Why does Cryptic make us fly like an airplane in outer space?

takfel · June 2015

Why are we locked in the default "airplane mode"? Actually, i can't say it is truely like an airplane because even airplanes can fly 90 degrees vertical. We are flying in outer space. Gravity is a negligible force in outer space (except near a singularity or other gravitational anomaly). Anyone know why Cryptic continues to make us fly like we are inside a planet atmosphere? Does it have something to do with the coding?

sorceror01 · June 2015

No, it has to do with the shows.

We fight like we do in space in STO because it's made to simulate how combat was depicted in the TV shows.

The engine is fully capable of giving us full 3-D motion in space, but in this case, aesthetics won out over realism.

Also, I imagine it's a much more "user friendly" way to play a space game. Moving around a fully three dimensional environment is not everyone's cup of tea.

alexhurlbut · June 2015

takfel wrote: »

Why are we locked in the default "airplane mode"? We are flying in outer space. Gravity is a negligible force in outer space (except near a singularity or other gravitational anomaly). Anyone know why Cryptic continues to make us fly like we are inside a planet atmosphere? Does it have something to do with the coding?

Starships in the ST shows and movies tend to fly like airplanes, if a bit real slow. Yes coding prevent us doing vertical manuevers like Kirk did in Wrath of Khan.

coupaholic · June 2015

I think it's just to stop people becoming disorientated.

gavinruneblade · June 2015

sorceror01 wrote: »

No, it has to do with the shows.

We fight like we do in space in STO because it's made to simulate how combat was depicted in the TV shows.

The engine is fully capable of giving us full 3-D motion in space, but in this case, aesthetics won out over realism.

Actually I recall reading back in 2013 something from the devs about there being true 3d movement in the in house alpha and it was badly received and removed before beta. I really wish I'd saved it.

Champions devs have also said several times the engine can do true 3d movement but doesn't because of how people got lost or had horrible combat experiences so it was dumbed down to make play easier. Though their flight is much closer than sto's.

People just got too disoriented and it was considered a bad choice to move forward with it.

rmy1081 · June 2015

sorceror01 wrote: »

No, it has to do with the shows.

We fight like we do in space in STO because it's made to simulate how combat was depicted in the TV shows.

The engine is fully capable of giving us full 3-D motion in space, but in this case, aesthetics won out over realism.

THIS!

also traveling faster that light would cause the Doppler effect to kick in causing light waves to shift to x-rays making all space appear black to the naked eye. Realism doesn't look as cool.

oh and one more thing. It's not easy flying in space. If you want to learn, try this: http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/ it's a free space flight sim. Just make sure you go through the tutorial. The 2015 version is looking freaking awesome in beta.

centaurianalpha · June 2015

it has to do with the shows.

Yeah, it's canon, for the most part. Sadly, the game could have been coded to allow use of directional thrusters, as many other games have. It would then be possible to manoever without using impulse engines, or gain additional agility under impulse by using the thrusters simultaneously.

I recall a TNG episode where the Enterprise was caught in an asteroid field with energy-absorbing mines dispersed throughout; Picard's solution was to use an initial impulse burst, and use local gravitational attraction to provide the remaining momentum while steering with thrusters only. This type of thruster capability would allow for some interesting gameplay, even if used only in the Foundry! :cool:

alcyoneserene · June 2015

It is tricky representing 3D space on a limited-sized screen because many perceptual cues for depth are missing. It also doesn't help that size-scales are all over the place and not consistent, with few stationary reference objects to go by.

Despite all that, it would have been awesome if full 3-D movement would have been allowed. They could have added some artificial horizon-lines and an optional toggle to prevent exceeding 90 degree pitch up or down, or 90 degree bank angles. There's no real yaw outside of turning while stationary, so that one wouldn't complicate anything anyways. I very much doubt that would make it disorienting, at least no more than an arcade flying game.

Instead, we can't even pitch up or down and are forced to do ridiculous spirals to get somewhere or match firing arc on target. If keeping things canon was really the objective, one would consider not limiting it so severely as to force such pointless flight paths.

gleitfrosch · June 2015

I still prefer the Starfleet Command combat. Was alot more tactical than what we have right now.

Would sacrifice a targ, if the devs decide to change the space combat to be more like in SC.

nynik · June 2015

What do people want to do with full 3d movement? Can that be accomplished with creative on-use bridge office abilities, such as the recent Pilot barrel role?

shadowwraith77 · June 2015

Simply put, because it is to make it easier on those people, who seemingly cannot grasp realistic flight.

jonsills · June 2015

We don't have realistic space flight for the same reason I can't play the old Star Wars starfighter games when my wife is in the room. I can navigate through three dimensions, twisting around to keep my target in my sights, just fine; just watching it makes her queasy, however.

We'd have an even smaller in-game population if half the people playing started throwing up during space combat.

orangeitis · June 2015

sorceror01 wrote: »

No, it has to do with the shows.

We fight like we do in space in STO because it's made to simulate how combat was depicted in the TV shows.

That's a fallacy then. Take Klingons as portrayed in the transition from TOS to the movie/TNG era for instance. Did they keep smoothed-forehead Klingons because 'that's just how they were'? No, they changed how Klingons looked, presumably to make them look more different from humans than they previously were. They didn't stick to the status quo because it felt more 'unrealistic' to them in other words.

Now in STO, if we are to be 'true' to the IP, we shouldn't stick to the status quo because of mere tradition, as the IP itself didn't. We should expand and improve the Star Trek world like the IP has been doing to itself since the movie/TNG era.

We should have full 360-degree space combat because that's how space works, and let go of silly traditions just because they have been depicted that way till the JJ movies.

bobbydazlers · June 2015

believe me you might not think sto`s system is great but there are a lot worse, like that other space game with star in the title where you have hardly any freedom of movement at all and have to follow the course that is laid out by the devs like you are on rails or something.

alexhurlbut · June 2015

orangeitis wrote: »

That's a fallacy then. Take Klingons as portrayed in the transition from TOS to the movie/TNG era for instance. Did they keep smoothed-forehead Klingons because 'that's just how they were'? No, they changed how Klingons looked, presumably to make them look more different from humans than they previously were. They didn't stick to the status quo because it felt more 'unrealistic' to them in other words.

Now in STO, if we are to be 'true' to the IP, we shouldn't stick to the status quo because of mere tradition, as the IP itself didn't. We should expand and improve the Star Trek world like the IP has been doing to itself since the movie/TNG era.

We should have full 360-degree space combat because that's how space works, and let go of silly traditions just because they have been depicted that way till the JJ movies.

Well, they did gave an official explanation for why the TOS Klingongs look humanish in the show Enterprise....

leviathan99 · June 2015

alcyoneserene wrote: »

It is tricky representing 3D space on a limited-sized screen because many perceptual cues for depth are missing. It also doesn't help that size-scales are all over the place and not consistent, with few stationary reference objects to go by.

Despite all that, it would have been awesome if full 3-D movement would have been allowed. They could have added some artificial horizon-lines and an optional toggle to prevent exceeding 90 degree pitch up or down, or 90 degree bank angles. There's no real yaw outside of turning while stationary, so that one wouldn't complicate anything anyways. I very much doubt that would make it disorienting, at least no more than an arcade flying game.

Instead, we can't even pitch up or down and are forced to do ridiculous spirals to get somewhere or match firing arc on target. If keeping things canon was really the objective, one would consider not limiting it so severely as to force such pointless flight paths.

As I recall, devs looked into horizontal strafing at one point (as seen in WoK) but got so sick of being flamed on the topic (by people who hated space having a default plane and who rejected any compromise) that it was backburnered.

millimidget · June 2015

To keep it simple for the mouthbreathers and the neckbeards.

alexhurlbut wrote: »

Well, they did gave an official explanation for why the TOS Klingongs look humanish in the show Enterprise....

Which is acceptable, assuming you like the TNG+ Klingons. I'm a TNG baby, and while I thought Enterprise's clone arc was bad, I had no complaint regarding the explanation of Klingon ridges.

drakethewhite · June 2015

takfel wrote: »

Why are we locked in the default "airplane mode"?

Just to nitpick, it's not Airplane Mode. We don't pick up speed when driving, or lose it when climbing for example. Nor can we roll or bank past a defined limit (outside Rock and Roll).

It's more like a submarine in water (including a 'bottom' and a 'Surface' that may not be breeched) and it's a rather standard model for space computer games and for... yep, TV shows.

orangeitis · June 2015

alexhurlbut wrote: »

Well, they did gave an official explanation for why the TOS Klingongs look humanish in the show Enterprise....

Yes, they most certainly did. But they did not however give us an in-continuity explanation as to why ships fly in 2-dimensional planes. There have been IRL explanations for both, but an in-universe explanation for only one. And quite reasonably, the other could be the cause of an overwhelmingly unlikely coincidence in-universe.

lucianazeta · June 2015

bobbydazlers wrote: »

believe me you might not think sto`s system is great but there are a lot worse, like that other space game with star in the title where you have hardly any freedom of movement at all and have to follow the course that is laid out by the devs like you are on rails or something.

Assuming you speak of SWTOR, the Starfighter PvP content does not have that, only the very old PvE space content.

mustrumridcully0 · June 2015

1) To make this game give us the kind of "tall ship combat" we see in the TV shows.
2) And to avoid that people get confused by the 3D nature of "realistic" space combat.

Now, with all those high turn rate escorts and all that, it is kinda watered down.

But on the shows, you almost always see ships bank and fly more like planes. Except perhaps the occasion where they are more like submarines.
It's also the reason why we have engagement ranges of 10 kms.
1) That's how it looks on the shows, despite the background material stating effective weapon ranges of hundreds of thousands of kilometers.
2) It would be very boring, as you never see your enemies when they fly around at 5,000 to 500,000 km.

So we get 10 km engagement ranges in 2.5D space.
Unrealistic, but it looks damn sexy.

orangeitis · June 2015

mustrumridcully0 wrote: »

1) To make this game give us the kind of "tall ship combat" we see in the TV shows.
2) And to avoid that people get confused by the 3D nature of "realistic" space combat.

Now, with all those high turn rate escorts and all that, it is kinda watered down.

But on the shows, you almost always see ships bank and fly more like planes. Except perhaps the occasion where they are more like submarines.
It's also the reason why we have engagement ranges of 10 kms.
1) That's how it looks on the shows, despite the background material stating effective weapon ranges of hundreds of thousands of kilometers.
2) It would be very boring, as you never see your enemies when they fly around at 5,000 to 500,000 km.

So we get 10 km engagement ranges in 2.5D space.
Unrealistic, but it looks damn sexy.

I'd argue that the way they treated combat scale in the series/movies was more unrealistic. Torpedoes flying toward your foe that's 10,000km away? Or anything else traveling at sublight speeds, for that matter? Long and boring. Torpedoes being fired at less than 10km, far more reasonable for such scenarios.

mustrumridcully0 · June 2015

orangeitis wrote: »

I'd argue that the way they treated combat scale in the series/movies was more unrealistic. Torpedoes flying toward your foe that's 10,000km away? Or anything else traveling at sublight speeds, for that matter? Long and boring. Torpedoes being fired at less than 10km, far more reasonable for such scenarios.

The combat scale in the movies or TV shows was for the... show effect.
Not sure what you're trying to say here - the movies and series rarely had fights at the range the background material like the technical manuals allowed. If they had something like that, it was because they couldn't show it on the screen anyway (like that fight between a Nebula and a bunch of Cardassians - we only saw a tactical map).

It's certainly not realistic if you have FTL capable ships and sensors that can scan humans underground from orbit!

drakethewhite · June 2015

orangeitis wrote: »

I'd argue that the way they treated combat scale in the series/movies was more unrealistic. Torpedoes flying toward your foe that's 10,000km away? Or anything else traveling at sublight speeds, for that matter? Long and boring. Torpedoes being fired at less than 10km, far more reasonable for such scenarios.

TOS used much longer ranges.

In Elaan of Troyius the Klingons (who IMO are playing with the crippled Enterprise and closing to much closer ranges than they world normally) open fire at 100,000 km (40:40 into the video)

So, what was the outside range of the TOS Enterprise:

Obsession, 25:35 into the video. So they won't quite hit something 1.04 lightyears away... but it seems that's close enough to being in range to have to ask.

Things changed in TNG (phasers became sublight only weapons) and then they changed again. So I don't know or care about weapon ranges there.

k20vtec · June 2015

The range issue is really because of the special effects... I mean real space combat is boring. The most realistic space combat depiction is when USS Phoenix engage the Cardassians, the screen doesnt actually show the ships "pew pew" at each other, but make them appear in the Enterprise-Ds computer screen in the form of "sonar dots" on submarine sonar(I know no smedium in space etc). The engaged far beyond human Eye... But well, special effect artists is gonna do what a special effect artists is gonna do...

Unknown · June 2015

This content has been removed.

orangeitis · June 2015

mustrumridcully0 wrote: »

The combat scale in the movies or TV shows was for the... show effect.
Not sure what you're trying to say here - the movies and series rarely had fights at the range the background material like the technical manuals allowed. If they had something like that, it was because they couldn't show it on the screen anyway (like that fight between a Nebula and a bunch of Cardassians - we only saw a tactical map).

It's certainly not realistic if you have FTL capable ships and sensors that can scan humans underground from orbit!

It's certainly plausible for beam weapons and other lightspeed weapons, but for torpedoes and other sublight weapons to travel even 10,000km would take hours from tube to enemy hull, assuming the enemy doesn't move out of the way in that time frame. And I'm no scientist by any stretch of the definition, but I'm pretty sure that if torps or any other solid objects reached a reasonable speed to be accurate at that range, they'd vaporize their target.

a3001 · June 2015

coupaholic wrote: »

I think it's just to stop people becoming disorientated.

This mostly. Though I personally do not know of anyone who actually gets dizzy from flying inverted, real life or otherwise, I am aware of the condition.

drakethewhite · June 2015

k20vtec wrote: »

The range issue is really because of the special effects... I mean real space combat is boring.

TOS combat wasn't boring, and it never (that I recall) showed the opposing ships in the same frame at the same time. Even in TMP, the Klingon Attack sequence was rather exciting for the time and its engagement ranges were measure as a significant part of an AU at least (again from memory).

What changed everything was Star Wars. After that hit the screen everyone converted to its style and now they won't convert back. Star Trek by DS9 became impossible to tell apart from it in fact.

Sort of like gore in slasher flicks- no does the Psycho style horror anymore- we have to see body parts.

However I don't think the change was an improvement.

But STO is TNG and later. So the point is moot.

orangeitis · June 2015

a3001 wrote: »

This mostly. Though I personally do not know of anyone who actually gets dizzy from flying inverted, real life or otherwise, I am aware of the condition.

What are the affects of this condition on people that play games with full 360-degree rotation? I am curious.

dpsloss88 · June 2015

In real life people throw up in zero g. You want realism it will be messy!

Why does Cryptic make us fly like an airplane in outer space?

Comments

When I think about everything we've been through together,

maybe it's not the destination that matters, maybe it's the journey,

and if that journey takes a little longer,

so we can do something we all believe in,

I can't think of any place I'd rather be or any people I'd rather be with.