Return to “General”

Post

Re: Star Map?

#61
ThymineC wrote:
Idunno wrote:
ThymineC wrote:I argue in favour of 3D maps, and my argument is thus.
So in other words the RTS view, just scaled up to galaxy size? :monkey:
Yes. It integrates perfectly. You can smoothly transition between viewing ships and fleets at one scale, the solar system as a whole at another, and then large regions of the galaxy at yet another.
That sounds epic. :clap:
Image The results of logic, of natural progression? Boring! An expected result? Dull! An obvious next step? Pfui! Where is the fun in that? A dream may soothe, but our nightmares make us run!
Post

Re: Star Map?

#62
Maps were originally a political propaganda tool while still offering information.

If its not too much trouble, couldn't the different factions display the same information in different ways?
Life is about memories, the more the better.
Post

Re: Star Map?

#63
Sidrat wrote:Maps were originally a political propaganda tool while still offering information.

If its not too much trouble, couldn't the different factions display the same information in different ways?
How would that work? How would you see what other factions see?
Post

Re: Star Map?

#64
ThymineC wrote:
Sidrat wrote:Maps were originally a political propaganda tool while still offering information.

If its not too much trouble, couldn't the different factions display the same information in different ways?
How would that work? How would you see what other factions see?
By purchasing the information they would be willing to sell to you.

It could be based on money or of course information.

Information is power, a legit trader wouldn't really pay for the locations of military installations. But a smuggler could use the information to avoid heavily patrolled areas.
Life is about memories, the more the better.
Post

Re: Star Map?

#65
Sidrat wrote:
ThymineC wrote:
Sidrat wrote:Maps were originally a political propaganda tool while still offering information.

If its not too much trouble, couldn't the different factions display the same information in different ways?
How would that work? How would you see what other factions see?
By purchasing the information they would be willing to sell to you.

It could be based on money or of course information.

Information is power, a legit trader wouldn't really pay for the locations of military installations. But a smuggler could use the information to avoid heavily patrolled areas.
When you say "see the information in different ways", do you just mean that different factions will have access to different information about the same territory?
Post

Re: Star Map?

#66
If faction A has never explored outside of their solar system, despite immense profit and wealth; how could they know or build ships that contain this information.

I didn't mean to suggest actual individuals (npc) would have their own personal map. Workers of a corporation would have access to that corporations map. If Josh wants to limit the data available on that map then great.
Life is about memories, the more the better.
Post

Re: Star Map?

#67
ThymineC wrote: When you say "see the information in different ways", do you just mean that different factions will have access to different information about the same territory?
the factions would have the same information but would display it in different ways that suit their (propaganda) needs.

bit harsh of an example but it fit very well:
The USA may stage an attack on an "terrorist" camp which also provides shelter to an amount of civilians.
In the USA news of the strike would be put as an "victory against terrorism"
The "terrorist" group will highlight the death of the civilians while understating their own losses (if they even report them).
"The americans killed lots of civilians"
The independent, neutral news agency would provide maybe the most objective view on it
"drone strike killed 20 terrorists and 20 civilists"
Post

Re: Star Map?

#71
As a side note related to star maps and ED, I'd like to mention that I have never cared for the "stalks" thing.

Stalks only make sense as a visual aid when two things are true:

1. There's a reference-based coordinate system.
2. It's difficult to move in order to use parallax to infer distances to objects.

The first requirement means that a "stalk" only makes sense when there's a plane, which is mapped to three supposed reference points. The stalk then gives you an idea of distance above or below that plane. But using normal reality as a starting point for this discussion, there are only three cases for a space game in which imposing such a plane makes any sense:

1. Rotating planets
2. Star systems (ecliptic)
3. Non-irregular galaxies

The only one of those three that seems like it might apply to Limit Theory is #2. Planets don't rotate in LT, and there's no galaxy as such in a space game with an ever-expanding procedurally-generated "edge."

So: in LT, are the planets and more-or-less central points of asteroid fields positioned roughly on a plane? In other words, do star systems in LT have an ecliptic? If not, then the idea of a reference plane is meaningless in LT, which means there's nothing to hang a stalk on in any star map.

The second requirement is that you can't move your viewpoint easily enough to use parallax to see how near or far things are from you. (Parallax is what all of us with at least one working eye use daily to navigate reality. The linked Wikipedia page shows this effect nicely.) Only if this requirement is true, and it's very slow to move your viewpoint (making it hard to use parallax), might it be handy to have some UI-based way of understanding distance. Stalks are one such way.

So: Is it even remotely true in LT that for system maps or star maps it will be very slow to move our viewpoint around, making it hard to use the parallax effect? If that's not true -- if we can move our viewpoint quickly when using a map -- then stalks are unnecessary. You don't need them to understand distances up and down from a reference plane. You just move your viewpoint briskly enough to see how much an object appears to shift its position; that's sufficient to infer distance from your viewpoint.

I'm not convinced that either of the requirements for stalks explained above, to say nothing of both of them, applies to Limit Theory. If there's no reference plane on any map (with the possible exception of star systems), then to what do you pin a stalk? And if we can move quickly enough on any map for the parallax effect to matter, why is a stalk even necessary?

When one or both of those requirements is not true, then imposing computer-generated grids and lines and callouts and other such UI cruft starts to get in the way of seeing the world as a place. I mentioned in the UI poll that I generally don't mind UI features... but they have to add real value.

I'm not really opposed to stalks for those folks who, for whatever reason, like them and want them in LT. What I'm suggesting here is that because they're unnecessary, I hope they (and grids) aren't intended to be mandatory in star maps. For the reasons I've given above, I perceive them as fiddly bits of UI that add zero real value to getting a sense of location and performing navigation.

YMMV, but man, I just have never cared for stalks in my space maps. :D
Post

Re: Star Map?

#72
Well, Flatfingers, the stalks thing is just one way of giving depth to a space map. I agree, it looks a little tacky, but it solves a problem.

When you're putting a 3-D map of what are basically points of light, and projecting this onto a 2-D screen, it can't help but look flat. Doesn't properly convey depth.

So, how would you convey depth in a star map widget?
Image
A proud crafter of fruitless pseudointellectual theories
LT Dev Logs Project
Post

Re: Star Map?

#73
Alcazabedabra wrote:So, how would you convey depth in a star map widget?
As I said in some detail above: parallax. Let players be able to translate their viewpoint in a star map quickly enough to see how the stars seem to move. A star that appears to move quickly out of your field of view must be close; a star that appears to move slowly is far away.

This isn't some nutty, out-there concept -- it's how our brains do navigation planning in our 3D real world. Making use of that capability in a space game to understand where objects are relative to our current position seems like a reasonably sane choice. (FWIW, I've applied this effect in a 3D space game I've been working on for a while. Maybe it's just me, but I'm able to use it to navigate easily among thousands of stars. You can even try it for yourself in the glorious Space Engine.)

Again, though, please note that I'm making two arguments against the inclusion of stalks in LT. One is that they're unnecessary clutter if we can use parallax. The other argument matters too, though, which is that it doesn't even make any sense to have 'em since -- as far as I can see -- there's no reference plane in any of the star maps we might get.

Actually, I do need to amend that from my previous post... but I don't think either amendment changes the argument. One is that Josh has showed off planetary belts -- presumably those would circle above a planet's equator. However, I'm not sure what you'd put on a stalk above or below the plane that cuts through a planet's equator.

The other is that it's possible that maps of regions of star systems may be relatively flat, which means they might have something like a an average plane that passes through the region. Individual star systems would then lie some short distance above and below this plane. That would seem to make them candidates for stalks... but on the other hand, maybe regions are made nearly flat in order to be able to render them easily as a 2D map. In that case, stalks are unnecessary because height above the plane is irrelevant -- the only navigation information needed to move between star systems is all 2D.

All this is explanatory. If someone just plain like stalks for whatever reason, then nothing here will change that, nor is it meant to. For those who aren't sure or don't have a strong feeling either way, the above is meant to offer some reasons to join me on the "oh dear god no please don't clutter up my screen with those things" side of the fence. :D
Post

Re: Star Map?

#75
Sebby McWester wrote:
ThymineC wrote:I argue in favour of 3D maps, and my argument is thus.
That hyperdrive effect :shock:
Let's maintain focus on one irrefutably awesome aspect of Elite: Dangerous at a time.

I get what Flatfingers is saying about the stalks. I guess they're not needed for Limit Theory. You can still judge 3D-ness by parallax as he says, and this is how it works in EVE: Online.

So anyway, my point is that 3D star maps work in E:D, and they work in EVE, so why can't they work in LT? I don't majorly mind if maps are 2D in LT, though.

Online Now

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron