Originally by: Stuart Price

---

Edited by: Stuart Price on 10/07/2008 03:00:42
If you want a made up sci-fi answer then:

Missiles in eve are several magnitudes larger and more powerful than anything 21st century Earth has to offer. The fuel needed to propel such missiles is therefore also much larger not only to propel them but to control their flight. All maneuvering would use fuel as they'd have to use lateral thrusters to change direction as opposed to fins or wings as 21st century missiles do. Missiles can only contain a limited amount of fuel before the sheer amount of fuel compromises the size of the warhead - resulting in the limited ranges of the in game missiles. Shorter range missiles (rockets, lights, HAM's, torps etc) are designed for dogfighting and therefore have greater maneuverability (therefore greater fuel consumption) meaning shorter ranges as the trade-off OR they have massive payloads, limited the amout of fuel that can be loaded onto the missile without making it too large. Longer range missiles are not as maneuverable so they need less fuel for the lateral thrusters and can use more for pure propulsion.

Make any sense?

With guns it's purely a case of how accurately you can project non-guided munitions onto a target, often a moving target. Blasters have short range because of the nature of the weapon - the particles disperse rapidly after firing. Railguns have a long range because the projectiles are fired incredibly fast, meaning tracking calculations are reduced and the effects of target mobility are similarly reduced. Howitzers and autocannons are similarly affected (this time limited) by the speed of the round and lasers can be assumed to have perfect long range accuracy (diffraction through clouds of gas aside) - instead they're limited by the laser losing energy the farther it has to travel (beam lasers being more focused - more range, pulse lasers being faster firing but less focused - less range). So with weapons requiring ammo it's accuracy affecting the effective range, with lasers its the loss of energy on far away targets.

That's roughly how I see it in my head, barring some horrific scientific inaccuracies. Considering the physics models for ship movement my own fallacy doesn't bother me overly.

---

Originally by: Stuart Price

---

Edited by: Stuart Price on 10/07/2008 03:03:35
Edited by: Stuart Price on 10/07/2008 03:00:42
If you want a made up sci-fi answer then:

Missiles in eve are several magnitudes larger and more powerful than anything 21st century Earth has to offer. The fuel needed to propel such missiles is therefore also much larger not only to propel them but to control their flight. All maneuvering would use fuel as they'd have to use lateral thrusters to change direction as opposed to fins or wings as 21st century missiles do. Missiles can only contain a limited amount of fuel before the sheer amount of fuel compromises the size of the warhead - resulting in the limited ranges of the in game missiles. Shorter range missiles (rockets, lights, HAM's, torps etc) are designed for dogfighting and therefore have greater maneuverability (therefore greater fuel consumption) meaning shorter ranges as the trade-off OR they have massive payloads, limited the amout of fuel that can be loaded onto the missile without making it too large. Longer range missiles are not as maneuverable so they need less fuel for the lateral thrusters and can use more for pure propulsion.

Make any sense?

With guns it's purely a case of how accurately you can project non-guided munitions onto a target, often a moving target. Blasters have short range because of the nature of the weapon - the particles disperse rapidly after firing. Railguns have a long range because the projectiles are fired incredibly fast, meaning tracking calculations are reduced and the effects of target mobility are similarly reduced. Howitzers and autocannons are similarly affected (this time limited) by the speed of the round and lasers can be assumed to have perfect long range accuracy (diffraction through clouds of gas aside) - instead they're limited by the laser losing energy the farther it has to travel (beam lasers being more focused - more range, pulse lasers being faster firing but less focused - less range). So with weapons requiring ammo it's accuracy affecting the effective range, with lasers its the loss of energy on far away targets.

This still allows you to separate range from tracking since range is a measure of a given weapon's ability to hit a stationary target accurately whereas tracking speed is a weapon's ability to follow a moving target. As any marksman will tell you, the two skills are completely different. Try firing a heavy bolt action rifle at a small, fast moving clay target. Then try a shotgun. Then try the same weapons on a stationary target 500 yards away.

That's roughly how I see it in my head, barring some horrific scientific inaccuracies. Considering the physics models for ship movement my own fallacy doesn't bother me overly.

---

Originally by: Randommofo

---

Originally by: Stuart Price

---

Edited by: Stuart Price on 10/07/2008 03:00:42
If you want a made up sci-fi answer then:

Missiles in eve are several magnitudes larger and more powerful than anything 21st century Earth has to offer. The fuel needed to propel such missiles is therefore also much larger not only to propel them but to control their flight. All maneuvering would use fuel as they'd have to use lateral thrusters to change direction as opposed to fins or wings as 21st century missiles do. Missiles can only contain a limited amount of fuel before the sheer amount of fuel compromises the size of the warhead - resulting in the limited ranges of the in game missiles. Shorter range missiles (rockets, lights, HAM's, torps etc) are designed for dogfighting and therefore have greater maneuverability (therefore greater fuel consumption) meaning shorter ranges as the trade-off OR they have massive payloads, limited the amout of fuel that can be loaded onto the missile without making it too large. Longer range missiles are not as maneuverable so they need less fuel for the lateral thrusters and can use more for pure propulsion.

Make any sense?

With guns it's purely a case of how accurately you can project non-guided munitions onto a target, often a moving target. Blasters have short range because of the nature of the weapon - the particles disperse rapidly after firing. Railguns have a long range because the projectiles are fired incredibly fast, meaning tracking calculations are reduced and the effects of target mobility are similarly reduced. Howitzers and autocannons are similarly affected (this time limited) by the speed of the round and lasers can be assumed to have perfect long range accuracy (diffraction through clouds of gas aside) - instead they're limited by the laser losing energy the farther it has to travel (beam lasers being more focused - more range, pulse lasers being faster firing but less focused - less range). So with weapons requiring ammo it's accuracy affecting the effective range, with lasers its the loss of energy on far away targets.

That's roughly how I see it in my head, barring some horrific scientific inaccuracies. Considering the physics models for ship movement my own fallacy doesn't bother me overly.

---

Give this man a cookie. That has to be the best explanation (possibly the most thought provoking) post on these forums about rl-eve.

---

Originally by: Serenii Astarael

---

I mean, there's no reason why CCP couldn't have made the distances ingame substantially longer, and the weapons commensurately longer-range.

---

Originally by: Akita T

---

* stasis webbifiers ignoring ship size

---

Originally by: Akita T

---

* space has "up" and "down"

---

Originally by: Akita T

---

ship bumping for no damage

---

Originally by: Akita T

---

two identical ships fit identically flown by identically skilled pilots - one standing still, the other orbiting - both have the same trouble hitting with turrets, instead of the orbiting one landing each shot while the holding still one having trouble

---

Originally by: Akita T

---

* stasis webbifiers ignoring ship size

---

Originally by: Alex Harumichi

---

Oh, and inertia & centrifugal force have been abolished (otherwise inty pilots would be paste, do the calcs of G forces on an orbiting inty pilot if you want some giggles ;).

---

Originally by: Tappits

---

Originally by: Alex Harumichi

---

Oh, and inertia & centrifugal force have been abolished (otherwise inty pilots would be paste, do the calcs of G forces on an orbiting inty pilot if you want some giggles ;).

---

come on some one work some numbers out.

---

Originally by: an internet

---

Originally by: Tappits

---

Originally by: Alex Harumichi

---

Oh, and inertia & centrifugal force have been abolished (otherwise inty pilots would be paste, do the calcs of G forces on an orbiting inty pilot if you want some giggles ;).

---

come on some one work some numbers out.

---

Okay.

Slow inty - 7km/s at a 12km orbit.

7000^2/12000 = 4083N/kg

= 416 times gravity.

---

Originally by: DubanFP

---

Originally by: Akita T

---

ship bumping for no damage

---

Damage isn't caused by impact. It's caused by an uneven distribution of impact. If the shields, even 1 hp, can distribute the impact evenly across a ship's mass there's no reason why it wouldn't bounce. It would take some reworking of the shields to act like this, but there's physically no reason for it not to work. Why does the barrel of a gun take less damage then the target that gets hit when they both take just as much force? It's the distribution of the energy that counts.
It's not like a normal impact carries much energy when compared to a smaller object going near relativistic speeds like a railgun. The energy used would be there, but it would be ignoribly small.

---

Quote:

---

Originally by: Akita T

---

two identical ships fit identically flown by identically skilled pilots - one standing still, the other orbiting - both have the same trouble hitting with turrets, instead of the orbiting one landing each shot while the holding still one having trouble

---

You mentioned relativism in the up/down and yet completely and utterly forgot it here. There isn't really a still in space, only relativistic speeds. The "relatively still" pilot is moving no less in relation to the orbiting pilot to each other. You still need to track the same differences, only now you need to compensate for your own speed rather then theirs.

---

Originally by: Crellion

---

Edited by: Crellion on 10/07/2008 07:09:33
Actually I spent 18 boring months in the artillery corps and I can tell you that the largest mobile artillery (8 inch) in modern armies can sling rocket assisted projectiles up to 36 kilometres away (with any accuracy) and the crater there is approcimately 80 metres in diametre.
(Zomg government secrets out but which government??? :D)

Now compare that with the bloody Tempest and Maelstrom range.... Nerf Minmattar!!!!111!!!

---

Originally by: Kano Sekor

---

Hey what about FTL traveling ive heard its impossible.

---

Originally by: Alex Harumichi

---

EVE has very close to nothing to do with real physics. Ships in EVE don't move in a vacuum, they move in some sort of fluid which slows them down the moment their drives shut down. Oh, and inertia & centrifugal force have been abolished (otherwise inty pilots would be paste, do the calcs of G forces on an orbiting inty pilot if you want some giggles ;).

Deal with it.

---

Originally by: CCP Greyscale

---

*moderated - mother abuse - Mitnal*

---

Originally by: Crellion

---

Edited by: Crellion on 10/07/2008 07:09:33
Actually I spent 18 boring months in the artillery corps and I can tell you that the largest mobile artillery (8 inch) in modern armies can sling rocket assisted projectiles up to 36 kilometres away (with any accuracy) and the crater there is approcimately 80 metres in diametre.
(Zomg government secrets out but which government??? :D)

Now compare that with the bloody Tempest and Maelstrom range.... Nerf Minmattar!!!!111!!!

---

Originally by: Gark32

---

Repeat After Me.

RL is Not Eve.
Eve is not RL.

RL is not limited by piddly things such as Locking Distance and Grid Size.

also, imagine trying to hit an object that is moving at 200 meters per second (as fast as some bullets) at 9000 kilometers distance with ANYTHING.

---

Originally by: Nightsheir

---

Todays eve has battleships of 200km range , but that feels like melee range because any ship you see ends up in your face before you even complete your lock , and forget about hitting it.

---

Originally by: Nightsheir

---

And yes, boost amarr . Tired of playing with laser toyguns.

---

Originally by: Jitabug

---

Originally by: Crellion

---

Edited by: Crellion on 10/07/2008 07:09:33
Actually I spent 18 boring months in the artillery corps and I can tell you that the largest mobile artillery (8 inch) in modern armies can sling rocket assisted projectiles up to 36 kilometres away (with any accuracy) and the crater there is approcimately 80 metres in diametre.
(Zomg government secrets out but which government??? :D)

Now compare that with the bloody Tempest and Maelstrom range.... Nerf Minmattar!!!!111!!!

---

Royal Artillery. The "bloody" is a dead giveaway. Measurement in inches was also a clue.

---

Originally by: Derek Sigres

---

Originally by: Jitabug

---

Originally by: Crellion

---

Edited by: Crellion on 10/07/2008 07:09:33
Actually I spent 18 boring months in the artillery corps and I can tell you that the largest mobile artillery (8 inch) in modern armies can sling rocket assisted projectiles up to 36 kilometres away (with any accuracy) and the crater there is approcimately 80 metres in diametre.
(Zomg government secrets out but which government??? :D)

Now compare that with the bloody Tempest and Maelstrom range.... Nerf Minmattar!!!!111!!!

---

Royal Artillery. The "bloody" is a dead giveaway. Measurement in inches was also a clue.

---

The US Navy Also measures it's guns in inches where the US Army measures in mm. I have no logical reason for that except for the fact that the Navy clings more hopelessly to traditional jargon than the rest of the US Military.

---