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 This forum is obsolete and read-only.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

How to end the planet discussion...

Discussion in 'Suggestions and Feedback' started by Evis, Oct 29, 2013.

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

    YtramX Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    238
    Way too many assumptions being made in this thread from both sides. Using the current state of an alpha game (e.g. current max speed of our ships) to justify an argument (e.g. "it'd take too long to orbit!") also seems a bit fallacious.

    Overall I highly doubt anyone would seriously not like the idea of having planets of any size with a few caveats:
    * It doesn't take development time away from features that are more core to the game as it is understood today
    * The game engine can handle it
    * They are navigable with realistic speeds

    For what it's worth, I highly doubt they can do a planetary experience well in this game. Just trying to be realistic. The occasional large asteroid, sure, but planets are a very large undertaking if they're going to be done right. I'd rather have large asteroids than a crappy, half done planet experience.
     
  2. Nilat

    Nilat Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    290
    It is.
    For example, you could merge sub-surface blocks into exponentialy bigger blocks. I guess it would reduce memory usage by an incredible margin since what would be left is basically the surface.

    But even then, I doubt the asteroids are made of blocks. I believe they are something much more optimized for being very dense with large areas made of the same material. It could even be stored only as a surface with proper optimisation.

    Planetoids could be made out of the same thing and it would be pretty efficient. Efficient enough for something of the size of Ceres I do not know though.
     
  3. meadman1

    meadman1 Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    110
    im not quite sure people understand the distances involved between planets. or distance between moons.
    Planets in the background would be neat. sure. But going to one? Just ad shields and warp drives while your at it, cause your gona need a warp drive to get to the planet and shields for when your big mass of blocks you call a ship begins to burn up in the atmosphere. Better hope its aerodynamic too, or else many many smaller 'ships' will be 'landing' on the planet's surface.

    I'm not hating on planets, planets, I love you guys. earth, especially you, your my favorite. But to all my fellow space engineers; don't lose sight of the potential this game has. Don't let it turn into something else.

    If you want to go to planets and land on them and build a theme park on them and drive cars on them go
    play Kerbal Space Program.
     
  4. Evito

    Evito Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    163
    Either you haven't read a single article about space colonization or you are intentionally trolling with bs.

    https://static.newworldencyclopedia.org/thumb/f/fc/Internal_view_of_the_Stanford_torus.jpg/800px-Internal_view_of_the_Stanford_torus.jpg

    https://io9.com/5939232/how-self+sustaining-space-habitats-could-save-humanity-from-extinction

    https://www.space.com/15391-asteroid-mining-space-planetary-resources-infographic.html

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/kitconews/2013/01/25/asteroid-mining-becoming-more-of-a-reality/

    https://writings.mike-combs.com/sleptrek.htm

    https://colonizeorbitalspace.blogspot.fi/

    According to best estimates we could support a population in hundreds of billions if not trillions on our asteroid belts and orbits of planets.

    Please do some research on the subject along with Evis before you launch another storm of insults.

    And its time to bug out of this discussion since its nothing but anecdotal crap and asserting half of you know economics when you cant count 1+1=2

    TL;DR Nuff with the false arguments based on emotion and anecdotes. If you cant be bothered to read a bit, im not going to bother responding to you anymore.
     
  5. Kamoba

    Kamoba Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,389
    To the argument points based on the game...
    [​IMG]



    This argument is one of the longest standing...

    Personally I'm not going to argue this one, I think we're slowly getting to the point where every argument has been repeated and reiterated in many different ways...


    If you're pro planet, I would suggest rather than arguing the subject, try providing concept imagery to support your suggestions!
    Photo-shop your engineer and space ship onto a 'planet'
    Or planetoid.

    If you're anti planet, do the counter, build a space station or asteroid base, or provide images of you Engineer on a concept image of a planetoid, or small moon etc...



    It's time we stopped arguing the same points over and started constructive feedback to support our arguments and ideas.
     
  6. TechyBen

    TechyBen Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    542
    Still forgetting the third option. Instanced land bases. The planet stays as an art asset in the sky box, no extra computational power. Then you can "move to/jump to/land on" the planet via a coms/navigation beacon. You then spawn in a 2.5km square or 50km square (or what ever size) landing spot. (Basically the same as StarForge did in it's first pre-alpha, so not impossible)

    But then the game becomes too much like MC. :/
     
  7. Guest

    This thread is called "How to end the planet discussion", yet it's gone on for 5 pages, and it keeps coming back... sigh...
     
  8. Kamoba

    Kamoba Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,389
    Only the Dev team have the power to end the argument.
    That's why both sides should stop re-iterating their points, all points have been made, and both sides should start being constructive with concept images and idea's.
     
  9. YtramX

    YtramX Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    238
    In my opinion, instanced planets would fit in the "crappy, half done planet experience". Extremely large asteroids would be much more better for me.
     
  10. Evis

    Evis Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    240
    Interesting links, but it proves and supports nothing that indicates planets are a bad idea.

    Spare us your derision. I build games and other software for a living, as such, market research is my living. You're flatly out-classed.

    Fact of the matter;
    • Planets are an integral part of space
    • People want to play on planets when in a space game.
    • In order to take to the stars, you will need to be based on a planet for a logical connection to your origins.
    • People don't want to play in a empty, dead world filled with small rocks.
    That last one being the strongest, most impenetrable argument in support of planets.
     
  11. Ash87

    Ash87 Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,977
    No real size planets. Sorry folks it just isn't a reasonable request.

    Making planetoids that haven't reached a point yet, that the mass of the body allows for pressure to begin melting and mixing the insides of the planetoid, making the celestial bodies such that they are just accretions of whatever asteroids rammed into each other, in the order they rammed into each other... that is the way to go.

    It'll make mining easier to implement (And I would say overall, just better), and it'll mean that you don't have to worry about all kinds of nonsense involved with large celestial bodies.

    Again, Planetoids and large asteroids are a great thing, that will be quite fun... hell, with large enough bodies you could put a station that could be the starting point of that particular server... but Lets not make this more complicated than it needs to be.
     
  12. Kamoba

    Kamoba Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,389
    I'm not questioning your job...

    But I do wonder how if what you said is fact, how te X-series was popular enough to support four games (expansions not included)

    And then there is Freelancer too...


    I get your point, but for me I've seen allot of games not give the ability to land on the planets and still be popular games, the lack of landing capabilities doesn't make it the end all of the game....



    But still, I prefer the idea of 'celestial bodies' rather than full sized planets...


    Anyhow..
    To those who want planets, I have a suggestion:


    Come up with concept art / images.

    If you're all so intent on wanting planets, the give descriptions of the planets, their atmospheres, locations, conditions.
    Keep things simple but understandable, and a few images to support the descriptions.

    The Developers get the idea it's a wanted part of the game...
    But you look at a planet and see Earth or Pandora from Avatar, yet they may see Mars....

    So I invite those in favour of planets, to show us your planets.

    Those against, same challenge, show everyone your asteroid belts, your varying celestial bodies or your 'back drops.'


    The reiteration of every point that has been made has become repetitive event for me.
     
  13. Nilat

    Nilat Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    290
    Some do actually, you insensitive clod!

    I find your argument very not 'impenetrable'.
     
  14. Gentry

    Gentry Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,167
    People who think planets will be feasible in this game have absolutely no concept of size, scale or engine limitations.
     
  15. TechyBen

    TechyBen Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    542
    Fair enough. I'd not argue. It would be more about bases, and less about space. The game would loose it's charm. They would only really apply to things to crash on, and as this is not an RPG type game (where adventure could ensue), would be rather empty and pointless.

    PS, Gentry, Kerbal Space Program and Orbiter and SpaceEngine say "Hi". Space engine especially as that simulates approximations of the universe* down to mountains (or maountains up to universes).

    *That's not a mistake of galaxy, I actually mean universe.
     
  16. Mac D

    Mac D Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    521
    I agree with my old ''nemesis" Kamoba on this topic as well!

    Or you can throw lots of science and big numbers at the issue....

    My "wall of text" on this general topic is found on page 6 of....https://forums.keenswh.com/post/planets-discussion-6593557?&trail=90 so I will not paste it all in here.

    My main point is that I want to see the pro-planet people talk in terms of thousands of kilometres more often in these discussions.

    Use Wikipedia as a catalog; Pick an object (measured in km) and say "please can I have that one", then think about how this is going to work in the near future. (People are having trouble traveling at distances of over 100 km in the current alpha game, so other issues to resolve first before "Planets!!!!").



    If the pro-planet people suggest some more creative programming ways to make full sized planets work well then that is great.

    (I am "anti-planet" for now and content with a few bigger space rocks (and comets!), but one day would like to fight a realistic high velocity fleet battle in the gravity well of Jupiter, but not expecting this anytime soon, or even necessarily in this particular game).

    Full respect to the pro-planet people already doing what I am suggesting (and saying things like 'Lets aim for Ceres, and this is how we could try to get to this scale without crashing the game engine')
     
  17. Razeth

    Razeth Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    8
    Main problems with fully-programmed full-sized planets:
    If one person can successfully scan out the resources of a planet just for themselves, they would have enough geothermal power, radioactive material and basic steel to see their needs met for the entire rest of the game.

    So much area of it will be available even though the rest of space is out there waiting to be explored.

    Would require a hell of a lot of tinkering with ship physics (Gravity, Inertial Dampeners, etc)


    Surely, as suggested, a better solution would be planetoids, planets bigger than a large-ish asteroid, with abundant resources of a single type. You say how would they manage it graphically, with a volume-based mesh, much like asteroids currently are.

    I don't pick sides, I try to come to an agreement that most players would like, because, y'know, lifes too short to measure e-penises online =/
     
  18. tharkus

    tharkus Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    712
    I CANT UNDERSTAND WHY PEOPLE DONT WANT PLANET
    really i cant..
    what i think:
    [space engineers is the name of the game so too many say in their arguments... in the space there are things called PLANETS
    why dont want to fight for domination of those planet with the SPACEships you created ?.
    those empty space with boring rocks is what you want? cmon...]

    P.D: i think nobody want 1:1 real size planets ppl.. its impossible to do, and if they can do that
    our machines will explode in pieces]
     
  19. Kamoba

    Kamoba Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,389
    tharkus...
    It's an argument that has spun around and around so much.


    Every point of every argument seems to have been voiced...

    So I have made a suggestion to people who are pro-planet...

    Come up with concepts...
    Describe and maybe even draw landscapes...

    You think planet and think of Earth...
    I think of Mars..


    It's all good and well 50% saying 'gimme planet' but virtually no-one has said 'I would like to see an ocean planet, abundant in sea life and almost devoid of anything on land. That suffers incredible storms!'

    It's just been 'I want Planets! You noobs who don't want suck!'

    So as a Anti-Planet man, I am challenging Pro-Planets to come up with concepts, descriptions, sizes, pictures...
    anything with a bit more imagination!
     
  20. mikeloeven

    mikeloeven Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,162
    why not just a configuration option that allows you to enable or disable planets when the world is generated :woot:
     
  21. Kamoba

    Kamoba Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,389
    It depends how planets are implemented...
    Also that's the ultimate 'argument' stopper, everything seems to turn into an option or server setting O.o
     
  22. Evis

    Evis Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    240
    Your challenge is meaningless, and lacks imagination.

    As far as your 'topic-ending challenge' - someone has done you the favor.

    [​IMG]

    Now, when we can land on it, we'll have ourselves a real game.
     
  23. Evis

    Evis Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    240
    You remind me of the players who said MP wasn't possible in KSP.

    There is no show-stopper.

    Stop spreading misinformation.
     
  24. Nilat

    Nilat Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    290
    I see what you did there.
     
  25. Kamoba

    Kamoba Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,389

    I'm not spreading false information, it's how people try to resolve every argument on these forums, by suggesting to add an option or server setting.


    That's a single planet with no descriptions.

    As for a 'real game' that's a bit pompous don't you think?

    A real game is only something which has what you want?
     
  26. Evis

    Evis Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    240
    If you seek a description, I suggest www.google.com which will allow you to find a host of information about planets and other celestrial bodies.

    There is nothing pompous here, please refrain from mischaracterizing my observations.

    What game do you have? There isn't anything to SE yet, asides from magically sticking blocks together.

    There is no innovation, no foundation upon which to build your world.

    Now an engineering sandbox with planets - that'll be an innovation.

    A real game has innovation, and never lacks it.

    If you're asking whether I am a proponent of innovation, then I think I've made myself abundantly clear.

    This is more of a logical step than anything else.
     
  27. Nilat

    Nilat Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    290
    Aside from being quite condescending, it is unhelpful and doesn't add anything to the thread besides a new flame war.

    Maybe you didn't thought it that way when you wrote it, but it doesn't mean it doesn't look like it. Because it sure does, at least to some.

    This is a sandox game in alpha stage. Welcome.

    There are asteroids, and we believe we'll see much bigger ones in the future.
    What I call 'my home' may be smaller than yours, but the view out of its windows extends much farther.

    You are missing the point.
    He wasn't talking about the legitimate cases of features requiring a world setting, but about the non legitimate ones.
    He is right when condemning this strategy of saying "just put a world setting for it" as a mean, and last resort, to silence any opposition in conjunction with arguments like "you'll have a mean to disable it if you don't like it so don't complain!". I think I will call it the Kamoba point from now on. Though, it is true also that overgeneralization of the issue is by itself another issue, similar to the issue of non legitimate usage of the Godwin point as a mean to silence any comparison with WWII events, fair or not. But that was not what you were talking about, since you missed his point entirely.

    BTW, you should try to clean your quotes in order to ease the eyes of people trying to follow the thread.
    Sorry for the multiquote.
     
  28. Gentry

    Gentry Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,167
    People who think that this engine was built to support full sized planets make me chuckle.

    Only engines specifically designed from the beginning can support realistic planets.
     
  29. Leonhardt

    Leonhardt Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,930
    Are you saying having more options in a sandbox game is a bad thing?

    I, personally, would be fine with small planetoids, rather than full planets.
    Hell, even big asteroids, several kilometers wide would suffice.
    Anything with huge, open ground for me to build my lavish Space Pirate King Fortress
     
  30. Mac D

    Mac D Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    521
    This is exactly the kind of ideas on this topic I support.
     
Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.