0.97: wolfen turning rate?

[hookoa]

Quote: The farther away from your midpoint the thruster is, the more it can do. I don't think it makes much of a difference.


I'm probably wrong on this, but I think if you have a cylindrical bar in space with diameter X, thrusters at 1/4x and thrusters at 3/4x from center would spin the cylinder at the same rate if they are both equal.

[Fossaman]

I'm not saying ANYTHING about what's reasonable or realistic...I'm just saying it's a pain in the reactor to turn so slowly when you have any kind of payload!

I would suggest a cap on the amount that the turning rate can be reduced...say, at two thirds of the standard rate. This would still be enough to affect combat, maneuvering, etcetera, but it wouldn't be crippling.

[das]

[quote="george moromisato"]
...
4. But how do you rationalize that? Why is armor so special? Wouldn't any excess mass decrease maneuverability? OK, then I guess a ship's maneuverability should suffer with any increase in mass. There, are you happy now?
...
[/quote]

If you are looking for a reason why armor affects maneuverability more than cargo. Here is an answer (some real physics included)...

How fast the ship accelerates is determined by its mass.
How fast the ship turns is determined by it moment of inertia (mass * distance from center of ship).
ex. a tucked high diver spins fasters than an untucked diver (same w/ ice skaters)

armor placed on the outside of a ship would more significantly increase the the moment of inertia than cargo placed in the center of the ship.

[Yugi]

armor placed on the outside of a ship would more significantly increase the the moment of inertia than cargo placed in the center of the ship.

Yes, which would require extra engines/thrust to turn, which we don't have, hence the slower turning rate! Just because cargo is at the center doesn't mean it won't increase the difficulty of turning. I believe there should be less of a decrease of turning rate, but that' already been discussed.

[Czert]

I thing cargo can have small affect on turnin rate (simply more tons to move - slower acceleration). I supose ratio 15:1. 15 tons of cargo have the same effect on turning rate as 1 ton of armour.
But is to discussion how big effect will have added one ton of armour. (is posible to game count added tons - I meand ship have originaly total 60 tons of armour and if you install 120 tons to have half manoeuvrability?)
This can force to have lightly armoured and agile ship or slow turning heavily armoured beast.

And is here one problem with long freigters (Red Dwarf originaly sung freighter?) - having lots of cargo/armour out of centre and this case make no sense to differ between effect of armour/cargo.

[Burzmali]

Also, larger ships have verniers further away from their CM. The further away, the larger their torque, and the faster the ship turns. In addition, larger ships might even have room for gyros that can store energy for very high turning rates.

[Clear Air Turbulence]

Just wanted to note that the Freighter appears to not be slowed down by cargo much at all. Heaviest armor I've got on it so far is Gosuku (sp?), though, so maybe armor has a bigger effect when I start reaching it's armor weight limit.

[Fossaman]

I've been playing a freighter game recently, and I agree with CAT's observation (sorry for the acronym! You asked for it with the long name!:P). A Freighter with a full cargo hold retains more manueverability than a wolfen with the same. That's just WRONG.

[Burzmali]

The Wolfen is a dedicated fighter, I doubt the designers were too concerned with its performance with a heavy load. That said, drive upgrades would have more of an effect on the wolfen than the freighter.

[F50]

I still agree with Fossa that it is wrong. The high-class Wolfen usually has max or near max cargo, if the Wolfen is reduced to frieghter late-game...I just couldn't play the Wolfen because it becomes no-longer feasible and although that may be true in real life, we would need to be able to change ships mid-game to balance that fact.