| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Detarn
Wolves of the North
1
   |
Posted - 2013.07.21 18:54:00 -
[1] - Quote
I think this thread has been very interesting. The specifics about the tracking and angular velocity issues in EVE are an important part in becoming a seasoned pilot.
There is no arguing that CCP has decided to make all ships "points in space" and require the turrets to be required to pivot on those points against the universal X/Y/Z frame of reference purely for balance issues. This is one of those decisions that are made to still make it a "Game" just like he fluid dynamics model that is used which allows us to stop without flipping our ships around
As far as the argument about how it would work in real life: I believe that Tippia is trying to defend the decision above (about the turrets) that CCP made by saying that it is actually applicable to 'real' space combat.
It's not.
Yes gyrostabilizers would be used in space but there is a very important point which has not new brought up and that's: delta...
In space, there is no universal frame of reference if you are considering a two competing-space ship-system. If you consider to identical ships that have come in contact with each other that have decided to fight its easy to see how it would work:
Any weapon system has to be connected to the ship via whatever pivot mechanism. The ONLY time that the pivot mechanism would have to move is when it's target has a velocity DELTA (meaning change in speed) relative to the ship in which it's connected. That velocity delta can be in any relative component (radial, angular, or transversal) as long as a delta exists, tracking is necessary.
So in space, if two identical ship and there computers have done velocity prediction and evasive maneuvering so that each is in a mutually centric orbit there gun's pivot mechanisms could stay stationary and they would blow each other out of the sky. It's only when a pilot attempts to jocky his position and change the components of his orbit or current velocity relative to the other ship that either ships guns would have to move.
|
Detarn
Wolves of the North
1
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 19:10:00 -
[2] - Quote
To further clarify... you could actually orbit a "stationary" ship in space.. but that's not the most accurate way to say that...
What that would actually mean is that you have engaged your thrust-vectored engines in a way that centers your actual motion on a point in space which lies on your target. Your target could have any velocity but as long as you had already 'added' that velocity to your chosen orbital pattern it would still be like orbiting a "stationary" ship.
It's like you are causing your engines to effectively do the work of gravity had you and your target been two massive bodies. As long as your engines constantly cause your ship to maintain the steady angular component of the orbit.. your guns could stay stationary and hit.
AND in the case of projectiles your turrets would only have to angle into a fixed position to have their trajectory be corrected for the velocity that they would already have upon leaving the barrel. (This would be minimal in the case of fast moving projectiles) |
Detarn
Wolves of the North
1
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 20:39:00 -
[3] - Quote
You are stuck on one false premise tappia:
It is physically impossible in reality to have turrets that are NOT linked to a ship's frame of reference in some way. Yes you can simulate an "unlinked state" by gyrostabalizing a free floating turret design but failing a friction-free set up, the acceleration of a ship, be it rotational or whatever, will still have some effect on the system. It's not a matter of choice.
And radial velocity CAN make a difference for any weapons that happen to not be on the primary vector axis of the target. |
| |
|