open All Channels
seplocked EVE General Discussion
blankseplocked Physx in EVE
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 [2]

Author Topic

Sciencegeek deathdealer
Posted - 2010.09.13 00:42:00 - [31]
 

Originally by: Miriam Letisse
Originally by: Tippia
…if EVE was realistic, we'd never see any other ships; combat would be settled in 0 seconds by whomever got the correct firing solution and pulled the trigger first; and the Caldari, being missile nuts, would own everyone left right and centre due to being able to engage from far longer distances.

So €"&% realism.


Chemical fuelled missiles beat light in distance?


Chemical *fueled* missiles can change direction.

Megan Maynard
Minmatar
Navigators of the Abyss
Posted - 2010.09.13 01:39:00 - [32]
 

The reynolds number of my minmatar ships has to be horrific................

Herzog Wolfhammer
Gallente
Sigma Special Tactics Group
Posted - 2010.09.13 04:10:00 - [33]
 

I recall Tie Fighter back in 1995 had similar physics.




Ryhss
Caldari
The Excecutorans
Posted - 2010.09.13 04:42:00 - [34]
 

I reject your reality, and substitute my own.

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2010.09.13 05:42:00 - [35]
 

Originally by: Miriam Letisse
Chemical fuelled missiles beat light in distance?
Yes. The only advantage of light is that it gets there fairly fast — the problem is that "there" is subject to information lag, so you'll start missing quite quickly, and you very quickly run into issues with beam coherence and diffraction. You're looking at an effective range of maybe a light-second or two… much less if the target is aware of you and evading.

Raekone
Absolut Profit
Posted - 2010.09.13 05:43:00 - [36]
 

Haaang on here just a sec. There's nothing strange or unrealistic about the physics at all! When you set your speed, you're doing just that, setting your speed - not setting a certain thrust or acceleration. You're telling your ship to go 500 m/s and it'll do its best to match that speed, and tell it to stop and it'll reduce speed to 0 m/s - not just shut off engines and let the ship drift away.

Actually the only thing we should be wondering about is why can't we see all the lateral/reverse thrusters on the ship model...

Halcyon Ingenium
Caldari
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse
Sanctuary Pact
Posted - 2010.09.13 06:06:00 - [37]
 

Not once have I told myship to turn off the engines, I have told it to stop, or change speed, but turning off the engine is not an option. /thread.

Tres Farmer
Gallente Federation Intelligence Service
Posted - 2010.09.13 06:07:00 - [38]
 

/me looks at title and still wonders what this all has to do with PhysX Rolling Eyes

Oh, and..
Originally by: CCP Explorer
Originally by: Sinister Dextor
Submarines Online.
The closest comparison is probably tennis balls in water.

Balls in Liquid Online?

Are you sure about your teen rating? Twisted Evil

Stitcher
Caldari
Posted - 2010.09.13 11:00:00 - [39]
 

Originally by: Atticus Fynch
Because EVE is lame when it comes to real-world physics and CCP likes to explain it with some lame-ass made-up back-lore story.

It's the same reason you can fly through planets and stations.


This is seriously aproblem for you? because it shouldn't be.

EVE is a game. Games are not obligated to be realistic. Nobody raises an eyebrow in Modern Warfare that your character can get punched full of bullets and then get better by just bunkering down and taking a breather for a few seconds. People don't bitch about the defibrillators in Left 4 Dead 2 and how real-life defibrillators don't work that way.

For the sake of gameplay enjoyment, gameplay realism can be discarded. After all, Assassin's Creed 2 wouldn't be much fun if a ceiling tile slipped under Ezio's foot, twisted his ankle, forcing him to limp hurriedly away only to fall, break his wrist and have to spend a few month hanging around the villa healing and never quite getting back to his old fitness afterwards.

So why should EVE have to obey the laws of physics which are, if we're honest, a bit dull when you want to have epic spaceship games? I guarantee you'd think it was lamer if EVE's physics simulation was totally realistic in every possible way.

David Darkstar
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2010.09.13 11:18:00 - [40]
 

Due to the size and mass of the ships in EVE they quickly realised that conventional propulsion mods would never be able to give anywhere near the needed propulsion because of the ratio of the mass of the ship and the mass in space to have a 'grip' on (mostly a little spacedust).

Because of this they started to rethink their ways of propulsion and finally a brilliant idea came to mind, instead of increasing the power behind the propulsion they tried to solve the cause of the problem, the mass of the ship.

Warpdrives, microwarpdrives and to a lesser extend afterburners(the name 'afterburner' was only kept for conventional reasons) use large quantities of capacitor to create negative mass to cancel out the original mass ( sometimes up to 99.945786 %) turning a multi-million kg spaceship into something as light as a feather and making it able to reach incredible speeds.

The reason you slow down again is obvious since the original mass slowly comes back into the equation as the microwarpdrive cycles down.

This is also the reason why the engines power down for a small second when entering warp, during the alignement the orginal mass is kept to increase accuracy to 'aim' for the object to warp to, however once aligned the mass gets negated during wich the engines restart.


True story...


(Yes after 45 jumps your mind starts wonder)

Taladool
Minmatar
JIta-Hosting
Posted - 2010.09.13 11:25:00 - [41]
 

Originally by: David Darkstar
Due to the size and mass of the ships in EVE they quickly realised that conventional propulsion mods would never be able to give anywhere near the needed propulsion because of the ratio of the mass of the ship and the mass in space to have a 'grip' on (mostly a little spacedust).

Because of this they started to rethink their ways of propulsion and finally a brilliant idea came to mind, instead of increasing the power behind the propulsion they tried to solve the cause of the problem, the mass of the ship.

Warpdrives, microwarpdrives and to a lesser extend afterburners(the name 'afterburner' was only kept for conventional reasons) use large quantities of capacitor to create negative mass to cancel out the original mass ( sometimes up to 99.945786 %) turning a multi-million kg spaceship into something as light as a feather and making it able to reach incredible speeds.

The reason you slow down again is obvious since the original mass slowly comes back into the equation as the microwarpdrive cycles down.

This is also the reason why the engines power down for a small second when entering warp, during the alignement the orginal mass is kept to increase accuracy to 'aim' for the object to warp to, however once aligned the mass gets negated during wich the engines restart.


True story...


(Yes after 45 jumps your mind starts wonder)


[/thread]

Stitcher
Caldari
Posted - 2010.09.13 12:04:00 - [42]
 

Originally by: David Darkstar
Due to the size and mass of the ships in EVE they quickly realised that conventional propulsion mods would never be able to give anywhere near the needed propulsion because of the ratio of the mass of the ship and the mass in space to have a 'grip' on (mostly a little spacedust).


okay, I realise that I only just wrote that whole thing about realism in games but... dude, do you even know how thrust works? you don't need to push against or "grip" on anything. For every action (i.e. - stuff being hurled out the back of the ship at high speed) there is an equal and opposite reaction (i,e. - the ship accelerating forward)

the mass present around the ship is only relevant in terms of its gravitational pull, not in terms of how easy it is to accelerate. even the mass of the propellant is to some extent less important than how quickly it's moving when it leaves the engine.

I mean, inventing a "fluff" explanation for it all is one thing, but the whole point is that it should reconcile the discrepancy between how things work in the game model, and how they work in real life. in other words, the explanation should be correct within the known laws of physics even if the game is not.

The current one we have - that warp engines distort space-time (which General Relativity tells us is possible and happens naturally all the time - planets do it just by being there) and thereby cause drag on the ship fits that role. It matches the known physics of the real world, and also the "tennis ball in water" behaviour of the game because the warp field is spherical.

your explanation is starting from a completely flawed basic understanding of how acceleration works in the first place.

Maldurleon
Posted - 2010.09.13 12:09:00 - [43]
 

Ok given that this is a game and that it cannot be based on RL due to an impossible amount of math to be crunched no arguement here addresses the OPs original comment about how the ship LOSES speed when the AF/MWD is deactivated.

Perhaps CCP could impliment a fun change to singularity one day and allow the acceloration to stack and see what happens. Do we get catestrophic desync and crash?

David Darkstar
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2010.09.13 12:26:00 - [44]
 

Edited by: David Darkstar on 13/09/2010 12:28:26

Originally by: Stitcher
Originally by: David Darkstar
Due to the size and mass of the ships in EVE they quickly realised that conventional propulsion mods would never be able to give anywhere near the needed propulsion because of the ratio of the mass of the ship and the mass in space to have a 'grip' on (mostly a little spacedust).


okay, I realise that I only just wrote that whole thing about realism in games but... dude, do you even know how thrust works? you don't need to push against or "grip" on anything. For every action (i.e. - stuff being hurled out the back of the ship at high speed) there is an equal and opposite reaction (i,e. - the ship accelerating forward)

the mass present around the ship is only relevant in terms of its gravitational pull, not in terms of how easy it is to accelerate. even the mass of the propellant is to some extent less important than how quickly it's moving when it leaves the engine.

I mean, inventing a "fluff" explanation for it all is one thing, but the whole point is that it should reconcile the discrepancy between how things work in the game model, and how they work in real life. in other words, the explanation should be correct within the known laws of physics even if the game is not.

The current one we have - that warp engines distort space-time (which General Relativity tells us is possible and happens naturally all the time - planets do it just by being there) and thereby cause drag on the ship fits that role. It matches the known physics of the real world, and also the "tennis ball in water" behaviour of the game because the warp field is spherical.

your explanation is starting from a completely flawed basic understanding of how acceleration works in the first place.
First of all, offcourse it isn't true, it's a hypothetical explanation to stop getting irritated by the crappy programming.

Secondly, it isn't a flawed understanding of how acceleration works... it's like me saying an appel is green and you saying that's wrong because it are the chloroplasts within the appel who give the appel it's green colour... The one is simply a cause of the other.

Offcourse you thrust mass forward by sending other mass in the opposite direction and you can do this by using mass of the object itself(some real life spacecrafts do it like this) or a much more efficient and longterm way is by moving mass around the object and sent that the other way. It's just 2 different practical uses behind the theory you are explaining...

Gunnanmon
Gallente
PURPLE.
Posted - 2010.09.13 12:32:00 - [45]
 

Came in expecting a thread about NVidia-related features, found something questioning the comical effects in Eve.

Rhinanna
Minmatar
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2010.09.13 13:09:00 - [46]
 

Actually the game mechanics are explained pretty near perfectly by Virtual drives.

These create virtual particles they fire out the back as thrust like a conventional drive, this has the advantage of no fuel use (just energy) but the disadvantage that the virtual particles will disappear very shortly after forming as they can't exist in our universe so continous thrust is required. (When the virtual particles disappear the momentum they have bestowed would also disappear) leaving only the energy bestowed to them behind which would probably disapate in the form of radiation (most likely thermal)

EZ Windy
Posted - 2010.09.13 13:44:00 - [47]
 

Lots of physic problems in eve. The one you reference to is but one and you might also want to examine ship bumping. For example how can a Battleship bump a Titan. Makes no sense and violates (I think) the laws of momentum because of the large mass difference. In this instance, should the Battleship not incur damage and blow up? Anyway, the game would likely be unusable if it followed all the RL laws of physics. Just my 2 centsWink

Moose Burger
Posted - 2010.09.13 13:54:00 - [48]
 

Explanation of bumping:

Every ship in EVE has an anti-collision-AI on each ship. That means when two ships are going to collide, the computer kicks in and moves away from each other. They never really had any impact. (not even the shields grazed each other).

Explanation of deceleration in space:

Every ship in EVE is equipped with a Warp drive. It is made such that, any Warp drive engine will always face a certain ammount of resistence in 4-dimension space, hence all ships face a certain ammount of deceleration depending on the size of the warp drive.


Now which law of mewtwo's psychic am i breaking?

ZenSun
SniggWaffe
FREE KARTTOON NOW
Posted - 2010.09.13 14:48:00 - [49]
 

I CAN GO THROUGH JITA 4-4, and my ship dont broke or hit wall.

Mal Lokrano
Gallente
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
Posted - 2010.09.13 16:50:00 - [50]
 

Personally, I don't see what the problem is. They work and I'd rather have physics that are unrealistic but work than physics that are realistic but make the game less enjoyable or broken.

If Eve was supposed to be realistic, damage to your ship would be repaired over a matter of weeks or months, and gunnery would be all different.

Armtoe
Posted - 2010.09.13 16:51:00 - [51]
 

Stephen Hawkins in his new book discusses M-theory, and says (as I understand it and trully I dont understand M-theory at all) that all possible realities exist simultaneously. Thus, eve exists as it is, just not here. Very Happy

CCP Eris Discordia

Posted - 2010.09.13 22:39:00 - [52]
 

Totally thought it was about this and left somewhat dissapointed.

And yes physics in EVE are wonky Very Happy

Cor Aidan
Shore Leave
Posted - 2010.09.13 23:04:00 - [53]
 

Originally by: CCP Eris Discordia
Totally thought it was about this and left somewhat dissapointed.

And yes physics in EVE are wonky Very Happy

I wouldn't classify them as "wonky" so much as "internally inconsistent." ugh

KaarBaak
Minmatar
Seatec Astronomy
Posted - 2010.09.14 02:15:00 - [54]
 

I didn't understand most of this thread.

3x Bacardi shots and 3 beers later and it aaaaaallllllll makes sense.

Dude, what if New Eden is like...an atom...in my hand...and our real world is an atom...in someone else's hand....

Duuuuude.

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2010.09.14 04:00:00 - [55]
 

Originally by: Cor Aidan
Originally by: CCP Eris Discordia
Totally thought it was about this and left somewhat dissapointed.

And yes physics in EVE are wonky Very Happy

I wouldn't classify them as "wonky" so much as "internally inconsistent." ugh



For the curious, one of the devs posted a link to this:
http://knol.google.com/k/upsideyourhead/chapter-i-ship-motion-in-eve-online/2mdavnicxps8v/4#

-Liang


Pages: 1 [2]

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