Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |

Velarra
Ghost Festival Naraka.
9
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 06:58:00 -
[1] - Quote
Have there been any asymmetric hull updates to the Raven model since the release of the Tier 3 battle cruisers on sisi? Or is it still rather grossly unbalanced? |

Jodis Talvanen
State War Academy Caldari State
74
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 07:04:00 -
[2] - Quote
New revan model is already on sisi, it is just a high-poly version of the old one (with some small tweaks) and it looks 98% the same.
Caldari ships are meant to be asymmetic. +1 CCP for keeping the old model. |

Jazz Styles
Sileo In Pacis
11
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 07:08:00 -
[3] - Quote
Yeah it looks okay; it was far from the worst model in the game anyway. I like the beefed up engine section on the stern, much better than the tapered version on the old model.
Now when the get to the moa and the osprey, those will need to be done from scratch  |

Velarra
Ghost Festival Naraka.
9
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 07:10:00 -
[4] - Quote
Jodis Talvanen wrote:New revan model is already on sisi, it is just a high-poly version of the old one (with some small tweaks) and it looks 98% the same.
Caldari ships are meant to be asymmetic. +1 CCP for keeping the old model.
Quite right! The Naga's asymmetry is really quite lovely in its subtle flare. So too the recent Noctis model. |

Velarra
Ghost Festival Naraka.
9
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 07:26:00 -
[5] - Quote
Jazz Styles wrote:Yeah it looks okay; it was far from the worst model in the game anyway. I like the beefed up engine section on the stern, much better than the tapered version on the old model. Now when the get to the moa and the osprey, those will need to be done from scratch 
:) Moa yes, .... while at least the osprey isn't overwhelmingly lopsided & confused. |

Andreus Ixiris
Mixed Metaphor
228
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 07:48:00 -
[6] - Quote
New Raven model looks just as godawful as the old one, it's just a higher-definition godawful.
Spaceships are built symmetrical for a goddamn reason, CCP. Andreus Anthony LeHane Ixiris CEO, Mixed Metaphor
Animated Corporate Logos |

Raven Ether
Republic University Minmatar Republic
18
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 09:04:00 -
[7] - Quote
******** forums ate my message ...
imtooboredtorewrite: asymmetry can be good on a modest level (see naga, rokh) but mega lame like the moa and blackbird. The blackbird is outright ridiculous and isn't even close to making sense, it's the sole reason I'm not bothering with caldari recons. |

Jennifer Starling
Imperial Navy Forum Patrol
277
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 09:26:00 -
[8] - Quote
Andreus Ixiris wrote:New Raven model looks just as godawful as the old one, it's just a higher-definition godawful.
Spaceships are built symmetrical for a goddamn reason, CCP. CCP should have made ships of one faction all assymmetrical as a special distinguishing feature, not random ships of every faction. It looks messy and unrealistic.
At least we'll get a symmetrical Crow!  |

Tarn Kugisa
Estrale Frontiers Project Wildfire
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 09:30:00 -
[9] - Quote
Quote:CCP should have made ships of one faction all assymmetrical as a special distinguishing feature, not random ships of every faction. It looks messy and unrealistic.
At least we'll get a symmetrical Crow! I can agree on the symmetry. I like having symmetry on spaceships because it just makes sense. A good example of the most symmetric ship on EVE is either most of the shuttles and the drake. Also that symmetrical crow looks AWEOSME |

Saru Koji
University of Caille Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 09:36:00 -
[10] - Quote
I like the raven model and even if I would not, CCP can't change it because of this. |

Jazz Styles
Sileo In Pacis
12
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 10:24:00 -
[11] - Quote
Jennifer Starling wrote:Andreus Ixiris wrote:New Raven model looks just as godawful as the old one, it's just a higher-definition godawful.
Spaceships are built symmetrical for a goddamn reason, CCP. CCP should have made ships of one faction all assymmetrical as a special distinguishing feature, not random ships of every faction. It looks messy and unrealistic. At least we'll get a symmetrical Crow!  Good god that is freakin awesome! That's what I want to see more of in caldari, SYMMETRY! I didn't even know they were updating that one, fantastic. |

Daedalus Arcova
Havoc Violence and Chaos BricK sQuAD.
94
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 11:17:00 -
[12] - Quote
Andreus Ixiris wrote:Spaceships are built symmetrical for a goddamn reason, CCP.
What would that reason be? Space friction? Distribution of mass in a weightless environment? |

Morgan North
The Wild Bunch Electus Matari
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 11:33:00 -
[13] - Quote
Moments of Inertia over Principal Axis are the reason why everything maneuvreable (stable or unstable) is inherently symetric.
In fact, it puzzles me why th race bent on efficiency (Caldari) failed to spot that little physics cornerstone.... That essentially is unavoidable, unless you want your ships to be predestined into turning better say... left.
|

Inir Ishtori
Perkone Caldari State
6
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 11:38:00 -
[14] - Quote
Daedalus Arcova wrote:Andreus Ixiris wrote:Spaceships are built symmetrical for a goddamn reason, CCP. What would that reason be? Space friction? Distribution of mass in a weightless environment? if you want to efficiently move an object in a certain direction while in space, you'll want to apply the force to the centre of the mass. which seems pretty hard for the raven given the engines placement and mass distribution of raven's hull. that thing looks simply pretty stupid from mechanical point of view, imo. |

Andreus Ixiris
Mixed Metaphor
230
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 11:40:00 -
[15] - Quote
Daedalus Arcova wrote:What would that reason be? Space friction? Distribution of mass in a weightless environment?
Oh, let me think... off the top of my head...
1. Mass distribution in an environment in which mass and the way you distribute it has massive ramifications on the way your vehicle manouvers. If your ship is asymmetrical, it means the amount of thrust you have to give to each side to make the thing fly in a straight line is also asymmetrical. If even one of your engines on one side of the ship gives out, it'll spin along its vertical axis.
2. Homogenisation of ship structural aspects - if one side of the Raven is more vulnerable to certain types of ordinance than the other, the enemy will exploit that flaw.
3. Ease of maintenance and production. If a ship is notably asymmetrical you'll have to manufacture seperate parts for each side.
4. Standardisation of docking facilities is notably easier.
5. Aesthetic sensibility! For heaven's sake, asymmetrical ships are UGLY! Andreus Anthony LeHane Ixiris CEO, Mixed Metaphor
Animated Corporate Logos |

Velarra
Ghost Festival Naraka.
9
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 13:29:00 -
[16] - Quote
Saru Koji wrote:I like the raven model and even if I would not, CCP can't change it because of this.
It would be a very heartwarming show of faith, will to change from the 'greed is good' mantra, and determination to refocus on flying in space if the Raven hull model was properly balanced despite such things. |

Daedalus Arcova
Havoc Violence and Chaos BricK sQuAD.
96
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 13:43:00 -
[17] - Quote
Andreus Ixiris wrote:Daedalus Arcova wrote:What would that reason be? Space friction? Distribution of mass in a weightless environment? Oh, let me think... off the top of my head... 1. Mass distribution in an environment in which mass and the way you distribute it has massive ramifications on the way your vehicle manouvers. If your ship is asymmetrical, it means the amount of thrust you have to give to each side to make the thing fly in a straight line is also asymmetrical. If even one of your engines on one side of the ship gives out, it'll spin along its vertical axis. 2. Homogenisation of ship structural aspects - if one side of the Raven is more vulnerable to certain types of ordinance than the other, the enemy will exploit that flaw. 3. Ease of maintenance and production. If a ship is notably asymmetrical you'll have to manufacture seperate parts for each side. 4. Standardisation of docking facilities is notably easier. 5. Aesthetic sensibility! For heaven's sake, asymmetrical ships are UGLY!
1: So, you're saying there's nothing wrong with asymmetry as long as it is compensated for in the distribution of thrust? I agree. 2: Caldari rely on their shields to absorb damage, so this is pretty much irrelevant. 3: Are the two wings of an F16 the same shape? No, they are not. 4: This is an argument for homogenising ship design, not for symmetry. 5: Beauty is not something the Caldari strive for in ship design. Besides, some degree of asymmetry can still be aesthetically appealing. |

Velarra
Ghost Festival Naraka.
9
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 13:48:00 -
[18] - Quote
Daedalus Arcova wrote:5: Beauty is not something the Caldari strive for in ship design. Besides, some degree of asymmetry can still be aesthetically appealing.
Much like the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio |

Pyre leFay
True Blue Haulers
16
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 15:20:00 -
[19] - Quote
If we wanted function and utility and real world realities of a space born craft that will never reenter atmosphere. it would be just a sphere or some other very standardized shape like a cylinder. Wow. exciting game. Nothing wrong with symmetry. I imagine most players physically look rather symmetrical. Yet I like spaceships with wild doo-dads and sensors and wings and death blossoms. When the frame itself has a horrible flaw that would look like a bad idea even in a cartoon (the paper thin hull connecting the old scorpions tail to the main body) That deserves a grisly death. Yet I never did mind it having one wing. And the current raven would look just fine. If it was a mini carrier. It never gave me a sense of torpedo lobber and tanker to me. Its really role vs overall shape to me. |

Vincent Gaines
Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
59
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 15:24:00 -
[20] - Quote
Pyre leFay wrote:If we wanted function and utility and real world realities of a space born craft that will never reenter atmosphere. it would be just a sphere or some other very standardized shape like a cylinder. Wow. exciting game. Nothing wrong with symmetry. I imagine most players physically look rather symmetrical. Yet I like spaceships with wild doo-dads and sensors and wings and death blossoms. When the frame itself has a horrible flaw that would look like a bad idea even in a cartoon (the paper thin hull connecting the old scorpions tail to the main body) That deserves a grisly death. Yet I never did mind it having one wing.
Nothing is wrong with the Moa. Right? |

Pyre leFay
True Blue Haulers
16
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 15:31:00 -
[21] - Quote
Vincent Gaines wrote: Nothing is wrong with the Moa. Right?
Visually nope. Love the Moa. However it looks like a missile boat, not a Gun ship. Gila fixed that issue for me. And perhaps the left wing pylon could get beefed up. |

Andreus Ixiris
Mixed Metaphor
235
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 15:32:00 -
[22] - Quote
Daedalus Arcova wrote:1: So, you're saying there's nothing wrong with asymmetry as long as it is compensated for in the distribution of thrust? I agree. 2: Caldari rely on their shields to absorb damage, so this is pretty much irrelevant. 3: Are the two wings of an F16 interchangeable? No, they are not. 4: This is an argument for homogenising ship design, not for symmetry. 5: Beauty is not something the Caldari strive for in ship design. Besides, some degree of asymmetry can still be aesthetically appealing.
I was willing to entertain the prospect that you're uninformed, but now I am forced to assume from your arguments that you are, in fact, either trolling or downright unintelligent. None of these arguments comprise a convincing argument as to why anyone in their right mind would make an asymmetrical spaceship design.
1. The key word you seem to have missed here (despite the fact that you used it yourself) is "compensate". If there is a problem you have to compensate for written straight into your schematic because of your design choices, then it's gone beyond "you may want to rethink your design" - it goes straight into the territory of "F, rewrite this and see me after class".
2. Because shields, as we well know, are utterly infallible, and there's no reason to make a structurally integral ship underneath - I mean, let's face it, no Caldari ship in EVE has ever gone under 25% shield ever.
Are you kidding me? A ship's primary defensive system being an external energy field is not an excuse for lazy ship design.
3. But maintenance proceedures for each wing are symmetrical.
4. And what's the easiest way to homogenise ship design? Make it symmetrical, you tool.
5. Show me one notably asymmetrical woman you'd be willing to date. Andreus Anthony LeHane Ixiris CEO, Mixed Metaphor
Animated Corporate Logos |

Jodis Talvanen
State War Academy Caldari State
75
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 15:40:00 -
[23] - Quote
asymetric design is caldari design
dont ruin the game |

Pyre leFay
True Blue Haulers
16
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 15:41:00 -
[24] - Quote
Andreus Ixiris wrote: 5. Show me one notably asymmetrical woman you'd be willing to date.
http://en.valka.cz/files/entprise.jpg |

Andreus Ixiris
Mixed Metaphor
235
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 15:45:00 -
[25] - Quote
While I share enthusiasm for aircraft carriers, that isn't a woman.
(Also, aircraft carriers are not spaceships, have a notable reason for their asymmetry, and are externally symmetrical below the flight deck) Andreus Anthony LeHane Ixiris CEO, Mixed Metaphor
Animated Corporate Logos |

Pyre leFay
True Blue Haulers
16
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 16:05:00 -
[26] - Quote
Andreus Ixiris wrote:While I share enthusiasm for aircraft carriers, that isn't a woman. (Also, aircraft carriers are not spaceships, have a notable reason for their asymmetry, and are externally symmetrical below the flight deck)
Space craft have plenty of reasons to be equally asymmetrical. Not to the extent realistically as the raven, but sensor clusters, Weapon platforms. Drone bays and guidance centers. Power centers. Imagine our own craft to venture to mars It would likely look a cross between the ISS and Project Orion. Granted we don't have massive orbital assembly arrays and we build in sections. Yet even given the opportunity to build a extraplanetary craft start to finish in zero g. Form or function? Likely end up similar to the aircraft carrier but inverted due to its environment. Internally or compartmentally symmetrical and externally Asymmetrical.
What is fun about a asymmetrical exterior and uniformed interior modules. Some vitals can be housed in different locations like crew quarters, capacitor charges, shield buffers. While the exteriors are already planed for specific functions like sensors so the shell is easily recreated in mass like sea ships. Leaving the internals to be modified and updated in sections like what we have in t2. |

Gecko O'Bac
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
17
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 16:30:00 -
[27] - Quote
Pyre leFay wrote:Andreus Ixiris wrote:While I share enthusiasm for aircraft carriers, that isn't a woman. (Also, aircraft carriers are not spaceships, have a notable reason for their asymmetry, and are externally symmetrical below the flight deck) Space craft have plenty of reasons to be equally asymmetrical. Not to the extent realistically as the raven, but sensor clusters, Weapon platforms. Drone bays and guidance centers. Power centers.
True, I agree wholeheartedly. But that's why the Rokh, the Drake, the Ferox, the Naga, the Scorpion (new), the Tengu, the Cormorant look good while still being asymettrical. In those cases, the asymmetry makes sense, like for the Naga, and Rokh, with their command centers off to one side. They have symmetrical populsion systems, and the small asymmetries can be easily explained as balanced by the internal weight distribution. Gun coverage, propulsion systems, overall hull structure have to be symmetrical. There's NO reason to do otherwise from an engineering standpoint.
The Raven is just silly. That's it. I do realize, however, that since the negative backlash from when they changed the scorpion, CCP isn't willing to spend time (and money) reworking model to just see them bashed by users. Adding detail to a model is probably a little less work. |

Andreus Ixiris
Mixed Metaphor
235
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 16:42:00 -
[28] - Quote
Pyre leFay wrote:Space craft have plenty of reasons to be equally asymmetrical. Not to the extent realistically as the raven, but sensor clusters, Weapon platforms. Drone bays and guidance centers. Power centers.
All of which you would have no reason to distribute asymmetrically. Asymmetric weapons distribution in particular will almost inevitably leave your ship with either a blind spot in its SoI to which it cannot deliver ordinance or an inversion of the other problem with asymmetric ships - that of one side inevitably being more vulnerable to ordinance than the other: you'll get one side of the ship that it's less dangerous for ships to be on, because it can't deliver as much ordinance.
Similar problems occur with sensor clusters and guidance centres.
Pyre leFay wrote:Imagine our own craft to venture to mars It would likely look a cross between the ISS and Project Orion.
Both of which are roughly symmetrical, even though the ISS is a (relatively speaking) stationary object. Good work there. 
Pyre leFay wrote:Likely end up similar to the aircraft carrier but inverted due to its environment.
No, it wouldn't, because the function and environment of a spaceship and an aircraft carrier are so fundamentally different that the comparison is in serious danger of being entirely invalid.
What you should take away from this is that asymmetric spaceships are stupid, ugly and logically unsound, and that arguing on behalf of them is equally so. Andreus Anthony LeHane Ixiris CEO, Mixed Metaphor
Animated Corporate Logos |

Jennifer Starling
Imperial Navy Forum Patrol
282
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 16:48:00 -
[29] - Quote
Jodis Talvanen wrote:asymetric design is caldari design
dont ruin the game .. as is Amarr, Gallente and Minmatar design? Better state EVE is asymmetrical design. And it still doesn't make any sense and it's ugly.
And no, aircraft cariers aren't pretty either. |

Krell Kroenen
Miners In Possession
13
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 17:28:00 -
[30] - Quote
Andreus Ixiris wrote:5. Aesthetic sensibility! For heaven's sake, asymmetrical ships are UGLY!
The best reason in my opinion is #5 , not to discredit the other ones listed mind you.
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |