Hyper- realistic PC game that can help us with ship design ideas

[QwertyYerty]

I have no good way of saying this in the title, but this PC game I saw on steam just blew my mind. This game could literally give us ship design ideas and screenshots based on science and tech to a ridiculous degree. The steam page speaks for itself.

Also, I just found this game, I'm not trying to sell it, I don't even make games or ads. I'm just writing this to make sure this post doesn't get flagged as ad spam.


A page link about the game I found (this is the official blog according to TV Tropes).

https://childrenofadeadearth.wordpress.com/


From the steam page

The Most Scientifically Accurate Space Warfare Simulator Ever Made.

Children of a Dead Earth is a simulation of true-to-life space warfare. Design your spacecrafts using real world technologies. Traverse the solar system using actual orbit mechanics. Command fleets as the solar system descends into war, and see if you have what it takes to become the victor.

Features
REAL SCIENCE, REAL TECHNOLOGY - Every technology, from the Nuclear Thermal Rockets, to the Railguns, to the Magnetoplasmadynamic Thrusters, was implemented using actual equations from Engineering and Physics textbooks and white papers. Everything aspect of these systems, efficiency, size, mass, power usage, heat dissipation, are all derived from valid equations.

CAMPAIGN AND SANDBOX MODES - Assume the role of an admiral and fight through a detailed storyline chronicling the descent of the solar system into all out war, spanning every planet in the solar system and everything in between. Or simply play in the sandbox, designing ships and pitting them against other ships.

EXTREMELY ACCURATE ORBITAL MECHANICS - With an N-Body Simulator (the kind NASA uses to plot actual spacecraft trajectories), all orbital phenomenon from hyperbolic orbits, Lagrange points, and orbital perturbation are all correctly simulated. Spacecrafts can stationkeep orbits, or enter into free falling perturbed orbits.

1:1 SCALE - The solar system is modeled completely to scale. The sizes of all planets, moons, and asteroids are accurately enormous, and the distance between them is similarly mindboggling huge. The extremely high orbital speed of your ships deep in high gravity orbits is correspondingly correct.

FREEFORM SHIP DESIGN - Build your spacecrafts out of rockets, propellant tanks, weapons, powerplants, radiators, and crew modules. Wrap it all up with multiple armor layers, and maybe a Whipple Shield to boot. The acceleration, moment of inertia, delta-v, and much more are all correctly calculated for all spacecrafts you design.

HIGHLY GRANULAR MODULE DESIGN - Tweak everything from the nozzle length or stoichiometric mixture ratio of your bipropellant rockets to the armature and rail dimensions of your railguns. The results of every change is seen in real time, from the change in your rocket's exhaust velocity, to your railgun's inductance or muzzle velocity.

PHYSICALLY ACCURATE MATERIAL PROPERTIES - All materials, chemical reactions, and spectra are physically correct. When your arclamp pumps your solid state laser, the pumping bands need to match up with the actual emission spectra of your excitation gas. When the photon absorption of a material is needed, it is derived from actual refractive index spectra data.

IN-ENGINE MOD SUPPORT - The engine supports black box creation of untested or far future technology for modders to work with. All other game data, from levels to material properties, is also accessible to modders.

All of the above aspects combine to yield a space warfare simulator that is unparalleled in scientific realism. No other game combines the extremely accurate orbital mechanics, 1:1 scale of the solar system, and technology which is implemented 100% by scientific equations. If you ever wanted to know what space warfare would actually be like, this is the game for you.


A post review I found which blew my mind

For lovers of hard science fiction this is pretty much the dream game. Heat radiators, nuclear thermal rockets, lasers, real n-body physics, and orbital mechanics, it’s all here. Star Wars style space battles, you won’t find that here. This is all about matching orbits, flinging missiles at targets hundreds of kilometers away and drilling away at your target’s armor with concentrated laser and rail gun fire. The campaign is challenging enough but the ship and component editor is a whole ‘nother story. Making your own ship components is, to put it lightly, INSANE! The amount of parameters you can modify is mind boggling. Just trying to make a custom laser weapon I have to chose a lasing medium, what material to make the mirrors out of, what are those mirror’s dimensions, what will the freaking coolant pumps be made out of and what fluid will they be pumping and how fast! I feel like I need several advanced engineering degrees to wrap my head around all this, which is cool, but overwhelming! I like that it gives you these insane custom tinkering options but unless you know what you’re doing it’s best to just stick with the stock parts to build your ships. I really can’t think of any other game out there that takes hard science fiction this seriously. Probably Kerbal Space Program is the closest thing to this but that’s really not a helpful comparison.

[stevebowers]

I'd really like to help make something like this for OA - not just for spaceship design (right up to reactionless drive) but for space habitats, cityscapes, planets and systems, wormhole networks, warfare and even aliens. The technology required to create all this sort of sandbox exists now, in No Man's Sky, COADE, Kerbal, Orbiter, Space Engine, Celestia, Spore, and so on, it just needs someone to put them all together.

Incidentally here's the Fiarro Twin Worlds made for Universe Sandbox by Erde Solar

I presume that means the system is stable...

[Drashner1]

Nifty!

There was something posted about this earlier this year IIRC, but I don't remember if it included the link provided here that takes you to all the supporting info, websites, and option to purchase. I do remember a YouTube video that I see here.

Anyway, several different thoughts here. In no particular order...

a) Thanks for the disclaimer about not trying to be spam We take a dim view of spammers and appreciate it when members try to avoid doing it. That said, as a posting member with a bit of history with the project, you are more of a known quantity and have earned more leeway in that regard than someone who's very first post to the project was one promoting their own project, for example.

If you (or any other members here, if you are listening) ever do have a project that you're working on that you'd like to present/promote to the membership, just contact one of the Admins offlist or use the Contact Us feature on the site and we can discuss.

Ok, with that Public Service Announcement out of the way...

b) While I haven't read the entire blog/wordpress page (not complaining - for an OA member to complain about the amount of intro material would by hypocritical to the point of hilarity ), it looks pretty cool. I'm particularly taken with the mention of stealth in space (it ain't happening), and the apparent degree of customization and design tools that the game apparently brings to the table.

c) OA take a somewhat different approach to this, mainly due to the nature of the project, but also because we also postulate some techs appearing that would somewhat (or possibly drastically) change how space operations/combat would work from the starting assumptions the game makes. Examples include strong AI and advanced power sources such as fusion, amat, and conversion.

That said, this might have direct application when considering ships (military or otherwise) early in the timeline and possibly even later depending on how flexible the tool is (could we trick it into giving us numbers for our more powerful techs or will it flip over and wave its legs in the air if we try?).

d) Being fans of hard SF ourselves, at the least I think we should consider adding a link to this on our Links page. Depending on how the senior membership feels about it, we might also (as the project - what individuals do is up to them) post something about this to our various social media platforms. We might also consider reaching out and saying 'Hi' to the designer(s) since we do play in the same general space (hard science SF) in various ways.

e) Going back to my mention of the design tools - the price for this is pretty nominal. Perhaps the Board could discuss purchasing a copy to use as a design tool for ships in the OA setting? There are various issues around that which would need discussing, but it's something we might consider.

My 2c worth,

Todd

[QwertyYerty]

If you guys are interested, here is a lets play of Children of a Dead Earth (CDE).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zp4wQ8nw...8M8OScWAOC

[Rynn]

I was browsing steam this morning and decided to pick up this game, had a little money left over from my last paycheck so the £18 price tag and reviews convinced me. I've played for a few hours now and have some thoughts:

1) The visual design leaves something to be desired though the planets are rendered well. I don't particularly mind though because it gives a very retro-SF feel. What is frustrating is the user interface which is very sub-par. Perhaps it's because I'm used to Kerbal Space Program (which is a very polished game focused around orbital mechanics) but I found myself quite frustrated with the finicky maneuver node system that would require you to zoom in-and-out to fiddle with it, only to have to delete it when it's apparent it wont work and start again, rather than being able to drag it along the orbital track. There's also a lack of good information like closest approach to target. There's a ship designer that eventually unlocks and again the UI and controls are terrible, there's no simple drag-and-drop of parts. Everything has to be done through an ugly, unclear set of menus.

2) The game is somewhat fun and I'll get back to it after this. But if I had to describe what kind of game it was "Space Simulator" or "SF Combat Strategy" wouldn't be high on the list. So far this game feels like a puzzle game. Each level presents you with the task of taking command of some ships and setting up a series of burns so they can intercept cargo, stations or enemy vessels. There is some strategy involved, like making certain ships or weapons hit the enemy first, but the actual combat is very basic. The real challenge comes from having to set up the maneuvers just right, taking care not to use up your remaining Delta-V.

3) For all that it touts being "super realistic" it does have some rather strict assumptions that I'm not entirely convinced of. Laser weaponry is worthless beyond short range and other than drones and missiles you can't actually engage in combat until you're a fe.w kilometers from the enemy. This is annoying and not particularly realistic. I was hoping the mechanics allowed for fleets to engage over very long distances with the tactical decision being when to fire (longer range obviously being less effective due to enemy dodging). Unfortunately there's none of that and all combat takes place around planets/asteroids once the fleets adjust their orbits to fly by at a range of a few kilometers.

The game is ok and the lore and pre-mission briefings are quite cool. I get the strong feeling that the concept for a realistic, space combat simulator was developed long before anyone thought about how to make it an actual "game". However it's not that expensive and interesting. On top of that there seem to be frequent updates and patches so hopefully it will only improve over time.

In terms of relation to OA I'm not sure there's much we need to take from it. The assumptions of CoaDE are quite different to OA, even in the early timeline (exception being the very early 2000-2100). OA has effective laser focusing over long ranges and very-high delta-V propulsion. Both of those make the type of warfare seen in this game quite obsolete.

[Crazy Tom]

I've seen the tech assumptions mentioned many times by people, so I'm going to chime in here:

The reason the tech is limited isn't because the author doesn't think that more advanced systems are possible or even probable. Rather it's the result of either a) not enough public domain information exists for the dev to create an accurate simulation of the technology, or b) the dev hasn't gotten around to adding it because it's just one guy.

To give an example, right now all the loaders for guns are electromagnetic, but the dev has said that blow-back receivers are on his to-do list. This is radically going to change the drone/missile paradigms because drones will no longer require RTGs which make up 1/2 to 1/3 the cost of a drone currently.

Buying this game you have to set your expectations to a realistic level: this is a one man indie effort, so don't expect the moon. Having said that, it's still a lot of fun to play, and the community on the official forums has come up with some really neat stuff (ie: it turns out that the physics engine is robust enough to allow users to create nuclear explosively formed penetrators by simply sticking an an appropriately engineered nuke next to an appropriately engineered plate, that was a fun realization).

[Drashner1]

IIRC the developer does mention somewhere that the tech assumptions are deliberately limited in various ways to ensure/maximize the odds of accuracy (since we've yet to actually have a space based war, there is of course a certain amount of speculation involved).

It should also be noted that OA is generally considering a period hundreds to thousands of years further into the future than this game does. So there are going to be different assumptions or just plain levels of technology involved.

I agree we shouldn't expect the moon and, given our own indie status the 'not expecting the moon' thing is certainly something we can sympathize with.

That said, I can also see where Rynn is coming from. I'm not sure if the game, in its present incarnation, would offer much as a resource to OA when considering space warfare for most of the timeline. Although perhaps in the early Interplanetary period, there would be some crossover. However, it may very well be a source of hard SF fun for members who are into gaming and space warfare (or puzzle) games

Todd

[Rynn]

I've seen the tech assumptions mentioned many times by people, so I'm going to chime in here:

The reason the tech is limited isn't because the author doesn't think that more advanced systems are possible or even probable. Rather it's the result of either a) not enough public domain information exists for the dev to create an accurate simulation of the technology, or b) the dev hasn't gotten around to adding it because it's just one guy.

To give an example, right now all the loaders for guns are electromagnetic, but the dev has said that blow-back receivers are on his to-do list. This is radically going to change the drone/missile paradigms because drones will no longer require RTGs which make up 1/2 to 1/3 the cost of a drone currently.

Buying this game you have to set your expectations to a realistic level: this is a one man indie effort, so don't expect the moon. Having said that, it's still a lot of fun to play, and the community on the official forums has come up with some really neat stuff (ie: it turns out that the physics engine is robust enough to allow users to create nuclear explosively formed penetrators by simply sticking an an appropriately engineered nuke next to an appropriately engineered plate, that was a fun realization).

I totally respect the fact it's an indie game, and it does seem to have a great physics simulator as its base. I just feel that the "game" is sorely lacking at the moment. I'll pick it up again if issues with the AI and interface are sorted (the way missiles and drones are programed to intercept is a big annoyance, rather than projecting the enemy position based on their vector and plotting against that they simply point their nose at the enemy and fire the engines. Less than optimal to say the least).

Scott Manley has a lets play series of it running at the moment. He's a heavy hitter youtuber in terms of space games, particularly kerbal space program. He has similar criticisms about the game but in the video below he goes over how great the engine is for designing ships and their parts:

[Crazy Tom]

I totally respect the fact it's an indie game, and it does seem to have a great physics simulator as its base. I just feel that the "game" is sorely lacking at the moment. I'll pick it up again if issues with the AI and interface are sorted (the way missiles and drones are programed to intercept is a big annoyance, rather than projecting the enemy position based on their vector and plotting against that they simply point their nose at the enemy and fire the engines. Less than optimal to say the least).

There's a funny story about missile AI. Right now, the game has code for more accurate guidance algorithms already built in, but they're disabled because the number of calculations tends to bring computers to a grinding halt if the player launcher too many missiles.

Figuring out how to reduce the number of calculations while maintaining accuracy is a topic of discussion on the forum and a priority for the dev.

[M.Twain]

I just watch the trailer of the game at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjWEGlot35Y. One of the interesting features is user can create the spacecraft out of rockets, weapons, propellant tanks, radiators, power plants and crew modules.