Planetary Rotation

[|++ MΛRTIN ++|]

Yes, I know planets roate naturally in the game , but what if the planets roated AROUND the stars

Now hear me out I'm no modder , but I've seen a lot harder things be put on the workshop and I think that any professional modder (or Paradox) could easily put this in the game, and if Paradox does do it there could be an option in setings to disable it.

[flow]

You bind a numpad key to rotate camera and stick it down with a paperclip

[|++ MΛRTIN ++|]

Thank you for the suggestion , but I'd prefer an official or modded solution

[suksas]

Originally posted by Germania:

Thank you for the suggestion , but I'd prefer an official or modded solution

That is official solution :D.


Seriously though, this would probably work only as mod. since this sounds like something that would raise requirment levels for pc.

[Rax Savvage]

processing movements of full rotations would be a massive spike in data to process and manage
and then theres possible bugs with orbital overlap, say a pair of 2 mineral asteroid and moon perhaps , slap through and combine to 1 4 mineral or 2 4 minerals.

its a possibility and then theres how fast these things are gonna whirl around, graphical bugs, construction issues if theres multiple under one another

can forsee a few problems

[tomasoltis]

without it it is static, non-changing. Starbase is still in the center,

then you have stars orbiting and their satellites orbiting as well as satellite satellites orbiting. Would be awesome, but I guess they dont wanna ask. pdx should rewrite the game, engine in proper 64 bit. And they dont want that, since its expensive and they like moneyz for the least investment possible.

[Elitewrecker PT]

Originally posted by Germania:

Yes, I know planets roate naturally in the game , but what if the planets roated AROUND the stars

Now hear me out I'm no modder , but I've seen a lot harder things be put on the workshop and I think that any professional modder (or Paradox) could easily put this in the game, and if Paradox does do it there could be an option in setings to disable it.

How can you say you've seen "harder" things if you don't know how modding or hell the engine itself, which is what matters, works?

[Astasia]

Originally posted by Rax Savvage:

processing movements of full rotations would be a massive spike in data to process and manage
and then theres possible bugs with orbital overlap, say a pair of 2 mineral asteroid and moon perhaps , slap through and combine to 1 4 mineral or 2 4 minerals.

its a possibility and then theres how fast these things are gonna whirl around, graphical bugs, construction issues if theres multiple under one another

can forsee a few problems

Not so much, it's super basic physics which PCs are very good at handling and would be a trivial load compared to like AI. I mean look at Distant Worlds, came out almost 9 years ago, single core, 32bit, you can play on galaxies with up to 1400 star systems tracking over 50,000 orbital bodies rotating around systems, didn't have any issues with it.

[Malecord]

Originally posted by Germania:

Yes, I know planets roate naturally in the game , but what if the planets roated AROUND the stars

Now hear me out I'm no modder , but I've seen a lot harder things be put on the workshop and I think that any professional modder (or Paradox) could easily put this in the game, and if Paradox does do it there could be an option in setings to disable it.

Once I asked Wiz why this wasn't the case on twitter in the early days of Stellaris. The answer was that they tried but they couldn't figure out a practical GUI.

I mean... after the arguments PDX brought out when it scrapped warp and wormholes from the game that's not hard to believe at all.

[Loot Hunter]

Originally posted by Rax Savvage:

processing movements of full rotations would be a massive spike in data to process and manage
and then theres possible bugs with orbital overlap, say a pair of 2 mineral asteroid and moon perhaps , slap through and combine to 1 4 mineral or 2 4 minerals.

Why? I don't ask for calculating the accurate trajectory, just make planets move along the very lines that are actually already drawn on screen.

And you don't even need to move them continuously, just when I look inside the star system adjust the position. Ships move, space stations move (I think), why planets can't move?!!!

[Meewec]

Originally posted by Loot Hunter:

Why? I don't ask for calculating the accurate trajectory, just make planets move along the very lines that are actually already drawn on screen.

And you don't even need to move them continuously, just when I look inside the star system adjust the position. Ships move, space stations move (I think), why planets can't move?!!!

space stations don't move, they're stationary over the celestial body they orbit.

but what would be the gameplay benefit to having celestial bodies move around when you're looking at it?

[Loot Hunter]

Originally posted by Meewec:

but what would be the gameplay benefit to having celestial bodies move around when you're looking at it?

There will be some tactical difference for starters. As planets' positions shift, it would take different routes for attacking fleets to approach them, depending on time of the attack.

[galadon3]

Originally posted by Loot Hunter:

Originally posted by Meewec:

but what would be the gameplay benefit to having celestial bodies move around when you're looking at it?

There will be some tactical difference for starters. As planets' positions shift, it would take different routes for attacking fleets to approach them, depending on time of the attack.

Not to a really noticable extend. Might be the odd planet that is far enough removed from the starbase that it might be attacked without attacking the starbase first, but in all likelyhood a fleet will have to beat the starbase and then take care of any planets in the system, just the same as now.

Systems aren't really "big" in Stellaris considering the weapon-ranges of fleets.

[Loot Hunter]

Originally posted by galadon3:

Originally posted by Loot Hunter:

There will be some tactical difference for starters. As planets' positions shift, it would take different routes for attacking fleets to approach them, depending on time of the attack.

Not to a really noticable extend. Might be the odd planet that is far enough removed from the starbase that it might be attacked without attacking the starbase first, but in all likelyhood a fleet will have to beat the starbase and then take care of any planets in the system, just the same as now.

Systems aren't really "big" in Stellaris considering the weapon-ranges of fleets.

Still, there are rather large systems, like Alpha-Centauri with central star being orbited by two other stars and them having planets orbiting around too.

Anyways, maybe the difference isn't very big, but it's still frustrating that the game having so much intricacy and nuance (including freakin leaders' dying from old age!) doesn't have this basic and obvious feature.

[Meewec]

Originally posted by galadon3:

Not to a really noticable extend. Might be the odd planet that is far enough removed from the starbase that it might be attacked without attacking the starbase first, but in all likelyhood a fleet will have to beat the starbase and then take care of any planets in the system, just the same as now.

Systems aren't really "big" in Stellaris considering the weapon-ranges of fleets.

you'd be able to bomb the planet for a bit maybe if it was in one of those weird multi-star systems where the stars aren't together but anything else you're going to either be in range or out of range for the entire orbit. you can't invade either since you have to control the starbase to invade.

[Loot Hunter]

Originally posted by Meewec:

but anything else you're going to either be in range or out of range for the entire orbit

Not exactly. When you exit hyper, you appear from a specific angle (side) of the system, so depending on rotation phase the planet can be close to you, exposed immediately, or it can be on the opposite side of the star system.