Abandoned Sneak Peek - Surface Navigation

[Khelder]

Some interesting use of words there. Well someone is lying then.

I've been wondering what's been going on and I still don't get it. But you appear to be getting information from somewhere. I really don't appreciate the insinuation that I am lying. If you have something specific to query, come out with it and I'll see what I can do to address the issue.

Still what will be will be, we'll see how it goes when the PvPers start making aim bots and the like.

Restrictions on cheats are covered in the EULA as well. There is no reason why applications cannot be authorised to read memory while still restricting cheats. It's the difference between how data is acquired and what is done with it.

 

[Ozric]

I've been wondering what's been going on and I still don't get it. But you appear to be getting information from somewhere. I really don't appreciate the insinuation that I am lying. If you have something specific to query, come out with it and I'll see what I can do to address the issue.

I merely wonder why you used the words direct reply. I have nothing to hide, I'm not on a crusade specifically against you which I hope that, even though I'm the only person voicing my concerns, you realise. I did force the issue, quite a while ago, when I was frustrated by Frontier's lack of engagement with you and was informed that a response had initially been sent to you.

Restrictions on cheats are covered in the EULA as well. There is no reason why applications cannot be authorised to read memory while still restricting cheats. It's the difference between how data is acquired and what is done with it.

The difference is perception.

 

[Khelder]

I merely wonder why you used the words direct reply. I have nothing to hide, I'm not on a crusade specifically against you which I hope that, even though I'm the only person voicing my concerns, you realise. I did force the issue, quite a while ago, when I was frustrated by Frontier's lack of engagement with you and was informed that a response had initially been sent to you.

Fair enough. I'll clarify that point.

I did receive an email 4 Oct 2016. I was BCC'd into this email (presumably with others) - hence the "direct reply" comment. I don't want too get to specific about email senders and content. However, the pertinent content was this:

I just wanted to follow up and let you all know that we’re still assessing how to move forward with app requests. For now we are not granting any new app licenses.

This email quite discouraged me at the time. While it was good to finally hear something, this wasn't exactly positive. However, I eventually took the words as they were written and decided to wait and see what the result of the "assessing" would be. The next communication I received (which was a direct email to me) was 6 Jan 2017 as previously stated.

I did not specifically mention the email because it really didn't provide anything definite other than a delay. Catalyst was always meant to be more than just surface navigation, so I continued on with it. Other than the speedo thing and a little bit of tinkering, the majority of development work has been trying to get the base application to a usable state.

I hope that helps.

 

[Ozric]

It does make things clearer yes.

Though it may not feel it, the biggest concern I have at the moment is exploration, it's the reason why I raised my voice again. It is my life-blood in this game and I have been trying to warn Frontier for a very long time they are backing themselves into a corner with it, however that hasn't had any effect (not that I have even the remotest sway) on them pushing 2 of the big storylines towards Exploration, while still adding nothing to it. All it's had is the Wave Scanner since release and I'm convinced they have no plans to add to it whatsoever until there is a need to have it (walking around outside/atmospheric landings) but the problem as I see it is with a massive influx of new people trying exploration, the moaning changes from Combat/Engineers and focuses on Exploration. The thing I'm worried about most is through this pressure they put in a "quick fix" like the 10% module resell or removing engineer commodities and that would be a very, very bad thing.

I think for certain the one thing we will agree on, is that this has been handled badly.

 

[Khelder]

Though it may not feel it, the biggest concern I have at the moment is exploration, it's the reason why I raised my voice again. It is my life-blood in this game and I have been trying to warn Frontier for a very long time they are backing themselves into a corner with it, however that hasn't had any effect (not that I have even the remotest sway) on them pushing 2 of the big storylines towards Exploration, while still adding nothing to it. All it's had is the Wave Scanner since release and I'm convinced they have no plans to add to it whatsoever until there is a need to have it (walking around outside/atmospheric landings) but the problem as I see it is with a massive influx of new people trying exploration, the moaning changes from Combat/Engineers and focuses on Exploration. The thing I'm worried about most is through this pressure they put in a "quick fix" like the 10% module resell or removing engineer commodities and that would be a very, very bad thing.

I believe we agree about the problems with exploration.

The storylines seem interesting, but I haven't had the time to be involved in them. I am merely a spectator who sees updates every now and then on Twitter. And once they're over, they're over. I would rather see investment in the "tools". The wave scanner stands out as so different to all of the other overly-simplistic exploration tools. I believe even just making some of those tasks a little more interactive would provide a whole new layer to exploration.

I also agree with the comments that what has been added (geysers and the like) are so ridiculously frustrating to find that they may as well not be there. I've spent hours looking myself and have only visited one site thanks to a fellow Commander who provided the location for me. The problem here is partly lack of proper tools, but also I think, Frontier's attitude towards what makes interesting gameplay. (I'm sorry. I really do hate being critical but they have some strange ideas in this area.)

I really hope they make advancements in exploration. And, like you say, I hope those "advancements" aren't just quick-fixes.

Now, back to my app, because that's what this thread is all about. I had grand visions for this thing. Sure, I've demonstrated how easy it is to find locations. But, really, I believe even simple surface bookmarking by coordinates should be added in-game as a matter of priority. I've demonstrated basic racing. I really would love to set up some huge endurance courses and have championships. The other thing I wanted to do was to build a galactic catalogue.

I want to build an integrated system where Commanders can share information about systems and planets they have visited. Share screenshots of awesome hills, canyons, or even just fantastic views. I wanted to build our own little Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. Those who chose to participate would have a new reason to go out and explore. To collect information on hidden gems around the galaxy. Maybe I'm dreaming. It seemed like a great idea and I'll try to do what I can.

I'll be glad when Frontier adds more functionality and content themselves (atmospheric planets would sure be nice). But I'm also a believer in user-created "content" (preferrably not just incinerating sitting ducks on their way to a CG). I saw surface navigation as a stepping stone to providing some fun content.

Of course, it would be really cool if Elite had a full-function, client-side API. But it doesn't and I honestly doubt it ever will. Memory reading is generally a painful process. I wouldn't be doing it if I had a better way. But it's a means to an end.

I think for certain the one thing we will agree on, is that this has been handled badly.

Much as I love Elite Dangerous and aspects of Frontier, communication has never been their strong suit.

 

[eventure]

I am still impressed by your work Khelder, I would love to use it in the game.

I created within TCE a very simple 2D map for surface flights with the available data from the netlog file, but hitting a wall to calculate the proper heading to be synchronous with ED.
With only a x/y/z coordinate reported by the netlog I am not able to until now. So adding more data to the netlog, e.g. latitude, longitude and heading in a constant flow would be enough to bypass memory reading.
The current available data is only written when flying for every 3 km's, sadly not when driving at the surface.

 

[Tryst]

The EULA does restrict the use of "scrapers". For some reason Frontier have drawn the line at reading Game client memory. Scrapers, however, are any application that converts human readable information into data. That means that any application that performs OCR of the marketplace screens or, you could argue, any application that parses log files to acquire information from the Game client would also fall into this restriction.

This is where it really makes me laugh. ALL the hacking programs are going to do it whether FD like it or not. What this does is make it legal in effect so long as you don't tell FD you are doing it since the data is obviously readily available to anyone with the knowledge to use it. What this creates is a problem of some players having a huge advantage over others because they don't care about using hacking programs that FD probably don't even know about.

On the other hand EDDI scrapes data but they've allowed that. It can get data from the game to know EXACTLY what landing pad you need to find and even audibly tell you where it's located inside the station, what system you are jumping to and many other things that can only be gained from scraping data. Okay, so why has EDDI been allowed and yet your surface navigation app hasn't? It does seem like one rule for one and another rule for someone else. EDDI only appeals to those who use Voice Attack, Surface Navigation would be used by almost everyone, you can bet on it.
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/294579-EDDI-Windows-app-for-immersion-and-more Play the third video EDDI 2 Docking. It tells you that you've dropped to normal space from cruise and also what landing pad to go to. Both can not be found in files, they can only be gained from scraping data.

As I said before, we can navigate a route through the entire galaxy but we can't find a single point on a planet that shows ONLY in our HUD and ONLY if we've been there once before without any point of reference to follow in order to create that marker. If insanity could be programmed, it would consist of most of the code in this game since the code that would make it sane appears to be missing and those who try to add the code are blocked from doing so.

Add my support against FD's decision to block your addon.
IMO, it's a pathetic limitation that makes this game a lot more tedious than it needs to be. This is a game, it's supposed to be fun, not a tedious second, unpaid job. The data is already there, it's not like you are using any extra server bandwidth/processor to get data that isn't already available to you. If it was putting additional pressure on the server to obtain data you don't already have, I would agree that you shouldn't be doing it, but it's not.

 

[Khelder]

On the other hand EDDI scrapes data but they've allowed that. It can get data from the game to know EXACTLY what landing pad you need to find and even audibly tell you where it's located inside the station, what system you are jumping to and many other things that can only be gained from scraping data. Okay, so why has EDDI been allowed and yet your surface navigation app hasn't? It does seem like one rule for one and another rule for someone else. EDDI only appeals to those who use Voice Attack, Surface Navigation would be used by almost everyone, you can bet on it.
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/294579-EDDI-Windows-app-for-immersion-and-more Play the third video EDDI 2 Docking. It tells you that you've dropped to normal space from cruise and also what landing pad to go to. Both can not be found in files, they can only be gained from scraping data.

Just a quick note on this comment. Information such as pad numbers is actually available from the Game journal now. I haven't looked specifically, but I am certain that this is what EDDI and other similar applications would be using. In fact, I will be using it too.

The journal has been a great addition in that it's vastly better than what was there. However, it still forces applications to trawl through log files and it is not responsive (it cannot respond to specific requests). It is also vastly inadequate for anything like navigation unfortunately.


I do agree with your comment on hacking (or cheating). However, if your going down that path, there are more direct and effective methods of gaining and manipulating the Game for your needs than what I am doing. Having restrictions in the EULA by itself will not stop people doing this, it just provides a legal backing for Frontier to use when they are found.

 

[Exigeous]

...EDDI only appeals to those who use Voice Attack...

I know this is about surface navigation but I just wanna clear up a misconception, if I'm reading correctly. EDDI does NOT need VoiceAttack in any way - you can use it as a fully stand alone application and get virtually every feature that it has when used with VoiceAttack. While it can, and is usually, installed as a VA plugin that really only gives you 2 things - the ability to query EDDI with voice commands "damage report" for example and when run as a plugin you need only start VA and that makes the needed calls to EDDI without you needing to open it. I think many get this confused which is why I'm clarifying.

I'm also a little behind on the thread, from reading some comments here am I understanding that Frontier brought the hammer down and say an app like this isn't allowed? If so IMHO that would be about the dumbest thing I've seen them do thus far. Why they would do anything other than actively encourage 3rd parties to create add-ons like this? How is it bad for them or the community? Add-ons that make the game better which in turn would/should drive sales, right? And doesn't that mean more money for Frontier in the long run? I hope I'm misunderstanding and something comes soon, either this or from Frontier as I absolutely SUCK at surface navigation!!

 

[Tryst]

Just a quick note on this comment. Information such as pad numbers is actually available from the Game journal now. I haven't looked specifically, but I am certain that this is what EDDI and other similar applications would be using. In fact, I will be using it too.

The position of all the pad numbers is available in the game journal but which pad number you have been assigned to land on is data only since it doesn't need to be stored on file, it is purely temporary data for the 10 minutes you are given to land. You can show this by logging out and back in and find yourself on a different pad than the one you landed on. I have often landed on a pad furthest from the letterbox and logged out, only to log back in the next day to find myself right in front of the letterbox. If such data were stored on file, you would always log back in on the same pad you logged out on.

 

[Alec Turner]

On the other hand EDDI scrapes data but they've allowed that. It can get data from the game to know EXACTLY what landing pad you need to find and even audibly tell you where it's located inside the station, what system you are jumping to and many other things that can only be gained from scraping data. Okay, so why has EDDI been allowed and yet your surface navigation app hasn't? It does seem like one rule for one and another rule for someone else.

It's really not. EDDI uses Frontier's officially published player journal ..

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/275151-Commanders-log-manual-and-data-sample

.. while this uses unsanctioned memory scraping. Both brilliant, but chalk and cheese in terms of both implementation and FD approval.

 

[Tryst]

It's really not. EDDI uses Frontier's officially published player journal ..

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/275151-Commanders-log-manual-and-data-sample

.. while this uses unsanctioned memory scraping. Both brilliant, but chalk and cheese in terms of both implementation and FD approval.

I have no argument about how good EDDI is, I have used it myself. However, they allowed memory scraping to be used there but refuse it for another mod. Seems that FD's EULA is not as hard and fast as they say and you can break the rules in some cases but not others.

As someone pointed out previously, allowing one program to scrape data while disallowing others is a dodgy road. The problem is that road has already been taken and the precedent has already been set by EDDI.

 

[Alec Turner]

I have no argument about how good EDDI is, I have used it myself. However, they allowed memory scraping to be used there but refuse it for another mod.

No. They didn't. Re-read what I said.

 

[Pumabear8]

Just quickly. Yes, the Surface Navigation module reads memory eek. Yes, FD have informed me that they view this as a violation of the EULA. No, I do not agree with this stance and will push to change it. Unfortunately, until I have approval from FD, I cannot release the navigation component.

Rather disappointed by this, being one of those involved in the search for the alien ruins, I am somewhat frustrated that FD does not provide the proper tools for surface scanning, you come along with something that could in part address that issue, and they say no, I'm not asking for something that will immediately pinpoint's the location, but something that at least makes surface navigation less tedious, you have my support for what it's worth.

 

[Tryst]

Rather disappointed by this, being one of those involved in the search for the alien ruins, I am somewhat frustrated that FD does not provide the proper tools for surface scanning, you come along with something that could in part address that issue, and they say no, I'm not asking for something that will immediately pinpoint's the location, but something that at least makes surface navigation less tedious, you have my support for what it's worth.

I know what you mean. I searched 3 planets in one of the systems and gave up after I realised I'd covered only a tenth of the planet in cruise because I had flown over the same spot 5 times due to not being able to properly create a search pattern to follow.

 

[Khelder]

I know what you mean. I searched 3 planets in one of the systems and gave up after I realised I'd covered only a tenth of the planet in cruise because I had flown over the same spot 5 times due to not being able to properly create a search pattern to follow.

I'm guessing this would be quite common. I know I've had difficulties myself. It's not easy tracking a search pattern while scanning (usually upside down) the planet surface for some speck.

 

[Globusdiablo]

...It's not easy tracking a search pattern while scanning (usually upside down) the planet surface for some speck.

Spoiler

 

[Chaparral]

Amazing work! Thank you for powerfully demonstrating that this can be done.
I am reminded of Emperor Palpatine saying "You want this..." for some reason.
I hope FD works with you to get an official version in game ASAP.

 

[Tryst]

We really need more support from other pilots to get FD to allow this app. It's a very useful and powerful tool that should have been incorporated into planetary landings right from the start by FD themselves. The fact that it required a player to write the code for something many of the playerbase wanted in the game as standard is testimony to the failings of FD to deliver what the players really want.

Personally, I think that, instead of blocking the author of this app from releasing it, FD should be looking to hire him as a permanent design developer.

 

[Barking_Mad]

I can only hope the reason for stopping this is that they actually have plans (fairly soon) to do their own version in game, otherwise it's a bit sad