| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Krondus
   |
Posted - 2003.12.19 22:32:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Krondus on 19/12/2003 22:40:44
Just some thoughts about real world combat ship speeds:
Ever hear this argument being used the last couple of days: ôBattleships canÆt travel as fast frigates due to all their mass.ö I find this argument is flawed. In real life this is not true. The following are real world speeds of US combat ships:
Class Speed
CV-9 Essex (Carrier)33 Knots
CV-41 Midway (Carrier)30+Knots
CV-59 Forrestal (Carrier)30+Knots
CV-63 Kitty Hawk (Carrier)30+Knots
CV-67 JFK (Carrier)30+Knots
CVN-65 Enterprise (Carrier)30+Knots
CVN-68 Nimitz (Carrier)30+Knots
BB-61 Iowa (Battleship)35 Knots
CGN-38 Virginia (Cruiser)30+Knots
CG-47 Ticonderoga (Cruiser)30+Knots
DD-963 Spruance (Destroyer)33 Knots
DDG-51 Arleigh Burke (Destroyer)31 Knots
FF-1098 Glover (Frigate)27 Knots
FFG-7 Oliver Hazard Perry (Frigate)29 Knots
T-AKR Watson (Military Cargo Ship)24 KnotsCargo: 393,000 sq ft
ULCC Jahre Viking (Supertanker, worlds largest ship)14 Knots Cargo 638,400 m3
Conclusions: The frigates are slower than a huge aircraft carrier even though the carrierÆs mass is a lot more than the frigate. Why does the carrier go faster, the carrier has 3 larger engines than the frigate.
Just my .02 isk on the speed nerf. 
Krondus
|
Baldour Ngarr
|
Posted - 2003.12.19 22:40:00 -
[2]
These are all ships that move on water: water presents an unstable surface on which to move. It's become more and more obvious that, with current technology at least, NO ship can safely travel at much more than 35 knots. This, evidently, wouldn't apply to spaceships.
Then again, if you want realism, the difference in spaceships would have no effect at all on maximum speed, only on acceleration. The maximum speed of any ship, under any circumstances, would be 300,000,000km/s. Which kinda wrecks the entire game, since it'll take over a month to traverse a single system.
_______
"Soon" is an ancient Icelandic word meaning "some time before the next Ice Age." |
Brom
|
Posted - 2003.12.19 22:46:00 -
[3]
It all depends on what size engine you strap on. The Nimitz has a nuclear reactor where an aegis has a deisel engine.
If you strp a 747 turbojet on the back of an 18-wheeler, it's gonna go a lot faster than it would with a 40 horsepower suzuki 3 stroke :P
|
Baldour Ngarr
|
Posted - 2003.12.19 22:47:00 -
[4]
 Quote:
It all depends on what size engine you strap on. The Nimitz has a nuclear reactor where an aegis has a deisel engine.
Err ... that's exactly what he concluded. Did you have a point to make?
_______
"Soon" is an ancient Icelandic word meaning "some time before the next Ice Age." |
Lysithea
|
Posted - 2003.12.19 23:05:00 -
[5]
I am more concerned with the realism of ship speeds in Eve.
Imagine sitting in your ship that goes 200 meters/second. Do you know how fast that really is? That equates to just over 447 miles per hour. This is SPACE! Airplanes on Earth have been going MUCH faster than that for decades. Why are ships in Eve so slow? Seems like we could easily multiply everything by 20 and be done with it.
|
Baldour Ngarr
|
Posted - 2003.12.19 23:12:00 -
[6]
A ship which is STOPPED (I use capitals because that's how the display reads in-game, not to shout at you) is in reality moving at several tens of thousands of miles an hour, relative to the star - or to one of the planets - or both - or to some asteroid belts - or ....
Realism is simply out. Look at the calculations NASA have to make to get *one* ship to fly between planets, and find me a computer than can do those calculations for several thousand ships all flying around at once, some of them in the same system, some of them so close together in that system that they're actually shooting at each other .. and can update the information to each of them, via the internet, at sufficiently high speed not to cause unacceptable lag.
It ain't gonna happen matey 
That said, I agree that changing the m/s to km/s, weapons' ranges to megametres instead of kms etc. , wouldn't appear to make any obvious difference. It still would be flatly impossible to fly across a star system outside of warp, and get to your destination before next July.
_______
"Soon" is an ancient Icelandic word meaning "some time before the next Ice Age." |
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2003.12.19 23:28:00 -
[7]
"Conclusions: The frigates are slower than a huge aircraft carrier even though the carrierÆs mass is a lot more than the frigate. Why does the carrier go faster, the carrier has 3 larger engines than the frigate.
Just my .02 isk on the speed nerf. "
... Simple counter: EVE frigates have (relatively) more powerful engines than the frigates of nowadays Earth. Which enables them to move faster than it's possible for EVE battleships. :s
|
Baldour Ngarr
|
Posted - 2003.12.19 23:30:00 -
[8]
Quote:
... Simple counter: EVE frigates have (relatively) more powerful engines than the frigates of nowadays Earth. Which enables them to move faster than it's possible for EVE battleships. :s
Don't the battleships also have more powerful engines than the battleships of nowadays Earth? So why can't they also move faster, and still be as quick as frigates?
It's because in space, friction of the medium is not a factor; it is in water.
_______
"Soon" is an ancient Icelandic word meaning "some time before the next Ice Age." |
Spock Eltigre
|
Posted - 2003.12.19 23:35:00 -
[9]
Quote:
Edited by: Krondus on 19/12/2003 22:40:44
Just some thoughts about real world combat ship speeds:
Ever hear this argument being used the last couple of days: ôBattleships canÆt travel as fast frigates due to all their mass.ö I find this argument is flawed. In real life this is not true. The following are real world speeds of US combat ships:
Class Speed
CV-9 Essex (Carrier)33 Knots
CV-41 Midway (Carrier)30+Knots
CV-59 Forrestal (Carrier)30+Knots
CV-63 Kitty Hawk (Carrier)30+Knots
CV-67 JFK (Carrier)30+Knots
CVN-65 Enterprise (Carrier)30+Knots
CVN-68 Nimitz (Carrier)30+Knots
BB-61 Iowa (Battleship)35 Knots
CGN-38 Virginia (Cruiser)30+Knots
CG-47 Ticonderoga (Cruiser)30+Knots
DD-963 Spruance (Destroyer)33 Knots
DDG-51 Arleigh Burke (Destroyer)31 Knots
FF-1098 Glover (Frigate)27 Knots
FFG-7 Oliver Hazard Perry (Frigate)29 Knots
T-AKR Watson (Military Cargo Ship)24 KnotsCargo: 393,000 sq ft
ULCC Jahre Viking (Supertanker, worlds largest ship)14 Knots Cargo 638,400 m3
Conclusions: The frigates are slower than a huge aircraft carrier even though the carrierÆs mass is a lot more than the frigate. Why does the carrier go faster, the carrier has 3 larger engines than the frigate.
Just my .02 isk on the speed nerf.
Krondus
The bottom line is that speed has NOTHING to do with mass ! Acceleration is another thing - accleration is based on mass cuz a huge ship ain't gonna go 0 to 30 fast but it will eventually go 30, it just takes longer than a smaller ship.
All things being equal... a BS in EVE should be able to go 10x faster than a Cruiser or 100x faster than a Frigate due to the number of engines a BS has versus a Cruiser. A BS in EVE should take a long time to get up to speed and be less agile than a Cruiser or Frigate...
Now this will blow all your minds, I know, but here goes... Mass in space is NOT the same as mass on earth so in space with no gravity acting on said mass the mass of something large is no more meaningful than the mass of something small. Try dropping a feather and an anvil at the same time in a vacuum - they both fall at the same rate towards the center of a gravity well. Frigates, Cruisers and BS should therefore each be able to go the same speed (aka terminal velocity) using varying amounts of thrust. Perhaps in EVE the engines of a BS are less powerful than the engines of a Frigate (makes little sense to me).
CCP needs to seriously go back to school on their take of Physics and how mass, speed and acceleration are related.
|
Baldour Ngarr
|
Posted - 2003.12.19 23:40:00 -
[10]
The physics lessons must have clashed with the gameplay lessons: we can tell which ones you attended.
_______
"Soon" is an ancient Icelandic word meaning "some time before the next Ice Age." |
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2003.12.19 23:41:00 -
[11]
"Don't the battleships also have more powerful engines than the battleships of nowadays Earth? So why can't they also move faster, and still be as quick as frigates?"
I said relatively more powerful. As in, the ratio between EVE frigate/EVE battleship engines is greater than ratio between naval frigate/naval battleship engines.
"It's because in space, friction of the medium is not a factor; it is in water."
The friction is still a factor in EVE space -- the warp bubble works by removing all possible reasons for that friction from area near the ship, if i remember correctly... o.o;;
|
Baldour Ngarr
|
Posted - 2003.12.19 23:43:00 -
[12]
Quote:
The friction is still a factor in EVE space
Not at metres per second; not even at kilometres per second. It is at sizeable percentage of c, I grant you, but the regular drives don't reach those.
_______
"Soon" is an ancient Icelandic word meaning "some time before the next Ice Age." |
Jash Illian
|
Posted - 2003.12.20 00:17:00 -
[13]
Do we really have to go here? Comparing real world Sea Vessels to make believe Space Vessels? And only taking the good and not the bad?
Like for example a single torpedo capable of sending an Aircraft Carrier into dry dock for months? Of that a flight group of fighters with Harpoons stand a very good chance of sinking one?
Or, for example, the amount of damage running the USS Nimitz at flank speed 24/7 would cause?
Or, for example, the construction costs requiring the budget of a mid-sized nation?
Or, for example, the maintenance costs requiring the budget of a mid-sized nation?
It's a game. Using Non-Fiction to counter Fictional issues is irrelevant in the face of game mechanics and game balance.
I mean its like you want corporations to oblige each other like its sex or something. Pffft I would rather **** my enemy.- Rohann
Be careful out there. That other guy waiting in the queue for the gate MIGHT be a baby-munching frock-burner, YOU JUST DON'T KNOW!- Lallante |
StealthNet
|
Posted - 2003.12.20 00:37:00 -
[14]
Forget your RL reasons. We made those points 4 months ago, nothing changed (well, in fact it changed )
All you can see and experiment in eve are a result of gameplay "balance" (in someone's mind).
They modded the speeds because they were pursuing clear goals: nerf BS, boost frigs and cruisers.
imho, they arrived too late, after a huge percentage of the player base was already flying BS. This is the main problem: the human being hates changes.
But the problem here is not simply about change. It's about game quality too. Look at the haulers today. It's a joke.
Wanna keep the speed as they are now ? Cut at least in half the cap cost of ABs / MWDs. Make npc rats succeptible to cap use too, because they can use them indefinitely.
What Im basically saying is: ppl at CCP have a good interest in keeping things RPable. But the changes made have only one thing in mind: achieve the "balance" *they* are looking for, after throwing through the window the RP aspect of it. It's like "we will make up a story if we need it".
The side effect: huge differences and gaps between feature / balance patches. I said this 5 months ago, Ill say it again, quoting a nice movie (Contact):
"small moves Ellie, small moves".
I remember my last post in the beta forums, when I said that balance issues are a real concern, because MMORPGs won't achieve success if they keep changing the rules of the game.
It's like playing poker against someone that changes the rule every hand, in the middle of it, without you being aware of, and you are obligated to play as your opponent tells you.
_______________________________________________
|
Raven DeBlade
|
Posted - 2003.12.20 01:00:00 -
[15]
Yes most larger naval vessels are faster than the smaller ones, it is due to the fact they have larger engines thus causing greater thrust/propulsion. They do however turn, accelerate and stop slower than smaller ships. This should also be the same with ships in EVE, Smaller ships shouldnt move 3-4x faster than larger, they should have aprox the same topsspeed, but larger ships should accellerate/deaccelerate/turn/stop slower.
"To hunt pirates you need time and patience, because even monkeys fall from the trees"
"Any statements made above this line are my persona" |
Jash Illian
|
Posted - 2003.12.20 01:18:00 -
[16]
Quote:
Forget your RL reasons. We made those points 4 months ago, nothing changed (well, in fact it changed )
All you can see and experiment in eve are a result of gameplay "balance" (in someone's mind).
They modded the speeds because they were pursuing clear goals: nerf BS, boost frigs and cruisers.
imho, they arrived too late, after a huge percentage of the player base was already flying BS. This is the main problem: the human being hates changes.
But the problem here is not simply about change. It's about game quality too. Look at the haulers today. It's a joke.
Wanna keep the speed as they are now ? Cut at least in half the cap cost of ABs / MWDs. Make npc rats succeptible to cap use too, because they can use them indefinitely.
What Im basically saying is: ppl at CCP have a good interest in keeping things RPable. But the changes made have only one thing in mind: achieve the "balance" *they* are looking for, after throwing through the window the RP aspect of it. It's like "we will make up a story if we need it".
The side effect: huge differences and gaps between feature / balance patches. I said this 5 months ago, Ill say it again, quoting a nice movie (Contact):
"small moves Ellie, small moves".
I remember my last post in the beta forums, when I said that balance issues are a real concern, because MMORPGs won't achieve success if they keep changing the rules of the game.
It's like playing poker against someone that changes the rule every hand, in the middle of it, without you being aware of, and you are obligated to play as your opponent tells you.
I'm sorry but I don't see the speed changes as being bad. Prolly because I stopped using MWD a while back due to the shield/cap issues (hadn't worked on energy skills much). Now the Scorpion is actually faster than it was pre-Castor for me (top speed pre-Castor was 225m/s, now 246m/s  )
Adaptation is supposed to be one of the defining attributes of Human Beings. Any animal can be stubborn.
I mean its like you want corporations to oblige each other like its sex or something. Pffft I would rather **** my enemy.- Rohann
Be careful out there. That other guy waiting in the queue for the gate MIGHT be a baby-munching frock-burner, YOU JUST DON'T KNOW!- Lallante |
Booky
|
Posted - 2003.12.20 01:29:00 -
[17]
My Galactic BattleCruiser I got sitting in my hanger at home can do 50knots on water and .25au/s once I leave earth. Oh and it accelerates and stops in 1 meter. You ever see the movie "Flight of the Navigator"? It looks just like that only it has 10x 5000mm railguns with a 2000x scope, rof 2 secs, range of 500000km with antimatter ammo.
Come on people, why compare RL to a game, its just silly. I learned this a long time ago when I started flying flight sims. Im a pilot in RL and flight sims just don't cut it if you are going to expect a RL situation.
Spelling corrections welcome, but don't expect me to edit my post. |
Jash Illian
|
Posted - 2003.12.20 01:37:00 -
[18]
Quote:
...
Come on people, why compare RL to a game, its just silly. I learned this a long time ago when I started flying flight sims. Im a pilot in RL and flight sims just don't cut it if you are going to expect a RL situation.
Actually that depends on the game itself. The goal of a real flight sim is to simulate reality as close as possible (Microsoft Flight Simulator, Falcon 3.0 & 4.0).
If Eve was a real space sim, we'd all be in space shuttles trying to dock with a single space station in orbit around a single planet 
I mean its like you want corporations to oblige each other like its sex or something. Pffft I would rather **** my enemy.- Rohann
Be careful out there. That other guy waiting in the queue for the gate MIGHT be a baby-munching frock-burner, YOU JUST DON'T KNOW!- Lallante |
Vicarrah
|
Posted - 2003.12.20 02:40:00 -
[19]
The plain fact is.... we don't have enough processing power, or band width to accurately simulate spatial objects, and distribute the information contained in that spatial state to thousands of people fast enough to make the simulation run at (near) realtime.
Think about the amount of data... the mind boggles.
Give it a few years, and a *MAJOR* boost in available bandwith, and we'll see it happening.
Vicarrah
Tahiri Protector |
Hasek
|
Posted - 2003.12.20 03:39:00 -
[20]
Quote:
The following are real world speeds of US combat ships:
Class Speed
CV-9 Essex (Carrier)33 Knots
CV-41 Midway (Carrier)30+Knots
CV-59 Forrestal (Carrier)30+Knots
CV-63 Kitty Hawk (Carrier)30+Knots
CV-67 JFK (Carrier)30+Knots
CVN-65 Enterprise (Carrier)30+Knots
CVN-68 Nimitz (Carrier)30+Knots
BB-61 Iowa (Battleship)35 Knots
CGN-38 Virginia (Cruiser)30+Knots
CG-47 Ticonderoga (Cruiser)30+Knots
DD-963 Spruance (Destroyer)33 Knots
DDG-51 Arleigh Burke (Destroyer)31 Knots
FF-1098 Glover (Frigate)27 Knots
FFG-7 Oliver Hazard Perry (Frigate)29 Knots
T-AKR Watson (Military Cargo Ship)24 KnotsCargo: 393,000 sq ft
ULCC Jahre Viking (Supertanker, worlds largest ship)14 Knots Cargo 638,400 m3
hehe if you only knew what a carrier could do...
GO NAVY! BEAT ARMY!
|
Skillz
|
Posted - 2003.12.20 03:43:00 -
[21]
Quote:
CV-59 Forrestal (Carrier) 30+Knots
Naw, why not Slava class missile cruiser from the Northen Red Banner Fleet? (Which would sink it)
Arrogant American.
Keep on flaming, lamers.
|
Baldour Ngarr
|
Posted - 2003.12.20 03:55:00 -
[22]
Quote:
... why not Slava class missile cruiser from the Northen Red Banner Fleet? (Which would sink it)
Arrogant American.
Given that ALL of his examples were from the US fleet, I'd guess ignorant rather than arrogant. Or maybe just economical, and the US details were the ones he had nearest to hand.
_______
"Soon" is an ancient Icelandic word meaning "some time before the next Ice Age." |
Ly'sol
|
Posted - 2003.12.20 04:29:00 -
[23]
well mate considering the US fleet is the the most advanced technically and versitial of the worlds navies its easy to use it as a standard. Its not arrogance. I can give you details on any type of war ship in the world.
*pats his copy of JANES fighting ships*
Ive seen those Nimitz class carriers go MUCH faster than 30 knots. And unsafe for a vessel to go 30 knots? Its becomeing a standard.
Lysol Knows the oceans ships
--------------------------
Vist the Jericho Fraction Forums
|
Gdriver
|
Posted - 2003.12.20 04:37:00 -
[24]
Everyone has missed a very importan LAW of physics and motion. Once an object is in motion it will stay in motion until acted upon by an outside FORCE. If they were trying to make it more REALISTIC. then once your ship is in motion at a given speed and you shut down the thrust it will stay at that speed until acted upon by Gravity or you apply reverse thrust. Very basic Very simple laws of physics,
This way you wont have to eat your entire cap to go to a gate or reach and sustain a resonable speed.
|
Skillz
|
Posted - 2003.12.20 04:41:00 -
[25]
Just a lot of crap, find me one USN admiral that would send a taskforce to the eastern north atlanic.
Arrogant Americans.
Keep on flaming, lamers.
|
Ly'sol
|
Posted - 2003.12.20 04:51:00 -
[26]
Skillz
what are you talking about...first off why would they second off whats your point?
--------------------------
Vist the Jericho Fraction Forums
|
Booky
|
Posted - 2003.12.20 05:53:00 -
[27]
Keep in mind that the true speeds of US Naval Vessels is classified. Even Janes is clueless of the true power behind Nuclear powered ships.
Spelling corrections welcome, but don't expect me to edit my post. |
Krondus
|
Posted - 2003.12.20 05:57:00 -
[28]
Russian Naval Ships
Krenl (Carrier) 32Knots
Kirov (Cruiser) 32Knots
Slava (Cruiser) 32Knots
Kara (Destoyer) 34Knots
Udaloy (Destoyer) 30Knots
Sovremennyy (Destoyer) 32Knots
Krivak (Frigate) 32Knots
|
Belzavior
|
Posted - 2003.12.20 07:00:00 -
[29]
Hmm I think people are forgetting a very important fact(or maybe they don't know?) But the max speed a displacement hull can handle is based on the length of it. I don't remember the exact reason why, but if you've ever sailed alot you would know this. The speed and acceleration then is dependant on the power available and the weight of the ship.
In sailing races its all about given winds for the race, High winds provided enough power to reach max speeds, the heavier longer sailboat will win. However if winds are low then the smaller lighter boat whom can make the best use of the limited power is usually the winner.
*displacement hull being those found on most large military ships, most sail boats, tugboats, trollers, freighters etc*
(not to be confused with planar hull aka the speedboat)
If you wanted to make a significant comparison perhaps you should of used aviation as the medium of travel is closer to that of space(with exception of drag, lift and those concepts) You would not expect a b- 52bomber or Passenger jet to be able to keep up with a fighter jet.
I think the reason why Sci-Fi space fleets are related to Naval more so than avionics is that the ships are supposedly large, and operate for long periods of time. Not because similarities in tactics, or how they operate.
Any reason, your analogy is flawed. Spaceships operate in a vacume thus are governed by the rules of inertia only. Meaning a lighter ship is easier to manuever and much easier to move(go faster, accelerate etc...)
|
Belzavior
|
Posted - 2003.12.20 07:15:00 -
[30]
and one more thing on the mass subject.
Items have the same mass in space as they do on the ground. They just have no WEIGHT. Mass is the amount of matter in an object and thus the bases for determining the amount of force needed to move that mass.
Why in real space all ships would have the same max speed, its the frigs that would achieve it faster(they are of less mass and thus need less force to act on the object) While a BS may have generally bigger engines, the average bs wouldn't provide enough power to accelerate faster than the Frig. Not to mention manueverability.(their could be exceptions, like a BS hull wrapped around one large engine, or a frig hull with little engine)
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |