"So it's a multi-cannon that does more damage than a normal multi-cannon and is limited to class 1 fixed. You're kidding me right?

What are you enforcing with this weapon; your ineptitude at loadout decisions?

I thought the idea with this was it was a cannon that did more damage similar to the damage a plasma cannon does but with the power usage of a normal cannon (along with slower refire rate like plasma). And as a normal cannon, it would be available in all class ranges.

This multi-cannon is garbage. If FD had issues with balancing a multi-cannon in the higher classes due to damage and such, what in the simulated galaxy would make them choose that weapon to augment for power play?

and while i'm ranting. When are projectile weapon damage going to go up as distance increases similar to how energy weapon damage goes down with distance? Cannon/plasma/rail fire increases in kinetic energy the more distance to target. If we're going to simulate energy weapon fall-off, we should do the same for projectile pick-up. Instead it seems FD treats decreased damage due to distance the same regardless of weapon. Not asking for 100% accurate kinematics, but it would be trivial to inverse energy weapon's dropoff for projectile weapons."


"nobody here understands Newton's Second law. This makes me sad for humanity.

edit: i'll break it down for you.

kinetic energy is mass * velocity. (.5mv2 to be exact) Velocity is the differential of acceleration to time.

Acceleration to an object in the vacuum of space is constant unless a force acts upon it (this would be gravity, thrusters, another object colliding etc). Unlike the previous post, velocity is not constant, acceleration is.

So the longer my projectile is in space the higher the velocity is. Since the velocity is going to increase at the same acceleration for as long as it doesn't collide with something, the kinetic energy will increase.

A projectile weapon like a cannon should have it's weakest damage at point blank range. It's highest damage at whatever the furthest distance the game will register an impact (4km seems to be the upper limit). While it may be unreasonable to ask the game engine to render correct kinematic physics like ever increasing velocity of projectiles, it would be trivial to modify the damage the same way (but inversely) as it's done for energy weapons."


"i'd use picard's face palm but i dont do that in forum.

This is a space game. You should have your geek card revoked.

I'm not going to try and debate why physics is right and you're wrong. Acceleration is constant unless a force acts to change it and in space that leaves gravity, EM radiation, or colliding with another object. The initial acceleration i give a projectile remains with it as there is nothing to counter it. This is why kinetic energy increases."


"no. thrust is acceleration of acceleration (unlike our game that puts limits on such things). As long as you provide thrust, you are increasing your acceleration (until you get into relativistic speeds)

F=ma, so a = F/m. The force i initially give an object of 2kg is say 1 newton. so a = 1newton / 2kg. This a is always 0.5m/s2 unless a force changes it. Forever. a doesn't magically go to 0. It can only go to 0 if something changes it and that's impacting my target in the game. a projectile's kinetic energy is lowest at the beginning of it's journey and highest at the end (in space with no messy gravity or EM forces to interfere)."


"velocity determines kinetic energy, not acceleration. http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/st...al_debris.html is a pretty simple way to visualize how velocity increases kinetic energy. Your bullet will be doing extremely different amount of damage given the time to double it's velocity or triple it."


"seriously. Acceleration is constant ... IT IS CONSTANT. Velocity is not. VELOCITY IS NOT CONSTANT.

Kinetic energy increases the longer my projectile travels in space because it's acceleration is constant. You're agreeing with the math and then saying it's conclusions are wrong.

probes would travel at constant velocity after their thruster burns if your broken logic stood. They do not. They continue to accelerate at the rate their thrusters contributed. forever. That's why voyager (and every probe) doesn't need to constantly fire thrusters (even if it could) to continue increasing in velocity, which it does."


"The force doesn't have to be applied constantly. The energy is imparted on the object and gives it an acceleration. Unless something acts on the object to change that acceleration, it remains the same. Acceleration of an object can't fall to 0 unless a force is applied against the force I gave it until both forces are equal.

This isn't me that's confused. It's those who are confusing the way the game handles ship velocity and how kinematics work with ever present forces such as gravity and friction come into play. The acceleration of an object cannot change unless a force is applied, If i apply a force and stop applying it, it wont magically apply a force opposite of the initial one to change the acceleration. This is not infinite energy, this is basic physics.

I can put it maybe in a simpler way you'd understand.

If i do a burn in my ship and lets pretend i'm way out in deep space away from any strong gravity. If i do a timed burn of my thrusters my velocity will increase from 0 and continue to increase. If i do a burn in the opposite direction equal to the first regardless of how long i wait, I will bring my acceleration to 0. My velocity will be fixed at whatever it was when i did that reverse burn. To get my velocity down to 0 i'd have to do a burn to create a force that provides a negative acceleration and then a counter burn once my velocity reaches 0 to stop the negative acceleration.

That's how real space travel works."


"thrusters apply a force, this changes acceleration and this is what is constant forever until a new force is applied to change it. The velocity of your probe is going to increase ...though it will have a force of gravity and stellar winds and such acting upon it. unlike the game which doesn't take any of that into consideration anyway."


"i'm not sure what kool aid you guys are drinking but it's obviously pretty good. The initial force imparted on an object is constant unless another force is enacted upon it. Force doesn't impart a velocity. it imparts an acceleration. If absolutely nothing is there to counter my force i impart on an object, even if i only impart it at the very beginning, I impart an acceleration that is fixed, because the force applied is fixed. The only way for that acceleration to become 0 is if another force counters the one i imparted. I'm sorry but you're fairly mistaken. Velocity is only constant if a force is not imparted to change it. But once a force is imparted, it doesn't go away unless another force is imparted to counter it. Since we're not concerned with gravity or other electro-magnetic forces ...we will assume there are none, since we're talking about a game that doesn't simulate them anyway. You guys are all wrong. Sadly. But completely. edit: basically, F=ma. This is an equation per moment. You're confusing it with a constant force over time. That mis-understanding would be an integral of the equation."