Replace SRVs (Make mat grinding fun)

[CMDR Voron]

There’s no in game activity that would necessitate a vehicle like an SRV, nor is there an in-universe reason to use one beyond giving moon-landing vibes.

The physics of the SRV are unforgiving and do a poor job of reflecting the 6 wheels with 6’ suspension arms.

If we are going to be in bubble turrets, a quad copter makes way more sense. We see quad copters in the game regularly, you could probably re-use a lot of the fundamental control and physics of ships/the camera.

(Personally, I would prefer air speeder bikes like Star Wars or Destiny, but that’s probably less likely.)

You then just need to add things to make flying the copter a game. Here are some ideas:

Fun collection: deliver things to a chute or landing pad on the ship. Maybe employ a tether to collect items from the ground similar to cargo door. Add concussive charges that break apart collectibles but must me placed and then flown away from, similar to deep ore mining.
environmental hazards: Storms, volcanoes, gyres, caves. Anything that throws things to avoid, affects control/visibility, or asks us to manoeuvre better.
Resource management: limited energy, have to return to ship occasionally or use suit to recharge. Manage shield use, like on foot.
Combat: add remote detonation bombs and missiles for combat. Have to skim ground in some situations to avoid AntiAircraft turrets. Maybe put the quad copter into sentry mode where it just behaves like NPC quad copter.

Most importantly: meaningfully combine it with Odyssey/on-foot activities.

 

[Uthael]

Quoting myself from another topic:

Off-topic, but I would really have fun if I could reliably get my SRV to permanently float or even fly out into space on lower gravity planets. Managed to do it with the Scarab, but that was using some glitch. More like an accident.

To get enough ENG recharge to do this, I'd be willing to sacrifice 75% cargo capacity, 50% driving speed and 50% of the gun's DPS.

Optionally, make that 1 remaining unit of cargo corrosion resistant

Or just give us more SRVs, even if they look like 80% reused model from one another.

Attached screenshots remained there

 

[CMDR Saigon]

Having more assets to play with is great but digging at the SRV and saying it does not serve any purpose is just incorrect and inaccurate!

All my exploration ships have both the Scarab & Scorpion and I absolutely love them...and I suspect the vast majority of the community do too so that's a huge assumption you are making CMDR!

o7,

 

[Mohrgan]

I have, and always have had, a love/hate relationship with the SRVs. On one hand, they are practical tools for gathering mats, and exploring POIs. On the second hand, they are crazy fun to drive (especially the Scarab). When ever I get into an SRV I end up driving all around crazy-like looking for canyons or craters to jump over or in. I get so little work done, that I never have enough Raw Mats.

I have mentioned being interested in a new SRV. One that has cargo capacity like, or better than, the Scarab, but the driving characteristics more like the Scorpion. I could actually prospect should I find myself in a vehicle like that. But, who knows...

 

[Crank Larson]

There's no need to replace SRVs just because you don't like them... Driving an SRV across random planets is one of the things I enjoy most about E: D!

 

[Kimosabe_X]

Hmm... too much programming effort for the possible outcome, I guess...

 

[HRDiagram]

Removing an asset would be counterproductive, and yet people keep asking to remove things they don't enjoy (and others do).
How about just asking to add something else, instead?

I'd love to see new ground vehicles, and more integration with on foot activities, but not at the expense of the two existing SRVs!

Otherwise, I'd start a campaign to have the Anaconda removed, based on 10% personal taste and 90% pettiness!

 

[Nidoboros]

Meanwhile I'm over here wanting more variety in our SRV options

 

[Fizzatron]

The SRV is great and shouldn't be removed but I've been a fan of the hoverbike suggestion for a while. No cargo and built for fast traversal of reasonable distances to deliver data that can't be trusted to be on board a ship that can leave the planet. There might be need for small settlement type places that border around a planetary port's fringes outside a dozen or so miles. Would be nice, especially if those that come after you are using the same vehicle.. some Star Wars speeder bike shenanigans would be pretty neat IMO...

 

[Hank]

A Hoverbike would be very nice. I have Spacebourne2, and it has a hoverbike. Its a mess, janky and kinda hard to control but once you get used to it, you can go places fast.
I used it a lot when I was playing it.
GL HF

 

[CMDR Voron]

There's no need to replace SRVs just because you don't like them... Driving an SRV across random planets is one of the things I enjoy most about E: D!

Bad logic.
You like thing thus it is good game design (?)

I made objective observations about the issues created by the SRV implementation and offered a low expense solution. You just tried to indict the idea by suggesting my logic is flawed… by using the exact inverse logic.

This is what I said, I am open to debate, but respond to this:
If we are going to be in bubble turrets, a quad copter makes way more sense. We see quad copters in the game regularly, you could probably re-use a lot of the fundamental control and physics of ships/the camera.

 

[nemolomen]

Replace SRVs (Make mat grinding fun)

LOL​

 

[Greasetrap42]

If we are going to be in bubble turrets, a quad copter makes way more sense. We see quad copters in the game regularly, you could probably re-use a lot of the fundamental control and physics of ships/the camera.

Quad copter? We see quad copters in the game already? Where? Do you mean the skimmers? They don't have the weight of a pilot and don't carry several tons of cargo.

How does a quad copter work over zero atmosphere planets?

A Viper4 with a retractable canopy would be good. Just like a Star Wars landspeeder it could hover over planet surface and allow the pilot to jump in/out.

 

[Markov Chaney]

Bad logic.
You like thing thus it is good game design (?)

I made objective observations about the issues created by the SRV implementation

You said the physics was unforgiving and you felt the suspension was not accurately modelled.

The physics is unforgiving because the physics of a low-grav low-friction surface are unforgiving. That's the objective situation.

For me, the suspension travel only becomes an issue when driving over undulating rocks over four feet tall or so. An ornithopter would be cool for that, sure. Or you could not drive over huge areas where there are tricky rocks.

And you seem to have completely missed the part where the SRV can effectively fly anyway. You know you still have attitude control when you are off the ground, right?

You just tried to indict the idea by suggesting my logic is flawed… by using the exact inverse logic.

Aristotle mate, have you heard of him? Philosopher dude.

If we are going to be in bubble turrets, a quad copter makes way more sense. We see quad copters in the game regularly, you could probably re-use a lot of the fundamental control and physics of ships/the camera.

You could reuse the physics of ships for a much smaller ship too. Those stingers aren't big enough for a cockpit. But if the problem you are trying to solve is those massive fields of rocks so you can get the Frutexa, then I propose hoverboards, much more fun...

... Especially if you hit a geyser.

 

[PilotB]

you said the physics was unforgiving and you felt the suspension was not accurately modelled.

The physics is unforgiving because the physics of a low-grav low-friction surface are unforgiving. That's the objective situation

No it's unforgiving because it's missing basic features that we've had on vehicles for 100 years in our timeline. We spin out because the suspension can't be adjusted for the body you're on and they didn't implement any wheel differential so when a wheel loses traction it gets derranged. It's just a poorly implemented driving model that is to blame in the far future with advanced computers they should drive like they're on rails and anyone who wants the vomit comet experience can turn drive assist off.

 

[Markov Chaney]

We spin out because the suspension can't be adjusted for the body you're on

The SRV definitely adjusts behaviour for different gravities. It also definitely has all sorts of active controls on bound/rebound. You're talking like this thing bounces like a tractor on a ploughed field at 5mph. It really doesn't do that, not even on a boulder field at 50mph.

and they didn't implement any wheel differential

Drive it in a circle on a 1g planet on a plain and get back to me on that?

so when a wheel loses traction it gets derranged.

It gets deranged when all six wheels are over-extended or you are doing something that is the equivalent of driving it up or down a literal wall. It's pretty rare. Whenever it's stuck spinning wheels it's always at least two of the wheels that are spinning. That is because it has completely broken traction which is nothing to do with differentials.

It's just a poorly implemented driving model that is to blame in the far future with advanced computers they should drive like they're on rails and anyone who wants the vomit comet experience can turn drive assist off.

I guess you're asking it for it to do even more active body control, but it does an awful lot of this already. There's always more torque vectoring one can add to the control authority but it is still always going to require some decent grip on at least two of the wheels.

And of course the level of intervention it makes already annoys some forum users and they switch all that off...

 

[aRJay]

The SRV definitely adjusts behaviour for different gravities. It also definitely has all sorts of active controls on bound/rebound. You're talking like this thing bounces like a tractor on a ploughed field at 5mph. It really doesn't do that, not even on a boulder field at 50mph.

Drive it in a circle on a 1g planet on a plain and get back to me on that?

It gets deranged when all six wheels are over-extended or you are doing something that is the equivalent of driving it up or down a literal wall. It's pretty rare. Whenever it's stuck spinning wheels it's always at least two of the wheels that are spinning. That is because it has completely broken traction which is nothing to do with differentials.

I guess you're asking it for it to do even more active body control, but it does an awful lot of this already. There's always more torque vectoring one can add to the control authority but it is still always going to require some decent grip on at least two of the wheels.

And of course the level of intervention it makes already annoys some forum users and they switch all that off...

If by intervention you mean Drive Assist then the reason I turn it off is that it makes so much of the driving experience worse due to things like attempting instant acceleration to a speed based on throttle position and attempting instant deceleration to a stop when the throttle is zeroed.

 

[PilotB]

I guess you're asking it for it to do even more active body control, but it does an awful lot of this already. There's always more torque vectoring one can add to the control authority but it is still always going to require some decent grip on at least two of the wheels.

No I'm asking for an actual competent system which would mean that the SRV isn't having it's wheels come off the ground at the slightes hint of a bump on almost flat ground at half speed and where power is cut to the wheels when one side loses traction which is what a differential system does. I'm aware that there's no axels so it's not a physical diff. I don't want or need torque vectoring because I want the silly source of that torque removed. Vehicles that bounce and lose traction on one side should not just be spinning like a beyblade. People who want to beyblade are welcome to enter beyblade mode and do so.

 

[Markov Chaney]

Yeah there is a weird design choice here, because it's clearly capable of thinking about what it is doing at low speed, which is why you get those little pauses when you only put in a little bit of demand. It's trying to work out how to do whatever you just asked for...

... but if you ask for way too much it just does it.

Seems like one or the other paradigm would make more sense, or at least we could make the override nature of mashing the pedal a bit more explicit.

 

[Crank Larson]

Bad logic.
You like thing thus it is good game design (?)

I made objective observations about the issues created by the SRV implementation and offered a low expense solution. You just tried to indict the idea by suggesting my logic is flawed… by using the exact inverse logic.

This is what I said, I am open to debate, but respond to this:
If we are going to be in bubble turrets, a quad copter makes way more sense. We see quad copters in the game regularly, you could probably re-use a lot of the fundamental control and physics of ships/the camera.

Eh? You made that "logic" up yourself. I (and numerous other commanders) enjoy both driving and racing Scarabs. I'm not against you have a quadcopter to play with, but the Scarab is an awesome machine for traversing planets. I don't like the Scorpion personally, so I just don't use it.