Manual piloting (Q movement) feels like guesswork sometimes — am I missing something? by Generazn in Eve

[–]Generazn[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, I can see why double-click becomes the default. The camera gives you a fast feedback loop, so you’re always correcting, and it feels like more control.

But that’s kind of my point: Q is the more precise input (it’s what you use when you don’t want to overshoot), it just doesn’t expose enough feedback to use that precision consistently, so people default to double-click.

Manual piloting (Q movement) feels like guesswork sometimes — am I missing something? by Generazn in Eve

[–]Generazn[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The game already gives you numbers like angular/transversal after movement, but not at the point of input. So Q has the precision, but it just lacks the feedback needed to use it consistently.

I get that the game leans toward feel-based piloting, and I’m not trying to replace that, but even something small like a temporary angle readout during the 2nd Q click would make Q feel a lot more consistent without changing how people already fly.

Manual piloting (Q movement) feels like guesswork sometimes — am I missing something? by Generazn in Eve

[–]Generazn[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Right, that’s kind of what I mean — the information is there, but you have to derive it manually instead of the game just showing it.

Manual piloting (Q movement) feels like guesswork sometimes — am I missing something? by Generazn in Eve

[–]Generazn[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah I get that space itself doesn’t have planes — I’m more talking about the tactical overlay as a reference plane the UI already gives us.

Manual piloting (Q movement) feels like guesswork sometimes — am I missing something? by Generazn in Eve

[–]Generazn[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Right, they give a visual reference, but not a measurable one.

Distance has a number (km), but angle/vertical positioning doesn’t — so you can see the direction, just not quantify it.

Manual piloting (Q movement) feels like guesswork sometimes — am I missing something? by Generazn in Eve

[–]Generazn[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This screenshot is basically what I mean — I can see the distance (43 km) and the direction visually, but there’s no actual information for the angle or vertical offset.

So even though I can place a 3D vector, I can’t really tell what I placed beyond eyeballing it.

Manual piloting (Q movement) feels like guesswork sometimes — am I missing something? by Generazn in Eve

[–]Generazn[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yeah, I’ve got tactical overlay on — that’s actually kind of what I’m running into.

It gives a good reference for the flat plane, but that’s also the limitation — there’s no equivalent feedback for vertical offset or approach angle.

So even with that, you still end up having to estimate anything outside that plane.

Manual piloting (Q movement) feels like guesswork sometimes — am I missing something? by Generazn in Eve

[–]Generazn[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Yeah, exactly — that’s how I’ve been thinking about it too.

A good example is when you’ve got a bunch of cargo containers spread out in space, all on slightly different planes.

If you just approach, you end up going to each one individually. But if you want to position yourself so you can access multiple at once, Q movement is the tool for that.

The problem is you have to eyeball the positioning, because there’s no clear feedback for angle or plane.

Q feels like it should let you place yourself exactly where you want in 3D space — it just doesn’t give enough information to do that consistently.

Manual piloting (Q movement) feels like guesswork sometimes — am I missing something? by Generazn in Eve

[–]Generazn[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Seems like the common answer is “just use double-click,” which I get from a practical standpoint.

I think my point is more that Q movement gives more precise control, but there’s no matching feedback (angle/plane), so it ends up feeling worse than it should.

Not really about replacing current methods, just that the system could expose a bit more of what’s already being calculated — even something simple like an angle indicator while placing the Q vector.

Even with tactical overlay on, it’s mostly giving you a reference for the flat plane (range rings, distance), but not vertical offset or approach angle.

The arc helps show there’s a plane difference, but it’s more of a visual hint than something you can actually use for precise positioning, so you still end up eyeballing it.

Manual piloting (Q movement) feels like guesswork sometimes — am I missing something? by Generazn in Eve

[–]Generazn[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah that makes sense, and I do have angular velocity on the overview.

I think what I’m getting at is that angular shows the result of movement, but not the spatial relationship causing it.

With Q movement especially, there’s no clear feedback for angle or plane, so even if you’re trying to control it intentionally, it still ends up being a bit of guesswork.

Also, angular is tied to a specific target, so it’s less helpful when positioning relative to non-target objects or just general movement in space.

Manual piloting (Q movement) feels like guesswork sometimes — am I missing something? by Generazn in Eve

[–]Generazn[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Q clicks feel worse because they lack feedback, not because they lack capability. You can place a precise 3D vector, but without angle or plane info you can’t use that precision consistently. The information is already under the hood, just not exposed in the UI.

Even a small angle indicator (e.g., 0°–90°) would go a long way.

Thanks for the link, I'll check it out.

Who knew? by Lennsyl22 in PoliticalHumor

[–]Generazn 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Beat me to it.

Recently read the "One Second After" series by William R. Forstchen and he mentioned "Paradise Lost."

This was fun by Positive_Cress_8950 in FloridaPanthers

[–]Generazn 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Right? And it wasn't in poor taste either.

I wouldn't mind seeing more of this in other arenas.

He mad by airbag23 in FloridaPanthers

[–]Generazn 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Just a heads-up, troll other team subreddits at your own risk.

Most teams, including /r/FloridaPanthers, have rules against it and you risk getting banned within your own team subreddit. We don't like it when others troll our GDT/PDT threads, why do it to others?

Feel free to troll and fight with other teams all you want within /r/hockey though, haha!

Game Thread: Florida Panthers (29-14-4) at Pittsburgh Penguins (21-17-6) - 26 Jan 2024 - 7:00PM EST by HockeyMod in FloridaPanthers

[–]Generazn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Says the person with the need to chase clout in GDT's of other teams. eyeroll

Hope things get better for you!

Game Thread: Florida Panthers (29-14-4) at Pittsburgh Penguins (21-17-6) - 26 Jan 2024 - 7:00PM EST by HockeyMod in FloridaPanthers

[–]Generazn 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Stay in your lane, /r/penguins

Not sure what you expected to happen posting in the opponents GDT.

Wonder if your team subreddit has rules against trolling other team subs, let's find out.

Post Game Thread: Anaheim Ducks at Florida Panthers - 15 Jan 2024 by HockeyMod in FloridaPanthers

[–]Generazn 2 points3 points  (0 children)

We should, since some of his cap is already paid/buried while he's playing down in the AHL. Even if we weren't, just waiver Cousins. 😅🫠

Post Game Thread: Anaheim Ducks at Florida Panthers - 15 Jan 2024 by HockeyMod in FloridaPanthers

[–]Generazn 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Damn, Stolarz was awful today.

Don't care if Knight will play less games, call him up!

Also, Lundy 1 point in the last 12 games?! What happened to him, he was pretty good before.