Realistic Asteroid belts

Of course. Especially with the speed limits in game.

On the other hand:

The dimensions of the planets in the game world (SE) are downsized about 100x (~120km Earthlike vs. ~13000km real Earth).

Distances of "significant" objects, such as planets, are downscaled roughly 10,000 to 100,000 times.

This would be more or less fine. It's a game...

What is not fine is the very high density of asteroids around planets and in free space, and their "regular" distribution.

The density of asteroids should be much lower, the distances between asteroids much larger, the distribution of asteroids more in line with reality.

Asteroids should form an "asteroid belt" in the equatorial region around star, with an average distance between asteroids of ~10km. The belt could be about a hundred kilometers thick (yes, quite thin - and around the "planets" even thinner than the rings around Saturn)

Outside the belt, the asteroid abundance would be low, the mean distance would be >100-200km in the "mid-latitudes" and ~1000km in the "polar sectors"

There could be several asteroid belts in the star system, at different distances from the star (of course - outside the orbit of the planets). Different asteroid belts could have different AVERAGE compositions - belts closer to the star would contain more metals and less ice (and organic materials), while more distant belts would be rich in ice, methane, ammonia, and perhaps organic materials, but would contain less metals and ores.

Of course, in each asteroid belt one could find "everything needed", all the necessary raw materials, but the "asteroid generator" would use different settings, with different probabilities of finding that particular raw material.

Translated with DeepL.com (free version)

You're right, the word realistic or even orbit can be a bit confusing. I think it refers to how we perceive things in the real world, there are no asteroids in Earth's exosphere, and there's an empty space between the planet and the asteroid belt. So I believe the goal is to simulate that, but with fixed positions. Creating actual planetary or asteroid orbits would likely be very resource intensive. Just imagine an asteroid crashing into a planet, it would probably cause an instant game crash!

@Semtex - even downscaled, that would greatly change the flavor of the game. Part of what makes the survival aspect playable is the unrealistic density of asteroids - there are always resources nearby. If SE2 moves to a fully-rendered solar system including a physical sun with downscaled distances between objects, and distributes asteroids as you suggest, a lot of problems arise. A basic start in the asteroid belt effectively becomes impossible; unless every asteroid contains all the needed minerals to make a jump drive, which in turn eliminates the hunt for materials. Obnoxiously long travel distances between objects doesn't make for compelling gameplay.

I do like the idea in theory, because realism is cool and thousands of asteroids starting around 10km from the moon is wildly unrealistic - but that is a somewhat necessary conceit for the sake of gameplay.

@Dikusss if dynamic voxels were a possibility, I'd be drooling over it... I just don't see it being feasible. Playing on GeForce Now Ultimate, I crashed the blue ship into the green base in the little starter area, at full speed - even with such a high-performance system it dropped to less than 3 fps while it figured out all its complex math. I think you're absolutely right, massive voxel collisions would be gamebreaking. That said, as detailed in the first section of my response, I don't think even mimicking realistic asteroid locations in static locations would make for compelling gameplay. I'm okay with certain reality-breaking conceits that make the game more playable.

TL;DR

• In SE1, asteroid mining was easy but boring.
• In SE2, space progression is currently much faster and easier than planetary starts.
• Asteroids should be rarer and farther away, not right outside planets.
• Mining in space should rely on scanners, not eyesight.
• Scanners can create a clear progression path, from basic to advanced and beyond.
• Planets should stay relevant with larger, richer deposits and reasons to build mining outposts.
• Refining should scale with power input, encouraging proper infrastructure and planning.

In SE1, mining asteroids is both superior and more boring compared to planet-side mining. Superior because you could find everything you needed and mine with ease. Mining and transporting ore in zero-G is much more convenient. At the same time, it was boring because searching for ores in space was(is) repetitive and tedious, and asteroid mining offered very little engineering challenge.

In SE2, we now have beautiful planets, and I would really like them to be just as desirable for resource mining as space, especially in the early game. Right now in SE2, asteroids start spawning almost as soon as you leave the planet. This feels both unrealistic and too easy. I tried starting both on Verdure and in space, and space is by far the easier and faster option to progress.

I think asteroids should start spawning much farther away and be significantly rarer, with much larger distances between individual asteroids or clusters. Finding them should not rely on naked eyesight. Even with today’s technology, we have far better tools than that.

Besides ore detectors used to find the exact location of ores, there could be (ore) scanners. A small, basic scanner could search within a limited radius, for example 30 km, while larger and more advanced scanners could reach 100 km or more. These scanners would not need asteroids to be visually rendered or fully generated. The world generation algorithm already has the data and could provide information such as position and rough composition probabilities.

As you get closer to an asteroid, the scanner would provide more precise information about its contents. Scanners could also support modules that extend their range or improve accuracy. Rare/exotic modules could help narrow down tolerances for specific ores (elements).

Most asteroids would still be fairly boring, containing only small amounts of basic ores. This creates a reason to invest in better scanners, hunt for advanced modules, or trade for them. Over time, you gain a clear advantages for asteroid mining, unlocking better tools and more efficient methods instead of having everything available immediately.

Planets would remain a desirable starting location and a more predictable source of resources. They could also host much larger ore deposits, justifying the construction of dedicated mining outposts. Once water is introduced, this could naturally tie into nuclear power infrastructure, providing the energy needed for power-hungry refineries.

Ideally, refineries should scale with power input. Instead of building many refineries, you could build fewer but supply them with much more power to refine ores significantly faster. This would reinforce engineering decisions, infrastructure planning, and long-term progression.

A couple of notes about consequences for production chains.

Having ingots back in the game would also help clearly separate refining and manufacturing, giving players more flexibility. Refining is power-hungry, which naturally makes planets more desirable thanks to better power options like wind, hydrogen, and efficient nuclear setups (with water and possibly heat management). Once you can reliably search for ores in space, it would still make sense to bring raw ore down to planetary refineries, turn it into ingots, and build up a proper stockpile. Those ingots could then be transported anywhere in the star system for manufacturing and base or shipbuilding.

Late game fusion reactors, requiring some very hard to obtain exotic components, could finally allow for all space setup.

@Robert Lindsay Unfortunately this ticket is archived now. It might be better to create a new one and link this post, so it can be voted on again and become more visible.