Hah, good call!
So the Silver Surfer is actually using an Albuquerque Alcubierre drive (stupid spell-checker). My knowledge of the Marvel verse is limited, but it should be coherent with how he can destroy planets or travel through time.
I believe Marvel flirts with science in the same way chocolate flirts with the concept of a healthy diet. Still, it goes to show that it doesn’t matter if your reasoning is scientifically ridiculous if you have great characters/stories to go with it!
I’ll add this here.
Among the older, more advanced races such as the Centauri and Minbari, their technology is advanced enough to produce gravity by using energy fields produced by their gravimetric drive systems, which are based partly on magnetic and gravitational principles.
From: http://babylon5.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Search?search=gravity+drive&fulltext=Search&ns0=1&ns14=1
2 Likes
1 Like
With the release of Elite:Dangerous some weeks ago and Flavien’s Blogpost bringing the topic back to the forefront I would like to discuss the travel modes in Elite:Dangerous.
Specifically the in Sytem/Interplanetarry drive system. Suprisingly, Elite:Dangerous travel mechanic is astonishingly simmilar to an idea that circulated the Infinity forum(s) for quite some time.
In Supercruise (the name of the Interplanetary drive in E:D) the minimum speed is 30km/s. The maximum speed on the other hand is depended on you distance to the next significant body or site of interest. So if you throttle is at maximum and you point away from a planet you will keep accelerating. In very big multi star systems you may have to travel to the next star.
Celestial bodies always interfere with Supercruise. Points of interest on the other hand only if (or only noticeably) when selected as target.
Another really important limiting factor is the maximum acceleration opposed. This mechanic allows for overshooting, but also makes it really tedious to close in onto a destination. I like that it’s somewhat difficult to not overshoot or undershoot, but it takes away a lot of freedom from the player.
One variation of the system we discussed on here also allowed for interaction of ships while moving. I think this isn’t possible in E:D due to technical limitation.
When talking about in in theory I really liked the system. But while playing it in E:D one giant problem came up. Having the ships maximum speed change constantly made it really hard to tell the real distance between objects. Only the distance displays and “engine sound”, which sounds cool but really overuses our acoustic knowledge of real world machines to “trick”/give us another clue for the actual speed of the ship we are fling, gave me a sense of scale. The supercruise drive ultimately failed in that regard for me. Travelling from planet to planet takes the same time as travelling between a station in orbit of a planet and it’s rings.
I think what lacks is direct control of the player. I’m aware of the fact that with classical drives, the fastest is to accelerate until to the midpoint between starting point and destination and then decelerate.
What it does well on the other hand is, making it easy to rondevous with small or large destinations throughout the system.
I can’t remember the “loss of scale due to changing max speed” argument come up when discussing the Gravitational Disrupted Warp Drive idea. What do the others think about the problems I had with E:Ds System, is that something that was clear to happen and is it something other could look over for the benefit of the system?
1 Like
To understand the movement system a bit better, I looked on YouTube and found a guy doing “hyperspace interdicts”. Fly around in hyperspace (fast speed), waiting for ships to show up on the sensor side panel. Select one (to highlight it, I suppose) and then you can fly towards it. The initial distance was 0.33 light seconds or about 100,000km. He maneuvered and closed to 1,000km at which point his “interdiction tether” was “established”. He had a Frame Shift Drive interdictor module on his ship for that. Then he did some more maneuvering to complete the interdiction and the two ships apparently dropped into normal space for their encounter. His target had been tackled.
But it doesn’t end there, EVE Online style. The aggressor has difficulty closing with his target and the target ship jumps away. The aggressor pursues and retackles him. And so it continues. But I won’t tell you who won.
I think that the whole system is structured around two different coordinate systems per star system. The first is the hyperspace coordinate system where ships go zipping around as nothing more than locations, unable to interact. If they want to interact, they have to drop into normal space, where their game engine allows normal interactions at manageable scales.
Per the above, I think you’re right. For now. Code can always be rewritten.
The only time anyone experienced the PDWS was in Irashi’s flash animation and in the warp prototype, both of which were 2D, third person. Irashi’s animation didn’t really treat the problem of scale, and the prototype made understanding scale fairly straightforward because of the various visual cues.
A 3D game would probably require some sort of third person navigation display that could deliver the same visual cues. Nobody is going to want to manage an intercept through all those orders of magnitude of scale in first person.
In general, Elite:Dangerous’s movement system seems to be focused on players doing specific things. Get to destinations where they can interact with game content, and interdict each other while traveling between destinations. I see EVE Online gameplay.
1 Like
Yes, that’s because you could see the distances on a map. That made it easy to comprehend scale and see the interactions of the different parties. To compare both, you’d need to show the same to the player in 2D, to what he would see in 3D. One way to do that is to zoom very close to the 2D ship and representing all points of interest with arrows on the edge of the screen. Showing the name, distance and time to at current speed.
I think then both suffer the same problem.
My first though was, instead of just displaying distance to target and time to target at current speed, a non logarithmic map, may it be 3D,2D or even 1D, or if someone can convince me a logarithmic map with a bar,arrow or point representing the point the ship would come to an halt relative to the system if it fired full trust retrograde at that moment.
E:D has a 1D logarithmic representation on the left of the Navball. The problem there is, it is relative from the target and not from the ship. It also misses the overshoot representation. Though people found a workaround, the 6-7 second thing.
I’m not quote following you here. Imagine a 3D sphere projected before you. You see a series of concentric spheres, centered on your ship, each labeled with a range. You’re looking at your ship in third person. Scrolling the mouse wheel smoothly and continuously zooms in and out logarithmically on the display, allowing you to choose the scale that you want to see your environs (according to sensor data, of course). Objects that your sensors allow you to see would be displayed in their appropriate locations in the spherical display. If a given object is outside the current set of spheres, the object is not shown. If an object is selected and outside the display, then some ‘off display’ rendition is used, such as an arrow and name.
This is just the 2D representation used in the warp prototype mapped to a 3D representation.
The nice thing about it is that the player can continuously alter the scale of the display in order to see whatever chunk of his ship’s environment that he wants. If 3D dot trails are used as they were in the 2D prototype, then they can be used to understand how other ships are moving.
The spherical display can either be oriented such that the ship is always pointing straight ahead, with the universe rotating around it, or the display can be stable, with the player’s ship changing orientation. The latter would be visually more stable if the ship is maneuvering, and is the display that I would prefer.
As far as being able to arrive at a destination without overshoot, the 3D spherical display should give plenty of information for players to simply fly by the seat of their pants - as they can in the 2D warp prototype. You can see your range to a planet by just zooming in on your ship, so all you have to do is start slowing down when it looks like you’re close enough. Relying on a first person display to judge arrival at a destination while moving at extreme relative speeds is just awful. There’s nowhere near enough sense of motion, forcing players to watch range countdowns and such. That’s not the experience I would want for my players. A third person display is critical - a third person display with a smoothly-adjustable scale.
“Problem” is that E:D has something similar implemented. It works best in a target rich environment and just falls apart in super cruise. In the options you can alter from Logarithmic to Linear and there are buttons that allow you to switch trough, I think, 5 different zoom levels. It isn’t a sphere but a flat plane with “sticks” indicating vertical displacement, I’m sure you know what I’m talking about. The orientation is fixed to the ship, which makes it great for aliening to a target but bad for orienting inside a solar system.
But again it has the problem of changing scales. That’s what I’m trying to get across. I played E:D now for quite a couple of hours and the only way I can manage to rendezvous with anything is with the HUD target data.
And even though I like space, there’s something really uncool about looking at numbers go down, I rather navigate by map as you described. But haven’t been able to in E:D.
What I’m trying to say is that I’m over challenged to grasp the space, the scale in a natural way. Without reference points that isn’t possible. I think navigation inside the Infinity:Battlescape solar system should be as fluid and natural or at least similar to navigating your car or walking around. Only that way will navigation be incorporated into the fight. This is due to the player having options instead of just: Fly to that target. If he can “feel” where everything is situated, even when piratically blind, he can make more interesting and fun choices.
For that to happen there needs to be at least “some” kind of universal reference. The size of objects, the distance between a grid space, the maximum speed of your ship … all are variable in E:D … it drives me crazy.
A map could solve that problem. But for that it must be much better and have some kind of size reference. A fixed grid or something.
The biggest problem is. Once the planet is out of view you are practically blind. At that stage there needs to be more then just a bunch of appearing and disappearing brackets, a list and a dysfunctional display to navigate.
And in my opinion 3D displays on 2D screens have a limit. I haven’t seen one where I could quickly identify the position of a target similar to a 2D minimap. With quickly I mean under half a second. Finding the target mostly isn’t a problem, but then I have to find the base plane and inspect the height of the bar. You didn’t say how vertical displacement is visualized in your example.
There’s one exception. In case I can rotate the sphere by rotating the ship, target position acquisition time is fast enough. They do work well in such cases. But those vertical bars always deny me the ability to truly know where everyone is relative to me, even in a hectic situation. They clutter the display and distract me when I try to track a target on the map.
I think a map that is relative to the solar system instead of relative to the ship is better when navigating. I would even prefer a set of 2D maps. One XY and another XZ. It’s old school I know, but I think determining where everything is in all 3 Dimensions is faster that way.
[quote=“Lomsor, post:71, topic:455”]
“Problem” is that E:D has something similar implemented. It works best in a target rich environment and just falls apart in super cruise.[/quote]
I don’t believe Elite:Dangerous is interested in actual navigation all that much. I just watched a video of a guy demonstrating how to efficiently approach a space station in an effort to foil pirates. In that video, he relies entirely on the HUD. I watched the video several times, trying to follow along in the radar display and was unable to make heads or tails out of it.
I attribute that to two things. You identified the first.
I completely agree with that.
The second major problem is that the radar is small. The warp prototype was entirely about navigation, so the navigation aid filled the screen. If I was navigating in Elite:Dangerous, I’d want a navigation display to fill my screen.
It may be that the five steps in zoom would be sufficient if the above two points were addressed, but the warp prototype provided dozens of zoom steps, allowing the player to intuitively understand how the zoom steps related. That is, no change of scale was so great that the player lost track of their sense of things. If anything, it was the reverse, with it being a bit tedious to get to the desired scale.
Doesn’t one of the scale choices include the entire planetary system? This is why there were so many zoom steps in the warp prototype - I couldn’t possibly know what scale is important to you. In fact, there was an intercept aid that dynamically adjusted the zoom so that your selected destination remained at the edge of the map. Most people didn’t care for that, probably because they would quickly lose their sense of what was going on. That’s why having a map making lots of changes tends to be a bad idea. Maps should be stable.
A combat radar and a navigation display (a map) are two very different things. I haven’t given a lot of thought to a combat radar. That depends on the combat system.
As for vertical displacement in a map, that’s just something to play with. Perhaps shade each translucent sphere a different color and have the icons color according to how close they are to that sphere boundary. Perhaps lines to the surface of a sphere. Perhaps lines to a fixed plane set by the ship. Perhaps lines to a fixed plane set by the planetary system (your ship would have a line). Perhaps some depth cueing with fog or translucency or some such thing. There are many possibilities. Then there’s VR, where there would be reduced need for such things.
I’ll observe that the Elite:Dangerous depth-cue lines are far too noticeable. Such things should be subliminal. Which is why I talk about icon tinting and fogs and such.
[quote=“Lomsor, post:71, topic:455”]
I would even prefer a set of 2D maps.[/quote]
I think that would cover a lot of ground for navigation in a lot of planetary systems. But as one video observed, traveling in the plane of the planets is the best way to get picked off by pirates. Ships need to leave that plane. I suspect that just having a stable map would provide you with most of what you’re after.
I meant if you hadn’t any technical help. Compare that to a walk on earth. Once you put your map away you still have things you can orient yourself to. A star or gas giant is a good analogy, you can orient yourself to that. But once that gets too far away, in space, there’s nothing else left … maybe the rest of the stars, navigation by the stars is possible, as shown by sailors hundreds of years ago, but requires skill.
No, not that I noticed.
Yeah you are right. That’s why I’m emphasizing the importance of it, especially if you want awesome chase situations while travelling at very fast speeds.
I don’t know. I would need to try that out. I could artificially make E:D radar stable by stabilizing the ship in certain axis.
With a set of 2 2D map leaving the plane is no problem. The X series used such a system:
Had to go ingame to take some screenshots … couldn’t find any:
XZ
XY
Now. I don’t know if looking at a map is any better then looking at empty space. If it is essential for navigation it needs to be accessible, but it also needs to be not distracting from the rest of the experience …
You’re not going to make me go off and implement a 3D version of the warp prototype are you? I’ve got woodworking projects to finish up…
2 Likes
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHGGG!!!
*breaths*
1 Like
Explain yourself 
!
From the discussion from New blog post: Elite Dangerous and other space games:
Made me find this blog post that is related to the current discussion: http://enemystarfighter.com/blog/2014/7/6/you-are-here
You are talking to somebody who would be embarrassed to say how many thousands of hours he has poured into that game…
And I’m sick of pouring over those menus. 
2 Likes
Space Engine allows free flight in a planetary system, and it also allows you to show or hide orbit lines.
I think that the display with the rings is an obvious improvement in feeding my ability to understanding my place in the system. It is the size of the rings that allows me to figure out what’s going on. The planets themselves are too small, but the rings are vast and easy to work from.
A little inventiveness should uncover other structures in a planetary system that could be displayed in an effort to help with navigation, orientation and such. Gravity fields, warp disruption fields, magnetic fields, stellar winds, etc. Some of this stuff was in the warp prototype, but because navigation was fairly straightforward there it was used more to understand how far out various fields had an effect.
In EVE Online, skybox nebulae are used to help with a general sense of orientation at a given destination.
Another thought is allowing the player to artificially inflate the scale of bodies in the system. If every object in the system was scaled up by 50 or 100 times, the player would be able to navigate by those great spheres in the night sky. That could be true in both the first person cockpit view and the third person navigation view.
Again, VR offers the promise of dramatically better situational awareness.
2 Likes
This is a good point about using VR instead of a map, and one that has always bothered me with space shooters, actually.
Instead of (or maybe in addition to) tactical radar, a VR overlay can give info about what is where (varied icons changing size/transparency depending on distance).
But then, what for the elements outside of the current field of view? There are two option, I would say:
-
We can have the VR use a fish-eye-like view, where what is on the side or behind you is displayed on the borders of the screen, as if they were on a 360° view. So if a slightly deformed icon is near your left, it means the object is at 90° on your left. If a very deformed icon is arcing around your entire right side, it means that the object is at 175° at your right, almost behind you.
Some flight sims use a simpler model where the icon is stuck at the border of your screen, but this doesn’t indicate how far behind you the object is. Some even include an arrow to show how far behind it is, but I personally feel it isn’t as optimal a solution as fish-eye VR. -
Or we can have a second set of icons representing what is behind you. So if something is at 120° at your right, you will see it at 60° on your right, on your screen, but with a different icon. This is what Shattered Horizon used for its combat radar, and apart from the problems inherent with a separated combat radar, it worked pretty well. They used plain circles for what is in front, and hollow circles for what is behind.
Also, I had advocated in the past for making system-wide structure appear as warp is going faster (and you are moving away from celestial bodies), to give a better impression of speed and movement. But you are right, this could actually work as a settable display for interplanetary navigation.
I’m just going to bring something up. How long would it take in infinity battlescape to cross the whole solar system? If I’m not mistaken, the ships and assets from battlescape will be reused in the MMO, where there is a whole galaxy, not just a solar system. If travel times need to be different for the two games, then how will it be explained? technically and lore wise. Sorry if this is a stupid question.
I’m playing through Freelancer (again), and I’ve been bumping up against this issue of target icons just sitting on the screen border. They’re triangles in Freelancer, which would translate to this idea really easily: the more obtuse the angle, the more “behind” they are. Distance could then be represented by opaqueness.
Agreed. I’m more than a little embarrassed that I didn’t think of that myself. Displaying the orbit trails very quickly gives you a sense of position in the planetary system. Planet icons could also appear on the HUD once they’re too small to resolve.