6: Scale Standard. Don't screw up the scale this time hehe, have it set in stone, meters or feet, choose one and make sure everything follows this standard. So much debate on Scale in Oolite that some things just get silly.
I'm afraid that is not possible without killing the game. Having several contradicting scales is not an accident, but a deliberate decision to keep the game playable.
You really don't want a perfect-to-scale universe with tiny stations orbiting huge planets, where the witchpoint beacon is at least 10 times, if not 100 or 1000 times further out, and getting anywhere takes ages. At least I wouldn't want that. It would be hugely boring.
You really don't want a perfect-to-scale universe with tiny stations orbiting huge planets, where the witchpoint beacon is at least 10 times, if not 100 or 1000 times further out, and getting anywhere takes ages. At least I wouldn't want that. It would be hugely boring.
Actually I do want realistic sized stations orbiting realistic sized planets.
(Heck, I'd like it if systems had more than 1 station and 1 planet too, but that should still be able to be done in an OXP or whatever the name is now)
Why would the witchpoint have to be further out? it's a fictional thing so we get to set the rules for it.
As for speed scaling, never mentioned that and that gets into the whole physics thing which I'd prefer stayed the same, and with Torus-Drive you would still go be able to get places faster than should be physically possible, and then there's the time scaling thingy where you can speed up time.
Just to clarify, was talking about the dimensions of in game objects, not distances or speeds which are fine the way they are even if not scientifically accurate. Just dont like having ships that are supposed to only be a few meters long being one tenth the size of a planet. (although the sun might need to get moved back abit since it's also too small.)
Last edited by ADCK on Thu May 26, 2011 1:06 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Why would the witchpoint have to be further out? it's a fictional thing so we get to set the rules for it.
I just supposed it wouldn't be within the planet's outer atmosphere (which it with its current distance of 300-900 km is, given an accurate planet size).
At that distance an accurately sized planet (about 100-200 times the radius of current Oolite planets) would always fill half the sky and you had no optical impression of getting nearer to the planet. If you'd want to get this impression (which for me is an important part of Oolite game-play), you'd have to place the witchpoint further out, also about 100-200 times. Which automatically makes the journey from witchpoint to planet 100-200 times longer, if you don't drastically increase speeds as well. If you don't increase speeds, also torus drives don't help. Currently it takes let's say 15 seconds to get from witchpoint to station on torus drive. 15 seconds times 100 is 25 minutes.
Why would the witchpoint have to be further out? it's a fictional thing so we get to set the rules for it.
I just supposed it wouldn't be within the planet's outer atmosphere (which it with its current distance of 300-900 km is, given an accurate planet size).
At that distance an accurately sized planet (about 100-200 times the radius of current Oolite planets) would always fill half the sky and you had no optical impression of getting nearer to the planet. If you'd want to get this impression (which for me is an important part of Oolite game-play), you'd have to place the witchpoint further out, also about 100-200 times. Which automatically makes the journey from witchpoint to planet 100-200 times longer, if you don't drastically increase speeds as well. If you don't increase speeds, also torus drives don't help. Currently it takes let's say 15 seconds to get from witchpoint to station on torus drive. 15 seconds times 100 is 25 minutes.
Hmm, good point. Torus Drives would need to be adjusted to match the new scale then... they'd have to go much faster
I guess speed would in general also need to be revamped so that time travelled matches its current state.
Yes, you'd be going ludicrous speeds, but it's science fiction heh.
Just to clarify, was talking about the dimensions of in game objects, not distances or speeds which are fine the way they are even if not scientifically accurate. Just dont like having ships that are supposed to only be a few meters long being one tenth the size of a planet. (although the sun might need to get moved back abit since it's also too small.)
My problem with this is that sizes, distances and speeds are part of the same equation. Pumping only one of them up may reduce silliness in one aspect (ship sizes vs. planet sizes), but at the same time it increases silliness in another aspect (celestial body sizes vs. their proximity). If we make the planets 100 times bigger (and again, we're talking about radius, not volume; so 100 times bigger is much more huge than you'd probably imagine), and make the suns (which are currently only about twice the radius of planets) 100000 times(!) bigger (just to match the actual sizes of Sol and Earth), the planet will be located practically in the very centre of the sun. So obviously we have to increase the distance between them as well (by a factor of 150000 in order to match the Sol-Earth distance, or less if we don't care so much about accuracy here; perhaps 50000 would do, although it would still make sunskimming a several-days-undertaking).
In Oolite celestial bodies are (1) very small and (2) extremely close to each other. If we make them bigger, their extreme closeness will only become more obvious and silly.
Just to clarify, was talking about the dimensions of in game objects, not distances or speeds which are fine the way they are even if not scientifically accurate. Just dont like having ships that are supposed to only be a few meters long being one tenth the size of a planet. (although the sun might need to get moved back abit since it's also too small.)
My problem with this is that sizes, distances and speeds are part of the same equation. Pumping only one of them up may reduce silliness in one aspect (ship sizes vs. planet sizes), but at the same time it increases silliness in another aspect (celestial body sizes vs. their proximity). If we make the planets 100 times bigger (and again, we're talking about radius, not volume; so 100 times bigger is much more huge than you'd probably imagine), and make the suns (which are currently only about twice the radius of planets) 100000 times(!) bigger (just to match the actual sizes of Sol and Earth), the planet will be located practically in the very centre of the sun. So obviously we have to increase the distance between them as well (by a factor of 150000 in order to match the Sol-Earth distance, or less if we don't care so much about accuracy here; perhaps 50000 would do, although it would still make sunskimming a several-days-undertaking).
In Oolite celestial bodies are (1) very small and (2) extremely close to each other. If we make them bigger, their extreme closeness will only become more obvious and silly.
Ya, now that I've thought more about it, speed and distance would also need to be modified to match the new scale so that travel time is not ruined. Which isn't a big deal in my opinion, does anyone really care what their speedometer says? Even if it is going FTL?
I just assume "m" distances equals "miles" and everything besides planets and suns are highly magnified. Then the planet sizes are about 2000-8000 miles radius. Still doesn't work out though -- as the distance from a star to a planet would need several minutes travel time even at light speed. (assuming no relativistic effects.)
Wouldn't be better to set some specific scales based on that last comment? So that all astronomical sizes and distances were 1:10 typical real values, but all being-made objects were done to actual scale? That sort of scale would make planets and solar objects seriously impressive, as they should be. I appreciate it might not be so easy to spot a station near a planet any more!
As far as tedious travel times, if a torus drive is sub-luminal, say = 0.9L, then even with 1:1 scaling the earth to sun TT = 556 seconds. So with 1:10 scale it would be ~56s from planet to solar body for a sun-skim, which sounds reasonably workable...?? If the witch point is 1/10 solar distance(?), then the TT on full torus drive would only be 6s.
Whatever, it isn't an easy issue, and I'm sure it won't go away!! ...and nowhere here have I got into what it would mean to texture a planet on that scale...! ..and could sun-skimming be made as scary and dangerous as The Dark Wheel novella indicated?
If the sun started heating your ship up at considerably greater range (because it is so large) then you're likely cooking before you're done skimming.
... therefore you would have to change the heating-up rates, or the heat tolerance of ship, or whatever in order to counter-balance this.
Which would affect some other aspect of the game which would subsequently need to be fixed.
Which would break something else etc. ad infinitum.
And for this very reason all I am doing is advocating to do nothing at all about the whole sizes-and-distances thing. Oolite's length measurement system is broken and unfixable, period. The game uses several different and irreconcilable scales for measuring length (sizes and distances are closely related, because at their core both are measurements of length), and it must use different scales for game play purposes. Replacing them with one universal scale is not an option if we want a playable game. I believe that the currently existing scales have been chosen for a reason: they produce a playable result which for the casual onlooker isn't too obviously botched. I highly doubt that tweaking (and drastically tweaking at that) one or two of the scales would produce a more satisfying result.
If the sun started heating your ship up at considerably greater range (because it is so large) then you're likely cooking before you're done skimming.
... therefore you would have to change the heating-up rates, or the heat tolerance of ship, or whatever in order to counter-balance this.
Which would affect some other aspect of the game which would subsequently need to be fixed.
Which would break something else etc. ad infinitum.
And for this very reason all I am doing is advocating to do nothing at all about the whole sizes-and-distances thing. Oolite's length measurement system is broken and unfixable, period. The game uses several different and irreconcilable scales for measuring length (sizes and distances are closely related, because at their core both are measurements of length), and it must use different scales for game play purposes. Replacing them with one universal scale is not an option if we want a playable game. I believe that the currently existing scales have been chosen for a reason: they produce a playable result which for the casual onlooker isn't too obviously botched. I highly doubt that tweaking (and drastically tweaking at that) one or two of the scales would produce a more satisfying result.
But it could be done, and it could be done well. The flat out rejecting it cause of too much work reeks of laziness in my opinion.
Back to suggestions: I have another that was brought up in another thread, Dynamic Lighting, eg spotlights, shadows, etc. Would love to see an actual lighting engine in Oolite 2.
just wanna add my 2c to the scale debate - realistic environments only enhance playablitiy imho, if it detracts then something's wrong..
I'm new to Oolite but showing it off to a mate the other day, trying to drum up interest and had to go thru explaining why the scale's broken and that if he wanted realism Frontier was the only option...
But Frontier was more fun because of the realistic scale, not less. More engaging, immersive, evocative and all that..
It's not a case of tiny stations orbiting huge planets but HUGE stations orbiting realsitically-sized planets, surely?
Oolite already has time acceleration built it... so that's no problem. And of course it would be perfectly complemented by realistic velocities too... The game already borrows from Frontier here and there, why shouldn't it follow the same logical evolution?
To be perfectly honest, as much as i'm enjoying Oolite, if FE3D was in a comparably finished state i'd be playing that instead... all the best things about Elite's gameplay are carried over and developed in Frontier... for all the reasons Elite's a great game, Frontier is better, and realism is the key... the thing that made Elite such a gamechanger in the first place...
The realism vs fun argument was always a false dichotomy. I mean how far would you take it - is 2D more 'fun' than 3D? If 3D ain't fun it's cos the gameplay ain't there, and the same applies to scale. Give me realistic sizes and speeds, long range scanners, time acceleration, maybe a simple autopilot.. and something to do or see.. and to me that's fun. If Elite changed everything, Frontier raised the bar.
Besides, at the moment to travel any distance in Oolite i'm constantly switching between hyperspeed, afterburners and accelerated time anyway. If anything, consistent size, speed and time scaling would be less of a grind than these current compromises to classic gameplay. I mean hyperspeed? What the hell is that anyway? And the whole 'mass locked' thing, really.. it was necessary in the original game but missing from FE2 for a reason...
Anyway, that's the excuse i made to my mate - it's a 'retro' concession to 8-bit nostalgia. And where Elite concedes realism, Frontier positively features it... it was a better game precisely because it was more of a sim.... just as Elite was amongst its competitors back in the day. This was self-evidently Braben's ethos all along.. Elite was unprecedentedly realistic, Frontier just moreso.. and that's what made 'em so addictive.
But Frontier was more fun because of the realistic scale, not less. More engaging, immersive, evocative and all that..
/rant
I assume everyone here is aware of this project: http://pioneerspacesim.net/ it's really very advanced, although not quite released, and should cater for most peoples' idea of realism.
