| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Tovarishch
   |
Posted - 2004.07.11 21:49:00 -
[31]
I'm not sure if you're being serious or sarcastic in asking this question... but I'll venture to use a simple analogy to explain.
Imagine that you are some obnoxious little kid with a BB gun hiding in the bushes next to a road... and that the occasional car passes only 20 feet in front of you because you are close to the edge of this road. You spot an shiny new Corvette off in the distance to your right that is heading your direction. You take aim and track the car... but as it gets closer to you you notice that you have to move your BB gun from right to left more quickly as the car nears your position... until finally the Corvette (let's say it's travelling 100 mph) passes by you so quickly that you cannot accurately track the car from right to left.
So, after spitting out your gum and stomping your feet in frustration, you return to your position in the bushes and await a slower target.
After a moment or two a 1970 Ford F150 pickup truck comes puttering down the road off to your right. However, this time it's an old woman driving her grandson to swimming lessons... and she is half-blind... so she is only travelling at 20 mph. As the truck nears you you notice that it is much easier to follow the path of the truck even though you are so close to it... because you can easily move your arms from right to left quickly enough to match the truck's velocity. You get off a couple good shots and after scaring her into moving over 40 mph and running over a squirrel you dance a victory jig.
Then it occurs to you. If you had not been so close to the road when the Corvette came zooming by you would have effectively been shooting at a target travelling, relative to you, nearly the same speed as the truck... because you are farther away from the target and can therefore track more accurately. (Think of driving down the road and watching objects next to the road pass by immediately as opposed to objects a mile away seeming almost motionless.)
This time you find some bushes that are 100 feet from the highway. With the patience of a Navy Seal sniper you await your Corvette driving nemesis. Finally he appears... and even though he is still driving 100 mph you notice that from this distance you can follow the car far more easily. You let off a couple well aimed rounds... and one wrecking shot... which breaks the windshield of the car.
The car pulls off the side of the road and out from behind the steering wheel steps Euclid. He gives you a huge thumbs up and rewards your reasoning ability, patience, and shooting skills with a gift of twenty Vestal virgins.
You win.
I hope that clears things up.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Insert inane 'leetspeak' signature here, or some idiotic picture that wastes bandwidth. *
The Tarsis Shriners |
Tovarishch
|
Posted - 2004.07.11 21:49:00 -
[32]
I'm not sure if you're being serious or sarcastic in asking this question... but I'll venture to use a simple analogy to explain.
Imagine that you are some obnoxious little kid with a BB gun hiding in the bushes next to a road... and that the occasional car passes only 20 feet in front of you because you are close to the edge of this road. You spot an shiny new Corvette off in the distance to your right that is heading your direction. You take aim and track the car... but as it gets closer to you you notice that you have to move your BB gun from right to left more quickly as the car nears your position... until finally the Corvette (let's say it's travelling 100 mph) passes by you so quickly that you cannot accurately track the car from right to left.
So, after spitting out your gum and stomping your feet in frustration, you return to your position in the bushes and await a slower target.
After a moment or two a 1970 Ford F150 pickup truck comes puttering down the road off to your right. However, this time it's an old woman driving her grandson to swimming lessons... and she is half-blind... so she is only travelling at 20 mph. As the truck nears you you notice that it is much easier to follow the path of the truck even though you are so close to it... because you can easily move your arms from right to left quickly enough to match the truck's velocity. You get off a couple good shots and after scaring her into moving over 40 mph and running over a squirrel you dance a victory jig.
Then it occurs to you. If you had not been so close to the road when the Corvette came zooming by you would have effectively been shooting at a target travelling, relative to you, nearly the same speed as the truck... because you are farther away from the target and can therefore track more accurately. (Think of driving down the road and watching objects next to the road pass by immediately as opposed to objects a mile away seeming almost motionless.)
This time you find some bushes that are 100 feet from the highway. With the patience of a Navy Seal sniper you await your Corvette driving nemesis. Finally he appears... and even though he is still driving 100 mph you notice that from this distance you can follow the car far more easily. You let off a couple well aimed rounds... and one wrecking shot... which breaks the windshield of the car.
The car pulls off the side of the road and out from behind the steering wheel steps Euclid. He gives you a huge thumbs up and rewards your reasoning ability, patience, and shooting skills with a gift of twenty Vestal virgins.
You win.
I hope that clears things up.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Insert inane 'leetspeak' signature here, or some idiotic picture that wastes bandwidth. *
The Tarsis Shriners |
Bubba1977
|
Posted - 2004.07.11 21:56:00 -
[33]
 Originally by: Joshua Calvert
Can someone explain the relationship between the transversal velocity of a target against the tracking of my guns?
Sure.
The relationship is F'ed up.
__________________________________________________
|
Bubba1977
|
Posted - 2004.07.11 21:56:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Joshua Calvert
Can someone explain the relationship between the transversal velocity of a target against the tracking of my guns?
Sure.
The relationship is F'ed up.
__________________________________________________
|
dalman
|
Posted - 2004.07.11 21:56:00 -
[35]
Edited by: dalman on 11/07/2004 21:58:43
And as in Tovarishch's story, it would have been equally hard for someone in the car to shoot at the stationary target.
And in the same way your own velocity affect your tracking.
Then comes the case of a nearly perfect orbit, where the car is driving in a circle around the stationary guy. The guy would need good tracking to hit the car, but someone in the car would easy hit the target.
But quite hard to get it that advanced in the game, with lag and stuff...
M.I.A. since 2004-07-30 |
dalman
|
Posted - 2004.07.11 21:56:00 -
[36]
Edited by: dalman on 11/07/2004 21:58:43
And as in Tovarishch's story, it would have been equally hard for someone in the car to shoot at the stationary target.
And in the same way your own velocity affect your tracking.
Then comes the case of a nearly perfect orbit, where the car is driving in a circle around the stationary guy. The guy would need good tracking to hit the car, but someone in the car would easy hit the target.
But quite hard to get it that advanced in the game, with lag and stuff...
M.I.A. since 2004-07-30 |
Feta Solamnia
|
Posted - 2004.07.12 00:28:00 -
[37]
RL tracking should be equally hard for both parts independently of their movement.
Forget all the RL examples, the answer is simple:
Changing the frame of reference will always yield the same results. Since our beloved physician said that the frame of reference doesn't matter in physics => phainomenal speed/radial velocity is the same for both parties.
|
Feta Solamnia
|
Posted - 2004.07.12 00:28:00 -
[38]
RL tracking should be equally hard for both parts independently of their movement.
Forget all the RL examples, the answer is simple:
Changing the frame of reference will always yield the same results. Since our beloved physician said that the frame of reference doesn't matter in physics => phainomenal speed/radial velocity is the same for both parties.
|
Dark Jester
|
Posted - 2004.07.12 00:30:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Joshua Calvert
I do but I was kind of hoping for a calculation/equation which would describe the relation between distance, tracking speed, and transversal velocity of the target.
Max transversal speed of your target (For a >50% chance to hit) = (Range*Tracking) / (Signature radius/Signature Resolution)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004.07.08 14:50:50combatYour 1400mm Howitzer Artillery I perfectly strikes Rogue Pirate Escort, wrecking for 836.2 damage.
|
Dark Jester
|
Posted - 2004.07.12 00:30:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Joshua Calvert
I do but I was kind of hoping for a calculation/equation which would describe the relation between distance, tracking speed, and transversal velocity of the target.
Max transversal speed of your target (For a >50% chance to hit) = (Range*Tracking) / (Signature radius/Signature Resolution)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004.07.08 14:50:50combatYour 1400mm Howitzer Artillery I perfectly strikes Rogue Pirate Escort, wrecking for 836.2 damage.
|
|
|
Cuisinart
|
Posted - 2004.07.12 01:20:00 -
[41]
Originally by: dalman
Edited by: dalman on 11/07/2004 21:58:43The guy would need good tracking to hit the car, but someone in the car would easy hit the target.
Yes, this is (in my opinion) a big problem. A ship orbiting a stationary target should have no difficulty hitting said target, but in fact it does which means the formula is flawed.
Vision without action is a daydream
Action without vision is a nightmare |
Cuisinart
|
Posted - 2004.07.12 01:20:00 -
[42]
Originally by: dalman
Edited by: dalman on 11/07/2004 21:58:43The guy would need good tracking to hit the car, but someone in the car would easy hit the target.
Yes, this is (in my opinion) a big problem. A ship orbiting a stationary target should have no difficulty hitting said target, but in fact it does which means the formula is flawed.
Vision without action is a daydream
Action without vision is a nightmare |
Rthor
|
Posted - 2004.07.12 02:13:00 -
[43]
Edited by: Rthor on 12/07/2004 02:18:35
If somebody knew he would not tell you. Think of this info as the hidden arkanor belts of PVP.
|
Rthor
|
Posted - 2004.07.12 02:13:00 -
[44]
Edited by: Rthor on 12/07/2004 02:18:35
If somebody knew he would not tell you. Think of this info as the hidden arkanor belts of PVP.
|
Luc Boye
|
Posted - 2004.07.12 03:45:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Cuisinart
You see, I read in another thread that the values are absolutes instead of relative (as they should be to get TRUE transversal velocity). This means that if you orbit a stationary target you are penalized for your own velocity despite the fact that your orientation to the target is constant.
that is so messed up, kinda negates the point of having small frig orbiting someone doesnt it?
--
2004.12.29 23:33:40combatMining Pollution Cloud hits you, doing 140.0 damage. |
Luc Boye
|
Posted - 2004.07.12 03:45:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Cuisinart
You see, I read in another thread that the values are absolutes instead of relative (as they should be to get TRUE transversal velocity). This means that if you orbit a stationary target you are penalized for your own velocity despite the fact that your orientation to the target is constant.
that is so messed up, kinda negates the point of having small frig orbiting someone doesnt it?
--
2004.12.29 23:33:40combatMining Pollution Cloud hits you, doing 140.0 damage. |
Gariuys
|
Posted - 2004.07.12 04:20:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Luc Boye
Originally by: Cuisinart
You see, I read in another thread that the values are absolutes instead of relative (as they should be to get TRUE transversal velocity). This means that if you orbit a stationary target you are penalized for your own velocity despite the fact that your orientation to the target is constant.
that is so messed up, kinda negates the point of having small frig orbiting someone doesnt it?
Nope, what it does mean is that going at high speed is most interesting for the one with the highest tracking. Since your own speed does indeed affect your own tracking.
Think of orbit as evasive maneuvring in a starship, not as driving around a stationary orbit in circles in a car. And it isn't all that strange for your own transversal velocity to affect your tracking.
~{When evil and strange get together anything is possible}~
A tool is only useless when you don't know how to use it. - ActiveX
The grass is always greener on the other side. - JoCool |
Gariuys
|
Posted - 2004.07.12 04:20:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Luc Boye
Originally by: Cuisinart
You see, I read in another thread that the values are absolutes instead of relative (as they should be to get TRUE transversal velocity). This means that if you orbit a stationary target you are penalized for your own velocity despite the fact that your orientation to the target is constant.
that is so messed up, kinda negates the point of having small frig orbiting someone doesnt it?
Nope, what it does mean is that going at high speed is most interesting for the one with the highest tracking. Since your own speed does indeed affect your own tracking.
Think of orbit as evasive maneuvring in a starship, not as driving around a stationary orbit in circles in a car. And it isn't all that strange for your own transversal velocity to affect your tracking.
~{When evil and strange get together anything is possible}~
A tool is only useless when you don't know how to use it. - ActiveX
The grass is always greener on the other side. - JoCool |
Estarriol
|
Posted - 2004.07.12 04:31:00 -
[49]
Originally by: Gariuys
And it isn't all that strange for your own transversal velocity to affect your tracking.
It is indeed strange in the case that your ship rotates during its orbit, so that it maintains the same orientation relative to the target's position.
In that case, the turrets would not need to change their angle at all, i.e., the enemy ship has no transversal velocity relative to your own frame of reference.
Estarriol
P.S.: The person who alluded to the Frames of Reference film may have misinterpreted the lessons contained therein.
|
Estarriol
|
Posted - 2004.07.12 04:31:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Gariuys
And it isn't all that strange for your own transversal velocity to affect your tracking.
It is indeed strange in the case that your ship rotates during its orbit, so that it maintains the same orientation relative to the target's position.
In that case, the turrets would not need to change their angle at all, i.e., the enemy ship has no transversal velocity relative to your own frame of reference.
Estarriol
P.S.: The person who alluded to the Frames of Reference film may have misinterpreted the lessons contained therein.
|
|
|
Gariuys
|
Posted - 2004.07.12 04:49:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Estarriol
Originally by: Gariuys
And it isn't all that strange for your own transversal velocity to affect your tracking.
It is indeed strange in the case that your ship rotates during its orbit, so that it maintains the same orientation relative to the target's position.
In that case, the turrets would not need to change their angle at all, i.e., the enemy ship has no transversal velocity relative to your own frame of reference.
Estarriol
P.S.: The person who alluded to the Frames of Reference film may have misinterpreted the lessons contained therein.
Agreed, that's why I said that it isn't strange if that frame of reference moves more erratic then the thing your shooting at.
~{When evil and strange get together anything is possible}~
A tool is only useless when you don't know how to use it. - ActiveX
The grass is always greener on the other side. - JoCool |
Gariuys
|
Posted - 2004.07.12 04:49:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Estarriol
Originally by: Gariuys
And it isn't all that strange for your own transversal velocity to affect your tracking.
It is indeed strange in the case that your ship rotates during its orbit, so that it maintains the same orientation relative to the target's position.
In that case, the turrets would not need to change their angle at all, i.e., the enemy ship has no transversal velocity relative to your own frame of reference.
Estarriol
P.S.: The person who alluded to the Frames of Reference film may have misinterpreted the lessons contained therein.
Agreed, that's why I said that it isn't strange if that frame of reference moves more erratic then the thing your shooting at.
~{When evil and strange get together anything is possible}~
A tool is only useless when you don't know how to use it. - ActiveX
The grass is always greener on the other side. - JoCool |
DeFood
|
Posted - 2004.07.12 08:49:00 -
[53]
Edited by: DeFood on 12/07/2004 09:36:31
The official forum post reguarding tracking is here:
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=89658
With an official devblog + comment thread here:
http://myeve.eve-online.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=171#comments
Of course, some **** has deleted all the kiff graphs.
TomB: someone has deleted your graphs!
|
DeFood
|
Posted - 2004.07.12 08:49:00 -
[54]
Edited by: DeFood on 12/07/2004 09:36:31
The official forum post reguarding tracking is here:
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=89658
With an official devblog + comment thread here:
http://myeve.eve-online.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=171#comments
Of course, some **** has deleted all the kiff graphs.
TomB: someone has deleted your graphs!
|
Razin
|
Posted - 2004.07.12 14:34:00 -
[55]
Edited by: Razin on 12/07/2004 14:57:20
Originally by: Cuisinart
Yes, this is (in my opinion) a big problem. A ship orbiting a stationary target should have no difficulty hitting said target, but in fact it does which means the formula is flawed.
IMO the formula is not flawed, it's biased.
As in the example about the kid with a bb gun and the Corvette driving in circles around him, the kid can use his legs to rotate his body to augment his arms in tracking the Corvette.
A stationary ship should be able to rotate to point it's turrets at the orbiting ship thereby reducing (or nullifying, in case of sufficient rotational speed) the orbiter's transverse velocity advantage. In this case the orbiting would be made useless for overcoming tracking limitations, and the manuever to come up with sufficient transverse velocity would be much more complicated (something like a precessing orbit with a randomly changing phase and plane angle).
The game does not model the rotation of the ship being orbited, so the tracking formula penalizes *both* the high speed orbiter and the slow speed ship being orbited, making the "orbit" maneuver more defensive in nature (unless the orbiting ship is using missiles and/or high tracking turrets... ).
|
Razin
|
Posted - 2004.07.12 14:34:00 -
[56]
Edited by: Razin on 12/07/2004 14:57:20
Originally by: Cuisinart
Yes, this is (in my opinion) a big problem. A ship orbiting a stationary target should have no difficulty hitting said target, but in fact it does which means the formula is flawed.
IMO the formula is not flawed, it's biased.
As in the example about the kid with a bb gun and the Corvette driving in circles around him, the kid can use his legs to rotate his body to augment his arms in tracking the Corvette.
A stationary ship should be able to rotate to point it's turrets at the orbiting ship thereby reducing (or nullifying, in case of sufficient rotational speed) the orbiter's transverse velocity advantage. In this case the orbiting would be made useless for overcoming tracking limitations, and the manuever to come up with sufficient transverse velocity would be much more complicated (something like a precessing orbit with a randomly changing phase and plane angle).
The game does not model the rotation of the ship being orbited, so the tracking formula penalizes *both* the high speed orbiter and the slow speed ship being orbited, making the "orbit" maneuver more defensive in nature (unless the orbiting ship is using missiles and/or high tracking turrets...).
|
Estarriol
|
Posted - 2004.07.12 14:54:00 -
[57]
Edited by: Estarriol on 12/07/2004 14:56:31
Originally by: Razin
A stationary ship should be able to rotate to point it's turrets at the orbiting ship thereby reducing (or nullifying, in case of sufficient rotational speed) the orbiter's transverse velocity advantage.
I think the idea behind turrets is that the ship in question can't rotate quickly enough to track the target. Otherwise, it wouldn't strictly need turrets. (Of course, why a fighter couldn't rotate as quickly as an orbiting fighter would be beyond me).
Quote:
The game does not model the rotation of the ship being orbited, so the tracking formula penalizes *both* the high speed orbiter and the slow speed ship being orbited...
The game does model this rotation; otherwise, you wouldn't observe ships 'turning' and such. However, the tracking formula does not seem to take into account the ship orientation information which must already be present in the physics model.
IMO the correct way to handle tracking is to account for the orientation of the ship, i.e., calculate the transversal velocity with regard to the TNB frame relative to the moving ship.
|
Estarriol
|
Posted - 2004.07.12 14:54:00 -
[58]
Edited by: Estarriol on 12/07/2004 14:56:31
Originally by: Razin
A stationary ship should be able to rotate to point it's turrets at the orbiting ship thereby reducing (or nullifying, in case of sufficient rotational speed) the orbiter's transverse velocity advantage.
I think the idea behind turrets is that the ship in question can't rotate quickly enough to track the target. Otherwise, it wouldn't strictly need turrets. (Of course, why a fighter couldn't rotate as quickly as an orbiting fighter would be beyond me).
Quote:
The game does not model the rotation of the ship being orbited, so the tracking formula penalizes *both* the high speed orbiter and the slow speed ship being orbited...
The game does model this rotation; otherwise, you wouldn't observe ships 'turning' and such. However, the tracking formula does not seem to take into account the ship orientation information which must already be present in the physics model.
IMO the correct way to handle tracking is to account for the orientation of the ship, i.e., calculate the transversal velocity with regard to the TNB frame relative to the moving ship.
|
Razin
|
Posted - 2004.07.12 15:08:00 -
[59]
Edited by: Razin on 12/07/2004 15:10:13
Originally by: Estarriol
I think the idea behind turrets is that the ship in question can't rotate quickly enough to track the target. Otherwise, it wouldn't strictly need turrets. (Of course, why a fighter couldn't rotate as quickly as an orbiting fighter would be beyond me).
The turrets would also be needed to engage more then one target at the same time, as well as to have the freedom to maneuver without worrying about pointing the guns; though I think that making that kind of connection is more of a rationalization, and the real point is that this is how EVE game mechanics work.
Quote:
The game does model this rotation; otherwise, you wouldn't observe ships 'turning' and such. However, the tracking formula does not seem to take into account the ship orientation information which must already be present in the physics model.
I was not talking about the graphical representation of ship behavior (turning), but the effect this would have on the tracking calculation.
Quote:
IMO the correct way to handle tracking is to account for the orientation of the ship, i.e., calculate the transversal velocity with regard to the TNB frame relative to the moving ship.
In a perfect world, I would agree, but IMO the devs always have to draw the line between playability/processor power/network performance/ballance and realism/common sence.
|
Razin
|
Posted - 2004.07.12 15:08:00 -
[60]
Edited by: Razin on 12/07/2004 15:10:13
Originally by: Estarriol
I think the idea behind turrets is that the ship in question can't rotate quickly enough to track the target. Otherwise, it wouldn't strictly need turrets. (Of course, why a fighter couldn't rotate as quickly as an orbiting fighter would be beyond me).
The turrets would also be needed to engage more then one target at the same time, as well as to have the freedom to maneuver without worrying about pointing the guns; though I think that making that kind of connection is more of a rationalization, and the real point is that this is how EVE game mechanics work.
Quote:
The game does model this rotation; otherwise, you wouldn't observe ships 'turning' and such. However, the tracking formula does not seem to take into account the ship orientation information which must already be present in the physics model.
I was not talking about the graphical representation of ship behavior (turning), but the effect this would have on the tracking calculation.
Quote:
IMO the correct way to handle tracking is to account for the orientation of the ship, i.e., calculate the transversal velocity with regard to the TNB frame relative to the moving ship.
In a perfect world, I would agree, but IMO the devs always have to draw the line between playability/processor power/network performance/ballance and realism/common sence.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |