Defaulting ship orientation

[HoshiQaVam]

Orientation in space, and subsequently space games, is a bit of a pet peeve of mine.

The general opinion people seem to have is that "there is no up in space". The result is that there is no general default orientation for space stations, or spacecraft, which makes space flight incredibly messy.

To put that in Elite terms, when you exit super cruise near a space station, you have absolutely no idea what direction the landing hatch is located until it's close enough to determine what direction the station is spinning in - by which point you have to perform additional manoeuvres to make sure you're flying toward the right side.

This becomes even more problematic when attempting to describe direction and orientation to someone else. If you have a wingman, how can you tell them that the enemy is "up" if your wingman can't see what your own orientation is?

The problem is, there really is no problem determining your orientation in space. It is, in fact, very easy to determine.

All known stars orbit the galactic centre counter-clockwise. That makes it pretty easy to determine the galactic North. Likewise, all known stars spin counter-clockwise on their axis, making it incredibly easy to determine the Solar North. All known planets spin counter-clockwise on their axis, making it easy to determine their North. etc etc.

Current space craft don't bother with this as they just use the position of star constellations to work out the same thing, but that obviously becomes hugely problematic when you travel away from the sun. Regardless, all current space craft have an attitude indicator, a 3d version of an aircraft's event horizon indicator, so that the pilot can tell where "up" really is.

Since we already use attitude control, and since it is clearly so important, why does it always get forgotten in space games?

Surely it would be far more logical for all space stations to be orientated on a fixed plane so that the landing hatch always faces Solar North.

By the same logic, surely a ship's computer would attempt to determine the Solar North the second it exits hyperspace, and super cruise.

With Solar North determined, a ship's computer would surely prompt the pilot to rotate the ship to a neutral plane, or do it automatically.

And surely, a ship's orientation would be one of the most important instruments.

In Elite, the holograph of your ship on the right of the radar could indicate this quite easily.

 

[AtomicHorror]

Regardless, all current space craft have an attitude indicator, a 3d version of an aircraft's event horizon indicator, so that the pilot can tell where "up" really is.

All current spacecraft are restricted to LEO or worse, suborbital. Do their horizon indicators align to the galactic plane or to Earth horizon? I don't know the answer but I would guess it's the second one.

 

[HoshiQaVam]

All current spacecraft are restricted to LEO or worse, suborbital. Do their horizon indicators align to the galactic plane or to Earth horizon? I don't know the answer but I would guess it's the second one.

Current spacecraft use star constellations to determine orientation, but whether the neutral plane is the same as the galaxy, the Sun, or the Earth, I am not sure. Either way so long as it is consistently used it doesn't really matter.

However, if you're using a ship that can exist in other solar systems, that consistent point of reference obviously has to become something that is not dependant on your actual location.

So if the use of a hyperdrive means you're always in a solar system, then the rotation of the system's star (or stars) is a pretty obvious consistency regardless of which solar system you're in, or even galaxy.

It's probably safe to assume that future technology would be sophisticated enough to detect the magnetic fields of all objects within a solar system, so the ship's computer wouldn't even need to "see" the local star.

 

[Clausum]

You should read through the Ender's Game novel.

I believe he tackles this exact issue during the first few chapters.

 

[Omegahunter]

All known stars orbit the galactic centre counter-clockwise. That makes it pretty easy to determine the galactic North. Likewise, all known stars spin counter-clockwise on their axis, making it incredibly easy to determine the Solar North. All known planets spin counter-clockwise on their axis, making it easy to determine their North. etc etc.

While this could be thought of as a general rule. Not all known planets spin counter-clockwise.

Both Venus and Uranus (over 90 degree tilt) have a retrograde rotation.

Are we even able to view the closest stars in enough detail to know their rotation directions?

Is there any law of physics that prevents a star system forming with a retrograde rotation?

 

[Mephane]

I am strongly against any form of standardized up/down orientation in space; I am sick of this phenonemon being there in 99% of all space games, and am so glad that ED currently contains nothing like it.

 

[Omegahunter]

I am strongly against any form of standardized up/down orientation in space; I am sick of this phenonemon being there in 99% of all space games, and am so glad that ED currently contains nothing like it.

As he said this is Elite not Star Trek.

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

Not a planet or course.

Source

The revolutions around the Sun of all known asteroids are direct; of the known periodic comets, only a few, one of which is Halley’s Comet, move in a retrograde orbit.

 

[HoshiQaVam]

Physics states that a spherical object should always naturally spin counter-clockwise in space. Likewise, all objects should naturally orbit counter-clockwise.

There are conditions that can reverse that, Venus's dense atmosphere is one possible theory for it's clockwise spin for example, so there may well be stars out there with a clockwise spin, but you can circumvent that by including additional data.

For example, the star's spin (or the central orbit in multi-star systems) gives you the star's tilt, which in turn gives you the solar plane, which in turn gives you a vertical axis to match stars and/or match galactic orbit.

Either way, you get the same result, and it is always consistent regardless of where you are.

As he said this is Elite not Star Trek.

Elite is more science-orientated than Star Trek, so that's a rather moot point. There are lots of little details in Elite that are the way they are because it's ultra-realistic. Space stations spinning for gravity, for example.

It seems a little un-unusual to go to so much trouble to ensure realism and logic and then through it completely out the door for something as important as flight control.

 

[zaccheus44]

I think the difference is immersion. People live in a world with a very self evident up and down. In space this is not self evident. If they put in a system that made ones orientation more obvious it may be more realistic but it will feel less like being in space. I think it's a stylistic approach to make the game more enjoyable. I'm surprised that there are so many sound effects. Ie ships exploding. I would assume for immersion purposes they would have made that silent. But maybe that'll be an option in the final release

 

[HoshiQaVam]

I don't see how it could possibly be an immersion breaker. When in landing mode, you're already offered all of the axis that an even horizon indicator offers, and the ship holo on the right already does half the work as well.

It doesn't need to be in your face and obvious, it can be done subtly.

I am strongly against any form of standardized up/down orientation in space; I am sick of this phenonemon being there in 99% of all space games, and am so glad that ED currently contains nothing like it.

How exactly is it a "phenonemon"? It is a reality of any method of flight - whether it's in space or on the ground.

I am not proposing that all ships are forced to maintain the orientation like STO, just that the mechanic and instrumentation should be there for those that wish to use it.

Likewise with stations, just because it's there doesn't mean all stations would have to adhere to it. Fed stations might, the Empire might decide to reverse it just to be awkward, and non-aligned worlds might just hang at whatever angle felt good at the time.

The point is, it should be there, especially considering the game has aspirations for atmospheric flight. It wouldn't even require a big change either. As I mentioned previously, the ship holo on the right could be modified very slightly for it.

 

[Dynamo]

Physics states that a spherical object should always naturally spin counter-clockwise in space. Likewise, all objects should naturally orbit counter-clockwise.

Have you got some source for these facts? I am genuinely curious. I also couldn't find anything quickly.

 

[HoshiQaVam]

Have you got some source for these facts? I am genuinely curious. I also couldn't find anything quickly.

Yes, it's called the Conservation of Angular Momentum.

Simply put, everything in space will attempt to spin in a uniform manner unless acted upon by a greater force.

The galaxy spins counter-clockwise, so all stars in the galaxy orbit the centre of the galaxy counter-clockwise.

Because a star is already moving counter-clockwise, and because it is not a perfect sphere, it is prompted to spin. Unless acted upon by a greater force, the spin will attempt to match the orbit, so it spin's counter clockwise.

Because the star spins counter-clockwise, anything within the star's gravitational reach will also orbit the star counter-clockwise unless acted upon by a greater force.

Because the object is orbiting counter-clockwise, and is not a perfect sphere, it is prompted to spin counter-clockwise unless acted upon by a greater force.

That same principle will continue right down to an atom.

However, the smaller you get, the more easy it is to be countered by a greater force and vice versa.

So a comet is pretty easy to make spin or orbit in reverse, as is Venus comparatively, but a Star would obviously take a force that is greater than it's own mass, and it would need to be acting on that star over billions of years.

Even in a multi-star system like Alpha Centauri should follow the same rule because of orbits.

You can get a basic idea of it here: http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2010/10/07/counterclockwise-but-there-are/

And a more in-depth version here: http://www.lightandmatter.com/html_books/lm/ch15/ch15.html

 

[Splendour]

On a rather flippant note, how do we decide which way is up, to then determine if things are spinning clockwise or anticlockwise?

In game we have a visual indicator of 'North' or hubwards already, that pretty smear of the Milky Way across the sky.

 

[HoshiQaVam]

On a rather flippant note, how do we decide which way is up, to then determine if things are spinning clockwise or anticlockwise?

In game we have a visual indicator of 'North' or hubwards already, that pretty smear of the Milky Way across the sky.

Try using that next time you actually need to tell someone where something is relative to you

As I said previously, it doesn't matter what way is actually up, so long as it's a constant.

What Humans consider up might be different for Thargoids, but since we aren't Thargoids it doesn't matter so long as up is up for all humans.

On a side note, this is the sort of subtle change that could be change to the holo on the right:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/53013844@N05/14164461000

Tells you if you're the right way up, and also has an attitude bar and event horizon for planetary landing. Simple, unobtrusive, but does the trick.

 

[LittleLostRobot]

So long as its optional, ie simply an indicator somewhere I like the idea. I especially like the idea of different conventions in different nations/regions of the galaxy.

 

[HoshiQaVam]

So long as its optional, ie simply an indicator somewhere I like the idea. I especially like the idea of different conventions in different nations/regions of the galaxy.

I actually think that finding a station in an anarchy system where they have deliberately stuck it at a different angle, especially if it makes it even more difficult to dock, would actually help make that system feel a little more anarchic.

Having different conventions for things like angles of stations would also help define the difference between different governments in a subtle way - especially considering they are all going to be using the same types of stations, no matter how randomly the station's modules may be setup.

 

[l1nk-dna]

i suggest making the Your ship icon on the right of the HUD visually roll to show orientation, simples

 

[avataR]

Within eight klicks of the station, the "hologram" of the station does also show the slit. Now, if that was a partially see-through wireframe model, this would be quite easy to spot which way the station is facing from any direction.

Other than that, there could be some kind of a "beacon" on front of the docking port. On some stations there actually are ad displays, but these can't be spotted except from relatively close distance. (In the old Elite(s), the station's docking port always faced the planet, which acted as an indicator. The "Oolite" clone has the nav beacon approach.)

Though I don't really see this as a huge issue. You have difficulties of guessing where the docking port is only, if you approach from the side / in a right angle compared to the station's axis. After facing the station, from any other angle you can see (at least with high graphics settings) either the hub on the "back" of the station or the docking port from practically all other directions. Yes, even as far as 20 km from the station.

 

[HoshiQaVam]

The ship icon does already roll to a degree, but even if it was expended to flip upside and around to show full orientation it's angle from the pilot means you'd never get an accurate reading from it making it nothing more than a general guide.

You'd need to add the latitude and roll bars and a horizon to make it actually useful, and in doing so you'll also inadvertently ensure there is the needed horizon panel for when we eventually get atmospheric flight.

Two birds, one stone.