These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 page12
 

Attention, Dear Capsuleers of New Eden.The Caldari Missile shouldn't be like low-tech earth miss
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Clarence Sunyang
Kung Fu Roguer
#21 - 2012-03-25 14:59:15 UTC
Trading Unknown wrote:
The manufacturers probably built the missiles to function in both atmosphere and space.

If you remove the aerodynamic surfaces, you would have a weapon that ceases functions in one environment for virtually no gain in the other (other than a subjective gain in aesthetics, and lawl at that reasoning). That means to maintain flexibility, you would need to carry twice the ammo.

Because of technology, it probably costs next to nothing to make the weapon flexible in atmosphere and space, so why the hell not make it that way?

You guys are silly.


Actually the ship design in EVE is totally for space use. The space environment is totally different from the planet surface environment. Space is pretty much void, so you don't have worry about aerodynamic, and the violent friction when you are moving in high speed. And the intense Gravitational field of the planet. Do note that the spaceship in EVE cannot directly enter the atmosphere because its main component three-titanium( Sorry I don't remember the name of it ) is not conditioned for atmosphere environment.
And developing weapons and spaceships for both planetary use and space is not efficient. We can easily developing two kind of combat system to utterly utilize each combat environment.
Trading Unknown
Doomheim
#22 - 2012-03-25 15:54:01 UTC
Quote:
Do note that the spaceship in EVE cannot directly enter the atmosphere because its main component three-titanium( Sorry I don't remember the name of it ) is not conditioned for atmosphere environment.


Shields

Quote:
And developing weapons and spaceships for both planetary use and space is not efficient. We can easily developing two kind of combat system to utterly utilize each combat environment.


Let me revise:

Because of technology, it probably costs next to nothing to make the weapon flexible in atmosphere and space while maintaining weapon effectiveness
Dyner
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#23 - 2012-03-25 16:48:36 UTC
Aethlyn wrote:


I agree, the rockets and missiles should look a bit more futuristic; but I'd say this is once again a bit about details vs. performance, because... when will you ever see another close-up shot of those missiles? Even while watching your launchers they'll eject and fly away rather fast.



How do you make missiles "futuristic"

Missiles are....

cylinder with propulsion at one end and a warhead at the other.


About the only thing you can do is make the launch look sweet.

Much like the launch of missiles from subs. Specifically the part where the Water Propulsion shuts off and the Air Propulsion kicks in....sort of reminds me of a manual transmission, how the vehicles rolls starts to roll back before going forward.
Roll Sizzle Beef
Space Mutiny
#24 - 2012-03-25 17:04:27 UTC
post'n in a change things for change sake topic. People always love CCP when they do that right?
Sobach
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#25 - 2012-03-25 17:24:39 UTC
Clarence Sunyang wrote:
You see, missiles are never recognized as an efficient and powerful killing weapon in Science Fictions. They are slow to impact in the space, and futuristic tech would have tons of ways to intercept those slow motion guys


Confirming the OP doesn't actually know jack **** about science fiction.

I mean, so what if there are planet busting missiles in scifi, they're obviously not powerful enough for the OP
Doc Severide
Doomheim
#26 - 2012-03-25 17:26:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Doc Severide
Clarence Sunyang wrote:
This is gonna be long...and based on other replies...it is also stupid...

The end...
Previous page12