Atmosphere, hard or easy mode ?

[Darkfyre99]

From straining engines, IIRC? Though I would disagree with @darkfyre99 since angle of entry, re-entry heat and skipping off the atmosphere are perfectly valid concerns with powered descent too. Depends on just how powered. But heat would be a concern regardless.

As I said previously on this thread, if one is willing to take their time on descent, AKA "stay in the blue," the average Commander shouldn't have any difficulties on approach to non-extreme planets. It's when people are NOT willing to take their time, when the planet IS extreme, and especially both that skill should be required.

I will agree to disagree on the heat issue, though. Having watched Space X's attempts (increasingly successful) to land their first stage boosters (which IMO would qualify as "semi-powered"), the brief pressure heating a body not traveling at orbital speeds encounters is inconsequential compared to the heating an unshielded ship endures while fuel scooping from a star.

 

[o2thaZ]

Absolutely some difficulty to it. Atleast make it a bit realistic, something with trajectories and what not.
The interdiction mechanic should do the trick indeed.
Something I also envision for a slingshot type of thing, wich btw has been spoken about a good while back.

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

As always, I can recommend Kerbal Space Program for those interested in more challenging re-entry behaviousr and spontaneous ignition. Though I rarely see anything catastrophic - but there should be mods for all your fire accelerant needs.

 

[ArchEmperor]

Moth to a flame.

Everyone wants (need) to land on the planet surface (for some delicious reason) and everyone dies a horrible burning death on reentry. Just a few succeed to keep the moths going.

That would be awesome!

 

[Cucco-Master]

And yet on planets with no atmosphere we got heat mechanics, and all kinds of issues, but I digress

As in most other cases in the game, the heat is coming from our very own engines. It's no surprise that those run a bit hot while they are performing a suicide burn.

Personally I believe that people overestimate the difficulty of atmospheric entry+descent - at least compared to landing in vacuum. With real orbital mechanics, the atmosphere would help with the orbital insertion (with good aerobreaking maneuvers and a sufficiently dense atmosphere you wouldn't even need to perform a capture burn at all) and it would greatly reduce the thrust necessary to slow your ship down during descent. Someone wrote that landing on the moon is easier than re-entering the earth's atmosphere. But the moon has a surface gravity of 0.16g, not 1g like the earth! Imagine a celestial body with no atmosphere and a surface gravity of 1g. I somehow doubt that we, from 2017, would be able to land a vehicle capable of taking off again on such a body. If we could, the rocket would need to be way heavier than anything we have built for re-entering earth's atmosphere. So if they really wanted to make atmospheric landings much more difficult than vacuum ones, they would have to make vaccum landing more difficult as well, if it has to make any sense (which it doesn't have to, admittedly).

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

As in most other cases in the game, the heat is coming from our very own engines. It's no surprise that those run a bit hot while they are performing a suicide burn.

Personally I believe that people overestimate the difficulty of atmospheric entry+descent - at least compared to landing in vacuum. With real orbital mechanics, the atmosphere would help with the orbital insertion (with good aerobreaking maneuvers and a sufficiently dense atmosphere you wouldn't even need to perform a capture burn at all) and it would greatly reduce the thrust necessary to slow your ship down during descent. Someone wrote that landing on the moon is easier than re-entering the earth's atmosphere. But the moon has a surface gravity of 0.16g, not 1g like the earth! Imagine a celestial body with no atmosphere and a surface gravity of 1g. I somehow doubt that we, from 2017, would be able to land a vehicle capable of taking off again on such a body. If we could, the rocket would need to be way heavier than anything we have built for re-entering earth's atmosphere. So if they really wanted to make atmospheric landings much more difficult than vacuum ones, they would have to make vaccum landing more difficult as well, if it has to make any sense (which it doesn't have to, admittedly).

I think you are a bit off base in your thinking. It will be far easier to lift of from a 1g planet without atmosphere, then a 1g planet with an atmosphere as there would be no resistance from the atmosphere and no weather issues. Getting down would be tougher though as there would be no terminal velocity, you would just accelerate at 1g until you hit the ground if you didn't have anyway to brake the descent.

But in the ED universe with the near limitless power our thrusters have it will be pretty easy to descend and lift off from most planets. Of course there will be extremes where the atmospere is so thick, combined with a high g that it will take ages to land and you may not have enough power to get back up.

 

[Stealthie]

What is the point in adding danger and unnecessary difficulty just for the sake of it? it seems a few here are expecting our ships to behave like a space vehicle designed in the 1960's. We scoop from stars, launch 2000+ tonne ships from 9g worlds, regularly put the ships through maneuverers exceeding 70+g. The game is set in 3303, not 2017.

That's the thing.

The whole problem with re-entry is one of thrust.

At the one extreme, one way to achieve re-entry is to de-orbit really gradually.
The problem with that is it's hard to judge your destination accurately, it means you're going to spend a lot of time in atmospheric flight, generating heat as a result of friction (and you WILL need to do that because you'll have a lot of speed to scrub off), and there's also the possibility you won't re-orbit properly and you'll end-up back in space again.

At the other extreme, you can de-orbit aggressively.
The problem there is, quite simply, that you are heading toward the surface REALLY fast and it's quite possible you won't have enough time to aerobrake properly before you splat into the surface.

Pretty much every realistic depiction of re-entry will involve something between those two extremes - from an "extinction event" asteroid strike to a controlled spaceship landing.

And none of that should present a problem for the ships in ED.

All the ships in ED have enough delta-v that they can come to a dead-stop in position above a planet in a couple of seconds and they also have enough delta-v that they can overcome gravity effortlessly.

Even with "proper", KSP-style, orbital mechanics in place, landing an ED ship on a planet's surface should only ever be a case of de-orbiting (which is, apparently, just done by reducing the throttle to zero. You don't even need to do a retro-burn), falling out of the sky and then allowing our almighty thrusters to arrest the descent once you enter the atmosphere.

ED is, basically, like playing KSP with the "infinite fuel" cheat enabled.

That being the case, any difficulty that was created for the sake of gameplay would be rather contrived.
Landing on an atmospheric planet should be exactly the same as what we already have but with coloured skies.

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

That's the thing.

The whole problem with re-entry is one of thrust.

At the one extreme, one way to achieve re-entry is to de-orbit really gradually.
The problem with that is it's hard to judge your destination accurately, it means you're going to spend a lot of time in atmospheric flight, generating heat as a result of friction (and you WILL need to do that because you'll have a lot of speed to scrub off), and there's also the possibility you won't re-orbit properly and you'll end-up back in space again.

At the other extreme, you can de-orbit aggressively.
The problem there is, quite simply, that you are heading toward the surface REALLY fast and it's quite possible you won't have enough time to aerobrake properly before you splat into the surface.

Pretty much every realistic depiction of re-entry will involve something between those two extremes - from an "extinction event" asteroid strike to a controlled spaceship landing.

And none of that should present a problem for the ships in ED.

All the ships in ED have enough delta-v that they can come to a dead-stop in position above a planet in a couple of seconds and they also have enough delta-v that they can overcome gravity effortlessly.

Even with "proper", KSP-style, orbital mechanics in place, landing an ED ship on a planet's surface should only ever be a case of de-orbiting (which is, apparently, just done by reducing the throttle to zero. You don't even need to do a retro-burn), falling out of the sky and then allowing our almighty thrusters to arrest the descent once you enter the atmosphere.

ED is, basically, like playing KSP with the "infinite fuel" cheat enabled.

That being the case, any difficulty that was created for the sake of gameplay would be rather contrived.
Landing on an atmospheric planet should be exactly the same as what we already have but with coloured skies.

Agreed, it should be pretty easy for most atmospheric planets. The only other issue could be weather conditions, but as 747s can fly through hurricanes and survive, I see no issues with our ships. Just don't fly with assist off on them as I could imagine that could be tough.

 

[Darkfyre99]

As always, I can recommend Kerbal Space Program for those interested in more challenging re-entry behaviousr and spontaneous ignition. Though I rarely see anything catastrophic - but there should be mods for all your fire accelerant needs.

There's a mod called Ferrum's Aerospace Research (FAR) for those who prefer more realistic aerodynamic modeling. There's also a mod that adds fusion torch rockets, for those who are curious to see what powered atmospheric entry would've been like 300 years ago in Elite's history. (IMO, ships in Elite have been using Witchspace technology to enhance thruster performance since the type 2 hyperdrive came into service.)

 

[IndigoWyrd]

I think the "Difficulty" selector is already built in - if you want to suffer and join the "I want to burn up and rebuy regularly" crowd, you turn "Flight Assist" off and attempt atmospheric landing and enjoy operating a 21st century aerospace craft. If you're smart, you turn "Flight Assist" on and use 34th century technology to make this easier on yourself and your bank account.

Yes, there are factors that will need taken into consideration - heat buildup from air resistance, visibility and the potential for things like electric discharges in the air that could play havoc on computer systems (4 pips to shields anyone?). So we'll likely have to rely on instrumentation approaches, watching the big radar for things like tall mountains obscured by clouds, and maybe even need to turn on ship's exterior lighting to help us see. You won't want to nose-dive a landing sight, so we'll likely have to contend with actually thinking out our approaches, but by this point in time, pretty much most of us have at least a few (hundred) atmosphere-less landings under our belts, so we are probably fairly competent in this department and an atmospheric landing really shouldn't be that big a deal for anyone - aside from contending with the above mentioned considerations.

One additional complication that comes to mind to me at least, is dealing with corrosive atmospheres, such as Ammonia worlds or atmospheres with high concentrations of acids, due to pollution or natural causes. These may erode paintjobs at accelerated rates, but may also prove to be equally damaging to ship hulls - shields or no shields, thus limiting total exposure time and potentially damaging internal systems (modules) from prolonged exposure.

Likewise, these sorts of atmospheres would be equally detrimental to SRV's or any manner of environmental suits, which means limited operational times for surface activities.

 

[Justor]

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 think the ships should react to the atmosphere just like they do no with high gravity on a worlds with no atmosphere. I have been down on a planet where it was 3G of gravity, 3X times what it would weigh on earth. A 200 Pound weight would feel like it was 600! So imagine a ship weighing many tons would react? I was doing basic turns, pulling on the ship like I would normally do on a turn, not only did it turn much slower than usual, but I had alarms that engines were overheating because the gravity was pushing them so hard beyond the limit, so I would do my turns slower in order to keep it in the turning / heat limits of the ship.

I would imagine in a Gas giant like Jupiter that has High Gravity and an Atmosphere would take this to the next level. Ships that have a wing like configuration for example, an eagle would have an easier time in the atmosphere than a sidewinder that has no wings. The Eagle would get some lift from the Atmosphere but the Sidewinder would get almost none so the engines would have to do all the compensation to keep the lift.

I think it could add another level of tactics in engagement, for example you are in an imperial courier vs an Anaconda and you are outmatched in space, see a gas giant and head to the atmosphere. The Anaconda follows you in and now the rules engagement have changed. In space you were out matched, but now with High Gravity and no lift from the Anaconda since it is wingless design. Now the Engines are working beyond spec, the ship is overheating, cannot turn to catch the imperial courier since it has the added lift of wings vs an even bigger ship without wings. I think if it is done right I could add some very cool mechanics to the game [up] [big grin]

 

[fus roh potato]

I still think the current planetary approach system is too easy, certainly not dangerous by even the slightest bit.

Imagine your ship doesn't slow down to 150 m/s automatically but instead remains at glide approach speed, and perhaps also exit's glide mode a little further above the ground so that you have time to rotate. In order to come to a stop, you have to point your ship in the appropriate direction and boost, or point it straight up to only stop your altitude change but maintain a high forward speed. It's not very difficult at all, but more realistic, more interesting, more fun, and potentially a lot more convenient for explorers.

I know that currently, if you approach a planet in a big ship when that planet has a really high gravity, you are currently forced to pull this maneuver. Even with extreme Gs, it's not that hard. It is however harder than what we have on a low G planet. The ship just automatically stops for you. It sucks IMO.

There are a lot of ways in which more realism actually bring better gameplay. The two things are not always a dichotomy.

 

[Sandmann]

There are a lot of ways in which more realism actually bring better gameplay. The two things are not always a dichotomy.

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.

 

[Cervantes01]

The combination of high g and dense atmospheric conditions will no doubt be a tricky manoeuvre.
I'd imagine throwing some weather into the mix could make certain planets very challenging.

Yes please, this is what I want for atmospheres too.

 

[fus roh potato]

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.

Yes, this is a huge logical fallacy a lot of people cling to and I have no idea why. I'm glad at least one person can see the obvious.

We take elements of realism and elements of simplicity and combine them to produce the greatest quality of gameplay possible. What we don't do is choose between realism and gameplay.

 

[Xenith]

It's the 34th century, if they can't handle atmospheric re-entry, then they have no business messing around with fusion drives and quasi FTL travel.

 

[etien]

Hard please. Weather should be a thing, winds, thunderbolts, sand storms, enormous clouds with limited visibility, acid rain.. you name it. The nice thing about proc generation is that we should have a full range of cumulative effect, from very thin layer on low G planet with almost no effect to bumpy super dense stormy windy opaque nightmare crippled by thunderbolts and acidic rains.

It would be cool if Landing could be splitted between Star Wars like landing for small ship, to space shuttle entry limited to runways / super flat plains for big ones. Similarly take off far small ship could be Star Wars like whereas, for big ship, a static shuttle launch style ( and or Saturn five ) with expensive powder booster to release should be mandatory. Obviously you would be a sitting duck there.

With atmosphère hot air balloon, gliding and parachuting should make they apparition imho.

 

[Sandmann]

Yes, this is a huge logical fallacy a lot of people cling to and I have no idea why. I'm glad at least one person can see the obvious.

We take elements of realism and elements of simplicity and combine them to produce the greatest quality of gameplay possible. What we don't do is choose between realism and gameplay.

This is why I've basically abandoned ED and have gone back to playing World of Tanks, a game from 2011 that... while simple is challenging and enough realism to satisfy me (at least as realistic as an arena battle with tanks from different eras and an invulnerable crew can be).

 

[cheesenbiscuits]

This is why I've basically abandoned ED and have gone back to playing World of Tanks, a game from 2011 that... while simple is challenging and enough realism to satisfy me (at least as realistic as an arena battle with tanks from different eras and an invulnerable crew can be).

Simulation games are fun but deciding how far down the rabbit whole you go is a judgment call that the Dev team make pretty early on in the process.
Imo I think ED hits the sweet spot for the most part.
I've never flown a space ship,although I have driven a car and know from experience that some driving simulators are more difficult than the real life version.
So in reality can we say with confidence how accurate a space ship of the future would handle,surely the evolution of the technology would allow the engineers to make them handle and feel completely differently to reality due to the fly by wire nature of technology.

 

[Sandmann]

Imo I think ED hits the sweet spot for the most part.

This is the critical statement. The appropriate degree of realism vs accessability in any game is ALWAYS going to be a personal experience. It's the three bears & Goldilocks problem... some people find ED too hard, some will find it too easy, and for some it's juuuuuuuust right. I guess I'm in the Papa bear position where it's too easy, and you're in the Goldilocks zone. You can see the same issue in this thread... some are saying it should be a hand wave, some want uber realism, and some want it about the same level as the rest of the game currently is. The trick is always going to be in putting that Goldilocks zone where it will capture the most players.