Gunner = Arcade Action Cam for the 12 yr olds?
- Thread starter MyHammer
- Start date
Blame console sales
Ah yes, the good ole ''its the consoles fault'' argument.
Has to be one of the most stupid ones. :^)
Last edited:
So at best the gunner just gets a radar and some pips between guns? The role is already pretty limited, why does it need to be visually lackluster on top of that?
Also, immersion has been addressed far more times in the course of this thread than I care to count. 1300 years from now and our ships supposedly can't do the work that a midrange graphics card can do now. Why?
It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
[video=youtube;mCojywS4hUg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCojywS4hUg[/video]
FD's original plans for multicrew were to include stations for these functions, i.e., a tactical station (for sensors, shields and countermeasures) and an engineering station (for power distribution and repairs). Unfortunately any plans for these stations seem to have been abandoned and they've just incorporated the ability to use sensors and an extra pip into the gunner role instead.
A lot of players were hoping for more developed multi-crew roles that didn't focus exclusively on combat and repairs was a major feature that was hoped for. It would have been nice to see something that involved more detailed control over the AFMU systems, possibly a way to control AFMU speed somehow as well as the ability to "reboot" individual systems, but it doesn't look like we're going to get anything like that with 2.3.
I'm sorry, but do you actually think that is literally an accurate, overhead view of the car as if you were viewing it directly from above?
It isn't. The car image itself is simply a schematic, not a camera view, and the camera angles are superimposed around the car from wide-angle lenses. If you put an object on the hood or roof of the car it doesn't magically show up on the display on the car itself because that part is NOT a camera view. The only part that you are viewing that is actually a camera feed is the surrounding areas around the car. Those views are also HIGHLY distorted and don't give you accurate, fine detail or a proper perspective. You would have realised this if you had ever actually been in a car with surround-view parking cameras. I have been in cars with those features regularly and they show a HIGHLY distorted view of your surroundings, good enough only for parking and avoiding nearby obstacles within a short distance from the vehicle. The view is simply showing you what you need to know to park, it is not accurately showing you everything that is physically around the car in all directions. All the surround view system does in the 7 Series is put that into a 3D perspective using a standard computer-generated image of the car combined with the camera feeds but it is NOT actually showing you anything that the roof-mounted cameras can't literally see, which means that the car can't actually see itself directly, it can only see its surroundings.
It is NOT a literal overhead view where the car is showing you an accurate picture of itself. It is a composite SURROUND view using wide-angle lenses mounted on the car roof with a fancy schematic giving the impression of an overhead view.
I mean if you were so clueless that at any point you actually believed that you were literally seeing an OVERHEAD view of the entire car, did you stop to consider that it's physically impossible to see an angle showing the top of the car without a camera literally hovering above the car itself and looking down at it? Did you think it was using some type of magic technology to look back at itself from several meters away? Or at some point did it occur to you that the camera system was actually giving you limited information about the surroundings and simply showing that information to the driver in a way that helped them park?
I mean I hope that you DO understand using basic common sense what is physically possible with technology, right?
Last edited:
And you believe the 3rd person gunner view is literately an overhead view and not a 3D reconstruction for the gunner's benefit?
Instant transfer back to station 20,000ly from where you died.(space magic)
Corrosive Rounds (Space Magic at 3k)
Incendiary rounds (Space Magic)
Thermal Cascade (Space Magic that breaks all laws of thermodynamics)
Thermal Shock (space magic)
Concordant sequence (space magic)
emissive munitions on non projectile based weapons (space magic)
scramble spectrum (space magic) its either a laser or it isnt.
Inertial impact especially lasers (space magic)
Visible high energy lasers. (space magic)
Any laser weapon other than Beam Lasers (space magic)
Instant refueling (space magic)
Instant Cargo transfer (space magic)
Speeding up to and beyond the speed of light (space magic)
refueling ships with gasses from a star. (space magic)
Interdiction (impossible space magic)
Mass lock by anything smaller than a moon (space magic)
Shields (impossible space magic)
I am sure I could go on for a very long time. This is but the tiniest fraction of the examples I could provide. However they are some of the most glaring examples.
You can believe that a laser beam can travel through the vacuum of space from your ship to strike another and magically imbue it to add heat to the entire hull of another ship? You expect this all the while you havent been turned to molten metal? Not to mention all of the chemical reactions that couldnt take place at 3k to corrode a hull. However you are unwilling to believe that there could be a small drone flying around a ship providing targeting information and visuals? That means not only do you believe in a world of magic in ED, but you believe in a world of magic in RL. Just to let you know, we already have drones that perform that duty every day. So it must be magic.
This thread is worthless as are most of the others arguments. The only things in this entire game that hasnt been changed to make it fun is the fact that humans exist. stars give off light, and gravity exists. Almost everything else breaks most of the primary rules of relativity and astrophysics. I dont want that fact to change either. This game never was sold as or advertised as a Space Sim. The only people to try and sell it as anything other than the arcade game that it has always been have been players.
Calling this game an arcade game as its some sort of insult is moronic. Calling people who disagree with your opinions 12 year olds is also moronic. Age has nothing to do with intelligence and the majority of the people on this forum prove that on a minute to minute basis.
Why is this thread still open? The intent of the OP was not to have a discussion otherwise the title would have been something constructive.
And you believe the 3rd person gunner view is literately an overhead view and not a 3D reconstruction for the gunner's benefit?
Except that's not what you have at all with the multicrew perspective. There isn't even the slightest attempt to explain how you get the view or to put it in any sort of context. You are simply shown the ship and all surrounding objects with perfect accuracy in a god-mode 3rd person perspective. It isn't a schematic or tactical display and it isn't even shown on a screen to maintain the slightest bit of immersion that you are doing something as a crew member on a ship. It's a straight-up magic god-mode camera, full stop.
If you don't see the problem with this in a game like Elite I really can't do anything more to explain how terrible it is as a gameplay mechanic.
Only if it's clearly a drone interface screen and if you can see the drone and destroy it. And only if that same god-mode perspective is available via. that same drone for piloting tasks, docking and EVERY OTHER USEFUL APPLICATION of the technology.
Last edited:
BMW is a witch! Burn her, burn her at the stake, she cast magic on me!
[video=youtube;mCojywS4hUg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCojywS4hUg[/video]
That has been in the game since alpha, it's not a new issue and instant escape pod recovery is in the game for the same reason as instant ammo, resupply, refitting and cargo transfer.
That's not space magic, it's just a corrosive substance that weakens hull strength.
That's also not space magic at all, we have incendiary rounds in use today.
The thermal special effects are ridiculous and don't even obey basic laws of thermodynamics, so yes, those are problematic.
You could possibly ionize a ship's hull in some way using a specific type of weapon and use this property to help track ships operating in silent running. Not really an issue.
Also used in every other sci-fi series. Not an issue specific to Elite.
Also used in sci-fi series everywhere. Sorry, not an issue.
Sorry, this has been in the game since alpha.
There is some sort of FTL drive or warp drive in every single sci-fi series, it's necessary for the universe to work. Not an issue.
Not magic at all. You're literally scooping in hydrogen for use as fuel.
See above re. FTL drives which are a necessary aspect of almost all sci-fi settings. If you have an issue with FTL in general you should not watch sci-fi series or play sci-fi games.
Again, if you don't want to accept the existence of an FTL drive in a sci-fi setting, you are playing the wrong game.
See above. If you are good with FTL you should also be good with shields, as they appear in almost every sci-fi series and are in fact less sophisticated than FTL.
You could, except your list isn't even very good. Other then heat weapons (which are thermodynamically impossible) the rest (energy weapons, shields and FTL drives) are simply standard sci-fi technology that you have to accept to play a sci-fi game. You're having some trouble distinguishing between standard sci-fi technology that you have to accept to play a sci-fi game and gameplay features like multicrew god-mode perspective that is not explained or consistent in ANY way with the Elite technology base.
Last edited:
Did you even read my post?
The BMW parking display is NOT literally showing you the actual car from several meters away. In Elite multicrew perspective you are being shown a literal view of your ship and all surrounding objects, in perfect accuracy, in a way that should not be possible with Elite technology.
And you believe the 3rd person gunner view is literately an overhead view and not a 3D reconstruction for the gunner's benefit? On what basis to you believe this?
In a world of FTL drives, our ability to do a simple composite of sensor data into a 3d visualization should be worse than in 2017?
A substance that weakens an entire structure equally, for a limited duration, no matter where it physically contacts that structure is pretty magical in effect.
Real world incendiary rounds don't do the same thing as Elite's. They are there to set fire to flammables not make weapons more effective vs. certain protections or increase the basic energy they deliver to a target.
Plenty of Sci-fi settings, and essentially all hard sci-fi, lack FTL drives/communications.
Heat weapons aren't thermodynamically impossible. All that's required for a directed energy weapon to deliver more heat to it's target than it produces is for it's output power to be greater than the waste heat it generates and for the target to absorb a significant portion of it.
I can buy off the shelf lasers that are well over 60% efficient...meaning more than 60% of the electricity they consume is in the emitted beam, and under 40% is lost as heat. If my target absorbs ~80% of what I shine at it, it's receiving appreciably more heat than the laser itself requires as cooling. I would assume that the directed energy weapons of the Elite setting are more efficient than something I can buy for 600 dollars out of a catalog today.
Non-directed energy weapons with thermal effects are even easier to justify.
QCQ has provided us with more than enough in-game basis for very realistic simulations being possible with the technology available in the Elite setting. On top of that auditory simulation, constructed from sensor data, is precisely the same sort of thing, just auditory and not visual.
As has been mentioned about a dozen times in this thread so far, we already have similar capabilities in the real world.
And you believe the 3rd person gunner view is literately an overhead view and not a 3D reconstruction for the gunner's benefit? On what basis to you believe this?
It is not shown in a manner that uses a tactical display or ship interface and doesn't have any of the limitations that you would expect to see with a reconstruction of surrounding space. You are literally floating behind the ship as if by a magic camera. It is quite simply a god-mode perspective that follows the ship, it isn't limited by camera angles or any other aspects that would limit an external camera display.
In a world of FTL drives, our ability to do a simple composite of sensor data into a 3d visualization should be worse than in 2017?
Elite quite simply does not have any advanced sensor technology or computer systems that would explain this. Even a simple docking computer takes up an entire internal slot and all that does is land your ship on a landing pad, yet somehow you expect us to believe that a perfectly accurate, god-mod camera perspective can show your ship from a magic external view?
If Elite had technology to show this type of view then why can't we use it for piloting the ship or to see what's behind us? Why can't we use it for docking or planetary landings? Why can't we do any other number of things with the technology?
Sorry, but an arcade-like god-mode perspective is just an arcade-like god-mode perspective on matter how you try to justify it.
Watch out folks, theres-a magic afoot! Burn the witches!
[video=youtube;mCojywS4hUg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCojywS4hUg[/video]
That part is just a simplification of the damage model, it's no worse then having my canopy break in exactly the same pattern every time it is breached. They could have applied corrosive effects to specific parts of the ship or even to affect areas with specific modules or internals, they just haven't programmed the damage model to be very sophisticated.
Incendiary rounds use high-temperature substances that burn on impact to create heat and the shields will need to dissipate that heat energy. The reason they are more effective against shields is because thermal energy is more difficult for shields to dissipate then kinetic energy. Essentially the incendiary round is a projectile delivery system for thermal energy.
Sorry, that's just nonsense. Almost every single sci-fi series uses FTL drives or an equivalent as it is essential to the setting and story. The only notable exception right now is the Expanse which takes place entirely in our solar system.
Most sci-fi series, however, rely extensively on interstellar travel. Star Trek, Star Wars, Battlestar Galactica, Babylon 5, Aliens, Predator, Stargate and every other major sci-fi franchise uses some type of FTL or warp drive.
The way that the heat weapons work in the game (thermal vent and thermal conduit) where your ship's internals will overheat THROUGH intact shields are thermodynamically impossible because they magically create (or dissipate) heat inside of an insulated space ship without being consistent with other heat mechanics in Elite.
The rest of the heat management system in Elite is fine and internally consistent, but heat weapons completely throw the idea of consistent heat mechanics right out the airlock.
The issue here is that ship heat is measuring INTERNAL heat generated from the ship's reactor and other systems, NOT external heat. That is why Elite heat weapons that can magically heat up the INSIDES of the ship are nonsense. That's also why you can fly into a star's corona without melting your ship and why fuel scooping, which takes superheated hydrogen INTO the ship, will heat up your ship's internal temperature so quickly. The issue to keep in mind here is that flying near a star doesn't directly heat up the ship via. external heating being conducted to the inside of the ship, rather, it makes the heat dissipation system less efficient and the ship can't get rid of internal heat as effectively.
Again, that heat stays OUTSIDE the ship. It does not magically get through the insulated and armored hull to affect the ship's INTENRAL heat.
That's just a computer game in the Elite universe. It's like paying the Elite version of Halo.
No, we don't. Read my post above about the difference between a BMW parking camera and the god-mode perspective they're using for multicrew.
Last edited:
Major TV/movie franchises hardly constitute the bulk of sci-fi and none of the ones you have listed are hard sci-fi.
I'm almost positive a ship heats up at the same rate when in proximity to a star irrespective of fuel scooping.
It's not the temperature of the gas in contact with the ship that causes heating...that's far too diffuse..it's the radiaton from the star.
That heat has to go somewhere. Radiation, especially at low temperatures, is only going to remove heat very slowly...this is why the ship's radiators glow white hot as out ships approach their limits.
I would very much expect the skin of the ship to be actively cooled via the same system that cools everything else.
And the third person gunner camera is just a computer game in the Elite universe constructed on the fly from sensor telemetry.
I read your post. I think one of many flaws in your argument is equating a parking camera in an upper-mid range sedan with the best we can do.
Last edited:
94 pages of arguments in, and now discussing BMW parking cameras? Tings be gettin surreal folks.
People are aware this isn't going to change right?
People are aware this isn't going to change right?
Pretty sure the BMW parking camera was mentioned seventy something pages ago and then every fifth page afterwards!