🚀 go-pugleaf

Ross Ridge <rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> looked up from reading the
entrails of the porn spammer to utter  "The Augury is good, the signs
say:

>Ross Ridge <rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> looked up from reading the
>>No, it would require too much mass to have a belt of the density you're
>>imagining.  
>
>Xocyll  <Xocyll@kingston.net> wrote:
>>Since I never specified a density I wonder how you can say this.
>
>You described an asteroid belt were the density was high enough for
>physics modeling complex enough to benefit from technologies introduced
>in the last decade.  For an asteroid collision to a chance of happening
>in an asteroid belt in the time frame of real-time space-sim game then
>it would have to be incredibly dense.  An actual asteroid *belt* would
>be more massive than the star (or stars) it orbits.

Uh Ross, the only person who said _anything_ about asteroid collisions
is YOU.  All I said is that CPUs and GPUs have become powerful enough to
be able to model asteroid belts realistically.
I said nothing about Hollywood style "a collision every minute" type
belts, YOU came up with that.

And since I also talked about asteroid mining and landing on the
asteroids to do mining, that would mean keeping track of each individual
asteroid and it's condition/resources as well as it's motion (orbitally
and rotational.)   

It should be pretty obvious from this that I'm not talking about a belt
with hundreds of thousands (or more) of asteroids banging into each
other all the time - that would preclude landing on them and mining,
much less being able to keep track of them all.

>>>Now there's a good chance there will be the dense sort of asteroid belts
>>>you want in this game, but like the faster-than-light travel that will
>>>also likely be in the game, it'll be made up science fiction, not reality.
>>
>>Little hard to say what reality for the entire universe is based on one,
>>single sun, system Ross.
>
>No, it's not in this case.  Like I said, even if an asteroid belt dense
>as you describe existed, it would soon be reduced to dust by all the
>collisions you want to happen there.  

I never described any density Ross, you leapt to your own conclusions
going against what I actually said.

>Even if every planet is destined
>to explode one day then it would still be infinitesimaly unlikely that
>one would have naturally exploded recently enough.  Planets just aren't
>been created fast enough for all the regularily colliding asteroids you
>imagine to naturally exist.

Again, the only one imagining regularly colliding asteroids is YOU Ross.
I said absolutely nothing about collisions.

>>How many times over the years have scientists looked at local conditions
>>and declared "this is how it all works" then found they were completely
>>wrong when they looked at a larger area?
>
>Of course we know how it works, if it we didn't understand the
>basic physics behind it all, we couldn't do the physics simulation
>you want.  Seriously, what do you think would happen if you ran the
>physics simulation you want in the game?  What's going to keep all
>the asteroids bunched up together?  What's going to prevent all the
>collisions you expect to happen from pulverising the asteroids into
>smaller and smaller rocks?  Any space-sim game that uses a physics
>based model for its asteroids is going to have to cheat the physics in
>some way.  Asteroids are going to have to be prevented from flying off
>into space every which way and new asteroids are going to have to come
>out of nowhere to replace the asteroids that have gotten too small and
>too numerous to track.  It'll probably also have to just completely
>reset all the asteroids every time you leave the area and come back.

Gee Ross, why don't you go back and read my original posts on the
matter, you obviously didn't the first time since what you are ascribing
as my wants are the exact opposite of them.

>The laws of physics don't magically change in a binary star system or
>anywhere else in the universe.

As far as we know - it's not like we've been out of this system to
*know* for sure that what we think of as the natural LAWS of physics are
indeed universal and not just a local condition.

As for a Binary system - I didn't say Binary, I said multiple.

Imagine a 4+ sun system with multiple planets and moons around each sun,
and perhaps a dense Oort cloud sending in comets, maybe even a brown
dwarf in a highly eccentric orbit that passes through every few thousand
years.
That's not going to settle down and stay stable the way our system did.

There would be collisions and there would be debris - how much, who
knows.

>While it's almost certain that the dense
>kind of asteroid belts that exist in every space-sim game ever made
>will also be in this game, they're nothing more than science fiction.
>Whether the fiction has these asteroids occurring naturally or more
>plausibly by the actions of a Death Star, they're not going be modelled
>by truly realistic physics.  A true and accurate physics simulation just
>isn't going to produce the results that you and every other space-sim
>gamer expect.

Well you leapt to the conclusion I was talking about the kind of
asteroid belts seen in most games.
Since I was talking about landing on them and mining, obviously I was
not since those belts are completely randomly created and fade out as
soon as they're offscreen (like cars in the GTA games), they aren't
static, they aren't tracked or anything else that would required any
kind of physics.
Not to mention that since those randomly created ones are extremely
dense and banging into each other all the time, any ship that landed on
one would be destroyed in no time at all.

Since I _specifically_ mentioned landing on them and mining them, just
how in the hell did you leap to the conclusion I was talking about an
ultra dense Hollywood/game type belt where the very thing I was
describing would be impossible?

Honestly Ross, you're usually better at this.

Xocyll
-- 
I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of 
a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably, 
Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So 
FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr