| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
RigelKentaurus
Flying Tartiflette
Caldari Deep Space Industral
   |
Posted - 2008.07.26 19:57:00 -
[1]
You're asking CCP to take into account the ship orientation in a 3D space to calculate the angular velocity of the targets in the frame of the ship. While it makes a lot of sense CCP is going to have to remake their physics engine.
But you have to keep in mind that then bigger ships will be able to reduce your angular velocity by spinning. And the lag will of course increase.
_________
Someday, EVE may look like this. |
RigelKentaurus
Flying Tartiflette
Caldari Deep Space Industral
|
Posted - 2008.07.26 20:20:00 -
[2]
Edited by: RigelKentaurus on 26/07/2008 20:21:17
It's not a flame, I'm just telling you what's actually hidden behind your proposal and what it implies.
Edit: but from a personnal point of view, the physics engine should indeed be remade, moreover since most desyncs seem to come from faulty collision calculations.
_________
Someday, EVE may look like this. |
RigelKentaurus
Flying Tartiflette
Caldari Deep Space Industral
|
Posted - 2008.07.26 21:45:00 -
[3]
 Originally by: MotherMoon
ah but the ship your orbiting isn't staying still compared to you.
If you only consider its location, then the ship you're orbiting is still. It would look like it's spinning though.
_________
Someday, EVE may look like this. |
RigelKentaurus
Flying Tartiflette
Caldari Deep Space Industral
|
Posted - 2008.07.26 22:34:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Haks'he Lirky
Correct me if I am wrong.
I think it is possible to find a orbital speed and angle where you would not need to adjust the angle of your guns in relation of your target while you are orbiting, however given enough speed vs distance ratio you will need to use the tracking of the turret to compensate for high orbital speed.
or is there some math I am missing?
That's quite right, as long as your orbit around the target is circular, then to you its angular velocity is 0, so your gun wouldn't even have to move.
Things get messy when your speed is too high compared to your agility, then your ship can't remain on a circular orbit.
_________
Someday, EVE may look like this. |
RigelKentaurus
Flying Tartiflette
Caldari Deep Space Industral
|
Posted - 2008.07.26 23:28:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Sid Zero
[the radial velocity which affects ship A's guns is (V_ship_b)/d and the radial velocity that affects ships B's guns is (V_ship_a)/d , where V_ship_a is the transversal velocity of Ship A relative to ship B and vice versa.
I really doubt that it would be required to redo the entire engine as some people have stated.
Nothing wrong with this at all, the problem lies in the way the transversal velocity is calculated. Currently to calculate this the physics engine seems to assume that both ships go in straigth line, which is wrong. The spinning of both ships must be taken into account, of course there are many ways to do this, but it still requires a bit of coding, testing, etc.
Originally by: Doddy
I think it would be great if someone did make a proper space-sim, but don't go ruining eve trying to make it.
http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/ 
_________
Someday, EVE may look like this. |
RigelKentaurus
Flying Tartiflette
Caldari Deep Space Industral
|
Posted - 2008.07.27 21:19:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Cor Aidan
Please review Newtonian relativity before starting this discussion again.
CCP currently computes transversal correctly: if you are orbiting a ship and you pick a frame of reference where your target is stationary (and simply spinning), there is an equally valid reference frame where you are stationary but spinning and your target is orbiting you (in the opposite direction but with equal magnitudes).
I was going to write a longer post but I realized the following: the changes you suggest would not result in the outcome you desire.
When it comes to tracking, the only relevant frame is the one of your ship. And in the case of EVE like orbits, the target has in this frame a transversal velocity of 0. So no, CCP doesn't compute transversal correctly at all.
_________
Someday, EVE may look like this. |
RigelKentaurus
Flying Tartiflette
Caldari Deep Space Industral
|
Posted - 2008.07.27 22:07:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Cor Aidan
I think I just realized that there is confusion by what CCP, myself, and other members of the forums mean by the phrase 'transversal velocity'.
In one sense (the CCP sense) it is simply the tangential component of the relative velocities of the two bodies. This will be nonzero for any bodies with ships that are moving in any direction except directly on a line with each other.
It sounds, however, that others refer to "net relative angular speed" which includes not just the tangential velocity but also the orientation of the ships. It is possible that if one body is rotating about its axis in the same angular speed but in the opposite direction as the other body is rotating about it, then the relative angular speed might be zero. For instance, if there is a body orbiting another one in a circle, and the orbiting body is also spinning with the same angular velocity as its orbit, then the orientation of the central body does not change relative to the orbiting body.
You got it, people usually don't think about frames that are spinning. And neither does the current physics engine.
Quote:
Maybe just pretend that your skills and ship tracking refer to the ability to keep the spins correct, and that this is more difficult with faster, closer targets.
There's already the agility variable for that
Quote:
That said, I think the poster that said "things are self consistent, that's good enough" is probably the best observation in this thread.
I agree, changing the way tracking works would completely change the game (It would be more realistic though). Currently the way tracking works is good enough for the balance of EVE.
_________
Someday, EVE may look like this. |
| |
|