Sensor Improvement - Arc, Not Lines to Show Objects above and below

[Exsomnis]

As written in the manual, "A contact’s height is represented by a vertical line that connects it to the disc. The length of the line describes how far above or below you the contact is; a contact sitting on a tall vertical line is high above your ship, a contact hanging from a small vertical line is slightly below your ship etc." .

The problem with this representation is that as soon as you turn to an object that is above or below you, the distance of "the point which vertical line intersects the horizontal plane of the sensor (the disc)" to the center of the sensor changes, so you are not really sure how far an object is until you turn to it to show it on the disc without any lines.

This can be countered by making the connecting line "a connecting arc", and showing the point which this arc intersects the sensor's horizontal plane at the same distance which the object is. I have a photo for this taken from another space game (which I am sure everyone heard or at least is aware of), but I am not sure if I am allowed to share it here. Here it is:

As you can see, the object in the example is 39 km away, and the "vertical line" is an arc instead, and it is intersecting the horizontal plane at the same distance as the object, which makes determining objects' distance in a 3d environment easier. This would also reduce the clutter when it is hard to see a nearby object because of all the vertical lines passing through the same place as the object is. Is it possible to make this change to the sensor in Elite Dangerous so we can see the ships and planets like this?

 

[Bottom Hat]

The sensor working this way was a hallmark of the 1984 version, and the current one is a testament to it. Not saying your idea is crap, just wanted to give you some background.

 

[Exsomnis]

That's right.. Then again there was no indication of distance on the sensor in the 1984 version.

 

[Ettanin]

Maybe make it a toggle so pilots can choose what they prefer.

 

[who?]

I might be thick, but I can't really understand the scanner above or the reason for it. I like the linear scale (I think you can set that in ED) and the distance markers (would be a very nice addition) but find the scanner itself more confusing than ED's. Is that contact at the 7 o'clock or 10 o'clock position relative to your ship? Looks like it could be either.

 

[Exsomnis]

I am not suggesting adding numbers or making the distance circles linear as in the first post. I am just suggesting to put the projections of the objects above and below on the horizontal plane to show their correct distance. This can be done using arcs which corresponds to the distance sphere's of each object.

In this image for example, it is impossible to tell which object is closest without turning to each one or selecting them one by one and looking at the distance, which is hard when you are not stationary.


"Is that contact at the 7 o'clock or 10 o'clock position relative to your ship? Looks like it could be either."

The red line shows the current representation of the same object in ED. It is at 10 o'clock and below, whether you use lines or arcs. The indicator for this is the position of the projection, not the object. However, the distance of the projection to the center will change after turning to the object in ED whereas it will stay at the same place if you use arcs.

 

[Para Handy]

I think if you want to see the sensor display like that then you should go play that game.

Most of us have worked out Elite's sensors and the fact that distance on the sensor display in supercruise is representative of the time it would take to travel to that point - it is not directly a distance format.

 

[Exsomnis]

I think if you want to see the sensor display like that then you should go play that game.

Most of us have worked out Elite's sensors and the fact that distance on the sensor display is representative of the time it would take to travel to that point - it is not directly a distance format.

Read the post again and try to understand what I am suggesting. Also, the sensor display shows time to travel only in supercruise, not in normal space. Seems there is still much to "work out".
And I would suggest losing the "love it or leave it" attitude, this is a forum for suggestions.

 

[metatheurgist]

Leave it.

 

[FrogsFriend]

ED's scanner is good at showing relative direction to contacts in a simple, clear way but I can see your point that it's not very good at showing distance without manoeuvring to put them on the plane. However, I don't think it really has the size or resolution to show all those arcs (or something similar) without smothering it in too much detail. In the example screen shot you posted there are thirteen targets, and in a CZ or Nav Beacon there can be many more; I think the scanner would just become a confusing smudge of colours.
Not saying it's a bad idea, just that there's more to consider.

 

[Exsomnis]

ED's scanner is good at showing relative direction to contacts in a simple, clear way but I can see your point that it's not very good at showing distance without manoeuvring to put them on the plane. However, I don't think it really has the size or resolution to show all those arcs (or something similar) without smothering it in too much detail. In the example screen shot you posted there are thirteen targets, and in a CZ or Nav Beacon there can be many more; I think the scanner would just become a confusing smudge of colours.
Not saying it's a bad idea, just that there's more to consider.

I understand; but it may also clear the center of the sensor where there are lots of lines now, so you can really see what's closest to you. I don't have the tools to show what it would look like really. Most of the time in a CZ I prefer to use contacts to choose a target rather than maneuvering to the closest ship due to lack of situational awareness with current display. Next or previous hostile buttons and even highest threat button which targets incoming missiles - if there are any - don't seem to select the closest target. If there is an Eagle close to me not attacking I would rather target it first instead of an Anaconda firing from a longer distance, correct me if I'm wrong, but right now selecting highest threat would select the Anaconda in this situation to my knowledge. With the arc, we would just maneuver to the closest one and choose target ahead.

 

[Ydiss]

I think the way that game does it is way better (I mined enough Scordite in 2005 to know instantly which game it is, too). But I think pointing this out is likely to just result in "my game's better so nur, leave it how it is, don't dare touch it! It doesn't matter if it could be done better!" so...

That said, @FrogsFriend at least has replied with a valid enough reason and that's the lacking resolution real estate Fdev granted to the scanner. This isn't to say that it could have been better though and your points are 100% valid. The scanner just about does its job most of the time (fails horribly in battles a lot of the time but I'm unsure if any scanner would cope with the clutter of that game either so...)

 

[Exsomnis]

But I think pointing this out is likely to just result in "my game's better so nur, leave it how it is, don't dare touch it! It doesn't matter if it could be done better!" so...

You're right, that is the reaction you get when you propose something new most of the time.

Comparing games was never my intention, I haven't played "that game" since I started ED, does not give the same feeling to travel and combat in space compared to ED. That's why I am trying to make the game I love better. In that game they also used flat lines to show the objects not on the plane before, until someone came up with the arc idea and I think it worked better. And I also see the points of those opposing why it would not work. Still, I think the sensor can be and should be improved. Maybe increase the resolution a bit and make the arc lines thinner than it is now, because we only need the projections on the sensor plane and the objects' position relative to the ship, and a way to clarify which projection belongs to which object.

 

[Para Handy]

Read the post again and try to understand what I am suggesting. Also, the sensor display shows time to travel only in supercruise, not in normal space. Seems there is still much to "work out".
And I would suggest losing the "love it or leave it" attitude, this is a forum for suggestions.

Did you edit out my clarification that I was referring to supercruise that was time-based or did it take you 3 minutes to type your response? My implication was that you would either need to have different sensor displays for sc and real-space or you would have a horrendous mess in supercruise.

Yes you make a suggestion - I respond by saying I don't like your suggestion, the current system is fine. If you want me to go into detailed arguments that your changes would result in a very cluttered small display and that it would radically alter what some of us have been used to for over six years and that most of us can sort-of mentally do the geometry to achieve spatial awareness perfectly well as it is.... Well I couldn't be bothered.

Do carry on and make suggestions - one never knows when a good one will come along. Mind you after over six years even widely supported suggestions like "give us a SAVE AS button in Options / Controls" are met with resounding silence from F D. (When was the last time a dev posted on a suggestion?)

Don't be surprised when radical changes are not welcomed with open arms. Just look at the salt produced by changes in Odyssey (UI, Gal Map, Role Panel, etc) affecting people's game.

 

[Exsomnis]

Did you edit out my clarification that I was referring to supercruise that was time-based or did it take you 3 minutes to type your response?

No I didn't. You first wrote it like this, I saw that version, replied to it and then you saw your mistake, corrected it. Why would I do that?
I am not expecting to be welcomed with open arms, just expecting a mature response why it would work or not, like other CMDRs did after you.
I played this game when it was Frontier: First Encounters. And I am sure it did not become the game now we all love by "go play the other game if you don't like it".
The suggestion does not deserve this answer.

that most of us can sort-of mentally do the geometry to achieve spatial awareness perfectly well as it is

Don't do that. Don't imply someone is stupid because they suggested something you don't want changed. Just put forward your argument without insulting. Can you do that?

 

[Ettanin]

Don't do that. Don't imply someone is stupid because they suggested something you don't want changed. Just put forward your argument without insulting. Can you do that?

Why do you wish to force change on us then? You did not imply a toggle or similar to keep the old, well-working system for those that wish to keep it as is. For me, this arc thingie is confusing and it would be a degradation for me.

 

[Para Handy]

........
Don't do that. Don't imply someone is stupid because they suggested something you don't want changed. Just put forward your argument without insulting. Can you do that?

That was not meant as an insult or any sort of denigration, just pointing out that it is possible to achieve spatial awareness without your cluttering-up idea.

 

[Exsomnis]

Why do you wish to force change on us then? You did not imply a toggle or similar to keep the old, well-working system for those that wish to keep it as is. For me, this arc thingie is confusing and it would be a degradation for me.

I am not forcing, it is not as if Devs are waiting for me to post a suggestion and make the change. I am just pointing out the reasons why I want it changed. You don't want it changed? Fine by me, no arguments there. You may do it as a toggle also, I have no objection to that.

 

[FrogsFriend]

The more I look at them, the more I think that ED gives good direction/poor distance while the other is good distance/poor direction. I think you'd need to combine stalks & arcs to get the best of both, and then we really would need a larger size and more resolution.

Incidentally, as has been mentioned, the scanner design is such an iconic part of Elite that I think it would pretty much need to be proven to cause fatal seizures in players before they'd think of fundamentally redesigning it
Interesting to think about nonetheless.

 

[Exsomnis]

I agree with the comparison. It seems I am the only one thinking it would be better that way though. Fair enough.