Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: idea for space travel

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    4
    Post Thanks / Like

    Smile idea for space travel

    i was thinking is it possible to make space travel like space engineers please like go to a asteroid and mine it I'm hoping you make it where you make a ship on a planet and take off and go into outer space and live on a base in a asteroid I know it a lots to ask but please no fast travel make it so you do wont to exploration but in space and fight ai ships

  2. #2
    Kickstarter Wreck Nomad Wishblend's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    242
    Post Thanks / Like
    As far as I can tell it will work as the following:-

    You build your spaceship on the planet and then take off and go to orbit.
    Once in orbit you can start building a space station.

    Maybe having to travel back and forth to fully build it unless you find a way to get materials up to orbit easier.

    The psychics used on the planet will also be used in space with there own set of rules.

    As for building inside an asteroid, that is a great idea and if they are in the game I can see it working but I don't know if asteroids will be in the game or not yet as that will come with space update later in the development.

    Another question you didn't ask is can our character leave his or her space ship in space and do EVA's.

    I don't know that one either.
    Always looking for hidden locations and ways to build

    See my builds https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...Zv_ap4HysL3HIl

  3. #3
    Kickstarter Builder Nomad Azirahael's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    451
    Post Thanks / Like
    All this will have to wait.

    First we sort out the one planet.
    Then we travel to others via menu.
    Only THEN do we get space and spacecraft.

  4. #4
    Kickstarter Alpha Nomad
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    19
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Wishblend View Post
    As far as I can tell it will work as the following:-

    You build your spaceship on the planet and then take off and go to orbit.
    Once in orbit you can start building a space station.

    Maybe having to travel back and forth to fully build it unless you find a way to get materials up to orbit easier.

    The psychics used on the planet will also be used in space with there own set of rules.
    Where did you get those info ?
    Well i like the idea to create an orbital station. In line with my previous idea (https://forum.planet-nomads.com/thre...ull=1#post6174) i'd say this game logic.
    1) Crashed on the planet : exploration
    2) Build a shelter
    3) Try to evolve tech (tech tree?)
    4) build a spaceship
    5) gather even more resource to upgrade spaceship to orbital station
    6) From orbital station only emergency pods available (to go back to the planet)
    7) re do 1-4
    8) docking station at the orbital station available + space exploration available

    it would be fun ... ^^

  5. #5
    Kickstarter Alpha Nomad fura's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Budapest
    Posts
    438
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Zarx View Post
    Where did you get those info ?
    It was stated by the devs multiple times in the forum, dev blogs, video interviews and even back in the Kickstarter campaing. I'd make one small correction tough:

    1. One planet to explore and build on
    2. Orbital building at the first planet
    3. Travel to other planets via "menus"
    4. Spaceships and spaceflight

  6. #6
    Kickstarter Wreck Nomad Wishblend's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    242
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Zarx View Post
    Where did you get those info ?
    Well i like the idea to create an orbital station. In line with my previous idea (https://forum.planet-nomads.com/thre...ull=1#post6174) i'd say this game logic.
    1) Crashed on the planet : exploration
    2) Build a shelter
    3) Try to evolve tech (tech tree?)
    4) build a spaceship
    5) gather even more resource to upgrade spaceship to orbital station
    6) From orbital station only emergency pods available (to go back to the planet)
    7) re do 1-4
    8) docking station at the orbital station available + space exploration available

    it would be fun ... ^^
    General comments on the forums and



    But as Azirahael said, it is a long way away.
    Always looking for hidden locations and ways to build

    See my builds https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...Zv_ap4HysL3HIl

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    4
    Post Thanks / Like
    I don't wont menus Its not fun at all make the game like space engineers! they got it right give me a good reason to play the game might well play space engineers
    Last edited by nathan; 23-08-2016 at 02:56 PM.

  8. #8
    Kickstarter Alpha Nomad
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    30
    Post Thanks / Like
    I don't like the idea of getting to other planets via menu either. But I would also like to see a more realistic approach. The ground-space travel of both Space Engineers and No Man's Sky is crap - the first doesn't have any actual physics involved - you just need to get high enough, the later doesn't even let you touch the ground unless you tell it to autoland. What I would absolutely LOVE to see is some Kerbal style physics - not in the way the spacecraft operate internally but in the way the physics around it is handled. E.g. orbit means orbit (as seen in KSP), not "high enough for the gravity to stop" (which is more of an insult to physics than actual physics). Of course this requires very high speeds, which again is tricky when looking at the grid-setup of ships when it comes to collisions. But it's possible. And it would be ultra cool. Imagine a ship slamming at 100,000 kph into a station... well again it wouldn't be that complicated as they would probably just end up annihilated.

    In regards of expanding the game I would like to see Survival added first as a big update, then expand the scope of the game outwards while keeping your survival savegame working and updated (so we don't need to restart when you add more planets or even a galaxy to explore but can instead use our ground base that we have achieved, starting with the first survival version, to explore what the devs have achieved).
    So: 1. Survival, 2. Flight, 3. Orbit, 4. Moon, 5. Deep Space Travel, 6. Moar boosters, erm, planets (ADDED EVEN TO EXISTING SAVEGAMES!), 7. Galaxy

  9. #9
    Kickstarter Builder Nomad
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    175
    Post Thanks / Like
    I agree about the Kerbal Space style of physics, BUT it does need to be simplified a bit. In KSP, you are always subject to physics, I think, though I had not built a space station in orbit in KSP (is that possible now?).

    Basically, once in orbit, you don't want to worry about maintaining a perfect orbit and fighting orbital decay. Especially with your space station or any orbital building project.

    But it would be awesome if there is some KSP like challenge to getting into inserting into an orbit, and also in re-entering the atmosphere and landing in one piece on the ground. This would increase the challenge of taking a craft to a second planet and landing on it in one piece.


    They may not decide to add this kind of physics because it is a whole game in itself, and if you take it all the way, then it adds a lot of difficulty and 'hassle' to just getting up to your space-station or shipyard in orbit, not to mention, slamming into it accidentally, or losing it because it had no thrusters to maintain orbit, or the fact that they might not want to sim planet level, orbit, and space in multiplayer all in the same server, which is pretty high-level and resource-intensive stuff.

    It would also be nice if in space or on the second planet, you discover alien technology that lets you teleport or worm-hole between locations, and you can set up 'stargates' between the two planets and your orbital structures.

    BTW, to the earlier post, the menu-selection of a planet to travel to is just the beta-version method of getting to a new planet before full space-sim can be added. It isn't meant to be the final state of the game.

  10. #10
    Kickstarter Alpha Nomad Thunderbird's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    15
    Post Thanks / Like
    in KSP, once you get to stable orbit, "because" you are subject to physics, it just stays there unless you de-orbit it again

    i would like simplified KSP physics actually, because then we could do stuff like orbital bombardment without it being completely and utterly overpowered

  11. #11
    Kickstarter Alpha Nomad fura's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Budapest
    Posts
    438
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by nathan View Post
    I don't wont menus Its not fun at all make the game like space engineers! they got it right give me a good reason to play the game might well play space engineers
    Well, we all want real spaceflight and that is definitely what the devs want to add. They stated it several times, but that is kind of a big thing to add. So here's a different perspective. Instead of they saying: "here's a planet and you are stuck here while we are working on spaceflight", they introduce interim steps and allow us to explore further, not having to 'sit on the same rock'. I think that is a good thing.

    On the thought of physics, I'd like something in between Space Engineers and KSP. The KSP like approach would make the game too difficult for many people, as Jaycephus said. But I agree that landing on a planet in SE is ridiculously unrealistic sometimes.

  12. #12
    Kickstarter Alpha Nomad Thunderbird's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    15
    Post Thanks / Like
    KSP physics arent difficult to understand really, as long as we dont have complicated body and aerodynamic physics to worry about, the orbital physics themselves are just point and burn with the proper indicators (think projected route computer screen)

    whatever ends up happening, people will probably jump on it as long as multiplayer works - the one absolute biggest downfall and killer of Space Engineers was always the "bowl of spaghetti" netcode

  13. #13
    Kickstarter Builder Nomad
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    175
    Post Thanks / Like
    In KSP you have orbital mechanics UI to help you insert into a 'stable' orbit. I want to see some challenge to getting into orbit in PN, but I would be fine with 'orbit' being simplified, especially before full space is added. (Important point. Lots of things are going to be simplified and abstracted away at first that will get some more attention later, hopefully, like the planet-menus.)

    I don't want to see super-simplified 'orbit' where it's just go straight up with low velocity, and suddenly you are in orbit with no challenge to it.

    There is some difficulty in this, programming wise, so that is why SE has noped-out on so much.

    And it might get tedious for most players to have to worry about rendezvous with something you already put into orbit. I mean if that IS the game, like in KSP, it's fine, but if you just want to take a load of resources or stuff up to orbit to build with, it could be very tiresome, though there might be a way around that, too. Like an Auto-pilot tech advance that comes after reaching orbit and exploring wreckage in space?

    The issue, if you haven't played KSP, is that if you just launch at any random time, you could end up on the opposite side of the planet from your space station. Then you have to go into a higher orbit or a lower orbit to slow down or speed up and get back around the planet to your space station.

    It's probably better to abstract a lot of stuff away. That's what the auto-pilot would do, but if you put that in, then do you bother with all this detail in the first place? It would definitely feel more like real space, even with the auto-pilot, if you have to ride a ship up that needs to get the velocity built up in order to stay in orbit and match orbit with the thing you're building.

    But really, the first 'orbital' building area is going to abstract that all away, probably, just like the planet-menu abstracts away the trip through space from one planet to another. We'll have to see what they are willing to put into the game.


    I realize that there needs to be a 'game' with some design choices, not a Reality 2.0 simulator that makes everything fully realistic. I'm not talking about anyone I've seen on these forums, but we've all seen how people let their imaginations run away and expect all sorts of things based on very little information, like with No Man's Sky. Some of what people wanted (and what Murray allowed them to think) was simply not even technically feasible, or worth expending time and resources on even if it was 'technically' feasible with the money and time-frame they had.

    People want the sun to be 'real'. Why, though? It would take longer than your oxygen would last to just fly to the sun in reality, so why? The best answer is because of lighting on planets. But do you want 12 hour nights? Or 5-month nights at the pole? Maybe. But you can accomplish that without a 'real' sun that you fly to. You can calculate the position of the sun in a given solar system, and then have a kind of sky-box sun that illuminates the game's planets from the correct direction at any given time, with just a bit more fakery on how it's interacting with the horizon and the atmosphere of the planet. You would seem to be on a planet that is both rotating and moving around the sun, but you are actually fixed in place in your own coordinate system with visible objects being loaded into RAM and rendered around you with the various light sources contributing to how those things are rendered. That's real enough for the light, but not real enough if you want to fly to the sun and see it get huge and then burn you up after you already died from inadequate radiation shielding. And taking 12,367 game hours to get there.

    And of course, if you do make a sun this realistic as far as light, but it's still a 'sky-box' effect, is it real enough to call it "real"? It's kind of funny to think about.

    And balancing between what's easy, and fun, and realistic is a huge challenge.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •