EVE Search - Inertial Stabilizers

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Inertial Stabilizers

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
DHorner Caldari Scout And Mining inc	Posted - 2006.11.30 00:10:00 - [1] I have tried out numerous setup with the inertial stabs compared to the nano's. The question I have is why don't you get a base speed increase with the Inertial Stabilizers considering the Local Hull Conversion Inertial Stab I give a 15% mass reduction. Theoretically wouldn't a ship be faster across it's entire range with a 15% mass reduction?
Azerrad InExile	Posted - 2006.11.30 00:12:00 - [2] Theoretically? Probably. In terms of game design and balance? No. Eve isn't a simulator, don't expect realism.
voogru Gallente Massive Damage	Posted - 2006.11.30 01:59:00 - [3] If a vehicle weighs 3500 pounds, and can travel 150MPH, if I removed 500 pounds, why exactly would it go any faster? It will accelerate faster, and brake faster, and probably handle easier but the top speed remains.
Tricit Caldari Dark Entropy iPOD Alliance	Posted - 2006.11.30 02:19:00 - [4] Edited by: Tricit on 30/11/2006 02:20:04 Applying the same amount of force to a smaller object will make it go faster. The reason cars do not is because they have computer that determine how much power you need in order to go so and so speed by how many revolutions per second you are going and stuff like that. With that said, if the speedometer on the ship interface is how much force/second is being applied, then you should go faster. If it is saying how fast your computer is calculating you will go, it will just go the same speed, but use less power and be more agile. stuff like that... Considering the spaceships are not cars, we're not necessarily worried about fraking up a spatial enviornment, we're looking for optimal performance all the time and that we have excessive energy, we should be going faster with a mass reduction with the same agility. On the other hand, if we are limited by faulty design, in that the speedometer simply calculates how much power we need to go this fast, we are just going to go the same speed with better agility. These two aside, I am not sure if the mass reduction affects either. I remember when I first joined, there was an agility rating. Was that taking out and the mass just used for it? Was the mass already used and that rating was just based on mass? Anyways, the mass reduction is good for MWD and AB speed increase, as it uses the mass of the ship in its speed bonus calculation. The less the mass, the more the speed you will get.
MyOwnSling Gallente RONA Corporation	Posted - 2006.11.30 02:38:00 - [5] Edited by: MyOwnSling on 30/11/2006 02:38:03 Originally by: Tricit Edited by: Tricit on 30/11/2006 02:23:21 Applying the same amount of force to a less massive object will make it go faster. Not entirely true. This will only increase acceleration, max speed is just determined by how long you accelerate. However, because EVE does not represent real world physics in this way (for balance reasons), we do not see this effect. ------------- Stop whining.
Ghoest	Posted - 2006.11.30 02:42:00 - [6] This is a stupid discourse. It is all contigent on very basic rules of physics - that all ships in EVE break. There is no such thing as max speed in space(with the exception of light speed but relativity definetly is not considered either.) Wherever you went - here you are.
MyOwnSling Gallente RONA Corporation	Posted - 2006.11.30 02:54:00 - [7] Originally by: Ghoest This is a stupid discourse. It is all contigent on very basic rules of physics - that all ships in EVE break. There is no such thing as max speed in space(with the exception of light speed but relativity definetly is not considered either.) That's why the OP was asking about what would happen in theory. The answer, for the reasons you stated, is undefined, as there is no such thing as max speed in space. ------------- Stop whining.
Caerula Sanguis Stellar Nursery Society	Posted - 2006.11.30 02:55:00 - [8] Edited by: Caerula Sanguis on 30/11/2006 02:55:42 Edited by: Caerula Sanguis on 30/11/2006 02:55:13 Originally by: The Magical Realist Doesn't understand what a "game" is. Constantly makes arguments based on what would be "realistic," even if the game is set in a fantasy world run by wizards and pixies. Sample Quote: "You can't tell me a Mondlagarian Tiger Warrior is stronger than a Swamp Troll. That just doesn't make sense!" Punishment: Sent back to kindergarten for remedial make-believe classes.
