Return to “General”

Post

Re: Features in Limit Theory

#31
Zanteogo wrote:
Kambalo wrote:41- Would there be McDonald's on the space stations? :mrgreen: :lol: :lol:
Who do you think OWNS the space station.

I for one welcome our new corporate overlords!
In the dark, grim future of the universe, there is only Milliways.

-Hardenberg
Hardenberg was my name
And Terra was my nation
Deep space is my dwelling place
The stars my destination
Post

Re: Features in Limit Theory

#32
Doomknight wrote:@HKY09; What would it add gameplay wise? Maybe diversity in content, something cool to look at, something that you could brag about seeing firsthand (ie Encountering the Cow Level in Diablo 3). You could say the same argument could be applied to most things, including Nebulae. If you can't explore them (ie enter the Nebula) then all they add is a pretty backdrop. The same could be said here for planets sharing atmosphere; it makes a pretty unique look.
The difference being, realistically, it'd be difficult to see shared atmospheres.
Atmosphere creates drag, so being able to visibly see a moon orbiting a planet, and its atmosphere is thick enough that it encompasses the moon itself, then wouldn't the drag caused by such a thick atmosphere eventually bring the moon down?
Image atm = Atmospheres, a unit of measurement of atmospheric pressure that is based on 1 being the equivalent of 101325 Pascals, or Earth's surface pressure.

I chose 2atm so that it is visibly clear they share the same atmosphere.

As the moon continues its orbit, it'll run into atmospheric drag, slowing down its orbital momentum. Newton's third law.
Having a visible atmosphere sharing planet would be pretty spectacular, but I doubt it would have a normal orbit. Probably obviously elliptical.

Want to know a real shared atmosphere? Pluto. Yep, Pluto. Who's atmosphere is thin enough, basically non-existent, that it has no effect on Charon.
The point is, you can have a shared atmosphere - it's probably not just going to be very obvious at all.
Lurker Mode: DEACTIVATED
The most intriguing fact about imagination is that its all in your head.
Post

Re: Features in Limit Theory

#34
Thanks for the explanation; very informative. Though as Limit Theory will lack orbits, it could be technically feasible for the game.

New Questions:

41) Can larger ships split apart to create multiple weapon platforms for combat scenarios (ie the Enterprise where it seperates the Battle Bridge from the Saucer Section to create two ships essentially)

42) Once in a Warp Tunnel, can you get pushed out of it, or will you simply travel to your destination? (ie You enter a warp tunnel 2 seconds before the warp tunnel is destroyed, so you travel 2 seconds in and the warp tunnel gets destroyed)

43) Can missiles hit an object and "bounce" off it, if it hits it at the right angle?

44) Will there be counter-measures to missiles, such as ECM, or Flares?

45) Do lasers and pulse lasers travel at the speed of light, and thus hit targets from ridiculous distances away?

46) Will there be stealth systems that will make it hard for enemies to detect you unless you are firing or excessively using thrust?

47) Will there be cloaking systems that will make it hard to see an enemy, but not necessarily hard to target it with missile locks or find it via Scanners?

48) Will there be Mass Drivers / Railguns / Gauss Guns, in the game?

49) Will different weapon types be more effective in certain scenarios? (ie Lasers are best against shields, missiles best against hull, etc...)

50) Once you "anger" an enemy, will it be able to constantly detect you no matter how well you hide? (similar to how in most games where if your "stealth" is blown, the enemy knows where you are at all times even if you escape them and hide behind a corner that they didn't see you hide behind)?
Post

Re: Features in Limit Theory

#35
Doomknight wrote: 41) Can larger ships split apart to create multiple weapon platforms for combat scenarios (ie the Enterprise where it seperates the Battle Bridge from the Saucer Section to create two ships essentially)
Likely no
Doomknight wrote: 42) Once in a Warp Tunnel, can you get pushed out of it, or will you simply travel to your destination? (ie You enter a warp tunnel 2 seconds before the warp tunnel is destroyed, so you travel 2 seconds in and the warp tunnel gets destroyed)
Likely like in freelancer, the ring segments behind you dont affect you, but those ahead of you have to be in working order
Doomknight wrote: 43) Can missiles hit an object and "bounce" off it, if it hits it at the right angle?
Likely no
You'd also have a big issue with your detonator if the missle even impacts...
Doomknight wrote: 44) Will there be counter-measures to missiles, such as ECM, or Flares?
Likely
Doomknight wrote: 45) Do lasers and pulse lasers travel at the speed of light, and thus hit targets from ridiculous distances away?
Ridicolous disance instahit weapons will likely not survive balancing
Doomknight wrote: 46) Will there be stealth systems that will make it hard for enemies to detect you unless you are firing or excessively using thrust?
maybe, i'd like to have them
My thoughts on that stuff
Doomknight wrote: 47) Will there be cloaking systems that will make it hard to see an enemy, but not necessarily hard to target it with missile locks or find it via Scanners?
useless cloak is useless, as every ship has sensors...
Doomknight wrote: 48) Will there be Mass Drivers / Railguns / Gauss Guns, in the game?
Yes
Doomknight wrote: 49) Will different weapon types be more effective in certain scenarios? (ie Lasers are best against shields, missiles best against hull, etc...)
No official word on that, maybe
Doomknight wrote: 50) Once you "anger" an enemy, will it be able to constantly detect you no matter how well you hide? (similar to how in most games where if your "stealth" is blown, the enemy knows where you are at all times even if you escape them and hide behind a corner that they didn't see you hide behind)?
No
Post

Re: Features in Limit Theory

#36
If cloaks are useless, then could you explain why in the Star Trek universe why a Cloaked Klingon or Romulan ship although can be detected with sensors, is still is extremely hard to destroy due to not being able to see the target? Is it perhaps because a Star Trek cloak is the equivalent of both a protection from sensors (stealth) and from visual (cloak)?
Post

Re: Features in Limit Theory

#37
Doomknight wrote:If cloaks are useless, then could you explain why in the Star Trek universe why a Cloaked Klingon or Romulan ship although can be detected with sensors, is still is extremely hard to destroy due to not being able to see the target? Is it perhaps because a Star Trek cloak is the equivalent of both a protection from sensors (stealth) and from visual (cloak)?
Because they also get invisible to most sensors, the optical cloak is just a sideeffect one aspect of the all-around cloak
Post

Re: Features in Limit Theory

#41
Doomknight wrote:Is Tachyon detectors the survey equipment used to hit General Kang's ship in the Undiscovered Country?
Nah, that was an detector for the ions ecpelled by the ships drive, basically they searched for their exhaust gasses. Pretty short range too

tachyon detectors are used aboard the federation/romulan border stations to detect cloaked romulan ships at long range.

But i have re-read now, it needs multiple ships and a defined area to scan
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Tachyon_detection_grid
Post

Re: Features in Limit Theory

#42
Doomknight wrote:Is Tachyon detectors the survey equipment used to hit General Kang's ship in the Undiscovered Country?
More likely it's just a term some hack writer picked out of a hat.

"Hey guys, I meed a magic scanner to detect cloaked klingons. Do we have a tachyon something, yet? No? Great!"
There is no "I" in Tea. That would be gross.

Online Now

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests

cron