Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
T'Amber
starvald emurlahn
|
Posted - 2009.08.05 04:04:00 -
[61]
If the ship was to be able to land on planets aswell as fly in space I would say that the prophecy hulls would be the most practical. Although the wing span isn't probably long enough, it is slightly rounded and has angeled hull.. Plus u'd freak out the natives when u landed it as they'd think it was a gigantic bird of prey. I have also included a diagram to help explain my choice.
Practical Ship Reason Diagram
Great topic by the way.
T'amber
|
Pandemonium Heresy
Amarr Interstellar Commodity and Product Exchange
|
Posted - 2009.08.05 04:41:00 -
[62]
I just wanted to chime in and point out that when your ship stops, it is not because you ordered the engines to shut off, you ordered the ship to stop, which implies either reverse thrust or inertial compensator. Since I've never seen engine plumes on the nose of any ship I've piloted when stopping, I'm guessing inertial compensator of some type.
I'm going to have to shoot down the idea that a spherical ship design being the most practical for two reasons:
1. The stated reason that it is most practical is the most volume per square meter of surface area, true. But not all ships are built for the reason of maximizing internal hull space, and even if they were, for hauling cargo, the cargo your hauling may be irregularly shaped, or in boxes, which leaves a lot of unused space. So it is a questionable claim that it is even the best for cargo hauling.
2. It is also questionable why the volume and the volume only would be your consideration for "most practical". Are all situations in space dominated by max volume of a ships hull? A good point was brought up that approach and retreat surface areas should be as small as possible, immediately bringing into question the claim that volume is the only consideration when determining practicality.
This does not even begin to touch on the fact that human beings are cultural and aesthetic animals, which means "most practical" is not necessarily going to be the exclusive priority of any ship builder. Warhammer 40k nerd in the EVE universe, whatever is a heretic to do? |
stoicfaux
|
Posted - 2009.08.05 04:45:00 -
[63]
Originally by: JD Barrett
2. not actual kinectic damage!? explain railguns with Iron, Lead, and Tungsten Ammo then please..
3. and as for the ammo exploding right before impact and dealing damage with a crap load of little pieces, either way you look at it, with a crap load of little pieces or 1 big piece....its still kinetic damage and the REAL since
A Rokh can kick out a round out to 300km. The round hits instantly. Let's say that it takes 0.1 seconds to travel 300km. That's 3,000km per second.
The speed of light is 300,000km/s. That hybrid round is traveling at 1% of the speed of light. The speed of sound is .340km/s. The round is traveling at Mach 8,824. That's beyond hyper-sonic. And if you assume a round takes 0.01 seconds to travel 300km then you're looking at 10% of the speed of light...
At those speeds it doesn't matter what metal the slug is made of if you plan on doing damage with kinetic energy released by direct contact. And with antimatter rounds, you don't need kinetic energy to do damage. Simple contact with the hull will convert the hull to energy.
And then there's lead charges.... Lead isn't magnetic. Railguns rely on magnetism to propel the round... Doesn't make sense, so there has to be some other reason for using a lead round.
It's pretty obvious that Eve railguns are not about hitting their target like a bullet in order to do kinetic damage. Damage is being done via some mechanism other than simply slamming a slug into your opponent.
And what about Eve lasers? Why are they so short ranged? In 0.1 seconds a laser beam can travel 30,000km. Why are laser ranges limited by weapon size?
The only semi-pseudo-scientific explanation I can think of is that Eve weapons warp space. Guns create a warp-tunnel to the target in order to deliver a warhead (as opposed to a solid bullet) so quickly to the target. Lasers don't do damage by hitting the target directly, instead they also travel that warp tunnel and power some exotic mechanism to deal damage. That would explain why ships mount so few weapons, and why the weapons are so short ranged.
And if you can argue that the traditional methods of direct kinetic strikes, high energy lasers, and contact with anti-matter don't make sense in Eve, then that means Eve ships are pretty much immune to kinetic strikes, lasers, and anti-matter. So damage is being done in some other way.
Stating that Eve weapons operate using the same physics as real world weapons just doesn't hold water.
|
Ralle030583
Sarum Guardians
|
Posted - 2009.08.05 07:30:00 -
[64]
Originally by: stoicfaux
Originally by: JD Barrett
2. not actual kinectic damage!? explain railguns with Iron, Lead, and Tungsten Ammo then please..
3. and as for the ammo exploding right before impact and dealing damage with a crap load of little pieces, either way you look at it, with a crap load of little pieces or 1 big piece....its still kinetic damage and the REAL since
A Rokh can kick out a round out to 300km. The round hits instantly. Let's say that it takes 0.1 seconds to travel 300km. That's 3,000km per second.
The speed of light is 300,000km/s. That hybrid round is traveling at 1% of the speed of light. The speed of sound is .340km/s. The round is traveling at Mach 8,824. That's beyond hyper-sonic. And if you assume a round takes 0.01 seconds to travel 300km then you're looking at 10% of the speed of light...
At those speeds it doesn't matter what metal the slug is made of if you plan on doing damage with kinetic energy released by direct contact. And with antimatter rounds, you don't need kinetic energy to do damage. Simple contact with the hull will convert the hull to energy.
And then there's lead charges.... Lead isn't magnetic. Railguns rely on magnetism to propel the round... Doesn't make sense, so there has to be some other reason for using a lead round.
It's pretty obvious that Eve railguns are not about hitting their target like a bullet in order to do kinetic damage. Damage is being done via some mechanism other than simply slamming a slug into your opponent.
And what about Eve lasers? Why are they so short ranged? In 0.1 seconds a laser beam can travel 30,000km. Why are laser ranges limited by weapon size?
The only semi-pseudo-scientific explanation I can think of is that Eve weapons warp space. Guns create a warp-tunnel to the target in order to deliver a warhead (as opposed to a solid bullet) so quickly to the target. Lasers don't do damage by hitting the target directly, instead they also travel that warp tunnel and power some exotic mechanism to deal damage. That would explain why ships mount so few weapons, and why the weapons are so short ranged.
And if you can argue that the traditional methods of direct kinetic strikes, high energy lasers, and contact with anti-matter don't make sense in Eve, then that means Eve ships are pretty much immune to kinetic strikes, lasers, and anti-matter. So damage is being done in some other way.
Stating that Eve weapons operate using the same physics as real world weapons just doesn't hold water.
its cause of game balance.... you dont need science explainatiants for everything in a game
|
Geldar Wroontik
Gallente Galactic System Lords Inc. Galactic System Lords Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.08.05 09:34:00 -
[65]
Originally by: Memphis Baas
I don't like Star Wars ships: they're big things with tiny tiny weapons on the surface. Makes no sense. You build a big ship to put a big main weapon in it. All the star destroyers should have a longitudinal super-cannon in them.
You mean like this? >_>
Originally by: Nova Fox another thing
If a sphere has evenly space out weapons the most they can ever point at me is 50% of them. with a clynder shape I can point far more than 50% at a target.
This is the best argument against a spherical ship in the thread imo. A spherical ship would indeed only be able to fire the guns facing their intended target, whereas a ship like the Thorax or the Omen can fire a fair majority of its guns at once, thereby increasing its practicality immensely. The Thorax has an advantage as well because of there being very few sharp edges, and its hull is very rounded, allowing for better deflection of incoming projectiles etc.
(I only used those two for my example because they're the two best examples that I've piloted. Also this argument is ignoring the fact that any ship in EVE only ever fires half of its guns at once >_>)
|
Max Hardcase
Art of War Cult of War
|
Posted - 2009.08.05 11:34:00 -
[66]
Spheres are the worst shape for space since the outward pressure from the ships atmosphere has no where to redirect that force (its an outward vector )...you people are confusing spheres ability to redirect COMPRESSIVE forces into neighboring matter.
|
Nova Fox
Gallente Novafox Shipyards
|
Posted - 2009.08.05 12:00:00 -
[67]
you also have to consider the implications that if ships had AI's that controlled where shots are going you toss a sphere are them and they're going to go> "lolwut a sphere? gee the weak point spot is easy! its right there!" and it would incidate the closest point of that perfectly spherical ship twoards the gunnery.
