Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Savira Terrant
Forsaken Identity Unchained.
53
|
Posted - 2013.09.19 12:20:00 -
[1] - Quote
Hi everyone,
I would like to know the following: How I am supposed to think of explosive damage as a seperate damage type, when in reality the effect explosions have (even if the catalyst may only be one of those) are properties of heat (thermal), shockwaves (kinetic) and radiation (EM).
I know that EVE is(n't) real, so I guess my question is rather: What fictious science within the lore of EVE seperates the explosive damage type from the 3 basic ones?
I am looking forward to your ideas! . |
Malception
Cold Moon Destruction.
131
|
Posted - 2013.09.19 13:08:00 -
[2] - Quote
Explosive vs Kinetic might be a little confusing, but the difference between explosive damage and electro-magnetic and thermal damage should be obvious, but just to be sure you and I are on the same page I'll spell it all out.
EM (electro-magnetic) is basically super microwave. At low levels it does damage to organic tissue, but as the intensity gets higher it interere with other EM fields and at really high levels can even blow electrons off of metallic structures causing the the molecular links between those structures to fail.
Thermal is heat damage just as if you were holding a match up to a hull. You get a big enough match and hull melts.
Kinetic is a club smacking the side of a hull.
Explosive damage has elements of kinetic and thermal (and potentially EM if you get large enough explosions), but is distinctly different. It's the different between shooting bullets and grenades or the difference between dropping a tungsten rod from orbit on a bunker and dropping bunker-busting ordnance on a bunker from a plane.
So the answer to your question "What fictitious science within the lore of EVE separates the explosive damage type from the 3 basic ones?" is nothing. |
Savira Terrant
Forsaken Identity Unchained.
53
|
Posted - 2013.09.19 14:30:00 -
[3] - Quote
I disagree.
Your examples merely show how or in which sequence the basic damage type is applied.
Bunker busting ordnance applies damge the same way a rod does, only with much much higher pressure.
The damage from an explosion by a grenade is applied the same way a bullet is: kinetic force applied to a relatively small body of metal plus a litte kinetic force from a shockwave. (Or only the last one, but if a material has resistance against bullets or shrapnel, it won't budge against the kinetic force of a shockwave with similar or even higher energy.)
So yeah... my question still stands. . |
Malception
Cold Moon Destruction.
132
|
Posted - 2013.09.19 15:26:00 -
[4] - Quote
Son of a motherless goat! I had a response typed out and the forum ate it. Here's the short version.
Explosive damage is an actual type of damage because the explosion, while it may or may not contain shrapnel, will transfer its energy in a shockwave that will bypass types of armor intended to stop the same weapon's shrapnel. So, while a flack jacket will will protect its wearer from a grenade's shrapnel it will not protect the wearer from the explosion's shockwave.
I think your concern is with the Explosive damage type sometimes being referred to as an Explosive energy type and they are two different things. As far as I know Kinetic, Thermic and Electro-magnetic all exist in the world of physics as types of energy, whereas an explosion is merely a combination of 2 or more of those energy types. |
Savira Terrant
Forsaken Identity Unchained.
53
|
Posted - 2013.09.19 18:03:00 -
[5] - Quote
So are you saying that a shockwave is not kinetic energy?
What I learned is that a shockwave is the fluctuation of pressure within a fluid (including gases, liquids and solid bodies) . This fluctuation is caused by the momentum from a phenomenon like an explosion. In other words it is like crashing into a wall if the momentum is high enough (kinetic energy).
Having said that, this cannot be the the explanation for explosive damage (which would be renamed kinetic damge really) since the particle density in space is extremely small to begin with and the structural integrity required to withstand this cannot be bigger than required for turning your ship around. With just 1 equivalent of an helium atom per cubic metre there is no chance to create much of a kinetic shockwave.
So what is explosive damage? . |
Telegram Sam
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
1051
|
Posted - 2013.09.19 21:08:00 -
[6] - Quote
Interesting physics discussion. Is a shockwave kinetic energy? I suppose it is. Albeit in the EVE world, the explosive round has to provide its own fluid (exploding gases) as a vehicle to carry the wave. If the explosion produced no gases, and was in the vacuum of space, what would be the medium for carrying the wave? In a vacuum, would the energy travel in some form other than a shockwave? If so, what form?
Anyway, OP, it does seem that theoretically Explosive shouldn't be a separate damage type. There could be Explosive rounds, but they would do combinations of Kinetic, Thermal and maybe EM. But looked at another way, when tanking, one might want defenses that were good at handling that mix of damages. Therefore you'd want an Explosive-resists tank. Therefore Explosive as a damage and a resists type would make sense. |
Savira Terrant
Forsaken Identity Unchained.
53
|
Posted - 2013.09.19 22:39:00 -
[7] - Quote
Mh, interesting idea. If an explosive charge brings it's own fluid, this fluid would gain momentum due to the explosion to a certain point and would not loose any energy and thus speed until it hits something. Maybe the fluid would even come in a pressurised containment which would make the momentum more volatile after being exposed to space due to decompression (actually this could be how the explosion could be started in the first place). But in this case the fluid would behave just like any other kinetic impact in space and no shockwave is achieved.
There are two problems though, one of which is the very high amount of energy (and thus mass) needed to be released. Let's say we manage to start the explosion right ontop of an armour plate, only about one quarter of the energy applied to it, will actually have an effect, one quarter will be deflected and the remaining energy will simply be blown into space from the start. Even if we assume none of it gets deflected since no weapon in EVE does, we would scrape off armor from a big surface like sandpaper. This leads us to the second problem. If we compare that to a directed kinetic impact from a bullet or missile, which is accelerated with "directed"* energy and none of it wasted we have much more kinetic momentum applied on (a small area of) the target, thus penetrating and doing actual damage. Also with those we even get the chance to do stuff like this (sorry it's German, but the gif is quite selfexplaining).
So at the moment I cannot see a fourth damage type here. And I mean if a want to resist a good mix of damage types which is an explosion, my work to do that would also benefit the resistance of all three of them individually... . |
Horatius Caul
Kitzless
264
|
Posted - 2013.09.19 23:32:00 -
[8] - Quote
Yes, explosive is also kinetic damage, but it's a differently distributed type of damage that requires different countermeasures. At the atomic level, heat and electro-magnetic radiation are also kinetically-transferred.
Kinetic damage is like someone stabbing your ship. Explosive damage is like someone hitting your ship with a sledgehammer. The former will pierce, the latter will crush. Kinetic will poke holes in your armor, while explosive will smash it until it dislodges. Amarrad - Amarr language project |
Eija-Riitta Veitonen
Unicorn Enterprise
120
|
Posted - 2013.09.20 04:39:00 -
[9] - Quote
There was a discussion about this particular issue a while ago from the post linked till the end of the thread. Quite a read tbh.
In the end, i believe, it all boled down to kinetic rounds being something of a direct-impact or graviton burst kinetic payload and explosive is the good ol' shockwave or shaped charge type. Think AP vs HE rounds and variants. And physically the damage types do differ a lot, as well as the measures to counter that. In the end, it's not about how but rather about what effects are caused by the damage dealt.
edit: also what the directly above poster said ^^ |
Veikitamo Gesakaarin
Pyre Falcon Defence and Security Pyre Falcon Defence Combine
730
|
Posted - 2013.09.20 05:25:00 -
[10] - Quote
Savira Terrant wrote: So what is explosive damage?
Some kind of Minmatar space magic.
|
|
Stitcher
Re-Awakened Technologies Inc
2361
|
Posted - 2013.09.20 14:05:00 -
[11] - Quote
An explosion is defined as being a rapid violent expansion. So if you want the technical difference between kinetic and explosive damage in EVE, I guess the former would be implosive, compressing and crushing and pulverising, whereas the latter is explosive - tearing and ripping and shattering. An in-character blog and a video: http://verinsjournal.blogspot.com http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tu1mbsgo738
|
Kel hound
Lycosa Syndicate Surely You're Joking
50
|
Posted - 2013.09.20 14:27:00 -
[12] - Quote
my headcanon has more or less always been as follows
EM damage is electromagnetic damage, this would include damage from streams of photons, electrical discharge and/or magnetic forces.
Thermal damage is any damage caused by thermal radiation, or more simply, heat.
Kinetic damage is anything designed to penetrate, such as kinetic kill craft or shaped charges using the munroe effect.
Explosive damage is anything designed to cause concussive force and/or spread shrapnel, but is not strictly designed to penetrate.
So for example while a nuke being detonated within <500m will produce a large amount of thermal damage the primary source of power comes from the impulse shock and spalling of the ships armor and hull. ( source: Atomic rocket ) |
Vince Mctavern
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2013.09.20 15:15:00 -
[13] - Quote
Due to the lowest resistance of most default armour tanks being Explosive, I tend to associate EVE Explosive damage with real-world armour-piercing rounds. But then surely Kinetic would be more akin to armour-piercing since it's the primary damage component of railguns? Taking the real-world example of shaped-charge warheads, surely even thermal (when applied to missiles) should be better at penetrating solid armour plating?
But then again is the armour on our ships simply solid plates, or is it layered with ablative or reactive components too?
I gave up thinking about it when I realised game balance was at play. |
Constantin Baracca
102
|
Posted - 2013.09.20 22:15:00 -
[14] - Quote
Given what I've read here and know from the real world, I would assume the following:
Kinetic damage refers to damage done directly by mass against mass. Whether that is a bullet or a train is not relevant.
Explosions (since there is no oxygen to create a traditional explosion in space) would function much like an exploding star. While there is radiation and heat involved, it's much less about directed pressure (kinetic) and more about applied pressure changes.
Think of a thermonuclear explosion. There is definitely heat, light, and stuff flying around. The primary damage is created because the bomb is airburst, or detonated far above ground. This creates an area of high pressure versus an area of low pressure. The result is that everything in the area is suddenly pulled towards, then violently blow away, from the center of the explosion.
In ship terms, imagine that kinetic weapons tend to punch holes in the ship while an explosive weapon is trying to blow the ship into pieces. It isn't as much a directed weapon as it is trying to damage the integrity of the ship. Ship design would have to be different to defend against both of these. Armor meant to defend against kinetic attacks would need armor that didn't have holes punched into it. Armor meant to defend against explosions would need to be reinforced so that it wasn't removed from the ship or twisted into uselessness. "What good will it be for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul?"
-Matthew 16:26 |
Silas Vitalia
Nobilita Nera JIHADASQUAD
1047
|
Posted - 2013.09.20 22:32:00 -
[15] - Quote
I believe explosive damage only refers to Taco Bell ordinance after being loaded into your fuel bay.
Couldn't resist. This is a good discussion though :)
Sabik now, Sabik forever |
Savira Terrant
Forsaken Identity Unchained.
53
|
Posted - 2013.09.20 22:45:00 -
[16] - Quote
What the hell is taco bell? :P
I would like to say, that I like this forum section, nice to have a good discussion!
I am still catching up with the other thread and also found this. I still have to put my thoughts together and find out more about some science stuff mentioned in the other thread (thanks for the link Ms. Veitonen!). So I'll be back when I have more time! . |
Kel hound
Lycosa Syndicate Surely You're Joking
50
|
Posted - 2013.09.21 08:02:00 -
[17] - Quote
Vince Mctavern wrote:Due to the lowest resistance of most default armour tanks being Explosive, I tend to associate EVE Explosive damage with real-world armour-piercing rounds. But then surely Kinetic would be more akin to armour-piercing since it's the primary damage component of railguns? Taking the real-world example of shaped-charge warheads, surely even thermal (when applied to missiles) should be better at penetrating solid armour plating?
But then again is the armour on our ships simply solid plates, or is it layered with ablative or reactive components too?
I gave up thinking about it when I realised game balance was at play.
from a physics standpoint there is no difference between kinetic damage an explosive damage. From a ship/armor design standpoint though there is a world of difference.
Kinetic damage would be munitions and attacks designed to penetrate while explosive would be things designed to rend and tear.
