Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 .. 20 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 16 post(s) |
Mike Whiite
Stupid Stunts The Wolfpack Nexus
243
|
Posted - 2013.12.18 14:43:00 -
[541] - Quote
[Kagura Nikon wrote:that makes sense when you build things in assembly lines and pieces are just connected and done.
Ships in eve are even larger than real live ships. And NEVER a ship is made like that. Things this size are build in ways that do not care for these properties.
You are not talking about a car with 3 meters here. You are talking about ships with half a km LONG!! Adding a new piece on other side just to make simmetrical will add THOUSANDS of tons of steel! Also internals of ships in real life are NOWHERE near simmetric therefore the pieces from left size of the ships are NOT interchangeable with the ones on right side anyway.
Makign simmetric Huge structures is LESS efficient!!
Just pay attention, military equipment around the world is basically the only place where you find assimetry. Why? BEcause military equipment cannot bother with "looking cool". They need to be efficient. The simmetry is kept up to a level for some logical reasons. A plane must have 2 equal sides to fly correctly.
But a tank have a coaxial gun on only 1 side. They have a search light on one side.
A carrier does nto have an island on each side of the runway, because 1 is enough!
Comemricial buildigns are simemtrical, because people care for it. Industrial buildings are not, because making them simmetrical would be a wastage!
one the search light and the Coaxial gun, do not make the base of the tank asymetric, as I said the specialised equipment should not be takern in account, I like the Radar on the Scorpion, but that is a symetric ship in my eyes, even though there aren't radars on both side.
as on wether or not things are symetric in design or not, I find you a bit hazy there.
at one point you mention that not bothering to look cool makes it symetric and on the other point you mention it takes extra effort.
I think you can bring it down to the following, if it moves (not only because of aerondynamics,) mass production, easy acces "Base Symetry" (not counting lights, radars, ect) is preferred. Cargo movers Ships, Trucks gain extra options by being able to be loaded and unloaded from both sides. once you enter mass production it's cost effective even or large buildings.
again this is a game so not everything needs to be done as in the real world though non capital ships in EVE could be counting as moving and mass production.
|
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA Apex.
142
|
Posted - 2013.12.18 14:51:00 -
[542] - Quote
Caldari Shuttle |
Nami Kumamato
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
78
|
Posted - 2013.12.18 15:10:00 -
[543] - Quote
Kallen Kozukie wrote:That Crow looks great
The Crow looks like a frigging limp goose. The Merlin class should replace the Condor class for the Interceptor role IMO. The Merlin class hull looks like they would be capable of zooming after you with foam dripping from his mouth while while the Condor class hull looks like it woke up with a case of "bad-hull" day - or forgot to give the right of way at the last Stargate crossing.
I'm against remodeling for symmetry and aerodynamics (they're as practical and useful to you in 25th and 1/2 century as a bag of doorknobs) - however please remodel while keeping in mind the role that ship has to fill. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
938
|
Posted - 2013.12.18 17:02:00 -
[544] - Quote
Simetry is a DESIGNER thing. As an engineer I blame all evil and failure in mankind on DESIGNERS! "If brute force does not solve your problem..... -áthen you are -ásurely not using enough!" |
Kitty Bear
Disturbed Friends Of Diazepam Disturbed Acquaintance
1018
|
Posted - 2013.12.18 17:05:00 -
[545] - Quote
Hazzard wrote:Moa "[Insert Minmatar shipname here]" (the ugliest ship in the game)
Bantam - see above
fixed. |
Turk MacRumien
The Scope Gallente Federation
5
|
Posted - 2013.12.18 17:30:00 -
[546] - Quote
Imicus hull and bellicose hull. I also think the maelstrom's solar sails are awful, but without them it would be a horrible looking ship, so I kind of get them
Moa goes without saying as well. And don't touch the blackbird! It's the epitome of efficient caldari design, totally looks like something a giant, machine like corporate entity would pump out |
ElQuirko
The Scope Gallente Federation
2785
|
Posted - 2013.12.18 20:06:00 -
[547] - Quote
CCP BunnyVirus wrote:I'm listening NOT THE DOMINIX DON'T TOUCH THE DOMINIX DON'T YOU DARE GO NEAR THE DOMINIX Dodixie > Hek |
Ramona McCandless
Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire
1547
|
Posted - 2013.12.18 20:08:00 -
[548] - Quote
ElQuirko wrote:CCP BunnyVirus wrote:I'm listening DOMINIX
I agree *** Vote MTU For CSM ***
Non omnis moriar |
Komodo Askold
No Code of Conduct Fluffeh Bunneh Murder Squad
92
|
Posted - 2013.12.18 20:58:00 -
[549] - Quote
I'd say:
- Rupture - Typhoon
They still have very old Minmatar models, which means blocky hulls and spiky antennae. I'd like them to keep their general shape and certain nice details such as the Typhoon's double prow command bridge, but both could use some remodelling. Obviusly some more polygons and new textures on the models, but also, for example: - Little radiator wings (such as the Hurricane's). - Typhoon's auxiliary engine block could be located below/on top of it, rather than on its left side... Picture it for a moment, it could look nice. I personally can picture it as a semivertical missile ship composed of 2 large cilindrical/hexagonal-section parts. - On both of them, I wonder how a 'floating hull' could look like. Something like this (I mean: secondary plates separed from the main hull by empty space); I personally find it fitting with their armor oriented tank.
