EVE General Discussion

This solution helps stabilize the dynamic state of the object, but if rotations are input using polar coordinates (which, for example, map well to UI) you can still wind up with gimbal lock resulting from the conversions of those rotations, even if your model is robust.

The way I've always handled it is never do anything with the spherical coordinates, except create them. All motion and rotations are done in a robust coordinate system. Once all motion and rotations are done, convert to spherical. Never try to manipulate the spherical coordinates, and you never have the gimbal lock issue.
As for the UI, in the end you are doing a projection onto a plane, the screen of the computer. Think of it that way, and you can get away without spherical coordinates completely.

This sure takes me back. I first ran into the issue when I was at CalTech, in 1975. I didn't know about gimbal lock, or quaternions, I just knew my graphics code could not handle a vertical wall, until I switched my coordinate system.

But this is important.

That 0.5 degree is critical. Game is totally unplayable without it.

/sarcasm

you don't want to use absolute euler input coordinates. Not a single model will help you with that if your input is already causing a gimbal lock. If you do relative rotation you only get a gimbal lock in the highly theoretical case when you rotate more than 90 degrees per frame. (it is theoretical because any physics sim would break long before that and it also would no longer qualify as animation if you would do something like that in games)

For example: instead of using sliders as input, use +- buttons and you can already do relative rotation without hitting the conceptional pitfall of absolute euler angles. You can still extract euler angles from the final matrix and display them in the UI if you are forced to, but don't use them as input.

Relative rotation and transition is far more intuitive in games/physics sims anyway even from the technical perspective. If you are a kerbal in space, pulling on the stick of the spaceship, it will change direction based on its current position. You don't want to think about how it would have to get to that position using 3 angles every single frame. Or how the pulling on the stick translates into 3 angles. You are just rotating around his X axis using his current position and orientation as starting point (object space instead of world space). Very intuitive.


this would not be a problem

edit: fixed a few funny auto correct typos

It seems with the vastness of space. Up and down aren't the first orientations to consider. It seems like the first thing to do is figure out what direction the space your in is moving. Even if it appears you are still. The solar system is moving, galaxy, galaxies, etc.. towards something (or being pulled yes?). That could be considered and labeled forward. 180 degrees opposite could be considered reverse. 90 degrees from there labeled up and down. Depending on what's out there and which direction a galactic cluster or clusters are moving, could at least be considered forward in the long run. ( for future design planning ).

It's probably the browser you are using.

The like button seems to be an aspx form of some type.

Since the game isn't really based around first person flying (which you can now do with the first person camera view and I discovered the polar flight conditions problems playing with that) it doesn't really affect it.

However, with that in mind, and now that we have first person flying, it should be possible to change coordinate flying systems. I mean as long as you don't hit the perfect gimbal lock numbers, shouldn't it just a matter of 'approaching' the numbers and precision of variables? If this 'precision mode' only exists when doing first person flying, it shouldn't impact the larger function of the game. If you leave first person camera mode, the ship 'jumps' to the nearest imprecise location available on the main map (probably a function of under a meter of actual locational movement, but I don't know how precise 'the grid' is.) Nobody notices a thing and you have the next best thing to polar capable flying.

Now, all of that assumes that it's even important at all to have that kind of precision flight capability.

To be honest, I've yet to find a need for perfect polar north or south. Close enough usually works for me but I've noticed that there are a lot of very precise people playing this game...

This is an interesting problem. Maybe someone can put their code where their mouth is and make a demonstration system?

If CCP released a description or specification of how the viewpoint rotation system works, that would be useful, because people with ideas would be able to describe how to implement their improved 3D view system vis-a-vis EVE requirements.

And they do it ALL the time. Some of them even sit in your middle to stay behind you because then you can't even aim at them, they do it below you too whilst you're jetpacking using energy and they are walking.




*I happen to actually play tribes*



*a lot*