Gunner = Arcade Action Cam for the 12 yr olds?

[Y2K]

3rd person gunner view is total console 12yr old .. it should be in ship - and being able to fire your weapons while in cam mode - bring on the 3rd person cheats.

none of this update ( 2.4 ) was worth the trouble.. ship naming + avator should have been ingame a long LONG time ago. what FD need to do is put some effort into exploration. ive just flown 60,000lyrs to colonia - sag a and back to sol. theres nothing - NOTHING out there except the sights. an odd 'incoming msg' SOS or strange appearance's SOMETHING jeeez.... cmon FD put something other than jump scoop jump into exploring.

 

[Vorxian]

Sure you can, we can do it today even

Its called Elite: Dangerous, by Frontier Developments plc. If you look closely, it's rendering elite dangerous level 3d graphics in real time, based on the data available to a 2014 era computer.

Well it's slightly different in that it's coded, not directly translated. If you put a bunch of sensors around the outside of your house, and asked your computer to render you an absolute representation of everything around you in a 5k radius... then you're about to get richer than Billy G

 

[Ulfar]

What you get extra pips as well, extra pips is massive.

If I ever play again I better damn well get to hire an NPC gunner and get the extra pips.

Where does this extra magical power come from, have the reactor makers been lying to me all this time.

Sorry but this is B******t.

 

[Nuarb]

Well it's slightly different in that it's coded, not directly translated. If you put a bunch of sensors around the outside of your house, and asked your computer to render you an absolute representation of everything around you in a 5k radius... then you're about to get richer than Billy G

Whats great is your ships computer already has exact data on everything within range of your ship, orientation, ship type, loadout etc, and it would be trivial for the computer to compile that data into a 3D image.

Move over Billy G, looks like someone 1300 years into the future may be able to do basic sensor fusion and visualization

 

[SystemShift]

Guys.. guys..

It's coming.

Your bickering changes nothing.

3rd person view and an extra pip or two doesn't unbalance the game.

No its not coming yet :-/
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...mmanders-2-3-Beta-Incoming-(w-Important-News)

 

[Xargo]

Whats great is your ships computer already has exact data on everything within range of your ship, orientation, ship type, loadout etc

We must be playing a different game then or you must be using some hacks because I only have that info from ships I can target lock and still can't see loadouts without scanning them...

- - - Updated - - -

From the changelog about the gunner:

- Allow schematic view

Is that the answer to this thread? If yes .. wooohoo!

Sounds promising. Good stuff.

 

[Vorxian]

Well...

Hey everyone,

First of all, I’d just like to say a huge thank you for your patience and understanding while the team continue to investigate a related set of issues with Multicrew in the 2.3 beta. We know that you’re all eager to get your hands on the new content, some of you asking for the patch notes to quench your thirst for juicy details.

Unfortunately, this will require an extended period of time to investigate, fix and verify before we are able to make them live.

In order to avoid keeping you waiting for the rest of the beta, the server wizards have been able to disable the Multicrew feature from the build meaning that we can make it live (without Multicrew) imminently. This will allow you to begin playing and testing all the other content today.

Multicrew will still be making its way to the beta, we’ll keep you updated with news and information as soon as we can. The development team will continue their hard work and we’re expecting to have more news on Multicrew next week.

We’re sorry for the delay and inconvenience. Once again, thank you for your patience, understanding and support.

See the changelog here: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/332399-2-3-The-Commanders-Beta-Changelog

Ed

It just means that the computer tasked for rendering this holoimaging just isn't powerful enough. They'll be able to do a 3rd person view, but in wireframe instead (which makes more sense), as it doesn't have to compute all the misc stuff. But also telemetry seems to be a bit tricky. Real time live images from the other side of the Galaxy is proving difficult when factoring in latency. Player pushes fire button... meanwhile 140,000 LY across the galaxy, the telepresence avatar pushes fire button 16 years later. Not overly helpful! We're working on it.

 

[MyHammer]

Player pushes fire button... meanwhile 140,000 LY across the galaxy, the telepresence avatar pushes fire button 16 years later. Not overly helpful! We're working on it.

