open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked EVE Universe scale inconsistency
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Author Topic

Asptar Monastair
Minmatar
Adventurers
Matari Visionary Coalition
Posted - 2010.03.06 01:31:00 - [1]
 

I noticed that the universe is not to scale. Basically, the models for planets and moons used in space are not as large as they should be, nor are they far apart enough. Granted having a sytem that is actually RL to scale is a performance nightmare, but having moons that are of 75km radii is quite ridiculous.

I call for a scaling up of local objects like moons and planets, as well as their distances apart. If its scaled up enough, then the objects would be too large/too far away for players to notice, without having to make them all RL to-scale. Distances between planets and planetary object do not need to be scaled up too much due to the sheer distances between objects.

Also, asteroid belt arcs are too curved. If the asteroids are orbiting an object, they should at least lie on the orbital path, never mind that the roids are only confined to a 100km stretch Neutral.

g0nz028
Posted - 2010.03.06 15:10:00 - [2]
 

Edited by: g0nz028 on 06/03/2010 15:10:28
Originally by: Asptar Monastair
but having moons that are of 75km radii is quite ridiculous.




the smallest jupiter moon has a diameter of ~1km. the biggest has more than 5000km. so where's the problem?

Linkage

Callista Sincera
Amarr
Hedion University
Posted - 2010.03.06 15:27:00 - [3]
 

Edited by: Callista Sincera on 06/03/2010 15:28:56
Asteroid belts are pretty much nonsense, not just in terms of graphics. Everything else isn't that bad really, that is if you ignore the planet statistics and the fact that everything is frozen in place.

I'd like to see moving planets, "realistic" belts and a warppath that avoids planets. BMs could be local to the "nearest object" to avoid weird things.

Razar51
Posted - 2010.03.06 17:04:00 - [4]
 

id like to see moving planets and moons as well, but that would create a pos and bookmark nightmare

Michael McNeil
Posted - 2010.03.06 18:42:00 - [5]
 

Originally by: Razar51
id like to see moving planets and moons as well, but that would create a pos and bookmark nightmare


i do not see how, if the bookmarks were to the object, you could have the nav computer lock take into account for the movement as the rotation, and orbits would be a known factor.

Dantes Revenge
Caldari
Posted - 2010.03.06 20:01:00 - [6]
 

Moving planets and moons in every system in Eve would probably require a good portion of the computing power of the server and the lag is bad enough now. You didn't really want to play this game did you?

Wastelander Miccey
Posted - 2010.03.06 20:18:00 - [7]
 

Well, considering the fact that all is played on "one" server (if im not mistaken here)
it would be hell on any system to play that game. If everything behave like natural.

But doing like the game Entropia and Dev Mindark and seperatting clusters/systems
to diffrent servers would perhaps reduse lag. I know there are hundreds of systems
and we cant ask ccp to host this game on that many servers can we..Or?

But if they could, it would perhaps make some planets actually habitable.
And the graphical loadof(spellingConfused) would reduse lag..Right...

masternerdguy
Gallente
Meerkat Maner
Posted - 2010.03.06 20:35:00 - [8]
 

Originally by: Dantes Revenge
Moving planets and moons in every system in Eve would probably require a good portion of the computing power of the server and the lag is bad enough now. You didn't really want to play this game did you?



not really the orbital formulas are simple 1-step algebra

Dantes Revenge
Caldari
Posted - 2010.03.06 20:59:00 - [9]
 

Originally by: masternerdguy
Originally by: Dantes Revenge
Moving planets and moons in every system in Eve would probably require a good portion of the computing power of the server and the lag is bad enough now. You didn't really want to play this game did you?



not really the orbital formulas are simple 1-step algebra

Now figure out how many planets, moons and other bodies there are in the whole of Eve and multiply by that. I know the formula, it's the quantity that poses the problem.

It's the sme with fleet movement. The calculation to move one ship from A to B is easy, do it 3 or 4 hundred times and you get lag, even with nobody changing direction or firing their guns. Just try sitting 3 or 4 hundred ships in one system completely static and see how much lag it causes.

masternerdguy
Gallente
Meerkat Maner
Posted - 2010.03.06 21:01:00 - [10]
 

Originally by: Dantes Revenge
Originally by: masternerdguy
Originally by: Dantes Revenge
Moving planets and moons in every system in Eve would probably require a good portion of the computing power of the server and the lag is bad enough now. You didn't really want to play this game did you?



not really the orbital formulas are simple 1-step algebra

Now figure out how many planets, moons and other bodies there are in the whole of Eve and multiply by that. I know the formula, it's the quantity that poses the problem.

It's the sme with fleet movement. The calculation to move one ship from A to B is easy, do it 3 or 4 hundred times and you get lag, even with nobody changing direction or firing their guns. Just try sitting 3 or 4 hundred ships in one system completely static and see how much lag it causes.



the server could recalculate it once every 5 minutes.
The clients would calculate it for the player's invidivdual PC (and only calc systems they are in) and then resync their positions with the server every 5 minutes.

Dantes Revenge
Caldari
Posted - 2010.03.06 21:45:00 - [11]
 

Originally by: masternerdguy
Originally by: Dantes Revenge
Originally by: masternerdguy
Originally by: Dantes Revenge
Moving planets and moons in every system in Eve would probably require a good portion of the computing power of the server and the lag is bad enough now. You didn't really want to play this game did you?



not really the orbital formulas are simple 1-step algebra

Now figure out how many planets, moons and other bodies there are in the whole of Eve and multiply by that. I know the formula, it's the quantity that poses the problem.

It's the sme with fleet movement. The calculation to move one ship from A to B is easy, do it 3 or 4 hundred times and you get lag, even with nobody changing direction or firing their guns. Just try sitting 3 or 4 hundred ships in one system completely static and see how much lag it causes.



the server could recalculate it once every 5 minutes.
The clients would calculate it for the player's invidivdual PC (and only calc systems they are in) and then resync their positions with the server every 5 minutes.

Calculations like that done client-side lead to exploits. I run a prog that interacts and repositions the station right next to me after the synch and dock to get away from combat. The next resynch says I am not docked and was destroyed when I can prove from my client that I was docked. Lots of reimbursement petitions from exploiters as a result. Players probably won't get the reimbursements but it would cause CCP too much hassle to allow it to start with. Therefore, you'll find that a lot of resynchs of those sort of calculations are done every couple of seconds or so.

Callista Sincera
Amarr
Hedion University
Posted - 2010.03.06 23:52:00 - [12]
 

Edited by: Callista Sincera on 06/03/2010 23:53:38
Originally by: Dantes Revenge
Now figure out how many planets, moons and other bodies there are in the whole of Eve and multiply by that. I know the formula, it's the quantity that poses the problem.


Not at all, since the only time the server would actually have to do the computation is when a client is requesting for the ship to enter warp. Actions on a grid wouldn't be affected at all. And the display within the client would simply be based on servertime, again not requiring server computation.
Additionally, optimizing fleet warps to one computation would basically reduce the required serverperformance to "nothing", meaning a value smaller than can be measured ;)

Originally by: Dantes Revenge
It's the sme with fleet movement. The calculation to move one ship from A to B is easy, do it 3 or 4 hundred times and you get lag, even with nobody changing direction or firing their guns. Just try sitting 3 or 4 hundred ships in one system completely static and see how much lag it causes.


The grid would stay static, just the position of the grid would change. But the server doesn't even care about where a grid actually is. It's just something the client needs to know so it can display the appropriate backdrop/stars/planets. Again, nothing the server even needs to care about.

You're talking about increasing clients on the grid, which would have a completely different effect than the hypothetical and completely unneccesary action of actually moving those clients along with the planets. The first is an exponential performance increase, the latter would be linear. But again, it's not even neccessary to do that.

Montevius Williams
Gallente
Posted - 2010.03.07 02:15:00 - [13]
 

I would like to see moving planets as well...but some planets take 80 plus years to orbit the sun, so even if they did implement it, I dont think we hardly notice the movment..moons on the other hand, I would love to see move around the planets

David Grogan
Gallente
The Motley Crew Reborn
Warped Aggression
Posted - 2010.03.07 02:20:00 - [14]
 

Originally by: Callista Sincera


I'd like to see moving planets, "realistic" belts and a warppath that avoids planets. BMs could be local to the "nearest object" to avoid weird things.


they used to orbit the sun but it caused way too much lag so they were fixed in postion

Callista Sincera
Amarr
Hedion University
Posted - 2010.03.07 07:58:00 - [15]
 

Originally by: David Grogan
they used to orbit the sun but it caused way too much lag so they were fixed in postion


If they did, then they either did it wrong or maybe the implementation was buggy and they opted to drop the feature instead of investing the time to fix it, I don't know. From what I read, CCP was in a pretty tight spot in the early days.

As I said, the only situation I can see where it would require extra computation from the server is when a player enters warp, and only because there could be a bubble in the warppath or because the cap could run out.
Otherwise the location of a grid within the solar system is only of interest for the client. But the client can do the computation on it's own since it only affects visuals and not gameplay.
Can grids merge? Because even if they could, both grids would move on the same path, meaning there would be no relative movement and again, the server wouldn't have to do anything in addition to what it already does.

I just don't see how a proper implementation would have an effect on performance. I think they just didn't have the time to do it right and never revisited the idea since then. Very Happy

Gattman
Posted - 2010.03.07 09:21:00 - [16]
 

I heard from a Dev in a similar thread that years back the planets and belts did move but it was cut to reduce downtime and the bookmark problem.

Asptar Monastair
Minmatar
Adventurers
Matari Visionary Coalition
Posted - 2010.03.07 09:54:00 - [17]
 

Edited by: Asptar Monastair on 07/03/2010 10:14:07
Edited by: Asptar Monastair on 07/03/2010 09:56:33
Originally by: g0nz028
Edited by: g0nz028 on 06/03/2010 15:10:28
Originally by: Asptar Monastair
but having moons that are of 75km radii is quite ridiculous.




the smallest jupiter moon has a diameter of ~1km. the biggest has more than 5000km. so where's the problem?

Linkage


Its a problem when the info box says the moon has a two and a half thousand kilometre radius.

Might i also add that this particular moon (as with all moon models in eve) is sperical. Moons 75km in diameter are not spherical. They dont have enough mass.

I mean, as it is, EVE physics is terrible.
In RL you dont need to use engines to hold velocity, only to accelerate. There is no upper speed limit in space because there is virtually no resistance (friction) to counteract the thrust.
Other oddities:
Why don't we fall out of orbit?
Why can I park 100000km beneath the sun's corona and not get fried, but a ****ty Amarri laser can slice me in two?
How does a thousand tonne rock dissappear in an instant?

Granted some things they left out to simplify code and gameplay, but scale is just a matter of a few floats that need multiplying, the end result being a much more realistic scene.

Th155
Posted - 2010.03.07 10:55:00 - [18]
 

Edited by: Th155 on 07/03/2010 10:56:54
Quote:
I mean, as it is, EVE physics is terrible.
In RL you dont need to use engines to hold velocity, only to accelerate. There is no upper speed limit in space because there is virtually no resistance (friction) to counteract the thrust.
Other oddities:
Why don't we fall out of orbit?
Why can I park 100000km beneath the sun's corona and not get fried, but a ****ty Amarri laser can slice me in two?
How does a thousand tonne rock dissappear in an instant?


Forgot about the black hole in jet cans. I mean, if i can eject 27k m3 in my hulk every 2 min, why don't i just use that space to keep my ore and stuff?

Victrian NiKunni
Posted - 2010.03.07 23:54:00 - [19]
 

Originally by: Callista Sincera
Edited by: Callista Sincera on 06/03/2010 15:28:56
Asteroid belts are pretty much nonsense, not just in terms of graphics. Everything else isn't that bad really, that is if you ignore the planet statistics and the fact that everything is frozen in place.

I'd like to see moving planets, "realistic" belts and a warppath that avoids planets. BMs could be local to the "nearest object" to avoid weird things.


I agree 100%.

Asteroid belts... WHY ARE THEY ALL BASED ON A CIRCULAR TEMPLATE? I thought that asteroid belts are generally stretched along the orbital path they are following. Totally non-sense in EVE. Too bad.Rolling Eyes

LOL56
First Flying Wing Inc
ROMANIAN-LEGION
Posted - 2010.03.08 06:41:00 - [20]
 

What if Planets only moved on Downtime, and bookmarks were made relative somehow. by only moving on downtime the calculation only needs to be run once per day, per celestial, and even with the number of celestials in eve, one calculation per day would likely not tax the system too much.

HeliosGal
Caldari
Posted - 2010.03.08 06:50:00 - [21]
 

Originally by: LOL56
What if Planets only moved on Downtime, and bookmarks were made relative somehow. by only moving on downtime the calculation only needs to be run once per day, per celestial, and even with the number of celestials in eve, one calculation per day would likely not tax the system too much.


that could work

DmitryEKT
Clandestine.
Posted - 2010.03.08 09:13:00 - [22]
 

Originally by: Michael McNeil
i do not see how, if the bookmarks were to the object, you could have the nav computer lock take into account for the movement as the rotation, and orbits would be a known factor.
bookmarks are not to the object. Bookmarks are to the coordinates of space that the object was at, when you created the bookmark.

Callista Sincera
Amarr
Hedion University
Posted - 2010.03.08 09:40:00 - [23]
 

Originally by: DmitryEKT
Originally by: Michael McNeil
i do not see how, if the bookmarks were to the object, you could have the nav computer lock take into account for the movement as the rotation, and orbits would be a known factor.
bookmarks are not to the object. Bookmarks are to the coordinates of space that the object was at, when you created the bookmark.


Because it would be impossible to change it to a relative coordinate based on the nearest stellar object, right?... Rolling Eyes

Som Pir
Posted - 2010.03.14 08:02:00 - [24]
 

Edited by: Som Pir on 14/03/2010 08:02:16
I've noticed that the appearance of stars isn't scaling correctly relative to my distance from them. Most of the stars in the game should appear much smaller/dimmer at 50AU than they do presently, for example.


 

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only