I don't understand why so many EVE vets make this rookie mistake. I don't believe they actually think that transversal velocity is what's important, even the most green pilots often know that you can get under a ship's guns. So why the blunder of nomenclature? I understand that many veteran EVE players are not math whizzes (though most of them probably are), and I also realize that the word 'transversal' sounds better than 'radial', but that doesn't change the fact that they are two distinctly different functions.

What are transversal and radial velocity, you ask? Well it's quite simple. Transversal velocity is the net velocity you are moving in comparison with another body. To use an example, you are driving down a highway at 200kph in your hot rod and passing up cars in either lane. The other cars are all traveling at about 80kph in relation to the highway surface. You are thus going 120kph faster than they are. You have 120kph of transversal velocity in relation to the cars going in the same direction as you, but 280kph of transversal velocity in relation to the cars in the other lane. This transversal number actually only applies while you are passing each car, however. While you are heading directly toward or away from a car, your transversal with them is zero. Cars going perpendicular to you at the intersection ahead actually have only 80kph of transversal on you while they're in the intersection because you're going straight toward them, but more before and after the intersection due to you going very fast in a direction semi-perpendicular to them. Transversal velocity is only affected by the velocity of you and your target, and is not dependent on the distance to the target.

Radial velocity takes into account the distance to the target. If you are sitting still in a hidden fox hole in enemy territory, stationed near two roads which are parallel to each other, the cars on the closer road (assuming they are moving at the same velocity) have a greater radial velocity in relation to you. Calculating the actual radial velocity is complicated and requires knowledge of basic trigonometry, and I don't feel like getting into the calculations--besides, I'm certain I would mess them up something horrible. But the net effect is very simple to measure. Radial velocity is the velocity that your target is moving across your field of view. If it takes 3 seconds to move 18 arc minutes across your field of view, then its radial velocity in relation to you is 6 arc minutes/second, or 1 degree/10 seconds.

Now you might be asking, why is it important to note the distinction between transversal velocity and radial velocity? Simple. Turret tracking works on radial velocity with the target versus the target's signature radius. If you orbit your enemy at the same velocity and half the distance, you double the radial velocity between you two. This means that turrets must track twice as fast to hit you. Calculating turret tracking speed is pretty easy. The turret tracking in EVE is measured in radians per second. One radian is a measure of circumference (such as an orbit) equal to the radius of said circumference, and there are 2*pi radians in a circumference or orbit. So if you are orbiting your target at 40km, then the distance around the orbit is 2*pi*40km, or about 251km. Every 40km you move, the turrets on your target must turn 1 radian to track you (assuming your signature radius is the same as the signature resolution of the turrets). If your target is an Abaddon firing tachyon beam lasers at you with a tracking speed of 0.02262 radians per second, and the signature radius of your Megathron is equal to their signature resolution (400m), then the guns need 1/0.02262 or 44.2 seconds to track you across the whole 40km, or 277.8 seconds to track you in one full orbit. Since the orbit is 251km, you could be orbiting at 251/277.8 or 0.9035 km/s (903.5m/s) in the orbit and be matching the guns' tracking. Now if you moved closer to your target, the guns would still need the same amount of time to track you in a full orbit, but you would have a smaller orbit to make, so it would be easier to defeat their tracking.

Another cool trick to learn is how to shoot a moving target: if you match your target's velocity, then you cancel out radial and transversal velocity alike (though radial is the only one that is important). The way to do this is to move in the same direction your target is moving. If you see a Rifter target moving along on afterburner at 1059m/s in a straight line, ignoring you, you could flip on your Megathron's microwarpdrive and raise your velocity to 979m/s and point your ship in the same direction as the Rifter--not toward the Rifter, but parallel to it, then you should see that little box around it start moving much more slowly on your screen. If you overheat your MWD, you can raise your max velocity to 1397m/s and then throttle down a tiny bit using your throttle pad in the HUD, and potentially match the Rifter's velocity almost exactly. Once you see it stop drifting across your screen, fire your railguns and blap the bastard!

Im sure you posted this wall of text to win some arguement that youre having with someone, what is the TLDR for those of us who don't feel the need to read?

oh wow, you are now officially a rocket scientist.