LOL if only 16 yrs.. [haha]

 

[Vorxian]

LOL if only 16 yrs.. [haha]

I know!! I'm hoping by the year 3300 that technology has moved on that we're not looking at tens of millions of years

 

[Jex =TE=]

Guys.. guys..

It's coming.

Your bickering changes nothing.

3rd person view and an extra pip or two doesn't unbalance the game.

2 pips will unbalance the game, won't it?

 

[Trash Gordon]

2 pips will unbalance the game, won't it?

Interessting enough alt accounts are pretty much a requirement for serious PvP, in everyone favorite lord of flies simulator Eve online.

Every guy asking for a "fair" 1 on 1 usually has his logistic alt hidden somewhere save in system boosting his stats.

 

[House0fDerp]

Yup, eye of God in one of my posts too.

Your gods clearly suck. They've been outpaced by technology in the real world for decades.

 

[Devari]

The second account boost is a valid concern and ought to be discussed once we see it in beta. But it hasn't got anything to do with telepresence or what some think is an arcade camera without a place in their ship hull life bar game.

Like I said, the extra magic power pip is just one of four major gameplay and immersion problems we're getting in multicrew.

no, clearly WE don't have 4 issues with the game at the moment.. you and some vocal others have an issue with the concept of what a game is, compared to a simulator..

Funny you say that, because Braben was clearly marketing a space sim game in all of those videos he posted. It's clear that their original intention for the game has fallen from that goal to arcade-level game mechanics since then.

and also just issues. i thought it was bad enough having Witnesses knocking my door once a month, trying to tell me how i should live my life, even though they know nothing about my life, and have been asked repeatedly not too.. i now have folks like you trying to evangelise the 1 true Elite Dangerous, and telling everyone how it should be designed, how it should be implemented and how it should be played. the level of arrogance and entitlement is.. i could write very descriptive words all day, and it still wouldn't sufficiently convey just how destructive, inconsiderate and puerile i view the Elite puritan types who seem to find something objectionable in everything put forward by frontier.

Like I said, we were sold a VERY specific type of gameplay by Braben and he laid out exactly how he saw the game developing over time. Instead what we've gotten during Horizons is a dumbed-down, lowest common denominator, arcade-like approach to the game instead. Mostly just because it's easier, faster and lazier then doing a proper job of the game mechanics, but also because Braben clearly doesn't care enough about the game to give it the proper direction or funding to become anything like his original vision for the game.

1st and foremost.. this is a game.. go check the comments on steam, and maybe you will understand some of frontiers recent design decisions.. now either the game cant survive on the current player base alone, so frontier needs to introduce features that will appeal to a broader audience (ergo, stuff you disagree with) or, the game can survive on the current player base, which means that frontier has predominantly been making the right design choices (still stuff you disagree with) now you really need to pick 1, because you cant argue neither, or both.. not that it matters, because either way you look at it.. they are doing what they need to push the game forward.

So you're saying it's OK to take an immersive space sim and turn it into an arcade shooter, simple because it might become more popular or make FD more money?

That's exactly the problem I have with where Braben and FD have been taking the game since 2.1 launched.

if you find something objectionable in everything frontier put forward.. it stands a good chance that the issue is with you, and not with frontier

I had no problem with the game design or direction right up through the launch of Horizons with 2.0, which I thought was a solid addition to the game from planetary landings and SRV gameplay. Then since 2.1 the game has taken a steady downward trend and despite some good features that have been added the overall gameplay design and quality of the content (if you could even call it that) has been extremely disappointing compared to what we got during the first year.

This is coming from someone with over 1400 hours of playtime, 16 Engineered ships and who has been to SagA and back.

It's not that I don't like Elite, it's that I don't like what Elite is turning into.

 

[House0fDerp]

Funny you say that, because Braben was clearly marketing a space sim game in all of those videos he posted. It's clear that their original intention for the game has fallen from that goal to arcade-level game mechanics since then.

Considering all the non sim and, since we're using the term, arcade-level mechanics created beforehand, and by beforehand I mean what I understand was launch state, why is this only now an issue?

 

[Devari]

Seriously, that's your argument?

No, you aren't understanding my argument at all.

That because cheap, consumer-level parking assist can't be used to drive a car, that we don't have more sophisticated technology to provide a gunner's remote view reconstruction using current data analysis and image/sensor processing techniques?

No, what your suggesting is quite simply something we can't do with current technology. Parking cameras quite simply do not and cannot do this. You seem to think is just a matter of "improving" parking camera technology to get to what we have with the god-mode perspective in Elite. It isn't. What they have for the god-mode multicrew view in Elite would require a COMPETELY DIFFERENT and far more advanced type of sensor technology then what is used to park at car.

Just because you can imagine something in your head doesn't mean it's just a matter of developing "better technology" from something that does not do what you think it does. It requires an approach that is dramatically more advanced and sophisticated then parking cameras and is a completely different issue.

Where do you think state-of-the-art is at right now? Car parking assist?

Military vehicles with remotely-operated weapon stations use direct-feed CAMERAS to operate them. Very much like the interface used for the SRV turret in Elite, other then the lack of a direct neural link or telepresence that is obviously beyond our currently technology. They do not use some sort of parking-camera surround system, for all the reasons I stated in previous posts. That type of a system is not precise or reliable enough for any type of weapon targeting.

Military systems quite simply do NOT use anything remotely resembling a parking assist camera. In fact our SRV doesn't even have a parking camera at all or anything ressembling one. It has a direct camera feed from the turret instead.

That is what you are clearly not getting here. Elite clearly relies either on targeting from a pilot seat or by using camera feeds that are slaved to weapon turret control for precise targeting, much like current technology. Multicrew should still be using this as a basis for multicrew that is similar to the SRV turret, i.e., it should still be a direct camera-based system.

The question is not whether a remote gunner's view is technically possible. Of course it is. The only question is how much computing hardware you're willing to throw at the problem to give the desired resolution, occlusion reconstruction, dynamic effects simulation, and reduction of other artifact errors. It's obvious that not much computing power is required. Look at what a single PC does now to render ED. Then add more to process the ship's camera/radar/sensor data to provide object locations/orientation to the rendering system. It's all very standard these days.

No, it really isn't. You clearly haven't understood anything I've described about the fundamental differences between weapon targeting with a remote camera and parking a car with surround-view cameras.

They are completely. Different. Things.

What you call "god-mode perspective" I call current technology.

You are wrong.

And then extrapolate current technology 1000+ years into the future... enough said.

You are still wrong. Because your assumptions of what current technology is actually doing are completely flawed.

You also ask why this technology isn't being used elsewhere in the elite universe. Well that's a totally different question which I agree should be asked of FD. Indeed there are far more compelling questions, such as why instantaneous, zero latency data transfer as used in telepresence isn't also used in every other aspect of the elite universe. IMO FD are introducing new and more profound logical inconsistencies with each update.

Unless we complain loudly enough, and often enough, about the direction the game is going it is only going to get worse. The lazy, arcade-like game mechanics we have with 2.3 is demonstrating that very clearly.

 

[House0fDerp]

No, what your suggesting is quite simply something we can't do with current technology. Parking cameras quite simply do not and cannot do this. You seem to think is just a matter of "improving" parking camera technology to get to what we have with the god-mode perspective in Elite. It isn't. What they have for the god-mode multicrew view in Elite would require a COMPETELY DIFFERENT and far more advanced type of sensor technology then what is used to park at car.

Just because you can imagine something in your head doesn't mean it's just a matter of developing "better technology" from something that does not do what you think it does. It requires an approach that is dramatically more advanced and sophisticated then parking cameras and is a completely different issue.

Agreed it requires something more sophisticated that parking sensors. Good thing ship sensors are more sophisticated than parking sensors so there's not really an issue.

Military vehicles with remotely-operated weapon stations use direct-feed CAMERAS to operate them. Very much like the interface used for the SRV turret in Elite, other then the lack of a direct neural link or telepresence that is obviously beyond our currently technology. They do not use some sort of parking-camera surround system, for all the reasons I stated in previous posts. That type of a system is not precise or reliable enough for any type of weapon targeting.

Military systems quite simply do NOT use anything remotely resembling a parking assist camera. In fact our SRV doesn't even have a parking camera at all or anything ressembling one. It has a direct camera feed from the turret instead.

That is what you are clearly not getting here. Elite clearly relies either on targeting from a pilot seat or by using camera feeds that are slaved to weapon turret control for precise targeting, much like current technology. Multicrew should still be using this as a basis for multicrew that is similar to the SRV turret, i.e., it should still be a direct camera-based system.

Seems like you're comflating 2 things here, telepresence and the 3rd person cam. The latter has no reason to depend upon the former or really hold any relation to it. And actually we do have omnidirectional sensors. Our actual sensors. Current military craft lack those and as such use cameras providing fixed views. The game clearly has moved past what you're giving it credit for.

No, it really isn't. You clearly haven't understood anything I've described about the fundamental differences between weapon targeting with a remote camera and parking a car with surround-view cameras.

They are completely. Different. Things.

No, fundamentally they are not. Both use data from their surroundings and, in the case of self parking cars, automate mechanical responses based on that data. Same principle, different use. We're just adding manual control of the view angle rather than a fixed one, because the use case benefits from the addition.

You are wrong.

You are still wrong. Because your assumptions of what current technology is actually doing are completely flawed.

Quite the opposite, you're wrong in this instance. As far as rendering based on data, that's what the game itself is already doing. The primary obstacle to doing from an in game standpoint this wouldn't be rendering, but the ability of the sensors to recognize the objects around you, which we're getting better at in reality, and given how sensors seem to work, have relatively perfected in game.

 

[[VR] Merkir]

As far as rendering based on data, that's what the game itself is already doing. The primary obstacle to doing from an in game standpoint this wouldn't be rendering, but the ability of the sensors to recognize the objects around you, which we're getting better at in reality, and given how sensors seem to work, have relatively perfected in game.

+1. Exactly what I've been saying and which Devari doesn't understand. It's why I was very careful to say "process the ship's camera/radar/sensor data to provide object locations/orientation to the rendering system." He seems to think it's only camera data since he persists on using the parking assist analogy which is largely irrelevant to this discussion. In previous posts I said the cameras could be used to store meshes/textures of surfaces which would be occluded from the vantage point of the ship, but not the remote vantage point - or more easily - simply use the pre-stored meshes of the known ship types (all things I've said before). The targeting system computes location and orientation, then rendering the scene for the reconstruction is standard practice.

 

[Devari]

Considering all the non sim and, since we're using the term, arcade-level mechanics created beforehand, and by beforehand I mean what I understand was launch state, why is this only now an issue?

It wasn't arcade-like at launch, quite the opposite. Watch the original videos of Braben describing how he planned to expand and develop the game, those plans are nothing like the arcade-like nonsense we're getting now with 2.3.

Agreed it requires something more sophisticated that parking sensors. Good thing ship sensors are more sophisticated than parking sensors so there's not really an issue.

Except that we don't have these magic "advanced sensors" used in any other parts of Elite gameplay other then the god-mode gunner view.

Seems like you're comflating 2 things here, telepresence and the 3rd person cam. The latter has no reason to depend upon the former or really hold any relation to it. And actually we do have omnidirectional sensors. Our actual sensors. Current military craft lack those and as such use cameras providing fixed views. The game clearly has moved past what you're giving it credit for.

I'm not saying anything about telepresence. That is a completely separate issue and in many ways is just as much of a problem as the gunner perspective. The point that I'm referring to here however is specifically the 3rd person god-mode perspective for mulitcrew gunners.

No, fundamentally they are not. Both use data from their surroundings and, in the case of self parking cars, automate mechanical responses based on that data. Same principle, different use. We're just adding manual control of the view angle rather than a fixed one, because the use case benefits from the addition.

No, it's not the same principle, it's completely different.

Quite the opposite, you're wrong in this instance. As far as rendering based on data, that's what the game itself is already doing. The primary obstacle to doing from an in game standpoint this wouldn't be rendering, but the ability of the sensors to recognize the objects around you, which we're getting better at in reality, and given how sensors seem to work, have relatively perfected in game.

Sorry, but you're not even understanding the issue I was describing. Of course the GAME ENGINE can display the view easily, that's not the issue at all here. It was never a limitation of the game engine per se as we already had an external view even before multicrew. The issue here is that suddenly introducing a god-mode sensor perspective into Elite goes well beyond the limits of the previously established technology and lore.

Why haven't we been using these amazing sensors for piloting?
Why haven't we been using these amazing sensors on the SRV for combat instead of a simple turret cam?
Why can't our ships use these amazing sensors to dock without installing a supercomputer-sized "docking computer" in an internal slot?

It's not a question of whether sufficiently advanced sensors like those in Star Trek could produce that type of combat simulation interface based on sensor data. It's an issue of whether the relatively primitive Elite sensors, that are so primitive to the point that ship combat in Elite requires manual piloting and targeting within visual ranges, could possibly produce such an advanced sensor perspective with their existing technology base.

+1. Exactly what I've been saying and which Devari doesn't understand. It's why I was very careful to say "process the ship's camera/radar/sensor data to provide object locations/orientation to the rendering system." He seems to think it's only camera data since he persists on using the parking assist analogy which is largely irrelevant to this discussion. In previous posts I said the cameras could be used to store meshes/textures of surfaces which would be occluded from the vantage point of the ship, but not the remote vantage point - or more easily - simply use the pre-stored meshes of the known ship types (all things I've said before). The targeting system computes location and orientation, then rendering the scene for the reconstruction is standard practice.

What you're clearly not understanding is that Elite sensors quite simply can't do this based on all the lore they've built the game universe. To suddenly add such a ridiculously powerful sensor and tactical ability is completely inconsistent with previous game mechanics and completely destroys any sense of immersion in the game universe.

It takes the game from semi-realistic space sim to an arcade-style shooter.

 

[Tarman]

It wasn't arcade-like at launch, quite the opposite. Watch the original videos of Braben describing how he planned to expand the develop the game, those plans are nothing like the arcade-like nonsense we're getting now with 2.3.



Except that we don't have these magic "advanced sensors" used in any other parts of Elite gameplay other then the god-mode gunner view.



I'm not saying anything about telepresence. That is a completely separate issue and in many ways is just as much of a problem as the gunner perspective. The point that I'm referring to here however is specifically the 3rd person god-mode perspective for mulitcrew gunners.



Sorry, but you're not even understanding the issue I was describing. Of course the GAME ENGINE can display the view easily, that's not the issue at all here. It was never a limitation of the game engine per se as we already had an external view even before multicrew. The issue here is that suddenly introducing a god-mode sensor perspective into Elite goes well beyond the limits of the previously established technology and lore.

Why haven't we been using these amazing sensors for piloting?
Why haven't we been using these amazing sensors on the SRV for combat instead of a simple turret cam?
Why can't our ships use these amazing sensors to dock without installing a supercomputer-sized "docking computer" in an internal slot?

It's not a question of whether sufficiently advanced sensors like those in Star Trek could produce that type of combat simulation interface based on sensor data. It's an issue of whether the relatively primitive Elite sensors, that are so primitive to the point that ship combat in Elite requires manual piloting and targeting with visual ranges, could possibly produce such an advanced sensor perspective with their existing technology base.



What you're clearly not understanding is that Elite sensors quite simply can't do this based on all the lore they've built the game universe. To suddenly add such a ridiculously powerful sensor and tactical ability is completely inconsistent with previous game mechanics and completely destroys any sense of immersion in the game universe.

It takes the game from semi-realistic space sim to an arcade-style shooter.

... it's not even ready for the beta yet. How about we save the roll of quarters until such time as we can actually test the feature >______>

 

[Devari]

... it's not even ready for the beta yet. How about we save the roll of quarters until such time as we can actually test the feature >______>

Do you somehow expect that the magic telepresence, magic power pips, magic god-mode camera and magic duplication of bounties we saw in the livestream has somehow changed prior to the beta launch?

Because we are specifically discussing multicrew game mechanics that the devs have literally shown to us and discussed as part of that livestream.