| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Skogen Gump
   |
Posted - 2005.12.09 10:26:00 -
[91]
 Originally by: Avon
Then you aren't looking close enough.
True symmetry is very, very rare in nature.
I'd suggest that you aren't looking close enough either then.
One of the most common patterns in nature - is the self-similar or Fractal pattern. Surely this is Symmetry at its purest.
Look at Ferns, Leaves, Animals, DNA, lot's of crystals ...
EVE is like a box of chocolates |
Avon
|
Posted - 2005.12.09 10:51:00 -
[92]
Originally by: Piotr Anatolev
Whats with the pugnacious and irritable attitude you always show in your replies? Guess a little more diplomacy on the forums would keep other hotheads at bay if you toned down your need to flatten them
It was nothing more than a statement of fact, what you decide to read in to it is beyond my contol.
______________________________________________
The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur |
Avon
|
Posted - 2005.12.09 10:56:00 -
[93]
Originally by: Skogen Gump
Originally by: Avon
Then you aren't looking close enough.
True symmetry is very, very rare in nature.
I'd suggest that you aren't looking close enough either then.
One of the most common patterns in nature - is the self-similar or Fractal pattern. Surely this is Symmetry at its purest.
Look at Ferns, Leaves, Animals, DNA, lot's of crystals ...
Look closer.
They may be well approximated by fractal descriptions, but that is all.
Our desire to describe nature mathematically leads us to ascribe properties to it which do not exist. We approximate, but we do not describe - and by doing so we fail to capture the true beauty.
It is the imperfections which make nature "natural".
______________________________________________
The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur |
Jared VonBargen
|
Posted - 2005.12.09 11:29:00 -
[94]
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?
WE ARE THE BORG!
they were on to something :P
|
Denrace
|
Posted - 2005.12.09 12:15:00 -
[95]
I love the EVE ship designs. All of them.
My only problem is with T2 ships, they need more funky spiky/whirly things adding to them rather than just a vaguely different paint job, or simply adding shine.
____________________________________________
|
Jason Kildaro
|
Posted - 2005.12.09 13:04:00 -
[96]
Originally by: Atma Darkwolf
Originally by: Oveur
Nope 
And the flogging of this poor horse needs to stop.
it is VERY discouraging when u get a response from the dev's like this.. this is a all out: 'Don't like it, get the F**K away from our game, we don't WANT your money.'
What are they supposed to do? You have had a chance to see the ship designs BEFORE you joined. You knew what the ships looked like and you decided to play the game. Do you go into art galleries and shout in the middle of the gallery that the art is ugly?
He simply stated that he has heard all this before and they understand. I would like to see how much patience you have if I were to call everything you do, crap. Look at the whole first page of the forums. Almost the whole page is complaints. I know you are a customer and you pay for this game but think humanely. You are expressing an opinion. I persoanlly like the look of most of the ships in Eve. You do not. Do you really think the dev team is going to change the ship designs of the past 3 years for you?
Ttry to maybe be a bit more diplomatic and maybe even 'give' a little. U do NOT need to force your ugly designs down our throat forever..eventualy we will get bored with the game, and while eve has so much to offer, eventualy the pain it causes to my eyes from looking at all your retarded designs will cause me to cancel my account.
That will take a year or two though... but it could happen sooner, and with many people, who DO want to 'enjoy' the ship they fly. Everyone wants to 'like' what they control. Why else are there many player made models/skins which replace existing designs for each ship model?
Try to give a little dev team.. don't respond like that.. VERY bad for customer relations. U can give to BOTH sides of the argument and not lose ANY ground.
|
Blackest Sheep
|
Posted - 2005.12.09 13:37:00 -
[97]
Originally by: Avon
Originally by: Skogen Gump
Originally by: Avon
Then you aren't looking close enough.
True symmetry is very, very rare in nature.
I'd suggest that you aren't looking close enough either then.
One of the most common patterns in nature - is the self-similar or Fractal pattern. Surely this is Symmetry at its purest.
Look at Ferns, Leaves, Animals, DNA, lot's of crystals ...
Look closer.
They may be well approximated by fractal descriptions, but that is all.
Our desire to describe nature mathematically leads us to ascribe properties to it which do not exist. We approximate, but we do not describe - and by doing so we fail to capture the true beauty.
It is the imperfections which make nature "natural".
He is quite right. I have read a psychological study about attraction and they simply mirrored one half of a given face on a picture so that they got perfect biliteral symmetry. People who saw that picture in most cases did not mark an increase in attractiveness, but rather found it slightly unsettling. Iguess it is because we are not used to true symmetry in nature.
|
Delta3000
|
Posted - 2005.12.09 15:03:00 -
[98]
Originally by: Blackest Sheep
He is quite right. I have read a psychological study about attraction and they simply mirrored one half of a given face on a picture so that they got perfect biliteral symmetry. People who saw that picture in most cases did not mark an increase in attractiveness, but rather found it slightly unsettling. Iguess it is because we are not used to true symmetry in nature.
It is the aftertouch applied to symmetry in nature that appeals to us. Not total asymmetry. It has also been proven that the most attractive faces have an irregular pentagon (or was it hexagon, I forget) that can be drawn between the eyebrows, cheekbone and mouth - and the shape has a vertical line of symmetry. From these perfect faces we choose the imperfect deviations from that. If we sought total asymmetry the supermodel industry would have a totally different calibre of women in it.
Delta
|
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2005.12.09 15:46:00 -
[99]
Meh, so much silliness in this thread.
regarding what different species are attracted to -- this is sexual attraction you are talking about. Animals, people included, find it more attractive if their would-be mate happens to have both legs, both arms, two eyes and isn't missing an ear. And in other news, queen Victoria is dead.
but these psychological studies have little relevance with what kind of things we find "pretty" ... unless you intend to have babies with your Thorax, in which case you goddamn better keep that to yourself and keep any pictures of that you might take, very well hidden o.x;;
|
Delta3000
|
Posted - 2005.12.09 15:56:00 -
[100]
Played chicken with any horses recently?
Delta
|
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2005.12.09 16:07:00 -
[101]
"Played chicken with any horses recently?"
Alas, no; last time i saw a horse, it's all busy running from a Gallente who wanted to play their own idea of game with it ;.;
that's supposedly considered "getting in touch with other cultures" and popular in some circles >>;
|
Delta3000
|
Posted - 2005.12.09 16:18:00 -
[102]
What can I say, they have symmetry. mmmmm *whinney*
Delta
|
Elanamere
|
Posted - 2005.12.09 16:21:00 -
[103]
Bah, who cares about symmetric or asymmetric ships, there's a much greater problem with the ship art...
Not one single ship looks like a monkey!
Devs, please fix this oversight ASAP.
|
Milamber Farseer
|
Posted - 2005.12.09 16:53:00 -
[104]
Lol
I haven't laughed this hard in ages. Ok lets look at some typical reasons why ships need to be symmetrical:
1: Centre of gravity, ie boosting your ship in space without it falling apart due to improper thrust.
2: Artificial gravity induced through centrifugal motion (Spinning)
3: Turning the ships using thrusters.
4: Looks better
5: I can't think of more but if any of you do let me know
Ok my thoughts:
1: This game has artificial gravity (look at stations, only ones that are spinning to induce gravity are some Gallante ones) If they have the ability to change gravity to need they can do the same on the ships and save plenty of unecessary materials.
2: Again because they have artificial grav you dont need to spin the ships and the pilots are all in symetrically shaped pods :-) maybe we spin in those
3: Ok does anyone know how the ships turn in the game?
4: I must say that I like the look of all the ships in the game, they are well thought out and each of them have a distinct "feel" to them. I mean you can look at one and say thats a Gallante or Minmatter etc.
5: Well you can please some of the people some of the time....
|
Delta3000
|
Posted - 2005.12.09 17:09:00 -
[105]
Originally by: Milamber Farseer
Lol
I haven't laughed this hard in ages. Ok lets look at some typical reasons why ships need to be symmetrical:
1: Centre of gravity, ie boosting your ship in space without it falling apart due to improper thrust.
2: Artificial gravity induced through centrifugal motion (Spinning)
3: Turning the ships using thrusters.
4: Looks better
5: I can't think of more but if any of you do let me know
Ok my thoughts:
1: This game has artificial gravity (look at stations, only ones that are spinning to induce gravity are some Gallante ones) If they have the ability to change gravity to need they can do the same on the ships and save plenty of unecessary materials.
2: Again because they have artificial grav you dont need to spin the ships and the pilots are all in symetrically shaped pods :-) maybe we spin in those
3: Ok does anyone know how the ships turn in the game?
4: I must say that I like the look of all the ships in the game, they are well thought out and each of them have a distinct "feel" to them. I mean you can look at one and say thats a Gallante or Minmatter etc.
5: Well you can please some of the people some of the time....
1: ships dont need to be symmetrical to be efficiently thrusted forward, just as long as the resultant thrust vector and centre of gravity lie on the same line to prevent rotation. The catalyst is a good example where you can see there are larger jets at it's heavier side. And I'm sure there's some pretty tough materials in the future so no need to worry about your ship falling apart.
2: who knows how they make their gravity? Maybe there isn't even any, have you seen the inside of a ship? They might all float around inside :P
3: Theres absolutely no need for symmetry to turn. NASA shuttles turn in every direction but they're hardly symmetrical in every plane. To make your point true, every vessel would need to be spherical to cover the infinite number of angles in which you can move.
4: I agree
5: Sure
Your thoughts
|
Lenil Star
|
Posted - 2005.12.09 17:12:00 -
[106]
Quote:
Half the ships in this game should be blowing up from stress fractures along their superstructures.
And what makes you believe that? We have absolutely no clue how space physics really work,here in the 21st century.You don't know what we will be doing in 20 000 years,if we still exist,or what an alien civilisation has done before or is doing now.
|
Milamber Farseer
|
Posted - 2005.12.09 17:15:00 -
[107]
Originally by: Delta3000
Originally by: Milamber Farseer
Lol
I haven't laughed this hard in ages. Ok lets look at some typical reasons why ships need to be symmetrical:
1: Centre of gravity, ie boosting your ship in space without it falling apart due to improper thrust.
2: Artificial gravity induced through centrifugal motion (Spinning)
3: Turning the ships using thrusters.
4: Looks better
5: I can't think of more but if any of you do let me know
Ok my thoughts:
1: This game has artificial gravity (look at stations, only ones that are spinning to induce gravity are some Gallante ones) If they have the ability to change gravity to need they can do the same on the ships and save plenty of unecessary materials.
2: Again because they have artificial grav you dont need to spin the ships and the pilots are all in symetrically shaped pods :-) maybe we spin in those
3: Ok does anyone know how the ships turn in the game?
4: I must say that I like the look of all the ships in the game, they are well thought out and each of them have a distinct "feel" to them. I mean you can look at one and say thats a Gallante or Minmatter etc.
5: Well you can please some of the people some of the time....
1: ships dont need to be symmetrical to be efficiently thrusted forward, just as long as the resultant thrust vector and centre of gravity lie on the same line to prevent rotation. The catalyst is a good example where you can see there are larger jets at it's heavier side. And I'm sure there's some pretty tough materials in the future so no need to worry about your ship falling apart.
2: who knows how they make their gravity? Maybe there isn't even any, have you seen the inside of a ship? They might all float around inside :P
3: Theres absolutely no need for symmetry to turn. NASA shuttles turn in every direction but they're hardly symmetrical in every plane. To make your point true, every vessel would need to be spherical to cover the infinite number of angles in which you can move.
4: I agree
5: Sure
Your thoughts
Mostly I stand (sit) corrected, just a few thoughts to ponder
1: I'm sure I've seen some of the ships where the thrusters dont do what you described, mostly I'd have to agress though that they do shift the size of them to where the most mass does sit but if anything that re-inforces my point that you dont need to really have a symetrical ship due to how its engines
2: Maybe we all spin around in our pods? Most of the back stories I've read however indicate that there is some form of gravity in the stations.
3: Nasa shuttle is actually quite symetrical (Left half looks just like or near enough to the right half)
4: at least we agree on one thing
My two most fav quotes:
Stylus gladio potentior,
You can please some of the people some of the time... |
Delta3000
|
Posted - 2005.12.09 17:23:00 -
[108]
Yes nasa shuttles have a line of symmetry but thats for counter-balance when they're hurtling through the atmosphere upon descent, its not space related.
|
Milamber Farseer
|
Posted - 2005.12.09 17:24:00 -
[109]
I was always under the impression that most of its manouvering thrusters were in its nose?
errm what were we talking about again?
My two most fav quotes:
Stylus gladio potentior,
You can please some of the people some of the time... |
Jason Kildaro
|
Posted - 2005.12.09 17:37:00 -
[110]
Originally by: Atma Darkwolf
Originally by: Oveur
Nope
And the flogging of this poor horse needs to stop.
it is VERY discouraging when u get a response from the dev's like this.. this is a all out: 'Don't like it, get the F**K away from our game, we don't WANT your money.'
Ttry to maybe be a bit more diplomatic and maybe even 'give' a little. U do NOT need to force your ugly designs down our throat forever..eventualy we will get bored with the game, and while eve has so much to offer, eventualy the pain it causes to my eyes from looking at all your retarded designs will cause me to cancel my account.
That will take a year or two though... but it could happen sooner, and with many people, who DO want to 'enjoy' the ship they fly. Everyone wants to 'like' what they control. Why else are there many player made models/skins which replace existing designs for each ship model?
Try to give a little dev team.. don't respond like that.. VERY bad for customer relations. U can give to BOTH sides of the argument and not lose ANY ground.
Sorry, earlier I tried to respond but the boss came walking in. Anyway, you go on to say Oveur was improper in treating you that way yet you turn around and call his art "retarded" and "ugly". Is that not also insulting? I know you are a paying customer but you should also respect one's vision. What do you expect the dev's to do? Change every ship's design that has been flying for almost 3 years to satisfy your desire? You knew what the ships looked like before you came into the game and you chose to play it. Nobody "forced" you to digest all of these ugly models as you put it.
Do you walk into an art gallery and shout to all of the other attendees that all the painitngs are ugly? If you did, you would be asked to leave, even if you had paid. I personally find some of the ship designs to be pretty bad but I accept it just as I would accept a painting or sculpture...I may express my opinion amongst friends and if I have an opportunity I would give constructive criticism to the artist and move along.
With that being said I like most of the models in the game. It's different. I find that the symmetric design tends to devolve into everything looking generic.
|
fairimear
|
Posted - 2005.12.09 18:03:00 -
[111]
It's a matter of taste.
i like the new gallente look alot, its retro but modern.
the dominix is the oldest (RP WISE) gallente ship and has a symetric bulky look.
the thorax and mega to me reprisent the gallente of EVE in castor but still did't look right to me.
the newest gal ships (Thantos, Nyx and Erebus) finaly suit what gallente should be for me.
they are smaller than most of their counterparts but still have a bulky organic look.
for me the gallente have been drones adn blasters so in such they should be small and fast to suit the low range of guns but also fat so they look like they hold the drones.
|
Gong
|
Posted - 2005.12.09 18:45:00 -
[112]
Edited by: Gong on 09/12/2005 18:46:14
Originally by: Emperor D'Hoffryn
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.
No, it's the sphere. That's also the reason, why a falling waterdrop in vaccuum forms a perfect sphere and not a cube. The surface tension lets the water minimize it's surface (the volume can't change).
|
Burga Galti
|
Posted - 2005.12.09 19:56:00 -
[113]
Originally by: Milamber Farseer
Originally by: Delta3000
Originally by: Milamber Farseer
Lol
I haven't laughed this hard in ages. Ok lets look at some typical reasons why ships need to be symmetrical:
1: Centre of gravity, ie boosting your ship in space without it falling apart due to improper thrust.
2: Artificial gravity induced through centrifugal motion (Spinning)
3: Turning the ships using thrusters.
4: Looks better
5: I can't think of more but if any of you do let me know
Ok my thoughts:
1: This game has artificial gravity (look at stations, only ones that are spinning to induce gravity are some Gallante ones) If they have the ability to change gravity to need they can do the same on the ships and save plenty of unecessary materials.
2: Again because they have artificial grav you dont need to spin the ships and the pilots are all in symetrically shaped pods :-) maybe we spin in those
3: Ok does anyone know how the ships turn in the game?
4: I must say that I like the look of all the ships in the game, they are well thought out and each of them have a distinct "feel" to them. I mean you can look at one and say thats a Gallante or Minmatter etc.
5: Well you can please some of the people some of the time....
1: ships dont need to be symmetrical to be efficiently thrusted forward, just as long as the resultant thrust vector and centre of gravity lie on the same line to prevent rotation. The catalyst is a good example where you can see there are larger jets at it's heavier side. And I'm sure there's some pretty tough materials in the future so no need to worry about your ship falling apart.
2: who knows how they make their gravity? Maybe there isn't even any, have you seen the inside of a ship? They might all float around inside :P
3: Theres absolutely no need for symmetry to turn. NASA shuttles turn in every direction but they're hardly symmetrical in every plane. To make your point true, every vessel would need to be spherical to cover the infinite number of angles in which you can move.
4: I agree
5: Sure
Your thoughts
Mostly I stand (sit) corrected, just a few thoughts to ponder
1: I'm sure I've seen some of the ships where the thrusters dont do what you described, mostly I'd have to agress though that they do shift the size of them to where the most mass does sit but if anything that re-inforces my point that you dont need to really have a symetrical ship due to how its engines
2: Maybe we all spin around in our pods? Most of the back stories I've read however indicate that there is some form of gravity in the stations.
3: Nasa shuttle is actually quite symetrical (Left half looks just like or near enough to the right half)
4: at least we agree on one thing
Mind if I butt in?
1. Who says the engines in eve even produce a conventional force? Besides, as Delta said, as long as the moments (note: not thrusts) around the centre of gravity have a net value of zero then things will be fine. Even if they aren't, just slap a nice control system on top of the dynamics to compensate by varying the power levels to each engine and you'll be fine.
2. Gravity is IIRC described as being generated artificially. Probably intergrated into the floors of ships and stations to provide an even gravity field over all decks.
3. Shuttle (or any any other a/c for that matter) can pitch up and down, but the top half doesn't look like the bottom does it? All that's needed is the ability to create that moment around the c.g and bingo your spinning!
4. Disagree, an asymmetric design philosphy offers something unique and different to eve. That is beauty.
****************
Pain is a way of knowing yourself; Death is the ultimate in self-discovery.
|
Blanke
|
Posted - 2005.12.09 20:16:00 -
[114]
Originally by: Clytamnestra
In space, there's very little air, so ships don't need to be built for aerodynamics, lessening the restrictions of symmetry.
[physics lesson] At 3 AU/sec (almost 1500 times the speed of light), the rather sparse collections of gas and dust that is space would rip a poorly designed ship to shreds. Do the math, and at relativistic (near-light) speeds, you'll find that impact with a stationary grain of dust would have a similar energy transfer as a low speed (~200kph) impact with a Ford Excursion. [/physics lesson]
Fast ships should look more like (forgive me) Amidala's ship in Ep2 than Vigils (though I love the little things).
-----------------
Warning: The above post and/or sig may contain hyperbole, sarcasm, typographical errors, misspellings, or a blatent disregard for the feelings and/or opinions of others. |
Baleur
|
Posted - 2005.12.09 20:22:00 -
[115]
Originally by: Jenny Spitfire
Edited by: Jenny Spitfire on 07/12/2005 23:59:11
Originally by: Solar Sailor
...
I did put a "?", wasnt sure. Even when planetary flights come, I would still like to know how will Caldari ships fly in atmosphere, Gravity/Force Dampeners?
Who says its the same ships? Why would anyone be stupid enugh to try to fly a Dominix on a planet? 
|
Burga Galti
|
Posted - 2005.12.09 20:44:00 -
[116]
Originally by: Blanke
Originally by: Clytamnestra
In space, there's very little air, so ships don't need to be built for aerodynamics, lessening the restrictions of symmetry.
[physics lesson] At 3 AU/sec (almost 1500 times the speed of light), the rather sparse collections of gas and dust that is space would rip a poorly designed ship to shreds. Do the math, and at relativistic (near-light) speeds, you'll find that impact with a stationary grain of dust would have a similar energy transfer as a low speed (~200kph) impact with a Ford Excursion. [/physics lesson]
Fast ships should look more like (forgive me) Amidala's ship in Ep2 than Vigils (though I love the little things).
Sorry but that made me laugh. Your talking about impact collisions on ships moving at relativistic speeds causing devastation, and yet the ship somehow accelerated to 3AU/sec (1500 times greater by your own maths). I think it's a reasonable assumption that in order to reach 3AU/sec we have overcome that barrier of destruction somehow.
****************
Pain is a way of knowing yourself; Death is the ultimate in self-discovery.
|
Delta3000
|
Posted - 2005.12.09 20:55:00 -
[117]
I believe warping in EVE is achieved by creating an advanced frictionless bubble around the vessel. Any micro-matter is simply going to slip off the surface and not cause any impact whatsoever.
|
Reatu Krentor
|
Posted - 2005.12.09 21:05:00 -
[118]
I like the ships they have... My only wish is that the 3D-artists would redo all the models that have been with us since the beginning, they're starting to look dated and with all the new ships ingame it makes it even more clear.
------------------------------------------
The ammatar are not the enemy, they are the smoke and mirrors of the amarr. |
Vito Parabellum
|
Posted - 2005.12.10 22:52:00 -
[119]
Me being the ultra controversial type, I wont read every post made by stupid people. But I will in a most respectless way endorse the fact that esthetics isnt always symmetric. They do not go hand in hand, ya dig? That being said, most ships in eve look like ****, except the select few like the thorax, executioner and the providence. Specially ugly are the new ones, yeah man I wanna pay 56B iskies for a giant squid haha.
|
Hllaxiu
|
Posted - 2005.12.10 23:52:00 -
[120]
Originally by: Blanke
Originally by: Clytamnestra
In space, there's very little air, so ships don't need to be built for aerodynamics, lessening the restrictions of symmetry.
[physics lesson] At 3 AU/sec (almost 1500 times the speed of light), the rather sparse collections of gas and dust that is space would rip a poorly designed ship to shreds. Do the math, and at relativistic (near-light) speeds, you'll find that impact with a stationary grain of dust would have a similar energy transfer as a low speed (~200kph) impact with a Ford Excursion. [/physics lesson]
Fast ships should look more like (forgive me) Amidala's ship in Ep2 than Vigils (though I love the little things).
Newtonian physics don't work on objects travelling at 1497.01565 times the speed of light.
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |