EVE Search - Why don't the planets orbit the sun?

Search EVE-Online forums for:

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Why don't the planets orbit the sun?

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page

Author	Topic
Anferney	Posted - 2007.02.09 14:13:00 - [61] Originally by: Arowe Telak It is simply too hard to create a game that realistically calculates Newtonian physics that people actually want to play. Period. [...] If you make planets orbit the sun, you also have to make the moons and asteroid belts orbit the planets, and the stations to orbit the moons. All of a sudden what seemed like a neat yet simple idea is no longer so simple. You have stated why you don't repeatedly do the physics calculations. You do them once and just make things move in those orbits. No actual physics involved, just making pictures move around on your screen in a defined manner. All you would have to do is break out a little bit of geometry and you are pretty much done. I don't think anyone will be checking to see if the motions follow Kepler's laws, so just make it move with a constant tangential velocity on a realistic orbit.
Daddy's Belt Minmatar	Posted - 2007.02.09 14:51:00 - [62] Originally by: Anferney I don't think anyone will be checking to see if the motions follow Kepler's laws, so just make it move with a constant tangential velocity on a realistic orbit. Actually, for all the hardons flashing around here about realistically calculated Newtonian-physics models and the server having to send the exact location of every single celestial object, every millisecond, to every player, and the cry for perfection and anal-retentive splendor, I can imagine that if CCP ever tried to make motion in Eve even the least bit realistic, Arowe and Josh and Bill would break their hands flaming the fool developer who tried. And now, it's time for your buttwhippin!
Biosman GALAXIAN Rule of Three	Posted - 2007.02.09 15:01:00 - [63] actually the bookmarks to asteroid belts and stations of any celestial object would not create a problem as the ID of the 3d model object could be tagged for you to warp to where-ever it may be at any one time. we warp to player all the time,where-ever he may be so its not such an issue. plus we do not need to have moons and belts orbit,just the planets the sun would be the parent and the planet the child which rotates by a simple animation which can be set at a speed to rotate to whatever. the moons would also be children but attached to the planet in the heirarchy tree. simple,but as the earlier post might suggest there may be "lag" or "latency" which is what we are really talking about depending on the server/client. it definately could be done and i bet ccp has already tested it thoroughly.
Marcus TheMartin Gallente Tuxedo.	Posted - 2007.02.09 15:40:00 - [64] because the sun has a 100% stasis webifier strength bounus Half Assed Rhymage
Billy Sastard Amarr Zephyr Enterprises Inc. Astral Wolves	Posted - 2007.02.09 15:56:00 - [65] Originally by: Marcus TheMartin because the sun has a 100% stasis webifier strength bounus Marcus wins the thread! -=^=-
Liisa Freelancing Corp Confederation of Independent Corporations	Posted - 2007.02.09 15:59:00 - [66] If I recall correctly, this has been discussed several times already. The prevailing answer is that the basics are easy to do, it is the actual implemention on a small scale that is the problem, even if we do not consider the increase in data that must move from server to client. An example: the "warp to" system that is used is the problem because we warp to a fixed point. Once we start warping we cannot change that point. Now, remember that an asteroid belt is rotation around a planet which is rotation around a sun. This means that when you warp to a corp mate at a belt he and the belt have moved on in the 30 seconds it takes for you to warp to him (or better said, your warpin point), hence you land not at 0km from him, but at around 30km (using the average orbit speed of the moon which is about 1km/s and NOT taking into consideration the orbit speed of the planet, though I would like to point out that earth has an orbit speed of around 30km/s). Kinda sucks, doesn't it? ----------------------------------
Marcus TheMartin Gallente Tuxedo.	Posted - 2007.02.09 16:08:00 - [67] Originally by: Billy Sastard Originally by: Marcus TheMartin because the sun has a 100% stasis webifier strength bounus Marcus wins the thread! My old sig would agree Half Assed Rhymage
Biosman GALAXIAN Rule of Three	Posted - 2007.02.09 16:18:00 - [68] Originally by: Liisa If I recall correctly, this has been discussed several times already. The prevailing answer is that the basics are easy to do, it is the actual implemention on a small scale that is the problem, even if we do not consider the increase in data that must move from server to client. An example: the "warp to" system that is used is the problem because we warp to a fixed point. Once we start warping we cannot change that point. Now, remember that an asteroid belt is rotation around a planet which is rotation around a sun. This means that when you warp to a corp mate at a belt he and the belt have moved on in the 30 seconds it takes for you to warp to him (or better said, your warpin point), hence you land not at 0km from him, but at around 30km (using the average orbit speed of the moon which is about 1km/s and NOT taking into consideration the orbit speed of the planet, though I would like to point out that earth has an orbit speed of around 30km/s). Kinda sucks, doesn't it? quite right,to implement it the scale factor would need to be addressed and gravitational force calculated to keep the "member" locked to the animated object,or his position directly calculated taking into consideration his location to the parent object=the sun. the computer would need to calculate the correct distance to warp to calculating the math, sun gravitational strength-speed of orbital bodies,direction angle of orbit or ellipse. hmm k lets just have them rotate on the spot
Biosman GALAXIAN Rule of Three	Posted - 2007.02.09 16:18:00 - [69] Originally by: Liisa If I recall correctly, this has been discussed several times already. The prevailing answer is that the basics are easy to do, it is the actual implemention on a small scale that is the problem, even if we do not consider the increase in data that must move from server to client. An example: the "warp to" system that is used is the problem because we warp to a fixed point. Once we start warping we cannot change that point. Now, remember that an asteroid belt is rotation around a planet which is rotation around a sun. This means that when you warp to a corp mate at a belt he and the belt have moved on in the 30 seconds it takes for you to warp to him (or better said, your warpin point), hence you land not at 0km from him, but at around 30km (using the average orbit speed of the moon which is about 1km/s and NOT taking into consideration the orbit speed of the planet, though I would like to point out that earth has an orbit speed of around 30km/s). Kinda sucks, doesn't it? quite right,to implement it the scale factor would need to be addressed and gravitational force calculated to keep the "member" locked to the animated object,or his position directly calculated taking into consideration his location to the parent object=the sun. the computer would need to calculate the correct distance to warp to calculating the math, sun gravitational strength-speed of orbital bodies,direction angle of orbit or ellipse. hmm k lets just have them rotate on the spot
Velakarando Free Traders Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.02.09 16:27:00 - [70] The client could easily compute the location of any celestial object for any time T. The server doesn't need to "move" the objects and send the location to the client. This is not something that would provide exploits. If somebody hacks the position functions for objects, the server positions are out of sync with their client display and they get lots of errors. "That object is no longer within locking distance ..." Game play wouldn't be affected much though. Why waste the compute cycles to do something that doesn't change game play? Also, it's kind of stupid to complain about this and not complain about asteroid belts. At least the orbital positions of planets and moons looks right. The asteroid belts look stupid. Making them more realistic would have a huge impact on game play and make probes absolutely mandatory for pirates. The asteroid belts EVE has now are more like trojan points that have collected a little pile of crap. It would be cool to have both trojan points and real asteroid belts.

Velakarando Free Traders Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.02.09 16:27:00 - [71] The client could easily compute the location of any celestial object for any time T. The server doesn't need to "move" the objects and send the location to the client. This is not something that would provide exploits. If somebody hacks the position functions for objects, the server positions are out of sync with their client display and they get lots of errors. "That object is no longer within locking distance ..." Game play wouldn't be affected much though. Why waste the compute cycles to do something that doesn't change game play? Also, it's kind of stupid to complain about this and not complain about asteroid belts. At least the orbital positions of planets and moons looks right. The asteroid belts look stupid. Making them more realistic would have a huge impact on game play and make probes absolutely mandatory for pirates. The asteroid belts EVE has now are more like trojan points that have collected a little pile of crap. It would be cool to have both trojan points and real asteroid belts.
Lord Slater Amarr Imperial Academy	Posted - 2007.02.09 17:14:00 - [72] Originally by: Ralara Originally by: Arowe Telak Alright, for 10000000000000000000th time. It is simply too hard to create a game that realistically calculates Newtonian physics that people actually want to play. Period. Elite: Frontier did it perfectly. Bear in mind that game was a single player only game [oooh brings back memories of my Python freighter ] As for the idea itself id support it its a cool idea and ill suport it till a dev says that its not possable. ----------------------------------------------- YYAARRHH HAHAHA IM THE HAPPY PIRATE
Gurastas Arrogator	Posted - 2007.02.09 17:17:00 - [73] Sure, Frontier did it, that was why it was a bag of ****e.
Carter Burke	Posted - 2007.02.09 17:22:00 - [74] Originally by: Shania Eria why do they not do this? i think it would be great to have such a thing Because they're bits on disk somewhere. Technically, they orbit Sol. Problem solved. CB
D'an Y'eal Dirty Deeds Corp. Axiom Empire	Posted - 2007.02.09 17:24:00 - [75] From a gameplay perspective orbits add very little and cost too much (server resource-wise). You wind up doing a whole lot of work (man hours and server resources) for what exactly? Even if you just want it for visual reasons orbits are too slow to make much of a difference during a typical game session. ----------------- #begin Sig: Everything I say is the official word of me, my corp and my alliance. Anyone who says otherwise is full of themselves. :D Hillary Clinton on Exxon: "I want to take
Icarus Thorne	Posted - 2007.02.09 18:14:00 - [76] Edited by: Icarus Thorne on 09/02/2007 18:14:44 Originally by: Arowe Telak Alright, for 10000000000000000000th time. It is simply too hard to create a game that realistically calculates Newtonian physics that people actually want to play. Period. This is not true. It's actually quite easy to calculate the period of the orbit when you know the star's mass and the distance of the planet from the star. And you only have to calculate it once, then store it. Then you just position the planet according to the date, which gives you the fraction of the period. In fact, if I recall correctly, planets did move in their orbits at one time, but it was taken out because it was deemed to be confusing to the players. Also, the servers wouldn't have to keep updating the position of the planets. The client could figure it out given a date and a starting location.
LUGAL MOP'N'GLO	Posted - 2007.02.09 19:26:00 - [77] Here's me. Here's me not caring. How many of you would actually sit at a planet long enough to observe it move? Would you sit in a system and watch each planet rotate around the star? For how much effort the devs would put into this, would it be well recieved by the community? No. 100k out of 140k would say they could have better spent their time. WASTE OF MONEY if you ask me. It's your money too you know. ~~~~~~~~~ Ya. It's like that.
MassonA Caldari coracao ardente	Posted - 2007.02.09 19:36:00 - [78] ___________________________
Jason Marshall Hammer Of Light Astral Wolves	Posted - 2007.02.09 19:45:00 - [79] Originally by: Arowe Telak Alright, for 10000000000000000000th time. It is simply too hard to create a game that realistically calculates Newtonian physics that people actually want to play. Period. Don't even try to argue. If you start trying to add Newtonian physics you open a whole new can of worms that at the mmorpg level is simply too much for even 1000 devs. Let's take your idea as an example. If you make planets orbit the sun, you also have to make the moons and asteroid belts orbit the planets, and the stations to orbit the moons. All of a sudden what seemed like a neat yet simple idea is no longer so simple. I'm not saying its not a cool idea, I'm saying its not a good idea considering the problems we have now. Maybe one day years and years from now, somebody will make a mmorpg that has somewhat realistic physics. It'll be awesome and millions aroundthe world will waste their lives playing it. But not now, its just not possible. That sir, is alot of zero's Tacky lens flares in sigs 4tw!
Feerax FATAL REVELATIONS FATAL Alliance	Posted - 2007.02.09 20:23:00 - [80] How about because it's a pointless request?

LUGAL MOP'N'GLO	Posted - 2007.02.09 20:27:00 - [81] Originally by: Feerax How about because it's a pointless request? blah blah blah blah! Oh wait, I agree with you! This whole thread blows goat ass. ~~~~~~~~~ Ya. It's like that.
Derovius Vaden	Posted - 2007.02.09 20:32:00 - [82] Originally by: Arowe Telak Alright, for 10000000000000000000th time. It is simply too hard to create a game that realistically calculates Newtonian physics that people actually want to play. Period. Don't even try to argue. If you start trying to add Newtonian physics you open a whole new can of worms that at the mmorpg level is simply too much for even 1000 devs. Let's take your idea as an example. If you make planets orbit the sun, you also have to make the moons and asteroid belts orbit the planets, and the stations to orbit the moons. All of a sudden what seemed like a neat yet simple idea is no longer so simple. I'm not saying its not a cool idea, I'm saying its not a good idea considering the problems we have now. Maybe one day years and years from now, somebody will make a mmorpg that has somewhat realistic physics. It'll be awesome and millions aroundthe world will waste their lives playing it. But not now, its just not possible. Newtonian physics is the easiest form of physics one can use; if they can make quantum computers, making a model rotate on the client side based on the server's clock should be insignificant.
Reiisha Black Eclipse Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.02.09 20:35:00 - [83] sigh Why doesn't anyone bother to look past the length of his own nose? EVE History Wiki - Help us fill it!
LUGAL MOP'N'GLO	Posted - 2007.02.09 20:43:00 - [84] n00blet 1: "OMG look! Do you see that?" n00b 2: "See what dude?" n00blet 1: "The planet we just warped to!" jaw drops nubbins 3: "What? What happened to the planet?!?! Ahhhh!!!" n00b 2: "HOLY ROFLCOPTERS BATMAN! I see it!" n00blet 1: pees pants "It... It... Its moving away from us at a high rate of speed! Catch it!" n00b 2: "Tiiiiiiiight." nubbins 3: "ZO-MY-GOD!! I wonder if you fly too close to the sun if you melt and die too!" n00blet 1: "Dude, I wouldn't try it. This game is like uber realistic" n00b 2: "Jaaaa dude, jaaa." nubbins 3: "This ibis rules." n00b 2: "Foooo shooooo" n00blet 1: "Yep." nubbins 3: "Uhhhu." n00b 2: "Yaaaaaa." silence veteran 1: "Hey guys, bogie on your six :p" nubbins 3: turns around "Eeek! Runnzzz! The planet is coming back around for another pass!!!" Sorry, work is rarry rarry boring atm. ~~~~~~~~~ Ya. It's like that.
Grendelsbane	Posted - 2007.02.09 23:37:00 - [85] If they'd done it from the beginning, they could have simply tied the positions of the planets to loops in multiples that directly relate to GMT, so that there would be no need to do physics calculations to see where the things should be. They can run on set tracks, like model trains. No one here is going to notice if the period of a planet seems funny. Then you just make orbit items (stations, maybe moons as well to save time and work) geosynchronous, and bookmarks within a certain range of an orbit item or planet all relative to that object; don't allow anchoring or bookmarking on the "track" of a planet. All this could have been done at the beginning, but now it's probably more work than they'd like to do. The benefits, though, would be (1) shut up (some of) the whiners, and (2) the relationships between planets (and their stations , gates, and belts) would change from one month to the next, adding another tactical and strategic dimension. Now I'd also love to see a game with a decent approximation of Newtonian physics, but I do not think EVE could make that transition. The most glaring problem for players would be that gameplay as they know it would end: targeting and weapon ranges measured in tens of km wouldn't cut it anymore. It wouldn't be hard to do from the ground up in another game, though - since interplanetary and interstellar travel can be by gate or warp, there isn't any need to bother calculating gravity effects, just simple straight vectors. Some clever interfaces can take care of the problem of people who can't understand physics. "Approach" commands would then involve acceleration, turn over, and deceleration. Then take a simple movement planning interface like the one used in the Homeworld series of games, and add a feature showing your course line and allowing you to slide your turn over point back and forth along it and showing an ETA, within the delta-vee capabilities of your ship. Et cetera. It can be done, it just won't be done here.
Kim Chee Caldari	Posted - 2007.02.10 00:01:00 - [86] It won't be done for the same reason many other realistic things won't be done. Why aren't missile speeds adjusted for the gravity pull of nearby planets? Firing a missile inside a planetary ring should both slow it down and potentially cause it to detonate early (depending on the way it's designed). Why aren't lasers refracted by ice crystals floating between the weapon and the target? Why don't planets orbit the sun? Same answer.... When you calculate FUN_ADDED / DEVELOPMENT_EFFORT, you get a very very tiny number. Sure it'd be cool... but not as cool as having the servers be stable and lag free.
Shiraz Merlot Octavian Vanguard RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2007.02.10 01:20:00 - [87] Haven't you muppets realised yet that Eve is set underwater? That's why ships without thrust come to a stop. Ditto the planets.
Derovius Vaden	Posted - 2007.02.10 01:27:00 - [88] Originally by: Shiraz Merlot Haven't you muppets realised yet that Eve is set underwater? That's why ships without thrust come to a stop. Ditto the planets. Not sure what fluid mechanics class you failed to come up with that conclusions, but objects in water that have the force suddenly removed from them don't stop dead. Thanks for coming out.
Marcus TheMartin Gallente Tuxedo.	Posted - 2007.02.10 01:51:00 - [89] Originally by: Reiisha sigh Why doesn't anyone bother to look past the length of his own nose? because its dark in here Half Assed Rhymage
ghosttr Amarr The Department of Resource Control	Posted - 2007.02.10 02:02:00 - [90] I personally would like to see things orbit, at least around planets and moons. I think it is rather dumb that out of the amount of space moons and planets have you always hit the same spot. And its even dumber as far as poses and stuff go, i have tried to sit a pos out of visible warp-in range to no avail. Which should be like finding a needle in a haystack.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.