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. shanjoo

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2016
    Messages:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    2
    OMG. my console almost got fried by lightening. Thank god I have a sirge protect
    My handle is big_blue_4101 on steam. Just look up galaxy class in the workshop discussions to find my thread.
     
  2. StuffYouFear

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2014
    Messages:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    117
    Considering Rotal's ships are a internal benchmark that the Devs use to test the game engine(Squeaky wheels and grease and all that), the devs know that we have a fairly good idea how far the game could be pushed before they added in a artificial performance cap.
    Also the reason we need comprehensive change logs is to AVOID posts like this where suddenly something that was working now no longer works without explanation.

    Might I add, if you want your counter argument to have at lest a shred of legitimacy please consider using capitalization, punctuation, and a basic understanding of spell check.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. Outfrost

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2013
    Messages:
    268
    Trophy Points:
    97
    Well it kind of is dead:
    [​IMG]

    Okay, so to formulate my personal take on this situation...

    First of all, let's not get salty and angry over these things. The developers at KSH are doing a whole bunch of great work and it is completely unjust to throw accusations like "f%^king customers over" at them, or at anyone here really. Even though the game is not "complete" or "out" yet, I feel like I have already got a lot of value for my purchase and the game keeps on giving, even if through very much imperfect means. No QA done? Do you guys never see bugged software be released or deployed in production? There's tons of it out there and right in front of you, and the fact that SE is in beta means that there's gonna be more bugs than with the usual buggy software. And this is beta. We're getting weekly (and often times more frequent) updates. We're IN the development process. It's almost like playing nightly builds and complaining about getting a proper bugfix two or three patches later rather than immediately.

    Now, here's the other side of the coin. I do think that such a tight limit is a bad thing for a game like SE, and I do think that the devs should be trying to do something about it. Is it still a good time to change the physics engine completely? Maybe, but maybe not (I'm leaning a bit towards 'no', but ultimately, I don't know). Is it a good time to do some other major changes? Absolutely. I'm thinking a contest, similar to the one for multiplayer netcode, could help a lot in saving the day on this one. What some people have been suggesting in this thread reinforces my belief, that there are many possible solutions to this issue and that some other related problems could potentially be fixed in the process of tackling this one.

    Ultimately, I think the takeaway here is this: This issue needs to be worked on and hopefully resolved, but we - the community and the developers at Keen Software House - need to be supportive of each other and constructive in our dealings. Again, I'm saying this mostly towards the more angered members of the community.


    With all that said, an idea just came up in my head. Maybe another possible way to deal with this limitation is to mechanically simplify large and complex structures. Very large ships with, for example, curvy exterior shapes could have such shapes converted into simpler bounding boxes for physics. Thus, if a ship's exterior looks like this:
    [​IMG]
    then instead of all these blocks generating a multitude of physics primitives, they could all be counted into just a few cuboid / spherical / whatever kind of shapes. That would of course introduce discrepancies between what the player can see on screen and the shape of the collision mesh that the game would put around it, but it would stay within reason for such huge structures and would be way better than having hard limiations breaking the fun so quickly. It's like floating point numbers - the further away from 0 you go, the less precision you get, but you're still able to represent huge numbers with a good enough precision.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. shanjoo

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2016
    Messages:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    2
    I have a question. If you go back to one of my earlier posts, you'll see the screenshots I took of my current build progress.
    My question is this. If I started filling in the framework with floors and walls, would the shape count go up or down?
    I'm thinking that it would go down cause i'd be making lots of rectangular shapes with lots of the corridors.
     
  5. Outfrost

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2013
    Messages:
    268
    Trophy Points:
    97
    Unless you want to use Interior Walls for that purpose (which I think don't combine into larger physics primitives), it should go down. When it comes to armor blocks, think of it this way: The less angles there are, the less shapes are generated. An angle is, for example, when a series of simple cube blocks meets a series of slopes.
     
  6. Brewtis

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2017
    Messages:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    2
    I would like to thank the developers for addressing this in a timely fashion. This is a lot more reasonable way to deal with this limit. Having an in game counter and having the limit pushed back to 99% is all I could have asked for. Thank you very much!

    So the ship for me that this was all over ended up being 47,874 physics shapes out of the 65,536 crash limit. 73%, plenty of room to work with again. Thanks again!
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  7. shanjoo

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2016
    Messages:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    2
    You should see my build. It's only a skeletal frame at the moment but what I've built, if it were still in one piece would be well beyond the shape limit.
     
  8. suicideneil

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Messages:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Whilst I understand your reasoning and sentiment, you seem to have skipped over issues and bugs that have existed since day one, and have, I can only conclude, been wilfully ignored by the developers. Either that, or they are just plain incompetent- take turrets being useless at targeting enemies for example; they will happily blast holes in their own grid, but ignore pirates half the time- you gotta love the irony ( issue existing for 2+ years in various forms ). Also the issue with light shining through walls where there is a corner / join of two planes or blocks- I refuse to believe it isn't a simple fix ( another 2+ year issue, since the day they were dadded to the game ). Then there is the issue of mirroring being broken for a number of blocks- that alone is proof of insufficient QA testing, minor as the issue may be in the grand scheme of things ( mirroring broken at time blocks were added to the game ).

    Failing to warn players of changes that break the game however is indeed just ignorant - thruster damage and block/shape limits; what is the point of update videos and change logs if the devs intentionally leave out such vital info?..
     
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2017
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. V_quinha

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    57
    My ship is showing 65535 / 65536. Anyone tested going over yet, or is this what shows when you're already over and the game will go "GG, you broke me, now play in a sandbox without physics"?
     
  10. CaD

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2016
    Messages:
    67
    Trophy Points:
    27
    I thought it was bugs but it been there for a couple updates and its exactly the same for me 300ms and the ship flips out. I found it as my cruiser got battterd to pieces of the ground.
     
  11. Outfrost

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2013
    Messages:
    268
    Trophy Points:
    97
    Well, what would you rather have: turrets and lights working flawlessly, but the game crashing every 10 or so minutes; or turrets and lights bugged as they are, but no crashes for the most part? Maybe "willfully ignored" isn't the most correct way to describe it, but they definitely have a lot of more important things to work on all the time. A game development studio doesn't just have some extra developers to go and solve all the minor issues, and the major ones are being constantly worked on by Keen Software House. As for "insufficient QA testing", read my post above again. Space Engineers isn't a fully released game, yet you behave as if it was, and you're salty that bugs aren't yet ironed out. No, they're not ironed out, and that's precisely why the game is in beta.

    Yeah, the developers maliciously said to themselves "well, we could let them know about these shape limits and stuff, but meh, let them suffer!". That's definitely exactly what happened.
    Please quit talking trash.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  12. D3Seeker

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2014
    Messages:
    73
    Trophy Points:
    52
    So Havok has a 'shape' limit which in turn has lead to an ultimate underlying 'master block limit' baked way beneath the inner goods? The only people really bound to run into said issues are builders such as Sage and the like who create absolute abstract entities, and they shouldn't have to be worried about such hard limits either.

    *sigh* and here I was hoping to actually start working on my crown jewel..... Lets hope that for SE 2 they ditch Havok for something without such a limitation, or a far greater upper threshold. This is upsetting.

    And to the above..... You cannot even begin to deny how such a vital piece of technical info was most definitely missing from public documentation.. PERIOD!!!! If that doesn't seem like a conscious decision then IDK.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  13. suicideneil

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Messages:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Ah yes, the old 'its in beta' excuse. It's not an excuse, nothing changed just because they slapped the Beta tag next to the title. I say again, 2-3 year old issues just ignored because they can't figure them out, apparently. Either fix or redesign whatever is broken- they do it for other issues, why not something so important as lighting and turrets? These aren't minor issues and you're clutching at straws by insinuating there is no solution that won't break the game completely ( not that it isn't anyway, half the time ) It's not like I'm expecting an over night fix; 2-3 YEARS is plenty of time.

    As for the shape limit issue- it is not something trivial, it is not something to just be swept under the rug and hope no one notices; some of us have the imagination and skill to build something other than a flying brick, so we were bound to notice- instantly as it happens, oddly enough. Of course it wasn't malicious, I didn't say it was either ( don't put words into peoples mouths to bolster a weak argument )- I said it was ignorant and seemingly intentional- you don't make a game-breaking change and not tell the players, therefore it was clearly intentional to keep it quiet, same with the thruster-damage change that STILL hasn't been acknowledged in any patch notes & was another game-breaking change.

    You can't make excuses for the devs on these issues, they aren't issues that dog similar games based on better game engines ( now there's an issue all of it's own- you sound like a sycophant trying to defend Keen, and the best defence you can come up with is to say I'm trash talking; no, it's called valid criticism.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  14. NetAgentTV

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2017
    Messages:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Unfortunately the shape limit is stopping me from completing my build. Even cutting the ship in half, which shows about 35k shapes used, still does not fix my issues. I keep falling through the armor blocks nothing everything is really buggy, and I can't place blocks on the buggy blocks.

    The main reason I play this gate is so I can build really cool and big stuff. And well... I can't now. This was not a issue before "Havok" with it's shape limits.

    Can't finish my baby now (http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=676595576).
     
  15. Commander Rotal

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2014
    Messages:
    4,845
    Trophy Points:
    267
    The Keen-imposed Limit has already been removed; if you're running into a Havok shape limit it's the one hardcoded into Havok itself. That particular limitation has been there before Keen even knew it existed :/ It's why big enough (detailled enough) builds crashed at some point. You probably ran into the limit at an awkward point in time. (Mind you, it's possible there's a new crashing bug, just sayan the limit has always been there.)
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  16. Outfrost

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2013
    Messages:
    268
    Trophy Points:
    97
    May I remind you that the game was in alpha before that. A lot has changed, but your limited perception is unable to notice it. Go watch some older update videos and compare them to the recent ones, then attempt to formulate reasoning.

    Can you? Space Engineers has been mostly open source for the better part of its development lifetime. If there's someone who wants to have a go at trying to fix the problems you mention, they're more than welcome to. And it's not like it's easy to find those kind of people - SE is a game that does many things very differently to a typical game, and on a much bigger scale than a typical game. It's complex enough to challenge seasoned game programmers, who would've otherwise had an easier time coding your next Call of Duty or Far Cry, which is the kind of game I think you're inappropriately comparing it to.

    They are minor issues by the judgment of the majority of SE players. We keep playing despite these issues, because we're still having lots of fun. And as for the people who don't play SE any more, I think it's safe to assume it's because of performance, stability and multiplayer issues (as these are the things that have been complained about the most), which is what's being worked on most intensively at the moment.

    During which time they have focused a lot of attention and development on everything else that makes up Space Engineers. I can't help but notice, that you have a very hard time realising how much work has already gone into SE and how many different areas of the game have needed and still need attention. You're obsessed with the rat in the corner that is turrets and lighting, ignoring the elephant in the room that is everything else.

    You did say, though, that...
    ...which implies as much. If you insist, that another party deliberately performed an action that you didn't like, and instead of inquiring for the reason of said action you denounce that other party, it can only mean that you assume, that said action was performed with malicious intent.

    Which I'm not.

    Go play those games then. Or is there perhaps a reason, as to why you don't want to?

    By shifting to slander against me you have effectively lost the argument. Congratulations.

    My request for you to quit trash talking could hardly be perceived as the core of my statement, but of course it's convenient to declare otherwise and make a further attempt at discrediting me. Fine, carry on, though I don't think you'll get very far at all with that mindset.

    What, denouncing the developers for a made up reason? That's valid criticism? Because that's what I was referring to.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 2
  17. NetAgentTV

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2017
    Messages:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    1
    That's quite unfortunate. They should look at another, simpler, and more streamed line way to calculate the shapes then. I believe others have already suggested some ways to do that.

    Quite honestly, if this issue can not be fixed, then this game really isn't the sandbox I want to spend anymore time in. We can't even get weather effects on planets or other immersion features that are lacking at this point.
     
  18. Commander Rotal

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2014
    Messages:
    4,845
    Trophy Points:
    267
    Yepp, it's a major bummer. I'm sure there is something to be done outside of Havok; the question is "will they do it" or, more realistically, "do they think it's worth investing into". It's no secret that Keen's idea of ship sizes were... a bit shortsighted. And i don't think that has ever really changed, mostly because we know from Behind The Scenes stuff that many of the devs don't actually play the game. I remember some wide-eyed looks when Good Guy @Xocliw showed them some player-made ships during an official Keen-Strem. There seems to be a major disconnect between devs and players in many areas, and i'm not just talking about people like me and them but also Survival players and them.
    I have enough trouble grasping the concept of the physical shapes as-is so i have no idea how to even suggest a fix other than "change physics engine" which is about as likely as it sounds. Other than that... stay away from non-Armor blocks, i guess? :/

    Speaking of immersion... i wonder if blocks can have NO shapes. Like, imagine a potted plant (i know we'll never get that but bear with me) that serves no function other than pandering to TNG-fans. And looking pretty, i guess, i mean, it COULD be used in a garden or something on a planet. Unless it produced oxygen, would we REALLY need it to block the player's character model? Is there any programming-NEED for blocks needing a physical body?
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  19. FoolishOwl

    Joined:
    May 5, 2017
    Messages:
    58
    Trophy Points:
    7
    I've seen this happen with other games, and with software and network services for that matter: things just don't look the same from inside as from outside. Even if you love your job, it's a job, and you're going to rely on modeling and tests that make assumptions about how things will actually be used -- which may be at odds with how they actually are. The cure for this is cultivating a good relationship with your users, but that's a challenging and ongoing task.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  20. suicideneil

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Messages:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    36
    For someone who claims not to be making excuses for the devs, you seem to be doing a very good impression of someone who is.

    You accuse me of trash talking, I accuse you of being a psychophant- slander is something you are familiar with it seems.

    I have not denounced the devs, I & many more of the players have called them out on their efforts to seemingly ruin the game by failing to perform adequate, if any, QA testing before releasing updates- just take a look at Sages new video on the issue. Turrets are still broken after two weeks, ( 2 years... technically speaking ) mods are broken because the devs say they will maintain backwards compatibility and offer guides to help make mods within the SE environment, yet they break mods every damn week. Then they break stuff that shouldn't be breaking, such as landing gears and connectors and they don't even realise- how exactly they can manage that and not even notice before pushing out the update, who knows- there is no valid excuse for that.

    The devs rarely address our complaints or the issues we raise unless we instigate a riot- that alone says everything you need to know about how capable they are, let alone the fact that when they do respond it is something along the lines of 'yeah well, we decided to change that', and little else- which is exactly what happened with the thruster damage and physics shape limit; zero communication until we complained.

    No more pathetic excuses- when we pay money for a game I don't expect some white-knight on the forum to come along and make ridiculous excuses for the devs, or claim the game is 'open-source' and use that as some kind of excuse for why the game is falling apart and haemorrhaging players. Given the fact no one else cares for your excuses should speak volumes- hush now, you are only embarrassing yourself in front of an audience who can see past such child-like fanboyism.

    EDIT: Oh look, an ignore button-how handy :)
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Disagree Disagree x 2
  21. Arcturus

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2014
    Messages:
    1,328
    Trophy Points:
    157
    I think interior lights have no physics shapes, but they seem to have the unique property among blocks of disappearing if the block they are attached to is removed. This calls for some testing.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  22. Outfrost

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2013
    Messages:
    268
    Trophy Points:
    97
    @suicideneil Why haven't you quit already? You sure do have a lot of persistence for someone who's extremely annoyed with the game, doesn't contribute anything to the discussion and fails to address any counterpoints to their statements.

    I'd like to see all those members of the figurative audience who are supposedly laughing at me right now. Perhaps you can bring them to me and there will finally be something new going on here, because so far you've only been wasting our and your own time.

    And, just to reiterate, I don't think that trying to keep salt, hatred and negative bias out of the game's community can really be described as fanboyism and making excuses. That said, I ultimately have no power - if you can't convince yourself that your attitude is pointless, noone can.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Disagree Disagree x 2
  23. CaD

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2016
    Messages:
    67
    Trophy Points:
    27
    Then at least put some sort of countdown on the last 40% or so its the least you can do. Just letting people build to the limit and then giving them a physical limit error is just not a nice thing to do. They need to know where they are with whatever they are building so if required they can make changes to come within the limit.

    Or even a notification at 1/4, 1/2, 3/4 of the build and some sort of countdown on the last quarter. My friends and I voted this as favorite.
     
  24. Forcedminer

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2016
    Messages:
    1,344
    Trophy Points:
    72
    so turrets have been broken for 2 weeks now?

    wheels have been broken since the fancy block update. broken in the sense that they've just plain crap to use.
    hundreds maybe even thousands of planets will remain pink forever thats not keens responsibility though

    but oh well...lets see what todays update does.
    i remember humorously thinking yesterday
    we've fixed bugs but added in more next week will fix the ones we added last week but add more in this week.

    but of course thats a bit rude to say.