A real Solar System

from Sins Forums
Well I am a bit dissapointed. I thought from reading up on this game that the solar systems and star layouts would be somewhat realistic. I can say that its a bit better than some games but overall lacking.

Why are FPS games so popular? Because the recreate environments with painstaking detail. A city block has all the things youd expect to find on a city block. A mailbox, a storm drain, stores, litter, pedestrians, shops, apartment buildings, the sounds, a wind kicks up some litter, etc. All of these things make the suspension of disbelief easier and immerses you into the game.

What are space games lacking? Why have the fallen out of popularity? Because no designer thinks about immersing the player in space! I mean we all know what the basic layout of a solar system looks like. Planets, moons, stars, binary star systems, trinary star systems, asteroid belts, comets and magnificient things like black holes feeding off a companion binary star, can you imagine what that would like like from a close by planet? With recent dicoveries we also know that gas giants can be right next to stars! Not all solar systems follow the layout of our own in terms of planet order from the sun. This is not to mention Orbital and ecliptic behavior. And what do we get in our space games? Skyboxes, planetary layout done at a whim making no sense whatsoever to how solar systems work (I am not just talking about sins here), and uninspired nebulae on the skboxes (not even attempts at some of the really fascinating stuff out there. Typically no moons, no orbits, no trajectories, no asteroid belts, no ringed planets, no SPACE!

The days are long gone, except for a brand new gamer, where we could have a skybox and feel immersed, its like we still playing doom where all we get are flat 3d polygons and some textures.

Now for sins I am not expecting them to rewrite the game or to add all the stuff that would make it like space but you can do some things with the current engine to help us suspend our disbelief and get immersed in the game.

1) Layout the planets in solar systems like one would expect if looking at a solar system, planets lying on the ecliptic and sometimes with vast distances between one another. Add some Gas giants! Would be great destinations for miner ships. Put the asteroids in belts! Dont put terran worlds all over the place there is only a certain area where a terran world could possible evolve in any given solar system. Ice planets should be far out volcanic close in, desert should be near the terran, etc, etc. Just have it make a little bit of sense.

2) More stars, more solar systems, less objects in each solar system. I really was wondering if the solar systems in the game where meant to feel like solar systems or galaxies! Only the presence of a single star confirmed they were solar systems. You barely even move the map around cause there are so many objects in your own solar system that you just kind of focus there. Travel intra solar and extra solar should be markedly different. The travel times in phase space take FOREVER extra solar.

It should also be fairly rare that 2 empires start in the same solar system, let alone 5 or 6, the chance of having two worlds capable of supporting sentient life in a single solar system is infintescimal.

3) Space is black unless your in a gas cloud. There should be enough ways to do lighting on ships and lighting from the primary star in a system and reflection of that light from planetary bodies to light up the view so we can see whats going on. Not to mention the skybox having some nebulae, gas clouds, stars of course, and maybe some other interesting stellar phenomena. Could the game get anymore orange?

4) Zoom out. The max zoom out is just kind of weird, if you add more solar systems the view should zoom out further to a point where you can see a labeled view of all the star systems. It should really cool at this view like your looking at a sector of a galaxy.

I am not asking for orbiter, I am not asking for perfect scales or for them to try and put in real orbits and trajectories, nor include every type of asrtnomical body that we know about. I am just asking that they try and make space feel like space as we know it and at least give that a better shot than pretty much every single other space game that ever made it to market. Will a developer please just once actually give this shot?
26,911 views 46 replies
Reply #1 from Sins Forums Top

It should also be fairly rare that 2 empires start in the same solar system, let alone 5 or 6, the chance of having two worlds capable of supporting sentient life in a single solar system is infintescimal.

I'll let Ironclad address the other points if they wish, but this description doesn't match the game's backstory. The TEC already exist in this small corner of the galaxy and the Advent are returning to it. The Vasari just happen across both of them as they're fleeing something very nasty. Sins isn't showing off homeworlds, these are all basically colonies that are part of an fallen empire from millennia ago.

Reply #2 from Sins Forums Top

Travel intra solar and extra solar should be markedly different.

They are.
Galactic Civilizations III
Reply #3 from Sins Forums Top

Yarlen answered a number of the concerns accurately - it just doesn't fit the backstory. Now, as sci-fi buffs ourselves we understand where you are coming from with regards to accurate solar systems. I can't speak for other game companies, but I imagine they went through a number of the same experiments we did and must have arrived at some of the same conclusions. This is probably why you see some of the things you dislike over and over again. I'll give a few examples. 

We initially modelled the galaxy generator and the art and many of the game mechanics on real solar system attributes. Rare planets, eliptical orbits, real-gravity, black skyboxes, moons,  accurate planet sizes, accurate inter-stellar / accurate planetary distances and so-on. Infact a lot of the code to support these systems are still in the game. The reason they were taken out is actually pretty simple, its a game, not a simulation. As much as we wanted these elements, they just weren't fun. Uber large planets means excessively long travel times to get around a planet and textures that are just too large for most people's computers. Black skyboxes make it much too difficult to see things; believe me we've sent hundreds of man hours experimenting with different lighting models to make this work. There are plenty of different skyboxes so I'm not sure why you are seeing so much orange. Perhaps that is bugged. Planets are no longer sorted by type (ice on the fringes, volcanic near the star etc) because this led to too much prediction of where certain planets were so if you started far from terran worlds you got screwed because everyone else had already grabbed them. Ultimately, gameplay has to win out.

As a compromise, our intention was to provide some customization options in the galaxy creation screen (currently you can only modify stars, planets and artifacts). For example we already have code to organize the planets by type and we could put a check box in that area if there was enough support for it. Even if we don't add a particular element you are interested in in the customization screen, many of the elements you want are easily modded into the game.

As sci-fi buff I wouldn personally love to get it as accurate as possible so I appreciate these comments and that is part of what betas are for. If anyone has any ideas that strike a healthy balance between gameplay and simulation we do want to hear from you.

Reply #4 from Sins Forums Top
At the end of the day gameplay does indeed conquer realism.

For example, take Universal Combat by Dreamcatcher games. It was a super accurate simulation, MASSIVE planets and even more MASSIVE solar systems (over 200,000 points of interest). FANTASTIC combat system etc etc.

However, it took the better part of a day to traverse a couple of systems which themselves are so huge you were unlikely to run into another ship to use the FANTASTIC combat system. You were likely just to get bored and think, screw it, lets play Freespace 2 (which admirably balances realism and gameplay).

I'm not participating in the beta   but from Multianna's excellent gameplay vid, as well as a couple on Youtube, this game looks FUN! That's the ultimate test of a game, to h-e-double hockey sticks with realism, as long as its FUN.
Reply #5 from Sins Forums Top

Yarlen answered a number of the concerns accurately - it just doesn't fit the backstory. Now, as sci-fi buffs ourselves we understand where you are coming from with regards to accurate solar systems. I can't speak for other game companies, but I imagine they went through a number of the same experiments we did and must have arrived at some of the same conclusions. This is probably why you see some of the things you dislike over and over again. I'll give a few examples. 


We initially modelled the galaxy generator and the art and many of the game mechanics on real solar system attributes. Rare planets, eliptical orbits, real-gravity, black skyboxes, moons,  accurate planet sizes, accurate inter-stellar / accurate planetary distances and so-on. Infact a lot of the code to support these systems are still in the game. The reason they were taken out is actually pretty simple, its a game, not a simulation. As much as we wanted these elements, they just weren't fun. Uber large planets means excessively long travel times to get around a planet and textures that are just too large for most people's computers. Black skyboxes make it much too difficult to see things; believe me we've sent hundreds of man hours experimenting with different lighting models to make this work. There are plenty of different skyboxes so I'm not sure why you are seeing so much orange. Perhaps that is bugged. Planets are no longer sorted by type (ice on the fringes, volcanic near the star etc) because this led to too much prediction of where certain planets were so if you started far from terran worlds you got screwed because everyone else had already grabbed them. Ultimately, gameplay has to win out.


As a compromise, our intention was to provide some customization options in the galaxy creation screen (currently you can only modify stars, planets and artifacts). For example we already have code to organize the planets by type and we could put a check box in that area if there was enough support for it. Even if we don't add a particular element you are interested in in the customization screen, many of the elements you want are easily modded into the game.


As sci-fi buff I wouldn personally love to get it as accurate as possible so I appreciate these comments and that is part of what betas are for. If anyone has any ideas that strike a healthy balance between gameplay and simulation we do want to hear from you.



If there can be element of choice added to the galaxy custimization then please add them. I am not looking for a simulation nor that true sense of scale. But I think the scale can be adjusted to make it more immersive and suspend the disbelief that your just playing a pc game as opposed to managing a space empire. The way its currently laid out in Beta 1 I don't feel like its space as all, It feels like nothing more than "Box" jumping on a checker board.

Your point is one i have heard many times before on previous games and it begs a very specific question. If the intent is to make a game moreso than to create a game in an immersive space environment, then why even make the backdrop space to begin with? I can't buy the argument that making space appear to us as we know space to be and have game mechanics function within that environment is impossible. I think its hard for sure but impossible? There has to be a better compromise between the sector "boxes" and true trajectory based movement and orbits; there at least has to be a better compromise between these two extremes than whats currently in Beta 1.

I liken this to the argument of people saying "publishers and marketers are ruining the game industry by forcing developers to make games which sell". Which I simply say well turn that around and ask "Why are'nt developers able to make creative innovative games which fit into the marketing models to sell games?" Both sides just sit on the polar ends and don't look at any form of compromise and blame the other for having to choose extremes.

In the end it sounds like you truly wanted to put the full blown space engine into the game but now your 100% at the other end of that model. I mean seriously is this the only way to make this type of game? Can't you take the game model and fit it into a more realistic space, again not 100% realistic but at least 30-50% more immersive?
Reply #6 from Sins Forums Top
Not to mention the skybox having some nebulae, gas clouds, stars of course, and maybe some other interesting stellar phenomena. Could the game get anymore orange?


Thanks for the post Jam. Could you please send me a screenshot. It is possible that your gas clouds and stars are not working properly. There should be many stars in the skybox and gas cloud clusters throughout the galaxy. Thanks!

Reply #7 from Sins Forums Top
Wait........... the backround is not supposed to be this large, all encompassing nebula? Screenshot soon.

Ok, heres the screenshot (and it's the most varied bacround one I have, and most of the time, the galaxy is orangy):
Free Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.us

[EDIT] please, reaffirm my position. My logic is starting to overwhelm me on this................. long day. LOL![/EDIT]
Reply #8 from Sins Forums Top
then why even make the backdrop space to begin with?



I fear you expect to much. I doubt they want to spend millions of dollars developing a game that you and 6 other guys are going to LOVE. While you care that space is modeled improperly the majority, in my opinion, do not. Unless you plan on taking a loss on your product you market for the masses.

Would it be cool to see the universe in all its realistic glory, sure, would it be a fun game? Probly not, sounds like an educational game made to show children how the universe works.

I think a balance must be found, I am currently happy with the trends in this game, though I would like to see more black sections of universe in my sky, or go color blind.. either way.
Reply #9 from Sins Forums Top
I, for one, would love to have the option of a more 'realistic' map, etc. I don't think it would ever be worth sacrificing the playability or even the current state of affairs for the map, but giving the players (many!) options, whether in a dialog, or via text-file modification, etc would be a wonderfully welcome feature.

So many developers make their decisions for excellent reasons that, at the end of the day, are the RIGHT decisions. But I just love it when the developers let me as a player decide how I'd like to experience the game.
Reply #10 from Sins Forums Top
Take this with a grain of salt:

The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that perhaps another game mode would be in order -- 'galaxy mode.' Not entirely different in mechanics from the current sandbox mode, but it would have a more 'realistic' map with greater travel times (probably more demanding hardware-wise). I feel like it would be enjoyable to build an empire with an infrastructure and logistical considerations beyond just resource management.

'galaxy' mode basics:
- Longer travel times (greater distances)
- Realistic solar system layout

If we went crazy (more a dream -- could severely alter game for the worse):
- Planet-Independent construction vessels
- Outpost/Starbase (independent modules)
- Empty areas of solar systems to promote construction of independent units
- Some form of logistics support for distant units/colonies
Reply #11 from Sins Forums Top
Maybe a game mode where the star systems would be more realistic. (with planets in realistic positions and less total planets per system) To make up for "smaller" star systems, there would be more of them in the galaxy.
Reply #12 from Sins Forums Top
Maybe a game mode where the star systems would be more realistic. (with planets in realistic positions and less total planets per system) To make up for "smaller" star systems, there would be more of them in the galaxy.


I am also in favour of this sort of option. At present the solar systems are huge. It is not clear to me why this makes the game play more fun than haveing the same number of planets around a larger number of systems (half of which should be dual systems!).

Moons and some gas giants, whose rocky moons may be as large as some rock planets, would be nice too.   
Reply #13 from Sins Forums Top
Warnstaff's post pretty much illustrates what i see most of the time just exchange the blue for orange.

I also just wanted to reiterate that I am not talking about full scale realism as some people think, ex. Hizaed's post. What i am talking about is finding a happier balance between full out realism and the current "box" layout. I think these are at extreme polar opposite ends of this debate, there has to be a happy medium in there somewhere and from the overall game I get the impression that you guys are in a position to have creative and innovative enough developers to find that happy medium that immerses the player in space and delivers engaging gameplay mechanics.
Reply #14 from Sins Forums Top
What I would like is a 'authentic' universe but with ships capable of traversing orbital distances reasonably quickly. Say one minute to cross a gravity well. Perhaps as the close in on a planetary gravity source their speed would wane (allowing for interesting tactical uses of planets....) but their detectability would be vastly reduced. This way you could 'hide' defences until they are committed.

The planets have to scale up though, as for example, the research station is way too big by comparison. Else, scale the objects down and leave the planets as they are. And slow them down as get closer to the planet....
This can be managed by the zooming interface reasonably well I think, as long as the tactical overlay is detailed enough.
It should also allow more detailed planetary regions with other objects that have gravity wells.
This allows for good tactical movement, yet should allow battles to be fought at points rather than wizzing all over the place (or both....).

It would be good if the primary light source was the sun too - so you could have a 'dark side' in which to assemble fleets and whatnot. However the ambient light level should be enough for one to see some detail.
Orbiter accomplishes the light level problem by malking the ambient level user variable.
Having a more detailed tactical overlay would help as well.
Reply #15 from Sins Forums Top
I would possibly love an alternate map design where a gravity well isn't a planet but a whole solar system. With few planets tons of asteroids star in the center. And all the wells were grouped in a galaxy at the center of which woudl be a massive blackhole that you would use to travel between galaxies. I don't know why I would just like that idea The solar system doesn't have to be real-scale by no means Hell the planets don't even have to be spaeced out into realistic orbits. I think this would make for a more in well combat as opposed to traveling here and there which happens nonstop and is very silly. I see AI fleets jumping to and fro all day long. Barely trading fire. This would open up possibility of sharing a gravity well with an ally or an enemy.
Reply #16 from Stardock Forums Top
(Infinity) is a game that (I think) gets the feel of space right. It doesn't have to be black, as long as it isn't this nebulous green/blue/orange cloud everywhere. Make some variation and some distant objects, make the colors much darker, add nebulae in the background... make the color scheme have more blue/white in it than orange, and add things like this: (procedurally-generated nebula)
nebula to the background. Make the place look like star systems in a galaxy, rather than a couple of gas-cloud systems floating in space.
Reply #17 from Sins Forums Top
(Infinity) is a game that (I think) gets the feel of space right. It doesn't have to be black, as long as it isn't this nebulous green/blue/orange cloud everywhere. Make some variation and some distant objects, make the colors much darker, add nebulae in the background... make the color scheme have more blue/white in it than orange, and add things like this: (procedurally-generated nebula)
nebula to the background. Make the place look like star systems in a galaxy, rather than a couple of gas-cloud systems floating in space.


Ah, but infinity, like EVE Online, which also does a good job I think of duplicating a realistic universe, are both Massively multiplayer games, where that realistic universe IS the appropriate size for the number of players. This game is going to have at max 10 players. Playing in a realistic galaxy would be way WAY too many worlds and systems to have to colonize before you actually run into another empire.

I do think that the systems in this game could use a tad fewer planets around them and another tad more systems to compensate, but other than that I like the way it's built game-play wise.
Reply #18 from Sins Forums Top
Another talk about realism.. sigh...
Reply #19 from Sins Forums Top
I would possibly love an alternate map design where a gravity well isn't a planet but a whole solar system. With few planets tons of asteroids star in the center. And all the wells were grouped in a galaxy at the center of which woudl be a massive blackhole that you would use to travel between galaxies. I don't know why I would just like that idea The solar system doesn't have to be real-scale by no means Hell the planets don't even have to be spaeced out into realistic orbits. I think this would make for a more in well combat as opposed to traveling here and there which happens nonstop and is very silly. I see AI fleets jumping to and fro all day long. Barely trading fire. This would open up possibility of sharing a gravity well with an ally or an enemy.


This is basically a very good idea, although it may not work well with the game's current "back story". The back story does not, however, seem to have much bearing on the game (unless this is yet to come).

I would like it if there was at least an option for for each player to begin in a different solar system of the above design and within a small star cluster, such that a small map might have three systems per player. The first phase of the game would consist in developing your home system and then one would expand out. Each system would provide a very good large scale space for space battles. There could be different "rings" of defence and asteroid belts could be used not only for resources but also at the basis of dangerous defence systems.
Reply #20 from Sins Forums Top

We initially modeled the galaxy generator and the art and many of the game mechanics on real solar system attributes. Rare planets, elliptical orbits, real-gravity, black skyboxes, moons, accurate planet sizes, accurate inter-stellar / accurate planetary distances and so-on. In fact a lot of the code to support these systems are still in the game. The reason they were taken out is actually pretty simple, its a game, not a simulation. As much as we wanted these elements, they just weren't fun. Uber large planets means excessively long travel times to get around a planet and textures that are just too large for most people's computers. Black skyboxes make it much too difficult to see things; believe me we've sent hundreds of man hours experimenting with different lighting models to make this work. There are plenty of different skyboxes so I'm not sure why you are seeing so much orange. Perhaps that is bugged. Planets are no longer sorted by type (ice on the fringes, volcanic near the star etc) because this led to too much prediction of where certain planets were so if you started far from Terran worlds you got screwed because everyone else had already grabbed them. Ultimately, game play has to win out.


I think your looking at the problem from the wrong angle. For example, you state that having "Uber" large planets will take too long for fleets to get around. One way to fix the problem is to make planets unrealistically small. Another way is to simply have ships travel much faster. I envision 4 basic modes of travel; combat drives, planetary drives (for moving in orbit around a planet), interplanetary drives and inter solar system drives. This is much more believable than making planets extremely small.

I don't think you need to sacrifice a lot of realism to keep the game "fun". In fact, keeping the realism a high priority should help ensure that the game is fun. Consider your explanation of why planets are not sorted by type. If populating a solar system with more than one race forces you to make most planets colonizable and not reflect their distance from the sun, then don't populate solar systems so densely. If this doesn't fit in with the game's back story, then change the back story to make it more believable. This will make the story much more fun to read and the game much more fun to play.

More often then not, I am sure you will find that you can use realism to make the game more fun instead of the other way around. I would love to see an itemized list of why many of the other realistic items were taking out because they weren't fun (ie: Rare planets, elliptical orbits, real-gravity, moons, etc). I am sure for most of them we could find a way to keep them in, have them aid realism AND make it more fun to boot.
Reply #21 from Sins Forums Top
I am going to bump this. I am sure the topic of realism has been brought up plenty of times before. But it is still an important topic.

"Keeping it real... Will keep it fun..."
Reply #22 from Sins Forums Top
I have been Lurking, (a long time stardock user) trying to figure whether or not to join in on the Beta (I am a QA eng and sometimes QA testing at home is too much like work other times not so bad – so I am still making up my mind)
I have Played/Demo/QA’ed most games in a similar genre to this. MOO to Homeworld to SotS etc . . . I have only viewed the Screen shots and vids and have these comments.

Off to my comments
- Of what I saw the tactical RTS combat it looked . .Cramped . . ships where big and very closely packed . Stations were even bigger and again very close to everything else . . the planet was large but still feels wedged in and very close. (it reminded me of the HORABLE scene from Starship troopers of the fleet trying to dodge incommoding fire and ramming each other . . really lame . . even earth bound sea battles are not THAT close and engagement range is getting larger and larger every year)
- I have yet to see much of the Strategic view . . Interested in seeing this part of the game.

Homeworld1-2 did a great job at handling scale and a more “realistic” space environment. There where great scale variances that gave the feeling of grandeur and open space but also did not hinder the game play. (Planets and monoliths where huge) You still played in a manageable size “box” but the Feel was of space and size. Also HW had a model scale switch that upscale small ships so there are easier to see . . this was nice at first . . but I turned it off quickly . . I think this game has something similar. Choice may be the way to go here.
Other games that integrated large spaces well used time compression or “tech” or some other trick to handle boring movement periods. So it is quite possible. (we are not talking Elite sized planetary systems here either – some may get this game reference )
Supreme commander (a land based RTS) also handles great scale changes very well . . and he problem of only playing at the zoomed out view (a valid and real problem) just does not happen here, you do need to zoom in and doing so is very easy . and looks great! . in fact there is really no need to scroll any more because zooming in and out happens around the curser thus a quick flick of the mouse wheel zoom out to a more strategic view move the mouse where you want to go and flick the mouse wheel to zoom back in. This also helps keep perspective with epic battles.
So far it looks good to Fair for a early beta (the vids where very jumpy I assume that was just a bad conversion)
Reply #23 from Sins Forums Top
I also get the orange background as others have been mentioning and I think we are refering to the orange as seen in these utube movies.

examples:
gameplay videos.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIOKKkh_5TI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyJR64ZQmjc

I havent got the blue/yellow background once(i saw it in screenies/other movies), oh im playing the latest patch.
maybe its just that I havent started that many different games/different settings, so lower chance to get a different colour.
Reply #24 from Sins Forums Top
The reason they were taken out is actually pretty simple, its a game, not a simulation. As much as we wanted these elements, they just weren't fun.

Sorry, just needed repeating.

The battles usually are pretty spaced out (hahah...) In my games, but the large ship icons can sometimes make it seem as though you can spit from one ship to the other (arguably, you can in space)
Reply #25 from Sins Forums Top
It was mentioned here somewhere the background color has to do with your race icon color... I have yet to test that theory as I do not know how to change my race icon color...