Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Nova Fox
Gallente Novafox Shipyards
|
Posted - 2011.06.01 06:02:00 -
[31]
Space is not a perfect vacume, even your own ship will throw a shot off course becuase its a source of gravity. Rifiling is required to keep the shot from verring off the intended trajectory. Pre-order your Sisters of ≡v≡ Exploration ship today, Updated 3APR11
|
Xercodo
Amarr Daj'Juntar
|
Posted - 2011.06.01 06:07:00 -
[32]
IRL tiny barreled 75mm gun
(thank you WoT for educating me lolololol)
-------------------------------------------------- The drake is a lie |
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
|
Posted - 2011.06.01 06:08:00 -
[33]
just remember, best shot of your life
|
Ciar Meara
Amarr Virtus Vindice
|
Posted - 2011.06.01 08:14:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Stitcher They're awesome. Let's get that out the way first. They're generally quite nice, but let's be clear on this - square is not a good shape for the barrel of a gun. Square barrel means square projectile, means no rifling, means no spin. Spin means accuracy. Longer barrels also mean accuracy too, and some of these barrels are shorter than the base of the weapon.
The most egregious offender, however, is the 250mm light artillery gun which not only has a too-short, square barrel which would have trouble hitting a titan at ten meters, let alone a frigate at seventeen thousand... it's also got a dog-leg in the barrel which would make it impossible to fire.
They're sexy designs, but somehow I get the impression that they weren't made with reference to the idea of creating a gun that actually looks like it can shoot.
OTOH, the 720mm and 1400mm howitzers are both pure gun porn.
Not an engineer, astrologist of astronomer BUT: Does this all even matter in space?
------------------------------------------------- A friend of death, a brother of luck and a son of a *****
|
OverlordY
|
Posted - 2011.06.01 08:41:00 -
[35]
Edited by: OverlordY on 01/06/2011 08:42:41 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASn3E6rEMsk
I show a few artys and auto cannons firing.
|
Atedar Kerane
Silentium Mortalitas
|
Posted - 2011.06.01 08:51:00 -
[36]
Square barrels are the future!
Just look at the A-8 Tiger Tank
|
Glyken Touchon
Gallente Independent Alchemists
|
Posted - 2011.06.01 09:04:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Vauss Dutan What external influences are there on a square object flung through a vacuum in space?
maybe the blast wave from the previous round's impact? Nearby missile detonations etc
______
Originally by: CCP Veritas In other words, I believe Dogma is doing stupid things, and I intend to beat the stupid out of it before considering giving it rocket boots.
|
Skippermonkey
Suddenly Ninjas Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
|
Posted - 2011.06.01 09:22:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Vauss Dutan What external influences are there on a square object flung through a vacuum in space?
Jean Luc Picard - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - OLD FORUM I ♥ YOU, NEVER LEAVE ME AGAIN! |
Lidia Prince
Caldari
|
Posted - 2011.06.01 09:22:00 -
[39]
Edited by: Lidia Prince on 01/06/2011 09:23:22 About guns. 425mm rail cannon needs a little texture fix, barrel just clips through the model when deploying. It's not an issue, but looks a bit odd for such an awesome turret.
Put a dark square spot there, and it will look fine.
|
Pierced Brosmen
Priory Of The Lemon
|
Posted - 2011.06.01 10:59:00 -
[40]
I agree on the point that the kink in the middle of the barrel, though making the turret look "different" and "interesting", makes absolutely no sense what so ever unless the inner barrel isn't going straight (a few degrees downward, when the outer barrel is pointed horizontally, wich again makes no sense).
However, when it comes to the square shape, then the inner barrel might as well still be round. When looking at the business end of the turret, you see that the last bit is sort of an extention to the barrel. And the inner barrel can just as well be ending further back where the main barrel ends, with the extention on the front being more for aestetics or maye have some other use.
What I find more troubling is the fact that the size of the module in the preview window claims it to be "3m long axis" (yes I know that the size measurements supplied by CCP for the preview window is questionable at best, but it's the only measure I have at present), and a rough size comparison (without proper tools) indicates the width of the opening to be 1/10 of the length of the gun, and the hight being roughly half the width.... Meaning the hight of the barrel where the projectile leaves the gun, is around 150mm. Wich definately doesn't make sense on a 250mm gun... However when it comes to the length of the barrel, then we don't know what propels the shells... Personaly I think it's something a lot more potent then gun powder, as we know it...
There are so many questions to ask... Like how these guns can fire at all, since there are no belts or other means to get ammunition to the gun... By looking at the mount, there doesn't seem to be sufficient space to feed ammo through it's arm. Especialy with the joint between arm and guns being so small. And how does the 125mm, 150mm, 200mm autocannon and 250mm and 280mm artillery cannons manage to use the same ammo (same issue with railguns)... It's kinda like saying "I use the same ammo in my .22 pistol and my 9mm.... cause they both use small ammo"... Is all the small projectile ammo 280mm, and as it is loaded into a smaller gun, the ammount of bullet that doesn't fit is carved off? Do minmatar guns fire their bullets like the turrets from Aperture Labs (Portal 2 reference - "We fire the whole bullet. That's 65% more bullet, per bullet")? Is the Brutor Tribe Football team going to win the Intergalactic Cup of Y113? Is Chribbas captains quarters made of veldspar?
Enough with me ranting... EVE is a game, not a simulator... When you are out, flying your ship in space you will propably not be zooming in on your guns that much that you'll take notice of the squareness of the barrels. It would ofcourse be nice if it looked more like a module that could realistically fire projectiles but then again, why don't CCP remove all the nebulaes completely, cause space just looks like bilions of distant stars against a black bacground.
|
|
Stitcher
Caldari
|
Posted - 2011.06.01 11:33:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Pierced Brosmen why don't CCP remove all the nebulaes completely, cause space just looks like bilions of distant stars against a black bacground.
does it? Reality is unrealistic, man. Space definitely ISN'T just tiny stars against featureless black, it's actually full of texture, colour and detail, and that's from our perspective in our comparatively boring corner out in an old, sparsely populated part of the galaxy. Just because the human eye can't pick up that detail unassisted doesn't mean it's not there.
New Eden's supposed to be a rich, dense, dusty stellar nursery, right at the heart of a huge nebula lit up by the light of five thousand close-packed suns. Is it any surprise that high-gain camera drones would pick up more than just black with twinkly bits? -
- Verin "Stitcher" Hakatain.
|
Andreus Ixiris
Gallente Mixed Metaphor
|
Posted - 2011.06.01 11:52:00 -
[42]
Stitcher, I think this kind of operates under the "rule of cool". Square barrels may not be practical but they just... look cooler. ----- Andreus Ixiris CEO, Mixed Metaphor
|
Headerman
Minmatar Element 115. Raiden.
|
Posted - 2011.06.01 11:56:00 -
[43]
I thought it was obvious why there is no square ammo and barrels IRL and will not be for a very long time.
2 reasons: 1 round ammo is far easier to make. Just sit a lump of metal in a lathe, spin it, cut it to the desired parameters. Second reason is round ammo has far less wear on a rifled or smoothbore barrel than a square round would.
But this is eve and not IRL. All serious questions are answered with: Because CCP made it so
|
Mekhana
Gallente Spiritus Draconis
|
Posted - 2011.06.01 11:57:00 -
[44]
The small blasters are a disaster. A lot of the Gallente frigates lose their cosmetic appeal when their guns no longer have barrels.
Can I keep the old ones?
FFS we also need new sound effects. Hybrids sound terrible.
|
Scarlet des Loupes
Gallente University of Caille
|
Posted - 2011.06.01 12:00:00 -
[45]
You're all a bunch of horrible nerds
|
J3ssica Alba
|
Posted - 2011.06.01 12:04:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Stitcher Square barrel means square projectile, means no rifling, means no spin. Spin means accuracy.
This is one of the most accurate guns in the world and it is not rifled.
120mm smoothbore
just sayin
|
Stitcher
Caldari
|
Posted - 2011.06.01 14:53:00 -
[47]
Originally by: J3ssica Alba
Originally by: Stitcher Square barrel means square projectile, means no rifling, means no spin. Spin means accuracy.
This is one of the most accurate guns in the world and it is not rifled.
120mm smoothbore
just sayin
A) that gun is much longer than it is wide, unlike the 250mm artillery I listed above.
B) it is not bent in the middle
C) Its accuracy and the stability of the projectile rely in no small part on the aerodynamic properties of the ammunition it fires. the ammo's aerodynamic properties really aren't useful at all in space. -
- Verin "Stitcher" Hakatain.
|
Hermann Fegelein
Amarr
|
Posted - 2011.06.01 15:01:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Atedar Kerane Square barrels are the future!
Just look at the A-8 Tiger Tank
Yay people still remember this game.
------------------------------------------------
Brigen sie mich Fegelein! FEGELEIN! FEGELEIN FEGELEIN! |
Massimo d'Notwant
|
Posted - 2011.06.01 15:07:00 -
[49]
Originally by: J3ssica Alba
Originally by: Stitcher Square barrel means square projectile, means no rifling, means no spin. Spin means accuracy.
This is one of the most accurate guns in the world and it is not rifled.
120mm smoothbore
just sayin
All the ammunition used with that gun is fin-stabilised (or guided). That's something you certainly can't do in space.
But do we require any gyroscopic stabilisation in space? Someone said there's no significant gravitational force affecting you in space. Let's examine that statement: as an example, take a typical gate fight, the gate is orbiting above a planet.
The gate from Bei to Hagilur is orbiting 23719km above Bei XI, an ice planet. Bei XI has a mass of 1.5e25kg and a radius of 10420km. Newton's law of universal gravitation: F=G*(m1*m2)/(r^2). Based on that, the gravitational acceleration at the gate: g=6,673e-11*1,5e25/23719e3^2=1,78m/s^2.
Significant enough. But this is a systematic error, it can be compensated for by aiming. However, consider this: while space can be considered smooth at the scale of EvE battles, battlefields can not. Cynosural fields, explosions, leaking gases and liquids from damaged spacecraft, debris, not to mention the shields surrounding your ship - there can be a myriad of forces effecting a projectile, giving plenty of justification for in flight stabilisation.
|
Savage Angel
|
Posted - 2011.06.01 15:11:00 -
[50]
Edited by: Savage Angel on 01/06/2011 15:12:52 Actually almost every rifle looks like it has a very short barrel if you only look at the round part. Most have an extended hand grip that covers most of the barrel.
So on space guns, why would you think the barrel is only as long as the part that is showing? Or that the internal cross section is the same as the external one?
The barrels may be covered by guards so they don't get bent or crushed when all of those torpedoes and such go off next to your ship.
Edit: a tumbling round in space makes no difference as there is no air resistance to make the tumble take it off course. Spin stabilization is just to keep a constant aerodynamic surface presented to the direction of flight.
|
|
Adunh Slavy
|
Posted - 2011.06.01 15:13:00 -
[51]
Edited by: Adunh Slavy on 01/06/2011 15:16:26
Originally by: Nova Fox Space is not a perfect vacume, even your own ship will throw a shot off course becuase its a source of gravity. Rifiling is required to keep the shot from verring off the intended trajectory.
Gravity will impact a projectile the same, regardless if it is spining or not.
As for the va****- At some point, yes there would be a warble, but just how dense does the medium need to be to do that and at which velocities. I think at the masses we're dealing with, and the velocities involved, "space dust" would have almost no effect.
edit: 'V a c u m' is apparently a dirty word according to the filter. Granted it is full of pun, but that such a word is filtered sucks ... yuck yuck
The Real Space Initiative - V7
|
Barakkus
|
Posted - 2011.06.01 15:20:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Adunh Slavy
edit: 'V a c u m' is apparently a dirty word according to the filter. Granted it is full of pun, but that such a word is filtered sucks ... yuck yuck
That's because it's spelled vacuum not v a c u m... - [SERVICE] Corp Standings For POS anchoring |
NinjaSpud
|
Posted - 2011.06.01 15:21:00 -
[53]
Originally by: Stitcher Square barrel means square projectile, means no rifling, means no spin. Spin means accuracy. Longer barrels also mean accuracy too, and some of these barrels are shorter than the base of the weapon.