Railguns and blasters would do kinetic and thermal damage as the charge or particles (depending on if its a railgun or a blaster) because the round is designed to penetrate into the ships hull, but does not do much damage apart from those "small" holes. The thermal component would come from the round turning into plasma as it impacts something, be that shield, armor, or the ships hull.
explosive damage would come from the round exploding on contact rather than penetration - such a round would cause good collateral damage to physical objects but impacting an energy barrier there wouldn't be much for the explosive force to damage. IRL when an explosive charge damages a vehicle like a tank much of the damage comes from spalling which could not occur with an energy barrier. Thermal damage or thermal radiation might warp the armor but like EM radiation most steels and other armor materials tend to be good at absorbing such forms of radiation.
As for what our ship armor consists of I imagine that hardeners and membranes each consist of some sort of armor layering easily repaired by the nanobots armor repair modules utilise. Explosive hardeners would probably be some kind of spaced armoring while kinetic hardeners would likely be some sort of advanced ceramic layering. |
Tavin Aikisen
Revenent Defence Corperation Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
209
|
Posted - 2013.09.22 11:48:00 -
[18] - Quote
Kel hound wrote:my headcanon has more or less always been as follows
EM damage is electromagnetic damage, this would include damage from streams of photons, electrical discharge and/or magnetic forces.
Thermal damage is any damage caused by thermal radiation, or more simply, heat.
Kinetic damage is anything designed to penetrate, such as kinetic kill craft or shaped charges using the munroe effect.
Explosive damage is anything designed to cause concussive force and/or spread shrapnel, but is not strictly designed to penetrate.
This coupled with the fact that weapons do ALL damage types, but specialise in one.
Otherwise our EM missiles would never do any damage after shields have dropped. Remember this. Trust your eyes, you will kill each other. Trust your veins, you can all go home. -Cold Wind |
Savira Terrant
Forsaken Identity Unchained.
53
|
Posted - 2013.09.23 19:04:00 -
[19] - Quote
I cannot seem to be able to wrap my head around what impulse shock exactly is (and why it works in space) . |
Katrina Oniseki
Revenent Defence Corperation Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
2086
|
Posted - 2013.09.23 19:32:00 -
[20] - Quote
Explosions do not work in space, is the simple answer. While EVE has never been known for accurate depictions of space, this is certainly one of them.
Explosion damage is likely caused by penetrating shells that pierce past the armor and explode inside the ship where there is an atmosphere to carry the explosive force. Exploding outside the armor will merely dent the armor, if anything at all, since there is no resistance against the explosion in a vacuum. It's just like real world shells that are far more effective when they explode inside the tank, rather than on the outside armor.
Kinetic weapons are actually one of the better options for space combat, alongside EM. Basic kinetic penetrators and slugs can seriously alter the trajectory and rotation of an object in space (along with causing damage). We're talking basic bullets and cannonballs and other big fat dumb hunks of metal that use the sheer force of their collision to do the work. This of course only works under Newtonian (real world) physics, which EVE doesn't use at all. How kinetic weapons in EVE are useful, I've no idea, since shooting a ship doesn't move it at all. The closest example of how kinetic weapons would/should really work in EVE is miner bumping. That's a real kinetic weapon. It MOVES the enemy ship, though it should also do damage.
Thermal weapons in space are a bit of a controversial issue, since some people think you can't get rid of heat in space and others think it's much easier to in space than in an atmosphere. What you should take away is that a realistic thermal weapon won't be using impressive fireballs or explosions or the like. It will be a weapon that efficiently and quickly raises the temperature of the enemy ship to its ductile or melting point and beyond. The basic idea here is melting the enemy into a blob of molten slag. Thermal damage. Pretty simple stuff.
EM damage actually covers a wide range of damage types. EM means Electro-Magnetic. That means the whole spectrum (as seen with laser crystal choices), from Gamma to Radio. Generally speaking, EM weapons would be pretty useless as an anti-ship device unless you're using extremely high wattage lasers. Even then, they'd be fairly inefficient I think compared to other options to deal damage (like kinetic weapons). Your best use for EM weapons would be as anti-personnel devices against unshielded ships. When I say unshielded, I mean EM-shielded... I don't mean fictional energy shields. I mean thick lead walls to stop those gamma beams from frying every crew member inside your ship and giving any survivors fatal radiation poisoning.
