You guys didn't listen to me when I said that it was an issue that some units were just a straight upgrade to others. You all said it wasn't a problem, that uber was totally in control of it. Well who's got two thumbs and the "I-told-you-so" smirk on his face now? This guy.
No matter how often you'll state this, you're simply wrong. As your linked Wikipedia entry states If the angular velocity of the object on this path matches the angular velocity of the point it orbits (in this case a planet) it just looks to an observer located on the point (and the angular velocity of this point) as if the object isn't orbiting. But some body located in an intertial system can clearly see the path.
hahahahaha, honestly how do the sats in the game as it stands match this part: "If the angular velocity of the object on this path matches the angular velocity of the point it orbits" Answer: they don't, as this is only going to hold true for one specific altitude above the equator. Even if we assume that the altitude in game is the geostationary altitude, then only satellites above the equator can be geostationary, and in game sats are not restricted to the equator. If you really think that geostationary orbits explain the behaviour of the current sats then you don't understand orbits
We do also have to consider that is likely that the orbital units we have and are going to have are going to be the only theatre of war viable on the gas giant planet type. Having an orbital base and producing orbital units to strike and engage the enemy is going to be exceedingly difficult to control if you have to manage hundreds and hundreds of satellites with different orbits in different directions all at the same time. You wouldn't be able to get a static base or anything of the sort and sending units to attack is just going to be a very messy experience with no clear logistics lines or movement paths or territory control or anything more like a massive game of dogems not war. If gas giants want to be able to be played easily or conventionally then there will have to be some compromises which will lead to a more air 2.0 feel than anything else, static buildings and units not constrained to orbits. I'd rather in this case have the conventional theatre of war mechanics employed in the orbital layer than having to manage something which looks more like all the tracks in a bubble chamber. Although I think some people may just wish if that were to be the case just to allow air units to have floating buildings etc. in their tree and use them in place on the gas giants.
For Gas Giants, my favorite and popular theory is that Gas Giants will be home to many moons and Asteroids orbiting them where the main bases will be built and act as the source of Metal for Gas Giants. Gas Giants will be home to some unique Orbital units but I don't think (hope) we'll be seeing the Orbital layer fleshed out to the same degree as Land due to issues of role overlap with Land. Mike
Please share your wisdom with me and explain in which definition of orbit is stated that an orbiting object must not use thrust to hold its orbit. Otherwise your logic is flawed.
Because of this sentence? Orbit is the gravitationally curved path of one object around a point or another body. The floating satellites we have don't follow a gravitationally curved path. The follow some arbitrary circle whose middle is not the center of mass (its on an axis going through the north and south pole) and they're not influenced by gravity. They ignore gravity, they basically use anti-gravity for all we can tell. This by definition is no orbit. Why should gas giants be played conventionally. Whats the point of them if they're just more of the same? Personally I always envisioned gas giant combat like this: You have a few vocal points (massive energy plants and nearby factories, small moons) and everything else is empty space. You would try to conquer the moons to establish areas of influences and bases to stage your attacks off while trying to destroy enemy energy plants in orbit. And yes, everything outside of those areas would be chaotic no-mans land/space.
From the wiki page: Understanding orbits There are a few common ways of understanding orbits: As the object moves sideways, it falls toward the central body The falls in this sentence refers to an object in freefall "In Newtonian physics, free fall is any motion of a body where its weight is the only force acting upon it. In the context of general relativity where gravitation is reduced to a space-time curvature, a body in free fall has no force acting on it and it moves along a geodesic" Its weight is the only force acting upon it. I.E. no thrusting... In case people are going to respond to this, I'm out watching Kick *** 2 so don't expect anything quick
I'm firmly in favour of satellites which actually orbit. Orbiting satellites do have weaknesses such as limited locations for geosynchronous orbit and possibly flying into your opponent's base if they have a non-static orbit. I think these weaknesses would make them interesting and distinct from aircraft. I don't think they should be thought of as conventional units in terms of their mobility. Satellites don't have to be expensive. Remember this, when balancing satellites for their manuverability drawbacks it would be easy to make them less expensive. I think games which has cheap satellites with major drawbacks (or for that matter cheap anything with major drawbacks) are more interesting than games which have similar units and mechanics. There are, of course, UI and micromanagement issues. If we have satellites with circular orbits which also have enough thrust to quickly change their orbit then we don't actually have circular orbits. In this case satellites may as well float above a single position because it is within their power. For this reason I think orbiting satellites would have to take a long time to modify their orbits. Maybe they should have fixed orbits (no thrust), this would certainly be easier to implement. Edit: Why are so many people arguing about the definition of 'orbit'? I think it's clear that orbiting refers to unpowered orbit. Otherwise how do you distinguish between "falling towards the planet but missing" and "flying around in space which happens to have a planet nearby".
It says gravitationally curved path not purely gravitationally movement. To cut it short it means: The satellite would fly straight forward in a line, if there was no planet whose gravitation alters his path to a curve (which doesn't even implicate that the path is closed). Whether this orbit is stable without thrust or not doesn't change the fact it's an orbit. And if I add thrust to the satellite gravity still influences it's path and therefore it's still an orbit. I'll think of a proper theoretical answer, till then this might be interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geosta...ns_to_usable_life_of_geostationary_satellites Even geostationary satellites need thrust to hold their position due to drag etc.
But gravity don't influence the satellites we have. They move absolutely independent of any gravity. The move on a circular path whose middle is the axis between the north and the south pole of the planet. There is no influence of gravity. If there would be no planet, the satellites would still fly on their artificial curve around a now non existant axis. Just to repeat it, there is no gravitic influence at all with the current satellites.
In a simulation, yes. But currently the satellites are not simulated that way. They're on a fixed point (unless you give them a move command) on a circular path. Just to repeat it, they move on a circle. (Actually, they move on the surface of an invisible sphere with a fixed radii. And that sphere rotates with the same speed as the planet.) You're mixing the real world with the game simulation, where your objection would be valid. But in its current incarnation they are not orbiting.
What's the point of different planets if they are all played conventionally? It's not more of the same since different planet archetypes forbid different theatres of war making each environment play differently since a different set of inter-layer interactions take place. Earth - Land/Air/Naval/Orbital Moon/Metal/Lava - Land/Air/Naval/Orbital Gas Giant - Land/Air/Naval/Orbital Water - Land/Air/Naval/Orbital (depending on aquatic air/orbital factories) Planet with no atmosphere - Land/Air/Naval/Orbital Not to mention one of the planet types in TA whereby Air was only valid excluding the land islands. Why should orbital gameplay look and play like this mess, with factories, buildings, units all wandering around with thousands of different orbits going on at the same time?
Hey guys, you are missing something when you write about the sats we currently have: Almost nothing about orbit layer is working yet in the build you are playing. Yup. The sats are using Air layer mechanisms for now.
Then why share something that isn't at all representative of the end result? As I've said Elsewhere, it flies in the face of Uber's established methodology to sharing information. Mike
Was about to say the same. Communication is really, REALLY bad lately. It changed from "share the concept and wait for feedback" to "eat or die" where you only get a short "preview" once the work is almost done and then you are stuck with the result, with all the shortcomings which would have been avoidable. So far we have no idea what they have actually planed for orbital units. Or if they have planed any improvements at all. All we know, is that they put a lot of work into something, which might turn out horribly broken, but we can't tell since nothing is shared, not even ideas.
Neutrino has gone on record saying that he doesn't like to share his ideas without something being already in the game, because it could get too "circle-jerky". In light of what's been happening recently, I think he may have been mistaken in that assumption.
He wouldn't be the first developer to make that assumption (and to fail with it). Sharing an idea or concept early on (while making clear that it is just an option!) usually produces some useful feedback in the form of extrapolations and variations. Might feel like noise, but often enough the users have a good point and it increases acceptance of the final result a lot. The time you "waste" with the community pays of, when you don't need to revise the feature afterwards because it turns out that your personal vision didn't match the expectations.
I'll just tackle this point. The geostationary satellite uses tiny amounts of thrust at irregular intervals in order to maintain an extremely precise position. Once their thrust runs out, they will remain in a geostationary orbit but it will not be precise enough for the requirements of that particular system. It is in no way proof that orbits use thrust or that constant thrusting of a body is still a body in orbit. Also check this and tell me what kind of orbit the PA sats are in...
