Yes it is just a game, for our great delight
Last edited:
No atmospheric flight on the horizon
- Thread starter Magnetic Sun
- Start date
Yes it is just a game, for our great delight
Nothing.
As long as the thrust pushing you up is bigger than the force of gravity pulling you down, and can keep that thrust constantly, you can escape gravity at a speed of 1 inch per hour.
I assume that we will not land from space to ground with the conventional engine (too long).
I wonder how the new "orbital cruise" work. Will it be really different from supercruise (however at lower speed)? Did the gravity will have an effect?
I suppose it will shutdown itself at lower altitude, because if not, you simply need to take off a little and activate it ^^
Also, for heavy ships, maybe you can take off, tilt backward and boost
(landing on slopes can help too)
I wonder how the new "orbital cruise" work. Will it be really different from supercruise (however at lower speed)? Did the gravity will have an effect?
I suppose it will shutdown itself at lower altitude, because if not, you simply need to take off a little and activate it ^^
Also, for heavy ships, maybe you can take off, tilt backward and boost
(landing on slopes can help too)
In a discussion which is basically "Do you need wings as lifting surfaces to fly in an Atmosphere"
This is your answer.
You really think so little of the people on this forum that you assume they believe that the Sidewinder and company are real functioning spacecraft, in space somewhere?
A Boing 747 can hold a maximum of 183 T fuel and has a max mass of 333 T. A Cobra MK III has 16 T fuel and a mass 241 T. Considering that a 747 has a flight range of 10 000 km and we are playing a SF game it's very likely that the Cobra can land on planets.
Read the dev notes, as I read it there will be a kind of supercruise mode for flying around planets while you are searching for POIs. After you descened you will switch flight mode to a more normal flight mode.
The only thing they need to implement differently to the current flight model is escape velocity. FSD which we don't know how it works (and could very much be a warp bubble) explains supercruise and hyperdrive, thrusters explain lift, but they'll need to maybe implement a drive for escape velocity. Maybe FSD on low power. Earth escape velocity is 11.7 km/s to escape orbit, the moon is only around 2km/s etc. a cobra on best rated thrusters reaches around 440m/s. lowest speed in SC is 30km/ so something in between FSD and normal flight would make flying off planet "realistic" (because I'm sure being within a couple hundred km or a planets surface would mass lock you)
The more I think about this the more I think you should just leave things as-is, and save the 'interesting' flight for higher G worlds and those with atmospheres.
Having poorer handling over the surface of an airless body compared to in space for gameplay reasons just feels wrong and artificial.
- - - Updated - - -
- Yes, the FSD is a 'warp bubble' tech, that's been explicitly stated.
- The current speed limits are of course artificial for gameplay reasons. I can't quite recall if FD have explicitly explained this, fiction-wise, as safety limits on the ship controls versus available acceleration (as CIG has tried to do for Star Citizen).
- They've already mentioned an 'orbital cruise' that you'll use to transition between supercruise and down near the surface flight.
It has a different flight model due to the fact that you are flying around in a gravity well. The thrusters needs to fire differently so that you don't fall down into the ground.
What's artificial about that?
The model need to be defined, when they got the right formular it doesn't matter where you are or what ship you have. Low gravity will be easy to access for the bigger ships while large planets or moons will be more suitable for smaller crafts.
I for one don't want the same model for space flight as for the planets / moons, that would feel artificial and more over in the star citizen universe.
That Mike Evans seems to be talking about actually limiting the vertical thruster output (compared to flying in normal space) so as to make this even more challenging.
Of course flying in a gravity well means that some vertical thrust is going to be used to counter that, so you'll be able to (relatively) accelerate upwards to a lesser degree. But that doesn't seem to be what Mike is talking about.
This seems to be about a ship, that in normal space can accelerate upwards at 5g, flying in a 1g field having less than 4g vertical acceleration available.
Our ships can fly millions of times the speed of light when jumping between stars and OP is worried they'll fall down on planets.
No Man's sky is doing it, but the graphics and physics seems to be much less requiring.
Star Citizen is wanting to do it (or what), but will that at all happen? A lot of doubts these days right.
The I-Novae engine has intrigued me for years and seems to be the closest to what ED could actually look like.
In relation to what ED looks and feels like now, to take that down on Earthlikes or other weather effected, liquid bodied, moving, environmentally changing, destructible sandboxes where you can be at a standstill and experience that world's dynamics, all while keeping the level of visual immersion, sense of go wherever freedom, and the feeling of simulation/realistic physics - basically keeping it in line with what ED offers now in space - seems so far off that I would say a big dev team would need years to make it work.
I hope they will surprise me. And I hope they will not neglect the space game and coming airless bodies landings on the way there.
It is vastly ambitious. But I love this game, and I'm definitely supportive of their visions and will be here in years to come. Just trying to actually fathom the project is overwhelming for me. Sorry if I came off as a pessimist, gonna check myself on that.
Peace out and thanks for all your replies and belief in FD. They must be thrilled to have such an amazing player base.
Star Citizen is wanting to do it (or what), but will that at all happen? A lot of doubts these days right.
The I-Novae engine has intrigued me for years and seems to be the closest to what ED could actually look like.
In relation to what ED looks and feels like now, to take that down on Earthlikes or other weather effected, liquid bodied, moving, environmentally changing, destructible sandboxes where you can be at a standstill and experience that world's dynamics, all while keeping the level of visual immersion, sense of go wherever freedom, and the feeling of simulation/realistic physics - basically keeping it in line with what ED offers now in space - seems so far off that I would say a big dev team would need years to make it work.
I hope they will surprise me. And I hope they will not neglect the space game and coming airless bodies landings on the way there.
It is vastly ambitious. But I love this game, and I'm definitely supportive of their visions and will be here in years to come. Just trying to actually fathom the project is overwhelming for me. Sorry if I came off as a pessimist, gonna check myself on that.
Peace out and thanks for all your replies and belief in FD. They must be thrilled to have such an amazing player base.
Last edited:
Well, UFOs don't need wings.
Land on planet due to damage/lack of fuel/accident. Forced to survive until someone in another ship is able to come save you, take you back to a station where you can pay the insurance and rebuy your ship... Of course, exploration data would have to be salvaged from your ship's computer since it's technically not a death.
I want this!