These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Ships & Modules

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
12Next page
 

Square turrets.

Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Xadiran
Moira.
#1 - 2012-06-28 18:56:13 UTC
(I searched and couldn't find anything on this topic, so sorry if a similar thread is floating around out there, cold and alone)

Do the square barrels on the 250mm, 280mm, 650mm, and 1200mm arty **** anyone else off?

None of these turrets actually look like artillery; more like they were drawn up by someone for another turret class and didn't get picked, so the art department just re-used the model for artillery instead of making PROPER models.

Seriously, the 250mm has a bend in the barrel, the 280 looks like the dual 250mm railgun, and the 650 and 1200 are the same model apart from their mounting point, and judging by shape of their barrels, they all shoot pancakes apparently. Or bricks. Or maybe foam discs.

Is it really too much to ask for all projectile turrets to have real, cylindrical barrels?
Dark Pangolin
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#2 - 2012-06-28 19:42:37 UTC
Dude..they're SPACE projectile turrets...IN SPACE!
Alara IonStorm
#3 - 2012-06-28 19:47:07 UTC
They are made in space japan.
Cedo Nulli
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#4 - 2012-06-28 19:50:35 UTC
You do understand that even if the outside of the barrel is a square ... it doesent mean the inside is ...
Nons Mom
Doomheim
#5 - 2012-06-28 19:57:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Nons Mom
I somewhat agree with you. Some of the old projectile turret models didn't look realistic (a 280mm cannon mounted on a stick? How did they load the ammo in there?) So I was glad when they updated the models, but I think they took a wrong direction in the art department. The new projectile model theme just seems more Caldari due to its blocky/modular look and color. Not enough Minmatar colors/rust on them.

And hell, the old model of the 3500mm Siege Artillery turret looked like it meant business. The new ones just has a reduced effect of badassery imo.
Bill Serkoff2
Tachyon Technology
#6 - 2012-06-28 20:00:20 UTC
Nons Mom wrote:

And hell, the old model of the 3500mm Siege Artillery turret looked like it meant business. The new ones just has a reduced effect of badassery imo.

I'm upset that the six-barreled capital autocannon isn't a gigantic gatling gun anymore.

"The Cyclone and the Drake are two ships which will basically never be good for shield tanking, primarily because they have almost no lowslots in addition to shield tanking bonuses. " -Iam Widdershins
Warpshade
Warped Industries
#7 - 2012-06-28 20:21:59 UTC
Those barrels are also held together by duct tape!
Dorian Wylde
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#8 - 2012-06-28 20:48:44 UTC
Square projectiles have better hydrodynamics in the fluid that is eve space.
CorInaXeraL
The Dresdeneers
#9 - 2012-06-28 21:31:12 UTC
Square projectiles are more efficient against shields and armor than round ones. It's science.
Lost Greybeard
Drunken Yordles
#10 - 2012-06-28 21:53:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Lost Greybeard
We're kind of in meta-game territory here rather than talking about actual ships, I think.

But anyhow, you see a lot of squares and rectangles in large-scale hardware because they're easy to manufacture and fit against other pieces. The circular geometry minimizes material usage and maximizes the overall strength of the structure against internal stresses, yes, but that's not necessarily the primary concern when you're mass-producing something with mechanical parts.

As a random real-world example, find a friend with a few handguns and they likely have a late-model Glock in there somewhere. You'll note that the topmost slide is rectangular in geometry, with a circular hole for the barrel. Field-strip the piece and you'll see that the rails along which the action slides are also rectangular (with rounded edges) and the barrel itself, while cylindrical toward the front bit that slides out when the action cycles and roughly cylindrical (rifled) on the inside, is actually a rectangular prism around the part of the barrel that aligns with the feed mechanism from the magazine. The only reason the front end of the barrel is shaved down to the cylinder is to save some expensive steel-- something that isn't really a concern when your civilization has access to the metal in asteroids and other extraterrestrial bodies.

As regards the oblong nature of projectiles, remember that the "bullet" shape of a terrestrial bullet is designed to fight air resistance in the atmosphere to maintain as close to a pure ballistic trajectory as possible. In a vacuum (interplanetary space is about 10^-6 to 10^-5 torr in pressure, a terrestrial atmosphere is 700-800) gas resistance is not a major factor. One of the more popular engineering tricks in the design of potential space-weapons is to instead place a spin on space projectiles, since angular momentum makes it more difficult to shift a trajectory, in order to compensate for kinetic countermeasures and your basic mechanical error. This is actually what rifling does here on earth, but in space there's no reason that the spin has to be normal to the trajectory and it's actually advantageous for the trajectory to be in-plane instead since ari resistance doesn't stabilize you. This makes the ideal projectile shape a sphere that's been somewhat flattened into a disc shape. A full one hockey-puck shape might be cheaper, even, resulting in a rectangular opening in the front of the gun.

I guess the short version of what I'm saying here is that what you're complaining about may be the result of the Devs knowing more about firearms design than you, not less.

EDIT: I'm aware that this is a weird thing for someone that plays video games to be a nerd about. In my defense, I'm from the central US, the only place in the first world with more guns per person than us is rural Canada.
CorInaXeraL
The Dresdeneers
#11 - 2012-06-28 21:56:45 UTC
Lost Greybeard wrote:
Science.


Well said.
Rip Marley
MANPENIS
#12 - 2012-06-28 23:05:03 UTC
Lost Greybeard wrote:
We're kind of in meta-game territory here rather than talking about actual ships, I think.

But anyhow, you see a lot of squares and rectangles in large-scale hardware because they're easy to manufacture and fit against other pieces. The circular geometry minimizes material usage and maximizes the overall strength of the structure against internal stresses, yes, but that's not necessarily the primary concern when you're mass-producing something with mechanical parts.

As a random real-world example, find a friend with a few handguns and they likely have a late-model Glock in there somewhere. You'll note that the topmost slide is rectangular in geometry, with a circular hole for the barrel. Field-strip the piece and you'll see that the rails along which the action slides are also rectangular (with rounded edges) and the barrel itself, while cylindrical toward the front bit that slides out when the action cycles and roughly cylindrical (rifled) on the inside, is actually a rectangular prism around the part of the barrel that aligns with the feed mechanism from the magazine. The only reason the front end of the barrel is shaved down to the cylinder is to save some expensive steel-- something that isn't really a concern when your civilization has access to the metal in asteroids and other extraterrestrial bodies.

As regards the oblong nature of projectiles, remember that the "bullet" shape of a terrestrial bullet is designed to fight air resistance in the atmosphere to maintain as close to a pure ballistic trajectory as possible. In a vacuum (interplanetary space is about 10^-6 to 10^-5 torr in pressure, a terrestrial atmosphere is 700-800) gas resistance is not a major factor. One of the more popular engineering tricks in the design of potential space-weapons is to instead place a spin on space projectiles, since angular momentum makes it more difficult to shift a trajectory, in order to compensate for kinetic countermeasures and your basic mechanical error. This is actually what rifling does here on earth, but in space there's no reason that the spin has to be normal to the trajectory and it's actually advantageous for the trajectory to be in-plane instead since ari resistance doesn't stabilize you. This makes the ideal projectile shape a sphere that's been somewhat flattened into a disc shape. A full one hockey-puck shape might be cheaper, even, resulting in a rectangular opening in the front of the gun.

I guess the short version of what I'm saying here is that what you're complaining about may be the result of the Devs knowing more about firearms design than you, not less.

EDIT: I'm aware that this is a weird thing for someone that plays video games to be a nerd about. In my defense, I'm from the central US, the only place in the first world with more guns per person than us is rural Canada.



I am shocked to say this but, that was a good read.
Xadiran
Moira.
#13 - 2012-06-28 23:06:57 UTC
greybeard i never claimed to know a lot about firearm design, and you make some good points, but you have to wonder why all other projectile weapons save for the 4 listed have the cylindrical barrels we all know and love?

Every sub-capital autocannon in the game has a familiar cylindrical barrel design, and so do the powerful 720mm and 1400mm artillery pieces. Why do these 4 break from convention?

If the devs indeed had in mind that the square projectiles make more sense, why aren't more or ALL of the projectile weapons shooting flat slugs from rectangular barrels?

Furthermore, why does the 250mm artillery literally have a bent barrel? You can't tell me that's some brilliant piece of space-bullet engineering.

I have no problem with the turret models apart from the actual opening where the slug is supposed to come out of, the rest can be a cube for all i care.

My issue is the very obvious laziness that befell these 4 turret models, recycling models that were likely made for railguns or blasters into artillery without modification to make them look like the rest of the projectile turrets.
Daniel Plain
Doomheim
#14 - 2012-06-28 23:21:04 UTC
Lost Greybeard wrote:
We're kind of in meta-game territory here rather than talking about actual ships, I think.

But anyhow, you see a lot of squares and rectangles in large-scale hardware because they're easy to manufacture and fit against other pieces. The circular geometry minimizes material usage and maximizes the overall strength of the structure against internal stresses, yes, but that's not necessarily the primary concern when you're mass-producing something with mechanical parts.

As a random real-world example, find a friend with a few handguns and they likely have a late-model Glock in there somewhere. You'll note that the topmost slide is rectangular in geometry, with a circular hole for the barrel. Field-strip the piece and you'll see that the rails along which the action slides are also rectangular (with rounded edges) and the barrel itself, while cylindrical toward the front bit that slides out when the action cycles and roughly cylindrical (rifled) on the inside, is actually a rectangular prism around the part of the barrel that aligns with the feed mechanism from the magazine. The only reason the front end of the barrel is shaved down to the cylinder is to save some expensive steel-- something that isn't really a concern when your civilization has access to the metal in asteroids and other extraterrestrial bodies.

As regards the oblong nature of projectiles, remember that the "bullet" shape of a terrestrial bullet is designed to fight air resistance in the atmosphere to maintain as close to a pure ballistic trajectory as possible. In a vacuum (interplanetary space is about 10^-6 to 10^-5 torr in pressure, a terrestrial atmosphere is 700-800) gas resistance is not a major factor. One of the more popular engineering tricks in the design of potential space-weapons is to instead place a spin on space projectiles, since angular momentum makes it more difficult to shift a trajectory, in order to compensate for kinetic countermeasures and your basic mechanical error. This is actually what rifling does here on earth, but in space there's no reason that the spin has to be normal to the trajectory and it's actually advantageous for the trajectory to be in-plane instead since ari resistance doesn't stabilize you. This makes the ideal projectile shape a sphere that's been somewhat flattened into a disc shape. A full one hockey-puck shape might be cheaper, even, resulting in a rectangular opening in the front of the gun.

I guess the short version of what I'm saying here is that what you're complaining about may be the result of the Devs knowing more about firearms design than you, not less.

EDIT: I'm aware that this is a weird thing for someone that plays video games to be a nerd about. In my defense, I'm from the central US, the only place in the first world with more guns per person than us is rural Canada.


...except the ammo in the icons is always round :D

I should buy an Ishtar.
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#15 - 2012-06-29 03:26:41 UTC
Lost Greybeard wrote:
We're kind of in meta-game territory here rather than talking about actual ships, I think.

But anyhow, you see a lot of squares and rectangles in large-scale hardware because they're easy to manufacture and fit against other pieces. The circular geometry minimizes material usage and maximizes the overall strength of the structure against internal stresses, yes, but that's not necessarily the primary concern when you're mass-producing something with mechanical parts.

As a random real-world example, find a friend with a few handguns and they likely have a late-model Glock in there somewhere. You'll note that the topmost slide is rectangular in geometry, with a circular hole for the barrel. Field-strip the piece and you'll see that the rails along which the action slides are also rectangular (with rounded edges) and the barrel itself, while cylindrical toward the front bit that slides out when the action cycles and roughly cylindrical (rifled) on the inside, is actually a rectangular prism around the part of the barrel that aligns with the feed mechanism from the magazine. The only reason the front end of the barrel is shaved down to the cylinder is to save some expensive steel-- something that isn't really a concern when your civilization has access to the metal in asteroids and other extraterrestrial bodies.

As regards the oblong nature of projectiles, remember that the "bullet" shape of a terrestrial bullet is designed to fight air resistance in the atmosphere to maintain as close to a pure ballistic trajectory as possible. In a vacuum (interplanetary space is about 10^-6 to 10^-5 torr in pressure, a terrestrial atmosphere is 700-800) gas resistance is not a major factor. One of the more popular engineering tricks in the design of potential space-weapons is to instead place a spin on space projectiles, since angular momentum makes it more difficult to shift a trajectory, in order to compensate for kinetic countermeasures and your basic mechanical error. This is actually what rifling does here on earth, but in space there's no reason that the spin has to be normal to the trajectory and it's actually advantageous for the trajectory to be in-plane instead since ari resistance doesn't stabilize you. This makes the ideal projectile shape a sphere that's been somewhat flattened into a disc shape. A full one hockey-puck shape might be cheaper, even, resulting in a rectangular opening in the front of the gun.

I guess the short version of what I'm saying here is that what you're complaining about may be the result of the Devs knowing more about firearms design than you, not less.

EDIT: I'm aware that this is a weird thing for someone that plays video games to be a nerd about. In my defense, I'm from the central US, the only place in the first world with more guns per person than us is rural Canada.


Very good write up! Now I wish my pistol would shoot pancake projectiles Big smile
Silas Shaw
Coffee Hub
#16 - 2012-06-29 04:09:35 UTC
Xadiran wrote:
greybeard i never claimed to know a lot about firearm design, and you make some good points, but you have to wonder why all other projectile weapons save for the 4 listed have the cylindrical barrels we all know and love?

Every sub-capital autocannon in the game has a familiar cylindrical barrel design, and so do the powerful 720mm and 1400mm artillery pieces. Why do these 4 break from convention?

If the devs indeed had in mind that the square projectiles make more sense, why aren't more or ALL of the projectile weapons shooting flat slugs from rectangular barrels?

Furthermore, why does the 250mm artillery literally have a bent barrel? You can't tell me that's some brilliant piece of space-bullet engineering.

I have no problem with the turret models apart from the actual opening where the slug is supposed to come out of, the rest can be a cube for all i care.

My issue is the very obvious laziness that befell these 4 turret models, recycling models that were likely made for railguns or blasters into artillery without modification to make them look like the rest of the projectile turrets.


talking lazy renders? look at the BS sized ACs. that 800mm that has two barrels and a description saying 4? those DUAL 650s with 4 barrels in two spinning sets?

what part of 4 is two, and dual means 8?
Sentry 10
Escape Velocity
#17 - 2012-06-29 04:17:50 UTC
Lets set science aside. Aesthetically speaking, yes, I agree, the square projectile turrets are f***Ing ugly. More looks of the 1400mm style and less hockey-disk guns.
Mira Lynne
State War Academy
Caldari State
#18 - 2012-06-29 06:28:19 UTC
Silas Shaw wrote:
[talking lazy renders? look at the BS sized ACs. that 800mm that has two barrels and a description saying 4? those DUAL 650s with 4 barrels in two spinning sets?

what part of 4 is two, and dual means 8?


Generally, Rotary Cannons use Multiple Barrels. Dual 650s would be 2 Separate 4 Barrel (Rotating) Repeating Artillery. Shortened to Dual 650.
About the 800s Having 4 Barrels: Maybe each visible Barrel is made up of two Internal Barrels? 800mm is honestly pretty damn big.

Sentry 10 wrote:
hockey-disk

Get Out.
(Its a Puck. Hockey is srs bzns in Canada)

Back on Topic: I Actually like the 650mm Puck Cannon. It seems functional, and, shockingly enough for Minmatar, well designed. As opposed to 'Gun on a Stick' like most other weapons (Looking at you, 250mm Rails)
Not bent halfway down the barrel like small arty, no Overhang at the rear like Large Arty (That seriously bothers me - no way all that recoil can be absorbed like that, esp. on 1200s)

[u]I, too, horse frogs.[/u] Support the Return of Realistic Module Icons! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=114818&find=unread
Tor Gungnir
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#19 - 2012-06-29 10:25:46 UTC
Daniel Plain wrote:

...except the ammo in the icons is always round :D



This.

It is just lazy design.

Space. It seems to go on and on forever. But then you get to the end and a gorilla starts throwing barrels at you.
Rel'k Bloodlor
Federation Front Line Report
Federation Front Line
#20 - 2012-06-29 11:11:59 UTC
Lost Greybeard wrote:


EDIT: I'm aware that this is a weird thing for someone that plays video games to be a nerd about. In my defense, I'm from the central US, the only place in the first world with more guns per person than us is rural Canada.



LIE's! some times Canada wont even let me take all my guns in there, and the state i live in has no need for gun registration so we probably have close to 3-5 guns per person. Witch is awesome.


Comparing our modern guns to eve guns is a lot like comparing our modern guns to ancient stone tipped spears and spear throwers so ya.................

I wanted to paint my space ship red, but I couldn't find enough goats. 
12Next page