Orbital poll

In answeriñg this pol hope you have read a large part of the thread posted by neutrino, if not all of it.i am trying to to offer any bias in the wording of the questions or in my description, so I am not going to state my opinion here.

Edit, just to clarify, in the bulletmagnet compromise, polar orbits and inclined orbits are what happens when a satellite is not in an equatorial orbit.

SORRY - for the inevitable late night rush grammar mistakes

Edit again, not bulletmagnets compromise, but can't find whosè it is, so sorry. I'm going to bed now

Umm, I never said that.

Too much black and white, not enough grey.

Mike

Sorry, who was it? ( reading thread)

Hard to have grey in a poll. Just trying to find out the common opinion

A better poll would be;

• Fully realistic. Elliptical orbits, orbital apogees of any height. Satellites always conserve momentum.
• A step back from Fully. Satellites always conserve momentum. Elliptical orbits and/or height fixed/limited.
• Uber's current 'Shell'. Satellites do NOT conserve momentum. No orbits, no apogee.
• Compromise 1. 'Shell' behaviour in the +/-40 degree field around equator, another behaviour outside that that field.
• Compromise 2. etc, etc.

[PS:] I'm advocating for A Step Back.

Here's a start(and only a start):

Seemed like someone needed to find out who these fanatically were who are so intent on accurate orbital mechanics (and more importantly how many of them there are) and also, how many people would be satisfied with the current kind of system. I recommend someone else trying a poll, i have tried before and failed to get a successful set of questions, maybe my subject is to wide (perhaps "would you be content if the blah blah blah technique was used" etc.) or maybe I don't have enough options.

Maybe you/everyone should use this thread to collate and summarise the ideas. After that, then do a poll.

Exactly, any pool where the majority of the options are extremes with little to no representation of the middle ground(which is much more varied than many give it credit for) won't show any kind of accurate representation of what people actually want even if everyone votes.

Mike

+1, do that people, try to come up with a few decent comprehensive systems that could be put in place, then maybe a poll would be more meaningful.

Part of the problem is that people don't fully know what they want. They describe something that they think is totally different from an existing option, but actually reduces to one of the things I described above. There are those without the technical vocab thinking they don't want what someone is referring too when it's exactly what was described.

And most of the things I mentioned are on a very large gray scale of accuracy.

The other problem is that honestly, lots of people don't know how to really discussion using Game Design as a basis, they might be able to describe something but with no relation to how it functions in the context of a video game.

Mike

Could be worse, we could have more than two prob... oh wait.

My preference is for circular orbits that can be slowly adjusted, with the addition of "fine adjustment" engines that can help bring one unit to another (basically, there's an orbit vector with constant magnitude and slowly changeable direction, plus an adjustment vector that can be in any direction). Actual movement would be done via two commands : "move to object" (adjusts orbit to match object while moving up to the object), and "move to position" (adjusts orbit to pass over specified ground position).

That way, you could have the dynamic scenarios introduced by orbital movement, without making things too complicated.

I prefer orbital mechanisms that are different to air, not micro heavy, and not latitude related.

As a semi-casual gamer I believe that simplicity is the key to this orbital shell, but orbits by units must be implemented at a low level so we don't get the dreaded *sarcastic tone* Air 2.0.

Edit: For the sake of simplicity I believe that latitude based geostationary areas should be avoided as would make the zone complicated to micro (we still have to deal with everything on the ground) and clutter the UI

My preference is for fake orbital where units move at a fixed speed and have a limited/very wide turning circle.

Suggestion is detailed here (Backers only but surely most of you are...)

https://forums.uberent.com/threads/...s-intuitive-queuing-of-movement-orders.51056/

(Is fake orbital as speed is always relative to the surface)

Honestly, this poll is like asking someone "So, where you you stand politically; are you left wing or right wing?"

You get an answer, but it's meaningless because of how broad the categories are.

Pseudo orbits. Satelites travel in an orbital path set when they are launched. Some might be able to change this path later but most won't. It's not a real orbit because it's speed is not effected by the planet's mass, and the orbit is always perfectly circular rather than some form of ellipse.

It would look like an orbit and nobody has to learn MATH.