open All Channels
seplocked EVE General Discussion
blankseplocked So...the new lasers have recoil?
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 : last (10)

Author Topic

Ghoest
Posted - 2011.05.29 04:04:00 - [211]
 

Edited by: Ghoest on 29/05/2011 04:05:10
Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: Ghoest
This would only be the case is the majority of the damage done by the laser was impulse damage itself had to be high enough to compare to the projectile weapons.

In the case of a laser, the entire energy is electromagnetic energy, which causes mostly thermal damage (and maybe some radiation damage, but mostly just thermal). Just point and heat.
In the case of a rail slug, the entire energy is kinetic energy, which causes a mix of kinetic, thermal and explosive damage which depends on the slug properties.

For a rail slug impact, some of the "stored" kinetic energy transforms into heat on impact, which superheats the slug, potentially causing it to at least partially vaporize and literally explode, with some of the pieces becoming shrapnel, other becoming an expanding cloud of superheated material.
If the target is "too soft", the slug can just pass through it without losing too much energy, leaving a small hole from end to end, not managing to heat up enough to fragment, let alone explode.
If the target is "too hard", the slug could simply fully vaporize (or at least shatter into very small pieces), and if the target also has a layered armor, each successive layer will further fragment and/or vaporize more of the slug pieces, causing it to not deal much damage.
There's a "sweet spot" where the target is neither too hard nor too soft, and the slug manages to pass though the outer layers of armor before disintegrating too much, fragmenting/vaporizing inside the target or at most slightly damaging the layered armor on the other end. This "sweet spot" depends on the slug form, slug material and slug speed, all of which you can vary depending on the internal structure of the target.

The ideal damage dealt is roughly proportional to the total energy E of whatever is hitting (be it laser or railgun slug).
So if you want a railgun slug to deal the same order of magnitude of damage as the laser beam, the kinetic energy of the slug needs to be roughly the same order of magnitude as the electromagnetic energy of the laser beam (and also hit the sweet spot for the rail slug).

The impulse of a laser beam of total energy E is E/c (where c is the speed of light in a vacuum), and it's the same impulse acting on the turret "backwards" to shoot the beam or forwards on the target when hitting it. Obviously, that impulse is negligible compared to the size of the ship and it's NOT what causes the damage. The energy itself, dissipating into heat, that's what causing the damage on the target.


It took you 3 paragraphs to avoid what I pointed out - impressive.

And then you topped it off by vaguely talking about energy and heat so you could agree with me but someone could read it with out paying close attention and leave thinking you were agreeing with your own earlier mistake.

Anyway It would have been simpler to just say I was right.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.05.29 04:12:00 - [212]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 29/05/2011 05:17:21

I merely (re)explained everything in much more detail and using a different wording.
_

I can however see how you would easily be tempted to think I was "avoiding the issue" as you put it, though.
My initial wording was not exactly concise, it left room for interpretation, and you interpreted it as meaning "roughly the same" instead of "not negligible".
Let's add some more, simplified calcs, where everything becomes obvious.

Take a 0.1 kg slug leaving the barrel of a railgun at 1000 km/s (MACH 2940 or 0.33%c, ouch).
Total kinetic energy is 50 gigajoules.
Total impulse acting on the gun is 100000 m*kg/s.

Take a laser beam with an electromagnetic energy of 50 gigajoules.
Total impulse acting on the laser firing assembly is only around 166.78 m*kg/s.

Basically, about 600 times weaker, BUT STILL NOTICEABLE, not millions or billions times weaker as some other people suggested before.
That was my point, that it might be less, but it's not negligible - they're comparable in magnitude, not radically apart.

Vice Admiral Spreadsheet
Caldari
Posted - 2011.05.29 04:43:00 - [213]
 

You're all wrong.

EVE's railguns.
There is no force behind a railgun shot (i.e. It isn't powerful enough to actually damage anything)
For each action there is an equal and opposite reaction. No damage of target = no action = no reaction
Therefore, EVE's railguns shouldn't have recoil.

Leon Caedo
Posted - 2011.05.29 05:09:00 - [214]
 

Originally by: Vice Admiral Spreadsheet
You're all wrong.

EVE's railguns.
There is no force behind a railgun shot (i.e. It isn't powerful enough to actually damage anything)
For each action there is an equal and opposite reaction. No damage of target = no action = no reaction
Therefore, EVE's railguns shouldn't have recoil.


Ok.. I lol'ed...

Traejun DiSanctis
Caldari
Posted - 2011.05.29 05:28:00 - [215]
 

The term "fire" - with respect to the launching of a projectile - was coined because of the actual mechanics of early to modern firearms. You effectively "ignite" or "detonate" a charge/explosive, which hurls a projectile outwards from the barrel of the weapon.

The resulting expulsion of energy, directed through the barrel of the weapon, causes recoil. The outwardly-directed force that launches the projectile has the same effect as the thruster of a ship, albeit much more abbreviated than sustained - which is why firearms have a "kick."

This would continue to apply in the case of EvE projectile turrets, which utilize the same mechanics/physics as modern firearms to operate. The firing of projectile turrets would create significant recoil, based primarily on the size of the charge used to propel the projectiles.

This would NOT apply railguns because there is no outward force, as the projectile is launched by a series of magnetized rings or rails that accelerate the round within the barrel in a outward motion. On Earth, a railgun would produce a kick because it is within an atmosphere, where "heavy" particles in the air would react to the magnetic forces involved in the operation of the weapon, and be ejected out along with the projectile, causing a "kick". However, in a vacuum, where "heavy" particles are not present in significant densities, no "kick" would be created.

Lasers are an interesting issue in terms of recoil. Modern lasers create significant recoil, though that seems more to be an issue of the weapon itself creating a small, controlled explosion as part of its firing process. Based on some physics I studied in college, the recoil issue would seem to depend on both the method of creating/harnessing the energy used in the weapon; and also the type of "fuel" the weapon relied on. In effect, if the weapon relied on heat early in the firing process, a significant amount of recoil would be present - i.e. superheated plasma - but if the weapon merely focused electrons, photons or other super-light sub-atomics, almost no recoil would be involved.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.05.29 05:44:00 - [216]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 29/05/2011 05:46:27
Originally by: Traejun DiSanctis
This would NOT apply railguns because there is no outward force, as the projectile is launched by a series of magnetized rings or rails that accelerate the round within the barrel in a outward motion.

DUUDE !
If the rails push the projectile forward, the projectile pushes the rails back with exactly the same force.
You can not have an action without reaction.
The NATURE of the force is irrelevant, be it chemical, electromagnetic or otherwise.

If you would be right, and the slug would not be pushing the rails back with an equal force, simply placing the slug in the rails and tying it to the back of the gun then attempting to fire it would propel the entire railgun forward, creating a reactionless drive (such drives do not exist yet, and it is unsure whether they will ever exist).

Sure, firing a 1 kg shell using 0.5 kg of explosive powder from a cannon at, say, 200 m/s will generate MORE kickback than a 1 kg slug being fired at 200 m/s from a railgun, but the difference in kickback comes from the fact that in the case of the artillery shell, the gun suffers from recoil NOT ONLY from the projectile itself, BUT ALSO from the powder turned gas exiting the muzzle at a much higher velocity (probably 400 m/s), whereas the railgun rails only need to handle the slug's impulse.
In this particular example, the kickback of the artillery shell firing would be roughly two times stronger than the one of the railgun slug firing.

Steve Thomas
Minmatar
Sebiestor Tribe
Posted - 2011.05.29 06:26:00 - [217]
 

we actualy worked this out a while back for RIFT weapons that were the Equivelent of a then current 120mm DU Sabo round based on the published muzzle energy.

Assuming 12.1MJ as the base energy output and assuming the then current 20% efficent military lazer the net result was that the lazer itself would provide about 2000j of kientic energy from simple radiation preasure (for comparison an M-14 puts out just over 3,000 j of energy, an M-16 is around 1700)

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure

(paradoxicaly, the more efficent the lazer system is, the greater the recoil. thats why there was so mutch excitment over the proposed MegaJ Lazer drive)

(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure)(seriously, enough thrust to send a payload to Mars in a week and being able to show it is theoreticaly posible tends to get noticed)

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.05.29 08:40:00 - [218]
 

Random funny tibdit of information : lasers can actually be used to COOL matter instead of heating it.
The circumstances however are quite restrictive - the matter needs to be of low density (usually gas at low pressure) and you need to know what matter you're dealing with so you can fine-tune the laser frequency.

Ghoest
Posted - 2011.05.29 12:55:00 - [219]
 

Originally by: Traejun DiSanctis
The term "fire" - with respect to the launching of a projectile - was coined because of the actual mechanics of early to modern firearms.......


This is just speculative deduction on my part but surely the term "fire" started with more primitive fire arms when ignition was achieved through the application of actual fire to a wick.

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2011.05.29 13:39:00 - [220]
 

Originally by: Traejun DiSanctis
The resulting expulsion of energy, directed through the barrel of the weapon, causes recoil.
Yes.
The thing you're missing, and which is leading you astray, is that you forget that the exact same thing is happening in a railgun.

The expulsion of energy (the magnetic field) directed along the barrel (because it's a set of rails, not a tube), causes recoil.

Just like the explosion in a firearm pushes the bullet one way and the gun itself the other way, the magnetic field in a railgun or coilgun pushes the slug one way and the gun itself the other way. No matter what mechanic you choose for propulsion, the exact same thing will happen.
Quote:
This would NOT apply railguns because there is no outward force, as the projectile is launched by a series of magnetized rings or rails that accelerate the round within the barrel in a outward motion.
NO no no no. If there is no outward force, there is no outward motion. Without that force, you won't be launching anything. Motion (or, more accurately, a change in motion) does not spontaneously happen out of nowhere (except maybe on a quantum scale, but the whole idea of "motion" is kind of flaky at that level) — it comes out of applying force to the object. For a railgun/coilgun, the force in question comes from the magnetic field. That application of force cannot happen without a recoil force also happening in the opposite direction.
Quote:
On Earth, a railgun would produce a kick because it is within an atmosphere, where "heavy" particles in the air would react to the magnetic forces involved in the operation of the weapon, and be ejected out along with the projectile, causing a "kick".
Ugh. On earth, a railgun would produce a kick because the magnetic force that pushes the slug forward also pushes the gun back. I would also like to know what kind of "heavy" particles you're envisioning here… and why on earth they would be a cause of kickback when pushed back, but not the very heavy (relatively speaking) slug being accelerated along the rails.
Quote:
However, in a vacuum, where "heavy" particles are not present in significant densities, no "kick" would be created.
In vacuum, the exact same "heavy particle" exists: the slug. Pushing it forward unavoidably means that the gun itself is pushed back. In vacuum, the kick back happens for the exact same reason as on earth: because the magnetic field in a railgun/coilgun pushes the slug one way and the gun itself the other way.
Quote:
Lasers are an interesting issue in terms of recoil.
What is of main interest here is that regardless of what else happens, the simple act of throwing photons one way causes recoil, because you're creating momentum in one direction, which forcibly means that we have a recoil momentum going in the opposite direction.

Ghoest
Posted - 2011.05.29 14:36:00 - [221]
 

Edited by: Ghoest on 29/05/2011 14:36:42
I suppose whats confusing some people on recoil with a normal projectile weapon is that there is a very slight amount of additional recoil as the remaining high pressure gas exits the barrel after the bullet.

This is a tiny amount relative to the recoil that is created by the expanding gas in the barrel pushing the bullet one way and the gun in the opposite direction.

The simplest way to understand railgun recoil is that the the bullet is being pushed by magnetic forc and that force pushes in both directions. You can demonstrate this by holding 2 magnets in your hands so they repel each other. Notice that that their is a force on both magenets not just one - thats the same as recoil.

Astroka
Posted - 2011.05.29 19:06:00 - [222]
 

Edited by: Astroka on 29/05/2011 19:05:59
Originally by: Akita T
Edited by: Akita T on 29/05/2011 05:46:27
Originally by: Traejun DiSanctis
This would NOT apply railguns because there is no outward force, as the projectile is launched by a series of magnetized rings or rails that accelerate the round within the barrel in a outward motion.

If the rails push the projectile forward, the projectile pushes the rails back with exactly the same force.


Which is exactly what I came to realize - the railgun pushes the projectile forward while the projectile pulls the railgun back. They're both imparting the same magnetic force on each other, in opposite directions. You can't throw something without having it push back on your hand, for example. No matter how anyone looks at it, railguns do indeed have recoil.

DrDan21
Test Alliance Please Ignore
Posted - 2011.05.29 21:28:00 - [223]
 

When the laser pulls back its actually releasing superheated gas into space. They then reseal and the chamber is filled with a coolant that is once again heated when the laser fires to the point where it becomes a gas and needs to be released as this is faster than attempting to remove the heat.

Problem solved.

ILikeMarkets
Posted - 2011.05.29 21:33:00 - [224]
 

Do the minmatar howitzers finally recoil? If so, can we leave them that way? Cause yea, that would be pretty awesome.

Entity
X-Factor Industries
Synthetic Existence
Posted - 2011.05.29 21:48:00 - [225]
 

Laser guns can have recoil depending on the technology used.
For example, gasdynamic laser systems have recoil due to rapid (de)compression of gas in the laser cavity.

http://www.defensereview.com/352003/TIS1.pdf is an example of such a system.


Astroka
Posted - 2011.05.29 22:09:00 - [226]
 

Originally by: DrDan21
When the laser pulls back its actually releasing superheated gas into space. They then reseal and the chamber is filled with a coolant that is once again heated when the laser fires to the point where it becomes a gas and needs to be released as this is faster than attempting to remove the heat.

Problem solved.

Then do please try to explain EVE's heat sinks.

Templar Dane
Amarr
Amarrian Retribution
Posted - 2011.05.30 01:01:00 - [227]
 

I'd like to see a video with the new turrets.......on a nomen, using quad light beams, tech 2 rof rig, rof hardwirings and three heatsinks.

Astroka
Posted - 2011.05.30 01:07:00 - [228]
 

Originally by: Templar Dane
I'd like to see a video with the new turrets.......on a nomen, using quad light beams, tech 2 rof rig, rof hardwirings and three heatsinks.

I hear they're on Duality, you can test that yourself.

Ethan Blacknova
Gallente
Perkele Mining Corporation
Posted - 2011.05.31 14:56:00 - [229]
 

Originally by: Ethan Blacknova
This is simple physics, people.

In order to exert force, you must project force. The act of projecting force causes an opposite reactionary force. Recoil.

Enjoy!

IQ 001
Gallente
2plus2isfive
BricK sQuAD.
Posted - 2011.05.31 15:16:00 - [230]
 

SOMETHING HAPPENS INSIDE THE GUN THAT CONVERTS ALL THAT ENERGY INTO LAZORS!

WHATEVER THAT 'SOMETHING' IS, CAUSES THE RECOIL.

BLA
BLA
BLA

I WON THE INTERWEB

Furb Killer
Gallente
Posted - 2011.05.31 15:38:00 - [231]
 

Edited by: Furb Killer on 31/05/2011 15:42:12
Originally by: Akita T
Edited by: Akita T on 29/05/2011 05:17:21

I merely (re)explained everything in much more detail and using a different wording.
_

I can however see how you would easily be tempted to think I was "avoiding the issue" as you put it, though.
My initial wording was not exactly concise, it left room for interpretation, and you interpreted it as meaning "roughly the same" instead of "not negligible".
Let's add some more, simplified calcs, where everything becomes obvious.

Take a 0.1 kg slug leaving the barrel of a railgun at 1000 km/s (MACH 2940 or 0.33%c, ouch).
Total kinetic energy is 50 gigajoules.
Total impulse acting on the gun is 100000 m*kg/s.

Take a laser beam with an electromagnetic energy of 50 gigajoules.
Total impulse acting on the laser firing assembly is only around 166.78 m*kg/s.

Basically, about 600 times weaker, BUT STILL NOTICEABLE, not millions or billions times weaker as some other people suggested before.
That was my point, that it might be less, but it's not negligible - they're comparable in magnitude, not radically apart.

And again you are ignoring the time factor that is a huge issue if you want to look at recoil.
Lets say your railgun is 50m in length, and you have a normal constant acceleration, then with your example shooting the railgun takes 0.1ms. (tbh longer than i expected). Now a laser in eve fires for several seconds, but lets say 1 second. Then we got another factor 10000 difference in force applied (which would cause the recoil). So from your factor 600 weaker we got to a factor 6 million times weaker. Which is completely negligble.

IQ 001
Gallente
2plus2isfive
BricK sQuAD.
Posted - 2011.05.31 15:53:00 - [232]
 

AHEM
'SOMETHING' HAPPENS IN THE GUN CAUSING THE RECOIL, NOT THE LAZOR ITSELF.

I WON!


Originally by: Furb Killer
Edited by: Furb Killer on 31/05/2011 15:42:12
Originally by: Akita T
Edited by: Akita T on 29/05/2011 05:17:21

I merely (re)explained everything in much more detail and using a different wording.
_

I can however see how you would easily be tempted to think I was "avoiding the issue" as you put it, though.
My initial wording was not exactly concise, it left room for interpretation, and you interpreted it as meaning "roughly the same" instead of "not negligible".
Let's add some more, simplified calcs, where everything becomes obvious.

Take a 0.1 kg slug leaving the barrel of a railgun at 1000 km/s (MACH 2940 or 0.33%c, ouch).
Total kinetic energy is 50 gigajoules.
Total impulse acting on the gun is 100000 m*kg/s.

Take a laser beam with an electromagnetic energy of 50 gigajoules.
Total impulse acting on the laser firing assembly is only around 166.78 m*kg/s.

Basically, about 600 times weaker, BUT STILL NOTICEABLE, not millions or billions times weaker as some other people suggested before.
That was my point, that it might be less, but it's not negligible - they're comparable in magnitude, not radically apart.

And again you are ignoring the time factor that is a huge issue if you want to look at recoil.
Lets say your railgun is 50m in length, and you have a normal constant acceleration, then with your example shooting the railgun takes 0.1ms. (tbh longer than i expected). Now a laser in eve fires for several seconds, but lets say 1 second. Then we got another factor 10000 difference in force applied (which would cause the recoil). So from your factor 600 weaker we got to a factor 6 million times weaker. Which is completely negligble.

Soden Rah
Gallente
EVE University
Ivy League
Posted - 2011.05.31 16:01:00 - [233]
 

Originally by: Furb Killer
Originally by: Akita T
Edited by: Akita T on 29/05/2011 05:17:21

I merely (re)explained everything in much more detail and using a different wording.
_

I can however see how you would easily be tempted to think I was "avoiding the issue" as you put it, though.
My initial wording was not exactly concise, it left room for interpretation, and you interpreted it as meaning "roughly the same" instead of "not negligible".
Let's add some more, simplified calcs, where everything becomes obvious.

Take a 0.1 kg slug leaving the barrel of a railgun at 1000 km/s (MACH 2940 or 0.33%c, ouch).
Total kinetic energy is 50 gigajoules.
Total impulse acting on the gun is 100000 m*kg/s.

Take a laser beam with an electromagnetic energy of 50 gigajoules.
Total impulse acting on the laser firing assembly is only around 166.78 m*kg/s.

Basically, about 600 times weaker, BUT STILL NOTICEABLE, not millions or billions times weaker as some other people suggested before.
That was my point, that it might be less, but it's not negligible - they're comparable in magnitude, not radically apart.

And again you are ignoring the time factor that is a huge issue if you want to look at recoil (which is now pointed out several times btw).
Lets say your railgun is 50m in length, and you have a normal constant acceleration, then with your example shooting the railgun takes 0.1ms. (tbh longer than i expected). Now a laser in eve fires for several seconds, but lets say 1 second. Then we got another factor 10000 difference in force applied (which would cause the recoil). So from your factor 600 weaker we got to a factor 6 million times weaker. Which is completely negligble.


The force will be (by your math) 6 million times weaker, the total impulse will be the original 600 times weaker.

If your looking at pulse lasers rather than beam then the pulse time will likely be in the nano~micro second range, meaning that while the impulse will be the same the force will be in the order of tens to thousands of times higher.

And you can't use the eve graphics to tell how long the beam/pulse time is, if your designing the augmented reality of the pod and you want to make a clear distinction between pulse and beam lasers your going to exaggerate the firing duration to make it obvious.

Ultimately the turrets visibly recoiling is simply a function of 'do any of the components of the turret/mount need the shock of firing cushioned?' in the case of laser turrets the force will be acting on a number of components including the fragile optics used to focus and direct the beam/pulse.

Which might need the turret to recoil to cushion the blow, even with forces that rail/projectile turrets would laugh at.

BTW open gas cooled lasers collapse in an atmosphere because when the gas is vented the internal pressure drops below the external (atmospheric) pressure. In space, in a vacuum, that pressure is zero, so an open gas cooled turret would not contract due to a drop in internal pressure.

Atticus Fynch
Gallente
Posted - 2011.05.31 16:13:00 - [234]
 

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Hence recoil.

If a laser output is powerful enough (theoretically speaking) there will be some recoil.

Proof? Theoretical "solar sailer" spaceships depend on a beam of light to push them through space. So recoil from a laser is possible.

Furb Killer
Gallente
Posted - 2011.05.31 16:15:00 - [235]
 

Quote:
The force will be (by your math) 6 million times weaker, the total impulse will be the original 600 times weaker.

Yes, but if you want to find out if a weapon needs to recoil what you need to look at is force, not impulse.

Quote:
If your looking at pulse lasers rather than beam then the pulse time will likely be in the nano~micro second range, meaning that while the impulse will be the same the force will be in the order of tens to thousands of times higher.

True, but doesnt explain beam laser recoil.

Quote:
And you can't use the eve graphics to tell how long the beam/pulse time is, if your designing the augmented reality of the pod and you want to make a clear distinction between pulse and beam lasers your going to exaggerate the firing duration to make it obvious.

Could be, then again you can also use that on the recoil action itself.




Soden Rah
Gallente
EVE University
Ivy League
Posted - 2011.05.31 16:47:00 - [236]
 

Originally by: Furb Killer
Quote:
The force will be (by your math) 6 million times weaker, the total impulse will be the original 600 times weaker.


Yes, but if you want to find out if a weapon needs to recoil what you need to look at is force, not impulse.

Quote:
If your looking at pulse lasers rather than beam then the pulse time will likely be in the nano~micro second range, meaning that while the impulse will be the same the force will be in the order of tens to thousands of times higher.


True, but doesn't explain beam laser recoil.

Quote:
And you can't use the eve graphics to tell how long the beam/pulse time is, if your designing the augmented reality of the pod and you want to make a clear distinction between pulse and beam lasers your going to exaggerate the firing duration to make it obvious.


Could be, then again you can also use that on the recoil action itself.



It can depend, sometimes you have to care about both. But force is usually the more important concern I will grant you.

It doesn't but I wanted to make the distinction.

Not really, there is no point in adding turret recoil if there is none as it adds no useful tactical information. The point was that what you 'see' in eve (even taking the fact its computer game graphics designed to look cool rather than be physically accurate) is what is picked up by your camera drones and then adjusted by your pod to produce the augmented reality environment you use to analyse your tactical surroundings. The glow you see from the lasers is either purely simulated by the on-board computer or is the glow of energies particles as the beam passes through, or a combo of both. If the particles glow for a while after the beam has passed through and/or the computer augmentation extends the apparent beam length to allow your slow and primitive biological brain to take it in, or simply the shutter speed of the camera drone makes the beam appear to last longer than it really does then you wont be able to use what you see as any kind of reference for actual beam duration.

The main difference between beam and pulse lasers on an armoured target is beam lasers tend to burn through the armour and then if they penetrate flash vaporise everything in the compartment underneath, but don't go any further.
pulse lasers on the other hand drill through the target punching holes through all the compartments in succession, but tend to do less internal dmg too those compartments (barring anything actually in the way of the pulses)

The duration of the pulses would probably be in the low microsecond if not nano second mark, pulsing at hundreds to thousands of Hertz.
whereas the the beam would be continuous. But depending on power consumption and such the total duration for each could be very similar. and potentially significantly less than a second, depending on total power output, heating factors and such.

As increasing the wattage of your laser increases the dmg its fair to assume that for both pulse and beam lasers the designers would be trying to get the power output into as small a time as possible.


Ogogov
Gallente
Test Alliance Please Ignore
Posted - 2011.05.31 16:58:00 - [237]
 

On the other hand, Blasters now look precisely as useless as they really are and Railguns appear to have barely changed at all.

Also turrets still fire through parts of the ship model.


Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2011.05.31 17:13:00 - [238]
 

Originally by: Furb Killer
True, but doesnt explain beam laser recoil.
Sure it does. They simply have low-impulse recoil dampening — enough to smoothly take the stress out of the release, and not so much as to make it rigid. The force is still there, even if the impulse is lower, and it still needs to be absorbed, because those beams put out an awful lot of energy.

Ethan Blacknova
Gallente
Perkele Mining Corporation
Posted - 2011.05.31 20:35:00 - [239]
 

Originally by: Ethan Blacknova
Originally by: Ethan Blacknova
This is simple physics, people.

In order to exert force, you must project force. The act of projecting force causes an opposite reactionary force. Recoil.

Enjoy!


F'elch
Wall Street Trading
Posted - 2011.06.01 12:52:00 - [240]
 

This video clearly shows laser recoil at 9:25.


Pages: first : previous : ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 : last (10)

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