EVE Search - With all the attention to realism and physics, why this?

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

With all the attention to realism and physics, why this?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Rodj Blake	Posted - 2006.07.13 12:03:00 - [91] How's this for a weird looking plane? Dulce et decorum est, pro imperator mori
Bhaal	Posted - 2006.07.13 12:03:00 - [92] Originally by: Avon Originally by: Piuro Actually, we are supprisingly symmerical in our internal structure. Lungs, brain, heart (valves), muscles, veins, etc. We really aren't. I've stood through a post mortem (no, not mine, obviously), and watched. I have weighed and measured the internal organs. We are very definately not even close to symmetrical on the inside. The differences on the outside are less noticeable, but are there (and can actually be quite large and yet so unnoticed. The size difference between each hand and each foot can be remarkable in percentage terms, and yet hardly ever seen.) But we don't cut open the human body to find it sexy and mate with it... Internally, we are probably as symmetrical as the design allows. As you said, Evolution tries to find the best design to allow the highest gain in advantage for the least complexity. However, visually it strives for symmetry... If id did not, we'd surely know about it... ------------------------------------------------ Current Hobby other than EVE My Hero
Deja Thoris	Posted - 2006.07.13 12:04:00 - [93] Now we've had the weekly "physics in EvE" thread. Hint Gameplay > RL I can't wait for the next installment of "Lets compare naval ships to their EvE equivalent" thread and the resulting requests to reclassify frigates as rowing boats.
Rodj Blake	Posted - 2006.07.13 12:07:00 - [94] Originally by: Bhaal What I'm saying is that Evolution strives for visual symmetry, maybe I needed to state that from the beginning. Evolution doesn't strive towards anything - it's a process, not an entity. Any evolution leading to a more symmetical creature is a result of selective pressure, not a striving towards anything. Dulce et decorum est, pro imperator mori
Avon	Posted - 2006.07.13 12:08:00 - [95] Originally by: Bhaal However, visually it strives for symmetry... If id did not, we'd surely know about it... Are you claiming that evolution can see its creations? We want to see symmetry because our brains are wired that way. It is going to be a pain for science if the underlying rules of the universe are not symmetrical, because we will never probably see them, even if they are right under our noses. The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur
Grim Vandal	Posted - 2006.07.13 12:08:00 - [96] Originally by: Avon Originally by: Piuro Actually, we are supprisingly symmerical in our internal structure. Lungs, brain, heart (valves), muscles, veins, etc. We really aren't. I've stood through a post mortem (no, not mine, obviously), and watched. I have weighed and measured the internal organs. We are very definately not even close to symmetrical on the inside. The differences on the outside are less noticeable, but are there (and can actually be quite large and yet so unnoticed. The size difference between each hand and each foot can be remarkable in percentage terms, and yet hardly ever seen.) yep, simply look at your balls, one always hangs further down than the other one the only thing I really am concerned about is that ships, stations actually all objects align themself towards some "mystical plane". I would love to see ship upside down Greetings Grim
Ezoran DuBlaidd	Posted - 2006.07.13 12:08:00 - [97] Originally by: Deja Thoris Now we've had the weekly "physics in EvE" thread. Hint Gameplay > RL I can't wait for the next installment of "Lets compare naval ships to their EvE equivalent" thread and the resulting requests to reclassify frigates as rowing boats. earlier in this thread... did some dude say there were butt monkey pirates on his ship that made it spin? i just quoted the above because it was the last post. nothing to do with the aforementioned butts or monkeys.
Bhaal	Posted - 2006.07.13 12:12:00 - [98] Originally by: Avon Originally by: Bhaal The inside of a Boeing 747 is not symmetrical down the longitudinal axis, but the outer shell certainly is. To what level? The pitot tube and smaller vertical surfaces are generally placed off-center, as are some of the trim tabs. The symmetrical design of aircraft tends to be one of simplicity, and often needs 'tweaking'. Some of the best aircraft designs are asymmetric. (Burt Rutan's "Boomerang" for example) Remember also that when taliking about aerodynamics you are talking about symmetry with purpose - a purpose that would not exist in space. The International Space Station is not symmetrical. Most of his designs are symmetrical down the Y-axis, as most successful aircraft. And yes, mainly for aerodynamics and flight stability. You're right, this does not matter in space. The point being, CCP has overdone the asymmetry IMO, as well as many other players' opinions... Many of the Caldari ships named after birds should be symmetrical IMO. CCP tried to hard IMO to make them asymmetrical... Will planetary flight require all new ships? Seems so in many cases... ------------------------------------------------ Current Hobby other than EVE My Hero
Rodj Blake	Posted - 2006.07.13 12:14:00 - [99] Originally by: Bhaal Will planetary flight require all new ships? Seems so in many cases... That would have been the case anyway, as the PF states that tritanium is unstable in most atmospheres. Dulce et decorum est, pro imperator mori
Hephaesteus	Posted - 2006.07.13 12:14:00 - [100] OK, now get up from your computer and look out the window. See those guys in the white coats, go let them in and everything will be alright. ----------------------------------------------- Knowing all, when all is unknown.
Bhaal	Posted - 2006.07.13 12:14:00 - [101] Originally by: Grim Vandal Originally by: Avon Originally by: Piuro Actually, we are supprisingly symmerical in our internal structure. Lungs, brain, heart (valves), muscles, veins, etc. We really aren't. I've stood through a post mortem (no, not mine, obviously), and watched. I have weighed and measured the internal organs. We are very definately not even close to symmetrical on the inside. The differences on the outside are less noticeable, but are there (and can actually be quite large and yet so unnoticed. The size difference between each hand and each foot can be remarkable in percentage terms, and yet hardly ever seen.) yep, simply look at your balls, one always hangs further down than the other one the only thing I really am concerned about is that ships, stations actually all objects align themself towards some "mystical plane". I would love to see ship upside down Our balls hang that way so we don't constantly smash them together with our thighs. ------------------------------------------------ Current Hobby other than EVE My Hero
Avon	Posted - 2006.07.13 12:15:00 - [102] Originally by: Bhaal Will planetary flight require all new ships? Seems so in many cases... Well, the backstory says our ships can't survive in an atmosphere anyway... As to the asymmetry in the current designs, sure some people don't like it - but then some do. If those ships offend you, fly a shuttle. I would rather have asymmetrical ships. I love them. The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur
Rodj Blake	Posted - 2006.07.13 12:16:00 - [103] Originally by: Bhaal Our balls hang that way so we don't constantly smash them together with our thighs. Exactly - symmetrical balls would offer a selective disadvantage. Dulce et decorum est, pro imperator mori
Avon	Posted - 2006.07.13 12:20:00 - [104] Originally by: Bhaal How did male birds evolve colors to attract females who purposely don't have colors to camouflage them from prey? Somehow Evolution "decided" to do that. Generally the colours of the male birds are very closely matched to the most receptive frequencies of that species eyes. For humans, that would be men wearing yellowy green t-shirts with a wavelength of about 555nanometers. You can't shag what you can't see. If both sexes were perfectly camouflaged, how would they see each other? The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur
Thelmarr	Posted - 2006.07.13 12:20:00 - [105] Originally by: Crumplecorn Originally by: Infinity Ziona 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. Congratulations. Your take on physics has been integrated into the real world, and now the shuttle can't turn. Only if you forget to add the... Maneuvering thrusters! (guess what... space shuttle does not maneuver using main engines, those only push forward)
Bhaal	Posted - 2006.07.13 12:20:00 - [106] Originally by: Rodj Blake Edited by: Rodj Blake on 13/07/2006 12:17:46 Originally by: Bhaal Originally by: Rodj Blake Originally by: Bhaal Our balls hang that way so we don't constantly smash them together with our thighs. Exactly - symmetrical balls would offer a selective disadvantage. But women don't seem to mind, so no need to change that design. They're clearly not that bothered by symmetry then... They are bothered if your face is very crooked... ------------------------------------------------ Current Hobby other than EVE My Hero
Rodj Blake	Posted - 2006.07.13 12:22:00 - [107] Edited by: Rodj Blake on 13/07/2006 12:23:11 Originally by: Bhaal Originally by: Rodj Blake Edited by: Rodj Blake on 13/07/2006 12:17:46 Originally by: Bhaal Originally by: Rodj Blake Originally by: Bhaal Our balls hang that way so we don't constantly smash them together with our thighs. Exactly - symmetrical balls would offer a selective disadvantage. But women don't seem to mind, so no need to change that design. They're clearly not that bothered by symmetry then... They are bothered if your face is very crooked... I don't know about that - I seem to get by just fine On top of that... There was a time when men wearing monocles were considered sexy. Side partings go in and out of fashion. Most male ear ring wearers wear only one. Dulce et decorum est, pro imperator mori
Bhaal	Posted - 2006.07.13 12:23:00 - [108] Edited by: Bhaal on 13/07/2006 12:23:58 Originally by: Rodj Blake Originally by: Bhaal Originally by: Avon Originally by: Bhaal However, visually it strives for symmetry... If id did not, we'd surely know about it... Are you claiming that evolution can see its creations? We want to see symmetry because our brains are wired that way. It is going to be a pain for science if the underlying rules of the universe are not symmetrical, because we will never probably see them, even if they are right under our noses. How did male birds evolve colors to attract females who purposely don't have colors to camouflage them from prey? Somehow Evolution "decided" to do that. Evolution decided nothing. The colours appeared gradually by a process of evolution, because they offered a selective advantage. The female Mallards colors evolved due to her surroundings. Somehow, the surroundings' colors had to be intergraded into that evolution equation to get her colors to come out right... ------------------------------------------------ Current Hobby other than EVE My Hero
Rodj Blake	Posted - 2006.07.13 12:25:00 - [109] Originally by: Bhaal Originally by: Rodj Blake Originally by: Bhaal Originally by: Avon Originally by: Bhaal However, visually it strives for symmetry... If id did not, we'd surely know about it... Are you claiming that evolution can see its creations? We want to see symmetry because our brains are wired that way. It is going to be a pain for science if the underlying rules of the universe are not symmetrical, because we will never probably see them, even if they are right under our noses. How did male birds evolve colors to attract females who purposely don't have colors to camouflage them from prey? Somehow Evolution "decided" to do that. Evolution decided nothing. The colours appeared gradually by a process of evolution, because they offered a selective advantage. The female Mallards colors evolved due to her surroundings. Somehow, the surroundings colors had to be intergraded into that evolution equation to get her colors to come out right... Because if a random mutation occurs that causes the wrong colour, the poor bird dies without offspring. If a random mutation that produces a better colour occurs, then the bird will produce more offspring than the others. Dulce et decorum est, pro imperator mori
Rodj Blake	Posted - 2006.07.13 12:27:00 - [110] Originally by: Avon For humans, that would be men wearing yellowy green t-shirts with a wavelength of about 555nanometers. You can't shag what you can't see. If both sexes were perfectly camouflaged, how would they see each other? So dressing up as a luminous bogey should sort me out with the ladies? Dulce et decorum est, pro imperator mori
Avon	Posted - 2006.07.13 12:29:00 - [111] Originally by: Rodj Blake Originally by: Avon For humans, that would be men wearing yellowy green t-shirts with a wavelength of about 555nanometers. You can't shag what you can't see. If both sexes were perfectly camouflaged, how would they see each other? So dressing up as a luminous bogey should sort me out with the ladies? I said they would notice you - the rest is down to you. (Why do you think high-vis jackets are the colour they are?) The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur
Bhaal	Posted - 2006.07.13 12:29:00 - [112] Edited by: Bhaal on 13/07/2006 12:30:03 Originally by: Rodj Blake Originally by: Bhaal Originally by: Rodj Blake Originally by: Bhaal Originally by: Avon Originally by: Bhaal However, visually it strives for symmetry... If id did not, we'd surely know about it... Are you claiming that evolution can see its creations? We want to see symmetry because our brains are wired that way. It is going to be a pain for science if the underlying rules of the universe are not symmetrical, because we will never probably see them, even if they are right under our noses. How did male birds evolve colors to attract females who purposely don't have colors to camouflage them from prey? Somehow Evolution "decided" to do that. Evolution decided nothing. The colours appeared gradually by a process of evolution, because they offered a selective advantage. The female Mallards colors evolved due to her surroundings. Somehow, the surroundings colors had to be intergraded into that evolution equation to get her colors to come out right... Because if a random mutation occurs that causes the wrong colour, the poor bird dies without offspring. If a random mutation that produces a better colour occurs, then the bird will produce more offspring than the others. I guess you'd need a complete line of Mallard DNA all the way back to the beginning of that species to see how random that was... Either evolution tried many different colors, or converged on the right ones without going through all possible iterations... ------------------------------------------------ Current Hobby other than EVE My Hero
Avon	Posted - 2006.07.13 12:31:00 - [113] Originally by: Bhaal Either evolution tried many different colors, on converged on the right ones without going through all possible iterations... Or.. .. you are what you eat. Think about it. The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur
Rodj Blake	Posted - 2006.07.13 12:32:00 - [114] Edited by: Rodj Blake on 13/07/2006 12:33:30 Originally by: Bhaal Edited by: Bhaal on 13/07/2006 12:30:03 Originally by: Rodj Blake Originally by: Bhaal Originally by: Rodj Blake Originally by: Bhaal Originally by: Avon Originally by: Bhaal However, visually it strives for symmetry... If id did not, we'd surely know about it... Are you claiming that evolution can see its creations? We want to see symmetry because our brains are wired that way. It is going to be a pain for science if the underlying rules of the universe are not symmetrical, because we will never probably see them, even if they are right under our noses. How did male birds evolve colors to attract females who purposely don't have colors to camouflage them from prey? Somehow Evolution "decided" to do that. Evolution decided nothing. The colours appeared gradually by a process of evolution, because they offered a selective advantage. The female Mallards colors evolved due to her surroundings. Somehow, the surroundings colors had to be intergraded into that evolution equation to get her colors to come out right... Because if a random mutation occurs that causes the wrong colour, the poor bird dies without offspring. If a random mutation that produces a better colour occurs, then the bird will produce more offspring than the others. I guess you'd need a complete line of Mallard DNA all the way back to the beginning of that species to see how random that was... Either evolution tried many different colors, or converged on the right ones without going through all possible iterations... Evoultion works by random, gradual steps, rather like me when I'm trying to get to the bathroom at night in an unfamiliar house without turning on the light. For further reading, try The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins. Dulce et decorum est, pro imperator mori
Jobie Thickburger	Posted - 2006.07.13 12:32:00 - [115] I suppose if you want Engine symmetry, your pretty much stuck with Minmintar ships. They tend to have engines strapped to the back, and in even numbers. We must not try to comprehend that which we do not understand. Not saying you don't have a good grasp on physics or what not, just that the physics in Eve may be 150x different than what we are used to. As stated above, there's no reason that we can't say the 3rd engine on the Exq isnt there because the other two engines were overpowered? Shoot, I bet thats it, It was making steady RIGHT turns until they stuck that last engine on the back. As for the rest of the ships, espically the larger ones, such as the scorp, I can't comment much on them, as I can't fly them yet. I'll get back to you in 20,000 years though when we get this stuff figured out CEO - MGTTG
Bhaal	Posted - 2006.07.13 12:33:00 - [116] Originally by: Avon Originally by: Bhaal Either evolution tried many different colors, on converged on the right ones without going through all possible iterations... Or.. .. you are what you eat. Think about it. Mallards don't eat the foliage they are in tone with... ------------------------------------------------ Current Hobby other than EVE My Hero
Avon	Posted - 2006.07.13 12:34:00 - [117] Originally by: Bhaal Originally by: Avon Originally by: Bhaal Either evolution tried many different colors, on converged on the right ones without going through all possible iterations... Or.. .. you are what you eat. Think about it. Mallards don't eat the foliage they are in tone with... What does their food eat? The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur
Rodj Blake	Posted - 2006.07.13 12:37:00 - [118] I hereby declare this thread derailed! Dulce et decorum est, pro imperator mori
Andrue	Posted - 2006.07.13 12:38:00 - [119] Edited by: Andrue on 13/07/2006 12:39:02 Originally by: Thelmarr Originally by: Piuro What part of what I am saying is regarding Aerodynamics? Its basic propultion, if two objects off center are giving off different ammounts of thrust, it will rotate on an axis. Now, I do not claim to be space specialist but you forget something. In athmosphere having big rocket and small rocket set to one hull at distance would cause ship to turn in direction of smaller rocket. But this is because of drag caused by air IIRC. In effect air slows down smaller thruster side causing whole structure to turn. In space, on the other hand, there is no drag caused by air so there is no problem. It isn't just atmospheric resitance that causes the spin. It's also momentum. Although the ships are mostly operating in zero gravity (or at least microgravity) they still have mass and that mass like all mass everywhere will resist any attempt to accelerate it. An off centre reaction thrust can therefore still cause a ship to spin. The amount of spin will depend on how far off the centre of mass the thrust is. If the engine is a kilometre from the centre of mass then the engine will accelerate significantly faster than the centre of mass and the result is a spin..or at least curved flight. If we assume that the engine is one of most massive parts of the structure then the amount of spin is negligable so probably doesn't matter in normal flight and we can safely assume that however warp drives work they must be reactionless somehow - Einstein says so. -- (Battle hardened miner) [Brackley, UK] WARNING:This post may contain large doses of reality.
Jenny Spitfire	Posted - 2006.07.13 12:38:00 - [120] Originally by: Rodj Blake I hereby declare this thread derailed! You are wrong there. The thread has evolved. Sorry, couldnt help it. ---------------- RecruitMe@NOINT!

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last 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.