Please don't reinvent the wheel.

RingoD123

R
Cmdr Pli55ken said:
Because they can be more assured that they get the needed goods. In the real world people pay premiums for express/insured delivery, too.
Makes a lot of economic sense, too: If the alternative means that your factories are standing still (which costs a LOT of money) then paying a little more to be sure that you actually get what you need is a winning proposition.


It's a goody for taking pictures, not a gameplay mechanic. You might as well complain about the screenshot feature. Makes about as much sense.
(...and as Mike said. The hint is in the name)
Click to expand...

Who can be more assured? the people I decided to sell it to that didn't know I was even going to sell it to them until I turned up? With cargo missions it may be plausible, but regular cargo runs????
In real life I can take picture of what is in front of me using a physical camera/phone, so no, the screenshot feature feels fine. I cannot however, fly an invisible camera with zero mass to take a selfie of myself.
And sorry, but adding anything "debug" into the game is not a feature, its a fudge.
 
Last edited:

RealNC

R
Mike Evans said:
Thus everything was designed to be done through HAT switches and buttons. We did not want a mouse cursor on top of the screen in space flight as that's the exact opposite of how a pilot in this universe would interact with their ship.
Click to expand...
I'm a bit confused. Can you elaborate?

A) Why would a HOTAS user have a mouse cursor?
B) Why would a mouse user be using HAT switches? They don't exist on a mouse. Instead, a mouse cursor should exist.

If you can disable the mouse arrows on the HUD when a flightstick is used, I'm pretty sure you'd be able to do the same for a mouse cursor, no?
 
Last edited:

Privata

Privata
Mike Evans said:
No it wasn't. It was designed to be used without a mouse, that's all. More specifically we didn't want you using an operating system interaction method to control the ship's functions when you're supposed to be pretending to be a pilot handling a ship with a bunch of HOTAS like controls. Thus everything was designed to be done through HAT switches and buttons. We did not want a mouse cursor on top of the screen in space flight as that's the exact opposite of how a pilot in this universe would interact with their ship.
Click to expand...
This is why elite is the best space game there is
 

Ydiss

Ydiss
apraksis said:
It has nothing to do with rudness nor with unpoliteness. I'm just suprised the way proposals are handled. A simple 'No, we won't do this' more or less.
Click to expand...

If you prefer he could lie and pretend they are considering it?

I've seen countless posts from devs engaging in discussions on ideas we've come up with. Doesn't mean they'll consider everything.

You got a straight, honest answer. As the guy said, no need to be upset about it.
 

zynaps

Z
Mike Evans said:
No it wasn't. It was designed to be used without a mouse, that's all. More specifically we didn't want you using an operating system interaction method to control the ship's functions when you're supposed to be pretending to be a pilot handling a ship with a bunch of HOTAS like controls. Thus everything was designed to be done through HAT switches and buttons. We did not want a mouse cursor on top of the screen in space flight as that's the exact opposite of how a pilot in this universe would interact with their ship.
Click to expand...

No one has many complaints about the ship UI, but what about starmap and station interfaces? Those would clearly benefit from being "OS-like" over the controller friendly versions they are now. Look back at the market and orrery view concepts you guys made during KS, clearly they have been dumbed down to be usable without touching the mouse and keyboard, and since you've known the game would eventually be on consoles, being 100% controller friendly surely was the primary driving force here? Had ED been a 100% PC-game without any plans to ever come to consoles, I can assure you most gamers would have prefer controller hostile and mouse-forced interfaces for the station, market and starmap. Most PC players after all have only mouse and keyboard.

I mean, last time I checked I couldn't even accurately use the mouse to interact with the station menu if I slightly move the head of my character with TrackIR or similar, even though translating mouse position from screen coordinates to in game world coordinates is a simple thing to do :)

Also, if FPS mode ever comes to ED, controller users that can't easily reach their mouse will be at a disadvantage to those sitting at a desk with the mouse in hand, this will force controller users to either invest in a trackball or drop their controller and reach for the mouse. Unless of course you nerf mouse-look speed but then you'll alienate the majority of the remaining PC-player base.

So maybe I worded myself incorrectly, I should have said that the UI has been designed, and will continue to be designed so they are "controller-only" usable and that this disqualifies certain more powerful UI-paradigms but as a bonus for the developers it cuts down on porting work. But as a PC only gamer I know most other PC only gamers would prefer to drop the controller on the floor the moment they open the station menu or starmap.
 
Last edited:

Lobstris

Lobstris
Mike Evans said:
No it wasn't. It was designed to be used without a mouse, that's all. More specifically we didn't want you using an operating system interaction method to control the ship's functions when you're supposed to be pretending to be a pilot handling a ship with a bunch of HOTAS like controls. Thus everything was designed to be done through HAT switches and buttons. We did not want a mouse cursor on top of the screen in space flight as that's the exact opposite of how a pilot in this universe would interact with their ship.
Click to expand...

Fair enough points Mike, yet, strangely enough the 'clickable pit in 3D' was one of the Holy Grails of the gold standard flight sim - Falcon 4. Personally, I find being able to use the mouse to click on an MFD button, visibly flick a switch, or rotate a dial in the cockpit far more immersive than selecting options from drop down menus and lists using keys. Of course a good PC interface also has keybinds for HOTAS - and I applaud E: D for being very easy and intuitive to set up with a HOTAS. :)
.
However, I also find Elite itself is internally inconsistent. You can click on some menus when docked, but not menus when in the cockpit for example. Is there a technical reason for that?
.
I also find Zynaps' line of thought compelling, and whether openly admitted or not, I believe it was there somewhere in the design process.

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

Komemiute said:
You're allowed not to like it, just don't assume stuff for the whole human race. There ARE different opinions around.
Click to expand...

Hey Komemiute, I've a vague recollection of a previous conversation with you - weren't you involved somehow with Falcon 4's cockpits, or have I got you mixed up with someone else? (If so, sorry, my bad memory).
 

Kaela

K
Mike Evans said:
No it wasn't. It was designed to be used without a mouse, that's all. More specifically we didn't want you using an operating system interaction method to control the ship's functions when you're supposed to be pretending to be a pilot handling a ship with a bunch of HOTAS like controls. Thus everything was designed to be done through HAT switches and buttons. We did not want a mouse cursor on top of the screen in space flight as that's the exact opposite of how a pilot in this universe would interact with their ship.
Click to expand...

No, the future is gesture capable, Point to This, touch that, Point over there, you know what I mean. The Hud is a tool for sharing pertinent information relating to the game in a manner than can be accessed with some ease by the majority of players. Allowing the players to decide what to see and how to see it means relinquishing part of the control of the game over to the players. I guess FD is saying it is his game, live with it, or go build your own.
 

ToniB

T
Mike Evans said:
No it wasn't. It was designed to be used without a mouse, that's all. More specifically we didn't want you using an operating system interaction method to control the ship's functions when you're supposed to be pretending to be a pilot handling a ship with a bunch of HOTAS like controls. Thus everything was designed to be done through HAT switches and buttons. We did not want a mouse cursor on top of the screen in space flight as that's the exact opposite of how a pilot in this universe would interact with their ship.
Click to expand...

1 million rep for that! you the best!
 

Lustan

Lustan
Gogster said:
Clearly not a UX man.

History is on your side, of course, we're 90+ years into the motor vehicle and our primary input is still via hard controls, some higher end cars have adopted voice, for which VA fills that gap.

If I could live for another thousand years and saw that our greatest development was a button to eject cargo, I'd be mildly disappointed.
Click to expand...

Our greatest development is a button that allowed us to travel many times the speed of light (in game of course). I fail to see how an external pointing device would improve a piloting experience. The only pointing device that should be relevant is our fingers.

As humans we are tactile. There is something tactile about something that would feel like a mechanical switch. Even in touch displays there is research to turn the touch display into one that provides tactile feedback.

The only real upgrade would be a neural link. The problem with something like this is our brains are: A. Too easy to fool; B. Not the best at multitasking. Besides one might think, "Man I wish that other ship would just... self destruct" and suddently you hear "SELF DESTRUCT INITIATED... EJECT".

The interfaces are holographic floating touch screens for all intents and purposes. How much more futuristic do you want it to be and while still translating well to a 2015 computer monitor that doesn't have touch?
 
Last edited:

Gogster

Gogster
Lustan said:
Our greatest development is a button that allowed us to travel many times the speed of light (in game of course). I fail to see how an external pointing device would improve a piloting experience. The only pointing device that should be relevant is our fingers.

As humans we are tactile. There is something tactile about something that would feel like a mechanical switch. Even in touch displays there is research to turn the touch display into one that provides tactile feedback.

The only real upgrade would be a neural link. The problem with something like this is our brains are: A. Too easy to fool; B. Not the best at multitasking. Besides one might think, "Man I wish that other ship would just... self destruct" and suddently you hear "SELF DESTRUCT INITIATED... EJECT".

The interfaces are holographic floating touch screens for all intents and purposes. How much more futuristic do you want it to be and while still translating well to a 2015 computer monitor that doesn't have touch?
Click to expand...

That wasn't my point, I was referring to him dismissing the idea out of hand. But then, if you have to explain...
 

Tryst

Tryst
apraksis said:
Oh well, this argument fits to all critic throughout the whole forum.
Kills all discussion.
Click to expand...
My thoughts exactly and pretty bad form for a dev to say such a thing. This makes me think of when my parents said "you'll get what you're given and like it." In other words, the suggestion forum and other suggestion threads are really just a way of venting our frustrations and isn't even being taken seriously. The ONLY reason we got the debug camera was that people paid extra for their paint jobs and wanted to see it themselves (as you would). Any other suggestions you may have are going to be binned along with the rest of the trash.

Things said:
Weren't there tractor beams in FFE?
Click to expand...
Yes and in First Encounter too if you recall. There were also mining bots that you put down on planets, they mined for you and stored the ore for you to pick up at your leisure. There was also an autopilot that went from station to station and didn't need to have the destination set again on arrival at the system, (and even that monstrosity called Eve allows you to set a route from station to station). Don't talk about dynamics and stations not being around at some point due to destruction etc because, even a 21st century sat nav has map updates.

I'm beginning to wonder if DB delayed the release of this game so long because he didn't reckon on so many original Elite players who would still remember the originals still being avid gamers. That way, he could do it the way that was easiest to code for multiplayer and pretend that's how it was all along. I can understand the different SC reasoning due to being unable to use time dilation while other players are playing alongside. But there is so much that's different and that's without the planetary landings and diversity of ships we had in the original games that should have been in this game right from the start including the Krait and Imp Explorer, especially since this game is supposed to take place 30 years on from CMDR Jameson.
 
Last edited:

bAdbUd

bAdbUd
Vincent Starson said:
I hadn't thought about it that way. I apologize for thinking otherwise.

I just recently noticed I can control the station menu with my joystick's hat that's bound to vertical / horizontal thrust, and trigger is enter. Hats off to the brilliant design ;)
Click to expand...

Gogster said:
No, no, no - think otherwise, never stop thinking. Question why things are the way they are!!
Click to expand...

Agreed if you don't ask, you'll never know.

There is no such thing as a stupid question. There are stupid answers though.
 

dungeonseeker

dungeonseeker
Nevermind the HUD (which I actually think is great), there's some huge design flaws that need addressing more urgently. How come trade data cannot be sent from system to system because the data cannot travel FTL yet bounty info, fine info & cargo info is instantly transmitted everywhere?

If you going to choose a design philosophy then it should be stuck to for all circumstances.
 

Lustan

Lustan
Gogster said:
That wasn't my point, I was referring to him dismissing the idea out of hand. But then, if you have to explain...
Click to expand...

I'm willing to bet this conversation was held inside FD for a while early in development. Basically these decisions have already been made. Parts of the interface are still going through iterations as seen with the chat for 1.2. If someone comes up with a better idea that fits into their parameters of the Elite universe I'm sure it will be considered.

Things like shrinking the HUD and allowing multiple windows take the game away from simulation/immersion and more toward an arcade/shooter feel that removes the immersion. The window/ship frames are what's part of the immersion factor and the ships themselves are in fact brilliantly designed. The sad part is if we had a "starfield view (no ship)" available a couple people would declare that it's far superior way to play. Then the remaining 99% sheep would disable their ship views. At that point the cockpit assets would be pointless and all immersion would be lost.

The point is the cockpit view defines Elite's version of immersion.

Granted I do think turning off all cabin lights makes sense, especially for the adder which is just a light pollution nightmare. I think a full "Start/Stop Power Plant" button should also exist as well and not just rebooting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom