Cornflakes_91 wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 18, 2018 1:05 pm

*cough cough*

Thanks for the link. I do need to read over the whole thread at some point. But as for the starting point, I am favorable to charge-sustained WH bridges and think that something like this is the way to go Large fleets should require dedicated logistics ships for sustaining a WH of adequate size to bridge the whole fleet. Those logi ships being effectively 'high burst energy output' ships sounds good to me. In this manner they might also serve other support roles during battle, such as maintaining active shielding thanks to high burst potential.

I don't understand can u prove via induction :p

JoshParnell wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 18, 2018 1:00 pm

Wow Flat, this looks very cool! And very detailed.

Thank you, Josh.

I can't resist mentioning that all of the stars in my game -- every single one in that screenshot -- are real. They're taken from the Hipparcos catalog of the nearest/brightest stars from Earth.

What this means is that if you fly in the game to the vicinity of Earth, and mouselook around at the stars, they are exactly the stars you see from Earth when you look into the night sky, in approximately the correct colors and apparent brightnesses. In fact, just for fun I added a feature that draws the lines between the stars of the modern constellations.

The planets, on the other hand, are all made up except for those in our Solar system and the roughly 1500 exoplanets we knew of when I was working on this project.

I never got this map to the point of being pretty. And I wasn't competent to get the code for the 3D math working correctly for proper high-precision rotation/translation.

But I'll never forget how satisfying it was the first time I flew to Earth and the stars were right.

Anyway, since we're talking about star maps, I encourage folks to visit Winchell Chung's 3-D Star Maps pages -- they're gorgeous.

Flatfingers wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 18, 2018 11:58 pm

I can't resist mentioning that all of the stars in my game -- every single one in that screenshot -- are real. They're taken from the Hipparcos catalog of the nearest/brightest stars from Earth.

What this means is that if you fly in the game to the vicinity of Earth, and mouselook around at the stars, they are exactly the stars you see from Earth when you look into the night sky, in approximately the correct colors and apparent brightnesses. In fact, just for fun I added a feature that draws the lines between the stars of the modern constellations.

Ha! I knew it. Well, I didn't know it. But I wondered it, when looking at the distribution of stellar class, which appeared to be very realistic. What I actually thought was, 'Flat did some good math here to generate a realistic distribution!' Of course, using the real deal works as well

Also, neat link, those are nice maps.

Slymodi wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 18, 2018 10:08 pm

I don't understand can u prove via induction :p

All hail Slymodi \o/ I don't understand if this is an E&M joke or just gibberish :T

JoshParnell wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 19, 2018 12:20 am

All hail Slymodi \o/ I don't understand if this is an E&M joke or just gibberish :T

Knowing Sly it was gibberish in attempt to make a math joke

Or he wants you to build a gigantic AC magnet.

In regards to 3d maps, I think a good compromise would be 3d Regions (what you refer to as tiles near the end) but an overall 2d structure. It's more interesting and even a bit more realistic.

theStormWeaver wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 19, 2018 9:24 am

In regards to 3d maps, I think a good compromise would be 3d Regions (what you refer to as tiles near the end) but an overall 2d structure. It's more interesting and even a bit more realistic.

I am personally not a fan of 3D maps at all.

2D maps provide the exact same layout but with less confusion and difficulty in navigation.

For example, EVE's 3D map is just worse than their 2D one. The layout was designed that no stars overlapped meaning that the 2D was just a more readable version of the 3D map.

For the universe structure, I agree that the systems don't need to be displayed on a 3d map. The only time 3d will likely be useful gameplay wise will be in RTS view within a system. Jumping from one stable wormhole to another doesn't convey distance gameplay wise so it is less important to convey that distance on a map. However, the number of jumps to get to a given system are important. So, with this in mind, a 2D map makes the most sense when mapping systems and a 3D map makes the most sense for combat situations, exploration, and other gameplay concepts.

BFett wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 19, 2018 11:28 am

Jumping from one stable wormhole to another doesn't convey distance gameplay wise so it is less important to convey that distance on a map. However, the number of jumps to get to a given system are important.

except if you are using some euclidean distance limited jump drive.
then you definitely need actual distance and not flattened representations.

Black--Snow wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 19, 2018 10:31 am

theStormWeaver wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 19, 2018 9:24 am

In regards to 3d maps, I think a good compromise would be 3d Regions (what you refer to as tiles near the end) but an overall 2d structure. It's more interesting and even a bit more realistic.

I am personally not a fan of 3D maps at all.

2D maps provide the exact same layout but with less confusion and difficulty in navigation.

For example, EVE's 3D map is just worse than their 2D one. The layout was designed that no stars overlapped meaning that the 2D was just a more readable version of the 3D map.

Ah, but I am

I brought it up only because Josh mentioned it being an easy thing to include as an option. By mentioning this compromise here, my preference is more likely to be available as a universe generation option

theStormWeaver wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 19, 2018 12:21 pm

Black--Snow wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 19, 2018 10:31 am

theStormWeaver wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 19, 2018 9:24 am

In regards to 3d maps, I think a good compromise would be 3d Regions (what you refer to as tiles near the end) but an overall 2d structure. It's more interesting and even a bit more realistic.

I am personally not a fan of 3D maps at all.

2D maps provide the exact same layout but with less confusion and difficulty in navigation.

For example, EVE's 3D map is just worse than their 2D one. The layout was designed that no stars overlapped meaning that the 2D was just a more readable version of the 3D map.

Ah, but I am

I brought it up only because Josh mentioned it being an easy thing to include as an option. By mentioning this compromise here, my preference is more likely to be available as a universe generation option

Fair. Though I think conversion between 2D and 3D is pretty much entirely aesthetic anyway, so the generation could even just default to 3D regions on a 2D tile. I don't think adding an extra dimension to generation would be particularly taxing, since the placement of stars seems to be the least taxing thing about generation.

I Just had a thought, you could use color to show Z direction on the 2d map...
say the blue end of the spectrum is galactic up and red is galactic down with yellow being medium ?
and gradients filling in between the colors.

All this chat about maps made me go back and have a look at some of our earlier discussions. Quite interesting to see everyone's positions five years ago...

N810 wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 19, 2018 8:30 pm

I Just had a thought, you could use color to show Z direction on the 2d map...
say the blue end of the spectrum is galactic up and red is galactic down with yellow being medium ?
and gradients filling in between the colors.

Normally I'd agree with this idea, but unless that color difference could be customized, it presents an accessibility issue for the color blind.

Regarding the 3D maps, when playing the X series you are constantly looking at a 2D map. It's not until you get into the game for awhile that you realize there is a button to rotate it 90 deg and look at the 3D structure. Its cool for a bit, you use it for placing stations, but ultimately it's a pretty feature that doesn't add anything to the gameplay.