test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Starship Pitch (up/down) Limit.

SystemSystem Member, NoReporting Posts: 178,019 Arc User
edited November 2010 in Controls and User Interface
Why, do I constantly find a limit to the degree of pitch I can apply during starship flight.?
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited October 2010
    Because unnamed dev's dislike when ships are upside down.

    True story.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited October 2010
    anazonda wrote: »
    Because unnamed dev's dislike when ships are upside down.

    True story.

    Drinks spill, toupes fly off, its a huge mess.

    Was not the incline/pitch suppossed to be increased to 85 degrees?
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited October 2010
    Roach wrote: »
    Drinks spill, toupes fly off, its a huge mess.

    Was not the incline/pitch suppossed to be increased to 85 degrees?

    Sometime in the near future... whatever that means.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited October 2010
    anazonda wrote: »
    Sometime in the near future... whatever that means.

    Just in time for Christmas.....









    2012
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited October 2010
    they should at least let us do barrel rolls.
    i wanna barrel roll through my exploding victim.
    is that to much to ask?
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited October 2010
    This is by choice? That's disturbing. This limitation negatively affects my enjoyment of the game.

    If, there is an arbitrary orientation desired by the Devs, it can be automatically reset after manual steering has ceased.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited October 2010
    Roxbad wrote:
    This is by choice? That's disturbing. This limitation negatively affects my enjoyment of the game.

    If, there is an arbitrary orientation desired by the Devs, it can be automatically reset after manual steering has ceased.

    I suggested EXACTLY this in a major thread a few weeks back... No response.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited October 2010
    Roxbad wrote:
    This is by choice? That's disturbing. This limitation negatively affects my enjoyment of the game.

    If, there is an arbitrary orientation desired by the Devs, it can be automatically reset after manual steering has ceased.
    The visual was supposed to be like Star Trek: tall ships flying across the galaxy. It wasn't until Abrams that we ever saw 2 ships approach each other in a way that wasn't on an equal plain. Even in the movies like The Wrath of Kahn the ships don't have huge up and down angles. Unfortunately the fans of the game prefer more "realism" then canon when it comes to ships. :)
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited October 2010
    Cosmic_One wrote: »
    The visual was supposed to be like Star Trek: tall ships flying across the galaxy. It wasn't until Abrams that we ever saw 2 ships approach each other in a way that wasn't on an equal plain. Even in the movies like The Wrath of Kahn the ships don't have huge up and down angles. Unfortunately the fans of the game prefer more "realism" then canon when it comes to ships. :)


    Actually, the first appearance was in TNG's finale "All Good Things", Gal-X Enterprise comes up from beneath the Klingon Ship while using the phaser lance. The reason we never saw any fancier flying on a regular basis was due to budget constraints and the way the shots of the ships were done. Canon is all well and good as a general guideline, but we shouldn't chain ourselves to it.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited October 2010
    Precedent can be found in the canon before Abrams.
    • "STNG: All Good Things". The Enterprise, commanded by Adm. Riker, attacks perpendicular to a Klingon's Z-axis.
    • "Wrath Of Kahn", Spock observes a deficiency in Kahn's 2-dimensional battle tactics.
    I suspect statements by the producers of the franchise suggesting a preference for the established orientation are simply rationalizations for operating within a restrictive FX budget.

    For example. Roddenberry was noted as saying, "Transporter" technology was added because he couldn't figure out how to land the "Enterprise".

    It seems to me that restricting the orientation in this fashion is a little silly, as the originators would not have done so, had they not been restricted by the technology of their time.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited October 2010
    Of cause there are also the dozen or so DS9 shots showing the Defiant flying upside down, doing loops, flying vertically and "swimming" on its back.

    So limiting our ships angles is un-cannon.

    Paradise Lost -> Defiant fighting the Lakota, Upside down, and rolling around it self.
    Sacrifice of Angels -> Defiant does loops.
    For the Uniform -> Defiant pitches diagonally to avoid a colliding pylon.

    And thoose are the ones I remember just like that.

    In TNG there is also the "relics" episode, where the Enterprise pitches 100% vertically (while flying ahead), to get through the doors of the dysons sphere.

    Of cause there is the Enterprise episode "The Expanse", there the NX class does a loop to get behind a BoP to kill it off.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited October 2010
    Drakkos wrote:
    Actually, the first appearance was in TNG's finale "All Good Things", Gal-X Enterprise comes up from beneath the Klingon Ship while using the phaser lance. The reason we never saw any fancier flying on a regular basis was due to budget constraints and the way the shots of the ships were done. Canon is all well and good as a general guideline, but we shouldn't chain ourselves to it.
    It doesn't matter if it's budget constraints or not. For example, the reason the shows use humanoids over exotic aliens was budget constraints but it eventually got written into canon that the reason most species were humanoid was do to seeding from the old ones. Certain things create a certain style; especially after 726 episodes and 10 movies.

    Canon just can't be you saying: "I don't like this so it's no longer canon." Canon's not about the individual's wants. It's about what's been represented to us for 5 decades.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited October 2010
    wrote:
    Of cause there are also the dozen or so DS9 shots showing the Defiant flying upside down, doing loops, flying vertically and "swimming" on its back.

    So limiting our ships angles is un-cannon.

    Paradise Lost -> Defiant fighting the Lakota, Upside down, and rolling around it self.
    Sacrifice of Angels -> Defiant does loops.
    For the Uniform -> Defiant pitches diagonally to avoid a colliding pylon.

    And thoose are the ones I remember just like that.

    In TNG there is also the "relics" episode, where the Enterprise pitches 100% vertically (while flying ahead), to get through the doors of the dysons sphere.

    Of cause there is the Enterprise episode "The Expanse", there the NX class does a loop to get behind a BoP to kill it off.
    I have no problem with loops or flying upside down. I'm just not fond of nearly straight up/down turning abiilty. You can have one without the other. :)
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited October 2010
    Cosmic_One wrote: »
    nearly straight up/down turning abiilty.

    Im not sure what you mean by this... Elaborate please (preferably with youtube xD )
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited October 2010
    wrote:
    Im not sure what you mean by this... Elaborate please (preferably with youtube xD )
    It was my understanding that the devs are increasing the up/down pitch to 85 degrees which is 5 less then 90: straight up/straight down, and nearly twice as much as the 45 degree pitch we have now. If that's the case you can effectively be flying level and turn almost straight up or down.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited October 2010
    Cosmic_One wrote: »
    I have no problem with loops or flying upside down. I'm just not fond of nearly straight up/down turning abiilty. You can have one without the other. :)
    So... one can do loops... they just can't exit the loop before completing it?

    As for canon, I don't recall ever seeing a ship in the franchise being forced to perform continuous "corkscrew" maneuvers in order to access points on it's z-axis.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    Canon just can't be you saying: "I don't like this so it's no longer canon." Canon's not about the individual's wants. It's about what's been represented to us for 5 decades.

    Nowhere is it explained in "canon" why ships were limited in their angles of attack. It was filmed that way for a) budget constraints and b) because having ships flying around at odd angles didn't look pretty and would probably give some viewers vertigo.

    That does not mean, by any stretch, that there was an "in character" reason why ships could not do loops, barrel rolls, immelmans, split S's, thatch weaves, and whatever other acrobatics a starship in a 3D frictionless environment might want to perform.

    Babylon 5, by using total CGI for its space battle sequences, was the first show that used all 3 dimensions as well as real space physics. I can almost guarantee you that future Star Trek movies will also begin doing this. I doubt the movie directors are going to say, "Nope, it's canon for ships to move in this fashion so we can't have them doing fancy maneuvers."

    Canon has been broken many times over for game purposes. A good example is weapon ranges. Today's military have underwater torpedoes that can hit a target at greater ranges than 10 km. I'm sure a photon torpedo can travel further than that. But to avoid having space battles where players are nailing each other from opposite ends of the maps, the ranges have been drastically reduced. In WWII, battleships slugged it out at ranges greater than 10km, and that's with no real targeting or tracking computers plus wind resistence, atmospheric effects, gravity, and other factors that can slow down a projectile. A photon torpedo fired in space can go tens of thousands of kilometers ... but not in the game.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    Hey... 3D Movement IS canon...

    Canon as in "shown on-screen"... SEVERAL times.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    we also saw the defiant flying through huge ships like the dederidex hollow section, unleashing hell on their interior surface as it went, the ships sizes are so wrong in the game that the defiant can not fly through the dederidex hollow area....

    but i agree due to how people exploit the current low angle limitation to make it nearly impossible to get back to fights in pvp due to them spiralling up for 15 minutes and you being unable to spiral effectively at full impulse to get there fast, that a steep angle near 90 would be nice, no need for back flips and rolls, people would abuse those due to being too lazy to keep their shields up.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    Hate to ruin all of this nice debate, but I should inform you that the Devs have stated continuously, that they will no implement full 3-d movement do to player disorientation during said maneuvers, We will also not see a leveling off system where after our maneuver we pitch pack to the flat plain. They did say that they might (and that is a might) increase the angle of climb and descent to 85*. but we have no word on when that will happen.

    So you can go back to your lovely discussion about canon 3-d flight and such, but I hope I did answer some questions for those that are curious.

    have fun. :D
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    Dakota2063 wrote: »
    Hate to ruin all of this nice debate, but I should inform you that the Devs have stated continuously, that they will no implement full 3-d movement do to player disorientation during said maneuvers, We will also not see a leveling off system where after our maneuver we pitch pack to the flat plain. They did say that they might (and that is a might) increase the angle of climb and descent to 85*. but we have no word on when that will happen.

    So you can go back to your lovely discussion about canon 3-d flight and such, but I hope I did answer some questions for those that are curious.

    have fun. :D

    Hate to ruin your post, but if you had read the other posts here, you would be aware that we already know everything you wrote, rendering your post obsolete.

    On the other hand, they also said there would be no possibility for Death Penalty in this game... People kept bugging about that, and look what happend.

    They also said that the Galaxy X would be referral only... People kept bugging for that to be aquireable other ways too... Look what happend.

    Looking at past Cryptic actions, it seems to me that if enough people are bugging for it, for long enough they eventually come around... Otherwise we would not have had the option for DP or the Galaxy X.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    I think it would just make the game more interesting if we had 360*x360*. So what if you have to actually pay attention to your surroundings, and look for basic landmarks to figure out where you are? In my opinion, the game needs this, badly!

    Also! I don't give 2 drens about what the Dev's have said about this specific item. The dev's have also said that they are here to make the gaming community as happy as possible. I think enough people want to see this introduced that it completely qualifies as something that NEEDS atention. Sure 85* would be better, but, come on,take off the training wheels already boys... Give us 360*360* and barrel rolls!

    And as for the 'Cannon' aspects... Star Trek Courses have pretty much always gone in a 360*x360* fashion. This would indicate that the ship was capable of spinnning in any direction to achieve those precise directions. Also, we have seen ships do both Jaeger Loops, and Barrel Rolls in the startrek universe. So please, Cannon + Science and Common Sense for the win.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    Pitch increase to 60 is live in Tribble as part of Season 3.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    I fully support this, and if devs don't want to give us 360 degree movement then they need to stop having enemy ships warp in 20km directly above me. Fair's fair.
    Pitch increase to 60 is live in Tribble as part of Season 3.
    Needs to be 90.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    I just want 3-d fight because it would make PvP more interesting.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    I just want 3-d fight because it would make PvP more interesting.

    Less interesting, since the removal of the restrictions would eliminate the tactics that make use of it.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    The flight model reminds me of some low budget xbox flight simulator or an Iphone app. If they are so concerned about player disorientation, then perhaps we should play from commander Pike's wheel chair.
    This is Science Fiction so lets see some real space flight physics.
Sign In or Register to comment.