FT Newtonian Acceleration

> Roger Burton West wrote:

> In vector, what I've done is to add a drift marker. Leave drift-1
to
> calculate velocity for the next turn.
Having slept on the problem of realistic acceleration with vector movement, I
might have a solution (without needing that 10' cattle prod:)) I'm not clear
on Roger's solution, but I think that we are thinking along the same lines.

Currently, the game turn starts with the ship counter/miniature oriented

to its current facing, a direction arrow for its heading and a starting V (Vs)
on the record sheet. Currently, the ship is moved a number of MU

equal to its Vs (its "drift"), then maneuvers and/or MD burn, then
compute new heading and the ending V (Ve) and finally move the direction

arrow to the new ship position representing new direction of travel.   I

assume everyone works this way for the current vector rules (excluding any
house rules).

To get a "more realistic" effect of the acceleration, assuming that 1 MD

thrust point represents acceleration, not distance moved, try this option:

From the same setup at the beginning of the game turn, move the ship a number
of MU equal to its Vs (the "drift"), then move a temporary marker

in the same manner as described above for the ship maneuver/MD burn.
Leaving this temporary marker on the board (in the position where the ship
would be in the sequence above), move the ship from its position at

the end of it's initial drift as per the written orders, but only at 1/2

rate for all MD burns and thruster/retro pushes.  Compute the Ve and new

heading using the start position and the temporary marker (rather than the
ship position), but place the new direction arrow on the actual ship, pointing
parallel to the line between the initial position and the

temporary position. Finally, remove the temporary marker.

The effect of this change is that the ship gets 1/2 the immediate
benefit of acceleration in terms of physical position and full benefit of the
acceleration to its velocity vector (speed and heading).

This is slightly more complicated than the the solution for Cinematic, but I
don't think it is out of proportion to the complexity difference basically
inherent between the Cinematic and Vector systems.

J

> On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 03:14:48PM -0500, Jared Hilal wrote:

> Having slept on the problem of realistic acceleration with vector

> :) ) I'm not clear on Roger's solution, but I think that we are

Your system looks as though it has basically the same effect as mine, but has
the problem that you have to work through the manoeuvre sequence
twice. What I suggest uses three separate things - the ship (i.e. the
miniature), the first marker and the second marker - and works something
like this:

* Start with ship's starting position, speed and direction as normal.

* Leave a marker at the starting position. Move the ship marker
(speed/direction) as normal.

* Now, leave the ship there, and take a second marker. Move that marker
through the ship's manoeuvres for this turn.

* Move the ship itself half-way along the line between its current
position and the second marker. That's the final position of the ship.

* Measure the distance and direction from the first marker to the second
marker. That's the final speed and direction, to be recorded for next turn.

> This is slightly more complicated than the the solution for Cinematic,

I agree, but I suspect that it's disproportionately slow until one gets used
to it.

> Roger Burton West wrote:

> Your system looks as though it has basically the same effect as mine,

> through the ship's manoeuvres for this turn.

> next turn.
After your clarification, I think both systems do the same thing, but yours is
probably faster and easier to implement.

J

> Mike Hillsgrove wrote:

> First, Full Thrust is a FLEET GAME. That means that some things have
The
> simple vector system may not be totally realistic, but is far more
Just because I came up with a couple of ideas to simulate this does not mean
that I am advocating it or will even try it myself. Doug Evans asked a
question about this and I thought I would give him an idea to tinker with if
he really wants to try. Roger West's Vector solution was

better (simpler and quicker) than mine. If he likes either of them, then
"Yeah! I helped". If not, then <shrug>.

J