EVE-Search ForumWatch http://eve-search.com/ The alternative EVE-Online Forum browser. en-us Tue, 6 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0000 EVE-Search RSS Module v1.1 chribba@evemail <![CDATA[another transverse velocity thread (might be usefull though ;) ) - by Kusotarre]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=116488&page=1#17 Quote:
These 2 combined result in the transverse velocity, 0.09967 * 100 = 99.67m/, though this looks like it just is what we started out with that is not 100% correct, the first value assumes a linear velocity while transverse is rotational velocity.

Uh....

.09967 x 100 is 9.967, not 99.67.
]]> Wed, 20 Oct 2009 17:43:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/1385230 <![CDATA[another transverse velocity thread (might be usefull though ;) ) - by Kusotarre]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=116488&page=1#17 Quote:
These 2 combined result in the transverse velocity, 0.09967 * 100 = 99.67m/, though this looks like it just is what we started out with that is not 100% correct, the first value assumes a linear velocity while transverse is rotational velocity.

Uh....

.09967 x 100 is 9.967, not 99.67.
]]> Wed, 20 Oct 2009 17:43:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/1385231 <![CDATA[another transverse velocity thread (might be usefull though ;) ) - by In'q]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=116488&page=1#16 \

on another note, i find it quite simple to figure out if i can hit something: i shoot at it, if i hit then yay, if i dont hit then i move away or web it Very Happy
]]> Wed, 20 Oct 2009 07:55:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/1078340 <![CDATA[another transverse velocity thread (might be usefull though ;) ) - by In'q]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=116488&page=1#16 \

on another note, i find it quite simple to figure out if i can hit something: i shoot at it, if i hit then yay, if i dont hit then i move away or web it Very Happy
]]> Wed, 20 Oct 2009 07:55:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/1078363 <![CDATA[another transverse velocity thread (might be usefull though ;) ) - by ElCoCo]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=116488&page=1#15

Even if it did work as it should, there is still a substantial ammount of "luck" involved when calculating hits... (especialy noticeable when shooting stationary targets) Evil or Very Mad

I never liked the luck factor being part of a game Rolling Eyes
]]> Wed, 20 Oct 2009 07:29:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/708270 <![CDATA[another transverse velocity thread (might be usefull though ;) ) - by ElCoCo]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=116488&page=1#15

Even if it did work as it should, there is still a substantial ammount of "luck" involved when calculating hits... (especialy noticeable when shooting stationary targets) Evil or Very Mad

I never liked the luck factor being part of a game Rolling Eyes
]]> Wed, 20 Oct 2009 07:29:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/708271 <![CDATA[another transverse velocity thread (might be usefull though ;) ) - by Azzk]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=116488&page=1#14 Originally by: Reatu Krentor
Edited by: Reatu Krentor on 16/10/2004 16:07:47
Edited by: Reatu Krentor on 16/10/2004 16:03:45
Originally by: Azzk

P.S. In English, there are two ways (that I know of) to denote the opposite (or inverse) operation of a trigonometric function. There is the universal inverse symbol -1 as in sin-1(0.707)=pi/4. This is read "inverse sine." Its a little bit confusing because the multiplicative inverse of sine (sin(theta))-1 is something else (cosecant(theta) to be exact).

The other way is a little more clear to me. The inverse operation of sin(x) is arcsin(x) or asin(x), both are read "arc sine of x." So, to use them in an equation, arcsin(0) = 0 and asin(1)=pi/2. Cosine, tangent, secant, cosecant, cotangent, cosh, sinh, and tanh all follow this convention.

thanks for clearing that up Smile.

Well angular velocity is the angle(or rotation rate) the object(the ship) travels around the orbits center(the secure can). When like you suggest take v/r you still have a linear velocity and not an angle (at least thats what my brain tells me Wink) iow the unit is still m/s and not rad/s (or /s), this is where the arctangent comes into play, it converts the unit from m/s to rad/s(or /s). Of course as you can see the result in this case is very similar but take an orbit of 100m at a speed of 100m/s, this would come to 1m/s in your method but to 0.7854 (pi/4) rad/s (or 45/s) which is a bigger difference. but 1m/s is not angular velocity and 0.7854 rad/s is.

(edit: i think this is what you were looking for azzk http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=88688)


Yeah, thats the thread I was looking at, thanks.

Theres a way to tell on paper what kind of units something will have. Take for example linear velocity. Its distance over time, v = d/t. What kind of units does it have? Units given as distance divided by time, that is meters/second.

Lets look at angular velocity, denoted as omega, now. It is a linear velocity, v, divided by the radius of the circle proscribed by the object's motion, r. Thus omega = v/r. When we put the units in there, it becomes omega = (m/s)/m. Note that there are length (meter) units in both the numerator and the denominator. Thus, they cancel leaving us with omega = 1/s. Turns out thats radians per second (radians aren't truly units per say, but a way of relating the length of a circular arc to the arc's radius and angle. )

So, in short, the omega = v/r equation gives rad/s. So don't use the trig function. In fact, trig function don't change the units of anything, they take an angle (which is unitless) and give the ratio of the sides of a triangle, distance divided by distance and so give unitless answers. Inverse trig functions do the opposite --shocker. They take a unitless ratio and output an angle. (Which is why what you were doing made some sense, but you can't feed them length units.)

Cancelling units is one of the things they drill into engineers... always check them units! I worry CCP may not have.

Anybody's head a 'splode yet?

--azzk
]]> Tue, 19 Oct 2009 15:31:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/190806 <![CDATA[another transverse velocity thread (might be usefull though ;) ) - by Azzk]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=116488&page=1#14 Originally by: Reatu Krentor
Edited by: Reatu Krentor on 16/10/2004 16:07:47
Edited by: Reatu Krentor on 16/10/2004 16:03:45
Originally by: Azzk

P.S. In English, there are two ways (that I know of) to denote the opposite (or inverse) operation of a trigonometric function. There is the universal inverse symbol -1 as in sin-1(0.707)=pi/4. This is read "inverse sine." Its a little bit confusing because the multiplicative inverse of sine (sin(theta))-1 is something else (cosecant(theta) to be exact).

The other way is a little more clear to me. The inverse operation of sin(x) is arcsin(x) or asin(x), both are read "arc sine of x." So, to use them in an equation, arcsin(0) = 0 and asin(1)=pi/2. Cosine, tangent, secant, cosecant, cotangent, cosh, sinh, and tanh all follow this convention.

thanks for clearing that up Smile.

Well angular velocity is the angle(or rotation rate) the object(the ship) travels around the orbits center(the secure can). When like you suggest take v/r you still have a linear velocity and not an angle (at least thats what my brain tells me Wink) iow the unit is still m/s and not rad/s (or /s), this is where the arctangent comes into play, it converts the unit from m/s to rad/s(or /s). Of course as you can see the result in this case is very similar but take an orbit of 100m at a speed of 100m/s, this would come to 1m/s in your method but to 0.7854 (pi/4) rad/s (or 45/s) which is a bigger difference. but 1m/s is not angular velocity and 0.7854 rad/s is.

(edit: i think this is what you were looking for azzk http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=88688)


Yeah, thats the thread I was looking at, thanks.

Theres a way to tell on paper what kind of units something will have. Take for example linear velocity. Its distance over time, v = d/t. What kind of units does it have? Units given as distance divided by time, that is meters/second.

Lets look at angular velocity, denoted as omega, now. It is a linear velocity, v, divided by the radius of the circle proscribed by the object's motion, r. Thus omega = v/r. When we put the units in there, it becomes omega = (m/s)/m. Note that there are length (meter) units in both the numerator and the denominator. Thus, they cancel leaving us with omega = 1/s. Turns out thats radians per second (radians aren't truly units per say, but a way of relating the length of a circular arc to the arc's radius and angle. )

So, in short, the omega = v/r equation gives rad/s. So don't use the trig function. In fact, trig function don't change the units of anything, they take an angle (which is unitless) and give the ratio of the sides of a triangle, distance divided by distance and so give unitless answers. Inverse trig functions do the opposite --shocker. They take a unitless ratio and output an angle. (Which is why what you were doing made some sense, but you can't feed them length units.)

Cancelling units is one of the things they drill into engineers... always check them units! I worry CCP may not have.

Anybody's head a 'splode yet?

--azzk
]]> Tue, 19 Oct 2009 15:31:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/190807 <![CDATA[another transverse velocity thread (might be usefull though ;) ) - by Reatu Krentor]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=116488&page=1#13 Edited by: Reatu Krentor on 16/10/2004 16:07:47
Edited by: Reatu Krentor on 16/10/2004 16:03:45
Originally by: Azzk

P.S. In English, there are two ways (that I know of) to denote the opposite (or inverse) operation of a trigonometric function. There is the universal inverse symbol -1 as in sin-1(0.707)=pi/4. This is read "inverse sine." Its a little bit confusing because the multiplicative inverse of sine (sin(theta))-1 is something else (cosecant(theta) to be exact).

The other way is a little more clear to me. The inverse operation of sin(x) is arcsin(x) or asin(x), both are read "arc sine of x." So, to use them in an equation, arcsin(0) = 0 and asin(1)=pi/2. Cosine, tangent, secant, cosecant, cotangent, cosh, sinh, and tanh all follow this convention.

thanks for clearing that up Smile.

Well angular velocity is the angle(or rotation rate) the object(the ship) travels around the orbits center(the secure can). When like you suggest take v/r you still have a linear velocity and not an angle (at least thats what my brain tells me Wink) iow the unit is still m/s and not rad/s (or /s), this is where the arctangent comes into play, it converts the unit from m/s to rad/s(or /s). Of course as you can see the result in this case is very similar but take an orbit of 100m at a speed of 100m/s, this would come to 1m/s in your method but to 0.7854 (pi/4) rad/s (or 45/s) which is a bigger difference. but 1m/s is not angular velocity and 0.7854 rad/s is.

(edit: i think this is what you were looking for azzk http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=88688)
------------------------------------------
The ammatar are not the enemy, they are the smoke and mirrors of the amarr.]]> Sat, 16 Oct 2009 15:58:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/1990557 <![CDATA[another transverse velocity thread (might be usefull though ;) ) - by Reatu Krentor]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=116488&page=1#13 Edited by: Reatu Krentor on 16/10/2004 16:07:47
Edited by: Reatu Krentor on 16/10/2004 16:03:45
Originally by: Azzk

P.S. In English, there are two ways (that I know of) to denote the opposite (or inverse) operation of a trigonometric function. There is the universal inverse symbol -1 as in sin-1(0.707)=pi/4. This is read "inverse sine." Its a little bit confusing because the multiplicative inverse of sine (sin(theta))-1 is something else (cosecant(theta) to be exact).

The other way is a little more clear to me. The inverse operation of sin(x) is arcsin(x) or asin(x), both are read "arc sine of x." So, to use them in an equation, arcsin(0) = 0 and asin(1)=pi/2. Cosine, tangent, secant, cosecant, cotangent, cosh, sinh, and tanh all follow this convention.

thanks for clearing that up Smile.

Well angular velocity is the angle(or rotation rate) the object(the ship) travels around the orbits center(the secure can). When like you suggest take v/r you still have a linear velocity and not an angle (at least thats what my brain tells me Wink) iow the unit is still m/s and not rad/s (or /s), this is where the arctangent comes into play, it converts the unit from m/s to rad/s(or /s). Of course as you can see the result in this case is very similar but take an orbit of 100m at a speed of 100m/s, this would come to 1m/s in your method but to 0.7854 (pi/4) rad/s (or 45/s) which is a bigger difference. but 1m/s is not angular velocity and 0.7854 rad/s is.

(edit: i think this is what you were looking for azzk http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=88688)
------------------------------------------
The ammatar are not the enemy, they are the smoke and mirrors of the amarr.]]> Sat, 16 Oct 2009 15:58:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/1990601 <![CDATA[another transverse velocity thread (might be usefull though ;) ) - by Dr Jekill]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=116488&page=1#12 Originally by: Admiral IceBlock
my head hurts, and it makes me sad to see eve becoming a math simulator...



I was never was going to agree with you Laughing but this time you hit the nail on the head..

Damn Razz


Vera Lynn
---------------------------------------------
Born in London in 1917 became one of the most famous voices of World War II Vera's most popular song was "We'll Meet Again"]]> Sat, 16 Oct 2009 15:55:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/636469 <![CDATA[another transverse velocity thread (might be usefull though ;) ) - by Dr Jekill]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=116488&page=1#12 Originally by: Admiral IceBlock
my head hurts, and it makes me sad to see eve becoming a math simulator...



I was never was going to agree with you Laughing but this time you hit the nail on the head..

Damn Razz


Vera Lynn
---------------------------------------------
Born in London in 1917 became one of the most famous voices of World War II Vera's most popular song was "We'll Meet Again"]]> Sat, 16 Oct 2009 15:55:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/636470 <![CDATA[another transverse velocity thread (might be usefull though ;) ) - by Azzk]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=116488&page=1#11
I'm a little confused, though. I'm pretty sure angular velocity (assuming a circular orbit) is simply the tangential velocity divided by the radius of orbit (aka omega = v/r). Where's the arctangent come from?

Azzk

P.S. In English, there are two ways (that I know of) to denote the opposite (or inverse) operation of a trigonometric function. There is the universal inverse symbol -1 as in sin-1(0.707)=pi/4. This is read "inverse sine." Its a little bit confusing because the multiplicative inverse of sine (sin(theta))-1 is something else (cosecant(theta) to be exact).

The other way is a little more clear to me. The inverse operation of sin(x) is arcsin(x) or asin(x), both are read "arc sine of x." So, to use them in an equation, arcsin(0) = 0 and asin(1)=pi/2. Cosine, tangent, secant, cosecant, cotangent, cosh, sinh, and tanh all follow this convention.

Thanks for the good post.
]]> Sat, 16 Oct 2009 15:39:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/190808 <![CDATA[another transverse velocity thread (might be usefull though ;) ) - by Azzk]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=116488&page=1#11
I'm a little confused, though. I'm pretty sure angular velocity (assuming a circular orbit) is simply the tangential velocity divided by the radius of orbit (aka omega = v/r). Where's the arctangent come from?

Azzk

P.S. In English, there are two ways (that I know of) to denote the opposite (or inverse) operation of a trigonometric function. There is the universal inverse symbol -1 as in sin-1(0.707)=pi/4. This is read "inverse sine." Its a little bit confusing because the multiplicative inverse of sine (sin(theta))-1 is something else (cosecant(theta) to be exact).

The other way is a little more clear to me. The inverse operation of sin(x) is arcsin(x) or asin(x), both are read "arc sine of x." So, to use them in an equation, arcsin(0) = 0 and asin(1)=pi/2. Cosine, tangent, secant, cosecant, cotangent, cosh, sinh, and tanh all follow this convention.

Thanks for the good post.
]]> Sat, 16 Oct 2009 15:39:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/190809 <![CDATA[another transverse velocity thread (might be usefull though ;) ) - by Reatu Krentor]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=116488&page=1#10 how do missiles get to their target? How does the mining laser get targeted at the roid(which does funky stuff too Smile). But i digress, its about transverse velocity here which right now only affects turrets(you never know what kind of missile balancing they are cooking in the CCP kitchenWink)
------------------------------------------
The ammatar are not the enemy, they are the smoke and mirrors of the amarr.]]> Sat, 16 Oct 2009 15:32:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/1990555 <![CDATA[another transverse velocity thread (might be usefull though ;) ) - by Reatu Krentor]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=116488&page=1#10 how do missiles get to their target? How does the mining laser get targeted at the roid(which does funky stuff too Smile). But i digress, its about transverse velocity here which right now only affects turrets(you never know what kind of missile balancing they are cooking in the CCP kitchenWink)
------------------------------------------
The ammatar are not the enemy, they are the smoke and mirrors of the amarr.]]> Sat, 16 Oct 2009 15:32:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/1990556 <![CDATA[another transverse velocity thread (might be usefull though ;) ) - by Admiral IceBlock]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=116488&page=1#9 Originally by: Reatu Krentor
Originally by: Admiral IceBlock
my head hurts, and it makes me sad to see eve becoming a math simulator...

Well the funny thing is, all games that use 3D are math simulators, just dressed up nicelyWink, but most people needn't bother with it and can just enjoy the game, like you Smile. But because this is rather important for pvp/e, I figured I'd post about it.

no need for math calculation when mining veldspar i guess, and also no need for math when using raven and scorp. Twisted Evil


"We brake for nobody"
]]> Sat, 16 Oct 2009 15:01:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/20060 <![CDATA[another transverse velocity thread (might be usefull though ;) ) - by Admiral IceBlock]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=116488&page=1#9 Originally by: Reatu Krentor
Originally by: Admiral IceBlock
my head hurts, and it makes me sad to see eve becoming a math simulator...

Well the funny thing is, all games that use 3D are math simulators, just dressed up nicelyWink, but most people needn't bother with it and can just enjoy the game, like you Smile. But because this is rather important for pvp/e, I figured I'd post about it.

no need for math calculation when mining veldspar i guess, and also no need for math when using raven and scorp. Twisted Evil


"We brake for nobody"
]]> Sat, 16 Oct 2009 15:01:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/20086 <![CDATA[another transverse velocity thread (might be usefull though ;) ) - by Reatu Krentor]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=116488&page=1#8 Originally by: Admiral IceBlock
my head hurts, and it makes me sad to see eve becoming a math simulator...

Well the funny thing is, all games that use 3D are math simulators, just dressed up nicelyWink, but most people needn't bother with it and can just enjoy the game, like you Smile. But because this is rather important for pvp/e, I figured I'd post about it.
------------------------------------------
The ammatar are not the enemy, they are the smoke and mirrors of the amarr.]]> Sat, 16 Oct 2009 14:55:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/1990551 <![CDATA[another transverse velocity thread (might be usefull though ;) ) - by Reatu Krentor]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=116488&page=1#8 Originally by: Admiral IceBlock
my head hurts, and it makes me sad to see eve becoming a math simulator...

Well the funny thing is, all games that use 3D are math simulators, just dressed up nicelyWink, but most people needn't bother with it and can just enjoy the game, like you Smile. But because this is rather important for pvp/e, I figured I'd post about it.
------------------------------------------
The ammatar are not the enemy, they are the smoke and mirrors of the amarr.]]> Sat, 16 Oct 2009 14:55:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/1990552 <![CDATA[another transverse velocity thread (might be usefull though ;) ) - by Elrathias]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=116488&page=1#7 --------------------------

]]> Sat, 16 Oct 2009 12:57:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/721679 <![CDATA[another transverse velocity thread (might be usefull though ;) ) - by Elrathias]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=116488&page=1#7 --------------------------

]]> Sat, 16 Oct 2009 12:57:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/721680 <![CDATA[another transverse velocity thread (might be usefull though ;) ) - by Admiral IceBlock]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=116488&page=1#6

"We brake for nobody"
]]> Sat, 16 Oct 2009 11:43:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/20078 <![CDATA[another transverse velocity thread (might be usefull though ;) ) - by Admiral IceBlock]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=116488&page=1#6

"We brake for nobody"
]]> Sat, 16 Oct 2009 11:43:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/20079 <![CDATA[another transverse velocity thread (might be usefull though ;) ) - by Reatu Krentor]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=116488&page=1#5 Originally by: Lurk
OMG, it can be so simple :P
transverse velocity when orbiting = current velocity.

I think you forgot to read the rest of the post Wink. I do say although they seem to be one and the same they are not, with the main difference being the point of reference, where in the first case (velocity) its a point in space and in second case (transverse velocity) being the stationary object.

Originally by: Golgrath
Not sure if this is on purpose or bug. Could be that it would make close range webbing ships too powerful, and speed would become too dominant factor (its already very important) in combat.

Hmm, good point its very possible this is done on purpose, if so would be nice to have some form of official response, providing they have the time with shiva and all YARRRR!!. Right now it doesn't do what it says its doing.
------------------------------------------
The ammatar are not the enemy, they are the smoke and mirrors of the amarr.]]> Sat, 16 Oct 2009 09:07:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/1990549 <![CDATA[another transverse velocity thread (might be usefull though ;) ) - by Reatu Krentor]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=116488&page=1#5 Originally by: Lurk
OMG, it can be so simple :P
transverse velocity when orbiting = current velocity.

I think you forgot to read the rest of the post Wink. I do say although they seem to be one and the same they are not, with the main difference being the point of reference, where in the first case (velocity) its a point in space and in second case (transverse velocity) being the stationary object.

Originally by: Golgrath
Not sure if this is on purpose or bug. Could be that it would make close range webbing ships too powerful, and speed would become too dominant factor (its already very important) in combat.

Hmm, good point its very possible this is done on purpose, if so would be nice to have some form of official response, providing they have the time with shiva and all YARRRR!!. Right now it doesn't do what it says its doing.
------------------------------------------
The ammatar are not the enemy, they are the smoke and mirrors of the amarr.]]> Sat, 16 Oct 2009 09:07:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/1990550 <![CDATA[another transverse velocity thread (might be usefull though ;) ) - by Golgrath]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=116488&page=1#4
When you are perfectly orbiting a stationary object, your guns are always pointing in the same direction and dont have to track at all. But this is not the case with EVE, youre OWN speed in orbit affects transversal speed.

Not sure if this is on purpose or bug. Could be that it would make close range webbing ships too powerful, and speed would become too dominant factor (its already very important) in combat.
]]> Sat, 16 Oct 2009 08:23:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/918845 <![CDATA[another transverse velocity thread (might be usefull though ;) ) - by Golgrath]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=116488&page=1#4
When you are perfectly orbiting a stationary object, your guns are always pointing in the same direction and dont have to track at all. But this is not the case with EVE, youre OWN speed in orbit affects transversal speed.

Not sure if this is on purpose or bug. Could be that it would make close range webbing ships too powerful, and speed would become too dominant factor (its already very important) in combat.
]]> Sat, 16 Oct 2009 08:23:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/918846 <![CDATA[another transverse velocity thread (might be usefull though ;) ) - by Lurk]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=116488&page=1#3
transverse velocity when orbiting = current velocity.

when you are orbiting you are always flying (approx.) tangential in relation to your target.
]]> Sat, 16 Oct 2009 08:14:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/1500883 <![CDATA[another transverse velocity thread (might be usefull though ;) ) - by Lurk]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=116488&page=1#3
transverse velocity when orbiting = current velocity.

when you are orbiting you are always flying (approx.) tangential in relation to your target.
]]> Sat, 16 Oct 2009 08:14:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/1500884 <![CDATA[another transverse velocity thread (might be usefull though ;) ) - by Sc0rpion]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=116488&page=1#2

"The true secret to enjoying life is to live it dangerously."

-Freidrich Nietzche
]]> Sat, 16 Oct 2009 07:46:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/2115886 <![CDATA[another transverse velocity thread (might be usefull though ;) ) - by Sc0rpion]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=116488&page=1#2

"The true secret to enjoying life is to live it dangerously."

-Freidrich Nietzche
]]> Sat, 16 Oct 2009 07:46:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/2115887 <![CDATA[another transverse velocity thread (might be usefull though ;) ) - by Reatu Krentor]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=116488 Edited by: Reatu Krentor on 16/10/2004 16:03:04
well what the topic says Wink, this is gonna be about transverse velocity again.

Ever since those new changes to guns which made certain turrets huge paperweights(*cough*), I've been checking out why it could be. Doing this I came across a different peculiarity which could have impact on the guns.
Take for example a secure can anchored in space, around this stationary object you are orbiting at say 100m/s at 1000m. Using the formula for transverse velocity which is: TransverseVelocity = AngularVelocity * Distance(d). Distance is 10km. AngularVelocity is the angle which the ship travels around the can at a constant rate, calculated by dividing the speed by the distance and taking the arctangent of this number which gives me 0.09967 rad/s(or 542'38"/s). These 2 combined result in the transverse velocity, 0.09967 * 100 = 99.67m/, though this looks like it just is what we started out with that is not 100% correct, the first value assumes a linear velocity while transverse is rotational velocity.
But this is not what we are supposed to get since this transverse velocity is relative to the can and not your ship, we are supposed to calculate the transverse velocity relative to the ship. For this we have to find out the angular velocity of the can. However since the can is the pivot around which the ship turns its position would not change relative to the ship(!) therefore be 0 rad/s constantly, thus resulting in a transverse velocity of 0 m/s.
This is where the problem lies within EVE, when executing above example the can's transverse velocity is not 0, but rather the transverse velocity from the first calculation(not 100% if it is this). but when you turn the example around and you become the stationary object it seems to work just fine, this could point to an error in the formula where the rotation of the orbiting ship is not taken into account when calculating transverse velocity, which would result in the same angular velocity as for the ship relative to the can.
Of course this could all be nihil if the transverse velocity shown in the scanner is not the one used in the calculations but for me it seems unlikely they would calculate it twice with one being correct other not. Although this won't be THE issue thats causing the paperweights it might attribute to some problems experienced playing eve.
(edit: corrected arctangent)

I hope all my reasoning here is accurate and that i didn't make a fool of myself here now Embarassed.
Wink
Anyway lemme know what you people think about all this.
------------------------------------------
The ammatar are not the enemy, they are the smoke and mirrors of the amarr.]]> Sat, 16 Oct 2009 04:36:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/1990547 <![CDATA[another transverse velocity thread (might be usefull though ;) ) - by Reatu Krentor]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=116488 Edited by: Reatu Krentor on 16/10/2004 16:03:04
well what the topic says Wink, this is gonna be about transverse velocity again.

Ever since those new changes to guns which made certain turrets huge paperweights(*cough*), I've been checking out why it could be. Doing this I came across a different peculiarity which could have impact on the guns.
Take for example a secure can anchored in space, around this stationary object you are orbiting at say 100m/s at 1000m. Using the formula for transverse velocity which is: TransverseVelocity = AngularVelocity * Distance(d). Distance is 10km. AngularVelocity is the angle which the ship travels around the can at a constant rate, calculated by dividing the speed by the distance and taking the arctangent of this number which gives me 0.09967 rad/s(or 542'38"/s). These 2 combined result in the transverse velocity, 0.09967 * 100 = 99.67m/, though this looks like it just is what we started out with that is not 100% correct, the first value assumes a linear velocity while transverse is rotational velocity.
But this is not what we are supposed to get since this transverse velocity is relative to the can and not your ship, we are supposed to calculate the transverse velocity relative to the ship. For this we have to find out the angular velocity of the can. However since the can is the pivot around which the ship turns its position would not change relative to the ship(!) therefore be 0 rad/s constantly, thus resulting in a transverse velocity of 0 m/s.
This is where the problem lies within EVE, when executing above example the can's transverse velocity is not 0, but rather the transverse velocity from the first calculation(not 100% if it is this). but when you turn the example around and you become the stationary object it seems to work just fine, this could point to an error in the formula where the rotation of the orbiting ship is not taken into account when calculating transverse velocity, which would result in the same angular velocity as for the ship relative to the can.
Of course this could all be nihil if the transverse velocity shown in the scanner is not the one used in the calculations but for me it seems unlikely they would calculate it twice with one being correct other not. Although this won't be THE issue thats causing the paperweights it might attribute to some problems experienced playing eve.
(edit: corrected arctangent)

I hope all my reasoning here is accurate and that i didn't make a fool of myself here now Embarassed.
Wink
Anyway lemme know what you people think about all this.
------------------------------------------
The ammatar are not the enemy, they are the smoke and mirrors of the amarr.]]> Sat, 16 Oct 2009 04:36:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/1990548