Aerodynamic physics on planets

I feel like that would also be a good addition, and could possibly run on a similar system, because it would probably come from drag values (and possibly other values I don't personally code things) which if documented properly can also be used for modded planets giving the modders the ability to set their own values to change up the drag of both water and air.

I despise Aerodynamic physics on servers, they're wonky at best, and cause all sorts of issues. Especially with Water Mod. It's a Hard NO for me.

Last I checked, those were mods and on an old game engine

I personally feel like drag to make boxes just be unable to reach top speeds would be fine, but personally I am against the heat variable for it, so you wouldn't need to worry about burning up, obviously I am also 100% ok if its just something to allow planes with no downside towards drag or anything, so in my case I would say either or is a valid thing (tbh I just like really want to make an aircraft carrier that can have proper take offs and landings on without having vtols) so I am 100% ok if its even just like a wing block that has drag applied to it for lift calculations!

I think that heating up in the atmosphere would increase the realism, which I am a fan of, but that might just be me. I always play with the aerodynamics mod in SE1 with all of its options, which include atmospheric drag, deadly re-entry, and so on. Hydrodynamics have to be a thing, otherwise I dont think it is very logical, and atmospheric resistance is pretty much the logical step forward.

Here's a solution: Have re-entry damage be an option in the world settings. That way players/server owners can choose if they want to have deadly consequences for entering atmosphere too quickly.

Perhaps it could even be a slider so that you can adjust how extreme it is, from off, to subtle, to realistic, to extreme... Basically a damage multiplier.

If keen were to implement full aerodynamics, it would lead to several awesome implications (imo):

1. It would Force player to make trade offs if they want to build an atmo and space capable vehicle. Engineering is all about trade-offs and costs. Ships that can do anything and everything are boring.

2.It would make it so that large spaceships cant just come down to the planet and nuke everything without trouble. Have the fuel consumption for such a vehicle so large that it would be unsustainable to stay in atmo for long periods.

3.Following on from the second point, this would allow for more interesting combat interplay between ground vehicles and aircraft and maybe infantry too.

Can understand if this wouldn't align with their vision though. If so, a relatively simple drag force would make it feel like flying through an atmosphere and would be immersive.

Exactly my thoughts, challenging - yes, annoying - not in the slightest.

I like the idea of it being an option, like someone explained it in replies above, but I definitely would love for that to be added.

It would allow for more thought being needed in building, and I am someone who tends to make boxy crafts a lot especially in testing stages of it, but it could add a nice extra dynamic to work around in building without adding a ton of extra complexity. It would also benefit some smaller craft being able to match the speed of larger craft that have more drag with less thrust requirements, which will make some good variants in designs based on whats needed, all while being minimally intrusive to those who still want to make normal fliers that use upward thrust to maintain flight.

I hadn't expected my comment to essentially blow up. It seems that to different people aerodynamics means different things and there's not as much of consensus. I'm going to address a few points made by different people, then MadGosu's full aerodynamics post.

1: atmo drag preventing my borg cube from reaching top speed: So again this is open ended. If we're talking about a speed penalty, what are we talking about? Is this like in SE1 where it would cap out at 299.9m/s and not be able to hit the exact 300m/s new speed limit, are we talking the speed of the ship being limited to say 200m/s thus a 33% penalty, what are we talking?

2: re-entry burnup: Being able to disable it should I not like it solves the problem of what to do if I don't like it. However simultaneously doesn't answer the question of how extreme it would be by default. Using my hypothetical borg cube as an example. If it's able to fly in atmo and for whatever reason I want to land the thing, how much of an effect is re-entry on default settings going to have on the ship? Minor damage, extreme damage, moderate? Again this assumes what folks would consider default settings, because for alot of people that will be the default. So I would ask folks, how much damage I can expect to my cube.

Now I'm addressing MadGosu's post specifically because it's more in depth with points and assumes full aerodynamics with much greater implications.

1: Define "trade offs and costs" because again stuff like this is extremely vague and open ended. What are some specifics of said trade offs and costs? Use my hypothetical Borg cube as one example and a small grid fighter as the other. Under your proposed system for aerodynamics, if I wanted both to function in space and in atmo, what am I looking at trade off wise or proposed choices I would have to make? Because from what you're saying specializing in just atmo or just space is going to be cheaper and there will be pros/cons for both. I'm asking specifically to define some pros/cons for atmo only, space only, and craft that can do both.

2: If a ship descends slowly enough why would it do this? Also if said ship makes itself aerodynamic enough that it can descend rapidly what's to stop it from just coming down, nuking stuff then flying back into space? Also again what are we talking about fuel consumption wise? how much are you wanting it to burn?

3:You can achieve different effects with just a basic aerodynamic force without all the extra stuff added. Planes being able to fly purely by aerodynamics alone with nothing else is a huge deal and can provide some different interactions vs something like an SE version of a Tie Fighter flying around through brute force of the engines alone.

Now with all of this said taking all of the above into account, alot of what I'm reading comes off as wanting to punish people who do not build the "correct" way and how one particular group thinks people should build. Note I am not accusing anyone of saying this or making an accusation, I am simply stating my thoughts of how I perceive it. While I like to believe everyone so far has engaged in good faith, there are some out there who would jump at the idea of something that punishes those who do not play the "correct" way they think others should play. Thus when folks start suggesting stuff that could negatively impact builds that already exist, I'm going to have some questions like the above.

Now for the big part. I'm not opposed to people having options, be it shields, something akin to re-entry stresses, aerodynamic forces that can make planes fly and so on as it's a sandbox game. Stuff like that is just different preferences in sand type, sand color, buckets and tools being used. Re-entry stresses being able to be turned off like I said above would mean I don't have to bother with it if I didn't like it. However one thing I would encourage folks to do is be more specific with their requests, not just to potentially gain support from other players, but also so the devs know what is being asked for. Because for me, if aerodynamics is left at allowing planes and other craft to fly easier, and maybe a small drag factor of say no more than 5%-10%, then that's something I could throw my support behind. Folks who like it could use it, and folks who don't wouldn't have to. Like me, I'm a shield junky, but I recognize not everyone likes them, thus the option to disable is always on the table. That's a different can of worms but you get the idea.

So long as what's being proposed isn't outright punishing people for not building "correctly" I could potentially support requests like this, hence the questions. But stuff that punishes people for not building "correctly" is something I would not support nor would alot of other people because it restricts freedom compared to SE1, which runs counter to the goals of SE2.

You're fighting ghosts man, you're implying that we want to force other players to build a certain way, while saying "I'm not accusing anyone of that" to have a way out if anyone points that out.

Nobody wants to force anyone to do anything, hence the proposed option to turn it off.

Aerodynamics and drag are not really open ended, you do like using these words a lot, I've seen it in other posts but this just is not that open ended.

The proposition was to add more realism to atmospheres in the game as an option, which pretty much boils down to atmospheric drag and/or heating up in the atmosphere due to friction, to make it more realistic to land on planets and fly on planets.

And as to you saying your comment is essentially blowing up, we're not necessarily replying to your comment, but to each other in the replies of your comment.

It seems like you don't fully understand the purpose of this suggestion, as it is not to make it more difficult, or to stop someone from doing things, as you have suggested. It is only about the engineering challenge of keeping in mind that if you want to fly on planets as well as in space, your ship probably shouldn't be cube-shaped.

By the questions you're asking it seems that you do not fully understand what aerodynamics and drag is.

I agree with exe, the purpose isn't to prevent people from doing things, sure there can be drawbacks for building a cube with drag, namely fuel efficiency and the amount of thrust you would need, but you can still build the same way you did without the drag. the biggest reason I made this suggestion was because having water with physics would make having aerodynamics make sense and also allow a TON of extra things to be made from one simple change. you can make small drones that fly with minimal lift with wings to allow for scouting of structures which helps with pvp, pve, and just exploration in general. It would also allow people to be creative with designs such as vtols because you wouldn't need to have thrust in every direction still regardless of the direction of your main thrust. There is simply no correct or incorrect way to build in Space Engineers, and my suggestion wasn't designed to make it seem like there was, because even irl there isn't correct or incorrect besides if it can keep itself up or not. You tossed out a lot of things making it seem like there are specific ways you *have* to build in the game, and that this would enforce that, but I promise, you can still make cubes that fly even with drag, I myself will still have a lot of designs with poor aerodynamics unless it's sole purpose is to have speed. And the main reason I didnt add the burn up effect to my suggestion is because, not every design will be capable of keeping itself intact at those speeds, but with the drag it would also potentially have it so that if you want to go faster you have to go higher in altitude so there is less drag acting upon your craft, in which case every design even a straight up cube will be able to function at basically the same capacity as each other, making the ability to still build whatever you want still fully possible, besides who wants to fly at top speed below 500m above the ground not knowing if you can avoid the terrain fast enough?

Let's clarify a few things here before going further because we're getting into territory I was afraid this could get into.

First, I know full well what aerodynamics are and how they work IRL. That said this is a video game we're talking about and video games are not always 100% realistic for one reason or another. As one example, the Vector and P90 sub machine guns do NOT have anywhere near the muzzle climb in reality that they often do in games, as that's a balancing factor for the game. I could list a host of things that aren't 100% realistic with SE1 and soon to be SE2 when we get it, but that's not the point. I've asked people to clarify what they're asking for because respectfully I don't think some of you have fully thought out what you're asking for or the effect it will have at this point. Maybe some of you have and maybe you haven't, hence part of why I'm asking because initial looks in text only comms can be deceiving.

There has been mentions of how aerodynamics would allow planes to fly easier. But also talk of how it would force trade offs for ships between between atmo and space. Then how it would "prevent big ships from just coming down and nuking everything and make the fuel drain so massive they couldn't stay in atmo for long". Then there's drag slowing down bigger ships. Adding mechanics like that this late into the franchise would radically alter how ships are built and potentially restrict build freedom compared to what we have now in SE1.

Okay what trade offs? Are we talking like it's a minor annoyance if I choose to take a non-aerodynamic ship into atmo, or are we talking it's going to kick me in the pants for it? If drag is now going to have an effect on my hypothetical borg cube, okay how much of an effect? We talking I can only get it to 150m/s in atmo, or I can get it to 290m/s in atmo which is still slowing it down but not as much? For re-entry we talking like minor damage, or moderate to major damage? For fuel consumption being higher in atmo, are we talking I'm burning the equivalent of 40 large grid tanks per second just to hold atmo and hover, or are we talking say 10% increased fuel consumption above normal? And for that matter, are we talking purely just basic allowing planes to fly easier and a bit of drag or 100% realism? What would your ideal default settings look like if aerodynamics were to become a thing? Because this has the potential to effect me and everyone in game if they choose to use it, and I want to know what I would be in for. My disagreeing with certain parts of the proposal or asking you to be specific doesn't mean I don't understand it. If you can't clarify what you're asking for when someone like me asks, how on earth would you clarify it for someone like a dev if/when they were to see this and ask a similar question?

Second, I said that some of this stuff comes off as wanting to punish people for building "incorrectly" because that's essentially the effect I see it happening. Again I hate to say it, but the phrasing some people have used strikes me as some folks wanting to punish those who don't build "correctly" like they do. I would hope they don't want it to come off that way but that's how it reads to me. Take that for what you will. Also to the whole "just trying to have a way out", nah dude I have no problem naming people if that's really what you want, but that's not the point here. I've acknowledged people saying it could be turned off. However that still doesn't address the question of what the default settings would look like if folks did choose to use it. And again sorry, but some of the phrasing used strikes me as wanting to punish people.

Now to a couple points by one particular user.

Luna S: I asked you to clarify a couple points because I want to know what I'm working with should this happen. I asked you to clarify a ballpark of how much drag my hypothetical cube could expect to experience because it's relevant to how I would have to approach atmo situations with said cube. Am I talking drag reducing it's top speed from 300m/s to 290m/s which is still dragging but not as severe. Or am I talking that it reduces the top speed of from 300m/s down 75m/s in atmo, Because the first one is a penalty but still playable. The second is outright flipping said cube the bird and saying "you're wrong."

As to answering your question of who would want to fly at full speed below 500m, that would be me. I've had several good scraps with drones and an odd fighter on occasion in a large grid destroyer coming in at just shy of 7million kilos. I've also had to pull a Maverick and dodge between bits of terrain and buildings to avoid fire in a fighter.

I'm also glad you specifically said that you didn't add re-entry burnup to your suggestion, which is another part of why I've asked people to clarify what they're asking for. There seems to multiple variants of aerodynamics being suggested in here such as a more basic variant like yours, to others wanting 100% realism.

The main reason I haven't tried to answer how much the drag would affect it due to the fact that I don't know, there would be too many factors in play for how much the drag would affect you, just because the max speed is 300, doesn't mean that every ship can hit it. There should be a penalty to making a large box, but no going down to 75 would be too low and only possible if your thrust is that low, I can't give like any good answer because I don't want to get into all the math behind the drag for things, but without overkilling the amount of thrust of your cube I dont think that a box should be able to reach 300 in atmo, I can personally see 200 being the lowest for a "normal" amount of thrust, I say it in quotes because well... there is no real answer to that, because everyone's normal is their own and hard to gauge. I will say again though, there is no "correct" or "incorrect" way of building in these types of games, obviously for aerodynamics there is, but a cube can still be viable if you are willing to take the top speed/acceleration hit for it. 200 will be the lowest I would ever see it going, but 250ish could be a very good balance point. But again, very hard for me to say, and I don't think that anyone should be punished for anything, but a flat wall should be hit with drag.

Luna S: That's what I was looking for when I asked for specifics as now you've quantified something that I can work with. I never expected an exact to the last one and zero answer, but a ballpark estimate. As in what is the absolute maximum our hypothetical cube would get slowed to if you were given the reigns to decide that. Thankfully you gave an answer as to what that hypothetical drag on the cube could look like.

I'm glad we agree that the cube being reduced from 300m/s to 75m/s would be way too drastic. At that point in my book there is absolutely an objective way NOT build in atmo if you care about being able to move at a reasonable speed. But that's another can of worms.

Now far as base drag goes, reducing the speed from 300m/s to 250m/s due to drag would be a much better default balance point for it. If folks want to have a slider to increase/decrease drag beyond the defaults then by all means. But now we have a quantified point to begin from. If 250 was the baseline, that I could live with and I would say let's roll. If I could have a slider for increasing/decreasing drag effect in addition to being able to outright disable aerodynamics, that's even better. I could easily add my vote to the mix if we started at 250 as the default and let folks adjust the drag up/down with a slider from there.

You're right, I did get a bit carried away with excitement about possibilities, specifically how awesome modern warfare fights could be, and my ideas don't really hold up to scrutiny. In the SE universe post scarcity resources can be achieved easily, and there's nothing really stopping you from building massive objects, so trying to balance around small things wouldn't work for the vanilla SP/MP experience. To clarify a few things because i'm aware a few of us have voiced slightly different ideas:

I don't think atmospheric reentry should damage a ship. Visual effects would be cool but having damage apply would be too punishing and potentially confusing for new players too.

I did overextend in my idea and touched on fuel consumption, which is a whole different subject and includes a lot of balancing with different thruster types. So i'll retract my statement on that as it would be out of topic in this thread.

I think the 'speed wall' idea being discussed by luna is a good idea and agree with his ballpark numbers.

I still think drag+lift aerodynamics would be a great idea and lead to more interesting designs, and I don't think that would punish people who want to fly massive ships or borg cubes like yourself, except for the speed wall, which I think is a reasonable trade-off for flying a massive object in atmosphere.

captainbladej52, like I really don't know what gave you that impression, of some people trying to "punish" others for building in their opinion "incorrectly", I'd like a quote of the exact phrasing, because I genuinely have no idea how you got that from any post here.

I said that it seems that you don't know how aerodynamics works, because of the question you are asking. The one about speed limitation due to drag. It's not that if you experience any drag, your speed should get capped to a certain amount, it should be calculated by how aerodynamic your ship is. And those calculations are left for the developers to figure out, not for us. I could make those calculations, but there is not much point to it, as it would be just general numbers with not much reflection to how their system might work, so I don't really know why you keep asking for exact things, when this is just to let the developers know the ideas the community has, not to program it themselves.

MadGosu: Cool. I'm glad an understanding could be reached. If we're talking aerodynamics in terms of what Luna has proposed then cool. I could also go for re-entry stresses being a cosmetic visual. It may not damage the ship, but it could give folks on the ground time to prepare if they spotted the "burning" ship. My issue with your statements was the proposal of the drag+lift ask, but how extreme some of it sounded over pure text. It came across in some instances as a punishment to folks who didn't build "correctly" by making the ship aerodynamic. I'm glad you've since clarified to show that's not the intent.

ExePixel: See part of my comment above to MadGosu and also the original comments regarding fuel consumption being so massive certain ships wouldn't be able to hold atmo for very long. See other comments about drag slowing ships down to an undefined degree. MadGosu's original post plus your response were some prime examples which is why I asked for clarification.

Far as how aerodynamics would work in game, I asked you and others to give some specific examples of what they're asking for and some ballpark figures because it seems different people were asking for different things. Some more limited in scope, and some greater in scope. As I said I wanted to know what people are asking for because invariably it would effect me too should I decide to take advantage of said system. Were we talking just basic lift/drag, were we talking purely lift and no drag, we talking 100% realism, or what were we talking? If it's basic lift and drag and was like the latest numbers Luna gave where said hypothetical borg cube could still move at a decent pace and not be reduced to a flying snail, then sign me up.

I asked for ballpark numbers of what I could reasonably expect to happen with my cube in terms of drag because even IRL there is a limit to how much drag is going to effect an object. Likewise this is true in game too. In order to make those lift/drag forces work you need to have various equations in effect that govern the forces of lift/drag in game. Even with dynamic calculations of said lift/drag forces there is going to be an upper limit to how much lift/drag effect an object. IRL this isn't something we can change, however in game we can absolutely dictate how much those forces effect an object. I can make lift have minimal effect, or I can make it the most potent force ever. I can also make drag super potent to the point it stops objects mid air and prevents them from even moving, or I can make it have minimal effect. As I said to Luna I never asked for calculations to be down to the last 1 and zero. I asked for ballpark figures to have a quantified point we can then debate from. That point specified above was instead of the cube being able to fly at the full 300m/s, drag on the default settings would reduce it to 250m/s with potential to increase/decrease the effects with a slider.

In which case as Luna has described it with wanting lift/drag and that being the default, cool I can work with that as while yes being reduced to 250m/s from 300m/s would be annoying, it's not completely flipping me the bird. I'm asking as someone with development experience that's created content for other games and some mods here. If you can't at least give someone like me a ballpark idea of what you're asking for, how can you expect to answer a dev for SE if/when they were to ask the same questions?

In other words I asked for ballparks so I know what I'm working with and have a quantified point to debate from. In which case based off what Luna has suggested with keeping it to drag/lift and said drag limiting the cube to 250m/s as the default, I actually wouldn't mind of lift/drag became a thing.

I didn't even think of supersonic flight, that's a great idea!

They didn't talk about it much, but I think they must have some form of hydrodynamics, so it just makes sense for atmospheres to have aerodynamics.

On further thought, supersonic would be tricky, given that 300m/s is still subsonic.

Makes way for them to make the top speed 350 m/s lol

If directional wind was a thing, I could go either sailing or hang-gliding.

Don't forget Airbrakes are a thing. Would be useful to slow down quickly without reverse thrust.

have you tried the drag mod in SE1? it even has wind, and you definitely can feel it, but it isn't uncontrollable

The joy of the game is you can still use upward thrust to keep yourself airborne if you don't want to have to try to use wings and such, so no it would not make them uncontrollable or unable to fly. I do understand the concern, but the biggest factors it would have it your ship may handle itself worse than normal due to drag and other forces acting upon the craft at any given time, but the ability to use upwards thrust to stay in the air is still there so you can still do vanilla style flight.

I've tried it - and pretty quickly dismissed it. It may be enough for someone.

But - the Kerbal Space Program has the aerodynamics figured out much better. Despite any reservations.

I don't think anyone is saying it's easy irl. I do think some folks underestimate the calculations involved in making that happen in game but that's another can of worms. Now with that in mind in game I don't see them adding full on wind forces like some are thinking. If aerodynamics is left at purely lift/drag forces and the effect of drag isn't allowed to be completely overpowered, the issue of folks not even getting off the ground goes away. Assuming aerodynamic shape, as they accelerate they gain lift and can fly with minimal drag. If they do something like a full on borg cube as I described in my own comment above, they're still going to be able to fly if they made it right and they're going to experience more drag, but not enough to completely ground the thing.

The good thing about games is you can have basic lift/drag forces if one wished without all of the negatives. Heck you could have just lift forces, or even just drag forces if you want. I just hope that if they do add it they leave it to basic lift/drag and it's not done in a way that punishes people for building "incorrectly". Such as if I built a borg cube and flew it, the cube doesn't go from 300m/s down to say 75m/s. It being capped at 250m/s I could live with because it's a flat surface, but any slower than that as the default and it would be a backdoor restriction to "uncool" build types.

I really really like this idea, if for no other reason that it allows more unique designs.

One of the very first mods I ever downloaded for SE1 was atmospheric drag, it allowed flight (and exploding on re-entry) The number of unique designs I created to fit this niche was almost more than space and a variant is still a staple of every SE1 map I have to this day.

Well yeah, the point of putting out the suggestion this early is to garner interest as well as give them time to start working on it to make it work and maybe if we are lucky get the physics around when water releases or if luckier when planets come out. It wasn't so they work on it instantly. ^-^

I agree with what you would rather see, but this was looking for stuff after that!

Of course, no rush at all it doesnt matter if it takes several years but at the end an aerodynamic system would be cool to play

Luna S in on the mark here. Ask for a complex thing early and this would be complex because of planets. The physics calculations for moving fluids at 300mps is likely not fun. But just so they know we REALLY want it in the final build.

But I too would LOVE for aerodynamics because it forces an entirely different design consideration set. Water, ground air and space all unique design realms.

Aerodynamics shouldn't be hard to add in theory. If they've got water mechanics then air should be easy since both are fluids. On the technical side, if they've modeled block interactions and characteristics with water, then air should be relatively to incorporate - again, in theory, seeing as I'm not a dev.

Not only would it cause more challenges, but it would also add more design possibilities, and due to how the game is, you could still use normal thrust in all directions for ships you are not locked into planes. Plus it would also be just extra community made designs for things including modules which would be exciting!

And could also be linked to thermal effects of re-entry... more real physics, yes ! :)

Yup! They will use very similar forces, plus it would (if documented) allow modders to customize their planets with specific types of atmospheres potentially, where instead of each planet performing the same it could for example require larger lift on some planets even.

Will I be to able to hide an airship in the clouds?

And will the cloud fog stay outside of my ship?

was imagining for each "air" particle there would be a dew point and dust modifier giving volumetric effects. was on another post about thermal dynamics talking how this could work with that

https://support.keenswh.com/spaceengineers2/pc/topic/45155-thermal-mechanics-old-subject-for-se1-maybe-more-relevant-for-se2#comment-91336

Having another setting for heat may be a bit complicated. Maybe changing temp with the particles movement velocity instead of a value, where temperature is controlled by the air particles motion resistance. Then ships entering the atmosphere, a ship would contend with air particles transferring velocity into block heat or something, hotter planets would have worse effects as well as denser atmosphere planets. You could make a boat for gas giants. yea anyways I'm no programmer so i would have no clue where to start with this outside of translating real fluid dynamics into engine usable components.

I Found my Steam Posting!!!

Originally posted by CaveDweller:

While I absolutely love that idea and would buy the game just for that feature, I'm pretty sure it would need to be on a VRage 5+ for that to happen XD

They already have the systems for that with the water physics in VS 3, atmosphere physics could work on the same system. Fluid dynamics apply to not only "fluids", in physics the same equations can be used for Gaseous bodies, suspended dust particles, and air volumes.

Originally posted by SultonMRP:

Harvest-able gas clouds, :D use collectors to harvest gases from volumetric gas clouds :3 Have some kind of filter to choose what gas to store, since most gas clouds would have different amounts of different gasses. (for extra kick in realism, make them reactive, if ya fly into hydrogen gas cloud with hydro thrusters there is a chance of cloud igniting if its dense enough

I had a brilliant idea regarding this on smaller scales. Having a physical gas Atmosphere. For what your talking about it would be better calculated on much larger scale for performance. but I say expand on this concept with Humidity and dew point calculations, with this an enhanced fog system. Imagine dew flash in rapid depressurization/pressurization.

Inside or near pressurized vessels or structures id say the scale should be smaller and allow for said gasses. You could then have percentage atmospheres 25% this 30% that Nitrogen, Oxygen, CO2 on both scales and add Humidity and Temperature values to each particle. Added to that could be dust content value for near ground particle collection into the air resulting in dust storms. Given the water systems are on a fluid dynamics, from what I can tell, and that is what should be used for this. With this wind would not be a value created, rather a value simulated. wind velocity would be determined by particles reacting to each other.

Will admit this is probably very much at that point of not being very feasible because that's a lot of added values, but honestly if its possible. I'm hoping their water simulation is open ended enough to at least allow modding this in. either way it would add a completely new layer to the game and hell that could fix the voxel pressurization issue in SE1. Make the air particles it will have collision with voxel surfaces instead of performing a pressure seal "test".

https://steamcommunity.com/app/1133870/discussions/0/603017372668830828/

{Final summary}

an air particle that has percentage values for a few gasses and mixtures (float value chart with balances and gas densities), Pressure (float value), Humidity (float value), Velocity Resistance (temperature inverse float value), Dust Amount, maybe an altitude Dew point for fog and clouds (integer value), interactions with blocks, based on water system.

In regards to difficulty just have a difficulty scaling Easy gets like 25% atmospheric effects hard gets 100% almost like changing the physical transparency for the particles.

This idea may melt computers.

Besides, it seems weird to have water & the dynamics that go with it, but then ignore atmospherics.

Absolutely

No, the comment I heard on stream was from marek that, at this point, they were going to leave it to modders. Which means your airplane blueprint will only be useable in saves with that mod (and not on any official servers. Not to mention the prevalance of 'vanilla-only' attitudes.)

I'd have to hear that for myself as I'm positive I remember them saying they were working on aerodynamic physics for planets, at least at one point. That would be a MASSIVE disappointment if that's not planned.

Agreed. One of the biggest improvement I've experienced in my just over 4 years of SE1 was water mod + consty's wing mods*. Three distinct ways to travel (marine, air, and space) gives you reasons to have more grids, 2 more sets of design criteria to play with. Ares at war was particularly fun. In the beta (agaris at war) platinum was at 600m below sea level and well into crush depth. Was very challenging to try to make a miner submarine that could get down and back with even a scoopfull.

*I have tried the full aerodynamics mod, but the lack of real control to fettle one's ship means that in full aerodynamics you can't really ever get rid of annoying tendancies to pull in one direction or another.

@star_kindler they definitely incorporated it onto the engine and showed off a bunch of experiments but as far as it being in game, no plans right now. Link to the video I could find: https://www.youtube.com/live/KQuOjNb4a2A?t=10927&si=iYwQ7XjD8_hrNUzy

Marek also directly responded to the question of aerodynamics at some point saying it wasn't planned but I can't find that clip.

Heya! You made me think up of a way to do this, here, so I've gone ahead and added my own suggestion to the mix. Having the plasma glow animation could be tied to the drag, I bet.

YEEEEES! Also when aerodynamics get added, i would love to see overheating/burning mechanics because of air resistance/friction. There was a mod for SE that does that https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=571920453

I wish this will get added to SE2 but 10x better (insiders will know) xd

I'm not that much of a fan of strict realistic aerodynamic systems

A system to balance weight, thrust and speed would be cool though. The lower your thrust/weight, the lower your topspeed is, the higher your thrust/weight, the higher your topspeed is. Having everything go the same topspeed is boring. My best pvp experiences in SE1 were with increased speed small grids (through a mod)