I just now jumped into a M Class star system, and upon exiting witch space, instead of having a yellow star pop in my screen. I had a red star flash before my eyes filling my entire screen, which almost instantly turned a yellow star? Baffled I thought, is this a binary system? So I do a 180, and sure enough, a red dwarf is practically touching me and the yellow binary only 3 Ls away. So I just flew through a Star?
Has this ever happened to you?
- Thread starter Ziljan
- Start date
Happened to me once and scared the you-know-what out of me. I thought I was a gonner for sure.
Seems FD allows us to live. But I check the gal map now just to make sure the binary is not along my line of flight.
Seems FD allows us to live. But I check the gal map now just to make sure the binary is not along my line of flight.
If you aim it and get the distance right you can jump right at an orbital and it sure looks like smashem-up time.
I just noticed the other day that you can see some binary positions with large separations on the Gal map, and I only noticed because I couldn't click on that companion star. I didn't realize that was the actual position! I thought it was just a binary indicator. I'll have to zoom in on my jumps and keep an eye out for close binaries. I am definitely going to try to do it again on purpose.
Tbh, if I had been accidentally destroyed by warping through a star, I would have been pretty happy. But I love realism ...perhaps a little too much?
Tbh, if I had been accidentally destroyed by warping through a star, I would have been pretty happy. But I love realism ...perhaps a little too much?
Yup has happened to me a couple of times. It also has happened when appearing to exit "through" a black hole. You get a strange distortion as you appear to pass through the black hole and instead of finishing close up facing the black hole as usual, you end up with the black hole some 5-6LY behind you. This seems to happen when another object is very close to the black hole. Not sure if this isn't ED fudging some of the entry mechanics?? I did read that they have been working on the entry algorithms to lesson the effect of contact binaries. However I am more in line with your thinking and taking our chances makes me feel it is all a bit more real 
I did read that they have been working on the entry algorithms to lesson the effect of contact binaries. However I am more in line with your thinking and taking our chances makes me feel it is all a bit more real
Seriously? This is like the ONLY remaining danger of exploration and they're going to take it away? They REALLY want me to go back to RES grinding it seems.
We need some nasty acidic chemical clouds, dangerous radiation belts, rogue meteor storms, space based lifeforms, and MORE objects to rip us out of supercruise, set us on fire or otherwise give us serious cause for concern. They dont need to take them away.
Yep, some nice random alarms to keep us on our toes and find out what is causing the issue. It would help keep us concentrated and preventing the odd planet head butt that happens only due to complacency.
Last edited:
apart from the smell and skid marks of course...
I could have died jumping into a binary system a couple of days ago... if, as I often do, I'd started the jump and gone AFK i definitely would have been a goner (with 30kly trip worth of data). Jumping in I was 1.76ls from an M class, fuel scoop going at half speed and heat at 81% and rising. Thankfully I managed to speed out and only got superficial damage.
The real problem with making exploration more dangerous is that there is very little incentive to then explore. At the moment we can't repair PPs and canopies, and if we die there is days or weeks worth of game play flushed down the tubes. So unless there are data drop off points and/or repair centres deployed through the galaxy then I for one would not want more danger in exploration (although "voluntary" danger e.g. USSs are fine).
While I think this is a valid point, the experience is only exaggerated by our wanderlust taking us a long way from civilization. Bounty hunters and other types who collect bounties and bonds run this exact same risk if they dont cash in their chips. Now, that said, I think we do need a way to repair and refit in deep space, and ideally a way to retain some of our data, either in a black box or some other method.
I STILL think exploration should be more dangerous, Ive jumped into three binary blenders, slipped into a neutron star and almost smashed myself into a gas giant on this trip. So I understand that its somewhat dangerous. We do need ways to deal with the threats, but we need the threats too.
Bounty hunters have the option to turn their vouchers in no time. Explorers dont have that option when they are 15K LY away
Thats the difference
Thats the difference
If you go afk while jumping it's not really the game's fault if you die, is it? You wouldn't go afk in a RES with 10,000,000 in un-redeemed bounties would you?
Risk of death is a constant reminder that you currently alive. Just like the possible of getting robbed by pirates makes trading more interesting. Sure you will lose money, if you make a stupid mistake. But that would mean that if you survived you were actually clever enough to do so, wouldn't it? Are you really satisfied with the biggest challenge of exploration being the patience to grind out scans?
Last edited:
btw you can make exploring more dangerous/fun by yourself
For example when entering star system I dont slow down at all (except ofc. neutron star, white dwarfs, blackholes) going full speed scoop when available along with alligning with next system
Took 8 heatsinks and 3 AMFU, allready used 4 heatsinks (after 16K LY) Two of those I spend on one neutron star because I couldnt find escape vector
For example when entering star system I dont slow down at all (except ofc. neutron star, white dwarfs, blackholes) going full speed scoop when available along with alligning with next system
Took 8 heatsinks and 3 AMFU, allready used 4 heatsinks (after 16K LY) Two of those I spend on one neutron star because I couldnt find escape vector
Last edited:
thats a fair point, but that just means they should increase the rewards for exploration to match the risk: more money for more distant data. Extreme money means, a very high chance of death before you return. That way, people can earn plenty of money staying fairly close to the bubble, and the people who could survive in the real wilderness of space would be truly epic explorers.
They could adjust it so that risk of death was:
5% within 1,000 LY of the Bubble
15% within 5,000 LY of the Bubble
25% within 10,000 LY of the Bubble
40% within 25,000 LY of the Bubble
60% within 50,000 LY of the Bubble
The risk of death on a trip to Sgr A* would be about 50%. If you go black holes it would increase.
To balance this, there should be safer stars and riskier stars. So that if you plotted a careful course, you could reduce your risk to the current rate of ship damage.
Thing is though (to slightly hark back to the 'realism' debate in another thread) increasing the rewards for further away scans doesn't fit how it would work necessarily in real life/Elite.
Further away stuff would increase scientific research but the pay is terrible (think the now lack of a robust Space Program in certain countries), whereas discoveries that are exploitable (think nearby the bubble - i.e. reachable/resources/TFC/ELW etc) by commercial bodies the pay is sky high.
At least that's the pay/reward model adopted nowadays in real life.
I agree though that exploration needs a kick up the rear insofar as risk/interest; I still find discoveries and the somewhat crackers systems that are out there grabs me.
Further away stuff would increase scientific research but the pay is terrible (think the now lack of a robust Space Program in certain countries), whereas discoveries that are exploitable (think nearby the bubble - i.e. reachable/resources/TFC/ELW etc) by commercial bodies the pay is sky high.
At least that's the pay/reward model adopted nowadays in real life.
I agree though that exploration needs a kick up the rear insofar as risk/interest; I still find discoveries and the somewhat crackers systems that are out there grabs me.
This isn't really about realism. It's about fun. They could make it unrealistically dangerous, yet have skill based survival mechanics, and it would be a massive improvement over the current structure.
As as for realism though, you're assuming humans are rational creatures. However, economic usefulness rarely dictate the price. Otherwise silicon (sand) would cost as much as diamonds. Rarity (if it is only perceived rarity) is what drives up prices.
increased risk creates rarity, and that alone drives up demand. If the area just outside the immediate bubble becomes less knowable, then any information about becomes more precious. Imagine if you will, that we know the Thargoids are out there just beyond our borders, but obtaining scouting intelligence is fairly difficult and risky just because of the distances involved. That information would be worth far more than local mining data on a border system, wouldn't it?
As as for realism though, you're assuming humans are rational creatures. However, economic usefulness rarely dictate the price. Otherwise silicon (sand) would cost as much as diamonds. Rarity (if it is only perceived rarity) is what drives up prices.
increased risk creates rarity, and that alone drives up demand. If the area just outside the immediate bubble becomes less knowable, then any information about becomes more precious. Imagine if you will, that we know the Thargoids are out there just beyond our borders, but obtaining scouting intelligence is fairly difficult and risky just because of the distances involved. That information would be worth far more than local mining data on a border system, wouldn't it?
Last edited: