I've sort of just made it second nature to figure out where the slot is. As soon as I drop in it's become almost instinctive to find the side spinning counter-clockwise. I find that I don't think about it anymore, it kind of happens.
I can see the orientation of other ships. Why not orientation of Orbitals?
- Thread starter Hark0n
- Start date
The bolded is correct for how it currently works, however, it is not correct that the implication is that there is therefore no way to make it work as it should do.
The information required to make it work:
0) Player's ship position and orientation
1) The orbiting planet's position and orientation
2) The orbit trajectory of the station in supercruise
3) A rotating simple 3D representation of the station
4) The position and orientation of the station with respect to the planet it is orbiting
Now this is where your logic fails:
The current game engine has the following information available in supercruise:
0) Player's ship position and orientation
1) The orbiting planet's position and orientation
2) The orbit trajectory of the station in supercruise
3) The position and orientation of the station with respect to the planet it is orbiting (always 45degrees north of the orbiting planet)
Now see, the only missing piece is the simple 3D rotating station icon. There is no reason whatsoever that this needs to be generated from the full 3D station model existing within a separate instance. They merely need to create a small simple 3d rotating station model that is the same for all station types, then store in on the HDD. The engine will then load it into RAM when you enter supercruise and the orientation of the icon with respect to the player ship will be set by the information that already exists in the game engine at the moment. This has nothing to do with the server architecture or P2P connections. It is simply an issue that can be solved by adjusting what is rendered locally on the player's machine.
Your assumption is incorrect that this would require any major engine overhaul or new information.
Last edited:
Rep to both of you. I'd agree it is possible, but none of us is able to tell how hard or easy it would be to implement. Your post highlights what requirements are needed, it could well be that there are technical difficulties involved due to the way they designed SC.
Anyway, I have requested this feature so many times that I actually forgot about it...
On the point someone made earlier about the station facing one of the planet's poles, I believe Drkaii mentioned that stations face 45 degrees to the planet's north pole.
"But how can you tell NORTH in space when there's no up or down?" I hear you ask!
Well, the answer is north relative to the galactic plane and the system map.
If your station is orbiting a landable planet and has ground bases, you can easily tell from the planetary surface map where the north pole is (presuming the ground bases are above or below the equator), because "north" in this context is whatever is at the top of the planet on the surface map. The same can also be done for any interesting surface features the planet has. If the system with your station is orbiting roughly in line with the galactic plane, then you can also use the method of orienting yourself so that the Magellanic Clouds are below you, as they are in the Galaxy Map - this method may work better for planets that are not landable.
This isn't a foolproof method though, as if your system is orbiting at an eccentric angle to the galactic plane, you can still use the orbit lines of the planet to determine where the poles are, but you'll need to just pick a side a hope for the best on that one! If it's a station you go to frequently, you'll soon get used to which it is if you're paying attention though. This is also where surface features come in handy - for both landable & non-landable worlds.
"But how can you tell NORTH in space when there's no up or down?" I hear you ask!
Well, the answer is north relative to the galactic plane and the system map.
If your station is orbiting a landable planet and has ground bases, you can easily tell from the planetary surface map where the north pole is (presuming the ground bases are above or below the equator), because "north" in this context is whatever is at the top of the planet on the surface map. The same can also be done for any interesting surface features the planet has. If the system with your station is orbiting roughly in line with the galactic plane, then you can also use the method of orienting yourself so that the Magellanic Clouds are below you, as they are in the Galaxy Map - this method may work better for planets that are not landable.
This isn't a foolproof method though, as if your system is orbiting at an eccentric angle to the galactic plane, you can still use the orbit lines of the planet to determine where the poles are, but you'll need to just pick a side a hope for the best on that one! If it's a station you go to frequently, you'll soon get used to which it is if you're paying attention though. This is also where surface features come in handy - for both landable & non-landable worlds.
Last edited:
Agreed.
Ships aren't rendered 3D objects either (in supercruise). And the station definitely has a position within the supercruise instance, otherwise you wouldn't be able to lock it (and drop on it).
Most likely the station orientation is deemed non-important and therefore is simply only calculated/synchronized when in real space instancing, whereas ships' orientations are deemed important and therefore are calculated/synchronized when in supercruise instancing. Simple as that. It might not be an easy thing to implement now, but at one point it was a design decision rather than a technical limitation.
Last edited:
Honestly speaking, I'm simply not convinced that there is a technical reason for stations not having an orientable 3D representation in SC at all...
If the engine can do it for ships in SC, then how is a station any different? And when all of the required information already exists, it would be a very simple change (in theory anyway).
It's possible that the reason it hasn't already been changed is just that its a very minor issue and therefore low on the list of priorities. Or it could just be that the parts of the code that need to be changed are a little clunky and so FDev is reluctant to change it for fear of it inadvertently breaking something else.
It could even just be that the existing solution (i.e. static icon) was a last minute hack, put together and accepted due to schedule constraints, and it simply hasn't been revisited since... I'd wager the latter is the most likely reason.
Easy fix: add a very tiny replica of the station at the fixed position and lock it to its orbit and position.
The mail slot is pointed around 45 degrees off its orbit, but whether it's towards the north or south pole (or arbitrary) I don't really know. Either way, since we can't tell the poles apart in SC and not see the stations positioning, dropping in is a cointoss. That's why I drop in either almost straight towards the slot, or at almost 90 degrees off. If you drop straight from the planet (ie orbital plane) you will always drop around 45 degrees off. That makes it easier to locate the slot than the 90 degrees off, but I still go for the 45 degree approach and hope I'm lucky
Again, adding a small model of the station in supercruise would fix the "not in your instance" problem. Or, if it always points at the North Pole (which I think, I just haven't checked), put a mark on the hud for that instead. Also solves the problem.
This.. You awalys come out of SC either facing the statio or with it side on to you but with you near enough to the slot on an Orbis or Coliolis to kae it to the entrance quickly. Used to work on comiing at it from the planet but coming at the plent from above facing directly at the planet itself with the orbit of the station as a flat ring around it and then pulling back to go at the station at a 45 degree angle when you're close enough to the planet to get a 45 degree bead on it works nicely.
Nice example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkJ9MqnQEiw&feature=youtu.be
Image by the same user that posted the video:
Last edited:
As far as the second question regarding interdictions - no it's not lag or latency or anything else as suggested by another in this thread. On a successfull interdiction you are pulled back to the position of the interdicting ship upon entering normal space. So wherever they were at the time, you get yanked back to the same location.
As far as finding the station entrance, just get between the station and the planet, and 50% of the time you'll face the slot, while 50% of the time you'll be at a 90 degree angle to the slot. This is determined by whether you are above or below the station's orbit in relation to the planet's north pole. The EASIEST way to always know how to approach a station, as long as it's one you've visited at least once before, is to note where prominent nebula in the skybox are located. If the horsehead nebula is "above" the orbit lines on an approach that lines up with the mail-slot, than reproducing this condition will produce the same result 100% of the time.
TL
R - Pick a nebula above or below the orbit lines of the station, and if approach above or below the orbital plane lines you up with the mail-slot, then it will every time. If not, reverse your approach relative to the nebula's location and it will work, every time.
As far as finding the station entrance, just get between the station and the planet, and 50% of the time you'll face the slot, while 50% of the time you'll be at a 90 degree angle to the slot. This is determined by whether you are above or below the station's orbit in relation to the planet's north pole. The EASIEST way to always know how to approach a station, as long as it's one you've visited at least once before, is to note where prominent nebula in the skybox are located. If the horsehead nebula is "above" the orbit lines on an approach that lines up with the mail-slot, than reproducing this condition will produce the same result 100% of the time.
TL
R - Pick a nebula above or below the orbit lines of the station, and if approach above or below the orbital plane lines you up with the mail-slot, then it will every time. If not, reverse your approach relative to the nebula's location and it will work, every time.
Last edited:
Yes. Simple update, just needs math, which computers are good at.
It's not an "assumption" that they would need to make significant changes, it's a fact. First, it would require, at a minimum, the addition of station orientation as a parameter that is calculated in supercruise, which the game does not currently do. Second, the current station icons that the nav panel uses are generic and don't accurately reflect the station design and a proper 3D model would need to appear in the target panel, which the game also does not do for navigation points like stations while in supercruise. Those two additions would represent major additions to the supercruise mechanics at present and it involves making information available that the game currently does not use or process within the supercruise instance. They made a very clear design choice to omit this information and you can assume that there are most likely some substantial technical reasons why this was done at the time the supercruise mechanics were implemented.
Keep in mind that we're discussing a game that does not function adequately in many basic ways and the devs apparently struggle to implement very simple functions such as accurate timers for in-game events. At present the most significant issue is that mission incomes are broken across the board and this is preventing players from obtaining any meaningful income in the game. Not only has this been broken for over 2 months, all the recent "fix" accomplished was to nerf the passenger missions so that now everything pays trivial amounts of credits. Suggesting that they should rework the way stations are handled in supercruise to add a functionality that does not currently exist simply so that a small fraction of the playerbase can have an easier time of dropping out next to the mailslot is simply not at all a priority for the game and is quite simply not going to happen.
Ships are, at a minimum, rendered as a simplified rotating ship model in the target panel. They exist in the game as objects with a shape and orientation that the game continually calculates while within the instance. Your ship relies on this orientation relative to other ships to calculate effects such as interdictions. Whether the ships have a separate, full-detail 3D model that is visible externally is another issue entirely as you will never get close enough at supercruise speeds to actually see another ship, but at a minimum that position and orientation, along with the simplified 3D model, are already calculated by the game.
Stations, on the other hand, are simply represented as a zero-volume coordinate point that serves as a loading point for the station instance. It does not have any volume or mass and does not interact with your ship in any way while in supercruise other than to trigger the loading of that instance when you drop out of supercruise. That position is a nav marker that serves as a loading point for a station instance, nothing more.
Last edited:
The station's orientation is a simple variable which is simply not propagated through the super-cruise instance. I'm not saying propagating it would be "easy" (it's possible it simply does not exist if there is no instance where the station is present and it's only computed on the first player ship's arrival) but I doubt there's a technical limitation preventing that without rewriting the whole game engine. They just implemented it that way as it was simpler and there was no real need to see the station's orientation other than convenience.
Last edited:
It's not something that I see as a technical limitation per se in the sense that there would have been nothing preventing them from making it work that way originally, it's more of an issue that for whatever reason FD went with a heavily instanced design that discards anything that is not absolutely essential information. Now we have to deal with the limitations of those game design choices and for them to add those features back in would probably require a fair bit more work than if they had included them to begin with. I've actually been quite surprized to realize how much game performance seems to be affected by the loading times between the various instances and it appears that the server is sending a completely different set of information in each case (i.e., jumping to a system vs. supercruise travel vs. local station instance vs. orbital glide vs. local planet instance). Even when making transitions that you would expect much of the necessary information is already loaded (such as transition from orbital cruise to glide mode) we still commonly encounter 10-20 second game delays (sometimes even 30-60 seconds). This is with FD having presumably stripped out everything not absolutely essential to load any given instance so I can only imagine how many issues they would have if they added even more parameters to calculate or load. They could have made it a priority to carry over certain features such as station orientation into supercruise but I suspect that would slow down performance even further and they already have issues with long loading times as it is.
Good thinking, but I guess loading times for orbital flight / glide are related to something else. There are people who always experience an instant transition and other who always wait between 30-60 seconds, seems to be about connectivity.
Yeah, "transitions" seem to be mostly about networking as far as I can tell (or the game is really, really badly coded, which I doubt).
And note I never said it would be easy You're right, it's possible the current design would require a fair bit of work. But that doesn't mean it's not possible and more importantly that doesn't mean it wouldn't be useful
And note I never said it would be easy
You're right, it's possible the current design would require a fair bit of work. But that doesn't mean it's not possible and more importantly that doesn't mean it wouldn't be useful
Last edited:
Yeah, "transitions" seem to be mostly about networking as far as I can tell (or the game is really, really badly coded, which I doubt).
And note I never said it would be easy
We just don't know it if would require lots of work or if it would be easy. Next AMA: Ask how much work it would require to show station orientation in SC.
How can you possibly know this without having looked through the engine code to fully understand exactly how its all been coded? Are you a developer on FDev's dev team? If not then, with respect, all this you're claiming as fact about what information exists within the engine is merely supposition and assumption.
The reality, and this what I feel you don't seem to be properly grasping, is that even if station orientation isn't present in the engine (i.e. essentially a set of coordinates), it's flippin trivial to determine this from the orientation of the planet that the station is orbiting. It is basic maths and in no possible way a significant change as you state... that's a real exaggeration.
On the other hand, I simply don't believe you that station orientation doesn't exist in supercruise... wanna know why? If it didn't then the game couldn't determine what position wrt the station to drop you into, when you go from the SC instance to the station instance. If I can approach from inside the planetary orbit of a station and always see the station in the same consistent orientation then that information has been calculated in the engine whilst i'm in supercruise and thus it exists... period.
Yeeeeesss... aaaaand so why would adding a small 3D shape for stations, that rotates in the target panel with respect to the player position and orientation and the station position and orientation, be any different???? Both the player ship and station position and orientation information are already calculated in the engine and therefore exist... so making an additional 3D station icon for the target panel that does essentially the same as the ship icons would not in anyway constitute a major nor significant change to the SC mechanics or engine. You build the model in a 3D modelling software, import it in engine and copy across a few lines of code (the same you use for ships in the target panel).... I'm failing to see the massive change here?
Eeh?!? What does volume and mass have to do with anything? The OP is asking for a rotating 3D station icon to show up in the target panel when you target a station. One that shows the station orientation, so allows you to line up with the mail slot. He's not talking about the actual point of light that represents the station in supercruise... as even at the minimum distance in supercruise (i.e. few hundred km) it would just appear as a speck, so this is realistic.
Are you sure we're actually talking about the same thing here?
There's no need to possess this information (station orientation) while supercrusing. All of this (ship position wrt station) is likely computed while "loading" the real space instance where you'll end up near the station. The actual station orientation itself is likely computed during that "loading". It might even be random (though I doubt it, it wouldn't change a thing from the player point of view).
If I had to guess, the only reason we can see ship orientation in SC is to facilitate the interdiction mechanic, since there is no other game mechanic which necessitates the calculation of a stations orientation while in SC, it is just not calculated until the player is moved from the SC instance into the real space instance containing the station. The data exists in the engine, it is just not fetched and calculated because it is not needed so support other mechanics at that time.