About 3rd view in Rebirth (only "5%" uses 1st view)

[Lord Asmodeus]

Even in arcade racing games (Need For Speed) I prefer 1st person, it's just more immersive, and I don't mind the added difficulty. I find it far more enjoyable when drifting and such to actually have walls and all in front of me instead of just seeing my car going left and right.

[Flybye]

3rd person in a driving game is just dumb, but how many real players also actually race their cars in real life? Less than 5% I bet lol.

I almost always pick 1st person in a driving game because you can feel if you are over or under steering. 3rd person just feel dinky since your view usually doesnt change in the direction the car is pointing.

[Gazz]

I voted 1st person but just to be clear - I'm referring to a view like this:

cockpit.jpg

3rd person is when you can see the whole ship (or at least most of it) in front of you with a camera that isn't fixed in relation to the ship.

All these internal struts and hull plates that are visible on Rebirth screenshots can die in a fire.

[Chris0132]

I installed the cockpit mod for X3 and found that it made the game an awful lot of fun just to fly around in. It can sort of get in the way for fighting, but if they made a cockpit that perhaps folds out for cruising in, with lots of displays and things showing you info, and then maybe made it fold out of the way some of the screens for in combat, or even just made it sufficiently unobtrusive in combat, that'd be great.

I very much like having a good cockpit visible, it adds to the feeling that you're really flying something with substance, rather than a camera with guns taped to it.

That's not because "pilots don't want it". You know, a lot of tank pilots would be happy to have no windows in their tank, but more armor. And actually thats how modern tanks are made nowadays....

First of all they aren't 'tank pilots', they're tank drivers. My brother was one and he'd be outraged to hear himself called a 'pilot'.

Secondly, while there are indeed such external electronic views, if they get damaged and non-functional, the poor tank commander has to stick his head out of the top of the turret to direct the driver, assuming that their particular tank doesn't include a 'window', i.e., a slit viewport for the driver.

So, what do you want, a ship's pilot to be completely blind because his cameras got damaged or destroyed? Every modern combat vehicle has some form of physical external viewport. Even submarines have their periscopes if all else fails. Blinding a combat vehicle would be all too easy otherwise.

Windows do make a lot of sense as a fallback. Plus they save on computing power. If you can get by with just a window, why make a very expensive and processor/power intensive giant screen?

It makes sense for maybe a big carrier to have screens, but a moderate <10 man ship would do fine with windows. Not least because it stops people getting claustrophobic.

Besides, using the tank example, you can do what they already do on a lot of tanks: Put an armored cover over the vision block you can move out of the way.

If you wanted to you could have the option of an upgrade to the skunk, perhaps, which folds big heavy shutters over the windows and puts it in 'battle mode' where it takes less damage but burns through ecells steadily because of the extra power requirements.

[juju1111]

1st view with ultrarealistic 3d cockpits like in Flight sims that would be awesome

Cold start of spaceships

[Night Nord]

First of all they aren't 'tank pilots', they're tank drivers. My brother was one and he'd be outraged to hear himself called a 'pilot'.

Secondly, while there are indeed such external electronic views, if they get damaged and non-functional, the poor tank commander has to stick his head out of the top of the turret to direct the driver, assuming that their particular tank doesn't include a 'window', i.e., a slit viewport for the driver.

So, what do you want, a ship's pilot to be completely blind because his cameras got damaged or destroyed? Every modern combat vehicle has some form of physical external viewport. Even submarines have their periscopes if all else fails. Blinding a combat vehicle would be all too easy otherwise.

Modern tanks are dead without electronics anyway. No active armor, no stabilizers, no thermovisors. EMI and magnetic fields are the worst enemies of modern tech. Even rockets are now on semiconductors.

Modern combat is all about electric tech - drones of all sorts, both offensive and recon, cameras, telerockets, Don't forget about communication - without it soldier is worse then blind.

In a future tech will became even more protected and more reliable and will integrate into combat even more. One with tech disabled will be outmatched so far that it doesn't actually matter if he has window or not - he's dead anyway. That's a only fallback because tech is unreliable enough, but there already plans for new tanks without windows at all.

Also, note that tanks and submarines have a very small viewports. Just for driving/aiming. They don't have a huge glass for a half of the ship, you know. A little hole or even periscopes.

And yes, what you will do in space if your electronics are dead, anyway? There are no "cameras", you know. I've talked about synthetic image made up from various sensors. If all of your sensors are dead, including your radar/gravidar, you are blind gazing at this black-black space with black-black ships.

It makes sense for maybe a big carrier to have screens, but a moderate <10 man ship would do fine with windows. Not least because it stops people getting claustrophobic.

I don't think that blackness of the space is good against getting claustrophobic. I'm not a psychologist, but I think that it rather cause some other sort of phobia, like that one with fear of flying ("oh no! This glass is too weak, it's going to break!")

[Gazz]

I'm not a psychologist, but I think that it rather cause some other sort of phobia, like that one with fear of flying ("oh no! This glass is too weak, it's going to break!")

I think you meant agrophobia but what you are describing is more like explosivedecompressophobia. =)

[Nanook]

...
I don't think that blackness of the space is good against getting claustrophobic.

Except that space isn't totally black, unless perhaps you're in intergalactic space and near the edge of the known universe. You can always see stars, nebulae and galaxies pretty much everywhere else.

I'm not a psychologist, but I think that it rather cause some other sort of phobia, like that one with fear of flying ("oh no! This glass is too weak, it's going to break!")

So some people would have phobias about being too enclosed and others would have phobias about not being enclosed enough. That's why they have screening processes, to weed out the pilots and crew who just can't take it.

There's just something about being able to physically see 'outside'. I pretty much sit in an office all day with no windows. I could set up a webcam to the outside and show it on my computer screen, if I wanted to. Somehow, that just isn't the same as seeing the sun and blue sky in person.

[Night Nord]

Except that space isn't totally black, unless perhaps you're in intergalactic space and near the edge of the known universe. You can always see stars, nebulae and galaxies pretty much everywhere else.

I doubt that you'll notice much but small color dots. No shiny colored nebulas (unless that's a synthetic image from your spectrometer, that is) Google for photos.

There's just something about being able to physically see 'outside'. I pretty much sit in an office all day with no windows. I could set up a webcam to the outside and show it on my computer screen, if I wanted to. Somehow, that just isn't the same as seeing the sun and blue sky in person.

Take a note that there is no "windows" at sun side on International Space Station, because of the radiation. You need to filter it out somehow, so you'll never see "sun" (a star) anyway - it will be extremely unhealthy for your eyes. You'll somewhat filtered our image, which is essentially similar to having screen with synthetic image. Problem with your example is that web cams are very crappy (even if they have huge resolution) and mess up with color representation. Same goes for the screen. Take a HDR problems and you'll get your effect - your brain just know that this is not real, because it know how "real" looks like. It won't be same for spaceship.

Personally I do prefer black (ok, ok. Black almost everywhere (that's a valid mathematical term!)) space, but I don't actually care it is from heavily analogue-filtered window or from screen, if screen is good enough so my eyes won't see a difference.

[Virtualaughing]

So you want X to be an arcade like where you remote control a ship-model? I like the immersion of pilot (ing) a real thing.

All outside view of a ship you re actually flying is considered as cheat by me ;p Unless it will use real camera that need TIME to approach the required viewing point....

[ADMNtek]

wait X has 3rd person view i never noticed i know you have external camera by hitting F2 but playing the game this way would be horrible. also i dont get why some people are pissed about Freelancers 3rd person view you could switch to 1st.

[HydraX]

3rd i use when i want to look around and enjoy the view but when playing i like to feel i'm in that spaceship/plane/car that i use.

[Nanook]

Except that space isn't totally black, unless perhaps you're in intergalactic space and near the edge of the known universe. You can always see stars, nebulae and galaxies pretty much everywhere else.

I doubt that you'll notice much but small color dots. No shiny colored nebulas (unless that's a synthetic image from your spectrometer, that is) Google for photos.

You're wrong. Natural Color Nebulae

There's just something about being able to physically see 'outside'. I pretty much sit in an office all day with no windows. I could set up a webcam to the outside and show it on my computer screen, if I wanted to. Somehow, that just isn't the same as seeing the sun and blue sky in person.

Take a note that there is no "windows" at sun side on International Space Station, because of the radiation. You need to filter it out somehow, so you'll never see "sun" (a star) anyway - it will be extremely unhealthy for your eyes. ....

Who's talking about looking directly at the sun? You'll need better arguments than that if you want to convince anyone that a view screen is just as good as a window. Webcams, HDR, whatever, it's just not the same.

[Night Nord]

You're wrong. Natural Color Nebulae

Look for the scale - this things could be ssen as such only with very good telescope. From our position they are just color points, like many other objects, including galaxies and galaxy groups.

Who's talking about looking directly at the sun? You'll need better arguments than that if you want to convince anyone that a view screen is just as good as a window. Webcams, HDR, whatever, it's just not the same.

If you have window and you are moving, eventually you'll have sun blazing though this window. And what you'll do in that case? And yes, "not the same" is why? I'm telling you - it's just your brain being too smart and detecting "fakeness" of the image present. There are problems, sure - flat screen (no depth), bad color representation, pixelization and other stuff. In there are tech without such problems - you'll never notice the difference.

And yes, we are talking about military grade spaceship now, not a bus or passenger shuttle. Reliability and functionality are top priority here. And reliability/functionality of bare glass without electronics is zero. But usability and functionality of screen (even unrealistic) is very high. Screen is hidden inside the ship, so probability of it being damaged is the same as you being killed (as you sit near it). And again, if your sensors are dead - you are dead too. Window won't help you.

[Zippo342]

You're wrong. Natural Color Nebulae

Look for the scale - this things could be ssen as such only with very good telescope. From our position they are just color points, like many other objects, including galaxies and galaxy groups.

Vision enhancer software anyone?

Anyways, I chose 1st person so I can make my viewers sick when I do a barrel roll. Always works

[Night Nord]

Vision enhancer software anyone?

He wants to see it from window. No software. No even lenses. It should be "real".

[Nanook]

You're wrong. Natural Color Nebulae

Look for the scale - this things could be ssen as such only with very good telescope. From our position they are just color points, like many other objects, including galaxies and galaxy groups....

You're being way too Earth-centric. We're far out on a spiral arm of our galaxy. Most of the systems as represented in the X games are much more crowded. Who's to say Rebirth won't be much closer to the center of the/a/our galaxy and show much more detail. After all, those images represent what we'd see with the naked eye if we were closer to them. And for your information, many of those objects are much more than "color points" when viewed from outside our atmosphere.

So, you're perfectly welcome to put blackout screens on your spaceship viewport. I'll keep mine uncovered so I can see the universe in person.

[Night Nord]

After all, those images represent what we'd see with the naked eye if we were closer to them.

I knew you'll came up with this argument ;p But it's actually wrong.

You seem to forgot about intensity. This objects are light years wide, but from our current position they are just small points. That is - nebula is a gas cloud of unformed or yet-forming star systems. It's ionized and therefore emit some energy (only small fraction of which is in visible range). Say it takes 1 cm^2 on "skydome" when viewed from our point. Which means that all the light/energy emitted by said gas cloud is packed into this 1 cm^2 making it somewhat bright and colorful. More you'll move closed - more area it will take on your skydome, less overall intensity you'll have.

So, if you are outside of the gas cloud you'll see small and bright dot or big and dim area. If you are inside the cloud you'll either see everything slightly colored (if gas is sparse enough - unformed star systems) or you'll see "normal" skydome, but stars nearby will be slightly bigger (yet-forming star systems) then normal. And moving in any more dense gas cloud is probably as much as dangerous as moving into atmosphere.

Well, that's a speculation actually, but probably we will never know how nebulas looks from inside for real.

And for your information, many of those objects are much more than "color points" when viewed from outside our atmosphere.

With your bare eye? No, they are not. That's why I suggested you too google for photos made from ISS.

Well, ok. You may actually see our galaxy even within our atmosphere - that's why it's called "milky way" in a first place (BTW, that's actually a proof for what I've said above - we are inside the galaxy, but it's seen as a dim area around us, despite of the our posistion). But sure that's not a colorful space you'll see in games or movies.

[inreality]

Well in X I like 3rd person view, but e.g. ArmA (MilSim) I play mostly 1st person, because its way more immersive. We need both. Choices.

[Tolmos]

I use first view 90% of the time. I only switch to external cameras when I am flying along a boring path or in the middle of a battle and just want to look at my ship and be like "OOOO PRETTY" =D