He is saying we are using the wrong terminology. He is correct. When you or (your computer) calculates a firing solution this information is processed but we in eve call it traverse velocity. Main reason is because we have a column for it in our UI

That transversal =/= to radial, and that radial velocity matters in EVE and that transversal does not.

Finally someone else who realized this, I've been telling people to put radial velocity on overview for years now.

This doesnt matter because EvE ignores realistic math / physics. Its just as difficult to hit a ship at zero velocity while orbiting as it is to hit an object orbiting at speed while you are stationary.

Its just as difficult to hit a ship at zero velocity while orbiting as it is to hit an object orbiting at speed while you are stationary.

Of course, since the relative motion is the same. Also, this.

Labels, Tippia! The purple and red straight arrows are traversal velocity, the blue and green curved ones are angular velocity. Is that diagram part of a blog post?

Also, pff! The red and purple arrows (and text) talk about vt, the green and blue ones about va, so obviously it's transversal and angular velocity, respectively.

Of course, since the relative motion is the same. Also, this.

Why then does the person moving have close to zero degrees while youe own arm has a full 360 degrees.

We can call transversal / angular velocity interchangably because theyre just junk.

Because their arms are tied to the respective person's frame of reference. In EVE, guns are not.

Neither the maths nor the geography is ******** GÇö they just don't use the frames of reference you're expecting. As a result, the relative motion between the two points is the same.

What is the reason for knowing the angular velocity and transversal speed? Hull based or gun based? If your ship is travelling across the bow of another ship at a 90 degree angle and the other ship is stopped is there a difference when the other ship is moving at the same speed in regards to angular velocity?

You want to know the angular speed because it's what matters to your guns.
You want to know the transversal since, as Mara Rinn pointed out, it tells you how well you can match their manoeuvres.

At the very instant you cross the target's line of travel, the target's speed doesn't matter, but as soon as you are even a fraction off that line, it will start to add or subtract from your relative motion.

So when the game engine is only using relative velocity as opposed to actual velocities we're not using real life physics n math except at 0 transversal?

We're using the same physics and maths as always GÇö it's just that we're looking at point objects without any kind of frame of reference of their own. There is nothing GÇ£unrealGÇ¥ about it.

You should feel bad about this thread.

Who really gives a damn?
This game has never aspired to rocket science. Nor even rigorous higher math.

I'm just trying to raise awareness that transversal velocity is not what people treat it as. I'd say I succeeded there.

You want to know the transversal since, as Mara Rinn pointed out, it tells you how well you can match their manoeuvres.

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 tracking speed 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 ?

Of course, since the relative motion is the same. Also, this.

[wrong

1) a ship orbiting you generates angular change = hard to track

2) you orbiting a target generates NO angular change = should be easy to track

The game physics treats 2) the same as 1) which is either a failure in the game designers physics understanding or a game balance thing.

Which means the fastest ship in a fight would experience zero angular/tracking problems trying to hit the slower ship.

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 ?

Of course, since the relative motion is the same. Also, this.

If you're orbitting a stationary object, your guns technically don't have to track anything?

I thinks she was trying to say (admittedly, without actually saying it) that Eve doesn't take into account the direction your guns are pointing.

Taking out of the 'realism' equation large ships orbitting objects at obscene speeds, you should technically be able to orbit something stationary with 1400mm Howitzers on a Tornado at 2kms with the worst gun tracking speeds imaginable and still have no tracking issues yourself while causing a world of tracking problems for the stationary target, because your guns are constantly pointing directly at the target while in a circular orbit.

Nope. You orbiting a target generates the exact same angular change. Otherwise, you still wouldn't be pointing towards the target. You're just forgetting that your subjective reference frame has to rotate, which creates the same angular change as if the guns alone had to do all the rotating.

It's really neither. Your mistake comes from the assumption that the guns' rotation is inherited from the ship, and then labelling the fact that they don't (which is not really outside the realm of possibility) as a GÇ£failure of physicsGÇ¥. The fact that it creates good balance is just a happy coincidence.

No. The faster ship would still experience the tracking issues from the movement of the slower ship even if the guns cancelled out the own ship's movements. All you've done at that point is turn it into a one-ship-moves problem rather than one of two ships moving in relation to each other (and to a neutral frame of reference).

Hmm never thought about using transversal like that. I guess that is for throwing of people orbits etc then.

if you walk around your friend with your arm pointing at him does your arm have to rotate in the shoulder socket?

relative to YOUR body your hand stays in the same position

the rooms seems to rotate but that doesnt matter

If you're orbiting a stationary object at, say, one revolution in 62.8 seconds, the part that you want pointed at the object needs to rotate at 0.1 rad/s, otherwise, it'll start pointing off into space.

This is no different if you are the stationary object and something orbits you at, say, one revolution in 62.8 seconds, at which point the part you want pointed at this orbiting object needs to rotate at 0.1 rad/s, or it will start pointing off into space.

The confusion seems to come from some assumption along the lines of turreted guns working like fixed-mount guns on an age-of-sail gunboat: that you're trying to give the enemy a broadside and that the guns are sticking out from that side at right angles, and then forgetting that all this means is that the broadside has to rotate to track the target at that very same angular velocity.

The ship does rotate to maintain on target. Which relieves your guns tracking from having to do it.

For some reason your treating the gun and the ship as to seperate entitites.

refer to the arm/shoulder scenario i discussed earlier. If your shoulder isnt doing any rotation then the guns wouldnt have to track either.

Your trying to give the turrets the job that the engines actually do.

GǪif the guns are locked to the ship, which they aren't.

Yes. BecauseGǪ you knowGǪ they are. The turrets move independently from the ship (call them gyro-stabilised if you like GÇö they don't inherit any angular momentum from the ship) and have to be slewed into position to compensate for any kind of relative motion between your ship and the target.

GǪbut your shoulder is rotating, or you will no longer point at the target. The problem with your scenario is that you're misidentifying what represent what. Your arms are not the turret; your body is not the ship. Your entire body is the turret, and the ship is simply the spot of ground you're standing on. As that spot moves around your buddy, you have to rotate your body (i.e. the turret) to keep pointing at the guy standing still in the middle.

No. I'm merely describing how turrets work. This includes not making the assumption that they are fixed or that they are affected by ship movement.

Snip.

Edit: you know what? If you can't be bothered to read the OP just keep using transversal and be happy.

The turrets not being attached to the ship is how we get the very unusual physics situation were a gun has tracking problems while going quickly around an object.

I was aware how the game treats tracking i just didnt know why that was different from real world pretend space combat would be. Now i understand that the turrets are floating in space on their own. Not attached to the ship. So when the ship rotates the turrets have to generate their own thrust/rotation to keep up with the ship which causes tracking problems.

In real world pretend space combat when the ship orbits its engines would rptate the ship through the orbit which leave the turrets free to do no tracking.

So basically turrets in eve are drones forced to keep speed with the hull but not attached.

wrong

1) a ship orbiting you generates angular change = hard to track

2) you orbiting a target generates NO angular change = should be easy to track

The game physics treats 2) the same as 1) which is either a failure in the game designers physics understanding or a game balance thing.

The reason i say game balance thing because the fastest ship in a fight will always be the one orbiting. The slower ship will never generate an orbit motion, the slower ship will only manage to elongate the faster ships orbit into an oval.

Which means the fastest ship in a fight would experience zero angular/tracking problems trying to hit the slower ship. Which would make speed even more "king stat" in a frig vs frig fight. The way they have it setup now even the slower frig still has a fighting chance

I read the OP - I'm even pretty good at maths. This whole discussion is still more pointless than whinging about AFK Cloaking. Many electrons could have been spared. Right name, wrong name, the mechanic is the same.

I read the OP - I'm even pretty good at maths. This whole discussion is still more pointless than whinging about AFK Cloaking. Many electrons could have been spared. Right name, wrong name, the mechanic is the same.

Wall of Text

The turrets not being attached to the ship is how we get the very unusual physics situation were a gun has tracking problems while going quickly around an object.

Now i understand that the turrets are floating in space on their own. Not attached to the ship.

I've noticed more than a few times on this and other forums the spelling of "whining" as "whinging". i've particularly noticed this from mainly british posters. is that an acceptable spelling in your country, and do you actually pronounce like it's spelled? or is this spelling just the cool way to spell now?

Angular is what you want for tracking, however for the first few years of EVE transversal was the only option, as they didn't add angular until 2005 or so IIRC. Before that you just looked at transversal, looked at distance and eyeballed it.

tl;dr

yeah, so?

oh wow, you are now officially a rocket scientist. Tell me something, after you posted all this non-essential garble, do you have more friends now?

carry on using transversal

- I absolutely not understand how some of you could consider that these game mechanics match with real physic.

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 ?

Because they do. I have in my cheap-ass out-of-date phone a device that does exactly thatGǪ

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.

He is saying we are using the wrong terminology. He is correct. When you or (your computer) calculates a firing solution this information is processed but we in eve call it traverse velocity. Main reason is because we have a column for it in our UI

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 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

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. ?

GǪthen you're no longer talking about anything that is relevant to my example or to how turrets work.

Even so, you still have to rotate the camera at the desired angular velocity in order to keep the subject in frame.

No. Just that they have to adjust for the angular difference between where they were previously pointing and where the target is now. If they returned to some kind of rest position, turrets would require a tracking speed of roughly 2-Ç/instant to ever have a chance of lining up with a targetGǪ

GǪwhich, incidentally, would mean that they'd never have any tracking issues at all.

I think you should give up on this Tippia. Its clearly incorrect in regards to real physics.

While the game may behave in this absurd fashion a turret whether capable of independent tracking or not would not need to track while on a ship orbiting a stationary target because the correct position to hit would be a 90 degrees to port or starboard. given a perfectly circular orbit.

May I ask if there is anyone here who agrees with Tippia ?

Well, there's this guyGǪ

You read it in Greek ancient

.... also: what about the coriolis effect ? Shouldn't projectile and hybrid turrets have a slight delay or inaccuracy in firing / hitting targets compared to laser turrets every time there is a change in angular speed ?

WeeeellGǪ Coriolis applies to when both you (and the target) are locked in a different (rotating) frame of reference than the projectile is. What tracking does is pretty much the opposite of that: it ensures that the turret isn't locked in that frame of reference, and the tracking is all about compensating for the target's movement from the point of view of a neutral reference frame.

Or, to borrow a phrase from that article: GÇ£The Coriolis effect exists only when one uses a rotating reference frame.GÇ¥ The whole point is that turrets don't use a rotating reference frame.

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 ??

Now in real life, the turrets of ship B would move at the same angular velocity as ship B (inherit movement from ship B).
But in eve, the turrets don't inherit the angular movement from the ship and therefore have an angular velocity equal to that of ship A's turret.

Is that what you are saying ?

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...

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...

Yes, but RL is not EVE.

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.

The difference in accuracy between a stabilised and a locked turret is immense.

Oh, yes it is.

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.

You did'nt understand her point.

Does anyone actually have evidence to suggest whether turrets would operate with a freely rotational pivot independent of the ship

GǪehmGǪ that's exactly how turrets in EVE work (for the simple reason that ships don't really have any kind of rotation to inherit, what with being points and all).

Yes he did. You did not.

The larger point is that, from the EVE ship perspective, if you're going to move your turret around anyway, why create a lock-down mechanism that the tracking then has to fight when you could just decouple the tracking from the ship movement entirely and let it do its own thing. There's no reason to enforce a gimbal lock other than to stow the guns for travel. End result: turrets that sit within their own reference frame and have to track the target from that point of view rather than the PoV of the ship.

Yes he did. You did not.

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.

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.

I know that is how turrets work in eve. But seeing as the suggestion was that turrets would not work like this in real life, I was simply stating we don't actually know how turrets would work in real life, and they could in fact work both ways.

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.

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.

We do know how turrets work in real life.

Turrets(like on a battleship) are attached to the hull for a reason. Because every time they fire they would start spinning crazily from the recoil(the conventional ones).

But more damning of all is how would a turret rotate if its not attached to the hull?

In your camera gyrostabilzed example. If the human just holds the camera and doesnt rotate his hands/camera he will stay on target.

Oh yes it does. Constantly. Otherwise, it would pretty much never be able to shoot GÇö much less reliably hit GÇö anything without coming to a stand-still. The difference in accuracy between a stabilised and a locked turret is immense.

Oh, yes it is.

Tanks + cameras are gyro stabilized because their carriage is moving across ground which causes up/down vibrations/movements. Which wouldnt be the case for a space ship

But their side/side motion is still attached to the hull/carriage.

This is kind of a ridiculous argument. Does anyone actually have evidence to suggest whether turrets would operate with a freely rotational pivot independent of the ship, or whether they would be attached to the ship and operate dependent on the ships movement. I would say the later is more likely, although as there are no real examples of turrets mounted on real space ships then I would assume that both variations are possible.

It would if it was mounted in such a way that it wasn't affected by the rotation of the ship. Such mounts exist.

There is no need to particularly imagine anything since these devices have been around for two millennia.

I contend that ships in space would be built like ships in the ocean.

Turrets might be gyrostabilized in that sense in a real life space environment however positive tracking would be simpler in terms of targeting.

Maybe, but that's an engineering preference. It doesn't mean that the maths and physics are GÇ£unrealGÇ¥ or GÇ£incorrectGÇ¥ as claimed.

It does mean they are incorrect and unreal.

Why would a turret system exist that cancels out the natural turning of a hull.

In real life the hull turning turrets + tracking speed > just tracking speed.

It does mean they are incorrect and unreal. Why would a turret system exist that cancels out the natural turning of a hull. In real life the hull turning turrets + tracking speed > just tracking speed.

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 know that is how turrets work in eve. But seeing as the suggestion was that turrets would not work like this in real life, I was simply stating we don't actually know how turrets would work in real life, and they could in fact work both ways.

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.

Imagine the space shuttle orbiting the earth with a gun pointed 90 degrees towards the earth. It would be guaranteed to hit the earth no matter what.

Imagine a clock is a stationary ship, it's hands are the direction from which a turret is firing at it from the end points in. Cut out a firing paper ship and blue tack it to the ends of the hands.

The only inaccuracies you will get are when the target is small and the velocity of the ship imparted to the projectile as it leaves the gun cause it to miss which would not happen given the velocities of rounds vs speed of eve ships. Even then the tracking to compensate would be tiny.

But since we are talking about a target moving in it's own orbit, that indians rifle needs to compensate for the dynamic trajectory of it's target.

Which si the tracking speed we are talking about here.

GǪexcept that they exist and work exactly like that. So what's incorrect and unreal about them?

accuracy is affected for vehicles moving on the ground subject to hills/holes/bumps etc in the ground. Ships in the ocean(and presumably in space) would have turrets attached to the hull. In a perfect orbit you point guns at 90 degrees and call it a day.

GǪactually we're talking about both.

I'm simply pointing out that, if you disconnect the orientation of the turret from the orientation of the vehicle, then you'd have tracking issues in the static-target situation as well since the turret now has to individually maintain the same angular velocity as the vehicle does. I'm also pointing out that this is not magic; that it exists and is real and is entirely correct when you start looking across multiple frames of reference.

The counter arguments essentially range from GÇ£I don't understand frames of referenceGÇ¥ to GÇ£why would anyone do that?GÇ¥, neither of which makes the maths and mechanics behind it incorrect.

It does mean they are incorrect and unreal. Why would a turret system exist that cancels out the natural turning of a hull. In real life the hull turning turrets + tracking speed > just tracking speed.

GǪexcept that they exist and work exactly like that. So what's incorrect and unreal about them?

Because the hull turning is too imprecise and/or too violent and it's better and easier to just let the turret handle it all on its own.

GǪexcept when you're turning in the wrong direction, at which point tracking speed - hull turning < just tracking speed. At any point when you turn into the target's line of travel, you have reduced your tracking ability (but not his). This makes it far more preferable to always turn away from their line of travel, which makes you predictable, which makes you easy to hit. With a freely rotating turret, there's no telling where you're going nextGǪ

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.

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 ;

GǪexcept when you're turning in the wrong direction, at which point tracking speed - hull turning < just tracking speed. At any point when you turn into the target's line of travel, you have reduced your tracking ability (but not his). This makes it far more preferable to always turn away from their line of travel, which makes you predictable, which makes you easy to hit. With a freely rotating turret, there's no telling where you're going nextGǪ

First time in 10 years but have to concede you make pretty good argument and I can accept this as a pretty decent explanation for the orbit issue :)

The only time ud be turning in the wrong direction is when ur trying to escape from the fight

That transversal =/= to radial, and that radial velocity matters in EVE and that transversal does not.

GǪor when you're trying to close with the target because the current orbit is wrong for you. Or when you're trying to alter the orbiting plane. Or when you're trying to jink into a higher-angular movement (which would be especially effective if you had turrets that inherited the ship orientation).

None of those are turning in the wrong direction.

The only direction thats in the wrong direction is away from ur targets direction.

None of that matters though because what matters is that currently in eve any time ur ship is faster than the target its bad for ur turret

I prefer my ship design where faster ship benefits from its speed

None of those are turning in the wrong direction.

The only direction thats in the wrong direction is away from ur targets direction. Every other direction will assist ur turrets tracking speed. None of that matters though because what matters is that currently in eve any time ur ship is faster than the target its bad for ur turrets and thats bad ship design for pretend eve engineers.

I prefer my ship design where faster ship benefits from its speed than ur/eves design where faster ships are bad for their own turrets. Except for game balance. In which case i can deal with that. But lets call a cow for what it is and not pretend its the prefered engineering method in pretend spacw combat

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.

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).

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).

The formula to the hit'n'miss-chance seems more like it originated from a statistics approach to PvP than being a physics approximation (though modern physics is not shy of using statistics). When you match the tracking speed with the angular velocity does it not result in a 100% hit as one would expect it for a physics simulation, but rather does it result in a perfect 50%, meaning, the player gets a fair chance (50:50-chance) to hit or to miss.

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 ?

The hit formula is a statistic one, yes,which is pretty much the norm for RPGs, but the actual tracking is exactly you'd expect: the relative angular velocity of the target. And yes, that's maybe what trips people up: the assumption that the formula has anything to do with physics, when it's just a benchmark for a statistic based on simple trigonometry of relative motion.

GǪbut, again, there is nothing GǣunrealGǥ about the physics involved in how turrets in EVE work. .

There have been enough examples of real world situations than demonstrate you are incorrect.

Fact is, an orbiting ships turrets would need to rotate much less than the stationary ships turrets to shoot them. I am not going to go into it in detail, there are many people in this thread who have explained it very well to you.

CCP use this "unreal" physics to balance the game.

Source: A physics degree + teaching qualification.

You're going to have to go into a quite a lot of detail to describe how something can traverse in a full circle without rotating through all 360-¦ of that circle. Please go ahead.

That transversal =/= to radial, and that radial velocity matters in EVE and that transversal does not.

I believe his point is that when a ship orbits a (stationary) ship then the ship itself rotates around its own axis.

This is not GÇ£unrealGÇ¥ or GÇ£incorrectGÇ¥ since mechanisms that offer this kind of disconnection between an object and its carrier is something that's existed since antiquity. The only conceivable oddity is the matter of why the EVE ship engineers have chosen this particular solution, but I've already suggested a lore answer to that one.

Even you have to admit that this is at least confusing if not annoying to anyone new to EVE or only new to the tracking formula, and not everyone cares for the lore.

Traversal to work out instantly if he is burning at me or away from me when I land and whether we are about to sling shot in a fight.

Yes gyrostabilizers would be used in space but there is a very important point which has not new brought up and that's: delta...

That velocity delta can be in any relative component (radial, angular, or transversal) as long as a delta exists, tracking is necessary.

TO CLARIFY POINT ABOUT GYROS: When no Delta exists, engaging gyros would help maintain accuracy from random purturbations in velocities.

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)

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.

And radial velocity CAN make a difference for any weapons that happen to not be on the primary vector axis of the target.

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.

The actual fact is, an orbiting ship's turrets have to traverse 2-Ç radians in the orbit time in order to keep facing the target.
.

if you don't know how to calculate formulas while preserving units, you're going to have a bad time.

just curious: who thinks it's a good idea to have transversal showing in overview. raise your hand

radial velocity. ******* comedy. I love this thread!