Quality of Life Improvement: Input LAT/LON Co-ords and have a Surface Waypoint appear, similar to the surface scan mission Waypoint.

[Calebe]

Why a penalty to have the nav computer allow you to input LAT/LON coordinates to find a particular location? Is it because you can do it easily, therefore, if someone else can't penalize them? Of course the not 'me' as I can do it without help rings true or am I the only one to think that way?
.
It seems to me in the year what is it again 3303 or so that the navigation computer on a ship that can 'steer' a ship thru hyperspace with jump ranges of 10-20-30 some ships 60-70 light years in a few seconds, can cruise at a maximum velocity of 2001 times the speed of light would have a computer navigation system incapable of allowing a LAT/LON being entered to find a particular location absurd. We have that ability today and yet that far into the future and that isn't available rings hollow and not really believable. Now could it add weight to a navigation computer? No and reason is if the current navigation computer can scan a whole planet in seconds to add a simple pop up to find LAT/LON is not a hardware change but software and that will add no weight. So a penalty to add a functionality I have in the GPS in my car today in a ship that far into the future makes no sense. Just please add the feature, use it or not is your choice, but please none of this artificial penalize them if they use a QOL improvement mentality of some. I don't see this as a feature that would be missing this far into the future it is rudimentary for navigation today and even more so tomorrow.
.
Calebe

 

[Genar-Hofoen]

Well, yes.

And I've already suggested at least two ways it could be implemented while, at the same time, adhering to FDev's usual metric of forcing players to make choices as to their in-game priorities.

Meanwhile, you're just insisting there should be an easy way to do something and no down-side to it.

Maybe FDev will set aside their usual philosophy and implement this as you wish for but I suspect you'll have more luck framing your idea in a manner that coincides with the way almost everything else in the game works.

The thing is, it appears to me to be utter madness to insist on having a downside to a navigational aid - that's the clincher which leads me to vast amounts of puzzlement.

No sane design engineer would place any kind of downside into being able to plug in a waypoint and aim for it. There's not even any kind of gameplay reason for doing so.

 

[VonBlade]

Well, yes.

And I've already suggested at least two ways it could be implemented while, at the same time, adhering to FDev's usual metric of forcing players to make choices as to their in-game priorities.

Meanwhile, you're just insisting there should be an easy way to do something and no down-side to it.

Maybe FDev will set aside their usual philosophy and implement this as you wish for but I suspect you'll have more luck framing your idea in a manner that coincides with the way almost everything else in the game works.

Okay we'll compromise. We'll have a penalty for using the "waypoint on a planet" system, if you agree to give up FTL travel, instant refuelling, instant cargo transfer... or are the things that are utterly ridiculous but already part of the game somehow more valid than things that aren't yet part of the game?

Man the "stop having fun guys" people are always out in force in threads like this. Quick, quick, give me a "I suppose you want autopilot and infinite credits" strawman rebuttal.

 

[oddball1952]

hi all and a big yes from me flying round and round a planet not good so yes from me

 

[Stealthie]

Okay we'll compromise. We'll have a penalty for using the "waypoint on a planet" system, if you agree to give up FTL travel, instant refuelling, instant cargo transfer... or are the things that are utterly ridiculous but already part of the game somehow more valid than things that aren't yet part of the game?

I'm not sure I understand the comparison TBH.

i think we all accept that there are already "utterly ridiculous" things in the game.
The issue is simply that when there's an easy way of doing an "utterly ridiculous" thing, and a hard way of doing the same thing, there's usually some kind of pay-off for choosing to do it the hard way.

As far as I'm aware, 2 of the 3 examples you gave are NOT cases where there's a hard way and an easy way of doing the same thing.
In the 3rd case, that of refueling, it already adheres to current philosophy.
You can either pay for a fuel-scoop and refuel for free at your own convenience but use a slot to install the scoop OR you can do without a fuel-scoop, be forced to visit stations to refuel, pay for your fuel and risk running out of fuel if no station is available but have a slot free for another purpose.

C'est la vie.

 

[Genar-Hofoen]

I'm not sure I understand the comparison TBH.

i think we all accept that there are already "utterly ridiculous" things in the game.
The issue is simply that when there's an easy way of doing an "utterly ridiculous" thing, and a hard way of doing the same thing, there's usually some kind of pay-off for choosing to do it the hard way.

As far as I'm aware, 2 of the 3 examples you gave are NOT cases where there's a hard way and an easy way of doing the same thing.
In the 3rd case, that of refueling, it already adheres to current philosophy.
You can either pay for a fuel-scoop and refuel for free at your own convenience but use a slot to install the scoop OR you can do without a fuel-scoop, be forced to visit stations to refuel, pay for your fuel and risk running out of fuel if no station is available but have a slot free for another purpose.

C'est la vie.

Yes, but we're not even talking here about something physical like refuelling or whatnot.

We're talking here about an obvious something which is missing from even the most basic of navigational aids - a goshdarned waypoint fer goodness sake

And to suggest having some kind of downside to what amounts to "this is the way to go" in a HUD, is in my opinion, a very strange thing indeed.

 

[Stealthie]

Yes, but we're not even talking here about something physical like refuelling or whatnot.

Yes, we're talking about something for the sake of convenience, like the docking computer.

Which is an optional module.

 

[Genar-Hofoen]

Yes, we're talking about something for the sake of convenience, like the docking computer.

Which is an optional module.

This is a fallacious argument as well.

We're talking here about a software update to the existing ship's HUD.

The kind of software update which will, in 2.4, show a Thargoid ship as a circle instead of as a square. No extra module required.

So once again - I'll reiterate;

To object to what amounts to a software patch - the inclusion of an input of a LAT/LON coordinate with the subsequent appearance of a waypoint with which to head towards on the HUD - and to even suggest such a facility should have some kind of downside to it - is a very strange thing indeed.

 

[sollisb]

This is a fallacious argument as well.

We're talking here about a software update to the existing ship's HUD.

The kind of software update which will, in 2.4, show a Thargoid ship as a circle instead of as a square. No extra module required.

So once again - I'll reiterate;

To object to what amounts to a software patch - the inclusion of an input of a LAT/LON coordinate with the subsequent appearance of a waypoint with which to head towards on the HUD - and to even suggest such a facility should have some kind of downside to it - is a very strange thing indeed.

Because simply, you're thinking about it wrong! Should we have a GPS/Nav System? Yes absolutely. We already have one, but external to the game, or, if u have VR, inside the game. The thing most are missing is this; FDev try to make eveything, absolutely everything, as long winded and tedious as they possibly can. And when they've done that, they add random elements. And anything extra is going to cost you somehow.

Cuz, like, FD don't do real sims.

 

[Assimilator1]

Indeed. And had you have read through the thread you will have seen that these tips have already been provided - but that's not what the thread is about, it's about discussion of the addition of a simple input of lat/lon coords and having a waypoint appear in the HUD, in exactly the same way a waypoint appears when you get a surface scanning mission

Regards o7

I haven't got time to read right through these big threads, I thought it might well have been posted before, but I figured it'd be useful for those who missed it before .
I know what this thread is about, I did read the op & the 1st page , I would like planet navigation improved too, I suspect, should it happen, that it wouldn't be until v3 though.

o7

 

[DocLooshkin]

Hello, Genar-Hofoen. Hello, all.

I've read the thread. Yes, all of it. For those who haven't...

- - - - -

• The request is for a simple means of entering planetary co-ordinates, so players can more quickly, easily and reliably navigate to a given position on a planet's surface, via a visible waypoint.

• The vast majority of contributors are very much for the idea, mainly citing frustration and boredom at the slowness of the current method as reasons for their support.

• Two contributors argued against the idea, but didn't seem terribly exercised about it.

• Stealthie has opposed the idea vehemently, submitting page after page of posts, but without offering anything in the way of plausible reasons for doing so.

Mere difficulty is not a plus point, when given in isolation: without being able to demonstrate some coherent benefit to the game, no argument has effectively been made, regardless of the number of words being used to dance on abstractions. Likewise, neither is tedium an automatic source of benefit. Eyestrain from watching tiny numbers slowly tick past doesn't seem like a good thing under any circumstances.

• A slightly more credible argument has been made regarding trade-offs - but it is only slightly more plausible, given that this is about such a basic feature. We can demand trade-offs to the ability of pilots to tie their own shoelaces, if we like, but nothing's ever really going to make that a good idea.

- - - - -

My view is that it's a fine suggestion, with plenty of benefits for players and with no real drawbacks other than the apparently relatively-minor cost of development. +1.

I'm not inclined to use an external site for something this basic: if and when I visit an unmarked planetary location, I'd rather use what's in-game... but I remember how long it took me to reach the co-ordinates of that first bloody barnacle and I'm not in a massive hurry to repeat the experience. The barnacle itself was beautiful, but navigating to it was not. My subsequent exploration efforts, while certainly smoother and faster, have not improved the required time, annoyance and eyestrain significantly enough to make it an enjoyable gaming experience.

It's normally a pleasure to look at a planet as it slowly rolls by - and sometimes, every now and then, I do little planetary fly-bys in SuperCruise just for the fun of it. For finding a specific place on the ground, however, I find I really need to concentrate on the numbers, if I want to avoid either drifting off-course or losing my mental thread of what co-ordinates I'm aiming for (necessitating a recheck of notes and a careful recomparison with the tiny numbers, so I can regain my bearings). This makes the experience both frustrating and boring at the same time.

Mathematicians and experienced pilots might find co-ordinate-based navigation second nature, but I suspect most ED players have comparable experiences to mine. I'd very much prefer a visual aid to planetary navigation, so I can actually enjoy the journey, not just the destination.

I've put off visiting the Guardian ruins and Thargoid wrecks because of precisely these issues - I don't want to miss them, but I'm not rushing, either. It's something I'm hugely looking forward to - but it's now months after their discovery, on the eve of the next major update and I'm still putting it all off for a rainier day.

- - - -

If somebody started a thread suggesting that the functionality of the DC should be built into the ship, thus freeing up an extra optional slot, I am pretty sure that almost every reply would say the whole point is that you have the choice of either docking manually or "wasting" a slot by using a DC.

Hello, Stealthie.

For the record, I've been here a long time and seen numerous threads make exactly that suggestion. IIRC, numbers vary from thread to thread, but generally there's a weight of opinion both for and against the idea - and very commonly, there's also a few who suggest that there should be either a separate computer module or a section for multiple computer modules, where things like the Docking Computer seem like they'd make more sense.

Such spin-off suggestions are usually expressed along the lines of trading off module size, class and cost against different functionalities, so players can make their own choices as to what they'll include and what they'll sacrifice, for whatever reason.

I don't believe most of us want an easy mode. I believe most of us want gameplay which we believe we'll enjoy - and either an end, or a radical transformation, to undercooked gameplay which we already know that we don't.

 

[Ralph Vargr]

Once some site is discovered, LAT/LON coordinates are given anyway - exactly in the same way that a surface scan mission gives you those coordinates by giving you the actual waypoint to aim for.

It's not even a case of advantages or disadvantages here - there is absolutely no good reason to deny players a quality of life suggestion of letting them be able to type a set of known coordinates in and having such a waypoint pop up in a ship's HUD.

I'm honestly finding it very odd as to why this very simple thing is being objected to so strenuously!

It could be worse. We could have "It's A Small World After All", instead of "The Blue Danube".

 

[Ralph Vargr]

Mathematicians and experienced pilots might find co-ordinate-based navigation second nature, but I suspect most ED players have comparable experiences to mine. I'd very much prefer a visual aid to planetary navigation, so I can actually enjoy the journey, not just the destination.

Elite would have us use the Water Tank And School Bus System. You had to fly low enough to read the names, to know where you are at.

Jenner?

 

[Ralph Vargr]

Funny for pilots: St.Clair MO has two water towers standing next to each other. One is painted, in large type, "HOT", and the other "COLD".

 

[Crank Larson]

Least, that's what I conclude from the dozens of rep's my posts in this thread have received.

I have no doubt that both sides of this have received lots of rep. That's hardly an argument winner. Exaggeration also doesn't help, in fact it rather demeans the argument.

I rep someone if their point is well-made, even if I don't agree with them. It might give you a little glow inside, but it means absolutely nothing as far as discussion goes. If anyone cares enough, they'll get involved in the discussion. If they don't, they'll hit the rep button. Again, I've repped many posts in threads where I didn't bother to comment as the topic really didn't mean much to me at all.

 

[GraXXoR]

I am seeing massive walls of text with carefully considered arguments and counter arguments. Why spend this amount of time on something that’s only going to be read by the players?

I used to do that too until I realised that it has absolutely no influence on the game unless FDEV themselves start the thread and ask for specific responses. Still I suppose you could write the messages during super cruise to burn time.

 

[DocLooshkin]

Why spend this amount of time on something that’s only going to be read by the players? [...] I realised that it has absolutely no influence on the game unless FDEV themselves start the thread and ask for specific responses.

Hello, Graxxor.

That's your assumption. It's incorrect. I think we can safely assume that FD wants at least some Suggestions & Feedback, or they wouldn't have bothered creating this forum - much less encouraged further ideas by replying directly, or by implementing their interpretations of some of our suggestions in ED, both of which have happened many times. I'm not listing them, but you can easily view older threads with dev-comments in them (marked with an Elite icon) and compare older threads with subsequent changelogs if you're keen to learn more.

If you've found that FD entirely ignore your suggestions, however, you may wish to consider the possibility that there might be very good reasons for this.

A thread like this is unlikely to gather too much attention at this point - every major argument has now been made many times over - but there's no harm in further comment, if only to emphasise how much support it has.

 

[Crank Larson]

I am seeing massive walls of text with carefully considered arguments and counter arguments. Why spend this amount of time on something that’s only going to be read by the players?

I used to do that too until I realised that it has absolutely no influence on the game unless FDEV themselves start the thread and ask for specific responses. Still I suppose you could write the messages during super cruise to burn time.

If that's what you think, why did you bother posting at all?

 

[Spacegamejunkie]

Please FDEV, just do it!!

Put an Option to turn it On or Off, so those that find going in circles enjoyable can turn it off.
And those of us who wish to just get on with the Game, Can.

 

[CMDR PRJeff]

This would make planetside much more enticing! Please make it so.