Why can we only Land on Barren Planets after almost 5 years?

I largely agree. As a diner, I can certainly tell if it takes an exceedingly long time for a meal to be prepared, if said hot meal arrives at my table cold, or if a side dish is missing, without being a chef, or even knowing how to pour milk into cereal.

What I can’t do is tell the chef how to prepare my canard à l'orange, how to prepare the Demi-glacé, or claim to be able to do it better, when at best I can burn microwave popcorn.

I also cannot go into my local McDonalds and demand they make me canard à l'orange, despite having the ingredients on hand. Well, I CAN, but I’m going to wind up with chicken nuggets, soaked in orange juice and hamburger grease... and have no one to blame but myself.
Exactly.

So with that said, I'm disappointed with ED for not being able to provide atmo planets still, but I can't for sure say why this has happened, if it's intentional, incompetence, unfocused development, or what what should do to fix it. I just don't know what's going on in their company and I don't know if they even want to make atmo planets. Only thing I can know is my own feelings that I would like to see them implemented.
 
With all the “Well If I We’re Developing”’s around here, I’m 100% surprised they haven’t banded together yet, written, developed and released their own Perfect Space Simulation Game yet.

With my little time on this forum even I know getting 2 people to agree on the cover artwork would be nigh on impossible.

A whole game designed by this forum? This comes to mind.

140291
 
Trying to do atmospheric planets is an utterly gargantuan task that is far greater than simply throwing together some basic air resistance a few templates for life.

A basic start is that they need to look at the current chemical composition, temperature and lighting/radiation conditions of the planet. After applying a healthy dose of chemistry to the whole thing, then they can figure out what the actual end result of the chemical nature of the planet and atmosphere is and whether it has any liquid oceans, any ongoing precipitation as well as any volcanic activity. This alone is quite a task; it's a fair amount of work to figure out what a single planet would be but to script a fully generalised planetary chemical simulator is staggeringly difficult and would probably take years of collaboration between chemists, astrophysicists and coders.

After that, there's the even bigger task of determining which of those chemistries are able to sustain life. We all know that carbon, hydrogen and oxygen mix together to create life, but what about silicon/silicone based life forms? What about replacing the water as a solvent with ammonia, hydrogen sulphide or even hydrocarbons? Can phosphorous or nitrogen polymerise to form organic molecules? How might metals interact with these other chemical compositions? Which of these compositions would remain stable yet workable at the temperatures, magnetic fields and radiation levels for a given planet?

And that's all before we even get to where the life on the planet would actually be or what form it would take. Even before we worry about whether it would be more plant-like and photosynthesise for energy, or whether they would remain lithovorous and subsist on unstable minerals in the planetary crust or around vents, we would need to get the basics of their chemistry down. Depending on their chemistry, they would then alter the planetary atmosphere and chemical composition further (such as how Earth "naturally" shouldn't have an oxygen atmosphere but instead a nitrogen/carbon dioxide atmosphere but life came along and ruined it), which may then trigger further alterations.

In all, it would be several years work for a 2 dozen strong team of specialists to have a basic atmospheric planet that you can land on and admire a funny coloured bacteria-like stain on a rock. Once you get into macroscopic life, it adds entirely new levels of difficulty.
 
Exactly.

So with that said, I'm disappointed with ED for not being able to provide atmo planets still, but I can't for sure say why this has happened, if it's intentional, incompetence, unfocused development, or what what should do to fix it. I just don't know what's going on in their company and I don't know if they even want to make atmo planets. Only thing I can know is my own feelings that I would like to see them implemented.
Don't want to be the 'blame the consoles' guy, but I don't expect atmospheric planets before the PS5 launch.
And just for the record, I'd guess that 50% of the PC players weren't capable to run whatever we'll get as atmospheric planets at the original release. I hope that sentence makes as much sense as it's supposed to.
There are several reasons why we aren't able to land on atmospheric planets yet, and priorities is just one of them.
 
I just don't know what's going on in their company and I don't know if they even want to make atmo planets.
Frontier's ethos on remaining silent is frustrating to say the least. The only thing we "know" about New Era is stuff from a supposed leak. It would be one thing if NE was three or four years out, but it's supposedly releasing in just over a year. Surely they have a clue as to what NE will encompass, big picture wise. Why not share that big picture?
 
I would assume it's a matter of motivation. According to FDev, ED remains a strong source of income for the company. This community continues to be active in the game and in their online cosmetics store despite the years of half baked updates and lack of meaningful change. If I'm a developer who has a strong source of income for a game where the playerbase is so loyal that despite the glaring flaws, the game is consistently generating strong revenues, then where is my motivation to improve? I can keep introducing small changes and stringing the community along because I know they are basically addicts clinging to the hopes of their next "fix".

This community complains a lot, but never votes with their wallets or play time. Without motivation in an existing space, It makes absolute sense for the developer to look for opportunities in new and underdeveloped spaces (i.e. park sims) and invest resources in them. New games generate sales at premium prices, old games do not.
That's one of the most ridiculous explanations I've heard so far...
 
I would have been happy with barebones atmospheric planets, am fairly certain the majority of the player base wouldn't. Best to let the devs get it right first time.

DB talked a lot about various types of weather etc, that is not easy to achieve, especially on the lower end rigs. Volumetric clouds can be a killer on systems.

Same here.

Personally, I'd like to see FDev develop one inhabited world, by hand, as a bit of a "vanity project" (Isinor, perhaps?) and then just leave it there for 6 months so people could provide feedback on what they'd seen and how it all worked.

At the very least, it could continue to stand as a monument to what might become possible and it'd serve as a tourist attraction for players.
 
Trying to do atmospheric planets is an utterly gargantuan task that is far greater than simply throwing together some basic air resistance a few templates for life.

A basic start is that they need to look at the current chemical composition, temperature and lighting/radiation conditions of the planet. After applying a healthy dose of chemistry to the whole thing, then they can figure out what the actual end result of the chemical nature of the planet and atmosphere is and whether it has any liquid oceans, any ongoing precipitation as well as any volcanic activity. This alone is quite a task; it's a fair amount of work to figure out what a single planet would be but to script a fully generalised planetary chemical simulator is staggeringly difficult and would probably take years of collaboration between chemists, astrophysicists and coders.

After that, there's the even bigger task of determining which of those chemistries are able to sustain life. We all know that carbon, hydrogen and oxygen mix together to create life, but what about silicon/silicone based life forms? What about replacing the water as a solvent with ammonia, hydrogen sulphide or even hydrocarbons? Can phosphorous or nitrogen polymerise to form organic molecules? How might metals interact with these other chemical compositions? Which of these compositions would remain stable yet workable at the temperatures, magnetic fields and radiation levels for a given planet?

And that's all before we even get to where the life on the planet would actually be or what form it would take. Even before we worry about whether it would be more plant-like and photosynthesise for energy, or whether they would remain lithovorous and subsist on unstable minerals in the planetary crust or around vents, we would need to get the basics of their chemistry down. Depending on their chemistry, they would then alter the planetary atmosphere and chemical composition further (such as how Earth "naturally" shouldn't have an oxygen atmosphere but instead a nitrogen/carbon dioxide atmosphere but life came along and ruined it), which may then trigger further alterations.

In all, it would be several years work for a 2 dozen strong team of specialists to have a basic atmospheric planet that you can land on and admire a funny coloured bacteria-like stain on a rock. Once you get into macroscopic life, it adds entirely new levels of difficulty.
And atmospheric worlds (lifeless) with water and weather etc? And possibly at least with fairly simple (procedural) basic plant life? I would suggest that's not "utterly gargantuan" personally... With 100+ folks, there would seemingly be enough to dedicate a good number to the task for a good few years surely?

But as I said earlier in this thread. The bigger issue to me is since non-atmospheric landings - four+ years ago - I struggle to think of any development showing a similar bar raising technical effort... Why?
 
1. Planet Coaster
2. Jurassic World Evolution
3. Planet Zoo
4. Profit!!!!!

Folks get real.

The franchise already established, its about getting the most out of their time.

Making money.



Cheers



PS

Frontier a game making company sold its self to the market. End of story.
 
So, do you think the new dlc is going to be profitable? Make Frontier lots of money? How much work would they invest and what is the price? Who are the potential customers? Is it a safe investment?
 
Frontier's ethos on remaining silent is frustrating to say the least. The only thing we "know" about New Era is stuff from a supposed leak. It would be one thing if NE was three or four years out, but it's supposedly releasing in just over a year. Surely they have a clue as to what NE will encompass, big picture wise. Why not share that big picture?

Because the community is a howling mob that deserves less than nothing and will invariably turn from a howling mob into a shrieking horde at the hint of any news.
 
Don't want to be the 'blame the consoles' guy, but I don't expect atmospheric planets before the PS5 launch.
And just for the record, I'd guess that 50% of the PC players weren't capable to run whatever we'll get as atmospheric planets at the original release. I hope that sentence makes as much sense as it's supposed to.
There are several reasons why we aren't able to land on atmospheric planets yet, and priorities is just one of them.
Meanwhile NMS has given us humble PS4 owners atmospheric earth-like worlds with clouds (albeit very funky clouds) and now VR! But if you don't like cartoon graphics, you can always play Ace Combat 7 which gives us much more realistic atmospheric weather, oceans, etc. Oh, yeah, AC7 also supports VR on the humble PS4.

So you still think Frontier is catering to consoles? They can't even give us PS2 quality shadows! Also, their PS4 team all quite to work on Planet Coaster, a PC title...

TL;DR -> The Cobra engine is antiquated rubbish relying on super computers to do what a PS2 could do 20 years ago :p

(ps - I still quite enjoy the BGS, FWIW.)
 
Top Bottom