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.

@Captainbladej52 ...And we're back to this... very well.

"...it's not just projecting that you're doing... No one in here mentioned pvp prior to you, so that is purely a you thing and use of a red herring."

-Were you hoping that falsely accusing someone of what you're currently doing (projecting) would distract from the topic at hand? (red herring)

Instead of just blindly throwing things other people have used against you, try thinking things out more carefully and giving polite responses, if you can't then let it drop and put that energy toward something more important. It's your choice I suppose, the easy way or the right way, the modern style of "discussion" that is just blind accusations and fallacies that comes back to bite you when you're wrong, or the old-style careful and thought out discussion that convinces people who actually think and earns you their respect even if you're wrong. Your choice.

"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."

-I recognize balance can often take the form of a rock-paper-scissors scenario for builds, other people will probably have the advantage against what I build in a fight quite often, and that is a good thing because winning all the time would get boring quickly. Engineering something to work in concert with a particular strategy to overcome an opponent's inherent advantages against you is half the fun.

"Where did I say this in the above? Please quote the exact line."

-Does skipping over the part where I mentioned your position other threads and asking for your position in this thread constitute another red-herring? Or do you mean to tell me you've changed your stance on pvp now? If its the latter then I do apologize for my error and would love to hear your thoughts on how best to balance force-multipliers like e-war, mobility disruption (both jump-interdiction and conventional thrust inhibitors), heat, and stealth/detection in a pvp-environment, but that is a conversation for another thread.

"...harm the build freedom we have now purely by it existing..."

-There's a difference between harming build-freedom and harming a grid. You need to be more clear about which one you mean, lest your argument come across as nonsensical outrage.

"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."

-And so I am also free to call you out and troll you over your poor behavior.

"Take a Borg Cube build and an Ent E build..."

-You should probably have given the additional qualifiers before, without them it sounded like you were comparing a 675-ish meter long arrowhead with nacelles to a 3kmx3kmx3km cube. It also sounds like you think "engineering" two very different ships to have similar characteristics means "identical parts = Identical performance" instead of taking two wildly different sets of parts and making them achieve the same net output in one area while recognizing this will cause them to have very different stats in others (except when you suggested engineering a way in to blind-spots given two effectively identical ships earlier, which is instead tactics/piloting).

That said... congratulations. In talking about engineering something interesting and aerodynamic vs engineering what is effectively the new-player-standard brick you have convinced me that we should have atmospheric drag, even if it doesn't add advantages anywhere else stat-wise. Necessity is the mother of invention, and in providing a simple obstacle we will encourage more people to engineer things in more interesting ways to overcome that obstacle while still achieving the performance they want else ware. It will of course need careful adjustment to ensure it doesn't accidentally turn in to "everyone not flying a hydrogen-rocket-needle gets capped to 80m/s", and we'll probably want some way to streamline calculations so that someone checker-boarding detail cubes over a 1-1 EVE Titan doesn't crash the game trying to calculate the drag it would experience, and so holes getting blown in a ship doesn't bog things down with drag-recalculations during a big shootout, but if done right it will improve things significantly.

-So now that you have convinced me to disagree with you, you have two options:

You can keep arguing, and I will keep responding, and together we can keep this thread at the top of the discussion-board until enough people see and vote on it to get it added in to the game... Or you can leave it where it is, and put your time and energy toward something more important. The decision is yours.

@captainbladej52 your previous response is precisely it is not worth to waste time trying to have a discussion with you, you completely ignore what everyone is saying and just keep on repeating the same things and your approach to this discussion is in bad faith, as proven by the reasons below:

- no matter how many times it gets explained to you, you keep saying that we "just want to punish people for building incorrectly",

- you keep on moving the goalpost as to what you actually want us to explain,

- you keep on using false logic, such as "if you don't mind this to be toggleable, then you should also want energy shields to be added as a toggleable option", when an IN GAME TOGGLEABLE PLANET MECHANIC (such as aerodynamic physics) is completely different to an in game item existing and having functionality or not, that is a perfect thing to be modded in if someone wants it,

Throughout every single one of my conversations with you, rarely have you actually acknowledged anything I have said, just used it as ammunition to "prove yourself right". And those rare times you do, it is only a way for you to move the goalpost, because I don't think you actually want any answers, I think your mind is already made up and you don't need a more "thorough explanation", you just want it not to be added at all, and that's alright.