Also you would have to immenesly increase the number of purposlion systems as you now have to equally be able to move about. Where as a tubular ship you can shove most of the movement engines to one side and have smaller steering systems elsewhere, where as in the sphere you have to have EQUALLY spread out systems ALL OVER the ship, or youll wind up spinning like a nearly missed cue ball. Then you have to increase the complexity of the said systems in order to compenstate for damage destroyed engines, new direction and the sort. Basically turn every thruster into a vector thruster. This overall is a higher complexity design which in fact would probably reduce its servicable lifespan between maitenance periods and probably increase the rate of failure.
Pre-order your Sisters of ≡v≡ Exploration ship today, Updated 29JUL09 |
James Vayne
|
Posted - 2009.08.05 12:28:00 -
[68]
Originally by: Arthur Frayn Edited by: Arthur Frayn on 03/08/2009 17:19:14 In space, there's no drag from air, no measurable effect of gravity away from planets, all directions take equal force to move in. The most practical ship by far would look like a sphere because it allows for the most volume per square meter of surface area.
The closest Eve has to a spherical ship is unfortunately the Dominix, so it's probably the most practical. A real practical ship would be a sphere with a predefined front and back end with the main engines at the back and smaller thrusters to turn it around. There are still many symmetrical ships in eve and they are definitely more practical than the unsymmetrical ones in terms of usable volume and distribution of thrusters to push the ship's mass equally across its volume.
There are only two reasons I can think of right now to make a ship non spherical:
1. If some ship systems needed to be located away from others so that all systems work without interfering with each other.
2. If a specific hull shape allowed for faster warp speeds or maneuvering in a planet's atmosphere.
Otherwise, being closer to a balloon in shape than any other ship, the Dominix is the most practical.
Spherical shaped ships would not be the most practical for many many reasons.
In nature the sphere occurs naturally because it is the most energy efficient shape. But energy efficiency isn't necessarily practicality when you're building a spacecraft.
For example a spherical shaped craft would simply be too easy to shoot at.
And the dominix just looks like a giant nose.
|
Nova Fox
Gallente Novafox Shipyards
|
Posted - 2009.08.05 12:35:00 -
[69]
And yes there are millions of reasons why you want to keep alot of equipment away from each other sphere shaping something would make it a larger headache if you try to make a 'perfect' sphere ship and in the end you will have to ****** reduntant systems in order to obtain proper balance thoughout the ship, and when you have to have 8 of something you will take up more room regradless how much space a sphere shape could possibly ever save you.
reason why i say its ****** reduntant is because your better off at that point in building several smaller ships so when one of them gets blown up it doenst take out the rest of equal equipment usage resources. Where as smater redunancy are designed to do what they're put in for backing up when the primary fails.
Pre-order your Sisters of ≡v≡ Exploration ship today, Updated 29JUL09 |
Toter Mann
|
Posted - 2009.08.05 14:08:00 -
[70]
Ignoring the fact that this is about eve, I say b5 starfury.
|
|
Khorian
Gallente Excidium.
|
Posted - 2009.08.05 15:10:00 -
[71]
We humans tend to build things around a standard concept.
A car for example: Has 4 Wheels, an engine in the front, back or middle. A passenger cabin. The rest is totally up to the designer, but you will always be able to recognize a car as a car, no matter what shape it has.
Planes look even more alike, at least the big passenger airliners.
Ships the same, all follow the same basic ideas.
So I predict spaceships to be designed the same. They probably wont be very fancy at first. No sexy round hulls like the Gallenteans have. More cubical segments like the Caldari or Minmatar. But theywill probably follow the same basic guidelines for a long time, until another scientific/technological breakthrough changes everything rudimentally.
With that said, I think the Orca is the most realistic looking ship in the game. Its easy to load cargo on and off, because f the segmented tanks. The Bridge appears to be on top where all parts of the ship are visible.
|
LordValia
|
Posted - 2009.08.05 16:23:00 -
[72]
Originally by: Ryoji Tanakama
Originally by: LordValia
In addition to the point made above, the problem w/ a sphere and weapons is that no matter the position of the enemy ship, the enemy ship always has access to the perpendicular shot. However, with slanted hulls like the cane, many positions do not have the perpendicular shot available to them.
Edit: Whoops. Just did the geometry and my second point doesn't matter unless the compensating gun you would need happens to lie at the engine.
Not really. The perpendicular 'shot' as you call it exists at any one time as precicely one point on the sphere, which is the smallest target imaginable. Of course you only have to be reasonably accurate to gain a similar effect...
I'd be more worried about how the law of simultaneity affects targeting with lasers over very long ranges.
Any surface that you fire upon from any given point can only have one point where you have a perpendicular shot unless the surface is oscillating in some manner. Perfect plane...only one shot...sphere...only one shot...ellipse...etc. You get the point. So for all practical hull shapes...there's only one shot. But, a sphere compared to other shapes always gives the weapon a clear perpendicular shot.
As for simultaneity, even at fast EVE speeds like 3 km/s, that's 5 orders of magnitude away from the speed of light. You don't need to worry about it. If they're at warp, good luck even seeing them lol.
|
Kazuo Ishiguro
House of Marbles
|
Posted - 2009.08.05 16:36:00 -
[73]
Originally by: Arthur Frayn A sphere is stronger than a trapezium because it's a continuous arch where the trapezium has weaker flat sides. It's the same reason an arch bridge can bear more weight than a flat one.
That's a fairly naive line of thought - you're assuming that on average, attack is equally likely from all directions. This may not be the case, especially if the ship is more likely to be attacking than defending. When approaching a target, hits are likely due to low transversal, and the front end is exposed. It therefore makes sense to stretch and taper our initial sphere along one axis, and have it travel along that axis.
To minimize our ship's transversal profile, the ship should be flattened, and expanded horizontally somewhat in order to preserve its volume. So now we have an ellipsoid with axes of three different lengths. This loosely matches quite a lot of ships - the Rifter, Drake and Megathron, for example. --- 34.4:1 mineral compression ISRC Racing, Season 7 - schedule |
fivetide humidyear
Gallente The Avalon Foundation The Drift.
|
Posted - 2009.08.05 17:02:00 -
[74]
iain m banks has most culture ships as ellipsoids
that's good enough for me.
or space whales.
|
Joe Starbreaker
The Fighting Republicans
|
Posted - 2009.08.05 17:09:00 -
[75]
I have always thought that the Tormentor looks extremely practical. Hard, curved shell on the front to protect from space dust and deflect mining debris. Relatively "soft" armor on the back provides easy access to cargo, crew spaces, and the engines, making it quite handy for all the tasks you'd probably want to do while docked at a starbase.
Billions of years of evolution have proven that the design works for shellfish, and it looks like it'd work well for a starship, too.
= the GOP is recruiting = |
stoicfaux
|
Posted - 2009.08.05 17:20:00 -
[76]
Has anyone noticed that you can shoot through asteroids, stations, and other objects? I don't think the shape of the ship is relevant to shot deflection. I mean, seriously, if my missiles can travel through solid rock...
|
Roemy Schneider
Vanishing Point.
|
Posted - 2009.08.05 17:48:00 -
[77]
Edited by: Roemy Schneider on 05/08/2009 17:48:56 . - putting the gist back into logistics |
stoicfaux
|
Posted - 2009.08.05 20:04:00 -
[78]
A practical Eve freighter would be a container ship. Freighters are slow to align and slow in warp. It would make more sense to use smaller local transports to deliver the containers to/from the freighter. The freighter would just jump between stargates. Since it doesn't move, its low agility and slow warp speed wouldn't be a liability.
Spherical ships: wouldn't they be harder to turn, as in change vector? I'm talking newtonian physics here. IIRC a milk bottle type shape is a pretty efficient for ship propelled by reaction mass engines.
Aerospace Engineers/Rocket Scientists: Have any AE/Rocket geeks posted in this thread? I would be surprised if there aren't any AE/Rocket types playing Eve.
Quote:
There are only two reasons I can think of right now to make a ship non spherical:
1. If some ship systems needed to be located away from others so that all systems work without interfering with each other.
2. If a specific hull shape allowed for faster warp speeds or maneuvering in a planet's atmosphere.
Otherwise, being closer to a balloon in shape than any other ship, the Dominix is the most practical.
Some more possible reasons:
3) As I understand it, Eve ships "surf" on or push through a wave sub-space warping or some such. Which is why Eve ships come to a stop when you turn the engines off. It could be a case of spherical surfboards or spherical fish aren't practical.
4) Heat. A sphere has minimal surface area. Shapes with more surface area have more area to radiate heat/radiation away.
5) Nothing meaningful puts restrictions on ship shape. Ex: deflection has no effect on Eve weapons, warp drive efficiency isn't affected by ship shape, etc.
5.1) Which leaves aesthetics (and the feeling that modern art/architecture is still pretty hit or miss in the future.)
5.2) or designs are done by what's cheap and easy to build. Ex: Ships are designed by genetic algorithms. Why spend a huge amount of time hashing out a design when shape doesn't matter. Just give the computer a bunch of rules and let it find a combination that works, no matter how odd looking.
|
Joe Starbreaker
The Fighting Republicans
|
Posted - 2009.08.05 20:16:00 -
[79]
Another reason to be non-spherical is that ships move in a direction. They have a front, sides, and a rear end that have to meet different requirements. The rear needs to accomodate engines and the front needs to repel or absorb impacts with space dust at ludicrous speeds. Thrusters to turn the ship and to decelerate need to fit into the design, and "wings" or similar structures might be needed to give them greater leverage and control.
Finally, spaceships need to dock with stations, onload cargo from jetcans, deploy containers and starbase equipment, launch drones and fighters, and accomodate human crews and capsules. This affects design.
Which would be easier? Building a starbase at which 100 Iteron Vs can dock and onload cargo, or building a starbase where 100 spheres of the same volume could onload cargo?
= the GOP is recruiting = |
TraininVain
|
Posted - 2009.08.05 20:19:00 -
[80]
Edited by: TraininVain on 05/08/2009 20:21:48 Mmm. Rifter makes a lot of visual sense to me.
It's some big guns with engines, sheilds and ammo bins attached.
Speaking of practicality has anyone noticed how silly the ventral gun mounts on the Omen hull are?
|
|
voogru
Gallente Massive Damage United Corporations Against Macros
|
Posted - 2009.08.06 01:52:00 -
[81]
Originally by: Arthur Frayn In space, there's no drag from air, no measurable effect of gravity away from planets, all directions take equal force to move in. The most practical ship by far would look like a sphere because it allows for the most volume per square meter of surface area.
All of the ships in EVE are spheres, baseballs actually. In an underwater baseball park.
Hate Farmers? Click Here |
Kazuo Ishiguro
House of Marbles
|
Posted - 2009.08.06 07:15:00 -
[82]
Originally by: voogru All of the ships in EVE are spheres, baseballs actually. In an underwater baseball park.
Well, perfectly elastic baseballs, but close enough --- 34.4:1 mineral compression ISRC Racing, Season 7 - schedule |
Jasqua
|
Posted - 2009.08.06 08:53:00 -
[83]
Erebus
Come across that in space... you're sphere isn't going to last long
|
Nova Fox
Gallente Novafox Shipyards
|
Posted - 2009.08.06 10:45:00 -
[84]
one wonders how many more times are we going to be arguing over this.
Pre-order your Sisters of ≡v≡ Exploration ship today, Updated 29JUL09 |
Vyktor Abyss
Gallente The Abyss Corporation Abyss Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.08.06 11:07:00 -
[85]
Edited by: Vyktor Abyss on 06/08/2009 11:11:35
tl:dr sorry. EDIT: ah bother, ship deflection already mentioned. yah boo sucks.
Sphere is bad because every incoming impact will directly hit the armour well from any angle.
Angled armour plates are probably added to aloow for more deflected shots, especially when normally 'facing' a target.
Its like square castles being outmoded when cannons were invented. The new design saw star shaped forts to provide angles for maximum amounts of deflection to incomming cannon fire. Just a thought for sphere boy.
|
Joe Starbreaker
The Fighting Republicans
|
Posted - 2009.08.06 16:34:00 -
[86]
Originally by: Vyktor Abyss Sphere is bad because every incoming impact will directly hit the armour well from any angle.
That's wrong. A sphere is curved, not flat. If it's a perfect sphere, there's only one infinitely small point at which any incoming projectile could hit "directly". (The point depends of course on which direction the projectile comes from.) Even one meter off-center, the projectile would be deflected.
The deflection argument for a spherical ship is sound. What's not sound is the "maximum volume for minimum surface area" argument. Starships are not constructed out of soap and water; there is no need for them to follow the rules of a soap bubble. Why does the OP elevate minimizing surface area to such a high priority that it trumps other concerns such as ergonomics, utility, and cost of manufacturing?
= the GOP is recruiting = |
Nova Fox
Gallente Novafox Shipyards
|
Posted - 2009.08.07 03:46:00 -
[87]
Originally by: Joe Starbreaker
Originally by: Vyktor Abyss Sphere is bad because every incoming impact will directly hit the armour well from any angle.
The deflection argument for a spherical ship is sound.
Tell that to the asteriod that killed off the dinosaurs
Pre-order your Sisters of ≡v≡ Exploration ship today, Updated 29JUL09 |
WIngman4508
Two Brothers Mining Corp. Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2009.08.07 06:29:00 -
[88]
A note about ships in eve being lopsided and the issue with spheres:
Ships being asymmetrical (such as the raven or thorax) and having odd thruster placement doesn't necessarily mean they're impractical. It all depends on the density within the hull. It can be assumed that the interior of a ship varies in density because other wise you would just have a shaped block of homogenous material. Those variances in density have the possibility of shifting the ships center of mass up, down, left, right, forward, backward and in any combination there of.
So for example, the asymmetrical shape of a Raven might be exlpained as compensation for where its center of mass being to one side or the other of its geometric center.
As far as a sphere being practical, well the same issue applies. For example, bowling balls (spheres) have wooden core, if I remember correctly, that is shaped and placed in a way that pulls the ball's center of mass away from the balls geometric center. For a spherical shaped ship, you would also have to be very careful about balancing out the mass distribution through out it or else it will just spin in circles as a result of having one of its thrusters closer to its center of mass than the others. This could, of course, be solved by varying the strength of the individual thrusters, but that begins to complicate the control scheme considerably.
Wingman4508, TBMC Co-CEO, Foe Diplomat |
mooN 4PIE
|
Posted - 2009.08.07 07:29:00 -
[89]
There is no practical ship in EVE. Firstly, we have yet to design such ships in real life so we have no base reference but sci-fi movies (We did not stick with the first air plane model as it had many problems unforseen before). Secondly, combat spaceships with armor is fantasy. In the future, firepower will not increase proportionally with armor alloys. The only defense against an attack from another starship is either to evade, to make the blast miss you, or to have a so called shield. A good comparison would be with a swat team that has armor steel plates like in the medieval ages and a state of the art weapon. You may say now, "That's not ordinary armor ! It's an electronic armor based on nano technology ! ". Well, even if such thing would be more than fantasy, it won't be called armor anymore, would it ?
|
Nova Fox
Gallente Novafox Shipyards
|
Posted - 2009.08.07 09:16:00 -
[90]
Dart Vs Ballon.
Pre-order your Sisters of ≡v≡ Exploration ship today, Updated 29JUL09 |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |