No atmospheric flight on the horizon
- Thread starter Magnetic Sun
- Start date
No you don't.
ED is a sequel to Frontier. Landing on planets was a big feature of that game. It's also a sequel to First Encounter. Added detail on planet surfaces was one of the main changes in that game. David Braben did it when the technology was far, far less capable of doing it and other space games wouldn't go near it. So it's clearly a part of the Elite lineage.
What's more, it's clearly been part of the long-term plan for Elite: Dangerous since the very early days, long before any of us played it. Not just planets with atmospheres, but the atmosphere itself being an important part of the game.
Elite games are not games about piloting in space. They are games about being a space pilot.
I know you guys badly wanna land and take your puddle out for a walk. That you think it would be possible in that fully fledged way, seems like pure naivety to me. It would have to be with huge compromises unless FD would set the whole developer team to work on it for a few years.
To stay in the same visual and immersive quality as the game already has, atmospheric planetary landings are simply just too far off...
Airless moon/planet landings is already a huge undertaking and the perfect frontier for a space game. Stop there and the devs can focus on making a worthwhile experience.
Atmospheric flight and planetary flybys would be ok.
Also we should keep some of the good stuff for the next game in the series ;-)
To stay in the same visual and immersive quality as the game already has, atmospheric planetary landings are simply just too far off...
Airless moon/planet landings is already a huge undertaking and the perfect frontier for a space game. Stop there and the devs can focus on making a worthwhile experience.
Atmospheric flight and planetary flybys would be ok.
Also we should keep some of the good stuff for the next game in the series ;-)
Last edited:
...I don't have a pet puddle and if I had it wouldn't be able to walk.
What we are trying to point out is that atmospheric landings have been a goal of this game since day 1, so you can ask for them to not do it, but it won't happen since it's one of the core features that have been targeted from the start.
They've been working on all of that stuff right from the beginning. You want them to throw away all the work?
They have a big team on this game. I'm not worried in the least. We don't need a next game. It will be its own next game.
Oh and, when I take my dog for a walk, it makes puddles.
Last edited:
Eh ... close enough, ya?
There is no "next game in the series". The whole point of ED is to keep on developing this game going forward.
It IS a huge undertaking and it WILL take many years to get done to the level of quality they are aiming for. Absolutely.
I don't really expect to get out and walk around on "earthlike" worlds with cities and wildlife running around anytime soon. That's still many years away.
I DO expect to see atmospheric worlds (without life; think Mars/Venus and gas giants) being introduced in Season 3 coupled with further developments of SRV gameplay mechanics on these type of worlds and more varied environments/settlements. This isn't necessarily going to be the "headline feature" for that season though since it's "just" a natural extension of airless worlds. In Season 4 we might start to see more worlds with vegetation and even more detail being introduced. Everything added as layers on the previous work already done.
Last edited:
It's not just a space combat simulator.
Let's just say the lift-to-drag ratio of a brick isn't exactly optimal
Any flat surface will produce lift, but in practical terms it is a whole different matter. Have a read up on Bernoulli's Principle, the topic alone could reach hundreds of pages
No you don't need wings, Ariane 5 and Falcon 9 and countless other rockets prove you don't, most helicopters don't have wings and they fly. A brick would fly, if you stick a big engine on it.
B2, Rapture, F35 and other planes would all crash immediately if they lost their computers as they are inherently unstable.
Quite apart from the enormous thrust levels available to the ships in ED due to the high energy output powerplants and high energy density fuel, as has been correctly pointed out by various posters here, any issues with aerodynamics, assuming there would be any issues at all, could be taken care of by "sculpting" the shields (yah, remember our ships have shields?) into an aerodynamic shape. This would be useful for stability issues in flight at speed, but not needed for low-speed loitering and hovering.
It could be argued that the shields would also come in handy during atmospheric entry, however I suspect that will be under supercruise, i.e. spatial warping, and therefore the ship will not be moving "through" the air in any conventional sense.
Me tuppence worth...
) into an aerodynamic shape. This would be useful for stability issues in flight at speed, but not needed for low-speed loitering and hovering. It could be argued that the shields would also come in handy during atmospheric entry, however I suspect that will be under supercruise, i.e. spatial warping, and therefore the ship will not be moving "through" the air in any conventional sense.
Me tuppence worth...
Let's just say the lift-to-drag ratio of a brick isn't exactly optimal
Yeah, I'm familiar with Bernoulli, and you're right L/D of a brick (not to mention lift/weight) sucks, but it's not zero. I thought there was a cunning play on words or something you had in mind.
I could make an R/C Cobra that would fly, but it'd need some clever internal weight distribution to keep it stable.
The Sidey would make a pretty good lifting re-entry craft with the addition of a control surface or too as well, IMO.
Cheers,
BW.
1) Those same non-aerodyamic ships handled planetary flight just fine in Frontier. Well, except for high gravity planets, lots a ship or two when got too close to some on them in my Panther Clipper.
2) Speaking of the Panther Clipper, given enough thrust, even a brick can fly... so there is hope for the T9.
3) Devs have said: smaller ships will handle better in atmosphere planets. Although the realists will say thats bunk, its not only about size, its the arrowdinamiksthingy.
2) Speaking of the Panther Clipper, given enough thrust, even a brick can fly... so there is hope for the T9.
3) Devs have said: smaller ships will handle better in atmosphere planets. Although the realists will say thats bunk, its not only about size, its the arrowdinamiksthingy.
How does the Space-X Launcher plan to land again... without wings...?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxKWh7kLDzw
&
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuP6Uk-0S4c
- - - Updated - - -
They said in Gravity not atmosphere, as they were talking about landing on Airless worlds
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxKWh7kLDzw
&
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuP6Uk-0S4c
- - - Updated - - -
They said in Gravity not atmosphere, as they were talking about landing on Airless worlds
Last edited:
Check Frontier Elite II and First Encounters. Both had pl on planets with atmo, nobody went crazy with 100% aerodynamics realism. I have a friend who's actually an aircraft engineer and he played the crap out of those two games without nerding out on aerodynamics not being realistic, even though he knew it better than almost anyone. This is a sci fi game about flying spaceships based on technology more than 1000 years in the future. How about we relax a little, suspend our desbelief on account of this being sci fi, and just enjoy the game? I also disagree with the notion that this game shouldn't have atmo flight - done right, so it's fun (not so "realistic" that they redesign ships for it, that'd be silly), why not!
