Please don't reinvent the wheel.

[knowles2]

Clearly not a UX man.

History is on your side, of course, we're 90+ years into the motor vehicle and our primary input is still via hard controls, some higher end cars have adopted voice, for which VA fills that gap.

If I could live for another thousand years and saw that our greatest development was a button to eject cargo, I'd be mildly disappointed.

In another thousand years we will probably have a full network neural interface technology that will meld our bodies with our ships which we will control with our thought alone. There would be no need for a mouse, or buttons or any physically interfaces whatsoever. But designing a game along the same lines is impossible.

Frontier approach is 100% correct in a my opinion.

 

[AnnuverScotinExile]

To play Devils Advocate here, can you explain the implementation of the debug camera using these same "rules" (in bold in your quote), otherwise it just seems like your only applying this logic to the systems you want, and therefore the point about "mouse cursors on screen - why not" is valid, it would be a detractor from the game "lore" in order to add gameplay functions, just like having a debug camera rather than a physical camera drone.

The debug camera was not designed to be part of the game - the clue is in the name. They gave it to us at minimal cost to stop the whingeing on the forums. So its design has no real bearing on this conversation.

Now, you could ask why miners have to scoop rather than have tractor beams. The standard answer is the lore-based one - they don't have scoops in the Elite universe. Which is fine. Until someone asks for performance enhancers.

 

[AndySpwn]

You could think of it as a remote drone that you pilot using your in ship controls, sort of like the WSKRS from SeaQuest (only with an extremely short range), you just can't see it and your interior at the same time.

I also don't see the appeal of a cursor, point and click system for in ship controls. Maybe if FD were able to go to the trouble of rendering the pilots hand in stead of a cursor, such as Minority Report computer interfaces.

 

[apraksis]

Because that's not how we wanted the Elite future to be like.

Oh well, this argument fits to all critic throughout the whole forum.
Kills all discussion.

Please tell me again, why should we make some proposals for improving the game?

 

[Things]

Now, you could ask why miners have to scoop rather than have tractor beams. The standard answer is the lore-based one - they don't have scoops in the Elite universe. Which is fine. Until someone asks for performance enhancers.

Weren't there tractor beams in FFE?

 

[spacejumbofudge]

Oh well, this argument fits to all critic throughout the whole forum.
Kills all discussion.

Please tell me again, why should we make some proposals for improving the game?

Is there any need to be so rude? Just because console versions are coming out everyone gets their conspiracy on about all past design choices.

It's pretty good to get the designer give a response to why it's like that, if you all respond like this we won't get rationale any more and all we'll be left with is the conspiracies.

Turn on head look in the game, look down, see the pilots hands on the HOTAS, look back up, understand the UI choices. That doesn't even take into account the benefits to VR.

 

[Loskene]

In another thousand years we will probably have a full network neural interface technology that will meld our bodies with our ships which we will control with our thought alone. There would be no need for a mouse, or buttons or any physically interfaces whatsoever. But designing a game along the same lines is impossible.

Frontier approach is 100% correct in a my opinion.

Actually neural interfaces are getting to the point where you can pop on a simple headband and control a basic game. Star Trek didn't even have that until the 24th century, and we already have.
Maybe that is in elite already though, I mean I've never actually seen my pilot take his hands off the controls except to relax for a second. All those buttons and keys dotted around the cockpits could just be manual backups in case the neural interface doesn't work. I know the real reason is just that he hasn't been given any other idle animations yet, and I'd like to see him eventually poke and prod at the inside of the cabin or visibly react to canopy breaches and such, but it's not a bad start.

 

[apraksis]

Is there any need to be so rude? Just because console versions are coming out everyone gets their conspiracy on about all past design choices.

It's pretty good to get the designer give a response to why it's like that, if you all respond like this we won't get rationale any more and all we'll be left with is the conspiracies.

Turn on head look in the game, look down, see the pilots hands on the HOTAS, look back up, understand the UI choices. That doesn't even take into account the benefits to VR.

It has nothing to do with rudness nor with unpoliteness. I'm just suprised the way proposals are handled. A simple 'No, we won't do this' more or less.

 

[Armour]

Oh well, this argument fits to all critic throughout the whole forum.
Kills all discussion.

Please tell me again, why should we make some proposals for improving the game?

Yeah! You're obliged to implement any silly idea that I spew out, because I paid some money! What's going on Mike? The customer is always right, or something.

 

[Xzanron]

No it wasn't. It was designed to be used without a mouse, that's all. More specifically we didn't want you using an operating system interaction method to control the ship's functions when you're supposed to be pretending to be a pilot handling a ship with a bunch of HOTAS like controls. Thus everything was designed to be done through HAT switches and buttons. We did not want a mouse cursor on top of the screen in space flight as that's the exact opposite of how a pilot in this universe would interact with their ship.

I can understand that. It makes sense for when you're in the ship piloting.

I feel there are two distinct UI use-cases though. Flying and not-flying. The flying part should be fully controllable and optimised for HOTAS, just as you envision. The non-flying should be optimised for "computer", i.e. the best interface for one of them, which is still a keyboard and mouse, should therefore have all the usual UI elements like tool-tips, click-able columns, keyboard shortcuts etc that people are used to.

I actually think the 3-view option for in-flight is a very elegant and a functional solution to that problem and I really do admire how much can be done with it from a HOTAS. The issue I have is that I'm forced to use it for things that would be better done with the mouse, things I would do while not actively flying my ship. For example when I'm flying along in super-cruise in a straight line for 100,000Ls, or the docking computer is flying the craft, I'd like to swivel my seat to the computer terminal and start doing non-flight stuff, e.g. checking prices, configuring module settings, checking my stats or the local news, reviewing my cargo manifest. All things that are much better done with keyboard/mouse. Just as I don't expect to drive my car with a mouse/keyboard, I don't expect to program my sat-nav, or checking my fuel comsumption by turning my steering-wheel and pushing pedals.

If the intention was to get the "pilot" UI fully working and working well, before looking at the "non-pilot" UI, then I can understand that, but no one has ever said that, and I'm left with the impression that in the future you envision for ED, pilots operate Excel 3001, and Firefox 9150 using a HOTAS.

Longer-term, how does this translate/scale to multi-crewed ships? Will the navigator/engineer/gunner also have to use a HOTAS to do non-flight operations?

 

[novonic]

I love the UI, it feels good, the HOTAS design methodology is spot on. Pressing an MFD button or touch screen is wasted movement and means you are momentarily out of control. And also if you are maneuvering hard the g-forces will prevent your hands from leaving the throttle or stick.

You'll note that the mouse becomes active in the station services interface, which is where you would expect to use a touchscreen interface.

 

[Simon853]

With regards to th OP's point about route hops remaining, it would make sense to put a hop count next to the route waypoint marker in the left HUD nav list.

 

[CmdrPSB]

Oh well, this argument fits to all critic throughout the whole forum.
Kills all discussion.

Please tell me again, why should we make some proposals for improving the game?

There was a proposal, it was discussed and Mike outlined the reasons for the design. Just because you think something will improve the game doesn't mean that it will, or that others will agree.

 

[spacejumbofudge]

It has nothing to do with rudness nor with unpoliteness. I'm just suprised the way proposals are handled. A simple 'No, we won't do this' more or less.

It was far from that, he described the rationale for their design descision. It was to fit with the simulation of a pilot using HOTAS. How is that a simple no?

 

[apraksis]

Yeah! You're obliged to implement any silly idea that I spew out, because I paid some money! What's going on Mike? The customer is always right, or something.

Maybe you can then tell me why we should make proposals for improvements when the design/features are already fixed?

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

It was far from that, he described the rationale for their design descision. It was to fit with the simulation of a pilot using HOTAS. How is that a simple no?

Well, I don't have the time to explain what I meant. You obviously didn't get it.

 

[Armour]

Maybe you can then tell me why we should make proposals for improvements when the design/features are already fixed?

Generalise much? Just because one idea gets shot down in flames, doesn't mean that every idea will. It might help to pay some attention to the intentions of the game designers so that proposals don't run counter to the direction the game is obviously heading in.

 

[Cmdr Pli55ken]

Oh well, this argument fits to all critic throughout the whole forum.
Kills all discussion.

Please tell me again, why should we make some proposals for improving the game?

There's stuff that fits with the vision and stuff that doesn't. You can ask for orange leather in a Ferrari and you might get it. You can ask for a motorized winch and you probably won't.
FD is going for immersion and making Elite into a point and click adventure like Eve (or a spreadsheet manager like the X series) is not the way.

 

[CmdrPSB]

Maybe you can then tell me why we should make proposals for improvements when the design/features are already fixed?

The developers have shown time and again on the forum if there's a sensible argument for an improvement they'll take it away and consider it, and even implement it. "I want the whole UI rewriting because I want that" isn't a sensible well-argued proposal.

 

[RingoD123]

FD is going for immersion.

Have to disagree with this for the following reasons:
1) Magic dividends to pay wingmen to protect a trader - just so its "easier" to quickly group up and share profit - kills any would be in game immersion from trying to find security ships that are willing to undercut another security ships protection costs, never mind the fact that were supposed to believe a station is willing to pay over the odds for your goods just because you travelled there with 3 other people in your wing....How and Why does this make any difference to the station buying your good? McDonlads don't charge me less for my meal because I have passengers in my car do they?
2) debug camera instead of camera drone - nothing kills immersion more than flying ethereal cameras that don't actually exist.
theres probably more that I cant think of off the top of my head atm too.

 

[Cmdr Pli55ken]

How and Why does this make any difference to the station buying your good?

Because they can be more assured that they get the needed goods. In the real world people pay premiums for express/insured delivery, too.
Makes a lot of economic sense, too: If the alternative means that your factories are standing still (which costs a LOT of money) then paying a little more to be sure that you actually get what you need is a winning proposition.

debug camera instead of camera drone

It's a goody for taking pictures, not a gameplay mechanic. You might as well complain about the screenshot feature. Makes about as much sense.
(...and as Mike said. The hint is in the name)