New Frames & Inventory Console Features

[_-Caleb-_]

Caleb, is your slightly larger radar sphere done deliberately? If not, you should probably use the included gauges.txt file so that the sphere fits.

Yes, i need erase the gauges file, but i like the big radar, then idk if erase gauges or modify it

This weeks i only use the radar for the combat, then i can't use really, marc the red target and fire weapons, but i known, need change this

[Iron man]

This is a good idea Caleb

[Marvin]

The accompanying gauges.txt file only reduces the sphere to the size shown here:

[Onirim]

Following the previous "debate":

I think it's not the size of planets as seen from space but from within its atmosphere. If planets were bigger (without increasing its atmosphere thickness so it doesn't take so much playtime to reach the surface from the upper layer) it would feel even more realistic to fly. And with planets' size all distances should be scaled up as well and max speeds for all ships too. This way keeping the speeds/distances ratio like they are right now the gameplay could feel the same way like now (you could go round in orbit in a reasonable playtime) while making planets less noticeable as balls when flying on them.

Note: Caleb, that distress call concept looks nice. If only it was available as a mod.

[-Pv-]

The game switches to Planetary Mode on Olympus Delta around 330,000 meters (205 miles altitude.) By comparison, the denser portion of Earth's atmosphere starts around 65 miles (105,000 meters in reality- don't know what it is in the game.) Naturally, the density and mass of Earth is a good model for what humans can live on comfortably without assistance. Mars being smaller does not have the mass to hang onto a thick atmosphere and has lost most of it (if it ever had anything like Earth's which is doubtful.)

I've been looking for descriptions of Evochron planet Mass and atmosphere data but haven't found anything yet.

Small moon sized planets with thick atmosphere, exaggerated terrain features and oceans seem the most unbelievable to me. If the really small planets were converted to thin atmospheres with no oceans (similar to Mars) with domed or subterranean cities, the immersion factor will improve and the descent time to land will improve too.

As Onirim mentions, an adjustment in speed scale will help a bit and there is always the Warp drive to get you quickly from space station to near the atmosphere in a few seconds.

-Pv-

[picommander]

I can accept the current planetary approaching and landing procedures as a playability compromise when it comes to dimensions of planets and atmosphere. What I still find downright silly is the way you can dive with your ship's nose down at 90 degree in IDS, which is even encouraged as the fastest and most secure way. From a technical side this would require massive lateral thruster and even more so main thruster that are working in full reverse mode. While the latter is actually there in inertia mode (full backward thrust, even with booster) the current ship types at least don't visualize such an exotic engine. If they would, all ships would have to look like some sort of 'VTOL aircraft' or a flying saucer.

From a point of immersion (or should I say "what a human player would expect intuitively"?) this looks downright wrong to me, granted I'm probably too conservative here.

[-Pv-]

I agree the descent modeling is quite alien to what we know. I suspect the planets I've seen so far actually have proportionally small gravity so the thrust required is small compared to what even the smallest ships are capable of. The futuristic aspect we're beginning to see in current spacecraft design with SpaceX developing Evochron-like powered descent and landing is remarkable and in that respect, there is quite a bit of wiggle room in the game industry for fantasy space ships of the type presented in this game.

For me, it's the departure from "submarines in space" with inertia and gravity in games that seems to imply there are other realisms that should go along with it.
There's a lot of gamey stuff here like holographic docking cubes and faster than light travel and an endless list of stuff. Orbiter it isn't. Will we ever have Orbiter with inter-solar trading and combat? Balance all that against a $25 game and on the other end, Eve at $20/month.

In the end I'm not asking for Eve or Orbiter on steroids and if planet and atmosphere sizes and density cannot be adjusted for a few worlds, I understand.
Since travel and combat are what sets this game apart from simply a trade table roll the dice, and in the current era we live in we generally know a lot more about how space works with the ability to watch space craft land on Mars from the cameras of orbiting satellites, it draws my expectations up a bit to see such commanding and masterful game coding going on in these titles and the worlds I'm landing on are creatively displayed with terrain and weather, even landing with turbulence! The end effect is a roll my eyes kind of thing. Oh well. Not complaining, not demanding, just reacting.

-Pv-

[DaveK]

I can accept the current planetary approaching and landing procedures as a playability compromise when it comes to dimensions of planets and atmosphere. What I still find downright silly is the way you can dive with your ship's nose down at 90 degree in IDS, which is even encouraged as the fastest and most secure way. From a technical side this would require massive lateral thruster and even more so main thruster that are working in full reverse mode. While the latter is actually there in inertia mode (full backward thrust, even with booster) the current ship types at least don't visualize such an exotic engine. If they would, all ships would have to look like some sort of 'VTOL aircraft' or a flying saucer.

From a point of immersion (or should I say "what a human player would expect intuitively"?) this looks downright wrong to me, granted I'm probably too conservative here.

Try keeping your nose up (inertial mode) and use the bottom of your ship like a 20th Century NASA shuttle braking system whilst keeping an eye on your shield energy balance control and you'll have something like what you want/think is missing.

Head straight down and you'll be limited to just under 1400 before you scramble your shields ans die - nose up and you can leave the opposition behind (unless they have access to this forum )

[Marvin]

There are (and have been for quite awhile) in development a number of space "simulations" like the type described above. But, so far, they are just that: in development. Either that or they have already been declared to be vaporware. I'd guess, though, that if any of them actually makes it to publication, you'll read a whole slew of complaints about the "steep learning curve" and demands that the game be dumbed down to accommodate the arcade crowd. Who have plenty of games already reduced to the arcade level ... but, for some reason, can't stand to see something more complicated on the PC shelf.

[picommander]

I can accept the current planetary approaching and landing procedures as a playability compromise when it comes to dimensions of planets and atmosphere. What I still find downright silly is the way you can dive with your ship's nose down at 90 degree in IDS, which is even encouraged as the fastest and most secure way. From a technical side this would require massive lateral thruster and even more so main thruster that are working in full reverse mode. While the latter is actually there in inertia mode (full backward thrust, even with booster) the current ship types at least don't visualize such an exotic engine. If they would, all ships would have to look like some sort of 'VTOL aircraft' or a flying saucer.

From a point of immersion (or should I say "what a human player would expect intuitively"?) this looks downright wrong to me, granted I'm probably too conservative here.

Try keeping your nose up (inertial mode) and use the bottom of your ship like a 20th Century NASA shuttle braking system whilst keeping an eye on your shield energy balance control and you'll have something like what you want/think is missing.

Head straight down and you'll be limited to just under 1400 before you scramble your shields ans die - nose up and you can leave the opposition behind (unless they have access to this forum )

I've never doubt it's possible in inertia mode (admittedly never tried though) but I'm not calling for extremes. The way it currently works in IDS mode and the full realistic mode you described are such opposing extremes. There should be something in between for IDS mode, something slightly less unrealistic, not necessarily difficult. At least not such an immersion killing 'baby mode' as it is now.

[PaulB]

I can accept the current planetary approaching and landing procedures as a playability compromise when it comes to dimensions of planets and atmosphere. What I still find downright silly is the way you can dive with your ship's nose down at 90 degree in IDS, which is even encouraged as the fastest and most secure way. From a technical side this would require massive lateral thruster and even more so main thruster that are working in full reverse mode. While the latter is actually there in inertia mode (full backward thrust, even with booster) the current ship types at least don't visualize such an exotic engine. If they would, all ships would have to look like some sort of 'VTOL aircraft' or a flying saucer.

From a point of immersion (or should I say "what a human player would expect intuitively"?) this looks downright wrong to me, granted I'm probably too conservative here.

I have no problem with the IDS and Nose diving as you call it for the simple reason then you must consider the purpose of the IDS - to maintain a constant as far as possible in all situations so you can fly nose down and the IDS keeps your speed constant - the exception being - try it on a Star - eventually the Star is going to over come the ability of the IDS & Engines and you die - even flying away from the star or gas giant if you get too close to overcome the gravity.
I'm leary about taking some Delivery Contracts now because in Atlas I had build a Construct Station and it game me a Deliver Contract to a ship in the Gas Giant Atmosphere and not only could I not get the Starmaster to the release point because of the gravity and bad weather before the Waiting ship left I couldn't escape the gravity because of the bad weather and I died.

[Onirim]

Perhaps this is about the challenge of flying aerial. If you ever flyed a civilian flight simulator you have as I see it a mainly 'skills challenge' by flying small proppeler aircrafts (would be our inertial mode) where you need to glide, consider wind, etc. against a mainly 'knowledge challenge' by piloting big jets that can fly almost automatically (our IDS on planetary mode) but here the challenge is loads of switches and controls you need to set properly to avoid a disastrous flight. In evochron flying aerial is not that challenging but hey! this is a space sim so it still delivers!

[Marvin]

In evochron flying aerial is not that challenging but hey!

It is a little more difficult when doing planetside combat ... where your ship has a tendency to stall out, under IDS, when making sharp turns.

[picommander]

Figured I might have been too fuzzy about the whole landing problem:

If this works: Landing on a barstool

then anything goes! Next big thing I expect to be a 'nose dive in a pint glass'!

[DaveK]

Figured I might have been too fuzzy about the whole landing problem:

If this works: Landing on a barstool

then anything goes! Next big thing I expect to be a 'nose dive in a pint glass'!

been there . . . done that (along with landing backwards on a city landing pad

[-Pv-]

Another observation is the IDS landing seems like it's simulating a powered descent where vertical landing speed is managed by the propulsion system as opposed to the non-IDS approach which uses glider-like atmospheric drag like the shuttle to manage speed and temperature. However, the IDS landing system uses almost no additional fuel as if the engines are not operating at all.

Seems to me the glider approach should use minimal fuel and the powered approach should use significant fuel. The player then chooses the descent style based on high skill = little fuel use and low skill = large fuel use.

-Pv-

[Edited on 6-28-2014 by -Pv-]

[picommander]

@-Pv-

Very good and reasonable idea.

[marlowe221]

I will add a couple of things I would love to see in an expansion or new Evochron game.

1) More commodities. Commodities seem pretty rare in the current game. It may be that the NPCs are buying them but I can fly to several stations and not see a single purple item for sale sometimes. It also makes cargo contracts very difficult at times, more difficult than it seems like they should be.

2) Contracts. I think the contracts system in the game now is great and I like the variety that are available. Of course there could always be more... Maybe a passenger contract to carry 1 or more people to a distant system (Yeah, I know there are passengers in the crew section at times). Maybe contracts that involve multiple stops/actions across several different systems for appropriate levels of pay.

3) Buildable jump gates. It's cool to find uncharted systems but it would be good to be able to create a jump gate connection to one of the charted systems. There should be some distance limitations for the connections and limitations for where the gates could be built but it would be a nice touch.

4) Rumors. I know it's cliché but surely the watering holes on these massive trading stations would be crawling with mercenary pilots swapping stories and rumors. They could be rumors about commodities needed in a remote system for good profits. There could be rumors about hidden caches of goods. There could be rumors that give vague-ish hints about the location of some of the hidden systems, jump gates, worm holes, etc. in the game. In other words, some kind of word of mouth system would add even more immersion to the game.

5) Time! The timers for Distress Calls should be extended so that there is some reasonable chance that the player can actually successfully respond to them. Additionally, temporary economic fluctuations should probably last a bit longer than they do now. For example, I will often read about inflated prices for platinum but I don't have any in my hold at the moment. By the time I can go mine some, more often than not, the prices have gone back down before I can capitalize on the temporary uptick. To my mind, it shouldn't be a "hey, I got lucky" kind of a thing - these temporary market conditions should make me strongly consider stopping what I am doing to take advantage of the opportunity. But the opportunities would have to last longer than they currently seem to for that to happen.

6) Link Economic Conditions with Contracts. It may be that this happens already but... I think it would be pretty cool if temporary price fluctuations or shortages generated contracts directly related to those economic conditions for the player to accept. If a particular system is need of platinum, the trade station could generate a platinum mining or delivery contract. That is a very simple example of course.

7) Weird stuff. What lurks in the blackness of space? Maybe there should be a small chance for Vonari ships to appear in systems that are near warzones from time to time. Maybe there could be a ghost ship or a space monster or something. Not just everywhere, mind you, but maybe the pilot could hear/read rumors about something lurking out there in the inky black between the stars....

More mineable resources and an expanded construction system.

All that said, I love this game and the above should not be taken as complaints or gripes in any way.

[Edited on 7-17-2014 by marlowe221]

[-Pv-]

/|\\
|
|
All Excellent suggestions.
-Pv-

[Onirim]

I'd like to have a key to toggle the missiles target lock on and off (similar to the MDTS) and perhaps a warning before shooting if target is green needing to trigger it twice to actually shoot him in this case.

[_-Caleb-_]

I'd like to have a key to toggle the missiles target lock on and off (similar to the MDTS) and perhaps a warning before shooting if target is green needing to trigger it twice to actually shoot him in this case.

U can desactivate the MDF pressing 2 times the "G" key.

U can shoot and then u can desactivate the MDF panel

[Clifford]

A way to turn-on spotlights / floodlights when working in dark areas and on the dark-side of a object.
I searched on this, and I know your ship has a spotlight for when you go inside of an asteroid, but I'm talking about when out in space and happen to be on the dark side of something (e.g. a container) its hard to see, wish I could turn on some lights to help see.

Edit: I had to search for something on the dark side of a planet, it was really dark wish I could have some lights....

[Edited on 7-21-2014 by Clifford]

[Onirim]

I'd like to have a key to toggle the missiles target lock on and off (similar to the MDTS) and perhaps a warning before shooting if target is green needing to trigger it twice to actually shoot him in this case.

U can desactivate the MDF pressing 2 times the "G" key.

U can shoot and then u can desactivate the MDF panel

Ok, but still, when trading or in formation you may accidentally shoot missiles. Just imagine if you are inviting a player who doesn't speak the same language as you and by accident you land on him an excalibur round. How would you explain what happened to that pal?!

[Marvin]

Think about Target Lock as flying around with your missiles armed and ready to fire. Which is probably against the regs unless you're in a combat zone.

[Onirim]

I'd like to see the "select profile and save" option when connection to a server is lost (in addtion to the "save" button already implemented). I lost connection in my way to sol and I had to save on my actual profile. So now there's no turning back. No 'undo' for me. I hope my fuel be enough or you'll see strange distress calls on chat window every time I get connected to the game...