The Limit Theory Thread

[Mike Evans]

The sensors aren't too slow, they're showing you exactly what the signal is the instant it sees it. The fact that the graph is spinning and shows a history of the previous frames sensor readings is confusing people I think. The only bar that means anything to you is the leading one as that is showing you the exact signal it's receiving in that frame in the general area the sensors are looking. The spinning just makes people think of radar no doubt and expect more information than just the strength of the signal in the direction the sensors are pointing. Basically there could just be a huge number inside that circle instead giving you a value from 0 to something the shows how high a signal you're detecting at that moment and it would be functionally the same as the current implementation (minus the history aspect)

I guess at some point that signal could be variable from a ship source (pulsing for example) so that if you manage to look pretty much just at the target ship you would see the leading sensor bar rise and fall at a certain frequency and the history of that bar would highlight this pulsing effect nicely. Then by knowing a thing or two about pulse rates for various ship engine types and looking at the amplitude and noise levels you could estimate range as well (this is all very much the same as submarine hydrophones btw).

 

[Dejay]

True, that adds a whole dimension of "crypted" information. I guess the bars could fade out to 20% when you "loose" the signal so you always have the graph highlight the current signal. Or you could highlight the current scanning position. And some cryptic submarine like sound would be nice too, some kind of Brownian noise that gets filtered differently to convey information "subconsciously".

 

[Mike Evans]

The history should probably fade somewhat to really highlight it's just a history not the current signal yes. I would also do more to degrade the signal when you use a large aperture as it looks rather too forgiving at the moment. Something like reducing the amplitude of the bars and adding a lot more noise would go a long way to making large apertures only useful for quickly scanning the horizon then reducing the aperture to home in on a sensor spike and finally tracking that spike over time to see if there is any pattern to the signal that will give you more information.

 

[Styggron]

Cheers Mike

Now THAT makes far more sense to me.

 

[Slawkenbergius]

The sensors aren't too slow, they're showing you exactly what the signal is the instant it sees it.

That's not quite true... There's an animation while the signal spikes move into their final position, so there's actually quite a bit of lag. I suspect that lag is what people are complaining about.

 

[Mike Evans]

That's not quite true... There's an animation while the signal spikes move into their final position, so there's actually quite a bit of lag. I suspect that lag is what people are complaining about.

That's not the lag I've heard talk about. People wanted the speed it rotated to be increased because they thought that the whole graph itself was somehow representing the current signal at that precise moment which obviously isn't the case as it's just a history. Although speeding up the animation of the current signal strength bar would help no doubt.

 

[jabokai]

That's not the lag I've heard talk about. People wanted the speed it rotated to be increased because they thought that the whole graph itself was somehow representing the current signal at that precise moment which obviously isn't the case as it's just a history. Although speeding up the animation of the current signal strength bar would help no doubt.

Not the current signal, but the current "signature" as Josh called it, or "contact" if you like. Like the example you gave in one of your previous posts with the engine pulses. So the waveform of the graph (although historical, as you say) is definitely important as an entity.

 

[Mike Evans]

Not the current signal, but the current "signature" as Josh called it, or "contact" if you like. Like the example you gave in one of your previous posts with the engine pulses. So the waveform of the graph (although historical, as you say) is definitely important as an entity.

Yes it's important which is why you wouldn't want to do it as a number unless of course you don't do anything with the history in which case it's pretty pointless (my example was a good use of it for figuring out extra info that's entirely skill based and not mini-gamey either).

 

[-o-]

Having the signal rotate as it does I dont think is a good design decision. There is no need for it to rotate at that constant rate, and people will confuse it with modern day radars which scan 360 .. which this scanner is not doing. It is always scanning directly ahead.

The signature also seems to always be the same (maximised) regardless of what it scans. It would be great if he could implement a design where different objects can output different signals.

For ex, an asteroid would have a specifically shaped graph which would vary slighly depending on its composition. Same concept for other objects like ships or stars.

A waveform representation comprising of an x & y axis may do the trick. Similar to this one ..

If hes still keen on representing the waveform in a circular manner, then he could do that, but I dont see any value in having the history of a waveform immediately displayed as that only takes up valuable space which can be better used to represent more detail in the current waveform.

 

[GuruNot]

Only just found out about Limit Theory, not sure how I missed that one . It is looking superb.

Limit Theory Development Update #13 is here.

 

[Tinman]

New development video out for Limit Theory! Looking better and better! Can't wait to get my hands on this one!

http://youtu.be/e8SOZxCXokg

@FD

Really like those ice asteroids! Get to work!

 

[Allen Stroud]

The prospecting idea is great.

 

[Memnoch]

New development video out for Limit Theory! Looking better and better! Can't wait to get my hands on this one!

http://youtu.be/e8SOZxCXokg

@FD

Really like those ice asteroids! Get to work!

I really like the new ship and station designs. A lot better than the earlier ones. I haven't been over to the forums in ages so I wonder if there will ever be a cockpit mode?

 

[jabokai]

Scanner 2.0 makes a lot more sense this way; the original one was pretty but too slow to give a full waveform, whereas this one is instantaneous and much better to read.

Ice is pretty too.

Ships finally starting to look non-crap! :smilie:

Loving the HUD-only view too.

 

[Nagual]

Really liking the scanner.

The DDFa says that it will to read the data from probes, if it's close to something like this, it will be good.

 

[Zak Gordon]

Awesome Joshness as usual. LT is looking and sounding great, seriously great.

 

[Tinman]

Loving the HUD-only view too.

...and LT will have Oculus Rift support...sounds like your type of game! :smilie:

 

[jabokai]

...and LT will have Oculus Rift support...sounds like your type of game! :smilie:

Indeed, I agree and it may be THE one I end up playing the most once all three are out. :smilie:

 

[Rog]

That scanner is a *big* improvement on the previous one.

Loving the icy asteroids too - wonder if we'll see similar in E: D?

 

[-o-]

Much more functional scanner design that the previous.

I noticed one gameplay feature he didn't mention (probably because he disabled NPCs for that video) was that signals could potentially peak and then normalise without your own ship/scanner moving. This would in turn alert you that a moving (relative to your ship) object, possibly another ship, has passed the scanners long range FOV.

Really appreciate the effort he puts in communicating his progress to his fans. Combine that with the level of organic productivity he provides, and you can understand why his backers are so praising.