The Planetary landing and planetside missions discussion Thread
- Thread starter Sir.Tj
- Start date
-
- Tags
- mexican(mexico) nexus
...as for the reasons for landing. It could be more treacherous to land than dock but the benefits could be higher profits from buying direct from planet traders as opposed to commodities market.
I dream of going down the atmosphere at hypersonic speed with flames around the cockpit and the ship shaking like it's going to fall apart (I know that we have vertical propulsion, but I want to fly a spaceship like an orbiter 
). But of course, like everything else, it's going to be dumbed-down so much just to please the 10 years old pew-pew crowd.
). But of course, like everything else, it's going to be dumbed-down so much just to please the 10 years old pew-pew crowd.
I agree. This part is in line to my proposal for some possible future pure exploration ship:
- capable for fast atmospheric flight - speed limited by overheating caused by the density of the medium and the resulting friction;
- capable to sustain great pressure (for example: 500 atmospheres standard, up to 2000 atmospheres with max. reinforced hull and bulkheads);
This and This!
Make it something to learn. Something with schools, but still very very hard. It has to be perk skill that will grant you extra benfit by having not have paid for transit (read bellow) and being able to use this ship on surface. The mechanic should respect things like aerodynamic resistance, power output/tech of atmoshperic engines and escape velocity. It should basically redefine the space within which ship operates. Make takeoff complex also. Things like knowledge that Eagle will need very different procedure than Type-9.
Of course offer paid (not cheap), planetary transit option - that you can visit to check bulletin (optionally play Crusader Kings/Europa Universalis like politics operations - ask Paradox please - but this is stretching). Buy cargo down bellow, but pay for transit of cargo. Or you can pay to have your ship transported (for say complex upgrades).
Variation of Atmospheres on non terraformed planets should also make huge difference.
And, placing a mining drone on a moon... mining drone with some capacity, higher classes with self defence, reporting ability... would be nice spin on mining. (These drones should be pricy. Depending on class Asp-Python-Anaconda type pricy.), but ultimately nice prey. -- This would create instances of planetary combat.
Since Planetary Landings is going to be paid extension, this would have been awesome and it is not unrealistic.
What kind of nonsense is this? The console version will not have any effect on the already existing pc version. I get sick and tired of this kind of pointless, unfounded drivel. As someone who owns both platforms, it is very rare that any game is significantly affected by multiple platforms, contrary to the ramblings of the uneducated bandwagoneers. The pc version will be the best it can be be. The console and mac versions will be the best they can be. Some of you are running pcs that are outperformed by consoles. It doesn't matter. Frontier will make each platform the best it can be and all users will get their slice of the pie, and hopefully some of you trolling inflammatory types will be playing something else. Grrrrr.
I dream of going down the atmosphere at hypersonic speed with flames around the cockpit and the ship shaking like it's going to fall apart (I know that we have vertical propulsion, but I want to fly a spaceship like an orbiter
Me too and sadly you're right.
I don't see why it has to be all or nothing. It's very easy indeed to make planetary landings both easy and hard without needing much artificial tinkering with overall difficulty. Every planet will be different, having varying gravitational fields, temperature and atmospheric conditions. It stands to reason most heavily populated planets will have a gravitational force somewhere in the area of earth gravity, and similar atmospheric conditions to earth. Ships should likely be built to operate optimally in these conditions.
Taking this into account, just like Frontier, landing on a planet with 6 or 7 times the gravity of earth in something like an Anaconda is going to be a hell of a challenge compared to doing the same thing on earth. Doing the same thing in an Eagle will be an entirely different and likely lesser challenge. That said the planet with this sort of gravitational field is likely to be pretty hard for humans to live on, and most likely only a challenge explorers or mining expeditions need concern themselves with.
Taking this into account, just like Frontier, landing on a planet with 6 or 7 times the gravity of earth in something like an Anaconda is going to be a hell of a challenge compared to doing the same thing on earth. Doing the same thing in an Eagle will be an entirely different and likely lesser challenge. That said the planet with this sort of gravitational field is likely to be pretty hard for humans to live on, and most likely only a challenge explorers or mining expeditions need concern themselves with.
Heh.
Does anyone remember landing a panther on a heavy world back in FE2, FFE?
It was something you only did once on account of it being impossible to get back up into space when G > Ship's max acceleration.
Does anyone remember landing a panther on a heavy world back in FE2, FFE?
It was something you only did once on account of it being impossible to get back up into space when G > Ship's max acceleration.
Yeah. I had an Anaconda with the same problem. Landing it was a challenge in itself as it wanted to smash into the planet surface no matter how carefully I flew it.
Docking computer /sloved
Not really.
Docking computer + time acceleration exploit would get you down, but trying to come back out you'd be sitting on the pad, engines screaming going nowhere.
Edit. Of course in E a docking computer wouldn't solve the problem because as far as we know it doesn't cheat. If your ship flies like a brick it doesn't matter how good the computer is. It can't compensate for a lack of engines c.f gravity.
Docking computer + time acceleration exploit would get you down, but trying to come back out you'd be sitting on the pad, engines screaming going nowhere.
Edit. Of course in E
a docking computer wouldn't solve the problem because as far as we know it doesn't cheat. If your ship flies like a brick it doesn't matter how good the computer is. It can't compensate for a lack of engines c.f gravity.
Last edited:
Well, they've already set a very low bar for flight engine complexity, do you think that's because they were designing for consoles from the start?
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
I dream of going down the atmosphere at hypersonic speed with flames around the cockpit and the ship shaking like it's going to fall apart (I know that we have vertical propulsion, but I want to fly a spaceship like an orbiter
I imagine it'll be 'dumbed down' because of instancing and terrain loading, entering atmo will likely be a disguised load screen and instance insertion instead of some interactive flight experience.
But I'm open to being surprised.
Entering atmosphere will mostly likely be very similar to being interdicted and flying in atmosphere will probably be similar to flying in supercruise.
Did autopilot + max stardreamer get you off the surface? I never bothered flying anything bigger than an Asp in FFE. Fairly sure it would do one of get you back in space and blow you up, with the odds on the latter.
Personally im wondering how flight assist off mode will be in atmospheric flights
i expect barrel rolls, uncontrolled tumbles, and stalls
I would imagine flight assist off would be the ONLY way flight would happen in an atmosphere. It should also not be an easy task to accomplish. There must be some "Dangerous" aspect of this feature to keep it interesting IMO...
I really can't see it being a fully-fledged 'sim' type experience. For one thing, we'd start the landing process while in supercruise which, at the slowest speed - 30km/s - is already 4 times the speed of the Space Shuttle's reentry speed. This is pretty quick, and any misjudgements would become critical instantly. So, not a sim.
Then there's the little matter of time. From initial de-orbit burn to landing, the Space Shuttle would take a little over an hour. Again, this is already at pretty ridiculous speeds where one minor mistake would be 'game over' - so to speak.
I think it's more likely that atmosphere influence will be largely ignored - except maybe for graphic effect - and it will go similarly to the previous two Elite games and possibly something akin to No Man's Sky (although hopefully not too quickly). The other alternative of effectively 'interdicting' your destination would solve all of the issues above, but not give the kind of gameplay the OP was envisaging.
Then there's the little matter of time. From initial de-orbit burn to landing, the Space Shuttle would take a little over an hour. Again, this is already at pretty ridiculous speeds where one minor mistake would be 'game over' - so to speak.
I think it's more likely that atmosphere influence will be largely ignored - except maybe for graphic effect - and it will go similarly to the previous two Elite games and possibly something akin to No Man's Sky (although hopefully not too quickly). The other alternative of effectively 'interdicting' your destination would solve all of the issues above, but not give the kind of gameplay the OP was envisaging.
I suspect so, as well. Otherwise it'd be epic funny to see how they deal with coming in hot into a corrosive atmosphere. "'Hull breached'!? WHAaaaaaaa??????????? ..............."