Sign up Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 3 of 38      Prev   1   2   3   4   5   6   Next   »
lordcat33

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 5
Reply with quote  #31 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay Donium
I'm going to go with no planets.

Also aren't these asteroids in our solar system? The asteroid belts we are exploring are between Mars and JupiterJupiterJupiterJ. Last I checked there are no planets between Mars and Jupiter. This isn't 1k years in the future where we can get to other solar systemssolar systemsSSs. (The nearest being about 4.2 light-years away) It would take us hundreds if not thousands of years to fly that far out with out current technology. I haven't seen anything about warp drives yet so... The asteroid belt of our solar system alone would still take 5-10 years to reach.

If anything they could just add semilarge asteroids with an atmosphere. While still not very realistic it's less imposing than finding new planets all over the place.

Reading through here though I guess I'm the only one concerned with keeping space engineers in space or realistic... I don't need another planet based voxel game... I want SPACE!!! oh well. Can we make planet generation optional then? Add a toggle switch on map generation? [biggrin]
 


no opinion on this but i want to say this: NASA is in the Concept-phase of warp drives, around 2025 there will be a space-elevator, and i estimate that we will mine in space around 2027, there will be mid-space construction bays at that time, and the warp drive could already be finished in the timeframe this game is set in.
Grey_Rabbit

Registered:
Posts: 8
Reply with quote  #32 
I think, as others have said, that the restriction is more from computer hardware than from vision as far as planets are concerned.  I'm sure the devs would love to make an entire galaxy to explore.  Personally, I'm on the anti-planet side of the discussion.  I'd rather that a game with better detail be made in a smaller area then a watered down larger area.

As it stands now, the game appears focused on on a few asteroids in an asteroid belt in a solar system.  If we can start with a similar area to what gets generated now, but say that the asteroids are in in sync with one another in their orbits.  This could give a relatively stable "terrain" to build on.  Get rid of the smaller ones for now and make what's there out of crap or common materials.  These bodies are in orbit, but add in the smaller bodies again in similar orbits, but at different speeds and angles that cross your little sector's path in it's orbit.  If the smaller body is moving faster than your stable bodies, it'll approach from one side.  If they're moving slower, then your stable bodies(which aren't moving to you, but don't forget are still moving through it's orbit) will over take them and they will appear to come from the other side.  Give these smaller bodies better resources to capture, fight over, and harvest as they pass through and then the sector that you're in becomes a much more dynamic environment. Servers with factions will be fighting for the resources as they pass through, but because the stable stuff is common, no one will permanently have an upper hand.  Mining, defending from one another, and watching out for asteroids that'll crush your base will keep everyone busy, I would think.      

The biggest problem would be factions attempting to knock asteroids into each other, but I don't think that would be a huge deal.  If it's made so that it's easy enough to divert an asteroid but not easy to steer it then it should usually make for some exciting close calls.

-Rabbit
bob4life10

Registered:
Posts: 23
Reply with quote  #33 

yes, it'll take time and resources, but the expected and accepted argument as of late is that either there is full blown planets, or no planets at all.

they dont need to be in the next update or right now. just at some point, they should exist. its not as black and white as "the whole team works on it right now or never works on it ever", its an ongoing process over a period of time where work is put into it some times, and its left for a while to work on other things that have more priority.  
to cop out and say its a matter or resources or team management kinda undermines the team behind the project. these guys are more than capable of doing this.

and i will bet you right now that the work it takes to model the asteroids that are currently in the game right now, with the complex cave systems and such, is infinitely harder then it is to put a relatively low poly, textured, sphere in game with simple current gravity like you see ingame, and that rendering the complex asteroid models are more taxing to a computer then a simple circle.

Tigax

Registered:
Posts: 16
Reply with quote  #34 
Celestial gravity and everything orbiting would be awesome.  Each planet could be an instance entered through the atmospheric drop, and each planet could be orbiting a star, while ships could also enter orbit around either planets, moons, or the star itself.  Really you could have one instance which held all the galaxy info, others for each of the star systems, and others for each of the planets and moons that a person could land on.  It would all be very neat and tidy, and no one would notice the transitions if instead of loading screens, hyperdrives and atmospheric entries were used.
Kamoba

Registered:
Posts: 1,391
Reply with quote  #35 
The more I think on this... I don't want anything too big, I don't want orbiting....
It does stretch the reqs away from building....

Big asteroids yes.
Planets no.
My final answer.
Martinineter

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 2,169
Reply with quote  #36 
No, just...... no, planets would be too big and dominating the world, this wouldn't be fun (less movement and build space) and the whole game concept would have to change (gravity, building, jetpacks, ships, etc).

bob4life10

Registered:
Posts: 23
Reply with quote  #37 
You play in an infinite, empty void. Im pretty sure small planetoids wont be a massive hinderance in the grand scheme of things.
Grey_Rabbit

Registered:
Posts: 8
Reply with quote  #38 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamoba
I don't want anything too big, I don't want orbiting....


If you aren't playing in empty space then you're probably orbiting.. You may even be still in empty space.

I had another idea today.  I don't think it would be too much to process to have a planet and a star in the background.  If you were at about the distance from the moon to the earth, maybe a little closer, you would have nothing more than a psuedo day/night cycle and a pretty background.  At about 400,000 km away and our modest .1 km/sec speed cap(about 1/100th of Apollo 10's speed), landing shouldn't be an option.  You can still have asteroids and debris in orbit with you, just like it's in orbit with us now around the sun. 

I just did the math, maybe they should make us able to land so if someone does manage to fly for 46.2 days then they deserve to land.  

I'm going to change my answer to pro-planet, but only as a dynamic background to change things up.



Kamoba

Registered:
Posts: 1,391
Reply with quote  #39 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grey_Rabbit
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamoba
I don't want anything too big, I don't want orbiting....


If you aren't playing in empty space then you're probably orbiting.. You may even be still in empty space.

I had another idea today.  I don't think it would be too much to process to have a planet and a star in the background.  If you were at about the distance from the moon to the earth, maybe a little closer, you would have nothing more than a psuedo day/night cycle and a pretty background.  At about 400,000 km away and our modest .1 km/sec speed cap(about 1/100th of Apollo 10's speed), landing shouldn't be an option.  You can still have asteroids and debris in orbit with you, just like it's in orbit with us now around the sun. 

I just did the math, maybe they should make us able to land so if someone does manage to fly for 46.2 days then they deserve to land.  

I'm going to change my answer to pro-planet, but only as a dynamic background to change things up.






As a background yes, but allot of people seem un-content with this idea [frown]


Mars would be my background of choice.... If we were given a choice
Ralith

Registered:
Posts: 80
Reply with quote  #40 
Before talking about planets, we should really get some basics like towable asteroids worked out. The celestial bodies that come first should be the ones with the most direct impact on gameplay.
xDillinger

Registered:
Posts: 10
Reply with quote  #41 

I love the idea of having celestial bodies, I think it should be done in the way Endless Space does it to an extent. Where you have a planet, and you can populate it, research it, mine it for resources ect, moving that over to Space Engineers, you'd only be able to mine the planet for resources, maybe research it - Find new materials, and new uses for the materials you already have.

Going off of this idea of mining it, I feel you'd need to implement some certain types of ships that do it for you - You press ESC and go to "start new Mining ship" and just showing parts you can put on your mining ship, and of course in creative, you'd be able to put as many mining related things as you want, but in survival, you would need to be limited to things you can currently make IE - 30 Tungsten  to make 3 Ore Drills, x, x , and x to make laser drill, so you'd have a ship that can mine a variety of different ores, something along those lines. You could have a higher chance of getting a lot of ore from a rocky planet, and the larger variety of mining equipment and storage you have on your ship, the larger percentage of ore you'd get - storage, long lasting tools, variety of tools to mine ores faster, ect - continuing that, you could also have harvester ships going along with Mining ships, so while the ships mine, and Harvester ships could get water, food, ect, so you could essentially drain an entire planet of, well, everything.

It would be very cool to see things like this implemented, but allowing people to go down to the planet, kind of takes away from the immersion of the game itself.

Freelancer

Registered:
Posts: 5
Reply with quote  #42 
I didn't read the whole thread through yet but I just had to start writing about possible planets in this game.

I think planets are a good thing IF they cannot be explored. You possibly could place a space-station above the planet but if you'd try to go down, you'd get burnt/destroyed. I can think of how much it would take up resources if the planets would be made explorable. 

There's few ways of making those planets explorable;

1. Keeping the planet render distance low. This would save some resources from the client. In servers, well if you have a dozen players exploring a planet...

2. Keeping the planets small. Creating a big enough bolder in space might do the trick. Can't say much more, it works or it doesn't.

3. Atmosphere? Making the space not visible while in this area and making the planet render more accurately. Saves again some resources and it shouldn't kill any computer.

Those are my ideas. Now it's time to get some coffee and read what I just wrote.
karnaughatlas

Registered:
Posts: 7
Reply with quote  #43 
I've flipped back and forth but I think I'm in the 'no planets' camp now. It just isn't a realistic feature to expect. To implement it in a way that would be even halfway believable would take up a vast amount of development time and system resources, and I would rather have that time and those resources go towards fleshing out the space aspect of space engineers. I would rather have a great game with focused gameplay, then an okay game with a scope too large for the developers to keep up with.

That said, I'll be happy with whatever they give me!
Lockerd

Registered:
Posts: 128
Reply with quote  #44 
considering we are based in our current system aka the Sol system, and being in our second asteroid belt, I'd think planetoids or very small moons would be a better option.

I don't wanna see anything too big, but I don't wanna see the same asteroids all the time, change it up a bit.

we only know of our asteroid belts by the shadows they leave when we are able to observe a backdrop with them, this is how we knew about saturn, jupiter, neptune, and uranus's rings, yes they all have rings, a few are so small they aren't visible via camera.

but we do know there are no intact planets in the asteroid belts, though that doesnt mean we can't get some micro-moon sized chunks of the planet those roids came from.
Corvus

Registered:
Posts: 6
Reply with quote  #45 

I my opinion, this is space engineers, i.e asteroids should be the main attraction, and not whole planets (Better for the frame rate as well). But I like the idea of having very large asteroids which could be attractive for larger bases/trading hubs. 

Also, asteroids should be able to move some in space (tumble and such), and if I hit one with my 14 million kg ship, it should do something to smaller asteroids (the massive ones might just continue as if nothing happened). Just my two cents.

Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:


Create your own forum with Website Toolbox!