Battlestar Galactica II (No Joke)

[Baron Munchausen]

Originally posted by Puke:
i liked the space physics in b5.

Yes, B5 was often very realistic. You actually saw fighters swing around to reverse their thrust, and you could see maneuvering thrusters firing. There was some 'swooping and banking' but it was directly relatable to the direction of visible thrust. The ships in most SciFi from Star Wars to Buck Rogers to BSG behave as if they have an atmosphere.

[Suicide Junkie]

No, you missed my point. What I am saying is that BG is more realistic than you are giving it credit for. I think you are misunderstanding the physics involved in moving about in zero G. The thrust, the majority of it anyway, would be coming out the back, otherwise you wouldn't be going forward. You would also apply side thrust, either by jets on the side of the nose, or by angling some of the thrust coming out the back, to turn the ship.

Ah, but the problem he was describing is the fact that those ships turn as if they had the main thrust coming out of the bottom, instead of the back.

The ship pulls up by 10 degrees, and ends up going directly forwards (10 degrees off the old course), and at the same speed as before.
To do that, you'd need a large thrust downwards (and a little bit of retro), and the main engines in the back certainly can't vector the thrust that much (> 90 degrees!)

There also seems to be an awful lot unmodded SE4's Thrust = Speed in these shows, too.

[geoschmo]

[quote]Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:

The ships in most SciFi from Star Wars to Buck Rogers to BSG behave as if they have an atmosphere.

*Sigh* Ok, one more time.

It's not atmosphere, it's inertia. You can't stop on a dime and change directions at 90 degree anlges. Well your ship might be able too, but you will be paste if you try it.

B5 combat has that appearance some times because of the camera angles they choose to use. Close in, moving in formation. From that perspective small shifts in vector or speed will be exagerated.

The others you mention all primarily use a more stationary or distant camera perspective. From there these manuvers would appear more curved, because they are actually curved in reality. You just can't see the curves when you are right up close to the action and moving as fast as the other ship.

Neither is any more inherantly correct or incorrect because in actuallity if they were viewed from the same perspective they would appear the same. You are being tricked by the different perspective. For the most part anyway.

One thing that you see in B5 you don't see in the others though is the ships flipping and rotating around a lot. That has nothing to do with direction of travel though. In that case there is no reason a viper with a cylon on it's tail couldn't simply turn 180 degrees and fly backwards. Except it would have to cut power it couldn't keep up it's acceleration and would be overtaken very quickly.

The ships in B5 do look more like space ships and less like airplanes than the others though, that is certainly true.

Geo

[geoschmo]

[quote]Originally posted by Suicide Junkie:

The ship pulls up by 10 degrees, and ends up going directly forwards (10 degrees off the old course), and at the same speed as before.
To do that, you'd need a large thrust downwards (and a little bit of retro), and the main engines in the back certainly can't vector the thrust that much (> 90 degrees!)

What? I am missing something here. If the thrust is pointed aft, your ships will go forward in a straight line. If your engines are on the back pointing aft, you will always move in the direction your nose is pointed. So if you want to go a different direction, you move your nose. Point your nose at something, fire engines aft, go there. Seems pretty simple and realistic. whether it's a ten degree course change or a 90 degree course change, the principle is the same.

Geo

[geoschmo]

Ok, here's a good example to demonstrate my point. Look at a gun camera from a present day fighter. And not the slowed down for TV films. The real thing, full speed. It will look like a bunch of planes zipping around changing directions and speeds at impossosible angles. But view the same manuvers from a few miles away on a slow moving aircraft, or from the ground and you will see lots of graceful curves. It's more to do with your pespective and speed relative to the action.

Geo

[capnq]

If you take our own history, and take an Aircraft carriar of today back to WWI era, they would not under stand the physics and technology of it or the aircraft that it carries.

Dean McLaughlin did a quite good treatment of this idea in "Hawk Among The Sparrows".

[Baron Munchausen]

Originally posted by geoschmo:
What? I am missing something here. If the thrust is pointed aft, your ships will go forward in a straight line. If your engines are on the back pointing aft, you will always move in the direction your nose is pointed. So if you want to go a different direction, you move your nose. Point your nose at something, fire engines aft, go there. Seems pretty simple and realistic. whether it's a ten degree course change or a 90 degree course change, the principle is the same.
Geo

You are missing the STYLE of the change in direction. We are not talking about the arc of the fighter's movement, we are talking about the way it changes attitude in the process of that movement. In B5 you can see thrusters fire to make the fighter change attitude and then it starts to change velocity -- after the main thrusters have changed direction. In most other SciFi shows the fighters/ships just swoop nose first wherever the choreographers of the fight think they should go with no visible forces exerted as if they had an atmosphere to maneuver in! Get it? Invisible forces in space. It doesn't make sense.

[ June 25, 2002, 22:06: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]