EVE Search - why are guns so small?

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

why are guns so small?

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Nimie	Posted - 2006.03.11 01:42:00 - [1] i mean, a battle ship is like 100m kg and 1m m3 and large guns are like 750kg and 20 m3. even if you have 20 guns, they'll only take .015 percent mass and .04 percent volume compared to a bs.
Bhuknar Hhallas	Posted - 2006.03.11 01:45:00 - [2] Originally by: Nimie i mean, a battle ship is like 100m kg and 1m m3 and large guns are like 750kg and 20 m3. even if you have 20 guns, they'll only take .015 percent mass and .04 percent volume compared to a bs. Agreed. For a game meant to portray such a large universe. I find it odd that you still can't get a sense of skill with the ships. Maybe CCP should look at Homeworld.
Dark Shikari	Posted - 2006.03.11 01:45:00 - [3] Originally by: Nimie i mean, a battle ship is like 100m kg and 1m m3 and large guns are like 750kg and 20 m3. even if you have 20 guns, they'll only take .015 percent mass and .04 percent volume compared to a bs. Not much different from a real battleship then, eh? [23] Member: Official Forum Warrior What's with the blue robots? Click my sig.
Bhuknar Hhallas	Posted - 2006.03.11 01:46:00 - [4] Originally by: Dark Shikari Originally by: Nimie i mean, a battle ship is like 100m kg and 1m m3 and large guns are like 750kg and 20 m3. even if you have 20 guns, they'll only take .015 percent mass and .04 percent volume compared to a bs. Not much different from a real battleship then, eh? Actually no. Guns on battleships during WW2 were up to a third of the ships size.
Dark Shikari	Posted - 2006.03.11 01:51:00 - [5] Originally by: Bhuknar Hhallas Edited by: Bhuknar Hhallas on 11/03/2006 01:48:48 Originally by: Dark Shikari Originally by: Nimie i mean, a battle ship is like 100m kg and 1m m3 and large guns are like 750kg and 20 m3. even if you have 20 guns, they'll only take .015 percent mass and .04 percent volume compared to a bs. Not much different from a real battleship then, eh? Actually no. Guns on battleships during WW2 were up to a third of the ships size. To put it in perspective the guns on the battleships of EVE, look like 9MM Glocks placed around the hull. A third of the ship's size? Not really. P.S. The largest battleship gun in EVE is the 1400mm artillery piece. That's hardly a meter wide. A battleship in EVE is over 1km long. [23] Member: Official Forum Warrior What's with the blue robots? Click my sig.
Bhuknar Hhallas	Posted - 2006.03.11 01:53:00 - [6] Originally by: Dark Shikari Originally by: Bhuknar Hhallas Edited by: Bhuknar Hhallas on 11/03/2006 01:48:48 Originally by: Dark Shikari Originally by: Nimie i mean, a battle ship is like 100m kg and 1m m3 and large guns are like 750kg and 20 m3. even if you have 20 guns, they'll only take .015 percent mass and .04 percent volume compared to a bs. Not much different from a real battleship then, eh? Actually no. Guns on battleships during WW2 were up to a third of the ships size. To put it in perspective the guns on the battleships of EVE, look like 9MM Glocks placed around the hull. A third of the ship's size? Not really. P.S. The largest battleship gun in EVE is the 1400mm artillery piece. That's hardly a meter wide. A battleship in EVE is over 1km long. I said UP too. Look at the proposed design that the Japanese and Germans were hoping to put into the war.
j0sephine	Posted - 2006.03.11 02:01:00 - [7] Edited by: j0sephine on 11/03/2006 02:01:12 "P.S. The largest battleship gun in EVE is the 1400mm artillery piece. That's hardly a meter wide. A battleship in EVE is over 1km long." Well, running quick Google search -- the world war II battleship guns were typically ~381-406 mm artilleries. That on ships up to ~250 m in length. So, you could resonably expect at least the 1400 mm turrets to be quite a bit bigger than they're now, relatively to the EVE ship sizes. (these turrets were reported to weight "125 tons each turret weights , 650 tons complete" so also quite a bit more) Besides it's not about schmechnicalities, but about looking cool. Dreadnaughts and their huge guns look awesome. WW2 battleships with their guns are like them, too. Regular cruisers and battleships in EVE.... meh. Pea shooters :/
Alexis DeTocqueville	Posted - 2006.03.11 02:08:00 - [8] Battleship guns look huge to me...fly up to one in a frigate sometime.
Diana Merris	Posted - 2006.03.11 02:18:00 - [9] Edited by: Diana Merris on 11/03/2006 02:20:52 Battleship guns were massive. US 16 inch guns Turret weight was 1700 tons for a 3 gun turret. Each gun was ~1% of the ships mass. On a 100 million kg EVE battleship that would be 1,000,000 kg each.
j0sephine	Posted - 2006.03.11 02:20:00 - [10] Edited by: j0sephine on 11/03/2006 02:19:59 "Battleship guns look huge to me...fly up to one in a frigate sometime." They are pretty big, yes (about 20-30 m i.e. half the size of typical frigate) ... but given the gun calibre increase, it wouldn't be that unreasonable to expect them to be half the size of say, Vexor or similar low end cruiser ^^; in similar manner the main cruiser guns could also use bit of size increase -- EVE cruisers are the size of WW2 battleships, and cruiser guns fall somewhere in the middle between main and secondary WW2 battleship turrets o.O;
Dark Shikari	Posted - 2006.03.11 02:21:00 - [11] The weight on EVE items is generally wrong. Along with the volume. On the other hand, bigger guns could not hurt. What the heck is wrong with bigger? [23] Member: Official Forum Warrior What's with the blue robots? Click my sig.
j0sephine	Posted - 2006.03.11 02:23:00 - [12] Bigger is better :s (well, except when it's damsel in distress. Poor girl got enough mocking while she was weighting 200 kg...
Nikolai Nuvolari	Posted - 2006.03.11 02:43:00 - [13] Definitely need bigger guns on the regular ships. And the Dreadnaughts should have even bigger guns then they already have...they're BASICALLY mobile artillery pieces, like the Paris Gun. -------- Tom Thumb > for a nut case you rawk [04:21:15] Mebrithiel Ju'wien > Nik's bio 4tw btw [07:38:53] Graelyn > Nikolai for Dev 108!
Frezik	Posted - 2006.03.11 02:43:00 - [14] In terms of game mechanics, the small weight of guns compared to real-world guns is dictated by a need to keep the ship's fitted stats within a usable range. OTOH, one can look at another set of stats and wonder at how big the guns are: 1400mm: Volkswagen 2500mm: semi trailer (but it's 6x2500mm, so 6 semi trailers) 3500mm: small house (it's a quad, so 4 small houses) The kinetic energy alone is good enough reason to keep us from getting too close to inhabited planets. ---- "Well in this case, he's being flamed, and rightly so, for whinning about a game mechanic that doesn't actually exist." -Lorth
FluffySquirrel	Posted - 2006.03.11 02:53:00 - [15] Never mind the real world physics... it -would- be a lot cooler looking if the guns were bigger.. .. reason enough for me ^^ Fluffy cause sometimes everyone needs a fluffy squirrel to cuddle...
AvanCade	Posted - 2006.03.11 02:59:00 - [16] Who cares about size, i just love the 1400mm tech 2 dmg output...
j0sephine	Posted - 2006.03.11 03:01:00 - [17] Edited by: j0sephine on 11/03/2006 03:04:40 Hee, it's only slightly related, but cool enough to be linked here... ever wondered how large these 800 mm autocannon shells are -.o
Morgana Janan	Posted - 2006.03.11 03:07:00 - [18] Well, something to remember: those small 125mm railguns on your Incursus are the same size as the cannons on an M1A1 main battle tank. A 150mm cannon is considered heavy artillery in ground warfare on Earth. So don't be too quick to bash the sizes. You're firing off tank cannons at people.
Nikolai Nuvolari	Posted - 2006.03.11 03:14:00 - [19] Originally by: j0sephine Hee, it's only slightly related, but cool enough to be linked here... ever wondered how large these 800 mm autocannon shells are -.o Is that the Imperial War Museum? It looks quite familiar. Originally by: Morgana Janan Well, something to remember: those small 125mm railguns on your Incursus are the same size as the cannons on an M1A1 main battle tank. A 150mm cannon is considered heavy artillery in ground warfare on Earth. So don't be too quick to bash the sizes. You're firing off tank cannons at people. The real complaint isn't the size of the guns, it's how big they LOOK on the ships. -------- Tom Thumb > for a nut case you rawk [04:21:15] Mebrithiel Ju'wien > Nik's bio 4tw btw [07:38:53] Graelyn > Nikolai for Dev 108!
Viktor Fyretracker	Posted - 2006.03.11 03:26:00 - [20] i kinda have to agree here, i did a look at on a Battleship once and wasnt impressed by the guns. i mean when an Iowa Class sailed into a harbor you knew it ment business, you could clearly see its 16in guns even for how massive the ship was.
Alexis DeTocqueville	Posted - 2006.03.11 03:34:00 - [21] Originally by: j0sephine in similar manner the main cruiser guns could also use bit of size increase -- EVE cruisers are the size of WW2 battleships, and cruiser guns fall somewhere in the middle between main and secondary WW2 battleship turrets o.O; Apples and Oranges. You're comparing a spaceship's tonnage to a watercraft?
Pepperami	Posted - 2006.03.11 03:37:00 - [22] Large guns? I'm still upset CCP nerfed this [Art of War][- V -]
Nikolai Nuvolari	Posted - 2006.03.11 03:38:00 - [23] Edited by: Nikolai Nuvolari on 11/03/2006 03:39:01 Originally by: Pepperami Large guns? I'm still upset CCP nerfed this LMAO I remember that, it was GREAT! Gotta love the Volkwagen Launchers. -------- Tom Thumb > for a nut case you rawk [04:21:15] Mebrithiel Ju'wien > Nik's bio 4tw btw [07:38:53] Graelyn > Nikolai for Dev 108!
Zavernus Hamarabi	Posted - 2006.03.11 04:29:00 - [24] http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7_Missouri_projectiles_flight.jpg ^^^ What the firing graphics should be like in eve Furthermore, /signed for MUCH larger looking guns in eve ... And honest to god missile launchers
j0sephine	Posted - 2006.03.11 04:30:00 - [25] "Apples and Oranges. You're comparing a spaceship's tonnage to a watercraft?" Not tonnage, physical size. Cute miniaturization aside, a weapon with calibre greater than what we already have is naturally expected to be to similar extent bigger. Something like this, i guess. (well if nothing else makes it easier to tell what weapons they have equipped... :s
Frezik	Posted - 2006.03.11 04:58:00 - [26] Originally by: Morgana Janan Well, something to remember: those small 125mm railguns on your Incursus are the same size as the cannons on an M1A1 main battle tank. A 150mm cannon is considered heavy artillery in ground warfare on Earth. So don't be too quick to bash the sizes. You're firing off tank cannons at people. Railguns are a different class altogether. They can get much higher muzzle velocities with a smaller caliber shot (notice that in Eve, rails have a smaller caliber for the same class compared to projectiles). So that 125mm rail is actually quite a bit nastier than the 150mm cannon on the M1A1. ---- "Well in this case, he's being flamed, and rightly so, for whinning about a game mechanic that doesn't actually exist." -Lorth
Sarafi	Posted - 2006.03.11 05:07:00 - [27] I want missle turrets.
