Lieutenant
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 49
# 11
11-28-2012, 04:10 AM
i do my doffing while travaling. then again my ship also does warp 20 without slipstream.
Ensign
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by maxvitor View Post
This has been asked for before and apparently it's beyond the game engine's capability.
I get confused when people use certain words which actually indicate they don't know.
I've been developing and programming for 43 years. Actually, the game engine seems quite capable. Outside the # of polygon limits, there seems little limit to the exterior shape of an object within the engine in sector space (rendering bridge space "inside" the ship may be another story, think of the ship like a building, instead of a person, I may be new to the game; but, I've seen the polygons inside myself a few too many times already. The exterior view of an object in space is defined, by pov and distance to the object and its 3D shape, and at a certain distance a simple 2D raster image on a backplane, your monitor; the moon is a rather large one (up close). It's all a matter of scaling, and defining boundries. 3D boundries by the engine are not defined until needed or at a certain distance. The interior is not resolved unless the surface is something like glass (which is technically invisible to rendering the POV andd adding "glass effect"). I've seen this 3D environment divided in many unique and creative ways. The ships external viewport, from the bridge perspective can be a 2D window render from a standard POV, or a controlled static camera POV; better yet, tie it to a navigation console which provides sector viewing which is the current in game prespective without a bridge.
The bridge itself could be located in a properly scaled version of sector space unviewable from sector space (anyone explored the boundries of sector space), one can probably transition to anything the developers conceive. If the bridge is too large to be scaled in local POV sector space, it can be anywhere. Chosing the bridge POV simply acts a change of POV, with the Fore screen view being a small 2D raster imaging, of the 3D Ship's POV, in Sector space, no biggie.
Each station could access the various keybind commands related to RPG space. or the pop-up windows which handles various aspects of ship operations. You'd be basically a flying building in space that looks like a scaled ship when viewed externally. Many options too numerous to mention here, but no additional mapping space would be needed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by maxvitor View Post
Remember that your bridge is a discrete "ground" map with your character's costume as an officer in uniform, in space the map is the sector you are in and your character's costume is the ship itself. In order to have control of the ship in space while on the bridge would require 2 maps running simultaneously, literally 2 overlapping instances of the game client running at the same time.
From what I said, your statement is a non-sequitaur, it is a lot more than what you just said. It's obvious the game can render from many POV's. Basically the Bridge space would be a, non-viewable from any Ship's POV, sector space. But, to visualize that space, imagine you weren't restricted by distance to see that space.. you might, if you flew to the right place in Sector space, and the developers didn't hide it, fly your ship into your Bridge at scale in Sector space (which may be much larger). Since I'm not aware of the engines physical virtual rendering limitations, nor exactly "how much" space is available", I'm not sure of the scaling differences and therefore how much "space" a bridge would actually need. But, based on your statement, I'm presuming having "real" ships (buildings) in space, which contains rooms, are not practical.... presuming.


Quote:
Originally Posted by daveyny View Post
Most likely, as far as They are concerned, there isn't enough demand for Bridge View Navigation...
I don't know from what information you base this statement. They may have other totally unrelated reasons. Like working out all the bugs in the existing version. That's always a wise choice, and in my short experience with this game, there is certainly plenty to do in the bugs area. One would prefer no bugs; but, issues do crop up and they're obviously committed more to expanding 'known' space, which players at high levels would certainly demand.

Quote:
Originally Posted by daveyny View Post
Most players enjoy flying their ship from sector to sector as is.
Again, I don't know your source. To be safe, say 'many' not 'most'. In the short play time I've had, the lack of bridge experience has been one of the most detracting aspects of the immersion. Though, those flaws haven't kept this game space and the immersion from entering my dream world. Playing this, and watching the various episodes from ST, STTNG, Voyage, etc. has provided some interesting dream time, certainly the line blurs when I sleep which is a testimonial of the immersion of this game.

Quote:
Originally Posted by daveyny View Post
And it has been stated many, Many times by the DStahl, that the game was designed from the outset to function in this manner...
And again, as a programmer, this is not a reason, it's an excuse. My current experience says that Sector space is actually mostly empty, has very little to render, and is actually a very under utilized part of the game, with respect to what can be done there. Very little computational use of the engine is made.
If indeed one's ship is merely the size of a character, or a little larger or smaller in sector space. One technique is to set aside a small section of 3d grid space, unaccessible by ship, within sector space, and it becomes a static upscale of the interior of a ship, say the largest needed in space. Since all this map space is located in my computer anyway, it's nothing for the engine to populate this based on local parameters. This space becomes a navagable room which represents the interior of one's ship. Moving into this space to interact, is no different than you showing up in mission space with interactive object, only these are permanely defined in the local computers sector space. Anyone interested in the details of how exactly this is done can contact me; otherwise, this could get real boring, real fast as my experience shows me, no one wants to know how the thing works, they just want to use it. Disagree with me at *that* level, not through assumptions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by daveyny View Post
It Is NOT in Their interests to go back to the drawing board to change this.
That's questionable as the changes I suggest vary little from copying pieces of code from already existing modules and templates vs the time and energy to create a new episodes. Plus it *would* provide additional missions playground space. Like an PvE episode based solely on the ship, and it's holodeck, etc. Mission space, so far, appears extremely small, and with plenty of room for a scale ship in it as part of the mission.

Quote:
Originally Posted by daveyny View Post
If They don't see a profit in it..., it's probable that it won't be done.
Ironically, this may be true... and if so, it's unfortuante if they've moved from creating the Star Trek vision, and immersion to being purely profit motivated; and since they keep working on making the immersion part of the game (at least at these lower levels, like I'm playing now), this becomes questionable also. I suspect that one of the main draws of the game is immersion, and in that case... it's profitable to not lose site of that goal. This would be a welcome addition, no matter how much many will accept *not* having a Bridge POV aspect of the game.
To end, I'm still playing tutorials, I've already had the lack of bridge, the subject of this thread, interefere with immersion, as well as a few bugs, and lack of thourough or a coherent source of information on game play. If I quit, it will because, as a programmer, I have little tolerance for easily fixed oversites and can quickly become overloaded with errors and bugs in the system as they become glaring flaws. With little or no recourse, as suggesed by others in this forum... like (hello? are the developers listening), and getting no response. I prefer a place where good advice, and those who appreaciate a player with high level programming experience giving away detailed and targeted information on what goes wrong. Let's just say, I've yet to see a 'null' pointer error in this game; and if I do... bye bye; because they seldom get repaired (for obvious reasons), and the reason it exists in the first place, usually means there will be more until the game falls apart.

Nuff said. My three cents worth.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,676
# 13
12-08-2012, 08:57 PM
You can claim to be Q himself for all it matters in this forum, the fact is Developers rarely respond to these forums even if they actually read them and the whole idea of bridge navigation has been discussed ad nauseum. Bridge/interior maps can be shared, which creates unique problems for isolating controls to the ships owner, it can be done, but not without radical redesign of the game client. What I've been repeating is what the developers have said in their blogs and the few miraculous times they actually post here, that bridge navigation can't be done, so deriding me for relaying what we've been repeatedly told accomplishes exactly zilch.
Too many time we read of players familiar with a different game coming in here asking for this game to be changed to what they are familiar with, I'm guilty of that myself, looking at a Volkswagon and expecting a Ferrari, the game is what it is, WYSIWYG.
There is no such thing as a perfect program, especially in the gaming venue, but if you have specific data or suggestions that can help them do their jobs you would be better advised to contact them directly than posting a novella in the forum that nobody here can do anything about.

Welcome to the forums, have a nice stay.

Last edited by maxvitor; 12-10-2012 at 09:25 AM.
Ensign
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by maxvitor View Post
You can claim to be Q himself for all it matters in this forum, the fact is Developers rarely respond to these forums even if they actually read them and the whole idea of bridge navigation has been discussed ad nauseum. Bridge/interior maps can be shared, which creates unique cproblems for isolating controls to the ships owner, it can be done, but not without radical redesign of the game client. What I've been repeating is what the developers have said in their blogs and the few miraculous times they actually post here, that bridge navigation can't be done, so deriding me for relaying what we've been repeatedly told accomplishes exactly zilch.
I understand: Game developers rarely respond to these forums.
I understand: What I said, remains true. My suggestion doesn't require remapping controls, just multiple entry points, like the exchange, one would have the same controls one has in that sector space, war zone, etc. The bridge map would exist in the same map space, just invisible. Just like my ship exists in map space. The only thing that changes is perspective, and POV's (point of view), a 3D rendering term. Although, I do admit they probably have maximized the size of the map for sector space and have little room for adding bridges without losing some space. And, that may be a good point, as it would require a complete remap of sector space. Do-able, but time intensive, and as I stated, I don't know what resolution they're using, and at what scale. Personally, I think in the smaller war maps, a bridge would be practically redundant. A pop up window of bridge would be more feasable, and then you're correct, two mapped spaces. Maybe just a bridge overlay, with the ship controls solid, hiding the current ship maneuvering controls with the forward screen on bridge being transparent? Like like an options window, the actual bridge controls on the window could, just as an example, be made to overlay in full screen size with every where it's black, it would be made tranparent. or, easier yet, make several bridge HUD's. Even at cryptic level, they may be amiable to parameter passing to the space window... but I digress. Plus, perfect world developed this using cryptic's engine, so, it would be a coordinated effort.

They could just start, at first, with a rudementary map of bridge space, one common for everyone. I'm sure you've noticed that some maps are larger than others. So, one map, just bigger, with a bridge in it, and the ability to switch between bridge POV, and space & ship POV.

So, if it accomplishes zilch, then it's just a comment; It wasn't intended as an attack on you personally, just a disagreement with your hypothesis. And, just because none of their developers apparently understand what I'm saying, according to you based on their statement that it can't be done; doesn't mean I'm incorrect.


Quote:
Originally Posted by maxvitor View Post
Too many time we read of players familiar with a different game coming in here asking for this game to be changed to what they are familiar with, I'm guilty of that myself, looking at a Volkswagon and expecting a Ferrari, the game is what it is, WYSIWYG.
If WYSIWYG, then there would be no changes to the game at all. This is a blanket statement that can't be supported. I'm sure they could add a chair to the dining room, or make all the chiars capable of being sat in. Which, BTW, also needs a little work; but, that's another issue very minor. And, I'm not basing this on another game; I'm coming at this from the perspective of a programming guru who's familiar with 3D modeling, and observations of this engines capability. Which is quite nice actually, and very versitile.

Quote:
Originally Posted by maxvitor View Post
There is no such thing as a perfect program, especially in the gaming venue, but if you have specific data or suggestions that can help them do their jobs you would be better advised to contact them directly than posting a novella in the forum that nobody here can do anything about.
Ah, now I can totally agree with that! However, my comment was made here because there's no point in squelching hope when there's a perfectly viable reason for hope to exist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by maxvitor View Post
Welcome to the forums, have a nice stay.
Thank you, I do not find a friendly argument to be detrimental. However, I do get confused by certain things people say sometimes. Your statement confused me, as I stated. I apologize if my social skills don't meet your expectations. <- Now you can take that as a jab; or, a recognition that I don't always say things perfectly well. Or, it's both.

So, are you saying you do 'know', I don't know what I'm talking about, and that I'm incorrect? Or do you only know what the game developers have said; because, I'm well known amongst certain development areas for making fruitful and "game changing" decisions. I do this both for games, applications, databases, and websites gratis, for my love of the product, and for the betterment of their clients.

But, since, my 'specific' details here are only sufficient to show that it 'can' be done; and, the audience that the concept of a bridge is feasable; which states nothing about the knowledge and skill about the developers; sometimes, we are so involved with the minutae of the program, we get tunnel vision. But, that said, after I've played a bit longer, I will no doubtedly visit the cryptic forums, and do exactly as you suggest. I was merely responding to the smashing of hope.

And, thank you, I do hope to have a 'nice' stay. So far, I'm enjoying the heck out of this game... as it is. And have only found that the lack of a bridge detracts from immersion. And, as far as typing a novella... I talk a lot in real life also; and I type at 60wpm+. So I can type a conversation in chat in real time. Complete with punctuation and whole words.

The reiteration of details, was my attempt to make sure the concept was understood at a layman's level.

No offense intended. Thank you for your feedback.

PS: BTW, I think your response was fruitful; I really think the best approach would be to add additional HUD's to the ship/space map. Each bridge HUD needed only visible, available and loaded at the time you pick your character and/or ship. But, if we're talking about a space one could walk around with one's character. The only option would be the first suggestion.

Last edited by cyberpapa; 12-12-2012 at 09:01 AM.
Ensign
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 6
# 15
12-15-2012, 06:38 PM
What would be really cool is a fleet mission where the leader is the captain of a ship and the rest of the fleet are its officers. Each person is only capable of doing certain things like the guy in the engine room is only person to change spped, the guy at the controls is the only person to move the different directions and only person to see the outide of the ship ecept for the captain. That way the mission will only be successful if the fleet communicates everything.
Ensign
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 17
# 16
12-20-2012, 10:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sg1fanatic View Post
What would be really cool is a fleet mission where the leader is the captain of a ship and the rest of the fleet are its officers. Each person is only capable of doing certain things like the guy in the engine room is only person to change spped, the guy at the controls is the only person to move the different directions and only person to see the outide of the ship ecept for the captain. That way the mission will only be successful if the fleet communicates everything.
Yeah, I was just thinking that yesterday. What I don't get is why I can't go the the bridge while I'm traveling. They'd just have to pop up the alerts, with a possible setting to only announce Red Alerts, and allow the ship to travel between A & B, as others have suggested. With that we could at least work on Duty Rosters by ship station, visit the ready room, work with the common bank, the scientist, etc. If one accepts the red alert, then of course, at least for now, beam the captain to the sector space ship view or pop you up in the ship after you load the battle zone. These are great ideas; but, also as was suggested, they apparently fall on deaf ears. (sigh).

Still, nothing wrong with dreaming... if we don't express what we want, they'll never do it. There is no lack of good suggestions in these forums. Some are ridonculous; others, quite do-able, and good.

I thill think there's more could be done by utilizing the Hud in other modes. I guess they do like how fast Sector's load compared to engagements. Some can take a few minutes, sector travel is in seconds. Server load, etc. If everyone went to their bridges, and they worked, load times would increase... still, developers could add features such as this, autoloading certain features at game play. Yeah, a lot of good ideas; but, without discussion of viability of game engine mods it can be discouraging.
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:47 PM.