2D Universe

[scarleg]

I must say that i am enjoying this game, like i did X3.

Is it just me or does the universe feel very 2D. Let's say that the highway is where we determine what is up and down (since this concept doesent really apply in space =). All the space stations seem to use this level of which to be placed. If going on the highway then there are no stations above or below but only to the sides. Sure, they are a little off up and down but not by much "height-wise". It seems strange that all that space is wasted when it could have been built. It is almost like someone used a 2D map tool and just placed stations here and there without considering that there is another dimension in space. Does this explanation make sense at all? XD

But hey, it could be only me. Still enjoying the game though. =D

[RainerPrem]

I must say that i am enjoying this game, like i did X3.

Is it just me or does the universe feel very 2D. Let's say that the highway is where we determine what is up and down (since this concept doesent really apply in space =). All the space stations seem to use this level of which to be placed. If going on the highway then there are no stations above or below but only to the sides. Sure, they are a little off up and down but not by much "height-wise". It seems strange that all that space is wasted when it could have been built. It is almost like someone used a 2D map tool and just placed stations here and there without considering that there is another dimension in space. Does this explanation make sense at all? XD

But hey, it could be only me. Still enjoying the game though. =D

You should be happy that there is no more 3D (at least at the moment). It is NOT possible to select a point in space outside the Z=0 on the map. Is is NOT possible to shift the map up and down.

[radcapricorn]

There definitely are stations offset from the 0 on Z (which these games stubbornly call Y). But in no way it's as pronounced as it could've been in X3. IMHO, it doesn't really matter, not with the way the game's implemented. We can't order our ships explicitly to move in the vertical, and even if we could, any advantage gained from that would be quickly mitigated by their combat AI anyway.

[Nafensoriel]

Most of X's universe is centralized around solar systems which are actually fairly flat topographically.

[scarleg]

Most of X's universe is centralized around solar systems which are actually fairly flat topographically.

Hmm... so we could say that the reason why the stations are placed where they are is because of gravity from the local sun would otherwise move them?

[photomankc]

Seems to make sense to me. A planetary system would generally have a ecliptic plane where most of it's orbiting materials would be found. Any stations would also need to be in established orbits as well so either the nearest planet or directly around the star which would be probably not very useful. They all need to move together as a group to make travel between and relative positions stable. Makes more sense for everyone to organize along that plane than to scatter randomly. The map shows some degree of Z (Y in the game... why?) with a grey line that extends from the plane at an angle to the contact. To the upper left is above and to the lower right is below. As others mention. There is no way to set a coordinate in the X,Z plane so you can't get guidance to an arbitrary position above or below but you can fly well above or below. I have not found myself missing that aspect really but it is a bit different.

[Falcrack]

I would love it if we were able to place waypoints up or down along the Y-axis. It is one of my major gripes with this game.

[photomankc]

Most of X's universe is centralized around solar systems which are actually fairly flat topographically.

Hmm... so we could say that the reason why the stations are placed where they are is because of gravity from the local sun would otherwise move them?

They could orbit a planet (or the star) on any plane they wanted to with enough thrust and time to establish that orbit and stay there. However that's not practical if the expectation is to travel between the stations. Think about 1/2 of them orbiting above the equator and 1/2 orbiting over the poles on earth as an extreme case. Imagine they are placed at about the orbit of the moon or a bit beyond. Now you have stations that are cris-crossing paths at two points around the planet where the planes intersect at 90 degrees and the relative distance between them is constantly changing as they approach and recede from each other. To fly from an equatorial station to a polar one might involve going half-way around the planet and a lot of complicated orbital mechanics to transfer between them and a good deal of extra travel time. High relative velocities between the stations too. It would be a mess.

If they are all traveling in a single orbital plane together the relative distances can be pretty stable, the relative velocities could be kept close to zero and it then it's not as complicated a problem to transfer from station to station. No where near as simple as X series makes it out with "Just point to station and fly like a fighter plane" but still it's a workable idea.

In reality a station orbits the center point of the mass only so you really would have to all be on damn near the exact same plane or you would see substantial periodic oscillation of stations that were significantly above or below the rest. They would be above half the time and below half the time constantly traveling between those points relative to the rest. So you probably would not see even the amount of Z dispersion shown in X4 (at least not in my minds eye).

[Techedge]

I understand the scientific explanation but this is not a real, scientific, simulation (I play KSP for that). So, I'd really like more Y-axis variety (because, seriously, it is Y, I don't get the reason why for someone it should be Z ).
But Ego really needs to fix navigation issues on that axis first.

[photomankc]

I understand the scientific explanation but this is not a real, scientific, simulation (I play KSP for that). So, I'd really like more Y-axis variety (because, seriously, it is Y, I don't get the reason why for someone it should be Z ).
But Ego really needs to fix navigation issues on that axis first.

Because in every application I’ve worked in the length and width are X and Y with 3rd dimension being height and that’s Z. Just the way it’s stuck for me. I seem to recall that Apollo’s guidance is as you say with Y being a vertical axis. So I guess I now recall why it’s X/Z for the horizontal.

I was speaking more to fellow asking if the sun would pull them down, so if you already get it I’m not really explaining it to you. Not trying to be condescending, just my take on why it think it fits the sim.

[scarleg]

Thank you for the explanation.

[Damocles_]

If the various stations and location would be placed in 3 dimensions equally, most players would loose orientation, and would have a hard time getting a feeling for the topography of a sector.
Having everything mostly stuck o a 2D plane is simply a gamedesign decision that helps people orient them-self. (In the ship and on the map)

[pvarn]

I'm not have any game affecting problems with how the sector maps are used in the game. My ship can use up/down from the map plane all I want for maneuvering. Having things MOSTLY near the plane certainly makes things easier to find.
-Pv-

[Falcrack]

I'm not have any game affecting problems with how the sector maps are used in the game. My ship can use up/down from the map plane all I want for maneuvering. Having things MOSTLY near the plane certainly makes things easier to find.
-Pv-

In at least one instance, I could not complete a build station mission, because the "!" marker was too far below the map plane. I could claim the plot directly above it, but sine I could not move the plot location down along the Y-axis, I was never able to claim the station plot in the right place to satisfy the mission requirements.

[Nafensoriel]

If the various stations and location would be placed in 3 dimensions equally, most players would loose orientation, and would have a hard time getting a feeling for the topography of a sector.
Having everything mostly stuck o a 2D plane is simply a gamedesign decision that helps people orient them-self. (In the ship and on the map)

It's a bit more than that. If you are making a space simulation game you have to generally consider real-world rules when going counter to those rules is conceptually absurd.
Placing objects into orbit is orders of magnitude easier when you use the natural motion gifted to you from an orbital body such as a planet. A huge portion of the "space sim" customer segment would be absolutely happy to point out how stupid it would be to place something so high above the ecliptic plane. The "rule" of work is always "the least work required is the most likely work to be done" and placing orbits into the ecliptic is just the "dumb logic" choice.

It doesn't mean you couldn't create a reason to have extreme or non-standard orbits.. but you'd have to craft a reason for it or deal with people grumbling about it.
Heck pirates would be perfect for these kinds of orbits. Hijack an odd orbit asteroid so you can "swing" through a populated area every few months/years.

[Imperial Good]

It is purposely 2D like most space games. This is because human brains are best suited for processing 2D information since we are used to living on effectively a flat surface and moving in 2 dimensions around on it. Pretty much every space game I played/seen follows this including galactic civilizations, Sins of a Solar Empire and Freelancer, and both X3 and XR were also like this.

Although I think the concept of a 3D map is certainly something humans could get used to playing, the fact remains that they will need to get used to/learn it and some people might fight it too difficult and give up.

Also from a programming perspective it makes AI related activities a lot harder.

[Nafensoriel]

It is purposely 2D like most space games. This is because human brains are best suited for processing 2D information since we are used to living on effectively a flat surface and moving in 2 dimensions around on it. Pretty much every space game I played/seen follows this including galactic civilizations, Sins of a Solar Empire and Freelancer, and both X3 and XR were also like this.

Although I think the concept of a 3D map is certainly something humans could get used to playing, the fact remains that they will need to get used to/learn it and some people might fight it too difficult and give up.

Also from a programming perspective it makes AI related activities a lot harder.

That's not quite correct. Humans(and most life on planet earth) process 3D information far better than 2D information. Pick any study of 3D immersive tests vs 2D non-immersive tests. 3D is almost universally faster and the brain will store learned information far more efficiently and for longer.

What we are NOT efficient at is processing a 3D representation with 2D non-immersive controllers via a (mostly)2D visual feedback. It tends to make the brain "chase" where it "thinks" an object is. Bluntly monitors suck for transfering 3D information to your eyes and your hands cant fill in the gaps because your "touching" of the scene is via convoluted control schemes such as a mouse.

[Techedge]

In at least one instance, I could not complete a build station mission, because the "!" marker was too far below the map plane. I could claim the plot directly above it, but sine I could not move the plot location down along the Y-axis, I was never able to claim the station plot in the right place to satisfy the mission requirements.

You have to first place the plot, then you can move it on the Y-axis by keeping LMB pressed while moving the mouse up or down. It's not perfect, but this way you can place plots in different locations than the ecliptic plane.
(btw, pressing RMB while moving the mouse rotates the plot onto its own axis instead).

Just tried some moments ago as a confirmation.

[CaptainX4]

I understand the scientific explanation but this is not a real, scientific, simulation (I play KSP for that). So, I'd really like more Y-axis variety (because, seriously, it is Y, I don't get the reason why for someone it should be Z ).
But Ego really needs to fix navigation issues on that axis first.

Because in every application I’ve worked in the length and width are X and Y with 3rd dimension being height and that’s Z. Just the way it’s stuck for me. I seem to recall that Apollo’s guidance is as you say with Y being a vertical axis. So I guess I now recall why it’s X/Z for the horizontal.

I was speaking more to fellow asking if the sun would pull them down, so if you already get it I’m not really explaining it to you. Not trying to be condescending, just my take on why it think it fits the sim.

nope, its actually horizontal is x vertical is Y!!! and depth behind/in front of your screen is z

[Imperial Good]

That's not quite correct. Humans(and most life on planet earth) process 3D information far better than 2D information. Pick any study of 3D immersive tests vs 2D non-immersive tests. 3D is almost universally faster and the brain will store learned information far more efficiently and for longer.

What I said is correct, since much like how X4 occurs on a 2D plain with some 3D elements, real life is just like that. Sure calling it 2D is not really true since it is 3D but with limited Z movement about a plain, but calling it 2.5D be open for some misinterpretations/confusion.

To be more specific humans are design around a world which has a concept of up and down as the result of gravity. Gravity always pushes us down and without machines it is impossible to deviate much in the up direction as a result. For that reason most of our navigation occurs effectively around a plain, and so can even be calculated with 2D maths like many "3D" games did/still do. We always use up and down as a reference to align ourselves to solve the navigational problems about it. Now the problem with true 3D environments, like real space, is that there is no concept of up or down. In such environments there is no reference to align how one solves a problem. A planet could be viewed from any rotation making feature recognition much harder (like reading upside-down text). An object could be approached from any direction, making recognizing it more difficult as well. Additionally an object could end up being anywhere relative to you, which requires searching for it in a sphere, a difficult task in itself without checking the same parts twice.

Humans have no problem navigating a 3D environment anchored to a plain, which is how most space games work. However if one extends the scale to a planet (massive 3D environment anchored to a spheroid) humans can easily lose track of where they are on the surface and become disorientated, eg if they were flying very fast above the surface of earth without navigation equipment and having to deal with hundreds of other planets like it. Hence why maps in games can be set to default to a fixed orientation rather than always showing from your perspective. Now if one extends that even further to a full massive 3D environment without any shape based anchoring and potentially with objects moving (eg orbiting planets or moving asteroids) players will certainly be lost most of the time. The only way to efficiently navigate such environments is either with a lot of learning/practice, or with extensive use of tools which literally show you where to go to find something.

As an example of this at work, turn off automatic roll correction when playing X4. Now fly around in an asteroid field in a dog fight for an extended period. Without resorting to the map or looking at the radar, try to find something. When near stations one can always use the station module orientation to perform manual roll correction, if one plays enough to learn the module rotations.

That said it would be interesting to have some proper 3D space games. Even if it ends up one has to use computer help to navigate most of the time lol.