1. This forum is obsolete and read-only. Feel free to contact us at support.keenswh.com

Celestial bodies discussion

Discussion in 'Suggestions and Feedback' started by Tazoo, Nov 6, 2013.

Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.
  1. lordcat33

    lordcat33 Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    5
    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.
     
  2. Grey_Rabbit

    Grey_Rabbit Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    9
    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
     
  3. bob4life10

    bob4life10 Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    23
    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.
     
  4. Tigax

    Tigax Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    16
    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.
     
  5. Kamoba

    Kamoba Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,389
    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.
     
  6. Martinineter

    Martinineter Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,253
    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).
     
  7. bob4life10

    bob4life10 Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    23
    You play in an infinite, empty void. Im pretty sure small planetoids wont be a massive hinderance in the grand scheme of things.
     
  8. Grey_Rabbit

    Grey_Rabbit Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    9
    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.
     
  9. Kamoba

    Kamoba Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,389

    As a background yes, but allot of people seem un-content with this idea :(


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

    Ralith Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    79
    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.
     
  11. xDillinger

    xDillinger Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    10
    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.
     
  12. Freelancer

    Freelancer Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    5
    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.
     
  13. karnaughatlas

    karnaughatlas Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    7
    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!
     
  14. Lockerd

    Lockerd Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    137
    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.
     
  15. Corvus

    Corvus Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    6
    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.
     
  16. xXDailyCheeseXx

    xXDailyCheeseXx Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    6
    Honestly, I agree with this...


    My personal opinion is to give players the ability to shape the game their way. For example

    If they implement the fully interactable Planets, the best way to cater both sides of this debate is to have the option to have or not have planets spawn. Win-Win right?
     
  17. Evito

    Evito Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    163
    I still haven't seen a single suggestion from the Team Planet Engineers (ok maybe a little bit of pun intended :) ) that solves the huge immersion breaking issue of delta-v required
    for escaping planetary gravity wells. Just reaching Earths Lagrange 1 point requires a good 7km/s of delta-v.

    It'd take insanely large launch vehicles or magtubes lifted above surface thousands of kilometers long. The magtubes would work, even by 2077 but it'd require ruining the economy of practically any 2 world powers combined, not gonna happen i tell ya.
    And it'd require incredible amounts of changes to the engine to render this in anything resembling a good quality feature in the product.


    TL;DR Its too friggen costly for what it gets us, i bought a high quality Space Engineers not Planet Engineers.
     
  18. bob4life10

    bob4life10 Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    23
    you're arguing over the economic burden of interplanetary travel and resource cost that would come from entering and exiting atmospheres, while i just want to put damn circles with gravity in space.
    i think if you are capable of suspending your disbelief enough to allow gravity generators, thrusters that work without compensating for the center of gravity, and zero-gravity speed limiters, then some planets wont be as game breaking as you trump it up to be.
    this isnt a super realistic arma-esque space game. its a game where, as of right now, the most you are expected to do is build ships and ram them together. instead of arguing over the semantics of interplanetary space travel, while conveniently overlooking the realism breaking assets that are already in the game, you can instead search for what would be the most fun addition to a game.
    i see the most fun addition to be planetoids.

    this is not "NASA Space Simulation". its "Build Ships And Fight Other Ships And Maybe Collect Some Rocks Too". This game is not made for literal rocket engineers. its a game geared for people who want to fight in space, and anyone else for that matter. dont try to convince yourself that its a game geared to be 99.9% entirely realistic with a .1% margin of error, because thats not, nor ever has been, what this game is about. this BS "i bought space engineers not fantasyland 2077 hurr" argument i keep hearing is moot, and entirely resigned to people thoroughly convinced that they are way goddamn smarter than the average bear
     
  19. ZeroProximity

    ZeroProximity Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    9
    So i just read the every post to this point and i keep seeing the this one argument against planets come up a-lot. "we cant have them because the system resources required would be too much"

    I call bs on this because there are quite a few games out there aka starmade that do space and planets, now its all small scale mind you but basically it renders everything only when you are close, the same could be done with planets, you render a skybox like object till you get close then you render the planet's outside and once you make planet-fall then you render the land, and you only render the underside if they dig.

    games like universal combat gold and kerbal space program do things similar to this and there is no reason that space engineers cant

    and i fully agree with bob4life10

    ps. and for all the people claiming this is Space Engineers and not Planet Engineers, its also not Asteroid Engineers so please leave that argument at the door, because not one of you has complained about the asteroids
     
  20. Kamoba

    Kamoba Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,389
    Starmade is a different game entirely, the amount needed to render a ship on that game is fractional to this game.
    Just open your eyes and look at how many people are bitching about the game being too lagging, adding a full scale planet which can be explored would just make that worse.

    Now to shut your argument of 'I want a full scale planet'

    Allot of people are agreeing in the possibility of a large planetoid or other celestial body (like it says in the title)

    And also with planet backgrounds...

    So with those people finding common grounds, don't you think it would be more suitable for you to put in a constructive suggestion towards those common grounds?

    Otherwise your post is an invalid statement.

    You cannot say everyone who disagrees with planets is wrong based on another game running on a different engine which also uses different mechanics.

    End of.

    So come up with an idea which goes beyond 'so and so does this, so you all suck.'
     
  21. ZeroProximity

    ZeroProximity Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    9
    I Never once said there should be no common ground, i fully endorse a check-box for planet generation or other such options giving the players full and individual/server control over every aspect of the game

    and starmade is one example of a game making use of both space and planet generation; not a how to guide on what they devs should do, merely an example that it can be done

    and im not saying everyone sucks, im just looking to get people to provide better arguments for why there should be no planets than the title of the game and system restraints, as i just barely pass the min required and im able to load massive ships with "minimal" issue(but not always) and with proper design and implementation planets could be a minimal drain on the system resources.

    so instead of arguing for the devs claiming it cant be done, and let them decide, they asked because it is a potential possibility



    As for now, i will not reply to any retort as i do not wish this to become an argument train where nether side will listen
     
  22. Kamoba

    Kamoba Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,389
    I can agree with this :)
     
  23. 4WalledKid

    4WalledKid Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    8
    Hello there!

    I just joined the forums and the first thing I read was this. I see some people degree with the idea of adding planets or celestial bodies just because the game is called SPACE Engineers. I have to recall that planets are a really important part of space. Without the planets space would be useless. In game terms, having something to protect from others would be challenging and fun. Having random generated planets with different gravity, light, atmosphere. It would be awesome that you can take off your helmet inside space stations or inside a planet with oxygen.I f planets are not possible, what about big asteroids with caves and resources? Think about it, I'm not the only one asking for them.
     
  24. Kamoba

    Kamoba Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,389

    You're not the only one and I think the obvious out come is down to the Devs ;)
     
  25. muha

    muha Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    3
    Hello all.

    I own the game, and decided to create an account to add my two cents.

    I honestly really want planets in this game. Because to be frank, there's not a lot to do with it right now, and if they don't add anything to drive the player forward then the game will die down. And to be honest, I doubt many people have the patience to build a life size replica of the enterprise, crash it and rebuild it again. Even vanilla minecraft has more content then that.

    What surprises me is that nobody mentioned my favorite space game that kind of solves the issue for everyone. That game is Freelancer.

    You have planets and solar systems, but the planets are just spheres with rotating textures and a gate that you use to land on it. When you "land" it loads a diff worldspace for you to play with. While the planet itself remains just that, an empty sphere that will kill you if you get too close.

    So here are my suggestions:

    1. Add planets (make them diff sizes, but not real life size, freelance had the perfect sized planets. not too big, but big enough to be annoying to go the entire way around)

    2. The amazing thing with space engineers is those three buttons that allow you to build small and large ships, plus stations. Well how about when a new planet is discovered, who ever builds a "planetary station" owns it. The station is attached to that planet and only one or two can be build.

    3. Once the station is build, adding modules (Game already has some modules) to the station would allow specific planetary tasks. If you build a module that would allow you to land on the planet (think of the star wars MMO), when used, after a loading screen you will have a 5kmx5km area to explore. That way the server wont implode, and the client wont overload. It is even possible to have clients act as servers for the planets.

    By adding these stations, and possible other stations (I'm thinking of something like a ship manufacturing plant where you upload a blueprint, give it resources and it builds it for you), the developers will give players something to do other than build-crash-build-crash.

    Imagine building your own warp-gates between planets...... I would absolutely love that idea...
     
  26. Kamoba

    Kamoba Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,389
    Freelancer is a game I consider a different level to Space Engineers and is allot more Sci-Fi orientated (its an EPIC game ;) )

    I like the idea of planets with the animated textures (like seen in freelancer and the X series)
    Just to add a little extra, perhaps there could be a choice of planetary backgrounds.


    As for the planet stations...

    That's a good 'conquer' style game play for online PvP...
    First team to build a space station which has X function becomes the main base, this team then has to defend that station...
     
  27. muha

    muha Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    3
    I understand the game is called space engineers. But that doesn't mean it has to revolve only around that. The perfect space sim game for me would be to build my ship, go exploring (preferably faster than the meager 105m/s or what ever the cap is) Find a planet, build a station, land on it, explore it (maybe eradicate the locals) and build a colony there that would collect resources and provide NPC manpower to my station that will keep grown. Eventually build a station that can produce capital class ships, draw the blueprint and watch it being built. Once I have my capital ships, explore some more, come across space faring civilization and go on an all out war with them and eventually take over their planetary station.

    My best advice to the devs however would be very simple, allow modding, because games like this attract modders in droves and the modding community sooner or latter outdoes the devs in content and quality.
     
  28. Evito

    Evito Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    163
    The game flies the ship on computer control, not direct. The reason you dont have to account for center of gravity is because the game does it for you if you screw the placement up. Do try it, especially if you attach cargoloads to ships with landing gear it becomes Very noticeable that the matter of fact is indeed as i say.

    I suspend my disbelief on gravity generators out of necessity. But a 2 megaton ship raising from a planetary surface without burning an entire nations oil reserves goes Way the heck beoynd the pale. Artificial gravity can be done, it is simply just very inconvenient to simulate in a manner more casual players would find comfortable for a game. Personally i'd be happy with centrifugal gravity but i digress.

    We have absolutely no idea what the speedlimiters will be, they could still very well raise it to realistic proportions. No you don't want to be traveling at 0.3c in an intrasystem environment with asteroid belts etc.

    Still haven't seen a single reason to justify the amount of resources doing it in proper quality to include in this game.


    Smaller planetoids, sure if the devs deem it proper for the folks who want something large in.

    Large scale planets? If they really want to do it, sure After i get a working product paid for. I don't dish out good money after pipe dreams that net very little real benefit.
     
  29. Kamoba

    Kamoba Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,389

    I'm glad you said your idea of the perfect sim, because this leaves you open to realisation that it may not be in this game and you're not demanding it's implementation :)
     
  30. muha

    muha Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    3
    Im kind of hoping that it would happen eventually through the infinite capabilities of modding.
     
Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.