EVE Search - Newtonion Mechanics - Let's get some space realism

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Newtonion Mechanics - Let's get some space realism

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Jessica's Burden Brand X Research and Development 0	Posted - 2011.10.09 01:48:00 - [1] - Quote EVE is about space, and space travel, but it really isn't realistic at all. Injecting realism #1 - Everything in space rotates. Moons revolve around planets and planets revolve around stars. How come the moons and planets and asteroid belts are not rotating in their own elliptical orbits? Today, when I fly from gate to station, I fly past the same moon/planet in the same boring position. #2 - Bumping into things should cause damage. Let's have ships get damage from bumping. This includes warping to '0' and bumping into the gate. Adding the % probability of damage by warping to '0' will make it an interesting choice. #2a) Bumping into asteroids should cause damage. #3 - Warping through a planet/moon should cause damage. Combined with item #1, this could lead to some damage to ships during transit of a solar system, if a moon, or planet, happened to be in the path. #3a) Enable a new class of navigation, by enabling intra solar system waypoints, to navigate through the solar system avoiding warp through planetary bodies.
Tear Miner Republic University Minmatar Republic 1	Posted - 2011.10.09 01:51:00 - [2] - Quote Jessica's Burden wrote: EVE is about space, and space travel, but it really isn't realistic at all. Injecting realism #1 - Everything in space rotates. Moons revolve around planets and planets revolve around stars. How come the moons and planets and asteroid belts are not rotating in their own elliptical orbits? Today, when I fly from gate to station, I fly past the same moon/planet in the same boring position. #2 - Bumping into things should cause damage. Let's have ships get damage from bumping. This includes warping to '0' and bumping into the gate. Adding the % probability of damage by warping to '0' will make it an interesting choice. #2a) Bumping into asteroids should cause damage. #3 - Warping through a planet/moon should cause damage. Combined with item #1, this could lead to some damage to ships during transit of a solar system, if a moon, or planet, happened to be in the path. #3a) Enable a new class of navigation, by enabling intra solar system waypoints, to navigate through the solar system avoiding warp through planetary bodies. 1) No. 2) No. 3) Hell no. Next?
White Tree Broski Federation Elite Space Guild 331	Posted - 2011.10.09 02:00:00 - [3] - Quote Its a videogame.
Lykouleon Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation 138	Posted - 2011.10.09 02:01:00 - [4] - Quote If you want to sit down and code it, be my guest. Lykouleon > CYNO ME CLOSER SO I CAN HIT THEM WITH MY SWORD
Cpt Greagor Liquid Relief 5	Posted - 2011.10.09 02:02:00 - [5] - Quote I like the ideas, but there are many problems that would come with that. 1) That seems like it would greatly increase the amount of work the servers had to do therefore increasing lag. 2) If you notice, you never actually touch the other ship/station/rock/gate when you 'bump' off of it. When you get close, your ship just moves you away automatically. 3) That would just make going long distances take even longer than they already do.
EnderCapitalG GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 122	Posted - 2011.10.09 02:16:00 - [6] - Quote No.
Nandy Cocytus Pandemonium Private Consultants LLC 16	Posted - 2011.10.09 02:38:00 - [7] - Quote Tear Miner wrote: Jessica's Burden wrote: EVE is about space, and space travel, but it really isn't realistic at all. Injecting realism #1 - Everything in space rotates. Moons revolve around planets and planets revolve around stars. How come the moons and planets and asteroid belts are not rotating in their own elliptical orbits? Today, when I fly from gate to station, I fly past the same moon/planet in the same boring position. #2 - Bumping into things should cause damage. Let's have ships get damage from bumping. This includes warping to '0' and bumping into the gate. Adding the % probability of damage by warping to '0' will make it an interesting choice. #2a) Bumping into asteroids should cause damage. #3 - Warping through a planet/moon should cause damage. Combined with item #1, this could lead to some damage to ships during transit of a solar system, if a moon, or planet, happened to be in the path. #3a) Enable a new class of navigation, by enabling intra solar system waypoints, to navigate through the solar system avoiding warp through planetary bodies. 1) No. 2) No. 3) Hell no. Next? All very excellent points. White Tree wrote: It's a video game Well put. So it goes.
Obsidian Hawk RONA Corporation RONA Directorate 137	Posted - 2011.10.09 02:41:00 - [8] - Quote It's a Video game and if you want to code it and move all the stations around be my guest.
Masamune Dekoro School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 2	Posted - 2011.10.09 02:44:00 - [9] - Quote Jessica's Burden wrote: EVE is about space, and space travel, but it really isn't realistic at all. Injecting realism #1 - Everything in space rotates. Moons revolve around planets and planets revolve around stars. How come the moons and planets and asteroid belts are not rotating in their own elliptical orbits? Today, when I fly from gate to station, I fly past the same moon/planet in the same boring position. #2 - Bumping into things should cause damage. Let's have ships get damage from bumping. This includes warping to '0' and bumping into the gate. Adding the % probability of damage by warping to '0' will make it an interesting choice. #2a) Bumping into asteroids should cause damage. #3 - Warping through a planet/moon should cause damage. Combined with item #1, this could lead to some damage to ships during transit of a solar system, if a moon, or planet, happened to be in the path. #3a) Enable a new class of navigation, by enabling intra solar system waypoints, to navigate through the solar system avoiding warp through planetary bodies. While we're at it, lets make it so that FTL travel is impossible and every player is forever stuck in the starting systems. Cool Bananas.
Sofa Raddis Gravity Waste Management 0	Posted - 2011.10.09 02:52:00 - [10] - Quote No warping either as 1 Au is 8 minutes at light speed. sounds fun.
Barbelo Valentinian The Scope Gallente Federation 58	Posted - 2011.10.09 02:55:00 - [11] - Quote There's always got to be comprosmise somewhere, and I think EVE's got a good compromise. In the future, maybe, space games can have more "realistic" physics - but since it would all be handled by computer anyway, it wouldn't make much difference to gameplay (you'd just be interposing a notional "flight computer" between your control and the ship's movements). What I mean is, if you fly from gate to station, the computer (notionally your on board flight computer, or your own remarkable pod pilot's brain) would be calculating the correct route taking into account all the movements of the sun, planets, and moons etc., so in effect all that would be different would be the view, at the cost of (irl) computing power that could otherwise be devoted to ensuring the combat gameplay is slick and feels right. Similar points for the other things. Again, bumping damage would be great, but in view of how many accidents can happen because of lag, it would be more trouble than it's worth. So yeah, this sort of thing will no doubt come in the future, and would be a great immersion booster - but at the moment, its cost would be too high relative to the benefit. Till we all have mega bandwidth all over the world, and the super-dooper computers of the future, I'll just imagine that the planets orbit, etc., and think of the solar system map as an abstraction.
Akirei Scytale Test Alliance Please Ignore 27	Posted - 2011.10.09 03:29:00 - [12] - Quote ITT: someone who does not understand Newtonian mechanics wishing for EVE to utilize Newtonian mechanics. If EVE was realistic, then: there would be no maximum speed, on ANY ship, except for the speed of light. accelerating for too long in any given direction would be a dumb idea, as it would take an equal amount of time to decelerate, and twice as long to turn around. having a large mass ship would quite simply be an absolute nightmare thanks to inertia. projectiles, lasers and railguns would have infinite range and perfect accuracy. blasters would have a few inches of range. the only current weapon stat that would influence how often you hit would be tracking - which wouldn't matter because everyone would be flying in straight lines at absurd speeds. no warp. have fun on your single grid for the rest of your EVE life. basically, EVE would turn into a bunch of fat people sliding around on an infinite ice field with rockets strapped to their asses, shooting at each other with laser pointers. the entire game would have to be rebuilt from the ground up to accommodate all this, which would be a multi-year undertaking to make EVE vastly less fun.
Jada Maroo Mysterium Astrometrics BRABODEN 210	Posted - 2011.10.09 03:33:00 - [13] - Quote I'd be happy if we just didn't warp through things. That's always struck me as really unpolished.
Foofad Yulai Guard 1st Fleet Yulai Federation 9	Posted - 2011.10.09 03:33:00 - [14] - Quote Planets with real orbits: Great. Ramming into things: Bullshit. That said, with respect to bumping ships, the fact that it is done so commonly but has no visual effects at all beyond "ship flips the hell out and goes in a weird direction" is kind of annoying. There should be some kind of vfx for this, like shields lighting up and interfering with one another, or something. Just to give you an idea of what's up. With respect to going through planets: I really, really wish that your warp course could be in something other than a straight line. It would be so, so much cooler if you could curve your warp path around planets, stations, etc. Leave the total time to warp from point A to point B intact, just change the visuals a bit so you don't blow right through a planet. These are visual things, not game-affecting. They would improve the overall feel a lot, and help the game feel a bit more semi-newtonian.
Leonard Dukes Arbitrage Holdings Corporation 1	Posted - 2011.10.09 03:37:00 - [15] - Quote Check out Terminus A space-flight sim set in the Solar system, rather similar to Eve. You've got stations orbiting various planets and their moons, with long-distance connections made via Vortex Gates (which you must manually fly through and activate). Most of the gameplay centers around self-driven "missions" such as collecting bounties or couriering goods around the system. One of the most interesting (and frustrating) aspects was the inclusion of Newtonian flight mechanics. You fire your engines/thrusters for 5 seconds, get up to whatever velocity, and cut them off - you continue coasting in that direction, and can even use directional thrusters to orient your point of view to look/shoot anywhere around you, all while still moving on that original vector. However, if you want to stop and/or turn around, you're going to have to fire your thrusters for just as long as it took you to get up to speed, and if you've got the advanced settings turned on, you have to fire them in the appropriate direction, basically doing vector calculations on the fly. Dogfights are interesting and protracted, to say the least. Also, there's collision damage for everything, including asteroids, ships, stations, gates, and even floating cargo containers. Just try scooping that loot while moving at 7km/s - they'll be collecting what's left of your ship in a garbage bag. Oh, did I also mention that your ship had a consumable fuel supply, and that you had to equip it with everything including a sensor suite, life support and radiation shielding? I actually ran out of fuel outside a station once, just outside of docking range, and had to fire projectiles away from the station to impart enough velocity to effectively back in toward the docking bay. Suffice to say, while all these 'features' were interesting in principle, they made the game - by and large - a pain in the ass to actually play.
Akirei Scytale Test Alliance Please Ignore 27	Posted - 2011.10.09 03:40:00 - [16] - Quote ^ that i would have laughed so demonically if the devs of that game bothered to include the ole fuel paradox. you know, in order to have more fuel you need more fuel to haul said fuel around. hooray, exponentially increasing mass. and then when you're running on fumes, a little tap and youre shooting off in another direction.
Foofad Yulai Guard 1st Fleet Yulai Federation 9	Posted - 2011.10.09 03:42:00 - [17] - Quote Oh, also - multiply all ranges in ship-scale (in other words, not with respect to the distances between stations, gates, planets, etc) by a factor of 1000, as well as multiplying ship speed (but not warp) by a similar factor. Then things will be realistic looking while still being playable. In other words, a close/medium range cruiser fleet would be operating at 20000km as opposed to 20km. Now you're getting closer to "hard" science fiction, while maintaining the exact same time scale; it would still take exactly the same amount of time to travel to your target, for example.
Vertisce Soritenshi SHADOW WARD Tragedy. 57	Posted - 2011.10.09 03:43:00 - [18] - Quote I like the idea of moving moons and planets and whatnot but there is a reason we don't have collision damage. I would also like to see thrusters all around the ships that fire when you slow down or turn or whatever. That being said... The OP is FAIL!
Akirei Scytale Test Alliance Please Ignore 27	Posted - 2011.10.09 03:44:00 - [19] - Quote Foofad wrote: Oh, also - multiply all ranges in ship-scale (in other words, not with respect to the distances between stations, gates, planets, etc) by a factor of 1000, as well as multiplying ship speed (but not warp) by a similar factor. Then things will be realistic looking while still being playable. In other words, a close/medium range cruiser fleet would be operating at 20000km as opposed to 20km. Now you're getting closer to "hard" science fiction, while maintaining the exact same time scale; it would still take exactly the same amount of time to travel to your target, for example. what good would that do besides make EVE less visually appealing? this is a game. not a physics simulator. if it was, it would be an absurdly terrible one, especially considering space behaves like a fluid in EVE and every planet and star has nonsensical stats on its info page.
Foofad Yulai Guard 1st Fleet Yulai Federation 9	Posted - 2011.10.09 03:49:00 - [20] - Quote Akirei Scytale wrote: Foofad wrote: Oh, also - multiply all ranges in ship-scale (in other words, not with respect to the distances between stations, gates, planets, etc) by a factor of 1000, as well as multiplying ship speed (but not warp) by a similar factor. Then things will be realistic looking while still being playable. In other words, a close/medium range cruiser fleet would be operating at 20000km as opposed to 20km. Now you're getting closer to "hard" science fiction, while maintaining the exact same time scale; it would still take exactly the same amount of time to travel to your target, for example. what good would that do besides make EVE less visually appealing? this is a game. not a physics simulator. if it was, it would be an absurdly terrible one, especially considering space behaves like a fluid in EVE and every planet and star has nonsensical stats on its info page. How would it be less visually appealing? When you're in a fleet fight how much time do you spend staring at other people's ships? Even if the answer is "a lot," there's no reason not to extend Look range - you can have your cake and eat it, too. Not to mention camera distance. How much grander would it be to see hundreds of lasers arcing out across vast tracts of space from all around you, rather than just blobs of ships all jumbled together in balls shooting a few kilometers away? Imho that would be a lot more interesting to watch.
Mr Kidd Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 59	Posted - 2011.10.09 03:57:00 - [21] - Quote There are a few small things that CCP could to do add some tactical variety to the game. Adding solid planets/moons/stations would be a great start and really turn this graphically 3d game into a tactically 3d game. What we have now is visually 3d but tactics by fighting individuals or parties are completely 2 dimensional which is why blobs win hands down. Whether these objects would cause damage if impacted or be destructible is completely unnecessary though it would be an added touch. Making them solid in the sense that one couldn't shoot through them would be a great feature, alone, to have. Imagine knowing there's a fleet on grid but you can't shoot them because they're hiding behind a structure or in an asteroid belt or some other LCO. It would force tactical planning. FC's would issue commands based on strategy rather than increasing numbers. This one change alone would not add to server overhead. The server already knows where the objects are in relation to all ships on grid.The server also knows when a LCO is shot and it deals with the weapons fire typically by stopping the weapons fire where it intersects the object. We want breast augmentations and sluttier clothing in the NeX!
ACY GTMI Veerhouven Group The Veerhouven Group 9	Posted - 2011.10.09 04:01:00 - [22] - Quote CCP space is exempt from all laws of physics. Seriously, it would be programmatically impossible to implement it in real time.
Akirei Scytale Test Alliance Please Ignore 28	Posted - 2011.10.09 04:08:00 - [23] - Quote ACY GTMI wrote: CCP space is exempt from all laws of physics. Seriously, it would be programmatically impossible to implement it in real time. what are you talking about? newtonian mechanics operate on some very simple algebra. hell, the source engine does a pretty goddamn good job of emulating them. think half life 2. it would be a lot harder to implement modern physics - but you would never be able to tell the difference in a game. you'd only run into issues if you tried to model things like liquids accurately - and you wouldn't see that in a game like EVE. however, it would be a bad idea to implement a realistic classical physics model for other reasons - the game would just not be as fun. EVE is better as a submarine / zeppelin simulator than it could ever be as a space simulator.
Heian Galanodel Viziam Amarr Empire 0	Posted - 2011.10.09 04:48:00 - [24] - Quote Akirei Scytale wrote: ITT: someone who does not understand Newtonian mechanics wishing for EVE to utilize Newtonian mechanics. If EVE was realistic, then: there would be no maximum speed, on ANY ship, except for the speed of light. accelerating for too long in any given direction would be a dumb idea, as it would take an equal amount of time to decelerate, and twice as long to turn around. having a large mass ship would quite simply be an absolute nightmare thanks to inertia. projectiles, lasers and railguns would have infinite range and perfect accuracy. blasters would have a few inches of range. the only current weapon stat that would influence how often you hit would be tracking - which wouldn't matter because everyone would be flying in straight lines at absurd speeds. no warp. have fun on your single grid for the rest of your EVE life. basically, EVE would turn into a bunch of fat people sliding around on an infinite ice field with rockets strapped to their asses, shooting at each other with laser pointers. the entire game would have to be rebuilt from the ground up to accommodate all this, which would be a multi-year undertaking to make EVE vastly less fun. This.
Nova Fox Novafox Shipyards 25	Posted - 2011.10.09 04:53:00 - [25] - Quote Destiny the name of the current physics engine would have a heart attack.
Foofad Yulai Guard 1st Fleet Yulai Federation 9	Posted - 2011.10.09 05:08:00 - [26] - Quote Which is why you shouldn't actually do it. Just make it look like you're doing it. Much better solution.
Nandy Cocytus Pandemonium Private Consultants LLC 16	Posted - 2011.10.09 05:18:00 - [27] - Quote Quote: there would be no maximum speed, on ANY ship, except for the speed of light. I direct you here - no definitive claims yet, but I felt it was relevant. So it goes.
Akirei Scytale Test Alliance Please Ignore 29	Posted - 2011.10.09 05:34:00 - [28] - Quote Nandy Cocytus wrote: Quote: there would be no maximum speed, on ANY ship, except for the speed of light. I direct you here - no definitive claims yet, but I felt it was relevant. i know about this, and we're talking classical physics.
Pseudo Ucksth Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 4	Posted - 2011.10.09 05:44:00 - [29] - Quote Jessica's Burden wrote: EVE is about space, and space travel, but it really isn't realistic at all. Injecting realism #1 - Everything in space rotates. Moons revolve around planets and planets revolve around stars. How come the moons and planets and asteroid belts are not rotating in their own elliptical orbits? Today, when I fly from gate to station, I fly past the same moon/planet in the same boring position. #2 - Bumping into things should cause damage. Let's have ships get damage from bumping. This includes warping to '0' and bumping into the gate. Adding the % probability of damage by warping to '0' will make it an interesting choice. #2a) Bumping into asteroids should cause damage. #3 - Warping through a planet/moon should cause damage. Combined with item #1, this could lead to some damage to ships during transit of a solar system, if a moon, or planet, happened to be in the path. #3a) Enable a new class of navigation, by enabling intra solar system waypoints, to navigate through the solar system avoiding warp through planetary bodies. All three of these things the server can do. Here's why they don't: 1) They don't do it because it causes a high load on the cluster and screws with anchored objects/bookmarks. 2) They don't do it because it is easily griefable and the bump physics/collision models would need to be completely redone. Before you think "oh just disable it in hisec" That's not how EvE works. 3a) They don't do it because it adds extraordinary amounts of time to navigation. It likely wouldn't be like how you picture it in your mind. E: Regarding FTL, if you read what the standard model ~actually~ says, it states that no information can travel faster than c. The most likely solution in my mind, is that the particles don't contain any information, or it is lost in transit and random new information regained upon blueshift.
Kaede Kimura Epsilon Inc STORM. 3	Posted - 2011.10.09 05:49:00 - [30] - Quote Wait, so you want to sound smart by saying "Newtonion[sic] mechanics," and then you complain about things that are explained by lore? (shields prevent collisions, and warping is magic enough already that they don't need to explain **) How about some REALLY basic ** like Newton's first law?
Akirei Scytale Test Alliance Please Ignore 31	Posted - 2011.10.09 05:54:00 - [31] - Quote Pseudo Ucksth wrote: E: Regarding FTL, if you read what the standard model ~actually~ says, it states that no information can travel faster than c. The most likely solution in my mind, is that the particles don't contain any information, or it is lost in transit and random new information regained upon blueshift. two things to remember: 1) mass, charge, spin etc - all information 2) you can't argue semantics when talking about physics - argue math because the words are just a simplified approximation. but yeah, seeing the study on neutrinos moving faster than light was fascinating.
Wild Rho Silent Core 1	Posted - 2011.10.09 06:47:00 - [32] - Quote Jessica's Burden wrote: #1 - Everything in space rotates. Moons revolve around planets and planets revolve around stars. How come the moons and planets and asteroid belts are not rotating in their own elliptical orbits? Today, when I fly from gate to station, I fly past the same moon/planet in the same boring position. Planets, moons and stations in orbit move pretty damn fast and their paths would not be at all intuitive to players. This would require a massive change to how ships are flown (anyone who's played Elite 2 or 3 can probably imagine) for no practical gain. Jessica's Burden wrote: #2 - Bumping into things should cause damage. Let's have ships get damage from bumping. This includes warping to '0' and bumping into the gate. Adding the % probability of damage by warping to '0' will make it an interesting choice. #2a) Bumping into asteroids should cause damage. Too easily abused (i.e. using ramming to suicide kill people in high sec, parking a freighter in a docking bay / gate path so someone rams me and dies). Jessica's Burden wrote: #3 - Warping through a planet/moon should cause damage. Combined with item #1, this could lead to some damage to ships during transit of a solar system, if a moon, or planet, happened to be in the path. #3a) Enable a new class of navigation, by enabling intra solar system waypoints, to navigate through the solar system avoiding warp through planetary bodies. Game lore already explains why you pass through planets etc unharmed. There's nothing but extra hassle for no practical gain by taking damage flying through planets.
Andski GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 128	Posted - 2011.10.09 07:24:00 - [33] - Quote my god people Newtonian mechanics break down as you approach the speed of light. The slowest warp speeds in the game exceed the speed of light by orders of magnitude. While having other ships contract and redshift as they enter warp would be wicked awesome, I think CCP should really focus their developers' time on other things.
Sin Meng Creative Assembly 10	Posted - 2011.10.09 07:35:00 - [34] - Quote 9/10 Because of how many people took the bait. Elements of the past and the future combining to make something not quite as good as either.
Andski GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 128	Posted - 2011.10.09 07:36:00 - [35] - Quote bad threads are always trolls when the OP jumps back to the ~puppetmasta~ defence
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 366	Posted - 2011.10.09 07:52:00 - [36] - Quote Akirei Scytale wrote: Pseudo Ucksth wrote: Regarding FTL, if you read what the standard model ~actually~ says, it states that no information can travel faster than c. The most likely solution in my mind, is that the particles don't contain any information, or it is lost in transit and random new information regained upon blueshift. two things to remember: 1) mass, charge, spin etc - all information 2) you can't argue semantics when talking about physics - argue math because the words are just a simplified approximation. GÇªand anyway, the actual semantics of the model only attempts to distinguish between information-carrying phenomena and indirect an projected phenomena. It is trivial to create GÇ£somethingGÇ¥ that moves at FTL speeds GÇö just sweep a beam of light across the surface of the moon in less than 10ms or so (iirc), which is very easy to do from your back yard, and the light spot it creates on the moon will move across that surface at more than 300,000 km/s. GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á
Rodj Blake PIE Inc. 302	Posted - 2011.10.09 09:07:00 - [37] - Quote If the game employed Newtonian mechanics it would take years to get to another system. Is that what you want? Also, am I the only person who saw the title and had this mental image of newts dressed in overalls trying to fix a broken onion? Dulce et decorum est pro imperium mori.
Kerdrak D00M. Northern Coalition. 2	Posted - 2011.10.09 09:09:00 - [38] - Quote Videogames don't have to be realistic, only "credible"
AureoLion Etoilles Mortant Ltd. Solyaris Chtonium 7	Posted - 2011.10.09 09:30:00 - [39] - Quote Having no top speed would be hilariously inefficient. Having to prepare turning points, avoid collision damage, and all that jingle would turn that game in a physics simulator, an instrument of science, and not a game.
Reeno Coleman 45	Posted - 2011.10.09 09:43:00 - [40] - Quote And while we're at realism. Disallow warping. And lasers. And shields. And warpgates. And cynos. And FTL-comms. And invulnarable structures. And PI. And wormholes. And forcefields. And remote repair. And cloak.
Solstice Project Cult of Personality 54	Posted - 2011.10.09 10:59:00 - [41] - Quote Holy **** ! Nobody ever thought of that ! Nobody ! It's a first ! Wow, i believe that'll change EVERYTHING NOW !!! CONGRATULATIONS !!! ... to such an ORIGINAL topic !
Gunslinger Sixx Ghost Protocol Assassin 8	Posted - 2011.10.10 11:29:00 - [42] - Quote OP, not gonna happen. the tech for this isn't available, I mean, games like vendetta online use newtonian model but their graphics are nothing like EVE. I don't see it working here. what I always thought WOULD be cool, is jump drives on every ship, and elimination of gate travel altogether. there must be another way for people to find each other, one that's more interesting than bottlenecking people at boring-ass gates. that alone would require a massive re-think on how new eden operates..but it would be damn cool, IMO.
Jenn Makanen Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 4	Posted - 2011.10.10 12:22:00 - [43] - Quote One reason why lightspeed isn't the practical speed limit. How good is your particle shielding? Can it take 0.5c impacts? Something I liked in the Troy Rising series
Akrasjel Lanate Naquatech Conglomerate 104	Posted - 2011.10.10 14:06:00 - [44] - Quote White Tree wrote: Its a videogame. Oh noes... so it isn't true
Nova Fox Novafox Shipyards 28	Posted - 2011.10.10 15:30:00 - [45] - Quote Okay for those you not as well read about as I am about ship technology in eve. We theorycrafters hammered alot at why the ships in eve are submarinic in nature and come to conclude that we're using a form of purpolsion in common terms would be a "Gravity Pull" drive. In which the drive grabs gravity like a rope and pulls itself along which would limit the maxium speed and why you stop when you cut all power to the engines and then also why exhasut placment has no impact on ship movement as its the core thats responsible for pulling along, and those are juse used for cool and are out of the way of foward sensors as ion discharges can oftenly interfere with readings. The altenrative however is going to make you go Do'h big time though, the inertia slumps and compensators acting as your counter force to the extreme voilences involed going 0 m/s to 673,191,000,000 m/s in 5 seconds and your compensaters can only counter act so much of that and the mass invovled and slumping it all off would take a life time however its better used as breaks instead of easing up on the slump's load. Also before you go cry BS on that explaintion tell that to Star Trek first the supposive authority on all things science fiction operations (which I hardly give them only a meager 2-5% contribution on, most dominate in diplomacy and social concepts, not so much on technology) , unfourtunately thier interal comps never seem to fail either mid flight. Imagine how horrible that would be if one where to suddenly go out during warp speed and your comps only caught up to even a marginal 1% of the listed above speed of a covert ops frigate.
Nandy Cocytus Pandemonium Private Consultants LLC 17	Posted - 2011.10.10 16:03:00 - [46] - Quote Nova Fox wrote: Okay for those you not as well read about as I am about ship technology in eve. We theorycrafters hammered alot at why the ships in eve are submarinic in nature and come to conclude that we're using a form of purpolsion in common terms would be a "Gravity Pull" drive. In which the drive grabs gravity like a rope and pulls itself along which would limit the maxium speed and why you stop when you cut all power to the engines and then also why exhasut placment has no impact on ship movement as its the core thats responsible for pulling along, and those are juse used for cool and are out of the way of foward sensors as ion discharges can oftenly interfere with readings. The altenrative however is going to make you go Do'h big time though, the inertia slumps and compensators acting as your counter force to the extreme voilences involed going 0 m/s to 673,191,000,000 m/s in 5 seconds and your compensaters can only counter act so much of that and the mass invovled and slumping it all off would take a life time however its better used as breaks instead of easing up on the slump's load. Also before you go cry BS on that explaintion tell that to Star Trek first the supposive authority on all things science fiction operations (which I hardly give them only a meager 2-5% contribution on, most dominate in diplomacy and social concepts, not so much on technology) , unfourtunately thier interal comps never seem to fail either mid flight. Imagine how horrible that would be if one where to suddenly go out during warp speed and your comps only caught up to even a marginal 1% of the listed above speed of a covert ops frigate. This had the potential to be a very well thought out post. Unfortunately, it's written for people who have the patience to dissect paragraph-sentences. Also, it's written in terms slightly unclear to anyone who doesn't spend a lot (read: entirely too much) of time dissecting fictional spaceship technology. Also, your grammar seems to be off in a number of very inconvenient places. This is what I got out of it for the TL;DR crowd: Eve ships use something he has coined "Gravity Pull" which pulls the ship forward using a gravity well as an anchor. The stresses of going from 0 m/s to 3.0 AU/sec in 5 seconds or less would be too much for any other form of drive. Something about Star Trek. So it goes.
Nova Fox Novafox Shipyards 29	Posted - 2011.10.10 16:13:00 - [47] - Quote Thats an extremly very horrible summary. 1. Gravity Drives, the assumed purpolsion means in eve, simply doesn't go to infinity they have a limit on how much gravity the can pull at any given time. 2. Interia Compensators which have to store all of that sudden inertia constantly bleeds inertia forces back out acting as breaks in space.
Shaalira D'arc Quantum Cats Syndicate 220	Posted - 2011.10.10 16:23:00 - [48] - Quote A wizard did it.
Di Mulle 17	Posted - 2011.10.10 16:37:00 - [49] - Quote Just one small example of how bad a costs/gain ratio for implementing "realizmus" would be. Let's say you made a book mark at the planet. It is somewhere at a couple thousands km from the planet under current mechanics. Also let's assume bookmark is linked to the "absolute" coordinate system (and actually it is in-game). For a slight exaggeration let assume it is an outer planet. Under "realizmus" your bookmark will be in few tens of thousands of km from a planet in an hour. Pretty significant, if not crucial difference from a gameplay point of view. At the same time, looking from the system point of view, you will hardly notice any change in a position of a planet during an entire lifetime of EVE. CCP is unable to implement simpliest things. Like settting to hide signatures. So they sweep it under a rug . Children do that in their pre-shool years, CCP does it being adults. Probably because it is fearless enough.
Amro One One. 0	Posted - 2011.10.10 16:37:00 - [50] - Quote Who let this simpleton post such a topic? Seeing that he can not read: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=simpleton A picture for your answer: http://funstoo.blogspot.com/2010/12/this-cat-is-pushing-watermelon-out-of.html
Nandy Cocytus Pandemonium Private Consultants LLC 17	Posted - 2011.10.10 17:55:00 - [51] - Quote Nova Fox wrote: Thats an extremly very horrible summary. 1. Gravity Drives, the assumed purpolsion means in eve, simply doesn't go to infinity they have a limit on how much gravity the can pull at any given time. 2. Interia Compensators which have to store all of that sudden inertia constantly bleeds inertia forces back out acting as breaks in space. This doesn't go to explain why we bump off each other instead of massively wrecking. Ill blame data interpentation in the pod not compensating that the ship rapidly altered course at the last second. Maybe the problem isn't my interpretation, but rather your presentation of your ideas. Things like "extremely very horrible", "purpolsion", and "interpentation" only reinforce the proposition. I didn't read this in full, but what I did read was far more coherent than what you wrote. Perhaps you will find it enlightening. So it goes.
Dunbar Hulan The Flaming Sideburn's Art of War Alliance 12	Posted - 2011.10.10 18:07:00 - [52] - Quote Jessica's Burden wrote: EVE is about space, and space travel, but it really isn't realistic at all. Injecting realism #1 - Everything in space rotates. Moons revolve around planets and planets revolve around stars. How come the moons and planets and asteroid belts are not rotating in their own elliptical orbits? Today, when I fly from gate to station, I fly past the same moon/planet in the same boring position. #2 - Bumping into things should cause damage. Let's have ships get damage from bumping. This includes warping to '0' and bumping into the gate. Adding the % probability of damage by warping to '0' will make it an interesting choice. #2a) Bumping into asteroids should cause damage. #3 - Warping through a planet/moon should cause damage. Combined with item #1, this could lead to some damage to ships during transit of a solar system, if a moon, or planet, happened to be in the path. #3a) Enable a new class of navigation, by enabling intra solar system waypoints, to navigate through the solar system avoiding warp through planetary bodies. It is realistic, My room mate Dave tried to round house kick a pirate in null and missed. He never misses. Told him that it was probably due to the pirate moving at 13.5 au. There it is.
Nova Fox Novafox Shipyards 29	Posted - 2011.10.10 18:18:00 - [53] - Quote Nandy Cocytus wrote: Nova Fox wrote: Thats an extremly very horrible summary. 1. Gravity Drives, the assumed purpolsion means in eve, simply doesn't go to infinity they have a limit on how much gravity the can pull at any given time. 2. Interia Compensators which have to store all of that sudden inertia constantly bleeds inertia forces back out acting as breaks in space. This doesn't go to explain why we bump off each other instead of massively wrecking. Ill blame data interpentation in the pod not compensating that the ship rapidly altered course at the last second. Maybe the problem isn't my interpretation, but rather your presentation of your ideas. Things like "extremely very horrible", "purpolsion", and "interpentation" only reinforce the proposition. I didn't read this in full, but what I did read was far more coherent than what you wrote. Perhaps you will find it enlightening. The link you posted is the actual math that is involved in eve. This answers the question what mostly. Reason why its very coherent though is its formaility presentation and thought paid to it. I'm just casually responding. And the answers I give doesnt answer What? but How? and how in a science fictional case is very fictional at times. Currently there are no I-comps, no FTL drives, or gravitmetic decay reactors the Caldari use. And coherence is relative, there are math idiots out there that wouldnt have an inkling on how to solve sum of those equations presentented and look at that reason with just as much disregard as to the thoery that was discussed on the technological reasons why ships in eve are not newtonian-ish. Also the article was assembeled in 2011 and wasnt aware of this neat all in one spot blog until you brought it up. The information I presented was dicussed back in 2005-6 and possibly earlier with other posters, I just simply gave a summary of the 20 page conversation.
GTN Interstellar eXodus BricK sQuAD. 0	Posted - 2011.10.10 19:34:00 - [54] - Quote I proposed this some years ago, the answer was: no. And btw my ideas were better and more real and not so game-breaking.
Jaroslav Unwanted Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 13	Posted - 2011.10.10 19:40:00 - [55] - Quote Well if the universe of EVE work under real/current scientific theories it would be fun for few people and by few i mean below dozen. Most people will just destroy all their ships by trying undock/dock
Nandy Cocytus Pandemonium Private Consultants LLC 17	Posted - 2011.10.10 19:58:00 - [56] - Quote Nova Fox wrote: And coherence is relative... How is coherence relative, exactly? co-+her-+ent/k+ì-êhi(+Ö)r+Önt/ (of a person) Able to speak clearly and logically. In other words, able to adhere to the basic laws of spelling and grammar that define a given language. Learn those two things first, then it will be easier to marvel at your genius. I considered taking the time to point out the some 20 examples in your posts in this thread so far, but then I realized I'm not you, and should just unsubscribe to this thread. Which I have. So it goes.
Nova Fox Novafox Shipyards 29	Posted - 2011.10.10 20:11:00 - [57] - Quote Nandy Cocytus wrote: Nova Fox wrote: And coherence is relative... How is coherence relative, exactly? co-+her-+ent/k+ì-êhi(+Ö)r+Önt/ (of a person) Able to speak clearly and logically. In other words, able to adhere to the basic laws of spelling and grammar that define a given language. Learn those two things first, then it will be easier to marvel at your genius. I considered taking the time to point out the some 20 examples in your posts in this thread so far, but then I realized I'm not you, and should just unsubscribe to this thread. Which I have. pé¦pâÆpâ+pâ¼pâ¦pé¦ is however relevant no matter how you look at it. How hard is it for you to understand that the fictional reason was previously discussed at length and I presented the summary, your presentation of the actual sense on how the formulas are done are of any closer relevance to the fiction? Its practically on the other side of the same mountain. Then your butchery which you call a summary performing a paradime shift on the subject, then further more gave me whole credit for something I only participated in. This probably makes you the worst grammer nanny I had the mispleasure in dealing with considering I had to go back and recorrect your summary. Most nannies get it right to the point I cannot correct them.
Barakkus 769	Posted - 2011.10.10 21:08:00 - [58] - Quote http://youtu.be/sCoHT_cHPzY

Pages: 1 2 :: [one 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.