| Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Derovius Vaden
   |
Posted - 2007.02.03 07:50:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Derovius Vaden on 03/02/2007 07:51:27
Edited by: Derovius Vaden on 03/02/2007 07:47:38
Having played on and off since beta in EVE, and I've seen a good majority of the ships and how the seem to move through the game; As a mechanical engineering student, I can't help but be driven mad by the sometimes (often?) violations of basic rigid body mechanics. This thread is meant for constructive critisms, as should be mentioned.
First Law: Rigid Body Violations:
 Quote:
First Law
A mass at rest stays at rest, and a mass in motion maintains the same velocity (i.e. speed and direction) unless acted upon by an outside force.
I submit, for example the Caldari Navy Raven; as one can see, there are a total of 4 engine's on this lump of a ship, one approximately centred geometrically, two on the right, one on the left. Its fair to estimate that the centre of mass of a shape like this (assuming uniform density) would be slightly behind and to the left of the central "tower".
The problem lies when we consider the force moments (and to a greater extend, the moments of inertia) on this rigid body if placed under the applied force of these engines. Given that the forces do not balance one another through the center of mass, this ship would do nice little co-planar loops as it travelled through space, of which would become more eccentric/wider as the engines we left to apply thrust.
Inertial Violations:
We have all experienced our ships appearing to keep their engines on consistently as they fly through EVE-space, however, a true engine working on an object in vacuum with no resistive forces to eventually slow it down will continue to accelerate until it reaches the maximum threshold for its mass, or it begins to approach the speed of light. Now, this is obviously a technicality, but its none the less a rather large oversight.
Additionally, ships appear to snap-stop when leaving warp, with no visible signs of reverse thrusting, implying that "warping" is a point to point movement. This is however not the case, as we all know, because one must accelerate to max velocity before one can warp, in EVE.
Second Law: Smartbomb radii:
Quote:
Second Law
The total of all forces on a mass equals the rate of change of its linear momentum. Momentum is the product of mass and velocity. Notice that the First Law is a special case of the Second Law.
From what I've seen of smartbombs, the "wake" of the emanated damage front appears to be co-planar to the horizontal ship axis. In an unrestricted environment, such a wake would propagate in a sphere around the ship, more than likely its intensity = initial * (1/distance^2), much like a sound wave. (I'm basing this on the fact that sound waves carry energy, as would a smartbomb wave, presumably.) Meaning that while a battleship at 10 km's may have a little rough sailing, a drone or frigate would sustain serious damage from this wave front. (comparison of an objects mass to the force acting on it to find resultant acceleration)
|
Derovius Vaden
|
Posted - 2007.02.03 07:51:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Derovius Vaden on 03/02/2007 07:52:19
Edited by: Derovius Vaden on 03/02/2007 07:50:48
Edited by: Derovius Vaden on 03/02/2007 07:50:35
Edited by: Derovius Vaden on 03/02/2007 07:50:12
Third Law: Collision Model:
Quote:
Third Law
Whenever A exerts a force on B, B simultaneously exerts a force on A with the same magnitude in the opposite direction.
To be blunt, having a 1600000 kg shuttle bump into your 105000000 kg Dominix is equivalent to a Mini Coop rear-ending a Tiger Tank. This whole concept of distrupting warping and velocity gains of any vessel with a nimbler vessel is somewhat foolish. Even with proximity collision systems to override pod controls and "manuever" to the safest alignment to avoid collision, that little shuttle would still strike the mass 65.6 times larger than itself, and experience an impulse momentum away from it at 65.6 times the magnitude of which it exerted on the Dominix.
Conclusion:
EVE would be a "better"(TM) place with the following:
1. Symmetrical ships OR well thoughtout engine placement on unsymmetrical ships
2. No more engine tracers once maximum velocity is reached. Negative traces when decelerating.
3. Collision dynamics that base the vessels mass and impact velocity into the deflection velocity to combat "shuttle-humping". Of you want to spend 100 million ISK making an ultra nimble 'Geddon to hump ships and keep them from jumping, all the power to you; physics is on your side.
4. Smartbomb intensity based on distance from ship, with damage based on size of smartbomb installed vs. mass of the vessel.
|
Imechal Ravpeim
International Multi-Player Consortium
Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.02.03 07:59:00 -
[3]
Hmmmmmmmm....
No. 
|
Dashi Kawasuki
Caldarians Pride
|
Posted - 2007.02.03 08:04:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Dashi Kawasuki on 03/02/2007 08:01:28
scientifically correct, but after all... it's just a game 
Elite for example did implement Newton's axioms correctly, but imagine that acceleration in space would be physically correct in EVE. You would have BS going at thousands of km per second. It would be impossible to alter the ship's flight direction without a long negative acceleration phase 
I don't know if you ever played Pen&Paper RPGs, but there also was the always present fight between realism and fun. So perhaps it's better to bend the laws of physics, than to spoil the fun.
And now to something completely different... |
Kredan Rasok
|
Posted - 2007.02.03 08:05:00 -
[5]
I really hate to be the one to say this but,
ITS A GAME!!
nothing is real and therefore the laws of physics, chemistry etc that govern the world in which we live DO NOT APPLY.
|
Sakura Nihil
Tabula Rasa Systems
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2007.02.03 08:06:00 -
[6]
Dude, interceptors and nanophoons going at like 10-30 km/s?
I can understand your concerns, this game does violate a lot of physics , but I'd take better game mechanics over realism personally.
Mufasa! |
Plutoinum
German Cyberdome Corp
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.02.03 08:09:00 -
[7]
No real news, but you are right, most ships would probably be unable to fly a straight line, instead they would spin around.
But after some time you ignore those things and just play the game. The beauty of EVE is its gameplay, not its realism.
______________
Originally by: Patch86
Combat in EVE is non-consensual. Unlike most games, EVE, by design, forces you to be ready for violence everywhere-even hi-sec space.
|
Brunswick2
eXceed Inc.
INVICTUS.
|
Posted - 2007.02.03 08:11:00 -
[8]
Quote:
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.
linksy
|
Derovius Vaden
|
Posted - 2007.02.03 08:11:00 -
[9]
Well, working with the "its just a game" argument, why have any sort of definable quantities for weapons and ships period? I don't need to know that my turret transverses half a radian a second, it could simply be coded as "doesn't work against anything bigger than a frigate". To a lesser extent, why have different damage types? Simply code a probability generator on chance to get utterly destroyed vs. playing annoying circus music?
The problem is that "fun" has overtaken believablity in some games, and unless you want CCP to start mount Ogre Slaying + 1 swords to our ships, one must ask for some constraint.
|
Firecrak
|
Posted - 2007.02.03 08:14:00 -
[10]
You uh...need to get out more mate. The books are frazzeling your brain. If you want believability, then for starters, your calculation as to the non-resistance of space would be false. Consider how much dust, space wind and other assorted junk is out there. If you want realism, the next time you accidently bump into an asteroid mining, your ship should decompress and explode. Bumping other ships would do similar things. How about uneven ship design...this is called art. We can't all fly borg cubes around.
Seems to me, you really need to go play Microsoft Flight Simulator.
|
j0sephine
Caldari
Reikoku
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.02.03 08:17:00 -
[11]
Law of Metaphysical Irregularity:
The normal laws of physics do not apply
Law of Topological Aerodynamics:
*ANY* shape, no matter how convoluted or odd-looking, is automatically aerodynamic
:s
|
Derovius Vaden
|
Posted - 2007.02.03 08:21:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Derovius Vaden on 03/02/2007 08:18:32
Originally by: Firecrak
You uh...need to get out more mate. The books are frazzeling your brain. If you want believability, then for starters, your calculation as to the non-resistance of space would be false. Consider how much dust, space wind and other assorted junk is out there. If you want realism, the next time you accidently bump into an asteroid mining, your ship should decompress and explode. Bumping other ships would do similar things. How about uneven ship design...this is called art. We can't all fly borg cubes around.
Seems to me, you really need to go play Microsoft Flight Simulator.
You're right, there is interstellar dust, however, they form interstellar clouds and are well defined regions in space. The vast majority of space, however, is a vacuum void of anything. Solar winds are waves of electrons from solar flares and the like, if I remember correctly, and the probability of actually experiencing them anywhere but in close proximity to the sun is quite slim.
As for decompression and implosion when colliding with an asteroid is a perfectly acceptable solution, if you exert a shear force on the armor/hull of the ship beyond its fracture point. As it stands, ships do the little dance when they come into close proximity to any collidable object in EVE, so high deceleration is not going to be a problem.
Quote:
Law of Metaphysical Irregularity:
The normal laws of physics do not apply
Law of Topological Aerodynamics:
*ANY* shape, no matter how convoluted or odd-looking, is automatically aerodynamic
? come again?
|
Irrilian
Quetzalcoatl Inc
|
Posted - 2007.02.03 08:22:00 -
[13]
A newtownian model can actually work in a game, at least as far as modelling inertia. Though people may have had a bad experience of such with Elite, Independence War and its sequel demonstrate that is can work and be playable too.
- - -
PIs and Forensic Accountants: adding risk vs reward for scams and thievery |
Firecrak
|
Posted - 2007.02.03 08:48:00 -
[14]
Edited by: Firecrak on 03/02/2007 08:50:59
Edited by: Firecrak on 03/02/2007 08:46:46
If you are really THAT hung up on real world physics (which probably won't apply, seeing as we haven't really even sent any kind of spaceship worth mentioning in the anals of time into it), go play an old gem, Allegiance. Game released by Microsoft in 2000, its now maintained by a user community which is argueably better than the MS support. It has ALL real world physics, including inertia, collision damage, real tracking, missile tracking (including being able to fire chaff/flares to break lock), team gameplay, voice over support, base destruction, hold and conquer scenarios, resource management, mining, racial ships/warefare.
Wikipedia entry
Unofficial/Official Home
EDIT: Forgot the best bit...its free :)
|
Plutoinum
German Cyberdome Corp
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.02.03 08:51:00 -
[15]
Edited by: Plutoinum on 03/02/2007 08:48:20
Eve is obviously more fiction than science. It's definitely not a space flight simulator.
The EVE universe is probably more interesting for sociologists and economists than for physicists. I see that as a plus, although I like physics.
______________
Originally by: Patch86
Combat in EVE is non-consensual. Unlike most games, EVE, by design, forces you to be ready for violence everywhere-even hi-sec space.
|
Chavu
The Shadow Order
Hydra Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.02.03 09:22:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Derovius Vaden
Well, working with the "its just a game" argument, why have any sort of definable quantities for weapons and ships period? I don't need to know that my turret transverses half a radian a second, it could simply be coded as "doesn't work against anything bigger than a frigate". To a lesser extent, why have different damage types? Simply code a probability generator on chance to get utterly destroyed vs. playing annoying circus music?
The problem is that "fun" has overtaken believablity in some games, and unless you want CCP to start mount Ogre Slaying + 1 swords to our ships, one must ask for some constraint.
The first problem I have with you is that you think you are smart and we are all dumb and that you are enlightening us. Yeah we know it's just a game, everyone does. Yes we know it doesn't obey the laws of physics. I took 2+ years of Physics in college too, so what?
The second problem is the outrageous statement that to be fun a game should be more realistic. In driving games and sports game that is true, but in any other type of game that is completely wrong. Fun must always overrule realism in any game design choice.
Oh yeah you also said "why have any sort of definable quantities" Do you even know what that statement means? Large guns work on frigates, and if you understood the mechanics and information provided you would know that. Why have different ammo types? Weakness and strenghts are in every game. Except for maybe checkers, which is the game I highly suggest you take up and leave us alone.
|
Za Po
Caldari
|
Posted - 2007.02.03 09:42:00 -
[17]
There's nothing wrong with asymmetrical engines. They are simply not equally powerful. Why ship designers would do this is beyond me, but it's not unfeasible. Caldari simply don't seem to care much for symmetry in aesthethics. Maybe they had a lot of leftovers of different sizes following the Caldari-Gallente wars.
Anyway, increased realism doesn't automatically make the game better.
|
Jaketh Ivanes
Amarr
Riggers Incorporated
|
Posted - 2007.02.03 09:48:00 -
[18]
Hehe.. said pleanty of time before and answered plenty of times afterwards. Same question, same answer.
Yes, this is a game in a fantasy galaxy where newtons laws don't apply. Here Sir Bob's laws apply, and in accordance with those rules, everything that happens in the game is realistic.
|
Enigmier
|
Posted - 2007.02.03 09:58:00 -
[19]
your example of the raven would be correct if all the engines had the same thrust, but in order to make the ship fly straight, the 2 engines that are close togetther actually produce les boost than the single engine on the other side, thus making the ship fly straight..
|
Dante Chusuk
Golden Aardvark Society
|
Posted - 2007.02.03 09:58:00 -
[20]
If computers and AIs have advanced to the stage where they can go rogue surely they are capable of balancing out the thrust power and resultant stresses on the hull of ship hence causing it to fly in straight line.
Plus I am sure like some larger ocean going ships have the larger spaceships have maneouvering thrusters which while aren't enough to drive the ship allow you to turn it ... I'd imagine frigates and the faster cruisers (Ashimmu) work on a vectored thrust principle to make their turns.
|
defiler
Caldari
Mad Hermit
|
Posted - 2007.02.03 10:01:00 -
[21]
But... what's all this got to do with me?
Mad Hermit - Minding our own business since 2004. |
MassonA
Caldari
coracao ardente
|
Posted - 2007.02.03 10:05:00 -
[22]
stop wondering about this and enjoy the game 
___________________________
|
Igor Pumpernickel
Amarr
|
Posted - 2007.02.03 10:11:00 -
[23]
Yes, i've often thought about this. Take the Amarr Tormentor for example .. round & round you go. :)
A 1 ISK LOTTERY !!!
|
cdenera
|
Posted - 2007.02.03 10:19:00 -
[24]
Having played alot of space games their are 2 games that come to mind that tried to use proper physics for their ship flight one of them was Elite 2 which while the game was enjoyable you reliedon the auto nav just about all the time as the ships were pretty much unflyable, the second was orb for the atari ste totally unplayable due to the ship / space flight physics. But then again as per a previous post IT's A GAME dont worry about it and enjoy the game for what it is.
|
defiler
Caldari
Mad Hermit
|
Posted - 2007.02.03 11:03:00 -
[25]
Originally by: cdenera
Elite 2 which while the game was enjoyable you reliedon the auto nav just about all the time as the ships were pretty much unflyable
I disagree. I loved (and still love) that game, including the physics engine. Granted, it took some getting used to, but I found it thoroughly enjoyable. Often I was making deliveries and missions on a very tight schedule, meaning that relying on the autopilot was out of the question. Full throttle all the time, towards the target for half the trip and then facing the other direction the second half.
Battles were tricky, but I really like that it didn't matter if you were stationary or flying at 10,000 km/s. Also, just playing around and discovering that using large planets for sling shots actually works was great fun, and planning a descent towards a planet that wouldn't get you killed took some practice to get right.
Too bad this kind of realistic physics engine would never, ever work in a game like eve. Having warp drives would be necessary (who'd want to spend a week just to fly to a station after jumping?), but battles would be completely different, for the worse. Imagine a nanophoon smashing into you at 1,000 km/s
Mad Hermit - Minding our own business since 2004. |
Culmen
Caldari
Gekidoku
Koroshiya Buntai
|
Posted - 2007.02.03 11:57:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Derovius Vaden
Edited by: Derovius Vaden on 03/02/2007 07:51:27
Edited by: Derovius Vaden on 03/02/2007 07:47:38
First Law: Rigid Body Violations:
Quote:
First Law
A mass at rest stays at rest, and a mass in motion maintains the same velocity (i.e. speed and direction) unless acted upon by an outside force.
*stuff about a CNR*
this is based off the assumption that the CNR is of uniform mass, and the engines of equal power
this may not be the case, for example, parts could be hollow or one engine stronger then the other
furthermore there could be some kind of active mass balance control
Originally by: Derovius Vaden
Inertial Violations:
We have all experienced our ships appearing to keep their engines on consistently as they fly through EVE-space, however, a true engine working on an object in vacuum with no resistive forces *snip*
this assumes that the ships we use have conventional engines
we could have some kind of inertialess drive
also the eve cluster might be in some kind of fluidic space
which goes a long way to explain why theres always a gas cloud visibile
and why stars twinkle in space
Originally by: Derovius Vaden
Second Law: Smartbomb radii:
Quote:
Second Law
The total of all forces on a mass equals the rate of change of its linear momentum. Momentum is the product of mass and velocity. Notice that the First Law is a special case of the Second Law.
From what I've seen of smartbombs, the "wake" of the emanated damage front appears to be co-planar to the horizontal ship axis.
this is based off the assumption that the smart bomb is a conventional explosion
if that were so, all Smartbombs would do explosive damage
it is possible that the smart bomb is some kind of field generator
thus explaining the shape and sudden cutoff point
also explains why your own ship doesnt get damaged
Originally by: Derovius Vaden
Quote:
Third Law
Whenever A exerts a force on B, B simultaneously exerts a force on A with the same magnitude in the opposite direction.
To be blunt, having a 1600000 kg shuttle bump into your 105000000 kg Dominix is equivalent to a Mini Coop rear-ending a Tiger Tank.
It might not be the shuttle turning the ship by force of collision
rather it might be some kind of inbuilt collision avoidance system
so your domi turns in order to not get its paint job scraped
and the shuttle stops to avoid getting squashed
Originally by: Derovius Vaden
Conclusion:
EVE would be a "better"(TM) place with the following:
1. Symmetrical ships OR well thoughtout engine placement on unsymmetrical ships
2. No more engine tracers once maximum velocity is reached. Negative traces when decelerating.
3. Collision dynamics that base the vessels mass and impact velocity into the deflection velocity to combat "shuttle-humping". Of you want to spend 100 million ISK making an ultra nimble 'Geddon to hump ships and keep them from jumping, all the power to you; physics is on your side.
4. Smartbomb intensity based on distance from ship, with damage based on size of smartbomb installed vs. mass of the vessel.
1)Yes, though more from an asthetic point of veiw
2)No, too much calculation/reprogramming, plus not needed, see above
3)No, Jita IV-4 would be impossible to undock from in a small ship
4)No, too much calculation/reprogramming, plus not needed, see above
_____________________________________________________
Why do i even need a sig? |
Roshan longshot
Gallente
Ordos Humanitas
|
Posted - 2007.02.03 12:05:00 -
[27]
Edited by: Roshan longshot on 03/02/2007 12:01:34
Goddamn techno geeks!! Its a FARKING GAME! No laws of physics apply.
Why do people science fark this game to death?
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.
|
Apocryphai
Caldari
|
Posted - 2007.02.03 12:28:00 -
[28]
Yes, it's "just a game", but one thing that makes games better is immersion and the OP is essentially making some suggestions about how to improve that.
If you want some ideas of how all of this could be better done have a look at I-War. Superb game
Originally by: Victor Valka
What the skull-chick said.
|
Blue Pixie
|
Posted - 2007.02.03 13:02:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Derovius Vaden
As a mechanical engineering student...
As a graduate of psychology, lighten up.
|
Apocryphai
Caldari
|
Posted - 2007.02.03 13:29:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Blue Pixie
Originally by: Derovius Vaden
As a mechanical engineering student...
As a graduate of psychology, lighten up.
As a molecular biologist.. er.. evolve! 
Originally by: Victor Valka
What the skull-chick said.
|
The Ratfink
Shinra
Lotka Volterra
|
Posted - 2007.02.03 14:04:00 -
[31]
If you see anything like this again
a wizard did it
|
My Pants
|
Posted - 2007.02.03 14:36:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Firecrak
worth mentioning in the anals of time
|
Fester Addams
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2007.02.03 14:42:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Derovius Vaden
Conclusion:
EVE would be a "better"(TM) place with the following:
1. Symmetrical ships OR well thoughtout engine placement on unsymmetrical ships
In space there is absolutely no reason for symmetrical ships, symmetry is to some people pleasing to the eye but there is no reason to strive for symmetry for symmetries own sake.
As for the placement of engines... well not to be picky but the engine placement is irrelevant as its the force asserted on the surroundings that is important.
Naturally you are talking about exaust placements. Here I agree that at times I am rather amused at the placement, the Mammoth is an excellent example of a very odd ship. It is fairly symmetrical however all the exausts are placed at the stern of the ship making turning all but impossible.
Naturally however not knowing the exact nature of the propulsion system we cant really say what is needed.
Quote:
2. No more engine tracers once maximum velocity is reached. Negative traces when decelerating.
Again, as we dont know how the propulsion system on ships in the EvE universe works we cant really say wether or not exaust trails are needed at maximum velocity (wich by normal propulsion is very hard to accelerate to in space).
As for negative tracers... well if you are asking for traces forward ... well lets just say I question your education if you are asking for this, as for how you would depict negative tracers behind the ship... well Im hard pressed to see any reason for them to look any different from acceleration traces and as they would be placed similarilly I see no reason why CCP would put too much time on this.
Quote:
3. Collision dynamics that base the vessels mass and impact velocity into the deflection velocity to combat "shuttle-humping". Of you want to spend 100 million ISK making an ultra nimble 'Geddon to hump ships and keep them from jumping, all the power to you; physics is on your side.
Here I agree, if the game could account for tonnage and apply atleast a stab towards realistic effects of two ships bumping then I would be all for it.
Like you say, a shuttle slamming into a battleship at full throttle would not be able to make it bude much if at all.
Quote:
4. Smartbomb intensity based on distance from ship, with damage based on size of smartbomb installed vs. mass of the vessel.
Again we have a situation where our knowledge is of no help.
There is nothing available that even remotely can be said to be the predecessor of the smartbomb. True, explosives we have plenty of but one that damages everything except that wich is at ground zero is far beyond what we can even theorise on today.
In short, since we dont know what makes the smartbomb cause damage we cant really say why it causes full damage within its total range and not a scratch even so much as a cm outside off this range.
|
Sensor Error
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.02.03 14:44:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Dashi Kawasuki
Edited by: Dashi Kawasuki on 03/02/2007 08:01:28
scientifically correct, but after all... it's just a game
Elite for example did implement Newton's axioms correctly, but imagine that acceleration in space would be physically correct in EVE. You would have BS going at thousands of km per second. It would be impossible to alter the ship's flight direction without a long negative acceleration phase
I don't know if you ever played Pen&Paper RPGs, but there also was the always present fight between realism and fun. So perhaps it's better to bend the laws of physics, than to spoil the fun.
Not to mention BS slamming into the station at hundreds of km/s because they forgot to fire the retros... (slamming into a planet in FE2 was always fun!) It'd be like the good 'ol days of multi-mwd!
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE!!!
|
Crumplecorn
Gallente
Eve Cluster Explorations
|
Posted - 2007.02.03 15:18:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Derovius Vaden
A lot of stuff everyone already knows
Yes, everyone already knows this. No, no-one cares. This model of spaceflight used in Eve is in no way unique, it has been around for decades. It makes for different gameplay than a Newtonian model. Live with it.
Your assumptions that the ships could not fly in a straight line or turn or whatever each one can't do because of the placement of the engines are just that; assumptions. We are not told how they fly, and even if their method of propulsion precluded some designs seen in the game, no-one would care.
----------
IBTL \o/
EVE is upside down!
WTZ+Slower Warp=Win |
Wibiq
Cloak and Daggers
|
Posted - 2007.02.03 15:34:00 -
[36]
Arthur C. Clarke formulated the following three "laws" of prediction:
1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
Shamelessly stolen from Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke%27s_three_laws
|
Xen Gin
The Dragoons
|
Posted - 2007.02.03 15:40:00 -
[37]
While the game doesnt contain the elements of RL physics, I still think the mass collisions should be implemented. Its way too stupid to have shuttles and pods knocking around BS's and Cruisers knocking around Titans.
|
Crumplecorn
Gallente
Eve Cluster Explorations
|
Posted - 2007.02.03 15:41:00 -
[38]
4. Any sufficiently explicable magic is indistinguishable from science.
----------
IBTL \o/
EVE is upside down!
WTZ+Slower Warp=Win |
Lyzander
Caldari
Mugen Academy
|
Posted - 2007.02.03 17:36:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Sakura Nihil
Dude, interceptors and nanophoons going at like 10-30 km/s?
I can understand your concerns, this game does violate a lot of physics , but I'd take better game mechanics over realism personally.
Just thought I'd mention that Voyager 2, which was not by any means designed for speed, is leaving our solar system at 14 km/s.
Although the idea of something the size of a dominix going 10+km/s is silly (especially while still being navigable), simply reaching such a velocity isn't too extraordinary.
|
Derovius Vaden
|
Posted - 2007.02.03 18:19:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Blue Pixie
Originally by: Derovius Vaden
As a mechanical engineering student...
As a graduate of psychology, lighten up.
I lol'ed, not at the state, but the fact you're a psychologist. 
|
Gabriel Karade
Nulli-Secundus
|
Posted - 2007.02.03 18:32:00 -
[41]
Edited by: Gabriel Karade on 03/02/2007 18:29:00
IĈm sorry but are the people saying "it's just a game" trying to imply it would not be vastly improved by getting rid of the ridiculous 'bumping' mechanic and the introduction of a proper collision/collision damage system?...
Hello??
Fix bumping already, it's lame...
----------
Video - 'War-Machine' |
Bryg Philomena
Green Lantern Corps
|
Posted - 2007.02.03 18:35:00 -
[42]
I claim that theory is null and void in the future..
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=465618 |
Scav Silver
|
Posted - 2007.02.03 18:53:00 -
[43]
Edited by: Scav Silver on 03/02/2007 18:52:23
Quote:
To be blunt, having a 1600000 kg shuttle bump into your 105000000 kg Dominix is equivalent to a Mini Coop rear-ending a Tiger Tank. This whole concept of distrupting warping and velocity gains of any vessel with a nimbler vessel is somewhat foolish. Even with proximity collision systems to override pod controls and "manuever" to the safest alignment to avoid collision, that little shuttle would still strike the mass 65.6 times larger than itself, and experience an impulse momentum away from it at 65.6 times the magnitude of which it exerted on the Dominix.
Speed is always a factor.. If I remember correctly from my college days, the faster ya go to more heavier ya become..
Quote:
In space there is absolutely no reason for symmetrical ships, symmetry is to some people pleasing to the eye but there is no reason to strive for symmetry for symmetries own sake.
True, there is no 'air drag' in space, pure vacuum..
-------------------------------------------------------------
-=Baby Seal Killer=- |
Lyzander
Caldari
Mugen Academy
|
Posted - 2007.02.03 18:57:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Scav Silver
Speed is always a factor.. If I remember correctly from my college days, the faster ya go to more heavier ya become..
No, mass remains constant; However, momentum can be calculated from the product of the mass and velocity.
|
Nekuva
Vendetta Underground
Rule of Three
|
Posted - 2007.02.03 19:00:00 -
[45]
Edited by: Nekuva on 03/02/2007 18:59:06
Quote:
Speed is always a factor.. If I remember correctly from my college days, the faster ya go to more heavier ya become..
The faster one moves, the more massive one becomes, but this effect is negligable at the tame sub-warp speeds that our ships move at.
edit: i cant spell
__________
Reyahn Jarrs > if you can just randomly declar a war, that is unrestricted
Reyahn Jarrs > their needs to be a check and balance in place
Nekuva > there is. it's called guns. |
Scav Silver
|
Posted - 2007.02.03 19:07:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Lyzander
Originally by: Scav Silver
Speed is always a factor.. If I remember correctly from my college days, the faster ya go to more heavier ya become..
No, mass remains constant; However, momentum can be calculated from the product of the mass and velocity.
Well, all I wanted to say is that there's a diff between the mini doin' 120 km/h and doin' 500'000 km/h..
-------------------------------------------------------------
-=Baby Seal Killer=- |
Lyzander
Caldari
Mugen Academy
|
Posted - 2007.02.03 19:10:00 -
[47]
Yeah, you're absolutely right in that regard; I just intended to clarify the physics so that it was expressed correctly.
My apologies for being a bit blunt about it. ^^
|
Zankoku
Amarr
Imperial Academy
|
Posted - 2007.02.03 20:37:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Xen Gin
While the game doesnt contain the elements of RL physics, I still think the mass collisions should be implemented. Its way too stupid to have shuttles and pods knocking around BS's and Cruisers knocking around Titans.
Yep, I think that every time I pull up alongside a mining barge and the drones protecting it start knocking my Mammoth around!
|
Derovius Vaden
|
Posted - 2007.02.03 21:18:00 -
[49]
Originally by: Scav Silver
Edited by: Scav Silver on 03/02/2007 18:52:23
Quote:
To be blunt, having a 1600000 kg shuttle bump into your 105000000 kg Dominix is equivalent to a Mini Coop rear-ending a Tiger Tank. This whole concept of distrupting warping and velocity gains of any vessel with a nimbler vessel is somewhat foolish. Even with proximity collision systems to override pod controls and "manuever" to the safest alignment to avoid collision, that little shuttle would still strike the mass 65.6 times larger than itself, and experience an impulse momentum away from it at 65.6 times the magnitude of which it exerted on the Dominix.
Speed is always a factor.. If I remember correctly from my college days, the faster ya go to more heavier ya become..
I believe what you mean is that as you approach the speed of light, you continue to gain momentum (m*v), but you can no longer go faster, making your velocity constant and your mass variable. You approach infinite mass as you attempt to approach light speed.
|
Fierce Deity
Gallente
Hera Star
|
Posted - 2007.02.03 22:20:00 -
[50]
gravity was perfect in eve. Then one day tomB was walking along with his coffee when graphity made it slip and spill all over his favorite pants and burn his leg. It was then that he ripped his pants off, and stormed over to his work station and nerfed gravity.
and thats why pirates ****ing hate gypse's, good question Derovius.
------FD------
|
Derovius Vaden
|
Posted - 2007.02.04 00:44:00 -
[51]
Bump
|
Sgt Blade
Cutting Edge Incorporated
RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.02.04 00:53:00 -
[52]
well if you want eve to be realistics i want my games like Call Of duty to be more realistic too.... i mean 1 i dont get to pick up medic packs to gerain my health... after gettin shot i would slowly lose hp as i bleed unless i spend 5 mins sitting there while a medic patches me up....
then not to mention that becuase of all the weopons fire and grenades goin off near me so often i would ahve lsot my hearing a little by the 5th level....
ohoh and dont forget about taht if i die i cant play the game again cuase im dead... obviously
Hypnotic Pelvic Thrusting Level 5 |
Derovius Vaden
|
Posted - 2007.02.04 01:10:00 -
[53]
Originally by: Sgt Blade
well if you want eve to be realistics i want my games like Call Of duty to be more realistic too.... i mean 1 i dont get to pick up medic packs to gerain my health... after gettin shot i would slowly lose hp as i bleed unless i spend 5 mins sitting there while a medic patches me up....
then not to mention that becuase of all the weopons fire and grenades goin off near me so often i would ahve lsot my hearing a little by the 5th level....
ohoh and dont forget about taht if i die i cant play the game again cuase im dead... obviously
Didn't know this was the Call of Duty forums, now that I know I'll take my request elsewhere. 
|
Culmen
Caldari
Gekidoku
Koroshiya Buntai
|
Posted - 2007.02.04 01:29:00 -
[54]
Originally by: Scav Silver
Originally by: Lyzander
Originally by: Scav Silver
Speed is always a factor.. If I remember correctly from my college days, the faster ya go to more heavier ya become..
No, mass remains constant; However, momentum can be calculated from the product of the mass and velocity.
Well, all I wanted to say is that there's a diff between the mini doin' 120 km/h and doin' 500'000 km/h..
you do realize that the speed of light is 1,079,252,848.8 km/h
so 500000km/h is just 0.0463% of the speed of light
so really your no where near approaching the speeds where relatavistic factors start mattering
_____________________________________________________
Why do i even need a sig? |
Nero Scuro
Caldari
Jejaikaro Corporation
|
Posted - 2007.02.04 01:42:00 -
[55]
If I remember correctly, Independence War 2 had a pretty good excuse for space flight and not zipping around at many kilometers per second near space stations - overrides in the ships computers that stopped them from exceeding certain speeds that were activated when you warped to stations and gates and whatnot.
Kinda like EVE has only you not only had to approach things (warp to 15km equivalent) but you also had to be a certain distance from stations before you could warp off (15km to warp?).
Of course Independence War 2 let you override the override and still zip around far too fast near stations but I always assumed the same principle applied to EVE too. Ships have inbuilt prohibitors that stop the ships from going too fast and constantly colliding with things (think of the terrorist acts possible alone - flying frigates into POS at hundreds of km/s ).
___
The world isn't going to end; we're not that lucky... |
BoBoZoBo
Foundation
R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.02.04 03:31:00 -
[56]
Originally by: Plutoinum
Edited by: Plutoinum on 03/02/2007 08:48:20
Eve is obviously more fiction than science. It's definitely not a space flight simulator.
The EVE universe is probably more interesting for sociologists and economists than for physicists. I see that as a plus, although I like physics.
Hear.. Hear.. as much as I appreciate the OPs position, this is a gaem and has OTHER real world beauties.
=========================
Minister of Propaganda - Operator 9 |
Gzashon
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2007.02.04 05:40:00 -
[57]
Well, while we're on the topic, everything that occurs in space should be completely silent. With no atmosphere in space, there isn't anything to transmit vibrations as sound waves.
...but that would be awfully lame, wouldn't it? Imagine any space battle in any movie / TV show with no sound, it just wouldn't be the same.
However, the explosion graphics and the "wave" should definitely be spherical. I get the feeling that the circular pattern was done initially because it was less resource intensive.
As for acceleration, while you're absolutely correct i think combat (and even basic flight) would be nearly impossible if everyone could MWD themselves to light speed. We have issues w/ people going 10km/sec, what about flying around at, hell, even 10,000 km/sec, much less 186,000 or whatever it is.
It reminds me of a book, The Forever War, by Joe Haldeman...space combat occurring at near-light speeds and engagements between ships taking weeks as their computers basically attempted to out-guess each other with drones and missiles as they decelerated, while the human crews were stuffed into inertia shells to keep from being instantly crushed into goo.
How come i can talk in realtime to anyone, anywhere in the galaxy, but i can't check the market outside the region I'm in? How does my clone get instantly transferred from station to station? Am i the only person on my battleship, just me and a bunch of computers, or do i have a crew? How big? Does one of them have a Scottish accent?
I'll stop now.
|
Bohoba
Caldari
Dragons United
Pure.
|
Posted - 2007.02.04 06:38:00 -
[58]
LOL you need a break :)
but I wondered why if I warp and am not alined or moving my raven always does a spin 380 before it warps off :) now I know why :)
time for a tune up and get them engens balanced right
Get Into the Game it makes it fun for all |
Keorythe
Caldari
Terra Rosa Militia
|
Posted - 2007.02.05 04:05:00 -
[59]
Originally by: Gzashon
Well, while we're on the topic, everything that occurs in space should be completely silent. With no atmosphere in space, there isn't anything to transmit vibrations as sound waves.
...but that would be awfully lame, wouldn't it? Imagine any space battle in any movie / TV show with no sound, it just wouldn't be the same.
However, the explosion graphics and the "wave" should definitely be spherical. I get the feeling that the circular pattern was done initially because it was less resource intensive.
As for acceleration, while you're absolutely correct i think combat (and even basic flight) would be nearly impossible if everyone could MWD themselves to light speed. We have issues w/ people going 10km/sec, what about flying around at, hell, even 10,000 km/sec, much less 186,000 or whatever it is.
It reminds me of a book, The Forever War, by Joe Haldeman...space combat occurring at near-light speeds and engagements between ships taking weeks as their computers basically attempted to out-guess each other with drones and missiles as they decelerated, while the human crews were stuffed into inertia shells to keep from being instantly crushed into goo.
How come i can talk in realtime to anyone, anywhere in the galaxy, but i can't check the market outside the region I'm in? How does my clone get instantly transferred from station to station? Am i the only person on my battleship, just me and a bunch of computers, or do i have a crew? How big? Does one of them have a Scottish accent?
I'll stop now.
Space IS silent in EvE. If you read the story about the early Jove/Caldari exchanges you would have known that the sound is created electronically because pod pilots didn't like the silence. This no doubt also applied to warping.
The circular pattern is actually something seen in real life today. Its called a shaped charge. While there is a small spherical explosion its nothing compared to the direction force the the charge is intended to create. But once again this is technology that we just dont understand.
MICRO warp drives (MWD) are tiny drives intended to give speed thats manageable. Like many things today we put govenors on times to make them manageable or to keep them from breaking down due to stress. Who's to say they dont do the same in EvE?
Faster than light communication has already had several articles written on the topic which explains why text only is exchanged. If you're smart you can figure out why only portraits are allowed too. As far as regional markets go... How much is a pack of cigarettes going for in China? Hard time finding that price? Ever stop to think that regional market information might not be transmitted across region lines due to some weird politics that isn't explained?
Clones are explained in the articles. Ship crews are explained somewhere else. Heck there was an old chart showing crew numbers for each shiptype.
Fact of the matter is that there is alot of information that CCP has release on all of this stuff. Unfortunately too few people actually research the question before they post a dumb question. Reading is actually useful for more than just flaming and hawt cyborz. Seriously
With great power comes great responsibility...and hawt cyborz! |
Nolin Riis
Gallente
Placid Reborn
|
Posted - 2007.02.05 04:45:00 -
[60]
It's probably best to assume that our spaceships don't use Newtonian propulsion.
Never a threat, but always a thorn in the side. |
Raketenkaese
|
Posted - 2007.02.05 06:48:00 -
[61]
Elements of simulation in games are cool because they give you a reality approximation of how stuff would look like, stuff you prolly never could get to see yourself in real life.
Admittedly there are game genres that are excluded from this context, but when playing a space mmorpg, atleast I would be expecting it to be present, to some extent.
In EVE, visuals are important. CCP prides themselves of the positive critique the game have received for it s fantastic graphics, but that is mostly directed towards the spectacular backgrounds and prop graphics rather than vessels and their interaction with the environment - wich is utterly generic.
EVE needs interaction graphics based on physical simulation. And yes, I know the computational needs are nitemarish and also the lag it potentialy would inflict, but it IS a niche into which some game generes will have to evolve eventually and EVE is one of them.
|
Dred'Pirate Jesus
Imperial Academy
|
Posted - 2007.02.05 06:54:00 -
[62]
Every enjoyable space based game I've ever played thumbed its nose at Newton..
Revelations.. The ****znit.. ( FFS ****znit is blocked?! Quit using Babelfish for a blocked word filter engine CCP.. :-p ) |
Loraen
|
Posted - 2007.02.05 10:19:00 -
[63]
Originally by: Dred'Pirate Jesus
Edited by: Dred''Pirate Jesus on 05/02/2007 07:03:11
Every enjoyable space based game I've ever played thumbed its nose at Newton.. The one and only exception to this was Independance War.. Fekin awesome game that was.. Too bad the sequal sucked arse.. 
I couldn't get into the first I-War game that much, should probably give it another chance. For the sequel I had set my expectations correctly. Main problem for me with the first one was the mass of the ship and how you controlled it. I guess it's Warhead's fault. Earlier game by the same guy that made the I-Wars. You flew a small quite agile patrol ship (compared to I-War's sluggish cruiser), and the armament was realistic. Missile payload and a massdriver cannon (with very limited ammo) capable of only destroying missiles and very small drone vessel. No speed limits, but 10 autopilot modes that had a speed limit of 500m/s iirc.
Elite 2 was enjoyable except for the yoyo combat. Elite 4 might come out some day in the future, when Braben's new company gets around to applying their newly developed tools and stuff on it.. it's unclear if it'll be singleplayer or some sort of MMO experience to rival EVE.
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |