Originally by: Human Cattle

---

because then the backstory might make sense :(

---

Originally by: Zephirz

---

there are?

---

Originally by: Human Cattle

---

because then the backstory might make sense :(

---

Originally by: Frug

---

That.

Cotton candy nebula riddled space with circiular planetary orbits, underwater physics and ships with too many windows or windows scaled totally wrong. Eve fails in the simulation department.

---

Originally by: Bane Loppknow

---

who says theyre windows? they could be lights.

---

Originally by: Stitcher

---

Edited by: Stitcher on 28/07/2007 01:04:26
small point of fact:

very few binary star systems feature stars that are so close together as to appear sun-sized from any given point in the system. As a rule of thumb, the stars in a binary systems are usually several light-hours apart.

Now, after about 50 AU or so (roughly the orbital radius of Neptune) our own sun (Sol) is only a slightly-brighter-than-average star in the night sky. In fact, it's almost impossible to tell it apart from any of the others that are out there. Binary star couples are usually more along the lines of hundreds of AU apart - so from the perspective of one half of a binary pair, the "twin" star is just another point of light in the sky.

All of which means that every last inhabited system in the EVE-verse could well be a binary system, and the "twin" star is part of the skybox. In fact, that explanation makes more sense - any planets in a binary system where the twinned stars are closer together than that would be barren, radioactive wastelands, stripped of their atmospheres by tidal forces, and irradiated by solar winds.

---

Originally by: Stitcher

---

Edited by: Stitcher on 28/07/2007 01:04:26
small point of fact:

very few binary star systems feature stars that are so close together as to appear sun-sized from any given point in the system. As a rule of thumb, the stars in a binary systems are usually several light-hours apart.

Now, after about 50 AU or so (roughly the orbital radius of Neptune) our own sun (Sol) is only a slightly-brighter-than-average star in the night sky. In fact, it's almost impossible to tell it apart from any of the others that are out there. Binary star couples are usually more along the lines of hundreds of AU apart - so from the perspective of one half of a binary pair, the "twin" star is just another point of light in the sky.

All of which means that every last inhabited system in the EVE-verse could well be a binary system, and the "twin" star is part of the skybox. In fact, that explanation makes more sense - any planets in a binary system where the twinned stars are closer together than that would be barren, radioactive wastelands, stripped of their atmospheres by tidal forces, and irradiated by solar winds.

---

Originally by: Fester Addams

---

Actually if you read the EvE chronicle "3 - The principles of jump gate technology." you will notice that all the systems we have acess to are infact binary systems.

This could also explain why there are so many habitable planets in the systems we populate as a system with 2 suns would have a larger habitable zone due to the possible interaction between the two stars.

---

Originally by: Edenn

---

- there is sound in vacuum (okay, without it this game will be boring)

---

Originally by: Ogul

---

Originally by: Edenn

---

- there is sound in vacuum (okay, without it this game will be boring)

---

There is sound in this game??

---

Originally by: Edenn

---

Because CCP didn't know anything about space when they planned this game and I'm sure of it because:
- there should not be a smoke after you launch missile

---

Quote:

---

- there is sound in vacuum (okay, without it this game will be boring)

---

Quote:

---

- weapons should not have any "falloff" thing, especially Lasers

---

Quote:

---

- missiles should do more damage to small targets

---

Quote:

---

- ship should continue moving after you turn off your engines

---

Quote:

---

and a lot of other stuff.

---

Quote:

---

Im not sure here but wouldnt a missile propelled by ejecting matter leave a trail and clouds of gases?

---

Quote:

---

Not true, especially for lasers, a laser beam will dissipate over distance even in vaccum and thus would loose power over distance, moreover to really get the most out of a laser beams destructive force you would have a focal point at wich all the light is concentrated into an as small point as possible much like burning with a magnifying glass, thus at a distance past the focal point the energy of the laser beam would not be concentrated enough to cause any damage at all.

---

Quote:

---

Missiles should do the same damage to small targets, just because somthing is small does not meen the explosive becomes more efficient.
It is however true that small ships have far too much resilience as compared to they larger counterparts.

---

Originally by: Edenn

---

Okay, but it looks like a smoke, gray color and other effects.

---

Quote:

---

If it's ray-shaped then there is no falloff (as most of lasers).

---

Quote:

---

If explosion larger then target, then target should be ripped to pieces.

---

Originally by: Stitcher

---

Originally by: Edenn

---

Okay, but it looks like a smoke, gray color and other effects.

---

White water vapour freezing around black/grey propellant residue, to create a dissipating grey powder, perhaps? Who cares?

Quote:

---

If it's ray-shaped then there is no falloff (as most of lasers).

---

If it were a perfect cylindrical beam, you'd be right - but lasers use Focusing crystals. This implies that the ship's targeting computer is adjusting the focal length of the beam so that the laser strikes the target with the greatest amount of energy hitting the smallest possible area. The falloff probably represents the range where, due to limits in computational power or the focusing technology itself, it starts to become difficult or impossible to focus the beam properly.

Quote:

---

If explosion larger then target, then target should be ripped to pieces.

---

I tend to assume that it works like this - the missile isn't actually "hitting" the target. Missiles in EVE behave as if they are proximity-triggered - that is, designed to go off once they sense they have gotten close enough to a target. Lighter and more accurate missiles explode closer to the target, delivering a greater percentage of their potential damage - the reason the larger missiles do their full damage to larger ships is because a huge shockwave of expanding plasma is hitting the large facing of a big target, rather than only a tiny portion of that shockwave flowing around a small one.

Target painters, pilot skill and the advanced pre-flight calculation systems on a stealth bomber allow for increasing precision in where the missiles go off relative to their target. So a cruise missile fired at a frigate by a stealth bomber is devastating, because it probably goes off within a few feet of the hull, rather than ten or twenty meters away.

Remember: explosions in space follow the inverse square law exactly - the radiation and plasma thus generated expand and dissipate extremely rapidly, as there is no atmosphere to generate a concussive blast wave. Double the distance from the blast epicenter, and you halve the total amount of radiation and plasma that is hitting your ship, so the difference between six feet and twelve feet means the ship is taking half the damage it normally would.

The difference between, say 45 meters (frigate sized) and 720 meters (batleship sized) is sixteen times further away - that's sixteen times less radiation and plasma hitting the ship, and sixteen times less damage being taken as a result. Especially if the frigate in question is moving fast enough to be outrunning the plasma.


Having said all this, I should point out that this game has warp drives, missiles that are based off graviton pulse explosions (kinetic), Graviton reactors in Caldari ships (that presumably somehow harvest energy from a captive singularity, or from the very curvature of space-time itself), antimatter harnessed as a weapon, Railguns capable of firing projectiles at relativistic speeds, tachyons harnessed in weapon form, and advanced nanotechnological construction techniques capable of assembling a kilometer-long battleship in a matter of hours.

I think we have to assume that science in the world of EVE is largely ignored in favour of creating a stable game environment.

---

Originally by: NereSky

---

2 points first, im not a physics professor nor a sci-fi expert
but the arguement/discussion re missiles seems to be partly true ie em,thermal and explosive would mean a proximity detonation nut what about kinetic as i assume thats the force of energy used in impact against a target, which will also incl speed of missile and relative mass.

---