Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Santiago Fahahrri
Galactic Geographic
|
Posted - 2010.01.14 13:28:00 -
[31]
Supported.
Ice caps would be nice on some of the planets too.
|
Carniflex
StarHunt Systematic-Chaos
|
Posted - 2010.01.15 09:26:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Santiago Fahahrri Supported.
Ice caps would be nice on some of the planets too.
That also, but it would propably take quite sophisticated atmospheric model to pull that one off. Would be very awesome. I sure hope than when the dust arrives eventuaqlly there will be enviroments available that are similar to the iceplanet Hoth, from star wars. Ice and snow enviroments should not be that hard to pull off, unless you are trying to create some very spectacular icicles ofc ;) Plus added dangers of slippery surfaces.
|
Bunyip
Center for Advanced Studies
|
Posted - 2010.01.19 09:24:00 -
[33]
CCP just finished a lot of work with planetary designs and layouts, so they might not want to delve that deeply just a few months later into planetary design. However, I would appreciate these changes.
As someone who uses the scientific articles to immerse myself into the game, I think this would help me get deeper into the game, as well as others who see this game as more than the next ship to destroy or the next item to build. There is anything wrong with these behaviors - as an MMO, the game is what you make of it.
Supported.
"May all your hits be crits." - Knights of the Dinner Table. |
Thera Romana
|
Posted - 2010.01.19 22:26:00 -
[34]
need to fix the planets before we move onto them. Thanks for support on my topic as well.
|
Jonas Trelonian
|
Posted - 2010.01.20 20:52:00 -
[35]
+1
Also it would be nice if all celestial bodies were correctly-sized... i.e. filling the entire screen instead of being marginally larger than a space station...
|
Amy Garzan
The Warp Rats
|
Posted - 2010.01.21 04:01:00 -
[36]
signed -------------------------------------------------- 101010 The Answer to Life, The Universe, and Everything |
IlluminatedOne
Tycho Brahe Fan Club
|
Posted - 2010.01.21 22:16:00 -
[37]
Signed.
|
Solo Player
|
Posted - 2010.01.23 20:08:00 -
[38]
supporting this once again
I realy wish CSM members would have the kindness to pop in these threads somewhat more often and not just voice their opinion but actually anoounce their intention to take this further.
|
Arnold Predator
|
Posted - 2010.01.24 07:58:00 -
[39]
Edited by: Arnold Predator on 24/01/2010 07:59:37 with so many systems this fix might be the biggest update CCP would ever need to do but with Dust coming out sometime soon. (i hope) having the planet say its 5K and having the Dust players walking around in shorts would really be a big oversite.
I would also like to see planets orbit the suns. Another cool fix would that the planets can't be jumped/flown though.
|
Bongvir
|
Posted - 2010.02.13 14:00:00 -
[40]
I think this would be one of the high priority things that should be sorted before relasing planetary interaction as it would be a lot harder to fix afterwards.
So Supported.
|
|
Jonah Pod
|
Posted - 2010.02.14 10:55:00 -
[41]
On really low priority, yes. This will add some consistency to the game.
|
Salasilm
|
Posted - 2010.02.18 11:22:00 -
[42]
Supporting
|
Razin
The xDEATHx Squadron Legion of xXDEATHXx
|
Posted - 2010.02.18 15:16:00 -
[43]
Supported. Also, please add polar ice caps to the relevant planets. ...
|
Carniflex
StarHunt Systematic-Chaos
|
Posted - 2010.02.20 07:31:00 -
[44]
Tyrannis
Seems like our planetary interaction will be the next expansion. So last opportunity to fix 'the physics' of planets!
|
Destination SkillQueue
Are We There Yet
|
Posted - 2010.02.20 07:55:00 -
[45]
Why not. More immersion is always good.
|
Kolya Medz
|
Posted - 2010.02.20 22:24:00 -
[46]
Support 100% this is a very good point.
|
InColdBlood
|
Posted - 2010.02.20 23:15:00 -
[47]
Edited by: InColdBlood on 20/02/2010 23:15:39 Hey kids listen up!
Its a game! You are just a fat cola drinking zit faced kid playing a game on a pc your dad bought for you. Whats the point in CCP spending Ph.D time figuring out graphics for somehing that does not matter and you could not understand anyway.
And NO!
Ph.D is NOT short for Pretty Huge ****. Listen to an educated guy (MBA), just make it look good! And yes MBA is shot for Married But Available, in case that are any girls reading this.
|
Carniflex
StarHunt Systematic-Chaos
|
Posted - 2010.02.21 13:29:00 -
[48]
Originally by: InColdBlood
Hey kids listen up!
Its a game! You are just a fat cola drinking zit faced kid playing a game on a pc your dad bought for you. Whats the point in CCP spending Ph.D time figuring out graphics for somehing that does not matter and you could not understand anyway.
And NO!
Ph.D is NOT short for Pretty Huge ****. Listen to an educated guy (MBA), just make it look good! And yes MBA is short for Married But Available, in case that are any girls reading this.
Immersion. If this would be fairytale setting with flying castles and magic it would not matter a lot. But it is not. In EVE star systems are supposed to be 'real' in the sense that planets with those parameters can have stable orbits in those positions they have. Guy who coded it had PhD in chaos physics if I remember correct.
It might not matter for someone with only master of business administration (if I understand correct your MBA). But it does matter to some people with education in the field of hard science. By the way - wiggling around with degree in forums is thin ice. For example I happen to have MSc in physics and are in my last year of PhD studies (And I must also admit that nature has been gentle enough for me so your statement about what it is not might be also incorrect ).
|
Jin Nib
Resplendent Knives
|
Posted - 2010.02.22 01:11:00 -
[49]
Correct me if I'm wrong but planets and such are actually stationary and don't orbit around the sun. Personally for me, having planets that followed their orbital paths would be much higher on the list then this proposal. Even better would be if all orbital objects like moons and asteroids etc. did this but planets alone would work too.
IE this proposal is worried about having realistic planets according to their distances from the sun but the fact that they don't rotate and orbit would mean that having "correct" planets would mean having planets with one side scorched away and the other side lost in perpetual darkness and cold. -Jin Nib Trading on behalf of Opera Noir since: 2009.03.02 03:53:00
|
Carniflex
StarHunt Systematic-Chaos
|
Posted - 2010.02.22 05:03:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Jin Nib Correct me if I'm wrong but planets and such are actually stationary and don't orbit around the sun. Personally for me, having planets that followed their orbital paths would be much higher on the list then this proposal. Even better would be if all orbital objects like moons and asteroids etc. did this but planets alone would work too.
IE this proposal is worried about having realistic planets according to their distances from the sun but the fact that they don't rotate and orbit would mean that having "correct" planets would mean having planets with one side scorched away and the other side lost in perpetual darkness and cold.
Yes. But that is kinda big change to how planets are implemented in EVE. And it's really relevant only for inner planets, further away ones have 'years' that can have a lot longer than on earth - ie presently passed 7 years of EVE would have caused only small move in their positions. I do agree ofc that if they would actually move and rotate it would be even more uber.
But all is not lost, there is already light at the end of tunnel Light - CCP is aware that at least temperatures are random in the info fields of planets and seem to be willing to do something about those. So when they do that script perhaps they can also include very small and very basic model that sticks 'right' skins in more or less right places by making use some simple planetary model (if they dont have time to do complex one) in consistent manner.
|
|
Razin
The xDEATHx Squadron Legion of xXDEATHXx
|
Posted - 2010.02.22 18:07:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Jin Nib Correct me if I'm wrong but planets and such are actually stationary and don't orbit around the sun. Personally for me, having planets that followed their orbital paths would be much higher on the list then this proposal. Even better would be if all orbital objects like moons and asteroids etc. did this but planets alone would work too.
IE this proposal is worried about having realistic planets according to their distances from the sun but the fact that they don't rotate and orbit would mean that having "correct" planets would mean having planets with one side scorched away and the other side lost in perpetual darkness and cold.
The planets do rotate. Maybe not all (or not all at the same speed)?
During EVE beta the planets actually moved around their star; however CCP decided that this had insignificant impact on the game (likely for the same reasons mentioned in the post above) for the cost in server resources. ...
|
Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Gentlemen's Club
|
Posted - 2010.02.22 19:32:00 -
[52]
Originally by: InColdBlood Edited by: InColdBlood on 21/02/2010 00:04:56 Edited by: InColdBlood on 20/02/2010 23:15:39 Hey kids listen up!
Its a game! You are just a fat cola drinking zit faced kid playing a game on a pc your dad bought for you. Whats the point in CCP spending Ph.D time figuring out graphics for somehing that does not matter and you could not understand anyway.
And NO!
Ph.D is NOT short for Pretty Huge ****. Listen to an educated guy (MBA), just make it look good! And yes MBA is short for Married But Available, in case that are any girls reading this.
False. False. False. I am extremely embarrassed that a fellow MBA would say such statements that are contrary to business/marketing/economics theories. I will imagine you are lying about your degree so I do not have to question how far the scholastic requirements for the degree have declined.
Incidentally, it hardly would take a PhD in Astrophysics to sort this out.
Please tell us what company you work for. I, for one, really want to know what shiny new purchase might be from a company with a "just make it look good!" attitude. In fact, it would be nice to know so I don't accidentally invest in the company.
Fix Local |
Maxsim Goratiev
Gallente Imperial Tau Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.02.22 19:59:00 -
[53]
actually, if we are improving planets, let's get them spinning again as well. InColdBlood- if you have nothing to add to the conversation except for personal insults, please refrain from commenting. Please resize your signature to the maximum allowed of 400 x 120 pixels with a maximum file size of 24000 bytes.StevieSG |
Aion Morpheus
|
Posted - 2010.02.22 20:39:00 -
[54]
|
Razin
The xDEATHx Squadron Legion of xXDEATHXx
|
Posted - 2010.02.24 00:24:00 -
[55]
Originally by: Maxsim Goratiev actually, if we are improving planets, let's get them spinning again as well.
Planet spin is already in the game. It's just slower then it used to be, which is a good thing IMO.
Just to check myself I just flew around Oursulaert and every planet with visible land/ice mass was unquestionably spinning. ...
|
Kytanos Termek
Perkone
|
Posted - 2010.02.24 04:36:00 -
[56]
Low priority, dont overrule anything more important to look at it. but with Tyr around the corner maybe you can assign a dev or two to fix it.
|
Kumatsu
Metanoia. Consortium.
|
Posted - 2010.02.24 09:32:00 -
[57]
Originally by: InColdBlood Edited by: InColdBlood on 21/02/2010 00:04:56 Edited by: InColdBlood on 20/02/2010 23:15:39 Hey kids listen up!
Its a game! You are just a fat cola drinking zit faced kid playing a game on a pc your dad bought for you. Whats the point in CCP spending Ph.D time figuring out graphics for somehing that does not matter and you could not understand anyway.
And NO!
Ph.D is NOT short for Pretty Huge ****. Listen to an educated guy (MBA), just make it look good! And yes MBA is short for Married But Available, in case that are any girls reading this.
This guy must be working on the next expansion with ccp and doesn't want more of a workload. I agree if CCP wants to add new features as so it should be based more on a realistic aspect. Back to your drawing board gents.
|
Eowarian D
SI Radio
|
Posted - 2010.02.24 13:18:00 -
[58]
Originally by: Carniflex I have myself also wondered though often, how come we are visiting only one of the stars in those binary systems
I totally agree. I live in a cataclysmic wormhole system, which means 2 stars and an environmental phenomena (which looks like a 3rd star, but I guess it's more like a halo). In our star system we can only warp to the main star, not to the other one. It would be nice indeed to have both stars in the planetary overview, 'cause both stars ARE physically/visually there.
Originally by: Carniflex ... if one of them has planets then how come second one does not have ? Unless it's something silly-exotic and utterly improbable. If one can have planets in stable orbits then gravity works both ways and second one should be far enough to allow stable orbits - ie there should also be stable orbits possible around the other star.
Not quite right, I think. As far as my knowledge go, dual stars are mainly close to each other, in very close orbit. If not, the gravity disk will be too unstable to allow orbiting planets. Why not planets around both stars? Impossible. The gravity disks of both stars has become one, in the same direction as the stars orbit each other. So only 1 gravity disk remains to allow planets orbiting, with both stars in the center. A planet that should cross in between both stars will be ripped apart, due to the gravitation of those stars.
But so far my theory. :) I agree CCP should stick a bit closer to physical laws and shift the order of the planets so it makes sence. Thanks for bringing this up!
|
Andreus LeHane
Mixed Metaphor
|
Posted - 2010.02.24 16:05:00 -
[59]
Edited by: Andreus LeHane on 24/02/2010 16:12:34 Most definitely supported. -----
|
Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Gentlemen's Club
|
Posted - 2010.02.24 17:57:00 -
[60]
Originally by: Eowarian D
Originally by: Carniflex ... if one of them has planets then how come second one does not have ? Unless it's something silly-exotic and utterly improbable. If one can have planets in stable orbits then gravity works both ways and second one should be far enough to allow stable orbits - ie there should also be stable orbits possible around the other star.
Not quite right, I think. As far as my knowledge go, dual stars are mainly close to each other, in very close orbit. If not, the gravity disk will be too unstable to allow orbiting planets. Why not planets around both stars? Impossible. The gravity disks of both stars has become one, in the same direction as the stars orbit each other. So only 1 gravity disk remains to allow planets orbiting, with both stars in the center. A planet that should cross in between both stars will be ripped apart, due to the gravitation of those stars.
But so far my theory. :) I agree CCP should stick a bit closer to physical laws and shift the order of the planets so it makes sence. Thanks for bringing this up!
Which brings up the point that both stars should be in the center of each system, if these systems are supposed to be binaries. Planets would most likely be ejected (or live a short life in degenerating orbit) from the system if their orbit fell between two stars.
Fix Local |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |