Orbital "Layer"

but they do, they dont just shoot weapons through the orbital layer they send UNITS with HP that can be shot that physically pass through the orbital layer and some point during thier trajectory could be considered in transit. air units dont dive through the sea and get hit by torpedoes.


note im talking about landers and units cannons in terms of sending units to other planets which intrinsically means they HAVE to pass through 2 orbital "layers".

Sigh, yes they pass through the Orbital layer physically, but they don't interact with it.

Mike

The fact of the matter is that we are all getting hung up on the mechanics of something we haven't even seen yet. Currently we don't exactly know how orbital units are going to behave, but Uber's got this. Everything we've seen so far has been intuitive and easy to use, so I'm sure they will continue this trend. Once we have been presented with the new mechanic, then we can pick at it and help them refine it by pointing out what works and what doesn't. For now we're just getting anxious about a problem that only exists in our heads.

Nanolathe you lied to me!

with orbital fighters beeing implemented in the recent update i wonder if those can travel between orbits like say from earth type to gastype or if they are fixed in one planetorbit ... since it won´t be posible to build on gasplanetground i assume

They already answered this, satellites are tied to the orbit of the planet where they are constructed.

Hopefully you'll be able to build orbital factories in orbit as well as on the ground.

I'm so sorry. I trusted the Devs. They betrayed me! I gave them FAR too much credit, apparently.

I gave them the benefit of the doubt. I trusted them... and they stabbed me in the back. Worse... they turned me, an innocent bystander, into a LAIR!

They made me look like a fool On The Internet.

Well you are a highly influential community member. I don't think there are very many people happy with this decision, there is still time to change things.

It has been said that the devs haven't gone back on anything yet, but they really haven't had to, up till now they were just dealing with things that had already been explored in previous games. Now they are treading new ground and will have to be more deliberate. I just hope they don't insist on sticking to a rushed schedule and release it before it's finished. Worse games have spent years in development.

Also they have made several revisions with magma and metal planets, but I suppose that's just art direction.

Prominent maybe. Prolific, definitely... but I don't know if the devs take me seriously enough for anyone to really call me influential.

As far as I can tell, I haven't actually "influenced" anything with regards to the game... yet.

I heard your name dropped in one of the livestreams once.

satelites maybe but does that also count for fighters?

Well, it looks like there was an orbital layer anyway.

Though I think if we all voice our concerns they will listen.

(They did say that they were using existing systems for orbital as they worked on it though)

Well I hope that's true.

I don't get why all the hyped up assumption. I am pretty sure as flying units fly, orbital units will orbit.

To clarify, i am pretty sure orbital units won't be bound to a layer persay, i am sure they will be able to change orbit or even leave for a different planets orbit. Thus, it would have free gravitational movement within its unit movement method ( rockets or thrusters)

Why they really call it a layer and want to avoid confusion otherwise, is because these must interact with a "gravity well" as in a planet. This means fighting in space is a no, such as no camping in deep space because empty space isnt travel-to-able and only through-which-traveled, and no fighting ship-beside-ship in space as you wouldn't be attackable or able to attack unless back in the "playing field" of near a gravity well which your unit can only be in.

So, orbital units will function as space, but it's deployment and combat initiation is limited to a gravity well. It will be in space, just not empty space, it can only be built in and travel to and remain stationary and fight around a planet.

Closest thing to space combat, will be interplanetary artillery capable of firing between gravity wells. Because that would still be fighting happening on a planet. But you can not house or keep or have units attack from outside a planet in random space.

Your unit must "belong" spacially to a planet or be unusable during its short transition to another planet which it cannot avoid but to belong to afterwards.

That is the clarified definition of what orbital layer will mean or space combat will not mean.

WHAT IS A VALID CONCERN is what orbital units do. Being a repeat of air is what i think we don't want. Being unique utility is what I'd say i want. Radar and visual coverage, orbital transit platforms, advanced stationary orbital base defense, orbital defenses against enemy entry onto planet, anti orbital orbitals, radar capable of scanning outward onto outside planets.

Trophy, I think you're a bit behind of Dev Comments, I'd suggest reading through YourLocalMadScientist's Orbital thread.

Mike

Most my post still stands. The realistic orbiting using ellipses to sustain a location is news to me but is amazing fun and kerbalish. The rockets are obvious. Transports would be my reference to platforms. I am sure other units may do this. In that post, it even describes the type of units that would make the orbital layer benefit the game.

So, what was wrong with my post, and why didn't someone link it already? It verbedum me parallel in some sentences.

EDIT: you jerk, you got my hopes up about that cool orbiting scheme. I was fine with geosync before anyway. But what in there said you couldn't travel between with orbital units or that orbital units didn't do exactly as i said anyway? They are in space but must be on planet

Thhe important part, is that they not be fighters and bombers. Defenses, flying structures, sensors like radar...

Heh, that's why I said to read the thread! ;p

As for the traveling between bodies, if it's not there, it's somewhere, I swear I recall Jon mentioning that 'satellites' wouldn't be traveling between planets and such.

The issue I have and for me what still defines the current Orbital Layer as 'Air 2.0' is that while they may not have identical movement specifications to air units, many of the fundamentals are still preset in that they have very few limits. A proper orbiting system for Sats would lead to the layer feeling very distinct from any other layer, as it is not, it's just a second Air layer with a new type of 'planes' that move with the same fundamentals as proper air units but with some different details.

To use one of my patently bad analogies, it's like the difference between a car that has 2 models, one a hard top and one a convertible, they are different in some respects, but they still have 4 wheels, they still steer with the front wheel ect ect.

Mike

I for one hope we get orbital telescopes so they can look at a planet far away. with a moving line of sight when they're able to see it (As both planets rotate) Could be an interesting source of info

I have three words for you.

Arecibo. Observatory. Facility.

That is all.

They are built in the orbital factory so one would assume they share the same rules given to satellites.

---

That's not right at all:

The lander is the only orbital unit (that they have plans to include as yet) that will be able to traverse between different planets, it can carry other units that would fit inside to another planet, but they can't get there on there own.

Which let's face it, makes sense. After all satellites and the like aren't designed to travel to other planets, technically they could do it, but it would take decades, if not longer.