| Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Reply to Topic | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
Miles Apart
    |
Posted - 2009.03.15 15:45:00 -
[1] - Quote
Found a nice link on how GPS uses trilangulation.
http://www.how-gps-works.com/faq/q0110.shtml
Short, but mirrors the CCP implementation exactly.
Now it all makes sense, just needed a bit of context....
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2009.03.15 16:02:00 -
[2] - Quote
Well, yeah, it would make sense if the probes would emit some kind of signal and the "target" would ANSWER to that signal, trying to be found. Problem is, that doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
Real-life triangulation of a signal that doesn't want to be found, a signal that is "just there" (or reflects some kind of beam you're pointing at it) doesn't use distances, it uses DIRECTIONS.
And for that, you only need TWO sensors, even in 3D space.
If you can determine not only directions, but also distances, you'd only need ONE single sensor !
Adding more probes simply increases the accuracy of the result, but are not needed.
So, no, it doesn't really make all that much sense.
_
Create a character || Fit a ship || Get some ISK |
Kahega Amielden
Minmatar
Suddenly Ninjas
|
Posted - 2009.03.15 16:05:00 -
[3] - Quote
Edited by: Kahega Amielden on 15/03/2009 16:05:57
It's actually trilateration or whatever the equivalent is on a 3d plane.
|
Nessaden
Minmatar
The Greater Goon
Clockwork Pineapple
|
Posted - 2009.03.15 16:09:00 -
[4] - Quote
Edited by: Nessaden on 15/03/2009 16:09:52
 Originally by: Kahega Amielden
Edited by: Kahega Amielden on 15/03/2009 16:05:57
It's actually trilateration or whatever the equivalent is on a 3d plane.
The 3D equivalent is quadrilateration (or multilateration). I would love if CCP made more attempt to clarify that the scanning system does not use triangulation.
|
big fluf
|
Posted - 2009.03.15 16:11:00 -
[5] - Quote
Originally by: Nessaden
Originally by: Kahega Amielden
Edited by: Kahega Amielden on 15/03/2009 16:05:57
It's actually trilateration or whatever the equivalent is on a 3d plane.
The 3D equivalent is quadrilateration. I would love if CCP made more attempt to clarify that the scanning system does not use triangulation.
You guys are 100% correct, ... additional note is the gps receivers, are basically radios that just "listen, they don't emit anything.
This is a direct parallel to the probes "listening " for signatures.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2009.03.15 16:16:00 -
[6] - Quote
In the case of GPS, it's much simpler : the entire system (satellites, receivers) are time-synchronized, and the satellites continuously broadcast their local time alongside their ID (that's the simplified version, actual broadcast signal is a bit more complicated, including a lot of other data too once in a while at least), so when the receiver picks up the signal from any satellite, it can easily tell just how far out the satellite is by simply comparing the local time with the signal received. And since you KNOW where the satellites are (their orbits are known with a fairly high degree of accuracy), then you can do this type of location-guessing.
But with probes... you can not possibly detect the DISTANCE from a signal, not unless you know the exact time the signal was sent. So when you're "searching for anomalies", distance from it is the last thing you should be able to determine, not the first.
_
Create a character || Fit a ship || Get some ISK |
Nessaden
Minmatar
The Greater Goon
Clockwork Pineapple
|
Posted - 2009.03.15 16:24:00 -
[7] - Quote
Originally by: Akita T
In the case of GPS, it's much simpler : the entire system (satellites, receivers) are time-synchronized, and the satellites continuously broadcast their local time alongside their ID (that's the simplified version, actual broadcast signal is a bit more complicated, including a lot of other data too once in a while at least), so when the receiver picks up the signal from any satellite, it can easily tell just how far out the satellite is by simply comparing the local time with the signal received. And since you KNOW where the satellites are (their orbits are known with a fairly high degree of accuracy), then you can do this type of location-guessing.
But with probes... you can not possibly detect the DISTANCE from a signal, not unless you know the exact time the signal was sent. So when you're "searching for anomalies", distance from it is the last thing you should be able to determine, not the first.
You get distance by sending out a signal and when it reflects you measure the distance from it to you using the time difference.
|
Korerin Mayul
|
Posted - 2009.03.15 16:27:00 -
[8] - Quote
surley if it needs 4 signals, its quadrangulation?
// gets coat.
|
Nessaden
Minmatar
The Greater Goon
Clockwork Pineapple
|
Posted - 2009.03.15 16:36:00 -
[9] - Quote
Originally by: Korerin Mayul
surley if it needs 4 signals, its quadrangulation?
// gets coat.
No, for that you need angles. Scan probes give you distance only.
|
Great Artista
Caldari
Veto.
Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2009.03.15 16:47:00 -
[10] - Quote
Edited by: Great Artista on 15/03/2009 16:48:41
Quote:
But with probes... you can not possibly detect the DISTANCE from a signal, not unless you know the exact time the signal was sent. So when you're "searching for anomalies", distance from it is the last thing you should be able to determine, not the first.
Red shift, phase sift ect. all sorta technical jargon can be applied to the backstory. Since every ship knows the mass of the planets, moons and sun in system, those sifting values of the signatures could be calculated by some formula based on the cross-reference of the gravitational effects of the stellar objects in system. Probes can communicate with themselves as with the ship, that is fitted with an onboard scanner, thus enabling the distance calculation with only 1 probe as one can compare the results of the probe to the results of the ship scanner.
(Obviously leading to the problem that is always present in the eve universe: in reality it'd, take ~8mins to know whats 1 au away.)
But hey, I'm just making guesses, I like filling the blanks in stories with the help of my imagination. 
_______
◕◡◕
|
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2009.03.15 17:02:00 -
[11] - Quote
Originally by: Nessaden
You get distance by sending out a signal and when it reflects you measure the distance from it to you using the time difference.
In that case, you get not only a distance, but also a DIRECTION.
In other words, you only need ONE probe.
Originally by: Great Artista
Red shift, phase sift ect. all sorta technical jargon can be applied to the backstory. Since every ship knows the mass of the planets, moons and sun in system, those sifting values of the signatures could be calculated by some formula based on the cross-reference of the gravitational effects of the stellar objects in system. Probes can communicate with themselves as with the ship, that is fitted with an onboard scanner, thus enabling the distance calculation with only 1 probe as one can compare the results of the probe to the results of the ship scanner.
Then again, you'd only need ONE probe.
Quote:
(Obviously leading to the problem that is always present in the eve universe: in reality it'd, take ~8mins to know whats 1 au away.)
Well, obviously, there's that problem too, but we can invoke the handwavium rule on that one easily.
On the rest of the stuff, meh, no way.
In that respect, the OLD scanning system made a lot more sense.
They should have simply added the "can move probes around in system map" and "universal probes, dynamically configurable range" features, and left everything else alone as it was before.
_
Create a character || Fit a ship || Get some ISK |
Korizan
Oort Cloud Industries
|
Posted - 2009.03.15 17:03:00 -
[12] - Quote
Originally by: Akita T
Well, yeah, it would make sense if the probes would emit some kind of signal and the "target" would ANSWER to that signal, trying to be found. Problem is, that doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
Real-life triangulation of a signal that doesn't want to be found, a signal that is "just there" (or reflects some kind of beam you're pointing at it) doesn't use distances, it uses DIRECTIONS.
And for that, you only need TWO sensors, even in 3D space.
If you can determine not only directions, but also distances, you'd only need ONE single sensor !
Adding more probes simply increases the accuracy of the result, but are not needed.
So, no, it doesn't really make all that much sense.
When you use radar you have known values.
The return pulse is such and such strength on such a bearing and such and such height.
Known values.
Bearing in that the radar station is fixed and uses the earth magnetic field to get a bearing.
Attitude uses the same principle.
When you are in space.
Your bearing is NOT constant you could use planets but that would mean every one and having the probe find them for calculations
Also the probe is spinning like a top.
So in order to give you the same results every planet and Star would have to mapped for every system you are in.
And if you are missing any information the whole system fails.
Much easier to just use more probes and get a distance from each probe.
Then based on the bearing relative to the ship you can triangulate.
It really is the most efficient method.
|
Korizan
Oort Cloud Industries
|
Posted - 2009.03.15 17:07:00 -
[13] - Quote
Originally by: Akita T
In the case of GPS, it's much simpler : the entire system (satellites, receivers) are time-synchronized, and the satellites continuously broadcast their local time alongside their ID (that's the simplified version, actual broadcast signal is a bit more complicated, including a lot of other data too once in a while at least), so when the receiver picks up the signal from any satellite, it can easily tell just how far out the satellite is by simply comparing the local time with the signal received. And since you KNOW where the satellites are (their orbits are known with a fairly high degree of accuracy), then you can do this type of location-guessing.
But with probes... you can not possibly detect the DISTANCE from a signal, not unless you know the exact time the signal was sent. So when you're "searching for anomalies", distance from it is the last thing you should be able to determine, not the first.
A radar sends out a pulse. it times how long till it the reflection comes back.
Based on the the frequency it knows how long it will take for it to return giving a distance.
A very simple function and the bases on how radar, sonar, GPS, even telecommunications equipment work.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2009.03.15 17:18:00 -
[14] - Quote
Edited by: Akita T on 15/03/2009 17:20:40
Originally by: Korizan
A radar sends out a pulse. it times how long till it the reflection comes back.
Based on the the frequency it knows how long it will take for it to return giving a distance.
A very simple function and the bases on how radar, sonar, GPS, even telecommunications equipment work.
You should read up on radar vs GPS on your own and see the critical differences between them if you don't believe me.
And no, the difference isn't that radar sends out a pulse that gets reflected, it's that radar determines BOTH distance and direction with a single location sensor.
GPS is a passive receiver, and it needs at least 3 emitters (the satellites - and 3, since you usually aren't in outer space, the fourth isn't absolutely needed, but it helps with the accuracy) that are relatively far apart in order to function.
So let me repeat this - if the technology of EVE would actually exist - under no circumstances should you ever need more than ONE probe to find the area a signal is in.
The current scanning system makes no sense, not even RP-wise.
The OLD scanning system MADE sense, to a much higher degree (except the "no overlap" part).
The only good thing about the new system is that you can dynamically configure, move and even recover the probes.
Everything else about the current scanning system is worse than the old one.
____
But then again, it's all just a game, so it shouldn't really matter.
This is not about how silly the new scanning system is.
It's about not trying to justify that it's awesome based on misunderstood science.
_
Create a character || Fit a ship || Get some ISK |
Great Artista
Caldari
Veto.
Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2009.03.15 17:22:00 -
[15] - Quote
Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: Great Artista
Red shift, phase sift ect. all sorta technical jargon can be applied to the backstory. Since every ship knows the mass of the planets, moons and sun in system, those sifting values of the signatures could be calculated by some formula based on the cross-reference of the gravitational effects of the stellar objects in system. Probes can communicate with themselves as with the ship, that is fitted with an onboard scanner, thus enabling the distance calculation with only 1 probe as one can compare the results of the probe to the results of the ship scanner.
Then again, you'd only need ONE probe.
Well where did I deny that then? ;\(&_o)/;
_______
◕◡◕
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2009.03.15 17:27:00 -
[16] - Quote
Originally by: Great Artista
Originally by: Akita T
Then again, you'd only need ONE probe.
Well where did I deny that then? ;\(&_o)/;
Sorry then, misunderstood your position on the issue, sounded like you were disagreeing 
_
Create a character || Fit a ship || Get some ISK |
Korizan
Oort Cloud Industries
|
Posted - 2009.03.15 17:27:00 -
[17] - Quote
Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: Korizan
A radar sends out a pulse. it times how long till it the reflection comes back.
Based on the the frequency it knows how long it will take for it to return giving a distance.
A very simple function and the bases on how radar, sonar, GPS, even telecommunications equipment work.
You should read up on radar vs GPS on your own and see the critical differences between them if you don't believe me.
And no, the difference isn't that radar sends out a pulse that gets reflected, it's that radar determines BOTH distance and direction with a single location sensor.
GPS is a passive receiver, and it needs at least 3 emitters (the satellites - and 3, since you usually aren't in outer space, the fourth isn't absolutely needed, but it helps with the accuracy) that are relatively far apart in order to function.
So let me repeat this - if the technology of EVE would actually exist - under no circumstances should you ever need more than ONE probe to find the area a signal is in.
The current scanning system makes no sense, RP-wise.
The OLD scanning system MADE sense, to a much higher degree (except the "no overlap" part).
The only good thing about the new system is that you can dynamically configure, move and even recover the probes.
Everything else about the current scanning system is worse than the old one.
Your right and wrong again.
GPS are passive because the satellites are in fixed positions (Again known values for determining positions on the planet.
And once again yes radar sends out a pulse but it is also based on a fixed position.
You are ignoring this baseline fact and the only reason both GPS and radar work.
But you really don't care about this stuff @ all cause you totally ignored my comments.
All you want is a your single probe back.
And to be honest I like the current system.
So I will agree on one thing, I agree we have different opinions on how the probing system should work in EVE 
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2009.03.15 17:32:00 -
[18] - Quote
Edited by: Akita T on 15/03/2009 17:35:21
Originally by: Korizan
But you really don't care about this stuff @ all cause you totally ignored my comments. All you want is a your single probe back.
You missed the last edit on the post you quoted.
And no, I'm not ignoring your comments, I'm simply saying you're wrong.
Also, I couldn't care less about the scanning system, I'm merely miffed about the use of misunderstood/bad science to justify just how "awesomely realistic" this new system is supposed to be.
Gameplay wise, the new system might be better, I don't know, I merely engage in probing on SiSi to see how it works, I never bothered with it on TQ, I have much better things to so than move cubes around the system map.
It simply annoys me that people try to justify the new system with pseudoscientific reasons.
No, it's not realistic, it's not accurate, it's not how it would work.
It's probably better for the game, I don't know, don't care.
Just don't call it realistic/scientific/accurate.
_
Create a character || Fit a ship || Get some ISK |
Lufio II
Amarr
n0thing Inc.
Ghostfleet
|
Posted - 2009.03.15 17:40:00 -
[19] - Quote
Akita T, you seem to be misunderstanding the part that our probes don't have a directional component, unlike Radar Systems of today which send out a directed Pulse and thus have a directional component right away:
* Probe broadcasts a "ping"-type signal omnidirectional. Easiest and fastest way to do it if you are looking for something that basically can be anywhere within a sphere around you (in my oppinion).
* Probe then listens for reflections of the ping.
* Probe hears reflection and can make out the time difference of the signal, but not where the refelection comes from (due to not having specialised equipment for it, let's say to keep it as cheap as they are if you need some proper reason other than "Game designers said so"), as the ping did not have any directional component (it was broadcasted omnidirectional). As such one probe can only tell you the distance, but not the direction of something reflecting the signal that the probe sent.
Makes perfect sense to me (way more than the previous scanning system), and the only difference to GPS here is that the sender and receiver are in one place and the signal thus needs to travel the distance twice. |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2009.03.15 17:42:00 -
[20] - Quote
Originally by: Lufio II
Akita T, you seem to be misunderstanding the part that our probes don't have a directional component
No, that's exactly what I'm saying it doesn't make any sense.
Why wouldn't they have a directional component ?
For that matter, the only thing they should have is a directional component.
_
Create a character || Fit a ship || Get some ISK |
|
Korizan
Oort Cloud Industries
|
Posted - 2009.03.15 17:52:00 -
[21] - Quote
Originally by: Akita T
Edited by: Akita T on 15/03/2009 17:35:21
Originally by: Korizan
But you really don't care about this stuff @ all cause you totally ignored my comments. All you want is a your single probe back.
You missed the last edit on the post you quoted.
And no, I'm not ignoring your comments, I'm simply saying you're wrong.
Also, I couldn't care less about the scanning system, I'm merely miffed about the use of misunderstood/bad science to justify just how "awesomely realistic" this new system is supposed to be.
Gameplay wise, the new system might be better, I don't know, I merely engage in probing on SiSi to see how it works, I never bothered with it on TQ, I have much better things to so than move cubes around the system map.
It simply annoys me that people try to justify the new system with pseudoscientific reasons.
No, it's not realistic, it's not accurate, it's not how it would work.
It's probably better for the game, I don't know, don't care.
Just don't call it realistic/scientific/accurate.
Actually you should probably go back to your references then. Cause I am not spouting lies there is a lot more that goes into it. I have been working these systems long before GPS ever existed back when it was nothing but a bunch of towers around the world for ocean going navigation (That is actually the predecessor to GPS by the way). IT is all based on known values, that nobody bothers to talk about anymore cause the software takes care of it.
Trust me, doing it by hand really (for lack of a better word) sucks.
The problem is when the those values disappear or become relative the probes would become to complicated and would actually take more time to do the same job then simply launching more probes.
Yes this is science fiction, but if you could do it with one probe, then why not just build it into the ship.
The old system had us warping around dropping probes so we were already @ the probe locations so why not.
You could say well the ship itself was causing distortion.
But then you would have to say that probes only work if they are not on the same grid as anything else.
Too many things we take for granted.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2009.03.15 20:18:00 -
[22] - Quote
Edited by: Akita T on 15/03/2009 20:20:55
I'm not saying you're lying.
I'm just saying there's a fundamental difference between GPS (or its predecessor) and radar.
You keep talking about GPS as if it was radar, and as if probes should work like the GPS system.
Scanner probes should, by any possible logic (RP or scientific), behave similar to a radar system, not like a GPS system.
AGAIN, I'm also not saying they SHOULD go back to the old system, keep the new one, it's good enough (although the interface could use a lot of work).
All I'm saying is that trying to justify the new system as in "it makes scientific sense" is bogus.
It doesn't make scientific sense, but it doesn't really matter, as long as it makes gameplay sense.
Just don't pretend it DOES make scientific sense.
P.S. Although, if they COULD come up with a pertinent RP explanation (will be a tough one), I'd also settle for that.
_
Create a character || Fit a ship || Get some ISK |
Le Skunk
Low Sec Liberators
|
Posted - 2009.03.15 21:12:00 -
[23] - Quote
Originally by: Akita T
various bits and bobs
LOL - I was wondering if there was a thread about this with you in last night when it came up in chat.
Also its about time for another Akita T megathread so get thinking of something contentious
SKUNK
(o)
|
James Malice
Gallente
Legion Of Mad Cats
|
Posted - 2009.03.15 21:34:00 -
[24] - Quote
It's a game
It works the way it works
get over it.
Originally by: MooKids
I like them, I have an elite rating in HULL TANKING! That is like saying I can block punches with my face.
|
|
CCP Greyscale
|
Posted - 2009.03.15 21:34:00 -
[25] - Quote
How about "scanner probes utilize a passive, non-directional scanning technique based on minute disturbances in the gravitational fields of local space-time"? It can explain the FTL-ness (mysterious gravitational action-at-a-distance), the horrible inaccuracies at longer ranges (equipment doesn't have the resolution to properly distinguish weak disturbances at long range) and the non-directionalness (scientific hand-waving lets you assume that the local disturbances let you figure out how big the effect is but not where it originates). You can mix in some Heisenburg if it makes you feel better, and feel free to fall back on the handy sci-fi maxim that everything we currently believe is true about physics is, statistically speaking, wrong so inconvenient aspects of current physical theory can be discarded at will.
I'm not saying this "is" the way it works, and I can't explain why there are Radar, Ladar etc signatures except by saying "legacy systems", but it's an explanation. Can we move on?
Also, if there's anywhere ingame that "triangulation" is mentioned, please let me know so I can excise it.
|
|
Avalon Champion
Gallente Defence Evaluation Research Agency
|
Posted - 2009.03.15 21:42:00 -
[26] - Quote
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
How about "scanner probes utilize a passive, non-directional scanning technique based on minute disturbances in the gravitational fields of local space-time"? It can explain the FTL-ness (mysterious gravitational action-at-a-distance), the horrible inaccuracies at longer ranges (equipment doesn't have the resolution to properly distinguish weak disturbances at long range) and the non-directionalness (scientific hand-waving lets you assume that the local disturbances let you figure out how big the effect is but not where it originates). You can mix in some Heisenburg if it makes you feel better, and feel free to fall back on the handy sci-fi maxim that everything we currently believe is true about physics is, statistically speaking, wrong so inconvenient aspects of current physical theory can be discarded at will.
I'm not saying this "is" the way it works, and I can't explain why there are Radar, Ladar etc signatures except by saying "legacy systems", but it's an explanation. Can we move on?
Also, if there's anywhere ingame that "triangulation" is mentioned, please let me know so I can excise it.
Very Nice Response GreyScale, hopefully it will help allieviate the confusion over an internet space ship game.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2009.03.15 22:08:00 -
[27] - Quote
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
stuff[...]handwavium[...]morestuff
And now, the only other things we need are a stick, a carrot, and a starving Chronicle writer
_
Create a character || Fit a ship || Get some ISK |
Jordii
Caldari
The Galactic Inquisition
Dark Matter Consortium.
|
Posted - 2009.03.15 22:12:00 -
[28] - Quote
Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
stuff[...]handwavium[...]morestuff
And now, the only other things we need are a stick, a carrot, and a starving Chronicle writer
Akita suffers from a severe interweb conditions called "I knoweth moreth than thou" and the deadly "Believe Wuttahwant". Symptoms are repeated trips to wikipedia to become a "well studied individual" on any particular subject and refusal of anyone else's opinion.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2009.03.15 22:16:00 -
[29] - Quote
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Also, if there's anywhere ingame that "triangulation" is mentioned, please let me know so I can excise it.
"Astrometric Triangulation (rank 8)"
_
Create a character || Fit a ship || Get some ISK |
Vaal Erit
Science and Trade Institute
|
Posted - 2009.03.15 22:16:00 -
[30] - Quote
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Also, if there's anywhere ingame that "triangulation" is mentioned, please let me know so I can excise it.
It's one of the probing skills, but surely you already know that I hope.
Originally by: CCP Whisper
So you're going to have to do some actual thinking with regards to hull components and their capabilities instead of copying some cookie-cutter setup. Cry some more.
|
|
| |
Reply to Topic |
| Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |