Morning Discussion: Ada Lovelace Day

Today is the informal event of Ada Lovelace Day, when the world celebrates the achievements of women in tech. It's also a day after the announcement of GameCrush but this is a time for celebration so let's do our level best to forget that ever happened.

I don't particularly have a female tech hero but I've always been a fan of Aleks Krotoski. UK Shackers might recognise her from Bits, a late-nineties video games TV show hosted by three women which was quite clearly aimed at teenage boys. Bits was slightly cringe-inducing but it was exciting for me as Aleks and some of the other presenters clearly knew their stuff--Emily Newton Dunn went on to produce the Burnout series for a while, by the way. There hadn't been a strong female gaming figure on British television since the wonderful Violet Berlin in Bad Influence! four years earlier and it was great to have some again, no matter how awkward the wrapping was.

Aleks later came to write, blog and podcast about games and technology for The Guardian--a most respectable position--and earned a PhD with her thesis Social Influence in Second Life: Social Network and Social Psychological Processes in the Diffusion of Belief and Behaviour on the Web, speaking at tons of conferences and advocating more women in tech and the media along the way.

Her most recent foray into television involved interviewing technology luminaries including Tim Berners-Lee for the BBC documentary series The Virtual Revolution. That's an impressive progression and fine inspiration to us all. Cheers, Aleks.

And hooray for Ada Lovelace, arguably the world's first computer programmer.

Filed Under
From The Chatty
  • reply
    March 24, 2010 5:17 AM

    What twist of the laws of physics do you think has been most beneficial in video games? The ability to absorb hundreds of bullets and still keep going in DOOM? Running up the wall in Strider? Firing a railgun from your shoulder in Quake 2?

    Do you think a recurring theme, like being able to jump 47 feet in the air, takes the cake, or is there one specific instance, like Gordon Freeman toting around a particle accelerator and a gluon gun on his back?

    • reply
      March 24, 2010 5:18 AM

      Eating magic mushrooms has never once enabled me to shoot flaming boogers. This has to be the answer.

      • reply
        March 24, 2010 5:19 AM

        Or increase in size. Fucking hell no more shacking without coffee.

    • reply
      March 24, 2010 5:20 AM

      The ability to have a Tardis like backpack that can carry more firepower than a fleet of tanks.

    • reply
      March 24, 2010 5:22 AM

      The worst one is: Characters are always far more cool and awesome than when you control them.

      Examples: Dante in Devil May Cry 2, Any Final Fantasy

    • reply
      March 24, 2010 5:23 AM

      Being able to carry two dozen weapons and a thousand rounds of ammo for each one, plus grenades and health packs, and still have room for a stack of brightly colored key cards. I don't really want to know where these characters keep all of that, but I'm glad they can.

      • reply
        March 24, 2010 5:26 AM

        Oh, and being able to interact with switches, doors, and elevators, climb ladders, and also pick things up, all without using your hands.

        • reply
          March 24, 2010 8:14 AM

          haha yeah. climbing a 100ft ladder while aiming a shoulder-mounted rocket launcher is pretty egregious.

    • reply
      March 24, 2010 5:23 AM

      Aren't railguns recoilless?

      • reply
        March 24, 2010 5:24 AM

        They certainly won't be a handheld weapon anytime soon.

        • reply
          March 24, 2010 5:28 AM

          Yeah, but that's not really a twist of the laws of physics unless you want to blankly label anything that doesn't exist right now twisting the laws of physics.

      • reply
        March 24, 2010 5:32 AM

        definitely not recoilless

        • reply
          March 24, 2010 5:33 AM

          Magnetic railguns are recoilless.

          • reply
            March 24, 2010 5:42 AM

            I think you may be crazy. how do you eliminate recoil from an object travelling at ridiculous velocities as it's fired?

            • reply
              March 24, 2010 5:46 AM

              If I recall correctly, the 'recoil' issued from a rail gun is vertical, and is more apt to peel the rails apart, instead of horizontal, like a standard gun. But I could be wrong.

              • reply
                March 24, 2010 5:47 AM

                Isn't it horizontal still, but instead of being parallel to the angle of fire it is perpendicular to the angle of fire?

                • reply
                  March 24, 2010 5:48 AM

                  ...isn't that vertical?

                • reply
                  March 24, 2010 5:50 AM

                  Yeah vertical would be perpendicular also, but I meant in the other direction, horizontally perpendicular, like across the horizon.

                  • reply
                    March 24, 2010 5:52 AM

                    You're making my head explode... =(
                    I'm not totally keen on the principles of it, but I thought the only 'recoiling' force would be directed back at the magnets that supplied the initial force, so the recoil would be directed up and down, not back towards the shooter, or outwards (left/right).

                    • reply
                      March 24, 2010 5:54 AM

                      Oh, I guess I should clarify that I'm thinking the rails on this rail gun would also be in a vertical pattern, as in one over the other, instead of the rails being on the same level. I suppose that would matter.

                    • reply
                      March 24, 2010 5:55 AM

                      AFAIK there are no rail guns that have an up & down orientation for the rails. They are always parallel at the bottom of the configuration so that gravity can hold the projectile. And I'm pretty sure, but I am not a railgun scientist, that the projectile recoils against the force moving it forward, which in this case is a moving magnetic field, not the rails themselves.

                      • reply
                        March 24, 2010 5:59 AM

                        Yeah, I don't know, I just had the picture oriented that way in my head. And I didn't mean that the rails were supplying the force, that was just the direction the recoil would have been applied. Like I said, though, I don't mind admitting that I could be wrong.

                        • reply
                          March 24, 2010 6:00 AM

                          Same here, we are all really just shit talking since I highly doubt any of us have made a railgun let alone understand the physics behind one :)

                        • reply
                          March 24, 2010 6:00 AM

                          Also, it appears below that LoioshDwaggie has the same understanding as I do.

                          • reply
                            March 24, 2010 6:02 AM

                            If you're curious, here is a paper (with experimental data!) about recoil in a railgun: http://iopscience.iop.org/0022-3727/20/3/023;jsessionid=CCA4D33C3067215DCF29B3EB6D7D5100.c3

                            • reply
                              March 24, 2010 6:03 AM

                              I love you

                            • reply
                              March 24, 2010 6:04 AM

                              Okay, so that's saying that the force is toward the 'shooter', not peeling in an 'outward' action like I thought. Word to your mother.

                            • reply
                              March 24, 2010 6:05 AM

                              Need a subscription to read that.

                            • reply
                              March 24, 2010 6:07 AM

                              I guess I'm looking at it from a relativistic electromagnetism viewpoint? I didn't realize experimentation shows that to be wrong.

                              • reply
                                March 24, 2010 6:55 AM

                                No you are looking at it with a "plane on treadmill viewpoint" not a relativistic viewpoint. Whatever the heck that is.

                                • reply
                                  March 24, 2010 8:30 AM

                                  Obviously you read the abstract? In relativistic electromagnetism the recoil force of a railgun should act on the magnetic field and absorb field energy-momentum. The Ampere-Neumann electrodynamics, on the other hand, requires the recoil forces to reside in the railheads and push the rails back toward the gun breach. Experiment confirms the latter mechanism.
                                  And relativistic electromagnetism is what most of us probably learned in school. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_electromagnetism
                                  In theory a rail gun has no recoil, but in practice it's shown it does. It has absolutely nothing to do with the plane on a treadmill, which even in theory is obvious to anybody who took basic science, but I appreciate you trying to throw a jab in there some place.

                                  • reply
                                    March 24, 2010 5:01 PM

                                    Actually, a railgun will have the same recoil as any other gun with equivalent muzzle velocity, both in theory and in practice, and this should be obvious to , in your words, anybody who took basic science. Basic conservation of momentum, which holds in all fields of physics, requires that launching a projectile one way imparts a recoil in the opposite direction. I haven't read the abstract or the paper mentioned above but I can guarantee you that no practicing physicist would ever claim that a railgun shouldn't have recoil.

                                    • reply
                                      March 24, 2010 5:12 PM

                                      Yeah, the theory disagreeing really only illustrates that the theory is not complete.

                              • reply
                                March 24, 2010 8:28 AM

                                I don't find it very surprising that experimentation agrees with basic action-reaction rules of physics.

                                • reply
                                  March 24, 2010 8:33 AM

                                  Sorry I wasn't taught Quantum electrodynamics so it wasn't obvious to me.

                                  • reply
                                    March 24, 2010 8:36 AM

                                    Also did you find it surprising that the very first line of the abstract explains that in theory a railgun should have no recoil, but in experimentation it does and that is why they are saying it proves quantum electrodynamics?

                                    • reply
                                      March 24, 2010 8:45 AM

                                      I definitely think it's interesting, but I wouldn't say "surprising" just because I don't know all that much about the two types of electromagnetic theory they're talking about and what the differences are. Or put it this way: I don't find it surprising that a theory has some small flaw that predicts the wrong outcome. I would find it surprising if a physicist who should know better was convinced that there would be no recoil because of it.

                                      It shows why data and experimentation is king though. 99% of the stuff in relativistic electromagnetism theory might be spot-on but one missed piece of the puzzle or one faulty assumption could have led that theory to produce an incorrect prediction. It's a lot easier to fix a theory when you have indisputable evidence that you went wrong somewhere.

                                  • reply
                                    March 24, 2010 8:39 AM

                                    I don't know why you bring up such a specific subject. My point was that basic high school physics is what makes it obvious. There's no self-propulsion, no counteracting force, etc. You look at the forces involved and it's obvious regardless of the highly technical and specialized implications.

                            • reply
                              March 24, 2010 7:58 AM

                              i dont seem to have my sterling on me, anyone wanna paste that here or host on shackspace?

                      • reply
                        March 24, 2010 6:05 AM

                        [deleted]

            • reply
              March 24, 2010 5:46 AM

              Carl Gustaf would like a word with you.

              • reply
                March 24, 2010 5:48 AM

                yes, anti-tank weapons are recoilless. I've fired them, but they're a different type of system

                • reply
                  March 24, 2010 5:51 AM

                  So then we've established ArcKnight is not crazy then?

                  • reply
                    March 24, 2010 5:53 AM

                    no, they're completely different types of weapons systems. the fact that an AT-4 is recoilless is because theres an absolutely retarded amount of back-blast when the thing fires, enough that anyone standing in the vicinity can be burned pretty badly.

                    • reply
                      March 24, 2010 5:54 AM

                      Railguns have no backblast because they utilize a different propulsion mechanism.

                      • reply
                        March 24, 2010 5:58 AM

                        the propulsion mechanism has nothing to do with recoil

                      • reply
                        March 24, 2010 8:47 AM

                        Right, which means have recoil because they don't have a blackblast-equivalent canceling force. You have a black box that shoots out a lump of metal in one direction and nothing in the opposite direction, thus the black box itself moves in the opposite direction.

            • reply
              March 24, 2010 5:49 AM

              [deleted]

            • reply
              March 24, 2010 5:53 AM

              Recoil on a normal gun is caused by the expansion of gas as the charge inside the bullet casing explodes - this blast is what propels the bullet out of the barrel. This pressure is also what forces the bolt back on semi-auto and automatic weapons, allowing them to chamber another round.

              Magnetic railguns function differently - essentially, a piece of metal is placed in the 'chamber' and a magnetic charge is run down the sides of the barrel, bringing the metal bullet along with it. There are no moving parts, and there's no explosion/pressure wave.

              The problem right now with railguns is both miniaturizing the power supply required to produce the magnetic charge, and developing conductors along the barrel that can pass the magnetic field fast enough to prevent the bullet from being attached to the side of the barrel and fusing with it.

                • reply
                  March 24, 2010 5:55 AM

                  (Sam Barros' Power Labs is a fucking amazing website by the way)

              • reply
                March 24, 2010 5:56 AM

                no, recoil on a normal gun is caused by the ejection of the projectile out of the barrel, and is completely dependent on the velocity of a projectile.

              • reply
                March 24, 2010 5:56 AM

                It still has recoil. The electromagnets are propelling the object forward and being pushed in the opposite direction. They push against their housing (the railgun linear accelerator) and that pushes back against you.

                So yes, they recoil. The one the Navy has in testing right now is a floating barrel because it travels a few feet each time it fires.

                • reply
                  March 24, 2010 5:58 AM

                  The recoil force exerted on the rails is equal and opposite to the force propelling the projectile. <--

                  • reply
                    March 24, 2010 7:00 AM

                    Forces can be converted to other forms, namely modifications to the effects of the magnetic fields. This can be manifest in different types of energy dissipation, so it's not all necessarily kinetic. I don't know to what degree this plays a role for railguns though, just tossing that out there.

                    • reply
                      March 24, 2010 8:34 AM

                      You have to deal with conservation of momentum too, so simply finding dissipated energy doesn't undo recoil.

                      • reply
                        March 24, 2010 10:50 AM

                        The conversion into other forms of energy adheres the principle of conservation, is what I mean. Energy used to actually alter the magnetic field would qualify, as would heat and acoustic energy.

                        • reply
                          March 24, 2010 4:48 PM

                          I'm not sure if we disagree here or not. I was pointing out that conservation of energy is different than conservation of momentum. AFAIK you cannot have a loss off momentum in the system like you can with the loss of kinetic energy. Kinetic energy of the system can be changed because it was changed into various other types of energy. However momentum cannot be lost as other forms of energy.

                • reply
                  March 24, 2010 6:32 AM

                  Where are you getting your info about the Navy's railgun?

                  • reply
                    March 24, 2010 7:03 AM

                    They used to cover it a lot on some of the discovery shows about future / advanced weapons. I forgot the name of the most recent one, but it had a guy talking about all the new and upcoming weapon systems (featuring lots of explosions!)

            • reply
              March 24, 2010 7:05 AM

              The only possible theory for thinking that today's railgun tech is recoiless is that the weapons are so large that they just don't react to the projectile firing due to it's own mass.

              • reply
                March 24, 2010 7:13 AM

                Check out my link to powerlabs above. Those are smaller railguns, nothing huge like the Navy is working on.

                • reply
                  March 24, 2010 7:20 AM

                  It still doesn't matter. recoil is there, maybe it's negligible but it's there. Magnetic force pushes both directions, on the projectile and in reverse.

                  Watch the VIDEO http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mROlo4Wz1mI

                  recoil in action

                  • reply
                    March 24, 2010 8:37 AM

                    Yeah I don't know at which point basic physics flies out the window. But at least his own source shows that he's wrong, and that's funny.

                    • reply
                      March 24, 2010 10:10 AM

                      I might not be a rocket scientist like twifosp, but there are some concepts out there I can follow pretty well, like Newton's Laws :)

          • reply
            March 24, 2010 8:33 AM

            Any self-contained system that flings a chunk of metal in one direction is going to feel recoil in the opposite direction. No matter what all forces are going on in that system, the net force is inevitably going to be recoil in the opposite direction from the projectile fired. There's just no way around that unless you have a self-propelled projectile or a counteracting force, like in the case of a so-called recoilless rifle.

          • reply
            March 24, 2010 11:56 AM

            Newton would like to have a word with you.
            http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/newtlaws/u2l4a.cfm

            • reply
              March 24, 2010 3:12 PM

              Seriously, this whole subthread is mind blowing. Projectiles that are not entirely self-propelled generate recoil. Yes, you're using magnetic fields to propel an object, but those magnets aiding the object's propulsion need to be braced somewhere, within something, lest they fly off in the opposite direction.

      • reply
        March 24, 2010 12:12 PM

        if i remember right the quake 2 one has quite a heft to it

    • reply
      March 24, 2010 5:30 AM

      I'm gonna have to go with regenerating health. Get shot in the gut? Crouch behind a wall for 6 seconds and you're good to go!

      • reply
        March 24, 2010 5:51 AM

        This is the worst idea ever in video games in my opinion.

        • reply
          March 24, 2010 5:56 AM

          ^^ Agreed

        • reply
          March 24, 2010 6:03 AM

          I generally agree, although having your HP refilled after every battle in FF13 was a great idea. I never did like having to spend so much time healing up after battles all the time. And, in spite of this, it's still plenty challenging.

          But yeah, health regen in shooters is fucking lame. I think Far Cry 2 has the best injury management so far. You aren't hardcore until you flick bullets out of your arm with a knife and cauterize the wound yourself.

          • reply
            March 24, 2010 7:57 AM

            Yeah, I actually liked FC2's health system, a good mix with regen health and health packs. You have to hide behind cover long enough to pull out bullets so it still gave a sense of urgency that you're going to die, but you had a "second chance" to regroup.

            • reply
              March 24, 2010 8:35 AM

              I liked that you would heal a Hitpoint if it wasn't completely bled out, unless it was one of your last two.
              Also, Vietcong had a good mechanic. You'd take a hit, then bleed a little more if not bandaged immediately. Then, your permanent health was decreased by a percentage of the wound (like you get caught by an AK leaving you with 30% health, after you heal, your Max Health will be like 90%). And your Squad Medic can heal you more efficiently (often with no degradation).
              Men Of Honor also had a "bleed out" mechanic. I don't remember it exactly, but I think it was similar to Far Cry 2's, if you take a hit bringing you below a certain threshold, it will bleed you out unless/until you bandage it.

              • reply
                March 24, 2010 10:53 AM

                *nods* So did Action Half-Life, to an extent. You would bleed out AND leave a trail of blood, making it easier for opponents to hunt you down.

        • reply
          March 24, 2010 6:17 AM

          Agreed.

        • reply
          March 24, 2010 6:28 AM

          I like it.

          • reply
            March 24, 2010 6:31 AM

            It has its place in certain games, but if DOOM4 or HL2.3 has regenerating health, there is a serious problem.

            Like many recent efforts to make gaming more accessible, it should not be applied to games as a whole.

            • reply
              March 24, 2010 6:35 AM

              [deleted]

              • reply
                March 24, 2010 6:50 AM

                Would you settle for some pain killers to make your health go back up? Perhaps Max should have also gotten drowsy and stumbled around the more painkillers you had to take. Could have made bullet time and aiming interesting.

          • reply
            March 24, 2010 7:52 AM

            It works in some games. The "oh shit" rush to cover as your screen darkens is a nice addition, but it needs some tweaking so that it's not just a safety net.

            I'd like to see it evolve to slow health regen (minute(s), not seconds, or only out of combat, similar to what we've had in RPGs for ages), and then usable inventory items for fast regen or instant heal.

            Ducking behind a wall and having to decide if you want to use one of your five remaining bandages or if you think you can survive the fight without it and walk it off after the area is clear.

            • reply
              March 24, 2010 10:37 AM

              Stalker did this best imo. You could equip artifacts that would slowly regenerate health over time. You carry bandages that restore a little health and stop you from bleeding. You also carry first aid kits that restore a large amount of health. And the bandages and kits have their own keypresses. A good system, but it could have been better by having a short cooldown time between first aid kit uses, because you could just spam the first aid key if you were in a difficult fight.

        • reply
          March 24, 2010 7:15 AM

          Agreed. Fucking devs trying to appeal to the casual noobs.

          • reply
            March 24, 2010 7:53 AM

            Yeah, man. We should totally go back to the days when we reloaded our health, but not our guns!

        • reply
          March 24, 2010 8:24 AM

          I'm not so sure. It allows devs to make enemy encounters more challenging without having to shower you with healing items every 5 feet.

          I definitely like the feeling of having to work through an entire area without accumulating too much damage, but regenerating health does allow for enemies to be more aware and deadly.

        • reply
          March 24, 2010 11:50 AM

          I'm a little more middle of the road on this. In certain circumstances, it works fairly well as a game concept. However, I don't think it belongs in most games and I feel it is used far too frequently these days.

      • reply
        March 24, 2010 10:34 AM

        Removing the need to hunt around for health kits (busy work) to top off your health is brilliant, but the fact it affects the pace of battle makes it suck to see this in EVERY GAME EVER NOW.

        I'd rather see it be much slower, enough you wouldn't do it mid-fight, or see health auto-regen at the end of fights (which would be very videogamey, but what isn't).

      • reply
        March 24, 2010 11:01 AM

        Halo 2 made sense with shields. But now everyone took that too far.

      • reply
        March 24, 2010 11:34 AM

        But health really does regenerate. It just takes much, much longer.

    • reply
      March 24, 2010 5:30 AM

      I think absorbing unrealistic levels of damage wins by default. Wolf 3D would've been a very different game, for instance, if you could've died after a single Luger shot.

      • reply
        March 24, 2010 5:56 AM

        Limping down the corridor, leaving bloody handprints on the walls as you look into each room, hoping for a medkit with bandages.

        • reply
          March 24, 2010 1:38 PM

          you mean looking for chicken drumsticks or bowls of meat

      • reply
        March 24, 2010 6:17 AM

        I never would have made it out of the first hallway.

    • reply
      March 24, 2010 5:32 AM

      Oooh! Anomalies in STALKER.

    • reply
      March 24, 2010 5:34 AM

      [deleted]

    • reply
      March 24, 2010 6:00 AM

      Being able to see, hear, breathe, and smell normally after 500 rounds of ammo have been fired in a 20x20 room.

    • reply
      March 24, 2010 6:03 AM

      RRRRRRRRRRRRRRIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIDDDDDDGGGEEEEEE RACER.

    • reply
      March 24, 2010 6:35 AM

      The Colon of Holding has got to be pretty high up there. A character's ability to carry massive quantities of weapons, ammo, grenades, tools, armor, money, and random crap, irrespective of the physical bulk of the items and despite the character not wearing so much as a knapsack, is pretty integral to a lot of games.

      As to the name, well, all that stuff has to go somewhere.

      • reply
        March 24, 2010 8:11 AM

        hahhaha i'm never heard the "colon of holding" moniker

        • reply
          March 24, 2010 10:29 AM

          I just made it up, though I've talked about characters storing shit up their ass in the past.

          Has you ever payed attention to how the player character models swap weapons in many first-person shooters?

      • reply
        March 24, 2010 4:29 PM

        they did this well with the star trek elite force games, the character had a transporter buffer that held their weapons

    • reply
      March 24, 2010 6:52 AM

      Missle locks. IN SPAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACE

      • reply
        March 24, 2010 6:59 AM

        Why wouldn't missile locks work in space?

        • reply
          March 24, 2010 7:06 AM

          It was more a comment about flight sim style space shooters.

          There's nothing really stopping missle locks in space. But everything would occur orbiting something else. It'd be pretty pointless to use a projective with propellant and a navigation system in space for long ranges. Anything with enough mass or energy to do damage to another ship would have to be so large it's delta V capabilities are going to be less than any target of value. Since you have to atmosphere to push against for course changes, all changes will be made with energy from Delta V. Given the amount of energy to alter orbits (all space battles would be orbiting _something_) it just isn't a very effecient way of trying to intercept another craft. Unless you are talking about really short ranges where two "capital ships" line up and broadside eachother with torpedos. But that'd be a pretty stupid strategy in space.

          • reply
            March 24, 2010 7:06 AM

            ...^no^ atmosphere... rather

          • reply
            March 24, 2010 7:11 AM

            I always assumed that missiles would have mini-thrusters for course corrections.

            • reply
              March 24, 2010 7:30 AM

              mini thrusters result in mini delta v

              You aren't changing relative position, you are changing relative orbits. It isn't just like you can apply thrust and "go that way" because you already have velocities on all 3 axis.

              • reply
                March 24, 2010 7:39 AM

                More generally you're changing relative velocities.

                The flip side is that your target has just as much difficulty changing velocity as your missile does. Possibly more. That sort of implies that there's an envelope of ranges, dependent on your velocity, your target's velocity, your missile's maneuver characteristics, and your target's maneuver characteristics, where you can fire a missile and it will be capable of intercepting the target. Essentially the missile can apply enough acceleration to put itself in the target's path, and the target can't apply enough acceleration to avoid the missile.

                • reply
                  March 24, 2010 7:50 AM

                  The target doesn't have as much difficulty changing course because it isn't going as fast.

                  • reply
                    March 24, 2010 9:43 AM

                    I think it's pretty safe to assume that a small missile that's designed entirely around rapid course correction would have an easier time changing course than some large spacecraft it's targeting.

                    • reply
                      March 24, 2010 9:49 AM

                      You might think so, but you are forgetting that the missle would have to travel at much much higher velocities in order to intercept the craft. Higher velocities means more deltaV to make minor changes.

                      The target craft could make one minor inclination change and the missle would have to make the same change with an order of magnitude higher deltaV to alter its own orbit.

                      If the target craft continually "side stepped" via small degree changes, the missle would run out of deltaV long before a long range craft would.

                      As a matter of rule, missles do not have more range than what launches them. Range here isn't the issue, it's amount of DeltaV to make course changes.

                      When a missle is trying to intercept a moving target in space orbiting another body, you can't just make a burn and "go that way". The velocity the missle is already carrying is already making you go on a specific orbit.

                      • reply
                        March 24, 2010 10:04 AM

                        Yeah and that means your missile's velocity would be limited by various factors unlike what we traditionally think of with a missile, where you fire up a rocket on full burn and point it at the target, and it makes small course corrections to what's otherwise a straight line. I just made a post somewhere below about this same thing, so I won't just copy it here.

                        So like I said, I do think the missile would have an easier time course correcting than a large target. It just wouldn't work at any arbitrary velocity. Maybe you need a missile that has more delta V capability by two orders of magnitude, then its speed can be higher by one order of magnitude or whatever.

          • reply
            March 24, 2010 7:16 AM

            Are you overlooking the devastation that can be caused by a hull breech in space. It's not the projectile's Mass that does damage, it's a payload that should (in most cases) explode on impact causing structural damage. Missiles are not plain bullets.

            • reply
              March 24, 2010 7:20 AM

              It doesn't matter. He's correct that at long ranges getting a missile to hit a target in space is a difficult proposition at best.

              • reply
                March 24, 2010 7:23 AM

                What's a long range in this context? I can't think of a single space game in which all combat doesn't take place within visual range.

                • reply
                  March 24, 2010 7:28 AM

                  Since we're talking about reality vs. video games, thousands of miles or more. Space is big.

              • reply
                March 24, 2010 7:24 AM

                Targeting systems disagree.

                • reply
                  March 24, 2010 7:30 AM

                  It has little to do with target tracking (though at sufficiently long ranges the speed of light becomes a concern). It has to do with the thrust requires to accelerate and steer a missile.

                  • reply
                    March 24, 2010 7:43 AM

                    Since science tells us we won't get near light speeds, this doesn't really apply.

                    Missiles (smaller self propelled rockets) will always be more maneuverable and have potential acceleration greater than a large ship with high mass. Unless you are already moving away at a speed that is faster than the missile can reach and over take, you should get caught, even with changes in course. Orbital factors don't really come into play for the missile itself, only the target and assailant.

                    • reply
                      March 24, 2010 7:52 AM

                      It absolutely applies. If you're shooting at something several light-seconds away, what you're actually seeing is where the target was and what they were doing several seconds ago. You can shoot at them based on that, but there's no guarantee that they haven't changed their velocity in the mean time. That will throw your shot off and make targeting much more difficult.

                      Orbital factors (more generally, relative velocities) apply because your missile is going to have the same initial velocity that your ship does.

                      In space, there is no distinction between maneuverability and potential acceleration. Missiles have high potential acceleration, but it's relatively short-lived. Their fuel stores are sharply limited. The more acceleration they use increasing velocity, the less they have available for maneuvering and the more acceleration required to maneuver. That's what makes targeting hard at long ranges.

                      • reply
                        March 24, 2010 8:07 AM

                        you are bringing science fiction into this argument about what will or wont work. We have no way to approach light speed, near light speed, or anything remotely fast enough that would be measured in light seconds and affect tracking and targeting. At least nothing that we would be targeting with weapons. If it was that far away, it's not going to be caught with a missile. You aren't shooting a long range vehicle at a target, you are shooting a missile. I'm probably talking distances under 100 miles.

                        • reply
                          March 24, 2010 8:12 AM

                          Even 100 miles it would be silly. This is kind of like the plane vs treadmill debate. It's rather pointless when the equations exist to determine the amounts of energy required to intercept another craft where it's orbital inclination, altitude, and plane are all dynamic.

                      • reply
                        March 24, 2010 8:39 AM

                        Just hypothetically, wouldn't larger fuel stores be conceivable with, say, an onboard Mr. Fusion or (even more hypothetically) anti-matter / matter reactor? I'd imagine you could have a huge energy supply from a small amount of mass, certainly orders of magnitude more power per gram than any chemical accelerant.

                      • reply
                        March 24, 2010 9:48 AM

                        Hitting a target with a missile would be no more difficult than launching a fighter and commanding it to ram the target. You'd essentially need a cruise missile kind of concept with on-board guidance that constantly adjusts course as it gets closer and its measurements are known to be more up to date.

                        It would be more about active guidance and less about predicting where the target will be and then burning through all the fuel to get there as quickly as possible.

                        • reply
                          March 24, 2010 9:50 AM

                          That isn't how orbital mechanics work. You don't just point and go "that way".

                          • reply
                            March 24, 2010 9:58 AM

                            Of course not, and I didn't say that. On board computers would have to calculate the necessary thrust to course correct to an intercept. There would be some amount of uncertainty in that intercept based on the capabilities of the target. I imagine your missile's speed would be limited by the product of that uncertainty and the limitations of your missile's ability to course correct, as well as other factors like the relative motions of the attacker and target, and what kind of approach angle that would produce, etc.

                            Does that sound better?

                            • reply
                              March 24, 2010 10:09 AM

                              Just go do the math. I posted a nice problem below you can work with.

                              • reply
                                March 24, 2010 4:51 PM

                                Why do I get the "do the math" brush-off? I'm not talking about the relative quantities of each required here, just general concepts.

                    • reply
                      March 24, 2010 8:00 AM

                      Accelaration is not the problem. It's changing course.

                      To intercept a target "ahead" of you you need to go faster than it is currently going. These courses aren't straight lines, they are orbital lines. The faster the velocity, the more energy required to change course. You aren't intercepting relative from the attacker to the target. This is where you are making your mistake. You are launching a missle, altering the missle's orbit to intercept the target. So now they are on an intercept course if the target becomes aware of the projectile, it can alter it's course slightly, with a small amount of delta V. Now the amount of delta V required to alter the projectiles course to fit the new orbit is much much greater because the projectile is traveling at a higher speed.

                      • reply
                        March 24, 2010 8:03 AM

                        If you really want to get into this and have any propensity for math, go google hoffman transfers or one tangent burns for equations. Then make the velocity for the "missle" 100x greater than the intercept target. Then alter the target's orbit by a miniscule amount. Redo the burn equatrion and you are in for a suprise.

                        We can debate this all damn day, but the equations for orbitial intercepts have been around for decades and it's pretty pointless to debate with english.

                        • reply
                          March 24, 2010 8:06 AM

                          they should just put warp drives on the missiles

                          • reply
                            March 24, 2010 8:45 AM

                            Spacial folding, you fire the cannon into a fold in space that ends up right next to the target, essentially every shot becomes point blank, of course, for explosives you have to increase the range assuming you don't want your own ship to get hit at the same time.

                        • reply
                          March 24, 2010 8:13 AM

                          Hohmann transfer describes moving from one orbit to another. An attacking projectile is not attempting to change orbit, and while you would not be making a straight line attack from destination to target because of gravitation forces, you are also not attempting to maintain speed vs radius to maintain altitude. Once you get to the destination your speed no longer matters... where in an orbit change your speed matters a LOT, too fast and you shoot right out of your orbit.

                          • reply
                            March 24, 2010 8:16 AM

                            This is why you aren't getting it.

                            You ARE changing orbit. You do not do anything in space without changing orbits. A change in course, is a change in orbit. If you want to send one projectile to intercept another, you are performing a transfer.

                            Also, you don't "shoot out of orbit", you leave one sphere of influence for another. If you left Earth, you'd be in the Sun's orbit. If you left the sun's orbit you'd be in the milky way's sphere of influence.

                            • reply
                              March 24, 2010 8:18 AM

                              you are only thinking in terms of a path you want to maintain.

                              • reply
                                March 24, 2010 8:21 AM

                                That doesn't even make sense.

                              • reply
                                March 24, 2010 8:25 AM

                                In leiu of responding to anymore posts I'm going to ask that you go post this to an orbital mechanics forum (they exist, here's one: http://orbiter-forum.com/) post this question and then post the link to the shack.

                                I bet 100 bucks you don't.

                      • reply
                        March 24, 2010 9:54 AM

                        That just means that there's a limiting factor on the projectile velocities you'd try to achieve versus the maneuverability you'd like to have.

                        Like I said above, think of it as a cruise missile or even a small piloted kamikaze craft. It probably wouldn't work well to accelerate as fast as possible as early as possible, so there'd be a penalty in the target's warning time. But the smaller craft that can afford to burn all its fuel in a short time (which among other things would make course corrections a LOT easier) could certainly catch up and make a hit. You'd probably just constantly accelerate at a low rate so that you get faster as you get closer and your maximum necessary course correction shrinks. (since a large target craft's maneuverability will be limited in comparison, your uncertainty in the target's course & location would only shrink as you got closer)

                        Maybe the problem is thinking of simple atmospheric missiles rather than the more complex destructive vehicles they'd likely be.

                • reply
                  March 24, 2010 7:34 AM

                  It comes down to diminishing returns. Any craft large enough to carry something large enough to attack another craft worth attacking is going to have more deltaV potential than what is coming towards it. Given suffiecient warning (easy to do in space), you just alter your orbit slightly and the projectile has to use exponentially more energy to alter it's course because it's traveling so much faster relative to the target.

                  The faster the velocities, the more energy requried to change the course.

                  • reply
                    March 24, 2010 7:41 AM

                    Which is why spacial folding cannons will kick ass.

                  • reply
                    March 24, 2010 2:49 PM

                    What kind of scale are you talking about? I can see that for interplanetary combat, but not planetary orbital combat. Where the ships are a few hundred miles apart and a few dozen miles above sea level.

                  • reply
                    March 24, 2010 4:57 PM

                    ... why does the missile have to be so much faster than the target ship

              • reply
                March 24, 2010 7:46 AM

                wouldn't it be easier to hit at long ranges because you'd have more time to correct/predict course?

                • reply
                  March 24, 2010 7:49 AM

                  They have more time to change course, so you really need to hit a much larger area than the target itself.

                  • reply
                    March 24, 2010 8:05 AM

                    and your missile also has more time to make course adjustments

                    • reply
                      March 24, 2010 8:12 AM

                      The missle requires more deltaV to make minor course adjustments due to it's intercept velocity.

                      • reply
                        March 24, 2010 8:17 AM

                        But once it gets there it doesnt have to stop. So your total fuel consumption needs are nothing like a space craft attempting the same maneuver.

                        • reply
                          March 24, 2010 8:20 AM

                          You aren't getting it. The space craft just need to alter it's inclination by a small degree with a small burn. The amount of energy the intercept craft now has to expel to alter it's inclination by one degree is squared proportional to it's current velocity. Since it's velocity is an intercept speed, it's velocity is much greater relative to the target.

                          Unless the missle has the capability to do a constant burn it will almost always use up it's capability for deltaV before a target ahead of it will.

                          • reply
                            March 24, 2010 8:24 AM

                            Doesn't matter, Our fuel is expendable. You're thinking Space Stations not missiles. It's like you're dreamin' of gorgonzola when it's clearly bree time baby.

                            • reply
                              March 24, 2010 8:34 AM

                              K. Please show me the math for the following:

                              Ship A and B have identical circular orbits, planes and inclinations, at a apogee of 152,000,000 kmaround the sun and are currently traveling at 30 km per second. Both ship A and B weigh 10,000 kilograms

                              Ship A's node is a striaght line radial intercept of 100 km from ship B's node.

                              Ship A releases a missle that somehow instantly changes velocity from 30 km per second to 300 km per second targeted with a standard hoffman transfer for B. The missle weighs 100 kilograms.

                              10 seconds after the missle is fired, ship B alters it's orbital inclination by 1 degree, changes the perogee of orbit to 152,000,100 km.

                              Please calculate the following:

                              The original time to intercept for the projectile to intercept ship B
                              The delta V required by ship B to make the above changes
                              The distance traveled after node A by the projectile after 10 seconds
                              The delta V required for the 100 kilogram projectile to match the new orbit 10 seconds after it leaves node A

                              • reply
                                March 24, 2010 8:45 AM

                                10,000kg for a space craft with crew and attack system? that's like a volkswagon in space. ISS is like 350,000kg

                                I'm off to the gym, I'll see if I can ring up a rocket scientist to weigh in on this.

                                • reply
                                  March 24, 2010 8:55 AM

                                  Nice round small numbers for the sake of showing you how much extra energy is invovled in orbit changes when the velocity is increased.

                                  Go ahead and change it to 1,000,000 kg if that makes you feel better.

                          • reply
                            March 24, 2010 10:17 AM

                            I disagree with this completely. Imagine you are sitting in a spaceship in space, and out the front mirror you see a missile streaming towards you. Assuming you have thrusters in all directions, your best bet of avoiding it is to thrust straight up or down, and that will cause it to have to turn the most.

                            You thrust 1 meter up, the missle alters its intercept angle by like 2 degrees effortlessly, and you're still toast.

                            You'd have to shift your 5000 megaton spaceship straight up, very very very fast, whereas a tiny missile barely needs any fuel at all to course-correct to follow you.

                            • reply
                              March 24, 2010 10:25 AM

                              Assuming the missle is in visible range by the time you are to react, you are correct.

              • reply
                March 24, 2010 8:20 AM

                but we are only talking like 5000 meters, according to descent freespace

          • reply
            March 24, 2010 10:14 AM

            MAGNETIC MISSILES

            Also hell yeah missile locks will work, they just require three thrusters instead of one.

      • reply
        March 24, 2010 11:46 AM

        I always admired how in Wing Commander games your velocity was given in kilometers per second. 500 km/s is more than 1,000,000 mph, but for some reason you can visually spot enemy fighters -- which aren't supposed to be any bigger than modern fighter jets -- long before they reach you. That's damn good eyesight.

    • Zek legacy 10 years legacy 20 years
      reply
      March 24, 2010 6:58 AM

      Double Jump

    • reply
      March 24, 2010 7:04 AM

      Armor that protects you while covering very little. See the second armor for Malkavian female characters in Vampire: Bloodlines. I rather enjoy this particular break from reality though.

    • reply
      March 24, 2010 7:05 AM

      Low Gravity Death Matches suck Ballz

    • reply
      March 24, 2010 7:09 AM

      coming back to life seconds after being killed?

    • reply
      March 24, 2010 7:16 AM

      Ignoring newtonian physics in space games. It has it's place in some games, but if netownian physics had been in TIE Fighter, I guarantee it would not be the classic it is today.

      • reply
        March 24, 2010 7:42 AM

        Newtonian physics doesn't work in the Star Wars Universe.

        • reply
          March 24, 2010 8:08 AM

          Use the mass times acceleration, Luke.

      • reply
        March 24, 2010 12:00 PM

        Freelancer was more like underwater, than space.

    • reply
      March 24, 2010 7:24 AM

      Doing a knee slide along train tracks

    • reply
      March 24, 2010 7:26 AM

      rocket jump.

      • reply
        March 24, 2010 8:18 AM

        that's really an issue with excessive armor.

      • reply
        March 24, 2010 8:43 AM

        Whats wrong with maneuvering through the air and bunny hopping at 50 mph?

    • reply
      March 24, 2010 7:27 AM

      a mix of The XX and Vampire weekend on grooveshark this morning.

    • reply
      March 24, 2010 7:27 AM

      Movement speed. It directly controls game play, perhaps more so than any other mechanic. From Pong to Wipeout.

    • reply
      March 24, 2010 8:08 AM

      GTA IV, surviving an 80mph head on collision that just sent you through the windshield.

      • reply
        March 24, 2010 8:21 AM

        not just surviving, but getting up and then gunning down the car that was chasing you

        • reply
          March 24, 2010 8:25 AM

          I'm going to kill every motherfucker that doesn't know to get the fuck out of my way.

    • reply
      March 24, 2010 8:30 AM

      RESPAWN!

    • reply
      March 24, 2010 8:55 AM

      running 100mph in MW2

    • reply
      March 24, 2010 10:14 AM

      being able to carry 10 different weapons, each larger than the last, and not having your movement affected.

    • reply
      March 24, 2010 10:19 AM

      [deleted]

    • reply
      March 24, 2010 10:19 AM

      Being on 1 health but still totally 100% agile and responsive

      • reply
        March 24, 2010 10:21 AM

        Being on really low health and still dishing out the destruction makes me feel like a badass. Like last night on God of War 3 I was almost dead but my fighting became unstoppable.

    • reply
      March 24, 2010 10:27 AM

      Time it takes to switch weapons

    • reply
      March 24, 2010 10:43 AM

      [deleted]

      • reply
        March 24, 2010 10:43 AM

        [deleted]

      • reply
        March 24, 2010 10:46 AM

        Oh, my Christ.

      • reply
        March 24, 2010 11:11 AM

        That is one abortion of a shack tag.

      • reply
        March 24, 2010 11:20 AM

        wow that is an epic fail

      • reply
        March 24, 2010 11:41 AM

        [deleted]

        • reply
          March 24, 2010 12:58 PM

          Son, back in my day there was no preview script. You typed those shacktags out by hand and you took your chances. Sure many villagers lives were needlessly lost in shacktag disasters, but this was the wild west age of shack, and it was either you or them, so you shacktag'd your way to the top all over their face. Man up and uninstall that preview script! You'll be better off for it.

      • reply
        March 24, 2010 12:04 PM

        it's like the portal gun misfired or something

      • reply
        March 24, 2010 12:46 PM

        Pobnartileb

      • reply
        March 24, 2010 12:56 PM

        Beautiful.

      • reply
        March 24, 2010 12:58 PM

        Well this is the first shacktag that has caused physical injury. I'm still not over my infection, saw this post, started laughing, started coughing, blacked out, fell sideways out of my chair and faceplanted. Came to on the floor.

        I'd like to post the whole MAD ME MAD meme and get a lol but I can't remember it fuck.

        Back to the hospital.

      • reply
        March 24, 2010 1:01 PM

        Oh God, I love it. lolol

    • reply
      March 24, 2010 10:48 AM

      [deleted]

    • reply
      March 24, 2010 11:11 AM

      Reloading close bolt weapon system but it doesn't count the round still in the chamber.

      • reply
        March 24, 2010 11:15 AM

        It's nice when games actually do this right because it makes reloading faster if you do it before your magazine is empty. R6 3 even took that into account so that if you had 6 rounds left and reloaded if you used all your full mags when it went back to that one it would only have 6 rounds in it.

        • reply
          March 24, 2010 12:53 PM

          Vietcong did a neat thing where guns with 30 round mags only had 28 rounds loaded in them. This was a common practice (even today) as fully loaded a magazine wears out the spring and would cause rounds not to be fed properly. I think nearly all the rifles and SMG's did this in Vietcong.

          Otherwise going by spec of fully loaded doesn't bother me. But VC's approach was a really nice touch.

        • reply
          March 25, 2010 6:11 AM

          Agreed. I really liked how Raven Shield kept track of the individual magazines, as well as accounted for chambered rounds.

    • reply
      March 24, 2010 11:20 AM

      Human running speed and endurance for that.

      If you did it realistically, most games would be boring to work through.

    • reply
      March 24, 2010 11:39 AM

      I still think it's blatant disregard for inertia. The Quake guy is carrying an axe, seven guns, 99 rockets, hundreds of nails and shotgun shells, and wearing a full suit of armor -- he must weigh like 10 tons. But he runs at about 60 mph. Accelerating from rest would take the force of a rocket booster, and his momentum would make him crash through walls before stopping. Maybe noclip is more respectful of the laws of physics than we thought...

    • reply
      March 24, 2010 11:43 AM

      Bf1942 physis, some of the stuff was realistic (torque on the corsair) but god damn was that fun.

      • reply
        March 24, 2010 12:43 PM

        Being able to come to an almost complete mid-air stop in an aircraft to line up a machinegun pounding on a vehicle or to spray bullets into a building for like 10 seconds straight, then being able to throttle your way back into high speed flight having lost zero altitude, was pretty awesome even though it was tremendously game-ey.

    • reply
      March 24, 2010 12:03 PM

      Wall Running, PoP or Ninja Gaiden style.

      No way can people do that.

    • reply
      March 24, 2010 12:06 PM

      [deleted]

    • reply
      March 24, 2010 12:15 PM

      The lack of inertia for characters.

    • reply
      March 24, 2010 12:53 PM

      [deleted]

    • reply
      March 24, 2010 12:55 PM

      [deleted]

    • reply
      March 24, 2010 1:00 PM

      The ability to instantly heal any wound by walking over a kit of medical supplies

      • reply
        March 24, 2010 1:34 PM

        Or in some cases just hiding for 8 or 10 seconds.

      • reply
        March 24, 2010 2:42 PM

        That's how healthcare is done in Canada.

    • reply
      March 24, 2010 1:35 PM

      I'm gonna go with Just Cause 2's ability to let you free fall for a few kilometers, then at the last second grapple yourself to the ground, making you collide with earth EVEN HARDER but that keeps you from getting hurt. Also, Saint's Row let's you teleport into the driver's seat of any car simply by standing on the car and pressing Y.

    • reply
      March 24, 2010 1:35 PM

      QUAD DAMAGE

    • reply
      March 24, 2010 1:53 PM

      Portal and Strafe Jumping(Bunny-Hopping)

    • reply
      March 24, 2010 2:06 PM

      Ninja Rope

      • reply
        March 24, 2010 2:10 PM

        Imagine what real ninjas could do with that stuff

    • reply
      March 24, 2010 2:08 PM

      Strafe jumping.

      God I love strafe jumping well and moving 3 times as fast the other people on the map.

    • reply
      March 24, 2010 2:13 PM

      Rocket jumping + Quake 1/Half-Life/Source air control.

    • reply
      March 24, 2010 3:25 PM

      251 replies and not a single mention of the parachute from MDK... Shameful, you guys. :(

    • reply
      March 24, 2010 3:40 PM

      getting 3 lives for a quarter.

    • reply
      March 24, 2010 4:07 PM

      Double jump, hands down. Almost every game has it, and never tries to explain why their character can jump twice, but you miss it when a game doesn't have it.

      • reply
        March 24, 2010 4:59 PM

        some games do require earning rocket boots before you get it.

    • reply
      March 24, 2010 4:12 PM

      Respawning

    • reply
      March 24, 2010 4:57 PM

      125hz bug in Q3.

      • reply
        March 24, 2010 4:59 PM

        I mean a game's OWN physics was broken but made for extended gameplay options.

    • reply
      March 24, 2010 4:59 PM

      trick jumping in Q3. or even just rocket/grenade jumping in general.

    • reply
      March 24, 2010 4:59 PM

      [deleted]

    • reply
      March 24, 2010 5:18 PM

      not being able to go prone is SOOO beneficial in BC2. I mean the immersion just happens when you find out you cant go prone. Thats when the fun starts!

    • reply
      March 24, 2010 6:07 PM

      [deleted]

    • reply
      March 24, 2010 6:07 PM

      Being able to carry an impossible volume of weapons. I personally dislike games that only allow you to carry 1 or 2 weapons and you have to constantly throw the ones you have on you, out.

    • reply
      March 24, 2010 9:24 PM

      i can definately say that its not MW2 commando perk. the knifing is fine, but latching onto people 10 feet away just takes the skill out of it.

Hello, Meet Lola