| Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Miroslana
   |
Posted - 2006.11.14 12:52:00 -
[1]
Well, actually I've thought a bit about atmospheric flying and the ships of eve. Of course I'm not an avionics expert, but I think that the most ships in eve have the atmospheric flight ability of a brick. So what do you think how this will be solved? Will ccp give us some fancy antigravalike-devices? (Guess what? I don't like that antigrav idea.) Or will there be special ships designed for atmospheric flight?
Looked at the (common) ships eve has, there are not much which I consider as planetary-flight-able. Slasher is imho able to fly on planets. Anything bigger as a frigate will need really, really immense engine power imho. Well, as said, I don't know much about avionics.
And yes, I know it will take a long time until flying on planets will become reality (or maybe it never will.) - for this reason, the topic was placed in *this* forum. I'm just curious about your opinions. :)
------------------------------------------
Still looking for a Number Six blueprint. |
Benco97
Gallente
Multiverse Corporation
|
Posted - 2006.11.14 12:56:00 -
[2]
in my opinion the Burst will be great at plummeting toward the ground, I look forward to many ground adventures in my bursts
Head of the Fedo Appreciation Group and Registered Fedo breeder (Sig kindly supplied by Zurtur) |
Rodj Blake
Amarr
PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2006.11.14 13:09:00 -
[3]
In addition to the aerodynamic problems, it's also mentioned somewhere in the backstory that tritanium is combustible in atmospheres.
Dulce et decorum est, pro imperator mori
It's great being Amarr, ain't it? |
Crumplecorn
Gallente
Aerial Boundaries Inc.
Interstellar Starbase Syndicate
|
Posted - 2006.11.14 13:18:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Crumplecorn on 14/11/2006 13:19:52
Interstellar ships handle the atmosphere quite nicely in stargate using anti-gravity (or is it anti-interia?) devices to stop them from going too fast. That works for me.
I think it would be great to fly in an environment where if you go too fast you catastrophically damage your ship and plummet to the ground, killing millions of people below.
It would be even better to attempt to fight people there.
Maybe new modules to allow ships to enter the atmosphere?
I do not like the idea of a dedicated class of ships for it. It's kind of good news bad news then, good news is we have planetary flight, bad news is you can't fly your usual ships in the atmosphere anyway.
As for the tritanium thing, stargates are only supposed to be in binary systems. *shrug*
----------
IBTL \o/ |
Anatolius
Amarr
PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2006.11.14 17:24:00 -
[5]
EVE Atmospheric Flight Video
Just remove the jump drive, add in fiery explosions.
"If God be for us, whom can be against us?" |
Suze'Rain
|
Posted - 2006.11.14 17:38:00 -
[6]
aero-space vehicles would be an absolutely fantastic addition to the ship-types.
the designer in me is twitching at the very thought....
must... not... start..... drawing... :)
|
evistin
Multiverse Corporation
|
Posted - 2006.11.14 17:39:00 -
[7]
There is nothing stopping you from making a car fly, its just a lot easier to use a plane to do it. :)
-----------
Management and Leadership |
Laocoon
Veto.
|
Posted - 2006.11.14 17:43:00 -
[8]
 Originally by: Anatolius
EVE Atmospheric Flight Video
Just remove the jump drive, add in fiery explosions.
Oh, dear god. I didn't know BSG was so awesome. 
/me must go and buy/obtain first 2 series.
- Lao
Veto. Corp |
Soratah
Amarr
Yazata Spenta
Aegis Militia
|
Posted - 2006.11.14 17:45:00 -
[9]
Meh, all ships in Eve have shield generators that're capable of taking heat levels of a direct nuclear blast (Torpedoes anyone). There wont be any problems surviving re-entry.
Indeed considering the abundance of fuel the ships have they can probably slow right down before re-entry thus preventing hot entries.
As for the atmospheric capabilities. Yes, they have AG. As long as each ship has power they can probably sit there suspended over a city or landmass. If they MUST touch down then the big ships can probably go for an ocean landing anyway. Indeed, with appropriate equipment one could scoop heavy hydrogen needed to run the Fusion generators...
|
Farrellus Cameron
Sturmgrenadier Inc
R i s e
|
Posted - 2006.11.14 17:50:00 -
[10]
Imagine a freighter in atmospheric flight. It would wipe out an entire city like a nuclear bomb.
I actually always kinda liked the fact that the ships never needed any practical design because they were always in space.
What if the shields acted as some sort of warp bubble/antigrav field, and when they were taken out you plummeted into the ground? Of course it would screw over armor tankers, but I think it's a funny concept.
|
Mort Sinious
|
Posted - 2006.11.14 17:50:00 -
[11]
Well, all ships in EVE have shields. And a shield generates a round bubbe around the ship. Maybe the air flows around this bubble and not around the hull of the ship. This would dramatically improve the dynamics of flight. And then, maneuvering end staying in the air is all handled by thrsters and not wings, so... this might be an idea?
|
Steppa
Gallente
Sturmgrenadier Inc
R i s e
|
Posted - 2006.11.14 17:56:00 -
[12]
You're assuming that ships that far in the future would need to use air pressure for lift to "fly". Here are a couple of obvious speculative options;
1) The Pushing Gravity theory turns out to be true. Engines provide negetive gravity to negate or maneuver against a large gravity well such as a planet or moon.
2) String theory ends up displaying the "weave" theory of space-time, in that all existence is cris-crossed with infinite strings of force. Engines would use their own physics to basically treat space-time like an old paddleboat steamer would treat water.
3) The engines are actually teleportation devices that move the entire device, which is attached to the ship and thus the ship as well, in any direction at a given speed. The more teleportations per second, for instance, the faster you can go. It would be limited in that it won't actually let you move any real distance, but rather a huge number of small distances. The end result would look very much like flight, but would not have to deal with inertia. The occupants, on the other hand...
There, right off the top of my head in about five minutes time...
|
Splagada
Minmatar
Tides of Silence
|
Posted - 2006.11.14 18:01:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Anatolius
EVE Atmospheric Flight Video
Just remove the jump drive, add in fiery explosions.
hmm wondering if i can find that around here, looks after all quite nice :)
------
relaxed corp looking for members |
EchoTheDolphin
|
Posted - 2006.11.14 18:21:00 -
[14]
Making a ship aerodynamic would be easy: Simply create a shield system devoted to forming an aerodynamic shell around the ship, but not to interact with any weapons so it can never go down unless the ship is destroyed. Accompany that with some form of anti-gravity system or intertial cancelling system (Easy since EVE universe already invovles bending space for warp drives, and undoubtedly inertial dampeners)
|
Billy Sastard
Amarr
Zephyr Enterprises Inc.
Astral Wolves
|
Posted - 2006.11.14 18:21:00 -
[15]
I belive that the EVE ships would just use brute power to conduct atmospheric flight, I am not totally up on the 'canon' technology behind the ships, but I belive they use some sort of inertail manipulation, which will work just fine in atmospheric flight. If the guys at Lockheed can make the F-117 fly in this day and age, in a highly advanced technological setting, im sure that a typhoon could manage atmospheric navigation.
-=^=-
My Bookmarking Guide |
000Hunter000
Gallente
Leviathan Corperation LTD
|
Posted - 2006.11.14 18:26:00 -
[16]
Well it might bring back the usage of certain ships, perhaps make it so only frigs can enter an atmosphere (all others are too big bla bla bla excuse or something)
|
Uggster
Caldari
Never'where
|
Posted - 2006.11.14 18:29:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Benco97
in my opinion the Burst will be great at plummeting toward the ground, I look forward to many ground adventures in my bursts
Disturbing nutter-like one tracked mind
_______________________________________________
Sig removed as inappropriate- Tirg
Story of my life that one :( |
Kelkyen
|
Posted - 2006.11.14 18:32:00 -
[18]
Escape velocity of Earth 11200 m/s, Mars 5000 m/s, and the Moon 2400 m/s.
How fast does your ship go?
|
Letouk Mernel
|
Posted - 2006.11.14 18:47:00 -
[19]
Most of the minerals are unstable in an atmosphere, it's in the lore somewhere. Imagine your ship being made of frozen mercury, or ice, which the cold of space keeps frozen, but the heat of re-entry and an atmosphere would react with and melt/explode it.
Not sure how they'll explain this bit of lore away.
Perhaps we'll have different ships for atmospheric gameplay. Warp to station in orbit, dock, switch to planetary vehicle, undock, and be able to pilot your plane in the air on the planet, etc. Microsoft Flight Simulator tagged on to the EVE game.
|
000Hunter000
Gallente
Leviathan Corperation LTD
|
Posted - 2006.11.14 18:50:00 -
[20]
Seems ccp allready solved it one way or another (special coating on the ship bla bla bla excuse) cuz i remember seeing a little clip of a condor/crow/raptor entering an atmosphere and skimming the surface of a planet.
(mebbe someone has a linky to that clip? that would be cool)
|
Benco97
Gallente
Multiverse Corporation
|
Posted - 2006.11.14 18:58:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Uggster
Originally by: Benco97
in my opinion the Burst will be great at plummeting toward the ground, I look forward to many ground adventures in my bursts
Disturbing nutter-like one tracked mind
*cries* You have hurt my nutter-like feelings ;.;
Head of the Fedo Appreciation Group and Registered Fedo breeder (Sig kindly supplied by Zurtur) |
Viktor Fyretracker
Caldari
Worms Corp
|
Posted - 2006.11.14 19:01:00 -
[22]
frigates are logical for this as they arent really bigger then a 767. and if the USAF can make the B2 Spirit fly then a few thousand years into the future im sure a condor frigate could fly.
|
Gloria Pao
|
Posted - 2006.11.14 19:07:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Letouk Mernel
Most of the minerals are unstable in an atmosphere, it's in the lore somewhere. Imagine your ship being made of frozen mercury, or ice, which the cold of space keeps frozen, but the heat of re-entry and an atmosphere would react with and melt/explode it.
Now I'm REALLY worried about thermal damage to my ship...
|
Roshan longshot
Gallente
Ordos Humanitas
|
Posted - 2006.11.14 19:09:00 -
[24]
Well I have been working on aircraft for 20+ years...I can make a brick fly! Hope you all know what a F-4 phantom II is....glide ratio of 1:5 that is 1 foot foward, 5 feet down.
Some of the ships will be capable of flight, while others, Raven, tempest, dom...well enough thrust, and you will compensate for the lack of lift.
Some other points...all them flimsy stuff on the minie ships....say bye bye if you try to do to much speed in atmosphere!
But as we all know, we can warp through planets,gates,stations, just about everything but those **** billboards.
Free-form Professions, ensure no limetations on professions. Be a trader, fighter, industialist, researcher, hunter pirate or mixture of them all.
[i]As read from the original box.
|
Beringe
Caldari
Raptus Regaliter
|
Posted - 2006.11.14 19:12:00 -
[25]
Tritanium is unstable
But I guess they can always say that somebody came up with a compound that wasn't.
-------------------------------------------
"Sarcasm and irony are not to be used by the uninitiated."
--Daitan Beringe, honorary director in charge of bottles-- |
Letouk Mernel
|
Posted - 2006.11.14 19:15:00 -
[26]
Maybe they solved them, dunno. I don't think they've posted any sort of story or article related to how, though.
In any case, the joys of locking buildings and facilities on the ground, and setting your "orbit" distance, flying around in circles in the sky, hoping that your computer doesn't consider a "vertical" orbit path and sticks to horizontal ones... shooting your guns at the ground and taking incoming fire and surface-to-air missiles, trying to set your NOS to drain the dratted factory of all its power, and webify its workers so they can't run out and surrender...
Can't wait for all that excitement.
|
Rafein
Eye of God
Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2006.11.14 19:18:00 -
[27]
each races get a a class of ship specifically designed for planatary flight.
|
Hakera
Anari Higard
|
Posted - 2006.11.14 19:20:00 -
[28]
almost no hull would be made of a pure metal, it would almost surely be a composite alloy, the mass of the ships would be huge using a pure metal. You could argue that yes that is the mineral form straight from velspar etc, but it would be made into an alloy before it would become a hull part.
|
Emperor D'Hoffryn
No Quarter.
|
Posted - 2006.11.14 19:32:00 -
[29]
The flight mechanics and physics already behave like we are in an atmosphere the whole time, so at least our ships will finally behave correctly.....
Originally by: Tuxford
Yes we don't play on our main accounts simply because you would lose all respect for us 
|
Midshipman
Merch Industrial
|
Posted - 2006.11.14 19:57:00 -
[30]
Edited by: Midshipman on 14/11/2006 19:59:05
Originally by: Kelkyen
Escape velocity of Earth 11200 m/s, Mars 5000 m/s, and the Moon 2400 m/s.
How fast does your ship go?
Escape velocity is only relevant to a ship without propulsion (i.e. one coasting along). If you have enough thrust, you can leave a planet's gravitational field at whatever speed you want.
|
Nonoffensive
Sniggerdly
|
Posted - 2006.11.14 20:05:00 -
[31]
Edited by: Nonoffensive on 14/11/2006 20:05:45
http://youtube.com/watch?v=8Pg1dzAvL2M
Here's the other atmospheric flight vid in case anyone hasn't seen it yet.
|
spiritfa11
Phantom Squad
iPOD Alliance
|
Posted - 2006.11.14 20:26:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Midshipman
Edited by: Midshipman on 14/11/2006 19:59:05
Originally by: Kelkyen
Escape velocity of Earth 11200 m/s, Mars 5000 m/s, and the Moon 2400 m/s.
How fast does your ship go?
Escape velocity is only relevant to a ship without propulsion (i.e. one coasting along). If you have enough thrust, you can leave a planet's gravitational field at whatever speed you want.
Maybe I misread what you wrote but I believe you are mistaken... Escape Velocity is relevant to a ship no matter what... if you cant achieve escape velocity you arent leaving any planets gravitational field. You MUST acheive a certain speed to leave a given planets gravity, it is not up to you however fast you feel like going until after you have acheived the minimum escape velocity. Anything less than 11,200 m/s and you arent going anywhere.
---------------------
I make sigs, plz evemail me ingame | Gallery |
Kelkyen
|
Posted - 2006.11.14 20:30:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Midshipman
Edited by: Midshipman on 14/11/2006 19:59:05
Originally by: Kelkyen
Escape velocity of Earth 11200 m/s, Mars 5000 m/s, and the Moon 2400 m/s.
How fast does your ship go?
Escape velocity is only relevant to a ship without propulsion (i.e. one coasting along). If you have enough thrust, you can leave a planet's gravitational field at whatever speed you want.
I'm not a physicist, but something about a 110,000,000 kg Raven going 115 m/sec, and trying to leave a Earth sized planet from the ground seems wrong. Anyone have the math skills for this one?
|
Kichae Chandramani
Quasar Consortium
|
Posted - 2006.11.14 20:35:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Kelkyen
Originally by: Midshipman
Edited by: Midshipman on 14/11/2006 19:59:05
Originally by: Kelkyen
Escape velocity of Earth 11200 m/s, Mars 5000 m/s, and the Moon 2400 m/s.
How fast does your ship go?
Escape velocity is only relevant to a ship without propulsion (i.e. one coasting along). If you have enough thrust, you can leave a planet's gravitational field at whatever speed you want.
I'm not a physicist, but something about a 110,000,000 kg Raven going 115 m/sec, and trying to leave a Earth sized planet from the ground seems wrong. Anyone have the math skills for this one?
Several answers at once:
My ship goes 9AU/s. That's, umm, 4300 times the speed of light. I think it'll manage.
Escape velocity is relevant regardless of thrust. You need to counter the acceleration due to gravity of whatever body you're leaving. So long as your acceleration is higher than that due to gravity, you will eventually reach the escape velocity. It's just a matter of time.
A Raven would require about a billion (US, a thousand million UK) newtons of thrust to lift off, discounting atmospheric pressure or any other forces beyond gravity. That's, uh, a lot.
|
Bombasy
Gallente
|
Posted - 2006.11.14 21:46:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Kichae Chandramani
Originally by: Kelkyen
Originally by: Midshipman
Edited by: Midshipman on 14/11/2006 19:59:05
Originally by: Kelkyen
Escape velocity of Earth 11200 m/s, Mars 5000 m/s, and the Moon 2400 m/s.
How fast does your ship go?
Escape velocity is only relevant to a ship without propulsion (i.e. one coasting along). If you have enough thrust, you can leave a planet's gravitational field at whatever speed you want.
I'm not a physicist, but something about a 110,000,000 kg Raven going 115 m/sec, and trying to leave a Earth sized planet from the ground seems wrong. Anyone have the math skills for this one?
Several answers at once:
My ship goes 9AU/s. That's, umm, 4300 times the speed of light. I think it'll manage.
Escape velocity is relevant regardless of thrust. You need to counter the acceleration due to gravity of whatever body you're leaving. So long as your acceleration is higher than that due to gravity, you will eventually reach the escape velocity. It's just a matter of time.
A Raven would require about a billion (US, a thousand million UK) newtons of thrust to lift off, discounting atmospheric pressure or any other forces beyond gravity. That's, uh, a lot.
You have it backwards. Escape velocity is utterly irrelevant in this calculation, they way we get escape velocity, g (italic lowercase) is relevant.
Approximately:
g = G ((m)/(r^2))
where:
G= Gravitational Constant
m= mass of planetoid
r= radius of planetoid
g for earth is approximately 9.8something or another m/s^2
But lo and behold, how we get g, Newton's law of universal gravitation:
F = G *((m1m2)/(r^2))
Coincidentally that's how you get the amount of force required to pull an object (m1) from another (m2) at distance r.
Your signature is inappropriate. If you have any questions, email us at [email protected] Tirg
Your signature is inappropriate. Please email [email protected] if you want to know why -Eldo
|
Zephyr Mallory
Limberry Aegis GmbH
|
Posted - 2006.11.14 21:47:00 -
[36]
escape velocity is defined as the minimum velocity that a body must attain to escape a gravitational field completely-- that is, escape without ever falling back..you could technically leave earth orbit so long as you were maintaining any velocity away from the center of gravity. If you stopped however, you'd probably going terminal velocity fairly soon.
To maintain a near earth orbit requires maintaining a forward velocity of appx 7900 m/s - this means you cover the distance it takes for the curvature of the earth to slope at the same rate gravity would pull you towards teh earth in a given period of time... so if you exceeded 7900 m/s you would be leaving earth's gravity, but not "escaping" it.
If gravity's effect is infinite, it wouldn't matter how fast you could go, because the moment you slowed down you'd be caught in gravity again.
The goal however is not to go straight away.. but rather simply away.
|
Kelkyen
|
Posted - 2006.11.14 22:08:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Kichae Chandramani
My ship goes 9AU/s. That's, umm, 4300 times the speed of light. I think it'll manage.
I know our ships go this fast was they warp away, and our ships can take multiple nuke hits, i.e.- bane torps are listed as "An ultra-heavy unguided nuclear missile" in the discription.
How does the damage from say a 10 megaton surface nuke compare to the sandpapering the atmosphere would do as you move 4300 times the speed of light through it, if you assume an Earth like atmosphere?
What would be the effect on the planets atmosphere, lifeforms, and structures by moving this fast with a huge ship? It looks pretty when the Battlestar Galactica does it, but I'd imagine everyone would be sucked into space behind it.
Again, I'm not able to debate the physics, so I'll leave that to those who can. I know it's "just a game" but CCP added the tech info, so I'll question it.
|
TheMoog
Caldari
3240 Inc.
|
Posted - 2006.11.14 22:13:00 -
[38]
Escape velocity applies only to "projectile" type of objects, not propelled ones. It's the initial speed an object must have to escape the gravitational field and never fall back. Like throwing a rock, or shooting a gun in the air.
The space shuttle does not require that speed because it is propelled by a force acting against the gravity.
Needless to say, a Raven would need on hell of a propulsion to escape earth's gravity. |
Midshipman
Merch Industrial
|
Posted - 2006.11.14 23:37:00 -
[39]
Originally by: TheMoog
Escape velocity applies only to "projectile" type of objects, not propelled ones. It's the initial speed an object must have to escape the gravitational field and never fall back. Like throwing a rock, or shooting a gun in the air.
The space shuttle does not require that speed because it is propelled by a force acting against the gravity.
Needless to say, a Raven would need on hell of a propulsion to escape earth's gravity.
Thank god someone else has at least a basic understanding of physics. I was beginning to give up hope.
|
Komen
Gallente
Eve Defence Force
Ascendant Frontier
|
Posted - 2006.11.15 00:42:00 -
[40]
Edited by: Komen on 15/11/2006 00:45:10
Edited by: Komen on 15/11/2006 00:42:36
I'm not a science wiz or anything (I scraped by in chemistry), but this thing about ships surviving in space because it's so cold is...um...bogus. In direct sunlight, the major problem in space is to get RID of heat.
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/mar2002/1015259294.Ph.r.html
Edit: How do you linkify things so they can be clicked? I don't actually post anything often enough to know.
___________________________________
Wielder of the Trout of Doom(tm)!
___________________________________ |
Crumplecorn
Gallente
Aerial Boundaries Inc.
Interstellar Starbase Syndicate
|
Posted - 2006.11.15 01:57:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Kelkyen
Originally by: Kichae Chandramani
My ship goes 9AU/s. That's, umm, 4300 times the speed of light. I think it'll manage.
I know our ships go this fast was they warp away, and our ships can take multiple nuke hits, i.e.- bane torps are listed as "An ultra-heavy unguided nuclear missile" in the discription.
How does the damage from say a 10 megaton surface nuke compare to the sandpapering the atmosphere would do as you move 4300 times the speed of light through it, if you assume an Earth like atmosphere?
What would be the effect on the planets atmosphere, lifeforms, and structures by moving this fast with a huge ship? It looks pretty when the Battlestar Galactica does it, but I'd imagine everyone would be sucked into space behind it.
Again, I'm not able to debate the physics, so I'll leave that to those who can. I know it's "just a game" but CCP added the tech info, so I'll question it.
The ships already go through planets. The null-vacuum blahdy blah thing that they call a 'warp drive' does its better than frictionless dodah thingy and basically you can fly through anything.
----------
IBTL \o/ |
Kichae Chandramani
Quasar Consortium
|
Posted - 2006.11.15 02:08:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Bombasy
You have it backwards. Escape velocity is utterly irrelevant in this calculation, they way we get escape velocity, g (italic lowercase) is relevant.
Approximately:
g = G ((m)/(r^2))
where:
G= Gravitational Constant
m= mass of planetoid
r= radius of planetoid
g for earth is approximately 9.8something or another m/s^2
But lo and behold, how we get g, Newton's law of universal gravitation:
F = G *((m1m2)/(r^2))
Coincidentally that's how you get the amount of force required to pull an object (m1) from another (m2) at distance r.
Let me rephrase: Escape velocity is relevant, but only if you intend on shutting your engines off at some point. If you accelerate for an infinite amount of time, it isn't going to mean anything. The escape velocity of a body determines how much time it will take for the kinetic energy of your craft to overcome the gravitational potential of the planetoid.
Since, as far as I can tell, ships in EVE never shut off their engines, I'll concede this.
|
Kichae Chandramani
Quasar Consortium
|
Posted - 2006.11.15 02:11:00 -
[43]
Originally by: TheMoog
Escape velocity applies only to "projectile" type of objects, not propelled ones. It's the initial speed an object must have to escape the gravitational field and never fall back. Like throwing a rock, or shooting a gun in the air.
The space shuttle does not require that speed because it is propelled by a force acting against the gravity.
Needless to say, a Raven would need on hell of a propulsion to escape earth's gravity.
The Space Shuttle does not require that speed because it doesn't escape the Earth's gravity. It reaches orbital velocity, not escape velocity.
And Google tells me that a Raven at m = 1.1E8 kg would require 225 million pounds of thrust. Thank you Google for converting from SI to imperial.
|
Kichae Chandramani
Quasar Consortium
|
Posted - 2006.11.15 02:14:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Zephyr Mallory
If gravity's effect is infinite, it wouldn't matter how fast you could go, because the moment you slowed down you'd be caught in gravity again.
The goal however is not to go straight away.. but rather simply away.
Actually, speed means everything. The escape velocity is defined as the velocity an object would need to have enough kinetic energy to overcome the gravitational potential of a massive body. Gravity will affect the trajectory of any object, but only objects with kinetic energies lower than the their gravitational potential energies can orbit a body, or "fall" to its surface.
|
Oedus Caro
Caldari
Caldari Deep Space Ventures
|
Posted - 2006.11.15 02:28:00 -
[45]
I'm fairly certain there is a whole chronicle detailing the relative separation of space and planetary economies, and in it is mentioned the use of small space-planes for standard surface-to-station travel.
In any case, it would be a mistake to give the ships we have now atmospheric capability. First of all, a shield would neither act as a heat shield nor streamline a ship's atmospheric profile, because as someone already said our ships maneuver in space by the use of thruster jets (and in at least some cases, mass-impulse main engines). If a shield orb were to prevent gases from entering its confines, as some of you have proposed, it would also prevent thruster gas from exiting, in which case thrusters would have no effect whatsoever.
Second, even if the back-story were altered sufficiently to allow the sensible use of current vessels in atmosphere (including anti-gravity devices big enough to support battleships), no planetary government in their right mind would ever allow such monolithic vessels as battleships and freighters to enter their atmospheres. These things are big to a such a degree that no contemporary man-made structure can really be used in a comparison. Were something to go wrong with one of these things in an atmosphere, we'd be talking destruction on the scale of perhaps a mid-sized asteroid...
|
Crumplecorn
Gallente
Aerial Boundaries Inc.
Interstellar Starbase Syndicate
|
Posted - 2006.11.15 02:40:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Oedus Caro
I'm fairly certain there is a whole chronicle detailing the relative separation of space and planetary economies, and in it is mentioned the use of small space-planes for standard surface-to-station travel.
In any case, it would be a mistake to give the ships we have now atmospheric capability. First of all, a shield would neither act as a heat shield nor streamline a ship's atmospheric profile, because as someone already said our ships maneuver in space by the use of thruster jets (and in at least some cases, mass-impulse main engines). If a shield orb were to prevent gases from entering its confines, as some of you have proposed, it would also prevent thruster gas from exiting, in which case thrusters would have no effect whatsoever.
Second, even if the back-story were altered sufficiently to allow the sensible use of current vessels in atmosphere (including anti-gravity devices big enough to support battleships), no planetary government in their right mind would ever allow such monolithic vessels as battleships and freighters to enter their atmospheres. These things are big to a such a degree that no contemporary man-made structure can really be used in a comparison. Were something to go wrong with one of these things in an atmosphere, we'd be talking destruction on the scale of perhaps a mid-sized asteroid...
Sucking the fun out of a game because of RL concerns is bad mmmkay?
Anyway, first eve's physics bear no resemblance to reality, so any arguments based around what would or wouldn't work in RL are irrelveant.
Second, pod pilots get hundreds or even thousands of people killed on a daily basis, they are above normal laws.
----------
IBTL \o/ |
Hllaxiu
Shiva
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2006.11.15 02:42:00 -
[47]
Would everyone involved in this discussion please read the following wikipedia articles before proceeding:
Scalar (Physics)
Vector (spatial)
Astrodynamics
This website also has good information on a variety of first/second year physics topics - It got me through AP Physics and two semesters of university physics (wouldn't take my 5 on the B exam for EE as a major  ).
If anyone is interested in a simulation with realistic spaceflight, take a look at Orbiter.
---
Our greatest glory is not in never failing, but in rising up every time we fail. - Emerson |
Azradok
Gallente
Recon Above and Beyond
|
Posted - 2006.11.15 02:43:00 -
[48]
Edited by: Azradok on 15/11/2006 02:43:50
Escape velocity is the minimum speed an object without propulsion needs to have to move indefinitely away from a mass, from a given position in a given gravitational field.
Some key words there some of you were missing.
As stated earlier, and correctly, F=(G*m1*m2)/r^2 is the force that needs to be overcome. Escape velocity from a rotating body makes it a bit different as direction is involved (whether one leave in the direction of rotation or against it).
All objects need the same escape velocity. The energy requirement is: E=(.5*m1*v^2)-(G*m1*m2)/r That is: The energy requirement is the kinetic energy of the object minus the gravitational potential energy.
Of course the real problem with any of the EVE ships and atmospheric flying is friction, local heating, and the resulting hull failure. Though 'shields' might remove this concern. I don't know what the pretend physics of the shields is.
P.S. I have a masters degree in physics and am ~1 year from finishing my Ph.D. in atomic, molecular, and optical physics. :)
P.S. Be wary of Wikipedia and scientific topic. There's often a lot of error. ;)
-----
-----
|
Hllaxiu
Shiva
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2006.11.15 03:04:00 -
[49]
Originally by: Azradok
P.S. Be wary of Wikipedia and scientific topic. There's often a lot of error. ;)
Articles involving calculus based concepts are generally accurate, and don't seem to change that much. But anyone that doesn't trust wikipedia can instead put their faith in the Georgia State University....
---
Our greatest glory is not in never failing, but in rising up every time we fail. - Emerson |
Dhaeron Lhun
Caldari
Eve University
|
Posted - 2006.11.15 03:05:00 -
[50]
Assuming that shields solve the problem of friction, most ships in EVE can escape an earth-standard gravity.
g=9.82 m/s¦ roughly. Basically, any ship with a higher acceleration can do it. Count the seconds it takes for your ship to reach near maximum velocity, divide maximum velocity by number of seconds and you get acceleration. If it's higher than 9.82 your ship could escape earth's gravity flying straight up.
|
Zelorise
Minmatar
Torchwood Institute
|
Posted - 2006.11.15 03:10:00 -
[51]
I dont care about the math its gone fare too indepth for me.
Atmospheric flying reminds me of Frontier (elite 2)
Movie Intro (29.2mb)
Shows landing, Planet PVP, lift off leaving Atmosphere is this where its heading??
The Dumber people think you are, The more surprised they are when you kill them!! |
Hllaxiu
Shiva
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2006.11.15 03:11:00 -
[52]
More on topic: If CCP allows player control of fighters, we better be able to do a Thanatos belly flop fighter launch.
---
Our greatest glory is not in never failing, but in rising up every time we fail. - Emerson |
ELECTR0FREAK
Eye of God
Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2006.11.15 03:26:00 -
[53]
I would love to see a Dominix enter a planet's atmosphere.
I'm guessing we'll get some atmospheric craft. See, CCP has to constantly be creating things that create more skills in order to keep us training (otherwise the older characters will run out of interesting things to train and may quit.)
Atmospheric craft would allow CCP to drop a whole bunch of new skill books, new ships, and keep ppl interested.
Discoverer of the Missile Damage Formula |
Kichae Chandramani
Quasar Consortium
|
Posted - 2006.11.15 03:27:00 -
[54]
Originally by: Azradok
Edited by: Azradok on 15/11/2006 02:43:50
Escape velocity is the minimum speed an object without propulsion needs to have to move indefinitely away from a mass, from a given position in a given gravitational field.
Some key words there some of you were missing.
In all fairness, I mentioned this already: Escape velocity is relevant if you shut your engines off. While you have propulsion, you can accelerate away, but if they cut out, you'd best hope you've reached v_esc, else you'll come tumbling back down. Of course, we seem to be lucky enough to have an infinite fuel supply in EVE, so the game mechanic works.
Maybe I'm picking at nits, but I think it's an important distinction to make for those out there not lucky enough to have a BSc or better in physics.
Quote:
P.S. I have a masters degree in physics and am ~1 year from finishing my Ph.D. in atomic, molecular, and optical physics. :)
Cool! Sounds like you work with a lot of lasers. I'm personally just applying to grad school to work on a MSc in observational astrophysics. Have any advice to keep me from shooting myself in the face?
|
Viktor Fyretracker
Caldari
Worms Corp
|
Posted - 2006.11.15 03:57:00 -
[55]
thing is even an EVE cruiser is too big to reenter without probally breaking up. most scifi anything bigger then a jumbo jet has surface to space shuttles on board.
|
Taloic
Caldari
Black Watch Regiment
|
Posted - 2006.11.15 04:16:00 -
[56]
I have worked on military aircraft for 12 years now currently im on F-15C's.
Escape velocity is irelivent to atmospheric flight in EVE considering it would be achieved through the use of the warp bubble.
The issue for these craft would not be aerodynamics.
As stated the F-4 which I never got to play with and the F-117 which was a complete pain in the arse to work on have horrid flight characteristics.
What they do have is very large engines on the case of the F-4 and very compact and powerful engines in the case of the 117 useing the GE404.
But they do have flight controls Flaps, Stabs, Alerions which our ships do not have we have maneuvering jets.
What concerns me most is not escape velocity it is the ability to stay in the air and not plummet to the ground.
That is achieved by modren aircraft with both lifting surfaces "wings" and a high thrust to weight ratio.
Some craft such as the F-15, F-22, and the Eurofighter have a positive thrust to weight ratio which means they can accelerate going vertical.
Speaking on the heavier weight classes.
Our EVE Battleship classes on up and even some of our Battle-Cruisers are simply massive beast of war.
While flight in space for these craft is possible since space has very little density " almost a complete vacume as space is not a perfect vacume " and has a very minsucle ammount of friction.
Our drives can push our craft steadily gaining speed much like our deep space probes "Ion Drives".
Think of it like rolling a rock down a hill it will steadily gain speed.
These current drives we have would not be able to lift our vessels off of the ground let alone keep them from hurteling to the ground like a rock.
Even applying Anti-Gav would be combersome and these ships manuverability would be horrid in an atmosphere.
Although I guess it can be argued that technology will overcome the theorys of physics by this time but its a bit much in the case of this class of vessels to do anything other then land and possible hover.
Speaking on lighter vessels.
I can see frigates and possbily cruisers such as the Thorax and Caracal being able to meet the speeds/thrust to weight ratio needed to maintain fight.
The problem is again controlling your fights direction.
Heavy modifications would be needed to create the flight surfaces needed to direct your ship as manuvering thrusters/jets would create a whiplash effect almost uncontrollable except for basic manuvers.
Even todays missles powered by solid propellant have fins to guide them to their targets.
So low speed manuvering would be an issue.
High speed is a different beast.
At certain speeds "I cant remember off hand something like .93 Mach " most flight controls do wash out and are useless this is where Stabalators control your flight and a military fighter becomes a craft with missle like characteristics.
The effect is increased tremendiously at speeds of 1.5 - 2 Mach.
I probably rambeled on here like I usually do that when I start talking about aircraft.
Long story short I dont see how its feasable for anything bigger then a Frigate and posibily Cruisers to be able to make an atmospheric flight as opposed to a slow decent or hover.
Btw its late im tired and I tried to proofread this.
I ask for forgiveness with my typos.
EVE creates the best Debates. 
|
Hllaxiu
Shiva
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2006.11.15 04:20:00 -
[57]
Originally by: Viktor Fyretracker
thing is even an EVE cruiser is too big to reenter without probally breaking up. most scifi anything bigger then a jumbo jet has surface to space shuttles on board.
If you throw enough thrust in opposition to your forward motion, and opposing gravity, you could just waltz down into the atmosphere without much heating due to friction.
Since our spaceships operate on magic anyways, this is perfectly reasonable.
---
Our greatest glory is not in never failing, but in rising up every time we fail. - Emerson |
Taloic
Caldari
Black Watch Regiment
|
Posted - 2006.11.15 04:33:00 -
[58]
I think our shields could easily protect our ships vs the ammount of heat generated by a calculated reentry.
And the NASA space shuttles can reenter the atmosphere without breaking apart........
So long as nothing damages its heat shields that is. 
But they are massive I saw one as a child in Cape Canaveral * spelling *.
They have specific windows of oppertunity to land at the specified airstrips.
And the timeing and angle of attack have to be percise.
Otherwise boom or they would land a few hundred miles off target also probably boom.
Uncontrolled no size craft will survive the physical pounding you will recieve no matter how strong your shields are they would fail.
Controlled is another story.
Like skipping a rock across water or sliceing one under the water as opposed to slamming it into the water.
|
Hllaxiu
Shiva
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2006.11.15 04:45:00 -
[59]
Originally by: Taloic
Uncontrolled no size craft will survive the physical pounding you will recieve no matter how strong your shields are they would fail.
Controlled is another story.
Unless you're in a general products hull.
---
Our greatest glory is not in never failing, but in rising up every time we fail. - Emerson |
Oedus Caro
Caldari
Caldari Deep Space Ventures
|
Posted - 2006.11.15 05:18:00 -
[60]
Originally by: Crumplecorn
Originally by: Oedus Caro
Me blah blah blahing...
Sucking the fun out of a game because of RL concerns is bad mmmkay?
Anyway, first eve's physics bear no resemblance to reality, so any arguments based around what would or wouldn't work in RL are irrelveant.
Second, pod pilots get hundreds or even thousands of people killed on a daily basis, they are above normal laws.
I don't see how taking my position would suck the fun out of new planetary environments - all that I am really saying is that our current large ships do not belong in an atmosphere. I am perfectly open to there being equally exciting (if somewhat smaller) alternatives.
As for EVE's physics, to state categorically that they bear no resemblance to reality is just not fair. For sure there's a lot of make-believe, but it seems there is always some info in the back-story that casts it in such a way as to make it believable. However, stating that a shield seals out the atmosphere but at the same time allows thrusters to adjust vessel attitude is tantamount to saying that a child can lift himself by his own shoelaces, and no matter how you spin that one it will not have the same credibility that the rest of EVE's "physics" generally has.
Perhaps you don't care... that's just fine with me. But do not dismiss my point as irrelevant. This is an RPG, and some people, like myself, like to preserve a broad sense of realism.
|
Amokkitten
|
Posted - 2006.11.15 05:33:00 -
[61]
Originally by: Taloic
These current drives we have would not be able to lift our vessels off of the ground let alone keep them from hurteling to the ground like a rock.
Yes they would. Just calculate the acceleration EvE ships can achieve, with some skill ranks in acceleration even industrials easily achieve an acceleration of more than one g. EvE engines are almost ridiculously overpowered when compared to todays craft. Heck, if you're taking a frigate with an MWD as an example it can easily get 50 g or more. And one lousy g is all you need to safely escape and reenter a planets gravity.
Quote:
Even applying Anti-Gav would be combersome and these ships manuverability would be horrid in an atmosphere.
Although I guess it can be argued that technology will overcome the theorys of physics by this time but its a bit much in the case of this class of vessels to do anything other then land and possible hover.
Nothing of the sort necessary. Just fly straight up, or in the case of a landing slowly ride down with the engines pointing downwards as brakes. Wouldn't bee too nice on whatever is below the ship, but that's what landing pads are for. Preferrably placed far away from everything else on the planet.
Quote:
I can see frigates and possbily cruisers such as the Thorax and Caracal being able to meet the speeds/thrust to weight ratio needed to maintain fight.
The problem is again controlling your fights direction.
My Rax can get a nice 4 g without AB or MWD and i'm not even a very skilled pilot. Since it can break and accelerate in the same time without the need to turn, the directional thrusters at least in the front, possibly at the sides too can generate the same force as the main engines. Or the main engines are not reaction drives and have a reverse mode. Anyway, the point is: ships in EvE are vector thrust crafts, the only thing that'd change near a planet is the need to constantly generate 1g acceleration upwards to counteract gravity.
Quote:
Heavy modifications would be needed to create the flight surfaces needed to direct your ship as manuvering thrusters/jets would create a whiplash effect almost uncontrollable except for basic manuvers.
Even todays missles powered by solid propellant have fins to guide them to their targets.
So low speed manuvering would be an issue.
What todays missiles and planes and space shuttles don't have is unlimited amounts of fuel to waste away to make steering very easy. Ships in EvE have that. Reentry into the atmosphere for vessels like the space shuttle would be very easy if they could carry enough fuel with them to use it to break on the way down.
Quote:
Long story short I dont see how its feasable for anything bigger then a Frigate and posibily Cruisers to be able to make an atmospheric flight as opposed to a slow decent or hover.
Calculate the accelerations these beasties get, or even the thrust/weight ratio if you like, and you'll think differently. ;)
|
Taloic
Caldari
Black Watch Regiment
|
Posted - 2006.11.15 12:00:00 -
[62]
Thats the issue in an atmosphere though thrust to weight is your acceleration.
And that is not considering the pressures at various levels of flight.
Or the friction of the air during flight.
A condor moveing a 1500/MS would snap in half where the neck meets the engine nassels if it tried to turn on its nose because of this friction along with the G-forces involved.
Our drives are great with unlimited juice ya.
But they are made for spaceflight where air pressure, friction, and denseity do not exist.
Being able to push a battleship 101ms or 160ms with skills in space is far different then in an atmosphere.
Thats just 225.25 MPH or with skills 360 MPH.
That is not even close to the speed of sound in space where these factors do not exist.
Toss in the factors for atmospheric flight and well you get to make a controlled fall like the space shuttle.
Or look at it from a Sci-Fi point of view.
Even in Star Wars the large ships "Star Destroyers and the like" could only direct a hover in orbit.
|
Crumplecorn
Gallente
Aerial Boundaries Inc.
Interstellar Starbase Syndicate
|
Posted - 2006.11.15 12:20:00 -
[63]
Edited by: Crumplecorn on 15/11/2006 12:22:22
Originally by: Oedus Caro
As for EVE's physics, to state categorically that they bear no resemblance to reality is just not fair. For sure there's a lot of make-believe, but it seems there is always some info in the back-story that casts it in such a way as to make it believable. However, stating that a shield seals out the atmosphere but at the same time allows thrusters to adjust vessel attitude is tantamount to saying that a child can lift himself by his own shoelaces, and no matter how you spin that one it will not have the same credibility that the rest of EVE's "physics" generally has.
Perhaps you don't care... that's just fine with me. But do not dismiss my point as irrelevant. This is an RPG, and some people, like myself, like to preserve a broad sense of realism.
Our ships fly around like they are in an atmosphere when they are in space. This is at least on a par with using the shield to keep the atmosphere out and using thrusters to move simultaneously. However due to the fact that we already know that the shields have the capacity to stop matter getting in while simultaneously letting other matter out (e.g. two projectile weapon ships with their shields intact shooting at each other) the latter is probably a lot more explicable than the former.
Eve has always wrapped science faction explanations around it's chosen gameplay elements, not the other way around, so arguments about why it is unfeasible for our ships to fly in a planets atmosphere are irrelevant. All that matters is whether it makes for good gameplay.
Originally by: Amokkitten
My Rax can get a nice 4 g without AB or MWD and i'm not even a very skilled pilot. Since it can break and accelerate in the same time without the need to turn, the directional thrusters at least in the front, possibly at the sides too can generate the same force as the main engines. Or the main engines are not reaction drives and have a reverse mode. Anyway, the point is: ships in EvE are vector thrust crafts, the only thing that'd change near a planet is the need to constantly generate 1g acceleration upwards to counteract gravity.
QFT
----------
IBTL \o/ |
James Duar
Merch Industrial
|
Posted - 2006.11.15 12:32:00 -
[64]
I'd just like to point out that a nuclear detonation in space is radically different to an Earth bound one. Without an atmosphere, the only danger a nuke poses is from the radiation (EM->thermal) of the actual fission reaction - there is no destructive shockwave because it has no medium to propagate through.
Hence why in BSG and why in EVE spacecraft can withstand multi-megaton nuclear blasts - because the damage is purely radiative. Nuke 'em on a planet surface and you might kill 'em.
Also re: Trit - even if it is unstable under human living conditions, it must be processed into alloys and composites and shielded anyway since radiation from a star would generate huge temperature differtials over spaceship hulls.
|
Amokkitten
|
Posted - 2006.11.15 12:33:00 -
[65]
Originally by: Taloic
Thats the issue in an atmosphere though thrust to weight is your acceleration.
Uh... Thrust/mass (weight if you want) is acceleration everywhere.
Thrust is measured in newton. N=md/t¦ where m=mass d=distance and t=time. Divide by mass and you get the acceleration. Doesn't change if it's in space or gravity, doesn't change if it's in an athmosphere. (besides adding friction)
Quote:
And that is not considering the pressures at various levels of flight.
Or the friction of the air during flight.
Well we already assume that shield take care of that. They can sustain a lot of hits from small nukes (just check the payload those projectile turrets have) so an athmosphere shouldn't be a problem. Besides, why do all people think you have to exit and reenter a planets atmosphere fast? You don't.
Quote:
A condor moveing a 1500/MS would snap in half where the neck meets the engine nassels if it tried to turn on its nose because of this friction along with the G-forces involved.
Then move at 50m/s. G-forces only apply on acceleration. Yes, the planets gravity is acceleration too, and yep, a lot of those caldari and minmatar...objects.. would probably fall apart because of that even when just sitting on the ground. :D On the other hand, they can clearly survive being accelerated in space, so, as long as the ship is always being accelerated in the correct direction even they should be ok.
Quote:
Our drives are great with unlimited juice ya.
But they are made for spaceflight where air pressure, friction, and denseity do not exist.
Won't be a problem. With a drive that has sufficient acceleration to lift you from the planet, and unlimited fuel, you can go as slow as you want to.
Quote:
Being able to push a battleship 101ms or 160ms with skills in space is far different then in an atmosphere.
Thats just 225.25 MPH or with skills 360 MPH.
In fact, there is no push required at all to keep an object moving in space. The question is how long it takes to get it to that speed, since accelleration requires thrust. And unless that battleship takes longer than 10/16 seconds to reach it's speed, the acceleration is 1 g or more.
Quote:
That is not even close to the speed of sound in space where these factors do not exist.
Toss in the factors for atmospheric flight and well you get to make a controlled fall like the space shuttle.  You might want to rethink that. Hint: there is no sound in space. There's no speed of sound either.
Quote:
Or look at it from a Sci-Fi point of view.
Even in Star Wars the large ships "Star Destroyers and the like" could only direct a hover in orbit.
Star Wars is not Science Fiction. Before the flames start i'll qualify: Star Wars is not Science Fiction because George Lucas himself said it is not.
Anyway, that's irrelevant for this argument anyway. The question is wether EVE ships can fly near planets not wether Star Wars or Star Trek or BSG or any other ships can. EvE ships cleary have powerful enough engines to accelerate at several gs and can do so indefinitly. That's all you need for planetary flight. For hovering, all you need is a constant acceleration of 1g upwards, then you can use your directional thrusters to move around. If the ship isn't aerodynamic and fragile, maybe not move around very fast, but move around nonetheless. And considering the turn speeds ships in EVE have, probably even the directional thrusters have enough power to keep it floating so they don't even have to fly with the engines pointing downwards.
|
Amokkitten
|
Posted - 2006.11.15 12:38:00 -
[66]
Originally by: James Duar
I'd just like to point out that a nuclear detonation in space is radically different to an Earth bound one. Without an atmosphere, the only danger a nuke poses is from the radiation (EM->thermal) of the actual fission reaction - there is no destructive shockwave because it has no medium to propagate through.
And not even a medium to create one actually. A nuke alone doesn't contain enough material to create a decent shockwave, you need air around it to heat up and expand.
Quote:
Hence why in BSG and why in EVE spacecraft can withstand multi-megaton nuclear blasts - because the damage is purely radiative. Nuke 'em on a planet surface and you might kill 'em.
Also re: Trit - even if it is unstable under human living conditions, it must be processed into alloys and composites and shielded anyway since radiation from a star would generate huge temperature differtials over spaceship hulls.
Seeing how ships in EVE can, besides nuclear blasts, also survive kinetic impact, EM pulses and explosives (probably shaped charges, normal explosions are near useless in space) that tritanium must be some really, really hard stuff. If a 1400mm titanium shell hitting a ship won't kill it, i doubt some atmospheric pressure is even relevant.
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2006.11.15 12:39:00 -
[67]
Originally by: Hllaxiu
Originally by: Taloic
Uncontrolled no size craft will survive the physical pounding you will recieve no matter how strong your shields are they would fail.
Controlled is another story.
Unless you're in a general products hull.
With a stasis field too. 
The pain then is digging yourself out of the ground .
|
Loc Maythan
Gallente
Alfa00 Corp
|
Posted - 2006.11.15 13:08:00 -
[68]
Assuming real universe physics for a moment:
While your ship is vapourising in the atmosphere due to hitting it at many times the speed of light, or is crashing to the ground due to insufficient power/aerodynamics, you could at least marvel at your Passive Targeting Computer which is now working much better than before - "Uses advanced acoustical and visual targeting to identify threats"
Of course, with EVE physics, none of the above applies.
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |