-
Greetings Commander, want a more instant approach to your questions and need for help? Check out the Galactic Academy Discord server!
Feel free to join the Galactic Academy Discord server by clicking here!
Newcomer / Intro Too hot? Too Cold? Odyssey
- Thread starter aioun
- Start date
Too hot and too cold simply drain a little bit of suit energy as you walk around, so you can disembark without worry.
However if you want to find a nicer planet in the system map view you can select planets and on the right turn on the more info. One of the things there is temperature in Kelvin, which is just Celsius plus 273. 0K is 273C, 100K is 373C etc.
However if you want to find a nicer planet in the system map view you can select planets and on the right turn on the more info. One of the things there is temperature in Kelvin, which is just Celsius plus 273. 0K is 273C, 100K is 373C etc.
Apparently it also depends on shade, light side is hotter than dark side, so you really cant tell till you land and try to disembark.
Amazingly realistic, or astonishingly annoying ? You decide.
Jeez! Reminds me of those disaster films where the wave of heat is coming over the horizon destroying everything - note to self 'Don't wander to far away from SRV or ship'
There is an issue where people are finding themselves stuck in the taxi because the game won't let them disembark because temperatures are beyond a certain range. As far as I can see there has still been no information as to what the actual temperature ranges are that stops you from disembarking or to put in another way, what temperature ranges you can disembark at.
I don't necessarily think that those are an either or case.
The lowest I think I have been out in is 50 Kelvin (-223 Celsius).
Was just out in 385 Kelvin in the 'sun' and 335 Kelvin in the shade, not hot but shows the effect.
The operating temperature range is different for each suit. The Artemis suit has a wider operating range, for example. Engineering the suits can also extend the range.
All of which doesn't help if the mission "requires a Maverick", but the base is outside the operating range of a Maverick, and the sun won't go up/down until long after the mission expires.
If I had to guess the cause, it's because when the mission generator is looking for "acceptable planets" to host missions, it is using the old pre-odyssey mean surface temperature statistic, and not taking into account that on-the-spot planet surface temperatures now vary considerably from this mean. In other words, the mission-generator thinks a planet/base is suitable for a salvage mission because its mean temperature is within the Maverick's operating range, though the temperature at the actual base is going to be outside the range for the duration of the mission.
Many of us wanted more "realistic" planetary surface temperatures (it was annoying to fly into the "shade" of a planet and not start to cool down, and ofr there to be no temperature difference between night and day, or pole and equator), and now we've got them. The mission generator just needs to become smart enough to cope with the new reality.
All of which doesn't help if the mission "requires a Maverick", but the base is outside the operating range of a Maverick, and the sun won't go up/down until long after the mission expires.
If I had to guess the cause, it's because when the mission generator is looking for "acceptable planets" to host missions, it is using the old pre-odyssey mean surface temperature statistic, and not taking into account that on-the-spot planet surface temperatures now vary considerably from this mean. In other words, the mission-generator thinks a planet/base is suitable for a salvage mission because its mean temperature is within the Maverick's operating range, though the temperature at the actual base is going to be outside the range for the duration of the mission.
Many of us wanted more "realistic" planetary surface temperatures (it was annoying to fly into the "shade" of a planet and not start to cool down, and ofr there to be no temperature difference between night and day, or pole and equator), and now we've got them. The mission generator just needs to become smart enough to cope with the new reality.
...or we could accept that some missions are simply impossible to accomplish under certain circumstances. Which, too, is kind of realistic.
Sure, in the sense of irrational bosses demanding impossible things from their employees... but I would postulate that it is not reasonable or rational to fine a player for being unable to alter the laws of physics. And I think if the game were complex enough to be capable of calculating or detecting "the player couldn't complete the mission within the specified timeframe because the base was too cold for space suits to operate for the entire mission timeframe, so we shouldn't fine them", then it would be complex enough to not be generating those missions in the first place.
The trouble is, as has always been with ED's mission generator, that in an open-ended universe where planets and star systems are not cookie-cutter clones of each other, the extreme conditions of the "edge cases" make generating procedurally-generated missions that work 100% of the time very difficult. Anyone else remembering those missions to Hutton Orbital with the one-hour timer?
I've once walked around in 750K heat - no problem, only lots of gasps. But I cannot say how long you can stay in this heat.
Note: if you just have to make a first footfall on a very warm planet, just move to the dark side. It's colder there, of course. You can also check the min/max planet temperature at the system map.
But I cannot say how long you can stay in this heat.Note: if you just have to make a first footfall on a very warm planet, just move to the dark side. It's colder there, of course.
You can also check the min/max planet temperature at the system map.I think OP's problem was more about finding out the min/max temperature of the suit.I've once walked around in 750K heat - no problem, only lots of gasps.
Note: if you just have to make a first footfall on a very warm planet, just move to the dark side. It's colder there, of course.
I know my Artemis suit can handle 73-630K. But only from just trying out. It would be nice to have some easy numbers for once, but that would not be Elite, would it.
0K is minus 273C, 100K is minus 173C. Sweet spot is 20c which is 293K. Anywhere around 300K you can disembark in a tee shirt and shorts (soon to be added to the ARX store)
Last edited:
I take it nobody has found a reliable resource for the temperature ranges? Was on a planet yesterday - rated 500k - 1400k. Now I suspect if we could have done the mission in the dark we would have been alright but there are a few issues/thoughts here:
1. We don't have any clear indication of the operating temperature range for a suit - if we can engineer it to improve the range then we should see the range as a stat for the suit? What's with not showing stats for the personal equipment - what benefit is there is hiding it?
2. Other than the stated temperature range for the planet in the system map (which can vary massively) we have no way of knowing what the temperature is at the time when we're there until we step out of the srv/ship - which isn't always possible!? If we had the temperature then we might know if it's close to a suitable temperature (assuming we have #1 above) and if we should stick around of head off back into the black and moan at the mission giver for not telling us.
3. Missions - surely the temperature at the mission could be highlighted in the description (or at least the range specified on the system map) - especially if it could be outside the allowed norms.
The key item is #1 though - if we can't determine what the viable range for a suit is then we've no hope beyond relying on the community to get the best-possible range.
For reference I've had as low as 30K (-243°C) - in a Maverick iirc. Not sure highest temperature.
1. We don't have any clear indication of the operating temperature range for a suit - if we can engineer it to improve the range then we should see the range as a stat for the suit? What's with not showing stats for the personal equipment - what benefit is there is hiding it?
2. Other than the stated temperature range for the planet in the system map (which can vary massively) we have no way of knowing what the temperature is at the time when we're there until we step out of the srv/ship - which isn't always possible!? If we had the temperature then we might know if it's close to a suitable temperature (assuming we have #1 above) and if we should stick around of head off back into the black and moan at the mission giver for not telling us.
3. Missions - surely the temperature at the mission could be highlighted in the description (or at least the range specified on the system map) - especially if it could be outside the allowed norms.
The key item is #1 though - if we can't determine what the viable range for a suit is then we've no hope beyond relying on the community to get the best-possible range.
For reference I've had as low as 30K (-243°C) - in a Maverick iirc. Not sure highest temperature.