Spring RTS Engine

AF is right, as per usual. It would make them get damaged less when they hit the ground, as their parts would weigh less and hit the ground less hard. Its still a little fishy, though...

Antigrav would change the force gravity exacts but not the mass. Antigrav is identical to a thruster angled downward in that it creates a counterforce that opposes gravity and the sum of that force and gravity is the final force applied to the object. UCS mechs can't fly since their antigrav units generate less force than gravity. A helicopter can fly because its "antigrav unit" generates more force than gravity.

Conservation of mass dictates that an antigrav unit could only exact a force, not reduce your mass. At least not without that mass being converted to energy, which would make for a nice weapon technology but sucks for propulsion.

If the imaginair antigravity device would simply lower g (quite acceptable for fictional stuff), then KDR is right and the mech would fall slower.

As for how gravity works, I think you're both saying the same thing here.
AF said: everything falls with the same speed no matter the mass.
KDR said: gravity causes constant acceleration on all objects.

That comes down to exactly the same.

Of course we're saying the same thing, gravity works only one way .

In order to fly the total force must point away from the gravity well, if you do that by changing mass you'd need to have a negative mass and I don't even want to imagine what would happen then. So the only way an antigrav device can work is by creating a force that opposes gravity. That also breaks fewer fundamental laws of physics.

Unless I'm somehow in an alternate dimension and my wires are crossed again.

It's a game. If Fang says they're powered by a cat/toast/carpet polarized turbine, then they're powered by a cat/toast/carpet polarized turbine. It doesn't really matter as long as things 1) look cool 2) play right and 3) blow up on schedule.

I'm with him.

They're powered by 1337 and have pwnium armor.

/me wins.

You're muddling yourselves up.

What you're doing is generating an upwardsacceleration force as I said in my previous post. Thus the overall downwards acceleration == 9.8-upwardsacceleration.

where upwards acceleration = force/mass

Also when i talk about weight I am talking about weight not mass. An object in space has mass, but it is weightless.... Weight is the downwards force due to gravity, aka mass*acceleration downwards. Any upwards force is producing an acceleration upwards, thus a becomes smaller even negative....

The bot falls at the same speed, only it's weight is smaller because of the antigrav.

However at some point speed is affected and KDR becomes right. This is mroe around the crossover between a being positive and becoming or approaching 0 and beyond to negative...

But the bot is too heavy to come udner those situations and effectively falls at the same speed only it doesnt weigh as much and thus makes a smaller dent in the ground, fang already said that they're still too heavy to float.

The bot falls at the same speed, only it's weight is smaller because of the antigrav.

No. The bot experiences less downward force but since its mass remains the same it falls slower. At the same velocity it would have the same amount of kinetic energy (and as such would hit the ground just as hard if it's moving at the same speed, antigrav or not). You're saying it accellerates downward just as quickly and has less kinetic energy at the same speed, which would mean its mass has somehow decreased.

The effect of antigrav would be comparable to moving in low gravity. Stuff falls slower on the moon than on Earth because there's less downward force but something hitting the ground at 10 m/sec would have the same kinetic energy on the moon as it does on Earth.

I don't know where the error in your logic is, you've got almost everything correect but then you say the mech would drop just as fast with or without antigrav. Does a helicopter drop just as fast when its rotor is running vs. when it's not?

My lord... Does it matter? For goodness sake, we are taking about a video game. Argue about star trek, or star wars or something. There is no need or point to be arguing about this.

Anti Grav does not exist. And btw, you're both right.

Well perhaps if you use your deflector dish to realign your warp field to produce a covariant triascillating band pulse emission on the subspace Z spectrum continuum to create a localized temporal inversion.............

Everyone knows that Anti-grav is perfectly possible, All it needs is a tri-flux induction coil and a latinumplated gold transducer celletaped together and enchanted by a mage + 12!

Actually, Couldn't magnets be used for antigrav stuff? I mean, Magnets don't lose anything by repelling eachother, right, So you could use them to float above the ground indefinately :O

using magnets isnt quite feasable in that manner.

However you can make magnets propel other objects, but not objects they're physically atattched too unless your propelling them against other objects like in maglev train.

Although I did post a link to a pdf showing rudimentary space travel that was plastered over newspapers. If done it would mean trips to mars in 40 hours and trips to alpha centauri in a matter of days.

Drone_Fragger wrote: Actually, Couldn't magnets be used for antigrav stuff? I mean, Magnets don't lose anything by repelling eachother, right, So you could use them to float above the ground indefinately :O

or a massive explosion

In theory, magnets could be used, however as I understand it the problem would be actually making a magnet small and strong enough to repel it from earth's core.

Ignoring the plausability of anti-grav, any interpretation of anti-grav would result in lower acceleration (and thus lower speed) towards the ground.

After all, let's assume anti-grav is an upward force (first interpretation). Then we have two counteracting forces: first, the Fup (antigrav force, positive), and Fg (gravity force, negative). Fnet = Fup + Fg, and since Fup < Fg (as defined by the fact that the bot needs legs) then Fnet remains positive. So the robot still falls, but since Fup counteracts Fg, Fnet is _lower_ than Fg.

Now, since mass is constant, and F=ma, then a produced by the net force would be less than a produced by gravity alone.

Imagine it visually - if anti-grav is an upward force, then the upward force could be visuallized as a weak rocket - a boulder falling while being assisted upwards by rockets woudl fall more slowly than a boulder falling without assistance.

Now, let's consider the other possibilities: (1) anti-grav reduces the gravitational (but not inertial) mass of the subject, or (2) anti-grav reduces the gravitational constant of the universe (G) localised around the object.

Since the actual formula for force due to gravity is
where m1 and m2 are the masses of the relevant objects (in our case, the bot and the earth), G is the constant, and d is the distance between the centers of mass of the two objects.

In this case, since G and m1 are both in the numerator, then possibilities (1) and (2) are mathematically the same thing. So in this case, we get a single force of gravity F that we will call Fmodified that is less (since we reduce G or m1, which both vary linearly with F) than it would be without the anti-gravity modification, or, once again.

Fmodified < Fg

Now, as still F=ma, then a = F/m, and m (the inertial mass of the object) is constant, then the only free variable is a, which once again varies linearly with F. As such, the downward acceleration is reduced.

So, in all three of those cases, the downward acceleration is reduced.

The only final possibility is if the anti-gravity device actually hides the mass of the object.... but in that case, then the term "anti-gravity" is a misnomer, since reducing the mass of the object would have far reaching effects way beyond simply making it lighter - it would also be faster, more agile, and more easily disturbed by impacts from other objects. Plus, it would be even more scientifically ridiculous than a conventional "anti-gravity-device". So I think the "anti-mass field" is out. But, in the case where the "anti-mass field" exists, then the object would actually fall at the same speed.

I hope this was enlightening.

The only final possibility is if the anti-gravity device actually hides the mass of the object.... but in that case, then the term "anti-gravity" is a misnomer, since reducing the mass of the object would have far reaching effects way beyond simply making it lighter - it would also be faster, more agile, and more easily disturbed by impacts from other objects. Plus, it would be even more scientifically ridiculous than a conventional "anti-gravity-device". So I think the "anti-mass field" is out. But, in the case where the "anti-mass field" exists, then the object would actually fall at the same speed.

Like objects in space?

^No, objects in space maintain their mass.


Personaly, i feel a reduction of local gravitational acceleration, g, as the best explanation.

You guys have gone and killed my inner child

Its a GAME!!!

Everything is powered by magic. There thats the answer. Magic. Now back to actual balancing ideas.

Fang wrote:(concerning URC cannon mechs) Im still working on those units, so any thoughts on how to make them more distinct would be awesome.

Now discuss, suggest, generally argue about!!!!