Planetfall 2.0 (apparently)

[cbr]

hmm

[hiran]

And got also confused why the marker would move over the planet surface.

I refer you to what I said earlier:

I'm not planning to go down the "let's give the docking point a geostationary orbit", at least not in the first version of this rework. My handwavium is "The flasher represents the entry point to the automated planetary docking control, which is kept in a fixed position to ease traffic complexity in the upper atmosphere. When engaged, you are guided through the lower atmosphere and into your docking berth."

This is a way better explanation of the visual clues. This entry point is above the atmosphere/clouds, so any movement you might see is actually stormy weather. A good indication you want to be guided down.

I think it's probably time to have this discussion. *Anything* we do this close to the surface of the planet is going to look wrong on a number of levels. First, unless we switch over to 8k textures for every planet, the "ground" starts to look very grainy and unrealistic. If we put some sort of "star port" on the surface of the planet, to make it even slightly believable (ie large enough to accommodate a Cobra MkIII) will make the base the size of a small country. Oolite planets were *never* intended to be interacted with, and so anything we do with them (like PlanetFall) is forcing them into a role they weren't designed for. Everything we do has an element of "unrealism" to it. I'm just trying to find the best "least jarring" way to communicate to the player they are landing on a planet. And if we feel that having a flasher to indicate the docking point is too jarring, I could potentially use a visual effect that looks like a standard station buoy. But it would be pretty hard to see on the dark side of the planet.
sed on cloud details of the planet object.

All these limitation emerge from the Oolite model and simulator and how they were designed. I totally understand a redesign is out of question for such a niche use case of landing on a planet.

But who says everything has to be dealt with by the same engine? We have more than enough memory, disk and cpu in today's machines. What would happen if, when hitting such an entry point the mode switches from spacefare to a different mode (simulator), such as
https://arcader.com/lunar-lander/

[Thargoid]

I think it's probably time to have this discussion. *Anything* we do this close to the surface of the planet is going to look wrong on a number of levels. First, unless we switch over to 8k textures for every planet, the "ground" starts to look very grainy and unrealistic. If we put some sort of "star port" on the surface of the planet, to make it even slightly believable (ie large enough to accommodate a Cobra MkIII) will make the base the size of a small country. Oolite planets were *never* intended to be interacted with, and so anything we do with them (like PlanetFall) is forcing them into a role they weren't designed for. Everything we do has an element of "unrealism" to it. I'm just trying to find the best "least jarring" way to communicate to the player they are landing on a planet.

I'm getting deja-vu of exactly what I ran into 16 years ago with the original, albeit with a slightly less advanced toolkit to do anything about it back then.

In my case it was Eric's landing strip (whose demo OXP I can't find, although will continue hunting in my archives and backups) which suffered from exactly the same issue.

[Cholmondely]

...Also, if you try landing at a military base without authorisation, you'll be booted back to orbit (presumably with a rather mortified look on your face).

Not getting incarcerated first? (planetFall_scene_prison.png)

[phkb]

...Also, if you try landing at a military base without authorisation, you'll be booted back to orbit (presumably with a rather mortified look on your face).

Not getting incarcerated first? (planetFall_scene_prison.png)

If you’ve got a bounty, then yes, there’s a period of incarceration. If you’re clean, you just get frowned at before being booted.

[phkb]

I’ve been thinking about how to make visuals work. The video where I approach at a shallower angle, the transition to the clouds image actually felt fairly natural, I think because the change in sky colour was also visible as you descend closer towards the ground.

So, my next coding challenge is to encourage pilots to approach the interface point at a shallow angle. You would still be able to dock vertically if you ignore all the warnings, and maybe I’ll include a chance of breaking a piece of equipment from the additional stress you’re putting your ship through.

But, if I can match the cloud choice to the atmosphere colour as your ship descends, I think the transition will be good enough.

Question though: do I keep to discard the cyan-coloured “docking” pattern?

[Cholmondely]

I’ve been thinking about how to make visuals work. The video where I approach at a shallower angle, the transition to the clouds image actually felt fairly natural, I think because the change in sky colour was also visible as you descend closer towards the ground.

So, my next coding challenge is to encourage pilots to approach the interface point at a shallow angle. You would still be able to dock vertically if you ignore all the warnings, and maybe I’ll include a chance of breaking a piece of equipment from the additional stress you’re putting your ship through.

But, if I can match the cloud choice to the atmosphere colour as your ship descends, I think the transition will be good enough.

Question though: do I keep to discard the cyan-coloured “docking” pattern?

1) Does breaking the equipment make much sense if one is not playing with regular breakable ship equipment (Ship Configuration/Capt Murphy)?

2) What about Thargoid's cabin temperature tweak which relies on approach angle (and also speed)?

3) No particularly trenchant views about the cyan-coloured docking pattern. Even Araminta is happy to rely on the Admiralty for this one...



I'm perfectly happy to rely on your aesthetic judgement! To me the important thing is complexity. What you are doing is more complex and thus broadens the scope for future improvements.

I can't imagine that every planet would have clouds (eg. Moons, Stranger's Mining Planets...) and that every landfall would involve descending through them. But matching cloud colour to planet colour is certainly worth trying, and other improvements can easily wait for future versions, if any.

But what about the non-vanilla game planet textures? To what extent can one identify colour there? Does Povray need cloud colour specified?

[hiran]

Here is the landing animation of a Starflight remake:
https://bravearmy.com/starflight/2019/0 ... -landings/

You said in Oolite there is 2.5 seconds of landing animation time. What are further limitations?

Could we simply play an animated gif? Or mp4? Could we render the player's ship on top of the video?

2.5 seconds should be good enough IMHO.

[Cholmondely]

Here is the landing animation of a Starflight remake:
https://bravearmy.com/starflight/2019/0 ... -landings/

You said in Oolite there is 2.5 seconds of landing animation time. What are further limitations?

Could we simply play an animated gif? Or mp4? Could we render the player's ship on top of the video?

2.5 seconds should be good enough IMHO.

Looks interesting.

But what would be the limitations?

*Windows platforms only?
*Vanilla game textures only? Or Povray Planets/equivalent textures only?
*Would there be any control over the landing or would it merely be docking computer/ILS equivalent?

And how many aeons would it take to code it into our game?

[Redspear]

I’ve been thinking about how to make visuals work. The video where I approach at a shallower angle, the transition to the clouds image actually felt fairly natural, I think because the change in sky colour was also visible as you descend closer towards the ground.

Does it have to be the case that the landing sequence begins at a certain altitude?

While it makes sense that the flasher be at extreme low altitude (else the player could potentially fly under it), could not the player be docked there from a greater distance?

I appreciate that this is kind of what happens anyway but suppose that the last part of the approach was simulated by the cloud sequence etc.

Not only would the cloud placement seem more logical (even though we don't see any over the planet) but the absence of any visible landing site need not be so obvious.

What I'm imagining therefore would be markedly different to docking at a station in one respect.

Imagine the Aegis equates to the planetary vicinity (altitude begins to drop) and that the station equates to the surface (0 altitude). The old version of planet fall had you dock at the 'station' but why not dock instead at the buoy?

This 'buoy' would need be bouy-like in distance from the station only, it could otherwise be more like a shrunken Aegis i.e. a distance, not an entity.

On the spectrum version of elite they couldn't/didn't do ai Docking, so instead, the player activating the Docking Computers within the Aegis immediately say the Docking tunnel effect.

Currently, we're struggling to simulate a satisfactory landing approach, so why not have it take place (the Docking effect) from just a little further away and help hide the fact that oolite planets are too small to make it look reasonable?

[phkb]

What about Thargoid's cabin temperature tweak which relies on approach angle (and also speed)?

Which OXP was that?

[Cholmondely]

What about Thargoid's cabin temperature tweak which relies on approach angle (and also speed)?

Which OXP was that?

When I use Thargoid's version of Planetfall, I have to reduce my speed at around 10km (?) altitude and then have to flatten my angle of approach at maybe 1km. Otherwise my cabin temperature starts sky-rocketing...

I've not tried landing on any moons, though.

[phkb]

What about Thargoid's cabin temperature tweak which relies on approach angle (and also speed)?

Which OXP was that?

When I use Thargoid's version of Planetfall, I have to reduce my speed at around 10km (?) altitude and then have to flatten my angle of approach at maybe 1km. Otherwise my cabin temperature starts sky-rocketing...

I've not tried landing on any moons, though.

That’s the core game at work. PlanetFall 1.51 doesn’t do anything extra to the players cabin heat value.

Edit: Or another OXP is in play. Not sure which though

[phkb]

1) Does breaking the equipment make much sense if one is not playing with regular breakable ship equipment (Ship Configuration/Capt Murphy)?

The equipment is already breakable - I haven’t changed that. All I’m changing is what the damaged equipment would allow you to do. In the original, you can’t land at all if you have damaged equipment. For this update, you can still land, but the chance of breaking something extra is quite high.

[phkb]

Could we simply play an animated gif? Or mp4? Could we render the player's ship on top of the video?

Short answers: No, no, and no.

I can display a series of pre-rendered images, saved as png files. That’s all I can do. If you can get the animation split into individual images, then I suppose, yes, I can display them. That would be, assuming let’s say 15 frames per second, around 75 images.

For a single landing sequence.

If you want to vary that sequence in some way, say, change the sky colours. That’s another 75 images.

Any time you want to tweak what you see, that’s more pre-rendered images to create.

My point here isn’t to tear down the suggestion, but to focus on my limitations. I can’t do that. I want to create something that feels satisfying, but operating within my graphical abilities. Clouds I can do. A little bit of zoom, some cycling “docking” markers I can do. Beyond that, it will need someone else to add some input. And the goal here is to make something that can be varied based on the planet/moon parameters: sky colour, cloud cover, day/night, etc. so landing feels different at different planets.