Ah come on, this is getting even worse. And it's still distracting from the actual problem: Why the **** are these satellites stuck to a fixed position anyway? Just an idiot would place a military satellite in a geosynchronous orbit, that's way to far away to get useful intelligence and counter time for weapon systems is also far to high. Leave alone that it takes AGES to change your orbit so that you can target a different location...
Uh huh. So guzwaatensen, if they have such technology, why are they still using ballistic missiles to shoot things into space?
Where is that ballistic missile you speak of? When playing the game i only see the gravity drive engage once the satellite is build and it then gracefully hovering to it's destination in 'orbit'...
Sorry for my crappy paint skills (also the necessary force is kinda wrong) but I think this explains what I mean. Its a bit of an exagaration but the basic principle is correct. A satellite which is stationary over a point on the surface of a planet (that is not on the equator) has an impossible orbit in as so far as that orbit's center is in nowhere near the center of mass. Ie. it orbits around nothing anymore. (Yes, the center of mass doesn't have to be inside the participating bodies but here the center of mass is approximatly inside the middle of the planet sphere while the orbit is way off that.) As you can see, my blue example satellite circles around nothing. Such a path would be extremely costly to achieve as, the closer you get to the poles, the more of the planets gravity you have to directly counter and the less you are in a real freefall. In the extreme case of a stationary point directly above the poles the satellite would need to counter the full gravitic pull of the planet. In earths case something around 10m/s^2 (bit less ofc. but thats details). This is an extreme acceleration you'd need to overcome all the time and anything that can do that for any significant time is basically indistinguishable from anti-gravity. Also, you would feel the full force of earths gravity on the satellite, so better use well reinforced solar panels else they'll break off. A small satellite that weights 100kg would need 1000N of constant acceleration. Even the most advanced ion engine designs we can currently imagine (with an exhaust v that is a significant fraction of c) are lower then a hundred newtons. Basically the engine needed to keep the satellite up there is the same engine needed to lift it off ground. Firing permanently, for as long as the satellite is up there on the north pole. Really, its anti-gravity at that point.
The kickstarter PreVis of course. And the fact that the Orbital Launcher looks like a great big rocket. Stop playing dumb... or did you really think that the way orbital units are produced currently is representative of what it will look like at release. If so... Awww, that's cute.
And before the next person brings up the comparison with the ever flying helicopter: Totally different thing. Helicopter works by displacement of the surrounding atmosphere and requires only very little energy for a decent thrust. In vacuum, the probe needs to supply the reaction mass itself which results in ridiculous high fuel consumptions if you would try to hold an artificial orbit.
well then, on a more serious note: This thread highlights very efficiently what i've observed throughout the forums. Everybody seems to have a radical different assumption of what orbital gameplay is actually going to be, and everybody assumes that all the other people have telepathic knowledge of their (mis-)conceptions... There have been quite a few threads on how orbital should be done, like localmadscientists, though his proposed solution sacrificed micro reduction for realism it still had all the compelling features of what orbital gameplay could be. I recently started a thread intended to talk about how we could make this reduced version of orbital viable, but it looks like you are not ready to go down without a fight. Maybe we can actually convince neutrino to reconsider, but to paraphrase your own words: 'we'd have to make a pretty compelling argument besides, 'because this is what we want'. All this bickering in 5 different threads spread in 3 sub forums isn't going to accomplish that... As you seem very passionate about this, much more passionate than i could be, why not create a new topic to educate the masses. And maybe another about how a meaningful version of orbital could be implemented that does not require KSP levels of simulation and micro... Edit: And as I feel my post could be interpreted as being condensing in tone let me just be very clear: i am serious, i would greatly appreciate if someone put up the effort to actually convince the devs to reconsider, but i think a higher degree of organization is required for this...
Posting such a thread would be pointless if Uber isn't willing to listen. If they would be willing to listen, discuss and use the community as a resource rather than as just a bank, then I'd be more than happy to write pages. Seeing as the last time I did so however I got told that they weren't accepting suggestions of the nature I was proposing I'm sceptical that they would do more than skim-read my, or anyone elses suggestions. As you pointed out, LocalMadSci has posted a wonderful suggestion thread. Currently it has been shot down by Neutrino himself and I think MadSci said most of what needed to be said about semi-realistic orbital units far better than I can. If Neutrino isn't willing to listen to the best of us, or even give such person's ideas a trial... then I fail to see the point in wasting my time writing something "eloquent" that would pale in comparison to what's already been said.
Your math is flawed. The satellite isn't on the surface but several thousand kilometers away. This means g isn't 9.81 m/s^2 anymore.
5kN is a LOT of thrust in vacuum. You can't compare that to a F-16, that thing generates most of its thrust by the displacement of air with the jet engines which is rather efficient, compared to the burning of rocket fuel and only using the mass of the fumes as reaction mass. Even with the (with todays technology) most efficient rocket engine, you would need to burn about 10kG of fuel PER SECOND (rounded down) to maintain that thrust.
Twenty kilograms? You think the satellite that is bigger than a conifer tree is only twenty kilograms? I'm afraid that your math is flawed
He uses 20 tons, dunno why he writes it as 20.000kg though. His math is correct for the distance he used. Depends on the distance you use. A normal spy satellite that flies what, a few hundred kilometers high in the air? Works out pretty well. Edit: Grammar
Must have not carried the three. Also, as exterminans pointed out, 5kN is a lot of force in space. Whatever engine is on that thing, considering its size, its fuel efficiency must be off the charts.
I guess that by "orbital units" Uber meant "Units on the orbital layer", not meaning units would be moving along an orbital trajectory. And i'm quite ok with this.
Well many of us are not. "Units on the orbital layer" is still a flawed difinition of what's going on here. There is no orbital layer. Nothing is orbiting. It's Air Layer 2.0
One word : Realism The bane of anyone trying to have a decent argument about video games. "Realism", in the sense commonly implied, does not matter. That is: games are not about creating accurate simulations, they are about having fun. No one complains about the mindless pouring of troops into battle in games like COD, (in "real" life you wouldn't send men into a locally locked slaughterhouses in groups of 20, again and again and again), but no-one complains about this because it is obvious that it wouldn't make as fun a game. Actual problems come from a different type of realism, the type of un-realism that takes people out of that state of enjoyment and go huh, that's odd or that's annoying, I thought it would work like this. Here I am referring to satellites mystically hovering in place, or objects clipping through walls. However people often don't notice the difference and end up in mindless debates about lore and technology in the game world trying to explain why cold fusion reactors are easy but hovering satellites aren't and other (wrong (imo)) people use this to their advantage claiming "if this unrealistic thing is possible (cold fusion reactors in seconds) then why aren't your (ridiculously named) inclined geostationary orbits? (Which btw under your definition would not be inclined, baryon, you clearly don't even understand orbits enough to have a comprehensive discussion on the realism of it even though this is unimportant anyway). So what I'm saying is people's mind can accept on a basic level that power plant can be built, or dustily ( like with the cod example) by clearly seeing that without the game would be ****. But on the other hand hovering satellites in the minds of most people don't make sense and remove the player from the state of almost subconscious acceptance that the game world could be possible, without which a lot of games would be remarkably less fun. Also +1 nanolathe , on this one.
If you want engines, wikipedia has a nice list of them in this article. Although as has been mentioned, even very efficient F15 jet engines only work a few hours until the plane has to refuel and liquid fuel rocket engines work for a few minutes top. Both of them aren't enough to keep a satellite up there for days.
And Land is Air 0.5 ? More seriously, what's your idea about orbital units gameplay. What orbital trajectories would bring to the gameplay ? So far you can move a satellite from point A to point B, so what trajectories would bring (by the way i do not like the orbital fighter).
Nice post Rabidfrog. "Suspension of Disbelief" is the term you're referring to in your post, and is definitely the issue here. It's what lets us believe that Lightsabers work, and that Alien "prawns" could land in South Africa. Magic satellites are a step to far for many people. Doud, it's not necessarily about exactly what "realistic" orbital mechanics add to the game, but what removing them takes away. It breaks the suspension of disbelief in the game. It breaks a fundamental rule of physics (or bends it to a point where it's barely recognisable) and doesn't offer any tangible increase in gameplay depth for that sacrifice. We don't gain anything by saying "**** you science" in this instance. Besides, they already MADE it so that asteroids need to transfer orbits and slingshot off the sun to impact, so they're completely inconsistent; on one hand we have semi-realistic n-body simulations, on the other magic satellites that can defy gravity.
