If we were to get atmospheric landings.....

[Leadfoot]

Right now, when taking off from a planet or moon, you have to exceed 2km before the mass-lock light goes out. Once that’s gone the FSD can be used to go into SC or jump to another star (if you’re in line-of-sight with it).

Atmosphere would change that (I would think). I know this’ll be guesswork, but what do people think of taking off from any king of atmospheric world: should we still be able to activate the FSD at 2km+ altitude, or should the disruption of the air require us to actually get out of the atmosphere before the mass-lock light goes out?

Remember: this is a “what if” topic. Thoughts?

 

[askavir]

I have a feeling few would want to fly in normal space up to 100km altitude or more, just to finally be able to engage the FSD...

I think things will stay as they are in this particular regard.

 

[Ca$hback]

I'm guessing there will be an atmospheric cruise, since orbital cruise moves at 9000km/h and stuff generally gets pretty hot even at mach 1. I dont think a higher altitude is necessary, just a slower glide. Not that I'm against being a fireball and I think the option would be pretty cool but you'll probably just get a "too fast for atmospheric cruise" message and an emergency FSD cooldown. 1km/s I could see as an atmospheric velocity that will display some interesting effects and game mechanics without being vicious with the heat management.

 

[Linnunrata]

stuff generally gets pretty hot even at mach 1.

It's tricky though, considering the massive differences in atmospheric density, assuming one could even do Venerian planets.

 

[Wrecked]

If we were to get atmospheric landings and space legs... I'd buy ARX.

 

[NorthernDevo]

Right now, when taking off from a planet or moon, you have to exceed 2km before the mass-lock light goes out. Once that’s gone the FSD can be used to go into SC or jump to another star (if you’re in line-of-sight with it).

Atmosphere would change that (I would think). I know this’ll be guesswork, but what do people think of taking off from any king of atmospheric world: should we still be able to activate the FSD at 2km+ altitude, or should the disruption of the air require us to actually get out of the atmosphere before the mass-lock light goes out?

Remember: this is a “what if” topic. Thoughts?

2Km. is ~6500ft ASL@29.92in/Hg. That's horribly low for an Earth-typical atmosphere - that was my normal cruise altitude in a 206. Entering FTL drive from that altitude could be devastating, in terms of suddenly accelerating to interplanetary speeds.
Were I designing the game, I wouldn't allow SC before reaching the planet's troposphere (on Earth, around 10 times the current number - about 65,000ft).

That said, this is a GAME, not a sim, and I'm unsure how the coding for that would work - how complicated the FDevs would want to get. WANTING atmospheric flight (and ohhhh, I do, so much!) is one thing, but MAKING it - designing for flight through an almost infinite variety of atmospheric densities, activities, types, and gravities is (I imagine) Excedrin Headache #9 even just contemplating it.
Personally, I'd make SC or Witchspace transition available at normal level X10 - quick enough for a spacecraft to reach; reasonable enough with the majority of atmosphere* below the craft.
*(By density)

Cheers!

 

[Asmodeus]

Yes its just a game. They could just make up some new fangled devise for atmospheric landings.

 

[NorthernDevo]

Yes its just a game. They could just make up some new fangled devise for atmospheric landings.

True; and that would be the most likely outcome.
That said, it would be a shame not to take advantage of the interesting aspects of atmospheric flight - lift, compression, turbulence, etc. It would be very easy to simply say that the FSD conduit forms around the vessel and excludes the atmosphere, but it seems a bit of a cheat, dunnit? It would be SO much more fun to glide down through the atmosphere and climb through it to the edge before charging Supercruise (and forbidding Witchspace until completely outside the atmosphere)....OHHH the fun we could have with atmospheric flight!

 

[Deleted member 110222]

What if topic?

Sure.

What if Frontier says screw the science and makes a game instead?

This game is anything but realistic anyway.

 

[Leadfoot]

True; and that would be the most likely outcome.
That said, it would be a shame not to take advantage of the interesting aspects of atmospheric flight - lift, compression, turbulence, etc. It would be very easy to simply say that the FSD conduit forms around the vessel and excludes the atmosphere, but it seems a bit of a cheat, dunnit? It would be SO much more fun to glide down through the atmosphere and climb through it to the edge before charging Supercruise (and forbidding Witchspace until completely outside the atmosphere)....OHHH the fun we could have with atmospheric flight!

Agreed. We'd just need to gain more altitude or lose the "atmospheric mass-lock" but still not have to get all the way back to the vacuum of space before hitting the FSD.

2Km. is ~6500ft ASL@29.92in/Hg. That's horribly low for an Earth-typical atmosphere - that was my normal cruise altitude in a 206. Entering FTL drive from that altitude could be devastating, in terms of suddenly accelerating to interplanetary speeds.
Were I designing the game, I wouldn't allow SC before reaching the planet's troposphere (on Earth, around 10 times the current number - about 65,000ft).
That said, this is a GAME, not a sim, and I'm unsure how the coding for that would work - how complicated the FDevs would want to get. WANTING atmospheric flight (and ohhhh, I do, so much!) is one thing, but MAKING it - designing for flight through an almost infinite variety of atmospheric densities, activities, types, and gravities is (I imagine) Excedrin Headache #9 even just contemplating it.
Personally, I'd make SC or Witchspace transition available at normal level X10 - quick enough for a spacecraft to reach; reasonable enough with the majority of atmosphere* below the craft.
*(By density)
Cheers!

Yes, something along this line of thinking is what I had in mind. Imagine going into a gas giant, diving down and finding giant space whales, it sees you, decides to eat you and gives chase.

Sorry, you can't use SC or a hyper-space jump to escape. Skills required: you'll have to outmaneuver it first, keep gaining altitude until you CAN jump out.

Same for other situations on other atmospheric planets with strange (and often hungry) life forms that have you in mind for dinner. 2K of altitude won't do it for escapes. Oh, and those pirates that caught you stealing from THEIR cookie jar may want to give you a chase that's going to get your blood pumping while you PLEASE gain altitude because they have 5 ships to your one and while clouds may give you some cover.... well, you get the idea.

 

[Sapyx]

You don't want to make it too difficult to land or takeoff from a planet surface, otherwise people will simply ignore atmospheric planet surface starports. We already have a situation where people in a hurry tend to ignore the surface ports, unless they have no choice. And ideally, there should be added some skill/gameplay (like hitting the optimal takeoff angle for maximum velocity), rather than an otherwise pointless sitting-watching-the-screen time sink. Because, let's face it, the vast majority of atmospheric planets aren't going to have spaceship-eating lifeforms or other threats on them.

But if one is going to have a limiter, I would link the limit to pressure, rather than altitude. Perhaps an 0.1 atmosphere threshold? That way, a low-pressure-atmospheric planet (eg. modern-day Mars-equivalent) would be treated no different to an airless world (no extra altitude required), whereas landing on an Earth-normal or even a Venus-type-atmosphere planet would take considerably more effort, to get up to the altitude where the pressure is less than 0.1 atmospheres. On Earth, you'd have to climb to about 15 km up to get that pressure level.

 

[B.Roberts]

By the time we get these atmospheric landings ( IF we get them ) the rest of the game most likely will be very different. It is promised that by the end of 2020 we going to see some "major milestone" and "major changes". We might be buying some kind of atmospheric shuttles with wings by that time ( just like we buy SLF now) and fly them to the surface. Who knows.

 

[NorthernDevo]

You don't want to make it too difficult to land or takeoff from a planet surface, otherwise people will simply ignore atmospheric planet surface starports. We already have a situation where people in a hurry tend to ignore the surface ports, unless they have no choice. And ideally, there should be added some skill/gameplay (like hitting the optimal takeoff angle for maximum velocity), rather than an otherwise pointless sitting-watching-the-screen time sink. Because, let's face it, the vast majority of atmospheric planets aren't going to have spaceship-eating lifeforms or other threats on them.

But if one is going to have a limiter, I would link the limit to pressure, rather than altitude. Perhaps an 0.1 atmosphere threshold? That way, a low-pressure-atmospheric planet (eg. modern-day Mars-equivalent) would be treated no different to an airless world (no extra altitude required), whereas landing on an Earth-normal or even a Venus-type-atmosphere planet would take considerably more effort, to get up to the altitude where the pressure is less than 0.1 atmospheres. On Earth, you'd have to climb to about 15 km up to get that pressure level.

Yes, exactly - in just the same way that planetary approach works now with Horizons (in that it is determined by a planet's radius/gravity), a decent approach to an atmospheric planet would be determined by its pressure. I don't think it would actually be that hard to implement; they've already got the important bits. Entering the atmosphere too swiftly will cause damaging heat buildup (as in fuel scooping), too sharply will cause FSD failure (as in planetary approach now.) All they need to add is pressure for the planet; a dynamic pressure indicator that will show the player how close he/she is to taking damage. It's tempting to say some craft like the Krait or Python - largely delta-winged - could provide some body-lift, but that's getting too complicated, IMO. FD just needs to add some mechanism - and some really cool sounds and graphics of course - to show the ship is going through atmosphere.

 

[Rick6549]

The beluga would be the best at flying in atmosphere, judt look at those fins !

 

[Stealthie]

Must admit, I'd kind of like to see some effect of engaging the FSD in an atmosphere.

Maybe it'd cause heat build-up, or maybe it'd do damage (to your shield, if you have one, or to your hull) as a result of the acceleration?
Externally, how about some "Back To The Future" style trails left by any ship engaging thier FSD in an atmosphere?

I guess it depends how "sim-like" FDev want to be but it seems like jumping straight to SC/FSD within the atmosphere of a planet would be "frowned upon" so they might want to make it so the "proper" way of leaving a planet is to leave the atmosphere and then engage your FSD whereas taking shortcuts would have consequences.

Maybe you'd even get a fine/bounty for doing it on populated planets?

 

[Bryan K]

I can’t think of any “scientific” reason why you couldn’t engage a warp drive or hyperdrive in an atmosphere, honestly.

 

[varonica]

I can’t think of any “scientific” reason why you couldn’t engage a warp drive or hyperdrive in an atmosphere, honestly.

That's probably because there's no scientific basis for a warp or hyperdrive. But apart from a hole the atmosphere appearing where a space ship was, without a scientific basis we can't really say anything about what would happen.

 

[Sapyx]

I can’t think of any “scientific” reason why you couldn’t engage a warp drive or hyperdrive in an atmosphere, honestly.

The FSD is, as far as we can tell, a variation on the oft-hypothesized Alcubierre Drive, which works via space compression. I'd imagine it would be much harder to "compress space" if the space being compressed is already full of atmospheric particles. But, we're talking hyperscience - FD can make a hyperscientific stardrive work however they wish, then retcon in some hyperscience to explain things.

 

[Bryan K]

That's probably because there's no scientific basis for a warp or hyperdrive. But apart from a hole the atmosphere appearing where a space ship was, without a scientific basis we can't really say anything about what would happen.

Well, you’re wrong on one count. Look up some of the new research into warp bubbles. It’s mathematically possible, but the technical hurdles are a bit steep. For now, at least.

 

[Arioch]

That's probably because there's no scientific basis for a warp or hyperdrive. But apart from a hole the atmosphere appearing where a space ship was, without a scientific basis we can't really say anything about what would happen.

Best case - something like a sonic boom as the atmosphere collapses behind the departed vessel.

Worst case - entire atmosphere gets sucked into wormhole behind departing vessel. Commander arrives at destination amid billowing clouds of frozen gas particles and thinks, "cool volumetric effects, I've discovered a new nebula!"



Edit: @Bryan K - "...but the technical hurdles are a bit steep" - is that the "exotic material" required to power the systems? Or as I like to call it, "magic bricks"?