These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page123Next page
 

How Would It Work: Spaceship Turns
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
TexasFire
Texas Deep Space
#21 - 2012-07-25 21:27:40 UTC
Dubstepcat wrote:
RCS (Reaction Control Systems) or OCS (Orbital Control Systems)

Or just a gyroscope


My first reaction was the presence of large flaming hamsters somewhere in the bowels of the ship. But then good sense grabbed a hold and I realized I was just asking for an adverse reaction from members of FinFleet
Dalmont Delantee
Gecko Corp
#22 - 2012-07-25 21:30:08 UTC
The way I see it is that spaceships are designed to move in such a way that the capsulers can understand instinctively know how to react and move. Thats why its more like swimming than proper spaceships flight with rockets etc.

So the whole ship has different retros that do this.
Solhild
Doomheim
#23 - 2012-07-25 21:53:26 UTC


Warp cores have a certain buoyancy against the fabric of space time (charge field). This is why ships tend to align with the horizontal solar system disc owing to the overpowering strength of the charge field from the local star, explaining why all ships have the same right way up!

Each ship has large internal metal plate sections within the hull that are energised by the warp core. Subtle changes in the polarity of these plates steer the ship. Stasis web mods work by interfering with this balance.

One side effect of energising these plates if that hydrogen is generated and builds up on the surfaces, essentially being created from vacuum. In order to manage this, ships collect and use this hydrogen to provide additional forward thrust - when the thrust is reduced, the warp core/plates drag against the charge field to slow the ship to a standstill relative to the nearest significant mass (planet or sun).

This is the reason that stations and stargates also contain warp technology, to fix them above planets or in convenient charge field wells in a solar system.

Basically, no attitude control or retro rockets Big smile
TexasFire
Texas Deep Space
#24 - 2012-07-25 22:35:27 UTC
Solhild wrote:


Warp cores have a certain buoyancy against the fabric of space time (charge field). This is why ships tend to align with the horizontal solar system disc owing to the overpowering strength of the charge field from the local star, explaining why all ships have the same right way up!

Each ship has large internal metal plate sections within the hull that are energised by the warp core. Subtle changes in the polarity of these plates steer the ship. Stasis web mods work by interfering with this balance.

One side effect of energising these plates if that hydrogen is generated and builds up on the surfaces, essentially being created from vacuum. In order to manage this, ships collect and use this hydrogen to provide additional forward thrust - when the thrust is reduced, the warp core/plates drag against the charge field to slow the ship to a standstill relative to the nearest significant mass (planet or sun).

This is the reason that stations and stargates also contain warp technology, to fix them above planets or in convenient charge field wells in a solar system.

Basically, no attitude control or retro rockets Big smile


"Flaming Hamsters" Much fewer words
Urgg Boolean
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#25 - 2012-07-25 22:39:08 UTC
The keyword is vectored thrust. The rocket engines have "aimable" nozzles that cause acceleration at some percentage of the total thrust (it's vector component). Usually, real space don't turn - it's way to expensive (energy wise). They use a gravity turn (whip off the orbit of a planet) with a well timed burn to break orbit, then they "lead" the target. So real space ships travel in a straight line unless doing simple maneuvers or big ass turns off a planet.

EvE physics ignores all that, plus the whole space-time relativity thing.
Karash Amerius
The Seven Shadows
Scotch And Tea.
#26 - 2012-07-25 23:23:06 UTC
If anyone here has played Jupiter Incident, they had a pretty spot on way of the look and feel of how their massive ships moved in space.

Karash Amerius Operative, Sutoka
DrysonBennington
Eagle's Talon's
#27 - 2012-07-25 23:25:57 UTC
Quote:
I like how there are a lot fo smart assed remarks about how ships move, but so few suggestions.

So tell us, in space how would a ship turn?

Would the ship have retro rockets on the front to help turning?
Would the retros be strong enough to spin the ship, or strong enough to actually effect its course?
Would the ship spin around and fire its main engines to change course?
Would the retros cause the ship to arc through a turn?
etc...



In order to turn a spaceship in space requires a very sophisticated computer program as well as RCS thrusters.


Below is the spaceship.



+ + +
+ + +

The plus signs represent the location of the RCS thrusters. If you want the front of the ship to turn you also have to turn the rear of the ship as well. Lets turn the ship to the left



Oops + +
+ + Oops

The left rear would fire to push the rear of the ship to the right while the front right would fire moving the ship to the left thus aligning the entire ship in the direction of travel.

If the rear or front thrusters are fired by theirself the ship would move slowly along the intended path but would move more so in a straight line due to there not being any force upon the rear or front of the ship to aid in the RCS turn.
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#28 - 2012-07-25 23:36:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Vincent Athena
To do a circle: use attitude control jets to rotate you until you are pointing at right angles to your flight direction. At this point the ship would be moving sideways as you have not yet changed its direction of motion. The ship is pointing at the center of the circle you are going to do*. You then turn on the main engine. As your flight path changes, keep using the attitude control jets to keep you oriented at right angles to your flight direction, nose pointed at the circle center.

