Please respect orbital mechanic

I get it, its a game, not a space sim, but it would ruin the experience for me if if i saw some spacecraft on a circular orbit going faster than the spacecraft below it. Really, it would annoy me to the point i'd stop playing.

Technically things in a higher orbit go faster, but the difference in circumference of the higher orbit is larger than the difference in velocity ...

in other words, things in higher orbits go faster, but still take more time to complete one orbit...

Also this applies only to objects traveling at a constant speed, when accelerating in a forward, but slightly downward direction, it is actually possible to complete an orbit faster, but it would be hard to keep that orbit circular...

I would say I would like to this to be correct as well, but it should apply to large objects, but it doesn't have to apply to everything.

(thank you Kerbal Space Program for teaching orbitals XD)

You need a video game to teach you orbital mechanics? *teasing tone*

Seriously although I would like to see some realistic orbital mechanics myself. It would be fun to mess with orbital of planets but not at expensive of fun gameplay.

You get what i mean.

But, how can you complete a circular orbit higher and faster than a lower orbit? Without trusting downward to simulate a higher gravity i think its impossible.

that was basically what I meant

And yeah, I know you meant angular velocity.

Well I learned most of the underlying theory in middle school, but seeing in a real-time simulation helps understanding it a lot better, that, and I wanted to plug the game, as it is awesome .

Not to be an *** but, heehee, you're all wrong! Here's the three equations you use for this:

F_G (gravitational force) = GMm/R^2
F_C (centripetal force) = V^2*m/R
Omega (ang. vel.) = V/R

Set F_C = F_G:

GMm/R^2 = V^2*m/R

=> V = sqrt(GM/R)
=> Omega = V/R = sqrt(GM/R^3)

Therefore, as radius of orbit increases, both angular and tangential velocity decrease.

The mistake you made was in asserting that tangential velocity increased with orbit, but you were right about angular velocity. I'm guessing you made this mistake, as I initially did when reading this post, because you ignored change in gravity with orbital radius.

Cheers!

hmm, you still need to increase your local speed (in case of a spacecraft) to gain a higher orbit, it doesn't come for free . Simply thrusting upwards will get you an ellipsoidal orbit

To get a circular orbit you have to thrust along the the tangent of the planet, at the moment your craft is at its highest point (at this point the local velocity direction is the same the tangent of the body you are orbiting) simple mathematical derivative...

each time you add to your speed the orbit will go back to an ellipsoidal orbit and you have to fix this again when reaching the highest (or lowest) point of the orbit .

Ahem, kerbal?

You are still wrong about speeds though, if you have objects of equal mass the one further away of the center of gravity will be slower in both tangent and angular velocity.

While you are right that you have to increase speed to reach a higher orbit in case of spacecraft, what you seem to forget is that when you reach your apoapsis your speed will actually be much less than what you started out with, and even after circularising your orbit you're still slower that the velocity of your lower orbit...

And on Topic:

I wouldn't worry about orbital mechanics, i quite sure the guys at uber have their physics down, and as there wont be any space combat i wouldn't worry about spaceship related problems either...

Hmm yeah you are right

At least the question is: if there will be satellites do they have stationary orbit or do they change position and if how?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geosynchronous_orbit

Well...
How is that supposed to help. And with stationary i meant geosynchronous. Sorry for not using the scientific correct vocabulary.

And also it doesnt matter. As my post was aiming for the gameplay aspects of it, they come first then comes physic.

this could be simplified. they would be stationary and could have a small engine that would allow linear movement over the surface. (like novax "satellite" in supcom FA)

BUT I want also orbital mechanics for planets and asteroids. (2 body-simplified) To see outer planets go faster than inner planets or something like that, would ruin the idea of having a multi-planet game for me quite badly.

I think a lot of players have this opinion. On the other hand a majority wouldnt notice, as they dont know orbital mechanics. so...

acey, your first post here is totally wrong
outer objects not only take longer for a revolution, but also fly slower:

Example
ISS => about v=7.8 km/s @ semimajor axis=6800km, orbital period = 90min
Moon => about v=1.0 km/s @ semimajor axis=380000km, orbital period = 1 month

Ahem it was a joke. Beside most of my knowledge and understanding about outer space actually come from Sci-Fi books as opposite of video games.

List of concept learnt from Sci-Fi books (those off my head at the moment):

Orbital Mechanics, FTL time compression, Stellar Nucleosynthesis (google it up), time lag in communication, etc...

Of course I understood it was a joke, I just wanted to explain for the sake of it . My parents never were into Sci-fi at all, so I couldn't watch too much of it when I was young unfortunately :/ , except Thunderbirds, ftw

Please don't do this, it is quite painful, especially when I already admitted when I was wrong .

I'm pretty sure you meant either "relativistic time compression" or, possibly, "FTL time travel". Both being interesting tools for a SF writer, though the second one is sadly not used enough (read: at all).

I'm pretty sure that there could be great fun with real-orbiting satellites, though the UI is the problem. That said, technomagical hovering satellites or not, you should really follow basic (KSP-level) orbital mechanics for celestial bodies.
First, because it makes asteroid-cruising more interesting. Second, because otherwise, you take the risk of breaking the immersion for anyone having played to KSP. And KSP being awesome, lots and lots of people played it.
They made a new, improved demo btw, downloadable on their website.

And, for some reason, the link isn't properly displayed...

Fixed it. You need http://www.

Thanks, didn't think about that.

Definitely relativistic time compression. *showing off his revelation space series books*

Back to orbital mechanic, I like it when people present real life mechanics in a such way that it is fun to learn it and exploit the concept as part of game play mechanic.