August 17, 2011 at 7:49 am #82501Mysibrat wrote:Lets say that one ‘grid unit’ will be 10ly, so its still very usefull to make fast decissions in bulletin board with delivery missions.
If that’s what you want, then a polar grid would be much more useful.August 17, 2011 at 8:22 am #82502MysibratParticipant
Polar coords. will be usefull only when you are in the Sun system. Other side you will have to use relative coordinates all the time.
I think such things like green straight lines or whatever are used in the map, should have on/off switches somewhere in gfx panel.August 17, 2011 at 8:35 am #82503
I’m not talking about coordinates. I’m talking about a polar grid, showing ranges to neighbouring systems. A completely relative system. After all, a grid of squares isn’t much good for judging distances on a diagonal, unless you’re competent at dividing by roughly 1.4.
The absolute coordinates system was only necessary for finding systems by coordinate and name. Now, we have a name search; even the coordinates are a fair target, if we decide that other information belongs on the sector map instead.August 17, 2011 at 11:50 am #82504OSHParticipant
Ok. One question: which option allow to find stars by name? Is such option implemented? I’ve read quicktsrt file and ther no such option…August 17, 2011 at 12:20 pm #82505OSH wrote:Ok. One question: which option allow to find stars by name? Is such option implemented? I’ve read quicktsrt file and ther no such option…
There is a search box in the 3D Galaxy branch. None of these new features are available to you yet. Watch the first video in this thread to see how the search will work.August 17, 2011 at 4:48 pm #82506tommParticipant
My feeling was that the sector grid had to go, because it was out of keeping with the kindof sphere of stars that the new sector view showed. But some sort of plane for the star depth spikes to sit on would be nice perhaps. It might look better of that plane was limited to a circular area so that it doesn’t extend beyond the spherical view.
The reason for presenting the view as a sphere of systems was to make the enormity of 3dness more manageable and less overwhelming for the user.August 19, 2011 at 11:31 pm #82507
Pull request just submitted, with lots of detail about how it all works. Code review should happen in the next couple of days so this should be in the nightlies early next week.August 20, 2011 at 7:13 pm #82508
This is gloriously out of context:On the IRC channel, people wrote: trivial fix
 [pioneer] robn pushed 1 new commit to master: http://git.io/vBNjLQ
 [pioneer/master] Merge branch ‘3dgalaxy’ – Robert Norris
 Pioneer: subtle.August 21, 2011 at 2:50 am #82509
As noted, the 3D galaxy is now on master and will be in the next nightly. I made a video that demonstrates its features. If nothing else you get to listen to me trying to speak through my cold 🙂
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OZHShjf-uM[/youtube]August 21, 2011 at 11:49 am #82510s2odanParticipant
I’m rather amazed how far this has come along 🙂August 22, 2011 at 11:58 am #82511matheeParticipant
haven’t played this one for some time now and came back to check out the newest nightly build. the new galaxy map is great so far. but for me, navigation got very complicated now.
i think we need a good navigation system that shows the shortest (and optional safest) route from one system to another depending on our hyperspace range. it should take the fuel amount and the therefore the necessity to refuel in certain systems into consideration. of course it should not make things to easy…
i think it would be great if you could choose starting point and destination an you would get like 3 possible routes with different attributes like “time needed” “amount of danger” “number of refuels” “number of jumps” or so.
just an idea… 😉August 22, 2011 at 1:28 pm #82512mathee wrote:i think we need a good navigation system that…
The best place to get a feature request noticed is on the issues tracker.August 29, 2011 at 2:33 pm #82513CoolhandParticipant
great work on converting it to a proper map. However, as it is, the controls this seem unintuitive. the arrow keys should be used for in and out – as if you were driving a FPS in 3d space. so essentially the motion should be locked to the camera perspective
up arrow – “dolly” camera forwards / zoom in
down arrow – back
left – left
right – right
pg up – up
pg dn – down.
alternatively, additionally… the mouse controls are good, but could be improved by allowing tracking up/down, left/right by holding in the scroll button or another button or key… Like this you could easily move around in that 3d space without having to touch the keyboard.September 7, 2011 at 3:00 am #82514ElectricSkiesParticipant
In my opinion, requiring buttons like pgup and pgdown is unsatisfactory; not all machines have these on their keyboardsÃ¢â‚¬â€for instance, many Apple computers. It’s a bit of a quibble because I’m sure these keys are going to be remappable (right?), but ensuring that the default controls work with everybody seems like a basic courtesy to me.
Since you are already using w/a/s/d(/q/e?) to rotate the view, it would be most intuitive to use i/j/k/l/u/o for moving the camera, maintaining consistency with manual engine controls.
i/k: “in” or “forward” / “out” or “back”
u/o: up/downSeptember 7, 2011 at 3:52 am #82515ElectricSkies wrote:In my opinion, requiring buttons like pgup and pgdown is unsatisfactory; not all machines have these on their keyboardsÃ¢â‚¬â€for instance, many Apple computers. It’s a bit of a quibble because I’m sure these keys are going to be remappable (right?), but ensuring that the default controls work with everybody seems like a basic courtesy to me.
Basic courtesy? Its not like there was a deliberate choice to screw people with hardware that we’re not familiar with. Don’t attribute to malice what can be attributed to stupidity.Quote:Since you are already using w/a/s/d(/q/e?) to rotate the view, it would be most intuitive to use i/j/k/l/u/o for moving the camera, maintaining consistency with manual engine controls.
It doesn’t use Q/E to rotate, just W/A/S/D.
I don’t quite see that I/J/K/L/U/O would be intuitive for moving the map, but I don’t find them particularly intuitive for flight either. My inclination is to move PgUp/PgDown to I/K and keep the arrows as they are. I will discuss a change for alpha 14 with the team as soon as I can. I don’t want to release it if it doesn’t work for some not-insignificant group of users (ie Mac users), but neither do I like making changes during freeze.
As you say, all keys will eventually be re-mappable, but the issue still remains because we have to choose sensible (and documentable) defaults.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.