Why Are Space Legs and Atmospheric Landings Such a Hot Topic?

[shadragon]

1) I still haven't seen anything that anyone has brought to my attention that says they will impliment either Space Legs or Atmpspheric Landings. I have been shown plans, long-term goals, and even developer desires. But nothing has yet been presented here that says they WILL be making these things.

They have not announced it:

A) Because it's really hard to do.
B) Because they don't announce anything until they're almost ready to go to Beta
C) Because some members of our community are impatient with zero self-control and will reflexively launch one speculation thread after another exchanging childish rants.

Pick one.

 

[Cosmos]

Hi all o7

I have just graduated from a computer games course at university, and I have to say the hype and discussion around space legs and atmospheric landings really bugs me.

Both of these things are monumental undertakings, they are MAJOR alterations to the established capabilities and design of the game and will no doubt take immense amounts of resources, time, and effort to create. Spacelegs (debatably) has no place in a space flight sim, and will add very little to the gameplay even if it was implimented. Atmospheric landings on the other hand would be astronomically power hungry and require unparalleled game technologies and asset counts to work alongside already established mechanics. We're talking cloud cover, atmospheric readings, weather patters, countless assets for numerous different environments (cities, towns, villages, jungles, water bodies, populous, desserts, ice caps etc), water generation system, and much much more. That's without even considering life forms in earth-like worlds, we'd need hundreds if not thousands of varieties to cover the galaxy.

Even setting aside all of these obsticles, I may be wrong, but I don't recall the devs ever saying they plan on doing either of these sought after features. The most I've ever heard was a brief mention of them in the very early access stages of development, and plans are changed and cancelled in the games industry more than any other.

So I'd really like to know, why are players so invested in the concept of space legs and atmospheric landings? If we DO get them it certainly won't be in anything resembling a foreseeable future, and it's more likely in my opinion that they would have just been scrapped altogether (if there was any serious consideration for them early on in the first place). I can understand the passion, hype, and desire for these things. But the blunt truth is that I just don't see it happening, both from a technical and practical perspective.

Personally I think the spacelegs thing would be a bad idea since to make it compelling would be nay on impossible. That really is a new game on its own.

Planets with atmospheres however are more in keeping with the Elite franchise and could be rather stunning and compelling. Whilst not trivial its not rocket science either.

If one guy can make space engine: [video=youtube_share;ve0Bpmx8Fk0]https://youtu.be/ve0Bpmx8Fk0[/video] what excuse does Frontier have?

FD's previous argument for not doing it (i.e. they dont just want differently colored height maps ) seems redundant because thats all the non atmospheric bodies are anyway.

If we are waiting until its absolute perfection, with sprawling cities, billions of people, wildlife and so on, then we will be waiting forever.

 

[Gamatech]

That whole "It's a monumental task!!!!" argument is .

Hello Games did space legs, space flight, and atmo planets with 15 people in 3 years (arguably 4 if you count the year's worth of updates after the initial release). Not only that, they added multiple land vehicles, large carriers, and the shell of multiplayer in that time frame as well. Granted their subsystems are designed to be more "arcade like", but their systems for planet, atmosphere, flora, and fauna procedural generation are no doubt just as complex as the current procedural generation pieces of ED.

I bought No Man's Sky on the day of its release and have occasionally poked around and checked out new features after each major update. It's not my cup of coffee, but I do respect what they have done and admire what they accomplished with the limited resources at their disposal. Frankly, if I were running the show on the ED team, compared to Hello Games, I would feel embarrassed at the state of ED give the amount of resources and time dedicated to the game vs. its current state (That is if we're being told the truth about these dedicated resources). The game has literally been in development for 5 years! In fact, I'd push to buy Hello Games, or at the very least, steal their developers!

If the features of this post's topic get cut from a game with 100 people working on it and what we have currently is truly all that's been worked on over the last 5 years of development, there is only one logical explanation. The ROI of these features is not worth it to DB or the board. After all, this is a publicly traded company. I'd rather have a dozen cheap artists working on creating new vanity items that are selling well between $2 to $12 a pop rather than 50 highly paid, highly skilled game developers adding new features that might sell well for $15 - $30 a pop. This isn't just a passion project, it's part of a business. They are in it to make money and DB and all of FDev have to answer to the shareholders and their board.

You can't compare something like this to another game. It's a different game running on a different engine using different software and different building blocks, put together using different strategies and construction methods. You wouldn't ask Land Rover to make a supercar the same way you wouldn't ask Ferrari to make a 4x4, the tools and foundation in which those cars are built are completely different.

 

[Iskariot]

Hi all o7

I have just graduated from a computer games course at university, and I have to say the hype and discussion around space legs and atmospheric landings really bugs me.

Both of these things are monumental undertakings, they are MAJOR alterations to the established capabilities and design of the game and will no doubt take immense amounts of resources, time, and effort to create. Spacelegs (debatably) has no place in a space flight sim, and will add very little to the gameplay even if it was implimented. Atmospheric landings on the other hand would be astronomically power hungry and require unparalleled game technologies and asset counts to work alongside already established mechanics. We're talking cloud cover, atmospheric readings, weather patters, countless assets for numerous different environments (cities, towns, villages, jungles, water bodies, populous, desserts, ice caps etc), water generation system, and much much more. That's without even considering life forms in earth-like worlds, we'd need hundreds if not thousands of varieties to cover the galaxy.

Even setting aside all of these obsticles, I may be wrong, but I don't recall the devs ever saying they plan on doing either of these sought after features. The most I've ever heard was a brief mention of them in the very early access stages of development, and plans are changed and cancelled in the games industry more than any other.

So I'd really like to know, why are players so invested in the concept of space legs and atmospheric landings? If we DO get them it certainly won't be in anything resembling a foreseeable future, and it's more likely in my opinion that they would have just been scrapped altogether (if there was any serious consideration for them early on in the first place). I can understand the passion, hype, and desire for these things. But the blunt truth is that I just don't see it happening, both from a technical and practical perspective.

Atmospheric landings are not far fetched at all.
FD might first add primitive atmospheric planets with simple life forms, like grasses, lichen, algae, mosses etc.
I would be totally content with that to start with.
I would love to experience atmospheric entry, see lakes, rivers and seas consisting of all kinds of fluids. Some could have special sea bases (looking like huge oil rigs) where we might land.
It would be great to experience a sunny blue sky in ED, or perhaps a thunderstorm, or just rain....
I also would love to see dangerous Volcanic planets with unique bases.

Space legs are much more tricky to add, because basically it means FD will have to add totally new FPA (First Player Action) game mechanics to the game. It is like building an entirely new game. But this too could be added in stages, to start with walking around your ships.
I do agree that it might take several more years for FD to add this.

FD should first improve the core mechanics and game loops like exploring, trading, mining, bounty hunting, and piracy.
Those mechanics should be solid and as engaging as possible before they start on space legs.

 

[Pumabear8]

"We also plan to allow you to get up out of your seat and walk around your ship. You can see the level of attention and thought that has already been given to the ship interiors from these ship cockpit views in this video:
All is ready for you to walk around your ship.

This is why I'm suspicious space legs is already in the game but disabled, I can think of a number of reasons why, but the main one being clipping because collision can be buggy in these type of games.

And the ship detail is definitely existent for it, the Conda has been the most notable to me, using the camera you can see through a door into a compartment that's otherwise not normally viewed by the player in normal game play.

 

[verminstar]

Hi all o7

I have just graduated from a computer games course at university, and I have to say the hype and discussion around space legs and atmospheric landings really bugs me.

Both of these things are monumental undertakings, they are MAJOR alterations to the established capabilities and design of the game and will no doubt take immense amounts of resources, time, and effort to create. Spacelegs (debatably) has no place in a space flight sim, and will add very little to the gameplay even if it was implimented. Atmospheric landings on the other hand would be astronomically power hungry and require unparalleled game technologies and asset counts to work alongside already established mechanics. We're talking cloud cover, atmospheric readings, weather patters, countless assets for numerous different environments (cities, towns, villages, jungles, water bodies, populous, desserts, ice caps etc), water generation system, and much much more. That's without even considering life forms in earth-like worlds, we'd need hundreds if not thousands of varieties to cover the galaxy.

Even setting aside all of these obsticles, I may be wrong, but I don't recall the devs ever saying they plan on doing either of these sought after features. The most I've ever heard was a brief mention of them in the very early access stages of development, and plans are changed and cancelled in the games industry more than any other.

So I'd really like to know, why are players so invested in the concept of space legs and atmospheric landings? If we DO get them it certainly won't be in anything resembling a foreseeable future, and it's more likely in my opinion that they would have just been scrapped altogether (if there was any serious consideration for them early on in the first place). I can understand the passion, hype, and desire for these things. But the blunt truth is that I just don't see it happening, both from a technical and practical perspective.

Because both of those concepts do not involve combat mechanics, which are always arguably gonna be more popular than content based on eye candy. An over simplification perhaps but imo it appears to boil down to what players believe frontier can realistically deliver. Im sure that everyone deep down would love to see all aspects developed and made brilliant, but based on what we have seen so far, Id say realistically, choose just one because I dont believe frontier capable of doing everything and keeping everyone happy. If they try and do everything, they will make everything average at best or jokes like cqc and multipew at worst.

That means doing one aspect only and neglecting all other aspects almost entirely which is in itself more than enough cause fer division amongst a content starved playerbase who dont relish the thought of waiting around another year fer something that doesnt really interest them in the first place. Those who are waiting fer that one thing will be those on the other side of the fence defending such a stance because they have waited years quite literally, and will argue hard...as will those facing a year of waiting with nothing to show at the end of it on the other side of the argument.

Its quite simple really...based on what we can realistically expect at this point as opposed to those who want it all and they want it yesterday. Its not a criticism even if it comes across that way, simply stating what my thoughts are with a more realistic expectation...Im just under no illusions about frontier being the best thing since sliced bread...not anymore.

Personally speaking, Ill argue fer atmospeheric landings and planetary content till the wee hours with the best and worst of them on this forum, and Ill argue the case hard...but this aint the thread fer that so Ill spare ye the ramblings of an old jaded gamer who talks too much ^

 

[Ambroza]

I will reiterate here since the comments are flowing quite a bit, that I understand completely the reasons for the hype and desires to have these features in the game. Heck, I'd LOVE to have them!!!!! My personal irk with the whole thing, is how people seem to treat it as if they've been confirmed for development and a release window has been given. They talk about them like they KNOW they're coming, and it's just a case of when. We have no confirmation, no release window, no evidence to say they're still intending to bring them in, and no indication of the developer's support bar a few (very old) statements about where they would LIKE to be.

Like I said, the most recent re-affirmations from Frontier that both ambulation and atmospheric landings are planned are just weeks or months old. I guess you have no interest in doing any research of your own, so I'll see if I can get you started:

https://www.reddit.com/r/EliteDange...m_anything_david_braben_obe_fdev_ceo/dg45eke/ (Ambulation)

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...spheric-Planet-Landings?p=5615953#post5615953 (Atmosperic Landing)

Those are the most relevant results yielded by a very brief search of the dev tracker, but there's plenty more.

 

[Nalessa]

I just wanna walk around mah ships is all ...

Conda better have corridors similar to the Nostromo from Alien!

 

[Tadeus72]

You know the game called Star Citizen that has a 150+ mil budget, is developed since 2012 and is featuring a much much smaller less populated part of the Galaxy? It's still a tech demo with a tiny part of the world ready and the thing they've achieved lately is that the NPC in the same small outpost they are showing since 2 years started to actually move...

There is no technology, amount of money or development time that would allow Frontier to provide you with the space legs/earthlike atmospherics you would like to see. The current technology in Elite doesn't even allow for more believable rocks on death planets and it's already encountering performance problems in the engine.

If Fdev ever touches the subject it will burn itself like all the developers before (X-Rebirth, Eve-Online, The Battlecruiser series etc.) and will waste a lot of resources and time that could be used for something that could be actually useful. It's just the bane of the SF genre since forever.

Hell, even letting you walk around in a ship like we have them in Elite would be a monumental amount of work and would greatly multiply the time it takes Frontier to introduce new ships and modules. And that for no meaningful content whatsoever. How often would you visit your passengers until you would realize they are just bland, boring NPCs that you have seen dozens of time before, and they would start ruining your immersion instead of improving it?

 

[Origin]

I'd love to walk around my ships and explore atmospheric planets, but it seems to me that it's a lot of work that not everybody will appreciate.

 

[GroundxZERO]

Because it would add more depth to a shallow game. Not a whole lot more depth, but just lightly more than we have now. Would it be a good idea to do with the game designed as it is? Nope. Would a complete overhaul and redesign of this games mechanics be welcome? Yep. (I don't believe the overhaul stuff for next year will be that deep). Honestly, I'd rather have the option to change the color of my HUD and voice acting for missions. Give me those two things and Ill say this game lived to its fullest potential.

 

[han]

And.. It's never going to happen, or at least, not in any meaningful future timeline. And do you know why? Because it'll mss up the entire VR system. Meaning.. If they add FPS walking they'll have to add the whole thing to VR. And nobody right now, has managed to create a system where you can walk around naturally in VR.

No it won't, plenty of VR games has normal walking, like Onward and it works great. For those that get motion sickness you can add a vignette or tunnel view when moving. You dont have to have teleport, plenty of tricks to be used.

 

[Ghural]

How on earth people find time to complain about something that isn't in the game yet is beyond me.

Space legs was part of the original vision of Elite so it's coming in some form at some point.

I suspect we'll get the ability to explore our own ships and the stations before we're walking around on planets.

Meanwhile how about all you space legs haters go to to GTA forums and complain bitterly about devs wasting time on the ability to get out of cars and explore on foot. Because it's all about the cars right?

 

[Ghural]

How often would you visit the forums until you would realize they are just bland, boring NPCs that you have seen dozens of time before, and they would start ruining your immersion instead of improving it?

Fixed for you

 

[NW3]

Meanwhile how about all you space legs haters go to to GTA forums and complain bitterly about devs wasting time on the ability to get out of cars and explore on foot.

Sorry, no. I see no need to complain about a game I'll never play. It's not that I "hate" space legs; it's that there are so many things that I'd like to fixed/implemented first. I would have said the same thing about multiplayer, SLFs, Power Play, CQC, etc. Space Legs is a huge undertaking, which should be deferred until this game has a firm foundation.

 

[Psy]

Hi all o7

I have just graduated from a computer games course at university, and I have to say the hype and discussion around space legs and atmospheric landings really bugs me.

Both of these things are monumental undertakings, they are MAJOR alterations to the established capabilities and design of the game and will no doubt take immense amounts of resources, time, and effort to create. Spacelegs (debatably) has no place in a space flight sim, and will add very little to the gameplay even if it was implimented. Atmospheric landings on the other hand would be astronomically power hungry and require unparalleled game technologies and asset counts to work alongside already established mechanics. We're talking cloud cover, atmospheric readings, weather patters, countless assets for numerous different environments (cities, towns, villages, jungles, water bodies, populous, desserts, ice caps etc), water generation system, and much much more. That's without even considering life forms in earth-like worlds, we'd need hundreds if not thousands of varieties to cover the galaxy.

Even setting aside all of these obsticles, I may be wrong, but I don't recall the devs ever saying they plan on doing either of these sought after features. The most I've ever heard was a brief mention of them in the very early access stages of development, and plans are changed and cancelled in the games industry more than any other.

So I'd really like to know, why are players so invested in the concept of space legs and atmospheric landings? If we DO get them it certainly won't be in anything resembling a foreseeable future, and it's more likely in my opinion that they would have just been scrapped altogether (if there was any serious consideration for them early on in the first place). I can understand the passion, hype, and desire for these things. But the blunt truth is that I just don't see it happening, both from a technical and practical perspective.

But you can implement these things in stages. I mean you already have planetary outposts and a lot of these assets could be reused and combined with some new ones to create cities on ELW's lfor example.

Just start by making cities landable (if they have spaceports), and ELW can just have flyable atmospheres at this stage, but no landings yet.

Then add in flora on these worlds, as well as grass and water for landings.

Then add in procedurally generated fauna in another update.

For space legs start by making just a small part of space stations and cities accessible for walking.

Again build it out in stages.

Where there's a will there's a way. I hope FDev have the will, as I can't wait for it.

EDIT: I noticed you didn't refer to procedural generation in your post. based on how they made a galaxy with 400 billion stars(!) procedural generation is how they will do it, just with different parameters for the procedural generation for different biomes etc for each type of world (and probably factoring in the gravity, distance from sun and other stellar bodies etc too that are also already right there in the Stellar Forge).

 

[Assimilator1]

But you can implement these things in stages. I mean you already have planetary outposts and a lot of these assets could be reused and combined with some new ones to create cities on ELW's lfor example.

Just start by making cities landable (if they have spaceports), and ELW can just have flyable atmospheres at this stage, but no landings yet.

Then add in flora on these worlds, as well as grass and water for landings.

Then add in procedurally generated fauna in another update.

For space legs start by making just a small part of space stations and cities accessible for walking.

Again build it out in stages.

Where there's a will there's a way. I hope FDev have the will, as I can't wait for it.

EDIT: I noticed you didn't refer to procedural generation in your post. based on how they made a galaxy with 400 billion stars(!) procedural generation is how they will do it, just with different parameters for the procedural generation for different biomes etc for each type of world (and probably factoring in the gravity, distance from sun and other stellar bodies etc too that are also already right there in the Stellar Forge).

Sounds good to me

 

[Franc Kaos]

To Launch, And Beyond with the Lifetime Expansion Pass
Elite: Dangerous is on track to launch in late 2014 (Q4).
Major new features will include planetary landings and even walking around inside ships, stations, and planet surfaces with time.
For those who have a Lifetime Expansion Pass (included in Premium Beta and Alpha, and also still available here until 29th July) all such significant expansion will be included. Those without the Lifetime Expansion Pass will be charged for each expansion as they are released.
We have made no secret that our ultimate ambition is to be able to land on the surface of planets, as you were able to in the other Elite sequels Frontier and Frontier: First Encounters.
We also plan to allow you to get up out of your seat and walk around your ship. You can see the level of attention and thought that has already been given to the ship interiors from these ship cockpit views in this video:
Of course this will be further expanded to include walking around on the surfaces of planets too.
Alpha and Premium Beta customers, and those who have already bought the £35 Lifetime Expansion Pass alongside either Beta or the full game, will have access to all these features and updates for as long as we create them at no further cost.
This means that if we are as successful as we hope to be, you will still be benefiting from the fantastic early support you gave us for a long time to come.
On 29th July the Lifetime Expansion Pass will no longer be available to buy in the store shop, to coincide with the launch of Beta 1.
So if you are planning to join the Beta or buy the final game and want to add the Lifetime Expansion Pass, you now have until 29th July to get automatic access to all future major paid-for expansions of Elite: Dangerous for £35.
You can purchase the Lifetime Expansion Pass here.
Each paid-for expansion will subsequently be put on sale separately (for people that don’t have the Lifetime Expansion Pass).

That's why.

I guess it's easier to sell a lifetime expansion pass if you promise the worlds

I have just graduated from a computer games course at university, and I have to say the hype and discussion around space legs and atmospheric landings really bugs me...

I will reiterate here since the comments are flowing quite a bit, that I understand completely the reasons for the hype and desires to have these features in the game. Heck, I'd LOVE to have them!!!!! My personal irk with the whole thing, is how people seem to treat it as if they've been confirmed for development and a release window has been given. They talk about them like they KNOW they're coming, and it's just a case of when. We have no confirmation, no release window, no evidence to say they're still intending to bring them in, and no indication of the developer's support bar a few (very old) statements about where they would LIKE to be.

So I'm guessing that games you create in the future will never try to push the envelope as they'd be too hard to do. How do I know atmospheric planets are coming? I choose to believe as Shaw once said. Maybe they'll never come, hopefully by then Star Citizen will be out, or something from left field, working away in secret or early access.
After all, Space Engine (even if a different engine) shows what one man can do vis a vis space exploration & planetary generation, what can 100 (guestimate) Frontier developers come up with in another 5 years?

 

[Darkfyre99]

I would consider that, an entire waste of development time. Would I like to see the inside of my ship? Sure? How many times? em.. Once would be enough...

A better option would be to show the interior as you used relevant parts. Taking on Ammo? Show the arsenal. Taking on goods? Show the cargo area. Etc etc.. Why you need to walk around?

Here's a thing. Right now I have VR. I can see the entire bridge and all behind me. Not once have I said oh.. I wanna walk thru those doors.

The only part of the ship we need to be interested in is the front

That's fine. Everyone is different, and if it doesn't interest you, it doesn't interest you.

It does, however, interest ME.

First thing I did when I got VR was thoroughly explore my Cobra IIIs cockpit. Second thing I did was abuse the reset HMD key to clip my head through the door at the back, to see what I could see. I've tried to do that with all my ships, and it's something I keep doing, because it's fascinating to see what Frontier has added that is potentially visible from the cockpit.

I do the same thing OUTSIDE my ship, using the camera to simulate doing a visual inspection of my ship. I've done the same using the SRV on multiple occasions, "getting out" of the SRV to inspect parts of my ship. Despite having VR for 17 months, this has yet to get old.

I am, however, content for Frontier to wait until they decide it will actually enhance how we play the game. There is so many parts of the game that needs Frontier's attention first.

Exploration, at the moment, desperately needs a lot more tools that operate between the Omniscient Advanced Discovery Scanner and the Mark One Eyeball. I'd like to see mining reach the point where it is varied enough for me to find it tolerable, especially the option to mine on planetary surfaces. I want a better Crime and Punishment system, along with more consequences for our actions (karma), so that I have a Sherlock Holmes to my Moriary, not a deputy Cletus. I want more types of planets to land on, including Earthlike Worlds. I want meaningful PvP to come to this game, where I have a reason, besides the halibut, to engage with other Commanders.

And I know other players have their own list too.

But in the end, I want this game to develop to the point where I have the option to walk into a shady bar, and meet with my contact with the local Brave Freedom Fighters resisting the Evil Galactic Federation, and arrange a rendezvous with them for me to smuggle in some supplies they need.

 

[znôrt]

That whole "It's a monumental task!!!!" argument is .

Hello Games did space legs, space flight, and atmo planets with 15 people in 3 years (arguably 4 if you count the year's worth of updates after the initial release). Not only that, they added multiple land vehicles, large carriers, and the shell of multiplayer in that time frame as well. Granted their subsystems are designed to be more "arcade like", but their systems for planet, atmosphere, flora, and fauna procedural generation are no doubt just as complex as the current procedural generation pieces of ED.

I bought No Man's Sky on the day of its release and have occasionally poked around and checked out new features after each major update. It's not my cup of coffee, but I do respect what they have done and admire what they accomplished with the limited resources at their disposal. Frankly, if I were running the show on the ED team, compared to Hello Games, I would feel embarrassed at the state of ED give the amount of resources and time dedicated to the game vs. its current state (That is if we're being told the truth about these dedicated resources). The game has literally been in development for 5 years! In fact, I'd push to buy Hello Games, or at the very least, steal their developers!

pretty much this. but you are dangerously challenging groupthink here, some myths are hard to beat ...

actually, small teams have a big advantage. it's far easier to focus and engage 15 people than 100, and take a look at how sc is doing with several hundred ... there are reports of teams even working against each other. bigger teams will be often more efficient when much grunt work is involved, but tend to fail miserably when finesse and clear goals are critical.

that said, it's also determinant who is organizing and directing these people and if clear and non-conflicting goals actually exist. sc is an extreme case of the contrary, with an ever changing (and increasing) scope and radical changes. frontier's roadmap has been pretty erratic too, evidencing some lacking. my take is they have a few primadonnas in key areas who are actually blocking progress.