| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Weiz'mir
Red Federation
RvB - RED Federation
2
   |
Posted - 2013.07.17 13:22:00 -
[1] - Quote
Tiber Ibis wrote:Reaver Glitterstim wrote:I'm just trying to raise awareness that transversal velocity is not what people treat it as. I'd say I succeeded there.  Must admit, this used to annoy me when people kept banging on about transversal velocity in TS all the time and telling everyone how they should use it. And when I tried to explain to them to use angular they didn't seem to understand or were blinkered into believing transversal is the only way. Very strange, and made me wonder if they actually read the transversal reading they have on their overview or just like to bang on about to it everyone else to sound clever. The only important ones to have are angular and radial. Transversal is nice if you have the screen real estate to fit it on although all the relevant information comes from angular which is basically a product of the transversal and distance from the target. Radial is very useful for telling you how fast a target is approaching or retreating.
+1
My only concern is why angular velocity of turrets - which is a fundamental information - isn't shown along with the distances and damages information when you put your mouse over your modules.
Hope CCP will add this information soon.
I have always thougt that transversal velocity is useless if you know the velocity of the ennemy ship and its radial velocity.
However, reading Mara, I wonder if at the end of the day I shouldn't replace the velocity by the transversal velocity in my overview (not enough room for both).
After all, who cares of the "absolute" speed of a ship ? What matters is its relative speed, which is known thanks to the transversal velocity.
Am I right ? |
Weiz'mir
Red Federation
RvB - RED Federation
2
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 09:21:00 -
[2] - Quote
I'll be honest :
- I understand the game mechanics from a balancing point of view (not giving to the fastest ship an unfair advantage) ;
but
- I absolutely not understand how some of you could consider that these game mechanics match with real physic.
Anyway, I have two more questions :
1. Do you use radial velocity or do you consider that the distance information is more than enough ?
2. Do you use transversal velocity, and in case you do, could you please explain me in what kind of circumstances ?
Thanks ! |
Weiz'mir
Red Federation
RvB - RED Federation
2
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 10:13:00 -
[3] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Because they do. I have in my cheap-ass out-of-date phone a device that does exactly thatGǪ
You have in your phone a device doing exactly... what ?
Let's take an other exemple. Let say I am an indian on my horse galloping around (orbiting) a caravan stopped in the desert.
The cow-boy near his caravan will face tracking issues to shot me if my horse is fast enough. BUT ME, with my rifle, ridding my horse orbiting the caravan, do you really think that I will have any tracking issue ??
Tippia wrote:1. Yes, because closing speed is a good measure of whether they're coming for me or someone else, and because it tells me how well I'm catching up with them.
2. No, because just plain speed is good enough.
Ok thanks for your answers. |
Weiz'mir
Red Federation
RvB - RED Federation
2
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 10:54:00 -
[4] - Quote
Tippia wrote:
The more accurate illustration is that, if you are a director shooting a cowboy movie and want to do a 360-¦ dolly shot around the caravan using a gyro-stabilised camera, then you will have to keep turning that camera because it will not rotate along with the dolly. If you don't, the camera will capture a whole lot of terrain rather than the mug of your overpaid star actor.
If your rotation is perfect (ie the camera is fixed on a circle of rails and the caravan is at the center of the circle), you shouldn't have to move again the camera once it faces the actor.
Do you suggest that after each shot, turrets get back to their "rest position", before aligning the target again, shot, back to rest position, aligne target, etc. ? In this case I could understand why the turrets of the orbiting ship may face tracking issues...
|
Weiz'mir
Red Federation
RvB - RED Federation
2
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 12:52:00 -
[5] - Quote
Thank you Tippia for your explaination. However I am still not convinced at all...
May I ask if there is anyone here who agrees with Tippia ? |
Weiz'mir
Red Federation
RvB - RED Federation
2
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 13:23:00 -
[6] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Weiz'mir wrote:May I ask if there is anyone here who agrees with Tippia ? Well, there's this guyGǪ
You read it in Greek ancient, you may have misunderstood one or two minor details... |
Weiz'mir
Red Federation
RvB - RED Federation
2
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 14:32:00 -
[7] - Quote
Jill Xelitras wrote:Tippia wrote:
I'm also saying that, in real life, we have plenty of devices and mechanisms that operate exactly like that so it's not something special or magical going on. Gimbals and gyroscopes have cancelled out external angular changes for many many (many) years now.
The only difference is that in real life, we also have gimbal locks, but since you'd still have to compensate for inaccuracies in your orbit, it's questionable whether you'd want to engage those in a fight anywayGǪ
Hmm, you're right. Modern tanks can keep their guns on target while the tank is moving across terrain ... would be rather stupid to go back to old tank design where the turret could only be fired accurately while the tank is stationary.
Same exemple as the one with me dressed up as an indian on a horse. Should the tank run around the target, the gun doesn't have to move... |
Weiz'mir
Red Federation
RvB - RED Federation
2
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 14:43:00 -
[8] - Quote
Jill Xelitras wrote:
Yes, but RL is not EVE.
oh wait... |
Weiz'mir
Red Federation
RvB - RED Federation
2
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 18:05:00 -
[9] - Quote
Jill Xelitras wrote:
To add to Tippia's post above. What she said is true because the tank will always be subjected to some random movement. The tank will never be able to move around in a 100% constant angular movement.
No. That's absolutely not what she is saying. |
Weiz'mir
Red Federation
RvB - RED Federation
2
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 10:59:00 -
[10] - Quote
Jill Xelitras wrote:Weiz'mir wrote:Jill Xelitras wrote:
To add to Tippia's post above. What she said is true because the tank will always be subjected to some random movement. The tank will never be able to move around in a 100% constant angular movement.
No. That's absolutely not what she is saying. Oh, yes it is. Tippia wrote:The difference in accuracy between a stabilised and a locked turret is immense.
You did'nt understand her point. She was talking about turrets gyro-stabilized that need to track a still target (notwithstanding any alea or random movement).
And I doubt that Tippia would agree with you (and me) when you write :
Jill Xelitras wrote:
In a perfect lab experiment, and assuming that the turrets would both behave according to RL physics (not eve physics) and were glued in a fix position on the ship, then you would be right.
|
Weiz'mir
Red Federation
RvB - RED Federation
2
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 12:31:00 -
[11] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Weiz'mir wrote:You did'nt understand her point. Yes he did. You did not.
Great news ! Because he considers that a perfectly orbiting ships wouldn't suffer any tracking issue :
Jill Xelitras wrote:
In a perfect lab experiment, and assuming that the turrets would both behave according to RL physics (not eve physics) and were glued in a fix position on the ship, then you would be right.
 |
Weiz'mir
Red Federation
RvB - RED Federation
3
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 12:39:00 -
[12] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Good god. Whether its locked or able to track makes no difference. Even a tracking turret wouldn't have to track when mounted on a hull that is in a orbit around a stationary target in any realistic situation.
+1
(Tippia will disagree ;
Jill Xelitras will agree but gives his money to Tippia;
Tippia will agree with Jill Xelitras but says the opposite ;
etc. etc.)
Anyone to close the topic ? |
Weiz'mir
Red Federation
RvB - RED Federation
3
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 15:03:00 -
[13] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Infinity Ziona wrote:It does mean they are incorrect and unreal. GǪexcept that they exist and work exactly like that. So what's incorrect and unreal about them?
Six pages of peremptory assertions ! Congrat'
|
Weiz'mir
Red Federation
RvB - RED Federation
3
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 16:19:00 -
[14] - Quote
Murk Paradox wrote:Weiz'mir wrote:Thank you Tippia for your explaination. However I am still not convinced at all...
May I ask if there is anyone here who agrees with Tippia ? I do. People here trying to argue are considering the target is not moving at all. The reason turrets have tracking, is because they are not shooting a stationary target. When that target IS stationary, there is no tracking issue.
Murk Paradox wrote:
When that target IS stationary, there is no tracking issue.
Murk Paradox wrote:
When that target IS stationary, there is no tracking issue.
In Eve there are traking issues! If you orbit a still ship or even a celestial, you will face tracking issues.
That is why :
- Eve mechanics don't match with real physics ;
- you are not agree with Tippia who considers that Eve mechanics match with real physics. |
Weiz'mir
Red Federation
RvB - RED Federation
3
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 08:17:00 -
[15] - Quote
Whitehound wrote:
There is a difference between stationary targets and stationary ships in EVE. Ships have a speed attribute and one can see it on the overview. The same with their angular velocity and their transversal speed. Some targets however do not have a speed. Their speed is not just simply 0, but it does not exist as an attribute and neither do these have a transversal speed or an angular velocity. It is possible to lock onto these targets and shoot them, but without having tracking issues.
It may confirm that the tracking issue with stationary ships is, from CCP point of view, a game mechanic to balance fights (and not a reproduction of real physics, otherwise the same issue would have existed with all targets). |
| |
|