Harping on Canopy Design Flaws:

You tell me:

Which is more practical?
Image 1 or Image 2?

Again, which is more practical?
Image 3 or Image 4?

Images:
http://imgur.com/a/TdCDj


My opinions:

Image1 because when I am doing anything and I can't see over my shoulder I have turn the ENTIRE ship just to see something as large as a goram nebula. Where is this practical? How is this helpful? Where is this fun? I love me some TRON lights any day, but I love me some practicality a whole heck of a lot more.


Image 3 because when I'm coming in to dock, setting down on a planet, or looking for signs of alien structures on a planet's surface what interests me is what's below my feet. The beautiful flooring is super well done, but at the end of the day just es me off and serves no practical value. It does help me slam into planets though! Why? I don't know... bad ship design maybe? Yes. Let's go with that. No, really, because in real life you'd have windows here. Not just because of things like this, but because on 2 g worlds the clipper struggles to stay aloft at anything less than 1.7 km from the surface. My Type-9? No issues. 100% no issues.


Frontier Development, please... please. When you are making ships think it through.


More Examples of utilitarian cockpits:
http://imgur.com/a/gtLE5


See? The cockpits are set forwards into to a 'bubble' with a hologram projector so the pilot can see around for the Final Fantasy images. If you actually look up the bridges for these ships, FF10 and FFX-2, there is no bridge visible externally as it is covered in metal. That means the whole thing is a hologram. Star Citizen too has a variety of its exploration ship, the Constellation, with actually useful windows. The design they with in the game is of no practical value, but then Star Citizen doesn't seem to have a clue where it is going. Don't end up heading the same way FD. Make ships have enough of a view to be of use. If we can't see as far as the human head can swivel plus eyes the ship is pretty much useless as more than a glorified shuttle or short-range limited-use combat ship. The garbage truck design works for the haulers only because they aren't exactly doing anything, but going forwards. They don't need to look around all that much. The rest of the ships of your universe do.
 
Last edited:
You tell me:

Which is more practical?
Image 1 or Image 2?

Again, which is more practical?
Image 3 or Image 4?

Images:
http://imgur.com/a/TdCDj


My opinions:

Image1 because when I am doing anything and I can't see over my shoulder I have turn the ENTIRE ship just to see something as large as a goram nebula. Where is this practical? How is this helpful? Where is this fun? I love me some TRON lights any day, but I love me some practicality a whole heck of a lot more.


Image 3 because when I'm coming in to dock, setting down on a planet, or looking for signs of alien structures on a planet's surface what interests me is what's below my feet. The beautiful flooring is super well done, but at the end of the day just es me off and serves no practical value. It does help me slam into planets though! Why? I don't know... bad ship design maybe? Yes. Let's go with that. No, really, because in real life you'd have windows here. Not just because of things like this, but because on 2 g worlds the clipper struggles to stay aloft at anything less than 1.7 km from the surface. My Type-9? No issues. 100% no issues.


Frontier Development, please... please. When you are making ships think it through.


More Examples of utilitarian cockpits:
http://imgur.com/a/gtLE5


See? The cockpits are set forwards into to a 'bubble' with a hologram projector so the pilot can see around for the Final Fantasy images. If you actually look up the bridges for these ships, FF10 and FFX-2, there is no bridge visible externally as it is covered in metal. That means the whole thing is a hologram. Star Citizen too has a variety of its exploration ship, the Constellation, with actually useful windows. The design they with in the game is of no practical value, but then Star Citizen doesn't seem to have a clue where it is going. Don't end up heading the same way FD. Make ships have enough of a view to be of use. If we can't see as far as the human head can swivel plus eyes the ship is pretty much useless as more than a glorified shuttle or short-range limited-use combat ship. The garbage truck design works for the haulers only because they aren't exactly doing anything, but going forwards. They don't need to look around all that much. The rest of the ships of your universe do.

*slow clap*
 
The problem with having a huge all-around bubble canopy at the front of the ship is, well, now your canopy is a huge, fragile target.

Of course, that's why technically a combat ship would probably want to invest in a virtual bridge somewhat like the COFFIN system from Ace Combat, so they can have no canopy at all while retaining near-360 degree vision, but apparently cameras and HD displays are lostech in Elite. So combat ships have to compromise between visibility, and canopy profile. This generally results in them settling on "if they're not in your firing arc, radar is good enough".

Fortunately, FCS computers are lostech too. Otherwise we'd be flying through periscopes, for fear of having a canopy shot out...
collins4.jpg
 
These could be aesthetic upgrades, like the secondhand ship topic pointed out, some small additions to ships could give the game much more feel. I have so much fun in the Forza series with the decal/paint applier and large selection of body options. Lots of enjoyment from giving your property identity.

FD took a step in the right direction with kits, but if Forza came down to BMW M5, you get 10 color options and 2 kits, the game would have vastly less potential.

We dont need a whole decal layer editor, would cost too much dev effort which we sorely need placed in other areas, but I'm sure the design team would have great fun making and implementing new customizable body designs and cockpit modifications and be able to do it efficiently. I dont much about that process though.

Just seems like a better use of time than alphabet bobbleheads lol.
 
This is the reason i dont fly so many nice models of ships.
Its either ugly (asp) or you cant see from it. (IMP ships)
No wonder ASP is so popular.

I told it before i tell it again.
Frontier forget the Ship kits give us different cockpits ....but it stinks of Pay to win.
But seriously i would be willing to pay money for this. Not for ship paint i cant even see properly.
But for ability to see ....yup. I would even accept the penalty of a more fragile cockpit.
ps: on some ships simple moving of a chair would be enough.
 
Last edited:
Frontier forget the Ship kits give us different cockpits ....but it stinks of Pay to win.

Why not luxury cockpit modules that you can buy. No effect beyond costing a lot of credits and giving a better view.

Think about stuff like a glass roofed anaconda :)
 
So when you get your glass bubble on top of your ship, will you complain that you can't see below your ship? Will there be a new demand for a glass bubble under the ship? Or maybe just a giant flying glass bubble...
 
You tell me:

Which is more practical?
Image 1 or Image 2?

Again, which is more practical?
Image 3 or Image 4?

Images:
http://imgur.com/a/TdCDj


My opinions:

Image1 because when I am doing anything and I can't see over my shoulder I have turn the ENTIRE ship just to see something as large as a goram nebula. Where is this practical? How is this helpful? Where is this fun? I love me some TRON lights any day, but I love me some practicality a whole heck of a lot more.


Image 3 because when I'm coming in to dock, setting down on a planet, or looking for signs of alien structures on a planet's surface what interests me is what's below my feet. The beautiful flooring is super well done, but at the end of the day just es me off and serves no practical value. It does help me slam into planets though! Why? I don't know... bad ship design maybe? Yes. Let's go with that. No, really, because in real life you'd have windows here. Not just because of things like this, but because on 2 g worlds the clipper struggles to stay aloft at anything less than 1.7 km from the surface. My Type-9? No issues. 100% no issues.


Frontier Development, please... please. When you are making ships think it through.


More Examples of utilitarian cockpits:
http://imgur.com/a/gtLE5


See? The cockpits are set forwards into to a 'bubble' with a hologram projector so the pilot can see around for the Final Fantasy images. If you actually look up the bridges for these ships, FF10 and FFX-2, there is no bridge visible externally as it is covered in metal. That means the whole thing is a hologram. Star Citizen too has a variety of its exploration ship, the Constellation, with actually useful windows. The design they with in the game is of no practical value, but then Star Citizen doesn't seem to have a clue where it is going. Don't end up heading the same way FD. Make ships have enough of a view to be of use. If we can't see as far as the human head can swivel plus eyes the ship is pretty much useless as more than a glorified shuttle or short-range limited-use combat ship. The garbage truck design works for the haulers only because they aren't exactly doing anything, but going forwards. They don't need to look around all that much. The rest of the ships of your universe do.

Nice idea, but first they should fix the Python's cockpit. :p

Replace the outlined area with more glass (i.e. make the adjacent glass panel larger) - same on the left side:
dlba9ech.png

This is how I imagine the new outline of the glass panel:
9hutljnm.png
 
Last edited:
The flaws are added on purpose to give the ships draw backs and character.

THIS. There are many reasons why a virtual cockpit would be realistic, but this is a game. That means style is much more important than you think, even though you may not agree with it.
 
So you guys are turning down added customization because you think it would compromise combat integrity? lol

Customization adds character... Explain how it would do the opposite or provide an advantage when you have a radar constantly displaying the location and vector of nearby ships.

This isnt about balance like I've tried to argue in threads about SLF and Imperial ships, its just about making the game more visually pleasing.
 
The Vulture is probably one of the defining examples. It's a dogfighter, one of the most manoeverable ships in the game, so why the hell does it have visibility to the sides that's so bad that I feel like I'm watching TV through a letterbox?

(That's without even getting into the fact that it's made out of crisps. I pray for the day one of the engineers manages to come up with 'heavy duty cockpit reinforcement')
 
Last edited:
The Vulture is probably one of the defining examples. It's a dogfighter, one of the most manoeverable ships in the game, so why the hell does it have visibility to the sides that's so bad that I feel like I'm watching TV through a letterbox?

(That's without even getting into the fact that it's made out of crisps. I pray for the day one of the engineers manages to come up with 'heavy duty cockpit reinforcement')

I think the Vulture is actually a victim of low chair placement :)
 
The flaws are added on purpose to give the ships draw backs and character.

This. I complained about visibility from the Cobra's Cockpit when it was revealed in Alpha, and suggested bubble canopies, like the F16 et. al. The response I got back was basically what h347h said - done to give the ships individual character. There were some early concept art pictures of pilots floating completely in bubble cockpits, surrounded by fluid to protect from g-forces (dunno if they're in the art book, don't remember off the top of my head...), but these (obviously) didn't make the final cut.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

The Vulture is probably one of the defining examples. It's a dogfighter, one of the most manoeverable ships in the game, so why the hell does it have visibility to the sides that's so bad that I feel like I'm watching TV through a letterbox?

(That's without even getting into the fact that it's made out of crisps. I pray for the day one of the engineers manages to come up with 'heavy duty cockpit reinforcement')

Same reason why things like subsystem scan controls are not right in front of the pilot, or the HUD doesn't provide a lot more information (like a target arrow, or velocity indicator). The Devs felt that dogfighting was actually better if you could lose sight of targets - which I agree does run contrary to 100 years (or 1100 years ;) ) of flight experience 'lose sight, lose the fight', rather than just following them around.
 
Last edited:
So you guys are turning down added customization because you think it would compromise combat integrity? lol

Customization adds character... Explain how it would do the opposite or provide an advantage when you have a radar constantly displaying the location and vector of nearby ships.

This isnt about balance like I've tried to argue in threads about SLF and Imperial ships, its just about making the game more visually pleasing.

*bursts into uncontrollable laughter*

Let me guess. You and the OP have never had your cockpit popped and wonder why the hell there's a life support module that you've never understood why had a timer on it?

Do yourself a favor.

Take the AspX into combat and joust with the NPC's as much as possible. This shouldn't be too hard because if the NPC's can get behind you, they'll prefer this option.

Then tell me how many times your "Bubble Cockpit" get breached as opposed to the smaller more restricted but better protected canopy of a Viper III.

Make sure you upgrade your life support to a C Rated.

Post videos! I need a good laugh.

(Yes, Canopies can be targeted and broken by NPC's. If you do not reach a station before the timer runs out, you will suffocate to death, the same as if your ship exploded. Then we'll see how much you're begging for more canopy.)
 
The Asp cockpit is functional and also butt-ugly. Butt-ugly is seen throughout all lakon ships (which is consisten with the function-over-form design philosophy of lakon).

I happen to like my closed cockpits of the python and vulture. I don't use VR or track IR, so visibility below me does't do me much good.
 
ROSS-128
Yes, I think it would be going too far to do it with all ships. If possible, the best thing would be something like sun-visors that some cars have. If you want more window just slide the thing back. Suddenly a portion of your roof is a window. However, just like cars there are times when you want that closed because it blocks out the sun. In this I'm purely thinking of exploration. However, the same could be true for armor plating.

Dillontheman
I'm more and more trying to think about time vs. utility when I complain like this. Most of these rants I get on about, "I hate these canopies," is entirely due to their lack of function in exploration. You REALLY have a lot of use for as wide a view as possible exploring. You have to check stars, you have to check alignments, you have to watch out for canyon walls, elevation. Not all of this can be done by equipment. With exploration you're doing things that put you up against the entire simulation of the game and you never know which part if going to be relevant. A lot of these ships are incredibly well thought out in and of themselves. It's just in the larger context of the game, the self-contained nature of the ships' designs are less than practical in most cases where it comes to exploration. The cockpits really play this out. I don't know why I'm saying all this to just you. I guess it's just falling out of my head at the moment.

DirkLarien
The ASP can do everything, be anything, and the only ship of that size to come with all of the appropriate modules, plus a great jump range. So much for diversity.

Muetdhiver
I would throw so much money at FD if I could get more functionality out of cockpits. I mean, these are the things we live in 24/7. NOT the ships. It's the cockpit or makes or breaks a ship in most cases up front. For instance, I just got a Cutter. I'm having a very hard time enjoying it because the dashboard so much resembles that of a large luxury yacht. I spent a lot of time on the ocean growing up. I've driven all kinds of little boats to huge boats. I don't actually believe this is the problem of the dashboard itself. Instead it is that I'm expecting the 'the boat' to bounce like it would in real life... then I remember it is a spaceship and this leaves me very confused. My immersion bounces instead. I don't blame this on bad game design. It's just the difference between real life experience with something and gaming. Until just the other night I positively HATED the Anaconda for not having the cockpit in the nose so you tell what you're doing. Someone pointed out to me it is the same design as a super-taker on the ocean. At that point I "got it" and then immediately hated it more for being the wrong type of thing for exploration just the same. Basically, the longer your jump ranger the worse your options for a ship. FD just did not think through that our Wagons (ships) need to last the length of the Road-Map and 10 years of Development the game is going to have. Basically, these things have last 2 years and now people are bored.

I will say there are positives to a tight canopy as well. I started flying the Adder around after 2 months flying back and forth to Jacques simply because it DID hide the view of everything around me. I'd grown sick of seeing space. I was happy to see a cockpit again, but ultimately I keep it as a shuttle to move me around local space. Its windows (again) disallow it retaining any real functionality when it is time to get serious about exploring). It does have one of the best and most imaginative interiors in the game though.


AH_ImADot
I did complain I can't see below my ship. I do on every thread I make like this. I will on every thread I make like this. It is necessary for exploration. Suffering hull damage because aesthetics defeated function in the design process wastes my time; literally if my ship should be so damaged I have to go home or explode.


Mephane
Everyone I know has said that every single time they look up to see where "..." went and meet a steel plate.


Shadowdance
I flew a Type-9 for exploration. The Clipper is just me experimenting with small ships. I love Lakon. Except for the Asp X because it is the only ship of its kind that can do everything, shines obnoxious migraine inducing lights back in your eyes, and is your only option for that class. The clipper, by the way, falls of out the sky like a rock if you try to move it through a valley or around at anything less than 1.7km. It's a Large class ship and isn't that practical. It looks nice, has enough module space to be a Search and Rescue or full on Explorer. Unfortunately, FD cut the corner so far on this one its jump range makes it mediocre at best. Again, as you said... Lakon. Yay... diversity.


Gorgonaut
So much truth here... Expand on what you mean because someone always needs to hear it. Me too. I often get a 'great idea' only to realize the impracticality of it when used in other fields. I.E. I complain because, as an explorer we are shafted on ships. Hardcore. Unless the only ship you want to fly is an oil-tanker (conda) or Asp (does everything, makes the game a flatland for options). That doesn't mean all of this somehow works well or fine in other areas of the game. I don't play most of those so I actually don't know.


Dillontheman
Yes! Sometimes a little handwaving is much more about keeping the game vital and alive.
- speaking of which, Gorgonaut... FD can have the guts to go virtual cockpit or someone else will, but having a tunnel vision cockpit just because it's easy doesn't work either.

Red Anders
The Vulture was going to be my ship of choice to get away from this problem. Then I discovered half a meter of metal plating blocking out my left and right view, crappy module options, and short jump range... Hello AspX my old foe. How I hate you.

DirkLarien
Observant! is it really?

Lobstris
Individual character... as in they decided to screw over years of gaming because they lacked imagination... wow
... again, wow

Adhock
The bubble cockpit is more of a statement of where the seating needs to be to provide enough room to look over your shoulder. As mentioned by others this kind of 'it must be glass' thinking is primitive and unimaginative. In real life we'd use a monitor and put a nice firm plate (and other materials) between you and the outside for combat). I.E. VR ...inside VR: Mise en abyme, except here it works.


ForeverNoob,
I just use mouse and keyboard. Nothing else, but middle mouse button 3 lets me swivel my head. I use it all the time.
 
The Vulture is probably one of the defining examples. It's a dogfighter, one of the most manoeverable ships in the game, so why the hell does it have visibility to the sides that's so bad that I feel like I'm watching TV through a letterbox?

Because it does.
Look at 50's/60's era fighters.
 
There is no excuse for the Vulture's cockpit design.

Core Dynamics CEO: "Alright boys. I'm really liking this whole 'best small fighter in the game' thing you got goin' here. But uh..."

Core Dynamics design team: "What?"

Core Dynamics CEO: "We should replace the existing canopy with a greenhouse. Make it incredibly fragile, too, just to be safe.
 
Back
Top Bottom