Permit Locked Planets?

graeme.firth

graeme.firth
Hi,

I've bugged reported this, but not sure if it is a bug and so I'm asking the wider community.

Tried to land at Abazates A2 at Wood Base, at 140 km altitude I was automatically dropped out of SC and a message popped up . . . .

"Landing Permit Required." (in the big yellow/red flashing type message)

I've never seen this before, further more, a check of the both system and galaxy map did not show that a permit was required.

How strange I thought, I abandoned the mission (still wasn't allowed to land) and put in the bug report.

My questions, merely out of curiosity . . . .

1. Is this now a "thing" in 3.3?
2. Has anyone else found a similar planets that are permit locked?
3. Is it really a bug or working as intended? (no response from FD currently on the bug report - but I'm sure they're quite busy ATM)

All help appreciated.

o7 CMDRs
 

Vandaahl

Vandaahl
Did the planet had a red circle around it in the system map? Triton (Neptune) and some other bodies have the same 'feature'.
If yes, you shouldn't be able to accept a mission towards such a body. Sounds like a bug indeed.
 
Last edited:

IndigoWyrd

IndigoWyrd
There are a few of these.

They're locked away for some reason or another - usually because of some book I'll never read (just don't care for reading sci-fi, prefer horror).
 

Sapyx

Sapyx
Only three permit-restricted planets (as opposed to permit-locked systems) are known: Triton (Sol), Lave 2 (Lave), Diso 5 c (Diso). They all have the red crescent around them (instead of the blue crescent that normally indicates "landable planet). Earth's Moon is also landing-restricted, but not via a permit; it simply hasn't been classified as landable, despite being airless and rocky.

If you're getting missions to a base on a permit-restricted planet, bug-report it. Missions are not supposed to be generated which require you to go to Permit-locked areas, whether you've got the permit or not.

If your planet isn't actually permit-restricted (the crescent is blue), then bug-report getting the "landing permit required" message.
 

graeme.firth

graeme.firth
Sapyx said:
Only three permit-restricted planets (as opposed to permit-locked systems) are known: Triton (Sol), Lave 2 (Lave), Diso 5 c (Diso). They all have the red crescent around them (instead of the blue crescent that normally indicates "landable planet). Earth's Moon is also landing-restricted, but not via a permit; it simply hasn't been classified as landable, despite being airless and rocky.

If you're getting missions to a base on a permit-restricted planet, bug-report it. Missions are not supposed to be generated which require you to go to Permit-locked areas, whether you've got the permit or not.

If your planet isn't actually permit-restricted (the crescent is blue), then bug-report getting the "landing permit required" message.
Click to expand...

Thank you all, definitely sounds like a bug, I was going there as part of a mission and no red ring around planet in system map.

o7 I have some closure

Fly safe . . .
 

Anubite

Anubite
Sapyx said:
Only three permit-restricted planets (as opposed to permit-locked systems) are known: Triton (Sol), Lave 2 (Lave), Diso 5 c (Diso). They all have the red crescent around them (instead of the blue crescent that normally indicates "landable planet). Earth's Moon is also landing-restricted, but not via a permit; it simply hasn't been classified as landable, despite being airless and rocky.

If you're getting missions to a base on a permit-restricted planet, bug-report it. Missions are not supposed to be generated which require you to go to Permit-locked areas, whether you've got the permit or not.

If your planet isn't actually permit-restricted (the crescent is blue), then bug-report getting the "landing permit required" message.
Click to expand...

The moon used to be labeled "permit required," but some time around 3.0 that changed.

There is heated debate now IRL over what humans will use the moon for, leaving it alone or mostly in tact (not in the face) for historic/cultural/religious significance, or going so far as all-out strip-mining. I think FDev took the step to promote option 1 and 2, but I don't know much lore so IDK for sure.
 
Last edited:

Sapyx

Sapyx
Anubite said:
...I think FDev took the step to promote option 1 and 2, but I don't know much lore so IDK for sure.
Click to expand...

According to the old FE2/FFE lore, the Moon is covered in high-density heavy industries - all the nasty, polluting stuff that used to be on Earth but was shipped off-planet to help repair the post-WWIII damaged climate. The historic landing sites (Tranquillity Base, etc) are kept under protective domes for the tourists.

I do not know if this Moon-lore has been retconned. The main reason people want to land on the moon is so they can pootle around Tranquillity Base in their SRV, expecting it to look much like it does now, so those people aren't going to be happy if that's all kept under a sealed dome.
 

Anubite

Anubite
Sapyx said:
According to the old FE2/FFE lore, the Moon is covered in high-density heavy industries - all the nasty, polluting stuff that used to be on Earth but was shipped off-planet to help repair the post-WWIII damaged climate. The historic landing sites (Tranquillity Base, etc) are kept under protective domes for the tourists.

I do not know if this Moon-lore has been retconned. The main reason people want to land on the moon is so they can pootle around Tranquillity Base in their SRV, expecting it to look much like it does now, so those people aren't going to be happy if that's all kept under a sealed dome.
Click to expand...

I'm imagining this iteration of moon having a very thin, caustic atmosphere as a result of all the processing. If retconned, maybe we'd get moon landings when/if atmos comes out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom