EVE Search - GIVE US Good Looking Ships!!

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

GIVE US Good Looking Ships!!

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

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

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Golanik	Posted - 2011.04.29 20:24:00 - [31] They're supposed to look like space ships, not like graduate art projects. Space ships are an industrial product and look industrial. Last time I saw a movie with polished, beautiful space ships it was called Phantom Menace and it sucked. Don't even try to argue with that logic.
Jennifer Starling Imperial Navy Forum Patrol	Posted - 2011.04.29 20:28:00 - [32] Originally by: Jacob Stov There are tons of good looking ships in eve. Unfortunatly they don't perform. A good example would be the Caldari hybrid ship line. Ashimmu! I wish my Tengu looked like that, I'd be really very very happy!
Wolfric Draksmile	Posted - 2011.04.29 20:34:00 - [33] Edited by: Wolfric Draksmile on 29/04/2011 20:36:45 Originally by: Golanik They're supposed to look like space ships, not like graduate art projects. Space ships are an industrial product and look industrial. Last time I saw a movie with polished, beautiful space ships it was called Phantom Menace and it sucked. Don't even try to argue with that logic. - Well If that was true, The space ships should have symetric propulsion, and relatively symetric forms to simplify the propulsion equilibirum... - Lot of the industrial ships in this game are more look like combat ship than the true combat ships. - Vikkings had Drakkars, Greeks Trirems, The Spitfire, The Messershmitt 109, The Mustang P51, The B2, The F22, all for War but Beautiful... - A Nimitz class aircraft carrier is not so ugly...
Mortania Minmatar No Compromise Gentlemen's Agreement	Posted - 2011.04.29 21:06:00 - [34] Originally by: Wolfric Draksmile - Vikkings had Drakkars, Greeks Trirems, The Spitfire, The Messershmitt 109, The Mustang P51, The B2, The F22, all for War but Beautiful... - A Nimitz class aircraft carrier is not so ugly... All of these ships have aero/aquadynamic requirements. The underside of a Nimitz is shapely and flow optimized. The top, where it does matter isn't. It's functional as the needs required and gets "ugly". Spaceships don't have those needs, they can be purely functional. Think Borg cubes.
Jennifer Starling Imperial Navy Forum Patrol	Posted - 2011.04.29 21:15:00 - [35] Edited by: Jennifer Starling on 29/04/2011 21:15:07 Originally by: Mortania All of these ships have aero/aquadynamic requirements. Spaceships don't have those needs, they can be purely functional. Think Borg cubes. Still, symmetry is needed if you fly through gas clouds, atmospheres, generally everwhere where there's resistance thus aerodynamics. Space isn't a vaccuum. Especially not in EVE with its phosphorescent clouds -.- Next to that it's extremely unprobable that all ship manufacturing corps factions would pick ugly and asymmetrical ships. Perhaps a few but definitely not all. You'd expect Amarr to make pretty, symmetrical ships that would radiate grandiosity, for instance.
Wolfric Draksmile	Posted - 2011.04.29 21:16:00 - [36] Originally by: Mortania Originally by: Wolfric Draksmile - Vikkings had Drakkars, Greeks Trirems, The Spitfire, The Messershmitt 109, The Mustang P51, The B2, The F22, all for War but Beautiful... - A Nimitz class aircraft carrier is not so ugly... All of these ships have aero/aquadynamic requirements. The underside of a Nimitz is shapely and flow optimized. The top, where it does matter isn't. It's functional as the needs required and gets "ugly". Spaceships don't have those needs, they can be purely functional. Think Borg cubes. Vikkings did not put a dragon head on the front of their ships for hydrdynamics, The shark smile painted on the Mustang P51 did not help it to fly better. Yes I agree with the fact that spacecraft do not need to have aerodynamics form, but, Warmachines had always been impressive. So Industrial ships could be diform but probably not the warships
Hermann Fegelein Amarr	Posted - 2011.04.29 21:27:00 - [37] If you wan't pretty ships, fly Amarr. Their ships are designed to be pretty with symmetrical designs, gold plating, and calligraphy that decorates the ship. If you don't want to fly Amarr than stop whining. The ships of each race reflect their personality. Amarr ships are to glorify their religion and appease their God. Caldari ships are built with praticality and use. Anything not needed on a Caldari ship is removed often leaving just the cockpit, antennae, engines and whatever is needed to hold the ship together. Gallente ships follow an organic approach. This is because they use organic chemicals in many of their ship designs. As a result they have green ships with curved surfaces. It also reflects their beliefs on freedom. Minmatar ships are rugged. Because the Minmatar use Guerrilla Warfare as a military strategy their ships are made out of old materials and stolen items. Much like the AK-47s used by todays Guerillas with rusty parts and a barrel from Russia, receiver from Yugoslavia and a trigger from Ukraine!
Wolfric Draksmile	Posted - 2011.04.29 21:43:00 - [38] Originally by: Hermann Fegelein If you wan't pretty ships, fly Amarr. Their ships are designed to be pretty with symmetrical designs, gold plating, and calligraphy that decorates the ship. If you don't want to fly Amarr than stop whining. The ships of each race reflect their personality. Amarr ships are to glorify their religion and appease their God. Caldari ships are built with praticality and use. Anything not needed on a Caldari ship is removed often leaving just the cockpit, antennae, engines and whatever is needed to hold the ship together. Gallente ships follow an organic approach. This is because they use organic chemicals in many of their ship designs. As a result they have green ships with curved surfaces. It also reflects their beliefs on freedom. Minmatar ships are rugged. Because the Minmatar use Guerrilla Warfare as a military strategy their ships are made out of old materials and stolen items. Much like the AK-47s used by todays Guerillas with rusty parts and a barrel from Russia, receiver from Yugoslavia and a trigger from Ukraine! It is possible to reflect all of these with goodlooking ships. Condescendance is not an answer. Russian T55 or T82 are rustics material, Sukoi 27 or Mig 29 are also rustic planes compared to F16. But They are not ugly. And I fly Amarr. But I don't want to fly a Paladin. So How do I do to have a Marauder?
Jacob Stov	Posted - 2011.04.29 21:49:00 - [39] Asymmetric designs are inefficient. There is no drag in space, but there is inertia. Asymetric ships have to divert propulsion power to keep them flying in a streight line. Woohoo ! I just discovered why Caldari ships are so f+++ slow ! Half of the engine power goes to the manouvering thrusters !
Wolfric Draksmile	Posted - 2011.04.29 21:51:00 - [40] Originally by: Jacob Stov Asymmetric designs are inefficient. There is no drag in space, but there is inertia. Asymetric ships have to divert propulsion power to keep them flying in a streight line. Woohoo ! I just discovered why Caldari ships are so f+++ slow ! Half of the engine power goes to the manouvering thrusters ! Exactly. That I was trying to say with my bad english ;-)

Mortania Minmatar No Compromise Gentlemen's Agreement	Posted - 2011.04.29 22:06:00 - [41] Nah, just make sure the overall thrust is down the +z axis and you're fine. Anything not symmetrical just needs to account for that fact.
Jennifer Starling Imperial Navy Forum Patrol	Posted - 2011.04.29 22:07:00 - [42] Edited by: Jennifer Starling on 29/04/2011 22:08:08 Originally by: Jacob Stov Asymmetric designs are inefficient. There is no drag in space, but there is inertia. Asymetric ships have to divert propulsion power to keep them flying in a streight line. Woohoo ! I just discovered why Caldari ships are so f+++ slow ! Half of the engine power goes to the manouvering thrusters ! Indeed! ^^ Originally by: Hermann Fegelein If you wan't pretty ships, fly Amarr. Their ships are designed to be pretty with symmetrical designs, gold plating, and calligraphy that decorates the ship. They're definitely the least ugly in general. But "pretty with symmetrical designs" isn't true for many of their ships. The Maller and Aurogor are bulky. The Coercer looks ok but it's not symmetrical. The Omen class has an - asymmetrical - growth on the right side which makes it a lot uglier than necessary. The ridiculous - asymmetrical - "cut in half" Crucifier and Aeon are downward ugly. The Tormentor class looks like space maggot at best. And then we're only talking about one faction's ships. The rest is far worse. Can't we have just ONE race out of FOUR with pretty, symmetrical ships????
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2011.04.29 22:10:00 - [43] Originally by: Jacob Stov Asymmetric designs are inefficient. There is no drag in space, but there is inertia. Asymetric ships have to divert propulsion power to keep them flying in a streight line. Woohoo ! I just discovered why Caldari ships are so f+++ slow ! Half of the engine power goes to the manouvering thrusters ! For the record, there are no symmetric ships in EVE, so if we want to include that criterion, all of them have to be replaced. 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
J Kunjeh Gallente	Posted - 2011.04.29 22:15:00 - [44] I'm definitely behind getting all of the ships re-skinned and rendered with the latest and greatest tech, but as for design I don't know. I am personally not a fan of a number of ships, but it's likely just personal taste...someone else might adore them. That isn't to suggest though that CCP should stop trying to make all game assets look ever better. ~Gnosis~
Wolfric Draksmile	Posted - 2011.04.29 22:17:00 - [45] Originally by: Jennifer Starling Edited by: Jennifer Starling on 29/04/2011 22:08:08 Originally by: Jacob Stov Asymmetric designs are inefficient. There is no drag in space, but there is inertia. Asymetric ships have to divert propulsion power to keep them flying in a streight line. Woohoo ! I just discovered why Caldari ships are so f+++ slow ! Half of the engine power goes to the manouvering thrusters ! Indeed! ^^ Originally by: Hermann Fegelein If you wan't pretty ships, fly Amarr. Their ships are designed to be pretty with symmetrical designs, gold plating, and calligraphy that decorates the ship. They're definitely the least ugly in general. But "pretty with symmetrical designs" isn't true for many of their ships. The Maller and Aurogor are bulky. The Coercer looks ok but it's not symmetrical. The Omen class has an - asymmetrical - growth on the right side which makes it a lot uglier than necessary. The ridiculous - asymmetrical - "cut in half" Crucifier and Aeon are downward ugly. The Tormentor class looks like space maggot at best. And then we're only talking about one faction's ships. The rest is far worse. Can't we have just ONE race out of FOUR with pretty, symmetrical ships???? I would not say it better. Why Do it this to the Omen?
Mibad	Posted - 2011.04.29 22:21:00 - [46] CCP atleast give us the new high res textures like you did for the scorpion and T3 ships. (there was some dev blog about the new shaders forever ago) Sure, remodels would be sexy and all, but at the very least give us high res textures for the ships.
Hieronimus Rex Minmatar Infinitus Sapientia New Eden Research.	Posted - 2011.04.29 23:08:00 - [47] Originally by: Tippia Originally by: Jacob Stov Asymmetric designs are inefficient. There is no drag in space, but there is inertia. Asymetric ships have to divert propulsion power to keep them flying in a streight line. Woohoo ! I just discovered why Caldari ships are so f+++ slow ! Half of the engine power goes to the manouvering thrusters ! For the record, there are no symmetric ships in EVE, so if we want to include that criterion, all of them have to be replaced. Or you could place engines asymmetrically to offset this, as is the case with many ships. Also, lots of these ships are pretty ugly. I'd much rather have variety and ugliness than have all ships look pretty but identical (for example if you think star trek federation ships look nice...they are all essentially a saucer with engines in different places).
Katra Novac	Posted - 2011.04.29 23:14:00 - [48] Have to agree, Eve has some of the worst looking ships I've ever seen. But then on the bright side, if they release anymore crap designs they should blend in nicely with what we've already got.
Corina's Bodyguard	Posted - 2011.04.29 23:23:00 - [49] I guess I see a odd form of beauty. I even can stand the Moa... However, I do agree that the textures need to be redone. When you can see clear polygons, theres a problem
Grimpak Gallente The Whitehound Corporation Frontline Assembly Point	Posted - 2011.04.29 23:26:00 - [50] Originally by: Wolfric Draksmile Not a new topic I Know. But I am so sad to see all these ships ridiculously ugly. It is very sad when we see the beautiful ships that were in the final of the starships contest. http://news.deviantart.com/article/133308/ Why not picking in these contest to relook al the ugly ships??? The Apocalypse for example is so ugly that I never bought one. I am about to up Caldari ships to buy a Golem Marauder because I will never get in a Paladin. no --- Quote: The more I know about humans, the more I love animals. ain't that right.

Mortania Minmatar No Compromise Gentlemen's Agreement	Posted - 2011.04.29 23:59:00 - [51] Originally by: Tippia Originally by: Jacob Stov Asymmetric designs are inefficient. There is no drag in space, but there is inertia. Asymetric ships have to divert propulsion power to keep them flying in a streight line. Woohoo ! I just discovered why Caldari ships are so f+++ slow ! Half of the engine power goes to the manouvering thrusters ! For the record, there are no symmetric ships in EVE, so if we want to include that criterion, all of them have to be replaced. Hmm, just thinking about this, aren't the shuttles symmetrical?
Sarmatiko	Posted - 2011.04.30 00:03:00 - [52] Vangel is awesome. Just wait
Jennifer Starling Imperial Navy Forum Patrol	Posted - 2011.04.30 00:06:00 - [53] Originally by: Mortania Originally by: Tippia For the record, there are no symmetric ships in EVE, so if we want to include that criterion, all of them have to be replaced. Hmm, just thinking about this, aren't the shuttles symmetrical? Tipps probably means pointsymmetrical or linesymmetrical. Only Borg cubes and Spheres are.
Maverick2011 Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2011.04.30 00:18:00 - [54] Originally by: Mortania Completely disagree. I don't believe the deviant art contestant pictures are any more awesome than what we already have. Several of the ships do a terrible job of emulating the racial design of ships. Also, there are many awesome ships in EVE already. Nearly all Minmatar and Gallente ships, many of the Amarr and even some of the Caldari ships are all terrific. I think you must be confusing your personal aesthetic sense with universal truth. And you have the universal truth with you of course. Yea, most EVE ships look horrible,like piece of trash flying in space, see only a few of caldari and minmatar ships, they look like deformed insects or pieces of metal combined in a frankenstein style.
Teranul	Posted - 2011.04.30 00:22:00 - [55] This is actually a major peeve of mine with the game. The ship designers for EVE have pigeonholed themselves with these stupidly rigid racial ship design guidelines. They make a point of having the designs be largely homogeneous as though they were all built by the same designer and manufacturer, which makes ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE considering how many damn ship-building corporations there are in the EVE universe. Why do all Gallente ships follow the same design guidelines? Why are there apparently no independent ship manufacturers in the entirety of the damn universe outside of ORE? Beyond that, a lot of the guidelines are just stupid. Caldari is supposed to be "industrial", efficiency-minded, unbalanced... which just makes them all end up looking completely stupid, like the brainchildren of some madman with a major fetish for assymetry. Gallente ships always being front-heavy is just an insult to everyone who gazes upon them. And the Amarr ships, despite being the best-looking of them all, are seriously hampered by the need to put bird-beak shapes on EVERYTHING. It's complete nonsense, and honestly, I'd rather they just throw out all the damn racial restrictions and design ships that are functional AND aesthetically pleasing - y'know, like real spaceship manufacturers would tend to do. The effect an aesthetically pleasing design has on marketing alone is just too damn great to ignore. People tend to put aesthetics pretty high when they're buying cars, why would spaceships not be the same (disregarding, for a moment, that they're thousands of times more expensive)? Besides, for the game itself, the marketing is just going to be more effective if people see ships they WANT to buy because they're friggin' cool. Can you imagine how ineffective a trailer would be if all the ships they showed were the Moa, Bantam, Blackbird and Griffin? There's a reason the Nyx shows up so damn often, after all. CCP would be doing themselves nothing but favors if they could just replace those failtastic designs with stuff that actually makes sense.
Brannoncyll	Posted - 2011.04.30 00:31:00 - [56] Originally by: Jacob Stov Asymmetric designs are inefficient. There is no drag in space, but there is inertia. Asymetric ships have to divert propulsion power to keep them flying in a streight line. Woohoo ! I just discovered why Caldari ships are so f+++ slow ! Half of the engine power goes to the manouvering thrusters ! All you need is for the thrust to act upon the center of mass. Who said the mass distributions of the Caldari ships are uniform?
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2011.04.30 00:49:00 - [57] Originally by: Mortania Hmm, just thinking about this, aren't the shuttles symmetrical? Only along one axis. We tend to think of "symmetrical" as being a matter of Right = Left, but that's because we have a clearly defined "Up" and "Down", and because things rarely need to be symmetrical along this vertical axis because there are other forces around to mostly keep them on the right keel as they move forward (at least as long as we're talking about the stuff we encounter every day). In space, however, vertical symmetry is just as important as horizontal symmetry, and since Up/Down" symmetry obviously isn't a problem for the EVE ships, there's no reason why Left/Right-symmetry could be an issue either (yes, yes: up, down, left and right don't really make sense either, but we're looking at the local reference frame of ships that have an obvious up-directionà so there!). The ship designers of EVE can apparently generate thrust that balances out the (perceptually) wildly different upper and lower parts of the ship, so balancing out the left and right side as well is just more of the sameà Alsoà Originally by: Brannoncyll All you need is for the thrust to act upon the center of mass. Who said the mass distributions of the Caldari ships are uniform? àthis. 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
Preestar The Green Machine	Posted - 2011.04.30 00:54:00 - [58] The problem is spaceships dont exsist so creating over 50 spaceships is kinda difficult but I certainly think thet can do much better than what they have done. Put some effort in it and make them look futuristic.
Mortania Minmatar No Compromise Gentlemen's Agreement	Posted - 2011.04.30 00:55:00 - [59] Originally by: Maverick2011 Originally by: Mortania Completely disagree. I don't believe the deviant art contestant pictures are any more awesome than what we already have. Several of the ships do a terrible job of emulating the racial design of ships. Also, there are many awesome ships in EVE already. Nearly all Minmatar and Gallente ships, many of the Amarr and even some of the Caldari ships are all terrific. I think you must be confusing your personal aesthetic sense with universal truth. And you have the universal truth with you of course. Yea, most EVE ships look horrible,like piece of trash flying in space, see only a few of caldari and minmatar ships, they look like deformed insects or pieces of metal combined in a frankenstein style. I would have thought that my very mentioning of the idea that opinion doesn't = truth would have been enough, normally. But, I didn't leave it at that, I used "I don't believe" and "I think" which are very much opinion statements.
theRaptor Caldari Tactical Operations	Posted - 2011.04.30 00:56:00 - [60] Originally by: Teranul It's complete nonsense, and honestly, I'd rather they just throw out all the damn racial restrictions and design ships that are functional AND aesthetically pleasing - y'know, like real spaceship manufacturers would tend to do. Apart from "lol real spaceship manufacturers" the best ship designs I have ever seen are all heavily industrial with very little aesthetics about them (ie the Sulaco from Aliens). "Aesthetics" = streamlining and spoilers. ie stuff you don't put on starfaring battleships.



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

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