Horizons Thrusters, Acceleration and High-G Planets

this is weak sauce.

There should be limits to what you can take off from based on your actual mass (including cargo) and your thrusters.

Not sure what the thinking was with FD here but it's unnecessary coddling. I can understand the limiting of speed to a certain extent due to hardware limitations but letting you always overcome gravity is going too far.
 
this is weak sauce.

There should be limits to what you can take off from based on your actual mass (including cargo) and your thrusters.

Not sure what the thinking was with FD here but it's unnecessary coddling. I can understand the limiting of speed to a certain extent due to hardware limitations but letting you always overcome gravity is going too far.

Agreed, feels like hand holding to make sure no-one gets inconvenienced when they land on a planet that's too big.

If they gave us clear information on how powerful our thrusters were in the outfitting screen we could judge for ourselves where we want to try to land.

And the weak justification that the planetary landing package somehow supercharges our ventral thrusters doesn't hold up under even cursory scrutiny. A bit of verisimilitude would be nice.

CMDR CTCParadox
 
If only you at least generated more heat with high G planets, but oh well, gameplay reasons, no worry just drop it there and be worry free. So elite dangerous or noob handholder? I can't decide and sometimes it feels that game can't decide on that either. Settlement on 5G planet is just ultra LOL to me. Newborn baby would be from 10-25KG on high G planet around 5G so yeah not happening.

And if some wisecrack is going to say but duuuh anti gravity and artificial gravity stuff, then why the hell are stations rotating and doing centrifugal gravity rotation if they have the tech for just standing there and having gravity?

Also damn nice analysis of gravity and thrusters in elite.

Aaah, but it's "graviton reflector technology" you see, it only works near the surface, not low orbit. :) I agree that it should generate more heat, i.t should feel... dangerous (TM)
 
this is weak sauce.

There should be limits to what you can take off from based on your actual mass (including cargo) and your thrusters.

Not sure what the thinking was with FD here but it's unnecessary coddling. I can understand the limiting of speed to a certain extent due to hardware limitations but letting you always overcome gravity is going too far.

On the one hand I can agree.

However, in the days of Frontier when we had this, it was quite easy to get stuck on a high G planet (assuming you even made it down safely).

Now, just imagine the same situation in a modern MMO.

Can you imagine the amount of salty tears and support requests that would occur from people not being able to take off? Imagine the bug report forums!

Yes, i'd prefer it more realistic here. Some sort of scale, so that the only way to land on a really high G planet is something with a very powerful thrust to mass ratio stands a chance.

However, it is what it is, and to be honest, now out on distant worlds, and i'm quite happy that i will be able to land my Anaconda with D thrusters on any planet. I'm very greatful to OP for posting this info when they did, since I was about to do the outfitting and thinking I should get big thrusters, and maybe even take a smaller ship, but this info enabled me to choose the big ship with weak thrusters. Landing still needs to be made very carefully of course, but at least i can get down and up again, regardless of where we go.

In short, yes, unrealistic, but its something i can accept and live with.
 
I had envisioned landings to be quite different. I thought large ships would get a lander/fighter bay and store a FSD less Sidewinder or equivalent for high g planetary landings.
Give it stronger aft engines than the viper yet very unsuitable for combat and if you screw up the landing you lose the craft and return to your ship in orbit, the same way the srv works.
The ship can then refuse to approach planets that are too close or over the maximum engine thrust and you can only land with the lander.

It is fun though to land a big ship on a high g planet even though it's not realistic. I would have liked to feel more difference between a 1.5g and 9.7g landing in an Anaconda. Sure the slightest screw up is a lot more deadly on 9.7g yet everything else feels the same. (Apart from the 'glitch' that allows you to reach nearly 9000 m/s on a downward slope at 9.77g)
Perhaps a better 'gravity reflector' mechanism would have been to set the minimum thrust at (max / (g+1)) A nicer way to flatten out the curve. That means you can also always take off and land, yet on 9g the Anaconda would only have 2 m/s2 to take off and land, while a viper still has 5.3 m/s2. You would need 125km to stop a 500 m/s descent at 2 m/s2, yet how many 9g planets are there. They should feel extremely dangerous.

Btw the viper with 25.5 m/s2 sideways thrust shows the same behavior as the Anaconda. Wobbly with nose down and lateral thrust quickly decreases against gravity. It holds out a bit longer, The Anaconda can hover sideways at max 0.285g, Viper 0.555g with thrusters that still deliver 2.6g perpendicular to gravity. Vertically above 2.1g, Viper = Anaconda for landing, and above 4.9g aft thrusters are the same too.

It is what it is. Yet seeing all the work that went into thrust curves by engine type and mass ratios to give all the ships a different feel, to then give every ship the exact same landing capabilities is a bit disappointing.
 
Last edited:
Couple more measurements in Viper and Asp reveal that lateral thrust reduces to 1/5th of the maximum between 0.1g and 0.3g

With my lightweight (under optimal mass) ship versions:
Anaconda 10.2 m/s2 lateral thrust at 0g-0.1g, 2.04 m/s2 above 0.3g
Asp explorer 15.8 m/s2 lateral thrust at 0g-0.1g, 3.17 m/s2 above 0.3g
Viper MK IIII 26.3 m/s2 lateral thrust at 0g-0.1g, 5.26 m/s2 above 0.3g

This leads to a max hover g of 0.32g for Asp and 0.54g for Viper MK III.
The Asp did indeed hover sideways at 0.32g without being able to accelerate up, with the Viper I managed that at 0.55g, pretty close.

The rest is the same between ships. Also with higher initial thrust, vertical and aft thrusters bottom out the same at local gravity + 5 m/s2.
 
Umm, I apologize if I'm a bit off the topic but some info, here, is not correct, to my knowledge.
A) there is no cap to vertical speed.
B) D-thrusters won't get my Cutter from 6+g planet, so they are certainly not infinitely powerful. (I can boost right up, if I have an A diso, but vertical thrusters are useless)
 
Last edited:
Umm, I apologize if I'm a bit off the topic but some info, here, is not correct, to my knowledge.
A) there is no cap to vertical speed.
B) D-thrusters won't get my Cutter from 6+g planet, so they are certainly not infinitely powerful. (I can boost right up, if I have an A diso, but vertical thrusters are useless)

Are you sure that's still the case?

A) When I turn FA off above that 9.77g planet, my downward velocity races to 500 m/s in 5 seconds and stays there. The game doesn't allow me to go any faster towards the surface. (You can combine it with forward speed though to reach really high speeds, yet downward it's very much capped)

B) 5D thrusters give me lift-off at 9.77g at precisely 5 m/s2. However a lot of the times it doesn't want to go as the ship re-lands before the thrusters are powered up enough to overcome gravity. Taking in the landing gear (resting on the shields) prevents re-landing and a few seconds later vertical lift-off occurs.

I did most of my tests far above the surface though. Drop out of orbital cruise at the right g and wait until the ship stops. Vertical thrusters behaved exactly the same from 5g to 9.5g, always 5 m/s2 on top of gravity. You should be able to take off.
 
On the one hand I can agree.

However, in the days of Frontier when we had this, it was quite easy to get stuck on a high G planet (assuming you even made it down safely).

Now, just imagine the same situation in a modern MMO.

Can you imagine the amount of salty tears and support requests that would occur from people not being able to take off? Imagine the bug report forums!

Yes, i'd prefer it more realistic here. Some sort of scale, so that the only way to land on a really high G planet is something with a very powerful thrust to mass ratio stands a chance.

However, it is what it is, and to be honest, now out on distant worlds, and i'm quite happy that i will be able to land my Anaconda with D thrusters on any planet. I'm very greatful to OP for posting this info when they did, since I was about to do the outfitting and thinking I should get big thrusters, and maybe even take a smaller ship, but this info enabled me to choose the big ship with weak thrusters. Landing still needs to be made very carefully of course, but at least i can get down and up again, regardless of where we go.

In short, yes, unrealistic, but its something i can accept and live with.


You mean the same kind of people who cry and complain about spending all their money on an anaconda - not having any left for insurance and dying? I'd give those players official warnings if they mis-used the support ticket system the first time and then perm ban their accounts if they did it again. The support ticket system is for actual game issues, not your poor skills or laziness at playing it.
 
