Newtonian Aurora - Galactic Map Question

[sloanjh]

Sword of the Stars 2 has a 3D map, it might be worth checking out.

Oh, yeah - I'd forgotten that....  IIRC the way to get depth perception is to center the map on a star and rotate around that star.

John

[PTTG]

It can be very difficult to work with a star near the center of them map. I prefer a semi-2d map when I play it.

[bean]

The 2D mercator projection of the Earth that is so familar to everyone isn't representative of the way the surface of the Earth really looks either. It's just the best we could come up with to show the surface of the globe on a 2D surface.

No, it isn't.  Not even close.  The Mercator is an awful projection for anything except navigation, and it annoys me when people use it.  There are far better projections for any other use.
Sorry, I'm a bit of a cartography geek.

[bean]

On farther reflection, I don't think the current plan is a good one.  It works fairly well towards the center, but at the far reaches, the distortion will be massive.  For example:
Take three stars, A, B, & C, all 100 ly from earth, with the following coordinates:
Star Bearing Elevation
A     90       0
B     90       89
C     270     89
As you can see, B&C are quite close together (3.5 ly), while A is far from both of them (140 ly ish).  However, under the current algorithm, A&B will have the same coordinates, and be 0 ly apart, while C will be 200 ly from both of them.  I have to wonder if this is a good idea.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

Well, the point is, does anyone care about the relative locations of stars that far from earth? Heh.

[Teiwaz]

I'd look at radar or tactical displays in space combat games, as well. A number had reasonable solutions to these problems. (Homeworld's sensor displays and movement orders come to mind.)

The best I can describe it is to pick a plane of zero "height" (Presumably, this would be the species' home system.) Then draw the star map from the 3/4 perspective view, including height. Then, draw a line connecting the floating star icon to the 2d "zero height" plane.

The positions of the base of the lines on the 2d plane give you a sense of the x/y projection of the stars' positions, while the length of the line, and whether it's above or below the star gives you a sense of how far above or below it is from the zero plane. It works better when you can manipulate the map to get a sense of perspective from parallax, but it's still good enough to communicate what you need in a still image.

Here's the best image I could find: (The orange circles and lines are what you should be paying attention to, not the blue movement order)
http://firsthour.net/screenshots/homeworld/homeworld-tutorial-3d-scout-movement-scout-ships.PNG

[TheDeadlyShoe]

You need to actually have a 3d rotatable display for that, it's more confusing/less clear than 2d, and theres not a lot of actual gameplay value to being in 3d.

[Erik L]

Didn't Sins of Solar Empire have a 3d map?

[UnLimiTeD]

Yes.
Keep in mid though that most of these games are either actual 3D, which obviously eases navigation quite a bit, or a lot smaller in scale.

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

No, it isn't.  Not even close.  The Mercator is an awful projection for anything except navigation, and it annoys me when people use it.  There are far better projections for any other use.
Sorry, I'm a bit of a cartography geek.

Yes, I know its a bad projection - that was sort of my point. People quickly learn to live with a view of the world that isn't close to reality but is enough for their needs.

Steve

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

On farther reflection, I don't think the current plan is a good one.  It works fairly well towards the center, but at the far reaches, the distortion will be massive.  For example:
Take three stars, A, B, & C, all 100 ly from earth, with the following coordinates:
Star Bearing Elevation
A     90       0
B     90       89
C     270     89
As you can see, B&C are quite close together (3.5 ly), while A is far from both of them (140 ly ish).  However, under the current algorithm, A&B will have the same coordinates, and be 0 ly apart, while C will be 200 ly from both of them.  

Absolutely true. However, the point of the 2D projection I am using is that facts that everyone is familar with, such as the nearest star to Earth is Proxima Centauri, or that systems close to Sol include Barnard's Star, Lalande 21185, Wolf 359, etc., will remain true, as will facts known to a smaller proportion of the playerbase, such as Vega is 25 light years from Earth. All of this helps to suspend disbelief and create an environment that feels real. Facts that virtually no one knows, such as three random stars 100 light years from Earth are the wrong distance from each other, are not a problem when it comes to suspension of disbelief.

I have to wonder if this is a good idea.

If I want to create an accurate star map then it wouldn't be a good idea. If I want to create a map that is easy to read, allows for suspension of disbelief and has a real stars feel to it, then it might be a good idea. although I haven't decided for certain yet.

Steve

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

I'd look at radar or tactical displays in space combat games, as well. A number had reasonable solutions to these problems. (Homeworld's sensor displays and movement orders come to mind.)

The best I can describe it is to pick a plane of zero "height" (Presumably, this would be the species' home system.) Then draw the star map from the 3/4 perspective view, including height. Then, draw a line connecting the floating star icon to the 2d "zero height" plane.

The positions of the base of the lines on the 2d plane give you a sense of the x/y projection of the stars' positions, while the length of the line, and whether it's above or below the star gives you a sense of how far above or below it is from the zero plane. It works better when you can manipulate the map to get a sense of perspective from parallax, but it's still good enough to communicate what you need in a still image.

Here's the best image I could find: (The orange circles and lines are what you should be paying attention to, not the blue movement order)
http://firsthour.net/screenshots/homeworld/homeworld-tutorial-3d-scout-movement-scout-ships.PNG

I have been experimenting with a semi-3D view, that has an Elite style zero plane with systems above and below connected to the zero plane with stalks, similar to one of the screenshots John posted. I'm not happy with it so far on the ground of readability but I haven't made a final decision one way or the other. I think the 2D projection is still my preferred option so far.

Steve

[PTTG]

Ironically enough, the biggest thing about spaceflight- the whole 3D thing- has remarkably little strategic effect when you get in-game.

[Yonder]

Ironically enough, the biggest thing about spaceflight- the whole 3D thing- has remarkably little strategic effect when you get in-game.

Well, that's true on the solar system level, because those are mostly 2D, however if you did add a full 3D galactic map you would have some big differences. The main one being that you could have invasion forces coming from stars directly 'above' or 'below' the ecliptic plane, completely bypassing listening posts or fleets based out on planets, moons, or asteroids.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

IMO, that tends to detract from gameplay more than add to it.  The impossibility of picketing in three dimensions leads to centralization of forces.  You just end up not having those listening posts and other pickets in the first place.   

Although the nature of ship movement in Newtonian Aurora might lead to not having pickets in the first place. Or it might necessitate pickets. It kinda depends on how strategery and sensors work out.  Hard to figure how interceptors (ships) will work, especially if you're trying to defend against a high speed strike on an inhabited world.