Thread: The Ability to Swim Underwater

I’m not sure if there have already been posts on this issue or not (I am very new to the forums) but something that I would like to see in this game is the ability to swim underwater. I think there is a quest in Evendim where you are required to pickup crates from the wreckage of an old ship, but your toon stays on the top of the water. That just doesn't seem very realistic. And there have been many time when I wished I could have explored the bottom of a lake, but haven't been able to. Who knows...maybe they could even incorporate it into some instances?

Originally Posted by immapepper

I’m not sure if there have already been posts on this issue or not (I am very new to the forums) but something that I would like to see in this game is the ability to swim underwater.

There have been. However, it is impossible for the basically-2D Turbine engine to let*any*thing swim underwater. The water is a flat surface. That beautiful underwater pattern that we see as we swim across Lake Evendim ... it's all graphics.

I think there is a quest in Evendim where you are required to pickup crates from the wreckage of an old ship, but your toon stays on the top of the water. That just doesn't seem very realistic.

No, it isn't very, is it? It might have been better to have the quester loot a ship wrecked on the shore of some obscure island.

And there have been many time when I wished I could have explored the bottom of a lake, but haven't been able to. Who knows...maybe they could even incorporate it into some instances?

Oh yes, it would be beautiful, but it can't happen with the current engine. Now, they may be working on something three-dimensional and even more beautiful for whatever game they do next. But it won't happen in LotRO. Sorry.

And welcome to the forums.

The game engine doesn't have the "z" axis. All locations for everything are labeled "X,Y" whereas in other games, like WoW or Skyrim, you have X,Y,Z.

It would require a complete rebuild of the engine, and relabeling of every single thing in the game. It also the same reason they can't have a flight mechanic.

But I agree, it would be nice.

Is DDO made using the Turbine Engine? Because you can swim underwater there.

But other posters are correct: there is no functioning z-axis in LotRO necessary for flight/swimming (though there must, by definition be a z-axis, not only for placement of objects, but also to determine falling damage...).

Originally Posted by KalimniHFC

The game engine doesn't have the "z" axis. All locations for everything are labeled "X,Y" whereas in other games, like WoW or Skyrim, you have X,Y,Z.

I don't really buy that. If you type /loc, you'll get something like this (which I got standing outside the Crafting Hall in Galtrev):

You are at: r1 lx1297 ly444 ox37.35 oy96.86 oz541.77 h157.5

I have no idea what it means, but it has a Z value.

It's not a 2D game - it's obviously a 3D space. Whether you're underwater or in the air, it shouldn't matter. But yeah, something about their engine makes it difficult apparently, or so they have claimed.

Hmm. I am just repeating the information that was put out by a dev or mod at somepoint in regards to flying mounts, and why it is impossible. I probably have some of my "facts" messed up, as I haven't actually seen the original post, but the point still stands. There is indeed an issue of some sort with the game engine preventing flying and/or swimming under water.

I've seen Yula and Khafar describe the technical hurdles and limitations on this. I just turn my comp on and play so I cannot repeat what they said. It was all Greek to me. It was something like 3 times around the Earth on Sunday before Captain Kangaroo eats breakfast, which compounds the Earth's gravity as Halley's Comet passes by while a forest tree is cut down in Brazil.

Originally Posted by djheydt

There have been. However, it is impossible for the basically-2D Turbine engine to let*any*thing swim underwater. The water is a flat surface. That beautiful underwater pattern that we see as we swim across Lake Evendim ... it's all graphics.

I'm not sure if this is the reason, as much as how much dev time it would take to go back and redo all the areas that have already been done without underwater. As far as I know, LotRO and DDO use the same engine, and DDO has underwater swimming. I would love to be able to swim and explore Annuminas, but I don't see it happening.


Here is an old post from Floon, one of the devs:
http://forums.lotro.com/showthread.p...57#post3705157

As for the z axis, there is one, though I'm not sure if it will go into negative, or underwater, in the the case of LOTRO. I know one of the pet pathing problems we used to have dealt with going into water and coming back out with a pet. Once the pet went into the water, it's z axis went negative, and it messed up until you resummoned it.

Just do /loc while ingame to see you location, and you can see what they use.
r1 lx963 ly924 ox74.06 oy97.58 oz390.03 h32.3

If I understand it correctly, r is region, h is heading (direction your char is facing), lx/ly is your location within the current land block, ox/oy/oz is your x/y/z axis location within the current region.



For a little more information on how the coordinate system works, take a look at the following links:
I tried to read them, but my eyes started to swim a little.

http://lorebook.lotro.com/wiki/Mecha...dinate_Systems
http://digital-utopia.net/?p=373


;tldr It's possible with the current engine, but would take a lot of dev work to go back and put in new underwater content, and many players think it would be against the lore.

Originally Posted by Nymphonic

I've seen Yula and Khafar describe the technical hurdles and limitations on this. I just turn my comp on and play so I cannot repeat what they said. It was all Greek to me. It was something like 3 times around the Earth on Sunday before Captain Kangaroo eats breakfast, which compounds the Earth's gravity as Halley's Comet passes by while a forest tree is cut down in Brazil.

ROFL. Sorry I cannot give you + rep because the darned system is still being stingy.

Originally Posted by Beleg

I don't really buy that. If you type /loc, you'll get something like this (which I got standing outside the Crafting Hall in Galtrev):

You are at: r1 lx1297 ly444 ox37.35 oy96.86 oz541.77 h157.5

I have no idea what it means, but it has a Z value.

It's not a 2D game - it's obviously a 3D space. Whether you're underwater or in the air, it shouldn't matter. But yeah, something about their engine makes it difficult apparently, or so they have claimed.

I want you to think very, very carefully about what I'm about to say, and see if you can see why it applies to LoTRO...

A sphere--which is a 3 dimensional object--has a 2 dimensional surface.

--W. H. Heydt

Old Used Programmer

I don't know why people keep saying that they don't have a z axis in this engine, because they do. DDO uses the same engine, and it supports both full 3D underwater swimming and full 3D gliding from heights to any point down below (feather fall).

The reason they didn't do that here (as stated by the content developers some years back) is that it's too much effort for too little entertainment benefit. If they had underwater swimming, they'd have to go back and make all of the underwater spaces in the game interesting. They'd have to put quests there. They'd have to worry about underwater combat (or exploits players could use to avoid combat if they didn't). They'd have to add underwater animations for all the avatars, and perhaps for a bunch of creatures too.

"Feather fall" won't make an appearance here either, even though DDO has it (and not just for "lore" reasons). The entire set of LOTRO landscapes, instances, and content were created without it, and they'd have to go back and check/test everywhere on the entire map to ensure "gliding" wouldn't allow people into places they're not supposed to be -- nor to easily bypass content that should be difficult to face.

Khafar

BTW, I have to ask. If the engine is 2D, what about multi-floor areas like Moria or Ettenmoors?

Originally Posted by Beleg

I don't really buy that. If you type /loc, you'll get something like this (which I got standing outside the Crafting Hall in Galtrev):

You are at: r1 lx1297 ly444 ox37.35 oy96.86 oz541.77 h157.5

I have no idea what it means, but it has a Z value.

It's not a 2D game - it's obviously a 3D space. Whether you're underwater or in the air, it shouldn't matter. But yeah, something about their engine makes it difficult apparently, or so they have claimed.

I think the point is more that for every combination of x and y, there is only a single z defined. In x and y directions, you have a continuous range of movement; you're free to choose your position at any point between A and B. There are a few spaces with multiple levels in z, but in all cases, it is discrete: you're on the 1st floor, or the second, but there's no surface corresponding to the 1.4th floor. To allow underwater swimming, we'd need the z-axis to go continuous.

The obvious response is that by jumping, or in the case of birds, by flying, we can get to z-values that are above the surfaces z-height. My guess would be that players, NPCs and mobs are all represented by an invisible cage within which our movements are restricted. That is, I I'm six feet tall and can jump up to three feet, I am drawn within an area that extends nine feet from the z-height of the surface, no matter what. Within this cage, I have continuous movement along the z-axis, but outside of it (which accounts for a significant part of the game world), there are only two dimensions to consider.

But what would you do underwater? The Lord of the Rings lore doesn't have underwater civilizations, underwater species or anything worthwhile that can be found underwater as far as I know.
It's not World of Warcraft, it wouldn't make sense to implement Vash'jir or seahorse mounts in LOTRO

Originally Posted by whheydt

A sphere--which is a 3 dimensional object--has a 2 dimensional surface.

A sphere is perfectly curved in all directions, thus its surface is exactly one-point, making it 0D. That also makes true geometrical spheres nonexistent in the physical world, as anything which exists in the physical world must have 4 dimensions

But I see your point

Originally Posted by Zephyriat

The Lord of the Rings lore doesn't have underwater species

I'm pretty sure there are fishes. But you are right, swimming underwater would be pointless.

Originally Posted by Haunt123

A sphere is perfectly curved in all directions, thus its surface is exactly one-point, making it 0D.

Then the surface area of every sphere would be zero which clearly isn't the case.

Even if this will never happen, even if some people don't think there's a point or that it shouldn't happen, I would absolutely LOVE this. Like, you don't even know how much I'd love it.

I've only ever seen one game that let people do this, and it was really cool.

There are so many beautiful places in this game that I wish I could go, but can't. Under the water is one of those places.

Originally Posted by Reniannen

Then the surface area of every sphere would be zero which clearly isn't the case.

It would not be zero. The space a point takes up is undefined, thus making the SA undefined as well.

But that is clearly not the case, as you said. If you read the rest of my post, I mentioned that perfect spheres don't exist in the physical world (Perfect curves don't either). Any sphere you take may seem to be curved, but if you magnify it by an amount not yet possible by our current technology, you will notice that it is not curved. The surface is jagged.

So, since the sphere you take clearly has sides​, it is not a sphere.

Further evidence that curves don't exist is, if a curved object comes in contact with another object, the number of points touching the object are (1/infinity), which is, undefined. This is not possible physically.

Here is the most accurate man-made sphere ever made. It isn't perfect, but nearly there. There are many things which come close in nature as well, such as the Sun perhaps, but still not a perfect sphere.

I'm sorry for derailing this thread, so I won't post about this anymore But you can check online and find some articles on this if you aren't convinced. Sorry again

Originally Posted by Haunt123

It would not be zero. The space a point takes up is undefined, thus making the SA undefined as well.

Then how is it possible for us to calculate the surface area of a sphere?

But that is clearly not the case, as you said. If you read the rest of my post, I mentioned that perfect spheres don't exist in the physical world (Perfect curves don't either). Any sphere you take may seem to be curved, but if you magnify it by an amount not yet possible by our current technology, you will notice that it is not curved. The surface is jagged.

So, since the sphere you take clearly has sides​, it is not a sphere.

Further evidence that curves don't exist is, if a curved object comes in contact with another object, the number of points touching the object are (1/infinity), which is, undefined. This is not possible physically.

I am not disputing the non-existence of perfect shapes, perfect cubes don't exist either. But you are claiming that the surface of a sphere (which has dimensions) is equivalent to a point (which has no dimensions).

Furthermore where did 1/infinity came from? If a curve touches another object the number of points touching is between one and infinity. (1/infinity is 0 by the way)

Originally Posted by sarlinspellweaver

Is DDO made using the Turbine Engine? Because you can swim underwater there.

It is different Turbine engine. DDO and LOTRO were in development at the same time. The DDO and LOTRO engine are both children of the AC2 engine. The DDO engine obviously had more money spent on basic changes like group finder and 3-d movement. Lotro uses a 2-d movement system just like AC and AC2. There is a Z-axis which is used to define the ground. Motion is all ground / surface movement with a falling and jumping dynamic.

With the game being so old, there is no possibility of Turbine spending the dollars to import the DDO engine functionality. Turbine have to spend even more money to redesign the landscape assets. The landscape assets costs is the reason Turbine will not add boats. Since there is no water activities to speak of, Turbine never completed the water landscape. Turbine never finished the bottoms of bodies of water. If you look, most of them are dark smudges. What I would call distance imposters like the low detail painted back drops to sets.

In summary, It is easy to let us swim underwater. Turbine could define the surface as the bottom. You would go into the lake and underwater. You would not be able to swim to the top of the water.

Historical fun fact - Many years ago - The USA AIr Force had some planes with ground hugging technology. Sometimes the AI had trouble where the ground was when the plane made the feet wet transition - crossed from land to over a lake. The plane try to hug the bottom with very unpleasant results. Water is kind of hard when you hit it at 500 miles an hour. I believe this was during the Vietnam war and the plane was an F-16. No ones knows how many were lost by this sporadic error. The plane would never come home. Typically you could not see your wing mates in the ground clutter. The first visual observation was a training exercise in Europe where one augured into a Swiss Lake. Not sure how accurate my memories are. This happened a long time. People like to bury and forget about things like this.

Foirtunately, Lotro supports a bridge construct where there is more than one ground surface. That is what we humans are used to in real life. Forgetting about water. On land, we can't fly. It is not hard to get into situations where we are above or below each other via bridge, ledges and other mechanisms. Heck I am elevated via a chair at the moment. It was that long ago that another human in the house was trying to get something out from under the chair by reaching in there. Not enough space for a human unless it is a rug rat human.

Originally Posted by paintpixie

I've only ever seen one game that let people do this, and it was really cool

EQ2, WoW, & Rift all allow underwater movement, & all of them have reasons for going underwater.

IIRC, Dark Age Of Camelot introduced underwater content as well, but I can't say that for sure. I don't remember whether or not Anarchy Online or EQ1 did, & I didn't play Vanguard or any other MMOs enough to say.

Originally Posted by whheydt

I want you to think very, very carefully about what I'm about to say, and see if you can see why it applies to LoTRO...

A sphere--which is a 3 dimensional object--has a 2 dimensional surface.

--W. H. Heydt

Old Used Programmer

I understand what you are saying W, but I'm not sure you understand what I'm saying. I've been a software engineer for 25 years - most of that time has been spent developing Geographic Information Systems (GIS) for the US Army. I'm VERY familiar with many ways of representing 3D space in a computer program, and the visualization of that space. There's nothing stopping Turbine from doing this -- other than there's no need for it in the game. They call it software for a reason - it can be changed.

But I'm not arguing that they should do so. I enjoyed exploring underwater reefs - in real life, and in games like LotRO. And though I don't see much need for it in this game, it would have been a lot of fun in Annuminas.

But the suggestion is akin to mounts. For a long time Turbine has been saying the engine doesn't really support mounts, they're just "horse-pants". With Rohan, I expect that will change.

Originally Posted by Reniannen

Then how is it possible for us to calculate the surface area of a sphere?

As I said, perfect spheres don't exist. All that I said applied to perfect spheres only.

But you are claiming that the surface of a sphere (which has dimensions) is equivalent to a point (which has no dimensions)

Then I'm afraid there is a misunderstanding. I never claimed that the surface area of a sphere is equivalent to one point. I said that the surface of a sphere is one point.

Let me illustrate the difference between surface area and surface which I am talking about.

Surface area of a 3d figure is the area of the surface of a 3d figure

Surface of a 3d figure is the plane of the figure which comes in contact with another plane, when two figures come in contact. It is synonymous with face. For example, a cube has 6 faces. When it comes in contact with a plane, 1 face is the surface.

To relate this to spheres, you'll have to read further:

Furthermore where did 1/infinity came from? If a curve touches another object the number of points touching is between one and infinity. (1/infinity is 0 by the way)

That assumption is fundamentally incorrect. In a perfectly curved sphere, in any circle's quadrant (In the physical world), no two points are collinear. If they are, then it is not a perfect circle, making the sphere imperfect also. It is ridiculous to argue this, as this is an axiom. It's like arguing Euclid's axioms.

Thus when a sphere comes in contact with a plane, only one point comes in contact (making it the surface). If more than one point come in contact (making the points collinear), this sphere has a side, and is thus an imperfect sphere.

Another little axiom for you: The space a point occupies is undefined. In a perfect sphere, the surface area is made of infinite points, thus making the surface area itself undefined. Now you can't say I'm claiming "thus surface area = 1 point because they both are undefined". Undefined is not a number. "Undefined = undefined" is a meaningless statement mathematically.


Now you'll think "You claim that the surface area is undefined but we can still calculate it". The surface area formula is inaccurate. It contains an irrational constant. What you get is an estimate. For a perfect sphere, you'll need the full value of pi, which, needless to say, cannot be found.

Originally Posted by Haunt123

A sphere is perfectly curved in all directions, thus its surface is exactly one-point, making it 0D. That also makes true geometrical spheres nonexistent in the physical world, as anything which exists in the physical world must have 4 dimensions

But I see your point

You are confusing "flat" (as in a perfect plane) with "2 dimensional". A surface doesn't have to be flat to be 2 dimensional. Perhaps I should have used a Moebius Strip as my example, since it has only one side and one edge, and yet it is a 3 dimensional object. (However, there would most likely have been problems with people who have never heard of Moebius Strips, don't understand them, or would want to argue that it simply *must* have two sides.)

--W. H. Heydt

Old Used Programmer

A Moebius Strip is cool. I klove those things.

Originally Posted by whheydt

You are confusing "flat" (as in a perfect plane) with "2 dimensional". A surface doesn't have to be flat to be 2 dimensional. Perhaps I should have used a Moebius Strip as my example, since it has only one side and one edge, and yet it is a 3 dimensional object. (However, there would most likely have been problems with people who have never heard of Moebius Strips, don't understand them, or would want to argue that it simply *must* have two sides.)

--W. H. Heydt

Old Used Programmer

I never said anything about objects being flat. I know the Moebius Strip, and I understand what you are saying, and agree with it completely.

But I'll have to apologize to you for misunderstanding your original post, as I see now that you were referring to a different surface than what I thought you were referring to.

From what I understand, you were referring to the surface we account in Surface Area, while I misunderstood you to be referring to surface (of contact), which is the most outward portion of an object (in the case of a sphere, a point). I wasn't incorrect in my explanations, but I was incorrect in understanding what you said.

Again, my apologies

Originally Posted by Haunt123

As I said, perfect spheres don't exist. All that I said applied to perfect spheres only.


Now you'll think "You claim that the surface area is undefined but we can still calculate it". The surface area formula is inaccurate. It contains an irrational constant. What you get is an estimate. For a perfect sphere, you'll need the full value of pi, which, needless to say, cannot be found.

One small quibble.... The formula is perfectly accurate. It's not the formula's fault pi is an irrational number. You are just in the wrong universe I did try to live in a universe where the number system was base pi, but it was just too wierd so I returned, but all our circles and spheres had exact values.

Edit: Opps sorry cuase then r became an issue Sometimes one just cannot win

Originally Posted by Haunt123

Then I'm afraid there is a misunderstanding. I never claimed that the surface area of a sphere is equivalent to one point. I said that the surface of a sphere is one point.

Which is what I said you did. "Surface area" is not mentioned in the text you're quoting.

That assumption is fundamentally incorrect. In a perfectly curved sphere, in any circle's quadrant (In the physical world), no two points are collinear. If they are, then it is not a perfect circle, making the sphere imperfect also. It is ridiculous to argue this, as this is an axiom. It's like arguing Euclid's axioms.

You are arguing something I've not said.

Thus when a sphere comes in contact with a plane,

I said (quoting you) a curve and an object. Not a sphere and a plane.

only one point comes in contact (making it the surface).

That's not what a surface is.

Another little axiom for you: The space a point occupies is undefined. In a perfect sphere, the surface area is made of infinite points, thus making the surface area itself undefined.

If the surface area is made of _infinite_ points, then the surface itself (of which the surface area is only a certain kind of measure) cannot be a _single_ point, can it?

I've got to be honest, is regards to the surface of a sphere, you guys left me behind in the dust a long time ago. Pacific War? No problem. Roman History? My specialty.

Science and math? 2+2=well, ugh.......I think it's........4?

Originally Posted by Reniannen

Which is what I said you did. "Surface area" is not mentioned in the text you're quoting.

You don't get it. I'm referring to a different sort of surface. When an pilot says "I have landed on the surface", he doesn't mean he landed on the entire surface of the Earth, he means his airplane has made contact with the Earth's crust. That is the surface which comes in contact.

You are arguing something I've not said.

You said, "Furthermore where did 1/infinity came from? If a curve touches another object the number of points touching is between one and infinity. (1/infinity is 0 by the way)"

I was explaining to you how this does not apply to perfect spheres. Read it again as I explained to you that it is an axiom that it does not apply to perfect spheres. If you doubt that as well because I say it, feel free to argue against mathematics.

I said (quoting you) a curve and an object. Not a sphere and a plane.

Guess what? When a sphere comes in contact with a plane, a point of one of the curves of a sphere comes in contact with a sphere.

There is no point to this discussion if you talk about any object, whereas I was talking about planes before already.

That's not what a surface is.

Please see above for an explanation of what surface I was referring to

If the surface area is made of _infinite_ points, then the surface itself (of which the surface area is only a certain kind of measure) cannot be a _single_ point, can it?

Please see above, again.

And also, and this may be too much too ask, show some respect when you are discussing. Or I won't bother with the same.

Originally Posted by Haunt123

I never said anything about objects being flat. I know the Moebius Strip, and I understand what you are saying, and agree with it completely.

But I'll have to apologize to you for misunderstanding your original post, as I see now that you were referring to a different surface than what I thought you were referring to.

From what I understand, you were referring to the surface we account in Surface Area, while I misunderstood you to be referring to surface (of contact), which is the most outward portion of an object (in the case of a sphere, a point). I wasn't incorrect in my explanations, but I was incorrect in understanding what you said.

Again, my apologies

Not a problem.

Now to extend it for those playing at home (I think you'll see precisely what I on about), take a piece of paper and crumple it up. Now partially spread it out, but not so it is smooth or flat. The uneven surface is still just as much 2D as when it was nice and flat and smooth, but it takes a z-axis to describe points on that--2D--surface.

When people say, "But LoTRO locs give a Z value, the game *must* be 3D!", that is what they're not taking into account.

LoTRO is a 2D game, but it isn't FLAT.

--W. H. Heydt

Old Used Programmer

Not to bring this thread back to the original topic or anything, but...

Originally Posted by Yula_the_Mighty

It is different Turbine engine. DDO and LOTRO were in development at the same time. The DDO and LOTRO engine are both children of the AC2 engine. The DDO engine obviously had more money spent on basic changes like group finder and 3-d movement. Lotro uses a 2-d movement system just like AC and AC2. There is a Z-axis which is used to define the ground.

Well, they can define a fixed-elevation surface above the ground too, which is how we're able to swim across a lake. In any case, when this was first brought up nearly 5 years back, nobody from Turbine said anything about it being all that difficult to extend the game engine for LOTRO to incorporate changes that went into the DDO variant. What they did say was that it was basically too much work (art, content, world-building, reworking all of the lakes in the game) for too little benefit, and that it wasn't likely they'd do this because it was low priority.

I doubt its priority has done anything but drop since then - they have fewer resources and more people at the endgame that they're trying to hang onto. The increased business due to "swimming underwater" would probably be quite small, so they're going to spend limited resources on the stuff that creates more draw: moving the story forward, adding new territories (particularly the better-known ones), adding features in high demand like mounted combat, etc.

Khafar

Originally Posted by Khafar

Not to bring this thread back to the original topic or anything, but...

Well, they can define a fixed-elevation surface above the ground too, which is how we're able to swim across a lake. In any case, when this was first brought up nearly 5 years back, nobody from Turbine said anything about it being all that difficult to extend the game engine for LOTRO to incorporate changes that went into the DDO variant. What they did say was that it was basically too much work (art, content, world-building, reworking all of the lakes in the game) for too little benefit, and that it wasn't likely they'd do this because it was low priority.

I doubt its priority has done anything but drop since then - they have fewer resources and more people at the endgame that they're trying to hang onto. The increased business due to "swimming underwater" would probably be quite small, so they're going to spend limited resources on the stuff that creates more draw: moving the story forward, adding new territories (particularly the better-known ones), adding features in high demand like mounted combat, etc.

Khafar

There have been a couple times to which various Devs have come out to say that the given Z-axis that is modeled in-game would require a drastic overhaul to support the degree that players desire in terms of elevation of flight or swimming.

Whether or not that is a difficult matter, considering the modular factor that the AC2 engine actually has, I don't know, but I do know that nothing currently in-game supports a true Z-axis and that, as you know (just pointing it out to those that don't), anything with the appearance of Z-axis movement is placed on unseen stilts.

Factoring that with the limited scope that would encompass underwater exploration in Middle-earth (see: no diving equipment, no unexplored 'ruins', etc), I seriously don't see the benefit to implementing it no matter the cost.

This is by far the COOLEST thread I have EVER read!! Please continue........

I have never actually learned something reading these threads that applies outside the realm of Middle Earth. I am certain I'll never be able to use it, but good to know none the less!!

Originally Posted by DarkCntry

Whether or not that is a difficult matter, considering the modular factor that the AC2 engine actually has, I don't know, but I do know that nothing currently in-game supports a true Z-axis and that, as you know (just pointing it out to those that don't), anything with the appearance of Z-axis movement is placed on unseen stilts.

They have a Z axis in terms of positioning and gameworld physics, but what they don't have in this game is 3D pathing. The pathing engine (Kynapse) is firmly tied to the surface of the world, which is why you get silliness like Hendroval you've attacked having to painstakingly fly up a switchback trail instead of just flying straight up at you. They are indeed attached to the ground on invisible poles, because that's a major limitation of the pathing tech they use.

Khafar

Originally Posted by Haunt123

You don't get it. I'm referring to a different sort of surface. When an pilot says "I have landed on the surface", he doesn't mean he landed on the entire surface of the Earth, he means his airplane has made contact with the Earth's crust. That is the surface which comes in contact.

"Being on a surface" doesn't mean being on the entire surface, that's called covering (of) a surface. If we're talking strictly in mathematical terms there is no "different sort of surface".

You said, "Furthermore where did 1/infinity came from? If a curve touches another object the number of points touching is between one and infinity. (1/infinity is 0 by the way)"

I was explaining to you how this does not apply to perfect spheres. Read it again as I explained to you that it is an axiom that it does not apply to perfect spheres. If you doubt that as well because I say it, feel free to argue against mathematics.

But it does apply, an object (a generalization you yourself used) can be another sphere.

Guess what? When a sphere comes in contact with a plane, a point of one of the curves of a sphere comes in contact with a sphere.

I have never said that was incorrect. In fact I said the exact opposite in my previous post.

There is no point to this discussion if you talk about any object, whereas I was talking about planes before already.

Yet you used the word object.

And also, and this may be too much too ask, show some respect when you are discussing. Or I won't bother with the same.

As far as I can tell I am responding in the same manner as you do.

Look I understand all the math (and I am fairly certain you do too) but what you started referring to as the surface is not surface. That's all. I am trying to get you realize you are not using the terms correctly, I am not trying to prove you wrong (though I am interested in how you arrived to the "1/infinity" figure) and I certainly don't get any joy out of this.

Originally Posted by SalionOfBrothers

One small quibble.... The formula is perfectly accurate. It's not the formula's fault pi is an irrational number. You are just in the wrong universe I did try to live in a universe where the number system was base pi, but it was just too wierd so I returned, but all our circles and spheres had exact values.

Sorry to bust your bubble but our universe is perfectly based on Pi.
Why do you think its infinite, like a perfect spehere? Why do you think people call it 'sacred geometry' and most people on our planet are woreshiping symbols and concept based on that 'geometry'?

Originally Posted by whheydt

When people say, "But LoTRO locs give a Z value, the game *must* be 3D!", that is what they're not taking into account.

LoTRO is a 2D game, but it isn't FLAT.

There is no 2D in the real world cause it is made up in 3D. Everything you say is untrue in reality. There are NO 2D surfaces in reality.

And since Lotro is made in CG 3D space, wich is also no true 3d but a mathematical method of rendering grids or meshes, every sphere displayed in that 3D space is made up of 'faces', 'polygons', 'triangles', a defined number of points. Your whole example wouldnt make sense (if it where legit in reality).

Originally Posted by Nymphonic

I've seen Yula and Khafar describe the technical hurdles and limitations on this. I just turn my comp on and play so I cannot repeat what they said. It was all Greek to me. It was something like 3 times around the Earth on Sunday before Captain Kangaroo eats breakfast, which compounds the Earth's gravity as Halley's Comet passes by while a forest tree is cut down in Brazil.

WHOA! Are you trying to kill us all?!? One more step and you would've summoned Cthulu to destroy the planet.