Atmospheric Drag

I should‘ve specified that I don‘t mean that the speed limit is hard capped to 200m/s. I meant that, because of the soft cap, the speed limit for most ships will be around 200m/s because you can‘t design something aerodynamic enough to reach space‘s speedlimit.

I never suggested a „fix“. As I‘ve stated in my post, it expands on gameplay dynamic on a player vs player basis and on immersivity. I completely agree that realism and hardcore aspects should be modded only, that‘s why I‘m proposing only drag, without lift and localized force. My issue with the current idea of atmospheres in SE is that there‘s nothing to indicate that you are inside an atmosphere except for a more colourful sky. Drag, even if only reducing speed by a small amount like I suggested, makes atmospheres come more to life.

This also gives modding opportunities for planets with very thin or very dense atmospheres, to symbolize the hostility of a planet for example.

@Grebanton 1234: Fixing what isn't broken is a figure of speech. In this instance trying to change what doesn't need to be changed to "fix" an issue that doesn't exist.

With the obligatory statement out of the way, you say realism and hardcore aspects should be modded only. Yet you're proposing a realism aspect in the form of drag that is all negatives with no positive benefits to this system at all. You may be well intentioned in your suggestion, but you've not fully thought through what you're suggesting.

Let's assume this were implemented tomorrow. What would be my motivation to want to use this system? How does it benefit me? What potential benefits would it give vs potential tradeoffs? For example, could I perhaps save a little fuel by gliding if my grid is aerodynamic enough? Could it make it easier for me to get into space by not needing as much fuel for liftoff? Let's suppose I would normally fly our hypothetical Borg Cube which I would expect would experience maximum drag vs other shapes. What would be the reward to flying a Borg Sphere instead of the Cube? Because "you avoid drag" is not enough. That's simply punishing me for choosing to fly the cube vs the sphere. Especially if we're talking artificially slowing my cube to 200m/s vs the 300m/s everyone else would be able to utilize.

And if you add a pvp element on top of it, now you've just artificially given potential opponents an advantage for no good reason when that advantage otherwise wouldn't be present. In other words it strikes me as "I don't like that his ship can fly at max speed when it couldn't fly that fast IRL in atmosphere. So I want it limited by introducing drag." Now again I hope you don't mean it that way, but that's how stuff like that sounds to me when folks appeal to pvp for stuff like this. It almost always comes off as wanting their opponents punished for building "incorrectly". Even worse is for folks who don't pvp at all, they're now being told their grids have to be limited or altered to avoid a penalty because the pvp guys don't like things as they are. I'm sorry but no.

Now if you want things to feel more "alive" there are better ways to do this. Examples being better wildlife on a planet, better interaction with atmospheric effects other than just drag. You can have jetstreams that can help keep you in the air easier and allow you to save some energy/fuel if you follow the jetstream. You can have storms which could perhaps "overcharge" your engines allowing them to work faster, which can be balanced as a temporary turbo. Short bursts can be beneficial but too long and you risk damage. I could list other things but I believe you get the idea. Point being you do not have enough here for most people to want to use it besides a few diehards. Why would I ever want to implement a system in any of my worlds that does nothing but harm my grids purely for the crime of being different than what you prefer? If this system were implemented it would be the first thing I turn off or disable just like magazine racking. This system as you've proposed it here is all downsides with no benefits at all. It would only harm the build freedom we have now and be a step in the wrong direction.

I have no idea why you hate on aerodynamics so much, I have seen you on other posts trying to make the same points, as in "you just don't like what I want to build", or "you want to punish people", which is not that at all. I am sure the original poster would not mind aerodynamics to be toggleable, same as I, and furthermore, I would even want it to be so. There are different ways to enjoy the game, and there is no reason to keep insisting that people who want this just want to punish people. ITS NOT ABOUT YOU, its about enjoying the engineering aspect of tweaking the ship in such a way that it becomes as aerodynamic as it can be, and many other things. Putting it inside of the game and not as a mod will make it so that it is as polished as it can be.

Originally I couldn't figure out what you meant by "all downsides with no benefits at all" as even most of what you said in your own post are upsides to the player experience. But I think what you must mean is downsides and lack of upsides to your grids, to your engineer in-game, and to someone trying to min-max/speed-run/play the game as effectively as possible regardless of fun (in wanting of a better description lol), rather than to the player experience? Because like obviously a borg cube being limited in speed in atmosphere compared to a borg sphere or whatever makes the game way more fun and makes for a much better experience, but to someone in-universe or speed-running or whatever who doesn't care about realism or fun, they'd only see it as a downside. Like, in terms of purely a practical perspective, it adds difficulty without making it easier anywhere, is what you're saying?

If so, if they add a basic air deflection mechanic like iirc the "Atmospheric Drag" mod for SE1, where the force isn't just always opposite to direction of movement, but based on the angle of the surface to the direction of movement - which is borderline necessary anyways imo to implement this as otherwise a flat surface and angled surface have equal drag - then you could turn far faster in an atmosphere and with no fuel usage if desired, which could also be used to massively soften a landing (I've done that a ton with the mod in SE1).

Regardless though... personally I think that the player experience should be more important than difficulty/in-universe enjoyment for lack of a better term, because, well... I mean, take for example the stupid "super dampeners" they added. Those make the game feel wayyy worse to play, even if they in purely practical terms are beneficial to the engineer, so obviously they were not a good design decision. And also things enemy drones coming to attack you aren't beneficial to the engineer (except maybe their scrap lol), but definitely can add fun to the game. It's the same thing here. Even if it makes the game harder, as it makes it more fun, personally I think that's by far the most important.

@ExePixel: There's a few things that need to be addressed here. Show me where I said it was about me specifically. Go ahead, quote the exact line, because never once have I said that. Likewise just as you say it's not all about me, it's not all about you either. I specifically said previously the OP may be well intentioned, but the effect of the proposal is still the same. It takes away from the build freedom we enjoyed in SE1 and becomes a bludgeoning instrument saying "build this way or else we're slowing your grid down" all for the crime of not building "correctly" aka aerodynamic, all with no benefits for choosing to engage with the system.

Now as I said, part of my issue is there is no positive incentive to interact with the system as proposed here since it's all drag forces and no benefit. For example I couldn't turn my dampers off then glide for a bit to save fuel or to actually add to the experience of it being true flight. I couldn't get a faster/easier takeoff time by benefiting from lift. Or as a big one, I could say turn my Borg Cube to fly it like a diamond to split the air easier and take off faster, or keep it from being slowed down dramatically. There is nothing I can do to keep my cube from eating a massive penalty all for being considered "wrong" by the game. Nope it's all drag and only half of the aerodynamic equation all because I wanted to have fun differently and build a cube vs something aerodynamic. Or more simply put it's all risk with no rewards and no benefit at all.

If you want people to do something as a developer, whether it's studio level or small time modder level, you have to give people a reason to want to do it as a dev. Right now the question of "why would I ever want to use this system" is being answered with "because I said so or else" and that doesn't work. That just makes people want to avoid it as much as possible or just not even play with it. I'm basically being told 2 things. First, I'm wrong if I dare want to play with a Borg Cube as a hypothetical, even if I've put in the necessary engineering to get it the top speed and maneuver well enough. Second, I'm being told "change your design or else we're slowing it down". Then when I ask what I get in return other than avoiding a penalty I'm told I get nothing.

If folks want people to get behind a feature like this being added, especially folks who are on the fence or might not normally do so, you have to give them reasons to want to do it. Like a car salesman has to give people reasons to want to buy the car. You can be honest about potential drawbacks of certain car models, but also still demonstrate to people that the benefits of the car outweigh the drawbacks. Right now I'm see all drawbacks and no benefits. So why would I want to get behind a system like that? If you're going to do aerodynamics, then don't half-bake it, do the full thing and make it possible to do actual plane type builds if you want. Give people some benefits to using the system. Because right now that's non-existent with the current proposal.

Now I'm glad to see you acknowledge it would be able to be turned off. I would hope similar high profile systems could be turned on or off considering how big of an effect they can have. Since you say I can turn it off, I hope you hold that same zeal for energy shields being added too since they can be turned on/off. Afterall you said it yourself, there's more than one way to play. Either way if it's turned off or not, folks are still entitled to their thoughts and opinions in the positive or negative. And I see anything that takes away from the build freedom we've had before with no positive benefits as a net-negative for SE2.

@Star_kindler: You're trying to put words in my mouth that I didn't say and project positions onto my I don't have. I already explained to Exepixel above, anything that takes away from the build freedom we've had before with no positive benefit is something that is a net-negative for SE2. As proposed here aerodynamics would be nothing but a net negative with no benefits at all. Even if well intentioned by the OP, the effect is still the same in that it becomes a bludgeoning instrument to say "build aerodynamic or else".

I've never mentioned speed running at all in this so no idea where that's coming from. I've also not cited realism save for saying that games don't need to be 100% realistic to be fun. I will however say that if realism gets in the way of fun, there are times when realism needs to give way for the sake of fun since that's the entire point of a game to start with.

I will sum it up like this in addition to explanations I have given above. As is right now, let's take our hypothetical Borg Cube and put it next to another grid of similar size, such as perhaps an Enterprise E which would be far more aerodynamic in reality and could maneuver far easier. It's been the standard since the start of SE that if I put in the proper engineering to make it happen, I can get that cube to move just as easily as the Enterprise. Yet with a system like this I'm basically being told, "your cube is wrong, redo it or else." In other words, it artificially slows the Cube and harms it's mobility purely by existing when that wasn't a thing before. It steals the benefits of my engineering from me by artificially limiting me to a lower speed. In other words, it comes off was wanting certain "wrong" build types nerfed. Thus you have now robbed people of some of the build freedom they've had since the start of SE and I'm sorry but I don't see that as a good thing and never will. As is in the current form there is no benefit to it. It's the cube eating a straight unavoidable nerf no matter what. Where as with the forces of lift in play or similar I could at least turn the edge of the cube to face forward somewhat like an arrow head.

To a degree I will actually agree that player experience should be more important than difficulty. In fact I said earlier that there are absolutely times when fun should trump realism. Without some kind of benefits to balance it out, this is where fun should trump realism. Drag is certainly realistic, but if it gets in the way of fun, it shouldn't be a thing. In this instance you're talking about something that can drastically effect someone's build purely by existing. This isn't the same as adding a new weapon, an energy shield, new engine/thruster type, or similar. Those things are something you either have or you don't and can choose to use or not, or simply turn off. There are certain benefits and trade offs to using either that new weapon, energy shield, or engine type. Something like drag on the other hand CAN harm a build purely by existing by making it automatically worse through no fault of the builder. Your only options are to either change your build or turn it off. There is no simply co-existing with it in your world.

A key problem here is that what is fun is extremely subjective. In this instance with aerodynamics you're talking something that can harm grids purely by it existing where it's telling people, "change your build or else." It goes beyond just difficulty increase and is not the same as simply adding a new block type. The new block types only matter if you or your playgroup choose to use them. Likewise with aerodynamics you either rebuild or turn it off, there is no in-between. Where we differ is I don't find difficulty increase purely for the sake of difficulty increase to be fun in games like SE. Why would I want less build freedom by slapping on a system with no benefits? In games like Division as an example, the higher difficulty is rewarded with better loot, thus there is reason to want to do it. In this instance, what is my payoff for casting my vote for this proposal? The answer is none as is currently.

@Captainbladej52 - Hey Cap... I get that you prefer to fly huge ships and hate the idea of someone having an advantage over you in something, especially a pvp advantage since you seem to hate pvp in SE... but instead of launching strait in to the "punish people for the crime of building incorrectly" tirade you like to use, I might suggest a more constructive argument. Repeatedly flipping out at people for wanting a strait up engineering challenge in an engineering game will not win you any allies.

Also, not a shield thread, and while I suspect people arguing physics and realism will oppose having them on by default in a vanilla game, precisely nobody will care if its just a part of the game you have to turn on for your own server.

@Everyone Else - Cap does however at least have a point when it comes to atmospheric physics. Just having drag is what a lot of mods do in SE1, and having your speed capped to something tiny because you are slightly larger than the rocket-propelled bobsleigh the host thought should be what everyone flies if they want to go normal speeds with no other upsides gets annoying quickly. If we're adding drag then we'll need more atmospheric physics to take advantage of for a design's benefit in order to encourage its use in the general player-populace, and we'll probably need to be generous with where drag starts to be a significant thing lest we accidentally soft-cap the atmospheric speed of everyone's sci-fi F16s to 85m/s because they are larger than a toboggan. And if we're doing proper atmospheric physics then it should probably be off by default in vanilla, people tend to give up and quit the game before they realize that aircraft using wings for lift typically need things like stabilizers and pilots that know to bank when they turn instead of just trying to yaw 90 degrees before wondering why they suddenly are learning about lithobraking the hard way.

@Tael: There you go trying to project things onto me that I never said. Nowhere anywhere did I ever mention pvp in all of this, that's purely a you thing. You can accuse me of flipping out all you want, but if I see something that's a bad idea I'm going to call it out, and as proposed here this is a half baked idea. You yourself admit that it needs to be further polished and thought out more so what's the issue?

I don't know how many times I can say it, I'm not opposed to the idea of aerodynamics provided there are actual benefits to it instead of just pure drag. Problem is here there are no positive benefits to it as said above. As proposed here it's all downside with no benefits that has the potential to severely harm grids of others by purely existing and artificially limiting their speed if one doesn't build in a way dictated by the said proposal, in this case aerodynamic. Thus robbing people of build freedom we've had since the start of SE. So yes I'm going to have issues with that as will the vast majority of people.

Now since you want to look at this from a pvp angle as well, let's do that briefly. Let's suppose I find myself in a pvp situation. Let's also suppose someone figured out a blind spot in one of my ships and did the proper engineering to design a grid that can not only get to said blind spot but stay in it and they win as a result, then cool they earned that. What's not cool is demanding a core aspect of the game be altered to give them an advantage they otherwise wouldn't have purely so they can get said win. I gave the Borg Cube vs Enterprise E example above. In reality the Ent E is going to fly circles around the cube, but this isn't always so in SE. In game if I've put the proper engineering in I can get it moving just as well as the E even in atmo. If the E pilot figures out a weakness of the cube and exploits and is able to down the cube then cool. What's not cool is going to Keen and demanding my cube's speed be limited dramatically to 200m/s or less while the E is still able to do the full 300m/s. Something like that would be wrong in a pvp or pve situation. This proposal as formed above would have exactly that effect on both sides of the game and is a bad idea all around. If you're going to do aerodynamics, don't do it half baked. If one wants something that could potentially harm another's grid by purely existing like this proposal, there better be comparable benefits to it or it's an automatic no go. No idea is owed support for simply existing or being proposed.

@Captainbladej52:

"...trying to project things onto me that I never said."

-"Projecting" is typically to attribute your own opinions (or flaws) to others. I enjoy pvp, prefer small ships, and believe different build-styles should involve different advantages and drawbacks. You have made clear on numerous occasions in other threads how you generally like to build big stuff, how you generally dislike pvp in SE, and how you dislike anything that provides a significant advantage in other people's favor stemming from discrepancies in build-style. As I am plainly your opposite in these areas, I don't think you are using the word "projecting" properly.

"I'm not opposed to the idea of aerodynamics provided there are actual benefits to it instead of just pure drag."

-This is the right way to do it, you explain your point clearly and politely in this paragraph, and it makes your point more convincing. Well done.

"If one wants something that could potentially harm another's grid by purely existing..."

-...And then you start pushing it again here. Acid-rain harms a grid purely by existing, being made to fly slow without other surrounding modifiers doesn't, is just annoying. Also, nobody has said they're owed anything. People have made their respective cases, they can keep trying, but "No idea is owed support for simply existing or being proposed." isn't a polite end to an otherwise civil discussion/debate.

"In game if I've put the proper engineering in I can get it moving just as well as the E even in atmo."

-Is this meant to be a request that increasing the amount of thrusters your cube has should allow it to go faster in an environment with drag? Because it has already generally been implied that is how it will work by virtue of applying a "drag-force" instead of just a strait speed-cap.

So, with all of that out of the way, I believe you and I are in agreement. Atmospheric affects on a ship are cool, but must include more than just drag-force or it will just be more annoying than anything.

@Tael: "Projecting" is typically to attribute your own opinions..."

You're right it's not just projecting that you're doing. It's also use of red herring. No one in here mentioned pvp prior to you, so that is purely a you thing and use of a red herring. It's wholly irrelevant and simply grasping at a strawman by trying to read words into my argument that I never made or said. You say you're not projecting, then explain this: "and how you dislike anything that provides a significant advantage in other people's favor stemming from discrepancies in build-style."

Where did I say this in the above? Please quote the exact line. Generally speaking a smaller and lighter grid is going to have an easier time getting up to speed and stopping than a larger heavier grid will. This is nothing new and has been this way since the start of SE. Simultaneously there are some larger grids that have done the proper engineering to be able to match the performance of the smaller lighter grids, but at the requirement of greater resources and engineering to do so. I also plainly said before that if I'm flying a larger grid into a pvp situation for whatever reason, and the other guy is able to do the proper engineering to find a blind spot in my larger grid and he's able to stay in that blind spot and secure the win, then he earned that win. So the idea that I have an issue with different grid types and sizes having advantages/trade-offs is simply false. What I DO have an issue with is if someone whines and complains demanding a change to core mechanics to get a win where they otherwise couldn't before. See the previous example of the equally matched Borg Cube vs the Enterprise E. If our cube pilot is constantly beating the E pilot, and the E pilot then demands changes to the mechanics to give him an advantage he otherwise wouldn't have, that's an automatic no go.

"And then you start pushing it again here. Acid-rain harms a grid purely by existing, being made to fly slow without other surrounding modifiers doesn't, is just annoying."

You're getting ahead of yourself here. I've made it crystal clear this whole time where I stand. Adding something that has no potential benefit at all that can harm a grid purely by existing, that is difficulty just for the sake of difficulty, is not something I find fun and is something I'm going to oppose 99% of the time. See the food system introduced to SE1 and that will be in SE2. Had the SE1 food system been purely a case of "eat/drink this or die" I would've been opposed to it since it's adding something to manage purely to manage something. However they introduced buffs to go along with the system so that there are benefits to interacting with it. In the case of your acid rain example or in this case the OP's drag suggestions, what potential positive benefits could come from them? What is my upside to having this system on or using it? If there is no upside at all, then that is bad design in my book and is not something I will change my mind on. If something is being proposed that could potentially harm the build freedom we have now purely by it existing, then there needs to be potential benefits to it or it's a bad idea. There is only a microscopic window of exceptions to that rule in my book. In this instance, leaving it at purely drag and nothing else is a bad idea.

"Also, nobody has said they're owed anything. People have made their respective cases, they can keep trying, but "No idea is owed support for simply existing or being proposed." isn't a polite end to an otherwise civil discussion/debate."

Just as they're free to keep trying, I'm also free to keep saying it's a bad idea if it's a bad idea.

"Is this meant to be a request that increasing the amount of thrusters your cube has should allow it to go faster in an environment with drag? Because it has already generally been implied that is how it will work by virtue of applying a "drag-force" instead of just a strait speed-cap."

Slow down for a moment and re-read what I said because you're getting ahead of yourself. What I said was this. Take a Borg Cube build and an Ent E build and put them next to each other. In the canon of Trek the Ent E will fly circles around that cube. However what is canon to Trek may not always directly translate to SE. Meaning the cube pilot can put in the proper engineering to match the Ent E build in every conceivable way, maneuvering, firepower, acceleration, braking power, and so on, to the point that that functionally they're the same. It's just a matter of which one you prefer. For the original comparison, it's assumed the Borg Cube and Ent E builds are as equal as can be in every area, weapons, speed, weight and so on. As is right now without aerodynamics being a thing, this means our hypothetical cube and E require roughly the same amount of power/fuel to get to max speed even in atmo. If we introduce aerodynamics in the form of a drag only system, now the effectiveness of the cube has been drastically reduced due to an outside force through no fault of the builder or their engineering. Now our cube is being artificially limited compared to the E that suffers no effective changes. In other words, someone put their finger on the scales to give an advantage that otherwise wasn't present before and wouldn't be present if not for said change. That is bad design. Hence why I've said if we're going to do aerodynamics, it needs to be the full thing and not something half-baked like this.