News on in-system travel

[laforge]

FYI: The DDF thread has dropped into the Archive now.. here

Yes i already read it before, and its all very nice, BUT

Super-Cruise Travel: If fitted with a Frame Shift drive, a ship is able to travel at speeds approaching significant fractions of the speed of light, colloquially known as super-cruise. The Frame Shift Drive is a discrete, powered module. The following activities are possible whilst at super-cruise:
Freeform travel between in-system bodies
Freeform high speed orbit around in-system bodies
Freeform travel to arbitrary in-system locations
High-speed pursuit and artificial mass locking of targeted ships
Some methods of exploration

this really is not what orbit means. You do not simply fly around a planet with engines fully engaged and call this 'orbit'. By the contrary: you turn off your engines and enjoy the sight. When i read this, it breaks my spaceflying heart!

And i would like to have some clarification regarding the problem of micro jumps with moving coordinate frames:

4.2 PLOTTED MICRO-JUMP RISKS
When a commander plots a micro-jump there is potential for the route to become invalid:
Various locations have orbits of different speeds
If the commander plots a route to a location with an orbit, the route may eventually become invalid as the location moves out of alignment with the route
The system map interface warns of potential miss-alignment issues with a route
The ship will not be able to initiate a micro-jump with an invalid route

Nearly every object out there is in orbit around something else, at various speeds which differ by several km/s. So if i understand the above correct, then either all these orbits have the same speed (relative to the systems reference frame) - probably are even static - or you will not be able to make a micro jump between them, which i also hardly belive is the case. So at which speed does - for example - earth and mars circle around sun in the current design?

 

[Jenner]

Yes i already read it before, and its all very nice, BUT
this really is not what orbit means. You do not simply fly around a planet with engines fully engaged and call this 'orbit'. By the contrary: you turn off your engines and enjoy the sight. When i read this, it breaks my spaceflying heart!

True in that this would not work if you were talking about a chemical rocket. We're talking about a hyperdrive, which (and I'm not expert here) doesn't exactly operate in the realm of normal physics. Maybe read it as 'travel around a planet in a circle really fast' instead of orbit, I dunno.

I think that FD must have this stuff working to an acceptable level in the game already, right? It's not like they're just pulling this stuff out of thin air without seeing if it works within the framework of their game. And let's not forget that ED is not a planetarium application or Orbiter-level physics simulation. It's a game, with plenty of gamey elements.

 

[laforge]

True in that this would not work if you were talking about a chemical rocket. We're talking about a hyperdrive, which (and I'm not expert here) doesn't exactly operate in the realm of normal physics. Maybe read it as 'travel around a planet in a circle really fast' instead of orbit, I dunno.

It is nice from you to try an explanation, but its not really useful because there is always a problem with it: In the current design you have to control your ship around the planet and must continuously maintain your 'orbit'. Thats just what you are not expect when entering orbit: You expect to leave your controls just at the right altitude and velocity, and let gravity do all for you. To not consume fuel while maintaining a constant distance to a planet and enjoy the sight of the mountains below you and the sun rising and falling again over the horizon. And this is the ABC of spaceflight, and its also the beauty, which would be impossible to experience if this is broken.

I think that FD must have this stuff working to an acceptable level in the game already, right? It's not like they're just pulling this stuff out of thin air without seeing if it works within the framework of their game. And let's not forget that ED is not a planetarium application or Orbiter-level physics simulation. It's a game, with plenty of gamey elements.

I agree it should be somehow easy, and being able to enter orbits in a game with a realistic galaxy model is so basic that its very acceptable.

If you are playing a game dealing around a certain topic, you also expect the basic principles of this topic in the game, dont you? Most modern games try to get as close to reality as possible, why shouldnt it be done here?

Only because spaceflight is something futuristic, it doesnt mean that basic principles are not working anymore. What i want to see is that the game works correctly in the small scale. Take the story of 3d shooters: they are better and better because they try to mimic the correct physics. I am fair enough to not demand special relativistic effects, even if they would probably come into place when dealing with supercruise, but at least i demand that the most basic things are working right.

 

[Andrew Sayers]

Now the thread is in the archive, you may want to have a look through the fascinating discussion that followed. If you don't have time to read the whole conversation, maybe just read Sandro's posts, which add some very important context to the proposal.

 

[Slawkenbergius]

Most modern games try to get as close to reality as possible, why shouldnt it be done here?

Most modern games don't give a damn about reality. Even the ones where you're not fighting dragons...

 

[Minti2]

Now the thread is in the archive, you may want to have a look through the fascinating discussion that followed. If you don't have time to read the whole conversation, maybe just read Sandro's posts, which add some very important context to the proposal.

Thats great Andrew, just taken a quick peek at those Sandro posts and indeed they are very helpful in this format...for me at least anyway cheers.

 

[deusx_ophc]

Most modern games don't give a damn about reality. Even the ones where you're not fighting dragons...

teehee

 

[Jenner]

Lol, well I can understand your concern, laforge. I'm no physicist, but I've played Orbiter enough to know that applying thrust in ANY situation is something that requires a lot of thought and planning. I've done plenty of apoapsis and periapis adjustments and I know that your apoapsis orbital speed is lower than periapsis, etc. What I'm saying is that I'm speaking at least some of your language!

That said I think the proof is in the pudding, as it were. I'm giving FD the benefit of the doubt, and I expect they are crafting an engaging experience that will appear (with some suspension of disbelief) valid.

 

[Robert Maynard]

In the current design you have to control your ship around the planet and must continuously maintain your 'orbit'.

Assuming that we can switch off the auto-thruster trajectory maintenance system (that creates the pseudo-atmospheric flight characteristics when dogfighting) and also assuming that there are gravitational effects (mass locking will exist, so this *could* be a relatively safe assumption), then acceleration towards the large mass body (dependent on distance from it) could be included.

Thats just what you are not expect when entering orbit: You expect to leave your controls just at the right altitude and velocity, and let gravity do all for you. To not consume fuel while maintaining a constant distance to a planet and enjoy the sight of the mountains below you and the sun rising and falling again over the horizon. And this is the ABC of spaceflight, and its also the beauty, which would be impossible to experience if this is broken.

This may have to be included to facilitate planetary landings in the confirmed post launch update.

Personally, I would like to be able to adopt a geosynchronous orbit around a planet - just for the halibut!

 

[insanephoton]

Most modern games don't give a damn about reality. Even the ones where you're not fighting dragons...

Actually the ones where your fighting Dragons are often more believable than some of the 'realistic games' For example Battlefield 3 where fatal wounds can be cured by a defibrillator , any vehicle can be repaired by a blow torch, if enough people with blow torches try and fix a helicopter it can withstand almost any attack, parachutes are instantly available at any time...

If we compare Eliteangerous to a driving game, the realism camp wants an F1 simulator, the other camp want Grand Theft Auto. In the former, the driving is the whole game, in the later driving is only part of the game. In general more people favour the GTA model than the F1 model.

 

[laforge]

Now the thread is in the archive, you may want to have a look through the fascinating discussion that followed. If you don't have time to read the whole conversation, maybe just read Sandro's posts, which add some very important context to the proposal.

Thanks for this link, i already stumbled across the topic a bit before i think. Its actually a nice idea to implement a delay when starting the FSD to prepare a change in client groups.

I assume that within the 42 pages of this thread the suggestion on the first page has not changed. I read up to page 9, but for me it looks like a discussion entirely around the FSD and the hyperdrive. Is there any information regarding conventional flight in there and did anyone ask if or how you can control the FSD speed and if yes, within what range?

Also i find the info about missjumps while traveling to moving frames a bit confusing (see my earlier post),

Assuming that we can switch off the auto-thruster trajectory maintenance system (that creates the pseudo-atmospheric flight characteristics when dogfighting) and also assuming that there are gravitational effects (mass locking will exist, so this *could* be a relatively safe assumption), then acceleration towards the large mass body (dependent on distance from it) could be included.

Having gravity is a neccessity, but its not sufficient to have stable orbits. You really need to get to the proper speeds.

This may have to be included to facilitate planetary landings in the confirmed post launch update.

Personally, I would like to be able to adopt a geosynchronous orbit around a planet - just for the halibut!

Geosynchronous orbits would be possible for the earth within the speed limit (you are at 3m/s at that distance), with a proper gravity implementation and with a proper inertia implementation (so you maintain speed after turning off your engines) but it would be too far away from earth so that you 1. wont see much detail 2. you will see only the same side of the earth 3. you need - of course - one day for one orbit, nothing what i would find enjoyable.

Even if you would implement gravity correctly, an automatic choice of reference frames would open a can of worms: Imagine that they implement a space station orbiting earth at <42000km in the same plane as your nice geo. Then it can happen that this space station will travel between you and earth. Now to what frame of reference should be your speed displayed? earth? or the station? The station would change your speed relative to earth and so throw you out of orbit. And if its earth, then it must overlap the stations frame again at some distance which is completely random and a pure game design choice. This can open strange frame dragging effects in systems which have exotic configurations regarding their moons and satellites.

 

[Tinman]

Geosynchronous orbits would be possible for the earth within the speed limit (you are at 3m/s at that distance)...

I think you missed a "k" there...a geostationary orbit needs a orbital velocity of 3.07 km/s which of course is quite a bit over the speed limit of normal flight.

Geostationary orbit will of course be possible within the game anyway since you will be put in an instance that is orbiting the planet at that speed even though your relative speed to other objects within that instance will be below 500 m/s. (Or 1000 m/s if two ships are flying towards each other.)

 

[Slawkenbergius]

Is there any information regarding conventional flight in there and did anyone ask if or how you can control the FSD speed and if yes, within what range?

From memory...

• Not much info on conventional flight, if anything. The assumption is that the 500m/s relative to the local frame of reference applies.
• FSD has a fixed rate of acceleration/deceleration (possibly different per ship?). Bit of confusion surrounding this one.
• The top speed is 'a significant fraction of the speed of light'. It will take something like 12 minutes to accelerate to that speed.

Andrew already linked to Sandro's posts, but here's Mike's too.
Mike Evans

 

[Andrew Sayers]

Andrew already linked to Sandro's posts, but here's Mike's too.
Mike Evans

You fell for the old self-destructing search trap

The forum software has its own mad caching mechanism that breaks searches pretty much the moment you look away. To make a shareable link, you need to dig down into the network parameters and make a link like this:

http://forums.frontier.co.uk/search.php?do=process&forumchoice[]=36&showposts=1&searchuser=Mike+Evans

While we're on the topic of forum tips, people may be interested to know you can go to the options page and set "Number of Posts to Show Per Page" to 40. Really helps with long threads.

 

[laforge]

Thanks Andrew and Slawkenbergius very much for the links!

I think you missed a "k" there...a geostationary orbit needs a orbital velocity of 3.07 km/s which of course is quite a bit over the speed limit of normal flight.

Ups yea my bad. Thanks!

Geostationary orbit will of course be possible within the game anyway since you will be put in an instance that is orbiting the planet at that speed even though your relative speed to other objects within that instance will be below 500 m/s. (Or 1000 m/s if two ships are flying towards each other.)

This would look like a solution, but if you see it from a more general perspective, then i think it
will only getting worse and worse:

If you would also let the frame rotate with the planet, then for example:
1. The further away you travel with the ship from the planet, the faster your ship will start traveling with respect to the stars, until you leave the range of the frame. And this might be very far in comparison to the geo distance.

2. Lets say you are at geostationary orbit*) in your frame at zero relative velocity. Because we want
gravity (at least in a later expansion), we have to take care that gravity dont pull you
towards the planet at your position (and at your zero speed relative to that rotating frame). So you must include the centrifugal
force to compensate the gravity pull. But then again this force would not point into the same direction as
the gravity when you move away from the equatorial plane, resulting in drift effects. And even in the plane we would have large accelerations at great distances.

I guess there are alot other problems which appear. I am sure you will find something funny too (for example i dont think that you can have orbits in other planes than the equatorial plane without workarounds; even in the equatorial plane they wont have the proper velocities at closer distances)

I really dont think that any other workaround will help, you really need to implement it right.

*)i doubt anyone would seriously enjoy that lol.

 

[Oss133]

It is nice from you to try an explanation, but its not really useful because there is always a problem with it:

Hey, lay off my best bud will ya? I am not sure you can argue that any of this is useful as FD are not going to completely rewrite the standard flight model. We are just spitting in the wind here.

That said I think the proof is in the pudding, as it were.

NNNNOOOOOOO! The proof is most definitely NOT in the pudding! The proof of the pudding is IN THE EATING! Any more of this and your "Best Bud" status is going to be revoked.

 

[Memnoch]

Assuming that we can switch off the auto-thruster trajectory maintenance system (that creates the pseudo-atmospheric flight characteristics when dogfighting)

I'm certain that this was already confirmed. You will be able to point the nose of your ship in a different direction to your ships heading, allowing for strafing runs against larger ships or turning on pursuing craft.

 

[Jenner]

Hey, lay off my best bud will ya? I am not sure you can argue that any of this is useful as FD are not going to completely rewrite the standard flight model. We are just spitting in the wind here.

NNNNOOOOOOO! The proof is most definitely NOT in the pudding! The proof of the pudding is IN THE EATING! Any more of this and your "Best Bud" status is going to be revoked.

The proof is in the eating, right. I stand corrected.

Man I feel like I'm talking with my significant other.

 

[psyron]

Haven't been in the forum for three weeks and missed this amazing game-play change!! To be restricted on point-to-point-jumping was always my biggest concern/fear.
Now i am so happy to see how flexible/open-minded the development-team have been by introducing the super-cruise travel and how valuable the forum/DDF has emerged to be.
Really great news!
Locking optimistically towards the completion of that game!!

-> Hope we will soon get a Dev-Diary with this great news explained in a detailed video!!

 

[jabokai]

I'm not sure if this is new news but it was certainly new to me... taken from the current DDF discussion on fuel -

So we're currently thinking that supercruise will be the de-facto way to travel within system and hyperspace jumps will only allow you to travel to the star in a system so is usually saved for inter-system travel. To make this possible supercruise can now move you far far faster than the speed of light. So any typical hyperspace journey will be a couple of light years distance. The whole unit approach to jumps will also mean jumping in system (to get from the outer to inner system) will be wasteful most of the time, so it encourages supercruise travel.

Emphasis done by me.

Pretty interesting considering the previous nominal limit of 0.2c