We fight like we do in space in STO because it's made to simulate how combat was depicted in the TV shows.
The engine is fully capable of giving us full 3-D motion in space, but in this case, aesthetics won out over realism.
Also, I imagine it's a much more "user friendly" way to play a space game. Moving around a fully three dimensional environment is not everyone's cup of tea.
Lol the engine is absolutely not capable of doing this 'out of the box'
What you see in space is nothing more than the ground engine slightly tweaked.
Ships are just human characters, except they do not stick to the ground and you can go up or down just as if you would jump on a ground map. Only difference is that there is no gravity to pull you back down.
the ship going up, down and bank to the left and right is nothing more than a illusion and its only programmed to animate and make it look as if the ship is really banking.
There was an intersting bug in the past a few years ago which prevented the ships from showing that animation it was silly as hell.
But it also showed that there is no special math/calculation done for REAL 360 degrees flight.
Is it impossible? doubt it. it just needs alot of work on the core of the engine, and cryptic would have to implement top and bottom shield facing, and probably reprogram most abilities when it comes to weapon arcs.
In real life people throw up in zero g. You want realism it will be messy!
Except in ST, you aren't effected by the zero G, you are actually under the effect of artificial gravity aboard a starship and, with inertial dampeners in play.
not quite.
full freedom of movment was left out because the nasty clunky GUI failed to relay navigational information to the player. meaning they got disorientated in testing.
compare the sidscrolling .jpg for a radar/map we have in sto from paperclip rpg maker which makes zero reference to Z-axis, to this one, from a 20 year old ps1 title that managed to have a more modern radar/map than the anacronistic rpg map we are afflicted with.
the star trek franchise itself has produced games with gui's that where fit for purpose for a game set in space. though again, not an aar pee gee.
Lol the engine is absolutely not capable of doing this 'out of the box'
What you see in space is nothing more than the ground engine slightly tweaked.
Ships are just human characters, except they do not stick to the ground and you can go up or down just as if you would jump on a ground map. Only difference is that there is no gravity to pull you back down.
the ship going up, down and bank to the left and right is nothing more than a illusion and its only programmed to animate and make it look as if the ship is really banking.
There was an intersting bug in the past a few years ago which prevented the ships from showing that animation it was silly as hell.
But it also showed that there is no special math/calculation done for REAL 360 degrees flight.
Is it impossible? doubt it. it just needs alot of work on the core of the engine, and cryptic would have to implement top and bottom shield facing, and probably reprogram most abilities when it comes to weapon arcs.
Actually, they wouldn't require changing, as they already compensate for up and down degree angles, no different than they do side to side.
Why are we locked in the default "airplane mode"? Actually, i can't say it is truely like an airplane because even airplanes can fly 90 degrees vertical. We are flying in outer space. Gravity is a negligible force in outer space (except near a singularity or other gravitational anomaly). Anyone know why Cryptic continues to make us fly like we are inside a planet atmosphere? Does it have something to do with the coding?
I think about this all the time. Thats why I love the Borg's ship model. No wings, but it can move anywhere and fast. I wish alot more starships were modeled around the (not aero dynamic model) theres no air in space so they don't need wings. Just impulse engines or warpdrive nacells. Those can be anywhere. Still some ship models with wings look way bad TRIBBLE (scimitar). I figure sometimes they have to land on there home planets so that may be the need for wings. I guess thats why the feds have the spacestation.
TOS combat wasn't boring, and it never (that I recall) showed the opposing ships in the same frame at the same time. Even in TMP, the Klingon Attack sequence was rather exciting for the time and its engagement ranges were measure as a significant part of an AU at least (again from memory).
What changed everything was Star Wars. After that hit the screen everyone converted to its style and now they won't convert back. Star Trek by DS9 became impossible to tell apart from it in fact.
Sort of like gore in slasher flicks- no does the Psycho style horror anymore- we have to see body parts.
However I don't think the change was an improvement.
But STO is TNG and later. So the point is moot.
Close quarter looks cool, y'know, try imagine at the end of Harry Potter, Voldemort and Harry battling each other with beyond-visual-range spells(not that the particle beam firing wand is super-duper exciting)... Or heck even some "top Gun"-ish Movie where you dont actually see the enemy, only follows what your Electronics... The separate frame thing is not for everyone, some people doesnt find it really exciting, and as you said, the psychological part plays a role i TOS-style combat.
TMP is exciting because the rest of the Movie is in slow motion, nothing against science, diplomacy and exploration, but if they cut down the amount of time slowy showing Enterprise and the V'ger, the Movie would be more exciting.
Hast thou not gone against sincerity
Hast thou not felt ashamed of thy words and deeds
Hast thou not lacked vigor
Hast thou exerted all possible efforts
Hast thou not become slothful
Interesting to see how other games using a 80+ year old plane can pull off waaay more maneuvers than a space craft that's hundreds of years in the future. It's humorous on one hand but understandable on the other.
STO just doesn't have it in its DNA to become a simulator like with other previous ST space games.
Don't get me wrong, it'll be great if it were full 3D-360, full z axis, whatever you want to call it.
If nothing else, perhaps they could look at doing something like this for shuttle crafts, which are ideal because they are for the most part, optional to use.
Retired. I'm now in search for that perfect space anomaly.
THIS!
also traveling faster that light would cause the Doppler effect to kick in causing light waves to shift to x-rays making all space appear black to the naked eye. Realism doesn't look as cool.
And causing far infrared to blue up into visible wavelengths. But it doesn't matter because the front screen isn't a window--it's a big display screen, showing interpretations of outside sensor feeds.
No one actually knows what the universe would look like if one traveled faster than light-speed, because as things stand, it can't be done. On the way up to light-speed, x-rays would blue up to hard gamma rays, and you better have some awesome shielding in the way, because even if you can't see it, it'll fry ya for sure. That much we know.
That's not the reason, why so few become astronauts.
Also, there is no zero G effect, to those aboard the starship, not even really any lateral G!
I mean, if people can easily get sick from something as dumb as a flight simulator, than I would hate to see them in a car ride or, a boat or, a plane or, a rollercoaster, etc.
That's not the reason, why so few become astronauts.
Also, there is no zero G effect, to those aboard the starship, not even really any lateral G!
I mean, if people can easily get sick from something as dumb as a flight simulator, than I would hate to see them in a car ride or, a boat, or, a plane, or a rollercoaster, etc.
You probably would hate to see that. It doesn't mean they don't exist and the rest of the franchise catered to those people, aside from a small handful of camera shots and rocking bridges.
Only thing that throw it off is the fact that the viewscreen doesn't care about the ship's orientation, just the "camera's POV" the incoming party is using in the communication.
You probably would hate to see that. It doesn't mean they don't exist and the rest of the franchise catered to those people, aside from a small handful of camera shots and rocking bridges.
Well, considering they make use of artificial gravity, at a much more technical level than we do and, not to mention they have inertial dampeners [aka inertia negation], it's pretty safe to say, that motion sickness would be extremely minimal.
Only thing that throw it off is the fact that the viewscreen doesn't care about the ship's orientation, just the "camera's POV" the incoming party is using in the communication.
It was meant to be funny, humorous. If they didn't show the Connie upsidedown followed by the captain inverted, the sideways Borg would make less sense since the orientation of the cube isn't clear since it is... a cube. There would BE no joke without the sideways Borg, the joke would be lost on some w/out the inverted Connie/captain, but it would seem it was lost on you anyways... :rolleyes:
"Logic is a little tweeting bird chirping in a meadow. Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers which smell BAD." - Spock
I think about this all the time. Thats why I love the Borg's ship model. No wings, but it can move anywhere and fast. I wish alot more starships were modeled around the (not aero dynamic model) theres no air in space so they don't need wings. Just impulse engines or warpdrive nacells. Those can be anywhere. Still some ship models with wings look way bad TRIBBLE (scimitar). I figure sometimes they have to land on there home planets so that may be the need for wings. I guess thats why the feds have the spacestation.
Actually in Scimitars case, isnt the wings on that ship suppose to launch the Thalaron weapon? When Shinzon want to use the Thalaron weapon, the wings kinda open up.
Hast thou not gone against sincerity
Hast thou not felt ashamed of thy words and deeds
Hast thou not lacked vigor
Hast thou exerted all possible efforts
Hast thou not become slothful
It was meant to be funny, humorous. If they didn't show the Connie upsidedown followed by the captain inverted, the sideways Borg would make less sense since the orientation of the cube isn't clear since it is... a cube. There would BE no joke without the sideways Borg, the joke would be lost on some w/out the inverted Connie/captain, but it would seem it was lost on you anyways... :rolleyes:
Lol, this would be a good example, of a disorienting scene.
It's certainly plausible for beam weapons and other lightspeed weapons, but for torpedoes and other sublight weapons to travel even 10,000km would take hours from tube to enemy hull, assuming the enemy doesn't move out of the way in that time frame. And I'm no scientist by any stretch of the definition, but I'm pretty sure that if torps or any other solid objects reached a reasonable speed to be accurate at that range, they'd vaporize their target.
Sure, but Star Trek says that its torpedoes can even maintain warp speeds. But it all works with subspace fields, which are made-up science that allow us to ignore real science - which can also mean that the kinetic energy these weapons would have is a lot lower than you'd expect from relativistic mechanics. And thus, you still need huge warheads.
But I think - whatever speed you can reach with your space ship - it is very likely that you could make a torpedo go faster. Missiles in air and torpedoes in water tend to be faster than the vessels that fire them, and thus they can also deal with any course corrections (provided they are guided, which they are in Star Trek.) their target makes.
The interesting thing in Star Trek is that it took until JJ Abrams for us to see phasers used to defend against incoming projectiles. The only other case we had that was in TNG when the Ferengi fired some kind of missiles at the Barzan Wormhole.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
Sure, but Star Trek says that its torpedoes can even maintain warp speeds. But it all works with subspace fields, which are made-up science that allow us to ignore real science - which can also mean that the kinetic energy these weapons would have is a lot lower than you'd expect from relativistic mechanics. And thus, you still need huge warheads.
But I think - whatever speed you can reach with your space ship - it is very likely that you could make a torpedo go faster. Missiles in air and torpedoes in water tend to be faster than the vessels that fire them, and thus they can also deal with any course corrections (provided they are guided, which they are in Star Trek.) their target makes.
The interesting thing in Star Trek is that it took until JJ Abrams for us to see phasers used to defend against incoming projectiles. The only other case we had that was in TNG when the Ferengi fired some kind of missiles at the Barzan Wormhole.
Not true. Phasers could be used in Balance of Terror ( Season 1, Ep 13 ) to detonate incoming Plasma weapons (just as Captains can do in game).
Sure, but Star Trek says that its torpedoes can even maintain warp speeds. But it all works with subspace fields, which are made-up science that allow us to ignore real science - which can also mean that the kinetic energy these weapons would have is a lot lower than you'd expect from relativistic mechanics. And thus, you still need huge warheads.
Well sure, but my whole point is that we shouldn't necessarily stick to those unrealistic scenarios.
We fight like we do in space in STO because it's made to simulate how combat was depicted in the TV shows.
The engine is fully capable of giving us full 3-D motion in space, but in this case, aesthetics won out over realism.
THIS!
also traveling faster that light would cause the Doppler effect to kick in causing light waves to shift to x-rays making all space appear black to the naked eye. Realism doesn't look as cool.
oh and one more thing. It's not easy flying in space. If you want to learn, try this: http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/ it's a free space flight sim. Just make sure you go through the tutorial. The 2015 version is looking freaking awesome in beta.
Not everyone is meant to be a cosmonaut. We would have left Earth a long time ago. Maybe we did and this is Earth 2. There was a movie I liked with kind of accurate space flight. It was a sequel to Starship Troopers. I forgot the name. It has 2 cruiser like ships broadsiding each other. The fighters fought in 360 combat too. It was like battlestar galactica. BSG also had some great outer space combat scenes. I think 360 could be done if some things were incorporated to decrease the nausea. Like a player set tracker to monitor the enemy position when off screen. A rear view mirror. An on screen gyroscope. Maybe in the next Star Trek game.
We go over this quite often - Even Dan Stahl has stated that they thought about doing it but found it to be to confusing for the average player. So yes, the engine can handle it, but from what we've seen in canon and whats best for the average player says otherwise
Yes, I'm that Askray@Batbayer in game. Yes, I still play. No, I don't care. Former Community Moderator, Former SSR DJ, Now Full time father to two kids, Husband, Retail Worker. Tiktok: @Askray Facebook: Askray113
We go over this quite often - Even Dan Stahl has stated that they thought about doing it but found it to be to confusing for the average player. So yes, the engine can handle it, but from what we've seen in canon and whats best for the average player says otherwise
Yeah. Humans generall just think on a 2-dimensional plane. I, for one, even get motion sickness when going full 3D (which is why I couldn't play PWE's new game, Fractured Space, either).
I certainly would not want a full 3D gameplay, not because of motion sickness, but as has been said, it would look silly to our inexperienced eyes. Ships would be "upside down" or probably worse oriented on completely different planes. (And you'd probably need at least 10 directional commands - 6 main direction thrusters plus at least two rotation axes in two directions each). But I'd like to get the possibility to go 90° "vertical", so that I can directly aim at any ship/point in space I am targeting.
My mother was an epohh and my father smelled of tulaberries
They could have simply limited the Z axis to 99% freedom in order to avoid barrel rolls and upside down ships, but still not forcing to draw spirals to quickly move upwards or downwards.
Comments
Lol the engine is absolutely not capable of doing this 'out of the box'
What you see in space is nothing more than the ground engine slightly tweaked.
Ships are just human characters, except they do not stick to the ground and you can go up or down just as if you would jump on a ground map. Only difference is that there is no gravity to pull you back down.
the ship going up, down and bank to the left and right is nothing more than a illusion and its only programmed to animate and make it look as if the ship is really banking.
There was an intersting bug in the past a few years ago which prevented the ships from showing that animation it was silly as hell.
But it also showed that there is no special math/calculation done for REAL 360 degrees flight.
Is it impossible? doubt it. it just needs alot of work on the core of the engine, and cryptic would have to implement top and bottom shield facing, and probably reprogram most abilities when it comes to weapon arcs.
Except in ST, you aren't effected by the zero G, you are actually under the effect of artificial gravity aboard a starship and, with inertial dampeners in play.
Even lateral G, is virtually eliminated.
This was one of my all time favorites.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7PJq7jbuJs
Actually, they wouldn't require changing, as they already compensate for up and down degree angles, no different than they do side to side.
Praetor of the -RTS- Romulan Tal Shiar fleet!
I think about this all the time. Thats why I love the Borg's ship model. No wings, but it can move anywhere and fast. I wish alot more starships were modeled around the (not aero dynamic model) theres no air in space so they don't need wings. Just impulse engines or warpdrive nacells. Those can be anywhere. Still some ship models with wings look way bad TRIBBLE (scimitar). I figure sometimes they have to land on there home planets so that may be the need for wings. I guess thats why the feds have the spacestation.
Some people just get motion sickness. Even when there isn't really any motion.
Close quarter looks cool, y'know, try imagine at the end of Harry Potter, Voldemort and Harry battling each other with beyond-visual-range spells(not that the particle beam firing wand is super-duper exciting)... Or heck even some "top Gun"-ish Movie where you dont actually see the enemy, only follows what your Electronics... The separate frame thing is not for everyone, some people doesnt find it really exciting, and as you said, the psychological part plays a role i TOS-style combat.
TMP is exciting because the rest of the Movie is in slow motion, nothing against science, diplomacy and exploration, but if they cut down the amount of time slowy showing Enterprise and the V'ger, the Movie would be more exciting.
Hast thou not felt ashamed of thy words and deeds
Hast thou not lacked vigor
Hast thou exerted all possible efforts
Hast thou not become slothful
STO just doesn't have it in its DNA to become a simulator like with other previous ST space games.
Don't get me wrong, it'll be great if it were full 3D-360, full z axis, whatever you want to call it.
If nothing else, perhaps they could look at doing something like this for shuttle crafts, which are ideal because they are for the most part, optional to use.
And causing far infrared to blue up into visible wavelengths. But it doesn't matter because the front screen isn't a window--it's a big display screen, showing interpretations of outside sensor feeds.
No one actually knows what the universe would look like if one traveled faster than light-speed, because as things stand, it can't be done. On the way up to light-speed, x-rays would blue up to hard gamma rays, and you better have some awesome shielding in the way, because even if you can't see it, it'll fry ya for sure. That much we know.
http://i.imgur.com/xyRGwWg.jpg
Or puking our guts up.
There's a good reason only a few people become astronauts. http://georgegodley.com/wp-content/uploads/thumbs_picdump-171-31.jpg
:: Worf fold his arm ::
"We don't discuss it with outsiders."
That's not the reason, why so few become astronauts.
Also, there is no zero G effect, to those aboard the starship, not even really any lateral G!
I mean, if people can easily get sick from something as dumb as a flight simulator, than I would hate to see them in a car ride or, a boat or, a plane or, a rollercoaster, etc.
Praetor of the -RTS- Romulan Tal Shiar fleet!
You probably would hate to see that. It doesn't mean they don't exist and the rest of the franchise catered to those people, aside from a small handful of camera shots and rocking bridges.
Well, considering they make use of artificial gravity, at a much more technical level than we do and, not to mention they have inertial dampeners [aka inertia negation], it's pretty safe to say, that motion sickness would be extremely minimal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertia_damper
While listed as science fiction, it's not to say one day, there isn't the possibility of reality!
It's also not eliminating 100% of inertia, just enough at times to be comfortable, until a massive amount of inertia, overburdens the system.
In which case, you tend to have flying redshirts on your bridge, when this occurs!
Praetor of the -RTS- Romulan Tal Shiar fleet!
It was meant to be funny, humorous. If they didn't show the Connie upsidedown followed by the captain inverted, the sideways Borg would make less sense since the orientation of the cube isn't clear since it is... a cube. There would BE no joke without the sideways Borg, the joke would be lost on some w/out the inverted Connie/captain, but it would seem it was lost on you anyways... :rolleyes:
Actually in Scimitars case, isnt the wings on that ship suppose to launch the Thalaron weapon? When Shinzon want to use the Thalaron weapon, the wings kinda open up.
Hast thou not felt ashamed of thy words and deeds
Hast thou not lacked vigor
Hast thou exerted all possible efforts
Hast thou not become slothful
Lol, this would be a good example, of a disorienting scene.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Byf9UpnYmRc
Praetor of the -RTS- Romulan Tal Shiar fleet!
Sure, but Star Trek says that its torpedoes can even maintain warp speeds. But it all works with subspace fields, which are made-up science that allow us to ignore real science - which can also mean that the kinetic energy these weapons would have is a lot lower than you'd expect from relativistic mechanics. And thus, you still need huge warheads.
But I think - whatever speed you can reach with your space ship - it is very likely that you could make a torpedo go faster. Missiles in air and torpedoes in water tend to be faster than the vessels that fire them, and thus they can also deal with any course corrections (provided they are guided, which they are in Star Trek.) their target makes.
The interesting thing in Star Trek is that it took until JJ Abrams for us to see phasers used to defend against incoming projectiles. The only other case we had that was in TNG when the Ferengi fired some kind of missiles at the Barzan Wormhole.
Not true. Phasers could be used in Balance of Terror ( Season 1, Ep 13 ) to detonate incoming Plasma weapons (just as Captains can do in game).
Helpful Tools: Dictionary.com - Logical fallacies - Random generator - Word generator - Color tool - Extra Credits - List of common English language errors - New T6 Big booty tutorial
I thought this thread was over...
Thank you. I like the simulator.
Former Community Moderator, Former SSR DJ, Now Full time father to two kids, Husband, Retail Worker.
Tiktok: @Askray Facebook: Askray113
Yeah. Humans generall just think on a 2-dimensional plane. I, for one, even get motion sickness when going full 3D (which is why I couldn't play PWE's new game, Fractured Space, either).
I'm fine with the way things are.
It was a stylistic choice, not an engine limitation.