^this.There is no special requirement for the ships in ED to fly within an atmosphere. Thrust is all that is needed, our ships have plenty of that. An engine-out situation is obviously different. All this talk of lifting bodies, aerodynamic designs etc.... None of that is needed, our ships don't even burn fuel based on thrust output, could happily hover in the atmosphere for days with non-essential modules shut down..
Aerodynamic lift is not a requirement.
Let's face it, no amount of physical wings is going to turn something like a T7 or an FGS into a glider.
In a fantasy world like ED universe where our spaceships can hover above a 9G planet for hours burning only few kgs of hydrogen we don't need aerodynamic to fly.
Shields are enough to avoid damage during atmospheric entry and thrusters are enough to fly in the atmosphere without noticing any difference between an airless planet.
So from the gameplay point of view there's no need to modify the current ships design. It just requires new artistical fx and some new vibration and bumping fx when flying thourgh clouds.
The biggest work imho is to provide accurate lighting (with multiple stars), new assets, new procedural generation for the planets themselves and new meaningful gameplay. And this list is already huge from a development point of view....
Nearly the whole bottom of the beluga is covered with those itty bitty thrusterActually that wouldn't necessarily need to be true.
If FDev wanted to, they could easily decide that our engines are optimised for use in a vacuum and they only operate at up to, say, 10% efficiency in an atmosphere, thus creating a place for aerodynamics in the game.
Biggest issue, though, is FDev's hand-holding.
As a KSP player, I was used to the feeling of crushing defeat that came with landing on a planet and then finding my ship didn't have the thrust required to escape the planet again.
Coming to ED, it was kind of weird to think that I could bung teensy little thrusters on, say, a Beluga, land on a 9g planet (without cratering) and then successfully regain orbit again.
Point is, it's doubtful FDev are ever going to implement anything that properly paints a player into a corner, leaving the to plummet to their doom or be unable to leave a planet after landing.
At best, all we're probably ever going to get is that some ships might be a bit better than others in atmo' flight as a result of aerodynamics.
And, honestly, I'd be fine with that.
Speaking as a fan of KSP, I'd love the opportunity to properly optimise a ship for atmospheric flight.
Trouble is, we've already got ship-kits that are purely cosmetic.
If we then add on proper aerodynamic surfaces, ships are going to end up looking a right mess.
From a lore perspective, it's plausible that ships fitted with shields wouldn't actually need physical aerodynamic surfaces.
Far more likely they'd simply reconfigure their shields into a shape that'd provide aerodynamic lift.
People moan that this won't work since shields deflect energy but they also deflect bullets and if they can deflect matter in the form of bullets they should be perfectly capable of deflecting matter in the form of atmospheric molecules in order to provide lift.
Let's face it, no amount of physical wings is going to turn something like a T7 or an FGS into a glider.
There's going to need to be some kind of handwavium applied to make it plausible.
I dont like the idea of spending 128 million credits on my belugas fuelYou don't need wings to land on a planet with atmosphere a big enough donk (australian for engine) and enough fuel you can overcome gravity enough to stop pancaking into the surface. atmospheric resistance will help slow you down at the cost of heat. FDEV could implement landing and taking off from atmos-planets now! you would have to work out whether the cost in fuel load, and if you had enough to then get back into orbit was worth the trip down....hmm extra 15000cr for my load on the planet with an atmosphere vs running out of fuel and burning up or not achieving orbit. then paying through the nose for reactor fuel, to get back into space. Misshandle the reentry and overshoot the landing pads by 30km. burn half you fuel to get there. Landing Pad Manager-"oh sorry mate reactor fuel is very spensive down here...they make it in space doncha know, i can sell you some million CR a tonne"
Bring it in I like the idea of me burning up on reentry because I vagued out for a second.![]()
A fully laden FGS only has density of ~38kg/m^3 and a T7 is around half that. They would probably glide (or tumble, especially if thrown with a clean spiral) just fine, on a world with ~1g and ~1atm.
People will learn to do the maths / look at the specs a little metric like the changing jump range based on cargo load would be enoughActually that wouldn't necessarily need to be true.
If FDev wanted to, they could easily decide that our engines are optimised for use in a vacuum and they only operate at up to, say, 10% efficiency in an atmosphere, thus ---
Point is, it's doubtful FDev are ever going to implement anything that properly paints a player into a corner, leaving the to plummet to their doom or be unable to leave a planet after landing.
At best, all we're probably ever going to get is that some ships might be a bit better than others in atmo' flight as a result of aerodynamics.
And, honestly, I'd be fine with that.
Not just the weight the sheer size of the ships is a big factor for wind resitance especially getting off-world pushing an 800t sphere through atmosphere is a lot easier than pushing a 800t shoebox through the same atmosphereUmmm, I haven't done the sums but a T7 can weigh more than 800t.
An An-225 has a maximum weight of around 650t.
I know ship sizes in ED are deceptive but are we saying that a T7 has significantly larger wings than an An-225?
Might even be possible to create a bit of new gameplay by causing people to choose ships on the basis of how well they do in atmo' flight vs space flight, depending on where a CMDR plans on spending their time.
Ummm, I haven't done the sums but a T7 can weigh more than 800t.
I know ship sizes in ED are deceptive but are we saying that a T7 has significantly larger wings than an An-225?
Not just the weight the sheer size of the ships is a big factor for wind resitance especially getting off-world pushing an 800t sphere through atmosphere is a lot easier than pushing a 800t shoebox through the same atmosphere
Larger ships will be able to handle turbulence/buffeting much better.
I think the opposite would be the case.
For a given surface area, smaller ships are heavier and have much more thrust.
It has significantly more surface area and much lower density. Actual wing area is less, but not by as much as one might think.