Every ship is asymmetrical.

In many space themed games and movies, their vessels are always symmetrical, Eve differs by exploring ideas that these hulls do not necessarily need to be symmetrical to function in space as aerodynamics do not apply.

My opinion is unpopular. But no doubt Eve is losing its overall look. There seems to be a shift to making ships more symmetrical, but there must be an equal amount, if not, more asymmetrical ships to keep their designs "Eve". In many space themed games and movies, their vessels are always symmetrical, Eve differs by exploring ideas that these hulls do not necessarily need to be symmetrical to function in space as aerodynamics do not apply. I'd like to encourage CCP to continue exploring the ideas as they have before with designing asymmetrical hulls that gave Eve it's look and releasing assymetrical, but new designs in later expansions.

hulls do not necessarily need to be symmetrical to function in space as aerodynamics do not apply.

Strictly speaking unless a ship is spherical it is asymmetrical on at least one axis.

Aerodynamics are not the only legitimate reason for symmetry.

Not that symmetry is actually essential for aerodynamics ...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-2005-0725-526,_Aufkl%C3%A4rungsflugzeug_Blohm_-_Vo%C3%9F_BV_141.jpg

http://sfecdn.s3.amazonaws.com/Homepage/Scaled/boomerang.jpg

I can't think of anything we sent people up in that wasn't symmetric.

Mercury capsule was symmetrical. Gemini capsule was symmetrical. Apollo capsule was symmetrical. Space Shuttle was symmetrical. I'm not really bothering with Russian stuff. Hubble Space Telescope is symmetrical. ISS is predominantly symmetrical.

I can't think of anything we sent people up in that wasn't symmetric.

All probes, all shuttles, all capsules.

The fact that you mention the space shuttle demonstrates the main problem: you only think of symmetry one-dimensionally GÇö left to right. There's just one problem: left and right does not exist matter in space. Left-right symmetry only exists if there is a clear up-down and forwards-backwards for it to exist perpendicular to. The shuttle has such symmetry because it's meant to land with the wheels pointed downwards in the manner of a over-engineered brick airplane, with wings creating lift upwards and landing gear pointing downwards. It has left-right symmetry to keep its forwards-backwards axis pointed in the same direction and not go into a flat spin. Hell, lifting wings as a concept work precisely because they're not symmetrical in relation to the direction of travel.

In space, forwards and backwards (in terms of direction of travel) exists as a single axis, but that's about it. Symmetry (if you need it at all) has to exist around this axis, but there is no left/right/up/down. You can have almost any kind of symmetry you want GÇö three-way, four-way, two-way, n-way GÇö and you're not restricted to just two pre-determined axes.

So using airplanes as a point of comparison, a regular 747 is not symmetric along this single relevant axis. This 747 would be, as would this one. With that an mind, go back and look at pictures of everything we've sent into space. Almost nothing is (visually) symmetrical in any way that matters (but all of it is of course symmetrical in terms of mass distribution and thrust, but that's something quite separate).

amarr ships, not quite

All probes, all shuttles, all capsules.

The fact that you mention the space shuttle demonstrates the main problem: you only think of symmetry one-dimensionally GÇö left to right. There's just one problem: left and right does not exist matter in space. Left-right symmetry only exists if there is a clear up-down and forwards-backwards for it to exist perpendicular to. The shuttle has such symmetry because it's meant to land with the wheels pointed downwards in the manner of a over-engineered brick airplane, with wings creating lift upwards and landing gear pointing downwards. It has left-right symmetry to keep its forwards-backwards axis pointed in the same direction and not go into a flat spin. Hell, lifting wings as a concept work precisely because they're not symmetrical in relation to the direction of travel.

In space, forwards and backwards (in terms of direction of travel) exists as a single axis, but that's about it. Symmetry (if you need it at all) has to exist around this axis, but there is no left/right/up/down. You can have almost any kind of symmetry you want GÇö three-way, four-way, two-way, n-way GÇö and you're not restricted to just two pre-determined axes.

So using airplanes as a point of comparison, a regular 747 is not symmetric along this single relevant axis. This 747 would be, as would this one. With that an mind, go back and look at pictures of everything we've sent into space. Almost nothing is (visually) symmetrical in any way that matters (but all of it is of course symmetrical in terms of mass distribution and thrust, but that's something quite separate).

The shuttle by the way is symmetrical in the roll axis but not in the yaw or pitch axis.

Or to put it another way it is symmetrical left/right but not up/down or front/back.



On an unrelated note, why do mirrors reverse left right but not up down ?

Thank god for the forums because it gives you an outlet for arguing with everyone about everything. It has probably saved you from the wood chipper in real life!

This is called being a pedant.

Thank god for the forums because it gives you an outlet for arguing with everyone about everything. It has probably saved you from the wood chipper in real life!

No, it is called explaining why I said something you disputed.

I was not referring to any symmetry at all, so your assumption that it was only symmetry along a single dimension wasGǪ wellGǪ just an assumption.

In the context of a real-life space, that particular symmetry is, for the reasons described, not one that anybody should assume.