Planetary Orbits?

So when you have a moon base and the other guy's base is on the opposite side of the planet, please tell me how that would work without the moon itself passing closer to his base.

I was merely addressing the technical issues with planetary orbits, as some people were claiming "It's EASY".

Gameplay-wise I do not know. Rotating planets might help but they'd also introduce several (similar) technical issues.

Let's stop fueling the argument with the "can the computers do this" since SOME members of this discussion are missing the key point, does it make SENSE for this to be done within a game?

Obviously the planets should orbit, it would be stupid if they didn't. This discussion has mostly been how they should achieve that, so let me lay out the different ideas with pros and cons

1- the "fixed orbit" or "locked to rails/curves" method.
Pros - Super easy to do
Super easy to understand during gameplay
Makes it super easy to modify with map editors to make unique situations

Cons - some people don't like it

2 - "single body orbital dynamics" (I know this isn't the technical term but it's what I'm using)
Pros - Physics calculations happen between 2 objects, simple to understand but more complex than the faked orbits listed above
Would allow a "real" affect between orbital bodies as they get close together/further apart

Cons - it's moderately hard for the average player to understand.
If they were to make their own solar system and wanted to add 3 planets with 1 in the middle and 2 on the sides, most people wouldn't be able to easily predict what would occur. Add asteroids and it compounds the problem. Still, after a little fiddling around most people would get it.

3 - "Multiple bodied orbital dynamics"
Pros - it'd be like a simulator

cons - very few people would be able to easily create scenarios they envisioned because they would spend alot of time fighting with the simulator to get it close to what they want
It IS resource intensive, saying its not simply shows you know nothing of computers (but alot about math, no one argued you there dude) If you don't believe me do some research and write up a 3d simulation with this feature, then add 1000 units firing 5 projectiles each on all orbital bodies present. Use particles that emit other particles to keep it super simple. You'll see what actually happens with physics sims and you'll learn why only simulators use realistic models (and they still cut corners) now stop throwing it out there "NASA did it 40 years ago" it's seriously not relevant at all.

this seriously boils down to "is this a simulator, or is this a game where we want people to easily create totally awesome battles over planets" I personally feel completely faked orbits are the way to go. No calculations just paths you can edit and create whatever you want. If you're a fan of super realism, then use your math skills to make these paths super accurate.
I'm also not entirely apposed to #2, though I believe it's needless when it could just as easily be done with fakes. It would make the field abit more dynamic which isn't a bad thing.

http://forums.uberent.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=61&t=35709

I could see it as being both interesting and possibly annoying with orbits... Make it a toggleable option pre-battle?

With orbits you would get an additional strategical layer. Natural windows of opportunity for attack would appear when planets are close to each other. You could imagine there being asteroids or even planets with highly eccentric orbits (possibly tilted orbits or something so as not to suddenly collide with planets in the way) passing through both the inner planets and the outer ones, letting one launch sneaky attacks over large distances.

On the other hand it would be really hard to plan these attacks, since it's not obvious when the next close passing will be. Predicting how the solar system will look in a while by just glancing on the strategic map would be near impossible. Perhaps it would just feel like the game decides for you when you may or may not attack somebody (which might or might not be how you like it).

Take a look at this simulation of our solar system as an example (in particular the innermost 4 planets)
http://www.faustweb.net/solaris/
I think the assymmetry of the orbits would/could ruin balance. Mercury has to wage war against both Venus and Earth all the time, while Mars can hang around and build up in the background.

However you could create very interesting scenarios with orbits! Check this simulator out for example;
https://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/astro/galaxy/Galaxy0.html
(choose between scenarios in the "Instance" drop down menu)
Add some asteroids flying around and you got some great maps.

Another cool scenario could be Gas Giant Moon Battle! Jupiter for example has over 60 moons of varying sizes, simulation here:
http://www.orbitsimulator.com/gravity/articles/joviansystem.html

My point being: orbits could be fun and awesome (especially in symmetrical situations?), but possibly unbalanced in a full scale solar system battle. Also it would make sense "lore-wise" for planets around stars not to move noticably: it takes a long time to do so! You could imagine these ultra effective self-replicating machines of war landing their commanders on their respective planets before the battle begins, and then completely trash the entire solar system within days or weeks.

Edit: it wouldn't need to be resource intensive, as you wouldn't neccesarily need to "simulate" the orbits. You could just make it so that each planet follows a predecided ellipse. It would be extremely close to how it looks in real life, and easy to implement.

+1 for toggle orbits, thought hadn't crossed my mind before.

I'd be cool with a toggle. Though i'd still prefer the man hours spent on units and combat effects.

Also

Use that drop down instance selector and choose lagrange3a. After about 6 seconds I burst out laughing. though it would be an amusing time limit effect on battles.

*edit, cancel that, choose braid4 too. It becomes a game of pool.

*edit2 also look at PlateSaucer4, its like the planets suddenly start on each other and decide "Sod this! I'm leaving!"

That's why you shouldn't simulate the orbits but instead lock them into the theoretically stable ones The reason that the planets get slung away after a while in the simulator is because the diff equation solvers introduce errors!

I'm sorry, but no, I have coded in the past, firstly.

Secondly, patched conics is ONE CALCULATION. Just 1. You don't need to recalculate every single simulation tick. Same goes for every single other object like rockets, it's one calculation. I mean, heck, if using patched conics was so bloody slow then how come Kerbal Space Program supports having hundreds of rockets up at a time, all orbiting using patched conics, with no lag?

Having moving planets would be a little complex, sure, when taking into account how to make something hit them. But, it's nothing impossible. Mods for simulations like Orbiter have full autopilot for that stuff that can achieve it easily.

And occlusion culling isn't exactly difficult anyways. In most cases the camera will be locked to the planet, so relative to each other they will pretty much be static.

I don't think its the basic implementation of moving planets that's the problem, like you said, simulators are out there and are dime a dozen. But when you factor these planets are strategic elements in a game it becomes crazy. Like if on C&C the resource fields and enemies bases all independently moved and swirled around each other.

The way I see it every moment of opportunity cause by planet alignment is offset by a greater time of dullness waiting for the opportunity to occur.

It seems as if you are thinking solely about the patched conics calculation and not the calculations required by other objects. Patched conics is not the only calculation that will be running.

Then you must know that the implementation of moving planets requires a lot more processing power than the one simple calculation you speak of.

So you run the calculation once and get a single number (or vector) which you can use in each subsequent tick? That's nice.

Kerbal is a game focused on this kind of simulation. Not an epic RTS with thousands of units shooting thousands of projectiles.

Same story as Kerbal.

still, patched conics would only have to be performed relatively rarely - such as when more than x number of rocket engines or w/e are set up (relative the weight of planet), and the resultant orbit of the bodies could easily be baked for collision - i.e. go on rails unless the other player tries to slow it down or w/e
also, I thought the patched conics approximations only had to be done to put the object onto a 'on rails' orbit when it was not in focus of the player

Hmm. Orbits. I like the idea, but it could get REALLY complicated. If they do include them, it would have to have good UI information and make options simple for the player. People shouldn't have to take physics to play the game (but physics should still be decently accurate and be what drives the game)

Patched conics solves for the full (position, velocity, now and future) trajectory of a object, the only time the conics need to be recalculated is when a rocket fires, an impact happens or you change gravity well (that last one can be predicted though). It is not in a form of a x,y,z list, but a description of the curve the object will follow. Yes each time step you need to use the curve to find the current position, but that is more just a conversion.

This may be me being optimistic, but I think people can get simple orbital mechanics. It is predictable once you get used to it, and it's not like the rules change or anything.

1) closer is faster
2) every height has a speed, go fast, you rise, go slow, you fall

The system just needs to repeat fast enough that players can take advantage of the repetition. Which if you control how big and how close things are, is easy. If you want to keep things simple, you precalc transfers to other objects and let the player pick one they want to use. Remember, transfer do not need to be efficient, so it's mostly about finding the speed to timing.

As long as the basics are clear to all, I don't think it'll be a problem

I dislike orbits. this isn't the game that i want to see this happen in. I was ground buildings and airplanes that go whoosh.. and not to have sky radars i cant hit and lasers that come from gods holy hand shouting "death from above" that's the planes job. besides it makes the game in to a complex area.

but i do like to see planets moving around the sun to show they are planets.

save this one for a "mod"

This sounds more like you don't want space units than you don't want orbits. Planets moving is orbits. Also, if you look at the original kickstarter, orbital units were promised, the details are nebulous of course, and they don't have to be released day 1 per say, but they are coming in some form.