Orbital poll

Discussion in 'Planetary Annihilation General Discussion' started by rabidfrog, August 29, 2013.

?

Which of these orbital options would you prefer?

  1. "Geostationary shell" tell a sat to move anywhere, it will move there and stay there.

    22 vote(s)
    44.0%

  2. "Super realistic" Orbiting with ellipses, geostationary obits only on spin axis (equator) etc.

    11 vote(s)
    22.0%

  3. "BulletMagnet Compromise" An orbital shell only at geoSYNCHRYNOUS altitude

    7 vote(s)
    14.0%

  4. Other ( sorry for no more detail, comment post details in thread)

    10 vote(s)
    20.0%
Page 2 of 2
  1. thelowleypineapple

    thelowleypineapple Member

    Messages:
    46
    Likes Received:
    12
    hows that UI gonna work though? i see this question a lot, and all youve done is restated a version for the millionth time (not trying to sound rude or anything)
    thelowleypineapple, September 2, 2013
    #21
  2. KNight

    KNight Post Master General

    Messages:
    7,681
    Likes Received:
    3,268
    Probably akin to something like this: https://forums.uberent.com/threads/orbital-units-2-directions.51008/page-17#post-780816

    Mike
    KNight, September 2, 2013
    #22
  3. aerospacefanatic

    aerospacefanatic New Member

    Messages:
    19
    Likes Received:
    0
    If there are pseudo orbits, the speed should still be affected by the planet's mass. If something is orbiting a small planet or asteroid, it will need to be going slowly to make it easier to control. For large planets, things need to be going faster so they don't take half the match to go around once.
    aerospacefanatic, September 3, 2013
    #23
Page 2 of 2

Share This Page