I'm pretty sure that you can only fly backwards because the impulse engines suck space air in instead of pushing it out like normal. They'd have to aim up and down for you to be able to move that way.
And, part of this is canon. In the various movies and series, shields are shown as a circle around the ship. Space battles are fought more or less on a plane - Kane and Kirk did their dog fight more or less with their ships aligned on a plane, and merely having different "elevations". 3D causes both viewer disorientation with action (which is why fighters in Star Wars always fly as if there is a down) and difficulties in gaming control.
Note also the game ignores orbital dynamics when you maneuver your ship. If it did not, their would be a hundred threads on why the game was broken because their ship would not fly "straight." Short of people who are mathematically gifted, or who have enough time to calculate variables, there is no way to fly through a 3D space seat of the pants, humans were evolved with brains that think differently.
Even flight simulators are not good examples because their, vector is affected by a strong gravity field that you are close to, and you have a tendency to stick in one plane because you are an air foil. In space, it is possible to have a vector that is an expression of 3 cardinal directions, plus a relative velocity. Although systems, and action in systems, tends to be ruled by movement on a plane with a strong source of gravity affecting orbits, free space battles could occur in any direction or no direction at all, and facings become complicated by structure.
In other words, even if Cryptic gave people true 3D in violation of Star Trek canon (although there have been limited attempts at handling 3D in some shows) it is unlikely they would like it because it would make this a flight simulator with a long to impossible learning curve.
Pretty much because Straight up/down flight doesn't work well with the 4 shield quadrant set-up and because the devs didn't want a 6 shield area set-up as it over complicates things.
That doesn't make any sense because we are already able to fly directly above an enemy, and shoot at what should be their dorsal shield. They just take the shield that is closest.
That doesn't make any sense because we are already able to fly directly above an enemy, and shoot at what should be their dorsal shield. They just take the shield that is closest.
indeed. I wish cluless people would stop perpetuating this nonesense.
it's NOT an engine limitation.
you CAN ALREADY fly above/below enemies and have them shoot your shields and it works perfectly fine.
WHY cryptic won't increase the angle of declination that we can fly, is mere speculation. as is many of the poor design choices in this game.
indeed. I wish cluless people would stop perpetuating this nonesense.
it's NOT an engine limitation.
you CAN ALREADY fly above/below enemies and have them shoot your shields and it works perfectly fine.
WHY cryptic won't increase the angle of declination that we can fly, is mere speculation. as is many of the poor design choices in this game.
I disagree. It might still be an engine limitation, just not about the 4-shield system.
It's probably about something like what keys to use or how to manage the camera or something like this.
The old game Descent got it right.. you could move your ship any direction you want and you could roll.
I loved playing that online and lan games, I used a joystick with the keyboard and I can only dream of one day using that awesome setup on STO.
Along with the 6 shields already mentioned, my guess is that it also complicates rendering of ships as well. No doubt the devs made some assumptions that the viewing axis will never be flipped (i.e. drawing other things upside down).
Along with the 6 shields already mentioned, my guess is that it also complicates rendering of ships as well. No doubt the devs made some assumptions that the viewing axis will never be flipped (i.e. drawing other things upside down).
Then how about they increase the angle of attack to 75 degrees instead of 45. I've played half a dozen maps they have designed where you have to fly down in spirals because you can't get to the angle of attack you need just to get to the next part of the mission.
Along with the 6 shields already mentioned, my guess is that it also complicates rendering of ships as well. No doubt the devs made some assumptions that the viewing axis will never be flipped (i.e. drawing other things upside down).
Like what? Isnt everything modeled in 3D? Even the effects seem to be 3 dimensional (take the "Brace for impact" effect for example)
Then how about they increase the angle of attack to 75 degrees instead of 45. I've played half a dozen maps they have designed where you have to fly down in spirals because you can't get to the angle of attack you need just to get to the next part of the mission.
The 45 degrees is FRUSTRATING.
+1 The angle needs to be adjusted - 75 might be too much but if it really is currently 45, 60 degrees would be plenty.
Like what? Isnt everything modeled in 3D? Even the effects seem to be 3 dimensional (take the "Brace for impact" effect for example)
If it was fully 3D rendered, then it really should not be an issue. I was just assuming that if the angle of attack and view angle would never exceed 90 degrees, then you can make some assumptions for performance, and possibly divide by zero issues. cosine at 90 degrees returns 0, which is a problem you have to check for if dividing by it, and tangent is undefined. So if you say the angle will never hit these special spots, then you do not have to account for them.
If it was fully 3D rendered, then it really should not be an issue. I was just assuming that if the angle of attack and view angle would never exceed 90 degrees, then you can make some assumptions for performance, and possibly divide by zero issues. cosine at 90 degrees returns 0, which is a problem you have to check for if dividing by it, and tangent is undefined. So if you say the angle will never hit these special spots, then you do not have to account for them.
Considering that you can flip your ship around in all direction, I don't think this is a limitation.
Considering that you can flip your ship around in all direction, I don't think this is a limitation.
Don't forget that there are two sides to this. The client side which does the drawing and view perspective, and then there is the server side which handles the combat. Heck, on the server side they might have a table for all values of sin/cos between 0 and 45 degrees, down to hundredths, just to improve performance.
Well, I'm sorry to say this but imho (and please don't start a flame, is what I think) DS9 is not Star Trek; I think only Enterprise (TOS, TNG, films) and Voyager are truly Star Trek.
So, that example doesn't count for me ^_^
P.S. I really mean it, don't start a flame, is impossible to convice me ><
The old game Descent got it right.. you could move your ship any direction you want and you could roll
The SWG:JTL expansion did it pretty well too, it was real fun to roll and loop and stop engines and everything but they were "small" ships. I can't imagine a Star Destroyer trying to roll or loop.
Ok, the Star Destroyer length is 1600m (source) while a Galaxy class is 640m more or less (source) but none of them can pretend to be as "light" as an YT-1300 (the millenium falcon) which is less than 30m length (source).
So, since we don't know how the length will affect (and I believe it will, and a lot, gravity and all these things :P ) to how easy to maneuver is a big ship I believe it would be really hard to roll, loop or even put it straight up (the artificial gravity generator should be having problems with all this movements).
They used a 5+ year old game engine to make the game and it has limitations.
The inability to aim up or down cause the largest PVP imbalances in the game too, which is hilarious.
What is even more TRIBBLE is the fact you turn at a ridiculously slow rate unless you're moving. Do people at cryptic have even the vaguest of notions of space physics or reality here? I mean come on.
How many ships is ST you ever see fly straight up and down?
A couple actually.
But having unrealistic space battles for the sake of ignorant TV viewers who can't grasp a genuine three dimensional battlefield without orientation is no excuse for failing on that point in game design. They even made everything orient the same way like the shows, which is fine, but aiming up or down vertically still needs to be there because it just causes all sorts of problems from pvp balance (beam vs cannon) to the ridiculous and inconvenient zig-zag or spiral motions you have to go through to ascend or descend on the Z axis to reach enemies or loot above or below you. It's just stupid to be perfectly blunt.
Comments
Waaaaaaaaat?
I believe I was perfectly clear in my detailed scientific explanation.
You are joking, right?
You should call up every person that has ever reviewed a movie to ask them when they will be releasing their next blockbuster.
Remember that space air is poisonous. Fortunately, wearing goggles allows you to breathe it.
Exactly.
Everything else aside, if they could allow a button-mash for a "loop" based off your turning ability it'd solve most of this non-sense.
Separate thread here: http://forums.startrekonline.com/showthread.php?p=2133771
Clearly, but NinetyNine might be serious.
I am always serious. Sometimes deadly so.
Note also the game ignores orbital dynamics when you maneuver your ship. If it did not, their would be a hundred threads on why the game was broken because their ship would not fly "straight." Short of people who are mathematically gifted, or who have enough time to calculate variables, there is no way to fly through a 3D space seat of the pants, humans were evolved with brains that think differently.
Even flight simulators are not good examples because their, vector is affected by a strong gravity field that you are close to, and you have a tendency to stick in one plane because you are an air foil. In space, it is possible to have a vector that is an expression of 3 cardinal directions, plus a relative velocity. Although systems, and action in systems, tends to be ruled by movement on a plane with a strong source of gravity affecting orbits, free space battles could occur in any direction or no direction at all, and facings become complicated by structure.
In other words, even if Cryptic gave people true 3D in violation of Star Trek canon (although there have been limited attempts at handling 3D in some shows) it is unlikely they would like it because it would make this a flight simulator with a long to impossible learning curve.
That doesn't make any sense because we are already able to fly directly above an enemy, and shoot at what should be their dorsal shield. They just take the shield that is closest.
indeed. I wish cluless people would stop perpetuating this nonesense.
it's NOT an engine limitation.
you CAN ALREADY fly above/below enemies and have them shoot your shields and it works perfectly fine.
WHY cryptic won't increase the angle of declination that we can fly, is mere speculation. as is many of the poor design choices in this game.
I disagree. It might still be an engine limitation, just not about the 4-shield system.
It's probably about something like what keys to use or how to manage the camera or something like this.
I loved playing that online and lan games, I used a joystick with the keyboard and I can only dream of one day using that awesome setup on STO.
Then how about they increase the angle of attack to 75 degrees instead of 45. I've played half a dozen maps they have designed where you have to fly down in spirals because you can't get to the angle of attack you need just to get to the next part of the mission.
The 45 degrees is FRUSTRATING.
Like what? Isnt everything modeled in 3D? Even the effects seem to be 3 dimensional (take the "Brace for impact" effect for example)
+1 The angle needs to be adjusted - 75 might be too much but if it really is currently 45, 60 degrees would be plenty.
If it was fully 3D rendered, then it really should not be an issue. I was just assuming that if the angle of attack and view angle would never exceed 90 degrees, then you can make some assumptions for performance, and possibly divide by zero issues. cosine at 90 degrees returns 0, which is a problem you have to check for if dividing by it, and tangent is undefined. So if you say the angle will never hit these special spots, then you do not have to account for them.
Considering that you can flip your ship around in all direction, I don't think this is a limitation.
Don't forget that there are two sides to this. The client side which does the drawing and view perspective, and then there is the server side which handles the combat. Heck, on the server side they might have a table for all values of sin/cos between 0 and 45 degrees, down to hundredths, just to improve performance.
Well, I'm sorry to say this but imho (and please don't start a flame, is what I think) DS9 is not Star Trek; I think only Enterprise (TOS, TNG, films) and Voyager are truly Star Trek.
So, that example doesn't count for me ^_^
P.S. I really mean it, don't start a flame, is impossible to convice me ><
The SWG:JTL expansion did it pretty well too, it was real fun to roll and loop and stop engines and everything but they were "small" ships. I can't imagine a Star Destroyer trying to roll or loop.
Ok, the Star Destroyer length is 1600m (source) while a Galaxy class is 640m more or less (source) but none of them can pretend to be as "light" as an YT-1300 (the millenium falcon) which is less than 30m length (source).
So, since we don't know how the length will affect (and I believe it will, and a lot, gravity and all these things :P ) to how easy to maneuver is a big ship I believe it would be really hard to roll, loop or even put it straight up (the artificial gravity generator should be having problems with all this movements).
They used a 5+ year old game engine to make the game and it has limitations.
The inability to aim up or down cause the largest PVP imbalances in the game too, which is hilarious.
What is even more TRIBBLE is the fact you turn at a ridiculously slow rate unless you're moving. Do people at cryptic have even the vaguest of notions of space physics or reality here? I mean come on.
How many ships is ST you ever see fly straight up and down?
A couple actually.
But having unrealistic space battles for the sake of ignorant TV viewers who can't grasp a genuine three dimensional battlefield without orientation is no excuse for failing on that point in game design. They even made everything orient the same way like the shows, which is fine, but aiming up or down vertically still needs to be there because it just causes all sorts of problems from pvp balance (beam vs cannon) to the ridiculous and inconvenient zig-zag or spiral motions you have to go through to ascend or descend on the Z axis to reach enemies or loot above or below you. It's just stupid to be perfectly blunt.
people have done what the devs said they couldn't and got banned for it
no, they should've started from scratch and developped a totally new engine wich would've allowed full 360deg thru all 3 axis
Support here.
hand me 10 million dollars and I would whoop the shirt off this game.