Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
Matt; That is an even bigger no on Homeworld. It doesn't even come close as it is just a point and click RTS. There is zero calculation involved in any form of trajectory, maneuver is a minimal concern, and there is no comparable long distance combat. Homeworld is pretty far from being realistic. Helicopters are far closer by a massive margin. They can't just change direction on a dime they have to account for momentum and trajectory as well as weapons orientation, have the proper directions of movement to be comparable as in all directions, and even have crew having to balance data input vs interaction with autonomous and semi-autonomous systems.
Maybe " Attack Vector: Tactical" would be even better if you can find a series of videos detailing how it is played.
edited 28th May '16 8:14:49 PM by TuefelHundenIV
Who watches the watchmen?
Aircraft are worth crap as a reference, because space doesn't have altitude, doesn't have horizons (90% of the time), doesn't have ground clutter, doesn't have weather and doesn't have air resistance. Seriously, you might as well model it on tank combat as on aircraft, because it's about as applicable.
edited 28th May '16 8:44:22 PM by MattII
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
Altitude unless your fairly low is not a serious consideration for understanding movement in relation to a target in a full 3d range of movement. The higher up the further out any possible horizon line is and the horizon line is not a hindrance at all to understanding 3d maneuvers in a complex maneuver set. A simple look at aerial maneuvers proves the point. It has the full range of transitions from all types of movement including lateral movement, rotational movement, and ascent - descent, forward and back, as well as the multiple diagonals and combinations of movements. Yes it can be used.
Who watches the watchmen?
I'm sorry, but that's poppycock. The Rutan Voyager and the Apollo CSM have exactly no similarity, and both are just basic examples of what you need for even short-range flight in their respective environments.
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
No it isn't poppy cock. Helicopters can move in all the exact same patterns they literally can move in the complete sphere of movement with just about any facing including near vertical. What is clear is you haven't got a damn clue about what your talking about never mind how the machines in question work with their motion or how they can m ove. What are you going to suggest next that Command and Conquer is a good way to learn how operate a tank?
edited 28th May '16 11:16:43 PM by TuefelHundenIV
Who watches the watchmen?
Except that if you stop the engine of a helicopter while in the air, you die. As for who hasn't got the clue, it's you mate. I mean seriously, read this Atomic Rockets article
.
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
I have you should as well because you seem to be missing the painfully obvious fact that both move in full 3d space in all directions. My god its like they share movement patterns traits and concerns right down to having to contend with momentum to change directions, vectors, and positions including orientations for both fixed and turreted weapons. We call this a detail.But hey your too busy trying to find point and click RTS and going on about shutting off engines which no one mentioned.
Who watches the watchmen?
Except that the helicopter altitude record is 13 km, with the pilot breathing supplemental oxygen. And that's far and away above what any service helicopter can do. Also, clearly you didn't read it or your wouldn't be arguing that space is like atmosphere, but thinner. And that's exactly what you're doing prattling on about helicopters, when you should really be talking about Apollo and Soyuz, neither of which have any aerodynamic properties except those required to drop like a stone.
edited 29th May '16 4:50:44 AM by MattII
The main difference between atmospheric vs. space maneuver is the presence or absence of an atmosphere. The trajectories that aircraft can follow are dictated by the presence of lift and air resistance. Even helecopters bank to turn, use air resistance to slow down, and rely on gravity to descend. Spacecraft do none of those things. Their maneuvers are determined by the fact that any change in velocity or direction costs fuel, and determining trajectories depends upon a direct application of vector physics. If you run out of fuel, or your engine is damaged, you don't crash, you just drift away forever.
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
Matt: Altitude has nothing to do with it either again a helicopter has the full sphere of movement and has to use its propulsion to change not only orientation but its direction of movement just like a space could. Just like a space craft a helicopter can orient away from the direction of travel and just keep going. Just like a space craft if a helicopters want to do any large changes in direction of travel it has to deal with the momentum while applying thrust to change direction and orientation.
De Marquis: Except a helicopter still uses the same kind of motion. All types of turning and maneuvers atmospheric craft can do can be done in space presence of atmosphere or gravity is not actually required. In some regards that makes it easier to pull off some maneuvers in others it makes it harder. The lack of a an up for example is actually pretty nice but you can't use gravity to assist you in other maneuvers so have use maneuver thrusters instead. There is actually no requirement of atmosphere or gravity at all. Presence or lack of those can both help or make other maneuvers more difficult. Helicopters like space craft use a combination of rotation and redirection of propulsion to move and orient. A helicopters propulsion can exert forces in pretty much any direction just like a space craft covered in maneuver thrusters and is in fact how helicopters move around in the first place.
Fixed wing aircraft can't do those maneuvers not even the Harrier, which is a mistake they learned early on, because they simply cannot move like a helicopter. Helicopters can do quite a lot that would leave a fixed wing aircraft a charred and battered statistic. Last I checked it is generally considered a bad thing if your fixed wing aircraft tries to fly backwards or sideways. If a space ship wants to it can travel in one direction while facing away from the direction of travel. So can a helicopter both can do it without stopping and just fly that constantly if they wanted. The only thing a helicopter really can't do is turn over on its side. They do extremes of nose up and down and fly in direction that isn't the direction the nose is pointing. Interestingly the RC helicopters are actually more maneuverable then their bigger cousins. For example they can fly upside down for extended periods but the way we build the big machines means they can only do it for about dozen seconds before there are issues that have something to do with the rotors.
You do know that space craft can and do banking turns right? Especially to orient equipment mounted on certain parts of the craft. A bank is just a type of turn that is determined by orientation to the direction of the turn and is not determined by the presence or lack of atmosphere or gravity at all. They could also turn 8's and lazy 8's, do pylon turns, crab and slip, spiral, etc. The only difference is there is no gravity and atmosphere and the space craft has to use thrusters.
For purposes of demonstrating the 3d nature of movement including orientation helicopters work just fine and are oddly more accessible. The table tops that do it, short of a gaming store or session with friends, can't really be found in videos. Attack Vector:Tactical being the one most geared to it is also the most rare because of its price tag and there is an incomplete tutorial about it. There are very few video games that actually incorporate it. The only on that is published that might fit the bill is old Independence war series. Torch Ships hit a wall and Children of A Dead Earth is still in the early stages of Greenlight.
Who watches the watchmen?
@Tuelel, most of a helicopter's power is used fighting against gravity by pushing off the air. Since neither air not gravity (well, for the most part, except when near planets) exist in space, the helicopter therefore cannot be considered a viable demonstration of how a spacecraft works.
What can be considered a viable demonstration are actual spacecraft, or games that simulate 3D space.
edited 29th May '16 3:02:42 PM by MattII
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
A helicopter can demonstrate the movement. It has a lot of the same considerations and despite needing to lift itself off helicopters have an incredibly high degree of motion in pretty much all directions. Even better if you use RC ones.
But I will agree if we could get our hands on game with 3d space preferably on a computer that actually has all the stuff accounted for it would be fantastic. But the majority of games soft ball a large portion of it. Like I said the only that is published that I can think of that might fit the case is the old Independence War games. There were two or three of them and I played them over a decade ago so they might not be as good a fit as I remember. The other games that mach that for sure one is pretty much dead that would "Torch Ships". The other though is Green lit on Steam and is slated for summer this year.
Here is the blog for the game. I voted for it in Greenlight then promptly forgot it existed until I went looking for games last night and today. here is the Steam page This has just about everything we talk about including scale,kinetics, radiators, and even drones.
So, the message that I think Tuefel is trying to convey isn't that helicopter combat is exactly like space combat, but that helo vs helo combat is the closest reference point we have. Of course, that's why we have simulators.
"It is an act of good character to know something about the people you're going to bomb." - Rick Steves
Okay now here's a challenge. Bring real life military space tactics and realistic ideas... to Space Engineers with no mods.
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
Does it actually have weapons? Like missiles and lasers? I haven't played it in a long time.
Who watches the watchmen?
Yes, Missiles and Guns.
No lasers IIRC.
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
Wow it got missiles. O_o I am way behind on updates.
Who watches the watchmen?
Guns but no lasers? Okay right now, power usage and heat dissipation are big issues, but us being still at the stage of chemical rockets I'd sort of expect we'd develop decent ones by this point in time.
Space Engineers has missile turrets, Gatling turrets, jump drives that at max can only go 5000 km forward, missile launchers, Gatling guns, interior turrets, and ship scale cutters meant to break down ship material.
I had a devastating comeback that refuted all of Tuefel's main points and would have totally ended debate and won the thread. Then I watched that awesome trailer and lost my train of thought. I've forgotten the entire rebuttal. Well played, Tuefel, well played.
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
Screw the helicopters this game is supposed to come out this summer.
Who watches the watchmen?
Can I build full sized unmaned craft?
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
I think it is mentioned in the blog. As for what constitutes full size I haven't a clue.
Who watches the watchmen?
"Not attached to a parrent ship" would be my definition of full sized.
Imagine swarms of airliner sized "light" attack craft making high speed passes at each other filling the space between with complicated traceries of lasers and missiles. A slow, long distance, high tech dog fight.