EVE General Discussion

Holy **** !

Nobody ever thought of that ! Nobody ! It's a first !

Wow, i believe that'll change EVERYTHING NOW !!!

CONGRATULATIONS !!! ... to such an ORIGINAL topic !

One reason why lightspeed isn't the practical speed limit.

How good is your particle shielding? Can it take 0.5c impacts?

Something I liked in the Troy Rising series

Okay for those you not as well read about as I am about ship technology in eve.

We theorycrafters hammered alot at why the ships in eve are submarinic in nature and come to conclude that we're using a form of purpolsion in common terms would be a "Gravity Pull" drive. In which the drive grabs gravity like a rope and pulls itself along which would limit the maxium speed and why you stop when you cut all power to the engines and then also why exhasut placment has no impact on ship movement as its the core thats responsible for pulling along, and those are juse used for cool and are out of the way of foward sensors as ion discharges can oftenly interfere with readings.

The altenrative however is going to make you go Do'h big time though, the inertia slumps and compensators acting as your counter force to the extreme voilences involed going 0 m/s to 673,191,000,000 m/s in 5 seconds and your compensaters can only counter act so much of that and the mass invovled and slumping it all off would take a life time however its better used as breaks instead of easing up on the slump's load. Also before you go cry BS on that explaintion tell that to Star Trek first the supposive authority on all things science fiction operations (which I hardly give them only a meager 2-5% contribution on, most dominate in diplomacy and social concepts, not so much on technology) , unfourtunately thier interal comps never seem to fail either mid flight. Imagine how horrible that would be if one where to suddenly go out during warp speed and your comps only caught up to even a marginal 1% of the listed above speed of a covert ops frigate.

Thats an extremly very horrible summary.

1. Gravity Drives, the assumed purpolsion means in eve, simply doesn't go to infinity they have a limit on how much gravity the can pull at any given time.

2. Interia Compensators which have to store all of that sudden inertia constantly bleeds inertia forces back out acting as breaks in space.

This doesn't go to explain why we bump off each other instead of massively wrecking. Ill blame data interpentation in the pod not compensating that the ship rapidly altered course at the last second.

Just one small example of how bad a costs/gain ratio for implementing "realizmus" would be.

Let's say you made a book mark at the planet. It is somewhere at a couple thousands km from the planet under current mechanics. Also let's assume bookmark is linked to the "absolute" coordinate system (and actually it is in-game).
For a slight exaggeration let assume it is an outer planet.

Under "realizmus" your bookmark will be in few tens of thousands of km from a planet in an hour. Pretty significant, if not crucial difference from a gameplay point of view. At the same time, looking from the system point of view, you will hardly notice any change in a position of a planet during an entire lifetime of EVE.

Maybe the problem isn't my interpretation, but rather your presentation of your ideas. Things like "extremely very horrible", "purpolsion", and "interpentation" only reinforce the proposition.

I didn't read this in full, but what I did read was far more coherent than what you wrote. Perhaps you will find it enlightening.

The link you posted is the actual math that is involved in eve. This answers the question what mostly.

Reason why its very coherent though is its formaility presentation and thought paid to it. I'm just casually responding.

And the answers I give doesnt answer What? but How? and how in a science fictional case is very fictional at times. Currently there are no I-comps, no FTL drives, or gravitmetic decay reactors the Caldari use.

And coherence is relative, there are math idiots out there that wouldnt have an inkling on how to solve sum of those equations presentented and look at that reason with just as much disregard as to the thoery that was discussed on the technological reasons why ships in eve are not newtonian-ish.

Also the article was assembeled in 2011 and wasnt aware of this neat all in one spot blog until you brought it up. The information I presented was dicussed back in 2005-6 and possibly earlier with other posters, I just simply gave a summary of the 20 page conversation.

Well if the universe of EVE work under real/current scientific theories it would be fun for few people and by few i mean below dozen.

Most people will just destroy all their ships by trying undock/dock

コヒーレンス is however relevant no matter how you look at it.

How hard is it for you to understand that the fictional reason was previously discussed at length and I presented the summary, your presentation of the actual sense on how the formulas are done are of any closer relevance to the fiction? Its practically on the other side of the same mountain.

Then your butchery which you call a summary performing a paradime shift on the subject, then further more gave me whole credit for something I only participated in.
This probably makes you the worst grammer nanny I had the mispleasure in dealing with considering I had to go back and recorrect your summary. Most nannies get it right to the point I cannot correct them.