Page 7 of 20 FirstFirst ... 3456789101117 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 293

Click here to go to the first staff post in this thread.
Thread: System map overhaul needed

  1. #91
    I would be happy with the same 2d map with the ability to plot waypoints to all the bodies in the system that I want to visit. It seems like that would be much easier to implement and would actually be very useful. Visit the system map once. Plot your most efficient course. Explore.

  2. #92
    Originally Posted by veryDead View Post (Source)
    I would be happy with the same 2d map with the ability to plot waypoints to all the bodies in the system that I want to visit. It seems like that would be much easier to implement and would actually be very useful. Visit the system map once. Plot your most efficient course. Explore.
    I'd like to have my next body selected & ready to go while the current body scan completes, a similar requirement to yours. We already have route plotting & a 'resume course's system in place with the galmap.

    That would be something where an orrery view would be helpful, possibly by zooming in on a system dot on the galmap. Again though, it would be a lot of work for a relatively minor benefit.

  3. #93
    Originally Posted by Dale Emasiri View Post (Source)
    I was a tad on the stompy side with those hopes and dreams wasn't I? So let me try to explain. There's a whole load of improvements that can be made to the current system, some additions, some refinement. This could happen in the next year of updates, so I won't say no on that. There's a lot of buzzing going on in the office as people are working hard the game. Loads being done across the game. We don't have unlimited funds, resources, and time so we have to be smart about what we do. What is being suggested and discussed in this thread (by some people) is going into the territory of a 3D orrery map with data points and contextual information accurately plotted. Essentially a to-scale replica of the system as an interactive (or at least a move/pan-able) entity.

    Rebuilding the entire mapping system is an unlikely thing right now, which is what would probably be required (again, speaking from the perspective of a layman) for such a gargantuan task. Improvements and refinement, I could see that happening as you sometimes see in milestone updates. Rebuilding...? not for the foreseeable.
    I know recources are limited. But this isn't really re-mapping everything.For all I care, you leave the uss-system in place because I understand that that is a system in and on itself, that you can't easily replace and have those USS's pop up in the system map at the flick of a switch. I don't want that. What do I want?
    Just the Orrery map and nothing more! So I can actually see the trajectories of all bodies! I mean, the data is already there. Every planet has it's orbital period, inclination, and all that. You have the data. Is it really that difficult to transform that into an orrery view? (For all I know, it might! But then please tell us.)

    And once again, for the record, just ignore all non-persistent parts of it (you know USS, conflict zones etc) but just the star, planets, moons. So basically, turn the system map into 3d. Pretty please, with sugar on top?

  4. #94
    Originally Posted by Dale Emasiri View Post (Source)
    Rebuilding...? not for the foreseeable.
    That's the worst bit of information in a long time. IMO there is no system map right now, just a spreadsheet with some graphics.

  5. #95
    Dale, I think what is important that you *introduce* Orrery map and then take it from there. Nav points could be first thing to add to it. And we could take from there.

    It is massive task, but all we ask from FD - and we are bunch of so nice gamers here - is to make this first step. Believe us, we would be like this massively happy.

    Also check out my suggestions thread people added lot of good ideas there, but you can pick most obvious ones to start with.

    https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showth...35#post6093435

  6. #96
    This.

    Dale: "We don't have unlimited funds, resources, and time so we have to be smart about what we do. "

    Now, replacing a functioning system such as the system map (I know some people would like it differently) with a new system, when there are so many other things on the roadmap which can be done, its pretty obvious why it's unlikely to happen. There will probably always be something more important than re-engineering completely the system map again.

  7. #97
    Originally Posted by Dale Emasiri View Post (Source)
    There's a lot of factors to consider with something like this. What does it really add?
    It would greatly improve discovery, the best you can do at the minute to discover all planets is to zip back and forth targeting the nearest body. Knowing where the planets are in space would allow a more optimal route to be plotted.
    Originally Posted by Dale Emasiri View Post (Source)
    it has to be easily usable. There's so much data to show, so many different aspects of the game that need to be/could be visualised to give a greater experience. This is a huge technical challenge not just from a "how do we display the stellar/planetary bodies" angle, but also you have to consider what data would be relevant to explorers
    I don't believe it needs to show any more information than the current system map, or is technically challenging, it's been done before in Elite and I see Star Citizen now takes it to a whole other level. There's nothing wrong with the way the system currently displays information, it just needs to plot the planets in 3D space instead of flat, it's probably a few man days work to recode the current map, provided the object positional information is directly available.
    Originally Posted by Dale Emasiri View Post (Source)
    what would be relevant to mission/passenger runners, combat pilots, system states, trading, and so on. There's so much data in the game, and it would be great to show it all.
    If these are concerns the team are raising when the subject is raised, then the problem is probably being over thought. Compared the other things backers are requesting, I'd say this is possibly a quick win that doesn't involve many developers.
    Originally Posted by Dale Emasiri View Post (Source)
    But each thing is a "cost" as far as development, querying the data, system resource, and also screen space.
    If development cost is an issue, make the planetary database structure publicly available, with a test sample and let the community develop it. I'd wager Elite Dangerous was backed by a lot of developers who would love to add many of the things that were originally proposed but have yet to be developed.

  8. #98
    Originally Posted by Riverside View Post (Source)
    I think that's a matter of opinion. From a usability perspective I'd rather click on a bunch of planets in a line than try to select them from their locations on their orbit lines. Right now I can quickly look at (a real world example for me) the size of the closest landable moon to each of several gas giants in a system. An orrery view would be terrible for that.
    Dear gods, it's not an either / or situation but a user made choice of which one to look at. Elite Frontier two (90's), managed to offer both. Both maps are useful in their own fashion.

    Originally Posted by DrewCarnegie View Post (Source)
    You're gonna be really upset when you find out about the London Underground 'map'
    You mean even tho it's not to scale it still shows where they are in relation to each other? Charing Cross takes you to Trafalger Square takes you to Leicester Square, or how Morden is totally south of the map and Seven Sisters is north correlating to their positions in the real world. Sheesh!

  9. #99
    Originally Posted by Dale Emasiri View Post (Source)
    I was a tad on the stompy side with those hopes and dreams wasn't I? So let me try to explain. There's a whole load of improvements that can be made to the current system, some additions, some refinement. This could happen in the next year of updates, so I won't say no on that. There's a lot of buzzing going on in the office as people are working hard the game. Loads being done across the game. We don't have unlimited funds, resources, and time so we have to be smart about what we do. What is being suggested and discussed in this thread (by some people) is going into the territory of a 3D orrery map with data points and contextual information accurately plotted. Essentially a to-scale replica of the system as an interactive (or at least a move/pan-able) entity.

    Rebuilding the entire mapping system is an unlikely thing right now, which is what would probably be required (again, speaking from the perspective of a layman) for such a gargantuan task. Improvements and refinement, I could see that happening as you sometimes see in milestone updates. Rebuilding...? not for the foreseeable.
    I haven't read elsewhere in the thread to see if someone else suggested it yet, but a good interim step would be to let non-VR players rotate the system view around like VR players can, via mouse click-and-drag (rotating around the point that was clicked on or the current selection, similar to the Galaxy map view). You could even implement the data points & accurate plotting (by which I sorely hope you mean POIs and finding materials and the like) via this system until the full orrery comes to fruition.

  10. #100
    Originally Posted by veryDead View Post (Source)
    I would be happy with the same 2d map with the ability to plot waypoints to all the bodies in the system that I want to visit. It seems like that would be much easier to implement and would actually be very useful. Visit the system map once. Plot your most efficient course. Explore.
    +1 rep. Precisely. And given that the data is available in-game, right now in the Nav panel, updated on the fly relative to your position in the system, I honestly don't get how that data can't be used to create a 2D representation of the system. And being able to plot a route to chart the most efficient course through a system just seems like a no-brainer to me.

    Then again, maybe it's true what I've been told - "I just don't understand game development"

  11. #101
    I've also posted previously regarding plotting route navpoints and so forth- but FWIW I'll go ahead and repost the desire here as well.

    I think it's important that people have more choice available to them, as I stated before. Having the ability to choose between 3D (Orrery) or Flat (current) maps would be useful, and I think it would also help those with the desire to use a navpoint/wavpoint plotting system to chart courses. This is NOT an autopilot, but rather just the ability to plan out trips. This is useful for almost anyone who travels more than a couple systems away- or even trades locally between systems to determine priorities in navigation.

    Currently, we must keep opening GalMap/SysMap numerous times even in a simple trip. This does not increase "difficulty" in the game, it just makes it tedious and annoying. For an Explorer, it's very aggravating to not be able to fine tune long-distance trips- currently we're stuck with what the system picks out for us.

    As a side note, I'd like to thank those who have contributed ideas- I think it's great to have a community that actually provides solutions and ideas rather than just "problems". Always easier to point out problems than it is to provide solutions or ideas, IMO.

    Doesn't take much brain activity to moan and complain.

  12. #102
    Originally Posted by Ian Phillips View Post (Source)
    Thats what a map is :facepalm:

    Scale isn't actually needed on a map.
    Rubbish.

    The 'System Map' is not a 'map' - it's actually just a System Catalogue ( a list of objects that appear in that system )

    It doesn't tell you where you are or how to get to anywhere - so it can not be used as a navigational aid - ie it can not be used as a map!

    Even simple hand drawn pirate map has compass point / directions and distance ( 10 steps from big rock towards the palm tree then 4 steps towards the setting sun ).

  13. #103
    Originally Posted by EUS View Post (Source)
    Where's this to do list you keep referring to?
    It's on the to do list.

  14. #104
    A simple 2D top down view with distances between orbit lines is all I am asking for. All these other ideas seem great but if they complicate the matter to the point of it never being implemented then they could be looked at later.

  15. #105
    Originally Posted by Darkslayer View Post (Source)
    A simple 2D top down view with distances between orbit lines is all I am asking for. All these other ideas seem great but if they complicate the matter to the point of it never being implemented then they could be looked at later.
    Except that there's no 'top' in a lot of systems. Sol is essentially a flat plane, but multi-star systems can have bodies orbiting at much more extreme relative alignments.
    Distances between orbit lines don't work for places like Alpha Centauri where the defining characteristic of the system is emptiness, not to mention orbits can be highly elliptical which further confuses things.

Page 7 of 20 FirstFirst ... 3456789101117 ... LastLast