EVE Search - How powerful are the weapons in EVE?

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

How powerful are the weapons in EVE?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Cornucopian Gallente Dutch Omega United Freemen Alliance	Posted - 2007.08.23 13:17:00 - [91] also as a reference, the schwere gustav 800mil gun fired 7 ton shells. for comparison: this is an african elephant, in weight. ----------------------------------------------- "post with your main. delete your alt, you sad little exploiting metagamer."
Splagada Minmatar Tides of Silence Hydra Alliance	Posted - 2007.08.23 13:20:00 - [92] Edited by: Splagada on 23/08/2007 13:20:39 Originally by: Cornucopian also as a reference, the schwere gustav 800mil gun fired 7 ton shells. for comparison: this is an african elephant, in weight. fetchez la vache!!! ------ Proud Janitor of Tides of Silence
DarthMopp Gallente I.O.S. - I.D.I.O.T.s in outer Space	Posted - 2007.08.23 13:57:00 - [93] Ok...lets go for the Maths 1 cm = 100mm so a 1400mm Charge would be 140 cm in Diameter That 1 metre and 40 Centimeter and the 3500mm charge would then be 3 Metres and 50 centimeters. Not that much ...and absolutely unusable for atmospherical bombardement. (even if i miscalculated in any way) Added to the normal velocity of the Projectile comes the Gravitational Constant of every Planet which adds to the velocity....then Atmosphere friction sets in and will either let the projectile burn to ashes or bounce it back into space. (Remember the SpaceShuttle Columbia that exploded while going back to earth ? Atmospheric Friction = BAD and she was only traveling with Mach 6) Same to Missiles and Torpedos....no impact.. So unless you are able to fire small Mountain sized Rounds i guess not much will happen to the planets at all. Though i dont want to see the damage of a 3500mm round impacting with x-thousand kps into a ship....as theres no friction in space the round would maintain its initial speed until hitting something... "Alea iacta est"
Tarminic Black Flame Industries	Posted - 2007.08.23 14:05:00 - [94] Originally by: DarthMopp absolutely unusable for atmospherical bombardement. (even if i miscalculated in any way) Added to the normal velocity of the Projectile comes the Gravitational Constant of every Planet which adds to the velocity....then Atmosphere friction sets in and will either let the projectile burn to ashes or bounce it back into space. (Remember the SpaceShuttle Columbia that exploded while going back to earth ? Atmospheric Friction = BAD and she was only traveling with Mach 6) What leads you to believe they'd disintigrate before impact? ------------ Whiners - Unite! \| Posting and You Tarminic - Forum Warfare Specialist.
torswin Caldari Silver Snake Enterprise Interstellar Starbase Syndicate	Posted - 2007.08.23 14:06:00 - [95] kps? Use the standards: km/s --- Signature radius: 150 mm Unless explicitly stated, this post does not represent my alliance, corporation, my own, or any other living organism's view.
DubanFP Caldari Four Rings D-L	Posted - 2007.08.23 14:10:00 - [96] Edited by: DubanFP on 23/08/2007 14:12:28 Originally by: DarthMopp Ok...lets go for the Maths 1 cm = 100mm uhm, i'm failing to see even 1 change/mistype that could make that correct. 1000mm = 1m. 1 cm = 10mm 100cm = 1m Other then that you're correct except for 1 thing. The shuttle columbia could have survived the ride through the atmosphere had there not been a failure point in it's heat shielding. Who's to say these rounds are unprotected for such use? The rapid accelleration out of of the cannon alone would require some REALLY powerful resistance to heat, I really can't see how the decent in earth could beat that. Also the 1 round that would be guarenteed to make it would be the tungsten rounds for the railguns. Those things would make one wicked seismic event when it crashed into the ground. ___________ Xanstin> Your sig is full of really, really crap self quotes. DubanFP> Happy now that i have your quote included?
