{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
6/9/2013 10:26:51 PM
38
Secondly, it's not as if space combat in halo is even marginally realistic. The decks in the ships are built the wrong direction (they should be perpendicular to the axis of thrust) and any crew standing around in the ship when it accelerated would be turned to red mush on the wall. There are also no acceleration couches, which are necessary for the crew to survive high G maneuvers. The fact that halo occurs 550 years in the future makes the weapons available to humans looks like sandbox toys. I mean REALLY! The best armaments they have are RAILGUNS! Shit, 100 years in the future we will have a plethora of directed energy weapons including atom lasers, X-ray lasers, gamma lasers, singularity accelerators, and god knows what other planet killing devices. The fact that a human civilian half a millennia in our future could lose to a bunch of reptiles using PLASMA weapons is utterly ludicrous. And where are the hyper fast missiles, accelerated at 100 Gs and launched in massive swarms to overwhelm enemy point defenses.
As a matter of fact, ALL weapons, including infantry weapons are RIDICULOUSLY primitive. Even the covenant are pathetic. Even the forerunner weapons pathetic! The forerunners, a galaxy spanning civilization dead for thousands of years somehow only manages to arm it's operatives with SUPPRESSORS! NO! The infantry weapons available to the promeatheans would -blam!- everything the UNSC could throw at them. Every single forerunner weapon should be a 1 shot kill to ANYTHING!
English
-
Honestly, if they can't abandon this system, they should add more unique features to weapons, vehicles, etc. to compensate. Some stuff we lost: -first person passenger riding -Ghost secondary explosion -health bar -passenger health on HUD -Banshee hover -riding on Scorpion treads -plasma rifle stun/stopping power -multiple supercombines with needler
-
Blame Bungie for their decision to make Covenant weapons act as counterparts to UNSC. Likewise, blame 343 for making Promethean weapons act as counterparts to UNSC and Covies. By far, Spartan Laser is the only UNSC battery weapon.
-
While we are on the topic of sci-fi and name dropping far future weapons... I hope Bungie flexes some creative muscle, I don't want more of the generic modern warfare weaponry.
-
Plasma is SUPERHEATED GAS. If you have heard marine dialogue, they talk about how they've been singed by the plasma bullets and how much is balmming burned.
-
[quote] The decks in the ships are built the wrong direction (they should be perpendicular to the axis of thrust) and any crew standing around in the ship when it accelerated would be turned to red mush on the wall.[/quote] Somehow standing up makes it possible to survive such fast speeds? No, you're simply unfamiliar with the old sci-fi invention called "inertial dampeners". Everything else you just said is nonsense.
-
[quote][quote] The decks in the ships are built the wrong direction (they should be perpendicular to the axis of thrust) and any crew standing around in the ship when it accelerated would be turned to red mush on the wall.[/quote] Somehow standing up makes it possible to survive such fast speeds? No, you're simply unfamiliar with the old sci-fi invention called "inertial dampeners". Everything else you just said is nonsense.[/quote] Speed (velocity) has nothing to do with anything. You'd feel exactly the same traveling at 0.5c or standing still. ACCELERATION is what kills you. Try maintaining consciousness while undergoing a 10 G maneuver. Try staying alive at over 15 Gs.
-
[quote]ACCELERATION is what kills you.[/quote] No shit, so why are you under the impression that the decks should be perpendicular to the force? All that would do is crush their leg bones. If you're implying that sitting perpendicular to the force would make it easier, well then I invite you to take a loot at pictures of current space shuttle cockpits. Also, again, they have inertial dampeners so they wouldn't feel the acceleration anyway.
-
I believe it is you who is unfamiliar with scifi technology. 1) the UNSC is using RAILGUNS as their primary armament, the obviously have not developed inertial suppression technology. The suppression of inertial forces requires the manipulation of space time on the Planck level, and for a race still using kinetic infantry weapons this is absolutely ludicrous. 2) an inertial suppression field would fuc k with biological processes in you body. Blood wouldnt flow right, you organs wouldn't work, you be constantly disoriented due to the upset if fluids in your ear, etc. 3) the us military is already testing gigawatt laser batteries, you can't honestly think we won't have super lasers in 500 years.
-
[quote]1) the UNSC is using RAILGUNS as their primary armament, the obviously have not developed inertial suppression technology. The suppression of inertial forces requires the manipulation of space time on the Planck level, and for a race still using kinetic infantry weapons this is absolutely ludicrous.[/quote] [url=http://halofanon.wikia.com/wiki/Inertia_damper]Wrong.[/url] Also, the MAC isn't a railgun. [quote]2) an inertial suppression field would fuc k with biological processes in you body. Blood wouldnt flow right, you organs wouldn't work, you be constantly disoriented due to the upset if fluids in your ear, etc.[/quote] It absolutely would not. It removes effect of inertia from the engines. Nothing else, like gravity. [quote] the us military is already testing gigawatt laser batteries.[/quote] Batteries aren't measured in wattage, and no, the military is not testing "gigawatt laser batteries".
-
1) MAC stand for magnetic acceleration cannon, which is exactly the same thing as a rail gun 2) suppression of drive Inertia would allow ships to accelerate at a high rate, but would not dampen inertia experienced by anything outside the field of effect 3) by batteries I don't mean things that store energy, I mean EMPLACEMENTS which have the capability of producing a 1 billion watt output laser beam...
-
1. No, a railgun passes a current through two parallel, oppositely charged rails to create a magnetic force to push a sabot round. A MAC, which is a coilgun, uses a series of coils around a barrel to produce a magnetic field in the barrel and push a round. They are not exactly the same; they are in fact very different. It's like calling a missile a bullet just because you shoot them at things. 2. It's considered a type of 'sci fi magic'. I'm not sure what your comment is in response to. 3. 'Mega' denotes million, not billion. A laser wouldn't be "in battery" because it's not a projectile and doesn't require a launching system.
-
1) There is no significant performance based difference between a "Railgun" and a "coilgun". They both use electricity to accelerate a projectile up to a FRACTION of the speed if light. The only way to truly make a Railgun effective in long range space combat is to use timed nuclear or antimatter charges to accelerate a projectile along a rail, destroying the launcher in the process and propelling the projectile to WITHIN a FRACTION of the speed of light. This is not the kind of Railgun the UNSC uses. Anything traveling slower than .9c is easily detectable and avoidable. Which is why covy ships easily dodge Mac salvos. 2) a battery is a grouped emplacement of defensive or offensive long range weapons, and in not specific to projectile weapon. And back to the point, DEWs are not avoidable OR detectable. 3) you are grasping at straws. The configuration of the launching mechanism in a Railgun and the name for a laser weapon is completely irrelevant to this argument.
-
Railguns and coilguns are very different, and every velocity is a fraction of the speed of light. "In battery" refers to the firing condition of a weapon. The idea of using a "timed nuclear or antimatter charge" on a railgun makes no sense given that the weapon is designed to operate without propellant. This is really one of the dumbest discussions I've had on here. Let me sum this up and be done with it: 1. You were wrong about inertial dampeners. The UNSC does use them. 2. You were wrong about MAC's being railguns 3. You were wrong about current laser technology This is so beyond off-topic that it's not worth discussing anymore.
-
Prove to me the UNSC uses inertial suppression. Explain to me your point in arguing the difference between Railguns and coilguns I suggest you rethink your statement in current use if DEWs http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/10/08/article-2214523-15683579000005DC-765_634x450.jpg The fact is your arguments are unable to disprove anything I had previously stated. magnetic acceleration weapons are useless in long range space warfare (prove me wrong) Inertial suppression is not used by the UNSC (prove me wrong) The effectiveness if DEWs 500 years in the future will be unmatched by ANY conventional weapon. And please, try to make a valid argument and stop digging your hole deeper.
-
Edited by HurtfulTurkey: 6/10/2013 2:21:15 AM[quote]Prove to me the UNSC uses inertial suppression.[/quote] No. It's a -blam!-ing video game, in a sci-fi universe where inertial dampening is standard for FTL. [quote]Explain to me your point in arguing the difference between Railguns and coilguns[/quote] To correct you. [quote]I suggest you rethink your statement in current use if DEWs [/quote] What you linked is nothing close to what you described. I'm not going to prove you wrong about space battles because it's not possible. You're asking me to disprove conjecture based on fantasy based on conjecture based on science fiction. I frankly don't give a shit about anything you said regarding it; all I was doing was correcting your statement about railguns, which snowballed into an argument where you'd presuming I'm trying to trump your nonsensical fantasy of what space battles will be like.
-
You obviously can't stand to lose can you. Every single one of your arguments is completely irrelevant to my original statements. You still see to misunderstand what inertial suppression is, as you just stated it has something to do with FTL travel. Inertial suppression would only be used under "impulse," as you cannot accelerate FtL. There is no mention of inertial suppression in any halo game, book, a media, and inertial suppression is NOT a status quo in science fiction. You act as though it is something trivial and easily achieved, when is truth the ability to manipulate the quantum structure of space time and reality itself is thousands if not millions of years beyond us.
-
This isn't a question of "losing". It [i]is[/i] in Halo; reread [i]Ghosts of Onyx[/i]. Halsey injures herself when using a ship without reinstalling the inertial dampener. And yes, it is [url=http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/InertialDampening]standard fallback[/url] for sci-fi when dealing with high velocities. In practical terms, obviously it's not feasible. That's why I referred to it as "sci fi magic". It's like the deflector dish in Star Trek...it's just there to make the plot less absurd.
-
Do you understand what inertia is? Cause I don't think you do. You keep saying inertial dampeners are used at high velocities and that is completely wrong. There is a big difference between velocity and acceleration, with acceleration making the use if inertial suppression necessary. High acceleration crushes organs, bones, and even the support structure in starships. Velocity does nothing at all.
-
Edited by HurtfulTurkey: 6/10/2013 4:21:18 AMOkay dumbass, how do you propose they reach high speeds without acceleration? Magic? And you keep saying that velocity is irrelevant, even though it's in the momentum formula. Velocity is directly related to inertia.
-
Velocity is not related to inertia at all. Ever heard of Einsteins theory of relativity? Velocity is relative to the observer. An observer traveling by a space station at 20000 kmph may deduce that the space station is traveling at 20000 kmph and be correct, and vice versa. An objects inertia is related solely to its mass. A rock floating in space will require the same amount of energy to change its velocity by 10m/s as the same rock traveling 0.5c. The only reason for installing inertial suppression technology in a spacecraft would be to reduce the energy needed accelerate at a certain rate. And by direct relation, inertial suppression actually reduces an objects intrinsic mass, allowing it to be accelerated more easily.
-
Edited by HurtfulTurkey: 6/10/2013 5:24:05 AMit's been fun to watch you arguing physics with a senior engineering student, but I have to inform you that you're entirely wrong and you should stop embarrassing yourself.
-
You must be some engineering major if you don't even know what the fuc k inertia is 😝
-
Edited by HurtfulTurkey: 6/10/2013 5:43:30 AMAdorable insult from someone that said inertia and momentum are separate. Momentum is the vector form of inertia. It is inertia in motion. We are discussing moving objects, so we are discussing momentum, too, and momentum is directly proportional to velocity.
-
We are talking about inertial suppression, not suppression of momentum... What are you getting at? An objects inertia does not change with its velocity...
-
And I never said you could reach high velocities without acceleration. Did you pull that our of you ass? A starship traveling without thrust would have no need for inertial dampening because it is not accelerating.
