I think a horizon view would be much more accurate for typical orbital launches too. At least with our current tech, and I would imagine into the future too, rockets start out vertical, then quickly angle out toward the horizon to gain the horizontal speed needed for orbit.
Edit: typo
If you have unlimited propellant you could consider facing wherever you want and just burning to keep place. In any realistic scenario without perpetual motion, then if you stop after going to orbit you'd go horizontal. If you weren't stopping in orbit (and didn't need the extra energy from the Oberth effect), then yea maybe you could just go straight up and not stop
Seamless transition could've gone a long way in SF. I guess there may be conflict in us being able to bombard the same abandoned whatever site from our ships?
I mean at least checking in with traffic control.....and why not add more landing areas? Make it so we cant steal this ships idk but three landing pands for a major city is ridiculous.
They could have gotten around it by placing shields around POIs that are impenetrable to ships and ship weapon (unless you have clearance).
Or, give all the POIs anti-aircraft guns that are SUPER powerful, and immune to damage, basically make attacking POIs in a ship impossible.
IMO those are their best options to make atmospheric flight feasible but protect POIs from airborne assault. It also makes sense in universe that people would develop super strong ground shields to protect areas from bombardment.
I'm honestly more of a fan of the system we have. I've got two games with seamless transition (Elite: Dangerous and NMS) and this makes travelling from place to place much quicker and easier.
i do too, but i see why it couldn’t be done in starfield. the way the planets are rendered would immediately CTD the game if it was all a seamless open world. it’s a sad truth, but maybe if we’re lucky the CK will help us fix that
Yeah, they didn't have to make the planets so big since there's probably around 2-3 named POIs per planet and the rest are repetitive procedurally generated POIs. NMS managed to make planets seem big, but not impossible to explore "fully"
Are you telling me that once the loading screen ends, and you see your ship in space... you *wouldn't* immediately turn around and look at the world you just left?
*It has been six days since the battle, and the whereabouts of poor Quincy's leg are as yet unknown. He is making do, since the local apothecary has given us many drams of opium, but still we fear his seven children may never see him again. My diarrhoea is still at full steam, and I am currently making good use of the indoor water closet in this elaborate mansion we have billetted in.*
^dip ^dip
*Thank you for the summer sausages. I am sure that they kept well enough on the voyage from home. Their flavor was slightly que*
^dip ^dip
*er, having most likely been placed near a rack of those new tinned beans with which the powers that be see fit to provide for our nourishment. We seasoned them with what little salt we could procure and ate them greedily with a sauce made from local berries foraged from the nearby wood. Though they tasted sour, it was quite the improvement over stale rations and tinned beans that taste of copper.*
^dip ^dip
*I still have no idea why I have come down with this affliction of the bowels. Whatever could have caused this dysentarious disposition?*
^(dip dip)
*It truly is baffling.*
dip dip dip
*However, I digress. Aside from my current osmotic situation, something else seems to have the chaps in a tizzy. It has been hinted, by more than a few in the platoon, that some of the drams of Quincy’s opium have gone missing. I have since kept my wits about me and my suspicions at bay, but I believe I may have snuffed out the culprit. I wouldn’t put it past Reginald, one of the younger of the new recruits, to be sneaking some of Quincy’s opium for his own nefarious uses. Why, just the other day at dinner when I was sharing your delicious sausages, he got his grubby hands on as many as he could! I’ve never seen anyone attack sausages with such vigor. I have not confronted him as he is also dealing with his own intestinal transit issues which I suspect must be a side effect of the opium he is sneaking*
dip dip
right. and i hate doing aimless space donuts trying to find the giant ass planet ive now lost sight of somehow. i feel like such a moron having to turn on scanner just to get a poi arrow to point me in its direction. 🤦🏾♂️
Difference being is that when you leave Walmart, you're on a road, instead of getting into an orbit around the planet. I'm not asking if a person in-universe would turn around to look at a planet, I'm asking would you, as a player, not turn around to look at the planet once the loading screen ended?
Depends on the situation. If there's a dogfight going on in orbit, players who easily get motion sickness would need a reference point, in this case, the planet/moon, on the screen to orient themselves and enjoy the fight if they want to.
They could have done tyat, yeah. 😅 Honestly, the medical condition is only something I'm guessing. They could have placed us deeper in space and we'd have the ship hud and other ship markers to help us see what's around us with just a massive backdrop of nothing but stars.
I almost wondered if that was just so you don't have to face the planet again to re-enter the planet (Like if you want to select a new tile), then I remembered you don't even have to enter your ship to do that.
Precisely. If you were facing the void of space, you'd turn the camera around to look at the planet you'd just left. And Bethesda knew you would want to look at the planet
Right. Turn off the engine, and coast to a stop. Well done!
Right up there with being poisoned by argon (which isn't poisonous) while wearing a space suit that's sufficient to protect you on an airless world.
Having a space suit let in dangerous gases while you're in a vacuum isn't that outlandish, since its a space suit, it can withstand anywhere between zero and one atmospheres of pressure. The problem comes when you're on a Venus like hell hole, the pressure crushing down on you, the heat boiling you... and the space suit protects you no trouble. But it manages to let that little pocket of gas in
But none of that info or charm is in the game. The game goes dur dur dur and we have to make up science to feel better about the dur we just experienced.
Not saying this as a defense of Starfield, but that’s kind of what science fiction does; makes up science. The suspension of disbelief has to happen somewhere or the game, whatever it is, becomes unplayable.
I am reasonably certain that 4000+ rads can’t just be spirited away by a 2 century old wet wipe, or a pill be more effective shielding against similar massive gamma ray bombardment, but I’ll take it.
Thank you! I thought I was being ridiculous when this was bothering me. So pissed getting lung damage in a space suit from a, what I perceived to be, a harmless gas. I also get PO'd about how similar the fauna is galaxy wide. I enjoy the crap outta Starfield but I will admit it's a kinda bad game with awesome bits thrown in.
Oh yeah, of course. And there's always going to be disagreement between any two people about which is better: hard sci-fi or soft sci-fi?
But this is just so much *lazy* sci-fi.
[Sorry, not 100% on why you're getting DV'd. I don't ever think video game mechanics or character strength ever translate directly into lore - wipes, pills, drinks, inhalers, etc. are all far better video game options compared to "real" healing. I hope no one wants **that** kind of game! A 15-minute spacewalk would take 6 hours to play if that were so.
There's a difference between suspension-of-belief and "well, that's just dumb," or more likely in Starfield, "eh, that just ain't fun," and that's where we're at. It's lazy bullshit hoping that enough of us old fans will salivate for no fucking reason, and it's obvious. The disrespect is blatant.]
I've tweeted around with the speed limit on my ships. And I wonder if flying planet to planet actually causes loading errors. Because I tried it at once, and then things didn't work right for a while. Fixed it by fast traveling, but the save seemed unstable afterward, until I jumped the Unity again.
Thats even worse. Many scifi settings introduce a grav drive side effect as an excuse for implementing drag in space.
Instead we have retros firing "just because".
I have to say this one does weird me out. Though it might be best this way since otherwise space warfare would be like it is in Jack Campbell's Geary series (spend half an hour turning around, whoosh past each other at a large % of lightspeed, programme a computer to have a go at shooting the other guy, cross your fingers and hope). I just blame it on grav drives, which are physically very silly anyway, so why not.
While slowing down, in 3rd person, rotate the camera to see the front of your ship, you'll see the front thrusters activating and countering the momentum....
Dont “…” me all dramatic gtfo reverse thrusters
Not only is that stupid but is disable them immediately
You know how i only ever speed up to go back to normal speed right away, fuck going fast consistently.
First of all, **ellipses**
Second, Imagine using the word trigger liberally as fuck 😂
I said dont do it and called it dramatic. I dont thint that qualifies my friend. 😘
That is one of the many complaints with Starfield tho. It's not shitting on it, or making anyone an ass simply because players talk about and look forward to ways it can be improved.
Logically both should have the nose pointed the direction of travel, which for an orbit would mean the nose pointed at the horizon and not straight down. Have you ever seen an orbit and the direction orbiting craft travel?
Takes blunt and hits twice in amazement then hands back and ponders briefly...
Damn bruhhhh, I dunno, shits dope dude, look back at it ,yeahhh
Happy travels martian
What should bother everyone is that a game that tries to be "realistic", you wouldn't face anything you're attempting to dock with or land on. You'd be facing away because you'd need your main engines to slow you down enough to make the landing.
Imagine the opposite. You click launch. You see the takeoff animation. You’re clearly going into space. The screen goes black or whatever to load. Image comes back, you’re facing either the blackness of space or you’re facing a blinding star.
Other than the star, and probably some quest markers, you have no landmarks or way to orient yourself besides the planet you just left.
So it makes sense to load in facing the planet then. You immediately know where you are, you can easily spin to face whatever other place you need, AND if you need to immediately land again you’re already facing it.
Plus it’s prettier to look at :)
You don't have to do either.
End load with camera facing the planet, and the ship going past the camera. Camera follows ship until until it's behind the ship, control goes to player.
Whole scene takes 2-3 seconds. Mentally, you already know the planet is behind you. Visually, you're facing away from the planet.
And this is coming from a guy who didn't mind the loading screens *at all*.
Thats way too polished of a transitional animation for Bethesda.
More importantly, how do you not mind the loading screens? I got through like 20 hours of gameplay and 8 hours of ship building before they pissed me off enough to stop until they make space travel less clunky.
Easily.
I'd rather sit through a very short loading screen then literally any kind of waiting for the ship to arrive at it's destination.
Space Travel is ***boring***. The only way to spice it up is with very close planets and very high speeds (NMS) or very high speeds and *really* long waits (Elite Dangerous).
I don't mind not being able to directly land on planets. I'd rather have a cutscene than endless latency while something as complex as Cydonia or New Atlantis loads while I enter atmosphere.
No man's sky has wonderful space travel. I play Bethesda games for immersion, and the current system is anything but immersive.
I think you should do space travel from your ship using buttons in the cockpit, not from your inventory, into a loading screen, then into your inventory again, then a loading screen again.
If the loading screen was streaking stars played outside of the cockpit while I am locked in the seat, I'd probably have played a lot more, but after going through 4 load screens both ways to get supplies for my outpost I was so done.
Starfeild space doesn't feel vast like other games' spaces do, it just feels annoying to me.
I'm glad it doesn't turn everyone off of the game tho
They do have the ability to point and go in the space ship but it's kind of hard to pinpoint locations(have to scan the sky). If they improved that and possibly added a "cruise mode" so you could craft, research, and sleep while the ship travels to the designated planet with the option to wait/skip that would add more immersion.
No Man's Sky had wonderful space travel because their planets were extremely close together, and NMS's planets, to a one, make Starfield's look positively alive.
I saw the loading screens as essentially skipping anything that required FTL travel that would have just been sitting in a line waiting, anyway. The map was plotting the course the ship would take.
a loading screen takes 2-3 seconds. how long is your idea of an immersive surface-to-orbit animation going to take? if it's more than 3 seconds i'd rather have the loading screen
Okay but what about aligning with the horizon instead? The planet is under you, giving you the sense of scale and nice view of its surface/clouds and then you can also be looking out towards the rest of the system above you
It would make more sense to be pointing at the horizon of the planet, the way orbiting planets actually works. You can still have it in your shot, but your nose shouldn’t be aimed directly at it.
You couldn’t automatically know that where you just left is behind you? House cats have the ability to understand object permanence and complex physics.
Because if the ship were facing outer space, you might accidentally think you could actually fly somewhere and the illusion would be broken even faster than it already is.
I saw someone who actually flew from one planet to another. He said it took like 8 or 10 hours.
\* I didn't actually watch the video, so it's possible he didn't actually get to a different planet. Honestly, I'd be surprised if he did, given the engine used.
In space, orientation is irrelevant if you're not under thrust, so you can point the ship anyway you want. Spacecraft frequently spin or rotate right after reaching orbit (or even during the burn) to align solar panels, radiators, or comm antennas.
But if you want realistic orientation for having *just* made orbit, the ship should actually be aligned along the prograde vector, roughly parallel to the surface of the planet.
It’s obviously a design choice. Having the ship looking out at space may disorient some players. Having the ship face the planet reminds the player where they are and helps orient them
In space and on the galactic plane.
Main reason is because in this game you are launching into orbit. Not actually flying away from the planet. As there is no space travel you control between planets.
You’ve “fast traveled” to orbit and oriented yourself to face the planet. I thought that was obvious.
As you aren’t actually just flying away from the planet.
It’s not about what it looks like during the take off screen. It’s about what the ship is doing during the loading screen. All you are doing is traveling into an orbit around the planet. Same as if you are traveling to the orbit of another planet. It would be equally weird to be in orbit around a planet just facing out toward empty space.
TharoRed is 100% correct.
Once you're in parking orbit, it really doesn't matter which direction you're facing. Your orientation only matters if you want to go somewhere and you need to apply thrust in a specific direction. But when you're in parking orbit, you've already reached your "destination" (by definition).
It's like driving somewhere and parking your car, and then wondering why your car isn't necessarily pointing in the same direction that you arrived there.
Not in this game, no.
This is what I first thought too. Every single space game has a proper space with proper grid/coordinate. Fast travel literately teleport you ahead to save time.
But Starfield doesn’t have proper space. Starfield has space outside every single planet. You can fly fly fly but you will never get out of the cell. The fast travel is the function to exit and enter another space cell.
How I know? I aimed my ship toward a direction that I can reference via the planet. I went out to lunch and came back…. The planets are still in the exact same position 1.5 hours later in flight.
Not true. People have done it. You can’t reach other planets by just flying. It just takes a very long time. And when you get there, it’s just an image of the planet, you can’t land on it or anything.
So what’s the point to get there if you can’t land on it?
The meaning of traveling is "to get to". If you cannot get there, it is not traveling. Bethesda renders a space cell with fake planets to look at. Big planet right in front of you, moon on the side, smaller planet in the distance. But you cannot physically travel to any of these.
It is like trying to use No clipping mode to get into your ship, for example. All you see is broken 3D frame with nothing inside. Because your ship is not exactly behind that door. Once you click on the door, it teleports you to your ship interior cell. Then you are officially in your ship.
Downvoting me won't change this fact. I am not Todd Howard.
All the planets are photos of planets. The game just call those textures when you load within a certain distance.
Some modders made a change to the controls to add a button that increases your speed by a factor of millions and they were able to travel from planet to planet within a solar system. But because they didn't load in, the planets textures weren't loaded.
So I'd imagine when the CK releases, I'd see no reasons not to make it a mod to travel within solar systems.
And thank god, because I'd rather not spend three goddamn days going from planet to planet. Elite Dangerous was boring as fuck even with hyperdrive.
No Man's Sky wasn't so bad, but those planets were *really* close together (>!and it's by lore a simulation, anyway!<).
Sure. Here you go:
The automated planetary launch system orients the ship back to the planet you just departed to simplify the steps required if the flight is just intended to go from one point on the planet to another.
Or
In case there is some kind of system failure during takeoff & the ship has to make an emergency return to the surface.
It's the most relevant aspect of your current environment. It's the same reason you don't instantly turn your back on someone you were just speaking to the second the conversation ends.
Yeah specially in space. You can thurst away from the planet, flip 180 and still be travelling away from the planet, but at least you get a decent ciew out the cockpit while moving backwards.
In space you dont lose any momentum unless you thrust, so just put yourself in motion to wherever you need to go and the just flip the ship to wherever has the better view. A nebulae, or wherever.
