| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Piuro
   |
Posted - 2006.07.13 07:42:00 -
[1]
I can't help but notice that, with great attention to plausability and story in the EVE universe, that most of the ships have a horrible and unsightly lack of symmetry. Now, I find it hard to understand this, seeing as the work required to make engines in different positions on the X, Y, and Z axis generate an equal proportion of thrust and directions to move in a straight line forward, let alone turn or counter the initial recoil given off by projectiles, just isnt worth the effort.
In many ways, this detracts from the feel of the game world, and well I dont have a problem with Millenium Falcon style lack of symmetry, many of these ships feel like they were built with spare parts grabbed from a bucket. Especially the Caldari (Who have a story purpose which is directally contradictory to this style of construction).
In other words, would it possible to see any more symmetry added to existing or future ships? I mean, the lack of continuity with reality in design just strikes me as odd and ugly.
P.S.
I know aerodynamics might not seem important in space, but keep in mind the gas fields and micrometeors need to be avoided and flown through without hitting somthing so far away from the centre of the ships gravity, which could cause a spin.
|
Jenny Spitfire
|
Posted - 2006.07.13 07:43:00 -
[2]
Lag.
----------------
RecruitMe@NOINT!
|
Novarei
|
Posted - 2006.07.13 07:44:00 -
[3]
There is no attention to physics and realism in this game.
--------------------
|
Alliaanna Dalaii
|
Posted - 2006.07.13 07:45:00 -
[4]
This is a shooty shooty spaceship game primarily geared and functioning around PvP
NOT the NASA training program 
hmmm Though it would be cool if it was. 50 years down the line...
"Husten(sp) we have an unidentified ship aproaching"
"Blob it!"
"Yarrr"
Alliaanna
Official Spokestard of=-= Does Not Compute =-=
|
Fortior
|
Posted - 2006.07.13 07:54:00 -
[5]
It's because the game doesn't really exist apart from signals in cables and on magnetic disk drives. It obeys none of our feeble laws.
This is not the physics realism you are looking for.
/me waves hand.
|
Piuro
|
Posted - 2006.07.13 07:54:00 -
[6]
I disagree, I find that quite a bit of the game has a very well paid attention to scientific detail. First off, for human evolution to occur at the rates at which eve has displayed it, it would be nessicary for isolation on an unfimiliar enviroment to occur. And on that note, isolation through a collapsed wormhole is extremely possible.
To top it all off, the whole "Pod" system of enclosure is the only way to survive the high levels of acceleration the ship displays.
|
Avon
|
Posted - 2006.07.13 07:56:00 -
[7]
Symmetry sucks.
The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur |
SengH
|
Posted - 2006.07.13 07:56:00 -
[8]
to be fair... alot of the newer stuff shown by CCP (fighters/ sentry drones) does show this stuff....
|
Nyphur
|
Posted - 2006.07.13 07:59:00 -
[9]
Eve's physics and designs are flawed at best. The scientific articles have never been more than a token explanation and the ship designs and fact you slow down in space and have a maximum speed are thoroughly unrealistic. Welcome to eve.
Eve-Tanking.com - For tanking spreadsheet and resources. |
Piuro
|
Posted - 2006.07.13 08:03:00 -
[10]
Then argue my "Ugly" point.
Oh, and warp speeds are technically viable, given certain theories (String and White Hole specifically).
|
Avon
|
Posted - 2006.07.13 08:04:00 -
[11]
 Originally by: Piuro
Then argue my "Ugly" point.
Oh, and warp speeds are technically viable, given certain theories (String and White Hole specifically).
Symmetry is ugly.
The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur |
Piuro
|
Posted - 2006.07.13 08:05:00 -
[12]
Yes, penut gallery, we heard from you already...
|
Nebuli
|
Posted - 2006.07.13 08:08:00 -
[13]
Welcome to a FICTIONAL online GAME on a computor, not to be confused with real life.
Besides for all we know the scorpian might be the perfect design for a Battleship designed to fight in an electronics warfare capabaility, how do you know its not right?
CEO - Art of War |
Nyphur
|
Posted - 2006.07.13 08:08:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Piuro
Then argue my "Ugly" point.
Oh, and warp speeds are technically viable, given certain theories (String and White Hole specifically).
Eve has its own theories in the scientific articles. They're rubbish.
Eve-Tanking.com - For tanking spreadsheet and resources. |
Baldour Ngarr
|
Posted - 2006.07.13 08:08:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Piuro
Yes, penut gallery, we heard from you already...
And yet you somehow completely ignored what he said.
Why on earth SHOULD things be symmetrical in space? You fire a rocket backwards, the ship's going forwards, no matter what shape it is.
________________________________________________
"I tried strip mining, but I lost, and it's cold flying around in space naked." |
Victor Valka
|
Posted - 2006.07.13 08:09:00 -
[16]
While I admit that I could care less about the symmetry, my real beef with EVE's graphical side of this is ship movement - rotation, turning, etc, etc.
I mean, ARGHHT! Why do you do onto my eyes so, EVE!? 
Homeworld was doing realistic movement in full 3D before EVE even went live!
|
Avon
|
Posted - 2006.07.13 08:14:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Nyphur
Eve has its own theories in the scientific articles. They're rubbish.
Actually, some of them are pretty damn good.
The extrapolation of theory to practical usage is a bit ropey in places, but a lot of the scientific basis is pretty sound.
However, the physics stays in the stories .. the game has no use for them. 
The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur |
Piuro
|
Posted - 2006.07.13 08:14:00 -
[18]
Edited by: Piuro on 13/07/2006 08:17:48
Ive explained my reasons for disliking symmetry, "Symmetry sucks" is not rally a valid retort. And for the person who made a comment about firing a rocket backwards, look at the Exequror, it should be in a constant a left turn.
Im well aware its a game, I just like my ships with a high level of plausability, or at least a mediocre ammount of it.
Not trying to take this game seriously, I just find it odd, and personally, the slapped-together look of many of the ships just doesnt do it for me.
EDIT: Okay, I actually agree with the above point. I just find the story in eve largely plausable. And a magnetic or other sort of field would probably reduce any impact to negligable ammounts. I'll also happily agree its largely a taste issue, but i'd just like to see some options for those of us who arent into the whole lopsided thing.
|
Crumplecorn
|
Posted - 2006.07.13 08:14:00 -
[19]
Ok, the arguments about the game not paying attention to realism are weak, and redundant.
These ships are advanced way way way beyond anything we have. We can't claim to know the design concerns. By the look of them, the aesthetics are a design concern, which means they must have reached a point where worrying about particle drag and the recoil off the guns (etc) is no longer necessary.
Even taking something basic from Star Trek, it is probably these ships use a deflector shield to stop particles from hitting the hull, and this would be symmetrical.
It is also possible the things are just so damn tough (many do armor tank after all) that they don't have to worry about anything smaller than an asteroid, and simply compensate for any spin generated. And this isn't the space shuttle we're talking about; these things are going to have no trouble compensating.
----------
Always Up To SomethingÖ
One of us is really thick, and I hope its you - Kalaan Oratay |
Baldour Ngarr
|
Posted - 2006.07.13 08:21:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Piuro
Edited by: Piuro on 13/07/2006 08:17:48
Ive explained my reasons for disliking symmetry, "Symmetry sucks" is not rally a valid retort. And for the person who made a comment about firing a rocket backwards, look at the Exequror, it should be in a constant a left turn.
No it shouldn't. The rocket fires backwards, the Exequror goes forwards.
________________________________________________
"I tried strip mining, but I lost, and it's cold flying around in space naked." |
Avon
|
Posted - 2006.07.13 08:24:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Piuro
Ive explained my reasons for disliking symmetry, "Symmetry sucks" is not rally a valid retort. And for the person who made a comment about firing a rocket backwards, look at the Exequror, it should be in a constant a left turn.
Im well aware its a game, I just like my ships with a high level of plausability, or at least a mediocre ammount of it.
Not trying to take this game seriously, I just find it odd, and personally, the slapped-together look of many of the ships just doesnt do it for me.
Ships in space do not have to be symmetrical.
Firstly you are assuming that conventional propulsion methods are being used, which is not the case. But, even if it was, symmetry would not be a major concern. It is simply a case of using the correct thrust impluses to control the turning moment of the vessel.
Jeez, it isn't exactly rocket science...
Oh, and out of interest, if symmetry in space is so important, how come that man made space vessels which have not had to travel through the Earth's atmosphere are hardly ever symmetrical?
Oh, and symmetry sucks aesthetically.
The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur |
Baldour Ngarr
|
Posted - 2006.07.13 08:30:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Piuro
Theres a larger rocket on the far right of the ship, obviously firing with less than a balanceable amount of thrust. Yes, it would turn.
No, it would not. Both rockets are firing in the same direction. You're trying to apply aerodynamics where there's no air.
________________________________________________
"I tried strip mining, but I lost, and it's cold flying around in space naked." |
Avon
|
Posted - 2006.07.13 08:30:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Belladonna Nightshade
Originally by: Avon
Oh, and symmetry sucks aesthetically.
Not if the symetrical obect is a boobie!
When you get to see boobies you will realise they are not symmetrical.
The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur |
Belladonna Nightshade
|
Posted - 2006.07.13 08:30:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Belladonna Nightshade
Originally by: Avon
Oh, and symmetry sucks aesthetically.[/quote
Not if the symetrical obect is a boobie!
Oh and I just realised that the OP called Avon a peanut.
|
LUGAL MOP'N'GLO
|
Posted - 2006.07.13 08:32:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Piuro
Theres a larger rocket on the far right of the ship, obviously firing with less than a balanceable amount of thrust. Yes, it would turn.
What if rockets are first pushed into space and THEN boosted using thrusters.... There are multiple responses that we can make up for anything you throw at us. The choice is yours, make it a big deal or make it fun by thinking of how it 'could' work.
|
Avon
|
Posted - 2006.07.13 08:32:00 -
[26]
I assume the OP knows that not all aircraft are symmetrical either?
The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur |
Piuro
|
Posted - 2006.07.13 08:32:00 -
[27]
A: I said "Most"
B: Cite
|
Infinity Ziona
|
Posted - 2006.07.13 08:33:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Baldour Ngarr
Originally by: Piuro
Theres a larger rocket on the far right of the ship, obviously firing with less than a balanceable amount of thrust. Yes, it would turn.
No, it would not. Both rockets are firing in the same direction. You're trying to apply aerodynamics where there's no air.
Yup things go straight in the opposite direction of thrust in space.
|
Belladonna Nightshade
|
Posted - 2006.07.13 08:35:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Avon
Originally by: Belladonna Nightshade
Originally by: Avon
Oh, and symmetry sucks aesthetically.
Not if the symetrical obect is a boobie!
When you get to see boobies you will realise they are not symmetrical.
I plan to see boobies one day.... I will be sure to measure em carefully to confirm your theory.
|
LUGAL MOP'N'GLO
|
Posted - 2006.07.13 08:35:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Avon
I assume the OP knows that not all aircraft are symmetrical either?
Infact our ships have monkey butlers that run around the ship balancing the different thrust and weight loads. Thats why they're so stable. Goddamn I love monkey butlers.
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |