project-navigation
Personal tools

Author Topic: visual propulsion design  (Read 6825 times)

kaeau

  • Guest
visual propulsion design
« on: October 19, 2006, 03:51:55 pm »
it has gone on quite for a while, a discussion about how the ufos and the flying / hovering equipment keeps in air.

Quote
just keep in mind that we won't be featuring any magical hovering technology, so no floating castles or flying saucers...



ok. all infos i found in wiki were "ion propulsion technology".
good. so, what actually means "ion propulsion tech"?
look at my screen below, i painted the jets and the exhausting holes on the pre models, to visualize my approach (which i consider as sensible)..



you dont expect ufos driven by conventional rockets, or hovernet elevated by .. ventilators, are you?

Offline Winter

  • Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 829
    • View Profile
    • Street of Eyes: The Writing of Ryan A. Span
Re: visual propulsion design
« Reply #1 on: October 19, 2006, 05:57:34 pm »
Quote from: "kaeau"
it has gone on quite for a while, a discussion about how the ufos and the flying / hovering equipment keeps in air.

Quote
just keep in mind that we won't be featuring any magical hovering technology, so no floating castles or flying saucers...



ok. all infos i found in wiki were "ion propulsion technology".
good. so, what actually means "ion propulsion tech"?
look at my screen below, i painted the jets and the exhausting holes on the pre models, to visualize my approach (which i consider as sensible)..

you dont expect ufos driven by conventional rockets, or hovernet elevated by .. ventilators, are you?


Ion drives are part of the old storyline, but why would they be acceptable if you're so dead set against 'conventional' rockets? Ion drives operate on nearly the same principle -- they still vent things out the back of the spaceship to push it forward.

Our current plan is to use atomic or antimatter rockets for the UFOs, as they're very powerful and allow for spectacular effects for UFO destruction in mid-air. This allows us to send more UFOs at the player in every wave, as some or most of them will be destroyed instead of having to recover them all in the field.

Both these concepts require large and clear thrust coming out the BACK of the aircraft. Flying saucers do not have rear-facing thrust nozzles, and besides, it would be VERY curious to change our entire design strategy in mid-game. If we went with flying saucers -- which are extremely cliched -- we'd have to replace all the UFOs we have so far as the two simply do not fit together.

Nuclear or antimatter engines are not suitable for infantry vehicles, and though high-powered ion thrusters might be, they require a LOT of power to keep something floating against gravity. The easiest and most power-effective way to keep something flying is via the Hovercraft concept, using high-powered air turbines and directed air for thrust. The hovercraft's usual rubber skirt isn't necessary with intelligent AI control, but still, air turbines have a minimum space for the thrust they can put out. They simply cannot fit in your new hovernet design.

Another crit on the new hovernet design is the gun mount. It's got an extremely weak mounting, where one good blow might cause the gun to simply break off. That's not a mistake I could accept from aliens who are supposed to be smarter than us.

Regards,
Winter

A M D G

  • Guest
visual propulsion design
« Reply #2 on: October 20, 2006, 11:50:24 am »
H'm. It is possible approach closer to a modern science?