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)
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




Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: 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.