[Unknown Target]

2D cockpits are so much UGLIER than 3D ones. Sure, they have more detail, but 3D ones have an immersion factor that can't be matched by 2D ones. Just play Jane's F-15 and compare it's 2D cockpits with Jane's F/A-18 ones.

[Flipside]

Hmmm it always boils down to the 2D/3D thing

I suppose from my own point of view, my concern would be positioning of dials/radar etc? On a 3D model, I'm assuming you would have to assign hud images to certain surfaces, which would then be layered over the UV map? Whereas a 2D cocpit could be defined using the stuff WM has already added to the HUD code?

2D ones would be easier to implement for the coders point of view, but 3D ones would look cool, especially with glow/spec mapping etc.

[KARMA]

you know, there isn't much difference between a static in game render of a 3d object and a 2d render of the same 3d object:p
the differences would be
1- glow/spec/lightning. Expecially glowmaps could turn pretty cool if stencil shadows could be applyed to 3d cockpits too
2- moving objects (like a cloche moving as you move your joystick)
3- rotating the point of view
Said that, I'm not saying "ehy we can have 2d cockpits, we don't need 3d ones then", I'm just saying "somebody should make a 2d cockpit while waiting for 3d ones to be implemented". It's just a render afterall...
it's a shame that nobody did a 2d cockpit so far althought coder's requests, if you really need to increase the immersive factor, a 2d one would have been a light years step above what we have alredy...which is nothing...

[vyper]

[q]someone really has to code it just to avoid reding a new cockpit thread in future[/q]

If I knew php...

[WMCoolmon]

Originally posted by vyper
[q]someone really has to code it just to avoid reding a new cockpit thread in future[/q]

If I knew php...

Classic

(fs2_open is coded in C++)

[Lightspeed]

Originally posted by Flipside
Hmmm it always boils down to the 2D/3D thing

I suppose from my own point of view, my concern would be positioning of dials/radar etc? On a 3D model, I'm assuming you would have to assign hud images to certain surfaces, which would then be layered over the UV map? Whereas a 2D cocpit could be defined using the stuff WM has already added to the HUD code?

2D ones would be easier to implement for the coders point of view, but 3D ones would look cool, especially with glow/spec mapping etc.

Both could be implemented

You can pretty much fake most things with the 2D ones as well, though. Lighting can be simulated with a hue and brightness overlay, with normal glowmap support.

Both methods have advantages and disadvantages.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by WMCoolmon


Classic

(fs2_open is coded in C++)

Um... I think he meant changing the forums to skip cockpit threads.....

[WMCoolmon]

Oh.

[KARMA]

eheh, port fs into php plz, I want to play it via browser

[Setekh]

FS in Flash? JavaFS?

[Lynx]

I don't think 2d cockpits are a good idea because of the HUD. Sure you could edit HUD tbl so that everything is at the right place(screen) but that would force you to use just one cockpit for every single ship, which would be less believeable than no cocpit at all(unless you could specify the cockpit image for each ship in the ships.tbl or somewhere else, plus the HUD gauge positions in HUD.tbl or something. A 3d one would be better since it's obvious there taht the gauges aren't physically connected to the cockpit. We are used to that already from most other spacesims8Wing Commander Prophecy, X-Wing Alliance, I-War2 etc). You can use an aexplanation like that the gauges get projected on the glass of the cockpit, or on the Helmets visor or something like that and get away with it which is not possible with 2d ones where you have to align the gauges exactly not to make it look like two 2d pictures which are just badly overlayed over each other because of the flatness of a 2d picture).

Thus said, i don't really care if we get 2d or 3d cockpits as long it allows some customization for each ship.

[tom]

A cockpit in FS2 = more eye candy and less efficiency/performance.
I want to see my target and not the car radio

[aldo_14]

I think the main benefit of cockpits, which seems to have been overlooked, is that we'd have a way to make the ship visible to the player... i.e. you have a nice fighter with the canopy set back in it... but you can't see the nose.  Or the wings.  Or anything.

[Lynx]

Behold!



This is a screenshot from a game made in 1994. imagine that in 3d+SCP glory!:cool:

[Gregster2k]

Originally posted by aldo_14



In order for that HUD to take up the entire view, you'd have to be sitting with your nosed pressed against the glass.

Now that doesn't make sense.

ROFL! Anyone who says that pic makes a cockpit 3d view impossible should go look at the extreme closeup shots of the Terran-Vasudan Shield Test Cutscene and the guy at the communications station on the GTI Riviera in Ross 128.  the screens on those REUSE FREESPACE 1 INTERFACE OPTION MENUS FOR THEIR BACKGROUND SCREENS.

In other words, I firmly believe that Volition got lazy and decided that if they just used a screenshot of the HUD as the lil RETICLE on the doomed Apollo pilot's cockpit, nobody would notice. Dead wrong, and now you guys are taking a SHORTCUT as canon. ROFL!

While you're at it, why don't you say that SHIP CONTROLS AND DETAIL OPTIONS are necessary to a Terran-Vasudan test of a shield generator in the OTHER cutscene...LOOK AT THE ICONS BELOW! LOOK AT THEM! These cutscene screenshots prove NOTHING!



Look closely above, you can see recognizable interface icons. That is NOT a coincidence.

And over here, we have proof that the GTA "used Microsoft fonts to designate enemy ships on their command briefings" (look at "taranis") --- i suppose now you're going to say THAT's canon too?



And finally...you're missing a real good one...



THAT AINT THAT FAR FROM HIS HEAD

I'm sick of the excuses for why it shouldn't be added, someone should add it anyway regardless. Starlancer has it, Freelancer has it, X2 has it, X1 had it, X-Wing had it, TIE-Fighter had it,  X-Wing VS Tie Fighter had it, Red Faction 1/2 had it, EVEN DESCENT 1/2/3 HAD IT! Anyone who argues against 3D cockpits needs to seriously wake up to the fact that FreeSpace 2 is one of the few space sims out there that DOES NOT have a 3D cockpit.

As far as its usability is concerned, I call for a 3D cockpit with actual working readouts and none you cant actually use. Nothing peeves me more than a 3D cockpit with tons of useless buttons and readouts. Makes me feel like I'm flying a toy. As such, if someone wanted to model the Apollo's cockpit after the pic way above, I won't accept it unless they find a use for almost EVERY readout displayed on it and relegate the reticle in the center to what it is: A RETICLE. NOT A HUD. GET THAT THRU UR HEADS, the one in the cutscene is A TARGETING RETICLE, NOT THE HUD, no matter what we recognize it as.

Are there any disbelievers in 3D cockpits now who dare to use that stupid cockpit picture as "proof" against them?

[Striker]

Yelling isnt going to get you anywhere, nor is demanding. I think that the demand for the feature is large, but I will definitely not use it.
1. I have trouble running FSOpen as it is, 100-2000 polys DOES make a difference to me.
2. It just isnt real Freespace. Remember, the dudes that made Descent made Freespace. And if they wanted it in there, Im sure they could have easily done it. They meant it to be this way. Are we really ready to change the one thing constant through the entirety of both games?
3. Most features of FSOpen are made by people who want to see them in there. If the coders dont want to do this but you do, learn C++ and code it yourself. Remember how hard these guys have to work, and that they arent slaves to the will of the community.

[WMCoolmon]

THe simple reason why it hasn't been added is that nobody sees it as being worth the effort. It's not about canon crap, or it being 'real' Freespace, or whatever. It's simply that nobody wants to spend their time working on a feature like this and have nobody, or very few people, make use of it.

[KARMA]

btw xwing, tiefighter, and xwing vs tiefighter did use only a 2d cockpit, and not a 3d one.
Anyway... as said I'd like to see this implemented, just to see what venom will throw out from his hat this time:)
but what WMC said is right.
Only few ppl can do a 3d cockpit worth of all the coders efforts, and if we have to take the number of 2d cockpits released so far (none) as an index of how many ppl will work on 3d ones then there isn't much to be optimistic.
Again, I'd still like to see both 2d/3d cockpits implemented as I'd like to see ppl working on them and not just talking about them:p

[karajorma]

Karma's right. This arguement always goes something like this.

Member 1 :  Why don't we have cokpits!!!!!!111
Lots of arguments about the merits of 2D vs 3D cockpits
SCP Coder : Make us a cockpit and maybe someone will code it in.

Thread dies.


If you want a cockpit get off your arses and make one. Actually make more than one so that the coders can check the differences. Only then will the coders actually have something to work from. If you can't be arsed to make a cockpit to get the feature added to the game you don't give any of the coders reasons to believe that you'll be arsed to do it after they are added.

There are lots of SCP features that people have barely touched after they were added. *Looks at glowpoints and persistant variables* I'm doing my damnest to prove to Goober that PV's weren't a waste of his time to code by using them but when it comes to this topic everyone goes "Yeah. They're great!" but when the time comes to prove that they'd be worthwhile no one is willing to do anything.

So my basic message is makes some new cockpits or shut the f**k up

[Goober5000]

Thanks, karajorma. (You know, I'm wondering if we should make you the official SCP spokesman, or something similar. )

This is the kind of thing that happens all the time.  It's getting so that I'm focusing more and more exclusively on the features that I know I myself will use, or TVWP will use, so that I know the effort doesn't go to waste.

There's nothing that discourages a coder more than spending tons of effort on a feature everyone's been clamoring for and then never hearing about it again.