They could make sector transitions smoother too, if they really wanted to.
The problem comes from trying to mash a 25th century universe into an engine designed to represent a medieval universe. They've done fairly well in doing so, but doing so was a bad decision.
The real question is; how long before they dump the current engine for something that is not already obsolete?
Are you suggesting they'll make a Star Trek Online II?
Assumingthat these rings are anything like the rings of Saturn or Uranus, a lot. That looks like a gas giant that the rings are orbiting. Looking at Wikipedia, real quick to make sure on my numbers, Saturn's rings alone are hundreds of thousands of kilometers thick. Uranus' are tens of thousands thick. So the estimate brings us that either we have a tiny gas giant with tiny rings, or we have a massive starship Voyager.
Or a big gas giant with tiny rings, not making assumptions. Anyway, not like Star Trek was any realistic :rolleyes:
Just to defend the Cryptic engine. The Cryptic engine is absolutely amazing in what it can do - I don't think there is another functioning MMO engine in existence at the moment that could do STO even remotely as well as the Cryptic engine. i.e. I don't think there is any other functioning MMO engine in existence at the moment capable of smooth continuous-player-input MMO gameplay with both space and ground combat, so iconic for ST, with both being pretty well polished. Even in its origins in CoH, the engine was way advanced (also of course in terms of customizability - another big deal for MMOs).
I agree though, that the in-system planet scale is a bit goofy, but it's the price we have to pay for being able to move around inbetween planets and moons. It might have been better to have foregone that option and had all planets/moons be like in EVE or the X games, with action taking place in defined smaller regions in the solar system - sometimes close to the planet/moon, with awesome presence of the planet/moon, sometimes further out. That would have allowed much more detail, awesomeness and presence for the planets.
However, I have noticed some systems being a bit better with more of a sense of "presence" of the planets and moons looming larger. More in that direction would be good. It doesn't need to be 1-1 modelling, but just less like the planet looking like the size of a beachball.
Also, the slightly "cartoonish", hand-painted art style of STO is partly to blame, not just with the planets but the characters. The art design for "space" in EVE or the X games is far, far more "realistic" and gratifying. But that's not the artists' fault either, it's the brief they've been given, and while I think it was the wrong artistic decision, it's what they're stuck with. I'm sure they could have done a more "realistic "style if that had been the brief, but I suppose the leads wanted that "playable on a BBC micro" type of thing. (Also, one of the things that put me really off STO at launch was the "marionette" look of the figures - that seems to have improved a bit since launch, if I'm not mistaken.)
Assuming being the operative word. That planet could have a very narrow band of rings much smaller than and a whole heck of a lot further out than those of Saturn or Uranus. Or are you trying to say all gas giants with rings are the same throughout the universe?
Unlikely. Look at how the rings curve around that planet. They remain pretty large once they disappear behind the planet ITSELF. If these rings were as thin and distant as you claim, we would see them vanish completely hundreds of kilometers before they disappear behind the planet's horizon.
Well the issue is that, aside from Voyager, there's nothing in that scene to tell us how big the planet is. Anything with gravity can have smaller objects orbit it. Just look at Ida(asteroid) and Dactyl(smaller asteroid). My thought is that the planet(oid?) is closer to the size of Earth's moon(if not smaller).
Well the issue is that, aside from Voyager, there's nothing in that scene to tell us how big the planet is. Anything with gravity can have smaller objects orbit it. Just look at Ida(asteroid) and Dactyl(smaller asteroid). My thought is that the planet(oid?) is closer to the size of Earth's moon(if not smaller).
It would have to be, but then that begs the question for another problem: Why the hell does it look like it's supposed to be a gas giant?
In the end, scaling goof is the most likely culprit in actuality. I don't know exactly why people have a problem with that fact, as it's not the first and only time it's happened in TV and movies.
It would have to be, but then that begs the question for another problem: Why the hell does it look like it's supposed to be a gas giant?
In the end, scaling goof is the most likely culprit in actuality. I don't know exactly why people have a problem with that fact, as it's not the first and only time it's happened in TV and movies.
Maybe it has similar atmospheric patterns? the stripes on Gas Giants are created by wind currents that circle the planet at high speeds.
Honestly, you try to poke fun at people ******** over tiny planets by posting a giant Voyager and you get all the pseudo-scientists clamoring for explanations.....
Not really. There are any number of forces that can help shape the size and behavior of planetary rings. You're assuming their size based on Saturn and Uranus. Planets are not all uniform in size. Neither are there rings.
Just to defend the Cryptic engine. The Cryptic engine is absolutely amazing in what it can do - I don't think there is another functioning MMO engine in existence at the moment that could do STO even remotely as well as the Cryptic engine. i.e. I don't think there is any other functioning MMO engine in existence at the moment capable of smooth continuous-player-input MMO gameplay with both space and ground combat, so iconic for ST, with both being pretty well polished. Even in its origins in CoH, the engine was way advanced (also of course in terms of customizability - another big deal for MMOs).
The combination of space/ground combat is, as far as I know, unique to STO. The problem I have, which I alluded to in my previous post, is that it was a ground oriented engine adapted to a space environment. It is not a true 3D space environment. The most notable effect of this is the limit to a ship's pitch.
And the ham-fisted manner of transitioning between sector blocks, particularly when the AI cannot differentiate between the destination sector selected and any transition point that comes to its attention. A player should be able to select a destination point in a different sector and then visit their ship interior, while they travel across sectors and between sectors.
Yes it was advanced, 4 years ago. How long before it is retired?
I agree though, that the in-system planet scale is a bit goofy, but it's the price we have to pay for being able to move around inbetween planets and moons. It might have been better to have foregone that option and had all planets/moons be like in EVE or the X games, with action taking place in defined smaller regions in the solar system - sometimes close to the planet/moon, with awesome presence of the planet/moon, sometimes further out. That would have allowed much more detail, awesomeness and presence for the planets.
However, I have noticed some systems being a bit better with more of a sense of "presence" of the planets and moons looming larger. More in that direction would be good. It doesn't need to be 1-1 modelling, but just less like the planet looking like the size of a beachball.
STO using the current engine, unless I'm mistaken, should have the ability to introduce one or two more levels of scale, in regard to space travel. Then we could have:
Sector Space - Current - Intersteallar Travel.
System Space - Proposed - Interplanetary Travel.
Planetary Space - Current - Travel within a relatively close proximity of a Planet, but mostly outside of its gravity well
Orbital Space - Proposed - Travel within a Planet's gravity well, but outside its atmosphere.
Also, the slightly "cartoonish", hand-painted art style of STO is partly to blame, not just with the planets but the characters. The art design for "space" in EVE or the X games is far, far more "realistic" and gratifying. But that's not the artists' fault either, it's the brief they've been given, and while I think it was the wrong artistic decision, it's what they're stuck with. I'm sure they could have done a more "realistic "style if that had been the brief, but I suppose the leads wanted that "playable on a BBC micro" type of thing. (Also, one of the things that put me really off STO at launch was the "marionette" look of the figures - that seems to have improved a bit since launch, if I'm not mistaken.)
So long as we're continuing to see improvements and not just feeding a cash cow for milking, I'm not unhappy.
Planetary rings are generally not uniform in size. See here.
Lol, of course they're not an uniform solid mass, but we're talking in therms of thickness, which is the apparent problem when we compare to the Voyager (the fictional in the series intro) with the ring under it. (Edit: And I mean visual thickness, at least visual enough to produce a solid reflextion of the starship on it, I know rings are not solid nor compact substance)
By thickness do you mean density? Yes, the reflection could be a stretch. I suppose it's possible the ring could be comprised of ice crystals or dust or some other reflective materials to produce that effect.
But again, the perspective of the rings hiding behind the planet says that, or the planet is really tiny, or the Voyager just huge. Edit: And no, I mean just thickness. As in apparent distance between the inside and outside the disc line/s.
Rings don't necessarily have to be millions of miles thick. Maybe it's just a small moon
Of course, that's my guessing, some kind of little planet with a thin disc around. In that case a more irregular ring could be more possible, as in some outter strands of saturn as you mentioned, affected by little massive little moons around em. In any case the planet itself seems to be a gas planet, but gas planets necessarely have to be giant... I just think in those days tv started to get advantage of new fancy cgi effects and that Voyager passing over a ring and having a reflection was a cool effect to add back then.
Honestly, you try to poke fun at people ******** over tiny planets by posting a giant Voyager and you get all the pseudo-scientists clamoring for explanations.....
Pseudo? Anyways.... I'm just discussing the topic. It's fun(at least for me).
Comments
Are you suggesting they'll make a Star Trek Online II?
Or a big gas giant with tiny rings, not making assumptions. Anyway, not like Star Trek was any realistic :rolleyes:
I agree though, that the in-system planet scale is a bit goofy, but it's the price we have to pay for being able to move around inbetween planets and moons. It might have been better to have foregone that option and had all planets/moons be like in EVE or the X games, with action taking place in defined smaller regions in the solar system - sometimes close to the planet/moon, with awesome presence of the planet/moon, sometimes further out. That would have allowed much more detail, awesomeness and presence for the planets.
However, I have noticed some systems being a bit better with more of a sense of "presence" of the planets and moons looming larger. More in that direction would be good. It doesn't need to be 1-1 modelling, but just less like the planet looking like the size of a beachball.
Also, the slightly "cartoonish", hand-painted art style of STO is partly to blame, not just with the planets but the characters. The art design for "space" in EVE or the X games is far, far more "realistic" and gratifying. But that's not the artists' fault either, it's the brief they've been given, and while I think it was the wrong artistic decision, it's what they're stuck with. I'm sure they could have done a more "realistic "style if that had been the brief, but I suppose the leads wanted that "playable on a BBC micro" type of thing. (Also, one of the things that put me really off STO at launch was the "marionette" look of the figures - that seems to have improved a bit since launch, if I'm not mistaken.)
Unlikely. Look at how the rings curve around that planet. They remain pretty large once they disappear behind the planet ITSELF. If these rings were as thin and distant as you claim, we would see them vanish completely hundreds of kilometers before they disappear behind the planet's horizon.
:rolleyes: Now you're just grasping for straws. It's a scaling goof. Star Trek and other sci-fi media is full of them. See: the Defiant which can't quite decide how big it is: http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/defiant-problems.htm
My character Tsin'xing
It would have to be, but then that begs the question for another problem: Why the hell does it look like it's supposed to be a gas giant?
In the end, scaling goof is the most likely culprit in actuality. I don't know exactly why people have a problem with that fact, as it's not the first and only time it's happened in TV and movies.
Nah, that's not possible if you know how orbital mechanics work. Voyager is just giant in that scene (or the planet very tiny)
My character Tsin'xing
An eliptic disc or a non uniform sized disc around a planet it's an impossibility.
http://www.retrogreat.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/banging-head-against-the-wall1.gif
Honestly, you try to poke fun at people ******** over tiny planets by posting a giant Voyager and you get all the pseudo-scientists clamoring for explanations.....
No.
See:
IT'S JUST A GOD DAMN SCALING GOOF AND I WAS TRYING TO BE FUNNY NOW SHUT UP!!
The combination of space/ground combat is, as far as I know, unique to STO. The problem I have, which I alluded to in my previous post, is that it was a ground oriented engine adapted to a space environment. It is not a true 3D space environment. The most notable effect of this is the limit to a ship's pitch.
And the ham-fisted manner of transitioning between sector blocks, particularly when the AI cannot differentiate between the destination sector selected and any transition point that comes to its attention. A player should be able to select a destination point in a different sector and then visit their ship interior, while they travel across sectors and between sectors.
Yes it was advanced, 4 years ago. How long before it is retired?
STO using the current engine, unless I'm mistaken, should have the ability to introduce one or two more levels of scale, in regard to space travel. Then we could have:
Sector Space - Current - Intersteallar Travel.- System Space - Proposed - Interplanetary Travel.
- Planetary Space - Current - Travel within a relatively close proximity of a Planet, but mostly outside of its gravity well
- Orbital Space - Proposed - Travel within a Planet's gravity well, but outside its atmosphere.
So long as we're continuing to see improvements and not just feeding a cash cow for milking, I'm not unhappy.
Lol, of course they're not an uniform solid mass, but we're talking in therms of thickness, which is the apparent problem when we compare to the Voyager (the fictional in the series intro) with the ring under it. (Edit: And I mean visual thickness, at least visual enough to produce a solid reflextion of the starship on it, I know rings are not solid nor compact substance)
But again, the perspective of the rings hiding behind the planet says that, or the planet is really tiny, or the Voyager just huge. Edit: And no, I mean just thickness. As in apparent distance between the inside and outside the disc line/s.
Of course, that's my guessing, some kind of little planet with a thin disc around. In that case a more irregular ring could be more possible, as in some outter strands of saturn as you mentioned, affected by little massive little moons around em. In any case the planet itself seems to be a gas planet, but gas planets necessarely have to be giant... I just think in those days tv started to get advantage of new fancy cgi effects and that Voyager passing over a ring and having a reflection was a cool effect to add back then.
My character Tsin'xing