All people who player earlier bethesda games knew what to expect. I am shocked about number of NPCs thinking you can really fly to another planet. Typical bethesda, and typical fans - mod will fix all haha Imagine wasting 7hrs of your life on this haha
I once spent 8 hours in a game called Space Engineers digging to the center of a planet, just to see if it was possible, and if there was anything special there. That game doesn't do orbits but it does do some interesting stuff with gravity. For example on a planet, the farther you get from the surface the lower gravity gets. So I thought, what if it works the same going down. I mean if we could actually get to the center of the Earth, we would be weightless as the gravitational pull from all the matter would be pulling equally in all directions. So just for the heck of it I started digging down in the game. It didn't take long to realize gravity was getting less, but I had to make it to the center and see if I was weightless. 8 hours later, I made it and gravity did indeed cancel out to zero. So there I was in the middle of a planet completely weightless. Good times.
Lmao, we all know gravity doesn't work like that but that was a neat little detail of a game. If they are willing to set a better, more realistic approach, they should put a marker in the center of the planet and make it so that the gravity would instakill you the moment you reach a certain radius from the center of the planet even if the actual planet is hollow.
@@vanzeralltheway8638 I like that you are thinking outside the box. However what I said is scientifically accurate. In reality, the if a person were at the center of the Earth they would die from a variety of factors, like pressure, heat, lack of oxygen, etc. But if you were to put a person inside say a container which was insulated from the heat and pressure, along with air to breath, and you place that at the center of mass of the planet, a person would experience weightlessness. The thing to understand is that it is not the Earth as a whole which exerts a gravitational pull. We calculate it that way in relation to other celestial bodies, and objects we drop, but in reality it is every single atom which makes up the Earth, the air, the clouds, even other people moving around us which exerts the gravitational pull. It just so happens that the largest concentration of mass near us is usually under our feet. However, if you were to reach that point which is the center of mass for the inertial frame we common refer to as Earth, but is actually all things on, in, and around Earth, then all of that matter would be pulling you equally from all directions meaning, you would not be pulled more in any one direction than any other, and therefore you would be weightless. Remember that even in space, when astronauts experience weightlessness, they are still being pulled by Earths gravity, the moon, the sun, and everything else for light years in every direction. However, because the balance of all of those forces along with the inertia of their orbit are at a balance point, they are considered weightless. Consider that weightlessness, doesn't mean you are no longer affected by gravity, simply that there is no greater pull in any direction than any other force acting on you. Hopefully this made sense. If not, maybe this will further clarify. Earth's mass distribution: Assume the Earth is a perfect sphere with uniform density (ρ). Then, the mass (m) within a sphere of radius r centered at the Earth's center is: m = (4/3)πρr^3 3. Calculating the gravitational force at the center: If a person is at the center of the Earth (r = 0), the distance (r) in the gravitational force equation becomes zero.
Maybe the game should transition into the landing scene animation as soon as you are close enough to a planet where you cant proceed further and make you land. would feel more in tune with visiting a planet.
@@darrenscott6982game is not garbage because of there not being seamless landing. Like come on. There’s literally a bunch of good content and systems in the game besides that
@@westheking12 yeah, just ignore these people. Im up for valid criticism about mechanics, enine etc but some people just get a kick on hating everything regardless of it being good overall
@@adamsmall5598 340km/s. Especially since she saw how fast the planets are moving (as they do) game probably is bad with understanding some of these variables.
Theoretically if this process was sped up, it automatically assigned a landing zone based on trajectory, and it triggered a landing cutscene when you reached a certain distance, it could cut down on the feeling that you’re fast traveling everywhere whilst still being realistic and working within the systems that exist.
What about Kerbal Space Program? they should do that with Starfield, let you set up orbit trajectory and stuff, then simulate the flight paths.@@icarusgaming6269
@@icarusgaming6269 Point being I understand the Creation Engine has its limits and is never going to be seamless like No Man’s Sky. With what’s there, the system could be improved, and importantly this would be practical to patch in. No Man’s Sky level of seamless transition is not going to happen.
Did she ever play Outer Wilds? Yeah physics is greatly done there, planet interior are really moddeled, and no loading screens! In a playthrough I'm watching the player jumped while inside the home planet observatory/museum, where the gravity balls are, and the statement "gravity (from the moon) is affecting you right now" was really true - it pulled him sideways as he jumped. First time I ever saw anyone try that, and I've seen plenty of playthroughs. Amazing attention to detail. Pretty much obsessed with that game.
I actually asked the same question that prompted this experiment the first time I warped to another system. I spent a little while flying toward it, saw that it was ticking down at about 1km per 5 seconds and determined it would take about 10 hours to collide with the planet if I were to keep going. Decided that I wouldn't do that and then asked Google if anyone else had the same question. Thankfully, you had and kept me from needing to try the experiment myself. :D
You aren't the only one. Were you ever following a tricking community called HIH (High Impact Halo)? They did speedruns, warthog launches, superjumps, glitches, you name it. They specialized in Halo 2 mostly.
I think they should make it so that if you get at a minimum distance from the planet it automatically starts a landing cut scene to the closet spot on the map
It really seems like the solar system is one giant "cell", to use the term of Bethesda's engine. But there's no way to seamlessly transition from that cell to the cell that is the detailed landing spots on a planet. Just a limitation of the old trusty Creation/Gamebryo engine. BGS won't leave it behind until it stops making them money. Understandable, but a little bit more disappointing with every major release.
@@eqwalle4884the problem was they didn’t sell it as an open source for modders, or as a mass effect style mission focused game with a space backdrop. They sold it as an unparalleled exploration simulator where the classic Bethesda worlds are expanded to thousands of planets, with substantial ship exploration too. Totally understandable that non Bethesda fans would believe that instead of assuming everything is the most barebones, if technically accurate, version of what they say like we do
@@Nickname006 I laugh at everything, I think that’s just a sign that it’s a joke for nobody with an IQ above 25. But I’m glad your limited intelligence brings you joy with such an unfunny comment
I actually tried this with Deimos (moon of mars) because you start at around 150-200 km away and I wasn’t able to get more than 1km close to it. I hit an invisible wall at 9999m and when I boosted it went to 9995 then back to 9999 when the boost ended which is weird so I’m surprised it’s actually possible to fly into planets, maybe I just experienced something unique to moons. Deimos also isn’t a conventional sphere moon its just a really big asteroid so maybe that has something to do with it.
It was funny to see the gaming websites going out of their way to find different ways to say "well yes, but actually no", and for some reason using alternative ways to refer to you without just @'ing. Cool stuff 😀👍
The input latency through your stream makes it just like real life when they send commands to the rovers/satellites (for 2330, in 2023 the delay is just over 4 hours from earth to Pluto)..truly immersive this is.
Mars' distance from Earth (which determines rover latency) is 20 minutes 50 seconds at this particular moment, it does go up when it gets further, but I think the highest is still less than 25 minutes (4x10^11 m). The radio signals travel at 3x10^8 m/s of course (lightspeed). For 4 hours, you must have been following one of the space probes as it went past the outer planets, quite a round trip whenever we query the probe!
@@BurgundyBrundley although the robot is a partially autonomous robot.. and also you can cue up commands.. so you don't have to send every input like you have to do in a game like this.
In next Starfield patch: - Calculate a landing coordinate once player gets too near a planet - transitions to the landing sequence I think a Bethesda programmer can whip up the code in 5 minutes.
@@kavalogue It'a simply because the game was way too ambitious, and adding more stuff will just lead to more problems like even the optimization of this game is literally worse than Cyberpunk, you expect them to add more stuff??
That would be 1 year, 52 days and 16 hours of continuously running the video game Starfield, which is impossible unless they crack the game and do the experiment offline, with backup power generators.
@@GholaTleilaxu Or it may be some bored-to-death rich kid from the USA who hires a few illegals to do that, his mansion equipped with solar panels etc.
Meanwhile, in Elite Dangerous and Star Citizen (two games much older than this one), you can quite literally land on a planet seamlessly from space with zero loading screens.
Actually she just proof that Space in Starfield is completely fake. All that you have is Empty invisible spheres that project a hologram of the planet ,and is merely there for reference ,for distance projection . But NOT For landing on it. And you never see the actual planet. And when you press FAST TRAVEL to the planet , what the game does is start a cutscene with a prerecorded image of the place . So this Starfield space exploration is as fake as it can be . IF you want a Space exploration game ,an arcade shooter like Starfield is not the way , try instead another game like ELITE DANGEROUS ,that you actually fly to any part of the planet in real time to any crater or place and not just preselected towns . All planets are 99% empty ,but at least you can fly there , is not a fake cutscene. IF you try in Starfield to actually move in the direction on what looks like planets , what you will actually see is invisible sphere at planet surface. So the planets in Starfield are just visual effects , not actual places you fly. Whenever you set a course for any planet , is just a cinematic cut scene with a level loading , not a lot different to most space shooters like star wars. The difference between call of duty space shooter games and Starfield , is that Bethesda use a fake cut scene to make it look as if you are flying to other planents, Similar to Disney space rides , with virtual reality. Definitely this video proof Starfield is not a space simulation , is just call of duty shooter with cutscenes videos before any new game level is loaded.
I just saw an article about a "streamer flies to pluto for 7 hours" on PCgamer published 18hrs ago. It popped up on my Google feed, but I didn't read it. I didn't realize that was about you until you uploaded this. 😂😂😂😂
They didn't. At the start of the video, the sun is behind her. Halfway in the video the sun is in front of her. That means the sun is rotating around her.(skybox like minecraft/skyrim). The planet is probably just moving to create the illusion of orbit but it's definitely not orbiting the sun.
While orbiting in "neat", it's not hard at all. These "planets" are simply 3d images that are given a circular path to move around. Literally a linear path set with an angle, or make it move 2 units at x-axis, and 1.5 at y-axis, and boom, you have an "orbit". Nothing fancy about it. I can do this in 15 minutes on a Unity engine. It's a faking rip-off.
I been hearing about streamer flies to Pluto all day from various sources. To find out it was you and I’m like well damn. Guess I should follow on twitch 😂
Have you heard of Star Citizen? Saw someone else comparing flight and planetary landing in both games, SC definitely looks very interesting after watching some videos. Seems much more freedom, better flight etc.
@@AKARazorback bro i get it SC has a great premise and good implementation of space travel But starfield is not a Space Exploration game its a Bethesda style RPG with Space Exploration as a set piece, no sane person that actually followed the Progression of Starfield expects it to be like SC Starfield is a RPG first which is weird because majority of BGS games are more on exploration than RPG which is weird that they just focused on the RPG rather than the exploration Thats the reason why majority of Bethesdas gamers praised starfield for going in the right direction when it comes to the Writing and quest design and said that in terms of RPG-ness of Starfield its better than Skyrim and FO4 and this is the words of some New Vegas fanboys who demanded better RPG mechanics in their new Games
Funny thing is that how Bethesda did it is the most realistic way usually it would take hours to land on a planet the way you do it in star citizen or no man's Sky is just pure science fiction
This seems to be a lot like how Elite Dangerous managed instancing their locations. You could physically fly from one system to another using the interplanetary drive, but you wouldn't be able to interact with the system once there. You could fly between planets with your maneuvering engines, but couldn't "catch up" to whatever you reached because your frame of reference was different, and would also fail to collide with that thing.
In Elite Dangerous, I have flown from planet to space in normal flight mode. No Super Cruise. I have flown from a orbitng station to the planet surface, no super cruise. It takes hours. 10 hours from that station to planet surface. 7 hours from planet surface to space. None of it was a loading screen, and none of it was clipping inside of the planet, at all. Planet surface landing, and orbiting space station docking. From the orbiting space station, the planet did leave me once I got close. I had to reposition my ship's tragetory alot as I got closer, then on the planets second time around I was close enough to catch it's orbit. So in ED, that is a true thing, that can be done. I had planned to make a trip from orbiting station, to orbiting station, one day, then prepare to find a system where a neighboring system is close enough, that I can travel from one to the other. I know that will take days; will do it in super cruise though. In normal flight mode, it will take months, if not year/s. But that kind of travel is in Elite Dangerous. Love You All! God first!!! God bless!!! Love One Another, as Christ Jesus, Love Us!!! Amen Amen Amen
Thank GOD you did this. Being a medicated OCD'er I would have been caught in this trap for an all-nighter, begging for any kind of release. Thanks for taking the bullet aimed at us....although I'm sure there's a few of us still sobbing and screaming at the screen racing for a dot that just never seems to get any bigger even as the distance counter entices us to forever maintain current course.
Honestly, that's probably how real space travel feels lol... racing for a dot in the distance that never seems to get any bigger but you have no option but to maintain course... Realistically, it takes YEARS to fly to any other planet from Earth, so the distances in Starfield are pretty true-to-life.
@@mjtigerfang well, aging works different, or even not at all in space. Aging is, at the very least, drastically slowed down in Zero G. So you probably could survive the flight to Mars, it’s just that no one that you know on Earth would still be alive by the time you get there, or get back.
@@TheOnlyGhxstThe aging process is only slowed relativisticly, and only if you're experiencing time dilation. So no, YOU won't perceive any difference in your aging or total life-span, it's just that everyone on earth is moving & aging faster than you. But from you're perspective their basically living in fast-forward mode. From their perspective you're living in super slow-motion. Basically earth seconds pass much faster than those away from our gravity. However, the oxidative stress part of aging will still affect you regardless of gravity. If we could halt, stop, or slow the aging process, just by sending people to space, then all the super-rich old folks would be desperately trying to buy themselves a seat on the next soyuz mission to the ISS.
@@dark2023-1lovesoni True. We would need to unlock lightspeed or near light speed travel first to truly unlock near immortality. And then you’d also have to be moving at relativistic speeds perpetually for eternity to be able to perceive the difference… in theory. Either way it’s not necessarily a good fate lol
The fact that it is open (albeit janky) makes me interested to see if modders will implement a faster flight option where you can walk around your ship as it goes to the destination
Yes modders will add everything Bethesda said wasn't possible.... Bethesda is a terrible company I don't know how they get away with their bs every time they release a game
@@PureBassO It's because they build the sandbox and give the modders the toys to build their own sand castles. Besides Baldur's Gate 3, there aren't any role playing games out there that bother to factor physics into their games to the same degree as Bethesda games.
I did this in a Halo custom multiplayer map before. Someone added the escape pod to a map, it was flyable, and instead of fighting, we found the ship, glitched out of the map, and flew to the moon that we eventually clipped through. It took us hours to get there, super fun journey.
I was there for only a short part of her stream but i remember she responded back to a comment saying "Yes i know we can fast travel but where is the fun in that" Love this girl LUL. And im glad so many people tuned in and hung out for this. FOR SCIENCE !!!
@@prjerm2146 i don't mean seamless. I just mean that they could have set it up where if you get in a certain distance of the circumference of the planet, it would just trigger the fast travel animation from were you would be landing. It wouldn't be that hard to implement and a fun nod to people who were silly enough to fly all the way.
@@prjerm2146Exactly, No Man’s Sky had it and that games how old? Yet a 2023 AAA game can’t even fucking include landing animations or offer proper space exploration where you aren’t having to go into UI menus 24/7 to select travelling from A to B. Bethesda are complete cancer.
I thought you did great job conducting this little experiment. Microsoft had a game in early 2000's called Freelancer, and it was missing several elements and physics that Starfield has but was fun. They did have several star systems that you just had to travel through for hours because the in game federation or whatever hadn't put in fast travel points. This experiment reminded me of that. good work! Gotta sub from me!
i just think it's sad that they couldn't even simulate the effect of space travel while you play, i'm glad to know that every planet is fixed in space somewhat orbit, but i would have liked for the game to be less load screen simulater and actually feel more like a space game even with the current limitations of the creation engine. travel takes time, i get this, but they wouldn't have to make that travel take forevor, this is scifi where we have gravdrives and such, so if the ship kind of took it's time and the player experienced some of this time which could be ajusted for gameplay so it's not too realistic, that it at the very least offers another feel to space travel to the player experience. i know the limitations of this engine and i also know how they could have at the very least done this kind of thing with these limitations to make the game actually feel more like a space game and not waste to much time on the idea.
Star Citizen is a real space exploration game where you can travel to planets. Using hyperdrive which you can turn on and disengage whenever you want. Starfield is a big disapointment.
The orbit thing is really cool, I landed on a planet for an artifact quest and it was nighttime when I entered the mining base, when I exited the sun was just coming over the horizon and it kind of blew my mind how crazy it looked, with the shadows casting off all the rocks and hills and stuff. Really cool and unexpected. Also PSA for anyone who doesn't know, Photo Mode photos are added to your loading screen, so if you see something pretty, take a photo and it'll become a loading screen picture.
That's my problem now 😂 I'm taking hella photos...I went to this random planet shit was metal planet..rocks etc but the emptiness was beautiful so I got up on my ship and start snapping photos like real life shit also its cool to have them on the loading screen
I mean it's not really orbits.. like there is no gravity calculation done to simulate it. it's just some simple math to make things move in a circle around a point. which requires near zero programming skills to implement. they did like, the bare minimum, just to make tod Howard be able to say "the moon is really there" on stage... If they put in a little more effort and actually made some basic orbit mechanics, it would have been cool if to get to a planet you actually have to slow you ship down like irl, not speed it up. so you would fall down towards the planet. That way she also wouldn't have to reorient her ship all the time, because in space around planets you don't move in linear straight lines, but around the curves of space bend by gravitational bodies.
Pretty cool. I played a lot of Elite Dangerous in the past and in that you have a faster “frame shift drive” to travel around (don’t think Starfield does). When out of that, it’s similar, it takes ages to get close to anything so you’d only do it for encounters.
@AG-ch4od the sad part about this idea is bethesda could have made their game function like this even with the limitations of their engine, however you just wouldn't have quite as much control, even in NMS you have most control when entering and leaving planets, yes it is a cutscnee sort of, you are still flying your ship up and down, but the game while it enters into another location prevents the player from seeing the new area loading up by abstructing the view with something like rentry fire and lots of screen shake so the player doesn't see the planet generating below so when it's fully loaded up it then takes away this abstruction so you can view it. but bethesda also chose to make every planet a box tile and hundreds of other box tiles that are randomly generated based on the kind of planet it is. if you really think about it, bethesda didn't really create a thousand planets, what they created was 1 planet with hundreds of cells that refresh themselves based on the location type to procedurally generate. so your going to one cell that is constantly generated and recycled every time you think your going to a new planet, the only maps that are diffrent are the ones that are massive cities, these ones stay the same during your playthrough. i think in the next elder scrolls game i really don't want them to do this procedural generation for the landscapes every time, i'm somewhat ok with them doing some of the land but sticking with the generated area so it stays the same every playthrough, however i don't mind if they use proceduraly generated weather based on time of the year in game so that it feels like the seasons are changing dynamically.
frame shift drive = grav drive, i think you meant supercruise and without a form of super cruise you would never be able to fly from one planet to the next within a acceptable amount of time.
@AG-ch4od I was actually talking to the OP. I haven't played NMS but in Elite you don't get a loading screen from planet to planet. The FSDJ is a " loading screen" yes.
@AG-ch4od Star Citizen would prove you wrong. Although its just one system right now but you are able to go to any planet and land on them. I started playing SF and was so pissed as soon as i had a loading screen to get into the ship. SF couldve been pretty awesome but instead its just "meh .
Space Engineers sort of does the opposite of this. You can fly to any body, it's physical and can be landed on BUT it does not move and the sun orbits the player. If you do not use a jump drive it takes FOREVER to move between planets and moons. Either way is a compromise I assume due to engine and hardware limitations.
Kerbal Space Program is probably the best blending. The planets are all physical, they all rotate and orbit around the sun with moons orbiting the planets. and it takes ages in real time to get anywhere (though you do have the ability to speed time up to hurry up)
The planets always moving is so fantastic. A few planets I've found are very close together and it creates for amazing skies to look at, with another planet slowly going over you, shadows flowing over the land. It's amazing!
