These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 page123
 

Something that always bothered me about EVE ships
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Qvar Dar'Zanar
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#41 - 2012-06-08 13:11:08 UTC
Noriko Satomi wrote:
So that bothers you and bouncing off of asteroids and stations as though they were rubber doesn't? Oh, and being able to fire at ships through structures... etc.


Have you considered that our ships have shields?

Akirei Scytale wrote:
Major Killz wrote:
This is a game.


A science fiction game.

Science fiction tends to root itself in semi-plausible science before going off on wild tangents. Its pretty genre-defining.


In fact, every single art work is http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LikeRealityUnlessNoted
Kiteo Hatto
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#42 - 2012-06-08 13:14:36 UTC
Quote:
Have you considered that our ships have shields?

Hehe, then why didn't that nyx bounce off the station, but crashed and blew it up ? :P
Mina Sebiestar
Minmatar Inner Space Conglomerate
#43 - 2012-06-08 13:16:34 UTC
Kiteo Hatto wrote:
Quote:
Have you considered that our ships have shields?

Hehe, then why didn't that nyx bounce off the station, but crashed and blew it up ? :P


It turned off shields...duh.

You choke behind a smile a fake behind the fear

Because >>I is too hard
Tobey Darkness
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#44 - 2012-06-08 13:52:12 UTC
Jafit wrote:
The problem is that you think those things on the back of your ship are your primitive Earthling stone-age rocket thrusters. No, sunshine, this is the 24th millenium or somthing, they're actually protowarp interspace exhaust particle arrays.

The exhausts don't provide newtonian thrust, they're just where the ship expels charged warp particles generated through the ship's warp engine based sublight propulsion system. Upon leaving the ship these particles decay into normal space and manifest in normal space as light emitting ghost particles. Notice how they hang in space relative to the warp reference of the system instead of floating around like normal particles would in newtonian space, and they aren't affected by other ships passing through them.

This warp engine based method of sublight propulsion is also why your ship doesn't follow newtonian rules of motion while in space, it is anchored to the system's warp reference plane.

Starship engineers put the exhausts on the backs of ships because they look cool there. The only ship that didn't have them all pointing backwards was the old griffin ship hull, and it looked silly with them sticking out to the side.

This is a well researched answer, and I have the following relevant qualifications:
Engineering V
Navigation IV
Warp Drive Operation III


Best explanation I have ever read!

We are learning stuff by injecting the data directly into our brain but we still assume that our spaceships are flying with 20th century engines.

Your explanation should be in every eve guide!

Do you know what's really dumbing down eve? Graphics! If you really want a hardcoregame with a learning curve that even beats eve: Try bay12games.com/dwarves
Nikodiemus
Ganja Clade
Shadow Cartel
#45 - 2012-06-08 13:57:41 UTC
So you want no sound effects (Eve has sound?) ships that cant move but spin out of control, ships designed with center of mas in mind and Eve made even more boring?

I think that's winter expansion.
Masikari
State War Academy
Caldari State
#46 - 2012-06-08 14:13:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Masikari
Magna Bellator wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
Weight means nothing in space. That said, let me know when we are playing in space instead of under water.



Weight means nothing, but Mass does.


us Engineers are wierd, and we think of these things. I think thats the problem :D


Confirming I am a fellow Engineer! I have the same issues about the designs and had a heavy debate in local once about all this. Some people just cannot get their head around the physics. I giggle when I see people write comments like the qoute about being underwater. It's easy for me to say that in order for a ship in space (or underwater, providing it's neutrally buoyant for this instance) to go in a straight line it's engine(s) need to be in line with (or equally around) it's centre of mass/gravity. But trying to explain that to someone who doesn't understand the concept is frustrating.

Some people get it, some people don't. I'm in no way being pretentious here - there's a lot of things I don't understand, but this field I do. And some of these ships should not fly straight unless some wierd mass/thruster mechanics are at work that we can't see.

But then I remember it's a science fiction game Blink

Edit: Grammer

Edit two: Just see Tobey Darkness' answer Big smile
Svarek
#47 - 2012-06-08 14:18:37 UTC
TigerXtrm wrote:
Marcin Arkaral wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
Weight means nothing in space. That said, let me know when we are playing in space instead of under water.

The OP writes about mass, not weight. mass != weight.


The center of mass would make no difference in space since there is no gravity. It doesn't matter where the engines are because there is no countering force like air that forces the nose of the ship downward, upward, or pushes it in any direction. So the ship will just be propelled forward.

Doing the same thing on a planet would cause the ship to dive to the ground head first.


i want to die

Whoops.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#48 - 2012-06-08 14:19:31 UTC
They're using reactionless drives, because obviously, CONCORD has taken the the Kzinti Lesson to heart and doesn't want people running around and burning hole through everyone's ships and stations and planets…

P
Svarek
#49 - 2012-06-08 14:21:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Svarek
Honestly, while the idea of the "non-Newtonian" drive or some kind of "inertial engine" thing (quite possibly derived from or comparable to flying saucer mythology) is a valid one, given the design of ships and the way the entire game universe is constructed, it just seems like a pretty poor excuse for worse ship designs - even though it technically makes a lot of sense.

Whoops.
silens vesica
Corsair Cartel
#50 - 2012-06-08 14:29:46 UTC
TigerXtrm wrote:
Marcin Arkaral wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
Weight means nothing in space. That said, let me know when we are playing in space instead of under water.

The OP writes about mass, not weight. mass != weight.


The center of mass would make no difference in space since there is no gravity. It doesn't matter where the engines are because there is no countering force like air that forces the nose of the ship downward, upward, or pushes it in any direction. So the ship will just be propelled forward.

Doing the same thing on a planet would cause the ship to dive to the ground head first.

Tell your science teachers you want your money back; clearly they gave you a defective education.


To the OP: If asymmetrical engine flares bother you, how do you feel about ships banking and turning in space as if there were enough interplanetary matter density to allow the ships to 'fly' as if they were in an atmosphere? What about ships coasting to a stop when you turn the engines off?
Clearly Sir Isaac has been revoked in more ways than one.

Tell someone you love them today, because life is short. But scream it at them in Esperanto, because life is also terrifying and confusing.

Didn't vote? Then you voted for NulBloc
Saladinae
State War Academy
Caldari State
#51 - 2012-06-08 14:31:32 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
Weight means nothing in space. That said, let me know when we are playing in space instead of under water.


???

There is a difference between mass and weight. Very simply, a force vector applied to an object of uniform mass density at a location that is as far from the center of mass as possible, will apply a uniformly decreasing amount of force parallel to the original force vector, which decreases uniformly in the direction from the point of contact towards the center of mass, and if there exists more material opposite the center of mass, the force will continually decrease further.

Winmatar > Everything else
Abdiel Kavash
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#52 - 2012-06-08 14:38:29 UTC
Svarek wrote:
Honestly, while the idea of the "non-Newtonian" drive or some kind of "inertial engine" thing (quite possibly derived from or comparable to flying saucer mythology) is a valid one, given the design of ships and the way the entire game universe is constructed, it just seems like a pretty poor excuse for worse ship designs - even though it technically makes a lot of sense.


It is a pretty good excuse for being able to hire art designers without a degree in astrophysics.
Svarek
#53 - 2012-06-08 14:42:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Svarek
Abdiel Kavash wrote:
Svarek wrote:
Honestly, while the idea of the "non-Newtonian" drive or some kind of "inertial engine" thing (quite possibly derived from or comparable to flying saucer mythology) is a valid one, given the design of ships and the way the entire game universe is constructed, it just seems like a pretty poor excuse for worse ship designs - even though it technically makes a lot of sense.


It is a pretty good excuse for being able to hire art designers without a degree in astrophysics.


I failed physics, and yet I apparently still understand it better than most people, artists?
This stuff is not complicated.

Whoops.
Hermia
HIVE
Memento Moriendo
#54 - 2012-06-08 14:58:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Hermia
a lot of it is not even good art. when i started eve i thought ship design was a let down but got over it because of the huge potential (i say potential because this was 2003). However, now i find myself writing in bad-ship threads because im wondering why i should "get over it".

Its not an issue i would quit for, just feel it would be nice to cut out this 2003 legacy artwork. Almost all the new ships designed after are so much better.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#55 - 2012-06-08 15:04:27 UTC
Svarek wrote:
Abdiel Kavash wrote:
Svarek wrote:
Honestly, while the idea of the "non-Newtonian" drive or some kind of "inertial engine" thing (quite possibly derived from or comparable to flying saucer mythology) is a valid one, given the design of ships and the way the entire game universe is constructed, it just seems like a pretty poor excuse for worse ship designs - even though it technically makes a lot of sense.


It is a pretty good excuse for being able to hire art designers without a degree in astrophysics.


I failed physics, and yet I apparently still understand it better than most people, artists?
This stuff is not complicated.


No not really complicated, but even without the fail safe explanation of non-Newtonian engines you could also explain many of the stranger designs with:

1: Vectored Thrust
2: Gyroscopic or Inertial Dampener based stabilization.
3: Asymetrical Mass distribution in the ship hull itself.
4: Asymetrical thrust control (many ships have a big engine on one side balanced by multiple and presumably lower thrust engines on the other). Delicate control would be childs play for a pod pilot and/or computers systems of that tech level.

Or any number of other plausible or semi-plausible explanations.

We tend to think in terms of streamlined vehicles with (what we consider to be) normal distribution of mass, or if multiple engines are involved they are usually all providing the same thrust and in a symetrical arrangement. None of that is, strictly speaking, neccessary in space.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#56 - 2012-06-08 15:05:32 UTC
Hermia wrote:
a lot of it is not even good art. when i started eve i thought ship design was a let down but got over it because of the huge potential (i say potential because this was 2003). However, now i find myself writing in bad-ship threads because im wondering why i should "get over it".

Its not an issue i would quit for, just feel it would be nice to cut out this 2003 legacy artwork. Almost all the new ships designed after are so much better.


CCP feels the same way and is methodically (if slowly) working in that direction.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Hermia
HIVE
Memento Moriendo
#57 - 2012-06-08 15:10:25 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
Hermia wrote:
a lot of it is not even good art. when i started eve i thought ship design was a let down but got over it because of the huge potential (i say potential because this was 2003). However, now i find myself writing in bad-ship threads because im wondering why i should "get over it".

Its not an issue i would quit for, just feel it would be nice to cut out this 2003 legacy artwork. Almost all the new ships designed after are so much better.


CCP feels the same way and is methodically (if slowly) working in that direction.


yeah i know, it hasn't gone unnoticed so i have faith Ranger 1 :)
Previous page123