Sexorella hotz Beasts of Burden Veritas Immortalis	Posted - 2006.11.30 03:08:00 - [9] My thoughts on this are try comparing afterburner bonus with inertial stabs, since mass factors in there I believe. Though from what I hear, the big selling point on them atm is they get you to warp very fast.
Tricit Caldari Dark Entropy iPOD Alliance	Posted - 2006.11.30 03:12:00 - [10] Originally by: Caerula Sanguis Edited by: Caerula Sanguis on 30/11/2006 02:55:42 Edited by: Caerula Sanguis on 30/11/2006 02:55:13 Originally by: The Magical Realist Doesn't understand what a "game" is. Constantly makes arguments based on what would be "realistic," even if the game is set in a fantasy world run by wizards and pixies. Sample Quote: "You can't tell me a Mondlagarian Tiger Warrior is stronger than a Swamp Troll. That just doesn't make sense!" Punishment: Sent back to kindergarten for remedial make-believe classes. This isn't a fantasy game. This kind of application to a whiner only applies when you're talking about something that's not real in the first place. I know a lot of stuff in EVE isn't real, but unfortunate for this poster, physics is real. And what the guy said earlier about acceleration is correct. Less mass will allow the same amount energy to accelerate the object longer, but that ends up in a higher speed. With a certain amount of mass an a certain amount of energy, really, the only time you accelerate is for the very first instant. Acceleration is the derivative for speed. To continue accelerating, you need to continually add more force the next second than you did in the previous second. Acceleration is the act of speed raising per second increasing or speed subtracted per second increasing, or the rate of turning increasing. Now, if in the first second (we all know second isn't the smallest unit of cause and effect, aka illusion of time, but I'm just using it), we apply x energy, during that first second, you will accelerate. Your increase in speed per second goes from 0 to a number above 0, if we were static before. Now, if you apply that same amount of energy the next second, you start to decelerate, but your speed continues to increase. Decceleration is the act of subtracting down how much you speed you add from the last second you were traveling from the next second you are travelling. So applying the same amount of energy every second will result in one unit of time in instant acceleration, and the rest are deceleration. Keep in mind, you continue going faster, and you never stop going faster, it is just that the amount of speed increased is so litle at one point, no technology will be able to detect the difference. Basically, applying the same amount of force to one object continually will give you a graph similar to a square root of variable graph in terms of speed. uhhh....
Saria Mysdrial Amarr Daedalus Technologies	Posted - 2006.11.30 03:13:00 - [11] Originally by: MyOwnSling as there is no such thing as max speed in space. Speed of light is believed to be "maximum speed in space", no? Yes, physics != EvE.... Sad, but true.
Tricit Caldari Dark Entropy iPOD Alliance	Posted - 2006.11.30 03:16:00 - [12] Edited by: Tricit on 30/11/2006 03:27:29 Edited by: Tricit on 30/11/2006 03:22:22 Originally by: Saria Mysdrial Originally by: MyOwnSling as there is no such thing as max speed in space. Speed of light is believed to be "maximum speed in space", no? Yes, physics != EvE.... For your information, yes space can bend, and no, Warp speed is not an object going faster than light. Warp speed is space going faster than light, which has never been proven impossible. Gravity demonstrates how space can be bent. However, to this day, we don't know how to bend space on our own. -Edit- I'm sorry, gravity does not demonstrate how space can bind, rather all matter does. Bending space doesn't create gravity, and gravity doesn't bind space. Mass bends space and creates gravity. --Edit-- I am an as*hole, sorry.
MyOwnSling Gallente RONA Corporation	Posted - 2006.11.30 03:28:00 - [13] Edited by: MyOwnSling on 30/11/2006 03:28:57 Originally by: Caerula Sanguis Edited by: Caerula Sanguis on 30/11/2006 02:55:42 Edited by: Caerula Sanguis on 30/11/2006 02:55:13 Basically, applying the same amount of force to one object continually will give you a graph similar to a square root of variable graph in terms of speed. Not sure where you get this. All standard physics classes (kinematics I mean) ram into your head that applying a constant force to an object (ignoring friction) results in constant acceleration. This constant acceleration does not look like a root, rather it is an exponential. ------------- Stop whining.
Tricit Caldari Dark Entropy iPOD Alliance	Posted - 2006.11.30 03:30:00 - [14] Edited by: Tricit on 30/11/2006 03:36:31 Edited by: Tricit on 30/11/2006 03:35:29 Edited by: Tricit on 30/11/2006 03:32:27 The logic in that doesn't really make sense. Prehaps increasing force by the same amount every unit of time would give an exponential graph. Well, yeah, you're right. I got something mixed up... nothing will ever stop an object in true space, but really, even in our univers space, there is still stuff to create friction. So yeah, it will create an exponential graph. Applying force for one unit of time will create a square root graph in terms of speed. Oh well, I'll stop picking it apart and start playing again.
Audri Fisher Caldari The Keep THE R0CK	Posted - 2006.11.30 05:49:00 - [15] Originally by: voogru If a vehicle weighs 3500 pounds, and can travel 150MPH, if I removed 500 pounds, why exactly would it go any faster? It will accelerate faster, and brake faster, and probably handle easier but the top speed remains. It depends on why your max speed is 150 mph. If it is becuase that is the point that friction=power output, then yes it will affect top speed. If it is because that is as fast as your engine can turn, then no, it will have no effect on top speed. In any case I don't want to think about the physics of Eve. They make no sense.
Ramblin Man Empyreum	Posted - 2006.11.30 06:05:00 - [16] CONCORD's Safety Bureau mandates effective top speeds for each design. (Gotta love the hamfisted approach)
Nicholai Pestot Gallente Havoc Inc	Posted - 2006.11.30 12:22:00 - [17] Well, assuming that in eve M=Mass E=Energy A=Acceleration G=Gross Resistance The calculation works out at something like Answer = G(AxM)E ________________ What you do is you store up the rage, let it fester while you gain strength, then use it to gank those weaker than you... and so the circle of life is complete
Galen Silas Gallente Mean Corp	Posted - 2006.11.30 15:26:00 - [18] I think its pretty funny there is actually a speed limit on spaceships, personally i would think that due to the fact there is slim to none resistance in outer space. Doesn't it kinda make sense there would be endless acceleration and in a way no "speed limit". This would never happen in a game though, its good there is a speed limit of sorts. As far as not making you go faster, i dont think the inertial stabs were made to make ya faster, just more agile in fights possibly and better for traveling. I had a hyperion warping dam close to a frigate on the test server
Billy Sastard Amarr Zephyr Enterprises Inc. Astral Wolves	Posted - 2006.11.30 18:32:00 - [19] I have to laugh every time I see a post that complains about how such-and-such module should effect this ship in this-or-that way based on real world physics.... EVE <b><i>IS</i></b> a fantasy game, no matter what people say. EVE is a future fantasy game, in such that pretty much all of the physics involved in order to make everything work as it does is, to be honest, pure fantasy. I could make a list of things that are such, but I will not as this post would get too long and boring. In short, the way things work in EVE is a result of the developers desire to create some kind of balance, or even to allow for easier programming. On the topic of the inertia stabs, they do allow you to turn and warp incredibly fast, just 2 locals on an executioner makes for an almost instant uncloak and warp after jumping through a gate. Fit a named MWD to that ship and you can accelerate from 0 to over 4km/s in around 3 seconds (not a hard #, just an estimate from my testing), as well as come to a complete stop from that 4km/s in an equal amount of time. On top of this, you can also orbit at extremely close range at an extremely high speed. I am really looking forward to getting the interceptor skill trained later this week, as I can see these modules being a tacklers dream. -=^=-
Ghoest	Posted - 2006.11.30 19:39:00 - [20] Originally by: Saria Mysdrial Originally by: MyOwnSling as there is no such thing as max speed in space. Speed of light is believed to be "maximum speed in space", no? Yes, physics != EvE.... ARE A COMPLETE IDIOT!!!! You make a half baked challenge to his post - but you stupidly dont read the post he was replying to that all ready made exception for your dumb point. Wherever you went - here you are.
Fraile Cloudsinger	Posted - 2006.11.30 19:45:00 - [21] The space in EvE has the resistance/friction of engine oil. As mentioned, a mass decrease would only affect your agility and acceleration. Now, if space really had this friction, aerodynamics, or hydrodynamics would affect your top speed in addition to greater thrust.
gu o Amarr DarkStar 1	Posted - 2006.11.30 20:03:00 - [22] Originally by: voogru If a vehicle weighs 3500 pounds, and can travel 150MPH, if I removed 500 pounds, why exactly would it go any faster? It will accelerate faster, and brake faster, and probably handle easier but the top speed remains. Uh actually no... it will go faster as it takes less horsepower to acellerate the car. SO there is more hp/weight in reserves to push the car faster. For example my 1979 Ta weights in at 3895lbs, I stripped out a ton of crap and whoa I go faster. I lost 8 sec off my track time =) I can push the car further in top gear it doesn't peak at 4600 now it runs upwards of 5k- bout 165 not factoring in wind speed slippage. 2.43 gear are bomb....
voogru Gallente Massive Damage	Posted - 2006.12.01 17:05:00 - [23] Originally by: gu o Originally by: voogru If a vehicle weighs 3500 pounds, and can travel 150MPH, if I removed 500 pounds, why exactly would it go any faster? It will accelerate faster, and brake faster, and probably handle easier but the top speed remains. Uh actually no... it will go faster as it takes less horsepower to acellerate the car. SO there is more hp/weight in reserves to push the car faster. For example my 1979 Ta weights in at 3895lbs, I stripped out a ton of crap and whoa I go faster. I lost 8 sec off my track time =) I can push the car further in top gear it doesn't peak at 4600 now it runs upwards of 5k- bout 165 not factoring in wind speed slippage. 2.43 gear are bomb.... I never said it wouldnt make the car FASTER, but the TOP SPEED would the same as it was before.
James Duar Merch Industrial	Posted - 2006.12.01 17:07:00 - [24] Originally by: voogru Originally by: gu o Originally by: voogru If a vehicle weighs 3500 pounds, and can travel 150MPH, if I removed 500 pounds, why exactly would it go any faster? It will accelerate faster, and brake faster, and probably handle easier but the top speed remains. Uh actually no... it will go faster as it takes less horsepower to acellerate the car. SO there is more hp/weight in reserves to push the car faster. For example my 1979 Ta weights in at 3895lbs, I stripped out a ton of crap and whoa I go faster. I lost 8 sec off my track time =) I can push the car further in top gear it doesn't peak at 4600 now it runs upwards of 5k- bout 165 not factoring in wind speed slippage. 2.43 gear are bomb.... I never said it wouldnt make the car FASTER, but the TOP SPEED would the same as it was before. Well that's because of aerodynamic drag. Which space doesn't have.
voogru Gallente Massive Damage	Posted - 2006.12.01 19:18:00 - [25] Originally by: James Duar Originally by: voogru Originally by: gu o Originally by: voogru If a vehicle weighs 3500 pounds, and can travel 150MPH, if I removed 500 pounds, why exactly would it go any faster? It will accelerate faster, and brake faster, and probably handle easier but the top speed remains. Uh actually no... it will go faster as it takes less horsepower to acellerate the car. SO there is more hp/weight in reserves to push the car faster. For example my 1979 Ta weights in at 3895lbs, I stripped out a ton of crap and whoa I go faster. I lost 8 sec off my track time =) I can push the car further in top gear it doesn't peak at 4600 now it runs upwards of 5k- bout 165 not factoring in wind speed slippage. 2.43 gear are bomb.... I never said it wouldnt make the car FASTER, but the TOP SPEED would the same as it was before. Well that's because of aerodynamic drag. Which space doesn't have. Who said EVE is supposed to be realistic?

Pages: [1] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.