Lack of Views

[ceyan]

Ummm... what's the big deal about cockpits?

I see the reasoning. Immersion and dogfighting. Well lets see, for Dogfighting you've got the radar which is a 100 times more efficient than a virtual cockpit with look-around views. For Immersion, you're in a futuristic fighter, just pretend you're wearing a helmet (which is where the future is heading anyways) which gives you the HUD we've got right now. So neither really apply to the situation.

[Incendiary Lemon]

Snap views would let you check their facing and altitude.

[Alexander Seil]

Well, having a virtual cockpit in a capital ship would be nice :p I don't care for head turning and cockpits in fighters (they would only obstruct vision), but it's not like you're going to be dogfighting in a carrier...

[ceyan]

ORIGINAL: Incendiary Lemon

Snap views would let you check their facing and altitude.

And you can't do that using the F3 Tactical Map (which I'd like to note you can do even if you can't target the object, which would be impossible with snap views) why?

[Augurin]

There are a lot of reasons to want to be able to have views from in cockpit, even if the F3 view will show you what you want.

1. A lot of us who play combat sims want the feel of being in the cockpit. Going to an outside view feels too much like cheating or like a video game.

2. Even with radar, being able to keep your head on a swivel is critical for good situational awareness, if that wasn't true, the F16 wouldn't have a bubble canopy.

3. Radar only sees in front of me. What if I want to check six?

4. When doing things like making an approach to land being able to glance to the side to see where the runway is allows you to make a shorter approach and turn in for finals.

5. When you're trying to do combat maneuvering, being able to look forward and up 45 degrees makes it easier to lag turn an opponent.

6. Realism. Helmet mounted HUDs are specifically made to let you look around without losing flight data. Even WW2 aircraft had rear view mirrors. Can you honestly believe a futuristic fighter wouldn't have some sort of imaging system to allow you to look to see if someone was on your tail?

Mainly, it's just what I (and apparently others) like.

[Kuokkanen]

ORIGINAL: Augurin

Can you honestly believe a futuristic fighter wouldn't have some sort of imaging system to allow you to look to see if someone was on your tail?

How about camera in tail which shows picture in multi function display? Not in Starshatter, but few other games has that.

[Incendiary Lemon]

ORIGINAL: ceyan

ORIGINAL: Incendiary Lemon

Snap views would let you check their facing and altitude.

And you can't do that using the F3 Tactical Map (which I'd like to note you can do even if you can't target the object, which would be impossible with snap views) why?

Tactical requires a switch to the mouse and thats a bit cumbersome. It would also get you killed in a close dogfight.

[Kuokkanen]

ORIGINAL: Incendiary Lemon

Tactical requires a switch to the mouse and thats a bit cumbersome.

Then try orbit view (F3 key). If I recall correctly, it is possible remap orbit view's rotation functions to other devices including keyboard and joystick.

By the way, what is tactical map... ceyan, F3 isn't called tactical map, it is orbit view! Or do I remember wrong?

[edit]Just checked screeshots. F3 initiates display called ORBIT CAM (it was all uppercases in screenshot).

[JNOV]

Great news! Thanks, Milo.

- JNOV

[Alexander Seil]

ORIGINAL: Augurin

There are a lot of reasons to want to be able to have views from in cockpit, even if the F3 view will show you what you want.

1. A lot of us who play combat sims want the feel of being in the cockpit. Going to an outside view feels too much like cheating or like a video game.

2. Even with radar, being able to keep your head on a swivel is critical for good situational awareness, if that wasn't true, the F16 wouldn't have a bubble canopy.

3. Radar only sees in front of me. What if I want to check six?

4. When doing things like making an approach to land being able to glance to the side to see where the runway is allows you to make a shorter approach and turn in for finals.

5. When you're trying to do combat maneuvering, being able to look forward and up 45 degrees makes it easier to lag turn an opponent.

6. Realism. Helmet mounted HUDs are specifically made to let you look around without losing flight data. Even WW2 aircraft had rear view mirrors. Can you honestly believe a futuristic fighter wouldn't have some sort of imaging system to allow you to look to see if someone was on your tail?

Mainly, it's just what I (and apparently others) like.

1.You mean that in the next couple thousand years, human technology became so stagnant as to fail to develop a very simple and entirely feasible computer network that would link all friendly ships in a sectors and show you (in graphical representation) their positions relative to each other, as well as those of known objects? Plus, the fact that you can see objects floating around outside radar range isn't really cheating. It only shows up when it's already in visual range (which, in space, is naturally longer than on the ground).

2. 3D radar provides all the situational awareness you need.

3. Easily, you use your 3D radar to look if there's anyone behind you, or use that top down radar.

5. Forward radar shows you exactly what's in your field of vision and everything that's in front of you and is not.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

Well personally I don't see the point in StarShatter, but there's no harm in letting people play how they wish. [;)]

[HomeFries]

I disagree about the radar providing all the SA you need. The radar is valuable in providing increased SA, but there's no substitute for eyes-on-target.

The radar provides you with a red blip, but you can't tell the type of ship it is or it's aspect ratio. Likewise, the resolution is less than if you looked out there for yourself.

There have been plenty of times I would have liked to look to the left to sort targets and select the fighter that is nose-hot (that velocity vector of theirs doesn't show on the radar either), if only to have that target locked. In lieu of a padlock I could then at least go to the forward view and follow the targeting cues from the HUD.

A 3D cockpit would be great, but I'll keep that on the dream sheet. However, I think snap views with the ability to lock targets would be a great feature in the absence of a 3d cockpit and padlock.

My $.02

[John DiCamillo]

Actually, there is a padlock feature in this game (press F4). If the ship has a 3D cockpit model, then the padlock is from the POV of the pilot's couch. If not, it uses an external padlock camera that keeps both your ship and the selected object in view at all times. Press F4 repeatedly to cycle through targets. You can also do the same thing with F3 - pressing it repeatedly will shift the camera focus to each contact in turn.

This message has been brought to you by the letter "F" and the numbers "3" and "4". [:)]

[HomeFries]

Milo,

Thanks for the quick reply. I knew about F4, but thought it was external only. Great to know that it will show internal when a 3d cockpit is attached.[&o][&o]

I didn't know that repeated presses of F4 or F3 would cycle targets, though. Thanks for the info.

I'd still love to have the snap views, though. Old habits die hard! [:)]

BTW, you have an awesome game and I've been telling all my friends to try the demo. Keep up the good work.

[Hertston]

ORIGINAL: Alexander Seil

You mean that in the next couple thousand years, human technology became so stagnant as to fail to develop a very simple and entirely feasible computer network that would link all friendly ships in a sectors and show you (in graphical representation) their positions relative to each other, as well as those of known objects?

By the same argument, you don't actually need a view out front, either. By a slightly different argument, it seems highly unlikely you would actually need a pilot ... they are likely to be redundant by 2100, let alone 4100.

Starshatter is a space combat game. It's not a realistic simulator of some NASA mission, it's about dreams. It's for small boys (all of ages) who want to be Luke Skywalker or James Kirk for a few hours of leisure time. And Luke could check his six in his X-Wing. Starbuck could look out the side window of his (or indeed her) Colonial Viper and give a thumbs up to Apollo. I want to see my opponent slide past as I hopelessly overshoot [:D]

All that aside, folks who don't like the idea of other views don't have to use them. As using the radar is apparently so superior anyway, nobody who did use them could gain any sort of MP advantage [;)]

[ceyan]

ORIGINAL: Mad Gonzo

I disagree about the radar providing all the SA you need. The radar is valuable in providing increased SA, but there's no substitute for eyes-on-target.

The radar provides you with a red blip, but you can't tell the type of ship it is or it's aspect ratio. Likewise, the resolution is less than if you looked out there for yourself.

There have been plenty of times I would have liked to look to the left to sort targets and select the fighter that is nose-hot (that velocity vector of theirs doesn't show on the radar either), if only to have that target locked. In lieu of a padlock I could then at least go to the forward view and follow the targeting cues from the HUD.

A 3D cockpit would be great, but I'll keep that on the dream sheet. However, I think snap views with the ability to lock targets would be a great feature in the absence of a 3d cockpit and padlock.

My $.02

You can easily tell the type of target it is by targetting it. I know the logical defense to that is "Well, what if you're in a dogfight and don't have the liberty of just turning to it and targetting it?" Well, if you're in a dogfight then you know any blip close to you is a fighter. The only other option is it being a capital ship, and if you're dogfighting near a capital ship you deserve to be shot down.

Also, a note to those of you who are for the situation awareness aspect of being able to look around you. You're in SPACE! The lack of friction, means you don't have to worry about managing your turns as you're so manueverable it doesn't make a difference (actually taking the time to pinpoint your target, rather than using a quick glance at the radar is a waste of time). In the Atmosphere it's an arguable subject, but even then you've still got a lot more manuverability than in other atmospheric games where the ability to look around is helpful.

[Alexander Seil]

A real pilot is unlikely to ever become redundant [;)] For that matter, I seriously believe that any potential future distance controlled vehicles may have in the military will be limited to demolition/engineering vehicles and recon aircraft. It's impossible to effectively manage several million drone soldiers and vehicles...it would be too expensive and would require as many live operators sitting behind those computers as there would be steel boots on the ground. Plus, any accident involving the actual communication satellites/stations would endanger the entire war effort. Consequently, the military would have to develop an AI that would be a close approximation of the human mind in order to operate autonomously in combat conditions...the question is...do you REALLY want to have an army that consists of several million autonomous AI-driven soldiers and vehicles, with no attachment to any pre-existing cultural, national or religious ideology, and driven like slaves into battle? Sounds like the end of the human race [;)].

[Kuokkanen]

ORIGINAL: ceyan

Also, a note to those of you who are for the situation awareness aspect of being able to look around you. You're in SPACE! The lack of friction, means you don't have to worry about managing your turns as you're so manueverable it doesn't make a difference (actually taking the time to pinpoint your target, rather than using a quick glance at the radar is a waste of time). In the Atmosphere it's an arguable subject, but even then you've still got a lot more manuverability than in other atmospheric games where the ability to look around is helpful.

Also, a note to you ceyan that game includes planets, their atmosphere, friction and all that stuff.

[Kuokkanen]

ORIGINAL: Alexander Seil

For that matter, I seriously believe that any potential future distance controlled vehicles may have in the military will be limited to demolition/engineering vehicles and recon aircraft. It's impossible to effectively manage several million drone soldiers and vehicles...

I completely agree. Also note when distance grows, there is going to be lag with transmissions. If it takes from AI fighter whole minute to send data readings to commanding starship, fighter can already be destroyed when new orders from starship arrive. What if there is jamming?

[TheDeadlyShoe]

We had a great debate on space combat in the future when Project 7 first came up. Link.

As for automation-

Life support systems are very mass-intensive for little practical combat purpose. Addt'l, people cannot withstand the high grav stresses nearly as well as a robotic fighter could (maybe with water pods or the ilk, but then they'll have kind of a tough time controlling the ship), nor do they have the reaction time. One primary vulnerablity of computers, radiation, is also quite capable of cooking an organic crew.

The only question is really whether or not you can trust the program controlling the drone or robot. You wouldn't want addled drones wandering the system, though, so its more likely that a warship would be armed with some combination of beams for defense, and drones/missiles to attack with.