Atmosphere, hard or easy mode ?

[cheesenbiscuits]

You'd think canyon racing with fa off would be enough simulation for anyone,or maybe I'm missing something?

 

[Fost]

The "mechanical skills" in Elite are the parts that I seem to find don't get boring.

Combat is the best example of this all coming together but also docking - initially for some - takes a while to master.

I'd like to see more of this kind of thing in the game.

The SRV added something new with driving skills but I was hoping for something new like a manipulator arm for picking up cargo.

I really hope some skills are required in atmospheric landing. Landing is currently a little to easy for me.

 

[Sandmann]

You'd think canyon racing with fa off would be enough simulation for anyone,or maybe I'm missing something?

Once you've mastered that, then what?

*edit* I should clarify... I started taking flying lessons (real ones) for the challenge, then stopped wasting my money when I realised how hard it wasn't. I used to play the Silent Hunter submarine games and modded them to remove all the assists I could so I had to take sightings of enemy ships and plot torpedo courses manually, because anything less was far too simple. I spent shedloads of cash learning to be a SCUBA instructor... not because there's profit in it (there's not really) but again, for the challenge. FA off is nowhere near realistic and in fact breaks most of the few laws of physics it attempts to emulate... as does the rest of the flight model.

I realise that's not a level of difficulty that many gamers want... but equally there are many gamers who DO. I'm not holding my breath to see anything like that in ED, but I can't pretend I'm not disappointed with how mind bogglingly simplified it's turned out to be.

 

[Bunkerkind Anni]

all i can hope for, is that the reentry of a T9 into the atmosphere looks at least half as impressive as the alien ships in ID4.

i don't care about how difficulty it is,
i want it to be entertaining to do and to watch,

 

[cheesenbiscuits]

Once you've mastered that, then what?

*edit* I should clarify... I started taking flying lessons (real ones) for the challenge, then stopped wasting my money when I realised how hard it wasn't. I used to play the Silent Hunter submarine games and modded them to remove all the assists I could so I had to take sightings of enemy ships and plot torpedo courses manually, because anything less was far too simple. I spent shedloads of cash learning to be a SCUBA instructor... not because there's profit in it (there's not really) but again, for the challenge. FA off is nowhere near realistic and in fact breaks most of the few laws of physics it attempts to emulate... as does the rest of the flight model.

I realise that's not a level of difficulty that many gamers want... but equally there are many gamers who DO. I'm not holding my breath to see anything like that in ED, but I can't pretend I'm not disappointed with how mind bogglingly simplified it's turned out to be.

I agree that a simulation fan is going to find ED little lacking.
Maybe one day we'll get a true iron man mode that ramps up the difficulty.
You should be more specific in what improvements could be added,the devs read the forums,you may nudge them in this direction.

 

[Sandmann]

I agree that a simulation fan is going to find ED little lacking.
Maybe one day we'll get a true iron man mode that ramps up the difficulty.
You should be more specific in what improvements could be added,the devs read the forums,you may nudge them in this direction.

Have been, many times, way back in beta. I'm the one they said "playability trumps realism" to. Now I play something else.

 

[halo jones 101]

personally, I hope it is something like this: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uuGoDlG-qeA#

Are we gonna expolde ? I dont wanna explode...


Some really good posts made thus far, I would like it to be difficult but doable, and skills vs damage being the trade off... There will no doubt be some trading between realism and playability, and while I would like more realism, across the board.

That said I am so far happy that, Frontier have generally made a good job of balancing these tensions, because at its heart ED is a game that seeks to be enjoyable.

 

[Bran Tse Mallory]

Flight mechanics are of course an important part but I think there is a far more pressing issue to tackle before this is handled or indeed could be made interesting. I refer to instance handover/change. Currently we have the glide mechanic which serves as a instance generation solution plus allows for the loading of ground assets. With more complex ground features that you would expect on an atmospheric world this time will only increase. Frontier would do well to address this ASAP and make instance changing far more advanced than it is today.

However I do hope that when we get this that our ships feel 'different' when fully loaded as opposed to empty, in other words the ships mass to have a bearing on it's flight characteristics.

 

[Darkfyre99]

And this is where I also feel they've got the balance badly wrong in this game, in MANY areas. The famous quote from the devs here is that "playability trumps realism" but they seem to think that means that "the game must be mind bogglingly simple to play and have as little realism as possible" which removes any challenge, skill building, etc. Yes it has a steep learning curve because things aren't explained, but it's a steep and SHORT curve, after which the curve flattens out and becomes dull and repetitive. They've forgotten/failed to retain enough realism to make it plausible and challenging.

The problem is that realism does not automatically mean difficult. Which is one of the reasons why we don't have autopilots to fly our ships in Supercruise, despite the demand for them and the fact that should realistically have them. Instead of having fast and perfect Supercruise on autopilot, we either have slow and simple (stay in blue) of fast and difficult (planetary braking).

Realistically, the typical Elite Spaceship has a huge TWR, a delta-V budget that is functionally infinite, and (most importantly) a fusion-thruster RCS system more powerful than modern rockets. Theses ships could hold position in a hurricane without a problem.

 

[777Driver]

The problem is that realism does not automatically mean difficult. Which is one of the reasons why we don't have autopilots to fly our ships in Supercruise, despite the demand for them and the fact that should realistically have them. Instead of having fast and perfect Supercruise on autopilot, we either have slow and simple (stay in blue) of fast and difficult (planetary braking).

Realistically, the typical Elite Spaceship has a huge TWR, a delta-V budget that is functionally infinite, and (most importantly) a fusion-thruster RCS system more powerful than modern rockets. Theses ships could hold position in a hurricane without a problem.

'You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Darkfyre99 again'

 

[IndigoWyrd]

Once you've mastered that, then what?

Then you can say you "got gud".

 

[lysan]

'You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Darkfyre99 again'

Don't worry I'm covering you....

 

[777Driver]

Flight mechanics are of course an important part but I think there is a far more pressing issue to tackle before this is handled or indeed could be made interesting. I refer to instance handover/change. Currently we have the glide mechanic which serves as a instance generation solution plus allows for the loading of ground assets. With more complex ground features that you would expect on an atmospheric world this time will only increase. Frontier would do well to address this ASAP and make instance changing far more advanced than it is today.

However I do hope that when we get this that our ships feel 'different' when fully loaded as opposed to empty, in other words the ships mass to have a bearing on it's flight characteristics.

Ships mass already influences flight characteristics. Have never fully bought into that single dev comment claiming pauses are due to surface assets loading, you can fly from deep space all the way to port without any loading in normal space, same deal flying station to station or orbital port to surface port. Even with the transition to glide, head to a remote port in open and the dropout is instant, now try an identical port in open that is heavy with cmdr traffic..

 

[Stealthie]

However I do hope that when we get this that our ships feel 'different' when fully loaded as opposed to empty, in other words the ships mass to have a bearing on it's flight characteristics.

That shouldn't be the case, given the way our ships currently operate.

We currently have a system where our ships handle almost exactly the same on a 0.1g world as they do on an 8g world.

Even if we assume that our thrusters ARE somewhere near the physical limit of their capacity on a high-g world, most of the time they are (allegedly) being artificially limited by the ship's all-powerful computer to ensure that your ship handles consistently in all environments.

Basically, even if your T9, with it's D-rated thrusters, handles like whale on a high-g planet, the same thrusters should allow it to handle like an F1 car on a low-g planet - if it wasn't for the computer sticking it's oar in.

Even if your thrusters are operating at 100% capacity when you're on, say, a 5g world (which they're not) then they're being limited to 20% capacity on a 1g world in order to give you the same flight characteristics.
That being the case, you've got all that extra thrust available and it should easily be able o compensate for atmospheric conditions and cargo loads.

Again, basically, if your ship weighs 600t in 1g and you get a certain level of performance from the thrusters then it weighs 2,400t in 4g but you still get similar performance from the thrusters.
That being the case, an extra, say, 150t of cargo should almost never have a noticeable effect.
The only time it might would be on a stupidly high-g planet, where your thrusters might be operating near their physical limits - except that the "infinite thrust" available means it shouldn't, even then.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

One of the questions that I was planing to make for a long time, but never actually bothered making.

So, since I'm pretty sure the devs would also love to know beforehand about this, and since there is still a loooong way before it is implemented, I think it is safe to ask what does the community think of this.

Should entering an atmospheric planet provide players with some difficulty, or should it be like NMS non existent ?

By difficulty I mean give the player a challenge, and that the outcome of failing such challenge will be rather nasty. ( from a damaged hull to straight ship destruction depending on the state of the ship and the nature of the ship ).

I thought that perhaps FD can recycle the interdiction mechanic, only this time instead of avoiding being interdicted the player would fight to enter the planet atmosphere in one piece.

The denser the atmosphere, the more difficult it is to fly trough it.

Or would it rather be just non existent, just like now with barren worlds, point your nose down and mind the gravity ?

What do you think ?

i hope there is some skill...... ie have to line up correctly or we either bounce off the atmosphere and take damage, OR take large amounts of heat damage.

for those on inevitably want it to be easy and risk free i think maybe FD should offer an upgrade to the docking computer - to make it include atmospheric re-entry. this should mean it takes more power and possibly add more weight due to extra sensors etc needed AND it must not be the most efficient way of doing it - ie just like docking... but imo the only way it can be fun and challenging for those who want it, is to give an option to make it trivial for those who do NOT want any challenge in it.

ultimately it has become clear to me, if push comes to shove FD tend to side with the parts of the community who do not want the added complexities in there..... so imo this suggestion is the only way we have a chance of it retaining a challenge for those who want it.

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

The problem is that realism does not automatically mean difficult. Which is one of the reasons why we don't have autopilots to fly our ships in Supercruise, despite the demand for them and the fact that should realistically have them. Instead of having fast and perfect Supercruise on autopilot, we either have slow and simple (stay in blue) of fast and difficult (planetary braking).

Realistically, the typical Elite Spaceship has a huge TWR, a delta-V budget that is functionally infinite, and (most importantly) a fusion-thruster RCS system more powerful than modern rockets. Theses ships could hold position in a hurricane without a problem.

Yea, difficult is flying a helicopter. Damn that rotor torque. That's why I fly the Ka 50 in DCS. [noob]

 

[777Driver]

That shouldn't be the case, given the way our ships currently operate.

We currently have a system where our ships handle almost exactly the same on a 0.1g world as they do on an 8g world.

Even if we assume that our thrusters ARE somewhere near the physical limit of their capacity on a high-g world, most of the time they are (allegedly) being artificially limited by the ship's all-powerful computer to ensure that your ship handles consistently in all environments.

Basically, even if your T9, with it's D-rated thrusters, handles like whale on a high-g planet, the same thrusters should allow it to handle like an F1 car on a low-g planet - if it wasn't for the computer sticking it's oar in.

Even if your thrusters are operating at 100% capacity when you're on, say, a 5g world (which they're not) then they're being limited to 20% capacity on a 1g world in order to give you the same flight characteristics.
That being the case, you've got all that extra thrust available and it should easily be able o compensate for atmospheric conditions and cargo loads.

Again, basically, if your ship weighs 600t in 1g and you get a certain level of performance from the thrusters then it weighs 2,400t in 4g but you still get similar performance from the thrusters.
That being the case, an extra, say, 150t of cargo should almost never have a noticeable effect.
The only time it might would be on a stupidly high-g planet, where your thrusters might be operating near their physical limits - except that the "infinite thrust" available means it shouldn't, even then.

Funny thing is the thruster logic works the same as engine derate/assumed temp/Flex thrust in reality. I kinda doubt the devs actually intended to mimic real world thrust management software.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

Yea, difficult is flying a helicopter. Damn that rotor torque. That's why I fly the Ka 50 in DCS. [noob]

my hope is a ship like the eagle will come into its own with an atmophere. it would be nice to give it purpose other than just "for fun". even a ship like the adder looks like it may have an advantage over say the clipper when it comes to atmospheric flight.

 

[Stealthie]

Funny thing is the thruster logic works the same as engine derate/assumed temp/Flex thrust in reality. I kinda doubt the devs actually intended to mimic real world thrust management software.

The wacky thing is, I suppose it might even be suggested they get de-rated for a plausible reason too; maybe to prevent overspeed or some kind of cavitation?

Like a lot of things in ED, I dunno whether the dev's are really, really clever and have a massively broad grasp of all sorts of scientific and engineering principles or whether they just get lucky a lot and have an eclectic user-base who can provide plausible explanations for stuff. [where is it]

 

[who?]

Easy to do, Hard to master.

Anyone can do re-entry, it'd be similar to the existing system for exiting supercruise/orbital-cruise at planets. You CAN go much faster/steeper etc., but it's much more challenging & dangerous, with MUCH tighter tolerances and far greater heat-generation (can use cold builds and pop heat-sinks to gain a bit. Perhaps even silent running might help since it prevents heat ENTERING through the vents!)

Then let people choose their own path, blaze their own trail. Figuratively and literally.