The following ones are less important for me; just throwing wild ideas into the mix...
- Dominix: I'd give it a hammerhead look on its prow. It does have those little ears and a protuding 'forehead'; what about increasing those parts' size? It would refresh its look without changing it too much. - Loki: why all T3's are 'longitudinal' ships? Aren't Minmatar fond on vertical ships? What about giving the Loki a vertical look? - Proteus: and the Proteus becoming a 'flying wing' ship?
|
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld White Mountain Coalition
710
|
Posted - 2013.12.18 22:03:00 -
[550] - Quote
Kyria Shirako wrote:There's a few Gallente ships with a particular design flaw: They look >Backwards.< They'd look good, or at least okay, if reversed. The Dominix would look fine if it was pointing the other way. To a lesser extent, this goes for the Erebus and Moros as well.
A few Gallente ships are just beyond ugly... And here I'm thinking of the space banana/mutant prostate vibrator Celestis first and foremost, then the Imicus, then the Obelisk and Catalyst.
Agreed on that point, I've pointed out earlier on in this thread that a lot of the Gallente hulls seem to look like motorbikes, which is a big turn of for me. I'm a bit sad like that, that a ship can have the best performance with the best fittings and I won't fly it because it's plug ugly. Dumbing down of Eve Online will result in it's destruction... |
|
The Zetin Sunn
1st Armored Division
9
|
Posted - 2013.12.19 00:25:00 -
[551] - Quote
#relevant.jpeg |
Alpharius Astartes
Aliastra Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2013.12.19 01:28:00 -
[552] - Quote
I agree that Dominix has a unique shape but it could use some slight modification - let's say get rid of those ugly wheels / circles on the sides (whatever the hell they are) and replace them with drone bays (like on the Algos).
Gallente ships that need remodelling: Imicus (looks like a chicken w/ a broken wing) Maulus (looks like a flying banana) Celestis (looks like a FAT flying banana) Thorax (looking good, but maybe make it sleeker and add some wings... stop the falus jokes!) Myrmidon (looking good, just get rid of the beak)
Amarr ships that need remodelling: Inquisitor (looks like a flying shoe) Tormentor (yet another banana)
I like all Caldari ships so no issues there and I don't fly Matari ships because I hate the rusty colour (maybe change it and give the solar sails a blue hue?)
What else? Oh right, stop giving us flying bananas!!!!! |
|
ISD Suvetar
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
2628
|
Posted - 2013.12.19 02:11:00 -
[553] - Quote
Personally speaking as a player, I'd like to see a unique hull for the Bhaalgorn and the Rattlesnake.
Moar bloodraider style ships plx!
KTHXBYE :) ISD Suvetar Captain/Commando Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|
Laizir
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
2
|
Posted - 2013.12.19 03:16:00 -
[554] - Quote
Arbitrator - I don't like the way the windows look on it. Would look a lot cooler with the Maller style windows.
Harbinger - Doesn't have enough windows and the wings are a tad large
|
Kiryen O'Bannon
Thrall Nation
36
|
Posted - 2013.12.19 03:58:00 -
[555] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote: Wrong. Simmetry needs a reason. Assimetry is the natural way ANY engineering project grows. If you need a device added to your project you find best place and put it there. making a second one to put on other side so it would be simmetrical is IDIOCY.
Only designers care for simmetry (and aerodynamics experts on a lesser degree).
No, that is not true. We are not talking about minor parts; we're talking about the structure/superstructure. "Natural" has nothing to do with engineering.
Small parts like machine guns or night sights on a tank won't be symmetrical, but the overall hull form of the tank will be.. because it is equally likely to need to engage targets on either side.
No one puts a second device on the other side for artistic symmetry, but only semantic pedants would point that out. Devices that need to be on both sides for full coverage (for example, point defense emplacements) will be. |
Dirk Massive
D.O.O.M.
14
|
Posted - 2013.12.19 04:21:00 -
[556] - Quote
As far as I'm concerned I don't mind any ship design in the game, well except for the Imicus. That is one butt ugly ship. |
loco coco
44
|
Posted - 2013.12.19 04:36:00 -
[557] - Quote
PLEASE remodel the Archon. The engines look so out of place and just stuck on. |
Valkin Mordirc
FRONTLiNE GRP.
0
|
Posted - 2013.12.19 05:58:00 -
[558] - Quote
Personally I would like to see the Moa resigned, keep the general theme with it, being Cal make it unsymmetrical, but mainly get ride of the 'Chicken neck' and it's 'briefcase' . If CCP wants to keep the idea of the Moa, being based of the actual creature, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moa, then honestly it's design is spot on. Even if we don't like it.
|
Erin Crawford
6
|
Posted - 2013.12.19 08:10:00 -
[559] - Quote
Almost fell out my chair when I saw this. It's spot on! |
Erin Crawford
6
|
Posted - 2013.12.19 08:18:00 -
[560] - Quote
Just have to throw this in here again... replace the Harbinger model with the beautiful Oracle model - just remove two turrents from the Oracle and add them to the Harbinger and done! Would love to see more of the Oracle flying around! |
|
Mysttina
Alpha Spectres
11
|
Posted - 2013.12.19 09:42:00 -
[561] - Quote
Even though many would argue it is an iconic ship of Eve Online...for me it would be Moa!!!
As it is currently, it looks more like an engineering/construction ship rather than a combat ship...
I am okay with the asymmetric ship design, and Caldari principle of function over looks ( Moa shape doesn't really looks functional, other than hurting its enemy with its ugliness!! ).
Sorry but Moa/Eagle/Onyx need some sexification and love! |
Iudicium Vastus
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
184
|
Posted - 2013.12.19 11:03:00 -
[562] - Quote
Imicus and Dominix. And maybe Harbinger. Thing looks like some sort of slug and/or insect.
Nerf stabs/cloaks in FW? No, just.. -Fit more points -Fit faction points -Bring a friend or two with points (an alt is fine too) |
Chance Harper
Northen Star Corporation
22
|
Posted - 2013.12.19 11:30:00 -
[563] - Quote
all the ugly ones:
Dominix Raven Golem Typhoon Bantam Imicus Navitas Tristan Vigil Slasher
Sitting at work atm, cant think of more. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
943
|
Posted - 2013.12.19 11:35:00 -
[564] - Quote
Kiryen O'Bannon wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote: Wrong. Simmetry needs a reason. Assimetry is the natural way ANY engineering project grows. If you need a device added to your project you find best place and put it there. making a second one to put on other side so it would be simmetrical is IDIOCY.
Only designers care for simmetry (and aerodynamics experts on a lesser degree).
No, that is not true. We are not talking about minor parts; we're talking about the structure/superstructure. "Natural" has nothing to do with engineering. Small parts like machine guns or night sights on a tank won't be symmetrical, but the overall hull form of the tank will be.. because it is equally likely to need to engage targets on either side. No one puts a second device on the other side for artistic symmetry, but only semantic pedants would point that out. Devices that need to be on both sides for full coverage (for example, point defense emplacements) will be. Quote:that makes sense when you build things in assembly lines and pieces are just connected and done.
Ships in eve are even larger than real live ships. And NEVER a ship is made like that. Things this size are build in ways that do not care for these properties.
You are not talking about a car with 3 meters here. You are talking about ships with half a km LONG!! Adding a new piece on other side just to make simmetrical will add THOUSANDS of tons of steel! Also internals of ships in real life are NOWHERE near simmetric therefore the pieces from left size of the ships are NOT interchangeable with the ones on right side anyway.
Makign simmetric Huge structures is LESS efficient!!
Just pay attention, military equipment around the world is basically the only place where you find assimetry. Why? BEcause military equipment cannot bother with "looking cool". They need to be efficient. The simmetry is kept up to a level for some logical reasons. A plane must have 2 equal sides to fly correctly.
But a tank have a coaxial gun on only 1 side. They have a search light on one side.
A carrier does nto have an island on each side of the runway, because 1 is enough!
Comemricial buildigns are simemtrical, because people care for it. Industrial buildings are not, because making them simmetrical would be a wastage! Buildings do not move. Objects that need to move and fight are symmetrical because it is easier to design propulsion and arrange weapons and sensor coverage that way. It doesn't matter how big ships in EVE are; there is no arbitrary size where asymmetry becomes the norm. Furthermore, no one is talking about making every tiny bit symmetrical, either in EVE or in real life. It's about the overall hull form. Remember that aircraft carrier? it's lower hull IS symmetrical to make it pass through water more easily and with less complex design. Britain had asymmetrical battleships in WWI. Some battleships had main battery turrets on the sides, and some were offset fore and aft so that they could (theoretically) fire a full broadside. It didn't work. Eventually the idea was abandoned and in-line turrets like the U.S. used became the norm. Look up the Neptune and Colossus class ships. Aysmmetry without a specific reason is ******* STUPID.
Lunar landign module was not simmetrical . Voyager ships were nto simmetrical. And they are the closest thigns as space ships for interplanetary travel we have.
"If brute force does not solve your problem..... -áthen you are -ásurely not using enough!" |
Niclas Solo
Caldari High Prime The Marmite Collective
19
|
Posted - 2013.12.19 13:11:00 -
[565] - Quote
I wish they would change back commandships
Abso is cool but harbi is not. Eos is cool but myrm is ok. Sleipner is cool but cane is not. Drake is drake... |
Khoul Ay'd
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
140
|
Posted - 2013.12.19 23:41:00 -
[566] - Quote
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:Did someone already mentioned the Dominix?
Just say'in
Exactly, don't touch it! Just Sayin' The things we do today we must live with forever.... Think about it |
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld White Mountain Coalition
714
|
Posted - 2013.12.19 23:45:00 -
[567] - Quote
Perhaps we should have a silent poll on login. Select a ship with a check box on login for redesign. Dumbing down of Eve Online will result in it's destruction... |
IbanezLaney
the church of awesome Caldari State Capturing
712
|
Posted - 2013.12.20 00:05:00 -
[568] - Quote
Hookbill.
It should be more 'Kestrelish' in its look considering kestrel is the base hull needed to swap in the LP store.
If you want to get your soul to heaven, trust in me. Now don't judge or question. You are broken now, but faith can heal you. Just do everything I tell you to do. (Opiate - Tool) |
CMD Ishikawa
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
87
|
Posted - 2013.12.29 17:08:00 -
[569] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Kiryen O'Bannon wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote: Wrong. Simmetry needs a reason. Assimetry is the natural way ANY engineering project grows. If you need a device added to your project you find best place and put it there. making a second one to put on other side so it would be simmetrical is IDIOCY.
Only designers care for simmetry (and aerodynamics experts on a lesser degree).
No, that is not true. We are not talking about minor parts; we're talking about the structure/superstructure. "Natural" has nothing to do with engineering. Small parts like machine guns or night sights on a tank won't be symmetrical, but the overall hull form of the tank will be.. because it is equally likely to need to engage targets on either side. No one puts a second device on the other side for artistic symmetry, but only semantic pedants would point that out. Devices that need to be on both sides for full coverage (for example, point defense emplacements) will be. Quote:that makes sense when you build things in assembly lines and pieces are just connected and done.
Ships in eve are even larger than real live ships. And NEVER a ship is made like that. Things this size are build in ways that do not care for these properties.
You are not talking about a car with 3 meters here. You are talking about ships with half a km LONG!! Adding a new piece on other side just to make simmetrical will add THOUSANDS of tons of steel! Also internals of ships in real life are NOWHERE near simmetric therefore the pieces from left size of the ships are NOT interchangeable with the ones on right side anyway.
Makign simmetric Huge structures is LESS efficient!!
Just pay attention, military equipment around the world is basically the only place where you find assimetry. Why? BEcause military equipment cannot bother with "looking cool". They need to be efficient. The simmetry is kept up to a level for some logical reasons. A plane must have 2 equal sides to fly correctly.
But a tank have a coaxial gun on only 1 side. They have a search light on one side.
A carrier does nto have an island on each side of the runway, because 1 is enough!
Comemricial buildigns are simemtrical, because people care for it. Industrial buildings are not, because making them simmetrical would be a wastage! Buildings do not move. Objects that need to move and fight are symmetrical because it is easier to design propulsion and arrange weapons and sensor coverage that way. It doesn't matter how big ships in EVE are; there is no arbitrary size where asymmetry becomes the norm. Furthermore, no one is talking about making every tiny bit symmetrical, either in EVE or in real life. It's about the overall hull form. Remember that aircraft carrier? it's lower hull IS symmetrical to make it pass through water more easily and with less complex design. Britain had asymmetrical battleships in WWI. Some battleships had main battery turrets on the sides, and some were offset fore and aft so that they could (theoretically) fire a full broadside. It didn't work. Eventually the idea was abandoned and in-line turrets like the U.S. used became the norm. Look up the Neptune and Colossus class ships. Aysmmetry without a specific reason is ******* STUPID. Lunar landign module was not simmetrical . Voyager ships were nto simmetrical. And they are the closest thigns as space ships for interplanetary travel we have.
One thing is having some asymmetric parts in the design of the ship like the ones that you mention and other are those horrible Gallente and Caldari things called spaceships...
Please Bunnyvirus do something about the Dominix... |
Galen Draz
Legion of Fallen Soldiers
6
|
Posted - 2013.12.29 17:29:00 -
[570] - Quote
Eos |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 .. 20 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |