EVE Search - Physics in EVE Online (University assignment, please answer!)

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Physics in EVE Online (University assignment, please answer!)

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 2 post(s)
Baal Aristaeus Caldari The Collective Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2008.11.05 11:57:00 - [1] Hi my fellow podders and podd..ed? I am currently working on a quite extensive report regarding physics in EVE Online. So far I believe I've been able to sum up the biggest ballbusters, so to speak; the max velocity, faster than light speeds and all that. However, there are a few things that I need some help with, and could use some input! 1. ON the topic of max velocity, why did CCP put it in at all? Other than the fact that it would ruin game balance. There has to be some other reason as well? 2. Moving planets and moons in solar systems. Why does not planets, moons, stations, asteroid belts and rotate around their respective pivot point? What I mean is; for example planets rotate around their own axis, but not around the sun. Why is this? Would appriciate any and all (serious? :P) answers! Thank you all! PS. Random comments are also cool... Baal Aristaeus eats horses..
Mallikanth	Posted - 2008.11.05 12:03:00 - [2] 1. It's there because the game mechanics go a little awry when "extreme" speeds are introduced. The exact wording can be found in a fairly recent dev blog about the speed nerfs I believe. 2. Moving planets etc in orbits introduces more maths, more updates, more lag I would presume. Also warping to planet x would be a bit problematic (not impossible but more work) because the planet is in orbit and not a fixed position. 3. I like pie. 4. With beer. 5. And Cake (No lie).
Lord Haur Amarr Imperial Academy	Posted - 2008.11.05 12:05:00 - [3] Short answer: 1) game balance. Also shouldn't a small speedboat (interceptor) be able to move faster than a cruise liner (battleship)? 2) It's simpler. Means they can denote locations using a standard x/y/z system, without having to deal with things moving within that. Long Answer: /me calls in the physics experts and CCP devs --- Sig Starts Here --- Lord Haur - Imperial Academy Logistical Support
Ishihiro tanaka Amarr Association of Freelance Agentrunner	Posted - 2008.11.05 12:07:00 - [4] As stated above, all the calculations in combat are done server side and indeed, high speeds tend to screw around the formulae to such an extend that it gets ridiculous. Planets and so orbiting will give problems in the database since all thing anchored around planets, moons and stations need their positions updated every now an than which is, again, a server side issue and increases valuable CPU usage. I like beer also, get me a ticket to island and Ill buy you one @ fanfest :) It's dirt cheap there hahahaha .. ... .... .. .... .. .-. --- - .- -. .- -.- .- A bullet, Laser beam or Plasma charge may have your name on it..... A Smartbomb or Shrapnel is adressed "To whom it may concern"...
Baal Aristaeus Caldari The Collective Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2008.11.05 12:13:00 - [5] Thanks guys! Regarding the Orbit and stuff, I had pretty much tought of that too.. Orbit would complicate things alot. As for max velocity, what kind of speeds are we talking about here? And yes! I'd forgotten about the thing with damage and hit calculations and that the targets speed was used in the calculation! /BAal Baal Aristaeus eats horses..
Asestorian Federation of Freedom Fighters Executive Outcomes	Posted - 2008.11.05 12:16:00 - [6] Speed is a game mechanic, so they have to keep it limited for the balance of the game, even if there were no technical limitations. Unfortunately, there do also seem to be technical limitations to EVE's speed/physics engine. There really is no other reason for it. As for the planets/moons, I seem to remember a dev explaining why they didn't move. They couldn't find a reason for it in a game sense, so they decided to remove a little bit of realism so that they didn't have to do any extra coding or add a little bit more load to their servers. Basically, the answer to both is: EVE is a game. --- Originally by: CCP Atropos Destiny Balls
Lord Haur Amarr Imperial Academy	Posted - 2008.11.05 12:17:00 - [7] AFAIK, pre-speed nerf, the MAX top speed for a maxxed out interceptor pilot (or possibly Vaga with oversized MWD) with implants, rigs, maxxed claymore pilot in gang etc. etc. was about 50-60km/s. Admittedly, this is increadibly rare, the formulae probably start breaking around the 10-20km/s mark. --- Sig Starts Here --- Lord Haur - Imperial Academy Logistical Support
Baal Aristaeus Caldari The Collective Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2008.11.05 12:22:00 - [8] Hmm, 60km/s? that's insane... Imagine if there were no speed limit.. Everyone would accelerate till we were almost at light speed, trying to fight.. It would be impossible :P Baal Aristaeus eats horses..
IR Scoutar Caldari State War Academy	Posted - 2008.11.05 12:24:00 - [9] thats gona be a short short report... eve doesnt have any physics it has a few things that try to make up for the lack of physics but in general theyr all broken and useless wich in allot of cases is actualy a good thing because it would introduce too many cpu cycles simply for calculations like that to your questions 1) max velocity is always a game balance / calculations formula kind of thing most of these things work well in a narrow band of numbers but once you exeed that band it all does wrong because its not trying to be close to real as possible it trys to be as efficient as possible in a game envelope and if you got spare cpu time left you sometimes crank up the realism but in most cases you start off with an engine with more function but as development progresses you see that you have to disable or simple dont continue to develop more and more fuctions because they simply break the envisoned game or open up too many can of worms sotospeak 2) every entity must be constantly updated if you want a x y z reference (wich is easyest and most efficient to work with) wich eats allot of cpu cycles and only gets worse the more entitys there are aditionaly its just game fun breaking because your x y z reference bookmarks are x y z points in space not x y z points on an orbit thats constantly changing so bookmarks would be pointless wich is again game breaking all in all its too much hassle to put it simply
Tzar'rim	Posted - 2008.11.05 12:28:00 - [10] ^ What he said.

Qui Shon	Posted - 2008.11.05 12:34:00 - [11] Originally by: IR Scoutar thats gona be a short short report... eve doesnt have any physics it has a few things that try to make up for the lack of physics but in general theyr all broken and useless What I was going to say. But I'd have used proper capitalization at least. Hmpf.
Kenpachi Viktor Gradient Electus Matari	Posted - 2008.11.05 12:35:00 - [12] 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrange_points
Bimjo Caldari Domination. Sc0rched Earth	Posted - 2008.11.05 12:43:00 - [13] another physics item that is not like in RL for you to note : Inertia. a small ship can bump a titan,where as if in real life a BS hit a titan the titan should only be nudged ever so slightly and not spun out of a pos's forcefield
Baal Aristaeus Caldari The Collective Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2008.11.05 12:44:00 - [14] I feel I need to clearify :P I am writing about where EVE breaks todays Laws of physics :P Have about 10 pages so far! :) /BAal PS: Appriciate the anwers, keep them coming! Baal Aristaeus eats horses..
Rodj Blake Amarr PIE Inc.	Posted - 2008.11.05 12:46:00 - [15] The simple answer to both questions is that it's easier to program things that way. Dulce et decorum est pro imperium mori.
Bimjo Caldari Domination. Sc0rched Earth	Posted - 2008.11.05 12:46:00 - [16] also how a ship turns in space, in eve the way a ship turns seems very "Atmospheric" , like a curve, in our atmosphere,which i doubt is the best way of doing it in a near vacuum,even with dozen's of thrusters all over the ship
Bimjo Caldari Domination. Sc0rched Earth	Posted - 2008.11.05 12:52:00 - [17] a ship coming out of cloak makes a noise that you hear in your ship going through planets and objects when you warp lag(there isn't any in RL) how ships(in space view,not overview) suddenly disappear when you leave a grid,instead of just getting fainter and fainter hybrid ammo hitting instantaneously,no matter the distance missiles,when a missile is on the way to a target,and the target is destroyed before missile gets to it,the missile veers off sideways no windows or external cameras in stations
Furb Killer Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2008.11.05 12:54:00 - [18] They could change at every downtime the positions of all orbital stuff. Would be quite some processor cycles probably and reprogramming (assuming now pos locations are absolute, they need to be made relative to the planets position). And when they are finally done with that wrangler would see a group of very angry players who do exploration.
Baal Aristaeus Caldari The Collective Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2008.11.05 13:05:00 - [19] Originally by: Bimjo another physics item that is not like in RL for you to note : Inertia. a small ship can bump a titan,where as if in real life a BS hit a titan the titan should only be nudged ever so slightly and not spun out of a pos's forcefield lol! way to hint at what happened xD Baal Aristaeus eats horses..
Baal Aristaeus Caldari The Collective Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2008.11.05 13:08:00 - [20] I have included the sound in EVE in my report :P personally I don't see the point of planets actually orbiting the sun etc.. but hey, some people might! /BAal Baal Aristaeus eats horses..

Battlecheese Caldari Black Knight Buccaneers Strength in Numbers.	Posted - 2008.11.05 13:08:00 - [21] Originally by: IR Scoutar 2) every entity must be constantly updated if you want a x y z reference (wich is easyest and most efficient to work with) wich eats allot of cpu cycles and only gets worse the more entitys there are aditionaly its just game fun breaking because your x y z reference bookmarks are x y z points in space not x y z points on an orbit thats constantly changing so bookmarks would be pointless wich is again game breaking Actually, you might be surprised to find out how fast a computer could recalculate a few thousand solar systems. Updateing planet/moon/pos/stargate positions slightly every downtime would have been a groovy way for them to fix the bookmark problem, rather than warp20.
Asestorian Federation of Freedom Fighters Executive Outcomes	Posted - 2008.11.05 13:14:00 - [22] The sound of EVE is explained by the capsule creating sound for you, to help you be aware of what's going on (not that anyone really uses that of course), rather than there being actual sound in space, by the way --- Originally by: CCP Atropos Destiny Balls

CCP RyanD Caldari C C P	Posted - 2008.11.05 13:21:00 - [23] The answer to both of your questions is "game design choices". By limiting the amount of movement and the speed of movement we are able to control the amount of data that has to transit between clients and the server, which is one of the architectural reasons EVE can support 10x larger fleet fights than all the other MMOs. The tradeoff is less realism. This was deemed an acceptable tradeoff early in EVE's design and it remains acceptable today. RyanD

The Tzar Malicious Intentions	Posted - 2008.11.05 13:29:00 - [24] Originally by: Baal Aristaeus Hmm, 60km/s? that's insane... Imagine if there were no speed limit.. Everyone would accelerate till we were almost at light speed, trying to fight.. It would be impossible :P Unless you were amarr of course... __________________________________________ 'Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear intelligent until they speak' __________________________________________

CCP Lingorm C C P	Posted - 2008.11.05 13:35:00 - [25] On the topic of EVE's "Physics Engine", it is not a Newtonian Physics Engine, it is actually based on a Fluid Dynamics Engine, assuming that Space has some substance to it and thus if you turn of the Engine you will slowdown form the friction of the 'stuff'. RyanD has given you the Reasons this was chosen (Game Design and Network Communications). But if you look at EVE's physics from a Fluid Dynamics formula you will find that it is a lot more accurate (it is actually a nifty bit of coding to get it right). CCP Lingorm CCP Quality Assurance QA Engineering Team Leader Originally by: Lord Fitz Eve is to WoW as Wow is to an 8 player game of Unreal Tournament.

Baal Aristaeus Caldari The Collective Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2008.11.05 13:38:00 - [26] Ouuh? A dev! Appriciate you all taking the time to help me out with this, ya'll has been great! PS: I'm adding you to my Appendix, RyanD! Baal Aristaeus eats horses..
Winterblink Body Count Inc.	Posted - 2008.11.05 13:46:00 - [27] Originally by: CCP Lingorm On the topic of EVE's "Physics Engine", it is not a Newtonian Physics Engine, it is actually based on a Fluid Dynamics Engine, assuming that Space has some substance to it and thus if you turn of the Engine you will slowdown form the friction of the 'stuff'. RyanD has given you the Reasons this was chosen (Game Design and Network Communications). But if you look at EVE's physics from a Fluid Dynamics formula you will find that it is a lot more accurate (it is actually a nifty bit of coding to get it right). Easier to market the game too, with catchy phrases like "Come on in, the water's fine!" ... runs warp drive active \| nature vraie
Baal Aristaeus Caldari The Collective Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2008.11.05 13:51:00 - [28] HAHA! That was ace, man! :D Baal Aristaeus eats horses..
Irulan S'Dijana Amarr Imperial Academy	Posted - 2008.11.05 13:52:00 - [29] Originally by: Winterblink Originally by: CCP Lingorm On the topic of EVE's "Physics Engine", it is not a Newtonian Physics Engine, it is actually based on a Fluid Dynamics Engine, assuming that Space has some substance to it and thus if you turn of the Engine you will slowdown form the friction of the 'stuff'. RyanD has given you the Reasons this was chosen (Game Design and Network Communications). But if you look at EVE's physics from a Fluid Dynamics formula you will find that it is a lot more accurate (it is actually a nifty bit of coding to get it right). Easier to market the game too, with catchy phrases like "Come on in, the water's fine!" ... runs Your licence to post is hereby revoked.
Chaos Incarnate Faceless Logistics	Posted - 2008.11.05 13:53:00 - [30] You mean to say my internet spaceships are really internet submarines?! Aww _____________________ The unofficial faceless Achura alt of EVE Online

