| Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Kaelie Onren
Nyan Cat Logistics
PNG Associates
24
   |
Posted - 2012.06.14 08:29:00 -
[121] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Kaelie Onren wrote:Too much asymmetry is not realistic for a ship in space as it won't be able to maneuver properly or equally in both directions ( along the axis of asymmetry ) Sure it will. For one, asymmetry in the geometry is something completely different than asymmetry in the mass distribution, for another, you can fix that with proper thrust application. GǪand finally, there isn't a single symmetrical ship in EVE anyway. Nor in real life for that matter.
Name 1 ship in real life that isn't symmetrical.
( I mean fundamentally, not some tiny off rigger)
Yes I am aware of physics. I have a university degree. But why go through all the trouble of complicated thrust balancing to compensate for some stupid asymmetrical design when it's much more efficient and easy to manufacture symmetrical ones?
What happens if ones of your off kilter engines break down? Sorry it's not the standard size one so you have to custom order it.
What if a you need to enter a gravity well of a planet? Well your structure creaks because no matter which way you orient yourself you are imbalances.
It just makes little sense. It only has aesthetic effect. No practical reasons. |
Lin-Young Borovskova
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
213
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 08:35:00 -
[122] - Quote
Me likes symmetric forms, just like with ladies 
However, my old Trike wasn't very symmetrical but it didn't had to do atmospheric reentry with
(nice souvenirs with that good old VW S1300 engine) 
brb |
Katurian
RogueCorp
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 18:23:00 -
[123] - Quote
Considering the fantastic job they did on the Nemesis, the hound is a massive disappointment it looks terrible, hardly any effort has gone into it they essentially just lopped the top half off. |
Freezehunter
156
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 19:04:00 -
[124] - Quote
Nemesis and Manticore look phenomenal.
Purifier looks like a golden cockroach.
Hound looks like scaffolding.
Inappropriate signature, CCP Phantom. |
Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises
Purpose Built
832
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 19:54:00 -
[125] - Quote
Kaelie Onren wrote:Tippia wrote:Kaelie Onren wrote:Too much asymmetry is not realistic for a ship in space as it won't be able to maneuver properly or equally in both directions ( along the axis of asymmetry ) Sure it will. For one, asymmetry in the geometry is something completely different than asymmetry in the mass distribution, for another, you can fix that with proper thrust application. GǪand finally, there isn't a single symmetrical ship in EVE anyway. Nor in real life for that matter. Name 1 ship in real life that isn't symmetrical. ( I mean fundamentally, not some tiny off rigger) Yes I am aware of physics. I have a university degree. But why go through all the trouble of complicated thrust balancing to compensate for some stupid asymmetrical design when it's much more efficient and easy to manufacture symmetrical ones? What happens if ones of your off kilter engines break down? Sorry it's not the standard size one so you have to custom order it. What if a you need to enter a gravity well of a planet? Well your structure creaks because no matter which way you orient yourself you are imbalances. It just makes little sense. It only has aesthetic effect. No practical reasons.
Fortunately EVE doesn't care about thruster placement because they don't use thrusters. Some sort of -insert technobabble- drive system that doesn't use Newtonian physics. |
Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises
Purpose Built
832
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 19:55:00 -
[126] - Quote
Freezehunter wrote:Nemesis and Manticore look phenomenal.
Purifier looks like a golden cockroach.
Hound looks like scaffolding.
That Golden Roach is amazing. |
Freezehunter
156
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 19:57:00 -
[127] - Quote
Corina Jarr wrote:Freezehunter wrote:Nemesis and Manticore look phenomenal.
Purifier looks like a golden cockroach.
Hound looks like scaffolding. That Golden Roach is amazing.
True, the ship itself is amazing, but the model is bleh and lacks detail compared to all the others.
Also, EM torpedo and bomb effects are awesome.
Inappropriate signature, CCP Phantom. |
Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises
Purpose Built
832
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 19:59:00 -
[128] - Quote
Freezehunter wrote:Corina Jarr wrote:Freezehunter wrote:Nemesis and Manticore look phenomenal.
Purifier looks like a golden cockroach.
Hound looks like scaffolding. That Golden Roach is amazing. True, the ship itself is amazing, but the model is bleh and lacks detail compared to all the others. Also, EM torpedo and bomb effects are awesome.
My only real complaint with it is that none of the launchers color coordinate well with the Visium color scheme. |
GaiaTesstra
4th Cav
Get Off My Lawn
0
|
Posted - 2012.07.13 15:21:00 -
[129] - Quote
CCP touches something it breaks.
Bombs not doing any dmg to each other, then bombs doing max dmg to all other bombs, now bombs dont go off if u warp or cloak.
Didnt your mama ever teach you if its not broke dont fix it? Guessing not.
You want bombers to be the next AoE doomsday??? You seem to be making them obsolete.
If you want them to be that then perhaps you SHOULD keep it so bombs dont hurt each other so EVERY BOMBER can use the bombs intended for his ship.
You people spend more time breaking **** than doing anything else. Logoff your toon, and do your job. If you dont know WHAT IS BROKEN contact me and i will give you a honeydoo list |
GaiaTesstra
4th Cav
Get Off My Lawn
0
|
Posted - 2012.07.13 15:45:00 -
[130] - Quote
Kaelie Onren wrote:Tippia wrote:Kaelie Onren wrote:Too much asymmetry is not realistic for a ship in space as it won't be able to maneuver properly or equally in both directions ( along the axis of asymmetry ) Sure it will. For one, asymmetry in the geometry is something completely different than asymmetry in the mass distribution, for another, you can fix that with proper thrust application. GǪand finally, there isn't a single symmetrical ship in EVE anyway. Nor in real life for that matter. Name 1 ship in real life that isn't symmetrical. ( I mean fundamentally, not some tiny off rigger) Yes I am aware of physics. I have a university degree. But why go through all the trouble of complicated thrust balancing to compensate for some stupid asymmetrical design when it's much more efficient and easy to manufacture symmetrical ones? What happens if ones of your off kilter engines break down? Sorry it's not the standard size one so you have to custom order it. What if a you need to enter a gravity well of a planet? Well your structure creaks because no matter which way you orient yourself you are imbalances. It just makes little sense. It only has aesthetic effect. No practical reasons.
EVE symmetrical ships - Caracal, drake, rokh, scorpion, ashimmu, cynnable, etc etc , and in real life,,,, name 1 that isnt symmentrical.... ok An Aircraft Carrier |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
2180
|
Posted - 2012.07.13 15:49:00 -
[131] - Quote
GaiaTesstra wrote:CCP touches something it breaks.
Bombs not doing any dmg to each other, then bombs doing max dmg to all other bombs, now bombs dont go off if u warp or cloak.
Didnt your mama ever teach you if its not broke dont fix it? Guessing not.
You want bombers to be the next AoE doomsday??? You seem to be making them obsolete.
If you want them to be that then perhaps you SHOULD keep it so bombs dont hurt each other so EVERY BOMBER can use the bombs intended for his ship.
You people spend more time breaking **** than doing anything else. Logoff your toon, and do your job. If you dont know WHAT IS BROKEN contact me and i will give you a honeydoo list
I've been operating in Low Sec recently, so I wasn't aware of a bug with them not doing damage when warping out.
Have you tested this, or are you just going by damage notifications?
I ask because in the past occasionally damage notifications don't show up for bombs if you are in warp, yet still do damage to the target.
To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors.
If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8526
|
Posted - 2012.07.13 15:56:00 -
[132] - Quote
Nice necro. That means I can respond to this one that I missed the first time aroundGǪKaelie Onren wrote:Name 1 ship in real life that isn't symmetrical. Since I was talking about space shipsGǪ Pretty much all of them past the Apollo capsules (and even then, the LEMs weren't all that symmetrical).
Largely because, in space, it doesn't particularly matter and is fairly easy to engineer your way around, and in atmosphere, it's actually detrimental to the flight performance of the craft. Same goes for pretty much every aerodynamically lifted aircraft GÇö the asymmetry is what makes the whole thing work. Zeppelins, dirigibles and other LTE tend more towards some kind of axial symmetry, but then you still want to build in mass asymmetry to keep the whole thing facing the right side up.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Renan Ruivo
Irmandade
Vera Cruz Alliance
781
|
Posted - 2012.07.13 17:53:00 -
[133] - Quote
Tippia wrote:[...]there isn't a single symmetrical ship in EVE anyway. Nor in real life for that matter.
I know its a hornet's nest, but i'll have to ask you to please elaborate on this ....
The world is a community of idiots doing a series of things until it explodes and we all die. |
silens vesica
Corsair Cartel
106
|
Posted - 2012.07.13 18:15:00 -
[134] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Nice necro. That means I can respond to this one that I missed the first time aroundGǪ Kaelie Onren wrote:Name 1 ship in real life that isn't symmetrical. Since I was talking about space shipsGǪ Pretty much all of them past the Apollo capsules (and even then, the LEMs weren't all that symmetrical). Largely because, in space, it doesn't particularly matter and is fairly easy to engineer your way around, and in atmosphere, it's actually detrimental to the flight performance of the craft. Same goes for pretty much every aerodynamically lifted aircraft GÇö the asymmetry is what makes the whole thing work. Zeppelins, dirigibles and other LTE tend more towards some kind of axial symmetry, but then you still want to build in mass asymmetry to keep the whole thing facing the right side up.
Do also remember that the LEM's basic shape was constraind by it's lift container - an aerodynamic shape necessitated atmosphere.
Now... Look at any of the deepspace craft - those that never have to deal with atmosphere. Especially take a look at Voyager 1 and 2. Even though they had to deal with aero-infulenced lift containers, they're pretty random shaped - form is dependant on function.
For atmosphereic craft suffering from a-symmetry, you only need look at the works of Burt Rutan. Or, failing that, some of the more esoteric aircraft from WWII Germany.
On the subject of Naval vessels, a lot of symmetry comes from a curious fact of ship design: Historically, when a naval architect designes a vessel, he generally only designs half of it - along the longitudinal axis. He then orders twice as much material as required by his half-plan, and mirror-images the plans, thus producing symmetrical lines. This is by no means the only way to design ships, but it's efficient and works very well. That said, asymmetrical and oddly-shaped vessels litter the oceans:
http://yachtpals.com/sailrocket-sail-rocket-4021
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSV_Alvin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_T_class_submarine
http://outriggersailingcanoes.blogspot.com/ (in fact, traditional outrigger canoes had assymetric lines even on the main hull, to compensate for the placement of the outrigger)
http://psipunk.com/x-sym-125-futuristic-asymmetrical-yacht-by-s-move-design-video/
Tell someone you love them today, because life is short. But scream it at them in Esperanto, because life is also terrifying and confusing. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8530
|
Posted - 2012.07.13 18:28:00 -
[135] - Quote
Renan Ruivo wrote:I know its a hornet's nest, but i'll have to ask you to please elaborate on this .... Not much to elaborate on, but I'll do it anyway. 
None of the space ships in EVE are symmetrical. The real-world space ships in the real world aren't particularly symmetrical either. Some lifting vehicles (Ariane, Soyuz, Proton) are, but the stuff that actually travels through space is not (eg. probes, satellites, space stations, space shuttles).
Before someone objects to that last one, let's get to the important point: symmetry comes in several dimensions. On earth, only one really matters GÇö left-right symmetry GÇö because things like gravity and aero/hydrodynamic forces take care of the rest (in fact, asymmetry that takes advantage of these forces is what makes boats and aeroplanes work). In space, left-right symmetry is irrelevant because left and right does not exist (because GÇ£up/downGÇ¥ does not exist, so there is nothing to relate left and right to).
This is not a symmetrical shape. This or this is symmetric. If you're going to complain that a space craft is not symmetrical, the idea of symmetry you must adhere to is the latter, not the former, because the former is only symmetrical if you can disregard up/down symmetry.
Historically, we have constructed this trope in fiction where space is like air (and space ships are like fighter planes) or where space is an ocean (and space ships behave like boats or submarinesGǪ sound familiar?) because that's what we know and can relate to from every-day life. So we bring this notion of thinking that left-right symmetry is all you need because that's how boats and aircraft are designed. It's further reinforced by the space shuttle, which is only designed that way because it needs to be able to operate in an atmosphere (where the aforementioned aerodynamics make the up-down asymmetry a good thing, since we can use it to keep the hunk of metal from tumbling end over end). For space travel purposes, it's not really symmetrical at allGǪ
GǪbut the thing is, it doesn't need to be, because the shape is almost completely irrelevant at that point, and the asymmetry can be compensated for through proper engineering to ensure that it doesn't tumble (more than we like) in this environment either. That's why we can send off such a mess as Galileo and still have it both fly and face in the right direction.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Xercodo
Disturbed Friends Of Diazepam
1195
|
Posted - 2012.07.13 18:33:00 -
[136] - Quote
The Rokh and Scorpion are actually not symmetrical.
The Drake is a Lie |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8530
|
Posted - 2012.07.13 18:39:00 -
[137] - Quote
Xercodo wrote:The Rokh and Scorpion are actually not symmetrical.
The Scorpion definitely isn't. The Rokh scores fairly high, but it's still quite top heavy.
Other contenders for actual symmetry are the Zephyr and the Minmatar Shuttle, but they both have prongs and protrusions that keeps them from being properly symmetrical. The Avatar might look like a good candidate face-on, but from the side, it rather looks like the poor mushroom is about to fall overGǪ
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Xercodo
Disturbed Friends Of Diazepam
1195
|
Posted - 2012.07.13 18:42:00 -
[138] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Xercodo wrote:The Rokh and Scorpion are actually not symmetrical. The Scorpion definitely isn't. The Rokh scores fairly high, but it's still quite top heavy. Other contenders for actual symmetry are the Zephyr and the Minmatar Shuttle, but they both have prongs and protrusions that keeps them from being properly symmetrical. The Avatar might look like a good candidate face-on, but from the side, it rather looks like the poor mushroom is about to fall overGǪ
Even from the front the Rokh isn't symmetrical. On one side it has a thingy sticking out that I assume to be the bridge.
The Drake is a Lie |
Renan Ruivo
Irmandade
Vera Cruz Alliance
784
|
Posted - 2012.07.13 19:07:00 -
[139] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Xercodo wrote:The Rokh and Scorpion are actually not symmetrical. The Scorpion definitely isn't. The Rokh scores fairly high, but it's still quite top heavy. Other contenders for actual symmetry are the Zephyr and the Minmatar Shuttle, but they both have prongs and protrusions that keeps them from being properly symmetrical. The Avatar might look like a good candidate face-on, but from the side, it rather looks like the poor mushroom is about to fall overGǪ
So does the 747 you linked =)
Well, not like mushrooms, i mean not symmetrical when looking from the side.
Also, the bloody Capsule is a good candidate ...
The world is a community of idiots doing a series of things until it explodes and we all die. |
Pipa Porto
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
386
|
Posted - 2012.07.13 19:43:00 -
[140] - Quote
Renan Ruivo wrote:Also, the bloody Capsule is a good candidate ...
In fact, a realistic Combat spacecraft is probably going to look like a Sphere with nozzles all over and weaponry and sensors fitting in somewhere between them.
Being able to Accelerate in a new direction without having to use Gyros or Reaction mass (and wait to swing around so your engine is pointed in the right direction) would be an enormous advantage.
Plus, Nozzles are relatively hardy, given that they have to deal with the heat, pressure, and/or erosional forces of their reaction mass exiting, so hey, free armor.
-RubyPorto
IB4TS |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |