[Request] Simple Application of Astronomical Spectroscopy (Simple, 20th Century Science)

[thebs]

I posted this on the Frontier Forums. I think it's time someone brought it up, and my searches turned up nothing.
- [Request] Simple Application of Astronomical Spectroscopy (Simple, 20th Century Science)

Preface: Since I'm just a casual (16-20 hours/month) gamer and not a beta tester going back to 1.3, I waited until 2.2 was released before posting this. I also followed a lot of debate during several betas, especially 2.2.

Simply put ...

• When I target at a star within, say, 100 light-years, why don't I see the star's class? Since the 20th century we could get its chemical composition and other properties.
• When I target at a planet in the same solar system, why can't I get the planet's composition of its atmosphere (if it has one) or lithosphere (if it doesn't)? Again, since the 20th century, we could get this chemical composition and other properties.

I've watched and watched the debate over balance and what-not, especially during the 2.2 Beta. I held my tongue, hoping people would apply common, well-known, Astronomical Spectroscopy that has been with us for well over a half-century. Every time I'm disappointed.

Again ...

• I should be able to just target a start within decent range (say 100ly) and get its class right in my HUD.
• I should be able to target any planet within the same solar system (at least within 10,000ls) and gets its composition (atmo if there, litho if not) without much else. Not detailed or even exact percentages, but at least if it has water vapor, oxygen, nitrogen, methane and/or etc... or its surface materials if there is no atmosphere.

Just 20th century science in basic application. Sorry to bring this up after 2.2's release, but I'm surprised no one has suggested it before. I searched and didn't see anything, so my apologies if someone has already suggested it.

[de Carabas]

I understand the logic behind the request but from a game play perspective I think it's a no-go because of the impact it would have on the explorer role.

[TorTorden]

I understand the logic behind the request but from a game play perspective I think it's a no-go because of the impact it would have on the explorer role.

Also.

It's a game!
What we see in it is not close to reality, but what a few artists has decided NOT FROM A SCIENTIFIC point but an artistic one.
Just take proto T start.

They look just like M class stars in game because it uses the exact same art assets as M class stars.

I'm not saying a lot of the limits in the game don't seem artificially forced cause they are.
But demanding the application of scientific measurements to an art project is comical.

[Walter]

You do get all of your requested information in the galaxy and system maps when you make the initial plot and it can be (reasonably) quickly called up if you need a reminder. It would rather clutter the screen to have this data popping up in front of you all the time.

There's a new feature shown in the HUD under the Info flash at the top right corner when you initialise a jump. The class of the target star is shown briefly, but long enough to cancel the jump if it's a non-main-sequence star - useful until they fix the problem when jumping into these systems.

[thebs]

I understand the logic behind the request but from a game play perspective I think it's a no-go because of the impact it would have on the explorer role.

Huh? How does this affect gameplay?

Getting the atmosphere or lithosphere information via spectroscopy does not tell you if the planet is an 'Earth-like,' or if it has 'Jumponium.' It just increases the chance you will visit it or not. You still have to visit and take a detailed scan to get the added information!

It's very frustrationg to have all this technology, then jump into a system, but unable to do simple, spectral analysis we've had for 70+ years. If I was designing a spaceship, it would be one of the first things I'd have in the lower right of the HUD where the star is listed.

Also. It's a game!

But if it's just a game ... why bother with Newtonian Physics?
Why try to model the galaxy and astrophysics in the first place?
Why is Frontier aiming for so much scientific reality?

I think you guys are seriously not recognizing the very basic science, that is already very common to other science-fiction, that I'm asking for.

What we see in it is not close to reality, but what a few artists has decided NOT FROM A SCIENTIFIC point but an artistic one.
Just take proto T start.
They look just like M class stars in game because it uses the exact same art assets as M class stars.

But wait! Even the developers said they do want to get to the point where they do model the stars more realistically! Have you even read the devs on this?

And so ... if that is the case, why add not spectral analysis as well? Why isn't it there in the HUD next to the star or planet?

I'm not saying a lot of the limits in the game don't seem artificially forced cause they are.
But demanding the application of scientific measurements to an art project is comical.

I'm not 'demanding' anything.

I'm asking for one, single, very common aspect that has been known a long time, and is in plenty of science-fiction already!
There is no reason it shouldn't work like we've had since the 1950s.

You do get all of your requested information in the galaxy and system maps when you make the initial plot and it can be (reasonably) quickly called up if you need a reminder.

Yes, but going into another screen is stupid. It can easily be there, right in the HUD. If I want more detail, I can go to another screen. But this should be in the HUD next to the planet or star.

I.e., there is plenty of space for the star type in the lower left. Same goes for listing the 3-5 most common materials in the atmo or litho.

I'm really disappointed that people are against this when it's 1950s technology. But then again most people don't know their junior high physical science, so I sound like an idiot. Guess that's why those 2 engineers created that video proving the moon landings were faked, and why 80% of people believe it when they first see it (until an engineer sets them straight).

[Walter]

. . . going into another screen is stupid. It can easily be there, right in the HUD. If I want more detail, I can go to another screen. But this should be in the HUD next to the planet or star.

I.e., there is plenty of space for the star type in the lower left. Same goes for listing the 3-5 most common materials in the atmo or litho.

Actually, I agree with you - it would be nice. But it's not something I hanker after.

An alternative that I would prefer would be the ability to call up different screens in front of you without having to turn away from the forward view.It wouldn't be any more distracting than what we have now and it's what happens in stations. It wouldn't be any more difficult to have a panel with the target information.

But I expect They have their Reasons.

[thebs]

. . . going into another screen is stupid. It can easily be there, right in the HUD. If I want more detail, I can go to another screen. But this should be in the HUD next to the planet or star.

I.e., there is plenty of space for the star type in the lower left. Same goes for listing the 3-5 most common materials in the atmo or litho.

Actually, I agree with you - it would be nice. But it's not something I hanker after.

An alternative that I would prefer would be the ability to call up different screens in front of you without having to turn away from the forward view.It wouldn't be any more distracting than what we have now and it's what happens in stations. It wouldn't be any more difficult to have a panel with the target information.

But I expect They have their Reasons.

Pulling up bookmarked systems/planets/stations is a big one that should be available in the HUD.