program and play that way. But, in the SEIV world, what is the "scientific" explanation? Ideas, anyone?

Re: Rationale for 2D world in which planets don\'t move
 

The 2D planets in SE4 _do_ move. The static appearance of a system is more a relation of the distance between:
- The star(s) forming the heart of the system.
- The orbiting bodies of the system (planets, asteroid fields, etc.)
- Warp points within the system.
Looking at this as a relational model, we can stipulate that the Eart revolves around Sol within a small range (at least in astronomical distances.) Placing a Warp Point on the solar plane (comparative to Earth) at a specific distance from Sol, even taking into account the rotation of the earth, at the true range, the distance, again astronomically speaking, approaches insignificance.

I had to lecture some friends on this point for several hours. My personal feeling is that it's done because to rotate 100+ systems would be processor intensive and not really worth in (at least, in astronomical terms...)

Re: Rationale for 2D world in which planets don\'t move
 

Greghacke's comment makes great sense when comparing distances between inner planets like Earth and outer planets like Neptune. The distance between them doesn't depend much on their orbital positions because the inner planets are so close to Sol while the outer planets are so far away. But for comparing inner to inner, or outer to outer, the orbital positions will make a big difference.

However, I just thought of another argument that strengthens Greghacke's point. It is this: the orbital periods of the outer planets are quite large, so over the course of 100 years (=1000 game turns) maybe their relative distances wouldn't change that much. If so, that just leaves the problem of inner-to-inner distances. Since those are relatively small, you'd only change them by maybe one sector and so it isn't worth keeping track of. The extra realism would not affect game play much.

There's one big hole in the idea, though. It still doesn't explain minefields. Why can't ships avoid them simply by going out of the ecliptic (the plane containing the planetary orbits)?

Re: Rationale for 2D world in which planets don\'t move
 

Actually mines are easy to explain if you look at it just a little differently.

They are not limited to the ecliptic either. Further a single mine unit is in fact a large group of mines not just one mine. Thus you have a largish wall of mines. And since most mines are put around one of the following...
A) A warp point
B) A planet
C) A star

Following explanation

mines suround the sector in a large globe, each mine unit being one globe of mines. Once one mine is activated the rest have simple computer seeking algorithms with one time use propulsion that allow them to target the offending ship and impact on it.


Simple easy explanation. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: Rationale for 2D world in which planets don\'t move
 

The planets and warp points *do* rotate.

(hands start waving about to help the explanation)

However, to keep everything simple, the viewport spins so that we always see one direction as "up", and everything looks like it doesn't move.

(hands speed up)

Obviously, this is inconsistent with basic orbital mechanics as we know them, in which closer-orbiting objects tend to have shorter orbital periods. However, due to the presence of Handwavium in the SEIV universe, SEIV orbital objects all have the same orbital period regardless of distance!

(hands begin to blur)

This physical anomaly is also linked the the phenomenon of Warp Points; because of the way that the Hubble Force interacts with the Ptolemaic Force, Warp Points are only possible in universes were orbital periods are fixed.

(hands stop)

The implications regarding launch velocities for ships departing trans-C orbital objects (how fast does Uranus have to go to keep up with Mercury?) is left for a future lecture. 8)


[This message has been edited by James Sterrett (edited 30 November 2000).]

Re: Rationale for 2D world in which planets don\'t move
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
The planets and warp points *do* rotate.
(hands start waving about to help the explanation)

However, to keep everything simple, the viewport spins so that we always see one direction as "up" [...]
(hands speed up)

Obviously, this is inconsistent with basic orbital mechanics as we know them [...]
(hands begin to blur)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bu-wa-ha-hah! A fine example of figurative (as well as literal) "hand waving" as practiced by some real astronomers/cosmologists when trying to sell their pet theories! http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif Quite funny....

Re: Rationale for 2D world in which planets don\'t move
 

Okay.. this is off topic, but I have to ask if this is the same James Sterret from the old Flanker mailing list...I mean.. how many can there be?

Re: Rationale for 2D world in which planets don\'t move
 

Yup, same one.... might have run into me via Flanker, and also TacOps, BCT, TTLG, Steel Beasts. Um, and probably others. 8)

Re: Rationale for 2D world in which planets don\'t move
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cyrien:
Actually mines are easy to explain if you look at it just a little differently.

They are not limited to the ecliptic either. Further a single mine unit is in fact a large group of mines not just one mine. Thus you have a largish wall of mines. And since most mines are put around one of the following...
A) A warp point
B) A planet
C) A star

Following explanation

mines suround the sector in a large globe, each mine unit being one globe of mines. Once one mine is activated the rest have simple computer seeking algorithms with one time use propulsion that allow them to target the offending ship and impact on it.


Simple easy explanation. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

To be a globe of mines would require constant thrust to keep the globe intact. If they had several different orbital planes, they would quickly disperse and be ineffective. If they are constantly thrusting, they should not be hard to detect and should require one engine component to keep them in place and a component to collect supplies keep moving (hyrdogen partical collecter).

The other alternative, is only allow them at planets, astroids, and star squares. I'd claim that warp points are not gravity sinks and cannot receive mine fields. That would make the game less defensive.

I'm inclined to turn off Mine technology in games anyway.