Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 11
03-05-2010, 09:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buffalo-6
Having the ability to Roll on the Y axis would solve a lot of the up/down issues and negate the need to spiral all the time.
It's just not possible, the engine can't render the models and keep the spatial awareness needed to keep up with the variables of separate models performing this way
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 12
03-05-2010, 09:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZootCadillac
That's a huge Crock, dragged out as a pathetic excuse for the limitations of the game engine.
Not canon movement? How can you say that? Just because you thing that you see a ship in a TV series always travelling in one plane is nothing more than a relationship between the camera and the ship. How do you know which direction it is travelling with no reference?
Not canon is an insult of an excuse. The fact is the game engine is designed for a 3d world with a ground plane and it's not capable of handling models rotating fully because they are gimbal locked.

Not canon? Give me strength.
Sir,, I find youre argument shallow and pedantic, as well as un-canon, this makes it invalid...........
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 13
03-05-2010, 09:46 AM
In all the many many many hours of footage in the tv shows and movies you can count the number of times that a ship pitched more than 60 degrees on one hand and they have all been linked already. You aren't going to get it - Star Trek works on a galactic plane, ships do not have more than roughly 60-70 degrees of pitch, and when you kill your engines the ship stops.

Now, there have been numerous times that the ships *moved* up or down - with respect to the galactic plane it would be a "hover" motion and we can not do that. I do agree there that we really should be able too. I also wouldn't mind being able to choose to go at a steeper angle by diverting power to engines. We have only seen that motion in extreme circumstances so it *is* possible and it is reasonable to assume that in all but maybe one case that I know of they probably had everything into engines and weapons.

Still, it's probably not going to make you happy either - that means you have little to no shields, repair rate, and your weapons are gimped to do that. But in this case there is an existing license to follow and it doesn't really allow it except under special circumstances. It's part of the situational awareness you are going to have to have with an escort and something cruisers (who are heavy on the beam weapons) are going to exploit whenever they can. The lack of firing arc is the balance for the high damage and equal effectiveness on shields and hulls - we are deadly in a 45 degree firing arc.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 14
03-05-2010, 09:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZootCadillac
It's just not possible, the engine can't render the models and keep the spatial awareness needed to keep up with the variables of separate models performing this way
What he said! Too bad too as it is a real pain to deal with.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 15
03-05-2010, 10:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by strcpy View Post
In all the many many many hours of footage in the tv shows and movies you can count the number of times that a ship pitched more than 60 degrees on one hand and they have all been linked already. You aren't going to get it - Star Trek works on a galactic plane, ships do not have more than roughly 60-70 degrees of pitch, and when you kill your engines the ship stops.

Now, there have been numerous times that the ships *moved* up or down - with respect to the galactic plane it would be a "hover" motion and we can not do that. I do agree there that we really should be able too. I also wouldn't mind being able to choose to go at a steeper angle by diverting power to engines. We have only seen that motion in extreme circumstances so it *is* possible and it is reasonable to assume that in all but maybe one case that I know of they probably had everything into engines and weapons.

Still, it's probably not going to make you happy either - that means you have little to no shields, repair rate, and your weapons are gimped to do that. But in this case there is an existing license to follow and it doesn't really allow it except under special circumstances. It's part of the situational awareness you are going to have to have with an escort and something cruisers (who are heavy on the beam weapons) are going to exploit whenever they can. The lack of firing arc is the balance for the high damage and equal effectiveness on shields and hulls - we are deadly in a 45 degree firing arc.
once again. The ship is seen to move in relation to the camera. Which technically is not there. It's just a viewpoint. If the viewpoint remained fixed then the ships would be seen to move in all manner of directions in order to reach a point in 3D space. The fact of the matter is that it was just TV and cheaper to not have extensive effects. The limitations of TV made the movement what it was. The limitations of the engine make the movement what it is in STO.
It goes against all known science and common sense. Ig the engine had been written for the game instead of the game to fit the engine then we could have easily had proper spacial movement. After all, David Braben managed it quite simply on a BBC Micro 26 years ago.

It's bad enough that this can never be fixed but to pass it off as a game design is just insulting.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 16
03-05-2010, 10:23 AM
I understand they don't want ships flipping upside-down or anything, but I still think they could open up the angle a little more. Maybe 80-85 degrees.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 17
03-05-2010, 10:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenderTheRobot
I understand they don't want ships flipping upside-down or anything, but I still think they could open up the angle a little more. Maybe 80-85 degrees.
Agreed. This is exactly my opinion on it as well.

Wouldnt hurt if they adjusted it just a bit.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 18
03-05-2010, 12:19 PM
it's not a question about using phasers instead of cannons.
Cannons are designed to have a higher dps, with the drawback of having to face your ship. instead of just pulling the tricker, thats the way it's suposed to be.
but when you are unable to face your oponent because of a bug/glitch in the game. then the cannons aren't working as intended.
fix it and i might whant to play after my trial month is over, don't and I'd say it's been fun... but I'd be lying...

Shamrann out...
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 19
03-05-2010, 12:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenderTheRobot
I understand they don't want ships flipping upside-down or anything, but I still think they could open up the angle a little more. Maybe 80-85 degrees.
doesn't matter if you turn opside down... just make it auto level once red-alert is over... or am i totally wrong here?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 20
03-05-2010, 12:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shamrann View Post
doesn't matter if you turn opside down... just make it auto level once red-alert is over... or am i totally wrong here?
It'd be kinda confusing to have ships upside down. Your monitor might show that their right shields are weak, but if they're upside down, you'd actually have to move to the left to hit them. On some compact ship designs like the Defiant it might be difficult to tell if they're straight or upside-down.

Sounds silly, I know.. but that'd be a legitimate problem as a point of confusion.
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 09:55 PM.