These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Assembly Hall

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[proposal] More astrometric physics
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Kunta Keinte
The Graduates
The Initiative.
#1 - 2013-01-12 06:23:23 UTC
Celestial body movement, universe expansion, gravity, orbit decay, veldspar with velocity any takers?
Ravow
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#2 - 2013-01-12 06:28:45 UTC
/signed
mxzf
Shovel Bros
#3 - 2013-01-12 07:31:41 UTC
FAR too much of a pain to code and too much overhead to be worth it. It really wouldn't add anything to the game, it'd just be annoying to work around. Gameplay > realism.
Jint Hikaru
OffWorld Exploration Inc
#4 - 2013-01-12 11:43:07 UTC
mxzf wrote:
FAR too much of a pain to code and too much overhead to be worth it. It really wouldn't add anything to the game, it'd just be annoying to work around. Gameplay > realism.


I agree with Mxzf

This would kill the servers.

Jint Hikaru - Miner / Salvager / Explorer / SpaceBum In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
colera deldios
#5 - 2013-01-12 12:24:00 UTC  |  Edited by: colera deldios
Whats the point of that, other than to annoy it will be the same as walking in station. Time and resource consuming how about they first finish fixing so many broken ships, sov, npc sov, pos system, minerals, mining etc..
Benny Therios
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#6 - 2013-01-12 12:44:19 UTC
mxzf wrote:
FAR too much of a pain to code and too much overhead to be worth it. It really wouldn't add anything to the game, it'd just be annoying to work around. Gameplay > realism.


Seconded. This is EVE, not a space-flight simulator.
Zol Interbottom
Blimp Requisition Services
#7 - 2013-01-13 15:14:58 UTC
Tranquility cluster exploding, the videogame

"If you're quitting for the 3rd time you clearly ain't quitting" - Chribba
Lykouleon
Noble Sentiments
Second Empire.
#8 - 2013-01-14 00:08:09 UTC
If you want to code it, sure.

Lykouleon > CYNO ME CLOSER so I can hit them with my sword
Dersen Lowery
The Scope
#9 - 2013-01-14 04:08:04 UTC
If you mean, as a very long-term bit of polish, as part of the general strategy to make the ultimate space simulator: Yes, it would be cool, and it would have interesting tactical implications.

Any time soon? No. It would break so many things, and the slightly more varied terrain is not a fair price.

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!
Mocam
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#10 - 2013-01-14 17:24:28 UTC
It would add a bit of overhead. And orbit decay? ...

What I'd prefer to see is "line of sight", "friendly fire" for flying between ships, etc. That kind of physics with anomalous space - kind of like "thermal layers" and such you find in the sea that could mess with things like targeting based upon gravity, radiation bursts and the like.

That kind of physics I think could prove more interesting to play in the game vs just more things moving in space.
Kunta Keinte
The Graduates
The Initiative.
#11 - 2013-01-14 17:41:10 UTC
Mocam wrote:
It would add a bit of overhead. And orbit decay? ...

What I'd prefer to see is "line of sight", "friendly fire" for flying between ships, etc. That kind of physics with anomalous space - kind of like "thermal layers" and such you find in the sea that could mess with things like targeting based upon gravity, radiation bursts and the like.

That kind of physics I think could prove more interesting to play in the game vs just more things moving in space.



I agree with being clipped by friendly fire
Michael Loney
Skullspace Industries
#12 - 2013-01-15 00:33:19 UTC
Yes, line of sight first. Would make a HUGE change to the game!

Wanna avoid ganks, hide behind a rock!
Che Biko
Alexylva Paradox
#13 - 2013-01-15 00:42:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Che Biko
On a side note, the system and celestial data like mass etc. do work for the most part when you put them in a gravity simulation. I've tried it myself. Or at least that's the case with the Tekaima solar system, but I have no reason to believe that it's the only system that would work in a gravity simulation.
Perhaps, when CCP first stated coding, they wanted it to be newtonian, but the technology at the time did not allow it when they tested it.
A half-way solution could be to do a 24h timestep during downtime, but they want to eliminate downtime.

In essence, the cogs are largely in place, we just need the power to make them turn.

Coordination Channel for Consolidated Space Rescue Cooperation

Open Letter to the Aidonis Foundation Directorate
Di Mulle
#14 - 2013-01-16 16:44:54 UTC
Che Biko wrote:
On a side note, the system and celestial data like mass etc. do work for the most part when you put them in a gravity simulation. I've tried it myself. Or at least that's the case with the Tekaima solar system, but I have no reason to believe that it's the only system that would work in a gravity simulation.
Perhaps, when CCP first stated coding, they wanted it to be newtonian, but the technology at the time did not allow it when they tested it.
A half-way solution could be to do a 24h timestep during downtime, but they want to eliminate downtime.

In essence, the cogs are largely in place, we just need the power to make them turn.


What do you mean by "work in a gravity simulation" ???? Shocked
<<Insert some waste of screen space here>>
Di Mulle
#15 - 2013-01-16 16:53:42 UTC
Kunta Keinte wrote:
Celestial body movement, universe expansion, gravity, orbit decay, veldspar with velocity any takers?


"Universe expansion".... Great. How exactly you would like to implement it ?

And what visible or anyhow sensible effect, when "implemented", it will have during your game session. Or, for that matter, your entire career in a game. Or, for that matter, the lifetime of EVE. Or, for that matter, the lifetime of humanity. Or, for that matter.....

Etc.
<<Insert some waste of screen space here>>
Che Biko
Alexylva Paradox
#16 - 2013-01-17 02:04:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Che Biko
Di Mulle wrote:
What do you mean by "work in a gravity simulation" ???? Shocked
If you take the data from an EVE system (like the mass, radius, density, orbit distance etc of the moons/stars/planets/stations) and use that data to recreate the system in a gravity simulation program, you will find that mass-radius-density interactions are correct, and that when you run the simulation, the system will likely not collapse or fly apart (stable orbits).

Coordination Channel for Consolidated Space Rescue Cooperation

Open Letter to the Aidonis Foundation Directorate
Stegas Tyrano
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#17 - 2013-01-17 13:19:39 UTC
Adding more/better physics will add to gameplay. Just think of the possibilities orbiting a planet in a fast, small ship will keep you from falling into the planet but if a larger, slower ship were to scan you down and warp to you, they would get pulled into the planet. Lot's of new mechanics and strategies could be made.

The only problem is CCP have stated many times they want the greatest bang for their buck so working on something like this for minimal returns wouldn't be realistic.

Hopefully someday in the future when CCP can afford twice the number of developers this can be implemented.

Herping your derp since 19Potato - [url=https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2403364][Proposal] - Ingame Visual Adverts[/url]