pushing thrusters

[FuzzyLogicBrain]

thrusters only create a force on the object its attached to, so, howzabout a check box in the thuster options, that pushes ther objects away from its behind, like wind.
[edit]did I include everyone? In the poll, that is? Plz post if you're not.

[electronicboy]

no air simulation?

[Gear97]

Is not this just like negative attraction but the only difference is that it is directional ?

[TC42]

Negative attraction could probably be made directional if you tried...

[FuzzyLogicBrain]

>:( *sigh* i dont want to try, its just a suggestion

[Someone Else]

I support.

Negative attraction can be made directional, but it isn't that good. You need to put positive attraction behind it.

You know, I could Thyme this. It would actually be a lot like some kind of gun, spawning a column of several armor-piercing bullets that auto-delete after some amount of time. That amount of time would be preset, simulating the bullets going some distance and deleting.

[Ravenplucker]

And maybe you could set the angle of the negative attraction? So everything within the resulting cone would be pushed away.

Support!

[FuzzyLogicBrain]

if you reversed the flow, as in make a vacuum where the red gradiency is, and where the arrow is pointing to is a kind of "leaf blower".

[Ivan]

I like this suggestion.
Support.

[Kilinich]

not support that thruster option but simple "wind" (just an air friction pre-velocity) will be cool.

[monstertje3]

i support pushing thrusters

[Gear97]

ok, I agree with Kilinich.

[Someone Else]

I support as a part of thrusters and/or as its own little thing.

[FuzzyLogicBrain]

I'm turning this into a poll.

[Someone Else]

I selected everything on your poll. After all, who wouldn't?

Also, I would support the ability to put any float into the attractionType box in the script menu.

The unit in the Material menu would show this: Nm^{attractionType}/kg^2

Thus, you could more closely simulate, say, atomic nuclei.

[FuzzyLogicBrain]

atomic nuclei? do you teach teens?

[TC42]

:wtf: atomic nuclei? do you teach teens?

No, he was just involved in my (epic-fail) collab.

[FuzzyLogicBrain]

Woooohhh! SHOW MEH!!!

[Someone Else]

Right here. This is entirely not an epic fail, in my opinion.

However, slightly less off-topic: My father is knowledgeable in many realms.

Slightly further on-topic: the Strong Force in simulation really wants an attraction falloff on the order of Nm^6/kg^2.

Entirely on-topic: I support all of the suggestions listed above the first post in this thread.

[FuzzyLogicBrain]

Tanks!

[Rrobba]

Wind or 'suck n' blow' would be good. Not sure how wind would handle performance-wise, though (if air pressure is used).

[Someone Else]

It would certainly lag massively if actual particles of air were simulated,
I now haz 1,000 posts! I feel like spazzing out because of it!
It would still lag massively if the approximate air pressure at each point was calculated (think Powder Game),
I now haz 1,000 posts! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!
However, it would not lag much at all if it was what Kilinich said: "air friction pre-velocity"
I now haz 1,000 posts! I really need to get a life!
Thus, I'm thinking that whatever produces the wind should produce an either conical or rectangular gradient behind it.
I now haz 1,000 posts! I really want to blow something up right now!
If anything overlaps this gradient, it will have a force applied to it at the center of mass of the overlap area and with a magnitude and direction related to the cross-sectional area, the velocity of the wind, and the various air friction coefficients.
I now haz 1,000 posts! Thanks to my new Explosive Testing Facility, I can!
Or, it they want, the developers could make it a ton more complicated and more realistic.
I now haz 1,000 posts! Color=#E8E8FF fo da WIN!!!
There is more to this post than meets the eye...
...because I now haz 1,000 posts! I shall proclaim this loud and clear!

[FuzzyLogicBrain]

It would certainly lag massively if actual particles of air were simulated,
I now haz 1,000 posts! I feel like spazzing out because of it!
It would still lag massively if the approximate air pressure at each point was calculated (think Powder Game),
I now haz 1,000 posts! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!
However, it would not lag much at all if it was what Kilinich said: "air friction pre-velocity"
I now haz 1,000 posts! I really need to get a life!
Thus, I'm thinking that whatever produces the wind should produce an either conical or rectangular gradient behind it.
I now haz 1,000 posts! I really want to blow something up right now!
If anything overlaps this gradient, it will have a force applied to it at the center of mass of the overlap area and with a magnitude and direction related to the cross-sectional area, the velocity of the wind, and the various air friction coefficients.
I now haz 1,000 posts! Thanks to my new Explosive Testing Facility, I can!
Or, it they want, the developers could make it a ton more complicated and more realistic.
I now haz 1,000 posts! Color=#E8E8FF fo da WIN!!!
There is more to this post than meets the eye...
...because I now haz 1,000 posts! I shall proclaim this loud and clear!

Dude stop spazzing! Gee! This is actually quite an advancement, and what if having an object behind it created an extra force on an un-glued object.
Plz re-vote thnku

[Someone Else]

So it was actually my one-thousand-and-oneth post... But anyway, I'm [mostly] done spazzing for the time being.

I suppose the realistic route would begin with a redefinition of "gradient".

This redefined gradient would look a block cut up into lots of smaller blocks (all glued to the background) by a grid of laser beams. However, most of the cuts will only exist for a short time.

One axis would perhaps be slightly spread out, radiating outward from the source, whether it be a thruster or not. These, initially, do not exist as an anti-lag measure. They would all converge at a common point, or, if the gradient is cylindrical, as opposed to conical, the beams in this axis would be parallel.
I will refer to the space between these beams as a column.

The other axis would consist of beams that are also parallel and initially nonexistant, but perpendicular to the first axis.
These will be concentric about whatever point the first axis converges upon.
I will refer to the space between these beams as a row.

Whenever this wind-vector-pixellated-gradient-thingy encounters a geom, it will treat that geom as a polygon.
It will chop off all the parts of this polygon that lie outside (on either side of, beyond, or in front of) the gradient.

For each windward side in the polygon, the gradient will do this:
It will create a row-beam and a column-beam passing through each endpoint.
It will measure the direction and apparent length of the polygon side in the column-frame.
--That is, how long the side looks to someone at the point of convergence of the column-beams.
--This will account for differing angles (so this distance will be shorter than the actual distance),
--and the fact that the column-beams are not parallel, so the result will be the length of a curve.
--Much more likely, however, the result will be a highly accurate linearization.
It will multiply this length by the average of the "density" of the gradient at the two row-beams, the relative speed of the wind, and the various local and global air friction constants.
It will apply a force to the center of the polygon-side with a magnitude proportional to the above product and with a direction that I don't know how to calculate.
All thus created beams will be purged from memory, except for those column-beams that lie on an extremity of the polygon- this allows for a "wind shadow" behind. The "density" of this shadow would be inversely proportional to the airFrictionMult of the polygon in question.

After all the polygons are dealt with, they are restored to their initial non-cut-up state, the forces are added up, and the simulation returns to normal. These sums may also be mangled yet again and re-applied to whatever produced the wind.