I fear you might be thinking War and Peace level game play while we actually get Animal Farm level game play. That doesn't remove the quality from either, just the volume.
The Planetary landing and planetside missions discussion Thread
- Thread starter Sir.Tj
- Start date
-
- Tags
- mexican(mexico) nexus
I fear you might be thinking War and Peace level game play while we actually get Animal Farm level game play. That doesn't remove the quality from either, just the volume.
Hmm, too bad no one invented a way for creating/dropping connections seamlessly.
For example, when you start the descent, people on your contact list start disappearing and new ones start appearing.
Last edited:
Personally I really look forward to No Man's Sky, but I'm not really that impressed with their transition down to the surface. The is a very visible switch IMO when the name of the planet comes up and there is a fade to white effect going on in the background. Perfectly fine for what it is, but there are far more "seamless" transitions out there. Outterra, SpaceEngine or Inovae for example. Plenty of other examples on Youtube of people playing around with these techniques on their spare time.
The planets in ED are indeed 1:1 scale. Doesn't matter if it's in supercruise or normal space since supercruise is still taking place in the same world as "normal space" (which I've already explained earlier). This has been confirmed many times over by the devs. However, when you move at the speeds you do in supercruise you're brain can't make sense of that. The same thing would happen to real life astronauts if they had ships with supercruise and flew around for real. We have evolved down here on earth and our sense of scale is therefore based on what we can experience here. We know a mountain off in the distance is large because of "hints". If it's far away there will be more atmosphere between us and the mountain and it will therefore be tinted blue. Another thing we use to understand scale is how fast the object on the horizon is moving compared to our own movement. If you look out through the window of a moving car things will appear to move slower the further away they are from you.
None of these hints works in space where there is no atmosphere and when we are talking about moving at speeds your brain can't comprehend. If your brain sees an object moving fast by you without any hints like atmosphere to help it will just assume that this thing "must" be smaller than what it actually is. Which of course is the wrong conclusion, but so hardcoded into us that we can't turn it off.
Play around in SpaceEngine and fly quickly by the planets and you will experience the same sense of them being small. Which of course can be easily be proven wrong by then flying down to the surface.
Thing is, normal flight is too slow to go into the atmosphere, and supercruise is too fast...so you need a new cruise option. I think it's for that reason.
My hope is that this orbital cruise is not something you manually drop into by pressing a button, but rather something that happens automatically when you hit the "gravity well". Now when we hit that "well" we are simply pulled out of supercruise into normal space and can't go any further, but with the Horizons update we wouldn't drop into normal space but instead we simply transitions into orbital supercruise but hitting the "gravity turbulence". The shake of the turbulence could hide the transition.
Basically something similar in terms of shake as we can see in the No Man's Sky video linked above, but minus the fade to white effect and better LOD systems.
I have a hunch it'll be "approach vector" principle (similar to escape vector).
It could work like this: you approach a planet, your FSD must be in blue area. When your ship reaches a point of "dropping - too close", we will get the "approach vector" (those without Horizons will just drop out). Being aligned with the approach vector, the ship gradually starts slowing down below 30km/s and the descend/orbital cruise/loading screen starts automatically after a few seconds.
It could work like this: you approach a planet, your FSD must be in blue area. When your ship reaches a point of "dropping - too close", we will get the "approach vector" (those without Horizons will just drop out). Being aligned with the approach vector, the ship gradually starts slowing down below 30km/s and the descend/orbital cruise/loading screen starts automatically after a few seconds.
Last edited:
No mans sky should work much better, I am waiting patiently for that one.
The mechanic they have described sounds pretty clever, really.
It establishes an environment to separate owners of the Horizons expansion and filter out non-owners
It sidesteps any issues about complex entry corridors, and allows new gravity & atmospheric effects to be included
It provides a different context for velocity that makes sense for orbiting a planet at varying altitude
It will be the environment in which surface POIs will show up, just as Supercruise is the one in which USSs show up
The transition effect will allow time for asset calculation, rendering and islanding
If the cost of all this is a brief transition between states, fine. In the grand scheme it's a small price to pay, as long as everything after that is effectively seamless.
I was originally far more concerned by David and Sandro's Q&A which suggested (to me anyway) that landing locations might be limited to designated areas. However after listening to the interviews with Eddie (bless him!) I felt a lot more comfortable with what they seem to be planning.
It establishes an environment to separate owners of the Horizons expansion and filter out non-owners
It sidesteps any issues about complex entry corridors, and allows new gravity & atmospheric effects to be included
It provides a different context for velocity that makes sense for orbiting a planet at varying altitude
It will be the environment in which surface POIs will show up, just as Supercruise is the one in which USSs show up
The transition effect will allow time for asset calculation, rendering and islanding
If the cost of all this is a brief transition between states, fine. In the grand scheme it's a small price to pay, as long as everything after that is effectively seamless.
I was originally far more concerned by David and Sandro's Q&A which suggested (to me anyway) that landing locations might be limited to designated areas. However after listening to the interviews with Eddie (bless him!) I felt a lot more comfortable with what they seem to be planning.
Yes, sure, if you compare NMS' transition to those in SpaceEngine etc. it may not hold up that well, but I was comparing it to the SC-normal space transitions we got in ED so far, since I reckon that's more likely the kind of experience FD is able to do right now. And when compared to those ED-SC-exits/-entries, NMS' planetary landings are way smoother than what ED has shown so far.
Edit: even if there is a visible "switch" in NMS, it's way better hidden and much shorter than those jarring 2-3 seconds when transitioning to/from SC while loosing control in ED.
Last edited:
And here I was wondering if we'd get a whole lot of whinging about burning up on re-entry
You drive the buggy from a first person perspective but no it doesn't mean walking around in first person which I think is what you meant.
Ok, fine, but you aren't answering the most important question:
Is the drive model any good and most importantly...is it Newtonian?!?
Ok, fine, but you aren't answering the most important question:
Is the drive model any good and most importantly...is it Newtonian?!?
Please - don't kick that one off again!
(phew - at least he didn't mention yaw....)
Has buggy Yaw been nerfed? That's the most important question.
(teehee!)
- - - Updated - - -
And you ninja'd me
The driving model is getting there but I think it's safe to say the Newtonian crowd might be pleased with the aerial capabilities of the buggyOk, fine, but you aren't answering the most important question:
Is the drive model any good and most importantly...is it Newtonian?!?