@captain4318 amazing pictures in the sky, knowing you can't actually fly there or interact with them. The illusion of exploration just doesn't do it for me (or most people it seems). Maybe they'll learn to code before Starfield 2 and we can get a real space game
@@crini413Beautiful moving objects indeed 😍 I don't think most people care about not being able to fly planet to planet. Reviews are highly positive, so definitely not a deal breaker.
Amazingly explained without bs. Also kudos for the amount of patience involved 😅 I've tried to land in a random planet and in about 20 minutes I was giving up already 😅
I still haven't modded my PC version of Starfield, but I'm sure you can (or will be able to) mod the flight speed of the ships and try these experiments in minutes instead of hours or days.
You don't even need mods. Creation engine has console commands to speed up game time arbitrarily fast. I'm sure someone has done it already, assuming the game doesn't just crash.
Game engine itself may have a speed limit. Star Citizen originally had an in engine speed limit of 300m/s, which obviously is way too slow for spacecraft in the far future. They basically had to tear it down and rebuild it to function in space.
I have played a lot of Star Citizen and was excited for Starfield but disappointed it didnt have certain flight and exploration features. However it isnt a sim but rather an rpg. Great video, I enjoyed it a lot.
@@meowmeow2759 we a lot of times criticize star citizen, but there is no doubt that they created mind blowing tech for what we have in alpha versions, neither bethesda could done it, still starfield a very good and unoptimized game, but we know, its bethesda
@@paramboytv7378 SC still hasnt' done it. It's a janky server deployment with no local version in sight. The problem they're trying to solve with marrying memory management of proc-gen streaming engines (what NMS and ED does well) with cell based obj and property management (what BSG does well) with that game is genuinely hard though, there's a good chance they never get it off the servers.
@@Joseph-wh5of no it's not since it got voted in 2014 to have less systems for more detailed gameplay and planets, the backers changed it to be starfield like to be what we have today
"No Man's Sky" offers boundless exploration with a more arcade-style approach, "Star Citizen" and "Elite Dangerous" prioritize realism in their gameplay. On the other hand, "Starfield", as an RPG, emphasizes character interactions, looting, and missions, making exploration a facet rather than the central theme.
In Empyrion a few year old indie game (still actively updated), you can fly from one planet to the next in a custom ship built in blocks/parts. Some planets (or moons I guess, lets call whales fish because they live in the sea) live on the rings of gas giants too.
You can fly anywhere, but you only have thruster speed, it would be a big waste of time to spend days flying from a planet to another, you can do it with quantum jumps in Star Citizen and it sucks after a while because its a tedious time sink.
@@DerDrecksack87No Man's Sky and Elite have the same systems to propel you at much faster speeds to get you to another planet. I feel this would be a nice mod to have for Starfield just incase you want to boost to different planets instead of fast traveling. Now jumping between systems would never be a thing. I mean even in Elite and NMS you need to engage a "jump drive" to jump between star systems. So what Starfield does is perfectly fine. Because even if you traveled at light speed it would still take FOREVER to get to another star system.
I agree with her. This is not a space exploration game "the space game", this is an rpg game with some space elements to it. The game is really delivering on those premises and i really enjoy that, but it's just sad that Bethesda wasn't open with that. In elite i flew my spaceships in space, in Starfield i enter my ship, press M, zoom out, click on a new system, click on a new planet and then X to land. 1 loading screen later and 0 space travel i walk out of my ship on a new planet. 0 space exploration immersion, this is to avoid 3 loading screens.
@@EverythingWasGreatIt's weird why this is done since technically the inside of your ship is always rendered fully. Why there is a loading screen is odd. I would imagine that modders will be able to remove the loading screen between entering and exiting your ship. The same goes with docking in space. I was watching npc ships do this and they do it seamless. I could see their docking clamps extracting and detracting. Why do we have a cutscene when its done for us? It's possible, just have to wait for the modders.
The fact that they don't just have you run into some invisible wall, tells me that they originally intended to make it so you could land on all of those planets. However, at some point during development it must have been too tough to implement, so they scrapped it for those loading screens instead.
Well lets not forget players attacking cities and settlements with their ships or simply crashing into them. I could see the developmental nightmare it would have been to try and get all that working with out the game imploding on itself.
I had the same idea and tried the same thing, but with phobos, because entering its orbit it was only like 1000 km away. I flew towards it (marker at the center) and at 10 km distance hit an invisible wall, not being able to go any closer
This makes sense from a technical aspect. It's like finding out that a skybox isn't actually anything more than a wrapped texture in the sky. If they don't plan on you actually interacting with it then why do anything more than the minimum, especially considering the fps impact it could have. The fact that there are orbits at all is a surprise and a really cool detail though! They definitely took a lot of risks with doing the game this way instead of like Outer Worlds where the planets are larger levels that you fully explore like a traditional Bethesda world, but sad to see that it doesn't seem like most people actually enjoy what they've done. I'll be excited to play it when it releases for free on Gamepass!
I kind of agree but a simple elastic sphere collision would have made the game much more realistic than clipping through geometry without taking basically any time off developers. I guess it's just basic game dev etiquette. You can't make a space game like this in 2023, especially if you're a AAA publisher who's been working on the title for years. Feels like a moneygrab by re-purposing old tech.
@@hexadecimalpickle iirc in No Man's Sky they just made the sun in each solar system a part of the skybox, and you literally could never reach it no matter how long you flew. And likewise it was impossible to ever manually fly from one system to another, you have to use the warp drive (aka a disguised loading screen). All of that kinda sucked because it infamously wasn't what they promised, but the one thing I will say positive about it is it never really resulted in a major "immersion break" where you could fly through a low res 3D model, it just felt like things were too far away to reach. I am talking day 1 launch NMS here though, maybe they changed some of this later on. I should probably revisit that game at some point, people say it's good now.
@@yewtewbstew547NMS definitely changed since day 1 but even if they would allow to fly from one system to another, it would take days to reach in real time. I think they wanted gamers to reach a variety of systems faster.
The orbits aren’t real tho, if they were, pointing your engine towards the planet and firing it would make your orbit extremely elliptical (learned from KSP) so the ship is pretty much just programmed to rotate around the planet but there’s no actual orbital mechanics
What's impressive about something that Bethesda already told you from the start that you can not do which is planetary landing? did she at any point thought she would be able to land in the planet? If she did she is more stupid than half you idiots commenting on this video. You're not impressed , there is nothing new here to see, no discovery. Stop being a simp it's better
What I dont understand, how orbits can be real if she is flying one moment towards the bright side of the planet and later flying towards the planet with the sun in the same view. If orbits where real, she would never see the dark and light side of the planet.
@@danilonden3782Cause there is not a single orbit depicted in the game. Is as flat as can be. She even accelerates TOWARDS the planet. 😂 0 orbital mecanics
I always thought the way they made this game was they had a regular size sand box, but made everything including us the character like x200 smaller to fit everything inside this sandbox, so you can go anywhere but it'll take accurately a long a ass time to get there lol
From a computer math perspective, it's all the same. Distances are tracked using what's called floating-point math, usually using a 32-bit number where some of the bits are reserved to represent whether the number is positive or negative, and how large or small the number is. So the number 1 would be built essentially as a construct that is "Positive, 10^0 power, 1" The number 1/200 would be "Positive, 10^-3, 5" (Though notably computer math has to work with powers of two so it's a little more complicated than that). Either way everything you see on your screen is relative to this math. It only matters if A) your numbers are so large or so small that the part of the number set aside for power reaches its maximum(10^38) or minimum(10^-38) value B) Your numbers are so large relative to themselves that the exponent is not consistent during play, leading to math errors as the player gets further from the center(Some space games DO need to have a solution for this one, but the most well-known example of this happening is in the game minecraft where players teleport themselves to 'the far lands' which is not itself related to floating point error but is far enough from the center of the world that floating point error occurs out there) Both of these things would cause a game to break down, but generally speaking neither is something that could be circumvented by just makin things bigger or smaller by a given factor of any real significance.
😂 This reminds me of the first six years of playing Star atrek Online. When you decide to leave a planet and "go to warp", often times my shop would suddenly pivot on its axis and warp *right through the planet!* 😂
I feel like a lot of expectations for Starfield would have been nullified if people just paid attention to the showcases and trailers. Sure there things that caught me by surprise (mostly in a good way), but I feel like overall, Starfield is exactly what they advertised.
I'm both extremely impressed with Starfield and slightly disappointed in a few very small things. I completely ignored all the info because I didn't expect Bethesda to pull through on this one but they really did. That being said, I wasn't completely aware of how things worked and those things I got wrong didn't ruin the game for me, it was just a little disappointing. The first thing I said when I started playing was "damn you, Bethesda!" because Todd Howard had sucked me in again. 😂
A lot of people don't give Alanah the credit she deserves, she been doing this shit for games/games journalism for so long now. glad to see ya making headlines again!
I have wondered about this since I started seeing Starfield. People can say what they want about Star Citizen, but the planets are really there in full size and glory, you can quantum closer to a planet and either quantum down to a certain outpost or you can fly down through the atmosphere--atmospheric head hitting your windshield or view port, and there details of the planet just get better and better the closer you get but your actually flying down and landing on the planet with no loading screens and no tricks. All of the ships are like function mini abodes. While in Quantum you can get out of the pilot seat and gather your crew and have lunch in the galley, it;s just everything every other star game out their can't do.
That would be cool but I cant be too critical. Space travel is just one aspect of starfield while that's the whole point of everspace. I'd expect everspace to have a more developed space travel system
I started to wonder if this was possible when I decided to try and enter New Atlantis from the back, and I discovered you can. I thought all the areas must be separated by barriers, but it’s actually all connected and accessible. I don’t know why this surprised me, but it was such a neat discovery. Made me wonder, “Is it the same in space?” I have to say… yes, there’s an argument to be made that this game is disappointing for not being so seamless and all. But I don’t mind this at all. The orbits being in the game, and it being technically traversable, is a mind blowing realization about the universe’s scale.
Yeah Pete Hines really messed up. Todd was careful about what he said about it and the Pete comes out on Twitter and is like, "it's seamless." For someone who put 130 hours into the game it surprises me
@danielsolorzano8623 Pete really needs to retire, he has been doing stuff like that constantly and just seems completely out of touch with the actual development teams and what the games are actually like.
Literally EXACTLY. One I saw that each surface map (aka local map) is just a fracrion od the space ur landing on, i shit my pants. The games scale is fkng astounding like no other. One of the smaller moon planets wpuld take you hundreds of hours to fully exlpore
@@MidniteMeatBus No kidding! And sure, there’s a lot of emptiness to the game. I feel, personally, this adds to the experience. It’s not one of those densely populated maps, it’s the universe. Vast, unforgiving, empty. Made traversable by our technology and will.
small game studio called eleon studios, has a game that does this near perfectly. you see how far you are from the atmospehere both when you're in the planet and outside it, and there's a very small momentary loading happens when you're going in and out of atmosphere. PLUS the planet is spinning, and where you enter the atmosphere from directly effects where you end up on the planet. so if you know the terrain of the planet and where your base is, you can enter atmosphere above your base to avoid flying slower in atmosphere (cuz of air friction I guess you fly faster in space)
Alanah, you are doing all of this for the greater good. Your findings are appreciated using this methodology, which concurs with all the mathematical equations. What I mean to say is, good job! Genuinely interesting to see this, looking forward to starting this tonight.
We can't fly to planets because "accurate orbit" but CAN gravedrive to distant unexplored star systems without factoring in relativity or experiencing time dialation.... 😂💀
Oh hey it's my favorite TH-cam personality, Uncredited Gamer! but seriously super cool you tested this, hopefully it draws Bethesda's attention and they add this as an option
As a game developer I give you massive props. Teaching everyone about how this works and properly explaining some of the mechanics behind rendering these distant planets. There's a way they could've made it work even if you fly to the planet, but they probably thought it wasn't worth the time to implement since realistically only a small percent of people are probably going to try to actually fly to one of these planets. The orbit mechanic is surprising, and very cool.
I honestly wish they had implemented a huge barrier or invisible wall around the planet, similar to Elie Dangerous, to prevent you from getting this close and clipping into it. I know the average player wouldn't have tried anyway, but it's very immersion breaking to know you can just clip right through planets if you go far enough.
@5:00 EXACTLY. People are saying "NMS is better than Starfield", but the point is that Starfield is NOT a space game. It's a Bethesda RPG that happens to have some space aspects.
@@meridianline4022 It's cool that she went to the effort of finding out, and that said planets at least occupy a space to some degree. That said I ultimately agree with you that the player should be able to travel and directly land on planets without loading screens, especially when games like NMS were doing it damn near a decade ago...
Thank you for making the sacrifice and boldly going where none had before! I absolutely love that the orbits are there, will give me something to look up at while I build my outpost :)
Honestly if they were going to not completely block you from doing this they should have at least added a trigger so the moment you touch a planet physically it sends you into a loading screen to enter the planet
@@Someguy6571 because you can freely fly in and out of planets without a loading screen or cut scene. It does a better job of keeping you immersed in the game.
@@gilbertoarellano8525First off No Man's Sky is no where near the scope of scale like Starfield. Second the planetary landings and departures are pretty quick. Like it takes a literal second or two to get from the surface to space. Oh and there is always asteroids around planets in No Man's Sky for some reason. Also the planets are static. As in they do not rotate or orbit their parent star. Thats pretty immersion breaking. That's because the star is fake and merely a skybox. For Starfield one of the main reason (in my opinion), why there is no planetary landings is because of the tremendous effort it would have been to develop and implement it. Like think for a second. Letting players land at cities or settlements. This would also allow you to use your ship to attack said cities and settlements as well or just crash into them. I can imagine the game literally imploding on itself trying to manage all the stuff you would be breaking. Such as mission triggers, bounties and physical objects flying around. No Man's Sky has none of this. No NPC dialogue as it all just spoken gibberish. No large cities with hundreds or thousands of npc's walking around doing things or the sheer amount of physics objects that Starfield is keeping track of. Let's be honest... No Man's Sky is a survival base building game with space exploration stuff.
Being that much of the game's assets and systems are borrowed from Fallout 4 (where you could never actually fly vertibirds), I highly doubt we'll get actual space travel and planet exploration.
It still feels like they could have used clouds/ big flames from atmospheric entry to hide entry into a planet's atmosphere and start generating terrain. Then when you land, it could just save the terrain nearby, and add the points of interest from your landing point. Ah, oh well.
8:40 - You might be interested in Space Engine, a program developed by a single person, possibly an astrophysicist from Russia, over a very long time. It's used by some TH-camrs to show parts of the universe and various interesting phenomena. There's a spaceship mode too, and it allows you to fly around at ludicrous speeds and explore.
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 84 วันนี้!! คู่เอก "ก้องศึก vs เมืองไทย"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/3kuzsAIDf1c/mqdefault.jpg)
I thank you for your contribution to science
Alanaheimer.
All people who player earlier bethesda games knew what to expect.
I am shocked about number of NPCs thinking you can really fly to another planet.
Typical bethesda, and typical fans - mod will fix all haha
Imagine wasting 7hrs of your life on this haha
@@Dar1usz she literally slept during most of it, editing down a video and then posted it and will probably make money off it...
Science is wrong about Pluto, but that's neither here nor there.
still wasted 7 hrs on shitty game to discover they made shitty universe with shitty exploration@@badm0t0rf1ng3r good for her, journalism at finest
This is gaming journalism
👍
starbage
@@draco2xxTons of people disagree with you
@irecordwithaphone1856 tell me exactly whats so great about starbage, please enlighten me. i wanna hear this
@@draco2xxhow insufferable are you? Let people enjoy things that you don’t.
I once spent 8 hours in a game called Space Engineers digging to the center of a planet, just to see if it was possible, and if there was anything special there. That game doesn't do orbits but it does do some interesting stuff with gravity. For example on a planet, the farther you get from the surface the lower gravity gets. So I thought, what if it works the same going down. I mean if we could actually get to the center of the Earth, we would be weightless as the gravitational pull from all the matter would be pulling equally in all directions. So just for the heck of it I started digging down in the game. It didn't take long to realize gravity was getting less, but I had to make it to the center and see if I was weightless. 8 hours later, I made it and gravity did indeed cancel out to zero. So there I was in the middle of a planet completely weightless. Good times.
Lmao, we all know gravity doesn't work like that but that was a neat little detail of a game.
If they are willing to set a better, more realistic approach, they should put a marker in the center of the planet and make it so that the gravity would instakill you the moment you reach a certain radius from the center of the planet even if the actual planet is hollow.
@vanzeralltheway8638 Sorry, he is right.
@@vanzeralltheway8638 I like that you are thinking outside the box. However what I said is scientifically accurate. In reality, the if a person were at the center of the Earth they would die from a variety of factors, like pressure, heat, lack of oxygen, etc. But if you were to put a person inside say a container which was insulated from the heat and pressure, along with air to breath, and you place that at the center of mass of the planet, a person would experience weightlessness.
The thing to understand is that it is not the Earth as a whole which exerts a gravitational pull. We calculate it that way in relation to other celestial bodies, and objects we drop, but in reality it is every single atom which makes up the Earth, the air, the clouds, even other people moving around us which exerts the gravitational pull. It just so happens that the largest concentration of mass near us is usually under our feet. However, if you were to reach that point which is the center of mass for the inertial frame we common refer to as Earth, but is actually all things on, in, and around Earth, then all of that matter would be pulling you equally from all directions meaning, you would not be pulled more in any one direction than any other, and therefore you would be weightless.
Remember that even in space, when astronauts experience weightlessness, they are still being pulled by Earths gravity, the moon, the sun, and everything else for light years in every direction. However, because the balance of all of those forces along with the inertia of their orbit are at a balance point, they are considered weightless. Consider that weightlessness, doesn't mean you are no longer affected by gravity, simply that there is no greater pull in any direction than any other force acting on you.
Hopefully this made sense. If not, maybe this will further clarify.
Earth's mass distribution:
Assume the Earth is a perfect sphere with uniform density (ρ). Then, the mass (m) within a sphere of radius r centered at the Earth's center is:
m = (4/3)πρr^3
3. Calculating the gravitational force at the center:
If a person is at the center of the Earth (r = 0), the distance (r) in the gravitational force equation becomes zero.
Space is fake @@K162KingPin
@@vanzeralltheway8638 It's actually exactly how gravity works.
Waking up every 30 minutes to adjust your ship from your wireless controller and the game streamed to your TV. A true gamer of culture right there XD
That kind of girl gamers we need on twitch, but we get more thots
why did you even comment this
@@russterror3926
yes a legend was born that night
If a man did this crickets would still be chirping
@@FadeRunnerOGliterally dudes jus simp over gamer girls it’s insane😂”omg you have a wireless controller😍😍”😭😭😭fuckin lame
Maybe the game should transition into the landing scene animation as soon as you are close enough to a planet where you cant proceed further and make you land. would feel more in tune with visiting a planet.
You think that engine can do that?💀
@@sibusiso2841Yeah. Probably pretty easily lol
That would require effort, the game is garbage.
@@darrenscott6982game is not garbage because of there not being seamless landing. Like come on. There’s literally a bunch of good content and systems in the game besides that
@@westheking12 yeah, just ignore these people. Im up for valid criticism about mechanics, enine etc but some people just get a kick on hating everything regardless of it being good overall
If the time and distance checks out starfield has designed the slowest spaceship in human history which is a really weird flex
something like 340 km/h right? If Pluto is 2340 km and it took 7 hours to travel that distance?
It's because those engines are made for docking and close combat. They have grav drives for actual travel
EVE Online ships are quite a bit slower.
@@adamsmall5598 340km/s. Especially since she saw how fast the planets are moving (as they do) game probably is bad with understanding some of these variables.
@@chrisw5477or just a lazy excuse
The planets always moving is so fantastic
Yea, Space seems more interactive When there's asteroids or Debris. Sadly that doesn't happen often enough.
@@TH-camCensorsyeah you haven’t explored enough
Good
Micheal does life already did this
👍
Theoretically if this process was sped up, it automatically assigned a landing zone based on trajectory, and it triggered a landing cutscene when you reached a certain distance, it could cut down on the feeling that you’re fast traveling everywhere whilst still being realistic and working within the systems that exist.
This would be a very valid fix, its never gonna be an exploration game but that would be a nice feature.
That's exactly how space exploration games work lol. It's always been fake
@@icarusgaming6269what about no man’s sky? I mean it loads it in but it isn’t really a cutscene I don’t think.
What about Kerbal Space Program? they should do that with Starfield, let you set up orbit trajectory and stuff, then simulate the flight paths.@@icarusgaming6269
@@icarusgaming6269 Point being I understand the Creation Engine has its limits and is never going to be seamless like No Man’s Sky. With what’s there, the system could be improved, and importantly this would be practical to patch in. No Man’s Sky level of seamless transition is not going to happen.
That's insane.
I like the way Outer Wilds did space...that game feels right in terms of the physics of the game albeit on a much smaller scale.
Did she ever play Outer Wilds? Yeah physics is greatly done there, planet interior are really moddeled, and no loading screens! In a playthrough I'm watching the player jumped while inside the home planet observatory/museum, where the gravity balls are, and the statement "gravity (from the moon) is affecting you right now" was really true - it pulled him sideways as he jumped. First time I ever saw anyone try that, and I've seen plenty of playthroughs. Amazing attention to detail. Pretty much obsessed with that game.
I think elite dangerous is a more technical space Sim. By a long shot
I actually asked the same question that prompted this experiment the first time I warped to another system. I spent a little while flying toward it, saw that it was ticking down at about 1km per 5 seconds and determined it would take about 10 hours to collide with the planet if I were to keep going. Decided that I wouldn't do that and then asked Google if anyone else had the same question. Thankfully, you had and kept me from needing to try the experiment myself. :D
zzz
You absolute madlad. Makes me feel like I'm back in highschool, finding different ways to get out of the maps in Halo 3
madlass*?
The hell is madlass
You aren't the only one. Were you ever following a tricking community called HIH (High Impact Halo)? They did speedruns, warthog launches, superjumps, glitches, you name it. They specialized in Halo 2 mostly.
I think they should make it so that if you get at a minimum distance from the planet it automatically starts a landing cut scene to the closet spot on the map
Unfortunately I bet they’ll never do that because they’re cheap and lazy.
Props to Alanah for sacrificing a good night's sleep in the name of starfield science. 😂😂😂
It really seems like the solar system is one giant "cell", to use the term of Bethesda's engine. But there's no way to seamlessly transition from that cell to the cell that is the detailed landing spots on a planet. Just a limitation of the old trusty Creation/Gamebryo engine. BGS won't leave it behind until it stops making them money. Understandable, but a little bit more disappointing with every major release.
@@yienmaster04 then again, it is almost a bgs trademark in games. it is not surprising, actually i expected it as such. just used to it.
@@eqwalle4884the problem was they didn’t sell it as an open source for modders, or as a mass effect style mission focused game with a space backdrop. They sold it as an unparalleled exploration simulator where the classic Bethesda worlds are expanded to thousands of planets, with substantial ship exploration too. Totally understandable that non Bethesda fans would believe that instead of assuming everything is the most barebones, if technically accurate, version of what they say like we do
@@eqwalle4884if you have to rely on modders to make your game good then you made a dogshit game. That simple.
@@k--musicyea they basically just lied to everyone for years but Xbox users are so desperate for a hit they’re gonna defend this to the grave.
truly a scientist of our time. well done Alanah
Video games aren’t science
Unless you’re talking about computer science, but that’s different
@@TJOEL20This is what people call a joke.
@@Nickname006 Ohhh. See, I was under the impression that jokes were supposed to be funny
@@TJOEL20 That is a sign that you have no sense of humor.
@@Nickname006 I laugh at everything, I think that’s just a sign that it’s a joke for nobody with an IQ above 25. But I’m glad your limited intelligence brings you joy with such an unfunny comment
I actually tried this with Deimos (moon of mars) because you start at around 150-200 km away and I wasn’t able to get more than 1km close to it. I hit an invisible wall at 9999m and when I boosted it went to 9995 then back to 9999 when the boost ended which is weird so I’m surprised it’s actually possible to fly into planets, maybe I just experienced something unique to moons. Deimos also isn’t a conventional sphere moon its just a really big asteroid so maybe that has something to do with it.
Probably because you can't actually land on deimos as you said, it's a astroid type moon
I did a similar experiment and got to a bizarre 6555M and hit that same wall 🤔
Same with phobos
The names mean Fear and Terror.
Yeah that's What phobia is
This lady went full scientist mode to uncover the secrets of Starfield and I am fucking here for it
We all are 🤓
@@xxxplane12xxx6yeah because we smart yeeeee
Simp
alright calm down
Reddit science moment
It was funny to see the gaming websites going out of their way to find different ways to say "well yes, but actually no", and for some reason using alternative ways to refer to you without just @'ing.
Cool stuff 😀👍
It’ll only take 17,800 years to fly from the sun to alpha centauri, try that one next.
The input latency through your stream makes it just like real life when they send commands to the rovers/satellites (for 2330, in 2023 the delay is just over 4 hours from earth to Pluto)..truly immersive this is.
Mars' distance from Earth (which determines rover latency) is 20 minutes 50 seconds at this particular moment, it does go up when it gets further, but I think the highest is still less than 25 minutes (4x10^11 m). The radio signals travel at 3x10^8 m/s of course (lightspeed).
For 4 hours, you must have been following one of the space probes as it went past the outer planets, quite a round trip whenever we query the probe!
@@cykeok3525 it’s insane the work they do and to have that much patience to do it is amazing!
@@BurgundyBrundley although the robot is a partially autonomous robot.. and also you can cue up commands.. so you don't have to send every input like you have to do in a game like this.
flys through planet "immersive"
@@BurgundyBrundleyYou’re saying this as a troll right?
In next Starfield patch:
- Calculate a landing coordinate once player gets too near a planet
- transitions to the landing sequence
I think a Bethesda programmer can whip up the code in 5 minutes.
The question is why didn't they In the first place
They'll leave it to the modders.
Would still need to speed up travel somehow
@@kavalogue It'a simply because the game was way too ambitious, and adding more stuff will just lead to more problems like even the optimization of this game is literally worse than Cyberpunk, you expect them to add more stuff??
You mean like Frontier Development did in Elite Dangerous years ago?
Ever since I was young I’ve had an irrational fear of doing things like this in games. Like going out of bounds or places I’m not supposed to be.
I actually used to think it was illegal. As in your house would be raided by the police if you did so.
You're weird.
Because you said something, someone is probably going to spend the 10,000 hours trying to fly to a different system 😂😂
That would be 1 year, 52 days and 16 hours of continuously running the video game Starfield, which is impossible unless they crack the game and do the experiment offline, with backup power generators.
@@GholaTleilaxu there's some crazy people in the gaming community lol
@@GholaTleilaxu Or it may be some bored-to-death rich kid from the USA who hires a few illegals to do that, his mansion equipped with solar panels etc.
The closest system from Sol is Proxima Centauri, 4.2 light years away. It will take around 70k years.....in game and irl
@@hubertETwhy this is so specific
I feel like we've been cheated. You should have been rewarded by a secret, giant Todd Howard head inside of it. Like celestial body sized.
Todd's head is plenty inflated as it is, so we do not need it any bigger at all.
Ego the living planet
Hahah, yes! Would be the perfect Easter Egg.
Pluto is much to small for the man who holds the universe in his hands
a mods eventually did that one day
Meanwhile, in Elite Dangerous and Star Citizen (two games much older than this one), you can quite literally land on a planet seamlessly from space with zero loading screens.
They mentioned this on IGN. Finally giving Alanah credit on her work even tho she no longer works there 😂
I am happy for this experiment to have happened. It at least confirms that you can travel out into the middle of space to avoid things if you want.
There are still a lot of people who deny this. I hope this video changes their mind.
Actually she just proof that Space in Starfield is completely fake. All that you have is Empty invisible spheres that project a hologram of the planet ,and is merely there for reference ,for distance projection . But NOT For landing on it. And you never see the actual planet. And when you press FAST TRAVEL to the planet , what the game does is start a cutscene with a prerecorded image of the place . So this Starfield space exploration is as fake as it can be . IF you want a Space exploration game ,an arcade shooter like Starfield is not the way , try instead another game like ELITE DANGEROUS ,that you actually fly to any part of the planet in real time to any crater or place and not just preselected towns . All planets are 99% empty ,but at least you can fly there , is not a fake cutscene. IF you try in Starfield to actually move in the direction on what looks like planets , what you will actually see is invisible sphere at planet surface. So the planets in Starfield are just visual effects , not actual places you fly. Whenever you set a course for any planet , is just a cinematic cut scene with a level loading , not a lot different to most space shooters like star wars. The difference between call of duty space shooter games and Starfield , is that Bethesda use a fake cut scene to make it look as if you are flying to other planents, Similar to Disney space rides , with virtual reality. Definitely this video proof Starfield is not a space simulation , is just call of duty shooter with cutscenes videos before any new game level is loaded.
nah hostile space ships never stop follow you but you can grav away from them
This makes me really appreciate no mans sky and its space exploration.
No Man Sky it's really great. And since the Clouds are volumetric, ypu van fly and see beautiful scenes through the clouds in every planet
I just saw an article about a "streamer flies to pluto for 7 hours" on PCgamer published 18hrs ago. It popped up on my Google feed, but I didn't read it. I didn't realize that was about you until you uploaded this. 😂😂😂😂
I'm honestly hella impressed they modeled the orbits. That's really freaking cool.
They didn't. At the start of the video, the sun is behind her. Halfway in the video the sun is in front of her. That means the sun is rotating around her.(skybox like minecraft/skyrim). The planet is probably just moving to create the illusion of orbit but it's definitely not orbiting the sun.
I'm impressed how people see this is a good thing, in no man's sky you actually enter the planet, not just a bunch of loading screens
While orbiting in "neat", it's not hard at all.
These "planets" are simply 3d images that are given a circular path to move around.
Literally a linear path set with an angle, or make it move 2 units at x-axis, and 1.5 at y-axis, and boom, you have an "orbit".
Nothing fancy about it. I can do this in 15 minutes on a Unity engine.
It's a faking rip-off.
I been hearing about streamer flies to Pluto all day from various sources. To find out it was you and I’m like well damn. Guess I should follow on twitch 😂
I found it funny too like they could have put "video game journalist" not like she isn't a very well known name in that field 😂
michaeldoeslife did it first before her
@@afzalhakeen4941it's over the shills hate the truth.
I knew someone would be making a video like this. It was only a matter of time
It was only a matter of time and space
A matter of time and space and clickbait.
Have you heard of Star Citizen? Saw someone else comparing flight and planetary landing in both games, SC definitely looks very interesting after watching some videos. Seems much more freedom, better flight etc.
@@AKARazorback bro i get it SC has a great premise and good implementation of space travel
But starfield is not a Space Exploration game its a Bethesda style RPG with Space Exploration as a set piece, no sane person that actually followed the Progression of Starfield expects it to be like SC
Starfield is a RPG first which is weird because majority of BGS games are more on exploration than RPG which is weird that they just focused on the RPG rather than the exploration
Thats the reason why majority of Bethesdas gamers praised starfield for going in the right direction when it comes to the Writing and quest design and said that in terms of RPG-ness of Starfield its better than Skyrim and FO4 and this is the words of some New Vegas fanboys who demanded better RPG mechanics in their new Games
@@AKARazorback vaporware
Funny thing is that how Bethesda did it is the most realistic way usually it would take hours to land on a planet the way you do it in star citizen or no man's Sky is just pure science fiction
This seems to be a lot like how Elite Dangerous managed instancing their locations. You could physically fly from one system to another using the interplanetary drive, but you wouldn't be able to interact with the system once there. You could fly between planets with your maneuvering engines, but couldn't "catch up" to whatever you reached because your frame of reference was different, and would also fail to collide with that thing.
In Elite Dangerous, I have flown from planet to space in normal flight mode. No Super Cruise. I have flown from a orbitng station to the planet surface, no super cruise. It takes hours. 10 hours from that station to planet surface. 7 hours from planet surface to space. None of it was a loading screen, and none of it was clipping inside of the planet, at all. Planet surface landing, and orbiting space station docking.
From the orbiting space station, the planet did leave me once I got close. I had to reposition my ship's tragetory alot as I got closer, then on the planets second time around I was close enough to catch it's orbit.
So in ED, that is a true thing, that can be done.
I had planned to make a trip from orbiting station, to orbiting station, one day, then prepare to find a system where a neighboring system is close enough, that I can travel from one to the other. I know that will take days; will do it in super cruise though. In normal flight mode, it will take months, if not year/s.
But that kind of travel is in Elite Dangerous.
Love You All!
God first!!!
God bless!!!
Love One Another, as Christ Jesus, Love Us!!!
Amen
Amen
Amen
Thank GOD you did this. Being a medicated OCD'er I would have been caught in this trap for an all-nighter, begging for any kind of release.
Thanks for taking the bullet aimed at us....although I'm sure there's a few of us still sobbing and screaming at the screen racing for a dot that just never seems to get any bigger even as the distance counter entices us to forever maintain current course.
Honestly, that's probably how real space travel feels lol... racing for a dot in the distance that never seems to get any bigger but you have no option but to maintain course... Realistically, it takes YEARS to fly to any other planet from Earth, so the distances in Starfield are pretty true-to-life.
@@mjtigerfang well, aging works different, or even not at all in space. Aging is, at the very least, drastically slowed down in Zero G. So you probably could survive the flight to Mars, it’s just that no one that you know on Earth would still be alive by the time you get there, or get back.
@@TheOnlyGhxstThe aging process is only slowed relativisticly, and only if you're experiencing time dilation. So no, YOU won't perceive any difference in your aging or total life-span, it's just that everyone on earth is moving & aging faster than you. But from you're perspective their basically living in fast-forward mode. From their perspective you're living in super slow-motion. Basically earth seconds pass much faster than those away from our gravity. However, the oxidative stress part of aging will still affect you regardless of gravity.
If we could halt, stop, or slow the aging process, just by sending people to space, then all the super-rich old folks would be desperately trying to buy themselves a seat on the next soyuz mission to the ISS.
@@dark2023-1lovesoni True. We would need to unlock lightspeed or near light speed travel first to truly unlock near immortality. And then you’d also have to be moving at relativistic speeds perpetually for eternity to be able to perceive the difference… in theory. Either way it’s not necessarily a good fate lol
1.there is no ocd medication and 2.that is not ocd what you are describing.
This is actuality awesome!!! You have saved people so much time
The fact that it is open (albeit janky) makes me interested to see if modders will implement a faster flight option where you can walk around your ship as it goes to the destination
Yes modders will add everything Bethesda said wasn't possible.... Bethesda is a terrible company I don't know how they get away with their bs every time they release a game
@@PureBassO"it's all part of the charm"
@@mrflufflebunny4529 Todd Howard lying about things you can do in the game is not charm 😂
@@PureBassO you talk nonsense now, they literally said they don't have seamless planetary landing.
@@PureBassO
It's because they build the sandbox and give the modders the toys to build their own sand castles. Besides Baldur's Gate 3, there aren't any role playing games out there that bother to factor physics into their games to the same degree as Bethesda games.
I did this in a Halo custom multiplayer map before. Someone added the escape pod to a map, it was flyable, and instead of fighting, we found the ship, glitched out of the map, and flew to the moon that we eventually clipped through. It took us hours to get there, super fun journey.
Most people want to be inside Uranus, but no, you had to be different and be inside Pluto....lmao!!!!
I was there for only a short part of her stream but i remember she responded back to a comment saying "Yes i know we can fast travel but where is the fun in that" Love this girl LUL. And im glad so many people tuned in and hung out for this. FOR SCIENCE !!!
Exactly.
I only fast traveled in Spider-Man '17 once to test it. No fun like swinging across NYC.
would have been cool if they at least triggered the landing animation when you got close...
@@DrTheRich thats not how this game works but i know what you mean. No Mans sky has that type if seemless transition from space to planet
@@prjerm2146 i don't mean seamless. I just mean that they could have set it up where if you get in a certain distance of the circumference of the planet, it would just trigger the fast travel animation from were you would be landing.
It wouldn't be that hard to implement and a fun nod to people who were silly enough to fly all the way.
@@prjerm2146Exactly, No Man’s Sky had it and that games how old? Yet a 2023 AAA game can’t even fucking include landing animations or offer proper space exploration where you aren’t having to go into UI menus 24/7 to select travelling from A to B. Bethesda are complete cancer.
I thought you did great job conducting this little experiment. Microsoft had a game in early 2000's called Freelancer, and it was missing several elements and physics that Starfield has but was fun. They did have several star systems that you just had to travel through for hours because the in game federation or whatever hadn't put in fast travel points. This experiment reminded me of that. good work! Gotta sub from me!
Tidbit facts the creator of freelancer is actually Chris Roberts the creator of star citizen.
i just think it's sad that they couldn't even simulate the effect of space travel while you play, i'm glad to know that every planet is fixed in space somewhat orbit, but i would have liked for the game to be less load screen simulater and actually feel more like a space game even with the current limitations of the creation engine.
travel takes time, i get this, but they wouldn't have to make that travel take forevor, this is scifi where we have gravdrives and such, so if the ship kind of took it's time and the player experienced some of this time which could be ajusted for gameplay so it's not too realistic, that it at the very least offers another feel to space travel to the player experience.
i know the limitations of this engine and i also know how they could have at the very least done this kind of thing with these limitations to make the game actually feel more like a space game and not waste to much time on the idea.
@@5226-p1e creator of freelancer is working hard on star citizen rn... I wish his dream becomes true
It’s a game not a simulation ffs
@@WWE2KUNIVERSEELITE any little ones around? 🥵
Star Citizen is a real space exploration game where you can travel to planets. Using hyperdrive which you can turn on and disengage whenever you want. Starfield is a big disapointment.
The orbit thing is really cool, I landed on a planet for an artifact quest and it was nighttime when I entered the mining base, when I exited the sun was just coming over the horizon and it kind of blew my mind how crazy it looked, with the shadows casting off all the rocks and hills and stuff. Really cool and unexpected. Also PSA for anyone who doesn't know, Photo Mode photos are added to your loading screen, so if you see something pretty, take a photo and it'll become a loading screen picture.
That's my problem now 😂 I'm taking hella photos...I went to this random planet shit was metal planet..rocks etc but the emptiness was beautiful so I got up on my ship and start snapping photos like real life shit also its cool to have them on the loading screen
I mean it's not really orbits.. like there is no gravity calculation done to simulate it. it's just some simple math to make things move in a circle around a point.
which requires near zero programming skills to implement.
they did like, the bare minimum, just to make tod Howard be able to say "the moon is really there" on stage...
If they put in a little more effort and actually made some basic orbit mechanics, it would have been cool if to get to a planet you actually have to slow you ship down like irl, not speed it up. so you would fall down towards the planet. That way she also wouldn't have to reorient her ship all the time, because in space around planets you don't move in linear straight lines, but around the curves of space bend by gravitational bodies.
Pretty cool. I played a lot of Elite Dangerous in the past and in that you have a faster “frame shift drive” to travel around (don’t think Starfield does). When out of that, it’s similar, it takes ages to get close to anything so you’d only do it for encounters.
The galaxy in Elite is all to scale and you can fly anywhere. Starfield is all small zones. You can't just seamlessly fly between areas like Elite
@AG-ch4od
the sad part about this idea is bethesda could have made their game function like this even with the limitations of their engine, however you just wouldn't have quite as much control, even in NMS you have most control when entering and leaving planets, yes it is a cutscnee sort of, you are still flying your ship up and down, but the game while it enters into another location prevents the player from seeing the new area loading up by abstructing the view with something like rentry fire and lots of screen shake so the player doesn't see the planet generating below so when it's fully loaded up it then takes away this abstruction so you can view it.
but bethesda also chose to make every planet a box tile and hundreds of other box tiles that are randomly generated based on the kind of planet it is.
if you really think about it, bethesda didn't really create a thousand planets, what they created was 1 planet with hundreds of cells that refresh themselves based on the location type to procedurally generate.
so your going to one cell that is constantly generated and recycled every time you think your going to a new planet, the only maps that are diffrent are the ones that are massive cities, these ones stay the same during your playthrough.
i think in the next elder scrolls game i really don't want them to do this procedural generation for the landscapes every time, i'm somewhat ok with them doing some of the land but sticking with the generated area so it stays the same every playthrough, however i don't mind if they use proceduraly generated weather based on time of the year in game so that it feels like the seasons are changing dynamically.
frame shift drive = grav drive, i think you meant supercruise and without a form of super cruise you would never be able to fly from one planet to the next within a acceptable amount of time.
@AG-ch4od I was actually talking to the OP. I haven't played NMS but in Elite you don't get a loading screen from planet to planet. The FSDJ is a " loading screen" yes.
@AG-ch4od Star Citizen would prove you wrong. Although its just one system right now but you are able to go to any planet and land on them. I started playing SF and was so pissed as soon as i had a loading screen to get into the ship. SF couldve been pretty awesome but instead its just "meh
.
Space Engineers sort of does the opposite of this. You can fly to any body, it's physical and can be landed on BUT it does not move and the sun orbits the player. If you do not use a jump drive it takes FOREVER to move between planets and moons. Either way is a compromise I assume due to engine and hardware limitations.
Kerbal Space Program is probably the best blending. The planets are all physical, they all rotate and orbit around the sun with moons orbiting the planets. and it takes ages in real time to get anywhere (though you do have the ability to speed time up to hurry up)
The planets always moving is so fantastic. A few planets I've found are very close together and it creates for amazing skies to look at, with another planet slowly going over you, shadows flowing over the land. It's amazing!
ok
@@oantran8060 thanks for sharing 👍🏻
@captain4318 amazing pictures in the sky, knowing you can't actually fly there or interact with them. The illusion of exploration just doesn't do it for me (or most people it seems). Maybe they'll learn to code before Starfield 2 and we can get a real space game
@@crini413Beautiful moving objects indeed 😍
I don't think most people care about not being able to fly planet to planet. Reviews are highly positive, so definitely not a deal breaker.
@@captain4318visit cassiopeia IV A
Amazingly explained without bs. Also kudos for the amount of patience involved 😅 I've tried to land in a random planet and in about 20 minutes I was giving up already 😅
If it took 6hours to get to the moon traveling system to system will probably take 10,000 years.
I tried doing this. After 30 minutes i gave up but you are a legend for doing this. Thanks, and now we know.
Try passing time by sleeping, the ship will keep going, no need to wait.
I still haven't modded my PC version of Starfield, but I'm sure you can (or will be able to) mod the flight speed of the ships and try these experiments in minutes instead of hours or days.
You don't even need mods. Creation engine has console commands to speed up game time arbitrarily fast. I'm sure someone has done it already, assuming the game doesn't just crash.
You can increase the game speed, not actually used it for flying though
Game engine itself may have a speed limit. Star Citizen originally had an in engine speed limit of 300m/s, which obviously is way too slow for spacecraft in the far future. They basically had to tear it down and rebuild it to function in space.
Won't matter, they're just floating JPEG's lol
@@obitwizzle3766 Yeah, the "standard" way of doing 3d math doesn't scale well to solar system scales, some special handling is needed.
The "planet" is just a picture. In Starfield there's np space, the whole game is just a series of loadable dungeons.
It's actually a sphere. You can type the orbit command and use console command to speed up orbit or travel to it
Honestly doing the Lord’s work
I have played a lot of Star Citizen and was excited for Starfield but disappointed it didnt have certain flight and exploration features. However it isnt a sim but rather an rpg. Great video, I enjoyed it a lot.
I'm more disappointed in the thousand planets. Wish they went with the star citizen route of having more detailed planets than quantity.
@@meowmeow2759 we a lot of times criticize star citizen, but there is no doubt that they created mind blowing tech for what we have in alpha versions, neither bethesda could done it, still starfield a very good and unoptimized game, but we know, its bethesda
@@paramboytv7378 SC still hasnt' done it. It's a janky server deployment with no local version in sight. The problem they're trying to solve with marrying memory management of proc-gen streaming engines (what NMS and ED does well) with cell based obj and property management (what BSG does well) with that game is genuinely hard though, there's a good chance they never get it off the servers.
@@meowmeow2759You know, star citizen is supposed to have a 100 star systems, too..
@@Joseph-wh5of no it's not since it got voted in 2014 to have less systems for more detailed gameplay and planets, the backers changed it to be starfield like to be what we have today
"No Man's Sky" offers boundless exploration with a more arcade-style approach, "Star Citizen" and "Elite Dangerous" prioritize realism in their gameplay. On the other hand, "Starfield", as an RPG, emphasizes character interactions, looting, and missions, making exploration a facet rather than the central theme.
In Empyrion a few year old indie game (still actively updated), you can fly from one planet to the next in a custom ship built in blocks/parts. Some planets (or moons I guess, lets call whales fish because they live in the sea) live on the rings of gas giants too.
Empyrion is also 1000x better than Star Field, but don't expect Bethesda fans to know how to play a real space game.
Empyrion is amazing and i wish me a remake
We all appreciate you taking one for the space explorers everywhere
Thank You For Your Valued Input en Making and Taking the Time to Experiment and Share Your Experience. Truly Valued.
It's such a shame they give us all this starship customisation, and then don't actually let us fly anywhere. 😭
You can fly anywhere, but you only have thruster speed, it would be a big waste of time to spend days flying from a planet to another, you can do it with quantum jumps in Star Citizen and it sucks after a while because its a tedious time sink.
It's hearthfire from skyrim, you're just building your mobile home that you teleport around lol.
@@DerDrecksack87No Man's Sky and Elite have the same systems to propel you at much faster speeds to get you to another planet. I feel this would be a nice mod to have for Starfield just incase you want to boost to different planets instead of fast traveling. Now jumping between systems would never be a thing. I mean even in Elite and NMS you need to engage a "jump drive" to jump between star systems. So what Starfield does is perfectly fine. Because even if you traveled at light speed it would still take FOREVER to get to another star system.
I agree with her. This is not a space exploration game "the space game", this is an rpg game with some space elements to it. The game is really delivering on those premises and i really enjoy that, but it's just sad that Bethesda wasn't open with that. In elite i flew my spaceships in space, in Starfield i enter my ship, press M, zoom out, click on a new system, click on a new planet and then X to land. 1 loading screen later and 0 space travel i walk out of my ship on a new planet. 0 space exploration immersion, this is to avoid 3 loading screens.
@@EverythingWasGreatIt's weird why this is done since technically the inside of your ship is always rendered fully. Why there is a loading screen is odd. I would imagine that modders will be able to remove the loading screen between entering and exiting your ship. The same goes with docking in space. I was watching npc ships do this and they do it seamless. I could see their docking clamps extracting and detracting. Why do we have a cutscene when its done for us? It's possible, just have to wait for the modders.
The fact that they don't just have you run into some invisible wall, tells me that they originally intended to make it so you could land on all of those planets.
However, at some point during development it must have been too tough to implement, so they scrapped it for those loading screens instead.
Well lets not forget players attacking cities and settlements with their ships or simply crashing into them. I could see the developmental nightmare it would have been to try and get all that working with out the game imploding on itself.
You mean like no mans sky which was made by a team of like 10 people?@@Someguy6571
I had the same idea and tried the same thing, but with phobos, because entering its orbit it was only like 1000 km away. I flew towards it (marker at the center) and at 10 km distance hit an invisible wall, not being able to go any closer
This makes sense from a technical aspect. It's like finding out that a skybox isn't actually anything more than a wrapped texture in the sky. If they don't plan on you actually interacting with it then why do anything more than the minimum, especially considering the fps impact it could have. The fact that there are orbits at all is a surprise and a really cool detail though! They definitely took a lot of risks with doing the game this way instead of like Outer Worlds where the planets are larger levels that you fully explore like a traditional Bethesda world, but sad to see that it doesn't seem like most people actually enjoy what they've done. I'll be excited to play it when it releases for free on Gamepass!
I kind of agree but a simple elastic sphere collision would have made the game much more realistic than clipping through geometry without taking basically any time off developers. I guess it's just basic game dev etiquette. You can't make a space game like this in 2023, especially if you're a AAA publisher who's been working on the title for years. Feels like a moneygrab by re-purposing old tech.
@@hexadecimalpickle iirc in No Man's Sky they just made the sun in each solar system a part of the skybox, and you literally could never reach it no matter how long you flew. And likewise it was impossible to ever manually fly from one system to another, you have to use the warp drive (aka a disguised loading screen). All of that kinda sucked because it infamously wasn't what they promised, but the one thing I will say positive about it is it never really resulted in a major "immersion break" where you could fly through a low res 3D model, it just felt like things were too far away to reach.
I am talking day 1 launch NMS here though, maybe they changed some of this later on. I should probably revisit that game at some point, people say it's good now.
@@yewtewbstew547NMS definitely changed since day 1 but even if they would allow to fly from one system to another, it would take days to reach in real time. I think they wanted gamers to reach a variety of systems faster.
There's a lot of positivity around it now that people are getting more hours in the game. At launch it was pretty bad
The orbits aren’t real tho, if they were, pointing your engine towards the planet and firing it would make your orbit extremely elliptical (learned from KSP) so the ship is pretty much just programmed to rotate around the planet but there’s no actual orbital mechanics
Okay. Seriously. I'm impressed. Good job. U the best Alanah
What's impressive about something that Bethesda already told you from the start that you can not do which is planetary landing? did she at any point thought she would be able to land in the planet? If she did she is more stupid than half you idiots commenting on this video. You're not impressed , there is nothing new here to see, no discovery. Stop being a simp it's better
Yeah. It's _not_ a space sim; it's Fallout/Skyrim in a space setting. And I'm perfectly happy with that so it doesn't step on ED's toes.
Girl your trip has gone viral in gaming spaces. That’s some serious dedication. 😂
I love that she discovered their orbits are real. Very cool
What I dont understand, how orbits can be real if she is flying one moment towards the bright side of the planet and later flying towards the planet with the sun in the same view. If orbits where real, she would never see the dark and light side of the planet.
@@danilonden3782Cause there is not a single orbit depicted in the game. Is as flat as can be. She even accelerates TOWARDS the planet. 😂 0 orbital mecanics
I always thought the way they made this game was they had a regular size sand box, but made everything including us the character like x200 smaller to fit everything inside this sandbox, so you can go anywhere but it'll take accurately a long a ass time to get there lol
From a computer math perspective, it's all the same. Distances are tracked using what's called floating-point math, usually using a 32-bit number where some of the bits are reserved to represent whether the number is positive or negative, and how large or small the number is. So the number 1 would be built essentially as a construct that is "Positive, 10^0 power, 1" The number 1/200 would be "Positive, 10^-3, 5" (Though notably computer math has to work with powers of two so it's a little more complicated than that). Either way everything you see on your screen is relative to this math. It only matters if
A) your numbers are so large or so small that the part of the number set aside for power reaches its maximum(10^38) or minimum(10^-38) value
B) Your numbers are so large relative to themselves that the exponent is not consistent during play, leading to math errors as the player gets further from the center(Some space games DO need to have a solution for this one, but the most well-known example of this happening is in the game minecraft where players teleport themselves to 'the far lands' which is not itself related to floating point error but is far enough from the center of the world that floating point error occurs out there)
Both of these things would cause a game to break down, but generally speaking neither is something that could be circumvented by just makin things bigger or smaller by a given factor of any real significance.
😂 This reminds me of the first six years of playing Star atrek Online. When you decide to leave a planet and "go to warp", often times my shop would suddenly pivot on its axis and warp *right through the planet!*
😂
This is the investigative journalism we've been missing!
I feel like a lot of expectations for Starfield would have been nullified if people just paid attention to the showcases and trailers. Sure there things that caught me by surprise (mostly in a good way), but I feel like overall, Starfield is exactly what they advertised.
I'm both extremely impressed with Starfield and slightly disappointed in a few very small things. I completely ignored all the info because I didn't expect Bethesda to pull through on this one but they really did. That being said, I wasn't completely aware of how things worked and those things I got wrong didn't ruin the game for me, it was just a little disappointing. The first thing I said when I started playing was "damn you, Bethesda!" because Todd Howard had sucked me in again. 😂
A lot of people don't give Alanah the credit she deserves, she been doing this shit for games/games journalism for so long now.
glad to see ya making headlines again!
Very well done Alanah! You are a credit to games journalism!
I have wondered about this since I started seeing Starfield. People can say what they want about Star Citizen, but the planets are really there in full size and glory, you can quantum closer to a planet and either quantum down to a certain outpost or you can fly down through the atmosphere--atmospheric head hitting your windshield or view port, and there details of the planet just get better and better the closer you get but your actually flying down and landing on the planet with no loading screens and no tricks. All of the ships are like function mini abodes. While in Quantum you can get out of the pilot seat and gather your crew and have lunch in the galley, it;s just everything every other star game out their can't do.
Would be cool if you could control the ship in warp speed like in Everspace
That would be cool but I cant be too critical. Space travel is just one aspect of starfield while that's the whole point of everspace. I'd expect everspace to have a more developed space travel system
I started to wonder if this was possible when I decided to try and enter New Atlantis from the back, and I discovered you can. I thought all the areas must be separated by barriers, but it’s actually all connected and accessible. I don’t know why this surprised me, but it was such a neat discovery. Made me wonder, “Is it the same in space?”
I have to say… yes, there’s an argument to be made that this game is disappointing for not being so seamless and all. But I don’t mind this at all. The orbits being in the game, and it being technically traversable, is a mind blowing realization about the universe’s scale.
Yeah Pete Hines really messed up. Todd was careful about what he said about it and the Pete comes out on Twitter and is like, "it's seamless."
For someone who put 130 hours into the game it surprises me
@danielsolorzano8623 Pete really needs to retire, he has been doing stuff like that constantly and just seems completely out of touch with the actual development teams and what the games are actually like.
@@danielsolorzano8623Because Pete is a mouth piece executive. Not a developer. He is just trying to hype people up.
Literally EXACTLY. One I saw that each surface map (aka local map) is just a fracrion od the space ur landing on, i shit my pants. The games scale is fkng astounding like no other. One of the smaller moon planets wpuld take you hundreds of hours to fully exlpore
@@MidniteMeatBus No kidding! And sure, there’s a lot of emptiness to the game. I feel, personally, this adds to the experience. It’s not one of those densely populated maps, it’s the universe. Vast, unforgiving, empty. Made traversable by our technology and will.
small game studio called eleon studios, has a game that does this near perfectly. you see how far you are from the atmospehere both when you're in the planet and outside it, and there's a very small momentary loading happens when you're going in and out of atmosphere. PLUS the planet is spinning, and where you enter the atmosphere from directly effects where you end up on the planet. so if you know the terrain of the planet and where your base is, you can enter atmosphere above your base to avoid flying slower in atmosphere (cuz of air friction I guess you fly faster in space)
Alanah, you are doing all of this for the greater good. Your findings are appreciated using this methodology, which concurs with all the mathematical equations. What I mean to say is, good job! Genuinely interesting to see this, looking forward to starting this tonight.
Really appreciate you doing this and the rest of your coverage for this game. Helped me save some time
I’ll save you some time, don’t buy the game, it’s fucking dogshit.
We can't fly to planets because "accurate orbit" but CAN gravedrive to distant unexplored star systems without factoring in relativity or experiencing time dialation.... 😂💀
This is the level of attention and commitment Starfield deserves.
I'M DOING MY PART
Your dedication to the endeavor earned you a sub. Thanks for answering this question for me
Thank you for this! Love the description of your experience and it really helped me understand what this game is about and its limits.
Oh hey it's my favorite TH-cam personality, Uncredited Gamer!
but seriously super cool you tested this, hopefully it draws Bethesda's attention and they add this as an option
As a game developer I give you massive props. Teaching everyone about how this works and properly explaining some of the mechanics behind rendering these distant planets.
There's a way they could've made it work even if you fly to the planet, but they probably thought it wasn't worth the time to implement since realistically only a small percent of people are probably going to try to actually fly to one of these planets.
The orbit mechanic is surprising, and very cool.
I honestly wish they had implemented a huge barrier or invisible wall around the planet, similar to Elie Dangerous, to prevent you from getting this close and clipping into it. I know the average player wouldn't have tried anyway, but it's very immersion breaking to know you can just clip right through planets if you go far enough.
@5:00 EXACTLY. People are saying "NMS is better than Starfield", but the point is that Starfield is NOT a space game. It's a Bethesda RPG that happens to have some space aspects.
I expected this would happen, but the really cool part of this was definitely learning about the orbits. Well done Alanah!
ok
This is actually really cool and an amazing effort.
What's cool about clipping through planets that you should be able to land on...
@@meridianline4022 It's cool that she went to the effort of finding out, and that said planets at least occupy a space to some degree. That said I ultimately agree with you that the player should be able to travel and directly land on planets without loading screens, especially when games like NMS were doing it damn near a decade ago...
Little bit of US accent creeping in with the Aussie accent. Noice.
You are a heroic misfit of science 🎉
Thank you, you did well in the name of science
Thank you for making the sacrifice and boldly going where none had before! I absolutely love that the orbits are there, will give me something to look up at while I build my outpost :)
I cant remember your last youtube channel but I remember you, good to see you still doing gaming stuff. I'm gonna give Stanfield a go tomorrow
Honestly if they were going to not completely block you from doing this they should have at least added a trigger so the moment you touch a planet physically it sends you into a loading screen to enter the planet
Watching space exploration in this game I now have an even bigger appreciation and respect for No mans sky.
Why? Not even No Mans Sky models the orbit of planets around their star.
@@Someguy6571 because you can freely fly in and out of planets without a loading screen or cut scene. It does a better job of keeping you immersed in the game.
@@gilbertoarellano8525First off No Man's Sky is no where near the scope of scale like Starfield. Second the planetary landings and departures are pretty quick. Like it takes a literal second or two to get from the surface to space. Oh and there is always asteroids around planets in No Man's Sky for some reason. Also the planets are static. As in they do not rotate or orbit their parent star. Thats pretty immersion breaking.
That's because the star is fake and merely a skybox. For Starfield one of the main reason (in my opinion), why there is no planetary landings is because of the tremendous effort it would have been to develop and implement it. Like think for a second. Letting players land at cities or settlements. This would also allow you to use your ship to attack said cities and settlements as well or just crash into them.
I can imagine the game literally imploding on itself trying to manage all the stuff you would be breaking. Such as mission triggers, bounties and physical objects flying around. No Man's Sky has none of this. No NPC dialogue as it all just spoken gibberish. No large cities with hundreds or thousands of npc's walking around doing things or the sheer amount of physics objects that Starfield is keeping track of. Let's be honest... No Man's Sky is a survival base building game with space exploration stuff.
I wonder if we'll get a mod that lets you fly to planets and actually land on them.
Being that much of the game's assets and systems are borrowed from Fallout 4 (where you could never actually fly vertibirds), I highly doubt we'll get actual space travel and planet exploration.
In star Citizen it’s a normal thing. You can land anywhere
I'm aware, I'm not sold on 45$ for an early access game, especially since I don't have anyone to group with.@@bossofthegym3093
@atlantic_love
Pretty sure there are multiple Vertiberd mods for FO4
@@Crese1947 That wasn't the point. Bethesda is the point.
Damn, I can't drive my ship for an hour toward the planet....oh well..
Amazing. Thanks for doing this!
It still feels like they could have used clouds/ big flames from atmospheric entry to hide entry into a planet's atmosphere and start generating terrain. Then when you land, it could just save the terrain nearby, and add the points of interest from your landing point. Ah, oh well.
how about moons and atmosphere-less bodies?
8:40 - You might be interested in Space Engine, a program developed by a single person, possibly an astrophysicist from Russia, over a very long time. It's used by some TH-camrs to show parts of the universe and various interesting phenomena. There's a spaceship mode too, and it allows you to fly around at ludicrous speeds and explore.
This was a really cool experiment. New subscriber :)
4 seconds in and the dog photobombs the video. You know he did that on purpose.
There was absolutely a bit of sass😂