Sign up Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 38 of 38     «   Prev   35   36   37   38
Andeerz

Registered:
Posts: 165
Reply with quote  #556 
I should probably post something related to the thread in general... sorry.

As much as I think planets are a neat thing, they aren't the only thing that could be done to make space more interesting.  I wonder if the devs have considered looking into real-life asteroid classification schemes for some inspiration on diversity of celestial bodies and the new gameplay elements they could introduce.  I really hope things don't go out into fantasy-sci-fi-land...

There are a bunch of different asteroid types out there, each with unique features that could in turn present unique challenges for players to use engineering to overcome for resource extraction or whatever.  Just look up the Tholen or SMASS classification schemes.  I have some examples in some recent suggestions I posted.  I think it would be really cool for this game to be based on actual proposed 21st century technologies and engineering... in space... to do things that might actually happen in space, that are also conceivably fun and challenging.    


Stardriver907

Registered:
Posts: 125
Reply with quote  #557 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andeerz
...  There are magic "thrusters" that utilize no propellant whatsoever and run exclusively on electricity (and those "electric" rockets that do exist still use a propellant!!!), cargo containers are like magic bags-of-holding (cargo magically has no mass!), and mining drills have an obscenely impractical design that vibrates for no conceivable reason without touching anything and would do nothing but create a nightmare cloud of dust and particles if they didn't magically suck up stuff they "mined".  


I am not even going to talk about the technologies that aren't even in the game at all.  This game is in development, after all, but with the direction it seems to be going, I have my doubts that this will ever be a game about using plausible 21st century anything to do much (if anything) having to do with what would be a plausible 21st century space scenario.

OK, you're not wrong. I do however hold out the possibility that the thrusters, like so many other things currently in the game, are placeholders that just let us play the game, and at some point we will get thrusters that require actual fuel.

Same may be true for the drills, although I have no idea what a mining drill designed to work in space would look like, much less work. The University of Alaska is essentially a college of mine engineering. Maybe I'll ask them what they would do. Hmmm...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andeerz
Also, I disagree that gravity generators and artificial mass are needed for any gameplay purpose other than to make space ships/stations that conform to typical sci-fi-trope designs.  That, and cars in space for whatever they are worth.  You can do clever things with them, but those clever things (grav engines, collecting stuff into a collector, etc.) can be done through other means, and therefore grav gens and artificial mass blocks are not needed for anything other than ultimately cosmetic stuff that doesn't factor into survival.

I believe there might be game engine limitations concerning how mass is handled, or else a proper code needs to be written. I'm not a programmer so I don't know how it works, but I assume the easiest thing to do in order to get people to play the game was to have artificial gravity and mass. Most people don't question it, or even care. I, for one, would not miss gravity, and I believe ships and stations would be more realistic if people were forced to do away with the concept of "up" and "down", and use spin to create gravity where size permits. I don't think that would work the way the game currently runs. Would be nice if they took a stab at it.

When I said KSH was trying to stay within the limits of 21st century technology, I was referring to their stated policy of not having things in the game like "shields" and laser weapons, warp drives, teleporters, etc., which is why I believe any celestial bodies in the game should be the ones we find in our own solar system, which is plenty from what I can tell.


Andeerz

Registered:
Posts: 165
Reply with quote  #558 
I agree with you. I was venting frustration... Sorry. [smile]

but, yeah. I think the game ought to focus on celestial bodies we would find in our own solar system. And not just planets, but also the variety of asteroids, comets, and extinct comets that would be the primary targets of near-future resource exploitation in space.

There is so much more that can be done besides the current asteroids we have in the game! And the easiest step to take would be to look at what is actually out there in space! As much as a lot of people seem to balk at the word "realism", real life has a lot of cool things in it that make for wonderful gameplay elements that would actually be rather novel. The different kinds of celestial bodies that actually exist are more than diverse enough to provide unique challenges to the player, particularly when it comes to mining and setting up a resource infrastructure, which is what will become the dominant activity of humanity in space in the 21st century in addition to exploration.
ChromeCastle

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 40
Reply with quote  #559 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stardriver907
I believe any celestial bodies in the game should be the ones we find in our own solar system,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andeerz
I think the game ought to focus on celestial bodies we would find in our own solar system.


How would this even work in a procedurally generated world? If we could only find planets in our solar system we would either find multiples of the same planet, or only nine planets in the whole of any given world.

Multiples of the same planet would just be cheesy and odd. Having just nine planets would make planets extremely difficult to find. In fact, it might even take years to find one. Keen should have the freedom to use made-up planets for the sake of making the system much more convenient.
Andeerz

Registered:
Posts: 165
Reply with quote  #560 
I think you misunderstand what i mean. I mean that the game should generate asteroids and comets procedurally that are of the varieties seen in real life, such as those described using the Tholen and SMASS classification schemes.

Right now, the asteroids in the game are really all the same fundamentally. Not to mention, they are static and are not subject to physics as they ought to be (eventually). Planets are cool, too, but what is the game going for here? Is it aiming to be like Starmade? Or is it going to try to have planets like we find in our solar system? What scales are we talking about?

If this game is aiming to be set in some near future scenario implementing near-ish term technology, then exploration and exploitation of asteroids would be the most logical thing to focus on. And there is plenty of fun and interesting gameplay to have there.
Star_Sentinel

Registered:
Posts: 40
Reply with quote  #561 
I think if the game were to be divided into chunks like minecraft, or sectors in the case of a space game... it would prevent severe lag issues in most cases. I have no idea what would be a good size for a sector, but probably more than 100 KM.
NoID

Registered:
Posts: 34
Reply with quote  #562 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lockerd
I said it before and I'll say it again, planetoids or small moons.

I don't want to see huge planets to dilute what this game already made for itself.

having something like a cracked planetoid or large cluster of asteroids would be cool.

no exploration, no colony building on a planet.

thats not what this game is about and if it does add it then it will derail from its original goal.

however I am all for different types of planetoids, like gaseous, Ice, molten, etc.

Planets NO, Planetoids...maybe but they have to be the minimum.


honestly the scale might make peoople realize... well... scale. lol 

but i agree various types of pluto-earth/mars sized planetoids would be fine.

planetoids can still be habitable, but if true realistic scale is possible, with unlimited speed, i want it... just sayin.

even if it does take hundreds of hours/days.. to travel between planets. id love to see ftl travel between star systems if you keep accelerating. just travel tward that distant star til you get there... (Space Engine)  yes.. you CAN go from surface to univese... prety flawlessly considdering the sheer scale of the universe lol

NoID

Registered:
Posts: 34
Reply with quote  #563 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andeerz
I think you misunderstand what i mean. I mean that the game should generate asteroids and comets procedurally that are of the varieties seen in real life, such as those described using the Tholen and SMASS classification schemes. Right now, the asteroids in the game are really all the same fundamentally. Not to mention, they are static and are not subject to physics as they ought to be (eventually). Planets are cool, too, but what is the game going for here? Is it aiming to be like Starmade? Or is it going to try to have planets like we find in our solar system? What scales are we talking about? If this game is aiming to be set in some near future scenario implementing near-ish term technology, then exploration and exploitation of asteroids would be the most logical thing to focus on. And there is plenty of fun and interesting gameplay to have there.
 you might be thinking too broadly, i think theyre going for an "earth" orbit type deal, one planet per 1,000,000k or something crazy like that, in which case, you get to keep mining asteroids til you find a planetOID that supports life. could be awesome  EDIT: maybe even mars orbit.. near the asteroid belt, hows that for realism? [redface]   EDIT2: just some knowledge from teh wiki:  
  1. Mars is the fourth planet from the Sun and the second smallest planet in the Solar System, after Mercury. Wikipedia
  2. Radius2,106 miles (3,390 km)
  3. Distance from Sun141,600,000 miles (227,900,000 km)
    1. Mass: 639E21 kg (0.107 Earth mass)
    2. Distance to Earth140,000,000 miles (225,300,000 km)
    3. Gravity3.711 m/s²
            MoonsPhobosDeimos


All of this is possible with what they're proposing/what has already been added, so i assume this is the goal,

to explore the inner solar system, from mercury to.. at least jupiter/saturn

  1.  the only actual issue is with 2077 earth..
    either
    A. make it amazingly futuristic, and a trade hub, or something simmilar.
    or B. make it a debris field, like a second asteroid belt, yay war.. lol
briank

Registered:
Posts: 1
Reply with quote  #564 
people REALLY do NOT understand scale when it comes to space games.
I'd be surprized if they could pull off CERES, the largest object in the asteroid field and the smalest object to be classified as a dwarf planet. At 1000 km in diameter. And most of the big moons are bigger. Like triton at 2500km. Or the moon at 1700.
now a more realistic aproach is putting spearical big asteroids/planetoids. It is said that thete are 140 objects larger than 120km in diameter in the belt, so 100~300 seems reasonable as there are only 15 or so that are larger than that. Natural gravity is a must, and orbiting would be pretty awesome.
Hydro

Registered:
Posts: 3
Reply with quote  #565 
Hi Tazoo, love your and Arron's vids!

SpecFrigateBLK3

Registered:
Posts: 26
Reply with quote  #566 
For a bit of context on ideas to follow, look up Oolite (video game) on wikipedia, and follow through to the forum for even more context.

In Oolite, 'planets' are mostly large landmarks with stations orbiting around. The game has expansions that facilitate a loading-screen style transition to a planetary base identical to stations.
Oolite's scope is vastly limited compared to SE, but some concepts could still be used as a base for SE's further expansion.
Merandix

Registered:
Posts: 58
Reply with quote  #567 

First off, I'm massively in favour of planets... but it has to be done right, within the technical and practical limitations of the game. The way I envision it. It's a game, so to keep it manageable, we'll have to be able to wrap our heads around it and also have to be able to fly around it in a reasonable time. The main limitation is the current engine's maximum flying speed, not the amount of data that can be generated!

However, since this IS a voxel building game, I think SE must get away with even smaller planets than for example Kerbal Space Program. Pulling one from my hat: let's go by a factor of about 25. At that size, Mars would be around 271 km in diameter and 867 km in circumference... at our current maximum speed, it would take about three hours to complete one orbit.


So, let's take a look at Ceres at this scale (the largest object in the actual asteroid belt). Ceres is also the only known object to have become round under its own gravity in the asteroid belt. Ceres' diameter is 974.6 km. At 1/25th scale, that's just under 39 km in diameter. At that size, its circumference is already 122 km! And you'd be having 1194.5 sq km to play with! Doing one lap around it at max speed would take around 20 minutes.

Ceres' escape velocity is 502.1 meters per second (1807 km/h). Putting it at 1-25th (yes, cheating here, I know mass would be decreasing more than just 25 times, as would escape velocity), it would be 20,84 meters per second or about 72 km/h... which is nasty... since if you drive too fast on that 25th scale... you'd attain escape velocity.

Marek was talking about 10's to 100's of km in diameter in his blog post.. I don't think he realised that a 100 km diameter planet(oid) would be 314 km in circumference... Since we only move at 105 meters per second (378 km/h) at maximum, that's an orbit of around an hour at max speed (50 minutes at the surface, slightly longer higher up)... but again... if we want actual orbital mechanics... we'd have to go slower than that, or we'd escape.

Just the fact that the Havok engine is present in this game, limits us to a few hard rules for the sake of practicality (in my opinion):
- No orbital mechanics
Our speed is just too limited. This doesn't mean gravity isn't important. It just means we have to ride up and down on thrust alone, like how popular media represents space travel (getting to space isn't so much going up, it's more going fast enough to miss the ground and atmosphere in your fall). It also means that with insufficient thrust, you'll crash if you get too close to the planet.

- Planet(oid)s will have to be a maximum of about 50 km in diameter
For the sheer sake of keeping it possible to fly around them at our current max speed in a reasonable amount of time. At 50 km maximum size, this will keep the circumference at max 157 km... which at 378 km/h (105 m/s) will take just over 25 minutes to fly around. Which is, in my opinion, pushing it in terms of size. Maybe eventually the game can double or tripple this speed, maybe boosting the maximum (practical) size of planets up a bit too 100 - 150 km or so.

- Disproportionately high gravity
Asteroids at this scale are virtually without gravity in reality. I think planets will need gravitational field to 'feel' planet-like.


This raises a couple of questions:
- Atmosphere & ecosystems?
Do these mini-planets need to generate with a breathable atmosphere and ecosystems with plants, trees animals and water? Or do we prefer slightly more realistic barren planetoids mostly suitable for mining and wheeled-vehicle driving?

- Purpose
Planets will have to have some sort of additional purpose. Maybe a resource or something.
Though for me, building buildings and having a purpose for wheels is already a good first purpose.


What do you guys think about the above?

Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:


Create your own forum with Website Toolbox!