Even my car has a rear view camera

[Gully Foyle]

You out obviously have no idea what radar is for. It's for beyond visual range fighting not dogfighting, which is all we have in ED due the instances we have to fight in. No ability to look around you, NO realism!

You are forgetting that you must see the enemy when it is close enough to Target. There is no beyond visual range fighting, but there is adjustable range on your radar.

I want to see a rear view screen as well as a down view screen as well (for landing on planets) put onto the present side MFD screens (or whatever they are).

And I want to see all a myriad of different external views as well easily accessible from a keyboard incl chase view, flyby view, player to target, target to player views, not to mention docking station to player and station control room to player. Its all possible, it would all add to the fun. And there is NO reason for not having this stuff added into the game quickly.

The game needs more fun aspects to it - these are FUN. Lets see more FUN please.

And meanwhile I am playing Wings Over Flanders Fields instead of ED which, surprise surprise, has ALL of these sorts of views!!! And its a lot more FUN.

I think that would hurt the oppressive immersion feel and lower the difficulty of the game if you turned it into ELITE: FunTime. The whole idea of multiple views I think would make the game too easy and destroy the reality of you being a pilot sitting in a cockpit with only your eyes and the tools you have in front of you.
1st person view all the way for me, I don't want to play a 3D Xevious game.
I for one appreciate greatly the fact that there is no other game like ED.

My 2CV has one too.

One problem gentlemen: There is no rear window to point your hypothetical mirror at.

Indeed.
|
Also "picture in picture"/"render to texture" eats FPS. You can code so you have options to lower the quality for those that cant have high quality on, but in some games it doesnt matter, you still lose FPS. FD might skip it cause of a certain reason plus this one.

This to me is the reality. I want a fast responding game with my concentration centred on what's visible to me out the windshield. Extra simultaneous views would eat up FPS.

Have you guys tried looking at your rear view mirror at night and are you able to distinguish cars or motorcycles if they don't have their lights on? Most of the time you are flying in dark space, as for stations they could add a proximity sensor if you are so worried that you will hit something. I haven't had a single collision trying to get off the pad.

Perfect logical paradigm in action. How you going to see anything with their lights off? I am the only one thinking some folks haven't learned how to use and adjust the ship's radar correctly?

The bobbleheads were removed from the game because they slowed performance down. That's how much ED Devs want this game to run fast.

 

[bonsek]

Ever had another player pop up in front of you, or get in your way in a station? Of course you have, we all have, and if not I'm sure you can imagine it happening. Guess what, that was coz they couldn't see above/behind themselves and the scanner's not very intuitive, especially in a crowded short-range environment.

Ever overshot your pad and wanted to reverse up to it but had to turn around coz you couldn't see behind yourself? Would you considering flying backwards through a station? Of course not, coz you can't see where you're going... but you're quite happy to thrust straight up into a traffic lane without looking and you don't see a problem with that?

Sure, I have had a moment or two, not in a frequency that has ever annoyed me.

Have i overshoot, yes only when flying full speed trying not to get scanned, I have other things to worry like not slamming in a T9. Nothing a loop could fix.

Again on annoyance level on scale from 1 to 10, 1 - not even annoying to bother the devs with it.

 

[Sandmann]

Sure, I have had a moment or two, not in a frequency that has ever annoyed me.

Have i overshoot, yes only when flying full speed trying not to get scanned, I have other things to worry like not slamming in a T9. Nothing a loop could fix.

Again on annoyance level on scale from 1 to 10, 1 - not even annoying to bother the devs with it.

So, you see adding something as simple as adding rear view mirror code - standard in every racing car game since the 1980's - to something that SHOULD by all rights have it, which would ADD to the immersion and playability, and which would result in fewer accidents and close calls, and for which already exists a suitable display point which would (by virtue of its size and location) limit it's combat useability, not break immersion by using a full screen, and not incur a framerate penalty (since you'd have to look down & away from the front view to use it) as too much trouble and not worth having?

Well that's nice for you. You're entitled to your opinion. I respectfully disagree.

 

[bonsek]

So, you see adding something as simple as adding rear view mirror code - standard in every racing car game since the 1980's - to something that SHOULD by all rights have it, which would ADD to the immersion and playability, and which would result in fewer accidents and close calls, and for which already exists a suitable display point which would (by virtue of its size and location) limit it's combat useability, not break immersion by using a full screen, and not incur a framerate penalty (since you'd have to look down & away from the front view to use it) as too much trouble and not worth having?

Well that's nice for you. You're entitled to your opinion. I respectfully disagree.

Well I don't believe its a simple code, I am no coder but I know the mirror/camera has to render a whole different view (framerate drop). I am not saying it's not worth having, but it should be super low priority on the devs list.

 

[Sandmann]

Well I don't believe its a simple code, I am no coder

Oh yah?

but I know the mirror/camera has to render a whole different view (framerate drop). I am not saying it's not worth having, but it should be super low priority on the devs list.

It's called a viewport. Bog stock standard code for every car/plane/everything-else-that-moves-including-ED game produced in the last thirty years. It only introduces an FPS hit if you can see more than one viewport at a time, and using that little screen between your legs would limit the amount of the forward view you can see and use such a small viewport that any impact on fps would be minimal at most.

 

[bonsek]

Oh yah?



It's called a viewport. Bog stock standard code for every car/plane/everything-else-that-moves-including-ED game produced in the last thirty years. It only introduces an FPS hit if you can see more than one viewport at a time, and using that little screen between your legs would limit the amount of the forward view you can see and use such a small viewport that any impact on fps would be minimal at most.

Well even in modern games like Gran Turismo the rear view mirror has limited details (no rain, particles, smoke).
What about Rift users that can see a lot more and FPS is a huge deal. Again the processor has to compute the geometry, velocity, lighting for a back view.

Anyhow, are you a coder yourself?

 

[Sandmann]

Well even in modern games like Gran Turismo the rear view mirror has limited details (no rain, particles, smoke)

Yah that'd be fine... no rain in space. :-D Seriously tho it'd be a simple thing to allow the user to select the desired level of viewport detail, and you wouldn't even have it on unless you were using it anyway so it'd be off most of the time. I see that screen as an "info screen" that could be switched between several external views, ship systems info displays, trading info etc rather than having it as a dedicated, always-on rear view mirror.

What about Rift users that can see a lot more and FPS is a huge deal. Again the processor has to compute the geometry, velocity, lighting for a back view.

OR is always gonna take a huge hit to FPS simply because it's got two nearly identical displays. Any machine that's got enough grunt to push OR isn't going to be bothered by the extra small viewport, especially if its detail level is reduced.

Anyhow, are you a coder yourself?

I did six months of programming at uni a few years ago. I did very well and I enjoyed it but I didn't pursue it any further. I'm no coder, but I have a bit of an understanding of it.

 

[bonsek]

Yah that'd be fine... no rain in space. :-D Seriously tho it'd be a simple thing to allow the user to select the desired level of viewport detail, and you wouldn't even have it on unless you were using it anyway so it'd be off most of the time. I see that screen as an "info screen" that could be switched between several external views, ship systems info displays, trading info etc rather than having it as a dedicated, always-on rear view mirror.

Personally instead of looking down, i would rather have the radar change as soon as you enter the station port with a hologram representation of possible ships around you, the same the radar changes when you approach a pad.

But again, I perfectly fly around without it and have never had any ship damage or whatsoever of backing up or lifting up from a pad.

 

[imadot]

Cameras I don't want, views I do. Even submarines have the ability to see behind them with a periscope. For those of you not old enough or interested in fighter simulations like lock-on, or falcon 4, sure they used very intensive radars modeled after the airplane, but when the distance decreased to ir missiles and guns only, you won the fight by using better situational awareness than the other guy did to get on their 6. That's what this game is missing. Yea I can follow the radars signal well enough and pretend turning speeds matter in space where there is no "air" to bleed off maximum turn ratios, but not being able to swivel my head to see what's on my 6 is really frustrating at times going by what flighter sim experiences I've seen... And then to have people say it's not needed or breaks the immersion factor, has never played a real fighter simulation I'm thinking... As always ymmv....

 

[bonsek]

Cameras I don't want, views I do. Even submarines have the ability to see behind them with a periscope. For those of you not old enough or interested in fighter simulations like lock-on, or falcon 4, sure they used very intensive radars modeled after the airplane, but when the distance decreased to ir missiles and guns only, you won the fight by using better situational awareness than the other guy did to get on their 6. That's what this game is missing. Yea I can follow the radars signal well enough and pretend turning speeds matter in space where there is no "air" to bleed off maximum turn ratios, but not being able to swivel my head to see what's on my 6 is really frustrating at times going by what flighter sim experiences I've seen... And then to have people say it's not needed or breaks the immersion factor, has never played a real fighter simulation I'm thinking... As always ymmv....

Get an eagle and put on a rift, you can swivel to your hearts content and have a proper fighter simulation minus anti-gravity.

Honestly, do you have trouble seeing someone on your six on the radar? The radar has zooming levels btw. The curent radar gives you position of all ships around you in 360 degrees.

 

[aRtFuL]

Meanwhile fighter-jets, lorries, transport ships and aeroplanes don't have them

Fighter jets have rear view mirrors. F4 and F14 are 2 that has them off the top of my head.

You can even see it replicated in the movies. Just download Top Gun.

 

[Aussiedroid]

I think Frontier have been talking to Codemasters LOL .. who released a racing game without working mirrors. *jk*

At least in space I can accept not having it .. although I would love it.

I would rather that blank broken tablet between my legs just be removed all together if its not going to be used. Looks silly as it is.

 

[dsL]

Actually fighter jets do have mirrors just as they were added in Spitfires from cars. I have now no need for it as I mostly fly forwards very well and fast. I can use Flight Assist OFF to flick 180 whilst fleeing. I once had the same yearning for this but it really matters not. Toggle your Target to "SEE" the type of ship after you.

Yop ,funny how jets have better target tracking system than scifi ships from future. Last generation of french jets should have full 360° projection to the pilot helm. ED system is even more obsolete than WW1/WW2 planes they had at least rear mirrors Even todays cars have rear camera or 360° camera system like Land Rover!

 

[ArakAtak]

Last time I checked the space shuttle didn't have a reverse gear.
My car does, it turns on when I slot it into reverse. It doesn't break my immersion.
My ED ships do and I would like to see what I'm backing into.

Why not just have one that comes on when landing gear is down? If you really want to do that while in combat then you are quite welcome.
I also vertical thrust into other ships when taking off inside stations, it never seems to be obvious on radar when doing that.
.
.
A display similar to the cargo scoop popup would also be handy for the station slot entry/exit in large ships.

 

[Antmax]

It just depends. It's been a while since I worked in modern games and ED uses forward rendering so if you were to do a straight render to texture of a rear facing camera, the same vertex data can be used it's the shaders with shadows etc that would have the biggest impact. If they reduced the quality of the graphics say a monochrome infrared style shader the just rendered plain polys with some noise. Something like that would be adequate and might not be expensive at all. Maybe combine polys and a z buffer gradient or something. It's not like you need to see in any detail, just a good impression you can glean info from.

 

[DaHunn]

this isn't a car. it is a space ship, space ships don't have mirrors.

 

[Kosmetas]

Mirrors will not make you a better pilot... you will just be able to see projectiles and lasers right before they hit.

 

[Sandmann]

this isn't a car. it is a space ship, space ships don't have mirrors.

Yes, they do actually. Cameras too. Check the photo from the space shuttle's camera earlier in this thread.

Mirrors will not make you a better pilot... you will just be able to see projectiles and lasers right before they hit.

So if you can see them you can better avoid them, thus making you a better pilot. Even if you were right they're not going to make you a worse pilot or harm your game any.

 

[Sandmann]

I can understand that some people see no use for external views, and that's fine. I personally see no use for SCB's or the debug camera or advanced scanners coz I have no use for them. I don't however argue that they should be removed just coz I don't see any purpose for them. Obviously other people DO see a use.for.them and it doesn't hurt my game to leave them there. Well y'know what, there's a bunch of people who DO see a use for external views, and so far the best argument against them seems to be "I don't want them".

 

[Mufus]

I can understand that some people see no use for external views, and that's fine. I personally see no use for SCB's or the debug camera or advanced scanners coz I have no use for them. I don't however argue that they should be removed just coz I don't see any purpose for them. Obviously other people DO see a use.for.them and it doesn't hurt my game to leave them there. Well y'know what, there's a bunch of people who DO see a use for external views, and so far the best argument against them seems to be "I don't want them".

Mostly from the same kind of people who's reponse to all the "where is the content?" questions is to "imagine it yourself"...

The most telling points are, we have reverse thrust capability but no way of telling what we are about to fly into, and not being able to see anything above or below us when docking or taking off again.