Marine HK4861 Caldari Seoltachd	Posted - 2007.08.23 14:26:00 - [97] Originally by: Sharupak Actually, that is not entirely true. The U.S. Navy is developing guns that shoot missles. I could shoot aircraft, shore targets, other ships and believe it or not missles (although, only certain types of missles and it would probably be your last option). This sounds like a good replacement for defender missiles. A high slot small turret with negligible damage, but insane ROF and range.
DarthMopp Gallente I.O.S. - I.D.I.O.T.s in outer Space	Posted - 2007.08.23 14:37:00 - [98] Originally by: Tarminic Originally by: DarthMopp absolutely unusable for atmospherical bombardement. (even if i miscalculated in any way) Added to the normal velocity of the Projectile comes the Gravitational Constant of every Planet which adds to the velocity....then Atmosphere friction sets in and will either let the projectile burn to ashes or bounce it back into space. (Remember the SpaceShuttle Columbia that exploded while going back to earth ? Atmospheric Friction = BAD and she was only traveling with Mach 6) What leads you to believe they'd disintigrate before impact? Ever saw a falling Star ? Thats why i believe they would disintegrate....and they would disintegrate even faster the higher their velocity is ! And yes..the Discovery would have made it if the plating would have been intact. I assumed the projectiles we are talking about wouldnt have such resistances :D lol My fault ! :-)) "Alea iacta est"
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2007.08.23 15:20:00 - [99] Originally by: Illyria Ambri Originally by: Surfin's PlunderBunny Edited by: Surfin''s PlunderBunny on 22/08/2007 18:57:02 Originally by: Arknox Edited by: Arknox on 22/08/2007 18:16:50 imagine getting hit by a 1400mm bullet ... or better, a 3500mm Well, depending on which source you're using... an M1A2 main battle tank's main gun is between 110mm and 120mm... I think I read up to 155mm somewhere too *Pictures a bus sized 3500MM projecile 155mm howitzer shell can be picked up by 1 strong person. Though 2 ppl to move them is the norm. 109mm howitzer shell has a diameter smaller then a basketball.. actually its about the diameter of a football (and I'm talkin American football.. not soccer :P ) and is about 1.5 - 2 feet long. This is laymans experience.. though I haven't had to load a 109mm howitzer in a few years.. those are basic size comparisons. A 300-400 mm shell, whitout the propellant, would reach waist heigh if placed tail down on a pavement and no one would move it without a crane (the advantage of some WW I relic before the militar HQ near home ). The problem is that it will not use 0.05 m3, more like 0.2 m3 for 1 shot or so.
Snake Jankins Minmatar German Cyberdome Corp Cult of War	Posted - 2007.08.23 15:24:00 - [100] Originally by: Atama Cardel Well, you can really only make a nuclear weapon so small you need a certain amount of mass, this is called critical mass, to be able to start the chain reaction. Reminds me of Red Mercury, which was in the press over 20 years ago and spread fear, because it was a material supposed to reduce critical mass and make it possible to build nuclear bombs maybe even in the size of a pen. ( Bah, I notice, how old I am. ^^) ___________ I've never been so serious as I am now. No, really.
DubanFP Caldari Four Rings D-L	Posted - 2007.08.23 15:32:00 - [101] Originally by: Snake Jankins Originally by: Atama Cardel Well, you can really only make a nuclear weapon so small you need a certain amount of mass, this is called critical mass, to be able to start the chain reaction. Reminds me of Red Mercury, which was in the press over 20 years ago and spread fear, because it was a material supposed to reduce critical mass and make it possible to build nuclear bombs maybe even in the size of a pen. ( Bah, I notice, how old I am. ^^) Actually there are 2 ways to reach a critical mass in a fission weapon. X amount of mass, or you compress the fissile material into a much smaller area "resulting in more nuetrons hitting their mark". Given a proper way to compress the fissile material you could probebly make it pretty small in theory. ___________ Xanstin> Your sig is full of really, really crap self quotes. DubanFP> Happy now that i have your quote included?
Snake Jankins Minmatar German Cyberdome Corp Cult of War	Posted - 2007.08.23 15:50:00 - [102] Edited by: Snake Jankins on 23/08/2007 15:50:05 Originally by: DubanFP Given a proper way to compress the fissile material you could probebly make it pretty small in theory. Ok, maybe that was the idea. But quite funny: Noone knew, what it is and if it even exists, but the tv and press was full of it and people got arrested, who tried to buy it or sell some red powder pretending it was Red Mercury. Anyway, back to topic. ___________ I've never been so serious as I am now. No, really.
Vertex Eisenstein Gallente The Dead Parrot Shoppe Inc. Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2007.08.23 16:10:00 - [103] Edited by: Vertex Eisenstein on 23/08/2007 16:17:23 Edited by: Vertex Eisenstein on 23/08/2007 16:16:35 Edited by: Vertex Eisenstein on 23/08/2007 16:13:08 Quote: The human bran can generally detect and react to 1/4 of a second intervals. Of course it can, that timeframe is far too slow. The shortest interval visually detectable (the flicker fusion frequency) is usually about 16Hz (62.5 ms). This is for a white light strobe though. For moving images 30Hz flicker is sometimes detectable, hence TVs operating at 60 or 70 Hz and mains AC current operating at 50Hz. If mains current cycled slower the lights would appear to flicker. I'm pretty sure this is a function of the photoreceptors rather than the visual cortex, although I'm guessing a bit here. The evidence that makes me think this is the fact that a strobes have a colour illusion associated with them, whereby the flash has a colour tint depending on frequency. This is due to the different latencies of the 3 species of cones in the retina. If the processing pathways were the culprit then the variation if receptor latency shouldnt cause this effect. Someone else said this guy was wrong because of reaction times, but that is a different problem - here we need to know the shortest possible time able to be observed, which is a perceptual thing, and so not a function of the motor system. As an aside, leaving vision out of it, the brain can detect much shorter intervals than those able to be seen. The bearing sound is coming from is largely calculated by the time difference between detection at one ear and the other - the intraaural time difference. The maximum ITD is 0.63 milliseconds, that is when a sound originates from 90 degrees. Humans can discriminate to within about 3 degrees of azimuth so we can certainly detect times MUCH smaller than this. Of course ITD is not the only factor involved, but it is the most important. Apologies for the wall of text, but I'm very very bored... edit: assuming the 16Hz flicker fusion figure, I get 4 million M/s as the speed required to cover 250Km in that timeframe. I may be wrong though - I'm a biologist not a physicist!
Vertex Eisenstein Gallente The Dead Parrot Shoppe Inc. Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2007.08.23 16:31:00 - [104] using the E = 1/2MV equation I get 1.1 X 10 to the 11 Joules for kinetic energy alone using the new velocity for 1400 arty.
Sessho Seki	Posted - 2007.08.23 17:27:00 - [105] Originally by: DubanFP I would imagine some of the weapons in eve must have some seriously immense firepower. I mean even the explosive version of the weakest missile in the game "Phalanx Rocket" is described as wielding a small nuclear warhead. Even the cruiser sized heavy missiles have to be multi-megaton warheads easily capable of leveling cities. Even the torpedo arsenal of 1 Raven would be capable of leveling an entire planet with warheads ranging in the hundreds of megatons. And never mind sieged citadels. They would probably be multi-gigaton warheads. The soot from 1 salvo alone would probably be enough to render an entire planet uninhabitable. The other "non-missile" weapons would be harder to measure though. I would imagine they'd be much weaker in actual yield but much more focused "rather then having most of the blast get directed into space" Well, oddly enough, from the perspective of a physics and energy yield perspective, all the weapons in all of EVE ever used and that ever will be used is nothing compared to the amount of energy that would be required to warp space, as per faster than light travel within the bounds of relativity. You see, while it is possible to distort space through exertion of energy (see also: gravity), to distort space enough to in effect 'move faster than light' like the ships do in the game, it would take more energy than the entirety of every star in the Milky Way. In comparison, the total power output of a million doomsday devices are more akin to a party-popper than that amount of power contained within the warp drive of even the most humble shuttle.
Sharupak Minmatar Knights Of the Black Sun	Posted - 2007.08.23 17:42:00 - [106] Originally by: DarthMopp Originally by: Tarminic Originally by: DarthMopp absolutely unusable for atmospherical bombardement. (even if i miscalculated in any way) Added to the normal velocity of the Projectile comes the Gravitational Constant of every Planet which adds to the velocity....then Atmosphere friction sets in and will either let the projectile burn to ashes or bounce it back into space. (Remember the SpaceShuttle Columbia that exploded while going back to earth ? Atmospheric Friction = BAD and she was only traveling with Mach 6) What leads you to believe they'd disintigrate before impact? Ever saw a falling Star ? Thats why i believe they would disintegrate....and they would disintegrate even faster the higher their velocity is ! And yes..the Discovery would have made it if the plating would have been intact. I assumed the projectiles we are talking about wouldnt have such resistances :D lol My fault ! :-)) Got me curious...what keeps ICBMs from burning up in the atmosphere? Do they just not go high enough? _______________________________________________ RuntimeError: ChainEvent is blocking by design, but you're block trapped. You have'll have to find some alternative means to do Your Thing, dude.
Sharupak Minmatar Knights Of the Black Sun	Posted - 2007.08.23 17:44:00 - [107] Originally by: Marine HK4861 Originally by: Sharupak Actually, that is not entirely true. The U.S. Navy is developing guns that shoot missles. I could shoot aircraft, shore targets, other ships and believe it or not missles (although, only certain types of missles and it would probably be your last option). This sounds like a good replacement for defender missiles. A high slot small turret with negligible damage, but insane ROF and range. Or this Phalanx Although your idea would look way cooler, and probably be easier to balance ingame. _______________________________________________ RuntimeError: ChainEvent is blocking by design, but you're block trapped. You have'll have to find some alternative means to do Your Thing, dude.
DubanFP Caldari Four Rings D-L	Posted - 2007.08.23 17:49:00 - [108] Originally by: Sharupak Originally by: DarthMopp Originally by: Tarminic Originally by: DarthMopp absolutely unusable for atmospherical bombardement. (even if i miscalculated in any way) Added to the normal velocity of the Projectile comes the Gravitational Constant of every Planet which adds to the velocity....then Atmosphere friction sets in and will either let the projectile burn to ashes or bounce it back into space. (Remember the SpaceShuttle Columbia that exploded while going back to earth ? Atmospheric Friction = BAD and she was only traveling with Mach 6) What leads you to believe they'd disintigrate before impact? Ever saw a falling Star ? Thats why i believe they would disintegrate....and they would disintegrate even faster the higher their velocity is ! And yes..the Discovery would have made it if the plating would have been intact. I assumed the projectiles we are talking about wouldnt have such resistances :D lol My fault ! :-)) Got me curious...what keeps ICBMs from burning up in the atmosphere? Do they just not go high enough? UHM LOL. Things burn up in the atmosphere because of the immense speed they fall at. Then as the atmopshere thickens as they get closer to the earth. As it barrels tword earth the molocules in the air rub against it "like when you rub your hands together for warmth but on sterioids". This immense friction burns it up. ICBMs fly above & outside the Earth's atmosphere. They also tend to detonate in the air for maximum effect too "if it detonated on the ground the blast would be directed up because of the curvature of the earth". ___________ Xanstin> Your sig is full of really, really crap self quotes. DubanFP> Happy now that i have your quote included?
Sharupak Minmatar Knights Of the Black Sun	Posted - 2007.08.23 17:52:00 - [109] yes, I get that! LOL! But they go out of the atmosphere and come back in without burning up. They dont have retro rockets to slow them down and they still detonate well inside the atmosphere. _______________________________________________ RuntimeError: ChainEvent is blocking by design, but you're block trapped. You have'll have to find some alternative means to do Your Thing, dude.
Jizuonme Chin	Posted - 2007.08.23 17:59:00 - [110] ... and to reiterate the 'advanced-ness' of the Eve Universe. - MultiGigaton Missles - Huge masses - Non-orbiting planets. - Cloning technology basically lets you evade death - more... On top of all that, our ships only travel ~300m/s... Which is the equivalent of what... 670mph? Geez, a 747 can do that! Even with MWD, maybe 3km/sec? Space shuttle beats that... You'd think speeds would be faster huh? .. of course they have jumpgates... and unlimited fuel. </sigh>
Tarminic Black Flame Industries	Posted - 2007.08.23 18:22:00 - [111] Originally by: Sharupak But they go out of the atmosphere and come back in without burning up. They dont have retro rockets to slow them down and they still detonate well inside the atmosphere. If I remember correctly, ICBMs fall back to earth at a relatively shallow angle, so they don't gain the kind of momentum that would lead to a failure in their outer hulls. I could be wrong though. ------------ Whiners - Unite! \| Posting and You Tarminic - Forum Warfare Specialist.
Rake Mizar Freelance Assassins	Posted - 2007.08.23 19:18:00 - [112] a railgun shell let's just say will move at 50 miles per second, that's about cometary speed. At that speed it would be in the amosphere (if shot straight at the planet) for about 2 seconds, hardly enough time for it to burn up. Consider that comets are made of ice and enough of them make it to the ground to wipe out dinosaurs or flatten huge chunks of siberia. Maybe we should make the railgun shells out of ice... WTB: T2 Exotic Dancers
Haradgrim Caldari The Wild Bunch	Posted - 2007.08.23 19:45:00 - [113] Edited by: Haradgrim on 23/08/2007 19:45:56 Originally by: Toru Sataki i'd be more afraid of railguns than of anything you shot out of a projectile weapon... the reaction between matter and antimatter is a hell of a lot more energetic than any nuclear reaction, so a 425mm charge full of the stuff would probably make your volkswagen-sized nuke look like a popgun... Where exactly does antimatter come into the equation? A rail gun uses metal and electro magnetic forces to send an iron (or other material) slug traveling at hyper-sonic velocities (or relativistic velocities in the case of EVE rails). The Concussive force from a BS sized rail gun would be similar to being hit by a comet. If one were to impact a planet, the dust alone from one impact would likely start an ice age. Edit: Ok I'm stupid, I just realized your talking about ammo types /bong - Haradgrim [-WB-] That.which.does.not.bend.breaks
Sharupak Minmatar Knights Of the Black Sun	Posted - 2007.08.23 20:04:00 - [114] Originally by: Jizuonme Chin ... and to reiterate the 'advanced-ness' of the Eve Universe. - MultiGigaton Missles - Huge masses - Non-orbiting planets. - Cloning technology basically lets you evade death - more... On top of all that, our ships only travel ~300m/s... Which is the equivalent of what... 670mph? Geez, a 747 can do that! Even with MWD, maybe 3km/sec? Space shuttle beats that... You'd think speeds would be faster huh? .. of course they have jumpgates... and unlimited fuel. </sigh> Oh maaaaaaaaaan!!!! why did you have to come up with that post! You know, some of us are blissfully ignorant and still like to "Pretend" stuff! I hope there isnt anymore "Realities" that I am oblivious too. _______________________________________________ RuntimeError: ChainEvent is blocking by design, but you're block trapped. You have'll have to find some alternative means to do Your Thing, dude.
Ehranavaar	Posted - 2007.08.23 20:41:00 - [115] I imagine frigate-sized rockets have firepower of ten to twenty kilotons. So going by this scale, we get this: Standard Missile: 30-60 Kilotons (75 damage) Heavy Missile: 60-120 Kilotons (150 damage) Torpedo: 180-360 Kilotons (450 damage) Citadel Torpedo: 640 Kilotons - 1.28 Megatons (1800 damage) the smallest nukes taht can be made will fit into a 155mm arty shell and they really are pathetic little fire*****ers of just a few kt. physical laws do not permit them to be built any smaller than that and the suckers are heavy. a 155 round is about 43 kg and the nuke rounds are about double that. if you look at the weight that rocket you find out it's way too small to carry a nuke warhead. you can also generate emp effects without using nukes i've read. you might also want to look at the 1400 mm arty round and consider a 405mm round weighs a ton or so and the weight goes up far faster than the diameter of the shell. a 1400 mm arty shell is going to weigh nearly 40 tons for instance. making real world comparisons to eve and vice versa does not work. that said my favoured whine is why arty is instant damage when missiles are delayed damage. this confuses me because the max speed for a missile in eve is a couple times what an arty shell moves at. look it up sometime arty shells are fairly leisurely in their travel.
Ehranavaar	Posted - 2007.08.23 20:47:00 - [116] Originally by: Surfin's PlunderBunny [ Well, depending on which source you're using... an M1A2 main battle tank's main gun is between 110mm and 120mm... I think I read up to 155mm somewhere too *Pictures a bus sized 3500MM projecile 120 mm smoothbore gun. think it's actually a german gun.
Aleric Vikyz Shadow Of The Light R i s e	Posted - 2007.08.23 21:50:00 - [117] Originally by: Sharupak Got me curious...what keeps ICBMs from burning up in the atmosphere? Do they just not go high enough? The missile itself does not reenter the atmosphere, rather it releases induvidual atmospheric entry vehicles which each contain a warhead. The entry vehicles themselves are specificaly designed to survive atmospheric reentry through use of thermal protection systems and even the basic shape of the vehicle itself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icbm#Modern_ICBMs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_independently_targetable_reentry_vehicle#Mode_of_operation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_reentry
Maridius Secundus	Posted - 2007.08.23 22:04:00 - [118] Ok, we've established that our toys are very powerful so imagine when we can land on planets, kill a couple deer with a 125 mm slug and come back home in time for dinner. Or if the planets orbit is oval and you prefer circles you can blow that bastard out of existance. (Imagine the locking time....)
xS0u1zx	Posted - 2007.08.24 01:38:00 - [119] Originally by: Jizuonme Chin ... and to reiterate the 'advanced-ness' of the Eve Universe. - MultiGigaton Missles - Huge masses - Non-orbiting planets. - Cloning technology basically lets you evade death - more... On top of all that, our ships only travel ~300m/s... Which is the equivalent of what... 670mph? Geez, a 747 can do that! Even with MWD, maybe 3km/sec? Space shuttle beats that... You'd think speeds would be faster huh? .. of course they have jumpgates... and unlimited fuel. </sigh> hmmm let's see 300 m/s x 60 x 60 is 1080 km/hr you know there's 60 seconds in a minute and 60 minutes in an hour and second 3,000m/s x 60 x 60 or the last answer times 10 is 10,800 km/hr. Yes you know we currently may be able to go faster than that, however look at the ship size differences, sure a fighter plane can go like mach 4, a space shuttle can probably go like 18,000 km/hr but you think we can get a ship say several million kilograms to go that fast not m3 people I don't even wanna add in that factor, I don't think so.
An Anarchyyt Gallente Federal Navy Academy	Posted - 2007.08.24 01:48:00 - [120] I'm always curious in posts like these. Do people have inside information about technology in the year 23,000 AD? Originally by: CCP Wrangler Second, a gentile is a non jewish person

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 :: 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.