EVE Search - EVE-Online: Defiler of Isaac Newton's Laws of Motion.

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

EVE-Online: Defiler of Isaac Newton's Laws of Motion.

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

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.

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: 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.