| Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
Miles Apart
   |
Posted - 2009.03.15 15:45:00 -
[1]
Found a nice link on how GPS uses trilangulation.
http://www.how-gps-works.com/faq/q0110.shtml
Short, but mirrors the CCP implementation exactly.
Now it all makes sense, just needed a bit of context....
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2009.03.15 16:02:00 -
[2]
Well, yeah, it would make sense if the probes would emit some kind of signal and the "target" would ANSWER to that signal, trying to be found. Problem is, that doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
Real-life triangulation of a signal that doesn't want to be found, a signal that is "just there" (or reflects some kind of beam you're pointing at it) doesn't use distances, it uses DIRECTIONS.
And for that, you only need TWO sensors, even in 3D space.
If you can determine not only directions, but also distances, you'd only need ONE single sensor !
Adding more probes simply increases the accuracy of the result, but are not needed.
So, no, it doesn't really make all that much sense.
_
Create a character || Fit a ship || Get some ISK |
Kahega Amielden
Minmatar
Suddenly Ninjas
|
Posted - 2009.03.15 16:05:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Kahega Amielden on 15/03/2009 16:05:57
It's actually trilateration or whatever the equivalent is on a 3d plane.
|
Nessaden
Minmatar
The Greater Goon
Clockwork Pineapple
|
Posted - 2009.03.15 16:09:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Nessaden on 15/03/2009 16:09:52
 Originally by: Kahega Amielden
Edited by: Kahega Amielden on 15/03/2009 16:05:57
It's actually trilateration or whatever the equivalent is on a 3d plane.
The 3D equivalent is quadrilateration (or multilateration). I would love if CCP made more attempt to clarify that the scanning system does not use triangulation.
|
big fluf
|
Posted - 2009.03.15 16:11:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Nessaden
Originally by: Kahega Amielden
Edited by: Kahega Amielden on 15/03/2009 16:05:57
It's actually trilateration or whatever the equivalent is on a 3d plane.
The 3D equivalent is quadrilateration. I would love if CCP made more attempt to clarify that the scanning system does not use triangulation.
You guys are 100% correct, ... additional note is the gps receivers, are basically radios that just "listen, they don't emit anything.
This is a direct parallel to the probes "listening " for signatures.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2009.03.15 16:16:00 -
[6]
In the case of GPS, it's much simpler : the entire system (satellites, receivers) are time-synchronized, and the satellites continuously broadcast their local time alongside their ID (that's the simplified version, actual broadcast signal is a bit more complicated, including a lot of other data too once in a while at least), so when the receiver picks up the signal from any satellite, it can easily tell just how far out the satellite is by simply comparing the local time with the signal received. And since you KNOW where the satellites are (their orbits are known with a fairly high degree of accuracy), then you can do this type of location-guessing.
But with probes... you can not possibly detect the DISTANCE from a signal, not unless you know the exact time the signal was sent. So when you're "searching for anomalies", distance from it is the last thing you should be able to determine, not the first.
_
Create a character || Fit a ship || Get some ISK |
Nessaden
Minmatar
The Greater Goon
Clockwork Pineapple
|
Posted - 2009.03.15 16:24:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Akita T
In the case of GPS, it's much simpler : the entire system (satellites, receivers) are time-synchronized, and the satellites continuously broadcast their local time alongside their ID (that's the simplified version, actual broadcast signal is a bit more complicated, including a lot of other data too once in a while at least), so when the receiver picks up the signal from any satellite, it can easily tell just how far out the satellite is by simply comparing the local time with the signal received. And since you KNOW where the satellites are (their orbits are known with a fairly high degree of accuracy), then you can do this type of location-guessing.
But with probes... you can not possibly detect the DISTANCE from a signal, not unless you know the exact time the signal was sent. So when you're "searching for anomalies", distance from it is the last thing you should be able to determine, not the first.
You get distance by sending out a signal and when it reflects you measure the distance from it to you using the time difference.
|
Korerin Mayul
|
Posted - 2009.03.15 16:27:00 -
[8]
surley if it needs 4 signals, its quadrangulation?
// gets coat.
|
Nessaden
Minmatar
The Greater Goon
Clockwork Pineapple
|
Posted - 2009.03.15 16:36:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Korerin Mayul
surley if it needs 4 signals, its quadrangulation?
// gets coat.
No, for that you need angles. Scan probes give you distance only.
|
Great Artista
Caldari
Veto.
Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2009.03.15 16:47:00 -
[10]
Edited by: Great Artista on 15/03/2009 16:48:41
Quote:
But with probes... you can not possibly detect the DISTANCE from a signal, not unless you know the exact time the signal was sent. So when you're "searching for anomalies", distance from it is the last thing you should be able to determine, not the first.
Red shift, phase sift ect. all sorta technical jargon can be applied to the backstory. Since every ship knows the mass of the planets, moons and sun in system, those sifting values of the signatures could be calculated by some formula based on the cross-reference of the gravitational effects of the stellar objects in system. Probes can communicate with themselves as with the ship, that is fitted with an onboard scanner, thus enabling the distance calculation with only 1 probe as one can compare the results of the probe to the results of the ship scanner.
(Obviously leading to the problem that is always present in the eve universe: in reality it'd, take ~8mins to know whats 1 au away.)
But hey, I'm just making guesses, I like filling the blanks in stories with the help of my imagination. 
_______
◕◡◕
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2009.03.15 17:02:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Nessaden
You get distance by sending out a signal and when it reflects you measure the distance from it to you using the time difference.
In that case, you get not only a distance, but also a DIRECTION.
In other words, you only need ONE probe.
Originally by: Great Artista
Red shift, phase sift ect. all sorta technical jargon can be applied to the backstory. Since every ship knows the mass of the planets, moons and sun in system, those sifting values of the signatures could be calculated by some formula based on the cross-reference of the gravitational effects of the stellar objects in system. Probes can communicate with themselves as with the ship, that is fitted with an onboard scanner, thus enabling the distance calculation with only 1 probe as one can compare the results of the probe to the results of the ship scanner.
Then again, you'd only need ONE probe.
Quote:
(Obviously leading to the problem that is always present in the eve universe: in reality it'd, take ~8mins to know whats 1 au away.)
Well, obviously, there's that problem too, but we can invoke the handwavium rule on that one easily.
On the rest of the stuff, meh, no way.
In that respect, the OLD scanning system made a lot more sense.
They should have simply added the "can move probes around in system map" and "universal probes, dynamically configurable range" features, and left everything else alone as it was before.
_
Create a character || Fit a ship || Get some ISK |
Korizan
Oort Cloud Industries
|
Posted - 2009.03.15 17:03:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Akita T
Well, yeah, it would make sense if the probes would emit some kind of signal and the "target" would ANSWER to that signal, trying to be found. Problem is, that doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
Real-life triangulation of a signal that doesn't want to be found, a signal that is "just there" (or reflects some kind of beam you're pointing at it) doesn't use distances, it uses DIRECTIONS.
And for that, you only need TWO sensors, even in 3D space.
If you can determine not only directions, but also distances, you'd only need ONE single sensor !
Adding more probes simply increases the accuracy of the result, but are not needed.
So, no, it doesn't really make all that much sense.
When you use radar you have known values.
The return pulse is such and such strength on such a bearing and such and such height.
Known values.
Bearing in that the radar station is fixed and uses the earth magnetic field to get a bearing.
Attitude uses the same principle.
When you are in space.
Your bearing is NOT constant you could use planets but that would mean every one and having the probe find them for calculations
Also the probe is spinning like a top.
So in order to give you the same results every planet and Star would have to mapped for every system you are in.
And if you are missing any information the whole system fails.
Much easier to just use more probes and get a distance from each probe.
Then based on the bearing relative to the ship you can triangulate.
It really is the most efficient method.
|
Korizan
Oort Cloud Industries
|
Posted - 2009.03.15 17:07:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Akita T
In the case of GPS, it's much simpler : the entire system (satellites, receivers) are time-synchronized, and the satellites continuously broadcast their local time alongside their ID (that's the simplified version, actual broadcast signal is a bit more complicated, including a lot of other data too once in a while at least), so when the receiver picks up the signal from any satellite, it can easily tell just how far out the satellite is by simply comparing the local time with the signal received. And since you KNOW where the satellites are (their orbits are known with a fairly high degree of accuracy), then you can do this type of location-guessing.
But with probes... you can not possibly detect the DISTANCE from a signal, not unless you know the exact time the signal was sent. So when you're "searching for anomalies", distance from it is the last thing you should be able to determine, not the first.
A radar sends out a pulse. it times how long till it the reflection comes back.
Based on the the frequency it knows how long it will take for it to return giving a distance.
A very simple function and the bases on how radar, sonar, GPS, even telecommunications equipment work.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2009.03.15 17:18:00 -
[14]
Edited by: Akita T on 15/03/2009 17:20:40
Originally by: Korizan
A radar sends out a pulse. it times how long till it the reflection comes back.
Based on the the frequency it knows how long it will take for it to return giving a distance.
A very simple function and the bases on how radar, sonar, GPS, even telecommunications equipment work.
You should read up on radar vs GPS on your own and see the critical differences between them if you don't believe me.
And no, the difference isn't that radar sends out a pulse that gets reflected, it's that radar determines BOTH distance and direction with a single location sensor.
GPS is a passive receiver, and it needs at least 3 emitters (the satellites - and 3, since you usually aren't in outer space, the fourth isn't absolutely needed, but it helps with the accuracy) that are relatively far apart in order to function.
So let me repeat this - if the technology of EVE would actually exist - under no circumstances should you ever need more than ONE probe to find the area a signal is in.
The current scanning system makes no sense, not even RP-wise.
The OLD scanning system MADE sense, to a much higher degree (except the "no overlap" part).
The only good thing about the new system is that you can dynamically configure, move and even recover the probes.
Everything else about the current scanning system is worse than the old one.
____
But then again, it's all just a game, so it shouldn't really matter.
This is not about how silly the new scanning system is.
It's about not trying to justify that it's awesome based on misunderstood science.
_
Create a character || Fit a ship || Get some ISK |
Great Artista
Caldari
Veto.
Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2009.03.15 17:22:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: Great Artista
Red shift, phase sift ect. all sorta technical jargon can be applied to the backstory. Since every ship knows the mass of the planets, moons and sun in system, those sifting values of the signatures could be calculated by some formula based on the cross-reference of the gravitational effects of the stellar objects in system. Probes can communicate with themselves as with the ship, that is fitted with an onboard scanner, thus enabling the distance calculation with only 1 probe as one can compare the results of the probe to the results of the ship scanner.
Then again, you'd only need ONE probe.
Well where did I deny that then? »\(¦_o)/»
_______
◕◡◕
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2009.03.15 17:27:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Great Artista
Originally by: Akita T
Then again, you'd only need ONE probe.
Well where did I deny that then? »\(¦_o)/»
Sorry then, misunderstood your position on the issue, sounded like you were disagreeing 
_
Create a character || Fit a ship || Get some ISK |
Korizan
Oort Cloud Industries
|
Posted - 2009.03.15 17:27:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: Korizan
A radar sends out a pulse. it times how long till it the reflection comes back.
Based on the the frequency it knows how long it will take for it to return giving a distance.
A very simple function and the bases on how radar, sonar, GPS, even telecommunications equipment work.
You should read up on radar vs GPS on your own and see the critical differences between them if you don't believe me.
And no, the difference isn't that radar sends out a pulse that gets reflected, it's that radar determines BOTH distance and direction with a single location sensor.
GPS is a passive receiver, and it needs at least 3 emitters (the satellites - and 3, since you usually aren't in outer space, the fourth isn't absolutely needed, but it helps with the accuracy) that are relatively far apart in order to function.
So let me repeat this - if the technology of EVE would actually exist - under no circumstances should you ever need more than ONE probe to find the area a signal is in.
The current scanning system makes no sense, RP-wise.
The OLD scanning system MADE sense, to a much higher degree (except the "no overlap" part).
The only good thing about the new system is that you can dynamically configure, move and even recover the probes.
Everything else about the current scanning system is worse than the old one.
Your right and wrong again.
GPS are passive because the satellites are in fixed positions (Again known values for determining positions on the planet.
And once again yes radar sends out a pulse but it is also based on a fixed position.
You are ignoring this baseline fact and the only reason both GPS and radar work.
But you really don't care about this stuff @ all cause you totally ignored my comments.
All you want is a your single probe back.
And to be honest I like the current system.
So I will agree on one thing, I agree we have different opinions on how the probing system should work in EVE 
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2009.03.15 17:32:00 -
[18]
Edited by: Akita T on 15/03/2009 17:35:21
Originally by: Korizan
But you really don't care about this stuff @ all cause you totally ignored my comments. All you want is a your single probe back.
You missed the last edit on the post you quoted.
And no, I'm not ignoring your comments, I'm simply saying you're wrong.
Also, I couldn't care less about the scanning system, I'm merely miffed about the use of misunderstood/bad science to justify just how "awesomely realistic" this new system is supposed to be.
Gameplay wise, the new system might be better, I don't know, I merely engage in probing on SiSi to see how it works, I never bothered with it on TQ, I have much better things to so than move cubes around the system map.
It simply annoys me that people try to justify the new system with pseudoscientific reasons.
No, it's not realistic, it's not accurate, it's not how it would work.
It's probably better for the game, I don't know, don't care.
Just don't call it realistic/scientific/accurate.
_
Create a character || Fit a ship || Get some ISK |
Lufio II
Amarr
n0thing Inc.
Ghostfleet
|
Posted - 2009.03.15 17:40:00 -
[19]
Akita T, you seem to be misunderstanding the part that our probes don't have a directional component, unlike Radar Systems of today which send out a directed Pulse and thus have a directional component right away:
* Probe broadcasts a "ping"-type signal omnidirectional. Easiest and fastest way to do it if you are looking for something that basically can be anywhere within a sphere around you (in my oppinion).
* Probe then listens for reflections of the ping.
* Probe hears reflection and can make out the time difference of the signal, but not where the refelection comes from (due to not having specialised equipment for it, let's say to keep it as cheap as they are if you need some proper reason other than "Game designers said so"), as the ping did not have any directional component (it was broadcasted omnidirectional). As such one probe can only tell you the distance, but not the direction of something reflecting the signal that the probe sent.
Makes perfect sense to me (way more than the previous scanning system), and the only difference to GPS here is that the sender and receiver are in one place and the signal thus needs to travel the distance twice. |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2009.03.15 17:42:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Lufio II
Akita T, you seem to be misunderstanding the part that our probes don't have a directional component
No, that's exactly what I'm saying it doesn't make any sense.
Why wouldn't they have a directional component ?
For that matter, the only thing they should have is a directional component.
_
Create a character || Fit a ship || Get some ISK |
Korizan
Oort Cloud Industries
|
Posted - 2009.03.15 17:52:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Akita T
Edited by: Akita T on 15/03/2009 17:35:21
Originally by: Korizan
But you really don't care about this stuff @ all cause you totally ignored my comments. All you want is a your single probe back.
You missed the last edit on the post you quoted.
And no, I'm not ignoring your comments, I'm simply saying you're wrong.
Also, I couldn't care less about the scanning system, I'm merely miffed about the use of misunderstood/bad science to justify just how "awesomely realistic" this new system is supposed to be.
Gameplay wise, the new system might be better, I don't know, I merely engage in probing on SiSi to see how it works, I never bothered with it on TQ, I have much better things to so than move cubes around the system map.
It simply annoys me that people try to justify the new system with pseudoscientific reasons.
No, it's not realistic, it's not accurate, it's not how it would work.
It's probably better for the game, I don't know, don't care.
Just don't call it realistic/scientific/accurate.
Actually you should probably go back to your references then. Cause I am not spouting lies there is a lot more that goes into it. I have been working these systems long before GPS ever existed back when it was nothing but a bunch of towers around the world for ocean going navigation (That is actually the predecessor to GPS by the way). IT is all based on known values, that nobody bothers to talk about anymore cause the software takes care of it.
Trust me, doing it by hand really (for lack of a better word) sucks.
The problem is when the those values disappear or become relative the probes would become to complicated and would actually take more time to do the same job then simply launching more probes.
Yes this is science fiction, but if you could do it with one probe, then why not just build it into the ship.
The old system had us warping around dropping probes so we were already @ the probe locations so why not.
You could say well the ship itself was causing distortion.
But then you would have to say that probes only work if they are not on the same grid as anything else.
Too many things we take for granted.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2009.03.15 20:18:00 -
[22]
Edited by: Akita T on 15/03/2009 20:20:55
I'm not saying you're lying.
I'm just saying there's a fundamental difference between GPS (or its predecessor) and radar.
You keep talking about GPS as if it was radar, and as if probes should work like the GPS system.
Scanner probes should, by any possible logic (RP or scientific), behave similar to a radar system, not like a GPS system.
AGAIN, I'm also not saying they SHOULD go back to the old system, keep the new one, it's good enough (although the interface could use a lot of work).
All I'm saying is that trying to justify the new system as in "it makes scientific sense" is bogus.
It doesn't make scientific sense, but it doesn't really matter, as long as it makes gameplay sense.
Just don't pretend it DOES make scientific sense.
P.S. Although, if they COULD come up with a pertinent RP explanation (will be a tough one), I'd also settle for that.
_
Create a character || Fit a ship || Get some ISK |
Le Skunk
Low Sec Liberators
|
Posted - 2009.03.15 21:12:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Akita T
various bits and bobs
LOL - I was wondering if there was a thread about this with you in last night when it came up in chat.
Also its about time for another Akita T megathread so get thinking of something contentious
SKUNK
(o)
|
James Malice
Gallente
Legion Of Mad Cats
|
Posted - 2009.03.15 21:34:00 -
[24]
It's a game
It works the way it works
get over it.
Originally by: MooKids
I like them, I have an elite rating in HULL TANKING! That is like saying I can block punches with my face.
|
|
CCP Greyscale
|
Posted - 2009.03.15 21:34:00 -
[25]
How about "scanner probes utilize a passive, non-directional scanning technique based on minute disturbances in the gravitational fields of local space-time"? It can explain the FTL-ness (mysterious gravitational action-at-a-distance), the horrible inaccuracies at longer ranges (equipment doesn't have the resolution to properly distinguish weak disturbances at long range) and the non-directionalness (scientific hand-waving lets you assume that the local disturbances let you figure out how big the effect is but not where it originates). You can mix in some Heisenburg if it makes you feel better, and feel free to fall back on the handy sci-fi maxim that everything we currently believe is true about physics is, statistically speaking, wrong so inconvenient aspects of current physical theory can be discarded at will.
I'm not saying this "is" the way it works, and I can't explain why there are Radar, Ladar etc signatures except by saying "legacy systems", but it's an explanation. Can we move on?
Also, if there's anywhere ingame that "triangulation" is mentioned, please let me know so I can excise it.
|
|
Avalon Champion
Gallente Defence Evaluation Research Agency
|
Posted - 2009.03.15 21:42:00 -
[26]
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
How about "scanner probes utilize a passive, non-directional scanning technique based on minute disturbances in the gravitational fields of local space-time"? It can explain the FTL-ness (mysterious gravitational action-at-a-distance), the horrible inaccuracies at longer ranges (equipment doesn't have the resolution to properly distinguish weak disturbances at long range) and the non-directionalness (scientific hand-waving lets you assume that the local disturbances let you figure out how big the effect is but not where it originates). You can mix in some Heisenburg if it makes you feel better, and feel free to fall back on the handy sci-fi maxim that everything we currently believe is true about physics is, statistically speaking, wrong so inconvenient aspects of current physical theory can be discarded at will.
I'm not saying this "is" the way it works, and I can't explain why there are Radar, Ladar etc signatures except by saying "legacy systems", but it's an explanation. Can we move on?
Also, if there's anywhere ingame that "triangulation" is mentioned, please let me know so I can excise it.
Very Nice Response GreyScale, hopefully it will help allieviate the confusion over an internet space ship game.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2009.03.15 22:08:00 -
[27]
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
stuff[...]handwavium[...]morestuff
And now, the only other things we need are a stick, a carrot, and a starving Chronicle writer
_
Create a character || Fit a ship || Get some ISK |
Jordii
Caldari
The Galactic Inquisition
Dark Matter Consortium.
|
Posted - 2009.03.15 22:12:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
stuff[...]handwavium[...]morestuff
And now, the only other things we need are a stick, a carrot, and a starving Chronicle writer
Akita suffers from a severe interweb conditions called "I knoweth moreth than thou" and the deadly "Believe Wuttahwant". Symptoms are repeated trips to wikipedia to become a "well studied individual" on any particular subject and refusal of anyone else's opinion.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2009.03.15 22:16:00 -
[29]
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Also, if there's anywhere ingame that "triangulation" is mentioned, please let me know so I can excise it.
"Astrometric Triangulation (rank 8)"
_
Create a character || Fit a ship || Get some ISK |
Vaal Erit
Science and Trade Institute
|
Posted - 2009.03.15 22:16:00 -
[30]
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Also, if there's anywhere ingame that "triangulation" is mentioned, please let me know so I can excise it.
It's one of the probing skills, but surely you already know that I hope.
Originally by: CCP Whisper
So you're going to have to do some actual thinking with regards to hull components and their capabilities instead of copying some cookie-cutter setup. Cry some more.
|
Lijhal
FrEE d00M Fighters
|
Posted - 2009.03.15 22:52:00 -
[31]
Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Also, if there's anywhere ingame that "triangulation" is mentioned, please let me know so I can excise it.
"Astrometric Triangulation (rank 8)"
This is exactly why people think, eve online use triangulation as scan mechanism... perfect :)
btw, i like the new scan mechanism ... i can scan much much faster plexes down than before ... but we need a scan history !! its really hard to scan down multiple plexes which are located at nearly the same spot :/
|
Sergio Ling
Veto.
|
Posted - 2009.03.15 23:05:00 -
[32]
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Also, if there's anywhere ingame that "triangulation" is mentioned, please let me know so I can excise it.
Oh I dunno...
_
BET ISK ON ANYTHING AT ALL |
Mhaerdirne Solveig
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.03.15 23:08:00 -
[33]
it involves bouncing a graviton particle beam off the main deflector dish
Signature removed. Text is showing as "Signature no longer available" and filesize is well in excess of the allowed 400 x 120 pixels. Navigator |
|
CCP Greyscale
|
Posted - 2009.03.15 23:13:00 -
[34]
:facepalm:
|
|
Cyonidicus
|
Posted - 2009.03.15 23:40:00 -
[35]
LOL
|
Sergio Ling
Veto.
|
Posted - 2009.03.15 23:44:00 -
[36]
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
:facepalm:
it's OK, I don't think anyone has noticed yet
_
BET ISK ON ANYTHING AT ALL |
Hekktor Naireed
|
Posted - 2009.03.16 03:24:00 -
[37]
just want to know if it is possible to scan down a ship in under 20 sec...
Ship scanning and hunting down logoffskis (isk farmers) is terribly screwed...
ah and 4 probes within the same surface - do they give you the solution of the hight? I think they 4th probe must be out of the face of the 1st three... but ingame you just need to drop them, arrange them in a square (same surface) and get the questionable signal in the middle (cut volume of the 4 spheres), what shouldn't work or?
|
James Malice
Gallente
Legion Of Mad Cats
|
Posted - 2009.03.16 03:38:00 -
[38]
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
:facepalm:
So... does this mean you're changing the name of the skill?
Originally by: MooKids
I like them, I have an elite rating in HULL TANKING! That is like saying I can block punches with my face.
|
Bish Ounen
Gallente
Best Path Inc.
Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2009.03.16 04:12:00 -
[39]
Originally by: James Malice
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
:facepalm:
So... does this mean you're changing the name of the skill?
As long as they don't REMOVE the skill. I just finished training it to V!
And personally, while I like some of the new features of the scan system, the horrible inaccuracy and SLOWNESS of it is a real bugger.
A few things that would make it MUCH better:
Once we scan down an anomaly to at least 80-90% accuracy, let us FLAG it (not bookmark, but flag) so that if it's not what we want we can exclude it from further results using a filter (show only unflagged signals) this would allow us to whittle down the various sites that are in close proximity to each other and make the entire experience significantly less frustrating. Even from an RP sense it makes sense that our massively complex on board computer systems would be able to catalog and filter all the search results.
Also, some kind of "zoom" function to automate some of the more fiddly aspects of moving probes around would be welcome. The idea being you can right-click a signal orb, ring or dot and select "zoom to signal" and the probes would automatically warp to positions best for minimizing deviation from that signal, AND reduce their scan range accordingly. It would still probably take a couple "zoom" cycles, but it would be WAY better than trying to dink around with those little arrows at the small scan ranges. Obviously, you would still have to do the initial positioning yourself, but honing down those signals would get much easier.
Those two changes would make scanning much less frustrating and more effective without completely taking the "skill" out of scanning down a ship or plex.
----
Fix the Wardec System! |
Xianthar
STK Scientific
The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.03.16 05:57:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Akita T
In the case of GPS, it's much simpler : the entire system (satellites, receivers) are time-synchronized
its actually much more complicated than this and the devices are _not_ time synchronized primarily because that would be impossible, gravitational time dilation causes time to move slower in orbit than it does on the surface of the earth the system always has to correct for this deviation.
also remember the average handheld device has a rather crap clock crystal in it that costs $0.20, not the $100k atomic clock that sits on each satellite, due to this timing in the handheld is rather inaccurate, there are a lot of tricks in how the system works to get around these problems.
|
Xianthar
STK Scientific
The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.03.16 06:21:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Korizan
A radar sends out a pulse. it times how long till it the reflection comes back.
Based on the the frequency it knows how long it will take for it to return giving a distance.
the speed of EM waves is NOT frequency dependent...and that is only a very small subset of radar, CW (cop guns, which actually have no ranging capability), FMCW (often used in altimeters), etc are not pulse based.
Originally by: Korizan
A very simple function and the bases on how radar, sonar, GPS, even telecommunications equipment work.
what function is this? speed = frequency * wavelength ? sure thats true, but your using it wrong, speed is fixed based on the medium and type of wave, wavelength varies with frequency
Originally by: Akita T
And no, the difference isn't that radar sends out a pulse that gets reflected, it's that radar determines BOTH distance and direction with a single location sensor.
only phased arrays actually get direction based on a property of the signal(s) being sent out and they use multiple transmitters to do this. Otherwise the only direction information from radar comes from the mechanical direction of the antenna.
Originally by: Akita T
GPS is a passive receiver, and it needs at least 3 emitters (the satellites - and 3, since you usually aren't in outer space, the fourth isn't absolutely needed, but it helps with the accuracy) that are relatively far apart in order to function.
true in geometric theory, but 3 sats in GPS is really, really, inaccurate, most receiver IC's i've worked with won't even give you a position from 3 locks, the 4th is actually needed for a timing trick to get around the crappy clock in the receiver and other timing issues not geometry since the 1 of the 2 possible points from a 3 sat fix is usually clearly out in space.
Originally by: Akita T
So let me repeat this - if the technology of EVE would actually exist - under no circumstances should you ever need more than ONE probe to find the area a signal is in.
not sure what you mean, it gives you one distance, so it tells you the probe is within a sphere around the probe with a known (but uncertain, based on signal strength) distance. This is modeled correctly in game.
Originally by: Korizan
Your right and wrong again.
GPS are passive because the satellites are in fixed positions (Again known values for determining positions on the planet.
And once again yes radar sends out a pulse but it is also based on a fixed position.
You are ignoring this baseline fact and the only reason both GPS and radar work.
the 2 technologies really are completely different, yea they both involve geometry but thats where the comparison ends really.
Originally by: Korizan
But you really don't care about this stuff @ all cause you totally ignored my comments.
All you want is a your single probe back.
And to be honest I like the current system.
So I will agree on one thing, I agree we have different opinions on how the probing system should work in EVE
agreed i love it, its much more active, far better than splaying out probes and clicking scan 45 times to try to find a 10/10....
|
Iamien
Caldari
Stargate SG-1
Sev3rance
|
Posted - 2009.03.16 06:30:00 -
[42]
probes cannot detect direction. Simple as that.
|
FlameGlow
Legio Octae
Rebellion Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.03.16 07:04:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Iamien
probes cannot detect direction. Simple as that.
Duh, that's why it's not triangulation.
It's trilateration CCP misnamed 
_____________
I don't care what is nerfed, as long as it's not my "undock" button. |
Space Wanderer
|
Posted - 2009.03.16 09:38:00 -
[44]
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
:facepalm:
Don't take it too hard, just rename it as "Astrometric trilateration" (or something more legacy-friendly like "astrometric measurements") in next patch. Shouldn't take too much work, isn't it?
|
Rosa Rosette
|
Posted - 2009.03.16 09:40:00 -
[45]
i want to love you all sooooo long lol
that was the most epic geek rage thread i have come about in ages!
|
|
CCP Prism X
Gallente
C C P
|
Posted - 2009.03.16 09:46:00 -
[46]
1: "Just train Astrometric Triangulation"
2: "Ah, that's like triangulation in space? Spiffy!"
VS
1: "Just train Astrometric Quadilaterationcybbacrypph"
2: "MY MOTHER WAS A SAINT!"
Really, I have nothing against using perfect nomenclature but sometimes it's just not practical. It's more precise to refer to species by their binomial nomenclature but it isn't very practical. Aside from being understood I'm pretty sure that renaming the skill would flood GMs with "Dude! Where's my skill!?" petitions and just cause general confusion..
.. or maybe I'm just being comptious?
~ Prism X
EvE Database Developer
Relocating your character to a cozy, secure container since 2006.
Relocating your cozy, secure container to the EVE cemetery since 2008. |
|
Space Wanderer
|
Posted - 2009.03.16 09:54:00 -
[47]
Originally by: CCP Prism X
"Dude! Where's my skill!?"
Don't touch THAT argument... You are gonna open a can of worms you don't want to open. 
|
Durzel
The Xenodus Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.03.16 09:59:00 -
[48]
Triangulation sounds pretty cool too, better than Trilateration anyway.
Also, I would imagine that most people know roughly what "triangulation" means from basic experience of GPS, even if they don't know how it works. Not sure if the same can be said for "trilateration" - I hadn't heard of it until this thread.
I only have a passing knowledge of GPS and having played with the new scanning system (and enjoyed it on the whole) I've ended up more educated about how each satellite/probe creates an ever-more accurate location.
Arguing over semantics about whether sites emit a signal in the first place, directions, etc blah blah is a bit too nerdy for my liking.
The new scanning system looks pretty, it works effectively*, it's intuitive (to a newcomer), it rewards & requires player skill. That's good enough for me.
(* Though there are bugs/quirks which hopefully will be ironed out)
|
Ethidium Bromide
Amarr
ZEALOT WARRIORS AGAINST TERRORISTS
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.03.16 10:14:00 -
[49]
Originally by: CCP Prism X
1: "Just train Astrometric Quadilaterationcybbacrypph"
2: "MY MOTHER WAS A SAINT!"
thanks for new sig
Originally by: CCP Prism X
1: "Just train Astrometric Quadilaterationcybbacrypph"
2: "MY MOTHER WAS A SAINT!"
|
white kight
Galaxy Punks
Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2009.03.16 10:32:00 -
[50]
I think i understood the first post, kinda gone downhill from there. However Greyscale made my sig too.
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
:facepalm:
|
ollobrains2
Gallente
New Eve Order Holdings
|
Posted - 2009.03.16 11:53:00 -
[51]
i can now locate wormholes in 10 minutes flat got 5 in 45 minutes today. WIthin 45 minutes id found my way from one region thro 4 wormholes to another low sec area.
Once u have the hang of it its quicker easier and gets u into the action quicker
|
The Snowman
Gallente
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2009.03.16 12:19:00 -
[52]
I beleive Triangulation is correct scientific term. It dates back to when sailors navigated the seas via the stars, the only difference is that in space there is a 3;rd dimension.
So anyone who beleives that triangulation means 3, is merly showing their ignorance. |
Par'Gellen
Gallente
Tres Hombres Psychiatric Hospital
|
Posted - 2009.03.16 14:05:00 -
[53]
I just look at it like this:
It's thousands of years in the future. (i.e. Magic)
---
To err is human. But it shouldn't be the company motto...
|
huxorator
Intergalactic Serenity
Skunk-Works
|
Posted - 2009.03.16 14:23:00 -
[54]
Originally by: CCP Prism X
1: "Just train Astrometric Quadilaterationcybbacrypph"
2: "MY MOTHER WAS A SAINT!"
Wonn't happen. People that make it to this point already survived the "Just install Eve Online Apocryhalapapapathing!" phase.
I vote for renaming the astrometric triangulation to scan probe adjustment (or calibration). This saves the Jita local channel a lot of "what the hell is a triangulation?" stuff.
---
IGS Website | Killboard | Game-Time Cards |
Pakalolo
Tha Shiznit
|
Posted - 2009.03.16 15:28:00 -
[55]
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
everything we currently believe is true about physics is, statistically speaking, wrong
and if everything we know about statistics is wrong then?
|
|
CCP Prism X
Gallente
C C P
|
Posted - 2009.03.16 15:36:00 -
[56]
Edited by: CCP Prism X on 16/03/2009 15:36:57
Originally by: Pakalolo
and if everything we know about statistics is wrong then?
Statistics, by definition, are infallible. They are just empirical measurements. It's their interpretation which is usually all wrong (or the equipment used for measurement). 
~ Prism X
EvE Database Developer
Relocating your character to a cozy, secure container since 2006.
Relocating your cozy, secure container to the EVE cemetery since 2008. |
|
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2009.03.16 15:37:00 -
[57]
Originally by: Hekktor Naireed
ah and 4 probes within the same surface - do they give you the solution of the hight? I think they 4th probe must be out of the face of the 1st three... but ingame you just need to drop them, arrange them in a square (same surface) and get the questionable signal in the middle (cut volume of the 4 spheres), what shouldn't work or?
Do not think of the probes independently figuring out and X, Y & Z axis.
This is simple geometry. The probes *only* know the distance to the target. They have no clue about direction. That is why one probe gives you an answer that is a sphere and so on. On paper (literally) doing this you need three data points to find a spot on the 2D surface of the paper. Get yourself a compass (the kind used in drafting) and you can see the effect easily. When you add a third dimension you need four points to pinpoint a spot (and so on up through higher dimensions).
--------------------------------------------------
"Of course," said my grandfather, pulling a gun from his belt as he stepped from the Time Machine, "there's no paradox if I shoot you!"
|
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2009.03.16 15:39:00 -
[58]
Originally by: CCP Prism X
Edited by: CCP Prism X on 16/03/2009 15:36:57
Originally by: Pakalolo
and if everything we know about statistics is wrong then?
Statistics, by definition, are infallible. They are just empirical measurements. It's their interpretation which is usually all wrong (or the equipment used for measurement).
"There are lies, damn lies and statistics." -Benjamin Disraeli
--------------------------------------------------
"Of course," said my grandfather, pulling a gun from his belt as he stepped from the Time Machine, "there's no paradox if I shoot you!"
|
Nyphur
Pillowsoft
|
Posted - 2009.03.16 15:45:00 -
[59]
Edited by: Nyphur on 16/03/2009 15:46:34
What about switching the skill name from triangulation to trilateration? Not a huge difference and even though it's really quadlateration, I don't think anyone will care. Not that this is a big deal, it's just cosmetic.
I think it's awesome that probes use a form of quadlateration now. I wrote a program that did this years ago using a distance manually acquired from the directional scanner co-ordinates manually copied from the game when making a bookmark. Probes came out and made the program obsolete but it was fun to make and gave me a bit of a head start on the new scanning theory.
|
Nessaden
Minmatar
The Greater Goon
Clockwork Pineapple
|
Posted - 2009.03.16 15:45:00 -
[60]
Originally by: The Snowman
I beleive Triangulation is correct scientific term. It dates back to when sailors navigated the seas via the stars, the only difference is that in space there is a 3;rd dimension.
So anyone who beleives that triangulation means 3, is merly showing their ignorance.
First, triangulation is not the correct term for what we're doing in EVE. What we're doing is quadrilateration, finding where 4 spheres intersect in 3D space. In EVE's case, I believe the closer that intersection is to your target signature the higher the signal strength.
Second, triangulation has two key parts: three and angle. If you believe triangulation means anything other than using three angles to find a location then you're merely showing your ignorance. Note that probes in EVE merely give you distance, not direction, which is why EVE does not use quadrangulation.
|
eFart
|
Posted - 2009.03.16 15:51:00 -
[61]
eve is moar then gps u can triple it tho
|
Ursula Minor
Caldari
Moons of Pluto
Space Exploration and Logistic Services
|
Posted - 2009.03.17 07:48:00 -
[62]
Originally by: Nessaden
As far as the skill renaming goes, I think it should be renamed to Astrometric Quadrilateration. Considering that EVE already has a big enough learning curve, this skill name won't make much of a difference. Simply provide a short description of what quadrilateration is in the skill info, and some people will be able to log off EVE feeling just a bit smarter. I dislike the idea that the skill name is misleads people regarding what scan probes actually do.
I support this idea.
|
Artassaut
Minmatar
Oblivion Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2009.03.17 08:37:00 -
[63]
Originally by: Akita T
So let me repeat this - if the technology of EVE would actually exist - under no circumstances should you ever need more than ONE probe to find the area a signal is in.
There's only so much you can do with 0.1M3. It already expands to many times its own size, is able to use a warp drive, and can scan at 32 AU. Deep Space can do 32x the distance for only 10x the size.
---
The Gate: Lol, try targeting me in a fleet fight.
The Station: No U. |
Zhora Six
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 14:27:00 -
[64]
Originally by: CCP Prism X
I'm pretty sure that renaming the skill would flood GMs with "Dude! Where's my skill!?" petitions and just cause general confusion..
.. or maybe I'm just being comptious?
Prepare for general confusion, then? Patch Notes: "Changed the name of the Astrometric Triangulation skill to Astrometric Rangefinding to better fit the skill's new role."
Also, what is comptious? Did you mean capricious, idk...
___________________________________
Always enjoy your virtual synthetic psychotropics in moderation. |
Crumplecorn
Gallente
Eve Cluster Explorations
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 15:20:00 -
[65]
The idea that the probes can't handle direction since they don't have any fixed points of reference makes sense to me. The probe doesn't really know where it is, since normal sensors don't work in warp and it has less than 10 seconds to do the scan. It's like being thrown into a dark room and hearing a sound. You know it came from *over there*, but which way is *over there* when you can't see anything? You can judge distance though.
It's all moot anyway though; since the probes are obviously using FTL sensing technology (the one bit Akita conveniently handwaves away) they are not relying on anything currently well-known to science. Whatever they do rely on, while instantaneous across at least tens of AUs, does not provide usable direction information, simple as.
-
DesuSigs |
J'Mkarr Soban
Amarr
Proxenetae Invicti
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 15:36:00 -
[66]
What in the world? I'd never actually thought about the mechanics o.o
If you're getting a signal coming in, you should know where from. Hell, even if it's in a 180 degree arc "Signal is over there." *turn round* "Signal isn't over here."
You cannot know the distance until you know the strength of the original signal.
Hell, you only really need two measurements of vector, and then plot where they cross. The others are just to increase the accuracy.
One problem with this system, which cannot be worked around no matter what, and really backs up Akita's idea: unless the object moves, it doesn't matter whether you make four measurements at once, or one measurement four times.
--
These are my personal views and in no way represent the views of Proxenetae Invicti, which maintains a neutral stance stemming from the strong ethics demanded of its work. |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |