Yeah, I like this plan. I do think there are too many variables for a simple "survivable" or "not" meter, but it makes sense to split it up by things like temperature, pressure, and toxicity. I think that also fits in the context of a game where you are making decisions about where to explore. You might conclude something very different about which planet to go to if you have a respirator but no pressure suit, or if you have a pressure suit with respirator but nothing to protect you from -80C temperatures.
I was thinking of the duration of exposure as well, but a realistic system is probably way too complicated. Especially if it combined separate exposure limits for temperature and air composition. But, given that unfavorable air compositions, even if survivable for a little while, are generally unpleasant in the extreme and difficult to do any work in -- it's probably better to just say "this air is not breathable unless you have a respirator". An exposure time limit for temperature alone is much easier, and could be interesting to play around with. It could allow for upgrades to your suit to survive in even hotter or colder environments, like in No Man's Sky.
To keep things simple I think just saying "Limited Exposure" with a neutral face is probably the best course of action. That would allow SpaceEngineer to implement such a system without too much work. Expansions on the system for gameplay purposes could come later.
Intel Core i7-5820K 4.2GHz 6-Core Processor G.Skill Ripjaws V Series 32GB (4 x 8GB) DDR4-2400 Memory EVGA GTX 980 Ti SC 6GB
The total pressure is only 0.3atm though, so the amount of oxygen and CO2 are actually fine for us (remember it's the partial pressure that matters, not the percentage of the air). We also don't require nitrogen to breathe (it's important for the nitrogen cycle on Earth, but for our breathing it's just an inert gas and doesn't matter). The one thing that is a problem is the SO2, as usual.
Well, I guess the surface gravity is also a little high, but overall the planet looks great.
Yes, the SO2 is the only one problem with its atmosphere
QuoteWatsisname ()
1.5 is well within tolerance range for humans, it would be a bit uncomfortable for a little while on the average person. I think the average astronaut or fighter pilot could probably tolerate it just fine.
Maybe you're right[DOT]
Quotecatyak2005 ()
Yeah, pretty nice and only 41 light years away from Sol.
I found that one two months ago and was initially surprised by the amount of O2
Ok
My mods If I'm not replying to a PM, my account is hacked!
Edited by Matsoftware - Tuesday, 29.11.2016, 14:40
This is mainly directed towards Watsisname and Ostarisk, but anyone else with input is welcome.
Here are a few icon ideas, feel free to add to this
1. Gas mask symbol: Mask required to breathe 2. Fire: Temperature too high 3. Snow: Temperature too low 4. Skull: Lethal 5. Clock !: Limited Exposure
Obviously there isn't an icon for safe, and a couple of these could be used together at a time. You could have a planet that has a low temperature, too much SO2 and requires gas mask, but also can be survived in limited doses. Technically such a planet would be lethal, but you wouldn't need to display the lethal sign.
Besides just icons, perhaps we should come up with a system like "Human Survival Index" with a number ranking. A number combined with icons would be simple enough for users to infer whether a planet is safe, mostly safe, or deadly.
Rough idea would be something like
1. Deadly (ex. the Moon) 2. Mostly Deadly (ex. Venus, Mars, Titan) 3. Limited Exposure range (ex. Pandora from Avatar) 4. Mostly harmless with limited exposure, breathable atmosphere (ex. Hoth, Mustafar from Star Wars) 5. Within human survival range (ex. Earth, Naboo, Vulcan. Planets that humans can walk and breathe on without problems)
This would also have to be linked with
Intel Core i7-5820K 4.2GHz 6-Core Processor G.Skill Ripjaws V Series 32GB (4 x 8GB) DDR4-2400 Memory EVGA GTX 980 Ti SC 6GB
Those are great. One thought I have is on what is 'deadly' or 'mostly deadly'.
I think the the Moon is more similar to Mars in 'mostly deadly' -- on both worlds you can survive exposure for at least a few seconds until you pass out from lack of oxygen, and if rescued/resuscitated shortly thereafter you'd be mostly free of injury (at least no serious injury). But Venus would kill you within seconds and you would be in very bad condition even if quickly brought back into safety, so I would call it deadly.
I guess it's pretty hard to decide on the boundary between the two, so my suggestion is that if there are factors in play which make you not only lose consciousness but also quickly make you non-revivable, then it's deadly, whereas if you could potentially be revived, it's mostly deadly.
on both worlds you can survive exposure for at least a few seconds until you pass out from lack of oxygen
Key difference would be temperature and atmosphere vs lack of atmosphere. If you had an air tight breathing mask on Mars you would survive a lot longer than on the Moon.
QuoteWatsisname ()
But Venus would kill you within seconds and you would be in very bad condition even if quickly brought back into safety, so I would call it deadly.
Same would happen on the Moon if you were in direct sunlight. Your body would be damaged quite severely.
The idea I was mulling over was going from no atmosphere up through having some form of atmosphere. Technically you could put Venus on the same ranking as the Moon, as a very thick atmosphere is just as deadly as no atmosphere.
Its all very rough, needs to be fleshed out, simplified, and made in a way it is easily understandable.
QuoteWatsisname ()
so my suggestion is that if there are factors in play which make you not only lose consciousness but also quickly make you non-revivable, then it's deadly, whereas if you could potentially be revived, it's mostly deadly.
Was thinking that as well. The separation in scale should come from if you can survive with a mask on and the level of injury you would sustain being exposed.
Stepping out onto the surface of the Moon or Venus will both kill you obviously. If you had a breathing mask or helmet, both will still kill you.
Sunlight on the moon will cause some pretty bad burns and lunar soil probably wouldn't be very good on the skin. I suspect you would live longer on the Moon in such a situation though.
On Venus your mask would be getting eaten away, tubes would be crushed, and you would be crushed by pressure and eaten away by corrosive materials.
Perhaps we can split up the scale and plot out different planets to get a baseline idea or make a more refined ranking system.
Intel Core i7-5820K 4.2GHz 6-Core Processor G.Skill Ripjaws V Series 32GB (4 x 8GB) DDR4-2400 Memory EVGA GTX 980 Ti SC 6GB
DoctorOfSpace, I added a few more icons to the chart: Cracked bone: High Pressure Smiley face: Breathable Planet: High humidity or too dry; Adaptable
We could probably also have a number system used when the atmosphere has limited exposure, So when shown in game, it shows the icon with a number next to it saying "1-2 Hours" or "1 minute", So the player can also know exactly how long you can stand in said atmosphere.
High pressure is not always a bad thing, as the cracked bone would imply. If the pressure is too high, then simply displaying the skull would be enough.
If you found a perfect Earth like planet but gravity was too high, then the cracked bone might work but still the skull would be a valid icon to display. The broken bone might work for high gravity, but not lethal gravity.
The planet one is a bit ambiguous, adaptable could work by simply displaying the Gas mask/respirator icon. Both cover much of the same types of planets.
I didn't add a smiley face as I was trying to think of a better representation, though it probably is the best one to use.
Intel Core i7-5820K 4.2GHz 6-Core Processor G.Skill Ripjaws V Series 32GB (4 x 8GB) DDR4-2400 Memory EVGA GTX 980 Ti SC 6GB
ENG
New site
Pirate 
United States 
Russian Federation 
Hungary 
.
Australia 
