ship interiors - will they happen

[thistle]

THING IS:
The journey is ONLY the goal if the journey is actually enjoyable

Oh that's right, you said you don't play the game since Odyssey came out.

Hey, maybe this journey just isn't for you.

That's okay, fdev isn't forcing players to play what they have developed. Trying to please everyone won't work unfortunately.

If the game was a small number of curated star systems with ship interiors and getting in and out of bunks and commutes on trains and picking up plushies and decorating ship-lavatories ... I'd stop playing too but perhaps you would love it.

 

[thistle]

Now let me let you in on a secret:
If they do them with HALF a brain, the only outcry there would be, would be an outcry of joy.

Oh, sweet summer child ...

 

[galahad2069]

Yes it is.

My "that's just simply not true" line was a response to this:

You argument was stating “fact” and citing analogy that something is steadfast and unchangeable in an “online games as a service” whilst obstinately ignoring the “FACT” many aspects of Elite Dangerous has been tweaked, altered, updated and expanded upon the original “stop-gap” and“placeholder” mechanics that were originally used to stub out features, yet to be implemented.

It's not true that my argument was what you put between quotation marks. I never said any of what you misquoted there, these were not my words, so none of the quotation marks were justified.

Its analogous to a conversation of 2 people at the release of Elite Dangerous talking about planetary landings.

No, it's not.
And I have already given you a detailed explanation why:

That would have been a stupid thing to say, because the ability to land is their basic functionality which was just not yet implemented at the time of the early version.
Once it has been added (which was something you could logically expect to happen), it was just an extra thing our ships became capable of doing, but they did not lose any previous functionality.

That's not the same thing as our weapons no longer being capable of destroying an opponent. It's a false analogy.
The basic functionality of weapons is being able to destroy something. That's what weapons are reasonably expected to be capable of doing, and that's precisely what they can do now. They are working as intended.

If they could no longer do that, that would mean they lost a very basic function. It's not adding something, it's taking something away.

The inference is that was how the game worked then. but then fdev altered how the game worked afterwards.

Fdev did not arbitrarily "alter" anything. They added some reasonably expected new functionality and did not remove something that had been working just fine.
That was my point.

No they are all my words telling saying your main objections is, the ship "currently" explodes into a billion little pieces which I am saying is could be analogous of a ship not being able to fly closer to a planet. Which is something that CHANGED OVER TIME
because its a ED is live-service-game https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Live_service_game

If they are your words, then you cannot put them between quotation marks in a paragraph in which you are talking about what my argument was.

a bit reality breaking.
And as you said earlier on, the ship magically disintegrates and doesn´t even leave materials.
Well. Now IMAGINE in a future version of the game that it doesn´t disintegrate and you can loot it´s carcus.

Go on IMAGINE!

The ship does not disintegrate "magically". It disintegrates very realistically. That's the expected effect of weapon fire. It's working as intended.
You can imagine anything silly, including weapons spitting flowers and rainbow unicorns instead of doing damage, but that does not mean it would be good gameplay.

 

[galahad2069]

Perhaps they are too used to playing that other game, that will deposit the player into the depths of space just on a whim

It's not like Elite is unable to do that:

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emOSjI6UuQ8

 

[Rat Catcher]

It's not like Elite is unable to do that:

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emOSjI6UuQ8

oops!

Excellent, thanks for the chuckle

 

[Coolgroove]

Minimal viable implementation.

Just an elevator. Nope, not really interiors, just an elevator.

Just a room for cosmetics. To have value, cosmetics need to be a part of the natural gameplay flow. For example, paintjobs are visible to others and for screenshots/videos with external camera, both happen while in natural flow of the gameplay. Dashboard livery, although not visible to others, is always visible to the player and in videos/screenshots, also in natural flow of the gameplay. The room with the only function of storing cosmetics, and the only gameplay of load in to look at them and load out to play the game - won't even give any value to such cosmetics, simply because they won't be seen in the natural flow of the gameplay.

I see no point in interiors that have no other function except a place to put cosmetics in completely out of everything else in the game.

At minimum, interiors need:

1. Ability to leave the ship going through interior, and get back into a set going through interior. Doesn't matter if there would be a teleport option or not, but without this basic function - there will be not much use for interiors and almost no immersion from them.

2. Interiors need to have something interactable. If it's just a corridor with doors, yeah something, but not even a good space to put cosmetics in.

Maybe some extra terminals with additional info (exploration/exo-bio logs), maybe an equipment rack to switch loadouts or weapons in current loadout without a manager menu, maybe a direct access to fighter/SRV to get out in it without a menu. Basic function and immersion at minimum. For that interiors need to have rooms, or at least one as big as reasonably possible for a specific ship.

This ^ 1 & 2 is the very basic implementation that could give the immersion of playing as a commander in a ship (and not just a ship), and that is what would give cosmetics their value, because the whole thing will be an intersection for the gameplay/immersion of the rest of the game.

Although it'll already be HUGE for me and I'm sure for many players, I don't think it's enough for a wider audience - because it doesn't add much in new gameplay and in new ways to interact with the game world.

• To have a possibility of repair minigames there is a need to have these modules accessible, otherwise it would be the same cockpit menus from another terminal. So there is a need for at least a room with PP.
• To have a possibility of other minigames (labs, workbench, etc) there is a need to have space for that too.

3. Creating all the models and tech for interiors is a lot of design, art and development. To limit all that to only players ships doesn't seem like a good idea. It's only makes sense to use them for everything they can give to the game - NPC ships, wrecks, abandoned, disabled, ... for missions, for signal sources, for exploration/lore bits, etc. That is where the vast majority of possible gameplay interiors can offer could happen.

If it's only for ships/wrecks on the surface of the planets - at least something, but very limiting, as we already have planet content, and ship interiors is much more about space and not planets again. Planets need other content/atmospherics/caves/storms/etc, not ship interiors. That's why there is a need to have mechanics to get to these other ships/objects in space, either boarding limpets, or EVA.

We already have ships flying, on-foot planetary gameplay. The only interaction with the game world Elite is missing - is being a commander in space, and not just a ship in space.

Being a person in space is, in my opinion, the main possible attraction of interiors for a as wide of an audience as possible.

4. Gameplay.

For player' own ship, the minimum of - a good interior with interactable objects and more immersive/natural access to vehicles, an ability to go through an interiors to get out and in, some repair/other minigames, cosmetics. At minimum.

For other ships / object that can use ship interiors models/textures - there needs to be something to do. This way there will be something to actually play the game for a wide variety of players, and it could also help with cosmetics, as after all the same DeLacy interiors players could be much more inclined to make their DeLacy interiors unique.

---

This way, ship interiors will accommodate a wider audience of players who might be interested in them = more players overall in the game with everything good that leads too.

imo, If Ship Interiors would ever happen - they will have both gameplay and immersion, because without them it doesn't make much sense to put all the effort/time/money into creating models and developing tech.

It doesn't have to be all possible gameplay ideas from the start. it doesn't have to be all of the ship's interiors from the start. Doing them by manufacturer and selling Early Access / mini-DLC is a very good approach. Each such addition can have Interiors of one manufacturer and some new gameplay loops for all interiors related content.

 

[Kaocraft]

Any talk of player avatars going flying off into the void or other such shenanigans if they should dare to move inside a ship always make me go

Player avatars currently go flying off into the void if they dare to move inside a fleet carrier on those occasions when a fleet carrier is orbiting less than 1000Mm from a planet. Not to all the way derail your point but just FYI this is what happens right now. As soon as they get out of their seat they quite literally go flying off into the void.

 

[Arioch]

Player avatars currently go flying off into the void if they dare to move inside a fleet carrier on those occasions when a fleet carrier is orbiting less than 1000Mm from a planet. Not to all the way derail your point but just FYI this is what happens right now. As soon as they get out of their seat they quite literally go flying off into the void.

I wonder if that’s linked to the instancing problem players have experienced with FCs/stations where they fly away from your ship at ludicrous speed when you drop from SuperCruise?

The “yeet” video above looks like this reported issue and is linked to other players dying in the instance.

I’ve never had an issue moving around my ships in VR (apart from furniture and occasional small creature ) which is what my previous post was about - FCs to me are in the same category as orbital outposts, not like our flyable ships.

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

But it absolutely means very direct PvP when you are talking about boarding a CMDR ship you yourself disabled with hostile intentions.
Because that was the context of my post you originally quoted.

I know it was the context of your post. I never said otherwise. Just pointing out that, just because direct PvP may not work when it comes to boarding ship doesn't mean its a rubbish feature.

 

[Kaocraft]

I wonder if that’s linked to the instancing problem players have experienced with FCs/stations where they fly away from your ship at ludicrous speed when you drop from SuperCruise?

The “yeet” video above looks like this reported issue and is linked to other players dying in the instance.

I’ve never had an issue moving around my ships in VR (apart from furniture and occasional small creature ) which is what my previous post was about - FCs to me are in the same category as orbital outposts, not like our flyable ships.

Yes it is part of the same problem. I most recently experienced this while playing in a team. One team mate was in a command deck seat onboard the carrier when it jumped into the system; I was already in the system when it jumped in, and my other mate was in his ship docked on the carrier.

For about 10 minutes after the carrier arrived in system, it was ~ 990Mm away from the planetary body.

• When I drop onto the ship from super cruise, I cannot dock because the carrier is constantly moving faster than my thrusters can take me.
• When teammate 1 undocks his ship from the carrier pad, his ship goes hurtling away as soon as the magnetic clamps are released.
• When teammate 2 gets out of his seat onboard the carrier, he clips through the carrier geometry and goes blasting off into space and then the game glitches out.

It’s not exactly an instance issue: we can all log out and back in again, and the problem persists until such time as the Carrier has stabilized its orbit to >1000Mm from target body.
This is what it looks was happening. But we aren’t trying to be QA testers so our observations are not rigorous.
Since we started working on Trailblazer Construction Sites, we’ve spent a lot more time interacting with the carrier, especially in the crucial minutes right before and after a jump; so we’ve run into this issue a number of times.

Seems like sometimes, but not always, a carrier will initially arrive in-system and its Frame Of Reference to the planet will be in a state of continuous adjustment. This appears to possibly have something to do with proximity to existing stations which are orbiting the same body.

Since carrier is moving at a non-constant velocity, your ships, avatar, everything else cannot establish a frame of reference and probably locks itself to whatever velocity the carrier WAS going at the moment the instance is generated. Which of course will instantly be wrong when the instance loads.

In most cases the issue corrects itself within 5-15 minutes but it can take longer
It seems to stabilize as soon as the carrier is >1000Mm from reference body.
I’m guessing this has been going on forever but it was previously more of an edge case since fewer people were using carriers immediately after they jumped.

 

[Staarlord]

Minimal viable implementation.

Just an elevator. Nope, not really interiors, just an elevator.

Just a room for cosmetics. To have value, cosmetics need to be a part of the natural gameplay flow. For example, paintjobs are visible to others and for screenshots/videos with external camera, both happen while in natural flow of the gameplay. Dashboard livery, although not visible to others, is always visible to the player and in videos/screenshots, also in natural flow of the gameplay. The room with the only function of storing cosmetics, and the only gameplay of load in to look at them and load out to play the game - won't even give any value to such cosmetics, simply because they won't be seen in the natural flow of the gameplay.

I see no point in interiors that have no other function except a place to put cosmetics in completely out of everything else in the game.

If you think about it, this is exactly how carrier interiors work. I mean, those guys are huge and yet? We only see a very small segment of them. Namely, some of the areas leading up to the bridge. We don't get to see the "staff" areas...even though we are the owners. We don't get to see what a carrier's FSD, power plant, and cargo hold rooms looks like, for example... Even the tritium depot; we magically transfer fuel from our cargo hold to the carrier's but we don't see how that's happening--it just magically shows up there.

However? I disagree with the "I see no point in interiors that have no other function, except a place to put cosmetics in..." As I mentioned elsewhere, if the game is truly seamless? Suddenly (just like a certain other game that shall not be named) most of the conversations of on-foot, space and interiors goes away...unless there is an issue found in one of these areas, or you're trying to describe in detail a thing that happened in your ship, in space, at a settlement... You don't see these people in that other forum talking distinguishing between on-foot, space or SRV missions, unless, again, the details as to the location or circumstance is somehow relevant, or an event is being described. This is because on-foot is-interiors-is space...and you can do all three of these things at once. For example, if you have to raid a settlement, you can first take out turrets and do bombing runs and then go into what would otherwise be an on-foot mission. You can leave your seat, and have a walk about the cabin, pickup a candy bar or bottle of water from where you last left them lying around and down them. I once had a bunch of food and bottles thrown on my dash/ console. Mostly because it was funny and made me look like a slob.

The more seamless the game is? The more we automatically know that sourcing 228 scu of tin and delivering them to Ruin station involves manually placing the cargo containers on your ship and unloading them in the same fashion, whether you're doing it by tractor/ gravity beam, or using a heavy Ripley/ Aliens-like loader suit. It's just "a mission." In Elite, we may have to first clarify, to get people looking in the correct locations, "These are on-foot missions. You have to go to pickup the settlement missions to restore power, just go to [x] station, disembark and visit a mission board..." So that they know which missions boards to even check because the mission boards for on-foot are different than space-based mission boards, while in the other game they are all one in the same, and you even have to sometimes get out and talk to an NPC about a mission that lands you into space-based combat.

 

[galahad2069]

I know it was the context of your post. I never said otherwise. Just pointing out that, just because direct PvP may not work when it comes to boarding ship doesn't mean its a rubbish feature.

But it can lead to a rubbish implementation if you don't examine how it's going to work in every single possible situation that can happen in a multiplayer game (which PvP is part of).

If you design a new type of window that works wonders in all kind of buildings on planet surfaces but for some unavoidable technical reason CMDRs will fall out of it into open space if you use it on fleet carriers, then you either redesign the window or don't use it on fleet carriers, but you cannot simply say 'good enough' and call it a day.

 

[Coolgroove]

If you think about it, this is exactly how carrier interiors work. I mean, those guys are huge and yet? We only see a very small segment of them. Namely, some of the areas leading up to the bridge. We don't get to see the "staff" areas...even though we are the owners. We don't get to see what a carrier's FSD, power plant, and cargo hold rooms looks like, for example... Even the tritium depot; we magically transfer fuel from our cargo hold to the carrier's but we don't see how that's happening--it just magically shows up there.

Yes, there is no crucial need to have every tiny bit of interiors. It would be cool, but reasonably there is no need, anywhere in the game - ships, carriers, stations, other objects.

Carries have their version of modules in a form of services. Not all services, but some of them require a physical room for them to have a gameplay/interaction possible. The same way, at least some ship modules need to be accessible in Ship Interiors to have a gameplay/interaction with them.

Suddenly (just like a certain other game that shall not be named) most of the conversations of on-foot, space and interiors goes away...unless there is an issue found in one of these areas, or you're trying to describe in detail a thing that happened in your ship, in space, at a settlement... You don't see these people in that other forum talking distinguishing between on-foot, space or SRV missions, unless, again, the details as to the location or circumstance is somehow relevant, or an event is being described. This is because on-foot is-interiors-is space...and you can do all three of these things at once. For example, if you have to raid a settlement, you can first take out turrets and do bombing runs and then go into what would otherwise be an on-foot mission. You can leave your seat, and have a walk about the cabin, pickup a candy bar or bottle of water from where you last left them lying around and down them. I once had a bunch of food and bottles thrown on my dash/ console. Mostly because it was funny and made me look like a slob.

As you've said - 'This is because on-foot is-interiors-is space...and you can do all three of these things at once.' - That game was from a person point of view from the start, so that 'different mode' perception doesn't exist.

In Elite, most of the time we are a ship, sometimes we can get out on a planet and be as a person. Because of that disconnect - we have this perception. That is one of the main reasons I personally want Ship Interiors, because that is the last interaction the game is missing to go towards the full - commander/person in space, and connect everything together.

However? I disagree with the "I see no point in interiors that have no other function, except a place to put cosmetics in..." As I mentioned elsewhere, if the game is truly seamless?

But why disagree? To be truly seamless, or at least to fake it subtly enough, interiors need to have other functions - ability to go through them to get out of the ship and get in, access to vehicles one might have on their ship, etc - points 1 & 2. Otherwise it would be just a separate room that has no other use but to look at cosmetics, and it'll be out of the seamless interaction with the rest of the game.

... So that they know which missions boards to even check because the mission boards for on-foot are different than space-based mission boards, while in the other game they are all one in the same, and you even have to sometimes get out and talk to an NPC about a mission that lands you into space-based combat.

Ohh, how I wish that mission boards and NPCs on-foot would offer all types of missions. As well as in-person access to menu services. That would add a lot of coherence to how the game plays overall.

 

[Fizzatron]

Sure, me to.
I was referring to sales and player retention

The concept of it was and is still sound which is why most have come around to it. The initial issues upon launch were for the most part the reason why things worked out the way they did at that time. Odyssey was late already and then Covid upset the last part of what would be the crunch time which resulted in it being released probably about four to six months before it should have. The reasons why Frontier chose the path to release it then and deal with the fallout rather than waiting some more have been a well trodden path of itself, but suffice to say, those who say that no-one wanted Elite Feet were and are still wrong, and some at the heart of it more likely trying to disrupt the already poor launch even more, possibly trying to take the whole game down, and even though I won't say they almost succeeded, the combination of factors did a lot of damage, though Elite has thankfully bounced back thanks to Frontier's commitment to the game. The success of the games in this niche genre doesn't have to be a zero sum process, but unfortunately not all believe that given the situation they themselves find them in, in relation to the state of their 'game'.

 

[galahad2069]

Ohh, how I wish that mission boards and NPCs on-foot would offer all types of missions.

If you mean that the on-ship mission board should offer all kind of missions (including on-foot ones), then true, that would be really nice.
Having to run all the way to the concourse every single time has always been a chore.

 

[dannysquid]

For me, the best thing about ship interiors would be having missions take place in NPC ships. Hotwire this Cobra Mk3 and take it to Lave, sneak onto the Anaconda and evade security to steal the cargo, rescue the prisoners from the security ship etc... You could basically extend the excellent settlement mechanics for ship interiors.

 

[Coolgroove]

If you mean that the on-ship mission board should offer all kind of missions (including on-foot ones), then true, that would be really nice.
Having to run all the way to the concourse every single time has always been a chore.

Yeah, ok, that too.

I meant on-foot mission boards and NPCs in-person should offer all types of missions, for players who don't think that on-foot interactions are a chore.

 

[Markov Chaney]

The situations with a ship flying inside the docking drum of a station, and a person standing on top of a hovering ship, with the way things work currently, differ in terms of parenting.

In the former case, the ship is for all intents and purposes a part of the station, and you could shake the station around like a feather duster, and the ship wouldn't budge relative to the station, even though there is no visible physical connection between the two -- they are held together firmly by maths.

You have put this a lot better than I did!

Were the game to let you walk around inside the ship, you would more than likely be parented to it, like the ship in the station in the first case, as is indeed the player camera whilst seated in ship/SRV.

In the SRV you are held to the planet firmly by maths and better still it's maths that respects a collision mesh, and the subtleties of modelling terrain for physics. When you are in the ship but landed I don't think that's 100% the case, because the model is geared towards you flying around it which is a bit different.

A whole bunch of stuff has to happen to deal with the surface of the planet rather than just treating it as a theoretical centre of mass, and the drop zone is there partly to hide this switcheroo on your way in. I'm wondering now if you flew over a massive mountain, but with the ship above drop zone height, whether the height-above-ground indicator actually works properly... I bet it doesn't.

But yes, you could pull the same trick with the letterbox/airlock.

There is no going in through letterbox at Lantern Light station. Boom > respawn.

Yes, once ship goes through the slot, inside the station, movement is calculated in relation to the inside of the station. But if rotational correction is OFF - some movement is decoupled from station rotation.

Realised last night there's a second important thing here, which is that FA itself has to pick a target for the control paradigm. You can tell what reference it's using at any time because it's always the compass, allegedly. Which potentially means FA is dealing with the nominated landing pad, not the centre of mass of the station!

Rotation center of the LL station is somewhere in the center of it's globe with pads.

I suppose one place we could experiment is one of the asymmetric Outpost layouts because it will be easier to spot what things are related to what, given they stick out...

I've positioned ship in the center, at various distances from the center, in FA ON (too fast, not possible even to take of in FA OFF). Then switched FA OFF and started to move in various directions from those various positions, including yaw and roll. Each time after I hit FA ON - ship was instantly perfectly aligned with the station movement (Rotational correction).

That indicates that this switch to align movement between objects works very fast, and many commanders spinning, blowing up, respawning in the same instance had no impact on how it worked for me.

Not questioning that aspect of the capability. I am questioning whether that gives rise to problems with verisimilitude - if it's TOO good then you have to start asking difficult questions about how FA ON is countering Coriolis force (as one example that happens to be relevant in a Coriolis station) and why it can do it instantly. Which I think is actually the difficult question you are asking.

I didn't notice the usual effect of falling to the pad, maybe I didn't wait long enough, but after spinning for about 5-10 minutes in the same place - ship was still spinning and didn't meet the station wall.

It should "fall" but in a curve and won't hit the pad. The ship should go off at a tangent, literally, with respect to the parent body. But in the rotating environment of the station, that will look like you are falling in a curve towards the outside.

This experimentation showed that all the maths that hold together ralated objects can switch very fast, and so no matter how interiors will be connected to the ship - they can move and behave like one. And objects inside interiors can also be 'firmly held together by maths'.

They "can," again, not questioning that. I think last time around this debate it was Ian D who pointed out Lorentz transformations are pretty easy on a GPU. What I'm questioning is whether it hangs together well enough if you want proper zero-gee ship interiors but also want everybody's orbit to continue to look normal.

For EVA - that's the question, continue below

Yeah, I think using airlock as the point where you hide any switcheroo that's needed should work, just like the drop zone works to go planetside.

It is a game, and in it already lots of realistic details and physics were sacrificed so it would be possible and fun to play the game, so it works, and for the gameplay to be accessible. Proposed handwavium is not any different, and is imo required to have any realistic chance of implementation of this feature.

Above I've used the term "verisimilitude" as it just struck me it's the same debate. Ask any cinematographer about whether they are making an exact depiction of what you the viewer would see. They are not, because... it looks wrong out of context. Totally the same deal with game physics.

As I understand, for such a frame of reference - there is a limit when it comes to other objects. For example, if EVA from your ship to the other ship/derelict/wreck/structure/etc. Since EVA has the same freedom of movement as ships, I was thinking, at leas at some point in movement, it has to use (switch to) the same system of references as ships do.

Yeah. The principle challenge is scale. A well-known open source 3d wireframe space trading and combat game, ahem ahem, had some big old issues with this a decade ago because if you have two objects at two ends of a star system, but you're using the same model that has to work for when they are centimetres apart, you start running into problems with rounding errors because you "only" have 15 decimal places to play with. If you want things even down to the nearest degree of arc, that's 3 significant figures gone before you even did any maths. It, erm, adds up quickly, if you'll pardon the pun. That's why "orbital flight" is a different zone in ED, the frame of ref switches to the planet at that point so you no longer have to worry about catering for light years and can concentrate on centimetres.

[EDIT: Just read the comments about Flight Carriers in close orbit of a body... I'm gonna say that's related.]

I think for EVA you therefore won't run into that problem in the orbital zone, but you might run into problems with the other objects in orbital space not being modelled well for interaction with something as small as a highly trained operative in an EVA suit.

 

[Coolgroove]

Realised last night there's a second important thing here, which is that FA itself has to pick a target for the control paradigm. You can tell what reference it's using at any time because it's always the compass, allegedly. Which potentially means FA is dealing with the nominated landing pad, not the centre of mass of the station!

Could be, on that part I'm not sure, because these tests were possible only after Take off, which frees the pad for other ships to dock. If the pad is still a reference in that case - don't know, but with how ship spins and station spins around the ship - the only visual point of reference for my tests that I could at least somewhat reliably determine was the center of rotation. With how LL rotates on different angles than regular station that rotates only around one central axis (at least visually perceivable) - combined with decoupled movement in FA OFF / Rotational correction OFF - it was enough to illustrate what I was interested in testing.

I suppose one place we could experiment is one of the asymmetric Outpost layouts because it will be easier to spot what things are related to what, given they stick out...

Could be, but I'll be honest - it is outside of the scope of what I needed to see for myself. Such details can satisfy curiosity of how exactly something was done, could be fun, but I don't think it'll have any impact on a fundamentals I wanted to test - speed of switching/aligning, as I needed to know if comments about that exact capability had any merit.

I am questioning whether that gives rise to problems with verisimilitude - if it's TOO good then you have to start asking difficult questions about how FA ON is countering Coriolis force (as one example that happens to be relevant in a Coriolis station) and why it can do it instantly. Which I think is actually the difficult question you are asking.

Hmm, from the point of view of delving into the nitty-gritty of how it was done - yeah, I would be very curious to know.

From a point of view of gameplay and mechanically playing the game by pressing button, so to say - there were probably some of those sacrifices made, to make it play in a comfortable manner.

It should "fall" but in a curve and won't hit the pad. The ship should go off at a tangent, literally, with respect to the parent body. But in the rotating environment of the station, that will look like you are falling in a curve towards the outside.

I expected that, but it's most likely that station spins so fast that the process is very slow and I didn't wait long enough, or maybe if the pad/other point was referenced it somehow pulled to opposite direction when rotation placed it, or maybe point of reference changes when in different place inside station space and rotation made switch too fast, or maybe I should've started even closer to the wall than I was. I was tired of waiting for something to happen and don't have enough information except that in all the volatile rotation of that station around me I didn't notice the expected pull.

What I'm questioning is whether it hangs together well enough if you want proper zero-gee ship interiors but also want everybody's orbit to continue to look normal.

Well, quite early in my various wants for ship interiors people who had better understanding of the tech explained to me that realistic details like this are insanely hard, especially in a peer to peer or even server-client. EVA with ships and objects around the player is not a problem (reasonably), because all of the participants are governed by the same system. Zero-g movement inside the ship that moves/turns at various changing speeds/vectors - that is the whole different level of complexity. And then there are effects like Force Shell, rams/collisions... That's why I don't want to have zero-g movement inside ships (as cool as it would be), and completely ok with magic boots, and even camera shake with high-g blackout effect that stops movement inputs.

Yeah, I think using airlock as the point where you hide any switcheroo that's needed should work, just like the drop zone works to go planetside.

Then it looks like my assumptions about that and other similar subtle (and not so much) fakery were correct. TY

I think for EVA you therefore won't run into that problem in the orbital zone, but you might run into problems with the other objects in orbital space not being modelled well for interaction with something as small as a highly trained operative in an EVA suit.

If I understand correctly, initial reference is an Airlock, and at some radius around it there is a - let's call it Tether Zone for the sake of an example, similar to Orbital zone. Inside this zone the reference is an Airlock, outside of it - same as for ships/other objects. When we are near the object with it's own Tether zone (another ship), but they do not intersect (tether - ship space - tether) - there should be no problems. But if objects are close enough for their Tether zones to overlap - that could cause problems.

In my understanding, something like a center of the overlap could be used to switch between references, or maybe better some distance in the center to allow for a bit of correction if needed. The switch itself should work quite fast, that assumption is based on one of the Ghost Giraffe streams where they moved from one asteroid ring to another, the switch happened and it was ok.

I can see how such a problem can be multiplied when there are many objects, for example asteroid field or signal source with ships debris. But if it means that big boulders and big chunks of metal are very dangerous even for highly trained operative and could cause sudden death by unexpected collision - I'm ok with it, because the most gameplay would happen near/inside big objects (ships, installations, etc). And if somebody in the suit would decide to be close to a lot of ships flying around - same, it's not a safe place to be in the suit, hehe

If the overlap is big enough for a Tether zone of one object to be inside the other - probably a matter of correctly determine the priority and switch based on it. I'm sure such a switch won't be precisely clean, but it could be good enough not to disrupt gameplay.

As for more sever situations, like mentioned FC - that's the level of bugged I can live with, since it requires a set of specific somewhat rare conditions and can be easily avoided. Plus it could make for something silly and fun to happen, or maybe there could be improvements as someone would work on this part more.

 

[Jinx Chrome]

For me, the best thing about ship interiors would be having missions take place in NPC ships. Hotwire this Cobra Mk3 and take it to Lave, sneak onto the Anaconda and evade security to steal the cargo, rescue the prisoners from the security ship etc... You could basically extend the excellent settlement mechanics for ship interiors.

and more:

• your crew member can fly the captured or your own ship back to the station
• 'Hot drop off' your SRV into a settlement zone or into a mountainous area
• all kinds of shenanigans with passengers: calm down a riot, personally drag the imperial passenger or your useless fighter pilot into an airlock and hit the eject button. Say that no one would love to try that out