Nice to see some discussion going on!
Intrigued by not being able to hover sideways above 0.3g I checked what's going on:
Main and aft thrusters work as expected, however side and bow thrusters act strangely against gravity. From 0.10g to 0.30g their thrust is reduced from 10.2 m/s2 to 2.0m/s2. 0.285g is the highest in which you can make a barrel roll without falling. The bow thrusters show even stranger behavior. Between 0.10g and 0.28g the ship won't fall on it's nose, but it will wobble as if dangling on a string.
From 0.30g to 1.00g the ship reaches a terminal velocity and will stop accelerating further at:
0.30g nose down unstable, holds at 63 m/s
0.40g nose down unstable, holds at 72 m/s
0.50g nose down unstable, holds at 80 m/s
0.75g nose down unstable, holds at 98 m/s
1.00g nose down unstable, holds at 117 m/s
At 1.25g and beyond nose down position has the full 10.2 m/s2 (1.04g) reduction in acceleration again. So at 1.25g, nose down, you accelerate towards the ground at 0.21g

I have no idea hat causes this. The placement of the thrusters giving FA trouble?
Thanks for the research, wondered about this but i took a break from ED.
It just doesn't make sense, i can see why there is a minimum limit for the thrusters to be able to land on all planets.

But why do the side and bow thrusters perform worse than normal?
I can get 10,2m/s² acceleration backward in 0G, but when the nose is pointed towards the planet i can't accelerate backwards when the planet has >0,28G(2,74m/s²)?
I should be accelerating backwards @8,95m/s².
Also, why the different speed limits?I just can't see why they did it this way.


My idea would be (it would like it to be realistic, but that's not gonna happen):
-Let the thrusters overcharge, give you a minimum of 5m/s², regardsless of gravitation
-The higher the planets gravity, more heat will be generated
-Every thruster should behave the same way (min 5m/s² for all thrusters, not those weird differences we see in SvennoJ's data)

If someone wants my data/excelspreadsheet, pm me.


Regards Cmdr Eirene
 
Last edited:
You mean the same kind of people who cry and complain about spending all their money on an anaconda - not having any left for insurance and dying? I'd give those players official warnings if they mis-used the support ticket system the first time and then perm ban their accounts if they did it again. The support ticket system is for actual game issues, not your poor skills or laziness at playing it.

Agreed. The people who would get their big ship stuck on a high-g planet are probably the same kind that run out of fuel on a regular basis.
Maybe we should give them unlimited fuel so they don't feel sad when they strand their Anaconda somewhere.

CMDR CTCParadox
 
Nice to see some discussion going on!
Thanks for the research, wondered about this but i took a break from ED.
It just doesn't make sense, i can see why there is a minimum limit for the thrusters to be able to land on all planets.

But why do the side and bow thrusters perform worse than normal?
I can get 10,2m/s² acceleration backward in 0G, but when the nose is pointed towards the planet i can't accelerate backwards when the planet has >0,28G(2,74m/s²)?
I should be accelerating backwards @8,95m/s².
Also, why the different speed limits?I just can't see why they did it this way.


My idea would be (it would like it to be realistic, but that's not gonna happen):
-Let the thrusters overcharge, give you a minimum of 5m/s², regardsless of gravitation
-The higher the planets gravity, more heat will be generated
-Every thruster should behave the same way (min 5m/s² for all thrusters, not those weird differences we see in SvennoJ's data)

If someone wants my data/excelspreadsheet, pm me.


Regards Cmdr Eirene

There are reports of people overheating while flying straight down, nose pointed down. I've seen the heat climb once myself but haven't been able to reproduce it.
Having to stay level gives it all a bit more realism and makes it a bit more dangerous. Flying sideways on a 6g planet wouldn't feel right. Flying like a hover craft is slightly better.
The maximum speeds I reported while nose down are not hard limits, the speed levels out when the engines reach some kind of equilibrium. The 500 m/s downwards speed is a hard limit however.


Since it's all nicely predictable I tested how much so by trying out the ultimate FA off / FA on landing technique.
The idea is simple, turn FA off, build up speed in free fall, turn FA on at the right time and touch the ground at 0 m/s.
Working that out with classic physics I got to t1 = root( d / [a*a/10 + a/2] )
For a given height d, and gravity a (9.8 x G), t1 is the time to turn FA off and stop again at 0 height.
Easier to judge is multiplying that again by a to give you the velocity at which to turn FA back on
V = a * root( d / [a*a/10 + a/2] )

For example, you're 5.21km high full stop (and level) after completing the glide phase on a 1.06g world. a = 9.8 * 1.06
V = a * root( 5210 / [a*a/10 + a/2] ) = 187.5 m/s
Thus if you turn FA off until you reach 187.5 m/s, you will land perfectly.

First I expected this not the work as it should require an additional transition period while acceleration changes from 9.8 * 1.06 downwards to 5 m/s2 upwards. Luckily it's a game and turning FA back on immediately gives you 5 m/s2 deceleration. After quite a few tests, if you hit FA back on at the exact right speed, it works out beautifully. Of course I tested with some margins before committing to a drop all the way to ground level! Margins are always good to keep, missing FA on by a few m/s can make a big difference over large distances. (Also I don't know when the exact ground height is determined by the procedural generation, hilly terrain might still be refined below you)

The above assumes your bottom thrusters are already maxed out. If not the formula is a bit more complicated:
V = a * root( 2*d / [((a2*a*a)/(a2*a2)) + a] )
a2 is the thrust your bottom thrusters provide, which is maximum vertical thrust - (9.8 * G).
(You'll just stop sooner otherwise)

Useful when you fly over a blue area and want to go straight down quickly on a high g planet. Or if you're an adrenaline junky that likes to let a 270 million credit ship fall at 250 m/s, hoping it will stop just in time :)
 
Last edited:
There are reports of people overheating while flying straight down, nose pointed down. I've seen the heat climb once myself but haven't been able to reproduce it.

Checked my videos, didn't see any change to heat level at different gravitation (normal orientation), but i remember reading a comment from frontier that when flying maneuvers at higher G more heat is generated.


The maximum speeds I reported while nose down are not hard limits, the speed levels out when the engines reach some kind of equilibrium. The 500 m/s downwards speed is a hard limit however.

Okay, i think i misinterpreted your data. The velocity values are nose down, full throttle backwards?


Since it's all nicely predictable I tested how much so by trying out the ultimate FA off / FA on landing technique.

My god, this is amazing! I didn't even think about that, but it's so simple!
About your last forumla, it's correct, but too complicated, here's a easier one:

V=root(2s/((1/a1)+(1/a2)))

V= Velocity
s= distance
a1= acceleration gravity
a2= acceleration thrusters


Edit: Okay, did a test on Achenar 3 (6,73G) with my Anaconda

s= 17500
a1= 65,96m/s²
a2= 5m/s²

V=403m/s
t=6,11s

Timing is the key to success here, i had to turn FA off for 6,11seconds, turned it back on a little too late (@414m/s), crashed into the ground with 80m/s, 79% hull left.
From "Glide aborting" to "landing" on the planet in just a bit over a minute!


Regards Cmdr Eirene
 
Last edited:
I know this is an old thread but the data here is still applicable and has been very helpful for me.

I still see a lot of posts in the forum where people still believe they need A rated thusters to land on a high g planet.
I knew from this thread and from experience that l could easily land on 2G+ planets with 4D thusters in my AspX
But I had never actually tried on anything higher.

Since I don't have a permit for Achenar, I decided to go for HD 148937 3 instead. If you can land there, you can land anywhere.
Well, I guess I can land anywhere then. My first ever landing in 9.77G went as smooth as any other landing I've ever made.
Thanks in large part to this thread, since I knew ahead of time, what not to do.
It honestly did not feel any different from landing on a 2G planet, which is pretty much what the data in this thread would predict.

I made this video on my second landing there. https://youtu.be/0nErX1tFyC4
[video=youtube_share;0nErX1tFyC4]https://youtu.be/0nErX1tFyC4[/video]
This should settle the debate. 4D thrusters are fine for landing anywhere.
 
That's a very nice work OP; although I never believed for a second that thrusters could fail to lift the ship, whatever the gravity.

Adding my own test with D thrusters.

[video=youtube;oi15HXZ_QY0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oi15HXZ_QY0[/video]
 
Back
Top Bottom