The game is so ripe for Atmospheric Landing!

With gravity at 0.76G and an atmosphere of 97.6% helium and 2.4% neon, you would float in the atmosphere like a hot air balloon while glowing bright red, never making it to the surface....

Just saying....
And that would be great, great gameplay ahead - cause people will try it, no matter what! :D Similar to high G landings with FA Off, some of that could be a true challenge, others impossible or downright deadly.
 
With gravity at 0.76G and an atmosphere of 97.6% helium and 2.4% neon, you would float in the atmosphere like a hot air balloon while glowing bright red, never making it to the surface....

Just saying....
If you did make it to the surface and launched your SRV, firing the thrusters would send you back into orbit. Then call your ship to pick you up. That would be interesting, and fun....

o7...
 
Last edited:

dxm55

Banned
A helium balloon floats because it's lighter than air, which means the density of our atmosphere.
If the atmosphere was mostly helium, only a hydrogen filled balloon would float.

A ship entering that helium world would experience drag from air resistance, but nothing else would probably change.
Except maybe if you stepped out without an EVA suit and took a deep breath, then begin talking like Kelvin the Grindmonkey.... Oh, I mean Alvin the Chipmunk...
 
I thought it would be a picture of one of those planets with 0.01 Atmospheres that prevent landing

With gravity at 0.76G and an atmosphere of 97.6% helium and 2.4% neon, you would float in the atmosphere like a hot air balloon while glowing bright red, never making it to the surface....

Just saying....
Dont think that is correct, not ship would be buoyant on 0.26 atmospheres of Helium
 
And that would be great, great gameplay ahead - cause people will try it, no matter what! :D Similar to high G landings with FA Off, some of that could be a true challenge, others impossible or downright deadly.
Yet there are people who claim atmospheric flight would provide no added gameplay - it would be the best gameplay upgrade. Especially if FDev would take the pain to tailor flight models according to aerodynamics. Nothing scientific, but ZP ships should handle well, while Lakon ships should be a bit hapless, etc..
 

dxm55

Banned
Yet there are people who claim atmospheric flight would provide no added gameplay - it would be the best gameplay upgrade. Especially if FDev would take the pain to tailor flight models according to aerodynamics. Nothing scientific, but ZP ships should handle well, while Lakon ships should be a bit hapless, etc..
Yep. And we need good re-entry mechanics. And not just allow a ship to fly nose-first into the atmosphere at any velocity.

If they have no idea how to do it, maybe get on their knees and beg the makers of KSP for help?
 
Hm, but imagine you could land.... but realize there'd still be no Gameplay down on the rock. The old Horizons problem, Atmosphere or not.

As DB so famously said : "Just a differently colored heightmap".
Much as I'm a strong advocate for atmospheric landings it's this which makes me believe that what FD are about to do (with base building plus the recent job advert for an SRV AI terrain driving coder) is add more life planet side (and yes, make the ice planet improvements they teased us with) in 2020 and THEN move on to atmo-landings. Hope springs eternal! :ROFLMAO:
 
Hm, but imagine you could land.... but realize there'd still be no Gameplay down on the rock. The old Horizons problem, Atmosphere or not.

As DB so famously said : "Just a differently colored heightmap".
I don't believe anyone who's interested in atmospheric landings does envision this cheapest of all implementations. If FD would have something like that in mind we'd long have it by now. The question would be how much physics they can squeeze into it (like density, traction, heat, chemical reactions...) without massive performance hits and by keeping as much verisimilitude as possible. A giant task that only will be possible in a simplified manner. Compromises will have to be made. Otherwise we'd had a true simulation that only would run on a super-computer.
 
I don't believe anyone who's interested in atmospheric landings does envision this cheapest of all implementations. If FD would have something like that in mind we'd long have it by now. The question would be how much physics they can squeeze into it (like density, traction, heat, chemical reactions...) without massive performance hits and by keeping as much verisimilitude as possible. A giant task that only will be possible in a simplified manner. Compromises will have to be made. Otherwise we'd had a true simulation that only would run on a super-computer.
Indeed.... The difference between "Atmo Landings" and "fully fleshed out Atmo Landings & Gameplay" is extreme.
1st would still likely provide nice Sceenshots but only fully fleshed out Gameplay within that environment is what's needed to take things to the next level.

We'll see, maybe, in due time.
 

dxm55

Banned
Hm, but imagine you could land.... but realize there'd still be no Gameplay down on the rock. The old Horizons problem, Atmosphere or not.

As DB so famously said : "Just a differently colored heightmap".
LOL I don't think FD dares to cheap out on the atmo planet thing.
With games like Star Citizen and Inifinity Battlescape showing great and seamless space to atmosphere transition....... while in ED, not only are we limited to airless rock, but actually have that silly loading/transition message when going between OC and Glide.... LOL....

i would say that FD should be working on making this seamless, and at the same time making some good re-entry mechanics.
Otherwise, they would lose that battle to two UNRELEASED titles in Alpha. ROFLMAO....

Of course, not cheaping out isn't a license to drag their feet about it either. There're going to be many more games out there coming that will push the boundary in flight and space sims. All it takes is one good one, and this game will be left in the dust, with only the cult following left playing.
 
Even a hot air balloon would fall like a rock in a helium atmosphere, so I think your ship would too without thrust.
I'm no physician, but how can you explain why this should happen in an helium environment but not on planets without atmosphere? And about what gravity are we talking here? I doubt with 0.02g anything would fall like a rock, no matter if in helium or not. Or do you fall faster when you sound like mickey mouse? ;)
 

dxm55

Banned
I'm no physician, but how can you explain why this should happen in an helium environment but not on planets without atmosphere? And about what gravity are we talking here? I doubt with 0.02g anything would fall like a rock, no matter if in helium or not. Or do you fall faster when you sound like mickey mouse? ;)

Because dry air on the Earth contains 78.09% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.04% carbon dioxide, and small amounts of other gases.
Look at the periodic table and see the atomic mass of each of these elements.

Where is Nitrogen, Oxygen (since they're the most abundant) on the periodic table?
Look at their mass, then find helium and tell me what the atomic mass is....

Helium is called a "lighter than air" gas, because it is less dense than air. Helium balloons rise because of a force called buoyancy.
Just like how your air-filled, less-dense-than-water body floats in a swimming pool.
Basic elementary school science.

A dense spacecraft will not float in helium LOL. In fact flying thru a 90+% helium atmosphere, you would experience very little drag due to its low density.

And come to think of it.... perhaps a planet with 0.76G would not likely even be able to hold a helium atmosphere. Without sufficient gravity and density, most of that stuff would boil away into space. You'd need something as massive as a gas giant to hold light gases like helium and hydrogen in...
 
Much as I'm a strong advocate for atmospheric landings it's this which makes me believe that what FD are about to do (with base building plus the recent job advert for an SRV AI terrain driving coder) is add more life planet side (and yes, make the ice planet improvements they teased us with) in 2020 and THEN move on to atmo-landings. Hope springs eternal! :ROFLMAO:
I have to agree. We need more gameplay elements on planets otherwise if atmospheric planets comes with very little to do on them, it will likely be a failure.
 
I'm no physician, but how can you explain why this should happen in an helium environment but not on planets without atmosphere? And about what gravity are we talking here? I doubt with 0.02g anything would fall like a rock, no matter if in helium or not. Or do you fall faster when you sound like mickey mouse? ;)
Your ships falls like a rock at 0.02g. Which might be rather slow compare to earth. It's just that the helium won't do much to stop you apart from friction. :)

By the way, on planets without atmosphere your ship would fall exactly the same as a rock. Just like a bowling ball and a feather fall at the same speed.

Source: https://youtu.be/E43-CfukEgs
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom