Asymmetrical Ship Sets

[DirectorTsaarx]

Originally posted by geoschmo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by TerranC:

quote:

---

Originally posted by geoschmo:
Humans are very visual and symetrical creatures. It is hard for us to look at an asymetrical craft and not think it's got a problem.

Many architecture is not symmetrical.

Humans are not perfectly symmetrical:
Facial features notably Eyes, Ears, and Nose are not symmetrical.
The human lung, liver, stomach, and kidneys are not symmetrical.

(One kidney is a bit bigger than the other... )

---

Right. Which we have already discussed and I acknowleded earlier in the thread. But haveing one eye a milimeter bigger than the other is not really asymetrical for the purposes of our discussion. That would be like saying a battle ship is an asymetrical design because it only has an airlock hatch on one side of the ventral pod. If it were, would you even notice it in a 36 x 36 bitmap image? What most people are talking about with asymetrical ship designs would be equivalent to a being with two feet on one leg and both arms on one side of it's body.

I agree it makes for interesting and very alien looking ships. But since almost every life form on earth is basically symetrical, or at least tends towards it if possible, we are safe making some assumptions. Not hard cold assurances of course, but if the processes that formed life on earth hold true throughout the universe, you would tend to think that it is common for life forms on other planets to also be basically symetrical.

Geoschmo

---

Not only is life on earth basically symmetrical, symmetry is one of the defining characteristics of beauty. The more symmetrical a face is, the more beautiful it appears to the average human. I found an article on this years ago, which included a couple pictures of Lyle Lovett (one of the weirdest-looking guys around); one picture was a standard full-face; but the second was a morphed Version, where the authors copied the right half of his face, reversed it, and used it as the left half of his face. Once they made his face perfectly symmetrical, he really was a decent-looking guy. So, natural selection should tend towards symmetry. Perfect symmetry isn't going to happen, but many people come pretty close. Barring major accidents, of course.

Besides, the asymmetry being asked for in ship design is major, not minor. Like having a wing/nacelle/control pod on one side of the ship, but not the other.

And one thought on why ships are usually symmetrical - in non-SE4 combat, where turn radius and weapon arcs are taken into account, it could be dangerous (if not suicidal) to only have weapons/sensors/etc. only mounted on one side of the ship, as the enemy (if they're intelligent) would focus their attack on the less-protected flank. Now, in SE4, where turn radius and weapon arcs don' matter, let the ships be as asymmetrical as possible. Have some fun. Or, if you get bored with asymmetry, try for more than just bilateral (i.e., right/left or top/bottom type) symmetry; go for tri- quad- or even pentalateral symmetry. Or more, if you're that talented...

[capnq]

Star Control 1 is the game with 4 factions - blue, green, red and grey

The original Star Control had two sides with seven races each, with each race having a single ship design and special ability. IIRC, the four colors were used on the star map to show Alliance control, uncolonized, Hierarchy control, and unexplored, respectively.

From a physics standpoint, symmetry give you a more predictable center of gravity, which makes it easier to control the direction of acceleration under thrust.

[Pax]

Originally posted by Taera:
Star Control 1 is the game with 4 factions - blue, green, red and grey, everyone with the same types but very different ships and abilities, right?

It shouldnt be too difficult to mod, their ships are rather simple.

Nope.

Star Control 1 has TWO factions. The Ur-Quan and their Hierarchyof BAttle Thralls ... and the Alliance of Free Stars.

On the Hierarchy side, hoping I don't miss a few, were (SC1) the Ur-Quan, VUX, Mycon, Androsynth, Umgah, Ilwrath, and Spathi. SC2 added the Thraddash, and introduced the Ur-Quan's "sibling" secies, the Kor-Ah.

On the Alliance side were the Humans, Chenjesu, Shofixti (samurai squirrels in space! lol!), Yehat, Mrnhrm, Ariloulaleelay (a.k.a. Arilou), and the Syreen. SC2 added, in the New Alliance of Free Stars, the Chmrr (combined Chenjesu and Mrnhrm), Zoq-Fot-Pik, Supox, Utwig, the Yehat's own splintered "sibling" race, the Pkunk, the Slylandro, and the Orz.

Neutrals in SC2, were the Melnorme traders, and ... damn, I can't remember, the slave-trading bastards in their "Mauler" flying-cannon ships ... whatever their names were.

SC3 introduced a few other races; I forget most of them.

...

The trick is, each race had it's own, single, sole ship design. Each had (usually) two abilities, the main weapon, and some special ability.

For example, the Arilou "flying saucer" affair had a VERY-short-range, rapid-reload laser, that auto-aimed towards the enemy. Their special ability was to teleport (randomly) aroudn the battlefield, a useful escape trick after making a (dangerous) strafing run on the enemy.

Meanwhile, the Vux had slow, barge-in-space, klingon-lookalike warships with a hugely powerful, mid-range laser out the front. Their SPECIAL ability made them combat worthy -- little "limpet" missiles, that slowed the enemy down if they hit (and clung, ofc).

So, each race would need to have their own set of technologies to be properly done in SE4 style, mod-wise.

Shipset-wise ... each race had only a single ship, and, they weren't always of the same "size" (the Arilou SKiff and Shofixti Scout would both likely be Escort of at best Frigate sized vessels, for example). however, a certain style MIGHT be extractable from those basic images, if a talented shipset designer was motivated to assay the attempt. 8)

[Pax]

[quote]Originally posted by capnq:

From a physics standpoint, symmetry give you a more predictable center of gravity, which makes it easier to control the direction of acceleration under thrust.

With centerline engines, perhaps.

But ... look at the Illea ship. You have a core, roughly-symmetrical ship. On the far side (form our viewpoint) you have, close to the core, an obviously large,massive assembly, probably the main weapons array.

On the NEAR side, you haveonly what appears to be a small communications array -- but note it is flung well out from the core hull. This preserves (somewhat) the center of gravity of the ship, relative to the production of thrust.

It doesn't matter the SHAPE of the ship, it matters the distribution of MASS, when it comes to *propulsive* symmetry.

[Arkcon]

Originally posted by DirectorTsaarx:
Once they made his face perfectly symmetrical, he really was a decent-looking guy. So, natural selection should tend towards symmetry. Perfect symmetry isn't going to happen, but many people come pretty close. Barring major accidents, of course.

It is so bizzare to hear you say that. When I took high school psychology the teacher told us that asymmetry was preferable. A perfectly symmetrical face would just look wrong. People would dislike it and not know why. But if it improved Lyle Lovett , well I gotta remember that one to use for my wedding photos.

That teacher also tried to convince us that striving for perfect symmetry was a sign of a sick mind. If an adult still drew a stick figure house symmetrically -- perfect square, triange roof, flanked by two equal trees, chiminey and sun in the center -- you had to look out, they are likly to crack under pressure.

He actually taught this method and other tricks to people who wanted to avoid the draft in the '50's. And presumably it worked (or the other tricks did, or everyone just got lucky)

[ October 01, 2002, 03:57: Message edited by: Arkcon ]

[dumbluck]

Pax: Manuevering thrust calculations would be a [explicative deleted] on a severely asymetrical ship. I think...

[LazarusLong42]

Dumbluck: I would contend otherwise. A standard set of manuevering thrusters is three sets of four: yaw, roll, pitch. As long as each member of a given set is placed symmetrically with respect to an axis passing through the center of gravity of the ship, the calculations become trivial.

And on top of that, you have the computer to do all the heavy math lifting for you anyway

[geoschmo]

Correct. Asymetry is purely a visual thing. For any ship design to be sound from an engineering poitn of view it HAS to be "balanced" around a center of gravity and the thrust has to be applied either centerline to that or balanced on all sides of that centerline or you get rotation instead of directional thrust.

Balance is not an option, it has to be balanced. But being balaced does not mean it has to be visually symetrical.

Geoschmo

[Suicide Junkie]

Just to throw a monkey wrench into the works here, how about battle damage?

Would it be easier to recalculate the thrust balance and vectoring in order to fly straight after a torpedo has torn a chunk out of your hull given a previously-symmetrical ship or not?

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by Suicide Junkie:
Just to throw a monkey wrench into the works here, how about battle damage?

Would it be easier to recalculate the thrust balance and vectoring in order to fly straight after a torpedo has torn a chunk out of your hull given a previously-symmetrical ship or not?

I'd say it probably wouldn't matter either way. Unless the damage was to the engines themselves, or the guidance computer, it shouldn't have an effect on either. And the damage was to one fo these critical areas it would effect either ship to the same degree likely.

Geoschmo

EDIT: Hmm. I may have answered that too fast. Given that an asymetrical design of the same mass would likely have mass farther out from the center of gravity, then perhaps. Because the farther form the COG you lose mass due to battle damage, the more it will affect the handling characteristics. I still tend to think the engines and thrusters could compensate, but that depends on how much redundancy is built into the design.

[ October 01, 2002, 17:15: Message edited by: geoschmo ]