if they ever allow me to control my ship from the bridge . like proper star trek i will start caring . untill then this topic has no relevance .but if they ever say this season we will implement a system for true bridge control i will support improvments to the bridge but atm its just somewhere quiet to go if i need to afk
if they ever allow me to control my ship from the bridge . like proper star trek i will start caring . untill then this topic has no relevance .but if they ever say this season we will implement a system for true bridge control i will support improvments to the bridge but atm its just somewhere quiet to go if i need to afk
STO playable like Bridge Commander is my idea of a perfect interface... I actually wish wandering around the ship on more fleshed out maps with more interactive crew was the main core of the game and playing it external chase view was the option.
I think Bridge Commander was the best ST game ever made... Starfleet Commander 1 and 2 closely following it (3 was just changed TOO much from the StarFleet Battles for me to really enjoy) then STO, Elite Forces trailing quite a ways behind it and pretty much all other ST games I've played fall somewhere between yawn and snore, and I've played most of them, going all the way back to the ORIGINAL star trek computer game on pre-PC computers.
So......you spend a lot of time on your bridge interacting with the viewscreen?
There are 100s of things the Devs can be fixing besides this:
"Working As Intended".
Now go fix by cloak.
No, but my own bridge is not the only place one finds viewscreens... Any mission and most foundry missions that have viewscreens and a good chunk of the cinematics involve flat, 2D viewscreens... If I get off my ship in a day, odds are I'm going to see one.
STO playable like Bridge Commander is my idea of a perfect interface... I actually wish wandering around the ship on more fleshed out maps with more interactive crew was the main core of the game and playing it external chase view was the option.
I think Bridge Commander was the best ST game ever made... Starfleet Commander 1 and 2 closely following it (3 was just changed TOO much from the StarFleet Battles for me to really enjoy) then STO, Elite Forces trailing quite a ways behind it and pretty much all other ST games I've played fall somewhere between yawn and snore, and I've played most of them, going all the way back to the ORIGINAL star trek computer game on pre-PC computers.
wholey agree with you . bridge commander / star fleet command hybrid would have been my ideal STO
STO playable like Bridge Commander is my idea of a perfect interface... I actually wish wandering around the ship on more fleshed out maps with more interactive crew was the main core of the game and playing it external chase view was the option.
I knew this would devolve into a "let me play from bridge" argument...
But to entertain... the BC Interface is actually not that good...
When you are on the Bridge you can either steer manually or just sit there an give orders.
The Big Problem is now... if you steer manually you either can see your enemy but not where the hell you are pointing at... if you activate the forward view, you can see where you're going but not your target...
And else you can only sit there... giving a different order every 15 minutes and else just sit and watch.
I probably don't have to tell you that they actually deactivated Bridge View in Multiplayer, probably because it's to fast paced and erratic for your "Officers AI" and yourself in manual Command...
Fixing it may or may not be a no brainer.... but I would certainly place thie "fix" somewhere after new game missions/content, unform selection fixes, new ship content, palette fixes, and existing bug fixes..... or in short, about as low down on the list of things that need to get done as you can imagine.
Fixing it may or may not be a no brainer.... but I would certainly place thie "fix" somewhere after new game missions/content, unform selection fixes, new ship content, palette fixes, and existing bug fixes..... or in short, about as low down on the list of things that need to get done as you can imagine.
I'd agree on everything BUT new content... Too much focus on new content is why this place is in the condition it is... I'm in the camp that wants to see them take about 3 months off from new content to FIX the game... and in the process they could massage the Foundry a bit, put in a process to elevate Foundry missions to full blown content (like they implied they might do with the announcements about Romulan Legacy add-on) which would add new content with little effort or actual cost to them.
STO playable like Bridge Commander is my idea of a perfect interface... I actually wish wandering around the ship on more fleshed out maps with more interactive crew was the main core of the game and playing it external chase view was the option.
I think Bridge Commander was the best ST game ever made... Starfleet Commander 1 and 2 closely following it (3 was just changed TOO much from the StarFleet Battles for me to really enjoy) then STO, Elite Forces trailing quite a ways behind it and pretty much all other ST games I've played fall somewhere between yawn and snore, and I've played most of them, going all the way back to the ORIGINAL star trek computer game on pre-PC computers.
While I agree that BC was a great game. But we talked about this before on other threads and the Devs said several times they would love it if they could make you fly from the bridges. But they said the technology isn't possible with STO, else they would've done it by now.
See the thing is Bridges are ground maps, and you can't share them with space maps. You would have to load everyone's ships, information, and their bridge layouts, which would lag us to death.
I came up with an idea that could make you play from the bridges, and even make it player cooperable, in having the bridge in an interior, but the space part is outside the bridge set, and the set swivals accordingly to commands. So it becomes more like a simulator / space ride, than you actually being in sector space.
While I agree that BC was a great game. But we talked about this before on other threads and the Devs said several times they would love it if they could make you fly from the bridges. But they said the technology isn't possible with STO, else they would've done it by now.
See the thing is Bridges are ground maps, and you can't share them with space maps. You would have to load everyone's ships, information, and their bridge layouts, which would lag us to death.
I came up with an idea that could make you play from the bridges, and even make it player cooperable, in having the bridge in an interior, but the space part is outside the bridge set, and the set swivals accordingly to commands. So it becomes more like a simulator / space ride, than you actually being in sector space.
But the Devs even shot down that idea.
No... It's not that difficult... and the 'bridge' portions, other than loading graphics updates and the original cache of your bridge(s) would be all client side... Why does the server or anyone else give a TRIBBLE what the effects and animation going on on your bridge are.... And then you have the same maps you already do with a new camera system and mapping the cameras to the textures of your view screens.... The real work wouldn't even be in the graphics of addding the bridge, which doesn't even have to be a real map, when you sit down on your bridge, but could be a very fancy 3d GUI.
The real problem of making STO more like a Bridge commander experience would be completely revamping the control scheme to integrate Boffs into being a much more active part of the experience and they whole power distribution and damage control system that would be required to bring the rest of the game more in line with the real star trek experience.
It's not that they can't... It's that they won't.
PS: to flesh out the explanation of the GUI concept because I know if I don't I'm going to get a dozen arguments on it from folks that don't even know what the heck I'm talking about when I say a 3d GUI.
Picture if you will, same effect as now, that when you go into actually controlling your ship, you load the new 'map' that the ship is on... You don't load a bridge map at all... Instead the Bridge you are on, much like the game Bridge Commander isn't a map at all.. It's a 3d model, client side only that acts as a 3d Graphical Interface that is used much like an overlay, but is just 3d and look around capable instead of flat 2d... As they say, there are many ways to skin a fish... I could, if I pondered on it a while, probably come up with 2, maybe 3 other ways to fake a 3d Bridge Commander experience that would be even simpler to this... Problem is, you have to able to think OUTSIDE the box to come up with these work around and ways of doing things.
I knew this would devolve into a "let me play from bridge" argument...
But to entertain... the BC Interface is actually not that good...
When you are on the Bridge you can either steer manually or just sit there an give orders.
The Big Problem is now... if you steer manually you either can see your enemy but not where the hell you are pointing at... if you activate the forward view, you can see where you're going but not your target...
And else you can only sit there... giving a different order every 15 minutes and else just sit and watch.
I probably don't have to tell you that they actually deactivated Bridge View in Multiplayer, probably because it's to fast paced and erratic for your "Officers AI" and yourself in manual Command...
Not argument... Side topic discussion... I don't ever expect them to do a Bridge Commander experience... That will be the next MMO to license Star Trek that will make STO old news.... No... Cryptic has made real clear that this is Champions Online/Neverwinter Nights with a Star Trek skin... It is not an engine that is actually intended to do a sci-fi, space based game.
But anything about gameplay perspective is side topics in this... My TOPIC and argument is STILL what I started with... They should have viewscreens that look 3d and it's not only a no brainer, but not much work to do it.
No... It's not that difficult... and the 'bridge' portions, other than loading graphics updates and the original cache of your bridge(s) would be all client side... Why does the server or anyone else give a TRIBBLE what the effects and animation going on on your bridge are.... And then you have the same maps you already do with a new camera system and mapping the cameras to the textures of your view screens.... The real work wouldn't even be in the graphics of addding the bridge, which doesn't even have to be a real map, when you sit down on your bridge, but could be a very fancy 3d GUI.
The real problem of making STO more like a Bridge commander experience would be completely revamping the control scheme to integrate Boffs into being a much more active part of the experience and they whole power distribution and damage control system that would be required to bring the rest of the game more in line with the real star trek experience.
It's not that they can't... It's that they won't.
PS: to flesh out the explanation of the GUI concept because I know if I don't I'm going to get a dozen arguments on it from folks that don't even know what the heck I'm talking about when I say a 3d GUI.
Picture if you will, same effect as now, that when you go into actually controlling your ship, you load the new 'map' that the ship is on... You don't load a bridge map at all... Instead the Bridge you are on, much like the game Bridge Commander isn't a map at all.. It's a 3d model, client side only that acts as a 3d Graphical Interface that is used much like an overlay, but is just 3d and look around capable instead of flat 2d... As they say, there are many ways to skin a fish... I could, if I pondered on it a while, probably come up with 2, maybe 3 other ways to fake a 3d Bridge Commander experience that would be even simpler to this... Problem is, you have to able to think OUTSIDE the box to come up with these work around and ways of doing things.
Dude, I'm not going through this again with you pretending to be an expert, when you have zero knowledge of Cryptic's programming code. As I said, the Devs said if they could they would've, but they can't. Else they would've done this years ago.
Dude, I'm not going through this again with you pretending to be an expert, when you have zero knowledge of Cryptic's programming code. As I said, the Devs said if they could they would've, but they can't. Else they would've done this years ago.
Well, the implication there, and don't you dare try to accuse me of 'knowing what is going on in Cryptic's Offices' for speculating with what ifs, is that Cryptic probably didn't actually code their own engine, thus cannot modify it and are stuck with what they have, or that they hired a development team and long since let them go. They could have done it.. They could still do it... They are chosing not to... Whether that means not putting in the time, not hiring the coder needed, or just not really caring is irrelevant... They could do it if they really wanted to, but they won't.
There is a huge difference between Won't and Can't... They won't.
Well, the implication there, and don't you dare try to accuse me of 'knowing what is going on in Cryptic's Offices' for speculating with what ifs, is that Cryptic probably didn't actually code their own engine, thus cannot modify it and are stuck with what they have, or that they hired a development team and long since let them go. They could have done it.. They could still do it... They are chosing not to... Whether that means not putting in the time, not hiring the coder needed, or just not really caring is irrelevant... They could do it if they really wanted to, but they won't.
There is a huge difference between Won't and Can't... They won't.
That's what you are doing dude. You admitted to as such when you said you got it from a book. :rolleyes:
As I patiently stated many times over in this thread, the Devs themselves said it's not possible. So who am I to believe, you or them? If you think it's possible, then by all means join their team:
That's what you are doing dude. You admitted to as such when you said you got it from a book. :rolleyes:
As I patiently stated many times over in this thread, the Devs themselves said it's not possible. So who am I to believe, you or them? If you think it's possible, then by all means join their team:
They have an opening for a programmer. So if you think they can, then by all means apply and make those things happen.
No.. I didn't get it from a book... I used a book as proof to back me up.. I've known how to do it long before that book war written. It's not a book on game design theory.. It's a book on game design practice, full of examples of games that already to everything it talks about.. Comparisons of the different common engines out there, it not even mentionning some of my favorites, like Unity3D, which I'm about to license for projects I wanna do... And no.. I have NO interest in working for Cryptic or Perfect world.. I got my own plans and my own dreams and they are far better than what STO has to offer... At this point the goal is to put together enough of a proof of concept to Kickstart what I really wanna do.
And corporate can't is not the same thing as literal can't... They decide they can't do stuff, which is saying "We won't" for whatever reason they decided it wasn't worth doing, but it does not literally mean can't.... The only way that word could at all be accurate in a literal sense is if they really really wanted to do it and Perfect World won't let them... Then they can't, because they aren't being allowed to, but for any other reason they can come up with, they won't.
I would be happy if, when standing on your bridge, you actually see the area of space you are actually in, rather than some static completely unrelated image.
"Go play with your DPS in the corner, I don't care how big it is." ~ Me "There... are... four... lights!" ~Jean Luc Picard
I would be happy if, when standing on your bridge, you actually see the area of space you are actually in, rather than some static completely unrelated image.
If they could do that, you could control your ships from the bridge... That would be 90% of the software engineering work required to do a bridge commander type interface... and frankly, I'd pay $50 for a bridge commander type interface as a zen store upgrade.
... Actually, it would not be all that hard if you JUST saw the background of the local space and nothing actually in it... If you saw what was in it, though, they'd be using multiple maps and multiple cameras to do it.
I remember tackling this with one of the Dev's a few months ago and suggested the same exact thing. And some people even accomplished this in the Foundry.
The Dev's response was basically that they can't do 3D viewscreens because they would have to do this for every single bridge set in the game, and right now it was impossible with player bridges. So the only way we could have an improved viewscreen, is if it was part of one of their storyline missions, with a bridge you visit (not your own ship's bridge).
Viewscreens could be done exactly like any other window though. so there really is no excuse why they cannot do it. Why they will not do it is because it would cost money with no potential of recouping any of it.
Join Date: Nobody cares.
"I'm drunk, whats your excuse for being an idiot?" - Unknown drunk man. :eek:
Viewscreens could be done exactly like any other window though. so there really is no excuse why they cannot do it. Why they will not do it is because it would cost money with no potential of recouping any of it.
Never said they couldn't do it, just said they couldn't do it the way Viz is suggesting. Heck, probably burn out their profits from LoR to pull off the Bridge Commander.
But like you said, it boils down to money. If there was a way to make viewscreens on bridges functional, and making bridges more than they are. They would. But honestly, think STO will never really see such a system. If there is another Star Trek MMO, they might.
So your saying it's easy for them to go through all the Bridge models (what, 30-40 in game?), redo the viewscreen for each of those bridges by cutting out the texture, and programming the spot behind it to have models of the various space scenes, ships, and NPCs from the various storylines to appear right behind that viewscreen? :rolleyes:
That's what that particular Dev responded with. That's why it would only be feasible with new storyline missions.
No... I am saying that code is tools.. Once you program a piece of code it's usable redundently all through your program... Once their code is capable of doing what I am talknig about doing, any texture in the game can be recognised by the engine as a camera mappable texture. Then all they need to do is position a camera and link them, and the camera could be virtual, as just a tiny graphical element that is a variable string in the code or some DLL. You don't have to start over from the beginning to make 1 single change to a map... You need to go in and redress the texture used to cover the viewscreen and metatag or map script in the line or code segment to link a camera to it... It is NOT a WHOLE new graphical model, it is a minor graphical touch and a coding trick that would be part of the ENGINE and not the graphics.
What's more, repeating myself again because you seem to miss anything that isn't in a reply to you, once you have this little coding call in your engine, it's usable for ALL kinds of applications... If they really wanted to, they could have some special event where you play a camera man and it shows on the TVs in the map... Or you could do real time arena fights where the arena is being broadcast and played on billboards in the background complete with sports scores and commentary and stuff.. Not saying they should or that there is even that much of a call for it in a Star Trek setting, but they could do it.
http://www.gameenginebook.com/ - Rather than arguing with me over how easy or hard this is or whatnot and trying to constantly tell me what I don't know, why don't you go check it out yourself... It's 860 pages (index included) of solid, good, hardcore software architecture reading that thoroughly explains how to build a game from start to finish and how different companies in the past have tackled various different problems, and it is often used as a textbook in Computer Science fields... and you really don't need to know about coding to actually understand it... It's about the architecture... HOW it's done.. Not the implementation of it, which is very engine, language, or OS specific information and not looking at the BIG picture.
PS: If you do read it and actually make sense of it all, you will be amazed how much it would increase your game literacy to the point where you can look at almost any game you play and figure out the most likely way it's pieced together, just like a mechanic that knows how car engines work can get a good idea of what they are looking at anytime they look under a hood, even if they have never seen that engine before. Visual Literacy is another field like that and a field I'm not nearly as educated in as software engineering but about as much as you would be in game design if you read the book, and I can look at most movies and know exactly how they are playing with emotions, setting the mood, and using the camera because I get how visual media is storyboarded and filmed.. My interest in it is, like software engineering, one of the facets of game design... and the project I meantioned is not like, my next job... It's my lifetime goal that I been researching and brainstorming on since '89, when I got a concept of a game engine that wasn't even possible till about 10 years ago, and some of the tricks I could hand a coder the information they'd need to actually implement, assuming they are actually good in their field of software engineering have yet to actually be implemented in a game, but a lot of stuff I've conceived has already been done due to the natural evolution of games and software design.
I'm not reading through all of this right now, it's bed time. I'll take a read through in the morning.
However, Yes, the screens should be 3d.
No, ours are generally not 3d.
Cutting a Hole in the wall works for some instances. i.e. If there's a planet out there, or stars streaming by, or something. However, were we to cut holes in things, the bridges would have to be very carefully constructed, such that you couldn't look out that hole, and see the ready room off to the side (for instance). We also can't represent personal interaction via that method. We would have to enlarge an NPC, and potentially his surroundings to fit the screen properly, and none of that is trivial.
The proper solution is to use portals (like the game Portal) where a specified camera can be projected onto a 2d texture. However, that is an immense undertaking, and is very, very unlikely.
I'm sorry you don't like how we're doing it, but that really is the best way at the moment. We can see about cutting holes in some things going forward, but we will probably not be going back and retrofitting old bridges with such a method.
The proper solution is to use portals (like the game Portal) where a specified camera can be projected onto a 2d texture. However, that is an immense undertaking, and is very, very unlikely.
I'm sorry you don't like how we're doing it, but that really is the best way at the moment. We can see about cutting holes in some things going forward, but we will probably not be going back and retrofitting old bridges with such a method.
That said, if anyone on the dev team's going to tear a hole in the fabric of Space/Time? We all know it'll be Taco
I don't think making a better viewscreen is that important, but if Cryptic must do anything, it should be just adding a randomized image whenever you choose to enter your bridge, for those who bother to do such a thing.
I'm not reading through all of this right now, it's bed time. I'll take a read through in the morning.
However, Yes, the screens should be 3d.
No, ours are generally not 3d.
Cutting a Hole in the wall works for some instances. i.e. If there's a planet out there, or stars streaming by, or something. However, were we to cut holes in things, the bridges would have to be very carefully constructed, such that you couldn't look out that hole, and see the ready room off to the side (for instance). We also can't represent personal interaction via that method. We would have to enlarge an NPC, and potentially his surroundings to fit the screen properly, and none of that is trivial.
The proper solution is to use portals (like the game Portal) where a specified camera can be projected onto a 2d texture. However, that is an immense undertaking, and is very, very unlikely.
I'm sorry you don't like how we're doing it, but that really is the best way at the moment. We can see about cutting holes in some things going forward, but we will probably not be going back and retrofitting old bridges with such a method.
Ok, then can you make the resolution for the viewscreen higher? as it is they look like TRIBBLE after you stepped in it. The carpet on a bridge looks much better lol. the viewscreens and all station screens are really low resolution and do not look good at all. Saw my bridge and was thinking I just stepped back in time to 1998.
Join Date: Nobody cares.
"I'm drunk, whats your excuse for being an idiot?" - Unknown drunk man. :eek:
I don't think making a better viewscreen is that important, but if Cryptic must do anything, it should be just adding a randomized image whenever you choose to enter your bridge, for those who bother to do such a thing.
That would be cool, but honestly I'd be happy to settle for a blank starfield. It's strange to see I'm at Deep Space Nine every time I visit my KDF character's bridge.
...talking to players is like being a mall Santa. Everyone immediately wants to tell you all of the things they want, and you are absolutely powerless to deliver 99% of them.
Actually, when they have access to the actual code for doing the graphics, it's MUCH MUCH easier than that... They can make a texture that is a window to another scene...
No, actually, we can't currently. While that is likely the best approach, we currently do not have any tech to do such a thing, and it would require a pretty significant undertaking by the graphics team to make it happen. Remember, while one game might have X, and another game might have Y, they don't both have X and Y.
Yes, because they all use the SAME texture... They only need to replace that texture... It may come in many sizes but it's all the same.
You seem to be failing to understand that textures are 2 dimensional. Not all viewscreens are using the same texture at the moment, but let's pretend they are. We could hypothetically replace that texture with a new one, but that doesn't do jack to get you a holographic, 3d looking viewscreen. That's taking a newspaper page and replacing it with a magazine page.
Creating a 3d viewscreen would require one of two approaches. 1) Cut a hole in the geo, and make sure you can only see whatever we want you to through said hole. 2) Create Portal tech, and use that to project a camera onto a 2 dimensional surface. Neither of those are strictly texture changes.
I would already be really happy if the very bland black and some white or gray dots screen would get replaced with something more colorful.
I am especially thinking of the Scimitar and Tuffli bridge. The Scimitar viewscreen looks just like the wall and the Tuffli screens are very bland and static black with white dots screens.
In a number of cases, I have put 'more interesting' things on the viewscreen of the bridges I've made. In all cases, we get complaints. i.e. "Why am I always looking at P'Jem'?
And apparently no one has actually bothered to look at their Scimitar bridge after the first day, because I fixed that viewscreen almost immediately. (Now looking at New Romulus, which I'm sure will also garner complaints)
I would be happy if, when standing on your bridge, you actually see the area of space you are actually in, rather than some static completely unrelated image.
While cool, this too would be difficult. Not only would we need a way to determine what map you came to your bridge from and pass that along, but we'd also need to create a texture representing every solar system/sector in the game, and would then have to duplicate each viewscreen, on each map, by that many new textures, and create a system that swaps between them depending on that initial variable. Again, not a trivial task.
In a number of cases, I have put 'more interesting' things on the viewscreen of the bridges I've made. In all cases, we get complaints. i.e. "Why am I always looking at P'Jem'?
Sorry to be that guy, Tacofangs. I love the work you do!
...talking to players is like being a mall Santa. Everyone immediately wants to tell you all of the things they want, and you are absolutely powerless to deliver 99% of them.
You sure know how to put a dampener on a really crappy argument thread.
<chuckle>
:cool:
STO Member since February 2009. I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born! Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
Comments
STO playable like Bridge Commander is my idea of a perfect interface... I actually wish wandering around the ship on more fleshed out maps with more interactive crew was the main core of the game and playing it external chase view was the option.
I think Bridge Commander was the best ST game ever made... Starfleet Commander 1 and 2 closely following it (3 was just changed TOO much from the StarFleet Battles for me to really enjoy) then STO, Elite Forces trailing quite a ways behind it and pretty much all other ST games I've played fall somewhere between yawn and snore, and I've played most of them, going all the way back to the ORIGINAL star trek computer game on pre-PC computers.
No, but my own bridge is not the only place one finds viewscreens... Any mission and most foundry missions that have viewscreens and a good chunk of the cinematics involve flat, 2D viewscreens... If I get off my ship in a day, odds are I'm going to see one.
wholey agree with you . bridge commander / star fleet command hybrid would have been my ideal STO
I knew this would devolve into a "let me play from bridge" argument...
But to entertain... the BC Interface is actually not that good...
When you are on the Bridge you can either steer manually or just sit there an give orders.
The Big Problem is now... if you steer manually you either can see your enemy but not where the hell you are pointing at... if you activate the forward view, you can see where you're going but not your target...
And else you can only sit there... giving a different order every 15 minutes and else just sit and watch.
I probably don't have to tell you that they actually deactivated Bridge View in Multiplayer, probably because it's to fast paced and erratic for your "Officers AI" and yourself in manual Command...
Fixing it may or may not be a no brainer.... but I would certainly place thie "fix" somewhere after new game missions/content, unform selection fixes, new ship content, palette fixes, and existing bug fixes..... or in short, about as low down on the list of things that need to get done as you can imagine.
I'd agree on everything BUT new content... Too much focus on new content is why this place is in the condition it is... I'm in the camp that wants to see them take about 3 months off from new content to FIX the game... and in the process they could massage the Foundry a bit, put in a process to elevate Foundry missions to full blown content (like they implied they might do with the announcements about Romulan Legacy add-on) which would add new content with little effort or actual cost to them.
While I agree that BC was a great game. But we talked about this before on other threads and the Devs said several times they would love it if they could make you fly from the bridges. But they said the technology isn't possible with STO, else they would've done it by now.
See the thing is Bridges are ground maps, and you can't share them with space maps. You would have to load everyone's ships, information, and their bridge layouts, which would lag us to death.
I came up with an idea that could make you play from the bridges, and even make it player cooperable, in having the bridge in an interior, but the space part is outside the bridge set, and the set swivals accordingly to commands. So it becomes more like a simulator / space ride, than you actually being in sector space.
But the Devs even shot down that idea.
No... It's not that difficult... and the 'bridge' portions, other than loading graphics updates and the original cache of your bridge(s) would be all client side... Why does the server or anyone else give a TRIBBLE what the effects and animation going on on your bridge are.... And then you have the same maps you already do with a new camera system and mapping the cameras to the textures of your view screens.... The real work wouldn't even be in the graphics of addding the bridge, which doesn't even have to be a real map, when you sit down on your bridge, but could be a very fancy 3d GUI.
The real problem of making STO more like a Bridge commander experience would be completely revamping the control scheme to integrate Boffs into being a much more active part of the experience and they whole power distribution and damage control system that would be required to bring the rest of the game more in line with the real star trek experience.
It's not that they can't... It's that they won't.
PS: to flesh out the explanation of the GUI concept because I know if I don't I'm going to get a dozen arguments on it from folks that don't even know what the heck I'm talking about when I say a 3d GUI.
Picture if you will, same effect as now, that when you go into actually controlling your ship, you load the new 'map' that the ship is on... You don't load a bridge map at all... Instead the Bridge you are on, much like the game Bridge Commander isn't a map at all.. It's a 3d model, client side only that acts as a 3d Graphical Interface that is used much like an overlay, but is just 3d and look around capable instead of flat 2d... As they say, there are many ways to skin a fish... I could, if I pondered on it a while, probably come up with 2, maybe 3 other ways to fake a 3d Bridge Commander experience that would be even simpler to this... Problem is, you have to able to think OUTSIDE the box to come up with these work around and ways of doing things.
Not argument... Side topic discussion... I don't ever expect them to do a Bridge Commander experience... That will be the next MMO to license Star Trek that will make STO old news.... No... Cryptic has made real clear that this is Champions Online/Neverwinter Nights with a Star Trek skin... It is not an engine that is actually intended to do a sci-fi, space based game.
But anything about gameplay perspective is side topics in this... My TOPIC and argument is STILL what I started with... They should have viewscreens that look 3d and it's not only a no brainer, but not much work to do it.
Dude, I'm not going through this again with you pretending to be an expert, when you have zero knowledge of Cryptic's programming code. As I said, the Devs said if they could they would've, but they can't. Else they would've done this years ago.
Well, the implication there, and don't you dare try to accuse me of 'knowing what is going on in Cryptic's Offices' for speculating with what ifs, is that Cryptic probably didn't actually code their own engine, thus cannot modify it and are stuck with what they have, or that they hired a development team and long since let them go. They could have done it.. They could still do it... They are chosing not to... Whether that means not putting in the time, not hiring the coder needed, or just not really caring is irrelevant... They could do it if they really wanted to, but they won't.
There is a huge difference between Won't and Can't... They won't.
That's what you are doing dude. You admitted to as such when you said you got it from a book. :rolleyes:
As I patiently stated many times over in this thread, the Devs themselves said it's not possible. So who am I to believe, you or them? If you think it's possible, then by all means join their team:
http://crypticstudios.com/openings
They have an opening for a programmer. So if you think they can, then by all means apply and make those things happen.
No.. I didn't get it from a book... I used a book as proof to back me up.. I've known how to do it long before that book war written. It's not a book on game design theory.. It's a book on game design practice, full of examples of games that already to everything it talks about.. Comparisons of the different common engines out there, it not even mentionning some of my favorites, like Unity3D, which I'm about to license for projects I wanna do... And no.. I have NO interest in working for Cryptic or Perfect world.. I got my own plans and my own dreams and they are far better than what STO has to offer... At this point the goal is to put together enough of a proof of concept to Kickstart what I really wanna do.
And corporate can't is not the same thing as literal can't... They decide they can't do stuff, which is saying "We won't" for whatever reason they decided it wasn't worth doing, but it does not literally mean can't.... The only way that word could at all be accurate in a literal sense is if they really really wanted to do it and Perfect World won't let them... Then they can't, because they aren't being allowed to, but for any other reason they can come up with, they won't.
"There... are... four... lights!" ~Jean Luc Picard
If they could do that, you could control your ships from the bridge... That would be 90% of the software engineering work required to do a bridge commander type interface... and frankly, I'd pay $50 for a bridge commander type interface as a zen store upgrade.
... Actually, it would not be all that hard if you JUST saw the background of the local space and nothing actually in it... If you saw what was in it, though, they'd be using multiple maps and multiple cameras to do it.
Viewscreens could be done exactly like any other window though. so there really is no excuse why they cannot do it. Why they will not do it is because it would cost money with no potential of recouping any of it.
"I'm drunk, whats your excuse for being an idiot?" - Unknown drunk man. :eek:
nothing new or innovative here.
---- FIRE EVERYTHING ! ----
Never said they couldn't do it, just said they couldn't do it the way Viz is suggesting. Heck, probably burn out their profits from LoR to pull off the Bridge Commander.
But like you said, it boils down to money. If there was a way to make viewscreens on bridges functional, and making bridges more than they are. They would. But honestly, think STO will never really see such a system. If there is another Star Trek MMO, they might.
No... I am saying that code is tools.. Once you program a piece of code it's usable redundently all through your program... Once their code is capable of doing what I am talknig about doing, any texture in the game can be recognised by the engine as a camera mappable texture. Then all they need to do is position a camera and link them, and the camera could be virtual, as just a tiny graphical element that is a variable string in the code or some DLL. You don't have to start over from the beginning to make 1 single change to a map... You need to go in and redress the texture used to cover the viewscreen and metatag or map script in the line or code segment to link a camera to it... It is NOT a WHOLE new graphical model, it is a minor graphical touch and a coding trick that would be part of the ENGINE and not the graphics.
What's more, repeating myself again because you seem to miss anything that isn't in a reply to you, once you have this little coding call in your engine, it's usable for ALL kinds of applications... If they really wanted to, they could have some special event where you play a camera man and it shows on the TVs in the map... Or you could do real time arena fights where the arena is being broadcast and played on billboards in the background complete with sports scores and commentary and stuff.. Not saying they should or that there is even that much of a call for it in a Star Trek setting, but they could do it.
http://www.gameenginebook.com/ - Rather than arguing with me over how easy or hard this is or whatnot and trying to constantly tell me what I don't know, why don't you go check it out yourself... It's 860 pages (index included) of solid, good, hardcore software architecture reading that thoroughly explains how to build a game from start to finish and how different companies in the past have tackled various different problems, and it is often used as a textbook in Computer Science fields... and you really don't need to know about coding to actually understand it... It's about the architecture... HOW it's done.. Not the implementation of it, which is very engine, language, or OS specific information and not looking at the BIG picture.
PS: If you do read it and actually make sense of it all, you will be amazed how much it would increase your game literacy to the point where you can look at almost any game you play and figure out the most likely way it's pieced together, just like a mechanic that knows how car engines work can get a good idea of what they are looking at anytime they look under a hood, even if they have never seen that engine before. Visual Literacy is another field like that and a field I'm not nearly as educated in as software engineering but about as much as you would be in game design if you read the book, and I can look at most movies and know exactly how they are playing with emotions, setting the mood, and using the camera because I get how visual media is storyboarded and filmed.. My interest in it is, like software engineering, one of the facets of game design... and the project I meantioned is not like, my next job... It's my lifetime goal that I been researching and brainstorming on since '89, when I got a concept of a game engine that wasn't even possible till about 10 years ago, and some of the tricks I could hand a coder the information they'd need to actually implement, assuming they are actually good in their field of software engineering have yet to actually be implemented in a game, but a lot of stuff I've conceived has already been done due to the natural evolution of games and software design.
I'm not reading through all of this right now, it's bed time. I'll take a read through in the morning.
However, Yes, the screens should be 3d.
No, ours are generally not 3d.
Cutting a Hole in the wall works for some instances. i.e. If there's a planet out there, or stars streaming by, or something. However, were we to cut holes in things, the bridges would have to be very carefully constructed, such that you couldn't look out that hole, and see the ready room off to the side (for instance). We also can't represent personal interaction via that method. We would have to enlarge an NPC, and potentially his surroundings to fit the screen properly, and none of that is trivial.
The proper solution is to use portals (like the game Portal) where a specified camera can be projected onto a 2d texture. However, that is an immense undertaking, and is very, very unlikely.
I'm sorry you don't like how we're doing it, but that really is the best way at the moment. We can see about cutting holes in some things going forward, but we will probably not be going back and retrofitting old bridges with such a method.
P.S. You no longer owe me a Taco. :P
That said, if anyone on the dev team's going to tear a hole in the fabric of Space/Time? We all know it'll be Taco
Ok, then can you make the resolution for the viewscreen higher? as it is they look like TRIBBLE after you stepped in it. The carpet on a bridge looks much better lol. the viewscreens and all station screens are really low resolution and do not look good at all. Saw my bridge and was thinking I just stepped back in time to 1998.
"I'm drunk, whats your excuse for being an idiot?" - Unknown drunk man. :eek:
That would be cool, but honestly I'd be happy to settle for a blank starfield. It's strange to see I'm at Deep Space Nine every time I visit my KDF character's bridge.
How's that?
No, actually, we can't currently. While that is likely the best approach, we currently do not have any tech to do such a thing, and it would require a pretty significant undertaking by the graphics team to make it happen. Remember, while one game might have X, and another game might have Y, they don't both have X and Y.
You seem to be failing to understand that textures are 2 dimensional. Not all viewscreens are using the same texture at the moment, but let's pretend they are. We could hypothetically replace that texture with a new one, but that doesn't do jack to get you a holographic, 3d looking viewscreen. That's taking a newspaper page and replacing it with a magazine page.
Creating a 3d viewscreen would require one of two approaches. 1) Cut a hole in the geo, and make sure you can only see whatever we want you to through said hole. 2) Create Portal tech, and use that to project a camera onto a 2 dimensional surface. Neither of those are strictly texture changes.
This is most certainly untrue.
There is currently NO concept of a 'camera' in our engine, other than the one YOU are looking through all the time.
In a number of cases, I have put 'more interesting' things on the viewscreen of the bridges I've made. In all cases, we get complaints. i.e. "Why am I always looking at P'Jem'?
And apparently no one has actually bothered to look at their Scimitar bridge after the first day, because I fixed that viewscreen almost immediately. (Now looking at New Romulus, which I'm sure will also garner complaints)
While cool, this too would be difficult. Not only would we need a way to determine what map you came to your bridge from and pass that along, but we'd also need to create a texture representing every solar system/sector in the game, and would then have to duplicate each viewscreen, on each map, by that many new textures, and create a system that swaps between them depending on that initial variable. Again, not a trivial task.
You sure know how to put a dampener on a really crappy argument thread.
<chuckle>
:cool:
I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born!
Forever a STO Veteran-Minion