The Planetary landing and planetside missions discussion Thread

[VR Mr Teatime]

Being able to draw a planetary surface does not take into account MP - you need to provide instancing - that is why you do not see seamless transitions in ED, not because it is not technically possible graphically.

Yes agree - I've always struggled conceptually with some of the aspects of this and why it operates the way it does.

Especially with the transition between supercruise and normal flight (and vice versa) and I think there's multiple aspects at play here - 1. being the positional translation that occurs between your approach in supercruise and you "appearing" at a point outside the spacestation, asteroid field or other point of interest, 2. the setup/spawning of station/asteroid or whatever NPC/AI assets are needed in the location (which may already be there) and 3. the setup of the multiplayer "instance" of the players in the vicinity. One (or maybe a combination) of those factors is currently preventing a seamless transition between SC and normal.

Networking setup is probably the culprit here as positional translation is likely a "gameplay" compromise to speed up your arrival and avoid the pilot needing the ability to fly at SC speeds to within say 20KM of a station i.e. visible range before dropping out. Similarly spawning of assets is something that can be done on the fly based on proximity, so shouldn't need a transition, but might do if a lot of AI setup etc is needed.

Having a planet surface nearby wouldn't be any different to dropping into a planetary ring and I expect having a city/outpost there would be like dropping into a RES - I guess we'd need a dev to say which of the 3 factors above are limiting seamless transitions or whether it is sensible within Cobra's constraints to expect that the transition effects can be eliminated (or lessened) in the future.

 

[kreuzbichler]

the tech will need to be cranked up to 11

the asteroid fields are the only thing that come close to how surfaces will work, and so far the performance goes way down in the fields.

Now imagine that would be grass, mountains, rivers and structures, generated on the fly - FPS goes down to 1

 

[Balfuset790]

I think the transition side of things isn't as bad as people seem to think. At least from a Lore perspective.

Now, bearing in mind that Mass Locking wasn't TECHNICALLY a thing in the previous games, you did still have a minimum safe distance from when you could enter hyperspace after leaving an orbital station, similarly from a planet. I don't see why it can't be a simple Supercruise transition like we have now.

You select your target, a base on the surface, and fly towards it, you drop out of Supercruise within X distance, there's a transition screen like Hyperspace to cover instance loading and indicate re-entry flare, and then, bam, atmospheric flight.

Similarly, if you're trying to get into Supercruise from a planet's atmosphere it's like Supercruising away from a Star, the Escape vector appears in your compass, you align with it, then FSD activates and you transition into orbit in SC. It's not 100% seamless but it seems the simplest solution?

 

[AnnuverScotinExile]

Especially with the transition between supercruise and normal flight (and vice versa) and I think there's multiple aspects at play here - 1. being the positional translation that occurs between your approach in supercruise and you "appearing" at a point outside the spacestation, asteroid field or other point of interest, 2. the setup/spawning of station/asteroid or whatever NPC/AI assets are needed in the location (which may already be there) and 3. the setup of the multiplayer "instance" of the players in the vicinity. One (or maybe a combination) of those factors is currently preventing a seamless transition between SC and normal.

Even if those things were not there, there would need to be a transition for lore reasons. It would look completely daft if we changed from a travel mode where we were not moving at all, but the bubble of spacetime that we are in was moving at 30k/sec, to one where we are moving normally at a very much reduced speed. Sure, it would not have to be so long, but a transition would still be needed.

 

[Zplintz]

Yes agree - I've always struggled conceptually with some of the aspects of this and why it operates the way it does.

Especially with the transition between supercruise and normal flight (and vice versa) and I think there's multiple aspects at play here - 1. being the positional translation that occurs between your approach in supercruise and you "appearing" at a point outside the spacestation, asteroid field or other point of interest, 2. the setup/spawning of station/asteroid or whatever NPC/AI assets are needed in the location (which may already be there) and 3. the setup of the multiplayer "instance" of the players in the vicinity. One (or maybe a combination) of those factors is currently preventing a seamless transition between SC and normal.

Networking setup is probably the culprit here as positional translation is likely a "gameplay" compromise to speed up your arrival and avoid the pilot needing the ability to fly at SC speeds to within say 20KM of a station i.e. visible range before dropping out. Similarly spawning of assets is something that can be done on the fly based on proximity, so shouldn't need a transition, but might do if a lot of AI setup etc is needed.

Having a planet surface nearby wouldn't be any different to dropping into a planetary ring and I expect having a city/outpost there would be like dropping into a RES - I guess we'd need a dev to say which of the 3 factors above are limiting seamless transitions or whether it is sensible within Cobra's constraints to expect that the transition effects can be eliminated (or lessened) in the future.

At the point you exit in Hyperspace or when dropping out of SC - the world you are about to drop into needs to be created/initialised and setup. If that includes other players then they have to have the same setup as you. Because we can effectively drop out of SC at any time or any place and you travel across space at many times the speed of light it gives the engine no time to pre-initialise anything, let alone make sure other players will see the same as you.

the tech will need to be cranked up to 11

the asteroid fields are the only thing that come close to how surfaces will work, and so far the performance goes way down in the fields.

Now imagine that would be grass, mountains, rivers and structures, generated on the fly - FPS goes down to 1

Generating the surface details for a planet and generating surfaces for many 100's/1000's of separate 3d objects (ie each asteroid) is not the same thing.

A single object with 2000 faces tends to be less expensive to process than 1000 objects with 2 faces.

There is no reason the FPS would go down to 1 for a planet and not everyone sees a significant drop in FPS in the rings either.

Also the tech that FD deploy for their engine is already at 11.

 

[ZeeWolf]

the tech will need to be cranked up to 11

the asteroid fields are the only thing that come close to how surfaces will work, and so far the performance goes way down in the fields.

Now imagine that would be grass, mountains, rivers and structures, generated on the fly - FPS goes down to 1

Maybe. But height fields (land detail) that interpolate detail aren't usually that CPU intensive. I would have expected it to compare very well with the ridiculous amount of detail going on in the stations which covers the entire field of view including the sky which includes AI dealing with rotation. The 'airless moons' should be very doable even with the game engine we currently have.

 

[Zplintz]

Maybe. But height fields (land detail) that interpolate detail aren't usually that CPU intensive. I would have expected it to compare very well with the ridiculous amount of detail going on in the stations which covers the entire field of view including the sky which includes AI dealing with rotation. The 'airless moons' should be very doable even with the game engine we currently have.

Ridiculous amounts of detail in the stations is an understatement. I can't think of any game I have played that has that amount of detail visible (ie not obstructed by other objects) in a single map let alone a single object.

 

[AnnuverScotinExile]

At the point you exit in Hyperspace or when dropping out of SC - the world you are about to drop into needs to be created/initialised and setup. If that includes other players then they have to have the same setup as you. Because we can effectively drop out of SC at any time or any place and you travel across space at many times the speed of light it gives the engine no time to pre-initialise anything, let alone make sure other players will see the same as you.

Not strictly true. Yes, we can drop out at any point at random, as far as the engine is concerned. But we rarely do, and, it seems to me in my naive little way, that an emergency drop into a new instance with just me in it should be dead easy to set up on the fly. The vast majority of SC journeys that do not end in a hyperspace jump has a player targeting a spaceport or RES or beacon, and travelling some considerable distance towards that destination, slowing down nicely before dropping. There is plenty of time to do nearly all the handshaking during the journey, with just the final dotting of "Is" and crossing of "Ts" to do at the drop. On the relatively rare instances when the player changes his mind, you have just wasted a bit of effort, that's all. Of course, that design is more complex to build and manage, but if it was important enough, they could do it.

 

[Zplintz]

Not strictly true. Yes, we can drop out at any point at random, as far as the engine is concerned. But we rarely do, and, it seems to me in my naive little way, that an emergency drop into a new instance with just me in it should be dead easy to set up on the fly. The vast majority of SC journeys that do not end in a hyperspace jump has a player targeting a spaceport or RES or beacon, and travelling some considerable distance towards that destination, slowing down nicely before dropping. There is plenty of time to do nearly all the handshaking during the journey, with just the final dotting of "Is" and crossing of "Ts" to do at the drop. On the relatively rare instances when the player changes his mind, you have just wasted a bit of effort, that's all. Of course, that design is more complex to build and manage, but if it was important enough, they could do it.

Regardless of whether we rarely drop out of SC or not, we do do it (whether intentionally or accidentally). Even when we do have a station as our target, the engine does not know when we will do it, whether we hit the target or not or who will or won't be in that instance when we get there.

That was the choice we made in the DDF when we asked for a system like SC that wasn't just micro jumping to POIs (that would have been known in advance).

 

[AnnuverScotinExile]

Regardless of whether we rarely drop out of SC or not, we do do it (whether intentionally or accidentally). Even when we do have a station as our target, the engine does not know when we will do it, whether we hit the target or not or who will or won't be in that instance when we get there.

That was the choice we made in the DDF when we asked for a system like SC that wasn't just micro jumping to POIs (that would have been known in advance).

Did you bother to read what I wrote? Yes I know all of that. But the engine could still do a pile of preparation work in anticipation of you dropping where you targeted, which is all that I said. I do a lot of performance design in my day job, and one of the easiest way to do things quicker is to not actually be quicker, but do some of it at a different time. There are two obvious ways: one is to prepare when you have time to do so, and the other is to not do all the work you need to do at the time, and fill in the details later - that one works much less well here.

 

[elayeth]

I do not want planetary landings BEFORE:

1. Improved visuals - meaning mostly more variations in:
a/ space station and cities in space (incl. interior)
b/ astronomical objects
c/ astronomical phenomena

2. Improved trading such as: better presentation (i.e. graphs; description, visuals); better and more dynamic price changes; player to player trading

3. Improved exploration (lots of stuff - the list is full of cool ideas - check exploration forum)

4. Improved missions (chain missions, something that doesn’t always involve - fly from A to B).

5. Improved lore (ie. talking heads, ability to walk around ships and station etc)

Only then I would like FD to work on planetary landings. I can't imagine planetary landings before i.e. ability to walk around stations or new stations added…

 

[Alien]

I do not want planetary landings BEFORE:

1. Improved visuals - meaning mostly more variations in:
a/ space station and cities in space (incl. interior)
b/ astronomical objects
c/ astronomical phenomena

2. Improved trading such as: better presentation (i.e. graphs; description, visuals); better and more dynamic price changes; player to player trading

3. Improved exploration (lots of stuff - the list is full of cool ideas - check exploration forum)

4. Improved missions (chain missions, something that doesn’t always involve - fly from A to B).

5. Improved lore (ie. talking heads, ability to walk around ships and station etc)

Only then I would like FD to work on planetary landings. I can't imagine planetary landings before i.e. ability to walk around stations or new stations added…

The parts I highlighted in red, are what I think is wrong with your otherwise good post. It would be nice if we each could have the version of Elite Dangerous we each want, but Frontier have to make a game that pleases as many people as possible. Comments like "I want" are not the approach to take with this or any game development. You are not the only one playing.

 

[elayeth]

The parts I highlighted in red, are what I think is wrong with your otherwise good post. It would be nice if we each could have the version of Elite Dangerous we each want, but Frontier have to make a game that pleases as many people as possible. Comments like "I want" are not the approach to take with this or any game development. You are not the only one playing.

You are right. It should have been "I would like"... The forum is imo the place for everyone to post what they would like. Its FD's job to choose who to listen to. Hence they started this thread..

 

[techie33]

3. We need to be able to Drop from Orbit to the City or Outpost at land , so there is no traveling across surface of the planet

need to see all potential landing points on the planet from the Orbit

 

[CMDR MAIN SEQUENCE]

You are right. It should have been "I would like"... The forum is imo the place for everyone to post what they would like. Its FD's job to choose who to listen to. Hence they started this thread..

A mod started this thread to collate all ideas and comments into a single place, it was not started by the devs.

 

[badwolf77]

I do not want planetary landings BEFORE:

1. Improved visuals - meaning mostly more variations in:
a/ space station and cities in space (incl. interior)
b/ astronomical objects
c/ astronomical phenomena

2. Improved trading such as: better presentation (i.e. graphs; description, visuals); better and more dynamic price changes; player to player trading

3. Improved exploration (lots of stuff - the list is full of cool ideas - check exploration forum)

4. Improved missions (chain missions, something that doesn’t always involve - fly from A to B).

5. Improved lore (ie. talking heads, ability to walk around ships and station etc)

Only then I would like FD to work on planetary landings. I can't imagine planetary landings before i.e. ability to walk around stations or new stations added…

I pretty much endorse the total opposite of everything said above.

 

[ZeeWolf]

3. We need to be able to Drop from Orbit to the City or Outpost at land , so there is no traveling across surface of the planet

need to see all potential landing points on the planet from the Orbit

Like the previous two games. Which did it better than Freelancer IMHO

 

[techie33]

i want this crafts repairing outposts and stations sparkling and flying around

 

[elayeth]

I pretty much endorse the total opposite of everything said above.

I wonder why? Is bare bone elite + planetary landings good enough for you?

 

[Jason S]

But when is it ?