|
Pages: [1]
|
 |
|
Author
|
Topic: Predicting planet lander position? (Read 3305 times)
|
Xander77
Guest
|
Is there a way to know where and how much will a planet lander stray from where you told it to go? Because it seems that it can stray in totally different directions an distances on the same planet...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Xander77
Guest
|
Huh.
And I was so certain that it had something to do with which way the planet was turning on the display, and the exact map position...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
FalconMWC
Enlightened
 Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 1059
Avatar Courtesy of Slyrendro
|
And that would be? Not any place in UQM.....
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
FalconMWC
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 1059
Avatar Courtesy of Slyrendro
|
But what I am saying is - a few inches wont matter if the planet is covered with hostile things/earthquakes/hotspots/lightning. You can't see them in the scan - only how many there are.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
FalconMWC
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 1059
Avatar Courtesy of Slyrendro
|
Tectonics? How so? That does not seem plausible to me. I mean, once a earthquake affects a lander = it has to be on the ground first.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: December 17, 2004, 01:56:15 am by FalconMWC »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3874
We did. You did. Yes we can. No.
|
Tectonics?
Ideas for modded versions....
I would go for a lander drift based on weather... and a Melnorme upgrade so you get to control the lander's landing. It is moving forward, and you can turn it as it approaches... but you can't stop until it lands.
A variant with storm systems and regions of day (for hotspots) would be nifty. So you could be safer if you were willing to wait a while for the convenient conditions to move around... but then you'd be wasting time (hopefully game-time too).
Also, we could have a harder version in which the tectonic warning tremors were omitted. Then earthquakes and weather would basically have switched roles.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
0xDEC0DE
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 175
|
Although noone asked, here are my opinions on such things:
Gravity - this already takes a bite out of your fuel tanks, and I would figure that any decent 22nd-century flight computer would be able to compensate for higher/lower gravity when planning a landing. I propose this have no impact on jitter.
Atmospheric density - On it's own, I don't think thicker air would impact one's ability to land, but it could be used as a multiplier for other attributes related to atmospheric conditions to affect how much jitter one gets on a given planet. Examples below.
Surface Temperature - Thermal updrafts are known to cause trouble with modern aircraft, and I'd figure that a) future aircraft/spacecraft won't be much different in this regard, and b) a "hot" planet would have plenty of them. Of course, no atmosphere means no updrafts, so I'd propose that this value be used with atmospheric density as a multiplier to affect jitter.
Weather - High winds would have a profound impact on aircraft, and this is as good a signifier as any that they are present. Of course, a thicker atmosphere would result in more air molecules to push against the aircraft, and a thinner atmosphere would mean less. So like temperature, this could be multiplied against atmospheric density to affect jitter.
Tectonics - See the above story about Apollo 11; I'd propose that tectonic activity have a small impact on the amount of jitter applied, but not as profound as the others.
My $0.02 USD. (which is only worth about 0.015 Euros...  )
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"I’m not a robot like you. I don’t like having disks crammed into me… unless they’re Oreos, and then only in the mouth." --Fry
|
|
|
Arne
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 520
Yak!
|
Don't know if this has been said:
I assume that all SC planets are of the same diameter? The diameter would affect the meter per pixel scale and thus the landing displacement. It would also affect the speed of the ship, density of the loot, weather, etc. Everything would have to be scaled.
I think it's a good thing to either keep it simple (as it is), or go all the way. The inbetween solutions are often inconsistant and leaves you wishing for more, or questioning. Simple solutions have the advantage of 'suspension of disbelief'.
How about a hexagonal map that loops on all edges? 
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1]
|
|
|
|
|
