Restricted altitude biome or planet.

A plasma field would be good option similar to how the Sun,s corona is much hotter than the surface of the Sun, but obviously not as extreme as those temperatures. A corrosive layer band of atmosphere would be a good option too, but I do not know how to explain why it would stay up above the 60m height, unless the atmosphere below 60m was much denser than normal air, maybe.

With either, how visible should the danger zone be? The plasma type could be coloured like an aurora, I am not sure what colour the corrosive type should be or how transparent.

Yes, that's exactly how it looks here sometimes...

The atmosphere cannot be "flammable."

But it is OK to have a methane sea !

yeah, it would burn entire planet.... but to justify non-working hydrogen engines I'm sure there can be something with atmosphere composition... I'm not chemist but I'm sure there are physical conditions which could block or limit burning of hydrogen without any sci-fi magic, something like high concentration of neutral gases or gases which react with hydrogen, ash, acids etc.

This is a problem for many... They are not chemists, they are not physicists, they are not mathematicians... Are they uneducated?

A hydrogen (oxygen-hydrogen) engine does not care about the surrounding environment. Combustion takes place in the engine's combustion chamber and only hot exhaust gases escape "outside," creating useful thrust in the nozzle.

In order for a methane atmosphere to ignite, you need something in the atmosphere that methane can burn with. For example, oxygen... But then you need to reasonably and logically explain why the methane-oxygen atmosphere did not ignite earlier, for example from lightning, meteorites, or sparks from avalanches. And you will pile nonsense on nonsense just to justify the initial nonsense.

@Semtex can you explain how the SE hydrogen engine works in space, it does not use oxygen and no water vapour is produced.

So we are off to a good start.

The danger zone layer is there to create a useable area below with a play style that has different challenges from other areas, It limits the use of flight in preference for ground based activities.

If you have an improved suggestion on how to make the danger zone layer work then you are welcome to do so.

Ask Keen about the exact function. And you can also ask about the function refinery right away...

And you will pile nonsense on nonsense just to justify the initial nonsense. That's not a game I'm willing to play with you.

Nature has its methods and with electricity it has double layers.

Read the text again.

@Deon: While I'm glad to see some clarification, I still standby what I said before about this not being needed. Too ambiguous for little to no payoff.

Whilst there are many different types of food outlet I choose not to use them all. I have little to no objection to the ones that I do not use existing, I am glad that someone find a use for them, and I know that it is not my part to say to those people that they should not choose to get food from those places that I do not. I in big world with many things choice exists, not everything in that world is fashioned around my needs. There are plenty of things for me to do without trying to restrict others from what they would like to do as long as there is no harm done.

Some players really enjoy rover based play and rover on rover pvp, restricting flight focuses on rover based gameplay. This restriction would not exist across the whole Almagest system, only a small part of it, somewhere easily avoided where rover enthusiasts can have some fun.

The spawn start system in SE1 is by choice, a random spawn only occurs when a death with no active spawn point exists that the player is eligible to use. Randomly spawning in a flight restricted biome in SE2 would be most unlikely.

There is always the argument of priorities and resources, but that could equally apply to so many great things that either are in the game or could be. Choice, variety and possibility builds a player base that keeps a game going.

Exactly, the powerful open-world sandbox game should give as many options as possible and allow everyone to try things and discover their fun. The rover-only planet was supposed to be Pertam in SE1 but the restriction of slightly stronger gravity was not enough to make flying superior over rovers. And this is general issue with SE balance - flying is just too cheap and too easy.

On the other hand driving over most of vanilla planets is nightmare.

So all we need is just a corner of universe where opposite conditions are introduced - flying is expensive and difficult because of atmosphere, wind, dense clouds, NPCs, whatever... so surface vehicles are dominant with suitable terrain.

@Deon: First, I appreciate you trying to be logical about this. That said I have to call shenanigans on some of the logic being used here.

"Some players really enjoy rover based play and rover on rover pvp, restricting flight focuses on rover based gameplay. This restriction would not exist across the whole Almagest system, only a small part of it, somewhere easily avoided where rover enthusiasts can have some fun."

There's a couple logical faults here. First, these people want to play with rovers or do rover pvp can already do so right now without any additional settings being introduced, or the ability to fly being restricted for everyone else by default. If those people want rover based play or pvp but can't trust the people they're playing with to not cheat by bringing in a flying grid, they need new people to play with. Now if Keen wants to add an additional world setting or server settings for server owners to tweak as they please or restrict flight outright for their servers, then by all means. But something like this being enabled by default where people are restricted from flying purely because of a small group of folks who want nothing but rovers is an automatic no go and not a valid reason on its own for something like this.

Again this is Space Engineers not Rover Engineers. While I have nothing against rovers personally, you're asking for something that only a small handful of people are going to realistically use by your own admission. Once more if folks want rovers to be used more, then nothing is stopping them from using said rovers and playing with like minded people. If someone "cheats" by bringing a flying machine, they can eject that person from their servers.

"Whilst there are many different types of food outlet I choose not to use them all. I have little to no objection to the ones that I do not use existing, I am glad that someone find a use for them, and I know that it is not my part to say to those people that they should not choose to get food from those places that I do not. I in big world with many things choice exists, not everything in that world is fashioned around my needs. There are plenty of things for me to do without trying to restrict others from what they would like to do as long as there is no harm done."

While I appreciate the example and what you're saying here at the first, you're missing a couple glaring things.

First, you're correct in that the existence of multiple food places doesn't obligate people to use them all. My preference for Burger King doesn't mean people who like McDonalds or Dairy Queen should be precluded from doing so, or that I should be blocked from BK.

You're correct that not everything is fashioned around the needs of one person. However the glaring issue and difference you're not seeing here is that by wanting flight restrictions to favor the rovers, you are absolutely causing harm to the play of others. Something like this cannot be on by default and would have to be a world/server setting otherwise you're forcing rover style gameplay on people whether you mean to or not and are basically telling people "yeah only we get to play with this, you don't". I'm sorry but I can't get behind that.

"The spawn start system in SE1 is by choice, a random spawn only occurs when a death with no active spawn point exists that the player is eligible to use. Randomly spawning in a flight restricted biome in SE2 would be most unlikely."

Thing is, if you truly don't want to harm the play of others, and assuming this was left on by default, you would have to guarantee that people can't be spawned in the no fly zone against their will. Otherwise by spawning people in said no fly zone, you've just greatly hampered their ability to play the game at all for what exactly? If someone does get unlucky enough to be spawned there, you're basically telling them "too bad you're stuck here now" unless they want to eat another death and respawn. And again sorry but folks shouldn't have to deal with that just to appease an admittedly small number of people that can already have what they wish right now with a little creativity and players being honest with each other. What you're describing is essentially making an entire zone a death trap for anyone that lands there or gets stuck there through no fault of their own.

"There is always the argument of priorities and resources, but that could equally apply to so many great things that either are in the game or could be. Choice, variety and possibility builds a player base that keeps a game going."

There's choice and variety, and there's forcing gameplay on others. If they want to give people more server/world options to add restricted flight zones, then cool. Let the more hardcore types flip a couple switches to make it as restrictive as they want, and leave the rest of us out of it. If I want to putt around in a rover, I'll putt around in a rover. If I want to zip around in a fighter through the air, I'm going to do it. There are already solutions to people who want to putt around in rovers or do rover pvp right now without having to use resources on something like this. It's not needed when people can just bust out their rovers and zip around in them, and make agreements with fellow players to stick to rovers for the purposes of pvp. Again if you can't trust the people you play with to not cheat, then you've got bigger problems. Like if I were to play with my regular friend group for Magic the Gathering and we all said "let's not use (deck type here) today" and then someone busts one out, the solution is to just not play with that guy.

I really can't understand why in open-world sandbox game people could want less options for play.

Don't like it? Don't go to this planet. Don't decide if this is small handful of people by size of own bubble - don't like the idea - don't upvote it.

It is decision of Keen if they like the idea or not. This is decision of Keen to allocate resources or not.

But why fighting with other player against one of many ideas which does not limit anything but just add more possibilities?

"Restricted altitude biome or planet"

It says clearly in the title - the idea is about dedicated planet or biome on it. Something which is trivial to do by game devs and very difficult for modders without proper ModAPI support. Don't like this planet? Don't spawn it in your world.

It is already spawned? No one is forced to land on this planet (especially SPACE engineers should stay away from planets) and if one lands then have to be prepared to deal with planetary conditions like gravity, weather effects, NPCs, or flight difficulty...

Arguments about random spawn without real knowledge how spawn selection will work in SE2?

In SE1 the place of spawn is always a choice unless it is restricted in world setting. By default people can select spawn place. But even if it is random - if one spawned in wrong place or feel like stuck, just respawn again and problem solved.

"It would be possible to descend or ascend at speed through the destructive zone"

It is clearly written in the idea description that is not about world setting to block flying over planets.

People can still fly through but need to be prepared for this. They have to engineer and adapt their ships to overcome the limitations.

If you do not play on planets or with rovers - maybe you are not aware that this issue exists but someone who plays this way noticed this and raised an idea how to improve this type of player experience.

Last but not least, when you play Magic the Gathering everyone is sitting at the same table at same time and most likely they know each other.

On multiplayer servers people are online at different times, sometimes they never met in person, sometimes they are just random dudes from the internet because many servers are open to public.

Players are spread over timezones and spread across a map and there is no way to tell if someone is "cheating" or "exploiting" without logs and manual investigation of admins.

Especially in PVP where destruction of other players grids is allowed and people actively seek for any possible advantage over others.

SE1 did not provide any tools or logs for management of multiplayer servers and executing or enforcing server policies. People had to develop Torch API and 3rd party plugins to get logs just for simple PVE-only policy enforcement.

And still then admins have to spend their free time to investigate each case, ban offenders, restore grids from backups etc.

If anti-cheat mechanics is part of game mechanics then there is no cheating possible at all and no 3rd party tools and no manual effort required to detect it. Just special planet, unique of its sort.

Really, why not?

@irreality: I'm so tired of intellectually dishonest and gaslighting posts like yours. If people don't immediately go along with an idea proposed there's always some variant of "you just don't understand it" or "why don't you want people to have options" or some variant of those and a few other infinitely recycled arguments. But let's break this down.

"I really can't understand why in open-world sandbox game people could want less options for play."

One of the first of the infinitely recycled arguments I mentioned above. It's never that some ideas are just bad, or that people just don't agree. Nah it's a nefarious conspiracy of people who want to rob everyone else of options. Seriously dude, this is not an argument you made, this is a gaslight. Even then, what good is 1,000+ world options if people never use 3/4 of them? Having options is one thing, but not every single idea warrants being added as a game option.

"Don't like it? Don't go to this planet. Don't decide if this is small handful of people by size of own bubble - don't like the idea - don't upvote it."

This is not an argument on its own and only goes so far. Even then I have not upvoted this nor do I plan to visit said area if it were ever added. As for your "don't say it's a small size" demand, the OP himself admitted it's a small amount of people are proposing this. Others have admitted far more people use flight capable grids than those who use rovers. So if you want to try to grandstand and get mad, get mad at your side for admitting more folks use flight capable grids than rovers. Do you seriously expect people to just pretend that folks haven't said that or acknowledged it? That's not how it works. More on this briefly.

"It is decision of Keen if they like the idea or not. This is decision of Keen to allocate resources or not."

Who is sitting here saying Keen doesn't have the right to add/remove things from the game? Point these mythical posts out to us and quote one of them. Be specific. Keen is free to add every single suggestion if they want, free to ignore every single suggestion going forward if they wish, or pick and choose which suggestions they add or don't. Not sure what you think you're trying to prove here other than trying to shout people down like you accuse me of in your next section. Keen is legally free to do as they please, and likewise we players are allowed to tell them it's a good/bad idea and vote accordingly with our wallets and online feedback.

"But why fighting with other player against one of many ideas which does not limit anything but just add more possibilities?"

First off, don't post a suggestion on a publicly viewable website like this if you're not willing to risk responses from the public you might not like. Just as you're free to make suggestions, others are free to voice their disagreement and say why they believe it to be a bad idea. No idea is owed support purely because it exists and whose idea it is, nor do you have a right to never face criticism of your ideas. Sorry but you're not that important. And simply because someone disagrees with you or criticizes your idea doesn't mean they're out to get you personally or trying to attack you personally. I really wish the mentality of "if you disagree you hate me" would die out already. I've disagreed with several proposals made by Deon, and there are some I have agreed with. Simply because I disagree with him doesn't mean I hate him. When I have disagreed with him, he's at least tried to give logical reasons for his case which has earned him my respect. I am not required to agree with him all the time, nor is he required to agree with me. Welcome to life. If you can't stand the idea someone may disagree with you, then get off the internet.

As for the bits in bold, these are verifiably false statements. You're literally asking for something that limits entire swaths of flight capable grids purely to soothe the demands of a small group of rover drivers. You're not adding more possibilities by rendering 3/4 of possible grids useless or nigh useless in said areas. If you have 5 units of something, you don't get 6 units by adding a (-1) negative one.

Now as to why I'm opposed to this particular idea, it's a nonsense thing to start with. There is no story explanation for why this place would be the way it is or even attempt to explain it. It's just an area that says "screw your grids" for no valid reason purely to cater to an admittedly small group of people. Plus that the rover people can have exactly what they want right now without having to do anything extra, and have it everywhere in the system. So tell me, who is really arguing for more options here?

"It says clearly in the title - the idea is about dedicated planet or biome on it. Something which is trivial to do by game devs and very difficult for modders without proper ModAPI support. Don't like this planet? Don't spawn it in your world."

Unfortunately for you I've actually created mods for SE and I specifically avoid tinkering with planets beyond just altering ore spawning tables due to the amount of annoyance it can be. I've also created content for various games for over 20 years now. I will never claim to know everything, but I know enough to tell you don't know as much as you think you do here. Is it impossible to add/create new celestial bodies, no it's not. As for modding API support, Keen literally gave us the same tools they're using to make SE2. The only things I believe some of the others said it can't do YET was create new custom block types or celestial bodies. Key word being yet. Also you clearly do not understand the overhead that adding an entirely new celestial body like a planet can be to a world after it's already generated. This is why if you had bothered to read what I actually said in some of my other replies you would see I plainly said something like what Deon is proposing would need to be a world option that's disabled by default, but something people can turn on if they wish, among other reasons. Once again, "don't spawn it" doesn't magically make it a good idea or disprove anything.

"Arguments about random spawn without real knowledge how spawn selection will work in SE2?

In SE1 the place of spawn is always a choice unless it is restricted in world setting. By default people can select spawn place. But even if it is random - if one spawned in wrong place or feel like stuck, just respawn again and problem solved."

Dude pick a lane and stick to it because you just contradicted yourself. You're sitting here arguing that we shouldn't debate potential issues with spawning in SE2 because we don't have full knowledge of how the completed product will look, and then just turned around and tried to argue about it. So are we supposed to be voicing potential concerns or not? Do we have the full finished SE2 in front of us, no we don't. No one with a brain has suggested otherwise. That said folks are going to compare to SE1 because it's what they know and supposed to be a game in the same franchise. It's a safe bet they're going to be very similar.

Now with that said, in SE1 as is right now. You can have an idea of where you're spawning, but without some kind of admin magic, you cannot control the exact coordinates you spawn at, only a general location. If I choose to spawn on earthlike, it could spawn me in a good location or an absolutely terrible one. If I spawn in space it could put me in a decent location or a terrible one. Likewise you said yourself SE2 is a different animal and we don't have the full system in front of us, so for all we know some poor schmuck could get stuck on this planet not knowing any better then having to eat another respawn he shouldn't have to be eating to start with had there been better info and safeguards in place.

"It is clearly written in the idea description that is not about world setting to block flying over planets.

People can still fly through but need to be prepared for this. They have to engineer and adapt their ships to overcome the limitations."

I'm aware of what was said, and originally the text of the post was much more ambiguous and suggested outright blocking flight in those potential zones, meaning one would have to essentially rocket through that region and pray you make it so you don't splat back down.

Second, this is still arguing for a mechanic to damage the grids of people who play differently than them and force a different playstyle for no good reason. I'm sorry but that's a crap idea in my book and you won't convince me otherwise. I'm a guy that enjoys the idea of energy shields and potentially energy weapons being added to game. A suggestion like this would be like my saying ships that don't use energy shield or energy weapons shouldn't be allowed to land on the water planet and their grids should be practically shredded if they do make it. Like no it doesn't work like that.

"If you do not play on planets or with rovers - maybe you are not aware that this issue exists but someone who plays this way noticed this and raised an idea how to improve this type of player experience."

They're not my most used grids by far, but yes I do play with rovers from time to time. Simply because people don't main a rover as their preferred method for getting around doesn't mean they're wrong. I've played long enough to know that if folks want to play with rovers as their main transportation method, nothing is stopping them from doing so. My ability to use a flight capable grid has zero effect on their ability to use a rover in the positive or negative. They're not obligated to use a flying grid, nor am I obligated to use a rover. I'm aware of why this was suggested and still stand by my statement it's a bad idea and doesn't need to be a thing.

"SE1 did not provide any tools or logs for management of multiplayer servers and executing or enforcing server policies. People had to develop Torch API and 3rd party plugins to get logs just for simple PVE-only policy enforcement."

This is verifiably false and you're either lying or are wholly ignorant on the tools available to server owners. If you want to argue that Keen could've given better controls earlier on, okay that's a valid argument at least. But to suggest they've done nothing at all is verifiably false. Right now in SE1, if I want to fire up a server for myself and friends, I can go into the settings and place limits on individual blocks, such as saying a grid can't have more than x amount of a specific thruster type, or it can only have x gatlings, y artillery, and z jump drives if I wish. I can even outright prevent certain block types from being used. So yes you absolutely can manage what types of blocks are placed. If you choose not to utilize those tools, that's a you problem and not a Keen problem.

"Last but not least, when you play Magic the Gathering everyone is sitting at the same table at same time and most likely they know each other.

On multiplayer servers people are online at different times, sometimes they never met in person, sometimes they are just random dudes from the internet because many servers are open to public.

Players are spread over timezones and spread across a map and there is no way to tell if someone is "cheating" or "exploiting" without logs and manual investigation of admins.

Especially in PVP where destruction of other players grids is allowed and people actively seek for any possible advantage over others."

"And still then admins have to spend their free time to investigate each case, ban offenders, restore grids from backups etc.

If anti-cheat mechanics is part of game mechanics then there is no cheating possible at all and no 3rd party tools and no manual effort required to detect it. Just special planet, unique of its sort.

Really, why not?"

Oh no, admins having to actually admin their servers, oh the horror. All of that block of nonsensical excuses tells me folks with your mindset want the title of server admin but none of the responsibility that goes with it.

First, if you are concerned about possibly having issues with people on public servers, your solution is to simply not play on public servers, find a public server with a mindset similar to yours, or host your own server where you only play with people you know and trust. You don't get to demand all public servers change just to suit you, you're not that important.

Second, for the bits in bold, heaven forbid admins have to actually sit down and do admin things. If you're worried about public servers, then I would suggest hosting your own with friends you can trust. You've already got ways to restrict certain blocks in the server settings and there are plenty of folks that can help you configure the options. You can always make agreements with those people to only use rovers and let only people on the server you trust. If you can't trust your own friends to not cheat, then that's a you problem and you need better friends. I brought out the MTG example to illustrate that point. If I don't want to risk playing against certain strategies or such that I don't like, I play with friends that I can trust and we don't use those strategies we hate. If someone cheats, we stop playing with that person, simple as that.

Third, you can have people submit their rover designs for inspection prior to being allowed to be used for said pvp competition. You can also go into the server settings and disable thrusters temporarily or permanently if you want to use rovers. If you decide to leave them on, I would think it's blatantly obvious if someone is cheating.

Lack of planning and unwillingness to use admin tools at your disposal does not constitute an emergency on my part or that of the rest of the community. You can already have your rover focused servers and worlds right now without the need for a special zone catering to your small community. You're simply refusing to use them and want Keen to mandate it for you when it's not their job. Now again if you want to ask for better tools, that we can certainly debate. But basically forcing an entire planet and large chunk of the system to essentially be marked as just for one tiny group of people, nah fam I can't get behind that. If you want to putt around in a rover, then drive a rover. If you want to play with other people, then find folks or friends with your same mindset and play with them. You can already have what you want right now without further action from Keen, if you're willing to do it.

Many years ago, when I was at school, I struggled to put pen to paper and produce many words. I suppose that I am a little envious of those that can write so much when given the incentive and the seeds of inspiration. If I were so able I would have put my imagination to book and shared the visions inside my head with others. From a simple idea can come the beginnings of a whole narrative. I hope that some of the ideas that I have written will spark in those that can write well, and enjoy doing so, to create the stories that I can not.

@Deon Beauchamp You may find it practical in instances such as this to look at it not as one long post, but rather as several smaller ones set one after the other and then posted all at once. Carefully breaking it down in to segments defined by singular ideas/points and then writing individual responses to said ideas is a good place to start.

@irreality.net I honestly wasn't looking at your posts because I saw the ".net" at the end of your name and thought you were a bot. Sorry about that. Also, Cap finds the idea of anything that inhibits their ability to fly gunbricks to be so blasphemous that they don't want other people to even have the option to play with it in their own worlds, so trying to debate them on the topic is typically pointless as you'll only get insults, fallacies, projection, and bad-faith arguments back.

I might advise instead just trolling them and then moving on to discus the idea with the people that will actually provide meaningful input (be it that they would prefer Keen put their time else ware for personal reasons, or how they would use the altitude cap in their own worlds and how they'd make it make sense story-wise).

@Captainbladej52

"...gaslight..."

Honestly I got about that far, scrolled down to see how long your post was, and decided I still don't care because it's just the same argument you use anywhere else against things you don't like. "Stuff I like should be default vanilla, fallacy, don't play if you don't like, fallacy, stuff I don't like shouldn't even be an option for others, fallacy...". Please get over yourself.

.

.

As for this altitude-cap idea... I don't really like rovers, too slow and easy to get stuck like a turtle on your back, not enough ability to strafe in anything other than perfectly flat terrain without multi-crewing, but if its an adjustable server or planet setting then an altitude-based damage/kill-field would be a lot less immersion-breaking than SE1's kill-cube for single planet servers (seriously, having to worry about altitude over mountains in one spot and being 20km in to space before it matters in another is just irritating).

It might be even more interesting as a survival-challenge if you could double-layer it to have dangerous maximum and minimum altitudes, making it only safe to touch down on mountain-tops and/or the odd floating island...

@Teal: If you want an example of gaslighting look no farther than your post. We get it dude, anyone who dares disagree with something you think should happen is some kind of heretic that uses nothing but logical fallacies or "just doesn't get it". It can't be that sometimes people just have bad ideas or someone just doesn't agree. Nah gotta be some kind of evil plot. As for fallacies, pot meet kettle. Your go to argument for everyone who dares disagree with you is "you just want to fly gunbricks" or similar even though you've yet to define what a "gunbrick" is anywhere. Also please quote for the class where I said "I like it therefore it should be vanilla, don't play if you don't like it". Because I see plenty of that going on here with you and irrealtiy. Take your own advice and get over your own self before you try to lecture us.

Good try. But katabatic and similar winds have a distinct daily and seasonal cycle.

In addition, the effect of wind on ground vehicles and human figures is significantly stronger than its effect on flying vehicles.

Friction with the surface will not save them; the airflow will move or overturn the vehicle. Vehicles can handle side winds of up to approximately 50 m/s, human figures up to 25 m/s.

Read my comment below (can't delete this post)

I think there could be constellations in which day and year cycles would not have an impact. For example, if the planet is tidally locked and always has the same side facing its star. (which would also be an exciting scenario because the planet would contain two extremely different climate zones as a result)

Regarding the wind speed on the ground, I think the terrain could meet the necessary requirements to allow ground vehicles but prevent flight. For example, with mountain ranges positioned at the right angle to act as protective walls.

Or just add NPCs who shoot down anyone who dares to fly through no-fly zone (with chances to escape or fight back)....

irreality - Yes, or the base of an ancient space civilization... The Firstborn...

that could work...

Kim Hansson - A rotationally locked planet has two climatically different sides, similar to Mercury, but it will also be like Mercury in other ways—without an atmosphere and without water.

This will happen very quickly after the planet's formation.

The process of rotational locking will take place in 50-500 million years, and at the same time, the planet will lose its magnetic field and, consequently, its water and atmosphere. The planet's magnetic field is a shield that protects its atmosphere from solar wind.

Time of tidal locking -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking

Why? Because for rotational locking to occur, the planet must be close to the star and therefore exposed to strong stellar ("solar") wind.

The habitable zone on the graph is calculated solely from the energy that the planet receives from its star, i.e. as the surface temperature between the freezing point and boiling point of water - and ignores all other conditions for "habitability."

No, that can't work...

1) Source of acid? Where does it come from?

2) When acid reaches the surface, it reacts with rocks and stops raining. And the more aggressive and concentrated the acid is, the faster the reaction with the rocks takes place.

3) There are clouds of sulfuric acid on Venus - that's true. But the acid only occurs at certain altitudes, and the acid rain never reaches the planet's surface. This is because when the acid reaches a certain temperature and pressure, it decomposes back into sulfuric trioxide and sulfur dioxide and water, and as the gases rise, they recombine into acid...

H2SO4 begins to decompose at a temperature of about 300°C and boils at 380°C. The temperature on the surface of Venus is 460-480°C. So the acid rain cycle takes place high above the planet's surface and can therefore exist for a long time.

Sulfurous acid H2SO3 decomposes completely at room temperature.

Just for your information – under terrestrial conditions, glass dissolves in water and weak carbonic acid in 3 to 300 thousand years, depending on the type of glass and the thickness of the wall.

Raw iron lasts for decades, exceptionally centuries, and under very favorable conditions around 5,000 years. But modern anti-corrosive steels can last for millions of years.

Raw iron has a loss of 1-100 µm/year depending on conditions, while high-quality anti-corrosive steels have a loss of 0.1-10 nm/year.

Translated with DeepL.com (free version)

I can't edit the previous post...

And the more aggressive and concentrated the acid is, the faster the reaction with the rocks takes place.

How quickly will this happen? Very quickly – in a few tens of millions of years.

Just look at our Earth. A long time ago, carbonic acid (H2CO3) rained down on Earth because there was a lot of CO2 in the early Earth's atmosphere, which could react with water. Carbonic acid reacted with rocks to form carbonates. Today, carbonates make up about 4% of the Earth's crust and an unspecified volume of the upper layers of the Earth's mantle. The amount of CO2 bound in the Earth's crust alone would create on Earth a pressure of about 50 atmospheres... and CO2 would make up at least 95% of the atmosphere

And Yes, ancient Earth had an atmosphere with a composition similar to that of Venus and Mars.

Take a look at the "Lost Colony" story scenario in SE1.

Story description https://spaceengineers.fandom.com/wiki/Lost_Colony_Scenario

When I played it, I spent dozens of hours using only ground vehicles. Simply because I didn't have enough key resources to build any meaningful flying vehicle. At the same time, the scope of the territory in which the story took place did not provide sufficient reason to try to build a flying vehicle.

After completing the story scenario, the necessary resources appeared and I was able to leave the planet.

So it is possible to limit flying within the story - simply by adjusting the available resources and assigning the right tasks in the story.

And the "story" is the only meaningful reason for an otherwise meaningless restriction.

This is true, but I do not want to stop players from flying altogether. I do want to make flying difficult to the extent of being disadvantaged when compared to rovers. The flying at height restriction would only apply to a single planet or moon or an unusual rare biome area. The thickness of the danger zone is to prevent an attack from above through the zone to the ground. Flight within the 60m is possible but hazardous. Environmental hazards/restrictions are useful to encourage problem solving and gameplay strategies. This is to provide a variety of situation during exploration, resource gathering and mission contracts. It may even be a good place for a players base, local knowledge giving the advantage.

The source of the danger is a game thing, sci-fi can inspire the imagination, what is not understood eventually will be explained, a mystery unveiled. Finding the unexplained is the dream of the scientist, and this is often how science is pushed forward. When everything is known the science stops and only knowledge is left...Space is a play ground that holds mysteries, we all hope to find the unexpected and the unexplainable, it is that which makes the explorer in us all.

I would also suggest dense clouds with reduced visibility. This already exist in SE2 and since altimeter and artificial horizon are not available yet it discourages flying a lot.

Many people in history have had their works referred to as nonsense only later to become revered either late in life or after they died.

I do not make this claim and yet I can enjoy the fantastic in the observed.

It might be even more interesting as a survival-challenge if you could double-layer it to have dangerous maximum and minimum altitudes, making it only safe to touch down on mountain-tops and/or the odd floating island... skip the physics and just go full on science-fantasy to dudes using space-ships to blow holes in medieval castles built atop floating islands so they can jet-pack in for a good ol' sword fight X)

The altitude thickness of the danger layer has to be greater that of ranged weapons. Other than that, no problem.

I enjoyed watching Stormhawks with my children many years ago.

When someone wants to destroy you at all costs, they will use remote-controlled weapons—guided missiles. There are dozens of such projects for SE1. From manually controlled to fully automatic. And when there is no other option, kamikaze pilots will step in...

In SE1, not only can you use remote control weapons, but you can get GPS coordinates from a satellite network from so far away your enemy has no clue they are about to be blown away by a bomb launched over 30 KM away.

Seems like a pointless hindrance to me... I mean, it's called 'space' engineers, not tank world...

There is nothing to stop combat conflicts from happening in outer space or the space on the ground. Any bomb dropped from space would need to be adequately protected from the danger zone too. Any GPS used would need to be acquired first. The bomb's guidance system would need to survive.

No one is preventing any one else from staying in space and having a good time in space, there is lots of room up in space, room to do spacey things. There are a reasonable amount of players that like the open space on the planet, and guess what they like wheeled vehicles too. They like driving around, carrying stuff and exploring the planet looking at the view just like going on a camping trip. This type of experience is not the same as when travelling at speed with an aerial perspective, both are valid and not normally mutually exclusive.

The danger zone is proposed as a as means to develop flexibility in game play styles and strategies, to test the players ability to adapt to an altered battle field with it's own restrictions. This will not be for everyone, but is optional, go there, don't go there. Saying other players can not have this is well....you work it out when some one says to you can not have this or that, it is like no fun. It is a game for many types of players after all.

First, you will need to discover the exact location of the enemy base under the storm. Second, you bomb dropped from a 30km distance will need to go through the storm. The bomb is a grid, same as your ship or anything. It will be affected by the wind or tear apart by the lightning or whatever severe weather conditions that might be in the game. I would say that the more massive your grid is, the more chances are to survive the storm, yet you would still need a lot of thrusters and fuel to overcome the wind and protect you from other hazards.

Assuming:

1. you can even do it at all
2. you know the location
3. there are no additional defenses blowing you up before you can reach the surface
4. you actually want to do this,

the cost of building such a "bomb" would probably be much bigger than the target you want to destroy or damage :)

Um, what do you mean first you need to know the location? I literally said you have the GPS coords via a satellite network... Or do you not know how antennas work in a network?

Secondly, I was only adding more depth to Semtex's comment, not giving you a specific scenario for your 'tank world' planet with a world-wide mega storm that stays in a specific altitude range magically and also has one little hole in it somehow that I assume never moves or you'd never find it... Yet has winds so strong it's somehow going to massively adjust the flight path of an object moving at max speed and require a lot of thrusters? Do you not know a missile only has one thruster in reality, yet are precise and maneuverable? smh

Thirdly, who ever said rovers and planets shouldn't exist? Literally no one... All I said is making some dumb hinderance which still allows space anyways, is pointless... If you want to play on the ground, play on the ground... What, are you afraid of the AI smoking you or something???

They are trying to get an element that either enforces ground-only play on the particular planet, or requires significant engineering to overcome and still requires you don't loiter there...

Personally if it is to be a natural planetary feature then I think I'd rather it be a feature for custom worlds or scenarios instead of part of the basic star-system. It sounds fine by itself but it would be rather difficult to keep its unusual nature from clashing with the rest of the setting if everywhere else was relatively normal.

I know what they're saying... The game is called SPACE engineers, not rover engineers. You want this absurd idea in your game, go ahead and make yourself a mod. Forcing ground only is ridiculous, unless you wanted to play a specific scenario play-through. I want the devs to do actual USEFUL work on SE2 than create some whack ground only planet, WHEN WHEELS AREN'T EVEN IN GAME YET!!!!

This idea is almost as good as the last idea in NMS - scrap metal that can only be transported by land vehicles.

In flying vehicles, it falls through the floor after loading...