Return to “Dev Logs”

Post

Re: [Josh] Friday, July 13, 2018

#62
Dwamies wrote:
Fri Jul 20, 2018 5:35 pm
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.
In terms of in-system map, it should totally be 3D with 2D options.
Positioning is a pretty vital part, especially when constructing things and combat.
I am literally and wholly in love with myself.
Post

Re: [Josh] Friday, July 13, 2018

#63
In regards to 2D vs 3D maps, does anyone have some experience with viewing them in VR? We might find 2D maps more intuitive because we're looking at them on a 2D screen, But just as a globe can be more informative than a map at the right scale, could 3D be easier to understand than 2D if we are immersing ourselves in the map itself? I've only a passing familiarity with VR, but with decent, affordable VR probably coming only a year or 2 after LT is released, I'm wondering if our ideas of what is and is not intuitive are limited to our current technology
Image
Challenging your assumptions is good for your health, good for your business, and good for your future. Stay skeptical but never undervalue the importance of a new and unfamiliar perspective.
Imagination Fertilizer
Post

Re: [Josh] Friday, July 13, 2018

#64
JoshParnell wrote:
Thu Jul 19, 2018 12:20 am
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 :lol:

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
dam u forget algo already

that post was just like a flashback to my algo exam
IVE BEEN OUT OF MY MIND A LONG TIME
Post

Re: [Josh] Friday, July 13, 2018

#65
JoshParnell wrote:
Mon Jul 16, 2018 4:13 pm
The thing that worries me about hex is...6 neighbors! Ahh! It feels like too many :?
Thinking about this, what if you had some mechanic to limit the number of connections available randomly, similar to how you do system connectivity?

I.e.: You make it a hex grid, but with irregularity programmed into which connections make it. Say, Hex where 2 connections (of 6 possible) is standard, and 2 standard deviations include anything from 2-4 connections. Then use that same exponential randomness to determine the 3rd std dev w/ any other number of connections, up to 14 or some other configurable number (and down to 1, since 1-border tiles seem like they should be rare, too.)

I come up with 14 thinking of a 3d model of a cube, with one connection at each vertice and one at each central face, but obviously a 3d hex looks a lot different than a 3d cube (and if you've got 3d off in the settings, you'd want to cap at hex/square vertices instead, so perhaps tie the "cap" to the shape of the universe selected, e.g., 14 for a 3-d cube, 4 for a 2d square.)

In any case, the basic concept is that with the NESW design principle, you just end up with some tiles which are missing a connection at random borders. Some ONLY have an NE border, or ONLY an ES border, etc. And others which have NSW borders, or E-only borders, etc.
Post

Re: [Josh] Friday, July 13, 2018

#66
kaeroku wrote:
Sat Jul 28, 2018 8:11 am
JoshParnell wrote:
Mon Jul 16, 2018 4:13 pm
The thing that worries me about hex is...6 neighbors! Ahh! It feels like too many :?
Thinking about this, what if you had some mechanic to limit the number of connections available randomly, similar to how you do system connectivity?

I.e.: You make it a hex grid, but with irregularity programmed into which connections make it. Say, Hex where 2 connections (of 6 possible) is standard, and 2 standard deviations include anything from 2-4 connections. Then use that same exponential randomness to determine the 3rd std dev w/ any other number of connections, up to 14 or some other configurable number (and down to 1, since 1-border tiles seem like they should be rare, too.)

I come up with 14 thinking of a 3d model of a cube, with one connection at each vertice and one at each central face, but obviously a 3d hex looks a lot different than a 3d cube (and if you've got 3d off in the settings, you'd want to cap at hex/square vertices instead, so perhaps tie the "cap" to the shape of the universe selected, e.g., 14 for a 3-d cube, 4 for a 2d square.)

In any case, the basic concept is that with the NESW design principle, you just end up with some tiles which are missing a connection at random borders. Some ONLY have an NE border, or ONLY an ES border, etc. And others which have NSW borders, or E-only borders, etc.
part of the problem is that cubes are one of only two solids which can fill space without requiring other shapes to fill the gaps. (Other one is bitruncated cubic)
You cant fill space solidly with anything but those two without having to use 2+ different solids.


Also, if you define that cubes have 14 neighbors you also have to give squares 8 neighbors, not 4.
One for each side and one for each vertex.
And the 14 neighbors definition also leaves out about half of the members of the 3x3x3 cube around the reference cube.
Which would be 26 in total
Post

Re: [Josh] Friday, July 13, 2018

#67
Hyperion wrote:
Sat Jul 21, 2018 1:40 pm
In regards to 2D vs 3D maps, does anyone have some experience with viewing them in VR? We might find 2D maps more intuitive because we're looking at them on a 2D screen, But just as a globe can be more informative than a map at the right scale, could 3D be easier to understand than 2D if we are immersing ourselves in the map itself? I've only a passing familiarity with VR, but with decent, affordable VR probably coming only a year or 2 after LT is released, I'm wondering if our ideas of what is and is not intuitive are limited to our current technology
Good point, Hyperion. I have a good bit of experience with this in VR. You are right, VR completely reveals 3D spacial relationship information like you get from a 3D map. There is a small tech demo called "Cosmic Sugar", where you manipulate over 1 million realtime points of light that will blow your mind. The Binocular 3D perspective is perfect, you visually see the dots and where they are spatially placed within an entire cloud of other dots. It's so magical people get lost in it for hours, yet looking at footage of it in 2d (see below) is "meh".



If LT is ever available in VR (*crosses fingers*), 3D star maps would be 100% the way to go, period. But, on the pancake version of LT, and other games that have tried it, 3D maps end up being difficult to do well in 2D... because it's ultimately a 2D medium.

Now, just because 3D star maps are visually intuitive in VR, doesn't mean making them useful will be just as simple. Selecting a point is easy, but then working with it in meaningful ways, perhaps tracing routes to get total distance of a jump, or getting further data will need to be addressed.

In some ways, movies are both our friend and foe, because they were able to think through user interactions with this new 3D medium, without the constraints of it actually being feasible. Things like clicking a specific star could easily expand a small bubble view of the star system with tags and flags for planets, colonies and stations. The 3D sky is the 3D limit:

https://youtu.be/C1EeYB8Aog0?t=1m58s

Online Now

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron