Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 3 post(s) |
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
1847
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 16:50:36 -
[61] - Quote
Captain Campion wrote:I'm not quite following what this change means, any chance you could dumb it down for me, perhaps with pictures? :D
Ever notice that if you're just in orbit around something and you turn on your MWD, sometimes you fly off in a significantly different direction/orbital plane than you had previously been flying in?
This fixes that.
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
|
Mister Ripley
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
155
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 18:40:58 -
[62] - Quote
Captain Campion wrote:I'm not quite following what this change means, any chance you could dumb it down for me, perhaps with pictures? :D Now:
- Click orbit -> ship orbits in a certain inclination
- Changing your max. speed makes your ship change its orbit inclination and sometimes even the orbit direction (clockwise to counter clockwise or vice versa). Here's another image, just ignore the description and look at the different orbits.
- This leads to pretty irritating situations where you activate your AB or MWD while orbiting and your ships stops, makes a u-turn and then starst orbiting with a different inclination or even direction
- Same for webbing. It can make your ship do weird **** if you orbit and get webbed.
New:
- If your max. speed changes (AB/MWD/Web), your ship will just keep orbiting with the same inclination and direction as before.
As far as I understand it the initial orbit inclanation will still be random or whatever the formula is and it will change if you hit orbit again after your max. speed changed.
SurrenderMonkey wrote:GetSirrus wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Stasis webifiers will no longer cause direction changes. Would this statement include the use of webifiers to reduce time to warp for large or capital? wat. I think he confuses orbit direction with align direction and therefor align time. |
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
307
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 20:08:08 -
[63] - Quote
Thumbs up here. |
Daemun Khanid
Apollo Defence Industries
324
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 20:09:39 -
[64] - Quote
This is a change I can whole heartedly get behind. I can't count the times I felt like I would have lived through a fight had my ship not stopped mid flight to change direction, sapping my velocity and transverse speed in the process. Some people may come to the conclusion that it will potentially make kiters a little harder to kill but I don't think it's in a manner that is unreasonable or beyond expectations of how ships should be behaving in the first place.
Daemun of Khanid
|
Beta Maoye
89
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 09:27:49 -
[65] - Quote
I don't want manual orbiting. I want a dogfight mode like Valkyrie. |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2907
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 17:03:17 -
[66] - Quote
Annia Aurel wrote:There is a blatant error in Eve's physics calculations related to orbiting.
Angular velocity is calculated in an approximate fashion that takes into account the relative speed and position of the two ships in question but ignores their rotation.
Easy example, a frigate orbits a stationary target in a circular orbit. In real world physics, the angular velocity of the stationary target, as seen by the orbiting frigate is zero. In other words, the guns of the frigate will always point at the target without the need to turn in any way. Build a paper model if you don't believe me.
In Eve physics, on the other hand, the same 'angular velocity' is calculated for both ships. Which is only correct if none of the ships are changing direction and is thus plain wrong in case of orbiting.
Now, the error would be very simple to fix by calculating velocities based on position changes between server ticks and factoring in the corresponding rotation (just subtract this rotation from the present wrong formula, and voila, everything is correct).
Now, it can be argued that a) this will complicate calculations and b) it is desireable from a gameplay point of view.
a) Can only be answered by the devs
b) Is up for debate. I never get why orbiting in a fast frigate should give me any problems with tracking. A change of the formula would benefit people who actively pilot their ships, would benefit people in smaller ships (new players anyone?) and would make much more sense to the dedicated physics loving space nerd
Thoughts? It calculates the target's position across a static background. When orbiting a target, you see it move across the static background. If your camera is positioned relatively close to your ship and you see a target seem to briefly stop moving across the static background, regardless of what causes it to seem to stop, you will have an easier time tracking it.
I successfully used this understanding of tracking on a MWD fit Maelstrom to hit NPC frigates with 1400mm artillery at about 10km without webbing or painting, by matching my velocity briefly with theirs.
FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."
Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
|
Arla Sarain
750
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 17:57:17 -
[67] - Quote
Annia Aurel wrote:There is a blatant error in Eve's physics calculations related to orbiting.
Angular velocity is calculated in an approximate fashion that takes into account the relative speed and position of the two ships in question but ignores their rotation.
Easy example, a frigate orbits a stationary target in a circular orbit. In real world physics, the angular velocity of the stationary target, as seen by the orbiting frigate is zero. In other words, the guns of the frigate will always point at the target without the need to turn in any way. Build a paper model if you don't believe me.
In Eve physics, on the other hand, the same 'angular velocity' is calculated for both ships. Which is only correct if none of the ships are changing direction and is thus plain wrong in case of orbiting.
dicated physics loving space nerd
Thoughts? Huh, sounds right.
Guess it is just looking for the change in X and Y in the local space rather than the direction relative to the other observer.
Odd, I always had the impression that the angular speeds would be cumulative. |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2907
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 18:10:45 -
[68] - Quote
There was actually a post a while back in a thread about this very topic, explaining in detail how exactly the turret mechanics in EVE at current actually are accurate with physics, and how they should not, in fact, rotate with the rotating ship. Put simply: a turret locked in place will follow the rotation of its ship, but a turret freed to turn easily and with extremely low fiction will tend to stay where it's facing rather than follow the turn of the ship.
FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."
Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
|
Arla Sarain
750
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 18:18:19 -
[69] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:There was actually a post a while back in a thread about this very topic, explaining in detail how exactly the turret mechanics in EVE at current actually are accurate with physics, and how they should not, in fact, rotate with the rotating ship. Put simply: a turret locked in place will follow the rotation of its ship, but a turret freed to turn easily and with extremely low fiction will tend to stay where it's facing rather than follow the turn of the ship. It doesn't seem like it. The turret tracking speed is as of now a function of it's change of XYZ of in local space.
If you hold hands with another person, and just rotate around a point in between each other whilst constantly facing each other - the locations of your X1, X2 and Y1, Y2 are rotating around each other. But the observers really aren't. They don't change angular locations relative to each other, and end up constantly facing each other. If the turret was modelled after the neck/head, then it wouldn't change angular positions over time either.
I'd mock up an animation, but this seems closer to truth. Turrets do spin around the grid as a consequence of the ship changing local position, but the turret don't actually spin relative to the target, so there is no change in angular position, so no angular speed to observe. |
Mister Ripley
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
158
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 20:39:28 -
[70] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote: Method 1 Change tracking to be based on transversal velocity instead of angular velocity. Seems most of the playerbase believes it is based on transversal anyway. I'll explain: Consider a Wolf is orbiting you at 5km and a Jaguar is orbiting you at 20km. Both have the same sig radius and are moving at the same velocity. Tracking is based on angular velocity, meaning that just as that Jaguar appears to be moving 1/4th as fast as the Wolf (when your camera is zoomed in on your ship), your turrets will in fact track that Jaguar 4x as well as they track the Wolf.
If tracking were based on transversal velocity, there would be no difference in your ability to track either target as they are both moving at the same intrinsic velocity.
This doesn't make sense, since a target farther away is actualy moving slower if we talk about tracking. Tracking beeing the degree that your guns have to turn to keep track of a target. |
|
Primary This Rifter
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
1096
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 03:09:52 -
[71] - Quote
GetSirrus wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Stasis webifiers will no longer cause direction changes. Would this statement include the use of webifiers to reduce time to warp for large or capital? No it wouldn't, as when you're aligning your velocity vector is already along the warp path. This has no effect on the use of stasis webs for that. |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2908
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 03:39:19 -
[72] - Quote
Mister Ripley wrote:This doesn't make sense, since a target farther away is actualy moving slower if we talk about tracking. Tracking beeing the degree that your guns have to turn to keep track of a target. Only angular velocity uses apparent/relative motion. Transversal velocity uses intrinsic motion and only functions in Euclidean physics which all games run on, but which real life does not. EVE simulates angular velocity tracking using extraneous calculations in a Euclidean engine, and switching to transversal tracking would inded have the effect I explained, as well as reducing server load as far as tracking calculations.
FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."
Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
|
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2908
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 03:44:03 -
[73] - Quote
Arla Sarain wrote:If you hold hands with another person, and just rotate around a point in between each other whilst constantly facing each other - the locations of your X1, X2 and Y1, Y2 are rotating around each other. But the observers really aren't. They don't change angular locations relative to each other, and end up constantly facing each other. If the turret was modelled after the neck/head, then it wouldn't change angular positions over time either. Get on a merry-go-round, get it spinning, and then stick your arm out and try to point at any part of the merry-go-round. While those parts appear stationary from the vantage point of your eyes, which are anchored to your rotating head, your arm is much more loosely anchored and will need to push against inertia and continually adjust its alignment in order to continue pointing at the object.
Now point at an object in the distance. It appears to be moving to your eyes, but you can much more easily remain pointing at it--at least briefly before your body turns too far to allow your arm to point at it.
FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."
Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
33293
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 08:44:28 -
[74] - Quote
Reaver you're confused.
Transversal is a speed. It doesn't account for distance. But Angular V does, and it's Transversal divided by distance.
Angular V is in radians. So is turret tracking. They're both the transversal compared to distance.
Angular V is also the same for both bodies at the same time. You don't want to mess with that.
Help, I can't download EVE
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub
PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
33293
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 08:52:20 -
[75] - Quote
Transversal = arc, in meters per second Distance = radius, in meters Angular V = arc / radius = radians per second
Help, I can't download EVE
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub
PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
|
Rivr Luzade
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
2320
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 10:03:28 -
[76] - Quote
A good change to finally make EVE make more sense. You can still do it.
UI Improvement Collective
My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
|
Nicola Arman
Lacuna. AII ShaII Perish
61
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 11:01:27 -
[77] - Quote
Great change! +1 Fozzie |
Freelancer117
So you want to be a Hero
427
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 13:22:17 -
[78] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: We still highly advise players to learn how to use manual piloting for best performance, as the orbit command does not include any advanced logic for managing transversal or avoiding slingshot maneuvers. However now the orbit command will no longer freak out whenever your speed changes, which should bring it in line with reasonable expectations for how it should behave.
Well said
Eve online is :
A) mining simulator B) glorified chatroom C) spreadsheets online
D) CCP Games pay More to win at skill training time, now with instant gratification
http://eve-radio.com//images/photos/3419/223/34afa0d7998f0a9a86f737d6.jpg
|
Camios
Dutch East Querious Company Phoebe Freeport Republic
170
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 22:22:40 -
[79] - Quote
That's great, I've been saying this for ages!
Yours sincerely A Happy Customer. |
Faruzen en Divalone
Reborn Empire
6
|
Posted - 2016.02.13 23:40:47 -
[80] - Quote
Annia Aurel wrote:There is a blatant error in Eve's physics calculations related to orbiting.
Angular velocity is calculated in an approximate fashion that takes into account the relative speed and position of the two ships in question but ignores their rotation.
Easy example, a frigate orbits a stationary target in a circular orbit. In real world physics, the angular velocity of the stationary target, as seen by the orbiting frigate is zero. In other words, the guns of the frigate will always point at the target without the need to turn in any way. Build a paper model if you don't believe me.
In Eve physics, on the other hand, the same 'angular velocity' is calculated for both ships. Which is only correct if none of the ships are changing direction and is thus plain wrong in case of orbiting.
Now, the error would be very simple to fix by calculating velocities based on position changes between server ticks and factoring in the corresponding rotation (just subtract this rotation from the present wrong formula, and voila, everything is correct).
Now, it can be argued that a) this will complicate calculations and b) it is desireable from a gameplay point of view.
a) Can only be answered by the devs
b) Is up for debate. I never get why orbiting in a fast frigate should give me any problems with tracking. A change of the formula would benefit people who actively pilot their ships, would benefit people in smaller ships (new players anyone?) and would make much more sense to the dedicated physics loving space nerd
Thoughts?
Now this would be a problem. Imagine server asking for relative positions of both ships between ticks (1 sec minimum + 2x ping time), and then calculating the damage and hit chance (second tick - we are over 2 sec now). Firing a gun would thus take several seconds to finish. Several seconds latency is not an enjoyable experience in a fight.
However I sure agree with you on the physics part, it would be great but I am afraid its not possible now. But I would like to hear an answer from dev on this too. |
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2986
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 00:00:03 -
[81] - Quote
Faruzen en Divalone wrote: Now this would be a problem. Imagine server asking for relative positions of both ships between ticks (1 sec minimum + 2x ping time), and then calculating the damage and hit chance (second tick - we are over 2 sec now). Firing a gun would thus take several seconds to finish. Several seconds latency is not an enjoyable experience in a fight.
However I sure agree with you on the physics part, it would be great but I am afraid its not possible now. But I would like to hear an answer from dev on this too.
Uh, why would it be using server tick timing. All that data is stored and calculated server side, not locally. Storing it locally would allow massive hacking. However as has been pointed out, inertia also would throw the guns off because they can rotate independent of the ship and therefore the ship turning impacts on their pointing. |
Ixion
IONSTAR Yulai Federation
8
|
Posted - 2016.02.15 22:57:24 -
[82] - Quote
This orbit change is the best thing I have heard of in years! |
Cynthia Aishai
Aishai Industry Inc
26
|
Posted - 2016.02.17 08:17:20 -
[83] - Quote
What a day. What a lovely day |
Soltys
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
93
|
Posted - 2016.02.25 15:52:00 -
[84] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey folks. While we were implementing the Stasis Grappler module we dug into some of the code governing orbiting and movement commands. While we were there we saw a clear path to making the orbit command act in a more logical fashion. As of the March patch, when you use the orbit command and your speed or orbit radius changes, the plane of the orbit will no longer re-randomize. This means you will no longer switch direction when turning on a propulsion module, and stasis webifiers will no longer cause direction changes. We still highly advise players to learn how to use manual piloting for best performance, as the orbit command does not include any advanced logic for managing transversal or avoiding slingshot maneuvers. However now the orbit command will no longer freak out whenever your speed changes, which should bring it in line with reasonable expectations for how it should behave.
Any chances you could peek and consider this suggestion along the way as well ?
Jita Flipping Inc.: Solmp / Kovl
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |