These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Graphics , no cockpit ...ok so.....what about windows and crew?

First post First post First post
Author
eug3nio Anninen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#61 - 2015-01-13 16:53:19 UTC
CCP Darwin wrote:
Seriously, some good ideas here, thanks for getting a discussion started.

My intention in pointing out the scale of the ships wasn't to shoot down the idea, but more to point out that there are issues of scale in trying to represent little people walking around inside ships somehow.

If you have more ideas about what would make the world of the game seem more lived-in, please keep posting.



THX DUDE

e**ug3n[u]i**o[/u]

Asayanami Dei
Adhocracy Incorporated
Adhocracy
#62 - 2015-01-13 16:54:42 UTC
You should watch the art panel from fanfest https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiKGaXuYxiU
about 23 minutes into the video there is a tech demo of dynamic landscape I think you might find interesting.

I'm a leaf on the wind, watch how I--THE CAPACITOR IS EMPTY

Youtube: /asayanami

Twitter: @asayanami

wormholefundamentals.com

eug3nio Anninen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#63 - 2015-01-13 16:59:59 UTC
Asayanami Dei wrote:
You should watch the art panel from fanfest https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiKGaXuYxiU
about 23 minutes into the video there is a tech demo of dynamic landscape I think you might find interesting.



as soon as i get out the office , i will check it ^^

e**ug3n[u]i**o[/u]

Corraidhin Farsaidh
Singularity Expedition Services
Singularity Syndicate
#64 - 2015-01-13 17:01:05 UTC
Adding in some 'quick win' artwork like Lister painting the side of Red Dwarf in the title sequence could be fun but make it something that is calculated in on the client side if the players select an option to include such things. Then those with the graphics power spare can see a more 'living' Eve and those with older machines (and the servers) aren't hit by it.
Tusker Crazinski
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#65 - 2015-01-13 18:13:37 UTC
Jean Luc Lemmont wrote:
We can travel at thousands of times the speed of light (without turning into some kind of plasma) and you're worried about the structural integrity of windows? FFS suspend some disbelief for a while.

You know, modern day office towers really don't need windows either - they don't even open in most of them. You know why they have them? Because sometimes a ************ just likes to look outside.


I am FULLY aware, this is a future fantasy game, a good one at that.

just say'n even with all the future fantasy hardware in the game, windows are silly, and decks should be oriented like a skyscraper as opposed to a boat. just about all Sci-fi gets this wrong.

and technically you can't go faster than light in EVE, warp drive do not actually effect your velocity, it just compresses space...... theoretically.

Murkar Omaristos
The Alabaster Albatross
Unreasonable Bastards
#66 - 2015-01-13 20:02:57 UTC
Asayanami Dei wrote:
You should watch the art panel from fanfest https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiKGaXuYxiU
about 23 minutes into the video there is a tech demo of dynamic landscape I think you might find interesting.


Are there any plans for this? I've not seen or heard anything of this since watching the fanfest stream. The drones discussed at 26mins in (and also the billboards) would be super cool.
Kaerakh
Obscure Joke Implied
#67 - 2015-01-13 20:32:48 UTC
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
Kaerakh wrote:
CCP Darwin wrote:


You don't put windows on a submarine because the pressures the submarine has to withstand are far greater than what a spacecraft has to sustain. Also, because deep under the ocean there's no light.

Meanwhile, on real spacecraft (such as the ISS) windows are a major feature and extremely popular among crews.

Of course a crewed ship is going to have windows.


That's because morale outweighs the need for structural strength. Your comparison falls flat because the goals of either example are simply different.

EVE ships have to withstand the rigors of combat and environmental hazards. The ISS sits in orbit with little to no debris, and certainly no combative scenarios.

So again, your comparison is flawed from the outset. I expect more from a developer at CCP.

Edit: Also, the submarine comparison was fine.


The ISS is constantly being moved to avoid debris and NASA do a huge amount of work to track the detritus we've fired into orbit. The ships in Eve can hurl themselves through warp and can withstand hits from VW sized artillery shells, I think they would have the technology to make a few windows that can take space debris.


Yeah, it's being moved not simply flying through it. Thanks for making my point for me. Roll

If someone would show me a lore page explaining EVE's equivalent to transparisteel or transparent aluminum and how trivial the cost was, I wouldn't be having this discussion.

Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:

On a similar not the 0.5 metre window really won't make much difference to structural integrity when a ton of antimatter/plasma/hypervelocity missile slams into your ship. Another point would be that the armour plan on the ship would almost certainly be *inside* the hull covering all of the important parts of the ship. Crew quarters would be placed around this as a flimsy outer hull and would add very little to the integrity of the inner hull (think 'All or Nothing armour plan for RL battleships).


Ugh, Seriously? I really have to explain how kinetic, and thermal forces spread when they come into contact with something? Seriously? At this point however if you're just sacrificing the crew up the moment combat starts I have to ask the question again.

Why do you want to so badly see what this guy does?
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:

Windows would give the crew a feeling of comfort and when jumping into combat the crew would be inside the armoured areas manning the various important bits of the ship and hoping their favourite teddy bear doesn't get vaporized outside of the more safe areas.


So, the only reason I'm hearing is morale. Since when did the average capsuleer care so much for Caldari Citizen 217893405039534969? You can achieve the same effect with EVE's camera drones and display screens.
Murkar Omaristos
The Alabaster Albatross
Unreasonable Bastards
#68 - 2015-01-13 21:04:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Murkar Omaristos
People want windows dude. Get over it lol

Also, fighter bombers already have transparent windows and pilots.
Kaerakh
Obscure Joke Implied
#69 - 2015-01-13 21:24:53 UTC
Murkar Omaristos wrote:
People want windows dude. Get over it lol

Also, fighter bombers already have transparent windows and pilots.


I'm glad you speak for the entirety of the the player base and understand that fighters and fighter bombers(you forgot one) have different design objectives and concerns.
FoxFire Ayderan
#70 - 2015-01-13 21:24:55 UTC
Tusker Crazinski wrote:
[quote=Jean Luc Lemmont]

and technically you can't go faster than light in EVE, warp drive do not actually effect your velocity, it just compresses space...... theoretically.



We're talking about making the EVE universe seem more lived in (largely by in-game clues to the existence of living breathing people leading varied lives and making vibrant civilizations function), and you want to eliminate windows on our crewed space ships!?

It doesn't matter what is actually practical. The idea in this and all other sci-fi fantasy is to make it relatable to the audience (us human beings). Windows on our ships are one clue as to the existence of human beings in this fantasy world. We imagine them looking out of those windows and us looking in.

I'm reminded of the opening sequence to Star Trek the Next Generation when they show the Enterprise warping away and they zoom in close to the ship as it passes beneath the camera and, though it's fuzzy, in the back window of what presumably is the room where they have meetings or perhaps Picard's office, you can see what appears to be a person walking inside (though it may be a trick of light and shadow and standard def video). That part always created a bit of excitement to me, because here was this ship that we know people are inside of, but being able to actually see that really brought that home and made it real. Indeed it was exciting to see that. And in fact any time in sci-fi when they zoom in or out through a window into a space ship it elicits a lot of excitement and emotion in me and presumably others. Again it makes it more real.

Now can you imagine all these sci-fi programs making entirely windowless ships? Since after all cameras and view-screens can accomplish the same thing for anyone inside.

I for one think ships could actually have MORE windows. Though granted they are less needed where equipment is housed inside.





Corraidhin Farsaidh
Singularity Expedition Services
Singularity Syndicate
#71 - 2015-01-13 21:50:48 UTC
Kaerakh wrote:
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
Kaerakh wrote:


That's because morale outweighs the need for structural strength. Your comparison falls flat because the goals of either example are simply different.

EVE ships have to withstand the rigors of combat and environmental hazards. The ISS sits in orbit with little to no debris, and certainly no combative scenarios.

So again, your comparison is flawed from the outset. I expect more from a developer at CCP.

Edit: Also, the submarine comparison was fine.


The ISS is constantly being moved to avoid debris and NASA do a huge amount of work to track the detritus we've fired into orbit. The ships in Eve can hurl themselves through warp and can withstand hits from VW sized artillery shells, I think they would have the technology to make a few windows that can take space debris.


Yeah, it's being moved not simply flying through it. Thanks for making my point for me. Roll

If someone would show me a lore page explaining EVE's equivalent to transparisteel or transparent aluminum and how trivial the cost was, I wouldn't be having this discussion.

Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:

On a similar not the 0.5 metre window really won't make much difference to structural integrity when a ton of antimatter/plasma/hypervelocity missile slams into your ship. Another point would be that the armour plan on the ship would almost certainly be *inside* the hull covering all of the important parts of the ship. Crew quarters would be placed around this as a flimsy outer hull and would add very little to the integrity of the inner hull (think 'All or Nothing armour plan for RL battleships).


Ugh, Seriously? I really have to explain how kinetic, and thermal forces spread when they come into contact with something? Seriously? At this point however if you're just sacrificing the crew up the moment combat starts I have to ask the question again.

Why do you want to so badly see what this guy does?
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:

Windows would give the crew a feeling of comfort and when jumping into combat the crew would be inside the armoured areas manning the various important bits of the ship and hoping their favourite teddy bear doesn't get vaporized outside of the more safe areas.


So, the only reason I'm hearing is morale. Since when did the average capsuleer care so much for Caldari Citizen 217893405039534969? You can achieve the same effect with EVE's camera drones and display screens.


ISS and debris: My point is that there is far from little debris in orbitaround our planet, there's tons of the stuff and satellites are constantly maneuvred to avoid it if in low earth orbit.

Kintic and Thermal forces: Do I really have to explain that you're talking about hypothetical spaceships thousands of years in the future created from substances we can't even imagine? I think a few windows would be childs play.

Sacrificing crew? I said that crew quarters are sacrificial as they are easily replaced. the crew would be *inside* the armoured hull operating all the vital combat equipment when at battle stations, not swinging in their space hammock hoping they don't get atomized!. And when it's Caldari Citizen 217893405039534969 keeping your ammo loading or shields running you care a great deal, we just don't see it as the game is a simplified view of what is really happening throughout the ship.
Maximus Aerelius
PROPHET OF ENIGMA
#72 - 2015-01-13 22:41:44 UTC
Debora Tsung wrote:
Maximus Aerelius wrote:
Just to throw this out there for the "Crew size" folks: Link: Marauders (lore)
You fought the lore and the lore won Lol

... I do not understand what you're talking about, nobdy ever said there were no crews aboard capsuleer ships. We were arguing about the necessity of windows and tiny pixels moving behind other tiny pixels...


Sorry, last post before I left the office. It was in relation to some of the earlier posts (#5,6,7 I think) and an interesting article as well.

Personally I don't think we need to see them but perhaps they should be included on KM as Civilian Casualties with a random number that perished. Something that keeps with the lore but isn't so graphically intensive.
Debora Tsung
Perkone
Caldari State
#73 - 2015-01-13 22:44:58 UTC
Maximus Aerelius wrote:
Debora Tsung wrote:
Maximus Aerelius wrote:
Just to throw this out there for the "Crew size" folks: Link: Marauders (lore)
You fought the lore and the lore won Lol

... I do not understand what you're talking about, nobdy ever said there were no crews aboard capsuleer ships. We were arguing about the necessity of windows and tiny pixels moving behind other tiny pixels...


Sorry, last post before I left the office. It was in relation to some of the earlier posts (#5,6,7 I think) and an interesting article as well.

Personally I don't think we need to see them but perhaps they should be included on KM as Civilian Casualties with a random number that perished. Something that keeps with the lore but isn't so graphically intensive.
I'd still prefer my cloud of life boats and bio debries circling my ship like a little asteroid belt...

Stupidity should be a bannable offense.

Fighting back is more fun than not.

Sticky: AFK Cloaking Thread It's not pretty, but it's there.

Murkar Omaristos
The Alabaster Albatross
Unreasonable Bastards
#74 - 2015-01-13 22:55:26 UTC
Kaerakh wrote:
Murkar Omaristos wrote:
People want windows dude. Get over it lol

Also, fighter bombers already have transparent windows and pilots.


I'm glad you speak for the entirety of the the player base and understand that fighters and fighter bombers(you forgot one) have different design objectives and concerns.


You are welcome :)
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Singularity Expedition Services
Singularity Syndicate
#75 - 2015-01-13 23:40:31 UTC
Debora Tsung wrote:


Sorry, last post before I left the office. It was in relation to some of the earlier posts (#5,6,7 I think) and an interesting article as well.

Personally I don't think we need to see them but perhaps they should be included on KM as Civilian Casualties with a random number that perished. Something that keeps with the lore but isn't so graphically intensive.
I'd still prefer my cloud of life boats and bio debries circling my ship like a little asteroid belt...[/quote]

Could be a nice sideline project for the art team to add lifepods warping away from the wreck...
Kaerakh
Obscure Joke Implied
#76 - 2015-01-14 00:49:45 UTC
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:

ISS and debris: My point is that there is far from little debris in orbitaround our planet, there's tons of the stuff and satellites are constantly maneuvred to avoid it if in low earth orbit.


Yes, but your analogy fails because EVE ships collide with that debris and modern space travel avoids it as best as they can.

Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:

Kintic and Thermal forces: Do I really have to explain that you're talking about hypothetical spaceships thousands of years in the future created from substances we can't even imagine? I think a few windows would be childs play.


Yes, but what you're failing to realize is that what actually being discussed is how much suspension of disbelief is being demanded of the audience. Currently EVE actually calls for much less than a lot of other IPs simply due to how effectively CCP explains the universe it takes place in. I'm merely saying there isn't a reason why you would put a window there on a ship dedicated for combat.

Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:

Sacrificing crew? I said that crew quarters are sacrificial as they are easily replaced. the crew would be *inside* the armoured hull operating all the vital combat equipment when at battle stations, not swinging in their space hammock hoping they don't get atomized!. And when it's Caldari Citizen 217893405039534969 keeping your ammo loading or shields running you care a great deal, we just don't see it as the game is a simplified view of what is really happening throughout the ship.


I have seen no lore or gameplay elements suggesting that a capsuleer vessel's vital functions are tied to the crew. I've seen suggestions of maintenance, but even in the novels the capsuleer characters make very little if any reference to crews much less their effect on performance. So saying should care a great deal about them is unfounded.

The fact is the more human components between the capsule and the ship, the higher the chance for something to go wrong. This defeats the entire purpose of the capsule. The capsule is designed to replace the need for officers and the command structure. This reduces the latency between a command and the implementation to merely thinking about it. I would be fairly confident to say that ammunition is handled by an automated process considering the size of the ammunition on larger weapon systems. Saying Joe Bob lifts my ammo into a gun WWII style is completely ridiculous.
Jon Dekker
Dekker Corporation
#77 - 2015-01-14 06:11:18 UTC
Kaerakh wrote:
Jon Dekker wrote:
Yep, walking around and chatting with NPC crew would be pretty cool I think. I think CCP can construct some lore about being wirelessly connected to the ship just like they did with the Dust & Valkyrie tech.
The important bit^



So let me get this straight, you want to talk to this guy?

Why?


Yes. Yes, I do. ^_^
Tusker Crazinski
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#78 - 2015-01-14 06:12:30 UTC
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:


ISS and debris: My point is that there is far from little debris in orbitaround our planet, there's tons of the stuff and satellites are constantly maneuvred to avoid it if in low earth orbit.


aaaahh with what propellant? mono prop has a really ****** ISP (bad efficiency) so we really wouldn't bother sending it up to LEO. really we just pray these micro-meteors don't ever intercept or cause too much damage, and have crews fix it when it happens.
Vech Nearl
New Eden Asset Relocation and Liquidation
#79 - 2015-01-14 06:30:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Vech Nearl
Murkar Omaristos wrote:
Asayanami Dei wrote:
You should watch the art panel from fanfest https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiKGaXuYxiU
about 23 minutes into the video there is a tech demo of dynamic landscape I think you might find interesting.


Are there any plans for this? I've not seen or heard anything of this since watching the fanfest stream. The drones discussed at 26mins in (and also the billboards) would be super cool.




http://youtu.be/PiKGaXuYxiU?t=23m48s

23:48 they speak of Dynamic Landscape.


Goot Vid by the way thank you!
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
#80 - 2015-01-14 10:51:27 UTC
CCP Darwin wrote:
Tusker Crazinski wrote:
for the same reason you don't put windows on a submarine.


You don't put windows on a submarine because the pressures the submarine has to withstand are far greater than what a spacecraft has to sustain. Also, because deep under the ocean there's no light.

Maybe not technically a submarine, but a Bathyscaphe does have at least one window. Diving depth: +/- 11 km.
The same goes for the more recent Deepsea Challenger.

ISD Ezwal Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)