Space platform 'mass' instead of 'weight'

[EpicPuppy613]

TL;DR

Space platform 'weight' property should be renamed to 'mass'.

What?

The weight readout of space platforms should be renamed with mass. Additionally, any references to 'weight' in any sort of space/zero-gravity context should be replaced with 'mass'. No gameplay values need to be changed.

10-29-2024, 15-21-00.png (9.49 KiB) Viewed 1495 times

Why?

Mass is the scientifically accurate word when it comes to calculating thrust and force. Weight implies that there is a gravitational context (which doesn't exist in space). It's a minor change that just adds a bit more realism to the game.

[IsaacOscar]

Except that there is gravity in space! It's what causes your platform to be pulled to the nearest planet (at 10km/s) when it runs out of thrust. Unfortunately the rate you get pulled to the planet appears constant, and not dependent on mass, so it doesn't make sny physical sense anyway (see 122365 for more of a discussion about how the physics are all wrong).

Also, I'm curious how does the weight of a platform compare to the weight reported when sending the necessary materials up by rocket?

[jamiechi1]

I agree with the initial poster. It should be 'mass'.

[BraveCaperCat]

Weight implies that there is a gravitational context, which doesn't exist in space

Should be: "Weight implies that there is a gravitational context, which is (mostly, see orbital mechanics) negligible in space"

[IsaacOscar]

Should be: "Weight implies that there is a gravitational context, which is (mostly, see orbital mechanics) negligible in space"

Not negligible in Factorio space! The planets are ridiculously close together.

[BraveCaperCat]

Should be: "Weight implies that there is a gravitational context, which is (mostly, see orbital mechanics) negligible in space"

Not negligible in Factorio space! The planets are ridiculously close together*

*Subject to change.

[IsaacOscar]

Should be: "Weight implies that there is a gravitational context, which is (mostly, see orbital mechanics) negligible in space"

Not negligible in Factorio space! The planets are ridiculously close together*

*Subject to change.

Sorry for another comment, but I just realised that if the planets are cloee together, their gravity should mostly cancel out (whereas you get ±10km/s, even if you're equidistant from two planets) ... so I think the Factorio devs need a few physics lessons

[BraveCaperCat]

Should be: "Weight implies that there is a gravitational context, which is (mostly, see orbital mechanics) negligible in space"

Not negligible in Factorio space! The planets are ridiculously close together*

*Subject to change.

Sorry for another comment, but I just realised that if the planets are cloee together, their gravity should mostly cancel out (whereas you get ±10km/s, even if you're equidistant from two planets) ... so I think the Factorio devs need a few physics lessons

Yes, you're right - there are points near the bary-centre (weighted centre between two astronomical bodies) where gravity (between two bodies and an object at the bary-centre) is near 0, and that isn't taken into account in the space platform speed equation. Realistically, we'd want gravity (currently ±10km/s) to be purely dependent on distance between each body and their masses, instead of a constant(ish) term added to the equation.

[IsaacOscar]

Should be: "Weight implies that there is a gravitational context, which is (mostly, see orbital mechanics) negligible in space"

Not negligible in Factorio space! The planets are ridiculously close together*

*Subject to change.

Sorry for another comment, but I just realised that if the planets are cloee together, their gravity should mostly cancel out (whereas you get ±10km/s, even if you're equidistant from two planets) ... so I think the Factorio devs need a few physics lessons

Yes, you're right - there are points near the bary-centre (weighted centre between two astronomical bodies) where gravity (between two bodies and an object at the bary-centre) is near 0, and that isn't taken into account in the space platform speed equation. Realistically, we'd want gravity (currently ±10km/s) to be purely dependent on distance between each body and their masses, instead of a constant(ish) term added to the equation.

The Problem with realism is that it can allow you to have your platform stuck somewhere with no fuel and/or thrusters and no way to get back (e.g. because asteroids destroyed your thrusters, or you ran out of uranium fuel cells for your power)

So the 10km/s doesn't bother me, it's the weird dependance on the platforms width that ought to be changed.

[Khazul]

Sorry for another comment, but I just realised that if the planets are cloee together, their gravity should mostly cancel out (whereas you get ±10km/s, even if you're equidistant from two planets) ... so I think the Factorio devs need a few physics lessons

I get the impression this and some other related mechanics were added to foil casual attempts at accurate speed control without coming up with a way to do it that even NASA would be proud of .

[Khazul]

The Problem with realism is that it can allow you to have your platform stuck somewhere with no fuel and/or thrusters and no way to get back (e.g. because asteroids destroyed your thrusters, or you ran out of uranium fuel cells for your power)
So the 10km/s doesn't bother me, it's the weird dependance on the platforms width that ought to be changed.

Agreed.

So the 10km/s doesn't bother me, it's the weird dependance on the platforms width that ought to be changed.

Yes that is curious, but again I think it is a mechanic to encourage a certain shape of ship. There is a lot of wierdness in the platform/thruster and fuel/efficiency/thrust relationships that seems very intentional from observing it. I never played the space exploration mod so I dont know if it a hangover from another purpose in that or whether they have a maths guru on the team who was looking for an excuse to go nuts with it...