Starfield Direct looked amazing. Very promising.

[FauxFurry]

56 minutes ago, supercaca said:

I cannot wait to build the perfect freighter and make up some sort of techno-pally.

I hope there will be religions or Gods to adhere and be a super uber fanatical member of a good deity, so i can expand divine justice on those enemies of divine creation.

This time (old fuck player here) i wont be modding this game at least in his first 3 or 4 years. I know because what mostly goes out by that time is trash,.. well maybe a modded nude mesh but anything else. This time i want to play the game mostly fully without mods. After that, well... starlab can commence.  Jajajaja.

 

Religions play some role in the game as the preview video demonstrated when the dev mentioned his character being of the same faith system as an NPC altering affinity with said NPC. What said religions are or how deep or shallow the system is will remain to be seen.

[Wandering_Mania]

2 hours ago, Miauzi said:

But not if this is increased from 1g to 10g within 2-3 sec.

Well see that's the conundrum I'm talking about. If the Ion Drive has enough force to liquefy a human skeleton when it fires; Putting the crew in a tank of water wouldn't save them, because the amount of force would still be way over that 1-10g threshold. As I said I'm not very good putting thought to text. But you can see what I'm talking about now; Right?

[KainsChylde]

14 hours ago, DocClox said:

 

It's not the speed that causes the problem, it's the acceleration. 

"It's not the fall that kills you, it's the sudden stop at the end."

[DocClox]

2 hours ago, KainsChylde said:

"It's not the fall that kills you, it's the sudden stop at the end."

 

That's it. If you're falling towards the Earth at 90 m/s, the planet is going to rapidly accellerate you in the opposite direction until you bot have the same speed.

 

Unfortunately your body isn't decelerated at a uniform rate. If your feet hit first then they'll stop moving very quickly, but sadly your head, chest, and internal organs haven't yet got the memo and they continue down at the same rate. Which is how you come to end up as a smear on the ground.

[DocClox]

7 hours ago, Wandering_Mania said:

Well, yeah the acceleration G forces I know could do that. But like I was trying to say, which I'm not very good at translating thought to text, The ship has a gravity field, the 'grav couches' have gravity fields and are filled with some water, without the existence of something like an 'Inertial Dampener'; How would adding extra gravity fields and putting you in a tank of water, save you from being liquefied?

 

If anything, when the tank moves, the water is forced to move along with it, then you would be slammed to the back of that tank, with the same force, and the end result would be the same. Like I said not explained very well.

 

I used to know this off the top of my head, but I ended up having to look it up.

 

Basically you apply a force to a tank of liquid, the force is even distributed across the whole tank. If you're submerged it a tank of liquid of about the same density as your body, then the force is even distributed across you as if you were part of the liquid in the tank.

 

That's still leaving you vulnerable to having your chest collapse as the air is forced out, which is why in some SF shows they replace the air with oxygenated liquid.

 

As far as the grav fields go: if your ship accelerates at 10g forwards, you get pulled at one gravity towards the back of the ship. NBut if you cangenerate an artifical 1-g force towards the front of the ship, it should cancel out the force from acceleration. In theory No one's ever tried it, obviously.

 

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=17941.0

[Wandering_Mania]

30 minutes ago, DocClox said:

I used to know this off the top of my head, but I ended up having to look it up.

 

Basically you apply a force to a tank of liquid, the force is even distributed across the whole tank. If you're submerged it a tank of liquid of about the same density as your body, then the force is even distributed across you as if you were part of the liquid in the tank.

 

That's still leaving you vulnerable to having your chest collapse as the air is forced out, which is why in some SF shows they replace the air with oxygenated liquid.

 

As far as the grav fields go: if your ship accelerates at 10g forwards, you get pulled at one gravity towards the back of the ship. NBut if you cangenerate an artifical 1-g force towards the front of the ship, it should cancel out the force from acceleration. In theory No one's ever tried it, obviously.

 

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=17941.0

Well yeah, but that's what I was trying to say about 2 posts above yours. The amount of force it would take to liquefy bone is so massive, no tank of water could evenly distribute that and have it still within 'safe' levels. It'd be like putting your hand in a fish tank saying it would save your hand, while the whole thing was subjected to a hydraulic press.

 

And that's not even mentioning that those tanks they where stuffed in looked like they where made out of plastic or glass, and what that amount of force would do to them. Or the ship itself, granted metal is stronger than plastic and glass, but still.

 

I mean the shear amount of force they where talking about, and the circumstances that they where in, is really the issue I'm having difficulty articulating, without you knowing, or seeing that part of that movie. Which is why I really wish I could find a clip of it.

[DocClox]

4 minutes ago, Wandering_Mania said:

The amount of force it would take to liquefy bone is so massive, no tank of water could evenly distribute that and have it still within 'safe' levels. It'd be like putting your hand in a fish tank saying it would save your hand, while the whole thing was subjected to a hydraulic press.

 

 

Pressure would probably be an issue. yes, but the oxygenated fluid approach would help with that. They've proposed that for very deep sea dives. Generally though, the danger from g-forces would be falling damage, if crew weren't properly secured, followed by blood pooling in the feet and starving the brain of oxygen. (Or pooling the brain and causing strokes.) After than the danger is that the pressure collapses the lungs.

 

I assumed "liquefy bone" was hyperbole, but you're being literal, aren't you? Where did the notion come from? 

[Wandering_Mania]

4 hours ago, DocClox said:

I assumed "liquefy bone" was hyperbole, but you're being literal, aren't you? Where did the notion come from? 

No hyperbole was used in the slightest. The lines literally went:

DJ: "Without a grav couch the force of the engines would liquefy your skeleton."

Dr. Wier: "I've seen the effect on mice."

 

But yeah, the 'Ion Drive' in that movie was so unrealistic if/when used, by the description of that set of lines; That it being the 'conventional thrusters' and people still alive after, just raised more questions than the whole 'Gateway to hell' being opened by the Event Horizon's 'black hole manipulation'.

 

But yeah, as I said a few times; I'm not very adept at translating thought to text. And a simple clip of that scene could have prevented this whole divergence of topic. Sorry about that by the way viper682.

[Guest]

https://gamerant.com/starfield-direct-best-features/#ship-flight-boarding-enemy-ships

[Popo07]

 

 The first of my 995 settlement's pleasure planet's.

[Mr Bunny]

well, bethesda might be the only ones who can pull of a bethesda game... but every time i watch the deep dive i find more stuff i don't really care for, i like games with skills like skyrim but i hate games like fo4 with the hideous skill system - so i am going to pass on it, at least until there is a mod out that fixes that perfectly.

 

i have plenty of other games to enjoy until that happens or a better game comes about

[Gameplayer]

On 6/12/2023 at 2:35 AM, Wandering_Mania said:

Yes, yes it did. But I still hold reservations about what we'll actually get when the game releases.

 

I mean the 45 minute "gameplay" reveal of Cyberpunk 2077 looked amazing as well. And look at what released, a broken, buggy mess, that got pulled from the PS Store, had lawsuits filed against CDPR for 'False Advertising', and all manners of other stuff that could have easily been avoided. And that was from the 'Golden Child of game companies'.

 

Bugthesda on the other hand; Has a known history of broken, buggy, launches. True, they haven't had one pulled from any store; But take Fallout 76... Please... (Sorry bad joke) Still, only time will actually tell what we actually get, and what differs from what they advertised.

Cyberpunk day two for me was nothing like your reporting here and honestly it's about having good hardware and gas always been with PC games but especially with cdpr, ever since Witcher one.  So no I never faced one such issue your going on about with 2077.

 

Besides we are talking about a beth game here.  One that they delayed launching for a year not because of 2077 which they don't own but because of fallout 4 stupid ass launch with all its merch crap that failed hard followed up by 76 being such shit.

 

But hey it would be stupid to be honest as Todd and point that out so just point at 2077 which hey if you had a decent PC would play fine on day one.

 

Edit, fucking autocorrect on phone burn @$&@#_

Edited June 18, 2023 by Gameplayer

[Wandering_Mania]

8 hours ago, Gameplayer said:

Cyberpunk day two for me was nothing like your reporting here and honestly it's about having good hardware and gas always been with PC games but especially with cdpr, ever since Witcher one.  So no I never faced one such issue your going on about with 2077.

I didn't have the 'best of the best' hardware, but I had good enough according to them on day one; And it actually ended up killing my CPU. Forcing a replacement of my entire rig. As I played through it 3 times, 1ce with each backstory, at an entire 20FPS. Even turning on the radio in  a vehicle would drop it another 10FPS. So that's not what I would call 'good marketing', or 'good optimization'.

 

8 hours ago, Gameplayer said:

Besides we are talking about a beth game here.  One that they delayed launching for a year not because of 2077 which they don't own but because of fallout 4 stupid ass launch with all its merch crap that failed hard followed up by 76 being such shit.

My comparison was '45 minute "gameplay" reveal' vs '45 minute "gameplay" reveal'; And if you haven't noticed, the marketing for just about every "AAA" game company has become extremely deceptive as of late. Just look at anything from EA, Ubisoft, Sony, and so on. They create a 'hype train' so people hop on and pre-order, then deliver a box with a turd in it. Then people forget, and they do it again. But me... I live by the philosophy of of the WH40k 'Space Marine': "Never forgive, never forget." And I never do.

 

9 hours ago, Gameplayer said:

 which hey if you had a decent PC would play fine on day one.

But meeting the minimum requirements should never kill the entirety of one's rig; Wouldn't you agree?

I did, it did. So please step down from your high horse.

[Phelps1247]

Need to upgrade everything except RAM to actually play it. ? Was gonna upgrade videocard anyway but didn't plan on all this other stuff.

[Mark263]

I hope tigersan releases his Jane Bode body as soon as possible, starfield jumpsuits to create a muscular girl

[EvilG.]

I need CBBE soon and a Miranda Lawson outfit.

[Silvist]

@EvilG.Then you better reach out to @ousnius who was the point of contact for Caliente for FO4.  Hopefully she's still active and or willing for Starfield.  I'd love to have bodyslide again or anything that's superior to it.

 

I also can't wait to see the nightmare of new texture maps lol...here we go again.  Def first thing I'm modding is the face textures.

 

@Phelps1247 Def feel you there, my card series is literally listed under the recommended specifications.  Which means medium settings...at probably 1080p resolution.

 

ATM I play everything fine in 4k at 60 fps but I'm expecting Ray racing of starfield to be super taxing even at 60 fps.  So I'm going to have to suck it up and get a 4k rtx or an Radeon equivalent.  Still researching the best bang for my buck that isn't going to be obsolete in a year lol.

Edited June 27, 2023 by Silvist

[NFG.Zenith]

On 6/16/2023 at 1:21 AM, Miauzi said:

NASA spaceships, however, do not have OVERLIGHT propulsion - so NASA cannot serve as a visual model here - a really stupid argument.

(reads to me like "nice booze" or "I took the red pill").

Your entire issue with what I said is that they can't be NASA-inspired, and I'm unable to make any comparisons to NASA spacecraft simply because the real NASA doesn't have FTL.

That is your one complaint, very nit-picky. It's ridiculous to say that inspiration shouldn't be allowed from the real world just because it lacks FTL.

On 6/16/2023 at 2:27 AM, Wandering_Mania said:

NASA has not made one. Nor is even close to making one. 'Realistic Style' in a Sci-Fi game, while dismissing any and all 'Sci-Fi' elements... Well, at that point you might as well just start making a flight sim and be done with it.

Again just as stupid. I didn't realise the real world had to have FTL or 'gravity drives' for game developers to be inspired by what real world NASA spacecraft look like.

 

Dumb take as you just took words out of my mouth and tried to paint me in a bad light; I never claimed that they were realistic. I claimed that they were aiming for plausibility in terms of the ships general appearance.

 

I never stated the function of them are realistic, you both just tried to twist things to suit your argument.

On 6/16/2023 at 3:48 AM, bjornk said:

Optimus Prime respectfully disagrees.

Ah yes, because the modular nature of a system discredits any sense of believability they were going for just because the player can choose to make unrealistic looking ships doesn't mean that you discredited anything regarding the design and style they are going for.

 

If you were just poking fun at that existing then fine but it doesn't disprove anything in regards to design and style they intended.

 

Players actively creating something that doesn't fit the overall style they have tried to maintain is a poor argument to the believability of those that were made with that style in mind.

 

TL;DR 

Everybody who responded to me sought to refute a claim I never even made. Not in the slightest did I ever claim that the ships' functions were realistic.

 

I talked purely about the look of the ships and what inspired those ships design. Twisting words to suit a narrative I didn't even make is so retarded it isn't even funny.

In any case, I'm leaving; feel free to comment if you like. If you wish, take the words out of my mouth and twist them. I couldn't care less, but I wanted to point out this stupidity once more.

Edited June 29, 2023 by NFG.Zenith

[unwashed biomass]

I wonder how much save file will bloat after, lest say, 150 planets were visited and info from those stored.

[Wandering_Mania]

5 hours ago, NFG.Zenith said:

Dumb take as you just took words out of my mouth and tried to paint me in a bad light; I never claimed that they were realistic. I claimed that they were aiming for plausibility in terms of the ships general appearance.

So you think that 'flying freight containers' is the most plausible for what spacecraft would be?

 

Because if that's true... Well you must not have taken a look at the overall history of the car industry. Most people don't want a personal 'box truck', they want something with style, something that looks good, something with a distinct look.

 

And all that is not even bringing in the amount of fuel it would take to push around some big, bulky mass, like those 'flying freight containers', as well as the fuel it would take to move the fuel, and so on.

 

All mass requires a certain amount of thrust to move in space. To generate that thrust, you need fuel which adds weight, thus creating the escalation of 'Thrust v Weight v Fuel'.

So 'plausible' and/or 'realistic', they are not.

Edited June 29, 2023 by Wandering_Mania
Grammar

[Miauzi]

Vor 5 Minuten sagte Wandering_Mania:

Sie denken also, dass „fliegende Frachtcontainer“ für ein Raumschiff am plausibelsten sind?

 

Denn wenn das wahr ist ... Nun, Sie haben sich bestimmt nicht die gesamte Geschichte der Automobilindustrie angesehen. Die meisten Menschen wollen keinen persönlichen „Kastenwagen“, sondern etwas mit Stil, etwas, das gut aussieht, etwas mit einem unverwechselbaren Aussehen.

 

Und das alles bringt noch nicht einmal die Treibstoffmenge ein, die nötig wäre, um eine große, sperrige Masse wie diese „fliegenden Frachtcontainer“ herumzuschieben, sowie die Treibstoffmenge, die nötig wäre, um den Treibstoff zu bewegen, und so weiter.

 

Jede Masse erfordert eine gewisse Schubkraft, um sich im Raum zu bewegen. Um diesen Schub zu erzeugen, benötigen Sie Treibstoff, der das Gewicht erhöht, wodurch die Eskalation „Schub gegen Gewicht gegen Treibstoff“ entsteht.

So „plausibel“ und/oder „realistisch“ sind sie nicht.

 

 

I always say ... whoever wants realistic space travel should play "Kerbal-Space

since I myself am quite familiar with the physics of space travel and astronomy ... I can say that this is a great game for that

Yes - it is also possible to build spaceships out of "cargo" containers - there are also plans at Nasa to build such modules.

all this can also be found in "Kerbal-Space" - the mod scene has also brought some things from the research labs into the game interface - like atomic reactors - ion engines etc.

but the laws of gravity still apply and accordingly you have to generate thrust to be able to move your "pot".

---

where it gets really "funny" is landing on a moon or planet surface ... what in Kerbal-Space is still halfway feasible with several multi-stage launchers and some tricky docking manoeuvres ... is then in "Starfield" just complete FAKE ... just a version of "Dirty Space" ala "firefly".

 

?

[Wandering_Mania]

5 hours ago, Miauzi said:

I always say ... whoever wants realistic space travel should play "Kerbal-Space

I never played KSP. But I do know the physics in Empyrion are pretty accurate as well. As it uses a close representation of 'Newtonian physics'. While not so much with the weight of the fuel in the tanks. Any spare energy packs (fuel used in the game) do have weight when in regular storage. And some larger ships either just do not have enough thrust to get themselves out of a planet's atmosphere. Others waste so much fuel doing so, that it isn't even worth attempting to bring them into a planet's atmosphere. And the larger the ship, the more thrust it needs to even move.

 

5 hours ago, Miauzi said:

but the laws of gravity still apply and accordingly you have to generate thrust to be able to move your "pot".

Same with Empyrion. Trust me when I say, it's no fun attempting to land, take off, or even get around, on a high grav 'Lava Planet'. If the heat don't kill you right away, the gravity that traps you there will allow the heat to get you eventually.

[KoolHndLuke]

Jet packs again. No land vehicles. You know... because driving tanks or land rovers were terrible ideas in other very popular franchises. 

 

Edited June 30, 2023 by KoolHndLuke

[TecQueen]

On 6/18/2023 at 11:41 AM, Gameplayer said:

Cyberpunk day two for me was nothing like your reporting here and honestly it's about having good hardware and gas always been with PC games but especially with cdpr, ever since Witcher one.  So no I never faced one such issue your going on about with 2077.

 

Besides we are talking about a beth game here.  One that they delayed launching for a year not because of 2077 which they don't own but because of fallout 4 stupid ass launch with all its merch crap that failed hard followed up by 76 being such shit.

 

But hey it would be stupid to be honest as Todd and point that out so just point at 2077 which hey if you had a decent PC would play fine on day one.

 

Edit, fucking autocorrect on phone burn @$&@#_

That being said, that was all before microsoft merger. I am no Microsoft fan either but hopefully this merger will help some with the shit. I have pre ordered collectors edition, I will let you know how that shit looks like when it comes out.

[Hruberen]

On 6/15/2023 at 1:37 PM, Miauzi said:

Soso - ships

what I have seen so far ... are containers glued together but no ships

Do you know what a RAUMSCHIFF should look like - that you don't have to hide in the spaceport even as a captain ... but shows proudly?

No? Then look here:

 

a little atmosphere from a real WORLD DREAM game:

 

 

I'm not buying Starfield to build ships. I'm on board for exploring a wide variety of locations that have some short stories attached to them, with some surface level interaction with NPCs, and funny bugs.