EMP would also be an option, but I suspect that technology in new eden has progressed passed the point of electronics. EMP and such interference would be common threats in a universe where small nuclear weapons are commonplace, and a few nova rockets would render all our ships completely disabled if we still rely on copper wiring and printed electronic circuits on our ships. More likely, we're using some more advanced form of technology like optronics (light based circuits) or fictional Star-Trek plasma circuits. Ch+½j+ì Katrina Oniseki ~ (RDC) Chief Operations Officer ~ [I-RED] Sub-Director of Public Relations |
|
Kel hound
Lycosa Syndicate Surely You're Joking
51
|
Posted - 2013.09.23 23:59:00 -
[21] - Quote
Savira Terrant wrote:I cannot seem to be able to wrap my head around what impulse shock exactly is (and why it works in space)
taken from Atomic Rocket conventional weapons.
Quote:First, consider a uniform slab of material subject to uniform irradiation sufficient to cause an impulsive shock. A thin layer will be vaporized and a planar shock will propagate into the material. Assuming that the shock is not too intense (i.e., not enough heat is dumped into the slab to vaporize or melt it) there will be no material damage because of the planar symmetry. However, as the shock reaches the back side of the slab, it will be reflected. This will set up stresses on the rear surface, which tends to cause pieces of the rear surface to break off and fly away at velocities close to the shock wave velocity (somewhat reduced, of course, due to the binding energy of all those chemical bonds you need to break in order to spall off that piece). This spallation can cause significant problems to objects that don't have anything separating them from the hull. Modern combat vehicles take pains to protect against spallation for just this reason (using an inner layer of Kevlar or some such).
Now, if the material or irradiance is non-uniform, there will be stresses set up inside the hull material. If these exceed the strength of the material, the hull will deform or crack. This can cause crumpling, rupturing, denting (really big dents), or shattering depending on the material and the shock intensity.
Imagine a hypothetical spaceship is subjected to a hit, or near hit by a nuclear missile. Basically, if the atomic explosion is not close enough, or powerful enough, to instantly vaporise our imagined ship hull you should see some interesting things. First, a thin layer is vaporised from the hull. If you've ever watch footage from nuclear tests then you should be familiar with -this image-. On our spaceship this initial damage should be superficial, but intense enough to cause a shock wave to propagate through our armor and hull. Because our ships armor and hull is not perfectly uniform this creates stresses throughout the material. When the shockwave hits the back of the armor these stresses can cause fragments to break off at roughly the same speed as the shock wave is traveling through the hull - this is known as spallation. This effect can happen as many times as the shockwave still has energy - which will be dependant on how much energy was imparted to the ships hull by our impact or near impact from the atomic device.
Again, I feel the trick to understanding the 4 damage "types" is not to analyse their physics but rather their effect on our hypothetical ship. While this nuclear device is giving off electromagnetic and thermal radiation, the -way- in which it is affecting our ships hull determines the damage type. |
Savira Terrant
Forsaken Identity Unchained.
53
|
Posted - 2013.09.24 23:31:00 -
[22] - Quote
Well, a tradional shockwave would apply damage by putting strain (thus deformation) on the structure as a whole by resulting in internal elastic stress. IF the deformation (read kinetic impulse on a given point) is big enough spallation will occur on the backside of the fluid at the point of impact.
That being said, if the explosion takes place right on top of a ships hull (basicly while touching it), I can understand that the resulting pressure changes within the material can cause spallation. Btw. the effect would be no different then that of a bullet defeating the plate or not, thus however I reduce spalation effects on my armor, it will be protected to kinetic and "explosive" damage types in the regard of "how it is applied". Same with hydrodynamic flow, which is in part caused by supersonic shockwaves. Likewise with the vaporization, which occurs due to heat and EM waves.
On the site you linked, they were talking about how this effect is even possible with a detonation in empty space, of up to a kilometer away from the ship (although resulting in lower energy at impact due to the inverse square law). My point is: Where does impulse shock come from (which would supposedly be the effect that causes damage akin to a traditional atmospheric shockwave)? Because if there is no fluid to pass on an impulse, than the energy released would not be able to dissipate with kinetic impulse so will as EM waves instead.
Well, I can see a difference of the "how it's applied" for EM and heat damage: heat could be induced by EM, but also a chemical exothermic reaction with a oxidsubstrate, thus not depending on an atmosphere.
So how can I understand what impulsive shock is? . |
Veikitamo Gesakaarin
Pyre Falcon Defence and Security Pyre Falcon Defence Combine
765
|
Posted - 2013.09.25 00:56:00 -
[23] - Quote
The different damage types could also just be an abstraction since we don't know the exact composition of the materials used for armor, the technology behind shields, or the design of the weaponry used to defeat them. However if it's assumed that the defensive technology in Eve is at such a level that it makes, "One shot, one kill" penetrations practically impossible then the spaceship weaponry is designed to continuously apply damage to another ship until it either its shield or armor reaches points of significant failure.
Taken just for armor, the materiel science behind it might be so advanced that its extremely difficult to penetrate. The different damage types describe in an abstract form how different weapons systems interact and seek to induce either stress, failure, or continued ablation to that armor.
A laser seeks to ablate the armor off the hull by applying direct energy to the material. A blaster seeks to ablate the armor off the hull by its initial impact and heat from its plasma A railgun seeks to ablate the armor by its initial impact and the creation of heat from kinetic energy An explosive round seeks to ablate the armor by causing deformation, stress and shock in the materiel
The em/thermal/kinetic/explosive damage types might just be the shorthand of saying, "The majority of armor materials in Eve spaceships are more susceptible to being ablated off the hull by continued deformation, stress and shock than by directed energy." That, or they're not intended be taken at face value, but as said, the abstraction for different material/weapon interactions which saves the servers from having to make complicated physics calculations everytime the F1 key is pushed.
Even the different projectile rounds which do explosive damage only have it as a component. This probably describes the different effects, in an abstract form, of what the round actually does and how it is designed. A Fusion round does kinetic damage as a function of its initial impact and then explosive as a form of concussive/shock effect against the armor plate designed to cause local area buckling, deformation and stress. A Phased Plasma round does kinetic damage as a function of its initial impact, but then only thermal (no explosive) as the plasma is released against the hull plate.
This abstraction of damage types might also be why explosive damage is less effective against shields. Because it's describing the effects of specific types of rounds designed to transfer concussive effects which are highly effective against dense materials like armor plating, but less so against whatever sort of energy/particle field shields are made out of.
That's about the best I can offer beyond, "Minmatar space magic" because without having the specifics of the warhead design or the materials used for armor in Eve I would say it's impossible to describe the exact mechanisms or effects involved beyond the abstract system given in the game. |
Kel hound
Lycosa Syndicate Surely You're Joking
51
|
Posted - 2013.09.25 01:07:00 -
[24] - Quote
Savira Terrant wrote:... On the site you linked, they were talking about how this effect is even possible with a detonation in empty space, of up to a kilometer away from the ship (although resulting in lower energy at impact due to the inverse square law). My point is: Where does impulse shock come from (which would supposedly be the effect that causes damage akin to a traditional atmospheric shockwave)? Because if there is no fluid to pass on an impulse, than the energy released would not be able to dissipate with kinetic impulse so will as EM waves instead.
...
So how can I understand what impulsive shock is?
The impulse shock is caused (as far as I can tell) by a rapid, almost instantaneous change in temperature on the ships hull and/or armor. In essence, the radiated thermal energy from the bomb is transmuted into raw kinetic energy as it comes into contact with the metallic hull as dictated by inverse square law. No medium is necessary.
|
Isis Dea
Combat Cruise Control
106
|
Posted - 2013.09.25 06:04:00 -
[25] - Quote
EM = EM (present day concept) Explosive = HEAT (present day concept) Kinetic = Sabot (present day concept) Thermal = Incendiary (present day concept)
Think similar fundamentals as per type of weapon being used within EVE and you won't be far off.
Example A: Kinetic missile discards sabot tails and drives a silver needle into the hull of the target.
Example B: Thermal missile slams into hull, proceeding to eat into it (much like a plasma conceptual warhead in typical sci-fi).
Be wild in imagination, no weapon/ammo maker makes everything the same, and we simply translate the post effects of the ammo into one of the four types of damage. You can also use the descriptions of the ammo to help with your imagination.
"Missing constantly? Maybe where you bought your ammo is to blame..." |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |