A 13.9G planet? Is it landable? I need to book mark this one. I use a hotas, it would be the same as you just holding you stick down for half a second or so. I can see what you mean though. I was basically showing thar i barely touched the thrusters and got a huge reaction from my ship. That might take some commanders by suprise so i wanted to show that. Same with the high speed turn, the amount of altitude loss was suprising to me.
11G Landable Planet
- Thread starter FixMeNow
- Start date
![[VR] Goooost](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/111/111637.jpg?1589354934){kind=avatar}
I think that in atmosphere thrusters should use more fuel but provide more lift.
GremlinSpotter, I think you misread. There is no 13.9g planet (at least none that I'd have seen). The codex reports it as such, but it's just 1.39g, so a tenth of what the codex reports.
Is the codex just horribly buggy or what?! Can I even rely on it at all?!
Is the codex just horribly buggy or what?! Can I even rely on it at all?!
Ok, thanks for the clarification. Not sure if its usually buggy. I dont use it often unless i want to see a new biological or a lagrange cloud.
Maybe the star is a blueish hue? Planet composition? Not sure unless we know what minerals are available on the planet
That defies basic physics, thrust is a result of reaction forces, not pushing against stuff. The same forces generated from a thruster will result in the same reaction force regardless of atmosphere or not. I should hope FDEV will model this correctly. In fact while there will be the same reaction force, because you are traveling through atmosphere the same force will result in less lift due to friction with the atmosphere.
Ever heard of an afterburner? You dip into atmosphere, your ship sparks the afterburner, injecting fuel into the exhaust resulting in more thrust, more fuel loss.
That would work if we were actually using jets which suck in air and throw out exhaust, but we aren't we are using some sort of rocket thruster that wroks in a vacuum, ie no air, so we don't have air intakes so no after-burner. This stuff is just basic knowledge, lets pick it up a bit!
I'm pitching the idea of using atmosphere to fundamentally change the reaction which produces thrust. When you descend into the atmosphere, air intakes could open up. You're exactly right that this is basic knowledge. Are we on the same page or aren't we? It isn't too far off from the 21st century concept of a SABRE engine (Synergenic Air Breathing Rocket Engine). It's a rocket engine, and a jet engine, at the same time.
We need to find some way to explain why ships have more landing power in atmosphere, and why that extra power isnt available in space. This seems like the simplest explanation, unless you want some kind of optional atmospheric landing suite we all have to purchase for our ships (blech)
They don't, it's a game, FDEV have adjusted the behind the scenes physics to give every thruster no matter how weak enough power to lift a ship against any gravity you want to try them in. It's a thing they have done to make it possible to land on any body. There's no need for any adjustment for atmospheric bodies, I don't really know why you think it would be necessary and why you think thrusters have or need more power in atmosphere. FDEV have made some decisions to sacrifice accurate physics for game play when they think it is warranted, one of them is the ability to land and take off under any gravity, it just needs a bit of practice.
I mean, I was perfectly content with my simple gamey answer of 'thrusters perform better but use more fuel'. You made it seem like you didnt like the science, now that I've tried to explain it suddenly you dont think the science and simulation matters and you just want fdev to turn some dials and forget about it. So I'm going back to my original proposal:
Thrusters should work better in atmosphere and they should use more fuel.
It appears that all of the really high-g worlds (meaning 9+) have that same color as well..
As for the thrusters: Just make it so we can approach each and every world. Even gas giants. Make it so thrusters can actually be overcome by high g-forces, so that more powerful thrusters actually enable you to land on higher g worlds, and so that you may actually sink like a stone if they're too weak. Then, if you overestimate your thrusters, you just make a nice new crater or burn in the atmosphere, unless you manage to bring up your FSD fast enough...
As for the afterburner idea: Makes little sense. Would only work if the composition of the atmosphere is correct for the thrusters. Wouldn't work so well in a silicate vapour or maybe ammonia+nitrogen atmosphere, right?
This sounds like a great location to try the Tanked T10... I saw a video of a T10 dive straight down into Achenar 3 (6.7g) and ... bound! It lost its shields but had 91% hull left... I'm curious to know whether it would survive an 11g 'landing' in the same way... I'll see how far out from the bubble it is....
Edit: 44% metal!!! Sheesh! Mine the bJ out of it quick!
Edit: 44% metal!!! Sheesh! Mine the bJ out of it quick!
1st shieldless cutter to land there wins a prize....
I will take that challenge. I land my cutter on high Gs all the time. I will turn off shields next time i land and record it.
I can post a video on this thread tonight if landing a shieldless cutter on 9.77G planet would do. It might be a while before i get out to the Colonia area again. Im still interested in that challenge though.
It is about 2K ly from Colonia
A fair slop out then... Still if I get bored and can put up with the jump range of the T10...
And so it begins! 
Aaah, I should abort my class O surveying and head over there as fast as possible!
EDSM said:
Aaah, I should abort my class O surveying and head over there as fast as possible!