Forums of the Megaverse®

Well, I just got my copy of NG2 - and noticed a few things already out of the box. Thankfully the issue I saw in one of the Previews was corrected.

Pg. 22 - No XP Chart for Robo-Gladiator.

Recommendation: Use the Robot Pilot XP Chart from RUE

Pg. 74 - Running: 50 mph (80 mph) running at top speed.

Recommendation: Change the 80 mph to 80 kph

Pg. 102 - Market Cost: 1.3 credits for nuclear, 975,000 for Solid Oxide and
625,000 credits for electric.

It should be 1,300,000 credits for nuclear, 975,000 for Solid Oxide and 625,000 credits for electric.

Pg. 165 - 3. Wing Sponsons (1 per wing): Can hold four mini-missiles per wing; eight total.

It should be 2 per wing, if the artwork is to be considered accurate.

I'll update this list as I find them, or with more replies...

Tiree wrote:Well, I just got my copy of NG2 - and noticed a few things already out of the box. Thankfully the issue I saw in one of the Previews was corrected.

Pg. 165 - 3. Wing Sponsons (1 per wing): Can hold four mini-missiles per wing; eight total.

It should be 2 per wing, if the artwork is to be considered accurate.

I'll update this list as I find them, or with more replies...

Artwork is never considered to trump the written material, its the other way around. So the Art is the error not the stat.

eliakon wrote:

Tiree wrote:Well, I just got my copy of NG2 - and noticed a few things already out of the box. Thankfully the issue I saw in one of the Previews was corrected.

Pg. 165 - 3. Wing Sponsons (1 per wing): Can hold four mini-missiles per wing; eight total.

It should be 2 per wing, if the artwork is to be considered accurate.

I'll update this list as I find them, or with more replies...

Artwork is never considered to trump the written material, its the other way around. So the Art is the error not the stat.

Please refer to this thread: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=143445&start=100 and look up the conversation about the skycycle. Apparently text does get changed to art.

eliakon wrote:

Tiree wrote:Well, I just got my copy of NG2 - and noticed a few things already out of the box. Thankfully the issue I saw in one of the Previews was corrected.

Pg. 165 - 3. Wing Sponsons (1 per wing): Can hold four mini-missiles per wing; eight total.

It should be 2 per wing, if the artwork is to be considered accurate.

I'll update this list as I find them, or with more replies...

Artwork is never considered to trump the written material, its the other way around. So the Art is the error not the stat.

Yeah... that is actually not necessarily true. If so what would one have to say about artwork that was requested and designed without having any write-ups to go off of? This was done for parts of Lemuria, Vampires Revised, RIFTS NG1 & NG2, etc. Errors happen both ways, its just that simple.

mirwalk wrote:Nuclear version of the grease monkey power armor, should probably be 1.3 million credits and not 1.3 credits

1.3 credits ?

I would be a million of them, then sell them all for their actual price once NG realizes their mistake and announced the price adjustment.

NG-X44 both the Blue Boy and Demon Slayer use this common production code...

Ironwing lists a strike bonus for attacking with the wing blades but never lists the damage of the wing blades.

Okay - let's see if we can logically get the number...

This is the list presented in the books...


This is the list in alphabetical order


This is the list in Numerical Order...


As you can see there is no rhyme or reason to their naming convention. It looks like there were some, and then lost on another.

I have some assumptions based on the listing. I would probably rename nearly all of them to the following:

Here are the three basic Power Armor based on Mode
NG-X (Ground Based Power Armor)
NG-NX (Naval Power Armor)
NG-FX (Flying Power Armor)
NG-EX (Exoskeleton Power Armor)

Here are the Power Armor that has a specific function or Department
NG-XG (Gladiatorial Power Armor)
NG-XP (Police Power Armor)
NG-XF (Firefighter Power Armor)

There are two others that need to be represented with are the UELX and the MRU, so I left them alone. Because the numbers aren't sequential or were duplicated I made some additional changes other than the NG-X44 repeating.

NG-UX (Ultralight)
NG-MSUX (Mobile Support Unit)

I'm not really keen on these. Nor am I really keen on the idea that the Gladius is now a PA. But I am not really trying to reinvent the wheel, just modify it into something rational.



I did find it funny that the XP54 Enforcer was a Police Unit Armor (Car '54 Where are you) jab. I would have loved to see the Firefighter with the number 451.

Tiree wrote:Okay - let's see if we can logically get the number...

This is the list presented in the books...

Spoiler:

NG-X30 Aurora Blazer Power Armor
NG-NX12 Beach Stormer Power Armor
NG-X44 Blue Boy Power Armor
NG-AX15 Blue Hawk Power Armor
NG-X114 Cougar Power Armor
NG-X32 Coyote Power Armor
BM-JAPE II Defender Power Armor
NG-X11 Delilah/Del
NG-X44 Demon Slayer
NG-XP54 Enforcer Guardsman
NG-XF103 Firefighter
NG-X33 Forester
NG-EX10 Gladius
NG-MRU886 Grease Monkey
NG-XF17 Ironwing
NG-JK1 Juicer Killer
NG-X112 Lynx
NG-X39 Mantis
NG-MRU876 Med-Rec
NG-X16 Midas
NG-UELX45 Night Reaper
NG-GCCPA-03 Pit Fighter
NG-X67 Prophet
NG-X209 Protege
NG-X11F Red Hawk
NG-UELX42 Sabre
NG-X9 Samson Mk III
NG-X13 Samson Missileman
NG-NX14 Sea Demon
NG-UELX49 Silent Shadow
NG-X40 Storm Hammer
NG-DX-001 Thunder Hound

This is the list in alphabetical order

Spoiler:

BM-JAPE II Defender Power Armor
NG-AX15 Blue Hawk Power Armor
NG-DX-001 Thunder Hound
NG-EX10 Gladius
NG-GCCPA-03 Pit Fighter
NG-JK1 Juicer Killer
NG-MRU876 Med-Rec
NG-MRU886 Grease Monkey
NG-NX12 Beach Stormer Power Armor
NG-NX14 Sea Demon
NG-UELX42 Sabre
NG-UELX45 Night Reaper
NG-UELX49 Silent Shadow
NG-X11 Delilah/Del
NG-X112 Lynx
NG-X114 Cougar Power Armor
NG-X11F Red Hawk
NG-X13 Samson Missileman
NG-X16 Midas
NG-X209 Protege
NG-X30 Aurora Blazer Power Armor
NG-X32 Coyote Power Armor
NG-X33 Forester
NG-X39 Mantis
NG-X40 Storm Hammer
NG-X44 Blue Boy Power Armor
NG-X44 Demon Slayer
NG-X67 Prophet
NG-X9 Samson Mk III
NG-XF103 Firefighter
NG-XF17 Ironwing
NG-XP54 Enforcer Guardsman

This is the list in Numerical Order...

Spoiler:

NG-DX-001 Thunder Hound
NG-JK1 Juicer Killer
BM-JAPE II Defender Power Armor
NG-GCCPA-03 Pit Fighter
NG-X9 Samson Mk III
NG-EX10 Gladius
NG-X11 Delilah/Del
NG-X11F Red Hawk
NG-NX12 Beach Stormer Power Armor
NG-X13 Samson Missileman
NG-NX14 Sea Demon
NG-AX15 Blue Hawk Power Armor
NG-X16 Midas
NG-XF17 Ironwing
NG-X30 Aurora Blazer Power Armor
NG-X32 Coyote Power Armor
NG-X33 Forester
NG-X39 Mantis
NG-X40 Storm Hammer
NG-UELX42 Sabre
NG-X44 Blue Boy Power Armor
NG-X44 Demon Slayer
NG-UELX45 Night Reaper
NG-UELX49 Silent Shadow
NG-XP54 Enforcer Guardsman
NG-X67 Prophet
NG-XF103 Firefighter
NG-X112 Lynx
NG-X114 Cougar Power Armor
NG-X209 Protege
NG-MRU876 Med-Rec
NG-MRU886 Grease Monkey

As you can see there is no rhyme or reason to their naming convention. It looks like there were some, and then lost on another.

I have some assumptions based on the listing. I would probably rename nearly all of them to the following:

Here are the three basic Power Armor based on Mode
NG-X (Ground Based Power Armor)
NG-NX (Naval Power Armor)
NG-FX (Flying Power Armor)
NG-EX (Exoskeleton Power Armor)

Here are the Power Armor that has a specific function or Department
NG-XG (Gladiatorial Power Armor)
NG-XP (Police Power Armor)
NG-XF (Firefighter Power Armor)

There are two others that need to be represented with are the UELX and the MRU, so I left them alone. Because the numbers aren't sequential or were duplicated I made some additional changes other than the NG-X44 repeating.

NG-UX (Ultralight)
NG-MSUX (Mobile Support Unit)

I'm not really keen on these. Nor am I really keen on the idea that the Gladius is now a PA. But I am not really trying to reinvent the wheel, just modify it into something rational.

Spoiler:

NG-XG3 Pit Fighter
NG-X9 Samson Mk III
NG-EX10 Gladius
NG-FX11 Red Hawk
NG-NX12 Beach Stormer
NG-X13 Samson Missileman
NG-NX14 Sea Demon
NG-NX15 Blue Hawk
NG-X16 Midas
NG-FX17 Iron Wing
NG-X18 Delilah/Del
NG-X30 Aurora Blazer
NG-X32 Coyote
NG-X33 Forester
NG-X39 Mantis
NG-X40 Storm Hammer
NG-UX42 Sabre
NG-X43 Blue Boy
NG-X44 Demon Slayer
NG-UX45 Night Reaper
NG-UX49 Silent Shadow
NG-XP54 Enforcer Guardsman
NG-X67 Prophet
NG-XF103 Firefighter
NG-X112 Lynx
NG-X114 Cougar
NG-X209 Protégé
NG-MSU876 Med-Rec
NG-MSU886 Grease Monkey

Here is the same list represented alphabetically
NG-EX10 Gladius
NG-FX11 Red Hawk
NG-FX17 Iron Wing
NG-MSU876 Med-Rec
NG-MSU886 Grease Monkey
NG-NX12 Beach Stormer
NG-NX14 Sea Demon
NG-NX15 Blue Hawk
NG-UX42 Sabre
NG-UX45 Night Reaper
NG-UX49 Silent Shadow
NG-X112 Lynx
NG-X114 Cougar
NG-X13 Samson Missileman
NG-X16 Midas
NG-X18 Delilah/Del
NG-X209 Protégé
NG-X30 Aurora Blazer
NG-X32 Coyote
NG-X33 Forester
NG-X39 Mantis
NG-X40 Storm Hammer
NG-X43 Blue Boy
NG-X44 Demon Slayer
NG-X67 Prophet
NG-X9 Samson Mk III
NG-XF103 Firefighter
NG-XG3 Pit Fighter
NG-XP54 Enforcer Guardsman

I did find it funny that the XP54 Enforcer was a Police Unit Armor (Car '54 Where are you) jab. I would have loved to see the Firefighter with the number 457.

If thT is a reference to the Ray Bradbury story, it's 451 Fahrenheit, unless your saying 6 degrees more is better. If not then it shojld also be called the Bradbury. Only one issue, the fireman's job in that story was to set stuff (books) on fire, not put them out.

Zer0 Kay wrote:

Tiree wrote:I did find it funny that the XP54 Enforcer was a Police Unit Armor (Car '54 Where are you) jab. I would have loved to see the Firefighter with the number 457.

If thT is a reference to the Ray Bradbury story, it's 451 Fahrenheit, unless your saying 6 degrees more is better. If not then it shojld also be called the Bradbury. Only one issue, the fireman's job in that story was to set stuff (books) on fire, not put them out.

Thanks - it was definitely a typo

Errata on the firefighter power armor. It lists a weight of, IIRC, 480lbs with no water tank and 525lbs with a FULL 75 gallon water tank. I'll just assume the writer meant 525lbs with an EMPTY water tank. Since water, at least in the real world, weighs ~10lbs per gallon, that would be 750lbs of water, plus the weight of the tank. Figure maybe around 800lbs added to the weight of the power armor.

So unless in Rifts water is magicaly light weight....

Anyway, bit of a typo/not understanding reality.

Which does make it a walking behemoth compared to most power armor when loaded down. Personally I would have liked to have seen BIG penalties when carrying a full water tank, like half speed and jumping distance. Maybe double fatigue.

I think they should have called the Firefighter PA 'Hellfighter' too... *sigh*

Tiree wrote:I think they should have called the Firefighter PA 'Hellfighter' too... *sigh*

I also wanted that title for this PA, but I think(iirc) during a conversation it was already taken by another IP, not sure.

Hellfighter is a title of a movie by John Wayne. Basically the guys willing to stop oil well fires. There is of course the Harlem Hellfighters too...

I noticed that the Iron Wing PA talks about its blade wings, silver coated, a number of times. No damage is ever listed anywhere in the description or in the stats for it, though it does mention vibroblades from the arms that can extend and lists different damage for different speeds. The vibroblades are not mentioned in the description at all nor does it look like they are pictured.

So I am thinking those vibroblades might have maybe/supposed to of been the wing blades? I'd use them that way personally.

azazel1024 wrote:I noticed that the Iron Wing PA talks about its blade wings, silver coated, a number of times. No damage is ever listed anywhere in the description or in the stats for it, though it does mention vibroblades from the arms that can extend and lists different damage for different speeds. The vibroblades are not mentioned in the description at all nor does it look like they are pictured.

So I am thinking those vibroblades might have maybe/supposed to of been the wing blades? I'd use them that way personally.

WHAT a copy and paste issue from another armor armor with arm mounted vibro blades with the writer fixating on variable damage based on speed and forgetting to edit the rest? PB would never let that one slip. Never mind giving.ot special damages nased on speed even though PAs with arm mounted blades only have a simgle damage rating. Hmm, must be because if you run into something at speed with your arm held out it's going to pull your arm back which will give at joints allowing one to pass safely while hitting aomeone with a flight control aurface will or rather should cause loss of control unless the obkect being attacked is destroyed. How do they explain,., oh, yeah... FIREBALL!

azazel1024 wrote:I noticed that the Iron Wing PA talks about its blade wings, silver coated, a number of times. No damage is ever listed anywhere in the description or in the stats for it, though it does mention vibroblades from the arms that can extend and lists different damage for different speeds. The vibroblades are not mentioned in the description at all nor does it look like they are pictured.

So I am thinking those vibroblades might have maybe/supposed to of been the wing blades? I'd use them that way personally.

The Vibro-Blades are mentioned in the description: "Like the smaller Red Hawk, the Ironwing has Vibro-Blades that extend from housings in the forearms for fighting hand to hand."
I'd just give the forearm blades and the wings the same damage either way.

Giant2005 wrote:

azazel1024 wrote:I noticed that the Iron Wing PA talks about its blade wings, silver coated, a number of times. No damage is ever listed anywhere in the description or in the stats for it, though it does mention vibroblades from the arms that can extend and lists different damage for different speeds. The vibroblades are not mentioned in the description at all nor does it look like they are pictured.

So I am thinking those vibroblades might have maybe/supposed to of been the wing blades? I'd use them that way personally.

The Vibro-Blades are mentioned in the description: "Like the smaller Red Hawk, the Ironwing has Vibro-Blades that extend from housings in the forearms for fighting hand to hand."
I'd just give the forearm blades and the wings the same damage either way.

Dang it. I did not find that at all. I'll have to re-read the description, though I am positive that no damage was presented for the wing blades.

Now I can't remember which bike it is, the one with the pivoting thruster, in the stats is says that the user can do a tornado turn (or named something like that) by "applying the brakes WHILE pivoting on the thruster" or something like that.

First of all...brakes on a hover bike? I mean...I guess there could be air brakes, but no image or description of a hover bike has ever mentioned anything like that. There couldn't be physical brakes...because...yeah. I assume "braking" on a hover bike simply implied applying reverse thrust, which would be hard to do while pivoting on the thruster.

Ignoring the mechanics of that, it mentions you can do all of this to accomplish a turn in 2 seconds at ANY speed. The thing is rated at 205mph, which means simply slaming to a halt from max speed involves a little over 9G's of force. A full 180, which is what it sounds like it means would involve 18G. The former seems unlikely to be able to stay seated on the bike. The later seems unlikely to stay uninjured/concious even if you were belted in with a full harness.

I know Rifts isn't reality and often stretches the bounds...but that is just a wee....much. I mean, if it is capable of 18G of braking using just thrust or 18G of acceleration, 205mph seems awfully slow. Since acceleration tapers with velocity (as you are fighting air drag in this case, or rolling resistance, drive train losses and air drag in the case of a car), being able to accelerate at 18G even if only intially from full stop probably would indicate it would be likely to hit closer to Mach 4 or 5 if not faster.

At least if we are talking max speed, something more like 20 seconds sounds a little more probably for pulling a full 180 (1.8G).

azazel1024 wrote:Now I can't remember which bike it is, the one with the pivoting thruster, in the stats is says that the user can do a tornado turn (or named something like that) by "applying the brakes WHILE pivoting on the thruster" or something like that.

First of all...brakes on a hover bike? I mean...I guess there could be air brakes, but no image or description of a hover bike has ever mentioned anything like that. There couldn't be physical brakes...because...yeah. I assume "braking" on a hover bike simply implied applying reverse thrust, which would be hard to do while pivoting on the thruster.

Ignoring the mechanics of that, it mentions you can do all of this to accomplish a turn in 2 seconds at ANY speed. The thing is rated at 205mph, which means simply slaming to a halt from max speed involves a little over 9G's of force. A full 180, which is what it sounds like it means would involve 18G. The former seems unlikely to be able to stay seated on the bike. The later seems unlikely to stay uninjured/concious even if you were belted in with a full harness.

I know Rifts isn't reality and often stretches the bounds...but that is just a wee....much. I mean, if it is capable of 18G of braking using just thrust or 18G of acceleration, 205mph seems awfully slow. Since acceleration tapers with velocity (as you are fighting air drag in this case, or rolling resistance, drive train losses and air drag in the case of a car), being able to accelerate at 18G even if only intially from full stop probably would indicate it would be likely to hit closer to Mach 4 or 5 if not faster.

At least if we are talking max speed, something more like 20 seconds sounds a little more probably for pulling a full 180 (1.8G).

Well there are a couple points.

First by breaks I assume they mean something like the thrust reversers jet planes use. It is not technically a break but it is often called a break and when applied it does kill speed. It could also indicate that some of the thrusters are simply pivot to apply thrust in the opposite direction which would also be capable of breaking a hover cycle.

As for the force involved in the spin its not quite as bad as it would seem. The hover cycle is not in any direct contact with the ground so the actual turn if done at 205 MPH is basically a spin on its axis but the forward momentum is not coming to a dead stop during the spin and likely would happen after the spin was complete and you started accelerating the other direction which would still be pretty tough but not beyond reason. Heck I have seen people do similar moves on jet skis at high speeds which would probably be harder than a hover cycle as there is physical contact with the surface of the water adding more friction to deal with in the turn.

That well could be, but one normally doesn't "throw on the brakes" if you are simply spinning around. The text implies that the hover cycle is braking to a full stop, spinning and heading the other direction all within 2 seconds. It doesn't really imply that its simply spinning to face the opposite direction will still traveling along the same path.

The description of spinning around whilest still traveling in the same direction (and possibly then quickly reversing course (by quickly I mean over a couple of tens of seconds, not 2) sounds completely resonable, especially the way I imagine a hover cycle working. Actually pulling a 180 turn in 2 seconds isn't and it is what seems to be implied by the description.

azazel1024 wrote:That well could be, but one normally doesn't "throw on the brakes" if you are simply spinning around. The text implies that the hover cycle is braking to a full stop, spinning and heading the other direction all within 2 seconds. It doesn't really imply that its simply spinning to face the opposite direction will still traveling along the same path.

The description of spinning around whilest still traveling in the same direction (and possibly then quickly reversing course (by quickly I mean over a couple of tens of seconds, not 2) sounds completely resonable, especially the way I imagine a hover cycle working. Actually pulling a 180 turn in 2 seconds isn't and it is what seems to be implied by the description.

I think it is just a matter of order doing it you could break and then turn but in a hover vehicle there is no reason you cannot just spin it on the access then hit the accelerator going directly back the way you came so a 180 spin and back accelerating could pretty easily be done in a couple seconds without having any unmanagable g forces.

To some extent it is like a car sliding on a wet road. If you have ever had that misfortune like I have had even at highway speeds it is really erie how quiet it is when you spin 180 or even 360 when hydroplaning because there is no friction to deal with you basically are just rotating on your axis. The forces come once traction kicks in again or in a hoverbikes case the thrusters accelerating in a new direction.

the easiest way to visualize hover cycles is picture current day jetbikes used on water but with twice the power and suspended about 5-20 feet off the ground. Any manuver you see on a jetbike should be pretty easy to replicate on a hover cycle and at higher speed because you are not fighting waves/friction from the water. The downside though is because of the less friction your bike "getting away from you" would also be a lot easier to happen.

The biggest problem with something like the donut spin they are talking about is not the gforces its over spinning or under spinning. Once you start a spin like that without friction it would be really easy to lose control over it due to the lack of friction and wind up corkescrewing. Its all fun and games trying this manuver on a narrow street until you miss a pilot roll and wind up spinning 220 degrees instead of 180 degrees and wind up accelerating yourself into a building.

Agree on the 180 spin in principal. I guess my hang-up is, if you read the description, that does not seem to be what the author was attempting to convey at all. I read it as them trying to say you can effectively stop the bike, spin 180 and proceed in the opposite direction, from any speed, in 2 seconds flat.

Personally I'd view it as just spinning 180 and accelerating in the opposite direction while your vector continues on its original path (unless you slow to a stop and then actually begin going the opposite direction).

One other sorta/semi issue in NG2...description of hover bikes not being able to travel over water. I know most are pretty low level, but in reality, you lose ground effect on ANYTHING once you get more than just a couple of feet off the ground. So even a basic hover bike which can hover up to around 30ft or so shouldn't be in ground effect mode above a foot or two, so being over land or water shouldn't matter at all.

Of course that also comes back to the issue that it really shouldn't matter if you are at 30ft or 3,000ft. Altitude shouldn't really matter on a hover bike if it can be more than just a couple of feet off the ground until you start talking REALLY high (tens of thousands of feet. Then its an issue with lift from the hover jets as the air gets thinner...but there is no effective difference between 10ft and 1,000ft).

PS I don't really have an issue with the way hover bikes are portrayed as being altitude limited. It makes things more fun and interesting in the game...but the sinking if "driven" over water more than 5-6ft deep doesn't make any kind of sense. Besides, you can use ground effect off of water, you just have to maintain relatively low pressure. Just look at a real life hovercraft. They can drive over water all the time. There does come a point where if you load one up it would sink on water, where as on land it would be stable...but in general you are talking levels of loading that no hovercraft can support anyway as you'd need to have enough weight to counteract the upward bouyance of the volume of the entire plenum chamber.

In the case of a hover bike which has no plenum chamber, you are still talking about needing to displace enough water to be equivelent to the volume of the ground effect space being generated by the life engines. Water weighs a LOT based on volume. We are talking 1m^3 of water is 1,000kg or a metric ton. Just out on a limb here, but I am thinking we are talking more than a m^3 of volume in the ground effect area. At worst what would probably happen if you drove over deep water in a hypothetical Rifts' hoverbike is you'd see it dip down a few inches or a foot or so and see it blasting water out from a small depression in the water. E.G. picture a helicopter hovering very low over the water, now substitute hover bike for helicopter.

azazel1024 wrote:Agree on the 180 spin in principal. I guess my hang-up is, if you read the description, that does not seem to be what the author was attempting to convey at all. I read it as them trying to say you can effectively stop the bike, spin 180 and proceed in the opposite direction, from any speed, in 2 seconds flat.

Personally I'd view it as just spinning 180 and accelerating in the opposite direction while your vector continues on its original path (unless you slow to a stop and then actually begin going the opposite direction).

One other sorta/semi issue in NG2...description of hover bikes not being able to travel over water. I know most are pretty low level, but in reality, you lose ground effect on ANYTHING once you get more than just a couple of feet off the ground. So even a basic hover bike which can hover up to around 30ft or so shouldn't be in ground effect mode above a foot or two, so being over land or water shouldn't matter at all.

Of course that also comes back to the issue that it really shouldn't matter if you are at 30ft or 3,000ft. Altitude shouldn't really matter on a hover bike if it can be more than just a couple of feet off the ground until you start talking REALLY high (tens of thousands of feet. Then its an issue with lift from the hover jets as the air gets thinner...but there is no effective difference between 10ft and 1,000ft).

PS I don't really have an issue with the way hover bikes are portrayed as being altitude limited. It makes things more fun and interesting in the game...but the sinking if "driven" over water more than 5-6ft deep doesn't make any kind of sense. Besides, you can use ground effect off of water, you just have to maintain relatively low pressure. Just look at a real life hovercraft. They can drive over water all the time. There does come a point where if you load one up it would sink on water, where as on land it would be stable...but in general you are talking levels of loading that no hovercraft can support anyway as you'd need to have enough weight to counteract the upward bouyance of the volume of the entire plenum chamber.

In the case of a hover bike which has no plenum chamber, you are still talking about needing to displace enough water to be equivelent to the volume of the ground effect space being generated by the life engines. Water weighs a LOT based on volume. We are talking 1m^3 of water is 1,000kg or a metric ton. Just out on a limb here, but I am thinking we are talking more than a m^3 of volume in the ground effect area. At worst what would probably happen if you drove over deep water in a hypothetical Rifts' hoverbike is you'd see it dip down a few inches or a foot or so and see it blasting water out from a small depression in the water. E.G. picture a helicopter hovering very low over the water, now substitute hover bike for helicopter.

I actually would prefer something like the scene in back to the future where the cheap "kiddy" hoverboard looses traction over water, OR there was a scene in one of the hammers slammers novels where the all up hovertanks couldn't travel over a river more than a few feet deep because what would happen is that while the tank would keep operating, it would blow so much water out of the way attempting to lift itself, that it would effectively dig a hole in the water, and then if it was too deep the water would flow back in over the top of the tank, but we are talking tanks ~20-30 ft long and weighing in the neighborhood of 100 tons or more

guardiandashi wrote:

azazel1024 wrote:Agree on the 180 spin in principal. I guess my hang-up is, if you read the description, that does not seem to be what the author was attempting to convey at all. I read it as them trying to say you can effectively stop the bike, spin 180 and proceed in the opposite direction, from any speed, in 2 seconds flat.

Personally I'd view it as just spinning 180 and accelerating in the opposite direction while your vector continues on its original path (unless you slow to a stop and then actually begin going the opposite direction).

One other sorta/semi issue in NG2...description of hover bikes not being able to travel over water. I know most are pretty low level, but in reality, you lose ground effect on ANYTHING once you get more than just a couple of feet off the ground. So even a basic hover bike which can hover up to around 30ft or so shouldn't be in ground effect mode above a foot or two, so being over land or water shouldn't matter at all.

Of course that also comes back to the issue that it really shouldn't matter if you are at 30ft or 3,000ft. Altitude shouldn't really matter on a hover bike if it can be more than just a couple of feet off the ground until you start talking REALLY high (tens of thousands of feet. Then its an issue with lift from the hover jets as the air gets thinner...but there is no effective difference between 10ft and 1,000ft).

PS I don't really have an issue with the way hover bikes are portrayed as being altitude limited. It makes things more fun and interesting in the game...but the sinking if "driven" over water more than 5-6ft deep doesn't make any kind of sense. Besides, you can use ground effect off of water, you just have to maintain relatively low pressure. Just look at a real life hovercraft. They can drive over water all the time. There does come a point where if you load one up it would sink on water, where as on land it would be stable...but in general you are talking levels of loading that no hovercraft can support anyway as you'd need to have enough weight to counteract the upward bouyance of the volume of the entire plenum chamber.

In the case of a hover bike which has no plenum chamber, you are still talking about needing to displace enough water to be equivelent to the volume of the ground effect space being generated by the life engines. Water weighs a LOT based on volume. We are talking 1m^3 of water is 1,000kg or a metric ton. Just out on a limb here, but I am thinking we are talking more than a m^3 of volume in the ground effect area. At worst what would probably happen if you drove over deep water in a hypothetical Rifts' hoverbike is you'd see it dip down a few inches or a foot or so and see it blasting water out from a small depression in the water. E.G. picture a helicopter hovering very low over the water, now substitute hover bike for helicopter.

I actually would prefer something like the scene in back to the future where the cheap "kiddy" hoverboard looses traction over water, OR there was a scene in one of the hammers slammers novels where the all up hovertanks couldn't travel over a river more than a few feet deep because what would happen is that while the tank would keep operating, it would blow so much water out of the way attempting to lift itself, that it would effectively dig a hole in the water, and then if it was too deep the water would flow back in over the top of the tank, but we are talking tanks ~20-30 ft long and weighing in the neighborhood of 100 tons or more

Although a larger vehicle like a hover tank may actually have an easier time of it than a hover cycle even though it is heavier. Hovercycles being small objects with small surface areas of thrust would likely run into troubles before a larger wider vehicle would. It really could go either way so I don't have any problem with their call on it. There are enough hover cycles with high enough flight ceilings that could go over water and even one submersible hover cycle so if somebody really wants to do some sailing on their hover cycle there are options that allow it.

As a side note if I could own any one of the hover cycles in real life I would want the wavecutter. A hover cycle that can fly overland at 100 MPH in a nice enclosed cockpit that is also capable of 1000 foot submersible capability would be INSANE amounts of fun.

Noticed a small typo in the Cougar's speed

azazel1024 wrote:Agree on the 180 spin in principal. I guess my hang-up is, if you read the description, that does not seem to be what the author was attempting to convey at all. I read it as them trying to say you can effectively stop the bike, spin 180 and proceed in the opposite direction, from any speed, in 2 seconds flat.

Personally I'd view it as just spinning 180 and accelerating in the opposite direction while your vector continues on its original path (unless you slow to a stop and then actually begin going the opposite direction).

One other sorta/semi issue in NG2...description of hover bikes not being able to travel over water. I know most are pretty low level, but in reality, you lose ground effect on ANYTHING once you get more than just a couple of feet off the ground. So even a basic hover bike which can hover up to around 30ft or so shouldn't be in ground effect mode above a foot or two, so being over land or water shouldn't matter at all.

Of course that also comes back to the issue that it really shouldn't matter if you are at 30ft or 3,000ft. Altitude shouldn't really matter on a hover bike if it can be more than just a couple of feet off the ground until you start talking REALLY high (tens of thousands of feet. Then its an issue with lift from the hover jets as the air gets thinner...but there is no effective difference between 10ft and 1,000ft).

PS I don't really have an issue with the way hover bikes are portrayed as being altitude limited. It makes things more fun and interesting in the game...but the sinking if "driven" over water more than 5-6ft deep doesn't make any kind of sense. Besides, you can use ground effect off of water, you just have to maintain relatively low pressure. Just look at a real life hovercraft. They can drive over water all the time. There does come a point where if you load one up it would sink on water, where as on land it would be stable...but in general you are talking levels of loading that no hovercraft can support anyway as you'd need to have enough weight to counteract the upward bouyance of the volume of the entire plenum chamber.

In the case of a hover bike which has no plenum chamber, you are still talking about needing to displace enough water to be equivelent to the volume of the ground effect space being generated by the life engines. Water weighs a LOT based on volume. We are talking 1m^3 of water is 1,000kg or a metric ton. Just out on a limb here, but I am thinking we are talking more than a m^3 of volume in the ground effect area. At worst what would probably happen if you drove over deep water in a hypothetical Rifts' hoverbike is you'd see it dip down a few inches or a foot or so and see it blasting water out from a small depression in the water. E.G. picture a helicopter hovering very low over the water, now substitute hover bike for helicopter.

Helicopter uses minimal GE if any. The spinning of the prop generates lift. So the water that does get moved about is essentially from the same turbulance as prop wash. A hover bikes displacement would be much deeper.

Thank you though, because I was trying to figure out why hover vehicles can't go over water and you mentioning the helicopter made me think lift. So the water would actually look like a harrier with vectoring thrust downwards.

This also means that without enough power the AVs that NG makes and any other vectored thrust vehicles can't go over water. Anything that can just barely maintain altitude a couple feet off the deck probably couldn't go over water... Without sinking.

That is correct although if the vectored thrust vehicle is powerful enough to actually fly then it could cross over water without an issue but most of the "hover vehicles" are not effective over deep water unless stated otherwise in the description.

Pg. 214 Mountaineer ATV - Cost "850,000 million credits for nuclear, ...."

Wow, this had better be the worlds best friggin' ride EVER!!!!

azazel1024 wrote:Now I can't remember which bike it is, the one with the pivoting thruster, in the stats is says that the user can do a tornado turn (or named something like that) by "applying the brakes WHILE pivoting on the thruster" or something like that.

First of all...brakes on a hover bike? I mean...I guess there could be air brakes, but no image or description of a hover bike has ever mentioned anything like that. There couldn't be physical brakes...because...yeah. I assume "braking" on a hover bike simply implied applying reverse thrust, which would be hard to do while pivoting on the thruster.

Ignoring the mechanics of that, it mentions you can do all of this to accomplish a turn in 2 seconds at ANY speed. The thing is rated at 205mph, which means simply slaming to a halt from max speed involves a little over 9G's of force. A full 180, which is what it sounds like it means would involve 18G. The former seems unlikely to be able to stay seated on the bike. The later seems unlikely to stay uninjured/concious even if you were belted in with a full harness.

I know Rifts isn't reality and often stretches the bounds...but that is just a wee....much. I mean, if it is capable of 18G of braking using just thrust or 18G of acceleration, 205mph seems awfully slow. Since acceleration tapers with velocity (as you are fighting air drag in this case, or rolling resistance, drive train losses and air drag in the case of a car), being able to accelerate at 18G even if only intially from full stop probably would indicate it would be likely to hit closer to Mach 4 or 5 if not faster.

At least if we are talking max speed, something more like 20 seconds sounds a little more probably for pulling a full 180 (1.8G).

I haven't read the text myself, (should have the book by next week) but from what you have said. It sound like they are talking about drifting a hover cycle.

kaid wrote:That is correct although if the vectored thrust vehicle is powerful enough to actually fly then it could cross over water without an issue but most of the "hover vehicles" are not effective over deep water unless stated otherwise in the description.

That is one thing I never got was why they can't cross water. With the speeds that they are capable of going they should be able to skip across. Like you can do with snowmobiles. Even with somewhat larger craft it could be possible.
Something Like this.
http://www.snowmobile.com/blog/2010/06/ ... video.html

Pg. 14 lists the weight classes in the Robodome.
It states that Glitter Boys and the Ulti-Max are always entered into Middle or Heavyweight competitions.

Pg. 23 Gerhardt "the Falcon" Fulcon is the Lightweight Champion with his Triax Ulti-Max?

Who did he pay off to get this one in?
I guess the 280lb Cruiser Weight champion is a bit hard to believe.
Apparently, TNA's Samoa Joe as X-division champ isn't too far fetched either.

rem1093 wrote:

azazel1024 wrote:Now I can't remember which bike it is, the one with the pivoting thruster, in the stats is says that the user can do a tornado turn (or named something like that) by "applying the brakes WHILE pivoting on the thruster" or something like that.

First of all...brakes on a hover bike? I mean...I guess there could be air brakes, but no image or description of a hover bike has ever mentioned anything like that. There couldn't be physical brakes...because...yeah. I assume "braking" on a hover bike simply implied applying reverse thrust, which would be hard to do while pivoting on the thruster.

Ignoring the mechanics of that, it mentions you can do all of this to accomplish a turn in 2 seconds at ANY speed. The thing is rated at 205mph, which means simply slaming to a halt from max speed involves a little over 9G's of force. A full 180, which is what it sounds like it means would involve 18G. The former seems unlikely to be able to stay seated on the bike. The later seems unlikely to stay uninjured/concious even if you were belted in with a full harness.

I know Rifts isn't reality and often stretches the bounds...but that is just a wee....much. I mean, if it is capable of 18G of braking using just thrust or 18G of acceleration, 205mph seems awfully slow. Since acceleration tapers with velocity (as you are fighting air drag in this case, or rolling resistance, drive train losses and air drag in the case of a car), being able to accelerate at 18G even if only intially from full stop probably would indicate it would be likely to hit closer to Mach 4 or 5 if not faster.

At least if we are talking max speed, something more like 20 seconds sounds a little more probably for pulling a full 180 (1.8G).

I haven't read the text myself, (should have the book by next week) but from what you have said. It sound like they are talking about drifting a hover cycle.

kaid wrote:That is correct although if the vectored thrust vehicle is powerful enough to actually fly then it could cross over water without an issue but most of the "hover vehicles" are not effective over deep water unless stated otherwise in the description.

That is one thing I never got was why they can't cross water. With the speeds that they are capable of going they should be able to skip across. Like you can do with snowmobiles. Even with somewhat larger craft it could be possible.
Something Like this.
http://www.snowmobile.com/blog/2010/06/ ... video.html

They probably could if they had enough velocity going at it but like the snowmobiles they can only do it for a very limited period of time and if you lose speed at all you sink like a rock.