NOTICE Notice: This is an old thread and information may be out of date. The last post was 391 days ago. Please consider making a new thread.
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 32 of 32

Thread: 2D radar

  1. #21
    Registered Ironwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Maine, USA
    Posts
    129
    Quote Originally Posted by draeath View Post
    Trying to project 3D space onto a 2D sensor whilst maintaining both clarify and the depth information is... not a trivial task, that's for sure!
    Agreed. Sensor readouts are so very important, to all of us.

  2. #22
    Registered Hakase's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    40
    "Clearly entered the personal attack zone" - What are you even talking about? In what sentience shows I was personally attacking? Matter of fact it is with your replies that always implies how belittle I am, however I have remained neutral throughout. I even tried to soften things by sharing sci-fi ideas that I came across such as the integrated augmented reality. So what in the world are you on about?!

    "missing range-text" - What? No seriously what? I've already told you can estimate distance by the position/distance a contact is from the edge to the center. Or additional info can be shown when selecting a target.

    "Next you pretend it's a waste of time reading them" - When have I say it's a waist of time? I stated both has it's pros and cons where one fills the other!

    "Then you tell me that's because you care first about range" - Because range IS important in all combat theater. I have already explained the reason why having multiple ways to see situation awareness is important. One con of a system fills the other!

    "Until we come back to where you claim that position is easier to read on a 2D-radar" - What the hell..., did you actually read? I pointed out 3D flaws, but that happens to be ok for you? Do i really have to say this again, one con of a system fills the other and vice versa!

    "every points I made about "closest range" not being the only thing that matter and about positions, vector display, orbit-display...etc" - In which case you use what ever system that fits those condition/s! You are the one who said right tools for the right job!

    "For curiosity : your first post mentioned another forum" - The debate was what type of radar system do people like to see, in an current developing arcade space game forums. The bias is were people from Elite Dangerous saying their version of 3D radar is the best and nothing is better, it is the one and the only best radar system that should only exist. Ok that would be a bit exaggerated, however we all ended peacefully acknowledging that everyone have their own preferences and everything has it's pro's and con's. I came to the RS forums because since we are hard core space sim, a topic like this would be more beneficial.

    "quantifiable/qualifiable advantage" - The "quantifiable/qualifiable advantage" is filling cons of another system...

    ""Perspective display is frowned upon" would actually be something you hear in the context of 40years old military design for a ground-base defense display where 3D would pass off as a pointless luxury (due to context and feasibility)." - Did you even read anything I said? Let me just copy and paste it... "SOP's can change, new acceptance could be implanted, new technology can also play a roll too."

    "Your logic about "3D display is bad unless you use a hologram" - I never said it's bad... However I have shown and told you some of those cons... and yet I am grasping straws? As even draeath had said, "Trying to project 3D space onto a 2D sensor whilst maintaining both clarify and the depth information is... not a trivial task". One way to help getting information without losing any information is to design systems to compliment each others downfalls.

    "it just ask some imagination and methodology. It's a shame you seem to lack both." - And yet I'm entering the personal attack phase. Everything is based off my experience in procedures, theories, SOP's in which men and women operate in the military has to learn, experience, and make choices from. You can not understand the reason why you need range identification and awareness, because you don't understand, you remain single minded. I have told you the tactical reason and benefits range has that all combat personal need and want. I have not demanded anything. I only supplied an idea. In the end it's all up to Michael as this is his game. But just because you don't agree with an idea nor understood it's implantation, it must go your way? Don't make me laugh. So yes, bye, since it seems there is no way I can explain to make you understand.
    Last edited by Hakase; 10-04-16 at 11:08 AM.

  3. #23
    Registered Kegereneku's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by Ironwolf View Post
    Gentlemen. I've been following your debate, probably along with everyone else.
    Personally, I'm happy to let Michael decide on what gets implemented, I'm sure he has thought about it.
    Anyway, you both have my respect for being RogSys forum members, we are a rare bunch indeed.
    Group hug anyone.
    ** Hug **
    Of course Michael will decide, he won't even "choose" he'll CREATE interfaces until it fit the needs best.
    That's why I started the discussion asking other what data everybody think would be useful to help him. You don't create a system that don't fit your needs.




    Quote festival maybe it will be clearer for you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hakase View Post
    "Clearly entered the personal attack zone" - What are you even talking about? [...] So what in the world are you on about?!
    We both reached the stage where the only way to decide who is right is to put into doubt the intelligence of our interlocutor. That's all I said.
    I didn't accuse you of starting it because all rhetoric dip into that, I only point out it is a problem NOW, because NOW we can't point the errors in our reasoning without, as you say, "belittle".
    There's no more misunderstanding, no implementation to clarify, when one of us is just flatly wrong on something and a discussion can't go on beyond that, he just IS and -you bet- it will be hard for him to recognize it.

    I TRIED to look around that problem, but you just want your "personal 360 2D Display" with no change, it's not like you would be the one programming it anyway.

    "missing range-text" - What?
    On the current-radar you have the range showing by default even if you didn't lock the target
    See : http://images.akamai.steamuserconten...C68EB6A950467/
    In your modified version : http://fr.tinypic.com/view.php?pic=zwjk82&s=9
    Those are missing, and they give you the information you want + keeping 3D position.

    We can't compare with your idea if you misrepresent what we already have, same goes for the vertical-line.

    I've already told you can estimate distance by the position/distance a contact is from the edge to the center
    You think I didn't understood that ? "Stop belittling me !"
    I know and will keep telling you : That's no advantage since you lose the ability to display data that are required.
    Let's just remind we already have to move the context from "long range" to "short combat range" and from "tactical" to "glorified rangefinder", maybe you could stop glorifying it. It's not a bad things because thanks to you we got the idea of displaying the Effective-range while locking a target.


    "Next you pretend it's a waste of time reading them" - When have I say it's a waist of time? I stated both has it's pros and cons where one fills the other!
    You have continuously insisted on this criteria as a definite superiority of 2D over 3D, despite me demonstrating it lead to too many 'con' against 2D, even 'con' for SWITCHING between 2D and 3D (like trying to keep track which dot in 3D match the one in 2D since the "flat" distance change)
    Early example :
    "" it would take longer to make accurate assessment/evaluate each contacts range. Your eyes would have to bounce up and down reading each number.""
    You can't argue that This is a problem, then claim it's no problem to switch between sensor to "complement pro & con".
    Not to mention reading the Angles on your radar.

    So since you basically amount to "only the true range matter", I suggested getting rid of the circle, you loose nothing. You have the 3D for estimate and a display for your actual attack range. Getting rid of all three dimensions and putting all hostile on it will make it even easier for you to see which target is closer.

    the bias is were people from Elite Dangerous saying their version of 3D radar is the best and nothing is better
    Considering the fanbase of a game like Eliteangerous I can't blame you for that exaggeration, it was probably 90% correct.
    In any case no useful comparison can be made with Rogue System, it was just curiosity.

    The "quantifiable/qualifiable advantage" is filling cons of another system
    It would only be relevant if switching to your personal 2D-display introduced a pros that outweighed the hassle of switching and was overall better than just using 3D.

    Then you missed an argument that can't go without the above : "The F-35 interface is purpose built", your 2D display is superfluous and offer no purpose or advantage that isn't already & better served by obvious 3D solution. Plane engineer don't mess around adding superfluous radar, the life of their pilots depend on getting a clear view of what they need.
    That's why your "glorified rangefinder" need to change form, it can't be used for spatial awareness, so at least make its true-range display serve a purpose without useless fluff.
    Can you even accept change ?

    As even draeath had said, "Trying to project 3D space onto a 2D sensor whilst maintaining both clarify and the depth information is... not a trivial task". One way to help getting information without losing any information is to design systems to compliment each others downfalls.
    Maybe you honestly misunderstood Draeath (language barrier). But he just criticized 2D-display you know.
    You can ask him clarification if you want. What I'm reading here is (reworded) : It is not trivial to make a sensor(display) that transform a space(situation) from 3D to 2D, while maintaining clarity and depth information.


    Next is not forgivable, you crossed a line pretending I misunderstood you.

    You did clearly made a subpoint several time about the in-game interface used to display, clearly focusing on the physical hardware "screen", being "not good for 3D". Didn't you said "" Unless we have VR headsets with holographic type 3D radar for the game,"" ? Earlier didn't you said ""Showing 3D radar on a 2D screen can have it's confusing moments"" or even earlier ""Also "3D" radars are still projected on 2D screen, that is an issue itself.""

    I demonstrated those points as false. Do you recognize it ?
    It it worth lying ?


    I only supplied an idea. In the end it's all up to Michael as this is his game. But just because you don't agree with an idea nor understood it's implantation, it must go your way? Don't make me laugh. So yes, bye, since it seems there is no way I can explain to make you understand.
    There you go again, accusing others... (it can't be you of course)

    Yes you "only" supplied an idea ...and you wanted feedback right ?
    Did you think it could never turn out a BAD idea ?
    Did you believe it didn't need modification ?
    Did you believe nobody could understand the topic better than you ?


    Now is a good place to say I wouldn't have answered if you didn't ask question, so let's be clear : TAKE ALL MY QUESTION MARK AS RHETORICAL ! I don't actually care much for your answer anymore.

  4. #24
    Registered Hakase's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    40
    "We both reached the stage where the only way to decide who is right is to put into doubt the intelligence of our interlocutor. That's all I said.
    I didn't accuse you of starting it because all rhetoric dip into that, I only point out it is a problem NOW, because NOW we can't point the errors in our reasoning without, as you say, "belittle".
    There's no more misunderstanding, no implementation to clarify, when one of us is just flatly wrong on something and a discussion can't go on beyond that, he just IS and -you bet- it will be hard for him to recognize it.

    I TRIED to look around that problem, but you just want your "personal 360 2D Display" with no change, it's not like you would be the one programming it anyway."
    -

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There is no right or wrong here. The fact that this is how you see things is how this whole debate started, as well as the fact both sides started out with misconceptions. I supplied an idea that I recommend would be beneficial, whether Michael sees the idea would work with his game is his choice. Now that you know what the idea is designed for, you still seem to believe it is irreverent and "flatly wrong", which is your opinion, it does not prove it is right or wrong. The whole argument is like debating the capabilities of how well a fish can climb a tree (Fun fact: there are actually a few species of fish that are capable of "climbing"), even though having different capabilities. Therefore, the argument goes nowhere.

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On the current-radar you have the range showing by default even if you didn't lock the target
    See : http://images.akamai.steamuserconten...C68EB6A950467/
    In your modified version : http://fr.tinypic.com/view.php?pic=zwjk82&s=9
    Those are missing, and they give you the information you want + keeping 3D position.

    We can't compare with your idea if you misrepresent what we already have, same goes for the vertical-line.
    -

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I actually misread that part, thought you were saying why dose my 2D radar not display range for all the contacts. Which led to your next paragraph.

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    You think I didn't understood that ? "Stop belittling me !"
    I know and will keep telling you : That's no advantage since you lose the ability to display data that are required.
    Let's just remind we already have to move the context from "long range" to "short combat range" and from "tactical" to "glorified rangefinder", maybe you could stop glorifying it. It's not a bad things because thanks to you we got the idea of displaying the Effective-range while locking a target.
    -

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The idea of displaying the Effective-range while locking a target I have no issues with, but the part that you can't seem to agree with is the ability to see all targets in it's true range in a 2D 360 view.

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    You have continuously insisted on this criteria as a definite superiority of 2D over 3D, despite me demonstrating it lead to too many 'con' against 2D, even 'con' for SWITCHING between 2D and 3D (like trying to keep track which dot in 3D match the one in 2D since the "flat" distance change)
    Early example :
    "" it would take longer to make accurate assessment/evaluate each contacts range. Your eyes would have to bounce up and down reading each number.""
    You can't argue that This is a problem, then claim it's no problem to switch between sensor to "complement pro & con".
    Not to mention reading the Angles on your radar.

    So since you basically amount to "only the true range matter", I suggested getting rid of the circle, you loose nothing. You have the 3D for estimate and a display for your actual attack range. Getting rid of all three dimensions and putting all hostile on it will make it even easier for you to see which target is closer.
    -

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Again, you do not understand the importance of keeping track of all targets range/distances all around you since you suggested getting rid of the circle to only one quadrant.

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It would only be relevant if switching to your personal 2D-display introduced a pros that outweighed the hassle of switching and was overall better than just using 3D.

    Then you missed an argument that can't go without the above : "The F-35 interface is purpose built", your 2D display is superfluous and offer no purpose or advantage that isn't already & better served by obvious 3D solution. Plane engineer don't mess around adding superfluous radar, the life of their pilots depend on getting a clear view of what they need.
    That's why your "glorified rangefinder" need to change form, it can't be used for spatial awareness, so at least make its true-range display serve a purpose without useless fluff.
    Can you even accept change ?
    -

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    You seem to understand the importance of the range aspect, but fail to see the importance to have that aspect be displayed for all targets within the 360 vicinity. I have suggested the ability to customize however that happens to be redundant for you even still.

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Maybe you honestly misunderstood Draeath (language barrier). But he just criticized 2D-display you know.
    You can ask him clarification if you want. What I'm reading here is (reworded) : It is not trivial to make a sensor(display) that transform a space(situation) from 3D to 2D, while maintaining clarity and depth information.


    Next is not forgivable, you crossed a line pretending I misunderstood you.

    You did clearly made a subpoint several time about the in-game interface used to display, clearly focusing on the physical hardware "screen", being "not good for 3D". Didn't you said "" Unless we have VR headsets with holographic type 3D radar for the game,"" ? Earlier didn't you said ""Showing 3D radar on a 2D screen can have it's confusing moments"" or even earlier ""Also "3D" radars are still projected on 2D screen, that is an issue itself.""

    I demonstrated those points as false. Do you recognize it ?
    It it worth lying ?
    -

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    draeath quote is not a misunderstanding, this was my showing of being natural. I was trying to show you how and I quote again, one system’s con fills the other. Since it's not easy to solely rely on 2D, the current 3D is just as important. Both systems have it's pro's and con's... Both have it's uses.

    For the second part:

    This falls into the "perception"/"perspective" area, not about the focus of physical hardware screen being "not good for 3D". You do not physically see the depth of field of a 3D radar on a 2D surface, you have to intemperate that information in perception and perspective to make sense, which is one of the reason why I said it's frowned upon. Again, not saying it's banned or never will be used, this relates to the continuing part of SOP's can change, new acceptance could be implanted, new technology can also play a role too. Now moving on, even if the game designed the 3D radar to be a 3D holographic technology (which I remember Michael saying would be a feature for high end equipment) in the game lore, you are still viewing it on a 2D computer screen. To get a true sense of a proper holographic 3D radar, you would need a VR, or somehow invent holographic technology.

  5. #25
    Registered Kegereneku's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    81
    I have read your message but see no way to overcome our "disagreement" in a constructive way. (one thing : using actual quote would make your post much more readable for people who didn't memorize which of use said X or Y)

    So let's simply end this here.
    I just hope that if Michael Juliano ever get to make a (set of ?) "combat-radar" and it differ from your method, you will at least consider the possibility that your suggesting May not be better, instead of pushing for the idea again.
    I will of course do the same, although I didn't push for anything, a 2D 360 radar would be fine if I could actually see a need for it (don't bother trying to convince me again, I don't share your opinion.).

    May Rogue System succeed !

  6. #26
    Registered NovusNecrontyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Johannesburg
    Posts
    142
    After attempting to read the whole thread, I lost interest. Not because of the idea that was presented, but because how there was an insistence that one side is right and the other is wrong.

    Let's see if I can help with some input on the original idea and glean from some of the responses that followed.

    Let's first look at the fundamental differences with what we currently have and with what we need for the job:
    Looking at the first radars, we were able to project on a 2D surface (Control Tower Radar). This was an efficient means as it provided the raw data that could be understood quickly. However, there were assumptions made regarding that set up.
    - First assumption was that there was a common Plane of Reference. This was the Horizon. Up was up and down was down.
    - Second assumption was that all objects detected by the radar were above the common Plane of Reference.
    - Third assumption was objects inherently moved in parallel to the common Plane of Reference. In short, the moved across your view instead of directly up or down.

    Once we leave the atmosphere, all three of the above assumptions become a clouded murky field of uncertainty and this makes a 2D radar a lot harder to read AT A GLANCE.

    First assumption you would need to fix would be the common Plane of reference.
    Do you make your ship's orientation the common Plane of Reference? No. In space there is no up or down. I could be upside down in relation to you so a bogey I call out at my 9 o'clock would be your 3 o'clock. That is not a COMMON Plane of Reference.
    Do I make the solar system the common Plane of Reference? Yes. To a degree. The most sound method would be to set your common Plane of Reference to the solar system, however there is one slight problem. Which was is up? Should the planets rotate clockwise in relation to the Plane of Reference? Or should it be counter clockwise? What if there are planets rotating in opposite directions? That's where I'm currently at with that. Input welcome.

    Second assumption is that everything is above the common Plane of Reference. This is no longer true in space since objects could be below me as well as above. How do I see that at a glance? A small - symbol before a degree angle?

    Third assumption is that objects will move mostly parallel with the common Plane of Reference. This is again no longer true in space. I could see an object at 10km away, and it could stay at 10 km away. a 2D radar would not, at a glance, be able to tell me that the object is actually moving directly up, maintaining it's 10km range from me but actually moving from below my Plane of Reference to above my Plane of Reference.


    When it comes to a radar, we need information at a glance. Now, I'm not saying that 3D (more like 2.5D) radar is perfect. It comes with it's own list of flaws. Despite that, 3D radars are closer to providing information at a glance than 2D radars.

    Currently, the best Space Radar I have worked with has been EVE Online's current Tactical View.
    Objects where highlighted in 3D space, but each object had a curved line drawn down to a "2D" representation around the ship with concentric rings to represent range. It allowed me to know where objects where in relation to my ship as well as indicate their actual range.
    Also, a simple method for solving your "cluttered" radar was to use filters. Filter out friendly contacts and focus on enemy contacts. Let your onboard ship computer calculate possible collision courses with allies.

    Either way, both systems have their drawbacks, but I do see more benefit from using a 3D radar than a 2D radar.

  7. #27
    Registered NovusNecrontyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Johannesburg
    Posts
    142
    Ugh. Responding with a headache has made me a not so smart man.

    Let me be devil's advocate to myself.

    Second assumption is wrong Novus. Fighter Jet's of today deal with objects below and above the Plane of Reference, rendering that assumption moot.
    That still leaves the First and Third assumptions intact. A common Plane of Reference is still needed and there is still the assumption that objects move mostly parallel to the Plane of Reference.

    Solar system set as a common Plane of Reference might work if it's treated the same as submarines. There would be an astral Depth (how far above or below the common Plane of Reference) and a bearing. No idea which way the bearing of 0 degrees would be though. Galaxy center?

  8. #28
    Registered Hakase's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    40
    "I have read your message but see no way to overcome our "disagreement" in a constructive way. (one thing : using actual quote would make your post much more readable for people who didn't memorize which of use said X or Y)

    So let's simply end this here.
    I just hope that if Michael Juliano ever get to make a (set of ?) "combat-radar" and it differ from your method, you will at least consider the possibility that your suggesting May not be better, instead of pushing for the idea again.
    I will of course do the same, although I didn't push for anything, a 2D 360 radar would be fine if I could actually see a need for it (don't bother trying to convince me again, I don't share your opinion.).

    May Rogue System succeed !" - Kegereneku


    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The first post was a crude mockup of the idea (show targets purely by range) to showcase. Hoping to find ways to improve the UI design (Unknown contacts to be coloured, etc.) and other pointers. Instead somehow ended up becoming a debate of what system has superiority. If Michael see it's use and designs the UI differently I don't care, if he dose not think the idea is good enough so be it, I would would make use of what we already have best as possible. I have respect for other peoples opinions no matter the differences, but things got twisted and got lost with misunderstandings. Again, if you still disagree so be it, I had my say on the idea, and I respect your opinions, just hope you had respect for mine.

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ugh. Responding with a headache has made me a not so smart man.

    Let me be devil's advocate to myself.

    Second assumption is wrong Novus. Fighter Jet's of today deal with objects below and above the Plane of Reference, rendering that assumption moot.
    That still leaves the First and Third assumptions intact. A common Plane of Reference is still needed and there is still the assumption that objects move mostly parallel to the Plane of Reference.

    Solar system set as a common Plane of Reference might work if it's treated the same as submarines. There would be an astral Depth (how far above or below the common Plane of Reference) and a bearing. No idea which way the bearing of 0 degrees would be though. Galaxy center? - NovusNecrontyr


    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I don't really know what would be best for this situation, but by default the idea of such a system in space, the "Plane of Reference" would be your ship itself. I do not really see the need to have a locked Plane of Reference in space with this kind of system. But could you explain to me why it would be needed it if I am missing something? "Plane of Reference" is usually the ground on a planet to tell you the altitude (normally set to the sea level) as well as the horizon.

    Second point; bearing - If you are going to make the horizon reference to the galaxy, "North" or 0 bearing would be the center of the galaxy. If by solar system, the 0 bearing should be the main body star of the system. Otherwise you can have your horizon follow your ships plane of reference and set the 0 bearing to the main sequence star of the solar system or Galaxy.
    Last edited by Hakase; 10-09-16 at 07:30 AM.

  9. #29
    Registered NovusNecrontyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Johannesburg
    Posts
    142
    Quote Originally Posted by Hakase View Post

    I don't really know what would be best for this situation, but by default the idea of such a system in space, the "Plane of Reference" would be your ship itself. I do not really see the need to have a locked Plane of Reference in space with this kind of system. But could you explain to me why it would be needed it if I am missing something? "Plane of Reference" is usually the ground on a planet to tell you the altitude (normally set to the sea level) as well as the horizon.

    Second point; bearing - If you are going to make the horizon reference to the galaxy, "North" or 0 bearing would be the center of the galaxy. If by solar system, the 0 bearing should be the main body star of the system. Otherwise you can have your horizon follow your ships plane of reference and set the 0 bearing to the main sequence star of the solar system or Galaxy.
    So, let's break it down.

    If the Plane of Reference is your own ship, then how would you be able to relay to other squad mates that the bogey is above you when compared to their own Plane of Reference, the bogey us underneath them. Space has no up nor down. A Plane of Reference gives us an up or down. That up or down gives us an easier way of passing information but it needs to be common between everyone. If you are approaching a station upside down and they tell you to pass below them, you are gonna go the wrong way. They don't know what your Plane of Reference is and you don't know what their Plane of Reference. This is solved with a common Plane of Reference. The solar plane.

    Making the star the 0 degree bearing is just downright broken.
    Bearings will then be different based on where you are in relation to the star. Someone on the far side could tell you that there is an incoming bogey from Mars at bearing 35, yet because you are in a completely different part of the solar system, Mars is at your bear 65. A bearing is the same as a planar reference. With earth, the 0 bearing is North. Top of the planet, and no matter where you are, 90 will always be east, 180 is always south and 270 is always west. That is A LOT harder to do in a 3D space where there is no up nor end. Making Galaxy center the 0 bearing is the closest to giving everyone the same 0 degree bearing.

  10. #30
    Registered Hakase's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    40
    "So, let's break it down.

    If the Plane of Reference is your own ship, then how would you be able to relay to other squad mates that the bogey is above you when compared to their own Plane of Reference, the bogey us underneath them. Space has no up nor down. A Plane of Reference gives us an up or down. That up or down gives us an easier way of passing information but it needs to be common between everyone. If you are approaching a station upside down and they tell you to pass below them, you are gonna go the wrong way. They don't know what your Plane of Reference is and you don't know what their Plane of Reference. This is solved with a common Plane of Reference. The solar plane.

    Making the star the 0 degree bearing is just downright broken.
    Bearings will then be different based on where you are in relation to the star. Someone on the far side could tell you that there is an incoming bogey from Mars at bearing 35, yet because you are in a completely different part of the solar system, Mars is at your bear 65. A bearing is the same as a planar reference. With earth, the 0 bearing is North. Top of the planet, and no matter where you are, 90 will always be east, 180 is always south and 270 is always west. That is A LOT harder to do in a 3D space where there is no up nor end. Making Galaxy center the 0 bearing is the closest to giving everyone the same 0 degree bearing." - NovusNecrontyr


    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If a contact has a value of -degrees, it's below you, if +degrees, it's above. Correct me if I am wrong, but the current 3D display shows the plane of reference follows your ship, so dose the horizon. An idea would be to have a lead ship designate the set bearings or if need, plane of reference and everyone else syncs to it. But this this is kind of detracting on the actual function of the radar system. This is the reason why I never said 3D radars are useless. My 2D radar is designed purely to keep track of contact/s range from your ship. Like an early warning system, such a system wont really benefit others and is only designed for your own situation. If you don't want any contact/s entering a cretin range from you, you would know.

    The bearing can be whatever best suits for the situation, normally for localised combat, all you need is the center of the solar system. What kind of combat scenario are you thinking of if I may ask? If by chance the entire solar system is the battlefield, then yes C&C would require galactic synchronization. But normally for "localised" situations, your wingman/s would not be all the way on the other size of the system.
    Last edited by Hakase; 10-09-16 at 02:34 PM.

  11. #31
    Registered draeath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    361
    If you need some fixed frame of reference to use (either up front, or in datalink between wingmates) it's a solved problem, I should note. While such a system probably wouldn't want to transmit absolute coordinates around, there's no reason a bullseye system couldn't be used, in which case the vectors communicated would be relative to a fixed, prearranged vector.

    It's slow and cumbersome to a newbie, sure, but it's accurate and apparently (if you use it enough) not that difficult. Pilots manage to use it in combat, so it couldn't be that bad. MJ might actually have hands-on experience /w such a concept, I should note. Not to mention you'll probably have a computer doing the scutwork for you (since if you don't, you probably also don't have sensors, comms, and maneuverability either)
    Last edited by draeath; 10-11-16 at 08:06 PM.
    Volunteer Rogue System Wiki Moderator
    Come visit the Rogue System Discord Server!

  12. #32
    Registered Kegereneku's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    81
    Just found this video, wanted to share.
    It's sort of the ultimate 360 radar system

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQt4B4pCaQs

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •