Just my 5 cents after being with SE for this long.

with your comment regarding inertial dampeners alone I can tell you've not thought this through as far as you need to. First and foremost it's alot easier for the game resource wise to move something that's only about 100k kilos such as a heavy fighter vs a 200m kilo base made of several thousand blocks. Likewise it's much easier for the game to move that 200m kilo base that's only 100 meters across vs moving an entire planet that's 120 kilometers in diameter. What you're asking them to do just is not feasible which is what you either legitimately can't or flat out refuse to see and I'm starting to think it's a bit of both. I'm sure Malware or one of the others could explain in greater detail why it's not feasible as they have more experience with the Havok engine and the coding of SE than I do currently. Secondly they would have to rewrite massive amounts of code for something that would eat massive amounts of resources for little to no gain in terms of gameplay. As PLPM pointed out we simply do not have as precise of controls and such as we would need to do something like that in SE. I like to think my fighters are very easy to control yet even in a fighter I wouldn't trust them to make that kind of a landing.

As far as inertial dampeners go, inertial dampeners are meant to keep a ship/station still. If a force attempts to move the station to the left at 50km per hour, an equal force of 50km per hour is applied going opposite to bring the ship/station to a stop and prevent it from moving. This is why whenever you let off the accelerator in any type of vehicle in SE with the dampeners on the ship/station/rover always slows down or attempts to slow down. With that said when on a planet the inertial dampeners automatically adjust and apply the amount of force needed to bring a ship to a stop. Where as most players can only control one direction of thrusters at a time such as forward, backwards, side to side, or so on, the inertial dampeners do not have that limitation. Let's suppose as well that you come to a full stop in a fighter and use a camera to zoom in on a distant enemy base. While you're sitting still in the ship, the gravity of the planet attempts to pull you and the ship to the ground. The inertial dampeners apply an equal amount of force opposite to gravity to keep the ship in the air. Unless you're Fox McCloud or Falco Lombardi from the Star Fox team, you're not going to be able to keep that ship very still without inertial dampeners.

Now lets suppose that rotating planets were implemented tomorrow following the model you're talking about. Let's also suppose we have a base at Point A on the planet that we want to get to. In order to catch that base you're going to have to burn alot of fuel to either catch that rotating base or circle the planet to get back to it and in a game like this both are asinine prospects. Why should I have to circle the entire planet just to be able to land at my base or burn unnecessary fuel?

The biggest thing I have yet to see is what actual value rotating planets would add to gameplay. All i'm seeing is it adding a bunch of problems with no real upsides to having it in game. You keep forgetting that game physics do not always behave the same way real life physics do.

 

In my opinion everything what could add laggs and buggs is pointless at this stage. . SE evolved to something specific.. the gameplay is Very good i think but vrage has no potential to imitate universe itself. I'm just afraid there will be no need to visit planets.. KHS achieved a great goal by planets but I have no idea why use them. . Even if they'll spinning or/and rotate around something. .

 

what up. im not trying to be hostile, just attempting to explain myself in a friendly manner.

I'm explaining how it works in RL. I'm not trying to challenge nor propose any programming or changes to the game. It was just a statement including and relating RL and SE and how it MAY work if it were magically possible. My statements show how inertia, movement, and interactions of ships and planets can be or are related. I appreciate the realism and encourage further realistic game play development of SE. I'm starting to think some people didn't read and comprehend what i wrote. I'm starting to think you didn't read and comprehend what i wrote. i made the last sentence aggressive just for you cap.

im no physicist but i aint no dumby.

"still" relative to what? if 2 ships have the same velocity they are "still" to each other. velocity means speed and direction, so there is no negative velocity.
"slow down" relative to what? if 2 ships have the same velocity and one decelerates and lessens its magnitude of velocity, it is perceived as slowing down from the "faster" ship. just the same the slower ship sees the faster ship as speeding up. relative.

forces act as acceleration to mass.
F=ma

this is reasoning for better support for controller, joystick, and for the love of all that's holy a 3D mouse! -and i did just make a suggestion there.
AND you said it yourself! You have have inertial dampeners set(on). set to what? the planet's serface? what if its moving or rotating? oh you set it to a moving planets surface's inertia. Now it all makes sense.
"Re-calibrating the inertial dampeners" -Mr Worf almost every episode. and why does he have to calibrate the torpedo's. he does it sometime 3 times an episode. I'm not sure bet he's good at it.

nope just have to change the angular direction to match the rotation unless one were to become part of the planet's inertial atmosphere. which is why i wrote everything i did earlier. burning of excess fuel would only happen if one's dampeners we on. which is why i explained how dampeners screw people up. and gravity would change your angular direction as well. holding it all together.

 

It`s not impossible.

Just not feasible.

 

do you even know how gravity works? are you just arguing just to argue because you dont understand?
you even pointed out things that i was trying to explain you you with no information. done with all that









not a change to SE code just observation in RL



if an object were to enter a gravity field it would be reacted upon. as it enters the atmosphere, it is acted upon the atmosphere which is part of the inertia system of a planet. Then supposedly there is friction apposing the different momentums of the object and planet. until the object is in the atmosphere it is only the distance that affects the gravity force. and as a planet moves or the object moves its all about distance. and if an object has the velocity (speed and angle) to overcome the changes of gravity to its velocity not to collide then it would have a bent trajectory. If the velocity changes so there is a collision course then there you go. and if the velocity of an object which is not in the range of gravity it is a straight line.

if one was next to a planet that was rotating around a sun, and the planets gravity was not pulling it towards it, then the sun would pull the object. All be it at a large distance, smaller force, small acceleration; and all that depending on the mass of the object, which would change the velocity of the the object. thus pointing the velocity of the object to the sun
mind blowing

i understand im explaining how this works in RL. im not complaining, i dont fail to understand the game limitations. its a statement. in the general discussion

 

Let the magic wanding begin!

Poof. Keen makes planets spin. Fan-boys delight.

How often should rotating planets update? Say we have three planets and three moons. The moons are tidally locked so no spinning for them. (more on this late). The planets are spinning.

How fast should planets rotate?

Well every planet should have its own rotational frequency. But would this correlate with the "day-length" which is usually 2 hours?

The circumference of a circle can be expressed as 2*PI*Radius. For a 120km planet:
2*3.14*120,000 = 753,982 meters.

That entire circumference would have to rotate in 2 game hours (sim speed of 1.0). That's 376,991 meters in an hour. That's 104 m/s that the surface is traveling at sea-level. The speed would be even higher for mountainous peaks.

So the normal speed for ships is 100 m/s. That means you'd be 4 m/s short of CATCHING the surface at full burn. If objects orbited at 104 m/s so they would stay relative to their planetary positions, that means an absolute top speed of 204 m/s relative to the game world if you are traveling in the direction of rotation. This sounds doable. But every object on each planet is in motion. It's position has to be recalculated as well as its orientation. Solutions for ships clipping into the planet would have to be figured out. Maintaining the relative orientation during the entire rotation would be necessary. If it's slightly off, you might find your base upside down after a few hours.

But here is the BIG rub: multiplayer. With planets rotating, what are the likelihoods of a de-sync and grids randomly blowing up? What if you're piloting near the surface?

How often would an object's position need to be updated so that rotation is smooth? If we update positions only once a second that's 100 meters of displacement. How taxing on the CPU would it be to rotate ALL of those objects, for three planets?

I can almost guarantee liquid water as well as rotating planets were discussed before the roll-out of planets. I know rotating planets WERE brought up several times and I believe that Marek even publicly addressed it.

I think Malware stated this earlier, but it bears repeating: making planets rotate would be simple. Making them rotate and still maintain the integrity of the game? Difficult.


Planetary rotation is a "cute" feature. Now if you're neurotic about rotating planets it may feel like it's a "must have." But it's not. It's a cute feature.

Keen could surprise us and do this... very true. But it's a bit of a larger ask and will consume budget.


Planets were a big gamble but they were also a boost for game sales and definitely marketing. Making a planet... not so much "now with ROTATING planets!" doesn't ring as nicely.

 

@[flux]

I know you´re explaining how it works IRL.

I just really, really want to get the point across the board in this thread, not necessarily against what you´re saying... It´s just that it´s easy for someone to take your statements and think it´s easy.

 

What exactly is the point of making planets rotate? Apart from cool factor, all I see is potential for clang and general irritation from ending up a planets diameter away from whatever you left in space on the other side, then having to sit on your bum for an hour as it lines up. Much as I love staring at the sunrise in SE this would get old real quick.

In my opinion we've got enough tech demo features at the moment. Loads of cool stuff 'look, we can do this!', which is great but doesn't make a game on its own. There is little in the way of direction, meaningful enemies, etc. The systems are all there, like cargo ships. They could be so so good, if they were just a tad smarter like the Argentavis uses programmable blocks and timers to do something more than just drift along. Or Exploration ships, they could make a spectacular experience but finding little halo ships or giant heavy armor battlecruisers completly undamaged feels a bit weird, and artificial. And what about the wildlife on planets? Again, could be so much better with even a slightly more complex AI in them.

I for one don't want a game in which you hide from Clang in a hole, only to find that the very ground is pulsating like the belly of some horrid beast and running out in terror. Quickest I ever left a mineshaft that was.

 

I could say the flat earth thing kind of suggests otherwise but to each their own. Far as I was concerned it was 2 adults having a debate and me being blunt and to the point because of that assumption. However I'm questioning that assumption.

Nothing in your post specifically stated you were speaking in terms of real life as you didn't qualify it with context words to limit to just real life. With that in mind I'm left with no choice but to assume you meant in game. that I would chalk up to bad wording or moving the goal point of the original post. giving the benefit of the doubt I will assume the first of just bad wording for the moment. When context is not given to limit to just RL then what kind of assumption am I supposed to make?

I'm pretty sure most of us here understand how it works in real life with acceleration and so on. What you're failing to understand is that we're telling you why it's not practical for them to add such a feature as rotating planets, and why it would cause more issues that it would anything else. Yet despite folks telling you why it's not practical you still beat the dead horse.

with this statement I'm starting to question if you're trying to troll me at this point. I shouldn't need to explain what the word "still" means in that instance. inertial Dampeners are there to keep the ship's motion at zero. In other words the ship is not accelerating to the left, to the right, backward and forward from it's current position and so on. in other words lets assume that your ship is at coordinates 500,500,500 on a 3d plane. The inertial dampeners are intended to keep your ship motionless at those coordinates unless you apply a force or a burn to move the ship in a particular direction.

That is indeed how it works in real life. However game physics do not always match real life physics. The planets themselves are only 120km in diameter at best I believe with most real life planets being MUCH MUCH larger than that and is an illustration of the point.

They very well could give additional support for controllers and joysticks and such which I wouldn't complain about, but again that requires extra man power and so on. With as complicated as this game can get I remain skeptical that it could be ported to console without some heavy optimizations being made first. As to the inertial dampeners, the only thing they need to be set to do is keep your ship's motion and momentum at zero. In terms of Star Trek there is MUCH MUCH more precise control with a 24th century Galaxy Class than the tech of 2077 that we're using here in SE. The torps have to be calibrated for yield, frequency of weapon and so on. Most of the stuff on Trek was purely technobabble with little bits and pieces being based in real science. That Galaxy Class has the ability for Worf and whoever at helm to control multiple means of thrust at one time and do it well. We don't have the ability to control multiple directions of thrust to match inertial dampener effectiveness without scripts and serious mods. We just do not have the precision that a Galaxy Class starship does. Heck we don't even have the precision that the NX-01 does.

It's not that simple dude which is what you're not understanding. I've yet to meet a single pilot that can control multiple angles of thrust effectively enough to not kill themselves or total their ship within a short time. Again this would just add more of an annoyance than it would anything else. It would provide no benefits but plenty of downsides. the average player would not be able to control their ship precisely enough to land, assuming we could even catch up to the surface at all. By forcing people to go without their inertial dampeners you're screwing everyone over if something like this were implemented.

I'm well aware how gravity works. What I'm trying to get you to see is that it's not as simple as you think it is. Others such as Malware, Ronin and a few others have already given the technical aspects and I didn't see the need to repeat what they've already said to that degree.

So then you've moved the goal point of your original post as I suspected. Nothing in your original post stated you were doing that argument from an RL point. You gave no context to your statements and since you gave no context clues to state this was real life, basic reading comprehension tells me you must be talking about the game. Now you're saying that's not the case. That aside, you say you're stating how this stuff works RL and have offered some ways it could work in game. Myself and others also in general discussion have told you and others why it will not work in game and why you're beating a dead horse.

Ronin1973 has already explained why it's not as simple as this in terms of the game. This planetary rotation feature is one of the things that does not match up with real life physics in terms of what would need to happen to make it work in game. Assuming that for a moment it was feasible and all other issues aside with not being able to catch the surface etc, I've yet to see a good answer as to why planetary rotation should be implemented that is not based on subjective logic. Ultimately it doesn't bring anything of value to the table yet people want to beat the dead horse. I really don't know how many people have to point that out for people to stop beating the dead horse in the mean time. In the future once massive optimizations have been made and such, then perhaps the game may be ready for something like that, but that day is not today.

 

If he already said he meant IRL... well, that´s it, end of the discussion, there´s no need to keep on discussing on the subject if that´s been cleared up.
I don´t see much point in it afterall.

 

yea facts are facts in rl. And its obvious this isnt possible in game.
im not spending the time to read his essay on how hes picking me apart. Reading comprehention skills are lacking over there and everything is taken out of context. I KNOW its not going to work in game. I stated that. Infact the game engine to rl is like caps ability to read. want to talk about beating a dead horse.

He still cant understand movement as relative. Im done. Ill never look at this thread again. Im sorry i even tried to explained how inertia, gravity, momentum, acceleration, force, and velocity are tied to gether regarding spaceships and planets.
You win cap cant teach stupid. Im sorry i took the time to write this. Im out delete my account

 

The tidally locked moons were never heard from ever again.

120km diameter, not radius. That's only 52 m/s, assuming we want the day cycle to remain 2 hours.

The ideal way to handle this would be to give each planet its own physics space. I'm reasonably sure they already divided the universe up into such regions to allow Havok to function in the unlimited world format. For technical purposes, everything in the planet's influence would be standing still. Both local and universal velocity should probably be indicated.

An issue arises when a ship traveling max planetary speed attempts to re-enter normal space. To prevent that, the max velocity of a ship must therefore be separated into directional components and adjusted based on distance and planetary rotation.

The remaining problem is preventing ships from clanging the moment a sub-grid or connected ship transfers to the planet's physics space.

 

There's no call for lecturing us as if we're all somehow ignorant of elementary school level physics.

 

If you want to talk about real life physics, find the appropriate forum. You posted this in the - [checks real quick] - yeah, the general subforum of the Space Engineers section. Thus we assumed you would be talking about the game Space Engineers in general. Going on a physics lecture here just makes you look like a KSP shill. Kerbal Space Program has all of those things you keep talking about. Space Engineers has a different niche.
In conclusion, there's one of two possibilities. Either you originally wanted to attack SE for not being KSP, or you're in the wrong place.
--- Automerge ---
Some relevant context from page one of the thread.

--- Automerge ---
Page two context.

--- Automerge ---
So, from all this we see that EVERYBODY ELSE was talking about the game. Furthermore, you were as well and attempted to backpedal to save face when your argument collapsed.
--- Automerge ---

So now I'm gonna pick this apart.
"It's obvious this isn't possible in game." Great, you get it. Shoulda stopped there.
"Not spending the time to read." Ah, deliberate ignorance, lovely.
"Reading comprehension, taken out of context." First, you misspelled comprehension. Second, see above context.
"Game engine is to rl..." Ok. Now you get me.
"Can't understand relative motion." You've taken his words out of context. We have all acknowledged that a gap exists between real life frames of reference and SE's absolute coordinate system.
"Inertia, blah blah, velocity." You didn't try to explain those. You tried to shoehorn them in, then backpedal.
"Dead horse, delete my account." What, are you too busy creating an alt? Hey, are you that Numbers guy too?
"Never look at this thread again." Fine. It will still be here, a monument to all your sins, a warning to others who would try the same. Also, I don't believe you when you say you won't be back.

 

Why yes. My measurement is at the equator. Every object on the planet will have to be evaluated for its elevation above each latitude to calculate where it should be. Now try drilling in a planet that's rotating. Your ship will probably explode because of collisions with voxels.


I really wish someone would just hack the code and make planets spin... then try and get the game to work in a logical, non-clangy way that doesn't suck down sim speed... just to prove how much overhead this will take.
--- Automerge ---
We can call it "Journey To the Center of the Earthlike"

 

If by some random chance someone did hack the game and made it work without clang paying a visit, first I would crap myself at the sheer shock and need a change of pants. After that I'm sure all of us would want that guy to have a job at Keen because that would be something.

 

We can call it "Journey To the Center of the Earthlike"

If someone figured out how to do it without it being a huge weight on sim speed... awesome. Could it be done in 100 hours of labor? Even better. But there definitely will be a ton of factors to consider such as motion relative to the game world versus planet atmosphere/influence.

 

Sometimes I wonder how SE would have turned out if it were built on cryengine or UE: rock-solid MP, soft cap for vehicle speed, physics independent from simspeed, clang reduced to a laughable boogeyman, etc....

Some time ago I proposed an extremely viable solution for spinning planets: plop a gas giant in middle of the solar system. Then the "planets" (now moons) would be tidally locked to the gas giant, resulting in a plausible illusion of a rotating planet (the gas giant) without any modification to SE's voxel code. As an added bonus, nighttime ambient light would appear to come from the bright daytime side of the gas giant.

 

How would you account for different satellites orbiting at different periods?

 

Not entirely sure which parts of my post this first part is a response to.

At any rate, I don't think spinning voxels are something you can just hack into SE. It would involve rewriting significant portions of code, with little payoff even if you succeed at something playable. VRage simply wasn't built for it.

Spinning planets are really something more suited to Space Engineers 2: Not Havok Edition. Throw in a revised collision system with a higher speed limit.

 

I wouldn't. The point is not to make SE a 100% accurate solar system simulation, it's to offer a gesture toward credibility at a minimal cost to the developers.

 

How many man-hours should they sink into this minimal effort? Please note that also includes initial debugging/testing as well as any additional debugging when changes are made elsewhere that affect this feature.

 

5 man-hours for planning, 3 man-hours for art, 1 man-hour for implementation, 6 man-hours for debugging. That's a very conservative estimate. A gas giant in SE is just a jumbo gravity well with several layers of clouds (i.e: a planet with no voxel surface). The only potential issue would be making sure the gravity field plays nice with SE's chunking system (or whatever Keen calls it).

However, Keen could spend days upon days deciding on the crush depth

 

If it's a gas giant it doesn't need to be a voxel. Hell it could just be a sprite. Once you reach a certain gravity coefficient they can just kill off the character because you'd be as flat as a pancake and your ship should implode.

Maybe that'd be cool. If your character is exposed to high enough artificial or natural gravity he just dies. Then you could create gravity traps for people raiding your base.

 

Then multiply that with 3.14