Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,060
# 21
07-15-2012, 06:41 PM
I use this crazy thing they used to call "imagination" and assume that my starship is still a good distance away from the surface when I get into transporter range. Sometimes the map design fails and you get a moon sitting in front of some space debris, but generally speaking, I find the system scales acceptable.

It's the maps that kill the frame rate and the nebulae that end in a straight line that bug me.
_________________
Nebula coffee is the best coffee
Ensign
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 10
# 22
07-15-2012, 06:56 PM
Actually the floating point precision problem is a known issue for many games. Even at just a couple of million units your ship would began to visibly shake. Take Earth for example, it is 6,381 km in radius at the equator. This means they would have to create Earth in-game at 6,381,000 units in size to make it to scale (if 1 unit = 1 meter, Tacofangs would have to verify the size they use). At that size and if it's placed in the center of the system, you would shake constantly. Realistic sizing is great in theory but unusable in practice when talking about planetary and star scaling. Some of the stations could use some size tweaking but it is a non-issue for me. Oh, btw, floats are 32 bits on all machines, that's what causes the inaccuracy even though it is 80 bits in the processor.

Last edited by lancersolurus; 07-15-2012 at 06:59 PM.
Empire Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,641
# 23
07-15-2012, 07:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by meurik View Post
I have no real issue with the scale of objects in "System space", but in Sector Space, it's certainly noticable.

Flying past Deep Space K-7 in my Intrepid, I felt as thou the station was of a pretty good scale. When entering the "Sherman System" however, the station felt huge

TL;DR: Scale IS important, and adds to the immersion factor. Something which clearly, the devs at Cryptic have forgotten. Sure, you write alot of good stories on the episodes. But you forgot the immersion of most players wanting to play Star Trek Online, to get the FEEL of Star Trek. The feel of flying through space at faster-than-light velocity etc. The revamping of the "astrometrics" in Sector Space certainly helped, but it could also be better. Tired of the age-old argument of "good enough", when things CAN be done better. For the betterment of both the players, and your potential profits.

Crappy game = less customers, less income
Good game = more customers, more income, word-of-mouth causes increased customer interest
Geez... you're just claiming that they don't care about immersion without any real proof but your opinions...

That's just sad. The devs may have a thick skin for this because they need to, but it's still just sad.

/small rant

Anyway, just because it should be done better, doesn't mean it can be done. There's money involved in virtually every aspect the devs change. If it's not cost-effective, or worth the investment for THEM, the decision is heavily skewed in the opposite direction.
Was named Trek17, but still an author.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 855
# 24
07-15-2012, 08:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lancersolurus View Post
Actually the floating point precision problem is a known issue for many games. Even at just a couple of million units your ship would began to visibly shake. Take Earth for example, it is 6,381 km in radius at the equator. This means they would have to create Earth in-game at 6,381,000 units in size to make it to scale (if 1 unit = 1 meter, Tacofangs would have to verify the size they use). At that size and if it's placed in the center of the system, you would shake constantly. Realistic sizing is great in theory but unusable in practice when talking about planetary and star scaling. Some of the stations could use some size tweaking but it is a non-issue for me. Oh, btw, floats are 32 bits on all machines, that's what causes the inaccuracy even though it is 80 bits in the processor.
I don't think anyone was arguing that everything had to be 1:1 to scale in the game.

Take Earth for example, with your 6,381 km radius. Give it a scale of 1:100 ingame, and your big "6,381,000 units" becomes "63,810" units. If you apply the same logic to both planets and ships, you'd end up with an accurate scale between the two, even if it's not 100% true to real life size.

Now, even if we use such a thing as a Shuttle, which generally range in the 15-30 meter area, and give them 1:100 scale (and thus able to fit in your ships shuttlebay), that comes out to being 0.15 to 0.3 units. But being that they want shuttles to still be visible, they'd probably use a 1:10 scale, giving it 1.5 to 3 units instead. A Galaxy Class at 643 meters, would end up at 6.43 units. I don't think anyone wants a shuttle that is half the size of a Galaxy Class, do we?

Quote:
Originally Posted by trek21 View Post
Anyway, just because it should be done better, doesn't mean it can be done. There's money involved in virtually every aspect the devs change. If it's not cost-effective, or worth the investment for THEM, the decision is heavily skewed in the opposite direction.
There are many things in STO that could've been done better, and yes, to a certain agree, some things ARE GETTING better. It may not be cost-effective to redo the current game to make things more accurate, but that's what sequels /expansion packs are for.

If Cryptic had the financial backing from PW that DStahl claims they had, and if Cryptic had the will and dedication to make a "Star Trek Online 2", one would hope it would end up being made alot better than what STO was (and still is to a certain degree).

Last edited by meurik; 07-15-2012 at 08:14 PM.
Empire Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,641
# 25
07-15-2012, 11:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by meurik View Post
There are many things in STO that could've been done better, and yes, to a certain agree, some things ARE GETTING better. It may not be cost-effective to redo the current game to make things more accurate, but that's what sequels /expansion packs are for.

If Cryptic had the financial backing from PW that DStahl claims they had, and if Cryptic had the will and dedication to make a "Star Trek Online 2", one would hope it would end up being made alot better than what STO was (and still is to a certain degree).
The problem being, what you think STO should be, or should have been, may or may not have been as successful as STO. Talking about it and actually going through with it are two entirely different things.

And since Cryptic/PWE have STO, most likely with no expansion pack or sequel (we'd have gotten word by now if they intended to), it's not really gonna happen.

And on a side-note, my opinion is that STO is a truly enjoyable game. Was since launch, and only got better since, including now with Season 6.
Was named Trek17, but still an author.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 877
# 26
07-16-2012, 12:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by meurik View Post
I have no real issue with the scale of objects in "System space", but in Sector Space, it's certainly noticeable.

Flying past Deep Space K-7 in my Intrepid, I felt as thou the station was of a pretty good scale. When entering the "Sherman System" however, the station felt huge

Space stations, like K-7 and DS9, shouldn't even be represented in sector space at all. Only the star systems in which they are located. With the Map function and pop-ups offering us information and buttons to visit the stations therein. And you're right about K7 being huge. It was never even as large as DS9. It's should be scaled against the TOS Constitution to get it right. Because that is the only true reference we have for it. Even if our newer, larger starships are, well, really big when next to K7, that is how it's supposed to be.

Some starbases may be an exception because they needn't be in a star system at all. So may well stand alone in sector space.

STO Forum:
Where the Human Adventure is Just Beginning!

Exploring STO Since Pavement.
Tier 2 Constitution for Fleet Refit!
Give the Art Team time to fix the K't'inga << Link
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 855
# 27
07-16-2012, 12:56 AM
Also, as a pet-peeve of mine...

DS9 should not be it's own "system" since it's located in the Bajoran System.

From Sector Space, it should be:

- Approach Deep Space Nine
- Enter Bajoran System

And no visible DS9 model in Sector Space.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,819
# 28
07-16-2012, 02:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by meurik View Post
Also, as a pet-peeve of mine...

DS9 should not be it's own "system" since it's located in the Bajoran System.

From Sector Space, it should be:

- Approach Deep Space Nine
- Enter Bajoran System

And no visible DS9 model in Sector Space.
No, really... Somebody needs to watch DS9 before making complaints. It's perfectly fine the way it is.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, lovely, I can't even requote the Douglas Adams quote I used to have here I WANT IT BACK!!!!
Dalo Lorn
DaloLorn, StarCraft 2 Roleplayer and proud of it.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,114
# 29
07-16-2012, 05:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalolorn View Post
No, really... Somebody needs to watch DS9 before making complaints. It's perfectly fine the way it is.

I don't understand what you're saying here - Deep Space 9 *is* in the Bajoran system. They move it out of the planet Bajor's orbit to the Denorios Belt in the pilot episode, but it's still within the Bajor star system.

I don't think we really need to have both the Bajor star system and DS9 on the galaxy map. I'd be fine with one object named "Bajor / DS9".
Career Officer
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 73
# 30
07-16-2012, 07:37 AM
Its not in many games that the scale is accurate, but I have no problem with the station or planets.
Though when it came to scaling, I would like a total re:amp of the Sector space. Even if they are near ok now, it still feels like the sector spaces are in a box.
Right now in Regelus sector and Sirius feels like its over flowed with Federation ships, one for ever meter.

Perhaps remove the borders and double the size of each Sector space with more neutral* planets (* Planets that don't need to serve a mission purpose, but can be used later for that).

Feels like every planet in every sector space serves a mission of some sort, something I don't see necessary.
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 On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:47 PM.