EVE Search - Fundamental flaw in eve

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Fundamental flaw in eve

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Kermitbuns Minmatar RennTech The Guardian Coalition	Posted - 2007.02.15 20:12:00 - [1] There is one thing about eve that baffles me to this very day. Eve has done a great job trying to follow the laws of physics right down to the blue and red effects of traveling at very high speeds. One thing that has always bugged me is that they fail to adhere to a fundamental principal of physics. In space there is no friction... and without friction there is not top speed of an object due to mass or size. A battleship and a frigate should conceptually be able to have the same top speed. The only limiting factor on speed is the rate at which propellant material comes out of the engine. The max speed would be equal to the velocity of material being propelled out of the engines. Theoretically since a larger ship can produce more energy, the engines should be able to propel a larger ship faster than that of a smaller ship with less energy assigned to its engines. What I'm saying is.. according to physics while a large ship would take a longer time to accelerate to it's top speed than a smaller ship due to mass, the top speed should not be effected by size. Flame me if you will.
Jarjar Celestial Apocalypse Insurgency	Posted - 2007.02.15 20:15:00 - [2] Playability. "This was not a fight it was simply a pathetic gank." - Ginger Magician
The Mutt Caldari	Posted - 2007.02.15 20:15:00 - [3] Edited by: The Mutt on 15/02/2007 20:11:59 Agreed I don't think it would fundamentally alter game play, so it doesn't really matter.... but agreed.
Dred'Pirate Jesus Amarr Imperial Warehousing Industries	Posted - 2007.02.15 20:18:00 - [4] Eve uses an quasi-water based physics model.. Just think of you ships as submarines..
Zephyrys Caldari RennTech	Posted - 2007.02.15 20:19:00 - [5] I would have to say.. NO MORE STAR WARS FLIGHT PHYSICS!! As I was saying.. this is space.. Ships should not bank like an aircraft in atmosphere. For examples.. Watch Star Wars.. then watch Babylon 5 and tell me which is the more exact flight model. Its the B5 one where if you are thrusting in 1 directiona dn want to turn right.. you either come to a complete stop and then hid side thrusters or turn the ship in the direction want then hit your engines. This setup allows small ships to turn on a dime when stationary.. allows large ships to turn w/o needing 10km around them to make a complete turn. We got the thrusters and we got the skills.. now we just need to loose the screwed up flight model
Ragstar	Posted - 2007.02.15 20:22:00 - [6] It would massively affect gameplay. Umm, anyone remember Elite2(Frontier)? Fabulous graphics (for the time) intricate trading, amazing use of mathmatics to generate a whole galaxy, with stars, plannets, moons & stations all orbiting each other, binary stars etc - and realistically modelled (newtonian) physics governing space flight. Gameplay sucked beyond belief. Two ships approach eachother at incredible speed, maybe get off a shot as they whizz past, and then go to sleep while you decelerate for teh return pass some hours later. BOOOOORING No, realistic physics models in this environment are terrible. Don't go there.
Lady Kinla Dark Empire Fleet	Posted - 2007.02.15 20:22:00 - [7] been thinking the same thing for quite some time. --------------------------- "Did i ask for anyone to copy this into their sig? No ****heads this is my text not yours!" Already disobeyed... W00t! I am no longer a !.
Anaalys Fluuterby Caldari	Posted - 2007.02.15 20:22:00 - [8] Originally by: Zephyrys I would have to say.. NO MORE STAR WARS FLIGHT PHYSICS!! As I was saying.. this is space.. Ships should not bank like an aircraft in atmosphere. For examples.. Watch Star Wars.. then watch Babylon 5 and tell me which is the more exact flight model. Its the B5 one where if you are thrusting in 1 directiona dn want to turn right.. you either come to a complete stop and then hid side thrusters or turn the ship in the direction want then hit your engines. This setup allows small ships to turn on a dime when stationary.. allows large ships to turn w/o needing 10km around them to make a complete turn. We got the thrusters and we got the skills.. now we just need to loose the screwed up flight model Actually in theory it would be easier to use a bank-style flight model in space, from a technilogical side. By "banking" we only have to worry about inertial effects in one direction for the passengers and crew of the ship, making the equipment to provide "gravity" and counter a hard turn easier to implement and more effective. <-----------> oveur --> Eve is PRIMARILY a PvP game. Primarily != 100%
Kalindra naskan Amarr Reprocity Pure.	Posted - 2007.02.15 20:27:00 - [9] Edited by: Kalindra naskan on 15/02/2007 20:23:34 I don't think people would enjoy to play eve with Newtonian physics. Personally I wouldn't want to accelerate for a few mins just to have to decelerate for the same amount of time to get to a complete stop. And then add the point Ragstar made about the combat, it just wouldn't be fun to play it like that. --- This sig is rated "N" for Nonexistant It's nonexistent btw - Cortes Meh, same thing.
Dred'Pirate Jesus Amarr Imperial Warehousing Industries	Posted - 2007.02.15 20:29:00 - [10] But really how much physics do you need when there is really only two types of combat maneuvers: Orbit and fleet style sit and fire..
Kalindra naskan Amarr Reprocity Pure.	Posted - 2007.02.15 20:32:00 - [11] Originally by: Dred'Pirate Jesus But really how much physics do you need when there is really only two types of combat maneuvers: Orbit and fleet style sit and fire.. Or keep at distance for turret ships in missions --- This sig is rated "N" for Nonexistant It's nonexistent btw - Cortes Meh, same thing.
Kermitbuns Minmatar RennTech The Guardian Coalition	Posted - 2007.02.15 21:02:00 - [12] actually it could work very well.. first off, I would like the fact that I could get a hauler up to speed.. it would however take awhile to do. And as far as deceleration goes.. we don't do that in this game anyway... you just Jump or Dock... Frigates would still have an advantage in that way because of less mass. Therefore it would keep similar settings for the combat environment. As far as "Star wars" physics.. it is still accurate. Human bodies can only handle high G loads in the vertical plane. In order to turn sharply you have to pull through the vertical plane which means you have to bank to get your vertical plane in line with where you want to turn. (Vertical plane is an imaginary line extending directly up through your body from toe to head.)
Kehmor Caldari PAK	Posted - 2007.02.15 21:04:00 - [13] Hey this is a really new idea, I can;t believe over three and a half years of eve no one has mentioned this before. by the way did you guys know the devs helped bob get t2 BPOs?!!?!?! perhaps these things are linked?
Mortania Minmatar Carbide Industries Apocalyptica.	Posted - 2007.02.15 21:06:00 - [14] Hi Kermie! --- Thoughts on "recent events"
Kermitbuns Minmatar RennTech The Guardian Coalition	Posted - 2007.02.15 21:06:00 - [15] Originally by: Kehmor Hey this is a really new idea, I can;t believe over three and a half years of eve no one has mentioned this before. by the way did you guys know the devs helped bob get t2 BPOs?!!?!?! perhaps these things are linked? There always has to be an @$$hat doesn't there?
Kermitbuns Minmatar RennTech The Guardian Coalition	Posted - 2007.02.15 21:07:00 - [16] Originally by: Mortania Hi Kermie! hey Mort!! how you doing?
Dred'Pirate Jesus Amarr Imperial Warehousing Industries	Posted - 2007.02.15 21:09:00 - [17] Edited by: Dred''Pirate Jesus on 15/02/2007 21:05:53 Originally by: Kermitbuns actually it could work very well.. first off, I would like the fact that I could get a hauler up to speed.. it would however take awhile to do. And as far as deceleration goes.. we don't do that in this game anyway... you just Jump or Dock... Frigates would still have an advantage in that way because of less mass. Therefore it would keep similar settings for the combat environment. As far as "Star wars" physics.. it is still accurate. Human bodies can only handle high G loads in the vertical plane. In order to turn sharply you have to pull through the vertical plane which means you have to bank to get your vertical plane in line with where you want to turn. (Vertical plane is an imaginary line extending directly up through your body from toe to head.) Plus banking spaceships just look cool.. I remember watching an old documentory of Star Wars shortly after it came out and Lucas picked the WW1 style of swarms of biplanes all fighting in a big ball to use as a base for his starfighter battles.. I like that visulization even if its not based on rl physics.. Eve is all about the ships loadout not some fancy manuovers.. To that end the current physics model is just dandy..
Kermitbuns Minmatar RennTech The Guardian Coalition	Posted - 2007.02.15 21:17:00 - [18] Originally by: Dred'Pirate Jesus Edited by: Dred''Pirate Jesus on 15/02/2007 21:05:53 Originally by: Kermitbuns actually it could work very well.. first off, I would like the fact that I could get a hauler up to speed.. it would however take awhile to do. And as far as deceleration goes.. we don't do that in this game anyway... you just Jump or Dock... Frigates would still have an advantage in that way because of less mass. Therefore it would keep similar settings for the combat environment. As far as "Star wars" physics.. it is still accurate. Human bodies can only handle high G loads in the vertical plane. In order to turn sharply you have to pull through the vertical plane which means you have to bank to get your vertical plane in line with where you want to turn. (Vertical plane is an imaginary line extending directly up through your body from toe to head.) Plus banking spaceships just look cool.. I remember watching an old documentory of Star Wars shortly after it came out and Lucas picked the WW1 style of swarms of biplanes all fighting in a big ball to use as a base for his starfighter battles.. I like that visulization even if its not based on rl physics.. Eve is all about the ships loadout not some fancy manuovers.. To that end the current physics model is just dandy.. Very true.. I agree that the way the game is now is best for gameplay. but then again I wish that I could take direct control of flying my ship (like with a joystick) even if from 3rd person view.. that would be a great challenege trying to match up my BS to improve my turrets against the way a frigate is zipping around me. It would put a little more dogfight into the game...
Mantiss	Posted - 2007.02.15 21:18:00 - [19] Eve has a lot of little inconsistencies like that. How come for example, low quality minerals are found everywhere in the galaxy but high value ones are only found in a band around the galaxy edge in 0.0 space. Or how come empire security decreases as mineral vaule increases? Kinda like decreasing security the closer you get to Fort Knox. Playability I suppose butit could have been worked out so that it was a bit more believeable.
Emily Spankratchet Minmatar Pragmatics	Posted - 2007.02.15 21:19:00 - [20] Originally by: Ragstar Umm, anyone remember Elite2(Frontier)? Yup, I remember. As you say: realistic Newtonian flight model. Terrible effects on gameplay.
Dred'Pirate Jesus Amarr Imperial Warehousing Industries	Posted - 2007.02.15 21:21:00 - [21] Originally by: Kermitbuns Very true.. I agree that the way the game is now is best for gameplay. but then again I wish that I could take direct control of flying my ship (like with a joystick) even if from 3rd person view.. that would be a great challenege trying to match up my BS to improve my turrets against the way a frigate is zipping around me. It would put a little more dogfight into the game... Make a total conversion of one of the fps stlye space sims out there using the eve models.. If you ask permission no doubt CCP will give the ok for it.. Currently there is a homeworld 2 mod in the making that used all the ships from eve to play it rts style with CCP's blessing.. Mmmmmm.. Freespace 2 with eve ships.. PWN!
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2007.02.15 22:36:00 - [22] Originally by: Mantiss Eve has a lot of little inconsistencies like that. How come for example, low quality minerals are found everywhere in the galaxy but high value ones are only found in a band around the galaxy edge in 0.0 space. Or how come empire security decreases as mineral vaule increases? Kinda like decreasing security the closer you get to Fort Knox. Playability I suppose butit could have been worked out so that it was a bit more believeable. The more valuable ones are more valuable due to being rarer, and as such have been mined out completely in the more populated areas, those being the high sec areas. It makes sense as it is ---------- IBTL \o/ Fix the ******* map! Privateers FTW
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2007.02.15 22:36:00 - [23] Originally by: Kermitbuns Very true.. I agree that the way the game is now is best for gameplay. but then again I wish that I could take direct control of flying my ship (like with a joystick) even if from 3rd person view.. that would be a great challenege trying to match up my BS to improve my turrets against the way a frigate is zipping around me. It would put a little more dogfight into the game... Wrong game. ---------- IBTL \o/ Fix the ******* map! Privateers FTW
Derovius Vaden	Posted - 2007.02.15 22:40:00 - [24] Not enough full frontal female Gallente nudity.
Zissou 5 November	Posted - 2007.02.15 22:44:00 - [25] If you want an idea of what EVE would be like with real world physics, read 'The Forever War' by John Haldeman. When an attack fleet from earth enters a hostile star system, it places itself in an offensive orbit of the target planet. On approach, it jettisons a landing party and initiates a bombardment. After that it's effectively out of the fight for a few months until it completes its orbit around the star. Can you imagine warping into a system, setting your destination, firing a few missiles and then waiting for orbital mechanics to return you to your target? Space and human lifespans don't exactly sit well together, nevermind humans and their attention spans!
Redglare's Demise Shih Yang Tong	Posted - 2007.02.15 23:57:00 - [26] Theres many physics flaws in eve, although like others have said its generally more fun to ignore them. Such as sound, I shouldn't be able to hear someone shooting at someone else in space :P
Dred'Pirate Jesus Amarr Imperial Warehousing Industries	Posted - 2007.02.16 00:00:00 - [27] Originally by: Redglare's Demise Theres many physics flaws in eve, although like others have said its generally more fun to ignore them. Such as sound, I shouldn't be able to hear someone shooting at someone else in space :P Aura does that for you by giving you auditory clues to whats happening in space.. Too bad I turned her and the sound off years ago..
Galan Amarias Amarr The Drekla Consortium Kurai Komichi	Posted - 2007.02.16 00:18:00 - [28] I've thought about this too, and while I think it might be neat I prefer the game mechanics as they are. Then I looked a little closer at the universe I was flying arround in. Amazing! Clouds in every starsystem, different colors of background, different levels of light! Clearly the distant EVE Galaxy has an atmosphere! Thus the atmospheric flight models.
Stitcher Caldari J.I.T. Enterprises Freelancer Alliance	Posted - 2007.02.16 01:20:00 - [29] Just assume that the presence of a warp drive acts as a kind of "drag anchor". it's a trekkian technobabble sort of solution, but it works. ***
Topaz Skydiver	Posted - 2007.02.16 01:33:00 - [30] Edited by: Topaz Skydiver on 16/02/2007 01:33:36 Originally by: Kermitbuns he only limiting factor on speed is the rate at which propellant material comes out of the engine. The max speed would be equal to the velocity of material being propelled out of the engines. Theoretically since a larger ship can produce more energy, the engines should be able to propel a larger ship faster than that of a smaller ship with less energy assigned to its engines. Not quite right. Actually the top speed is speed of light, if you can run your engines endlessly, no matter, how fast the matter comes out of the engines. If matter comes faster out of the engine, you need less of it to get the same thrust, which is a big advantage of course. Actually, if someone could fart endlessly in space, he would come close to speed of light at some point with that minimal thrust, assuming that the universe would exist long enough. Ok, he needed a crap load of beans and the mass of his ship would be immense, so the acceleration rate would be really bad.

Pages: [1] 2 :: 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.