To put this in perspective:
Interceptors are capable of flying at velocities slightly more than Mach 2. That’s 4 times faster than a conventional subsonic commercial jet at cruising speed. Assuming the engines strapped to the ships in this game are ramjet or are more advanced ion/fusion drives, then you probably shouldn’t be able to stop in 7 seconds anyway, even at maximum reverse afterburners. I’ll do some math and get back to you on that.
To put this in perspective: Interceptors are capable of flying at velocities slightly more than Mach 2. That’s 4 times faster than a conventional subsonic commercial jet at cruising speed. Assuming the engines strapped to the ships in this game are ramjet or are more advanced ion/fusion drives, then you probably shouldn’t be able to stop in 7 seconds anyway, even at maximum reverse afterburners. I’ll do some math and get back to you on that.
Speed of sound in space is approximately 100km/s, so no, we’re flying at less than mach 0.01 . We know this because we can observe the termination shock effect in the solar wind as it slows down from supersonic speed of approximately 400km/s at which it is ejected from the Sun.
Speed of sound in space is approximately 100km/s, so no, we’re flying at less than mach 0.01 . We know this because we can observe the termination shock effect in the solar wind as it slows down from supersonic speed of approximately 400km/s at which it is ejected from the Sun.
EDIT: I’ve just remembered that the speed of sound is directly influenced by the medium through which it travels. As space is a near-complete vacuum (only a few hydrogen atoms per cubic metre) it’s impossible to get a definite speed as there is virtually no medium through which it can travel. Therefore, it would make sense to use standard atmospheric conditions for the purposes of calculating the velocity of a body in Mach terms.
EDIT: I’ve just remembered that the speed of sound is directly influenced by the medium through which it travels. As space is a near-complete vacuum (only a few hydrogen atoms per cubic metre) it’s impossible to get a definite speed as there is virtually no medium through which it can travel. Therefore, it would make sense to use standard atmospheric conditions for the purposes of calculating the velocity of a body in Mach terms.
And yet, we know the speed of sound in space because we can observe the solar wind which travels through that medium and can observe the termination shock it experiences when it becomes subsonic. In fact, much of our understanding of how space works is based on observation of various behavioral patterns of solar wind.
And of course, speed of sound is a variable on our planet as well. We have varying speeds of sound through the ground, in the sea and finally in different atmospheric conditions (speed of sound in atmosphere is mostly dependent on temperature which wildly varies as you go through various parts of atmosphere).
“Mach” is used to describe the speed of object as related to speed of sound in the medium in which the object exists. For aircraft, that is speed of sound in the air through which aircraft moves. For spacecraft it would be speed of sound in space through which it moves.
Continue this on a PM. Don’t want to derail this topic.
My point still stands: at 700m/s in a virtually frictionless area it should take you a heck of a lot longer than the 7 or 8 seconds it takes you to stop. EDIT2: THAT’S 10 GS. DEAR GOD.
Continue this on a PM. Don’t want to derail this topic.
My point still stands: at 700m/s in a virtually frictionless area it should take you a heck of a lot longer than the 7 or 8 seconds it takes you now. EDIT: Nope, that’s about 6 Gs for the duration. Pretty damn harmful anyway.
Really? You, huh… Wanna do the G math for the regular acceleration!? 0 to 700m/s in 2 seconds? Go on and see if ANYONE would even survive that much force.
I didn’t know you could do that.
And I’ve just figured out that would produce 17 Gs.
Continue this on a PM. Don’t want to derail this topic.
Please and thank you. However interesting this conversation may be, let’s keep things streamlined in our Suggestions forum. ;]
In which case I say no because this game is pushing the boundaries of human endurance as it is and giving interceptors an emergency brake - so to speak - would most likely result in every vessel of the pilot’s brain popping simultaneously. Not a very endearing prospect.
Really? You, huh… Wanna do the G math for the regular acceleration!? 0 to 700m/s in 2 seconds? Go on and see if ANYONE would even survive that much force.
I’m interested to see the structure of craft that can survive that acceleration. Most civilian airplanes are usually rated at 4g or less, military tend to cutoff around 15-20 or so.
Slowing down at over 35Gs would likely rip the ship itself apart. Not just the pilot.
I’m interested to see the structure of craft that can survive that acceleration. Most civilian airplanes are usually rated at 4g or less, military tend to cutoff around 15-20 or so.
Slowing down at over 35Gs would likely rip the ship itself apart. Not just the pilot.
Edited my post. 17Gs would definitely seriously harm an untrained human. To a combatant with some experience, they’d experience dangerous grey-outs, and considering how fiercely you guys probably gun those engines they’d probably die.
If anyone wants to improve reverse afterburning speed, then do so across the board. Frigates take a while to come to a complete stop as well. 
Agreed. But everyone got off topic in a sense. I was simply talking about slowing down faster with afterburners. I was not talking about increasing reverse speed. We just need improved brakes across the board with extra emphasis on interceptori
If anyone wants to improve reverse afterburning speed, then do so across the board. Frigates take a while to come to a complete stop as well.
Frigates actually take longer to get to full speed than they do to stop.
Frigates actually take longer to get to full speed than they do to stop.
Frigates already take long enough to go to full speed.
I digress. Back to the topic of discussion…
Agreed. But everyone got off topic in a sense. I was simply talking about slowing down faster with afterburners. I was not talking about increasing reverse speed. We just need improved brakes across the board with extra emphasis on interceptori
I used to play a Japanese fighter jet shooter (I won’t consider it a combat simulation game, considering the insane amount of missiles each jet had). Because there’s gravity and stall in that game, it’s possible to perform all kinds of tricks in dogfighting. For instance, you could force your jet to stall, so an enemy chasing you would overtake you. Once that happens, pitch down and engage your engines, and you’ll be on his tail.
With improved brakes, we might see similar stuff happening.
Leave it how it is, because we all know brakes are for pansies.
Fine. I was gonna try to make it easier for people to fly interceptors. But I rather continue to be the sweet roll leader.
Besides. I was just being lazy while flying.
I was gonna try to make it easier for people to fly interceptors
Barrel Roll !
Are you using Shift + S to slow down? For me this stops my ship in 2-5 seconds.
Are you using Shift + S to slow down? For me this stops my ship in 2-5 seconds.
Mine could be bugged then or something. It takes about 8 seconds for me.