I'll give you an idea for an original org

[Shynras]

We know that orbiting is going to be possible, but there'll be no automated way of doing it, so it's going to be quite hard for most people to understand how to do it. Here you go, an org specialized on sending constructs in orbit, or to build them directly there.

 

-Why would you want something to orbit a planet? 

Ofc it's more accessible for ships, since we know there will be different thrusters for different types of atmospheres, a ship that doesn't have the right thrusters can't land on a planet for fuel or anything else. An orbital station is also useful to park your ship and land on the planet with a rover or specific construct made for that. 

Orbiting is also useful since it's mobile and harder to attack (harder target to hit and the attackers would need to move constantly towards the station, consuming a large amount of fuel  and becoming an easier target if the orbiting speed is high enough. Depending on the orbit you choose, you could actually restrict certain types of ships (that are not fast enough to reach orbital speed) to reach your station. 

Maybe even an orbital defense system, radar system, or more, depending on the elements we will have at our disposal.

 

-Well, I could just build a station in space that doesn't move, right?

You can, but keep in mind: being close to a planet is a good way to advertise your station (everyone that has the planet as a destination will see your station), and you can't be close to a planet with a station that doesn't move or orbit, you'd be attracted and smashed on the ground. And if you're too far away from the planet you ofc become a second choice (and in deep space you'll see black markets).

 

-What an org like this one would really do?

You'd need to calculate gravity by testing (if devs will not provide the data with some element) for each single planet/asteroid you need. 

Calculate both the vertical and horizontal speed you need to reach orbit.

Learn how to send constructs on different orbits, with different heights and speeds, for different purposes.

Find cheap ways to send an already built construct in orbit.

Find ways to build a construct while already in orbit.

Find a way to mantain a construct in orbit (since a station weight changes depending on construct, resources and people that land on it, speed could also change, and over time you station could fall on the ground). 

Find ways to send a construct from an orbit to another

And so on

[Lethys]

Actually we don't know yet if orbits are automatic or not (as iI asked Nyz in the march dev diary thread): it's just a combination of reaching the appropriate height and velocity. That doesn't mean you need to do an orbital insertion burn, not does it mean you have to have an orbital trajectory. Or it could mean that. NQ didn't quite say a lot to it. But it LOOKS like you just need the velocity and height, so no need for all that

[jtroberts01]

Question here, will the game include technology to set a position for orbit automatically for the new players, or will we have to experiment?

[DarkTemplar]

Question here, will the game include technology to set a position for orbit automatically for the new players, or will we have to experiment?

There's a basic/automatic function for most things we know of so far. So I would assume there would be an automatic setting to lock in a "normal" orbit. *I hope*

[Shynras]

@Lethys

 

I read that, but i don't really get your point. Getting speed and altitude right, to get the exact orbit you want, isn't that easy, you'd need to test and calculate the right values. Getting into a random orbit isn't that hard either, so it's not like an extremely hard feature for less specialized players, but still requires some tries to get it right if you go randomly. Automatic orbiting it's indeed not necessary, since this should be a player-driven game, it would just remove all the gameplay possibilities I'm talking about. NQ pretty much said that orbiting is possible thanks to the physics engine, that simulate reality well enough. In the real world we do insertion burns just because it's the most efficient way, but even there "it's just a combination of reaching the appropriate height and velocity"

 

@jtroberts01

 

Not right now, they may add it, I hope not for the reason I already stated. If they do, I expect it to just place you in a basic orbit, so that there's still the possibility to specialize in construct orbiting, and that would add more possibilities, more gameplay and improve overall the gameplay depth. It's not a core feature anyway, nor orbital stations is something that every players will have, since they should be kinda expensive (and hard to defend, since there's no space territory claiming, at least for now) and run by organizations mostly.

 

EDIT: I don't see the problem though. If you can't do it, create a contract, ask a guy that is specialized on that for help. This is what the game is all about, if you ask for "automatic shortcuts" or want to do everything by yourself, you didn't really understand the concept of the game imho.

[Lethys]

@Lethys

 

I read that, but i don't really get your point. Getting speed and altitude right, to get the exact orbit you want, isn't that easy, you'd need to test and calculate the right values. Getting into a random orbit isn't that hard either, so it's not like an extremely hard feature for less specialized players, but still requires some tries to get it right if you go randomly. Automatic orbiting it's indeed not necessary, since this should be a player-driven game, it would just remove all the gameplay possibilities I'm talking about. NQ pretty much that orbiting is possible thanks to the physics engine, that simulate reality well enough. In the real world we do insertion burns just because it's the most efficient way, but even there "it's just a combination of reaching the right velocity and height

Ok, next try.

If there are real orbits (like in ksp), you need to consider planetary rotation, orbital velocity, apoapse, periaps, orbital injection burns, suborbital trajectories and so on. Otherwise you won't reach orbit. That's really hard for someone not familiar with ksp.

 

The video looks like (doesn't necessarily mean that I'm right) they only go for: escape velocity + height = orbit. No more things to consider. So this means you could just go straight up (perpendicular to the surface) and once velocity and height matches, you orbit. There's no need to consider all the stuff from ksp, because that would only save you fuel (IF those mechanics are even in the game! If not implemented, it could mean that, if you do an a+++ insertion burn like in ksp, you end up using more fuel. Because the best, fuel wise, approach would be just to go straight up)...

And once in this....."automatic".... orbit it's no real rocket science to go on a higher orbit or lower. Or change the trajectory to a more suitable one (polar orbit for example).

Would this be hard? Yes, for someone who never played ksp even this easier approach wouldn't be that easy but they would figure it out at some point.

 

The more interesting question is: what would orbital mechanics look like in DU to rendezvous?

[Shynras]

Ok, next try.

If there are real orbits (like in ksp), you need to consider planetary rotation, orbital velocity, apoapse, periaps, orbital injection burns, suborbital trajectories and so on. Otherwise you won't reach orbit. That's really hard for someone not familiar with ksp.

The video looks like (doesn't necessarily mean that I'm right) they only go for: escape velocity + height = orbit. No more things to consider. So this means you could just go straight up (perpendicular to the surface) and once velocity and height matches, you orbit. There's no need to consider all the stuff from ksp, because that would only save you fuel (IF those mechanics are even in the game! If not implemented, it could mean that, if you do an a+++ insertion burn like in ksp, you end up using more fuel. Because the best, fuel wise, approach would be just to go straight up)...

And once in this....."automatic".... orbit it's no real rocket science to go on a higher orbit or lower. Or change the trajectory to a more suitable one (polar orbit for example).

Would this be hard? Yes, for someone who never played ksp even this easier approach wouldn't be that easy but they would figure it out at some point.

The more interesting question is: what would orbital mechanics look like in DU to rendezvous?

I think most ppl these days knows a bit of physics, it's all about googling a couple of formulas.Someone will be able to do it anyway. Even if it may be hard for most players, why is that a problem? Orbiting is not a core game mechanic, that everyone need to be able to use. You can build your shop on the ground, you can build a non-orbital station, you can build it on an asteroid. And if you really want an orbital station you can buy one, you can rent a shop from someone else, you can ask someone else to send it to orbit for you or to help you to do that, you can try anyway and hope for the best, you can stole one or you can learn how to do it by yourself. There's plenty of choice, this is what sandbox means, this is emergent gameplay. Having an automatic way to do it, just kill this huge part of the gameplay.

 

To be clear, i'm not going to specialize myself on that, maybe i'll need to ask someone else how to do it who knows, i'm saying all this just because i believe it's the only way of thinking that will make this game work

[Lethys]

I never said I have a problem with real orbits or that I prefer real or automatic ones. I just pointed out the fact that we don't really know yet how those orbits will work and that it LOOKS like they aren't that hard

[Shynras]

I never said I have a problem with real orbits or that I prefer real or automatic ones. I just pointed out the fact that we don't really know yet how those orbits will work and that it LOOKS like they aren't that hard

There's a physics engine, this means you reach orbit like in the real world. If it's going to be hard or not just depends on the tools devs will give us.

If they give us an element that send our construct in any orbit we choose automatically: quite easy, you don't need to do anything

If they give us an element that send our construct in a specific orbit only: easy, you'd just need to accelerate/decelerate to change orbit

If they give us an altimeter: easy (less easy for someone else i guess), you just need to reach the orbit altitude you want, accelerate horizontally and keep the altitude costant.

If they give us no tools: kinda hard, but a lot of new gameplay possibilities. Without an altimeter you'd need to calculate your altitude depending on travel time and speed. Then you'd need to calculate gravity acceleration for each planet/asteroid, and then orbiting speed you need. It may not sound hard for experienced people, but with hard i don't mean impossible, but that only a few will be able to do it, that's how people get their specialization and role. The less informations we get, the more we have to test and find them out by ourselves. 

[Lethys]

There's a physics engine, this means you reach orbit like in the real world

No. It actually only means that the mechanics they implement will use physics. If they only go for: fly perpendicular up, reach escape velocity. Reach a certain height and then you start orbiting without doing anything further actually need physics too.

 

We just can't assume that there are real orbits, because for that we have too little information.

 

And btw: I would love to have hard orbits like in ksp vanilla. But I just don't think they'll go this way because of one simple thing: people will never be able to meet up in space to fly somewhere because of orbits. It's very hard to get to an outer planet if your burns aren't correctly timed and this you'll end up in a different trajectory around the planet than all your friends. Correcting that in order to fly somewhere together take a up most if the average playtime per day of a gamer. And thats clearly not the way to go

[Shynras]

No. It actually only means that the mechanics they implement will use physics. If they only go for: fly perpendicular up, reach escape velocity. Reach a certain height and then you start orbiting without doing anything further actually need physics too.

 

We just can't assume that there are real orbits, because for that we have too little information.

 

And btw: I would love to have hard orbits like in ksp vanilla. But I just don't think they'll go this way because of one simple thing: people will never be able to meet up in space to fly somewhere because of orbits. It's very hard to get to an outer planet if your burns aren't correctly timed and this you'll end up in a different trajectory around the planet than all your friends. Correcting that in order to fly somewhere together take a up most if the average playtime per day of a gamer. And thats clearly not the way to go

We know there's gravity, so the orbiting they showed is real. In DU you don't have that kind of problems, since you have futuristic spaceships, you'll have more fuel, more equipment and more flying freedom than KSP. You don't need to orbit necessarily you can just fly straight up where you need, orbiting only serves to keep a construct in space, close to a planet, for a long period of time. Using orbits to send a construct from one planet to another, is just an option you have, maybe useful in a specific situation; i'm not saying that any construct should fly that way, i don't even want that, there'll be specific thrusters for space. 

[TheAtlasWarrior]

We know there's gravity, so the orbiting they showed is real. In DU you don't have that kind of problems, since you have futuristic spaceships, you'll have more fuel, more equipment and more flying freedom than KSP. You don't need to orbit necessarily you can just fly straight up where you need, orbiting only serves to keep a construct in space, close to a planet, for a long period of time. Using orbits to send a construct from one planet to another, is just an option you have, maybe useful in a specific situation; i'm not saying that any construct should fly that way, i don't even want that, there'll be specific thrusters for space. 

I hope that orbital construction will be easy and not too hard because then it would take longer to build orbital stations, leaving them vulnerable to attack for a longer period of time.

[Shynras]

I hope that orbital construction will be easy and not too hard because then it would take longer to build orbital stations, leaving them vulnerable to attack for a longer period of time.

What i'm talking about is not how time consuming that is, but how much planning would require before the building part even starts and how accessible to all players that is. Defense systems are not going to do much, what you need is a space bubble (not planned for release as far as we know), and that just require the energy system built, not the entire station

[Lethys]

We know there's gravity, so the orbiting they showed is real. In DU you don't have that kind of problems, since you have futuristic spaceships, you'll have more fuel, more equipment and more flying freedom than KSP. You don't need to orbit necessarily you can just fly straight up where you need, orbiting only serves to keep a construct in space, close to a planet, for a long period of time. Using orbits to send a construct from one planet to another, is just an option you have, maybe useful in a specific situation; i'm not saying that any construct should fly that way, i don't even want that, there'll be specific thrusters for space.

I think we really talk about the same thing kek