These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page12
 

Why do the ships have a max speed

Author
Azazel The Misanthrope
Oblivion's Pendulum
Top Tier
#21 - 2014-12-03 19:50:06 UTC
Luna Lapointe wrote:
Davey Talvanen wrote:
According to physics I should be able to reach C (speed of light) in any ship yet a max speed is imposed



Oh lord....

"According to physics" was a terrible phrase to open with.

No, you can not reach the speed of light through ordinary acceleration alone. That would require an infinite amount of energy, not to mention the relativistic effects (you can't have any particle with mass moving at the speed of light, since it's relativistic mass would then be infinite as well)


Warp drive drag and inertia dampeners very nicely explain the submarine-like flight of ships in EVE.

All of this is of course moot when you consider warp speeds in EVE make light seem like a two-legged horse at the Kentucky derby.


Technically if any object has infinite mass its apparent mass becomes zero; once an object reaches a velocity relative to C its increasing mass is nullified.
Tavin Aikisen
Phoenix Naval Operations
Phoenix Naval Systems
#22 - 2014-12-03 23:07:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Tavin Aikisen
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:

The Concorde was fuel inefficient due to fluid dynamics at and around the speed of sound, which is an 'earth only' issue.

Basically the method used by a 747 to generate lift does not work above about 0.85 times the speed of sound, and so totally different wing designs are required, and those wing designs are far less efficient.

None of this applies to space, however.

Basically EVE does not use either Newtonian or relativistic physics, it instead uses some variant of a submarine simulation in order to improve gameplay.



I'm specifically talking about the engines and instantaneous fuel burn, not total, for which flight speed is a significant factor.

My point was that if you increase engine speeds; more fuel is used. Simple as that. Regardless of whether that engine is attached to a wing or the back of the astronaut's chair and whether or not the aircraft can actually generate lift if required (and thus would need to offset with increased thrust).

Actually the engines of the Concorde at or around the speed of sound were the most efficient. At comparable speeds to the 747, the Concorde's SFC is less than a 747 (< 0.5 in imperial units), even though it uses a turbojet engine. Its total flight profile was where the fuel costs came in (specifically on the ground where a lot of fuel is wasted), and the fact it only carried 100 passengers, or roughly a quarter of a 747. Those turbojets are far more efficient at higher speeds than any turbofan. But its SFC at those speeds is also also 3 times higher.

"Remember this. Trust your eyes, you will kill each other. Trust your veins, you can all go home."

-Cold Wind

Saul Elsyn
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#23 - 2014-12-04 00:17:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Saul Elsyn
'Drag' in EVE is caused by the warp drive's effects on local space, as well as various inertial compensation techniques used within the ship.

For some reason starships in EVE have their warp drives effectively 'always on', thus the 'drag' effect is due to the warp drive resisting the movement of the ship, effective creating a form of 'subspace drag'.

For comparison, a microwarp drive basically works just like a normal warp drive. The effects of the subspace distortion cause shots which normally would have missed to be pulled toward the ship, hence why signature radius balloons when a MWD is activated.
Davey Talvanen
Kingsparrow Wormhole Division
Birds of Prey.
#24 - 2014-12-04 05:55:22 UTC
Saul Elsyn wrote:
'Drag' in EVE is caused by the warp drive's effects on local space, as well as various inertial compensation techniques used within the ship.

For some reason starships in EVE have their warp drives effectively 'always on', thus the 'drag' effect is due to the warp drive resisting the movement of the ship, effective creating a form of 'subspace drag'.

For comparison, a microwarp drive basically works just like a normal warp drive. The effects of the subspace distortion cause shots which normally would have missed to be pulled toward the ship, hence why signature radius balloons when a MWD is activated.


I see, so the warp drive aides a distortion on space time reducing speed of travel

Also sorry for the first post I meant according to the standard laws of physics if I am in a spaceship accelerating with infinite fuel I can reach 99.9999999999 recurring percent of C

Bob Maths
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#25 - 2014-12-12 17:16:16 UTC
Eugene Kerner wrote:
your ship will never be able to accelerate past the speed of light C (assuming Einstein is correct). The distance or better the space that your warp bubble transfers in time (lol) is something entirely different.
Actually, while in warp, your ship better not move at all ....


It wasn't Einstein that first proved or even suggested E=mc^2 , the relativistic factor is Lorentz's and the energy-mass equivalence proposal is Umov's. Lorentz's factor is what we're discussing here and yes it's correct, even in 'warp' space as now we're dealing with another layer of relativistic effects (i.e the object appears to be travelling faster from A but B is in fact travelling slower) as you need to contradict the laws of physics inside your own frame (a galilean concept cough)

Davey Talvanen wrote:
Saul Elsyn wrote:
'Drag' in EVE is caused by the warp drive's effects on local space, as well as various inertial compensation techniques used within the ship.

For some reason starships in EVE have their warp drives effectively 'always on', thus the 'drag' effect is due to the warp drive resisting the movement of the ship, effective creating a form of 'subspace drag'.

For comparison, a microwarp drive basically works just like a normal warp drive. The effects of the subspace distortion cause shots which normally would have missed to be pulled toward the ship, hence why signature radius balloons when a MWD is activated.


I see, so the warp drive aides a distortion on space time reducing speed of travel

Also sorry for the first post I meant according to the standard laws of physics if I am in a spaceship accelerating with infinite fuel I can reach 99.9999999999 recurring percent of C



Not really as you're going to be considering its energy capacity and actual ability to exert enough force to do work on the object in question at a certain point - lets call this a zenith - so that it accelerates significantly and isn't in fact introducing work to accelerate it to the zenith's velocity to overcome the deceleration caused by the ever increasing inertia of this none-uniform body. If you have an infinite mass of fuel that we could somehow instaneously transport to the ship in question as it is depleted, we still need to understand the chemistry and energy in its bonds.

Warp drives just artificially reduce the distance you're traversing at every point in the field, there isn't a 'pull' but rather a displacement that would cause the misfires, as the 'space' is not there, to in fact be hits.

Eugene Kerner
TunDraGon
Goonswarm Federation
#26 - 2014-12-16 09:38:27 UTC
Davey Talvanen wrote:
According to physics I should be able to reach C (speed of light) in any ship yet a max speed is imposed


wow...according to physics you say...nice physics you got there...

TunDraGon is recruiting! "Also, your boobs [:o] "   CCP Eterne, 2012 "When in doubt...make a diȼk joke." Robin Williams - RIP

Arline Kley
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#27 - 2014-12-16 16:12:00 UTC
Davey Talvanen wrote:
According to physics I should be able to reach C (speed of light) in any ship yet a max speed is imposed


As some have already stated, the warp drives used in our ships add an extra to the local space around our ships (fluid-space) and the engines attached to the ships can only put so much pressure against that "fluid" which would be acting in a non-newtonian manner. Once that limit is reached the ships accelerate no faster, as various components cannot handle the stresses being used against them. Afterburners extend this by incorporating safety overrides at the allowance of more speed (at the cost of increase capacitor useage to keep the hull intact), while MicroWarpDrives dip you into the warp layers, whilst still keeping you in "real" space - much like how pond skaters skitter ontop of the water, but don't break its tension.

In relation to warp drive speeds, I've always imagined it as space being layers of an onion, with the higher warping AU ships being able to punch down lower into the numerous layers - an interceptor can get to the speeds because of an oversized warp engine compared to its mass, whilst the opposite is also true: a freighter is so massive, the warp drives can only just make it dip into to the first layers.

"For it was said they had become like those peculiar demons, which dwell in matter but in whom no light may be found." - Father Grigori, Ravens 3:57

EdwardNardella
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#28 - 2014-12-18 18:30:52 UTC
Arline Kley wrote:
In relation to warp drive speeds, I've always imagined it as space being layers of an onion, with the higher warping AU ships being able to punch down lower into the numerous layers - an interceptor can get to the speeds because of an oversized warp engine compared to its mass, whilst the opposite is also true: a freighter is so massive, the warp drives can only just make it dip into to the first layers.

While this does not fit in with how most FTL transport supposedly works in fiction or theoretical reality I like it as an explanation as to why warp speed varies!
Kiandoshia
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#29 - 2014-12-20 00:17:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Kiandoshia
I've not actually read an official explanation for it yet and most of the explanations I have read seem a little weird to me, as in, they make me ask more questions... If a warp drive slows a ship down that much (a couple hundred m/s is pretty slow in terms of space flight), why aren't there ships that don't have warp drives? They would have a pretty big tactical advantage. They could not go anywhere other than where they are stationed (or they could be carrier bound) but I guess in a lot of situations, the ability to move would be worth more than the ability to possibly warp somewhere?

If the spaceships in the game were to behave like actual ships in space would/might, the game would be dramatically different and fighting in spaceships would be much less like locking and F1ing things and probably much more about spending 3 hours to line up that perfect shot that's going to instantly cripple another ship and that shot would be fired from such a great distance away that the combat would probably just look like an actual spreadsheet with a space background, with ships moving so fast that trying to look at them would probably end up being boring.

There are some people who have built 'weapons' into their spaceships in KSP. You should look up some of those videos on Youtube and then imagine everything going on at 5-10x the speed and everything being 5-10x further away from each other.

I guess in short, the game would play out entirely differently if it wasn't submarines in space, stuff like taking a stargate or docking with a station would have to be super carefully executed... people might crash into planets, moons and suns all day (which would be funny)...

I should really read up a bit more on Eve lore.. why do planets and moons and stars not move and why are asteroid belts static collections of rocks in space? I guess the simple answer is because Eve is a rather simple and easy to grasp simulation of how space looks so we can put fancy spaceships and explosions there. The lore answer is probably going to be all sorts of complicated and throw up more and more counter arguments and questions. Just think of Eve as a different universe with different laws of physics =p
Ibrahim Tash-Murkon
Itsukame-Zainou Hyperspatial Inquiries Ltd.
Arataka Research Consortium
#30 - 2014-12-20 01:39:40 UTC
Kiandoshia wrote:
I've not actually read an official explanation for it yet and most of the explanations I have read seem a little weird to me, as in, they make me ask more questions... If a warp drive slows a ship down that much (a couple hundred m/s is pretty slow in terms of space flight), why aren't there ships that don't have warp drives? They would have a pretty big tactical advantage. They could not go anywhere other than where they are stationed (or they could be carrier bound) but I guess in a lot of situations, the ability to move would be worth more than the ability to possibly warp somewhere?

If the spaceships in the game were to behave like actual ships in space would/might, the game would be dramatically different and fighting in spaceships would be much less like locking and F1ing things and probably much more about spending 3 hours to line up that perfect shot that's going to instantly cripple another ship and that shot would be fired from such a great distance away that the combat would probably just look like an actual spreadsheet with a space background, with ships moving so fast that trying to look at them would probably end up being boring.

There are some people who have built 'weapons' into their spaceships in KSP. You should look up some of those videos on Youtube and then imagine everything going on at 5-10x the speed and everything being 5-10x further away from each other.

I guess in short, the game would play out entirely differently if it wasn't submarines in space, stuff like taking a stargate or docking with a station would have to be super carefully executed... people might crash into planets, moons and suns all day (which would be funny)...

I should really read up a bit more on Eve lore.. why do planets and moons and stars not move and why are asteroid belts static collections of rocks in space? I guess the simple answer is because Eve is a rather simple and easy to grasp simulation of how space looks so we can put fancy spaceships and explosions there. The lore answer is probably going to be all sorts of complicated and throw up more and more counter arguments and questions. Just think of Eve as a different universe with different laws of physics =p


Ships not equipped with warp drive would have to contend with orbital dynamics in a way that would render them stuck in speeding bullet mode and having to expend large amounts of fuel at precise times to get the chance to hurtle past an enemy position (once they know where they were) at crazy speeds once every hour or so (if the enemy is still there). Assuming they can engage a target considering the high relative velocity (and our gun tracking speed would seem to indicate that they can't) the simplest solution for the warp capable ship would be to warp away from the spot for a few seconds and then back once the non-warp capable ship's orbit intersected with that position.

The easiest areas for non-warp ships to engage would in orbits over bodies where they had a low orbital period allowing them to "meet" the enemy as often as possible. However, this puts constraints on the size of the bodies and the orbital characteristics (it may even rule out bodies with much atmosphere). And even with ideal conditions for repeated orbital "meet-ups" the ship would still have to contend with potentially high relative velocities that prevent accurate fire and the easy with which a warp ship could make a quick jump away just before the non-warp ship orbited by and a quick jump back after it had sped past.

So a non-warp capable ship can be moving faster than a warp capable one in real space but there seem to be some big impediments to making such a ship a threat to warp ships. Not to mention, as you pointed out, that these ships would be stuck in the orbit of whatever planet or moon they started at without the aid of a warp ship to carry it or very time and fuel intensive transfers.

As to your last point, you were right when you hinted at it being about game design. Canonically the planets and the moons are moving in their orbits. The game mechanics simply do not reflect this.

"I give you the destiny of Faith, and you will bring its message to every planet of every star in the heavens: Go forth, conquer in my Name, and reclaim that which I have given." - Book of Reclaiming 22:13

Xiaohui
#31 - 2014-12-22 19:45:54 UTC
It's because the wrap drive creates a bubble of drag, which your engines must push against. It's also what makes ship "bounce" off of eachother without doing any damage, and the reason time dilates when massive numbers of ships accumulate in one area.
Exe Om
The Grand Assembly
#32 - 2015-01-08 06:04:44 UTC

When I put more gas in my ship it goes faster. Try it. The wormhole is nothing but small bump on the road, so when you drop in it, you hear "I can not set a waypoint to the same location twice". Here is the math 2+2=2+2. Very easy, try it.

Lightspeed is good, you need those lights in the ship, when you turn on the light if it is florescent light it takes a while to turn on, so I think florescent light is slower than Laser. True Story. But another question arise now I sense it.

Is the light faster than our eyes seeing speed of the light speed? wait....

I got it now, so if you put Light Drones in your cargo your ship will go faster than speed of light.

It is not enough that I succeed, all other must fail

Ritsu Asakura
Asakura Zaibatsu
#33 - 2015-01-19 06:13:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Ritsu Asakura
assuming that our ships are always in Orbit AND are using the same Type of stuff Current day Tech, I would assume That 0M/s is really just the lowest SAFE speed your ship can go before it falls into orbit and the max speed is the fastest SAFE speed it can go before it escapes the planets gravity well.

smaller ships can accelerate quicker therefore their Fastest safe speed is higher since it can easily correct it's orbit, NOW as for Drag in Space Assuming what I just said is true then The Drag in space Is just the spaceship's Reaction control system R.C.S and Inertial dampeners working to Auto correct it's orbit.

Now see I explained that Using real physics without inventing up a new technology.
Vash Typhoon
New Eden Public Security Section 9
#34 - 2015-01-21 04:56:18 UTC
Owen Levanth wrote:
Davey Talvanen wrote:
Rems Issus wrote:
You could, yes. But ask yourself; Can your ship survive the forces at work beyond those given limits? Can any of these hulls survive an amount of speed that high without buckling, sans warp field? Can your engines give you enough output to get you there while remaining intact? Think of the top speed as being how fast a given ship can be moving without damaging itself- At least that's always what I have assumed it was intended to represent.


Speed itself does not exert forces only acceleration does so we need to look at maximum acceleration in m/s/s for speed stats. For examle : My badger is capable of 94 m/s of speed but should be capable of 100000 m/s of speed. And also why do the engines run constantly when they should just burn once and then shut off


The engines aren't burning constantly. Every time you change direction, they go out while you're ship repositions itself, then they fire up again. Also notice how your speed drops while this happens. There's a lot of resistance there, almost as if space was fluid or something.

My favourite explanation is still that New Eden is in a part of space where dust density is incredibly high, making space work like a fluid because of all that friction.P


There seems to be a drag generated from te warp drive that explains the ship navigating in a fluid behavior, nothing to do with any dust floating in the space.
Previous page12