Minimap Discussion (from IGN Review thread)

I loved this image the first time I seen it. I believe it was @cwarner7264 that first posted it many years ago but yeah give me gal peters and call me pretty.

Because people like being difficult, thats why... this thread is full of people just being contrary, practically for the sake of it. Wire-frame (thus transparent and thus all encompassing) globe people, solves practically all the problems if done well -- outlines (landmass)+direction indicators and abstracted colors/glow representing detected/known unit mass + zoom in to see detailed icons and unit distribution.

That's a bug, there shouldn't be an area where things disappear.

Many of these are actually impossible with a minimap because you cannot determine the distortion without double-checking against the 3D view. Furthermore a minimap lacks much of the functionality of a PIP because it's not an actual game view. Minimaps also break if you move away from purely round planets; it relies on the assumption that a projection mean for a round object will always be applicable.

PIP isn't perfect; you've outlined some of the issues. But at least it's a view with a perspective based distortion (which can be determined by our brains, even if does take a little bit of mental calculation), rather than one with an unpredictable, undeterminable and warped distortion, which relies on the player double-checking everything they see anyway. The minimap is not only worse than the PIP for a single planet, but it's actually a source of misinformation. For multiple planets, it can be argued that because of the need to check, you're better off only seeing half a planet via a PIP and rotating it, because then you don't need to leave the main view you are looking at.

And if the "planet" is not a sphere, or has been smashed a couple of times and is an odd shape? The solution can't ignore edge cases, it has to work always. Square planets, smashed planets, ring worlds, even mobius strips if the engine supports it (possibly ). PIPs won't be perfect for some of these, but because they simply replicate the normal view, they don't break under them either.

GOD DAMMIT.

"I know everything about what I'm talking about in this game because I've played a single time and made all my decisions based on that one game and this forum argument."

That's inevitable with perspective views on a sphere, actually. A perspective view always captures less than 50% of the exterior of a sphere. An orthographic view capture, at best, exactly 50% of the sphere.

The minimap is a must. This is also being discussed on the FAF general chat would you believe. I've talked to some of the guys there and they think a minimap is crucial for gameplay success.

Here is a good way to implement a minimap: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winkel_tripel_projection

No wonder why it's impossible to have any kind of discussion in these forums when people jumps to conclusions so easily...

I'm playing the game since the alpha. I lost most of my interest in beta when multi planet was (badly) implemented and the bad UI, and now I'm don't care much anymore as I see nothing will change.

Well you must give him credit, you did state what you said in a way that can easily be misunderstood.

Also, if you didn't care, why would you continue coming here?

Meh, I realized I might've misunderstood it after I posted, but I wasn't expecting to see a response either

The mirrored PIP provides exactly this and with a less distorted (not perfect) view of the planet. And yes its split into two parts but so what so is a minimap/main view.

Sigh, why does everyone even argue with thepilot/others, haven't you all noticed the stuck record this thread has turned into? Most of us accept that distortion on flat projection unacceptable. A few people say it is because...it is - thats not an argument, just ignore it.

@DarlekDan read my last post and say there are no reasons given for a minimap. I think @thepilot has given up on this thread because the arguments against always hinge on assumptions about something nobody has tried. I am likely to as well.

The blindness is not a bug. Two planets can only see the entirety of a planet if they are placed infinitely far away. That is just how your projection works.

Are you going to provide any evidence for any of this?

You keep using the unsupported claim that you need to check whatever a minimap would tell you. After a short time with a minimap it should be fairly obvious what the distortion is.

You have said nothing about the patchwork problem.

Get to mobius strips when the engine supports them. PiP should not be removed so perhaps it will be required for really strange shapes.

But the distortion will change all the time, no?

Larger planets have a different amount of distortion because of larger surface area. Also a planet when planer smashed will change shape, and the minimap will have to able to take note of that. What if the planer is smashed enough times for make it start to look like an apple core? How would a flat minimap compensate?

someone give this man a medal!

First off, the next person to suggest a wireframe deserves something unpleasant for not thinking it through.

This is a wireframe sphere. Pick a point on it, please tell me which side of the planet it's on? Can't? Hmm could it be because you're layering two complex surfaces on top of each other?

Secondly, the more I play around with this site: http://cartography.oregonstate.edu/demos/AdaptiveCompositeMapProjections/ the more I like it.

@raevn , @squishypon3
Forgive my shitty gif making skills. This is what it looks like to have a complete world view of a planet, while still being able to zoom / pan, etc:


It very clearly shows exactly how easy it is to manage a whole-planet perspective. I'm pretty sure you can all tell where Greenland is, how far away it is from Australia, and that America is in between the two. And when you zoom in, you can scroll around the planet all you like on the standard sphere.

A: Having a wire-frame globe without rudimentary topography isn't a good idea...but that wasn't what was suggested, nor does it have to be so filled up/made of [with] (quite so many) triangles?. That was intentionally complex (and misleading).

B: The projection you show has the same problems as a sphere! (actually all do); you cant see the whole world! That particular projection requires you to spin around to view areas of the world depending on where its situated (same as a globe) and the north and south poles really need to viewed from above to make sense, same as a globe. ...so um....how does that help?

[/QUOTE]
Kiwi. We've been through this before. Just. Stop.

A 2D minimap on a 3D globe does NOT MAKE SENSE. The way they did it with PiP is amazing. Sheesh.[/QUOTE]

Though a 2D minimap does not make sense to you, it makes sense to other people. I think it would be very useful to have one minimap for each planet displayed, 9 on a separate screen would be really good. I can deal with the distortions, and think it would be really useful for seeing the presence of units.

What I mean is that you don't have the PIP like you had on retail version of SupCom or in PA, now we have only a cartograph minimap.

So let's just try it
https://forums.uberent.com/threads/wip-alerts-minimap.64595/#post-1007574