We were promised atmospheric planetary landings

[babelfisch]

http://www.gamerevolution.com/featu...e3-2017-including-atmospheric-planet-landings

While not exactly a nail in the coffin it does rather suggest that unlike Horizons, which was sprung upon us expecpectedly because it had been developed behind the scenes in parallel with a lot of 1.x, there is no such parallel development for atmospheric worlds.

The interviewer doesn't know the difference between planets like earth and atmospheric planets.

Quote from the headline:
'2. Atmospheric Planets Aren't Coming Any Time Soon'

What he actually said:
'Like many Elite: Dangerous players, I want to be able to land on atmospheric planets like Earth. I asked Sammarco about this, prefacing by stating that I can imagine that it'd be a huge technical challenge. He explained that it's something the team could do, but would require an incredible amount of work.'

 

[Stewart_]

Well what do we do on the airless worlds? We could do that for a start.

Which is currently extremely shallow. Frontier need to add additional gameplay, otherwise whats the point?

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

To be honest, they might handwave it by saying look at the Harrier - that lifts off vertically with its engines, so there's no reason why the much more powerful hydrogen fusion powered thrusters in Elite can't do the same thing in an atmosphere. Besides, I know on airless worlds you can just keep flying on the strength of your main engines in normal space until you reach orbit, but maybe they'll adjust that for atmospheric planets (which tend to have higher gravity than their airless counterparts, for the most part) so you can only go so high before needing to engage supercruise (which can ignore the messy business of escape velocity) lest you stall the ship and plummet.

You wouldn't need escape velocity. We can have continued thrust and the we would reach space. The thrusters on our ships are so powerful that they would never stall. The reason why planes stall is because they need oxygen, our ships do not. Escape velocity is needed when you only have a finite amount of thrust to get you into space. You could go up at 1mph, as long as you had continous thrust without constraint like out ships you would get into space.

 

[Thatchinho]

Gas giants have no surface...? Hm...? This is something the scientific community cannot agree on, what chance do we have!? One thing is for sure. Pressure would compress the gases more and more and the soup will get thicker and thicker until you are standing on something probably amorphous, not crystalline due to heat, but solid due to pressure.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not disputing what would happen in terms of the increasing thickness and solidity, it's more that the transition is likely to be so gradual and indistinct that there wouldn't be a distinct definable surface.

Could be wrong of course, and perhaps there's even a distinct gas to liquid/liquid-solid boundary, or perhaps shells or islands due to different substances liquefying/solidifying at different pressures and temperatures. Am heading off into wild speculation there though!

That's all probably going to be below crushdepth though and I can't see FD delving into that kind of territory. I'd imagine they'll deal with it either by shiploss or some form of automated safety mechanism well before anything like that would even become slightly within the realms of consideration.

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not disputing what would happen in terms of the increasing thickness and solidity, it's more that the transition is likely to be so gradual and indistinct that there wouldn't be a distinct definable surface.

Could be wrong of course, and perhaps there's even a distinct gas to liquid/liquid-solid boundary, or perhaps shells or islands due to different substances liquefying/solidifying at different pressures and temperatures. Am heading off into wild speculation there though!

That's all probably going to be below crushdepth though and I can't see FD delving into that kind of territory. I'd imagine they'll deal with it either by shiploss or some form of automated safety mechanism well before anything like that would even become slightly within the realms of consideration.

I would prefer ship loss myself, would be nice to have these places pretty dangerous.

 

[JesusRocks1988]

To be honest, they might handwave it by saying look at the Harrier - that lifts off vertically with its engines, so there's no reason why the much more powerful hydrogen fusion powered thrusters in Elite can't do the same thing in an atmosphere. Besides, I know on airless worlds you can just keep flying on the strength of your main engines in normal space until you reach orbit, but maybe they'll adjust that for atmospheric planets (which tend to have higher gravity than their airless counterparts, for the most part) so you can only go so high before needing to engage supercruise (which can ignore the messy business of escape velocity) lest you stall the ship and plummet.

In addition... high g airless worlds at the moment have a clear gravitational effect depending on which thrusters you're pointing at the ground. Your lateral thrusters (well, D-rated ones anyway) can't keep you aloft in a 2g environment, and higher than that and your vertical thrusters struggle with liftoff as well. Think about the last time you took off from a 4g+ world, you would have gone up a bit with your vertical thrusters, then oriented yourself so that your main engines were pointing at the ground, and they can pretty much handle anything. I've not yet tried the 9g "Strong G" planet, but I would imagine your rear thrusters would struggle with that and you need to ascend at an angle?

Anyway, what I'm getting at is the gravitational effects are already in the game, all the need to do then is add drag (which is kind of in the game anyway), turbulence and all the additional atmospheric problems. I don't see why our ships would need to be specialised for aerodynamics, when the thrusters are powerful enough to do literally all the work for us - including stability. It kinda renders the need for aerodynamics redundant.

You wouldn't need escape velocity. We can have continued thrust and the we would reach space. The thrusters on our ships are so powerful that they would never stall. The reason why planes stall is because they need oxygen, our ships do not. Escape velocity is needed when you only have a finite amount of thrust to get you into space. You could go up at 1mph, as long as you had continous thrust without constraint like out ships you would get into space.

Excellent, even better! That's less work that FD have to put into it in that case

 

[JesusRocks1988]

In even more addition to what I've already said (I probably should think of all this before hitting "post"), we have absolutely no idea of the pressure resistance of our ships. We know they're made of some kind of advanced, very strong alloy, so who is to say that our ships therefore are designed solely for pressures of 0-1 atmospheres? There are atmospheric planetary landings in the Elite Dangerous novels, and it's never actually mentioned about whether or not the hulls will strain under atmospheric pressure, so I think it's probably a safer bet to assume that our hulls can survive many atmospheres of pressure, as well as going underwater. Hey, it's a future alloy, so why not?

 

[Aashenfox]

Well what do we do on the airless worlds? We could do that for a start.

The only thing I do on airless worlds is stick my bum out of my SRV and try to terraform the planet for methane breathing life-forms. Oh, that and shoot rocks.

 

[cheesenbiscuits]

I just find people's priorities utterly mind-boggling.

I'd interested to know exactly how many developer days of effort it took to implement Holo-Me. Are you seriously telling me that there aren't dozens of things that time would have been better spent on?

Less fluff, more depth, I say.

Does it bother you at which point the character creator was put in,in Skyrim?
No,of course it doesn't. The difference was that you weren't involved in the game until it was finished.
ED is a different beast.

 

[Thatchinho]

In even more addition to what I've already said (I probably should think of all this before hitting "post"), we have absolutely no idea of the pressure resistance of our ships. We know they're made of some kind of advanced, very strong alloy, so who is to say that our ships therefore are designed solely for pressures of 0-1 atmospheres? There are atmospheric planetary landings in the Elite Dangerous novels, and it's never actually mentioned about whether or not the hulls will strain under atmospheric pressure, so I think it's probably a safer bet to assume that our hulls can survive many atmospheres of pressure, as well as going underwater. Hey, it's a future alloy, so why not?

It's not so much about the hull material (although that's important), it's more about the internal design & structure along with the associated weight, cost, etc.

What's needed to resist the force of 1 atmosphere inside the ship pushing outwards is very different to what's needed to resist a greater external pressure pushing inwards. Those hull plates can be as strong as you want, but unless you've got a whole load of very strong struts in place to oppose that pressure then you're just going to be squashed between a bunch of incredibly strong hull plates. That is all going to add a significant amount of extra weight to the ship, and cost too. Both the extra weight and cost are going to be a big drawback for a spaceship so they wouldn't be added unless they're needed.

And while the hull material itself might suffice to say 2 atmospheres externally, once you go beyond that you're going to need a thicker, heavier hull or a better, more expensive material, which again are going to be big drawbacks in a spaceship and wouldn't be added unless they were needed.

All the sealing would also need to be substantially different (& more expensive) to cope with a higher external pressure. If not, you'd be looking at a lot of problems in a non-breathable atmosphere, not to mention a lot of pressure related problems like the bends, etc even in a breathable atmosphere.

There's additional considerations for being underwater too, how liquids/liquid penetration would effect the propulsion systems for example.

Lore-wise, I'm only going off the original Elite but going underwater was very specialised and could only be done by a specifically designed ship, the Moray starboat.

Personally I'd say the only safe things to assume are that for normal ships 0-1 atmospheres will be ok, a little over 1 atmosphere might be ok and underwater definitely won't be ok.

 

[777Driver]

You wouldn't need escape velocity. We can have continued thrust and the we would reach space. The thrusters on our ships are so powerful that they would never stall. The reason why planes stall is because they need oxygen, our ships do not. Escape velocity is needed when you only have a finite amount of thrust to get you into space. You could go up at 1mph, as long as you had continous thrust without constraint like out ships you would get into space.

True, our ships are fully capable of atmospheric flight on raw thrust alone, our ships literally have unlimited thrust on tap. No need to worry about stalling due to high AoA, engine flameouts or escape velocity's. These ships don't even have control surfaces, so thrust is mandatory for control.

Be it FA-ON or OFF, we definitely shouldn't be seeing a vast difference in behaviour with how ships handle now or in atmospheric worlds.

 

[CMDR-AD]

Be it FA-ON or OFF, we definitely shouldn't be seeing a vast difference in behaviour with how ships handle now or in atmospheric worlds.

I do think there would be some difference in handling, even with thruster-only maneuvering. Imagine throwing a frisbee on the moon, vs. Earth, or Mars. The flight path will be different due to aerodynamic forces on the disc. On an airless world, diving at 500m/s and then pitching up rapidly to a 90 degree angle to the dive would, at minimum, have a non-trivial braking effect on the vessel's hull. In turbulent, stormy conditions (which certainly must be modeled on any atmospheric world) the ship would require constant thurster cycling to counter the atmospheric effects (something which I think would be not unlike the "wobbly" ship effects we see now on some airless worlds).

However, if for gameplay purposes we imagine the ships with near infinite thruster power (even though we can see on high-G airless worlds where some thrusters meet their limits)... These effects could probably be ignored within a reasonable margin.

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

It's not so much about the hull material (although that's important), it's more about the internal design & structure along with the associated weight, cost, etc.

What's needed to resist the force of 1 atmosphere inside the ship pushing outwards is very different to what's needed to resist a greater external pressure pushing inwards. Those hull plates can be as strong as you want, but unless you've got a whole load of very strong struts in place to oppose that pressure then you're just going to be squashed between a bunch of incredibly strong hull plates. That is all going to add a significant amount of extra weight to the ship, and cost too. Both the extra weight and cost are going to be a big drawback for a spaceship so they wouldn't be added unless they're needed.

And while the hull material itself might suffice to say 2 atmospheres externally, once you go beyond that you're going to need a thicker, heavier hull or a better, more expensive material, which again are going to be big drawbacks in a spaceship and wouldn't be added unless they were needed.

All the sealing would also need to be substantially different (& more expensive) to cope with a higher external pressure. If not, you'd be looking at a lot of problems in a non-breathable atmosphere, not to mention a lot of pressure related problems like the bends, etc even in a breathable atmosphere.

There's additional considerations for being underwater too, how liquids/liquid penetration would effect the propulsion systems for example.

Lore-wise, I'm only going off the original Elite but going underwater was very specialised and could only be done by a specifically designed ship, the Moray starboat.

Personally I'd say the only safe things to assume are that for normal ships 0-1 atmospheres will be ok, a little over 1 atmosphere might be ok and underwater definitely won't be ok.

I would expect our ships to be able to take a big beating. As atmospherics were planned from the beginning, I would assume the ships are design for atmospherics even at different pressures. If our hulls can take having rocket fired at them and cope with massive amounts of g, I really see no issues with atmospherric pressure either.

 

[Iron-Snake-]

lol

Can travel billions of miles per second but don't have the tech to take off vertically in atmosphere. *shakes head*

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

I do think there would be some difference in handling, even with thruster-only maneuvering. Imagine throwing a frisbee on the moon, vs. Earth, or Mars. The flight path will be different due to aerodynamic forces on the disc. On an airless world, diving at 500m/s and then pitching up rapidly to a 90 degree angle to the dive would, at minimum, have a non-trivial braking effect on the vessel's hull. In turbulent, stormy conditions (which certainly must be modeled on any atmospheric world) the ship would require constant thurster cycling to counter the atmospheric effects (something which I think would be not unlike the "wobbly" ship effects we see now on some airless worlds).

However, if for gameplay purposes we imagine the ships with near infinite thruster power (even though we can see on high-G airless worlds where some thrusters meet their limits)... These effects could probably be ignored within a reasonable margin.

Sure there will be differences but it shouldn't be a major issue with the thrust power of our ships.

 

[Ralph Vargr]

Flying through the clouds on gas giants and landing on ammonia worlds etc would be nice. But I'd rather they work on adding and improving things to do in space than commit a ludicrous amount of dev time to making landable earthlikes.

Skimming GG's for fuel, rather than *suns*, since 1978.

Note: the averageskimming time in Traveller for a GG was 8 hours. Imagine that in real-time, and incorporating it in-game. People who complained would be ostracized. Additionally, to hover on a GG "surface" you needed 3G drives. That means engineered A drives to Elite players.

 

[Deareim]

lol

Can travel billions of miles per second but don't have the tech to take off vertically in atmosphere. *shakes head*

And you cannot see market prices without landing.. list is long of inconsistencies...

 

[amerelium]

Just to fly down. land and take in the view.

The whole feel of exploration thing. To pretend you are going somewhere no one else have been before. It is what made Frontier such fun back in the early 90s. Graphics were simple. the imagination did the rest. There's no need to able to pick flowers for some reason or hunt for local wildlife; just the ability to GO there. As long as most planets are locked off, the universe is incomplete; like the invisible walls of any sandbox title.

Well what do we do on the airless worlds? We could do that for a start.

 

[Deleted member 110222]

Like someone already said. If you want ELW's to turn out how you're dreaming, we're all going to need new PC's first.

I'm already saving, as I do have confidence it will happen. But I'm also a realist.

 

[Stealthie]

True, our ships are fully capable of atmospheric flight on raw thrust alone, our ships literally have unlimited thrust on tap.

Hence what I said about the thrust model not working properly.

I don't really see how thrusters can have a "maximum hull mass" that applies to a ship in 0.5g just as it applies to a ship in 5g.

Presumably, it's "explained" by onboard systems tuning themselves to the local gravity and only applying sufficient thrust to suit that situation.
If you've got a 600t ship in 0.1g then your thrusters (6 of 'em) each provide a bit more than 10t of thrust to keep you off the ground?
If the same ship is in 1g then those thrusters all pump out more than 100t of thrust to do the same job?
On a 5g planet they provide more than 500t of thrust, each?

All of which rather begs the question of why we've actually got different classes of thrusters at all, if they're all capable of providing this wonderful thrust when the situation calls for it.

As for aerodynamics, at the most basic level, there needs to be some recognition of drag otherwise you might as well just assume that some of the planets currently landable already have an atmosphere and leave it at that.

Are we saying that all people really want from "atmospheric flight" is for the sky to change colour and for their ships to buffet around a bit?
If so, I guess that's fair enough but somebody should probably let FDev know so they can stop worrying, figure out how to make the sky change colour and get it out the door.

If you want any kind of atmospheric flight model then, at the most basic, you're going to need something that recognises angle-of-attack so a ship that moving forward has different properties to one that's moving vertically or laterally.
Which means you are going to need aerodynamic models for the ships, even if they're only rudimentary ones.

And, of course, you need to make sure that it all works consistently on every planet that the Stellar Forge is capable of generating.