These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Stick and Rudder space flying

Author
Barakkus
#101 - 2011-11-03 16:18:20 UTC
All the people going on and on about performance, it's probably not a hardware issue on the cluster, but a complete re-coding of the movement portion of the client and positional synchronization code on the server. You all have to realize that not every single node in the cluster runs all solar systems all the time too. I don't see a problem with the hardware honestly after following a lot of the blogs on what TQ actually runs on, especially since there are a number of games where you can get 1000+ players running around killing each other in the same place and TQ has the same level of hardware if not better than a lot of other MMOs on the market.

It's something which is not really going to be budgeted for, like ever. There's a lot better things to be spending money on at the moment, and I think something like that is at the bottom of the priority list, if it was ever considered to begin with.

http://youtu.be/yytbDZrw1jc

ConXtionS
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#102 - 2011-11-03 16:51:13 UTC  |  Edited by: ConXtionS
For me... I admitt I would enjoy the abililty for actually "FLY" my ship even if it was not a perfect space physics. However for miners and I am sure others, it would be just as nice to have the CHOICE to let the ship do the work.

Just my thoughts

Con
Teamosil
Good Time Family Band Solution
#103 - 2011-11-03 18:59:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Teamosil
Di Mulle wrote:
Now your argument would be valid if CPU worked per set number of clients. Alas, it works per set number of solar systems. Are there one pilot, or 2000, it is still the same one CPU. Rewriting that will be way more work than optimizing database you talk so much.


That doesn't quite add up. There isn't one dedicated CPU per solar system. CPUs run many solar systems. They have a total of 120 CPUs, but thousands of systems. So, more CPUs means fewer systems per CPU means fewer pilots per CPU.

Di Mulle wrote:
I am in no way a database expert, but basic logic tells that there will be no specific optimization, because the very nature of processes remain the same - just their numbers increase. Or, in other words, optimization valid for current state is as well good for WASD.


That doesn't really follow either. For example, maybe if you have relatively infrequent updates to location info, but you have a frequent need to access that information you might want to index the field, where if you have very frequent updates, but infrequent access to the data, then you might not want to index it. If you are always looking up location information in combination with specific other fields after the change you might want to change your index to tie those fields together, etc. "Basic logic" isn't a very useful tool for guessing at database optimization. It's way complicated stuff.

Di Mulle wrote:
Heh, for an expert you lacking some basic logic there again. It does not matter whether ship is changing steering or no. In order to "know" it, you still need to check for an input at every cycle.


That doesn't follow either. The client would need to check for input constantly but it would not necessarily need to send a "no new news" update to the server.

But I absolutely never claimed to be an expert. My overriding point is that none of us are experts in it. Only probably a relatively short list of developers at CCP would have any foundation to actually say what a change like that would require, so all the "thats impossible!" posts here, IMO, are ridiculous. Very few things in software development are impossible and that certainly isn't a conclusion one could reach confidently without knowing radically more than anybody on this thread does.
Di Mulle
#104 - 2011-11-03 21:47:37 UTC
Teamosil wrote:


That doesn't quite add up. There isn't one dedicated CPU per solar system. CPUs run many solar systems. They have a total of 120 CPUs, but thousands of systems. So, more CPUs means fewer systems per CPU means fewer pilots per CPU.


Well, maybe iI got your wording wrong. But the thing I wanted to say is that reinforced node means solar system already has a dedicated sole CPU, and adding furter CPU's can't help in any way, if load will increase because of more frequent updates.



Teamosil wrote:
That doesn't really follow either. For example, maybe if you have relatively infrequent updates to location info, but you have a frequent need to access that information you might want to index the field, where if you have very frequent updates, but infrequent access to the data, then you might not want to index it. If you are always looking up location information in combination with specific other fields after the change you might want to change your index to tie those fields together, etc. "Basic logic" isn't a very useful tool for guessing at database optimization. It's way complicated stuff.


That probably may be valid points.


Teamosil wrote:
Di Mulle wrote:
Heh, for an expert you lacking some basic logic there again. It does not matter whether ship is changing steering or no. In order to "know" it, you still need to check for an input at every cycle.


That doesn't follow either. The client would need to check for input constantly but it would not necessarily need to send a "no new news" update to the server.


But the server still needs to check for input, even if there none was sent. Client may start updates any time, you can't assume you can keep client unattended even if it was inactive for a previous hour.
Also, assume your ship just stays on a stable vector without any further input. You still need to recalculate position at the server at the every cycle and resend information to the client to keep it in sync. Not even speaking you need to check for collision at every cycle.

Teamosil wrote:
Only probably a relatively short list of developers at CCP would have any foundation to actually say what a change like that would require, so all the "thats impossible!" posts here, IMO, are ridiculous. Very few things in software development are impossible and that certainly isn't a conclusion one could reach confidently without knowing radically more than anybody on this thread does.


I assume we need to understand it as not "absolutely impossible", but as practically impossible within certain budgeting restraints (which we are not exactly aware of, but can make some guesses). I imagine such undertaking would be something on the scale of Incarna. While Incarna probably needs way more code and assets created, they are not so critical to existing ones, they can coexist. While proposed change need modifying of the very foundation, therefore more risky.
<<Insert some waste of screen space here>>
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#105 - 2011-11-05 21:25:57 UTC
I personally don't like the "double-click to move" paradigm of the EVE UI. I'd prefer to have some other way of setting and visualising the ship's movement vector. It would be especially nice to be able to see when your planned movement has changed due to accidentally indicating to the UI that you want to "approach" that thing that you were just trying to target.

Nariya Kentaya
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#106 - 2011-11-07 06:26:49 UTC
Teamosil wrote:
Di Mulle wrote:
Now your argument would be valid if CPU worked per set number of clients. Alas, it works per set number of solar systems. Are there one pilot, or 2000, it is still the same one CPU. Rewriting that will be way more work than optimizing database you talk so much.


That doesn't quite add up. There isn't one dedicated CPU per solar system. CPUs run many solar systems. They have a total of 120 CPUs, but thousands of systems. So, more CPUs means fewer systems per CPU means fewer pilots per CPU.



he was saying that in most instances, the point where the server load becomes a problem is when 2000+ players are all fighting in the same system, which emans even if wevery other system that CPU was in charge of was empty, it would still lag immensely, even if you had 1 CPU for every system, you still have 2000 players on that CPU causing problems and lagging. so basically, no matter how many "cpus" you have, your still putting relatively the same amount of load on a single serveer that isnt any better then when the cpu supported multiple systems.
Pok Nibin
Doomheim
#107 - 2011-11-07 06:31:10 UTC
Hung TuLo wrote:
Is there some reason why EVE does not use stick and rudder space flying? Yes I realize that there is no Air/Oxygen in space but that does not mean the afterburners/Microwarpdrives could not be directional.

To me it would cause a great many more technical battles to occur

Just my thoughts.
-10 elementary physics phail

The right to free speech doesn't automatically carry with it the right to be taken seriously.

Vertisce Soritenshi
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#108 - 2011-11-07 19:37:52 UTC
Pok Nibin wrote:
Hung TuLo wrote:
Is there some reason why EVE does not use stick and rudder space flying? Yes I realize that there is no Air/Oxygen in space but that does not mean the afterburners/Microwarpdrives could not be directional.

To me it would cause a great many more technical battles to occur

Just my thoughts.
-10 elementary physics phail


lol...what? If anything it is the physics in EvE that fail. But that's for another thread.

Bounties for all! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2279821#post2279821

Richard Aiel
The Merchants of War
#109 - 2011-11-07 20:27:10 UTC
mkint wrote:
This idea is, and always has been pants-on-head-ruhtarded. No, your idea is not unique. It's still just as stupid an idea as when everyone else has posted it. Learn the basic game mechanics. Do the tutorials. THEN make stupid suggestions here.


Except they do it in Black Prophesy, so the IDEA isnt that stupid, it just is with CCP's framework.

http://i144.photobucket.com/albums/r188/buddahcjcc/SOA-3-2.jpg

Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
#110 - 2011-11-09 08:43:06 UTC
Ill tell you what is stupid, Getting flight stick controls and nothing else.

In a day and age where we have joysticks that have 22 buttons on them having just flight stick control and no interaction between that and aiming guns would lead to the "give a mouse a cookie and he'd want a glass of milk complex."

Net result would arise and the massive nerf bat will descend from the heavens and made you wished you never came up with the idea in the first place, then youll have players complain that joystick users have and extremly unfair advantage over laptoppers who cannot afford the sticks.

Dust 514's CPM 1 Iron Wolf Saber Eve mail me about Dust 514 issues.

Imryn Xaran
Coherent Light Enterprises
#111 - 2011-11-09 09:18:55 UTC
I don't know why anyone would think this is a good idea. "Stick & rudder" type controls might be fine for controlling an aircraft but would be completely useless for a spacecraft. The way that a change of direction is achieved is completely different and does not equate at all. The only RL spaceship to use a stick for in-space navigation was the lunar module and it took the pilots months of training to "un-learn" all of their "stick & rudder" reactions to be able to fly it. And those were NASA test pilots so good luck mate.

RL spacecraft use a keyboard for navigation inputs. Sci-fi shows that have been properly thought out use a keyboard for navigation inputs. If you think about it, space combat would involve tracking and engaging targets moving at massive velocities and huge ranges and would therefore be entirely dependent on computer support. No place for pathetically slow "fast twitch" human reactions.

There are plenty of space combat games available that treat spaceships like aircraft and use stick controls so why not go play one of those? EVE takes a more "realistic" approach to so many aspects of space travel and combat, it would be a shame to dumb it down in this way.
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
#112 - 2011-11-09 09:23:30 UTC
I real interface for a space ship would probably be a holo orb where you just drag and drop the pointer on the sphere, oh wait we already do that in eve.

And we dont rotate because we set telemtery based on the eliptical of the system I mean seriously everything interesting in a system is along the elptical.

Up direction was probably decided by concord though though there can be a scinentific 'up' in a galaxy IE pointed away from center of universe.

Dust 514's CPM 1 Iron Wolf Saber Eve mail me about Dust 514 issues.

Ivan Joukov
Soviet System
#113 - 2011-11-09 10:34:16 UTC
Eve isn't about piloting ships like fighters, it's about commanding heavy ships. Joystick control would be pointless I do not play a shooter.

 Davai!

Vertisce Soritenshi
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#114 - 2011-11-23 15:18:44 UTC
Ivan Joukov wrote:
Eve isn't about piloting ships like fighters, it's about commanding heavy ships. Joystick control would be pointless I do not play a shooter.

The point isn't to make the game a shooter...its to have more finely tuned control over your ship and its direction. I would mind less if the click in space function worked a lot better than it does. As it is you click in space and you start moving in the "general, not quite but somewhat close" direction of where you clicked.

Bounties for all! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2279821#post2279821

Stonecold Steve
I N E X T R E M I S
Tactical Narcotics Team
#115 - 2011-11-23 15:32:50 UTC
Buy a joystick and a G14 keyboard, you should find that frigate flying suddenly becomes alot more fun

“Hasta la muerte, todo es vida.”

InVictus Kell
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#116 - 2011-11-23 15:33:21 UTC
Remember the Star Trek movie where a joystick appears and the Enterprise actually gets piloted by it?

remember how much that sucked? not the best example, since the whole movie was really bad too, but i associate like this frequently for convenience. So if EVE gets joystick control, i'll have the same reaction, only this time i dont think the judge will just hand out community service.
Xavier Holtzman
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#117 - 2011-11-23 15:51:35 UTC
Hung TuLo wrote:
Is there some reason why EVE does not use stick and rudder space flying? Yes I realize that there is no Air/Oxygen in space but that does not mean the afterburners/Microwarpdrives could not be directional.

To me it would cause a great many more technical battles to occur

Just my thoughts.


I venture to guess that the reason why EVE does not use stick and rudder space flying is because the majority of the EVE population does not want to use the stick and rudder system (including me).

I do not like the men on this spaceship. They are uncouth and fail to appreciate my better qualities. I have something of value to contribute to this mission if only they would realize it. - Bill Frug

Astrid Stjerna
Sebiestor Tribe
#118 - 2011-11-23 16:32:01 UTC
Hung TuLo wrote:
Karl Planck wrote:
Try doing more frigate fights. Most larger ship battles do not depend on maneuvering well. Do you more frig fights and begin to learn the glory of manual piloting in eve



Ok but your talking about pointing in space and doing double clicks. I am talking about holding down keys for your movement. the longer you hold down the key the more you move in the direction. Same if you had a key for momentum or speed. The turning radius of your ship would show a slower change due to the size ofthe ship.

The space battles would depend more on the individual than the warp in of the ship.


I like the idea of WASD flight (though i see some potential issues related to re-organizing the keybinds to allow it); having played EVE for a while now, though, I don't think that stick-and-rudder flight in the 'joystick' sense works for a game like EVE. Right now, our combat effectiveness depends on skills and modules, rather than which pilot's reaction time is better.

If the WASD flight was liimited to 'press this key to go in this direction', I'd be happy with it. I just don't think it should be 'hold this key down to fly', because there's too much 'twitch' involved.

I can't get rid of my darn signature!  Oh, wait....

Hung TuLo
Running with Dogs
Out of the Blue.
#119 - 2011-11-23 16:44:24 UTC
Xavier Holtzman wrote:
Hung TuLo wrote:
Is there some reason why EVE does not use stick and rudder space flying? Yes I realize that there is no Air/Oxygen in space but that does not mean the afterburners/Microwarpdrives could not be directional.

To me it would cause a great many more technical battles to occur

Just my thoughts.


I venture to guess that the reason why EVE does not use stick and rudder space flying is because the majority of the EVE population does not want to use the stick and rudder system (including me).




Which is completely fine. I was just wonding the thinking behind it.

"In space all warriors are cold warriors" ---  General Chang  Star Trek VI

Mahakaharashi RedEagle
Doomheim
#120 - 2011-11-23 16:57:22 UTC
I think I've red something about early concept of EVE and how they wanted to have direct Elite-like flight model for small to medium ships, supported by physics and maybe even LoS/LoF, but in those times it was impossible to achieve due to hardware and network limitations.

If this is true, then point and click controls are legacy from the past, something that might be too late and too dificult to change now.