Do human ships in 40k even have artificial gravity?
ever heard of google or read a bl book
>>77698931Look at those decks perpendicular to thrust and you tell me, retard.
>>77698931Yes. Next retarded-ass thread, please.
>>77698931No, they have regular gravity
>>77698931Heretic! None of the Omnissiah's gifts are "artificial", they are genuine applications of the Universal Laws!
I hate how space settings always ignore shit like this. "LOL gravity plating" is just terrible. Crappy TV shows had to do this because of no budget but other mediums have no excuse.
Aren't they just so large that they generate their own gravitational field? Maybe it was just space hulks that do that
>>77700567>setting in which the ad mech can set fire to space>but gravity platting is too muchuh huh
>>77700567hard sci-fi is for losersReality is already boring enough
>>77700657Typical empire ships seem to be 2-4 miles long so no way in hell.
Yes. What is odd. Is how the AdMech couldn't figure out how to do this in reverse for anti grav. Excepting a few things here and there. Until Cawl released his floating metal bawkes for primari marines.
>>77700567If you've got your ships pulling maneuvers that would turn the crew to paste, you need something to dampen that inertia.The only differences between inertial dampeners and artificial gravity are: - Artificial gravity is on constantly - Artificial gravity isn't anywhere near as powerful as inertial dampeners need to beSo if you've got a need for inertial dampeners, you need a good reason to not have artificial gravity.
>>77701936>empireimperium you star wars retard
There's an actually well written and compelling short story called "Spiritus in Machina" in the Inferno! 2 anthology that uses grav plates as a central plot point. Skitarii wakes up from stasis on a derelict Ark Mechanicus that's been drifting for 250 years after a space battle, has to go restart the ship, but grav plates. Grav plates everywhere. The author got fired by BL for being too public about being an SJW, but his writing is well above average, at least in that story.
>>77698931Yes, in Devastation of Baal BA even adjust it to be higher than normal to match that of their homeworld.
>>77698954What does BL book have to do with Warham... oh, nevermind.
>>77700567You'd have to drastically alter how space ships are designed though, to include spinning rings, hydroponics bays, giant attachable supply pods, heat dispersion grids and sensor arrays. All of which would be super cool, but actually requires effort.
>>77701667>Reality is already boring enoughOnly gay retards think this.
>>77700657Just Space Hulks and Craftworlds as far as I can remember.
>>77703597then stop playing games and video games and go outside to feed the birds and squirrels
>>77701667A real space battleship would have engine nozzles all around its hull to make it possible to move during a fight. And guns all around it to be able to attack as well. Thus making a functional battleship in space would be both impossible and pointless (all engines and guns monstrosity looking like some kind of space urchin).Another proof that reality sucks.
>>77704043>doesnt want sea urchin shaped fighter shipscringe
>>77703597>>77700567It`s alright to enjoy something more grounded or hard-fi, but don`t try to fit those expectations everywhere and expect the rest to comply.40k has been form over matter since it`s pre-alpha Rogue Trader days, you are trying to rant about realism in a sci-fantasy setting.
>>77704043You are retarded holy shit. Turning a ship in space is extremely easy and fast you literally need weapons and armor in one direction. Just keep distance and shoot.
>>77704043I used to think that too, with Nexus: The Jupiter Incident representing that design philosophy heavily. But in reality there's no reason for a spaceship to have engines in multiple locations, given that they can just flip over and use the primary engines to slow or adjust their speed. That gives almost the same effect and tremendously cuts down on mass, vulnerabilities, and heat generation
>>77698931Fuck, I hate you people. Don't you realise that "candles on a spaceship" is THE thing that makes 40k cool? Why do you always have to bitch about "leman russ is unrealistic" go fuck off to 9000 another settings with sleek antigrav tanks, railguns, nanorobots and whatever.
>>77704867>"leman russ is unrealistic"It's not so much about it being unrealistic it's more about it looking fucking terrible. Like a shitty WW1 design.
>>7770056740k is space fantasy you dumb fag it's not supposed to be in any way realistic
>>77705299>Like a shitty WW1 designthat's what makes it appealing desu
>>77703409All space marines are gay
>>77704649>G.W. BUSHIs this for Iron Sky?
>>77705439>all space marine fans are gay
>>77701667Hard scifi is the only kind worth reading, soft scifi is bullshit for people trying to escape their meaningless existences
>>77707020>>77701667What matters is the attention to detail of the author and the quality of the writing. We've had some very good soft scifi that is only hard about a single plot-relevant detail but brilliant, and some hard scifi that is pure autism because it ignores things like prose, characterization and plot. Categoryfags really need to chill out
>>77705299>Like a shitty WW1 design.Clunky looking tech has it's own appeal.
Yes, but only in important areas. Bridge and engineering for example are constantly kept stable. I believe that technically all areas have grav-plates and can be made stable but for the most part crew is forced to work with gravity from thrust and that's all. That's where Void-Born come from. Generations of inconsistent gravity making some weird looking gangly people.
>>77705856It looks like it.
>>77701667>hard sci-fi is for losers—A uncreative brainlet
>>77707020What even is hard scifi at this point?
>>77708044A story with the 'idea as the hero' with one or fewer macguffins (FTL doesn't count) that hews as close as possible to reality as we know it.
>>77704299It's not jist about realism, it's about interest. What's even the point of having a space setting if you can't play with zero-g? That's subtracting both realism and fun, a real lose-lose.
>>77701667>hard sci-fi is for losersThis.>Reality is already boring enoughNot this though, history is very interesting.
>>77703597Well then lube my ass and put me on a short bus.
>>77698999genuinely curios what design choices lead you to think the decks are perpendicular to the thrust.
>>77705299I don't like the russ becuase it just looks awkward and the conflict aesthetics of ww1/ww2 tanks it has. Chimeras are kino though.
>>77710439>What's even the point of having a space setting if you can't play with zero-g?it's like being in an underwater base where the moment you breach the walls everything goes to shit and back, except your underwater base gets to actually move and stay relevant in multiple contextsseems pretty straightforward to me
>>77711099>ThisThis ain't it chief.>>77710439>has never heard of centripetal forceMerely proving the point here.Hard sci fi forces individuals to work within the bounds of our reality, rather than give in to brainlet "unobtainium".
>>77704064and now I want Gothic Space Urchin Starships
>>77698931They fucking should! If they can make anti gravity plates for speeders and tanks they absolutely should be able to make it for ships.Reverse engineer it some every thing is pulled to it so the floor plate is what causes people to stay there or just stick a normal low power plate to the ceiling so everything is pushed down
>>77705439that explains all the ass slapping in the Imperium
>>77698931Am I going fucking insane? I keep seeing norf in that image.
>>77707343Maybe but it looks so inefficient.
>>77711138the towers you dip
>>77713280Oh fuck I see it too. >I feel Norf overtaking me, it is a good pain
>>77715047Could just be sensors. Or decoration.
>>77702086>If you've got your ships pulling maneuvers that would turn the crew to pasteDo the Imperium even have ships that pull maneuvers that would turn the crew to paste? Jumping into the warp to get places isn't going to affect their speed necessarily.
>>77698931Yes40k imperium isn't low tech so much as it is difficult to replace techThat famous drawing of slavs hauling shells into a cruiser's gun breech isn't what every ship looks like, it's more like this>damaged in combat 40 years ago destroyed one of the loading mechanisms but left the vessel otherwise combat worthy with quick patchwork>no time to sit in drydock for 3 years getting repaired, assuming they even had the parts needed to replace the massive loading mechanism on hand. There's constant ork raids in the sector to deal with after all, every fighting ship needs to be out fighting>so you press gang swathes of lower hive scum when you put into port as needed to brute force the gun into still workingThat's the 40k that fits. It's not retard levels of grimshit, it's 'things are fucked but it makes sense that they're fucked. It's not unreasonably retarded bullshit'
>>77704867>"candles on a spaceship" is THE thing that makes 40k coolI never played 40k but this shit is my jamand I think hard sci-fi realistic spaceships are only necessary if scientific accuracy matters to the story
>>77718314>40k isn't unreasonably retarded bullshit
>>77702048innovation is heresy
>>77701667hard sci fi is a meaningless gradient retards use to justify liking sci fi.
>>77719538>Hurr durr, fantasy is betterSilence, brainlet
>>77698931I like how 40k ships look but those broadside batteries are so dumb.
>>77718245Any sudden momentum shift is going to knock everyone down at the very least. You make a turn, and a handful of menials get dumped into the furnace. Your communications officer topples from their chair to a concussion. Once everything is built up to a constant, it'd be fine, but that build up would not always have the luxury of being gradual.
>>77708044Mars trilogy. Red, Blue, and Green. They put forth a plausible method of terraforming Mars, and apparently it's pretty well respected by the scientific community. Usually these sorts of things are written by scientists.
>>77700567 I'd worry about that in a more grounded setting but space travel in 40k is achieved by slinging yourself through hell so I'll give the gravity thing a pass.
>>77719598Are you aware of how real ships move? They aren't like cars you can floor when the light turns green. It is a slow and gradual push that changes its orbital path over hours or even over multiple orbits, especially when dealing with huge, complex, and fragile things like spaceship frames. Flooring would, or at least should, never happen outside of huge and unexpected emergencies like something poping up right in front of you, or evasive maneuvers in fire fights, in which case you probably can't move fast enough anyway. In either case, either everyone would already be braced for the fight or sirens would go off.
>>77720005I totally get that. I think that you're underestimating the forces involved in driving mass at thousands of miles an hour. That sort of shift in force, even spaced out over hours can have severely damaging effects. The sort of thing we're talking about with big ships at the moment is infinitesimal to the topic at hand. If we're talking about media, I really liked the way that Knight of Sidonia handled this. Even relatively minor course corrections were a tremendously dangerous undertaking.
>>77718314I always felt like the whole "thousands manually dragging building sized shells into a breech" was more internal universe hyperbole and that in universe there are so many force multipliers that a few strong guys could do it themselves if there wasn't an autoloader system
One thing 40k gets right is space fighters being 40-50m long. Basically the size of corvettes in other series. Tiny one man space fighters are one of the dumbest things in science fiction.
>>77719598>Any sudden momentum shiftDude, we're talking about large naval vessels in 40k, not the courier ships from Hyperion. You'll get all the sudden changes in velocity of fully loaded supertanker here. And no, that they're large don't really matter, pulling 9G won't be any easier on you in a 12 ton F-16 than it is in a 23 ton Su-27.>>77722086>I think that you're underestimating the forces involved in driving mass at thousands of miles an hour.Uncle Newton would like to remind you that simply maintaining a constant velocity out in space will take all of no force regardless of the mass or velocity.
>>77704043You're retarded. Play Children of a Dead Earth
>>77724457Mass means that it would take more force to stop or course correct.
>>77719641>Usually these sorts of things are written by scientists.If they're not, they'll have a bunch of scientists in the thanks page at the end of the book.
Artificial gravity in 40k is achieved through having 50 guys pull on you with ropes
>>77724457Not that anon, but why are we assuming newtonian physics in the first place? I'm not familiar with 40k apart from occasional /tg/ thread skimming, but it doesn't come off as a setting that gets their knickers in a twist about things like that. They just have cool space cathedrals that go brrr.
>>77727203They have newtonian physics.Battlefleet Gothic, a ship combat tabletop, even accounts for inertia.
>>77718245HIGH ENERGY TURN
Do you think Ork vessels have grav tech, or it's just that Orks don't know that they're not meant to have gravity in space?
>>77727917You see, the black color is heavy and the universe is black already, so the universe pushes you down on surfaces.
>>77702086This is why I do Sci-fi I prefer the insides of ships being flooded with oxygen transference fluid. A human who is immersed in liquid can handle Gs far higher than one in air. In a fighter or in a ship going into combat all the people head into fluid cash couches to be able to handle things. A ship that has to suddenly start moving like that is going to kill some amount of the crew.
>>77729522For reference, a liquid breathing fluid submerged human would be able to handle 50+ Gs. If they can't breath the fluid then they can handle 20-25 Gs.
>>77729522If you're going all in with muh realistic space combat, why retain the human element at all at that point? Manned fighters is science fantasy stuff.
>>77713280>the gravity just works, simple as.
>>77702086Are space manoeuvres even realistic? Most battles in space would make manoeuvres pointless. You would literally be two points in the dark sky several seconds lightyears away from each other. The time of engagement would also be short unless you deliberately rendezvous and expose your ship to the enemy.
One of the classic complaints against a lot of old shows is how both ships would just park and shoot at each other at short range. That image is mostly incorrect, though forgivable since spaceship engagement ranges are so big you could never see the ships fighting if portrayed realistically. However the parking part is partially accurate. Two ships approaching each other at interstellar speeds will only get one short pass with an engagement window that might be as short as milliseconds. They can’t loop around for another pass even if they have the fuel as at 1G of acceleration or deceleration, they’ll need a week for every percent of light speed they were traveling, to slow down and speed back up in the opposite direction.However the opposite case, a stern chase where one ship is slowly catching up on another, would actually seem like a stationary battle, especially out in deep space where nothing seems to be moving. Even at decently relativistic speeds the stars don’t go zipping past like in Star Trek, so you’d still need pretty precise equipment to even measure a shift to them over one day. In that case too we have to remember this is space, not sea or ground. Ships can flip over and even move around side to side or up and down while still carrying that forward inertia, so that to the two vessels involved in the chase it will just seem like both are mostly parked or just moving around to manoeuvre.
>>77730330But it is the range of things, even over and beyond what we saw in interplanetary warfare, that makes interstellar combat different. Let’s go back to that head-on attack example. Two ships moving toward each other at, say, 15% of light speed from their home systems, we’ll say Earth and Epsilon Eridani, about 10 light years apart. Either of them would take 70 years to cover that distance, but 35 years into things they’d run into each other halfway between with a combined speed of 30% of light. The distance between them is going to shrink by 100,000 kilometers a second. Now most modern ships and fighter jets weapons have an engagement range of less than 100 kilometers, especially for anything not guided, so if that was their window to shoot at each other they’d have exactly 2 milliseconds to shoot as they enter that window then exit on the other side. That’s about 1% of the time a typical human reaction takes place during, and a millisecond is so short it is below the human threshold to recognize. Add to that if the two survive that first pass, with human crews, and want to make another, they both need to slam on the break at 1 gee, and if they do, 15 weeks later they can re-engage for a second pass, which is a lot longer than the 15 or so seconds that it tends to take in a sci-fi space duel.Obviously, a human can’t handle much more than a G of acceleration for prolonged periods, and a human can’t handle millisecond engagements, but a computer can be built to do both. There are realistic limits on how much G-force any complex machine can handle, and it will depend on the weakest link in the ship, but even 10,000 Gs might be plausible. Suddenly a second pass doesn’t require 15 weeks, it requires 15 minutes, a ten-thousandth the time. Incidentally there’s just over 10,000 minutes in a week.
>>77698931>remagnet boots lmao
>>77730389Having said that, the amount of power required to generate a 10,000 G turn in a ship of any significant mass will be staggeringly impressive. And again, that would seem to be obvious, what a lot of folks say, that manned spaceships make no sense, and that we only even see it in fiction because stories not centered on humans are boring to many people to read or watch or play, so we stick crews on ships and pilots in fighter craft to give them a human face. But that’s something can be challenging a bit, at least for a larger vessel acting more like a carrier.Fighters, at least the classic single pilot variety manned by a regular human, are not realistically viable. There are a few things we can say with near certain confidence about interstellar warfare:>Direct engagements will be terribly fast and likely lethal to at least one if not both parties, >Overall battles and wars will be terribly slow>The energies involved will be terribly massive. Nobody aims for pyrrhic victories so those close direct engagements are likely to almost always involve at least one of the combatants only using expendable drones and munitions, while their major assets stay far further back and try attacks and maneuvers that are far less likely to succeed, but also far less likely to get them killed in the process. That’s the first rule of warfare after all, try not lose while winning: Pyrrhic Victories aren’t.
>>77730553Such direct engagements at speed also leave you no room to follow up if it doesn’t go according to plan, all assuming you even survived it. Just as an example, if we assumed some 100 kiloton space vessel from the examples we just looked at, something of a mass and size parallel to a modern aircraft carrier, and remembering that energy goes up with the square of speed, then that ship was carrying about 10^23 Joules of energy, about the amount of energy in all the sunlight hitting the whole planet of Earth over a weeks time. So the human crewed one needing 15 weeks to slow down will be turning on an engine at least powerful enough to light a whole continent while it slows down. Or alternatively, the energy release of shooting out several megaton-yield atomic bombs every second.There is no such thing as an unarmed spaceship, and this is certainly true of an interstellar one. When you think of a classic sci-fi manned starship unleashing an orbital bombardment, don’t think of it leveling a city, think more like it was using a machine gun on a planet with H-bombs as the bullets, and probably more realistically, it likely has several of those it regards as secondary weapons.This is something sci-fi author Larry Niven dubbed “The Kzinti Lesso n”, for a militant alien race called the Kzin in his Known Space series, or rather the lesson they learned, that “a reaction drive's efficiency as a weapon is in direct proportion to its efficiency as a drive.”, which can be re-stated in a more generalized and simplified form as “Whatever energy a ship has to move itself around represents the minimum destructive power it has available to it”. Meaning, if that ship in our example rammed Earth, it would hit with a force comparable to the asteroid that is assumed to have ended the dinosaurs, which had thousands of times the total explosive yield of every warhead in existence during the height of the Cold War.
>>77730665Now alternatively, the 10,000 G robot ship will be turning on an engine 10,000 times as powerful, able to light up thousands of planets simultaneously, releasing as much energy every second as our whole planetary economy uses in a year. That’s an important thing to consider too, because if you’re assuming folks have these kinds of energies to give a single ship, then try imagining what their actual economy and population look like. On those rare occasions science fiction remembers the kind of kinetic energy a spaceship has in terms of planetary destruction, it tends to forget the kind of fortifications a planet could build if it had access to a power source able to run one of those engines. This would not be dozens of defense satellites each carrying a big particle beam and dozens of atomic warheads, but potentially millions of titanic defense installations each able to obliterate virtually anything we’d normally think of as a spaceship in fiction.
>>77713280>'ate orcs.>'ate chaos>'ate xenos>Luv me emprah>Simple as.
Only K2 civilizations will ever bother with interstellar wars.
You have that acceleration issue and reaction time issue, but you could use transhumans instead of AI, and moreover you shouldn’t be engaging at hundred of kilometers but more likely at hundreds of millions of kilometers or further. And you probably aren’t engaging with one ship or hundreds of ships but possible hundreds of thousands of ships. You potentially have large capital ships too, each of which might have thousands or millions of little drones they deploy for the equivalent of fighter attacks and defense screens. Back on those capital ships though, standing off a potentially many millions or even billions of kilometers, in order to be able to dodge incoming directed energy fire moving at light speed, the real concern on maneuvering is fuel, far more than how fast they can maneuver is how much total delta-v they have for that. The further off you are the less delta-v you need to apply to make sure your ship isn’t where an enemy beam was aimed. It makes classically manned and large ships more plausible again because their constraint is still more about ensuring fuel conservation than how fast they can burn it. That said, the more G-force that ship can handle, either accelerating or turning, the closer it can be and dodge laser or particle beam fire as it randomly jinks around. Of course that’s assuming your ship is solid, it could be composed of lots of smaller bits acting more like cells or a liquid.
>>77731210At the end of the day, an AI or cyborg run ship is still the better option but the disadvantage is no longer as huge for a manned capital ship essentially acting as a carrier and command and control for a swarm of drones. Most likely you use lots of ships, big fleets, engaging over huge distances, slowly coordinating and maneuvering and inflicting some damage until one side realizes it’s odds of victory have dropped and peels off to retreat, rather than decisive engagements where both sides take huge casualties. In cases like that you wouldn’t really have Ships of the Line, our classic term for a line of capital ships engaging another fleet, but more like Ships of the Wall, a 2D screen, something David Weber uses in his Honorverse series, probably one of the best military sci-fi series for discussing sublight battles and how those might occur, though he’s got FTL in there and a type of shields.
>>77698931No, they don't. They can't even make enough artificial gravity generators to mass-produce landspeeders.
>>77731612Helicopters and ceiling fans are the same thing.
>>77704649>Nexus: The Jupiter IncidentThe sheer number of times I see this game brought up in the context of "hard sci-fi" space design is weird.
>>77700567who fucking cares?>>77701667this real space is boring and gayno nazi mega empires no cowboys shooting aliens in the dick and saving blue babes nothing but rocks and maybe bacteria
>>77731684It's reasonable when you consider the first hard scifi bit of the campaign in the Solar System, which is kind of misleading given the nature of the rest of the game.
>>77729522wouldn't you need fluid ports at the bottom of your lungs to let the fluid fill them completely and then drain away after maneuvers? otherwise you'd still have a hugely compressible chest sloshing around.
>>77729906manned fighters are so retarded in most settings toosince they are so powerfull you wonder why have battleships when space bombers can destroy one with ease
infantry fighting with no gravity doesn't happen in 40k because it can't be represented on the table
>>77727703They have Newtonian physics but they don't treat them nicely. Imperium ships move at significant fractions of C in realspace, with a non-combat speed of like .75c (confirmed in The Flight of The Eisenstein and Sabbat Martyr) and combat speeds of exceeding that (His Last Command). Almost any course change at those speeds would turn the crew to paste without antigrav/inertial dampeners, and a localized inertial dampener failure actually does in the latter.
>>77731612They do. Just because they've lost the ability to miniaturize it/construct small ones to use in landspeeders and jetbikes does not mean that they're completely without antigrav tech. Gravity plating is referenced a few times in the books to handwave the issue.>>77732367It could be done, but you'd need to abstract relative height distances with some form of counter, as well as keep track of an 'up' and 'down' in terms of where the infantry is going and why.>>77731684Nexus is called hard scifi for modeling the physics of ships as well as rotation and reaction thrusting. The designs in the early missions are also based on designs that modern engineers might consider practical for long-haul space missions, but as soon as the Angelwing is introduced most of that is out the window.
>>77732763Speed relative to what? And course change can harm you only through acceleration, not because ship had high speed relative to some point of reference.
>>77698999>Doesn't know the difference between perpendicular and parallel or which ways decks run on ships. Still calls others retard.
>>77718245The Rogue Trader core rulebook has one ship that can accelerate at 5.6g. That's not a turn them to paste acceleration.But consider that real life rocket launches only hit 3g, and require the crew to be healthy and in seats/clothing designed to help them handle that acceleration. Not standing or walking around like the crew of a WH40k vessel.Also, the WH40K ships keep their burn up for longer.
Ah yes, another thread arguing about inane semantics and deeming the opposing point of view irredeemable retards. Never change /tg/.Actually do. Please try to change for the better you spergs.
>>77730092>Are space manoeuvres even realistic?If you ever think of asking "Is x realistic ?" in relation to WH40K, the answer is almost always no. And any 'yes' is an accident on the writers part.
>>77698999>Man who either thinks there is air-ressistence in fucking and the lack of gravity would somehow help air resistance>...or belives you can't build towers under gravity>....calls others retarded.hmmm
Space combat in reality would be more like submarine combat than plane dogfights.
>>77732367There's no reason why you couldn't do something like attack vector tactical, but with dudes instead of ships.
>>77736231Except the subs have giant neon sign strapped on them that scream "I'M HERE". I'm not sure if you can call that submarine combat anymore. Obviously depends on setting and if it has space magic stealth or not.
>>77730389Ships in sci-fi never just fly between systems. You have hyperdrives and whatever for that. So in reality they move way slower, pretty much just as slow as modern space ships. Also most advanced settings would have tech allowing redirecting inertia.
>>77736231No definitely not. Speeds are way too different to compare.
The Expanse does space combat right. Even if PDCs should probably be replaced with lasers.
>>77705856I know the dude on the filename and know that he worked on the film, so I'd say it's very likely
>>77736178The decks would be at right angles to where they are pictured (So stacked like one big skyscraper with the engines at the bottom) if the ship was using thrust to generate gravity. They aren't, so the ship must be either in zero G or generating gravity from something else.
>>77735825Fuck, I never got the impression they were doing high g. The thrusters would be absolute monsters (Which to be fair is in keeping with 40k)
>>77733870Relative to the local star, which they're heading directly away from in one example. Seeing as they don't start their deceleration burn a literal week before orbit, they're pulling at least 38g's, and probably much more.
>>77735525Ah, it wasn't just me who picked up on that. Stupidly I thought I was the one misunderstanding it.