Because a lot of buildings only ‘pop in’ at the last moment, I’d like to be able to fly at a consistent height above the ground and be able to see what’s slightly below me instead of having to lose altitude to look down and then have to gain altitude to keep out of the ground. It seems to me that the old, old science ships did this at least a little bit but I believe that that’s no longer true. Anyway, I want it for my fighter. Maybe the seat could be made adjustable so that I could raise mine?
3 Likes
They don’t, actually… They might seem to, but that’s just because “heat” and “cold” work differently in a vacuum than in an atmosphere. In a vacuum, there is no cold, only heat, and you either need to prevent loosing it, or more commonly, you have a real problem to get rid of it. The “system” for keeping the heat in (insulation, but not the kind you could actually use in an atmosphere) does neatly prevent external heat from getting in, so this can seem like a two-in-one. The problem is that it also prevents heat from getting out, so you do need an additional system for that (in current spacesuits this is done by evaporating liquid, which will eventually run out and needs to be refilled).
As soon as an actually hot or cold atmosphere enters the picture the mechanics change completely, and our current spacesuits would actually be completely unusable. And you would very much need different systems to handle a cold or a hot atmosphere. In fact, what you would reasonably do is make two completely different suits.
As such, realism concerns really don’t enter into it. It’s unrealistic any way you turn it, but then everything in NMS is, so I’m perfectly fine with that.
6 Likes
now if you could have different suits stored on freighter in lockers, and change for different environments, then less tech slots would be fine…but as is its a pain in the ass lol
4 Likes
Actually, space is intrinsically hot only on large stellar scales inside galaxies, in which case the temperature is in the millions, or near G type stars within one Astronomical Unit, or one Earth orbit. Within one AU, there is enough solar radiation and solar wind to make a space suit or ship hot on the sunny side.
But in the shade, or out past the midpoint between the orbit of Earth and Mars, 120 million miles / 160 million km, cold starts to become an issue because all bodies begin to radiate more heat into space than they absorb, so satellites need radioactive heaters to keep the electronics from drastically cold temps, close to -300F / -200C by the time you reach Jupiter at 400m miles / 650m km. So space suits need to be insulated both ways.
Still, this universe is a Creation of some sort, so we live by the rules ATLAS decides for us.
Interestingly, a growing number of scientists are beginning to speculate that our universe is a fashioned artifact itself, either a Mercury simulation of its own or formed by a deity, so I guess I feel more at home in Euclid than I realized. 
4 Likes
This is true, but kind of goes to show the point: You cannot use the same system to protect from hot and cold. Because if your suit is highly insulated to protect you in the hotzones, you will have problems just preventing cooking yourself in your suit with your own body heat, unless you have a systemdedicated to getting that out.
If you built a suit specifically for that environment, you could get away with both lighter insulation and a barebones system to help keep equilibrium, at least when you’re not resting (in which case a small heating unit might indeed have to provide some relief). But you can’t have a suit that works well in both the “hotter” and “colder” areas (a better and less misunderstandable term would be “brighter” and “darker”, really) without having a dedicated system for either situation. Which was kind of the point I was trying to make. 
There’s another bit of misunderstanding… insulation pretty much always goes both ways, especially where EM radiation (the only kind of heat transfer that works in a vacuum) is concerned. Emisivity and absorption are the same value in all general equations. You could make some kind of EM insulation that favours one by using materials that let more light through from one side. I guess in a hi-tech scenario like NMS you could even assume a material that can adjust its absorption and emisivity dynamicaly on the fly. But unless you take special care that your insulation favours one direction, it will work equally well for both.
3 Likes
Considering that space suits in our world don’t carry cargo, or have much more than a small backpack, most of the room is definitely taken up with their enviro-control systems and shielding. But seeing as we’re playing a game, we don’t have the ability to teleport our junk to our ships outside of a VERY limited range, and we don’t have infinite space for stuff like we do in Fallout 4, I’m asking for some consideration. 
1 Like
Good point. Had to do some research. Well I guess it boils down then to overhauling the tech upgrades and balancing them out better. Its a science-fiction game that isn’t trying to be too realistic after all.
Okay a new one, the sandworm is cool but its a little awkward that it looks like its on rails and as stiff as a turd. It could maybe wiggle a little while in air or have its trajectory fall a little to create a better sense of it being alive. It would be cool if it left holes in the ground of where it was traveling too. Having it travel underground just below the surface causing the ground to lift slightly would also be cool.
It would be nice if it was deadly and gave chase to you and actually killed you by swallowing you whole. I guess to prevent being griefed by it the exosuit/ship A.I. can warn us ahead of time saying something like, “Warning. Deadly fauna detected. Proceed with caution.” And then offer a new bait recipe that you can use to distract the sandworm and it can only turn its attention to us if we run, boost, or manipulate the terrain… but if we walk, it doesn’t see us. Oh, and if a sentinel dog arrives, it would eat them whole/destroy them in one hit and it would destroy walkers by ramming them. That would be fascinating to see and very immersive.
1 Like
I want more Paradise planets with this Weather.
2 Likes
Err, sand worms… okay. Leaving burrow holes, definitely. Being killed by them… not a fan.
I have a seriously upgraded multitool and was killed by a Walker as I tried to destroy one on a quest, which didn’t used to be that hard. It wasn’t fun being seared to death. When I came back, I could only kill it with my ship! Just googling for it, it seems I need to remove the bounce from my grenades, because they only bounce off.
1 Like
Have you tried flying upside down…? Make the planet the ceiling and lean back and look up.
4 Likes
For me the annoying point is that all protections are the same gameplay, just in a different colour…
- Lacking cold protection feels exactly like lacking toxic protection — the suit whines in its grating voice and I die.
- Having protection against heat feels the same as having under water protection. It just extends the time before the suit whines.
There are no interesting choices or smart strategies. “Hey, pro gamer, why do you have more of this protection and less of that?” — “Uh… because I got these stats as random gifts from interactions?” (Randomness is not satisfying.)
At one point you have so many nanites that you simply upgrade all 2x3x5 protections to S class and all planets feel the same again.
Why introduce different planet types if there is no difference in interacting with them? Onky under water, our mobility changes, that’s An example of a good difference.
Admittedly, in Origins they added minor gameplay effects: I think, on cool planets, your mining beam overheats less now? And on hot(?) planets, the jet pack lasts longer, something like that? But that has nothing to do with protections or gameplay. Or do you now choose to go mining on a cold planet because your mining beam last longer? (No, I chose it because it had the resource that I needed.) Or when I expect to check out several landmarks without an exocraft, do I choose a hot planet because of the jetpack boost? (No, I choose the planet that has the landmark type on it.)
PS: Tl;dr my point is I’d like more biome related gameplay choices, more than just “install 2x3 thingies of 5 different colours”. What do you think?
(Like in Minecraft, if I settle in the cold, my field irrigation needs to be kept ice free, and if I’m on a mooshroom island, no mobs spawn, etc)
5 Likes
Thank you. First time I’ve tried and it does work for me really well for buildings that are just below me but my eyes don’t seem to be able to scan out to the edges of the scene like they did when I was right side up.
3 Likes
The original intent was that color had meaning – dominant faction/whatever. That would be OK. But meaningless and often intense color is a bit off-putting.
More irritating to me (as a xenophotographer) is “space dust/fog.” That stuff ruins photos!
4 Likes
Procedural Archeology
Besides graphics and numerous aspects, ‘Procedural’ is the secret sauce that makes anything and everything about No Man’s Sky feel most natural and realistic. But getting the details right is key…
And there’s numerous varieties of items to unearth, which is great, 
including these…
And then…
Further, only certain planets feature what the game calls Excavated Bones and Salvaged Scrap.
So, regardless of how well this works with the game mechanic of…
- “Hit the stars and seek out new planets”…
I think it would feel more natural and therefore realistic if ‘ALMOST ALL PLANETS’ feature at least a rare occurrence of bones, fossils, scrap, buried treasure, historical documents or anything otherwise being scattered ‘ALL ACROSS’ the entirety of all planetary surfaces.
Variable…
- Uninhabited Systems should ‘NOT’ feature items from past inhabitants.
- Abandon Systems however should feature items from past inhabitants.
Some planets could still be labeled as featuring an abundance of certain items, just as they are at present, and just as some planets could feature zero occurrence or any variable of occurrence in between. Yes, variable is a good thing, it is ‘procedural’.
Also, perhaps the differences between the ages of items could be revisited, especially between Excavated Bones and Fossil Samples, thus ensuring that fossils are truly and drastically older in age.
Unless I’m somehow overthinking it…
- “Wouldn’t this make more sense?”
Further…
There needs to be a logical reason for Colossal Buildings only accepting ‘Fossil Samples’ and no 'Excavated Bones." I mean, “Only big rewards for digging at buried ruins?” Shouldn’t buried ruins be special for more logical reasons, like lore and items involving the purpose of the actual ruins themselves? Or is that what these items are? If so, I struggle to see the connection, and perhaps it’s because “EVERY RUIN PROCEDURAL” does not yet apply to these specific types of ruins, “BUIRED RUINS,” and each look like some kind of alter to an unnamed god, and therefore I’m expecting the discovery of some type of treasured religious item, somehow native to the people. If these ‘Buried Ruins’ also had a chance of occurrence as business or residential structures, like places of work or dwellings, well then yes, perhaps I could more readily grasp the discovery of some of these items.
After all, it’s not like these items are just discovered in any random spot, they are as if very deliberately placed in chests and buried by the people…
And to be honest, I find that odd as well…
- That it is always this way,
- And what it is that’s buried.
Suggestion…
“EVERY BUIRED RUIN PROCEDURAL”
Otherwise, it feels very ‘samey’ and ‘illogical’, meaning unrealistic and can break emersion.
Consider…
- Does fauna and flora only die at ruins?
- Fossilized prepackaged in a loot chest?
- And/Or - Only dies on certain planets?
- Only place that ‘relics’ are left behind?
- & where certain ‘scraps’ are dropped?
No Man’s Sky would have us believe so. — But, “Why!?”
And I try to role-play it as sensible, but needs more logic — “Needs More Procedural” — Procedural is what sets NMS apart from all other games. — Archeology in NMS, “Needs more procedural!”
Further…
These new items have been a fun dig…
Only thing is, besides their procedural names,
- “What procedural designs?”
- “What procedural lore?”
- “What procedural date?”
They all look the same and read the same…
And at the very least…
Procedural Designs = “Variety is the Spice of Life”
While there’s numerous varieties of items to unearth, perhaps there should be greater variation, within each type. And further, these new fauna present numerous varieties, but could also use greater variation, within each type, as well. In other words, looks great, 
but now perhaps go further.
Conclusion
Consider revisiting the procedural nature of archeology in NMS.
4 Likes
Although xenoarcheology is not at the top of my thrill list, I do think that Hello Games can and should add more depth to it.
I’ve in the past submitted a suggestion to associate some bones with a specific creature. You or your “team” might need to search a few different worlds to find all the related bones. Then you’d transport them to [somewhere – a museum building? An “archive” doesn’t seem like a museum to me, especially since it allows swaps.].
At that building, once all pieces of the critter are donated, players involved with the 'dig" and donation get some sort of bonus. I don’t know how difficult bone-tracking would be to code, but that general concept might be a nice enhancement.
5 Likes
I’m thoroughly enjoying the variety in the worlds & return of vibrant, strange colour palettes. Much of my wish-list has been answered over the years but I still have a few wishes left.
1st, my longest standing whine: The Green Loot Crates & Damaged Machinery need an overhaul aesthetically to provide more visual variety. Too many of the same object littered across the galaxies. In fact it sometimes feels like the pristine planets are scattered with litter, there are so many of these things laying all over the place.
2nd I find the “you discovered” terminology (in regards to planets) a bit weird in systems which are charted, inhabited already. Shouldn’t it be you ‘visited’ or you ‘explored’?
If already explored by a different player then shouldn’t it be something like 'first visited by traveller {player name} on {date}?
This places an emphasis on the data being that of the ‘travellers’ community & not randomly (& falsely) claimed as discovered in systems with a dominant race already.
3rd I’d love for the various graphics layering issues to be a focus of a big tidy-up. Things like the immersion breaking ‘rings dust in space stations’ & the clipping of ships through freighter landing bay doors & space station walls. Others have mentioned this messiness too.
4th I think it would be kind of fun if ‘C’ class ships were prone to forced landings following random breakages or combat. Basically, you are forced to the closest (suitable) planetary body, pulled in by gravity & forced to land, leaving a smoking trail behind you. Here you must enact repairs to sort out your broken ship.
I find much of the early part of a NMS playthrough the most fun where you are more fragile & vulnerable.
5th I would love for the various freighters to have different internal layouts. Both crashed & flying, they are always identical. Surely its possible to make them mirror imaged or alternatively configured to add variety.
Same goes for space stations. Mix it up a bit. The derelict freighters show just how much variety can be achieved through a bit of procedural modular mix & match.
And that’s about it. My 5 wishes for HG to grant in future updates. 
7 Likes
Suggestion…
Consider posting a few screenshots in this thread to demonstrate that specific issue.
- Add the ability to control “space dust/fog” from photo mode. - Might that fix it?
Further…
- Add the ability to mine from the rings of ringed planets, like in Elite Dangerous.
- Not every system should have ringed planets, & others might should have more.
I do not know if asteroids can still spawn inside freighters, but needs a fix, if not fixed.
Certainly, I think they tease at, if not announce, how our freighters are soon to appear. 
However, if this were the case, “they have 4 landing pads to allow for tackling them in multiplayer.” And therefore, would there be a way to add at least 5 more landing pads, if not more, for our other ships and visiting ships like in multiplayer or NPC ships? Or will we be forced to downsize our fleets? After all, our present freighters have 9 landing pads. I doubt they would force us to downsize, but it does feel somewhat concerning, nonetheless.
- All freighters should match the procedural layouts of the new derelict freighters.
4 Likes
I see a new internal build…hmmmm
3 Likes
Literally? (Gets excited!) 
Or hopefully? (Twiddles thumbs!) 
Suits, Cargo & Multi-Tools
Like in Star Citizen, and same for multi-tools, and a full cargo hold, on starships…
- Add a full cargo hold behind our seats in our starships, that we can walk through.
- Which means they may have to increase the size of our starships, yet once more.
- Add usable multi-tool racks for collection and storage at base, freighter & starship.
For those times when, you know, 3’s not enough. 
Right?
In other words…
Having a full cargo hold behind our seats in our starships would provide a greater sense of “home away from home” and make the ships feel less “hollow,” so that an “empty presence” becomes a “full presence.” But such interiors would need to be procedural, so as to maintain a greater sense of variety. And multi-tool racks and suits in lockers, and the ability to quite literally access items from our storage, and in this case meaning our cargo holds, would increase a greater sense of immersion…
In starships, freighters, exocraft, etc.
Procedural = Variety = Immersion
3 Likes
