| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Auspels
   |
Posted - 2009.08.07 18:57:00 -
[1]
Does anyone know how to set reverse thrust for a ship? 
Decelerate (Ctrl-Subtract) only allows me to reduce speed to zero. There doesn't seem to be a way for the ship to go in reverse.
Are there races that build ships that go in reverse? If not, will there be in the future?
I have not been able to find a link on this thought; if there is a link, please post in reply.
 Quote:
may god stand between you and harm in all the empty places you must walk
|
Gawain Hill
|
Posted - 2009.08.07 18:59:00 -
[2]
nope ships don't go backwards as they only have engines at the rear of the ship. A stationary ship can turn instantly around though so going backwards makes little to no difference.
|
Davinel Lulinvega
|
Posted - 2009.08.07 19:02:00 -
[3]
There is no such thing. To understand why, you should first know that ships in eve do not have a facing. The only have location, direction, and speed. They simply face the way they're going, so if your ship is going backwards it just turns around. This is why a stationary ship turns instantly as the above poster mentioned.
Originally by: CCP Tuxford
Now the op looks like a weirdo that can't read kekekeke!
inb4 stealth edit |
Crackzilla
The Shadow Order
|
Posted - 2009.08.07 19:04:00 -
[4]
There was a problem adding in the *BEEP* *BEEP* *BEEP* noise when backing up so reverse thrust could not be released as a feature.
|
Auspels
|
Posted - 2009.08.07 19:42:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Auspels on 07/08/2009 19:45:14
There are several strategic reasons why one may want to run their ships in reverse:
1. Staying aligned to a warp point while approaching a destination in the opposite direction. (Event triggering)
2. Combat misdirection
3. Faster deceleration
4. Faster collision recovery
5. Valet Parking
This is a very basic control issue for vehicle pilots. Ships in space are closer subject to the physics of submarines in the water, less VTOL (Vertical Take-Off and Landing, see Harrier) aircraft in the atmosphere, for movement purposes. Submarines have a reverse setting (like most other boats).
I'm sure there's even more reasons to have reverse thrusters. I suppose if our ships aren't capable, then as stated above, it's probably the problem with the *beep* *beep* *beep* feature, so it couldn't be released.
Quote:
may god stand between you and harm in all the empty places you must walk
|
De'Veldrin
Minmatar
Special Projects Executive
|
Posted - 2009.08.07 19:42:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Auspels
Does anyone know how to set reverse thrust for a ship?
Decelerate (Ctrl-Subtract) only allows me to reduce speed to zero. There doesn't seem to be a way for the ship to go in reverse.
Are there races that build ships that go in reverse? If not, will there be in the future?
I have not been able to find a link on this thought; if there is a link, please post in reply.
tl;dr: The physics model in EVE isn't real world physics.
The long answer that everyone else seems to have skirted around is that the physics model in EVE online is a simplified one, more akin to space opera than science fiction. There is no vector-based flight engine (probably because of the lag-inducing crap fest that would follow) and ships have a max veolicty for no apparent reason (except perhaps the roleplay reason of not ripping the ship apart - of course that would still be an acceleration cap, not a velocity cap, but there you have it).
--Vel
Experience is what you get right after you need it.
|
Auspels
|
Posted - 2009.08.07 20:15:00 -
[7]
Originally by: De'Veldrin
There is no vector-based flight engine (<some speculative comments>) and ships have a max velocity for no apparent reason (<some more speculative comments>).
Eve Physics Engine
The above link explains movement in EvE space. But it doesn't explain why ship's have no reverse setting.
There is no logical or technical reason to not implement such a basic movement control in space, even with these physics. It just wasn't implemented. Again, it is possible they couldn't get *beep* *beep* *beep* to work.
Quote:
may god stand between you and harm in all the empty places you must walk
|
Jagga Spikes
Minmatar
Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.08.07 20:57:00 -
[8]
no reason to have reverse thrusters. especially not on magnitude of negating main engine thrust. it would only take mass that could be better used. what most ships do have are maneuvering thrusters, which allow for correction of course, and, to an extent, reverse thrust. it's by far simpler to turn and use main engines to break.
|
Bibbleibble
|
Posted - 2009.08.07 20:57:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Crackzilla
There was a problem adding in the *BEEP* *BEEP* *BEEP* noise when backing up so reverse thrust could not be released as a feature.
I like to think that this is the case.
________________________________________________
For changes to Minmatar Battleships click here (Now with added summary!) |
Aria Gallaine
|
Posted - 2009.08.07 21:09:00 -
[10]
It has been said, and as far as I can tell is true: there is no facing in EVE. Which direction your ship is pointing is purely a matter of eye candy. If so, other than the possibility of confusing other players as to your true vector, a reverse mode would have no substantive effect whatsoever.
|
Auspels
|
Posted - 2009.08.07 21:17:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Jagga Spikes
no reason to have reverse thrusters. especially not on magnitude of negating main engine thrust.
Airline and Shuttle pilots may disagree.
Reverse Thrusters
In space, it can be used to reverse a ship's trajectory to avoid collisions.
NOTE: There would have to be "facing" otherwise, you wouldn't have to align yourself with an object to warp to it. "Align" is another word for "facing", in terms of navigation mechanics.
Quote:
may god stand between you and harm in all the empty places you must walk
|
Aria Gallaine
|
Posted - 2009.08.07 21:27:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Auspels
NOTE: There would have to be "facing" otherwise, you wouldn't have to align yourself with an object to warp to it. "Align" is another word for "facing", in terms of navigation mechanics.
Align is not another word for facing in terms of EVE warpdrive mechanics. Align means 'move toward sufficiently quickly to initiate warp'. 75% of max speed, if the page you linked to is accurate.
|
Auspels
|
Posted - 2009.08.07 21:36:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Aria Gallaine
<some speculative comments>
I can align without warping. After alignment, it becomes approach. Either case, it's facing first. It's a Navigation mechanic. Warp Drive Operation falls under the Navigation skills. WDO is a subset of Navigation.
Potato --> Red potato, or Russet potato. Align (red) or "facing" (russet)... it's a potato.
Quote:
may god stand between you and harm in all the empty places you must walk
|
Bibbleibble
|
Posted - 2009.08.07 21:39:00 -
[14]
Before this thread spirals massively out of proportion, you have to remember that this is just a game, and a game with really weird laws of physics at times.
And on a different note, when would you ever need to reverse?
________________________________________________
For changes to Minmatar Battleships click here (Now with added summary!) |
Aria Gallaine
|
Posted - 2009.08.07 21:50:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Auspels
I can align without warping. After alignment, it becomes approach. Either case, it's facing first. It's a Navigation mechanic. Warp Drive Operation falls under the Navigation skills. WDO is a subset of Navigation.
If you 'align' to an object, in the only sense I have seen the term used in EVE, you will accelerate in the direction of the object up to your maximum speed.
You are right that in standard English, that isn't what align means. You are also right that you can align without warping. Neither of these changes the point that ship facing is just graphics.
|
Auspels
|
Posted - 2009.08.07 21:53:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Bibbleibble
And on a different note, when would you ever need to reverse?
Originally by: Auspels
There are several strategic reasons why one may want to run their ships in reverse:
1. Staying aligned to a warp point while approaching a destination in the opposite direction. (Event triggering)
2. Combat misdirection
3. Faster deceleration
4. Faster collision recovery
5. Valet Parking
There are probably several other reasons more seasoned pilots could find. All of them strategic, if not convenient.
Pretty much, it's a basic movement. It saves maneuvering time.
And keep in mind, I'm not talking about physics. Physics is the "how will it move" as opposed to, "where will it move". I'm talking about the options. Most vehicles have this option available; boats, cars, fighters, etc.
It would seem the focus has become on excuses on why there is no reverse, and the like. I'm not interested in that. I'm aware it was forgotten in game conception. This has nothing to do with physics, logic, or reality.
There simply is no reverse in EvE. As my first post: "Is the option available." The answer is no; EvE ships cannot reverse.
Quote:
may god stand between you and harm in all the empty places you must walk
|
Jagga Spikes
Minmatar
Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.08.07 21:53:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Auspels
Originally by: Jagga Spikes
no reason to have reverse thrusters. especially not on magnitude of negating main engine thrust.
Airline and Shuttle pilots may disagree.
Reverse Thrusters
In space, it can be used to reverse a ship's trajectory to avoid collisions.
...
note that atmospheric vehicle can't simply turn 180 and apply reverse thrust from main engines. while game mechanic does not support vector thrust, result is effectively the same. ships turns and moves into different direction. no need to reverse.
|
Jagga Spikes
Minmatar
Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.08.07 22:05:00 -
[18]
tho, i have noticed that clicking in opposite direction has an effect of slowing down ship faster than performing full stop *shrug* maybe just the feeling
|
Auspels
|
Posted - 2009.08.07 22:07:00 -
[19]
Edited by: Auspels on 07/08/2009 22:08:01
Originally by: Jagga Spikes
note that atmospheric vehicle can't simply turn 180 and apply reverse thrust from main engines. <some speculative comments>
Noted.
Precisely. They don't have to turn at all. The engines project the thrust forward without turning the craft, as opposed to thrusting aft; causing reverse thrust, which in space would compel the ship to move in the opposite direction of it's current trajectory solution, as no major gravitational forces inhibit it's movement in that direction.
Note: Please cite "game mechanix" with some authoritative reference (a link would be nice). Otherwise, your meaning may be lost on us.
Quote:
may god stand between you and harm in all the empty places you must walk
|
Auspels
|
Posted - 2009.08.07 22:11:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Aria Gallaine
Neither of these changes the point that ship facing is just graphics.
I can only suppose the graphics are a simulation of what is supposed to be happening?
Quote:
may god stand between you and harm in all the empty places you must walk
|
De'Veldrin
Minmatar
Special Projects Executive
|
Posted - 2009.08.07 22:42:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Bibbleibble
Before this thread spirals massively out of proportion, you have to remember that this is just a game, and a game with really weird laws of physics at times.
And on a different note, when would you ever need to reverse?
Actually, I don't wantreverse, but it would be nice to be able to face the nose of my ship in a direction that it's not currently moving i.e. Fly sideways.
But that requires an actual vector based flight engine (which I will now explain to alleviate any more comments about the vectors in eve).
In a true vector based flight engine, your vectors would not be discreet objects the way they appear to be in Eve.
In other words - in Eve, if I fly straight forward and then turn 90 degrees to the right, I am now flying 90 degrees to the right.
In a real vector based flight engine, the amount of lateral movement I would accumulate would depend directly on how long I accelerated in the sideway direction, but I would never fly straight in the new direction unless I first stopped my original forward movement.
In other words, my new direction and speed would be calculated based on the sum of my original vector and speed, and the direction of my new acceleration vector.
Eve doesn't do that, at least not noticeably. you simply turn and fly - it's much more like flying a plane that a spaceship -- in fact, the ships even bank when turning, which is completely uneccessary, and in fact, in space, would never be done, since it's additional acceleration you will at some point have to stop.
None of which diminishes my enjoyment of the game. in fact, I'd probably get annoyed with a true vector based flight engine the first time I overshot a landing and bounced off the station at about 3km/s.
--Vel
Experience is what you get right after you need it.
|
Jagga Spikes
Minmatar
Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.08.07 22:46:00 -
[22]
reverse movement wouldn't add anything to the game that isn't already there. you can already control the ship, both through settings and manually.
i could understand request for faster "breaking" or speed/direction reversal, but not why would it have to be by reverse movement. it's not like EVE is made of narrow alleys where you can't turn and burn.
|
Auspels
|
Posted - 2009.08.07 22:54:00 -
[23]
Originally by: De'Veldrin
<some opinions>
But that requires an actual vector based flight engine
*Site source please.
In a true vector based flight engine,
*Site source please. <some speculations and opinions>
<some more speculation>
In a real vector based flight engine,
*site source please <some speculations and opinions>
Eve doesn't do that, at least not noticeably. <Some opinions and speculations> in fact, in space, would never be done *site source please.
<some opinions>
Posters please site your authority on these subjects. Readers may have no idea what you're talking about without some kind of reference. References may add credibility to your post.
Quote:
may god stand between you and harm in all the empty places you must walk
|
Auspels
|
Posted - 2009.08.07 23:03:00 -
[24]
Edited by: Auspels on 07/08/2009 23:05:11
Edited by: Auspels on 07/08/2009 23:04:44
Originally by: Jagga Spikes
<some opinions and speculations>
<some more opinions><a comment>
There is no reverse.
In reality, most vehicles on earth come with a reverse setting. That does not exist in EvE. Deal with it.
So I'm pleased you don't need it. Cause you ain't gonna get it.
Storyline - "In the future, there will be no reverse."
Quote:
may god stand between you and harm in all the empty places you must walk
|
Jagga Spikes
Minmatar
Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.08.07 23:25:00 -
[25]
*shrug* don't have to deal with it, since it doesn't bother me.
|
Auspels
|
Posted - 2009.08.08 00:13:00 -
[26]
Helicopters
Quote:
may god stand between you and harm in all the empty places you must walk
|
De'Veldrin
Minmatar
Special Projects Executive
|
Posted - 2009.08.08 04:21:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Auspels
Originally by: De'Veldrin
<some opinions>
But that requires an actual vector based flight engine
*Site source please.
In a true vector based flight engine,
*Site source please. <some speculations and opinions>
<some more speculation>
In a real vector based flight engine,
*site source please <some speculations and opinions>
Eve doesn't do that, at least not noticeably. <Some opinions and speculations> in fact, in space, would never be done *site source please.
<some opinions>
Posters please site your authority on these subjects. Readers may have no idea what you're talking about without some kind of reference. References may add credibility to your post.
The source in question is called Physics. As I don't have time to look up the entire breadth and depth of it for you, I'll explain what I meant about the banking thing, and leave the rest of it to the intrepid knowledge seekers in the audience.
In order to bank a spaceship, you'd have to apply thrust to place the wings in the banked position (there being no air in space - wait, do I need to cite a source for that? Or can we accept that as more or less a fact.) Due that whole equal and opposite force thing, in order to stop the rotation into the banked position, you would then need to exert an equal amount of force in an opposite direction to stop said banking. Otherwise you'd just continue to rotate around a very oddly positioned axis of motion.
Notice the use of the word banked position - this won't cause the spaceship in question to turn, since again, we have no air for the wings to work against. So really, all you'd have done is waste fuel. As the nearest filling station is on the wrong side of the atmosphere from you, wasting fuel is generally considered to be a bad idea in space. Performing things considered a bad idea in space generally gets you killed. Which is why no one banks spaceships.
mmkay?
--Vel
Experience is what you get right after you need it.
|
Auspels
|
Posted - 2009.08.08 07:10:00 -
[28]
Originally by: De'Veldrin
<some ambiguous comment>
In order to bank a spaceship, you'd have to apply thrust to place the wings in the banked position <some odd comment> <more ambiguous comments without reference>
Originally by: De'Veldrin
Notice the use of the word banked position - this won't cause the spaceship in question to turn, since again, we have no air for the wings to work against.
This was explained in the link I posted above by Eve Wiki about the physics engine.
Here is the link again, in case anyone missed it. EvE Physics Engine
Originally by: De'Veldrin
<some opinions>
mmkay?
Not quite sure what "mmkay?" means. Is that Spanish for something? Never mind. Don't care.
The fact of the matter is, EvE ships do not come with reverse, or any kind of strafing capability. If you like that, great. If not, great. Trolls please move on. Dead topic, question answered. Thank you.
Quote:
may god stand between you and harm in all the empty places you must walk
|
Weeka
Lyonesse.
KIA Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.08.08 15:50:00 -
[29]
Let us say there is reverse thrust, otherwise you couldn't slow down. It is just that the ship turns towards the moving point, regardless of the acceleration vector
---
Please resize your signature to the maximum allowed of 400 x 120 pixels. Zymurgist |
Terianna Eri
Amarr
Scrutari
|
Posted - 2009.08.08 15:54:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Auspels
some crap
You never need to cite sources for common knowledge; try taking an elementary physics course.
__________________________________
Originally by: CCP Whisper
Boo hoo. Cry some more.
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |