Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Mortania
Minmatar No Compromise Gentlemen's Agreement
|
Posted - 2011.04.30 00:58:00 -
[61]
Edited by: Mortania on 30/04/2011 00:59:04
Originally by: Tippia
In space, however, vertical symmetry is just as important as horizontal symmetry, and since Up/Down" symmetry obviously isn't a problem for the EVE ships, there's no reason why Left/Right-symmetry could be an issue either (yes, yes: up, down, left and right don't really make sense either, but we're looking at the local reference frame of ships that have an obvious up-directionà so there!). The ship designers of EVE can apparently generate thrust that balances out the (perceptually) wildly different upper and lower parts of the ship, so balancing out the left and right side as well is just more of the sameà
Radially symmetric would make for a limited palette don't you think?
|
Camron Champagne
|
Posted - 2011.04.30 01:00:00 -
[62]
Originally by: Zars Boy Just had to buy a faction ship for the wife because she liked the colour. I explained that she had no gunnery skills so it would be useless' Not a good enough reason for her. The colour is the most important thing when buying a ship. Ask any woman. FFS wives shold be bared from playing.
I'd be willing to be when she reads that post that you'll be barred from playing as well
Color is important especially when your just planning on flying it around and want something fashionable to be seen in. Ask anyone with tase. "Every Pirate is a lost soul waiting to be shown the light" |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.30 01:01:00 -
[63]
Originally by: Mortania Radially symmetric would make for a limited palette don't you think?
Yes. And for that reason, I ♥ Moa.
Symmetry is for chumps! ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Teranul
|
Posted - 2011.04.30 01:09:00 -
[64]
Originally by: theRaptor
Apart from "lol real spaceship manufacturers" the best ship designs I have ever seen are all heavily industrial with very little aesthetics about them (ie the Sulaco from Aliens). "Aesthetics" = streamlining and spoilers. ie stuff you don't put on starfaring battleships.
No, aesthetics = NOT LEGOS.
I mean, really. The fuggin' Blackbird? LEGO SHIP. Not a GOOD lego ship, either! Bloody awful-looking on every front.
Real naval ships have no problem managing to look good and kick ass all at the same time. Considering the actual design constraints placed on those that are not issues for these far-flung superpowered behemoths, the designers of these things can afford to be far more creative with their layout.
But instead of producing better-looking models, they go for artistry. The BAD kind. The kind that throws paint at random on a canvas.
Make no mistake, I care not a whit for symmetry like those other folks have been arguing about for god-only-knows-why. I just want ships that don't look like cheap **** crapped out by a sexually depraved autistic, thank you very much.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.30 01:14:00 -
[65]
Originally by: Teranul Considering the actual design constraints placed on those that are not issues for these far-flung superpowered behemoths, the designers of these things can afford to be far more creative with their layout.
àand that freedom is exactly the same thing that lets them look decidedly odd and unlike any of the cookie-cutter spaceship designs we see everywhere else. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Jin Leegai
Autistic Sharks Test Alliance Please Ignore
|
Posted - 2011.04.30 01:20:00 -
[66]
They literally JUST redid ships in trinity.
I'd rather have them work on important things, like new sounds and a better UI.
|
Mortania
Minmatar No Compromise Gentlemen's Agreement
|
Posted - 2011.04.30 01:24:00 -
[67]
Seriously! Where are the beautiful spacefaring craft?
Just like in real life!
Gorgeous! (and symmetrical!)
|
Ay Liz
Sacred Templars RED.OverLord
|
Posted - 2011.04.30 01:29:00 -
[68]
They don't have to change any ships imho. They all look good in their own way.. more or less.
But most textures could use a higher resolution. It would make everything more shiny!
|
Val'Dore
Word Bearers of Chaos Word of Chaos Undivided
|
Posted - 2011.04.30 04:05:00 -
[69]
Originally by: Mortania Seriously! Where are the beautiful spacefaring craft?
Just like in real life!
Gorgeous! (and symmetrical!)
Now, demonstrate what happens when you put an MWD on that.
~No matter what happens, somebody will find a way to take it too seriously.~
Tiericide |
Mortania
Minmatar No Compromise Gentlemen's Agreement
|
Posted - 2011.04.30 04:15:00 -
[70]
Originally by: Val'Dore
Now, demonstrate what happens when you put an MWD on that.
Assuming you have engineers who do maths beforehand, it goes faster in the opposite direction of the thrust provided by the MWD. (This assumes it was built with the structure sufficient to absorb the thrust from the MWD.)
|
|
Delkana Fox
|
Posted - 2011.04.30 04:32:00 -
[71]
I believe the inherent problem with the Symmetry argument is that if everything is symmetrical than everyone will be flying the same cylinder shape with the only difference being with a variety of colors. Asymmetrical designs allow massive variations in potential shape of the ship.
I do not think most of the ships are bad on their own, just incomplete. Think Raven with the one unfinished wing, or the Typhoon missing the front half. |
Ris Dnalor
Minmatar Fleet of Doom RaVeN Federation
|
Posted - 2011.04.30 04:38:00 -
[72]
meh, give me a wireframe option for ship models, stick figures for characters, and more tactical options pls.
|
Teranul
|
Posted - 2011.04.30 06:17:00 -
[73]
Originally by: Tippia àand that freedom is exactly the same thing that lets them look decidedly odd and unlike any of the cookie-cutter spaceship designs we see everywhere else.
As though it's a GOOD thing that they're fuggin' ugly?
I don't see that as a positive, myself.
|
Wen Jaibao
Aperture Harmonics K162
|
Posted - 2011.04.30 06:31:00 -
[74]
Originally by: Teranul
Originally by: Tippia àand that freedom is exactly the same thing that lets them look decidedly odd and unlike any of the cookie-cutter spaceship designs we see everywhere else.
As though it's a GOOD thing that they're fuggin' ugly?
I don't see that as a positive, myself.
Nor I. If I was to take a guess, I'd consider that 1/2 of the ships in eve are downright ugly, 1/3 of them are bearable, and 1/6 actually look good.
|
Wolfric Draksmile
|
Posted - 2011.04.30 06:56:00 -
[75]
Edited by: Wolfric Draksmile on 30/04/2011 06:56:22 I Love Abaddon, Armageddon, Punisher, Prophecy, Crusader, Harbinger, Arbitrator, Rokh, Hurricane, Cyclone, Thrasher, Coercer, Firetails, Slicer, and more others. Some ships would need only few modifications to be perfect. But what to do with a Apocalypse or a Moa, A Blackbird or an Osprey? The Reactor of the Osprey should make it turn around on himself... I Fly Drakes But I never bought a Caldari Cruiser. If I'd Find one in space without pilot, I'd just destroy it to clean the view. Sorry but it is the true.
|
Cathy Drall
Amarr Royal Amarr Institute
|
Posted - 2011.04.30 13:31:00 -
[76]
Originally by: Wolfric Draksmile I would not say it better. Why Do it this to the Omen?
/me drools over symmetrical Zealot *
"Im not nearly as paranoid as people think I am" |
SehrGute
|
Posted - 2011.04.30 14:10:00 -
[77]
Edited by: SehrGute on 30/04/2011 14:16:59 there are a couple of design issue that bothers me.
Ships don't feel as large as they should be. - smaller and slower weapon effects would make the ships look larger. - slower turning speed, so that inertia don't there the ship in half by simply taking a right turn. - you can see the GIANT pilot man i fighters and FB. - more points on ships for weapon effects to hit, and points outside the model for shots that misses.
ships has heads and necks? whats up with that? bridge, sure thats cool, but way do many ships have to look like they can spring to life?
way not give us the possibility to choose between different models when making a ship, just with same specs. then we don't loss our beloved old models, and we would get new life to eve.
|
Ranger 1
Amarr Paragon Fury Cascade Imminent
|
Posted - 2011.04.30 18:47:00 -
[78]
Edited by: Ranger 1 on 30/04/2011 18:49:24
Originally by: Mortania Seriously! Where are the beautiful spacefaring craft?
Just like in real life!
Gorgeous! (and symmetrical!)
1: This is not symmetrical. 2: Many people would consider this ugly. 3: Stations aren't being discussed, ships are. 4: Spacecraft do exist currently, and most that will never enter atmosphere are far from symmetrical. 5: Designing a symmetrical ship for deep space use would often be a waste of resources and materials. 6: Even vessels designed for terrestrial (or in this example, aquatic) use are asymmetrical. An example would be the fast and maneuverable Outrigger.
===== The world will not end in 2012, however there will be a serious nerf to Planetary Interaction. |
Sharon Anne
Caldari
|
Posted - 2011.04.30 19:04:00 -
[79]
I don't know. Getting ugly on someone's ass has meaning, being pretty just doesn't cut it for me. Just saying.
The general epidemic of rectal-cranial inversion |
Cathy Drall
Amarr Royal Amarr Institute
|
Posted - 2011.04.30 20:28:00 -
[80]
Originally by: Sharon Anne I don't know. Getting ugly on someone's ass has meaning, being pretty just doesn't cut it for me. Just saying.
How's that? You avatar isn't that ugly?
"Im not nearly as paranoid as people think I am" |
|
Mortania
Minmatar No Compromise Gentlemen's Agreement
|
Posted - 2011.04.30 20:54:00 -
[81]
Originally by: Ranger 1
1: This is not symmetrical. 2: Many people would consider this ugly. 3: Stations aren't being discussed, ships are. 4: Spacecraft do exist currently, and most that will never enter atmosphere are far from symmetrical. 5: Designing a symmetrical ship for deep space use would often be a waste of resources and materials. 6: Even vessels designed for terrestrial (or in this example, aquatic) use are asymmetrical. An example would be the fast and maneuverable Outrigger.
You missed the hidden <sarcasm> flag.
|
Kyra Felann
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2011.04.30 21:06:00 -
[82]
Originally by: boseo I would also like to point out that its highly unlikely that current ship designs will be changed, as they have been around long enough for some people to get attached to them, no mater how much some people complain.
They said at Fanfest that they won't change ship designs too drastically for exactly this reason. They said that the scorpion redesign represents about the most extreme change they'd make. -----WARNING SIGNATURE BELOW-----
Bring back the NeoNeoCom! |
Kyra Felann
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2011.04.30 21:11:00 -
[83]
Edited by: Kyra Felann on 30/04/2011 21:11:28 Whoops. Ignore this. -----WARNING SIGNATURE BELOW-----
Bring back the NeoNeoCom! |
Soon Shin
|
Posted - 2011.04.30 23:16:00 -
[84]
Problem with asymmetry is that it simply ruins the look of the ships like the omen with that ******ed armlike thing on one of its sides without one on the other. I don't see the purpose of that and would simply look much better if they added one oth the other side or simply got rid of it completely.
Caldari Asymmetry would make anyone uncomfortable flying the ship. Not only does it look unwieldy and bulky, but would make it a pain to build or fix, symmetric is good in that often parts for one side will work for the other like motors, electronics etc. Asymmetric design not only affects the look but the performance and the design of the parts and makes it unnecessarily complex.
The blackbird looks fragile and probably would be affected heavily by inertia.
As a fan of the omen navy issue and zealot I must really ask the designers to simply remove that ugly part on the side at the front or add another one to make it complete.
|
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
|
Posted - 2011.05.01 00:49:00 -
[85]
did you list the myrm? Oh, it's on.
|
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
|
Posted - 2011.05.01 00:51:00 -
[86]
Originally by: Jacob Stov Asymmetric designs are inefficient. There is no drag in space, but there is inertia. Asymetric ships have to divert propulsion power to keep them flying in a streight line. Woohoo ! I just discovered why Caldari ships are so f+++ slow ! Half of the engine power goes to the manouvering thrusters !
nope, all you need is symmetrical shielding and or stabilizer.
the ship itself doesn't matter, the field does.
so yes if it went down it would be awesome if some ships in eve started spinning before death xD
|
Lost Greybeard
|
Posted - 2011.05.01 01:02:00 -
[87]
Real-life ships are based around symmetry concerns because of the difficulties of atmospheric re-entry and escape.
Any symmetries in an orbit-constructed starship are purely because the designer thought it was pretty. ---
If you outlaw tautologies, only outlaws will have tautologies. ~Anonymous |
Luminak Narz
|
Posted - 2011.05.01 02:07:00 -
[88]
Edited by: Luminak Narz on 01/05/2011 02:07:51
/signed
I would even go as far as to say the the appearance of many ships actually (in small part) affects my level of enjoyment of the game. And for all the talk from CCP of wanting more subscribers, I'm sure the appearance of the ships turns a lot of people off. But unfortunately, this is just another topic that will probably never fully be addressed since CCP has limited resources, and huge future plans with Incarna and Dust. Not to mention the inflexible, whiny Eve community. Wolfric, I'd just get over it.
Just as an aside, I'd love to see some data on how players from North America feel about the current ships vs EU players. Don't know why, but something in my gut tells my the Europeans like 'em better.
|
Bollox Reader
Pera Support Group
|
Posted - 2011.05.01 04:37:00 -
[89]
Asymmetrical ships are more visually interesting to me than ships with bilateral symmetry. Yeah, first time I saw a Raven undock next to me my thought was that it looked like a city block had detached itself from a planet or something. But when it comes time for long-term ship spinning in station, oddly shaped ships are just more interesting.
Also, combat space ships aren't going to be looking at one another. Aesthetics are mostly wasted, most of the population is going to be more concerned with orbital bombardment capabilities than "Ooh, it looks nice."
The Amarr really are the only ones that are concerned with appearance, big phallic ships for penetrative power, painted gold for the bling factor.
As far as atmospheric flight, look at escape velocity and compare that to the speed of capsuleer ships. Even with an MWD you aren't going to get most of them out of the gravity well. As far as the nebula issue, well even the thickest of nebulae are far thinner than what we would call an atmosphere. And the shield systems on ships would cut through it with no problem.
I happen to like Eve ships, from the Amarrian phalli to the Gallente sex toys to the Minmatar flying scaffolds to the Caldari... whatever they are. If you know Eve ships at all, you recognize the style when you see it. CCP would be stupid to change the designs because of this recognition factor. And frankly, I don't give a damned if folks don't join Eve because the ships aren't pretty enough for them. If they are that shallow, they wouldn't last long in our community anyway.
|
Sai Hai
Caldari Shin-Ra Ltd
|
Posted - 2011.05.01 07:52:00 -
[90]
Originally by: Ranger 1
Originally by: Captain Brickwalle Edited by: Captain Brickwalle on 29/04/2011 18:37:11
The problem isn't the design, it's the staggered tech level of the ship rendering.
The scorp noctis echelon are on a whole other level and rendered in a totally different style (artistically not technically... But maybe technically too)
Ships like the Mack domi apoc all look blurry pixilated and FLAT compared to these new incredibly detailed designs.
Last edit... Damn smart phone
The Scorp, Noctis and Echelon are all done with the newer graphics that CCP announced we will eventually see all ships redone in.
Personally I hope the "present" that we are getting on EVE's 8th birthday is another ship (or group of ships) redone in this way.
To make a model like new scorp takes 1 or 2 days maximum. If they were paying to their 3d artists eve ships could be redone in ~2 months.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |