Re: B5 and Sir Isaac - Reply (again)

In message <s332a579.081@wpg.uwe.ac.uk> Phillip Atcliffe writes:
> David wrote:
> 
> >If you can show me a 'Fury turn 90 degrees and apply 
> >main thrusters to give a centripetal force, or even just to 
> >slide diagonally, I'll be much more impressed with the 
> >importance of thrust vectoring to B5 wargaming than I
> >am right now.
> 
> Um, if I understand you correctly, then the two examples that I gave
in my
> earlier post (fromS&P and TFoN) both do that. In each case, the 'Fury
pilot
> avoids pursuit and attacks an "enemy" by doing just that. When I
described this
> as "vectoring", what I was talking about was the application of thrust
normal to
> the current velocity vector to accelerate the fighter out of the line
of flight of the
> pursuer. Is this not what you mean by "sliding diagonally"?

Not exactly. In a rotate-and-thrust game of the sort (I think) we
are talking about much of the vectoring comes from rotating the 
entire ship and applying thrust from it's rear, because that's where 
the most thrust comes from, and we like to use lots of thrust to 
throw the ship around the board (and not this penny-ante furballing
between fighters at a near-zero distance).

> In each case, the StarFury uses its vertical thrusters (it could also
use the
> lateral ones) to give itself a component of velocity in the plane
normal to its
> original velocity vector; the pilot then capitalises on this (and the
surprise that it
> gives the other guy -- not unlike VIFFing by a Harrier) by rotating
his ship
> nose-down as it "rises" and firing at the other fighter. The point is
that the first
> fighter is not just using its thrusters to uncouple its velocity and
its facing by
> rotation, but is applying thrust to vary the velocity vector by adding
an extra
> component -- _then_ they rotate to get a shot in, but that's a
separate
> manoeuvre. You can't do that without using Newtonian mechanics.

Sure, but there's a lot more Newtonian stuff that ostentatiously
*isn't* done, and that will get done in a rotate-and-thrust type of
game.

Which isn't the only way to do Big Issy (he says, attempting to
drag this thread onto topic). If we restrict ships to always 
pointing in the direction of travel and allow some thrust to be 
applied as a centripetal force to change heading this could be quite 
properly Newtonian (and quite Babylonian, so long as we allow ships 
to 180 and fly backwards as well, and give fighters a 360 degree arc
of fire). It is also pretty much what FT is now. If we require more 
thrust points per point-of-turn at higher speeds then we have gone 
Newtonian. This would restrict capital ships to absurdly slow speeds, 
else they would be quite unable to make a measureable turn at all.

Wasn't someone trying to castrate capitals?

-- 
David Brewer