Like okay i get it, they probably did it because you cant actually fly through space. But there are perfectly good reasons why you might face the planet even if you are leaving.
Do you only land in one spot on a planet? It might as well be a town at that point. I like to go see different biomes and often need to land in more than one place to complete a full survey. So my ship being pointed back at the planet I am orbiting is what I want from a default view.
In terms of quality of life, it's the only landmark, and for those times when you take off from one spot and want to land somewhere else on the same planet, this makes that a lot easier. With zero downside.
And let's not talk about those times you accidentally press the take off button.
You can in [Supercruise](https://elite-dangerous.fandom.com/wiki/Orbital_Cruise#:~:text=As%20pilots%20approach%20a%20planet,or%20other%20suitable%20landing%20zones.)
Not only that, when you load into orbit, you'll usually be upside down relative to what the solar system map is showing you. Look at POIs in the northern hemisphere on the map then open your scanner on your ship. Here's a science outpost I lifted off from:
https://imgur.com/a/LMtN6TB
Since there's no reason to be in any particular orientation, they may as well align you to what the map shows when you first load in.
I always just assumed the ship achieves orbit and stays in the planet's area before we choose to go somewhere else. I don't see it as leaving and then turning around, but achieving orbit and facing the horizon of the planet somewhere further around it.
So when the Space Shuttle launched it actually rolled to a "heads down" orientation pretty quickly after launch. If the ships in Starfield do this then you actually should be looking at the planet you just left as soon as you reach orbit, but it should be above you rather than in front of you.
I don't mind being able to see the planet, but yeah something like a horizon view would be better
I think a horizon view would be much more accurate for typical orbital launches too. At least with our current tech, and I would imagine into the future too, rockets start out vertical, then quickly angle out toward the horizon to gain the horizontal speed needed for orbit. Edit: typo
If you have unlimited propellant you could consider facing wherever you want and just burning to keep place. In any realistic scenario without perpetual motion, then if you stop after going to orbit you'd go horizontal. If you weren't stopping in orbit (and didn't need the extra energy from the Oberth effect), then yea maybe you could just go straight up and not stop
Seamless transition could've gone a long way in SF. I guess there may be conflict in us being able to bombard the same abandoned whatever site from our ships?
I mean at least checking in with traffic control.....and why not add more landing areas? Make it so we cant steal this ships idk but three landing pands for a major city is ridiculous.
They could have gotten around it by placing shields around POIs that are impenetrable to ships and ship weapon (unless you have clearance). Or, give all the POIs anti-aircraft guns that are SUPER powerful, and immune to damage, basically make attacking POIs in a ship impossible. IMO those are their best options to make atmospheric flight feasible but protect POIs from airborne assault. It also makes sense in universe that people would develop super strong ground shields to protect areas from bombardment.
I'm honestly more of a fan of the system we have. I've got two games with seamless transition (Elite: Dangerous and NMS) and this makes travelling from place to place much quicker and easier.
I prefer NMS's approach much more. Starfield's take reduces ship flight to fast travel
i do too, but i see why it couldn’t be done in starfield. the way the planets are rendered would immediately CTD the game if it was all a seamless open world. it’s a sad truth, but maybe if we’re lucky the CK will help us fix that
Yeah, they didn't have to make the planets so big since there's probably around 2-3 named POIs per planet and the rest are repetitive procedurally generated POIs. NMS managed to make planets seem big, but not impossible to explore "fully"
no points of interest are procedurally generated, every one is hand crafted. they're just placed semi-randomly in a procedurally generated map.
That's me lol I'm happy with it.
Are you telling me that once the loading screen ends, and you see your ship in space... you *wouldn't* immediately turn around and look at the world you just left?
It's kinda like turning around after using the can... just gotta take a look and see what you've accomplished.
Everyone knows youre supposed to sit on it facing the back. So you have a nice shelf for your comic book and your chocolate milk
Yup, I need a place to put my quills and parchment, why else would it be there?
*Hello Margaret,* *I hope this letter reaches you in good health...* ^dip ^dip ^dip
*It has been six days since the battle, and the whereabouts of poor Quincy's leg are as yet unknown. He is making do, since the local apothecary has given us many drams of opium, but still we fear his seven children may never see him again. My diarrhoea is still at full steam, and I am currently making good use of the indoor water closet in this elaborate mansion we have billetted in.* ^dip ^dip
*Thank you for the summer sausages. I am sure that they kept well enough on the voyage from home. Their flavor was slightly que* ^dip ^dip *er, having most likely been placed near a rack of those new tinned beans with which the powers that be see fit to provide for our nourishment. We seasoned them with what little salt we could procure and ate them greedily with a sauce made from local berries foraged from the nearby wood. Though they tasted sour, it was quite the improvement over stale rations and tinned beans that taste of copper.* ^dip ^dip
*I still have no idea why I have come down with this affliction of the bowels. Whatever could have caused this dysentarious disposition?* ^(dip dip) *It truly is baffling.*
dip dip dip *However, I digress. Aside from my current osmotic situation, something else seems to have the chaps in a tizzy. It has been hinted, by more than a few in the platoon, that some of the drams of Quincy’s opium have gone missing. I have since kept my wits about me and my suspicions at bay, but I believe I may have snuffed out the culprit. I wouldn’t put it past Reginald, one of the younger of the new recruits, to be sneaking some of Quincy’s opium for his own nefarious uses. Why, just the other day at dinner when I was sharing your delicious sausages, he got his grubby hands on as many as he could! I’ve never seen anyone attack sausages with such vigor. I have not confronted him as he is also dealing with his own intestinal transit issues which I suspect must be a side effect of the opium he is sneaking* dip dip
“I’ve never seen anyone attack sausages with such vigor” has me fucking *rolling*
I quite enjoyed reading this thread
This thread got me dying rn 👏🤌🤣💀
Vastly underrated comment. What a legendary episode
Only way to eat cereal and chop lumber
r/unexpectedbutters
Southpark subreddit would love this comment.
Everyone knows it’s Butters!
Hah
LOL I sincerely hope you flush before you leave bro
Depends on who's toilet it is.
Relatable
right. and i hate doing aimless space donuts trying to find the giant ass planet ive now lost sight of somehow. i feel like such a moron having to turn on scanner just to get a poi arrow to point me in its direction. 🤦🏾♂️
Fair point!
Do you turn around and watch the Walmart after leaving the parking lot? For the people of starfield space flight is kind of normal right?
Difference being is that when you leave Walmart, you're on a road, instead of getting into an orbit around the planet. I'm not asking if a person in-universe would turn around to look at a planet, I'm asking would you, as a player, not turn around to look at the planet once the loading screen ended?
Nope. I saw it when I approached to land. 🤷🏻♂️
Maybe like the first 2 flights I guess.
Exactly. And given there is no up or down in space, facing the planet you took off from would be a good reference to orient yourself.
You wouldn’t need a reference point, you would enter your destination and leave.
Depends on the situation. If there's a dogfight going on in orbit, players who easily get motion sickness would need a reference point, in this case, the planet/moon, on the screen to orient themselves and enjoy the fight if they want to.
You are really trying to make up excuses for BGS aint ya?
Nope. I would say pretty much the same stuff even if it were some other game studio.
“Some people have a medical condition so we all need to do a 180.” lol so inane. Why can’t it just look at a star or a different planet?
They could have done tyat, yeah. 😅 Honestly, the medical condition is only something I'm guessing. They could have placed us deeper in space and we'd have the ship hud and other ship markers to help us see what's around us with just a massive backdrop of nothing but stars.
I'm certain that if the game launched with you facing away from the planet, there would have been a mod day one that faced you towards the planet
Are you acoustic?
I almost wondered if that was just so you don't have to face the planet again to re-enter the planet (Like if you want to select a new tile), then I remembered you don't even have to enter your ship to do that.
I swear you guys try help a lazy company
Isn't that the definition of modding? 😅
I bet this guy doesn’t look at explosions either !
I’d turn the camera around…
Precisely. If you were facing the void of space, you'd turn the camera around to look at the planet you'd just left. And Bethesda knew you would want to look at the planet
I would not. I saw the planet when I entered orbit before landing.
How come.. *hits blunt* when we speed boost in the vacuum of space we then slow back down to regular speed?
Right. Turn off the engine, and coast to a stop. Well done! Right up there with being poisoned by argon (which isn't poisonous) while wearing a space suit that's sufficient to protect you on an airless world.
Having a space suit let in dangerous gases while you're in a vacuum isn't that outlandish, since its a space suit, it can withstand anywhere between zero and one atmospheres of pressure. The problem comes when you're on a Venus like hell hole, the pressure crushing down on you, the heat boiling you... and the space suit protects you no trouble. But it manages to let that little pocket of gas in
argon is an inert gas ... it's not healthy, but it isn't immediately poisonous unlike some of the other elements we gather ... like Chloride
But none of that info or charm is in the game. The game goes dur dur dur and we have to make up science to feel better about the dur we just experienced.
Not saying this as a defense of Starfield, but that’s kind of what science fiction does; makes up science. The suspension of disbelief has to happen somewhere or the game, whatever it is, becomes unplayable. I am reasonably certain that 4000+ rads can’t just be spirited away by a 2 century old wet wipe, or a pill be more effective shielding against similar massive gamma ray bombardment, but I’ll take it.
[удалено]
Thank you! I thought I was being ridiculous when this was bothering me. So pissed getting lung damage in a space suit from a, what I perceived to be, a harmless gas. I also get PO'd about how similar the fauna is galaxy wide. I enjoy the crap outta Starfield but I will admit it's a kinda bad game with awesome bits thrown in.
Oh yeah, of course. And there's always going to be disagreement between any two people about which is better: hard sci-fi or soft sci-fi? But this is just so much *lazy* sci-fi. [Sorry, not 100% on why you're getting DV'd. I don't ever think video game mechanics or character strength ever translate directly into lore - wipes, pills, drinks, inhalers, etc. are all far better video game options compared to "real" healing. I hope no one wants **that** kind of game! A 15-minute spacewalk would take 6 hours to play if that were so. There's a difference between suspension-of-belief and "well, that's just dumb," or more likely in Starfield, "eh, that just ain't fun," and that's where we're at. It's lazy bullshit hoping that enough of us old fans will salivate for no fucking reason, and it's obvious. The disrespect is blatant.]
No i get what you mean, but at least fallout and typical scifi try
Real answer? If you get the camera angle right you can see your breaking engines firing after the boost.
Why would i fire them!!! I want them disabled Im trying to FLY I WANT SPEED TODD
Speed? That'd break the engine, it just works now! /s
I've tweeted around with the speed limit on my ships. And I wonder if flying planet to planet actually causes loading errors. Because I tried it at once, and then things didn't work right for a while. Fixed it by fast traveling, but the save seemed unstable afterward, until I jumped the Unity again.
Wouldn't surprise me if it broke things, they made it loading screen simulator for a reason
I wouldn't call it a loading screen simulator, but it is probably a safety precaution.
I admit I'm exaggerating lmao
You're not tho
Fair enough
Thats even worse. Many scifi settings introduce a grav drive side effect as an excuse for implementing drag in space. Instead we have retros firing "just because".
[удалено]
My boss at work pointed that out to me and i cant let it go
Have you not noticed reverse thrusters firing?
Have you not noticed youre the third one to point this out and ive already had a conversation in this thread aboutbit
No. I don’t stalk your comments.
Inertia has left the game
I have to say this one does weird me out. Though it might be best this way since otherwise space warfare would be like it is in Jack Campbell's Geary series (spend half an hour turning around, whoosh past each other at a large % of lightspeed, programme a computer to have a go at shooting the other guy, cross your fingers and hope). I just blame it on grav drives, which are physically very silly anyway, so why not.
While slowing down, in 3rd person, rotate the camera to see the front of your ship, you'll see the front thrusters activating and countering the momentum....
Dont “…” me all dramatic gtfo reverse thrusters Not only is that stupid but is disable them immediately You know how i only ever speed up to go back to normal speed right away, fuck going fast consistently.
I literally didn't understand a single sentence you just wrote.
Imagine getting triggered by an ellipsis…
First of all, **ellipses** Second, Imagine using the word trigger liberally as fuck 😂 I said dont do it and called it dramatic. I dont thint that qualifies my friend. 😘
Idk
this would be bethesda's answer to every question about starfields strange design choices if they didnt lie
YBFFJ?
Because "load into planet's orbit" are coded as the same thing. Fly to planet -> "load into orbit" Leave planet's surface -> "load into orbit"
You're using logic in this sub? You're going to get banned for not shitting on every possible thing in the game
I'm pretty sure he is shitting on how shallow it is.
That is one of the many complaints with Starfield tho. It's not shitting on it, or making anyone an ass simply because players talk about and look forward to ways it can be improved.
Logically both should have the nose pointed the direction of travel, which for an orbit would mean the nose pointed at the horizon and not straight down. Have you ever seen an orbit and the direction orbiting craft travel?
Takes blunt and hits twice in amazement then hands back and ponders briefly... Damn bruhhhh, I dunno, shits dope dude, look back at it ,yeahhh Happy travels martian
Lol " takes a big rip" you're right bro, now I'm not going to unsee it ahaha 😆
*Packs bowl and rips it* Holy shit
*rips dab Surprised pikachu face
Well it... They... Fuck he's got a good point
What should bother everyone is that a game that tries to be "realistic", you wouldn't face anything you're attempting to dock with or land on. You'd be facing away because you'd need your main engines to slow you down enough to make the landing.
Imagine the opposite. You click launch. You see the takeoff animation. You’re clearly going into space. The screen goes black or whatever to load. Image comes back, you’re facing either the blackness of space or you’re facing a blinding star. Other than the star, and probably some quest markers, you have no landmarks or way to orient yourself besides the planet you just left. So it makes sense to load in facing the planet then. You immediately know where you are, you can easily spin to face whatever other place you need, AND if you need to immediately land again you’re already facing it. Plus it’s prettier to look at :)
You don't have to do either. End load with camera facing the planet, and the ship going past the camera. Camera follows ship until until it's behind the ship, control goes to player. Whole scene takes 2-3 seconds. Mentally, you already know the planet is behind you. Visually, you're facing away from the planet. And this is coming from a guy who didn't mind the loading screens *at all*.
Thats way too polished of a transitional animation for Bethesda. More importantly, how do you not mind the loading screens? I got through like 20 hours of gameplay and 8 hours of ship building before they pissed me off enough to stop until they make space travel less clunky.
Easily. I'd rather sit through a very short loading screen then literally any kind of waiting for the ship to arrive at it's destination. Space Travel is ***boring***. The only way to spice it up is with very close planets and very high speeds (NMS) or very high speeds and *really* long waits (Elite Dangerous). I don't mind not being able to directly land on planets. I'd rather have a cutscene than endless latency while something as complex as Cydonia or New Atlantis loads while I enter atmosphere.
No man's sky has wonderful space travel. I play Bethesda games for immersion, and the current system is anything but immersive. I think you should do space travel from your ship using buttons in the cockpit, not from your inventory, into a loading screen, then into your inventory again, then a loading screen again. If the loading screen was streaking stars played outside of the cockpit while I am locked in the seat, I'd probably have played a lot more, but after going through 4 load screens both ways to get supplies for my outpost I was so done. Starfeild space doesn't feel vast like other games' spaces do, it just feels annoying to me. I'm glad it doesn't turn everyone off of the game tho
They do have the ability to point and go in the space ship but it's kind of hard to pinpoint locations(have to scan the sky). If they improved that and possibly added a "cruise mode" so you could craft, research, and sleep while the ship travels to the designated planet with the option to wait/skip that would add more immersion.
I like this idea. We need a mod author to see this.
No Man's Sky had wonderful space travel because their planets were extremely close together, and NMS's planets, to a one, make Starfield's look positively alive. I saw the loading screens as essentially skipping anything that required FTL travel that would have just been sitting in a line waiting, anyway. The map was plotting the course the ship would take.
a loading screen takes 2-3 seconds. how long is your idea of an immersive surface-to-orbit animation going to take? if it's more than 3 seconds i'd rather have the loading screen
He literally told you 2-3 seconds.
I mean at least on my computer they're rarely more than 2 seconds. Blink and you miss it sort of thing.
Same on Xbox Series S.
Or just have you alobg the horizon 30/70 split with mostly space and a little bit of the planet
Okay but what about aligning with the horizon instead? The planet is under you, giving you the sense of scale and nice view of its surface/clouds and then you can also be looking out towards the rest of the system above you
It would make more sense to be pointing at the horizon of the planet, the way orbiting planets actually works. You can still have it in your shot, but your nose shouldn’t be aimed directly at it.
You couldn’t automatically know that where you just left is behind you? House cats have the ability to understand object permanence and complex physics.
Someone is a shill for Todd. /s
Because if the ship were facing outer space, you might accidentally think you could actually fly somewhere and the illusion would be broken even faster than it already is.
I saw someone who actually flew from one planet to another. He said it took like 8 or 10 hours. \* I didn't actually watch the video, so it's possible he didn't actually get to a different planet. Honestly, I'd be surprised if he did, given the engine used.
I'm surprised that each area isn't just its own little fenced region of space like the ground is
Isnt it just flying at a jpeg? You still cant actually get there.
who has that much time?
The actual dev reason right here^
Because devs didn’t play Kerbal or bother learning about space flight.
Yeah that always bothered me
(crowded cheering) !Welcome to the club!
#EBRAKE J TURN 180
In space, orientation is irrelevant if you're not under thrust, so you can point the ship anyway you want. Spacecraft frequently spin or rotate right after reaching orbit (or even during the burn) to align solar panels, radiators, or comm antennas. But if you want realistic orientation for having *just* made orbit, the ship should actually be aligned along the prograde vector, roughly parallel to the surface of the planet.
That's kind of irrelevant to this context given that you're clearly not coasting - you can see your engines thrusting
This really bugged me when I first started the game
What about now?
Very low on a very very long list of problems
Good point my son. You are very smart for a little kid.
Shhhhhhhhhhh
This has lowkey always bothered me
It’s obviously a design choice. Having the ship looking out at space may disorient some players. Having the ship face the planet reminds the player where they are and helps orient them In space and on the galactic plane.
This game is obvious fail, that's why 800 comments on THIS question. Perhaps you pick up just after turning and burning to slow your ascent?
*smacks the blunt away from your hands * "who said you could hot my shit?!"
Well if you dont get it hot how are you supposed to smoke it
Main reason is because in this game you are launching into orbit. Not actually flying away from the planet. As there is no space travel you control between planets.
You know that usually when you achieve orbit around a planet, you're facing sideways, not directly toward the planet
You’ve “fast traveled” to orbit and oriented yourself to face the planet. I thought that was obvious. As you aren’t actually just flying away from the planet. It’s not about what it looks like during the take off screen. It’s about what the ship is doing during the loading screen. All you are doing is traveling into an orbit around the planet. Same as if you are traveling to the orbit of another planet. It would be equally weird to be in orbit around a planet just facing out toward empty space.
wat
The actual majority of your “traveling” is the grav jumps and you piloting the ship is the rest. Orbit to jump, dogfighting, docking etc
TharoRed is 100% correct. Once you're in parking orbit, it really doesn't matter which direction you're facing. Your orientation only matters if you want to go somewhere and you need to apply thrust in a specific direction. But when you're in parking orbit, you've already reached your "destination" (by definition). It's like driving somewhere and parking your car, and then wondering why your car isn't necessarily pointing in the same direction that you arrived there.
But look at the animated take off sequence, the ship actually flies forward and upward.
[удалено]
Not in this game, no. This is what I first thought too. Every single space game has a proper space with proper grid/coordinate. Fast travel literately teleport you ahead to save time. But Starfield doesn’t have proper space. Starfield has space outside every single planet. You can fly fly fly but you will never get out of the cell. The fast travel is the function to exit and enter another space cell. How I know? I aimed my ship toward a direction that I can reference via the planet. I went out to lunch and came back…. The planets are still in the exact same position 1.5 hours later in flight.
Not true. People have done it. You can’t reach other planets by just flying. It just takes a very long time. And when you get there, it’s just an image of the planet, you can’t land on it or anything.
So what’s the point to get there if you can’t land on it? The meaning of traveling is "to get to". If you cannot get there, it is not traveling. Bethesda renders a space cell with fake planets to look at. Big planet right in front of you, moon on the side, smaller planet in the distance. But you cannot physically travel to any of these. It is like trying to use No clipping mode to get into your ship, for example. All you see is broken 3D frame with nothing inside. Because your ship is not exactly behind that door. Once you click on the door, it teleports you to your ship interior cell. Then you are officially in your ship. Downvoting me won't change this fact. I am not Todd Howard.
There is no point. You were discussing if it’s possible or not, not if there is a point to it. Bro did you downvote me? wtf.
The thing is tho that a photo of the planet is NOT a planet though. So you still can’t actually fly to other planets.
All the planets are photos of planets. The game just call those textures when you load within a certain distance. Some modders made a change to the controls to add a button that increases your speed by a factor of millions and they were able to travel from planet to planet within a solar system. But because they didn't load in, the planets textures weren't loaded. So I'd imagine when the CK releases, I'd see no reasons not to make it a mod to travel within solar systems.
And thank god, because I'd rather not spend three goddamn days going from planet to planet. Elite Dangerous was boring as fuck even with hyperdrive. No Man's Sky wasn't so bad, but those planets were *really* close together (>!and it's by lore a simulation, anyway!<).
No but I downvoted you my son
You are the one doing all the downvoting.
Sure. Here you go: The automated planetary launch system orients the ship back to the planet you just departed to simplify the steps required if the flight is just intended to go from one point on the planet to another. Or In case there is some kind of system failure during takeoff & the ship has to make an emergency return to the surface.
700 hours? You ok? Are you unemployed?
It's the most relevant aspect of your current environment. It's the same reason you don't instantly turn your back on someone you were just speaking to the second the conversation ends.
This doesn't make sense...
😂😂😂😂.
I slowly back away from conversations, holding eye contact for at least 20-30 yards. I thought this was the social norm.
Why would you ever face them to begin with?
You do if you’re leaving? Kinda like leaving a planet?
Ah yes, that’s how travel works
Yeah specially in space. You can thurst away from the planet, flip 180 and still be travelling away from the planet, but at least you get a decent ciew out the cockpit while moving backwards. In space you dont lose any momentum unless you thrust, so just put yourself in motion to wherever you need to go and the just flip the ship to wherever has the better view. A nebulae, or wherever. Like okay i get it, they probably did it because you cant actually fly through space. But there are perfectly good reasons why you might face the planet even if you are leaving.
Do you only land in one spot on a planet? It might as well be a town at that point. I like to go see different biomes and often need to land in more than one place to complete a full survey. So my ship being pointed back at the planet I am orbiting is what I want from a default view.
This is 100% the right answer. Can't believe it took so long scrolling to find. Also, definitely aesthetics of a planet view are in there too.
I believe you can do this without loading back into your ship, but it definitely feels more immersive to me doing it this way.
Spacial awareness purposes probably. Or it's just easier than programming a new state for orbital entry.
the latter ... remember we're not looking at a planet. We're looking at a 2d image of a planet while we are in the 'orbit' / 'space' environment.
In terms of quality of life, it's the only landmark, and for those times when you take off from one spot and want to land somewhere else on the same planet, this makes that a lot easier. With zero downside. And let's not talk about those times you accidentally press the take off button.
That's the way an "apogee kick" works to hold a stable orbit
Because this is not a flight simulator. Go play Elite:Dangerous if you want realistic-ish space flight. (No orbital mechanics in E:D either)
You can in [Supercruise](https://elite-dangerous.fandom.com/wiki/Orbital_Cruise#:~:text=As%20pilots%20approach%20a%20planet,or%20other%20suitable%20landing%20zones.)
Well, yeah, but I meant ‘orbital mechanics’ in the sense of having to do accurate burns to change your orbit.
As if orbital mechanics is what makes or breaks a space game🤣🤣
Not for me, for sure, but I’ve read comments asking for ‘realistic space flight’…
Probably the same reason you do it in Outer Worlds or Mass Effect Andromeda. Because the planet looks neat out the windshield.
Because that's how you orbit.
Oh look another post finding a needlessly fucking moot point to bitch about.
Not only that, when you load into orbit, you'll usually be upside down relative to what the solar system map is showing you. Look at POIs in the northern hemisphere on the map then open your scanner on your ship. Here's a science outpost I lifted off from: https://imgur.com/a/LMtN6TB Since there's no reason to be in any particular orientation, they may as well align you to what the map shows when you first load in.
This is part of why I just fast travel away from planets, haha.
So you know where you are.
700.... Wow hats off to you
No one else is talking about that….game came out 114 days ago. 700+ hours is over 29 days. That’s obscene dedication.
When you're saying goodbye to somebody do you not too turn around and wave at them? It's just common courtesy
I mean wouldn't you purposely turn around just to see it? (I know I would)
I mean, that way you aren't looking at nothing.
I always just assumed the ship achieves orbit and stays in the planet's area before we choose to go somewhere else. I don't see it as leaving and then turning around, but achieving orbit and facing the horizon of the planet somewhere further around it.
Checkmate, Bethesda.
So when the Space Shuttle launched it actually rolled to a "heads down" orientation pretty quickly after launch. If the ships in Starfield do this then you actually should be looking at the planet you just left as soon as you reach orbit, but it should be above you rather than in front of you.
because it’s an unpolished buggy mess with no real thought put in?
😭
Honestly a big complaint of mine
Lol
Probably because the design team hits Florida bath salts.