Forums » Suggestions
If I target an asteriod, it will tell me the temperature - this is cool (pardon the pun). When I scan it, it tells me what it's made of - even more cool.
So, once I have scanned it, why do I need to scan it again to get the same info? Do asteriods change their components and percentages over time?
I see no sense in having to go and scan the same asteriod over and over to get the same info !!!
Once scanned, the onboard computer should be able to remember the info.
Not being able to find an asteriod again after docking is really annoying me.
So, once I have scanned it, why do I need to scan it again to get the same info? Do asteriods change their components and percentages over time?
I see no sense in having to go and scan the same asteriod over and over to get the same info !!!
Once scanned, the onboard computer should be able to remember the info.
Not being able to find an asteriod again after docking is really annoying me.
http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/7692
RTFM
[EDIT] I just noticed who you are. We already dealt with this... why are you talking again? http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/15944#201037 [/EDIT]
RTFM
[EDIT] I just noticed who you are. We already dealt with this... why are you talking again? http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/15944#201037 [/EDIT]
I am 'talking' 'cause I can. This is a different suggestion. Or do the subtleties of lateral thinking elude your comprehension of such matters? I did a search on the topic of scanners remembering information and it came up with nothing appropriate. I also went through the list that you mentioned prior to posting... as I did prior to posting the other thread. By the responses given, it is obvious that the topic has not been answered to the satisfaction of VO members.
As for me 'talking' again, I suggest maybe unless you have something constructive to contribute, you should save wearing out your keyboard.
As for me 'talking' again, I suggest maybe unless you have something constructive to contribute, you should save wearing out your keyboard.
(1) Talking "'cause you can" is hardly a sufficient justification for running your mouth incoherently.
(2) I assure you, the "subtleties of lateral thinking" play a larger role in my existence than they do in yours :) They are also irrelevant to my problem with your post. What you suggest vis-a-vis the storing of data necessarily implicates this: http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/15814 (among other threads).
(3) Moreover, this is indeed an old and well discussed topic. See, e.g., http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/12269
(4) Your "new" suggestion closes with a re-whine of your last one about finding 'roids again: the nav buoy/XYZ coordinates issue. Since you seemed to conflate the storage of data ("Once scanned, the onboard computer should be able to remember the info.") with the ability to locate the scanned 'roid again ("Not being able to find an asteroid again after docking is really annoying me."), it is all too correct for me to tell you to RTFM and the prior thread.
(5) Finally, if you'd read the threads to which I referred your sanctimonious ass, you'd see that my response did indeed contribute "something constructive."
(2) I assure you, the "subtleties of lateral thinking" play a larger role in my existence than they do in yours :) They are also irrelevant to my problem with your post. What you suggest vis-a-vis the storing of data necessarily implicates this: http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/15814 (among other threads).
(3) Moreover, this is indeed an old and well discussed topic. See, e.g., http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/12269
(4) Your "new" suggestion closes with a re-whine of your last one about finding 'roids again: the nav buoy/XYZ coordinates issue. Since you seemed to conflate the storage of data ("Once scanned, the onboard computer should be able to remember the info.") with the ability to locate the scanned 'roid again ("Not being able to find an asteroid again after docking is really annoying me."), it is all too correct for me to tell you to RTFM and the prior thread.
(5) Finally, if you'd read the threads to which I referred your sanctimonious ass, you'd see that my response did indeed contribute "something constructive."
Your mouth is moving ... you may want to see to that.
That's how you can tell he's lying, jackscream.
[EDIT] I should know better than to prod Lecter into more flaming, but I guess I just never learn... [/EDIT]
[EDIT] I should know better than to prod Lecter into more flaming, but I guess I just never learn... [/EDIT]
It's ok, Leebs. JS hasn't actually done anything aside from make a lame attempt at response that essentially sputters out 'OMGIMSOSELFPWN3D'.
No need to toast him further.
No need to toast him further.
Suggested again or not, it is a neccesary thing. Heck, my web browser remembers where I've been before for as long as I want to, and can save and cache any data automatically, it's absurd that a hi tech space ship can't remember where an asteroid is in space and what it's previously scanned contents are.
I know we have a PDA to note the information, but honestly, it should be automatic and default to on. I know the arguments against positional data too, but current technology can report the position of a satalite and our space probes, space craft should be able to track it too.
I know we have a PDA to note the information, but honestly, it should be automatic and default to on. I know the arguments against positional data too, but current technology can report the position of a satalite and our space probes, space craft should be able to track it too.
"Toast"? He he ... cute.
I chuckle at the though that your deluded ego actually allows you to believe that your childish comments radiate any 'heat' what so ever.
You are noise. A self elected nobody who believes in their own rhetoric and self importance and yet, to everyone else is nothing more than a comical, yet sad, buffoon.
If it wasn't for the fact that I find your posts amusing - like watching a beloved pet chase it's own tail - I would consider this a waste my time.
I chuckle at the though that your deluded ego actually allows you to believe that your childish comments radiate any 'heat' what so ever.
You are noise. A self elected nobody who believes in their own rhetoric and self importance and yet, to everyone else is nothing more than a comical, yet sad, buffoon.
If it wasn't for the fact that I find your posts amusing - like watching a beloved pet chase it's own tail - I would consider this a waste my time.
There you go!
Thank you Impavid. You prove my earlier point exactly.
Thank you Impavid. You prove my earlier point exactly.
JS: I understand that you may well lack the rationality to comprehend when you've been made a fool of, and the self-possession to admit it. No worries there. And please, if you wish to wrap yourself in a warm, fuzzy blanket of delusion that anyone who ridicules your errata must be incorrect or somehow flawed, do feel free. My points are either correct or they are not; if they are correct, you are the buffoon. Far more often than not, I am correct.
Moving on.
Impavid: I know the arguments against positional data too, but current technology can report the position of a satalite and our space probes, space craft should be able to track it too. So, because this technology works IRL, it should automatically be included in VO? I won't belabor how blindingly stupid that chain of reasoning is, but will merely remind you that we have non-realistic physics because VO would be much less fun were it faithful to the real world. Given the bot and autoaim issues associated with beacons/coordinates, you hopefully grasp why reality is a tiny weight on the other side of the scale.
As for the PDA recalling the mineral contents of asteroids, that's really not very useful data unless you have a way of locating the 'roid again. As noted above, there are serious problems with that. So, no PDA auto entry on 'roids.
I can see the utility of an auto cache to PDA option at stations, however. Which is, of course, under discussion here: http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/15969
P.S. It's 'satellite'. Spellcheck was invented for less-than-careful douchebags such as yourself; please use it.
Moving on.
Impavid: I know the arguments against positional data too, but current technology can report the position of a satalite and our space probes, space craft should be able to track it too. So, because this technology works IRL, it should automatically be included in VO? I won't belabor how blindingly stupid that chain of reasoning is, but will merely remind you that we have non-realistic physics because VO would be much less fun were it faithful to the real world. Given the bot and autoaim issues associated with beacons/coordinates, you hopefully grasp why reality is a tiny weight on the other side of the scale.
As for the PDA recalling the mineral contents of asteroids, that's really not very useful data unless you have a way of locating the 'roid again. As noted above, there are serious problems with that. So, no PDA auto entry on 'roids.
I can see the utility of an auto cache to PDA option at stations, however. Which is, of course, under discussion here: http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/15969
P.S. It's 'satellite'. Spellcheck was invented for less-than-careful douchebags such as yourself; please use it.
Dr. Lecter, the only thing "blindingly stupid" about anything in this thread is your contribution to it.
I realize you get off on belittling people and arguing for the sake of arguing, and I won't ask you to stop, because you're not capable. But please, at least take some stock of how you come across to other people, and how it makes you look. You're a very self centered person, so at least be a little obsessed with your image, and do it a favor by knocking off some of the obnoxious bullshit. It doesn't make you look like a clever or interesting person, it makes you look like an ass, which you clearly are. At least try to hide it.
I realize you get off on belittling people and arguing for the sake of arguing, and I won't ask you to stop, because you're not capable. But please, at least take some stock of how you come across to other people, and how it makes you look. You're a very self centered person, so at least be a little obsessed with your image, and do it a favor by knocking off some of the obnoxious bullshit. It doesn't make you look like a clever or interesting person, it makes you look like an ass, which you clearly are. At least try to hide it.
And a response to my point about RL functionality of coordinates being totally irrelevant to whether such a system should be in VO... is not forthcoming.
Try again, Impavid. It's late and I have work to do, so I'll look later and see if you've managed to form a cogent reply.
Try again, Impavid. It's late and I have work to do, so I'll look later and see if you've managed to form a cogent reply.
Leave him Impavid, he amuses me.
It serves no purpose reading his contributions to the threads. He keeps jumping back to "Oh, that would allow cheating." or "But it's only a game with no ties to reality." or just posting a link which he claims has some relevance to the topic at hand ... which is not always the case.
He completely forgets that this message board is about "suggestions" and that these suggestions are the seeds that allow VO to evolve (unlike Dr Lecter, who cannot).
Basically, if there is a way to cheat, prevent it without handicapping the game. He should stop spewing forth banal excuses instead of working the problem and offering solutions.
Ok, Dr Lecter ... how would you solve this issue? Offer a workable solution that prevents cheating and still offers what Impavid and I have been talking about.
Amaze us with your incredible intellect ... *snicker*
It serves no purpose reading his contributions to the threads. He keeps jumping back to "Oh, that would allow cheating." or "But it's only a game with no ties to reality." or just posting a link which he claims has some relevance to the topic at hand ... which is not always the case.
He completely forgets that this message board is about "suggestions" and that these suggestions are the seeds that allow VO to evolve (unlike Dr Lecter, who cannot).
Basically, if there is a way to cheat, prevent it without handicapping the game. He should stop spewing forth banal excuses instead of working the problem and offering solutions.
Ok, Dr Lecter ... how would you solve this issue? Offer a workable solution that prevents cheating and still offers what Impavid and I have been talking about.
Amaze us with your incredible intellect ... *snicker*
Already did, which if you'd read the earlier threads you'd have seen.
The coordinates in modern civilian GPS have (at least in the U.S.) a built in error range. This is to prevent anyone from using the unlicensed technology to create a guidance system; a similar approach would work here. As I proposed last time these objections to XYZ were raised, the degree of precision necessary for finding 'roids after once locating them,and that necessary for bots or autoaim scripts, differ wildly. All we need is an XYZ coordinate feed with a built in error rate of +/- some random number of meters, probably in the low hundreds. Thus, when you recorded a waypoint to your PDA, marking the position of the 94.1% heliocene 'roid in Helios B-7, you'd receive a set of coordinates that were imprecise, but sufficient to get you back to the rock in question. As I understand the LUA output system, any coordinate feed accessible by players would need to contain these inherent imprecisions, not just the waypoints themselves (i.e. it's not enough for the marking to be off of the actual grid, rather the grid itself has to be imprecisely defined).
A similar result might be achieved by restricting the units of X, Y and Z to large enough jumps that a script could not make use of them. Having not thought as much about this latter approach, I'm not sure it would be as abuse-proof.
So, as I said above, RTFM.
Impavid, in case you were about to screech that this is what you were talking about, please note that none of this has anything to do with the "we have it IRL, therefore we should have it in VO" non sequitur that you were arguing earlier.
The coordinates in modern civilian GPS have (at least in the U.S.) a built in error range. This is to prevent anyone from using the unlicensed technology to create a guidance system; a similar approach would work here. As I proposed last time these objections to XYZ were raised, the degree of precision necessary for finding 'roids after once locating them,and that necessary for bots or autoaim scripts, differ wildly. All we need is an XYZ coordinate feed with a built in error rate of +/- some random number of meters, probably in the low hundreds. Thus, when you recorded a waypoint to your PDA, marking the position of the 94.1% heliocene 'roid in Helios B-7, you'd receive a set of coordinates that were imprecise, but sufficient to get you back to the rock in question. As I understand the LUA output system, any coordinate feed accessible by players would need to contain these inherent imprecisions, not just the waypoints themselves (i.e. it's not enough for the marking to be off of the actual grid, rather the grid itself has to be imprecisely defined).
A similar result might be achieved by restricting the units of X, Y and Z to large enough jumps that a script could not make use of them. Having not thought as much about this latter approach, I'm not sure it would be as abuse-proof.
So, as I said above, RTFM.
Impavid, in case you were about to screech that this is what you were talking about, please note that none of this has anything to do with the "we have it IRL, therefore we should have it in VO" non sequitur that you were arguing earlier.
Hah... He doesn't just "get off" on arguing for the sake of arguing. He makes his living that way. (Or will... Still in law school right, Lecter?)
Oh, and... They've removed the deliberate imprecision from the GPS signal (Went from about 40' accuracy to 5' with good signal). Couple of years ago actually. It was basically useless anyways, you just needed one signal from a known location to correct for the inaccuracy. I imagine any imprecision here would also be correctable in some way. And if it's good enough to find a roid, it's good enough for auto-pilots anyways. Sure you might have to dock on your own, but wormhole proximity, for instance, is 2km in diameter. You're gonna need ALOT of imprecision to stop people from making auto-pilots, which will kinda make the coordinates useless for anything really.
