Am I the only one who hopes our Ships *don't* get atmospheric landing?

[60mm]

While ED is certainly not a simulator, I do enjoy that it has some semblance of realism, and the thought of any of ED ships flying in an atmosphere is laughable . . . at best. If we do get atmospheric landings, we better get a deployable vehicle that can handle atmospheres. Seeing a DBX or T10 Civic flying through an atmosphere would be downright terrible. At that point, why not just allow them to dive into oceans and explore seabeds too? Ship form would clearly mean nothing and those Thrusters work anywhere and anyhow right? [where is it]

There are also many other things I'd rather see that colossal amount of dev time go into, but that's another point.

 

[Lightspeed]

Except without knowing how it might be implemented (assuming it is), nobody can know. Known unknowns and all that !

 

[777Driver]

While ED is certainly not a simulator, I do enjoy that it has some semblance of realism, and the thought of any of ED ships flying in an atmosphere is laughable . . . at best. If we do get atmospheric landings, we better get a deployable vehicle that can handle atmospheres. Seeing a DBX or T10 Civic flying through an atmosphere would be downright terrible. At that point, why not just allow them to dive into oceans and explore seabeds too? Ship form would clearly mean nothing and those Thrusters work anywhere and anyhow right? [where is it]

There are also many other things I'd rather see that colossal amount of dev time go into, but that's another point.

I honestly see no issue with these ships in atmospheres. Something that Micheal brooks said a while back confused me: He said the ships are designed with a lifting body in mind. Makes zero sense to me, none of these ships require lift capability.

The only time a lifting body would be required is if thrusters died, even then all control is through thrusters as opposed to control surfaces, so unless they plan to implement an additional planatery suite that provides control surfaces, all we need is raw thrust... We have plenty of thrust available in ED. Just try launching a 2000 tonne ship from a 9g world, does it with ease, dense atmospheres should also be a non issue since we scoop from neutron cones, atmospheric drag in the most dense atmospheres is nothing compared to what our thrustsers deal with.

Will be interesting to see what they come up with, without making a mockery of current ship capabilities.

 

[Iskariot]

While ED is certainly not a simulator, I do enjoy that it has some semblance of realism, and the thought of any of ED ships flying in an atmosphere is laughable . . . at best. If we do get atmospheric landings, we better get a deployable vehicle that can handle atmospheres. Seeing a DBX or T10 Civic flying through an atmosphere would be downright terrible. At that point, why not just allow them to dive into oceans and explore seabeds too? Ship form would clearly mean nothing and those Thrusters work anywhere and anyhow right? [where is it]

There are also many other things I'd rather see that colossal amount of dev time go into, but that's another point.

It would have been easier if the Elite universe had some semblance of anti-G technology.
I agree that a healthy amount of suspense of disbelief is necessary to accept that ED ships can maneuver in an atmosphere on thrusters alone.

But... it is a game...

I do not think what you are proposing is practical, because then a huge number of ships would not be able to go down to atmospheric planets.
I think this would be too big an obstacle for general gameplay.

 

[Lightspeed]

I honestly see no issue with these ships in atmospheres. Something that Micheal brooks said a while back confused me: He said the ships are designed with a lifting body in mind. Makes zero sense to me, none of these ships require lift capability.

I understand what you are saying, with the thrusters and all, but when we approach planets, even at present, we enter "glide" mode. I'm certain that is a precursor to atmospheric landings.

David Braben said that, as a feature, you can travel a long way with the glide, which we can. I suspect it has something to do with this and we will see it put together in the next Big Feature. And I hope my T-10 flies better than your T-9 with the extra spoiler

 

[schmicknick]

Not sure what your saying...
Pretty much everything about the ship shapes we have are because they have been constrained by the need to handle atmospherics.

There is an old video somewhere showing airflow and heat buildup/dissipation around all these ships.

 

[60mm]

I honestly see no issue with these ships in atmospheres. Something that Micheal brooks said a while back confused me: He said the ships are designed with a lifting body in mind. Makes zero sense to me, none of these ships require lift capability.

The only time a lifting body would be required is if thrusters died, even then all control is through thrusters as opposed to control surfaces, so unless they plan to implement an additional planatery suite that provides control surfaces, all we need is raw thrust... We have plenty of thrust available in ED. Just try launching a 2000 tonne ship from a 9g world, does it with ease, dense atmospheres should also be a non issue since we scoop from neutron cones.

Will be interesting to see what they come up with, without making a mockery of current ship capabilities.

It's not just about Thrust, as Iskariot pointed out. Flying through a dense sea of Gas, which is what an atmosphere is, brings it's own problems. If the ED ships are impervious to these physics, they should be even more capable under water than in an atmosphere.

 

[Fedora Master]

Anything that's Space Legs or quasi-Space Legs just serves as a distraction from the meat of the game: Space.

 

[Vardaugas]

Why would our ships suddenly drop out of the sky in atmosphere when they can handle vacuum perfectly fine? Aerodynamics would only come to play when wind is blowing or as a counter acceleration for maneuvering. Being VTOL, aerodynamics for staying in the air do not account.

 

[Achibot]

I agree that a healthy amount of suspense of disbelief is necessary to accept that ED ships can maneuver in an atmosphere on thrusters alone.

Why? Spacex does just fine with thrust variances from a single rocket cluster with a few fins and they land that thing lengthways. Why is it functionally different to use thrusters to make attitude corrections instead of fins?

The actual issue is whether a ship would be able to withstand the heat caused by friction as it rocketed through atmosphere at 2.5km/s.

 

[777Driver]

It's not just about Thrust, as Iskariot pointed out. Flying through a dense sea of Gas, which is what an atmosphere is, brings it's own problems. If the ED ships are impervious to these physics, they should be even more capable under water than in an atmosphere.

Mate I do get where you are coming from.. I also wish they had designed the non atmospheric flight model differently (much more challenging)

As mentioned above, atmospheric drag proving challenging wouldn't make sense, our ships always give us 5m/s² more than the gravitational acceleration, essentially we have infinte thrust. We dive into stars, scoop from neutrons, have shields capable of protecting us from energy based and kinetic weapons etc etc.

DB likes to talk about weather.. My only hope is that we get things like severe turbulence, extreme micro bursts/wind shear, poor visibility (rain/fog/snow/giant chuncks of hail) Severe electrical storms effecting HUD instruments, various atmospheres affecting shields and hull.

Also better automation for flying blind (at least for truckers)

Almost forgot! Real danger for gas giant mining, crush depths, massive electrical storms etc.

 

[Arry]

I don't see any real issues with the current ships, flying in a basic atmosphere. The heat of entry, may be a slight issue, but they we can fuel scoop from stars and they must get pretty hot.

Maybe the approach, could be made an issue. Come in too steep and we could get some heat damage; but then. We still have heat sinks, to deal with that.

 

[Old Duck]

I agree that a healthy amount of suspense of disbelief is necessary to accept that ED ships can maneuver in an atmosphere on thrusters alone.

A ship will weigh less in atmosphere than it does in a vacuum due to buoyancy. It's the drop a feather in a vacuum demonstration we all did in high school. Point is, if thrusters can lift our ship on an airless world with multiple Gs, they shouldn't have any problem on an atmospheric world.

On the other hand, people have rightly commented how some worlds with insane atmospheric pressures and temperatures should ruin our ships if we try to land on them.

 

[Riverside]

I honestly see no issue with these ships in atmospheres. Something that Micheal brooks said a while back confused me: He said the ships are designed with a lifting body in mind. Makes zero sense to me, none of these ships require lift capability.

The only time a lifting body would be required is if thrusters died, even then all control is through thrusters as opposed to control surfaces, so unless they plan to implement an additional planatery suite that provides control surfaces, all we need is raw thrust... We have plenty of thrust available in ED. Just try launching a 2000 tonne ship from a 9g world, does it with ease, dense atmospheres should also be a non issue since we scoop from neutron cones, atmospheric drag in the most dense atmospheres is nothing compared to what our thrustsers deal with.

Will be interesting to see what they come up with, without making a mockery of current ship capabilities.

Good summary but what about pressure and wind resistance/hydrodynamics?

For pressure clearly the hulls are currently capable of handling an external vacuum, how much external pressure can be withstood is untested. So we have one of two options; handwavium it away (ignore the problem, meaning we could visit the floor of the deepest ocean or gas giant), or specialised armour. I think armour would be more fun, it would provide a potential pressure limit and engineering opportunities to optimise for pressure resistance.


For wind resistance our ships are already limited to maximum velocity & turning speeds, so this removes any concerns in a 'normal' pressure atmosphere, although it would be nice to feel the ship be pushed around a bit with winds, probably in a similar way to how the ship wanders when you point it nose down in an environment with significant gravity in effect.
For higher pressure fluid environments (gas and liquid) I can imagine either we are simply not allowed there or our ships performance becomes more restricted up to a point where (again) we are just not allowed to go further.

I think there is plenty of room for atmospheric play before survival becomes an issue (pressure, gravity).

 

[Old Duck]

For pressure clearly the hulls are currently capable of handling an external vacuum, how much external pressure can be withstood is untested. So we have one of two options; handwavium it away (ignore the problem, meaning we could visit the floor of the deepest ocean or gas giant), or specialised armour.

Why does the armor need to be specialized? Our ships are already incredibly armored, considering they can absorb multicannon rounds, rockets, lasers, cannon shells, plasma balls, etc. They are tough, they can handle a little pressure. I bet they can handle a lot of pressure, especially if you consider not all of the ship needs to be maintained at 1 earth atmo.

it would be nice to feel the ship be pushed around a bit with winds, probably in a similar way to how the ship wanders when you point it nose down in an environment with significant gravity in effect.

Yes.

For higher pressure fluid environments (gas and liquid) I can imagine either we are simply not allowed there or our ships performance becomes more restricted up to a point where (again) we are just not allowed to go further.

Bah, let me exceed crush depth if I want to, watch my canopy crack and shatter, and well, magically appear back at the station, LOL. Might add for some fun combat play, if we can hide in dense atmospheres of gas giants while the enemy "depth charges" us from orbit.

That said, there definitely needs to be a "crush depth", otherwise it will be hard to take all of this seriously. I already avoid high-G worlds in certain ships, because you can't tell me those tiny wingtip thrusters can hold my Type-7 from falling out of the sky over a 4G world

 

[Han Zulu]

I'm for one want gas planets and atmo landings. Don't mind it being non-realistic sci-fi.

But if they did implement landing crafts/vehicles, like a shuttle SLF or something, it would be fine too. Place your ship in orbit and get into your dropship. Would be awesome.

 

[Lightspeed]

We are part way there already, I believe. The embrionic elements are:

Ship glide approaching a planet;

Vortex hazards with neutron stars (i.e. tornados, hurricanes, etc.)

Space lightning in Lagrange Clouds (i.e real clouds and lightning in dense, and even not-so-dense atmospheres).

Probably a list of other things I can't think of.

 

[Dillon Fallon]

That said, there definitely needs to be a "crush depth", otherwise it will be hard to take all of this seriously. I already avoid high-G worlds in certain ships, because you can't tell me those tiny wingtip thrusters can hold my Type-7 from falling out of the sky over a 4G world

Completely agree, although with gas giants they at least have the option of overheating as well of crushing if they want to take advantage of existing mechanics.

 

[CMDR NightsLong]

I think atmospheric landings is fine, however it is not amazing... just many more bodies to land on, no different to now, repetition is inevitable and adds little to the overall game. Space legs is even worse..

 

[the100thmonkey]

We have shields that can absorb/deflect the kinetic energy of cannon and multicannon rounds.

Make atmospheric approaches require the shield to adopt a particular shape, and yeah - energy projection for atmospheric entry and lifting flow. No more handwavium required than already exists.