test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

UP / down?

SystemSystem Member, NoReporting Posts: 178,019 Arc User
Flying straight up or down... is that so hard?
I did PvP though i find it too mainstream, i did enjoy it abit... untill i had someone sitting right above me with phasers blasting me slowly to bits, because it was impossible to bring my front mounted cannons on target. why? bacause you can't face straight up or straight down... whats the point of cannons then?
Cryptic realy needs to fix that problem... IMHO

Shamrann out
Post edited by Unknown User on
«13456716

Comments

  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Its by design. Its not canon movement for the majority of ships.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    So it's the games fault you let someone get outside your firing arc??
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    this is a big probleim in Infected at the start with all the borg ships spawning below / above you.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Depends on the weapons, if you got the 250' firing arc beam arrays they will shoot down below.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Seems to me its a little too limiting the way it is. Im not asking to fly DIRECTLY down or up, but the pitch could use some adjusting.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Look in the post where they talk about stuff they are looking at fixing, no mention of this. It will stay for quite awhile. Solution? don't play.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Having the ability to Roll on the Y axis would solve a lot of the up/down issues and negate the need to spiral all the time.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    I m fine with the way it is personally. Its just like Legacy.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Dryan wrote:
    Its by design. Its not canon movement for the majority of ships.

    That's a huge Crock, dragged out as a pathetic excuse for the limitations of the game engine.
    Not canon movement? How can you say that? Just because you thing that you see a ship in a TV series always travelling in one plane is nothing more than a relationship between the camera and the ship. How do you know which direction it is travelling with no reference?
    Not canon is an insult of an excuse. The fact is the game engine is designed for a 3d world with a ground plane and it's not capable of handling models rotating fully because they are gimbal locked.

    Not canon? Give me strength.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Buffalo-6 wrote:
    Having the ability to Roll on the Y axis would solve a lot of the up/down issues and negate the need to spiral all the time.

    It's just not possible, the engine can't render the models and keep the spatial awareness needed to keep up with the variables of separate models performing this way
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    That's a huge Crock, dragged out as a pathetic excuse for the limitations of the game engine.
    Not canon movement? How can you say that? Just because you thing that you see a ship in a TV series always travelling in one plane is nothing more than a relationship between the camera and the ship. How do you know which direction it is travelling with no reference?
    Not canon is an insult of an excuse. The fact is the game engine is designed for a 3d world with a ground plane and it's not capable of handling models rotating fully because they are gimbal locked.

    Not canon? Give me strength.

    Sir,, I find youre argument shallow and pedantic, as well as un-canon, this makes it invalid...........
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    In all the many many many hours of footage in the tv shows and movies you can count the number of times that a ship pitched more than 60 degrees on one hand and they have all been linked already. You aren't going to get it - Star Trek works on a galactic plane, ships do not have more than roughly 60-70 degrees of pitch, and when you kill your engines the ship stops.

    Now, there have been numerous times that the ships *moved* up or down - with respect to the galactic plane it would be a "hover" motion and we can not do that. I do agree there that we really should be able too. I also wouldn't mind being able to choose to go at a steeper angle by diverting power to engines. We have only seen that motion in extreme circumstances so it *is* possible and it is reasonable to assume that in all but maybe one case that I know of they probably had everything into engines and weapons.

    Still, it's probably not going to make you happy either - that means you have little to no shields, repair rate, and your weapons are gimped to do that. But in this case there is an existing license to follow and it doesn't really allow it except under special circumstances. It's part of the situational awareness you are going to have to have with an escort and something cruisers (who are heavy on the beam weapons) are going to exploit whenever they can. The lack of firing arc is the balance for the high damage and equal effectiveness on shields and hulls - we are deadly in a 45 degree firing arc.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    It's just not possible, the engine can't render the models and keep the spatial awareness needed to keep up with the variables of separate models performing this way

    What he said! Too bad too as it is a real pain to deal with.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    strcpy wrote: »
    In all the many many many hours of footage in the tv shows and movies you can count the number of times that a ship pitched more than 60 degrees on one hand and they have all been linked already. You aren't going to get it - Star Trek works on a galactic plane, ships do not have more than roughly 60-70 degrees of pitch, and when you kill your engines the ship stops.

    Now, there have been numerous times that the ships *moved* up or down - with respect to the galactic plane it would be a "hover" motion and we can not do that. I do agree there that we really should be able too. I also wouldn't mind being able to choose to go at a steeper angle by diverting power to engines. We have only seen that motion in extreme circumstances so it *is* possible and it is reasonable to assume that in all but maybe one case that I know of they probably had everything into engines and weapons.

    Still, it's probably not going to make you happy either - that means you have little to no shields, repair rate, and your weapons are gimped to do that. But in this case there is an existing license to follow and it doesn't really allow it except under special circumstances. It's part of the situational awareness you are going to have to have with an escort and something cruisers (who are heavy on the beam weapons) are going to exploit whenever they can. The lack of firing arc is the balance for the high damage and equal effectiveness on shields and hulls - we are deadly in a 45 degree firing arc.

    once again. The ship is seen to move in relation to the camera. Which technically is not there. It's just a viewpoint. If the viewpoint remained fixed then the ships would be seen to move in all manner of directions in order to reach a point in 3D space. The fact of the matter is that it was just TV and cheaper to not have extensive effects. The limitations of TV made the movement what it was. The limitations of the engine make the movement what it is in STO.
    It goes against all known science and common sense. Ig the engine had been written for the game instead of the game to fit the engine then we could have easily had proper spacial movement. After all, David Braben managed it quite simply on a BBC Micro 26 years ago.

    It's bad enough that this can never be fixed but to pass it off as a game design is just insulting.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    I understand they don't want ships flipping upside-down or anything, but I still think they could open up the angle a little more. Maybe 80-85 degrees.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    I understand they don't want ships flipping upside-down or anything, but I still think they could open up the angle a little more. Maybe 80-85 degrees.

    Agreed. This is exactly my opinion on it as well. ;)

    Wouldnt hurt if they adjusted it just a bit.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    it's not a question about using phasers instead of cannons.
    Cannons are designed to have a higher dps, with the drawback of having to face your ship. instead of just pulling the tricker, thats the way it's suposed to be.
    but when you are unable to face your oponent because of a bug/glitch in the game. then the cannons aren't working as intended.
    fix it and i might whant to play after my trial month is over, don't and I'd say it's been fun... but I'd be lying...

    Shamrann out...
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    I understand they don't want ships flipping upside-down or anything, but I still think they could open up the angle a little more. Maybe 80-85 degrees.

    doesn't matter if you turn opside down... just make it auto level once red-alert is over... or am i totally wrong here?
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Shamrann wrote: »
    doesn't matter if you turn opside down... just make it auto level once red-alert is over... or am i totally wrong here?

    It'd be kinda confusing to have ships upside down. Your monitor might show that their right shields are weak, but if they're upside down, you'd actually have to move to the left to hit them. On some compact ship designs like the Defiant it might be difficult to tell if they're straight or upside-down.

    Sounds silly, I know.. but that'd be a legitimate problem as a point of confusion.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    It would be nice, ya.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Rikaelus wrote: »
    It'd be kinda confusing to have ships upside down. Your monitor might show that their right shields are weak, but if they're upside down, you'd actually have to move to the left to hit them. On some compact ship designs like the Defiant it might be difficult to tell if they're straight or upside-down.

    Sounds silly, I know.. but that'd be a legitimate problem as a point of confusion.

    To me it sounds like a valid strategy. If someone can't swap port and starboard because the ship is--compared to your ship--upside down they deserve to be blown up.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    strcpy wrote: »
    In all the many many many hours of footage in the tv shows and movies you can count the number of times that a ship pitched more than 60 degrees on one hand and they have all been linked already. You aren't going to get it - Star Trek works on a galactic plane, ships do not have more than roughly 60-70 degrees of pitch, and when you kill your engines the ship stops.

    Now, there have been numerous times that the ships *moved* up or down - with respect to the galactic plane it would be a "hover" motion and we can not do that. I do agree there that we really should be able too. I also wouldn't mind being able to choose to go at a steeper angle by diverting power to engines. We have only seen that motion in extreme circumstances so it *is* possible and it is reasonable to assume that in all but maybe one case that I know of they probably had everything into engines and weapons.

    Still, it's probably not going to make you happy either - that means you have little to no shields, repair rate, and your weapons are gimped to do that. But in this case there is an existing license to follow and it doesn't really allow it except under special circumstances. It's part of the situational awareness you are going to have to have with an escort and something cruisers (who are heavy on the beam weapons) are going to exploit whenever they can. The lack of firing arc is the balance for the high damage and equal effectiveness on shields and hulls - we are deadly in a 45 degree firing arc.



    The real reason is because of the limitations of the special effects processes used. Why they felt the need to keep that visual style once the use of film cameras and plastic models was replaced with digital technology defies logic.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    That's a huge Crock, dragged out as a pathetic excuse for the limitations of the game engine.
    Not canon movement? How can you say that? Just because you thing that you see a ship in a TV series always travelling in one plane is nothing more than a relationship between the camera and the ship. How do you know which direction it is travelling with no reference?
    Not canon is an insult of an excuse. The fact is the game engine is designed for a 3d world with a ground plane and it's not capable of handling models rotating fully because they are gimbal locked.

    Not canon? Give me strength.

    This could be it. The engine might not allow this degree of movement.

    And an additional note to the "Not in canon" statement. TNG Part 1 of the Two part series finale. The refit Enterprise under the command of Riker performs a vertical climb at a 90 degree to the science ships plane to attack the klingon ship. Vertical movement is in Canon.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Shamrann wrote: »
    Flying straight up or down... is that so hard?
    I did PvP though i find it too mainstream, i did enjoy it abit... untill i had someone sitting right above me with phasers blasting me slowly to bits, because it was impossible to bring my front mounted cannons on target. why? bacause you can't face straight up or straight down... whats the point of cannons then?
    Cryptic realy needs to fix that problem... IMHO

    Shamrann out

    This limitation is by design in order to make things less confusing for the average player. The devs are considering steepening the degree however, which will make things easier for cannon users.

    Until then, always make sure to have a beam array set up to back you up in these kind of circumstances.


    :cool:
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Originally Posted by ZootCadillac
    The fact is the game engine is designed for a 3d world with a ground plane and it's not capable of handling models rotating fully because they are gimbal locked.
    SRichar wrote:
    This could be it. The engine might not allow this degree of movement.

    Though the gimble lock part is true, the engine is capable of straight up and straight down movement. It's in Champions Online, which uses the same engine. The degree limitation is intentional and changes to the limit are being discussed already.

    :cool:
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Blackavaar wrote: »
    This limitation is by design in order to make things less confusing for the average player. The devs are considering steepening the degree however, which will make things easier for cannon users.

    Until then, always make sure to have a beam array set up to back you up in these kind of circumstances.


    :cool:

    Yep. I fly with dual beam arrays in the rear and rely on those as I spiral up. They do a notable amount of damage on their own with 115+ weapon power- good for setting bad guys up for the eventual forward-arc alpha strike.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Rikaelus wrote: »
    It'd be kinda confusing to have ships upside down. Your monitor might show that their right shields are weak, but if they're upside down, you'd actually have to move to the left to hit them. On some compact ship designs like the Defiant it might be difficult to tell if they're straight or upside-down.

    Sounds silly, I know.. but that'd be a legitimate problem as a point of confusion.

    Awh, you mean pvp might require thought? Ya, thats definitly a bad idea :rolleyes:
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    once again. The ship is seen to move in relation to the camera. Which technically is not there. It's just a viewpoint. If the viewpoint remained fixed then the ships would be seen to move in all manner of directions in order to reach a point in 3D space. The fact of the matter is that it was just TV and cheaper to not have extensive effects. The limitations of TV made the movement what it was. The limitations of the engine make the movement what it is in STO.
    It goes against all known science and common sense. Ig the engine had been written for the game instead of the game to fit the engine then we could have easily had proper spacial movement. After all, David Braben managed it quite simply on a BBC Micro 26 years ago.

    It's bad enough that this can never be fixed but to pass it off as a game design is just insulting.

    If it's never seen in the tv shows than it's not canon. I don't want to fly straight up, that would lessen the Star Trek feeling for me and that's why I play this game. And by the way, how do you know the viewpoint isn't fixed in the tv shows? I never saw a starbase or ships next to it upside down. That would be so
    un-Star Trek
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    they tried allowing us to go straight up and down ... it made the engine do very bad things (tm). so they had to limit it.

    in terms of design-descisions, it's the way cryptic seems to operate. rather than fixing the problem, they compromise and let us suffer the consequences.
    like how all in-door maps are twice the size they should be (bridges, stations, ship-corridors etc. etc)... the close quarters made the camera funky, so they made doors and corridors two stories tall instead. and then put fixing the underlying problem on ice.
    </rant>
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Blackavaar wrote: »
    This limitation is by design in order to make things less confusing for the average player. The devs are considering steepening the degree however, which will make things easier for cannon users.

    Until then, always make sure to have a beam array set up to back you up in these kind of circumstances.


    :cool:

    Im pretty sure the 'average' person understands that a futuristic spaceship should be able to move on a 3d plane. And not only that, but im pretty sure the 'average' person would be able to handle it just fine. Unless of course the huge popularity of some games that do in fact have 3-d movement was a fluke.

    Xwing vs Tiefighter
    The entire Rebel Squadron series in N64
    EVERY FLIGHT SIM THAT EVER CAME OUT FOR ANYTHING EVER
    Warcraft (LOL WoW has 3-D flight and a game based on flight doesnt)

    Do i really have to go on?
Sign In or Register to comment.