| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Capn' Krunch
Gallente
Pluralistic Intentions Guild Services
   |
Posted - 2008.11.06 15:51:00 -
[31]
Edited by: Capn'' Krunch on 06/11/2008 15:51:15
Immortal spaceship pilots who spend their existence in pod of goo.. Unrealistic??
>-------------------------------------------------<
Asteroids are my breakfast cereal. |
IR Scoutar
Caldari
State War Academy
|
Posted - 2008.11.06 16:09:00 -
[32]
 Originally by: Capn' Krunch
Edited by: Capn'' Krunch on 06/11/2008 15:51:15
Immortal spaceship pilots who spend their existence in pod of goo.. Unrealistic??
nope perfectly fine
immortal spaceship pilts that have their conciousness downloaded to a clone at the other end of the galaxy even when instapopped... mmmmm
|
Ehranavaar
|
Posted - 2008.11.06 17:12:00 -
[33]
the tracking issue is greatly overblown in eve. even today with our meagre tech we have weapon systems that can pick a 5" shell out of the air multiple km from the ship shooting at it. even the smallest frigates are a couple thousand tonnes which is to say larger than a modern patrol frigate. the question really ought to be how the heck do you miss something that size orbiting your ship at 4 km. you are after all aiming at where it will be not where it is.
|
Writt Inwater
|
Posted - 2008.11.06 17:29:00 -
[34]
Orbiting is a much bigger physics hole than tracking. A ship trying to fly in circles around another ship would have to accelerate / decelerate its entire mass *four* times in order to complete a single orbit:
At the top of the circle, your velocity is 100% east
At the right of the circle, your velocity is 100% south
At the bottom, 100% west
At the left, 100% north.
It would be much, much faster to accelerate in a series of straight lines towards your target, then flip around and decelerate in a series of straight lines.
In short - no reason whatsoever to for a ship to 'orbit' another ship.
|
Fistme
|
Posted - 2008.11.06 17:46:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Writt Inwater
In short - no reason whatsoever to for a ship to 'orbit' another ship.
Fail...
|
Spurty
Caldari
D00M.
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.11.06 18:42:00 -
[36]
has anyone mentioned centrifugal forces, inertia and momentum yet in this thread?
Man goes to the doc, with a strawberry growing out of his head. Doc says "I'll give you some cream to put on it." |
Stunna Shade
|
Posted - 2008.11.06 19:42:00 -
[37]
Dont worry, you wont have anymore tracking problems on your vaga when the nano-nerf hits.
|
LoKesh
Amarr
InQuest Ascension
Skunk-Works
|
Posted - 2008.11.06 20:15:00 -
[38]
I only read through the first page, so my apologies if someone actually posted this on page two. I saw a lot of good logic, without the most important fact.
Watch a drone orbit something (make sure you have trails on). The drone doesn't go in a circle - it makes a series of discrete turns to stay near the target. Your ship (in Eve) orbits the same way, although the turns are often smaller and more frequent.
So - your orbit isn't circular, but is actually a polygon. At any given point your traveling along a straight line while your target is stationary. Hence - tracking applies to your guns.
xFoundation, xVC, xRISE
Proudly serving Skunk-Works
|
Korbann
Domini Umbrus
R.U.R.
|
Posted - 2008.11.06 20:18:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Writt Inwater
Orbiting is a much bigger physics hole than tracking. A ship trying to fly in circles around another ship would have to accelerate / decelerate its entire mass *four* times in order to complete a single orbit:
At the top of the circle, your velocity is 100% east
At the right of the circle, your velocity is 100% south
At the bottom, 100% west
At the left, 100% north.
It would be much, much faster to accelerate in a series of straight lines towards your target, then flip around and decelerate in a series of straight lines.
In short - no reason whatsoever to for a ship to 'orbit' another ship.
Sorry buddy, looks like you need some basic physics courses, circular paths (orbit) = constant acceleration.
|
Mithos Victus
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2008.11.06 20:22:00 -
[40]
Edited by: Mithos Victus on 06/11/2008 20:26:10
So let me get this straight even though I am sure it has been addressed in one fashion or another already.
So... you want realism that is entertaining but not realism that is detrimental to the game play experience?
Please define entertaining.
Okay, fine, loaded question. 
For argument's sake, why are you not just as concerned about there being a distinct lack of pitch, roll, and yaw in the game's combat mechanic esp. concerning being hit by a considerably powerful payload of cruise missiles one after the other and your ship remains on course and tracking of your own guns is unaffected. Or how ships with only rear thrusters can decelerate at all in a frictionless medium when you never see separate thrusters firing graphically?
Or why damage through to structure or armor does not randomly destroy external modules. After all, ship destruction itself does already.
Where does it end?
It ends somewhere along the lines too much of a good thing. The game is just complicated enough to warrant that the person playing it, should they actually want to understand the intricacies of the game, probably needs to have a high school education or better (esp. when it comes to some of the finer points of marketing).
CCP has done a good job of giving us just enough complicated mathematic, geometry, and kinematics to make things interesting and entertaining without bludgeoning us to death with the reality that space combat would be so technical to the point you'd have to study it for years just to participate let alone dominate. How many years do you think the average air force training regimen lasts before being sent off to active duty?
Leave the rest to the rocket scientists, alright?
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |