Odyssey: An opportunity for tail launched rockets?

Something that I always wanted for Elite that I believe has been sorely neglected are tail launched vehicles. These would be especially useful for high G worlds where traditional ships tend to have problems landing and taking off. (On such worlds players may need exo-skeletal assist mechanisms to move about on the surface more easily.) Tail launched rockets would also be a welcome change from standard spacecraft control and thrust systems, accentuating instead, main engines for landing (who would've imagined that?;)). This would add a whole new and challenging gameplay mechanic that could add more realism to planetary landings. Such vehicles could be limited in their use as surface to orbit supply ships that could ferry goods and personelle to orbiting fleet carriers - which seem ideally suited to accomodate landing of such types of craft (as are orbital stations that have external landing pads.) Lack of these craft seems a glaring omission if you are trying to represent space travel wholey and realistically IMHO.

Edit: In regards to landing platforms where a rocket's height might prevent it from being lowered safely into the FC's hold or servicing area. In such cases the lowering function could be ghosted out, so that any maintainance, refuel would be performed ONLY above deck.

Edit2: Another idea that allows for telescoping of a tall rocket's height to a lower profile could be an alternate solution as well as a gantry arm that could grab the rocket and fold it sideways before lowering into hold or service area on FC's (or any station with external landing pads.)
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 121570

D
Something that I always wanted for Elite that I believe has been sorely neglected are tail launched vehicles. These would be especially useful for high G worlds where traditional ships tend to have problems landing and taking off. (On such worlds players may need exo-skeletal assist mechanisms to move about on the surface more easily.) Tail launched rockets would also be a welcome change from standard spacecraft control and thrust systems, accentuating instead, main engines for landing (who would've imagined that?;)). This would add a whole new and challenging gameplay mechanic that could add more realism to planetary landings. Such vehicles could be limited in their use as surface to orbit supply ships that could ferry goods and personelle to orbiting fleet carriers - which seem ideally suited to accomodate landing of such types of craft (as are orbital stations that have external landing pads.) Lack of these craft seems a glaring omission if you are trying to represent space travel wholey and realistically IMHO.

Edit: In regards to landing platforms where a rocket's height might prevent it from being lowered safely into the FC's hold or servicing area. In such cases the lowering function could be ghosted out, so that any maintainance, refuel would be performed ONLY above deck.

Edit2: Another idea that allows for telescoping of a tall rocket's height to a lower profile could be an alternate solution as well as a gantry arm that could grab the rocket and fold it sideways before lowering into hold or service area on FC's (or any station with external landing pads.)

One of the odd things about ED is that your vertical thrusters on high G are far more effective than your main engines at providing vertical control. Sticking your nose in the air and not seeing where you're going is so very 20th/21st century.

Times have moved on. High G is only a hassle for those yet to learn how to handle it. Stay slow, stay level, look where you're going and keep the vertical thrust on. You'll be fine. :)

Landing with your backside on the dirt and face in the sky is not a good look ;)
 
Dude, you never tried that yet?You get 5 minutes to clear the pad, plenty of time to line up your next moonshot. :giggle:

I'm not saying that at all - I'm a massive fan of the original lunar lander game from waaaay back. I've been to plenty of high G worlds although there are some 10G worlds I would be more sceptical to try landing on :unsure:. Which is my point. Why would anyone realistically try landing with a ship so ill suited - design wise for such a task. Sure maybe you can do a dead stick landing on a high G world & maybe you have an uber engineered ship that allows you to do that more easily - but is it sensible? Also if there's a landing pad that magicaly reduces your weight for 5 min. before lift-off - then that's a kludge.

If a true lander tailsitter were available to ferry goods people and cargo just for such a purpose - then less experienced players might feel some degree of confidence that they have a reasonable chance of success making the journey. Also it's a more unique piloting experience than existin craft and could make for a great flight intro for new players on lesser G worlds. Naturally any such ship would need the option to toggle a rear facing camera for landing.
 
One of the odd things about ED is that your vertical thrusters on high G are far more effective than your main engines at providing vertical control. Sticking your nose in the air and not seeing where you're going is so very 20th/21st century.

Times have moved on. High G is only a hassle for those yet to learn how to handle it. Stay slow, stay level, look where you're going and keep the vertical thrust on. You'll be fine. :)

Landing with your backside on the dirt and face in the sky is not a good look ;)

I've seen the utube vids for landing on high G worlds and know what to watch out for - but it is still a perilous affair - even for those making the vids. Many players would likely not take the risk if at all avoidable. What if you could park your ship in orbit and deploy a less expensive lander ideally suited for that purpose? I used to fly a lot of tail sitters when my number one game/spacesim was Pioneer. There were plenty of cam options that made tail landings a breeze.
 

Deleted member 121570

D
I've seen the utube vids for landing on high G worlds and know what to watch out for - but it is still a perilous affair - even for those making the vids. Many players would likely not take the risk if at all avoidable. What if you could park your ship in orbit and deploy a less expensive lander ideally suited for that purpose? I used to fly a lot of tail sitters when my number one game/spacesim was Pioneer. There were plenty of cam options that made tail landings a breeze.

It's honestly not hard when you learn how to do it, even 100% FA off. Trivial even. I haven't watched the youtube vids.
So this seems to be 'invent a new mechanic for folks who can't land on high G', or they could just learn how to land on high G.
 
It's honestly not hard when you learn how to do it, even 100% FA off. Trivial even. I haven't watched the youtube vids.
So this seems to be 'invent a new mechanic for folks who can't land on high G', or they could just learn how to land on high G.

You should actually check the vids - you might find them entertaining at least.

I haven't had a lots of opportunity to play on heavy G worlds, but even on normal G worlds Elite's landing mechanic to me seems a bit stale and remote and hardly engaging once you get close to planetary surfaces.
Especially the part where you start looking for a place to park. Something dynamic is missing there that I think a proper lander could fill. It really would be no departure from the Elite genre in supporting a lander mechanic if you harken back to Baben's Virus game as an example.

At the risk of being erm..20th Century? Here's a pic of a lunar lander exiting a spacestation from a Pioneer spacesim mod supporting a lander mechanic that was truly fun and challenging to fly down to planet surfaces.

Apollo Eagle LEM mod Alpha26.jpg
 

Deleted member 121570

D
You should actually check the vids - you might find them entertaining at least.

I haven't had a lots of opportunity to play on heavy G worlds, but even on normal G worlds Elite's landing mechanic to me seems a bit stale and remote and hardly engaging once you get close to planetary surfaces.
Especially the part where you start looking for a place to park. Something dynamic is missing there that I think a proper lander could fill. It really would be no departure from the Elite genre in supporting a lander mechanic if you harken back to Baben's Virus game as an example.

At the risk of being erm..20th Century? Here's a pic of a lunar lander exiting a spacestation from a Pioneer spacesim mod supporting a lander mechanic that was truly fun and challenging to fly down to planet surfaces.

View attachment 183880

Which ones would you recommend? :)
Also, I remember Virus/Zarch. What lander?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Which ones would you recommend? :)

"Today we will try to land on a high G planet without crashing too much" I forgot he actually said that at the begining of the video. It's the first one I remember watching.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_JYs9dNBRE


This one is about landing on a 2g world - good info
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzaVz2WF7aE


Impressive almost 10G world - with a small ship and beefed up sheilds.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_o216dG1Yc&t=2s


Oops
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NntETApmrRI
 

Deleted member 121570

D
"Today we will try to land on a high G planet without crashing too much" I forgot he actually said that at the begining of the video. It's the first one I remember watching.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_JYs9dNBRE


This one is about landing on a 2g world - good info
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzaVz2WF7aE


Impressive almost 10G world - with a small ship and beefed up sheilds.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_o216dG1Yc&t=2s


Oops
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NntETApmrRI


Ok, I watched a bit of em and skipped a lot. No wonder you think it's so boring and needs something.
It doesn't need to be anything like this. Being FA-off helps a lot.

Edit: Figured easier to demonstrate - here you go. Just went and filmed this now for ya.
I know you might still want your landers, but you really don't have to land like a short-sighted sloth on valium, peering for a spot.

Source: https://youtu.be/exNv4zjfvTU
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Heck I do that in my Keelbacks!

landings are as slow as you are comfortable doing... OP Get more comfortable doing it faster and you'll find they become just another facet like docking at rotating stations...
 
Ok, I watched a bit of em and skipped a lot. No wonder you think it's so boring and needs something.
It doesn't need to be anything like this. Being FA-off helps a lot.

Edit: Figured easier to demonstrate - here you go. Just went and filmed this now for ya.
I know you might still want your landers, but you really don't have to land like a short-sighted sloth on valium, peering for a spot.

Source: https://youtu.be/exNv4zjfvTU

Great demo. You kinda putz those other guys to shame :cool: Perhaps F/A off for landings isn't maybe so common a practice? It sure is far more engaging from a piloting perspective.
(Seems worthy of an official tutourial by FD on planetary landings highlighting the FA option more fully)

I didn't find any seriously challenging high G worlds in the area - but I found a milquetoast 1.5 G world that was adequate for testing. Way more dynamic flying and now totaly get your reference to that short-sighted sloth on valium. :LOL:

It did have me puzzling if there are some ships more suited to near surface maneuvers. I noticed you were flying a Viper and imagine flying larger ships ramps up the difficulty somewhat. Also wondered if carrying cargo has much impact on descent rate or response.

I guess depending on thruster class and whether engineered would be a factor as well, especially for the higher G worlds.


..And you're right I still feel a pitch for landers is worth it ;) Mainly because I think they can have a special place in the scheme of things, especially combined with FC's and Odyssey

One design I've been mulling over is a variation of the Tug from the movie Independance Day Resurgence. It has some interesting characteristics that could allow for it to evolve into a hybrid multi-role craft.
(were FD inclined to go there)

At the tail end of the ship is a second cockpit - which I would replace with extra storage compartment and main engines. The cockpit section would idealy have the ability to rotate 90 degrees so that it could point straight up (for landing and lift-off's) or tilt down to the horizon. The two legs look like they have large and robust enough feet to support the ship for hard landings so long as drift isn't a factor. ( I suppose if it's really hairy landing on two legs you could always add one more leg that could be folded up onto the roof of the ship. Extra claw legs can always be used for carrying something)

With some extra coding a walker mode might be enabled. The claw feet on the ship could be used to grasp and transport items/rocks to various locations as another possible upgrade.

Anyways here's a coupla pics of the original tug and try and imagine it with main engines at the rear:

94yc.jpg

IDR Moon Tug.jpg


Love the ramp in this shot.

13528421_1717066995221269_8036827490267803968_o.jpg
 
Heck I do that in my Keelbacks!

landings are as slow as you are comfortable doing... OP Get more comfortable doing it faster and you'll find they become just another facet like docking at rotating stations...

Never really gave it a thought even though I would regularly turn F/A off when in combat scenarios. I think I may have had it toggled on briefly while at planet surfaces but didn't notice any difference - perhaps gravity may have been so low there it had little effect.:D
 

Deleted member 121570

D
Great demo. You kinda putz those other guys to shame :cool: Perhaps F/A off for landings isn't maybe so common a practice? It sure is far more engaging from a piloting perspective.
(Seems worthy of an official tutourial by FD on planetary landings highlighting the FA option more fully)

I didn't find any seriously challenging high G worlds in the area - but I found a milquetoast 1.5 G world that was adequate for testing. Way more dynamic flying and now totaly get your reference to that short-sighted sloth on valium. :LOL:

It did have me puzzling if there are some ships more suited to near surface maneuvers. I noticed you were flying a Viper and imagine flying larger ships ramps up the difficulty somewhat. Also wondered if carrying cargo has much impact on descent rate or response.

I guess depending on thruster class and whether engineered would be a factor as well, especially for the higher G worlds.


..And you're right I still feel a pitch for landers is worth it ;) Mainly because I think they can have a special place in the scheme of things, especially combined with FC's and Odyssey

One design I've been mulling over is a variation of the Tug from the movie Independance Day Resurgence. It has some interesting characteristics that could allow for it to evolve into a hybrid multi-role craft.
(were FD inclined to go there)

At the tail end of the ship is a second cockpit - which I would replace with extra storage compartment and main engines. The cockpit section would idealy have the ability to rotate 90 degrees so that it could point straight up (for landing and lift-off's) or tilt down to the horizon. The two legs look like they have large and robust enough feet to support the ship for hard landings so long as drift isn't a factor. ( I suppose if it's really hairy landing on two legs you could always add one more leg that could be folded up onto the roof of the ship. Extra claw legs can always be used for carrying something)

With some extra coding a walker mode might be enabled. The claw feet on the ship could be used to grasp and transport items/rocks to various locations as another possible upgrade.

Anyways here's a coupla pics of the original tug and try and imagine it with main engines at the rear:

View attachment 183989
View attachment 183990

Love the ramp in this shot.

View attachment 183991
That Tug does look kinda awesome indeed!!
Really glad you tried the FAoff stuff and found it more fun. :)

Ship choice definitely makes a difference, and yeah - I flew my race viper there cos that's what I had when I just made the vid.

Larger ships are much more sluggish, but can always maintain their own weight provided enough thrust is in vertical and that horizontal speed is low. Thrusters class and engineering help too, but even the worst still work, just more slowly.

Landing them isn't really harder, it's just more boring. But they're more boring to fly too, so it sorta feels right :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I logged in just so you guys allow me to introduce you to blackout and redout. Sticking your nose in the air when you're encountering lots of Gs is actually the safest, even tho it's "so 20th century". So yeah, IRL using vertical thrusters for any fast acceleration is quite erm... dangerous ? (To put it into numbers, a human body can survive a constant vertical 6G only up to 3 minutes according to NASA and wikipedia).

ps : sorry if I misunderstood what you guys said, or if what I said is nonsense/offensive english is not my mother tongue
 
Top Bottom