EVE General Discussion

Yes, and my point is that the ship's rotation is irrelevant since the turrets don't inherit that rotation — they are stabilised towards the “universal” frame of reference, not the ship's. As a result, your turrets will have to track their target at the same angular velocity as the target's turrets have to track you: because it's the same rotation over the same timeframe.

This is not “unreal” or “incorrect” since mechanisms that offer this kind of disconnection between an object and its carrier is something that's existed since antiquity. The only conceivable oddity is the matter of why the EVE ship engineers have chosen this particular solution, but I've already suggested a lore answer to that one.

Even you have to admit that this is at least confusing if not annoying to anyone new to EVE or only new to the tracking formula, and not everyone cares for the lore.

I for one care little for EVE's lore and can very well sympathize with the problem. I do read a lot of SciFi and when stories become disconnected from today's science then it is not science fiction any longer, but it becomes fantasy and magic. Or as Arthur C. Clark said it "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." It also means that good science fiction needs to be distinguishable from magic or I might just start playing WoW.

confusing? more like a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside a burrito!

It would be nice of more of the EVE physics could be realistic. I've drafted up many ways a realistic inertia system could work, but apparently CCP (and almost everyone else in the industry) is happier forcing us through fluidic space where we might encounter the Undine.


You'll want radial velocity to tell how fast the target is moving toward or away from you.

I think this thread has been very interesting. The specifics about the tracking and angular velocity issues in EVE are an important part in becoming a seasoned pilot.

There is no arguing that CCP has decided to make all ships "points in space" and require the turrets to be required to pivot on those points against the universal X/Y/Z frame of reference purely for balance issues. This is one of those decisions that are made to still make it a "Game" just like he fluid dynamics model that is used which allows us to stop without flipping our ships around

As far as the argument about how it would work in real life: I believe that Tippia is trying to defend the decision above (about the turrets) that CCP made by saying that it is actually applicable to 'real' space combat.

It's not.

Yes gyrostabilizers would be used in space but there is a very important point which has not new brought up and that's: delta...

In space, there is no universal frame of reference if you are considering a two competing-space ship-system. If you consider to identical ships that have come in contact with each other that have decided to fight its easy to see how it would work:

Any weapon system has to be connected to the ship via whatever pivot mechanism. The ONLY time that the pivot mechanism would have to move is when it's target has a velocity DELTA (meaning change in speed) relative to the ship in which it's connected. That velocity delta can be in any relative component (radial, angular, or transversal) as long as a delta exists, tracking is necessary.

So in space, if two identical ship and there computers have done velocity prediction and evasive maneuvering so that each is in a mutually centric orbit there gun's pivot mechanisms could stay stationary and they would blow each other out of the sky. It's only when a pilot attempts to jocky his position and change the components of his orbit or current velocity relative to the other ship that either ships guns would have to move.

TO CLARIFY POINT ABOUT GYROS: When no Delta exists, engaging gyros would help maintain accuracy from random purturbations in velocities.

No, it has been brought up. Its the difference in relative motion that generates the angular velocity.

There are only two components: radial and angular. If it's a movement along the radial axis only, no tracking is needed because the turret is already pointed in the right direction — the target is just moving farther away or closing in, right along the axis of projectile travel. So just fire away. The tracking would only change if there was some outside force that affected the trajectory (e.g. a gravity field creating a ballistic trajectory so you have to adjust your aim as the distance to target changes).

…but again, that's only an engineering decision as far as how you want your turrets to operate — it doesn't say anything about what is “right” or “wrong” as far as tracking is concerned, and letting your turrets track freely and independently of the ship's orientation is very much applicable in real life as well.

…if you chose to design your turrets to be locked into the ship's reference frame. If you choose not to, then they'd have to keep tracking. The EVE ship designers chose the latter, for whatever reason. Maybe because of the aforementioned scenario where having the tracking be relative to the ship's own orientation would make the ship's movements predictable and easier to hit.

You can disconnect it to such a high degree that it might as well not exist. It's just as physically impossible (to say nothing about hugely impractical) in reality to have a turret that is 100% matches the ship's rotating reference frame. Just as friction would (minutely, to the point of not mattering) impart a momentum transfer onto a free-floating turret, inertia would (minutely, to the point of not mattering) impart lag on a locked-down turret.

Again, these things exist today, and have done so for ages. They work well enough that for all intents an purposes, they are rotationally independent from their carrying vehicle, so no, the premise is not false any more than the idea that you can lock the turret in a fix angle relative to the ship is a false premise.
No, because by not being on the same axis, you have now introduced an angular component relative to the turret. As long as the trajectory doesn't change with range for whatever reason, the radial velocity doesn't matter — only the angular part.

magnets. defying the universe since never

I don't understand why so many EVE vets make this rookie mistake. I don't believe they actually think that transversal velocity is what's important, even the most green pilots often know that you can get under a ship's guns. So why the blunder of nomenclature? I understand that many veteran EVE players are not math whizzes (though most of them probably are), and I also realize that the word 'transversal' sounds better than 'angular', but that doesn't change the fact that they are two distinctly different functions.

Well I have found that the lower the traversal velocity is the more effective my guns are. That's the short of it. It's a game not a college class

Where is your rock at, I will lift it up so you can go back under it.