These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Test Server Feedback

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
12Next page
 

CQ ship view

Author
Shanlara
Weatherlight Industry
#1 - 2011-11-09 21:23:37 UTC
This is possible slightly off topic for the test forum, however since it's this is the place for testing things I guess i'll place it here and hope to get a hold of one of the many lurking devs.

The subject of this post is CQ ship view scaling, and mostly me wanting to hear from a dev the reason for why it is like it is now, possible some dicussion into people's thoughts about this subject as I over the time since incarna release have failed to see much talk about it.

While I know most people just got CQ turned off by default from either hardware or simply dislikes (I admit I don't use it either, due to it not having any usability currently) this is not a post about if we like CQ or not, so please don't begin on that thank you <3.

The topic is scaling, and to make sure everyone gets it, here's a little gallery, showing caldari frigate, cruiser, battlecruiser, battleship in the same standing position overlooking the hanger from CQ. http://imgur.com/a/wr29J#0

My big question is why does it scale this way, and what could be the reason for it, we allready got the hanger view with good scaling, why haven't CCP simply panned the view and given us that, I know some ships might be to big for the view so we can't see the whole ship, but for the sake of imersion, which CCP tries so hard to promote, wouldn't it be much better, what do people prefer ? I kinda feel like this is quite an annoying issue.
Renan Ruivo
Forcas armadas
Brave Collective
#2 - 2011-11-09 21:33:48 UTC
Shanlara wrote:
This is possible slightly off topic for the test forum, however since it's this is the place for testing things I guess i'll place it here and hope to get a hold of one of the many lurking devs.

The subject of this post is CQ ship view scaling, and mostly me wanting to hear from a dev the reason for why it is like it is now, possible some dicussion into people's thoughts about this subject as I over the time since incarna release have failed to see much talk about it.

While I know most people just got CQ turned off by default from either hardware or simply dislikes (I admit I don't use it either, due to it not having any usability currently) this is not a post about if we like CQ or not, so please don't begin on that thank you <3.

The topic is scaling, and to make sure everyone gets it, here's a little gallery, showing caldari frigate, cruiser, battlecruiser, battleship in the same standing position overlooking the hanger from CQ. http://imgur.com/a/wr29J#0

My big question is why does it scale this way, and what could be the reason for it, we allready got the hanger view with good scaling, why haven't CCP simply panned the view and given us that, I know some ships might be to big for the view so we can't see the whole ship, but for the sake of imersion, which CCP tries so hard to promote, wouldn't it be much better, what do people prefer ? I kinda feel like this is quite an annoying issue.


Because some ships would be too small for us to view.

The world is a community of idiots doing a series of things until it explodes and we all die.

Shanlara
Weatherlight Industry
#3 - 2011-11-09 21:37:50 UTC
Renan Ruivo wrote:


Because some ships would be too small for us to view.


While that can be an issue for shuttles and frigates, I still find it very view that a cruiser and battleship is basicly same size, and a frigate raletively fairly close to a battleship aswell in size, in general I see that smaller ships possible could have a problem, but for anything then shuttles and frigates it's severely hurting the feel of imersion, anything bigger feels like a toy ship, and for people who really wanna use CQ it can be quite annoying to look at, for the sole reason I prefer the ship hanger as it shows the real scale of ships.
Logan LaMort
Screaming Hayabusa
#4 - 2011-11-09 21:38:22 UTC
Shanlara wrote:
This is possible slightly off topic for the test forum, however since it's this is the place for testing things I guess i'll place it here and hope to get a hold of one of the many lurking devs.

The subject of this post is CQ ship view scaling, and mostly me wanting to hear from a dev the reason for why it is like it is now, possible some dicussion into people's thoughts about this subject as I over the time since incarna release have failed to see much talk about it.

While I know most people just got CQ turned off by default from either hardware or simply dislikes (I admit I don't use it either, due to it not having any usability currently) this is not a post about if we like CQ or not, so please don't begin on that thank you <3.

The topic is scaling, and to make sure everyone gets it, here's a little gallery, showing caldari frigate, cruiser, battlecruiser, battleship in the same standing position overlooking the hanger from CQ. http://imgur.com/a/wr29J#0

My big question is why does it scale this way, and what could be the reason for it, we allready got the hanger view with good scaling, why haven't CCP simply panned the view and given us that, I know some ships might be to big for the view so we can't see the whole ship, but for the sake of imersion, which CCP tries so hard to promote, wouldn't it be much better, what do people prefer ? I kinda feel like this is quite an annoying issue.


Originally when the Minnie CQ was on the test server, before Incarna came out, ships were at the same point in space floating in front of the hanger. It did give a sense of scale and looked good for large ships, but smaller ships, like frigates were almost impossible to see, they were like dots in the background.

So CCP decided to put smaller a ships closer and larger ships far away, it ruined the sense of scale between ships but meant that you could see all ships up close.

I think the main problem is that there's nothing to indicate how close or far away ships are from the CQ, so they all look the same size.
Shanlara
Weatherlight Industry
#5 - 2011-11-09 21:42:13 UTC
Logan LaMort wrote:


Originally when the Minnie CQ was on the test server, before Incarna came out, ships were at the same point in space floating in front of the hanger. It did give a sense of scale and looked good for large ships, but smaller ships, like frigates were almost impossible to see, they were like dots in the background.

So CCP decided to put smaller a ships closer and larger ships far away, it ruined the sense of scale between ships but meant that you could see all ships up close.

I think the main problem is that there's nothing to indicate how close or far away ships are from the CQ, so they all look the same size.


Yeah frigates being to small is a real problem, but so is the fact that all ships beside capitals looks the same size, it really don't reward the feeling of getting a new ship, at this point i'm an old player and know the size raletive to each other, but for a new player, consider going from a cruiser to a bs, and see it's the same size in the quaters, most be a sad feeling somehow, but then again they'll learn the size at some point, I just feel this function is working against what ccp is trying to achieve lately.
Pyre leFay
Doomheim
#6 - 2011-11-09 22:49:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Pyre leFay
Perhaps they could add in the future a pod fly in by option if you choose to undock via the pod button within CQ.
Would do an eagle eye fly in to the ship with the size becoming more and more apparent then a fade to black undock screen.

Or only CQ screen should show the ship in static dry dock as it is attached to a gantry of some sort that you cant access to better show scale with little figures of crew going about their business.

Yet that's all way down the pipeline when incarna actually plays a part of the true game and can be splurged on without violent repercussions. Currently is pleasing enough and is more a Features & Ideas Discussion.
Hiram Alexander
State Reprisal
#7 - 2011-11-10 00:55:04 UTC
Taking into account how active CCP have been recently with improving things, I think you're right to bring this issue back up -- because now's the time, if ever, to fix such a thing...

Well, if we go on the basis that the CQ's were strongly designed around enhancing the 'new player experience', and therefore, improving player retention, then making Frigates easier to see is a great idea. Unfortunately, this means that some comparatively 'epic' machines look 'meh'.

That problem, I think was partly compounded by the (perhaps misinterpreted at the time) idea that players were raging because they couldn't 'spin' their ships anymore... 'Spinning' was never really the true problem, but if the ships (as they currently are right now) didn't rotate any more then you could still have big-looking Frigates, but epically-huge Battleships and Capitals that would stun you to see.

But... I fear, having them 'realistically' huge *and* rotating would probably end with them smashing through the walls... :(

Personally, given the choice, I'd ---

1. Establish a 'Frigate size' and position, that would still look excellent to new players...
2. Scale everything else up *proportionately*...
3. Remove the rotation animation, if it means the above couldn't happen without a Charon smashing through your couch.


And in an ideal world, I'd model a proper Pod-decanting room... (*cough*)
Hiram Alexander
State Reprisal
#8 - 2011-11-10 01:05:34 UTC
Pyre leFay wrote:
Perhaps they could add in the future a pod fly in by option if you choose to undock via the pod button within CQ.
Would do an eagle eye fly in to the ship with the size becoming more and more apparent then a fade to black undock screen.

Or only CQ screen should show the ship in static dry dock as it is attached to a gantry of some sort that you cant access to better show scale with little figures of crew going about their business.

Well, we already have a walkway that cuts underneath, and leads to the pod, so it wouldn't be the end of the world to extend that even farther...

That way, you could look at your nice and big frigate, head downstairs, and after a minute be underneath it and looking at it from the opposite side - but still nowhere near half-way to where your Battleship would be docked. That's do-able, but the big (massive) hang-up, is when you look 'back' -- CCP would have to model, light, and texture a whole 'surround' for your CQ to be 'located in'.

Pyre leFay wrote:
Yet that's all way down the pipeline when incarna actually plays a part of the true game and can be splurged on without violent repercussions. Currently is pleasing enough and is more a Features & Ideas Discussion.

Unfortunately, a lot of people seems to think that the Features and Ideas Forum is where ideas go to die... :(
Xenial Jesse Taalo
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#9 - 2011-11-11 04:31:19 UTC
I would like to know why any ship does not get smaller on my physical screen the further I walk from it. Perhaps the sizes really are dictating such a thing, but it still looks nonsensical.

Looking down the walkway from inside the CQ, a Slicer will appear to be some gargantuan mothership floating on top of everything. But standing on the balcony it just looks like a little ship.
Hiram Alexander
State Reprisal
#10 - 2011-11-11 04:56:23 UTC
Xenial Jesse Taalo wrote:
I would like to know why any ship does not get smaller on my physical screen the further I walk from it. Perhaps the sizes really are dictating such a thing, but it still looks nonsensical.

Looking down the walkway from inside the CQ, a Slicer will appear to be some gargantuan mothership floating on top of everything. But standing on the balcony it just looks like a little ship.

I know. It's a real let-down... You're just about to walk out of your CQ's, up towards your kilometre-long ship and it looks freakin' huge, truly epic... but by the time you get there, it looks about the same size as a bus :(
Keras Authion
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#11 - 2011-11-11 08:25:17 UTC
For conveying the scale better, maybe you could have some manned vessels do some routine maintenance on the hull while docked. Applying new paint, fixing micro-fractures, retightening the armor plates and stuff like that. Since the utility vessels are of fixed size they would look bigger when buzzing near a frigate but on a battleship you could barely see the sparks coming from the repairs.

This post was rated "C" for capsuleer.

Knoppaz
distress signals
#12 - 2011-11-11 11:38:08 UTC
Rough guide to fix this:

1. Take the biggest ship that fits into the hangar, place it in the middle of the hangar and let that thing scratch the paint of the hangar walls.

2. Put every ship on exactly this spot, not closer and not farther away.

3. Scale every ship accordingly, meaning the real size and not some bloated nonsense size. If a Dramiel is only a single small dot within the hangar, so be it. If you want to see your ship upclose, use the ship spinning view ffs.

4. Enjoy real sense of scale, especially if you can almost touch the real big boats.

That's about it..


Knoppaz / distressSIGNALS http://distresssignals.tumblr.com

a capsuleer's way to insanity

Daedalus Arcova
The Scope
#13 - 2011-11-11 11:54:10 UTC
There is nothing wrong with it. The reason you're struggling to tell the difference between the size of a frigate to a cruiser is because you're looking at a 2D representation of a 3D environment.

To get a sense of scale, just look at your ship as you walk up or down the gangway with the camera zoomed in. Because you'll have some objects moving in the foreground, you'll suddenly get afeel for the real size of your ship.
Knoppaz
distress signals
#14 - 2011-11-11 12:01:36 UTC
Daedalus Arcova wrote:
There is nothing wrong with it. The reason you're struggling to tell the difference between the size of a frigate to a cruiser is because you're looking at a 2D representation of a 3D environment.

To get a sense of scale, just look at your ship as you walk up or down the gangway with the camera zoomed in. Because you'll have some objects moving in the foreground, you'll suddenly get afeel for the real size of your ship.



To take the example from above.. so you think the difference between http://imgur.com/a/wr29J#0 and http://imgur.com/a/wr29J#3 comes from the 2D projection? You really believe yourself what you just said? Lol


Knoppaz / distressSIGNALS http://distresssignals.tumblr.com

a capsuleer's way to insanity

Daedalus Arcova
The Scope
#15 - 2011-11-11 13:02:55 UTC
Knoppaz wrote:
Daedalus Arcova wrote:
There is nothing wrong with it. The reason you're struggling to tell the difference between the size of a frigate to a cruiser is because you're looking at a 2D representation of a 3D environment.

To get a sense of scale, just look at your ship as you walk up or down the gangway with the camera zoomed in. Because you'll have some objects moving in the foreground, you'll suddenly get afeel for the real size of your ship.



To take the example from above.. so you think the difference between http://imgur.com/a/wr29J#0 and http://imgur.com/a/wr29J#3 comes from the 2D projection? You really believe yourself what you just said? Lol



Yes.
Grukni
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#16 - 2011-11-11 15:38:27 UTC
What I find a bit odd, and it's my subjective impression, is the sense scaling down or increased separation while you walk up to the balcony. It's a bit weird, as if the ship moved further from the balcony as you walk up the corridor
Daedalus Arcova
The Scope
#17 - 2011-11-11 15:55:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Daedalus Arcova
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_perception wrote:
Monocular cues provide depth information when viewing a scene with one eye.

Motion parallax – When an observer moves, the apparent relative motion of several stationary objects against a background gives hints about their relative distance. If information about the direction and velocity of movement is known, motion parallax can provide absolute depth information.[3] This effect can be seen clearly when driving in a car. Nearby things pass quickly, while far off objects appear stationary. Some animals that lack binocular vision due to wide placement of the eyes employ parallax more explicitly than humans for depth cueing (e.g. some types of birds, which bob their heads to achieve motion parallax, and squirrels, which move in lines orthogonal to an object of interest to do the same).

Depth from motion – One form of depth from motion, kinetic depth perception, is determined by dynamically changing object size. As objects in motion become smaller, they appear to recede into the distance or move farther away; objects in motion that appear to be getting larger seem to be coming closer. Using kinetic depth perception enables the brain to calculate time to crash distance (aka time to collision or time to contact - TTC) at a particular velocity. When driving, we are constantly judging the dynamically changing headway (TTC) by kinetic depth perception.


If you haven't learned how to use the above cues to judge distance and scale, then I can only conclude that you have never actually looked at anything other than a computer screen.
Shanlara
Weatherlight Industry
#18 - 2011-11-11 16:31:10 UTC
Grukni wrote:
What I find a bit odd, and it's my subjective impression, is the sense scaling down or increased separation while you walk up to the balcony. It's a bit weird, as if the ship moved further from the balcony as you walk up the corridor


This is one of my big ponders aswell, your ships looks epicly when you stand in the door way to the balcony, but as soon as you're out there it's like... awww what a silly little ship :(
Shanlara
Weatherlight Industry
#19 - 2011-11-11 16:33:29 UTC
Daedalus Arcova wrote:

If you haven't learned how to use the above cues to judge distance and scale, then I can only conclude that you have never actually looked at anything other than a computer screen.


Yes the ships are smaller due to distance, but I Would like to note that a hanger don't have unlimited range to put a ship on distance, and another more concerning topic on that matter is that if you look at different sizes of ships, you can't see they are supose to be futher away, for the naked eye they look to be on the same distance, size of the ships would possible indicate they are, but it's impossible to see or tell just by looking at them, the only sense you get is that battleships are freaking small.
Hiram Alexander
State Reprisal
#20 - 2011-11-11 16:34:06 UTC
Daedalus Arcova wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_perception wrote:
Monocular cues provide depth information when viewing a scene with one eye.

Motion parallax – When an observer moves, the apparent relative motion of several stationary objects against a background gives hints about their relative distance. If information about the direction and velocity of movement is known, motion parallax can provide absolute depth information.[3] This effect can be seen clearly when driving in a car. Nearby things pass quickly, while far off objects appear stationary. Some animals that lack binocular vision due to wide placement of the eyes employ parallax more explicitly than humans for depth cueing (e.g. some types of birds, which bob their heads to achieve motion parallax, and squirrels, which move in lines orthogonal to an object of interest to do the same).

Depth from motion – One form of depth from motion, kinetic depth perception, is determined by dynamically changing object size. As objects in motion become smaller, they appear to recede into the distance or move farther away; objects in motion that appear to be getting larger seem to be coming closer. Using kinetic depth perception enables the brain to calculate time to crash distance (aka time to collision or time to contact - TTC) at a particular velocity. When driving, we are constantly judging the dynamically changing headway (TTC) by kinetic depth perception.


If you haven't learned how to use the above cues to judge distance and scale, then I can only conclude that you have never actually looked at anything other than a computer screen.

You know, instead of making a fascetious comment, verging on personal attack against this guy, you could have written a paragraph or two about why you think those quotes are actually relevant to the discussion.
12Next page