EVE General Discussion

It would if it was mounted in such a way that it wasn't affected by the rotation of the ship. Such mounts exist.

There is no need to particularly imagine anything since these devices have been around for two millennia.

…and having them work like they do in EVE is one of the available options.

…and again, no-one has ever said the turrets in EVE are not attached to the ship. As for any angular momentum from firing, that happens if the force is applied off-center, and it is easily compensated for through other means.

It is attached to the hull, and no-one has still ever said otherwise.

…as long as he imparts a momentum that provides the camera with the required angular velocity. That'.s the funny part about gyro-stabilisation: it makes things very… well… stable, but it make them a handful to do what you want since they keep fighting against any kind of rotational movement you try to impose on them.

accuracy is affected for vehicles moving on the ground subject to hills/holes/bumps etc in the ground. Ships in the ocean(and presumably in space) would have turrets attached to the hull. In a perfect orbit you point guns at 90 degrees and call it a day.

yes we have real evidence

1) tanks/cameras moving on the ground are like tipias example

2) combat ships in the ocean do not operate like tipias example. I contend that ships in space would be built like ships in the ocean.

Gyrostabilization is used to minimised unwanted movement. On a tank it dampens out unwanted yaw elevation etc. Turrets might be gyrostabilized in that sense in a real life space environment however positive tracking would be simpler in terms of targeting. Positive in terms of chasing a solution rather than correcting to solve it. You would use a locked turret system unless it went off track faster than the hull could correct it or if you wanted the hull to go in another direction but the guns to stay positions.

SCIFI TIME:

How do gyrostabilizers work?
The defining clue is the statistics they affect in game. Magstab, heatsink and gyrostab all affect damage and rate of fire.

In the case of magnetic field stabilizers, they stabilize the magnetic field of the railgun to allow for faster consecutive shots (rate of fire). They can improve damage by fine timing of the shots to improve accuracy when tracking, but that's far fetched.

Heat sinks allow faster rate of fire by reducing heat build up. They improve damage by allowing bigger energy pulses which transfer partially into heat in the laser mechanism.

Gyrostabilizers stabilize the gun after shots, allowing faster re tracking of the target and thus faster rate of fire. This is because unlike lasers (and to lesser degree railguns), projectile firing mechanic causes recoil which is a big deal in space. Possibly the increased damage comes from allowing faster projectile speed (bigger recoil), but that's very much far fetched.


Angular velocity:

Take into consideration also the requirement of precision in tracking. Tracking speed thinking is limited when trying to hit small targets moving in a perpendicular vector from afar, tracking precision + tracking speed is a better way to see the big picture. I don't know how the formula goes but I'd figure it relies on gun resolution vs. target signature size.

…except that they exist and work exactly like that. So what's incorrect and unreal about them?

Because the hull turning is too imprecise and/or too violent and it's better and easier to just let the turret handle it all on its own.

…except when you're turning in the wrong direction, at which point tracking speed - hull turning < just tracking speed. At any point when you turn into the target's line of travel, you have reduced your tracking ability (but not his). This makes it far more preferable to always turn away from their line of travel, which makes you predictable, which makes you easy to hit. With a freely rotating turret, there's no telling where you're going next…

I do. People here trying to argue are considering the target is not moving at all. The reason turrets have tracking, is because they are not shooting a stationary target.

When that target IS stationary, there is no tracking issue.

That cowboy and indian for instance. If that indian was orbiting around a bottle on a post he would need a fixed firing position and rely solely on his horse to maintain the correct orbit. The gun would not need to move.

But since we are talking about a target moving in it's own orbit, that indians rifle needs to compensate for the dynamic trajectory of it's target.

Which si the tracking speed we are talking about here.

Or a compass being held by someone spinning in a circle. True north being the target.

Six pages of peremptory assertions ! Congrat'

Yea, I'm agreeing with you. I might not know the formulae for figuring out those trajectories, but I do understand why they are there and what function they provide hehe. I'm just trying to put into layman's terms.