Lilith Kara	Posted - 2006.03.11 05:17:00 - [28] Everything depends on what the shell is supposed to do. The reasons for using big 16" guns on naval ships may be immaterial in space where you can cause massive depressurization with a 50 caliber round, and where the vacuum of space will intensify the effect of a shell exploding in a pressurized hull. Also, when you factor in railguns, which count on velocity to pack the punch, again, the size of the round is a lesser concern. I think it's folly to assume that space combat will require the same armaments as modern naval combat does.
Torze	Posted - 2006.03.11 05:18:00 - [29] I'm confused about the argument of weight. In space, there is no weight, only mass. Weight is the gravitational measurement of mass.
Kedammre	Posted - 2006.03.11 05:31:00 - [30] I'm confused as to why somebody with (apparently) a basic understanding of the terms: mass and weight, is confused by others using those same words in each others' places. I'll start by saying I'm pretty sure it was a technical decision, several reasons - weapon models were serious hardware drains at launch and still are now, so having large ones meant compromising the look of ships when they're turned off. Interoperability between models and hardpoints would be another, what happens to the massive space left for a gun when the slot is unused or has a drone control thing in it? Ships lose individuality as identical gun models dominate their silhouettes. etc. That aside though, I've always wanted the weapon models to be more extreme and at least look like they were taking more advantage of the load bearing frame a BS gave. After all, battleships exist to position their heavy guns, so why does a Mega need to be hundreds if not thousands of times the volume and mass of all its weapon systems put together? Been meaing to photoshop a few ships with big guns as a proof of concept, might have to get on with that. ___________ -Ked
Rutoo	Posted - 2006.03.11 05:34:00 - [31] I'm sorry, i've been playing game since beta, and have 1 question Who the Hell Cares? ________________________________ Club Seals, Not Sandwichs
Kedammre	Posted - 2006.03.11 05:55:00 - [32] Well I count a fair few before you posted, and one more after you posted. Thanks for caring, threads need that sort of input. ___________ -Ked
Mack Deluxe	Posted - 2006.03.11 06:00:00 - [33] Apparently someone cares... As to the actual question, you're not taking velocity into account either. According to this, the muzzle velocity on an Abrams gun is 1676m/sec with an effective range of 3 to 4km. Last time I checked, the velocity on an artillery weapon in eve was infinitely faster with much better range... I know the difference between right and wrong... I just don't care.
Syn Fatelyng	Posted - 2006.03.11 06:02:00 - [34] Im happy as long as the Hybrid shells ar spitting and the missles are flying. BBut hey what if the gun graphic were bigger? "Oh thats what Sentry Guns do"
Nikolai Nuvolari	Posted - 2006.03.11 06:05:00 - [35] The thing is, our projectiles apparently have infinite velocity, so by the standard kinetic energy formula KE=m*v^2, each projectile should have infinite energy, which should probably be enough to annhilate the universe -------- Tom Thumb > for a nut case you rawk [04:21:15] Mebrithiel Ju'wien > Nik's bio 4tw btw [07:38:53] Graelyn > Nikolai for Dev 108!
Arkanor	Posted - 2006.03.11 06:11:00 - [36] Edited by: Arkanor on 11/03/2006 06:15:12 Originally by: Morgana Janan Well, something to remember: those small 125mm railguns on your Incursus are the same size as the cannons on an M1A1 main battle tank. A 150mm cannon is considered heavy artillery in ground warfare on Earth. So don't be too quick to bash the sizes. You're firing off tank cannons at people. Let's not forget here that a battleship is the size of a small city, it needs bigger guns than tank cannons :P Oh and our projectiles do not have infinite velocity, they are limited by lag and on average take 50-200ms to travel anywhere from 0-200km. On a good day.
Sonos SAGD	Posted - 2006.03.11 06:15:00 - [37] Just fit your large gun to your rookie ship and you will see the scale ----------------------------------------------- I refuse to show you my real signature unless you give me isk
Uncauzi	Posted - 2006.03.11 07:46:00 - [38] I could care less about realism, most guns look far too small and pathetic on these enormous ships. That pic of the Megathron with the huge turrets is what I was hoping to see.
Livia Tarquina	Posted - 2006.03.11 08:00:00 - [39] Or are the ships too big? From what I've seen if the guns "looked" big, they'd be out of proportion with the ship. The ship makes the guns looks small when if you were in a spacesuit floating next to them they'd be huge. "Big guns and heavy armor what else is there?" --Amarrian Admiral before entering battle against Jove Navy
spRAYed	Posted - 2006.03.11 08:02:00 - [40] Edited by: spRAYed on 11/03/2006 08:02:19 Its because you'r all fitting the wrong guns on your ships. Here , thats my tech II Reaper. Aint that pimpin? Ray. ----------------------------------------- WE PWN NEWBS Chucky Chan? Bruce Norris?
SHINJI AKARI	Posted - 2006.03.11 08:15:00 - [41] Its not the size of the boat, its the motion in the ocean. kekeke
Gierling	Posted - 2006.03.11 08:57:00 - [42] I actually sat down and did the math and figured out that the Cannons on the Iowas have better tracking then any BS gun in EVE by far. PRoposal to fix blobbing and make Charisma useful.
Balazs Simon	Posted - 2006.03.11 10:41:00 - [43] Originally by: Gierling I actually sat down and did the math and figured out that the Cannons on the Iowas have better tracking then any BS gun in EVE by far. I think you confuse tracking and accuracy... Yep in a windless day the iowa's cannons could hit nearly anything with the good calculations. Those guns are accurate if the bullets trajectory is well calculated. BUT if something is moveing, and you don't have time for long calculations... whol different story Following a moveing target is Tracking... Get the date how much time the Iowa's guns needed to turn 180 degrees, than you can calculate it's horizontal tracking speed. BTW Actualy I like the idead of bigger gun models.. just scale them x2 and we would be ok.. - POST WITH YOUR MAIN! This post is my personal opinion. It does not represent the standpoint of the HUN Corporation in any way. -
Ariadne	Posted - 2006.03.11 11:12:00 - [44] /signed, please rework the guns. Theyre too small and some of them look really bad, like most of the large lasers. Alot of the new tech2 guns looks pretty good compared to the tech 1 version tho. Also the siege weapons look pretty good. But the large weapons could really do a workover. "This means V+R."
Boonaki	Posted - 2006.03.11 11:24:00 - [45] Mount capital guns on frigate when docked if you wanna see something really funny. Can't undock with them on, but it's a trip. Fear the Ibis of doom.
Zac Paris	Posted - 2006.03.11 11:27:00 - [46] The guns on a star destroyer, omega class destroyer, or the Enterprise-E don't look so big. But then again, their technology was a bit more advanced than firing projectiles.
Sensor Error	Posted - 2006.03.11 11:30:00 - [47] Originally by: Torze I'm confused about the argument of weight. In space, there is no weight, only mass. Weight is the gravitational measurement of mass. people who don't have a scientific background use the two interchangeably. Kind of like how people use power and energy interchangeable... although related, completely different. ------------------------------------------ Now run along and play with your dolls...
Kasak Black	Posted - 2006.03.11 11:49:00 - [48] LASERS 4TW
MissileRus	Posted - 2006.03.11 12:00:00 - [49] Edited by: MissileRus on 11/03/2006 12:04:40 agree that gun models on battleships needs to get bigger well maybe they dont "need" to but it would be nicer and more accurate.. --------------------------- 4. i like pizza
Lisa Run	Posted - 2006.03.11 12:49:00 - [50] Edited by: Lisa Run on 11/03/2006 12:51:30 Originally by: Nikolai Nuvolari The thing is, our projectiles apparently have infinite velocity, so by the standard kinetic energy formula KE=mv^2, each projectile should have infinite energy, which should probably be enough to annhilate the universe The universe is broken anyway, since a projectile in the real universe can't reach lightspeed or more. ( Just as a remark, KE=mv^2 can't be used for ultra high speed, you have to use the relativistic formula. But you're right. A projectile with light speed means infinite energy on impact. But also infinite energy to accelerate it, especially more than the whole universe contains. ) edit typo, infinite enemies ...
Gonada	Posted - 2006.03.11 13:59:00 - [51] how anyone can compare guns from WW2 to eve us beyond me. thats like a cave man trying to outwit a techie. modern ships have smaller guns that do more damage than their older bretheren... -I don't necessarily agree with everything I say.-
Ikvar	Posted - 2006.03.11 14:02:00 - [52] What I want to know is why Dual 1000mm railguns are so huge. They're like the size of a battlecruiser and have HUGE bore barrels which should only be 1 meter in diamiter. Originally by: Avon I actually enjoy crafting in EQ2.
GlimmerMan	Posted - 2006.03.11 15:27:00 - [53] Edited by: GlimmerMan on 11/03/2006 15:28:35 Originally by: Nikolai Nuvolari The thing is, our projectiles apparently have infinite velocity, so by the standard kinetic energy formula KE=m*v^2, each projectile should have infinite energy, which should probably be enough to annhilate the universe KE = +mv¦
Seto Mazzarotto	Posted - 2006.03.11 15:28:00 - [54] Originally by: Kasak Black LASERS 4TW This quote plus your sig equals you owing me a new monitor. I should know better than to drink coffee at the computer.
Doc Love	Posted - 2006.03.11 15:33:00 - [55] Well volume and mass are pretty much completely skewed everywhere else in the game, might as well have it apply to the guns too :p My favorite is when you have a ship chock full of ore, which would be insanely heavy, and you can approach a container at full speed and when you reach it - boom, insta-brakes!
Danton Marcellus	Posted - 2006.03.11 16:14:00 - [56] I was under the impression that with the Megathron the ship would be the gun. Remind me about The Maze. I'm Danton Marcellus and I approve of this message.
Hinik	Posted - 2006.03.11 16:29:00 - [57] I don't care too much about the physics of it, after all this is a game, and as such should look cool I think the ratio between small guns and frigs is the kind of thing we should be seeing with the battleships and cruisers. like I think that T2 lasers look well proportioned on a crusader, or 150mm rails look good on an enyo, medium blasters look reasonably well proportioned on a Deimos... but as soon as you get to a BS, it's pitiful, make them 5x bigger and make them look better LOVES CHARITY REGARD
Nikolai Nuvolari	Posted - 2006.03.11 17:51:00 - [58] Originally by: j0sephine Something like this, i guess. I think I just experienced a visually-induced orgasm. Originally by: Kedammre having large ones meant compromising the look of ships when they're turned off. If you turn them off, you're giving up your right to kickass graphics anyway. Either choose cool graphics or high performance. Gimping everybody else's graphics to maintain your performance isn't fair. Originally by: Kedammre Interoperability between models and hardpoints would be another, what happens to the massive space left for a gun when the slot is unused or has a drone control thing in it? I think ALL highslot modules need to have graphics, drone control modules could me antenna arrays, missile launchers would look like the launchers in the icons, smartbombs could be big glowing spheres...you get the idea. Originally by: Kedammre Ships lose individuality as identical gun models dominate their silhouettes. etc. Nonsense, they have different numbers of guns, different types of guns, and they're in different places. Originally by: Kedammre That aside though, I've always wanted the weapon models to be more extreme and at least look like they were taking more advantage of the load bearing frame a BS gave. After all, battleships exist to position their heavy guns, so why does a Mega need to be hundreds if not thousands of times the volume and mass of all its weapon systems put together? EXACTLY! Originally by: Arkanor Oh and our projectiles do not have infinite velocity, they are limited by lag and on average take 50-200ms to travel anywhere from 0-200km. On a good day. ACTUALLY I have seen the shields/armor/structure on ships drop BEFORE I see the guns fire. This has happened thousands of times. So technically you could say that they travel so fast, they are actually moving back in time and striking the enemy ship BEFORE they are fired. That makes their velocity BEYOND infinite. Or something. Didn't Superman once do that? Originally by: spRAYed Edited by: spRAYed on 11/03/2006 08:02:19 Its because you'r all fitting the wrong guns on your ships. Here , thats my tech II Reaper. Aint that pimpin? Ray. Now THAT'S what I'm talkin' about! Originally by: Gierling I actually sat down and did the math and figured out that the Cannons on the Iowas have better tracking then any BS gun in EVE by far. Maybe that's because the Iowa's cannons are smaller than EVE cruiser artillery? Originally by: Ikvar What I want to know is why Dual 1000mm railguns are so huge. They're like the size of a battlecruiser and have HUGE bore barrels which should only be 1 meter in diamiter. They have 1 meter INTERNAL bore, the size of them is the thickness of the barrel...that includes both the size of the rails themselves, and ALL of the reinforcement to keep them from tearing themselves apart. Originally by: GlimmerMan KE = +mv¦ Arrrrgh. It's been a long time since I've been in a physics course, I really need to get back to it. I'm getting rusty. -------- Tom Thumb > for a nut case you rawk [04:21:15] Mebrithiel Ju'wien > Nik's bio 4tw btw [07:38:53] Graelyn > Nikolai for Dev 108!
Mishima	Posted - 2006.03.11 18:03:00 - [59] WHO CARES I love x-mas :D
Professor McFly	Posted - 2006.03.11 18:06:00 - [60] Originally by: 000Hunter000 Shrugs... Would look cool if the BS's in eve actually would have more visible guns (and yes perhaps launcher turrets too), but it's not like a life or death situation is it? Does it have to be? __________________ Inappropriate link description. --Jorauk mods - pwning sigs since 1943
Hanns	Posted - 2006.03.11 18:15:00 - [61] Originally by: Nikolai Nuvolari Originally by: j0sephine Hee, it's only slightly related, but cool enough to be linked here... ever wondered how large these 800 mm autocannon shells are -.o Is that the Imperial War Museum? It looks quite familiar. Originally by: Morgana Janan Well, something to remember: those small 125mm railguns on your Incursus are the same size as the cannons on an M1A1 main battle tank. A 150mm cannon is considered heavy artillery in ground warfare on Earth. So don't be too quick to bash the sizes. You're firing off tank cannons at people. The real complaint isn't the size of the guns, it's how big they LOOK on the ships. it is the IWM been there a few times, i recognise the HE-162 hanging from the ceiling.
Livia Tarquina	Posted - 2006.03.11 18:39:00 - [62] have we learned nothing from Men in Black people, honestly. Get a clue "Big guns and heavy armor what else is there?" --Amarrian Admiral before entering battle against Jove Navy
Demangel	Posted - 2006.03.11 19:19:00 - [63] I agree visually speaking that the turrets an EVE are largely a massive disapointment. They don't often look at all like a turret, but a robotic apendage with a shooty thing on it. Not that they don't look cool like that. But many look like flimsy, erector sets, where is the armored housing? Ok so on the cruiser and up turrets they start making em look sturdier, but they are teeny tiny little protrusions that look more like an afterthought than a major bang bang of doom. On my mega my 425MM rails look like simplistic little shoeboxes with tubes stickingout of em. No I agree, CCP dropped the ball on turret graphics. I would have been happy even if they where just recessed ball shaped protrusions with a tube sticking out least that looks like it means business... Galaxion > If you drove a car shaped like a thorax women would call you Demangel > Dude... I would call.. Demangel > wait that sounded g@y I bet. Galaxion > Just a bit.
Griefer Troll	Posted - 2006.03.11 19:45:00 - [64] Hmm this topic brought on another thought to me as I read the detailed specs of certain real life artillery. The paris gun mentioned fired projectiles at a maximum velocity of 1600 m / s, well assuming the minmitar guns are based on a similar principle - you should be able to outrun their shells in a reasonably fast ship Now that would be a good addition to the game, mainly because we Amarr can crush those Minmitar dogs for all time.
Meridius	Posted - 2006.03.11 19:57:00 - [65] Originally by: j0sephine Edited by: j0sephine on 11/03/2006 03:04:40 Hee, it's only slightly related, but cool enough to be linked here... ever wondered how large these 800 mm autocannon shells are -.o Thats awesome _ __
lofty29	Posted - 2006.03.11 20:08:00 - [66] Originally by: Meridius Originally by: j0sephine Edited by: j0sephine on 11/03/2006 03:04:40 Hee, it's only slightly related, but cool enough to be linked here... ever wondered how large these 800 mm autocannon shells are -.o Thats awesome Imagine seeing one of them hurling at you in a tank. Id be all like 'Sarge, we have a problem' 'And what would that problem be?' 'A large bullet shaped object is flying towards us.' 'O rly?' 'Ya rly' 'Warp, lol' 'But we're scrambled' 'Didnt you bring wcs? Noob' 'But WCS kills puppys' 'Really?' 'Yep' 'Oh, I never knew that' 'Well, it does' BLAM --------------------------- Originally by: Wrangler I see boobies!! \o/
Nikolai Nuvolari	Posted - 2006.03.11 21:57:00 - [67] Originally by: lofty29 Imagine seeing one of them hurling at you in a tank. Id be all like 'Sarge, we have a problem' 'And what would that problem be?' 'A large bullet shaped object is flying towards us.' 'O rly?' 'Ya rly' 'Warp, lol' 'But we're scrambled' 'Didnt you bring wcs? Noob' 'But WCS kills puppys' 'Really?' 'Yep' 'Oh, I never knew that' 'Well, it does' BLAM I don't think you'd last long in the army. -------- Tom Thumb > for a nut case you rawk [04:21:15] Mebrithiel Ju'wien > Nik's bio 4tw btw [07:38:53] Graelyn > Nikolai for Dev 108!
Victor Valka	Posted - 2006.03.11 22:16:00 - [68] Yes. Bigger looking guns on our cruisers and battleships, please. Make them look like they mean business.
Corunna ElMan	Posted - 2006.03.11 22:51:00 - [69] Originally by: Bhuknar Hhallas I said UP too. Look at the proposed design that the Japanese and Germans were hoping to put into the war. You said "were up to". That means existing designs, not designs that were never deployed. Regardless, a ship would need an impossibly wide beam (and possibly draft as well) to accommodate a turret 1/3 its size, or it would capsize on the first broadside. I'm not here to win any popularity contests. I couldn't care less what you think of me - all that matters is this: Can you defend your opinions?
Corunna ElMan	Posted - 2006.03.11 22:55:00 - [70] Originally by: Torze I'm confused about the argument of weight. In space, there is no weight, only mass. Weight is the gravitational measurement of mass. So are you trying to say there's no gravity in space? Tell me then - what keeps planets in orbit around a star? I'm not here to win any popularity contests. I couldn't care less what you think of me - all that matters is this: Can you defend your opinions?
lofty29	Posted - 2006.03.11 23:07:00 - [71] Originally by: Corunna ElMan Originally by: Torze I'm confused about the argument of weight. In space, there is no weight, only mass. Weight is the gravitational measurement of mass. So are you trying to say there's no gravity in space? Tell me then - what keeps planets in orbit around a star? Gravity, but you are waaaay too small to be affected. It's so weak you wouldnt notice it. --------------------------- Originally by: Wrangler I see boobies!! \o/
Nev Clavain	Posted - 2006.03.11 23:07:00 - [72] Originally by: Corunna ElMan So are you trying to say there's no gravity in space? Tell me then - what keeps planets in orbit around a star? I don't think that's what he is trying to say.
Nikolai Nuvolari	Posted - 2006.03.11 23:17:00 - [73] Originally by: Corunna ElMan Originally by: Bhuknar Hhallas I said UP too. Look at the proposed design that the Japanese and Germans were hoping to put into the war. You said "were up to". That means existing designs, not designs that were never deployed.Regardless, a ship would need an impossibly wide beam (and possibly draft as well) to accommodate a turret 1/3 its size, or it would capsize on the first broadside. It's definitely the draft, not the beam, that matters here. -------- Tom Thumb > for a nut case you rawk [04:21:15] Mebrithiel Ju'wien > Nik's bio 4tw btw [07:38:53] Graelyn > Nikolai for Dev 108!
Corunna ElMan	Posted - 2006.03.11 23:37:00 - [74] Originally by: lofty29 Gravity, but you are waaaay too small to be affected. It's so weak you wouldnt notice it. Still, there is gravity (and gravity is a mutual attraction), so there is weight. However small it might be, the claim that "there is no weight in space" is incorrect. If we're going to talk science, let's be accurate. I'm not here to win any popularity contests. I couldn't care less what you think of me - all that matters is this: Can you defend your opinions?
lofty29	Posted - 2006.03.11 23:58:00 - [75] Tbh, I dont know why the hell this has turned into a scientific debate. It was about the size of gun models comapred to the size of ships ffs --------------------------- Originally by: Wrangler I see boobies!! \o/
Corunna ElMan	Posted - 2006.03.12 00:13:00 - [76] You're right. Science has no place in a science fiction MMO, just as reason has no place on the Internet! I'm not here to win any popularity contests. I couldn't care less what you think of me - all that matters is this: Can you defend your opinions?
lofty29	Posted - 2006.03.12 00:15:00 - [77] Originally by: Corunna ElMan You're right. Science has no place in a science fiction MMO, just as reason has no place on the Internet! I didnt say that. I just said that this was a thread about making eve look more realistic. Thats got nothing to do with why E=MC squared or why warping = the molecular dispersion of subatomic particles around an electronic mainfraime...or something like that. It's a thread about the size of guns not looking right compared to RL, ffs, keep science out of it --------------------------- Originally by: Wrangler I see boobies!! \o/
Frezik	Posted - 2006.03.12 00:28:00 - [78] Originally by: Griefer Troll The paris gun mentioned fired projectiles at a maximum velocity of 1600 m / s, well assuming the minmitar guns are based on a similar principle - you should be able to outrun their shells in a reasonably fast ship Around 1.5km/s (give or take a little) is the max you can get out of a projectile propelled from a straight chemical explosion. But you can get higher if you use rocket-assisted projectiles. If you look at the description of the 280mm, you'll see that they are, in fact, rocket-assisted. ---- "Well in this case, he's being flamed, and rightly so, for whinning about a game mechanic that doesn't actually exist." -Lorth
MysticNZ	Posted - 2006.03.12 00:35:00 - [79] I want one of those 80cm shells... how hard did/do they hit? - You got pwnd by us too :P - Wrangler lol - Imaran
Corunna ElMan	Posted - 2006.03.12 00:52:00 - [80] Originally by: lofty29 Originally by: Corunna ElMan Science has no place in a science fiction MMO, just as reason has no place on the Internet! It's a thread about the size of guns not looking right compared to RL, ffs, keep science out of it See what I mean? I'm not here to win any popularity contests. I couldn't care less what you think of me - all that matters is this: Can you defend your opinions?
lofty29	Posted - 2006.03.12 00:54:00 - [81] Im so confused --------------------------- Originally by: Wrangler I see boobies!! \o/
Breed Love	Posted - 2006.03.12 00:58:00 - [82] Honestly, I think guns in eve are allright, especially frigate and cruiser guns. If they are increased in size, they really have to be integrated into the ship design the way dread guns are.. Otherwise, every beatiful ship in game will turn into something caldari-ish.. ------ Originally by: Gariuys Breed Love for president. Originally by: Cipher Khadaffi nerf breed love!
Nikolai Nuvolari	Posted - 2006.03.12 02:06:00 - [83] The aesthetic design of Caldari ships is a weapon in and of itself. See, Caldari ships are meant to be long-range platforms. The horrible ugliness guarantees that you will stay far away, otherwise your crew will look out the windows and go OH MY GOD WHAT IS THAT MONSTROSITY?!?!? and fall over with their eyes bleeding. -------- Tom Thumb > for a nut case you rawk [04:21:15] Mebrithiel Ju'wien > Nik's bio 4tw btw [07:38:53] Graelyn > Nikolai for Dev 108!
Sidraket	Posted - 2006.03.12 08:24:00 - [84] Yes, bigger guns. And make lasers simply shiny black half-orbs sitting on the side of the ship that shoot out beams~ Then the size could look the same, think of a geddon with its gun row replaced by a bunch of little black half-spheres. That would be sexy. Also make the guns line up right. If you mix and match your weapons you end up with a different pattern of turet types lined up either side your ship.
Nikolai Nuvolari	Posted - 2006.03.12 19:45:00 - [85] Originally by: Sidraket Yes, bigger guns. And make lasers simply shiny black half-orbs sitting on the side of the ship that shoot out beams~ Then the size could look the same, think of a geddon with its gun row replaced by a bunch of little black half-spheres. That would be sexy. Also make the guns line up right. If you mix and match your weapons you end up with a different pattern of turet types lined up either side your ship. Why are you mixing and matching gun types? -------- Tom Thumb > for a nut case you rawk [04:21:15] Mebrithiel Ju'wien > Nik's bio 4tw btw [07:38:53] Graelyn > Nikolai for Dev 108!
Asane	Posted - 2006.03.12 19:51:00 - [86] Yet again the real meaning of MMORPG has been shown, a bunch of guys going "My gun is so small!!"
Nikolai Nuvolari	Posted - 2006.03.13 01:35:00 - [87] Originally by: Asane Yet again the real meaning of MMORPG has been shown, a bunch of guys going "My gun is so small!!" Exactly! Now get us a bigger gun! -------- Tom Thumb > for a nut case you rawk [04:21:15] Mebrithiel Ju'wien > Nik's bio 4tw btw [07:38:53] Graelyn > Nikolai for Dev 108!
Viktor Fyretracker	Posted - 2006.03.13 02:57:00 - [88] would be cool to see the ship rock when firing a gun of large size, of course that means a cormorant giving a full broadside would probally barrel roll itself.
Nikolai Nuvolari	Posted - 2006.03.13 03:23:00 - [89] Originally by: Viktor Fyretracker would be cool to see the ship rock when firing a gun of large size, of course that means a cormorant giving a full broadside would probally barrel roll itself. I'd LOVE to see that. -------- Tom Thumb > for a nut case you rawk [04:21:15] Mebrithiel Ju'wien > Nik's bio 4tw btw [07:38:53] Graelyn > Nikolai for Dev 108!
Double TaP	Posted - 2006.03.13 04:17:00 - [90] Am I the only one that think's it would be neat if you could apply paintjobs to your ship. Put a logo on there, and change the color. We alllll know what Eris would do. But I think it would be sweet make my nighthawk a darkish red tint and maybe put my personal/corp logo on there. And without derailing the thread, I've always thought since i started playing back in early 2004 that the "turret" fixtures were not what ccp could make them. Any sort of general improvement would be nice.
E Phoenix	Posted - 2006.03.13 05:03:00 - [91] Firstly I have always thought the same as Double Tap. It would be great to be able to mod your ships hull with paint jobs, Corp logo etc.. But like adding larger turrents and launchers, you're adding to the load on the CCP processors, creating more lag that so many already complain about. Maybe with the new blade servers things will be different. How about an answer CCP, has there been any thoughts on customer paint jobs on ships, and the external appearance of ships in general. Meaning more realistic weapons, etc..
Manny Tanato	Posted - 2006.03.13 05:11:00 - [92] Edited by: Manny Tanato on 13/03/2006 05:13:48 The paint job and logo thing would add load to CCP, cause they'd have to distribute your particular paint job and logo to anyone in your vicinity so that others can see it. But the larger turrets / missile turrets / turret animations thing should not add load, because all those are handled client side. It'll add load to your computer, should not load CCP's servers. Usually the sound and visual effects are handled on your own computer, that's why we can toggle them on or off at will. But anything that is shared and that others have to recieve data in order to see it on their computer screen will have to pass through CCP's servers. Things like corp logos, the bio in your character info, etc. -=[ I huff and I puff and nothing falls... ]=-
Blind Man	Posted - 2006.03.13 05:59:00 - [93] This is what my ruppy should look like :)
Nikolai Nuvolari	Posted - 2006.03.13 06:16:00 - [94] Edited by: Nikolai Nuvolari on 13/03/2006 06:17:23 Originally by: Blind Man This is what my ruppy should look like :) Did you Photoshop that, or are those just battleship guns crammed onto your Rupture? And LMAO at Dusty in the chat window, he's such an ass. Me <3 Dusty -------- Tom Thumb > for a nut case you rawk [04:21:15] Mebrithiel Ju'wien > Nik's bio 4tw btw [07:38:53] Graelyn > Nikolai for Dev 108!
Ishtari	Posted - 2006.03.13 06:22:00 - [95] In the early days of eve cruiser guns were 100m3 or maybe even a bit more. That was an enormous looting problem. Why do you think the size of drones was changed by a factor of 10 and cap booster size reduction?
Corunna ElMan	Posted - 2006.03.13 06:31:00 - [96] Originally by: Manny Tanato The paint job and logo thing would add load to CCP, cause they'd have to distribute your particular paint job and logo to anyone in your vicinity so that others can see it. Let's be honest... that "vicinity" is a kilometer or two. Beyond that, you're lucky to see the ship, let alone its paint scheme. One thing that shouldn't have any performance impact would be corporate logos. They're already associated with your character and shown if you are examined, why not? I'm not here to win any popularity contests. I couldn't care less what you think of me - all that matters is this: Can you defend your opinions?
Nikolai Nuvolari	Posted - 2006.03.13 06:55:00 - [97] Originally by: Ishtari In the early days of eve cruiser guns were 100m3 or maybe even a bit more. That was an enormous looting problem. Why do you think the size of drones was changed by a factor of 10 and cap booster size reduction? We're talking about how big they LOOK, not how much cargo space they take up. Jesus, read the damned thread. -------- Tom Thumb > for a nut case you rawk [04:21:15] Mebrithiel Ju'wien > Nik's bio 4tw btw [07:38:53] Graelyn > Nikolai for Dev 108!
Corunna ElMan	Posted - 2006.03.13 07:19:00 - [98] Maybe she read the title, which doesn't say "why do guns look so small?" Also, the initial post doesn't say anything about the way they look, it dealt very specifically with the volume and the mass. Don't flame someone for responding to what's actually being discussed, rather than what you want the thread to be about. I'm not here to win any popularity contests. I couldn't care less what you think of me - all that matters is this: Can you defend your opinions?
Nikolai Nuvolari	Posted - 2006.03.13 07:21:00 - [99] Originally by: Corunna ElMan Don't flame someone for responding to what's actually being discussed, rather than what you want the thread to be about. We've been discussing the look of the ship turrets for four pages. -------- Tom Thumb > for a nut case you rawk [04:21:15] Mebrithiel Ju'wien > Nik's bio 4tw btw [07:38:53] Graelyn > Nikolai for Dev 108!
Corunna ElMan	Posted - 2006.03.13 07:30:00 - [100] That's nice - you don't own the topic. If she wants to reply to what was originally being discussed, don't blast her for it. Maybe the people form the last four pages should "read the damn thread", eh? I'm not here to win any popularity contests. I couldn't care less what you think of me - all that matters is this: Can you defend your opinions?
Nikolai Nuvolari	Posted - 2006.03.13 07:36:00 - [101] Maybe they should read the damned thread? This IS the damned thread. Ugh, I don't have the energy for this, I'm going to sleep. Goodnight, forum. -------- Tom Thumb > for a nut case you rawk [04:21:15] Mebrithiel Ju'wien > Nik's bio 4tw btw [07:38:53] Graelyn > Nikolai for Dev 108!
Corunna ElMan	Posted - 2006.03.13 07:56:00 - [102] Wow, that simple concept is so mentally taxing that it makes you drowsy? Did it ever occur to you that there are other things being discussed in this thread, aside from what you feel it's all about? And that maybe she wasn't talking to you? I'm not here to win any popularity contests. I couldn't care less what you think of me - all that matters is this: Can you defend your opinions?

Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.