Welcome to Keen Software House Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the KSH community.
  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 [Extra] --- Medieval Engineers version
  2. You are currently browsing our forum as a guest. Create your own forum account to access all forum functionality.

Important [1.181.0] Physical Limits

Discussion in 'Bug Reports' started by Alewx, Jun 1, 2017.

  1. Eikester

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2014
    Messages:
    385
    Trophy Points:
    157
    [​IMG]
     
    • Funny Funny x 4
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Disagree Disagree x 2
  2. Bullet_Force

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2015
    Messages:
    159
    Trophy Points:
    62
    Wow you can really smell the PVE/Role Players in this thread. They are all coming out of the woodwork to have a cry about a perfectly sound decision.

    I think the cap on lag is a good thing, gigantic ships serve no practical purpose other then to generate lag. If you want to make enormous clones of your favorite Sci Fi ships (which takes ZERO creativity btw) then go and purchase AutoCad or a similar CAD program. Space Engineers is about engineering not about how pretty a ship looks.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 4
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. Commander Rotal

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2014
    Messages:
    4,845
    Trophy Points:
    267
    The limit has literally nothing to do with lag. Besides, if you personally want to limit shipsize: there's already an option to limit a grid's maximum block count in the World Settings.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Like Like x 1
  4. aether.tech

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2015
    Messages:
    115
    Trophy Points:
    52
    Because I can fly my massive creation around in CAD programs blowing shit up with my guns.

    GREAT LOGIC. THE BEST. MAYBE THE BEST LOGIC IN THE HISTORY OF LOGIC EVER.
     
    • Like Like x 5
    • Funny Funny x 2
  5. Anunnaki Nibiru

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2016
    Messages:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    7
    Hi Keens.

    Reporting BUG: speed of small grids

    We are unable to travel faster than 210m/s with our small grids (tested with more "speed limit mods", those were working prior 1.180.x).

    When we reach speeds over 200m/s, grid starts to turn to side. Faster (over that limit) we travel, harder it turns to one side till speed is not reduced under 200-210m/s.
    If we build grid with very fast acceleration, than we can achieve maybe 300m-450m/s for very short period of time, and then thrusters turns off (even in terminal they are ON), and indicator of speed resets to 0 and start rising from 0 m/s again. We are unable to turn thrusters back again. Only way is to CTRL+C ... stop player movement to 0 m/s and CTRL + V.

    I hope you know about this bug, and would be fixed very soon. Thanks.
     
  6. guran

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2015
    Messages:
    55
    Trophy Points:
    52
    There is no need to recalculate something, the physics shape of a grid is already calculated, this it how it works today. I try to explain the method in detail:

    The basic method:
    Complex shape takes a lot of power to calculate the physics for. To avoid this, you "remove" the complex shape from physics calculation, and replace it by a simpel cube shape, or a sphere. This sphere or cube must cover the bounding box of the whole grid, and it should be slightly bigger to detect a collision BEFORE the real grid collides. If now another grid, that also has a big sphere, comes near to your first grid, then you got a collision between the two spheres. The grids are not colliding at the moment, but the two spheres tells you, there is a chance that they collide. At this point you "reactivate" the removed complex shapes. Now havoc can calculate the collisions as it does now.
    At this point the problem is not really solved, because as i told before, havoc hast to calculate it like it does now, but this does not help us. The trick is not to use one sphere, but something like 20 spheres covering the whole grid.

    Here a sample:
    You have two cars, very complex builds, with a physics shape of 20k faces for each car. And now the trick:
    - cut each car into 20 virtual pieces
    - for each piece you calculate the complex physic shape, that gives you 20 complex shapes with round about 1k faces for each
    - now remove the complex shape from physics calculation and replace them by a slightly bigger box shape, lets call them "detector boxes".

    At this point, by having only two cars, you have 40 detector boxes in physic calculations, instead of two complex 20k shapes. While they are not colliding, you have MUCH more speed then before.

    Let's collide them:
    The cars are frontally crashing. Just a few frames before the crash, 1 or 2 detecor boxes at the front of each car are telling us, "hey, i collided with an other detector box, there is a chance of colliding grids!".
    Now we activate the complex shapes, but only for THIS 3 detector boxes. We dont need the complex shape from the back or the middle of the cars, the action only happens at the front.
    At this point, we only have 2 or 3 physics shapes with 1k faces activated to detect a precise collision, and not two 20k shapes as before. No need to guess what is calclulated faster, 3 x 1k or 2 x 20k.

    Comming back to your question, there is no need to calculate something new. We already have the shapes and just throw parts of them into physics calculations when needed, the rest we remove.


    Edit: just spelling, my english is not the best ;)
     
    Last edited: Jun 6, 2017
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Informative Informative x 1
  7. Eikester

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2014
    Messages:
    385
    Trophy Points:
    157
    in other words: there ARE, of course, different ways to solve this issue, it takes a while to code the needed changes in but thats what the devs are paid for (i might be wrong and they are paid for trinking coffee but i doubt it) so telling us "we cant do anything about it" is just not correct
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  8. guran

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2015
    Messages:
    55
    Trophy Points:
    52
    Yea, it can take a few days, depending on the current code design, wich i dont know, because i never was able to compile the sources on my system.
     
  9. suicideneil

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Messages:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Well, fantastic, thanks for not saying a fucking word about yet another game braking 'feature'. I STRONGLY suggest raising the limit or allowing players to adjust the limit until their game doesn't crash. This issue may only affect a handful of people, but it is unacceptable to make such changes and simply not say anything to acknowledge the problems it will cause. I also suggest talking about these important changes in the update videos instead of ignoring them entirely and waiting for a deluge of complaints before a dev bothers to open their mouth.

    FIX YOUR SHIT, KEEN.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. Ronin1973

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2015
    Messages:
    3,908
    Trophy Points:
    207
    Please make this limit controllable via the .sbc game file. It doesn't have to appear on any player GUIs, but IN the game settings. If someone really, really, REALLY, (rotal-style) to play without that limit they'd have to change the setting via a text editor but still could do it... caveat emptor.

    Oh, and while your at it, allow us to generate planets over 120km in this fashion.

    Look. There are great reasons to put these limits on the game and it's understood. But there should also be a way to stretch the limit to see what's out there and what the engine can handle. If you purposely box all your long time ALPHA players into a nice, neat little box, then all your results will be within that box. It's about experimentation for a lot of us. At least create a backdoor way for us to defeat those safety measures somewhere under the hood.

    Edit: in the Sandbox.sbc
    Code:
    <PhysicalLimits = true>
    <!-- Changing PhysicalLimits to false may make the game unstable.  Do so at your own risk-->
     
    Last edited: Jun 7, 2017
    • Agree Agree x 1
  11. StuffYouFear

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2014
    Messages:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    117
    I dont really post much, just sit back and play the game off and on over the years, not worth the effort to do comments and such. So you should feel special when I say you guys have screwed the pooch enough for me to get on and tell you that you have made a poor judgment call on this issue.
    Set the limits to 99%
    Reasoning that less than .0001% of your player base will ever build anything to reach this, and people that do come this close are fully aware of where the games limits are at.
    No one in their right mind would ever build anything that comes close to this in a multiplayer environment, so this issue should never effect more than the person building it in their own offline world.
    I would never want to build anything this large, almost nobody would, and adding this artificial cap only ruins the game for people that know where the line already is anyway.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  12. Arcturus

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2014
    Messages:
    1,328
    Trophy Points:
    157
    The grand unofficial list of physics shapes per block (large grid only):

    Armor blocks: 1 each (groups of undamaged light/heavy cubes can combine into larger simple rectangular prisms. A 7x7x1 plane with a 1x1x1 hole in the middle is 4 physics shapes, for example. An aliased edge is a series of columns, usually. Algorithm can goof up sometimes and use more shapes than minimum. Slope blocks are always 1 each)
    Interior wall: 1 each (like most blocks, does not combine)

    Control or flight seats: 6
    Cockpits: 2
    Remote controls: 4
    Passenger seats: 3

    Batteries: 1
    Solar panels: 3
    Small reactors: 5
    Large reactors: 3
    Medical rooms: 8 (could be improved by joining some shapes?)
    Cryo chambers: 3

    Hydrogen thruster: 2
    Large hydrogen thruster: 5
    Atmospheric thruster: 3
    Large atmospheric thruster: 4
    Ion thruster: 2
    Large ion thruster: 2
    Wheel: 1
    Wheel suspension: 1+1
    Gyroscope: 2

    Ore detector: 2
    Antenna: 10 (don't spam these for sure!)
    Beacon: 1
    Laser antenna: 2

    Refinery: 2
    Assembler: 1
    Modules: 2 (speed module is 4)
    Arc furnace: 3
    Projector: 1
    Small cargo: 1
    Large cargo: 1

    Turrets: 2
    Rocket launcher: 5 (why!? could be 1)
    Warhead: 3
    Welder: 3
    Grinder: 3
    Drill: 3

    Blast doors: 1
    Blast door edges: 3
    Door: 5
    Sliding door: 4
    Hangar door: 1

    Cover walls: 1
    Stairs/ramps: 1
    Catwalks: 1, 2, or 3 (depending on number of sides)
    Pillar: 1
    Windows: 1
    Passage: 5
    Decoy: 1

    Interior lights: 0 (these might be free!?)
    Spotlights: 2
    Programmable: 2
    Control panel: 1
    Camera: 1
    Sound: 1
    Sensor: 1
    Timer: 1
    Button panel: 3 (old art version panel could get away with 1)

    LCDs: 1
    Conveyor tube: 1
    Conveyor junction: 1
    Conveyor corner: 2
    Connector: 5 (to allow the recessed area)
    Collector: 1

    Landing gear: 2
    Pistons: 1+1
    Rotors: 1+1
    Merge block: 1

    Airvent: 1
    Oxygen generator: 1
    Oxygen tank: 1
    Hydrogen tank: 4

    Windows: 1
    Gravity generators: 1
    Masses/balls: 1
    jumpdrive: 1


    - I made the list by using physics debug view, and counting manually.
     
    • Informative Informative x 3
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Commander Rotal

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2014
    Messages:
    4,845
    Trophy Points:
    267
    @Arcturus Okay, i THINK i'm getting the hang of this... so a "shape" in this regard is a "box"? Like, a rectangular box, and how many shapes it has depends on in how many "boxes" you can devide a block into (sans Armor Cubes)? That about right? (Example Button Panel: Head 1 Box, Legs 1 Box each = 3 Boxes 0 3 Shapes?)
    --- Automerge ---
    [​IMG]
    Especially about the multiplayer bit. Yes it's fun to joke about crasing servers by pasting in a Galaxy but nobody would actually DO that. 'specially since i'd assume most servers who wouldn't be cool with that have block limits turned on and while it's a Havok Shape Limit, not a block limit, i challenge everyone to build a structure that hits that limit using the game's maximum Block Limit.
    ... actually that sounds like fun. I might try it myself.
     
  14. KissSh0t

    Joined:
    May 3, 2014
    Messages:
    3,125
    Trophy Points:
    227
    What about combining blocks so the block number becomes less? instead of treating every single block as a separate entity?

    Would that be possible? combine blocks in.. like... 4 blocks long, then it combines to make one block.
     
  15. Arcturus

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2014
    Messages:
    1,328
    Trophy Points:
    157
    Yes, sort of. Correct that the button panel is 3 boxes. The ion thruster is a box and a "capsule" (cylinder with sphere ends, like a pill). The antenna is 2 boxes, 2 "triangle mesh things", and 6 capsules. The wheels by themselves are cylinders, but the wheels that come with the suspensions are spheres.

    If you turn on the debug view, the physics shape colors are:
    blue - boxes
    red - triangle mesh things (usually custom convex shapes)
    white - spheres
    yellow - capsules
    orange or brown? - cylinders (rarely used in this game)

    It does automatically, but only for light and heavy armor cubes with themselves (not slopes or damaged cubes).
     
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  16. XkyDiver

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2014
    Messages:
    344
    Trophy Points:
    102
    Think of it this way: Those boxes you're referring to are the different collisions. The Passage, for example, is 5 cubes because there's one for the ceiling, two for the walls, and then two for the bumpy handrail part. Those 5 cubes define the part of the model you aren't allowed to move through--it's why when you move your Engineer against the wall, you don't go right through it. The Antenna has 10 because there's the main pole of the antenna, the little bits that jut off at perpendicular angles, and so on. If we reduced these cubes, there would be parts of the model that a player could walk right through--or parts of that model which could fly right through the planet!

    For example, a few patches ago, the collision mesh on an in-progress/unbuilt Medical Bay was screwed up. You could place a new Medical Bay wireframe and walk right through it except for the cube where the thing connected on the bottom. As you finished the Medical Bay, the collision got corrected and the player could no longer walk through the model.

    If we reduced the number of cubes defining collision on certain blocks (say, for example, the Rocket Launcher) what would happen is a player on foot wouldn't be able to get as close to the Rocket Launcher before being stopped by an invisible force. One danger of making the collision boxes larger than the entities themselves would be phantom collisions--like what used to happen with the Small Grid Gatling Turrets, before their hitbox was shortened.

    This whole discussion reminds me of the difference between square-based and per-pixel-based hit detection in old 2D sidescrolling games. :)
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. Brewtis

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2017
    Messages:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    2
    So here is a new one to go into this pile of... So I'm ticked and I'm not gonna take this laying down. I stomp off to boot
    Space Mechanics back up (you know that grinding and welding simulator we've all been playing). I'm looking at this list
    of theortical physics shapes and I get to this part...

    "Don't" you say...

    That's more like how I do things.

    so here was the attempt at the test.

    1 cockpit = theoretical 2 physics shapes
    + +
    1 Large Ion Thruster = theoretical 5 physics shapes
    + +
    12 Antenna = theoretical 120 physics shapes

    the goal is 1 cockpit plus X(1 thruster+12antenna) to get to this physical shape limit.
    so something like f(x)=125x+2

    (full disclosure: I don't know how to math right but I know the concept is right just winging it with the F of X stuff.
    it looks more official)

    Which tells me I'd need 1 cockpit, 524 large thruster, and 6288 antenna to be at 65,502 theoretical physics shapes.
    Just short of the other theoretical number (65,535) for which we are being capped held to 70% of. So with just 6,813
    blocks Ive pushed the physics count not just 70% but all the way up to 99.95% of this hard crash limit.

    So how did the test go. well by the time I was up to 1,799 blocks(yep just 18 hundred blocks) the game is down to
    abysmal sub .0 sim speeds. with just 1 cockpit and a straight line of 137 thrusters and 1661 antenna the game slows
    to a crawl and dealing with the new bug I found becomes too tedious.

    What new bug is that you say? well! let me tell you. If you try to place a row of antenna 31 blocks or more at a time
    you will be greeted with the error "Cannot place. Ship would exceed regulations" However if you should feel so cheeky
    as to place just 30 or less well that's not problem. In fact its so chill you can just keep doing it. pasting 30 all
    day long I'm sure. Just make sure you keep it to a reasonable 30 at a time. we don't need no rebels running around...
    pasting 31 at a time. I mean come on show some constraint. But seriously what is the regulation I break if I had 31 one
    antenna instead of the regulation 30 at a time standard. especially since I went on to add just 30 at a time till I had
    almost 17 hundred.

    Do you see where I'm going with this. I get this limit is controversial but before everyone starts waving their pitch forks
    I want to be able to know this limit is capping at the right time. This fictitious 70% means nothing without a way for us
    beta testers that invested into this game to test it. My grievance is over a 113,000 part ship. a far cry from these 200k
    hypothetical ships that would suffer from this. It is not an overly complicated shaped design.

    I want to know why my every attempt to build something new that should push this physics shape limit turns into a miserable
    lag beast without ever getting this error to pop up. Meanwhile my baby is just floating there peacefully at .85 sim speed telling
    me I can't touch her no more because her dad said I can't see her no more! WTF. This is a bad decision and it's not working
    right. give us the tools so we can figure out what you did wrong so you can figure out how to fix it. I want to know that my ship
    is actually over 70%. I want to be able to remove things till its under 70% I want to be able to figure out shapes
    that cause higher physics blocks so I can know how to avoid them. At the end of the day I want to be able to fix
    what I am only just now being told is wrong with my ships. I don't want them just cut off and given no way to know
    what it would take to make it work again. This was not the right way to implement this kind of change.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  18. Arcturus

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2014
    Messages:
    1,328
    Trophy Points:
    157
    Your game probably lags before hitting the shape limit because thrusters and antennas are blocks that DO things which require other calculations.

    Passages have a high physics density while not being a block that creates a systems lag. A 21x21x21 block of passages should hit 46305 physics shapes, in theory. This should be over the 70% limit. I have not tested this yet.
     
  19. Brewtis

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2017
    Messages:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    2
    No my game does not probably lag from having 137 large thrusters. nor does it probably lag from having only 1800 blocks that "do something" these are piddly numbers compared to other craft I have that don't lag. On top of that non of these blocks are powered so the things they could do aren't being done so even less impact then my powered ships that have more things that do stuff. The ship I referenced had plenty more things that "do something" and like previously stated it indeed does not lag below a playable level. Doing the testing before taking the time to post about it help streamline figuring these issues out.
     
  20. Commander Rotal

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2014
    Messages:
    4,845
    Trophy Points:
    267
    If i remember our tests in my Suggestions-Thread i'm feeling fairly confident that Conveyors could do the trick withiin a couple of thousand cubes, but that's the Conveyor Ports more than anything else.
     
  21. Brewtis

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2017
    Messages:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    2
    On my original test I added over 5000 conveyors to the half ship and was not able to push it to the build lock that the full ship is suffering from. has ANYONE built something new since the patch that hits this limit or is this only effecting things that were already built? I have not had luck building anything new that hits this limit
     
  22. shanjoo

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2016
    Messages:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    2
    Hey, I managed a temporary bypass of the physics limit, by splitting my build in two pieces. Probably need to split it again when I get to the saucer.
     
  23. Commander Rotal

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2014
    Messages:
    4,845
    Trophy Points:
    267
    You, ah, you got any of dem screenshots? With bare warp core or... nacelles under construction.... y'know... for research...
     
  24. FoolishOwl

    Joined:
    May 5, 2017
    Messages:
    58
    Trophy Points:
    7
    What's the point of a "Beta" or "Early Access" game, if you make changes without telling users what changes you've made? How are we supposed to test things properly, without knowing what to test?
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  25. shanjoo

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2016
    Messages:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    2
    [​IMG]
    I have screenshots. But it's only bare bones at the moment. Decks 42-29, with 28 under construction.
    http://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561197994582548/screenshots/
    Out of curiosity, what did you use to build your Galaxy Class?
     
    Last edited: Jun 10, 2017
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  26. Commander Rotal

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2014
    Messages:
    4,845
    Trophy Points:
    267
    First version i used a ruler to measure off my monitor. That worked alright but wasn't really viable, so for the proper one I ordered three sets of the official blueprints off Amazon. Thankfully they were fairly cheap at the time, 3 bucks a pop. Kept one for redundancy, kept one as-is for the big picture and the last one i cut apart to make measuring as easy (and precize) as possible. Of course, thanks to SE's weird scaling i ran into trouble with deck hights (between 3 to 4 for the canon ship, 2,5 m in SE) so I had to make a few judgement calls where to make the ship thicker.
     
  27. shanjoo

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2016
    Messages:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    2
    I did some research as well.
    First off, I went here to get my BPs. Copied then printed on 11-17 paper.
    www.Cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/ed-whitefire-enterprise-ncc-1701d.php
    Second, I used a TS-657 ruler, using the 50 scale, to get the measurements. And since I'm building in small block, I take whatever number the ruler gives me and double it by two. Since the 50 scale represents 1 meter per tick mark, and the small blocks are 1/2 meter.
    Third, when I did research on spacing between decks, I settled for 8 blocks. With the floor plan taking up blocks 6 and 8.
    Yes I make a double of each deck, so that I can pipe conveyors throughout the decks without being seen.
    Examples
    http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=943437014
    http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=943437030
     
  28. Commander Rotal

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2014
    Messages:
    4,845
    Trophy Points:
    267
    Small blocks?
    I SHOULD probably tell you that this is a futile attempt but it's too awesome to do that :D keep me posted. This deserves it's own thread.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  29. shanjoo

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2016
    Messages:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    2
    Oooohh trust me. I've thought the same thing many a time over the past few years. I first started building it in minecraft after I saw the results of someone else do it. So I thought, 'why do I give it a try?'. I got up to deck ten before I accidently deleted it. Oh I was so mad at myself.
    Then I discovered SE, and took another crack at it. Set backs, corrupt files, month long breaks, crashes. I've done it all.
    And now with thos new info about the physical limit, I should be able to continue my work. FINALLY!!!!
    http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=943419542
    --- Automerge ---
    OMG. my console almost got fried by lightening. Thank god I have a surge protector.
     
  30. Jas

    Joined:
    May 23, 2014
    Messages:
    441
    Trophy Points:
    112
    what bug is supposed to be? bugs are non-intended behavior, not undocumented details.
    And the argument that players need to know changelogs to test the game is false (more for the undocumented unnecessary-to-know-details-for a player), you need to know features to make bug report but you can test and discover bugs too even whit no knowledge of the game and its limits.