Could you explain all of us why is it such a problem to let us fly with no limits to pitch and roll, please ? I really want to hear explanation to that, because I don't see any reason. How hard is it to make it configurable? So that full control is limited by default, but whoever needs more, can just let it roll and pitch PI*2.
Working as intended. The devs said they wanted to keep combat true to the series. That means no dogfighting.
How about DS9 and Sacrifice of Angels ? Many ships are moving in currently unavailable in STO directions. Or battle for Chintoka, where clearly ships can roll beyond 90 degrees. Also, in Enterprise they did full loop to get behind Klingon ship in nebula.
F*ck that. What about when my 45 degree cannon arc cant shoot a ship because he is above me, and the only way to get him in my sights is by spiraling around for 4 minutes? If they don't want us to fly realistically, then they need to change the Z axis arc for some of the weapons.
Technical reasons. Math algorythims needed for true 3D movement are different and more complex. They have them for graphics (they are required to do 3D Graphics). They don't appear to have them for the rest of the code, the other teams would probably have a lot trouble with them too because of the math. It would also take a lot of time to develop.
Essentially they gave you a 3D game thats mostly 2D but looks 3D. Most 3D games on the market are built that way (Simulators being the exception normally). RTS, FPS and most 3D MMORPG's etc. are built like that.
They're using the CO engine - 2D with altitute & 3D graphics.
Technical reasons. Math algorythims needed for true 3D movement are different and more complex. They have them for graphics (they are required to do 3D Graphics). They don't appear to have them for the rest of the code, the other teams would probably have a lot trouble with them too because of the math. It would also take a lot of time to develop.
Essentially they gave you a 3D game thats mostly 2D but looks 3D. Most 3D games on the market are built that way (Simulators being the exception normally). RTS, FPS and most 3D MMORPG's etc. are built like that.
They're using the CO engine - 2D with altitute & 3D graphics.
Not really, I've been doing full 3D movement in simulations many times, and I don't see the problem. I think the limitation comes wiht the engine only. If it's based on CO, then that's the reason. But how it comes that space rpg is built on fps/tps engine ?
I am actually thinking theyve took the engine from star trek legacy to be honest, the combat is pretty similar (not that thats a bad thing I enjoyed legacy)
Not really, I've been doing full 3D movement in simulations many times, and I don't see the problem. I think the limitation comes wiht the engine only. If it's based on CO, then that's the reason. But how it comes that space rpg is built on fps/tps engine ?
It's really easy and common to restrict Euler rotation in engines that can handle full rotation to reduce certain calculations. There's a lot of technical reasons that a dev team may choose to do this... and while Cryptic has never mentioned it, it seems a more rational design decision to do it for performance/optimization than for "canon" because canon is full 3D motion for 80% of the material - it was just a limitation pre-1990-92.
If it isn't for some performance gain, Cryptic blundered.
It's really easy and common to restrict Euler rotation in engines that can handle full rotation to reduce certain calculations. There's a lot of technical reasons that a dev team may choose to do this... and while Cryptic has never mentioned it, it seems a more rational design decision to do it for performance/optimization than for "canon" because canon is full 3D motion for 80% of the material - it was just a limitation pre-1990-92.
If it isn't for some performance gain, Cryptic blundered.
Euler rotation (Euler angles), are basis of simulations style 3D movement, and in my experience, I've never had to do anything special for full 360 degree movement in my simulations. It pretty much doesn't matter what angle the object is rotated at, camera stays the same, and you still need to perform all calulations as if it was at 0 degree rotation/roll/pitch, no special treatment. I guess the problem in STO is that weapon effects are all bound to a pivot inside the model, and there's no concept of top/bottom weapon arrays, nor torpedo bays, so it would look ugly if a beam would cut through the ship's hull.
Another reason could be the fact that it's based on CO, which supports FPS/TPS style movement only, and devs responsible for the engine are long time gone, and no one at cryptic knows how to change that
But seriously, I don't see any real explanation as to why it's right not to give us 360 degree of freedom.
Working as intended. The devs said they wanted to keep combat true to the series. That means no dogfighting.
In that case they should not bother us with stuff to scan in the systems where one is right above the other and you cant directly fly to it because the ship is just too stupid to turn it´s nose up.
Comments
How about DS9 and Sacrifice of Angels ? Many ships are moving in currently unavailable in STO directions. Or battle for Chintoka, where clearly ships can roll beyond 90 degrees. Also, in Enterprise they did full loop to get behind Klingon ship in nebula.
Essentially they gave you a 3D game thats mostly 2D but looks 3D. Most 3D games on the market are built that way (Simulators being the exception normally). RTS, FPS and most 3D MMORPG's etc. are built like that.
They're using the CO engine - 2D with altitute & 3D graphics.
Not really, I've been doing full 3D movement in simulations many times, and I don't see the problem. I think the limitation comes wiht the engine only. If it's based on CO, then that's the reason. But how it comes that space rpg is built on fps/tps engine ?
It's really easy and common to restrict Euler rotation in engines that can handle full rotation to reduce certain calculations. There's a lot of technical reasons that a dev team may choose to do this... and while Cryptic has never mentioned it, it seems a more rational design decision to do it for performance/optimization than for "canon" because canon is full 3D motion for 80% of the material - it was just a limitation pre-1990-92.
If it isn't for some performance gain, Cryptic blundered.
You will learn that Crypic is just that with information.....Cryptic.
Euler rotation (Euler angles), are basis of simulations style 3D movement, and in my experience, I've never had to do anything special for full 360 degree movement in my simulations. It pretty much doesn't matter what angle the object is rotated at, camera stays the same, and you still need to perform all calulations as if it was at 0 degree rotation/roll/pitch, no special treatment. I guess the problem in STO is that weapon effects are all bound to a pivot inside the model, and there's no concept of top/bottom weapon arrays, nor torpedo bays, so it would look ugly if a beam would cut through the ship's hull.
Another reason could be the fact that it's based on CO, which supports FPS/TPS style movement only, and devs responsible for the engine are long time gone, and no one at cryptic knows how to change that
But seriously, I don't see any real explanation as to why it's right not to give us 360 degree of freedom.
This is the same as with CO flight - where you also can't flip over.