| Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |

Miss Spent Youth
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 15:48:00 -
[1] - Quote
Can I ask why we have falloff I do not understand how in space you get falloff. You would either hit, or if you tracking was bad , miss. The projectiles or laser beams would keep on going until they hit something. Especially light, it does not bend except under extreme gravity like a black hole or is reflected. So why have CCP put it in the game. What am I missing, because based on the laws as we know them space combat would not work as it does in this game so there must be some game play reason they have done it. |

Grimm Griefer
M.I.M.M.S Apocalypse Now.
2
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 15:52:00 -
[2] - Quote
fluid dynamics probably. as the ships 'fly' similar to submarines the same thing that affects t hem probably affects projectile weapons. missiles, self destruct as you don't want to be flying around an area that you have filled with missiles lest you damage yourself as well. ultimately its to keep combat to visual range and not beyond visual range which would be boring as hell. |

Davith en Divalone
Plate of Beans Incorporated
64
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 15:55:00 -
[3] - Quote
For the same reason that pawns attack diagonally and not forward, and knights can move across occupied squares. It's a game, not a simulation. |

Miss Spent Youth
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 16:09:00 -
[4] - Quote
Davith en Divalone wrote:For the same reason that pawns attack diagonally and not forward, and knights can move across occupied squares. It's a game, not a simulation.
I understand this. however Eve markets itself on its complex systems based on science, but in this regard, "falloff", they suspend reality. I do not understand why they should. Far better to have the ordinance simply disappear when it has gone off the grid then let it fall?
|

Miss Spent Youth
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 16:12:00 -
[5] - Quote
Grimm Griefer wrote:*snip* ...ultimately its to keep combat to visual range and not beyond visual range which would be boring as hell.
But nine time out of ten you are not even looking at what is actually visible in space. The combat "visual" part take place using the overview only. I tried this last night. I stayed on map view (solar system map) and did a mission. I never once had to close the map. Click,orbit, click, orbit ad nauseum.
|

Signal11th
The Retirement Club
893
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 16:17:00 -
[6] - Quote
Miss Spent Youth wrote:Can I ask why we have falloff I do not understand how in space you get falloff. You would either hit, or if you tracking was bad , miss. The projectiles or laser beams would keep on going until they hit something. Especially light, it does not bend except under extreme gravity like a black hole or is reflected. So why have CCP put it in the game. What am I missing, because based on the laws as we know them space combat would not work as it does in this game so there must be some game play reason they have done it.
it's a game? if I wanted reality I would open my front door and play chav wars with the local natives. God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!" I came fifth and won a toaster. |

Grimm Griefer
M.I.M.M.S Apocalypse Now.
3
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 16:24:00 -
[7] - Quote
heh I never use overview, I could but I prefer my hairy eyeballs on ships not rings n ranges. also learning to fly the ship is important for pvp, ie clicking in space to change direction, especially when approaching enemies instead of fly straight at them. meh the falloff things is a mystery known only to CCP, we just have to live with it |

Davith en Divalone
Plate of Beans Incorporated
64
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 16:27:00 -
[8] - Quote
Miss Spent Youth wrote:Davith en Divalone wrote:For the same reason that pawns attack diagonally and not forward, and knights can move across occupied squares. It's a game, not a simulation. I understand this. however Eve markets itself on its complex systems based on science, but in this regard, "falloff", they suspend reality. I do not understand why they should. Far better to have the ordinance simply disappear when it has gone off the grid then let it fall?
It's a linguistic metaphor that's applied to a lot of things that are not directly affected by gravity. My dictionary uses exports, sales, and light intensity as examples. A google news search for today shows the term used in headlines about piano sales and news network viewers.
I've never seen Eve as especially hard science fiction in its gameplay.
|

Maire Gheren
Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire
145
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 16:27:00 -
[9] - Quote
"falloff" is not actually "falling". Instead, that is the range where it may or may not hit an active target that has countermeasures to keep it from being hit by random things. A railgun shoots a dumb projectile very fast, so it may be that countermeasures need a certain small amount of time to react during which time the slug travels quite a ways, then takes effect. A projectile however is far slower, so has a short optimal, and a long falloff where the internal gadgetry in the bullet can try to tweak things to hit anyways. Lasers have long optimals, but might be running afoul of the problem recently discovered where if you make a laser beam intense enough to do fun things with, it starts turning its energy into matter and antimatter, which 1: gets in the way of and refracts the beam and 2: recombines and makes more light that is not coherent, so collides with the laser beam light and triggers the creation of more matter. This, by the way, seems as though it would make laser beams visible from the side. |

Seven Noctis
157
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 16:27:00 -
[10] - Quote
Whoever told you that EVE was a space sim, lied. It's very complex but doesn't simulate anything. Stuff doesn't fly in EVE, it swims, true story. |

Kahega Amielden
Rifterlings Damu'Khonde
631
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 16:28:00 -
[11] - Quote
Quote:I understand this. however Eve markets itself on its complex systems based on science, but in this regard, "falloff", they suspend reality. I do not understand why they should. Far better to have the ordinance simply disappear when it has gone off the grid then let it fall?
I have never heard of any EVE advertising that focused on realistic game mechanics. Link or it didn't happen.
Furthermore, 'falloff' does not mean that it literally falls. Falloff is accuracy falloff ie how fast accuracy degrades with range. |

Orlacc
235
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 16:29:00 -
[12] - Quote
It is a game. Thread is old news. |

Lost Greybeard
Drunken Yordles
287
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 17:11:00 -
[13] - Quote
The full name of the effect is "ACCURACY falloff"
Essentially, your guns have a limited precision and accuracy based on ballistic spread, sensor attenuation, countermeasures, or in the case of lasers beam attenuation and railguns projectile stability failure.
The falloff factor of your gun is basically how far out from the ship your sensors and predicative algorithms can reliably land a shot, all other mechanical factors being equal. Note that signature radius is in the equation somewhere as well.
Complaining that this is unrealistic is a bit silly, as this is quite literally a real effect that real automated artillery suffers all the time, look up how gunnery in fast naval battles and dogfights works sometime if you really, really want to waste a few afternoons learning a bunch of stuff you'll never need to know.
(Additionally, one would assume that space projectiles are going to typically be designed to self-detonate or disintegrate intentionally after a certain flight time if they don't do so naturally, to do otherwise would be pretty stupid considering how much fighting we do on orbits shared with civilian stations. But that's a longer-term/longer-range issue and more a setting thing.) |

Lost Greybeard
Drunken Yordles
287
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 17:13:00 -
[14] - Quote
Miss Spent Youth wrote:Grimm Griefer wrote:*snip* ...ultimately its to keep combat to visual range and not beyond visual range which would be boring as hell. But nine time out of ten you are not even looking at what is actually visible in space. The combat "visual" part take place using the overview only. I tried this last night. I stayed on map view (solar system map) and did a mission. I never once had to close the map. Click,orbit, click, orbit ad nauseum.
Also, good luck keeping _that_ up in PvP or higher-level missions. You're going to be waking up in a lot of new clones. |

Xercodo
Xovoni Directorate
2175
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 17:44:00 -
[15] - Quote
It's more "Effective accuracy at range" thing than it is of a bullet or laser actually "falling" towards a perceived ground.
Even in the vacuum of space and in zero G a machine gun is gonna have a bit of spray to it. In space there are stars we can't see because they aren't bright enough. Light loses energy as it travels...
Falloff is taking this into account, falloff is talking about "the distance at which accuracy/power significantly falls off from optimal"
If you check out this interactive guide to EVE tracking you'll see the graph of accuracy literally starts falling off from optimal. The Drake is a Lie |

LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
296
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 18:05:00 -
[16] - Quote
A ... ummmm... what's the word? Logical? Mechanic may be to convert the signature of the ship from fixed size, to a radian measure.
Let's say chance of hit = max(1, tracking speed/angular velocity) * signature resolution/target signature.
Tracking Speed is how fast the gun can fine tune it's aim. It can track faster than this, but doesn't get to fine tune it's aim. Angular velocity = tangential speed/distance. max the ratio to 1 because you can't get a better "fine tune" than 100% fine tuned.
Signature resolution = how small of a signature the weapon is designed to hit Signature = how large the ship appears at this distance. calculated as size of the target/distance to target. No max since the bigger a target appears, the easier it is to hit. Fill up my entire line of sight, and it becomes literally impossible to miss.
Let's compare say I have my ship fit with small arty that are designed to hit a 100m frig with tangential velocity of 1000m orbiting at 10K meters distance. In this case, the gun would have tracking speed of 1000/10.000 = 0.1 and signature resolution of 100/10000 = 0.01. At that ideal circumstance, our gun would have a 100% chance of hitting.
Let's compare the case of this firg actually orbiting at 1K meters, 10K meters or 100K meters.
1K: meters: Angular velocity = 1000m/sec/1000m = 1 radians Sig = 100m/1000m = 0.1 radians chance of hit = max(1, 0.1/1) * 0.1/.01 = 0.1*10 = 1 = 100% chance you are going to hit. The fact that the target corssing our field of fire at 10x the designed speed means we're only able to fine-tune our shot 10%. However, it is so close to us that it is HUGE... a full 10x larger than our gun is designed to hit. Missing would be like missing the side of the barn at 10 paces.
10K: This is the designed case.... 100% chance of hit given the gun's specs.
100K: Angular velocity = 100,000m/sec/1000m = .01 radians Sig = 100m/100,000m = 0.001 radians chance of hit = max (1, 0.01/0.1) * 0.001/0.01 = 1 * 0.1 = 10% chance of a hit. The gun has all the time in the world to aim, but it still will barely be able to hit, because the firg appears to be a tiny spec, 1/10th the size the gun is designed to hit.
So, using this "more logical" hit calculation, firgs would be harder to hit at range (too small to aim at), then they would be close in (where even a small ship appears to be huge because it is so close).
CCP wanted a situation where small ships could get close and orbit fast, and be too close and fast to hit. So, they didn't go with a logical design
While we're at it, explain the ship size to explosion size to me.... a small boom does more damage than a HUGE boom? Really? Yeah, because they wanted a situation where big booms are designed for big ships, not small ships. So a small ship getting hit by a huge boom doesn't take much damage... illogical, but creates the situation CCP wants. |

LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
296
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 18:18:00 -
[17] - Quote
Xercodo wrote: Light loses energy as it travels...
Ummmm... no. A beam of light is not a single thing, but rather a collection of a huge number of photons.
The further you are, the fainter the light has has to do with the scatter of the photons because they are not traveling in perfectly parallel directions. Close up, pretty close to parallel photons will both hit you. Further away, the result of small differences in direction of travel magnify to the point that both photons will no longer hit you.
No matter how well you attempt to focus your laser to an infinite point (perfectly parallel photons of light), there will always be some variance in the direction of travel of individual photons. The further away, the more the photons scatter.
Think of it like shot fired out of a shot gun. With an open choke, at 0 meters, the scatter is the diameter of the muzzle. 1 meter, the pattern of shot is like the size of your hand. At 10 meters, the pattern may be a meter across. Replace the open choke with a full choke to try to get the shot packed more tightly and traveling in a more parallel direction. Well, at 0 meters, it is still the size of the muzzle. At 1 meter, it is now half the size of your hand, and at 10 meters, it is half a meter.
No matter how much you choke down the end of the barrrel, you can never get the pieces of shot to travel in perfectly parallel directions, so it will never stay the size of the end of the muzzle. |

Xercodo
Xovoni Directorate
2175
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 18:35:00 -
[18] - Quote
LHA Tarawa wrote:Xercodo wrote: Light loses energy as it travels...
Ummmm... no. A beam of light is not a single thing, but rather a collection of a huge number of photons. The further you are, the fainter the light has has to do with the scatter of the photons because they are not traveling in perfectly parallel directions. Close up, pretty close to parallel photons will both hit you. Further away, the result of small differences in direction of travel magnify to the point that both photons will no longer hit you. No matter how well you attempt to focus your laser to an infinite point (perfectly parallel photons of light), there will always be some variance in the direction of travel of individual photons. The further away, the more the photons scatter. Think of it like shot fired out of a shot gun. With an open choke, at 0 meters, the scatter is the diameter of the muzzle. 1 meter, the pattern of shot is like the size of your hand. At 10 meters, the pattern may be a meter across. Replace the open choke with a full choke to try to get the shot packed more tightly and traveling in a more parallel direction. Well, at 0 meters, it is still the size of the muzzle. At 1 meter, it is now half the size of your hand, and at 10 meters, it is half a meter. No matter how much you choke down the end of the barrrel, you can never get the pieces of shot to travel in perfectly parallel directions, so it will never stay the size of the end of the muzzle.
That's pretty much all I meant, I was sparing them from the mechanics of photons and saying it "loses energy".
But thanks for the explanation, it supports my claim in the way that "lasers have a tiny amount of spray like a machine gun does, on a molecular level..." The Drake is a Lie |

Miss Spent Youth
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
3
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 18:45:00 -
[19] - Quote
But in space there is no friction so why would a shot be inaccurate? |

Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7628
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 18:48:00 -
[20] - Quote
Miss Spent Youth wrote:Can I ask why we have falloff I do not understand how in space you get falloff. You would either hit, or if you tracking was bad , miss. The projectiles or laser beams would keep on going until they hit something. Especially light, it does not bend except under extreme gravity like a black hole or is reflected. So why have CCP put it in the game. What am I missing, because based on the laws as we know them space combat would not work as it does in this game so there must be some game play reason they have done it.
Spin stablised projectiles not having perfect rotational symmetry? Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |

LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
296
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 18:50:00 -
[21] - Quote
Xercodo wrote: That's pretty much all I meant, I was sparing them from the mechanics of photons and saying it "loses energy".
But thanks for the explanation, it supports my claim in the way that "lasers have a tiny amount of spray like a machine gun does, on a molecular level..."
Okay... how about he change it to "they lose energy density as the photons scatter over distance". It is the energy density, not the total energy, that does the damage. |

J'Poll
The Fiction Factory Tribal Band
1881
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 19:00:00 -
[22] - Quote
Miss Spent Youth wrote:Can I ask why we have falloff I do not understand how in space you get falloff. You would either hit, or if you tracking was bad , miss. The projectiles or laser beams would keep on going until they hit something. Especially light, it does not bend except under extreme gravity like a black hole or is reflected. So why have CCP put it in the game. What am I missing, because based on the laws as we know them space combat would not work as it does in this game so there must be some game play reason they have done it.
Earch to Miss Spent...EVE is a game, not real space. It's just pixels on your monitor, rendered by a server that CCP let you play on.
Seriously, if you don't know what falloff is, search for EVE's weapon mechanics, got a great graph there that will show it to you.
Or you could of course set auto-pilot to any hostile null-sec system and let other players show it too you. |

LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
296
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 19:06:00 -
[23] - Quote
Malcanis wrote: Spin stablised projectiles not having perfect rotational symmetry?
In vacuum, you don't need to spin stabilize the projectiles.
Prior to the invention of the rifle, we used spherical bullets. The problem with the sphere is that the bigger you make it, the bigger hole it has to punch in the air, slowing it down at a faster rate, meaning reduced range and not greater hitting power.
A better shape is long and skinny bullet, like we use now. You can have a large mass while still creating a small hole through the air.
The problem with this shape is that, air is trying to slow the front of a bullet more than the rear. This causes the bullet, if not spun, to begin to tumble. A tumbling bullet has an even larger cross section that the sphere. Also, the tumble, not unlike a curve ball in baseball, creates irregular air pressures around it causing the trajectory to curve in unpredictable directions.
Spinning the bullet prevents the tumbling because the total angular momentum is much higher. It is "harder" for the wind to push the nose of the bullet off in any given direction. The faster the bullet is traveling, the more spin you need to get on it to prevent the tumble. Fortunately, a longer barrel creates both the higher velocity and the faster spin.
In space, there no wind resistance to create the tumble, nor is there a problem with tumble anyway since you are not worried about wind resistance slowing the bullet or causing it to curve from intended trajectory.
|

Davith en Divalone
Plate of Beans Incorporated
66
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 19:54:00 -
[24] - Quote
Miss Spent Youth wrote:But in space there is no friction so why would a shot be inaccurate?
Well, if you want a slightly plausible explanation, you're trying to hit a moving target from a moving platform, possibly with a moving object. Your guns are making statistical estimates of the best trajectory given data about the objects in motion. Accuracy Falloff can be rationalized as the point at which cumulative measurement errors produce unreliable estimates of needed trajectory. Will McCarthy uses this concept in a battle scene in the novel, Lost in Transmission. The crew of the target spaceship create random fluctuations in the acceleration of their engines to increase the the error in their enemy's estimates of future trajectory.
Or, you can see it as just a game mechanic and relax.
|

Davith en Divalone
Plate of Beans Incorporated
66
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 19:57:00 -
[25] - Quote
J'Poll wrote: EVE is in space, how come we hear engine sounds from the outside of the ships. Space is a vacuum and in vacuum there is no sound (in before: EVE has sound?)
Explained as a translation of electromagnetic data as part of the pod interface. Which is also a good way to explain away why space is very colorful, and not to scale. |

Evelyn Meiyi
Meiyi Family Holdings
85
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 20:11:00 -
[26] - Quote
Miss Spent Youth wrote:Can I ask why we have falloff I do not understand how in space you get falloff. You would either hit, or if you tracking was bad , miss. The projectiles or laser beams would keep on going until they hit something. Especially light, it does not bend except under extreme gravity like a black hole or is reflected. So why have CCP put it in the game. What am I missing, because based on the laws as we know them space combat would not work as it does in this game so there must be some game play reason they have done it.
Because hitting someone that's literally on the other side of the grid from you is just a wee bit too powerful..... |

Nariya Kentaya
Tartarus Ventures Surely You're Joking
346
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 20:31:00 -
[27] - Quote
Miss Spent Youth wrote:Can I ask why we have falloff I do not understand how in space you get falloff. You would either hit, or if you tracking was bad , miss. The projectiles or laser beams would keep on going until they hit something. Especially light, it does not bend except under extreme gravity like a black hole or is reflected. So why have CCP put it in the game. What am I missing, because based on the laws as we know them space combat would not work as it does in this game so there must be some game play reason they have done it. right there "based on the laws as we know them".
we are in a separate region of the universe as the milky way, flying around in wormhole-heavy space, with ships powered by engines that break physical space.
its not insane to believe all the reality/space-breaking tech in New Eden has caused an affect on the way physical space operates. |

J'Poll
The Fiction Factory Tribal Band
1882
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 20:31:00 -
[28] - Quote
Davith en Divalone wrote:J'Poll wrote: EVE is in space, how come we hear engine sounds from the outside of the ships. Space is a vacuum and in vacuum there is no sound (in before: EVE has sound?)
Explained as a translation of electromagnetic data as part of the pod interface. Which is also a good way to explain away why space is very colorful, and not to scale.
Which again means...this isn't real space.... |

LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
300
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 21:41:00 -
[29] - Quote
Why the planets don't move?
Why can we sit motionless above a planet and not be sucked in by gravity? Why can we bounce harmlessly off a moon/planet/sun...
Why can't I pull in an asteroid with a tractor beam?
Why is there a max speed? Why does our ship slow down when we turn off afterburner?
Why do we hear sounds of other ships?
Why are out "camera drones" not destroyed when our ship goes boom? How about we create the whole ship out of whatever that camera that is showing us the outside of our ship is made out of?
Why does autopilot warp to 5K off gate?
why, why, why....
Because it is a game! |

J'Poll
The Fiction Factory Tribal Band
1884
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 23:56:00 -
[30] - Quote
LHA Tarawa wrote:Why the planets don't move?
Why can we sit motionless above a planet and not be sucked in by gravity? Why can we bounce harmlessly off a moon/planet/sun...
Why can't I pull in an asteroid with a tractor beam?
Why is there a max speed? Why does our ship slow down when we turn off afterburner?
Why do we hear sounds of other ships?
Why are out "camera drones" not destroyed when our ship goes boom? How about we create the whole ship out of whatever that camera that is showing us the outside of our ship is made out of?
Why does autopilot warp to 5K off gate?
why, why, why....
Because it is a game!
AP is 15k not 5... |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |