Bz2 lifework/deeper meanings?

[MowerMan]

Yes, that is called "ground effect".  BZ2 units do not hover by atmospheric pressure differentials.

At least you made a good valid point CmptrWz!

(flying is not a life or death issue for me...  I just like to argue!!!  heh heh)

[NukeDaddy]

When comparing a planetary mass to the mass of a craft, the field strength would be the same at 30m or 1000m.

That is the "blather."  If the hover is based on a field generator, then why is flying normally so limited?  It wouldn't take much more effort to just "fly" the ship. The jump jets would just change your elevation.  Since this is not the case, and you must go through specific techniques to fly the ship using the reverse thrusters, then there is obviously and energy trade-off somewhere.  The hover is therefore not a field generator - or at least it has some self-imposed limitations.  Flying is therefore utilization of rocket technology, and the reverse thrusters are overdesigned and depend on a low-gravity field.

Someone needs to think like an engineer and what they would do if they had such field generation technology.

[Avatar]

1.  Do not argue physics with Mower.

2.  Sorry Mow, the 'flying'/'hovering' or whatever anyone wants to call it was indeed a bug in the code.  That bug was removed and the physics model is now consistant across all units.

That is not to say that you can't DESIGN a unit to hover/fly/whatever.  Intended changes to the odf's allow pretty much the same performance that the bug did.  It's been done in the Recy variant currently tested in another thread.  The vets have their 'hovering' Scouts back that way WITHIN the bounds of the physics engine.  

One law you should obey is the law of gravity...  

3.  Mower is older than dirt, and chisled the first ever drawing of a Grizzly Tank on a wall of his cave in France some 1 million years ago.  That's why you don't do #1...



-Av-

[MowerMan]

Not one bit of blather there, it's absolute fact, and you pointing out certian dynamics in a game, does not change real life physics.  Gravity does not fall off significantly at 1000m, or even 10,000m.

Jump thrusters are very weak when compared to forward/reverse thrusters. If you sit there an hold your jumt thrusters, it does change your altitude (elevation refers to height of terrain or objects on terrain).

[NukeDaddy]

Not one bit of blather there, it's absolute fact, and you pointing out certian dynamics in a game, does not change real life physics.  Gravity does not fall off significantly at 1000m, or even 10,000m.

Jump thrusters are very weak when compared to forward/reverse thrusters. If you sit there an hold your jumt thrusters, it does change your altitude (elevation refers to height of terrain or objects on terrain).

I don't think I'm explaining myself well enough.  I'm not arguing the fall-off of gravity. I agree with you there. I'm saying that the capabilities that would be available to the ship, if the technology were field generation, don't fit with what the ship is actually capable of doing in the game - even in 1.2.  It would be capable of flying better than it does in 1.2.  THIS is why it can be called a physics bug.  Given the things the ship can do, and can't do, it just doesn't add up.

[NukeDaddy]

1.  Do not argue physics with Mower.


3.  Mower is older than dirt, and chisled the first ever drawing of a Grizzly Tank on a wall of his cave in France some 1 million years ago.  That's why you don't do #1...


-Av-

This isn't a physics argument per se.  It is a physics vs. engineering argument.

[MowerMan]

Even if Ken tells me it'a a bug in the code, I would say, "no, it's not".  The hover code is modeled on "field effects", and the model is responding properly (whether or not it's 100% accutrate).

If you think about it, if you have a field that counters gravity, you could leave a planet's orbit with very little thrust.  Would that be a good design for a terrestial craft...  nope!  It's not a good thing to lose all your pilots into open space!!!  (ha ha).

If you want to say it's a bug in the code, because the designers of the craft never intended for the craft to ba able to leave orbit, well that its probably true...

[Lizard]

I'm kinda wondering if the reason all the bz2 vets are into hovering is possibly due to the fact that everyone else got pissed of with the lame tactics and left to play something else . I do indeed know several people personally who feel this way so maybe this sentiment is even more widespread . So to all the vets that have come here saying how they are the only ones keeping this game alive , take time to consider that possibly there may have been even more people playing this game if it weren't for you and your hovering .

I'm not attacking anyone here , just offering a different perspective on things .

[deadscion]

I will say this again here.

Technology is perishable anyone who believes in absolutes in programming is shortsighted.

The general public has just as much skill and inginuity as the highest skilled programmer. If you don't think so I can give many examples.

So you can work with the public and watch your efforts grow and inspire or watch them tear your stuff apart and do what they please with it anyway.

Whether or not "hovering" is a bug is irrelevant. If the public wants this they will have it , "bug" or no "Bug", feasible science or not.

I think hover as an option is the best compromise to prevent further hacking and insure all get to have the best of everything.

[NukeDaddy]

I'm kinda wondering if the reason all the bz2 vets are into hovering is possibly due to the fact that everyone else got pissed of with the lame tactics and left to play something else . I do indeed know several people personally who feel this way so maybe this sentiment is even more widespread . So to all the vets that have come here saying how they are the only ones keeping this game alive , take time to consider that possibly there may have been even more people playing this game if it weren't for you and your hovering .

I'm not attacking anyone here , just offering a different perspective on things .

I was thinking this same thing yesterday.  Seems like I recall this same thought came up a couple of years ago.  People that like playing strategy lose interest because the hovering turns it into an FPS...something along those lines.

[TimeVirus]

Actually the majority of vet games in the evening are played with no base hover as the rule. Just check all the server messages nightly. It was not necessary to legislate or program morality, they choose this themselves. Unforced morality is the best kind of all.

The only wildly pro hoverers are "vets" who never command, they only thug. A few stints of commanding vs a stronger team of hoverers usually changes their viewpoint, at least with time. Most are too cowardly to ever command a vet game though, so they never learn.

The "H" word is a big fat red herring here. I dont miss the hovering, I miss everything that was taken along *with* the hovering. I thought I would at least get good base defenses as a "compensation" yet the towers are still wobbleable and turrets hoverable.

[NukeDaddy]

Did someone say "herring?"  

[appel]

Actually the majority of vet games in the evening are played with no base hover as the rule. Just check all the server messages nightly. It was not necessary to legislate or program morality, they choose this themselves. Unforced morality is the best kind of all.

The only wildly pro hoverers are "vets" who never command, they only thug. A few stints of commanding vs a stronger team of hoverers usually changes their viewpoint, at least with time. Most are too cowardly to ever command a vet game though, so they never learn.

The "H" word is a big fat red herring here. I dont miss the hovering, I miss everything that was taken along *with* the hovering. I thought I would at least get good base defenses as a "compensation" yet the towers are still wobbleable and turrets hoverable.

Ditto.

[TimeVirus]

Given the things the ship can do, and can't do, it just doesn't add up.

If reality is any sort of guideline at all, we'd have to delete 7/8ths of the elements of BZ2. I know this will come as a shock to some but there *really* is no such thing as biometal.

[Avatar]

Even if Ken tells me it'a a bug in the code, I would say, "no, it's not".  The hover code is modeled on "field effects", and the model is responding properly (whether or not it's 100% accutrate).

I know better than to try to change your mind once it's set (Mower gives pit bulls 'hanging on' lessons).  Let me toss out three things, though, one sortof 'for', one sortof 'against', and one observation.

Against:  I fail to see how anything we've seen, or how it relates to RL physics, has any bearing whatsoever on the game engine saying "1+1=3" for some craft.  It can be a bug and still look good, because it's a GAME...



For:  Biometal craft in the BZ universe hover without fans, jets, or any visible (reactive) propulsion.  It's explained by the inherent anti-gravitic properties of biometal, possibly 'shielding' the craft from gravity.  I think that your assertion that the hover force of the craft remains constant despite the altitude of the craft, while the attractive force of gravity diminishes according to the inverse square law, is quite correct.   Therefore the higher such a craft got the less affected by gravity it would be.

Observation:  When I hit "R" (Jump) in a BZ tank I rise up.  This is some force being applied upward, wtih no visible effect so it could be a field issue...  

When I hit "Forward" (only Forward, not Reverse or Strafe)  some ships shoot a Big Feaking Flame out the back of the ship.  This looks cool, but is it applying a forward force?  Why, then, do some ships NOT have the BFF coming out the back?  Does it help?  It must, right, or it wouldn't be there...  So we must be dealing with a field (Forward for non-BFF ships) AND a newtonian thruster (reaction thrust) when going forward, but field only for Strafe and Reverse.

So, all hovering ships have 'Jump', all have Field-based horizontal motion, and some have reactive thrust for Forward only.  In all cases Forward is the stongest (fastest), Reverse is usually second, and Strafe is the weakest, whether there's a reactive thrust in the mix or not.

So exactly why, then, would such craft be able to shoot into orbit in Reverse, when even those with an extra thrust NOT be able to do so going Forward?

I could see a "Tail Stand" achieving such an effect, given that Forward is the strongest force especially in the case of those ships with extra thrusters...  but I can't see them going up butt-first the way they do...



-Av-

(I love it when we try to make this stuff work in RL...  gives me hope I'll one day be tooling around in a Razor...)