These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
#61 - 2013-07-18 06:36:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
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.
They're attached to the ship. They just aren't locked into the ship's rotational frame. That's not very unusual — in fact, that's the whole point of gyro-stabilisation, and chances are that you have an example of this physics situation sitting on your desk…

Quote:
Now i understand that the turrets are floating in space on their own. Not attached to the ship.
Where do you get that idea?

JAG Fox wrote:
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?
It's not a different spelling of “whining” — in fact, it's not even the same word. “Whinging” is a participle form of the verb “to whinge”.
Zappity
New Eden Tank Testing Services
#62 - 2013-07-18 06:44:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Zappity
Rhys Thoth wrote:
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.


Interesting. Certainly explains why people insist on transversal so thanks.


Liafcipe9000 wrote:
tl;dr

yeah, so?


The "so" is in the "tl" that you didn't "r". Just carry on using transversal on your overview and it will be fine.

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
Nuglord
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#63 - 2013-07-18 07:48:10 UTC
SirScarecrow wrote:
oh wow, you are now officially a rocket scientist. Tell me something, after you posted all this non-essential garble, do you have more friends now?

After evaluating the forum post, the OP has 12 likes on his post while you have 0.

Therefore, I must conclude that OP does in fact have more friends now, while you do not.
Weiz'mir
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#64 - 2013-07-18 09:21:02 UTC
I'll be honest :

- I understand the game mechanics from a balancing point of view (not giving to the fastest ship an unfair advantage) ;

but

- I absolutely not understand how some of you could consider that these game mechanics match with real physic.

Anyway, I have two more questions :

1. Do you use radial velocity or do you consider that the distance information is more than enough ?

2. Do you use transversal velocity, and in case you do, could you please explain me in what kind of circumstances ?

Thanks !
Liafcipe9000
Critically Preposterous
#65 - 2013-07-18 09:24:06 UTC
Zappity wrote:
carry on using transversal

did I say I use that? or did the drugs voices in your head tell you that?
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#66 - 2013-07-18 09:41:01 UTC
Weiz'mir wrote:
- I absolutely not understand how some of you could consider that these game mechanics match with real physic.
Because they do. I have in my cheap-ass out-of-date phone a device that does exactly that…

Quote:
1. Do you use radial velocity or do you consider that the distance information is more than enough ?
2. Do you use transversal velocity, and in case you do, could you please explain me in what kind of circumstances ?
1. Yes, because closing speed is a good measure of whether they're coming for me or someone else, and because it tells me how well I'm catching up with them.

2. No, because just plain speed is good enough.
Weiz'mir
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#67 - 2013-07-18 10:13:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Weiz'mir
Tippia wrote:
Because they do. I have in my cheap-ass out-of-date phone a device that does exactly that…

You have in your phone a device doing exactly... what ?

Let's take an other exemple. Let say I am an indian on my horse galloping around (orbiting) a caravan stopped in the desert.

The cow-boy near his caravan will face tracking issues to shot me if my horse is fast enough. BUT ME, with my rifle, ridding my horse orbiting the caravan, do you really think that I will have any tracking issue ??

Tippia wrote:
1. Yes, because closing speed is a good measure of whether they're coming for me or someone else, and because it tells me how well I'm catching up with them.

2. No, because just plain speed is good enough.

Ok thanks for your answers.
Alexila Quant
Versatility Production Corporation' LLC
#68 - 2013-07-18 10:20:49 UTC
E-2C Hawkeye wrote:
Unsuccessful At Everything wrote:
Im sure you posted this wall of text to win some arguement that youre having with someone, what is the TLDR for those of us who don't feel the need to read?

He is saying we are using the wrong terminology. He is correct. When you or (your computer) calculates a firing solution this information is processed but we in eve call it traverse velocity. Main reason is because we have a column for it in our UI Big smile


There is a column for Angular velocity as well. Which I use exclusively.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#69 - 2013-07-18 10:26:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Weiz'mir wrote:
You have in your phone a device doing exactly... what ?
Keeping the orientation of one part decoupled from what it's attached to.

Quote:
Let's take an other exemple. Let say I am an indian on my horse galloping around (orbiting) a caravan stopped in the desert.
…but that's not how turrets work. They are not fixed emplacements 17th-century-brigantine-style cannons. If you are an indian on a horse galloping around a caravan, you have to turn at the same angular velocity to face someone in that caravan, as that person has to turn in order to face you. If you don't, you'll start facing something completely different and no longer be in the correct orbit (alternatively, you should probably get into dressage rather than caravan-robbing, because being able to make your horse complete a full uninterrupted — and actually round — circle without every changing direction is pretty impressive).

The more accurate illustration is that, if you are a director shooting a cowboy movie and want to do a 360° dolly shot around the caravan using a gyro-stabilised camera, then you will have to keep turning that camera because it will not rotate along with the dolly. If you don't, the camera will capture a whole lot of terrain rather than the mug of your overpaid star actor.
Weiz'mir
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#70 - 2013-07-18 10:54:07 UTC
Tippia wrote:

The more accurate illustration is that, if you are a director shooting a cowboy movie and want to do a 360° dolly shot around the caravan using a gyro-stabilised camera, then you will have to keep turning that camera because it will not rotate along with the dolly. If you don't, the camera will capture a whole lot of terrain rather than the mug of your overpaid star actor.


If your rotation is perfect (ie the camera is fixed on a circle of rails and the caravan is at the center of the circle), you shouldn't have to move again the camera once it faces the actor.

Do you suggest that after each shot, turrets get back to their "rest position", before aligning the target again, shot, back to rest position, aligne target, etc. ? In this case I could understand why the turrets of the orbiting ship may face tracking issues...
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#71 - 2013-07-18 12:03:11 UTC
Weiz'mir wrote:
If your rotation is perfect (ie the camera is fixed
…then you're no longer talking about anything that is relevant to my example or to how turrets work.

Even so, you still have to rotate the camera at the desired angular velocity in order to keep the subject in frame.

Quote:
Do you suggest that after each shot, turrets get back to their "rest position", before aligning the target again, shot, back to rest position, aligne target, etc. ?
No. Just that they have to adjust for the angular difference between where they were previously pointing and where the target is now. If they returned to some kind of rest position, turrets would require a tracking speed of roughly 2π/instant to ever have a chance of lining up with a target…

…which, incidentally, would mean that they'd never have any tracking issues at all. P
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#72 - 2013-07-18 12:16:56 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Weiz'mir wrote:
If your rotation is perfect (ie the camera is fixed
…then you're no longer talking about anything that is relevant to my example or to how turrets work.

Even so, you still have to rotate the camera at the desired angular velocity in order to keep the subject in frame.

Quote:
Do you suggest that after each shot, turrets get back to their "rest position", before aligning the target again, shot, back to rest position, aligne target, etc. ?
No. Just that they have to adjust for the angular difference between where they were previously pointing and where the target is now. If they returned to some kind of rest position, turrets would require a tracking speed of roughly 2π/instant to ever have a chance of lining up with a target…

…which, incidentally, would mean that they'd never have any tracking issues at all. P

I think you should give up on this Tippia. Its clearly incorrect in regards to real physics. While the game may behave in this absurd fashion a turret whether capable of independent tracking or not would not need to track while on a ship orbiting a stationary target because the correct position to hit would be a 90 degrees to port or starboard. given a perfectly circular orbit.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#73 - 2013-07-18 12:29:25 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:
I think you should give up on this Tippia. Its clearly incorrect in regards to real physics.
Why should I give up just because people aren't familiar with how real physics work?

Again, this is not something that is magical or odd or unreal or incorrect, and their ignorance certainly doesn't make it any of those. This very phenomenon has been a crucial part of western civilization for a couple of centuries by now.

Quote:
While the game may behave in this absurd fashion a turret whether capable of independent tracking or not would not need to track while on a ship orbiting a stationary target because the correct position to hit would be a 90 degrees to port or starboard. given a perfectly circular orbit.
It's not particularly absurd. It's just a generic, catch-all solution that handles all cases, rather than having three operation modes depending on which parties are moving about.
Templar Knightsbane
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#74 - 2013-07-18 12:31:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Templar Knightsbane
Orbit F1 Pirate
Weiz'mir
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#75 - 2013-07-18 12:52:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Weiz'mir
Thank you Tippia for your explaination. However I am still not convinced at all...

May I ask if there is anyone here who agrees with Tippia ?
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#76 - 2013-07-18 12:56:07 UTC
Weiz'mir wrote:
May I ask if there is anyone here who agrees with Tippia ?
Well, there's this guy…
Weiz'mir
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#77 - 2013-07-18 13:23:54 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Weiz'mir wrote:
May I ask if there is anyone here who agrees with Tippia ?
Well, there's this guy…


You read it in Greek ancient, you may have misunderstood one or two minor details...
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#78 - 2013-07-18 13:27:29 UTC
Weiz'mir wrote:
You read it in Greek ancient
Nah. I had already forgotten most of that language a decade and a half ago.
Jill Xelitras
Xeltec services
#79 - 2013-07-18 13:30:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Jill Xelitras
I feel horrible for assuming that real life physics may apply to in-game physics ...

I think I need to test a couple of things in-game before doing that same mistake again.

.... also: what about the coriolis effect ? Shouldn't projectile and hybrid turrets have a slight delay or inaccuracy in firing / hitting targets compared to laser turrets every time there is a change in angular speed ?
Or is the adjustement so quick that it doesn't matter ?

Oh lord, here come the headaches again from seeing a wiki page full of formulae ...

(edit: s'pose it's formulas in english. Have to check that up some day)

Don't anger the forum gods.

ISD Buldath:

> I Saw, I came, I Frowned, I locked, I posted, and I left.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#80 - 2013-07-18 13:40:55 UTC
Jill Xelitras wrote:
.... also: what about the coriolis effect ? Shouldn't projectile and hybrid turrets have a slight delay or inaccuracy in firing / hitting targets compared to laser turrets every time there is a change in angular speed ?
Weeeell… Coriolis applies to when both you (and the target) are locked in a different (rotating) frame of reference than the projectile is. What tracking does is pretty much the opposite of that: it ensures that the turret isn't locked in that frame of reference, and the tracking is all about compensating for the target's movement from the point of view of a neutral reference frame.

Or, to borrow a phrase from that article: “The Coriolis effect exists only when one uses a rotating reference frame.” The whole point is that turrets don't use a rotating reference frame.