On the topic of Orbits

[caingen]

It seems everyone has seen the problems of orbiting sectors in one form or another. Be it grabby sectors, difficult to navigate areas, or lost homes and ships, having the sectors move around is a problem. Now, I know I have heard that schema is supposedly working on it by unfixing planets from sectors so the planets can rotate without the sectors which ont he surface sounds great. However, in practice I think that will still cause a lot of problems.

To start with:

• Load times for planets moving sectors
• Pathfinding for planets, what happens in asteroid sectors?
• Lost planets, no static coordinates to reference

A better solution to both? Many fold really:

• Moving asteroids. They get to orbit, noone really minds
• Sectors stop moving, easier gameplay for everyone
• Bigger planets, a lot less of them. No more than 16 planets per star.
• Planets dont move. It looks nice but, doesnt really add to the game.
• Possibly make basic orbit paths for asteroids, small chance of asteroid/planet collision?

All this so that as I sit here trying to make a large enough space station for multiple ships to dock neatly, I wont have to guess at where the sectors will start stealing ships and people from our home sector. Maybe while we're at it we can request a sector system that works more like loading chunks and doesnt have semi hard loading lines. It would be the best experiance for the player, not sure how easy it would be to implement.

 

[Colt556]

I could see planets orbiting if we got a proper map. Like what you said, reduce planets to just a handful per system. Make them much bigger. And then in the map screen it will show where the planets are in their orbits around the star. So you can plot a course and be on your way. Would be nice if EVERYTHING orbited in a realistic fashion. Except ships/stations. Those should be static unless in the orbit of a planet or asteroid or something.

 

[Seuss]

Support, i want to see moons! D:

 

[busterbleede]

i got my faction hq and every thign is orbitign it so exspandign my base means people will orbit out of it and a shop will ram it i think that is already nice if there are jsut some metior fields and showers that do real tiem dmg to ship (hard hull will let small en medium astroids bounce off )

 

[Imperial_Gold]

Yeah, moving planets never really floated my fancy. This really simplifies things and i like that.

 

[JesterAzazel]

I say, allow the planets to move, but not the sectors, and make the planets targetable from farther away so you can still find it without a static waypoint.

People losing ships and homes might want to park/build closer to the planet. I\'ve only had this happen once, but I noticed when the base was very small, and that\'s actually how I found out about rotating planets in the first place.

 

[NeonSturm]

Be it grabby sectors, difficult to navigate areas


Might be a feature - protect your home! But we should be able to set it up how we like :D

• Load times for planets moving sectors
• Pathfinding for planets, what happens in asteroid sectors?
• Lost planets, no static coordinates to reference

Load times are not higher than now. Planets just orbit - everything else needs pathfinding.

Planets should be able to receive names - just like ships - and registered in the sun system. You just need to load posname about 16 times if you enter a sun system and the planets if you are closer than 5km. Websites/chat does that all the time!

• Moving asteroids. They get to orbit, noone really minds
• Bigger planets, a lot less of them. No more than 16 planets per star.
• Possibly make basic orbit paths for asteroids, small chance of asteroid/planet collision?

I want basic orbits not only for asterois, but also ships - orbit-docking.

As long as there is no player, nobody minds: \"collision checks are not done for each block, but for collision volumes (blue boxes around ships) ONCE a player loads the planet.\" If there is a collision avoidance system (30-50% bigger blue boxes repulsing each other slightly), collisions don\'t have to be checked continuously.

And if more than 50 objects are in orbit, punish the player for doing this and not docking his stuff. \"Initiate an Armadeggon\" (Crash)!

 

[Captain Fortius]

A better solution to both? Many fold really:

• Moving asteroids. They get to orbit, noone really minds
• Sectors stop moving, easier gameplay for everyone
• Bigger planets, a lot less of them. No more than 16 planets per star.
• Planets dont move. It looks nice but, doesnt really add to the game.
• Possibly make basic orbit paths for asteroids, small chance of asteroid/planet collision?

Yes. Orbiting sectors and planets are of little use.

It looks silly how fast they move; If they\'d be slowed down, so they complete their orbits at more realistic speeds, they\'d be so slow there\'d be no point in moving them at all;

So let\'s just scrap orbiting completely. I\'m sure it\'d save resources, prevent many future bugs, maybe fix a few existing issues, and would also make navigating a whole lot easier, as well as keep the sector looking nice and tidy.

I also think we could push down the planets per star number to a maximum of 5, with some stars having even less. Again, less stuff to draw and calculate.

Unless they\'d finally be willing to make planets as separate maps, what loads in when you attempt to land, and otherwise displays a drawn sphere;

-Which would allow for the use of more realistic planet sizes, far better performance, and would also promote the use of landing vehicles, and true surface exploration, and mining operations. Not to mention it\'d do away with the horrible flat planets, along with all the other awkward ideas that were contemplated as improvements.

Even then, orbiting is unnecessary, weird, and not preferred, at least by me.

 

[NeonSturm]

I also think we could push down the planets per star number to a maximum of 5, with some stars having even less.


Our REAL sol system has more. I would like 5 as average