Approved Submission Baseline technology: Gravity maneuvering

I'm not sure "complexity" ever was the real issue. My thoughts here still apply. Right now, we have plenty of starships that either don't apply this particular series of technologies, make no mention of it or head off in different directions entirely.

I think this could be a handy guideline for future technology, but only as something nonbinding.

If that's agreeable to you, I can move forward with the review of this.

We have plenty of tech that already defines how gravity drives work. And to be honest, this article does not even address them.

Doshii Jun said:

I'm not sure "complexity" ever was the real issue. My thoughts here still apply. Right now, we have plenty of starships that either don't apply this particular series of technologies, make no mention of it or head off in different directions entirely.

I think this could be a handy guideline for future technology, but only as something nonbinding.

If that's agreeable to you, I can move forward with the review of this.

Click to expand...

That's pretty much the idea of it, as a loose guideline. Its not a hard set of rules but "there are lots of methods, here are some very common ones".

Nashoba said:

We have plenty of tech that already defines how gravity drives work. And to be honest, this article does not even address them.

Click to expand...

This isn't about how gravity drives do what they do, this is about WHAT they are used for.

Its like... This isn't how an engine works, this is how cars handle different corners, when they accelerate and how drivers use them in a race or why different maneuvers are made in flight with planes and how the energy bleed off translates. In my head, this method of bleeding speed using gravity differential like air over a wing has a velocity bleed much like aerial dogfighting does -- which would be a nice handwavium as for why we do actually have dogfights in our setting -- conventional engine systems can't maneuver at these speeds without crushing pilots so stuff like spacial differentials, pocket dimensions and bubbles are used that have that kind of "maneuver bleedoff" used in dogfighting. Its not even stated implicitly, just implied. Dogfighting in space is usually impossible but this is a really nice way of making it work very easily based on the tech we already have and the style of space combat roleplay with fighters and such.

If you can think of other "driving styles" or way in which these drives use space to achieve something, please share as this article is a growing and continued work.

Can you add a label note to the top expressing that it's a nonbinding guideline and provides only examples of how something could work?

Totally, absolutely. We should have a submission format for guidelines and we should have a list of them somewhere. I think we should also have something that says guidelines get updated periodically as the setting develops further. A suggestion, but for another time. I'll make those changes you asked for

Thanks kindly, Leigh. And a landing page, or a subheader on the wiki's landing page, would be quite nice. Even something for the NPG would be good.

Can you explain what you mean by landing page? Also, what's the NPG?

Landing page would be the page from where all of the guidelines are linked. "New Player's Guide."

I don't have write-access to the landing-page, Doshii.

Oh. Huh. @Wes, can you help us out? I'd like this guide to get linked somewhere people can use it.

As a result, an experienced starfighter-pilot benefits from either being a skilled navigator themselves or a co-pilot who also se

Click to expand...

Where is the rest of this paragraph?

You were banned, and at that point I moved all of your submissions into abandoned status. Notice that they have no "rejected" tag on them.

This applies to your other submissions. Do you want them restored? If so, I'll need to take it one-by-one, because you had a lot of submissions.

yep.

I see. That said, do you want these submissions restored for review?

yes

Unless anyone objects, I intend to approve this in 3 days.

That's good with me. As long as it still applies as a guideline and not a rule, we're good.

Its absolutely a guideline and not a rule. "Here is how we think it happens but there's a shit ton of other ways probably, this should give you a general idea of one way of doing things".