High gravity needs powerful engines

space voyager

space voyager
Or so you would have thought. :D We know that you can land on any (landable) planet with any engines and this is definitely wrong. I'm quite sure this decision was made to allow egg-shell long range exploration ships, with engines usually barely capable to accelerate the ship in 0g, to land anywhere.

I would love to see this change. Higher gravity should demand more powerful engines. Odyssey seems like an event that could bring a big change like that and make space a bit more dangerous. Naturally, the info on what g your vertical and your main thrusters can counteract (without boosting) should be available in the right-hand menu. Come too close to the high g world and... well, see your ship fall to the surface. If you somehow managed to survive due to boosting upwards and decelerating enough not to be destroyed... Call Tow Rats? Or self-destruct.

Really, space is far too benign in Elite.
 

SCiARA

SCiARA
varonica said:
Yep, I want to see beginners blow themselves up on high G worlds, oh wait they already do that, what's not to love win/win!

I should point out that I already have the most powerful engines I can fit in my ships, so....I'm ready!
Click to expand...


aarr but would they still be powerful enough?
i wanna be able to wedge the vette's engine in my AspX
 

Craith

Volunteer Moderator
Craith
I fully support this.

A Type-9 full of gold might not be able to get off the planetary port where he bought it, so he might either change to lighter cargo (yeah, I know, all cargo weighs the same atm), or less cargo.
There should be a warning telling you your thrusters are not able to lift your current mass in gravity conditions of the targeted body. Maybe differentiate between maneuvering thrusters and main thrusters, so you might be able to take of by using the main thrusters. Makes br(e)aking interesting.
 

Sylow

Sylow
Hmm. That's another "this boat has sailed" topic in my eyes. People often crash and sometimes successfully land on 9g planets already. Odyssey won't bring us places with higher graviation.

Between realism and gameplay FD decided for the later. Points can be made for either side, but i can't fault FD for their decission here.
 

alexzk

A
It has many questions already:
1. quit sc, it seems at that point you don't have "normal space" speed, i.e. you can just quit 50m above ground and be ok.
2. gliding - on no atmosphere?
3. normal space engines ... well, need to check what fuel that rocket burns. Because it flies as slow as air plane, but that is not enough to do orbits.

P.S. tourists ground beacons are the same as space ones. So you can just exit SC 3km above surface and do full stop. So gliding was added just for some fake immersion.
 
Last edited:

Craith

Volunteer Moderator
Craith
SCiARA said:
which is interesting isn't it, 756t of gold would need far less space than 756t of grain
Click to expand...
Yes, but that's another topic. It would change a few things in trading, though. The current system is simpler, and they changed over to using "units" as the unit of cargo.
alexzk said:
It has many questions already:
1. quit sc, it seems at that point you don't have "normal space" speed, i.e. you can just quit 50m above ground and be ok.
2. gliding - on no atmosphere?
3. normal space engines ... well, need to check what fuel that rocket burns. Because it flies as slow as air plane, but that is not enough to do orbits.
Click to expand...
1. the frameshift drive is inhibited by big mass and would break down before getting within 50m of the ground. (note: you can get closer when you are getting interdicted, I ended up 10m above ground at one point. The other ship got 10m further.)
2. gliding the wave of your frameshift bubble that is breaking down in a controlled fashion.
3. if you can permanently provide 9g of lift you don't need orbit. Not sure on this, because I think you are orbiting the reference body when you are above orbital cruise distance from a planet (when the HUD appears)
 

Craith

Volunteer Moderator
Craith
alexzk said:
tourist ground beacon. You easy do exit from 1000km distance close to 3km above ground, without gliding.
Click to expand...
This shows how many passenger missions I've done apart from the rescue ones ... :D

Beacons work like space stations, where you "teleport" the distance from where you pushed the button to just outside the masslock area
 

alexzk

A
Craith said:
This shows how many passenger missions I've done apart from the rescue ones ... :D

Beacons work like space stations, where you "teleport" the distance from where you pushed the button to just outside the masslock area
Click to expand...
That what i say, 2 different landing types. Beacon shows you can exit SC just above ground. No need of those slow flying on rocket boosters.
Btw, having billions in assets, I don't feel like I'm cheap cab :D So yeh, don't do missions at all, except to farm ranks.
 

Craith

Volunteer Moderator
Craith
I'd prefer the other way around, if the glide mode would be implemented also for space stations.
I'd also like it if you dropped 20k out instead of the 10, so shady people could do shady stuff there (But system security should mean more then).
 

alexzk

A
...and proper gravitation would be cool too. For example now SC can be engaged at 2Km height anywhere. Why ? If it is mass locked, then you should use rockets until gravitation goes below lock.
Same for sizes. I doubt Anaconda could ever land on 1G with air-plane engines. If it uses something more effective, okey, but why then in space speed is restricted to 300/400 which is good air-plain speed. And why restriction exists at all in space. You should be limited only by C speed.
Many questions :)
 

Craith

Volunteer Moderator
Craith
I agree apart from the max speed in space - that is purely for gameplay reasons, same as 3km visible lasers.

ships taking computer guided shots at 0.9c while passing each other may be (more) realistic, but a completely different game. I prefer the current style, where you see other ships in combat.
 

Ian Doncaster

Ian Doncaster
SCiARA said:
which is interesting isn't it, 756t of gold would need far less space than 756t of grain
Click to expand...
I assume this is for handling convenience.

1t of grain: a full cargo canister of grain
1t of gold: a mostly empty cargo canister that's got most of a tonne of gold and a few bits of packaging to stop it rattling about in flight.
1t of Lavian Brandy: 1 bottle of Lavian brandy and 999kg of bubble-wrap to keep it safe.
 

alexzk

A
Craith said:
I agree apart from the max speed in space - that is purely for gameplay reasons, same as 3km visible lasers.

ships taking computer guided shots at 0.9c while passing each other may be (more) realistic, but a completely different game. I prefer the current style, where you see other ships in combat.
Click to expand...
It is different, yes. There is game "chidlren of dead Earth", uses proper phys. Fights are complete different from Elite. But...proper.
 

varonica

varonica
alexzk said:
...and proper gravitation would be cool too. For example now SC can be engaged at 2Km height anywhere. Why ? If it is mass locked, then you should use rockets until gravitation goes below lock.
Same for sizes. I doubt Anaconda could ever land on 1G with air-plane engines. If it uses something more effective, okey, but why then in space speed is restricted to 300/400 which is good air-plain speed. And why restriction exists at all in space. You should be limited only by C speed.
Many questions :)
Click to expand...

Because if they did that, on high G worlds you would need to fly several hours to get to a low enough gravity to enter SC, that's if we base the height above ground to enter SC from the lowest gravity planet/moon and just extrapolate from that. Sometimes they have to mess with things to actually make it possible to play the game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom