if there were another x-wing game....

[F'faaway]

Its simply both sensors consolodated onto one screen like we saw in the X-Wing cockpit in the movies.

 

we did? which episode(s)?

 

A poorly made sentance on my part. =-) I meant like we saw the cockpit configuration in the movies hehe

 

 

I also remember a small monitor, possibly two, that R2 can use to display his text as he speaks from ESB.

 

just to clarify- u mean we yaw in one direction & roll in the other? im kinda confused about whether the stick is supposed to roll

 

example, apply rudder left, and stick right. Not fully pegged either direction, (although pegged is a great defensive manouver) but balance between the two to sideslip. With XWA and a rudderless joystick you could do this with the number pad 1 and 3 keys and your joystick but much more difficult without analog rudder input.

 

Now techinally, as in a modern airplane, the stick would roll and the rudders would yaw and the yoke would pitch, but the games have never been programmed correctly. In a jet, to turn you would bank, then pull back on the stick. The x-Wing games do this for you automatically, but ive never thought it was a very accurate design. it works tho. I can still aim at TIEs and BLAST EM! Personally, I spose I prefer Stick for heading and rudders for roll exactly like the YT- series craft fly in XWA.

 

Of course, X-wing Torpex Rq8.Y Flight Avionics Package (i think thats the one.) is not 100% mechanical connecting flight stick to thruster output via linkages but computer driven (im guessing hehe) so it is theoretically possible that you could re configure the controls to fly any way youd like!

 

i dont really see a pair of rudder pedals. is the rudder function built into the joystick? coz the sidewinder has that, too.

 

you can connect pedals yes, but it has rudder controls built into the throttle handle. hmm. if i remember correctly, the sidewinders rudder is done by twisting the stick right? that works!

 

As for Axes - X, Y,(stick) Z(rudder), and throttle are the main axes, and the 2 rotaries that can be configured as axes but not super usefull that way. thats 6. Kinda funky wording on their part.

Sadly, no force feedback, but i think theyre talking about it in a future design.

 

 

 

Zoom, yeah, reverse thrusters are theoretically possible, but lets consider some things. The X-wing itself with its 4-Incom 4j.4 Fusial Thrust Engines are the most likely candidate for reverse thrust however, very unlikely as youd have to spin your impellers to a stop, and reverse, then stop again to go forward again... imagine the wear and tear ! LOL one mission and theyd be scrapped for maintenence! Not to mention theres no air in space to impell or propell against. HOWEVER ! examine closely the design of the engine and its simply not possible for reverse thrust.

Consider all of the fighters, i cant think of a single one that has any type of reversing thrust capabilities. they would all have to have thrusters mounted both directions.

 

The X-Wing games simply simulate "drag" on the craft, and we all know there is no drag in space.

 

The SFS P-s4 Twin Ion Engines Also. not possible. No way, Ions flow OUT of these engines and not possible to reverse them.

 

Im not making argument, hehe merely pointing out physical limitations of the designs.

 

I am thinking of an X-Wing and its engines, and how it turns.

 

Thanks to Larry Yee for this pic.

 

sorry for the huge pic, but its so cool !

 

ok, 4 engines centered around the fuselage. and BTW, the X-wing MUST be faster than it is portrayed in the games. Those engines ROCK ! (yes, yes it takes power away from speed to run your shields and lasers but still...) And honestly now. TIEs wouldnt be all that fast because it takes INCREDIBLE amounts of ions to propell a craft of that size. They would, however, be extremely agile.

 

I read somewhere long ago that the X-Wing had manouvering jets built onto the S-foils, but clearly in this original model, there are no such jets. Also notice there are two sections of each engine and they are not in-line. The front half is the fusion reactor and the rear half is the thrust nozzel. No room for reverse thruster interpretation there.

 

Lets imagine this: your flying your X-wing at say.. 1/2 throttle. You want to make a simple flat left turn. In order to accomplish this, your RIGHT engines would INCREASE thrust and depending on the severity of the turn, your LEFT engines may also DECREASE thrust causing your craft to change heading more responsivly.

 

Now pitching up or down. Same situation as turning except it would fire the top two engines, or the bottom two engines in accordance to the severity of the manouver and the crafts limitations.

 

What about rolling ? At full throttle in order to roll an X-wing, 3 of its engines would have to REDUCE thrust as one engine would then be forcing your craft into a roll. Actually, that doesnt quite work out either, but.. It IS after all fiction. =P HAHA

 

Theoretically, at full throttle when you move your stick to make a turn, the thrusters would REDUCE thrust in the OPPOSITE direction, thereby making you turn the direction you wish. Now, if your at 1/3 throttle, you would indeed have much better response because then your engines could INCREASE thrust forcing your craft in the direction you want to go at a more rapid pace.

 

This is all controled by the avianics package.

 

Now, Y-wing and A-wings (kinda) have manouvering vanes that disperse the direction of thrust in your desired direction. Theoretically again the Y-Wing would be a pretty agile craft if you take a close look at the positioning of the engines and the rear driven manouvering vanes. Much more so than interpreted by the games.

 

TIE fighter engines are mounted in swiveling ball sockets that move the direction of the ion wash.

 

HAHA long post. Can you tell i like this topic ? LOL

 

Check out

SW Technical commentaries awesome site.

 

also check out my custon uglies for some giggles. Many of the craft components are labled here.

 

ok, Im not done here but im quitting. LOL

Later !

[F'faaway]

okay, that huge image is really annoying hehe but i dont see a way to resize.

 

SO sorry.

 

Also, forgot to address the Inertial Damper idea !

 

Yes yes yes, it has merit, and even tho the idea bassically originalted in Star Trek, the Star Wars universe simply MUST have some similar technology at least on the capitol ships.

 

Problem is i just cant fathom how it would actually work LOL

 

I mean i can see it in theory but not in "reality".

 

Lets brainstorm. So an Inertial dampening field would consist of some sort of inertia generator ? A device that could absorb energy ? Momentum? and even absorb Inertia itself ?

 

Mike Stackpole introduced gravity settings into the pilot couches(or some such idea) where the Pilot could adjust the amount of gravity he felt. Thats why Jek Porkins was theorised to have crashed into the Deathstar as his gravity level was at ZERO (he was quite heavy ...) and he couldnt "feel" that his craft was diving.

 

So, what would an inertial Damper "push" against to slow a craft down ? Dark matter ? Ether ? This is where this idea stumps me. hehe Its a great idea on paper, but i cant work out the mechanics.

 

Rahn

 

EDIT

 

aha found an article at SW Tech. Comm.

 

Inertial Compensators

Even the most (seemingly) ponderous STAR WARS starships are able to engage in straight-line accelerations of hundress or thousands of G (Earth gravities). To sustain the crew and contents against the violence of such manoeuvres (the inertial forces would easily pulverise a human) starships employ devices called "inertial dampers" or "inertial compensators." These are gravitic devices which act invisibly on every particle in the ship's habitable volume. They apply force equal and opposite to the effect of inertia due to the ship's acceleration at any given moment.

 

The force must be applied to each elementary particle separately. Otherwise the force differential across tissues, cells or molecules would stress, compress and destroy the crew at that level. For instance, if the compensatory forces were applied at a macroscopic level then the crew would be squashed; if they were applied at a cellular level then the crew would turn into putrified meat. Therefore the inertial compensator must apply its forces at a level where there is no permanent structure: at the atomic level or lower. Furthermore the forces exerted by the compensators must permeate and act equally throughout the entire interior of the ship. It may in fact be an ambient effect resembling gravity, or perhaps a disconnection of local spacetime from the universe at large.

 

The force compensation adjusts in realtime to match the changing accelerations of the ship, but the regulatory mechanism is not yet known. The effect might be controlled by accleration data from the ship's propulsion systems (but this would not help protect the ship from external forces). Alternatively, the compensation might be controlled by a network of independent inertial sensors. For all we know, the intertial compensator mechanisms may have inherent negative-feedback to stiffle inertial forces almost instantly.

[BrenVandoley]

I think it would be cool to see some asorted ships from EU....

 

Like the vong!

 

 

~Bren:biggs:

[Flying Beastie]

 

I always figured that inertial damping and artificial gravity were two sides of the same tech. The inertial damping is just an artigrav field positioned at right-angles and dialed up or down automatically by the engines. IOW, when you cut throttle, you'd feel like you were stopping, even though you'd still be sailing forward under inertia.

 

The structural integrity field (necessary for ships of high mass) is probably related to the deflector shields. Note that in TPM, we get a good look at the shields on an N-1 (when Anakin does his shield-hover before blowing up the TradeFed ship). The shields seem to follow the hull, which seems to suggest that the entire conductive surface of the hull doubles as a projector. (Efficient design, yes?) The same energy could be used to hold the ship together under acceleration stresses (which wouldn't help the more squishy pilot, but it at least keeps him/her pressurized).

 

Oh, and in case there's still confusion: Jinking.

_I_

*jinks to starbord*

__I

*jinks to port twice*

I__

[benTantilles]

whoa...that's a lot to take in. ok...lemme try n address all the issues.

 

1) joystick moves

ok...so to clarify, whenever you push the joystick along the x-axis (left-right), the craft in x-wing don't just roll-they roll AND bank? that sux! my sidewinder works in xwa in the exact same way as the average flight sim-i move it along the x-axis and it just rolls. no extra button required! twisting the handle yaws the craft and moving it along the y-axis controls the pitch. i suddenly appreciate my sidewinder a whole lot more

 

2) inertia-does it matter?

ok...zoom & beastie brought up the problem: in vacuum, when a craft (say, the x-wing) has its engines cut, shouldn't the x-wing keep moving due to inertia.wait- wouldn't that would mean that a craft need only activate the engines for a while and, once a desired speed is reached, just cut them out? also, wouldn't that mean that as long as the engines are powered, a force is contiually exerted on the x-wing and it would thus keep accelerating (f=ma got force, got acceleration)? that's crazy! that contradicts everything stated on this issue in the sw universe so far!

fortunately, our resident rabbit offered 2 possible solutions: the effect of...

automatic braking thrusters/ reverse thrusters

OR

inertial compensators

f'faaway dispelled the reverse thrusters idea (tho i do recall reverse thrusters being mentioned in some of the eu sources..."reverse throttle hops" and such)

that leaves the inertial compensators. don't exactly know how that works...but is it something to the effect of negating inertia? would that explain the deceleration of craft upon the decrease in throttle?

another question: if inertia is negated by the intertial compensators, then how do u explain manoeuvres such as zahn's 'smuggler's reverse' in the hand of thrawn duology?

 

the crux of the matter: if there were a new x-wing game, would we want it to include the effect of inertia?

 

3) how a starship moves

ok, f'faaway...great points with your differential thrust theory. however, while it accounts for pitch & yaw, it can't do so for roll. curtis saxton of swtc (gotta luv that guy ) offers an explanation in

http://saxman.xwlegacy.net/Starfighters/X-wing.html

 

the specific line: "Saxton pointed out that one design of the X-wing interior by David West Reynolds had magnetically controlled gyros that spun in either direction, and that through the use of magnetic brakes the pilot could transmit some of the spin of the gyros into the hull of the fighter, causing it to roll"

thus, we can ascribe pitch & yaw to differential thrust and roll to those mag-controlled gyros. manouevring jets (any relation to etheric rudders?)would account for all 3 of the types of turn- but as u said, rahn, the x-wings dont have those sort of jets.

 

4) jinking

so, basically, it's a sideslip, rite? it's not equivalent to yaw, correct?

 

5) hehe...those uglies look nice...u'd think that'd be a condradiction of terms. now i can actually see what a deathseed looks like.

 

 

6)

bren-

yeah, the inclusion of the vong'd be cool. personally, tho, i'd much rather have a new x-wing set during the galactic civil war, where we can fly as wedge antilles- the greatest pilot in the galaxy! woo!

[F'faaway]

WOW AWESOME LINK ! Its bookmarked and i will dive more into that tomorrow!

[Flying Beastie]

Originally posted by benTantilles

in vacuum, when a craft (say, the x-wing) has its engines cut, shouldn't the x-wing keep moving due to inertia.wait- wouldn't that would mean that a craft need only activate the engines for a while and, once a desired speed is reached, just cut them out?

Theoretically yes, but I'd imagine that most ships use vectored thrust in conjunction with their manoeuvring jets, meaning that "coasting" would cut down on one's manoeuvrability.

 

also, wouldn't that mean that as long as the engines are powered, a force is contiually exerted on the x-wing and it would thus keep accelerating (f=ma got force, got acceleration)?

Yep, unless there's some sort of "resistance-like" force at work, either Zoomie's inertial compensators or my astromech-controlled braking jets.

 

(Incidentally, that's another thing; shouldn't astromech-equipped fighters have some sort of in-game advantage, like say a backup to store pilot "presets" [like presetting the shield/laser/engine recharge rate at a user-preferred level]?)

 

that's crazy! that contradicts everything stated on this issue in the sw universe so far!

Like what?

 

As for the constant acceleration issue, I should point out that sublights actually aren't used that much for speed as much as for manoeuvring.

 

Most starcraft have three types of engines: hyperdrives, sublights, and repulsors.

 

Hyperdrives don't need to work like anything that we know of --though some EU sources affirm that if something is cut loose in hyperspace (like, say, an escape pod) it'll just keep moving in hyperspace. You need the hyperdrives to enter and leave hyperspace, not to "sustain" it.

 

Sublights aren't useful for interstellar travel; you'd need nearly a year (at best) to move between even neighbouring worlds, and nearby stars would take centuries, even if you could accelerate to approach lightspeed (by then of course, you'd have time distortions to deal with, and nobody deserves that). Generally, you'd only use sublights for docking, moving toward jump points, navigating hazards that you can't go around (asteroid belts), and fighting.

 

Repulsorlift drive pushes against the nearest gravity well, and is how ships avoid the whole "non-aerodynamic" issue (some do this better than others, 'cause wind-drag is an issue, even if lift-generating isn't). Without repulsors, an X-wing would just turn into a missle --cut your throttle and your nose becomes aimed at the ground. This is how most starships do VTOL on skids (instead of needing wheels and runways). They're generally not used in space, as there's nothing to push off of.

 

One of the main differences between an atmosphere-flying starfighter and a conventional airspeeder is that airspeeders are much slower. They don't have sublights, and rely instead on simple jet propulsion, like ramjets. Sometimes they don't even have repulsors, and just use atmospheric pressure to generate lift (like modern airplanes).

 

f'faaway dispelled the reverse thrusters idea (tho i do recall reverse thrusters being mentioned in some of the eu sources..."reverse throttle hops" and such)

Braking thrusters do exist, by necessity (for the same use as brakes in cars ). I'm just suggesting that there's an automated system in addition to the manual system (which, BTW, is another thing missing from XWA games).

 

Bear in mind that most starpilots would've broken their teeth flying in atmosphere (especially in the Rebellion-era's policy of "You have two hands? Good, you're hired."), so designing a starcraft's systems to replicate "goo" flying (banking turns, throttle=speed) isn't too unlikely, though it is inefficient.

 

Of course, Yuuzhan Vong craft, which use moveable singularities both for sublight movement, atmospheric movement, and defense, would require a completely different model. . .

 

if inertia is negated by the intertial compensators, then how do u explain manoeuvres such as zahn's 'smuggler's reverse' in the hand of thrawn duology?

I always pictured that like the "turn'n'burn" in Babylon 5 (also called the "Getting-the-Hell-Out-of-Here Manoeuvre" ).

 

Just cut throttle (so you're gliding), use your manoeuvring jets to turn 180, then goose it. The hard part (from a physics standpoint) is not imploding when all of your inertia is suddenly reversed.

