Sign up Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment  
Garion

Registered:
Posts: 5
Reply with quote  #1 
Currently in the game we have anomalies - like the black hole - which cause affect on a ship. The black hole pulls the ship towards its center. Causing helm officer to react and compensate. 
One idea is that the ship could take on heat from external sources, for example a star. The closer a ship gets to a star the more heat it takes. 
Standard running means when all ships systems are at 100% no coolant is required as no heat is generated,
If the ship was close to the star heat could be generated in the ship systems, and coolant would need to be applied to keep the ships systems at 100% without overheating, or alternatively they would have to be lowered to, for example, 70% across the board to keep the systems from generating heat.
This would add an extra element into the game, mainly for the engineer, who would have to react and compensate, especially when in combat.

__________________

Ensign - Terran Stellar Navy

Helm Officer - TSN Ravan (CB-014)

Fish Evans

Registered:
Posts: 361
Reply with quote  #2 
I love this idear, some extra Environmental effects will help mix up the game a bit and I would think that heat might be fairly low hanging fruit to add in - something like Microblack holes knoking out systems randomly or Radiation belts might be more complex but things to bare in mind for the future.
ryleyra

Registered:
Posts: 3,007
Reply with quote  #3 
The term "anomalies" is usually used to refer to the small white dots that in previous versions you picked up to recharge energy, and since 2.2 have provided an "upgrade" to the ship, which could be energy or such things as a boost to beams or engines.

Personally, I refer to the objects in a sector -- black holes, asteroids, nebulae and minefields -- as "Terrain", since that's what the selector that lets you control their number is called. You can use the same term, or just call them "space phenomena" or "space objects".

Anyway, with that out of the way, I'll note that there are no stars or planetary bodies in Artemis. I believe the most likely reason for this is that Thom does not want to provide anything that would give a sense of scale. There is no real way to determine if a sector is a solar system, the area around a planetary body, a quadrant of the galaxy or (if you take it literally) a tiny patch of space 100km square. (That's just barely over 250 acres, and would easily fit on the surface of Earth)

It would be interesting to have terrain features that had other effects, though. A white dwarf or a neutron star would be small enough to fit into most sectors, but would radiate heat and energy. It would also have gravitational effects similar to that of a black hole, possibly drawing ships in where they can begin to overheat. Nebulae could also have varied effects, from disrupting power and communications to draining the ship's energy.

Some missions have given space objects different effects on the ship, and Arrew's Sandbox includes a lot of varied objects. Missions can also include planets, as long as the author of the mission provides the textures for them. The Battlestar Galactica mod even has planets with atmospheres, which you can fly into, and hide under the cloud cover. It's an impressive bit of work.
Jormungandr83

Registered:
Posts: 35
Reply with quote  #4 
Unfortunately, the argument of "not providing scale" kinda falls apart when you still have black holes and nebulae and asteroids just floating about. Black holes are huge (or rather, they have a huge effect) just like stars; why have one but not the other?

Basically, the problem here is that Artemis doesn't care about gravity or orbits. We have a bunch of stuff just hanging out in space when they'd have to be in orbit of something. And I'm guessing that something is just supposed to be somewhere off the map? but then how is it possible to have a black hole and NOT have everything in orbit of that?

I mean, the physics here is more like a bunch of submarines than spaceships. But hey, it's a game. Artemis might be a lot less fun if it had all the physics of KSP... then again it might be awesome!

---

Regardless, I think having something like what Garion describes would be really neat! More "terrain" in space can always be more fun. And it would be nice if the nebulae did more.
ryleyra

Registered:
Posts: 3,007
Reply with quote  #5 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jormungandr83
Unfortunately, the argument of "not providing scale" kinda falls apart when you still have black holes and nebulae and asteroids just floating about. Black holes are huge (or rather, they have a huge effect) just like stars; why have one but not the other?


Well, if you take a black hole in Artemis as a supermassive black hole, then a sector is far larger than a system, and the ship travels far faster than the speed of light. A sector would have to be a portion of the galaxy. Unfortunately, while that fits with the scale of a typical nebula, it does NOT fit the scale of the asteroids depicted in the game. And it certainly does not fit the scale of ships and bases.

In addition, a supermassive black hole, or even an intermediate sized one would not be at the fringes of an inhabitable system, it would be the center of the system, and uninhabitable to lifeforms like the Terrans and Kraliens. Now, a station could represent a star system, with all of its planets and its central star, and the stations and ships we see are only a symbolic representation. This would be consistent with Super Star Trek. But Artemis seems to be written more on a dogfighting scale, with the ships very close to each other, and magnified only about ten or fifteen times.

Personally, I believe that the black hole in Artemis is a Stellar black hole with a mass of about 3-10 times that of our sun. That would be small enough to exist on the perimeter of a solar system and not draw that system into an orbit around it. Note, however, that a black hole could be an intermediate size black hole and still pull in a ship travelling at Warp 1 at a range of less than 1/100th of an AU. The problem is that the gravitational pull required to pull in a ship travelling at Warp 1 should effect much more of the surrounding system.

Likewise, a nebula is a micronebula, and would be only about 900,000 km across. That will easily fit inside a system. It may not even be a nebula as we know it, but just a cloud of gas and space rubble.

Quote:
Basically, the problem here is that Artemis doesn't care about gravity or orbits. We have a bunch of stuff just hanging out in space when they'd have to be in orbit of something. And I'm guessing that something is just supposed to be somewhere off the map? but then how is it possible to have a black hole and NOT have everything in orbit of that?


Again, if we assume that a sector is a part of a system, and not part of the galaxy, then the sector could itself be in rotation around the central star. Nothing says that a sector has to be stationary. And in fact, objects in orbit around a star would not move very fast, you would not be able to see the Earth or Mars moving relative to the Sun, and even that movement would be cancelled out if you took your frame of reference as the center of the planet. All of the objects in a sector, bases, asteroids, nebulae and microsingularities, are all orbiting around the star at the same rate, so they appear to be stationary relative to each other.

Quote:
I mean, the physics here is more like a bunch of submarines than spaceships. But hey, it's a game. Artemis might be a lot less fun if it had all the physics of KSP... then again it might be awesome!


At its heart, Artemis is a combat simulator, and it is based on a TV series, which itself is based on iffy physics and the audience's familiarity with the behavior of aircraft. If you've ever played Asteroids, you'll have an idea of how difficult it would be to play Artemis if is relied on realistic physics. But then, we don't know how a ship that moves faster than the speed of light would perform, or whether it would have momentum and inertia.

I think the important thing to remember is that space is full of a whole lot of nothing, and you either have to sit around and be bored for long period of times, or you have to be able to accelerate and decelerate at rates incomprehensible to us today. One metaphor I read somewhere is that if you imagine the solar system as New York City, our sun would be the size of a basketball, and the earth would be the head of a pin 31 yards away. And our nearest neighbor system, Alpha Centari, would be a basketball in Rome.  

Quote:
Regardless, I think having something like what Garion describes would be really neat! More "terrain" in space can always be more fun. And it would be nice if the nebulae did more.


I did like the idea. It's just, planets and stars are too big to be a part of a sector, although they could be part of the skybox. The contents of a sector should just be random space junk, the dust and stray material that never formed into the planets and star.

One nice thing about my theory about stellar black holes is that there are just so MANY of them in the Artemis universe. We don't even know if they exist in our universe, because they are too small to detect. If there are that many miniature black holes in the Artemis universe, then the fabric is space should be extremely distorted, and it should be possible to use these black hole to create Jump Gates, or harness their energy for Warp Drive. So the presence of these small black holes may explain how the races are able to get around the galaxy when many of them don't appear to have any form of FTL travel.

See also the image in this thread: http://artemis.forumchitchat.com/post/what-size-is-a-sector-revisited-7537479

Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.