Gunner Tactical Camera, A Compromise?

A compromise isn't necessary or even desirable.

As usual some immersionists fail to realize that the technology to do what the multicrew camera does exists today. You can certainly reason that it would still exist 1200 years into the future.
 
I'm from the immersion crowd but my problem is that the does not introduce interesting gameplay. ;-)
Your advantage is an additional pip and that is lame. I want learn to fight with my friends to get better together. With an extra pip you join another guy to shoot a little for an hour and that's it. There is nothing behind, no depths. (By the way it is too casual. But this community is running by the hardcore fans.)
 
A compromise isn't necessary or even desirable.

Considering the OP was talking about an option you're just being obtuse for the sake of it.

As usual some immersionists fail to realize that the technology to do what the multicrew camera does exists today. You can certainly reason that it would still exist 1200 years into the future.

It's less a matter of immersion as a matter of ludonarative dissonance. You'll note that I-WAR 1 is in the exact same boat: it's the future, the ship is supposed to have the technology to reproduce a pretty faithful image of the surrounding world, but the display is still supposed to be just that: a virtual representation, collating data from various sources into one picture. As such using the exact same level of fidelity in all aspects for both the virtual tactical display and the actual view of the outside you can get from the pilot's perspective is undesirable as they're just not supposed to be the same thing, as close as technology can get them in theory. A lot of other games do the same to maintain this clear separation between what is supposed to be real and what is just virtual. The Satellite view in Activision's Battlezone comes to mind. More recently XCOM2's geoscape transition is just as explicit. This isn't about immersion, it's about consistency between what you show and what the player expects to see. Granted ludo-narrative issues tend to be a matter of immersion, but you seem to conflate complaints about immersion with complaints about realism, when these aren't the same at all, one involving expectations the other involving facts if applicable.
 
Last edited:
A compromise isn't necessary or even desirable.

As usual some immersionists fail to realize that the technology to do what the multicrew camera does exists today. You can certainly reason that it would still exist 1200 years into the future.

nothing to do with immersion, and please point to where we are even close to something that works in real life, now that you brought it up.
 
nothing to do with immersion, and please point to where we are even close to something that works in real life, now that you brought it up.

2017 Ford F250 Parking assistant, recreates the surrounding area when parking by linking together panoramic pictures in real time from cameras located on different parts of the truck. Its pretty amazing to watch it do it, the immediate thought is that the truck launches a drone whenever you go to park.

to better clarify, this is a topdown/not first person view, this is not the parking assistant rear view back up camera that puts guide lines over the image. It provides a complete 360 view of what is around your vehicle, with it in the center.
 
Last edited:
Considering the OP was talking about an option you're just being obtuse for the sake of it.

I'm challenging the assertion that a compromise is even necessary. I don't think it is.

As such using the exact same level of fidelity in all aspects for both the virtual tactical display and the actual view of the outside you can get from the pilot's perspective is undesirable as they're just not supposed to be the same thing, as close as technology can get them in theory.

Ludonarrative dissonance, much like immersion, suspension of disbelief or whatever else you want to call it is purely in the eye of the beholder. None of those arguments you put forth impacts my suspension of disbelief/ludonarrative dissonance/immersion. The actual video game being displayed on my screen is not as visually faithful as reality, so I could argue that both it and multicrew 3rd person are degraded to meet the same standard and make as much sense as your argument.

nothing to do with immersion, and please point to where we are even close to something that works in real life, now that you brought it up.

Sure. Pretty much any sensor fusion application is doing this to one form or another. Have you ever used an app that overlays the constellations on the night sky as you point the phone's camera to the sky? Or shows you the overhead sattelites? Nothing prevents you from using sensor data (in point of fact, nothing is, since these applications exist) to reconstruct an image of reality.

I'm sure this answer won't satisfy you because you expect something that is exactly as multicrew instead of just analogous. But the F-35 fighter uses a system like that to overlay the world as the fighter with all its sensor suites on the HUD.

E: in fact, you could argue that the game itself is a demonstration of this. It's using the data generated by the game engine in order to display the contents of the game world from a shifted point of view. There's nothing anywhere preventing anyone from using as a data source, instead of game elements, observations made from the real world.
 
Last edited:
I've changed my mind anyway.

FD have done it wrong and need to redesign the whole thing. :D

I'd like gimballed cameras on the hull, and multiple gunner seats.
The CMDR of the ship assigns turrets to each gunner or hemisphere, and each gunner can pick a hemisphere to cover.
Top, bottom, rear, sides, etc.

Much better!

Chop chop!

I expect a demo stream tomorrow.
 
so I could argue that both it and multicrew 3rd person are degraded to meet the same standard

That's the issue, they're degraded to the same standard when the game should strive to provide proper clues as to the differences between them, if only in a small manner.


I'm challenging the assertion that a compromise is even necessary. I don't think it is.

[...]

and make as much sense as your argument.

I should know better than to try and have a civil conversation with a goon really. Are you just here to be a contrarian?
 
I should know better than to try and have a civil conversation with a goon really. Are you just here to be a contrarian?

:rolleyes: sure, go ahead and say this stuff instead of actually talking to the point I'm making because I happen to have an account on some other forum.

Here's the actual point. Your opinion on this issue doesn't extend to me. I have a different opinion to yours. This is a public forum where people are free to express their opinions within the rules of the forum. The opinion happens to be 'your argument and mine make the same amount of sense'. Did you expect an echo chamber that does nothing but agree with you?

That's the issue, they're degraded to the same standard when the game should strive to provide proper clues as to the differences between them, if only in a small manner.

I don't think so. It's a video game, and I don't see this as an issue. I mean I'm entitled to have an opinion on this right? Or am I just being contrarian because I'm a goon?
 
Last edited:
That's the issue, they're degraded to the same standard when the game should strive to provide proper clues as to the differences between them, if only in a small manner.




I should know better than to try and have a civil conversation with a goon really. Are you just here to be a contrarian?

No, he's here because arguing immersion in favor of playability is poisoning the game and being silent about it only leads to pointless, expensive transfer times that still made everyone unhappy.

Nice to know that a dead comedy forum is still relevant to players of hit space simulation, Elite: Dangerous
 
The fact of the matter is, if "there's a third person camera mode" is breaking your immersion, it's because you have never actually achieved immersion in the setting. See, this is literally a setting where realer-than-life simulated holographic reality is a thing. One of the most popular religions in the setting, for those who can afford it, is to pop yourself into 100% realer-than-real-life VR and enjoy a life of total bliss while receiving teachings from your Simguru. Pranav Antal is an example of this.

And yet, here people are, going "hey, in this spaceship game where my own ship accurately tracks the relative distances and vectors of other ships to the degree that it can simulate their noises as they move about, where the technology exists to completely immerse oneself into 100% undifferentiable from real life VR, it hurts my immersion that these two things might combine."

The third person gunner camera is a simulated virtual reality for your gunner that uses sensor data from the ship (which the ship already uses to supply sound, in case you forgot), to create a free-form virtually real representation in space (exactly like the navigational computer, in case you forgot about that too) which the gunnerthen uses to interact with space.

It is 100% Lore Consistent and if you're not getting immersed by it it's because you're not actually immersing yourself in this setting. If you don't like this lore, you should consider that this has been lore since 1984 and if it's not something you like, consider something like Star Trek? Although even Star Trek has holodecks so welp.
 
That's the issue, they're degraded to the same standard when the game should strive to provide proper clues as to the differences between them, if only in a small manner.




I should know better than to try and have a civil conversation with a goon really. Are you just here to be a contrarian?

It seems that no answer is good enough for you. You ask for an example, and get one. Then you just dismiss someone as being contrarian? You are doing nothing to help your argument here. Bad discussion tactics.

I personally don't see a need to change from the upcoming gunnercam. Compromise? Why? I don't see a need or a decent argument against it.
 
I'm from the immersion crowd but my problem is that the does not introduce interesting gameplay. ;-)
Your advantage is an additional pip and that is lame. I want learn to fight with my friends to get better together. With an extra pip you join another guy to shoot a little for an hour and that's it. There is nothing behind, no depths. (By the way it is too casual. But this community is running by the hardcore fans.)

If that's your goal then, sure, MC isn't for you and won't ever be really. MC crew is about splitting the mechanics of what we already do in solo into multiple roles for a small number of people. It's only logical that you taking on one of those roles will never be able to impact your ability to improve flying your individual ship in solo; because MC will only ever provide a subset of the existing gameplay mechanics, regardless of the way it was designed.

If you want to improve your pilot skills by flying with friends then that's what Wings are for. They already exist in the game and you can play them today.
 
I guess I can consider myself part of the immersion crowd, and my main problem is not that the gunner TPP camera is offering real images rather than abstract ones, but the inconsistency it brings. Why must every pilot in the galaxy have to content himself with a stylized representation of a target ship or station in the HUD, or with a stylized representation of asteroids on the scanner panel, when the technology exists to depict images as accurate and real as possible?

That's a really good argument for the game's main interface to be improved and upgraded with improved cockpit and third-person views. It's not a good argument to downgrade the gunner view.
 
Don't understand why the immersion crowd can't accept that the ship can generate an accurate image of the externals from it's sensor data? They are happy enough to believe in FTL.

Pretty much this. If computers can (obviously) produce that image in 2017, why wouldn't computers over 1000 years later be able to, too. I'm thinking the immurshun extremists might just be lacking in creativity.
 
Well, it seems again, the immersion crowd and gameplay crowd are busy waging war on the forums.
Sorry, but please, please point me to the 'war' because there seems to have been 1 or 2 threads speaking about it as you would indicate, only to have a ton of threads counter attack? if anything it is the 'lets ridicule anyone that enjoys immersing themselves in a game' threads that seem plentiful?
Or maybe its because people seem to have forgotten entirely what immersion is, and the whole "my emersion!" or however misspelled way it is gone, as people indicate?
 
Why else would they make absolutely gorgeous ship designs if you wouldn't be able to look at them in action from time to time. If you didn't see this coming in one form or another than you are blind. Also absolutely has nothing to do with peoples immersion.
 
The fact of the matter is, if "there's a third person camera mode" is breaking your immersion, it's because you have never actually achieved immersion in the setting. See, this is literally a setting where realer-than-life simulated holographic reality is a thing. One of the most popular religions in the setting, for those who can afford it, is to pop yourself into 100% realer-than-real-life VR and enjoy a life of total bliss while receiving teachings from your Simguru. Pranav Antal is an example of this.
.
This, there are a ton of ways where it would fit fully within game lore, and holographic interface sensors draw it from surroundings, it really isn't that far a stretch, so saying it breaks 'immersion' in that aspect does not make sense.

- - - Updated - - -

Why else would they make absolutely gorgeous ship designs if you wouldn't be able to look at them in action from time to time. If you didn't see this coming in one form or another than you are blind. Also absolutely has nothing to do with peoples immersion.
You do look at them? just not 100% of the time? I mean this is the same reasoning for "my character must look cool!" or similar in other games, only it turns out you don't see anything but the back of your character, so it is nearly pointless in my book?

Never understood that argument behind third person, if you look a something constantly it at least to me, ends up becoming 'plain' seeing it now and then, from first person, other people's ships flying past? now that is significantly more impressive.

That said I can understand someone liking that view better then first, and that is fine, but other then that I really don't see any advantage as some claim it has.
 
Last edited:
That's a really good argument for the game's main interface to be improved and upgraded with improved cockpit and third-person views. It's not a good argument to downgrade the gunner view.

And yet FDEV have been strongly against that. Because otherwise they would not have gathered the critical mass of enthusiasts which propelled the game past Kickstarter and Beta.

In other news, did you guys see this amazingly simple mockup:

 
Last edited:
The thing I personally dont like with the cam being around 200m away from the ship is that it takes you away from the action, its not very engaging (also play in VR so probably not going to feel great).
Sitting behind a turret that lights up the screen every time you fire is a lot more fun for me. I just watched some star citizen video and I like their way of doing turrets a lot better. Like this
[video=youtube;6MJ1uxStEZU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MJ1uxStEZU[/video]
 
Back
Top Bottom