These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[TL:DR] Game physics not realistic for space flight simulation

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
MinefieldS
1 Sick Duck Standss on something
#41 - 2012-09-07 01:18:46 UTC
Braxus Deninard wrote:
Started laughing super hard when I saw:

Quote:
especially when it applies to a game that is based on real world physics


EvE is not based on the real laws of physics that we currently understand, and I doubt you would be able to find a single law in our current system that actually holds true in EvE.

But congratulations on making the same thread that gets made every single week, and congratulations on having an extremely basic knowledge of physics. If you're going to make points, you should at least make them properly. There's nothing funnier than seeing someone who just finished some basic high school physics and all of a sudden thinks they know what they're talking about. Newton's laws are pretty darn hard, aren't they! Blink


You're wrong because Murphy's "laws" apply to EVE.
If boot.ini can't be deleted, your harddrive will be formatted instead.
Spreading fat from a botter's corpse with a knife over the top of CATalyst's hull will create a perpetual spinning device that'll fry your videocard.
Myxx
The Scope
#42 - 2012-09-07 01:20:18 UTC
OMG! Sci fi has unrealistic physics!

OMG!
Nonnosa
420 Enterprises.
#43 - 2012-09-07 03:28:25 UTC
I agree with OP Eve is not "realistic' but you dont want it to be.

The old PC game Frontier: Elite 2 had newtonian physics for flight which made control of your ship any where from difficult to impossible. The auto pilot module was the first and most essential piece of equipment you had to equip.

If you want to try realistic space flight I suggest Orbiter: http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/

Remember it is a simulator, not a game. You'll never complain about Eve being hard ever again. Blink
MinefieldS
1 Sick Duck Standss on something
#44 - 2012-09-07 06:00:09 UTC
Nonnosa wrote:
I agree with OP Eve is not "realistic' but you dont want it to be.

The old PC game Frontier: Elite 2 had newtonian physics for flight which made control of your ship any where from difficult to impossible. The auto pilot module was the first and most essential piece of equipment you had to equip.

If you want to try realistic space flight I suggest Orbiter: http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/

Remember it is a simulator, not a game. You'll never complain about Eve being hard ever again. Blink

Haha when I was 7 years old I couldn't manually dock with a station in Elite 1 either, so I had to edit the save file to get the docking computer.

Orbiter is a carebear game, better play Babylon 5:IFH if you want newtonian physics.
Zanarkand
Primal Instinct Inc.
The Initiative.
#45 - 2012-09-07 06:17:33 UTC
It was confirmed by CCP 5 years ago, that EVE online is actually a Cold War submarine game, but all the commanders are on drugs, and they imagine they are in space.
Ammzi
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#46 - 2012-09-07 06:25:55 UTC
For **** sake. Why are you so ignorant?
THE OBVIOUS REASON FOR SPACESHIPS HAVING MAX VELOCITY IS DUE TO THE WARP CORE THAT ANCHORS ONES SHIP RELATIVE TO THE UNIVERSAL FABRIC..
Evelyn Meiyi
Corvidae Trading and Holding
#47 - 2012-09-07 06:34:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Evelyn Meiyi
Ogedei Khaghan wrote:

As I said, this is just my 2 cents to CCP on how to make their game more realistic. I am well aware this is a game and that any or all of this post may be discarded as beyond the ability to be coded or not feasible for game play in the current environment.


It's easy to code (all of it is a relatively simple thing to do), but why? Other than 'making the game more realistic', what would the point be? EVE is not a spaceflight simulator, and most of the changes you propose would break the systems that are already intact and functional.

(Oh, and...
Quote:

Orbiter is a carebear game, better play Babylon 5:IFH if you want newtonian physics.


Minefield5: a carebear game? And you suggest Babylon 5 instead? Last I checked, Babylon 5 didn't feature a fully-functional and accurate space shuttle simulation. That you have to learn to fly by experimentation. While you're trying to dock with the ISS in real-time. With no documentation.
Arbiter Reformed
I Have a Plan
Shadow Cartel
#48 - 2012-09-07 06:39:26 UTC
you when voyager goes into liquid space? that was eve
Sebastian LaFleur
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
#49 - 2012-09-07 06:45:58 UTC
Herr Hammer Draken wrote:
You answered your entire post. It is all discarded because it is not feasible for game play. Imagine combat when you are flying faster than most weapons can shoot. You pass a guy he fires a missile at you and it is traveling at 1/4 your speed. You fire a hybrid round back at him but you are already out of range. In fact you can not get in range. One second you are too far away to hit him, the next second updates and you are too far past him. At the speed you are traveling at you can not turn around or stop in under 30 minutes. Then another 30 minute burn to get back to comabt area. But then you are going too fast again and what maybe you slowed up this time but he was burning toward you the entire time. So your combined closing speed is now just as fast or faster than what it was before. Zip right past he fires missles which never make it to your position and you never have a second in which your guns are in range to fire at him. etc... real physics just like you want.


Would be hilarious. I guess all the kills would result from two ships colliding into each other by accident. Alliances would insert huge walls of noobships to which any invader would probably hit and explode like a supernovae.

Expand consciousness. Travel without moving. 
MinefieldS
1 Sick Duck Standss on something
#50 - 2012-09-07 06:50:13 UTC
Sebastian LaFleur wrote:

Would be hilarious. I guess all the kills would result from two ships colliding into each other by accident. Alliances would insert huge walls of noobships to which any invader would probably hit and explode like a supernovae.

Everyone would explode much sooner by flying through a station or a planet.
Tobey Darkness
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#51 - 2012-09-07 07:51:24 UTC
1. Eve is a Submarine Simulator, not a Space Simulator!
2. If you want some nice space gameplay with "realistic" physics, try Kerbal Space Program
3. If you want some nice Simulator, try Space Engine, Universe Sandbox or something like that.
4. "You CAN have a maximum rate of acceleration" - Depending on the technology you're using. EVE uses some form of Warpdrive which has no infinite speed and acceleration.
5. With the Warpdrive, the ship aligns itself with the solar systems x-axis.
6. "Friction" - Warpdrive. It's all about the used technics.

And there are other things you might notice: Planets aren't moving. Stations arent as well. Asteroid belts aren't even anything near realistic.
Aren't you wondering how so many gigantic ships can fit in that Station in Jita?

Have you asked George Lucas the same questions after watching Star Wars?

I myself would love to see more realistic stuff, like moving planets or realistic asteroid belts, but there is one very good reason why this will never happen: GAMEPLAY.





Do you know what's really dumbing down eve? Graphics! If you really want a hardcoregame with a learning curve that even beats eve: Try bay12games.com/dwarves
pussnheels
Viziam
#52 - 2012-09-07 07:55:30 UTC
does the op realize if we want to have a fully relistic space sim , that most of us would just give up , did you ever tried controlling a object in zero gravity
I didn't but i know pretty well it is not easy or did you ever tried real space flight , i didn't but there used to be a great sim out that let you recreate all the great missions in space , historical and what ifs , it is just bloody difficult you can try it here

I do not agree with what you are saying , but i will defend to the death your right to say it...... Voltaire
Jacob Holland
Weyland-Vulcan Industries
#53 - 2012-09-07 08:14:25 UTC
Ogedei Khaghan wrote:

  • Space does not have a maximum speed. You CAN have a maximum rate of acceleration due to mass to thrust ratios. The only limiting facter on speed in space is the ability to avoid running into space dust which would destoy a ship if the collision velocity is too high. Currently MicroWarp and afterburners are able to increase the maximum velocity and acceleration of a star ship which shows that any shielding that would be used to protect the vessel from collisions is better than these maximum speeds. In a real world setting the plow shielding would need to be upgraded to withstand micro collisions before increasing the maximum speed. Reference this.
    • The speeds we achieve are of course nowhere near the speed limit of the universe in normal flight - and we break the speed limit of the universe by a huge factor on a very regular basis in warp...
    However the tutorial used to discuss the huge fusion reactor which was the source of the power for your capacitor, fuelling that fusion reactor by means of a huge magnetic scoop to drag in interstellar hydrogen would create a very significant drag factor on your ship and therefore a counter to your thrust and an effective speed limit on your ship.

    Ogedei Khaghan wrote:

  • There is no need for a spacefaring vessel to "right" itself in relation to the galactic/solar north. While this does make for some easier comprehension of game play it shows a poor comprehension of 3 dimensional movement.
    • There is no need for a ship to adjust orientation relative to the star's equatorial plane but if you're static and you have effectively infinite fuel... is there any reason not to? Keep in mind too that your ship's technology is not worked up from first principles - perhaps Terran vessels did have a need to reorient to the star's equatorial plane and what we have is simply a relic from that seed.
    Solstice Project
    Sebiestor Tribe
    Minmatar Republic
    #54 - 2012-09-07 08:44:38 UTC
    wow, your stupid opinion was sooo worth getting posted !

    I congratulate you !
    Inquisitor Kitchner
    The Executives
    #55 - 2012-09-07 09:15:23 UTC

    If there is no "up" in space, why do all the ships in Star Trek always approach each other the same way up?

    I mean you never see an episode where the Romulan bird of prey decloaks in front of the Enterprise and it's upside down.

    QED Space has "up" and "down"

    "If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared." - Niccolo Machiavelli
    Uris Vitgar
    Center for Advanced Studies
    Gallente Federation
    #56 - 2012-09-07 09:39:48 UTC
    Jacob Holland wrote:
    the tutorial used to discuss the huge fusion reactor which was the source of the power for your capacitor, fuelling that fusion reactor by means of a huge magnetic scoop to drag in interstellar hydrogen would create a very significant drag factor on your ship and therefore a counter to your thrust and an effective speed limit on your ship.


    If that was the explanation then you would fall slowly into the nearest planet when you pressed CTRL+space, because orbiting would be impossible
    Skippermonkey
    Deep Core Mining Inc.
    Caldari State
    #57 - 2012-09-07 11:06:29 UTC
    Ammzi wrote:
    For **** sake. Why are you so ignorant?
    THE OBVIOUS REASON FOR SPACESHIPS HAVING MAX VELOCITY IS DUE TO THE WARP CORE THAT ANCHORS ONES SHIP RELATIVE TO THE UNIVERSAL FABRIC..

    What pattern is this fabric?

    I think this is an important question

    its plaid rite?

    rite?

    COME AT ME BRO

    I'LL JUST BE DOCKED IN THIS STATION
    Sebastian LaFleur
    Federal Defense Union
    Gallente Federation
    #58 - 2012-09-07 11:14:07 UTC
    Inquisitor Kitchner wrote:

    If there is no "up" in space, why do all the ships in Star Trek always approach each other the same way up?

    I mean you never see an episode where the Romulan bird of prey decloaks in front of the Enterprise and it's upside down.

    QED Space has "up" and "down"


    LOL, That is so true!

    Expand consciousness. Travel without moving. 
    Sinigr Shadowsong
    Aliastra
    Gallente Federation
    #59 - 2012-09-07 11:52:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Sinigr Shadowsong
    Eve "space" actually much more like liquid enviroment. Spaceships act like submarines. Submarines have "Up" and "Down" side, limited maximum speed, lose speed if turn off engines, can be bumped. Charges underwater can only travel a limited distance. Turning is slow rotating, inertia is a non-factor. Also Lasers dispercse on very short distance.
    Skogen Gump
    Sebiestor Tribe
    Minmatar Republic
    #60 - 2012-09-07 12:01:05 UTC
    Nonnosa wrote:
    I agree with OP Eve is not "realistic' but you dont want it to be.

    The old PC game Frontier: Elite 2 had newtonian physics for flight which made control of your ship any where from difficult to impossible. The auto pilot module was the first and most essential piece of equipment you had to equip.

    If you want to try realistic space flight I suggest Orbiter: http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/

    Remember it is a simulator, not a game. You'll never complain about Eve being hard ever again. Blink


    You could also check out I-War and I-War 2; they had amazing flight simulation mechanics.

    It did give me a proper nerdasm to get to jump through a lagrange point :)