Euler angles have to go

redesign

(Keneda Mayaki) #1

Hello,

when I change the view with the mouse, the motion is sometimes blocked because of what I suppose to be gimbal lock. I have to take a slightly different path from the one I was initially willing to take. I assume this is because of the internal use of Euler angles.

In the context where there is a sensible “up” direction, for instance in the ship view of the fitting window, or the full-body view of a character, it makes some sense. But for others, like the view in space or in planetary interaction, it doesn’t. Especially for planetary interaction : moving around a sphere with Euler angles is cumbersome at best.

Now, is it a big deal? No. Does it prevent us to play the game? Nope, otherwise more people would complain about it.

But to me, it breaks immersion. In space, there is no “up” and “down”. I suppose that CCP initially used Euler angles, and thus decided an arbitrary “vertical” direction, because it was much simpler to implement, but not having updated this ever since seems lazy to me.

Part of the reasons I’m into space-sim games (and video games in general), is that I like to be amazed by their technological achievement. So computer graphics matter. Otherwise we would not use textures and see everything with dots and wireframes. Hell, I bet we could play the game with a completely textual interface.

I understand that using more advanced math (like quaternions, geometric algebra or whatever) to position and orient objects and cameras in space would require a deep rewrite of the game engine, and thus a lot of work for a relatively small payoff, but until then, every time I experience a gimbal lock I either roll eyes or even find myself deterred from parts of the game (gimbal locks are one of the reasons I don’t bother doing much planetary interaction).

TL,DR:
Euler angles have to go : they’re awful.


(Scipio Artelius) #2

CCP Darwin addressed this on the old forum.

Can’t find the post right now but will keep looking.


(Wanda Fayne) #3

I suck at math but even I can understand this video :thinking:


(Corwin Dnari) #4

With what would you replace it?


(Keneda Mayaki) #5

I don’t know. Depends on what exactly CCP is using internally.

Doing smooth isotropic rotations is not that hard. Plenty of solutions can be found on the web.


(Arcanith Lionheart) #6

So you want to be able to see ships flip around and stuff when you basically control the ship with the mouse and spend most of the time looking at the Overview?

Don’t get me wrong, I understand your point of view, because its space and you should be able to flip upside down, but I can only imagine that there are more technical issues to make that a reality, I mean come on, the game is so old, if they didn’t implement it then they didn’t need it for a spreadsheet game or they came up with more difficulties along the way.


(Cristl) #7

Bloody hell. Think how slowly new content trickles down the pipe these days, and you want to rewrite all of Dogma to use quaternions (or equivalent) because the U-boat simulator is immersion breaking for you?

How about, no?

The old post: https://forums-archive.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6315843


(Matthias Ancaladron) #8

Agreed there should be no lock. The game is to horizontal with not enough vericality or z axis.

Ccp could always keep it saved though in case they make a pirate ship game where it makes sense.


(Scipio Artelius) #9

Read CCP Darwin’s post in the thread linked by Cristi. It’s post #17, so on the front page of that thread.


(Matthias Ancaladron) #10

Yeah I read it, doesn’t change my post though. There should be no up and down. It’s space.
Also pi needs a button to return to your colony. Well pi needs to be redone from the ground up with multi click routing and hex tiles anyway.


(Scipio Artelius) #11

It’s not space at all. It’s software and solutions in software have practical limits.


(Matthias Ancaladron) #12

Nah it’s space. If CCP was constrained by practicality the agency wouldn’t exist still lol.


(Scipio Artelius) #13

Ah, so just all flippant crap. Ok. I’ll leave you too it.


(Matthias Ancaladron) #14

Nah just being honest. The practicality argument is basically it’s too hard for us and we don’t wanna invest the time so we will just spend more dev time on failed ideas like the agency that is 0/3 and generating revenue by grinding out more palette swap skins and trucker caps


(Arcanith Lionheart) #15

Now I am no pro in programming, but claiming “it’s space it’s space we should flip upside down even though we look at spreadsheets or the overview 90% of the time it’s space” when you even got a video explaining the gimbal lock makes me think it’s best to leave this post alone.


(yellow parasol) #16

Quaternions. Faster, too, and no locks. though i question the rationality of someone who claims it breaks his immersion. wtf, #FirstWorldProblems.


(Sonya Corvinus) #17

Responding with the same thing I tell people at work:

Anyone can complain about anything, but the complaint will be ignored until you present it with two realistic ways to fix it or replace it with something better


(yellow parasol) #18

i did. here:

http://www.flipcode.com/archives/Vector_Math_Quaternions.shtml

https://www.flipcode.com/documents/matrfaq.html

still one of the best sites with great articles from old times, which aren’t all outdated at all. too bad it died long ago.


(Matthias Ancaladron) #19

Not trolling, I just happen to agree with the OP. Practicality doesn’t concern me. I dislike having my horizontal axis locked and having my ships revert to horizontal. I’d rather have this gimball lock thing removed than get a fourth iteration of the agency. How many people are working on that?


(Keneda Mayaki) #20

Same. I guess that can sound silly, but it’s really the small detail that just disappoints me. I say “disappoint” because I love this game and I admire it on many levels, but then when I see how badly it does something so fundamental, I kind of cringe.