posted
Apart from having a story and engaging unique gameplay, here are some things to keep in mind:
Mediaeval armour is for Total War and Age of Empires. These metalsuits are heavier than this polymer based armour, which actually looks better. Also, armour and weapons should not have blinking lights. What's up with the shoulder pads? Are they getting ready to play American football? Battlefield 2142, you're beginning to get the point.
Non body-builder soldiers prefer small arms to portable AA artillery.Yeah.
If lights on equipment is necessary, it should be red. Red is usually hardest to distinguish in the dark, and is less likely to be spotted. Hence the red flash lights in Vietnam films.
Not all futures have to be utopian or apocalyptic.
There is no sound in space. Personally I'm very intrigued by the artistic potential of portraying a silent space battle. Perhaps that's something better suited to film, though.
Mech warriors made of metal with not stand unless they have disproportionately large feet.
Add your own! This was not meant as serious game criticism, but if you're in the mood to provide some, feel free.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
A corollary to your first point: Swords are useless when your opponents have death ray laser guns. I'm looking at you, Final Fantasy XII.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Newton and Einstein didn't know what they were talking about: "Laws of Motion"... "Thermodynamics"... "Speed of light"... "Special relativity"... HA!
Posts: 3486 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Those "metal suits" are reactive-armoured exoskeletonmanplifiers ala Tom Swift / StarshipTroopers / Ironman / etc : ie far closer to battletank with forklift extensions than to the "polymer-based" passive armour. The manplification is necessary because the multiple-fire rifle carried by the "metal suit"ed soldier is far too heavy to be useful to non-amplified infantry men. Schwartznegger/Stallone/etc running around shooting .50caliber machineguns is a physics absurdity. It takes a full squad of relatively strong soldiers to carry the tripod, gun, and enough ammo for a few minutes of firing. Shoulder/hip-firing one .50caliber round will come close to knocking ya down. Rapid fire would be about the equivalent of being hit by the entire defensive line of an American football team.
Hence the "shoulder pads". Running the suit is gonna take a lot of power, which means generators and fuel. And the best places to put a load on humans is on the shoulders and on the hips. And as shown in the manplifier article, another reason for the shoulder-pad extension is to provide leverage near the main fulcrum for arm movement. Doubtful that future powersuits will use pneumatics or motors&gears, electro-active polymers show far greater potential in speed, strength, and lightness than current mechanical systems.
Once body armour becomes self-powering, several advantages in using nanotech metal in the outer layers come to the forefront. In addition to surviving individual impacts better, being fireproof, non-toxic, etc as mentioned in the article: Increased mass, which allows the soldier to fire his heavy-duty weapon without being knocked over, and which allows the soldier to take a heavier bullet impact and laser back-blast without being knocked over. Metals are good at taking compressive loads without shattering, which is good when you are applying large amounts of power to run the suit. A metal's surface will ionize when hit by laserfire, forming a phase conjugate mirror which both partially shields the metal beneath and reflects a large portion of the "photon bullets" directly back to whoever fired them. ie An unarmoured enemy would be hit&disabled by the ricochet from his own laser. With armor, an enemy without electronicly-controlled light-blocking visors/goggles would become permanently blinded. Even with armor and visors, the ricochet would immediately illuminate where the "photon bullets" had been fired from. In other words, a sniper couldn't hide from retribution.
"Mech warriors made of metal with not stand unless they have disproportionately large feet."
Bipeds will not stand unless they have disportionately large feet. Human standing/walking/running is actually a constantly controlled fall: losing balance in one direction, then compensating by moving body parts so that the center of gravity starts falling in the other direction. Powered body armour will similarly self-regulate its fall to maintain balance, with additional input from the human operator for controlled movements.
"There is no sound in space..." ... is highly misleading as an objection. An explosion generates its own atmosphere to transmit sound. You will hear an explosion as long as you are close enough so that the atmosphere hasn't dissipated into space to near-vacuum. An explosion generates debris. If your ship is hit by debris, it will "ring" to the strike which in turn will be transmitted by the ship's own atmosphere to your ears.
A nuclear explosion generates an ElectroMagneticPulse. Unless the ship is strongly Faraday shielded, the EMP will generate a current in wiring -- including within the nanowires of an IntegratedCircuit -- causing speakers and relays to pop. If one is close enough to the EMP source, it will deflect/rattle sheet metal, and cause wiring and circuitry to melt&burn. StarTrek consoles going kablooie is an example of expectable EMP effects after a breach of Faraday shielding.
The SpaceShuttle accelerates at ~3gravities for a few minutes to obtain orbital speed. Any ship that travels through normal space in any reasonable amount of time will be constantly boosting (acceleration then deceleration) at ~1g to travel between two points in space. So any spaceship is nuclear-powered in one way or another. A fusion powerplant uses massive electromagnetic containment fields. A catastrophic collapse of that containment field -- eg shorting caused by a weapons strike -- is gonna cause a huge EMP pulse. Similarly exotic matter schemes. An antimatter engine will use a containment field to store the antimatter fuel. Once that containment field collapses *BOOM* a huge gamma-ray-generating nuclear explosion. A HUGE EMP spike. Without some sort of extremely powerful pressure containment, neutronium blows itself apart into neutrons then undergoes rapid nuclear decay, which causes a HUGE EMP spike. Without isolation/containment, a strange matter lump* sucks in all the normal matter around it. The gravitational collapse of that normal matter into strangelets also causes a gamma-ray explosion and a HUGE EMP spike.
Getting away from ships' engines, firing any usefully powerful infantryman's laser or railgun would generate its own EMP. Now if ya got plenty of time between firings and don't care about weight, ya generate electricity then store it into high-speed capacitors for discharge into a HIGHpower spike to generate the laser's photons or to accelerate the projectile. With weight-limits, ya use chemical explosions to set off bullet/shell cartridge-size explosively pumped flux compression generator to make the electricity to power the laser or railgun: ie every shot is a detonation of a miniature EMP bomb. So any ship or suit radio would pick up the EMP, and a pop would be heard over speakers. Similarly bullets or lasers powered by exotic matter.
Excluding EMP, any decent sensor system will play to human reactions. Ya hear an unusual or interesting noise, ya turn your eyes automaticly toward that noise. So any futuristic militarily useful sensor-to-human interface will take advantage of that reaction via stereo speakers.
In other words, complaining that "There is no sound in space." is similar to a WorldWarOne military pilot saying that aircombat is impossible outside of a range of a few hundred metres/yards. Radar and infrared sensors and missiles with electronic guidance systems have proven otherwise. Future military displays will set the warrior into a more easily understood virtual world reflective of the reality surrounding him as direct viewing/hearing/etc becomes less useful and more dangerous to do.
* Actually, there are reasons to believe that strange matter lumps won't form at under NeutronStar-level pressures. The main one being that the Earth, Sun, etc are regularly being bombarded by strange particles as a constituant of cosmic rays, and we haven't been converted into a superdense lump of strangelets.
posted
Well, yeah, for one thing strangeness isn't conserved by the weak force. Strange particles decay quite rapidly.
About the metal humanoids, they'll stand just fine if they have internal gyroscopes for balance. Engineers are not limited to biological constructs.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:A corollary to your first point: Swords are useless when your opponents have death ray laser guns. I'm looking at you, Final Fantasy XII.
I'd like to point out that the realities in FF games have little to do with Newtonian or Einsteinian physics. Also, when people can be fast enough to deflect bullets and lasers with said sword, it kind of evens things out.
quote:A corollary to your first point: Swords are useless when your opponents have death ray laser guns. I'm looking at you, Final Fantasy XII.
I'd like to point out that the realities in FF games have little to do with Newtonian or Einsteinian physics. Also, when people can be fast enough to deflect bullets and lasers with said sword, it kind of evens things out.
Just sayin'.
Or can in less than 3 seconds cast heal spells that encompass any form of malady, even going so far as to effortlessly raise the dead, whether or not the bullets can and do hit you in the manner they ought to is sort of unimportant.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you're interested in a response from a game designer, rather than a nuclear scientist, here you go ...
quote:Mediaeval armour is for Total War and Age of Empires. These metal suits are heavier than this polymer based armour, which actually looks better. Also, armour and weapons should not have blinking lights. What's up with the shoulder pads? Are they getting ready to play American football? Battlefield 2142, you're beginning to get the point.
It sounds like you prefer games that lean towards realism over comic-book-like stylization. That's cool, but that's not the only valid taste out there. Some people like to play in worlds that are relatively unlikely, and those people deserve games, too. (I, personally, enjoy both. I like Rainbow Six: Vegas AND Gears of War.)
quote:If lights on equipment is necessary, it should be red. Red is usually hardest to distinguish in the dark, and is less likely to be spotted. Hence the red flash lights in Vietnam films.
Assuming that your priority is not being seen. By real people.
quote:Not all futures have to be utopian or apocalyptic.
No, but most video game stories and settings benefit from being iconic and dramatic. They need to catch the eye and communicate a load of information within moments if they want to have an impact at all in the midst of gameplay. When you are developing a game whose primary focus is not story, then it is a good idea to use images that communicate instantly things like awe, fear, and dread.
quote:There is no sound in space.
There is also no fun in silence. A player's perceived fun is directly proportional to the quality of the feedback he receives for his actions. If you eliminate sound from space, you have to replace it with something else, because that feedback to the player is absolutely essential. (Personally, I prefer the Battlestar Galactica method of creating sounds that seem to be resonating from hull impacts, and make you feel like you're fighting in a submarine.)
Of course, I have my own gripes to add to the list:
Not every video game needs to have a character named "Kane".
The next publisher or developer who announces an upcoming game with enemies that are indistinguishable from the enemies in DOOM should be immediately dissolved and sent to Siberia. I'm looking at you, Insomniac.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is a perfect thread for questions such as these...
I know that only mixed-fuel engines will work in space to produce thrust (as opposed to solid state engines), but:
How feasible are explosive and concussion based projectiles in space combat (most recently, the machine guns and cannons seen in BSG). Is there truly enough oxygen in the propulsion end of a shell to completely combust all the propulsion material? Would there have to be a constant stream of air being pumped into a cannon or gun that is preparing to fire? Would the barrel of said cannon need have an entirely sealed breech to work?
Question two: How effective would nuclear weapons really be in a near-vacuum? They put off frightening amounts of energy that would produce a radiation hazard, but how much concussive, shockwave, and other heat based damage would be averted when there isn't a medium for it to travel through?
Posts: 1368 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bullets in vacuum: you just have a powdered oxident in there with the gunpowder which vaporizes from the heat of the blasting cap.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I definitely prefer the Half Life 2 aesthetic to the Unreal aesthetic, which is really what my flippant post was about. Thanks though (both aspectre and Rat Named Dog).
I like the BG sound effects as well - Firefly also got it right, IMO (e.g. that scene when Jane uses the flak(ish) gun against the Reavers).
I forgot how many resident game devs we must have. Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:How feasible are explosive and concussion based projectiles in space combat (most recently, the machine guns and cannons seen in BSG). Is there truly enough oxygen in the propulsion end of a shell to completely combust all the propulsion material? Would there have to be a constant stream of air being pumped into a cannon or gun that is preparing to fire? Would the barrel of said cannon need have an entirely sealed breech to work?
Off-hand, I can't think of any game that uses explosive/powder weapons in space. The closest thing I can think of are Mass Drivers (i.e., "rail gun"), which magnetically accelerate a metallic projectile to a high rate of speed. Of course, there are inherent issues with that relating to the Laws of Motion, hence my post.
Traditional bullets or cannon rounds probably wouldn't work in space because of what they're up against: thick hulls. Hence the concept of a Mass Driver, which effectively punches through the armor by sheer speed. Such speed cannot be generated by conventional explosive accelerant.
quote:Question two: How effective would nuclear weapons really be in a near-vacuum? They put off frightening amounts of energy that would produce a radiation hazard, but how much concussive, shockwave, and other heat based damage would be averted when there isn't a medium for it to travel through?
There are four main components to a nuclear blast, in order: light, heat, shockwave and debris.
- Light: Would burn the retinas of anyone looking at it, and the effective distance of this is arguable.
- Heat: Heat dissipates quickly over distance, so it's probably not much an issue.
- Shockwave: Sound needs a medium through which to travel; the shockwave created by a ground detonation is caused primarily by the rapid expansion of air, which wouldn't occur in space. Arguably, a blast may create its own medium (see below), but it would have nowhere near the same effect over distance.
- Debris: If an explosive is simply detonated in space, the "debris" generated is from the chemical reaction of the blast itself. I don't recall the exact chemical result of a nuclear blast, but TNT for instance creates gases that rapidly expand.
If you look at a movie like Independence Day, they did it rather accurately: the light of the explosion, followed by the wall of debris from the mothership. Of course, they failed to mention the impact that debris would have on the Earth's atmosphere, but that's another matter.
Posts: 3486 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh come now Nighthawk, OBVIOUSLY none of the debris was heat shielded and the blast conveniently chopped the ship up into pieces no bigger then a basketball, easily burned away as they flew into our atmosphere.
That reminds me though, it was not until high school that I realized things burn up in the atmosphere as a result of friction with our atmosphere.
I remember always wondering why suddenly it was super hot up there in the upper atmosphere but that it suddenly cooled down as you dropped through it, it was always one of those things that never made sense to me. I remember feeling so stupid after the light went on in my astronomy class.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Oh come now Nighthawk, OBVIOUSLY none of the debris was heat shielded and the blast conveniently chopped the ship up into pieces no bigger then a basketball, easily burned away as they flew into our atmosphere.
When they get hit by the shockwave, there are chunks the size of houses and larger riding the blast wave. But on Earth all they get to see is a nice fireworks display on the 4th of July. All the big chunks must have hit China then.
quote:Sound is a pressure wave which requires matter of some sort to propagate it. It moves along at a rather sedate velocity of 340 m/s (1120 ft/s) in atmospheric-pressure air. Light, on the other hand, is an electromagnetic wave and needs no matter for transmission. It moves in a vacuum at 300,000,000 m/s (186,000 mi/s).
Yes, an explosion probably would create an expanding cloud of gases which would eventually impact a spaceship in its path. However, in the vacuum of space this expanding cloud of gas would have a very low density. When it hit a ship some distance from the explosion it would probably sound like a gust of wind blowing against the spacecraft.
.../...
We would also like to point out that observing an exploding spacecraft in outerspace would be quite dangerous compared to observing one on Earth. The shrapnel and debris from exploding spacecraft would attain very high initial velocities just like they do on Earth. However, with no gravity to pull them to the ground and no air drag to slow them down, the debris would travel outward in straight lines virtually forever until they hit something.
Distance from the explosion would reduce the number of projectiles striking a spaceship. However, impacting pieces would have the same kinetic energy they had right next to the blast. A spacecraft would have to use the time afforded by distance from the explosion to raise its shields or risk annihilation. Being in a desperate battle surrounded by exploding ships and having no shields would be certain death.
The write-up on Independence Day is interesting, but doesn't seem to mention the orbital explosion; they focus on the motherships and how a single one falling would destroy humanity.
Posts: 3486 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:If we assume the mass of the rifle is 10 kg, its backward velocity must be 7.5 × 104 N·s divided by 10 kg, which equals 7500 m/s. Compared to the velocity of a .45 cal bullet going a sedate 330 m/s, our rail gun would be a mite difficult to hold.
MOUNTED "rail guns" technically exist, but even the Governator would have difficulty holding one, much less two.
Posts: 3486 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fighting in the upper-atmosphere of a planet, near (or in) a nebula, through the rings of a Saturn-esque planet or some other such inter-planetary phenomena would provide an easy medium for the transference of sound waves.
Space isn't completely empty, you know.
Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
For the record, part of the reason red flashlights are so popular is not necessarily so much that they are harder for others to see, but rather red lights don't destroy night-vision, hence providing an advantage to the wielder of the flashlight.
Amateur astronomers recommend a red flashlight for this very reason in fact (destroying night-vision == inability to see faint objects through a telescope).
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
