text: Tenuous Atmospheres: How Will They Work...? | Page 8 | Frontier Forums
  Well that really depends on the body. Planets in the habitable zone of cool M dwarf stars have "years" measured in dozens of hours. With a quick search I was able to find an Earth-like in a 22 hour orbit. (Mind you, there's other physical reasons why such a planet wouldn't have traditional "seasons" of course.) But you can imagine that there would be plenty of worlds that would have seasons that noticeably change if you visit some weeks apart.
  I guess you mean the on-foot combat stuff?
  Different topic really, but yeah, I'm assuming they mean it's built with multiplayer "in mind". Hopefully, there will be PVE and NPC-related activities utilising the new mechanics.
  I'm on PC, and although there's nothing physically stopping me cooperating with others in multiplayer, I just hate dealing with people in a game. I don't mind them as a backdrop or another hazard (I usually play in open) but I'm strictly a loner when it comes to games. I joined a casual squadron just to try it, and I hated all the small-talk and the feeling of getting "texts and calls" while trying to do stuff in the game.
  If it's multiplayer-only down there, I won't be happy either.
  There's no way the new content for open only, which would be the result of making it multiplayer only. The mission system or something close to it is being replicated for on foot it seems, that's going to mean single player missions and groups of players, plus anything new they add at the "social hubs" to encourage multiplayer.
  Reactions: Skizomeuh, [VR] Golgot and Thwarptide
  Which makes total sense and "intended" is more of a general focus in design but not limited to multi-players.
  Bring on those Nancy boy Kilngons!
  Arguably, the new content could, in theory, be mode agnostic but all be like base-raiding type missions that require multiple commanders activating different things in different places simultaneously to open doors and stuff... but yeah, I really doubt that.
  I just hope that anything like that they do add, there's also something new for loner players. NPC wing mates, NPC SRVs, and commandable NPC crewmembers on foot would be cool, but are probably just a dream.
  Anyway, sorry, I'm getting off topic.
  Regarding atmospheres...
  Possible weather and flight model effects aside just for a moment... one thing the "it's just a coloured skybox" crowd overlook is the psychological elbow room a "natural"-looking sky with colours, diffuse atmospheric light, Rayleigh scattering and whatnot can add to the game. It's a qualitative rather than quantitative addition, but the subjective impact -- for me, and I'm sure many others -- will be huge.
  We have billions of worlds that can be visited, an almost unquantifiable amount of space to roam in, but it's all very aesthetically similar. Black skies, stark deserts at night. The occasional nebula or some different coloured starlight, or dust, or rocks giving some variation, but perceptually, almost every environment falls within a narrow range. There's beauty, but also a monotonousness to the darkness and the rocks and vacuum that just isn't as nourishing to the unconscious human mind as a hazy blue (or red... or orange) horizon.
  The inclusion of thin atmospheres, though potentially a small change, while not a gameplay addition in-and-of itself, will vastly inflate the experiential "feel" of the galaxy. That planet in the teaser feels like a wildly different place to anywhere I've ever been in the game, it's almost entirely just the quality of the light, the atmospheric effects, and the colour of the sky.
  If you don't think a "coloured skybox" (actually, there are a lot more graphical effects at play, but we'll use that terminology)... if you don't think a "coloured skybox" can have any impact on boredom or enjoyment or the feel of the game, you should speak to someone suffering from seasonal affective disorder and living in a far nothern latitude.
  Yeah, I want lots of new gameplay and weather and water and all the other stuff. But I'm just excited for thin atmospheres full stop.
  We've been roaming in the night for so long, I can't wait to step into the day.
  Reactions: Pete4000uk, Rebel RDX, Jhaelen and 3 others
  It's not a question of whether it will improve the game, it's a question of whether it's worth paying for.
  A cosmetic atmosphere - with no impact on flightmodel or gameplay - is NOT worth $30.
  Reactions: Rebel RDX and thistle
  Oh, it is to me
  There's beauty, but also a monotonousness to the darkness and the rocks and vacuum that just isn't as nourishing to the unconscious human mind as a hazy blue
  What makes us think that the real galaxy is anything more or less than in game? I've yet to see a pink planet photo released by the international Astronomy community.
  So monotony is in the eye of the observer soley based on the repetition of what's being observed. I thought the view from the backyard was lovely at first, but now it's purely monotonously ho-hum.
  Upon months and years and years of astronomy science, knowledge increases and new discoveries less and less, we're forced to ponder the last question of life, the universe and everything......... "Is there nothing more?"
  I think my brain is leaking now
  I'm not comparing it to the real galaxy. Not in terms of realism, at least not beyond what seems instinctively "real" to our mammalian brains.
  What I'm getting at is, having a wider variety of environments -- to include the bright, familiar-ish light of atmospheric worlds as well as the stark dusty darkness of airless worlds -- will create a psychological sense of variety much bigger than the sum of its parts. To me, anyway.
  And I'm not even that bored of the existing planets. I sometimes fly down just for the experience of it and to look around.
  Genuinely brilliant post. I wouldn't have known how to articulate it, but exactly this.
  So far we've seen the trailer and the 2 unrelated images of atmospheres from space from the overlockers site and the steam page. But just that makes me look at the game and what's missing becomes clear, no matter how beautiful the game is currently. I can't wait.
  Reactions: Pete4000uk, Rebel RDX and CMDR Yates
  Oh take it from an astronomer, there's plenty more out there to see than what the game contains so far.
  You can't cozy up to an outgassing comet. Nor visit any but a few dozen of the millions or billions of asteroids in the average asteroid belt.
  You can't witness the insane whirling madness of a black hole accretion disk, nor the gently collapsing protoplanetary disk around a protostar.
  Even things like the variation in star density is considerably smoothed out by the limitations of the game. The inner couple light years of the Orion Nebula should contain hundreds of stars, for instance. And there should be star formation nebula complexes as rich as Orion/Barnard's Loop all along the galaxy's spiral arms.
  So I'm looking forward to getting access to one small additional slice of that diversity by landing on atmospheric worlds and seeing those blue or grey or pink or green skies. But I'm under no illusions that ED is simulating all that the galaxy has to offer.
  Reactions: Pete4000uk, Rebel RDX, CMDR Yates and 1 other person
  What makes us think that the real galaxy is anything more or less than in game?
  My touchstone for this stuff is blue lava. If blue lava is a thing on Earth, in a sulphur rich environment, then ED's planetscapes are still on the beige end of the possible right now
  Reactions: Rebel RDX and Keanson
  Reactions: NeilF, TScal12, Keanson and 2 others
  Reactions: TScal12 and DrewCarnegie
  Oo, hadn't noticed the overhanging rock in that first scene. That looks much less likely to be bespoke stuff.
  Rock models new textures and normal mapping.
  And a new underlying system for placing these things, which is the real heart of the issue. How much variety can it squeeze out of the new assets? That will make or break it.