System map overhaul needed

Mengy

Mengy
killminster said:
The only way I could see the orrery adding anything worthwhile would be as an extension to the the current schematic view, a toggle that explodes it to the 3D representation. But this really wouldn't be much more than a cool looking toy as scaling would have to be squashed and mangled and expanded to get everything on the screen and at that point what is it for other than looking cool (I agree it would look cool)?
Click to expand...

Systems like Sol with only one parent star would be easy to display in the orrery. Multiple star systems with many bodies orbiting each would be more challenging. This view scaling problem is what the UI design would need to address. With multiple star systems, when zoomed out so far that a system can't be displayed the main star alone could represent the system, with some notation or graphical key noting that there are multiple bodies orbiting it which aren't being shown. Clicking on the star could zoom the view in on that "local" system, and there could be a "zoom extents" button on the map to zoom out all the way showing everything. This same "zoom and represent" mechanic could be used to summarize any orbital data too small to draw properly at large zoom levels for both planets and stars.

It is certainly a task that is very doable, so the question of "is it possible" isn't relevant. The question of whether or not Frontier thinks it's worth the development time though, well we already know the answer to that as they don't have it planned at all currently. It doesn't sound like a feature we should hope to get down the road. Still, I certainly would love to have it, as I'd find it extremely useful as an explorer.
 

Jools

Jools
Dale Emasiri said:
There's a lot of factors to consider with something like this. What does it really add? I'm not disputing the fact that the orrery view would be immense and show things off in such an awesome way, but it has to be easily usable. There's so much data to show, so many different aspects of the game that need to be/could be visualised to give a greater experience. This is a huge technical challenge not just from a "how do we display the stellar/planetary bodies" angle, but also you have to consider what data would be relevant to explorers, what would be relevant to mission/passenger runners, combat pilots, system states, trading, and so on. There's so much data in the game, and it would be great to show it all. But each thing is a "cost" as far as development, querying the data, system resource, and also screen space. These are only the things that I can think of from the perspective of someone who doesn't really know the first thing about effective UI design, and that's already a tough set of questions to answer... :)
Click to expand...

I take it it`s just your job, and that you were probably never given a recap of FD`s previous official statements, and you just have to make excuses for somebody`s incompetence, but still this is... well pretty offensive to us KS backers, it`s as if you are trying to make fools of us

I mean... the questions you mention, those are the most basic questions any designer should ask himself at the very beginning of planning and designing such a feature. Are you telling me that you are only asking them now, 3 years into the game, on the fifth year of development???

So where does the lie lay? In your statement or in newsletter #9

where under this image:

940.png


Frontier Developments wrote:

"The image above represents our current development for the Orrery View, however David keenly noted that the comet trail from Thais is pointing the incorrect way to be scientifically accurate, so there are still some amendments to be made! The map is designed to be as information rich as possible, providing players with a range of various views, filters and search options that can be configured to their own play style."
Click to expand...
So which one is it... because only one can be true. Sounded like FD had all of those questions figured out back then when they were kindly asking for money up front. Seems like the only things that had to be done were minor tweaks like proper display of comet tails... comets... ha! good one Frontier, really funny that one, Newsletter 9... 05-07-2013... comets... awesome stuff.

Yeah it was a long time ago. The thing is we are still yet to see FD`s comment on all this. Somehow i don`t recall anybody saying:

"Sorry guys we have massively overestimated our capabilities, and instead now we are simply trying to deliver what we can, and all those previous statements, especially during KS era, when we said "We will provide..." "It will be in the game" "This represents the current development" we were simply trying to encourage you to spend more money, but they were just wishful ideas with no real development or even proper planning behind them, just pure marketing"

All we hear instead is, "all the richness" "Imagine how great it would feel" "We have such a wonderfull game, and out team has done such a fantastic job" and "salt mined for future use", "buy some laser colours"

I`m really tired of this
 
Last edited:

Mengy

Mengy
Jools said:
I take it it`s just your job, and that you were probably never given a recap of FD`s previous official statements, and you just have to make excuses for somebody`s incompetence, but still this is... well pretty offensive to us KS backers, it`s as if you are trying to make fools of us

I mean... the questions you mention, those are the most basic questions any designer should ask himself at the very beginning of planning and designing such a feature. Are you telling me that you are only asking them now, 3 years into the game, on the fifth year of development???

So where does the lie lay? In your statement or in newsletter #9

where under this image:

http://www.pointplay.net/folder_4/221/data_24/940.png

Frontier Developments wrote:


So which one is it... because only one can be true. Sounded like FD had all of those questions figured out back then when they were kindly asking for money up front. Seems like the only things that had to be done were minor tweaks like proper display of comet tails... comets... ha! good one Frontier, really funny that one, Newsletter 9... 05-07-2013... comets... awesome stuff.

Yeah it was a long time ago. The thing is we are still yet to see FD`s comment on all this. Somehow i don`t recall anybody saying:

"Sorry guys we have massively overestimated our capabilities, and instead now we are simply trying to deliver what we can, and all those previous statements, especially during KS era, when we said "We will provide..." "It will be in the game" "This represents the current development" we were simply trying to encourage you to spend more money, but they were just wishful ideas with no real development or even proper planning behind them, just pure marketing"

All we hear instead is, "all the richness" "Imagine how great it would feel" "We have such a wonderfull game, and out team has done such a fantastic job" and "salt mined for future use", "buy some laser colours"

I`m really tired of this
Click to expand...

Good post, and an excellent question. Over the history of Elite Dangerous the orrery has moved from being a feature in development, to a feature not making it into 1.0 but coming "soon", to finally a feature which is not planned but could possibly someday maybe happen. Things change in game development, but the incongruity of the statements about the orrery from Frontier over time are a bit troubling.
 
Last edited:

Ignition

I
Riverside said:
I was explaining something to do with basic orbital mechanics to my son the other day (tidal locking) and used the system map to demonstrate. He had no problem understanding the view.

If you want to see an orrery view you can simply use SuperCruise. It's accurately scaled too, and you can move your PoV anywhere in it ;)
Click to expand...

Or you could use Kerbal Space Program which is far better.
 

Indy Original

Indy Original
You know, when people praise Frontier for getting their priorities right, and not wasting precious development time on useless or difficult features when there are so many other things they could be doing instead, I would normally agree - it makes sense to go for the low-hanging fruit, and add things like Space Legs later on. But to my mind, the Orrery View is one of the best examples of low-hanging fruit there is, something that the devs should logically be able to implement with ease, and yet that would make a huge difference to literally thousands of players... so it ought to be at the top of the to-do list, not the bottom!

Exploration in Elite is so bare-bones right now (basically, "press X to explore") but with an Orrery map players could actually navigate through a star system, opening up opportunities for entirely new forms of gameplay to be implemented down the line! For example, some stars are more active than others, and regularly emit great clouds of charged particles that could interfere with your ship's modules if you make the mistake of flying through them - so, you would have to plot a course around them, making supercruise more interesting than just flying in straight lines. (Or, in war-torn systems, there could be vast minefields like in Galaxy Quest, that you must likewise avoid... or fly straight through, if you think you are skillful enough!)

I could understand people objecting to the implementation of an Orrery view if it really was a difficult and time consuming task, or if the Orrery view was destined to completely replace the current system map - but Frontier already already made a game that had both, and they did it over 20 years ago... so doing it in Elite Dangerous, with all the power of modern processors to draw upon, should be child's play. I mean really, how hard could it possibly be?!
 

Jools

Jools
killminster said:
For everyone getting nostalgic about the orrery in Elite 2 it's only functionality was for selecting auto pilot/navigation target lock. All of the useful information was provided in the schematic view.
Click to expand...

that is not entirely true

For me one of its main functions was that it gave you the ability to view the movement of planets and their position at any given time point. It allowed for better journey planning so that you could avoid chasing fast orbiting planets, provided an educational value while entertaining you with the never before at that time seen in games (and to this day only in SE) beautiful spectacle of space ballet, and let you appreciate the complexity of systems as well as better understand the scale

There is no stardreamer in ED and never will be, due to multiplayer, so 99% of sane players cannot, well maybe except for a single buggy place, experience the movement of the planets that are in fact orbiting but in real time which is unobservable in any reasonable time frame, and certainly not breathtaking. The space ballet is in my opinion one of the biggest most appealing wonders of FE2. Elite would benefit from it tenfold with its graphics. Orrery could fix this. This is such a lost opportunity
 
Last edited:

killminster

killminster
Jools said:
that is not entirely true

For me one of its main functions was that it gave you the ability to view the movement of planets and their position at any given time point. It allowed for better journey planning so that you could avoid chasing fast orbiting planets, provided an educational value while entertaining you with the never before at that time seen in games (and to this day only in SE) beautiful spectacle of space ballet, and let you appreciate the complexity of systems as well as better understand the scale

There is no stardreamer in ED and never will be, due to multiplayer, so 99% of sane players cannot, well maybe except for a single buggy place, experience the movement of the planets that are in fact orbiting but in real time which is unobservable in any reasonable time frame, and certainly not breathtaking. The space ballet is in my opinion one of the biggest most appealing wonders of FE2. Elite would benefit from it tenfold with its graphics. Orrery could fix this. This is such a lost opportunity
Click to expand...

Hah, see for me it was a neat feature that got old quick and had limited usefulness. Your post illustrates the misty eyed nostalgia that I was talking about. There were no intra-system missions that required navigating around various celestial bodies, it was all go to a different system and do something. Exploration was even less developed than it is even now, no discovery scanners or anything.

After the initial wow of being able to tilt, pan, zoom and FFWD and RWD orbits at various speeds it had no use for me other than target lock for navigation. I accept though you may have got a lot more out of it than I did.
 
Last edited:

Dan Diplo

Dan Diplo
The system map is actually 3D, but it is has a fixed view. I had a "glitch" once where it rotated a bit. Didn't look pretty, but revealed that it is pseudo 3D.
 

Hyde

H
From it's BBC Micro origins, Elite pioneered a 3D radar widget that's still present in the game today. Considering the game's iconic imagery the inability to present a pleasing system map seems curious. It's the sort of decision an engineer would make, not an artist. Some astronauts were both.

Explorers clamour for a more interactive way of exploring systems, a new tool-set for 3D system maps seems obvious.
 

EUS

EUS
Max Factor said:
How do you do that while doing DSS scans on the planets. Your posts are not making sense.
Click to expand...
The largest gravity well is the star, it's very time consuming to go back towards the star for whatever reason, as your speeds slows to a crawl.
Ultimately I believe the "quickest" way to explore systems would be to spiral outwards from the star (unless 2 bodies are in proximity to each other), but the current map makes viewing the route impossible to do.
 

Riverside

Riverside
Max Factor said:
How do you do that while doing DSS scans on the planets. Your posts are not making sense.
Click to expand...

I'm not the one that wants a computer to do the work for me ;)

If you want to find the quickest route from body to body to scan a complete system, you want to know the travel time between each destination, not the distance. If you cannot travel at maximum speed (for that region of space) because of a gravity well you need to plot a route to avoid being slowed down, or change the order of destinations to minimise time lost.

It's not a feature I'm looking for in the game, I quite enjoy the little dilemmas like which body to scan next, it gives me something to consider while the DSS does it's thing. It does seem to be the best justification for including an orrery view in the game though.

Hope that makes more sense ;)
 

[Diplomacy] Carnegie

[Diplomacy] Carnegie
Riverside said:
It's not a feature I'm looking for in the game, I quite enjoy the little dilemmas like which body to scan next, it gives me something to consider while the DSS does it's thing.
Click to expand...

It's the one interesting/challenging aspect to exploration at this point.
If you gave me an orrery that took that fun away from me then I'd not use it anyway :)
 

-VR- Max Factor

-VR- Max Factor
Riverside said:
I'm not the one that wants a computer to do the work for me ;)

If you want to find the quickest route from body to body to scan a complete system, you want to know the travel time between each destination, not the distance. If you cannot travel at maximum speed (for that region of space) because of a gravity well you need to plot a route to avoid being slowed down, or change the order of destinations to minimise time lost.

It's not a feature I'm looking for in the game, I quite enjoy the little dilemmas like which body to scan next, it gives me something to consider while the DSS does it's thing. It does seem to be the best justification for including an orrery view in the game though.

Hope that makes more sense ;)
Click to expand...

Well I don't think anybody is asking for a computer to do anything for us. All people are asking for are basic tools to do system navigation which we just don't have right now. It's the same as people being able to use way markers on planets. Yes I can use the co-ordinates to follow, but God it's boring and not efficient. Again our ships computer have the information there, just no tools to use that information. It frustrating and makes little sense.
 

Riverside

Riverside
Max Factor said:
Well I don't think anybody is asking for a computer to do anything for us. All people are asking for are basic tools to do system navigation which we just don't have right now. It's the same as people being able to use way markers on planets. Yes I can use the co-ordinates to follow, but God it's boring and not efficient. Again our ships computer have the information there, just no tools to use that information. It frustrating and makes little sense.
Click to expand...

Well it's a matter of opinion I suppose but personally I'd put planet surface waypoints in the 'important but not urgent' category. An orrery is just a nice to have ie neither particularly important nor urgent. I appreciate that you consider an orrery more important that I do, but do you consider it more important than planet surface waypoints? If it were up to you, which of these two features would you ask to be implemented first?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom