Wheels will never be usefull with the current terrain generation (especially on Verdure)
With vs 2.3 i've had the pleasure of starting to build rovers, on of my favorite activities in SE1.
After at least 8 hours of testing/driving, while i am aware the current iteration of wheels still needs work, i am 90% sure wheels will never be able to even come close to the usefullness of their SE1 counterpart, and it's a problem mostly related to the terrain generation in SE2.
While SE1 had bumps, hills and mountains, SE2 completely re-defined how planets are generated by adding MUCH MUCH more terrain complexity (absolutely beautifull to look at, terrible to drive on), most of it being steep inclines, ridges, and so on, making navigation extremely complex (also more trees/rocks).
This makes wheels more suited for "smoother" terrain such as Kemik, reched much later in the gameplay.
Since wheels are a staple of early game building, and the player starts on verdure, i feel they may be a trap for new engineers that think building and driving a simple rover would be easier than going straight for a ship, but the reality it's the complete opposite.
Unless wheels get unrealistic amounts of grip and stability, they will always be worse than flying around with a ship and bypass the terrain.
I like this feedback
I did a 'sort of' planentary survey (not comprehensive) and came to the conclusion that approximately 20% of planet verdure is driveable in any real sense by anything but small rovers that weave in between the trees, but which could not handle any real obstacles short of driving around them.
Of that 20% driveable terrain, 90% of that will be underwater in VS3.0, which makes it incredibly limited to run around in any sort of wheeled vehicle.
I like the rough appearance of Verdure, the tree cover and the like, it just makes rovers largely impractical. Slower, prone to flipping and blocked by medium sized rocks (plus some trees/plants seem to be invulnerable and imprenetrable), rovers are fun but not the best way to get around.
I haven't found it yet, but I was kind of hoping for an actual desert space that was flat-ish with dunes on Verdure so you could buggy like crazy. Even the beach spaces are packed with palm trees. Granted, I'm driving a giant rover (Think Grover) so trees are more of a slow down because of knocking them all over.
I did a 'sort of' planentary survey (not comprehensive) and came to the conclusion that approximately 20% of planet verdure is driveable in any real sense by anything but small rovers that weave in between the trees, but which could not handle any real obstacles short of driving around them.
Of that 20% driveable terrain, 90% of that will be underwater in VS3.0, which makes it incredibly limited to run around in any sort of wheeled vehicle.
I like the rough appearance of Verdure, the tree cover and the like, it just makes rovers largely impractical. Slower, prone to flipping and blocked by medium sized rocks (plus some trees/plants seem to be invulnerable and imprenetrable), rovers are fun but not the best way to get around.
I haven't found it yet, but I was kind of hoping for an actual desert space that was flat-ish with dunes on Verdure so you could buggy like crazy. Even the beach spaces are packed with palm trees. Granted, I'm driving a giant rover (Think Grover) so trees are more of a slow down because of knocking them all over.
I've been trying to drive, and I'm encountering a lot of "waves" in the terrain. Terrain that should be smooth from a geographic perspective is very bumpy, which makes driving a pain, as you are aware
I've been trying to drive, and I'm encountering a lot of "waves" in the terrain. Terrain that should be smooth from a geographic perspective is very bumpy, which makes driving a pain, as you are aware
i was just about to start building a rover and i check here and see this... >.< im curious to see how long it takes me to travel the 40km to my target area.... wish me luck i guess?
i was just about to start building a rover and i check here and see this... >.< im curious to see how long it takes me to travel the 40km to my target area.... wish me luck i guess?
In addition to wheels physics enhancement, I strongly suggest the devs to balance resource costs and add road building mechanics to encourage ground engineering.
In addition to wheels physics enhancement, I strongly suggest the devs to balance resource costs and add road building mechanics to encourage ground engineering.
Rovers and boats (when we have water) should give you a real benefit when transporting heavy loads compared to flyers. They might be useful for working with terrain as part of heavy-duty mining equipment. Those kinds of machinery should give you tangible gameplay benefits. Using flying mines on planets should be less practical, especially on a large scale. At the same time, not all resources might be found in space on asteroids, otherwise all the benefits of the rovers will be meaningless if you can find and mine everything in zero-g convenience or buy at the trade station. Rich deposits of rare resources can be found primarily on the surface of planets with harsh weather, where using rovers can be one of the best options. So yeah, rovers can and should be useful at any stage of the game, not necessarily in early game only.
Rovers and boats (when we have water) should give you a real benefit when transporting heavy loads compared to flyers. They might be useful for working with terrain as part of heavy-duty mining equipment. Those kinds of machinery should give you tangible gameplay benefits. Using flying mines on planets should be less practical, especially on a large scale. At the same time, not all resources might be found in space on asteroids, otherwise all the benefits of the rovers will be meaningless if you can find and mine everything in zero-g convenience or buy at the trade station. Rich deposits of rare resources can be found primarily on the surface of planets with harsh weather, where using rovers can be one of the best options. So yeah, rovers can and should be useful at any stage of the game, not necessarily in early game only.
Reminds me of the vsauce video "Why don't any animals have wheels?". In a nutshell, wheels are useless without roads, especially on M-class planets covered in trees. Well before vehicles, humans built roads. I'm +1 for some better terrain manipulation tools, I'm -1 on just making it easier. Verdure's terrain could use a little massaging though to be fair.
Reminds me of the vsauce video "Why don't any animals have wheels?". In a nutshell, wheels are useless without roads, especially on M-class planets covered in trees. Well before vehicles, humans built roads. I'm +1 for some better terrain manipulation tools, I'm -1 on just making it easier. Verdure's terrain could use a little massaging though to be fair.
Im tempted to agree but until wheels have parity with SE1 i cant say for sure whether or not I totally agree.
That said id recommend the team take a look at adding natural pathways, dried rivers or rockslides forming smoother areas to drive up and around mountains or other harsh terrain; theres plenty of hand waving that can be done to explain natural 'roads'
Im tempted to agree but until wheels have parity with SE1 i cant say for sure whether or not I totally agree.
That said id recommend the team take a look at adding natural pathways, dried rivers or rockslides forming smoother areas to drive up and around mountains or other harsh terrain; theres plenty of hand waving that can be done to explain natural 'roads'
Perhaps it would be good to start on a smoother planet where wheels do have a usage, or yes some kind of erosion tool, something that allows you to flatten terrain or add some material that makes it flat but does not allow you to dig deep holes super easily.
Perhaps it would be good to start on a smoother planet where wheels do have a usage, or yes some kind of erosion tool, something that allows you to flatten terrain or add some material that makes it flat but does not allow you to dig deep holes super easily.
I do hope that by the time water is ready, Keen have taken a good look at Verdure and reworked its terrain to better serve gameplay needs.
It's beautiful as is, but the terrain variation is far too extreme for how small the planet actually is.
The mountains and oceans need to be more spread out with flatter terrain in between, or the planet needs to be increased in size significantly, or both. Trying to drive around at present feels like every surface on the planet is on an incline, which also makes finding a nice spot for a base inconvenient.
I do hope that by the time water is ready, Keen have taken a good look at Verdure and reworked its terrain to better serve gameplay needs.
It's beautiful as is, but the terrain variation is far too extreme for how small the planet actually is.
The mountains and oceans need to be more spread out with flatter terrain in between, or the planet needs to be increased in size significantly, or both. Trying to drive around at present feels like every surface on the planet is on an incline, which also makes finding a nice spot for a base inconvenient.
The solution could actually be quite simple—the height of a mountain range should be proportional to the planet’s radius... On Earth, this ratio is around 1–1.25 per mille.
The maximum height of a mountain range is limited by the bearing capacity of the underlying strata, or, from another perspective, by gravity, gravitational acceleration, and the thickness of the planetary crust. If a mountain range exceeds a certain threshold, the pressure in the subsurface will exceed the subsurface’s load-bearing capacity, and the range will begin to sink into the planetary crust and mantle.
The area covered by mountain ranges is also vast—on Earth, areas higher than 1,000 meters above sea level make up about 1/3 to 2/5 of the land area, and areas higher than 2,000 meters above sea level make up only about 15% of the land area.
Counterargument—but on Mars, Olympus Mons is twenty-two kilometers high!
Yes, but!
1) Olympus Mons is actually very flat—it has a diameter of nearly 600 km... so its slope has an average gradient of less than 5°
2) Mars has lower gravitational acceleration—only 3.7 m/s²
3) The Martian crust is much thicker than Earth’s, estimated at 40 to 80 km, and in some southern highlands it can reach up to 100 km. On Earth, the planetary crust has an average thickness of 5 to 10 km beneath the oceans (about 2/3 of the surface) and 30 to 50 km beneath the continents (about 1/3 of the surface), with maximums of up to 80 km beneath major mountain ranges. Mars, however, has only about half the diameter of Earth, so its relative thickness is even significantly greater.
The area of mountain ranges on Mars—regions higher than 1,000 meters above “sea level”—comprises about one-third of Mars’s surface.
The solution could actually be quite simple—the height of a mountain range should be proportional to the planet’s radius... On Earth, this ratio is around 1–1.25 per mille.
The maximum height of a mountain range is limited by the bearing capacity of the underlying strata, or, from another perspective, by gravity, gravitational acceleration, and the thickness of the planetary crust. If a mountain range exceeds a certain threshold, the pressure in the subsurface will exceed the subsurface’s load-bearing capacity, and the range will begin to sink into the planetary crust and mantle.
The area covered by mountain ranges is also vast—on Earth, areas higher than 1,000 meters above sea level make up about 1/3 to 2/5 of the land area, and areas higher than 2,000 meters above sea level make up only about 15% of the land area.
Counterargument—but on Mars, Olympus Mons is twenty-two kilometers high!
Yes, but!
1) Olympus Mons is actually very flat—it has a diameter of nearly 600 km... so its slope has an average gradient of less than 5°
2) Mars has lower gravitational acceleration—only 3.7 m/s²
3) The Martian crust is much thicker than Earth’s, estimated at 40 to 80 km, and in some southern highlands it can reach up to 100 km. On Earth, the planetary crust has an average thickness of 5 to 10 km beneath the oceans (about 2/3 of the surface) and 30 to 50 km beneath the continents (about 1/3 of the surface), with maximums of up to 80 km beneath major mountain ranges. Mars, however, has only about half the diameter of Earth, so its relative thickness is even significantly greater.
The area of mountain ranges on Mars—regions higher than 1,000 meters above “sea level”—comprises about one-third of Mars’s surface.
Wheels as they are now have unrealistic low torque and grip. You see irl vehicles on 4 wheels going up very steep hills, while in SE2 they barely can go up a 30 degree slope.
Wheels as they are now have unrealistic low torque and grip. You see irl vehicles on 4 wheels going up very steep hills, while in SE2 they barely can go up a 30 degree slope.
I think the problem is how small the planets are. If they were scaled up by a decent magnitude, there would be more wheel-friendly terrain. I do not see a single reason to build a rover so far (I'm playing the QuickStart Survival). My first mission was on top of a mountain... why would I bother with wheels when I already have atmospheric thrusters available?
I think the problem is how small the planets are. If they were scaled up by a decent magnitude, there would be more wheel-friendly terrain. I do not see a single reason to build a rover so far (I'm playing the QuickStart Survival). My first mission was on top of a mountain... why would I bother with wheels when I already have atmospheric thrusters available?
Thank you for your feedback. It has been collected and passed on to the developers for discussion.
Cheers,
Arron CM
Thank you for your feedback. It has been collected and passed on to the developers for discussion.
Cheers,
Arron CM
On Verdure, I tried to take the cargo truck and abandoned it after a few hundred meters, because I couldn't get to go where I wanted to go, i.e. the free scrap site. I also thought the braking was unrealistic. That thing weighs over 20 tons and the brake flips it onto its nose! There may be ways to control a wheeled vehicle better but I have yet to find any of them
As for the planetary terrain, artists tend to opt for dramatic features which leads to selecting exaggerated verticals and terrain that seriously unfriendly towards wheeled vehicles. SE1's Lost Colony world also displays this problem. If the terrain cannot be fixed, the wheels need to be both stronger and stickier.
The I went to Kemik and decided to take on a Bulk minerals contract from Dustspire Junction, so I built a copy. The thing, empty, can't even go uphill on the rolling terrain. Admittedly, my expectations were set by driving buggies on Mars in SE1.
So, two suggestions. First, implement regenerative braking. Hitting P while moving would not lock the wheels but instead convert forward momentum into a charging current at a rate proportional to the acceleration setting for the wheels, perhaps 30%, or perhaps allow the scroll wheel to make it more or less aggressive.
Second, implement something to allow the the wheels to stick to the ground better, allowing vehicles to climb steeper slopes.
On Verdure, I tried to take the cargo truck and abandoned it after a few hundred meters, because I couldn't get to go where I wanted to go, i.e. the free scrap site. I also thought the braking was unrealistic. That thing weighs over 20 tons and the brake flips it onto its nose! There may be ways to control a wheeled vehicle better but I have yet to find any of them
As for the planetary terrain, artists tend to opt for dramatic features which leads to selecting exaggerated verticals and terrain that seriously unfriendly towards wheeled vehicles. SE1's Lost Colony world also displays this problem. If the terrain cannot be fixed, the wheels need to be both stronger and stickier.
The I went to Kemik and decided to take on a Bulk minerals contract from Dustspire Junction, so I built a copy. The thing, empty, can't even go uphill on the rolling terrain. Admittedly, my expectations were set by driving buggies on Mars in SE1.
So, two suggestions. First, implement regenerative braking. Hitting P while moving would not lock the wheels but instead convert forward momentum into a charging current at a rate proportional to the acceleration setting for the wheels, perhaps 30%, or perhaps allow the scroll wheel to make it more or less aggressive.
Second, implement something to allow the the wheels to stick to the ground better, allowing vehicles to climb steeper slopes.
In my (more recent) experience, the biggest problem in some terrains are the numerous boulders and how close the trees are standing. The acceleration of the wheels can already be increased for better hill climbing, but then the problem of high wheel power settings in SE1 will return: An unloaded and therefore light rover will catapult itself into a nearby obstacle with a short tap of the accelerator pedal.
My suggestion for redefining the acceleration parameter: The rover tries to maintain the acceleration in any terrain, using as much power as necessary. Meaning if it accelerates by 1 m/s² on level ground, it will also accelerate by 1 m/s² uphill. To achieve that, it needs to take more power from the battery. There are two bottlenecks that will limit this behavior. The first is the available power from the battery or whatever power source is used. The second is what the motors can handle.
About the "stickiness" of the wheels, also called friction by engineers, I suggest using some high but realistic-ish limit. I did some research and found that high end sports cars typically need a distance of 90 feet to stop from 60 mph. That amounts to a deceleration close to 14 m/s² or 1.4 g in 1g gravity, or a friction coefficient of 1.4
This was measured in cars that have presumably top of the line braking systems, and the tests were done on asphalt which offers good grip. I suggest limiting the friction coefficient of wheels in SE to 1.5 under optimal conditions. Given enough torque of the wheels, that would be enough to climb a slope with a 55 degree angle.
In my (more recent) experience, the biggest problem in some terrains are the numerous boulders and how close the trees are standing. The acceleration of the wheels can already be increased for better hill climbing, but then the problem of high wheel power settings in SE1 will return: An unloaded and therefore light rover will catapult itself into a nearby obstacle with a short tap of the accelerator pedal.
My suggestion for redefining the acceleration parameter: The rover tries to maintain the acceleration in any terrain, using as much power as necessary. Meaning if it accelerates by 1 m/s² on level ground, it will also accelerate by 1 m/s² uphill. To achieve that, it needs to take more power from the battery. There are two bottlenecks that will limit this behavior. The first is the available power from the battery or whatever power source is used. The second is what the motors can handle.
About the "stickiness" of the wheels, also called friction by engineers, I suggest using some high but realistic-ish limit. I did some research and found that high end sports cars typically need a distance of 90 feet to stop from 60 mph. That amounts to a deceleration close to 14 m/s² or 1.4 g in 1g gravity, or a friction coefficient of 1.4
This was measured in cars that have presumably top of the line braking systems, and the tests were done on asphalt which offers good grip. I suggest limiting the friction coefficient of wheels in SE to 1.5 under optimal conditions. Given enough torque of the wheels, that would be enough to climb a slope with a 55 degree angle.
Yeah, Verdure as it currently is don't provide much passable terrain to drive on. It's a nightmare to get anywhere; too many impassable mountain, deep cayon, random pits and dense forests almost everywhere. Flying is the way to go as it is.
Edit: And we don't even have water yet; the most driveable parts of the planet are future lakes and seabeds.
Yeah, Verdure as it currently is don't provide much passable terrain to drive on. It's a nightmare to get anywhere; too many impassable mountain, deep cayon, random pits and dense forests almost everywhere. Flying is the way to go as it is.
Edit: And we don't even have water yet; the most driveable parts of the planet are future lakes and seabeds.
Agreed, not enough planning went into verdures landscape, when it comes to vehicle accessibility. They needed to at least designate a network of "trails", even if there wasn't a dirt path across regions of it. That way Players would at least have some direction to navigate/explore towards from most locations; including the starting area.
Agreed, not enough planning went into verdures landscape, when it comes to vehicle accessibility. They needed to at least designate a network of "trails", even if there wasn't a dirt path across regions of it. That way Players would at least have some direction to navigate/explore towards from most locations; including the starting area.
It would open the possibility for missions to create a trail from a station to a nearby outpost, assuming outposts ever become persistent feature in the landscape.
It would open the possibility for missions to create a trail from a station to a nearby outpost, assuming outposts ever become persistent feature in the landscape.
currently driving from the classic survival spawn to Valas Reach (I think I spelled that wrong), and while it is super frustrating, it really isn't that different from trying to drive through the mountains. The terrain itself does need some work, and rocks need to not throw your vehicles into the air, but it really isn't all that bad and they're certainly still useful.
I do think that dropping the center of the wheel, ie. portal axles, would be a great idea though.
On the road front, I made a little two drill miner with no storage and used that to make a 2.5km road w/ 800 meters of elevation change down one of the cliffs into a valley ... and while it was a PITA, it did work and was effin beautiful.
currently driving from the classic survival spawn to Valas Reach (I think I spelled that wrong), and while it is super frustrating, it really isn't that different from trying to drive through the mountains. The terrain itself does need some work, and rocks need to not throw your vehicles into the air, but it really isn't all that bad and they're certainly still useful.
I do think that dropping the center of the wheel, ie. portal axles, would be a great idea though.
On the road front, I made a little two drill miner with no storage and used that to make a 2.5km road w/ 800 meters of elevation change down one of the cliffs into a valley ... and while it was a PITA, it did work and was effin beautiful.
Replies have been locked on this page!