1. Hello Guest!
    Welcome to the Bug Report forum, please make sure you search for your problem before posting here. If you post a duplicate (that you post the same issue while other people have already done that before) you will be given a warning point which can eventually lead into account limitations !

    Here you can find a guide on how to post a good bug report thread.
    Space Engineers version --- Medieval Engineers version
  2. This forum is obsolete and read-only. Feel free to contact us at support.keenswh.com

[1.184.6] Thruster damage increased- here we go again.

Discussion in 'Bug Reports' started by suicideneil, Oct 27, 2017.

?

Should Keen have made changes to thruster damage without consulting the community first?

  1. Yes! I love having my creations broken by poor decisions that could easily have been avoided.

  2. No! Keen should have considered the issues this would cause and found a better solution.

  3. They should have made the damage area the same size, but change it to a rectangle = no problems.

Multiple votes are allowed.
Results are only viewable after voting.
Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.
  1. suicideneil

    suicideneil Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    223
    ^On that note:


    Time stamp is already set, so just click play and listen to what he says.

    Like I said, The feedback forum is a good idea, but poorly implemented and just a clogged up mess right now. Feel free to disagree though ;)
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  2. FoolishOwl

    FoolishOwl Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    523
    In Xocliw's Twitch today:
     
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  3. suicideneil

    suicideneil Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    223
    I wonder what 'fixed' means though, but I wait with baited breath to see exact details.

    I also wonder what the people who disagreed will say, assuming they undo the change essentially...
     
  4. Malware

    Malware Master Engineer

    Messages:
    9,867
    Because I know otherwise. Ergo you cannot be 100% correct.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  5. suicideneil

    suicideneil Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    223
    Please stop pretending you know anything other than what everyone can clearly see on-screen; the information is not up for debate, we can all see what a mess the feedback system is.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  6. Arcturus

    Arcturus Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,649
    Feedback system statuses:
    (my best guesses/opinion)

    ? - unknown status prior to KSH person like mikrogen processing the potential feedback

    - some items are outright deleted and never seen on the frontend by anyone other than KSH or the submitter. Given that infeasible feedback lingers in "considered", I suspect KSH staff have only deleted vandalism/inappropriate suggestions.

    Considered - the default status for a feedback that can be voted on. Should be read in a very noncommittal way, as liquid water, compound blocks, ladders, and pooping can be found here. Large number of 0 vote feedbacks, high duplication.

    Declined - VERY RARE status, only two items actually declined so far. https://feedback.keenswh.com/ideas/declined

    Planned - this is more like the committal way of reading "considered" than an actual desire to 100% implement the suggested change/fix

    Started - a dev is working on something like this, so you might see it next week or in a few months

    Completed - this also includes "fixed in a different way from the request" and "fixed in a future update" responses
     
  7. suicideneil

    suicideneil Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    223
    Wow, didn't know 'Declined' even existed- seems like a whole ton of suggestions and duplicates need to be purged that way.

    I'd still like to see a 'newest suggestions' box along one side so we can keep track of new ideas and flag duplicates easily- the search function is too limited as it relies on key words that may not have been used/ poor wording in the suggestion title etc etc.
     
  8. Malware

    Malware Master Engineer

    Messages:
    9,867
    I'm sorry, it's not an excuse but I was in a poor mood yesterday. I had no business using that tone. However I do have confidence in what I know. The devs are available to talk to. Also my name is in the game's credits. I should think that would provide some evidence towards me not pretending anything. At any rate, you not believing me isn't really a big deal. You are perfectly allowed to believe what you want.
     
  9. Tigerstripe

    Tigerstripe Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    479
    Hey Keen... FYI, with the new thruster damage model, the side-to-side thrusters on your own Atmospheric_Lander_mk1 now slowly burn off half the landing gears. It'll need some design tweaks if you plan on keeping this change.

    My 2 cents: I think the damage model change is a terrible change. Why?
    • It was unnecessary, giving no discernible performance boosts.
    • It breaks a huge number of creations, negating any possible performance boosts with destruction calculations that wouldn't have even happened before.
    • Applying damage to all blocks within the zone simultaneously (rather than sequentially) runs contrary to common sense, not to mention now makes armored landing pads pretty pointless.
    • Cylindrical, or even conical, damage zones make much more rational sense than a square, especially on the big engines. If a cylinder is so hard to calculate, simplify it: use an octogon or a hexagon. Making the corners of the new damage zones just as lethal as the very center makes the least sense of all. If I want to place a tiny corner light far up in the corner beside a large ion thruster, it makes no sense seeing it burn off!
    • It is very inconsistent. While it makes sense to boost the damage and range of hydrogen thrusters (because we're talking about an extremely hot flame and a long plume of exhaust), ion and atmospheric thrusters should be far less destructive. Jet blast is more kinetic than thermal, and the little small-grid small atmo. thrusters are pretty tiny, so we expect them to have very short range (maybe 1 meter?)... while ion thrusters IRL produce negligible heat (and thrust, but this is SE, not Kerbal Space Program), so giving them a larger and wide damage zone really stresses what little realism we have left to the breaking point... especially the small small-grid versions.

    My suggestions for fixing this:
    • Return to rough (octogon?) cylinders for all thruster types, centered on the axis of thrust, as wide as the thruster nozzle. No wider. That will damage big blocks placed in the line of fire, but not tiny things that can be tucked into a corner or lay flush to a side, like lights, plates, and LCD panels.
    • Keep hydrogen thruster destructive power and range. While it will piss off people who like to wrap armor around the nozzles and leave just a small hole, that certainly wouldn't work IRL.
    • For large hydrogen thrusters, an impressive and long damage zone would be pretty sensible. For the large-grid version, perhaps two damage zones would be a good solution: a full-width square one offset 1 block from the thruster to represent spread, and a tighter cylindrical one as wide as the rocket nozzle that might inflict more rapid damage, to represent the hottest core of the flame.
    • Damage should once again be applied sequentially to blocks in the zone, rather than to all blocks in the zone. We expect damage nearest the thruster first, which is why we build armored landing pads to intercept & delay the blast effects. That's how physics work IRL, and it worked fine in SE until last week's change. Magically burning everything equally within an arbitrary zone is, well, magical nonsense.
    • Ion thrusters got the worst of this change, and should definitely go back to a tighter cylinder zone. Large ion thrusters should not affect blocks so dramatically, especially on the protruding sides. Limiting the damage zone to being similar to the visible thrust plume would make the most sense, considering the nature of ion engines.
    • Atmospheric thrusters should probably get a very short damage zone, at least for the small-grid versions; no more than the exhaust plume effect, for the small thrusters, and maybe 2 meters for the large. For the big-grid versions, a proportionally larger damage zone would make the most sense... and those giant engines would have one heck of a jet blast. It'd be pretty awesome if you could have it apply physics forces to small grids that get too close, tossing them aside.
     
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2017
  10. Sneekyz

    Sneekyz Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    16
    The update notes today says that the thruster damage was changed again but sadly most of my ships still burn adjacent blocks.
     
  11. suicideneil

    suicideneil Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    223
    Got some screen shots of before and after, for reference? Right now, small grid thrusters don't damage anything on the same grid ( they are bugged out ), and large grid thrusters are essentially fixed but there are damage-range issues. I could place blocks in the corners again to 'seal' large hydrogen thrusters which was the main issue for most of us.
     
Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.