 

the crux of the matter: if there were a new x-wing game, would we want it to include the effect of inertia?

I would, but then I've never really cared if the game is movie-accurate (I acknowledge instead that the movies themselves aren't accurate [three days from Tatooine to Alderaan, anyone?]).

 

Besides, even if it's not used in-game, it'd make it easier for the modding community to produce a B5TC.

 

4) jinking

so, basically, it's a sideslip, rite? it's not equivalent to yaw, correct?

No, it isn't, though it can involve a bit of rolling if you're trying to avoid fire (the standard use of the jink).

 

You can also do an impressive "jump" in space, by turning on repulsors and then flying "over" a starship (or even an inverted fighter). When the repulsors suddenly find purchase, your fighter is suddenly kicked "upwards" relative to its course, without changing angle-of-attack.

 

                           ---------------------->
                           - (new flightpath)
                           -
(path of flight)            -
----------------------------*boom*
                                (OOO)
                          (cap ship)

[F'faaway]

I love this thread ! been to distraceted to sit and make a nice reply, but im keeping up on the posts =)

[benTantilles]

use vectored thrust in conjunction with their manoeuvring jets

 

i thought we'd dispelled the jets theory. f'faaway suggested that manoeuvring jets would've been visible on the craft that boasted them...i'm inclined to believe that the star wars universe had some sorta microscopic jet technology, tho, since those vector jets are mentioned ever-so-often in eu sources. thoughts, anyone?

 

y i said it was crazy was coz i assumed that the "activate the engines for a while and, once a desired speed is reached, just cut them out" or "as long as the engines are powered, a force is contiually exerted on the x-wing and it would thus keep accelerating" theory meant that for a craft to be at a constant speed, their engines had to be off...but then, i forgot to take into account the fact that a vehicle's sublights were used for manoeuvring as well. oops

ok...new situation- assuming a craft is travelling in a straight line @ a constant speed, with no manoeuvring of any sort, would its engines be off? that doesn't make sense...the entire discipline of space travel would be changed. ships travelling in a straight line would not waste any fuel at all on engines, thus allowing them to traverse vast distances on their sublights without a concern for fuel. pilots would be encouraged not to execute any unnecessary manoeuvre for fear of wasting fuel. should inertia be negated, this shouldn't be the case....but then moves like the smuggler's reverse wouldn't work. help.

 

 

jinking-

just to clarify...so, if jinking is given the liberty of encompassing "a bit of rolling" and "an impresive 'jump'", it isn't exactly a technical term, izzit?

 

yeah, n the repulsorlift hop's a cool tactic...incidentally, it's mentioned in the book 'wraith squadron' by aaron allston, used by wedge antilles to bounce off folor's surface during the evacuation of Folor Base. can also probably be used to rationalize the part of the battle of endor in rotj where wedge in his x-wing managed to get of that big mon cal cruiser's path while the squint tailing him didn't. boom.

[Zoom Rabbit]

 

My thoughts on inertial dampening technology are that it would be an EM field type effect--something radiated rather like shields or repuslorlift. This implies an emitter, like the Chempat shield emitter right on top of the above A-wing's cockpit (not visible due to scale.) If the hyperdrive uses emitters (which I think it does) then the inertial dampening functions could be a secondary function of that system, since it would already have an emitter assembly in place designed to affect the vehicle's mass at the quantum level.

 

On the other hand, it could all be done with rubber bands.

[Nitro]

And no, space isn't a complete vacuum. There's a fair amount of hydrogen floating around out there... Enough to cause <i>some</i> drag.

[Flying Beastie]

Originally posted by benTantilles

ok...new situation- assuming a craft is travelling in a straight line @ a constant speed, with no manoeuvring of any sort, would its engines be off? that doesn't make sense...the entire discipline of space travel would be changed. ships travelling in a straight line would not waste any fuel at all on engines, thus allowing them to traverse vast distances on their sublights without a concern for fuel. pilots would be encouraged not to execute any unnecessary manoeuvre for fear of wasting fuel. should inertia be negated, this shouldn't be the case....but then moves like the smuggler's reverse wouldn't work. help.

Yep, you could coast for, well, ever.

 

The only problems would be just how vast space is. I mean, turn on your engines at full burn for a full minute, then cut out everything, you'd still be moving at, what, 200 AU let's say?

 

At that speed, it'd still take you over a year from Earth to Mars.

 

Frankly, in HttE, when Luke's hyperdrive dies and he ends up dead in space (just before Mara "rescues" him), he was probably moving at a fair clip --about as fast as he was fleeing just before he "ran up" to hyperspace. It just wouldn't have felt like it 'cause there's no frame of reference in space, and no drag to haul the spacewalking Skywalker out of relative formation.

 

In all honestly though, this is probably what fighters do over short distances. Say, from Yavin 4 to the Death Star in ANH. Just to make sure they have enough fuel to manoeuvre in the inevitable furball.

 

jinking-

just to clarify...so, if jinking is given the liberty of encompassing "a bit of rolling" and "an impresive 'jump'", it isn't exactly a technical term, izzit?

Well, no, not really. A jink is basically a lateral move that allows your nose to stay pointed at a target.

[Jem]

And While were at it there should be absolutuly no Sound FX what so ever, well at least in Space. Let's keep it realistic, yes let's keep a Star Wars game realistic. Oxymoron?

 

 

Hey now that I think of it, maybe "Sound Emulation" in space would be a good idea so that pilots can easily be more aware of what is going on...

[Flying Beastie]

That's what I've been assuming. You'd have reams of sensor data coming in, all of which could mean the difference between life and death in a battle. It makes sense to translate as much of that sensor data as possible into intuitive, non-visual form (so the pilot doesn't have to watch 400 different readouts and status indicators when he/she/it should be watching the bad guys.

 

It's the same idea behind the HUD, actually --prevent the pilot from having to look away from the battle.

[benTantilles]

regarding the physics matter-

well, fly, if u say so...but i stand by my point that "the entire discipline of space travel" would be dramatically altered. oh well...

 

"Oxymoron?" ...Depends on how u define "realism". if u base it on how relevant it is to the star wars continuity, then it's very possible that a realistic sw game exists. if u base it on realism in OUR world, well then, there are, sadly very few realistic sw games around. but hey, whadya expect? it's a sci fi saga, after all. besides...there is some relation btw the science in our world and the one in the sw universe. that is, in fact, one of the things we're discussing in this very thread.

 

also...space combat in xwa, while not exactly noiseless, WAS relatively quiet. a remember doin 1-on-1s with squints in sims and never actually hearing their engines til they were very close...

and if nitro's right, it's possible that sound waves can traverse the pockets of hydrogen to lend some sound to space battles. there's no way i'm gonna want a noiseless star wars game.

[Zoom Rabbit]

Perhaps the sounds we hear in combat are actually the result of our defensive shields interacting with the stray energies and whatnot in the environment. Since the shields are basically a big forcefield, they might act as a kind of EM tympanic membrane...

 

Zoom Rabbit: able to reason bad science into good sci-fi any day of the week.

[Admiral Odin]

Alright Zoom: then reason lightsabers.

[Skate Boy]

Booomm!!!!!

 

 

 

 

It's on now.

[Zoom Rabbit]

Love it.

 

*(Kills Skate Boy.)*

 

A lightsaber isn't actually that hard to reason...it's just a dangerously electrified plasma (like what's in your fluorescent light bulb, only much more so) contained in an electromagnetic field bottle.

 

Or, it could be a plastic tube on a flashlight.

[Flying Beastie]

IIRC, don't the novels sometimes describe the hiss of shots hitting one's shields? That could explain the shield explosions as comm static interference.

 

A lightsaber (as I've said repeatedly before, but nobody ever listens ) is not a beam, but an arc. Both "ends" of the arc are coming from the same point, and the magnetic field is what "stretches" the arc into a line.

 

If we could see the beam through the glare, it'd look U-shaped. It's only because the energy is glowing that we see a single "blade."