Has anyone else noticed the FSD countdown...

Killerhurtz

K
NeilF said:
Yes, this topic was done to death ages ago.

The countdown should be integer only, and her voice should simply match the integer number shown. This is exactly what you'll see in basically every rocket launch in history because it's intuitive and it makes sense.

So we should see:-
4 - She should say 4
3 - She should say 3
2 - She should say 2
1 - She should say 1
...She should engage....


But alas, FD have never agreed so here we still are :/ Clearly FD (think they) know better than NASA :)

Can't recall who it was, but someone even knocked up a great youtube video showing exactly this but hiding the non-integer numbers etc... and it feels/looks much better for it! As you'd expect.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that , you saved me going to trawl youtube for cultural examples.
If they are in full on denial mode I guess there no point.


Anyone know how I can hack up my sound files ??
replacing her with 5 seconds of silence seems like a plan atm.
 
Last edited:

Aleksej

Aleksej
Last edited:

NeilF

NeilF
Aleksej said:
Great video demonstration that everything is perfect with the current countdown.
Click to expand...

Huh? It's showing video manipulated from the game, hiding the non-integer value?

I think the manipulated video looks far more intuitive, and demonstrates what's wrong/counter-intuitive with the existing countdown. The fact this alternative (showing only an integer) also just happens to marry up with what you see in standard launches (read NASA endorsed here) is not surprising :)

The non-integer element is confusing and TBH just rings of programmer left to their own devices... Wow this looks cool! I'll put/leave that in!


Any, no matter how many people find it counter intuitive it's clear it's in to stay now... (for some reason)
 
Last edited:

Killerhurtz

K
So when do you plan to start cheering happy new year ?

31/12/2015 23:59:56 3
31/12/2015 23:59:57 2
31/12/2015 23:59:58 1
31/12/2015 23:59:59 Happy new year

or

31/12/2015 23:59:57 3
31/12/2015 23:59:58 2
31/12/2015 23:59:59 1
01/01/2016 00:00:00 Happy new year

The top example is equivelent to what the FTL countdown announcer is doing

The bottom example is right.
 
Last edited:

xondk

X
I like this countdown method more actually, kinda like the when you hear the tone the time is........

And that's the way it is now, when she finishes pronouncing the number it is that number.
 

Aleksej

Aleksej
Killerhurtz said:
So when do you plan to start cheering happy new year ?

31/12/2015 23:59:56 3
31/12/2015 23:59:57 2
31/12/2015 23:59:58 1
31/12/2015 23:59:59 Happy new year

or

31/12/2015 23:59:57 3
31/12/2015 23:59:58 2
31/12/2015 23:59:59 1
01/01/2016 00:00:00 Happy new year

The top example is equivelent to what the FTL countdown announcer is doing

The bottom example is right.
Click to expand...

Your countdown is totally different because it is a forward countdown not the backward one. 23:59:59 is 59:59 (still 59), however 5:99 is already 5 for the backward countdown.
 

777Driver

777Driver
xondk said:
I like this countdown method more actually, kinda like the when you hear the tone the time is........

And that's the way it is now, when she finishes pronouncing the number it is that number.
Click to expand...

Same here, it works the same way in Aviation. The V1 (Go/Abort) call is slightly early, So V1 is reached by the time the word is finished.
 

Killerhurtz

K
Aleksej said:
She finishes announcing four at about 4.00, three at about 3.00. What's the problem with that? You will never here engaging then as you will already be in SC or HJ.
Click to expand...

What you're saying here is untrue.
There are large pauses between the numbers.

It is not taking her 1 whole second to say each number.

She does not finish anouncing on the digit.
She starts anouncing one second ahead with each announciation starting one second out of sync.
 

NeilF

NeilF
Aleksej said:
Your countdown is totally different because it is a forward countdown not the backward one. 23:59:59 is 59:59 (still 59), however 5:99 is already 5 for the backward countdown.
Click to expand...

Sorry, that doesn't make any sense?

It's actually a very good analogy. If we consider launch time (New Year) is set for midnight...

The traditional countdown (read Nasa' endorsed) would be:-
Time: 23:59:56 | Countdown Shown: 4 | Announcement "Four"
Time: 23:59:57 | Countdown Shown: 3 | Announcement "Three"
Time: 23:59:58 | Countdown Shown: 2 | Announcement "Two"
Time: 23:59:59 | Countdown Shown: 1 | Announcement "One"
Time: 00:00:00 | Countdown Shown: 0 | Announcement "Ignition" (Happy New Year!)

^^ All pretty logical no?

ED's countdown would be at best:-
Time: 23:59:56 | Countdown Shown: 3.99 -> 3.00 | Announcement "Three"
Time: 23:59:57 | Countdown Shown: 2.99 -> 2.00 | Announcement "Two"
Time: 23:59:58 | Countdown Shown: 1.99 -> 1.00 | Announcement "One"
Time: 23:59:59 | Countdown Shown: 0.99 -> 0.00 | *cough?*
Time: 00:00:00 | Countdown Shown: 0.00 | Announcement "Ignition" (Happy New Year!)

And if there's really any doubt that the non-integer element is simply not required I'd just suggest looking at any NASA launch count down. They will all (traditionally) only have integers to make it far more intuitive/logical with the announcement mirroring those integers perfectly - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShRa2RG2KDI&t=9m46s

There's a reason countdowns have been done like that for decades...
 
Last edited:

Aleksej

Aleksej
Watch the videos shared by Neil. She starts saying 4 after the first digit becomes 4, 3 after the first digit is 3. And you won't be announcing all numbers one by one. You will always make a short pause after them.
 

NeilF

NeilF
Aleksej said:
Watch the videos shared by Neil. She starts saying 4 after the first digit becomes 4, 3 after the first digit is 3. And you won't be announcing all numbers one by one. You will always make a short pause after them.
Click to expand...

Really don't get your point?

Ignoring what the ED countdown is doing now (with all its wacky non-integer overload) it simply should:-

Show: "4" | Say "Four"
Show: "3" | Say "Three"
Show: "2" | Say "Two"
Show: "1" | Say "One"
Show: *what ever you like* | Say "Engaged"

It's makes sense and it's traditional (look at NASA videos) so people are used to it...


But anyway, we're wasting our time. No matter how counter intuitive or illogical it is, FD seemingly are enamoured by their "unique" approach so there it is. The fact people post their bewilderment about it over and over doesn't matter :)

But I'll leave the final word to NASA once again - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShRa2RG2KDI&t=9m46s
 
Last edited:

Aleksej

Aleksej
Killerhurtz said:
What you're saying here is untrue.
There are large pauses between the numbers.

It is not taking her 1 whole second to say each number.

She does not finish anouncing on the digit.
She starts anouncing one second ahead with each announciation starting one second out of sync.
Click to expand...

Well, try announcing the countdown yourself in a steady, calm manner. You will most probably find out that it requires a little bit less than a second to announce the number and the rest time is required for the steady and calm countdown.
 

Killerhurtz

K
Aleksej said:
Well, try announcing the countdown yourself in a steady, calm manner. You will most probably find out that it requires a little bit less than a second to announce the number and the rest time is required for the steady and calm countdown.
Click to expand...

I can count to ten out load clearly without rushing in about 3.5 seconds
so about 3/10 to 4/10 of a second to pronunciate each number.

The voice in the countdown is similar


I studied the countdown closely last night.
the first thing on screen is 5.000
at the same moment the voice begins saying "four"
she finished saying four about a third of a second later.

other numbers are similar

5.000 - 4.7000 "Four"
4.000 - 3.6000 "Three"
3.000 - 2.7000 "Two"
2.000 - 1.7000 "One"
1.000 - 0.4000 "Engage"

In order for the spoken numbers and countdown to be in sync
The countdown needs to be
5 , 4 , 3 , 2 , Engage ( with a pre boom engage )
or
5 , 4 , 3 , 2 , 1 , Engage ( with a post boom engage )


Personally I feel the hyper boom is a real nice effect and the "Engage" only detracts from it

I would go with
5 , 4 , 3 , 2 , 1 , ( let the boom speak for itself )


Of course there is no physical law to determine when a number is spoken to be in sync.
and it could be argued that the top digit 4.999 is what is being linked to with the "four".

with such a subjective topic we can only refer to what is expected due to cultural experience.

The most common countdown for most people is a countdown to new year or other happy event.
In such scenarios its typical for a number to be announced in such a way that
3 is said at the moment exactly 3.000 seconds is left
2 is said at the moment exactly 2.000 seconds is left
1 is said at the moment exactly 1.000 seconds is left
then the event happens ( new year )
everyone cheers momentarilly post event

If you want to design a statement such as "Engage" pre FTL that statement must replace the spoken "1" otherwise you will displace all the spoken digits one seconds out of sync from what is culturally expected for a countdown and make the countdown look out of sync.
 
Last edited:

NeilF

NeilF
^^ Completely agree. And whenever this matter has come up before, generally it seems people are just confused by the "unique" approach FD have taken with their countdown due to the non-integer part of the countdown, and the fact then the voice then appears to basically a second out.

So yes, I agree:-
Show: "4" | Say "Four"
Show: "3" | Say "Three"
Show: "2" | Say "Two"
Show: "1" | Say "One"
Show: *what ever you like, probably nothing* | Say "Engage" or whatever...
....and time the jump itself with what ever looks/sounds best.​

Usual links (showing exactly this approach):-
 
Last edited:

Aleksej

Aleksej
Killerhurtz said:
I can count to ten out load clearly without rushing in about 3.5 seconds
so about 3/10 to 4/10 of a second to pronunciate each number.

The voice in the countdown is similar


I studied the countdown closely last night.
the first thing on screen is 5.000
at the same moment the voice begins saying "four"
she finished saying four about a third of a second later.

other numbers are similar

5.000 - 4.7000 "Four"
4.000 - 3.6000 "Three"
3.000 - 2.7000 "Two"
2.000 - 1.7000 "One"
1.000 - 0.4000 "Engage"

In order for the spoken numbers and countdown to be in sync
The countdown needs to be
5 , 4 , 3 , 2 , Engage ( with a pre boom engage )
or
5 , 4 , 3 , 2 , 1 , Engage ( with a post boom engage )


Personally I feel the hyper boom is a real nice effect and the "Engage" only detracts from it

I would go with
5 , 4 , 3 , 2 , 1 , ( let the boom speak for itself )


Of course there is no physical law to determine when a number is spoken to be in sync.
and it could be argued that the top digit 4.999 is what is being linked to with the "four".

with such a subjective topic we can only refer to what is expected due to cultural experience.

The most common countdown for most people is a countdown to new year or other happy event.
In such scenarios its typical for a number to be announced in such a way that
3 is said at the moment exactly 3.000 seconds is left
2 is said at the moment exactly 2.000 seconds is left
1 is said at the moment exactly 1.000 seconds is left
then the event happens ( new year )
everyone cheers momentarilly post event

If you want to design a statement such as "Engage" pre FTL that statement must replace the spoken "1" otherwise you will displace all the spoken digits one seconds out of sync from what is culturally expected for a countdown and make the countdown look out of sync.
Click to expand...

Don't you think that count-up is slightly different from count-down?
 
Last edited:

Killerhurtz

K
Aleksej said:
Don't you think that count-up is slightly different from count-down?
Click to expand...

I don't really understand what you mean by count-up.

Is "count-up" an American term for the moments before new year as in the "count-up to midnight" ?
in the UK we call it the countdown to midnight.

Just different labels for the same thing.
Personally as numbers are descending it makes more sense to call it a countdown.
 

Aleksej

Aleksej
NeilF said:
Sorry, that doesn't make any sense?

It's actually a very good analogy. If we consider launch time (New Year) is set for midnight...

The traditional countdown (read Nasa' endorsed) would be:-
Time: 23:59:56 | Countdown Shown: 4 | Announcement "Four"
Time: 23:59:57 | Countdown Shown: 3 | Announcement "Three"
Time: 23:59:58 | Countdown Shown: 2 | Announcement "Two"
Time: 23:59:59 | Countdown Shown: 1 | Announcement "One"
Time: 00:00:00 | Countdown Shown: 0 | Announcement "Ignition" (Happy New Year!)

^^ All pretty logical no?

ED's countdown would be at best:-
Time: 23:59:56 | Countdown Shown: 3.99 -> 3.00 | Announcement "Three"
Time: 23:59:57 | Countdown Shown: 2.99 -> 2.00 | Announcement "Two"
Time: 23:59:58 | Countdown Shown: 1.99 -> 1.00 | Announcement "One"
Time: 23:59:59 | Countdown Shown: 0.99 -> 0.00 | *cough?*
Time: 00:00:00 | Countdown Shown: 0.00 | Announcement "Ignition" (Happy New Year!)

And if there's really any doubt that the non-integer element is simply not required I'd just suggest looking at any NASA launch count down. They will all (traditionally) only have integers to make it far more intuitive/logical with the announcement mirroring those integers perfectly - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShRa2RG2KDI&t=9m46s

There's a reason countdowns have been done like that for decades...
Click to expand...

ED's countdown would be at best:-
Time: 23:59:56 | Countdown Shown: 3.99 -> 3.00 | Announcement "Three"
Time: 23:59:57 | Countdown Shown: 2.99 -> 2.00 | Announcement "Two"
Time: 23:59:58 | Countdown Shown: 1.99 -> 1.00 | Announcement "One"
Time: 23:59:59 | Countdown Shown: 0.99 -> 0.00 | Ignition
Time: 00:00:00 | Countdown Shown: 0.00 | Happy New Year!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom