Horizons Exploring without a shield: the problem is not the targhoid (yet), it's landing, bug or design ?

[Gedemon]

I have always explored without a shield, but since the release of Horizon there is a bug that make it almost mandatory: at every landing, even very slowly, even under very low G, you always take a bit of hull damage if you don't have a shield.

There have been some bugs report since, and during 2.1 it was solved ("Be a little bit more forgiving for surface landings that don't meet a decent standard") but it was reintroduced immediately after in 2.1.02.

So I've made another bug report, but I'm unsure if the reintroduction is by design (ie shield are mandatory for every landing) or a mistake.

If it's by design, then the smallest exploration ship (DBX) really lack enough internal to explore (fuel scoop, shield, scanners, SRV, AFMU with the new dangerous stars) and maybe there could be an alternative: add a "landing gear" module in the right panel that absorb the damage that would have been dealt to the hull (until it's at 0% health) and can be repaired with the AFMU, or allow reparation of the hull using the AFMU (with limitations to prevent abuse in combat, like the necessity of being landed to repair or requiring a reboot)

Your thoughts ? Or maybe I'm doing it wrong, does anyone manage to land "decently" every time without shield ?

Here are some videos from various version of the game to illustrate the problem:

Spoiler

old video with a DBX in Horizon beta:
[video=youtube_share;gqWWt3MhNCY]https://youtu.be/gqWWt3MhNCY[/video]

old video from 2.1.02
[video=youtube;AVWqpCgAbuU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVWqpCgAbuU[/video]

new video in 2.2 beta 3 with an Anaconda (needed to return to main menu to register the damage)
[video=youtube_share;R_3yG2eS2pE]https://youtu.be/R_3yG2eS2pE[/video]

 

[Iskariot]

Was the other thread not just closed?

But I do agree that this looks very much like a bug.
I cannot imagine that FD intends this to be a feature.
If you land carefully you should definitely not sustain any damage.

I never fly without shields myself.
I do downgrade shields on my traders, but I will not ever consider flying a vulnerable spaceship without shields.

 

[Gedemon]

Was the other thread not just closed?

Yes, I asked Ian if I could open another one detailing the reason of the bump: as it was fixed since the opening of the old thread then reintroduced in 2.1.02, it may be by design after all, and if it's the case I'd like to discuss alternative.

 

[verminstar]

I've made a number of landings on no shield perfectly safely with zero damage taken, although I suppose ye only have my word fer that. As it is, I fit a 3A shield on my exploration aspx which really isn't enough to survive long against weapons fire, but it's enough to take the sting out of hard landings. I've seen the shield take hits when recalling the ship from the SRV and on some the landings, ye will see the shield take a hit, though usually not too heavy. I'm guessing the ratio would be 50/50 although the shield will get activated all the time if a planet has more than 1G ^^

 

[Vandaahl]

Yes, I have the same experience and always take a D shield with me because of this. On pretty rough terrain where the situation can easily change between 'able to land' and 'not able to land', after 3 failed attempts to land it can even take your shield down. The damage from landing seems way to high.

 

[Iskariot]

Yes, I asked Ian if I could open another one detailing the reason of the bump: as it was fixed since the opening of the old thread then reintroduced in 2.1.02, it may be by design after all, and if it's the case I'd like to discuss alternative.

If it is by design, then we should indeed discuss this and try to persuade FD to change it.
I feel it is unrealistic. In real life airplanes don't have shields and can land just fine without taking damage all the time.

But as I said I cannot imagine this to be by design. I cannot think of any good reason.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

Yes, I have the same experience and always take a D shield with me because of this. On pretty rough terrain where the situation can easily change between 'able to land' and 'not able to land', after 3 failed attempts to land it can even take your shield down. The damage from landing seems way to high.

Take your shield down?

If you land normally?

 

[Macros Black]

Shieldless landing looks ok to me on a 0.35g planet (Lucifer)

Spoiler

[video=youtube_share;9MOuzb20W1w]https://youtu.be/9MOuzb20W1w[/video]

Spoiler

[video=youtube_share;lK6Ycgw0DQU]https://youtu.be/lK6Ycgw0DQU[/video]

 

[DragoonKnight]

I have always explored without a shield, but since the release of Horizon there is a bug that make it almost mandatory: at every landing, even very slowly, even under very low G, you always take a bit of hull damage if you don't have a shield.

There have been some bugs report since, and during 2.1 it was solved ("Be a little bit more forgiving for surface landings that don't meet a decent standard") but it was reintroduced immediately after in 2.1.02.

So I've made another bug report, but I'm unsure if the reintroduction is by design (ie shield are mandatory for every landing) or a mistake.

If it's by design, then the smallest exploration ship (DBX) really lack enough internal to explore (fuel scoop, shield, scanners, SRV, AFMU with the new dangerous stars) and maybe there could be an alternative: add a "landing gear" module in the right panel that absorb the damage that would have been dealt to the hull (until it's at 0% health) and can be repaired with the AFMU, or allow reparation of the hull using the AFMU (with limitations to prevent abuse in combat, like the necessity of being landed to repair or requiring a reboot)

Your thoughts ? Or maybe I'm doing it wrong, does anyone manage to land "decently" every time without shield ?

Here are some videos from various version of the game to illustrate the problem:

Spoiler

old video with a DBX in Horizon beta:
https://youtu.be/gqWWt3MhNCY

old video from 2.1.02
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVWqpCgAbuU

new video in 2.2 beta 3 with an Anaconda (needed to return to main menu to register the damage)
https://youtu.be/R_3yG2eS2pE

The only thing you are doing wrong is thinking that you need an AFMU to explore. You do not need an AFMU as many people here will tell you. Myself and many others went thousands of light years without destroying ourselves without relying on AFMU. If you are going for the cheapest exploration ship then of course you will have to make some sacrifices. Just like buying the cheapest car, cheapest phone, cheapest computer, etc.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

If it is by design, then we should indeed discuss this and try to persuade FD to change it.
I feel it is unrealistic. In real life airplanes don't have shields and can land just fine without taking damage all the time.

But as I said I cannot imagine this to be by design. I cannot think of any good reason.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -




Take your shield down?

If you land normally?

I would not explore without shields. Sure maybe you can get a good landing on that 0.5g world, but what happens when you are on a 5g world? Take some shields and land with 4 pips to SYS and 2 pips to ENG

 

[Mercury7]

With planetary landings, I found it doesn't matter how careful you are - if you have no shields, the wrong move can mean hull damage.

I've also sustained hull damage about 3/4 the time when landing in ports without shields. If you have any forward velocity when translating vertically for touchdown, it's game over for hull integrity. I did eventually find that stopping the ships forward motion then carefully landing vertically MIGHT prevent damage, but it is unknown until you do it.

I definitely think damage is far too easily taken during landing. Sure, if you slam in at 50 m/s then cause some damage, but not at 2 m/s.

 

[thorn-]

I have always explored without a shield, but since the release of Horizon there is a bug that make it almost mandatory: at every landing, even very slowly, even under very low G, you always take a bit of hull damage if you don't have a shield.

Yeah. That's why your ship came with a shield.

 

[colprice2002]

I used to explore without shields, after all, in deep space far away from the NPCs there was no need for them
I even used to trade without shields without too many problems.

The first planetary landings version was great, you could land on a planet, deploy the SRV, dismiss the ship. On recall, the ship would land without damage.

However, the later release versions all have heavy landings under the AI (planetary, surface installations, outposts and spaceports). Manual landings are no problem, assuming the pilot is experienced, but any AI landing will show a blue flash on the shield display.
I've even had the "terrain alert" on an autodock planetary outpost landing...

The 2.2 beta 3 stop has problems, but I noticed yesterday that it's better at landing the Clipper and Orca - no bumps!

 

[Gedemon]

Shieldless landing looks ok to me on a 0.35g planet (Lucifer)

Spoiler

https://youtu.be/9MOuzb20W1w

Spoiler

https://youtu.be/lK6Ycgw0DQU

Thank you for the example.

It's consistent on the conda, land noose first and no damage ?

The only thing you are doing wrong is thinking that you need an AFMU to explore. You do not need an AFMU as many people here will tell you. Myself and many others went thousands of light years without destroying ourselves without relying on AFMU. If you are going for the cheapest exploration ship then of course you will have to make some sacrifices. Just like buying the cheapest car, cheapest phone, cheapest computer, etc.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -



I would not explore without shields. Sure maybe you can get a good landing on that 0.5g world, but what happens when you are on a 5g world? Take some shields and land with 4 pips to SYS and 2 pips to ENG

The AFMU was a security (I've had a case of fissured canopy on my first emergency exit on a black hole, what if I had another problem on arrival and lost the canopy at 30000LY from the bubble?)

And now you may exit too close of one of the poles of a Neutron or White Dwarf, you'll be happy to have a AFMU then.

Yeah. That's why your ship came with a shield.

If it's by design, I agree that it should be placed in the core modules menu, not the optional ones.

 

[Split]

In real life airplanes don't have shields and can land just fine without taking damage all the time.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

IRL aircraft operate at 1G, and they need carefully-prepared terrain with loads of facilities. They don't just land on any old piece of unattended canyon bed.

 

[Ian Phillips]

Was the other thread not just closed?

Yes it was. There were no responses and this way of creating a new thread complete with the history and some examples seemed like the best way of re-sparking a discussion about it.

"I love it when a plan comes together."

 

[Ca$hback]

I do think the landing gear is supposed to be more robust and shock-absorbent to be doing its job. I think it should be 3m/s on a 1G world and no damage. It should also just be the landing gear that takes damage and not the hull unless you clip your hull or land hard enough (in which case you could cripple your landing gear). I think the damage is fine as long as they have a threshold before it's applied.
I enjoy exploring without shields too but I wish the landing gear was a little tougher to accomodate.
On the other hand you should be a lot more vulnerable to a star without a shield than you are. I know our ships are well insulated but c'mon. Fuel scooping without a shield should be impossible without already being at 125% heat and growing. Between the emergency drop and exclusion zone your heat should climb indefinitely until you escape or pop. Your heat should increase proportionately based on your distance to the star.
Supercruise should do gradual cumulative damage to the hull. Hyperspace should do a couple % every time.
When you come out of hyperspace your heat starts at 100% and you quickly steer away from the star to bring it back down. I'd still go shieldless and enjoy the challenge more. There's always FMLs and the SRV to refill those. Fuel scooping would be more exciting and you'll fight more for every drop of fuel and inch of space. Imagine trying to ride the neutron super-highway like that.
Or use a shield and have less room for other stuff and fewer epic stories.
I'm still surprised (and glad) it isn't a core module though.

 

[Iskariot]

I would not explore without shields. Sure maybe you can get a good landing on that 0.5g world, but what happens when you are on a 5g world? Take some shields and land with 4 pips to SYS and 2 pips to ENG

I wouldn't either.

But I also think that a ship without shields should not sustain damage when it lands carefully on a planetary surface.
In today's world helicopters and planes can land perfectly fine on a 1g planet without damaging themselves.