Take on Mars

[Deaf3279]

I know it's off topic...

I cant find where to post or "off topic" in forum So I'm throw it in here.

Today I found game called Take on Mars. It's VERY similar to KSP. That game is you run space program. You design rover/lander. You launch from Earth. Only Mars that you will land on. Right now I'm downloading it 83% done yay. I has watch video. It look realistic! I'm look forward!! Here Youtube video of it...

I still like KSP But when you're in mood for realistic. Take on Mars will make it look realistic.

[CoriW]

Indeed it looks really good, I'm waiting a bit before buying it though, just to see where it goes.

Also on a side note, this is the Off Topic Forum

[OUScooby]

Looks interesting, and fun. But I don't think any of my creations from KSP would work in a realistic simulator. For now a simpleton like me will stick to KSP. I have added the game to my wishlist on steam. If it goes on sale and is cheap enough I may buy it. For now though, I've still got so much I still want to accomplish in KSP, and then eventually there will be Career Mode so I think KSP will keep me busy for awhile.

[Deaf3279]

I still like KSP better so, No worry I'm not force you to get it. Just though to show everyone about new game. Here few screenshot from my last few mission...

That how it look like to build your own rover/lander

You can install camera under rover to watch heat shield fall away....

Yeah with cheap camera. There's limit budget on cost to build rover. To me, Camera under rover is MUST. I'm sure after awhile it get bored and i wont add it in future to save budget.

My first Lander. Very cheap and able to taking photo on the surface and probe soil.

I was not reason battery get dying too fast.

So second design... SOLAR PANEL! But they're not cheap

I though to take picture of lander's pretty leg and waste film ha!

I though to send my first rover after I finally get enough money to build basic.

this is skycrane with cargo. Rover is aboard.

Airbag deployed!

I didnt reason that I have to deploy airbag myself. All my other lander touch itself, I though it was all automatic. Turn out I control lander to touch down. Last two lander was luck to touch down without crash.

Airbag is bouncing (look like sit there)

Rover in cargo is being deploying

Deployed

My rover has roll and destroyed, there go my 1 million worth rover >.<

Lesson one... STAY AWAY FROM CRATE!!

Edited August 8, 2013 by Deaf3279

[Decho]

Really Take On Mars isn't much similar at all to KSP, you more customise your rovers/landers and then only get control once they're on the surface (though you will eventually be able to have some control over the landing). That said if some of the rover features could get implemented in KSP I would be a very happy bunny - namely the cameras and the picture-in-picture views from those cameras while viewing outside the vehicle, and of course some of the science instruments like cameras. Also while I doubt it will ever happen if KSP graphics ever get close to Take On Mars in terms of planet detail then I doubt I would ever even be tempted to play anything but KSP.

[Wice]

I've seen a couple of videos on this and it looks nice but I can't help but hum that particular A-Ha song whenever I see the name of this game...

[Dortmunder]

Really Take On Mars isn't much similar at all to KSP, you more customise your rovers/landers and then only get control once they're on the surface (though you will eventually be able to have some control over the landing). That said if some of the rover features could get implemented in KSP I would be a very happy bunny - namely the cameras and the picture-in-picture views from those cameras while viewing outside the vehicle, and of course some of the science instruments like cameras. Also while I doubt it will ever happen if KSP graphics ever get close to Take On Mars in terms of planet detail then I doubt I would ever even be tempted to play anything but KSP.

Agreed, nothing alike.

Though, if KSP looked like this I would lose my stuff

I've put over 10 hours into Take On Mars. I sorta like it in the sense that it's relaxing. But all you do is drive around in a rover and scan stuff pretty much, so it gets boring fairly fast.

[cypher_00]

Yeah I bought it when i saw it on Steam. It looks pretty nice but its still very buggy.

I'm stuck on my third mission now. I have to scan a rock with my first little rover but it keeps telling me "No target in range" no matter what i try.

[Decho]

You have to get the sensor to be almost in contact with the rock, which given the position of the sensor can be very very tough.

[Kimberly]

Take On Mars seems to suffer from a severe lack of ambition. You have little freedom in what you do, not that much freedom in terms of rover/lander design, you don't control the landing at all (though I'm told this is planned), and the damage system is random, leading many rovers to get wheel damage as soon as they roll off their pad. You need to land exactly inside a pre-defined mission area or you might not trigger certain objectives, even though from a story reason the place you land makes just as much sense. (E.g., when you are tasked with probing the blue soil, only a small part of the blue soil will actually finish the mission.) And the order of missions is strange, so that you might not be able to complete objectives you're clearly in reach of if your rover gets stuck before you complete an objective further away.

Not to mention the fact that the developers' English seems pretty terrible. Supposedly, the game hasn't been proofread yet, but it doesn't exactly inspire a lot of confidence in the developers' professionalism.

The game's concept isn't bad, and I think it's definitely got potential...but I'm not going to come back to it until quite a bit later.

[DocLangy]

Take On Mars

Not to mention the fact that the developers' English seems pretty terrible. Supposedly, the game hasn't been proofread yet, but it doesn't exactly inspire a lot of confidence in the developers' professionalism.

The game's concept isn't bad, and I think it's definitely got potential...but I'm not going to come back to it until quite a bit later.

I watched the Scott Manley videos where he's showing things off. The developers are Eastern European (Ukraine?) and the game is early alpha. To me I think it's a very cool idea and I'm glad they're doing it but I'm not into it. Too much Sim for me.

[djnattyd]

Too much Sim for me.

To be fair to Bohemia, simulation is the thing they do and they do it better than anyone else. After all, there's a reason the UK & US military use their VBS2 program for training.

I haven't picked up TOM yet but given how much I like the ArmA series and how quickly Arma3 went from tech showcase to playable beta, I can see Take On Mars turning into something worthwhile and will get it pretty soonish.

[KerbMav]

Saw a trailer on steam (?) and Scott's video - it looks good, but you cannot build-fly-dream!

[AlternNocturn]

Take On Mars seems to suffer from a severe lack of ambition.

So did KSP a year ago.

[Naiba]

So did KSP a year ago.

You seem to be mistaking the lack of planned content for the lack of plans FOR content. Take on Mars could really do with more of the former and less of the latter. It'll be a solid little title when it's done, but that's all part of the problem I have with it. Just a personal opinion, mind you.

[air805ronin]

Not to mention the fact that the developers' English seems pretty terrible. Supposedly, the game hasn't been proofread yet, but it doesn't exactly inspire a lot of confidence in the developers' professionalism.

The game's concept isn't bad, and I think it's definitely got potential...but I'm not going to come back to it until quite a bit later.

The developers are Czech so...well..the English isn't as bad as it could be.

I think its a pretty game, and a neat idea, but that its currently just a step up from a facebook game.

• Building yours crafts gives you X number of places to place things.
  
• Once you select go mission you're automagically coming in for landing.
  
• Camera missions involve panning and taking a picture of every green X. This is the space equivalent of replanting a plot in Farmville to me.
  
• Once you finish your objectives, immediate payout.
  
• Limited sites on Mars to land on. They're probably modelling just those scenes and who knows if you can even endlessly drive your rover to another site.
  

All that said, its early access too. Right now it could be looked at as a very nice tech demo with the meat of the game still to be produced. Time will tell with Take on Mars.

Edited August 8, 2013 by air805ronin

[Mr Shifty]

The game is in active development. They do nightly dev builds which are available to anyone who has purchased the game. (If you've got it through Steam, right-click the game in your library, choose Properties, go to the Betas tab and opt-in to the dev build.) Weekly 'public' builds will be pushed out. Full dev change logs are available from within the game, so you can see, for instance, that they've added a bunch of side quests to Victoria crater in the last couple days. They've got a bug/suggestion tracker on their forum site that is loads better than anything KSP has ever done. You make a suggestion, and you can watch as the devs acknowledge that they see it, comment on its feasability, and work toward implementing it. Martin Melicharek (aka Dram on the ToM forums; the lead developer) responds to nearly every thread there, answering questions about the game and addressing concerns. Next week they're going to release a full set of modding tools, and they've designed the game specifically to make it easy for modders to add content. (And there are already a couple scenarios that have been made by users. Our very own Novasilisko is cooking up some pretty awesome stuff.) The developers are very invested in making the game a community project. Very worth checking out.

NB: The developers, or at least Melicharek, speak English at least as well as I do, and it's my first (and sadly only) language. When they say the game hasn't been proofread, that's what they mean, not that they need better translators.

Here's an interview Scott Manley did with Martin Melicharek:

MrPmbm6Nxvb-A Edited August 8, 2013 by Mr Shifty

[air805ronin]

For all I said, I do have a lot of faith in Bohemia. I like the Arma series and I've trained soldiers with thier VBS2 simulation software. They know how to make good products in their own niches.

--edit: and I'll probably buy this to see how it works out.

[Swifty]

If you'd ever used VBS2 'professionally' you'd understand how difficult and finicky it is to use. Its only used to train soldiers because there is nothing else out there that has capabilities similar to it. Also they it is incredibly cheap compared to if the software was created by a prime (Lockheed Martin, Boeing, BAE etc). But the modding tools for Arma/VBS2 are a pain!

Oh and BTW the people that make Arma do NOT make VBS2. Bohemia Interactive make Arma and Bohemia Interactive Simulations (BIS) (or something along those lines) make VBS. BIS is almost completely separate company to Bohemia though they do operate under certain agreements and Bohemia does own a % of BIS.

[air805ronin]

Swifty, BIS was a spin off company that used the engine from Operation Flashpoint to develop VBS1. It is still owned by BI. Advances in the commercial realm are shared with the BIS team, and vice versa. This includes engine advancements.

I did use it professionally while training the National Guard. This included using just VBS2, using it integrated with a convoy simulator, and finally helping integrate it into command training via pushing its feed to the ERF simulation (and pushing ERF's JCATS feed down to create units in VBS2).

It might not be the perfect tool, but its a good tool. I found the modding tools annoyingly dense but not unusual. My job was actually to train trainers in how to generate their own scenarios in VBS2 towards the end of my tenure on that contract. I enjoyed the some of the Arma mods that worked in VBS2, like a couple of Artillery call in mods.

[Swifty]

Sorry I saw VBS2 in your post and thought I share my pain from the years of having to use it. It is very good for what it is and the training soldiers have been able to get has saved some lives! But doesn't make oxygen any easier to or more fun to use.

Did you ever get to meet Peter? Interesting guy, quite amazing what he had to do to get it setup and the advancements that are coming with 2.0 should make an even more useful.

But man it cant half be a pain in the ****!! Have you tired getting vehicles to drive sensibly in convoy's? nightmare

[air805ronin]

Sorry I saw VBS2 in your post and thought I share my pain from the years of having to use it. It is very good for what it is and the training soldiers have been able to get has saved some lives! But doesn't make oxygen any easier to or more fun to use.

Did you ever get to meet Peter? Interesting guy, quite amazing what he had to do to get it setup and the advancements that are coming with 2.0 should make an even more useful.

But man it cant half be a pain in the ****!! Have you tired getting vehicles to drive sensibly in convoy's? nightmare

Convoys were weird. Most problems could be alleviated by minimizing the number of nodes in the path. Still you could encounter some of the weirdest problems with pathing and logic.

Coolest moment was getting 3 helicopters to fly in with the squads in training, drop them off, circle the area, and then land to pick them up again when they called for it. Also took forever to make it work right.

They sure know how to make terrain from satellite imagery though. Take on Mars proves that they can make something look really pretty.

[MDBenson]

I spent a couple of days fooling about with it and really getting into the nuts and bolts. It's a very good sim. I enjoyed playing it and learning the game's systems.

Some of the games limitations are there for a reason of realism, not lack of ambition. Mars landings use past Rover and Lander data combined with satellite recon to pick a good landing spot (like Gale or Victoria crater) rather than just deciding to land somewhere random. Also, the fact there are only limited tasks to perform in each mission is partly true, goals are pre-defined for each working Sol the rover is operated and they often do just boil down to drive there, photo that, probe the soil there, analyse that rock. As you get to more advanced rovers it gets more fun because you can take multiple anasis tools like ChemCam and the Rock Drill and perform more than one test.

One thing I don't like so much is the missions are 100% scripted (although there are hints that some goals activate other goals but I've not looked into that). It'd be nicer if you could plan and execute missions more interactively, like you spend a hour taking pictures after you land, then use an interactive map to compare your photos and satellite data and pick out targets to analyse. Then from that analysis come up with ha plan to see what else might be worth looking at. Just to make the whole mission more interactive generally, also the same might make choosing a landing site a bit more interesting too.

It's only in it's early stages so far and what's already on the table is a fantastic foundation to what could grow into something really impressive. I also dig it's potential as a space outreach education tool. A lot of people see stuff about rovers on the news but never really get how they actually work. Something like this is an excellent hands-on demo of what actually goes on on the surface.

[astroadrian99]

One thing Im going to try it out but not sure if to get it I need to install steam. Do I need to install stem?

[MDBenson]

Yes, it's exclusive to Steam Early Access. Just be thankful it's not on Origin