These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

How would gameplay change, if newtonian physics would be used?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#41 - 2013-11-12 09:58:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Johan Civire wrote:
Me to because you watch to many star trek movies.
You're confusing me with you there.

Quote:
Yah you can fire rockets in vacuum space...... NOT there is no air to travel in and the have no impact to any object in space.
Rockets don't need air to travel. In fact, the vacuum of space makes them far more efficient since there's (next to) no drag. Reaction drives do not work like tires or propellers — they do not “grab on” to material around them and drag themselves forward through friction or pressure differentials. Instead, it's pure Newton III: reaction mass goes in one direction; body of the rocket goes in the other.

So you're quite wrong about your second claim too: there is an object to impact with — the rocket itself. That's how the rocket moves.

Quote:
Because there is no gravity to make the impact.
Gravity has nothing to do with impacts (other than in the sense that mass and gravity tend to co-exist… but then you don't need mass to have an impact either). The presence of gravity well do have some odd effects on travel, though, such as the fact that when you co-orbit with another object, you have to slow down to catch up… Twisted

Incidentally, this all points to an explanation for why ships in EVE behave the way they do: they don't use reaction drives but rather some curious “rolling down the gentle inclines of space folds” drive.
Zappity
New Eden Tank Testing Services
#42 - 2013-11-12 10:11:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Zappity
Haven't read the thread but EVE universe has artificial gravity by the look of the stations (which don't spin). So the g consideration during acceleration is irrelevant.

Apart from that, no top speed would break practically every balance consideration out there and completely screw up grids.

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#43 - 2013-11-12 10:27:09 UTC
While the theoretical speed limit of a space craft with a reaction drive is just below light speed (given enough energy and reaction mass), the practical speed limit is a lot lower.

When you're getting up into noticeable fractions of light speed, manoeuvring becomes somewhat complicated. Then there's the problem with other matter. Specks of dust will do bad things to your fore armour.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
Neeko Demus
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#44 - 2013-11-12 11:01:02 UTC
Johan Civire wrote:

Yah you can fire rockets in vacuum space...... NOT there is no air to travel in and the have no impact to any object in space. Because there is no gravity to make the impact.

but that's not to point to say how stupid your answer is. But he some one try to insult people clearly,, you.... go back in your cave and stay there.


@Johan Civire
After your first post, I thought you are kidding. But if you really think, rocket engines need something to repel from, to drag along or air to maintain firing, you got the working principle of rocket engines totally wrong. My preposters gave some good advices about that.

@Zappity
You wrote:
Zappity wrote:
Apart from that, no top speed would break practically every balance consideration out there and completely screw up grids.

I would like to know, how balance and grids would be screwed up, if you get lost of top speed. Are there some special situations, that come to your mind?
dexington
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#45 - 2013-11-12 11:17:54 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Incidentally, this all points to an explanation for why ships in EVE behave the way they do: they don't use reaction drives but rather some curious “rolling down the gentle inclines of space folds” drive.


Warp Drives Wiki Page

would be something like the Casimir effect and energy depleted vacuums

I'm a relatively respectable citizen. Multiple felon perhaps, but certainly not dangerous.
Dasola
New Edens Freeports
#46 - 2013-11-12 11:25:20 UTC
Personally i think it might be fun... No more flying so close sun unless you planning to scrap that ship (5000 km from sun you are pretty much melt literally).

No more super high acceleration from 0 to full speed. Wh systems with magnetar would have all sort of funny effect to anythign made out of metals... Black hole systems might not be so fun to live in anymore thanks to massive gravity pull that's everything there is subject to...

Heck CCP would need to hire couple more physicist to rewrite entire physics model of eve...

For starters if would be happy if ships momentum and direction would be preserved so it would not look like were flying in ocean..

We are Minmatar, Our ship are made of scraps, but look what our scraps can do...
Johan Civire
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#47 - 2013-11-12 14:37:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Johan Civire
P
Good Apollo BS4
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#48 - 2013-11-12 14:46:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Good Apollo BS4
Cynos and bridges...They wouldn't work. Nullsec riots.

Then nullsec realizes that no concord exists bcs ships can't just instantiate from nowhere bcs matter neither created not destroyed etc therefore nullsec takes over highsec.

Bears riot. :)
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#49 - 2013-11-12 14:52:58 UTC
stoicfaux wrote:
If you want to remove all doubt about the funness of newtonian space flight, play MANTIS.

edit: And when I say "funness" I mean the opposite.
OMg I remember that game, came out the year I graduated high school.

Thanks for making me feel old. Is their any Geritol or Xlax on the Jita market today?
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#50 - 2013-11-12 15:17:25 UTC
Oh, and obligatory optical effects link. Can't believe I didn't remember that one until page 3.
Neeko Demus
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#51 - 2013-11-12 19:36:37 UTC
I want to emphasize again, that this thread isn't about making the whole game realistic. It is about the impact, that acceleration limited ships would have onto gameplay. So warping, lasers, cynos and concord are absolutely out of topic.

One thing came to my mind, not considered, yet:
What would happen to 75% of top velocity needed to initiate warp? I assume a velocity threshold based on mass instead of top velocity. But there would be some severe consequences from that.

As MWDs and afterburners rise the top speed, and thus the speed needed to enter warp, they are not shortening the align time. But if they were based on acceleration, they would. For the same reason, webber would no longer work to shorten the align time, but would increase it, instead (Maybe enough to pass on scramblers in some situations?).

This would also change the way the MWD-Trick works. You wouldn't even need it. Just cloak, align to warp, wait till you have reached warp velocity (may take some time), decloak, instawarp (assuming, cloaks would decrease acceleration instead of top speed).
stoicfaux
#52 - 2013-11-12 20:09:11 UTC
Neeko Demus wrote:

  • Fights at high velocities
    • Let's assume, you're sitting in an Interceptor, as an enemy fleet drops out of warp at about 100 km from your position. Your FC orders you to burn to them. Let's say you get as fast as 5 km/s. So you would need about 20 seconds to cover the distance.(Correct me, if I'm wrong. Never flown a fleet interceptor.) What would happen, if you are not limited to 5 km/s but to about 50 g? You would also cover the distance in 20 seconds, but would reach the fleet with a velocity of 10 m/s.

    10 m/s should be 10km/s, no?

    Which is the problem. 20 seconds to intercept, but at 10km/s you'll only have time to get one shot and/or you'll fly by so fast that even if you do manage to land a web/scram on a target, you'll fly out of range of the web/scram in a few seconds.

    Which means you need to compute an intercept vector that includes time to decelerate to match the target's general velocity (which is probably changing) and heading (which is probably also changing.) Which is why NASA tends to use computers to calculate these things.


    Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
    Tarn Ellecon
    Center for Advanced Studies
    Gallente Federation
    #53 - 2013-11-12 21:41:23 UTC
    Some form of fuel on every ship. All the complex course corrections would require a lot of energy.

    "F*ck the Polis" - Socrates
    Neeko Demus
    Aliastra
    Gallente Federation
    #54 - 2013-11-13 13:26:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Neeko Demus
    stoicfaux wrote:
    Neeko Demus wrote:

  • Fights at high velocities
    • Let's assume, you're sitting in an Interceptor, as an enemy fleet drops out of warp at about 100 km from your position. Your FC orders you to burn to them. Let's say you get as fast as 5 km/s. So you would need about 20 seconds to cover the distance.(Correct me, if I'm wrong. Never flown a fleet interceptor.) What would happen, if you are not limited to 5 km/s but to about 50 g? You would also cover the distance in 20 seconds, but would reach the fleet with a velocity of 10 m/s.

    10 m/s should be 10km/s, no?

    Which is the problem. 20 seconds to intercept, but at 10km/s you'll only have time to get one shot and/or you'll fly by so fast that even if you do manage to land a web/scram on a target, you'll fly out of range of the web/scram in a few seconds.

    Which means you need to compute an intercept vector that includes time to decelerate to match the target's general velocity (which is probably changing) and heading (which is probably also changing.) Which is why NASA tends to use computers to calculate these things.

    You're right, it is 10 km/s not 10 m/s.

    I think of it as a button. You press "Intercept", and your client does all the math (might take some nanoseconds of CPU time). It would be easier as it is now, as far as I know. Or this function is integrated into the orbiting button.

    There is no fuel needed as it is, and I don't see a reason to change that.
    Minmatar Citizen160812
    The LGBT Last Supper
    #55 - 2013-11-13 13:59:21 UTC
    Gameplay would change into Jumpgate.
    Cynter DeVries
    Spheroidal Projections
    #56 - 2013-11-13 15:15:05 UTC
    You'd have to schedule undocking 12 hours in advance. You'd also have to schedule warp gate access several days in advance. In hi-sec, deviating from your navigation plan (which you'd have to file) would probably be considered a hostile act.

    Cynter's Law of feature suggestion: Thou shalt not suggest NPCs do something players could do instead.
    Bizzaro Stormy MurphDog
    B.L.U.E L.A.S.E.R.
    #57 - 2013-11-13 16:50:33 UTC
    Neeko Demus wrote:
    Fights at high velocities are not different to the fights we know, as long as all vessels are moving in the same direction with nearly the same velocity. So the only scenario is, what happens, if a ship is flying with a high velocity, and another ship warps to it. Either the moving ship shoots away from it, the very moment the intercepting ship drops out of warp, or the intercepting ship has to drop out of warp with the same velocity as the moving ship.


    You're not a physicist.

    I love how you can state that fights would be the same, but then of course we have to add "all vessels are moving in the same direction with the same velocity."

    Because yeah, that happened Roll

    But you're not asking for actual physics, you're asking for some bastardized version where mass is irrelevant, time dilation doesn't occur, kinetic energy doesn't exist, gravity doesn't affect spaceships in any way, and fuel/mass ratio isn't a thing.

    And the answers to that are 1) why, and 2) no. I don't want Battleships to blip past a gatecamp at .8c and maybe get off one shot, and Battleships don't want to achieve .8c and then have to spend forever decelerating. In fact, nobody is going to like the fact that you need to spend the same amount of time decelerating as you do accelerating, or the fact that turning (not even right angle turns, just turning in general) will become effectively impossible at anything resembling the "new" speeds you are proposing.

    Honestly, this comes up like once a year, and it's always from someone who doesn't actually understand physics.

    I am not an alt of Chribba.
    Bizzaro Stormy MurphDog
    B.L.U.E L.A.S.E.R.
    #58 - 2013-11-13 16:53:39 UTC
    Neeko Demus wrote:
    stoicfaux wrote:
    Neeko Demus wrote:

  • Fights at high velocities
    • Let's assume, you're sitting in an Interceptor, as an enemy fleet drops out of warp at about 100 km from your position. Your FC orders you to burn to them. Let's say you get as fast as 5 km/s. So you would need about 20 seconds to cover the distance.(Correct me, if I'm wrong. Never flown a fleet interceptor.) What would happen, if you are not limited to 5 km/s but to about 50 g? You would also cover the distance in 20 seconds, but would reach the fleet with a velocity of 10 m/s.

    10 m/s should be 10km/s, no?

    Which is the problem. 20 seconds to intercept, but at 10km/s you'll only have time to get one shot and/or you'll fly by so fast that even if you do manage to land a web/scram on a target, you'll fly out of range of the web/scram in a few seconds.

    Which means you need to compute an intercept vector that includes time to decelerate to match the target's general velocity (which is probably changing) and heading (which is probably also changing.) Which is why NASA tends to use computers to calculate these things.

    You're right, it is 10 km/s not 10 m/s.

    I think of it as a button. You press "Intercept", and your client does all the math (might take some nanoseconds of CPU time). It would be easier as it is now, as far as I know. Or this function is integrated into the orbiting button.

    There is no fuel needed as it is, and I don't see a reason to change that.


    And that interceptor is dead long before he gets close to the target, because he was unable to keep his angular velocity or his plain old speed at a point that avoids tracking from that other ship's guns.

    And by the way, this assumes that the ship he's attempting to "intercept" is stationary. Hint: it's not, because it wants to laugh at interceptors who lack backup before killing those interceptors who lack backup.

    I am not an alt of Chribba.
    Vincent Athena
    Photosynth
    #59 - 2013-11-13 17:46:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Vincent Athena
    No need to limit things to 50 g. As we can walk in a station that is not spinning, we must have some form of artificial gravity. That can protect the crew and pilot from much higher accelerations. Shock loads on the other hand, that is acceleration changes that happen faster than internal systems can compensate for, require a hydrostatic pod to survive.

    One issue is the eve physics engine cannot really handle speeds in excess of 25 km/sec. Collisions get all messed up and other bad stuff happens. Somehow we still need a speed limit.

    One issue in games where you can accelerate forever is players tend to accelerate at each other, pass by really fast, then spend forever slowing and returning. One way around that is the warp drive. Have it work that when I warp to another ship I arrive with a velocity equal to that ship. (or station, or stargate, etc.) A mechanism like this would greatly reduce the pain surrounding the issue of highly different speeds. Also: have it so when I micro-jump drive my exit velocity is equal to that of the closest ship.

    Stasis web: There could be two versions. One just reduces the target's acceleration capability. The other could link my ship to the other ship, trying to equalize their velocities.

    Controls: The current "approach" button would have the ship accelerate and decelerate as need so you arrive at your target at zero relative speed. The "keep at range" button would be similar, just having you arrive at zero relative speed at the desired range. The "orbit" button would get you to orbit range at the orbit speed you can maintain given your ship's acceleration capability.

    Finally, there is a very simple fix that would make eve look like it had Newtonian physics, even though its the same game. Presently ships are displayed pointing in the direction they are moving. Instead have them point in the direction they are accelerating. When you slow your ship would spin around and fly backwards. When orbiting it would point toward the center of the orbit.

    This would be a client side only change. The eve physics engine treats all ships as balls being pushed about. The client then displays ships positioned at the center of the ball pointing in their flight direction. CCP could add a check box for "show spaceship-like movement" vs "show airplane-like movement". Each player could choose what they like to see.

    Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

    Frozen fanfiction
    Neeko Demus
    Aliastra
    Gallente Federation
    #60 - 2013-11-15 20:45:00 UTC
    Bizzaro Stormy MurphDog wrote:


    You're not a physicist.

    I love how you can state that fights would be the same, but then of course we have to add "all vessels are moving in the same direction with the same velocity."

    Because yeah, that happened Roll

    But you're not asking for actual physics, you're asking for some bastardized version where mass is irrelevant, time dilation doesn't occur, kinetic energy doesn't exist, gravity doesn't affect spaceships in any way, and fuel/mass ratio isn't a thing.

    And the answers to that are 1) why, and 2) no. I don't want Battleships to blip past a gatecamp at .8c and maybe get off one shot, and Battleships don't want to achieve .8c and then have to spend forever decelerating. In fact, nobody is going to like the fact that you need to spend the same amount of time decelerating as you do accelerating, or the fact that turning (not even right angle turns, just turning in general) will become effectively impossible at anything resembling the "new" speeds you are proposing.

    Honestly, this comes up like once a year, and it's always from someone who doesn't actually understand physics.


    First of all: An insult isn't an argument.

    Second: I said, that both ships have to have nearly the same direction and velocity. But it might be better, if I get a little more en detail:

    This is about relativity. And I don't mean the e=mc² and light speed stuff, but the gist of relativity:

    There is no absolute location or velocity. One has always to describe the location or velocity of an object relative to a reference system. That's why it is called "Theory of Relativity".

    Let me paint a picture:
    There are two ships at a jump gate. One of them attacks the other, and is able to scramble his victim. The defender wants to break the scramble, a accelerates in a fitting direction.

    If the attacking ship has a greater acceleration as the defender, it will catch up, and may use the difference in the acceleration of both ships, to perform an orbiting maneuver. If you are in the reference system of the warp gate, you observe two ships with constant acceleration in the same direction. If you choose the defending ship as reference system, you observe the attacker orbiting you with a velocity, which fits to the radius of the orbit and the remaining acceleration.

    The same situation with a delimited velocity: The defender would start moving, and hit his velocity limit. The attacker is faster, and closes up. He has enough spare velocity, to perform an orbiting maneuver. In the reverence system of the jump gate you observe two ships with a constant velocity, one orbiting the other. In the reference system of the defender you observe a ship orbiting you with a radius, matching for the remaining velocity.

    And that's why I said, fights wouldn't depend on velocity that much. What I want from you, dear reader, is an example for a situation, where this isn't true!

    @Bizzaro Stormy MurphDog:
    Why can't I be a physicist, but still accept the restrictions of the game and be happy with a "bastardized" version, as long as it looks and feels a little more like the real thing? It's more the other way around. As a physicist I have to accept boundary conditions and idealizations in order to make the math work. So I'm pretty used to it.

    Always thinking about "what would be if" is also a thing that's pretty natural for every scientist. So it happens, that I'm asking myself, which impact newtonian physics would have onto gameplay. But as I don't know each and every aspect of gameplay, I am asking other EVE players. And here we are.

    About the interception maneuver:
    Bizzaro Stormy MurphDog wrote:
    And that interceptor is dead long before he gets close to the target, because he was unable to keep his angular velocity or his plain old speed at a point that avoids tracking from that other ship's guns.

    And by the way, this assumes that the ship he's attempting to "intercept" is stationary. Hint: it's not, because it wants to laugh at interceptors who lack backup before killing those interceptors who lack backup.


    The interception maneuver I meant would be a spiraling path to get close to ship, instead of a direct approach with subsequent orbiting. The board computers of a spaceship should be able to do the needed calculations, including the constant corrections in order to adapt to a moving target. And so should the computer, you are sitting at.

    Vincent Athena wrote:
    One issue is the eve physics engine cannot really handle speeds in excess of 25 km/sec. Collisions get all messed up and other bad stuff happens. Somehow we still need a speed limit.


    Can you explain, what the reason for this limitation is?

    Vincent Athena wrote:
    One issue in games where you can accelerate forever is players tend to accelerate at each other, pass by really fast, then spend forever slowing and returning. One way around that is the warp drive. Have it work that when I warp to another ship I arrive with a velocity equal to that ship. (or station, or stargate, etc.) A mechanism like this would greatly reduce the pain surrounding the issue of highly different speeds. Also: have it so when I micro-jump drive my exit velocity is equal to that of the closest ship.


    As far as my experience goes, most of the movement, especially in fights, is done via orders (approach, orbit, keep distance,...). So the algorithms behind this "buttons" should be able to compute the correct interception point and control the acceleration in a way, that fits the need of the pilot. Quite similar as you described it in your post under "Controls".