EVE Search - Argument for Symmetry

Search EVE-Online forums for:

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Argument for Symmetry

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page

Author	Topic
Red Irish	Posted - 2008.07.08 09:45:00 - [1] In my last post I put forth the notion that some of the ships could be more balanced and possibly reflect more of a sense of practicality in design. I fly a Raven. I love that ship, but it's UGLY. Perhaps a contest would be a good way to bring out new ideas. A contest to design a new Raven doesn't have to involve any of the ships abilities. With that in mind I'll go back to flying my Raven and I won't even mention the Caldari Spacestation.
F'nog Amarr Celestial Horizon Corp. Celestial Industrial Alliance	Posted - 2008.07.08 09:53:00 - [2] Problem 1: this has been mentioned a million times before Problem 2: others have offered models Problem 3: there was a recent upgrade in the engine that addressed some/one/none of the problems Originally by: Kazuma Saruwatari F'nog for Amarr Emperor. Nuff said Originally by: Chribba Go F'nog! You're a hero! Not a Zero! /me bows
Ess Erbe Caldari Dromedary Goat Albatross and Fish Big Bang Quantum	Posted - 2008.07.08 09:58:00 - [3] Edited by: Ess Erbe on 08/07/2008 09:58:21 The Trinity Raven at least looks sort of decent in all of its asymmetry instead of "WHAT. THE HELL. IS THAT?" like the pre-Trinity Raven. Moa's still Moa.
Foulque	Posted - 2008.07.08 09:58:00 - [4] I don't mind the asymetry of the Caldari ships, its just a different style. I do get irritated though looking at some amarr ships which have been ruined by some little ******ed growth on their side. Some ships deffinitely need a redesign like the domi, moa, coercer, omen, iterons, barges......Thers alot but I doubt its a high priority for CCP.
Saietor Blackgreen The First Foundation Circle-Of-Two	Posted - 2008.07.08 10:09:00 - [5] There are a lot of controversial ship designs in EvE, but arguments about them are sometimes as shaky as the ships themselves. First, its an "ugly" vs "realistic" thing. Have you ever seen a real space ship? Not the shuttle, but the one designed for open space? It looks like a ducttaped pile of crashed RC cars wrapped in a foil. Is it symmetrical or streamlined? No. Does it look nice? Depends. Me, a person with engineering background, adores them. Caldari ships may look like elements of Esher pictures, but are they "realistic" within EvE universe? Do they have to be symmetrical, or should their engines be symemtrical? Not necessarilty. The mass inside the spaceships is not evenly distributed, plus EvE universe easily allows gravity manipulations, so mechanics of flight can be totally different. Raven is not too bad of a ship in this regard. It conforms with caldari "utilitarian" style, its textures are nicely done and model has no major flaws. There is one feature of EvE design that makes me a sad panda - a clear distinction of "up" and "down". I understand that it is very useful, even necessary sometimes for coordination of actions, universal perspective of tactical overlays and so on, and it even can be explained through RP reasons as a universal standard for tactical data display and camera drones. But why ship always orient themselves in vertical position? Why **pits are oriented front-up? Even for pre-capsuleer times that would be strange design of a spaceship pit, if such thing is needed at all. It shows even harder on stations, that are all oriented same way, with clear up and downs, which is a total denial of zero-gravity construction ideas. Again, if all models were designed with true thought of zero-g vaccuum environment, it wont mean they will look nice - human concept of "beautiful" is defined by earthly objects, proportions and laws. The zero-g conforms with those in terms of newtonian physics - forces and impulses - but features, pruduced by abscense of air and zero gravity will fall off the "beauty" definition. Bottomline, live with Raven :) It might actually look more like a sapaceship than that aquatic Brutix. --- Redesign local/scanner feature - make the place huge, dark and scary again!**
Spineker Caldari State Protectorate	Posted - 2008.07.08 10:15:00 - [6] They already fixed teh nighthawk (ferox) that was one The Hunchback of Notre Dame looking ship
XenoPagan	Posted - 2008.07.08 10:53:00 - [7] realistic or not, asymmetry was right way for CCP art dev team to make something unique with their ships. crafts in all sci-fi movies and games are perfectly symmetrical for no good reason. EVE ship design is like a breeze of fresh air. yup, some of them are ugly, that's how they have to be. there's usually no asthetics in deformed mass of metal, but they certainly can be unique.
Ra Vhim Black Bag Ops	Posted - 2008.07.08 11:12:00 - [8] Bah, the Raven is one of the best looking ships in the game (minmatar shuttle wins). Blackbird and Moa hulls are really ugly though.
Red Irish	Posted - 2008.07.08 11:29:00 - [9] Reply to those that posted F'nog; Did you quit the first time you lost a ship? I doubt you did. Ess Erbe; Why is your portrait attractive? Why isn't you ship? Foulque; Because something else is uglier isn't good enough, is it? Saietor Blackgreen; You've just gotten used to ugly. Spineker; You handsome Brute, yes they did. Now the Raven. XenoPagen; Nothing HAS to be ugly. And where'd you catch that breeze? When you are the only store in town you may sometimes do as you please, but even then it is at your own peril. A business, on the other hand, must always strive to be better or it opens the door to competition. The door is now open and 'Jumpgate' is stepping in. You, me, and thousands of others have spent a lot of hours in Eve. We compete, donÆt we.
Shakari Sween Gallente Space Oddysey Pupule 'Ohana	Posted - 2008.07.08 11:31:00 - [10] Basicly theres no air in space, so no friction. The only reason why current airliners etc are stream lined and symtrical are for speed reasons. In space theres no need for it. You can fly a brick as fast as a slim lined ship cause the shape does NOT effect its speed. This means that the design can be based more about beeing practial to the pilot and crew in terms or combat, damage control and max thrust(speed). Ships that look ugly is also just based on opinion. Some people hate the look of the raven, others love it. There is no need or reason why the ship modles should be redone to be symetrical, so it will never happen. I would really like it for them to take this to the extream. Making ships that look alot more radical and non symetrical. So i hear there's no line to break sigs so your reading this cause I put it in to look like part of my post!

wired2kill State War Academy	Posted - 2008.07.08 11:37:00 - [11] I wouldnt agree that ships in eve have to be pretty for them to serve there purpose. For the most part they are ships for destructive purposes. Ships should look intimadating and menacing, not cute and pretty. Its not as if an npc/player is going to turn around say "Hey!, thats a damn fine looking ship, maybe i should go over and say hi, and arranage a date" Also the artwork team have put a great deal of time and effort into making each races ships look unique, and caldari was suppose to be based on more real life millitary schemes, and i think they've done a pretty good job at it. but wtf do i know...
Exlegion New Light Hydra Alliance	Posted - 2008.07.08 11:40:00 - [12] Originally by: Shakari Sween Basicly theres no air in space, so no friction. The only reason why current airliners etc are stream lined and symtrical are for speed reasons. In space theres no need for it. You can fly a brick as fast as a slim lined ship cause the shape does NOT effect its speed. This means that the design can be based more about beeing practial to the pilot and crew in terms or combat, damage control and max thrust(speed). ^^ This. The quicker some of you understand this the quicker the concept of asymmetry will sink in. There is NO NEED for wings OR symmetry in space. I find the game to be more immersive and realistic with asymmetry. But my pet peeve is spaceships with wings. It's just so wrong. One of us equals many of us. Disrespect one of us, you'll see plenty of us. - Gang Starr
Winterblink Body Count Inc. The Requiem	Posted - 2008.07.08 11:45:00 - [13] Personally I think CCP's done an exceptional job in not only making each race's ship designs distinct between them, while at the same time managing to make all of the designs distinct from other works of sci-fi. That is no small feat. warp drive active \| nature vraie
Siberys	Posted - 2008.07.08 11:57:00 - [14] My opinions on the most asymetrical ships: -Thorax -Celestis -Raven -Scorpion -The starter ships (Except the ammar) -Execuor -Omen Well, these are the ones off the top of my head. I'm sure there are others.
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2008.07.08 12:01:00 - [15] Thorax has always been my favourite ship, but because I had only seen the info image and seen it from certain angles initially, I didn't realise it was asymmetrical. I was disappointed at first, but now I think it would look stupid if it were symmetrical. tl;dr: Asymmetry grows on you. - DesuSigs
Ryoji Tanakama Caldari Daikoku Fleet Shipyards	Posted - 2008.07.08 12:05:00 - [16] Originally by: Red Irish In my last post I put forth the notion that some of the ships could be more balanced and possibly reflect more of a sense of practicality in design. I fly a Raven. I love that ship, but it's UGLY. Perhaps a contest would be a good way to bring out new ideas. A contest to design a new Raven doesn't have to involve any of the ships abilities. With that in mind I'll go back to flying my Raven and I won't even mention the Caldari Spacestation. Actually, most of the asymmetric ships are perfectly practical. The closer in overall shape you get to a sphere the more economic your ship will be. The only practical problem faced by these ships (asside from sheer mass due to size) is turning. The longer and more stretched out your ship is, the more awkward it will be to turn and manoeuvre. This makes some of the more symettrical ships in eve such as the Itty V far less practical than the Raven. So long as your engines are positioned to account for your centre of mass it's largely irrelevant what actual shape you are outside of atmosphere.
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2008.07.08 12:15:00 - [17] Originally by: Ryoji Tanakama The longer and more stretched out your ship is, the more awkward it will be to turn and manoeuvre. The longer your ship is the more turning force the thrusters at either end will excert, making it turn faster. Assuming Newtonian physics, ofc. - DesuSigs
Winterblink Body Count Inc. The Requiem	Posted - 2008.07.08 12:57:00 - [18] Originally by: Crumplecorn Thorax has always been my favourite ship, but because I had only seen the info image and seen it from certain angles initially, I didn't realise it was asymmetrical. I was disappointed at first, but now I think it would look stupid if it were symmetrical. tl;dr: Asymmetry grows on you. Regarding the Thorax, yeah I was pretty surprised at how it looked too the first time I saw one. It looked better than the symmetrical version I was envisioning. The Megathron's another that surprised me, it's got some asymmetry at work there as well which I missed at first. :) warp drive active \| nature vraie
Marcus Druallis Quantum Industries RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2008.07.08 13:02:00 - [19] Originally by: Crumplecorn Originally by: Ryoji Tanakama The longer and more stretched out your ship is, the more awkward it will be to turn and manoeuvre. The longer your ship is the more turning force the thrusters at either end will excert, making it turn faster. Assuming Newtonian physics, ofc. Yeah who says that there are not those rocket things on the sides of long ships that help it get some movement going :p --
Wild Rho Amarr GoonFleet	Posted - 2008.07.08 13:02:00 - [20] I love the asymmetrical designs especially in the Caldari side as it really emphasises their philosophy of function over form. Besides some ships being considered ugly is as much a part of that ships character as its more relevant attributes.

Exlegion New Light Hydra Alliance	Posted - 2008.07.08 13:53:00 - [21] Originally by: Wild Rho I love the asymmetrical designs especially in the Caldari side as it really emphasises their philosophy of function over form. Besides some ships being considered ugly is as much a part of that ships character as its more relevant attributes. QFT. It's why I like the Caldari design thought as well. Maybe it's the mechanical engineer in me that screams practicality over aesthetics. One of us equals many of us. Disrespect one of us, you'll see plenty of us. - Gang Starr
JamnOne Amarr	Posted - 2008.07.08 13:57:00 - [22] ugh - you guys are in space who cares? I mean, are you crusing thru your systems saying "Hey, check out my pimp'd ride?" No. /me flies Amarrian ships which for the most part look cool so he don't worry about looks of ships. ________________________ Originally by: CCP Wrangler So, it's all my fault. Originally by: CCP Prism X Hah! Vengeance is sweet!
An Anarchyyt Gallente Battlestars GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.07.08 14:00:00 - [23] So, some people don't like some designs, while other people don't like other designs, and some people don't mind any of them? AMAZING Originally by: CCP Wrangler Second, a gentile is a non jewish person
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2008.07.08 14:06:00 - [24] Originally by: JamnOne I mean, are you crusing thru your systems saying "Hey, check out my pimp'd ride?" No. I fly Gallente, so yes. - DesuSigs
Chris Liath	Posted - 2008.07.08 15:13:00 - [25] Originally by: Saietor Blackgreen There are a lot of controversial ship designs in EvE, but arguments about them are sometimes as shaky as the ships themselves. First, its an "ugly" vs "realistic" thing. Have you ever seen a real space ship? Not the shuttle, but the one designed for open space? It looks like a ducttaped pile of crashed RC cars wrapped in a foil. Is it symmetrical or streamlined? No. Does it look nice? Depends. Me, a person with engineering background, adores them. Caldari ships may look like elements of Esher pictures, but are they "realistic" within EvE universe? Do they have to be symmetrical, or should their engines be symemtrical? Not necessarilty. The mass inside the spaceships is not evenly distributed, plus EvE universe easily allows gravity manipulations, so mechanics of flight can be totally different. Raven is not too bad of a ship in this regard. It conforms with caldari "utilitarian" style, its textures are nicely done and model has no major flaws. There is one feature of EvE design that makes me a sad panda - a clear distinction of "up" and "down". I understand that it is very useful, even necessary sometimes for coordination of actions, universal perspective of tactical overlays and so on, and it even can be explained through RP reasons as a universal standard for tactical data display and camera drones. But why ship always orient themselves in vertical position? Why **pits are oriented front-up? Even for pre-capsuleer times that would be strange design of a spaceship **pit, if such thing is needed at all. It shows even harder on stations, that are all oriented same way, with clear up and downs, which is a total denial of zero-gravity construction ideas. Again, if all models were designed with true thought of zero-g vaccuum environment, it wont mean they will look nice - human concept of "beautiful" is defined by earthly objects, proportions and laws. The zero-g conforms with those in terms of newtonian physics - forces and impulses - but features, pruduced by abscense of air and zero gravity will fall off the "beauty" definition. Bottomline, live with Raven :) It might actually look more like a sapaceship than that aquatic Brutix. This.
Chris Liath	Posted - 2008.07.08 15:25:00 - [26] Edited by: Chris Liath on 08/07/2008 15:26:20 Edited by: Chris Liath on 08/07/2008 15:25:09 Originally by: Exlegion Originally by: Shakari Sween Basicly theres no air in space, so no friction. The only reason why current airliners etc are stream lined and symtrical are for speed reasons. In space theres no need for it. You can fly a brick as fast as a slim lined ship cause the shape does NOT effect its speed. This means that the design can be based more about beeing practial to the pilot and crew in terms or combat, damage control and max thrust(speed). ^^ This. The quicker some of you understand this the quicker the concept of asymmetry will sink in. There is NO NEED for wings OR symmetry in space. I find the game to be more immersive and realistic with asymmetry. But my pet peeve is spaceships with wings. It's just so wrong. You lot are still the ones who annoy me the most. Just because there is no atmospheric friction in space does not mean that the laws of inertia don't apply. If a ship has an asymmetrical layout then the thrusters and mass have to correspond. If you have all the mass on one side and a thruster on the other, the ship would only spin around. If you have seemingly randomly placed thrusters and superstructure, if not an awkward structure itself (Which a lot of ships seem to have :S) it would most likely veer off to some direction or require SERIOUS adjustments to thruster force on all thrusters, stabilization thrusters, retro rockets, carefully planned placement of mass inside ship, etc. etc. etc. But seeing as we are able to easily cross the immense gaps between star systems, we're probably able to manipulate mass and other nifty things, like the engineer before me adequately pointed out. And for the long ships that turn around a bit too fast, I can imagine there are self-stasisweb systems employing streams of microwaves where it's needed, applying thruster force here and there, and probably maneuvering rockets we don't see. Nifty mass thingies countering the effects of g-forces, shifting of mass adjustment etc. etc. And that's just off the top of my head.
Exlegion New Light Hydra Alliance	Posted - 2008.07.08 16:19:00 - [27] Originally by: Chris Liath You lot are still the ones who annoy me the most. Just because there is no atmospheric friction in space does not mean that the laws of inertia don't apply. I think you're pointing out the obvious here. No one is arguing about ship integrity, mass, and especially how thrusters are configured in order to stabilize unwanted forces. Atleast to me it's obvious that if there's more mass (or size) on one side of the ship then the thrusters will automatically compensate accordingly. Marine and airships do that with today's technology. It's not a problem today and I don't see it being a problem in the future (assuming we're still dealing with Newtonian physics in the future and for the most part). One of us equals many of us. Disrespect one of us, you'll see plenty of us. - Gang Starr
Danton Marcellus Nebula Rasa Holdings	Posted - 2008.07.08 16:30:00 - [28] I like my things asymmetrical, except the women, then again this is EVE. Should/would/could have, HAVE you chav! Also Known As
Dibsi Dei Salamyhkaisten kilta	Posted - 2008.07.08 16:53:00 - [29] Well there has to be some kind of downside for choosing the "yay most technologically advanced!1" race.
Ryoji Tanakama Caldari Daikoku Fleet Shipyards	Posted - 2008.07.08 17:25:00 - [30] Edited by: Ryoji Tanakama on 08/07/2008 17:29:21 Edited by: Ryoji Tanakama on 08/07/2008 17:28:13 Originally by: Crumplecorn Originally by: Ryoji Tanakama The longer and more stretched out your ship is, the more awkward it will be to turn and manoeuvre. The longer your ship is the more turning force the thrusters at either end will excert, making it turn faster. Assuming Newtonian physics, ofc. Well... no... This is only true if your thruster is on one extreme end of the structure while the centre of mass is on the other extreme end (theory of moments). Otherwise, the centre of mass is like the fulcrum of a lever and the closer it is to the centre of the structure the more your work balances out on either side of the system. So for example, your hypothesis could not apply to an Iteron V where the centre of mass would logically be approximately central while your engines are all on one end. Your thoughts would be true if for example, the gallente destroyer were to fire only it's far end (right) thruster to turn left (as most of the mass appears on the other side - the left).

Pages: [1] 2 :: 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.