Newtonian Aurora - Galactic Map Question

[Din182]

It is an interesting idea and I have considered something similar. It wouldn't be too bad if local space was a relatively thin disk but it is spherical so it could get crowded and hard to read the map.

One other option I am considering is to flatten real stars to 2D by changing the x,y coordinates of real stars so that without the z coordinates they are still the same distance from Earth. The ratio of x to y would be the same. This would preserve the distances and general direction from Earth but could significantly change the distances from known stars to each other. As the vast majority of players would probably be familiar with the star names, a smaller proportion would be generally aware of their distances from Earth and a very small proportion would be aware of their distance from each other, this might achieve the illusion of a real stars map without affecting the suspension of disbelief for most players.

Steve

Personally, I like either this idea a lot. I'm torn between this one and HaliRyan's.

[HaliRyan]

That's a good idea too... but won't that trade a major thickening of the stellar density near the center of the map for one near the edges? Hmm.

Edit - Although now that I think about it, you could solve the problems with either option by taking whatever stellar DB you're going to use for your info and running an editor to remove any entries that don't fit into a cube/cylinder.

Edit #2 - Actually, I was wrong, your way won't result in a thickening of the stellar density, which is nice =D

[HKZ8]

The problem with a Mercator projection is that if we were to take a pic of a room, this would be it,
hxxp: www.     flickr.     com/photos/sbprzd/148862768/in/set-72057594138628700/lightbox/

We might have become used to it, when looking at a map of the world, like this, (edited because this pic shows what I meant precisely),
hxxp: www.    mrkay.    org/mrk/rants/2000-2001/mercator.    html

However, it is wrong, in the sense that to portray a map we can use, the map is distorted as much as the pic of that room is.     
That's why I propose a full 3d projection, that could move in the same time.      We can get away with having a sphere (that's Earth) map translated into a Mercator projection, however, we CANNOT get away with having a 3d universe as a 2d Mercator projection, because it would distort the distances between the stars themselves, conveying a false image of the universe around us.      That's why I propose a 3d map/2d battle hybrid, where, when battle begins (or any kind of player interaction with a ship or a flottila of ships), a seamless transition to 2d could happen.      The same thing that Sword of the Stars does.      Still, I am grateful for what we have and what we can have.      Thanks Steve.      Perhaps in the future a full 3d map like the one I proposed in my earlier post can be implemented, along with full 3d battlemap, using of course Newtonian physics.      Now, that'd be a game I 'd love to play someday.     

[UnLimiTeD]

3d combat in space is completely pointless.
Given the distances that fights may occur, and that any object of interest with few exceptions are on what can easily be assumed a 2d-disk in most single-star systems, a 3D map would be a horrible hassle for displaying that is simply not worth the effort, as it will be two fleets opposing each other, and them moving up or down would just tilt the 2d plane between them.
Sword of the Stars has an extremely simplified system that isn't anywhere close to what Newtonian Aurora could be like, there is no differentiation between combat and no combat.

A star system, roughly equal to Sol in build, is easier to put on a 2D plane than a Sphere, and it has no such things as Terrain.
Whether space is 2d or 3d within this system makes absolutely no difference, as position is only important when calculating the distance to interactive objects.
On the star map, I have no oppinions, but I'd like to remind you of what Auroras current system map looks like.
In 3D, it'd be even harder to work with it, especially since non-explored systems show up as well.

[LoSboccacc]

about random vs real.
(I know, I'm late)

using real stars give you the same map and strategic choices every time.. because earth is where it is.

but you can have random playthrough and real star system too: just don't start at earth/sol but on some random star within the other real stars.

with all the gazillion combinations, every combination would feel different.
(I think I saw this in a game elitelike, the hard mode was using a random starting position)

[GeaXle]

I personally like a lot the way the map works in eve-online. With a 3D display that is possible to flatten when needed.

[HaliRyan]

Stuff 

You're right about the Mercator, that was a bad suggestion, but you can still flatten a 3d map into 2d without distance distortions.

I personally am against a 3d map display because I don't feel it can add anything over a 2d map except for a more cumbersome interface. Any information I can think of which can be displayed in a 3d map can be displayed more quickly in 2d (although if we had 3d monitors it might be different).

The other thing about making the game 3d is that - like Unlimited said - unless you're dealing with more than 3 points (fleets) in space, any combat can be viewed on a 2d plane.

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

I think I have concluded by this point that 3D probably isn't workable. Someone mentioned EVE, which made me realise that I always flatten the map so I can work out connections. Given the option of 2D or 3D in a game, it turns out I choose 2D

Steve

[PTTG]

In terms of the actual content, what sort of "terrain" are you planning? Are you thinking of something more realistic, which given the current scale would be a thousand stars forming a few star clusters? Or something a bit less accurate, but perhaps more interesting, such as a 1000-star galactic arm or spiral galaxy, complete with nebulii and a central black hole?

Nebulas alone may be interesting, since they might slow hyperspace travel. Odd "galaxy" shapes may also provide interesting tactical considerations-jumping across the gap between arms might take a long time, but get you past some fortified system near the core.

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

In terms of the actual content, what sort of "terrain" are you planning? Are you thinking of something more realistic, which given the current scale would be a thousand stars forming a few star clusters? Or something a bit less accurate, but perhaps more interesting, such as a 1000-star galactic arm or spiral galaxy, complete with nebulii and a central black hole?

Nebulas alone may be interesting, since they might slow hyperspace travel. Odd "galaxy" shapes may also provide interesting tactical considerations-jumping across the gap between arms might take a long time, but get you past some fortified system near the core.

For the moment the random stars will be randomly scattered and the real stars will be in their squashed positions with the x/y coordinates corrected for the missing z coordinates. Nebulas are included. Below is a screenshot of my test game galactic map (a random map). Obviously this screen is still 'under construction'.



Steve

[jseah]

The map looks awesome!  *bounces on chair*  Can't wait to have that for a game on my screen!

[Mel Vixen]

I like the map too  . Althought i wonder how it would look in black with some (colored) graphicsfor the stars.

[UnLimiTeD]

Now that certainly looks awesome.
Definitely better than current Aurora, everything has it's place.
Though, if you originally have the Z coordinate, couldn't you reduce it drastically, and outfit the star with a 'halo' to show that it is Z-distorted and thus takes 10% longer to get to?
So, you'll essentially just have stars that are "more distant" despite being where they are.

[Person012345]

Now that certainly looks awesome.
Definitely better than current Aurora, everything has it's place.
Though, if you originally have the Z coordinate, couldn't you reduce it drastically, and outfit the star with a 'halo' to show that it is Z-distorted and thus takes 10% longer to get to?
So, you'll essentially just have stars that are "more distant" despite being where they are.

To give my 2 cents, I feel that that would be overly confusing. I think it's fine to just compensate along the X and Y. The star would simply be moved up to the flat plane, and it's distance from sol represented in that direction (say it's 2 light years away, slightly to the "right" and a lot "down" it would be represented by being two light years from sol to the "right". Yes, I pulled that number out my ass, I'm aware there's no star that close). I guess that's how it's going to work, but I haven't really been paying attention. I like the look of it as it is anyhow.

[UnLimiTeD]

I just hope there'll be a random stats option, I certainly don't want a game type where a single system has a special role, and I happen to be in it.