Sound in space

Sonntag

Spaceman
As a lot of you are quite good in explaining WC Physics, here's the next challenge: How could one hear the enemy firing at you or each other? In the vacuum, no sound can be heard at all. Could it be that the helmet of the pilot includes a sound generator that emulates a noise when someone fires a missile or gun?
 
That is, indeed, the general explanation for such things.

Although we know the developers laugh at us for this particular argument... after ceaseless bitching about sound in space some years back, they included the Sonic Disruptor in Armada;)
 
My theory is that the sound is generated by a system within the pilot's suit. After all, fighting without sound would be somewhat disorienting to say the least. Additionally, from a military standpoint, it gives ya something else to pay attention to besides the fact that your wingman is screaming as his fighter explodes.
 
Yeah, it's not real. It's just a game and so nothing is impossible. So why not sound in vacuum? Don't try to find a too difficult explanation. It means only that is too complicated for the gamer to realize somebody is shooting at him, if he doesn't hear it blasting.:)Or maybe if you don't hear the engines of your enemy when he passes your ship. If you see it like that, it is also impossible.
 
I like Sub-zero's explanation. Of course sound does not
propagate in space, so the sounds are generated as audio
'cues' by the on-board computer system. This allows the user to perceive the world around him with 2 senses rather
than one, thereby improving situational awareness, thereby
making him more likely to be an ace and not a statistic.

If you don't believe that sound makes a difference in the
game, just play through WCP with the speakers turned off! Is it unlikely that in the future
engineers will notice that people who can see AND hear
their environment are more effective pilots? And take
advantage of that by building audio feedback (which is
omnidirectional) into the fighters?

I would also use this to explain WC's fighter handling,
which is less realistic than, say, Independence War.
I contend that the flight controls in the WC-universe
are fly-by-wire -- the computer does the actual flying,
taking the pilot's inputs as guidance. Of COURSE there is no inertia in space, but the engineers
knew that human pilots expected there to be, and so designed
the control system to behave as if there was. So if
I push the joystick to the left, this causes a variety
of thrusters to fire, rotating the vessel to the left.
When I let go of the stick, the computer interprets this as
"stabilize on current course", and fires the necessary thrusters to ensure that this occurs. So the fighter
acts as if it were an aerospace fighter, even though
it is in space. However, there are times when it is
necessary to break out of the illusion and perform a stunt
(such as slide-and-pop) which is possible in space but
not in atmosphere. Thus, controls exist to do this as well.

Put differently, the pilot does not interact directly
with the physical environment of space. Instead, the
computer creates a virtual environment for the pilot. The
computer takes sensor inputs, such as EW traffic, radar,
IFF codes, and other sensors, translates to the virtual
environment, and the pilot
sees a red dot on his screen. The pilot responds with
control inputs, which the computer translates from the
pilot's virtual inputs into physical control commands. And
so we fight a WWII battle in space with super-modern fighters.


I read a story once (in "Berserker Wars" by Fred Saberhagen)
where the Virtual Cockpit was taken to extremes -- rather
than even translating the commands into a flight environment, the computer interfaced directly with the
human brain and put the conflict into terms that that
particular brain could most effectively understand and
respond to, said brain being in a state much like a
fevered dream. Thus the protaganist dreamed and acted
as if he were fighting a bishop in his pulpit with a
cleaver, when in fact he was piloting a small fighter
against a massive enemy dreadnaught.

Respectfully,

Brian P.
 
Originally posted by pendell

Of COURSE there is no inertia in space, but the engineers
knew that human pilots expected there to be, and so designed
the control system to behave as if there was.

I Respectfully,

Brian P.

Respectfully, there IS inertia in space, there is inertia in space, and in planitary atmospheres w/ gravity, at any gravity rating. Basic laws of motion tell us any object with mass will move continuously in any given direction until something changes that motion, such as a thruster or the object in question bounces off of something or another object collides with the first object, and that second object must have either a greater mass or the same otherwise it will simiply fall apart or explode upon impact. WCP, SO and Privateer, are about the only games that I am aware of, that closely resemble mass inertia in space. For example, take WCPedit or SOedit, the editor that
allows you to change ship specs and weapons specs, and call up the vampire, it has an entry at the bottom right, that says "mass" and a number, usually 17000. If you lower this number, that reduces the vampires mass, then save it and go check it in the game, you will find the vampire will not slide as much due to reduced "mass". This sliding is the INERTIA of the vampire moving dut to its "mass". Make it higher, and the vampire will slide even more due to increased mass. Everything has mass, and everything will react to its mass value in space and in gravity. If there was no inertia in space, the Earth would require thrusters or some other form of propulsion to keep it orbiting the sun! Same with its own rotation. Mass inertia is what keeps the Earth spining and orbiting the sun, as with all planets and moons, even asteroids. Then the gravity pull of the sun keeps Earth in its path around the sun, plus the mass of the earth pulls on that same gravity pull from the sun, they work together to keep Earth's orbit around the sun where it is, otherwise, we be traveling thru space away from our sun. There is no thrusters keeping Earth rotating or orbiting the sun. It is the mass inertia that does that!

RFB
 
You are correct, there is indeed inertia in space; I mis-
spoke.

When I spoke of inertia, I meant that in Wing
Commander one does not have to perform the careful
thruster-rotation calculations that one does in spacewar
or Independence, where once you thrust in a particular direction you keep moving in that direction unless you
rotate and thrust in another direction. In WC, one need
only move the stick to be nearly instantly moving in the
direction one wishes. And once you release the stick,
you stop rotating. For instance, if I wish to turn
completely around, all I have to do is pull up on the
stick and wait until I am facing the other direction,
then let go. Presto! I'm moving the other way! Compare
this to Spacewar, where if I had performed that I would
have turned the craft around, but it would still be moving
directly away from the ship since I have not yet added
any thrust to the equation.

My explanation for the difference in the flight mechanics
remains the same; that the pilot is interacting with
a virtual environment where the laws of physics are less
realistic, while onboard computers translate the pilot's
actions into the more demanding physical environment.
Thus, the computing system performs the grunt work of
rotational calculation, thrust-mass ratios, thruster firing, etc., leaving
the pilot free to Orient-Observe-Decide-Act that much
faster.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Edited by pendell on 04-06-2001 at 14:19]
 
Originally posted by Zor Prime
Its just a game folks......like it for what it is.
We DO like it for what it is, and part of the fun is
inventing scientific explanations for things! :D Explaining
apparent scientific anomalies is a fun mental exercise,
and can add depth to the game, making it more enjoyable
for all. That's why there's that huge section on the
Akwende jump drive in the Wing Commander book published
around the same time as the movie.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Edited by pendell on 04-06-2001 at 14:24]
 
Physics in Wing Commander Universe

Not trying to start an argument but how would one explain the size of the main thrusters on WC fighters? Let me eloborate, if Newtons law of equal and opposite reactions (2nd law of motion IIRC) is true than even a fighter with very sophisticated Fly by Wire would have to have thrusters equal in size at the front and rear so that by pulling back on the throttle the fighter would stop. My solution to this problem would be to have a lot of small manuvering or braking thrusters facing forward. A lot of them will accomplish the same thing as a large one. Please comment if you think my logic and assumptions are wrong or if you want to congradulate me for solving a very contentious issue.
 
Re: Physics in Wing Commander Universe

Originally posted by Michael_A
Not trying to start an argument but how would one explain the size of the main thrusters on WC fighters? Let me eloborate, if Newtons law of equal and opposite reactions (2nd law of motion IIRC) is true than even a fighter with very sophisticated Fly by Wire would have to have thrusters equal in size at the front and rear so that by pulling back on the throttle the fighter would stop. My solution to this problem would be to have a lot of small manuvering or braking thrusters facing forward. A lot of them will accomplish the same thing as a large one. Please comment if you think my logic and assumptions are wrong or if you want to congradulate me for solving a very contentious issue.

Hmmm... its an interesting idea. If the thrusters on
the front are small and effective, perhaps the thrusters
on the back are equally small and effective? That would
imply that the HUGE engines on the back are not the ones
commonly used for maneuvering -- perhaps they are for afterburning only?

Respectfully,

Brian P.
 
I wouldn't say you have exactly solved it. But, your on the right track. You do not have to have an equal amopunt of thrust in the front and rear. That just depends on how fast you want to slow down or back up. You would have to put another set of engines facing the opposite direction on the front, and even then, the strain put on the ship would just be to much. It would rip itself apart, or just kill the pilot by sheer force. Hence the reason you can't stop instantaneously. So, to be able to stop, you mount forward facing thrusters. In order to keep from spinning, an equal amount of pressure would have to be exerted from the thrusters. AND, in reality, a craft would have no top speed. If you maintained a constant amount of thrust, your speed would just continue to accelerate until you cut power to the engines. There, is you true infinite afterburner. Unlimited speed. Only limitation is the amount of stress that the ship can take.
 
A good example of this is the space shuttle. Take a look at it very carefully. The shuttle not only has the main engines in the back, but near those 3 engine nozzles are smaller thrust nozzles above the main 3, and below. If you also look at the nose of the shuttle, there are 3 thruster ports. Its hard to see, but there are also thrusters on the lower portion of the nose, as well as on the sides, hard to see due to the black heat tiles. With todays technology, you have to have thrusters 180 degrees from one another in order to have control of the craft. These small thrusters provide not only directional control, but braking, acceleration, turning and attitude control. Of course on future craft as depicted in WC, these thrusters are replaced with non rocket fuel burning thrusters, but the operation is the same. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, so if you fire a rocket to move forward, it will move in proportion to the thrust, hence the opposite direction. To slow down or stop, you need thrust in the opposite direction of travel. If you turn to the right, there is a thruster on the left providing the thrust to turn the craft right, to stop that turn, the thruster on the right provides small thrust to stop the turn, or turn to the left. Same principle for forward motion and reverse. If all you had was a thruster in the rear, you could only move forward with no directional control nor would you be able to stop the craft. It will continue to go in the forward direction until something stops it, like the craft crashing into something or another thruster is placed on the front and fired to slow the craft down.

RFB

ps, there is NO sound propagation in space. Sound is the movement of air pressure, our ear drums vibrate to those pressure changes, and those pressure changes move the ear drum and hammer to a sensitive organ inside the ear, which turns those vibrations into electrical pulses our brains interpet as sound. Since there is no AIR in space, our ear drums wouldnt move, thus no sound! A microphone works on this principle, a coil of wire is placed over a magnet. The coil moves with air pressure and sends an electrical signal produced by the moving coil over the magnet and sends that signal thru the cable to an amplifier. A speaker works in opposite to this, a coil moves accross a magnet by applying a signal to the coil terminals, the coil is in effect an electromagnet reacting to the natural magnets fields, thus vibrating the cone of the speaker, which moves the air and changes the pressure in the surrounding air, our ears pick up this pressure change and we hear sound. Space has no air so there is no pressure to change. Thus, no sound.

RFB
 
You don't have to have the thrusters 180 degrees from each other. Standard practice is 90 degrees. If you did it at 180 degress you would only be able to move in two directions.
 
The 180 nozzles can pivot on their mounts, its cheaper to pivot the nozzles at 180 degrees than it is to have 4 nozzles placed 90 degrees, you would require more of them, they used to do that in the early 60's with 90 degree thrusters, but today, the nozzles pivot so they can eliminate the 90 degree setup and go with 180's which pivot.

RFB
 
True, but if your trying to build a spaceship in your backyard, 90 degrees is much easier to slap together than coming up with a rotation mechanism.
 
I contend that this is a very silly thread. There is no sound in space, full stop. Nothing to argue about. We get sound in the games because 99.9% of the general populace would laugh at a space sim without sound. I don't recall, though, any mention in the books of pilots hearing things happening outside their cockpit.

All that having been said, I contend that WC is no harder and no less fun without sound. I have played both WC1 and 2 without any sound five or six times each, and I certainly wasn't any worse - I even saved the Ralari several times, and I got through the SO1 Epee missions.
 
Back
Top