Oh, and... They've removed the deliberate imprecision from the GPS signal (Went from about 40' accuracy to 5' with good signal). Couple of years ago actually. It was basically useless anyways, you just needed one signal from a known location to correct for the inaccuracy. I imagine any imprecision here would also be correctable in some way. And if it's good enough to find a roid, it's good enough for auto-pilots anyways. Sure you might have to dock on your own, but wormhole proximity, for instance, is 2km in diameter. You're gonna need ALOT of imprecision to stop people from making auto-pilots, which will kinda make the coordinates useless for anything really.
auto pilots ???
Last semester before Bar and shipping off to NYC, yeah. I'm told the Vault 5 firms tend to work you to death, so I'm relaxing :)
I was aware of a change, but the error remaining was still deliberate to my understanding. Did they actually remove it rather than just reduce it?
As for the auto pilot, granted that it would make the flight work, but you'd still have to dock. And that prevents the major issue, which is someone having an autonomous trading bot.
I was aware of a change, but the error remaining was still deliberate to my understanding. Did they actually remove it rather than just reduce it?
As for the auto pilot, granted that it would make the flight work, but you'd still have to dock. And that prevents the major issue, which is someone having an autonomous trading bot.
Makes his living at it eh? Gonna be broke...
I don't think there's any way to stop a pilot bot being made anyway, eventually. Regardless, the lack of any way to save asteroid data besides taking notes is silly, and should be addressed. Rescanning the same asteroid over and over again should not be neccesary. If devs are worried about too much automation, then at least give the scanner a sector cache and have it clear upon leaving the sector, that way at least you don't have to keep rescanning each trip.
I don't think there's any way to stop a pilot bot being made anyway, eventually. Regardless, the lack of any way to save asteroid data besides taking notes is silly, and should be addressed. Rescanning the same asteroid over and over again should not be neccesary. If devs are worried about too much automation, then at least give the scanner a sector cache and have it clear upon leaving the sector, that way at least you don't have to keep rescanning each trip.
Hey, a dump of the scan results to the notes section of the PDA (one example) would have zero exploit concerns. But it's also, to use your term, silly. I just don't see what significant utility it would have, if you have no way to revisit any given 'roid. The only thing I ever did was jot notes of which sectors had significant deposits of what. A full scanner output would be worse than useless: who wants to wade through the precise % compositions for every 'roid they scanned? I can only think of one example, which is building a sector database that shows the % content of the sector.
I think a more useful feature would be some form of active flag on 'roids already scanned. I'd be more interested in knowing what I have left to scan in a sector to make a full sweep than having all that raw data to sift through. And this wouldn't require much work, as it already exists: during prospecting, if you re-scan a roid with the desired ore, you get a "already scanned" message. Let's extend that and give it sector cache: anytime you re-scan a roid, you get that message first, followed by a readout after a second or three. When trying to find that third 70% heliocene roid in the Helios A-5 mess, such a thing would be great for winnowing out the 'roids that I already scanned.
If by sector cache that clears on departure, you meant position locating data as well, that's a new possibility. I'm not sure if it would work or not, and think it would depend on the LUA and what parts of the data are accessible through the client.
Auto pilots... no, even now there are ways to have graphic recognition programs 'see' the docking and WH markers and steer the ship to them. It's just that they're, for most of us, a real bitch to make work. The issue isn't binary, but rather how much easier it should be allowed to get.
Oh, P.S.: starting market in NYC just jumped to $160k + guaranteed (at my firm anyway) market bonus ($35k this year); broke isn't in my future, smartass. Och, how gauche of me... but you opened that can of worms, not I.
I think a more useful feature would be some form of active flag on 'roids already scanned. I'd be more interested in knowing what I have left to scan in a sector to make a full sweep than having all that raw data to sift through. And this wouldn't require much work, as it already exists: during prospecting, if you re-scan a roid with the desired ore, you get a "already scanned" message. Let's extend that and give it sector cache: anytime you re-scan a roid, you get that message first, followed by a readout after a second or three. When trying to find that third 70% heliocene roid in the Helios A-5 mess, such a thing would be great for winnowing out the 'roids that I already scanned.
If by sector cache that clears on departure, you meant position locating data as well, that's a new possibility. I'm not sure if it would work or not, and think it would depend on the LUA and what parts of the data are accessible through the client.
Auto pilots... no, even now there are ways to have graphic recognition programs 'see' the docking and WH markers and steer the ship to them. It's just that they're, for most of us, a real bitch to make work. The issue isn't binary, but rather how much easier it should be allowed to get.
Oh, P.S.: starting market in NYC just jumped to $160k + guaranteed (at my firm anyway) market bonus ($35k this year); broke isn't in my future, smartass. Och, how gauche of me... but you opened that can of worms, not I.