Lana Lanee	Posted - 2008.11.05 13:58:00 - [31] Originally by: Chaos Incarnate You mean to say my internet spaceships are really internet submarines?! Aww sub=under marine=sea, water, ocean hence under water boat-submarine space=... ship=... hence space ship is accurate! like duh!
FlameGlow Legio Octae Rebellion Alliance	Posted - 2008.11.05 14:03:00 - [32] Originally by: Chaos Incarnate You mean to say my internet spaceships are really internet submarines?! Aww No, just that EVE space is full of liquid vacuum _____________ I don't care what is nerfed, as long as it's not my "undock" button.
Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue	Posted - 2008.11.05 14:04:00 - [33] Originally by: FlameGlow Originally by: Chaos Incarnate You mean to say my internet spaceships are really internet submarines?! Aww No, just that EVE space is full of liquid vacuum Vacuum? No wonder space is sucky. Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam. [Vid] I M M O R T A L
Xenomorphea Gallente	Posted - 2008.11.05 14:04:00 - [34] Indeed, most "EVE physics" behaviors in game are in direct contraddiction of all known "natural laws". Some simplifications might help reduce calculations, some are imho totally unnecessary and in fact take away from interesting game-play aspects. For example: 1. Line of sight - Projectiles, beams etc. should not travel right through massive objects such as stations, asteroids, and other ships. To properly calculate line of sight and occlusions would certainly add more CPU load on the server, but would also make "dogfights" in asteroid fields way more interesting, and allow for tactical aspects of combat such as flying behind the station or beneath a motehrship to avoid enemy fire. Guided missiles could, however, avoid objects and occlusions at the expense of longer travel time and ev. less damage. 2. Bumping and ships that "intersect" one another, instead of proper collision detection (which works just fine in other games, for example in Freelancer). I know the argument: if you could bump and do damage using a small ship at a higher speed, EVE would turn in a huge game of bowling. 3. Warp to planet at 0 - why does that have to be at a "single point in space", where in fact you could warp to any orbit you might want to choose, and still be hundreds of thousands (or millions) KM away from other ships, which are ALSO orbiting that planet. "Warp to lagrange point between A and B" would make more sense, as that is indeed a very restricted location. 4. Max speed - the only "known" max speed in space, is that of light (300,000 km/s). Even our rudimentary chemical rocket powered spaceships are faster than most EVE spaceships, with the Space Shuttle orbiting Earth at approx 8 km/sec, and the Voyager probe (built in 1977) leaving our solar system at 16,5 km/sec. In practice, as in space there is no friction, a ship will accellerate as long as you apply propulsion to it. So a heavy tanked BS could theoretically reach the same speeds of an interceptor, but would take much longer to accellerate (due to way higher mass to propulsion ratio) and also take much longer to slow down, change direction, etc. Combat would be incredibly realistic and tough, and a lot of variety would be introduced if ships would behave in a "natural" way. You could accelerate a BS to 20 km/s but not only would enemy ships be unable to hit you, you would also be unable to track any enemy ship with your guns. So in practice you would have to reduce your speed to a point where the tracking of your turrets is sufficient to hit your opponent. Game mechanics of some other space games which are still in development work this way. Cheers, Xeno
Hoshi Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2008.11.05 14:13:00 - [35] If I remember correctly there where actually a dev answer to question 2 a while ago. It went something like this: (not a real quote, just paraphrased from memory) "It was considered but it was decided that it wouldn't actually add anything to the game, on the other hand it would remove lot of things like familiarity with your home systems, tactical planning based on how the system looks and it would also brake bookmarks." ---------------------------------------- A Guide to Scan Probing in Revelations
Chaos Incarnate Faceless Logistics	Posted - 2008.11.05 14:23:00 - [36] Originally by: FlameGlow No, just that EVE space is full of liquid vacuum It's the ether, isn't it? Also, to the OP: There's definitely a lot of reasons to not have speed uncapped, but I think it's just easier to work with for the majority of situations (both players and developerwise) _____________________ The unofficial faceless Achura alt of EVE Online
Chaos Incarnate Faceless Logistics	Posted - 2008.11.05 14:38:00 - [37] Originally by: Xenomorphea 1. Line of sight - Projectiles, beams etc. should not travel right through massive objects such as stations, asteroids, and other ships. To properly calculate line of sight and occlusions would certainly add more CPU load on the server, but would also make "dogfights" in asteroid fields way more interesting, and allow for tactical aspects of combat such as flying behind the station or beneath a motehrship to avoid enemy fire. Guided missiles could, however, avoid objects and occlusions at the expense of longer travel time and ev. less damage. Oldschool DS used to answer these, but I'll steal his non-posting thunder. The problem with things like line of sight calculations is that they're pretty CPU intensive; the calculations that need to be done increase significantly based upon the number of objects on the grid. For example, 100 ships are shooting 100 others. Each shot by one of those requires the server to do calculations for line-of-sight checking against the other 198 players (excluding the particular pair of target and targeted), for all 200 ships shooting each other on grid. That'd mean ~40000 extra LOS calculations - as in, for a fleet size of n, something around n^2 calculations would have to be done in order to provide LOS. There are better ways I think of simulating LOS that aren't so CPU intensive, if it really needs to be done _____________________ The unofficial faceless Achura alt of EVE Online
Doctor Remulak	Posted - 2008.11.05 14:40:00 - [38] Goodness, is this what "higher education" has deteriorated into? Reports about games. Scary.
Haradgrim Tyrell Corp INTERDICTION	Posted - 2008.11.05 14:41:00 - [39] Originally by: CCP Lingorm On the topic of EVE's "Physics Engine", it is not a Newtonian Physics Engine, it is actually based on a Fluid Dynamics Engine, assuming that Space has some substance to it and thus if you turn of the Engine you will slowdown form the friction of the 'stuff'. RyanD has given you the Reasons this was chosen (Game Design and Network Communications). But if you look at EVE's physics from a Fluid Dynamics formula you will find that it is a lot more accurate (it is actually a nifty bit of coding to get it right). IIRC, the RP reason behind it was that the warp drives of ships in EVE "drag" on sub-space or something... -- Originally by: CCP Oveur Just donæt forget the reach-around.
Spike 68 Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated	Posted - 2008.11.05 15:08:00 - [40] Originally by: Chaos Incarnate You mean to say my internet spaceships are really internet submarines?! Fire Torpedoes 1 and 4!

sg3s Battlestars GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.11.05 15:27:00 - [41] Originally by: Baal Aristaeus Hi my fellow podders and podd..ed? I am currently working on a quite extensive report regarding physics in EVE Online. So far I believe I've been able to sum up the biggest ballbusters, so to speak; the max velocity, faster than light speeds and all that. However, there are a few things that I need some help with, and could use some input! First of all, please remember that this is eve, and not real life... And you can find 'scientific' articles about how stuff works within eve in the back story section of this site. They explain it some detail how faster than light works and how stargates suposedly work etc... Originally by: Baal Aristaeus 1. ON the topic of max velocity, why did CCP put it in at all? Other than the fact that it would ruin game balance. There has to be some other reason as well? This is most likely a pure practical desision having to do both with gameplay and simply limitations to coding languages... In almost all 3d engines you will notice severe problems when things go too fast, glitches will start apearing etc... For example one of the first 'fixes' of missiles was trying to speed them up but that made their system do 'weird stuff' so basically they slowed everything else down :p From a gameplay point of view, it's way easier to design a game and it's 'rules' arround static figures rather than something that could virtually go on forever... and it would really be hard to balance anything in an environment like that... It would be interesting to see how one would handle the realistic physics in space but it is simply too hard to make 'fair' I'd say... Originally by: Baal Aristaeus 2. Moving planets and moons in solar systems. Why does not planets, moons, stations, asteroid belts and rotate around their respective pivot point? What I mean is; for example planets rotate around their own axis, but not around the sun. Why is this? Would appriciate any and all (serious? :P) answers! Thank you all! PS. Random comments are also cool... I think they did actually have this however I'm not so sure.. Just read this somewhere myself and I cannot remember where... What I do remember is that I've never seen a clear answer to this... I've seen speculation about how it would be unnecessary load on the system and you would hardly notice it happening. An other argument was that it would technically be too hard to implement dynamic warp in points (planets, moons, stations etc)... Originally by: Tarminic Because even when EVE sucks, it sucks less than every other MMO out there.
Darina Rea Naqam Exalted.	Posted - 2008.11.05 15:32:00 - [42] Originally by: Xenomorphea 2. Bumping and ships that "intersect" one another, instead of proper collision detection (which works just fine in other games, for example in Freelancer). I know the argument: if you could bump and do damage using a small ship at a higher speed, EVE would turn in a huge game of bowling. Just an addendum to this. If you would get damage by bumping then it would you can (potentially) blow your ship up when flying into something to fast. Think about an interceptor bumping a titan for example. The titan would be hit by a frigate going the speed of a rocket and the 'ceptor would've gone 'splat' on impact. A second consideration you would face is that a big ship can't stop fast. If you'd fly two titans into eachother (note, I have no idea why you would want to do this) both would be crumpled at the front end before they managed to stop and reverse. There is only one speed thing I can think of that is a little awkward. There is no reverse except when frontally bumping into something. _________ Time is on our side.
sg3s Battlestars GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.11.05 15:33:00 - [43] Originally by: Chaos Incarnate You mean to say my internet spaceships are really internet submarines?! Aww Holy crap, you didn't notice the water like features of eve?... Man you're horrible. You're also beating a dead horse here, the joke isn't funny anymore. Originally by: Tarminic Because even when EVE sucks, it sucks less than every other MMO out there.
Thuranni B and D	Posted - 2008.11.05 16:07:00 - [44] What kind of university asks people to do reports on the physics of computer games?
Daedalus II	Posted - 2008.11.05 16:45:00 - [45] I must say I prefer this kind of physics, I mean how stupid would some ships look like with just as big engines (for stopping) in the front as in the back? On that note, technically I think it should be possible to have unlimited speed as long as it's not in fights. So how to keep the speed down in just fights? The ships own inertia will do that for us. At very high speeds you could do little more than just blasting straight ahead (imagine the energy needed to change direction). So one could ask oneself; really how dangerous is an interceptor that blasts through a fleet fight in 1563km/s? It will take it hours to get up to that speed, it can't hit anything, it won't see anything, it can't change direction and it will take it hours to slow down again! So the speeds will be held down anyway, just not due to a speed limit. Heh imagine all the funny overshots in a lvl 4 mission where you have to get your battleship 80 km to a gate, you would have to start breaking at 40km or miss So it would be possible I think, but quite unplayable.
IceAero Amarr Shadow Company Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.11.05 16:50:00 - [46] mmm fluid dynamics, it's what I do for a living in and out of EvE I like to explain the whole 'underwater effect' as being due to warp drives. That somehow the warp drive is an inertia/energy sink that always resists translative motion. Kinda like the same way an object with high rotational inertia (gyroscope) will resist certain motions, and in turn the 'resistance' energy is converted into higher or lower rotational energy. So, big spaceship with its crazy warp drive, has to constantly overcome the drag the warp drive is inducing. Problem with this? Well in the context of reletivity, such a thing is completely impossible because of a frame of refrence discrepancy. yarrr, back to sub
Qui Shon	Posted - 2008.11.05 18:16:00 - [47] Edited by: Qui Shon on 05/11/2008 18:24:53 Edited by: Qui Shon on 05/11/2008 18:24:40 Originally by: Chaos Incarnate You mean to say my internet spaceships are really internet submarines?! Aww Yess, moving through oil. Originally by: Doctor Remulak Goodness, is this what "higher education" has deteriorated into? Reports about games. Scary. Kids these days.... In my day we..... Does sound mighty strange at university level. Maybe it's a soft science faculty. Oh my, I have been awfully negative today, Sorry about that. Will stop now.
anheuser Fairlight Corp FOUNDATI0N	Posted - 2008.11.05 18:41:00 - [48] To those asking why a uni course would be asking this: In the USA there are a lot of "gaming colleges". I've hired several graduates from them to work in my company (we don't do games, but we do a lot of heavy 3D realtime graphics). This is a fairly standard thing for them to and teach and ask about in the midrange courses. Gaming colleges tend to teach things that are about game design and less theoretical than your average comp sci course at a traditional university. Evaluating physics engines in existing game environments and why specific design choices were made, sounds like a normal thing to ask in these sorts of schools.
Qui Shon	Posted - 2008.11.05 19:28:00 - [49] Game design colleges? Man, I was born a decade too early. We didn't have none of that. Well, still don't of course, but at least you do.
Kweel Nakashyn Minmatar Aeden	Posted - 2008.11.05 19:44:00 - [50] Edited by: Kweel Nakashyn on 05/11/2008 19:45:44 Originally by: Baal Aristaeus 1. ON the topic of max velocity, why did CCP put it in at all? Other than the fact that it would ruin game balance. There has to be some other reason as well? Eve Online is a videogame. With a gameplay. And a game balance. You saw Typhoon flying at the same speeds of interceptors and before that you had Cavalery Ravens going at insane speeds... It's required for everybody to have fun. So I couldn't elude the "game balance" because it's for this particular point they used it. A bs is a slow boat, inties are fast flies, that is all. All got max speeds anyway, even in warp. Originally by: Baal Aristaeus 2. Moving planets and moons in solar systems. Why does not planets, moons, stations, asteroid belts and rotate around their respective pivot point? What I mean is; for example planets rotate around their own axis, but not around the sun. A GM answer last year/last 2 year was "Server load" (too lazy to find the link). 5000 systems with thousand of planet and dozens of thousand of moons make a lot of objets to update, even each downtime. I've got a master in physics (electronics) and the most beautiful detail I saw in the game is the redshift in front of your ship and the blueshift in the rear when you warp. Maybe I'm a nerd, but when I saw that, with the bladerunner like mood and the oldschool music, I said to myself : "OK. Hard Science-Fi. SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO COOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL !!!!!" :) Fetchez la vache !

Kweel Nakashyn Minmatar Aeden	Posted - 2008.11.05 19:54:00 - [51] Originally by: Baal Aristaeus I feel I need to clearify :P I am writing about where EVE breaks todays Laws of physics :P Have about 10 pages so far! :) /BAal PS: Appriciate the anwers, keep them coming! I think you would need hundreds. It's scifi. Did you mentioned the market ? Player buy and sell by themselves, NPC only sells by themselves, never buy by themselves (players need to sell to them, npc never comes and buy things even if they are billion and billions of people). Did you mentioned the pods that use no materials to be crafted ? Did you mentioned Amarr ? :) Fetchez la vache !
Yakkha	Posted - 2008.11.05 20:25:00 - [52] Originally by: Doctor Remulak Goodness, is this what "higher education" has deteriorated into? Reports about games. Scary. Probably for game design, not for physics major.
Fennicus Amarr Shoot To Thrill	Posted - 2008.11.05 22:10:00 - [53] Edited by: Fennicus on 05/11/2008 22:10:50 There is of course a way to explain the max velocities and why space feels like a fluid in a sci-fi way, and throw away the need for fuel in the process If you've ever read any Stephen Baxter, you should full well know the Xeelee's displacement drive (is supposed to) work by 'pushing' against the underlying space-time. If you haven't read any of his books, well, the Xeelee sequence is pretty good. Avoid the weird monkey-sex ones though. I don't think it would be ridiculous to surmise that the spaceships of EVE move through a similar method, and that this a) removes the need for refueling in some weird fashion, b) it explains why space feels 'sticky' (i.e. has viscosity) and has the maximum speed limits that it does. Though I don't think there's any theoretical basis for such a drive.
Oreo Mon Caldari Azylum Order of the Black Dragons	Posted - 2008.11.05 22:34:00 - [54] ok. correction for you : You are in no way going to be able to compare EvE Game rules to RL laws of physics. You are only going to be able to compare them to RL THEORIES OF PHYSICS. So this is a complete failure. Most probably you are a troll anyways. But I m gonna have to drop a note. Reasons? You are kidding right? - Once the Laws of Physics said the earth was a tray over the horn of an Ox. EvE contradicts that right? - Eve universe actually consists of small electrical charges that form imaginery ones and zeros and become graphics, and processes. This is the only Physical Law set EvE belongs. - Eve is Imaginery. - Tell me the laws of physics, when you can actually get to 250km/s speed. In theory you will go beyond it if you continue to exert force in paralel and hence accelerate. That may not be how. May be we dont know something that will contradict the idea. - Celestial objects actually move, but you cant see it. can you see the earth move? Well ok this may be a little iffy when you think of the fact that they are gonna move and change positions in time and you will realise it. BUT... - This is Eve. not the universe that we, the terrans(earthlings), live in. When you actually go there, and see that they are moving, I will accept that it is against Laws of Physics. AND... - I will accept that The Eve planets not revolving around their stars is against the laws of physics when you actually give me the proof that all the planets, moons and etc, in the universe (this will include the parts that we do not know yet.) revolve in their orbits. see body. You cant realy say Eve universe is against the laws of physics... What the hack, you cant realy say all the planets are freaking spherical. So Can I have your stuff? -------------------> Riding the missiles!
IgnisFatuus KIA Corp KIA Alliance	Posted - 2008.11.05 23:41:00 - [55] Edited by: IgnisFatuus on 05/11/2008 23:42:11 Originally by: Oreo Mon ok. correction for you : You are in no way going to be able to compare EvE Game rules to RL laws of physics. You are only going to be able to compare them to RL THEORIES OF PHYSICS. So this is a complete failure. Most probably you are a troll anyways. But I m gonna have to drop a note. Reasons? You are kidding right? troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll etc. you're trying to put across that you 'know science'. However, it is blatently ovbious that the opposite is true. you are getting an emo rage about symantics and lay-terms.
Fennicus Amarr Shoot To Thrill	Posted - 2008.11.06 11:29:00 - [56] Originally by: Oreo Mon - Tell me the laws of physics, when you can actually get to 250km/s speed. In theory you will go beyond it if you continue to exert force in paralel and hence accelerate. That may not be how. May be we dont know something that will contradict the idea. Funny you give that figure, seeing as our Solar System is moving around the Milky Way at a relative speed of 220 km/s. Perhaps we're going so fast there are Bad Radiations that make crankpots/trolls such as yourself?
Xenomorphea Gallente	Posted - 2008.11.06 11:41:00 - [57] Originally by: Chaos Incarnate Originally by: Xenomorphea 1. Line of sight - Projectiles, beams etc. should not travel right through massive objects such as stations, asteroids, and other ships. To properly calculate line of sight and occlusions would certainly add more CPU load on the server, but would also make "dogfights" in asteroid fields way more interesting, and allow for tactical aspects of combat such as flying behind the station or beneath a motehrship to avoid enemy fire. Guided missiles could, however, avoid objects and occlusions at the expense of longer travel time and ev. less damage. Oldschool DS used to answer these, but I'll steal his non-posting thunder. The problem with things like line of sight calculations is that they're pretty CPU intensive; the calculations that need to be done increase significantly based upon the number of objects on the grid. For example, 100 ships are shooting 100 others. Each shot by one of those requires the server to do calculations for line-of-sight checking against the other 198 players (excluding the particular pair of target and targeted), for all 200 ships shooting each other on grid. That'd mean ~40000 extra LOS calculations - as in, for a fleet size of n, something around n^2 calculations would have to be done in order to provide LOS. There are better ways I think of simulating LOS that aren't so CPU intensive, if it really needs to be done Well, since 2003 when EVE was introduced CPU processing has increased on average by almost a factor 10. What is 40,000 calculations a second in the time of Tera- and Peta-Flops computing? :-) Cheers, Xeno
Xenomorphea Gallente	Posted - 2008.11.06 11:44:00 - [58] Originally by: Darina Rea Just an addendum to this. If you would get damage by bumping then it would you can (potentially) blow your ship up when flying into something to fast. Think about an interceptor bumping a titan for example. The titan would be hit by a frigate going the speed of a rocket and the 'ceptor would've gone 'splat' on impact. And I would LOVE to see that happening. In fact, the interceptor would "crash" on the Titan shield causing no damage at all to the larger ship. Originally by: Darina Rea A second consideration you would face is that a big ship can't stop fast. If you'd fly two titans into eachother (note, I have no idea why you would want to do this) both would be crumpled at the front end before they managed to stop and reverse. Would teach those damn titan pilots to drive more carefully, damnit! Cheers, Xeno
Oreo Mon Caldari Azylum Order of the Black Dragons	Posted - 2008.11.06 12:37:00 - [59] Originally by: IgnisFatuus Edited by: IgnisFatuus on 05/11/2008 23:42:11 Originally by: Oreo Mon ok. correction for you : You are in no way going to be able to compare EvE Game rules to RL laws of physics. You are only going to be able to compare them to RL THEORIES OF PHYSICS. So this is a complete failure. Most probably you are a troll anyways. But I m gonna have to drop a note. Reasons? You are kidding right? troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll etc. you're trying to put across that you 'know science'. However, it is blatently ovbious that the opposite is true. you are getting an emo rage about symantics and lay-terms. Nope; wrong again. I am trying to clarify that we human beings do not know enough science. The thing you call "emo rage about symantics and lay-terms" is sometimes called philosophy. The way of thinking. Let me know when you get to warp ok? And let me know when you can create a clone of yourself and jump to it. Thanks for clarifying that you are a troll :) Note : I dont know science. I am an engineer. The only thing I know is the difference between the people who assume things, and the reality laying in front of me. -------------------> Riding the missiles!

Chribba Otherworld Enterprises Otherworld Empire	Posted - 2008.11.06 12:43:00 - [60] OVER 8372! Secure 3rd party service ■ Veldspar


Plim Gallente Oursulaert Technology Institute	Posted - 2008.11.06 13:46:00 - [61] The purpose of the scientific method is to develop an understanding of the thing laying infront of you, by subjecting it to examination, rather than subjecting it to vague gibberish. Much like this thread has been. In responce to the OP, gameplay should not be sacrificed for realism. So many of the design choices where ingame physics don't compare to real world physics seem to make sense. EVE 'Megacorp or STFU' Online
Mithfindel Gallente Gariushi Foundation	Posted - 2008.11.06 13:52:00 - [62] Also noteworthy on the subject, real-time games are actually games with short turns. If you spin it enough you might be able to tie it with quantum theory (smallest possible change: in EVE, time isn't continuous even if it appears so). This ties in with speed: If you have something going very fast, and trying to get it within a radius of another moving object (say, interceptor and a FAST missile), in a non-continuous time the distance moved during the smallest quantum of time may actually cause the missile to continuously overshoot the target, making it run out of fuel. This reveals also a problem with superfast missiles in the EVE physics model: Assuming that only the individual points at the discrete time points are calculated, it could be possible for the missile to overshoot even a stationary target if the missile would be fast enough. This problem would be negated, however, by calculating whether the target object was at the line travelled by the missile. This method isn't applicable in the case of the moving target, since if we assume that the hypothetical ultrafast missile was flying exactly towards the target, a fast target would move away from the line the missile traveled before the missile would reach that point.
Space Fascist	Posted - 2008.11.06 14:05:00 - [63] Focused afocal maser.
Kendon Riddick	Posted - 2008.11.06 14:14:00 - [64] without a speed limit: imagine a freighter undocking and then going AFK just after DT... he comes back 10 hours later to find his freighter zipping along at 25km/s. might as well log off instead of trying to slow down ;p
Omarvelous Caldari Destry's Lounge	Posted - 2008.11.06 14:54:00 - [65] Originally by: Chaos Incarnate You mean to say my internet spaceships are really internet submarines?! Aww That made me laugh Sup brosef! Destry's Lounge is looking for a few good drunks - contact me in game.
Bimjo Caldari Domination. Sc0rched Earth	Posted - 2008.11.06 16:03:00 - [66] Originally by: Kendon Rid**** without a speed limit: imagine a freighter undocking and then going AFK just after DT... he comes back 10 hours later to find his freighter zipping along at 25km/s. might as well log off instead of trying to slow down ;p assuming freighter is slow(which it is) to accelerate and we give it a figure of 2 m/s/s(2 meters per sec per sec acceleration) as my charon takes about 40 seconds to go from 0 to 80 m/s , then after 10 hours of acceleration my freighter would be hitting a speed of 72 km/s approximately,your frieghter has already been QR speed nerfed
Javius Rong Caldari Sigillum Militum Xpisti	Posted - 2008.11.06 18:22:00 - [67] Originally by: CCP Lingorm On the topic of EVE's "Physics Engine", it is not a Newtonian Physics Engine, it is actually based on a Fluid Dynamics Engine, assuming that Space has some substance to it and thus if you turn of the Engine you will slowdown form the friction of the 'stuff'. RyanD has given you the Reasons this was chosen (Game Design and Network Communications). But if you look at EVE's physics from a Fluid Dynamics formula you will find that it is a lot more accurate (it is actually a nifty bit of coding to get it right). This is poorly stated. What is should say is the physics engine includes frictional forces which are speed dependent (which is still based upon Newtonian physics). EvE does not use a relativistic (Einsteiniam (sp?)) engine where the mass and velocity/acceleration are dependent upon each other.
Mithfindel Gallente Gariushi Foundation	Posted - 2008.11.06 20:28:00 - [68] Most models aren't perfect. On low speeds, the Newtonian model approximates well the relativistic one. Technically, if you want to name it after Einstein, it'd be Einsteinian, though the principle of time dilation (and similar effects) is actually known as the Lorentz transformation after a guy who invented it before Einstein, but thought of it as just a mathematical trick to make the observations to fit the Newtonian model. Might be slightly off, the parts of the specific theory of relativity were on my second year in the Uni, some time since those and can't be bothered to check. That said, RyanD is correct on the sense of a "Newtonian model" as used in space games. Though when we take drag into account, the same model of the three Newtonian laws fits. (I.e. sum(F)=ma doesn't have just engine thrust, but instead sum(F) = F1 + F2 = f_engine + (-kx'), where x' is the derivative of the location of the ship, i.e. the ship's velocity.) Gah, I'd better head to bed and get some sleep.
Bish Ounen Gallente Omni-Core Freedom Fighters Ethereal Dawn	Posted - 2008.11.06 20:37:00 - [69] Originally by: CCP Lingorm On the topic of EVE's "Physics Engine", it is not a Newtonian Physics Engine, it is actually based on a Fluid Dynamics Engine, assuming that Space has some substance to it and thus if you turn of the Engine you will slowdown form the friction of the 'stuff'. RyanD has given you the Reasons this was chosen (Game Design and Network Communications). But if you look at EVE's physics from a Fluid Dynamics formula you will find that it is a lot more accurate (it is actually a nifty bit of coding to get it right). Fascinating.. So basically, Eve's physics design is modeled around the 18th century "aether" concept? I had long suspected this, but it's really nice to have confirmation of it. Cool! Now, if we can do something about "steampunking" the Minnie ships up a bit it would be EVEN BETTER! Tactical Logistics using the last T1 Frigate hull!
djenghis jan Amarr 24th Imperial Crusade	Posted - 2008.11.06 23:33:00 - [70] The ships in eve are far to rigid to be real. Also rocking due too explosions, no way! Things would brake off or stuff would be blown off. Also ramming an asteroid or a billboard, even a little one and it stays in place while your ship bumps off. Battleships without small guns to shoot frigates? huh? why? to save money?

Sol ExAstris	Posted - 2008.11.07 02:20:00 - [71] As a BA holder in physics I can point out a few other things about EVE's physics (or lack thereof in this case) that might interest you for your paper. The Doppler shift is represented when your ship enters warp, but it is horribly miscalculated as you would shift through the entire spectrum quite rapidly until you couldn't even recognize the universe anymore because you would be seeing wavelengths so far off from normal. Then once you pass the speed of light the equation breaks (gives you non-real numbers if you're applying the relativistic compensation). Instead EVE shows a very slight shift towards blue when you're moving several hundred times c. doh. Their explanation of faster than light travel is also bogus (but then again they all are given our current understanding of physics ). Their ftl drives use "depleted vacuums" to move the extra stuff out of the way to allow objects to travel even faster. The reality is (if my understanding is correct) that the particle speed limit is actually based on the strengths of the forces involved that propel those particles/waves. In the case of light this is the electrostatic constant of the universe and the magnetic permeability constant of the universe. Those two constants can actually derive the speed of light for you, so that limit has nothing to do with "what is in the way". The fluid dynamics model does indeed more accurately model EVE ship's motion. This can not only be seen in top speeds and the acceleration curves used, but also in the rotational acceleration. In the real world, without fluid drag over a streamlined surface, your foreward velocity has no bearing on your ability to accelerate yourself in a circle. You can jump in circles and juke side to side just as easily in an aircraft moving 700mph as you can on the surface, however EVE thinks you can't. This would be much more akin to a speedboat wanting to change facing but still move 100mph in the same direction he was going, it just doesn't work for the boat. Collision modeling in EVE is basically big bouncy balls in space between ships and collidable objects and is effectively turned off when entering/exiting warp. Your ship would obviously not take kindly to ramming a station at 10,000m/s or more. Same for planets of course. Inertia of cans and wrecks is even worse as they inexplicably "anchor" themselves to space. Volumes can be a more basic physic problem should you like to mention those as well. The 1400mm artillery would have to use shells barely a centimeter thick to fit them into the volume they take when put into your cargohold. Then there are the giant sealed containers that take up 3,000 cubic meters of cargobay space but can hold 3,900 cubic meters of space within them. Scotty says, 'Ye canno' change the laws of physics'. Eve says you can. Further volume problems can be seen if you check the volumes of ships listed in their descriptions and compare them to the models actual volumes. The Hyperion and Thanatos are great examples of this. Curiously, laser weapons in EVE act like turrets with the same limitations as rail guns and conventional projectile weaponry. Even modern day lasers of large proportions can be aimed with incredible accuracy (check out the modified 747 with the laser on the nose to shoot down ICBM's). Random thoughts might include... what happens when someone uses a plastic ship against the Gallente? Those magnetometric sensors might not register anything. And why do the gravimetric sensors have their locking time based on the targets signature radius and not its mass? How does anyone in EVE communicate instantly if you have to use a jump drive of some sort to "clear" out the area of depleted particles? Shouldn't the signal be limited to c when traveling through a system instead of over the 'depleted space' network of gates? Anyways, there are a few that weren't mentioned throughly yet. Hope they help. Good luck on your report mate
HowardStern	Posted - 2008.11.07 03:36:00 - [72] Originally by: Baal Aristaeus 1. ON the topic of max velocity, why did CCP put it in at all? Do you think there should be no max velocity?
Mecinia Lua Galactic Express Burning Horizons	Posted - 2008.11.07 05:06:00 - [73] Keep in mind EVE physics is not Newtonian, it is based off of Fluid Dynamics. The fluid in EVE is equivalent to the viscosity of oil. Hope that helps.... Thoughts expressed are mine and mine alone. They do not necessarily reflect my alliances thoughts. Your signature is too large. Please resize it to a maximum of 400 x 120 with the file size not exceeding 24000 bytes. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] - Mitnal
Chaos Incarnate Faceless Logistics	Posted - 2008.11.07 05:32:00 - [74] Originally by: sg3s Holy crap, you didn't notice the water like features of eve?... Man you're horrible. Truly, your internets flames burn with the heat of a thousand suns, or perhaps a three year old playing with matches _____________________ The unofficial faceless Achura alt of EVE Online
Judas Yanakov Caldari Corp 1 Allstars	Posted - 2008.11.07 05:40:00 - [75] 1. Max velocity could be an interpretation of subatomic particle collisions, i.e. small meteorites, random debris, and such which at a high enough velocity would start putting serious holes in any material. Bigger ships also have a bigger surface area, meaning more impacts. Therefore, they must move slower. That is only one thought, and i know the armor should be able to compensate, but hey, as has been said, its a game. 2. Game mechanics limitations. No other explanation. The answer is ALWAYS 42.
Silver Night Caldari Naqam Exalted.	Posted - 2008.11.07 05:42:00 - [76] Edited by: Silver Night on 07/11/2008 05:42:49 The Cargo container and sound issues are actually explained somewhere. The cargo container thing is on purpose, and explained with a bunch of hand waving. The Sound part though: Sound is synthesized by your pod. Someone actually calculated the viscosity of the fluid that apparently fills the eve universe once. I believe it is a light oil. That's right. We are all flying around in a universe filled with massage oil. -------------- The Clown Man. GLS Mr. State Caldari Patriot. Sansha's Nation Supporter
Chaos Incarnate Faceless Logistics	Posted - 2008.11.07 05:50:00 - [77] Originally by: Xenomorphea Well, since 2003 when EVE was introduced CPU processing has increased on average by almost a factor 10. What is 40,000 calculations a second in the time of Tera- and Peta-Flops computing? :-) Cheers, Xeno Well, its more than just 40,000 per second, the server is just going to have to calculate 40,000 different 'does this line intersect this circle/ellipsoid' attempts, each of which will have a few individual calculations in it, multiplications and so forth, which is a lot of time. Not to mention that if you scale it up to 500v500, you've now got 250,000 calls, which is a lot - and the server is already limited in such battles as is. Most other MMO games don't bother with players blocking LOS because of the calculations (among others) However, like I said, there are probably CPU effective ways of simulating LOS without necessarily implementing it directly. _____________________ The unofficial faceless Achura alt of EVE Online
Fennicus Amarr Shoot To Thrill	Posted - 2008.11.07 15:00:00 - [78] Originally by: Mecinia Lua Keep in mind EVE physics is not Newtonian, it is based off of Fluid Dynamics I see what you're trying to say but you're spreading some confusion about the words involved. "Newtonian" usually refers to anything not relativistic; thus, you can have Newtonian fluid dynamics and relativistic fluid dynamics (usually reserved for studying various astrophysical events, such as supernovae). I think you meant to say that, instead of space being a perfect vacuum, it's more of a viscous fluid. And we're all well aware of this by now. I really don't think the game engine actually works using the Navier Stokes equations, it's not necessary for a single particle (and I should know, I'm doing a PhD based around solving the fluid equations numerically) but rather a simple mechanism involving thrust and a speed-dependent resistance.
Jurgen Cartis Caldari Interstellar Corporation of Exploration	Posted - 2008.11.08 18:50:00 - [79] Originally by: Spike 68 Originally by: Chaos Incarnate You mean to say my internet spaceships are really internet submarines?! Fire Torpedoes 1 and 4! They've spotted us! Crash Dive, Crash Dive! What do you mean there's nowhere to dive to? Dammit Bernhard, what did you do this time?! -------------------- Originally by: Crumplecorn I prefer launching bathtubs of antimatter at my opponents over pointing an open DVD player at them, even if the bathtubs do miss a lot. So no.
Chiralos Epitoth Fleetyards	Posted - 2008.11.09 03:28:00 - [80] Here's one I've never seen mentioned: some planets rotate waaaay too fast. I haven't timed it but the period looks like its only a few minutes, which means the surface is moving way faster than orbital velocity. Amarr Victor.

Hitachi Morimoto Gallente Hematite Rose Bionic Dawn	Posted - 2008.11.18 22:54:00 - [81] An answer to why ships move so slowly compared to what they could be going: 1: Assuming that our ships have a self contained power source that can run near indefinitely, the propulsion drives would run off something energy based. Say, an ion drive. These drives achieve slow speeds that would be used for precise maneuvering, Ship to ship combat, and limited transportation. 2: The advent of warp drives reduced the need for intense speeds, and such they don't have the capability apart from afterburners and MWD. Solid rocket boosters, like those used today have limited fuel, and take up a lot of room. Sure, it's nice to strap a SRB on that curse and achieve 300 KPS, but it wouldn't be practical. 3: Imagine going at 20 KPS and accidentally bumping into a cloaked titan, causing an instant slowdown (Or in real life a catastrophic hull failure.) Now imagine what that would do to your body. Despite being immersed in fluid, inertia exists still. I doubt an inertial dampener or the like could protect you from being turned into bioputty.
Chelone Ministry of War	Posted - 2008.11.19 00:07:00 - [82] Originally by: Baal Aristaeus 1. ON the topic of max velocity, why did CCP put it in at all? Easy. Real physics (unlimited newtonian speed) is horrible for space battles. Try an old game called Aliants, if you can run it on an emulator. The combat consisted of accelerating like crazy toward each other, firing madly while the ships flew past each other at ridiculous speed, then spending 2 minutes decelerating to repeat the annoying process all over again. Terrible game, mainly because of the "realistic" combat. Eve, in short, "takes the derivative" of everything. Max acceleration becomes max velocity. Turning off your engines, instead of putting you at constant speed puts you (eventually) at a constant position. (i.e. stopped.) It makes it far more sane. Also, max v is plausible, assuming all of Eve space was in a nebula, all with the same density... Originally by: Baal Aristaeus 2. Moving planets and moons in solar systems. Why does not planets, moons, stations, asteroid belts and rotate around their respective pivot point? What I mean is; for example planets rotate around their own axis, but not around the sun. Why is this? Part laziness. Partly because it would do a lot of "unfortunate" things to objects in space. Log out for a couple days and all your bookmarks are wrong. Would bookmarks be based on planetary coordinates, solar coordinates, galactic coordinates etc? Gets too complicated. I can add to your list... - We break the light barrier - We can warp through planets - We can be very close to or inside stars without incinerating - Planets or other large bodies don't pull on our ships with gravitational force - Our ships have seemingly infinite fuel (though I suppose they could burn some of that nebular gas we fly through) - Gamma/XRay/UV lasers don't completely irradiate ships crews & pod pilots before making a dent in the ship's armor/hull - Full/empty cargoholds don't affect ship mass/inertia I could list more but I'm busy.
0vermama	Posted - 2008.11.19 00:12:00 - [83] 2) imagine you make a safe and after some days you warp at your safe and there is a moon whit a POS
The Tzar Malicious Intentions	Posted - 2008.11.24 13:24:00 - [84] A true vacuum is just a theoretical end point to base 'what if' type calculations on. Space 'carries' light (along with many other wave/particles) which exhibits characteristics of particulate matter therefore space is not a true vacuum. Even photons create a small amount of drag in sufficient numbers, hence the concept of a 'light-sail' locomoted spaceship. __________________________________________ 'Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear intelligent until they speak' __________________________________________
Alexeph Stoekai Stoekai Corp	Posted - 2008.11.24 14:57:00 - [85] Originally by: Sol ExAstris How does anyone in EVE communicate instantly if you have to use a jump drive of some sort to "clear" out the area of depleted particles? Shouldn't the signal be limited to c when traveling through a system instead of over the 'depleted space' network of gates? It's quantum. -----
Kazuo Ishiguro House of Marbles Zzz	Posted - 2008.11.24 15:23:00 - [86] I'm trying to think of some that haven't been mentioned so far - how about these: Gas giant planets that are too dense to be made of gas (look at the attributes of a few planets, you'll see what I mean) Abundant naturally occurring technetium (an element with no stable isotopes) Teleportation of objects over distances of up to 6km (moving stuff from one POS structure to another when your ship is up to 3km away from each) Tractor beams / stasis webifiers Violation of Newtonian relativity - for no good reason, your ship always lies in the plane of the local solar system when at rest. Some items have a volume of less than 4% of the volume of their component minerals, and can then be reprocessed to get the minerals back (contact me if interested) The alignment of a ship is separate from its velocity - large ships tend to enter warp sideways, despite only having rear thrusters. Stargates have such large masses that they fall within their own Schwarzschild radii (of approximately 0.1AU!) and by rights should collapse to form black holes, destroying large parts of the solar systems around them. Cargo containers can hold more than their own volume in goods. Ships are treated as ethereal when undocking, and if two undock on the same trajectory at the same time, one gets stuck inside the other for a few seconds before the server notices the discrepancy. Objects can be 'anchored' in space in such a way that collisions have no effect on them. --- Can't afford that BPO? Look here. 20:1 mineral compression The EVE f@h team
Jackie Fisher Galactic Defence Consortium	Posted - 2008.11.24 15:29:00 - [87] Originally by: Bish Ounen So basically, Eve's physics design is modeled around the 18th century "aether" concept? Your MichelsonûMorley Interferometer is well aimed at the Eve Physics engine, inflicting 4098 damage.
Cas Blaire	Posted - 2008.12.01 11:57:00 - [88] That must be easy to implement (and will bring more difference in weaponry): Kinetic damage from artillery [and] rockets must affect enemy's turrets orientation if it's low on shields (if it's hard to implement that effect for entire ship's orientation). Maybe drops of their tracking speed (* kinetic damage/ship mass) for a short time or some other methods for more easier programming and save of traffic (dunno what kind of math goes on servers to drop traffic). Sure lasers [and maybe] hybrids must not do that, so balancing will be required (or maybe lasers can also do so when shields is online).
Aisley Tyrion DAB G00DFELLAS	Posted - 2008.12.01 12:21:00 - [89] Originally by: sg3s First of all, please remember that this is eve, and not real life... And you can find 'scientific' articles about how stuff works within eve in the back story section of this site. They explain it some detail how faster than light works and how stargates suposedly work etc... According to the 'scientific' articles and background lore stargates should only exist on binary systems (no pun intended ) and only one stargate per system. And I have yet to see a single binary star system in EVE... Source
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2008.12.01 12:27:00 - [90] Old thread. Hope someone pointed out to the guy that the 'thrusters' on ships aren't necessarily how they move. I'd love to see the people who take issue with EVE's ship movements tackle the issue of a car moving just one tiny off center 'thruster'. - DesuSigs

Makko Gray Gallente Nexus Aerospace Corporation Leather Rose Syndicate	Posted - 2008.12.01 13:18:00 - [91] The bookmark mechanic would require a rethink if planets and other celestial objects were to move. Otherwise you never end up where you intended. To code a solution to cope with that would add complexity and could get messy, you'd probably have to look at storing bookmarks as a combination of celestial object and spherical coordinates but that would also require making assumptions about which celestial object you wanted the bookmark reference against. One other thing to consider when thinking about the physics of EVE is the omission of gravity (which is perhaps why planets can get away with sitting still). Trying to calculate interactions of all objects with every other objects would just not be practical. Though you could always limit it to regions of interaction where an objects region of interaction was defined by it's mass - it would still require a lot of processing clot and I'm sure would give an odd playing experience with every passing ship or asteroid affecting your speed and direction.
Carniflex Caldari StarHunt Fallout Project	Posted - 2008.12.01 13:51:00 - [92] Originally by: Baal Aristaeus Hi my fellow podders and podd..ed? I am currently working on a quite extensive report regarding physics in EVE Online. So far I believe I've been able to sum up the biggest ballbusters, so to speak; the max velocity, faster than light speeds and all that. However, there are a few things that I need some help with, and could use some input! 1. ON the topic of max velocity, why did CCP put it in at all? Other than the fact that it would ruin game balance. There has to be some other reason as well? 2. Moving planets and moons in solar systems. Why does not planets, moons, stations, asteroid belts and rotate around their respective pivot point? What I mean is; for example planets rotate around their own axis, but not around the sun. Why is this? Would appriciate any and all (serious? :P) answers! Thank you all! PS. Random comments are also cool... For 2: They do move - well they could. Systems you see in EVE are supposed to be gravitationally feasible, so if you give objects correct speeds and relase them the systems would be actually stable. With the timescales involved they can as well be static. Further away planets take decades to get their year full. You are not present in starsystem long enough usually to be affected actually by moving planets. That out of the way - eve starsystems are calculated actually using proper physical models. For 1: Game balance. When speed increases you need to make timeslices shorter and shorter to be withing acceptable margin of error. Especially if objects are moving in vastly different speeds. So it is reasonable to limit max speeds in MMO enviroment. You just cant afford as short timeslices in MMO as you can in single player game.
Mya ElleTerego The Hull Miners Union	Posted - 2008.12.01 14:41:00 - [93] Originally by: Fennicus mechanism involving thrust and a speed-dependent resistance. Ive tried to explain this to girls before but they are still unprepared for what follows. yarrr.. CEO For the Hull Miners Union [ONION] The Hull Miners Union [ONION]
Huurtney Gurdsen	Posted - 2008.12.01 15:22:00 - [94] I think the physics in Eve is less Isaac Newton, more Buck Rogers. I personally wish it were more realistic. Friction in space? C'mon! Yea, though I wart through the valet of thy shadowy hut I will feed no norman.
LaVista Vista	Posted - 2008.12.01 15:44:00 - [95] Originally by: Huurtney Gurdsen I think the physics in Eve is less Isaac Newton, more Buck Rogers. I personally wish it were more realistic. Friction in space? C'mon! Some of us prefer it. That's why we fly without pants


Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one 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.