Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Lystrah
|
Posted - 2009.10.12 19:46:00 -
[31]
I think there is some confusion about speed and acceleration in the comments above :)
|
Razin
The xDEATHx Squadron Legion of xXDEATHXx
|
Posted - 2009.10.12 19:49:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Lystrah I think there is some confusion about speed and acceleration in the comment above :)
Fixed that for you. ...
|
Captain Tardbar
|
Posted - 2009.10.12 20:03:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Lystrah Edited by: Lystrah on 10/10/2009 14:55:39 1. Is it just me, or does the fact that my ship is flying through a planet make the game a little stupid?
2. If I have shields on a ship, then why not add this to the graphical experience?
3. Why not include the coorperation logo on each members ship?
I cannot understand why this is not included. Its really simple things that would improve the feelings in the game. I have thought about this for 3 years now, felt like I need to say my meaning.
4. Also, why not include a feature in the cargo so that you can devide it to different sections? this way making it more easy to sort your items.
-Rygel
1. When you warp, you and your ships molecules go into a warp bubble out of the current dimension of space time and you basically "phase" through any other solid objects.
2. Shields hug the profile of the ships (AKA they aren't round like Star Trek). Turn on your active shield reppers and you will see this. But yeah it would be nice to see more shield effects.
3. You know... That would be cool. I don't know why they don't do this now other than technical limitations. Why can't you paint a ship either.
|
Ukucia
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.10.12 20:41:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Razin Edited by: Razin on 12/10/2009 20:07:59
Originally by: Ukucia Edited by: Ukucia on 12/10/2009 18:41:31
Originally by: Razin The problem with your logic is that a ship with enough thrust to overcome the gravitational pull of, say, an Earth size planet, would have a top speed significantly higher than 50 m/s in any scenario resembling reality.
Notsomuch.
To overcome gravity, one simply needs to put out slightly more thrust than the weight of the vehicle. An F-15 can overcome gravity, in that it's engines can output more thrust than it weighs, allowing it to accelerate straight upward with 0 lift from the wings (until it runs out of oxygen for it's engine).
Technically, you are correct in that such a vehicle's top speed would be higher than 50m/s, but that's because the top speed would be the speed of light. There's nothing in physics to explain why ships in EvE have top speeds. That's a gameplay mechanic.
So, what does the "notsomuch" refer to?
Your assertion that speed has anything to do with overcoming gravity. Gravity has been overcome by a hummingbird. But it's top speed is way below 50 m/s.
|
Razin
The xDEATHx Squadron Legion of xXDEATHXx
|
Posted - 2009.10.12 20:48:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Ukucia
Originally by: Razin
So, what does the "notsomuch" refer to?
Your assertion that speed has anything to do with overcoming gravity. Gravity has been overcome by a hummingbird. But it's top speed is way below 50 m/s.
I don't see any hummingbird escaping gravity. Which was the point that seemed to have escaped you.
Low speed was merely used as the most visible characteristic of EVE ships to demonstrate that some serious suspension of disbelief is required when considering that part of EVE's game mechanics. ...
|
Ukucia
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.10.12 20:56:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Razin
Originally by: Ukucia
Originally by: Razin
So, what does the "notsomuch" refer to?
Your assertion that speed has anything to do with overcoming gravity. Gravity has been overcome by a hummingbird. But it's top speed is way below 50 m/s.
I don't see any hummingbird escaping gravity. Which was the point that seemed to have escaped you.
That's because you're conflating escape velocity and overcoming gravity. You can overcome gravity while being well below escape velocity.
Quote: Low speed was merely used as the most visible characteristic of EVE ships to demonstrate that some serious suspension of disbelief is required when considering that part of EVE's game mechanics.
Every ship in EvE is capable of traveling many times faster than the speed of light (the warp drive). So every ship in EvE is capable of traveling well beyond escape velocity.
|
Razin
The xDEATHx Squadron Legion of xXDEATHXx
|
Posted - 2009.10.12 21:07:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Ukucia
That's because you're conflating escape velocity and overcoming gravity. You can overcome gravity while being well below escape velocity.
You're doing all the "conflating" here. I was only pointing out some inconsistencies in the games 'real space physics'. Trying to argue from the point of view of reality in this instance, as you seem to be trying to do, is kind of silly.
Originally by: Ukucia
Every ship in EvE is capable of traveling many times faster than the speed of light (the warp drive). So every ship in EvE is capable of traveling well beyond escape velocity.
And the relevance of this to what we are discussing? I can still stop my ship in low orbit with nothing coming out of the engine and not fall to the surface. ...
|
Washell Olivaw
|
Posted - 2009.10.12 21:36:00 -
[38]
Edited by: Washell Olivaw on 12/10/2009 21:37:10 From wikipedia, bolding is mine.:
Misconception
Planetary or lunar escape velocity is sometimes misunderstood to be the speed a powered vehicle (such as a rocket) must reach to leave orbit; however, this is not the case, as the quoted number is typically the surface escape velocity, and vehicles need never achieve that speed. This surface escape velocity is the speed required for an object to leave the planet if the object is simply projected from the surface of the planet and then left without any more kinetic energy input: in practice the vehicle's propulsion system will continue to provide energy after it has left the surface.
In fact a vehicle can leave the Earth's gravity at any speed. At higher altitudes, the local escape velocity is lower. But at the instant the propulsion stops, the vehicle can only escape if its speed is greater than or equal to the local escape velocity at that position. At sufficiently high altitudes this speed can approach 0.
And yes, I know wikipedia isn't 100% reliable.
Originally by: Signature Everybody has a photographic memory, some people just don't have film.
|
Razin
The xDEATHx Squadron Legion of xXDEATHXx
|
Posted - 2009.10.12 22:06:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Washell Olivaw Edited by: Washell Olivaw on 12/10/2009 21:37:10 From wikipedia, bolding is mine.:
Misconception
...
You're kinda late to the party. Let me quote myself to you:
Originally by: Razin I was only pointing out some inconsistencies in the games 'real space physics'. Trying to argue from the point of view of reality in this instance, as you seem to be trying to do, is kind of silly.
... I can still stop my ship in low orbit with nothing coming out of the engine and not fall to the surface.
...
|
Barakkus
Caelestis Iudicium
|
Posted - 2009.10.12 22:30:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Ukucia Star Trek goes with "the weapons are tuned to the same frequency as the shield", but that doesn't make a ton of sense either. Your enemies would use their sensors, and the data from the weapons hitting their ship, to match your shield frequency rendering them useless.
You didn't watch a lot of star trek did you? :P They did that kind of thing a lot, and each "race" had it's own weapon technologies...so...there were limitations by what each had discovered...
|
|
Tradiae Euphoria
|
Posted - 2009.10.12 22:44:00 -
[41]
The simple thing I'd like added: I would like to see tells/whispers...instead of having to open up a private convo...just send one quick message. Many times I don't say anything to people b/c I don't want to open up a whole convo for one word or small comment.
Just thought I'd throw that in here ;)
|
Dr Carstein
|
Posted - 2009.10.12 22:52:00 -
[42]
Something I would very much like to see in Eve is reverse and directional thrusters on the ship models, that fire when you're decelerating or changing direction. It would at least give the illusion of modelling Newtonian physiscs.
|
Adunh Slavy
|
Posted - 2009.10.13 00:06:00 -
[43]
1. Yes it is at times odd, but is changing the warp mechanic worth it? Right now it's rather simple linear vectoring. Having to do fifth order BTzier curves I suppose, in three dimensions, just to not fly through planets would be hefty for the return.
Perhaps the solution could be graphical. Traveling faster than light we shouldn't be seeing much anyway, maybe warp tunnels should be inky blackness with weird stuff wandering around and you don't see the planets anyway. If you notice now, when in warp, the background gets slightly darker. Push that all the way to blackness or so much distortion of space around you that "flying through planets" just isn't seen.
Frankly backgrounds should be black with stars anyway, it's space, not chewed up pink, green, blue or orange bubble gum, which is what lots of it looks like now.
2. If you have active hardeners, you see them. Same for shield booster. The other (default) shields, if they showed up would be a lot more visual clutter over the ship models. Having feedback, in the GUI, on something with which the player interacts, is better than feedback for something no one can control directly.
3. Would be nice, but after seeing them a few times, would anyone care? So is it worth it?
4. As others have said, there are cans and the different views on container objects, details, icons, list.
The Real Space Initiative - V6 (Forum Link)
|
Respute
Minmatar Divine Retribution Sons of Tangra
|
Posted - 2009.10.13 01:01:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Ukucia Edited by: Ukucia on 12/10/2009 18:44:52 Edited by: Ukucia on 12/10/2009 18:34:13
You should probably read the "Science" section of the backstory section before trying to discuss the "science" behind what we're doing in game. Our warp drives do not warp spacetime. Our warp drives create a bubble of "depleted vacuum" (their idea, not mine), which is able to move FTL. This bubble blocks interaction with material in normal spacetime, thus allowing us to pass through solid matter while warping. Because we don't interact with regular spacetime while warping, there actually is nothing to see while we warp. The graphics are inserted by the ships computer.
|
Zaknussem
Intrum Industria
|
Posted - 2009.10.13 01:40:00 -
[45]
Or, CCP lack both the computing skills and the computer resources to make ships plot their courses in anything else than a straight line. Sometimes the shortest way is the best way to go.
As for the station hangar - there are "containers" available that serve no other purpose than as dividers so you can arrange your stuff. Can't remember their proper name right now, but they're there. |
Catherine Frasier
|
Posted - 2009.10.13 02:49:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Razin The problem with your logic is that a ship with enough thrust to overcome the gravitational pull of, say, an Earth size planet, would have a top speed significantly higher than 50 m/s in any scenario resembling reality.
You wouldn't have a "top speed" at all. Top speeds are an admitedly artificial game mechanic introduced for playability reasons and are a separate issue.
Originally by: Catherine Frasier What I don't understand is why one theoretical explanation of something that is not proven to exist is acceptable while another for something else is not.
Except that there has been no theoretical explanation offered for warping through planets. That's the difference.
Originally by: Catherine Frasier And that for someone who likely can't even tell the difference between a real theory and something made up to sound real.
Don't worry, with practice you can learn to do a little research to help you distinguish between the two.
|
Catherine Frasier
|
Posted - 2009.10.13 03:14:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Ukucia You should probably read the "Science" section of the backstory section before trying to discuss the "science" behind what we're doing in game.
Is that squib supposed to be considered canon? I ask because it confuses warp drives with jump drives which doesn't really inspire a lot of confidence. And, to be honest, why in hell would you call a Casimir Effect propulsion system a warp drive when warp drive actually means something quite different?
|
Ukucia
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.10.13 06:05:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Catherine Frasier
Originally by: Ukucia You should probably read the "Science" section of the backstory section before trying to discuss the "science" behind what we're doing in game.
Is that squib supposed to be considered canon? I ask because it confuses warp drives with jump drives which doesn't really inspire a lot of confidence. And, to be honest, why in hell would you call a Casimir Effect propulsion system a warp drive when warp drive actually means something quite different?
My assumption is that they put it in the game as a 'warp drive', and then someone else came by and wrote the backstory using some technology he thought was cool.
|
Ukucia
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.10.13 06:11:00 -
[49]
Originally by: Razin
Originally by: Ukucia
That's because you're conflating escape velocity and overcoming gravity. You can overcome gravity while being well below escape velocity.
You're doing all the "conflating" here.
Actually, you started out talking about "overcoming" gravity, and then changed to "escaping" gravity.
Quote:
Originally by: Ukucia
Every ship in EvE is capable of traveling many times faster than the speed of light (the warp drive). So every ship in EvE is capable of traveling well beyond escape velocity.
And the relevance of this to what we are discussing?
Your assertion that some ships can't overcome gravity, b/c their top speed is 50m/s.
Quote: I can still stop my ship in low orbit with nothing coming out of the engine and not fall to the surface.
Geosynchronous satellites are traveling at 0 m/s and don't fall to the surface. Relying on "speed" as your measure of overcoming gravity causes issues, in that there's more than one reference frame. That geosynchronous satellite is traveling 0 m/s relative to a fixed point on the surface of the Earth. Relative to the center of the galaxy, it's doing several million km/s.
And to be really, really pedantic, if you stop your ship you're not in low orbit. Can't be orbiting without moving.
|
Zey Nadar
Gallente The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.10.13 07:28:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Lystrah Edited by: Lystrah on 10/10/2009 14:55:39 1. Is it just me, or does the fact that my ship is flying through a planet make the game a little stupid?
Its not stupid if its in warp. The fact that you actually see the star system around you during warp bothers me more.
Quote:
2. If I have shields on a ship, then why not add this to the graphical experience?
Every ship has shields, therefore it would just make ships look more alike. Plus you can see shields if you use active modules.
Quote:
3. Why not include the coorperation logo on each members ship?
No objections there.
|
|
Zey Nadar
Gallente The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.10.13 07:39:00 -
[51]
Edited by: Zey Nadar on 13/10/2009 07:41:06 Edited by: Zey Nadar on 13/10/2009 07:40:33
Originally by: Ukucia
Quote:
So, what does the "notsomuch" refer to?
Your assertion that speed has anything to do with overcoming gravity. Gravity has been overcome by a hummingbird. But it's top speed is way below 50 m/s.
The air traveling downwards from hummingbirds wings has considerable speed. Ultimate point is that you have to expend energy to overcome gravity. In order not to need to, you have to have sufficient speed. So that the kinetic energy due to traveling speed is sufficient to overcome gravity.
For example objects in orbit of a planet are in continuous 'falling' motion toward the planet, but the speed they are traveling essentially makes them 'miss' the planet constantly.
In order to permanently leave the gravitational field of a planet, the speed needed in case of Earth is 11,2 kilometers per second, the second cosmic velocity or escape velocity.
|
Hooch Flux
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.10.13 07:57:00 -
[52]
Edited by: Hooch Flux on 13/10/2009 07:59:07
Originally by: Lystrah Edited by: Lystrah on 10/10/2009 14:55:39 1. Is it just me, or does the fact that my ship is flying through a planet make the game a little stupid?
2. If I have shields on a ship, then why not add this to the graphical experience?
3. Why not include the corporation logo on each memberĘs ship?
There is a simple answer to the above questions. You're in a pod; the pods computer created the graphical interface that you can see (Also simulates the sound, in a vacuum). So you could say that you don't actually pass through objects, it's just the computer taking the simple route. The shield is the same way; they change the effects for things every now and then so they may just implement something better. Corp logos on ships, I think they want to keep the load simple so everything stays more or less uniform, you can live without it!
Originally by: Lystrah I cannot understand why this is not included. ItĘs really simple things that would improve the feelings in the game. I have thought about this for 3 years now, felt like I need to say my meaning.
Does it really detract that much from the game?
Originally by: Lystrah 4. Also, why not include a feature in the cargo so that you can divide it to different sections? This way making it easier to sort your items.
As someone already mentioned, Station Containers, they are not expensive and do the job perfectly!
Originally by: Lystrah -Rygel
Did you use the wrong alt?
I say prep for dustoff, nuke the site from orbit...
Only way to be sure! |
Swiftgaze
|
Posted - 2009.10.13 10:16:00 -
[53]
Okay everyone who just assumed that corp logos on ships would require more database entries please stop raising your opinions in software-related discussions from now on. :S
|
Hooch Flux
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.10.13 10:36:00 -
[54]
Originally by: Swiftgaze Okay everyone who just assumed that corp logos on ships would require more database entries please stop raising your opinions in software-related discussions from now on. :S
I was actually thinking more about graphics, but fair enough, as long as you have the option to turn them off.
I say prep for dustoff, nuke the site from orbit...
Only way to be sure! |
Stratharn
|
Posted - 2009.10.13 11:11:00 -
[55]
When a turret misses, I'd like it to actually look like a miss, with the beam/bolt actually missing the ship. Not a biggie, but probably not too hard to code either.
It would also be cool if shells and lasers hit different parts of the ship, rather than all aiming at a single point on the ship. Again, not a biggie. Particle effects at impact points would be a nice addition. Optional, of course.
I'd like to see a bit of ship customisation. If it's a case of saving bandwidth, I can fully understand CCP not wanting to bother... and in the grand scheme of things it doesn't make a blind bit of difference at 50km range... but I'd like to be able to pick a few design characteristics on a ship when assembling it. A few colour options, logo, and light/glow colour choices would be sufficient. Hardly a game-breaker without it, of course... but since we're talking about stuff we'd like to see. :)
I've wanted improved planetary graphics for a while. I'm really looking forward to the patch.
Rob
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iv5lCuv1w8
|
Razin
The xDEATHx Squadron Legion of xXDEATHXx
|
Posted - 2009.10.13 13:40:00 -
[56]
Edited by: Razin on 13/10/2009 13:40:46
Originally by: Ukucia
Actually, you started out talking about "overcoming" gravity, and then changed to "escaping" gravity.
Let me quote my first post in this thread:
Originally by: Razin ...being able to escape gravity by moving at 50 m/s (or not moving at all)...
I bolded the relevant words to make it easier for you.
Originally by: Ukucia
Your assertion that some ships can't overcome gravity, b/c their top speed is 50m/s.
And I explained my assertion here:
Originally by: Razin
The problem with your logic is that a ship with enough thrust to overcome the gravitational pull of, say, an Earth size planet, would have a top speed significantly higher than 50 m/s in any scenario resembling reality. For this not to be true some very low impulse engine system and monstrously high mass propellant would be required, which would present so many other problems that it's not really worth discussing.
Instead of reading, understanding the context, and responding to relevant points, you started rationalizing EVE's game mechanics with IRL physics and hummingbirds and made yourself look silly.
Originally by: Ukucia
Geosynchronous satellites are traveling at 0 m/s and don't fall to the surface. Relying on "speed" as your measure of overcoming gravity causes issues, in that there's more than one reference frame. That geosynchronous satellite is traveling 0 m/s relative to a fixed point on the surface of the Earth. Relative to the center of the galaxy, it's doing several million km/s.
The satellite in geosync is moving with respect to the gravitational mass that it is orbiting. Everything else (which is most of what you wrote) is sophistry. Either that or you are hopelessly out of your depth ('wiki knowledge' only goes so far and does not replace logical thought).
Originally by: Ukucia And to be really, really pedantic, if you stop your ship you're not in low orbit. Can't be orbiting without moving.
I was in LO when I was doing the stopping. Therefore 'I stopped in low orbit'. Your pedantism is nothing but obnoxiousness. ...
|
Julius Rigel
|
Posted - 2009.10.13 13:55:00 -
[57]
Originally by: Lystrah 4. Also, why not include a feature in the cargo so that you can devide it to different sections? this way making it more easy to sort your items.
You mean cargo containers?
As for the shields thing, a shield is just a "force field". Just like you don't see magnetism, you don't see the shields around your ship either.
|
Mister Alt
|
Posted - 2009.10.13 14:52:00 -
[58]
So you notice you're warping through planets but not that NOTHING ORBITS ANYTHING??
why dont those planets ever move?
A safe spot between 2 planets shouldn't put you at the same point between them 6 months later...
|
Dr Karsun
Gallente HUSARIA Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.10.13 18:21:00 -
[59]
Edited by: Dr Karsun on 13/10/2009 18:22:27 Actually the warp-threw-planet thing could be easily avoided... The warp is just a line, it's straight, but why not bend it... The super-mega-ultra computers calculating when to -exactly- stop a ship to land 1000m away from it... I mean, why can't they create a parabolic line of travel? Or even sinusoidal if required.
It'd solve the problem by lengthening warp distances (I guess we can live with that). It would make it a lot more realistic (and yes, I am talking about realistic in terms of a si-fi game with space ships shooting each other in deep cold space).
Making custom signatures and banners - check my in-game bio for details! |
Julius Rigel
|
Posted - 2009.10.13 18:56:00 -
[60]
Originally by: Dr Karsun I mean, why can't they create a parabolic line of travel? Or even sinusoidal if required.
Then you would also have to solve the "problem" of ships being able to leisurely fly into planets at sub-warp speed.
You would have to give the planet models collision detection etc. which would be a big headache to fix a mostly cosmetic problem.
Not that I don't agree fixing a cosmetic problem would be nice, but tough luck convincing CCP. Your energy is better spent actually playing the game than talking to someone through a metaphorical sound proof wall of that size.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |