EVE Search - tracking: transversal or angular velocity in overview?

All Channels

Ships and Modules

tracking: transversal or angular velocity in overview?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Lego Maniac Minmatar	Posted - 2008.11.03 04:07:00 - [1] I'm trying to decide which of these columns to keep in my overview I know that keeping transversal "low" is a good way to minimize turret tracking issues, but in so far to my knowledge, without a proper calculator handy at all times this is really subjective to circumstantial interpretation on the other hand, angular velocity is measured in radians over time; if this number is lower than your turret's tracking speed, which also happens to be radians over time, then won't this negate all tracking issues, and thus be a more accurate gauge of your ability to hit the target?
Atius Tirawa Minmatar Wreckless Abandon G00DFELLAS	Posted - 2008.11.03 04:55:00 - [2] I used to put 'transversal' in the overview, these days I use angular more. Angular is 'pre-math transversal' as far as I see it. Problem is the numbers change too quickly to really serve as an exact tool. -----------
Karch Caldari Celestial Apocalypse	Posted - 2008.11.03 08:05:00 - [3] I would go with angular. Even though the numbers change rapidly, you can use it as a guide to help you manually steer your ship and better learn how to do so to gain an overall effectiveness to your turret's tracking. This will probably help more with the agility changes with the speed nerf / Quarntum Rise expansion. -------------------------------------- I dont care to be the best, but I intend to be great at all things!
Hesod Adee Federal Defence Union	Posted - 2008.11.03 08:39:00 - [4] Edited by: Hesod Adee on 03/11/2008 08:40:49 Originally by: Lego Maniac on the other hand, angular velocity is measured in radians over time; if this number is lower than your turret's tracking speed, which also happens to be radians over time, then won't this negate all tracking issues, and thus be a more accurate gauge of your ability to hit the target? Yes. Angular velocity is the better measure because it is the measurement your turrets operate on. Angular velocity is the rate at which the targets position in the sky is changing from your perspective. To stay pointing at it, the turrets must rotate at that speed. To avoid their turret first, you want your angular velocity to exceed their turrets tracking speed. If you draw a line between you and the target, the transversal velocity is the component of their velocity that is perpendicular to that line. Then again altering the transversal velocity while keeping the distance constant will alter the angular velocity by the same factor. Get closer while keeping transversal velocity constant, angular velocity increases. Originally by: Atius Tirawa I used to put 'transversal' in the overview, these days I use angular more. Angular is 'pre-math transversal' as far as I see it. Actually, it's much more likely that the transversal velocity is used to calculate the angular velocity. Angular velocity = transversal velocity / distance Quote: Problem is the numbers change too quickly to really serve as an exact tool. It's still more reliable than transversal, because distance is an important factor which isn't factored into transversal but is factored into angular. ---------------------------------------------- I support skill queues.
Cpt Branko Surge.	Posted - 2008.11.03 09:11:00 - [5] Edited by: Cpt Branko on 03/11/2008 09:12:28 Angular velocity saves you from the need to watch both your transversal and distance (which produce angular velocity to begin with) and is the measure turret tracking is expressed in the first place (rad/sec). I use it personally - but I don't find myself watching it all that often, because I can generally gauge my chances to hit a certain target by watching distance + velocity (bearing in mind what the target is). I would definitely keep it rather then transversal velocity, however - or ditch both altogether and just work with velocity (assuming that you're generally operating in the worst case scenario, meaning that most of their velocity is transversal) + distance if overview clutter is worrying you. As a rule, if angular = tracking and sig resolution v sig size match, you have a 50% chance to hit. I used to pilot frigates a lot so I learned the moves which give me the least chances to be hit, and generally just focus on actually piloting the ship and watching what the other pilot is doing rather then watching transversal/angular velocity on overview. Most of the time it's just a distraction really, since I'm already trying to maximize angular velocity to start with. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Burn Mac Minmatar The Tuskers	Posted - 2008.11.03 09:12:00 - [6] i still think its weird that a ship orbitting a near stationary target has just as high angular velocity for its turrets as the ship orbitting. And no matter how far/close a target with a certain sig radius is its size still applies the same calculation. I.e. a static small target is just as hard to hit with large guns at optimal as it is just outside of the barrel.