To do a 90 degree turn: Use the attitude control jets to rotate you 135 degrees to your flight direction. Turn on the main engine and run it until your new flight vector is achieved.

Oddly, CCP could implement all this. Right now we see ships pointing in their direction of motion. All CCP would need to do is change that to the direction of acceleration. It could even be an option settable by each user; "View classic ship movement" or "View spaceship style movement". This would work because the server does not track ship pointing: its all just eye candy drawn by the client.

* In the original Battlestar Galactica book (before the first movie or first TV series) that is how 10 cylons would kill one human. They would all orbit the human ship, engines out, guns shooting in, engines firing to keep them on the target.

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction
Zanzbar
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#29 - 2012-07-25 23:40:43 UTC
Solhild wrote:


Warp cores have a certain buoyancy against the fabric of space time (charge field). This is why ships tend to align with the horizontal solar system disc owing to the overpowering strength of the charge field from the local star, explaining why all ships have the same right way up!

Each ship has large internal metal plate sections within the hull that are energised by the warp core. Subtle changes in the polarity of these plates steer the ship. Stasis web mods work by interfering with this balance.

One side effect of energising these plates if that hydrogen is generated and builds up on the surfaces, essentially being created from vacuum. In order to manage this, ships collect and use this hydrogen to provide additional forward thrust - when the thrust is reduced, the warp core/plates drag against the charge field to slow the ship to a standstill relative to the nearest significant mass (planet or sun).

This is the reason that stations and stargates also contain warp technology, to fix them above planets or in convenient charge field wells in a solar system.

Basically, no attitude control or retro rockets Big smile


Wait, was a minmatar realy the one that came up with the best explanation? I thought that the space monkeys were suopposed to be the technologicaly inferior race.

O wait I'm sry, second best answer here, confirming that a jove did it
Bootleg Jack
ACME Mineral and Gas
#30 - 2012-07-26 00:01:57 UTC
TexasFire wrote:
Dubstepcat wrote:
RCS (Reaction Control Systems) or OCS (Orbital Control Systems)

Or just a gyroscope


My first reaction was the presence of large flaming hamsters somewhere in the bowels of the ship. But then good sense grabbed a hold and I realized I was just asking for an adverse reaction from members of FinFleet


If you burn their tails they run faster...

just sayin Shocked

I'm an American, English is my second language...
Akirei Scytale
Okami Syndicate
#31 - 2012-07-26 00:44:32 UTC
If EVE used realistic physics, every ship would be covered in tiny thrusters, there would be no such thing as maximum velocity until c (the speed of light), acceleration and inertia would be the most critical features, and it wouldn't even remotely be fun. Turrets would essentially never miss, as sudden course alterations would be so rare that aiming would be a simple matter of calculating the enemy's velocity and then shooting where he's going to be. Also, weapon range would be unlimited, although self propelled munitions (missiles) would lose the ability to change their course after a given amount of time.

Seriously, it would take twice as long to turn around as it would to reach a speed in any given direction. When there is no velocity cap, this means that once you're moving fast, you aren't changing direction anytime soon. EVE would be like a bunch of fat men sitting on a frozen lake with rocket boosters strapped to their asses playing laser tag. There would be a lot of blasting past people and seeing them for a fraction of a second and a whole lot of never missing your shots, and very little "epic space combat".
Sam Ruger
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#32 - 2012-07-26 00:56:03 UTC
Watch the way the fighters move in Babylon -5 thats how it would be done.
Akirei Scytale
Okami Syndicate
#33 - 2012-07-26 01:17:33 UTC
Sam Ruger wrote:
Watch the way the fighters move in Babylon -5 thats how it would be done.


Fire and sound in space? Continuously burning engines? Turning without redirecting thrust or using forward / side pointing thrusters?

No, not even close.

Ships would basically "fart" for tiny fractions of a second, never continuously burn their engines. Any turn would involve a lot of time and a lot of farts. Also, one of the most definitive aspects of realistic space combat would be the fact that your ships velocity is infinitely more important than the direction it is pointing in - you'd never turn around to shoot at someone behind you, you'd simply fire a tiny burst to start spinning, and then another to stop while facing "backwards" - all while your direction of motion remained unchanged. You'd appear to be flying backwards after this is done.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#34 - 2012-07-26 02:07:53 UTC
Akirei Scytale wrote:
Sam Ruger wrote:
Watch the way the fighters move in Babylon -5 thats how it would be done.


Fire and sound in space? Continuously burning engines? Turning without redirecting thrust or using forward / side pointing thrusters?

No, not even close.

Ships would basically "fart" for tiny fractions of a second, never continuously burn their engines. Any turn would involve a lot of time and a lot of farts. Also, one of the most definitive aspects of realistic space combat would be the fact that your ships velocity is infinitely more important than the direction it is pointing in - you'd never turn around to shoot at someone behind you, you'd simply fire a tiny burst to start spinning, and then another to stop while facing "backwards" - all while your direction of motion remained unchanged. You'd appear to be flying backwards after this is done.

Must be really hard to keep that microwarpdriving drake on the anchor.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Ginseng Jita
PAN-EVE TRADING COMPANY
#35 - 2012-07-26 02:54:43 UTC
Sam Ruger wrote:
Watch the way the fighters move in Babylon -5 thats how it would be done.


Battlestar Galactica did it almost right. They used attitude control thrusters and their main thrusters.

BTW watch this video. Battle for Helios Delta 6. Forward to 3:12 and watch as the one Battlestar explodes...CCP could learn something from it me thinks. :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=T0GI2GHgwBI&NR=1
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#36 - 2012-07-26 03:02:43 UTC
if eve would play in space it would have physics as in games like independence war II or nexus or as in shows like babylon 5 or battlestar.

but its under water.. so its all fine

how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value
Keen Fallsword
Skyway Patrol
#37 - 2012-07-26 03:20:19 UTC
Bootleg Jack wrote:
I like how there are a lot fo smart assed remarks about how ships move, but so few suggestions.

So tell us, in space how would a ship turn?

Would the ship have retro rockets on the front to help turning?
Would the retros be strong enough to spin the ship, or strong enough to actually effect its course?
Would the ship spin around and fire its main engines to change course?
Would the retros cause the ship to arc through a turn?
etc...



Luckily eve is not rl physics based game.. You can try good space flight sim to try how hard space flying is... It's freaking hard
Bootleg Jack
ACME Mineral and Gas
#38 - 2012-07-26 16:31:20 UTC
Akirei Scytale wrote:
If EVE used realistic physics, every ship would be covered in tiny thrusters, there would be no such thing as maximum velocity until c (the speed of light), acceleration and inertia would be the most critical features, and it wouldn't even remotely be fun. Turrets would essentially never miss, as sudden course alterations would be so rare that aiming would be a simple matter of calculating the enemy's velocity and then shooting where he's going to be. Also, weapon range would be unlimited, although self propelled munitions (missiles) would lose the ability to change their course after a given amount of time.

Seriously, it would take twice as long to turn around as it would to reach a speed in any given direction. When there is no velocity cap, this means that once you're moving fast, you aren't changing direction anytime soon. EVE would be like a bunch of fat men sitting on a frozen lake with rocket boosters strapped to their asses playing laser tag. There would be a lot of blasting past people and seeing them for a fraction of a second and a whole lot of never missing your shots, and very little "epic space combat".



i.e. Be careful what you wish for.

I used to agree, but not too sure, what was that deal on page one about the warp plates, didn't that make the ships feel like submarines? Or does it cause cancer in the process?


Also, EvE seems kind of in the middle between "joysticks and fat men on ice"?

I'm an American, English is my second language...
Solhild
Doomheim
#39 - 2012-07-26 20:10:54 UTC
Zanzbar wrote:
Solhild wrote:


Warp cores have a certain buoyancy against the fabric of space time (charge field). This is why ships tend to align with the horizontal solar system disc owing to the overpowering strength of the charge field from the local star, explaining why all ships have the same right way up!

Each ship has large internal metal plate sections within the hull that are energised by the warp core. Subtle changes in the polarity of these plates steer the ship. Stasis web mods work by interfering with this balance.

One side effect of energising these plates if that hydrogen is generated and builds up on the surfaces, essentially being created from vacuum. In order to manage this, ships collect and use this hydrogen to provide additional forward thrust - when the thrust is reduced, the warp core/plates drag against the charge field to slow the ship to a standstill relative to the nearest significant mass (planet or sun).

This is the reason that stations and stargates also contain warp technology, to fix them above planets or in convenient charge field wells in a solar system.

Basically, no attitude control or retro rockets Big smile


Wait, was a minmatar realy the one that came up with the best explanation? I thought that the space monkeys were suopposed to be the technologicaly inferior race.

O wait I'm sry, second best answer here, confirming that a jove did it


hehe - I think someone with some talent could expand on this and maybe even invent something in their garage!?!?
Zanzbar
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#40 - 2012-07-26 20:37:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Zanzbar
Bootleg Jack wrote:
TexasFire wrote:
Dubstepcat wrote:
RCS (Reaction Control Systems) or OCS (Orbital Control Systems)

Or just a gyroscope


My first reaction was the presence of large flaming hamsters somewhere in the bowels of the ship. But then good sense grabbed a hold and I realized I was just asking for an adverse reaction from members of FinFleet


If you burn their tails they run faster...

just sayin Shocked


Quick grab a thermordynamics skillbook and a bottle of nan... I mean aloe, this hamsters still got some life in him.
Previous page123Next page