EVE Search - Redesign stars

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Redesign stars

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Horus V The Destined 103	Posted - 2015.08.27 16:49:51 - [1] - Quote Some time ago we had planets done. One of the best if not the best graphical update decision CCP has made. Now its time for the stars. Just imagine how much more immersive the world wouldve be if you warp away from first to last planet and the actual star would get smaller and smaller...space darker and darker... V
Rita Jita Rita Jita Universal 1940	Posted - 2015.08.27 17:01:24 - [2] - Quote Yip could even add features like heat build up etc limiting time around stars with aomolies worth fighting over within the vasinity of the stars, certainly would give you a reason to go there other than warping out of a battle, and even then that would come with its own new dynamic risks. just a thought :) Founder of the "Haulers Channel" Come Check It Out
Mr Mieyli Hedion University Amarr Empire 29	Posted - 2015.08.27 17:07:13 - [3] - Quote +1 CCP updated the lens flares around stars a while back but the stars themselves are starting to look a bit dated. Stars should look impressive when you're on grid with them and not like a giant lightbulb A case for more AoE in EvE
Avvy Republic University Minmatar Republic 119	Posted - 2015.08.27 17:09:52 - [4] - Quote Say you went to Pluto, would the stars be noticeably any bigger? it's unlikely.
Horus V The Destined 105	Posted - 2015.08.27 17:14:21 - [5] - Quote Rita Jita wrote: Yip could even add features like heat build up etc limiting time around stars with aomolies worth fighting over within the vasinity of the stars, certainly would give you a reason to go there other than warping out of a battle, and even then that would come with its own new dynamic risks. just a thought :) Yeah, some ships with better thermal damage resistance would survive longer. This would create new tactics and interesting new fittings for the near stars fights. V
Horus V The Destined 105	Posted - 2015.08.27 17:16:28 - [6] - Quote Avvy wrote: Say you went to Pluto, would the stars be noticeably any bigger? it's unlikely. Edit: Ok, you're talking about the one/ones in the solar system. You ment smaller? You are joking right? V
Avvy Republic University Minmatar Republic 119	Posted - 2015.08.27 17:20:10 - [7] - Quote Horus V wrote: Avvy wrote: Say you went to Pluto, would the stars be noticeably any bigger? it's unlikely. Edit: Ok, you're talking about the one/ones in the solar system. You ment smaller? You are joking right? No, because I was initially thinking of stars that you see in the background.
Horus V The Destined 106	Posted - 2015.08.27 17:28:55 - [8] - Quote Avvy wrote: Horus V wrote: Avvy wrote: Say you went to Pluto, would the stars be noticeably any bigger? it's unlikely. Edit: Ok, you're talking about the one/ones in the solar system. You ment smaller? You are joking right? No, because I was initially thinking of stars that you see in the background. Ah ok then. V
Dr Cedric Independent Miners Corporation Care Factor 114	Posted - 2015.08.27 17:32:12 - [9] - Quote Avvy wrote: Horus V wrote: Avvy wrote: Say you went to Pluto, would the stars be noticeably any bigger? it's unlikely. Edit: Ok, you're talking about the one/ones in the solar system. You ment smaller? You are joking right? No, because I was initially thinking of stars that you see in the background. For clarity, we should be talking about "suns," as in the central star(s) that the planets in a solar system orbit. So, OP, you should rename thread to updating "suns" to avoid confusion Also, I LOVE the idea of system "Zones" that have specific effects. Get into the gravity well of a star or large planet and your velocity is affected, get to close to a "red" or "yellow" star and your heat goes up and thermal damage resistance goes down. Get too close to a "pulsar" (or other some such celestial object) and your EM resistance gets messed up and targets are randomly dropped. This would make a great addition to the Sov-node battles, and keep everyone on their toes. Very fun idea Cedric
Avvy Republic University Minmatar Republic 119	Posted - 2015.08.27 17:32:47 - [10] - Quote Horus V wrote: Avvy wrote: Horus V wrote: Avvy wrote: Say you went to Pluto, would the stars be noticeably any bigger? it's unlikely. Edit: Ok, you're talking about the one/ones in the solar system. You ment smaller? You are joking right? No, because I was initially thinking of stars that you see in the background. Ah ok then. Yeah, I didn't read your post properly the first time I read it, when I reread it I realised.

Horus V The Destined 107	Posted - 2015.08.27 17:40:33 - [11] - Quote Dr Cedric wrote: Avvy wrote: Horus V wrote: Avvy wrote: Say you went to Pluto, would the stars be noticeably any bigger? it's unlikely. Edit: Ok, you're talking about the one/ones in the solar system. You ment smaller? You are joking right? No, because I was initially thinking of stars that you see in the background. For clarity, we should be talking about "suns," as in the central star(s) that the planets in a solar system orbit. So, OP, you should rename thread to updating "suns" to avoid confusion Also, I LOVE the idea of system "Zones" that have specific effects. Get into the gravity well of a star or large planet and your velocity is affected, get to close to a "red" or "yellow" star and your heat goes up and thermal damage resistance goes down. Get too close to a "pulsar" (or other some such celestial object) and your EM resistance gets messed up and targets are randomly dropped. This would make a great addition to the Sov-node battles, and keep everyone on their toes. Very fun idea Edited it. You see Im not very well educated about those but Im sure just like most of the players yet the experience would change sygnificantly because its obvious that things get smaller when you move away from it. V
SFM Hobb3s Wrecking Shots Black Legion. 365	Posted - 2015.08.27 18:22:11 - [12] - Quote I have suggested before, for aesthetic reasons, that CCP might also want to look at moving the lightsource, or the whole sun, higher than the usual level plane most systems have. It's generally well known that lights that come from above or below, not from the direct front/back/side, make ships look a lot better in space. On occasion you will even find a system that has all the planetary orbits on an angle (sometimes extreme). Ever notice how much prettier your ships look when warping through these rare systems?
Sobaan Tali Caldari Quick Reaction Force 566	Posted - 2015.08.27 19:24:21 - [13] - Quote Personally, I'm on both ends of the idea...for and against. For one, this is an idea I could get behind, but not if CCP force feeds it down are collective throats without warning or option to disable said feature if we don't want it. With the SKIN system having been introduced and with the way CCP is shaping up ship's appearances left and right, making them even harder to see due to lower levels of light would be a shame and even an annoyance. Nearly every ship I've been in so far is at times difficult to see details of from multiple angles constantly, though it is mostly due to the fact that nearly all of the ambient light is from one direction rather than from all angles. Sometimes, I actually want to see the ship rather than a dark silhouette of one. Sorry, I know quite a few people would like this idea, but I would personally hate it. Make it and option, and I'll +1 it all day, though. "Tomahawks?" "----in' A, right?" "Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each." "----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."
Leto Aramaus Spiritus Draconis Spaceship Bebop 219	Posted - 2015.08.27 19:31:54 - [14] - Quote So much +1 to dynamic Sun sizes as shown in OP So much NO to heat effects or anything that affects ships from suns. The UI update we deserve
Sentamon Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 2307	Posted - 2015.08.27 20:37:11 - [15] - Quote +1 to sun size based on distance +1 to heat effects when close to the sun, especially if we could fit modules to counter it ~ Professional Forum Alt -á~
Kasia en Tilavine School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 29	Posted - 2015.08.27 21:14:00 - [16] - Quote Horus V wrote: [quote=Rita Jita] Yeah, some ships with better thermal damage resistance would survive longer. This would create new tactics and interesting new fittings for the near stars fights. What about minmatar ships getting small capacitor bonus's when they are within certain AU of the sun?
Kasia en Tilavine School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 30	Posted - 2015.08.27 21:45:17 - [17] - Quote What do you guys think about a highslot solar panel module with small/medium/large sizes with increased grid/CPU fiting that add GJ/S to your cap pool based off inverse AU distance to the sun? I for one think that high slots need way more module options for PVE and PVP.
Mr Mieyli Hedion University Amarr Empire 29	Posted - 2015.08.27 22:36:27 - [18] - Quote Not to be pedantic but to the people saying we should be talking about "suns" that's wrong they are all stars. I'd love for stars to have real variety to them (maybe even based on region) where one system might have a massive blue star (where you can see all the pretty swirls) and others a barely glowing white dwarf. The size of the star changing with distance I can get behind but even just having it look impressive on grid is enough for me. You wouldn't see any detail from 1AU away anyway. I'd keep it purely visual though instead of including heat effects because who can argue against pretty-ness? A case for more AoE in EvE
Dale Liathain YakFruit LLC 2	Posted - 2015.08.27 23:01:13 - [19] - Quote Solar anomoly sites with environmental hazards plus new npc faction? That sounds awesome. Cant imagine why people would turn down new stuff to do.
Horus V The Destined 120	Posted - 2015.08.28 13:27:24 - [20] - Quote Imagine walking your avatar inside station close to a star http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=sunshine+movie+pics&tbm=isch&prmd=ivns&ei=T2DgVfGSAsGhsgGMpJioAQ&start=20&sa=N#mhpiv=8 V

Dr Cedric Independent Miners Corporation Care Factor 114	Posted - 2015.08.28 16:16:00 - [21] - Quote Overall, I find the scale of all of the celestial objects kind of smallish. It seems like every plant is a mini-moon with a station next to it. Im very much looking forward to the new stations/citadels, but I'm thinking that planets will start looking comically small compared to the 100 km wide citadels that are anchored around them. In my opinion, if you're outside a station next to a planet, the planet should take up the entirety of the screen if you're looking at it. How much bigger should the sun/stars be when you're "next" to them. I mean, the earth's diameter is like 12,500 km, and I've flown from the "outside" shell of a planet on one side to the opposite side in a 4km/s interceptor in like 5 minutes. Quick math says thats like 1200 km, meaning the planet size i flew through, if it was supposed to be as big as the earth is actually only like 10% of what "real" should be. Then there's the "sun" diameter. I have flown from the warp-in point on the sun all the way to the "bounce point" of a sun in about 3 hours total of time in the same interceptor. More quick math says I traveled around 45,000 km to get from outside the sun to inside the sun. Our sun is 1.4M kilometers in diameter, or 700,000 km in radius. Again, i've traveled only 5-10% of the "real" distance to get to the inside of the sun. Im curious to hear from anybody who has any idea about the coding for these kind of objects in this game: would it be unfeasible to introduce this kind of object with this kind of size? Would it look weird or game/immersion-breaking if it were more realistic? And then, how hard would it be to code in the distance based, environmental effects? All in all, a cool concept I think. Cedric
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2592	Posted - 2015.08.28 19:43:17 - [22] - Quote Horus V wrote: Dr Cedric wrote: For clarity, we should be talking about "suns," as in the central star(s) that the planets in a solar system orbit. So, OP, you should rename thread to updating "suns" to avoid confusion Edited it. You see Im not very well educated about those but Im sure just like most of the players yet the experience would change sygnificantly because its obvious that things get smaller when you move away from it. I disagree, stars is a more accurate designation and I think the issue is that people need to learn that our sun is one of those stars. The problem isn't that the OP failed to designate near stars differently from far stars, but rather that everyone else does. They aren't different, they aren't even functionally different simply due to you being more than a certain distance away from them. Calling them suns when you're near them is an autocentric viewpoint. Pirate ship Nightmare, can you fathom Larger but with smaller spikes than Phantasm The Succubus looks meaner But the Revenant cleaner Seems as they get bigger, the smaller spikes they has'm
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2592	Posted - 2015.08.28 19:51:25 - [23] - Quote Dr Cedric wrote: Overall, I find the scale of all of the celestial objects kind of smallish. It seems like every plant is a mini-moon with a station next to it. Im very much looking forward to the new stations/citadels, but I'm thinking that planets will start looking comically small compared to the 100 km wide citadels that are anchored around them. In my opinion, if you're outside a station next to a planet, the planet should take up the entirety of the screen if you're looking at it. That's a matter of distance. It makes a lot of sense to keep very large orbital stations well outside the planet's atmosphere, magnetic field, and far enough away to minimize tidal forces. I would venture a guess that EVE stations orbit at somewhere in the ballpark of 10,000 - 25,000 km above a planet's surface. It would be neat to have low-orbiting stations (probably would be smaller) that orbit under 500km, and that would fill your screen with the planet. The ISS and previously MIR orbited low like that because it saves a lot on fuel costs to get to it. The ISS is just high enough for a relatively low cost to boost it in order to keep up with its orbital decay, MIR was actually too low to be economical which we discovered later. Also we like to keep our stations well inside Earth's magnetic field because we do not have meteor defense systems nor integrity response drones like the people's of New Eden have. I hope that explains it better. The planets in EVE are a very realistic size for the most part, though some specifics may be wrong as we didn't know nearly as much about planets then as we do today. Pirate ship Nightmare, can you fathom Larger but with smaller spikes than Phantasm The Succubus looks meaner But the Revenant cleaner Seems as they get bigger, the smaller spikes they has'm
Dersen Lowery Scanners Live in Vain 1739	Posted - 2015.08.28 20:16:59 - [24] - Quote Reaver Glitterstim wrote: Dr Cedric wrote: Overall, I find the scale of all of the celestial objects kind of smallish. It seems like every plant is a mini-moon with a station next to it. Im very much looking forward to the new stations/citadels, but I'm thinking that planets will start looking comically small compared to the 100 km wide citadels that are anchored around them. In my opinion, if you're outside a station next to a planet, the planet should take up the entirety of the screen if you're looking at it. That's a matter of distance. Actually, as Chance Ravinne recently discovered, it's a matter of field of view. If you check Advanced Camera Menu in the ESC menu, then hold down CTRL and both mouse buttons, you can move the mouse up and down to narrow and broaden your field of view. At the narrowest, planets look like planets, stars look like (polyhedral) stars, customs offices and stations look absolutely immense, and ships are clearly visible kilometers away. It's deeply immersive. But then, of course, your field of view is narrow, so you can't see very much and you can't fling your POV around nearly as quickly as you can with a wide field of view, so its tactical utility is considerably reduced. Also, there are issues with camera shake at the narrowest FOV. If CCP could polish that up and introduce a better tactical UI, they could make EVE look stunning and cinematic right out of the box. Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables. I voted in CSM X!
Mr Mieyli Hedion University Amarr Empire 33	Posted - 2015.08.28 20:28:34 - [25] - Quote Reaver Glitterstim wrote: Dr Cedric wrote: Overall, I find the scale of all of the celestial objects kind of smallish. It seems like every plant is a mini-moon with a station next to it. Im very much looking forward to the new stations/citadels, but I'm thinking that planets will start looking comically small compared to the 100 km wide citadels that are anchored around them. In my opinion, if you're outside a station next to a planet, the planet should take up the entirety of the screen if you're looking at it. That's a matter of distance. It makes a lot of sense to keep very large orbital stations well outside the planet's atmosphere, magnetic field, and far enough away to minimize tidal forces. I would venture a guess that EVE stations orbit at somewhere in the ballpark of 10,000 - 25,000 km above a planet's surface. It would be neat to have low-orbiting stations (probably would be smaller) that orbit under 500km, and that would fill your screen with the planet. The ISS and previously MIR orbited low like that because it saves a lot on fuel costs to get to it. The ISS is just high enough for a relatively low cost to boost it in order to keep up with its orbital decay, MIR was actually too low to be economical which we discovered later. Also we like to keep our stations well inside Earth's magnetic field because we do not have meteor defense systems nor integrity response drones like the people's of New Eden have. I hope that explains it better. The planets in EVE are a very realistic size for the most part, though some specifics may be wrong as we didn't know nearly as much about planets then as we do today. I'd love to have low orbit warp-to's around planets that prevent capitals and up to warp to due to the gravity or some other techogarbage. edit: maybe the different planet types (ie gas, plasma, ice) could even have different local effects at these low-orbit warp-to's similar to the often asked for "space weather" A case for more AoE in EvE
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2593	Posted - 2015.08.28 20:45:02 - [26] - Quote Dersen Lowery wrote: If CCP could polish that up and introduce a better tactical UI, they could make EVE look stunning and cinematic right out of the box. It's an interesting point, but there's not a lot to polish up when it comes to field of view. The default field of view is reasonably accurate assuming it's supposed to depict a 90-¦ viewing angle which is an industry standard for flat screens. Without having a concave screen, a viewing angle significantly higher than 90-¦ causes more distortion than most of us are prepared to deal with. Truth be told, a truly flat screen causes some distortion at any view angle, but most people don't notice it much until around 105-¦, whereas by 120-¦ most people feel it's already gaining a significant "fisheye" effect, and by 150-¦ virtually everyone will agree it is highly distorted. There are some artful ways to implement non-standard view angles. One excellent example is in the game Final Fantasy VIII, which presents a persistant view angle of perhaps 45-¦. This both leads to and is used to explain/handwave some really dramatic eye candy, such as the gigantic moon, which Ellone seems to think looks small from home. There are multiple effects told in the story leading to the moon's large size, which is further amplified by your default Sci-fi moon which is always way bigger than the real thing, followed by the viewing angle magnifying it further. When you add all that together, it's almost reasonable to display it like so, and you have to admit it looks pretty great. But there are drawbacks associated with this view angle, and they can verge on game-breaking at times. Probably the worst is getting lost or turned around on the world map due to watching so much horizon spin past you while turning before you've fully turned around. I wonder if my early exposure to this game for so many hours has anything to do with why my navigational skills are so out of tune? Here is an example of what that looks like. (scene occurs from 6:01 to 6:07) Lastly, you can see what it looks like to be up close to a planet by warping to a district if you can find a system with DUST activity, or just use a fast frigate with MWD to get there from the warp beacon. Pirate ship Nightmare, can you fathom Larger but with smaller spikes than Phantasm The Succubus looks meaner But the Revenant cleaner Seems as they get bigger, the smaller spikes they has'm
Dersen Lowery Scanners Live in Vain 1740	Posted - 2015.08.28 21:02:30 - [27] - Quote Reaver Glitterstim wrote: Dersen Lowery wrote: If CCP could polish that up and introduce a better tactical UI, they could make EVE look stunning and cinematic right out of the box. It's an interesting point, but there's not a lot to polish up when it comes to field of view. The default field of view is reasonably accurate assuming it's supposed to depict a 90-¦ viewing angle which is an industry standard for flat screens. Without having a concave screen, a viewing angle significantly higher than 90-¦ causes more distortion than most of us are prepared to deal with. Truth be told, a truly flat screen causes some distortion at any view angle, but most people don't notice it much until around 105-¦, whereas by 120-¦ most people feel it's already gaining a significant "fisheye" effect, and by 150-¦ virtually everyone will agree it is highly distorted. I suppose we'd need an answer from CCP on that, because it seems to me that the viewing angle would be greater than 90 degrees simply by virtue of the fact that everything appears much smaller than it would at a true scale. As Chance points out, when you warp to 0 at a star (which, of course, is not 0 km from the star, but it's not really that far away, either) it looks like a glowing tennis ball. At the minimum FOV EVE allows, it looks like a star. The major issues would be the camera shake and, well, the narrow field of view not being tactically useful. You go from a vast, omniscient view to looking out through a full-coverage helmet, essentially. No peripheral vision. This is the video I'm talking about, if you're curious. It's NSFW; I can't believe Chance kisses his mother with that mouth. Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables. I voted in CSM X!
Horus V The Destined 125	Posted - 2015.08.28 22:08:31 - [28] - Quote Reaver Glitterstim wrote: Horus V wrote: Dr Cedric wrote: For clarity, we should be talking about "suns," as in the central star(s) that the planets in a solar system orbit. So, OP, you should rename thread to updating "suns" to avoid confusion Edited it. You see Im not very well educated about those but Im sure just like most of the players yet the experience would change sygnificantly because its obvious that things get smaller when you move away from it. I disagree, stars is a more accurate designation and I think the issue is that people need to learn that our sun is one of those stars. The problem isn't that the OP failed to designate near stars differently from far stars, but rather that everyone else does. They aren't different, they aren't even functionally different simply due to you being more than a certain distance away from them. Calling them suns when you're near them is an autocentric viewpoint. So I just keep title"suns/stars" to avoid confusion. V
Victoria Esubria Weyland Mulgrew Corporation Dominatus Atrum Mortis 1	Posted - 2015.08.29 17:29:11 - [29] - Quote +1 i like the changes described seems like an intresting idea.
Barbara Nichole Cryogenic Consultancy 691	Posted - 2015.08.29 22:13:15 - [30] - Quote I would like to see some really graphically interesting binary stars that are too close to each other, where one is siphoning the plasma from the other. It sure would be neat to have some reason to get closer to stars like a new type of solar harvesting...... Didn't someone suggest that once? -á-á- remove the cloaked from local; free intel is the real problem, not-á "afk" cloaking-á- [IMG]http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a208/DawnFrostbringer/consultsig.jpg[/IMG]

Horus V The Destined 130	Posted - 2015.08.29 22:17:38 - [31] - Quote For Christmas I want to see the first trailer named: "Star Tour". Now watch this old trailer of planets and imagine seeing brand new shiny new stars of different colours, effects and sizes. Ps.same music though, I love the music. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=InimDSMVHiY V
elitatwo Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team 817	Posted - 2015.08.29 23:37:22 - [32] - Quote Barbara Nichole wrote: I would like to see some really graphically interesting binary stars (actually quite common) that are too close to each other, where one is siphoning the plasma from the other. It sure would be neat to have some reason to get closer to stars like a new type of solar harvesting...... Didn't someone suggest that once? I believe they are called Wolf-Rayet stars and you can find them in unknown space. Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
elitatwo Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team 817	Posted - 2015.08.29 23:43:13 - [33] - Quote As much as I like the idea that would mean that we would need very good flashlights on our ships to see anything in space. Science fact the planetoid Pluto in the Cuiper Belt is around 1.3 AU from our star. The light from that tiny lightbulp is so little that it is really, really cool on the surface. Now if you look at most New Eden solar system you stumble across planet (I) disances that reach from .6AU to 5AU from the star. In systems where planet one is about 2AU from the star is would be so dark that the only light you can see is from your engines. Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2595	Posted - 2015.08.30 01:23:52 - [34] - Quote elitatwo wrote: As much as I like the idea that would mean that we would need very good flashlights on our ships to see anything in space. Science fact the minor planet Pluto in the Kuiper Belt is around 40 AU from our star. The light from that tiny lightbulp is so little that it is really, really cool on the surface. Now if you look at most New Eden solar system you stumble across planet (I) disances that reach from 6AU to 50AU from the star. In systems where planet one is about 2AU from the star ~~is would be so dark that the only light you can see is from your engines.~~ You make a good point: we often dwell in the outer regions of star systems, where the star ought to look far smaller than it does. It varies a lot by the luminosity of the star as well. Some stars are thousands of times as bright as Sol, while some are thousands of times less bright. A star 4000x Sol's luminosity would look like our Sun at 64 AU. Our Sun at 64 AU would be merely a glowing dot in the sky, the brightest star among a sea of stars. Pirate ship Nightmare, can you fathom Larger but with smaller spikes than Phantasm The Succubus looks meaner But the Revenant cleaner Seems as they get bigger, the smaller spikes they has'm
elitatwo Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team 817	Posted - 2015.08.30 02:43:12 - [35] - Quote Reaver Glitterstim wrote: You make a good point: we often dwell in the outer regions of star systems, where the star ought to look far smaller than it does. It varies a lot by the luminosity of the star as well. Some stars are thousands of times as bright as Sol, while some are thousands of times less bright. A star 4000x Sol's luminosity would look like our Sun at 64 AU. Our Sun at 64 AU would be merely a glowing dot in the sky, the brightest star among a sea of stars. Ooops! That's what happens when you drink those energy drinks and don't pay enough attention. Anyhow we have some super luminous stars like the Thera star which is a blue super giant and other blue giants that are much brighter then brown dwarf stars like Earth's. Thanks for correcting, dear! Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2595	Posted - 2015.08.30 02:56:22 - [36] - Quote Dersen Lowery wrote: I suppose we'd need an answer from CCP on that, because it seems to me that the viewing angle would be greater than 90 degrees simply by virtue of the fact that everything appears much smaller than it would at a true scale. As Chance points out, when you warp to 0 at a star (which, of course, is not 0 km from the star, but it's not really that far away, either) it looks like a glowing tennis ball. At the minimum FOV EVE allows, it looks like a star. I performed a test in-game to check the view angle, and I came up with an estimate that the angle is slightly less than 90-¦. (this is done with a 5x4 shaped screen, most are 4x3 or 16x9) Planets and moons look correct, as do other objects like customs offices. A customs office may look small because you're zoomed out from your ship, but also small in comparison to your ship because you're still far away from it and your camera is closer to your ship. We think of 10km being a small distance in EVE, because most of our ships can travel a lot faster than 100m/s. It seems a lot more important on the ground when we can't even drive much over 50m/s. Zooming in the view creates a false illusion that may look correct to you, but it really just looks like an image viewed through telescopic binoculars. The stars render too small most of the time which IIRC I discovered was due to all stars rendering the same size. Pirate ship Nightmare, can you fathom Larger but with smaller spikes than Phantasm The Succubus looks meaner But the Revenant cleaner Seems as they get bigger, the smaller spikes they has'm
Horus V The Destined 134	Posted - 2015.08.30 10:01:40 - [37] - Quote Sunday bump https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4S69zZwYrx0 V
Dersen Lowery Scanners Live in Vain 1743	Posted - 2015.08.31 20:36:30 - [38] - Quote Reaver Glitterstim wrote: Zooming in the view creates a false illusion that may look correct to you, but it really just looks like an image viewed through telescopic binoculars. The stars render too small most of the time which IIRC I discovered was due to all stars rendering the same size. OK, so the actual distances represented by '0' are such that you can never get a sense of the true scale of anything. The narrow perspective still gives you the sense of scale that you'd get from, say, the International Space Station, as opposed to a satellite hundreds of thousands of km away from a planet. That still seems to me like a problem. It doesn't convey the vastness of space or the true size of anything, it just makes gas giants look like Christmas ornaments. It's something I've never liked. Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables. I voted in CSM X!
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2601	Posted - 2015.08.31 20:47:22 - [39] - Quote Dersen Lowery wrote: OK, so the actual distances represented by '0' are such that you can never get a sense of the true scale of anything. The narrow perspective still gives you the sense of scale that you'd get from, say, the International Space Station, as opposed to a satellite hundreds of thousands of km away from a planet. That still seems to me like a problem. It doesn't convey the vastness of space or the true size of anything, it just makes gas giants look like Christmas ornaments. It's something I've never liked. I'd agree there are some problems in the representation that kill the immersion. Here's some I can list: 1.) as you said, the distance-from-object radius is often far larger than the object--this is of course for access reasons but you could be 3km away from a customs office and it'll say you've arrived 2.) because of the bump-radius spheres used to represent solid structures, we can't approach them properly and a lot of times where we see an opening in a station, we can't fly inside to see how it feels up close 3.) the maximum resolution on larger objects is higher, so up close they don't look bigger, just zoomed-in (this is especially noticeable on low texture resolution settings) 4.) we can't zoom the camera onto a decent vantage point next to our ship to see what things would look like from a tiny observer, instead you just get a screenful of ship and you can't see around it 5.) when you approach close to the surface of a planet or moon, not only do you pass right through it, there are graphics anomalies with the surface that become apparent dozens of km away, making it and your ship seem far smaller than they are supposed to be Pirate ship Nightmare, can you fathom Larger but with smaller spikes than Phantasm The Succubus looks meaner But the Revenant cleaner Seems as they get bigger, the smaller spikes they has'm
Dr Cedric Independent Miners Corporation Care Factor 117	Posted - 2015.08.31 20:48:32 - [40] - Quote Dersen Lowery wrote: Reaver Glitterstim wrote: Zooming in the view creates a false illusion that may look correct to you, but it really just looks like an image viewed through telescopic binoculars. The stars render too small most of the time which IIRC I discovered was due to all stars rendering the same size. OK, so the actual distances represented by '0' are such that you can never get a sense of the true scale of anything. The narrow perspective still gives you the sense of scale that you'd get from, say, the International Space Station, as opposed to a satellite hundreds of thousands of km away from a planet. That still seems to me like a problem. It doesn't convey the vastness of space or the true size of anything, it just makes gas giants look like Christmas ornaments. It's something I've never liked. What Dersen said. The point is, the vastness of space is not really portrayed through the graphics of the system. I can look past having an omnipresent light source to show the ships, and the lack of different looking suns. But having a planet that I can literally fly through and a sun that takes me an hour to navigate from one side to the other is immersion breaking. Cedric

Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2601	Posted - 2015.08.31 20:56:11 - [41] - Quote Dr Cedric wrote: a sun that takes me an hour to navigate from one side to the other I'm pretty sure you can't navigate from one side of a sun to the other in an hour. Pirate ship Nightmare, can you fathom Larger but with smaller spikes than Phantasm The Succubus looks meaner But the Revenant cleaner Seems as they get bigger, the smaller spikes they has'm
Maldiro Selkurk CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X 469	Posted - 2015.09.01 07:25:00 - [42] - Quote Since we Minmatar already need flashlights strapped to our ships to be able to see anything in Minmater space i hope they dont make it any darker. Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2601	Posted - 2015.09.01 07:39:16 - [43] - Quote Maldiro Selkurk wrote: Since we Minmatar already need flashlights strapped to our ships to be able to see anything in Minmater space i hope they dont make it any darker. I'd like to see the background nebula adding some backlight to the shaded parts of the ships. It would make it a lot easier to tell what I'm looking at when I'm undocked. Pirate ship Nightmare, can you fathom Larger but with smaller spikes than Phantasm The Succubus looks meaner But the Revenant cleaner Seems as they get bigger, the smaller spikes they has'm
Horus V The Destined 140	Posted - 2015.09.14 14:51:35 - [44] - Quote Bump V
TrickyBlackSteel Russia Caldari RUCA Emperor 31	Posted - 2015.09.14 16:15:05 - [45] - Quote Sentamon wrote: +1 to sun size based on distance +1 to heat effects when close to the sun, especially if we could fit modules to counter it i approve this!
Horus V The Destined 141	Posted - 2015.09.15 11:08:43 - [46] - Quote I wish we could have an official answer from CCP here in this thread, so that I'd know if its worth continuing and keeping it alive. I know they have mentioned this change on one of the fanfests but never really anything substantial. V


Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.