Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Camios
Minmatar Sebiestor Tribe
|
Posted - 2011.04.13 13:00:00 -
[31]
Edited by: Camios on 13/04/2011 13:00:55
Originally by: CCP Tuxford Edited by: CCP Tuxford on 13/04/2011 10:33:26 Edited by: CCP Tuxford on 13/04/2011 10:32:33
Originally by: ChromeStriker trying to explain eve physics is fun lol. like fitting torps on frigates, putting BiG ships in Smaller ships, and instantainious data accusition in a light year time frame (it takes several hours for light to travel from one side of a solar system to another so how do scanners work? if its baced on warp physics then it would bypass physical objects, also sub-space wouldnt work for the same reason) dam i love eve
Actually FTL communication is explained in one of the chronicles I believe. FTL communication
When I read that article, I felt quite embarassed. Quality science fiction should avoid any real physics reference, or just say "ok, that would just be plain impossible, it's just nice to have it here"; otherwise it's just an embarassing show of ignorance.
|
Lost Greybeard
|
Posted - 2011.04.13 13:20:00 -
[32]
Edited by: Lost Greybeard on 13/04/2011 13:27:36
Originally by: digitalwanderer Obviously this is considering that in space, there is no gravity, so how could falloff exist in the first place, and that goes double for lasers as there's no projectile at all to begin with...
Your targetting system and controls can no longer assure adequate trajectory control beyond optimal due to unpredictable computational/mechanical error, refraction from space dust, fluctuations in energy-based scans on energy-shielded ships, etc... but they can take a general guess at optimal + falloff and take a potshot at optimal + 2*falloff.
EDIT: This is what a falloff in accuracy literally means by definition, by the way. It has nothing to do with "falling" or other gravity effects. When one guy said "falloff comes from things like barrel alignment not being perfect" and the other guy responded "that's a better explanation than it falling off" I wept a bit for the state of education on this planet. ---
If you outlaw tautologies, only outlaws will have tautologies. ~Anonymous |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.13 13:28:00 -
[33]
Remember, they've intrinsically linked hit chance and hit quality, so you can explain the whole thing by fiddling with both of those concepts at once:
<technobabble> Lasers ù very precise, but quickly lose damage potential once coherence is lost (long optimal, short falloff).
Blasters ù the containment field quickly loses strength and then start to leak plasma at an alarming rate (short optimal, equally short falloff).
Rail Coilguns ù fires volatile ammo with high precision, and throws it far enough before it has time to break down enough to significantly reduce the damage (long optimal, short falloff).
Projectiles ù good old recoil and slow-moving projectiles throws the precise aim off, which causes issues across the entire range band (minute optimal, long falloff). </technobabble>
ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Elaine Shandrate
|
Posted - 2011.04.13 13:46:00 -
[34]
Originally by: CCP Tuxford Edited by: CCP Tuxford on 13/04/2011 10:33:26 Edited by: CCP Tuxford on 13/04/2011 10:32:33
Originally by: ChromeStriker trying to explain eve physics is fun lol. like fitting torps on frigates, putting BiG ships in Smaller ships, and instantainious data accusition in a light year time frame (it takes several hours for light to travel from one side of a solar system to another so how do scanners work? if its baced on warp physics then it would bypass physical objects, also sub-space wouldnt work for the same reason) dam i love eve
Actually FTL communication is explained in one of the chronicles I believe. FTL communication
I believe he mentioned not just communication, but also scanners (probes) We are able to receive data from probes within 30 seconds, directional scanners can tell where ships are, even though the light / sound / other waves take much longer to reach 'your' position in the system. When you scan down a ship in reality, most likely that ship / signature has already left that spot...
|
Velokas
|
Posted - 2011.04.13 13:53:00 -
[35]
This whole conversation just reminds me of this.
Good times. |
ChromeStriker
|
Posted - 2011.04.13 14:04:00 -
[36]
Edited by: ChromeStriker on 13/04/2011 14:05:37
Originally by: Elaine Shandrate
Originally by: CCP Tuxford Edited by: CCP Tuxford on 13/04/2011 10:33:26 Edited by: CCP Tuxford on 13/04/2011 10:32:33
Originally by: ChromeStriker trying to explain eve physics is fun lol. like fitting torps on frigates, putting BiG ships in Smaller ships, and instantainious data accusition in a light year time frame (it takes several hours for light to travel from one side of a solar system to another so how do scanners work? if its baced on warp physics then it would bypass physical objects, also sub-space wouldnt work for the same reason) dam i love eve
Actually FTL communication is explained in one of the chronicles I believe. FTL communication
I believe he mentioned not just communication, but also scanners (probes) We are able to receive data from probes within 30 seconds, directional scanners can tell where ships are, even though the light / sound / other waves take much longer to reach 'your' position in the system. When you scan down a ship in reality, most likely that ship / signature has already left that spot...
If we take the possobility of mirror particles as a given. then the act of breaking the laws of tangible physics should and would be notisable along the same theoretical constants. (dam that sounds cool)
Or basically FTL Communication would be noticable to scanners looking for disturbances in other FTL routers. If you put 2 routers together you would get a noticable white noise frequency change in both, as they interfear with each other. From that a ship scanning probe (combat) would basically have its own FTL comunication system to its launcher and notice the frequence change caused by other nearby ship Comunications.
Or Or, blame it on Quantum
|
Zey Nadar
Gallente Unknown Soldiers Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2011.04.13 14:25:00 -
[37]
Edited by: Zey Nadar on 13/04/2011 14:26:57
Originally by: Akirei Scytale
"Dark Matter" doesn't have to be proven. We KNOW the observable universe contains far more mass than we can see. We just have no clue where it is, and plenty of ideas. Hence the name "dark matter".
Actually you 'know' that only from observing pictures of immensely large scale things (groups of galaxies) from immense distance over very peculiar time frame (as you look into 'past' when you look far enough) and biggest issue: very little distance between observation points (in terms of trigonometry) - usually the diameter of earth orbit or the distance between earth and the observing satellite. Lack of distance between observation points causes distance measurement to be questionable at astronomical distances. Distance measurement in cosmological scale is done by observing red/blueshift, and it makes certain assumptions about light and structure of the universe and so on. Its perfectly possible, that somewhere along the line some of these assumptions are wrong, making the deduction also wrong. (Edit: or rather: useless - cant deduce whether its right or wrong)
|
ChromeStriker
|
Posted - 2011.04.13 14:31:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Zey Nadar Edited by: Zey Nadar on 13/04/2011 14:26:57
Originally by: Akirei Scytale
"Dark Matter" doesn't have to be proven. We KNOW the observable universe contains far more mass than we can see. We just have no clue where it is, and plenty of ideas. Hence the name "dark matter".
Actually you 'know' that only from observing pictures of immensely large scale things (groups of galaxies) from immense distance over very peculiar time frame (as you look into 'past' when you look far enough) and biggest issue: very little distance between observation points (in terms of trigonometry) - usually the diameter of earth orbit or the distance between earth and the observing satellite. Lack of distance between observation points causes distance measurement to be questionable at astronomical distances. Distance measurement in cosmological scale is done by observing red/blueshift, and it makes certain assumptions about light and structure of the universe and so on. Its perfectly possible, that somewhere along the line some of these assumptions are wrong, making the deduction also wrong. (Edit: or rather: useless - cant deduce whether its right or wrong)
Blame it on Quantum
|
Zey Nadar
Gallente Unknown Soldiers Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2011.04.13 14:49:00 -
[39]
Originally by: ChromeStriker
Blame it on Quantum
I actually enjoy certain scifi that makes assumptions of the form "what if scientific law X was untrue?" and then proceeds to develop a world-view of this alternate version of nature's laws.
Much more enjoyable than just inventing something silly and then coming up with equally fantastic explanations why it works (like star wars).
|
Miss Krunk
|
Posted - 2011.04.14 00:19:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Zey Nadar
Originally by: ChromeStriker
Blame it on Quantum
I actually enjoy certain scifi that makes assumptions of the form "what if scientific law X was untrue?" and then proceeds to develop a world-view of this alternate version of nature's laws.
Much more enjoyable than just inventing something silly and then coming up with equally fantastic explanations why it works (like star wars).
Even moreso because history is littered with scientific facts that were later proven not only wrong but comically silly.
Just to clarify though, a weapon CAN get a wrecking hit in falloff so long as it is not more than 2x falloff?
|
|
Captain Brickwalle
|
Posted - 2011.04.14 02:55:00 -
[41]
nanites |
Akirei Scytale
|
Posted - 2011.04.14 22:21:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Miss Krunk
Even moreso because history is littered with scientific facts that were later proven not only wrong but comically silly.
The thing about those "comically silly" scientific facts that were proven wrong is they were still mostly right - in order for a scientific theory to become accepted it has to stand up to a few thousand people constantly trying to disprove it. That means virtually every prediction it made was accurate, or accurate enough - look at Newtonian physics. Its extremely simplified by today's standards, but on the human scale, its predictions are pretty much dead on. When you start applying it to cosmic or microscopic scales, however, it starts running into problems - and Newton himself knew this.
|
Matalino
|
Posted - 2011.04.15 00:19:00 -
[43]
Edited by: Matalino on 15/04/2011 00:23:21
Originally by: Hirana Yoshida
Originally by: Rip Marley I've have read..
Before the last change to turret mechanics, it was possible to wreck at infinite ranges only limited by ability to lock .. (hilarious insta-popping nosy ceptors at 70km with blaster Mega's ) Now you have zero chance beyond 2x falloff so you are reading it correctly I'd say
At 2.5x falloff you have just as much chance to score a wrecking hit as you do at any shorter range, it is your non-wrecking hits that are missing. Up until your chance to hit drops belown 1%, 1% of your shots are wrecking hits. At 2.5x falloff your chance hit is still 1.3%, so you are still getting all of your wrecking hits, but little else. If you go a little further, your chance to hit will drop below 1%. When it does, all of your hits will be wrecking hits, but you will no longer have wrecking hits for 1% of your shots.
Hirana is correct that there used to be a bug that ensured that 1% of your shots were wrecking hits regardless of your chance to hit, and that could result in insta-popping ships that should have been untouchable. While that bug has been fixed, there is still a non-zero chance to hit your target with a wrecking hit regardless of how far or fast it is. However that chance will drop below 1 in 500 before 3x falloff, and less than 1 in 65,000 before 4x falloff.
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |