Orbiting Planet Poll!

I thought this was the whole point of the game? Example: Two sides fighting on separate sides of a planet. One factions sends artillery/troops ect to distant stationary moon (the ks showed troops launched from an asteroid to attack). Planet orbits where enemy is lined up with moon allowing for firebase/troops on moon to attack! The biggest issue will be cost/time...it would be cheaper to just move a firebase within range of the enemy base instead & not have to wait on orbit either or cost to get to moon....

Agreed, there is no reason for an orbiting mechanic to match in with realistic time frames. Planets are not realistically sized based on everything we have been shown thus far, and neither is the pace at which units can circumnavigate a planet or travel between celestial bodies.

I for one would like to see orbital mechanics, I tend to lean towards a simplified version of orbits like menchfrest suggests. I think whether or not they will be included has more to do with how it would impact moment to moment gameplay rather than realistic timeframe issues.

Voted full physics, but for the sake of CPU's everywhere i would like to add that is would probably be best if its optional.

I just found this video of someone simulating a Planet X disturbing the solar system

Wouldn't it be insane to have this level of simulation in PA? or possibly too awesome?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPfpLDsvOVQ

Why do people seem to think that "Full physics" wouldn't run on the average machine? You could have 30 planets flying around, bouncing off each other and orbiting a sun and it'd probably run on my rubbish-y android phone!

Physics would defo run as you have only few objects that would truly influence each other (that is planet's gravity wouldn't affect anything outside the solar system).

Processing power isn't really the issue. The computers from the Apollo programme could calculate that (and even my crappy "dumb"phone has more processing power than those computers had combined ).

Question is whether it is desired. If it is not directly in the game a mod will possibly pop-up with newton gravity physics model.

There are a variety of issues with full physics simulation, among them are predictability (for game play), stability, error, and scalability issues that uber would need to deal with (not impossible). 30 objects are doable, because you're modeling 30*29 forces, every doubling gives you 4 times as much computation. Kepler orbits(conic sections) would require 30 models to be computed that have far less issues. Lets also not forget the rest of the game that is running.

I have also yet to see a well put together argument for why "Full physics" is better. Kepler orbits are good enough for most things rocket scientist do, why isn't it good enough for PA?

Suppose we did end up going with static circles and ellipses for orbits, and in-game we stumbled across two planets orbiting a star in opposite directions, and one had a moon that had an orbit around its planet that also came relatively close to the other planet such that it would seem that gravity should tear it away and give it to the other planet. Will the moon just fly by or switch orbits?

I would hope for full physics simulation, and that it also came with something that let you see the future path of an orbiting body.

I dont think that we should get so "realistic", or better said, we should get more realistic, why? well because if you arrive to a star system to fight for it, how much time ago have all the planets been formed, orbiting the star? 3-4 thousand million years? that event of a unstable orbit decaying during game is not going to happen by any means.

Things change if you move an asteroid large enough to move a moon from its orbit as it collides with it, but getting on to celestial mecanics in this game further than moving asteroids shouldnt be considered to keep things simple, if not you will allways fear the consequences of triggering a planetary domino effect and get the whole system destroyed.

Even tho, rotation is basic for the tactics in space, for example, if you have a moon arround a planet, and you want to make a cannon on its surface to launch troops to the enemy base, where can you do that? well, when you think about what stays montion-less in our moon when it rotates... its obvious, the polar regions are the best place to make a cannon, ofc it will have to be able to rotate, but nothing more, it will have a permanent window to the planet, given that the moon orbits the planet each ~5 minutes so you should have like 2 minutes of possible bombardment on a spot of the planet, if you dont implement rotation only one face of the moon or the poles will be usefull, if you dont implement translation only one side of the host planet will be able to be bombarded directly.

The other part to this is that orbital bombardment can use effectively the gravity of the targeted planet, so you can make the "payload" (aka troops, bomb, etc..) orbit the planet until it can hit the desired destination. only laser beams will need eye to eye contact to attack.

with this said, the more things they implement in making better stellar mechanics the better the tactical options, because in this kind of enviroment, every handicap turns into a profitable intel (if you get bombarded from orbit you know that he has a base in one of the poles, etc..)

regards.

You forget that the game does not take into account time passed in a system. All systems are randomly generated, so it is entirely possible to have such a system exist. So I ask again, is the moon going to change its orbital path, or is it going to scrape someone's base off the side of planet?

I agree with you entirely about the problem with rotations. Personally, I don't really think they need to be implemented, though I can see how others might want it and the interesting tactics that would arise. I think that it causes too many problems with interplanetary trajectories and loading poles with artillery.

I think we're talking about different "full physics" simulation. When I say it I mean calculating forces between planets/moons/asteroids/stars and using that for motion. What you seem to be suggesting, is figuring the internal stress on the planet, which is a much more complicated problem (I may be misunderstanding you).