Return to “Suggestions”

Post

Re: Planetary Movement

#16
Katorone, you know this is a game still in development, right? ;)

It's important to have plans. But it's also important to be able to adapt to new opportunities. I'd hope that Josh & Andy et al. are always open to ways to make LT more fun for more people as long as the possible benefits appear to outweigh the likely cost.

It's also important not to miss seeing what might be because of seeing only what currently is. I understand the "highway" feature of the Limit Theory Prototype. I also know that this is not the only way to let players get from one planet to another. I like the visual metaphor of the highway, but I'm also perfectly fine with a "navigation computer" that lists all the main bodies of a system and takes me to them with a simple mouseclick.

If the highway of LTP is the only reason for static planets, then maybe it's worth rethinking highways. There are other mechanics for traveling between worlds -- why not pick one that doesn't break other features?
Post

Re: Planetary Movement

#17
I'm personally for planetary orbits, however I'm pretty sure Josh already quashed this one.

Unless he says otherwise, I think it's safe to say that orbits aren't in the game.

Sorry to burst the bubbles. :(
Image
Early Spring - 1055: Well, I made it to Boatmurdered, and my initial impressions can be set forth in three words: What. The. F*ck.
Post

Re: Planetary Movement

#18
Well, like DW said, it really comes down to personal preference. This is a pretty major option to include as a configurable one, and is also major in the gameplay ramifications (of which one, the highways, has already been pointed out).

Static bodies was chosen for no other reason than that my dream game has static bodies :angel:

It's always another feature to be explored if "more time" presents itself (there are a lot of those!) But, realistically, it would change the nature of the game so much that I imagine it would be impractical for me to think about including as a config option at this point (I would have two games to test :think: )
“Whether you think you can, or you think you can't--you're right.” ~ Henry Ford
Post

Re: Planetary Movement

#23
Krin wrote:Why not just throw it on the "back burner" and explore the concept later?
Like a lot of other intriguing ideas on the forums.
Something like a planet moving around in a sector is pretty huge to change afterwards. It's something the engine has to be built for to allow... But perhaps LT 2 ? :D
Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
Post

Re: Planetary Movement

#24
Katorone wrote:
Krin wrote:Why not just throw it on the "back burner" and explore the concept later?
Like a lot of other intriguing ideas on the forums.
Something like a planet moving around in a sector is pretty huge to change afterwards. It's something the engine has to be built for to allow... But perhaps LT 2 ? :D
I think there are better things to put in LT2 (that is if there will be a LT2)
LT Wiki | IRC | REKT Wiki
Image
Idiots. Idiots everywhere. ~Dr. Cha0zz
Post

Re: Planetary Movement

#25
Krin wrote:Why not just throw it on the "back burner" and explore the concept later?
Like a lot of other intriguing ideas on the forums.
It's something that is expressly ruled out for now in the game FAQ. It would place a lot more burden on Josh's game engine, since it would rule out a number of optimisations which right now the engine can afford to make about them as static bodies.
Post

Re: Planetary Movement

#26
insolent wrote:I don't think it would actually take much of Josh's time, really. All he has to do is make it so the celestial bodies move on a fixed orbit based on their velocity, mass, distance from the sun, and the sun's mass. Not too hard, and I think it would add considerable depth.
If the planets move, then you need orbits. All space rocks you see also need to be in orbit. You, the player, are going to have to be able to orbit planets, as well as intercept them and match velocities.

It would take designing the game from the ground up to support it, and designing the game from the ground up to support the velocities necessary, the orbital calculations, the gravity simulations, the AI capable of doing all this math, etc, etc, etc.
Post

Re: Planetary Movement

#27
JoshParnell wrote:Well, like DW said, it really comes down to personal preference. This is a pretty major option to include as a configurable one, and is also major in the gameplay ramifications (of which one, the highways, has already been pointed out).

Static bodies was chosen for no other reason than that my dream game has static bodies :angel:

It's always another feature to be explored if "more time" presents itself (there are a lot of those!) But, realistically, it would change the nature of the game so much that I imagine it would be impractical for me to think about including as a config option at this point (I would have two games to test :think: )

Actually I think a compromise could be reached here. What if the warp highways were to be placed in circles in close proximity to each planet’s orbit or best said parallel to each planet’s orbit. And then you could have separate warp highways connecting each circle. In effect this way you would have the highways static for a good reason and each planet could orbit its sun. However if you do this I recommend making a year very long, say in the range of hundreds of hours depending on the orbital range of each planet. This would make it less demanding on your platform as well as making it feel more natural.
Post

Re: Planetary Movement

#28
Hadrianus wrote: Actually I think a compromise could be reached here. What if the warp highways were to be placed in circles in close proximity to each planet’s orbit or best said parallel to each planet’s orbit. And then you could have separate warp highways connecting each circle. In effect this way you would have the highways static for a good reason and each planet could orbit its sun. However if you do this I recommend making a year very long, say in the range of hundreds of hours depending on the orbital range of each planet. This would make it less demanding on your platform as well as making it feel more natural.
and the individual gates from the connecting pieces would drift apart and would spread along the circle between the planetary warp lane rings, so you would have to build lots of rings between the rings that you can traverse them.

lots and lots and lots and lots and lots while(1){ printf("and lots"); } of warp lane gates for making them working with real orbit mechanics.
there is no logic way of making warplanes working with orbital mechanics, as they need to be static to work and nothing is static with orbital mechanics.

some way of making interplanetary travel possible with gate-like structures would amount to big cannons shooting starships, but that would make it for real scale a bit too slow
Post

Re: Planetary Movement

#29
Cornflakes_91 wrote:
Hadrianus wrote: Actually I think a compromise could be reached here. What if the warp highways were to be placed in circles in close proximity to each planet’s orbit or best said parallel to each planet’s orbit. And then you could have separate warp highways connecting each circle. In effect this way you would have the highways static for a good reason and each planet could orbit its sun. However if you do this I recommend making a year very long, say in the range of hundreds of hours depending on the orbital range of each planet. This would make it less demanding on your platform as well as making it feel more natural.
and the individual gates from the connecting pieces would drift apart and would spread along the circle between the planetary warp lane rings, so you would have to build lots of rings between the rings that you can traverse them.

lots and lots and lots and lots and lots while(1){ printf("and lots"); } of warp lane gates for making them working with real orbit mechanics.
there is no logic way of making warplanes working with orbital mechanics, as they need to be static to work and nothing is static with orbital mechanics.

some way of making interplanetary travel possible with gate-like structures would amount to big cannons shooting starships, but that would make it for real scale a bit too slow



Actually I was thinking more on the line of being able to exit a warp lane just by making say a right turn rather than waiting for you to reach the end of the lane. The same rule being applied to you entering the lane. You could enter it at any point within the lane. This will effectively reduce the lanes to the number of planets within the system, plus one lane between each two consecutive orbits. So in total say in the case of the Sol system with nine ups I forgot I mean eight planets, would have 8 orbital lanes plus 7 connecting the lanes between them 15 in total. And modifying the lanes to allow such easy access to them would not be very difficult and would in practice reduce the number of lanes in a system, since now a planet would have no need for X lanes radiating away from it to Y other bodies.
Post

Re: Planetary Movement

#30
There's actually a very simple and potentially interesting way of combining trade lane mechanics with orbital dynamics. You just have trade lane terminals that orbit the planets, and if a clear path exists between any two of these terminals, you can travel between them. Because the planets are orbiting the star and the terminals are orbiting the planets, this means that whether a clear path exists or not between any two terminals can very much depend on the time, so that you have a dynamically-changing trade-lane network. For example:
Image Image Image As for what these trade lane terminals actually are? Also simple and plausible: very large-scale transfer units, based on good ol' H-tech.
Last edited by ThymineC on Tue Feb 25, 2014 3:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Online Now

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests

cron