These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

What people call transversal velocity is actually angular velocity
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#41 - 2013-07-17 15:00:37 UTC
Ciyrine wrote:
[wrong

1) a ship orbiting you generates angular change = hard to track

2) you orbiting a target generates NO angular change = should be easy to track
Nope. You orbiting a target generates the exact same angular change. Otherwise, you still wouldn't be pointing towards the target. You're just forgetting that your subjective reference frame has to rotate, which creates the same angular change as if the guns alone had to do all the rotating.

Quote:
The game physics treats 2) the same as 1) which is either a failure in the game designers physics understanding or a game balance thing.
It's really neither. Your mistake comes from the assumption that the guns' rotation is inherited from the ship, and then labelling the fact that they don't (which is not really outside the realm of possibility) as a “failure of physics”. The fact that it creates good balance is just a happy coincidence.

Quote:
Which means the fastest ship in a fight would experience zero angular/tracking problems trying to hit the slower ship.
No. The faster ship would still experience the tracking issues from the movement of the slower ship even if the guns cancelled out the own ship's movements. All you've done at that point is turn it into a one-ship-moves problem rather than one of two ships moving in relation to each other (and to a neutral frame of reference).
Ciyrine
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#42 - 2013-07-17 15:10:48 UTC
Weiz'mir wrote:


I have always thougt that transversal velocity is useless if you know the velocity of the ennemy ship and its radial velocity.

However, reading Mara, I wonder if at the end of the day I shouldn't replace the velocity by the transversal velocity in my overview (not enough room for both).

After all, who cares of the "absolute" speed of a ship ? What matters is its relative speed, which is known thanks to the transversal velocity.

Am I right ?


ive heard absolute velocity is useful before starting a fight to determine whether you should even engage. If its a ship that youll be able to close with, wether it has OGB
Effect One
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#43 - 2013-07-17 15:12:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Effect One
Tippia wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Its just as difficult to hit a ship at zero velocity while orbiting as it is to hit an object orbiting at speed while you are stationary.

Of course, since the relative motion is the same. Also, this.


I thinks she was trying to say (admittedly, without actually saying it) that Eve doesn't take into account the direction your guns are pointing.

If you're orbitting a stationary object, your guns technically don't have to track anything?

Taking out of the 'realism' equation large ships orbitting objects at obscene speeds, you should technically be able to orbit something stationary with 1400mm Howitzers on a Tornado at 2kms with the worst gun tracking speeds imaginable and still have no tracking issues yourself while causing a world of tracking problems for the stationary target, because your guns are constantly pointing directly at the target while in a circular orbit.

'This might be internet spaceships, but it's not rocket science to protect yourself and fly with a little common sense' - CCP Falcon
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#44 - 2013-07-17 15:26:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Effect One wrote:
If you're orbitting a stationary object, your guns technically don't have to track anything?
If you're orbiting a stationary object at, say, one revolution in 62.8 seconds, the part that you want pointed at the object needs to rotate at 0.1 rad/s, otherwise, it'll start pointing off into space.

This is no different if you are the stationary object and something orbits you at, say, one revolution in 62.8 seconds, at which point the part you want pointed at this orbiting object needs to rotate at 0.1 rad/s, or it will start pointing off into space.

The confusion seems to come from some assumption along the lines of turreted guns working like fixed-mount guns on an age-of-sail gunboat: that you're trying to give the enemy a broadside and that the guns are sticking out from that side at right angles, and then forgetting that all this means is that the broadside has to rotate to track the target at that very same angular velocity.

So…
Quote:
I thinks she was trying to say (admittedly, without actually saying it) that Eve doesn't take into account the direction your guns are pointing.
No, I'm saying that the direction the guns are pointing is decoupled from the direction the ship is pointing (especially since ships in EVE are actually points and therefore have no direction), since we're talking about a freely rotating turret. This turret needs to rotate as in the universal reference frame at the same speed regardless of whether you are the orbiting or the orbited party.

Quote:
Taking out of the 'realism' equation large ships orbitting objects at obscene speeds, you should technically be able to orbit something stationary with 1400mm Howitzers on a Tornado at 2kms with the worst gun tracking speeds imaginable and still have no tracking issues yourself while causing a world of tracking problems for the stationary target, because your guns are constantly pointing directly at the target while in a circular orbit.
Only if the turrets were locked in place and inherited the rotation of the ship, which they don't.
Ciyrine
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#45 - 2013-07-17 15:27:23 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Ciyrine wrote:
[wrong

1) a ship orbiting you generates angular change = hard to track

2) you orbiting a target generates NO angular change = should be easy to track
Nope. You orbiting a target generates the exact same angular change. Otherwise, you still wouldn't be pointing towards the target. You're just forgetting that your subjective reference frame has to rotate, which creates the same angular change as if the guns alone had to do all the rotating.

Quote:
The game physics treats 2) the same as 1) which is either a failure in the game designers physics understanding or a game balance thing.
It's really neither. Your mistake comes from the assumption that the guns' rotation is inherited from the ship, and then labelling the fact that they don't (which is not really outside the realm of possibility) as a “failure of physics”. The fact that it creates good balance is just a happy coincidence.

Quote:
Which means the fastest ship in a fight would experience zero angular/tracking problems trying to hit the slower ship.
No. The faster ship would still experience the tracking issues from the movement of the slower ship even if the guns cancelled out the own ship's movements. All you've done at that point is turn it into a one-ship-moves problem rather than one of two ships moving in relation to each other (and to a neutral frame of reference).


if you walk around your friend with your arm pointing at him does your arm have to rotate in the shoulder socket? No, relative to YOUR body your hand stays in the same position and to your bodies perspective your friend is NOT moving, the rooms seems to rotate but that doesnt matter

but thats mostly a derail because in this game you orbiting an object does generate radians for your turrets and thats all that matters.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#46 - 2013-07-17 15:31:51 UTC
Tiber Ibis wrote:
Tippia wrote:
You want to know the transversal since, as Mara Rinn pointed out, it tells you how well you can match their manoeuvres.

Hmm never thought about using transversal like that. I guess that is for throwing of people orbits etc then.



In a game of ranges, that is equally important.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#47 - 2013-07-17 15:35:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Ciyrine wrote:
if you walk around your friend with your arm pointing at him does your arm have to rotate in the shoulder socket?
Yes. Unless I constantly keep turning (i.e. creating a rotation with an angular velocity) to keep the right parts pointing in the right direction.

Quote:
relative to YOUR body your hand stays in the same position
…but the point of having turrets is that they don't care about where your ship is pointing. So arms are not analogous to how turrets work.

Quote:
the rooms seems to rotate but that doesnt matter
It matters massively, because it shows that you are, indeed, having to adjust at the same angular velocity as your friend does if he wants to track you.
Ciyrine
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#48 - 2013-07-17 16:10:42 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Effect One wrote:
If you're orbitting a stationary object, your guns technically don't have to track anything?
If you're orbiting a stationary object at, say, one revolution in 62.8 seconds, the part that you want pointed at the object needs to rotate at 0.1 rad/s, otherwise, it'll start pointing off into space.

This is no different if you are the stationary object and something orbits you at, say, one revolution in 62.8 seconds, at which point the part you want pointed at this orbiting object needs to rotate at 0.1 rad/s, or it will start pointing off into space.

The confusion seems to come from some assumption along the lines of turreted guns working like fixed-mount guns on an age-of-sail gunboat: that you're trying to give the enemy a broadside and that the guns are sticking out from that side at right angles, and then forgetting that all this means is that the broadside has to rotate to track the target at that very same angular velocity.


ah, i understand where your coming from and still disagree.

The ship does rotate to maintain on target. Which relieves your guns tracking from having to do it. For some reason your treating the gun and the ship as to seperate entitites. If the ship is going to rotate to maintain orbit then your guns dont have to and then for all it matters the guns could have zero tracking capability and still hit.

refer to the arm/shoulder scenario i discussed earlier. If your shoulder isnt doing any rotation then the guns wouldnt have to track either. The fact that your body is rotating doesnt matter to the guns as long as the engines are up to the challenge.

Your trying to give the turrets the job that the engines actually do.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#49 - 2013-07-17 16:23:41 UTC
Ciyrine wrote:
The ship does rotate to maintain on target. Which relieves your guns tracking from having to do it.
…if the guns are locked to the ship, which they aren't.

Quote:
For some reason your treating the gun and the ship as to seperate entitites.
Yes. Because… you know… they are. The turrets move independently from the ship (call them gyro-stabilised if you like — they don't inherit any angular momentum from the ship) and have to be slewed into position to compensate for any kind of relative motion between your ship and the target.

Quote:
refer to the arm/shoulder scenario i discussed earlier. If your shoulder isnt doing any rotation then the guns wouldnt have to track either.
…but your shoulder is rotating, or you will no longer point at the target. The problem with your scenario is that you're misidentifying what represent what. Your arms are not the turret; your body is not the ship. Your entire body is the turret, and the ship is simply the spot of ground you're standing on. As that spot moves around your buddy, you have to rotate your body (i.e. the turret) to keep pointing at the guy standing still in the middle.

Quote:
Your trying to give the turrets the job that the engines actually do.
No. I'm merely describing how turrets work. This includes not making the assumption that they are fixed or that they are affected by ship movement.
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
#50 - 2013-07-17 17:10:26 UTC
Oh look!

Tippia has found a target to orbit.

While the angular velocity is the same for both. (Relativity: ain't it grand), one of them seems to have better tracking. Still, it might be a long battle.

Mr Epeen Cool
Ciyrine
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#51 - 2013-07-17 19:24:10 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Ciyrine wrote:
The ship does rotate to maintain on target. Which relieves your guns tracking from having to do it.
…if the guns are locked to the ship, which they aren't.

Quote:
For some reason your treating the gun and the ship as to seperate entitites.
Yes. Because… you know… they are. The turrets move independently from the ship (call them gyro-stabilised if you like — they don't inherit any angular momentum from the ship) and have to be slewed into position to compensate for any kind of relative motion between your ship and the target.

Quote:
refer to the arm/shoulder scenario i discussed earlier. If your shoulder isnt doing any rotation then the guns wouldnt have to track either.
…but your shoulder is rotating, or you will no longer point at the target. The problem with your scenario is that you're misidentifying what represent what. Your arms are not the turret; your body is not the ship. Your entire body is the turret, and the ship is simply the spot of ground you're standing on. As that spot moves around your buddy, you have to rotate your body (i.e. the turret) to keep pointing at the guy standing still in the middle.

Quote:
Your trying to give the turrets the job that the engines actually do.
No. I'm merely describing how turrets work. This includes not making the assumption that they are fixed or that they are affected by ship movement.


The turrets not being attached to the ship is how we get the very unusual physics situation were a gun has tracking problems while going quickly around an object.

I was aware how the game treats tracking i just didnt know why that was different from real world pretend space combat would be. Now i understand that the turrets are floating in space on their own. Not attached to the ship. So when the ship rotates the turrets have to generate their own thrust/rotation to keep up with the ship which causes tracking problems.

In real world pretend space combat when the ship orbits its engines would rptate the ship through the orbit which leave the turrets free to do no tracking.

So basically turrets in eve are drones forced to keep speed with the hull but not attached.
Plastic Psycho
Necro-Economics
#52 - 2013-07-17 19:29:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Plastic Psycho
Zappity wrote:
Plastic Psycho wrote:
Who really gives a damn?
This game has never aspired to rocket science. Nor even rigorous higher math.


Snip.

Edit: you know what? If you can't be bothered to read the OP just keep using transversal and be happy.
I read the OP - I'm even pretty good at maths. This whole discussion is still more pointless than whinging about AFK Cloaking. Many electrons could have been spared. Right name, wrong name, the mechanic is the same.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#53 - 2013-07-17 20:10:57 UTC
Ciyrine wrote:


The turrets not being attached to the ship is how we get the very unusual physics situation were a gun has tracking problems while going quickly around an object.

I was aware how the game treats tracking i just didnt know why that was different from real world pretend space combat would be. Now i understand that the turrets are floating in space on their own. Not attached to the ship. So when the ship rotates the turrets have to generate their own thrust/rotation to keep up with the ship which causes tracking problems.

In real world pretend space combat when the ship orbits its engines would rptate the ship through the orbit which leave the turrets free to do no tracking.

So basically turrets in eve are drones forced to keep speed with the hull but not attached.



After reading this thread I've come to visualize the turrets as being affected by drag, and tracking speed being a matter of "force".

Conceptually it works.. but I don't know if that could be explained visually.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Adunh Slavy
#54 - 2013-07-17 20:19:50 UTC
Always helpful

http://dl.eve-files.com/media/0910/eve-tracking101.swf

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.  - William Pitt
Doddy
Excidium.
#55 - 2013-07-17 20:22:32 UTC
Ciyrine wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Its just as difficult to hit a ship at zero velocity while orbiting as it is to hit an object orbiting at speed while you are stationary.

Of course, since the relative motion is the same. Also, this.


wrong

1) a ship orbiting you generates angular change = hard to track

2) you orbiting a target generates NO angular change = should be easy to track

The game physics treats 2) the same as 1) which is either a failure in the game designers physics understanding or a game balance thing.

The reason i say game balance thing because the fastest ship in a fight will always be the one orbiting. The slower ship will never generate an orbit motion, the slower ship will only manage to elongate the faster ships orbit into an oval.

Which means the fastest ship in a fight would experience zero angular/tracking problems trying to hit the slower ship. Which would make speed even more "king stat" in a frig vs frig fight. The way they have it setup now even the slower frig still has a fighting chance


It is a game balance thing. If it did it right then the fastest ships could use the biggest lowest tracking guns with impunity (so long as they didn't meet something even faster) and slow ships would need to use the fastest tracking guns by necessity. My mind is trying to get round 1400mm tornados in such a reality.
JAG Fox
GunStars
#56 - 2013-07-17 20:35:03 UTC
Plastic Psycho wrote:
I read the OP - I'm even pretty good at maths. This whole discussion is still more pointless than whinging about AFK Cloaking. Many electrons could have been spared. Right name, wrong name, the mechanic is the same.


thread derailment time..

I've noticed more than a few times on this and other forums the spelling of "whining" as "whinging". i've particularly noticed this from mainly british posters. is that an acceptable spelling in your country, and do you actually pronounce like it's spelled? or is this spelling just the cool way to spell now? just curious babe..

as for the OP. just use missiles and then you don't have to worry about transversal vs. angular velocities!

 Fox Pin-up

Kisses!Foxie.
Zappity
New Eden Tank Testing Services
#57 - 2013-07-17 21:29:51 UTC
Plastic Psycho wrote:
Zappity wrote:
Plastic Psycho wrote:
Who really gives a damn?
This game has never aspired to rocket science. Nor even rigorous higher math.


Snip.

Edit: you know what? If you can't be bothered to read the OP just keep using transversal and be happy.
I read the OP - I'm even pretty good at maths. This whole discussion is still more pointless than whinging about AFK Cloaking. Many electrons could have been spared. Right name, wrong name, the mechanic is the same.


Oh good. So when you are trying to manipulate tracking, do you show transversal or angular velocity on your overview?

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
Karash Amerius
The Seven Shadows
Scotch And Tea.
#58 - 2013-07-17 22:33:21 UTC
While you are right if you are using guns...it does not matter much as far as missile systems go.

Karash Amerius Operative, Sutoka
Rhys Thoth
Endland
#59 - 2013-07-17 22:34:24 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Wall of Text


Angular is what you want for tracking, however for the first few years of EVE transversal was the only option, as they didn't add angular until 2005 or so IIRC. Before that you just looked at transversal, looked at distance and eyeballed it.

Angular has essentially made transversal more or less obsolete, but we all know how the community reacts to change.

Thus this discussion is played out in Help Channel a couple times a month.

I don't always undock, but when I do... no wait, I acutally never undock.
Liafcipe9000
Critically Preposterous
#60 - 2013-07-18 06:18:45 UTC
tl;dr

yeah, so?