| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 3 post(s) |
Lo3d3R
   |
Posted - 2005.08.26 00:49:00 -
[31]
 very very well done
|
Golgrath
|
Posted - 2005.08.26 05:50:00 -
[32]
Edited by: Golgrath on 26/08/2005 05:52:11
So if CCP gave you the dirty details on the math why not give them to everyone? People could make them own applications.
One thing i noticed playing with the last tab chart is that if you have a turret with 10000 optimal and 0 falloff with 0.1 radians/s tracking, you only hit at 50% chance a target with a transversal of 1000 (10000*0.1). Theoretically it should be 100% as the turret is keeping up with the target. So how exactly is this calculated?
Better to just give out the dirty math, ppl can still use this tracking tool to fit a curve and figure it out by themselves.
|
MOOstradamus
|
Posted - 2005.08.26 08:07:00 -
[33]
Edited by: MOOstradamus on 26/08/2005 08:08:54
 Quote:
So if CCP gave you the dirty details on the math why not give them to everyone? People could make them own applications.
He had already made an independent guide with no help from CCP which was SO GOOD that they prolly then got in contact and asked him to make an official one.
Instead of about how 'you' could make your own application (as clearly this is what you're implying) why not just get on with it and do it  
MOOrovingian "Following & supporting EVE (since Jan 2001) is like wiping your arse with sandpaper."
|
Matthew
|
Posted - 2005.08.26 08:43:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Auraurious
one thing im not sure about: Theoretically if you we orbiting around a ship twice as fast as the turret, the turret would have one small window to shoot every two orbits, but if you were to put on a mwd and orbit 10 times as fast, the turret would actually have more chances two hit you.
It's best not to try and look at turret tracking from that sort of intuitive physical view, that's not the calculation that's being done.
In that sense, I feel the page in the guide where it explains rad/s and has the rotating turret animation could probably be clarified, as it leads people to think in terms of actual turrets pointing and moving, which, while a justification for tracking penalties, isn't the way the system actually works.
The only factors you need to consider are transverse velocity, range and sig radius. The facing of your ship is only important in it's connection to controlling transverse velocity, you can't "boresight" a target. You can't sit still, hold the turret fixed and just take a pot-shot every time they come round. Forget proper physics, intuitive aiming, everything except transverse, range and sig radius.
As for whether the MWD is actually useful in orbit or not, I'm not sure. Plug in the stats with it on and off into the guide and shoot yourself with some virtual guns, see which one does less damage to you.
Originally by: Joshua Calvert
What happened to the mystery of Eve?
People learned maths  In fact, the combat and fitting systems are a great incentive to learn basic (and sometimes not so basic) maths, and to keep your hand in.
Numeracy ftw 
Originally by: DigitalCommunist
The gun rotates on a base mounted to the ship, it doesn't care where the ship is pointed.
But the gun is attached to the ship, so in proper-physics land, the orientation and changing orientation of the ship would have implications on the aiming of the turret. Of course, it would depend how free-floating the gun was in it's mount. In theory if it was totally free-floating (in zero-friction land), the ship could turn around without the turret changing it's facing at all. Of course, eve-physics-land ignores all that as too complicated.
Originally by: DigitalCommunist
Like if a frig orbits a zealot at 15k and the zealot starts mwding in one direction the orbit is going to be long and wide like an oval and it might decrease the transverse enough for the zealot to hit.
Doing that will make the transverse lower for one half of the orbit, but higher in the other half. There are two halves to an orbit around a target moving in a straight line, the overtaking half and the falling-back half. During the overtaking half, the velocities of the frig and the zealot will be in the same general direction (and will actually be completely parallel at one point in the orbit). This results in a reduced transverse speed, and a better chance to hit. The faster the zealot can go, the better chance it has to hit during this period. Also, the faster the zealot goes, the longer the overtaking period lasts. In the falling-back half, the velocities of the two ships are in opposite directions, increasing transverse. The zealot still wants to go fast in this phase as it has a low chance to hit anyway, and going faster means the frig passes you and comes back round for a vulnerable overtaking period quicker.
Beware those beyond here, for they cannot see evil. |
Matthew
|
Posted - 2005.08.26 14:14:00 -
[35]
Suggestion for the last page of the guide:
Up and Down increment arrows for some of the input boxes, particularly the sig radius and transverse velocity values. I've found myself altering these a lot for comparison. It would be far easier to be able to step through these values with a single click rather than having to manually edit the text field every time.
Beware those beyond here, for they cannot see evil. |
Ticondrius
|
Posted - 2005.08.26 14:56:00 -
[36]
I still don't get the orbit problem. If I'm orbiting a stationary target, why does tracking matter at all? Relative to my ship, the target does not move. Only thing that should matter then is signature radius of the gun vs that of the target.
"If I'm brutally honest and it offends you, that's not my fault." |
Basileus
|
Posted - 2005.08.26 18:06:00 -
[37]
Like the guide. Excellent work. However; I'm dead in the water, a cruise missele tower isn't moving either. My damage (turret) varies between 60 and 150. That seems a rather large randomisation factor to me. Devs?
|
Bottled Brain
|
Posted - 2005.08.26 20:51:00 -
[38]
Upcoming Balance Changes
"3. The damage done by a 'normal hit' is no longer 100% damage every time but now simply any hit that does between 75% and 100% damage. The full range remains as it always was, 50% to 150%."
|
Erik Pathfinder
|
Posted - 2005.08.28 02:15:00 -
[39]
I remember the first tool used the wrong number of radians in a full cirle (correct is 2 x pi = 6.blah). This one seems more correct. Nice tool.
------
(\_/)
(O.o)
(> <) |
Matthew
|
Posted - 2005.08.28 16:20:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Ticondrius
I still don't get the orbit problem. If I'm orbiting a stationary target, why does tracking matter at all? Relative to my ship, the target does not move. Only thing that should matter then is signature radius of the gun vs that of the target.
Because the eve tracking maths is not a full physics simulation. It uses several simplifications to keep the computing load down. This means that it only considers instantaneous velocities. It is impossible using instantaneous velocities alone to tell the difference between an orbitting path and a linear fly-by path.
To tell the difference between an orbit and a linear fly-by, you'd need to take accelerations into account. Either you do this by calculating instantaneous accelerations, which is computationally expensive, or you do it by taking the difference between consecutive time periods, which introduces a higher memory load to have to store consecutive periods.
Of course, there is also the issue of proper in-space physics. While the gun is attached to the ship, it is in a mounting that can turn. Which means that it has a motion with degrees of freedom at least partially independant of the motion of the ship. If the mount was perfectly frictionless, then in theory the ship could turn, and the turret would remain pointing in it's original facing, within the limits of the mount's range of movement. Of course, the mount won't be completely frictionless, but it won't have 100% friction either (else the mount would never turn!). So even though the ship was moving so that the position of the gun relative to the ship doesn't change, the mounting would still have to do some work to maintain that gun orientation. Of course, simulating that properly would mean even small battles with turret ships would crash a node.
Beware those beyond here, for they cannot see evil. |
Pericol Public
|
Posted - 2005.08.28 23:02:00 -
[41]
If this guide is so 'awsome' can someone tell me why i miss whit the 1400`s if the target is at 20km from me ?in this 'awsome' guide it shows that if the target is from 1 meter-my optimal i have 100% chance to hit.i use a tracking and i have motion pred lvl 5.well i miss cruisers and frigates even if they have 30-40 transversal velocity .excuse me but this guie is bull****.
|
Sha'ik
|
Posted - 2005.08.29 00:59:00 -
[42]
Pericol: Post a a screenie of your settings on the chart wiz
|
Messerschmitt facility
|
Posted - 2005.08.29 19:24:00 -
[43]
Edited by: Messerschmitt facility on 29/08/2005 19:26:27
There was another tracking guide at: http://www.ittensohn.ch/eve/eve-tracking.html
But now it's removed. I don't think it was the CCP hand on this one. So you guys are a bit slow...
Anyway
Can you make something like this for missles too? And if yes, probabely would be nice if you would do it before a community person do it before you
Oh and also add a direct page option like it was in the old guide. People don't realy need to start from the beggining to arrive at the last page for doing calculations
_________________________________
A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking...
|
Hakera
|
Posted - 2005.08.29 19:57:00 -
[44]
Edited by: Hakera on 29/08/2005 19:56:56
Originally by: Messerschmitt facility
Can you make something like this for missles too? And if yes, probabely would be nice if you would do it before a community person do it before you
too late 
Dumbledore - Eve-I.com |
Simon Roderik
|
Posted - 2005.08.29 23:46:00 -
[45]
The next step I'd like to see is a velocity vectors for the tactical display in game (As it stands now, the tactical display is limited in its tactical capabilities, at least to me). CPA (closest point of approach) calculations would be nice as well. Particularly for those who find that manual flight during combat is the preferred method. Computers on submarines/ships/aircraft can do this now, it would stand to reason that 20k years from now, spaceships could do it .
It could have the option of being limited to locked targets, or some fixed number, for those with lower system capabilities. Many might not use it, but I'd guess quite a few would. I can avoid alot of damage in my poor underpowered frigate through manual flight that I would normally take using orbit or keep-range, especially now that I've begun Lvl 2 kill missions.
The combat and tactics in this game remind me of submarine vs submarine warfare alot (though with a bit faster pace and the advantage of radar vs sonar). Something like this would be a great addition, and would be another real skill to master that is not bought and trained, which is what I love about this game.
Just a thought 
|
Shamis Orzoz
|
Posted - 2005.08.30 01:13:00 -
[46]
Awesome work!
|
Maric Abair
|
Posted - 2005.08.30 13:08:00 -
[47]
I agree that something like this in-game would be great, no need for the fancy graphs and such, but just values for optimum range/dmg. Limit it to a selected, targeted ship and put it in a right click on a weapon and you don't even have to enter any values.
Using the web version while playing is not an option as Eve tends to crash on me if I alt-enter nor have access to all the necessary info without going to eve-i which, I am told, can be out of date.
|
Liu Kaskakka
|
Posted - 2005.08.30 23:29:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Pericol Public
If this guide is so 'awsome' can someone tell me why i miss whit the 1400`s if the target is at 20km from me ?in this 'awsome' guide it shows that if the target is from 1 meter-my optimal i have 100% chance to hit.i use a tracking and i have motion pred lvl 5.well i miss cruisers and frigates even if they have 30-40 transversal velocity .excuse me but this guie is bull****.
|
Douglas McCracken
|
Posted - 2005.08.31 20:55:00 -
[49]
can we get this put in the ships and modules section?
|
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2005.09.01 18:40:00 -
[50]
"too late "
Nah, this calculator can be useful but it doesn't actually explain how the missiles work now. A guide that shows all gotcha's with explosion velocity and size and stuff, like this tracking flash thingie does... would be good. -.o
|
Mr M
|
Posted - 2005.09.02 20:59:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Maric Abair
I agree that something like this in-game would be great, no need for the fancy graphs and such, but just values for optimum range/dmg.
Maybe this will work for you.
EVEgeek Ore calculator, Mineral Index, and more |
SghnDubh
|
Posted - 2005.09.03 05:39:00 -
[52]
Nice update to the previous guide.
One thing that continues to escape me is the implication of transverse velocity. The guide tells me how it works, but doesn't spell out the effects that high or low transverse velocity has on my chances to hit.
Please do forgive me if what I'm asking is in there; I was an English major in college.
.
What doesn't kill you makes you stronger...
Fight Smart: www.BattleClinic.com
|
The Weasel
|
Posted - 2005.09.03 13:55:00 -
[53]
SghnDubh:
Not sure if that helps any...
Transversal Velocity:
Imagine you're driving in your car due north with a speed of 50km/h and another car is right ahead of you driving east with 60 km/h. That other car is moving with 60km/h transversal to you.
If the other car would drive with 60km/h south instead of east your relative velocity would be 110km/h but your transversal velocity is 0 km/h because he's not moving tangetial to you.
Tracking:
Tracking speed is compared with the transversal velocity. The higher the transversal velocity is, the more speed your turrets need when turning to shoot the target.
If the turret can turn fast enough to keep up with the targets transversal velocity, then you get a fair chance to hit. If the turrets turn faster, the chance to hit is increased til up to 100%. If the turrets turn slower than the target moves transversal to you, the chances are decreased down to 0%.
Add:
very low transversal velocities can even compensate the signature malus. So you theoretically can have a 100% chance to hit with a large gun targeting an interceptor, if there is no transversal velocity in between.
Or the other way round: you have a low chance to hit with a small gun against a big target if the transversal is very very high (wich is i.e. a problem when firing long range small guns on a cruiser while being in a close fast orbit)
Hope that helped a bit,
sorry for my english-mistakes, I didnt make a degree in English, actually its not even my native tongue 
best regards,
The Weasel
|
Thomus
|
Posted - 2005.09.03 14:21:00 -
[54]
Lol - the size of weapon and size of ship, and the resulting 'probabilities' of hitting things that follow, dont add up to me.
If you were a man standing next to a very large object, say, the Titinic. How hard is it for you to shoot the titanic with a pistol? Not very - you'd have to be shooting the other way in order to miss.
Also, if you had a weapon whose ammunition lets say was the size of the titanic (see the reversal!) and you pushed the titanic towards the small man, how likely is it too miss the small man when the titanic covers such a vast space?
Have i missed the idea here? or is anyone else wondering the same thing?
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |