Symmetry is practical within atmospheric flight, because of the bearings it has on navigation, and the effect of uneven wind resistance on aircraft.

In space, symmetry serves no value but aesthetic pleasure. Personally, I am a big fan of ships that are not symmetrical, as I believe they are more realistic/practical. Take the scorpion, for example.

Symmetry is impractical. It creates the need to build and fill additional compartments, that may not otherwise be required, and may potentially block possible weapon mounts, radar systems, etc.

Love the condor as is.

[...] In space, symmetry serves no value but aesthetic pleasure. Personally, I am a big fan of ships that are not symmetrical, as I believe they are more realistic/practical. Take the scorpion, for example. [...]

The technical aspect of games being able to defy reality like anime aside, wouldn't you still have to come up against mass and centre of gravity when it concerns thrust, hence a lot of the obscenely placed thrusters on the models. If that holds true then on an out of game aspect you'd be able to streamline production costs by producing the same engines instead of different grades to push different parts of the ship at the same relative force to be able to fly straight. ...

Also the Corax destroyer recently done shows a hint at modernisation of the games newer model lines that serves alongside mainstream sci-fi reinterpretations of WWII.

That said, the Condor isn't all that hideous and has a kind of unique character. A bit of a facelift sometime might be nice. At least compared to something like say, the Bantam, no idea what to make of that thing.

I also love the condor, but still looks worse, If looks like F-35 or Chinese J-20, it will be cool !!

Looks really terrible unsymmetry
If it looks like a real fight plane will be very nice
because of it use rockets and have high speed

They really, really should stop selling degrees over the internet. You think it is air keeping those ships in space?

The technical aspect of games being able to defy reality like anime aside, wouldn't you still have to come up against mass and centre of gravity when it concerns thrust, hence a lot of the obscenely placed thrusters on the models. If that holds true then on an out of game aspect you'd be able to streamline production costs by producing the same engines instead of different grades to push different parts of the ship at the same relative force to be able to fly straight. ...

Also the Corax destroyer recently done shows a hint at modernisation of the games newer model lines that serves alongside mainstream sci-fi reinterpretations of WWII.

That said, the Condor isn't all that hideous and has a kind of unique character. A bit of a facelift sometime might be nice. At least compared to something like say, the Bantam, no idea what to make of that thing.

Eve engines or not like modern thrusters. Its more like they create a bubble of subspace that surrounds the ship. Its not the ships weight and balance but the size and power of the field surrounding the ship. That's why it acts more like a fluid and that engines need to be constantly on to go the direction you want. Otherwise, we would just see small bursts of engines in course changes. Orbiting a non gravitational point like another ship would be hell on current fuel usage for conventional space craft.

They really, really should stop selling degrees over the internet. You think it is air keeping those ships in space?

[...] the center of mass would be off [...]

There is no new crow model. That is a player creation only.

Ok well this is odd.

As much as I would love to say Sarmatiko is just crazy, I cannot. Main reason being that I have now with my own eyes seen this crow model in one of the official patch builds as well.

Not saying that means anything though. Maybe CCP for some reason is pushing player created content into patches for testing? No way to know for sure I guess. But the .red file is there and everything. :)

CCP Atropos got in contact with me over the weekend to correct my mistake here. Apparently this was not a player created ship and was a prototype model created by our own art department.

I really do apologize for giving you guys misleading information. Someone, and I will not say who, had told me the wrong information to begin with so I am correcting this for you as it is the right thing to do.

Symmetry is practical within atmospheric flight, because of the bearings it has on navigation, and the effect of uneven wind resistance on aircraft.

In space, symmetry serves no value but aesthetic pleasure. Personally, I am a big fan of ships that are not symmetrical, as I believe they are more realistic/practical. Take the scorpion, for example.

Symmetry is impractical. It creates the need to build and fill additional compartments, that may not otherwise be required, and may potentially block possible weapon mounts, radar systems, etc.

Love the condor as is.

i agree, the condor is one of the ugliest ships in the game.

Well the prototype remodel they did looked much better, but I think it wasn't used because it simply didn't really seem to fit in the EVE universe in terms of ship design.

Centre of gravity is irrelevant, as the force of gravity acting on any eve ship, with the except of low orbit tactical strikes for dust, is negligible. However, yes, the center of mass would be off, so thrusters would have to be positioned slightly off. This however, assumes that the mass of the ship is significantly disproportionate.

A realistic spaceship built for maneuverability and warfare would be a perfect sphere with small engines pointed in every direction. Mass distribution has a significant impact on how agile a ship can be, as does the location of thrusters. A sphere is also a very strong shape for withstanding impacts.

A ship with asymmetries on it would involve a ton of very careful balancing, especially if it had thrusters on asymmetrical protrusions. Extra engineering that is totally unnecessary. Simple, symmetrical and mass-balanced designs would be far superior, and every realistic spacecraft would have engines pointing in basically every single cardinal direction, otherwise it simply could not turn, or would do so unbelievably inefficiently if it had engines off its central axis but pointing "backwards".

if it's the one i'm thinking of then it fit in perfectly and looked far better than the current model.

Wether necasary or not. symetry is something you also use for cost eficentcy.

Production wise symetric is easier to mass produce, let plate is the same as the right plate turned arround. Now where would Caldari put aside a possibility to gain a production adavantage.

I'd personaly expect the Caldari Design to be rather simulair to a Borg Cube.


Not that I have to much problems with the current modules.

Although the Moa doens;t make sence what so ever.

Looks really terrible unsymmetry
If it looks like a real fight plane will be very nice
because of it use rockets and have high speed

What the hell are you smoking? Condors look amazing! They fly amazing, they are amazing. I trained Caldari frigs just to fly one.

I did the exact opposite. I trained everything else so I didn't have to fly an interceptor that looked like that.

[...]

I post this, explaining that it was what the model looked like when textured.
http://go-dl.eve-files.com/media/1110/crow.jpg

[...]

You dissapoint me sir, if you want fugly may I present to you the Gallente federation..

For pure beauty combined with physical prowess of course we Amarr have the best of all ships in all things, IN HIS NAME!

However Caldar ships look the business. Except the Drake, Drakes must die.


I care little for Asymmetry in a game, but The Condor line is a sweet set of ships.

Also while I'm at it, please no to making it look like a fighter plane. It's the size of a boeing 747, it's definitely NOT a plane.

That actually does look kind of cool, but it gives me more of a drone impression at first glance.