Read by Council Unconstrained Steering

[BlackTangent]

Agreed with the idea, although Kaamio explained the first quarrel that I had in mind. The second is (a bit OCD here) that I like to be able to use the 'c' button to align my ship with universal forward. I'd like to keep that implemented somehow.

 

[SneakyFish]

I'd like this to be an option that can be turned on and off. Doesn't make sense to force players to use a different steering system than the one they've had for two years. That would be like banning automatic transmissions in cars and forcing everyone to drive stick.

 

[kiddan]

I'd like this to be an option that can be turned on and off. Doesn't make sense to force players to use a different steering system than the one they've had for two years. That would be like banning automatic transmissions in cars and forcing everyone to drive stick.

Agreed, though in this situation they would be forcing everyone to use automatic transmissions. :p

 

[Valiant70]

I think both unconstrained steering and free aiming (aiming without moving the ship) should be activated by key commands. Both functions should have both toggle and press-and-hold bindings. In other words, press a key to toggle (think caps lock) and hold down a different key to switch momentarily to the other mode (think shift key).

Yes, the aiming arc should be reduced, but free aim would remain relevant on small, maneuverable ships even so.

 

[Keptick]

+1, removing the dampening effect that happens as the aiming reticule gets close to the cursor would also work wonders. With big ships it's impossible to aim at a target while making slight direction adjustments because the ship turns abysmally slow due to it slowing down as it gets closer to the cursor. At least getting a setting to turn it off would be nice, or making the effect only happen when getting really close to a centered cursor.

 

[Thalanor]

I think this idea is great, but I really don't get the proxy thing accusation. If stuff were to run after my book then good suggestions would be welcome regardless of who posts them under which account for what reason, because why would this do any harm?

 

[Valck]

If steering ever gets an overhaul, I'd love to see that weird control component mixing removed.

It's nearly impossible to control one axis only, and there is almost invariably an induced roll when yawing or pitching, and yaw and pitch when rolling. While it's mostly acceptable to have a slight component of the other axis you're controlling directly, i.e. up/down with sideways, it's extremely annoying to have a component mixed in that you aren't controlling directly.

In other words, have the ship only change pitch/yaw in default mode, and only change roll in well... roll mode, and leave the uncontrolled axes alone please.

 

[Valiant70]

If steering ever gets an overhaul, I'd love to see that weird control component mixing removed.

It's nearly impossible to control one axis only, and there is almost invariably an induced roll when yawing or pitching, and yaw and pitch when rolling. While it's mostly acceptable to have a slight component of the other axis you're controlling directly, i.e. up/down with sideways, it's extremely annoying to have a component mixed in that you aren't controlling directly.

In other words, have the ship only change pitch/yaw in default mode, and only change roll in well... roll mode, and leave the uncontrolled axes alone please.

That messes up more things than it helps. It's hard to explain, but that can't be fixed in a true-3d space sim.

 

[Valck]

That messes up more things than it helps. It's hard to explain, but that can't be fixed in a true-3d space sim.

Well then every space "sim" has to have got it wrong, from Wing Commander over Tie vs. X-Wing and Descent, right down to KSP... not that I'd quote any of them for accurate physics, but they somehow manage to not 'feel' that weird.

 

[Valiant70]

Well then every space "sim" has to have got it wrong, from Wing Commander over Tie vs. X-Wing and Descent, right down to KSP... not that I'd quote any of them for accurate physics, but they somehow manage to not 'feel' that weird.

Starmade is quite different. Descent (the only one of those I'm familiar with) was plane-oriented. I assume the others you listed were as well, as many space sims are. That would not work in Starmade. Imagine you're flying "up" (there is no up in space, but that's the way the star map reads) and you try to turn. If Schema did what you're suggesting, you would feel like you're rolling, because your yaw axis is tied to the standard up-down orientation. Physics aside, Starmade has a different map structure. You can fly "up" and "down" in an infinite, full-volume map.

Actually, if I recall that feature was optional in Descent and you could fly without it. Descent just had an option to roll the ship automatically to align with the surface of the planet/moon.

 

[Kenshkrix]

Humans just don't naturally orient in a 3d space environment so you just have to get used to it, better minimaps/cameras can help you figure out your relative position better but actually positioning yourself just takes learning how the system works.

You literally have to think a different way to become an excellent pilot in space compared to navigating in a gravity-centric system, there aren't any exceptional work-arounds for this learning curve.

 

[Valiant70]

Humans just don't naturally orient in a 3d space environment so you just have to get used to it, better minimaps/cameras can help you figure out your relative position better but actually positioning yourself just takes learning how the system works.

You literally have to think a different way to become an excellent pilot in space compared to navigating in a gravity-centric system, there aren't any exceptional work-arounds for this learning curve.

Exactly. Even Khan had trouble with it... at least in the original movie. I haven't seen the new one.

 

[Valck]

Starmade is quite different. Descent (the only one of those I'm familiar with) was plane-oriented. I assume the others you listed were as well, as many space sims are. That would not work in Starmade. Imagine you're flying "up" (there is no up in space, but that's the way the star map reads) and you try to turn. If Schema did what you're suggesting, you would feel like you're rolling, because your yaw axis is tied to the standard up-down orientation. Physics aside, Starmade has a different map structure. You can fly "up" and "down" in an infinite, full-volume map.

Actually, if I recall that feature was optional in Descent and you could fly without it. Descent just had an option to roll the ship automatically to align with the surface of the planet/moon.

I don't think we're talking about the same subject.
Regardless of plane models, moons, Khans or anything, at any time my ship does have a defined local coordinate system, and when I tell the ship to yaw around its local up-axis, I see no reason why it should also roll around its local forward-axis at the same time. Period.

 

[Kenshkrix]

I don't think we're talking about the same subject.
Regardless of plane models, moons, Khans or anything, at any time my ship does have a defined local coordinate system, and when I tell the ship to yaw around its local up-axis, I see no reason why it should also roll around its local forward-axis at the same time. Period.

Please elaborate on the system you'd like to see, rather than equating it to some other game that people may or may not have played.
I believe I understand what you're trying to say though.

For example when you're in a ship and you strafe around something in a semi-circle, your ship will have rolled relative to that object due to you and it not being locked to the same relative plane (And it being basically impossible to move your mouse in a perfectly straight line).

I guess what you'd want is some way to tag a distant object to align to it?

 

[Valck]

[snip] at any time my ship does have a defined local coordinate system, and when I tell the ship to yaw around its local up-axis, I see no reason why it should also roll around its local forward-axis at the same time [snip]

Please elaborate on the system you'd like to see [snip]

Basically just what you quoted already.

If the problem stems from the inevitable dual-axis mouse movement, then I'd hope to see some automatic compensation for it, such that when I strafe left and yaw right to keep a target in sight, when my ship completes a full 360, it would be aligned to "the cosmic background" (ecliptic, whatever) in the same way as when I started the move.

 

[Kenshkrix]

The issue is that I'm not sure what the default assumed intentions of a pilot should be.

Should it be based on the longest angle of movement? Say you turn 90 degrees to the right, but only 5-10 degrees up or down? Maybe somebody wanted to turn up/down a bit to look at something, how does it decide?

Ratio between angles with a presumed cutoff point? Say I want to turn 50 degrees up and also turn 15 degrees to the right, I don't want it to assume I meant straight up, but at what point should it assume I meant to just turn around along one axis?

Should there be a presumed up/down, say along the longest/widest galactic plane, that the ship should naturally assume that's what a given pilot intends?

I don't see a simple solution that makes flying a spaceship any easier than it is right now, though being able to align to distant objects could be useful.

 

[Valiant70]

The only way I can think of to do this without issues is to add a "dead zone" in a cross shape across the screen, so that if the cursor is very close to the center on either axis, the slight deflection of that axis is ignored. The size of the zone would need to be configurable and some sort of visual cue on the HUD would be helpful.

 

[kiddan]

I thought that (and please prove me wrong if I am) Valck is talking about the strange effect where you turn 90' (example) right and end up rolled along whatever axis goes from the front of your ship to the back, something you would not expect to happen ever, without holding the roll key down.

I might be totally wrong though, plz don't hurt me!

 

[Valck]

I thought that (and please prove me wrong if I am) Valck is talking about the strange effect where you turn 90' (example) right and end up rolled along whatever axis goes from the front of your ship to the back, something you would not expect to happen ever, without holding the roll key down.

That's what I thought I was talking about, too : )

As an aside, this roll motion does not happen with turrets (obviously), nor in astronaut mode, so I won't accept "has to be that way because too complicated to explain" ; )

 

[Kenshkrix]

That's what I thought I was talking about, too : )

As an aside, this roll motion does not happen with turrets (obviously), nor in astronaut mode, so I won't accept "has to be that way because too complicated to explain" ; )

It's not that it has to be that way, but that space has no absolute position.
Turrets are connected directly to another object, giving them an automatic default angle plane relative to said object.
Astronauts are almost always aligned to a nearby ship, station, or planet.

So, what should a spaceship automatically be aligned to, and why?

My earlier suggestion was simply to give ships some kind of distant alignment effect that's easy to use, so you can align to a particular planet or station for easier relative docking and navigation, but in open space there's no specific direction or object to align to.

Valiant suggested a turning dead zone on the screen for navigation, giving ships a self-referential turning angle, another method might be to just add a secondary piloting mode.
From your suggestions this would involve turning Roll off unless you hit a certain key, which could work for basic navigation but would murder you in a dogfight. I don't know how hard it would be to implement but it wouldn't be impossible.