It was never my intention to build a clear back story or explanation into the scene. At first I positioned the fleet in “low earth orbit,” but decided on a different visual mood.
The Main Thruster intensity was set based on visibility at a distance. But I can assure you, the lift thrusters are also firing
For now, I’ll go with your explanation. “They’re preparing to leave the planet’s atmosphere.” It makes the most sense to me, and the ships are actually pointed upward by about 5 - 10 degrees in the scene… and could put the other shots into context… other shots… context… yes, that will work well.
That’s all from me until the weekend. Your comments have me thinking…
I will just add that Dan is using a Med/Large hauler in this scene that is really not set up for atmospheric ascent/entry etc, it’s just the art asset he had available to him. It wasn’t until we started making the KS video that we realized we might have to do something specific with additional lift thrusters to make things more immersive. Bottom side RCS thrusters alone just won’t cut it visually, depending on ship design. A Med/Large hauler is probably not something you’d want to enter an atmo with anyways
I was wondering if the long-standing mandate of Capitals Don’t Land was being discarded.
Start from that and work out. It will help avoid confusion over seeing stuff in early pieces that conflicts with the way the game will work. Gene’s observation about having a large hauler in the atmosphere is an example of that. If that’s not a visual we’ll see in game, it’s probably not a good idea to show it to us in teasers.
A suggestion would be to consider what Infinity:Battlescape will allow, and stick to those types of scenes. I realize that these screenshots are just courtesy side jobs to keep us amused, but you are the butterfly flapping its wings and we are the hurricane.
Well, we’re more like a summer shower right now, but in time…
By considering an Infinity:Battlescape style scenario, you can do a comic book style sequence of images. Then again, that might let too much of the cat out of the bag. Perhaps a sequence that is at least compatible with Infinity:Battlescape.
We do have a technology document written up, but we have not all signed off/agreed on it yet, and our KS video will not represent any final stance on the technology of the Infinity universe. It’s likely the technology development will carry over into alpha/beta due to play testing and other feedback having an impact on what is in the document. It’s also possible that for Battlescape we will not concentrate on fleshing out all the technology, that will be more important for the MMO. Our initial offering pertaining to gameplay/technology/lore on the Battlescape site will likely be a rather loose/sparse interpretation of our initial ideas, nothing will be written in stone.
That’s still being debated internally. We haven’t fully agreed yet on which size/technology limitations should affect whether or not a ship can handle entry into different types of atmosphere. For example even a small, nimble fighter might not be able to handle the incredible pressures and volatile winds of mid to low atmosphere of a gas giant.
Yeah, vertical capships would be a pretty nice change from the usual SF fare, particularly if they aren’t meant to regularly operate in atmosphere. It would be a change that would make them more distinctive but still make sense - more than boat-like starships, actually. Small nimble ships like fighters could still be horizontal, though. Surface-to-space big haulers could operate either way, depending on what looks best.
(The enemy gate is up)
That said, it would be a big change art-wise, so it’s probably too late for it anyway.
Ships could always enter atmospheres, but they might not be able to reach the surface. Under such a scheme, you might see Frigates high in Earth’s atmosphere (above airline level), but they just aren’t coming down to do a flyover of New York City.
The consequences of going too low is that systems start shutting down, and then they start taking damage. Keep going and your drive shuts down and you’re now sitting in a brick that is falling to the surface.
I think you’re going to need as much help with this kickstarter as you can get and that includes using images and footage of giant ships hovering in the atmosphere of earth like worlds.
The fact is that capital ships flying through an atmosphere look incredibly impressive. My feeling is that if you decide to disallow the entry of large ships in to atmospheres for reasons based on game lore, you’ll be shooting yourselves in the foot.
A warp drive, maybe. But the powerplant? Sublight thrusters? Shields? Weapons? Those make no sense.
Armor that’s supposed to shrug off railguns, missiles, asteroid strikes and nukes being damaged by a mere 15 psi of gas? That makes no sense.
The setting itself works against that. We’re running around in knock-off Star Destroyers that run on magic. If the setting were more ‘low tech’, it wouldn’t be a problem. As it is, simply saying that big ships can’t enter atmospheres would be less of a blow to suspension of disbelief.
Having something the size of an aircraft carrier hovering over a city with a dusky sky in the background should suffice. There’s no need to have Manhattan Island hovering over Manhattan Island. I find such visuals ludicrous.
[quote=“TerranAmbass, post:737, topic:582”]
Armor that’s supposed to shrug off railguns, missiles, asteroid strikes and nukes being damaged by a mere 15 psi of gas? That makes no sense.[/quote]
It makes no sense to you because you’re thinking about spaceships one way, while there are myriad ways to think about them. I have a way of thinking about them that makes it obvious that pilots don’t take their capitals into atmospheres. I don’t just say that spaceships are magic. Instead, I choose a specific technology, and that technology has implications to gameplay.