PLANETS! & Water ?

I don't mind if water stays ice on these dwarf planets. A 120km diameter dwarf planet is a bit small for seismic activity: it would cool down in a relatively short time. So to have a liquid on them, they'd have to be quite close to the star.

 

I would absolutely hate minecraftian water. It would completely ruin the experience as provided by the rest of the game (as far as water goes, obviously). I left minecraft for SE for a reason. Well, several, actually - but still.

 

At one point or another they have, yes.

Water would be a biggy and so yes it would have been included, even if it was only from a distance in some of those orbit shots of the planets. So its not there.

Having reviewed a few of their recent videos, I'm starting to wonder whether one of the changes that they've made to this iteration of planets is to make the surface terrain not modifiable/drillable.

I know you could drill into it in the source code version of planets, because it was one of the first things I tried, but I notice that every one of their teaser constructions has so far been a building on top of the surface which fits around the existing terrain rather than altering it.

Also in the 101 buggy chase scene, rockets aren't leaving craters in the ground and when the buggy gets blown up, the camera cuts off just at the point where you would expect to see a crater deformation created.

Maybe that part just isn't working yet, and I'm not saying they won't add deformable terrain in future, but part of me thinks that removing the ability to dig through the surface would solve a whole lot of problems for them, both technical and game-play related. For instance they could then add oceans in eventually because no one would be able to dig beneath them and they wouldn't have to handle the problems of people camping in the planets core. It would also mean that planets would instantly become massively more performant as they wouldn't need to store the hundreds of miles of tunnels that the average player would likely create.

It seems unlikely, I know, but I'm not really seeing any actual evidence of deformable terrain in those videos.

EDIT: I'm also not seeing any over-hanging terrain. Lot's of cliffs, that are almost vertical, but nothing that curves back under itself or juts out horizontally. Have a feeling the planets surface is just a height map based mesh.

 

Just wait for planets to be released THEN comment. Atleast you would see by yourself precisely ...

 

Hint *wink* *wink*?

 

I am waiting, as are we all, and I'd be very happy to be proven wrong here, whether that be in the next teaser or at release; merely commenting on the evidence of what I am and am not seeing in the videos already released and speculating about the implications, the same as everyone else.

Having spent the last two weeks building a surface based drill rig, that can be mounted on the back of a truck, I'd be slightly disappointed not to be able to use it.

Maybe, if it's not due for release this week, you could nudge them in the direction of showing a tunnel drilled from one side of a mountain through to the other side in the next trailer? A nice fly through, with dry desert on one side and a mighty ocean on the other?

 

Don't even try, guys. You know those infos can't be given, being true or false.

 

Worth a try though.

 

Well if there wasn't this picture marked as planet teaser...

There is clearly some kind of cave, we could speculate if it is man made or not. But this should prove that at least the surface of planets is made out of voxels. (I guess the cave and the drill should indicate that it is possible to drill into planets.)

 

Well, that's a relief. My drill-rig will get some use after-all. Let's just hope it's not an ice asteroid with a cloud sky-box behind it and a tree stuck at the top for effect.

 

Well, the clouds are definitely real. There's mention of "cloud layers" in the source. I don't know if that means we may get different altitude cloud packs, though. They are also mobile according to the different parameters present, meaning it's not just some static backdrop.

Cheers

 

One thing that really bugs me with that picture is that that entire ship is held up by two small thrusters. I really hope gravity won't be such a no-brainer in the final version.

 

While I do agree with you that it shouldn't be that much of a no brainer, think of it like this:

Inertial dampeners can output 10x thrust to keep it afloat, what happens to ID when you press the key in that direction? The super strength disappears. Which I assume would lead to you falling out of the sky.

That craft would require the equivalent of 20 small to be able to easily and freely hover and move vertically, otherwise you have to fly your ship on a slight upward tilt to gain altitude. Depending on your vectors and masses you could not be able to lift off after any landing unassisted.

Keen probably wanted sleek designs and not have a bunch of thrusters so they went for the bare minimum for set up of image.

For all we know they could have took an hour just to get that exact frame, and I don't think that should be a good indicator of how planetary performance will be

 

My point was that just because there hasn't been any evidence YET doesn't mean it will never happen. Sheesh, pessimist much

 

Nice job creating a false equivalency implying people who want oceans to be a realistic hazard to your spacecraft are unimaginative. Real classy!

 

Ahh..you had a point. Good to hear and I'm glad that's cleared up. Happily for me, there also hasn't been any evidence yet that I will win the lottery tomorrow and, shortly there-after, buy my own island. I should probably go and purchase a ticket at some point in an optimistic frame of mind.

 

You can live in your negative state all you want. don't act like we should all share such point of view.

Sounded like he wanted oceans to be ~automatically~ bad So yes, I will go that rout.

We have multi purpose craft today that can go from land to sea, air to sea, sea to sub sea, why on earth (or any other planet) should advanced craft built far in the future be automatically be a hazard around water. It almost goes into the arguments made for people wanting to create craft with tech derived from "insert favorite sci-fi here..." and have either toggles or mods to fulfill said goals. water should be traversal. Besides for all those who need everything to be form 'today's tech' it isn't like water-tight, water resistance, and water-proof aren't a real thing TODAY.

 

Yeah I cant imagine the amount of work that would be required for them to get the sealed interior of a ship to:
-Detect mesh of a ship and find the areas considered air tight and stop it from rendering the underwater filter
-use that detected space to cut out the surface mesh of water if it wasn't minecraftian (I like this word ahha) and was just a flat grid, so that we don't see the surface mesh collide through the interior if a ship was to go under water.
-cut out voxels of water if it was and since displacement would just be even more nightmarish, landing in water would leave a hole in the water and/or reduce water level if water simply deleted when that space is filled.

I guess they could use a polygonizer on fluid particles to represent the water...

...
and render it efficiently ...
..
in space engineers..
..
Sitting in a crater of solid voxel rock under constant effect of spherical gravity.

..

HAHAHAAHAHAHAHA Gooood luck.


so ya. Im ok with no water unless they pull some amazing stuff that works, is efficient, and actually looks good. The planets look great already, weird water tech can make or break a scene. (trust me, im staring at it right now. If it wasn't for water sim stuff, I wouldn't be on KSH forum waiting for it to do its thing)

 

Well, we went through this about aerodynamics and how the game doesn't handle it well so you may find it difficult to build aircraft in Space Engineers. Now it's time to talk about how the game does not handle hydrodynamics well so it will be difficult to build watercraft in Space Engineers.

There will be another battle between the Defenders of Realism and the Champions of Anything-Goes-Cause-It's-a-Game.

Our spacecraft will be able to travel underwater by using shields and they will be propelled by lasers.

OK then. Let's see where this goes...

 

What I said was that water should, preferably, render thrusters and maybe some other systems useless if they're submerged. Which makes total sense. Using a false equivalency to combat that just makes you dishonest.

Those vehicles you're referencing are usually extremely specialized and niche, mind.

Since this sentence doesn't make your stance on such clear, let me make mine: Space Engineers isn't obligated to allow people to make working recreations of their favourite ships. In fact, in order to create a coherent and unique gameplay experience, it'll need to disallow certain things. Toggles and checkboxes are not a solution, they're a stopgap, and I fully expect Keen to remove more than they add by final release.

I never said it shouldn't be. Just that thrusters and maybe some other systems should stop working if submerged, like you'd expect highly delicate machinery to do when flooded. Maybe they could add special thrust-generating blocks that work only when submerged, along with buoyancy tanks and such. That's all rather outside the scope of the game right now, of course, and shouldn't mean that stuff that shouldn't work underwater does unless/until they're added.

As has been elaborated on, spacecraft are built to very different specifications than submersibles. Within a believable tech base, one probably could not convincingly be built to exist in both environments at optimal capacity.

 

No one has ever built an aircraft that can be submerged.

Many of the spacecraft people are building in SE now will never successfully land on a planet, and if they somehow make it to the surface they will never leave it.

If you manage to get your spacecraft to operate under water, your weapons will not work there and, no, Keen will not provide weapons that will because they are making a space game so only mods will work and if you don't like mods you are SOL.

 

Dishonest. A misinterpretation on my part perhaps, or even something I see that you can't with your pessimistic viewpoint

Why should that make any difference. Niche =/= automatically off the table

Then allow me to clarify since it must be so difficult to infer. I am one of the community into such. I want to build and create what I want to do what I want. I am not one of those who want everything to be grounded in reality, I do not believe in such nonsense. It is a game I play to escape and create to my wildest whims and am a mod whore. If it looks good, fun, awesome, darn tootn' I'm gonna try it out in glee. I did not fail engineering school and want KEEN to allow me redemption by making sure SE becomes KSP X 50. I am of the crew that like the crazy stuff.
Besides, planets and warp/jump drives were NOT even supposed to happen, yet BAM here they are........
Hence why I don't see the point to your pessimism.

While 1, slight miss read on my part, see the above.

Again just because it tends to be that way in today's world why should that transfer to a game that takes place in the future where, for heavens sake, the mechanic of the game can be explained as legos in space!!!!

I've stated elsewhere 'round these parts how I feel the game in it's current feature set is a nice middle ground for all, the realism whores t0 fantasies and in between. Plus WTH do you mean by saying you expect they will remove some things before the game is finalized. Sound's like you know something. To say something of that extent I'd imagine you'e referencing some more prominent features or aspects////

 

Because you were waving those examples around as if they justified spacecraft being able to submerge freely.

Probably the wrong game for you, then.

There's a huge difference between me saying "ships shouldn't work properly underwater, water should be an environmental hazard in a game about spaceships" and me being pessimistic.

Oh don't start that "LEGO in space" bull. We all know what a gaming abstraction is. Space Engineers is designed with a grounding in reality. There's no reason that they should throw that out the window, and there's no reason that near-future technology would make a spacecraft submersible any less impossible than it is now.

 

-And why aren't they exactly?

-I'm not the only one who wants to do crazy things in this game so don't even act like I am. If you are involved with SE community then you've know this.

-That was indeed a multi-piece epoch so lets see Sense we MUST break this down for the sake of breaking it down. The pessimism, which you be exude, stems from the earlier comments about feature not being shown off and by your viewpoint/logic means they wont be tossed into the game.

-Grounding =/= 100% REAL everything!!!!!!!!
and Jump drives take it leave which I'm sure somehow you will leave. (then again If we can both agree that as long as the math says it's possible despite not being able to currently do it it counts then I suppose not Jump Drives)

 

Literally the first hit when googling to see if you were correct- And yes maybe doesn't exist at this time, but the article outlines the history and plans https://defensetech.org/2008/11/24/flying-submarine-or-submerging-seaplane/

I think this article expands a bit on some of the tech- probably the same program- https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727671-000-from-sea-to-sky-submarines-that-fly/

And heres an article about how NASA plans to land a sub on Titan, https://io9.com/here-are-nasas-plans-to-send-a-submarine-to-titan-1685606751

 

I do not think water will be coming with planets at the start. Later on, as another major update, ya, but right now, not worth talking about it really.

 

You know i thought about that and i've made two observations: first, that ship is really, really tiny and looks very frails. Second: it's got, for it's size, a huge amount of forward-thrust going on in that picture. If it's a small planet with lower gravity that forward thrust combined with a tiny amount of mass might just be enough to bruteforce it into keeping in the air.

 

Keen has

KEEN has already gone back on a few things they said so no, YOU are wrong, and your stance is wrong and says a lot about you, and it's not good.

"Wrong side" It was clear you were stuck in your position but now it's clear you are simply conceited. You even act like you are some authority on anything related to what THEY are doing, when I'm 99.9% sure you are nothing more than a fellow fan vying for what you want. If anything they way you are acting you are the one KEEN needs to viler away from. Good day pessimistic, conceited, twat. I will eagerly await what KEEN does with my hopes on my side of the field Shame on me

Traversable waters and multi purpose engines I say. A dream

 

This means nothing.

I've also yet to see a solid example of them "going back" on something. They've said "We dunno if this'll be possible" and then it's turned out to be something they can do, sure, but that's not the same.

Take your stream of terrible ideas elsewhere.