test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

If you can fly backwards...

SystemSystem Member, NoReporting Posts: 178,019 Arc User
...why cant you fly up and down?
Post edited by Unknown User on
«13

Comments

  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    tsentients wrote:
    ...why cant you fly up and down?

    ...You can fly up and down. You just can't fly directly up or down.

    As for why, I believe that has been answered in all the other posts made on this topic. If I remember correctly, it has something to do with the game engine. I welcome anyone who can give a better answer, though, I wasn't exactly following any of those threads very closely.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    tsentients wrote:
    ...why cant you fly up and down?

    Maybe it's because you can't "fly" anywhere but in an atmosphere? ;)

    p.s. - according to scuttlebut, it's a limitation of the game engine that the developers have already said they won't be changing. :)
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    B/c Cryptic is stocked with bad programmers.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Pretty much because Straight up/down flight doesn't work well with the 4 shield quadrant set-up and because the devs didn't want a 6 shield area set-up as it over complicates things.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    B/c Cryptic is stocked with bad programmers.

    You are welcome to try your hand at it. Please let us know when your game comes out.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Ah okay so its just a game engine constraint.

    The "fly" things just a matter of semantics. I guess the most technically appropriate word would be "travel.

    The definition of "spaceflight" says something like "flight beyond the earth's atmosphere" so ::shrug::
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Nope, I hate this.

    I think we should be able to strafe up like the Ent D did in "yesterday's enterprise", remember that part? that was a pretty awesome scene and I want to rise over a big asteroid and start pew pewing with my phasers just like mr. picard :)
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    As mentioned in the Q&A posted in the main page today, it was to keep the naval 'tall ships' feeling. Your ship yaws right and left, up or down like the leviathan starship it is supposed to be. Not like a Jet Fighter. There was a huge thread on this in Beta and it did result in the Z axis rotation being increased, but a total 360 degree Z axis would take away from the fun IMHO.
    ZAM: One of the most-criticized aspects of ship maneuvering is the "corkscrew spiral" required to increase or decrease altitude. Is this an acknowledged gameplay issue that will be addressed at some point?

    Zinkievich: We've definitely taken a look at this. We're currently exploring ways in which we could address this and still keep to our "tall ships" design philosophy.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Pretty much because Straight up/down flight doesn't work well with the 4 shield quadrant set-up and because the devs didn't want a 6 shield area set-up as it over complicates things.

    Oh, cool thats interesting.

    When I was positioned above and below enemies, the game seemed to just approximate the direction the damage was coming from.

    I wasn't sure if there was a cannon reason for it or not.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Not this again, cryptic has already been quoted as saying no and it wont work properly.
    Anyways its fine.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    ChargerIIC wrote: »
    As mentioned in the Q&A posted in the main page today, it was to keep the naval 'tall ships' feeling. Your ship yaws right and left, up or down like the leviathan starship it is supposed to be. Not like a Jet Fighter. There was a huge thread on this in Beta and it did result in the Z axis rotation being increased, but a total 360 degree Z axis would take away from the fun IMHO.

    Haha you could have entire teams charging the enemy upside down!
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    tsentients wrote:
    Oh, cool thats interesting.

    When I was positioned above and below enemies and the game seemed to just approximate the direction the damage was coming from.

    I wasn't sure if there was a cannon reason for it or not.

    Pretty much, things get screwy when taking damage to the top or bottom. You can be shot from an forward angle and take damage to the back. So I can see why Cryptic didn't add it in. They did mention they were discussing making the angle a little steeper though.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Pretty much, things get screwy when taking damage to the top or bottom. You can be shot from an forward angle and take damage to the back. So I can see why Cryptic didn't add it in. They did mention they were discussing making the angle a little steeper though.

    I really hope they do. The spaceflight was a pretty good part of the game but sometimes it was frustrating on certain missions.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Pyryck wrote:
    Maybe it's because you can't "fly" anywhere but in an atmosphere? ;)

    p.s. - according to scuttlebut, it's a limitation of the game engine that the developers have already said they won't be changing. :)

    Actually, I believe I remember them saying that it was a limitation they added to make space combat simpler for the players, not a limitation of the game engine itself. The reasoning was that they believed many players would have problems with spacial orientation otherwise.

    We know flying straight up and down is possible because you can do it in Champions Online, which uses the same game engine.


    :cool:
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    I just wanna be able to make this little move at 3:36 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AK9rNhQTrn4

    :)
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Idlewind wrote: »
    I just wanna be able to make this little move at 3:36 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AK9rNhQTrn4

    :)

    Wait I thought we could do that >_<

    well sort of... :p

    I guess the pitch of the ship in STO would be angled more upwards tho... so I think i see what you mean.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    ChargerIIC wrote: »
    As mentioned in the Q&A posted in the main page today, it was to keep the naval 'tall ships' feeling. Your ship yaws right and left, up or down like the leviathan starship it is supposed to be. Not like a Jet Fighter. There was a huge thread on this in Beta and it did result in the Z axis rotation being increased, but a total 360 degree Z axis would take away from the fun IMHO.

    Which is the most TRIBBLE explanation possible. It's a design choice that serves only to **** off people.

    You don't have to fly straight up, you could elevator up or down just like the Enterprize did in Wrath of Khan.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    it's not an engine limitation at all, anyone who thinks that doesn't really have a clue sorry.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    From another forum - the reason why you cant fly up and down-its the coding!

    "I am really shocked at this news that STO cannot accomplish vertical motion. This tells me their programmers do not have the required mathematical knowledge to be programming a 3-D game in the first place. Mathematical concepts like quaternions and 4-D matrices (tensors) are provided in every game engine I have looked at because using them allows vertical motion while avoiding gimbal lock. Their programmers must have used of Euler angles (sine, cosine, tangent) for motion instead with the result that vertical motion is prevented. In a 3-D world the order in which angles are executed does matter unlike in a 2-D world where order does not matter."

    Quoted from another mmo site
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Barbarella wrote:
    From another forum - the reason why you cant fly up and down-its the coding!

    "I am really shocked at this news that STO cannot accomplish vertical motion. This tells me their programmers do not have the required mathematical knowledge to be programming a 3-D game in the first place. Mathematical concepts like quaternions and 4-D matrices (tensors) are provided in every game engine I have looked at because using them allows vertical motion while avoiding gimbal lock. Their programmers must have used of Euler angles (sine, cosine, tangent) for motion instead with the result that vertical motion is prevented. In a 3-D world the order in which angles are executed does matter unlike in a 2-D world where order does not matter."

    Quoted from another mmo site

    Just try this. Go log into Champions Online. Log in a character that has Fly. Now push the space bar. Do you not go straight up? Now push the X key. Do you not go straight down? Yeah, that's the same game engine, dude.

    :cool:
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Gimbal lock is likely to be the reason for being unable to point up/down, or, indeed, do a barrel roll. Since STO is built on the same engine as CO, which I presume had no great reason to provide these transformations (not played it), I'm guessing the extra complexity of quaternions was avoided because it'd simply be extra work for minor gain. Likewise, to rewrite the engine for STO *just* for the minor advantage of up/down would've been too much investment for too little gain.

    Secondly, the controls would be a nightmare. The restrictions applied by gimbal lock actually allow for a really nice point-to-fly mouse control. Since a mouse can only move in two dimensions, you couldn't do the same in an unrestricted 3D flight system - Imagine you point your ship upwards, up, up, up, with no restrictions you end up upside down. How do you roll back over? You need another axis of control, say the mousewheel, which is another thing to keep adjusting, and your brain thinking about. Altogether, it'd probably be much less user-friendly, and most importantly, less fun.

    Finally, quaternions would consume 33% more storage space (and thus network bandwidth) than Euler angles. This could make a lot of difference in an MMO where thousands of users are involved.

    As for strafing, and "floating" up/down I could see this being reasonable as an extra option, but again it's extra control complexity for the user, and ultimately it's more for the cool factor than an essential feature, or actually being overly useful in a heated battle.

    What does irritate me are the almost vertically oriented missions where you have to spiral down to the next set of enemies because of the gimbal lock restrictions. But that's just bad level design.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Valill wrote:
    Gimbal lock is likely to be the reason for being unable to point up/down, or, indeed, do a barrel roll. Since STO is built on the same engine as CO, which I presume had no great reason to provide these transformations (not played it), I'm guessing the extra complexity of quaternions was avoided because it'd simply be extra work for minor gain. Likewise, to rewrite the engine for STO *just* for the minor advantage of up/down would've been too much investment for too little gain.

    Secondly, the controls would be a nightmare. The restrictions applied by gimbal lock actually allow for a really nice point-to-fly mouse control. Since a mouse can only move in two dimensions, you couldn't do the same in an unrestricted 3D flight system - Imagine you point your ship upwards, up, up, up, with no restrictions you end up upside down. How do you roll back over? You need another axis of control, say the mousewheel, which is another thing to keep adjusting, and your brain thinking about. Altogether, it'd probably be much less user-friendly, and most importantly, less fun.

    Finally, quaternions would consume 33% more storage space (and thus network bandwidth) than Euler angles. This could make a lot of difference in an MMO where thousands of users are involved.

    As for strafing, and "floating" up/down I could see this being reasonable as an extra option, but again it's extra control complexity for the user, and ultimately it's more for the cool factor than an essential feature, or actually being overly useful in a heated battle.

    What does irritate me are the almost vertically oriented missions where you have to spiral down to the next set of enemies because of the gimbal lock restrictions. But that's just bad level design.

    i don't think it's a bad game design i think they just decided to make it easier and more general for alot of players to limit the option so as not to make it more complex for those who are new to star trek and thsoe who have far more simpler minds.

    my friend stop playing Bridge commander cause he couldn't get his head wraped around how to manuver in 3d space..

    even in this game people have issues moving in 2d. i yell at them to freaking turn thier ship to t he side but they always attack from the front..
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Barbarella wrote:
    From another forum - the reason why you cant fly up and down-its the coding!

    "I am really shocked at this news that STO cannot accomplish vertical motion. This tells me their programmers do not have the required mathematical knowledge to be programming a 3-D game in the first place. Mathematical concepts like quaternions and 4-D matrices (tensors) are provided in every game engine I have looked at because using them allows vertical motion while avoiding gimbal lock. Their programmers must have used of Euler angles (sine, cosine, tangent) for motion instead with the result that vertical motion is prevented. In a 3-D world the order in which angles are executed does matter unlike in a 2-D world where order does not matter."

    Quoted from another mmo site

    That's not right.

    I use Euler angles to describe aircraft stability and control issues. I hope they are using Euler angles, it is much easier to program and interpolate from then tensors... I use Matlab to do it, which is based on the C language. In other words, Euler angles are used to describe the flight mechanics of any craft, space or atmospheric in our aerospace industry.

    It must be for some other reason.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Pyryck wrote:
    Maybe it's because you can't "fly" anywhere but in an atmosphere? ;)

    p.s. - according to scuttlebut, it's a limitation of the game engine that the developers have already said they won't be changing. :)

    It's called space flight. The key word is, flight.

    And there is "atmosphere" in "space", but for that, I am being picky.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    I've never seen an Enterprise (or any Starfleet or Star Trek vessel) doing a looping, never.

    And i find myself surprised here but i like the way it is ^_^
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    gulthaw wrote: »
    I've never seen an Enterprise (or any Starfleet or Star Trek vessel) doing a looping, never.

    And i find myself surprised here but i like the way it is ^_^

    Yes, but you have seen the Enterprise go straight up. If you don't remember, it is in the final episode where Riker saves the USS Pasteur from Klingon ships.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Pretty much because Straight up/down flight doesn't work well with the 4 shield quadrant set-up and because the devs didn't want a 6 shield area set-up as it over complicates things.

    Most logical answer I've heard yet...
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    gulthaw wrote: »
    I've never seen an Enterprise (or any Starfleet or Star Trek vessel) doing a looping, never.

    And i find myself surprised here but i like the way it is ^_^

    Then you need to watch this.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XCWG...m=PL&index=103

    USS Defiant does a loop 25 seconds in.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    I'm pretty sure that you can only fly backwards because the impulse engines suck space air in instead of pushing it out like normal. They'd have to aim up and down for you to be able to move that way.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Fine, fine, it's lame, but let's say we don't get the ability to loop, fly upside down (though in zero-g, that doesn't really make sense to say it that way)etc., why can't we move up and down while keeping the ship level?
Sign In or Register to comment.