Thrust pushes the UI bottom edge off screen

[Larash]

I agree with the OP.
Personally I hope for an option to turn these auto-headlook features oder acceleration-shakes off and to max the FOV even further than the slider currently allows.

In my opinion quite a few of the effects are overdone, especially the sound of the engine-boost and the shaking of the ship. It doesn't feel quite like the precise machine I always imagined a spaceship to be.
For my taste the simulated sounds in the cockpit could be less 'excited'. A calm computer-voice, a soft (barely audible) engine-hum and a couple of different beeps/sounds would be enough. Only collisions, being hit with projectiles/missles or maybe flying inside a planetary athmosphere should be 'noisy'... but thats certainly a matter of personal taste.

Maybe we get different 'sound-sets' purchasable for micro-transactions.

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

Not a problem, by a design

 

[jabokai]

Not a problem, by a design

So all designs of all things are perfect? Gosh. Although... evidently not, seeing as people have stated their actual problems with this issue.

And it's not ignored as Sandro mentioned back here - forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?p=282704 - they may tweak it.

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

So all designs of all things are perfect? Gosh. Although... evidently not, seeing as people have stated their actual problems with this issue.

Where I said that it is perfect? As I said, it is by design. I don't use iPhone, because I don't dig it's design tradeoffs. Some people might say same about ED. I just hate this thread obviously popping up again and again with same people commenting it...again.

And it's not ignored as Sandro mentioned back here - forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?p=282704 - they may tweak it.

And I didn't say it's ignored either, they clearly still working on cockpits, so I expect lot of tweaks done regarding major issues - key bindings were added after all. However, it is quite clear for me there will be some disappearance and you won't see all UI all the time. It is by design and idea to add challenge to flying a complex space ship.

 

[Globusdiablo]

Immersion

...personally I look where I'm going when I hit the boosters. :S

HA! Good call!
Apropos:

Get on a motorcycle, preferably something with a bit of grunt - lets say 1000cc's and 120HP.

You are on a private road, no laws to worry about breaking, and you are going to be completely safe. So, get on the bike, and open her right up all the way to WOT, up through the gearbox and all the way to maximum speed. When you've had enough fun, stop.

Now tell me the movement is too much and it breaks immersion and gameplay - a ship with magnitudes of magnitudes more power would squish you flat

And tell us how much time you spent looking at the dash/speedo!!!...

 

[jabokai]

Where I said that it is perfect? As I said, it is by design. I don't use iPhone, because I don't dig it's design tradeoffs. Some people might say same about ED. I just hate this thread obviously popping up again and again with same people commenting it...again.

You said it wasn't a problem... which indicated to me you're saying it's, at the very least, perfectly adequate. So we shouldn't comment on things if it's by design, even if we have problems with it? Not sure of the point of your original comment if that's not the case.

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

You said it wasn't a problem... which indicated to me you're saying it's, at the very least, perfectly adequate. So we shouldn't comment on things if it's by design, even if we have problems with it? Not sure of the point of your original comment if that's not the case.

My point of original comment was tongue in cheek joke about design decisions overall. FD designs this game. They collect feedback, listen to it, make adjustments. They are not perfect, but they are seeking best solution they think they can achieve. However, regarding design of anything, line has to be drawn somewhere. You can say that ED cockpit design sucks and you don't like it, and that's valid opinion. But it's certainly not a "problem" as in a way it's a bug. It is meant to be that way.

 

[jabokai]

My point of original comment was tongue in cheek joke about design decisions overall. FD designs this game.

Well that's fair enough, I have enough of my own sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek comments so I can't complain.

It's still an issue though as it keeps coming up, and not always the same people (OP is new).

Some things are absolutely not worth discussing anymore - the speed limit, the limit of 32 players per instance, etc - but much else is fair game IMHO.

 

[Associat0r]

Presently I alternate between a 40" 1080p TV sitting merely 1,5 meters away from it and a 13.something" Monitor at 1366 x 768 (I think... Or close to that). Admittedly I'm only in premium beta, playing 1.1 now, so I don't know about docking yet.

Well, is the experience worse on the smaller monitor? Certainly it is, but I would rather attribute that to the screen size. IMHO the small screen inherently reduces the maximum possible feeling of immersion. This is true for all other games I play on both devices by the way.

The vertical FOV range in ED is 50-60 degrees.
So to get the horizontal FOV range you have to multiply it by: 16 / 9 = 1.77
Which gives the range of: 88.89 - 106.67 which is way too high for it to have crucial instruments missing. It also leads to more perspective distortion than needed.

That is why I think that condensing the ED cockpit elements into the smallest possible
FOV would improve playability, but not the feeling of immersion.

Also regarding playability: Elite Dangerous has the HUD spread out across the cockpit instead of having it floating around artificially. In all Flight Sim games I have seen that even slightly simulated a real plane it was impossible to see all the important things without looking around in the cockpit. Although ED is not a simulation it does aim for a similar feeling in a sci-fi setting as far as I can tell.

Now, would it be possible to change this? I guess so, but what would be the consequences? Since the elements are not simply placed on the screen, but fixed to the cockpit the cockpit would have to be redesigned to put everything into the smallest possible FOV, which would essentially have a significantly negative effect on the immersion that users of large monitors or devices like Oculus Rift experience.

I do however see your problem

The FOV problem is most evident in the multi-seat cockpits.
For example in the Cobra, the forward facing HUD elements stretch all the way across the dashboard of the second seat.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6AxOoBF7SM&t=322

A more sensible design to me would be to constrain the forward HUD elements to the part of the pilot's dashboard.

 

[popuptoaster]

The FOV problem is most evident in the multi-seat cockpits.
For example in the Cobra, the forward facing HUD elements stretch all the way across the dashboard of the second seat.

No they don't, they wrap around the pilot, the second seat is quite clearly further along and behind the HUD.

 

[Jon Jaymes]

I also find this to be a big problem, especially when pitching upwards. When I do so, I can no longer see my or the enemy's hull strength, nor whether the speed I am going is in the 'sweet spot'. This I find to be the most annoying aspect of combat from a UI perspective.

Jon Jaymes

 

[Associat0r]

Here is another demonstration of the problem, these screenshots are around 90 degree FOV and according to calculations in the rFactor forum links below, well above what's sensible for the average display setup and crucial stuff is still missing even when not accelerating. A more sensible design would be to put the crucial instruments closer to the center like most real cockpit/HUD designs.

http://isiforums.net/f/showthread.php/93-Setting-up-your-rFactor-FOV-Tutorial
http://isiforums.net/f/showthread.php/4904-FOV-Calculator

Spoiler

 

[Athan]

I'm only at PB level so my experience is of Alpha 1.1 only so far.

I've been hating the auto-look thing from the very first moments of flying around. I play on 1680x1050, a 16:10 aspect ratio, and it turns out that was part of the issue. In 1.1 a 16:10 aspect ratio means the game clips off the left/right sides and somehow still manages to have a lower vertical FoV than for a 16:9 aspect ratio. I managed to find how to edit the config file to instead get black bars top/bottom and thus an effective 16:9 aspect ratio and the issue was at least reduced. (As I understand it 16:10 aspect ratio is handled correctly in later versions.)

It's very much about the autolook as I find the issue worst in full pitch up at the optimal speed for turning (80m/s IIRC for the Sidewinder with netural power settings). When an enemy ship has just zoomed past you and you want to turn to face it again AND keep track of it with the radar this is a huge, game-breaking, immersion-breaking (why is my avatar not looking at the very thing I would be in this situation!?!?!?!?) problem.

As I understand it Oculus Rift and TrackIR users don't deal with this issue because they choose where to look at all times. So why can't other users get a simple "stop looking where you think I want to, let me control it including no autolook" option ? Sure, keep the slight zoom/FoV change for linear accel/decel, and even some due to turning, but not to the degree that you lose sight of important instruments! Heck, if it was the G-forces in a full pitch up, you'd be pushed down into your seat and get a better view of the radar, not worse!

Sorry if that got a bit ranty, but I didn't want to hold back and not give the correct impression of how important this issue is to me.

 

[deMangler]

Other threads have covered this but I will again add my view to this one.
I agree - the fact that some players who do not have certain equipment are forced to not be able to see vital instruments and cockpit elements under certain conditions is a completely mistaken design decision.

 

[Dejay]

When I played the alpha this behaviour annoyed me too when parts of the UI went missing during acceleration. It felt confusing.

 

[Helios]

(...)
As I understand it Oculus Rift and TrackIR users don't deal with this issue because they choose where to look at all times. So why can't other users get a simple "stop looking where you think I want to, let me control it including no autolook" option ?
(...)

As I've stated in this thread a few pages back I would suggest implementing a solution that helps users with a low FOV while not changing the experience of those with a higher FOV setting. So don't misunderstand the following reply to what I quoted above as me not wanting to see this addressed.

Also I won't look at Track IR here, but when it comes to the Oculus:
Viewpoint-Shifting is problematic. By devs of a game this has been addressed in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bJzEx7DBc0#t=360 , but basically doing stuff with the camera that is not linked to actual head movements of the one using the Rift tends to induce motion sickness.

So my point here right now is: Maybe the fact that Oculus Rift users don't suffer from this is 'not' because the developers of ED wanted to give an advantage to them, but possibly, because there was no other way to implement a Rift support with minimum motion-sickness-risk. (I could imagine, that it just so happens to also affect Track IR, since FD likely won't want to develop two entirely different head tracking models, as long as one works.)

So it might be, that the effect we see is part of an actual design decision, that they want to hold on to, but had to abandon for the rift-mode.

Well, as I said before in my own post linked above: I wouldn't mind if they implemented floating replacement elements for those that set their game below a certain FOV, but I'll have to do a bit more testing to form an opinion on how important that is >>for me<<. I understand your explanation, but while actually playing I did not consciously feel my control over the situation impaired by the automatic camera movements until now. I'll try to pay more attention to that.