It's been a while since my physics class...but I don't think the zero atmosphere in space would really have any drag effect on a projectile. Therefore no spin is necessary.
|
Stitcher
Caldari
|
Posted - 2011.06.01 15:24:00 -
[54]
Originally by: NinjaSpud
Originally by: Stitcher Square barrel means square projectile, means no rifling, means no spin. Spin means accuracy. Longer barrels also mean accuracy too, and some of these barrels are shorter than the base of the weapon.
It's been a while since my physics class...but I don't think the zero atmosphere in space would really have any drag effect on a projectile. Therefore no spin is necessary.
read the thread before responding, please. -
- Verin "Stitcher" Hakatain.
|
Massimo d'Notwant
|
Posted - 2011.06.01 15:28:00 -
[55]
Originally by: Savage Angel
Edit: a tumbling round in space makes no difference as there is no air resistance to make the tumble take it off course. Spin stabilization is just to keep a constant aerodynamic surface presented to the direction of flight.
During flight there is indeed no difference, during the impact there is. If the speed vector of the projectile is not parallel to it's axis, it's penetrating power is significantly reduced.
|
Pierced Brosmen
Priory Of The Lemon
|
Posted - 2011.06.01 18:03:00 -
[56]
Originally by: Stitcher As I'm tired of repeating, the point would be to deliver the round on-target nose-first. These aren't spherical cannon shot we're firing, they're shaped charges and armour-piercing rounds which need to be aligned with the direction of travel if they're going to have an effect. If the round tumbles and hits the target side on, even if it still detonates its doing so at so much of a reduced efficiency that you might as well just be throwing brickis.
Mabye this is why, when shooting at a stationary structure, while not moving yourself and being at optimal... you still get good and bad hits... There's nothing wrong with the aiming but rather incompetent weapon design, with tumbling bullets
|
Pliskkenn
Minmatar Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2011.06.01 19:59:00 -
[57]
Originally by: Culmen Ok am I the only one who thinks that This should 125mm Gatling Gun Instead of this
Likewise. I think this should be the 220mm Vulcan. Instead of this
No you aren't. ---
|
Soden Rah
Gallente EVE University Ivy League
|
Posted - 2011.06.01 21:06:00 -
[58]
Ok there are three things here. One 'Does it look cool/effective'? Two 'Would it be able to accurately place a shot on target'? Three 'Would the round hit the target correctly oriented, and do you care'?
For part one... Mostly down to taste, I am not keen on the design of the 250mm light arty, the kink in particular, but it could just be me.
For part two... Probably, the lack of any meaningful amount of gas/dust in space will mean that the shell will continue on the trajectory it leaves the barrel on. And a close fitting shell will leave the barrel pretty strait and true.
For part three... Possibly, A close fitting shell with a length significantly longer than its width, will in a vacuum fly pretty true. The length of the shell itself reduces its tendency to rotate. However if the turret uses a square sabot to hold the round round, and the sabot had a mechanism to spin the round at its optimum speed, then having a non-rifled barrel would be beneficial. Barrel length would still ideally be longer however. __________________________________________________
Originally by: CCP Tuxford bugger, I need to have a closer look at this menu function
|
Soden Rah
Gallente EVE University Ivy League
|
Posted - 2011.06.01 21:10:00 -
[59]
Originally by: Nova Fox Space is not a perfect vacume, even your own ship will throw a shot off course becuase its a source of gravity. Rifiling is required to keep the shot from verring off the intended trajectory.
Space is not a perfect vacuum, however its pretty damn close. Certainly good enough that for the purposes of a hurdy great shell hurtling through space a mear few hundred km (or in this case even less than that) it can be considered a perfect vacuum.
The gravitational pull of the mass of the ship will be very small, and easily calculated and accounted for.
The shot will not veer in space, regardless of its orientation. __________________________________________________
Originally by: CCP Tuxford bugger, I need to have a closer look at this menu function
|
Tza Omi
|
Posted - 2011.06.01 21:10:00 -
[60]
would rifling really matter in a supposed vacuum?
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |