test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Dyson Sphere ...wrong layout ?
chronaer
Member Posts: 6 Arc User
Doesn't it bother any one when Flying inside the Dyson sphere it actually doesn't look like the inside of a gigantic sphere ?
Think about it when you cruise over the surface at maximum altitude The horizon curves like you are flying outside of the sphere, more like above a planet.
It should actually curve the opposite way to get the "inside a sphere" view, or feel.
Also when flying at max speed the back-round canvas should also start to move (very slowly of course) downwards.
Why the maximum altitude btw? The sphere is so vast .... assuming the distance center star to outer-shell is roughly distance earth to sun, it would take you 12 min at warp 1 to get from 1 side to the other side , even longer course u can't fly trough the center star.
Personaly i would pick a smaller center star so distance shell to star is less ergo the curving of the outer shell is more prominent and gives u a better feel of flying inside a Sphere.
Given the enormous amount of land mass and water-bodies you could make an infinite amount of mission ground or air based. Even mission into the "shell" would be possible.
Finally a physical gate would make it possible to get into the space quadrant the sphere is located .....would be very empty (all the matter in a 10 lightyear radius would have been used to construct the dam thing
, but suited for a number of species encountered in ST voyager.
Has non of the Graphic design-team ever watched the stng episode featuring the Dyson-Sphere or red the Wikipedia article about it ?
The way The Dyson-sphere is designed at the moment it could be used on a smaller scale to actually fly in to a planets atmosphere instead of bouncing off it like it happens now when you fly close to a planet or moon , so you actually could land with a shuttle or the intrepid class ships. for some missions. Even crash on those when there is no interaction available
I wish ships would actually have a 3d space available to interact with star-trek online now almost everything you do based on 2d strategies even the movement of starships is 2d. (try making a looping with a starship) it would solve a lot of problems , but flying would be abit more difficult, like in the very old game from the commodore64 time called "elite".
Aside from the the things i mentioned the art design of the Dyson-sphere is the best i have seen in this game, realy great.
Think about it when you cruise over the surface at maximum altitude The horizon curves like you are flying outside of the sphere, more like above a planet.
It should actually curve the opposite way to get the "inside a sphere" view, or feel.
Also when flying at max speed the back-round canvas should also start to move (very slowly of course) downwards.
Why the maximum altitude btw? The sphere is so vast .... assuming the distance center star to outer-shell is roughly distance earth to sun, it would take you 12 min at warp 1 to get from 1 side to the other side , even longer course u can't fly trough the center star.
Personaly i would pick a smaller center star so distance shell to star is less ergo the curving of the outer shell is more prominent and gives u a better feel of flying inside a Sphere.
Given the enormous amount of land mass and water-bodies you could make an infinite amount of mission ground or air based. Even mission into the "shell" would be possible.
Finally a physical gate would make it possible to get into the space quadrant the sphere is located .....would be very empty (all the matter in a 10 lightyear radius would have been used to construct the dam thing
, but suited for a number of species encountered in ST voyager.Has non of the Graphic design-team ever watched the stng episode featuring the Dyson-Sphere or red the Wikipedia article about it ?
The way The Dyson-sphere is designed at the moment it could be used on a smaller scale to actually fly in to a planets atmosphere instead of bouncing off it like it happens now when you fly close to a planet or moon , so you actually could land with a shuttle or the intrepid class ships. for some missions. Even crash on those when there is no interaction available
I wish ships would actually have a 3d space available to interact with star-trek online now almost everything you do based on 2d strategies even the movement of starships is 2d. (try making a looping with a starship) it would solve a lot of problems , but flying would be abit more difficult, like in the very old game from the commodore64 time called "elite".
Aside from the the things i mentioned the art design of the Dyson-sphere is the best i have seen in this game, realy great.
Post edited by chronaer on
0
Comments
1. this sphere is not the size of the distance from the star in the center to earth, its actually half that.
2. this is not the dyson sphere that was shown in the TNG episode, so thus it could be constructed differently and look differently.
2. De construct arround a star was tough of by Dyson when u call it Dyson sphere it is bound to his rules ...look it up at wikipedia
3. The horizon is that point when u can see no more surface cause the the surface is curved away from your field of view. so in a Dyson sphere there is no horizon, because the surface is curved towards you , not away from you
"The curvature of the "ground" would be even less than on Earth, so to an observer close to it it would look perfectly flat. In a solid dyson sphere with atmosphere, the atmosphere would limit the range of sight due to its opacity, and the horizon would be slightly misty."
Sometimes, if you want to bury the hatchet with a Klingon, it has to be in his skull. - Captain K'Tar of the USS Danu about J'mpok.
1. The curve would not be visible if you were anywhere near the surface - even at this sphere's smaller size, you're talking about thousands of kilometers to get a pixel worth of curve - the inherent fisheye effect common in many 3D engines (fairly prominent in STO's) would have a bigger effect than the actual curvature ever would.
2. No, you're not, considering his own rules admitted the construct would be impossible - no matter how large, heat buildup on the interior would eventually render it uninhabitable. Every science fiction Dyson construct works on its own internal rules to either solve or ignore the problems with a closed Dyson construct.
3. On a normal planet, yes, however on a surface this close to flat, whether it was convex or concave, the atmosphere would wipe out any visibility long before that point. This sphere is full of heavy polluting industrial facilities belching smoke, war zones where doomsday level weapons are commonplace, and exotic energy phenomena - atmospheric opacity is quite high, but even "clean" air would reduce visibility to 0 before you saw the bowl shape or a horizon were it convex.
Graphically, what is there is a perfectly flat surface with a distance limiting fog. Any convex curvature you see is due to the engine's slight fisheye effect - if you fly low and get the "horizon" below the midline of the screen it looks concave, but that's the same artifact, not the actual design.
Of course, that's assuming a Dyson sphere has any basis in reality.
2. I know Dyson thinks its impossible to build his imaginay construct nevertheless if ye call it a dyson sphere it is build according to his imagined rulesset.
Others have stated, with facts to back them up, that your apparent experience with the Sphere is close to a decent approximation of what it might really be, with allowances for the fact that it's a GAME and not a Dyson Sphere Simulator. Relax and enjoy it.
It seems the vast majority of your most active players (forum regulars) hate the idea... and while that's a small subset of the playerbase, I think it's an important constituency.
THE PLAYERS DO NOT WANT THIS.
1. At the maximum altitude available in maps with a ground surface (the Breach takes place inside the sphere, but not near the ground, so there's no lower surface), you're still close enough to the surface that if you're measuring curvature, the difference from 0 altitude is not going to appear on your screen. If this were scaled down to earth level, you're talking about comparing the horizon when you're standing barefoot vs. when you're wearing socks.
2. His ruleset only required that the construct somehow enclose a star. It doesn't even need to be completely enclosed - Dyson Swarms, Dyson Rings, and other variations do not enclose stars entirely. All functional details are left to the fiction writer creating the structure.
We are flying close enough to ground level to still be in the atmosphere, hence the atmospheric friction debuff.
Sometimes, if you want to bury the hatchet with a Klingon, it has to be in his skull. - Captain K'Tar of the USS Danu about J'mpok.
In the few "blue alert" controlled descent scenes we've scene, they alter their shield geometry to be more aerodynamic. How about either a shield, console, or set bonus called "atmospheric shield geometry" or somesuch, giving you a speed and turn rate bonus in the sphere?
Simply spoke my mind how i feel about it , and wanted to know what others think about it, And start a discussion.
So don't forbid me to discuss this and if you sir don't want to be in that discussion then just don't read the thread.
Suffice it to say, given that we're flying in the atmosphere of our particular sphere, the STO devs did a very good job making it accurate according to current science. They took a little bit of artistic license (like seeing details on the distant walls, when it should have just been a bright gray haze), but that was primarily to suit the general expectations of unscientific players.
If you want to know more, go combing through the dev tracker. TacoFangs had a very long series of posts discussing this very point; so long, that he had to start quoting himself rather than keep repeating the same answers ad-nauseum.
I've gone over what you're seeing, and why you're seeing it.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/sh...1&postcount=46
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/sh...1&postcount=59
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/sh...1&postcount=41
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/sh...&postcount=106
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/sh...1&postcount=70
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/sh...&postcount=102
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/sh...71&postcount=4
FYI, those links don't work.
The biggest problem i have with the sphere is that it's not a sphere... The ground is visible way too high into the sky, which makes it look like a cylinder. In fact, people that walk by my desk keep asking me why they're seeing Babylon 5 is in a star trek game.
Pizza: Pepperoni
Kalek shel'tek!
"Do not make me look foolish by allowing yourself to be murdered" -Lord Yu
You need smarter friends. Babylon 5 has a diameter of 840 m.
Sometimes, if you want to bury the hatchet with a Klingon, it has to be in his skull. - Captain K'Tar of the USS Danu about J'mpok.
I made a WHOLE thread about this... I get VERY technical with math based on what is told to us in-game so be prepared to be educated: http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=919181
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showpost.php?p=12085941&postcount=46
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showpost.php?p=12087201&postcount=59
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showpost.php?p=12681721&postcount=41
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showpost.php?p=12752881&postcount=106
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showpost.php?p=12745561&postcount=70
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showpost.php?p=12192161&postcount=102
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showpost.php?p=5477771&postcount=4
Ok, here's something I've been meaning to explain. You talk about the "horizon" you see.
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7454/11241026606_0a54b8d408_o.jpg
Figure A represents what we've actually seen of planets from space. When you look at the center of the planet, your angle of incidence to the surface is more or less 90 degrees. As you look toward the edge of the planet, that angle decreases to 0. The atmosphere is the same thickness all around. But at the edge, you are looking through more atmosphere before seeing the planet than anywhere else on the surface. Since the planet is convex, it has an actual edge, and beyond that edge is empty space, so what you see is a hard (fuzzy) line. (Horizon)
On the interior of the sphere, there is no horizon, because everywhere you look, you see more sphere. However, the atmosphere still builds up depending on where you are in that sphere. If you're in the center (Figure
In Figure C, Assuming your ship is oriented to the surface, then straight up, and straight down are still at 90 degrees. While your viewing angle no longer hits 0, it can still decrease dramatically to a point. Since there is no hard edge that leads off into space, the atmospheric thickness makes a similar gradient both above and below the perceived "horizon." So in our Dyson Sphere, we made a much thicker band of atmosphere part way up the sphere. Note that in the above image, and in the game, that band is biased down, closer to a horizontal plane intersecting the sphere at your height off the surface.
Hope that helps to clarify what's going on.
Love the Artwork there heehee. I just wanted to add another example to what you said that maybe will help even more.
When you are looking into the distance consider the air to be more like water. You are aware of how water bends light and that if there is enough water in the way you can hardly make out the light. Now if you are in a shallower part of the ocean you can see up and down just fine. You see the ocean floor and the sky above (the sky being somewhat distorted). However when you look into the distance through the water you will see that it eventually gets rather dark and hard to see through giving you that horizon-type effect.
Also if we are talking about your view in the Ship considering that view is what your ship's sensors can see (as evidenced by a number of effects in the game) in theory you should be able to see fairly clearly around most if not all of the Sphere.
The big question is always the Ground for me. It is unlikely that an atmosphere thick enough to be breathable by humans with a star blazing down upon it would allow us to actually SEE the rest of the sphere above us. Especially anywhere near the star itself in our field of view. Also it is odd to note that in reality there may never be such a thing as a shadow on such a Sphere if it is indeed perfectly spherical.
Indeed, Dyson'a concept was a sphere of sattalites used to collect energy. What we have here is technically called a Dyson's shell.