Can radar distance and travel speed be adjusted to make the geoscape more accurate?

Okay, first let me say that I like the Xenonauts geoscape form a playability standpoint. Way easier to manage than the old x-com geoscape, and it looks pretty cool too. And I like the game, so forgive me if I sound a little negative here, this is just a bothersome issue to me, and I wanted to voice my opinion and see if anything can be done.

I feel like something is provably wrong with the radar distance calculations and aircraft travel speeds. I am not a map scholar, nor a radar expert, and I encourage you to correct me if I'm horribly wrong, but this is what I'm seeing, and it seems wrong to me. All of my distance calculations were done using Google Earth.

I feel like the radar distances and travel speeds have not been corrected to take account for the whatever map projection was used to create the geoscape for the game.

Example:

Place a base in the middle of Africa. The radar covers a distance from the southern tip of Africa to the northern shore of Poland. This gives the radar detection circle a diameter of ~6,000 miles (~10,000 km). WOW! That's huge! Awesome! We've got some great radar systems here!

So unless Google Earth is playing tricks on me, that means my base in the middle of Alaska with a range of 6,000 miles should be able to cover All of North and Central America, Russia, China, and even Europe (across the north pole! It's not as far as you think). Let's try it!

Hmm, in the game, my Alaska radar station covers... a tiny corner of Russia, a chunk of Canada, and a tiny bit of the west coast of the US. That's... interesting. That's not even close to 6,000 miles. It's more like... maybe 1,500 - 2,500 miles? Now, this is probably more realistic, mind you - if we really had 6000 mile radar coverage, we could pretty much cover the entire planet with 2 radar stations. (The earth is only ~12,000 miles pole-to-pole). That would be silly. But I feel that the wild inconsistency between radar ranges in the two locations is equally silly.

Travel speed suffers from similar issues.

Example:

Distance from UK to Japan: ~5,900 miles

Distance from UK to southern tip of Africa: ~6,200 miles

Try making a base in the UK and dispatching one F-17 to the southern tip of Africa and another to Japan. They don't make it (not enough fuel), but the one going to Africa almost gets there when it has to turn back, and the one bound for Japan is just over halfway. Yet they should be traveling similar distances at similar speeds. Again, I feel like something is wrong.

I know 95% of you probably don't even care. Maybe it's just something map projection nerds care about, I don't know. But I want to save EARTH from aliens. And with the landmass distances being all wonky, it feels less like Earth to me. It's like a weird, bizarro-earth. Really. It's not Earth. Want me to prove it to you? Go find Antarctica in the game. Oh, that's right, IT'S GONE. That's actually an issue worthy of a separate post, but I'll leave it alone for now.

Is there anything that can be done to adjust for these inconsistencies, or is it simply too hard and/or too late to do anything?

If not, can we at least rescue Antarctica from the great Abyss?

Edited November 23, 2011 by JonQueue

Um, it's mainly because the earth is a globe, and the geoscape is a flat map. It's unfortunate, but these things happen, and most maps people study these days are flat anyway, so they should be able to understand.

Valid points though, just not sure what can be done about them except redoing the entire geoscape...

http://xkcd.com/977/

While I have noticed the issue, it is something that doesn't really bother me. It is much easier to just have a flat map, even if it is inaccurate. As AD says, the geoscape would have to be redone and while I think for instance a globe would be neat, I think it will be pretty far down on the 'nice-to-have' list.

Edited November 23, 2011 by GrumpySage

Yeah. That's the problem with a flat map. If I went right back maybe I wouldn't choose to go flat, but with the current system then if modelled correctly then all the radar ranges would be really odd shapes (as would all flight paths). Basically, it'd all look hideous.

In this case intuitiveness trumps realism, I'm afraid.

plus it's in keeping with the new UI

Yeah. That's the problem with a flat map. If I went right back maybe I wouldn't choose to go flat, but with the current system then if modelled correctly then all the radar ranges would be really odd shapes (as would all flight paths). Basically, it'd all look hideous.

In this case intuitiveness trumps realism, I'm afraid.

Fair enough.

I think it would be cool if the radar circles were a bit distorted to account for the actual map distances, but I can see where people who don't understand what's going on would see that as ugly.

Besides, I suppose if you changed it, you'd have to deal with droves of people who don't understand what's going on asking questions about the wacky radar circles in the forums, instead of just dealing with one idiot (me) complaining about the inaccuracy of the map.

I still say you should bring back Antarctica though. In X-Com, I always liked the decision of whether or not to put a base there. No people to protect, but I'd always be suspicious that the aliens were hiding there, away from all the prying eyes, so I'd routinely send ships over to Antarctica to search for alien bases, and sometimes I'd even put up a little radar outpost base there to make sure the aliens weren't hiding from me out in the icy wasteland.

Placing bases near the edges of the map is quite wasteful on a 2D map but I too liked having outposts on the ice caps, namely the Arctic. I mean c'mon, a secret underground base in the Arctic? It's a classic: http://www.theonion.com/articles/melting-ice-caps-expose-hundreds-of-secret-arctic,2806/

I suppose the poles just aren't relevant enough to feature on a 2D map

Good for manufacturing bases though. I thought the whole point of build the 'pole' bases was how they had almost no UFO activity near them in the first place?

Now there's even less reason for UFO's to be near them.

As opposed to a globe-representation, where polar bases are actually some of the best places for interception bases.

Yeah. That's the problem with a flat map. If I went right back maybe I wouldn't choose to go flat, but with the current system then if modelled correctly then all the radar ranges would be really odd shapes (as would all flight paths). Basically, it'd all look hideous.

If you're going to stick with flat topology 2D maps disregarding 3D aspects like curvature etc, then for consistency remember to remove the sinusodial day/night border as it is an effect of a spherical world

FMPOV the flat 2D map is a true letdown, it makes the game look somewhat casual. It remembers me of Uplink. In Uplink distances were not that meaningful and the sperical nature of Earth neglectible.

However in XCOM the strategic placement of bases is very important and goes down the drain on a flat map. For example having interception bases at north/southpole is a very clever way to reach the warmer climate areas with population at a short travelling distance and without having to chase an UFO along the equator.

Base placement on a sperical playfield is a very core-ish game element for me and I think it ties the player very much to "his world" as the "real" world lies at his fingertips to be rotated, zoomed etc., just what Google Earth gave its affections.

Edited March 3, 2013 by munchimon

@munch this has recently been a topic of some controversy. http://www.goldhawkinteractive.com/forums/showthread.php/4127-Xenonauts-and-the-fellowship-of-the-Flat-Earth-Society

Interesting catch on the day/night border.

I'd prefer a globe myself, though the flat map does show more "at a glance" I suppose. The game engine doesn't support 3D, so the point is moot. I would like to have the poles back, but I'm not sure they'd make sense at all without changing how radar ranges are displayed, which means you have to change flight paths, which the game pretty confusing.

I actually liked the night-day thing, it added some realism to an area lacking in realism. Even if it doesn't make sense with a flat earth, it's good for a globed Earth, and remember we're only modeling it as flat for convenience's sake. It is still round.

The poles could be selectable for a base, and jointly funded by the funding nations. But if you can't use the map correctly from the poles, it would have limited usefulness.

However in XCOM the strategic placement of bases is very important and goes down the drain on a flat map.

I don't see that as being true.

The placement would not be the same on a globe as the flat map but that does not make it unimportant.

I don't see that as being true.

The placement would not be the same on a globe as the flat map but that does not make it unimportant.

Agree. Even with a flat projection the objective is usually to cover the largest possible area of densely populated land with each base. From strategy perspective the flat map is irrelevant. It only shifts the desireable locations of the bases a little not the strategic concepts. Edited March 6, 2013 by StellarRat