[phreak]

Whenever i get around to coding 3d cockpits, i'll make it so stuff like the targetbox, comm window, ETS gauges, radar, etc can be specified as an MFD and the main hud like reticles and stuff can be projected onto a glass type thing you see in modern military aircraft.  I don't know how it will look.  it has the chance of sucking or being cool.

[Taristin]

Originally posted by Eishtmo
http://descent-freespace.com/goodies/gallery/cockpit/cok19.jpg
 

Great place for the comm display. Having a Vasudan head chattering between your legs.

[Nico]

Originally posted by Eishtmo

That's it kids, that's all the cockpit there is to render.  AKA:  Not a damn thing!  It isn't worth the time or effort and I guarentee you'll shut the damn thing off after two minutes of novelity.
 

Not a damn thing? well, actually, you have all the HUD things twice, and mirrored, plus a handful of useless gauges in the middle. It sucks, but who said we'd do THAT one?
You garantee? My ass, I suppose you're not the real flight sim type? You garantee! Better hear than than being deaf

[Unknown Target]

Originally posted by StratComm
I know people can have blinders on for things that they really want, but there are about 10 reasons I can think of for no cockpit support at this stage.  I'll list a few:
[list=1]

• no cockpits have been made.  Make one, superimpose it over a screenshot in Photoshop, and make your point and provide a template for at least a testbed rather than just throwing out the same argument over and over.
• The FOV is screwed for a cockpit.  The 45 degree field of view isn't even realistic for one's entire field of view, much less what you'd be seeing on a monitor.  Simply imposing one over the HUD is going to take things more out of proportion than we are already complaining about.
• It would have to be integrated into the FOV in a non-trivial fashion.  Unless, of course, you want your gagues to float away from the hud display they are supposed to be encompassing.
• It involves either moving the HUD components on a per-cockpit basis, or constricting the layout of the cockpit to correctly fit the HUD.  While I firmly believe the HUD element locations should be per-ship definable outside of the code, that's not the issue being debated.
• The cockpit could, in theory, but treated somewhat like a skybox, except rendered to display over everything rather than under.  This, however, means the skybox code should be debugged completely before approaching an adaption for rendering the cockpit.
• THE SCP IS UNDER CODE FREEZE.  IT WILL BE IGNORED.  Save the argument until 3.6 is out and the coders have had a chance to clear the backlog of requests that they already have.

Ok, end rant.  I've just seen this debate too often and it seems like some folks around here have a good bit of cotton in their ears (or in the case of a forum like this one, in their eyes).  Save it, folks.

1) I have one already partially done.

2)  Uhh...fix it with the -FOV command?

3) Um...that's what programming is for.

4) Maybe it could actually be put INTO the cockpit?

5) Or we could not use it as a skybox.

6) We're asking for it for possible future implementation

[StratComm]

1) Then plaster it over a screenshot and show it off.  The partially done bit is precisely what I'm talking about though, it doesn't have to be release grade but it should be complete.

2) See 3

3) That's the non-trivial thing I'm talking about.  Because the amount of cockpit rendered should change with the FOV selected at command line, you either wind up with a tiny hud region at large (default) FOV or missing most of it with a small FOV.  The "project the HUD onto the visor of the pilot" idea is really the only workable solution I've heard, and then you lose the element of having that display in the cockpit with you where you would expect it.

4) Also workable, but I don't know how well the lead indicator would work on a surface somewhere.

5) I'm not saying use it as a skybox.  I'm saying [consider]implimenting it in a fashion similar to the skyboxes.  Of course things like orientation change, but you're still talking about a model to be rendered at a different level than everything else.  Yes, you could do it completely from scratch as well.  And having not looked at skybox code I don't know if there's much to use there.  But there might be, and I'm offering up a suggestion.

[phreak]

heres some ideas.  can you expand on them?

