| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
ManWithoutFace
   |
Posted - 2005.12.08 07:33:00 -
[31]
ye
when i bought my first cruiser it was a Stabber. I was so happy to get one but once i started really using it ... i was getting quite disappointed ... well you know ... it has the main engine, then a bottom thruster, a right side thruster, but nothing on the left side ... lol
i simply couldnt be happy with that, i sold it and bought something different coz i couldnt stand looking on its unfinished asymetric look
|
Sobeseki Pawi
|
Posted - 2005.12.08 07:47:00 -
[32]
How about make a symmetrical and assymmetrical ship for each race/class/role and let us decide what we like.
~Sobe
 Originally by: TomB
Originally by: Darpz
Originally by: Sobeseki Pawi
CCP will nerf this probably, but hey, worth a try 
so your saying I should of kept my mouth shut?
Yup.
|
Atma Darkwolf
|
Posted - 2005.12.08 08:24:00 -
[33]
easy fix: first just mirrior one side of each ship, and clone it onto the ship(giving a symetrical look) and offer BOTH models as the SAME ship(when u build one, you buoild one or the other, both are the same with regards to resists, pwr grid, etc, all that changes is the appearence)
Then GM's, do your job.. see which of each model gets purchased/built more in a 2 month period, then make THAT model the only one.
Second idea is to just offer 2-3 choices for each ship design(IE: there can be a Rifter type A, type B and type C, all are identical in all ways except for apperence, but they look diffrent, gives players much more 'choice' without adding too much, and also makes the universe less of a '15 ravens, 12 apocs, and 9 scorps' and a more mixed, intresting(and realistic) repententtion of what u would see.
Do you really think that after 10+ years of a ship being avalible that no one would 'mod' it or alter it's apperance in any way?
Once again, I do not think that u should change the stats of teh ships.. just offer us 2-3 diffrent models of EACH ship. (And PLEASE make at LEAST one of each of those models symetrical)
|
Alexi Borizkova
|
Posted - 2005.12.08 09:25:00 -
[34]
Tweaking designs of existing ships would be a main focus of my character if such were available...
The sig shows it all.
|
Alexis Evenstar
|
Posted - 2005.12.08 09:32:00 -
[35]
Nooo! I just saw on a link from this page that KALI won't come until Q2 of 2006... and here I was so pumped for a Dec. release lol... That's what I get for not paying attention... but hey, I have to give (are they still props? :P) to the Devs for not rushing this out... wow, taking your time is very important to me.
As for ship designs... some of the ships in EVE are the ugliest things I've ever seen lol... but you know what? I love every single one of em. ;) So far from the average pretty looking ones... :P Of course I say that and I think I fly the most symmetrical types. ;) Amarr FTW! :P
|
Piotr Anatolev
|
Posted - 2005.12.08 09:40:00 -
[36]
Edited by: Piotr Anatolev on 08/12/2005 09:40:57
How about start cleaning up the ship designs already in game?
The 1st thing that comes to my mind is how B A D it looks on the Iteron V with the engine exhausts blasting straight back into its hull.
There are several examples of this inconsistancy, but sure, its a game and yoiu can say whatever you want to that, but I for one dont fancy designs that doesnt seem to have any thought behind it.
EDIT/ speeling
|
Avon
|
Posted - 2005.12.08 09:44:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Rychek
Originally by: Azuriel Talloth
Symmetry is the crutch of the unimaginative.
When I look at a leaf I see symmetry. When I look at a flower I see symmetry. When I look at ants, and birds, and bears, and humans I see symmetry.
More crutchless, imaginative gods please!
Then you aren't looking close enough.
True symmetry is very, very rare in nature.
______________________________________________
The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur |
Knoppaz
|
Posted - 2005.12.08 09:47:00 -
[38]
It's kinda 50/50-situation for me..
While I'd love symetrical design for some models (e.g. Cormorant, Ferox), I really love some of the asymetrical designs with the Blackbird being the coolest shipdesign in game 
|
Gariuys
|
Posted - 2005.12.08 09:52:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Avon
Originally by: Rychek
Originally by: Azuriel Talloth
Symmetry is the crutch of the unimaginative.
When I look at a leaf I see symmetry. When I look at a flower I see symmetry. When I look at ants, and birds, and bears, and humans I see symmetry.
More crutchless, imaginative gods please!
Then you aren't looking close enough.
True symmetry is very, very rare in nature.
And that's a understatement really. Best test, look very closely in the mirror, and try to draw straight lines from the bottom of ears, nose wings, mouth corners etc. You'll notice then they're not parallel. So no symmetry.
~{When evil and strange get together anything is possible}~
A tool is only useless when you don't know how to use it. - ActiveX
The grass is always greener on the other side. - JoCool |
Rodj Blake
|
Posted - 2005.12.08 10:41:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Jenny Spitfire
Originally by: Clytamnestra
Airplanes need to be symmetrical for the sake of aerodynamics. In space, there's very little air, so ships don't need to be built for aerodynamics, lessening the restrictions of symmetry.
In engineering, when you don't need a thing, there is usually a better solution which doesn't involve the thing you don't need - hence asymmetrical ships.
On the other hand, for pure aestethics, I agree in part, some ships do look pretty ugly.
I think all of the best stuffs are asymmetric but for the sake of argument, when Kali comes and we get planetary flights(?), I am worried to know how will Caldari ships fly? 
On top of that, I'm curious how they get around the backstory, which says that tritanium in unstable in most atmospheres.
Dolce et decorum est pro imperator mori |
|
|
Avon
|
Posted - 2005.12.08 10:48:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Rodj Blake
On top of that, I'm curious how they get around the backstory, which says that tritanium in unstable in most atmospheres.
They'll re-write the backstory to make it fit - like they did with rebirth.
______________________________________________
The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur |
Resnik
|
Posted - 2005.12.08 11:10:00 -
[42]
Edited by: Resnik on 08/12/2005 11:10:15
I like both kinds, but if ships is ment to be symmetrical, then PLEASE fix retribution 
N.A.G.A Webshop |
Grimwalius d'Antan
|
Posted - 2005.12.08 11:15:00 -
[43]
Asymmetrical ships is what makes it possible to feel like being in another age and history. It helps disconnect the Eve universe from the earth universe, given how the inhabitants of Eve are not supposed to know anything about mankind's origin. The earth style text prints on the Caldari ships breaks that illusion however.
Remember: The world of Eve was built from scratch, no knowledge gained from earth and other colonization exists since after the collapse of the Eve gate. What we see in the game is the result of perfectly new reinvention of space flight. Basically, the world of Eve is a place where mankind has had a new evolution process.
|
Solator Auxilium
|
Posted - 2005.12.08 11:21:00 -
[44]
I dont mind asymetrical ships but, if you add one wing to one side why not add a wing to the other side?
|
Rod Blaine
|
Posted - 2005.12.08 11:23:00 -
[45]
Disney doesnt design eve ships, and Im glad they dont.
It's not a cartoon style thing, symetry has no value at all other then to please some popular-sf-culture inspired need for biglooking symmetrical ubership designs with wings and bristling with weapons.
I;m glad eve doesn't follow that path too much.
_______________________________________________
Power to the players !
|
Tony Fats
|
Posted - 2005.12.08 13:22:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Avon
Originally by: Rychek
Originally by: Azuriel Talloth
Symmetry is the crutch of the unimaginative.
When I look at a leaf I see symmetry. When I look at a flower I see symmetry. When I look at ants, and birds, and bears, and humans I see symmetry.
More crutchless, imaginative gods please!
Then you aren't looking close enough.
True symmetry is very, very rare in nature.
Actually it is scientifically proven that almost every species of animal (including humans) rates the attractiveness of the opposite sex by its symmetry.
People with symmetric faces rate higher on the beauty scale to the opposite sex.
So if beauty is symmetricity, bring on the symmetric ships!
|
Jenny Spitfire
|
Posted - 2005.12.08 13:25:00 -
[47]
Hmmmm... my 5 cents.
Asymmetrical == Efficiency
Symmetrical == Beauty
----------------
RecruitMe@NOINT! |
Cryselle
|
Posted - 2005.12.08 13:49:00 -
[48]
Prophecy = Rooster on Steorids 
|
Sobeseki Pawi
|
Posted - 2005.12.08 13:51:00 -
[49]
Originally by: Jenny Spitfire
Hmmmm... my 5 cents.
Asymmetrical == Efficiency
Symmetrical == Beauty
Actually Asymmetrical isnt more efficient.
~Sobe
Originally by: TomB
Originally by: Darpz
Originally by: Sobeseki Pawi
CCP will nerf this probably, but hey, worth a try
so your saying I should of kept my mouth shut?
Yup.
|
Brastagi
|
Posted - 2005.12.08 14:06:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Saeris Tal'Urduar
Or the Moa one angle it looks "OMG thats a snake about to strike!" And at another angle its "WTF is that?"
Caldari ships have always been the best looking in terms of "WTF factor."
Quote:
Probably the MOST WTF ship in this game
The first time I played this game and saw Gallente's ships, you'll probably know my reaction .
Prophecy reminds me of overfed turkey.
---------
Watch me gravitate Ha ha ha ha ha....
|
|
|
Jenny Spitfire
|
Posted - 2005.12.08 14:10:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Sobeseki Pawi
Originally by: Jenny Spitfire
Hmmmm... my 5 cents.
Asymmetrical == Efficiency
Symmetrical == Beauty
Actually Asymmetrical isnt more efficient.
Why asymmetrical is more efficient?
----------------
RecruitMe@NOINT! |
Piotr Anatolev
|
Posted - 2005.12.08 14:30:00 -
[52]
what it comes down to is to make a particular design efficient at what its supposed to do, be it either symmetrical or asymmetrical.
I would say that the ship models in eve in no way what so ever reflect any intentional engineering effort as much as they reflect a desire to be set apart and made unique and cool looking and thats their weakness.
True coolness comes from ruthlessly effient engineering with an intention of maximizing every aspect of the design and construction. Thats inspiring, even if it means a ship will be no more than a sphere bcus you would know it had a purposful design!
Now, thats hardly the case with most ship models in eve, some even makes me wanna cry.
Still, I hope for a change to this as the game in general is rather entertaining.
|
Emperor D'Hoffryn
|
Posted - 2005.12.08 14:56:00 -
[53]
If you take any calc class, you should go through the proof where you find out that a cube is the most efficient space in terms of surface area to volume, ie, its the biggest container you can build with the least materials. This lets you stuff more ship stuff inside.
ie, the borg.
Also less surface area to volume ratio gives other benefits like less heat and energy escaping into space.
Practicality of a cube? I cant say. But at least we know where all the trit goes when making ships, stupid complicated hulls.
|
Thomus
|
Posted - 2005.12.08 14:59:00 -
[54]
Originally by: Camador
Dude, your sig line has *******s in it?
----------------
Tom |
Equinox II
|
Posted - 2005.12.08 15:14:00 -
[55]
Originally by: jbob2000
Well if we dont need to deal with aerodynamics, then wouldn't the most effecient thing be a cube? or a sphere?
Yes, please give me my borg cube :)
|
Hans Roaming
|
Posted - 2005.12.08 15:28:00 -
[56]
Originally by: Jenny Spitfire
Originally by: Sobeseki Pawi
Originally by: Jenny Spitfire
Hmmmm... my 5 cents.
Asymmetrical == Efficiency
Symmetrical == Beauty
Actually Asymmetrical isnt more efficient.
Why asymmetrical is more efficient?
It all depends on the problem in question, however for space ships the most efficient designs would be more than bilaterally symetrical and would be more like rockets i.e. the Saturn V. If the ships in Eve use thrust to turn then there would be a nightmare trying to balance all those moments of inertia and also the thrusters to try and get the thing to turn. Not to mention that the thrust centerline wants to go through the center of gravity else the ships will spin around in space like a catherine wheel. As Eve is Sci fi a lot of the ships have biliateral symetry now although they still wouldn't tend to work as the Thorax even if it was bilaterally symetrical would tend to pitch up all the time.
However people are very used to seeing bilaterally symetrical things so it makes things look more 'real' when you see them. Anyway I love the new look ships and would love things like the Thorax to change their design to keep up with the new looks and would love the front thrusters to go as the exhaust plumes would tend to burn up the bottom of the hull.
El Presedente
Anti Pirate? Tired of sec hits? Join us for free wars! |
ManWithoutFace
|
Posted - 2005.12.08 17:29:00 -
[57]
ok lets say asymetric ships are okay but i think the problem here is with the "unfinished" look of some ships - aka Omen's or Stabber's missing side engines etc ... :)
|
Sobeseki Pawi
|
Posted - 2005.12.08 17:39:00 -
[58]
Honestly, for me it isn't a problem that there are some asymmetrical ships in Eve. My problem with them is that none of them have a good reason to be asymmetrical...they just are. And no engineer would waste the resources needed to facilitate some of these designs.
And others are just plain badly done.
Half the ships in this game should be blowing up from stress fractures along their superstructures.
Anyone remember the de Havilland Comet? Those werent even asymmetrical and they had massive structural integrity problems. No imagine what an Apoc's Tritanium backbone has to put up with. No wonder its a banana.
~Sobe
Originally by: TomB
Originally by: Darpz
Originally by: Sobeseki Pawi
CCP will nerf this probably, but hey, worth a try
so your saying I should of kept my mouth shut?
Yup.
|
Lenil Star
|
Posted - 2005.12.08 17:47:00 -
[59]
Originally by: jbob2000
Well if we dont need to deal with aerodynamics, then wouldn't the most effecient thing be a cube? or a sphere?
Don't tell me the pod is the best designed ship 
|
Razin
|
Posted - 2005.12.08 17:56:00 -
[60]
Originally by: Emperor D'Hoffryn
Also less surface area to volume ratio gives other benefits like less heat and energy escaping into space.
That's not a benefit. Heat rejection is one of the biggest problems in spacecraft design.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |