I'd like to note that I remain entirely consistent on that "zoom in, zoom out" thing.
Also: Spore. Wow. Spore.
In terms of in-system map, it should totally be 3D with 2D options.Dwamies wrote: ↑Fri Jul 20, 2018 5:35 pmRegarding 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.
dam u forget algo alreadyJoshParnell wrote: ↑Thu Jul 19, 2018 12:20 amFlatfingers wrote: ↑Wed Jul 18, 2018 11:58 pmI 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.
All hail Slymodi \o/ I don't understand if this is an E&M joke or just gibberish :T
Thinking about this, what if you had some mechanic to limit the number of connections available randomly, similar to how you do system connectivity?
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)kaeroku wrote: ↑Sat Jul 28, 2018 8:11 amThinking 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.
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".Hyperion wrote: ↑Sat Jul 21, 2018 1:40 pmIn 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
I believe the proper terminology is
Tired? Don't you mean **ILL