EVE Search - More symmetrical ships please

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

More symmetrical ships please

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Tony Fats	Posted - 2005.12.07 23:15:00 - [1] Any chance of talking the art department into coming out with more symmetrical ships? Caldari look like boomerangs, amarr look like floating blobs of golden schit, gallente look like plastic vibrators, and minnie look they are held together with chewing gum. Merlin look pretty sweet. Executioner/Crusader look hot. Rifty looks pretty good. I mean let's take the Raven for example. It looks ALLLMOST majestic. So close but so far away. Why the heck did they make one wing shorter than the other? It went from majestic raven to dodo bird. Let's look at Prophecy. %99 of it looks like a majestic Eagle. Then you get to the oversize beak, make the whole thing look like you're driving a turkey. Please, can we get some more symmetrical stuff without the deformed wing hanging off the side?
Grimkeye	Posted - 2005.12.07 23:19:00 - [2] I love the lopsided aysemetrical sytle of eve. It's quite entertaining and unique from earth's dull--everything has to be aerodynamic and symetrical look.
Clytamnestra	Posted - 2005.12.07 23:23:00 - [3] 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.
Derovius Vaden	Posted - 2005.12.07 23:28:00 - [4] 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. Quite the opposite, even in space, you need to balance your mass to a common center of mass, which is FAR easier to do when everything is proportional. Yes, you can find the center of mass on some oddly shaped lump of metal, but thats more work than most engineers want to put into a task. Also, many Engineers are mathematicians at heart, and there is a subtle beauty is symmetry, its utterly artifical, BUT it can see be seen in nature. Most asymmetric structures on Earth, now, are designed by artists who want to "capture" the natural-ness of imperfection. Nuts to that.
Solar Sailor	Posted - 2005.12.07 23:28:00 - [5] Ship design in eve is great, just because it doesnt look like every other sci-fi ship design doesnt mean its bad (Thorax, Stabber, Blackbird, Omen, Vexxor, Tempest, Scorpion, Kestrel are all great designs, and none conform to the 'must look the same from two angles' that plagues most concept design in sci-fi)
Kharakan	Posted - 2005.12.07 23:33:00 - [6] While the asymmetry is cool and great in most cases... I have 1 whinge. The omen looks kinda strange with only only 3 engines (2 at the back one on the side)- add one to the other side please? Same goes for the Zealot =] 'part from that, eve ships (bar most minny ships XP) pwn!
Jenny Spitfire	Posted - 2005.12.07 23:38:00 - [7] 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? ---------------- RecruitMe@NOINT!
MuffinsRevenger	Posted - 2005.12.07 23:47:00 - [8] 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. fly? xD 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?
MuffinsRevenger	Posted - 2005.12.07 23:47:00 - [9] 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? fly? xD
Solar Sailor	Posted - 2005.12.07 23:56:00 - [10] 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? And where does it say planetary flight is in Kali Kali features read before posting speculation. Planetary flight is still in the 'maybe' stage. May not even appear if its too hard to implement on TQ.
Jenny Spitfire	Posted - 2005.12.07 23:59:00 - [11] 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? ---------------- RecruitMe@NOINT!
j0sephine	Posted - 2005.12.08 00:33:00 - [12] "Any chance of talking the art department into coming out with more symmetrical ships?" The latest batch of new ship models --titans, mothership and carriers along with their tiny fighters-- are about as symmetrical as it gets, actually ^^; (with exceptions of Amarr mothership and Gallente carrier)
Tharbad	Posted - 2005.12.08 00:43:00 - [13] Less symmetrical ships! All the best ships in EVE are assymetrical: Raven, Thorax, Scorpion!
Avon	Posted - 2005.12.08 00:44:00 - [14] 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. Actually there are lots of great asymmetrical aircraft. ______________________________________________ The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur
Azuriel Talloth	Posted - 2005.12.08 00:52:00 - [15] Symmetry is the crutch of the unimaginative. ________________ "Pain is an illusion of the flesh. Despair is an illusion of the mind."
Camador	Posted - 2005.12.08 00:54:00 - [16] Originally by: Avon 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. 99% of the airplanes out there are symmetrical. I can think of only a few that arent. Actually there are lots of great asymmetrical aircraft. ______________________________
Great Wandell	Posted - 2005.12.08 03:15:00 - [17] I totally agree with this thread. Ships still need to be symmetric in space, otherwize their rotational axis are all wonky, Look at the galentte catalyst, in real life, that thing couldn't left for the life of it.
jbob2000	Posted - 2005.12.08 03:50:00 - [18] Well if we dont need to deal with aerodynamics, then wouldn't the most effecient thing be a cube? or a sphere?
Sobeseki Pawi	Posted - 2005.12.08 03:59:00 - [19] Originally by: Derovius Vaden 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. Quite the opposite, even in space, you need to balance your mass to a common center of mass, which is FAR easier to do when everything is proportional. Yes, you can find the center of mass on some oddly shaped lump of metal, but thats more work than most engineers want to put into a task. Also, many Engineers are mathematicians at heart, and there is a subtle beauty is symmetry, its utterly artifical, BUT it can see be seen in nature. Most asymmetric structures on Earth, now, are designed by artists who want to "capture" the natural-ness of imperfection. Nuts to that. Quite right. Assymetry can be amusing, but I think there could be more symmetrical ships. ~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.
Rychek	Posted - 2005.12.08 04:02:00 - [20] 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!
Coconut Joe	Posted - 2005.12.08 04:45:00 - [21] Originally by: Azuriel Talloth Symmetry is the crutch of the unimaginative. Ouch man, don't let any muslims hear you say that, most of art from a muslim society is based on symetry ---- Nifty
Sergio Ling	Posted - 2005.12.08 04:53:00 - [22] 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? well, no. say you have four component parts. a***pit, an engine, a Flux capacitor, and a Warp drive. the*pit can go anywhere, but not near the warp drive, and the flux capacitor can't be near the engines. there's a couple ways of arranging them, but obviously the engines need to be at the back of the ship. or at least, the engine exhausts do, see? now, you could arrange them all inside a cubic hull, but it wouldn't be the best thing. That said, i think the ships here look cool Originally by:** Lluthiunne Atalaron He's too busy adjusting his leather pants and mullet to worry about petty things such as physics.
Sobeseki Pawi	Posted - 2005.12.08 04:53:00 - [23] Originally by: Azuriel Talloth Symmetry is the crutch of the unimaginative. No...what kind of assinine conclusion is that? ~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.
Mekroig	Posted - 2005.12.08 05:43:00 - [24] I agree completely. Even in space ship symmetry has an effect, center of gravity and whatnot. But also it has an effect on construction. If something is symmetrical it is much easier to design and construct than an asymmetrical object. And since we are all in corporations profits are what people want. Every penny, sorry ISK, you save on design and construction is an ISK earned.
Sorja	Posted - 2005.12.08 05:44:00 - [25] Mind your own business, thank you. Caldari design is outstanding and if you don't like it, don't fly it. Symetrical ships why not everybody in the world with the same clothes, suit and tie, that's intellectual fascism. ____________________________________ Let's make the MK2 Moa a ship worth flying.
Snake Jankins	Posted - 2005.12.08 05:48:00 - [26] Edited by: Snake Jankins on 08/12/2005 05:48:51 Ships could be asymetric, but a ship flies a circle or rotates, if the force that accelerates it doesn't point to the center of gravity of the ship. So the position and direction of the thrusters must be correct. On the other hand, EVE doesn't follow physics to make it playable and interesting. Otherwise navigation would be extremely difficult. Turning engines off in EVE leads to slowing down, in RL physics you'd just keep your spped and direction forever in perfect vacuum. The only way to slow down would be to apply a force in the opposite direction like to turn your ship 180 degree and start your engines until you stop. Our speed limit would be light speed. Time for pilots who travel with almost lightspeed would elaps slower, because of relativity. => Annoying skill training times: "Damn, I should fly slower, BS 5 of my char takes 100 days !" ___________ 'Only ships can be assembled, this is a Frigate.'
Sobeseki Pawi	Posted - 2005.12.08 05:48:00 - [27] Originally by: Mekroig I agree completely. Even in space ship symmetry has an effect, center of gravity and whatnot. But also it has an effect on construction. If something is symmetrical it is much easier to design and construct than an asymmetrical object. And since we are all in corporations profits are what people want. Every penny, sorry ISK, you save on design and construction is an ISK earned. Odd then that the penny pinchers have the least efficient designs ~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.
Dust Angel	Posted - 2005.12.08 05:51:00 - [28] most amarr ships are symetric. Only one i can think of off of the top of my head are crucifyer and omen based. Other than that, they are symetric (correct me if im wrong, ill give you a cookie)
Kage Getsu	Posted - 2005.12.08 05:55:00 - [29] Almost all Caldari ships have a good half and a dumb half. The ships would look awesome if the good half was mirrored, except for the off-center bridges on some of them. Except the "artists" in charge decided to make the ships look really dumb by making the other half up out of seemingly random extrusions and shapes.
Alex Kynes	Posted - 2005.12.08 06:58:00 - [30] Edited by: Alex Kynes on 08/12/2005 06:59:11 Edited by: Alex Kynes on 08/12/2005 06:58:55 My personal and only slightly biased opinion as a Gallente pilot is: to hell with symmetry! For once lets not go with the Mac ideal of "everything has to be smooth, shiny and look sterile to be cool." Shall we? Some improved textures would be welcome tho. -AK
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.
Strikeclone	Posted - 2005.12.08 17:56:00 - [61] 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. You will find that unless there is complete equality of thrust vs weight you will tear apart your ship in space, many of the ships in Eve if real would have such unbalances of thrust they would spin in circles at a minimum and be completely uncontrolable or they would tear themselves apart. Symetry in space is a function of thust application. Symetry in atmosphere is a funtion of aerodynamics. Im sure someone can explain what im getting at better than me but hopefully you get my meaning. Strikeclone "Peace through the procurement and application of superior firepower" http://executiveaction.proboards79.com/
Razin	Posted - 2005.12.08 18:05:00 - [62] Originally by: Sobeseki Pawi Anyone remember the de Havilland Comet? Those werent even asymmetrical and they had massive structural integrity problems. The de Havilland Comet's structural problem was it's square windows. I agree with the rest of your post.
Raindrop	Posted - 2005.12.08 18:27:00 - [63] Luckily an Iteron is symetrical. It should be able to do planet hopping. If tilted backwards 80degrees or so for it's stubby wings to have an effect. Or are those docking guidance stumps? Imagine the sight of an Iteron V with all it's engine ports flaring constantly tilted back to have the maximum in braking power in the air to be able to decent. Would require a special landing surface tilted back enough to allow it to land. Or it would have to cut out it's engines while a few meter from the ground. Now that has to hurt! I dream of movies showing ships docking in detail, launching in detail. etc. Raindrop 100% Carebear and loving it. Collector of junk and leftovers. NPC and low end minerals trader. Hauler.

Oveur	Posted - 2005.12.08 18:40:00 - [64] Originally by: Tony Fats Any chance of talking the art department into coming out with more symmetrical ships? Caldari look like boomerangs, amarr look like floating blobs of golden schit, gallente look like plastic vibrators, and minnie look they are held together with chewing gum. Merlin look pretty sweet. Executioner/Crusader look hot. Rifty looks pretty good. I mean let's take the Raven for example. It looks ALLLMOST majestic. So close but so far away. Why the heck did they make one wing shorter than the other? It went from majestic raven to dodo bird. Let's look at Prophecy. %99 of it looks like a majestic Eagle. Then you get to the oversize beak, make the whole thing look like you're driving a turkey. Please, can we get some more symmetrical stuff without the deformed wing hanging off the side? Nope And the flogging of this poor horse needs to stop. Senior Producer EVE Online

Sakira LeCastantas	Posted - 2005.12.08 18:48:00 - [65] Lol, symmetric = evil, if they were symmetric everything would die No but seriously, i think they are awesome, but thats just me i guess _____________________________________________________
Arges	Posted - 2005.12.08 18:53:00 - [66] Edited by: Arges on 08/12/2005 18:55:42 Edited by: Arges on 08/12/2005 18:54:48 Edited by: Arges on 08/12/2005 18:54:09 I totaly agree with the OP on this one. The reason I chose the Minmatars is that they have the least asymmetrical ships (rifter, vigil, probe, rupture, all the indies...). Let's get real here. This is a video game and as it has been mentioned in another post in another thread, the movement mecahnics are a lot closer to underwater dynamics than real space dynamics. Ships don't need thrusters to spin around, they just turn in those big beautifull arcs instead of just turning on the spot and shooting while moving backwards with the momentum. This means that the look has absolutely no effect on how the ship will react or move in the game. What doest it change then? Esthetics. Pure esthetics. Now, as we all know, beauty is in the eye of the beholder so I won't say that the asymmetrical ships are fugly and that the symmetrical one are teh roxorz (whatever that means) but I do appreciate symmetrical ships more thant the others, just like I'd rather look at a painting from Raphael than one from Pollock. A few more symmetrical ships would be nice but I think there is enough different looks to please pretty much everyone. Oh and for all the "anarchists" and "anti-conformists" out there who get all panicky and reactionist because someone mentions symmetry.... please, don't bring that crap into a, so far, intelligent and constructive thread. You don't wear ties? Good on ya. I'm all for that. No need to cry "fascist" because someone likes structured looks. Now if you got something to say about the pros and cons of symmetry and asymmetry, I'll be glad to read it. Edit: spelling _____________________________________________________________________________ I single-handedly stopped a drone infestation and all I got was this lousy sig...
Sobeseki Pawi	Posted - 2005.12.08 19:11:00 - [67] Originally by: Razin Originally by: Sobeseki Pawi Anyone remember the de Havilland Comet? Those werent even asymmetrical and they had massive structural integrity problems. The de Havilland Comet's structural problem was it's square windows. I agree with the rest of your post. Specifically the ones on or near the boarding 'doors'. But my point was that if such a small thing can rip apart a Comet, a Tempest should be doing the Tango. ~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.
Hllaxiu	Posted - 2005.12.08 19:23:00 - [68] 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. Perfect mathematical symmetry, no, but biologists say that many animals have bilateral symmetry (bilateria). Starfish and some other animals have radial symmetry, others such as jellyfish have no symmetry. Aesthetics is an entirely different matter from symmetry though...
Arges	Posted - 2005.12.08 19:49:00 - [69] Originally by: Hllaxiu Aesthetics is an entirely different matter from symmetry though...[/quote Normaly I would agree with you but in the issue at hand, they are very closely related. Like I was saying, the true discussion behind this thread is not one of dynamics but esthetics. Some people think that symmetry is more pleasing to the eye were as some others think that asymmetry is better. Mechanics and dynamics have nothing to do with this. Like the OP was saying about the Raven... Fonctionnal? Yes. Massive? Yes. Majestic? Hmmm, I guess. Beautiful? Dodo bird... _____________________________________________________________________________ I single-handedly stopped a drone infestation and all I got was this lousy sig...
ELaine Doi	Posted - 2005.12.08 20:52:00 - [70] I think the irregularity is quite funky meself
Spy4Hire	Posted - 2005.12.08 21:30:00 - [71] Originally by: Alexi Borizkova Tweaking designs of existing ships would be a main focus of my character if such were available... The sig shows it all. Yes, that is truly a deadly looking monster - I would be happy to undock a beast like that. Currently the raven and scorpion are absolute embarassments to starship design everywhere. As are most gallente smaller than BC, and pretty much every Min thing out there except Rifter & Rupture (yeah, Rup & Bellicose are ugly as sin, but they have balance and symmetry of design - no enines at wonky angles that would throw a ship into a flat spin every time they were turned on - like a stabber).
Riffix	Posted - 2005.12.08 23:03:00 - [72] 2 words: Millennium Falcon "Lead, follow, or get the #@$@#$ out of the way"
rib0s mum	Posted - 2005.12.08 23:57:00 - [73] Originally by: Azuriel Talloth Symmetry is the crutch of the unimaginative. just like your corp name
Tokka Konnair	Posted - 2005.12.09 00:04:00 - [74] Originally by: Oveur Nope And the flogging of this poor horse needs to stop. hurray!!! thank you for the exact answer i wanted!! __________________________________________
Karx Galaxus	Posted - 2005.12.09 01:04:00 - [75] I belive that asymmetrical ships are alot more creative than the more standard cookie-cutter kinds of ships. Ships like the bb or incursus make this game unique, and makes it feel like you arent watching some star trek episode on your pc. Sure symmetrical ships are cool too, but I think the creativity in designs is what helps make this game unique, sorry for beating on the horse's corpse until its intestines splatter out. ------------------------------------------------ Cowards die many times before their deaths, the valliant only taste death but once.
Wrayeth	Posted - 2005.12.09 01:24:00 - [76] Personally, I don't mind the asymmetric look in most instances - on some ships, it adds to the appeal (makes them look more menacing - function over form, purely designed to kill, etc.). What does bug me, however, is the misplacement of thrusters on many of the models. Unbalanced thrust on ships like the moa should have it flying off diagonally, for instance. -Wrayeth Go away.
MWEI	Posted - 2005.12.09 01:38:00 - [77] There are nice asymetric, such as the raven and then theres the ugly asymetric, like the moa True, symmetrical ships wont be very original and imaginative, but at least make sure asymetry dosnt look like its deformed.
Mr Adequate	Posted - 2005.12.09 02:53:00 - [78] Good example of asymmetry = Coercer. Bad example of asymmetry = Pretty much all Caldari stuff. (I'm sorry to be so generalistic, but I'm not too well versed in Caldari ship names. I've looked at all their models but) I like asymmetry to a point. But having 2 completely different ship designs for each left and right hemisphere look ridiculous, and keep me out of a lot of ship models, purely for aesthetics. Sorry Oveur, flogging the dead horse because it needs to be done. I am quite tolerant when it comes to accepting unconventional design (I am Minmatar), but seriously, some of your 3D artists need to take a long hard look at themselves in the mirror. If it were up to me, I'd have asked for a redraw (however subtle) of about 70% of all asymmetrical ships designed thus far. My 2c, fwiw.
Atma Darkwolf	Posted - 2005.12.09 06:20:00 - [79] 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.
Avon	Posted - 2005.12.09 08:52:00 - [80] 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. Well, personally I am glad that CCP are sticking to their guns on this. We don't need to see them pandering to a few mindless nuggets who wouldn't know art if it podded them at a gate. Eve ship designs are, on the whole, fantastic. Asymmetric designs are one of the coolest things in Eve, and I for one would hate to lose them. So yeah, if you don't like it, take your money elsewhere. Buh-Bye. ______________________________________________ The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur
Mr Adequate	Posted - 2005.12.09 09:28:00 - [81] Is this asymmetrical enough for you, Avon?
Facechanger2	Posted - 2005.12.09 09:34:00 - [82] Originally by: Mr Adequate Is this asymmetrical enough for you, Avon? Damn his filthy tie, it ruins the symmetry. Anyway, the devs can new make ships however they want - I've got my megathron, the sexiest beast in the game and she's all the symmetry I need. Can't say I'd rate her too much if she had one leg shorter than the other :)
Avon	Posted - 2005.12.09 09:37:00 - [83] Originally by: Facechanger2 Originally by: Mr Adequate Is this asymmetrical enough for you, Avon? Damn his filthy tie, it ruins the symmetry. Anyway, the devs can new make ships however they want - I've got my megathron, the sexiest beast in the game and she's all the symmetry I need. Can't say I'd rate her too much if she had one leg shorter than the other :) The Megathron is asymmetrical though. ______________________________________________ The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur
Avon	Posted - 2005.12.09 09:38:00 - [84] Originally by: Mr Adequate Is this asymmetrical enough for you, Avon? ] Hope you get banned tbh. ______________________________________________ The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur
Facechanger2	Posted - 2005.12.09 09:42:00 - [85] Originally by: Avon The Megathron is asymmetrical though. No, it's perfectly symmetrical along its length.
Redblade	Posted - 2005.12.09 09:52:00 - [86] Originally by: Facechanger2 Edited by: Facechanger2 on 09/12/2005 09:49:10 Originally by: Avon The Megathron is asymmetrical though. Sure, but the majority of her is symmetrical. That's like saying that the Raven is symetrical... if u disregard the right wing...
Dragothmar	Posted - 2005.12.09 09:53:00 - [87] Originally by: Avon Then you aren't looking close enough. True symmetry is very, very rare in nature. True, but then again several psychological studies on people, chimps and several other animals have shown that symmetry is a primary factor determining a prospective mate's attractiveness and even the appeal of objects! True symmetry is, of course, impossibly rare in nature however correlative symmetry is as common as hell. Try measuring the angular offset from one branch of a tree to another all the way up the tree. Usually the offset is a constant on average and (if I remember correctly) has something to do with Avogadro's number. Now do that with the Moa... A bit more sensible symmetry would be nice imo - but then some people might wind up trying to hump their Raven Wesside? Nah, NOOOORTHSIIIIHEEEEEED in da house!
Avon	Posted - 2005.12.09 09:55:00 - [88] Originally by: Dragothmar True, but then again several psychological studies on people, chimps and several other animals have shown that symmetry is a primary factor determining a prospective mate's attractiveness and even the appeal of objects! Here you have in your hand they key to the reason why asymmetrical ships are good, and yet you failed to unlock the door. Step up and have another go. ______________________________________________ The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur
Facechanger2	Posted - 2005.12.09 10:00:00 - [89] Originally by: Redblade Originally by: Facechanger2 Edited by: Facechanger2 on 09/12/2005 09:49:10 Originally by: Avon The Megathron is asymmetrical though. Sure, but the majority of her is symmetrical. That's like saying that the Raven is symetrical... if u disregard the right wing... The raven is a total mess, its like the remants of a game of Kerplunk. There's no way that ship would ever look symmetrical, even if you chopped it in two and stuck one half to a mirror :P Seriously though, the mega has like a cylinder on one side of it thats making it asymmetrical, and the cylinder isn't large or obtrusive of the rest of the ship's look. Remove that cylinder and it's symmetrical.
Piotr Anatolev	Posted - 2005.12.09 10:08:00 - [90] Originally by: Avon Originally by: Facechanger2 Originally by: Mr Adequate Is this asymmetrical enough for you, Avon? Damn his filthy tie, it ruins the symmetry. Anyway, the devs can new make ships however they want - I've got my megathron, the sexiest beast in the game and she's all the symmetry I need. Can't say I'd rate her too much if she had one leg shorter than the other :) The Megathron is asymmetrical though. 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
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.
Sobeseki Pawi	Posted - 2005.12.11 01:01:00 - [121] Originally by: Lenil Star 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. As long as ships require vector thrust reaction propulsion systems, they will need a center of mass to be focused on. Tell me, put a Rocket on only one side of your car and tell me how well it will drive in a straight line with only that rocket's thrust. Will it maintain structural integrity? ~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.
EchoTheDolphin	Posted - 2005.12.11 01:46:00 - [122] I always thought that Eve could use a fourth playable race. A race based on communism/socialism with sterile-looking completely symmetrical ships. So symmetrical to the point you couldn't tell which side was up and which was down. Just my 2 isk.
Danton Marcellus	Posted - 2005.12.11 02:14:00 - [123] Symmetry is for the harmonically challenged, who need outside order to make up for their inside mess, as they cannot cope with both being energyconsuming. Asymmetry to the people! Disclaimer; Except when it comes to women and boobs in perticular. Editorial note; writer's drunk. Remind me about The Maze. I'm Danton Marcellus and I approve of this message.
Ronin Woman	Posted - 2005.12.11 05:15:00 - [124] Personally, I think they have these methods for design: 1- throw a dart 2- get roaring drunk 3- rinse & repeat with a new name and different color 4- any combination of the above But they kinda grow on you after a while ya know?
Sobeseki Pawi	Posted - 2005.12.11 08:26:00 - [125] Originally by: Danton Marcellus Symmetry is for the harmonically challenged, who need outside order to make up for their inside mess, as they cannot cope with both being energyconsuming. Asymmetry to the people! Disclaimer; Except when it comes to women and boobs in perticular. Editorial note; writer's drunk. Dont you know that human female ***** are not naturally symmetrical, and in actuality, never are? They are just minimized (usually) in how big the difference is. ~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.
Lu Yan	Posted - 2005.12.11 11:00:00 - [126] Edited by: Lu Yan on 11/12/2005 11:00:31 I'm fine as long as they don't give the Gallente another Battlecruiser that resembles Jay Leno's head. Freudian Industrials 4TW! Kittens give Morbo gas.
The Hellion	Posted - 2005.12.11 11:57:00 - [127] jeez, the ships all look fine. stop with all the pointless physics and maths. Symmetry doesn't = beautiful ship, ships need character, and a feeling about them, and pretty much most of the ships in eve have that. In my opinion best looking ships are the thorax class of ships, sleek and elegant, and not symmetrical. It seems to pop up in other peoples ideas as best looking ship too. While some like that others like the rustpiles of minmatar, and its not hard to see why. CCP done a good job with the models.
Jenny Spitfire	Posted - 2005.12.11 11:58:00 - [128] Edited by: Jenny Spitfire on 11/12/2005 11:58:03 Originally by: Sobeseki Pawi Dont you know that human female ***** are not naturally symmetrical, and in actuality, never are? They are just minimized (usually) in how big the difference is. It is not only correct about the human female, I think the human male is the same as well. I think generally, there is no 100% body symmetry on a human body though body symmetry has importance sometimes, e.g. jet pilots. ---------------- RecruitMe@NOINT!**
Atma Darkwolf	Posted - 2005.12.13 15:13:00 - [129] I apologize for my horrible attitude, and I do not knock the artists(many of the designs, bar the ships, are great, and I would not change them for anything) But, if a ship is to be asymetrical, at least give a reason. I mean, every ship appears to be asymetrical for no other reason then to hurt the eyes. The horn on the incurus(sp)/enyo/ishkur, the weird shape of the gallente cruise(whats it's name?), the weird way caldari ships seem to have been built by multiple crews working with diffrent blueprints, working from the outside toward eachother, then bolted together and called a ship, the strange, unnessisary, realistialy damagaging, and totaly usless otherwise, booster on the side of the Omen/zealot(amar), etc. It appears that IF they managed to make the ship 'nice' and symetrical, they broke some rule, and just 'slapped' something onto it to MAKE it crooked looking. The other designs resemble drawnings done by 3 yr olds, made 3d. I am very sorry if I am bruising some ego's, but IF the ship is to be asymetrical, then at least give some rhyme and reason for it. thats all I ask. Anyways, I have to go.
Gariuys	Posted - 2005.12.13 15:46:00 - [130] Edited by: Gariuys on 13/12/2005 15:47:22 The reason is cause it looks way way more interesting and beautiful this way then those stupid boring symmetrical thingies, that are just the product of a lazy ass using the mirror/weld tools. There are some good symmetrical ships in game though, but they still have a lot of character. And realism... who cares, they have some sort of field that handles structural integrity and all that jazz and it doesn't matter to that field one bit what shape the ship is, so engineers make room for designers when it comes to ship hulls. I for one love the ship designs, although some of the old ones could use some touching up here and there, due to the increase in skill of the artists that made them. ( Been looking at the same ship hull for months and months, the fact it has interesting shapes etc. makes me not mind, if it was a boring, but "realistic" design, it would have grown old long ago ) ~{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
Winter Star	Posted - 2005.12.13 16:35:00 - [131] Stop This!
Derovius Vaden	Posted - 2005.12.13 16:50:00 - [132] Originally by: Hllaxiu 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. Neither do Quantum Physics, they are designed to explain motion up and until the speed of light .
Vanye Inovske	Posted - 2005.12.14 00:00:00 - [133] Originally by: Sobeseki Pawi As long as ships require vector thrust reaction propulsion systems, they will need a center of mass to be focused on. If EVE ships were propelling themselves using vector thrust systems, then they wouldn't STOP MOVING WHEN THE ENGINES ARE SHUT DOWN, now, would they??? Newtonian physics don't apply, and people using them as a basis for argument just look silly. /me likes assymetric ships
Caldorous	Posted - 2005.12.14 00:12:00 - [134] And what about textures? The apoc textures look a bit () outdated... ----------------------------- 2005.03.13 01:11:29combatYour 350mm Railgun I perfectly strikes Asteroid (Veldspar), wrecking for 0.0 damage.
Corisar	Posted - 2005.12.14 08:48:00 - [135] The asymetry of a ship in space would have no bearing on its ability to fly in space, if its designed asymetrically then its safe to bet the ship was designed to propell itself in a straight line despite that asymitry.... In planetary flight, it again will not matter as the wonders of anti gravity will simply make the ship float and those specially designed and placed engines will push it forward. though it would be cool to see some good ol UFO designs like flying saucers and shevrons and more modern sci-fi designs with rotating sections and engine pilons. Babylon 5 has many awsome ship designs that would fit the eve world nicely.
Sobeseki Pawi	Posted - 2005.12.14 09:07:00 - [136] Originally by: Vanye Inovske Originally by: Sobeseki Pawi As long as ships require vector thrust reaction propulsion systems, they will need a center of mass to be focused on. If EVE ships were propelling themselves using vector thrust systems, then they wouldn't STOP MOVING WHEN THE ENGINES ARE SHUT DOWN, now, would they??? Newtonian physics don't apply, and people using them as a basis for argument just look silly. /me likes assymetric ships Then dump the 'thrusters' and just use a reactionless drive system like any good designer would when 'breaking the laws of physics'. ~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.
Gariuys	Posted - 2005.12.14 09:10:00 - [137] But those engine trails look cool. ~{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
Sobeseki Pawi	Posted - 2005.12.14 09:11:00 - [138] Which is probably why they are in at all ~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.
Avon	Posted - 2005.12.14 09:26:00 - [139] Originally by: Caldorous And what about textures? The apoc textures look a bit () outdated... The old girl doesn't look too bad ______________________________________________ The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur
Kalast Raven	Posted - 2005.12.14 09:46:00 - [140] Shields obviously protect the ship from impacting space dust, and collisions with other ships, asteroids, and planets which may be in your warp path. Getting too particular about flight mechanics and utilitarianism here is wrong, let it be an esthetic decision. We've got a good mix of ship designs and I like it. I'd rather not see a 'cohesive philosophy' for either all symmetric or assymetric ships. ------- K. Raven

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.