Members | Sign In
All Forums > Help
avatar

Moving your ship on the Y Coordinate?

posted May 15, 2012 20:45:20 by JeshuaShemuelHorca
I noticed in the Mission Editor that you can specify named and nameless objects to be on a specific Y Coordinate. I assume (I don't have the game loaded at the moment) that the objects will be shown above or below your ship in the game.
Anyways, the question is:
Is it possible to move the ship up and down in the Y Coordinate in the game?
page   1
15 replies
avatar
Mike_Substelny said May 16, 2012 13:24:47
It is possible to do this with a mission script, but there are no controls for the helmsperson to maneuver on the Y axis. It's just as well, since it's too hard for a crew to talk to each other in 3-D terms.
"Damn the torpedoes! Four bells, Captain Drayton!"

(Likely actual words of Admiral David Farragut, USN, at the battle of Mobile Bay. Four bells was the signal for the engine room to make full steam ahead).
avatar
madings said May 21, 2012 04:40:25
If you put the ship up or down the Y axis in a mission script, the game will "correct" this position back to y=0 again "for you", but not instantaneously. You actually see the ship moving back into position. Interestingly if you put in an event to trigger every single clock tick to keep resetting the positionY back up, you can force the ship to not do that and stay up or below the plane. Not sure how useful that is, though.
avatar
AdamJosephDembroski said Jun 18, 2012 05:17:36
Adding Y-Axis is my single biggest hope for the future of this game. Space is 3-dimensional, the game should play in 3-dimensions. I think of the three Klingon ships attacking the Enterprises in "Yesterday's Enterprise" (TNG, S3) from above.

Helm control would simply be adding pitch and roll (and there should be no concept of "upright" except in relation to what we consider the "north pole" of a system's star maybe), and as for coordinates, I don't think it would that tough to get accustom to a 2nd heading... "Helm, bear 180 mark 032, maximum warp".
avatar
quadraticink said Jun 24, 2012 18:55:13
Seems, like the whole confusion over orders in 3D can be resolved by adding in a dedicated navigator. I'd use cylindrical coordinates, ala Homeworld. Navigator can have quick tools to translate between these coordinates and ship's coordinates.
avatar
siohweh said Jun 26, 2012 03:02:33
A 3D enviroment would be great.
avatar
TimothyRau said Jun 26, 2012 04:05:31
I would Love 3d Coordinates. I hate the cylindrical coordinates through, as it strongly discourages truly 3 dimensional thinking. I guess that makes helm's job harder, but thats why we have dedicated officers. perhaps 3d could be optional, or set as a campaign option
avatar
CaptainQuick said Jul 06, 2012 05:16:38
I have to agree, while a three dimensional work-space is something most Sci-fi glosses over and Sci-fi games don't touch I think it would be a huge addition to the game at the cost of a slight learning curve. This of course would also add more arcs to shields, make the mapping more complicated make the need for different firing arcs like Ventral and dorsal beams and a host of other development additions to make practical but it's something I'd love to see in the long run for advanced players to use. It's more a dream then a practical addition. It's also something that always gets refereed to. (Like in Star Trek II) but rarely implemented well (Also like in Star Trek II).

I think it would need an additional station doing navigation, or maybe Science to be doing course plotting and being able to transmit courses directly into the helm.
Seek not to be good, nor evil, but let deed alone speak the truth of your life
avatar
S.SimonWilde said Aug 02, 2012 10:18:35
Moving the in the Y axis would not be so difficult. If it were implemented properly. Perhaps have it work like a submarine, and rather than setting a bearing for the vertical movement you set a depth. So 180 by depth 100 would move you toward the bottom of the map (180) and upwards in 3d until you reached a 'depth' of +100 (above the plane). The map does not have to be super 3d, not even a square, but a broad rectangular object perhaps 20 or 30 km's thick. This will make the game look alot prettier in alot of ways, but will not add combat depth without 'top' and 'bottom' shields.
avatar
RobJosephson said Aug 03, 2012 12:40:23
If 3d were implemented, I would suggest leaving out rolls. Changing orientation relative to other ships and stations while realistic, would serve to destroy immersion, IMO.
avatar
JSpaced said Aug 16, 2012 09:49:45
Hi guys,
My friend and I have discovered this game and are looking forward to our first sim some time next month. I felt compelled to add here that I think 3D would vastly improve (but also greatly complicate) the game. Adding in pitch as well as yaw would help to create a more immersive experience.

Can I be a heretic and suggest that maybe Star Trek Online has quite a good "Space" system, with a ceiling and floor? I agree with S.SimonWilde that a rectangular map structure would be really cool.

It seemed to work on Frontier: Elite (remember that, back in the day) where you had a relative flat plane by which space was mapped, but things could appear far above and far below that.

I will say though: if you implemented 3D space, Artemis would have to allow total maneuverability. It does jar sometimes that I can't make my Miranda class starship loop-de-loop and come back on its own tail, it hits a maximum angle of climb and refuses to turn over! Artemis should allow freedom but include ST:O's "self-righting" behaviour to stop ships looking odd when meeting.

Also, how cool would it be, when being chased, to be able to dive straight down and let them pass overhead?

Also, I think that 3D should be a selectable option in the server settings, so that people can get to grips with the stations and functions in 2D first.

Finally, can I suggest a toggle option to make bearings ship-relative, rather than space-relative? I think it would be a cool aspect of the navigator /helm's role to interpret and make bearing calculations "on the fly".
"We should give him the send-off he deserves. He died saving us all. Prepare a Rocket-Shed for immediate launch."
avatar
MichaelMesich said Oct 07, 2012 05:33:00
Y coordinate?

Shouldn't we be talking about Z?

X: Left/Right, Y: Forward/Back, Z: Up/Down?

Or are we assuming we move in X and Z?
avatar
MichaelMesich said Oct 08, 2012 04:30:30
Ha! After going through some mission XMLs looking to get a feel for mission design options I see that we do indeed move in X and Z, which makes sense to me now thinking of an upright screen as the point of reference instead of a sheet of paper on a desk.

Nevermind me. Go about your business. :)
avatar
ElliotJones said Oct 16, 2012 16:29:52
I think eventually having a 3D coordinate system as an option would be great. Get used to working as a crew in two dimensions, then switch to three when you get a hang of things. This would really add a great deal of possible strategies.

Personally, I think Eve Online did a great job with how dimensions work. You tell the ship where to go and it goes, but it always tries to orient itself in an upward fashion. Simple enough to implement and learn, but complex enough to provide an added layer of realism.
avatar
Moloch said Oct 17, 2012 03:07:56
3d navigation is a cinch when you remember: the enemy's gate is down.
avatar
crazymatt007 said Oct 18, 2012 01:12:23
Having grown up playing Wing Commander, as well as X-Wing and its various spin-offs, a fully 3-dimensional space combat system is a very different aesthetic, which aside from easily lending itself to an Artemis-style division of ship roles, is tactically incompatible with the sorts of "Star Trek" style combat that Artemis emulates (sure, they occasionally use the up-down axis, as in "Wrath of Khan," but it's mainly a plot device, rather than a regularly occurring feature). As a fan of full 3D space games and Newtonian physics in general, I recently purchased Arvoch Alliance, and immediately found myself loving the realism while simultaneously feeling overwhelmed with controls for more things than I could ever keep track of.

I think most of us in this forum would agree that Thom has a great thing going with Artemis so far, and the nostalgia of feeling "just like the show," coupled with the cooperative, team-building nature are easily its strongest selling points. If that same division of roles and level of teamwork were brought over to other games (like an already existing 3D space combat game), it would be spectacular for those games, but it would no longer be Artemis as we now know it. That said, I would love to see a collaboration with Thom and someone like the developer of Starwraith 3D to make such a thing happen, but only as long as it didn't cut into the continued refinement of Artemis: SBS.
Login below to reply: