Horizons High Gravity planet problems

afreeflyingsoul

afreeflyingsoul
I am encountering consistent problems with maneuvering my ship on high gravity planets. Now, if all you're going to say to this post is "git gud" then here's a preemptive "shut up and get out" because I am good. I am pointing out a problem with the flight model and outfitting options.

Now, before you start saying "but physics is used" here's another preemptive: You don't know physics. This argument is not pertinent to my point but click the spoiler to read.

I will provide one example (despite there being a few) that proves the devs choose to ignore physics for the sake of game play. Go to any planet that you can land on, go down, drop out of orbital cruise and point your spaceships nose at the planet and the watch it wiggle all around. Seriously? There's no atmosphere! it happens even if you're velocity is 0 relative to the planet surface! Why? Really, please, explain the physics.

This is an example of tweaking the flight model to make ground assault "more challenging"? (But it's stupid because dumbfire rockets have inexplicable field effect in a vacuum. Oops, sorry, I told you I would only give one example of the devs choosing to ignore physics).
So to the point of the flight model: Given that space travel/exploration has been going for hundreds of years, there would be mechanisms and thruster packages in place for dealing with high-gravity planets, especially in a vessel such as the Asp Explorer. The fact that anything other than straight line maneuvering requires a minimum of 35° angle of attack (aoa) is problematic. I have A class everything related to power and thrusters (which is bothersome in and of itself as an explorer, my jump range is a meager 30.02 ly, simply because A class power, thrusters, and shields and boosters are needed to safely explore a planet surface.) As I stated above, the devs don't have a problem with tweaking the flight model "just 'cause" so I'd like to see them make the A class thrusters more effective on high-gravity planets.

Outfitting: Hull repair. Now for those who say "you're taking all the risk out of exploration" please, no need to post here, that argument is a non-sequitur. Being able to repair ones hull does not decrease the risk, it increases survivability. And it's something that makes sense. I think that this could be done a number of ways, via non-consumable limpet-like drone module and materials driven makes the most sense to me, though with all the different modules we're being given, we'll need to start staking some modules (Advance discovery scanner and a detailed surface scanner is a super obvious one, another would be putting the non-consumable repair drone in one of the SRV bays).

Anyhow. I hope some of these ideas make it to the devs, it'd really increase the enjoyment of the game for at least one CMDR.




TL;DR: Hi-grav flight model needs some love, ship hull repair needs to be an option.
 

Loskene

L
Regarding your spoilered text.
The wobble when you point your nose at the ground is the ship's bow thrusters being unable to support the entire mass of the vessel alone, causing it to rock side to side as the flight assist tries to use the lateral and vertical thrusters to hold the hover.
Explosions do have a shockwave (what I presume you mean by field effect) in a vacuum, it's just composed entirely of the rapidly expanding hot gas and shrapnel of the missile rather than a pressure wave moving through a fluid. So you get less bang for your buck, but they do still work. Hence why you can buy them for your spaceships in the first place.

Regarding the rest, exploring has changed with planetary landings and stripping the hull for maximum jump range is no longer viable if you plan on landing anywhere. This was expected and to be dealt with. I agree with you about module sprawl though, D-scanners need to go on the outside of the ship so we can make better use of that rapidly depleting space inside the ship. Hull repair via materials... sure, why not.
 

shadmar

shadmar
In D-rated thrusters, shields:

[video=youtube;usm21vm0zkk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usm21vm0zkk[/video]
[video=youtube;JFFsZlC3Dro]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFFsZlC3Dro[/video]
 

afreeflyingsoul

afreeflyingsoul
Loskene said:
Regarding your spoilered text.
The wobble when you point your nose at the ground is the ship's bow thrusters being unable to support the entire mass of the vessel alone, causing it to rock side to side as the flight assist tries to use the lateral and vertical thrusters to hold the hover.
Explosions do have a shockwave (what I presume you mean by field effect) in a vacuum, it's just composed entirely of the rapidly expanding hot gas and shrapnel of the missile rather than a pressure wave moving through a fluid. So you get less bang for your buck, but they do still work. Hence why you can buy them for your spaceships in the first place.

Regarding the rest, exploring has changed with planetary landings and stripping the hull for maximum jump range is no longer viable if you plan on landing anywhere. This was expected and to be dealt with. I agree with you about module sprawl though, D-scanners need to go on the outside of the ship so we can make better use of that rapidly depleting space inside the ship. Hull repair via materials... sure, why not.
Click to expand...


First, thank you for the thoughtful response.

Thrusters: Still doesn't explain the wobble. If the thrusters are too weak, you'd just sink, not wobble.

Shockwave: Yes, there is a shockwave, however it is propagated by whatever gas/material existed in the warhead. Energy transfer in a rarified medium is very inefficient (check this site out to get an idea of how density affects the energy transfer). The extraordinary damage associated with explosives is a result of the dense atmosphere we live in, without an atmosphere, explosives are exceedingly ineffective in space. They are effective if the detonate in a medium that can transmit the energy (like the hull of a ship, or the atmosphere within the ship, but a proximity detonation would not cause much (if any) damage unless there's shrapnel in the warhead.

LameoveR said:
Git gud. L2P issue.
Watch dis video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_o216dG1Yc
Click to expand...

Watch out, we got a slow one here.


shadmar said:
In D-rated thrusters, shields:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usm21vm0zkk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFFsZlC3Dro
Click to expand...

Yeah.... someone forgot to read my original post.
 
Last edited:

Loskene

L
afreeflyingsoul said:
Still doesn't explain the wobble. If the thrusters are too weak, you'd just sink, not wobble.
Click to expand...

The wobble is from the flight assist trying to correct your pitch/roll angle and stop your ship falling. The ventral thrusters have been boosted to be able to support the ship by themselves, but the others haven't, so your ship will tip itself over to try get more thrusters pointing downward to stop you descending uncontrolled. Get a big ship where you can see thrusters firing from the cockpit and you'll see what I mean.
 

afreeflyingsoul

afreeflyingsoul
Loskene said:
The wobble is from the flight assist trying to correct your pitch/roll angle and stop your ship falling. The ventral thrusters have been boosted to be able to support the ship by themselves, but the others haven't, so your ship will tip itself over to try get more thrusters pointing downward to stop you descending uncontrolled. Get a big ship where you can see thrusters firing from the cockpit and you'll see what I mean.
Click to expand...

Then this effect should scale with gravity. It doesn't. Also, the wobble occurs even if my ship doesn't fall towards the planet.

Furthermore, wobble implies there's a variable force being applied (such as turbulent buffeting of an atmosphere) to the ship that requires constant correction (i.e. wobble) but this is not the case. We're dealing with gravity, about the most constant force currently known to science.

I appreciate the sentiment behind putting the wobble in the game, but it grates on me, it's not necessary and I don't really understand why they put it in. Except it makes ground assault minimally more difficult (but not really, see above).

Also, I expanded my response to your first post.
 

Splosives

Splosives
afreeflyingsoul said:
Then this effect should scale with gravity. It doesn't. Also, the wobble occurs even if my ship doesn't fall towards the planet.

Furthermore, wobble implies there's a variable force being applied (such as turbulent buffeting of an atmosphere) to the ship that requires constant correction (i.e. wobble) but this is not the case. We're dealing with gravity, about the most constant force currently known to science.

I appreciate the sentiment behind putting the wobble in the game, but it grates on me, it's not necessary and I don't really understand why they put it in. Except it makes ground assault minimally more difficult (but not really, see above).

Also, I expanded my response to your first post.
Click to expand...

When the ship is pointing downwards, it is using its frontal thrusters to counter gravity/hover, and therefore isn't in freefall.
You can compare this with trying to balance a pencil on it's sharp point. You will need constant adjustment to keep it straight, and that is what I think the wobble is all about.

(If you want to see this in a real physics game, try to hover above the surface of a planet in Kerbal space program, and you will see that you will constantly have to adjust the yaw/pitch of your spacecraft to stay on the same spot.)
 
Last edited:

Arry

Arry
Loskene said:
The wobble is from the flight assist trying to correct your pitch/roll angle and stop your ship falling. The ventral thrusters have been boosted to be able to support the ship by themselves, but the others haven't, so your ship will tip itself over to try get more thrusters pointing downward to stop you descending uncontrolled. Get a big ship where you can see thrusters firing from the cockpit and you'll see what I mean.
Click to expand...
This ^ ^ this can be seen in level flight. Push the nose up or down just a bit and then watch it go back to level flight. What do you think our gold-fish level AI and therefore flight assist will do, if you point the nose at the ground. It has a fit, basically. Flying faster helps.
 

CTCParadox

CTCParadox
Was there ever an explanation why our ventral thrusters are so strong when landing on a planet?
It seems like some of the big ships shouldn't have the TWR to land on the big worlds at all.

CMDR CTCParadox
 

Mephane

Mephane
CTCParadox said:
Was there ever an explanation why our ventral thrusters are so strong when landing on a planet?
It seems like some of the big ships shouldn't have the TWR to land on the big worlds at all.

CMDR CTCParadox
Click to expand...

The shipyard engineers have designed them so strong in order to enable planetary landings in the first place. :)
 

CTCParadox

CTCParadox
Mephane said:
The shipyard engineers have designed them so strong in order to enable planetary landings in the first place. :)
Click to expand...

It's weird that we only get 1-3 g lateral in space yet everything (with luck and skill) can land on even 6+g worlds.
I guess FDev didn't want to tell people "NO your iCutter cannot land on that world with bonecrushing gravity".

It would be nice if only small ships could land on big planets, would give some more differentiation between ships.

CMDR CTCParadox
 

Kneejo

Kneejo
I explored with my mostly D rated asp and landed several times. I think more practice is required. Having a bright mind is one thing, developing muscle memory in your hands is another. ;)
I know, with a bright imagination , you can perfectly execute something you have never done before in your mind. You might even pull it off in practice, and impress people, but real skill
comes from practicing your muscles, so the flying becomes second nature, and you can focus that bright mind on other things. A highly intelligent person with an OCD for perfection can give a lot
of critisizm on my flying, as it doesn't look intelligent.. but what they don't realize is that I don't think about the flying.. it's all in the hands after thousands of hours.. it's not elegant, it's effective, and I know what my ship will do when I touch any button.
So I can land a D-rated Asp on a high G planet. But I do take a light shield, because the game isn't perfectly like the nature around you. But then, do we really understand that? Or do we think we do?

This layout got me back from a 65k LY trip with only 75% hull damage, mostly from 3 failed encounters with neutron stars. http://coriolis.io/outfit/asp/02A4D...3v62i2f.AwRj4jmkfI==.EwBhEYy6cs6A?bn=Asplorer
 

Lupin

Lupin
Have seen many threads with problems for High G landing.
Ship/Thurster design seems to be the source of a few problems. If you roll on a high gravity world you are going to drop like a stone. Seems main thursters are under ship not on sides.

I personally have had no problem taking off or landing like an aeroplane, long approach and reducing height using pitch (Which we can now see on HUD). But keep in mind above as to much pitch and your main thursters useless.

I did have to smile when I see recalled ship doing things that would get me killed :)
 

Luniticisi

Luniticisi
CTCParadox said:
It's weird that we only get 1-3 g lateral in space yet everything (with luck and skill) can land on even 6+g worlds.
I guess FDev didn't want to tell people "NO your iCutter cannot land on that world with bonecrushing gravity".

It would be nice if only small ships could land on big planets, would give some more differentiation between ships.

CMDR CTCParadox
Click to expand...

My view on the lateral thrusters change is a simple one that I am sure will explain the power difference in space as opposed to planetary surfaces...

You fitted a Planetary landing suite (I think that's what it's called, the last thing on your internals list) it wasn't built for re-entry as, so far no planets have atmospheres.. and even when we can land on atmospheric planets .. our ships can scoop fuel directly from stars .. a 'little' heat from re-entry might warm up your coffee in these ships.

So ... what did it add .. Well what about stronger thrusters for planetary landings . :D
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom