These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

More realistic lasers or lore explanation needed for current ones.
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Francisco Bizzaro
#41 - 2012-04-22 12:39:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Francisco Bizzaro
Verity Sovereign wrote:
Your wikipedia sci-fi drive does nothing to show that the drive would actually work, the idea is old, before specilation on how fast spacetime can be distorted.
Your warp bubble cannot be made to travel faster than the speed of light. It might allow for ships to go the speed of light, or at least near to it, without using obscene amounts of propellant (approaching infinity)

No, Alcubierre's "warp drive" does travel faster than the speed of light. His paper was intended to point out an aspect of general relativity: It is possible to imagine a spacetime in which you can travel faster than the speed of light, even though locally the speed of light remains fixed. This is a due to a mathematical distinction between the global properties of a spacetime and its local properties. In order to implement this effect, however, you need to surround your ship with matter that has some very strange properties, analogous to having "negative mass", which doesn't seem to exist in reality.

Quote:

Gravity moves at the speed of light: http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2001-4/
(of course, its an indirect measurement)

This is true.

Thutmose I wrote:

please link this experiment about the gravity waves? when I last talked to the guy in charge of LISA (early 2011), they had not found any (hence the need for LISA), so this experimental confirmation must have been in the last year.

This is true. Gravitational waves have never been measured directly. The LISA mission is cancelled. Ground-based detectors (LIGO, Virgo) are likely to measure gravitational waves within the next 5 years or so. If they do not travel at the speed of light, that will be a Very Big Deal.

Verity Sovereign wrote:

EVE is not realistic at all.

This is true.
Thutmose I
Rattium Incorporated
#42 - 2012-04-22 13:03:12 UTC
Verity Sovereign wrote:
Your wikipedia sci-fi drive does nothing to show that the drive would actually work, the idea is old, before specilation on how fast spacetime can be distorted.
Your warp bubble cannot be made to travel faster than the speed of light. It might allow for ships to go the speed of light, or at least near to it, without using obscene amounts of propellant (approaching infinity)
Gravity moves at the speed of light: http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2001-4/
(of course, its an indirect measurement)

This "drag on the warp core" thing is a stupid argument meant to reconcile EVEs unrealistic max non-warp speeds. Yet you want realism when you are going out of your way to justify non-realism?

Drag doesn't have anything to do with it anyway.
Its about center of mass. If the center of thrust doesn't go through the center of mass, there will be a torque, and the ship will spin.

Being in a vacuum or microgravity environment has nothing to do with this.


EVE is not realistic at all.


the center of mass of the ship is based on the internal structure, and something which bends space would have a very large effect on the location of that.

again, i have already agreed that gravity waves should go at c, but your paper you linked does not experimentally confirm this. so it is an irrelevant paper.

As for the "how do you make something go faster than c with waves that go at c", look up the difference between group velocity and phase velocity. Then read up on interference of waves, then read up on potential methods of gravity wave production (i think jack egivand linked a paper on it). If you have a gravitational wave source inside the warp drive, then you can create waves in such a way that the Alcubierre drive's gravitational structure can be maintained, and have the internal area go faster than c.

Does anyone have any points about the lasers, as in ways i can edit the equations to make them more in line with the current lasers used, preferable as close as possible, this thread is about getting a better lore explanation of lasers and changing how they work, not about theoretical GR and QM...

As for the claim "EVE is not realistic at all" i disagree, with my reasons being in every post i have made on this thread.
Francisco Bizzaro
#43 - 2012-04-22 13:16:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Francisco Bizzaro
Thutmose I wrote:
Does anyone have any points about the lasers, as in ways i can edit the equations to make them more in line with the current lasers used, preferable as close as possible, this thread is about getting a better lore explanation of lasers and changing how they work, not about theoretical GR and QM...

I don't know why you have singled out lasers. None of the weapon systems in Eve are governed by realistic physics. Neither is spaceship navigation. Clone biology is also kind of messed up. Chemical reactions in manufacturing - completely faked. Etc.

To appease the anal retentive, maybe CCP should not have used the name "Lasers" but rather "Phasers" or "Zap Rays", which are some future technology which are governed by different physics than 21st century lasers. Or you can just assume that pod pilots are scientifically ignorant and incorrectly call their Zap Rays "lasers", or in the future "lasers" becomes a slang term for energy beam weapons of all sorts.
Thutmose I
Rattium Incorporated
#44 - 2012-04-22 13:21:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Thutmose I
Francisco Bizzaro wrote:
Thutmose I wrote:
Does anyone have any points about the lasers, as in ways i can edit the equations to make them more in line with the current lasers used, preferable as close as possible, this thread is about getting a better lore explanation of lasers and changing how they work, not about theoretical GR and QM...

I don't know why you have singled out lasers. None of the weapon systems in Eve are governed by realistic physics. Neither is spaceship navigation. Clone biology is also kind of messed up. Chemical reactions in manufacturing - completely faked. Etc.

To appease the anal retentive, maybe CCP should not have used the name "Lasers" but rather "Phasers" or "Zap Rays", which are some future technology which are governed by different physics than 21st century lasers. Or you can just assume that pod pilots are scientifically ignorant and incorrectly call their Zap Rays "lasers", or in the future "lasers" becomes a slang term for energy beam weapons of all sorts.


I single out lasers as they are relatively easy to do the maths for, and should be easy to balance.

edit: i could try to do blasters next :D (they have a lore explanation though)
Francisco Bizzaro
#45 - 2012-04-22 13:24:29 UTC
Thutmose I wrote:
Francisco Bizzaro wrote:
Thutmose I wrote:
Does anyone have any points about the lasers, as in ways i can edit the equations to make them more in line with the current lasers used, preferable as close as possible, this thread is about getting a better lore explanation of lasers and changing how they work, not about theoretical GR and QM...

I don't know why you have singled out lasers. None of the weapon systems in Eve are governed by realistic physics. Neither is spaceship navigation. Clone biology is also kind of messed up. Chemical reactions in manufacturing - completely faked. Etc.

To appease the anal retentive, maybe CCP should not have used the name "Lasers" but rather "Phasers" or "Zap Rays", which are some future technology which are governed by different physics than 21st century lasers. Or you can just assume that pod pilots are scientifically ignorant and incorrectly call their Zap Rays "lasers", or in the future "lasers" becomes a slang term for energy beam weapons of all sorts.


I single out lasers as they are relatively easy to do the maths for, and should be easy to balance.

edit: i could try to do blasters next :D (they have a lore explanation though)

Why?
Thutmose I
Rattium Incorporated
#46 - 2012-04-22 13:26:15 UTC
Francisco Bizzaro wrote:

Why?


Thutmose I wrote:

I single out lasers as they are relatively easy to do the maths for, and should be easy to balance.
Francisco Bizzaro
#47 - 2012-04-22 13:36:00 UTC
Thutmose I wrote:
Francisco Bizzaro wrote:

Why?

Thutmose I wrote:

I single out lasers as they are relatively easy to do the maths for, and should be easy to balance.

I meant "why blasters?".

But go ahead, knock yourself out. Don't forget to take into account the specific heat of the hull plating of the ship you are shooting at, the reflectivity to light at various wavelengths and the angle of incidence of the laser beam against the plate, because those are important parameters and you want to do it properly after all.
Duchess Starbuckington
Doomheim
#48 - 2012-04-22 13:39:25 UTC
1. Changes in the name of realism are an exercise in futility. Again, if realism is what you want, play another game.
2. Lasers are not in need of any balance changes, so these would serve no purpose.

Which part of these two points do you not understand?
Thutmose I
Rattium Incorporated
#49 - 2012-04-22 13:42:32 UTC
Francisco Bizzaro wrote:

I meant "why blasters?".


Blasters have a lore explanation so not really needed.

as for why: because they would also be able to be balanced using a similar approach to the lasers, the divergence of the plasma would be much much greater than a laser, so you end up with a short range weapon that does high damage.

now, do you have anything on topic to say?
Thutmose I
Rattium Incorporated
#50 - 2012-04-22 13:44:11 UTC
Duchess Starbuckington wrote:

1. Changes in the name of realism are an exercise in futility. Again, if realism is what you want, play another game.
2. Lasers are not in need of any balance changes, so these would serve no purpose.

Which part of these two points do you not understand?


point 1

as for point 2, my point of posting this thread is to result in lasers as close to current ones as possible, as in ideas on how to get this idea to have almost the same stats as current lasers.
Francisco Bizzaro
#51 - 2012-04-22 13:48:15 UTC
Thutmose I wrote:
now, do you have anything on topic to say?

Yes. I think your model for laser beam damage to an energy shield and hull plating is too simple. Let us know when you've worked it out properly.
Thutmose I
Rattium Incorporated
#52 - 2012-04-22 13:49:46 UTC
my post is a request for help in those calculations, any advice on suitable numbers to use for absorbance or the shields/armor and intensity of the electric field in the laser?
Duchess Starbuckington
Doomheim
#53 - 2012-04-22 13:51:15 UTC
Quote:
as for point 2, my point of posting this thread is to result in lasers as close to current ones as possible, as in ideas on how to get this idea to have almost the same stats as current lasers.

Right, the problem here being you're still implying that they need changing, which they don't.
Thutmose I
Rattium Incorporated
#54 - 2012-04-22 13:53:24 UTC
Duchess Starbuckington wrote:
Quote:
as for point 2, my point of posting this thread is to result in lasers as close to current ones as possible, as in ideas on how to get this idea to have almost the same stats as current lasers.

Right, the problem here being you're still implying that they need changing, which they don't.


my point is that they need a lore explanation, if that can be done without any change, then it is fine. otherwise, a small change, which would result in an interesting weapon mechanic (signature resolution as a function of distance and falloff as a function of size), which would also be interesting to see the balancing potential of.
Duchess Starbuckington
Doomheim
#55 - 2012-04-22 13:59:23 UTC
Gameplay > lore. Very, very little in this game has a plausible explanation, lasers are no different.

Lasers are fine, gameplay wise, and thus require no change. It's really that simple. They're not useless, not overpowered, and are distinct from other weapon systems in numerous ways. That's all they need to work well, not a complete rework because someone decided they should be realistic for some utterly arbitrary reason.
Thutmose I
Rattium Incorporated
#56 - 2012-04-22 14:01:45 UTC
Duchess Starbuckington wrote:
Gameplay > lore. Very, very little in this game has a plausible explanation, lasers are no different.

Lasers are fine, gameplay wise, and thus require no change. It's really that simple. They're not useless, not overpowered, and are distinct from other weapon systems in numerous ways. That's all they need to work well, not a complete rework because someone decided they should be realistic for some utterly arbitrary reason.


most of it does have an official explanation of sorts however.
Francisco Bizzaro
#57 - 2012-04-22 14:04:44 UTC
Thutmose I wrote:
my post is a request for help in those calculations, any advice on suitable numbers to use for absorbance or the shields/armor and intensity of the electric field in the laser?

Well, first you'll need to design a "shield" of course, since they don't really exist.

And then you'll need to know something about the physical properties of Eve armor plating. Specific heat, density, surface reflectivity, stuff like that. CCP can probably provide numbers for this, as I'm sure they've worked it all out.

For a laser striking a surface, the angle of incidence is important. I believe you can extract polygon ship models from the game client, but I don't know how.

Then you'll have to find an appropriate conversion factor for "damage" into joules or watts or whatever. This might get tricky for a number of reasons. Among them, it's actually hard to define "energy" in a universe where momentum is not conserved.

Anyhow, at that point, you'll probably have a physical model which is accurate enough for you to build your own abaddon in your back yard. But I'm not sure if it will work in-game.
Duchess Starbuckington
Doomheim
#58 - 2012-04-22 14:05:11 UTC
Quote:
most of it does have an official explanation of sorts however.

Gameplay > lore.
I'm sorry is that not simple enough for you?
Thutmose I
Rattium Incorporated
#59 - 2012-04-22 14:06:32 UTC
Duchess Starbuckington wrote:
Quote:
most of it does have an official explanation of sorts however.

Gameplay > lore.
I'm sorry is that not simple enough for you?


nope, too complex
Duchess Starbuckington
Doomheim
#60 - 2012-04-22 14:09:43 UTC
Quote:
build your own abaddon in your back yard.

Do want.