How to land on Astroids?

[WildArmsFx]

Been trying to figure this out. I saw a dev say you could in an interview.

[Spades]

Circles の投稿を引用：

Why would you even want to land on an asteroid when there's nothing to do anyway?

To keep in line with the rest of the games theme

[The King of Reality]

<| ° _ ° |>™ の投稿を引用：

aggressor27 の投稿を引用：

The physics engine is probably the only thing that hasn't changed from the initial trailer to launch. Havok engine is still Havok engine. Now where's that crazy emote that was getting people banned.

This is what I'm speaking about:

Sean Murray の投稿を引用：

“With us,” Murray continued, “when you're on a planet, you can see as far as the curvature of that planet. If you walked for years, you could walk all the way around it, arriving back exactly where you started. Our day to night cycle is happening because the planet is rotating on its axis as it spins around the sun. There is real physics to that. We have people that will fly down from a space station onto a planet and when they fly back up, the station isn't there anymore; the planet has rotated. People have filed that as a bug.”

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/02/artificial-universe-no-mans-sky/463308/

My apologies if that's not actually called a physics engine, I was just using the words that he used to describe it.

Apparently their play testers found that too confusing and so they pulled it. I too would have liked the realism of that idea, but 90% of 100% of people are morons apparently.

[MS. Green Label]

Circles の投稿を引用：

Why would you even want to land on an asteroid when there's nothing to do anyway?

Lots of reasons to take screenshots slowly drifting in space of the planets and everything, to save on fuel, to mine better resoursces, so many reasons really !

[mRCs]

trollalert!!

[Spades]

TaintedTapWater の投稿を引用：

<| ° _ ° |>™ の投稿を引用：

This is what I'm speaking about:

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/02/artificial-universe-no-mans-sky/463308/

My apologies if that's not actually called a physics engine, I was just using the words that he used to describe it.

Apparently their play testers found that too confusing and so they pulled it. I too would have liked the realism of that idea, but 90% of 100% of people are morons apparently.

Nah only about 50%, soon to be 49, according to the store page anyway

[aggressor27]

TaintedTapWater の投稿を引用：

<| ° _ ° |>™ の投稿を引用：

This is what I'm speaking about:

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/02/artificial-universe-no-mans-sky/463308/

My apologies if that's not actually called a physics engine, I was just using the words that he used to describe it.

Apparently their play testers found that too confusing and so they pulled it. I too would have liked the realism of that idea, but 90% of 100% of people are morons apparently.

Apparently, all they did was slow the rotation, not stop it completely. I made the same mistake.

[Hecter94]

aggressor27 の投稿を引用：

Before we get to the flame war part of our discussion, I'm gonna need you to elaborate on that. I'll explain what I mean and you can go from there:
Planets are relatively large in game. Whether or not it would actually take years, I dunno. And the curvature is viewable as you ascend. I've never been on a smooth planet so I don't know if it can be perceived from ground level. And I actually like that it can't.
Planets are rotating. You may actually be refering to orbit, which they don't. But they do, in fact, rotate.
I don't know if ships have a preset course that takes them from a space station, to a location on a anet, and back, but I do know ships fly in and out of atmosphere. I was able to view this with a dew, but my ship was too slow to actually see where they were headed.

I do believe that you could actually walk all the way around a planet, I see no reason why you wouldn't be able to.
What really bummed me is the inclusion of the sun and stars as a skybox and not actual objects.

You can't fly near a sun, planets won't orbit around a sun, moons don't orbit around a planet.
It makes star systems feel so dull and lifeless.

I know that it's a relatively minor complain and I'm sure a lot of people will say that I'm stupid for being bothered by something so small, but when the game is supposed to be about immersion and exploration, having this incredibly neat feature completely removed really turned me off the game.

There's other interesting things too:

The team programmed some of the physics for aesthetic reasons. For instance, Duncan insisted on permitting moons to orbit closer to their planets than Newtonian physics would allow. When he desired the possibility of green skies, the team had to redesign the periodic table to create atmospheric particles that would diffract light at just the right wavelength.

Whaaaaaaat, redesigning the periodic table? There's going to be totally new elements in this game that aren't seen in our universe? Elements that react realistically to their enviroment in dynamic ways not seen in our universe? ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ amazing......removed.

“Because it’s a simulation,” Murray stated. “there’s so much you can do. You can break the speed of light—no problem. Speed is just a number. Gravity and its effects are just numbers. It’s our universe, so we get to be Gods in a sense.”

Whaaaaaat, go faster than light? How is that even possible? What is it going to be like? Are they going to include time dilation fields? How are they going to handle relativity at such high speeds? Super ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ interesting......and removed.

Just made me really sad and now I'm kind of bitter about the game in general.....which is probably unhealthy but iunno.....

[ThunderMonkey]

Get an Atari 2600? #AtariFTW (#TrollFace)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzViFIFQvQQ

PS - Yep, those are the kind of games I grew up on for most of my pre-teen childhood... well, after text-based games that is.

[ThunderMonkey]

aggressor27 の投稿を引用：

I like how asteroid parking lots and team Death match were the last straw for these weeabronies.

I know right? Two of the most minute and pointless things in the game... although I admit, landing on an asteroid would be fun... but I haven't really seen many that big enough to land on. Even the ones you blast away in chunks are kind of small for larger ships.

PS - Would also love to land on an asteroid composed of frozen tears... perhaps name it "Refunds Department".

[The King of Reality]

<| ° _ ° |>™ の投稿を引用：

aggressor27 の投稿を引用：

Before we get to the flame war part of our discussion, I'm gonna need you to elaborate on that. I'll explain what I mean and you can go from there:
Planets are relatively large in game. Whether or not it would actually take years, I dunno. And the curvature is viewable as you ascend. I've never been on a smooth planet so I don't know if it can be perceived from ground level. And I actually like that it can't.
Planets are rotating. You may actually be refering to orbit, which they don't. But they do, in fact, rotate.
I don't know if ships have a preset course that takes them from a space station, to a location on a anet, and back, but I do know ships fly in and out of atmosphere. I was able to view this with a dew, but my ship was too slow to actually see where they were headed.

I do believe that you could actually walk all the way around a planet, I see no reason why you wouldn't be able to.
What really bummed me is the inclusion of the sun and stars as a skybox and not actual objects.

You can't fly near a sun, planets won't orbit around a sun, moons don't orbit around a planet.
It makes star systems feel so dull and lifeless.

I know that it's a relatively minor complain and I'm sure a lot of people will say that I'm stupid for being bothered by something so small, but when the game is supposed to be about immersion and exploration, having this incredibly neat feature completely removed really turned me off the game.

There's other interesting things too:

The team programmed some of the physics for aesthetic reasons. For instance, Duncan insisted on permitting moons to orbit closer to their planets than Newtonian physics would allow. When he desired the possibility of green skies, the team had to redesign the periodic table to create atmospheric particles that would diffract light at just the right wavelength.

Whaaaaaaat, redesigning the periodic table? There's going to be totally new elements in this game that aren't seen in our universe? Elements that react realistically to their enviroment in dynamic ways not seen in our universe? ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ amazing......removed.

“Because it’s a simulation,” Murray stated. “there’s so much you can do. You can break the speed of light—no problem. Speed is just a number. Gravity and its effects are just numbers. It’s our universe, so we get to be Gods in a sense.”

Whaaaaaat, go faster than light? How is that even possible? What is it going to be like? Are they going to include time dilation fields? How are they going to handle relativity at such high speeds? Super ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ interesting......and removed.

Just made me really sad and now I'm kind of bitter about the game in general.....which is probably unhealthy but iunno.....

Same thing happened to Starbound. Back when Starbound was on Enraged Koala build it was an amazing game. Then the winge crowd came in and it got stupified. I now can't play Starbound, because it's a kiddy pool hand-holdey thing.

[aggressor27]

<| ° _ ° |>™ の投稿を引用：

aggressor27 の投稿を引用：

Before we get to the flame war part of our discussion, I'm gonna need you to elaborate on that. I'll explain what I mean and you can go from there:
Planets are relatively large in game. Whether or not it would actually take years, I dunno. And the curvature is viewable as you ascend. I've never been on a smooth planet so I don't know if it can be perceived from ground level. And I actually like that it can't.
Planets are rotating. You may actually be refering to orbit, which they don't. But they do, in fact, rotate.
I don't know if ships have a preset course that takes them from a space station, to a location on a anet, and back, but I do know ships fly in and out of atmosphere. I was able to view this with a dew, but my ship was too slow to actually see where they were headed.

I do believe that you could actually walk all the way around a planet, I see no reason why you wouldn't be able to.
What really bummed me is the inclusion of the sun and stars as a skybox and not actual objects.

You can't fly near a sun, planets won't orbit around a sun, moons don't orbit around a planet.
It makes star systems feel so dull and lifeless.

I know that it's a relatively minor complain and I'm sure a lot of people will say that I'm stupid for being bothered by something so small, but when the game is supposed to be about immersion and exploration, having this incredibly neat feature completely removed really turned me off the game.

There's other interesting things too:

The team programmed some of the physics for aesthetic reasons. For instance, Duncan insisted on permitting moons to orbit closer to their planets than Newtonian physics would allow. When he desired the possibility of green skies, the team had to redesign the periodic table to create atmospheric particles that would diffract light at just the right wavelength.

Whaaaaaaat, redesigning the periodic table? There's going to be totally new elements in this game that aren't seen in our universe? Elements that react realistically to their enviroment in dynamic ways not seen in our universe? ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ amazing......removed.

“Because it’s a simulation,” Murray stated. “there’s so much you can do. You can break the speed of light—no problem. Speed is just a number. Gravity and its effects are just numbers. It’s our universe, so we get to be Gods in a sense.”

Whaaaaaat, go faster than light? How is that even possible? What is it going to be like? Are they going to include time dilation fields? How are they going to handle relativity at such high speeds? Super ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ interesting......and removed.

Just made me really sad and now I'm kind of bitter about the game in general.....which is probably unhealthy but iunno.....

The exclusion of an actual star did bum me, ED spoiled me on that, but like I mentioned in an earlier post, it would have been an unnecessary waste and FPS killer for NMS' resource hog engine.

I wanna disagree with your statement that on atmosphere, but can't really support my statement until I get home and verify. I do wanna say they have an atmospheric system in place, either that or their artists are extremely talented. But given we have a spherical world and a static star skybox, I have to disagree that this feature was removed.

As to time dilation and the crippling headache that is establishing orbit, Sean did mention in a later interview, and I'm paraphrasing, he wanted to take out the math aspect of spacefaring and give this game more of an arcade-ish feel. And I actually appreciate that the team did that. Plus, how else would we be able to measure time dilation in a game like this, besides some NPC telling us "Hey, you've been gone for 600 years" if we ever returned to a planet. Gravity's affect on time is actually very depressing.

[Hecter94]

aggressor27 の投稿を引用：

The exclusion of an actual star did bum me, ED spoiled me on that, but like I mentioned in an earlier post, it would have been an unnecessary waste and FPS killer for NMS' resource hog engine.

I mean, other games seem to manage it well enough. I too have played quite a lot of ED and the stars in that game are ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ amazing. Getting close to one of the big ones to fuel scoop it is absolutely awe-inspiring.
Staring at that massive ball of nuclear fusion suspended mere seconds of flight-time away from you, listening to that massive roar of internal fusion, watching the solar flares creep off of the sides in massive bursts.....so ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ cool.

I wanna disagree with your statement that on atmosphere, but can't really support my statement until I get home and verify. I do wanna say they have an atmospheric system in place, either that or their artists are extremely talented. But given we have a spherical world and a static star skybox, I have to disagree that this feature was removed.

Unfortunately there isn't one as far as I can tell.
If they had the system in place like they said it was in that interview then you'd be able to notice it, at least, I think so.
For instance, since plutonium crystals are partially transparent and colored, shouldn't you be able to see a tinted shadow on the other side of them?
You don't, which leads me to believe that the system they proposed was eithier simplified or removed entirely.

As to time dilation and the crippling headache that is establishing orbit, Sean did mention in a later interview, and I'm paraphrasing, he wanted to take out the math aspect of spacefaring and give this game more of an arcade-ish feel. And I actually appreciate that the team did that.

Totally fine with them making the game into more of an arcadey casual exploration/relaxation game....just wish that that had been made apparent and not obfuscated behind talk of really interesting and exciting features first.

[Atma]

ThunderMonkey の投稿を引用：

aggressor27 の投稿を引用：

I like how asteroid parking lots and team Death match were the last straw for these weeabronies.

I know right? Two of the most minute and pointless things in the game... although I admit, landing on an asteroid would be fun... but I haven't really seen many that big enough to land on. Even the ones you blast away in chunks are kind of small for larger ships.

PS - Would also love to land on an asteroid composed of frozen tears... perhaps name it "Refunds Department".

Yes, they are minute.

But the thing is that there are a LOT of little things that are missing from the game that we were told would be in it, and then never told would NOT be in it until we actually played the game.

A lot of little things add up.

So, yeah, if you try to single out any one or two missing features, it seems tiny, but that's not the actual issue.

But we both know that you know this and you're just trying to downplay it as only 1 or 2 things that didn't make the cut. I could point out 3-4 things that don't actually exist in the game from the trailer that is STILL advertising this game on the Store page right now.

It's misleading and, honestly, pretty shady to still have those trailers up.

Hell, 6 out of 11 of the pictures (about half) aren't even possible in this game.

[aggressor27]

I see what you mean about light's effect on objects. I still believe there's an atmospheric system in place, I've chased sunsets and sunrises out of boredom and noticed amazing detail on the sky of certain planets, but you're right, light doesn't refractive through or reflect off certain objects as it does in real life. That actually would have been amazing.

They likely talked themselves into a hole with a ton of 'cool' features, but we as consumers have a few things to consider:
Certain features are tough to impliment, and often tougher to keep. You take out one feature due to time, resources, a bug, etc, it creates a domino effect and other supporting or parent features have to get pulled until you have a shell of what once was.

Another is the flood and it's possible effects on the end product.

A dev may not go into much detail as to why features were pulled, but I do agree they should have addressed it in some way. Sony made the same mistake with SWG and NGE.

[WildArmsFx]

Ok well thats my answer. Didnt forsee so much conflict due to Astroids.

My dream of re-enacting Armageddon will not be lived out in NMS.