Tilted planetary orbits?

What type of orbits are possible in the game/system editor? Are "tilted" orbits possible to make?

I think that that would be absolutely amazing to watch and great to have in the game. But the thing is, is it possible to do so without breaking the game/balance issues? What impact would it have on orbital and planet hopping in general? You could (easily)invade the said 'tilted orbit planet' only at two points on your orbit so, it could be tricky, some people may like it and some not. What do you think about such orbits?

I think awhile ago it was said that it was technically possible but they hadn't decided whether or not if they would allow it to be done to help keep things simple, I would be surprised if it wasn't doable eventually, just not sure when it would happen personally.

Mike

I think it would be very hard to digest all the orbital units going from one planet to the other if there's a 3rd dimension.

In the picture there is no planet that has a tilted orbit.
Because Technicaly Pluto stopped being a planet in 2006.

I think eventhough a planet would be tilted it would not be save from invasion.

Hmm so this means that the solar system is eh.. 2 dimensional..? With full 3D planets.

@ghost1107 yes it will just be more easy and feasible to invade that planet only two times in a full revolution.

Actually, it is fairly realistic to have all the planets orbit on a 2D plane. That is because solar systems like ours formed from a flat disk of dust and rock.

Yes. But it won't hurt to have this. Exceptions, variations.

NO! it wouldn't!

plus just join games filtered in the hosted games with the "flat orbits" option ticked in. simple as that.

Since you're not giving any arguments concerning the orbital unit transport between planets in a third dimension. Allow me to elaborate a bit about what I'm trying to say here.

In a two dimensional plane, traffic goes in such a way that you'll always be able to see what is happening as long as you're looking at a right angle. This however changes when you add a third dimension, due to the depth, objects can effectively overlap eachother which means that you'd have to constantly adjust the camera angle to get an overview of different routes to different planets.

Now it's not that I'm totally against the idea, because visually it would look awsome. But when I think about the extra time and effort needed to make this, then I don't think the improvements in gameplay would justify that.

I think a third dimension would reduce the readability of the system without adding much gameplay. That's not to say that tilted orbits should be prevented, I just think that the playable standard will stick to all planets in a 2D plane.

There is also the issue of calculating transfers between the planets. There was a livestream from a while ago showing some code which calculates how to hit a particular planet in a certain orbit. The code only dealt with the 2D case and it may not be worthwhile putting the work into extending this to 3D.

technically you could just change the plane while orbiting around the sun. It would remain a 2d problem with the added step of tilting to the new transfer plane.

Regardless, I don't really like the idea.

again just tick the option box that filters the hosts to plane only.

basically it's a question of knowing how to use the game. It's already too late for what you're arguing for, we already have the 3-D camera. but did you know space bar brings you to top view? this is probably what your missing.

your real concern is that we won't have enough UI tools to handle this. this is obviously untrue.

In anycase noone has to expose his or herself to this. Only those who can handle it (and really handle is a big word here, it's really nothing complicated, especially seeing this entire forum has played at least one space game, mainly KSP) needeth expose themselves to it.

I don't consider this an argument really. This feature is far too trivial to make it worth sorting games on. Making things optional is good, but only when it makes sense for it to be an option. Making it optional in this case just sounds like you want some kind of "compromise" mode to push this idea.

There's a difference between having a 3d camera, and operating in a 3d environment. It's not a question of knowing how to use the game at all. It's about simplicity. And it's simply a fact that navigating a 2d plane is a lot easier than a 3d plane. You haven't really given any arguments as to why this has to be in the game.

Could you please refrain from trying to tell me what I think? This isn't my concern at all.

Kerbal Space Program isn't an RTS where I have to focus my attention on many different things. KSP is managable simply because there's a clear focus.

Homeworld seemed fairly manageable.

Weird, I remember the opposite: someone in one of the streams said that all of the orbital math is already made in 3D and is only flat because everything starts at Z=0 and there are no forces pushing stuff out of there.

Technically none of the orbits are perfecty aligned in one plane. Tilt may be small enough not to notice at those distances, but it is there. Also, none of the orbits are perfectly circular.

I think orbital tilt wouldn't harm as long as it's fairly small. Say, within 5 degrees, randomized. Would look better, but wouldn't affect gameplay much.

If you are afraid about planet intercepting, I don't think there is a difference. If you are trying to predict interception by yourself, then your prediction is not very accurate anyway, with tilt, or without. And if you have some sort of in-game UI piece for that, then it is perfectly accurate, with tilt, or without.

I vote no. I feel like the game is already hard enough to follow without adding more complexity. These orbits won't actually add anything to the game, because nothing interesting actually goes on between planets besides unit movement.

omgosh. I hate it when people vote down something they wouldn't have to deal with anyways. Just like when people manifest against gay marrige.

we'll have the U.I. to compensate anyways : https://forums.uberent.com/threads/unofficial-official-gui-discussion-thread.52055/

argue with efficiency now: what part of this idea tears your game down if there is no reason you needeth be exposed to it anyways other than you choosing to?

Somehow I don't think these two subjects are the same thing...

But why go through so much extra work to add a feature that adds absolutely nothing and can only hurt? You haven't actually responded to what I said, other than to equate my lack of support for tilted orbits to arguing against gay marriage. No part of the game, outside of unit movement, ever actually happens between planets. There is no interplanetary combat, and unit cannons and nukes will likely be limited to planets orbiting each other. This means that the only reason planets even move around the sun at all is to cause changes to travel time between them. That one limitation can be accomplished just fine without the need for tilted orbits. Why do we need the developers to spend time and money adding a feature that nobody will use because the only thing it could possibly do is make the game less accessible for more inexperienced players?

What?

..oh but they are.

It's exactly the opposite, why go through all this effort to bring down a potential axis of the PA engine (remember, if they say yes, they add it in, that means someone with competent, capable hands, and who already knows the engine to start with will put this in, unlocking whatever nuts possibilities comes with) resulting in basically crippling the engine, from what it could have been.

I've pointed out to you as clearly as I could that it being in the engine wouldn't mean it's in the GAME you wouldn't ever be able to tell it's there, but if one day a modder thinks it'd be cool, then he could do it. Otherwise he couldn't.

so what exactly is your problem?

I have no problem with it being a part of the engine, and as far as I know it already is. What this thread is asking for is tilted orbits in vanilla PA.

My problem, mainly, is that you are dismissing people's opinions simply for being different than your own, while attempting to win the debate by accusing me of arguing for social and political causes that have nothing to do with this game. In essence, you are being a ****.