Traveling At the Speed of Light

[Clear Air Turbulence]

I recall asking George about artificial gravity and the like once, for a story I was writing. He said humans didn't have anything like that. I'd assume that applies to inertia and the like as well.

So the in game accelerations are just fudging. Gameplay > Reality, in this case. You can try using realistic accelerations if you want to, but it's really, really boring.

Yes, with realistic accelerations, with one game second equalling one real minute, it would take hours to reach maximum velocity.

Not having artificial gravity does not rule out having an inertia reducing system, though. Theoretically, we are closer to reducing inertia than we are to creating gravity. It's conceivable that the humans of the Transcendence universe have a more thorough understanding of the Higgs-Boson particle's effect on inertia and have a field that greatly reduces an objects inertia in relation to it's mass, but cannot create artificial gravity. This would explain why the ships still use a reaction drive, and have a maximum velocity - reaction drives would work great with an inertia reducer, and they would not require the reaction mass to move at close to the speed of light - the maximum velocity of a ship would be the speed of the reaction mass.

[Aury]

oh and, to add onto the fusion reactor comment, we also have 1GW+ powerplants (they might not be compact enough to fit into a ship, but we could power a lamplighter, even a lazarus!)

[Aeonic]

I would actually like to see more reactors that use size as a factor. I think its only reasonable that a dreadnought should be able to fit a more powerful reactor than a yacht. Which isn't to say there couldn't be a reactor of equal power for the yacht, but think Ferrari - its small, compact, powerful and really friggin' EXPENSIVE!

(I don't know if anyone else has done it for their mods, but I'm working on a set of additional reactors to fit into the game as alternatives to typical. They've got different power/efficiency/fuel/weight ratios, so the player can find a reactor that suits their needs and budgets. I'd like to throw some extra-large cheaper/powerful ones in there.)

[Dalva]

why not using Anti-Matter engine for propulsion? it's gonna be very efficient

[Aury]

why not using Anti-Matter engine for propulsion? it's gonna be very efficient

you have to make the antimatter first...

[Aeonic]

Antimatter propulsion would also kill everything in its wake, which is hard to emulate in-game.

[Aury]

Of course, game makers have their secret weapon to combat almost anything (except flying invisible purple space cows and the like of course...) : fluff text...

[evilbob]

fluff text...

SPESS MEHREENS!
FOR THE EMPRA!

[Aury]

of course... the fluff text has to be done right... I mean, what's the point of having a gun if all you ever do is shoot yourself in the foot with it... You have to know how to aim and shoot and reload afterall.

[schilcote]

Antimatter propulsion would also kill everything in its wake, which is hard to emulate in-game.

WRONG!

Check out Bobby's Afterburner.

Also, I don't think antimatter would do that any more than a normal rocket would, all the antimatter is being used up in the drive.

[Aury]

Antimatter propulsion would also kill everything in its wake, which is hard to emulate in-game.

WRONG!

Check out Bobby's Afterburner.

Also, I don't think antimatter would do that any more than a normal rocket would, all the antimatter is being used up in the drive.

Yes it would, not antimatter damage, but the fact that its producing way more energy than a normal chem drive would still makes it very dangrous to stand around...

[Ttech]

Antimatter propulsion would also kill everything in its wake, which is hard to emulate in-game.

WRONG!

Check out Bobby's Afterburner.

Also, I don't think antimatter would do that any more than a normal rocket would, all the antimatter is being used up in the drive.

Yes it would, not antimatter damage, but the fact that its producing way more energy than a normal chem drive would still makes it very dangrous to stand around...

So you would be green and possibly growing extra arms, what's the harm?

[Aury]

Antimatter propulsion would also kill everything in its wake, which is hard to emulate in-game.

WRONG!

Check out Bobby's Afterburner.

Also, I don't think antimatter would do that any more than a normal rocket would, all the antimatter is being used up in the drive.

Yes it would, not antimatter damage, but the fact that its producing way more energy than a normal chem drive would still makes it very dangrous to stand around...

So you would be green and possibly growing extra arms, what's the harm?

Ok, I meant more of the extreme levels of energy burning you into a crisp more of a thing, but it does output high levels of radiation too.

[Bobby]

any space-worthy vessel has excellent radiation shielding, and the anti-mater drive would have it's own too, if humans have a lightweight solution to blocking gamma, the radiation is not a problem.

anti-matter exhaust would not be more dangerous to stand in front of than any other exhaust of similar power, so long as the pilot follows standard engine courtesy and throttles down when near others.

The anti-matter would be more unstable in the engine, and producing it is at best 50% efficient, so making it usable on a ship could be a challenge.(I wouldn't want my anti-matter containing magnetic field losing power when the anti-matter is still in the chamber, some station masters probably wouldn't want the explosion risk near their docks.)

[Aury]

Thing is, is that a higher power engine delivers more power in its exhaust. Thus you'd have to throttle further down...
to get from 10 to 9, you subtract 10% (1). To get from 100 to 9, you subtract 91% (91)...
Not everyone is going to be nice and throttle down. We see people like that here in LA w/ our insanely annoying traffic.

And not everything in space is space worthy either.