These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Why Dont....

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Kamden Line
Sovereign Citizen and other Tax Evasion Schemes
#61 - 2013-01-17 09:48:32 UTC
Ok, listen. Planets in EVE do actually orbit. However, they orbit at absurdly slow speeds. Jita IV-IV moon orbits at like 1 km per day? someone measured it out for me once, but it was absurdly slow.
Elistea
BLUE Regiment.
#62 - 2013-01-17 10:09:56 UTC
RomeStar wrote:
Why dont planets in Eve Orbit stars? I know this is EVE but this is one mechanic I think should have some sort of realistic aspect to it.


I would love to create a bookmark and 6moths later come back and its nowhere near any planets or stations. I wish they would bring back warping to specific coordinates so we can create bookmarks alittle easier.



As a Nightmare pilot i strongly dissagree for one simple reason. Any and all planets or moons align and move faster than my ship => since stations orbit moons i wouldn't be able to dock EWAR AGAIN!!!
ctx2007
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#63 - 2013-01-17 10:34:31 UTC
Oh just pretend the planets are orbiting. Simple.

You only realise you life has been a waste of time, when you wake up dead.
Di Mulle
#64 - 2013-01-17 10:35:08 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AD9OV1Zrs4I

Star gates would connect systems depending on proximity and other random goodness. With the inner core of the galaxy spinning fastest and the outer stars on the slowest cycle, it would create some interesting situations. Granted the rate of the galaxy spiral should be slow, but fast enough to have a few new connections per day.

Maybe in another ten years something of this magnitude and scope will be seen for EVE. Food for thought.


It is very bad food for thought. The simulation you linked is going on scales simply incomparable to EVE's universe both in space and time. EVE's world is actually a very small star cluster, a minuscule part of the galaxy. And galactic movement is noticeable on the time scale of millions of years. I wish all the best for EVE, but I do not think it will last that long.

Of course, stars in galaxies have their own individual movement and their relative positions to each other are constantly changing. But then again, it would produce not a "few new connections per day", but rather one change in a few thousand years at best.
<<Insert some waste of screen space here>>
Palovana
Inner Fire Inc.
#65 - 2013-01-17 11:29:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Palovana
Would it be cool? Yes!

Is it practical to do? No!

If you make planets orbit the star, then you have to make moons orbit the planets.

Other objects such as stargates, stations and asteroid belts which are relative to a planet or moon then have to be moved along with the planets and moons (not necessarily with asteroids, if they are changed to a "scan to find" type of system).

There can be over 200 of these now-moving objects in a system, and there are thousands of systems, possibly a million total objects to move.

Suddenly the TQ cluster is requiring 1.21GW of power for moving all of these objects continuously.

Or if they're moved at DT every day, we're back to 60-minute downtimes or worse.

Please support: export of settings in editable format

Your stuff goes here.
Debora Tsung
Perkone
Caldari State
#66 - 2013-01-17 11:43:36 UTC
CCP Explorer wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Because it would create an awful lot of hassle for little to no gain.


To expand on that, what would be the gain?
Can't say, some people just believe it's cool when their favourite game has the best possible physics simulation possible.

On another note, that would create some problems for bookmarks, since POSes are anchored to moons and moons orbit planets, any bookmark placed on a POS would lead to quite empty space a few hours or even minutes after it's creation since the Moon/Planet in question would've moved away. Someone in this thread said Planets are slow... well, compared to space ships with a warp drive maybe... but, Earth for example moves at a speed of 29.8 km per second, Venus is a little bit faster with round about 35km per second and I once read that for example Alpha Centauri has planets that orbit their star in approx. 3.2 days... Alpha Centauri is quite a bit bigger than our sun, so it's safe to say, that thing is FAST.

So if You really wanted planets orbiting the systems central star, You'd need gravity wells so that ships warping to a planet or in our case a POS wouldn't be left behind in empty space and actual gravity wells would open up a whole new host of new problems regarding it's physics engine. Eve would need a near complete overhaul to adapt to those changes.

Not saying it wouldn't be cool, but I imagine it'd be quite a lot of work.

Stupidity should be a bannable offense.

Fighting back is more fun than not.

Sticky: AFK Cloaking Thread It's not pretty, but it's there.
Thomas Gore
Blackfyre Enterprise
#67 - 2013-01-17 12:34:58 UTC
CCP Explorer wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Because it would create an awful lot of hassle for little to no gain.
To expand on that, what would be the gain?


Immersion, but I've noticed it's not on the priority list for EVE.
MainDrain
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#68 - 2013-01-17 12:37:08 UTC
Kamden Line wrote:
Ok, listen. Planets in EVE do actually orbit. However, they orbit at absurdly slow speeds. Jita IV-IV moon orbits at like 1 km per day? someone measured it out for me once, but it was absurdly slow.


They lied to you.

The devs have said they dont move, thats good enough for me
Yeovilty
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#69 - 2013-01-17 14:20:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Yeovilty
Jiska Ensa wrote:
After all, Eve isn't about "Why?", it's about "Why not?" :)


+1

EDIT
MainDrain wrote:
Kamden Line wrote:
Ok, listen. Planets in EVE do actually orbit. However, they orbit at absurdly slow speeds. Jita IV-IV moon orbits at like 1 km per day? someone measured it out for me once, but it was absurdly slow.


They lied to you.

The devs have said they dont move, thats good enough for me


I made a safe-undock spot for Jita a long time ago, it was 200 km out. Now when I warp to it, it's around 1000 km out. I'm interested as to why this is, if planets don't move.
Jiska Ensa
Estrale Frontiers
#70 - 2013-01-17 15:04:22 UTC
CCP Explorer wrote:
Jiska Ensa wrote:
derp
The "loss" would be a lot of systems would have to rewritten to support a dynamic grid system and then that dynamic grid system would have to be explained to players. A lot of the thing you mention above we did to add to the immersion in the world but not at the cost of complicating game play. Rotating planets might complicate game play.


OK I guess when you put it that way...But please do us a favour, and keep it in mind, and if you ever re-do the grid systems, maybe consider it then? :)
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#71 - 2013-01-17 17:24:52 UTC
Di Mulle wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AD9OV1Zrs4I

Star gates would connect systems depending on proximity and other random goodness. With the inner core of the galaxy spinning fastest and the outer stars on the slowest cycle, it would create some interesting situations. Granted the rate of the galaxy spiral should be slow, but fast enough to have a few new connections per day.

Maybe in another ten years something of this magnitude and scope will be seen for EVE. Food for thought.


It is very bad food for thought. The simulation you linked is going on scales simply incomparable to EVE's universe both in space and time. EVE's world is actually a very small star cluster, a minuscule part of the galaxy. And galactic movement is noticeable on the time scale of millions of years. I wish all the best for EVE, but I do not think it will last that long.

Of course, stars in galaxies have their own individual movement and their relative positions to each other are constantly changing. But then again, it would produce not a "few new connections per day", but rather one change in a few thousand years at best.

I'm not talking about real time rotation to a real galaxy. lol
Di Mulle
#72 - 2013-01-17 17:34:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Di Mulle
Marlona Sky wrote:

I'm not talking about real time rotation to a real galaxy. lol


Then you are talking about the reshuffling of the EVE map , a call for this appears all the time. Whether it is needed or not, you do not need to implement a complicated simulation of celestial movement. Game designer just changing gate connections here and there will be way more effective.
<<Insert some waste of screen space here>>
EdwardNardella
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#73 - 2013-01-17 18:54:58 UTC
Yeovilty wrote:
I made a safe-undock spot for Jita a long time ago, it was 200 km out. Now when I warp to it, it's around 1000 km out. I'm interested as to why this is, if planets don't move.


The station was moved a while back for the release of an expansion to change the sense of scale when compared to the moon.
Yeovilty
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#74 - 2013-01-17 19:15:35 UTC
EdwardNardella wrote:
Yeovilty wrote:
I made a safe-undock spot for Jita a long time ago, it was 200 km out. Now when I warp to it, it's around 1000 km out. I'm interested as to why this is, if planets don't move.


The station was moved a while back for the release of an expansion to change the sense of scale when compared to the moon.


This explains it! :D
Least now I know!
Unsuccessful At Everything
The Troll Bridge
#75 - 2013-01-17 19:26:43 UTC
Sounds like OP is tired of being defeated by enemies using 7 year old bookmarks...

Since the cessation of their usefulness is imminent, may I appropriate your belongings?
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#76 - 2013-01-17 19:56:11 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Because it would create an awful lot of hassle for little to no gain.


But I want orbits.... Sad

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#77 - 2013-01-17 20:01:07 UTC
CCP Explorer wrote:
Jiska Ensa wrote:
Gain?

Why did you make new turrets? Why do missiles now launch from launchers instead of the middle of the ship?
Why do drones have models when few people ever zoom in on them?
Why did you make new nebula backgrounds? Why do we have 4 different Captain's Quarters? Why did you redo the character creator? Why V3 (or V-anything) the ships? Why does Eve have music? Why do POS shields have that weird pulse effect? Why is there a glorified acid-trip when our ships are in warp? Why did you add a brand new effect for jump drives?

The "gain" would be "it looks cool" or "adds realism/emersion."

And honestly is it really that hard to have everything operate in an rotational reference frame relative to the nearest celestial body? How hard is it to have all structures, ships, bookmarks, drones, wrecks, hell just the entire GRID, orbit around a moon/planet/star? All bookmarks/anchor points out to a certain distance from a moon/planet could be written as a function of radial distance, and angle in two dimensions, and then when someone warps to it a grid is created at the appropriate location based on the current position of that rotational reference frame. Or something. I used to know this stuff but it's amazing how much math one can forget.

After all, Eve isn't about "Why?", it's about "Why not?" :)
The "loss" would be a lot of systems would have to rewritten to support a dynamic grid system and then that dynamic grid system would have to be explained to players. A lot of the thing you mention above we did to add to the immersion in the world but not at the cost of complicating game play. Rotating planets might complicate game play.




*geek sigh*

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Rawthorm
The Establishment
#78 - 2013-01-17 22:57:28 UTC
More to the point, don't you think any civilization advanced enough to travel between the stars, could have their "bookmarking" system compensate for things like stellar drift, and planetary orbit? P

I recall a game called Darkspace using orbiting planets for a time, tho in that game it made sense. Warping across a vast solar system took extensive time and having planets pass closer or further from strategic points as time progressed shook a long game up nicely.
Don't think eve would see any benefit other than to raise the running cost of eve and annoy anyone who has bookmarks near gates / planets P
Unkind Omen
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#79 - 2013-01-20 12:41:15 UTC
CCP Explorer wrote:

The "loss" would be a lot of systems would have to rewritten to support a dynamic grid system and then that dynamic grid system would have to be explained to players. A lot of the thing you mention above we did to add to the immersion in the world but not at the cost of complicating game play. Rotating planets might complicate game play.

Well, as I am not aware of how bad is the current code design in terms of adding anything new to it I am unable to state that would be an easy task. However the conflicts can be partially solved just by performing rotations of planets and moons and grids withing their corresponding SOI during the downtime when no actual actions performed by players. The actual rotation of the grid's coordinate system is not even the desired behavior (I understand that rotating structures on POSes around the POS grid may cause big big troubles). Just make planets move around the sun bit by bit and may be someday the actual rotation of everything will become a number one issues to solve for the sake of creating a beutifull universe.
Xpaulusx
Naari LLC
#80 - 2013-01-20 13:03:48 UTC
Inducing real Celestrial Mechanics would force the server to chew gum and walk at the same time we all know thats not possible.

......................................................