And having aerodynamic physics would give you "buffs" as you call it. re-entry would be made safer and more fuel efficient, you could glide in an atmosphere again saving fuel. And it just doesn't make sense to have an atmosphere and make it have no effect on the environment. Imagine entering the ocean in VS3, and not feeling the environment change (hydrodynamics). The experience would be shallow and empty. Same with atmospheres - you need to feel that you are moving from outer space into a different area, and you need to feel that you are moving from air to water, otherwise it is just all the same and it makes no difference whether you are on the moon, in space, on a planet or underwater. Personally, I always play with the aerodynamics mod, as well as the re-entry addon. The game is not as fun without it, as I am using a speed mod together with that, and flying at 1000 m/s through an atmosphere with just my jetpack makes little sense to me and is quite illogical.

This is my last back and forth message with you, per the reasons stated above. It seems like you do not want to have a conversation about the implications of having such an amazing system as a core part of the game, I feel that you just want to prove yourself right by any means necesarry, even when it means doing what I explained above.

ps. short message to @Tael

It is not worth to engage with them, when they don't approach this subject seriously. You can explain everything perfectly, as I think that you have and it still will not be satisfactory, as their mind is already made up.

@Tael: "And so I am also free to call you out and troll you over your poor behavior."

"So now that you have convinced me to disagree with you, you have two options:"

Congratulations you just played yourself and admitted to the entirety of the forum you're just a troll and are really the one engaging in bad faith. As for your second bit, oh noes a man on the internet with an over-inflated sense of self importance tried to give me an ultimatum. Whatever will I do. /sarcasm.

@Exepixel: "your previous response is precisely it is not worth to waste time trying to have a discussion with you,"

If you truly believe this, why did you type out the rest of your response?

"you completely ignore what everyone is saying and just keep on repeating the same things and your approach to this discussion is in bad faith, as proven by the reasons below:"

I could just as easily say the same thing about you or others asking the same question such as "what do you mean by positives and buffs" over and over expecting a different result.

"no matter how many times it gets explained to you, you keep saying that we "just want to punish people for building incorrectly","

This is because that's how half-baked requests like this read to me anytime they're made. I've said that the OP may legitimately mean well, however whether he means well or not the effect is the same. You can explain a bad idea a billion different ways, and it's still going to be bad. Anytime I've seen proposals like this, they've almost all been near carbon copy/paste of the same reasonings about how certain build types should face limits to their speed, their durability etc where no previous limits existed before, thus effectively trying to use mechanics like this to enforce a defacto "correct" way of building, which always conveniently tries to force others to play like them. There's never any thought about the wider game as a whole and reasons given to make people WANT to use the system. I'm basically being asked to give up some of the build freedom I have now for nothing in return but a lesser quality of game and restricted freedom compared to before.

"you keep on moving the goalpost as to what you actually want us to explain,"

There is no goalpost moving here save in your mind. I've stated plainly that if something is being proposed that could harm builds purely by existing and/or harm build freedom we've had since the start of SE, I'm going to be opposed to it 99% of the time. I will also ALWAYS be opposed to things like Jump Inhibitors whose only purpose is to troll other people. See previously the food system. Before it came out I said I would be opposed to it if it was just another copy/paste "eat/drink or die" kind of system with no benefits to it, as "you don't die" on its own is not a benefit. It's something to manage purely to have something to manage. Thankfully however Keen added some buffs to provide upsides to the new systems to make people want to engage with them.

When I ask people to "please explain what potential benefits there would be to this system in addition to the downsides. why would I want to interact with this system?" I mean exactly that. Why should I add my vote to the list of people wanting a system like this that has the potential to negatively impact me? What is my tradeoff and benefit to do thing this? Is there some kind of potential upside to the system such as I eat negative effect X, but I get positive benefit Y in return. Or I get negative effect X and positives Y and Z. So far all I've seen is with this incarnation of the proposal was negatives with no positives. Like being asked to trade a Ferrari for a burnt out Station Wagon. Since I value the build freedom we've enjoyed for over a decade now like a Ferrari, why would I ever trade said Ferrari for something immensely inferior in quality/value?

"you keep on using false logic, such as "if you don't mind this to be toggleable, then you should also want energy shields to be added as a toggleable option", when an IN GAME TOGGLEABLE PLANET MECHANIC (such as aerodynamic physics) is completely different to an in game item existing and having functionality or not, that is a perfect thing to be modded in if someone wants it,"

I cited the shield example because I have seen you and others before say "no shields" even if they could be toggled off, or were toggled off by default. Yet here you and others are saying "it could be toggled off for people who don't like it". How is it "you can just turn it off/on" is valid here as a defense and compromise for those that may not like drag/aerodynamics, but somehow when suggested with shields people take issue? Either it's a valid defense/compromise for both of them, or it's not valid for either of them, so which is it?

"I think your mind is already made up and you don't need a more "thorough explanation", you just want it not to be added at all, and that's alright."

If what's being proposed is purely the force of drag with no further benefits then of course I don't want it to be added because it's a bad idea. As I said previously, if something is all downsides with no positives then yes I'm going to be opposed to it 99% of the time. Because as I said before it harms/robs from the build freedom we have now, and it comes off as wanting to punish people for not building "correctly" when only downsides are listed or talked about. If the OP or whoever actually intends for there to be upsides, then they need to say so and talk about those because I'm not a mind reader nor is anyone else. If all they talk about is A B and C, I can't simply assume D E and F are also intended.

"And having aerodynamic physics would give you "buffs" as you call it. re-entry would be made safer and more fuel efficient, you could glide in an atmosphere again saving fuel."

Dear sweet merciful Clang on a cracker why didn't you lead with this? THIS ^ THIS RIGHT HERE is what I'm talking about when I ask folks to cite potential benefits. Now we see that there are at least 2 potential benefits vs the downsides. Now that we know this the next thing I would ask is this, are there other benefits or is it just this? Also what kind of ballpark numbers would we be talking about on average? We can debate final numbers, but in at least quantifying those 2 benefits there's an actual productive start to something. I can see at least some attempt to give equal or greater value back in benefit vs what I would be giving up by using the system. Like trying to match the value of our hypothetical Ferrari or even exceed it.

"And it just doesn't make sense to have an atmosphere and make it have no effect on the environment."

Depends on the type of game and how deep they're trying to make it. Not every game needs something like that to be fully fleshed out to be fun or good. If I'm playing CoD, Battlefield, Ghost Recon, World Of Warships, or similar games, I don't care about the atmosphere's effects on the environment because that's not the focus of the game.

"Imagine entering the ocean in VS3, and not feeling the environment change (hydrodynamics). The experience would be shallow and empty. Same with atmospheres - you need to feel that you are moving from outer space into a different area, and you need to feel that you are moving from air to water, otherwise it is just all the same and it makes no difference whether you are on the moon, in space, on a planet or underwater."

I'm assuming by VS3 you mean vertical slice 3. If it's something else feel free to say so. With the obligatory statement out of the way, saying you need to "feel" like you're moving from one to another is an extremely open-ended and subjective statement on its own. What you may consider immersive and necessary for immersion I may not and vice versa. That said, if all you care about is feeling like you're going from one medium/region to another this can be accomplished in a variety of ways. As someone with dev experience, less can be more. If all people care about is some type of indications that they're moving from region to region, you could have visual air streak effects appear across a cockpit to simulate high speed movement in atmo. You can have minor bits of visual shake and rattling noises. Going from space to atmo you can give a visual re-entry effect if one wished. With water you can do the visual effects of diving in and making splash noises among other things. While I'm being very generic in the explanation, all of these are very very basic additions/changes that can be made right now that won't restrict build freedom and without having to do something as resource intensive as a full aerodynamic system. Now you might say that aerodynamics would be more fun, which okay fine. At the same time if the concern is the "feel" of moving from one region/medium to another, one must concede that there are lower tech solutions that can also work, even if the preference is for the higher tech one.

"Personally, I always play with the aerodynamics mod, as well as the re-entry addon. The game is not as fun without it, as I am using a speed mod together with that, and flying at 1000 m/s through an atmosphere with just my jetpack makes little sense to me and is quite illogical."

If you enjoy those mods then good on you for finding something you like. Personally I don't need that sort of thing to have fun. If folks want to propose it be added to the base game as I've proposed shields in the past, then cool. If folks are going to propose that system though, give me and others reason to want to use it. If you want folks to get behind the idea of it being added even though it has the potential to negatively impact their grids and builds that already exist, give them reasons to want it. Show them how the value they get in return is worth the tradeoffs. The problem with this proposal as was stated by the OP is that there wasn't enough focus on the value received in return for supporting the system being added.

"This is my last back and forth message with you, per the reasons stated above. It seems like you do not want to have a conversation about the implications of having such an amazing system as a core part of the game, I feel that you just want to prove yourself right by any means necesarry, even when it means doing what I explained above."

When seeing things like this proposed, I'm analyzing it from the perspective of a player, and also someone with dev experience. I'm going to want to know specifics and I'm going to push for them. If I feel someone hasn't thought something out as well as they should have or there are major issues with said proposal, I'm going to say so. If folks want to be offended by that, then that's a them problem.

You say that I don't want to have a conversation about having this as a core part of the game, yet I wouldn't have asked questions in the first place if that were the case. I would just say it's a bad idea and that would be it. If this is such the good idea you want me and others to believe it is, then sell it to me like you're a car salesman trying to get me to buy. I've mentioned some of what I see as downsides in the system. So what are some of the upsides? What value would I get in return by throwing my vote onto the pile for a system like this? You've mentioned fuel saving and gliding? Is that it or are there more? If folks talked more about the value one gets in addition to the tradeoffs and fleshed it out more, this would've been a different conversation.

@ExePixel

I have debated Cap several times across several threads, and am very much aware of their proclivities and behavior. They certainly try my patience at times, but I find as I get older that irl people seem less and less willing to talk and ever quicker to throw insults, accusations, and physical attacks. I figure when the dust eventually settles it will probably be useful to have practiced patience and respect before it was needed to pick up the pieces... Also, Cap does occasionally demonstrate that they have learned, and they do occasionally bring up a good point (though as the above proves when their point made me decide we should have drag, what they bring up doesn't always go the way they want).

@Captainbladej52

"Congratulations you just played yourself and admitted to the entirety of the forum you're just a troll and are really the one engaging in bad faith."

-It didn't click for you when I explicitly said I was going to troll you for poor behavior in the previous thread we debated in that I was willing to troll you for poor behavior? Was the subsequent Inigo-Montoya meme not obvious enough? You behave politely, we discuss and debate in a polite, respectful, and civil manner. You behave poorly, I troll you for it. Cause and effect.

Also, I have yet to accuse you of bad faith arguments, that was Exepixel's argument. I agreed with you, and then I disagreed with you. An argument was made, and it changed my mind. As for you, you want what you want, and I am quite entirely certain that convincing you just on the merits of drag alone is impossible. Fortunately I don't have to convince you. Others will read my replies, and with some clear explanation and luck they too may see that drag isn't that bad and would encourage more thoughtful and interesting designs. Necessity is the mother of invention.

"...oh noes a man on the internet... tried to give me an ultimatum."

-Nah, I just wanted to make sure that choice and subsequent results were obvious for you. You missed the thread involving pvp before I brought it up so I figured the extra clarity wouldn't hurt. But hey, now we can keep the post up top for that much longer to get more votes, so it works for me.

Anyways, atmospheric drag is a fairly simple challenge to overcome that will encourage people to engineer more interesting shapes and designs to compensate for it while still achieving whatever other objective the designer wants the ship to achieve.

Not the same thing exactly. While I do really like full atmospheric physics I think the simplified form I suggested is a better fit for the game, because SE is meant to be quite easy to play. I'll leave a like though, because it'd still be a win for me personally.