Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 1 Starship Inertia
02-19-2011, 09:14 PM
It's probably been brought up on the forums, but I'm too lazy to look for it...

The more inertia that an object has, the more mass that it has. So says my very massive physics textbook. So the shuttles having 100 inertia and the Galaxy having 25 inertia is backwards, imo. As a physics nerd, this bugs me about STO's Inertia ratings.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 2
02-19-2011, 09:21 PM
Don't quote me on this, but I believe it's that way here because the larger ships were powersliding through space a while back. And while that may be more realistic, it doesn't look good on TV (or in the game that's supposed to somewhat replicate the experience of the show).
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 3
02-19-2011, 09:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by USSNighthawk
Don't quote me on this, but I believe it's that way here because the larger ships were powersliding through space a while back. And while that may be more realistic, it doesn't look good on TV (or in the game that's supposed to somewhat replicate the experience of the show).
They still do powerslide, the larger ships, and how fun it is. The actual inertia in movement of the ships haven't been swapped around, only the value shown in the stats: low is high, high is low. The mouseover states for inertia, "Determines how quickly your ship accelerates and decelerates. A high inertia value makes you reach your target speed faster." Inertia should be resistance to acceleration rather than ease of acceleration, but I suspect it was purposely switched around to simplify understanding of the stat in gameplay (low value = groggy movement, high value = stops on a dime!), however counter-intuitive.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 4
02-19-2011, 09:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dracounguis
It's probably been brought up on the forums, but I'm too lazy to look for it...

The more inertia that an object has, the more mass that it has. So says my very massive physics textbook. So the shuttles having 100 inertia and the Galaxy having 25 inertia is backwards, imo. As a physics nerd, this bugs me about STO's Inertia ratings.
The numbers are simply the inverse of how you're interpreting them. Although the Galaxy's inertia rating number is lower, it still takes more time to accelerate from a dead stop and stop from full speed than a shuttle does.

Think of it like needles, where large needles have small gauge numbers.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 5
02-21-2011, 05:20 PM
I know, STO is using "inertia" not inertia. It's just that real life inertia is the opposite of what they are doing with what they call "inertia". The term inertia already has a definition, don't really need STO to make up a new (inverse) definition for the word. Numbers should be flipped to be able to call it inertia and not be completely incorrect.

Or call it something besides inertia. Like "thrust to weight". Then shuttles having high numbers would make (more) sense vs the big cruisers, and the actual number can stay the same.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 6
02-21-2011, 05:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dracounguis
I know, STO is using "inertia" not inertia. It's just that real life inertia is the opposite of what they are doing with what they call "inertia". The term inertia already has a definition, don't really need STO to make up a new (inverse) definition for the word. Numbers should be flipped to be able to call it inertia and not be completely incorrect.

Or call it something besides inertia. Like "thrust to weight". Then shuttles having high numbers would make (more) sense vs the big cruisers, and the actual number can stay the same.
Or how about "Inertia resistance" value?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 7
02-21-2011, 05:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dracounguis
It's probably been brought up on the forums, but I'm too lazy to look for it...

The more inertia that an object has, the more mass that it has. So says my very massive physics textbook. So the shuttles having 100 inertia and the Galaxy having 25 inertia is backwards, imo. As a physics nerd, this bugs me about STO's Inertia ratings.
Newton was never born in this universe. Does not matter how big an object is , or how much mass it contains , when you shut off your engines in space , you are not supposed to stop.

Physiscs arguments are moot in this game. This is not a space sim , its a submarine sim.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 8
02-21-2011, 05:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dracounguis
It's probably been brought up on the forums, but I'm too lazy to look for it...

The more inertia that an object has, the more mass that it has. So says my very massive physics textbook. So the shuttles having 100 inertia and the Galaxy having 25 inertia is backwards, imo. As a physics nerd, this bugs me about STO's Inertia ratings.

I Figure it must be a programming mechanic... an inverse variable used to simulate the effects of inertia..

ie. (hypothetical I don't know the actual math at work)

A Shuttle with 100 inertia would acc/dec (reach max/min speed) 4x faster then it would take a Cruiser with 25 Inertia.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 9
02-21-2011, 05:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xtorma View Post
Newton was never born in this universe. Does not matter how big an object is , or how much mass it contains , when you shut off your engines in space , you are not supposed to stop.

Physiscs arguments are moot in this game. This is not a space sim , its a submarine sim.
Heh, someone else finally sees that. I've said that several times in old arguments about Star Trek physics, space is water and the ships handle like subs.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 10
02-21-2011, 06:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dracounguis
I know, STO is using "inertia" not inertia. It's just that real life inertia is the opposite of what they are doing with what they call "inertia". The term inertia already has a definition, don't really need STO to make up a new (inverse) definition for the word. Numbers should be flipped to be able to call it inertia and not be completely incorrect.

Or call it something besides inertia. Like "thrust to weight". Then shuttles having high numbers would make (more) sense vs the big cruisers, and the actual number can stay the same.
I didn't say that their definition of inertia is the inverse of what it is in real life. I said that the scale they're using to rate a starship's inertia is the reverse of what you seem to think it is. Smaller numbers clearly indicate more inertia on whatever scale they're using, much like the gauge scale used hypodermic needles. It's not Cryptic attempting to redefine anything, it's Cryptic using a weird scale that hasn't been explained to the players.
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:33 PM.