Cpt Branko Surge.	Posted - 2008.11.03 09:19:00 - [7] Originally by: Burn Mac i still think its weird that a ship orbitting a near stationary target has just as high angular velocity for its turrets as the ship orbitting. And no matter how far/close a target with a certain sig radius is its size still applies the same calculation. I.e. a static small target is just as hard to hit with large guns at optimal as it is just outside of the barrel. Mmmm. The tracking formula has some weird results. One of its problems is the fact that size is not modified by proximity, while angular (of course) is. So you have absurd situations that you cannot hit a POS tower at 0m, even though it's really impossible to miss (try sticking a gun to the wall and missing your house - EVE says you should, heh). The fact that tracking works both ways is really a simplification for purposes of calculation, and a understandable one. I don't have a problem with that really. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Burn Mac Minmatar The Tuskers	Posted - 2008.11.03 09:26:00 - [8] Originally by: Cpt Branko Originally by: Burn Mac i still think its weird that a ship orbitting a near stationary target has just as high angular velocity for its turrets as the ship orbitting. And no matter how far/close a target with a certain sig radius is its size still applies the same calculation. I.e. a static small target is just as hard to hit with large guns at optimal as it is just outside of the barrel. Mmmm. The tracking formula has some weird results. One of its problems is the fact that size is not modified by proximity, while angular (of course) is. So you have absurd situations that you cannot hit a POS tower at 0m, even though it's really impossible to miss (try sticking a gun to the wall and missing your house - EVE says you should, heh). The fact that tracking works both ways is really a simplification for purposes of calculation, and a understandable one. I don't have a problem with that really. As a programmer i see its necessity, as a gamer i think its a bit meh. Relative tracking shouldnt be that hard but then again when i programme i tend to opt for the easier options as well. And if i want to be nittypicking in some angles only half of the ships turrets(actually just as many as the hardpoints) can hit while in some angles all of them can hit (double the amount of hardpoints). :D
Cpt Branko Surge.	Posted - 2008.11.03 09:39:00 - [9] Edited by: Cpt Branko on 03/11/2008 09:39:55 Originally by: Burn Mac As a programmer i see its necessity, as a gamer i think its a bit meh. Relative tracking shouldnt be that hard but then again when i programme i tend to opt for the easier options as well. Heh, likewise, which is why I say it's understandable. Originally by: Burn Mac And if i want to be nittypicking in some angles only half of the ships turrets(actually just as many as the hardpoints) can hit while in some angles all of them can hit (double the amount of hardpoints). :D Well, visually, it appears you have in fact 2* the turrets then on the fitting screen. Eg, when I fit 3 guns on my Rifter I see 6 actual guns, so 3 should be able to fire at any angle... the only problem is, at some angles, all 6 should be able to fire and they don't. It would be interesting in a way to make firing angles actually matter, but I know I would definitely not want to be the guy coding that and making sure it runs smoothly on TQ when there is a bunch of ships which are constantly changing their velocity vectors. Besides, even ship models would be a balance factor then, imagine the whining about that part Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Cpt Obviously	Posted - 2008.11.03 09:44:00 - [10] Originally by: Burn Mac And if i want to be nittypicking in some angles only half of the ships turrets(actually just as many as the hardpoints) can hit while in some angles all of them can hit (double the amount of hardpoints). :D Visible turrets != Hardpoints. ------------------------------ Always stating the obviously
Amira Shadowsong Caldari	Posted - 2008.11.03 10:52:00 - [11] Why complicate things: Angular velocity is simply better then transversal. Why? Angular velocity > your gun tracking will mean you lose hit chance while Angular velocity < your gun tracking will mean you hit without penalty Transversal velocity tell you nothing because it does not take into account the range to the target so you have to do it in your head wich is silly when you have alternative to look at angular velocity directly that already takes that into account basically.
Cpt Branko Surge.	Posted - 2008.11.03 11:00:00 - [12] Originally by: Amira Shadowsong Angular velocity > your gun tracking will mean you lose hit chance while Angular velocity < your gun tracking will mean you hit without penalty While I agree with your post in general, it is not this simple. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
iudex Caldari State Protectorate	Posted - 2008.11.03 16:25:00 - [13] Very interesting thread, since the missile ships are about to be nerfed to death, we caldaris have to switch for turrets and learn all this new stuff about turrets & tracking. Btw, is it true that tracking rigs don't stack against tracking modules, while tracking is combined with sig radius into one formula, so that a mega with 3 tracking rigs and 3 tracking modules with scripts could hit cruiser- and even frigate sized ships for full damage in many situations ? _________________________________________ Faction Standings: Serpentis +7.81 // Angel Cartel +7.60 // Minmatar Republic -8.68 // Gallente Federation -9.88
Cpt Branko Surge.	Posted - 2008.11.03 16:32:00 - [14] Edited by: Cpt Branko on 03/11/2008 16:32:54 Originally by: iudex Very interesting thread, since the missile ships are about to be nerfed to death, we caldaris have to switch for turrets and learn all this new stuff about turrets & tracking. Not really nerfed to death, no. Caldari will actually be somewhat (significantly actually) superior for firing their main weapons at one size smaller targets in webrange, provided you fit a web (where turrets will still do 0 damage). Originally by: iudex Btw, is it true that tracking rigs don't stack against tracking modules, while tracking is combined with sig radius into one formula, so that a mega with 3 tracking rigs and 3 tracking modules with scripts could hit cruiser- and even frigate sized ships for full damage in many situations ? Cruisers, well, not really (and 3 tracking modules/rigs would heavily mess up your setup), not without dual webs on top of that. Try orbiting a stationary Megathron at 500 metres on TQ under a single 90% web in a HAC/cruiser - it will miss all the time. The web nerf insures they have 400% better transversal, so buffing your tracking by 150-ish% will not do much at all. The kicker is the scrambler - it prevents you, under mutually webbed/scrambled situations, from gaining range on the target and therefore lowering transversal. Previously you could force a HAC to either follow and drop its transversal to 0 or MWD and provide you with a 550% tracking boost (bloat their sig), which is the key tactic which enables you to shred HACs/etc on TQ (unless they have 2-3 webs on you, then you just die if your drones don't menage to kill the targets) and no longer works. What will work for solo, BS-wise, are neut+drone ships. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
iudex Caldari State Protectorate	Posted - 2008.11.03 16:49:00 - [15] Somehow i can't see the superiority of missiles, cruise missiles e.g. have been nerfed accross the board, on SiSi they deal 40% less damage on a battelship moving 340m/s while currently its full damage even at 700m/s, i think thats a huge nerf, but ok not going to hijack the thread for that topic. So how about the mega with tracking mods and rigs in a standard situation at gates, random stuff 15-20km away, not orbiting but moving in random directions. I had a 350mm railgun rokh with 4 magstabs, 3 tracking mods in medslots and 2-3 tracking rigs in mind, to be used in faction warfare fleets mainly at ranges of 0-90km with faction antimatter. After update everything should go slower than before, means even better hitchances against random ships that are not orbiting me in particular. For example the standard gate-fights in lowsec, when one fleet jumped into another. That max tracking setup should "yarr" even against smaller ships ? _________________________________________ Faction Standings: Serpentis +7.81 // Angel Cartel +7.60 // Minmatar Republic -8.68 // Gallente Federation -9.88
Ka Jolo The Tuskers	Posted - 2008.11.04 04:48:00 - [16] There's a lot of talk about "transversal" because there didn't used to be the "angular" option. People used transversal velocity as a figure that indicated a ship's angular velocity, interested in the tracking of their turrets. Once angular velocity was introduced, the forums were already full of threads saying to "put transversal velocity on your overview" and whatnot. Angular velocity is the column you want now.
Ghengis Tia	Posted - 2008.11.04 15:51:00 - [17] Maelstrom w/1400 II's. I usually try to keep transversal velocity below 60-70 m/sec, as my dps seems to be maximized. What then would the equivalent angular velocity number be if I were to switch my overview from transversal to angular? I have Trajectory Analysis IV, if that helps.
Crellion Art of War Exalted.	Posted - 2008.11.04 16:35:00 - [18] Edited by: Crellion on 04/11/2008 16:35:31 I am sorry to disillusion people but while it would appear right for the tracking formula to operate on angular velocity it does not.It operates a lot closer to transversal. BS guns for example will fail to hit an interceptor moving at speed at a small angle because the transversal remains in the thousands even though the angular is negligible. I know but in real life angular and transversal are in theory merely facets of each other in EvE they appear to be arrived at by different equations and the trackingformula appears to be affected by the transversal rather than the angular. Hence while I agree that tracking in RL is better monitored through angular in eve it is bettermonitored (IMO) through transversal...hasnt failed me yet... However ALWAYS monitor speed at the same time because it shows youif mwdis active. For example if shooting at a ceptor at 150km and it's speed is 6k and transversal 200m then his ass is yours...if his speed is 750 and it's transversal is 200m better forget about it... Arguably my opinions represent to an extent the opinions of my alliance and in particular circumstances give rise to a valid "casus belli" claim.
Gartel Reiman Civis Romanus Sum TRUST Coalition	Posted - 2008.11.04 17:38:00 - [19] Originally by: Crellion I am sorry to disillusion people but while it would appear right for the tracking formula to operate on angular velocity it does not.It operates a lot closer to transversal. That's just 100% wrong. The tracking formula operates entirely on angular velocity. You can try it yourself in the tracking guide, or in-game - you'll have exactly the same chance to hit on a the same target with 100m/s transversal at 10km, 200m/s transversal at 20km, etc. Quote: BS guns for example will fail to hit an interceptor moving at speed at a small angle because the transversal remains in the thousands even though the angular is negligible. If the transversal really was in the thousands then the angular wouldn't really be negligible. Don't forget that the unit of angular velocity (radians second) is really big - 1 rad/s is tracking an entire circle in 3.14 seconds. So while an angular velocity of 0.01 might look negligible, that's hardly the case in actuality. Especially when you consider that the low sig radius of the interceptor (getting as low as 120m with the MWD on) is much smaller than the sig resolution of the guns (400m) and thus acts as a 3x multiplier in the tracking formula. To have a 50% chance of hitting such an interceptor with 1400 arties, the interceptor would have to have an angular velocity of 0.003 rad/s. Thus even 0.01 rad/s is more than three times faster than your tracking and you'll miss a lot (though you stand a reasonable chance of instapopping the inty with a wrecking hit). At 0.05 rad/s angular you have absolutely no chance in hell to hit the inty that's about 15 times faster than your guns' tracking. So angular works, as long as you remember to factor in the sig radius/sig resolution multiplier. And don't write off a 0.0something angular as negligible. If you're looking to add a column to determine if tracking is the reason you're not hitting, then angular velocity is the better one to use. Personally, as with Branko, I find that once you've got used to the various situations you generally get a feel for how well certain weapons track, so don't need transversal or angular to make the judgement call (and it's not like you're going to do actual maths in combat).
Derek Sigres	Posted - 2008.11.04 18:19:00 - [20] If the transversal really was in the thousands then the angular wouldn't really be negligible. Don't forget that the unit of angular velocity (radians second) is really big - 1 rad/s is tracking an entire circle in 3.14 seconds. A circle has 6.28 (technically it's 2 pi radians). Radians are a more absolute measurement of distance around the circumfrence of a circle because a radian varies as the radius of the circle changes. Nost people are more comfortable with degrees as a form of measurement until they take trigonometry and realize that the degree system of measurement is nothing but a pain in the ass. 30%'s for example is 1/6 pi radians (or, for a less accurate number about .52 radians). Thus a tracking of .52 rad/s indicates your turrets can reliably track a target moving 30 degrees across the starscape in the spae of a second. Since the actual effect obviously varies with distance, a good point to keep in mind when determining how fast of a target you can hit is to realize that a radian is literally the distance from you to the target. Thus, a .52 rad/s tracking speed means that at say 10 km, you can track a target moving at 5.2 km/s.
Agor Dirdonen	Posted - 2008.11.05 21:45:00 - [21] Edited by: Agor Dirdonen on 05/11/2008 21:46:16 I prefer transversal as I also use that column to see what my target is doing relatively to me. Big baddy with high speed but low transversal probably means he's coming directly at me. It takes to long to watch the changes in the distance to see what he's doing and then it can already be too late to take the correct action. For me, 'transversal' instantly tells me the situation and I can take action. This is much harder with angular velocity. Anyway, if my transversal towards my target is small, angular will be small too. I don't need to see the angular to know when I'll hit or when I'll miss. With angular you have to know your turret's tracking values also so you will use reference values as well.

Pages: [1] :: 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.