Comments by "TheRezro" (@TheRezro) on "" video.

  1. Definitely not. It is quite detailed but it is basically modern day tech used in not modern scenario. I'm almost sure that Mars mission would be first space-assembled ship (in a way how ISS was assembled). Here for some reason everyone still fly in space cigarettes for some reason? Also weapon placement is horrendous.
    6
  2. HALL9000ish Except big rockets also have own limits (especially cost wise). Obviously you can shoot Mars-capable ship with one rocket, but efficient travel between Mars and Earth would demand more advanced equipment. "Modular orbit assembly results in really fragile objects that waste a significant fraction of their mass hiving the ability to be attached to each other. " That obviously isn't true especially if we use more advanced assembly techniques. We can use so called space-crane to move stuff without need to them have own RCS. Cold welding isn't in fact that complicated and allow us to make durable constructions. ISS was designed to be modular, I speak more of experience gain from that construction.
    3
  3. And they are easy to shoot down with laser defense.
    2
  4. My favorite is still beginning of the Nexus.. not that it is much realistic but definitely well thought in design.
    2
  5. ***** "so, just because they don't use every possible technology it isn't realistic?" Isn't that obvious? If something exist then it exist.. that is basic of reality. That is why we use word probable in case of Science Fiction.
    2
  6. Josh Perry And that is the problem.. if battle don't happen on orbit of our planet there would be needed different tech for reliable inter-system travel. Also that don't justify lack of front weapon.
    2
  7. capthowitzer I can acknowledge vision I just would be careful with calling it realistic.
    2
  8. @Turnip Singularity Please. Don't speak when you don't know what you talking about. Any gain from this design don't justify effort. From armor design perspective, arrowhead shape is most efficient providing both many attachment points, and steep armor with high deflection chance. Round shape is efficient only when pressure come from many directions, what almost never is the case as space crafts can spin easily, with battles taking place on long distances. Circular fights like in many games in fact is basically impossible. As such most designs would put range, detection and active stealth, above everything. That lead to purely utilitarian designs, most likely with many antennas. As I said cylinder shape of many current crafts is dictated by the shape of rockets. Real space crafts would be build more akin to huge satellites. That until rotary gravity come into play.
    2
  9. @Turnip Singularity And cylinders have same issues forcing components to have specific shapes. So no real advantages, even if armor would play any role in space combat, which it wouldn't. "Due to the nature of weapon mountings, ships fire broadsides. Don't ask me why." Because you don't know the answer. I do. Also broadsides aren't relevant from half of the century (rockets fire up), with not being much relevant even century ago due to use of towers what has decent cover even firing on prow . In case of space combat they would be downright retarded, because broadsides are good specifically during line combat, what is simply not a thing there. "-Stealth is impossible in space. Either you have massive heat radiation panels or you melt." No shit, but that is exactly why you would focus whole effort on ability to see and kill enemy before he could see you from those thousandths kilometers. If possible also distort his detection ability or trick his weapon to miss. Otherwise nothing would save you.
    2
  10. fakemanz0r About nose weapon.. you are obviously correct for short-medium combat. But on long rage combat (most standard in the space) big gun and small surface is most efficient. Also in reality most battles would end after first hit like in aircraft battles. Not long fire exchange like in old battleships.
    2
  11. Not exactly..
    2
  12. I think the idea is that they aren't massive..
    2
  13. Gerald Monroe Yes, but those would be stuff for combat on our orbit.. that isn't exactly the case in game.
    2
  14. Gerald Monroe "I suppose it's how you define "realistic"." No, it is how you define "probable". Realistic is real or at least close to real and efficient inter-system travel is obviously more advance then most of used there technology. As result this game isn't that realistic as it claim.
    1
  15. So.. 50'ties..
    1
  16. capthowitzer Simulation maybe yes, because simulation games don't have much demand for realism overall. But I agree that reason why people complain is that "realistic" part used in promotion.
    1
  17. capthowitzer Simulation yes, simulation game.. is not exactly a real simulation. I would need check exact way how this word was used there.
    1
  18. capthowitzer "Velocity is relative ;)" Yup. If two ship synhronically accelerate when you shut down engines you relatively would slow down in relation to other ship :D In fact in semi-automatic RCS flight movement resealable style used in most video-games. Main issue here is that they mostly use main engines instead RCS engines for that.
    1
  19. RedRifleman studios You are aware that there is few real simulators made by NASA? We may include here also Buzz Aldrin's Space Program Manager which is a game.
    1
  20. NightSniper2 "Everything that occurs in the game is realistic because it can happen in real life." No it isn't because such combat don't have economical justification and detail like that are part of realism. Not just "it technically could work" because you can build Gundam (Japanese clam that it is possible) but such scenerio is improbable because obvious economical reasons. So it is unrealistic. Why that isn't obvious?
    1
  21. RedRifleman studios If we talk about combat game specifically there are no such. Simply because large scale space combat in currently improbable by itself (not technically impossible but economically). If you look just for cool semi-realistic design I suggest check first part of Nexus.
    1
  22. migkillerphantom Ask scientist.. because they do that regularly.
    1
  23. migkillerphantom In science almost everything is assumption. Fully confirmed facts are extremely rare. Simulation itself is a form of test, that is why you make them on the first place. So what the hell is your point?
    1
  24. migkillerphantom I state facts, you start flame because you are smarter then facts. "The developer has taken what we know and made a simulator with it." Except he didn't. It is a video game not simulator. Capthowitzer already explained here why.
    1
  25. migkillerphantom Except I never said it isn't simulation game. Whole point whole time is that it isn't simulation in strict meaning of this word and yet some people act like offended when someone point out obvious semantic mistake. It isn't my who blow that out of proportion.
    1
  26. ***** I think it was a sarcasm.
    1
  27. Maximilian Kircher "According to the definition of simulation I use" You mean misuse? You ignore what meaning of the "proces" is there. "simulation games are a subset of simulations." Yes, but again it is one of those cases where definition of sub-genre change meaning of main definition itself. Again, theory and scientific theory example. "And according to many merits, this game can be considered to be a very good simulation of space warfare" No, those "merits" ignore main details of such warfare (what we already prove) and as result simulate nothing. They are just fantasy. "compared to all the other "space warfare simulations" out there" There are any legitimate space warfare simulations anywhere? You again ignore what differ game from simulation itself. "since it has remotely accurate orbital mechanics" Like KSP? "and in contrast to almost every other game of this kind it attempts to have flexibly adjustable space ship parts" Like KSP? "stuffed into a physical and chemical model." Of what? As what you say sound bit nonsensical by itself.. you sound as SEGA "blast processing" commercials here 0_0
    1
  28. Maximilian Kircher "And yes, sure: It is a simulation of fantasy events." Good that you agree at last that that it isn't realistic then (joke). Considering that you said about "simulation of fantasy events" I can presume that you don't see also contradiction in "curved straight lines" here 0_0. "Just as any science fiction game." Science Fiction games aren't simulation.. if they would be they wouldn't be a fiction. So called simulation games are games loosely based on idea of "simulation", but that don't mean that they are real simulation not to menaion that many SF games aren't Simulation games on the first place. "I never disagreed with that premise in the first place. But we are.. 0_0 "A simulation of a dragon is still a simulation." If you mean Dragon Fruit then yes, but as far I know mythical Dragons don't exits and as such you can't obtain data to simulate them. Or you seriously don't see difference between simulation and imagination?
    1
  29. Maximilian Kircher "So what's the definition of "simulation" you are using to come up with that?" Simulation is and always was a numerical reconstruction. "If scientists where collaborating to create a computerprogram that simulates how a fantasy creature, perhaps a dragon would fly, using real airodynamics, mechanics etc, they would call it the simulation of a dragon/fantasy creature" No we could not call it that way because we aren't idiots like those people who speak for us. Also we debate here about dragon itself of flight model? Because those are two completely separate things? "and barely anyone would disagree with them" People do that constantly as we see that on example. You yourself even point out that you don't give a shit about semantic (aka linguistic science) and treat popular consensus as some law, so why you even bring such ludicrous example here?
    1
  30. Maximilian Kircher "And yes, KSP is also a simulation." Of what?
    1
  31. Maximilian Kircher "KSP is a simulation of newtonian orbital mechanics and physical stress, for example." No, it is a video game about green aliens building rockets.. using some basics of orbital mechanic, etc. Claiming that it is simulation of that is downright idiotic as game ignore some rules for own convenience. But you would need know what you talking about on the first place to get that. "The fact that "Kerbals" don't look like humans is completely irrelevant." Yes, like lack of the sun is irrelevant for why night is dark. You make my lough in your hollow stubbornness 0_0 "It would be a simulation of flight mechanics within the model of a hypothetical situation." Exactly. Not simulation of a dragon. "And here is the point this this all about: The simulation we are talking about is not a simulation of technology, industry and politics." Except it is as those are parts of warfare. If you arbitrarily ignore wind in ballistic simulation then you simply fail, because it would generate deferent results then practical tests. "This though doesn't imply that it isn't a simulation." It does. Because it is promoted as space warfare simulation, not some specific spece travel mechanic simulation. Though even here I doubt that game do any real calculations. "Demanding that it has to be universal or relying entirely on realism kind of misses the point" Except that was the promise. It is you who miss the point in your claim that we miss the point. "and sets a merit under which simulations currently don't quite exist." Except it doesn't. Typical PC don't have sufficient power for any reliable simulation. Simulation games are just games.. something completely different what you in your blatant ignorance ignore. "Just because in an airbus flight simulator you can't (and don't have to) go to the toilet (or wet yourself) after a while, doesn't mean that it is not a simulation." Except it isn't. It is a video game. If you ignore fact that pilots need go to toilet in your simulation made for planing purpose in airlines, you could end in quite nasty station if that would be implemented in practice.
    1
  32. @Turnip Singularity Why I would care?
    1
  33.  @agravemisunderstanding9668  You are aware that in actual space you can rotate easily entire ship. Doing maneuvers you rarely would face the enemy. In fact you more likely would be flying engines toward him. Put if you fight on range, you most likely could snipe him, before he detect you. Otherwise enemy engage or disengage.
    1
  34. Because game is "realistic" not probable.. (joke)
    1