Since apparently tech and physics are the only things I'm good at suggesting things for...
Zero-Point Quantum Wave Communication
ZPQW is a method to transmit messages at faster than light speeds.
Sending information at faster than light speeds is difficult. Conventional methods usually function by sending the information through a wormhole or different dimension. ZPQW technology, however, sends messages by controlling quantum mechanics (similar to the Quantum based FTL drive we had discussed earlier).
Although uncommon, ZPQW technology is a viable alternative to conventional FLT communications. However, the technology has some very odd quirks to it.
For one, all messages sent through ZPQW communications must be received. If it wasn't, it will become frozen in time.
This can cause so called "ghost messages". Messages, that were transmitted but never received. Anyone with an active ZPQW receiver can randomly find ghost messages and listen to them.
Normally, messages are properly controlled and received. As such, most ghost messages are of varying degrees of creepiness. One often encountered example of ghost messages are distress beacons that went unnoticed.
Ghost messages can take years to be found and can potentially last forever.
But don't worry, it gets weirder.
Another possible, although far less common, occurrence with ZPQW technology involves receiving messages that don't match up with actual events.
Since ZPQW communications technology is based on quantum probability, there is a small chance that a message that was sent, is being received as the same message but from a different branching timeline.
Simplified, this means that a received message may not contain what was actually sent, but instead what could have been sent had things been different. However, this does not mean the message was actually sent from a parallel universe, even if it may seem so.
This can be caused if the transmitter sending the message is damaged or if the software controlling it had a problem (such as a virus).
Due to it's horrible acronym, ZPQW technology, including its hardware and software, as well as its transmission protocol, are commonly referred to as "QWave". (The software may or may not use Qt as a framework.)
I might have to revise its second anomaly to better match up with actual science. Or remove it altogether.
(11-22-2015, 11:03 AM)Jim_Clonk Wrote: [ -> ]Since apparently tech and physics are the only things I'm good at suggesting things for...
Zero-Point Quantum Wave Communication
ZPQW is a method to transmit messages at faster than light speeds.
Sending information at faster than light speeds is difficult. Conventional methods usually function by sending the information through a wormhole or different dimension. ZPQW technology, however, sends messages by controlling quantum mechanics (similar to the Quantum based FTL drive we had discussed earlier).
Although uncommon, ZPQW technology is a viable alternative to conventional FLT communications. However, the technology has some very odd quirks to it.
For one, all messages sent through ZPQW communications must be received. If it wasn't, it will become frozen in time.
This can cause so called "ghost messages". Messages, that were transmitted but never received. Anyone with an active ZPQW receiver can randomly find ghost messages and listen to them.
Normally, messages are properly controlled and received. As such, most ghost messages are of varying degrees of creepiness. One often encountered example of ghost messages are distress beacons that went unnoticed.
Ghost messages can take years to be found and can potentially last forever.
But don't worry, it gets weirder.
Another possible, although far less common, occurrence with ZPQW technology involves receiving messages that don't match up with actual events.
Since ZPQW communications technology is based on quantum probability, there is a small chance that a message that was sent, is being received as the same message but from a different branching timeline.
Simplified, this means that a received message may not contain what was actually sent, but instead what could have been sent had things been different. However, this does not mean the message was actually sent from a parallel universe, even if it may seem so.
This can be caused if the transmitter sending the message is damaged or if the software controlling it had a problem (such as a virus).
Due to it's horrible acronym, ZPQW technology, including its hardware and software, as well as its transmission protocol, are commonly referred to as "QWave". (The software may or may not use Qt as a framework.)
I might have to revise its second anomaly to better match up with actual science. Or remove it altogether.
I approve of the first two paragraphs, the "ghost message" anomaly can be used to create very interesting situations. The third is just... No. We don't need wrong messages from alternate probabilities.
I had an idea for what a race of aliens could have, inspired by some myths about Roswell.
An alloy that is bendable and thin, like tinfoil, but it is extremely tough and abnormally hard to destroy.
(11-22-2015, 10:11 AM)DaBayleySaur Wrote: [ -> ] (11-22-2015, 04:00 AM)SilverOtter Wrote: [ -> ]Listening.
A race of leathery, skinny necked aliens who don't breath oxygen and don't trust other aliens.
(11-22-2015, 06:11 PM)DaBayleySaur Wrote: [ -> ]I had an idea for what a race of aliens could have, inspired by some myths about Roswell.
An alloy that is bendable and thin, like tinfoil, but it is extremely tough and abnormally hard to destroy.
Are these two halves of the same idea?
(11-22-2015, 06:09 PM)SilverOtter Wrote: [ -> ] (11-22-2015, 11:03 AM)Jim_Clonk Wrote: [ -> ]Since apparently tech and physics are the only things I'm good at suggesting things for...
Zero-Point Quantum Wave Communication
ZPQW is a method to transmit messages at faster than light speeds.
Sending information at faster than light speeds is difficult. Conventional methods usually function by sending the information through a wormhole or different dimension. ZPQW technology, however, sends messages by controlling quantum mechanics (similar to the Quantum based FTL drive we had discussed earlier).
Although uncommon, ZPQW technology is a viable alternative to conventional FLT communications. However, the technology has some very odd quirks to it.
For one, all messages sent through ZPQW communications must be received. If it wasn't, it will become frozen in time.
This can cause so called "ghost messages". Messages, that were transmitted but never received. Anyone with an active ZPQW receiver can randomly find ghost messages and listen to them.
Normally, messages are properly controlled and received. As such, most ghost messages are of varying degrees of creepiness. One often encountered example of ghost messages are distress beacons that went unnoticed.
Ghost messages can take years to be found and can potentially last forever.
But don't worry, it gets weirder.
Another possible, although far less common, occurrence with ZPQW technology involves receiving messages that don't match up with actual events.
Since ZPQW communications technology is based on quantum probability, there is a small chance that a message that was sent, is being received as the same message but from a different branching timeline.
Simplified, this means that a received message may not contain what was actually sent, but instead what could have been sent had things been different. However, this does not mean the message was actually sent from a parallel universe, even if it may seem so.
This can be caused if the transmitter sending the message is damaged or if the software controlling it had a problem (such as a virus).
Due to it's horrible acronym, ZPQW technology, including its hardware and software, as well as its transmission protocol, are commonly referred to as "QWave". (The software may or may not use Qt as a framework.)
I might have to revise its second anomaly to better match up with actual science. Or remove it altogether.
I approve of the first two paragraphs, the "ghost message" anomaly can be used to create very interesting situations. The third is just... No. We don't need wrong messages from alternate probabilities.
I'm going to do the revision for the second anomaly. With that, it wouldn't actually be "wrong".
...Actually that would break the ghost messages, so let's just remove the second anomaly.
Woo ship sizes
The original draft of this died with my OS by the way.
FAST ATTACK CRAFT
Tiny, offensive spacecraft meant for defense of heavy ships. They are usually too fast to be hit by frigates, and carry some weapons. These ships cannot survive on their own, as they lack a reactor or microluminal drives. They are crewed by 1-3 people, and have no extra space besides cramped cockpits.
CORVETTES
Tiny, defense spacecraft meant for the defense of heavy ships. Unlike FACs, they are meant to defend against cruisers rather than frigates, and cannot outrun smaller weaponry. These ships similarly cannot survive on their own. They are crewed by 3-5 people, and have a single merged cockpit with space comparable to the inside of a tank.
FRIGATES
Small spacecraft meant to attack heavy ships and other frigates. They come in light and heavy types. Light frigates are offensive craft with light weaponry, and some rooms. Heavy frigates are defensive craft with medium weaponry, and have some rooms. These ships have their own microluminal drive but not reactor, and must recharge their battery with the fleet occasionally. Frigates are crewed by 15-22 people.
DESTROYERS
Small defensive spacecraft meant to attack frigates and light cruisers. They have heavy amounts of weaponry, but their speed and armor makes them vulnerable to light frigates. These ships have a microluminal drive. Destroyers are crewed by 30-35 people, and have a few rooms.
CRUISERS
Medium craft meant to attack other cruisers and battlecruisers. Cruisers come in light, medium, and heavy. Light cruisers have smaller armaments, but have larger weaponry than previous classes, and are offensive craft, with multiple rooms. Medium cruisers are offensive craft with more weaponry, and some rooms. Heavy cruisers are defensive craft armed to the teeth, with many rooms. Cruisers have their own reactors and microluminal drives. They are crewed by 45-60 people.
BATTLECRUISERS
Large offensive craft meant to attack cruisers, battlecruisers, and battleships. They are armed with larger weaponry than cruisers, and have medium amounts of weaponry. They have their own reactors, and superluminal drives for solar and galactic travel. They are crewed by 100-250 people, with tons of rooms.
BATTLESHIPS
Large defensive craft meant to attack battlecruisers, and other battleships. They are armed with heavy numbers of weaponry. They have reactors and superluminal drives. Battleships are crewed by 400-600 people, with tons of rooms.
DREADNOUGHTS
Large offensive craft meant to attack capital ships. They are armed with capital weaponry, but are vulnerable to real capitals without the armor and size they have. Again, they are equipped with reactors and superluminal drives. Dreadnoughts are crewed with 1000 people, with many rooms.
CAPITAL
Capitals are huge, but vary in armaments and crew. The main thing that factors a Capital is that their primary opponent is other capitals.
This list does not factor in ship types other than combatants, like military carriers, mine ships, and the like.
(11-23-2015, 07:40 PM)SilverOtter Wrote: [ -> ][whoa ship]
Can we just call the "FAST ATTACK CRAFTS" fighters like everyone else does?
Heavy frigates should have a reactor of their own (at least some of them).
"Capital" is not a class. It defines a ship you can not afford to lose. You could rename the capital class to "Mothership" if you want to.
What are these classifications based on?
I have a question, do you think that a race whose home system is 39 light years from Sol would have had it captured by the Republic?
(11-23-2015, 08:03 PM)Jim_Clonk Wrote: [ -> ] (11-23-2015, 07:40 PM)SilverOtter Wrote: [ -> ][whoa ship]
Can we just call the "FAST ATTACK CRAFTS" fighters like everyone else does?
Heavy frigates should have a reactor of their own (at least some of them).
"Capital" is not a class. It defines a ship you can not afford to lose. You could rename the capital class to "Mothership" if you want to.
What are these classifications based on?
A general list of navy ship classes, with some modifications.
Also fighters is a word for aircraft, and only specialized ships can enter the atmosphere, and none of those are even aerodynamic enough to fly, only to make entrance and exit of the atmosphere less of a inefficient hell. But making them straight-up spaceplanes is a design choice that can make a chassis more expensive, cramped, and specialized than a military needs. Plus, weapon types for space and types for atmosphere only merge with larger ships, because of heat issues that require big radiators, which means none of the weapons on a FAC would even work. I mean, technically they would, but magnetically launching a subatomic particle at subluminal speeds tends to cause the atmosphere to set on fire.
(11-23-2015, 08:22 PM)DaBayleySaur Wrote: [ -> ]I have a question, do you think that a race whose home system is 39 light years from Sol would have had it captured by the Republic?
Yes. Republic has most of Galactic South, with some Hylotl and UW on the right and left respectively. The northernly areas are where the space is.
(11-23-2015, 08:26 PM)SilverOtter Wrote: [ -> ] (11-23-2015, 08:03 PM)Jim_Clonk Wrote: [ -> ]Can we just call the "FAST ATTACK CRAFTS" fighters like everyone else does?
Heavy frigates should have a reactor of their own (at least some of them).
"Capital" is not a class. It defines a ship you can not afford to lose. You could rename the capital class to "Mothership" if you want to.
What are these classifications based on?
A general list of navy ship classes, with some modifications.
Also fighters is a word for aircraft, and only specialized ships can enter the atmosphere, and none of those are even aerodynamic enough to fly, only to make entrance and exit of the atmosphere less of a inefficient hell. But making them straight-up spaceplanes is a design choice that can make a chassis more expensive, cramped, and specialized than a military needs. Plus, weapon types for space and types for atmosphere only merge with larger ships, because of heat issues that require big radiators, which means none of the weapons on a FAC would even work. I mean, technically they would, but magnetically launching a subatomic particle at subluminal speeds tends to cause the atmosphere to set on fire.
(11-23-2015, 08:22 PM)DaBayleySaur Wrote: [ -> ]I have a question, do you think that a race whose home system is 39 light years from Sol would have had it captured by the Republic?
Yes. Republic has most of Galactic South, with some Hylotl and UW on the right and left respectively. The northernly areas are where the space is.
Alright, so now I have an explanation for their mothership!
(11-23-2015, 08:26 PM)SilverOtter Wrote: [ -> ] (11-23-2015, 08:03 PM)Jim_Clonk Wrote: [ -> ]Can we just call the "FAST ATTACK CRAFTS" fighters like everyone else does?
Heavy frigates should have a reactor of their own (at least some of them).
"Capital" is not a class. It defines a ship you can not afford to lose. You could rename the capital class to "Mothership" if you want to.
What are these classifications based on?
A general list of navy ship classes, with some modifications.
Also fighters is a word for aircraft, and only specialized ships can enter the atmosphere, and none of those are even aerodynamic enough to fly, only to make entrance and exit of the atmosphere less of a inefficient hell. But making them straight-up spaceplanes is a design choice that can make a chassis more expensive, cramped, and specialized than a military needs. Plus, weapon types for space and types for atmosphere only merge with larger ships, because of heat issues that require big radiators, which means none of the weapons on a FAC would even work. I mean, technically they would, but magnetically launching a subatomic particle at subluminal speeds tends to cause the atmosphere to set on fire.
Sooo, why are we not calling them fighters? They are spacecraft, not (naval) ships.
(11-23-2015, 09:59 PM)Jim_Clonk Wrote: [ -> ] (11-23-2015, 08:26 PM)SilverOtter Wrote: [ -> ]A general list of navy ship classes, with some modifications.
Also fighters is a word for aircraft, and only specialized ships can enter the atmosphere, and none of those are even aerodynamic enough to fly, only to make entrance and exit of the atmosphere less of a inefficient hell. But making them straight-up spaceplanes is a design choice that can make a chassis more expensive, cramped, and specialized than a military needs. Plus, weapon types for space and types for atmosphere only merge with larger ships, because of heat issues that require big radiators, which means none of the weapons on a FAC would even work. I mean, technically they would, but magnetically launching a subatomic particle at subluminal speeds tends to cause the atmosphere to set on fire.
Sooo, why are we not calling them fighters? They are spacecraft, not (naval) ships.
All the others have naval names, no need for the tiniest ships to be special.
(11-23-2015, 10:02 PM)SilverOtter Wrote: [ -> ] (11-23-2015, 09:59 PM)Jim_Clonk Wrote: [ -> ]Sooo, why are we not calling them fighters? They are spacecraft, not (naval) ships.
All the others have naval names, no need for the tiniest ships to be special.
Space ships already have a common naming scheme. Why do your fighters need to be something different?
(11-24-2015, 03:51 AM)SilverOtter Wrote: [ -> ] (11-23-2015, 10:04 PM)Jim_Clonk Wrote: [ -> ]TRADITION!
Fine.
FAC -> Fighter.
Don't give in to the meta.
Fighters aren't usually crewed by more than two people, therefore the FACs are distinct from them.
(11-24-2015, 05:38 AM)SilverOtter Wrote: [ -> ] (11-24-2015, 04:59 AM)Comito Wrote: [ -> ]Don't give in to the meta.
Fighters aren't usually crewed by more than two people, therefore the FACs are distinct from them.
Oh good support.
Fighter -> FAC.
Let's say then that FACs are the category, while fighters are the smallest crewed crafts in that category.
(11-24-2015, 07:14 AM)Jim_Clonk Wrote: [ -> ] (11-24-2015, 05:38 AM)SilverOtter Wrote: [ -> ]Oh good support.
Fighter -> FAC.
Let's say then that FACs are the category, while fighters are the smallest crewed crafts in that category.
But why? Do you have a reason why you want them to be fighters? I would make a note that fighters are meant to attack interceptors, which are meant to attack bombers. FACs do not fall into that category, they are meant as anti-frigate ships to defend stuff like battlecruisers, who cannot them with their heavy weaponry.
(11-24-2015, 04:44 PM)SilverOtter Wrote: [ -> ] (11-24-2015, 07:14 AM)Jim_Clonk Wrote: [ -> ]Let's say then that FACs are the category, while fighters are the smallest crewed crafts in that category.
But why? Do you have a reason why you want them to be fighters? I would make a note that fighters are meant to attack interceptors, which are meant to attack bombers. FACs do not fall into that category, they are meant as anti-frigate ships to defend stuff like battlecruisers, who cannot them with their heavy weaponry.
And this is where everything stopped making sense...
The reason why I want them to be called fighters is because they're bloody fighters. If FACs are not fighters, not bombers and not interceptors, then what are they?
You claim they are there to defend battlecruisers against frigates because they can't hit ?????. What are they not hitting? The frigates are certainly large enough that they could be hit by a battlecruiser. The other option would be that they are defending against bombers but that would basically make them interceptors again. And if they
are defending against frigates, wouldn't that make them bombers as well?
Also, you say they are defending, yet their name implies attacking.
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
Spoiler