Basically the title says it all. Space is far too benign in ED and landing in extreme G without max thrusters should be suicide. You want to max yout jump range? Fine, but do check the gravity of planets you want to land on... Max G landing (what G thrusters can counteract) could me one of the data given when outfitting, just like jump range.
Not every thruster should be able to land a ship at 9G
- Thread starter space voyager
- Start date
+1
And, in flight, the computer should warn you when gravity is approaching and exceeding your thrusters tolerances, just in case you forget.
Plus it would sound pretty cool.
"WARNING: Gravity is exceeding thruster tolerance! Pull up! Pull up!"
CMDR Cosmic Spacehead
And, in flight, the computer should warn you when gravity is approaching and exceeding your thrusters tolerances, just in case you forget.
Plus it would sound pretty cool.
"WARNING: Gravity is exceeding thruster tolerance! Pull up! Pull up!"
CMDR Cosmic Spacehead
Ha, cool addition!
Great idea.
By linking the power of thrusters to the gravity of planets, you can add a dimension of Explorer build to the ship design. I.e. You might go with sub max thrusters on a ship to maximise jump range but at the risk of crashing on a planet with a high g.
You could link the thruster strength as a percentage of max possible so as to not disadvantage small ships (with small fuel tanks) from getting stranded.
By linking the power of thrusters to the gravity of planets, you can add a dimension of Explorer build to the ship design. I.e. You might go with sub max thrusters on a ship to maximise jump range but at the risk of crashing on a planet with a high g.
You could link the thruster strength as a percentage of max possible so as to not disadvantage small ships (with small fuel tanks) from getting stranded.
I'm not sure I understand this last part. How would they be at a disadvantage?
The only problem I see is that it would actually be possible to survive a landing on a body with G higher than thrust. But than again, it is the same as running out of fuel or jumping to a star with no return ticket. He he he, FD could add a towing rope module for lift rats!
-1 Because it doesn't actually make sense. If your ship is capable of pulling away from stars, planets, and black holes, then its already proven that thrusters/FSD can power the ship against 9G forces and more. It also creates the problem that people could land on a high gravity planet, but then be unable to takeoff due to the thrusters overheating while trying to get into orbital flight. Sounds neat for explorers, but for everyone else in the game, it would kill off planetary landings.
What I was trying to say was that for example, an Asp Explorer comes with category 5 thrusters as default. If you consider these as 100% of max allowance, they can handle a ship lifting / landing on a max g planet (For calculation purposes a 10g planet).
A typical explorer build recommends dropping thrusters to 3A. As a percentage, this represents 60% of default thrust, I.e. Can only handle planets up to 6g.
In the majority of cases, it won't matter (you don't see too many 6g+ planets) but occasionally a commander could stumble across one.
In those cases, the ship is attracted to the planet, crashing as it cannot escape the gravity.
+1 and something that I expected should happen.
FSDs are used for everything you mentioned, not thrusters. FSDs could also be used to leave planets in case your thruster is strong enough for liftoff but not enough to achieve escape velocity. Every ship can jump but jump range is a stat that can limit or even strand you. OP is merely asking for the game to have such realism for high G planets with another stat for planetary landings.
FSDs are used for everything you mentioned, not thrusters. FSDs could also be used to leave planets in case your thruster is strong enough for liftoff but not enough to achieve escape velocity. Every ship can jump but jump range is a stat that can limit or even strand you. OP is merely asking for the game to have such realism for high G planets with another stat for planetary landings.
Wow, this would be fricking annoying but damned funny. Never forget the first time I tried to land on a high-G planet 
+1
+1
Why should a d thruster be as good as an a thruster on a high g planet. Sure it's fine for a normal one but why on a high g. That doesn't make sense! I mean if the ONLY difference is the weight factor of the mod. The why have a, b, c and or e mods at all. Right now the smallest e thruster is able to lift the heavest largest ship the same as it can the lightest and smallest. So, agian, whats the point of haveing multiple size and rated thrusters. I mean there's a difference in the fsd's why not the thrusters. Thus engineering a d vs installing an a would mean choice. Choose wrong and just like running out of fuel, your stuck or dead.
Going further, why have different g planets at all, if all the thrusters are going to work the same regardless of the mass of the ship.
Good point, +
Also I've always wondered how our commanders are able to stand the high gravitation for longer periods of time and not just pass out and die.
Is there a explanation in the lore like our flightsuits counteracting the effects?
Also I've always wondered how our commanders are able to stand the high gravitation for longer periods of time and not just pass out and die.
Is there a explanation in the lore like our flightsuits counteracting the effects?
I don't think it is possible to be explained with any other means except antigravity... Which Elite clearly does not have. I wouldn't want to be completely locked out from all the high G planets, but would accept it if FD decided to go science crazy.