https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjCyJKJuEHw

http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/739857-no-mans-sky/74175620

you cannot reach the stars so systems are impassable without warp and long traversing is glitched

Yep, the "warp" just replaces the loading screen while a new level is loaded wherein a new skybox of fake stars is displayed that contains a new group of worlds packed in the middle.

I am glad someone tried it, I was too worried to risk it.
Thanks for the info.

thx guys for being constructive

How is that 'fake stars' and 'fake freedom'? You can explore the planets for fuck's sake, but oh no we can't spend hours pulsing toward another star.

Yea, it`s dumb.

It`s a whiny complaint for the sake of whining.

While it may be technically valid complaint, realistically you would never reach the next star anyway. If your ship travels say at 1/100th the speed of light and the stars are a few light years apart minimum, you would have to travel for 100's of years anyway. Impossible.

Same thing with the sun, yes it would be kinda neato to fly into the sun, once. Then you die and what's the point of doing it again? Seems like a piddly thing to complain about.

I've never measured any of the planets but next I could see people complaining "they are only 100 miles across! That's not very realistic of a planet!" Well most game worlds are very tiny compared to just one planet, out of quintillions...

The main issue is that this means the solar systems generated are ... Bizarre to say the least. You've basically got a lump of planets on a pile and some distance from them, a star which doesn't actually exist. Most star systems are going to look remarkably similar to our solar system in their structure - that means a star and a bunch of planets orbiting it. Tell me, would you prefer to have what you have right now, or solar systems with planets actually placed around a star, which actually properly orbit it and react with its light? It would also allow for some cool and exotic structures like twin stars orbiting each other with planets that have bizarre orbits with the side effect that player would be able to reach the star. It's the important distinction between feeling like you're exploring an actual place or just a bunch of generated assets. Alas, Hello Games didn't even bother implementing varying planet sizes and physics for gravitation, so...

And before anyone says how much incredibly difficult work that would be, a single person developed a game with realistic orbits, procedurally generated planet surfaces and varying gravitation on various objects so it's clearly not impossibly, especially not with cash from Sony. Yees, god forbid people dislike something about your favorite game :-P

The one main problem with No Man's Sky (well other than the lying developer guy with legitimate mental issues sabotaging it) is that many are concentrating too much on what No Man's Sky isn't rather than what it is. It becomes relative, which disguises how incredible a game has been created.

Perhaps time will fix this, as it did with the likes of GTA San Andreas and Windows XP.

didnt say bad dude n u cannot fly to the current system's sun not even talking about other systems which was a promised feature but ye close ur eyes n be happy fake stuff is cool stuff with some lies my thoughts exactly i didnt even say its a bad game but these 6 years old pokemon grown fanboys attack like mosquitos at an opinion or rather a note pointing out that some promises are still to be added =) and i dont know why its a problem for them if sb wants to fly a week to another star system or burn their ship in the current system's star, the point is that they should be able to do that if this was a real open, seamless world which this isn't, as a fact.

There are a few games that have more accurate depiction of solar systems that I know of - Freelancer, which has a Sun in the middle of most systems, but everything else is completely static - Rebel Galaxy, same thing here - oh, and the most accurate I can think of, Kerbal Space Program!

Now, imagine a KSP with SciFi-Ships. Those kind of ships that are immune to orbits, any gravitational forces and fuel efficiency problems. Because if they aren't, you'd be spending hours just trying to get into orbit. Let alone getting somewhere else - so let's just leave the whole accurate physics and orbits thing for the system itself.

The scale of it would be more realistic, the sizes of planets and stars, and more importantly, the incredible distances between them. The system would, in short, seem so, so horribly empty, even with 6+ planets. Stations would always be in orbit of a planet or a star, constantly moving, planets sometimes closer, sometimes further apart from each other, and we would basically spend more time in the system map, intercepting planets or, by the means of SciFi travel, go there so fast we don't need to fast forward.

Now's the time to ask: Do we need that? I mean... sure, for the sake of having it, why not try it. But, I'd assume it'll get bothersome and rather boring pretty quickly. Think X3 levels of travel, multiplied by... *counts fingers several times over* pff... a lot. At least in X3, you have something to look at while the autopilot flies for you! Now, just remember how small earth looks like from the moon already. You won't be able to see the planets from across the system.

Just something to think about and decide for what you personally want and prefer to play.

First of all, speed of the ship is non-issue - unless the engine is coded really, REALLY badly, it can be changed on a whim to whatever developers decide. So with increased distance between planet, ship could move faster really easily.

As for planets not being visible from each other's surfaces - I mean...
First of all, it conveys a much better sense of scale. In, say, Rodina or Frontier: Elite (yes, that game from 1993 which had a fully procedurally generated galaxy that respected laws of physics? You know?), reaching a planet is an amazing feeling. You fly trough emptiness of space and suddenly BAM!, a massive landmass appears in your viewport. In No Man's Sky I can't really appreciate how large the planets are since they're sort of ... Always large.

Secondly, semi-realistic orbits could still generate some planets being visible from each other, it would just be a lot rarer occurrence and it would make some systems very unique and magical, as opposed to seeing other planets from all planets in all systems pretty much all the time.

I mean, just look at this. Take-off from an asteroid, look at entire star system and then approach and landing on a planet. The star system is fully functional by the way, including orbits. The game's made by one guy and I feel like it's a lot more impressive. (it's also massively unfinished and still in Early Access. And yes, you can actually control the ship in first person. And walk around it. And hand-design its interior. ... One guy.) You might not, but... You know, different folks, different strokes.

Good thing you see things in perspective, then. Surely I have never seen a more principled and well-founded complaint against a game before. And, if I may be so blunt, clearly this exposes Hello Games and Sean Murray for the charlatans they are, just like Jim Sterling says. I may have had reservations about throwing off my irrational worship of this game, weak and easily impressed as I am by uniformly parroted media-narratives, but you have opened my eyes. Never again will I doubt the implicit truth that forms immaculately on message-boards on the internet: I give you my solemn promise that I shall not be so conceited as to doubt this fount of wisdom again..

Not what I was talking about. Real-scale systems would mean that, by actual "travel" speeds, most of the time spent traveling - no matter how fast - would be through empty space. And with empty, I do mean empty - no planets or stations or anything in sight, anywhere. Nothing to look at, nothing like NMS currently is. You leave one planet, and see the other, maybe even 2 or 3, as soon as the clouds clear away. You realistically wouldn't see all those planets together like this at any time - only a single planet, after flying towards it, with the guidance of your navigation and map system since you wouldn't be able to see them.

What this means is, do we WANT this level of realism? Because truth is, there is just not much exciting to see out there. Having three or more planets visible with a colorful [also unrealistic] backdrop is clearly designed to be more eye-candy than realistic, and I'd assume, rightfully so. Too many people wouldn't have the attention span to keep playing nowadays if it were different. ... WHOOOOO #SHOTSFIRED

No, but seriously, traveling through such a system with then-increased adaptive speed to cover the distance wouldn't be traveling really, it would be more akin to making a "jump" - it would have to be, since you can't see the other planets to navigate visually and steering at these speeds...
You know, Starfleet Academy 101... "Faster than light, no left or right."

I'd definitely enjoy those aspects. Kind of exactly what NMS experience misses to be complete and meaningful. However, all early access things aside, assume the game was finished, with this semi-realistic scarcity of things to look at in space - how many people would you think will be hyped about it? The reason why people were hyped for NMS is exactly that it wasn't going for this much of realism, focusing much more on visuals and, yeah I'll say it, quantity over quality. Catchy marketing material eye-candy with just too little to actually do after a few hours of hands-on experience, many didn't see that coming. And I'll say it again, I'mma still play it and enjoy it for what it is, as long as I can without becoming bored of it. At which point I'll just play something else and come back to NMS a few weeks / months later, maybe.

My whole point is, people complaining about NMS not being more realistic fail to realize how little excitement there is in actual, realistic space travel - its exciting qualities don't lie in constant eye candy but the very realization, that no matter how gigantic a planet, beautiful to look at from space might be - it's so, so tiny and insignificant within the universe, yet it's got all you know and care about down there while you're seemingly defying physics by even being up here.

Games however, rarely deliver on this kind of feeling, and tend to focus more on being action-packed, eye candy, or whatever else it might be that's more interesting to the general public. Which leads to them being hyped, getting bored rather quickly when there's nothing new to be seen anymore, and complaining if they didn't feel satisfied with what they got.

NMS isn't designed or meant to be any of that. It's what it is, and for it to continue being interesting and fun, I'd rather have additional gameplay mechanics like multiplayer and most importantly, ship interior to walk in and customize, and more interactions with the universe or anything else that has more substance added in than the whole game being fundamentally redisigned to be more realistic. That's not what NMS was going for. And that's okay.