Im operating under the assumption that the warp drive does not impart acceleration to the passengers or even the hull of the ship. It’s a warp drive. sub-warp drive g-force is still big but not enormous.
Even just the regular thrusters. I don’t know exactly how fast the hellion gets to 4kkmph, but I know it does it fast enough to impart massive forces.
Four million miles per hour? 4x10^6/3600 gets us to miles/s then *1.6 which brings us to 1777 km/s. I don’t think we’ve seen them go anywhere near that speed outside of warp. A few tens of km/s at most and that’s a pretty ‘normal’ orbital velocity depending on your trajectory and how massive your planet/moon is.
Hm, you’re partially right. I don’t know why I thought it was 4Mkph (sorry, completely wrong units of measure in there last time) for warp, it’s “just” 4kps. Watching one of the bluedrake videos, I saw him accelerate in atmosphere, with limited boost, from 0 to 1.5kps in ~15 seconds. If my math isn’t completely fucked, that is (assuming linear acceleration) 100m/s/s, or 10gs. That rate of acceleration would shred most of your modem aircraft, and definitely modern manned spacecraft, which is what everyone seems determined to base their arguments on.
All I’m saying is that these arguments based on “it can withstand the forces based on modern craft” or “it can’t withstand the forces based on modern craft” is stupid. Instead, the argument should be the logic chain I posted earlier: if it’s not good for gameplay, can it be made good for gameplay? Make the call based on that information, rather than assuming modern craft mean anything in this realm.
Most modern aircraft and pilots are expected to be able to pull as much as 9gs in a turn. This seems completely reasonable to me, especially if we can do it today, we should be able to do it when we have warpdrives. 
modern pilots can typically handle a sustained 9 g0
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-force
I found this linked on that page as well, pretty shnazy.
Okay, so pilots (not aircraft, without being specialized for it) can withstand 9gs for a limited time (the engine if our ship produces at least ten consistently).
Also, what portion of the Apollo missions were built to withstand seven (again, not ten) gs? That’s right: the small, unwindowed, unpowered portion. The rest of it never saw nearly so much.
Furthermore, what aircraft today can maneuver at mach 4.4? What aircraft can achieve mach 4.4? Air speed record is held by the blackbird. If the green moon in the prototype is earth sized, with an atmosphere as dense as earth’s, that’s the mach of a ship going 1.5kph.
I’m not arguing for capitals in the atmosphere, and I’m not arguing against it. I’m just saying to ignore realism in this one area and go with what makes the better, more balanced game.
A recent Soyuz reentry went wrong and they sustained 10gs. That dinky not even modern day design and engineering held up fine.
Single digit and near single digit gs is very very little force…
And again there’s lots of realistic things you can do to limit them that just adds to the fun.
Like carriers might have to lock their carriages and such, and the crew would need to be strapped in, when sustaining g forces so they could be limited in not being able to launch and service ships.
The rest of the rocket saw anywhere upwards of 3-5 g’s right before stage seperation.
Regardless, 2-3 extra g’s isn’t that much on any structure. It’s not even a big deal for today’s engineering standards. Now, I’m not arguing for or against capital ships in atmosphere. I don’t really even care until gameplay is more fleshed out and I can see how it changes things. I’m just trying keep straight what is reasonable and unreasonable given today’s technology.
What aircraft today has a warpdrive on it? Oh right, none. We’re talking scifi and are allowed to have spacecraft that can travel at FTL. Okay so the cockpits of spacecraft have the same sort of inertial dampeners that are used from technology from warpdrives(since it works by translating space around you, not moving through it) to limit g-forces felt by pilots to sane levels. Ok, that’s no longer a problem.
Any spacecraft achieves mach 4.4. Every rocket that ever went into space has passed that. It’s not such a huge feat of engineering, the feat of engineering is sustaining that speed. We have warp drives and propellentless drives though so it’s not a problem in this universe - don’t try and make it one.
You guys are comparing apples and oranges all over the place … e.g. 9Gs is a HUGE load - you don’t keep that up for more than maybe one or two pulls, never actual “sustained” maneuvers over a full fight. 
I really think we will go nowhere with this one until we have more information to narrow down a much more precise design space for the problem.
Are you even capable of reading? Allow me to simplify it for you:
-
3-5 g’s does not equal 10 g’s. In fact, 10 g’s is 2-3 times that amount. Crazy, I know, but that means that you have to engineer it to withstand two to three times the force. Math is hard, I get it.
-
I have said in every single post to ignore arguments of realism and go for what makes better gameplay, but you want to argue modern mach 4.4 with me? Are you even aware that your argument is exactly what I’ve been saying all along?
-
Sure, any spacecraft achieves mach 4.4. Does it maneuver like the prototype craft does at that speed at standard temperatures and pressures? Addressing half of my argument is not addressing my argument.
Come on agree to disagree if you have to, but we’re all friends here…
I will not agree to disagree with someone who cannot even complete basic comprehension.
I’m arguing for the same exact conclusion you are. I even clarified that and said that I like to correct numbers for the numbers sake. We can still have realism and have our gameplay too, it doesn’t have to be one or the other.
I’m not going to respond to any of the insults because there’s no point in going down that road.
1 Like
I’ve never seen two guys agree with each other so loudly.
Get a room you two!
1 Like
Love and passion(for numbers) is such a spontaneous emotion I can’t help it!
Alright @Red_Syns agree to agree? Spaceships are cool?
1 Like
That’s being way too optimistic. Nobody on the internet is your friend.
1 Like
The internet: where men are men, women are men, and children are FBI agents.
3 Likes
Fixed it for you.
3 Likes
Internet no, but on this forum we ought to. We all want the same thing. Why piss in the pool?
If the main problem is frustration with talking past each other, then it’s not surprising if the premise of this discussion - the “cap ship landing” problem statement is not agreed on. It’s not completely open ended, but many different scenarios are possible, and unless you guys agree to treat each one respectively it’s easy to beat around the bush.
Especially if there’s bad chemistry and/or anyone involved is ok with caring more about the last word than actually getting to the bottom of the subject.
1 Like
I wanna chime in on this almost dead discussion.
I think allowing Cap ships in atmos is fine but it should be high risk high reward, With future patches enabling localized damage and component it would be easy for fighter/bombers/defesen to destroy one or two thrusters of caps ships which would then plummit to the earth.
Vertical hovering cap ships above a base does remove the feeling of you being in an atmosphere.
So have them act more like ships in a sea that can only fly stable horizontally, dipping your nose down would plummet you to the earth even with reverse thrusters.
Not sure how that can logically be coded though.
1 Like