Messages

1

Discussion / Re: Pulse rifle?

« on: March 26, 2009, 05:36:18 pm »

hmm, as far as I know lighning guns would be impossible even in scifi as electricity always needs to close a circuit.

That's just asking for me to correct .
Current doesn't need a circuit to flow. What is needed is an object with an opposite charge. Even in ordinary circuits such as a torch, the electricity isn't being forced round. It is attracted to the positively charged end of the battery and the shortest path is through the wires and bulb.

Example: lightning, Static builds in a cloud until it reaches the critical voltage needed to travel to the positively charged earth.

2

Discussion / Re: Wormhole travel vs. FTL engines

« on: March 11, 2009, 10:56:33 am »

Please stop using the term "assume." Theory is a preferred word. Assumptions aren't based on any fact. Facts are purely based on fact. Theories cover anything between.

No average; no "some photons go faster and some slower". Absolute constants.

Light does vary in speed by a lot. I think the normal measured variation is 0.00000000000001 percent c. It is a considered a constant because net speed / photon count will ALWAYS equal c. Hence that calculation's answer is a constant.

You get such odd results... We grew up with these oddities, but they are oddities.

Your opinion of what is odd is obviously different to mine. Psychology isn't a subject I know much about (though I have my opinions) but from what I can see the reason you think of these as odd is because of the laws you formulated for yourself while growing up. Try seeing physics in a different way to how you see everyday life. I don't consider those situations odd because I understand them, can picture them in my mind and they are very well tested.

An object moving slower than light cannot accelerate faster than light.
An object moving faster than light cannot decelerate below light speed.

"Object" is the wrong word. Mass and information cannot reach or exceed c. Theoretical particles that travel faster then c could also never reach c. But because of that we can't interact with them, they can't be used to transmit information, they are very unstable (cannot be expressed as "existing" in the classic sense). You are right that FTL particles couldn't reach or drop below c, but I find you correcting me patronizing since I wasn't referring to them as they are completely out of context for this discussion!

Mass can't reach c. Mass and information can't exceed c.

So you need to build your road network, and once built, travel within your empire along the roads is fast. That doesn't sound any different than existing historical systems.

Indeed. Though I obviously didn't make the point well. Power is a problem. Destroying a hundred solar systems for a journey to a nearby star isn't that practical. I think the ratio is a ton of matter needs to be annihilated into energy for every atom that you send through the network but I can't be completely accurate off the top of my head.

3

Discussion / Re: Wormhole travel vs. FTL engines

« on: March 10, 2009, 05:56:56 pm »

I wasn't going to post again since I would probably just be repeating myself, but I felt the need to correct several points.

but one of Einstein's assumptions was that the speed of light was constant from (almost any) reference frame.

Actually Einstein theorized that the speed of light through a vacuum was an average. Some photons travel slower then c and some travel faster but dividing the photon count by the net speed will always result in 186,282.4 miles per second (rounded up). You need to specify that it is a vacuum as in many cases light can propagate through a medium at very slow speeds which is why some nuclear reactors emit cerenkov radiation.

That, along with the assumption that the laws of physics are the same churns out a bunch of odd results that match experimentations.

Some ideas are hard to picture but the vast majority of experiment results make complete sense in physics. Try to imagine the problem in an abstract way, without applying assumptions that we formulate in everyday life.

"Cannot travel faster than light" is NOT one of the conclusions.
"Cannot accelerate up to the speed of light" is.

Space itself can, and does, "move" faster than light -- see the superluminal expansion of space itself.

Woah. Stop right there. Cannot travel faster then light IS a conclusion of special relativity. If you can't accelerate too c how would you get faster then c? You may be talking about relative to a stationary observer watching a FTL drive, but that is erroneous. Special relativity is LOCAL. LOCALLY c cannot be reached and cannot be exceeded (by mass).

Space-time can distort at a speed higher the 186,282.4 miles per second but it isn't expanding at that rate. Our knowledge of the expanding universe is based on how much space is occupied by matter and energy. It is entirely possible that space is finite or infinite but it's all guessing. Since S-T is immaterial and has no "mass" or even physical body of it's own (in our perspective), it was a silly thing to bring up in this context.

The idea that you can move a bubble of space around faster than light, while nothing in that bubble has to move "fast" (don't ask relative to what) is both theoretically possible under G.R., and under (or at least was) research.

Ha ha! Good ol' warp drive eh? In theory it is possible. Manipulate space-time to contract ahead of an object and expand behind it. The travel time / distance would resolve as a speed higher then c while local speed never approached even relativistic velocities.

But our mate special relativity still plays a part. An observer outside the bubble would see the object going at a lower speed then c and the object would see the universe traveling at a speed of less then c yet the D/T= >c so it's a paradox right? Well no it isn't, but it's a little hard to explain so I'll give an analogy. If two people, named A and B could see each other and started walking in opposite directions, A sees B getting smaller and B sees A getting smaller. An apparent paradox that makes perfect sense in everyday situations.

In practice this warp is impossible though. The "bow-wave" would have to be created with very dense matter or energy and this matter or energy cannot exceed c so the bubble behind it is limited to c as well, meaning it isn't FTL travel.
The other theory for this uses S-T disturbing objects, such as a quickly rotating singularity to distort space time to propel the object. This would require a network of these S-T disturbing objects in the same fashion as a train requires track. The track would be placed by a slower then c ship meaning the initial journey would be at normal speeds. Oh, and each track object would need it's own star for power.

4

Design / Re: Victory Conditions

« on: March 01, 2009, 12:34:39 pm »

It has been mentioned before:
http://ufoai.ninex.info/wiki/index.php/Storyline_Missions - Will be implemented in the future
http://ufoai.ninex.info/wiki/index.php/Proposals/Ironman - Not sure about this
http://ufoai.ninex.info/wiki/index.php/Gameplay_Proposals/Mission_Briefings - Think it's going to happen eventually

5

Discussion / Re: I just got shot by a civvie!!??!!

« on: February 25, 2009, 10:17:36 am »

I killed a bunch of aliens around the left entrance, and as I was sweeping the base for the remaining few aliens, one of my guys was shot in the back - I turned around and there was a civvy holding a plasma pistol.

Civilian attacks are part of the storyline, though I didn't know it had been implemented. How many months have you played (ingame)?

6

Offtopic / Re: (Link) Work on layering Rhythm Guitar tracks, looking for feedback...

« on: February 21, 2009, 10:54:35 pm »

I did this one a little differently, also put the (crappy) bass guitar track back in.

Sounds organic, but the hi freqs on the guitar have suffered. I can't tell if the reason is computer related or originating from further back but there isn't as much definition at the top.

This brings up the important question that might make specific feedback easier: what sound are you trying to create? A heavy bass sludge, a crunchy top and mid feel or something in between?
I'm also Interested in what software you're using for mixing and editing...

Edit: If that isn't much better, here's another try with the simulation again, but a different setup (with hopefully less digital-ish sound) and with the bass guitar track done differently so it can be heard more

Loud bass, I think 12 E was closest to what I would consider a good volume but the levels within the track seem to have improved over the old one. The guitars have better top freqs then the other file, but the mid needs a little more "force" behind it.

Even though it isn't real tubes, if it sounds close enough it might do the job - even if a small 1% of listeners don't think it sounds real enough, it may still be good enough, with some work, for everyone else.

I think ultimately your right. I was being overly picky about the sounds I like, when most musicians aren't that bothered, let alone the general audience.

Music is, to a large degree, about personal tastes so you should always be ready to say "go to hell!"

Thanks again for all your comments, by the way, this type of feedback is really something I need.

No problem . If I tell the truth I'm honored that you're putting so much weight on my opinion.

7

Offtopic / Re: (Link) Work on layering Rhythm Guitar tracks, looking for feedback...

« on: February 21, 2009, 09:13:43 am »

Yes, I used an Explorer, I have a number of different guitars although my favorites are my two explorers (Gibsons), one with EMG 81-85 pickups and the other with EMG 81-60s, as well as a couple of ESP-EXs, an Epiphone Goth Explorer with EMG 81-60s, and a basic Ibanez with a ZW EMG 81-85 set switched around (the 85 in the bridge and 60 in the neck).

I also have two cheap electric bass guitars, 4-string Yamaha and 5-string Rouge-II.

Well that's given me a good idea of what your style and priorities are... I prefer a more general collection, but that's all to do with taste.

Regarding the bass guitar track, it actually is in the mix, although I admit it isn't well defined as I know very little by comparison about mixing bass guitar tracks.  I did however use a low cut on the main guitar tracks to leave room for the bass around ~85 Hz.

Again it's about personal taste, but I like to have the bass at just the right volume that you can just hear it, so without straining to hear, it blends in to the rhythm and drums but it can also follow a "hormonizing" role. Don't be afraid to use all the instruments at your disposal in as experimental a role as you like (more then once I've been in a jazz band playing bass, and I was the one soloing!). The cut off of guitar tracks in low freq isn't something I'd normally do, it's common practice to have overlapping as long as you can pull it off, but I'd be interested in how It turns out in the long run.

A real amp, especially a powerful tube amp, is simply out of the question, simply because:

1) 2) 3)

It was a little unfair of me to suggest a combo amp... I should have used more constructive criticism instead of just saying "go out and spend hundreds of dollars"

I do have a solid state amp I could try though, it has the jacks for FX loop and everything and that might work better, Ibanez ToneBlaster amp-head TB150-something-or-other that I forget and can't recall the exact name of at the moment.

A solid state amp might provide a better tone then computer effects, but the ToneBlaster is what I'd use... and is it the TBX150H?

Before I started using keFIR I was using both an AxeTrak and a Grendel Dead Room (Iso-Cab).

I just google'd keFIR and it looked like a good and FREE program. If I get time I'll play about with it.

but I think it sounds better than the amp sim I was using.  This might work better for all of the tracks with the right EQ.  It still needs work and some balancing, but I think its a better potential sound.

I'm ashamed to say this (computer hating musicians around the globe have put a bounty on my head) but there isn't that much of a difference. It's a good habit to use a real amp for the overdrive and reverb before the signal goes into a computer, but in this case after comparison, it's up to you.

8

Offtopic / Re: (Link) Work on layering Rhythm Guitar tracks, looking for feedback...

« on: February 20, 2009, 06:43:44 pm »

It's been a long time since I did some real songwriting, a year in fact, because my current computer's sound card is terrible and It doesn't have the space for professional software (laptop). I have to admit I'm a little out of practice so don't take my comments too seriously but if your still looking for feedback:

This is a good start. Timing is nearly perfect, several interesting rhythm patterns, with the promise of development into a great song.

I couldn't hear any bass, which is a severe dent in the song. Even if it's a simple track playing the base notes of the rhythm's chords, It makes the song spread over more frequencies "rounding it off."
The gain sounds digital. If you haven't done so already, consider removing the effects on the computer and using a direct line-in from a large valve amp. My personal choice is a marshall JCM 900 because it really sings when you turn the volume up, but any valve amp makes a better sound then digital equipment.
You have multiple tracks of rhythm guitar which is good, but consider using one to play a harmonizing riff instead of the same piece as the other tracks.

Right where this version ends is where I plan to add a different section with a solo, and then return back to the main part again, then an ending.

I can understand putting a limit on the lead guitar if there are vocals, but if you make an instrumental version forget a single section for the solo. The solo can be as long as the song, and is often the defining part that makes a great song fantastic. I'll upload some ideas when I boot up my old computer and figure out how best to upload...

I still haven't decided what the song will be about yet, though.

It really matters, not what others think, but what you think on this. It needs to be something that makes you put passion into the vocals. Most listeners don't hear the lyrics, they hear the notes, so a subject you really care about and inspires you to perform well is ideal.

Edit: I gather from that description under your picture that you're using a gibson, but which is it? An explorer?

Edit 2: My old computer won't boot, so I decided to do a little sample of an idea for the solo and demonstrate the hormonizing rhythm (which I just realized is impossible to hear...). Warning: Bad quality (previously mentioned computer), bad eq settings (free software) and bad rhythm guitar (I'm really tired!) but I'm just throwing ideas out there.

http://files.filefront.com/02+Rock+Otter+Samplemp3/;13331644;/fileinfo.html

9

Discussion / Re: Wormhole travel vs. FTL engines

« on: February 20, 2009, 10:51:47 am »

While, yes, my theory is based on nothing, arent most wormhole theories?

No. The way spacetime is distorted by a mass is well described by Einstein's theory of general relativity which is very well tested.
Using that base of "fact" you can then formulate a mathematical "simulation." As this simulation has a foundation of "fact" (a theory that completely fits the available evidence) equations derived from it can be considered reliable, until proven wrong.
Wormholes are not impossible with general relativity, and they should be possible with quantum gravity.

Arent most of them based on "what we think is there, but cant prove is there."

I wouldn't say "think." More like "It's possible it's there according to the current science, but we don't (and may never) have the technology to prove it one hundred percent."

At any rate, seeing as how this game is sci-fi, where anything is possible, it was all just a suggestion, whether to be accepted or not.

I never suggested a change to the game's ultimately unrealistic science background. But If you were you should be aware that the game doesn't change unless there is an overwhelming demand for the change, or you provide replacement code, descriptions or models which are better then what is currently available.

10

Discussion / Re: Wormhole travel vs. FTL engines

« on: February 19, 2009, 09:59:05 am »

I theorize that the reason that we havent found wormholes is because they do not differ from the rest of space unless one end is not in "regular" space.
Its like trying to find a paper circle set on a peice of paper that is the same color and type

To Theorize requires a base of experimental fact (which is why string theory has been criticized so badly within the scientific community), I feel like there is some conjecture going on here but I'll humor you. You're obviously imagining a wormhole the size of a planet or star but detection of such wormholes would be easy! They would be invisible themselves (I'm ignoring the negative support interior) but they would show a change as they move like a paper circle set on a piece of paper, both of which have a picture of hundreds of stars in "random" positions, as the circle moves, it blocks out some stars and unblocks some and even if that doesn't detect the wormhole the negative energy and density in a stable wormhole would repel light, an effect opposite to gravity lensing, which is "easy" to detect.

The problem is that they wouldn't exist on that scale, and they are very hard to make stable. It's thought by some that tiny bridges are created on the same scale as vacuum energy, and that they are then annihilated in the same fashion. But they annihilate because they are untraversable and when matter (or even light) approaches, they become unstable.

At this moment, we either wait for another thousand years for the technology to create our own stable bridges (if it's even possible), or we meet an advance civilization and they give us the technology. (I'm laughing at myself for saying this)

11

Discussion / Re: Wormhole travel vs. FTL engines

« on: February 18, 2009, 02:27:54 pm »

Well, but dark matter has also not been detected, and it's theorized to be around in huge quantities.

Dark matter has been detected (some scientists think it has anyway) as the gravitational anomalies that help galaxies form, and maintain the structure eg: there are many large stellar structures that don't have the gravitational force to exist hold together without dark matter, and since they do exist so must dark matter.

The the theory is exactly my point, wormholes haven't been detected and they are theorized to be rare or non-existant naturally.

All FTL in the game is wormhole based. Small craft don't have FTL at all; they are dependent on a FTL capable carrier ship to take them to and fro.

If that's a comment on how realistic the FTL is in the game, it should be said that it isn't very realistic at all (I stress that it isn't a complaint). For example, the theory for traversable Einstein-Rosen bridges suggests a huge (and I mean, astronomically huge) amount of "exotic" or negative energy and matter required to stop the wormhole from instantly collapsing, the moment the two mouths become connected. It's alot more energy then the rest energy of the (ton?) antimatter fuel tank on a carrier.

12

Discussion / Re: Wormhole travel vs. FTL engines

« on: February 18, 2009, 02:00:33 pm »

The argument against FTL, again according to theories, is that mass X requiers exponentially more energy to reach the speed of light.

It is impossible for a mass to reach the speed of light at all, because at c the mass would have infinite kinetic energy. There is no limit how close to c a mass can get, but energy increases exponentially as you accelerate...

And I must have missed an article somewhere, as last I heard, wormholes were natural phenomenon

It's very unlikely, with all the conditions required for a wormhole, that they or a natural occurance, and they have never been detected. Can't rule it out, but they would never be as common as any other stellar object

13

Discussion / Re: Wormhole travel vs. FTL engines

« on: February 18, 2009, 01:54:40 am »

I think it is unknown in today's world if Superphotonic travel will ever be possible for things other than some particles on the atomic scale (and I admit I'm not a science major)

Wormholes are not superluminal travel in a strict sense, since special relativity is a local effect, and locally the speed of light is not exceeded.

As for FTL... It is entirely possible that the foundation of modern physics is false, but currently there are many reasons why matter with mass/information cannot reach c (and why massless matter must travel at c, but i won't go into that). The easiest to explain are time dilation and length contraction.
As an object accelerates, an outside observer views it's time slowing and it's length, contracting. At 0.86 c (relative to the observer) the object is aging at half the speed and it's length is half it's length at a standstill. At c the object would not age, and it has no length. This is bad. Any faster and the object's demensions (both space and time) would be negative. This is really bad.

The theory is entirely plausible, even for the real world. Wormholes are, in lamemans terms, tunnels in space

I really dislike this analogy. Unfortunately, I can't think of one that is as easy to understand and more accurate. And It isn't entirely plausible, since the amount of energy required to create and manipulate a stable wormhole would be much higher then all the energy generation by powerstations on the earth in the last hundred years.

there was once a time when people thought we'd never break the sound barrier and safely travel faster than the speed of sound, as well as a time when people thought we'd never have working aircraft of any kind.

And I continue my efforts in proving them right!

Edit: As always, i'm arguing for the sake of arguing, not suggesting a change in the game.

14

Design / Re: about the aircrafts.

« on: February 16, 2009, 04:27:45 pm »

I believe that delta wings are obsolete compared to other designs (in fighter craft). The main advantage in delta wings was stability and increased lift, but since modern fighters are fly-by-wire, stability is actually a hindrance.

As for the game model, BTAxis has already expressed that recognizable shapes are better then realistic ones... Unless you create a better model, It isn't going to change.

15

Design / Re: about the aircrafts.

« on: January 24, 2009, 11:15:50 am »

A stall occurs when the airflow over a wing is interrupted and cannot produce lift. Most often this happens because the angle of attack is too steep

Normally the airflow isn't interrupted in a traditional sense. Instead the the airflow on the "top" side of the aerofoil separates from the surface at a point imaginatively called the separation point and there is no longer a decreased pressure above the wing and there is much less lift provided.

An improperly designed aircraft

Modern fighter aircraft have millions of (realizes this forum is international) american dollars spent on development. An improperly constructed aircraft could stall, but it's designer must have been asleep (or drunk ) I stand by my statement that the transonic region isn't a typical stall speed for current aircraft.

In any case this doesn't change that forward swept wings do provide a agility advantage