For me it’s a matter of time - I gave up hope years ago
If people have hope for Scam Citizen, why not for ED?
Elite Dangerous plans for 2024
- Thread starter Arubeto
- Start date
If people have hope for Scam Citizen, why not for ED?
More likely to find life in oceans... but then we'd need the Moray Star Boat
Apparently the new game from Hello Games will be full planetary scale. I’m curious to see how it will turn out.
Pff... One planet?
People are demanding from ED a full galaxy - i mean 400 bn stars - what would that mean? how many thousands of BN of planets?
Anyway, let's see how that comes out - hopefully not the psychedelic madness of a biota resulted from the marriage between Candy Crush and Spore like it happens in the NMS
(Although i think i've seen the Hatter from Alice in one of the trailers for the new game - so, i dont have much hopes - which means there are chances it wont be a letdown for me - i mean i'm expecting not to like it, so it may as well met my expectations
)There was concept art of the orca underwater. If we could land some ships on the surface of a water world and then deploy a submersible srv that’d be coolMore likely to find life in oceans... but then we'd need the Moray Star Boat
All the whale Ships in ED are build for Submersible usage - Dolphin, Orca, Beluga - their design is self explanatory to me
I don't understand where you are going with this. The point I made is that when adding a feature to an existing game, just because there are some integration issues it doesn't mean that it should be declared to be complete failure and therefore unresolvable and let's move on and forget it. I would agree that adding to an existing game can be more tricky than going from the ground up if that's what you were saying? Even if so, it's still not impossible. There are plenty of productivity applications that have had some major fundamental changes over decades so, again, it's not impossible.
Indeed it does - but the game will shut down when FD decide it isn't viable - until then, I'm not bothered...
An interesting concept - these days I rarely bother with CGs, I used to when I was still fairly new, nowadays I can afford not to.
I wing up with suaqdron members - rarely anyone else. (that is why we have squadrons, isn't it?)
I've around 20 thousand with my / may alts name on - and there are a few hundred billions left undiscovered, I believe - we'd need millions of active players to even make a dent in that number.
It has no sense because of sizes. Where should I walk into "Imperial Courier" ? It has room only for modules I put there. And then I want to see them exact.
Space station is like thousands times bigger.
That's speculation. Just because they have the names of sea creatures, does not equal the ability to be submersible.
I've always thought of the Dolphin, Orca and Beluga as cruise ships, but that's just speculation on my part.
The point was about size, not number. Doesn't NMS have more stars than Elite? Doesn't mean it's better.
Ofc it is speculation, but it's educated speculation
Dont check only the names - look at the streamlined lines and the fins - it reeks
Been there done that!
And unfortunately, because there are no 'group prizes' - I did it all alone with no friends!
Less people would make it even easier to get into the top ten.
Okay okay - more players would be nice (I don't want the game to die!) But everything is fine for the moment. FDev have officially stated there is future support for Elite for at least a few more years.
I have been down in Hupang recently - multiple completely full instances of Cmdrs...
Elite will die one day....but not today! o7
I personally think you're making this out to be a lot harder than it will actually be. After all, one of the long-standing "mysteries" of Elite Dangerous is why larger ships are so inefficient when it comes cargo capacity.
A Sidewinder has an internal volume of 741m cubic meters, and can carry a maximum of 16 units of cargo. We also can reasonably be certain that a size two module slot would have roughly the same dimensions the of the cargo hatch: about 5m x 5m x 2.5 m, or about 62.5 cubic meters. 15.6 cubic meters of volume is used to carry a cargo container that is roughly 2m x 1m x 1m, or about two cubic meters of space. If we quite reasonably use the 2n rule that Frontier seems to apply to its optional modules, a size one module would be half the volume of a size two module. This brings the total optional module volume of a Sidewinder to about 250 cubim meters. That is, roughly a third of the Sidewinder is dedicated to "optional" modules.
Now, let's look at Lakon's Type-9 Heavy. With an internal volume of nearly 160,000 cubic meters, it can carry 790 units of cargo. This translates into roughly 13,000 cubic meters of volume. So, roughly 8% of a Type-9 is devoted to optional modules.
So... what is the remaining 25% of a Type-9's interior volume being used for??? Crew quarters? Cargo access corridors? Inquiring minds want to know.
There is reason to suspect that there is a sizable jump in volume between size four and size five optional modules. The fighter launching bay, which should be the size of a size 5 fighter bay module, is around 18m x 18m x 5m, or about 1620 cubic meters. Again using the 2n rule, a size 5 module should be about 500 cubic meters. If we assume that there the equivalent of 27 "small" modules", and 23 "large" modules, that brings us to over 38,000 cubic meters of optional internal volume. Or roughly a quarter of the Type-9's internal volume.
Much closer to a Sidewinder's third, but again, there is still more space avaible to other functions... especially given that the large modules are over three times larger than is strictly necessary, using the 2n rule. Plenty of room to include internal access ways to ensure that freight, SRVs, and fighters can get where they need to go, especially if adjacencies are taken into account.
It’s almost as if Frontier has actually thought these things through when they designed these ships.
I have plenty to complain about how Frontier has managed certain aspects of this game. But ship design isn’t one of them. I’ve spent a lot of time considering the internal designs of my favorite ships, including building some I of smaller ones at small scale in Space Engjneers. The hardest challenge is developing a system to ensure modules connect properly to the static parts of a ship’s interior. The most expensive challenge is all the art assets required, and well designed “parts library” can cut that expense down considerably.
I have no doubt that Frontier has the ability. My doubt is whether they will decide if it’s profitable. And that is something I can’t answer, especially given some of Frontier’s business decisions of late. Even the best development team can be hamstrung by the ones running the company, as the twin debacles regarding Odyssey (rushing release and not supporting current consoles) has demonstrated.
i didnt play the older games, but i know for sure there were ships designed for water world travel. manta ray or something like that comes to my mind. if it includes the current saud kruger flotila im not sure, but its not an alien concept (ba dum tss
)
It’s “how good is your procgen” to my mind - can you avoid obviously repeating patterns/objects?
NMS does pretty good sci-fi book cover views but can be very samey on a planet when travelling any distance, while Elite tries for realism and I think that works really well at low altitude or on the ground (having SRV’d around a moon a few years back in Horizons, it never felt like I was seeing anything repeating) but can be visible on planet approach.
During the Odyssey alpha when FDev were testing out scanning stuff, the plants were densely packed and the areas close to each other for ease of scanning, so that as I was flying over the planet I was thinking how model swapping the alien stuff for terrestrial trees would produce some pretty good looking forest vistas. I have a hope that we might see Earth-ish worlds thanks to that, but only the most diaphanous gossamer of hopes
It's basically this. In essence I'm saying you dont turn a space arcade sim into a 1st person shooter.
Hasn't it always been a 1st person shooter? First in ships, now on foot too... Every ship, when you buy it, has guns, you know...
The problem I think is that the three reference points we have don't match up at all
Cargo is 2m^3 per tonne, 2^n progression by module size, plus however much padding you want to include. On that scale even a size 8 internal could probably be wedged inside a Sidewinder somewhere.
SRVs in theory imply a minimum size for the class 2 internal which is a lot larger than the cargo can possibly need (and also minimum dimensions on each axis) ... so why are the cargo capacities so small? Even a system to allow near-constant-time access to arbitrary cargo pods (rather than a first-in last-out pile) shouldn't take up more than 50% of the internal volume of the hold even on a naive design and can probably get down to 20% or so of the volume with clever use of space. (It can't be that much in terms of reinforced cargo racks etc. because the racks themselves don't add mass)
SLFs then are even bigger still - but if the internal size jumps substantially at class 5, why don't the cargo capacities or module performances?
Then even within those reference points you have oddities like Refinery modules - a 2A refinery can hold 50% more cargo than a size 2 cargo rack, plus the actual refining equipment, and even if you ignore that in-refinery cargo doesn't apply mass to the ship as a bug, there's still big questions about just how badly our cargo racks are designed.
(And the non-reference-point modules - limpet controllers, power plants, HRPs - are even weirder, generally having mass-performance curves that mean that almost all of the mass of the larger ones must be ballast and not even structurally useful ballast)
There's certainly enough internal space inside the ships to store the optional modules - even after the T-9 got a nominal ~50% increase in optional space when it had the second size 8 internal retrofitted - but letting players look inside that space would probably be a big mistake!
The original design drafts did have "fuel tank explodes, sets your ship on fire" as a possible scenario.
Also "galaxy map malfunctions, jumps you to a different system".