A thought about atmospheric worlds

[Cmnd Fulsom]

Much has been made off atmospheric landings. And to an extent, some planets with atmosphere will have little practical difference to the lifeless worlds we have now. They'll rocky an icy bodies with thin atmospheres.

But for life bearing worlds, if you can go to cities on, say, earth, and not see people the community will freak right the out. With this in mind, anyone hoping for the ability to land on any planet, look for at minimum space legs first. Because they'll need good 3d models with good animations to populate the worlds with. Minimum.

We might get lifeless worlds with weather patterns in the meantime, but life bearing worlds are unlikely.


Stay Frosty


Cmnd Fulsom

 

[Limoncello Lizard]

Take a look at some of FD's other products. They can model large groups of people pretty well.

 

[Cmnd Fulsom]

I'm sure that any dev can model large groups of people with sufficient time. The issue at hand is that Elite players tend to be pretty picky, and Fdev needs to not only model large crowds but also have them work in environments ranging from flat concrete, too uneven ground, to stations, to zero-g and variable direction gravity environments, while dealing with instancing, and have their models not fall right through their wire-frame's hit boxes.


Speaking as someone who has had ships quite literally fall through planets, and had SRVs catapult into space after hitting rocks. I can assure you, physics interactions on that scale will need to be gotten just right. And I'm sure FDev can do it. But it's going to take time.

Stay Frosty



Cmnd Fulsom

 

[CMDR Cylixx]

Hrmz... it is a very perplexing point..

Given the recent track record of procedural generation at say, the ruins for instance, I would expect every 6th person in each group of 100 to just not exist. For months.

 

[Nick Sticks]

I would say that to land on an atmospheric planet with (human) life you won't be able to land in your back garden, only designated areas and star ports with perhaps an altitude restriction for other areas.

Then perhaps to start with the only way you'll be able to see the local population up close is through a star port window.

 

[UnhappyDev]

We might get lifeless worlds with weather patterns in the meantime, but life bearing worlds are unlikely.

Very unlikely as a first iteration. I would expect barren worlds (like we have ATM) with basic atmospheres and no weather.

But if Frontier stick to their 10 year dev cycle for Elite Dangerous, I don't see why they cannot do procedurally generated life bearing worlds a few years down the line. NMS already has these - In a basic cartooney form

 

[Meric]

They seem to have gotten away with a complete lack of ambient SRV traffic and dock workers in stations so far.

Maybe it's the buildings that will be the problem... How do you generate architecture for a planet of 100 million without it looking really samey?

 

[Cmnd Fulsom]

They seem to have gotten away with a complete lack of ambient SRV traffic and dock workers in stations so far.

Maybe it's the buildings that will be the problem... How do you generate architecture for a planet of 100 million without it looking really samey?

SRV traffic is different, these are barren, lifeless worlds, that are completely uninhabitable. And SRVs are quite impersonal. I want SRV traffic, but I understand what people aren't too upset about not having it.

If a planet of millions or billions has no people on it, people are going to be miffed. As for architecture. City blocks do look samey, for the most part. The real trick is making architecture between cities look different. And that is far more doable. You also want to see differenced between the business district/inner city/suburb/surrounding towns/rural areas. I really want to see city planets, and garden worlds, too, by the way.




Stay frosty



Cmnd Fulsom

 

[Meric]

SRV traffic is different, these are barren, lifeless worlds, that are completely uninhabitable. And SRVs are quite impersonal. I want SRV traffic, but I understand what people aren't too upset about not having it.

If a planet of millions or billions has no people on it, people are going to be miffed. As for architecture. City blocks do look samey, for the most part. The real trick is making architecture between cities look different. And that is far more doable. You also want to see differenced between the business district/inner city/suburb/surrounding towns/rural areas. I really want to see city planets, and garden worlds, too, by the way.



You don't see anything from Fdev because you're not working in their offices.



Stay frosty



Cmnd Fulsom

It would be a fascinating problem to work on. You pretty much need to procedurally model everything from the building materials to the interaction with the geography. At least as big a job as the planets themselves... Then you need to do the crowds.

They've got my number if they want my help.

 

[Cmnd Fulsom]

Definitely, there's always so much to think about with these sorts of things. I'm sure we're not even thinking about most of the considerations. Terrain is an interesting idea. But really, cities don't get built on very uneven terrain. You get hills, but really, for the most part cities grow up in largely flat areas, that are made even flatter while building. Even places like Denver, or Vegas, which are built in the mountains, are either built on plateaus, or in valleys, rather than on the mountain sides themselves.

I'd love to see cities built into fantastic geographic locations. But I wouldn't complain too hard if we didn't get it.


Stay Frosty



Cmnd Fulsom

 

[UnhappyDev]

I'd love to see cities built into fantastic geographic locations. But I wouldn't complain too hard if we didn't get it.

Well I think the terrain is done as a height map, so maybe you could place a city on a rectangle of zero-height terrain.

 

[Cmnd Fulsom]

The issue isn't putting buildings on mountains, and similar as such. But rather, how do you produce towns or cities in such locales, and have them look natural and attractive, without hand crafting each one. I'm sure that procedural generation can handle complex tasks, in fact, it certainly does. But we've seen whole planets disappear because they were deemed to be unintended results of the procedural generation as well. So it's all a matter of how much effort such locations are worth.


Stay frosty



Cmnd Fulsom

 

[LJITimate]

I would still like to see gas giants though. they talked about it when the game was In development and the ideas they had where awesome. all they would need to do is model some clouds and make up some cool new gameplay mechanics. not as hard as modelling cities and crowds and stuff

but doing full scale earth like planets. I don't think we will see them for a few years even if they are already working on it

 

[Cmnd Fulsom]

The thing about flying in gas giants, which I also totally want to see, is that in order to really stand up to the quite good space (if not necessarily flight) simulation is that you would need to model high wind, storms, flight in thick atmosphere, under very high G's. I wouldn't be surprised if we'd need specific module packages (like with planetary flight). It is a really cool concept, but not as simple as it might appear on the surface.



Stay Frosty



Cmnd Fulsom

 

[Aashenfox]

There are SO many issues with landing on Earth, for example, that I honestly believe it will never happen. The cities need to work, the countries need to be the right shape, the 7 (or maybe 15 now?) Wonders of the world need to be where they are today, or at least some of them (yes, they would be preserved a thousand years, some of them have been already). Major rivers and other landmarks need to be in the right places, cos everybody is going to fly over where they live now, expectations will be insanely impossible to implement within a reasonable time frame. Even games that focus on modeling Earth don't have that detailed a model (major flight sims, etc).

Gas giants and any other planet where we don't know the features and they can be made up on the spot, much easier.

 

[Jukelo]

I do not see any evidence of this fabled 'ten year development cycle,' all I see is a s s-hattery and making up as you go along from FD.

There is no ten-year plan and there never was any such claim. David said he's not interested in making an Elite Dangerous 2 and instead wants to keep improving ED as long as there is financial support for it, even in ten years' time.
People took it to mean there is a ten-year plan, when really it was just his way of saying that, with the huge scope of ED, it would stay in development for as long as needed and feasible.

 

[Bieltan]

Much has been made off atmospheric landings. And to an extent, some planets with atmosphere will have little practical difference to the lifeless worlds we have now. They'll rocky an icy bodies with thin atmospheres.

But for life bearing worlds, if you can go to cities on, say, earth, and not see people the community will freak right the out. With this in mind, anyone hoping for the ability to land on any planet, look for at minimum space legs first. Because they'll need good 3d models with good animations to populate the worlds with. Minimum.

We might get lifeless worlds with weather patterns in the meantime, but life bearing worlds are unlikely.


Stay Frosty


Cmnd Fulsom

These were my feelings exactly. And I look forward to seeing the weather cycles. Extra-terrestrial storms? Yes please!

I can wait for FDEV to figure out the logistical headache of full scale, life-bearing planets. If thats even possibru...

 

[dannysquid]

There are SO many issues with landing on Earth, for example, that I honestly believe it will never happen. The cities need to work, the countries need to be the right shape, the 7 (or maybe 15 now?) Wonders of the world need to be where they are today, or at least some of them (yes, they would be preserved a thousand years, some of them have been already). Major rivers and other landmarks need to be in the right places, cos everybody is going to fly over where they live now, expectations will be insanely impossible to implement within a reasonable time frame. Even games that focus on modeling Earth don't have that detailed a model (major flight sims, etc).

Gas giants and any other planet where we don't know the features and they can be made up on the spot, much easier.

I would assume they'd make the Earth unrecognisably ravaged by war and climate change to stop people moaning that they can't land at Cricklewood Broadway and go to their favourite Kebab shop.

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

I would assume they'd make the Earth unrecognisably ravaged by war and climate change to stop people moaning that they can't land at Cricklewood Broadway and go to their favourite Kebab shop.

The fact the earth is ravaged by war and climate change is already apart of the Elite backstory. So places will be unrecognizable and there will be lots of ruined places. I doubt London or any of the major cities are intact, most like mainly destroyed by nuclear war.

 

[LJITimate]

The fact the earth is ravaged by war and climate change is already apart of the Elite backstory. So places will be unrecognizable and there will be lots of ruined places. I doubt London or any of the major cities are intact, most like mainly destroyed by nuclear war.

is there a nuclear war on the elite timeline? I thought it was just a normal ww3 not all out nukes