Code: [Select]


1. alternate gauge positions
in the cockpit model, polygons with the texture name "COCKPIT-GAUGE-HUDTARGETBOX" will have the hudtargetbox gauge rendered
on the cockpit model instead of the main hud screen.  same thing would happen for stuff like the ETS, comm head, radar and such.
the UV defined by the modeler will be used to draw the gauge itself (so make sure you set the UV coordinates)
anything not defined will be drawn as normal.  the texture for this would be called "COCKPIT-GAUGE-MAIN"

2. Two eyepoints
Eyepoint a: would be set about 1m back from the main hud part like the reticle, lead indicator and such
gauges not defined in the cockpit model will be drawn normally
Eyepoint b: would be real close to the main screen.  this makes it the same as it is now

3. HUD gauge tables
would define alternate gauges to be used with a particular ship this
way the gaugues will can different between ships like the Herc I and Herc II
or between ships of different faction/species

4. problems/limitations
we need to render the hud to the stencil buffer to prevent possible
polygons from nearby objects to pass through the cockpit model.  this is going
to force HTL usage.  on top of that, i don't know how to stencil in D3D.

any 3d gauges such as the targetbox, radar or any of the reticles will
be tricky to draw since we have to get 2d coords (for restricting drawing
within certain regions) from a 3d model.  theres already function in the codebase that does this, but
i don't know if its going to work properly .


[Eishtmo]

Originally posted by Nico
Not a damn thing?

Yup.  That's what I said.

well, actually, you have all the HUD things twice, and mirrored

You need it twice?  Do you have two heads?

plus a handful of useless gauges in the middle.

Just like the entire concept of visible cockpits, useless.

It sucks,

Yes it does.

but who said we'd do THAT one?

It's canon.  It's the way FS cockpits look according to Volition.  That's it, that's the look.

You garantee?

Yup.  And it's "guarantee."  I misspelled it myself.  Unless you're going for the Cajun pronouncation.

My ass,

That's what it'll look like.  Though probably with less hair and pimples.

I suppose you're not the real flight sim type?

If you hadn't noticed, this isn't a real flight sim.  The first tip might have been the fact that you're in space and you're fighting aliens.  Of course, anyone could miss that.

You garantee!

Still going with the Cajun thing I see.

Better hear than than being deaf

. . .

Ever have someone say something so totally stupid that your brain will explode if you don't comment on how stupid it was?  This is one of those times.

Visible cockpits have always been and always will be an idea that has no worth whatsoever.  In flight sims it puts struts in your line of sight and overloads with dozens of important gauges.  They're important for flying a 10 million dollar jet flying at twice the speed of sound, for sure.  But for a computer game that is in no way shape or form even attempts to be like a true fighter craft or an uber-complex simulation, it is worthless.  Those images of the cockpit prove the uselessness of it, all the stuff we could ever want or need is projected onto the hud, and that would be the focus of a pilot's attention.  Anything else would be a complete and total distraction, removing the most important element of any video game:  fun.

Worse yet, it would take a significant amount of work for something only a small handful of people would ever use, and the majority of them (aside from uber-flight sim nutjob Nico) would very likely disable the function because it got in the way of gameplay.

There are some things that no matter how cool they seem simply aren't worth the time and effort wasted to bring them to life.  This is one of them.

[Falcon]

Originally posted by freespacer01


He is right about that... I play FS 1/2 and I am Deaf! Text plays huge role! One reason why Starlancer pisses me off...

Then Freelancer is defenately out of the question. though i'm not deaf, we really need companies that are concered about deaf people.

One of the many of reasons why I don't like Microsoft. Another thing, can someone explain to me why Microsoft prints the photosensitve seizure warnings on the front page of the
manual while they dont give any warnings on the box.    The other thing is that most people dont read manuals. (Microsoft is plotting something )

[Nico]

Originally posted by Eishtmo
1)Yup.  That's what I said.



2)You need it twice?  Do you have two heads?



3)Just like the entire concept of visible cockpits, useless.



Yes it does.



It's canon.  It's the way FS cockpits look according to Volition.  That's it, that's the look.



Yup.  And it's "guarantee."  I misspelled it myself.  Unless you're going for the Cajun pronouncation.



That's what it'll look like.  Though probably with less hair and pimples.



If you hadn't noticed, this isn't a real flight sim.  The first tip might have been the fact that you're in space and you're fighting aliens.  Of course, anyone could miss that.



Still going with the Cajun thing I see.



. . .

Ever have someone say something so totally stupid that your brain will explode if you don't comment on how stupid it was?  This is one of those times.

Visible cockpits have always been and always will be an idea that has no worth whatsoever.  In flight sims it puts struts in your line of sight and overloads with dozens of important gauges.  They're important for flying a 10 million dollar jet flying at twice the speed of sound, for sure.  But for a computer game that is in no way shape or form even attempts to be like a true fighter craft or an uber-complex simulation, it is worthless.  Those images of the cockpit prove the uselessness of it, all the stuff we could ever want or need is projected onto the hud, and that would be the focus of a pilot's attention.  Anything else would be a complete and total distraction, removing the most important element of any video game:  fun.

Worse yet, it would take a significant amount of work for something only a small handful of people would ever use, and the majority of them (aside from uber-flight sim nutjob Nico) would very likely disable the function because it got in the way of gameplay.

There are some things that no matter how cool they seem simply aren't worth the time and effort wasted to bring them to life.  This is one of them.

1) I disagree . [Eishtmo mode=on]I consider MY opinion more important than yours coz it's my opinion[Eishtmo mode=off]
2) Whoa, talk about completly misunderstanding what I said. Read again. And if you still didn't get what I said, read it one more time.
3) . Gonna stop the list there and ignore you, your opinion ( or therefore lack of ) does not interest me.

See what I meant with my point 7) Stratcomm?

[JarC]

Originally posted by Eishtmo
It's canon. It's the way ..... look according to Volition. That's it, that's the look.

Oh My G***wd  

this statement in one single blow wipes all the great efforts done sofar by the modders and the SCP team completely of the table, since if you are consequent, your 'opinion' dictates you to use only the default, 'out-of-the-box' FS2 and stay away as far as possible from any modifications, which begs to wonder what you are doing in a forum that is all about changing stuff (canon this canon that...then stick with the original bugs)

[Eishtmo]

Originally posted by JarC
Oh My G***wd  

this statement in one single blow wipes all the great efforts done sofar by the modders and the SCP team completely of the table, since if you are consequent, your 'opinion' dictates you to use only the default, 'out-of-the-box' FS2 and stay away as far as possible from any modifications, which begs to wonder what you are doing in a forum that is all about changing stuff (canon this canon that...then stick with the original bugs)

You're kidding right?  You do know I'm part of the Terran-Vasudan War Project, the one that has taken more liberties with canon than anything short of a total conversion to, say Babylon 5, right?

It comes down to the point in even bothering to do it.  Volition made a design decision reguarding visible cockpits waaaayyyyy back when they made FS1 and built the game's interface around it.  Why in the hell would they make such a decision?  Because they knew it would be the one feature most turned off by the playing public.  So the fighters they designed limited if not completely eliminated the use of such things.  It was the right idea and it remains so all this time later.

Which is why it's pointless to bother.  How many people here would really, truly use the thing for more than a couple minutes of novellty?  Not many, I'm sure.  Even if you say you would, I'm sure the bulk of you would shut it off after only a short time of use.  That's a lot of effort put into something people are simply going to shut off.  It's obstructive, it doesn't add anything to gameplay, and will simply a pain in the ass to build in the first place.  There is no merit in building the damn thing.

Originally posted by Nico
1) I disagree . [Eishtmo mode=on]I consider MY opinion more important than yours coz it's my opinion[Eishtmo mode=off]

That's your right, everyone has the right to a different opinion, even a blatently wrong one.  But hey, if you want to do it, feel free to try.  I'll mention it again in about six months, which will be about five months after you quit trying to build it because of all the reasons I stated and perhaps a few others.

2) Whoa, talk about completly misunderstanding what I said. Read again. And if you still didn't get what I said, read it one more time.

Yeah, I probably did misunderstand.  Don't care enough to read it again and figure out what you were talking about.

3) Gonna stop the list there and ignore you, your opinion ( or therefore lack of ) does not interest me.

Let's see, if the gauges are useless, then why bother with them in the first place?  Which only makes the idea of a visual cockpit that much less appealing, as it is useless.

See what I meant with my point 7) Stratcomm?

I'll tell you why we try to discourage it, because there are a dozen or more campaigns, the entire source code project, renders, models, missions, weapons and what not that actually need to be finished.  Cockpits only take away time, energy and people who should be working on projects much more interesting, useful and fun.  Like I said, if you want to do it, then do it yourself.  Don't waste other people's time.

Oh wait, you're ignoring me now.  I forgot.  Perhaps I should insult your intellgence now.  Nah, not worth the time or effort, just like visible cockpits.

[Taristin]

...can we not atart one of these again?  Eishtmo... just walk away... Walk. Away.

[Falcon]

My apologies for bringing this up again (I think). Clearly this subject has been used up. Anyone feel free to close this topic. I have no wishes in upsetting SCP coders.

*Falcon disappears as he walk into a black mist*

[Nico]

You're not upsetting the coders, it seems, just one little dude who mistakes lazyness for gameplay choice, an exception in space sim design for an evolution ( around FS1 time, yeah, most space sims didn't have cockpits, like WC4, privateer 2, dark light conflict. Then you got starlancer, freelancer, X, X2, Iwar2, tachyon, wing co prophecy. Did I miss something there? ). Someone who've decided that the one cockpit of one super old ship was canon and therefore that every ships in the whole FS2 universe shared that cockpit, coz V said so ( they did? ). Someone who've decided to enforce the fact that gauges were useless when a SCP guy ( not a TVWP+FSURP staff, no, a SCP one ) offered solutions so they do work and are different according to the cockpit. Someone who missed the obvious fact that campaigns are not completed not because of modellers, but because of fredders, btw, and I can't see how a modeller could help for weapons effects or SCP stuff.
But He Also Knows the Truth, for He Knows What People Like and What They Will do, Allelujah!!! So of course everybody else is of course wrong
Sorry, I don't have the will of ignoring anybody, guess I'm weak.
Become a politician, Eishtmo, coz you trully have a gift

[JarC]

Originally posted by Eishtmo
You're kidding right?  You do know I'm part of the Terran-Vasudan War Project, the one that has taken more liberties with canon than anything short of a total conversion to, say Babylon 5, right?

Why did ya think I brought it up in the first place? you gotta admit that it looks weird you making a statement along the lines of 'if V did not design it, it should not be there'

Originally posted by Eishtmo
I'll tell you why we try to discourage it, because there are a dozen or more campaigns, the entire source code project, renders, models, missions, weapons and what not that actually need to be finished.  Cockpits only take away time, energy and people who should be working on projects much more interesting, useful and fun.  Like I said, if you want to do it, then do it yourself.  Don't waste other people's time.

now there's an idea, might even try to some day...

all kidding aside, I greatly appreciate the efforts done already and those still coming, but me feels it seems as if there's only attention for performance and visual improvement. Models and renders, etc, are nice, but a game with new features and such makes it even a nicer experience

[deep_eyes]

well like nico said... those games have cockpits now only cause of the advance of the coding at-hand. even the older pc games with cockpits, they were 2-d and look horrid and didnt add any depth to the game, just combersom view-blocking.

freelancer was the only game to feature a cock-pit that didnt get in the way because it was just the "frame" of the cockpit itself.
if this was applied to say a myrmydon (which has a cockpit similair to the Defender), if this was done just as theory, then why not just attept to make a "frame model" infront that doesnt do much to block the view.

thats the most i would suggest, but other than that i doubt FS needs a cockpit.

[Nico]

Originally posted by deep_eyes
well like nico said...

No, that's not what I said

[TrashMan]

erm...Freelancer doesn't have a cockipt at all...

Starlancer has cockpits...great ones..I NEVER turned them off...
Some say it blocks part of the view..But of course it does! Do they think the normal today pilots don't have a smaller FOV? They do and that gives the game a bit more immersion and makes it more challenging...

[Nico]

Originally posted by TrashMan
erm...Freelancer doesn't have a cockipt at all...

Yes it does, you push C, et voila, you have a cockpit.