No atmospheric flight on the horizon

The key word here is PG, I know most people only know this as boring repetitive lazy dev tools. However its not, if you know how to use it, you CAN make wonders. The challenge is to get the "seed" right. That is the art of PG.

I have no clue about what FDEVS can or cannot do, however I do know what can be done.

PG Weather

[video=youtube;ClWJT-eGCVQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClWJT-eGCVQ[/video]

[video=youtube;pnvBF5Nu5gw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnvBF5Nu5gw[/video]

Terrain PG

[video=youtube;Btc7gFIjJco]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Btc7gFIjJco[/video]

So, if they know what they are doing (and I truly believe they do) then we don't need to worry.
 
It's technically possible, this isn't the 1980's generation of computer gaming anymore. I get how it can be financially impossible and how much employees have to be hired and payed a reasonable amount for all the work. But, here's what gets me... FD is selling ED for $30 and Horizons pre-order for $45. And if it had a higher rate of sales over the rate of employees getting paid, wouldn't FD make around $300,000 to $3,000,000 within a year? Plus, add Horizons with that: around $450,000 to $4,000,000. Add those two up, that's hundreds of thousands of dollars to even a possibility of several million dollars they're making each year with a more frequent rate of sales over paying employees. So, I don't see how it's financially impossible?

Besides that, atmospheric landing was possible in FFE, that was two decades ago and it was as hard to add that content into the game as hard as it is to add content into games nowadays, so I don't see why FD can't do it.
 
Last edited:
*sigh* reading this caused many flashback to FFE gameplay.

Flying from station to station on same world- checking out the seaside cliffs and mountains and valleys, while the rings of the planet this moon was oribiting rose on the horizon (amazing what they squeezed into the code back then)

The horror of being stuck on a world in my Lion Transport, because I didnt check the gravity before landing.

The even greater Horror of approaching a world in a newly purchased ship- and hearing that horrible (but thankfully short) sound that meant "I forgot the atmospheric shielding"

*sigh* I wonder if FFE is DOS-boxed over in GoodOldGames.com.....
 
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)

You don't need escape velocity with enough thrust.
This is just for ballistics (I.e. Shooting a dead mass from a cannon) or burning a rocket up to speed and turning off engines
 
500 tons weight +500Tons thrust = no fly

500 tons weight +501tons thrust = fly

End of

(I am assuming Gravity 1 g)

now i think how would they handle heavy gravity planets ,On a 3G planet your 500t ship weighs 1500t
 
Besides that, atmospheric landing was possible in FFE, that was two decades ago and it was as hard to add that content into the game as hard as it is to add content into games nowadays, so I don't see why FD can't do it.

Actually nowadays it's a lot harder. With increased graphics capabilities comes increased level of detail. All those assets need to be built. But it is eminently doable --Frontier has been playing with cloud patterns on gas giants for a while.
 
I do have some concerns about the 'difficult second' expansion. Other than Kerrash, we have only the vaguest notion of the roadmap. What we know is that planetary landing is in sections along with walking about.. I freely admit that I thought that walking about would come first, as I didn't see the point of landing if you couldn't do anything on the surface. .What little we know about Horizons has shown that the SRV is the solution to the problem of what to do on the surface. Obviously it will bring a lot of new gameplay to the table. Herein lies the problem. If ,as many believe, we get atmospheric landings on non earth likes next, what is the hook? What gameplay does it bring over Horizons? Will it just be the same as Horizons but with added weather? I don't know, but it doesn't sound very compelling. Obviously walking around and earth likes will open up a whole realm of possibilities. Then there is the question of what is preventing a player from landing on an earth like. If the game lets me land on Venus then it follows that I should be able to land on Earth. Perhaps the limited atmospheric landing phase should just be something for internal testing only?
 
None of the ships are designed for it and unless we completely neglect any notion of realism, all of them would crash immediately. You need actual wings with engines to fly within an atmosphere.

You could make the same argument against atmospheric flight for No Man's Sky, but it's going to pull it off just fine. There's no need for atmospheric flight to feel the same in Elite as flying a plane does in real life and plane sims at the moment. These ships have shields, remember? The shields protect against physical interaction with its surroudnings. In effect, the ships shield should make it slip through the atmosphere as if it were still flying in space. There would be no buffeting by the wind or any kind of turbulence experienced.

What I think the real issue will be is adding enough realism to planets to make them feel worthy of exploration. No Man's Sky always intended to do space and planets at launch, so they built their engine from the ground up to support this. NMS' procedural generation is very sophisticated, more so than ED's (as far as I can tell) at the moment, but that's okay because NMS isn't shooting for a super realistic look; ED on the other hand is. So they needed to delay such content for a later date. Bear in mind, the original Elite had planetary exploration, although primative it was still extraordinary for that era of basic computer games. No one expected anything too special from the planet surface's because computer graphics of that era couldn't do anything too detailed no matter what kind of game it was, so for the punters of that era, it was just fantastic to be able to enter the atmosphere of a planet and look at a big green landscape with a few triangles representing trees and then a line of blue or a field of blue to represent rivers and oceans respectively.

I think what FD will be able to learn from NMS and upgrade their procedural generation engine to make detailed worlds with caves and mountains and forests, deserts and icy tundras with animals as well. Barren asteroids and moons are a good place to start, because they can develop the bones of this procedural engine to make basic caves and rocky mountains and valleys without having to worry about complex flora and fauna. Once they've got those bones working right, they can build on them to include said flora and fauna.

I know where you're coming from, Magnetic Sun, but FD know that Elite Dangerous has many fans of the original Elite and these people expect a modern iteration of that game. You need to be able to do everything you could in that game and more, and that includes planetary flight, and by extention explore these planets, as exploration is what's expected from a modern version of Elite. This is even more important with No Man's Sky looming on the horizon.
 
Last edited:
500 tons weight +500Tons thrust = no fly

500 tons weight +501tons thrust = fly

End of

(I am assuming Gravity 1 g)

now i think how would they handle heavy gravity planets ,On a 3G planet your 500t ship weighs 1500t

you are correct for all multiples of g - only if you had said "mass" rather than "weight" would you be restricted to a 1g environment. 1kg mass weighs 1kg in 1g. In 2g 1kg mass weighs 2kg.
 
Yeah... about that...I have seen the design document... :eek:
So much to come... ;)

Well I'm going to use this comment to expand my Elite fantasies outwards to infinity and then be crushingly disappointed in whatever they come up with.
Are you happy now !
:D
 
you are correct for all multiples of g - only if you had said "mass" rather than "weight" would you be restricted to a 1g environment. 1kg mass weighs 1kg in 1g. In 2g 1kg mass weighs 2kg.

I'll be a stickler here since you want to be a stickler ;)
In 2g a 1kg mass is still 1 kg, but weighs 19.6 newtons instead of 9.8 newtons

Kg stays constant as it is a unit of mass

Weight is measured in pounds and newtons (and other units) but pounds is a weirdo because it can be used for both - which doesn't cause many probs in a constant gravity environment but would be very confusing in interstellar travel)

A short ton or long ton are both units of weight, but the metric tonne is mass - that's why engineers like the metric system

Just sucks in Canada where we use both systems extensively and interchangeably - but usually the old imperial system :) and nobody uses the real unit of mass in the imperial system ..slugs
 
Last edited:
When atmospheric planets/moons are available, these are the kind of gaseous bodies I'd like to find in game:

Planet/moon without atmo but with gas emitting sources (volcano, geyser, whatever):
Untitled.jpg


Planet/moon with a very thin atmo (just 6 or 7Km thick):
Untitled2.jpg


Planet/moon with a hellish thick Venusian atmo (completely covered with clouds):
Untitled3.jpg
Untitled4.jpg
 
Last edited:
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)

We don't need to hit escape velocity because we have thrust. Escape velocity is the velocity you need to escape without any further propulsion.
That said, I'm sure there will be some sort of transitional movement speed as we approach planets.
 
There's no such thing as magic space friction that slows down spaceships for flying backwards either but that hasn't seemed to bother anyone at FD. They'll throw a bucket of handwavium at the problem and ignore it as usual.
 
The ships rely on constant thrust to keep airborne. Don't forget the Elite ships have thrusters on all axis, not just in the rear like airplanes. Airplanes need wings to sustain flight because they only have forward thrust.

But think of helicopters, and some fighter jets that can already takeoff and land vertically (because their jets can be turned downwards to provide vertical thrust. Its the same principle.

All ships in Elite have thrusters in all directions, and are totally capable of sustaining their "airborness".

CHeck the video below, and that HArrier jet has way less thruster power than any elite ship:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCSAXixGeSo

Amd here's a more modern one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7s59qe5mPE

Now these jets can only point their thrusters in one direction at a time, Elite ships have thrusters in all directions, it will be a breeze for them to keep airborne without wings.

Witchcraft!

Also, Zeppelins fly without wings. Just as a sidenote.
 
Back
Top Bottom