These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page123Next page
 

Liquid Space

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Argaral
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#21 - 2012-03-19 00:44:30 UTC
Buzzmong wrote:
Argaral wrote:
Momoyo wrote:
Or, or.... Battlecruiser Millennium.


I'd like a game that actually works and doesn't have the creator go ballistic when I call him on his crap as to why it doesn't play without crashing


Careful now, mentioning his name three times in a row is a well known summoning ritual.

He's also somewhat fond of EVE fwiw.


Aww look, I don't mind his enthusiasm. He had a great idea and if it worked it would have been Game of the year for several years. If he had a team that coded well, EVE may never have reached what it is today
stoicfaux
#22 - 2012-03-19 00:52:13 UTC
Arec Bardwin wrote:
Balls touching (involving liquids); this is gay, right?

Sir. Internet space-balls physics is serious business. Let me quote you the output from the Eve Logserver.exe, sir.

1673 2012.03.17 21:51:13:362 [ 36808 ] AddBalls2
1684 2012.03.17 21:51:13:363 [ 36808 ] AddBalls2
1858 2012.03.17 21:51:14:383 DoBallsAdded_ - Starting to add 82 balls. lazy = 1
1862 2012.03.17 21:51:14:383 Tactical - adding balls, num balls: 82
2577 2012.03.17 21:51:16:629 DoBallsAdded_ - Done adding 82 balls in 2 seconds . 0 balls were lost. lazy = 1

46465 2012.03.17 22:01:15:309 [ 37410 ] RemoveBalls
46466 2012.03.17 22:01:15:309 [ 37410 ] AddBalls2
46477 2012.03.17 22:01:15:309 [ 37410 ] RemoveBalls
46478 2012.03.17 22:01:15:309 [ 37410 ] AddBalls2

49188 2012.03.17 22:01:55:364 RemoveBalls: Has exploders
49291 2012.03.17 22:01:58:330 BringOutTheDeads:: Removing 1 moribund balls.
49309 2012.03.17 22:01:59:397 BringOutTheDeads:: Removing 1 moribund balls.
49320 2012.03.17 22:02:00:361 BringOutTheDeads:: Removing 1 moribund balls.
49339 2012.03.17 22:02:01:363 [ 37456 ] RemoveBalls
52698 2012.03.17 22:02:19:329 [ 37474 ] AddBalls2
52726 2012.03.17 22:02:20:663 DoBallsAdded_ - Starting to add 8 balls. lazy = 1
52730 2012.03.17 22:02:20:664 Tactical - adding balls, num balls: 8
52838 2012.03.17 22:02:21:112 DoBallsAdded_ - Done adding 8 balls in Less than one second . 0 balls were lost. lazy = 1
52916 2012.03.17 22:02:23:328 BringOutTheDeads:: Removing 1 moribund balls.
53379 2012.03.17 22:02:31:859 Deleting 4 miniballs for ball 413063393
53395 2012.03.17 22:02:31:861 Deleting 56 miniballs for ball 60002545
54312 2012.03.17 22:02:31:922 Deleting 25 miniballs for ball 60005239
54328 2012.03.17 22:02:31:923 Deleting 25 miniballs for ball 60005242
54344 2012.03.17 22:02:31:925 Deleting 25 miniballs for ball 60005245
54361 2012.03.17 22:02:31:927 Deleting 4 miniballs for ball 1203209188
54377 2012.03.17 22:02:31:929 Deleting 17 miniballs for ball 50003014
54393 2012.03.17 22:02:31:932 Deleting 17 miniballs for ball 50003015
54409 2012.03.17 22:02:31:936 Deleting 4 miniballs for ball 870765960
54425 2012.03.17 22:02:31:938 Deleting 25 miniballs for ball 60005776


In the future, it would behoove you to stay your simplistic fool's "wit" and play the village idiot elsewhere, sir.

Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
#23 - 2012-03-19 00:54:56 UTC
evXetwvi wrote:

I will be happiest man in the world if u remove it forever.


No...you really wouldn't be happy at all and neither would anyone else.

Watch a video of actual spaceships taking six hours to get aligned for docking and translate that into everything you do after undocking. How fast can you snap a shot off at the ship you are about to blink past a slightly sub light speed? How long do you want to spend setting up a turn in your ship? How many times do you want to bury your ship into the side of a station because you miscalculated your velocity that needed to be scrubbed off?

Best leave well enough alone.

Mr Epeen Cool
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#24 - 2012-03-19 01:30:39 UTC
CCP Explorer wrote:
EVE's space physics is probably easiest to compare to "tennis balls in water" (non-rigid balls in non-viscous fluid). It's of course not accurate or realistic but it the gaming experience is better since that's what most people find easiest to understand and adapt to.



What is the math behind it? I have a 3D demo game that I use for work, built with XNA in .NET, and it's basically a little space ship and all that used to test how fast a system renders the model

If I knew the math behind the ships' flight in Eve, I would love to put that in my program.

Bring back DEEEEP Space!
Potamus Jenkins
eXceed Inc.
Plucky Adventurers
#25 - 2012-03-19 02:25:22 UTC
CCP Explorer wrote:
EVE's space physics is probably easiest to compare to "tennis balls in water" (non-rigid balls in non-viscous fluid). It's of course not accurate or realistic but it the gaming experience is better since that's what most people find easiest to understand and adapt to.



the dream...ruined...
Terminal Insanity
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#26 - 2012-03-19 02:31:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Terminal Insanity
If they 'fix" this "problem" then ships will go infinitely faster and faster... until about the speed of light of course... Imagine a dramiel going 500 km/s...

"War declarations are never officially considered griefing and are not a bannable offense, and it has been repeatedly stated by the developers that the possibility for non-consensual PvP is an intended feature." - CCP
XxRTEKxX
256th Shadow Wing
#27 - 2012-03-19 03:45:06 UTC
I wouldn't mind reverse thrusters to slow my ship down when I throttle down to 0% forward thrusters. I do wish we had more control in maneuvering our ships. I'd like to be able to back up my ship or move it sideways when stopped instead of having it completely turn itself just to move in a direction.
Arakazzi
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#28 - 2012-03-19 04:40:34 UTC
I remember a game I played for about a day back in 2005. I completely forgotten what it was called but it had "newtonian physics" and was almost twitched based. It was terrible. I prefer games that take liberties with physics like the "X" series or freelancer to the hyper realistic space games

I would however like to be able to control direction using the keyboard. I know that twitch based combat isn't really technically feasable right now unless CCP builds the worlds greatest supercomputer which would have to be 1000 x more powerful than the current one. But changing direction would be nice and a speed boost for my BS, and Hulk etc. continents move faster than these ships. Ever tried doing the "Worlds Collide" mission using a raven or golem? It's worse than mining. I measure how fast I can move from one gate to the next using the geological time scale. And the Hulk.. put it this way it's faster to bookmark something warp out to the nearest planet and warp back in to the bookmark than move the 30k or so to get in range to fire your lasers.
Camios
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#29 - 2012-03-19 11:03:07 UTC
Chandaris wrote:
velocity relative to the space/time fabric.




Unfortunately all real physics is based ont the fact that there's no way to measure velocity relative to the space time fabric, or even to define it; there must not exist any privileged reference frame in the universe.
This is the key idea of special relativity (that is necessary to explain the fact that velocity of light is independent of the reference frame), that is extended to general relativity. While there aren't so many experimental proofs of general relativity, there are a lot of proofs of special relativity.


The cronichles actually state that neither newtonian nor einsteinian physics are realized in EVE, but somewhat we have laz0rs (you can't even see lasers rays in space except if there is dust) and nebulas and nuclear explosions.

The problem is not that EVE isn't realistic, but that it is even inconsistent. For example: planets are not orbiting each other, thus gravity does not exist, and thus planets don't have any reason to be spherical.

EVE science is just stupid. Stop reading those "science" chronicles and play the game: the best science fiction is the one that does not talk about science.
Jet Aeon
Two Smoking Barrels
#30 - 2012-03-19 14:01:35 UTC
Chandaris wrote:
A powered up warp core creates a 'gravity anchor/drag' effect on the fabric of space time, which results in the ships having to maintain a constant thrust to maintain speed, a maximum speed as the effect increases with velocity relative to the space/time fabric.

read your chronicles. it's in there somewhere.

and really.. planets dont' orbit, and are a few hundred/thousand km across.. i mean if we're gonna start complaining about realism there's bigger fish to fry :)

if you want to play a spaceship *SIMULATOR*, go download orbiter. probably the only game out there more complex than eve ;) http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/
My post is hardly in favor of space simulator. I fully understand the need to disregard physics in favor of game play and visuals that lean towards the publics fantasy, and atmospheric experiences. I just mock marketing dung such as CCP calling Eve a "simulator". What exactly are they simulating? Apparently they are simulating balls moving through liquid. That hardly makes for a space sci-fi "simulator", but if a little reverse thrust eye candy were added, it would bring a little more realism to the game without stepping on the general public's experiences and understanding. In other words CCP wouldn't have to worry about lost sales due to the implementation of a realistic visual.
Bootleg Jack
ACME Mineral and Gas
#31 - 2012-03-19 14:29:46 UTC
Chandaris wrote:
A powered up warp core creates a 'gravity anchor/drag' effect on the fabric of space time, which results in the ships having to maintain a constant thrust to maintain speed, a maximum speed as the effect increases with velocity relative to the space/time fabric.

read your chronicles. it's in there somewhere.

and really.. planets dont' orbit, and are a few hundred/thousand km across.. i mean if we're gonna start complaining about realism there's bigger fish to fry :)

if you want to play a spaceship *SIMULATOR*, go download orbiter. probably the only game out there more complex than eve ;) http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/


Um no.

*snickers*

Seriously I'm not sure I would want truely real space. Right now when we turn we make nice arcing turns with trails. In real space our ships would pivot, flying nearly backwards, and fire thier engines.

It would be realistic, but I'm not sure it would be cool to play.

I'm an American, English is my second language...
Hakaru Ishiwara
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#32 - 2012-03-19 14:38:00 UTC
Arakazzi wrote:
I remember a game I played for about a day back in 2005. I completely forgotten what it was called but it had "newtonian physics" and was almost twitched based. It was terrible. I prefer games that take liberties with physics like the "X" series or freelancer to the hyper realistic space games.
Possibly Vendetta Online. I played that for a bit back in '04 / 05 and enjoyed the physics, but to each his or her own.

+++++++ I have never shed a tear for a fellow EVE player until now. Mark “Seleene” Heard's Blog Honoring Sean "Vile Rat" Smith.
Skippermonkey
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#33 - 2012-03-19 14:49:56 UTC
touching each others balls in a viscous fluid....

only in EVE

COME AT ME BRO

I'LL JUST BE DOCKED IN THIS STATION
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#34 - 2012-03-19 16:01:18 UTC
The easiest way to make eve look like it has Newtonian mechanics would be some simple graphics changes.

Make the brightness of the engines be proportional to the ship's rate of acceleration rather than speed. Then have the ship point in the direction it is accelerating, rather than moving. Oddly, this would all be a client side change. The server does not actually keep track of ship pointing direction. If CCP implemented such a change it could be an option that you would select: Aircraft style ship animation, or spaceship style ship animation.

In all cases our ships would still be modeled as tennis balls in molasses. (An aside; molasses is better description than water. In water drag increases like speed squared, but in highly viscous liquids like molasses it increases like speed, at least for tennis ball size objects. Eve has drag increase like speed.)

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction
Dror Roidcrusher
Balls of Megacyte
#35 - 2012-03-19 16:07:20 UTC
but is it wise to discuss drag in the context of balls?
Skippermonkey
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#36 - 2012-03-19 16:30:02 UTC
Dror Roidcrusher wrote:
but is it wise to discuss drag in the context of balls?


balls dragging over other balls in a viscous fluid

... tell me more

COME AT ME BRO

I'LL JUST BE DOCKED IN THIS STATION
Gorki Andropov
I Dn't Knw Wht You Wnt Bt I Cn't Gve It Anymre
#37 - 2012-03-19 17:00:24 UTC
DEREK SMART

DEREK SMART

DEREK SMART
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#38 - 2012-03-19 22:24:42 UTC
Dror Roidcrusher wrote:
but is it wise to discuss drag in the context of balls?



When you are over 40 and gravity has done its job then it's a daily topic.

Bring back DEEEEP Space!
MadMuppet
Critical Mass Inc
#39 - 2012-03-19 23:01:29 UTC
Tennis balls in fluid? Great, that explains why, when I get popped, the gatecamp says "15 Love, my serve again"

This message brought to you by Experience(tm). When common sense fails you, experience will come to the rescue. Experience(tm) from the makers of CONCORD.

"If you are part of the problem, you will be nerfed." -MadMuppet
Plus 1
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#40 - 2012-03-19 23:18:10 UTC
Gorki Andropov wrote:
DEREK SMART

DEREK SMART

DEREK SMART

Maybe it's more like Candyman than Betelgeuse.
Previous page123Next page