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)
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.
Piuro	Posted - 2006.07.13 08:35:00 - [31] 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.
Nebuli	Posted - 2006.07.13 08:36:00 - [32] Originally by: LUGAL MOP'N'GLO 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. Have to keap spanking my monkey cuz he's a lazy sod and we end up spinning in circles all the time. /emote spanks his monkey again CEO - Art of War
Mirasta	Posted - 2006.07.13 08:36:00 - [33] Perhaps the femputer onboard can regulate the engines in such away to account for unbalanced thrust in any situation in game to create a seemingly smooth and equal motion? Perhaps the engines are placed in such away to account for an imbalance of the internal non-visible systems mass on one portion of a ship? Perhaps there magical pixie furies that push the ship in certain directions and the engines are simply for show to keep people amused? Perhaps CCP just made it all up?
Piuro	Posted - 2006.07.13 08:37:00 - [34] Yes, lets settle all these arguments; CCP, Give us a giant rack to fly around with. I think that would make everyone here happy.
Piuro	Posted - 2006.07.13 08:38:00 - [35] Originally by: Mirasta Perhaps CCP just made it all up? Lies! Amarr lies!
Avon	Posted - 2006.07.13 08:42:00 - [36] 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. Originally by: Piuro=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.[/quote Sound familiar? The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur
Shaikar	Posted - 2006.07.13 08:45:00 - [37] As has already been said, there is very little "real" physics in EVE. for example, take basic spaceflight, ignoring things like startgates and warp. Why, in EVE space, do ships bank when they try to turn tight corners as if they were jumbo jets? To put it in sci fi physics terms, EVE is far mor more like Starwars, where x-wings fly suspiciously like WW2 fighters, than Babylon 5, where at least starfuries have the decency to fly (vaguely) like a real space fighter might. (Given they don't exist it's a bit hard to say :) )
Piuro	Posted - 2006.07.13 08:45:00 - [38] I was speaking specifically reguarding the previous comment. Either way, I surrender. -_-
Phant Zon	Posted - 2006.07.13 08:46:00 - [39] Originally by: Alliaanna Dalaii 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 "Houston, we have a problem" grin
LUGAL MOP'N'GLO	Posted - 2006.07.13 08:47:00 - [40] Originally by: Piuro Yes, lets settle all these arguments; CCP, Give us a giant rack to fly around with. I think that would make everyone here happy. Not at all what we're saying. What I'm saying, is as long as it looks good and makes the game entertaining, why should I even care enough to spew my brainpower into it? I've got more important (RL) stuff to worry about compared to why my ship works in a GAME.
Niivvy	Posted - 2006.07.13 09:12:00 - [41] The op seems to me like the kindos of person who watches superman or lost in space and shouts at the T.V. aww he could never do that cos....... this is a game like space tv programs where u can hear things in space like lasers shooting and rockets blowing stuff up. if the whole movie was silent it would be crap and no one would watch it, hence it would flop. if u like realisim i suggest playing microsoft flight sim or ever try out "real life" once in a while i heard it can be quite real!!!! but remember this is a game not rl and ccp want to make it fun not bland and boaring.. lets see if it was more realistic would u realy waqnt to play it ???? 1 ships would both blow up when u bumped eac hother 2 thier would be no noise or sound and ts would be forbiden cos u cant talk in a pod!!! 3 u would take ages to accelerate and an equil ammount of time to stop so. 4 when hit from the side with a peojectile ships would go into a spin. 5 acceleration gates woulld hurtle u into the abyss of space never to be seen again come on the list goes on engoy the GAME like somone sais this is NOT a space simulstion game its a sci-fi fantasy shooty game [url="http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?
Indra Sebuchiore	Posted - 2006.07.13 09:20:00 - [42] Originally by: Novarei There is no attention to physics and realism in this game. Sadly true. __________________________________________ "In girum imus nocte, et consumimur igni."
Sensor Error	Posted - 2006.07.13 09:20:00 - [43] Originally by: Piuro 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. erm... you are just the captain, the ships still have a crew... RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE!!! ------------------------------------------ Dev Responses to common questions
Nyphur	Posted - 2006.07.13 09:21:00 - [44] Originally by: LUGAL MOP'N'GLO Goddamn I love monkey butlers. This is funny out of context :). Eve-Tanking.com - For tanking spreadsheet and resources.
Sensor Error	Posted - 2006.07.13 09:22:00 - [45] Originally by: Nebuli Originally by: LUGAL MOP'N'GLO 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. Have to keap spanking my monkey cuz he's a lazy sod and we end up spinning in circles all the time. /emote spanks his monkey again Are you sure you're not spinning out and losing control because you're spanking your monkey all the time? RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE!!! ------------------------------------------ Dev Responses to common questions
Sensor Error	Posted - 2006.07.13 09:26:00 - [46] Originally by: Shaikar To put it in sci fi physics terms, EVE is far mor more like Starwars, where x-wings fly suspiciously like WW2 fighters, than Babylon 5, where at least starfuries have the decency to fly (vaguely) like a real space fighter might. (Given they don't exist it's a bit hard to say :) ) Thats because George Lucas studied ww2 dogfight footage as inspiration for the x-wing fight scenes... J. Michael Straczynski (the guy who did Babylon 5) actually consulted with NASA about all the stuff in B5. B5 is actually one of the, if not the most "realistic" space sci-fi show about. RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE!!! ------------------------------------------ Dev Responses to common questions
Thelmarr	Posted - 2006.07.13 09:27:00 - [47] 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.
Whelan Iskander	Posted - 2006.07.13 09:57:00 - [48] Originally by: Sensor Error Are you sure you're not spinning out and losing control because you're spanking your monkey all the time? This is just gross...I mean come on. Do you people know what 'spanking the monkey' is? Think of the children...and the kittens. OMG the kittens...
Dark Shikari	Posted - 2006.07.13 09:59:00 - [49] Why should ships be symmetrical in an environment where symmetry gives no benefit whatsoever? --Proud member of the [23]-- -WTS Nanotransistors, Heavy Electron II, 100mn AB II-
Joerd Toastius	Posted - 2006.07.13 10:00:00 - [50] Non-newtonian propulsion. Next question?
Wild Rho	Posted - 2006.07.13 10:22:00 - [51] Part of the OPs problem is assuming that becuase he dislikes symmetry in the ships, everyone else should as well. Personally I love the mix between symmetrical ship and unsymmetrical. It makes the ship designs far more varied as well as help instill the sense of a design philosophy behind each races ships. Using real life examples is a poor idea in this case as they simply cannot be applied to Eve. The "physical" rules in Eve are defined by developers as they see fit, nothing else. WE ARE DYSLEXIC OF BORG. Refutance is systile. Your ass will be laminated. - Jennie Marlboro
Rodj Blake	Posted - 2006.07.13 10:24:00 - [52] Edited by: Rodj Blake on 13/07/2006 10:24:18 Originally by: Avon Jeez, it isn't exactly rocket science... Dulce et decorum est, pro imperator mori
Bhaal	Posted - 2006.07.13 10:30:00 - [53] Edited by: Bhaal on 13/07/2006 10:35:18 Originally by: Avon 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. Actually, no it isn't... All of the procreation methods we know of for life on this planet take into account symmetry where mate selection is occurring. We humans do the same thing with our vehicles, etc... Symmetry is much more prevalent, acceptable, and desired... Only time symmetry is not desired is to accommodate better form, fit & function. Certainly not to please the eye... I design machines for the aerospace industry, and I try to keep my designs symmetrical wherever possible. It's simpler for all involved, from me to the vendor making parts, all the way to the customer maintenance dept, etc. (And the customer suits appreciate the machine much more if it's pleasing to to the eye, even if it does not affect performance) Symmetry should always be strived for in design IMO. Evolution strives for symmetry, so should all designers... ------------------------------------------------ Current Hobby other than EVE My Hero
Avon	Posted - 2006.07.13 10:36:00 - [54] Originally by: Bhaal Evolution strives for symmetry, so should all designers... No it doesn't The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur
Rodj Blake	Posted - 2006.07.13 10:38:00 - [55] There's symmetry, and then there's symmetry... Very few things are completely asymmetrical, and the only thing that's totally symmetrical for rotation and reflection in all planes is a hypersphere in twenty or so dimensions. Now that we've got that out of the way, any perceived lack of symmetry in Eve's ships is the least of their physical problems. For example, since when was a spatial object's maximum velocity (which should in theory be just a tad less than c) more important than its maximum acceleration? Trust me, Eve will make a lot more sense when you throw out the physics. Dulce et decorum est, pro imperator mori
Rodj Blake	Posted - 2006.07.13 10:40:00 - [56] Originally by: Avon Originally by: Bhaal Evolution strives for symmetry, so should all designers... No it doesn't Chirality 4tw. Dulce et decorum est, pro imperator mori
Bhaal	Posted - 2006.07.13 10:43:00 - [57] Edited by: Bhaal on 13/07/2006 10:43:58 Originally by: Avon Originally by: Bhaal Evolution strives for symmetry, so should all designers... No it doesn't Most life on this planet strives for symmetry down it's longitudinal axis. Not many life forms strive for asymmetry. You're just being a butt-head... ------------------------------------------------ Current Hobby other than EVE My Hero
Rodj Blake	Posted - 2006.07.13 10:46:00 - [58] Originally by: Bhaal Originally by: Avon Originally by: Bhaal Evolution strives for symmetry, so should all designers... No it doesn't Most life on this planet is symmetrical down it's longitudinal axis. Not many life forms strive for asymmetry. You're just being a butt-head... That all depends on what scale you're looking at it. A tree may look symmetrical from a distance, but are its branches really like that? Dulce et decorum est, pro imperator mori
Too Kind	Posted - 2006.07.13 10:53:00 - [59] Evolution strives for nothing. It's just a result. -------------------------- Post with your main !!!111
Bhaal	Posted - 2006.07.13 10:54:00 - [60] Edited by: Bhaal on 13/07/2006 10:55:27 Evolution strives for symmetry, so should all designers... No it doesn't Most life on this planet is symmetrical down it's longitudinal axis. Not many life forms strive for asymmetry. You're just being a butt-head... That all depends on what scale you're looking at it. A tree may look symmetrical from a distance, but are its branches really like that? A tree would definitely be symmetrical under the right external conditions. Sunlight, prevailing wind, substrate in which the roots propagate. Are some factors that take a tree off the path of symmetry. A baby in a mothers womb, up against the wall will develop some asymmetry. If that baby was able to grow in a static environment, more humans would be symmetrical. (crooked noses, different length appendages) Most ppl's faces are not symmetric due to this (along with genetic defects of course) In manufacturing, we can hold much tighter tolerances, so we can achieve much more symmetry. Living this grow to lesser tolerances do to genetic defects and external forces. I've seen some conifers that are so symmetrical, it's amazing they could even grow that way, but more amazing is how pleasing to the eye they are compared to others... I'd rather date a symmetrical woman, than one who is grossly asymmetrical... Same with flying EVE ships, or driving a car... Maybe Avon prefers asymmetrical women... ------------------------------------------------ Current Hobby other than EVE My Hero
Jenny Spitfire	Posted - 2006.07.13 10:58:00 - [61] /me looks at modern art. ---------------- RecruitMe@NOINT!
Avon	Posted - 2006.07.13 11:00:00 - [62] Edited by: Avon on 13/07/2006 11:00:50 Originally by: Bhaal Maybe Avon prefers asymmetrical women... Cut one in half. How symmetrical is that? You see symmetry because the human brain looks for it, not because it is actually there. The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur
Bhaal	Posted - 2006.07.13 11:03:00 - [63] Edited by: Bhaal on 13/07/2006 11:04:25 Originally by: Avon Edited by: Avon on 13/07/2006 11:00:50 Originally by: Bhaal Maybe Avon prefers asymmetrical women... Cut one in half. How symmetrical is that? You see symmetry because the human brain looks for it, not because it is actually there. If you cut a woman in half, she's no longer shaggable... Hence not pleasing to the eye... I don't know why you'd want to cut a woman in half to prove that she is no longer symmetrical... And that is my point, the human brain does indeed look for it, as do bird brains, and even insect brains when it comes time for procreation. Symmetry is a genetic marker for good heath, and a wise choice... Most human brains choose symmetry, hence those of us who think symmetrical EVE ships "look better" ------------------------------------------------ Current Hobby other than EVE My Hero
Piuro	Posted - 2006.07.13 11:06:00 - [64] I already said I agree that its all a matter of taste. But fine, lets throw physics out the window, its just a hobby anyways. If we move on to design, however, im on much more comfortable territory. Ill start with a simple number. 1.61803399 I win.
Jenny Spitfire	Posted - 2006.07.13 11:06:00 - [65] Edited by: Jenny Spitfire on 13/07/2006 11:07:36 Originally by: Bhaal Originally by: Avon Edited by: Avon on 13/07/2006 11:00:50 Originally by: Bhaal Maybe Avon prefers asymmetrical women... Cut one in half. How symmetrical is that? You see symmetry because the human brain looks for it, not because it is actually there. If you cut a woman in half, she's no longer shaggable... Hence not pleasing to the eye... I don't know why you'd want to cut a woman in half to prove that she is no longer symmetrical... And that is my point, the human brain does indeed look for it, as do bird brains, and even insect brains when it comes time for procreation. Symmetry is a genetic marker for good heath, and a wise choice... Not really. Best things in life are asymmetric. If everything is symmetrical, there will be no human race because everyone is a clone. Best engineered structures are asymmetrical. Symmetrical is preferred because it is easy to calculate, manufactured and our puny human brains cant understand asymmetricalism. ---------------- RecruitMe@NOINT!
Jenny Spitfire	Posted - 2006.07.13 11:07:00 - [66] Originally by: Avon Originally by: Bhaal Evolution strives for symmetry, so should all designers... No it doesn't /signed. ---------------- RecruitMe@NOINT!
Estelle Matsuko	Posted - 2006.07.13 11:10:00 - [67] Lack of symmetry FTW. EVE wouldn¦t be EVE without butt ugly cobbled together Minmatar ships.
Leandro Salazar	Posted - 2006.07.13 11:13:00 - [68] Edited by: Leandro Salazar on 13/07/2006 11:14:25 Yes, symmetry (And I count slight imperfections as still symmetric) is naturally aesthetic and preferable to most people. That is a tried and true undeniable fact. But as with any rule, there will be exceptions. Either because some people actually have a taste that is very far from the norm (I like the phoons look for example), or simply because some (eternal) teen wants to go against the flow just because. But in a general sense, symmetry will always win out, so stuff is designed symmetrical most of the time even if there is no practical need for it. I like the mix in EVE. Even though I vastly prefer symmetry in general, there can be true beauty in asymmetry as well. --------- ZOMG my sig was concordokkened! Link removed due to bad language on remote site. -wystler
Bhaal	Posted - 2006.07.13 11:14:00 - [69] Originally by: Jenny Spitfire Originally by: Avon Originally by: Bhaal Evolution strives for symmetry, so should all designers... No it doesn't /signed. You're simply wrong... Most humans prefer symmetry for instinctual, and practical reasons. The ones who prefer asymmetry simply have bad genetics IMO... Art is a different case. Some architecture reflects that, and asymmetry can be pleasing in that regard. Mainly because it's for pleasure, not for function. Art is useless essentially. As far as mechanism design (Where life is a carbon based machine IMO) Symmetry is strived for in almost every case. ------------------------------------------------ Current Hobby other than EVE My Hero
Avon	Posted - 2006.07.13 11:14:00 - [70] Edited by: Avon on 13/07/2006 11:15:23 Originally by: Piuro I already said I agree that its all a matter of taste. But fine, lets throw physics out the window, its just a hobby anyways. If we move on to design, however, im on much more comfortable territory. Ill start with a simple number. 1.61803399 I win. Just a warning - the mods tend to hurt people who try to bring up the golden ratio There was a period when it was all you saw here, even taking over people's sigs. Don't go there. The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur
Voculus	Posted - 2006.07.13 11:17:00 - [71] The reason the ships in this game are so fugly, is because back in the day, CCP hired some goons who did sloppy work, and took no pride in their job. Tell me the flying cow pie called the Tempest wasn't whipped out by some hack who wanted to leave early to get a beer. Thankfully, CCP is taking their art in a new direction, and if you've seen the concept art for the forthcoming ships, they are far better-designed than their predecessors.
Piuro	Posted - 2006.07.13 11:17:00 - [72] Look even at atomic structure.
Rodj Blake	Posted - 2006.07.13 11:18:00 - [73] The heart's a pretty important organ. Not very symmetrical though. Dulce et decorum est, pro imperator mori
Bhaal	Posted - 2006.07.13 11:20:00 - [74] Originally by: Voculus The reason the ships in this game are so fugly, is because back in the day, CCP hired some goons who did sloppy work, and took no pride in their job. Tell me the flying cow pie called the Tempest wasn't whipped out by some hack who wanted to leave early to get a beer. Thankfully, CCP is taking their art in a new direction, and if you've seen the concept art for the forthcoming ships, they are far better-designed than their predecessors. The new Minmatar BS looks like crap to me, where the Amarr one is sweet as hell... From what I've seen, they are both symmetrical down the "Y" axis. Just a matter of opinion in most cases... ------------------------------------------------ Current Hobby other than EVE My Hero
Bhaal	Posted - 2006.07.13 11:22:00 - [75] Originally by: Rodj Blake The heart's a pretty important organ. Not very symmetrical though. Our brains do see not the heart when we go to pick a mate... (But when we draw one to show our love, oddly enough, that's a symmetrical shape) In internal combustion engine is rarely perfectly symmetrical, but it's under the hood when we pick a style of car we really like, which are usually very symmetrical... ------------------------------------------------ Current Hobby other than EVE My Hero
Phaeton Vo	Posted - 2006.07.13 11:25:00 - [76] If you characterise asymmetry as 'bad genetics' you're sounding a bit scary to be honest. DNA doesn't have reflective symmetry. If you just ignore all the beautiful things in the world which AREN'T symmetrical (I'm not even gonna bother with examples as there are SO many) and describe them as 'imperfect' then it's clear you're coming from a deeply classical, albeit simplistic, idea of beauty. Here in the sun-kissed isles of Nihon, symmetry is regarded as... dasai... kakkou warui.... just plain uncool. One of the fundamental concepts of our aesthetics is asymmetry. No surprise I play Minmatar
Avon	Posted - 2006.07.13 11:25:00 - [77] Bhaal, evolution really does not strive for symmetry - it strives for the biggest advantage for the smallest increase in complexity. That is why eyes and ears are offset vertically, and respond to different frequencies (eyes and ears) We may look symmetrical to a cursory glance on the surface, but that is nothing like the real picture. Are we symmetrical internally? The brain is programmed to accept superficial bi-lateral symmetry as an indication of 'normal', and because the brain is attuned to it we not only see it everywhere, we want to see it. However, the symmetry of nature does not hold to scrutiny. The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur
Jenny Spitfire	Posted - 2006.07.13 11:25:00 - [78] Originally by: Bhaal Originally by: Jenny Spitfire Originally by: Avon Originally by: Bhaal Evolution strives for symmetry, so should all designers... No it doesn't /signed. You're simply wrong... Most humans prefer symmetry for instinctual, and practical reasons. The ones who prefer asymmetry simply have bad genetics IMO... Art is a different case. Some architecture reflects that, and asymmetry can be pleasing in that regard. Mainly because it's for pleasure, not for function. Art is useless essentially. As far as mechanism design (Where life is a carbon based machine IMO) Symmetry is strived for in almost every case. Some features of carbon based creatures. Brain isnt symmetrical. Fiddler crab isnt symmetrical. In mechanical designs, asymmetrical designs can be extremely efficient depending on the usage. Not going to say everything good is asymmetrical or symmetrical. The main point that symmetry is strived is almost every case for mechanical designs is because symmetrical building blocks are much easier and cost efficient to manufacture. ---------------- RecruitMe@NOINT!
Bhaal	Posted - 2006.07.13 11:32:00 - [79] Edited by: Bhaal on 13/07/2006 11:37:51 Originally by: Avon Bhaal, evolution really does not strive for symmetry - it strives for the biggest advantage for the smallest increase in complexity. That is why eyes and ears are offset vertically, and respond to different frequencies (eyes and ears) We may look symmetrical to a cursory glance on the surface, but that is nothing like the real picture. Are we symmetrical internally? The brain is programmed to accept superficial bi-lateral symmetry as an indication of 'normal', and because the brain is attuned to it we not only see it everywhere, we want to see it. However, the symmetry of nature does not hold to scrutiny. We are talking about pleasing looks here... And in the mechanical design aspect, ease and cost of manufacture. The less a womanÆs eyes & ears are offset, the more attractive she is. There is a reason for this. There is no justification for the offset EVE ships other than art. And this is displeasing to many players... If evolution did not strive for symmetry, things would be quite different... Are any life forms perfectly symmetrical? No, but the best looking ones are damn close... This is what I meant. I may strive for symmetry in my designs, but do to the nature of the machine function, rarely do I achieve it. But my designs look better compared to some engineers here who ignore that attention to detail... ------------------------------------------------ Current Hobby other than EVE My Hero
Inertia Foryu	Posted - 2006.07.13 11:40:00 - [80] You are assuming symmetry with constant density (mass/volume). However, If you assume that force is applied via those thrust points as we understand engines today, and you assume that you have variable density throughout the ship, then I submit that it is logical to assume that the center of gravity of the ship does not need to be located along an axis of symmetry, but along the center of mass. This way you do not get any unwanted yaw, pitch or roll during flight. You can easily claim that the variable density is due to onboard electronic system locations, cargo hold location with extra armor etc. In other words, center of mass is the key, not axis of symmetry. Next time, think before you post. heh, just kidding :) Just my 2 isk. ------ Sci-Fi Fan? Geek? The WarpZone Podcast
Crumplecorn	Posted - 2006.07.13 11:42:00 - [81] Originally by: Piuro 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. Get used to it. I did, even after years and years of Star Trek. The Thoraxes portrait does not show the sticky outey bit, and I was well ****ed when I saw that, as the Thorax is teh sexy. Now I think it would be ugly without it. ---------- Always Up To SomethingÖ One of us is really thick, and I hope its you - Kalaan Oratay
Too Kind	Posted - 2006.07.13 11:42:00 - [82] Edited by: Too Kind on 13/07/2006 11:43:38 Evolution is a general principle that doesn't have beauty in mind, symmetry or whatever. The mechanism behind Evolutions just automatically generates new solutions to problems over time. Not because it wants to, but because the math or in other words the laws for replication and selection (in nature the environment) plus some luck dictate, in which direction the whole system developes. Surely it's more likely that these mechanisms usually generate animals that have a symmetrical shape e.g. because of our environment like the gravity etc. So why isn't the inside of our body not symmetrical ? Simply because it's more about functional design than the looks. If an asymmetrical design turns out to fullfill its role better than a symmetrical design and there is nothing that hinders the reproduction of the asymmetrical design, then the asymmetrical design will 'make it'. There is no masterplan, the machine just 'rattles' and spits out new solutions (organisms) and it will be like this on earth as long as life can exist. The machine doesn't know beauty. Sorry. -------------------------- Post with your main !!!111
Bhaal	Posted - 2006.07.13 11:46:00 - [83] Edited by: Bhaal on 13/07/2006 11:47:43 Originally by: Too Kind Edited by: Too Kind on 13/07/2006 11:43:38 Evolution is a general principle that doesn't have beauty in mind, symmetry or whatever. The mechanism behind Evolutions just automatically generates new solutions to problems over time. Not because it wants to, but because the math or in other words the laws for replication and selection (in nature the environment) plus some luck dictate, in which direction the whole system developes. Surely it's more likely that these mechanisms usually generate animals that have a symmetrical shape e.g. because of our environment like the gravity etc. So why isn't the inside of our body not symmetrical ? Simply because it's more about functional design than the looks. If an asymmetrical design turns out to fullfill its role better than a symmetrical design and there is nothing that hinders the reproduction of the asymmetrical design, then the asymmetrical design will 'make it'. There is no masterplan, the machine just 'rattles' and spits out new solutions (organisms) and it will be like this on earth as long as life can exist. The machine doesn't know beauty. Sorry. I agree with you fully. What I'm saying is that Evolution strives for visual symmetry, maybe I needed to state that from the beginning. Most machines end up asymmetrical due to form, fit & function. But typically if styling is a selling point, the external coverings are symmetrical... This is what I meant by evolution strives for symmetry... Bottom line is CCP needs more symmetrical styling in its ships. They have overdone the asymmetrical ship design for far to long now... ------------------------------------------------ Current Hobby other than EVE My Hero
Crumplecorn	Posted - 2006.07.13 11:47:00 - [84] 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. ---------- Always Up To SomethingÖ One of us is really thick, and I hope its you - Kalaan Oratay
Avon	Posted - 2006.07.13 11:49:00 - [85] Edited by: Avon on 13/07/2006 11:51:05 Originally by: Bhaal There is no justification for the offset EVE ships other than art. And this is displeasing to many players... This flys in the face of everything you have just used to argue in favour of symmetry. You tell us that symmetry is an aesthetic preference, but that it isn't always practical in mechanical design ... and then tell us that the ships in Eve should be symmetrical, when clearly they are representations of mechanical systems. The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur
Piuro	Posted - 2006.07.13 11:50:00 - [86] Actually, we are supprisingly symmerical in our internal structure. Lungs, brain, heart (valves), muscles, veins, etc. The really interesting thing is this is one of the few arguments valid to both creationists and Evolutionists, because one side is beuty, and the other is practicality. There are very few truely asymmetrical animals, mainly crabs and the like. From a biological standpoint, symmetry is much more favorable, because the amout of energy required for a specific action is the same no matter the side of the body its on, and the fact that you have a limb that can stand in should one... go missing.
Bhaal	Posted - 2006.07.13 11:53:00 - [87] Edited by: Bhaal on 13/07/2006 11:53:30 Originally by: Avon Originally by: Bhaal There is no justification for the offset EVE ships other than art. And this is displeasing to many players... This flies in the face of everything you have just used to argue in favour of symmetry. You tell us that symmetry is an aesthetic preference, but that it isn't always practical in mechanical design ... and then tell us that the ships in Eve should be symmetrical, when clearly they are representations of mechanical systems. The inside of a Boeing 747 is not symmetrical down the longitudinal axis, but the outer shell certainly is. There is no need for the Thorax to be asymmetrical, other than for an artistic flare... Also, EVE uses bogus physics, so the ship designs are pure art anyways... ------------------------------------------------ Current Hobby other than EVE My Hero
Avon	Posted - 2006.07.13 11:56:00 - [88] 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.) The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur
Jenny Spitfire	Posted - 2006.07.13 12:02:00 - [89] Originally by: Piuro Actually, we are supprisingly symmerical in our internal structure. Lungs, brain, heart (valves), muscles, veins, etc. The really interesting thing is this is one of the few arguments valid to both creationists and Evolutionists, because one side is beuty, and the other is practicality. There are very few truely asymmetrical animals, mainly crabs and the like. From a biological standpoint, symmetry is much more favorable, because the amout of energy required for a specific action is the same no matter the side of the body its on, and the fact that you have a limb that can stand in should one... go missing. Proof? ---------------- RecruitMe@NOINT!
Avon	Posted - 2006.07.13 12:03:00 - [90] 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. The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur
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!
Avon	Posted - 2006.07.13 12:38:00 - [121] Originally by: Rodj Blake I hereby declare this thread derailed! Don't tell them, Sheesh. The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur
Bhaal	Posted - 2006.07.13 12:42:00 - [122] Originally by: Avon 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? They dive to the bottoms of shallow ponds and strain out plankton, which certainly donÆt eat the grasses that are above the water... Zebras did not evolve the stripes because they eat black & white striped grass. They evolved the stripes specifically to confuse lions while the herd is in motion. Evolution somehow had to know this would confuse the lions sense of sight... ------------------------------------------------ Current Hobby other than EVE My Hero
Rodj Blake	Posted - 2006.07.13 12:43:00 - [123] Edited by: Rodj Blake on 13/07/2006 12:43:51 Originally by: Bhaal Originally by: Avon 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? They dive to the bottoms of shallow ponds and strain out plankton, which certainly donÆt eat the grasses that are above the water... Zebras did not evolve the stripes because they eat black & white striped grass. They evolved the stripes specifically to confuse lions while the herd is in motion. Evolution somehow had to know this would confuse the lions sense of sight... Evolution knew nothing. It's just that the zebras that were less good at confusing lions got eaten. Dulce et decorum est, pro imperator mori
Bhaal	Posted - 2006.07.13 12:46:00 - [124] Originally by: Rodj Blake Edited by: Rodj Blake on 13/07/2006 12:43:51 Originally by: Bhaal Originally by: Avon 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? They dive to the bottoms of shallow ponds and strain out plankton, which certainly donÆt eat the grasses that are above the water... Zebras did not evolve the stripes because they eat black & white striped grass. They evolved the stripes specifically to confuse lions while the herd is in motion. Evolution somehow had to know this would confuse the lions sense of sight... Evolution knew nothing. It's just that the zebras that were less good at confusing lions got eaten. I can't prove that evolution derives it's iterations through the host entities experiences, and you cannot prove that it's totally random. So I guess neither of us truly knows... ------------------------------------------------ Current Hobby other than EVE My Hero
Avon	Posted - 2006.07.13 12:47:00 - [125] Edited by: Avon on 13/07/2006 12:48:40 Andrue, the turning moments and required impulses would actually be quite complicated to work out. (Although you are fundamentally correct). However, keeping the moments neutral is quite possible, and that is all that matters. (ie: the thrust provided to the associated mass must provide an equal momentum delta. So, if you slice the ship along the engines, each section would have to accelerate at the same rate. If they do, then when they are connected there will be no turing moment, and so impulse control {varying force over time - pulsing the engines if you like} is not required) The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur
Bhaal	Posted - 2006.07.13 12:52:00 - [126] Edited by: Bhaal on 13/07/2006 12:52:09 LOL at this thread! OMG OMG OMG! Anyways, I'm glad to see that the new Tier 3 BS's seem to be more symmetrical... I've only seen the concept art, is there anything new in that regard? ------------------------------------------------ Current Hobby other than EVE My Hero
Jenny Spitfire	Posted - 2006.07.13 12:54:00 - [127] Originally by: Bhaal Edited by: Bhaal on 13/07/2006 12:52:09 LOL at this thread! OMG OMG OMG! Anyways, I'm glad to see that the new Tier 3 BS's seem to be more symmetrical... I've only seen the concept art, is there anything new in that regard? The other side of the tier 3 Caldari BS has many antennas. They are hidden in the artwork because of blind spots. ---------------- RecruitMe@NOINT!
Bhaal	Posted - 2006.07.13 12:57:00 - [128] Originally by: Jenny Spitfire Originally by: Bhaal Edited by: Bhaal on 13/07/2006 12:52:09 LOL at this thread! OMG OMG OMG! Anyways, I'm glad to see that the new Tier 3 BS's seem to be more symmetrical... I've only seen the concept art, is there anything new in that regard? The other side of the tier 3 Caldari BS has many antennas. They are hidden in the artwork because of blind spots. The Amarr & Minmatar look pretty symmetrical from what I have seen... I absolutely love the Amarr one... Almost wish I could get a race change, along with all my SC & Gunnery skills, lol... ------------------------------------------------ Current Hobby other than EVE My Hero
Jenny Spitfire	Posted - 2006.07.13 12:59:00 - [129] Originally by: Bhaal Originally by: Jenny Spitfire Originally by: Bhaal Edited by: Bhaal on 13/07/2006 12:52:09 LOL at this thread! OMG OMG OMG! Anyways, I'm glad to see that the new Tier 3 BS's seem to be more symmetrical... I've only seen the concept art, is there anything new in that regard? The other side of the tier 3 Caldari BS has many antennas. They are hidden in the artwork because of blind spots. The Amarr & Minmatar look pretty symmetrical from what I have seen... I absolutely love the Amarr one... Almost wish I could get a race change, along with all my SC & Gunnery skills, lol... If the Caldari BS is really that symmetrical, I really like the design. Typical block architecture. Amarr BS is the only ship that really stands among those three. Just nice, big and scary. ---------------- RecruitMe@NOINT!
Bhaal	Posted - 2006.07.13 13:01:00 - [130] Originally by: Jenny Spitfire Originally by: Bhaal Originally by: Jenny Spitfire Originally by: Bhaal Edited by: Bhaal on 13/07/2006 12:52:09 LOL at this thread! OMG OMG OMG! Anyways, I'm glad to see that the new Tier 3 BS's seem to be more symmetrical... I've only seen the concept art, is there anything new in that regard? The other side of the tier 3 Caldari BS has many antennas. They are hidden in the artwork because of blind spots. The Amarr & Minmatar look pretty symmetrical from what I have seen... I absolutely love the Amarr one... Almost wish I could get a race change, along with all my SC & Gunnery skills, lol... If the Caldari BS is really that symmetrical, I really like the design. Typical block architecture. Amarr BS is the only ship that really stands among those three. Just nice, big and scary. I like the Amarr one so much I started another character last night specifically to train up for one... Should be rdy in 6 months, lol. I chose this race for Bhaal because I fell in love with the Rifter (the hot ship of that time), lol... Maybe no tthe best way to choose a character race, but... ------------------------------------------------ Current Hobby other than EVE My Hero
Rodj Blake	Posted - 2006.07.13 13:01:00 - [131] Edited by: Rodj Blake on 13/07/2006 13:03:49 Edited by: Rodj Blake on 13/07/2006 13:01:48 Originally by: Bhaal I can't prove that evolution derives it's iterations through the host entities experiences, and you cannot prove that it's totally random. So I guess neither of us truly knows... Not totally-random. Neo-Darwinist evolution in a nutshell: First genetic mutation causes an individual to be different from its peers. This is effectively random. Then, the mutant will interact with it's environment. If the mutation offers an advantage, it will typically have more offspring than its peers. If the mutation doesn't offer an advantage, then it will typically have fewer offspring (if it's a seriously bad mutation, the mutant might not even get born). Although random events can get in the way (our mutant gets eaten while still a baby, for example), this is essentially deterministic. Eventually, if it offers a selective advantage, the mutant gene will spread throughout the population because is carriers will on average have more offspring than those members of the species without it. This is also essentially a deterministic process. Eventually, the entire population will have the new gene, and the species will have evolved. Should the original species have two or more distinct populations cut-off from each other, different mutations may prove beneficial to each of them, because they live in different environments. As such, the different populations may evolve in different directions and will eventually become different species. No guiding hand is neccessary through this process of evolution. Dulce et decorum est, pro imperator mori
Joerd Toastius	Posted - 2006.07.13 13:02:00 - [132] Principles relevant to this thread: -Natural contexts tend to select for symmetry in many cases -Eve ships do not use newtonian propulsion (those are exhausts, not thrusters) Corollaries: -Nobody here understands the mechanics of Eve ship design -Apparently, nobody (well, very few people) here has the slightest grasp of evolutionary principles Conclusion: -This thread is silly.
Bhaal	Posted - 2006.07.13 13:04:00 - [133] Originally by: Rodj Blake Edited by: Rodj Blake on 13/07/2006 13:01:48 Originally by: Bhaal I can't prove that evolution derives it's iterations through the host entities experiences, and you cannot prove that it's totally random. So I guess neither of us truly knows... Not totally-random. Neo-Darwinist evolution in a nutshell: First genetic mutation causes an individual to be different from its peers. This is effectively random. Then, the mutant will interact with it's environment. If the mutation offers an advantage, it will typically have more offspring than its peers. If the mutation doesn't offer an advantage, then it will typically have fewer offspring (if it's a seriously bad mutation, the mutant might not even get born). Although random events can get in the way (our mutant gets eaten while still a baby, for example), this is essentially deterministic. Eventually, if it offers a selective advantage, the mutant gene will spread throughout the population because is carriers will on average have more offspring than those members of the species without it. This is also essentially a deterministic process. Eventually, the entire population will have the new gene, and the species will have evolved. Should the original species have two or more distinct populations cut-off from each other, different mutatations may prove beneficial to each of them, because they live in different environments. As such, the different populations may evolve in different directions and will eventually become different species. No guiding hand is neccessary through this process of evolution. I understand, but we both know we do not have all the information need to close the book on evolution. I'm not talking about creationism, that's not my bag... I just don't think the mutations are absolutely random, somehow the host can relay information to create mutations that might create an advantage... ------------------------------------------------ Current Hobby other than EVE My Hero
Bhaal	Posted - 2006.07.13 13:05:00 - [134] Originally by: Joerd Toastius Principles relevant to this thread: -Natural contexts tend to select for symmetry in many cases -Eve ships do not use newtonian propulsion (those are exhausts, not thrusters) Corollaries: -Nobody here understands the mechanics of Eve ship design -Apparently, nobody (well, very few people) here has the slightest grasp of evolutionary principles Conclusion: -This thread is silly. Then why did you post in such a silly thread? ------------------------------------------------ Current Hobby other than EVE My Hero
Lisa Run	Posted - 2006.07.13 13:05:00 - [135] Edited by: Lisa Run on 13/07/2006 13:08:23 Edited by: Lisa Run on 13/07/2006 13:06:37 @piuro Yes, sorry for getting sligthly off topic, but I'm still under the influence of some introductuary books about complex adaptive systems that I've read some years ago like 'Complexity: Life at the Edge of Chaos' from Roger Lewin about evolution, social systems etc., I've forgotten a lot already .... or ... 'The Quark and the Jaguar: Adventures in the Simple and Complex' from Murray Gell-Mann At that time I've also programmed some Genetic Algorithms, just for fun to see how they work. At some point you just think that 'evolution' in those systems is a logical consequence, it can't be different under these circumstances from a mathematical/scientific viewpoint. But it's always amazing to see the results or the direction it took in nature e.g. the complexity of life. P.S.: To all: Blame the guys here, who started with evolution that I replied to that. We had the talk about asymmetrical design in EVE so often, almost as often as the non-realistic physics. I don't think that anything new will come out of that. The devs stated that they like these asymetrical designs and want to keep them and the physics is like it e.g. for better gameplay. Btw. Too kind here, account just ran out. ___________________________ ! Post under construction !
Joerd Toastius	Posted - 2006.07.13 13:32:00 - [136] Originally by: Bhaal Originally by: Joerd Toastius Principles relevant to this thread: -Natural contexts tend to select for symmetry in many cases -Eve ships do not use newtonian propulsion (those are exhausts, not thrusters) Corollaries: -Nobody here understands the mechanics of Eve ship design -Apparently, nobody (well, very few people) here has the slightest grasp of evolutionary principles Conclusion: -This thread is silly. Then why did you post in such a silly thread? I like the sound of my own voice. What's your excuse for molesting this fly-ridden horse carcass?
Avon	Posted - 2006.07.13 13:35:00 - [137] Originally by: Joerd Toastius I like the sound of my own voice. What's your excuse for molesting this fly-ridden horse carcass? You talk out loud when you type? The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur
Bhaal	Posted - 2006.07.13 13:36:00 - [138] Originally by: Joerd Toastius Originally by: Bhaal Originally by: Joerd Toastius Principles relevant to this thread: -Natural contexts tend to select for symmetry in many cases -Eve ships do not use newtonian propulsion (those are exhausts, not thrusters) Corollaries: -Nobody here understands the mechanics of Eve ship design -Apparently, nobody (well, very few people) here has the slightest grasp of evolutionary principles Conclusion: -This thread is silly. Then why did you post in such a silly thread? I like the sound of my own voice. What's your excuse for molesting this fly-ridden horse carcass? From your post, sounds like you don't like anything about this thread. When I see a thread that does not interest me, I don't post. ------------------------------------------------ Current Hobby other than EVE My Hero
Joerd Toastius	Posted - 2006.07.13 13:39:00 - [139] Originally by: Avon Originally by: Joerd Toastius I like the sound of my own voice. What's your excuse for molesting this fly-ridden horse carcass? You talk out loud when you type? Shush. You're ruining the punchline Uh, I mean... "Yes, all the time. Don't you?"
Emmy Marsin	Posted - 2006.07.13 13:41:00 - [140] And to think in EVE an afterburner needs to continually fire to maintain speed. :) In space, with the absence of friction and gravity, you'd actually need another afterburner firing in the opposite direction to slow down.
Joerd Toastius	Posted - 2006.07.13 13:42:00 - [141] Originally by: Emmy Marsin And to think in EVE an afterburner needs to continually fire to maintain speed. :) In space, with the absence of friction and gravity, you'd actually need another afterburner firing in the opposite direction to slow down. Non-newtonian propulsion. Yeah, I know. This thread is going nowhere. I'm gonna stop posting before I derail the derailment... Hmm... meta-derailment?
Rodj Blake	Posted - 2006.07.13 13:45:00 - [142] Originally by: Emmy Marsin And to think in EVE an afterburner needs to continually fire to maintain speed. :) In space, with the absence of friction and gravity, you'd actually need another afterburner firing in the opposite direction to slow down. Or, just flip your ship around 180 degrees and fire your main engine. Dulce et decorum est, pro imperator mori
Bhaal	Posted - 2006.07.13 13:46:00 - [143] Originally by: Joerd Toastius Originally by: Emmy Marsin And to think in EVE an afterburner needs to continually fire to maintain speed. :) In space, with the absence of friction and gravity, you'd actually need another afterburner firing in the opposite direction to slow down. Non-newtonian propulsion. Yeah, I know. This thread is going nowhere. I'm gonna stop posting before I derail the derailment... Hmm... meta-derailment? Dude, how many threads actually go somewhere? Either enjoy the ride or don't go on the damn trip... ------------------------------------------------ Current Hobby other than EVE My Hero
Joerd Toastius	Posted - 2006.07.13 14:03:00 - [144] Originally by: Bhaal Edited by: Bhaal on 13/07/2006 13:46:47 Originally by: Joerd Toastius Originally by: Emmy Marsin And to think in EVE an afterburner needs to continually fire to maintain speed. :) In space, with the absence of friction and gravity, you'd actually need another afterburner firing in the opposite direction to slow down. Non-newtonian propulsion. Yeah, I know. This thread is going nowhere. I'm gonna stop posting before I derail the derailment... Hmm... meta-derailment? Dude, how many forum threads actually go somewhere? Either enjoy the ride or don't go on the damn trip... Oh, hey, I'm having loads of fun, don't worry :) Just don't want to ruin everyone else's fun, that's all. If you guys want to argue about controlled genetic mutation, who am I to stop you? :P
Trak Cranker	Posted - 2006.07.13 14:11:00 - [145] Edited by: Trak Cranker on 13/07/2006 14:12:10 Hardly molesting to talk about natures preference for symmetry in a thread that talks abouot the displeasing asymmetric appearance of the ships in Eve. And it is fair to talk about a preference in nature for visual symmetry. It IS a factor in mate selection in most races. Yes, its because we are programmed to like it. And why are we that? Probably because its a sign of less complication in the design = more power for less energy and less faulty genes. There are tons of deviations from that, be it in humans or 747s - but that does not rule out the general rule. And yes there are cases where symmetry does not offer the best possible survival. Trees might not be symmetrical - but they try hard to be ordered in order to maximise the absorbing of rays. Which could be a reason for asymetrical designs - even if we think they look bad.
Hllaxiu	Posted - 2006.07.13 14:20:00 - [146] Geez, I can't believe people are arguing about symmetry existing or not existing in nature, thats something that got hammered in to me in my biology courses (university level). --- Our greatest glory is not in never failing, but in rising up every time we fail. - Emerson
Stitcher	Posted - 2006.07.13 14:21:00 - [147] You want symmetry? Fly Amarr. I do. ____________________________________________________________ MAY CONTAIN NUTS.
Avon	Posted - 2006.07.13 14:23:00 - [148] Originally by: Hllaxiu Geez, I can't believe people are arguing about symmetry existing or not existing in nature, thats something that got hammered in to me in my biology courses (university level). Nothing in nature has perfect symmetry. The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur
HairyGary	Posted - 2006.07.13 14:34:00 - [149] 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. "No air" does not mean "no inertia".
Humble Voh	Posted - 2006.07.13 14:49:00 - [150] Edited by: Humble Voh on 13/07/2006 14:49:16 COMPLETE symmetry is not particularly attractive - it looks unrealistic, for example, when simple videogame characters have it. I think when people talk about evolution, they often fall into a logical trap. I'm not sure what the fancy name for it is, but it's probably a part of the anthropic fallacy. Basically, people assume that any animal they talk about (including us) has evolved to it's most efficient state. But there's no reason to assume this. Maybe the mallard's colours happen randomly due to mutation, partners select them because they notice the brightly coloured ones, and mallards die out someday because they are easy to hunt and pretty enough to be used in art. Debates about evolution ALWAYS end up with someone talking about some trait, such as human eye colour or reproductive behaviour, and talking about why it's useful. Maybe it's not. In short: We, and the rest of the universe, are Unfinished Business. And in terms of the ships in game - some people are talking about aerodynamic behaviour, others are pointing out this is space... but space is NOT a hard vacuum, even between galaxies (this last theoretically of course). Whether the velocity is high or low, eventually drag will become a factor. Last annoying point - why do people who try to be pedantically scientific ALWAYS stick to Newtonian physics? Why not go on about how jump-drives don't make sense? Or that laser power should follow the inverse square law? If you're gonna be pedantic, do it right.
Bhaal	Posted - 2006.07.13 14:55:00 - [151] Quote: In short: We, and the rest of the universe, are Unfinished Business. No one here was arguing otherwise... ------------------------------------------------ Current Hobby other than EVE My Hero
Humble Voh	Posted - 2006.07.13 15:04:00 - [152] I believe you (and others in their examples about mallards) were following that underlying assumption. If you believe that we prefer symmetrical people because of evolution, or that we are IN ANY WAY evolutionally apt, then you are. There's nothing which shows that your preference is related to evolution. It's not a particularly relevant point, though. Just something I always notice when people start talking about evolution.
Humble Voh	Posted - 2006.07.13 15:05:00 - [153] Edited by: Humble Voh on 13/07/2006 15:05:28
Humble Voh	Posted - 2006.07.13 15:05:00 - [154] Edited by: Humble Voh on 13/07/2006 15:05:54
Bhaal	Posted - 2006.07.13 15:08:00 - [155] Originally by: Humble Voh I believe you (and others in their examples about mallards) were following that underlying assumption. If you believe that we prefer symmetrical people because of evolution, or that we are IN ANY WAY evolutionally apt, then you are. There's nothing which shows that your preference is related to evolution. It's not a particularly relevant point, though. Just something I always notice when people start talking about evolution. Life evolves, life in certain cases is born with instinct. That comes from evolving... ------------------------------------------------ Current Hobby other than EVE My Hero
Humble Voh	Posted - 2006.07.13 15:27:00 - [156] Edited by: Humble Voh on 13/07/2006 15:28:49 That is true. But I think you aren't getting my point - I'm hoping this is by accident not design. You are assuming your instincts are good. You are assuming your instincts are useful for the survival of the species and all that. There is no evidence to support this (rarely challenged) assumption. Evolution is random in the short-term. Over time useful traits come out. Our history, from an evolutionary standpoint, has been miniscule. We don't know whether these traits are useful yet.
Bhaal	Posted - 2006.07.13 15:31:00 - [157] Originally by: Humble Voh Edited by: Humble Voh on 13/07/2006 15:28:49 That is true. But I think you aren't getting my point - I'm hoping this is by accident not design. You are assuming your instincts are good. You are assuming your instincts are useful for the survival of the species and all that. There is no evidence to support this (rarely challenged) assumption. Evolution is random in the short-term. Over time useful traits come out. Our history, from an evolutionary standpoint, has been miniscule. We don't know whether these traits are useful yet. You can hope all you want that it's totally random, and there is no design involved... But you don't know that for sure... I'm saying that somehow, a species might be able to give feedback, feedback that evolution can somehow utilize... ------------------------------------------------ Current Hobby other than EVE My Hero
PeeWee Pee	Posted - 2006.07.13 15:33:00 - [158] Originally by: Humble Voh Edited by: Humble Voh on 13/07/2006 15:28:49 That is true. But I think you aren't getting my point - I'm hoping this is by accident not design. You are assuming your instincts are good. You are assuming your instincts are useful for the survival of the species and all that. There is no evidence to support this (rarely challenged) assumption. Evolution is random in the short-term. Over time useful traits come out. Our history, from an evolutionary standpoint, has been miniscule. We don't know whether these traits are useful yet. survival of da fittest ftw!
Grim Vandal	Posted - 2006.07.13 15:42:00 - [159] imho instas need to be removed Greetings Grim
Kata Dakini	Posted - 2006.07.14 07:50:00 - [160] Is it possible that such things are symmetric in form, but asymmetric in the distribution of mass? anyways... For what it's worth, there are times, even in advanced space warfare, when fashion is more important than function. So what does it REALLY matter, even in a fictional scientific reality, whether the ships are symmetric or not? There are arguments either way. If there were studies done that had shown Gallente combat pilots perform better when commanding a ship which is visually pleasing, then it doesn't matter how much more it will cost to design and manufacture a ship that is asymmetric. Fashion > Function. Inversely, if it was known that Amarrian armor repair bots are more efficient because they only have to know the design of half the ship (because the other half is the same), then it makes more sense to have a symmetric design. ___ "And I don't feel any more guilty about liking baseball more than soccer than I do about not using the metric system or speaking Italian or owning an ABBA album." -Jim Caple
Crumplecorn	Posted - 2006.07.14 09:09:00 - [161] Originally by: Thelmarr 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) Guess what, both main engines and thrusters work on the same principle. If things in space just 'go straight in the opposite direction of thrust' the thrusters would just move the shuttle really damn slowly. If the force doesn't point at the center of gravity and is not balanced by another force, the moment will turn the ship. The ship mentioned has a bigger engine on one side, if truly unbalanced, it would turn. ---------- Always Up To SomethingÖ One of us is really thick, and I hope its you - Kalaan Oratay
Crumplecorn	Posted - 2006.07.14 09:24:00 - [162] Originally by: Dragonol Talking about physics in game. If it stuck to realism, there would not be a sound heard in space, nor would you hear missiles hitting your target. Sound waves travel as a vibration of particles, without particles in space, no sound. And secondly, 1au = 150m km. Speed of light (rounded) = 300,000 km/s. going 14.5au/sec in a cov ops would mean going way faster than the speed of light, which then slows time for the occupants of the ship. "According to Einstein's theories." -Not to mention travelling through planets and such, btw - I didn't read the many pages of posts, I saw the title and put down my opinion, sorry for repetition if present. Finally something in this thread easy to shoot down. 1. You are seeing from camera drones, and the sound is generated by the pod, as is clearly stated by the Chronicles. 2. If you follow what Einstein said you can't even get to the speed of light, let alone exceed it, the ships engines obviously bypass this somehow, so nothing he said applies. ---------- Always Up To SomethingÖ One of us is really thick, and I hope its you - Kalaan Oratay
Emmy Marsin	Posted - 2006.07.14 11:40:00 - [163] Regardless of what type of propulsion is used, once something is brought up to X speed, in order to stop something needs to counter that speed. Be it a collision or opposite thrust. You could actually take a rocket and tie it to the end of a stick. Kinda like ----------\| If you fire the rocket in space, the direction will always be the same. Forward. There is no gravity, friction/drag to cause it to fly in a circle like a one-legged spider running around on Earth. Missiles have a limited range in the game, but realistically, they would accelerate until the fuel was exhausted and fly an infinite distance only detonating when colliding with something (unless a predefined timer is in place).
Emmy Marsin	Posted - 2006.07.14 11:44:00 - [164] Originally by: Crumplecorn Originally by: Dragonol Talking about physics in game. If it stuck to realism, there would not be a sound heard in space, nor would you hear missiles hitting your target. Sound waves travel as a vibration of particles, without particles in space, no sound. And secondly, 1au = 150m km. Speed of light (rounded) = 300,000 km/s. going 14.5au/sec in a cov ops would mean going way faster than the speed of light, which then slows time for the occupants of the ship. "According to Einstein's theories." -Not to mention travelling through planets and such, btw - I didn't read the many pages of posts, I saw the title and put down my opinion, sorry for repetition if present. Finally something in this thread easy to shoot down. 1. You are seeing from camera drones, and the sound is generated by the pod, as is clearly stated by the Chronicles. 2. If you follow what Einstein said you can't even get to the speed of light, let alone exceed it, the ships engines obviously bypass this somehow, so nothing he said applies. Let's expound on sound for a moment. On the other hand, let's not. I have to run the game with sound off...or deal with lagging/crashing as a result. :P
Bhaal Minmatar	Posted - 2006.07.14 11:46:00 - [165] Originally by: Shaikar Edited by: Shaikar on 14/07/2006 06:23:24 Edited by: Shaikar on 14/07/2006 06:22:28 Originally by: Bhaal Originally by: Humble Voh Edited by: Humble Voh on 13/07/2006 15:28:49 That is true. But I think you aren't getting my point - I'm hoping this is by accident not design. You are assuming your instincts are good. You are assuming your instincts are useful for the survival of the species and all that. There is no evidence to support this (rarely challenged) assumption. Evolution is random in the short-term. Over time useful traits come out. Our history, from an evolutionary standpoint, has been miniscule. We don't know whether these traits are useful yet. You can hope all you want that it's totally random, and there is no design involved... But you don't know that for sure... I'm saying that somehow, a species might be able to give feedback, feedback that evolution can somehow utilize... You are right in saying there "might" be design. Just as equally (and with just as much evidence and justification) they might be a lost tribe, descended from the aztecs, who have kept up the good old tradition of human sacrifice that ensures the sun rises every morning - should they ever be found and stopped, the sun will set and never rise and life on this world will come to an end. (Unless of course there is another tribe elsewhere. <- Important as it allows the finding and stopping of said tribe to not break th believe structure when the un subsequently rises the next morning :) ) You can't prove that is wrong, just as I can't prove there is absolutely no form of design, you cannot fully prove a negative. However there is lots of evidence that supports the other scenario in both contests, in other words all the evidence points towards no to "guiding design for evolution" and no to "the blood of man ensures the sun will rise". Right I'm not advocating intelligent design, just stating that I'm open to the possibility it's not TOTALLY random. Nevermind, not going to argue it anymore. ------------------------------------------------ Current Hobby other than EVE My Hero
Xailia Unsteady Corporation	Posted - 2006.07.14 11:56:00 - [166] In EVE, space has quite a lot of matter in it. Tell me how inertial dampeners work, and then explain to me why thrusters can't provide uniform thrust across the entire back of your ship. Oh, and complete randomness is impossible within a system. "The sky above the port was the color of a television, tuned to a dead channel."
Nox Solaris	Posted - 2006.07.14 12:32:00 - [167] Originally by: Baldour Ngarr 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. Wholly incorrect. If you put a rocket on the far left side of an object in space and fire it off, that object is going to go nowhere, it's going to sit there and spin madly to the right as if anchored in place. Depending on the thrust of the rocket it might just go in circles indefinately, or rip itself apart due to the tidal forces imparted by the rotation. Of course, if those things on the back of the ship are not thrusters but rather waste-heat radiants whose sole purpose is to vent the unused heat created by the drive mechanism (being gravitic in nature, not tied to 'thrust goes out the ass' concept but more a bubble surrounding the ship). But still, all the radiants on one side of the ship's central axis does look ugly as fresh roadkill during rush hour. Simple fix: Take all of the first iteration ships in Eve, cut them down the vertical center from fore to aft, mirror one side to the other & glue. Voila, symmetrial ships that maintain the distinctive racial looks.
Rodj Blake Amarr	Posted - 2006.07.14 12:34:00 - [168] Edited by: Rodj Blake on 14/07/2006 12:34:58 Originally by: Bhaal Originally by: Shaikar Edited by: Shaikar on 14/07/2006 06:23:24 Edited by: Shaikar on 14/07/2006 06:22:28 Originally by: Bhaal Originally by: Humble Voh Edited by: Humble Voh on 13/07/2006 15:28:49 That is true. But I think you aren't getting my point - I'm hoping this is by accident not design. You are assuming your instincts are good. You are assuming your instincts are useful for the survival of the species and all that. There is no evidence to support this (rarely challenged) assumption. Evolution is random in the short-term. Over time useful traits come out. Our history, from an evolutionary standpoint, has been miniscule. We don't know whether these traits are useful yet. You can hope all you want that it's totally random, and there is no design involved... But you don't know that for sure... I'm saying that somehow, a species might be able to give feedback, feedback that evolution can somehow utilize... You are right in saying there "might" be design. Just as equally (and with just as much evidence and justification) they might be a lost tribe, descended from the aztecs, who have kept up the good old tradition of human sacrifice that ensures the sun rises every morning - should they ever be found and stopped, the sun will set and never rise and life on this world will come to an end. (Unless of course there is another tribe elsewhere. <- Important as it allows the finding and stopping of said tribe to not break th believe structure when the un subsequently rises the next morning :) ) You can't prove that is wrong, just as I can't prove there is absolutely no form of design, you cannot fully prove a negative. However there is lots of evidence that supports the other scenario in both contests, in other words all the evidence points towards no to "guiding design for evolution" and no to "the blood of man ensures the sun will rise". Right I'm not advocating intelligent design, just stating that I'm open to the possibility it's not TOTALLY random. Nevermind, not going to argue it anymore. Strictly speaking evolution is chaotic rather than random And what's more, form invariably follows function. Dulce et decorum est, pro imperator mori
Caleb Paine Itchy Trigger Finger Brothers	Posted - 2006.07.14 12:35:00 - [169] One word: Inertia ----------------- Death smiles at us all, all a man can do is smile back.
Crumplecorn Gallente	Posted - 2006.07.14 12:45:00 - [170] Originally by: Nox Solaris Simple fix: Take all of the first iteration ships in Eve, cut them down the vertical center from fore to aft, mirror one side to the other & glue. Voila, symmetrial ships that maintain the distinctive racial looks. There is no need for a fix. While it is necessary to balance the ships, it is no doubt easier to balance them for them that it is for us today. And as has been mentioned, how do you know half the ship isn't filled with a vacuum? ---------- Always Up To SomethingÖ One of us is really thick, and I hope its you - Kalaan Oratay
Humble Voh	Posted - 2006.07.14 14:57:00 - [171] Hah Actually I meant I was unsure whether Baal's inability to understand my point was by accident or design I wasn't sure if he was playing dumb. I don't think evolution has any 'guiding intelligence'. Occam's razor - there's no need to multiply entities to explain the facts. Random chance, combined with amounts of time incomprehensible to most, explain things just fine.
Tarri FACTA NON VERBA Veritas Immortalis	Posted - 2006.07.14 15:04:00 - [172] Edited by: Tarri on 14/07/2006 15:04:36 Originally by: Avon 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. Agreed!!!! Symmetry is for the weak! ----
Bhaal Minmatar	Posted - 2006.07.14 15:04:00 - [173] Originally by: Humble Voh Hah Actually I meant I was unsure whether Baal's inability to understand my point was by accident or design I wasn't sure if he was playing dumb. I don't think evolution has any 'guiding intelligence'. Occam's razor - there's no need to multiply entities to explain the facts. Random chance, combined with amounts of time incomprehensible to most, explain things just fine. But you can't prove it, so it explians it just fine for you... ------------------------------------------------ Current Hobby other than EVE My Hero
Pan Savius	Posted - 2006.07.14 15:11:00 - [174] Originally by: Bhaal Edited by: Bhaal on 13/07/2006 10:35:18 Originally by: Avon 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. Actually, no it isn't... All of the procreation methods we know of for life on this planet take into account symmetry where mate selection is occurring. We humans do the same thing with our vehicles, etc... Symmetry is much more prevalent, acceptable, and desired... Only time symmetry is not desired is to accommodate better form, fit & function. Certainly not to please the eye... I design machines for the aerospace industry, and I try to keep my designs symmetrical wherever possible. It's simpler for all involved, from me to the vendor making parts, all the way to the customer maintenance dept, etc. (And the customer suits appreciate the machine much more if it's pleasing to to the eye, even if it does not affect performance) Symmetry should always be strived for in design IMO. Evolution strives for symmetry, so should all designers... Ermm.... ok... designing machines does not have anything to do with symmetry, the shape is only dictated by the function.....
Joerd Toastius	Posted - 2006.07.14 15:27:00 - [175] Originally by: Emmy Marsin Regardless of what type of propulsion is used, once something is brought up to X speed, in order to stop something needs to counter that speed. Be it a collision or opposite thrust. You could actually take a rocket and tie it to the end of a stick. Kinda like ----------\| If you fire the rocket in space, the direction will always be the same. Forward. There is no gravity, friction/drag to cause it to fly in a circle like a one-legged spider running around on Earth. Missiles have a limited range in the game, but realistically, they would accelerate until the fuel was exhausted and fly an infinite distance only detonating when colliding with something (unless a predefined timer is in place). Again, once you start using non-newtonian propulsion you can't take this stuff for granted. If you're deriving acceleration from something other than reaction-based thrusters, you (probably) must be "in contact" (in some sense) with something which you can "push against" or otherwise gain "traction" on to derive your speed. And if you're "in contact" with something there's no reason why this "contact" can't produce "drag". And yes, the quote marks are all necessary because I'm talking in very vague terms. See, for example, the Grid in Banks' "Culture" novels. (There are, I assume, other non-newtonian options, but this is an obvious one which seems to solve all the problems)
Bhaal Minmatar	Posted - 2006.07.14 16:02:00 - [176] Originally by: Pan Savius Originally by: Bhaal Edited by: Bhaal on 13/07/2006 10:35:18 Originally by: Avon 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. Actually, no it isn't... All of the procreation methods we know of for life on this planet take into account symmetry where mate selection is occurring. We humans do the same thing with our vehicles, etc... Symmetry is much more prevalent, acceptable, and desired... Only time symmetry is not desired is to accommodate better form, fit & function. Certainly not to please the eye... I design machines for the aerospace industry, and I try to keep my designs symmetrical wherever possible. It's simpler for all involved, from me to the vendor making parts, all the way to the customer maintenance dept, etc. (And the customer suits appreciate the machine much more if it's pleasing to to the eye, even if it does not affect performance) Symmetry should always be strived for in design IMO. Evolution strives for symmetry, so should all designers... Ermm.... ok... designing machines does not have anything to do with symmetry, the shape is only dictated by the function..... I design machines all day long, symmetry & asthetics means a lot to me, not just function... ------------------------------------------------ Current Hobby other than EVE My Hero
VantDre ECP Rogues Dusk and Dawn	Posted - 2006.07.14 18:13:00 - [177] original post. Carebear thread, he knows the reason for why ships dont need to be aero-dyn. Yet he wants cuter looking ships..
Major Smiley	Posted - 2006.07.14 19:21:00 - [178] You understand he is trolling, right? Short, argumentative posts following long-winded, well thought out rebuttals. Replies with another short, argumentative post. Style: 2/10 Ability: 4/10 Responses: 8/10
Eximius Josari Citizens of E.A.R.T.H.	Posted - 2006.07.14 19:34:00 - [179] My Crusader is slower than the Space Shuttle. Click Above
DoctorColossal Pervius	Posted - 2006.07.14 20:11:00 - [180] EVE IS A BLEEDIN' AMAZING GAME FULL OF SCIENCE from all disciplines (with all due respect to pompous and arrogant physicists that want to pick over the slightest detail) plus full of SCI-FI plus full or sweet ART and I'm sure plenty of ideas of CCPs own design. It is a bang bang game at heart but has lots to offer all. It isn't a space shuttle flight simulation. That would be just a tad boring...... EVE is better than going on a shuttle trip for defiante and a bloody lot safer. It is a true reflection of humanity too in SO many ways. It is very educational. I love it in case you haven't guessed. I know a little about Physics, Chemistry and Biology.... and people too. OK. Rant over. Enjoy.
Skooney Gallente	Posted - 2006.07.14 22:01:00 - [181] Edited by: Skooney on 14/07/2006 22:02:26 I have to agree with Bhaal for the most part. Even though there are "exceptions" to every rule, Symmetrical is a natural state and/or preferred state as an end result. Some examples. 1). Water in "0"(zero) gravity takes the form of Symmetrical Sphere. 2). Alot of you refer to automotive engines, what about electric motors? They are symmetrical, both in there internal wiring (windings) 4 pole, 6 pole, 8 pole, there shape both with rotor and stator design, to the output shape, as asymmetrical is essentially unbalanced. 3). Aside from minor details, aircraft and the shuttle are design as symmetrical, to evenly distribute drag and lift. In the end, symmetrical design is what I prefer as well, however in the "art" form symmetry really does not matter, and in an online game, I could really care less what my ship looks like. Universal Agencies www.rlelectric.ca/ua.htm
Humble Voh	Posted - 2006.07.14 23:08:00 - [182] Originally by: Major Smiley You understand he is trolling, right? Short, argumentative posts following long-winded, well thought out rebuttals. Replies with another short, argumentative post. Style: 2/10 Ability: 4/10 Responses: 8/10 Yeah that's what I thought, but I'm a nice person so I thought I'd give him the benefit of the doubt.
Pan Savius	Posted - 2006.07.15 15:17:00 - [183] Originally by: Bhaal Originally by: Pan Savius Originally by: Bhaal Edited by: Bhaal on 13/07/2006 10:35:18 Originally by: Avon 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. Actually, no it isn't... All of the procreation methods we know of for life on this planet take into account symmetry where mate selection is occurring. We humans do the same thing with our vehicles, etc... Symmetry is much more prevalent, acceptable, and desired... Only time symmetry is not desired is to accommodate better form, fit & function. Certainly not to please the eye... I design machines for the aerospace industry, and I try to keep my designs symmetrical wherever possible. It's simpler for all involved, from me to the vendor making parts, all the way to the customer maintenance dept, etc. (And the customer suits appreciate the machine much more if it's pleasing to to the eye, even if it does not affect performance) Symmetry should always be strived for in design IMO. Evolution strives for symmetry, so should all designers... Ermm.... ok... designing machines does not have anything to do with symmetry, the shape is only dictated by the function..... I design machines all day long, symmetry & asthetics means a lot to me, not just function... Me too, but i think symmetry is just the result of the function when it occurs but it has nothing to do with using it cause it is "beautifull".
Cheyenne Shadowborn Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.17 14:14:00 - [184] 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. If you bolt an engine in a right angle to one end of a stick and fire it in space, I am rather certain the stick is spinning, not moving forward. This has to do with center of gravity and inertia (is that the right english word? I hope so). ----------------------------------------------------- "At least freelancer keeps the physics realistic." -- SINKFIST
Nox Solaris	Posted - 2006.07.17 14:24:00 - [185] Originally by: Tarri Originally by: Avon Symmetry is ugly. Agreed!!!! Symmetry is for the weak! And your sig shows a Slasher or T2 variant, which is symmetrical. You should be flying a reaper or burst or breacher, all of the other min frigs are not for you. Assymetry is just visially grating, function notwithstanding. The human subconscious understands symmetry and function, even if the conscious brain does not (unless you're a CCP art designer).
K'reemy G'udness Delicious	Posted - 2006.07.17 16:08:00 - [186] Eve is just WoW in space. Don't expect it to make sense from realistic standpoint. It's just space opera. CCP decided to take the state of the art of space games backwards instead of forwards because they just wanted a pretty sci-fi MMORPG. They don't really care about astronomy, physics, or symmetry. They don't care about Homeworld or Freelancer. They are more interested in soft sciences like sociology and economics, and that's ok. They're just graphic designers FFS, don't expect them to love science. It's ok though, because it turns out that WoW in space is pretty fun! Agnostic Sidebar: People who believe the Judaic creation myth expect antibactirial soap to work hate the idea that science made it all possible. Agnosticism 4TW! See my related topic: Why don't the planets fall into the stars? What is Delicious?
Felix Niebuhr	Posted - 2006.07.18 06:46:00 - [187] Edited by: Felix Niebuhr on 18/07/2006 06:48:55 I am new. I like the Merlin cause it looks good. The concord looked like a wingshot bird. For most part, I think Eve has the worst spaceship designs I have seen in a sci-fi game or movie. When I saw the so much admired rifter looked like a little transformer toy, and the caracal looked like a dog taking a dump, I couldn`t believe the game devs let the spaceships become ugly to the degree of making you look at them with contempt. Very strange that devs didn`t understand that flying a big warship, that actually looked like a big warship, would be a delight to the player who worked so much for the ISK to get said ship. Instead of flying around in a house or modern art installation or whatever its supposed to look like. Edit: And I dont care a dime about the physics of Eve compared to that of the universe. There`s just not a ship I am looking forward to buying, when I am not looking at its hardpoints and its capacitor.
CutterJane	Posted - 2006.07.18 07:21:00 - [188] I'm personally a fan of symmetry, but not a stickler for it.. Theres always some piece of equipment or something that makes the design not work symmetrically. I can live with that, and rather like small bits of asymetry, like the megathron. What i absolutely can't stand, is.. Reaper Tormentor Those two are the worst.. there is no attempt at all to balance thrust at all. So long as thrust is at least somewhat balanced, i can accept it, even if i don't like it. but those... someone was smoking some *****.
Felix Niebuhr	Posted - 2006.07.18 07:36:00 - [189] There is no attention to aesthetics either
Crumplecorn Gallente	Posted - 2006.07.18 08:01:00 - [190] Originally by: Felix Niebuhr I don't like the way the ships look! Nobody cares. ---------- Always Up To SomethingÖ One of us is really thick, and I hope its you - Kalaan Oratay
Felix Niebuhr	Posted - 2006.07.18 08:04:00 - [191] Hahahahaha oh man.
hired goon Euphoria Released Dusk and Dawn	Posted - 2006.07.18 09:32:00 - [192] I haven't bothered to read any of this thread, so if this is mentioned already I don't apologize, but I've always had this to fall back on as an argument for silly-looking thruster distribution: The backstory says that the EVE gate was used to stabilize a wormhole that lead simply 'somewhere else'. Nobody knew whether it was another part of space, another time, or another dimension, where the normal rules of physics we are used to may not apply. -omg-

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 :: [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.