These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next pageLast page
 

More realistic lasers or lore explanation needed for current ones.

Author
Thutmose I
Rattium Incorporated
#1 - 2012-04-18 11:14:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Thutmose I
I propose that for the sake of realism, a few changes be made to laser mechanics. These changes will result in lasers having a different falloff rate than current weapons in EVE, but less able to hit small targets at long range. the effectiveness at short range on stationary, or slow moving small targets will be greatly improved.

Problems i have with current lasers:

1) Lasers should not miss. assuming you use a proper laser targeting system, your lasers should be guaranteed to hit any target less than about 1000km away, especially with the speed limitations in eve.

2) Lasers should be less effective on small targets at long range. This would be due to the expected divergence of the beam.

3) The frequency range of the lasers should only be an order of magnitude or so, as that is all that is needed to achieve the current range intervals (see spreadsheet linked)

With this system, lasers would be unable to hit any target going above a certain angular velocity, but will hit for full damage on anything else. The calculations i did are assuming that the beam is a Gaussian beam, as those have the lowest inherent divergence. my suggested value of the wavelength of laser used is on the order of 0.5-10mm, which would be in the microwave range, which would be easily attainable using an FEL. i am also assuming that the laser beam, at it's narrowest point is about 5cm in radius.

How to make this work in line with current system:

1) a smaller beam radius will reduce the optimal range of the laser. if you make the larger lasers have a larger beam waist, then they have more range.

2) smaller lasers/mirrors are easier to rotate, so more tracking.

3) Pulse lasers would do more damage as a higher power than beam lasers, assuming same energy involved.

4) instead of Frequency crystals, use undulators, or some other name for them.

Spreadsheet: Laser power profile for a Gaussian beam.

Issues i still need to solve:

1) reason why higher frequency lasers would do less damage (higher frequency, longer range); my current thoughts would just say the handwavium mirrors do not reflect those wavelengths as well, but i want a better reason.

2) need to tweak the wavelength/beam width to get numbers more consistent with current lasers in eve.


formulas used from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaussian_beam

Also, as an added bonus to this idea, assuming the FELs only had a mirror for aiming of beam, then adding heat sinks to it would allow the laser to operate at higher energies, and with a higher rate of fire, making heat sinks actually a reasonable damage module for lasers.
Josef Stylin
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#2 - 2012-04-18 11:20:14 UTC
You're making the assumption that realism is more important than game balance, which it is not.
Thutmose I
Rattium Incorporated
#3 - 2012-04-18 11:22:47 UTC
What i did was find a realistic way to modify the lasers, which could possibly be balanced. the reason i posted here was to try to find any major flaws in the balancing potential of this idea. to me, it looks like some tweaking of variables would result in a weapon system consistent with the weapons currently in the game.
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#4 - 2012-04-18 11:25:06 UTC
You do realise psychics in eve are totally different to those in reality, right? I mean, we fly through water, not vacuum.
Thutmose I
Rattium Incorporated
#5 - 2012-04-18 11:30:50 UTC
The gravitational constant is the same (or it was in 2009 before they made the temperate planets more realistic, haven't checked since then) so i assume the permittivity and permeability of free space would also be the same.

as for the flying through water, that is a case where making it more real would be very hard to balance/make playable with the other mechanics in game.
hmskrecik
TransMine Group
Gluten Free Cartel
#6 - 2012-04-18 12:26:17 UTC
Thutmose I wrote:
The gravitational constant is the same (or it was in 2009 before they made the temperate planets more realistic, haven't checked since then) so i assume the permittivity and permeability of free space would also be the same.


In case you haven't noticed in EVE the gravity constant is ZERO: objects don't experience gravity pull and just stay in space where they were put.

The space has non zero friction quotient.

The speed of light is infinity (okay, slightly lower due to lag) and falls to zero outside of grid boundary (in visual range of wavelenghts, for radio it stays at infinity across whole universe).

What kind of realism are you talking about?
Thutmose I
Rattium Incorporated
#7 - 2012-04-18 12:34:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Thutmose I
Ever clicked the show info on a planet? There is enough data to calculate G, which when I did it around the apocrypha expansion gave me the correct value of about 6.67(units), where there was even an atmospheric correction added to thier planet data generating code, which results in a difference in density. The scientific articles also use relatively up to date physics. As for the grid, ever tried looking at an object from over 300km away? They get very small and hard to see. You can still see stations off grid.
Verity Sovereign
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#8 - 2012-04-18 12:44:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Verity Sovereign
More realistic lasers?
First off, you are never going to get a gaussian beam distribution.

If Eve were realistic, lasers would be the only viable space combat weapon.
Pulse lasers would always be used over beam lasers

Combat would take place at ranges on the order of >1 AU.
Speed of light lag would be a major factor, as laser pulses would take a long time to travel that distance.

There would be no reason to use anything other than X ray and Gamma ray lasers.

With a hard X ray laser, and a 30meter focusing "lens", you could hit targets upwards of 12 AU away, with a beam diameter of less than 10 meters (I'd have to do the calculations again, but I think its going to be less than 2).

The laser would explosively vaporize the target hull where it hits, and send a shockwave through the remainder of the hull, pulse lasers would do "explosive" damage - they'd have shockwaves rip apart the target, not slowly melt a large section of armor, they'd make a tiny section of it explode.

Railguns would be laughed at, projectile weapons would cause enemies to become absolutely hysterical.
The only weapon that might compare, would be a neutral particle beam.

Btw, your wavelength in that spreadsheet is ridiculously low 1mm? thats 1,000 micometers, thats 1,000,000 nanometers - thats well below the infrared. Green light is about 530 nanometers if I remember right.
Meanwhile we already have lasers that get wavelengths of 0.15 nanometers.

Put that light through a 10meter focusing array and your beam divergence is going to be so low, all the weapon ranges in Eve will be laughable.
Thutmose I
Rattium Incorporated
#9 - 2012-04-18 12:51:32 UTC
Do you know how hard it is to make a high powered laser in those high frequencies, let alone focus it? There are no known mirrors for x-rays, and microwaves (which is what wavelength I chose) are the easiest to swap frequency, make mirrors for, and generate in high powers. if you cannot reflect it, then it is useless for a weaponized laser.

As for the range. At those distances you mentioned the target just needs to change direction randomly and your laser will never hit.

As for the gaussian, ever looked at our current lasers? Most of them are near gaussian already, I used guassian as that has the lowest divergance, anything else would be worse.
hmskrecik
TransMine Group
Gluten Free Cartel
#10 - 2012-04-18 13:28:37 UTC  |  Edited by: hmskrecik
Thutmose I wrote:
Ever clicked the show info on a planet? There is enough data to calculate G, which when I did it around the apocrypha expansion gave me the correct value of about 6.67(units), where there was even an atmospheric correction added to thier planet data generating code, which results in a difference in density. The scientific articles also use relatively up to date physics. As for the grid, ever tried looking at an object from over 300km away? They get very small and hard to see. You can still see stations off grid.


I couldn't care less of planets. What I'm talking about is space. And here objects left in space stay in space. In the same place. No gravity. Nicht. Niente. Nada.

I give you about visible celestials, forgot about them. But it actually makes it even weirdier for light behaviour. But I'm not going to go deeper into the subject. In case you haven't noticed it's the game. And speaking of realism here is as much relevant as hoofing chess' knight.
Thutmose I
Rattium Incorporated
#11 - 2012-04-18 14:08:55 UTC
Those objects could have been placed at orbital speed, or have some form of gravity maniplutation thingy on them, they are easy to explain with the tech in eve. Your point should have been about the fact that planets do not move.

As for drag, I wonder what effect having a warp field in a gravitational field would have? Assuming warp drives are always sorta on would explain the drag, and webs
Verity Sovereign
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#12 - 2012-04-18 15:03:12 UTC
Thutmose I wrote:
Do you know how hard it is to make a high powered laser in those high frequencies, let alone focus it? There are no known mirrors for x-rays, and microwaves (which is what wavelength I chose) are the easiest to swap frequency, make mirrors for, and generate in high powers. if you cannot reflect it, then it is useless for a weaponized laser.

As for the range. At those distances you mentioned the target just needs to change direction randomly and your laser will never hit.

As for the gaussian, ever looked at our current lasers? Most of them are near gaussian already, I used guassian as that has the lowest divergance, anything else would be worse.


Yes, I do
You would need to use grazing incidence mirrors or diffraction gratings.
For x-rays, it conveniently turns out that atoms in a crystal are all evenly spaced with a spacing of about an x-ray wavelength. Thus, a crystal makes a three-dimensional diffraction grating for x-rays. The diffracted x-rays can be focused by straining the crystal.


As far as the gaussian, you can never get a pure gaussian unless your aperature diameter is infinite.
A pseudo gaussian distribution helps, but really , your best just increasing the diameter of the focusing aperature:

If you have multiple lasers, place them in a phased array

http://panoptesv.com/SciFi/LaserDeathRay/Diffraction.html

As to wavelengths, heres a quick discussion on the pros and cons of each class of wavelength

http://panoptesv.com/SciFi/LaserDeathRay/Visible.html
http://panoptesv.com/SciFi/LaserDeathRay/SoftX.html
http://panoptesv.com/SciFi/LaserDeathRay/HardX.html
http://panoptesv.com/SciFi/LaserDeathRay/Gamma.html


I cannot imagine why you would want to use a microwave laser...

"At those distances you mentioned the target just needs to change direction randomly and your laser will never hit."
Yes, this is true, but they need to start the random maneuvers before they know they've been fired upon.
IRL Alpha strikes as soon as one detects the other would be the extent of the fight.

It would also be great for POS bashing and such.

IRL, it would also mean the evading ship will be killed as soon as it runs out of propellant - the first ship to use up all its propellant gets smashed by a laser.
If eve were realistic, ships would need propellant, and there'd be no FTL like warp drives.


You ask for realism, and then ask for super advanced spaceships to use microwave lasers rather than visible or X ray lasers which we can already make. Microwave lasers have 0 advantages over higher frequency lasers.
Since you want to use undulators, that means you want an FEL laser, the primary advantage of an FEL laser, is the high frequency light it can create.

Sorry, but this idea is fail.
If we want more "realism" just make gamma the long range ammo (handwavium on how they focus it) or Xray as the long range, radio the short range ammo is Radio/multifrequency (rotating frequencies would be hell to focus)
Thutmose I
Rattium Incorporated
#13 - 2012-04-18 15:33:52 UTC
Quote:

Yes, I do
You would need to use grazing incidence mirrors or diffraction gratings.
For x-rays, it conveniently turns out that atoms in a crystal are all evenly spaced with a spacing of about an x-ray wavelength. Thus, a crystal makes a three-dimensional diffraction grating for x-rays. The diffracted x-rays can be focused by straining the crystal.


As far as the gaussian, you can never get a pure gaussian unless your aperature diameter is infinite.
A pseudo gaussian distribution helps, but really , your best just increasing the diameter of the focusing aperature:


I cannot imagine why you would want to use a microwave laser...

"At those distances you mentioned the target just needs to change direction randomly and your laser will never hit."
Yes, this is true, but they need to start the random maneuvers before they know they've been fired upon.
IRL Alpha strikes as soon as one detects the other would be the extent of the fight.

It would also be great for POS bashing and such.

IRL, it would also mean the evading ship will be killed as soon as it runs out of propellant - the first ship to use up all its propellant gets smashed by a laser.
If eve were realistic, ships would need propellant, and there'd be no FTL like warp drives.


You ask for realism, and then ask for super advanced spaceships to use microwave lasers rather than visible or X ray lasers which we can already make. Microwave lasers have 0 advantages over higher frequency lasers.
Since you want to use undulators, that means you want an FEL laser, the primary advantage of an FEL laser, is the high frequency light it can create.

Sorry, but this idea is fail.
If we want more "realism" just make gamma the long range ammo (handwavium on how they focus it) or Xray as the long range, radio the short range ammo is Radio/multifrequency (rotating frequencies would be hell to focus)


For the Gaussian, it does not need to be "pure" just close enough, which we can easily make. also, as i have said multiple times, i am using it as a best case.

I use microwaves due to the ease of production of a laser of the right energy. for any lower wavelength your mirror device would not be efficient enough to properly focus the beam, and would vaporize itself.

about your alpha issue, a relativistic railgun would do more damage to a stationary target than a laser would, with no warning.

The primary advantage of an FEL is not the high frequency, it is ability to generate high ENERGY beams with variable frequency.

The FTL warp drives and viscous space do not concern this topic.

There is no ingame explanation for how the lasers work like the do, the warp drive, and viscous space do have ingame explanations
Sentient Blade
Crisis Atmosphere
Coalition of the Unfortunate
#14 - 2012-04-18 15:58:37 UTC
Step 2. Attach Dual Modal Giga Pulse Laser Is to the heads of all sharks.
Quade Warren
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#15 - 2012-04-18 15:59:48 UTC
Verity Sovereign wrote:
More realistic lasers?
First off, you are never going to get a gaussian beam distribution.

If Eve were realistic, lasers would be the only viable space combat weapon.
Pulse lasers would always be used over beam lasers

Combat would take place at ranges on the order of >1 AU.
Speed of light lag would be a major factor, as laser pulses would take a long time to travel that distance.

There would be no reason to use anything other than X ray and Gamma ray lasers.

With a hard X ray laser, and a 30meter focusing "lens", you could hit targets upwards of 12 AU away, with a beam diameter of less than 10 meters (I'd have to do the calculations again, but I think its going to be less than 2).

The laser would explosively vaporize the target hull where it hits, and send a shockwave through the remainder of the hull, pulse lasers would do "explosive" damage - they'd have shockwaves rip apart the target, not slowly melt a large section of armor, they'd make a tiny section of it explode.

Railguns would be laughed at, projectile weapons would cause enemies to become absolutely hysterical.
The only weapon that might compare, would be a neutral particle beam.

Btw, your wavelength in that spreadsheet is ridiculously low 1mm? thats 1,000 micometers, thats 1,000,000 nanometers - thats well below the infrared. Green light is about 530 nanometers if I remember right.
Meanwhile we already have lasers that get wavelengths of 0.15 nanometers.

Put that light through a 10meter focusing array and your beam divergence is going to be so low, all the weapon ranges in Eve will be laughable.


I don't fully agree with you on a few minor points, but I do agree that true realism would have lasers as one of the more viable methods of combat. It's very simple: recoil. Pretty much every weapon would have some form of recoil, with the exception of laser. In space, unless that is part of your design philosophy, you don't want to unintentionally push your ship down a gravity well because you're defending yourself.

As a fan of science and hard science fiction, I have many problems with the Eve Universe... but it's ultimately a game and though realism can be fun, it's better just to let things be.
Aqriue
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#16 - 2012-04-18 16:05:37 UTC
Sentient Blade wrote:
Step 2. Attach Dual Modal Giga Pulse Laser Is to the heads of all sharks.

Step 3. Skip Step 4. ??? and got to Step 5
Step 5. PROFIT!!!!
Quade Warren
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#17 - 2012-04-18 16:14:41 UTC
Thutmose I wrote:
Quote:

Yes, I do
You would need to use grazing incidence mirrors or diffraction gratings.
For x-rays, it conveniently turns out that atoms in a crystal are all evenly spaced with a spacing of about an x-ray wavelength. Thus, a crystal makes a three-dimensional diffraction grating for x-rays. The diffracted x-rays can be focused by straining the crystal.


As far as the gaussian, you can never get a pure gaussian unless your aperature diameter is infinite.
A pseudo gaussian distribution helps, but really , your best just increasing the diameter of the focusing aperature:


I cannot imagine why you would want to use a microwave laser...

"At those distances you mentioned the target just needs to change direction randomly and your laser will never hit."
Yes, this is true, but they need to start the random maneuvers before they know they've been fired upon.
IRL Alpha strikes as soon as one detects the other would be the extent of the fight.

It would also be great for POS bashing and such.

IRL, it would also mean the evading ship will be killed as soon as it runs out of propellant - the first ship to use up all its propellant gets smashed by a laser.
If eve were realistic, ships would need propellant, and there'd be no FTL like warp drives.


You ask for realism, and then ask for super advanced spaceships to use microwave lasers rather than visible or X ray lasers which we can already make. Microwave lasers have 0 advantages over higher frequency lasers.
Since you want to use undulators, that means you want an FEL laser, the primary advantage of an FEL laser, is the high frequency light it can create.

Sorry, but this idea is fail.
If we want more "realism" just make gamma the long range ammo (handwavium on how they focus it) or Xray as the long range, radio the short range ammo is Radio/multifrequency (rotating frequencies would be hell to focus)


For the Gaussian, it does not need to be "pure" just close enough, which we can easily make. also, as i have said multiple times, i am using it as a best case.

I use microwaves due to the ease of production of a laser of the right energy. for any lower wavelength your mirror device would not be efficient enough to properly focus the beam, and would vaporize itself.

about your alpha issue, a relativistic railgun would do more damage to a stationary target than a laser would, with no warning.

The primary advantage of an FEL is not the high frequency, it is ability to generate high ENERGY beams with variable frequency.

The FTL warp drives and viscous space do not concern this topic.

There is no ingame explanation for how the lasers work like the do, the warp drive, and viscous space do have ingame explanations


A relativistic railgun is dangerous, but at the distances she is talking about, it could easily be detected and avoided. Most weapons in the game are only good for "up close" combat, as space goes.

Plus, the weapons themselves are not viable. You have a limited amount of material to take with you in space, you should not waste it on large slugs. It would be much more viable to predict the general vector of your target and fire very tiny, high velocity rounds in their path, somewhat like a shotgun/fletchette. A 5 mm BB with enough energy could be incredibly devastating.

Micrometeorites are some of the most dangerous things in space to an ill equipped ship. Take a 125 mm slug, break it down into 125 1 mm slugs, fire them at near the speed of light and pepper the target. With enough precision, continuously bombarding a single spot is highly effective. You only need to kill the occupants, not destroy the ship. If you want bigger, fire larger slugs. With enough kinetic energy, they'll pierce through just about anything.

Hell, for projectiles use shaped explosive rounds to send shockwaves throughout the hull and push the ship off course suddenly. Those impacts would be mighty loud traveling through the structure of a ship.

Again, disorient the crew and you've won the battle. The ship shouldn't be the target.

That's my opinion on any realism. The most dangerous weapon in the game for up close combat is hands down the blaster. Everything else is just in the process of evolving into something more dangerous. Lasers are the best all around.

And any battle above 600,000 KM should result in a stalemate with no one hitting each other. With intelligent enough juking, even a laser couldn't hit a target moving quick enough.
Thutmose I
Rattium Incorporated
#18 - 2012-04-18 17:32:07 UTC
a relativistic railgun would shoot small projectiles, the whole point of it is that the projectiles are going near c, so no warning of the projectile incoming
Verity Sovereign
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#19 - 2012-04-18 19:09:54 UTC
A railgun is never going to shoot a projectile anywhere close to C,
We can be very generous and say 0.1C (an order of magnitude below C, but still far far far beyond what an explosively propelled projectile could attain), but then at 1 light hour away, they will see the IR signature of the railgun firing, and have 9 hours to avoid it.

Particle beams could get much closer to the speed of light, but the ability to focus one at such distances is dubious at best.

"for any lower wavelength your mirror device would not be efficient enough to properly focus the beam, and would vaporize itself."

Pure BS.
1) you don't need a mirror
2) Mirrors work just fine all the way past visible, which is orders of magnitude smaller than a microwave wavelength.

"The primary advantage of an FEL is not the high frequency, it is ability to generate high ENERGY beams with variable frequency."

I'm going to call BS on this, or ask for clarification as well. Variable frequency is a large benefit, but then shouldn't you be arguing we dont need frequency crystals at all? (using such crystals would seem to preclude EVE lasers being FEL based)
High energy beams has nothing to do with FELs, many other types of lasers can match the outputs

And the ability to vary frequency is not connected to output, so I don't see why your statement attempts to link them
Corina Jarr
en Welle Shipping Inc.
#20 - 2012-04-18 20:13:01 UTC
And this is why we don't bother with realism.

My brain hurts...
123Next pageLast page