2-D vs 3-D Mapping Experiences

[Fritz_Brown]

I guess it's time for me to check out Blender. What I was doing in Wings was creating a static setup as point 0, then doing the claymation thing. I would like to be able to say "period of B around A is ##, period of C around B is ##, period of D around C is ##" and have it make it happen. (I'm probably not going to touch sketchup just because it's Google.)

 

[BytePro]

You should be able to set a path and key it to a timeline - effectively setting a period ... if you are doing orbits and include eccentricity (the distance between foci divided by major axis) you can account for the speed difference (fastest at perihelion and slowest at aphelion) pretty easy. You should also be able to independently set the rotation of the body.

BTW: Sketchup is currently owned by Trimble.

 

[sfchbryan]

I guess it's time for me to check out Blender. What I was doing in Wings was creating a static setup as point 0, then doing the claymation thing. I would like to be able to say "period of B around A is ##, period of C around B is ##, period of D around C is ##" and have it make it happen. (I'm probably not going to touch sketchup just because it's Google.)

One does not simply "check out" Blender.

You either run screaming from it, or it absorbs all of your time.

Somewhere in the vast wasteland of YouTube, there is a series of videos where a guy used blender and Traveller deck plans to build 3D models of most ships in Traders and Gunboats.

 

[rancke]

In game there are two common explanations that I have seen used:

• The map reduces 3D space to a 2D representation
• The map actually shows the distances via Jump space not real space

The explanation I use is "That's the way it is and I don't want to talk about it" (not "Because, shut up, that's why", since I try to cooperate with my players, but that one might work too).


Hans

 

[BytePro]

The explanation I use is "That's the way it is and I don't want to talk about it" (not "Because, shut up, that's why", since I try to cooperate with my players, but that one might work too).

Its an obvious meta-game construct to make the game more playable - any Player who makes a big deal about that is being dense. At best.

However, in-game, making the setting '2 dimensional' (i.e. no figurative depth as well) by explicitly defining jumps based on RW parsecs, was pretty darn 'dense' a design, IMO. Discovering our solar system and other RW stars were meant to be part of the OTU, snapped my suspenders of disbelief against both funny-bones (repeatedly)... :file_21:

 

[Fritz_Brown]

One does not simply "check out" Blender.

You either run screaming from it, or it absorbs all of your time.

Somewhere in the vast wasteland of YouTube, there is a series of videos where a guy used blender and Traveller deck plans to build 3D models of most ships in Traders and Gunboats.

Based on the handful of tutorials I have already watched (primarily because when I opened it the first time I couldn't make heads nor tails of anything), I know exactly what you mean. I hope I can master the controls - it seems much more usable than Wings3D.

 

[Shonner]

DAZ Hexagon 2 is $19.95 http://www.daz3d.com/hexagon-2-5-download-version
A lot of Traveller models are made with that program. DAZ Studio 4.6 is free, which is used to do the rendering/animation.

 

[aramis]

Its an obvious meta-game construct to make the game more playable - any Player who makes a big deal about that is being dense. At best.

However, in-game, making the setting '2 dimensional' (i.e. no figurative depth as well) by explicitly defining jumps based on RW parsecs, was pretty darn 'dense' a design, IMO. Discovering our solar system and other RW stars were meant to be part of the OTU, snapped my suspenders of disbelief against both funny-bones (repeatedly)... :file_21:

There is always the "Grandfather's constructed plane" explanation... Grandfather created a a series of 2D jumpspace planes, and anything not along them is accessible only by STL travel. After all, he can create more as needed.

 

[Shonner]

Discovering our solar system and other RW stars were meant to be part of the OTU, snapped my suspenders of disbelief against both funny-bones (repeatedly)... :file_21:

I'm not interested in what real-life stars/planets there are a 1,000+ light-years from us. They are outside the known mapped Traveller universe anyway. And one might actually lie on the coreward expedition path. Big woop.

Any named stars/planets right now that fit within the Traveller map area can easily be renamed by whoever develops them.

 

[Marchand]

I would love to see a "rebooted" Traveller universe, in 3D, and while I'm at it, with no psionics and no Vargr (personal preferences).

The GURPS JTAS had an article on "mapping the solid [i.e. 3D] subsector" in ChView - available in the Best of JTAS.

It's not the approach taken by that article, but in my 3D dabblings (using Astrosynthesis) I abandon the Traveller assumption of something in every system. Otherwise a subsector type number of systems, 40 or so, will fit into a ridiculously small volume of space and the whole OTU will be in a 200y cube or so, which seems too crowded to me.

So scatter 40 or so inhabited systems across a 50ly or 100ly cube volume. This has the benefit for me of giving scouts some exploring to do - there are a lot of uninhabited systems to be checked out, possibly for the first time in a few years, or decades.

Eight such units - call them octants - make a sector. A 200ly cube with 30k-40k systems (at RL stellar densities) is a huge volume of space and a fitting responsibility for a Duke (another minor gripe of mine with the OTU is the profusion of dukes - a high rank in historic nobility).

This 3D Imperium might have thoroughly organised 27 sectors (a 3x3 unit) and smaller parts of the next layer of sectors outwards.

In a 3D setting, the number of systems reachable at a higher jump number goes up as a cube rather than a square. Organisations able to command high-jump ships, e.g. the Imperium itself and the megacorps, enjoy a greater benefit from faster communication than in a 2D setting, other things equal.

 

[Fritz_Brown]

I'm not interested in what real-life stars/planets there are a 1,000+ light-years from us.

Another reason I placed my ATU in the next galactic arm over. (Or, maybe it's the next finger over in our arm; whatever.) It's a looooong way away.

 

[BytePro]

There is always the "Grandfather's constructed plane" explanation... Grandfather created a a series of 2D jumpspace planes, and anything not along them is accessible only by STL travel. After all, he can create more as needed.

Take it that isn't an official explanation?

I use something similar - 2D mapping to reckon 'jump parsecs' on a 'jump plane', with systems actually displaced from this plane. Beyond a maximum realspace displacement from the plane, the time for jump becomes infinite, effectively limiting such travel to STL. (Equation provides time range and goes infinite.) As an artifact of realspace, other jump planes could exist.

 

[Shonner]

I've done various 3D space mapping a long time ago. But it had no effect on the story, setting, or role-playing (IE, players did not care about the maps). 3D mapping is more of a solitary creation of work for personal satisfaction.

 

[BytePro]

Yep, as I stated up thread, 'don't think my Players really cared one way or the other.'

I make no ingame changes from the 2D maps (except it defines the time range for jump, but that's pretty trivial), so practically it has no value other than as an aesthetic prop. The search and display features are handy, but that doesn't require 3D.

If one based jump ranges on actual 3D parsecs, it would change the nature of route planning - making things more complicated and incompatible with the OTU or any other 2D map.

3D becomes much more significant and relevant at the system level, though.

 

[Shonner]

3D becomes much more significant and relevant at the system level, though.

And you get to use:
Distance in Light Years = sqr((X - x)^2 + (Y – y)^2 + (Z – z)^2) a lot.

 

[SpaceBadger]

It's not the approach taken by that article, but in my 3D dabblings (using Astrosynthesis) I abandon the Traveller assumption of something in every system. Otherwise a subsector type number of systems, 40 or so, will fit into a ridiculously small volume of space and the whole OTU will be in a 200y cube or so, which seems too crowded to me.

So scatter 40 or so inhabited systems across a 50ly or 100ly cube volume. This has the benefit for me of giving scouts some exploring to do - there are a lot of uninhabited systems to be checked out, possibly for the first time in a few years, or decades.

Even if I go with a 2-D map, I intend to fiddle w jump distances and fuel requirements to allow populated systems to be further apart, w more unexploited systems (or systems w very minor stations) in between.

 

[BytePro]

And you get to use:
Distance in Light Years = sqr((X - x)^2 + (Y – y)^2 + (Z – z)^2) a lot.

Yes, for in system travel I use 4D vector systems for everything. I also have been using computers at the gaming table since the early 80's.

If I was just using pen and paper for a game, I would most certainly not bother...

 

[Peter Newman]

Another important consideration is the political and historical implications of a 3-D universe vs a 2-D universe. It is much, much harder to defend your borders in a 3-D universe because the surface area of a sphere is much greater than the linear edge of a circle. To me at least, 3-D maps would make the Official Traveller Universe completely unbelievable. I like the OTU, so I'm not going to go to extra work to create a mapping system that will destroy it anyway. YMMV.

Would the Third Imperium even exist if it could be attacked from so many different directions at once? Now admittedly the jump drive would cut down on some of those directions if theres no star in the right place - but given typical stellar density in this part of the galaxy that won't be common. If maximum jump distance is one (early Vilani) you might see a defensible border. When it hits jump two it gets harder, and when those darn Terrans invent Jump 3 it's all over. How much worse will it be when Jump 4 is routine on military ships and jump 6 is possible? Can the Third Imperium even exist? Oh sure some of their opponents face the same problems and may be less threat, but others (Vargr) never had cultural cohesion in the first place and now there's no defensible border to block them.

 

[Shonner]

3D borders. That's a whole other non-nicety no one looks forward to implementing.

 

[Frankymole]

Another important consideration is the political and historical implications of a 3-D universe vs a 2-D universe. It is much, much harder to defend your borders in a 3-D universe because the surface area of a sphere is much greater than the linear edge of a circle. To me at least, 3-D maps would make the Official Traveller Universe completely unbelievable. I like the OTU, so I'm not going to go to extra work to create a mapping system that will destroy it anyway. YMMV.

Would the Third Imperium even exist if it could be attacked from so many different directions at once? Now admittedly the jump drive would cut down on some of those directions if theres no star in the right place - but given typical stellar density in this part of the galaxy that won't be common. If maximum jump distance is one (early Vilani) you might see a defensible border. When it hits jump two it gets harder, and when those darn Terrans invent Jump 3 it's all over. How much worse will it be when Jump 4 is routine on military ships and jump 6 is possible? Can the Third Imperium even exist? Oh sure some of their opponents face the same problems and may be less threat, but others (Vargr) never had cultural cohesion in the first place and now there's no defensible border to block them.

I use a variant of the 3D system from White Dwarf for pocket empire or uncharted adventures far beyond the Orion Spur; however for the Imperium and most of Charted Space I'm quite happy with 2D as per canon, assuming grandfather squashed some extra dimensions into or out of jump space hereabouts.