These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page123Next page
 

Why does tracking always have to go both ways?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Friggz
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#21 - 2013-05-14 14:33:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Friggz
Imagine you are in a shooting gallery and fire at a stationary target. That's zero angular velocity.

Imagine you are in a shooting gallery and fire at a target that is moving straight forward and backward. You don't need to turn your gun to keep it trained on the target, so it's still zero angular velocity.

Now imagine the target is moving back and forth on a rail. To keep your gun pointed at it as it moves, you have move your gun or 'track it'. That's angular velocity and tracking.

Now, imagine the target is stationary but you are on a platform moving back and forth. Could you keep your gun pointed at the target without moving it? No, you could not, just with last example you need to move your gun as the platform moves to keep it pointed at the target. It's still angular velocity.
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#22 - 2013-05-14 14:42:36 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
Major 'Revolver' Ocelot wrote:
ISD Ezwal wrote:
I gladly point out this rather good guide on hoe tracking works.


Hoe tracking, nice. Gotta track them all!
Doh, spelling...Oops
ISD Ezwal face palms....

ISD Ezwal Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Vega Umbranox
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#23 - 2013-05-14 14:45:43 UTC
Friggz wrote:
Imagine you are in a shooting gallery and fire at a stationary target. That's zero angular velocity.

Imagine you are in a shooting gallery and fire at a target that is moving straight forward and backward. You don't need to turn your gun to keep it trained on the target, so it's still zero angular velocity.

Now imagine the target is moving back and forth on a rail. To keep your gun pointed at it as it moves, you have move your gun or 'track it'. That's angular velocity and tracking.

Now, imagine the target is stationary but you are on a platform moving back and forth. Could you keep your gun pointed at the target without moving it? No, you could not, just with last example you need to move your gun as the platform moves to keep it pointed at the target. It's still angular velocity.





Sigh i understand why it is why it is now and i accept that.
but plzzz stop making me repeat myself in 100 different ways. what i am saying is 100% correct we have established this, in the real world its how it "should be".

the scenario is 1 stationary 1 orbit.. the nature of this orbit is u keep 1 side of your ship facing the target at all times.. when u go round a round about your door handle faces the centre the whole time. yet it cant move or aim by itself.. must be magic... cbfed re explaining again lol
Muad 'dib
State War Academy
Caldari State
#24 - 2013-05-14 14:49:41 UTC
Major 'Revolver' Ocelot wrote:
ISD Ezwal wrote:
I gladly point out this rather good guide on hoe tracking works.


Hoe tracking, nice. Gotta track them all!


i always know where my hoes at

Cosmic signature detected. . . . http://i.imgur.com/Z7NfIS6.jpg I got 99 likes, and this post aint one.
BoBoZoBo
MGroup9
#25 - 2013-05-14 15:39:52 UTC  |  Edited by: BoBoZoBo
Relativity does not come into play here in the manner you are ascribing.

If the target ship is still or moving slowly, his guns need to track the faster moving aggressor.

If the aggressor is orbiting the target, then the ship is transversing and rotating to keep the guns in line at all times, therefore the guns themselves need to do less tracking as the ship doing most of the maneuvering to keep the guns in line.

Think of the earth and it's moon.

If the Earth were to keep its gunsights on the moon,.. The gun would need to track across the equator to keep its sights on the moon. Massive tracking involved

The moon on the other hand always has the same area facing the Earth, the gun on the moon would NOT need to track across the Moons equator to keep its gunsights on the earth, it only needs to move itself faster relative to the Earth while keeping the gun facing the target. No tracking involved

Make sense? It's orbital mechanics, not relativity.

Primary Test Subject • SmackTalker Elite
Muad 'dib
State War Academy
Caldari State
#26 - 2013-05-14 15:49:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Muad 'dib
BoBoZoBo wrote:
correct stuff


He is saying "if i am the moon, in your analogy, then why do I MISS due to tracking, if it shouldn't be an issue for me"


In eve unless both players are stationary both guns have to track regardless of the orbit and the directions the guns are facing.

Cosmic signature detected. . . . http://i.imgur.com/Z7NfIS6.jpg I got 99 likes, and this post aint one.
BoBoZoBo
MGroup9
#27 - 2013-05-14 15:51:11 UTC
Muad 'dib wrote:
BoBoZoBo wrote:
correct stuff


He is saying "if i am the moon, in your analogy, then why do I MISS due to tracking, if its not an issue for me"



Because your gunner is drunk or has less skill

Primary Test Subject • SmackTalker Elite
Vinzent Arran
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#28 - 2013-05-14 16:14:22 UTC
I think the real question we should be asking is "Are the guns locked to the inertial frame of the ship, or do they carry their own inertial frame?"

For example if someone was on the moon pointing at earth of course the guns will never actually have to track, since they're locked to the inertial frame of the moon, but what if the guns had a gyrostabilizer to lock them to their own inertial frame. They would now have to track the earth eventhough the moon is still always facing the earth.
Zaxix
State War Academy
Caldari State
#29 - 2013-05-14 16:26:12 UTC
Vinzent Arran wrote:
I think the real question we should be asking is "Are the guns locked to the inertial frame of the ship, or do they carry their own inertial frame?"

For example if someone was on the moon pointing at earth of course the guns will never actually have to track, since they're locked to the inertial frame of the moon, but what if the guns had a gyrostabilizer to lock them to their own inertial frame. They would now have to track the earth eventhough the moon is still always facing the earth.

stop being sensible!

Bokononist

 
Julius Rigel
#30 - 2013-05-14 16:50:46 UTC
BoBoZoBo wrote:
the ship is transversing and rotating to keep the guns in line at all times
A conventional ship in a conventional fluid, such as a boat in water, a plane in air, a satellite in a vacuum, sure. But in jello-space, a spaceship is just a point with a radius, it has no directionality.

Sure, the game tries its best to point the front of your UFO submarine's model in the direction of your movement vector, but the model has no other relation to the physics calculations, and it doesn't even do a particularly good job of pointing in the right direction. Try moving "backward" relative to your ship model some time, or establishing a tight, fast orbit around a small object, and if you have any frame of reference, something in the background, you'll see the ship model struggling to keep up with the vector.

Do YOU like to undock?
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#31 - 2013-05-14 16:55:50 UTC
Vinzent Arran wrote:
I think the real question we should be asking is "Are the guns locked to the inertial frame of the ship, or do they carry their own inertial frame?"

For example if someone was on the moon pointing at earth of course the guns will never actually have to track, since they're locked to the inertial frame of the moon, but what if the guns had a gyrostabilizer to lock them to their own inertial frame. They would now have to track the earth eventhough the moon is still always facing the earth.
…you mean like this? Blink
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#32 - 2013-05-14 16:59:57 UTC
Why don't you have to spin your ship to keep the engines pointing in the opposite direction from that which you want to accelerate in?

Why could they not just spin their ship in space to match your orbit, also not requiring them to move their guns to hit you?

How would a web actually work anyway?

Why can you bounce off things, taking no damage?

Why do our ships not require fuel?

How do projectiles and hybrids have infinite speed?

How to you mount a 1600 mm think armor plate to your battleship in like 1 second? The same 1600mm plate that you just took off your cruiser that is 1/10th the size of your battleship... but it fits perfectly...



If you start asking questions, the whole game breaks down.
Muad 'dib
State War Academy
Caldari State
#33 - 2013-05-14 18:44:32 UTC
LHA Tarawa wrote:

If you start asking questions, the whole game breaks down.


that is true... when talking about things that would otherwise break the game like not having a speed limit and slowing down after a pulse from a mwd

however this is a fundamental fact when talking about guns that rotate to track moving targets, that if i follow a ship perfectly behind him at the same speed and direction we both have zero tracking adjustments.

If missiles were treated the same way kiting condors wouldnt hit for **** just like the poor **** they are TDing and that definitely does not make any sense.....

Soooo why when if i fly to reduce my tracking am i penalized, when according to the math a perfect orbit would do the exact same for my broadsides as if i was stationary? Its a bit strange considering piloting your ship well is a big factor in the game and yet this is just... well broken.

orbit a NPC and shoot it while zoomed into your ship, you will see that as long as hes not going very fast and you are zooming round, while your guns dont seem to move at all yet your angular velocity on your overview will be horrendous!

Cosmic signature detected. . . . http://i.imgur.com/Z7NfIS6.jpg I got 99 likes, and this post aint one.
NameWasTakenAlready
Doomheim
#34 - 2013-05-14 19:09:40 UTC  |  Edited by: NameWasTakenAlready
I like the number of posts that didn't understand the OP.

Let me explain simply. In real world physics you are correct OP. But this is eve and balance requires it. However I can explain WHY balance requires it. I want you to imagine the following. A rail or a arty fit Talos or Tornado, with a ceptor doing a zigzag approach. Can't hit right? Now imagine your proposed system. Now the Talos and Nado have istabs on them and set any incoming captors to keep at range 10000km. Their hulls begin to automatically "track assist" them, allowing them to rip the ceptors a new *******.

Now you see a sudden rise in power of high agility ships as the high agility ships track better. BUT WAIT, traditionally high agility ships already track better, as most of them are gallente or minmatar, which use high tracking blaster or tracking enhanced autos. Which leaves poor amarr completely broken and useless. And what about caldari hybrid ships? I mean the ferox just got its teeth back, and it would get its Wang cut off. It would neuter half the ships.

So yeah.

Also to the guy who asked why our ships don't need fuel, minmatar ships use their solar panels to replenish, and I think amarr burn antimatter or something. Tldr; we do, but its paid for by our space taxes.
Chris Winter
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse
The Curatores Veritatis Auxiliary
#35 - 2013-05-14 19:47:09 UTC
Because if it worked like this, the stationary vessel could just rotate their ship to keep the same side facing the orbiting vessel, and also wouldn't need to worry about tracking.
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings
#36 - 2013-05-14 23:00:06 UTC
Julius Rigel wrote:
BoBoZoBo wrote:
the ship is transversing and rotating to keep the guns in line at all times
A conventional ship in a conventional fluid, such as a boat in water, a plane in air, a satellite in a vacuum, sure. But in jello-space, a spaceship is just a point with a radius, it has no directionality.

Sure, the game tries its best to point the front of your UFO submarine's model in the direction of your movement vector, but the model has no other relation to the physics calculations, and it doesn't even do a particularly good job of pointing in the right direction. Try moving "backward" relative to your ship model some time, or establishing a tight, fast orbit around a small object, and if you have any frame of reference, something in the background, you'll see the ship model struggling to keep up with the vector.


Thanks for this. It shows exactly what I was trying to explain to someone last night about warp alignment, and why the attitude of the ship model has nothing to do with it.
Vega Umbranox
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#37 - 2013-05-15 00:40:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Vega Umbranox
NameWasTakenAlready wrote:
I like the number of posts that didn't understand the OP.


I cant tell if A) i explained terribly or B) alot of people got full throttle slammed into the ground as infants



[quote=Also to the guy who asked why our ships don't need fuel, minmatar ships use their solar panels to replenish, and I think amarr burn antimatter or something. Tldr; we do, but its paid for by our space taxes.[/quote]

I like to imagine amarr use slaves as their fuel source;)

and omfg above poster I spent a good hour and a half trying to convince the so called pro helpers in help channel THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS PASSIVE ALIGN they just.. could not grasp it!!
Vega Umbranox
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#38 - 2013-05-15 00:49:11 UTC
Chris Winter wrote:
Because if it worked like this, the stationary vessel could just rotate their ship to keep the same side facing the orbiting vessel, and also wouldn't need to worry about tracking.



if it happened it wouldnt be much different to any other strategy to lower transversal already employed by player.
Britta Nolen
Sama Guild
#39 - 2013-05-15 04:03:34 UTC
way way too much text.

Question: Lets say me and my opponent are both orbiting the same object at the same distance and speed. The anchor we are orbiting is always right in between us. ex Me -----------------{Anchor}-----------------Opponent. What are the effects on tracking, radial velocity, & transversal velocity?
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#40 - 2013-05-15 07:12:15 UTC
I did some field tests once with rifles and pistols and bringing them up to fast targets and hitting moving targets at various ranges.

You'd be surprised how hard it is to hit something fast and close with something heavy. Even for a gun.


Bring back DEEEEP Space!
Previous page123Next page